Jump to content

what is the log book/sheet for?


gazurtoid

Recommended Posts

Just starting into this hobby, and I'm wondering, what is the purpose of the paper log book/sheet in the cache container? I can see that in the "old days", it would have had a purpose, but now that we can log all info on geocaching.com, I don't understand why we're supposed to sign the paper log sheet/book.

Link to comment

Just starting into this hobby, and I'm wondering, what is the purpose of the paper log book/sheet in the cache container? I can see that in the "old days", it would have had a purpose, but now that we can log all info on geocaching.com, I don't understand why we're supposed to sign the paper log sheet/book.

 

Stops people from planting virtuals.

Link to comment

Just starting into this hobby, and I'm wondering, what is the purpose of the paper log book/sheet in the cache container? I can see that in the "old days", it would have had a purpose, but now that we can log all info on geocaching.com, I don't understand why we're supposed to sign the paper log sheet/book.

 

It's physical proof that you found the cache.

 

The cache owner can verify real-life finds by checking it against the online logs. I've done that.

 

There are a lot of "armchair" cachers out there. Logging a find online is not proof that they found the actual cache.

 

Some caches are difficult to retrieve and return to the hiding spot. Signing the cache log is physical proof that the cache was found.

 

In the "old days", people used to write more than just the date and their username in the physical log book. Those are enjoyable to read.

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

That's Groundspeaks requirement is. A container with a logbook. You sign the log, then log it on line. It's proof you where there. It's proof you actually got to the cache, instead of seeing it from 100 feet away.

 

There's other games that don't require a logbook(using other methods to prove you where there), so yes it really is arbitrary, but that is what makes geocaching different than those other games. I mean why aren't basketballs black, and the floor white? I mean it works for hockey...but then that's the difference between the two.

Edited by T.D.M.22
Link to comment

Ever readGeocaching 101?

Under, "How is the game played?" reads...

 

At its simplest level, geocaching requires these 8 steps:

1.Register for a free Basic Membership.

2.Visit the "Hide & Seek a Cache" page.

3.Enter your postal code and click "search."

4.Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

5.Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.

6.Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

7.Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

8.Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

It isn't a find if you didn't sign the log.

Link to comment

I can see that in the "old days"...

In "the old days", folks would use a map (from their pocket); a pencil; ruler; protractor and a "real" compass to find their way.

 

But then too, we had to chisel the log in stone.... in the really old days.

 

I thought it was an actual log from a tree, and that's why the caches were so big...

Link to comment

Thanks for all the replies. I understand the reasoning now, but at least in my case, it still doesn't really make sense for me to write on the paper log, for these reasons:

 

- it will often be raining, so the less time I have the log sheet out, the drier it'll keep.

- My family has found only about 10 caches so far, but in about half of them, the log sheet was wet. In one case, it was frozen in ice.

- I have absolutely no desire to win any prize or anything for accumulating caches. Therefore I have absolutely no desire to "cheat" and log a cache as found, when I didn't find it. (is there a prize or sense of status for accumulating caches? If not, why would anybody cheat?)

- If a geocaching administrator or someone like that says that because I didn't sign the log sheets, my found caches "don't count", I'd say "I don't care", because I'm not in this for money or status. As long as the website shows my found caches with the smiley-face icon, I'm happy. :)

 

Some more questions, after reading the replies:

 

- what's wrong with virtual caches?

- as a cache owner, why would you want to verify that people have signed the log sheet instead of trusting the online log? If there are armchair cachers who've cheated, that will inflate the number of finds. Is that bad?

- as a cache owner, if you find that there are online finds that don't have corresponding paper log entries, what do you do about it?

Link to comment

- If a geocaching administrator or someone like that says that because I didn't sign the log sheets, my found caches "don't count", I'd say "I don't care", because I'm not in this for money or status. As long as the website shows my found caches with the smiley-face icon, I'm happy. :)

 

That's where you're going to have a problem. The rules say that if you don't sign the physical log, the cache owner can delete your online log.

