Found It = Didn't Find It - Discussion thread.

[+hzoi]

...I logged three caches as found even though the log wasn't signed, two nanos that were paper pulp and a small in a tree covered by reptiles. In two cases I held the cache, in the other I had eyes on so I logged them as found but something didn't feel right. After lurking around here and Geospeak I found, to paraphrase, "the cache is found once the log is signed". Seemed pretty specific to me.

 

Earlier today I went back to these logs and changed them to DNF. I lost 3 off my total but have a better understanding of the spirit of the game and don't feel like I've earned a participation trophy. From here on I will pack enough stuff with me to be able to sign the log, lessons learned. Thanks all!

Congrats on your retirement.

 

For the nano paper pulp, next time just put your pen on it and make a mark. Close enough for government work.

 

For covered in reptiles, I can't help you there. I'm a JAG, I leave the snake taming to MPs like you.

[+digimuzik]

Apologies if this has been covered before, but do people ever give cachers the benefit of the doubt? I only recently joined ISAG and have finally been regularly logging my DNF's like a good cacher, but more than once have I almost submitted them as "Found it!" since that's what every app / website page defaults to. Probably not solvable without some serious redesign in either apps or the website. But rather than a single "Log it!" link, it would be nice if there was a direct option to "Didn't find it". Maybe some people don't even know that it's an option?

Meh. Just an observation. I'm also planning to be a "good geocacher" and start placing my own soon, now that I've moved states. Maybe I'll get to experience this fun from the other side!

[+noncentric]

15 minutes ago, digimuzik said:

Apologies if this has been covered before, but do people ever give cachers the benefit of the doubt? I only recently joined ISAG and have finally been regularly logging my DNF's like a good cacher, but more than once have I almost submitted them as "Found it!" since that's what every app / website page defaults to. Probably not solvable without some serious redesign in either apps or the website. But rather than a single "Log it!" link, it would be nice if there was a direct option to "Didn't find it". Maybe some people don't even know that it's an option?

Meh. Just an observation. I'm also planning to be a "good geocacher" and start placing my own soon, now that I've moved states. Maybe I'll get to experience this fun from the other side!

Your experience with "Found It" being the default is exactly what THIS THREAD was about.  The 'old' logging method would force the user to select the log type from a drop-down list, so they would see all of the options (Found, DNF, Write Note, NM, NA) at once. The 'new ' logging method defaults to the 'Found It' selection.

If you are logging via individual cache pages, then you can select to "Opt Out" at the top right and use the 'old' logging page instead.  If you log via Drafts, then the "Opt Out" option isn't available.

[+barefootjeff]

14 minutes ago, digimuzik said:

Apologies if this has been covered before, but do people ever give cachers the benefit of the doubt? I only recently joined ISAG and have finally been regularly logging my DNF's like a good cacher, but more than once have I almost submitted them as "Found it!" since that's what every app / website page defaults to. Probably not solvable without some serious redesign in either apps or the website. But rather than a single "Log it!" link, it would be nice if there was a direct option to "Didn't find it". Maybe some people don't even know that it's an option?

Meh. Just an observation. I'm also planning to be a "good geocacher" and start placing my own soon, now that I've moved states. Maybe I'll get to experience this fun from the other side!

The old logging page didn't have a default log type - it forced you to select one and complained if you didn't. In my opinion, that's far better than the new one that tries to guess what type of log you're submitting. And yes, I always give cachers the benefit of the doubt and will offer a helping hand if there appears to be any confusion.

[+K13]

19 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

 

More evidence of the need to remove the automatic log type (defaults to Found It) from the cache logging page. Programmers must make the finders choose their log type, or we will continue to see these.

[+BethDaddyKaty]

5 hours ago, K13 said:

More evidence of the need to remove the automatic log type (defaults to Found It) from the cache logging page. Programmers must make the finders choose their log type, or we will continue to see these.

Maybe just work out how to communicate the rules if people are getting stressed?

 

After all, as someone who lapsed a long time ago and recently restarted, things have changed a lot. You used to have to do some research, now you can download an app and five minutes later be at GZ of your first cache with little indication of what you should or shouldn't do. 

 

The app means there will be more casual players of the game than people with thousands under their belt.

 

Seems unlikely people are maliciously breaking the rules, just are treating it as "been there, tick that".

