I'm considering....

[+thehoomer]

Allowing DNF'ers on our caches to log a retrospective 'find' if we visit the site and cant find the cache ourselves and have to replace it. If the cache proves to be present when we do a maint trip (after a few DNF's), we would obviously not extend this offer. What do you all think? Pitfalls?

[+Gackt]

Personally, if I was given the option to log a cache that I had tried to find, that had actually gone missing and so I hadn't found, I wouldn't, even if it was at the centre of the earth. I am not so numbers orientated as some. I have been given this option previously actually, for a cache that was not missing, but was unable to reach without breaking laws (building construction fencing had gone up around the cache), but I declined to to take up the offer and just posted a note. That's just the way I play the game. Others did take up the offer though and logged a find.

 

I am sure some people would appreciate you doing this, and others will be the same as I. And even though I wouldn't log a find, it bothers me not if others do. Don't know if that helps you make a decision, but that's my little input.

[+Delta68]

Allowing DNF'ers on our caches to log a retrospective 'find' if we visit the site and cant find the cache ourselves and have to replace it. If the cache proves to be present when we do a maint trip (after a few DNF's), we would obviously not extend this offer. What do you all think? Pitfalls?

 

We've always done that on our Puzzles and Wherigos

With Trads it's just bad luck!

 

 

Mark

[+Beach_hut]

Depends if the cacher is local and can easily get back to have another go and sign the log. If they've travelled a long way, I'd consider it.

[+Afterburned]

I visited the final of a puzzle 3 times, and it was replaced and muggled in between each visit! It was archived but the CO offered me to log a find first.

I politely declined, my caching buddy got the smiley.

It depends how you want to play, I would rather have an accurate account of my caching life, just in case one day I am famous and someone wants to read it.

The CO was a reviewer so morally it must be ok!

 

(just to avoid ambiguity there is some tounge in cheek above)

[+Jonovich]

It would be a lie to log a "Found it" if you didn't, the clue is in the name...

 

There could be a third option for pussies that prefer it, not sure on the wording, but something short and sweet that sums up "I never actually found this, even though it could still have been about here somewhere when I looked, but was not findable by the cache owner sometime later when they searched, so I'd like to pretend I actually found it and signed the log book because logging a 'did not find' is too painful, despite being the most accurate option".

 

For an encore you can go on to prove that black is white and get yourself killed on the next pedestrian crossing. [with thanks Douglas Adams]

 

Jonovich.

[+Happy Humphrey]

If they posted a DNF after NOT finding the cache, then obviously it remains a DNF. Otherwise, I'd be VERY confused when checking past logs. Find a cache = find, don't find a cache = DNF. It's simply a record of what happened. Why would you add some sort of grey area?

 

I would never log a cache as a find if I know I didn't find it. What would be the point? That would be like going out to look for a rare bird, not seeing one, then coming home and recording that you had. If that isn't futile then I don't know what is. Perhaps the cache isn't in place; it happens, just record that you didn't find it (for whatever reason).

[+Bear and Ragged]

There are those that will accept the find, if offered, and those that wont accept.

 

I suspect that most of those here in the forums are the ones that wont accept the find if offered...

[+thehoomer]

I take all your points on board. I wasn't intending to make it a blanket policy for all our caches, simply the stand-alone's/puzzles/multi's. If implemented, it would be as a gesture of goodwill and nothing more. If we ever have cause to disable a cache through DNF's, it is rarely disabled for longer than a week before it gets checked and replaced if necessary. So any retrospective 'found' logs would be granted once the cache had been replaced anyway. If my memory serves me right, we have never accepted this kind of offer ourselves but I know plenty who would be appreciative of the smiley after some reasonable leg or detective work. To be frank, I am grateful of the DNF's which highlight a potential problem and am staggered at the number of VERY experienced cachers who do not log them.

[+Jonovich]

Excellent caches are always worth a re-visit. (even those that were found and signed).

 

If it's felt not worth the effort to go back and actually find the cache, then it's just a numbers hunt and shows a shallow and vain cacher, probably more interested in going out to find another series of eighty, then 'wasting' a day to revisit just one.

 

As for folks not logging DNF's, that's another topic altogether, but again falls into the vain category in my book. Too worried about how they look on their stats, their facebook and the shame of their DNF's being tweeted and re-tweeted, than the actual recording of their days caching activities.

 

I wouldn't offer to allow anyone to log a DNF as a found, however if someone asks to, then I don't deny them it, life's to short to worry about it.

 

Jonovich

[+Original A1]

I did it as a gesture of goodwill last week. It was taken up.

 

I don't think I'd claim a find, personally, but everyone's different, and there had been quite a saga behind the whole thing in any case.

[+Guanajuato]

I've had owners offer to let me log a found when I've found the remains of a cache, or in a couple of cases, seen the cache but been unable to retrieve because its been thrown down a drain or 4 feet behind a fence that has been put up since the cache was hidden. I don't think I've ever taken the offers up.

I have seen logs on other caches saying something along the lines of 'I found the obvious spot, but no cache, so I shoved a piece of paper in there' logged as a find, when I've found the tatty bit of paper 6 inches from the cache.

 

The only times I do log a find when I've not signed the log are if the log is unsignable (full, shredded, soaked), a nano where the log is so tightly wound and subsequently destroyed that its impossible to extricate it, or where there's no writing implement available. Usually I offer to send a photo to the owner.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

If it's felt not worth the effort to go back and actually find the cache, then it's just a numbers hunt and shows a shallow and vain cacher, probably more interested in going out to find another series of eighty, then 'wasting' a day to revisit just one.

