Jump to content

Asking for a Find on a DNF? Um. No.


Seth!
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

It has been many, many years since I've clicked into these forums. I am perplexed and thought I'd see what's happening these days. I've had a few people recently hint in their DNF logs that they'd like credit for a find since they went through the trouble to go to the location. I know it's a bummer to get a DNF, especially if the cache might be missing. Nevertheless, it's a DNF. It seems weird to me that people would suggest it. It could put me in an awkward position but I'll exercise the option to ignore the sort-of inquiry.

 

Anyone have a thought on this? Are we just handing out Found logs now?

Link to comment

It has been many, many years since I've clicked into these forums. I am perplexed and thought I'd see what's happening these days. I've had a few people recently hint in their DNF logs that they'd like credit for a find since they went through the trouble to go to the location. I know it's a bummer to get a DNF, especially if the cache might be missing. Nevertheless, it's a DNF. It seems weird to me that people would suggest it. It could put me in an awkward position but I'll exercise the option to ignore the sort-of inquiry.

 

Anyone have a thought on this? Are we just handing out Found logs now?

 

That's really up to cache owners. If someone posts a found it log, when they didn't actually find the cache, even if they took a "photo log", the CO has the right to delete that log. The fact that there are so many Finds when it should actually be a DNF is that many cache owners allow them, and because so many cache owners don't care people are more than willing to push the envelope and log a find when they couldn't find the container, found something that may have at some point been part of the container, or place their own container at the same location with their name on the log sheet so they can count it as a find.

 

 

 

Link to comment

Are we just handing out Found logs now?

Absolutely not. Please stand up to people that try to do this. They think they can get away with it because some COs don't care. We need to show both the finders and the lackadaisical COs that it's dishonest, unacceptable, and not welcome in the caching community. What's next, "I browsed to the cache listing on my computer, can I log a find?" :blink:

Link to comment

I'd consider their request ridiculous. I guess I can imagine some extreme reason in very special circumstances where it might make sense to ask, but I'm not sure there's a case where it makes sense for a CO to agree.

 

I don't think it should be considered a major bummer to DNF in the first place, but even if I grant that it is for some people, being able to log the fictitious find doesn't make it any less of a bummer.

Link to comment

Ah, I see you own a webcam, my condolences.

I owned one before the term "selfie" even existed. People really think that if they can figure out how to work the webcam and get the image, that's nice.. BUT if not, just take a pic at coords.

 

I was relieved when that camera went down and I couldn't get any word from anyone on when it might come back. Pulled the archive trigger PDQ.

Link to comment

Are we just handing out Found logs now?

 

There seem to be increasing numbers of folks who think we should.

 

In the face of refusal they often become critical of any CO who rejects their fake log on the basis that the CO is being petty over something which is just a game <_<

 

The power of this particular argument though is of course inversely proportional to the level of aggression the fake finder will use to try to convince the petty CO that the fake find should be allowed to stand <_<

Link to comment

Very simple.

Ignore the "hint" that they should be allowed a find.

You're seeing the result of the nonsense that "everyone, if they participated, are winners". Yes, if the location is a nice one, the cacher is indeed a winner because of the journey, but if they didn't find the cache, then no smiley.

Let them moan all they want. If they get aggressive, report them to GS and move on.

Not everyone has to find all caches. Water the game down to that level, then there's no game.

Link to comment

I think a lot of it also reflects on the lack of creativity of the majority of caches hidden out there. Whenever someone tries to find something other than a pill bottle in a lamppost, it throws them off and when they realize the find may require some effort, it just rocks their world.

 

I think the majority of cachers out there enjoy and look forward to the challenge, but I've discovered a lot of old timers have big problems with cache types they haven't run across because they think they've seen it all before. It doesn't fit into their mold of what a proper cache should be. They're the ones who ask for more hints and gripe the most when they have to spend more than 10 minutes looking for a cache.

Link to comment

I posted a DNF log on a "mystery"...though it was intended to be a very easy puzzle and the cache was a guardrail hide. Someone else posted a DNF after me, indicating it was likely not there. A couple weeks later, the CO decided to archive a bunch of his caches and he sent me an email saying I could log a find on it since it was gone and he'd be archiving it. Apparently he offered the same thing to the later cacher who also DNFed it, since he then posted a find. I was pretty confused as to why he even offered it...so I declined.

Link to comment

Are we just handing out Found logs now?