 

- as a cache owner, why would you want to verify that people have signed the log sheet instead of trusting the online log? If there are armchair cachers who've cheated, that will inflate the number of finds. Is that bad?

 

Some people don't care and don't check. Others feel that, because they put effort into making an interesting, difficult, or tricky cache, and other people put effort into finding those caches, it's not fair for someone who didn't find the cache to get credit. And, as was mentioned, they will delete your online log.

 

From reading these forums, I get the impression that the "must sign physical log" rule was initially created to settle disputes about whether someone had "really" found a cache (or to prevent cache owners from coming up with extra criteria about what you must do to count it as a find). So the rule is, if you signed the log, the find stands. At least, that's what I've gathered.

Edited by michellepluseight
Link to comment

Re: virtual cache question:

 

 

Keep in mind that there has always been some method of visit validation for all cache types on the site, pretty much from the beginning, independent of the online log. Does it matter? I'm not sure it does, and I'm glad to see you consider it just a relaxing pastime. It would be nice if more people took this hobby less seriously.

 

Best of luck!

Link to comment

As previously explained, signing the log sheet is proof that you actually found the cache. As a new player it is probably hard to fathom why anybody would "cheat" at this simple little game, but they do. Realistically, I don't go out and check the logbook on my caches for every find claimed online....if you say you found it I believe you. But I did have this one guy who created an account one day, and on the very same day he logged a ridiculous number of finds on all seven continents and multiple countries, one of which happened to be one of mine. Obviously bogus, so I deleted his find. Why someone would do this, I don't know, but they do.

 

And as michellepluseight pointed out, if I put a lot of effort into a challenging cache with a tricky hide or a really cool container, why should I allow someone to claim a find who didn't go through the effort of finding it?

Link to comment
As long as the website shows my found caches with the smiley-face icon, I'm happy.
Aye, there's the rub. As michellepluseight indicated, if the owner deletes your Find log, then the cache no longer shows up with the smiley-face icon. And then I guess you won't be happy.

 

what's wrong with virtual caches?
See the link that Touchstone posted.

 

Virtual caches are caches without physical logs. The comment that was posted by L0ne.R is essentially pointing out that Groundspeak now requires caches to have a container and a log, so there are no new virtual caches being listed.

 

Except for EarthCaches, which are essentially virtual caches with a lesson about geology. Because Groundspeak created the EarthCache concept by working with The Geological Society of America.

 

as a cache owner, why would you want to verify that people have signed the log sheet instead of trusting the online log? If there are armchair cachers who've cheated, that will inflate the number of finds. Is that bad?
Well, the Found It = Didn't Find It thread has already reached 56 pages, so yeah, it's terrible. It's horrible. It's no good. It's very bad.

 

as a cache owner, if you find that there are online finds that don't have corresponding paper log entries, what do you do about it?
I'm with Chief301. I don't go check the physical log to verify every online Find log. But when something seems questionable, yes, I do verify the physical log. And I have deleted bogus Find logs. Sometimes I've sent private email and asked the person who posted the log to edit or delete it, but I've also deleted them myself.

 

And when the person who posted the log doesn't have a verified email address, you can't send private email, so pretty much the only thing you can do is delete the log.

Link to comment

You do have another option. You can log a note saying you found it but that you did not care to sign it as that is your custom.

 

There are consequences of false logs beyond the potential for log deletion. A "found it" log on a difficult cache, especially one that gets a decent percentage of "DNF" logs, may convince a geocacher to go out and hunt for it when, in fact, it is missing. Not the end of the world but trying to keep the game honest does make it easier on everyone.

Link to comment

An additional consideration is that many cachers hide some cache where the real challenge is to access and open the cache, not merely find it. The log entry in the logbook is confirmation that those additional steps were completed. Also sometimes the hardest task is replacing the cache in the proper place. Perhaps with more finds you will have a chance encounter some of these fun caches. Welcome to the game and enjoy it!