 

I'd disagree with that. The cost of fuel and distances to caches also figure into that shallowness. And as you get more and more you have to go further afield to get more. Agree that to some its a numbers game. However that does not make them shallow or vain. It may also mean that they enjoy playing the game that way for their statistics. We have a count game going for "most caches in one day". Our record is 79 I think. We tried to beat it a while ago. Failed by two. I'm not shallow about it nor vain. It was a personal challenge. You cannot accuse people of being shallow and vain for not playing a game the way you perceive it should be played. Unless you are a reviewer?

 

As for the rule and the original post - however you decide to do it is the correct way to do it. It is after all your cache. The one that I hate reading on logs is - "could not find after many pairs of eyes looking. There really is nowhere it could be other than where we looked so it is obviously missing. Therefore we are logging a find". Which would cause me to delete log instantly. I've seen that entry quite a few times. And to add insult to injury they log a needs maintenance stating cache needs replacing. Casting no broad statements but on the ocasions I have looked at who has logged in this way and it rarely involves anyone who has more than 100 finds. And the one that had more ...... You know who you were you .... *various words*

[+Happy Humphrey]

Although I agree with the Seaglass Pirates in general, you have to remember that someone logging a "find" when the cache wasn't actually found could affect others. Several times recently I've gone out of my way to visit / revisit caches on the basis of a recent find (after several previous DNFs). Here's an example. On some occasions I've spent half an hour searching to no avail, and been fairly sure that I was looking in the correct spot; and yet someone apparently found it easily. Weeks later there are still no more finds. I get the strong suspicion that the "find" was either mistaken or false in these cases, and you could argue that it's up to them how they play the game; but it sure wastes other peoples' time.

 

Do people really think that it's a "find" of any sort if they went to the location and the cache was missing? It's a bit hard to accept that anyone could be that stupid. From day one I realised that you go to the GPS location and search for something, then record the results.

[+thehoomer]

Hopefully my plan would not cause confusion or waste people's time. As I already mentioned, we would only give cachers the option to log a 'retrospective' find, once we had visited the site and replaced the cache if it was missing.

I'm still taking on board all the opinions though, so haven't made my mind up yet .

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

I have no problem with it myself. I was contacted by a group that thought they'd found the GZ to my night cache but that the cache was missing - they described the exact location they were in and I was satisfied they were in the right place. They respectfully didn't log and I went and checked. The cache had indeed gone, so I replaced it and let them log a find.

 

I've been offered to convert a previous DNF after the CO has confirmed it missing - I took them up on the offer. I've also logged a found log upon finding a logbook and lid but nothing else, I've logged found if it's the (obvious) container but logbook missing. I logged a find recently on a cache that I didn't want to disturb because it was in the middle of an ants nest - I took photo's and a video instead (I also offered to convert the log to DNF if the CO requested). I dropped a cache off a bridge once and contacted the CO to apologise - I dropped it before I managed to get the log out - the CO was OK with my found log.

 

It's not about the numbers to me, but it is about my journey - many caches I won't get to go back but I still want a journal of where we've been and I use geocaching.com to keep that.

 

Just to balance it out, here's some things I will log a DNF for: Neither logbook nor container found; unless confirmed with CO, I will not put a throw-down; If I find a container but going by the description it's not the correct one - I've seen people put their own logs in a rat-trap - but if the CO is aware and not bothered then I don't try to intercede.

 

You're the CO, it's ultimately your judgement call - but remember the game is also about fun and pick your battles wisely.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I've been offered to convert a previous DNF after the CO has confirmed it missing - I took them up on the offer.

That seems a bit puzzling - it infers that you didn't find the cache at all. Isn't that a DNF? Particularly considering your comment:

It's not about the numbers to me, but it is about my journey - many caches I won't get to go back but I still want a journal of where we've been and I use geocaching.com to keep that.

 

Just to balance it out, here's some things I will log a DNF for: Neither logbook nor container found

I'm even more confused.

I also regard my cache logs as a journal, but if I don't find a cache then I log that I haven't found it and that's all part of the journal. So none of the above seems to make any sense. Perhaps it's clear but I'm just being slow!

 

As an example, I can look at my cache logs from Wednesday and see that I attempted a cache series consisting of 24 caches. At a glance I can see that I had finds on numbers 1,8,9,10,11,12,14,16,18,22 and 23. DNF on 5,13,15,17,19,20,and 21 (the others I'd already found on a previous visit, except 24 which I couldn't attempt). 13,15 and 17 are now disabled as the CO suspects they have disappeared. Would you be inclined to log those as "finds" in some way? If so, it would seem bizarre: I never found them, and whether they were there to be found or not is irrelevant. At the moment my DNFs are useful to me as a record, and to others for obvious reasons.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

@humphrey

 

You go to a car park. The ticket machine is broken. Oh well you think. That's not my fault ill just put a note in the window "machine broken" and off you toddle. When you arrive back at the car you have a fixed penalty notice for failure to display a ticket. Well you did you're best to get a valid ticket. But it was not possible to get the ticket. So I presume from your post you would happily pay the fine. (Which you do not have to do btw)

 

You see he is saying he went (spent time and petrol and effort and disturbed the precious environment etc) to get the cache. But it was impossible to find as it was missing. Is that his fault? No. Is it the owners fault - maybe maybe not. But it is definitely NOT the seekers fault

But he went out there, in good faith to find the cache which is required to be there. . After it was discovered missing the owner (who's property it is) decided to offer this to people. If anyone took it up that is surly a matter between seeker and hider. And no one can criticise the outcome as its nothing to do with them.

