Jump to content

Found log


ad5smith
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

My fiancé resently got a log on a cache that apparently been mugged... The log said "I am marking it 'found it' Even though all is left is the magnet No container"

I instructed her that that log probably needs deleted since, 1 its gone 2 the cached isn't a newbie and should know better 3 the log right before it also stated that the container was gone but the magnet was still there.

 

Any thoughts?

Link to comment

My fiancé resently got a log on a cache that apparently been mugged... The log said "I am marking it 'found it' Even though all is left is the magnet No container"

I instructed her that that log probably needs deleted since, 1 its gone 2 the cached isn't a newbie and should know better 3 the log right before it also stated that the container was gone but the magnet was still there.

 

Any thoughts?

Delete the logs if you want to but you should also disable and fix, or archive the cache.

Link to comment

  • Delete both logs. Neither one found the cache, they even said so in their found it logs. :blink:
  • Email both of them and invite them to make a needs maintenance log. Including a short explanation of the needs maintenance log and why it is appropriate and helpful in these situations. Don't use an accusing tone, use a teaching tone. Let them know that you will be fixing the cache and invite them to find the cache once it is fixed.
  • Make a Disabled cache log entry. Give a short explanation as to why you are disabling the cache. Ask cachers not to look for this cache until it has been Enabled (this may be obvious to you but it isn't obvious to everyone). Give a realistic time frame of when you can get to the cache and repair it. The time frame doesn't need to be short (this is only a hobby) but it needs to be realistic. For example don't say you'll get around to it this weekend when you know you'll be caching on the other size of the state this weekend then doing a event cache the weekend after that. Be honest and say you won't be getting to until next month. Optionally you can Thank, in the log entry, the two that reported problems with the cache and remind others to use need maintenance logs when caches need maintenance.
  • If you miss your deadline. Make a note log entry on the cache so that others know the status. They don't need to know why you didn't get around to it unless you want them to.
  • Don't forget to enable the cache and clear the needs maintenance flag by either editing the attributes or making an owner maintenance log. Don't forget to thank anyone who helped out in the maintenance process including those that reported problems with the cache.

Link to comment

As it happens, I did exactly that myself just a month or 2 ago. In fact, this post could be referring to my log, since it is identical in all particulars. Here's my explanation: the cache was a multi, so it took some effort -- not a lot, but some -- to get to GZ. It was a weekend away from home, so I didn't know if I'd be back anytime soon if the cache was replaced. And there'd already been a few logs, both DNFs and Finds, indicating the container was missing which suggested to me it might not be fixed. (This last turned out to be egregiously wrong: the problem was that no one had posted a maintenance request, so the problem had escaped the CO's notice for a couple weeks.) In addition, this is a famous SF cache -- well, I guess I'm not really sure it's famous, but it should be -- so I really wanted to be able to claim it even though only a small part of the cache was still in place. With all that, I decided to consider finding the attachment device sufficient and posted a find. A couple days later, I realized maintenance hadn't been called for, so I posted a request.

 

At that point, the CO posted a note complaining about the not found finds and deleted my buddy's brief log. She didn't delete my log -- I'm guessing because it was more substantial -- and didn't contact me, but I got the message and changed my Found into a DNF. No problem, my mistake. I thought I was being reasonable, but the CO calls the shots, and I only thought she'd call otherwise because of the Found already posted while it was missing.

 

The CO also immediately replaced the missing final. I got a chance to return sooner than expected and found the replacement a month or so later, so all's well that ends well.

Link to comment

My fiancé resently got a log on a cache that apparently been mugged... The log said "I am marking it 'found it' Even though all is left is the magnet No container"

I instructed her that that log probably needs deleted since, 1 its gone 2 the cached isn't a newbie and should know better 3 the log right before it also stated that the container was gone but the magnet was still there.

 

Any thoughts?

The cache owner knew the cache was in trouble but didn't do anything like temporarily disable it. This finder probably shouldn't have logged a find but he did find what the hider had there as an active cache. Regardless of what the previous log said. No-one is expected to be able to read the previous logs while in the field. Is it their fault the cache wasn't maintained? The cache was active and they found it. Like Swineflew said, let it go and fix the cache.

Link to comment

You could do as some have previously stated and let the log stand, however realize it cheapens the find count for everyone who actually does actually find caches. It also goes against guidelines you agreed to when you placed it, however rarely if ever enforced, that you will delete all "bogus logs".

 

Simply finding the location kinda makes it waymarkng, albeit slightly more interesting, and we see how well that has worked.

 

By all means, disable until you get it fixed.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

Ok I need to clarify, the log before was a DNA/ needs Maintenance that said the same thing

Different people play the game differently. For some a Found It log indicates that you found the geocache container. Others go further saying you have sign the physical log and they will not log a Found It online if they happen to find cache where the log book is too wet to sign or if they lost their pen on the way and there was nothing to write with. On the other side are those how might log a Found It online if they find enough remains to be certain they found the where the cache was. Others may log a find just because they are certain the cache is missing and the cache owner hasn't done maintenance or disabled the cache. Still others will "help out" the cache owner and leave a replacement (and of course log the Found It).

 

What happens, of course, is that some of those with stricter standards for when they log a Found It, will call those with less strict standards "cheaters" (or some other name). Perhaps they feel the find count is a score and that the less strict cacher is trying to inflate their score improperly. Some claim that the word "find" is in danger of losing it's meaning if someone post a Found Log when they didn't actually find a cache container or sign a logsheet. Some seem to have the notion that a find has a value beyond the simple enjoyment you get in finding a cache. They may feel these less strict definitions "cheapen the find" for everyone with a strict definition. I find this hard to understand as I find the only value of the find is my enjoyment in finding the cache and the real value of the Found It log is in sharing that with others. (Some cachers will not post Found It logs at all if they didn't enjoy the find).