Link to comment

Everyone sort of has their own caching "ethics", if you will, and their own rules for when they will or won't log a find. For some folks, if they found the container they'll log the find, and don't see the need for the tedious opening the container and signing the log part. For others, if they saw the container but couldn't physically reach it (maybe it's way up a tree but you have to climb to get it), some folks will claim a find on that and others will not, because they didn't meet the hider's challenge of actually climbing the tree and retrieving the cache.

 

Still others play by the rule that if you're caching with a group of friends, only the person who actually found it is entitled to claim the find...but these are the exception. Most groups will share a find...sometimes everyone will sign the log with their own name, or sometimes a group will opt to just leave one signature with the group's name, and then everyone will log it online under their individual accounts. In those cases it's a good idea to mention in the online log "found with Team _____", This saves time at the cache site, as well as precious space on those tiny micro log sheets.

 

My personal ethos is:

 

Found it and signed log = log find

 

Searched for it but didn't find it = Did Not Find (DNF)

 

Spotted it but could not retrieve or open container by design (up a tree that I didn't feel safe climbing, or a tricky puzzle container that I couldn't figure out ) = DNF (because I didn't meet the intended challenge)

 

Found it but couldn't sign log for some other reason (log sheet missing, container rusted or frozen shut, anything that was clearly NOT the intent of the hider ) = Found it, with an explanation in my online log.

 

Reached location but decided not to search for some reason (too many people around usually) = Write Note

 

Likewise, some cache owners also have their own rules for allowing finds. Some will let all finds stand, because it's just a game after all. Some will follow strictly the no signature = no find rule.

 

The only thing that is set in stone is this...if you signed the physical log, you are entitled to claim the find and the CO may not delete for for arbitrary reasons. Anything else is subject to interpretation

Link to comment

Thanks again to everyone for all the enlightenment. I am learning now that this hobby is taken very seriously by some people. Okay I can understand that. I still don't understand the point of cheating though. I could walk around telling people I'm a billionaire, but if I'm not, what's the point? Okay in the billionaire case, some people might treat me differently, but in geocaching, I would be surprised if people treat me differently if I say I have a high find count.

 

Thank you Touchstone for that video about virtual caches. One phrase was particularly interesting: "... some people had discovered the joy of armchair logging..." What? What joy can you get from logging a find when you didn't physically go to the cache??? That makes no sense!

 

Thank you niraD for your explanations too. I like what you said about trying to contact a potentially bogus cacher before deleting their Find log. That seems only fair. For example, if a cacher is from a faraway country and couldn't physically sign the log sheet for any reason, they will probably never be able to sign the log sheet, so it would be unfair to delete their log entry without asking first. In my opinion anyway.

 

Maybe it's best for me to log my family's "finds" in my own database instead of using the online log. I don't want to log some finds, only to have cache owners delete our finds because we couldn't sign the log sheet.

 

About logging finds without actually opening the container: I cache with my kids, and they would stop coming with me if I didn't open the containers. And they would cry. :) Even if I go by myself, I would never expend the effort on finding a cache without then opening it. Except maybe micro or nano caches where only a log sheet can possibly fit in it.

 

Chief301, I think your personal ethos matches mine.

Link to comment

Maybe it's best for me to log my family's "finds" in my own database instead of using the online log.

This isn't unheard of. Many times I've been checking on my caches and seen names written in the logbook that I never saw log the cache online. There are some people that go out and find the caches, but have no interest in logging them online (for various personal reasons). There's at least one forum regular who logs only with notes, so there's no easy way to see which or how many caches they've found.

 

Edit to add: That being said, if you go this route, please still report problems with caches online. For example, if you come across a cache with maintenance problems (leaking/broken/missing container, etc.), at least submit a "Needs maintenance" log and don't just keep it to yourself. Even if you don't log finds online, you're still part of the larger geocaching community and reporting issues helps everyone else.

Edited by The A-Team
Link to comment

Too bad this was in the getting started forum. Lots of good advice but also some silliness from what I call "geocaching puritans".

 

As the OP points out this is just a game. He doesn't keep score and finds it strange that a cache owner would delete someone's log just because the physical log book wasn't signed.

