Does This Count as a Find? (or joint find)

[+CanadianRockies]

Just looked at his find log which he's made to read like he found the cache himself. Maybe he did decide to make a quick jaunt over there this weekend and find the cache. If not, then i would like to take this time to nominate this for the LGAY (Lamest Geocaching Action of the Year) award.

Queue Toz response.

[+K13]

Ok..lets put this thread to bed.

 

Oh. You thought we would all go to sleep and not check. Everyone here pretty much told you it would be a bad idea to log that cache as found.

 

...it was fun to co-pilot newbies.

 

Team accounts are where folks, typically a family or significant other unit, log cache finds under one account. The account find total represents the team effort - they do not log team finds on individual accounts. These teams typically do not enlist one-off efforts where a temporary member actually finds the cache.

 

Maybe this guy is 'pledging' some group? Thank you sir, may I log another?

[+tozainamboku]

Queue Toz response.

Apparently he couldn't resist giving all of you a virtual wedgie.

 

Did he find the cache? No. It isn't even clear if his neighbor found it with his help. Instead it looks more as if once he discovered that it is up to the cache owner to delete bogus logs, and that most cache owners aren't likely to take the time, he decided that it would be fun to see whose knickers would be twisted if he posts a find.

 

Maybe you can use a pair of

? Edited November 14, 2013 by tozainamboku

[JASTA 11]

Is that Limburger, or good old Wisconsin Cheddar?

 

Our guess would be it's a pile of some well-aged FRUMUNDA !

[+bflentje]

IMO if you're not physically at GZ then you shouldn't get the Find. I understand the comparison to tree climbing caches, but those folks are physically at the location even if they don't make the climb.

 

This. And there's no reason why this thread should be longer than 4 posts.

[+justintim1999]

In my opinion If you don't have the cache in hand you can't log it as a find.

Really? I've logged finds on a number of caches that I never actually touched. Sometimes, I was even the first person to spot the cache. Often, the last person spot the cache retrieves it, passes the log around (or signs everyone's names for them, or signs an informal team name on everyone's behalf), and then replaces the cache. In most cases, I think it's important for the person who retrieved the cache to be the person to replace it, just to minimize cache migration. But I don't see the point of having everyone in the group touch the cache.

 

The point is could you have retrieved the cache yourself and signed the log if you wanted to. If I had to answer no to ether question I wouldn't claim it as a find. If I were with a group of people and we found a cache which required a climb I could not do, I would not log the cache as a find. If I felt that I could have retrieved the cache on my own I would have no problem letting one member of my group grab it and replace it. I wouldn't expect each member of the group to climb up and replace the cache one by one. But I would still want to sign the log myself. No wrong answers, just personal preference.

 

In the case of the original question. The party was not present in the hunt or the retrieval of the cache. Don't see how they could claim it as a find.

 

I thought the idea waas you search for the cache, find it, open it up and sign the log.

 

What was the difficulty and Terran rating on the tree cache? If you didn't actually climb the tree and retrieve the cache you really didn't earn whatever the cache rating was.

That may be the difference. I don't consider the cache ratings (difficulty, terrain, size, attributes, whatever) to be something that the finder "earns". These ratings are just a way for the CO to communicate the general nature of the cache experience to potential seekers. That way, others can seek caches that they're more likely to enjoy.

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't think anyone would have cared much about what he did if if he did not start the thread and was simply honest in his log. Even if he told the forum he was going to log it as a find anyway, a few may have grumbled about it, but it would have been no big deal. Instead he misled everyone about his intentions, and against advise. That's what the knicker twisting is here.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I found a joint once when I was looking for a puzzle cache. Someone put their 'stash' on the other side of the log from the ammo box I was looking for. Nothing remotely funny about it...left the drugs as they were.

[Mr.Yuck]

I don't think anyone would have cared much about what he did if if he did not start the thread and was simply honest in his log. Even if he told the forum he was going to log it as a find anyway, a few may have grumbled about it, but it would have been no big deal. Instead he misled everyone about his intentions, and against advise. That's what the knicker twisting is here.

 

I wonder if dude even knows he was busted logging it.

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't think anyone would have cared much about what he did if if he did not start the thread and was simply honest in his log. Even if he told the forum he was going to log it as a find anyway, a few may have grumbled about it, but it would have been no big deal. Instead he misled everyone about his intentions, and against advise. That's what the knicker twisting is here.

 

I wonder if dude even knows he was busted logging it.

 

Well, some people throw a tantrum if they start a thread and don't receive the expected answer. Although its nice that he didn't do that, I suppose he knows, but doesn't care.

