false finds

[+ogopogo3253]

I find it very frustrating to have hidden a nice cache only to have finds logged over and over on it, where people are not signing the log book or exchanging items. To me signing the log is a must and from now on , anyone saying they found the cache and not signing the log book will have their name removed as a finder. If you can't be bothered to sign the log book, why even go looking for the cache. Does anyone else have this happening to them?

[+The Blorenges]

Many cachers don't swap items in caches, so that's not unusual, but most cachers would agree that signing the physical log is a requirement for logging a find.

 

There are always a few people about who will pad their numbers a bit with false finds but, as is so often stated on these forums, they're only cheating themselves. If you're certain that the log hasn't been signed then you could delete the finds - some cache owners take the cautious route and will email the suspect finder first to enquire if there was some reason that they didn't sign the log. Some people just genuinely forget.

 

MrsB

[+StarBrand]

I would not hesitate to delete any online logs where there was no evidence of an actual visit in the physical logbook or from a cacher that was with them.

[+ArcherDragoon]

I find it very frustrating to have hidden a nice cache only to have finds logged over and over on it, where people are not signing the log book or exchanging items. To me signing the log is a must and from now on , anyone saying they found the cache and not signing the log book will have their name removed as a finder. If you can't be bothered to sign the log book, why even go looking for the cache. Does anyone else have this happening to them?

Just want to say...I rarely swap items anymore. I enjoy caching for the hunt and the places I learn about around me...and the fun of being outdoors...

[Skippermark]

Relocating to the correct section.

[Clan Riffster]

Does anyone else have this happening to them?

Honestly, I have no idea. I've never been anal enough to check. I do like to sit down with the logbook when I do a maintenance run on one of my caches, but it never occurred to me to compare the signatures in the logbook with the online finds. I figure if the person logging online had fun, they've satisfied any requirement I might come up with.

[+jellis]

I hardly swap anything out.

 

I think those who don't sign their logs should be deleted but be sure they actually did not sign them. I have found signatures not in order by date that they found them so be careful when assuming they didn't. We were accused when my buddy signed the back of a logsheet and the next cacher didn't see our names right away.

What I feel uncomfortable about is when friends sign for their buddy when that cacher was not present. No I don't mean sitting in a car not far from the cache. I mean like sitting at home (armchair loggers) but their friends are signing them.

[+NeverSummer]

I find it very frustrating to have hidden a nice cache only to have finds logged over and over on it, where people are not signing the log book or exchanging items. To me signing the log is a must and from now on , anyone saying they found the cache and not signing the log book will have their name removed as a finder. If you can't be bothered to sign the log book, why even go looking for the cache. Does anyone else have this happening to them?

As the owner of your caches, you are the one to take care of your cache and the online listing. You can delete bogus logs, and you should maintain your physical cache. If you want to delete a log, you can.

 

However, this doesn't mean that you should. Be aware of the scenarios others have mentioned: forget to log, they don't care to trade swag, etc. Your best bet is to email any cacher who you think has placed a bogus log. You can ask them, kindly, if they forgot to sign the log. If you want to get serious about cache maintenance, you can check the logbook against the online logs. This can, and will, become quite the chore. But, if you're up for it, it is your responsibility as a cache owner to maintain the physical cache, and your online listing. It's that simple.

 

Ask yourself one thing, though: Is it worth the angst to track down all of the people you think didn't find your cache? Most just forgot. And the small percentage that armchair log aren't worth the effort or argument.

[+AustinMN]

In addition to the concerns above, I think sometimes people sign with the wrong name. I have been consistent in using Austin as part of nearly all my screen names, but that is not true of everyone. If I signed the log as Austin260 would you realize that it was the user AustinMN? Probably yes, but I doubt you would ever connect ElTaco1756 with Rand Therren, both on-line screen names my adult son uses.

 

I have also had to remind my wife to use AustinMN (she signs for both of us when we cache together because her handwriting is better than mine). You would not likely connect AustinMN with Tom C, which is what she sometimes wants to sign.

 

My adult children all use multiple screen names and may forget and sign a non-geocaching name. I don't think that's cause to delete their log.

 

Austin

[Mr.Yuck]

There have many been threads about how people don't write anything other than their usernames and date in logbooks, while they used to in the "old days". I personally have noticed a trend in my area by some cachers in the last year or so of just scribbling your name, and not even bothering with the date. So who knows, maybe not signing at all is a natural progression?

