Right cache, wrong container.

[+narcissa]

Some people get way too upright about something that should be a fun past time.

 

Yeah, putting down a container when you can't find a cache is kind of uptight. Just log the DNF and try again another time.

I agree. Nothing wrong with logging a DNF.

 

Unfortunately we are in the minority. For some unexplained reason people feel they have less fun if they record a DNF. For some of these people, they rationalize that if a cache is in fact missing they shouldn't be punished with less fun, after all it is impossible to find a cache that is missing. So they perceive the throwdown as restoring the fun of the cache by not only allowing them to avoid the DNF log but also ensuring that subsequent cachers will have something to find.

 

If you were to tell these people to their face that you get no additional fun avoiding the DNF they would probably look at you like you are crazy. More over, if you were to delete logs of subsequent cachers who had fun finding the throwdown instead of possibly a DNF on your missing cache, they would view you as a cruel person who punishes people for having fun and making way too much of the way other people choose to play this game.

 

The punishment mentality is odd. It's just a matter of fact that they did not find the cache, they found something else. Oh well.

[+sbell111]

You can certainly try it if you wish, because the website will allow you to delete logs to your heart's content, but don't be surprised if you get a lot of nasty-grams and logs reinstated by GSHQ.

 

I'm not terrible concerned about:

 

1. The opinions of people who place, sign, or defend throw-downs. Good geocachers don't behave in this manner, and they're the only ones whose opinion counts for anything.

You are certainly a true scotsman.

 

2. The likelihood of this ever happening to any of my caches, since I monitor the logs closely and only maintain as many caches as I can comfortably watch. Chances are, at the first inkling of a "throw-down" I would delete the log of the perpetrator, and disable the cache until the throw-down was thrown-out.

 

3. Log reinstatement, since I've been a strict cache owner for as long I've owned caches, and never had a blank log or no-response Earthcache finder complain about deletion.

I am missing your point here. Are you saying that you wouldn't mind if they reinstated the deleted logs or are you saying that they would never reinstate logs that you deleted.

Edited September 9, 2014 by sbell111

[+narcissa]

I am missing your point here. Are you saying that you wouldn't mind if they reinstated the deleted logs or are you saying that they would never reinstate logs that you deleted.

 

I'm saying it's not something I worry about. I've never had someone ask to have a log reinstated. If someone did ask, it wouldn't bother me. Based on experience, though, the probability of one of these charlatans actually challenging the deletion is very low.

 

This is all hypothetical anyway. I don't hide caches very often, and I don't hide the sort of caches that are conducive to this sort of behaviour.

[+Colonial Cats]

So imagine you were the OP. Exactly which online log would you identify as from the throwdowner. Exactly which log in this case would give you that "inkling"? Also tell us how any of the finders were supposed to know it was a throwdown.

 

Your mass deletion plan would only have merit if you retrieved the throwdown and positively identified the culprit, and then let everyone know who was really responsible for their log being deleted.

 

For starters, a DNF on an unremarkable traditional is always a good sign that the cache needs a visit.

 

Any cache owner can audit the logbook in a cache at any time. In the case of a garbage throw-down cache, there's simply no need to provide people like that with an explanation. They don't deserve the acknowledgement. Throw the garbage away, and delete the finds that aren't in the actual cache. The end.

Technically you would be correct in deleting all of the finds. However, remember that all of the cachers who found the throw down after it was thrown down are also victims of the throw down. I wouldn't delete their finds.

[+narcissa]

Technically you would be correct in deleting all of the finds. However, remember that all of the cachers who found the throw down after it was thrown down are also victims of the throw down. I wouldn't delete their finds.

 

"Victims" is a strong word. They were misled, and did not find the cache. Not the cache owner's problem.

[+JPreto]

How to handle throwdowns

 

Sorry that someone left a throwdown pill bottle at your cache site. Perhaps it's from another game, or perhaps someone felt they were "helping" when they couldn't find your cache. While this has always been an issue with the game, it seems to be becoming more the standard approach.

 

All I ask is you do not freaking tell JPreto about this. As a matter of fact, they should add that to the bottom of the Groundspeak Help page article.

 

Are you talkin to me?

 

Delete all logs in your listing that are written in that logbook, none of the people that logged it found the correct container so... they didn´t actually found it, right? They found another thing, not the container you placed!!!!! Problem solved!!!!!

 

If it was in one of my caches this would be what I would do.

Edited September 9, 2014 by JPreto

[+sbell111]

Technically you would be correct in deleting all of the finds. However, remember that all of the cachers who found the throw down after it was thrown down are also victims of the throw down. I wouldn't delete their finds.

 

"Victims" is a strong word. They were misled, and did not find the cache. Not the cache owner's problem.

There was a container and logbook at ground zero that was being confused for the cache. As such, it seems like it was exactly the cache owner's problem. The longer the cache owner delayed in resolving the issue, for whatever reason, the more people accidently signed the wrong logbook.

