Jump to content

Can I log this?


Mole60
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

That said, there are a lot of geocachers who lie about finding caches. If the OP wants to join that club it's between his conscience and the cache owner.

 

This response may be a bit harsh but it makes a valid point. Before anyone logs a Found It on a cache they did not actually find then reading the topic quoted above should give them a broader perspective on that action.

 

To so coldly call it lying is a bit out of character for the O/Ps perspective on the game. If they thought it was a dirty, rotten lie then they would not have come here for a discussion.

 

And, too, the cache owners who encourage logging finds when the cache is not found don't have malice in their hearts. They simply "feel the pain" of the searcher and are offering what they feel is an o.k. remedy.

 

I think they all might benefit by reading the quoted link.

 

Edit: To remove snide comment meant to be humorous about armchair logging - the literal type of armchair logging where the cache site and often even the country is not visited.

Edited by Team Sagefox
Link to comment

it was 100 percent deserved.

 

To you, yes, to me, no. I would never log a cache that I didn't find, regardless of extenuating circumstances.

See my edit to my comment above - I added that my log fully described what happened. And I'm a casual cacher, so whether my find count is 46 or 47 shouldn't worry the die-hard, dead-serious professional cachers who find dozens of caches every Saturday.

Link to comment

With power trails and leap frogging and folks who claim 700 caches in a day, do not understand why folks would call folks liars for claiming a find on a single cache in this circumstance. To say that you would not do it is fine, but then extending this to jumping off bridges, calling it phony, lying, armchair logging, whatever. Its a single find. For me caching is also about showing where I have been. If I was worried about getting my #s up, I could find tons of ways to do it. I will probably cache for 10 hours here shortly in a day and get 3 caches. If I wanted to get 50, I could find a ton of lamp skirts. If I was there and the CO said its okay to log it if missing, do not know why folks would be in a tizzy. Sure they may not do it themselves and that is fine.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment

Agreed. It's a cache in a foreign land the CO might never be able to visit again. The log can reflect the search and the fact that the find is based on the CO's permission rather an actual find. My stats are for me anyway--for nobody else. Even my list of FTFs on my profile is because I'll see them there when I look at my profile--I don't suppose anyone else ever really goes there and scrolls down. If I want to see that cache in my list of places I've cached and on a map with all the memories attached--then I'd go ahead and log it. It's not like I'd be using it be the number # cacher in the world or whatever. It's a hobby, and the finds are a list of places I've cached. There was a thread recently of someone wanting to log a find in Cuba that was gone--in that case I gave my opinion that it shouldn't be logged because the OP had other Cuba finds, so don't do it. But this is the one and only cache the OP had the time to look for.

Edited by Dame Deco
Link to comment

it was 100 percent deserved.

 

To you, yes, to me, no. I would never log a cache that I didn't find, regardless of extenuating circumstances.

See my edit to my comment above - I added that my log fully described what happened. And I'm a casual cacher, so whether my find count is 46 or 47 shouldn't worry the die-hard, dead-serious professional cachers who find dozens of caches every Saturday.

 

This has nothing to do with other cachers or how casual you are. It also doesn't matter how thoroughly you searched or that the cache owner gave the ok to log found. The end result and simple truth is that the cache was not found.

Link to comment

If the cache owner said it was ok to log a find because the cache was missing, I would think logging a find would be OK. I say go for it and call it a day.

And if the cache owner said it was okay to log a "find" without ever leaving your armchair, then would logging an armchair "find" be okay, too?

Because obviously traveling to the other side of the world, searching for a container that might have been muggled by a monkey, and discovering an empty hiding spot, is exactly the same as logging a find on a cache from an armchair.

I didn't say it was exactly the same. I simply pointed out that the cache owner's permission doesn't make it okay for me to log a find when I didn't find the cache. It doesn't matter if I traveled across the world or across my living room; I still didn't find the cache. Using the cache owner's permission as an excuse to say I "found" it just seems silly to me.

Generally, if you're going to suggest that two different scenarios have the same outcome (posting a found it log) those two scenarios should probably be the same.

The different scenarios helped explain why I think the excuse for both scenarios (having the cache owner's permission) is rather silly. Most people agree that having the cache owner's permission doesn't justify an armchair "Found It" for an unfound cache. So why should having the cache owner's permission justify logging a "Found It" for a cache one didn't find at GZ? In both scenarios, the cache wasn't found.

 

I don't consider posting a found it log on a web site for similar to stealing money from a cash register either.