 

If others would not have logged a find that is their choice. But presumably If they are that bloody minded about laying hands on Tupperware before they could ever possibly claim a find, then we can safely say those same people won't have any earth caches in their statistics....

[+Happy Humphrey]

That might work on another listing site, where the game is to go to a location and log whether you got there or not.

 

But this one is about logging your experience as regards finding (or otherwise) the cache. It might not be your fault if you can't find it, but that doesn't matter and makes no difference to whether it was found or not. In the case of an earthcache; it's an anomaly really, but basically you record whether you "found" it according to the earthcache rules. So if you don't answer the questions correctly, it's not a "find". Personally I don't log earthcaches as "found", but instead write a note to say I visited (partly out of politeness for the listing owner and partly as a record that I visited).

 

Let's just keep it simple and fun, not get into complicated grey areas where none are needed.

[+HouseOfDragons]

One of my DNFs was right in the middle of a walk. All the hides were the same and I found the expected rock with the micro shaped dent underneath - the CO confirmed it was missing. It would have been nice had I been able to change the log to found given had clearly found where it should have been. In cases where there are several possible hiding places then you can't say whether the cacher would have found it had it been there.

[+Jonovich]

That is great, suggest you head right over, as quick as possible, to www.georockswithcacheshapedholesin.com and log your find. because sure as hell you did not find a cache. I can't understand why you think you did or why you feel the need to lie about it?Jonovich.

[+HouseOfDragons]

That is great, suggest you head right over, as quick as possible, to www.georockswithcacheshapedholesin.com and log your find. because sure as hell you did not find a cache. I can't understand why you think you did or why you feel the need to lie about it?Jonovich.

 

Did you mean to be so rude?

Edited October 27, 2012 by HouseOfDragons

[+Jonovich]

Seriously? You found that rude?

If you truly did, then I apologise, being rude was not the intention. Getting right to the point of why some cachers feel the need to lie about their activities was my intention. Perhaps you can enlighten me about why you would feel you may need to lie in your log? Is the smiley on The map that important? Is your find count so important?

Jonovich.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Sorry, HouseOfDragons, I have to agree with Jonovich. He / she is merely getting to the point; a bit direct but certainly not rude.

 

You admit that you didn't find the cache, but you want to record it as a find.

 

Why? I know that you're not the only person who does this, but it makes no sense.

[+thehoomer]

From my point of view, its not about a cacher logging a 'bogus' find. Simply a gesture of goodwill from the CO. We have taken many items back to stores and have managed to also get parking/petrol refunded because of the inconvenience caused to us. If a cacher wants to absorb this 'find' into his/her stats, it is purely personal choice surely and is not up for debate or a request to ask for a reason why?

I am a cache owner and if I chose to allow a fellow cacher to log a 'retrospective' find on a cache which was previously missing but has now been replaced, I am struggling to see what the problem is but I am open to comments as to why this would cause 'confusion' to a future cacher?

Edited to add....

You embark on a multi, find all the waypoints, do the maths and go on to make the find, which has been recently replaced (despite the previous gratis 'finds'). I am still open to views on this but please tell me how is this confusing? Like I said, its probably something I haven't considered but am definitely open to further comment.

Edited October 27, 2012 by thehoomer

[+Jonovich]

From my point of view, its not about a cacher logging a 'bogus' find. Simply a gesture of goodwill from the CO. We have taken many items back to stores and have managed to also get parking/petrol refunded because of the inconvenience caused to us. If a cacher wants to absorb this 'find' into his/her stats, it is purely personal choice surely?

I am a cache owner and if I chose to allow a fellow cacher to log a 'retrospective' find on a cache which was previously missing but has now been replaced, I am struggling to see what the problem is but I am open to comments as to why this would cause 'confusion' to a future cacher?

 

Why though? The cache seeker visited ground zero, they either didn't find it, or the cache wasn't there to be found, EITHER way, THEY DID NOT FIND IT! What purpose does them logging it as found or changing their log to say they did find it do? It's a LIE, a MIS-TRUTH, a FALSE entry.... Anything they wish to say about their hunt can be covered in a DID NOT FIND log.

 

Even if they are out caching for the numbers, if they log a DNF as a FOUND then the numbers become meaningless as they no longer reflect how many caches they actually found...

 

Logging a DNF as a FOUND just does not make sense to me and I'm struggling to understand why someone would want to do this? The only reason I can think of is vanity - not wanting to have a DNF log on their otherwise unblemished record of caches found for the 'series' or whatever.

 

Jonovich

[+thehoomer]

From my point of view, its not about a cacher logging a 'bogus' find. Simply a gesture of goodwill from the CO. We have taken many items back to stores and have managed to also get parking/petrol refunded because of the inconvenience caused to us. If a cacher wants to absorb this 'find' into his/her stats, it is purely personal choice surely?

I am a cache owner and if I chose to allow a fellow cacher to log a 'retrospective' find on a cache which was previously missing but has now been replaced, I am struggling to see what the problem is but I am open to comments as to why this would cause 'confusion' to a future cacher?

 

Why though? The cache seeker visited ground zero, they either didn't find it, or the cache wasn't there to be found, EITHER way, THEY DID NOT FIND IT! What purpose does them logging it as found or changing their log to say they did find it do? It's a LIE, a MIS-TRUTH, a FALSE entry.... Anything they wish to say about their hunt can be covered in a DID NOT FIND log.

