Had to delete my first bogus log

[+QuiltinNana]

I just had to delete my first log from a finder on one of my caches. We have a Christmas song series where to find the find the final - Twelve Days of Christmas - you have to gather coordinates. The finder did find each of the 10 caches needed. The final is comprised of 12 bison tubes in a huge evergreen tree, with the log being in one, the rest empty. The cache page clearly states that you must find the log, no replacement logs allowed. When the finder got to the final, his log said "found final..well sort of. No log, so left a makeshift log." I'm thinking he didn't read the cache description and just put a replacement log in the first bison tube he found.

 

My husband went to check the next morning, the original log is definitely there and he found a scrap of paper in one of the other tubes which he removed.

 

So I sent the finder a friendly email, that there were 12 bison tubes and that we checked and one does indeed have the real log. Then I told him I was going to delete his log and he would have to relog when he found the tube with the log. Haven't heard back from him.

 

Now, I feel bad about deleting his find. I know I would rather have a CO tell me the truth and have to relog if I could get back to the area, or just lose the find if I couldn't, but I guess I'm feeling kinda mean right now.

[+whh0]

Well you shouldn't feel mean, it's clear enough on the cache page! I have seen that happen a couple of times round here, a magic box with compartments and you have to find the right one - no log today but found the cache!! Is it worth putting in the other bison tubes "sorry, no log here, try again"? I've seen that work to good effect too.

[+Walts Hunting]

Don't feel bad. I put out an ammo can with 25 film cannisters and the log in one of them and the FTF said "didn't have time to search so signed the lid." I didn't delete the log since it was a valid find but did post a long note saying I wasn't giving her credit for the FTF and she should return the FTF prize. She did.

 

Your deletion was perfectly within the guidelines. This whole "I can't find it so I will throw down" is getting out of hand. Be proud for standing for what is right.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Walts Hunting

[+K13]

A while back in the newsletter, G$ posted the three rules of Geocaching...

1. Find the cache

2. Sign the log

3. Log it on line

Deleting the online log of one who did not complete steps 1 & 2 is a necessary part of cache ownership.

[+J Grouchy]

Yeah...your cache, your rules, your prerogative.

[Space*Cadet]

I have a geocaching pal who owns a couple Earth caches. A couple weeks ago a newbie logged finding the Earthcache and uploaded a image showing they were at the correct spot, but never sent an email with the answers to the required questions on the Earthcache. The CO emailed the "finder" and told them they needed to answer the questions posed in the Earthcache in order to claim it as a find. At this point the CO has not heard back, but they are hesitant to delete the log. I told them they would be well with in the guidelines to delete it. But the CO doesn't want to appear "mean" to a newbie.

[+Walts Hunting]

I have a geocaching pal who owns a couple Earth caches. A couple weeks ago a newbie logged finding the Earthcache and uploaded a image showing they were at the correct spot, but never sent an email with the answers to the required questions on the Earthcache. The CO emailed the "finder" and told them they needed to answer the questions posed in the Earthcache in order to claim it as a find. At this point the CO has not heard back, but they are hesitant to delete the log. I told them they would be well with in the guidelines to delete it. But the CO doesn't want to appear "mean" to a newbie.

I would think an immediate delete would have been in order. No problem. It is not mean to enforce the rules and he reduces the quality of his hide by not doing it. How about the GC code so I can log it.

[+T.D.M.22]

Don't feel bad. They didn't follow directions. I have a cache where people logged it as, I saw it, but couldn't reach it. I deleted those finds. If you're going to admit you didn't sign the log (or proper log in your case) then you can't complain when your find is deleted.

[+tozainamboku]

I wouldn't have deleted the log. I would have sent a PM explaining the point of the final and mentioning the everyone else appears to have followed the directions on the page and let them decide if they wanted to leave their log as a find or not.

 

Not everyone reads the page (even on a mystery/unknown cache). If they collect the coordinates from the other caches and figure out where the final is, they are likely to go and look and not bother checking if there are special instructions on what to do if they find an empty container.

 

While looking throught a bunch of empty to containers to find the one with a log may be "fun" for some people, for others it will seem as if the cache owner is just trying to annoy finders and perhaps feel a sense of control when they delete logs of someone who didn't follow their instructions. As you point out, it is not a pleasent feeling for cache owners to delete logs even if they know the finder did not sign the log. I never understand why people feel compelled to do something they find unpleasent.

