Jump to content

Fotologging


Harry Dolphin
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

Noticed this cache today: GC37C0K.

Last legitimately found 9/9/2012. The area seems to have been re-landscaped. It's had 18 DNFs, 4 NMs, and got an NA today. Six cachers have claimed a find by posting a photo of the area. Owner not on-line since 1/12/13.

"Finds" in July, August and September make a cacher think the cache is still there. Fotologging seems popular in some areas, and with some geocachers.

A sad commentary on what geocaching has turned into.

Link to comment

Be not lead astray by my finned friend Harry, for in the glass half full camp there are many who chose to log legitimate DNF

 

Many cachers DNF , yet make no log at all, so kudos to those who remain true to the game and post the DNF a fine commentary on not only the game but to their own character.

Edited by Packanack
Link to comment

Noticed this cache today: GC37C0K.

Last legitimately found 9/9/2012. The area seems to have been re-landscaped. It's had 18 DNFs, 4 NMs, and got an NA today. Six cachers have claimed a find by posting a photo of the area. Owner not on-line since 1/12/13.

"Finds" in July, August and September make a cacher think the cache is still there. Fotologging seems popular in some areas, and with some geocachers.

A sad commentary on what geocaching has turned into.

 

I think it's funny that I recently saw a thread here called "German cachers cheating". Now go look at the first "fotolog" in February 2013(as far back as I've gone) after multiple nm and dnf logs. They're from Germany :-D

 

Just sayin.

Link to comment

Noticed this cache today: GC37C0K.

Last legitimately found 9/9/2012. The area seems to have been re-landscaped. It's had 18 DNFs, 4 NMs, and got an NA today. Six cachers have claimed a find by posting a photo of the area. Owner not on-line since 1/12/13.

"Finds" in July, August and September make a cacher think the cache is still there. Fotologging seems popular in some areas, and with some geocachers.

A sad commentary on what geocaching has turned into.

 

I think it's funny that I recently saw a thread here called "German cachers cheating". Now go look at the first "fotolog" in February 2013(as far back as I've gone) after multiple nm and dnf logs. They're from Germany :-D

 

Just sayin.

 

Geocaching is much more popular in Germany than any other country. Check the amount of geocaches per square mile and you may be amazed. It has the second highest amount in volume, with the US being first. We have 3.8 million square miles compared to their 137,000, and we have only 3 times the amount of geocaches than what they do. I suppose that is what happens when it gets uber popular.

Link to comment

There is only one instance where I find photologging acceptable. If you go to ground zero, find the cache missing AND it is confirmed by the CO who offers you the ability to log anyway (because you are unlikely to return to the area or because a replacement will take a considerable amount of time). In any other situation, you'll have to suck up the DNF. In fact, I have been offered to log a missing cache and refused to do so, because I want to have a cache in hand before I log it online.

Link to comment

There is only one instance where I find photologging acceptable. If you go to ground zero, find the cache missing AND it is confirmed by the CO who offers you the ability to log anyway (because you are unlikely to return to the area or because a replacement will take a considerable amount of time). In any other situation, you'll have to suck up the DNF. In fact, I have been offered to log a missing cache and refused to do so, because I want to have a cache in hand before I log it online.

 

Exactly. If a cache is missing, even if the CO says to log a find....still.....what did you find? What are you logging as found? The location? Unless it's a virtual, I don't see how "photologging" is ever acceptable. I'm sure others feel differently though.

Link to comment

Noticed this cache today: GC37C0K.

Last legitimately found 9/9/2012. The area seems to have been re-landscaped. It's had 18 DNFs, 4 NMs, and got an NA today. Six cachers have claimed a find by posting a photo of the area. Owner not on-line since 1/12/13.

"Finds" in July, August and September make a cacher think the cache is still there. Fotologging seems popular in some areas, and with some geocachers.

A sad commentary on what geocaching has turned into.

 

I think it's funny that I recently saw a thread here called "German cachers cheating". Now go look at the first "fotolog" in February 2013(as far back as I've gone) after multiple nm and dnf logs. They're from Germany :-D

 

Just sayin.