[+barefootjeff]

41 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

6 hours ago, K13 said:

More evidence of the need to remove the automatic log type (defaults to Found It) from the cache logging page. Programmers must make the finders choose their log type, or we will continue to see these.

Maybe just work out how to communicate the rules if people are getting stressed?

 

I'm well aware of the rules but on several occasions I've been caught out by the default log types, inadvertently logging a find or an OM when I meant to log something else, and I've also had several instances on my own hides where people have logged finds but their log content makes it clear it was meant to be a DNF. Either they've realised the mistake and corrected it themselves, or have done so when I've messaged them about it. These default log types are just inherently bad.

[+K13]

3 hours ago, daddybeth said:

Maybe just work out how to communicate the rules if people are getting stressed?

 

After all, as someone who lapsed a long time ago and recently restarted, things have changed a lot. You used to have to do some research, now you can download an app and five minutes later be at GZ of your first cache with little indication of what you should or shouldn't do. 

 

The app means there will be more casual players of the game than people with thousands under their belt.

 

Seems unlikely people are maliciously breaking the rules, just are treating it as "been there, tick that".

 

Which is exactly why there should NOT be a default log type. Force people to choose the log type, so they can see that there are options for different situations.

[+BethDaddyKaty]

19 hours ago, K13 said:

 

Which is exactly why there should NOT be a default log type. Force people to choose the log type, so they can see that there are options for different situations.

The best thing IMO, bearing in mind ease of access isn't going to go away, would be to allow COs to include a code or similar in the cache and require that for a FTF. That would save having to match up paper and online logs for those who are concerned, as only someone with the cache physically in their hand could log it as found.

 

I don't think it would be amazingly difficult to implement either, obviously it would only work for new caches or COs adding it to old caches.

[+TriciaG]

3 hours ago, daddybeth said:

The best thing IMO, bearing in mind ease of access isn't going to go away, would be to allow COs to include a code or similar in the cache and require that for a FTF. That would save having to match up paper and online logs for those who are concerned, as only someone with the cache physically in their hand could log it as found.

 

I don't think it would be amazingly difficult to implement either, obviously it would only work for new caches or COs adding it to old caches.

Huh?

 

Either you've posted this in the wrong thread, or it's off topic. I don't know what this has to do with "Found it" logs that were really "Didn't find it" situations.

[+K13]

4 hours ago, daddybeth said:

The best thing IMO, bearing in mind ease of access isn't going to go away, would be to allow COs to include a code or similar in the cache and require that for a FTF. That would save having to match up paper and online logs for those who are concerned, as only someone with the cache physically in their hand could log it as found.

 

I don't think it would be amazingly difficult to implement either, obviously it would only work for new caches or COs adding it to old caches.

The game you describe would only work for cell-phone cachers who are in an area with signal.  Those of us who use GPS and try to get away from town can't play your game.

(and your diversion has nothing to do with this thread)

 

Back on topic, the number of Found It logs with text that states no find was made has dramatically increased after the pre-populated log type bug was introduced in the new logging experience.  I suppose the developers think that finders are either too stupid or too lazy to choose the proper log type. Otherwise why would they foist that design on users?

[+BethDaddyKaty]

8 hours ago, TriciaG said:

Huh?

 

Either you've posted this in the wrong thread, or it's off topic. I don't know what this has to do with "Found it" logs that were really "Didn't find it" situations.

Perhaps I didn't explain well.

 

Everything works as normal, but the cache/log contains a code., e.g. "1882". To create a log online, you need the enter the code if the CO asks for it. Like a slightly less onerous version of the COs who ask people to message them answers to questions before logging. That way COs could be sure there were no online logs unless the person had physically had the paper log in their hand.

 

That way if there was any dispute it would be a lot less confrontational just to ask for the code rather than debate whether you did/didn't find it.

Edited September 24, 2019 by daddybeth

[+on4bam]

This thread isn't about discussing logging but about posting Found it logs that clearly are DNFs. Discussions about it should be done in another thread.

 

[+TriciaG]

4 hours ago, daddybeth said:

Perhaps I didn't explain well.

 

Everything works as normal, but the cache/log contains a code., e.g. "1882". To create a log online, you need the enter the code if the CO asks for it. Like a slightly less onerous version of the COs who ask people to message them answers to questions before logging. That way COs could be sure there were no online logs unless the person had physically had the paper log in their hand.