 

Seriously, though, I don't know. People not signing the log in a somewhat new, rather ordinary suburban cache in British Columbia? I'd just chalk it up to a local trend. And very, very bad precedent.

[Skippermark]

Many cachers like to log their caches in order so they can see how many miles of caches they've cached and things like that. When a log is deleted, even if they relog it, that info will never be calculated correctly from that point on, so it wouldn't be a bad idea to contact the person first before deleting the log to see why you couldn't find their name in the log book.

 

Around here, a common practice is for cachers to cache under a "group" name if there's several people going out together. When they find a cache, they'll sign in as "Tuesday Caching Crew" or "Friday's Fun Fest." If the cache is a micro or name, they might even sign in as TCC or FFF. Sometimes they'll just use the first initial of each person's caching name, so if you look at the logs, you'll never actually see their individual names.

 

I had a friend whose log got deleted once because the owner didn't see their names in the log. After contacting her and describing the hide, the owner rechecked the log and found the signature. My friend simply unrolled the log and signed in the first blank spot he found, so the owner emailed him back and warned him if he didn't want his future lots to be deleted, he'd better sign it in the proper spot and the proper chronological order.

[+SwineFlew]

Dont delete online logs too fast.

 

You make more friends if you dont take your hobby too serious.

[Skippermark]

I had another friend get one of their logs deleted a few years ago on a 3 stage driving multi. The stages are 3-5 miles apart, and he'd grabbed the first 2 stages at different times when he was in the area. One day he decided to go out and grab the final, and the owner deleted his log because at that time stage 2 was missing. They said there was no way he could have found the cache, but it never occurred to him that someone might not complete it all at once. That's why it's always a good idea to check before deleting anything.

[+SwineFlew]

I had another friend get one of their logs deleted a few years ago on a 3 stage driving multi. The stages are 3-5 miles apart, and he'd grabbed the first 2 stages at different times when he was in the area. One day he decided to go out and grab the final, and the owner deleted his log because at that time stage 2 was missing. They said there was no way he could have found the cache, but it never occurred to him that someone might not complete it all at once. That's why it's always a good idea to check before deleting anything.

 

GEEZ... some CO needs to get off the couch.

[+jellis]

I had another friend get one of their logs deleted a few years ago on a 3 stage driving multi. The stages are 3-5 miles apart, and he'd grabbed the first 2 stages at different times when he was in the area. One day he decided to go out and grab the final, and the owner deleted his log because at that time stage 2 was missing. They said there was no way he could have found the cache, but it never occurred to him that someone might not complete it all at once. That's why it's always a good idea to check before deleting anything.

I usually try to keep the coords to the stages in case something like this happens. Or write a note that I stopped at stage # and will get the final later.

[+Ike 13]

I check my caches and their logs regularly. I've never had someone log a find online who didn't sign the log.

[+badger10]

I have been out several times with a local Parks and Rec cacheing group. We usually sign the log with the Parks and Rec name. We also let the CO know on the online log that we signed it that way. I just put out my first cache and I may check the log. If someone has quite a few caches I can see how that would be very time consuming.

[+switchdoc]

Most just forgot. And the small percentage that armchair log aren't worth the effort or argument.

 

This is the key of it right here. The people who care probably did it by accident, and if you are the kind of person to completely false log finds, I doubt the cache owner yelling at you or deleting a find is going to help much unfortunately.

[+jellis]

I have been out several times with a local Parks and Rec cacheing group. We usually sign the log with the Parks and Rec name. We also let the CO know on the online log that we signed it that way. I just put out my first cache and I may check the log. If someone has quite a few caches I can see how that would be very time consuming.

That's when you just have to believe they did it.

[+capdude]

I will glady sign a log when there is a "Log book" to sign. However, I won't take the time to unravel a wadded up strip of paper inside a nano that has just enough room for intials. I have located it, physically touched it, and then log it. If the owner needs any more proof that I was there I will gladly described the cache to them. I don't feel I should waste my time and hassle with a cache that the CO didn't take any time to make into a proper cache.

[+firestronaut]

I think signing a log is a must.

There's been one occasion when I couldn't sign, so I took a picture as evidence I was there.

I don't see the point in false finds, this isn't a race and the only prize is finding a cache.

 

When I eventually lay my caches, I'll be checking logs against online logs when I swap a full log.