 

Geocaching is much more popular in Germany than any other country. Check the amount of geocaches per square mile and you may be amazed. It has the second highest amount in volume, with the US being first. We have 3.8 million square miles compared to their 137,000, and we have only 3 times the amount of geocaches than what they do. I suppose that is what happens when it gets uber popular.

 

You're absolutely right. It happens all the time here in the U.S., so I don't see how the second biggest geocaching country wouldn't be doing the same. The more numbers there are to grab, the more photo logging there will be. I've seen American cachers cheat just as much as German cachers. I just thought it was funny that the German cheating thing was recently brought up paired with the German cacher starting the cheating trend on that particular cache.

Link to comment

Noticed this cache today: GC37C0K.

Last legitimately found 9/9/2012. The area seems to have been re-landscaped. It's had 18 DNFs, 4 NMs, and got an NA today. Six cachers have claimed a find by posting a photo of the area. Owner not on-line since 1/12/13.

"Finds" in July, August and September make a cacher think the cache is still there. Fotologging seems popular in some areas, and with some geocachers.

A sad commentary on what geocaching has turned into.

if some one tried to fotolog one of my caches I would delete the log. I have deleted logs in the past when people have said "I found what looks like it may have been part of a cache"

Some one has posted a SBA which is the best way to deal with a CO that is no longer active, I post a SBA for the same reason a few weeks ago

Link to comment

There is only one instance where I find photologging acceptable. If you go to ground zero, find the cache missing AND it is confirmed by the CO who offers you the ability to log anyway (because you are unlikely to return to the area or because a replacement will take a considerable amount of time).

Groundspeak feels photologging is unacceptable even if the CO offers you the smiley. With the exception of those that have been grandfathered, virtual caches are no longer allowed. Effectively transforming a traditional into a virtual is against the guidelines, and if a CO continues to allow photo logs without replacing the container, then a reviewer should archive that cache. Sometimes it can take several months for this to happen, however.

Link to comment

I had reports of one of my caches missing, I had a quick look myself at the original spot and temp disabled it because of the fact the camo-bag was left out in the open and cache wasn't in original spot. then someone logged it, said he didn't sign the log as he didn't open the container (assuming muggles were about), but he told me container looked in good shape still and was hidden discretely behind a different place (still pretty close (less than a meter) from original spot. That was more than enough proof to me that he'd found the cache, and he saved me having to search the area again to double check as he told me exactly where it was, so no issues leaving his log.

 

But photo-logging without even a propper search, just because previous logs showed it may be missing, I'd delete them straight away.

Link to comment

There is only one instance where I find photologging acceptable. If you go to ground zero, find the cache missing AND it is confirmed by the CO who offers you the ability to log anyway (because you are unlikely to return to the area or because a replacement will take a considerable amount of time).

Groundspeak feels photologging is unacceptable even if the CO offers you the smiley.

 

While at the same time allows cache owners to let people post "bonus logs" on the same GC number if someone finds the cache that has been slightly modified or post multiple attended logs on temporary caches placed at events.

 

 

Link to comment

There is only one instance where I find photologging acceptable. If you go to ground zero, find the cache missing AND it is confirmed by the CO who offers you the ability to log anyway (because you are unlikely to return to the area or because a replacement will take a considerable amount of time).

Groundspeak feels photologging is unacceptable even if the CO offers you the smiley. With the exception of those that have been grandfathered, virtual caches are no longer allowed. Effectively transforming a traditional into a virtual is against the guidelines, and if a CO continues to allow photo logs without replacing the container, then a reviewer should archive that cache. Sometimes it can take several months for this to happen, however.

 

Actually there exist Groundspeak reviewers who accept photo logs (on a large scale during months - so not an issue of a cache that suddenly got lost). So be not too surprised that some cachers have a different idea about logging ethics when even reviewers provide such examples in some areas.

 

Personally, I'm not a friend of photo logs at all and I'm not happy with the fact that nowadays most cachers expect a cache owner to allow them to write a found it log if a cache went missing and they can prove that they have been at the cache site.