 

That way if there was any dispute it would be a lot less confrontational just to ask for the code rather than debate whether you did/didn't find it.

It has been suggested before, but that's an ALR (additional logging requirement) and not allowed.

 

 

A quick search brought up a couple recent threads which mention codes-in-caches. They're not 100% what I was searching for, but they might give you some insight:

 

[+on4bam]

7 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

It has been suggested before, but that's an ALR (additional logging requirement) and not allowed.

 

I see it as an logging OPTION. It's not required. CO puts note with code in cache... FTF finds the cache and TAKES the note with code. No matter who comes next, they have no code to prove they were first. The FTF can.

Nothing to do with a logging requirement as anybody can log but FTF can claim the sidegame/unofficial "Firt to find". No harm done for anyone except to the die hard FTF hound who tries to claim FTF when in fact he/she wasn't.

[+hzoi]

I've found caches in the past that required the finder to provide a proof number in order to validate their find.  I'm not sure I got them right - but my log wasn't deleted.  Might be a case of the CO taking pity on my poor language skills.

 

I can't remember any specific cache - this was 10 years ago or more - so I can't post an example.

 

But no, this can't be mandated, it'd be an ALR.  Not sure about whether it could be optional.

Edited September 24, 2019 by hzoi

[+BethDaddyKaty]

9 hours ago, TriciaG said:

It has been suggested before, but that's an ALR (additional logging requirement) and not allowed.

 

 

A quick search brought up a couple recent threads which mention codes-in-caches. They're not 100% what I was searching for, but they might give you some insight:

 

Thanks for the links, they were interesting. However, I don't think it shouldn't be reviewed. As I said, GCing is getting easier to access all the time, and if it's easier to access, it means it will be easier for people to play the system.

 

People correctly are proud of FTFs and the number of caches they find, and this would help increase the confidence that find figures are genuine. plus encourage cachers who collect a lot of caches and, essentially, make GCing tick.

 

It's quite possible that it wouldn't be appropriate for the majority of caches, just like premium only isn't appropriate for the majority of caches. However, especially for hard to access caches where the CO can't realistically verify every log, it would seem to be a good option for the CO to choose if they want to, not enforced.

Edited September 24, 2019 by daddybeth

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, on4bam said:

 

I see it as an logging OPTION. It's not required. CO puts note with code in cache... FTF finds the cache and TAKES the note with code. No matter who comes next, they have no code to prove they were first. The FTF can.

Nothing to do with a logging requirement as anybody can log but FTF can claim the sidegame/unofficial "Firt to find". No harm done for anyone except to the die hard FTF hound who tries to claim FTF when in fact he/she wasn't.

 

What happens if the first person to find the cache and sign the logbook doesn't take the note with the code on it but leaves it in the cache, perhaps not noticing it or realising its significance? 2TF then comes along, grabs the note and the code and claims FTF even though their signature is the second in the logbook. I had something similar happen once - I used to leave a FTF certificate in my caches until the time FTF didn't take it, leaving 2TF wondering what the heck was going on. I could easily see something like that turning nasty. Really, as a CO, I don't want to play any part in arbitrating over who was FTF.

Edited September 24, 2019 by barefootjeff

[+BethDaddyKaty]

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

What happens if the first person to find the cache and sign the logbook doesn't take the note with the code on it but leaves it in the cache, perhaps not noticing it or realising its significance? 2TF then comes along, grabs the note and the code and claims FTF even though their signature is the second in the logbook. I had something similar happen once - I used to leave a FTF certificate in my caches until the time FTF didn't take it, leaving 2TF wondering what the heck was going on. I could easily see something like that turning nasty. Really, as a CO, I don't want to play any part in arbitrating over who was FTF.

 

Firstly, having met a few FTF hounds when I placed my caches, they do not miss a detail.

 

Secondly, if you place enough multiple caches, you will inevitably be arbitrating over FTF claims.  AFAIK COs cannot change the order of online logs, so if the paper logs are different, you can only delete logs. I would suggest that almost 100% of FTFs will have a smart phone on them, and so can log a FTF online as they find it. So the job of judge, jury and executioner is removed from the CO if they choose to select that method of arbitration.

[+colleda]

6 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

 

Firstly, having met a few FTF hounds when I placed my caches, they do not miss a detail.