 

The "puritans" on the other hand have decided that you haven't found the cache until you perform the actual act of physically signing the log, and they generally regard an online 'found' log when the physical log isn't signed as "cheating".

 

Geocaching started in 2000 and ever since geocaching.com started there was online logging. Even before the website, people reported their find by posting in the newsgroup. So there was never an "old day" where the physical log was the only way to report you found the cache. The logbook was something Dave Ulmer put in the first cache, probably because he was familiar with summit logs that hikers and mountain climbers sign.

 

Finding the cache and opening it up to trade and to find and sign the logbook provides a confirmation that you have found the cache and not something else like a letterbox or a summit register. Cachers have used this to create some alternative game play, like a cache that requires solving a puzzle to open, or one where you have to climb a tree to retrieve. There are even caches where the cache owner hides decoy containers and you have to find the right one. If you are finding a cache like this, I would say it's a good idea to sign the log to know you have completed the tasks the cache owner has set out for you.

 

For traditional caches, however, I agree with the OP that the log is extraneous. However, even here I would try to sign the log as the cache owner might be a "puritan". But if you don't care about the online log being deleted, then there is no reason to sign.

 

The guideline that requires that caches have a log book predates the grandfathering of virtual caches. There was an earlier attempt to have "codeword" caches where you needed to find the code in the cache in order to log it online. This caused all kinds of problems with people forgetting the codeword or writing it down wrong and not being able to log finds. (Lab caches that are part of some events use codewords and already have seen the same problems). TPTB decided to disallow codewords and made it a requirement to have a log. This guideline is now often use to prevent people from turning a traditional cache into a virtual by allowing online logs even if the cache goes missing.

 

The reference to armchair logging in the video has to due with the way virtual caches worked. Since there was no cache to find and no log to sign, people wanted to have a confirmation that you "found" the virtual cache. That was usually by answering a question that could only be answered by visiting the cache site. Many cachers decided that if you could figure out the answer there was no need to visit the cache. That was called armchair caching or couch potato logging. It bothered the "puritans" even more than a physical log not being signed.

Link to comment

Interesting. It's clear to me now that for some cachers at least, there's more to "Finding" a cache than simply finding it. i.e. if you go out and hunt for a cache, locate it, open it and look at the trinkets inside, don't sign the log, and go home, and your spouse asks you "hey honey did you find the cache?" you'd say yes, but if the question were instead "hey honey are you going to log a Find for that cache?" you'd say no.

 

I understand the difference, but speaking for my family only, we're only interested in the small-f "find". As others have said, maybe the official game isn't for us. The game my family wants to play is simpler: if you found it, you found it. I think we'll just play by ourselves and I'll log my family's finds in the database I've set up. I'll probably keep logging Finds online too, to get those smiley-faces on the map, but if COs delete our Finds, at least I'll have an accurate record of our finds.

 

Hey here's an idea (that will probably get shot down immediately): add another type of logging status: "Signed the log". Then serious players could use that status, while those of us who are just interested in small-f "finds" can continue to use the "Found it" status. Cache owners could then ignore all the online "Found it" entries, and focus instead only on the "Signed the log" entries. If fraudulent entries are found, they could be bumped down to "Found it" status (or deleted).

Edited by gazurtoid
Link to comment
Interesting. It's clear to me now that for some cachers at least, there's more to "Finding" a cache than simply finding it. i.e. if you go out and hunt for a cache, locate it, open it and look at the trinkets inside, don't sign the log, and go home, and your spouse asks you "hey honey did you find the cache?" you'd say yes, but if the question were instead "hey honey are you going to log a Find for that cache?" you'd say no.
Why would you go to the trouble to look up the cache data, go out and hunt for a cache, locate it, open it and look at the trinkets inside, but then put it back without signing the log?

 

Sure, there are exceptions when the log physically cannot be signed. And there are people who don't bother opening blinkers, Bison tubes, and other tiny log-only caches. But it seems odd to me that anyone would open the cache and examine its contents, but not sign the log.