Absolutely not. Please stand up to people that try to do this. They think they can get away with it because some COs don't care. We need to show both the finders and the lackadaisical COs that it's dishonest, unacceptable, and not welcome in the caching community. What's next, "I browsed to the cache listing on my computer, can I log a find?" :blink:

I allowed a non-find "Found It" log once, and felt all icky afterward. First, because what they "found" was a pop bottle cap on the ground and assumed it was part of the cache. I don't make caches like that. The actual cache was a well-crafted "rusted metal" camo fake "large bolt" bison tube in a hole in a wooden post in the middle of a busy picnic area -- a cache that nomuggle ever messed with, to my astonishment. That was my fav hide. A pop bottle cap?! I don't think so!

 

But I also had a lot of stuff at that picnic table. Swag (won't fit in the container) in the rafters of the pavilion. Piece of Velcro under the table, that has nothing to do with the cache (it fooled people). So yeah, I had some red herrings that made it surreal and tricky. I was naughty. Bad dragon.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

Are we just handing out Found logs now?

Absolutely not. Please stand up to people that try to do this. They think they can get away with it because some COs don't care. We need to show both the finders and the lackadaisical COs that it's dishonest, unacceptable, and not welcome in the caching community. What's next, "I browsed to the cache listing on my computer, can I log a find?" :blink:

I allowed a non-find "Found It" log once, and felt all icky afterward. First, because what they "found" was a pop bottle cap on the ground and assumed it was part of the cache. I don't make caches like that. The actual cache was a well-crafted "rusted metal" camo fake "large bolt" bison tube in a hole in a wooden post in the middle of a busy picnic area -- a cache that nomuggle ever messed with, to my astonishment. That was my fav hide. A pop bottle cap?! I don't think so!

 

But I also had a lot of stuff at that picnic table. Swag (won't fit in the container) in the rafters of the pavilion. Piece of Velcro under the table, that has nothing to do with the cache (it fooled people). So yeah, I had some red herrings that made it surreal and tricky. I was naughty. Bad dragon.

 

Dude...you live in the south. It's not "pop" here. :anibad:

Link to comment

In the face of refusal they often become critical of any CO who rejects their fake log on the basis that the CO is being petty over something which is just a game <_<

While I agree that complaining about such a CO being petty about the game is both stupid and annoying, at least it means their minds might be open to seeing that the much more petty position is wanting to count the non-find as a find.

 

By the way, the case of a rare webcam is one of those that I see the reasoning behind the request to log it inappropriately, and I understand the desperation of the seeker, but I'm even more in favor of the CO not granting a fake webcam find.

 

I posted a DNF log on a "mystery"...though it was intended to be a very easy puzzle and the cache was a guardrail hide. Someone else posted a DNF after me, indicating it was likely not there. A couple weeks later, the CO decided to archive a bunch of his caches and he sent me an email saying I could log a find on it since it was gone and he'd be archiving it. Apparently he offered the same thing to the later cacher who also DNFed it, since he then posted a find. I was pretty confused as to why he even offered it...so I declined.

This is the way some COs apologize for their maintenance failure, and they feel particularly bad about the fact that the hide won't be repaired for the DNFers to have a second chance. This is fairly common in my area for a missing puzzle cache hide, even when the cache is later replaced. So I understand what the CO's thinking, but I wouldn't take the find, either, at least in most cases.

Link to comment

It never made sense to me either.

 

I once DNF'ed a cache that was part of a series and the CO sent me a message saying "Sorry, it was missing but someone else did maintenance for me so now that it's in place feel free to change it do a Find."

Naturally, I didn't modify my DNF since that would be falsifying my caching history and being as accurate as possible is important to me.

Link to comment

In the face of refusal they often become critical of any CO who rejects their fake log on the basis that the CO is being petty over something which is just a game <_<

While I agree that complaining about such a CO being petty about the game is both stupid and annoying, at least it means their minds might be open to seeing that the much more petty position is wanting to count the non-find as a find.

 

The irony, in my experience, is that the claimant rarely if ever sees it that way.

 

In fact in my experience pointing out this very real fact to said claimant often leads to further unrest and even abuse :ph34r:

Link to comment

If I can't find it it just makes me want to keep at it until I do.

 

I usually write the person that tries to claim a find on a nonfind that since they did not find it they should delete it -then I leave it up to them.

 

On your caches? Why not just delete them yourself? I've done that a few times.

Link to comment

Last fall I checked one of my more difficult to find caches. It typically has about a 50% find rate, but it recently had a long string of finds. Took a photo of the cache log while I was there and verified it at home with the online logs. I ended up deleting 6 Found logs that were claimed over a 3 month period. I had one of the six finders contact me to tell me that wasn't cool. I replied with a picture of the log that did not have his signature anywhere, nor any signature, on the date he claimed the find. Never heard back from him.