It's called an analogy, and analogies can involve radically different situations as long as they share at least one similarity. Indeed, wild differences often highlight the point of the similarity. In this case, the similarity is pretty simple: Increased temptation doesn't change the definition of either "find" or "theft."

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

it was 100 percent deserved.

 

To you, yes, to me, no. I would never log a cache that I didn't find, regardless of extenuating circumstances.

See my edit to my comment above - I added that my log fully described what happened. And I'm a casual cacher, so whether my find count is 46 or 47 shouldn't worry the die-hard, dead-serious professional cachers who find dozens of caches every Saturday.

 

This has nothing to do with other cachers or how casual you are. It also doesn't matter how thoroughly you searched or that the cache owner gave the ok to log found. The end result and simple truth is that the cache was not found.

 

I presented the facts of my search in my DNF log. The CO subsequently determined the cache to be missing. Unexpectedly, he notified me & a few others that we should claim it as found. The CO is the arbiter of the find - for example, the CO has power to delete dubiuos "found" logs. I did not spot a cache & stop short of climbing a tree or rappeling down a hill. I literally did everthing humanly possible in a clearly-defined GZ, but a muggle had robbed the cache & robbed me of a find. The CO as arbiter of finds determined that that was unfair to diligent searchers like me, & ruled it a find.

 

Some may disagree, but I sleep peacefully at night. True, this find may have an asterisk, but I fully disclosed the circumstances, and am not using statistics to beat anyone in this "non-competitive" game. Is this find the same as one where I open the box and sign the log? Of course not, & I know that. The historical facts are what they are. The CO's determination is what it is. My memories of wishing I had gloves because of the holly bush stickers are what they are.

 

Also, this cache was a rare event. I'm not looking for creative ways to turn DNF's into smileys. I agree with the "purists" that "found" should have a clear meaning.

Link to comment
The act of caching is not a reason to claim a find.

 

Pretty much sums it up.

 

I suspect that, later on, the colored-in country on the map won't really be as satisfying as originally thought.

 

I had one shot in Costa Rica 10 years ago. I could not find the cache and that is the only foreign country I've been to since 2000 and the cache turned out to be missing. I would not want that country showing red on our maps. That would feel creepy.

 

First of all, I disagree with the assertion that this has anything to do with "the numbers". It's just one cache.

 

I don't quite understand this reply to my comment. :huh:

 

Neither the Blue D's or my post are talking about numbers.

 

That was more in response to an early post where BD wrote"

But hey, caching is about the numbers. Actually finding them is just silly.

 

My point was that if someone has hundreds or thousands of finds and they decide post a found it log on a cache they didn't technically find, they're not doing it "for the numbers". If they made a habit of it or spent all day sitting in an armchair posting found it logs on caches in countries on the other side of the world, that would be different, but that's not what happened here.

 

I think it's easy to say that "I would never log a find" on a cache like this if you've never been in a situation like the OP describes.

 

My example was intended to show that I was in the exact same situation and that I didn't log it as found nor do I want to have my geomaps show Costa Rica as a country where I found a cache.

 

Sorry for the confusion. My examples in Zambia, Ethiopia, and Kenya were similar. I didn't post found it logs on caches in those countries. either. All I was saying was unless you've (not you, specifically) actually been in a cache sparse country 8000-9000 miles from home and the only cache in the area was missing, some that are saying "I would never log a find" might understand why someone might consider posting a found it log. You've been in that situation and so have I, but I doubt that everyone that is telling the OP what they should do has that experience.

Link to comment

 

I think it's easy to say that "I would never log a find" on a cache like this if you've never been in a situation like the OP describes. I have, and on numerous occasions.

 

I do not think that it's central to have been in such a situation. For me the caching experience remains the same regardless of whether a found it is logged or not - the log type does not play a role. If a visited a nice mountain in a country where I have not been before and where I would not have went without a cache, I have been there regardless of the log type. I'm 100% sure that I would not log a find it in the described situation as it does not make sense to me personally. I'm not into collecting countries with cache finds and I neither care about maps with countries colored where one has found a cache nor do I care about souvenirs and all that stuff. The outdoor experience remains the same regardless of whether a found it log or a DNF log is written at the end after a fruitless search. The DNF log describes what happends - the find it log does not.

I might see the issue differently if the log types had different names (e.g. something like "accomplished to reach GZ").

 

Personally, I do not have any ambition to show others where I have searched for geocaches - so it does not make a difference whether I ended up with a find or not. Right now my brain is working well enough to remember in which places I went for geocaches.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
The act of caching is not a reason to claim a find.