 

Even if they are out caching for the numbers, if they log a DNF as a FOUND then the numbers become meaningless as they no longer reflect how many caches they actually found...

 

Logging a DNF as a FOUND just does not make sense to me and I'm struggling to understand why someone would want to do this? The only reason I can think of is vanity - not wanting to have a DNF log on their otherwise unblemished record of caches found for the 'series' or whatever.

 

Jonovich

[+Happy Humphrey]

From my point of view, its not about a cacher logging a 'bogus' find. Simply a gesture of goodwill from the CO. We have taken many items back to stores and have managed to also get parking/petrol refunded because of the inconvenience caused to us. If a cacher wants to absorb this 'find' into his/her stats, it is purely personal choice surely and is not up for debate or a request to ask for a reason why?

I am a cache owner and if I chose to allow a fellow cacher to log a 'retrospective' find on a cache which was previously missing but has now been replaced, I am struggling to see what the problem is but I am open to comments as to why this would cause 'confusion' to a future cacher?

Edited to add....

You embark on a multi, find all the waypoints, do the maths and go on to make the find, which has been recently replaced (despite the previous gratis 'finds'). I am still open to views on this but please tell me how is this confusing? Like I said, its probably something I haven't considered but am definitely open to further comment.

On the first point, the "gesture of goodwill" argument makes no sense. Jonovich has tried to explain, but it seems strangely difficult. I'll try with an analogy.

 

Let's say you organise a one-day free rock festival on a Saturday; although originally it was scheduled for a Sunday you had to move it a day forward and you thought that the change was well publicised. It goes with no problems, but a week later you get a complaining letter from someone who turned up on Sunday and found the site closed. This is like replying to them, offering that they can tell people that they went to the festival. How is that "goodwill"? They still didn't go, just like the people that didn't find the cache still didn't find it. It may have not been their fault, but why would they go around telling people that they went when they didn't, just like your non-finders are going around telling people that they found a cache when they didn't?

 

As I've detailed above, I've wasted time on caches recently because of what looks like bogus "finds", hence the interest in the topic. I do tend to read past logs on some caches (usually in the field when struggling) and pretend "finds" would be unhelpful. I can't say that I am annoyed if someone logs bogus retrospective "finds", but if it happens too often it does start to undermine the game a little and I'm still unsure as to what the point is supposed to be.

[+thehoomer]

From my point of view, its not about a cacher logging a 'bogus' find. Simply a gesture of goodwill from the CO. We have taken many items back to stores and have managed to also get parking/petrol refunded because of the inconvenience caused to us. If a cacher wants to absorb this 'find' into his/her stats, it is purely personal choice surely?

I am a cache owner and if I chose to allow a fellow cacher to log a 'retrospective' find on a cache which was previously missing but has now been replaced, I am struggling to see what the problem is but I am open to comments as to why this would cause 'confusion' to a future cacher?

 

Why though? The cache seeker visited ground zero, they either didn't find it, or the cache wasn't there to be found, EITHER way, THEY DID NOT FIND IT! What purpose does them logging it as found or changing their log to say they did find it do? It's a LIE, a MIS-TRUTH, a FALSE entry.... Anything they wish to say about their hunt can be covered in a DID NOT FIND log.

 

Even if they are out caching for the numbers, if they log a DNF as a FOUND then the numbers become meaningless as they no longer reflect how many caches they actually found...

 

Logging a DNF as a FOUND just does not make sense to me and I'm struggling to understand why someone would want to do this? The only reason I can think of is vanity - not wanting to have a DNF log on their otherwise unblemished record of caches found for the 'series' or whatever.

 

Jonovich

I completely understand where you are coming from and we would never take anyone up on this offer. The point is though, some people would and we want to extend that offer to them. Mis-truth or not, it is up to the individual. When we bought a set of pillows recently, they weren't up to standard. We took them back and were offered a full refund. We complained to the store manager that we had had to make an extra journey to take them back and also had to pay for parking/petrol again. After a bit of foot stamping (on our part), we were also offered the excess costs we had incurred in the whole saga. The way I see it, we are just offering cachers the same courtesy. It is up to the individual if they take us up on it isn't it?

[+Jonovich]

I completely understand where you are coming from and we would never take anyone up on this offer. The point is though, some people would and we want to extend that offer to them. Mis-truth or not, it is up to the individual. When we bought a set of pillows recently, they weren't up to standard. We took them back and were offered a full refund. We complained to the store manager that we had had to make an extra journey to take them back and also had to pay for parking/petrol again. After a bit of foot stamping (on our part), we were also offered the excess costs we had incurred in the whole saga. The way I see it, we are just offering cachers the same courtesy. It is up to the individual if they take us up on it isn't it?

 

To be blunt, that is a daft analogy.... A more comparable one would be on your first trip to buy pillows you found the store had none... It wasn't their fault... They had simply sold out.... You'd spent money on fuel and parking to get there, so head off to stamp your feet in front of the manager and demand that he magically provided you with some virtual pillows and you proudly announced to everyone willing to listen how you were successful on your pillow shopping trip.... Fellow pillow hunters would then head out to the same store in search of these pillows....

 

Jonovich.

[+thehoomer]

From my point of view, its not about a cacher logging a 'bogus' find. Simply a gesture of goodwill from the CO. We have taken many items back to stores and have managed to also get parking/petrol refunded because of the inconvenience caused to us. If a cacher wants to absorb this 'find' into his/her stats, it is purely personal choice surely and is not up for debate or a request to ask for a reason why?