 

These people didn't intentionally sign the wrong book. They actually thought that they signed the correct book and weren't even aware that a 'wrong' logbook existed. As such, I feel that Groundspeak's guidance in this situation is appropriate and their online logs should not be deleted.

Edited September 9, 2014 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

How to handle throwdowns

 

Sorry that someone left a throwdown pill bottle at your cache site. Perhaps it's from another game, or perhaps someone felt they were "helping" when they couldn't find your cache. While this has always been an issue with the game, it seems to be becoming more the standard approach.

 

All I ask is you do not freaking tell JPreto about this. As a matter of fact, they should add that to the bottom of the Groundspeak Help page article.

 

Are you talkin to me?

 

Delete all logs in your listing that are written in that logbook, none of the people that logged it found the correct container so... they didn´t actually found it, right? They found another thing, not the container you placed!!!!! Problem solved!!!!!

 

If it was in one of my caches this would be what I would do.

If you were to delete my log thusly, I would appeal the deletion to TPTB and recommend that everyone else did, also. When those logs were then reinstated, would you still consider the problem solved?

 

The logs would be reinstated and you're local caching community would have yet one more reason to dislike you. Your actions wouldn't solve the problem. It would merely ratchet up the angst level.

 

(I'm reminded of your outrage when your caches started disappearing, for some reason.)

[+narcissa]

Technically you would be correct in deleting all of the finds. However, remember that all of the cachers who found the throw down after it was thrown down are also victims of the throw down. I wouldn't delete their finds.

 

"Victims" is a strong word. They were misled, and did not find the cache. Not the cache owner's problem.

There was a container and logbook at ground zero that was being confused for the cache. As such, it seems like it was exactly the cache owner's problem. The longer the cache owner delayed in resolving the issue, for whatever reason, the more people accidently signed the wrong logbook.

 

These people didn't intentionally sign the wrong book. They actually thought that they signed the correct book and weren't even aware that a 'wrong' logbook existed. As such, I feel that Groundspeak's guidance in this situation is appropriate and their online logs should not be deleted.

 

It's no different than caches where there is a decoy, or a trick to finding the cache. You can cram a piece of paper with your name on it into a space near the GZ, but you didn't find the cache.

[+narcissa]

 

If you were to delete my log thusly, I would appeal the deletion to TPTB and recommend that everyone else did, also. When those logs were then reinstated, would you still consider the problem solved?

 

The logs would be reinstated and you're local caching community would have yet one more reason to dislike you. Your actions wouldn't solve the problem. It would merely ratchet up the angst level.

 

(I'm reminded of your outrage when your caches started disappearing, for some reason.)

 

You must have me confused with someone else. I don't remember any sort out "outrage" about caches "disappearing."

 

Anyway, in this hypothetical scenario, I would simply put the throw-down in the garbage where it belongs. Anyone who has signed the garbage instead of the cache would be out of luck, and I would have the real logbook to document the real finders.

 

My husband has a cache where someone signed the lid of a Gatorade bottle that was on the ground somewhere near the cache. Exactly the same thing. If you want to write your name on garbage, go ahead, but it's not the cache.

[Andronicus]

Similar problem with a cache that has one of my trackables in it

 

http://coord.info/GC3F9QN

 

This log kind of sums it up

Found it

 

06/26/2014

 

At first I thought someone had moved this cache because my gps still showed 25 metres away. .but then I realized that there IS another cache only 23 metres away. .so it looks as though I found THAT one by mistake. Looks like other ppl have as well because I did pick up the lex lure that was in it but logged here. Anyways. .beautiful area! ! I'll have to go back and check again for this one.

 

So while people have reported that my trackable is not in there, it may well be in the "other" cache.

[+JPreto]

Delete all logs in your listing that are written in that logbook, none of the people that logged it found the correct container so... they didn´t actually found it, right? They found another thing, not the container you placed!!!!! Problem solved!!!!!

 

If it was in one of my caches this would be what I would do.

If you were to delete my log thusly, I would appeal the deletion to TPTB and recommend that everyone else did, also. When those logs were then reinstated, would you still consider the problem solved?

 

The logs would be reinstated and you're local caching community would have yet one more reason to dislike you. Your actions wouldn't solve the problem. It would merely ratchet up the angst level.

 

You really think so? What about my proof that they didn´t sign the logbook? A simple photo of the logbook solved the problem...

 

Anyway, in this hypothetical scenario, I would simply put the throw-down in the garbage where it belongs. Anyone who has signed the garbage instead of the cache would be out of luck, and I would have the real logbook to document the real finders.

 

My husband has a cache where someone signed the lid of a Gatorade bottle that was on the ground somewhere near the cache. Exactly the same thing. If you want to write your name on garbage, go ahead, but it's not the cache.

 

Exactly like "narcisa" puts it! This for me is the way to do it... Wrong cache on the garbage, where it belongs! All online logs that have no signature in the correct logbook delete!!! Simple...