 

Pretty much sums it up.

 

I suspect that, later on, the colored-in country on the map won't really be as satisfying as originally thought.

 

I had one shot in Costa Rica 10 years ago. I could not find the cache and that is the only foreign country I've been to since 2000 and the cache turned out to be missing. I would not want that country showing red on our maps. That would feel creepy.

 

First of all, I disagree with the assertion that this has anything to do with "the numbers". It's just one cache.

 

I don't quite understand this reply to my comment. :huh:

 

Neither the Blue D's or my post are talking about numbers.

 

That was more in response to an early post where BD wrote"

But hey, caching is about the numbers. Actually finding them is just silly.

 

My point was that if someone has hundreds or thousands of finds and they decide post a found it log on a cache they didn't technically find, they're not doing it "for the numbers". If they made a habit of it or spent all day sitting in an armchair posting found it logs on caches in countries on the other side of the world, that would be different, but that's not what happened here.

 

I think it's easy to say that "I would never log a find" on a cache like this if you've never been in a situation like the OP describes.

 

My example was intended to show that I was in the exact same situation and that I didn't log it as found nor do I want to have my geomaps show Costa Rica as a country where I found a cache.

 

Sorry for the confusion. My examples in Zambia, Ethiopia, and Kenya were similar. I didn't post found it logs on caches in those countries. either. All I was saying was unless you've (not you, specifically) actually been in a cache sparse country 8000-9000 miles from home and the only cache in the area was missing, some that are saying "I would never log a find" might understand why someone might consider posting a found it log. You've been in that situation and so have I, but I doubt that everyone that is telling the OP what they should do has that experience.

 

I have never search for a cache that far from home. But I can assure you that I know the difference between finding something and not finding something. The distance from home doesn't change the truth.

Link to comment

Then one day geocacher Deutschenbaggenstein, from another country, reads the log and decides while home sick from work one day, to write a sad tale to the owner about not finding it, and get a find also from his armchair. :rolleyes: Coloring in an entire country in your map doesn't have much meaning with only one find, and one the the next visitor can find no evidence of.

Link to comment

We generaly believe that the log must be signed to claim a find; however there was a time we were positive that we had found the container, but lid was jammed and log could not be signed. We submitted a 'write note' log instead of DNF or found. Then sent email to CO describing what we found. We received a reply saying they would make a mtce visit there for repairs, but we should claim a find as did find it (despite not signing log).

Link to comment

Coloring in an entire country in your map doesn't have much meaning with only one find, .

 

It doesn't? I have Tanzania colored in on the map and only have one find in that country. The next closest cache to the one I found (which has since been archived) was about 70 miles away and considering what the roads are like in the area, probably 3-4 hours away. The next closest after that was about 90 miles (as the crow flies) away and probably about 150 miles away by road.

Link to comment

Coloring in an entire country in your map doesn't have much meaning with only one find, .

 

It doesn't? I have Tanzania colored in on the map and only have one find in that country. The next closest cache to the one I found (which has since been archived) was about 70 miles away and considering what the roads are like in the area, probably 3-4 hours away. The next closest after that was about 90 miles (as the crow flies) away and probably about 150 miles away by road.

 

I don't think it does, especially without the logbook signed. If you are on a road trip through Texas, stop for a LPC, and it's missing. Are you going to color in the entire state because the owner said it was ok? It's like spending 15 minutes in the visitor center of Yellowstone without ever setting foot anywhere else in the place, but then plastering all of the park's stickers all over your Jeep. Just a little cheesy. :P

Link to comment

Coloring in an entire country in your map doesn't have much meaning with only one find, .

 

It doesn't? I have Tanzania colored in on the map and only have one find in that country. The next closest cache to the one I found (which has since been archived) was about 70 miles away and considering what the roads are like in the area, probably 3-4 hours away. The next closest after that was about 90 miles (as the crow flies) away and probably about 150 miles away by road.