I am a cache owner and if I chose to allow a fellow cacher to log a 'retrospective' find on a cache which was previously missing but has now been replaced, I am struggling to see what the problem is but I am open to comments as to why this would cause 'confusion' to a future cacher?

Edited to add....

You embark on a multi, find all the waypoints, do the maths and go on to make the find, which has been recently replaced (despite the previous gratis 'finds'). I am still open to views on this but please tell me how is this confusing? Like I said, its probably something I haven't considered but am definitely open to further comment.

On the first point, the "gesture of goodwill" argument makes no sense. Jonovich has tried to explain, but it seems strangely difficult. I'll try with an analogy.

 

Let's say you organise a one-day free rock festival on a Saturday; although originally it was scheduled for a Sunday you had to move it a day forward and you thought that the change was well publicised. It goes with no problems, but a week later you get a complaining letter from someone who turned up on Sunday and found the site closed. This is like replying to them, offering that they can tell people that they went to the festival. How is that "goodwill"? They still didn't go, just like the people that didn't find the cache still didn't find it. It may have not been their fault, but why would they go around telling people that they went when they didn't, just like your non-finders are going around telling people that they found a cache when they didn't?

 

As I've detailed above, I've wasted time on caches recently because of what looks like bogus "finds", hence the interest in the topic. I do tend to read past logs on some caches (usually in the field when struggling) and pretend "finds" would be unhelpful. I can't say that I am annoyed if someone logs bogus retrospective "finds", but if it happens too often it does start to undermine the game a little and I'm still unsure as to what the point is supposed to be.

I started typing a lengthy reply to this but then got lobotomized and deleted it. You still haven't told me how me allowing a 'RETROSPECTIVE FIND' on a cache we have 'REPLACED' would cause confusion to a FUTURE cacher? I'm not being argumentative, I just want to be secure in what I already know to be right .

[+Happy Humphrey]

You still haven't told me how me allowing a 'RETROSPECTIVE FIND' on a cache we have 'REPLACED' would cause confusion to a FUTURE cacher?

Again, I agree with Jonovich's post and analogy.

 

I sort of assumed that you'd know what I meant when I said that it would be unhelpful.

 

So a theoretical example. I have the last 10 logs saved on my GPSr, and at the cache site there's no sign of a box. After searching for a while I have a look through the logs and find that they all say along the lines of "Found it! I couldn't find the cache and the CO agreed that I could say that I had anyway.". This assumes that the latest log is from the CO replacing the box. OK, that's no worse than "TFTC" as far as information goes, although I'd be confused by why it said "found" when it was a DNF. Did they really find it or not? If not, why is it a "found" at all?

 

I think I'd be inclined to give up on this cache as there seems to be little challenge to a game where a find and non-find are regarded as one and the same. Why am I wasting my time? If it was my first ever cache I'd be totally baffled and it might be my last. I know that caching is essentially pointless, at least where easy caches are concerned, but there is an extra grade of pointlessness where you may as well just go on a walk rather than bother about caches at all. A bit like a micro in litter in a muddy ditch next to a main road.

 

Edit; I've tried (and maybe failed) to explain why it's confusing; in return, perhaps you can explain why a "Find" log is thought to be a better record of a DNF than a DNF is?

 

Oh - and well done for allowing the discussion to continue without getting annoyed.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Happy Humphrey

[+Bear and Ragged]

But, if you have the last 10 logs, you will have:

 

The Owners Maintenance log saying the cache has been replaced, and is back in action.

The Temporary Disabled log saying the owner will check if the cache is there.

Possibly a Needs Maintenance log...

Then maybe a few Found it logs saying logged with permission of CO

And maybe a DNF where the cacher doesn't want to 'Log with CO's permission" and lets the DNF stand.

 

Surely any cachers that edit a DNF to a Found will use the date they were there?

Or, even add a Found log for the same date, but leave the DNF log?

 

Now, if a lazy CO just wants to let cachers log a cache as found, and the CO knows full well the cache is missing...

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'm not saying that it's the end of the world, but given that no-one can adequately explain why a Found log is a regarded as a good way of recording your Did Not Find, surely it's obvious that a little confusion will ensue?

 

My personal approach is that if I clearly Did Not Find a cache, I log it as Did Not Find.

 

Others don't think that this is correct, and will go to some trouble to ensure that their Did Not Find is more suitably recorded as a successful find, whilst stating at the same time that it was NOT a successful find.

 

Of course, it might only be me and Jonovich that get confused over this convention.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

Now, if a lazy CO just wants to let cachers log a cache as found, and the CO knows full well the cache is missing...

So recently a couple of cachers from Norway went after my multi while on holiday in London. They provided proof that they found the first part, worked out the final GZ, got there, checked the right spot but they were there the week before I replaced the cache. Now to me they had the whole experience, apart from fiddling with a bit of paper in the cold/wind/rain/sunshine (delete as appropriate). When they contacted me I let them log the find.

 

Just how does that make me (the CO) lazy?

 

 

I'm not saying that it's the end of the world, but given that no-one can adequately explain why a Found log is a regarded as a good way of recording your Did Not Find,

 

If I regarded the cache as found, and didn't want to revisit it again then leaving it as a DNF it will still appear in my PQ's (which have the "and I haven't found" box ticked). If I log it as a find it won't keep cropping up in my PQs.