 

And if it was like "sbell111" says, that all deleted logs would be reinstated by Groundspeak, anyone of those "achievers" would go in any cache, place a new cache, write any name and they sign the logbook and there would be no way that the CO could delete the log. Or even more just say: "I wrote my name on the logbook, maybe someone stole the cache that I sign after I did it. Not my problem." This just doesn´t make any sense for me...

 

It really seems very hard to believe that Groundspeak would reinstate a log when a person didn´t sign the cache´s logbook, but I have no proof in either way, not a single example in my caches so far that I deleted a log were reinstated and all the logs that the CO deleted my log were reinstated by Groundspeak after I complain.

 

By the way, I take photos of every logbook I sign, also showing the cache, so the owner knows how the cache is at the moment and know who signed the logbook or not. So it is pretty easy to prove I sign the logbook placed in the correct cache!

[+sbell111]

Technically you would be correct in deleting all of the finds. However, remember that all of the cachers who found the throw down after it was thrown down are also victims of the throw down. I wouldn't delete their finds.

 

"Victims" is a strong word. They were misled, and did not find the cache. Not the cache owner's problem.

There was a container and logbook at ground zero that was being confused for the cache. As such, it seems like it was exactly the cache owner's problem. The longer the cache owner delayed in resolving the issue, for whatever reason, the more people accidently signed the wrong logbook.

 

These people didn't intentionally sign the wrong book. They actually thought that they signed the correct book and weren't even aware that a 'wrong' logbook existed. As such, I feel that Groundspeak's guidance in this situation is appropriate and their online logs should not be deleted.

 

It's no different than caches where there is a decoy, or a trick to finding the cache. You can cram a piece of paper with your name on it into a space near the GZ, but you didn't find the cache.

You are certainly correct. Of course, it should be noted that in those cases you would also be responsible for removing the extraneous log as part of your maintenance and should allow the finds made in good faith on that log.

[+sbell111]

 

If you were to delete my log thusly, I would appeal the deletion to TPTB and recommend that everyone else did, also. When those logs were then reinstated, would you still consider the problem solved?

 

The logs would be reinstated and you're local caching community would have yet one more reason to dislike you. Your actions wouldn't solve the problem. It would merely ratchet up the angst level.

 

(I'm reminded of your outrage when your caches started disappearing, for some reason.)

 

You must have me confused with someone else. I don't remember any sort out "outrage" about caches "disappearing."

No, you have you confused with someone else as the post you quoted was my response to Jpreto.

 

Anyway, in this hypothetical scenario, I would simply put the throw-down in the garbage where it belongs. Anyone who has signed the garbage instead of the cache would be out of luck, and I would have the real logbook to document the real finders.

 

My husband has a cache where someone signed the lid of a Gatorade bottle that was on the ground somewhere near the cache. Exactly the same thing. If you want to write your name on garbage, go ahead, but it's not the cache.

That is not at all the same thing as most people would not confuse a gatorade lid for a geocache, but would certainly confuse an actual container with a logbook inside for a geocache.

[+sbell111]

Delete all logs in your listing that are written in that logbook, none of the people that logged it found the correct container so... they didn´t actually found it, right? They found another thing, not the container you placed!!!!! Problem solved!!!!!

 

If it was in one of my caches this would be what I would do.

If you were to delete my log thusly, I would appeal the deletion to TPTB and recommend that everyone else did, also. When those logs were then reinstated, would you still consider the problem solved?

 

The logs would be reinstated and you're local caching community would have yet one more reason to dislike you. Your actions wouldn't solve the problem. It would merely ratchet up the angst level.

 

You really think so? What about my proof that they didn´t sign the logbook? A simple photo of the logbook solved the problem...

Aren't you the one who is in the habit of photographing his logbook signings (with some sort of poker chip, as I recall)? What do you think that TPTB will do when someone offers up such a photograph to substantiate their claim? Further, what if ten or more people make the same claim?

[+MKFmly]

Technically you would be correct in deleting all of the finds. However, remember that all of the cachers who found the throw down after it was thrown down are also victims of the throw down. I wouldn't delete their finds.

 

"Victims" is a strong word. They were misled, and did not find the cache. Not the cache owner's problem.

In this hypothetical situation the fact that the cache owner allows a throwdown IS exactly the cache owners problem.

[+narcissa]

That is not at all the same thing as most people would not confuse a gatorade lid for a geocache, but would certainly confuse an actual container with a logbook inside for a geocache.

 

Either way, it's garbage that I didn't put there, and it's not the geocache. If your log isn't in my logbook, you didn't find the cache. Take it up with the losers who put out garbage at other people's caches if you don't like it.

[+Ben0w]

You really think so? What about my proof that they didn´t sign the logbook? A simple photo of the logbook solved the problem...

What if I can show a photo with a cache box at that location, showing a logbook and - among others - my signature in it? Proof enough?