[+niraD]

I've become a fan of non-containers for decoys. A decoy is less likely to acquire "replacement" logs if it isn't a container, and there is nowhere to put a "replacement" log inside it.

[+CanadianRockies]

While looking throught a bunch of empty to containers to find the one with a log may be "fun" for some people, for others it will seem as if the cache owner is just trying to annoy finders and perhaps feel a sense of control when they delete logs of someone who didn't follow their instructions.

While looking through a bunch of bushes or under logs might be "fun" for some people, for others it will seem as if the cache owner is just trying to annoy finders by actually hiding their caches. Perhaps these owners feel a sense of control when they delete logs of people who don't submit to their desires that people search for caches. Those who are unwilling to search are entitled to their "finds" as well.

 

For that matter, some people might not think it's "fun" to hike more than 100 yards down a trail. They, too, should not have to submit to those who want them to walk long distances. They, too, are entitled to "find" all the caches that are too far along trails.

 

Then there are those who might not think it's "fun" to drive more than 25 miles from home. Why should they have to leave the comfort of their armchairs just because the far-away cache owners want to control their behaviors? They're entitled to "find" those distant caches.

[Keystone]

I've become a fan of non-containers for decoys. A decoy is less likely to acquire "replacement" logs if it isn't a container, and there is nowhere to put a "replacement" log inside it.

Or you can put a message in each decoy container saying "This isn't it - keep looking!"

 

An empty decoy container invites a "replacement" log.

[+Ben0w]

I most probably would have beeen annoyed when forced to search decoys. But to throwdown a logsheet when the description is quite clear, would qualify as a kind of semi-bogus log.

 

Can't give you a suggestion what you should have done with that log, it is your right to delete it but in this case you were the one who started playing tricks, so feeling a bit guilty of beeing mean is what you deserve...

 

To avoid this in future, you may construct the decoys as non-containers (i.e. fill up the empty space with hot glue or something else) and clearly write something like "this is not the cache, but you're near, search on" in it. I still would be annoyed, howevrer - but this may have helped in your case.

[+CanadianRockies]

I've become a fan of non-containers for decoys. A decoy is less likely to acquire "replacement" logs if it isn't a container, and there is nowhere to put a "replacement" log inside it.

Or you can put a message in each decoy container saying "This isn't it - keep looking!"

That usually works. But I've actually seen a couple instances where "finders" have signed slips of paper that said something like, "This isn't it - keep looking!" Maybe if the owner had laminated those messages...

[+redsox_mark]

To avoid this in future, you may construct the decoys as non-containers (i.e. fill up the empty space with hot glue or something else) and clearly write something like "this is not the cache, but you're near, search on" in it.

 

A complication with this specific cache is that finders are encouraged to move the log around to a different container. So any notes saying "this is not the cache" would need to be portable and finders would need to move them too.

 

I've found a cache similar to this (without the moving it around option) but it didn't have any instructions on the cache page. The idea was you would be surprised by finding the large container with all the small ones inside and figure it out. I did and signed the log. Others did not and added a log. The owner later update the page with more instructions.

 

This is not a criticism of the OP, but I would not have deleted the log. As it appears the finder simply didn't realize. I would have sent them a mail explaining what they were expected to do and leave it up to them. But deleting it is also valid, it is your call.

[+niraD]

I've become a fan of non-containers for decoys. A decoy is less likely to acquire "replacement" logs if it isn't a container, and there is nowhere to put a "replacement" log inside it.

Or you can put a message in each decoy container saying "This isn't it - keep looking!"

That usually works. But I've actually seen a couple instances where "finders" have signed slips of paper that said something like, "This isn't it - keep looking!" Maybe if the owner had laminated those messages...

Laminated "keep looking" notes would help keep people from signing the "keep looking" note itself. But I've seen decoys with laminated "keep looking" notes acquire "replacement" logs too. My guess is that the first person saw the laminated paper and assumed that it was a standard laminated cache note ("Congratulations, you've found it! Intentionally or not!..."), and added a "replacement" log. And others just signed the "replacement" log and assumed the laminated paper was the cache note. Edited September 12, 2013 by niraD

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Twelve bison tubes in an evergreen tree? I'd rather take the DNF than find the one with the log in it.