 

For the avoidance of doubt I have not logged a find on any cache that I failed to find.

[+Jonovich]

Now, if a lazy CO just wants to let cachers log a cache as found, and the CO knows full well the cache is missing...

So recently a couple of cachers from Norway went after my multi while on holiday in London. They provided proof that they found the first part, worked out the final GZ, got there, checked the right spot but they were there the week before I replaced the cache. Now to me they had the whole experience, apart from fiddling with a bit of paper in the cold/wind/rain/sunshine (delete as appropriate). When they contacted me I let them log the find.

 

 

They had the experience, they wrote about it in their Did Not Find log, why do they need to log it as a found when they didn't? Just so they can have a smiley on the map and increase their find count? Makes them vain in my book, the false smiley doesn't change their experience of the cache.

 

Anything other than a physical container is a VIRTUAL cache find, and they haven't been on the books as new caches types in anything but EarthCache format for many years.

 

Just how does that make me (the CO) lazy?

 

Temporarily turning a missing cache into a virtual I guess can be perceived as being lazy to any observers of the cache logs?

 

Technically it should be disabled at the earliest convenience of the CO. Anyone attempting to find it whilst disabled has only themselves to blame if they failed to check it was active and should not expect to be able to then log it as a found when they didn't find it.

 

I'm not saying that it's the end of the world, but given that no-one can adequately explain why a Found log is a regarded as a good way of recording your Did Not Find,

 

If I regarded the cache as found, and didn't want to revisit it again then leaving it as a DNF it will still appear in my PQ's (which have the "and I haven't found" box ticked). If I log it as a find it won't keep cropping up in my PQs.

 

For the avoidance of doubt I have not logged a find on any cache that I failed to find.

 

There is an ignore cache option to remove caches from PQ's, without having to resort to falsely logging a find when it was clearly a "did not find".

 

Jonovich

[+thehoomer]

To be honest, I think the misunderstanding (on my part) must be because we cache in a different way. We are not interested, nor do we use, look at or keep, any kind of 'stats' and wouldn't even know how to find them.

I will say again though, if a cacher logs a find on a cache which wasn't there, providing the CO is ok with it and keeps an accurate record of what has gone on on the page and replaces the cache before the retrospective 'find' is entered, where's the rub? Lets get this into perspective too, this may only occur on a 'couple' of our caches over the course of a 'couple' of years. If people want to consider us lazy, they only have to look at our caches to see how well maintained they are.

 

When we complete a puzzle/multi, we are only concerned that we completed it correctly, enjoyed it and managed to locate the box at the end. We couldn't be less interested in looking through log history. The only time we would ever look at past logs, is if we couldn't find the cache and would hope to glean some tips from what past cachers had written. In this scenario, providing there was an audit trail (just like B&R says), I would know that the cache was missing but had now been replaced. I have tried hard (truly I have) to become confused at this but have failed dismally. As I say though, it may be because I simply don't understand.

I originally asked for 'pitfalls' and whilst I have absorbed and am sorry that it may cause a couple of people to become confused, I'm not sure I have read evidence enough to take this policy back to the drawing board.....yet .

[+Bear and Ragged]

For the avoidance of doubt I have not logged a find on any cache that I failed to find.

 

I have.

 

 

But only on a cache I've previously logged a DNF on, and then returned another time and Found the cache.

[+Happy Humphrey]

To be honest, I think the misunderstanding (on my part) must be because we cache in a different way. We are not interested, nor do we use, look at or keep, any kind of 'stats' and wouldn't even know how to find them.

It's still hard to see how this explains it, but I'll have a go.

 

I think you're saying that recording your caching doesn't matter at all, and if you record a DNF as a find then it also doesn't matter. You're also saying that it's the same for almost everyone, and as we'd generally prefer to be logging finds rather than DNFs then why not just log everything as a "find" if you want to. You've saying that the only reason someone would record a DNF is for their stats (such as number of finds, or when you went caching, or which caches you looked for), and if you're not interested in stats then it's pointless; you can log it however you want and it doesn't confuse anyone (except two fuddy-duddies that like to keep things simple!).

 

In the absence of an explanation, I hope that's near enough.

[+MartyBartfast]

Temporarily turning a missing cache into a virtual I guess can be perceived as being lazy to any observers of the cache logs?

It would be more accurate to accuse me of being dishonest or deceitful, but how can it be construed as lazy?

 

Technically it should be disabled at the earliest convenience of the CO. Anyone attempting to find it whilst disabled has only themselves to blame if they failed to check it was active and should not expect to be able to then log it as a found when they didn't find it.

It was disabled as soon as I was informed it was missing, however those visitors were clearly using a PQ they had retrieved before leaving home and before it was disabled, and they were back home before they contacted me so I would assume they had little or no internet access while over here.

They're happy about what they did, so am I so I'm with Thehoomer on this whole issue.

 

There is an ignore cache option to remove caches from PQ's, without having to resort to falsely logging a find when it was clearly a "did not find".

But then it disappears from the maps as well, which would be undesirable for me.

[+Jonovich]

Temporarily turning a missing cache into a virtual I guess can be perceived as being lazy to any observers of the cache logs?

It would be more accurate to accuse me of being dishonest or deceitful, but how can it be construed as lazy?

 

I don't want to get drawn into this one, I'm not claiming anyone is lazy - however, for the sake of stating the bleeding obvious.... If a CO is not going to maintain their cache, they could simply start allowing people to claim a find by just describing the area it was hidden. The CO isn't being dishonest or deceitful, that would be the cache hunters who claim a find on something they didn't find. The CO could in this instance be perceived as being too lazy to maintain it.