 

Jeremy has said, "Bickering over the rules of a cache 'find' was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find." Yet, Groundspeak allows the owner of a cache to delete logs of any finder except those who meet the strictest definition (signing the physical log in the cache). If the log truly bothers you, then feel free to delete it. Explain to the logger that your definition of a find does not match theirs and since Groundspeak allows it you are deleting their log.

Link to comment

Different people play the game differently. For some a Found It log indicates that you found the geocache container. Others go further saying you have sign the physical log and they will not log a Found It online if they happen to find cache where the log book is too wet to sign or if they lost their pen on the way and there was nothing to write with. On the other side are those how might log a Found It online if they find enough remains to be certain they found the where the cache was. Others may log a find just because they are certain the cache is missing and the cache owner hasn't done maintenance or disabled the cache. Still others will "help out" the cache owner and leave a replacement (and of course log the Found It).

 

Rather than debate the merits or lack thereof of different interpretations of this game, would the following be something we could all agree on?

 

Logging a find on a non-present cache is wrong because it is a LIE. If you log a find on something that wasn't present at all - it is just not truthful. Is expecting people to have a modicum of honesty just too high of a bar? (Well, I guess in this case, there is a modicum of honesty, as at least they mentioned that they didn't find it, while logging the find...)

 

I don't see how logging a find something that was simply not present in any recognizable form could be anything but a lie. Isn't lying still considered to be wrong?

Link to comment

Putting myself in the position of the CO, if someone posts a NM on one of my caches, and it has clearly been muggled, I'd disable the cache. If someone then logged that they found something the next day, before I could check the cache, I would probably allow it, but I would send a polite email to say that some cachers frown on finds on a disabled cache, some COs would delete their log, so if they didn't sign the paper log, it is a good idea to send a mail from the CO's profile page to ask if it is OK to claim the find. That also helps avoid bad blood. I might add that they might want to delete their own log, as some people think that type of find is cheating, but it is up to them. Personally I wouldn't claim a find that way. (But there is no comparison between the finds on our family account and anyone else's. Our smileys are to record our finds, not where we have been, but there are 4 of us.)

 

There is certainly no comparison between caches. Some of the more difficult ones should probably be more strict about allowing real finds, but there is going to be a lot of variation between COs. I try to follow the way local, more experienced COs allow finds on easy caches in these ways and try to help to keep it a fun activity.

Edited by Fianccetto
Link to comment

Rather than debate the merits or lack thereof of different interpretations of this game, would the following be something we could all agree on?

 

Logging a find on a non-present cache is wrong because it is a LIE. If you log a find on something that wasn't present at all - it is just not truthful. Is expecting people to have a modicum of honesty just too high of a bar? (Well, I guess in this case, there is a modicum of honesty, as at least they mentioned that they didn't find it, while logging the find...)

 

I don't see how logging a find something that was simply not present in any recognizable form could be anything but a lie. Isn't lying still considered to be wrong?

Not everyone will agree with that statement.

 

There are two parts here. One is what the meaning of Found It is in the online log. Here we have some who are convince that the words refer to finding the physical cache container and not just the remains of something that was muggled or destroyed. Clearly the words "Found It" don't say "Signed It", yet many are willing to go so far as as to insist that if you haven't signed the log you're lying if you post a "Found It" online. Why not go the other direction and say that "Found It" means you found something at the location that serves as evidence you would have found the cache container. I personally post a DNF when I find a magnet or velcro that might have held the cache as some time. But on the other hand I have found a melted lump of plastic in which I can see embedded a log book and swag and log that as a found. I have found empty containers labelled "Geocache" and claimed a find here after leaving a scrap of paper for a temporary log. So I'm not so quick to judge someone for finding a magnet or even just a pile of rocks that they believe once covered the cache.

 

The second part is the assumption that using a Found It log in a way you wouldn't is wrong. Calling someone a liar because they used a Found It log in a situation that you wouldn't have is presumptuous. I would never call someone a liar because they posted a DNF when they clearly found the cache but were unable to sign the log for one reason or another. Yet, one could argue that that this is more of lie than logging a Found It for finding a magnet or some swag scattered on the ground. There may a basic philosophical difference here. Some hold to the belief that lying is always wrong. Others find that lying per se is not wrong or evil but that it may be wrong in situations when the lie results in harm to someone. There is some good rationale for posting honest logs and for using the "proper" log type. Dishonest logs can lead to owners forgoing maintenance or for other finders to seek or refrain from seeking a cache. We depend on logs both as cache owners and cache finders to make decisions. Because of some third party tool, we sometimes rely on the log type to make these decisions. If we fool ourselves into thinking that everyone follows the same definition of "Found It' that we have, we can make the wrong decision by depending on log type alone.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Rather than debate the merits or lack thereof of different interpretations of this game, would the following be something we could all agree on?

 

Logging a find on a non-present cache is wrong because it is a LIE. If you log a find on something that wasn't present at all - it is just not truthful. Is expecting people to have a modicum of honesty just too high of a bar? (Well, I guess in this case, there is a modicum of honesty, as at least they mentioned that they didn't find it, while logging the find...)

 

I don't see how logging a find something that was simply not present in any recognizable form could be anything but a lie. Isn't lying still considered to be wrong?

Not everyone will agree with that statement.

 

There are two parts here. One is what the meaning of Found It is in the online log. Here we have some who are convince that the words refer to finding the physical cache container and not just the remains of something that was muggled or destroyed. Clearly the words "Found It" don't say "Signed It", yet many are willing to go so far as as to insist that if you haven't signed the log you're lying if you post a "Found It" online.

 

Don't care. I didn't say that.

 

Why not go the other direction and say that "Found It" means you found something at the location that serves as evidence you would have found the cache container.

 

Right, I'm fine with that. It's common sense, especially given the essentially non-verifiable nature of online logs anyway. If you find recognizable evidence the cache was there, logging a "found it" and "needs maintenance" or "needs archived" seems OK to me.