 

By the way, I take photos of every logbook I sign, also showing the cache, so the owner knows how the cache is at the moment and know who signed the logbook or not. So it is pretty easy to prove I sign the logbook placed in the correct cache!

How do you know it's the correct cache?

 

I had the very same problem recently: solved a puzzle, got the geochecker green, visited the location and pulled a lock'n'lock container out from the spot, just as the hint was telling me. It contained a logbook (real book), which was totally full. I signed it but couldn't find the bonus code that was supposed to be in it. So I mailed the owner. Unfortunately I got a reply few days later, when I already was a significant distance away (the cache is 600 kilometres from my home). We discussed s bit, me showing my photos and he decided to look after his cache. Turned out I found another box (BTW: not listed on other common websites) than the original one - which is located at the same spot. At least the CO said that, _I_ have no proof...maybe he's hiding the fact he did not maintain his cache for a long time. So I still count this as legible find but am still missing the bonus code I need for a cache which is just ~1.5 hrs away from me.

 

How should I have known that was a replacement box?I even don't know it now, just that the CO says so. It was a good cache box with a decent logbook, no cheap ziplock with a piece of paper.

[+JPreto]

You really think so? What about my proof that they didn´t sign the logbook? A simple photo of the logbook solved the problem...

Aren't you the one who is in the habit of photographing his logbook signings (with some sort of poker chip, as I recall)? What do you think that TPTB will do when someone offers up such a photograph to substantiate their claim? Further, what if ten or more people make the same claim?

If I found the wrong container (the photo I took is of the wrong container) then I have no claim that I found the geocache. If the CO would just tell me I found the wrong cache I would say: "Ok, I will delete my log but please remove the wrong container!" And I would post a note on the cache listing with the photo of the container saying: "This is not the correct container"

 

Simple!

[+JPreto]

You really think so? What about my proof that they didn´t sign the logbook? A simple photo of the logbook solved the problem...

What if I can show a photo with a cache box at that location, showing a logbook and - among others - my signature in it? Proof enough?

 

By the way, I take photos of every logbook I sign, also showing the cache, so the owner knows how the cache is at the moment and know who signed the logbook or not. So it is pretty easy to prove I sign the logbook placed in the correct cache!

How do you know it's the correct cache?

I don´t... that is why I attach in all my logs a photo of the logbook and the cache. Sometimes a CO can´t even know that a throwdown was placed... If he looks at my log and say: "WTF, this is not my cache" he can delete my log (has reason for that because I didn´s sign the logbook) and go to the cache location, check if the original container is there and remove the throwdown.

 

I had the very same problem recently: solved a puzzle, got the geochecker green, visited the location and pulled a lock'n'lock container out from the spot, just as the hint was telling me. It contained a logbook (real book), which was totally full. I signed it but couldn't find the bonus code that was supposed to be in it. So I mailed the owner. Unfortunately I got a reply few days later, when I already was a significant distance away (the cache is 600 kilometres from my home). We discussed s bit, me showing my photos and he decided to look after his cache. Turned out I found another box (BTW: not listed on other common websites) than the original one - which is located at the same spot. At least the CO said that, _I_ have no proof...maybe he's hiding the fact he did not maintain his cache for a long time. So I still count this as legible find but am still missing the bonus code I need for a cache which is just ~1.5 hrs away from me.

 

How should I have known that was a replacement box?I even don't know it now, just that the CO says so. It was a good cache box with a decent logbook, no cheap ziplock with a piece of paper.

Geocaching is more than having a number... what is the problem of deleting the FOUND IT of a cache that you actually didn´t find? The container you found was not the correct one but one that some "fellow geocachers" placed.

 

In my opinion you should be mad with the "fellow geocachers" that placed an extra geocache and not the CO. They were the ones that placed a new container clearly without the CO permit!

 

If everybody complained about throwdowns and the COs deleted all logs that were placed in the wrong throwdown containers problems like these would cease to happen.

Edited September 9, 2014 by JPreto

[+Ben0w]

It all comes to the conclusion, that throwdowns are a bad idea and simply should not be done.

 

I may use this line in other discussions as well...

[+JPreto]

It all comes to the conclusion, that throwdowns are a bad idea and simply should not be done.

 

I may use this line in other discussions as well...

My kind of person!!!! Lets start an Anti-Throwdown movement!!!!

[+Ben0w]

So I still count this as legible find but am still missing the bonus code I need for a cache which is just ~1.5 hrs away from me.

 

How should I have known that was a replacement box?I even don't know it now, just that the CO says so. It was a good cache box with a decent logbook, no cheap ziplock with a piece of paper.

Geocaching is more than having a number... what is the problem of deleting the FOUND IT of a cache that you actually didn´t find? The container you found was not the correct one but one that some "fellow geocachers" placed.