 

Technically it should be disabled at the earliest convenience of the CO. Anyone attempting to find it whilst disabled has only themselves to blame if they failed to check it was active and should not expect to be able to then log it as a found when they didn't find it.

It was disabled as soon as I was informed it was missing, however those visitors were clearly using a PQ they had retrieved before leaving home and before it was disabled, and they were back home before they contacted me so I would assume they had little or no internet access while over here.

They're happy about what they did, so am I so I'm with Thehoomer on this whole issue.

 

That's marvelous and I'm pleased you are at one with your conscience. This thread was started to ask for folks views on the matter of allowing DNF's to be logged as Founds. I'm simply saying my point of view and querying the reasons why people would do otherwise.

 

There is an ignore cache option to remove caches from PQ's, without having to resort to falsely logging a find when it was clearly a "did not find".

But then it disappears from the maps as well, which would be undesirable for me.

 

The answer as I see it then is that it seems you want to hide your failed attempt at finding a cache, get a smiley on the map for it, and not have to be reminded of the fact that you never actually found the cache and need not return to do so?

 

Jonovich.

[+MartyBartfast]

The CO could in this instance be perceived as being too lazy to maintain it.

Somewhat surprised that the 'B' word gets through the filter, but then I suppose it is an American filter.

 

So not maintaining caches is lazy, can't argue with that. There's still no direct correlation between allowing people to log a DNF AS BOTH THEHOOMER AND I HAVE DESCRIBED and not maintaining caches AS BOTH THEHOOMER AND I EXPLAINED WE HAVE BEEN DOING. So no laziness there then.

 

 

There is an ignore cache option to remove caches from PQ's, without having to resort to falsely logging a find when it was clearly a "did not find".

But then it disappears from the maps as well, which would be undesirable for me.

 

The answer as I see it then is that it seems you want to hide your failed attempt at finding a cache, get a smiley on the map for it, and not have to be reminded of the fact that you never actually found the cache and need not return to do so?

 

Jonovich.

 

Not me, as I said above I've never done it. I was just putting forward a reason why some people might want to do it in response to HH.

 

FWIW I would like the maps to show DNFs with a blue face (like they do in the logs) in order to make my DNFs easier to identify for when I want to go have another try.

[+thehoomer]

To be honest, I think the misunderstanding (on my part) must be because we cache in a different way. We are not interested, nor do we use, look at or keep, any kind of 'stats' and wouldn't even know how to find them.

It's still hard to see how this explains it, but I'll have a go.

 

I think you're saying that recording your caching doesn't matter at all, and if you record a DNF as a find then it also doesn't matter. You're also saying that it's the same for almost everyone, and as we'd generally prefer to be logging finds rather than DNFs then why not just log everything as a "find" if you want to. You've saying that the only reason someone would record a DNF is for their stats (such as number of finds, or when you went caching, or which caches you looked for), and if you're not interested in stats then it's pointless; you can log it however you want and it doesn't confuse anyone (except two fuddy-duddies that like to keep things simple!).

 

In the absence of an explanation, I hope that's near enough.

I'm not sure where you get the fact that I think recording your caches isn't important, of course I do, otherwise, we wouldn't have 7000+ caches recorded. You are correct in your 2nd point though. If a cacher wants to log a DNF as a find it is perfectly ok, if a scenario like I have already mentioned has taken place. It is entirely up to the CO and the cacher in question if they choose to have this arrangement.

The point I was trying to make about stats could've perhaps been explained a little better. I shall try to elucidate...

I do not understand or care about stats at all (I do appreciate that there are many that do) but I took it from one of your previous posts, that logging a DNF as a find somehow messes up your stats when you look back over them and then causes you to become confused. Perhaps I misread your post?

I have at no time suggested that we all log everything as a find and I am baffled as to where and how you arrived at this.

[+Happy Humphrey]

The point I was trying to make about stats could've perhaps been explained a little better. I shall try to elucidate...

I do not understand or care about stats at all (I do appreciate that there are many that do) but I took it from one of your previous posts, that logging a DNF as a find somehow messes up your stats when you look back over them and then causes you to become confused. Perhaps I misread your post?

No, to me logging a DNF as a find is weird and odd. Nothing to do with stats, but sometimes I'll look back over my caching records and it's useful to see that I didn't find a certain cache. It's like a caching diary. Sometimes I then have a look and see whether a cache has been found since I posted the DNF (or disabled, or whatever). It's surprising how often someone comes along the next day and claims an easy find, even though I spent half an hour searching! I might then go and have another try. But sometimes there's a note from the CO that they've checked, and agree that the cache has gone. I may then put the cache on watch and return once it's been replaced (or, sometimes, when another cacher has found the seemingly missing cache).

 

I have at no time suggested that we all log everything as a find and I am baffled as to where and how you arrived at this.

As you hadn't (and still haven't) attempted an explanation as to why someone would log a DNF as a Find, I was trying to surmise what you meant. Perhaps incorrectly, but there's not much to go on. I still don't know what advantage there for someone to log a cache as "Found" when they didn't find it, although I've pointed out disadvantages. I can only guess that you regard the "Found it" log as meaning anything from "Found it" to "Didn't find it", so naturally it follows that in principle you'd be OK with logging anything as a "find". We've already seen that if it's not your fault that you didn't find it, then it's a find; also, if the cache appears to be missing and later gets replaced then you've "found" the new version automatically even if you have been nowhere near the cache. There are probably a lot of other scenarios as well, but I can't really guess what they might be.