 

When one cache of a longer trail is missing, most owners meanwhile just allow everyone who found the other caches to log that one as well. I've never felt comfortable with this, but it appears that cachers like me become more and more rare in my area.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I logged about 12 dnfs this week out here in the Barstow area. I could have tossed out a throwdown and the cache owners probably would have been ok with it.

I did replace a bunch of plastic cache containers, seems like the desert sun doesn't like 35 mm white film containers or the hard orange plastic pill containers, we'll see how the black test strip containers hold up. :D

Link to comment

There is only one instance where I find photologging acceptable. If you go to ground zero, find the cache missing AND it is confirmed by the CO who offers you the ability to log anyway (because you are unlikely to return to the area or because a replacement will take a considerable amount of time). In any other situation, you'll have to suck up the DNF. In fact, I have been offered to log a missing cache and refused to do so, because I want to have a cache in hand before I log it online.

 

It's entitlement/instant gratification thinking like this that is ruining our society. I traveled all the way to your cache so I deserve a Found it, even if there was nothing there to find.

 

A DNF is a DNF. It does not become a "find" because it was confirmed to be missing when you looked, regardless of how far you have traveled or your ability or inability to return.

 

What I find interesting is the fact that because a German cacher did it, two Aussie cachers decided that it must be okay. It reminds me of when I was five and my Father would ask, "If Johnnie jumped off a bridge, would you too", when I would give him the excuse, "He did it first".

Link to comment

Personally, I'm not a friend of photo logs at all and I'm not happy with the fact that nowadays most cachers expect a cache owner to allow them to write a found it log if a cache went missing and they can prove that they have been at the cache site.

 

I was quite surprised recently to have such requests. Two Europeans (not German): "We are sure these three caches are missing. Can we log them if they are missing?" Umm... No. You did not find them and sign the log. That's what geocaching is about? Isn't it. (All three were still there...)

And a local. "This one is definitely missing. Can I log it?" That one was missing. But you didn't find the cache, and sign the log! He deleted his Found It, after I said that I would not log a cache that I had not found.

Link to comment

Personally, I'm not a friend of photo logs at all and I'm not happy with the fact that nowadays most cachers expect a cache owner to allow them to write a found it log if a cache went missing and they can prove that they have been at the cache site.

 

I was quite surprised recently to have such requests. Two Europeans (not German): "We are sure these three caches are missing. Can we log them if they are missing?" Umm... No. You did not find them and sign the log. That's what geocaching is about? Isn't it. (All three were still there...)

And a local. "This one is definitely missing. Can I log it?" That one was missing. But you didn't find the cache, and sign the log! He deleted his Found It, after I said that I would not log a cache that I had not found.

There is a notorious team from around your part of the world who from time to time make cache raids throughout the region, dropping throwdowns and/or asking for smileys on caches they can't find. I always read logs carefully when they've been through, cuz there's a good chance that some caches that seem to have been found recently actually haven't been.

As for claiming a find for "proving" that a cache used to be somewhere, I still just don't get it after all these years. I just logged a DNF a few days ago on a cache that had several pics of where the cache used to be. One person who didn't find it logged it as found twice!

Link to comment

I have run into this photologging technique a lot in South America in Ecuador, Peru, and Argentina also earlier this year in Vietnam. It seems to come from cachers who might not be able to log another cache in that country.

 

If you want to photolog a location there is a very simple answer.

 

it is called Waymarking you can photolog anything you want to.

 

However if you want to geocache that involves finding and signing a log unless it is a webcam, virtual, or an earthcache.

Link to comment

I have run into this photologging technique a lot in South America in Ecuador, Peru, and Argentina also earlier this year in Vietnam. It seems to come from cachers who might not be able to log another cache in that country.

 

I photologged one cache while in another country (Singapore) but I found a few other caches before that one cache. In that one case, out of my 1100 plus finds, the cache was all about the location and I would have taken several pictures from the location even if a cache had never been placed there. I can live with the fact that I didn't sign the log on one cache because my find count does not matter to me.

 

BTW, congrats on getting your 45th country. I still haven't made it to South America....some day.