Don't know. Maybe it's just what the owner is telling me despite he just didn't notice the bonus number was gone due to lack of maintenance. And now simply makes the story up by inventing a "throwdown"? I have a photo to proof I signed a decent logbook in a geocache container at this specific location, I have my team to witness this. Not a bad argument for discussing a log deletion. Which didn't happen, by the way.

 

But it's not about the number of finds for me - in this case it's about the bonus code...If I'm still interested, I probably will get there again in several years and then find the right box.

 

In my opinion you should be mad with the "fellow geocachers" that placed an extra geocache and not the CO. They were the ones that placed a new container clearly without the CO permit!

If it was another one. I can't proof nor deny that.

 

The CO clearly hasn't reacted to previous logs already mentioning the missing bonus code in their logs. I seem to be the first who specifically draw his attention to this. But I still don't know if it just was missing from the box or - like he states - was in another box nearby, "the right one".

 

If everybody complained about throwdowns and the COs deleted all logs that were placed in the wrong throwdown containers problems like these would cease to happen.

No. Again, it's not always clear for thr finder, that there's a throwdown (that was the intention of my example).

 

The only thing that causes those problems ceasing to happen is people stop leaving throwdowns. Could be so simple.

[+GeoBain]

and I would have the real logbook to document the real finders.

 

What if the real logbook was missing? What if someone stole the original cache or an animal walked off with it?

 

Would you then delete those found it logs as well? You would have no proof they really found the real cache.

[Mr.Yuck]

How to handle throwdowns

 

Sorry that someone left a throwdown pill bottle at your cache site. Perhaps it's from another game, or perhaps someone felt they were "helping" when they couldn't find your cache. While this has always been an issue with the game, it seems to be becoming more the standard approach.

 

All I ask is you do not freaking tell JPreto about this. As a matter of fact, they should add that to the bottom of the Groundspeak Help page article.

 

Are you talkin to me?

 

Delete all logs in your listing that are written in that logbook, none of the people that logged it found the correct container so... they didn´t actually found it, right? They found another thing, not the container you placed!!!!! Problem solved!!!!!

 

If it was in one of my caches this would be what I would do.

 

Yes I am talkin to you. I know English is not your first language (you do very well with it, by the way), but I cannot stress enough how I was totally joking. As a matter of fact, and I hate this term, I did lol after I typed that.

 

I think that's too radical of a stance. I'd never delete the logs of throwdown finders.

[+The A-Team]

and I would have the real logbook to document the real finders.

What if the real logbook was missing? What if someone stole the original cache or an animal walked off with it?

 

Would you then delete those found it logs as well? You would have no proof they really found the real cache.

Based on their views as stated in this discussion, I have to assume they would. They seem to have an extremely puritanical view of geocaching, to the point that I'm almost tempted to invoke Godwin's Law...

 

Many people see this as a fun game where panties don't need to get bunched. Others...

[+Mudfrog]

It all comes to the conclusion, that throwdowns are a bad idea and simply should not be done.

 

I may use this line in other discussions as well...

My kind of person!!!! Lets start an Anti-Throwdown movement!!!!

 

Count me in!

[+narcissa]

and I would have the real logbook to document the real finders.

 

What if the real logbook was missing? What if someone stole the original cache or an animal walked off with it?

 

Would you then delete those found it logs as well? You would have no proof they really found the real cache.

 

I guess I'd be out of luck then, and the fraudulent logs would have to stand. I'd probably archive the cache if a genuinely missing cache had been "replaced" by one of these jerks. I don't hide traditionals anyway, and throw-downs are a big part of that decision. Traditionals attract poor behaviour.

[+narcissa]

and I would have the real logbook to document the real finders.

What if the real logbook was missing? What if someone stole the original cache or an animal walked off with it?

 

Would you then delete those found it logs as well? You would have no proof they really found the real cache.

Based on their views as stated in this discussion, I have to assume they would. They seem to have an extremely puritanical view of geocaching, to the point that I'm almost tempted to invoke Godwin's Law...

 

Many people see this as a fun game where panties don't need to get bunched. Others...

 

About my own geocaching, I am fairly strict. How others deal with their own caches is their own decision.

 

I simply avoid most of the riff-raff by refusing to hide caches that attract low caliber people.

[+sbell111]

That is not at all the same thing as most people would not confuse a gatorade lid for a geocache, but would certainly confuse an actual container with a logbook inside for a geocache.

 

Either way, it's garbage that I didn't put there, and it's not the geocache. If your log isn't in my logbook, you didn't find the cache. Take it up with the losers who put out garbage at other people's caches if you don't like it.

I would take it up with you. If that didn't resolve my issue, then I would take it up with tptb.

[+Mudfrog]

That is not at all the same thing as most people would not confuse a gatorade lid for a geocache, but would certainly confuse an actual container with a logbook inside for a geocache.

 

Either way, it's garbage that I didn't put there, and it's not the geocache. If your log isn't in my logbook, you didn't find the cache. Take it up with the losers who put out garbage at other people's caches if you don't like it.