But the main point is still: why? The only answer seems to be "why not?" which is just another question, and having tried to answer that one I feel that the "why?" question should be attempted by someone!

[+thehoomer]

The point I was trying to make about stats could've perhaps been explained a little better. I shall try to elucidate...

I do not understand or care about stats at all (I do appreciate that there are many that do) but I took it from one of your previous posts, that logging a DNF as a find somehow messes up your stats when you look back over them and then causes you to become confused. Perhaps I misread your post?

No, to me logging a DNF as a find is weird and odd. Nothing to do with stats, but sometimes I'll look back over my caching records and it's useful to see that I didn't find a certain cache. It's like a caching diary. Sometimes I then have a look and see whether a cache has been found since I posted the DNF (or disabled, or whatever). It's surprising how often someone comes along the next day and claims an easy find, even though I spent half an hour searching! I might then go and have another try. But sometimes there's a note from the CO that they've checked, and agree that the cache has gone. I may then put the cache on watch and return once it's been replaced (or, sometimes, when another cacher has found the seemingly missing cache).

 

I have at no time suggested that we all log everything as a find and I am baffled as to where and how you arrived at this.

As you hadn't (and still haven't) attempted an explanation as to why someone would log a DNF as a Find, I was trying to surmise what you meant. Perhaps incorrectly, but there's not much to go on. I still don't know what advantage there for someone to log a cache as "Found" when they didn't find it, although I've pointed out disadvantages. I can only guess that you regard the "Found it" log as meaning anything from "Found it" to "Didn't find it", so naturally it follows that in principle you'd be OK with logging anything as a "find". We've already seen that if it's not your fault that you didn't find it, then it's a find; also, if the cache appears to be missing and later gets replaced then you've "found" the new version automatically even if you have been nowhere near the cache. There are probably a lot of other scenarios as well, but I can't really guess what they might be.

But the main point is still: why? The only answer seems to be "why not?" which is just another question, and having tried to answer that one I feel that the "why?" question should be attempted by someone!

 

Thank you for your explanation in para 1, I am clear on that now .

 

Cachers would and indeed have logged caches as found (when they didn't find them) because for whatever reason, the CO has granted them permission to do so. I have already said, we would not take a CO up on this offer but there are cachers out there who would like to be rewarded with a smiley when they have worked hard on a multi/puzzle but were unable to sign the log because the cache was missing. So, in the scenario mentioned above this is 'why'.

If you are asking me to answer this as a general question, I have already told you, logging a find on a cache I didn't find is not something I would do, so how am I supposed to answer? You will have to direct your question to those that would.

Moreover, am I on trial here............... 'As you hadn't (and still haven't) attempted an explanation as to why someone would log a DNF as a Find

Why do you feel it is my responsibility to answer this question anyway?

Edited October 28, 2012 by thehoomer

[+Happy Humphrey]

Why do you feel it is my responsibility to answer this question anyway?

Well, you say you're considering offering this, so you must feel that it's worthwhile in some way; so it would be useful to explain your logic. If it was me I'd simply say that the cache has been replaced and those who couldn't find it before should now be able to return and find it if they wish. What's wrong with that?

[+thehoomer]

Why do you feel it is my responsibility to answer this question anyway?

Well, you say you're considering offering this, so you must feel that it's worthwhile in some way; so it would be useful to explain your logic. If it was me I'd simply say that the cache has been replaced and those who couldn't find it before should now be able to return and find it if they wish. What's wrong with that?

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that because that is how YOU would do it and in most cases, I would too.

 

My logic is transparent, lucid and comprehensible and has already been defined several times. I am offering, to those that want it, the option of a smiley on a cache which wasn’t present when they had worked hard to find it. I fail to see or understand why I need to develop any further on this. THAT is my logic - simples. Besides, as I have also already said, how can I answer your demand-like question when it is not something I would do? I have already taken your comments on board and thank you for your input. I fully appreciate that this is not something you understand and would not ever do but I confess, short of getting some 'Janet and John' books out from the library, I feel that I have now exhausted all ways of explaining this.

It seems to me, we are now in the realms of drilling unnecessarily into the molecules of the thread. I originally asked if anyone thought there were any pitfalls and apart from a couple of people who would find it confusing, no pitfalls have presented themselves.

 

I am sorry if you are still struggling to get to grips with this but I can go no further with your particular line of questioning. Your answer to this question will not and can not come from me.

[+The Blorenges]

MrsB says

 

[+Happy Humphrey]

I am sorry if you are still struggling to get to grips with this but I can go no further with your particular line of questioning. Your answer to this question will not and can not come from me.

It wasn't really a "line of questioning", just several attempts to get to the core of the original question. I'll ask someone else should this arise again.

 

Anyway, clearly we've taken this as far as it can go (and perhaps a bit further!). Thanks for persisting, and sorry if it felt like the third degree.

[+thehoomer]

I am sorry if you are still struggling to get to grips with this but I can go no further with your particular line of questioning. Your answer to this question will not and can not come from me.

It wasn't really a "line of questioning", just several attempts to get to the core of the original question. I'll ask someone else should this arise again.

 

Anyway, clearly we've taken this as far as it can go (and perhaps a bit further!). Thanks for persisting, and sorry if it felt like the third degree.

No worries HH, we got there in the end....of a sort! Cheers .