 

Where in this list would you conclude that a person who observed only that line on the list did not really find a geocache:

1. They find an identifiable, labeled or otherwise distinctive container at the coordinates but are unable to sign the log for some reason.

2. They find an identifiable but severely damaged container - the log and contents are ruined, but enough label remains that it is obviously a geocache.

3. They find a severely damaged or empty container. It's unlabeled, but it is camo'd in some way that is highly likely to be a geocache. (Most people don't camo litter...)

4. They find tattered remains of a logbook at the coordinates, at or near the described hiding place. It is identifiably a logbook though, or what's left of one.

5. They find a fastener of some sort where a cache may have been hidden

6. They find remnants of a fastener. (For example, the gluey residue left over from velcro that has delaminated completely from a surface)

7. They find some unidentifiable litter on the ground. Maybe there's a pill bottle of some kind. It's empty, unlabled, uncamo'd - it is probably actually litter.

8. They find a spot where a geocache could have been hidden, but nothing is there

9. They look for 30 seconds, didn't find it, drop a replacement cache

10. They pass through the area, heck, they don't even search, but they had an awesome experience, one they are sure the CO intended, so they logged "found it"

 

I'd assert that arguably from 5 on down, and for sure from 6 on down, you have not found a geocache, and that if you log that you "Found it", you are simply not being honest.

 

The second part is the assumption that using a Found It log in a way you wouldn't is wrong. Calling someone a liar because they used a Found It log in a situation that you wouldn't have is presumptuous. I would never call someone a liar because they posted a DNF when they clearly found the cache but were unable to sign the log for one reason or another.

 

Right, I didn't argue that either, and actually agree with you on that point.

 

Others find that lying per se is not wrong or evil but that it may be wrong in situations when the lie results in harm to someone.

Right - the people who feel that way are generally liars, in my experience, and their general definition of "not hurting anybody" quite often includes stuff that totally hurts others...

 

However, since we are talking about geocaching, lying about whether or not you found something isn't too likely to do great harm, and if it is evil, it has to be one of the more minor evils in this world, an evil so minute that it isn't really worth worrying about that much. I do think it can be annoying, I think that it is wrong - and it's still a lie.

 

Dishonest logs can lead to owners forgoing maintenance or for other finders to seek or refrain from seeking a cache. We depend on logs both as cache owners and cache finders to make decisions.

 

Right - that is precisely what seems to have happened in this case. They found a magnet, logged "found it" without out so much as a needs maintenance. They may not have understood what they were supposed to do - I will grant that as a possibility. Still, I have a very hard time believing that someone who really doesn't find anything remotely resembling a geocache and yet logs "found it" anyway doesn't know at some basic level that they are just not being honest.

 

Can you explain to me what the difference is between "lying about a find" and a "dishonest log?"

 

BTW, I don't want to seem outraged or anything, the fact is people lie all the time. It is annoying to go look for something that really isn't present because someone before you lied about finding it, but this wasn't apparent until you go back, read their log, and read between the lines. So I wish they wouldn't lie about this, but there are people who will lie about anything, so it doesn't surprise me that stuff like this happens. I just see no reason to sugar coat it to protect their delicate feelings.

 

The one aspect of this that you didn't touch on, and which I'm kind of ambivalent about, is that there was, in this instance, a modicum of honesty from the non-finder. They at least mentioned that they really didn't find the cache. This is a lot more honest than someone who's pretty sure that the cache is missing, but goes ahead and logs "found it" anyway - because hey, if it IS missing how will anyone know? And if it isn't missing, who's going to check? (OK, I'll back off from calling them a liar - they obviously chose an incorrect log type in this case. How's that?)

Link to comment

Isn't it kind of like going to Disney World and none of the rides work, the vendors are closed and all the shows have been cancelled. Disney didn't tell you and still charged you admission, but hey, you should be very happy. After all, you went to Disney World.

 

If that type of experience is what you're looking for, isn't that what w aymarking was designed for?

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

I'd assert that arguably from 5 on down, and for sure from 6 on down, you have not found a geocache, and that if you log that you "Found it", you are simply not being honest.

 

11. The cache is a 1/1, and I'm sure I could have found it if I had actually stopped the car and got out to look.

 

In the end it is between the cache owner and the cache logger. If the owner agrees that the logger should get their smilie (for whatever reason) they do. If the CO wants to run out and check the logbook for each signature, they can feel justified in deleting the online logs for those whose signatures are absent.

Of course when an owner KNOWS a container is missing, they do share some of the burden for the DNF by not doing maintenance in a timely manner. This muddies the waters a bit.

Link to comment

I'd assert that arguably from 5 on down, and for sure from 6 on down, you have not found a geocache, and that if you log that you "Found it", you are simply not being honest.

 

11. The cache is a 1/1, and I'm sure I could have found it if I had actually stopped the car and got out to look.

 

In the end it is between the cache owner and the cache logger. If the owner agrees that the logger should get their smilie (for whatever reason) they do. If the CO wants to run out and check the logbook for each signature, they can feel justified in deleting the online logs for those whose signatures are absent.

Of course when an owner KNOWS a container is missing, they do share some of the burden for the DNF by not doing maintenance in a timely manner. This muddies the waters a bit.

what if you find an archived cache by accident that your dog found in a hole, you take it home and sign up at geocaching.com the same day?

Link to comment

Do nothing. Deleting logs only draw bad blood.

 

+1 What do you hope to accomplish by deleting a found log? They did find the cache actually-OK only part of it, but they did find it. For myself, I would let the log stand.

 

I logged a find like this the other day. I found part of the cache and logged a DNF as I wasn't sure that was the cache. Verified with the CO that I was in the right spot. A couple months later he logged that he replaced it. Months later I returned to finally get my smilie and found the 'cache' in the same condition. (Caches not found very frequently in this area) This time, I chose to log a Find. It was not my fault that there was no logbook and there are only so many times you want to make the trip to the same spot.