[+deb3day]

I was surprised when I read the log of one of my first caches that a lot of people found it, signed it and never logged it. I saw several names that never appeared on the geocaching.com log page.

[+Max and 99]

I was surprised when I read the log of one of my first caches that a lot of people found it, signed it and never logged it . I saw several names that never appeared on the geocaching.com log page.

 

I've noticed lately a lot more people signing the physical cache log but not logging their find online.

[+badger10]

I was surprised when I read the log of one of my first caches that a lot of people found it, signed it and never logged it. I saw several names that never appeared on the geocaching.com log page.

There are four of us in my geofamily. I log all my finds online. My son does about half the time. My wife and daughter do not log them at all...unless it is a geocoin challenge that requires you log them.

[Mr.Yuck]

I will glady sign a log when there is a "Log book" to sign. However, I won't take the time to unravel a wadded up strip of paper inside a nano that has just enough room for intials. I have located it, physically touched it, and then log it. If the owner needs any more proof that I was there I will gladly described the cache to them. I don't feel I should waste my time and hassle with a cache that the CO didn't take any time to make into a proper cache.

 

That last sentence might be signature line material there. I unroll them. Then again, I think I have 4 or 5 career blinky nano finds.

[+wimseyguy]

Be very sure of yourself before hitting that delete button, and then don your kevlar skivvies.

 

I always put ink on the log, but it may not always say wimseyguy. We might make up a team name for the day, or just use initials. If it's a wad in a micro, or a nano scroll I probably won't unfold/roll it all the way.

 

I almost never check out the swag to trade, but might leave a small plastic critter and probably do not mention that in my log.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I will glady sign a log when there is a "Log book" to sign. However, I won't take the time to unravel a wadded up strip of paper inside a nano that has just enough room for intials. I have located it, physically touched it, and then log it. If the owner needs any more proof that I was there I will gladly described the cache to them. I don't feel I should waste my time and hassle with a cache that the CO didn't take any time to make into a proper cache.

 

I have to admit I often don't have the patience for nanos either. I snap a photo if they need proof.

[+Mushroom finder]

I was surprised when I read the log of one of my first caches that a lot of people found it, signed it and never logged it . I saw several names that never appeared on the geocaching.com log page.

 

I've noticed lately a lot more people signing the physical cache log but not logging their find online.

 

Me too. A lot of times you'll see a group that all signed the log together but only one logged online. I know I've taken family members caching before and we all signed but I'm the only one who has a geocaching account so I'm the only one in the group who logged online. When I look at my log books I count each entry as one visit no matter how many people might have signed as a group. On a recent maintenance trip to my most popular cache, I counted 138 separate finds (both individual and group finds) recorded in the log book but only 98 finds had been logged online. I believe there were over 150 individuals documented within those 138 visits in the physical log.

 

I don't notice very many online logs that can't be tied to a physical entry, but I do see a few of them. I don't delete them because I remember when I first started I often went out expecting that there would be something to write with in every cache and then had no way to sign when there wasn't. Even as an experienced cacher, I still make it to a cache once in a while and discover I left my pen in my truck.

 

Only once have I ever deleted a find. This was on a D5 puzzle and someone logged a smiley but stated in their log that they had only found the instructional stage and didn't realize it was a puzzle until they found it. They did promised to complete it but after a month of no follow through and no signature showing up in the log book, I went ahead and deleted the find.

[+Dewns]

I always log online but those ity bity nanos that you have to unroll and then hopefully get rolled back up tight enough I don't even open I don't want to risk the spring affect and in Oregon it could get soaked in that time I will take pics of it in my hand but not wanting to spoil the find not of the hiding spot

This is suppose to be fun does it really matter if someone cheats themselves or feels they need to

Enjoy life it is too short to sweat the small stuff

 

Dewns

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I will glady sign a log when there is a "Log book" to sign. However, I won't take the time to unravel a wadded up strip of paper inside a nano that has just enough room for intials. I have located it, physically touched it, and then log it. If the owner needs any more proof that I was there I will gladly described the cache to them. I don't feel I should waste my time and hassle with a cache that the CO didn't take any time to make into a proper cache.

 

I have to admit I often don't have the patience for nanos either. I snap a photo if they need proof.