 

I don't think it does, especially without the logbook signed. If you are on a road trip through Texas, stop for a LPC, and it's missing. Are you going to color in the entire state because the owner said it was ok? It's like spending 15 minutes in the visitor center of Yellowstone without ever setting foot anywhere else in the place, but then plastering all of the park's stickers all over your Jeep. Just a little cheesy. :P

 

I can understand the Yellowstone analogy. A few years ago on a flight from Johannesburg, South Africa to JFK we landed in Dakar, Senegal for refueling. We were only on the ground for less than an hour and I never got off the plane, so it would it be cheesy to claim that I've actually been to Senegal. However, for the 1 cache I found in Tanzania I was in the country for six days (and returned last year for another 5 days or so). I spent a considerable amount of time before I went there figuring out if I could manage to find a cache while was there. After spending four days in a small town engaged in some business, I (and one other person) hired a driver to take us about an hour and a half to Mikumi National park where we spent several hours on a day safari, then stopped to look for the only cache nearby at the entrance to the park. I found the cache, signed the log sheet (as did my non-geocaching colleague from South Africa) then, once I was able to get an internet connection, logged the find. With the park entrance fees, paying for a driver and fuel, I probably spent about $100 just for that one cache. To compare the amount of effort it took to find that one cache to a LPC in Texas with a gazillion other caches nearby is ludicrous.

Link to comment

Coloring in an entire country in your map doesn't have much meaning with only one find, .

 

It doesn't? I have Tanzania colored in on the map and only have one find in that country. The next closest cache to the one I found (which has since been archived) was about 70 miles away and considering what the roads are like in the area, probably 3-4 hours away. The next closest after that was about 90 miles (as the crow flies) away and probably about 150 miles away by road.

 

I don't think it does, especially without the logbook signed. If you are on a road trip through Texas, stop for a LPC, and it's missing. Are you going to color in the entire state because the owner said it was ok? It's like spending 15 minutes in the visitor center of Yellowstone without ever setting foot anywhere else in the place, but then plastering all of the park's stickers all over your Jeep. Just a little cheesy. :P

 

I can understand the Yellowstone analogy. A few years ago on a flight from Johannesburg, South Africa to JFK we landed in Dakar, Senegal for refueling. We were only on the ground for less than an hour and I never got off the plane, so it would it be cheesy to claim that I've actually been to Senegal. However, for the 1 cache I found in Tanzania I was in the country for six days (and returned last year for another 5 days or so). I spent a considerable amount of time before I went there figuring out if I could manage to find a cache while was there. After spending four days in a small town engaged in some business, I (and one other person) hired a driver to take us about an hour and a half to Mikumi National park where we spent several hours on a day safari, then stopped to look for the only cache nearby at the entrance to the park. I found the cache, signed the log sheet (as did my non-geocaching colleague from South Africa) then, once I was able to get an internet connection, logged the find. With the park entrance fees, paying for a driver and fuel, I probably spent about $100 just for that one cache. To compare the amount of effort it took to find that one cache to a LPC in Texas with a gazillion other caches nearby is ludicrous.

 

 

But you did find the cache and sign the log and that makes all the difference. :D

 

Coloring an entire country for a single fake find is cheesy. But that's just my opinion, yours may differ. It's like chopping a quote in half and taking it out of context. :P

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

[ With the park entrance fees, paying for a driver and fuel, I probably spent about $100 just for that one cache.

 

Did you spend the money just to color Tanzania on your cache map or because you wanted to visit the park as well and finding the cache was then just a kind of by-product?

Would you have preferred to visit a boring location with a cache to an amazing location without cache if the invested money and time were the same?

 

Apart from the frustration that might result from searching for something in vain for a long time, I cannot see any difference for me between a DNF and a found it log.

If the first case applies, then this is probably the reason why it plays such an important role for your where the cache is located regarding the question whether a found it log is ok for a cache one did not find the cache.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Coloring in an entire country in your map doesn't have much meaning with only one find, .

 

It doesn't? I have Tanzania colored in on the map and only have one find in that country. The next closest cache to the one I found (which has since been archived) was about 70 miles away and considering what the roads are like in the area, probably 3-4 hours away. The next closest after that was about 90 miles (as the crow flies) away and probably about 150 miles away by road.

 

I don't think it does, especially without the logbook signed. If you are on a road trip through Texas, stop for a LPC, and it's missing. Are you going to color in the entire state because the owner said it was ok? It's like spending 15 minutes in the visitor center of Yellowstone without ever setting foot anywhere else in the place, but then plastering all of the park's stickers all over your Jeep. Just a little cheesy. :P

 

I can understand the Yellowstone analogy. A few years ago on a flight from Johannesburg, South Africa to JFK we landed in Dakar, Senegal for refueling. We were only on the ground for less than an hour and I never got off the plane, so it would it be cheesy to claim that I've actually been to Senegal. However, for the 1 cache I found in Tanzania I was in the country for six days (and returned last year for another 5 days or so). I spent a considerable amount of time before I went there figuring out if I could manage to find a cache while was there. After spending four days in a small town engaged in some business, I (and one other person) hired a driver to take us about an hour and a half to Mikumi National park where we spent several hours on a day safari, then stopped to look for the only cache nearby at the entrance to the park. I found the cache, signed the log sheet (as did my non-geocaching colleague from South Africa) then, once I was able to get an internet connection, logged the find. With the park entrance fees, paying for a driver and fuel, I probably spent about $100 just for that one cache. To compare the amount of effort it took to find that one cache to a LPC in Texas with a gazillion other caches nearby is ludicrous.