Edited by The_Incredibles_
Link to comment
I logged a find like this the other day. I found part of the cache and logged a DNF as I wasn't sure that was the cache. Verified with the CO that I was in the right spot. A couple months later he logged that he replaced it. Months later I returned to finally get my smilie and found the 'cache' in the same condition. (Caches not found very frequently in this area) This time, I chose to log a Find. It was not my fault that there was no logbook and there are only so many times you want to make the trip to the same spot.

In situations like this, it's really between you and the cache owner. I think the cache owner should be free to choose what they want to do. Personally I would prefer to avoid bad blood, in something that is supposed to be fun, but the cache owner should be able to decide.

Link to comment

Do nothing. Deleting logs only draw bad blood.

 

+1 What do you hope to accomplish by deleting a found log? They did find the cache actually-OK only part of it, but they did find it. For myself, I would let the log stand.

 

I logged a find like this the other day. I found part of the cache and logged a DNF as I wasn't sure that was the cache. Verified with the CO that I was in the right spot. A couple months later he logged that he replaced it. Months later I returned to finally get my smilie and found the 'cache' in the same condition. (Caches not found very frequently in this area) This time, I chose to log a Find. It was not my fault that there was no logbook and there are only so many times you want to make the trip to the same spot.

 

Nope. They didn't find the cache, nor did you. I'd delete your log. You didn't find it!

Link to comment

Do nothing. Deleting logs only draw bad blood.

 

+1 What do you hope to accomplish by deleting a found log? They did find the cache actually-OK only part of it, but they did find it. For myself, I would let the log stand.

 

I logged a find like this the other day. I found part of the cache and logged a DNF as I wasn't sure that was the cache. Verified with the CO that I was in the right spot. A couple months later he logged that he replaced it. Months later I returned to finally get my smilie and found the 'cache' in the same condition. (Caches not found very frequently in this area) This time, I chose to log a Find. It was not my fault that there was no logbook and there are only so many times you want to make the trip to the same spot.

 

Although it's a little hard to tell from what you describe, Mrs. Incredible, if you couldn't tell for sure that it was a cache the first time, and you return and find the exact same thing - how does that constitute a find? No, it isn't your fault that it was muggled again, but wouldn't it have been more accurate to log a DNF, since you didn't find a recognizable cache?

 

I understand that some consider "Found It" to mean "I found the physical geocache, found the logbook, signed the logbook, rehid the cache." That is a lot to read into the words "Found It", I think, and it doesn't take into account exceptional situations where you find the physical cache just fine, but can't sign the logbook for reasons not your fault. (It's missing, it's full - stuff that should require a "Needs Maintenance" log.)

 

If what you find at GZ is sufficiently vague that you have to ask the CO "Hey, could that have been part of the cache?" in order to be sure you were looking in the right place, then you didn't find anything, or at least "didn't find it" is closer to the truth than "found it".

 

I don't understand why you'd return to the same spot again rather than just saying "DNF" and placing the cache on your ignore list if it isn't archived?

Link to comment

 

If what you find at GZ is sufficiently vague that you have to ask the CO "Hey, could that have been part of the cache?" in order to be sure you were looking in the right place, then you didn't find anything, or at least "didn't find it" is closer to the truth than "found it".

 

 

I knew there'd be people disagreeing with me, but I feel what I did was right for me and as long as the CO doesn't mind, that's all that matters. As a CO I would allow such a log also. I wouldn't want someone to have to drive a long way 3x for one cache. Like I said, I returned because it was suppposedly fixed up. It was a fence post cap, with part of the cache glued to the underside of the cap and the other bit, I suspect fell down. So yeah, I did find part of the cache.

 

Let's put it this way, if someone found one of my lock n lock caches and the logbook was missing, I would encourage them to log a find.

Edited by The_Incredibles_
Link to comment

If what you find at GZ is sufficiently vague that you have to ask the CO "Hey, could that have been part of the cache?" in order to be sure you were looking in the right place, then you didn't find anything, or at least "didn't find it" is closer to the truth than "found it".

 

 

I knew there'd be people disagreeing with me, but I feel what I did was right for me and as long as the CO doesn't mind, that's all that matters. As a CO I would allow such a log also. I wouldn't want someone to have to drive a long way 3x for one cache. Like I said, I returned because it was suppposedly fixed up. It was a fence post cap, with part of the cache glued to the underside of the cap and the other bit, I suspect fell down. So yeah, I did find part of the cache.

 

That is a pretty unfortunate set of circumstances.

 

Let's put it this way, if someone found one of my lock n lock caches and the logbook was missing, I would encourage them to log a find.

 

Well to be more accurate - it would be like they only found the lid of your lock n lock. That is certainly much closer to "found nothing" than it is to "found a complete geocache and signed the log", but it is an exceptional circumstance and kind of a gray area. I probably would've logged DNF, but I don't guess that my opinion is any more right than anybody else's. Anyway, I see your point.

 

It is significantly different from what happened to the OP that you:

1. Logged DNF the first time.

2. Communicated with the CO

Doesn't seem like you were trying to mislead anyone anyway.

Link to comment

If what you find at GZ is sufficiently vague that you have to ask the CO "Hey, could that have been part of the cache?" in order to be sure you were looking in the right place, then you didn't find anything, or at least "didn't find it" is closer to the truth than "found it".

 

 

I knew there'd be people disagreeing with me, but I feel what I did was right for me and as long as the CO doesn't mind, that's all that matters. As a CO I would allow such a log also. I wouldn't want someone to have to drive a long way 3x for one cache. Like I said, I returned because it was suppposedly fixed up. It was a fence post cap, with part of the cache glued to the underside of the cap and the other bit, I suspect fell down. So yeah, I did find part of the cache.