Edited November 23, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+CanadianRockies]

But the real issue seems to be that some people simply want stick with a narrow definition of find.

In my humble opinion, expecting someone to be within 1,500 miles of a cache when they "find" it isn't a narrow definition.

 

As a Groundspeak lackey once noted:

 

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

[Clan Riffster]

But the real issue seems to be that some people simply want stick with a narrow definition of find.

That may be true of other threads, but I don't think that definitions are much of an issue with this one. The OP asked for opinions, and folks politely provided them. As of that point, there was no problem. The OP stated that they would be adhering to the opinions of the masses. As of that point, there was no problem. Then, the OP disregarded both the opinions of the masses, and his own statement.

 

Then, there was some angst.

[+briansnat]

There's no prize, no leader board and no trophy.

 

Leaderboard, trophy, prize

[JASTA 11]

To top it off, he's added the phony find to his list of FTF's on his profile page.

 

[+tozainamboku]

I wonder if dude even knows he was busted logging it.

What do you mean busted? Has Groundspeak banned him? Did the cache owner delete his log?

 

What I see is that some people have gotten their knickers twisted and I wonder if the OP isn't just laughing at them.

 

I don't believe he found the cache and it isn't even clear if he helped his neighbor find it. Perhaps his neighbor did find and signed his name and the cache owner now believes they can delete the online log Or maybe the cache owner just doesn't care. It isn't enough to make my underwear bunch up.

 

But the real issue seems to be that some people simply want stick with a narrow definition of find.

In my humble opinion, expecting someone to be within 1,500 miles of a cache when they "find" it isn't a narrow definition.

 

As a Groundspeak lackey once noted:

 

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

I agree that Groundspeak's definition of geocaching is that you go to the coordinates and find the cache. But even when MissJenn posted the above in regards to couch potato logs on virtual caches, I stated my opinion the the use of the online find log to record your accomplishment in a side game that isn't precisely geocaching doesn't generally effect people who are geocaching.

 

Sure there are bogus logs that give geocachers a false impression that a cache is there to be found when it isn't. And sometimes bogus logs will affect the decision of a cache owner to do needed maintenance. So, I agree that sometimes a bogus log can effect a geocacher. But this is generally no the case.

 

In the case of couch potato virtual logs, my opinion is that if someone wants to log a find because they found the information online or because they visited the location 20 years ago this has no effect on someone who wants to use GPS to go to the location and find the information. Of course once Groundspeak starts to archive and lock the cache page it does have an effect - but in my opinion that effect is caused by Groundspeak's action, not by the couch potato log.

 

The case of team find where only part of the team is at the site, I also don't believe has any effect on people who want actually go and find the cache. Assuming part of the team actually found the cache, it doesn't matter to be if others are posting a find along with that.

 

The OP may be motivated to claim questionable finds because he believes that the find count is a score and he will benefit some way from the additional smiley. Those who yell "cheater" the loudest, are only confirming that misinterpretation to the OP. I believe that if that instead of saying "You're cheating if you log a find when you haven't been to a cache, you're a miserable failure at life", you say "It's silly to log a find when you haven't been to a cache;" that it would be a more effective way to reduce the number of these logs.

[+briansnat]

I wonder if dude even knows he was busted logging it.

What do you mean busted? Has Groundspeak banned him? Did the cache owner delete his log?

 

What I see is that some people have gotten their knickers twisted and I wonder if the OP isn't just laughing at them.

 

I don't believe he found the cache and it isn't even clear if he helped his neighbor find it. Perhaps his neighbor did find and signed his name and the cache owner now believes they can delete the online log Or maybe the cache owner just doesn't care. It isn't enough to make my underwear bunch up.

 

But the real issue seems to be that some people simply want stick with a narrow definition of find.

In my humble opinion, expecting someone to be within 1,500 miles of a cache when they "find" it isn't a narrow definition.

 

As a Groundspeak lackey once noted:

 

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

I agree that Groundspeak's definition of geocaching is that you go to the coordinates and find the cache. But even when MissJenn posted the above in regards to couch potato logs on virtual caches, I stated my opinion the the use of the online find log to record your accomplishment in a side game that isn't precisely geocaching doesn't generally effect people who are geocaching.

 

Sure there are bogus logs that give geocachers a false impression that a cache is there to be found when it isn't. And sometimes bogus logs will affect the decision of a cache owner to do needed maintenance. So, I agree that sometimes a bogus log can effect a geocacher. But this is generally no the case.

 

In the case of couch potato virtual logs, my opinion is that if someone wants to log a find because they found the information online or because they visited the location 20 years ago this has no effect on someone who wants to use GPS to go to the location and find the information. Of course once Groundspeak starts to archive and lock the cache page it does have an effect - but in my opinion that effect is caused by Groundspeak's action, not by the couch potato log.