 

 

But you did find the cache and sign the log and that makes all the difference. :D

 

True. It's sort of like buying lottery tickets. If someone doesn't buy a lottery tickets the chance of winning (coloring in the map) is zero. The odds increase significantly just by purchasing one lottery ticket, but not so much if someone buys two tickets. If someone ever told me it was cheesy if I managed to win the lottery after only buying a single ticket I'd still take the money.

 

 

Coloring an entire country for a single fake find is cheesy. But that's just my opinion, yours may differ. It's like chopping a quote in half and taking it out of context. :P

 

Guilty. But to be fair, I did chop the quote in half at the comma (despite recent examples in the forums, punctuation is important).

Link to comment

it was 100 percent deserved.

 

To you, yes, to me, no. I would never log a cache that I didn't find, regardless of extenuating circumstances.

See my edit to my comment above - I added that my log fully described what happened. And I'm a casual cacher, so whether my find count is 46 or 47 shouldn't worry the die-hard, dead-serious professional cachers who find dozens of caches every Saturday.

 

.. I am as far from "professional" as you are, my find count is 227 (at this moment) but I still wouldn't log a cache in your situation.

Link to comment

[ With the park entrance fees, paying for a driver and fuel, I probably spent about $100 just for that one cache.

 

Did you spend the money just to color Tanzania on your cache map or because you wanted to visit the park as well and finding the cache was then just a kind of by-product?

Would you have preferred to visit a boring location with a cache to an amazing location without cache if the invested money and time were the same?

 

Uh, no, I wouldn't have preferred to visit a boring location, though I could have done without the excitement of swatting tsetse flies that came into our vehicle while in the park. In this case, the nearest cache to where I was staying happened to be a couple of hours away at the entrance to a national park and game preserve. As it turned out, the next closest cache was also at the entrance to a game preserve but it probably would have take twice as long to get there. Yes, I would have visited the park even if there wasn't a cache there but the fact that there was a cache did play a factor in whether or not to spend the money.

Link to comment

If the cache owner said it was ok to log a find because the cache was missing, I would think logging a find would be OK. I say go for it and call it a day.

And if the cache owner said it was okay to log a "find" without ever leaving your armchair, then would logging an armchair "find" be okay, too?

Not the same thing here. The cacher was there and the cache was gone. The owner checked and the cache was gone thus telling the cacher it's ok to log a find. Log a find, no big deal. I think that is a very nice CO to do that.

Link to comment

Found it.

 

Didn't find it.

 

The definitions are clear.

 

Obviously we need a third log type: Didn't find it but entitled to claim a find anyway.

 

It can even come with its own special souvenir.

 

VM-296PARTICPANT.jpg

See thats the thing here, the OP said nothing about entitlement. The CO infact is offering the OP to log a find. Big difference, so put your lame badge away. :laughing:

Link to comment

If the cache owner said it was ok to log a find because the cache was missing, I would think logging a find would be OK. I say go for it and call it a day.

And if the cache owner said it was okay to log a "find" without ever leaving your armchair, then would logging an armchair "find" be okay, too?

Not the same thing here. The cacher was there and the cache was gone. The owner checked and the cache was gone thus telling the cacher it's ok to log a find.

The principle is the same, though. In neither case does the geocacher find the cache. In neither case does a cache owner giving permission change the fact that the geocacher did not find the cache. Of course, in both cases the geocacher could log a "find." But in both cases, I think it's a rather silly thing to do. It's not something I do (although I've been given the opportunity to do so several times).

Link to comment

If the cache owner said it was ok to log a find because the cache was missing, I would think logging a find would be OK. I say go for it and call it a day.

And if the cache owner said it was okay to log a "find" without ever leaving your armchair, then would logging an armchair "find" be okay, too?

Not the same thing here. The cacher was there and the cache was gone. The owner checked and the cache was gone thus telling the cacher it's ok to log a find.