 

That is a pretty unfortunate set of circumstances.

 

Let's put it this way, if someone found one of my lock n lock caches and the logbook was missing, I would encourage them to log a find.

 

Well to be more accurate - it would be like they only found the lid of your lock n lock. That is certainly much closer to "found nothing" than it is to "found a complete geocache and signed the log", but it is an exceptional circumstance and kind of a gray area. I probably would've logged DNF, but I don't guess that my opinion is any more right than anybody else's. Anyway, I see your point.

 

It is significantly different from what happened to the OP that you:

1. Logged DNF the first time.

2. Communicated with the CO

Doesn't seem like you were trying to mislead anyone anyway.

I go with no logbook = no find unless it's being accepted to sign the lid etc.

Link to comment

If what you find at GZ is sufficiently vague that you have to ask the CO "Hey, could that have been part of the cache?" in order to be sure you were looking in the right place, then you didn't find anything, or at least "didn't find it" is closer to the truth than "found it".

 

 

I knew there'd be people disagreeing with me, but I feel what I did was right for me and as long as the CO doesn't mind, that's all that matters. As a CO I would allow such a log also. I wouldn't want someone to have to drive a long way 3x for one cache. Like I said, I returned because it was suppposedly fixed up. It was a fence post cap, with part of the cache glued to the underside of the cap and the other bit, I suspect fell down. So yeah, I did find part of the cache.

 

That is a pretty unfortunate set of circumstances.

 

Let's put it this way, if someone found one of my lock n lock caches and the logbook was missing, I would encourage them to log a find.

 

Well to be more accurate - it would be like they only found the lid of your lock n lock. That is certainly much closer to "found nothing" than it is to "found a complete geocache and signed the log", but it is an exceptional circumstance and kind of a gray area. I probably would've logged DNF, but I don't guess that my opinion is any more right than anybody else's. Anyway, I see your point.

 

It is significantly different from what happened to the OP that you:

1. Logged DNF the first time.

2. Communicated with the CO

Doesn't seem like you were trying to mislead anyone anyway.

I go with no logbook = no find unless it's being accepted to sign the lid etc.

a geocache is to have at least a log to sign in a container so a container part or swag is not the log to sign, so you didn't find a geocache unless the CO accepts or doesn't reject signing the lid till its owner maintenance the geocache.

Link to comment

Rather than debate the merits or lack thereof of different interpretations of this game, would the following be something we could all agree on?

 

Logging a find on a non-present cache is wrong because it is a LIE. If you log a find on something that wasn't present at all - it is just not truthful. Is expecting people to have a modicum of honesty just too high of a bar? (Well, I guess in this case, there is a modicum of honesty, as at least they mentioned that they didn't find it, while logging the find...)

 

I don't see how logging a find something that was simply not present in any recognizable form could be anything but a lie. Isn't lying still considered to be wrong?

Not everyone will agree with that statement.

 

There are two parts here. One is what the meaning of Found It is in the online log.

 

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

<etc>

 

 

Why am I reminded of Bill Clinton?

Link to comment
Some people are like slinkies. Not much good for anything but bring a smile to your face when you push them downstairs.

 

This fit the way I'm feeling better than any thing I could quote above.

 

I have a particularly troublesome cache that disappears frequently althought I'm not ready to give up on it (soon). Twice this month I have received found logs that I knew could not be, one I hadn't gotten around to disabling yet and the other, I had just driven by that day and did not see container. As for the first, he had said he didn't find it but knew he was at GZ(!), so he replaced with another container. Well, I said OK on that one. Second one this month, was just a reply hemming and hawing in an e-mail when I questioned it. Gee, I guess it really is all about the numbers!

Link to comment
I logged a find like this the other day. I found part of the cache and logged a DNF as I wasn't sure that was the cache. Verified with the CO that I was in the right spot. A couple months later he logged that he replaced it. Months later I returned to finally get my smilie and found the 'cache' in the same condition. (Caches not found very frequently in this area) This time, I chose to log a Find. It was not my fault that there was no logbook and there are only so many times you want to make the trip to the same spot.

In situations like this, it's really between you and the cache owner. I think the cache owner should be free to choose what they want to do. Personally I would prefer to avoid bad blood, in something that is supposed to be fun, but the cache owner should be able to decide.

 

I'd like to see a tag or attribute on the cache itself so CO could indicate that a validated and signed log is required to register a find, kind of like a moderated forum entry: not posted until read and validated. In this scenario, once the CO acknowledges a find, it's in stone and can't be revoked.

 

This makes the CO just as responsible to validate as the catcher to log the find.

 

If this attribute isn't used by the CO, then the honor system applies.

 

Without something like this, you will always have jerks who log finds who didn't and jerks who remove finds because they can.

Link to comment
I logged a find like this the other day. I found part of the cache and logged a DNF as I wasn't sure that was the cache. Verified with the CO that I was in the right spot. A couple months later he logged that he replaced it. Months later I returned to finally get my smilie and found the 'cache' in the same condition. (Caches not found very frequently in this area) This time, I chose to log a Find. It was not my fault that there was no logbook and there are only so many times you want to make the trip to the same spot.

In situations like this, it's really between you and the cache owner. I think the cache owner should be free to choose what they want to do. Personally I would prefer to avoid bad blood, in something that is supposed to be fun, but the cache owner should be able to decide.

 

I'd like to see a tag or attribute on the cache itself so CO could indicate that a validated and signed log is required to register a find, kind of like a moderated forum entry: not posted until read and validated. In this scenario, once the CO acknowledges a find, it's in stone and can't be revoked.

 

This makes the CO just as responsible to validate as the catcher to log the find.

 

If this attribute isn't used by the CO, then the honor system applies.

 

Without something like this, you will always have jerks who log finds who didn't and jerks who remove finds because they can.