 

The case of team find where only part of the team is at the site, I also don't believe has any effect on people who want actually go and find the cache. Assuming part of the team actually found the cache, it doesn't matter to be if others are posting a find along with that.

 

The OP may be motivated to claim questionable finds because he believes that the find count is a score and he will benefit some way from the additional smiley. Those who yell "cheater" the loudest, are only confirming that misinterpretation to the OP. I believe that if that instead of saying "You're cheating if you log a find when you haven't been to a cache, you're a miserable failure at life", you say "It's silly to log a find when you haven't been to a cache;" that it would be a more effective way to reduce the number of these logs.

 

I was at an event recently and the subject of logging phony finds came up. There was a new cacher there and he said "You mean there are people who actually log finds on caches they didn't find?" When assured that it happens he said "That has to be one of the saddest and most pathetic thing I've heard in a long time. Anyone who does that needs serious help." I don't recall him receiving any argument.

[+tozainamboku]

I was at an event recently and the subject of logging phony finds came up. There was a new cacher there and he said "You mean there are people who actually log finds on caches they didn't find?" When assured that it happens he said "That has to be one of the saddest and most pathetic thing I've heard in a long time. Anyone who does that needs serious help." I don't recall him receiving any argument.

I don't think you would get too much argument. The point of logging online is to share you experiences caching. If you weren't caching, it becomes rather silly to use either a Found or a DNF.

 

In fact, very few people simply sit at home and log Found on caches they never visited. IMO, that would get boring pretty quickly and and I suppose that people who are silly enough to try this, soon find better ways to waste their time.

 

What happens more often is that someone comes up with some justification for using the find. In the case of couch potato virtuals it was that you could figure out the answer to the question without visiting the cache. In the case of the OP, it was that you contributed to a team find - someone on the team was actually geocaching.

 

While the common practice is certainly to go to the coordinates where the cache is and find it, the fact is that some people will use a Found log at other times. I suppose that you're entitled to the opinion that this is sad and pathetic, or that if you do this you have failed miserably at life.

 

Personally I am willing to accept someone's rationale for posting a find even if I wouldn't do it and even if I recommend not to do it (post #29). Of course I said that that I thought the OP was predisposed to not do it. So I suppose I could get upset that they went ahead and logged a find. My only guess now is that is was to mock all the holier-than-thou forum members who told him that he would burn in hell if he logged the find.

[+CanadianRockies]

But the real issue seems to be that some people simply want stick with a narrow definition of find.

In my humble opinion, expecting someone to be within 1,500 miles of a cache when they "find" it isn't a narrow definition.

 

As a Groundspeak lackey once noted:

 

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

The case of team find where only part of the team is at the site, I also don't believe has any effect on people who want actually go and find the cache. Assuming part of the team actually found the cache, it doesn't matter to be if others are posting a find along with that.

I believe you missed my point. Whether or not you feel people should be able to log remote finds, I think it's silly to say people are sticking to a "narrow" definition of the word "find" when they expect people to be within 1,500 miles of the cache. Quite the opposite. I believe it's you who is stretching the definition of the word to include such a "find."

 

It's like going to a tennis court, hitting a ball around with a friend, and calling it "golf." You can do this, but most people would think you're being silly.

[+briansnat]

It's like going to a tennis court, hitting a ball around with a friend, and calling it "golf." You can do this, but most people would think you're being silly.

 

It's more like watching a tennis match on TV and telling people you actually played tennis.

[+tozainamboku]

I believe you missed my point. Whether or not you feel people should be able to log remote finds, I think it's silly to say people are sticking to a "narrow" definition of the word "find" when they expect people to be within 1,500 miles of the cache. Quite the opposite. I believe it's you who is stretching the definition of the word to include such a "find."

 

It's like going to a tennis court, hitting a ball around with a friend, and calling it "golf." You can do this, but most people would think you're being silly.

I understand Groundspeak's desire to defined "geocaching" as an outdoor activity where the point is to actually get off your behind and go out and find a cache.

 

Since this is Groundspeak's website, I also understand that they are entitled to set Terms of Use for the online logging capability and Guidelines for cache owners to be responsible for the quality of logging of their caches.

 

I am also aware that in the case of a number of virtual caches where owners were allowing "couch potato" logs, or where the owner was absent and "couch potato" loggers discover this, that Groundspeak chose to enforce the TOUs and guidelines by by archiving the cache and locking the page.