 

Secondly, if you place enough multiple caches, you will inevitably be arbitrating over FTF claims.  AFAIK COs cannot change the order of online logs, so if the paper logs are different, you can only delete logs. I would suggest that almost 100% of FTFs will have a smart phone on them, and so can log a FTF online as they find it. So the job of judge, jury and executioner is removed from the CO if they choose to select that method of arbitration.

What ever method is used by the finders the CO should stay out of it. It's a finder's side game that has no rules.

[+barefootjeff]

2 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

Firstly, having met a few FTF hounds when I placed my caches, they do not miss a detail.

 

Secondly, if you place enough multiple caches, you will inevitably be arbitrating over FTF claims.  AFAIK COs cannot change the order of online logs, so if the paper logs are different, you can only delete logs. I would suggest that almost 100% of FTFs will have a smart phone on them, and so can log a FTF online as they find it. So the job of judge, jury and executioner is removed from the CO if they choose to select that method of arbitration.

 

Perhaps things are different here, being a small caching community where everyone generally gets on with each other, but I've placed 42 caches over the past six years and have never been called upon to arbitrate a FTF claim. The one that did become a bit heated was on a cache in a location with no mobile coverage, as a fair number of my hides are. The FTF couldn't log their find online until they got home, which was some four or five hours after they'd signed the logbook as they went off hiking for a while, meanwhile 2TF, thinking it was still unfound, had driven up from Sydney and was fuming that FTF hadn't logged online. Nup, it's the can of worms inside Pandora's box that I really don't want to poke a stick into.

[+niraD]

On 9/23/2019 at 2:15 PM, daddybeth said:

The best thing IMO, bearing in mind ease of access isn't going to go away, would be to allow COs to include a code or similar in the cache and require that for a FTF. That would save having to match up paper and online logs for those who are concerned, as only someone with the cache physically in their hand could log it as found.

 

I don't think it would be amazingly difficult to implement either, obviously it would only work for new caches or COs adding it to old caches.

This is off-topic in this thread. Here are some other threads where it might be more appropriate.

 

 

[+BethDaddyKaty]

13 minutes ago, colleda said:

What ever method is used by the finders the CO should stay out of it. It's a finder's side game that has no rules.

 

It's a finders game facilitated by the COs. If you say no consideration should be given to COs, game will die unless you want to hunt a diminishing number of  caches. If finders want to increase the number of caches, they need to nurture and encourage COs who are going to buy in and maintain their caches.

[+cerberus1]

46 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

Secondly, if you place enough multiple caches, you will inevitably be arbitrating over FTF claims. 

AFAIK COs cannot change the order of online logs, so if the paper logs are different, you can only delete logs.

I would suggest that almost 100% of FTFs will have a smart phone on them, and so can log a FTF online as they find it.

So the job of judge, jury and executioner is removed from the CO if they choose to select that method of arbitration.

17 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

It's a finders game facilitated by the COs. If you say no consideration should be given to COs, game will die unless you want to hunt a diminishing number of  caches. If finders want to increase the number of caches, they need to nurture and encourage COs who are going to buy in and maintain their caches.

 

I've yet to see a CO anal enough to get involved in a side-game's claimants.      You have ?

It's possible that the majority of cachers in general are using sorta=-smart phones today.  That doesn't mean they automatically log on-the-spot.

I have over a hundred FTFs, and never logged until I got home.  

The other 2/3rds was a FTF monster, and used a phone to cache since '05,  but rarely logged with her phone, waiting until she got home.

We finally stopped keeping track after 350 FTFs because of silly nonsense made up on a side-game with no rules.

Curious, what would the FTF side game have to do with  whether Cos will maintain their hides ?

 

[+TriciaG]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

This is off-topic in this thread. Here are some other threads where it might be more appropriate.

Thanks! I knew there were other and better threads, but I couldn't find them in the limited time I had.

[+The Jester]

3 hours ago, daddybeth said:

 

It's a finders game facilitated by the COs. If you say no consideration should be given to COs, game will die unless you want to hunt a diminishing number of  caches. If finders want to increase the number of caches, they need to nurture and encourage COs who are going to buy in and maintain their caches.

Which should mean, finders (in particular, FTF hounds) don't involve the CO in their side games. 

 

And note, the FTF doesn't have to be the first log online (and often isn't), so no CO should be deleting logs because the 'order is wrong'.