 

I too do not want anyone throwdowning at one of my cache sites and i'd certainly try to find out who did it and delete their log. At the same time, i would not punish other finders for unknowingly signing the throwdown log.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

 

I simply avoid most of the riff-raff by refusing to hide caches that attract low caliber people.

 

This is beautiful.....I hate it when I snort coffee.

Thank you for a morning pick up !

[+narcissa]

That is not at all the same thing as most people would not confuse a gatorade lid for a geocache, but would certainly confuse an actual container with a logbook inside for a geocache.

 

Either way, it's garbage that I didn't put there, and it's not the geocache. If your log isn't in my logbook, you didn't find the cache. Take it up with the losers who put out garbage at other people's caches if you don't like it.

 

I too do not want anyone throwdowning at one of my cache sites and i'd certainly try to find out who did it and delete their log. At the same time, i would not punish other finders for unknowingly signing the throwdown log.

 

Deleting a false log isn't punishment. It is a factual correction. They didn't find the cache.

 

I understand that some cache owners are more lenient about fraudulent logging than others, and that is their choice.

[+cerberus1]

That is not at all the same thing as most people would not confuse a gatorade lid for a geocache, but would certainly confuse an actual container with a logbook inside for a geocache.

 

Either way, it's garbage that I didn't put there, and it's not the geocache. If your log isn't in my logbook, you didn't find the cache. Take it up with the losers who put out garbage at other people's caches if you don't like it.

 

I too do not want anyone throwdowning at one of my cache sites and i'd certainly try to find out who did it and delete their log. At the same time, i would not punish other finders for unknowingly signing the throwdown log.

 

Deleting a false log isn't punishment. It is a factual correction. They didn't find the cache.

 

I understand that some cache owners are more lenient about fraudulent logging than others, and that is their choice.

We delete fake finder's logs.

Someone finding and signing a throwdown within acceptable feet of the cache doesn't seem fraudulent to me.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

Deleting a false log isn't punishment. It is a factual correction. They didn't find the cache.

 

I understand that some cache owners are more lenient about fraudulent logging than others, and that is their choice.

 

It might not be a bad idea. There's a geocache near here that was archived by the owner due to people finding a letterbox nearby in sad condition and posting NM notes on the geocache page. I can imagine the same thing happening with throwdowns, as they tend not to be very nice containers. At some point there needs to be a clear message sent that there should be more responsibility for knowing exactly what you are finding, as well as not littering the area with fake caches.

Edited September 10, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+cerberus1]

Reading through the logs it's impossible to determine who placed the throwdown. And from your OP it also sounds like some recent finders did find the container you placed. Since your page does not specifically mention the container type, I think you have to let those finds on the wrong container stay. Those cachers had no way of knowing that they were misled by the person who placed the throw down there instead of posting a DNF.

+1

One in a series got two throwdowns (about a year apart).

Both were from long time pms with thousands of finds on a numbers run.

We thought it odd that the one that was giving folks the hardest time was suddenly being found easily.

- Go there and sure enough, a white film can twelve feet away was what most found.

A white film can laying on the ground (full view on a bike) was easier to find than the hide a key rock under a rock ledge on the trail's edge.

The two groups who left 'em got deleted and none questioned why. We let the others slide.

But I bet I was called names at events for awhile...

[+narcissa]

 

Deleting a false log isn't punishment. It is a factual correction. They didn't find the cache.

 

I understand that some cache owners are more lenient about fraudulent logging than others, and that is their choice.

 

It might not be a bad idea. There's a geocache near here that was archived by the owner due to people finding a letterbox nearby in sad condition and posting NM notes on the geocache page. I can imagine the same thing happening with throwdowns, as they tend not to be very nice containers. At some point there needs to be a clear message sent that there should be more responsibility for knowing exactly what you are finding, as well as not littering the area with fake caches.

 

Similar story with the games that use QR stickers. While it's unfortunate that some people are easily misled by a sticker or a piece of garbage near the cache, some COs do like to maintain a semblance of integrity. For all the fussing that goes on about other people false achievements somehow degrading their own real ones, it's a little surprising to see so many people defending poor behaviour.

[+BulldogBlitz]

To the people who leave throw downs, a cache is generic. To them the point of geocaching is to find a cache. some of them are even puritans and insist you sign the log (that's why the name on the top of the throwdown log is probably the person who left the throwdown ). So it isn't important if the cache is a ammo can or pill bottle, it isn't important if the cache is hanging in a bush or under a suspicious pile of rocks, and it is rarely important if the cache was difficult hide or had some special camouflage.

 

The important thing it that they verify the cache is missing and once they know the cache is missing, then it is always better to replace a missing cache, since a missing cache is impossible to find and the point of geocaching is to find a cache.