So a year or two ago you would have been willing to wait 2 to 6 months after you found one of my caches for me to validate it because I was in some forsaken hole half way around the world without internet?

Edited by Totem Clan
Link to comment

I'd like to see a tag or attribute on the cache itself so CO could indicate that a validated and signed log is required to register a find, kind of like a moderated forum entry: not posted until read and validated. In this scenario, once the CO acknowledges a find, it's in stone and can't be revoked.

 

This makes the CO just as responsible to validate as the catcher to log the find.

 

If this attribute isn't used by the CO, then the honor system applies.

 

Without something like this, you will always have jerks who log finds who didn't and jerks who remove finds because they can.

 

Or.

 

"I don't like you. I'm NEVER validating your finds on my caches."

Link to comment
I logged a find like this the other day. I found part of the cache and logged a DNF as I wasn't sure that was the cache. Verified with the CO that I was in the right spot. A couple months later he logged that he replaced it. Months later I returned to finally get my smilie and found the 'cache' in the same condition. (Caches not found very frequently in this area) This time, I chose to log a Find. It was not my fault that there was no logbook and there are only so many times you want to make the trip to the same spot.

In situations like this, it's really between you and the cache owner. I think the cache owner should be free to choose what they want to do. Personally I would prefer to avoid bad blood, in something that is supposed to be fun, but the cache owner should be able to decide.

 

I'd like to see a tag or attribute on the cache itself so CO could indicate that a validated and signed log is required to register a find, kind of like a moderated forum entry: not posted until read and validated. In this scenario, once the CO acknowledges a find, it's in stone and can't be revoked.

 

This makes the CO just as responsible to validate as the catcher to log the find.

 

If this attribute isn't used by the CO, then the honor system applies.

 

Without something like this, you will always have jerks who log finds who didn't and jerks who remove finds because they can.

 

No signature on the log=no find. There is no honor system, except in your imagination.

 

From the knowledge Book Logging of All Physical Geocaches.

Link to comment

I'd like to see a tag or attribute on the cache itself so CO could indicate that a validated and signed log is required to register a find, kind of like a moderated forum entry: not posted until read and validated. In this scenario, once the CO acknowledges a find, it's in stone and can't be revoked.

 

This makes the CO just as responsible to validate as the catcher to log the find.

 

If this attribute isn't used by the CO, then the honor system applies.

 

Without something like this, you will always have jerks who log finds who didn't and jerks who remove finds because they can.

 

No signature on the log=no find. There is no honor system, except in your imagination.

 

From the knowledge Book Logging of All Physical Geocaches.

The link you provided on Logging of All Physical Caches does not say "No signature on the log = no find".

 

It simply tells people that they can log a find online once the physical log has been signed. If you read that section carefully you will see that it has to do with Addtional Requirements for logging a find online. It was added to the guidelines to nullify any cache that has additional logging requirements. That's why the next sentence, in the same paragraph, talks about the exception for challenge caches which can require a geocaching related challenge be met (in addition to finding the cache) before a find can be logged online.

 

The way the guideline is written allows a cache owner to delete an online log if the physical log is not signed. I'm not certain what Groundspeak's reasons are for allowing this. But they clearly do not require cache owners to delete logs solely because the physical log was not signed.

 

The truth is that the overwhelming majority of cache owners do treat the online found log as an honor system. Unless the log truly looks suspicious, most cache owner don't bother checking the online log, let along delete someone's find. And most geocachers are quite willing to log a find if they had some reasonable excuse for not signing the physical log, knowing that few cache owners will delete their log.

 

The suggestion that cache owners who are going to enforce their made up rule that the physical log has to be signed should indicate this with some tag or attribute has an ironic appeal. I believe the appropriate solution would be to require a large scarlet letter P be placed on the cache page.

 

Of course, there are many cache owners who don't require the physical log be signed, yet still will delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. It is likely there will always be disputes between cache owners and the cachers whose logs got deleted. It should be generally understood that if you don't want to see your find log deleted the safest thing is to sign the physical log. Of course, a cache owner may still delete your log. Some believe that if you signed the log, Groundspeak will restore you log if the owner deletes it. I'm not sure that this is true. If it is clear that the owner is deleting your log because of some additional requirement beyond signing the log (and the log isn't otherwise off-topic or inappropriate) then perhaps the log will be restored.

Link to comment

It isn't a real find...but it is only one cache. I personally wouldn't make a big deal out of it. You could replace the cache and ask the cacher to sign it again. It all depends on what you want to do.

 

I thought this counted as a find. My sister and me were looking for a regular sized box in a park today. We got to GZ and searched all over. There wasn't much to search, just a few bushes, thin bushes in the middle of a lawn. We kept looking around and around?? How hard could it be to find a regular sized box, 1.5/ 1.5?? I started to look up it the trees and there it was. Apperently a muggle had found (not surpising) the box and had taken the time to get it stuck up in that tree 30 or 40 ft off the ground..... There was no way to get up the tree and no way to get the box down. I counted it as find, because the last three people didn't see it up there, but we did.

 

It is hard to say, your problem is in a gray area.

Link to comment
The link you provided on Logging of All Physical Caches does not say "No signature on the log = no find".

 

It simply tells people that they can log a find online once the physical log has been signed.

 

Am I the only one who finds those two statements contradictory?

 

Austin

Link to comment

I'd like to see a tag or attribute on the cache itself so CO could indicate that a validated and signed log is required to register a find, kind of like a moderated forum entry: not posted until read and validated. In this scenario, once the CO acknowledges a find, it's in stone and can't be revoked.

 

This makes the CO just as responsible to validate as the catcher to log the find.

 

If this attribute isn't used by the CO, then the honor system applies.

 

Without something like this, you will always have jerks who log finds who didn't and jerks who remove finds because they can.

 

No signature on the log=no find. There is no honor system, except in your imagination.

 

From the knowledge Book Logging of All Physical Geocaches.