[+colleda]

3 hours ago, daddybeth said:

 

It's a finders game facilitated by the COs. If you say no consideration should be given to COs, game will die unless you want to hunt a diminishing number of  caches. If finders want to increase the number of caches, they need to nurture and encourage COs who are going to buy in and maintain their caches.

I never mentioned or said anything about "no consideration should be given to CO's". COs, who are also finders, place caches for someone to find. Someone will eventually find it and in so doing there will almost always be a FTF for any cache (there some that have never been found). CO's do not put out caches for someone to claim a FTF. If they did, would they then archive it and list another for the next FTF?  To me, it is a silly side game that I myself once got caught up in. I suspect others here  went through the same thing at some stage and then gave it away as being a pointless exercise particularly when disputes arise, and they will, regardless of what protocol some may want to introduce to control it. GS is wise enough to stay out of it.

[+on4bam]

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

What happens if the first person to find the cache and sign the logbook doesn't take the note with the code on it but leaves it in the cache, perhaps not noticing it or realising its significance? 2TF then comes along, grabs the note and the code and claims FTF even though their signature is the second in the logbook. I had something similar happen once - I used to leave a FTF certificate in my caches until the time FTF didn't take it, leaving 2TF wondering what the heck was going on. I could easily see something like that turning nasty. Really, as a CO, I don't want to play any part in arbitrating over who was FTF.

 

Well, if they want to claim the FTF and don't take the code they are probably not interested too much in FTF.

Since there are no "official" FTF stats anyone can do as they please, it's just a tool to proof who was first, the CO doesn't need to get involved.

 

No matter what is done there's always "what if...."  nut rest assured, a real FTF hound WILL take the code.

BTW, What if someone is FTF and "forgets" to sign the log or what if.... 

 

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

No matter what is done there's always "what if...."  nut rest assured, a real FTF hound WILL take the code.

Based on the stories I've read, I would expect some "real FTF hounds" to leave a fake FTF code for the STF.

 

But we're still off-topic in this thread. Discussion of codewords for logging FTF (or just for logging caches) should go to some other thread, and leave this one to its own topic.

[+NanCycle]

I just can't believe that a reviewer legitimized a throw down.

 

Excerpted from the Found it = Didn't find it thread:

Reviewer Enable Listing

24/05/2018

As the CO no longer seems active and the cache has been replaced by a tourist 24m away but on a current sign , see photo I am enabling and will check periodically.

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, NanCycle said:

I just can't believe that a reviewer legitimized a throw down.

 

Excerpted from the Found it = Didn't find it thread:

Reviewer Enable Listing

24/05/2018

As the CO no longer seems active and the cache has been replaced by a tourist 24m away but on a current sign , see photo I am enabling and will check periodically.

 

Yeah, no CO, no original cache, no original hiding place, but with the throwdown 24 metres away all the tourists can still get their +1 smiley so everything's hunky-dory. It makes me wonder if this is the same game I signed up for six years ago.

[+colleda]

8 hours ago, NanCycle said:

I just can't believe that a reviewer legitimized a throw down.

 

Excerpted from the Found it = Didn't find it thread:

Reviewer Enable Listing

24/05/2018

As the CO no longer seems active and the cache has been replaced by a tourist 24m away but on a current sign , see photo I am enabling and will check periodically.

This is so wrong.

[+colleda]

Is it time to call out the throwdown offenders? I would be very tempted to in the example given in the other thread.

Edited October 6, 2019 by colleda
typo

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, colleda said:

This is so wrong.

I have seen that happen with a cache in Iceland. It was missing, but someone replaced it and the reviewer accepted that. At the time I thought it was because maybe there were not many caches there.

[+K13]

20 hours ago, colleda said:

Is it time to call out the throwdown offenders? I would be very tempted to in the example given in the other thread.

And call out the Reviewer that sanctioned the throwdown as well. 

That action flies in the face of what we have been told a Reviewer should do.

[+cerberus1]

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 12:30 PM, NanCycle said:

Premium Member 43758

 Found it  07/15/2018

- From the found it- didn't thread...

 

Thanks for that.     

I think it's important to see whether that "creative" finder is pm or not, and I feel those "numbers" are important too.

A new, low-"numbers" cacher maybe not understanding how the hobby's played  vs. a fabrication by a long-time player.

Those facts are missing on a lotta posts in that thread...