Not Logging is WRONG!

[+justintim1999]

So...if someone goes to your cache and finds it (and puts it back as found) and doesn't log it at all, is that still "wrong"?

He/she might just keep a personal tally of finds (or not bother). It's pretty much the same as signing the log in the field but not online.

I quite like having the option of NOT logging online, although I feel an obligation to the cache owner.

 

If we all feel that strongly about logging finds on-line than Groundspeak should make it a requirement of using the service. They haven't and probably won't because the freedom of playing this game the way you want to play it is one of the aspects that makes it great.

 

But with that freedom comes an understanding that everyone doesn't play the game as you do.

[+Walts Hunting]

 

If we all feel that strongly about logging finds on-line than Groundspeak should make it a requirement of using the service.

 

 

Another clearly thought out position

 

And how would they do that? I go out, find a cache, sign the log and make a personal note that I found it. Maybe keep track in GSAK. They have no way of knowing I went there so unless they have unearthly powers that would be an impossibility.

 

Personally I don't log DNF's on micros in shrubbery which I only give a couple of minutes to before moving on. The powers will never know I was even there.

[+justintim1999]

 

If we all feel that strongly about logging finds on-line than Groundspeak should make it a requirement of using the service.

 

 

Another clearly thought out position

 

And how would they do that? I go out, find a cache, sign the log and make a personal note that I found it. Maybe keep track in GSAK. They have no way of knowing I went there so unless they have unearthly powers that would be an impossibility.

 

Personally I don't log DNF's on micros in shrubbery which I only give a couple of minutes to before moving on. The powers will never know I was even there.

 

Why couldn't Groundspeak require something be typed in the comment section before you could submit the on-line find? No log no smiley.

[+narcissa]

 

If there were no online logging, I wouldn't geocache. Logging is a connection with the community. A way to say thank you to the cache owner for providing a fun experience. A way to journal my experience. A way to communicate and share with other finders. I enjoy that part of geocaching.

 

As a cache owner, I wouldn't bother hiding caches - I need to know my efforts to create and maintain are worth it - that people have enjoyed the overall experience. That my cache is not simply another kernel in the big geocaching popcorn bowl. Thankfully there are a majority of cacher finders in my area that log, and actually say something about the particular caches they've found. They make up for the non-loggers, the copy & paste and the acronym loggers.

 

Exactly!

If everyone decided they couldn't be bothered to log online, there would be no point at all in hiding caches. For the good of the geocaching community? Some altruistic feeling? Nonsense! And those that say they feel that and that's why they hide caches way are fooling themselves, and us by saying it.

There would be no Geocaching Community without online logging! How could there be?

Those that do not log online because they can't be bothered, aren't wrong .. they're just selfish users!

 

This topic always makes me burn when the "I never log online" crowd come out and say the only real requirement for a find is "Sign the log". There are always links to text that supports that, but in almost every place that is stated, it is followed in context by something like "share your experiences online"! It's convenient to ignore the entire text and only focus on statements that support their selfishness.

 

But signing the log is the only real requirement isn't it?

 

Other than massaging the ego is it really that important?

 

I get a little steamed when people try to take something purely optional and try to tell me it's something that I have to do or I'm selfish. I love logs. I love writing them and reading them but I'm not going to tell someone their selfish because they choose not to write one.

 

I love the pessimistic notion that the only reason to hide a cache is the online log. Without that, there's no value to the activity of geocaching what so ever.

 

I guess I'm just altruistic, if that's ok?

 

It's cute how just not getting around to logging a cache is selfish, but threatening to pull out of the game entirely because of a rumour about some people not logging is a totally reasonable reaction. The forum is weird.

 

Whoa Narc, if you're talking about my comment, I didn't threaten to pull out of the game entirely because some people don't log their finds. I totally understand why some people don't log online (they really aren't geocachers, just tagging along; they don't like being tracked online; they don't enjoy writing). It happens...but if not logging online were the norm, some of us hiders (and might I say good hiders, I know ------ are one of my favourite hiders - and I currently only have 2 favourite hiders in southwestern Ontario....but I digress), wouldn't be motivated to continue hiding and maintaining caches. I'm definitely motivated by the cachers in my area who leave good feedback.