The link you provided on Logging of All Physical Caches does not say "No signature on the log = no find".

 

I think It simply tells people that they can log a find online once the physical log has been signed. If you read that section carefully the way I read it, you will see that it has to do with Addtional Requirements for logging a find online. It was added to the guidelines to nullify any cache that has additional logging requirements. That's why the next sentence, in the same paragraph, talks about the exception for challenge caches which can require a geocaching related challenge be met (in addition to finding the cache) before a find can be logged online.

 

Small fixes. I think that it is worth noting that other people read that same section carefully and come to a different conclusion than you do.
Link to comment

I'd like to see a tag or attribute on the cache itself so CO could indicate that a validated and signed log is required to register a find, kind of like a moderated forum entry: not posted until read and validated. In this scenario, once the CO acknowledges a find, it's in stone and can't be revoked.

 

This makes the CO just as responsible to validate as the catcher to log the find.

 

If this attribute isn't used by the CO, then the honor system applies.

 

Without something like this, you will always have jerks who log finds who didn't and jerks who remove finds because they can.

 

No signature on the log=no find. There is no honor system, except in your imagination.

 

From the knowledge Book Logging of All Physical Geocaches.

The link you provided on Logging of All Physical Caches does not say "No signature on the log = no find".

 

It simply tells people that they can log a find online once the physical log has been signed. If you read that section carefully you will see that it has to do with Addtional Requirements for logging a find online. It was added to the guidelines to nullify any cache that has additional logging requirements. That's why the next sentence, in the same paragraph, talks about the exception for challenge caches which can require a geocaching related challenge be met (in addition to finding the cache) before a find can be logged online.

 

The way the guideline is written allows a cache owner to delete an online log if the physical log is not signed. I'm not certain what Groundspeak's reasons are for allowing this. But they clearly do not require cache owners to delete logs solely because the physical log was not signed.

 

The truth is that the overwhelming majority of cache owners do treat the online found log as an honor system. Unless the log truly looks suspicious, most cache owner don't bother checking the online log, let along delete someone's find. And most geocachers are quite willing to log a find if they had some reasonable excuse for not signing the physical log, knowing that few cache owners will delete their log.

 

The suggestion that cache owners who are going to enforce their made up rule that the physical log has to be signed should indicate this with some tag or attribute has an ironic appeal. I believe the appropriate solution would be to require a large scarlet letter P be placed on the cache page.

 

Of course, there are many cache owners who don't require the physical log be signed, yet still will delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. It is likely there will always be disputes between cache owners and the cachers whose logs got deleted. It should be generally understood that if you don't want to see your find log deleted the safest thing is to sign the physical log. Of course, a cache owner may still delete your log. Some believe that if you signed the log, Groundspeak will restore you log if the owner deletes it. I'm not sure that this is true. If it is clear that the owner is deleting your log because of some additional requirement beyond signing the log (and the log isn't otherwise off-topic or inappropriate) then perhaps the log will be restored.

By that same logic I could have won the Masters this weekend.

I saw the golf ball and I saw the hole where it needed to go. Now all I need to do is 1 on each blank on the score card and I'm done.

The rules say I need to enter my score on the card. It doesn't say anything about what score. At least not the way I read them.<_<

Link to comment

>By that same logic I could have won the Masters this weekend.

 

I love it :-)

This is exacly why there are so many DNF = FOUND IT threads on this forum

and why you see endless logs like, I log it as found but bla bla I did not find or sign the log book !!

it is terrible some people just cant play a fair game for them self, what is the fun for them ?

why not drive tru the whole city and log them all as found, reason I did not care to stop or exit my car, but I was in the right city you know..

 

Come on people, you need to find the REAL LOG BOOK, the one approved by the CO, and you must sign it

NOW go home and log the cache as found, now the game is FUN for you,

othervise go play solitaire and look at the cards, swap them so it always works like you want it to,

now are you happy when you win ? or was it all waste of your time.

Edited by OZ2CPU
Link to comment

why not drive tru the whole city and log them all as found, reason I did not care to stop or exit my car, but I was in the right city you know..

 

As in this case the cacher found a magnet which was originally attached to the container, so they were at GZ and could have easily signed it if the cache hadn't been destroyed.

 

I would have let the cacher have the find. How can you seriously say "thanks for telling me it's gone, and although I can't verify anyone else's logs, I'm going to delete your smiley as you told me the log wasn't there to sign".

 

The finder could easily have kept stum and simply said "tftc". Instead they did something more useful (which some of the previous finders may not have done).

 

No good deed....

Link to comment
The link you provided on Logging of All Physical Caches does not say "No signature on the log = no find".

 

It simply tells people that they can log a find online once the physical log has been signed.

 

Am I the only one who finds those two statements contradictory?

 

Austin

If TPTB wanted to say that in order to log a find only you must sign the physical log they would have said that. The English language has some ambiguity built in, so there are some who may parse what TPTB did write to mean that "physical cache can be logged online as "Found", once only if the physical log has been signed".

 

Of course common sense would tell you that this in not what was meant. Cache owners have been allowing caches to be logged online as "Found" without requiring a signature in the physical log since Geocaching.com introduced online logs. More over, the said statement was not added to guidelines until the day that Additional Logging Requirements were no longer allowed. Read the entire section, not just the one sentence, and you will see that is what it is about.

 

The link you provided on Logging of All Physical Caches does not say "No signature on the log = no find".

 

I think It simply tells people that they can log a find online once the physical log has been signed. If you read that section carefully the way I read it, you will see that it has to do with Addtional Requirements for logging a find online. It was added to the guidelines to nullify any cache that has additional logging requirements. That's why the next sentence, in the same paragraph, talks about the exception for challenge caches which can require a geocaching related challenge be met (in addition to finding the cache) before a find can be logged online.