The principle is the same, though. In neither case does the geocacher find the cache. In neither case does a cache owner giving permission change the fact that the geocacher did not find the cache. Of course, in both cases the geocacher could log a "find." But in both cases, I think it's a rather silly thing to do. It's not something I do (although I've been given the opportunity to do so several times).

In THIS case the cacher was there and the cache was missing. Then the CO says to go ahead and log a find. In YOUR case it's not even the same. You get me. :rolleyes: I agree he didnt find the cache BUT the CO said it's OK to log a find. I know people who do this and seems fair to me.

Edited by the4dirtydogs
Link to comment

Found it.

 

Didn't find it.

 

The definitions are clear.

 

Obviously we need a third log type: Didn't find it but entitled to claim a find anyway.

 

It can even come with its own special souvenir.

 

VM-296PARTICPANT.jpg

See thats the thing here, the OP said nothing about entitlement. The CO infact is offering the OP to log a find. Big difference, so put your lame badge away. :laughing:

It ain't for the OP, it doesn't look like they need it.

Link to comment

If the cache owner said it was ok to log a find because the cache was missing, I would think logging a find would be OK. I say go for it and call it a day.

And if the cache owner said it was okay to log a "find" without ever leaving your armchair, then would logging an armchair "find" be okay, too?

Not the same thing here. The cacher was there and the cache was gone. The owner checked and the cache was gone thus telling the cacher it's ok to log a find.

The principle is the same, though. In neither case does the geocacher find the cache. In neither case does a cache owner giving permission change the fact that the geocacher did not find the cache. Of course, in both cases the geocacher could log a "find." But in both cases, I think it's a rather silly thing to do. It's not something I do (although I've been given the opportunity to do so several times).

In THIS case the cacher was there and the cache was missing. Then the CO says to go ahead and log a find. In YOUR case it's not even the same. You get me. :rolleyes: I agree he didnt find the cache BUT the CO said it's OK to log a find. I know people who do this and seems fair to me.

In THIS case the cache was missing, so the geocacher DID NOT FIND it. The CO's permission doesn't change the fact that the geocacher DID NOT FIND it. Thus, logging a "find" in this situation seems rather silly to me--with or without the CO's permission. It's really just that simple.

Link to comment

If the cache owner said it was ok to log a find because the cache was missing, I would think logging a find would be OK. I say go for it and call it a day.

And if the cache owner said it was okay to log a "find" without ever leaving your armchair, then would logging an armchair "find" be okay, too?

Not the same thing here. The cacher was there and the cache was gone. The owner checked and the cache was gone thus telling the cacher it's ok to log a find.

The principle is the same, though. In neither case does the geocacher find the cache. In neither case does a cache owner giving permission change the fact that the geocacher did not find the cache. Of course, in both cases the geocacher could log a "find." But in both cases, I think it's a rather silly thing to do. It's not something I do (although I've been given the opportunity to do so several times).

In THIS case the cacher was there and the cache was missing. Then the CO says to go ahead and log a find. In YOUR case it's not even the same. You get me. :rolleyes: I agree he didnt find the cache BUT the CO said it's OK to log a find. I know people who do this and seems fair to me.

In THIS case the cache was missing, so the geocacher DID NOT FIND it. The CO's permission doesn't change the fact that the geocacher DID NOT FIND it. Thus, logging a "find" in this situation seems rather silly to me--with or without the CO's permission. It's really just that simple.

I dont think it's silly to log a find. The CO said go ahead and thats all that matters, silly or not. It's really just that simple.

Edited by the4dirtydogs
Link to comment

Found it.

 

Didn't find it.

 

The definitions are clear.

 

Obviously we need a third log type: Didn't find it but entitled to claim a find anyway.

 

It can even come with its own special souvenir.

 

VM-296PARTICPANT.jpg

See thats the thing here, the OP said nothing about entitlement. The CO infact is offering the OP to log a find. Big difference, so put your lame badge away. :laughing:

It ain't for the OP, it doesn't look like they need it.

Oh, must have been an attempt at comedy. Still lame. :laughing:

Link to comment

Found it.

 

Didn't find it.

 

The definitions are clear.

 

Obviously we need a third log type: Didn't find it but entitled to claim a find anyway.

 

It can even come with its own special souvenir.

 

VM-296PARTICPANT.jpg

See thats the thing here, the OP said nothing about entitlement. The CO infact is offering the OP to log a find. Big difference, so put your lame badge away. :laughing:

It ain't for the OP, it doesn't look like they need it.

Oh, must have been an attempt at comedy. Still lame. :laughing:

 

At the risk of seeming like I am enjoying being contrary, I think it did deserve a smile.