 

There are countless things that we can fret about that are in absolutely no danger of becoming the norm. Is it really necessary to call people names over this?

[+L0ne.R]

 

What's wrong with not logging a find on-line and sending an e-mail to the cache owner regarding any problems with the cache? I would guess that most cachers who do not log on-line probably already do this.

 

 

Going back to my letterboxing experience. The people who stamped into the logbook and didn't log online, never emailed me either. And I've never received an individual email from someone thanking me for our cache hide, the thanks have always come through online logging (with the exception of the fledgling years of GC when they were also noted in the logbook).

 

But thankfully those that log online make up for the tiny minority who don't, and for the cut n pasters and for the acronym loggers.

[+justintim1999]

 

What's wrong with not logging a find on-line and sending an e-mail to the cache owner regarding any problems with the cache? I would guess that most cachers who do not log on-line probably already do this.

 

 

Going back to my letterboxing experience. The people who stamped into the logbook and didn't log online, never emailed me either. And I've never received an individual email from someone thanking me for our cache hide, the thanks have always come through online logging (with the exception of the fledgling years of GC when they were also noted in the logbook).

 

But thankfully those that log online make up for the tiny minority who don't, and for the cut n pasters and for the acronym loggers.

 

For over 100 years, before computers, people were hiding letterboxes. I'm sure feedback in those days were measured in weeks or months or whenever the owner of the letterbox could visit the container. I wonder what their motivation was to continue doing this? I'm sure glad they did.

 

For me it's like donating blood. There's absolutely no benefit to you by doing it other than the thought that it may save someone's life. That person will never know your name but is sure grateful that you did it.

 

Taking the time to do something good without the promise of acknowledgement or praise is true selflessness. It's true you can judge a person by what they do when no one is looking.

[+narcissa]

Taking the time to do something good without the promise of acknowledgement or praise is true selflessness. It's true you can judge a person by what they do when no one is looking.

 

+1

[+BCandMsKitty]

 

Yes. I've already stated that if every cacher signed the on-line log with TFTC I'd still hide caches.

 

Me too ... It's at least an online log

 

What's wrong with not logging a find on-line and sending an e-mail to the cache owner regarding any problems with the cache? I would guess that most cachers who do not log on-line probably already do this.

I wonder... It's a lot harder to send an email than just log online, even just with TFTC, or hopefully more if there's a problem with the cache.

The current condition of caches out there has little to do with the select few who choose not to log on-line.

 

I would say that online logging isn't required, but is strongly encouraged.

 

Logging online is important to so other people know the status of a cache. Has it been found recently? Are there several recent DNFs? Are there a mix of Finds and DNFs? Is there some other problem - container damage, access issues, flooding, construction, trail reroutes, etc? Sure you can message the CO if there's an issue they can fix, but CO may be inactive or slow to response. Also, I wouldn't want to be regularly posting notes on my cache page for others. Share your experience for the benefit of others.

 

There are certainly situations where online logging is not terribly relevant. For example, a family or couple with a single caching account. Does it really matter that 1 person logged a Find vs father, mother, and 2 kids? (There is a FL cacher who logs finds for not only himself and his wife, but also their 2 dogs. I don't really see the point.) The biggest reason for logging a Find like that is the possibility that the couple might break up later or the children get old enough to sometimes cache on their own, but that is more to the detriment of the Finder than the CO or other cachers.

 

People worried about being "tracked" or whatnot are, probably 99% of the time, being paranoid. (The other 1% of the time they actually are being stalked by psychos.) If you want to be all secretive or hide from The Man what are you even doing on the internet in the first place?

 

The number one reason I log my Finds online is it's the easiest way to track what I have and haven't found. Sure, it's possible to track through other methods, but it requires alot of extra effort compared to always being able to look at any cache page and know whether I've Found or DNF'd it before.