Link to comment

Did my 5 stage multi, but the final was missing? Found the tether, but the container was gone? Situations like that I might offer to the DNFer to log a Find after I had verified the cache was indeed missing, especially if they left a nice log.

 

That said, those sorts of situations are purely CO discretion. They should never be assumed, expected, or demanded.

Link to comment

Are we just handing out Found logs now?

 

There seem to be increasing numbers of folks who think we should.

 

In the face of refusal they often become critical of any CO who rejects their fake log on the basis that the CO is being petty over something which is just a game dry.gif

 

The power of this particular argument though is of course inversely proportional to the level of aggression the fake finder will use to try to convince the petty CO that the fake find should be allowed to stand dry.gif

 

Is suspect the more common scenario is that the fake finder just assumes that the CO won't care (or won't check) and thus, won't ask.

 

With the proliferation of power trails, it's becoming more and more common that a CO won't care (and will even encourage replacing missing caches, making it impossible to confirm that a find is legitimate). In other words, fake finders will post Found it logs on a DNF because they've learned that they can get away with it.

 

Sure, people have been posting bogus found logs since 2003, but no where near as common as it is today.

Link to comment

Ah, I see you own a webcam, my condolences.

I owned one before the term "selfie" even existed. People really think that if they can figure out how to work the webcam and get the image, that's nice.. BUT if not, just take a pic at coords.

 

Tell me about it! Fortunately, mine is only found eight months out of the year. Gives me four months to get my fortitude back. And I do delete a lot of selfies.

691 finds in eleven years isn't bad. And 205 favorite points.

Link to comment

Did my 5 stage multi, but the final was missing? Found the tether, but the container was gone? Situations like that I might offer to the DNFer to log a Find after I had verified the cache was indeed missing, especially if they left a nice log.

 

That said, those sorts of situations are purely CO discretion. They should never be assumed, expected, or demanded.

 

Sooo...they found....what, exactly?

Nothing?

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. <_<

Link to comment
Situations like that I might offer to the DNFer to log a Find after I had verified the cache was indeed missing, especially if they left a nice log.
That reminds me... I once DNFed a liar's cache, and left an elaborate DNF log that was decorated to look like a Find, and that detailed the adventure I'd had finding the cache. The CO offered to let me log a Find, but I declined, even though I suppose it might have been in-theme with the liar's cache.
Link to comment

Did my 5 stage multi, but the final was missing? Found the tether, but the container was gone? Situations like that I might offer to the DNFer to log a Find after I had verified the cache was indeed missing, especially if they left a nice log

 

Even then i wouldn't. If it's not found is not found. Log DNF, owner does maintenance then head back after its fixed.

 

We're playing a game in the wild here and things are going to go wrong but people have very little patience these days and just giving in to them does not help that at all and they'll come to expect it all the time.

Link to comment

It has been many, many years since I've clicked into these forums. I am perplexed and thought I'd see what's happening these days. I've had a few people recently hint in their DNF logs that they'd like credit for a find since they went through the trouble to go to the location. I know it's a bummer to get a DNF, especially if the cache might be missing. Nevertheless, it's a DNF. It seems weird to me that people would suggest it. It could put me in an awkward position but I'll exercise the option to ignore the sort-of inquiry.

 

Anyone have a thought on this? Are we just handing out Found logs now?

 

Hey Seth! Haven't seen you around for many years, as you say. In our (and your) neck of the woods I rarely see cachers asking outright for permission to claim a find when they actually should DNF. Typically they will just claim the find and no one knows anything to the contrary. Still love your caches and have good memories of the ones we have found so far. I see your webcam cache is still active. We may need to go do it sometime soon. Bottom line for me? No find, no smiley.

Link to comment

Are we just handing out Found logs now?

 

There seem to be increasing numbers of folks who think we should.

 

In the face of refusal they often become critical of any CO who rejects their fake log on the basis that the CO is being petty over something which is just a game dry.gif

 

The power of this particular argument though is of course inversely proportional to the level of aggression the fake finder will use to try to convince the petty CO that the fake find should be allowed to stand dry.gif

 

Is suspect the more common scenario is that the fake finder just assumes that the CO won't care (or won't check) and thus, won't ask.

 

You're probably right.

 

And then there are the I couldn't find it so I left one of my own - but the CO should feel free to delete my log if not happy logs where the fake finder seems to feel the need to ameliorate the fake find and make the CO the bad guy if they choose not to let the fake log stand.

Link to comment

I use an extendable inspection mirror to look for caches and often find caches that there is no way, given the disabilities that I have, that I can retrieve them. It frustrates me that I know where they are but cannot reach them, have seen them but cannot sign the log. So I log a DNF and move onto the next. Can't claim a find unless you sign the log.