 

 

Link to comment

I photologged one cache while in another country (Singapore) but I found a few other caches before that one cache. In that one case, out of my 1100 plus finds, the cache was all about the location and I would have taken several pictures from the location even if a cache had never been placed there. I can live with the fact that I didn't sign the log on one cache because my find count does not matter to me.

 

It was still a DNF, but you logged a find.

 

Whether you would have taken pictures anyway, your find count, or if it bothered you, does not make it any different from the German fotologger. You needed to claim that country, but you didn't find anything.

Link to comment

There is only one instance where I find photologging acceptable. If you go to ground zero, find the cache missing AND it is confirmed by the CO who offers you the ability to log anyway (because you are unlikely to return to the area or because a replacement will take a considerable amount of time). In any other situation, you'll have to suck up the DNF. In fact, I have been offered to log a missing cache and refused to do so, because I want to have a cache in hand before I log it online.

 

I don't even think that is acceptable, because you are logging a "found it" and you didn't find it. Probably the one instance I think a photo log would be acceptable is if someone found the cache and the log was missing or an unusable mass of pulp. In that case, as a cache owner I'd accept a photo of the container or the finder holding the cache.

Link to comment

I photologged one cache while in another country (Singapore) but I found a few other caches before that one cache. In that one case, out of my 1100 plus finds, the cache was all about the location and I would have taken several pictures from the location even if a cache had never been placed there. I can live with the fact that I didn't sign the log on one cache because my find count does not matter to me.

 

It was still a DNF, but you logged a find.

 

 

If I don't care and the cache owner doesn't care, why should anyone else?

 

 

Link to comment

I photologged one cache while in another country (Singapore) but I found a few other caches before that one cache. In that one case, out of my 1100 plus finds, the cache was all about the location and I would have taken several pictures from the location even if a cache had never been placed there. I can live with the fact that I didn't sign the log on one cache because my find count does not matter to me.

 

It was still a DNF, but you logged a find.

 

Whether you would have taken pictures anyway, your find count, or if it bothered you, does not make it any different from the German fotologger. You needed to claim that country, but you didn't find anything.

 

As I said, I had already found caches in the country that day before I got to this one. The whole point of that cache was to bring people to a location which had a nice photo opportunity. The CO didn't put a cache in that location so that people could sign a piece of paper. I met the intent of that particular cache and haven't made it a habit of logging finds on a cache that I didn't technically find (as I said, it happened once in over 1100 finds).

 

 

Link to comment

As I said, I had already found caches in the country that day before I got to this one. The whole point of that cache was to bring people to a location which had a nice photo opportunity. The CO didn't put a cache in that location so that people could sign a piece of paper. I met the intent of that particular cache and haven't made it a habit of logging finds on a cache that I didn't technically find (as I said, it happened once in over 1100 finds).

Many, many geocaches are more about the location or journey rather than about signing a piece of paper. We took a long journey up a mountain to a scenic glacier viewpoint. A cache was hidden there, but we didn't find it. We took several pictures and logged a DNF. It was a geocache, not a waymark.

Link to comment

I photologged one cache while in another country (Singapore) but I found a few other caches before that one cache. In that one case, out of my 1100 plus finds, the cache was all about the location and I would have taken several pictures from the location even if a cache had never been placed there. I can live with the fact that I didn't sign the log on one cache because my find count does not matter to me.

 

It was still a DNF, but you logged a find.

 

 

If I don't care and the cache owner doesn't care, why should anyone else?

 

Let me give a recent example of how someone photologging a cache has a direct negative impact on their fellow cachers.

Puente de los Suspiros

 

I get into Lima Peru late at night and then have to spend a couple extra hours there dealing with our lost luggage.

 

I wake up early still groggy from not getting enough sleep. I ask where the hotel concierge where the nearest Starbucks is. (I collect their city mugs)

 

I head off to get some coffee and a city mug I turn on my GPS for the first time there.

 

Ahh a cache right next to starbucks I have the coordinates the hint and see there have been recent finds. I did not get a local SIM card since I was only going to be in Peru a few days.

 

I spend a good half hour looking around and nothing, I have better things to do on vacation then closely examining bridges.