 

Sure, you can play that way if you really want to. But to me it seems like someone playing chess and saying "Bazinga" rather than "Check" when attacking the other player's king.

Link to comment

Ever readGeocaching 101?

Under, "How is the game played?" reads...

 

At its simplest level, geocaching requires these 8 steps:

1.Register for a free Basic Membership.

2.Visit the "Hide & Seek a Cache" page.

3.Enter your postal code and click "search."

4.Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

5.Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.

6.Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

7.Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

8.Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

It isn't a find if you didn't sign the log.

 

This bugs me. Why did you bold just that one phrase? What about point number #8? That's part of the list of "How the game is played" just as much as "Sign the log book"!

So ... if one doesn't use a GPS device as in point #6, it isn't a find .... or if one doesn't share their story online, it isn't a find either?

People are constantly singling out that one point... sign the log book ... and ignoring the rest of the list .. like sharing your stories online.

 

I agree with the OP .. why bother to sign the log sheet if I'm not required to follow anything else in that list!

If I found the cache, I found it! Signature in the book or not.

Link to comment

Ever readGeocaching 101?

Under, "How is the game played?" reads...

 

At its simplest level, geocaching requires these 8 steps:

1.Register for a free Basic Membership.

2.Visit the "Hide & Seek a Cache" page.

3.Enter your postal code and click "search."

4.Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

5.Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.

6.Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

7.Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

8.Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

It isn't a find if you didn't sign the log.

 

This bugs me. Why did you bold just that one phrase? What about point number #8? That's part of the list of "How the game is played" just as much as "Sign the log book"!

So ... if one doesn't use a GPS device as in point #6, it isn't a find .... or if one doesn't share their story online, it isn't a find either?

People are constantly singling out that one point... sign the log book ... and ignoring the rest of the list .. like sharing your stories online.

 

I agree with the OP .. why bother to sign the log sheet if I'm not required to follow anything else in that list!

If I found the cache, I found it! Signature in the book or not.

The OP asked, " what is the purpose of the paper log book/sheet in the cache container? "

I included the basic requuirements in caching and simply bolded the part he asked about.

No agenda here...

Link to comment
Interesting. It's clear to me now that for some cachers at least, there's more to "Finding" a cache than simply finding it. i.e. if you go out and hunt for a cache, locate it, open it and look at the trinkets inside, don't sign the log, and go home, and your spouse asks you "hey honey did you find the cache?" you'd say yes, but if the question were instead "hey honey are you going to log a Find for that cache?" you'd say no.

Why would you go to the trouble to look up the cache data, go out and hunt for a cache, locate it, open it and look at the trinkets inside, but then put it back without signing the log?

 

What is the purpose of geocaching? To me, the purpose is to have fun, explore interesting places, and be outdoors. For my family in particular, I'd add "to find treasure" and "to keep the kids interested while we walk the dogs". Signing a log sheet doesn't really fit into the purpose, for my family. If that means we aren't playing the official game correctly, no problem, we'll play by ourselves.

 

I have no objection to signing the log; I just don't see a reason to do so, for my family. I understand that serious players want to, and that's great for them. It's like having a referee to keep official score in an organized hockey game. But some of us are interested in playing hockey just for fun. We don't need to know who's winning. That's why I suggested the new "Signed the log" status for serious players.

 

To answer your question niraD, it would be like if you went out to play frisbee with your dog, and whenever she catches the frisbee, instead of just saying "good girl, good catch!", you'd be required to also record the teeth marks on the frisbee to prove that your dog caught it.

Link to comment
it would be like if you went out to play frisbee with your dog, and whenever she catches the frisbee, instead of just saying "good girl, good catch!", you'd be required to also record the teeth marks on the frisbee to prove that your dog caught it.

Someone from Germany logged one of my caches in Georgia. They logged caches on the day before and the day after, all in Germany. My town is 20 miles from an airport, the cache is not on the highway, and they logged no other caches in Georgia. The statement that they are just having fun is irrelevant. It's important to know if they actually found my cache or if they made an error, since the online log needs to be for the specific cache that was found.