 

I'm not sure how they can be certain the cache is missing. I suppose they look and see a cache that was being found and now has a number of consecutive DNFs. I've seen comments posted where if some DNFs are from "experienced" cachers the cache must be really missing. Sometimes they will look at the difficulty or at past logs to see if the cache is tricky, but not always. I got a notification last weekend that a person who is known for leaving throwdowns left one at a difficult cache. Apparently there was a string of finds (including a couple of groups where someone had found the cache before) follow by five DNFs. Without looking at the logs of some finders (which indicate it took them multiple visits), or at difficulty (4 stars), he left a throwdown and a note. (This guy always asks for permission before logging the find, but if you don't give it like I didn't on one of my caches, he'll let you know what an ungrateful bastard you are.) I will point out that this guy went on and logged a couple of DNFs later in the day on much easier caches. In these cases there weren't prior DNFs so he was no longer certain that the cache was missing.

 

i am so happy to see that there is a similar experience elsewhere in the geo-world. although i cannot attribute it to one cacher... each individual situation you described has been seen here, some of them on my caches. my favorite is the "experienced" cacher bit - 100 finds to 8,000 finds, everyone is "experienced"

[+tozainamboku]

Deleting a false log isn't punishment. It is a factual correction. They didn't find the cache.

 

I understand that some cache owners are more lenient about fraudulent logging than others, and that is their choice.

One of the objections I hear when I use the "P" word is that "we're not puritans, we simply want the log to be correct"

 

It's easy enough to understand why a literalist would believe the online find log should reflect that the actual cache was found - not that some didn't find the cache and left a replacement, not that someone found the letterboz and not thc cache, not that someone found the decoy, and presumably not that someone found a replacement left without the owners permission (especially if the orginal container is still in play).

 

The majority of geocachers seem to be able to avoid getting their knickers in a twist because someone has a less literal definition of find. Many, if not most, cache owners don't go about deleting online log except in the most egregious cases of couch potato logging or in the most off-topic post (i.e. using the log for spamming).

 

I believe that Groundspeak sees arbitraty deletion of logs by cache owners who have far too literal views of the meaning of the online found log as a more serious a problem than cache owners who allow bogus logs to stand. They certainly have taken action against cache owners who invite bogus logs, so I will admit they are not entirely indifferent to bogus logs, but for the most part they don't really care about the sorts of things that get posted in the "Found It = Didn't Find It" thread. On the other hand they have added guidelines on the logging of caches that restrict the reasons that cache owners can delete logs. ALRs are no longer allowed, and most of the time, if the physical cache log is signed the online log has protection agains arbitrary deletion. The case of throwdowns is covered in the help center article referenced in post #3 above.

 

In these cases, it is reasonable for the geocache owner to allow finds of the throwdown to be logged online as found because the finder generally cannot determine whether they found a throwdown instead of the original container. The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

 

While this simply a suggestion from TPTB right now, it indicates an approach of allowing online found logs from subsequent finder who found the throwdown while deleting the log of the person who can be identified as having left the throwdown. For now a literalist could probably do as narcissa suggests, but I'm not sure this will always be the case.

[+JPreto]

 

Deleting a false log isn't punishment. It is a factual correction. They didn't find the cache.

 

I understand that some cache owners are more lenient about fraudulent logging than others, and that is their choice.

 

It might not be a bad idea. There's a geocache near here that was archived by the owner due to people finding a letterbox nearby in sad condition and posting NM notes on the geocache page. I can imagine the same thing happening with throwdowns, as they tend not to be very nice containers. At some point there needs to be a clear message sent that there should be more responsibility for knowing exactly what you are finding, as well as not littering the area with fake caches.

 

Similar story with the games that use QR stickers. While it's unfortunate that some people are easily misled by a sticker or a piece of garbage near the cache, some COs do like to maintain a semblance of integrity. For all the fussing that goes on about other people false achievements somehow degrading their own real ones, it's a little surprising to see so many people defending poor behaviour.

Not for me... I would be surprised if geocachers started deleting bogus logs and respecting what Groundspeak defends in their guidelines:

 

Geocache Maintenance

Owner is responsible for geocache listing maintenance.

As the owner of your cache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache listing. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

 

Actually is a geocacher´s dutty to delete bogus and counterfeit logs. Simple, just follow the guidelines!

[+BulldogBlitz]

So imagine you were the OP. Exactly which online log would you identify as from the throwdowner. Exactly which log in this case would give you that "inkling"? Also tell us how any of the finders were supposed to know it was a throwdown.

 

Your mass deletion plan would only have merit if you retrieved the throwdown and positively identified the culprit, and then let everyone know who was really responsible for their log being deleted.

 

as any responsible cache owner, you should verify the physical log after each and every online log. also, verify the time of day stated. it will also be a good idea to make sure that the entire cacher name is legible and on the line with the date and time.

[+narcissa]

While this simply a suggestion from TPTB right now, it indicates an approach of allowing online found logs from subsequent finder who found the throwdown while deleting the log of the person who can be identified as having left the throwdown. For now a literalist could probably do as narcissa suggests, but I'm not sure this will always be the case.