 

I get back to my room and see that lots of people have been photologging the cache. ugh !! THANKS FOR WASTING MY VALUABLE TIME

Link to comment
Probably the one instance I think a photo log would be acceptable is if someone found the cache and the log was missing or an unusable mass of pulp. In that case, as a cache owner I'd accept a photo of the container or the finder holding the cache.

Agreed.

Our mistake and just before our use of ammo cans (we used Tupperware then), a finder sent a pic of a hide completely encased in ice.

- We thought the area protected. It wasn't.

He found it and rather than destroy the container in an attempt, took a pic.

Link to comment

I photologged one cache while in another country (Singapore) but I found a few other caches before that one cache. In that one case, out of my 1100 plus finds, the cache was all about the location and I would have taken several pictures from the location even if a cache had never been placed there. I can live with the fact that I didn't sign the log on one cache because my find count does not matter to me.

 

It was still a DNF, but you logged a find.

 

Whether you would have taken pictures anyway, your find count, or if it bothered you, does not make it any different from the German fotologger. You needed to claim that country, but you didn't find anything.

 

As I said, I had already found caches in the country that day before I got to this one. The whole point of that cache was to bring people to a location which had a nice photo opportunity. The CO didn't put a cache in that location so that people could sign a piece of paper. I met the intent of that particular cache and haven't made it a habit of logging finds on a cache that I didn't technically find (as I said, it happened once in over 1100 finds).

 

It was stil a DNF, but you posted a find.

 

It makes no difference what the intent of the CO was, how many actual finds you have, or how often you have done it. It's not any different than the German fotologger. I'm certain he has his excuses also. Greetings, I'm a tourist and I'm entitled to this find despite not being anything there. If it isn't about the find count, then what is it about? You have a photographic record of your visit, so why does it have to be a find?

Link to comment

I would never photolog. I even hate the thought of posting a photo of the logsheet even if I forgot my pen. I will try to find something to mark the log sheet with and photograph the mark I made.

If I can't find the cache, I DNFd it. I have many caches I have yet to find after multiple searches. And I don't climb trees when I am alone so I am not going to photograph the cache in the tree to say I found it but didn't sign it. And I will delete any logs on my caches who do that. Any of mine in trees are accessible by using a pole so there is no excuse. If they don't have one then get one. That is why cachers should read the cache pages and look at the ratings, be prepared.

I don't replace other's caches unless I have permission from the CO because they don't want to make the trip out and I will grant the same on mine if they can describe where they searched. I have had to delete logs on some of mine due to cachers replacing mine without permission when the cache was still there. I will give some the option to re-log with a note on their online log that they signed the wrong one and I granted them permission since it's not their fault someone else put one there.

Link to comment

Just as different people cache for different reasons, different people may accept different uses of the online find log.

 

While some people will not log an online find unless they have signed the physical log, others may feel it acceptable if you found the cache and made an attempt to sign the log but were unable to do so because you forget a pen or found a log that was too soggy to write on. Still other find it sufficient to go to ground zero and convince themselves that the cache is missing.

 

The online find is not a score, it doesn't seem there is any reason to get one's knickers in a twist over what other people consider a legitimate reason to use the online found log.

 

The main argument I see are the people who might try to avoid caches that might be missing and see an online found on a cache that is missing. If they assume that people aren't logging a find unless the cache is at least there, they might go looking for something they would otherwise avoid.

 

Related to this are cache owners who postpone maintenance because people are still logging a cache as found. My guess is that some cache owners allow photo logs because they can avoid maintenance. Instead of a DNF along with a possible Needs Maintenance or Needs Archive, the allow a find. The seeker is happy and the reviewer isn't breathing down their neck to do maintenance.

 

I think the problem is that there is little value of logging a DNF to the person leaving it. A found log not only increments the find count, but it marks the cache on your map as found, and makes it easy to exclude the cache in queries and searches. A DNF log does not mark your DNF on the map. It does not put the DNF is a bookmark list to allow you to track these caches some way. Most people don't even know they can get a list (and a count) of the DNFs they have, and there is no way to track the DNF's of other cachers. You can't even have a challenge cache based on DNF logs.