 

The only way I knew the log was correct is because they singed the physical log sheet.

 

And I'd appreciate you not having caches chewed up so you can prove you're having fun. B)

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

Why would you go to the trouble to look up the cache data, go out and hunt for a cache, locate it, open it and look at the trinkets inside, but then put it back without signing the log?

The OP already gave the example of caching in the rain with his family. He doesn't sign the log (and maybe doesn't even open the container) in order to keep it dry.

 

I've had many examples where the log was so soaking wet that one could not write on it. Maybe I didn't bring a replacement, or maybe there was no room to add a dry log. I didn't sign the log (yet I logged a find online :ph34r: )

 

There are also many times I forgot a pen or the pen I had stopped working. Sure the "puritans" here would say that if I was "geocaching" I would have brougt a working pen and a backup. If I didn't have a working pen I must not have been "geocaching."

 

And then there are time when I forgot to sign the log. I know of one case where I wrote something in the log book but didn't include my name. When I got to the next cache I realize that I might not have signed my name. So being the "puritan" I am, I went back to the last cache and sure enough I hadn't written "toz". In another case, where I was second to find a subsequent find said the only saw one signature in the cache.

 

If a logbook/sheet weren't required, what would the definition of a geocache be? Containers would become irrelevant. Perhaps a barcode stuck between the bricks in a wall would be a geocache. Perhaps any twig or pebble or grain of sand could be a geocache.

The guideline was put in to disallow code word caches (which not seem required for Lab Caches :huh: ). It has been used more recently to prevent a traditional cache from being turned into a virtual.

 

At one time, virtual caches and code word caches were allowed. So sure, now a cache is defined by a container and a log sheet. But that was not always the case and there are grandfathered examples of both.

 

The only way I knew the log was correct is because they singed the physical log sheet.

 

TPTB have put into the guidelines for cache listing that the owner is responsible for the quality control of posts to their cache page. They are told to "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate."

 

The problem has been in determining what is a bogus log. Being an internet game there are sometimes people (teenagers :unsure:) who will log online just for the heck of it without ever looking for a cache. There are also people who log the wrong cache online by mistake.

 

Some cache owners are actively looking for bogus logs and will, as the guidelines state, delete any log that appears to be bogus. This results in legitimate logs being deleted. In order to resolve the conflict when they happen, TBTP have instituted the practice of saying that if the cacher has signed the log, the owner cannot delete the log [for being bogus].

 

Most owners however, delete only logs they know to be bogus. Someone logging "Greetings from Germany" in the online log is not enough to know the log is bogus. Someone using a 'bot' to log 10000 caches in one day, is enough reason to know the log is bogus.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
TPTB have put into the guidelines for cache listing that the owner is responsible for the quality control of posts to their cache page. They are told to "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate."

 

The problem has been in determining what is a bogus log. Being an internet game there are sometimes people (teenagers :unsure:) who will log online just for the heck of it without ever looking for a cache. There are also people who log the wrong cache online by mistake.

 

Some cache owners are actively looking for bogus logs and will, as the guidelines state, delete any log that appears to be bogus. This results in legitimate logs being deleted. In order to resolve the conflict when they happen, TBTP have instituted the practice of saying that if the cacher has signed the log, the owner cannot delete the log [for being bogus].

 

Most owners however, delete only logs they know to be bogus. Someone logging "Greetings from Germany" in the online log is not enough to know the log is bogus. Someone using a 'bot' to log 10000 caches in one day, is enough reason to know the log is bogus.

That happened to a cache of mine once. A cacher from Germany logged a bahzillion caches. I think GC cleaned up the mess with a kind of automatic sweep. I didn't even have to delete the log. Aside from double logs (due to phone connection problems or whatever), there don't seem to be a lot of bogus logs around here. Knowing someone actually found a cache can help me at times, even save me a trip.