 

Sharing my experiences and thoughts is a close second though.

 

Here's something to think about: if most cachers didn't log online how would anyone know what the good caches are? Favorite points, seeing finds by other cachers with similar tastes, reading logs, etc. can be pretty important in figuring out what to seek.

 

Well said

[+BCandMsKitty]

For over 100 years, before computers, people were hiding letterboxes. I'm sure feedback in those days were measured in weeks or months or whenever the owner of the letterbox could visit the container. I wonder what their motivation was to continue doing this? I'm sure glad they did.

 

For me it's like donating blood. There's absolutely no benefit to you by doing it other than the thought that it may save someone's life. That person will never know your name but is sure grateful that you did it.

 

Taking the time to do something good without the promise of acknowledgement or praise is true selflessness. It's true you can judge a person by what they do when no one is looking.

 

You equate hiding caches with donating blood? You have me there!

I'll freely admit ... you're a better person than I am!

 

Look. In most of our posts, we seem to be on the same wavelengths. And to respond to the OP, I don't think any of the posters here will say that not logging is wrong. Most that have been posting here think, it seems, that online logging in some form is desirable, and important to the success of the game. No, not everyone has to log.

Should the majority of cachers log online? I certainly hope that will continue to be the norm.

[+justintim1999]

 

Yes. I've already stated that if every cacher signed the on-line log with TFTC I'd still hide caches.

 

Me too ... It's at least an online log

 

What's wrong with not logging a find on-line and sending an e-mail to the cache owner regarding any problems with the cache? I would guess that most cachers who do not log on-line probably already do this.

I wonder... It's a lot harder to send an email than just log online, even just with TFTC, or hopefully more if there's a problem with the cache.

The current condition of caches out there has little to do with the select few who choose not to log on-line.

 

I would say that online logging isn't required, but is strongly encouraged.

 

Logging online is important to so other people know the status of a cache. Has it been found recently? Are there several recent DNFs? Are there a mix of Finds and DNFs? Is there some other problem - container damage, access issues, flooding, construction, trail reroutes, etc? Sure you can message the CO if there's an issue they can fix, but CO may be inactive or slow to response. Also, I wouldn't want to be regularly posting notes on my cache page for others. Share your experience for the benefit of others.

 

There are certainly situations where online logging is not terribly relevant. For example, a family or couple with a single caching account. Does it really matter that 1 person logged a Find vs father, mother, and 2 kids? (There is a FL cacher who logs finds for not only himself and his wife, but also their 2 dogs. I don't really see the point.) The biggest reason for logging a Find like that is the possibility that the couple might break up later or the children get old enough to sometimes cache on their own, but that is more to the detriment of the Finder than the CO or other cachers.

 

People worried about being "tracked" or whatnot are, probably 99% of the time, being paranoid. (The other 1% of the time they actually are being stalked by psychos.) If you want to be all secretive or hide from The Man what are you even doing on the internet in the first place?

 

The number one reason I log my Finds online is it's the easiest way to track what I have and haven't found. Sure, it's possible to track through other methods, but it requires alot of extra effort compared to always being able to look at any cache page and know whether I've Found or DNF'd it before.

 

Sharing my experiences and thoughts is a close second though.

 

Here's something to think about: if most cachers didn't log online how would anyone know what the good caches are? Favorite points, seeing finds by other cachers with similar tastes, reading logs, etc. can be pretty important in figuring out what to seek.

 

Well said

 

I agree with what you've said. Absolutely love logging and it dose have many benefits. Everyone should be encouraged to do it. Just not required to and definitely not vilified for not.

 

I guess, without logs, it would be "like a box of chocolates......"

[+justintim1999]

For over 100 years, before computers, people were hiding letterboxes. I'm sure feedback in those days were measured in weeks or months or whenever the owner of the letterbox could visit the container. I wonder what their motivation was to continue doing this? I'm sure glad they did.