 

If Groundspeak wanted they could do more to encourage DNF logs. Perhaps they could even elevate DNF to have the same value as a find. If people had to decide which log gives them the most benefit and DNF and finds had the same value, they would likely use DNF more often in cases where the cache is missing.

Link to comment

Just as different people cache for different reasons, different people may accept different uses of the online find log.

One of the reasons many people enjoy geocaching is that it's an activity whose experiences can be shared with fellow members of the geocaching community. While the definition of geocaching can be a bit fuzzy around the edges, people in that community pretty much understand what the activity is all about.

 

As that definition becomes more and more blurred, people in the community have less and less in common and it becomes harder to understand each other's experiences.

 

What does it mean if you say you found a traditional cache? Does it mean you actually found a container? Does it mean you searched for 20 minutes and didn't find the container? Does it mean you searched for 2 minutes without finding the container? Does it mean you slowed down to 20 m.p.h. as you drove past the location? Does it mean you came within 20 miles of the location as you sped down the highway? Does it mean you viewed the location from home using Google Earth? Does it mean you found the cache's listing page and simply logged a "Found It" from your armchair?

 

One can argue about whether or not you can claim a find for a cache that you spotted but, for some reason, didn't sign the log. But when you claim a "Found It" for a traditional cache you didn't even see, then it seems to me that you've gone way past any line that delimits geocaching from other activities.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

I'm not a fan of photologs. First of all it gives the impression the cache is still there, while in fact it's most likely missing. And where do you draw the line? Do you log a find with a photo if you saw the container that you could not reach? Even if it's a T5 cache requiring climbing equipment? You're only fooling yourself with that.

 

Having said that, we once logged a cache as found where we could not access the log book. A fire had destroyed the cache and melted it into an interesting block of plastic, logbook still visible inside. The owner didn't want to have the block back after we offered to post it to him :anibad:

 

Mrs. Terratin

Link to comment

I have run into this photologging technique a lot in South America in Ecuador, Peru, and Argentina also earlier this year in Vietnam. It seems to come from cachers who might not be able to log another cache in that country.

 

I photologged one cache while in another country (Singapore) but I found a few other caches before that one cache. In that one case, out of my 1100 plus finds, the cache was all about the location and I would have taken several pictures from the location even if a cache had never been placed there. I can live with the fact that I didn't sign the log on one cache because my find count does not matter to me.

 

BTW, congrats on getting your 45th country. I still haven't made it to South America....some day.

 

99% of my caches are "all about the location". Should I just forgo all further maintenance and allow virtual photo logs instead? Maybe I just won't put actual containers at my future hide. I'll just ask people to take a photo of the view.

 

I hiked a round trip on a five mile section of the Pacific Crest Trail last month and found a whole bunch of caches. The one that I didn't find was located at the absolute best view spot on that section of trail. I thanked the CO for bringing me there for such a great view, in my DNF log.

 

IMO, logging "Found It" on caches that you didn't find is just as bad as leaving a throwdown cache, as it relieves the CO of his maintenance obligations.

Link to comment

I photologged one cache while in another country (Singapore) but I found a few other caches before that one cache. In that one case, out of my 1100 plus finds, the cache was all about the location and I would have taken several pictures from the location even if a cache had never been placed there. I can live with the fact that I didn't sign the log on one cache because my find count does not matter to me.

 

It was still a DNF, but you logged a find.

 

 

If I don't care and the cache owner doesn't care, why should anyone else?

 

Because it perpetuates the myth that a cache is there to find, and those of us that do care may go and look for it based on the fact that others are posting find logs.

 

I usually read the cache description and D/T before looking for a cache as well as the status of the last logs. If I can't find it, I'll read the hint and then finally, the logs themselves to see if I can get a spoiler. If at that point, I read that the last five found logs should have been DNFs and the CO has basically converted it into a virtual, I'm going to be pretty frustrated. Certainly frustrated enough to post a NA log when I get home.