 

But not a smiley! Pow! Zing!

 

Okay that was lame. :lol:

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

If the cache owner said it was ok to log a find because the cache was missing, I would think logging a find would be OK. I say go for it and call it a day.

And if the cache owner said it was okay to log a "find" without ever leaving your armchair, then would logging an armchair "find" be okay, too?

Not the same thing here. The cacher was there and the cache was gone. The owner checked and the cache was gone thus telling the cacher it's ok to log a find.

The principle is the same, though. In neither case does the geocacher find the cache. In neither case does a cache owner giving permission change the fact that the geocacher did not find the cache. Of course, in both cases the geocacher could log a "find." But in both cases, I think it's a rather silly thing to do. It's not something I do (although I've been given the opportunity to do so several times).

In THIS case the cacher was there and the cache was missing. Then the CO says to go ahead and log a find. In YOUR case it's not even the same. You get me. :rolleyes: I agree he didnt find the cache BUT the CO said it's OK to log a find. I know people who do this and seems fair to me.

In THIS case the cache was missing, so the geocacher DID NOT FIND it. The CO's permission doesn't change the fact that the geocacher DID NOT FIND it. Thus, logging a "find" in this situation seems rather silly to me--with or without the CO's permission. It's really just that simple.

I dont think it's silly to log a find. The CO said go ahead and thats all that matters, silly or not. It's really just that simple.

 

I will say that if you are gong to log a cache you didn't find, having owner permission is a point in the logger's favor. (to a point) I've had the same opportunity and turned it down. It was a difficult cache, granted it wasn't a distant country, but I take pride in my efforts. Especially when I gave it the extra effort.

 

I've been tempted way more than once to claim a state or day of the year when I really didn't find a cache, like using one I found a day later. I knew without a doubt no one else would know, but then I think about the fact that I would know that it was a lie. So I bite the bullet and wait for my next opportunity. Even if it is unlikely to ever come around again.

 

I ended up adopting that difficult cache.

 

Page 2

Link to comment

I dont think it's silly to log a find. The CO said go ahead and thats all that matters, silly or not. It's really just that simple.

 

In many ways thus thread is all too predictable with comparisons to lying, theft, and armchair logging. But I agree it is rather simple.

 

When I recently did a few caches out of town and qualified for a challenge based on local caches. The container was missing and the CO told me I could log it as a find. I declined to do so. At this point I do not need another smiley and perhaps someday I'll go that way again.

 

On the other hand I have a cache that has disappeared a time or two. It was not meant to be a tough hide and the attachment device remained in place. So when people from out of state (or from other countries) have let me know it is missing, described the attachment, and asked to log it as a find, I have given permission.

 

It has nothing to do with lying. It would have been easy to lie but they did not do that.

 

Is it armchair logging? Not unless they brought a chair.

 

Is it a find? I suppose that depends on what is important to you about the game. I have no problem if they call it a find. It is more of a find than the way that some teams have approached repetitive caching.

 

Is it silly? Perhaps. We play a game that is a little silly. Obsessing about what deserves a smiley is a little silly. My first advice to anyone in the OP's situation is to do what they think is right. My second piece of advice is that the forum is not the best place to figure out the answer. So if you do what you think is right, anybody who reads the log and becomes upset has way too much time on their hands.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

If the cache owner said it was ok to jump off a bridge, I'm sure it would be okay also. It's just between you and the water below you. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah thats the same thing. Jumping off a bridge and finding a cache. I want some of what you people are smoking. :rolleyes:

 

Sorry, but its all gone. :unsure:

 

However, you are welcome to walk around with an empty pipe in your mouth and try to act cool, as it's much like logging a fake find. :P

Link to comment

I dont think it's silly to log a find. The CO said go ahead and thats all that matters, silly or not. It's really just that simple.

 

 

I've allowed cachers who haven't signed the logbook to log a find on my caches. It doesn't mean that I would do it, and it doesn't mean that I don't think it's silly, because it is. :rolleyes:

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I dont think it's silly to log a find. The CO said go ahead and thats all that matters, silly or not. It's really just that simple.

 

In many ways thus thread is all too predictable with comparisons to lying, theft, and armchair logging. But I agree it is rather simple.

 

When I recently did a few caches out of town and qualified for a challenge based on local caches. The container was missing and the CO told me I could log it as a find. I declined to do so. At this point I do not need another smiley and perhaps someday I'll go that way again.