[+larryc43230]

Twelve bison tubes in an evergreen tree? I'd rather take the DNF than find the one with the log in it.

^ ^ ^

 

This, especially in an evergreen. I'd take the DNF in a heartbeat. YMMV.

 

--Larry

[+QuiltinNana]

This pine tree (maybe I was wrong in calling it an evergreen, but in our area, the names are used interchangably) or Christmas tree is huge, the lowest limbs are about 10 feet off the ground at the trunk. The limbs arch down to the ground, and you can stand underneath and look up at the underside of the limbs. The bison tubes look like ornaments hanging and are brightly colored.

I can't imagine it would take more than 5 - 10 minutes to locate them all and check for the log. Plus you are out in the woods and noone can see you from the dirt road. You have all the time in the world for privacy.

 

I did encourage on the cache page to move the log as the finder see fit. That way someone can't just tell someone else what color tube they had found the log in. I found a cache similar to this down in Centralia, PA and I really enjoyed it being different.

 

I guess we all like different kinds of caches to find, and I like to find ones that are different from all the others. Not necessarily really hard, but fun ones especially for kids to find. That's what makes geocaching fun to me is all the different kinds of hides.

 

I think a DNF in this case wouldn't be the right log as it would be misleading. The cache is there, you just choose not to look for it.

[+niraD]

I think a DNF in this case wouldn't be the right log as it would be misleading. The cache is there, you just choose not to look for it.

FWIW, I use a Note to post DNS (Did Not Search) logs.

[+dprovan]

I'm OK with you deleting the log, but I'm also glad you feel bad about it. I'm hoping you imagined this case when you hid the cache, but if not, lesson learned. In my opinion, you have two choices with a requirement like this: either be prepared to play the Grinche once in a while and delete the failures, or be prepared to play Santa Claus with, "You didn't sign the log, but I'm going to let your find stand, anyway. Merry Christmas!" Whichever you choose, I recommend playing the role publically, like, in this case, posting a note explaining that you deleted a log and explaining (playfully) how great it makes you feel. That lets seekers know you're taking the final step seriously, while softening the blow by joking about it.

[+MountainWoods]

I don't think the point that the folks who advocated using DNF were making was about perceived harming of the tree (though I may be wrong about that). I agree with them only because I think it sounds like this cache is an instance of deliberately torturing the searcher. I would probably log a DNF also. I did not find because the cache hunt became a nuisance, rather than enjoying the find and the tree.

 

Of course you're free to do as you please, but to me the point of geocaching is getting folks to that beautiful, huge evergreen tree, and secondarily signing a log. It doesn't add anything to the experience by making the person waste a bunch of time unscrewing and rescrewing bison tubes. They'd be better off served just standing there and drinking in the scent of the tree after signing the log in the container. Seems like the location should be more important than cute tricks with the hide.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I've done a few of these. I thought they were fun!

16 film canisters in an ammo box. Took two minutes. Of course, four of them had throw down logs.

One where I missed the decoys entirely. Oh, well.

Ammo can with 100 ping pong balls. Search them for parts of an equation to get the coords for the final. That took a while... But I enjoyed it!

Another that took a while was an evil hide. With five decoys, not of which could be signed, or have a throw-down log put in place. That was fun too.

Then we have the local cache without a log book. Laminated piece of plastic saying "You've found it. Name your favorite movie in your log, and you can log it." I signed he laminated plastic, but decided to log a DNF because there was no log book. (Gets a number of favorite points for being 'innovative'.)

[+Crow-T-Robot]

This pine tree (maybe I was wrong in calling it an evergreen, but in our area, the names are used interchangably) or Christmas tree is huge, the lowest limbs are about 10 feet off the ground at the trunk. The limbs arch down to the ground, and you can stand underneath and look up at the underside of the limbs. The bison tubes look like ornaments hanging and are brightly colored.

I can't imagine it would take more than 5 - 10 minutes to locate them all and check for the log. Plus you are out in the woods and noone can see you from the dirt road. You have all the time in the world for privacy.

 

I did encourage on the cache page to move the log as the finder see fit. That way someone can't just tell someone else what color tube they had found the log in. I found a cache similar to this down in Centralia, PA and I really enjoyed it being different.

 

I guess we all like different kinds of caches to find, and I like to find ones that are different from all the others. Not necessarily really hard, but fun ones especially for kids to find. That's what makes geocaching fun to me is all the different kinds of hides.