Link to comment

!! THANKS FOR WASTING MY VALUABLE TIME

Whilst I can't speak in favor of photo logging, I'm having a tough time understanding how your valuable time was wasted. If BillyBobNosePicker had found the cache 3 minutes before your arrival, and a muggle saw him making the find, stealing the cache 2 minutes before your arrival, how would that be any different? You would have looked at the cache page, observed a relatively unbroken string of found it logs, and walked away with a DNF. Not every hunt ends in a find. That's the risk we assume every time we hunt for a cache. With the possible exception of some entitlement junkies, folks should not view a DNF as a waste of time.

Link to comment

I photologged one cache while in another country (Singapore) but I found a few other caches before that one cache. In that one case, out of my 1100 plus finds, the cache was all about the location and I would have taken several pictures from the location even if a cache had never been placed there. I can live with the fact that I didn't sign the log on one cache because my find count does not matter to me.

Then I don't understand why you would log it as found. Why not log a Note? That would be the appropriate log.

 

If I don't care and the cache owner doesn't care, why should anyone else?

This seems like a very weak justification for logging a false find.

 

People do care about this witness the topic Found It = Didn't Find It with its 195000 views.

Link to comment

I photologged one cache while in another country (Singapore) but I found a few other caches before that one cache. In that one case, out of my 1100 plus finds, the cache was all about the location and I would have taken several pictures from the location even if a cache had never been placed there. I can live with the fact that I didn't sign the log on one cache because my find count does not matter to me.

Then I don't understand why you would log it as found. Why not log a Note? That would be the appropriate log.

 

If I don't care and the cache owner doesn't care, why should anyone else?

This seems like a very weak justification for logging a false find.

 

People do care about this witness the topic Found It = Didn't Find It with its 195000 views.

 

 

I could have, and should have posted a note, or a DNF but I didn't. This is just a game. What happened to we can all play this game differently? I just don't take this game as seriously as some and can live with the fact that I'm not playing it the same as everyone else.

 

My find count really doesn't matter to me. That means that it doesn't matter to me if I count that cache as a find or if I don't. I think my find count is somewhere around 1165 (I'd have to check my profile). It really doesn't matter to me if it's actually 1164 or 1166.

 

Link to comment

I photologged one cache while in another country (Singapore) but I found a few other caches before that one cache. In that one case, out of my 1100 plus finds, the cache was all about the location and I would have taken several pictures from the location even if a cache had never been placed there. I can live with the fact that I didn't sign the log on one cache because my find count does not matter to me.

Then I don't understand why you would log it as found. Why not log a Note? That would be the appropriate log.

If I don't care and the cache owner doesn't care, why should anyone else?

This seems like a very weak justification for logging a false find.

I could have, and should have posted a note, or a DNF but I didn't. This is just a game. What happened to we can all play this game differently? I just don't take this game as seriously as some and can live with the fact that I'm not playing it the same as everyone else.

 

My find count really doesn't matter to me. That means that it doesn't matter to me if I count that cache as a find or if I don't. I think my find count is somewhere around 1165 (I'd have to check my profile). It really doesn't matter to me if it's actually 1164 or 1166.

Your find count might not really matter to you, but you seem to enjoy often mentioning your finds in foreign countries. If you log "Found Its" for caches you don't actually find, then that could make others wonder about the validity of your other "finds," including some of the ones in other countries.

 

In order to share experiences of your geocaching finds, there must be some basic, common understanding about what a "find" is.

Link to comment

What happened to we can all play this game differently?

It's been my experience that those who most oft espouse that virtue only apply that standard to others, not themselves. Once you stray, even remotely, from the way they feel the game should be played, they break out the pitchforks and torches, and continue to argue their point almost to the degree of badgering.

Link to comment

I could have, and should have posted a note, or a DNF but I didn't. This is just a game. What happened to we can all play this game differently? I just don't take this game as seriously as some and can live with the fact that I'm not playing it the same as everyone else.

 

I am clear about one thing and that is that creative, or should I say experimental, finds are most likely a small number in your find count and that ratio carries a lot of weight for me.

 

You have made the point that your count total is not important to you and I believe that. But what about the integrity of cache? That takes it outside your caching world and puts it in the common ground of the game. Is it o.k. not to care about the cache?

Link to comment

[but what about the integrity of cache?