 

If I think I'm FTF, I'll unroll and sign a nano log but going forward, this is probably how I'm going to handle nano's or pill bottles where the opening is smaller than the bottle. Just too much grief in trying to get those logs either out or back in. Micros will be a case by case basis. If the log is in good shape (in other words, it's easy to get out of the cache), I'll sign it...if it looks like it's been chewed up a few times, I'll just take a picture and call it good.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I find it very frustrating to have hidden a nice cache only to have finds logged over and over on it, where people are not signing the log book or exchanging items. To me signing the log is a must and from now on , anyone saying they found the cache and not signing the log book will have their name removed as a finder. If you can't be bothered to sign the log book, why even go looking for the cache. Does anyone else have this happening to them?

 

I find it amazing that a game played with satellites, handheld electronic devices, computers, and the internet relies on pen and paper for validation.

 

Questions:

1. How frequently do you plan to verify said logs?

 

2. What happens if several people log a find on your cache online, but before you get there to validate their finds, the log is lost or destroyed? Are you going to delete the finds of people who you didn't get a chance to verify? You never know, you could have gotten a whole pack of liars all at once...

 

3. What happens if someone signs their log differently than their online log. Yes, this would be a really stupid thing to do. However, consistency isn't really a requirement...

 

4. While I'm sure you are diligent, what happens if the pen in your cache runs out of ink? Should people who don't sign the log be forced to return with a pen?

 

5. How about if your log becomes full, lost, or destroyed? Should people be expected to sign whatever they have on hand and stuff it into the cache? (This is actually a horrible idea, in my opinion. It's fine to replace the logsheet or book if you have a suitable replacement. Signing random crap in your pocket actually often just makes the problems with a cache worse.)

 

Realistically, you are mostly stuck with the honor system here. I'm not trying to argue in favor of people who cheat at this game. (I think logging something online you didn't find is cheating - that is my opinion). Just trying to point out the difficulties inherent in the system...

[+T!mberwolf]

As stated previously, a person that cheats on caches, is really cheating themselves. If they cheat on something like this, what other more important things in life are they cheating on? I have not set any caches to date, but plan to do so in the near future. I do not see the point in comparing the posted log entries to actual signatures; there are too many reasons why they may matchup or be present. My husband sometimes caches with me, and he just recently signed up for a separate account. So for some logs, only my geocache signature shows up when he was part of the find/process; he has posted a few of these finds. In addition, he enjoys caching occasionally, but is not especially interested in logging the the finds online. It simply is not that important to him. He had fun finding the cache, enjoyed the hunt, appreciated the owner placing it, and sometimes lets my log do the speaking for the both of us. Sometimes, he doesn't sign log sheet or make an online log entry. At some point he may make an online entry and not actually sign the log. To him, it is more important that we are out enjoying the day together. When I start placing caches, it will be for others to enjoy. Sure the feedback is nice, but if a signature or log entry is not made, so what! Again, be careful in deleting entries or jumping to conclusions. Cheaters will cheat... maybe Karma will catch up to them.

Edited April 6, 2012 by T!mberwolf

[+niraD]

I find it amazing that a game played with satellites, handheld electronic devices, computers, and the internet relies on pen and paper for validation.

It doesn't seem amazing to me, but then again, I don't consider geocaching to be primarily about satellites, handheld electronic devices, computers, and the internet. I consider geocaching to be primarily about going places and finding hidden containers.

 

1. How frequently do you plan to verify said logs?

I don't plan to do maintenance (including log verification) on any specific schedule. I do maintenance only when the emailed logs indicate a potential issue, or when it's convenient.

 

2. What happens if several people log a find on your cache online, but before you get there to validate their finds, the log is lost or destroyed?

I'd replace the log, and assume that prior finds were legitimate unless I have some other evidence that they weren't.

 

3. What happens if someone signs their log differently than their online log. Yes, this would be a really stupid thing to do.

It isn't really a stupid thing to do at all. Plenty of beginners sign their real names or sign a temporary handle, but then register on the site with some other handle. Plenty of people change their geocaching.com account name at some point. Plenty of people have long geocaching handles, but often sign an abbreviated version (especially on smaller micro/nano log sheets). Plenty of people sign with a single group handle, rather than having each person sign individually (especially on smaller micro/nano log sheets). And so on.

 

4. While I'm sure you are diligent, what happens if the pen in your cache runs out of ink? Should people who don't sign the log be forced to return with a pen?

FWIW, I've seen a number of logs signed with improvised materials (e.g., mud, blood, berries, plant sap).