 

I think a DNF in this case wouldn't be the right log as it would be misleading. The cache is there, you just choose not to look for it.

Thank you for clarifying. Your cache sounds like fun and I'd love to find it! The way I envisioned it was having to paw through, arms deep into an evergreen to find 12 bison tubes. No way. I've hunted evergreen caches before and they're almost never pleasant. This past year, it took me two trips to find a cache the size of a shoebox hidden in an evergreen and I had scratches everywhere from it.

I do like the decoy caches, as well. As long as I have privacy and time, I'm willing to sift through until I find the log. Unless I walk up to a garbage can full of nano's

[+SwineFlew]

I wouldn't have deleted the log. I would have sent a PM explaining the point of the final and mentioning the everyone else appears to have followed the directions on the page and let them decide if they wanted to leave their log as a find or not.

 

Not everyone reads the page (even on a mystery/unknown cache). If they collect the coordinates from the other caches and figure out where the final is, they are likely to go and look and not bother checking if there are special instructions on what to do if they find an empty container.

 

While looking throught a bunch of empty to containers to find the one with a log may be "fun" for some people, for others it will seem as if the cache owner is just trying to annoy finders and perhaps feel a sense of control when they delete logs of someone who didn't follow their instructions. As you point out, it is not a pleasent feeling for cache owners to delete logs even if they know the finder did not sign the log. I never understand why people feel compelled to do something they find unpleasent.

Yep, same here. I wouldnt delete it.

 

If the container is empty, I would got a piece of paper and sign my name. I done it a few time. How I know its a decoy when its empty? Of all the decoy caches I ran into, they always got a piece of paper saying, "not here, keep looking"...

 

Deleting logs is only to be done in extreme cases.

[+ipodguy]

Fill up the decoys with hot glue so nobody can put a logsheet in.

[+ArtieD]

Twelve bison tubes in an evergreen tree? I'd rather take the DNF than find the one with the log in it.

^ ^ ^

 

This, especially in an evergreen. I'd take the DNF in a heartbeat. YMMV.

 

--Larry

 

I can't argue with that.

[+wmpastor]

I never understand why people feel compelled to do something they find unpleasant.

Ummm....because civilization and life would grind to a halt otherwise?

[+wmpastor]

Fill up the decoys with hot glue so nobody can put a logsheet in.

The resourceful will glue a logsheet to the outside OR bring another container to throw down up into the tree.

[+wmpastor]

I think a DNF in this case wouldn't be the right log as it would be misleading. The cache is there, you just choose not to look for it.

Is it?

There's no way to know unless you've checked the decoys!

[+The Jester]

I don't think the point that the folks who advocated using DNF were making was about perceived harming of the tree (though I may be wrong about that). I agree with them only because I think it sounds like this cache is an instance of deliberately torturing the searcher. I would probably log a DNF also. I did not find because the cache hunt became a nuisance, rather than enjoying the find and the tree.

 

Of course you're free to do as you please, but to me the point of geocaching is getting folks to that beautiful, huge evergreen tree, and secondarily signing a log. It doesn't add anything to the experience by making the person waste a bunch of time unscrewing and rescrewing bison tubes. They'd be better off served just standing there and drinking in the scent of the tree after signing the log in the container. Seems like the location should be more important than cute tricks with the hide.

I take you don't like multi-caches because "it doesn't add anything to the experience by making a person waste a bunch of time" finding extra containers/signs/tags/etc.. Should all caches be boxes placed in plain sight at the posted co-ords, so no time is wasted with anything by enjoying the location? Sounds boring to me. Many things add to the experience of the geocache - the hunt, a clever hide, a twist on common idea and such - not all at the some time, of course (tho that could be cool too).

[+MountainWoods]

The reason it is called GEOcaching is because it was originally about the place - the location. Much rather have a geocache that is relatively easy to find (just out of sight of the muggles) at a great location, than have a jump-through-hoops geocache in a dull location.

[4wheelin_fool]

Fill up the decoys with hot glue so nobody can put a logsheet in.

The resourceful will glue a logsheet to the outside OR bring another container to throw down up into the tree.

I found one where all of decoys were glued shut.

 

Another cache was a 3 part multi. Stage 2 was larger than usual for a multi, a small lock n lock. Someone had added a slip of paper and a half dozen people had signed it even though the coords for the final were intact.