Link to comment

I made a exception once, a handicapped person I know told me he found a certain cache of mine but listed it as a DNF because of use of only one hand he could not get to the log. He told where he found it, what container looked like, and where log was in container. I told him to re log it as a find.

Link to comment

Are we just handing out Found logs now?

 

There seem to be increasing numbers of folks who think we should.

 

In the face of refusal they often become critical of any CO who rejects their fake log on the basis that the CO is being petty over something which is just a game dry.gif

 

The power of this particular argument though is of course inversely proportional to the level of aggression the fake finder will use to try to convince the petty CO that the fake find should be allowed to stand dry.gif

 

Is suspect the more common scenario is that the fake finder just assumes that the CO won't care (or won't check) and thus, won't ask.

 

With the proliferation of power trails, it's becoming more and more common that a CO won't care (and will even encourage replacing missing caches, making it impossible to confirm that a find is legitimate). In other words, fake finders will post Found it logs on a DNF because they've learned that they can get away with it.

 

Sure, people have been posting bogus found logs since 2003, but no where near as common as it is today.

 

Logging fake finds along a power trail?! What's the point? That's just called going for a walk.

Link to comment

I made a exception once, a handicapped person I know told me he found a certain cache of mine but listed it as a DNF because of use of only one hand he could not get to the log. He told where he found it, what container looked like, and where log was in container. I told him to re log it as a find.

 

Unless there is something about the container meant to make accessing the log sheet difficult (some puzzle aspect, a lock, etc.), I have no problem with letting people log a find if they had the container in hand. It's not much different from logging a find even though the log is soaked and can't be signed.

Link to comment

I think a lot of it also reflects on the lack of creativity of the majority of caches hidden out there. Whenever someone tries to find something other than a pill bottle in a lamppost, it throws them off and when they realize the find may require some effort, it just rocks their world.

 

I think the majority of cachers out there enjoy and look forward to the challenge, but I've discovered a lot of old timers have big problems with cache types they haven't run across because they think they've seen it all before. It doesn't fit into their mold of what a proper cache should be. They're the ones who ask for more hints and gripe the most when they have to spend more than 10 minutes looking for a cache.

 

nonsense

It's more likely the "entitled" generation that think it's their "right" to have credit for a find without doing the required work.

Link to comment

I think a lot of it also reflects on the lack of creativity of the majority of caches hidden out there. Whenever someone tries to find something other than a pill bottle in a lamppost, it throws them off and when they realize the find may require some effort, it just rocks their world.

 

I think the majority of cachers out there enjoy and look forward to the challenge, but I've discovered a lot of old timers have big problems with cache types they haven't run across because they think they've seen it all before. It doesn't fit into their mold of what a proper cache should be. They're the ones who ask for more hints and gripe the most when they have to spend more than 10 minutes looking for a cache.

nonsense

It's more likely the "entitled" generation that think it's their "right" to have credit for a find without doing the required work.

I know that's part of it, but there are also older, more experienced cachers who do it too. I know of two local cachers who sometimes log finds on caches they actually didn't find. Both of them are in the 40-60 age range and have a few thousand "finds".

Link to comment

I think a lot of it also reflects on the lack of creativity of the majority of caches hidden out there. Whenever someone tries to find something other than a pill bottle in a lamppost, it throws them off and when they realize the find may require some effort, it just rocks their world.

 

I think the majority of cachers out there enjoy and look forward to the challenge, but I've discovered a lot of old timers have big problems with cache types they haven't run across because they think they've seen it all before. It doesn't fit into their mold of what a proper cache should be. They're the ones who ask for more hints and gripe the most when they have to spend more than 10 minutes looking for a cache.

 

Must be a local thing in your area. I've had cachers from all age groups who have had to visit my 5 and 4Ds multiple times and I have never received complaints from anyone. (Cussing my name while at GZ might be another thing, though). ;)

Link to comment

Logging fake finds along a power trail?! What's the point? That's just called going for a walk.

Or a scenic drive, that stops every 528 feet or so.

 

You don't necessarily have to stop if you aren't worried about signing the log.

 

My point was that for that kind of geocachng, people don't have to be worried about signing the log because the CO is never going to check, and if they allow (and even encourage replacement containers) the CO can't confirm that a log was signed on a specific cache.

Link to comment

I made it to GZ of a cache a few days ago. I saw what looked like it might be a cache, but wasn't sure, so I wrote a note and sent a picture to the CO. He told me that was not it, but said I could log a Find as I was so close; the cache was in that same area, but up inside the tree. I declined to log it as a find and said I wanted to go back and get the cache in hand before I log a Find. I want to satisfaction of having it in my hand.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...