 

5. How about if your log becomes full, lost, or destroyed?

I replace it. Or someone else leaves another log. I carry weatherproof log sheets in my geocaching kit.

 

Realistically, you are mostly stuck with the honor system here.

Yep. So?

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I find it amazing that a game played with satellites, handheld electronic devices, computers, and the internet relies on pen and paper for validation.

It doesn't seem amazing to me, but then again, I don't consider geocaching to be primarily about satellites, handheld electronic devices, computers, and the internet. I consider geocaching to be primarily about going places and finding hidden containers.

 

1. How frequently do you plan to verify said logs?

I don't plan to do maintenance (including log verification) on any specific schedule. I do maintenance only when the emailed logs indicate a potential issue, or when it's convenient.

 

2. What happens if several people log a find on your cache online, but before you get there to validate their finds, the log is lost or destroyed?

I'd replace the log, and assume that prior finds were legitimate unless I have some other evidence that they weren't.

 

3. What happens if someone signs their log differently than their online log. Yes, this would be a really stupid thing to do.

It isn't really a stupid thing to do at all. Plenty of beginners sign their real names or sign a temporary handle, but then register on the site with some other handle. Plenty of people change their geocaching.com account name at some point. Plenty of people have long geocaching handles, but often sign an abbreviated version (especially on smaller micro/nano log sheets). Plenty of people sign with a single group handle, rather than having each person sign individually (especially on smaller micro/nano log sheets). And so on.

 

4. While I'm sure you are diligent, what happens if the pen in your cache runs out of ink? Should people who don't sign the log be forced to return with a pen?

FWIW, I've seen a number of logs signed with improvised materials (e.g., mud, blood, berries, plant sap).

 

5. How about if your log becomes full, lost, or destroyed?

I replace it. Or someone else leaves another log. I carry weatherproof log sheets in my geocaching kit.

 

Realistically, you are mostly stuck with the honor system here.

Yep. So?

 

Well, that was primarily aimed at the original poster, and they were rhetorical questions. My point was to highlight the difficulties of verifying every online log to the paper log. So we have the honor system for the most part - I don't really have a problem with that - it's just the way it is.

 

It might be nice (or it might not) if there were a more robust verification system, but there isn't, and given that I can't really see the use in doing extensive accounting on the online logs vs. paper log. However, if someone wants to do that, well, more power to them, I guess, but it seems to me unlikely that the paper log will always be 100% accurate either. Personally, I can't imagine anything more pointless than logging stuff you didn't find, although I'm sure not everyone feels that way. Hopefully it is an uncommon practice.

 

My apologies that my post was obviously so unclear.

 

FWIW, I've seen a number of logs signed with improvised materials (e.g., mud, blood, berries, plant sap).

 

I would still assert that doing something like this, or shoving a random scrap of paper into a full cache is not always a good idea, because of the potential to make a mess versus the (fairly unlikely) event the CO would delete your find. Imagine what the log would look like if the next 20 people did this...

[+AustinMN]

I have not placed any caches yet, but there is one scenario where I would definitely delete a log.

 

If someone declares the cache is not there and places a throwdown, but when I check the real cache is in good order, the throwdown will be removed, the "helpful" cacher will be politely notified that they can log a DNF if the choose, and the find log deleted.

 

Austin

Edited April 6, 2012 by AustinMN

[+hukilaulau]

I won't take the time to unravel a wadded up strip of paper inside a nano that has just enough room for intials. I don't feel I should waste my time and hassle with a cache that the CO didn't take any time to make into a proper cache.

i feel the same way, but it leads me in a different direction. Yesterday I found a nano but the log was wedged in so tight I couldn't get it out. Result? No find. If I don't want to "waste my time" figuring out how to sign the log, I don't feel right claiming a smilie.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I won't take the time to unravel a wadded up strip of paper inside a nano that has just enough room for intials. I don't feel I should waste my time and hassle with a cache that the CO didn't take any time to make into a proper cache.

i feel the same way, but it leads me in a different direction. Yesterday I found a nano but the log was wedged in so tight I couldn't get it out. Result? No find. If I don't want to "waste my time" figuring out how to sign the log, I don't feel right claiming a smilie.

Did you log DNF or NM? Seems like a NM or note situation. I'd consider it a find personally because you did actually find a geocache, so DNF at least doesn't seem like the right description of what happened to me. Anyway just curious what you did - not really trying to argue with you. It is an ambiguous situation.