[+redsox_mark]

For what it's worth the hide sounds interesting to me, with the bisons looking like ornaments on the tree. Fits nicely with the cache theme.

[+stijnhommes]

I have a geocaching pal who owns a couple Earth caches. A couple weeks ago a newbie logged finding the Earthcache and uploaded a image showing they were at the correct spot, but never sent an email with the answers to the required questions on the Earthcache. The CO emailed the "finder" and told them they needed to answer the questions posed in the Earthcache in order to claim it as a find. At this point the CO has not heard back, but they are hesitant to delete the log. I told them they would be well with in the guidelines to delete it. But the CO doesn't want to appear "mean" to a newbie.

Being mean to a newbie is completely different than pointing out the rules to a seasoned cacher. I'd give a newbie the chance to answer those questions. A non-newbie, not so much. Besides, I am less inclined to delete Earth cache logs than traditionals and puzzle caches, because the rules for them should be clear to anyone going out to find a cache.

 

I've come across a cache that was filled with kinder eggs: all had a marble in, one with a logsheet. I also found some caches that had several keys on a ring one of which fit the lock on the cache. It might take time, but as long as you can reasonably expect it based on the cache description page, you should know when you go out to find them. I enjoy caches that make you take a little effort to claim your smiley. I only log a true find, no throwdowns. When a CO offered me permission to log a ripped cache I declined, because I felt I didn't truly find it.

 

Why are some people so averse to some hard work to reach a cache and write a proper log?

Edited September 13, 2013 by stijnhommes

[+OZ2CPU]

I delete logs all the time, it is what a CO is required to do when he know a log is bogus,

it is a part of the CO job,

the rules are clear to all parts, explained really good online.

[+redsox_mark]

I delete logs all the time, it is what a CO is required to do when he know a log is bogus,

it is a part of the CO job,

the rules are clear to all parts, explained really good online.

 

True but there is judgement here about what is "bogus".

 

It is valid to delete the log as the finder did not sign the correct log. But I think it is also fine to allow it, if the owner determines the finder acted in good faith and just didn't read the details.

 

If as a cache owner I allow (or even worse encourage) obvious "bogus" armchair logs on my cache, then I would say I'm not doing my job as a CO. But if I owned this Christmas tree cache and let this specific log stand I don't think I'm breaking any rules.

[+J Grouchy]

The reason it is called GEOcaching is because it was originally about the place - the location. Much rather have a geocache that is relatively easy to find (just out of sight of the muggles) at a great location, than have a jump-through-hoops geocache in a dull location.

 

That's an oversimplification and does not take into account many great caches. I'd argue that, many times, it's more about the journey than the destination.

[Space*Cadet]

I have a geocaching pal who owns a couple Earth caches. A couple weeks ago a newbie logged finding the Earthcache and uploaded a image showing they were at the correct spot, but never sent an email with the answers to the required questions on the Earthcache. The CO emailed the "finder" and told them they needed to answer the questions posed in the Earthcache in order to claim it as a find. At this point the CO has not heard back, but they are hesitant to delete the log. I told them they would be well with in the guidelines to delete it. But the CO doesn't want to appear "mean" to a newbie.

Being mean to a newbie is completely different than pointing out the rules to a seasoned cacher. I'd give a newbie the chance to answer those questions. A non-newbie, not so much. Besides, I am less inclined to delete Earth cache logs than traditionals and puzzle caches, because the rules for them should be clear to anyone going out to find a cache.

 

 

I told the CO of the Earthcache, who had the "Newbie" log without the corresponding email, about this forum. They have now deleted the "two" logs the Newbie made on the Earthcache. The CO waited 3 weeks for the Newbie to send the answers and had told them they would have to delete their "found it" logs, because they did not follow the requirements needed to log the Earthcache, and that the pic of the site did not qualify as a find.

[+The Jester]

The reason it is called GEOcaching is because it was originally about the place - the location. Much rather have a geocache that is relatively easy to find (just out of sight of the muggles) at a great location, than have a jump-through-hoops geocache in a dull location.

I've seen a lot more of the beginning of this game then you, and a "great location" wasn't part of the equation back then. Finding the location of the stash was the whole point - wherever that happen to be. Some were pretty nice, some were just a random spot by a turn in the road with nothing to recommend it.