 

Small fixes. I think that it is worth noting that other people read that same section carefully and come to a different conclusion than you do.

Yes, my friend, of course what I say is my opinion. I will say that from discussions with reviewers and with Groundspeak lackeys, including with some involved in the drafting of that guideline, I've been been told things that lead me to believe I am right. But Groundspeak has surprised me in the past so there is a chance my interpretation is not 100% correct.

 

By that same logic I could have won the Masters this weekend.

I saw the golf ball and I saw the hole where it needed to go. Now all I need to do is 1 on each blank on the score card and I'm done.

The rules say I need to enter my score on the card. It doesn't say anything about what score. At least not the way I read them.<_<

The rules of golf (and especially professional tournaments) are a little more specific that the rules for logging a geocaching find online. To quote Jeremy

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find.

 

Of course, a lot of people are convinced that the act of physical signing of a log is integral to geocaching in some way. They will look for any statement to support this belief and it is very hard to dissuade someone of this. The main reason I keep at it, is so that newbies will understand that this is a fun activity and the find count is not a score. There is no clear rule for when you can log a find online. In general if you feel you found the cache you can log a find. However cache owners can delete your log if they feel it is bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or inappropriate. So you may have "found" a cache where the cache owner thinks you need to have signed the log.

 

I almost always sign the log because it's the only way I know I have found the cache for sure and not some thing else. But I don't panic if I forgot a pen or if the log is too wet to write in. I'll try my best to leave a mark, but am confident that 99% of the cache owners are going to take my word for it.

Link to comment
The link you provided on Logging of All Physical Caches does not say "No signature on the log = no find".

 

It simply tells people that they can log a find online once the physical log has been signed.

 

Am I the only one who finds those two statements contradictory?

 

Austin

If TPTB wanted to say that in order to log a find only you must sign the physical log they would have said that. The English language has some ambiguity built in, so there are some who may parse what TPTB did write to mean that "physical cache can be logged online as "Found", once only if the physical log has been signed".

 

Of course common sense would tell you that this in not what was meant. Cache owners have been allowing caches to be logged online as "Found" without requiring a signature in the physical log since Geocaching.com introduced online logs. More over, the said statement was not added to guidelines until the day that Additional Logging Requirements were no longer allowed. Read the entire section, not just the one sentence, and you will see that is what it is about.

 

The link you provided on Logging of All Physical Caches does not say "No signature on the log = no find".

 

I think It simply tells people that they can log a find online once the physical log has been signed. If you read that section carefully the way I read it, you will see that it has to do with Addtional Requirements for logging a find online. It was added to the guidelines to nullify any cache that has additional logging requirements. That's why the next sentence, in the same paragraph, talks about the exception for challenge caches which can require a geocaching related challenge be met (in addition to finding the cache) before a find can be logged online.

 

Small fixes. I think that it is worth noting that other people read that same section carefully and come to a different conclusion than you do.

Yes, my friend, of course what I say is my opinion. I will say that from discussions with reviewers and with Groundspeak lackeys, including with some involved in the drafting of that guideline, I've been been told things that lead me to believe I am right. But Groundspeak has surprised me in the past so there is a chance my interpretation is not 100% correct.

 

By that same logic I could have won the Masters this weekend.

I saw the golf ball and I saw the hole where it needed to go. Now all I need to do is 1 on each blank on the score card and I'm done.

The rules say I need to enter my score on the card. It doesn't say anything about what score. At least not the way I read them.<_<

The rules of golf (and especially professional tournaments) are a little more specific that the rules for logging a geocaching find online. To quote Jeremy

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find.

 

Of course, a lot of people are convinced that the act of physical signing of a log is integral to geocaching in some way. They will look for any statement to support this belief and it is very hard to dissuade someone of this. The main reason I keep at it, is so that newbies will understand that this is a fun activity and the find count is not a score. There is no clear rule for when you can log a find online. In general if you feel you found the cache you can log a find. However cache owners can delete your log if they feel it is bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or inappropriate. So you may have "found" a cache where the cache owner thinks you need to have signed the log.

 

I almost always sign the log because it's the only way I know I have found the cache for sure and not some thing else. But I don't panic if I forgot a pen or if the log is too wet to write in. I'll try my best to leave a mark, but am confident that 99% of the cache owners are going to take my word for it.

:rolleyes: I will not get into this with you.

All I can do is quoute Mark Twain

Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
The link you provided on Logging of All Physical Caches does not say "No signature on the log = no find".

 

It simply tells people that they can log a find online once the physical log has been signed.

 

Am I the only one who finds those two statements contradictory?

 

Austin

If TPTB wanted to say that in order to log a find only you must sign the physical log they would have said that. The English language has some ambiguity built in, so there are some who may parse what TPTB did write to mean that "physical cache can be logged online as "Found", once only if the physical log has been signed".

 

Wrong. The parsing is "physical cache can be logged online as "Found", once after the physical log has been signed".

 

This is not ambiguous. I understand you are on a campaign to defend your position on this, but you are wrong.

 

Austin

Edited by AustinMN
Link to comment
Wrong. The parsing is "physical cache can be logged online as "Found", once after the physical log has been signed".

 

This is not ambiguous. I understand you are on a campaign to defend your position on this, but you are wrong.

If I recall correctly, Toz's argument is that the statement says that if you sign the physical log, you can then log it as found online.

 

It does not say that you must sign the physical log before you can log it as found online.

 

Basically :

 

Signed | Logged online | Kosher?
-------+---------------+---------
Yes         Yes           Yes
Yes         No         Undefined
No          Yes        Undefined
No          No         Undefined

 

However, if a physical log has not been signed, it is fully within the cache owner's rights (and some might argue, is the CO's responsibility) to delete the log. To me, that means that the spirit of the guideline states that I should sign the log if I want to log it as found online, even if the letter of the guidelines does not explicitly state that. We're geocachers, not geolawyers.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...