[+hzoi]

Around here, a common practice is for cachers to cache under a "group" name if there's several people going out together. When they find a cache, they'll sign in as "Tuesday Caching Crew" or "Friday's Fun Fest." If the cache is a micro or name, they might even sign in as TCC or FFF. Sometimes they'll just use the first initial of each person's caching name, so if you look at the logs, you'll never actually see their individual names.

 

I had a friend whose log got deleted once because the owner didn't see their names in the log. After contacting her and describing the hide, the owner rechecked the log and found the signature. My friend simply unrolled the log and signed in the first blank spot he found, so the owner emailed him back and warned him if he didn't want his future lots to be deleted, he'd better sign it in the proper spot and the proper chronological order.

 

I had another friend get one of their logs deleted a few years ago on a 3 stage driving multi. The stages are 3-5 miles apart, and he'd grabbed the first 2 stages at different times when he was in the area. One day he decided to go out and grab the final, and the owner deleted his log because at that time stage 2 was missing. They said there was no way he could have found the cache, but it never occurred to him that someone might not complete it all at once. That's why it's always a good idea to check before deleting anything.

 

While I'd agree that perhaps both COs were a little quick to hit the delete button, it does sound like both of these situations could have been avoided if your friends had been a little more descriptive in their logs. "Signed as ___" for the group finders, "stopped by earlier and found the first couple stages, finally finished it up today" for the multi, and "signed in the first blank spot I could find" for the other guy. Just sayin'.

[+OZ2CPU]

when I change the first log of a cache, I count the numbers found and different names in the log,

and I always find from a lot to a litte bit difference..

I think it is possible some simply dont want to "waste" my log paper (that is nice)

but I prefer if they then wrote a very tiny name.

I also think it is getting more and more common to log as a team with only one long in the paper

and many online, i see them write in the online log the team name they used for that day

and a nice list of people who was together.

I dont delete longs, unless i am 100% sure I found a cheater,

and since I can newer be that sure, I newer delete peoples logs,

however it is perfectly fine if you delete peoples logs,

I think you should write big and clear on the cache page:

 

IF YOUR NAME IF NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE PAPER LOG

HIGH RIST I WILL DELETE YOUR LOG !! THANKS FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING.

 

also maybe write numbers on the pages in the log book, so you know for sure

no pages fell out. you see if just a page is missing, their log could be on that one page,

so in that case, you can not delete one single log.

 

good luck :-)

[+dprovan]

They said there was no way he could have found the cache, but it never occurred to him that someone might not complete it all at once. That's why it's always a good idea to check before deleting anything.

I assume you mean check the physical log, as opposed to checking with them via e-mail. If a CO is going to accuse someone of cheating, the least I'd expect of them would be visiting their own cache to get some actual evidence first.

[+popokiiti]

We very rarely trade, but will drop something into caches if we have something with us and the cache seems a bit low. This is especially true of caches that may have kids coming. I just picked up some marbles for this purpose....

We always sign the log - once we found two containers at one location - signed both. The CO of the published cache emailed, asking us for a description which we provided and our logs stood.

When we traded, we always used to note - on the paper printout - what was taken and/or left. Now we are paperless, and I couldn't in all honestly say exactly what I left where!

[+TerraViators]

Does anyone else have this happening to them?

Honestly, I have no idea. I've never been anal enough to check. I do like to sit down with the logbook when I do a maintenance run on one of my caches, but it never occurred to me to compare the signatures in the logbook with the online finds. I figure if the person logging online had fun, they've satisfied any requirement I might come up with.

CR, I do run checks on my logs when I change them out. I rarely have a false find, but I more often find sigs on the log of cachers who never e-logged it.

[+barddzen]

I just had a CO delete my find solely based on someone else stating my handle wasn't on the log. I've been caching for years and it's mainly the honor system as I understand it. I can't tell you how many aches I've found where I get to GZ and container has been mugged, destroyed, or whatever and the result is its in pieces with no way to validate who signed what.

 

So based on the logic of said jerks who nuked my find, they should go back and delete every find since they last did cache and log validation. Imagine removing weeks, months or years worth of entries because the log got soaked and you couldn't sign it? In this case am I supposed to come back when you've put in a new log or carry paper and fix for you?

 

If you are going to delete my find based on your anal retentive rules for your cache, then stick to our own rules and delete ALL that can't be validated regardless of log state.