 

The "I didn't sign the log" log I see most are "forgot pen, didn't sign", or something like that, and I kinda would prefer that people would remember pen :laughing:. I have never seen an online Found log like "My personal policy is to rifle through containers and never sign a log sheet". Guess I will sometime. :anibad:

Link to comment

Thanks for all the replies. I understand the reasoning now, but at least in my case, it still doesn't really make sense for me to write on the paper log, for these reasons:

 

- it will often be raining, so the less time I have the log sheet out, the drier it'll keep.

- My family has found only about 10 caches so far, but in about half of them, the log sheet was wet. In one case, it was frozen in ice.

- I have absolutely no desire to win any prize or anything for accumulating caches. Therefore I have absolutely no desire to "cheat" and log a cache as found, when I didn't find it. (is there a prize or sense of status for accumulating caches? If not, why would anybody cheat?)

- If a geocaching administrator or someone like that says that because I didn't sign the log sheets, my found caches "don't count", I'd say "I don't care", because I'm not in this for money or status. As long as the website shows my found caches with the smiley-face icon, I'm happy. :)

 

Some more questions, after reading the replies:

 

- what's wrong with virtual caches?

- as a cache owner, why would you want to verify that people have signed the log sheet instead of trusting the online log? If there are armchair cachers who've cheated, that will inflate the number of finds. Is that bad?

- as a cache owner, if you find that there are online finds that don't have corresponding paper log entries, what do you do about it?

 

More often than not, if accessing or signing the log is not possible, I've taken a photo of the cache in my hand (and the soaked log sheet, if that is the problem) so if it ever came to be an issue with the CO I would at least have that to fall back on. The COs have taken issue with an unsigned log in exactly 0.00% of all those cases.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

I know of a couple of "high numbers cachers" who use a self-inking stamper to sign. For them it's kind of a personal trademark. Some posts in this thread seem to consider signing a tedious burden. Maybe using a stamper would help. I sign every log, and have twice used the "fingernail and weed or chlorophyll-and-key" technique when I had no pen, & have previously posted a photo of those signatures.

Link to comment

Just starting into this hobby, and I'm wondering, what is the purpose of the paper log book/sheet in the cache container? I can see that in the "old days", it would have had a purpose, but now that we can log all info on geocaching.com, I don't understand why we're supposed to sign the paper log sheet/book.

 

Good question.

 

In the beginning the game was billed as a "high tech treasure hunt", and still is. However technology has advanced over the years. Fifteen years ago there were a lot less people who had access to the internet, and very few used handheld GPS units, so at the time it was very high tech. Today internet usage is rather common, many have GPS units, and all smartphones show maps, so is it really high tech anymore? Not as much. The QR code game has taken a noticeable bite out of the game, as many are geocachers. Also the QR code game does not allow anyone to scan a code unless they are nearby, so there are no couch potato logs. Teams can certainly all use one account, but teams leapfrogging and logging as individuals can not exist either, so "cheating" is nonexistent. Micros on this site only exist for logging, not for storing anything, so I don't know why a QR code type cannot be added as a new type, or at least added alongside of a regular logsheet. The "treasure" part is not relevant either, as swag tends to degrade, and not many people trade anymore. I suppose temporary codeword caches can exist at megaevents, but they are a lot less like caching than the high tech QR codes. If the site was traded on the stock exchange, 2000 would have been a great time to buy and 2014 would have been a great time to sell. The site is great at attracting new users, but lousy at keeping them. Here is a cache about to be archived for 1 DNF http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCY3ZG_johnny-cache and I suppose it will be done to prevent new users from being discouraged. But what about the others? New users are being turned off by an archaic logging system, while veterans are being annoyed at remote hides being archived at the slightest inclination to satisfy newbies.

 

If you're in a bad situation, don't worry it'll change. If you're in a good situation, don't worry it'll change. ~John A. Simone, Sr.