I'm not sure one has anything to do with the other?

That wasn't very clear. Lemme try again.

Imagine I go search for a 1/1 cache by BillyBobNosePicker, called "Along The Trail # 37". I get to ground zero, hunt for a while, don't find anything, so I call the CO to alert him that there might be a problem. BillyBob gives me some hints, none of which pan out. Then he gives me explicit details, and I determine that the cache is missing.

 

With BillyBob's consent, I post the following 'Found It' log:

 

"I hunted this one for quite some time, and with the CO's help, determined that it was gone. BillyBob will fix it later this week, and will post a maintenance visit when he does. Till then, assume it's missing. I took a photo at GZ to verify I was there."

 

Now, I'm not advocating any of the listed behaviors. For me, a find includes signing the log. It's just my thing. My question is, would such a log compromise the integrity of the cache? Even if we alter the scenario, such as making the CO a stranger, or even someone who had dropped out of the game, for those who rely on past cache logs to determine if a cache is worth looking for, my log is an accurate account of my experience, and clearly points out the fact that I did not find it. Such a find log might qualify as cheesy, but I can't see that it harms the integrity of the cache.

Link to comment

[but what about the integrity of cache?

I'm not sure one has anything to do with the other?

That wasn't very clear. Lemme try again.

Imagine I go search for a 1/1 cache by BillyBobNosePicker, called "Along The Trail # 37". I get to ground zero, hunt for a while, don't find anything, so I call the CO to alert him that there might be a problem. BillyBob gives me some hints, none of which pan out. Then he gives me explicit details, and I determine that the cache is missing.

 

With BillyBob's consent, I post the following 'Found It' log:

 

"I hunted this one for quite some time, and with the CO's help, determined that it was gone. BillyBob will fix it later this week, and will post a maintenance visit when he does. Till then, assume it's missing. I took a photo at GZ to verify I was there."

 

Now, I'm not advocating any of the listed behaviors. For me, a find includes signing the log. It's just my thing. My question is, would such a log compromise the integrity of the cache? Even if we alter the scenario, such as making the CO a stranger, or even someone who had dropped out of the game, for those who rely on past cache logs to determine if a cache is worth looking for, my log is an accurate account of my experience, and clearly points out the fact that I did not find it. Such a find log might qualify as cheesy, but I can't see that it harms the integrity of the cache.

 

Why does it matter if you called the co or not, you've been there but you still haven't found a thing. You can go to the pub but you can't say you've picked up unless you actually take a woman Home with you!

Link to comment

With BillyBob's consent, I post the [...] 'Found It' log...

 

...my log is an accurate account of my experience, and clearly points out the fact that I did not find it. ...but I can't see that it harms the integrity of the cache.

 

It does because it encourages others to post false finds, especially when people new to the game see that a highly experienced player does it and a cache owner is complicit.

 

Such a find log might qualify as cheesy,

 

It certainly qualifies for 'Found It = Didn't Find It'.

Link to comment

Why does it matter if you called the co or not, you've been there but you still haven't found a thing.

Out of that whole, long winded post, that's the only thing you question? :lol::P

Seriously though, for some folks in here, it matters. You'll see the occasional comment in here regarding similar behavior, where someone hunts for a cache, doesn't find it, posts a DNF, and the owner, verifying it was missing, offers to let the seeker log it as a find. I've received many such offers over the years. Personally, as previously noted, I don't consider my efforts to equal a find until my signature is in the logbook. But the replies I've read in here following similar comments indicates that not all of us feel that way.

 

With BillyBob's consent, I post the [...] 'Found It' log...

 

...my log is an accurate account of my experience, and clearly points out the fact that I did not find it. ...but I can't see that it harms the integrity of the cache.

 

It does because it encourages others to post false finds, especially when people new to the game see that a highly experienced player does it and a cache owner is complicit.

 

But if the owner is complicit to what most would agree are cheesy logging practices, or, if the owner is MIA and no longer doing anything about the logs on their caches, the integrity, such as it is, has already been lost. At that point, even a "Greetings From Germany!" log would cause no further harm.

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 7
×
×
  • Create New...