 

This will happen a few times until people just stop finding your caches.

 

There should be a way to track CO like this so I won't waste my time.

 

What's the tradegedy of this CO and the cache is it was by far my most favorite one to find...

[+The A-Team]

I just had a CO delete my find solely based on someone else stating my handle wasn't on the log.

Send an email to contact@geocaching.com with a description of what happened, and they have the ability to restore your log.

[+niraD]

"Did you ever go fishing? Did you ever catch them all?"

[+Shop99er]

I just had a CO delete my find solely based on someone else stating my handle wasn't on the log. I've been caching for years and it's mainly the honor system as I understand it. I can't tell you how many aches I've found where I get to GZ and container has been mugged, destroyed, or whatever and the result is its in pieces with no way to validate who signed what.

 

So based on the logic of said jerks who nuked my find, they should go back and delete every find since they last did cache and log validation. Imagine removing weeks, months or years worth of entries because the log got soaked and you couldn't sign it? In this case am I supposed to come back when you've put in a new log or carry paper and fix for you?

 

If you are going to delete my find based on your anal retentive rules for your cache, then stick to our own rules and delete ALL that can't be validated regardless of log state.

 

This will happen a few times until people just stop finding your caches.

 

There should be a way to track CO like this so I won't waste my time.

 

What's the tradegedy of this CO and the cache is it was by far my most favorite one to find...

 

There is no honor system when finding a cache. If you didn't sign a log book, then you have no find, unless the CO gave you permission to log it.

 

Here are the first two sentences in the knowledge book regarding loging finds on the website. (I highlighted the first sentence to ensure you would notice it.)

 

"Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge requirements have been met and documented to the cache owner's satisfaction."

 

And, here's the link to the whole thing Logging Physical Caches

 

Bottom line is, you are cheating. I wonder how many of your 529 finds are, according to the Groundspeak Rules of Logging, false, and therefore need to be removed.

 

You might want to familiarize yourself with the requirements before you go calling people anal-retentive. I'm gonna guess that you have never looked at them in your entire 3 years of semi-caching.

 

One other thing. I've been at this for 8 years, and have never had a log deleted, and never used the "honor system" you appear to use. Coincidence?

[+AustinMN]

Bottom line is, you are cheating. I wonder how many of your 529 finds are, according to the Groundspeak Rules of Logging, false, and therefore need to be removed.

 

You quoted her entire post. The least you could have done is read the whole post. Nowhere does it say she did not sign the log. It says she was accused of not signing the log by a third party. I have seen plenty of caches where the entries in the log were on multiple sheets and out of order. Maybe the accuser chose the wrong sheet.

 

Austin

Edited April 9, 2012 by AustinMN

[+hairball45]

I think I have questioned exactly one log on one of my caches. The name on the online log was unfamiliar, so I checked the profile and learned that the finder was from Japan, and didn't show any other logs for a cache in the States. The cache is in a rural location in Central Ohio. It sounded kind of fishy to me, so I drove out and took a look. Lo and Behold, there was his signature. Why only one cache on a stateside visit? Why mine in an obscure location in Ohio? Heck if I know, but it gave me faith in the general honesty of folks. I guess this is just another thing not to get your skivvies in a bunch over.

hairball

[+DaysJourney]

Whether to enforce signing logs or not is really up to the individual Cache Owner. Some of my friends are rather strict, others could care less if someone signs the log or not. Personally, I think signing a log is the one thing that all cachers are expected to do to signify that they did indeed find it. Call me a jerk if you want but if someone logs online that they forgot their pen or couldn't be bothered to unroll a log sheet on a cache I own, then they didn't find it. Of course, every circumstance is unique. If the finder genuinely tries to demonstrate that they did find it (take a pic, mark the log with dirt, etc) then I'm cool, otherwise, their 'find' is removed. Occasionally, I'll audit a log sheet and delete a find - if I can be certain the online logger did not sign the log in some form. I'm up front about it and always say that the log has to be signed in the cache description. That way, hopefully, there won't be any surprises. Basically, I feel that we're all expected to sign a log on a cache we find. Deciding that you don't have to for whatever reason, isn't very fair to everyone else who is making that effort.

[Skippermark]

Hi everyone. Just a quick reminder and a request to abide by the forum guidelines and not turn this thread into personal attacks against other cachers. While it's okay to disagree and share different opinions, it's not okay to be disrespectful to others. Thanks.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Skippermark