 

Explicitly permitting throwdowns will pose far bigger problems than diligent cache owners deleting fraudulent logs.

 

The more reasonable interpretation is that TPTB aren't going to archive your cache if you decide to take pity on people who were duped by a throw-down.

[4wheelin_fool]

So imagine you were the OP. Exactly which online log would you identify as from the throwdowner. Exactly which log in this case would give you that "inkling"? Also tell us how any of the finders were supposed to know it was a throwdown.

 

Your mass deletion plan would only have merit if you retrieved the throwdown and positively identified the culprit, and then let everyone know who was really responsible for their log being deleted.

 

as any responsible cache owner, you should verify the physical log after each and every online log. also, verify the time of day stated. it will also be a good idea to make sure that the entire cacher name is legible and on the line with the date and time.

 

I use a game camera to verify the cachers identity when compared to known images. DNA and fingerprint analysis often proves too costly in most cases, unless it's a double platinum 5/5.

Edited September 10, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Traditional Bill]

So imagine you were the OP. Exactly which online log would you identify as from the throwdowner. Exactly which log in this case would give you that "inkling"? Also tell us how any of the finders were supposed to know it was a throwdown.

 

Your mass deletion plan would only have merit if you retrieved the throwdown and positively identified the culprit, and then let everyone know who was really responsible for their log being deleted.

 

as any responsible cache owner, you should verify the physical log after each and every online log. also, verify the time of day stated. it will also be a good idea to make sure that the entire cacher name is legible and on the line with the date and time.

 

I use a game camera to verify the cachers identity when compared to known images. DNA and fingerprint analysis often proves too costly in most cases, unless it's a double platinum 5/5.

I just found a double Platinum 5/5 with 4 challenge stars hidden by a freakin Platinum member the other day.... No DNA or fingerprint verification, but the CO was at GZ when I got there to verify my log. Good thing because I had a container ready to go so I could replace the final just in case.

[Andronicus]

...The two groups who left 'em (the through downs) got deleted and none questioned why. We let the others slide.

That seems like the right thing to do.

[Andronicus]

...

 

Explicitly permitting throwdowns will pose far bigger problems than diligent cache owners deleting fraudulent logs.

...

I think calling cachers who find a throwdown "fraudulent" is a little disingenuous.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Andronicus

[+The A-Team]

Deleting a false log isn't punishment. It is a factual correction. They didn't find the cache.

 

I understand that some cache owners are more lenient about fraudulent logging than others, and that is their choice.

 

...it's a little surprising to see so many people defending poor behaviour.

If you look back through this discussion, I think you'll find that there's a consensus that the throwdowner's log is eligible to be promptly deleted. We agree with you on that part.

 

The part many here are trying to defend is the people who unknowingly found the throwdown. You used the term "fraudulent" above. While this fits the actions of the throwdowner, it doesn't cover the later finders (in most cases). To use a legal analogy, people who get taken in by a Ponzi scheme are unlikely to be charged with fraud, since they didn't actually do anything wrong in the eyes of the law. Fraud implies that deception was intended, but that's certainly not the case with most people who find throwdowns (with possible exceptions as mentioned earlier, like when someone finds a film canister when the description says it's an ammo can).

[+cerberus1]

...The two groups who left 'em (the through downs) got deleted and none questioned why. We let the others slide.

That seems like the right thing to do.

We felt it wasn't their fault the container size matched and was "close enough" to GZ.

I don't often look at hints either, why I can't find anything smaller than a 30cal.

- I'd feel terrible referring to people, some we know, as dupes, making fraudulent finds.

Edited September 10, 2014 by cerberus1

[+narcissa]

...

 

Explicitly permitting throwdowns will pose far bigger problems than diligent cache owners deleting fraudulent logs.

...

I think calling cachers who find a throwdown "fraudulent" is a little disingenuous.

 

I think logging a find when you've actually found a piece of garbage or a sticker is absolutely disingenuous.

[+GeoBain]

...

 

Explicitly permitting throwdowns will pose far bigger problems than diligent cache owners deleting fraudulent logs.

...

I think calling cachers who find a throwdown "fraudulent" is a little disingenuous.

 

I think logging a find when you've actually found a piece of garbage or a sticker is absolutely disingenuous.

 

Change it to "I think logging a find when you've knowingly found a piece of garbage or a sticker is absolutely disingenuous." and I agree wholeheartedly with you.

 

Finding a container with no log book such as a decoy and claiming a find, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

Finding a container of the correct size in the location of the coordinates with a logbook, however, is not deceptive.

 

Given your parameters the only way a cacher can really log a valid find is if they have you present to confirm that they are signing the correct logbook. If you wish to take such a hard line, then you need to be out checking your caches following each and ever log so that you can ensure that other cachers are not going to find garbage at your cache location.