 

On the other hand I have a cache that has disappeared a time or two. It was not meant to be a tough hide and the attachment device remained in place. So when people from out of state (or from other countries) have let me know it is missing, described the attachment, and asked to log it as a find, I have given permission.

 

It has nothing to do with lying. It would have been easy to lie but they did not do that.

 

Is it armchair logging? Not unless they brought a chair.

 

Is it a find? I suppose that depends on what is important to you about the game. I have no problem if they call it a find. It is more of a find than the way that some teams have approached repetitive caching.

 

Is it silly? Perhaps. We play a game that is a little silly. Obsessing about what deserves a smiley is a little silly. My first advice to anyone in the OP's situation is to do what they think is right. My second piece of advice is that the forum is not the best place to figure out the answer. So if you do what you think is right, anybody who reads the log and becomes upset has way too much time on their hands.

 

But apparently you don't have enough time to verify or ensure your cache is viable. That silly old thing? Just claim a find.

Link to comment

[but apparently you don't have enough time to verify or ensure your cache is viable. That silly old thing? Just claim a find.

 

Do you always make these kind of assumptions? Although things can occassionally slip by if I am working longer hours than normal, I generally disable caches right away, sometimes after verifying where the person searched. And l would be less inclined to accept a find on a disabled cache. How much time I have after that is really none of your business (unless you happen to be my reviewer). But really my time has nothing to do with what I was discussing so perhaps your assumptions are better unsaid.

Link to comment

[but apparently you don't have enough time to verify or ensure your cache is viable. That silly old thing? Just claim a find.

 

Do you always make these kind of assumptions? Although things can occassionally slip by if I am working longer hours than normal, I generally disable caches right away, sometimes after verifying where the person searched. And l would be less inclined to accept a find on a disabled cache. How much time I have after that is really none of your business (unless you happen to be my reviewer). But really my time has nothing to do with what I was discussing so perhaps your assumptions are better unsaid.

 

No assumptions whatsoever. You let people log your sometimes missing and owner-confirmed problem cache.

 

 

bd

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

No assumptions whatsoever. You let people log your sometimes missing and owner-confirmed problem cache.

 

Of course. In the circumstances I described I have let people log finds on rare occasion. Many other COs do the same. That "problem cache" has been around quite a while and I really do like the location. So I monitor it. I disable it when I think there is actually a problem, and respond appropriately. I do not care if you want to discuss whether my reasons for letting someone log a find under the circumstance I described are valid in your opinion, but if you make assumptions about my thoughts or attitudes, well --

 

That silly old thing? Just claim a find

 

and whether I take the time to maintain it is an assumption since I have never expressed anything close to that attitude. While I could make other assumptions about you based upon that, I will not do so here. But it is one reason why I would not advise anyone to come to this forum for advice about this kind of issue.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

When I recently did a few caches out of town and qualified for a challenge based on local caches, the container was missing and the CO told me I could log it as a find.

 

This is where I might consider logging a find an appropriate exemption to a strict black-and-white Found It policy.

 

Challenge caches are all about finding a series of qualifying caches. The early Challenge caches typically did not have final caches. This requirement was added later by Groundspeak and while I don't disagree with that policy I believe the final container is merely a record keeping device. I would find it acceptable if someone left a paper signature at the site as proof of the visit and that paper could be added to the replacement container that will, no doubt, follow. Getting to the site and leaving a signature should be mandatory.

Link to comment

If the cache owner said it was ok to jump off a bridge, I'm sure it would be okay also. It's just between you and the water below you. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah thats the same thing. Jumping off a bridge and finding a cache. I want some of what you people are smoking. :rolleyes:

 

Sorry, but its all gone. :unsure:

 

However, you are welcome to walk around with an empty pipe in your mouth and try to act cool, as it's much like logging a fake find. :P

I had NO idea that logging fake finds would make you cool...who would of thought that? And I thought jumping off a bridge with an empty pipe in your mouth was cool. :blink:

Link to comment

If the cache owner said it was ok to jump off a bridge, I'm sure it would be okay also. It's just between you and the water below you. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah thats the same thing. Jumping off a bridge and finding a cache. I want some of what you people are smoking. :rolleyes:

 

Sorry, but its all gone. :unsure:

 

However, you are welcome to walk around with an empty pipe in your mouth and try to act cool, as it's much like logging a fake find. :P

I had NO idea that logging fake finds would make you cool...who would of thought that? And I thought jumping off a bridge with an empty pipe in your mouth was cool. :blink:

 

It appear that you have plenty to learn, grasshopper. :D

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...