 

They must often change, who would be constant in happiness or wisdom. ~Confucius

 

After you've done a thing the same way for two years, look it over carefully. After five years, look at it with suspicion. And after ten years, throw it away and start all over. ~Alfred Edward Perlman, New York Times, 3 July 1958

 

It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory. ~Harold Wilson

 

The only difference between a rut and a grave is their dimensions. ~Ellen Glasgow

 

If you want to truly understand something, try to change it. ~Kurt Lewin

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Yeah, it's true some people take it very seriously, but that's not really the point in this context. I'm not checking the paper log to see if a nice guy like you remembered to sign the log or thought it was too rainy to sign the log. I really don't care. I'm checking the paper log because I saw something that made me think someone made a mistake logging my cache. If I confirm the mistake, then, yeah, I'll correct it. It happens. No big deal, regardless of whether I think it was an honest mistake or an intentional attempt to log a cache that they haven't visited. I'm not doing it because I'm anal, I'm just doing it because I'm responsible for insuring the accuracy of my cache's page, including the log. I don't have a lot of caches, but in the few years I've had them, it's happened once or twice. And, yes, for that once or twice out of hundreds of logs, I'd like you to sign the log. But if you choose not to sign my log, I don't really care, but I expect you not to care, either, if that leads to me accidentally deleting your on-line log.

 

And here's a second big reason for the physical log for those of us who don't take geocaching seriously: the physical trail we can see when we find someone else's cache. If you visited the cache earlier in the day, I see that when I sign the paper log. That might alert me to keep an eye out for you as I cache around the area. On the other hand, if the paper log's last signature is from 2 years ago, that tells me that for some reason the cache hasn't been found for a long time. I don't have to worry about the possibility that it's just that no one's decided to sign the log in that time.

 

And that leads to another interesting case: where there are two physical caches at a given GZ. This has just come up recently in a local cache where there are 2 containers, and people tend to find one or the other, but never both. It makes for interesting reading in the on-line log as people report which physical cache they found based on who signed the log last.

 

So the fundamental answer is that signing the physical log helps everyone one else keep things straight in the face of the inevitable anomalies. Would you mind making that little effort to sign the log just for us? It's nice that you're worried about keeping the log dry, and I appreciate the effort, but I promise not to get upset if you can't avoid getting a little rain on it.

 

By the way, wet logs are not really an issue here: feel free to log a find on-line when the log is too wet to sign. Not your fault, you shouldn't be penalized. Although, as always, if someone that can't keep their cache's log dry uses that as an excuse to delete your log, just laugh and carry on. That's never happened to me, but, if it did, it would be no worse that if you just never logged on-line to begin with.

Link to comment

I have never seen an online Found log like "My personal policy is to rifle through containers and never sign a log sheet". Guess I will sometime. :anibad:

That's the rub - the online log.

 

I bet there are many people who go out to look for geocaches and when they find one they may even rifle through the container and perhaps even trade. Just hope they don't take any trackables. Because these people are not interested in signing logs or logging online. The last thing in their minds is "Woohoo! I got another smiley". Instead they had fun going out and looking for caches and finding some.

 

To me the problem with the idea that you have to sign the physical log in order to claim a find online is that there is no incentive whatever for these people to go online and report their experience (or log that they took a trackable). You may say they can write a note. But really, what benefit do they get in writing a note. When logging Found online, the site creates a bunch of statistics that even someone with no interest in the WIGAS count might like to know. And it makes it much easier to use the website (or app) to look for caches you haven't already found.

 

I understand that people want a way to determine if an online log is bogus. The way I cache an occasional bogus or erroneous log is unlikely to have a great impact on me. Some people may in fact depend a bit more on when the cache was last logged and whether this last log was a find or a DNF. I personally wouldn't put all the blame on the bogus logs if these people feel they wasted time looking for a cache that was not there, but I would agree they have a reasonable expectation that logs are correct.

 

I believe that if you read the logs, you can generally tell if the log is bogus or not without having to check the physical log. Sure, occasionally you get a find from a tourist from Germany who stopped to find one cache near the airport and logged "Greetings From Germany". Frankly the couch potato logs from Germany were on virtual caches, and "Greetings from Germany" on a physical cache is not a reason to be suspicious.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...