 

While Groundspeak can make up any rules or definitions that please them, I, as a geocacher reserve my rights to refer to these definitions as "narrow". In particular, when the online log is used to record remote "couch potato" finds, it is my strong opinion that this seldom effects someone who is geocaching per the "official" Groundspeak definition. As such I have come to two conclusions:

1) Groundspeak's practice of archiving and locking cache pages due to couch potato logs is draconian. It punishes legitimate geocachers and rarely punishes either the couch potato logger or the cache owner (who is most likely absent and no longer caching). I can accept a slightly different argument that caches, including virtual caches, should have a cache owner who takes responsibility for the listing and would be more willing to accept a practice of archiving (but not locking) virtual caches when the owner has not logged onto the website in a certain period (note for the other thread - the apps don't appear to be setup to allow owner maintenance).

2) Getting one's knicker in a twist because some claimed a remote find or because a cache owner doesn't do anything about it is silly.

[+wmpastor]

((I am not going to log it but posted this to stretch your thinking))

Thanks for discussion...yeah I am not going to sign (that is what my gut was feeling before I even posted it)...

- snip -

Even though I am not loging..it is still a rush for me.

I am not signing it..as I will add a note after their find or dnf.

Ok..lets put this thread to bed.

As I said...my gut says I wasn't going to log but thought it was an interesting question. I am logging as a note since it was fun to co-pilot newbies.

- Fine, but if you ever want to be taken seriously in the future...

Maybe they just pushed the wrong option by accident?

No, not with the wording of the post. He claimed the find on a cache from 1, 000+ miles away. He left the forum after he didn't get the answer he wanted. His wife said,"It's just a game, who cares?" (my surmise) Then he went to church (his post) & took his kids, & forgot the maxim, "Your walk talks, & your talk walks, but your walk talks more than your talk walks."

 

There was a local incident of a prepublication find supposedly based on "geosense" & "knowledge of the CO's hiding style." Kids were involved. My point was that using inside info in a game is lame, but the lesson that it's okay can lead to using inside info in business, which can put someone in jail.

 

So what is your "walk" teaching your two kids, Mr. Remote Cellphone "Finder"?? And phonying up the photo "evidence"?!

[Mr.Yuck]

I wonder if dude even knows he was busted logging it.

What do you mean busted? Has Groundspeak banned him? Did the cache owner delete his log?

 

 

C'mon, you know what I mean by "busted". In the unlikely event you don't, I mean the fact that someone discovered he logged a find on it, after stating about 5 times in this thread that he wasn't going to. See the very first response to the thread, which was by yours truly. I said "The Geocaching Police are not going to come and take you away if you log it". Or something along those lines, I don't have it in front of me while typing this.

 

You know what I just thought of? No one else has logged the cache. This probably (to me) means that the so-called "newbie friends" who were there don't even have a Geocaching.com account. Who knows, maybe he even told them something like "go to this location that I guide you to, and find this thing for me". Just speculation, of course.

[Clan Riffster]

C'mon, you know what I mean by "busted".

Yeah, Toz knows. His penchant for hyperbole is dwarfed only by his affinity for long winded posts. Not unlike his continued insistence that someone, or several someones, have twisted knickers over this silliness. Were Toz to acknowledge that no one here is really upset or angsty, his posts would be significantly truncated. Can't have that!

[+wmpastor]

C'mon, you know what I mean by "busted".

Yeah, Toz knows. His penchant for hyperbole is dwarfed only by his affinity for long winded posts. Not unlike his continued insistence that someone, or several someones, have twisted knickers over this silliness. Were Toz to acknowledge that no one here is really upset or angsty, his posts would be significantly truncated. Can't have that!

I feel relieved that you assure us that Toz doesn't take his position seriously. I'd hate to think that a forum regular condones what I call "glorified high-tech armchair logging." TeamWeis was busted - caught red handed. Busted! And I trust that each post goes to them via email so they see what the community thinks. Unless the facts are different than they seem, the dirty deeds are lower than a snake's belly!

[+CanadianRockies]

I believe you missed my point. Whether or not you feel people should be able to log remote finds, I think it's silly to say people are sticking to a "narrow" definition of the word "find" when they expect people to be within 1,500 miles of the cache. Quite the opposite. I believe it's you who is stretching the definition of the word to include such a "find."

 

It's like going to a tennis court, hitting a ball around with a friend, and calling it "golf." You can do this, but most people would think you're being silly.

While Groundspeak can make up any rules or definitions that please them, I, as a geocacher reserve my rights to refer to these definitions as "narrow".

Of course you can define "narrow" in any way that suits your fancy. I'm just saying that if I were to define "watermelon" to be "any form of motorized road vehicle," then I'd look pretty silly doing so.