 

For me it's like donating blood. There's absolutely no benefit to you by doing it other than the thought that it may save someone's life. That person will never know your name but is sure grateful that you did it.

 

Taking the time to do something good without the promise of acknowledgement or praise is true selflessness. It's true you can judge a person by what they do when no one is looking.

 

You equate hiding caches with donating blood? You have me there!

I'll freely admit ... you're a better person than I am!

 

Look. In most of our posts, we seem to be on the same wavelengths. And to respond to the OP, I don't think any of the posters here will say that not logging is wrong. Most that have been posting here think, it seems, that online logging in some form is desirable, and important to the success of the game. No, not everyone has to log.

Should the majority of cachers log online? I certainly hope that will continue to be the norm.

 

I guess the donating blood metaphor didn't convey the idea of doing something for someone else without expecting something in return as well as I had hoped.

 

I Agree on logging. Disagree that someone whould be labled "selfish" or "too bothered" if they don't.

[+cerberus1]

What's wrong with not logging a find on-line and sending an e-mail to the cache owner regarding any problems with the cache? I would guess that most cachers who do not log on-line probably already do this.

That seems to be the case in my area.

The few who don't log online still notify the CO of any issues or "fixes", though most only hit outta-the-way hides with quality containers , and actual logs or ledgers, so "fixing" is rare anyway.

Some of the artwork in log books alone is worth having those folks visit.

[+Happy Humphrey]

So...if someone goes to your cache and finds it (and puts it back as found) and doesn't log it at all, is that still "wrong"?

He/she might just keep a personal tally of finds (or not bother). It's pretty much the same as signing the log in the field but not online.

I quite like having the option of NOT logging online, although I feel an obligation to the cache owner.

 

If we all feel that strongly about logging finds on-line than Groundspeak should make it a requirement of using the service. They haven't and probably won't because the freedom of playing this game the way you want to play it is one of the aspects that makes it great.

 

But with that freedom comes an understanding that everyone doesn't play the game as you do.

What I was trying to say is that you might find caches and never sign any logbook (online or physical). You could even deem it a find just by seeing the cache from a distance. As Groundspeak cannot possibly have any control over this there's no question of a "requirement".

 

I can imagine that some people might be interested in the walk and the cache find but simply don't want to be bothered with the admin. As long as the vast majority do log online I don't see a problem.

[+dprovan]

I have found one way in which not logging online or logging very late does impact people other than the CO.

 

There are a number of challenge caches in Australia which encourage folk to find long lost caches (unfound for more than 6 months before your find). I have seen situations where someone writes a log dated the day they wrote the log, stating that they found the log months previously and are just catching up. When you look at the cache online sometime later it appears that the cache was found recently, when in fact it was last found ages ago and would be a qualifying cache.

The problem here is a log with a bad date. That has nothing to do with late logging.

 

The other side of the coin is finding a cache with no online log for 12 months, but seeing an entry in the logbook that someone found it last month.

 

I'm not saying that it is wrong, or that others should play the game in a way which helps me, but it is frustrating sometimes.

I suspect most people trying for a cache recovery challenge wouldn't notice the newer physical log, and if they did, they'd ignore them as "not counting" because there was no matching on-line log. When I was working on a recovered cache challenge, in one unfortunate incident I couldn't claim to have recovered a cache because there was an entry in the physical log explaining that the cache had accidentally been found by a non-cacher. Nothing in the world we say here would have prevented that.

 

In the end, these cases are identical to the case where you go to recover a long lost cache to help with a challenge, but someone went out and found it earlier that day. A delay in logging on-line -- or not logging on-line at all -- simply extends the time the cache is in that state you find frustrating of being found even though you don't know that yet. The solution is not to be frustrated by either case any more than you'd be frustrated by planning a trip for a long lost cache only to have an on-line find posted the day before you leave. Or by the case where you go to find a long lost cache and simply can't find it.

 

I haven't seen anyone say the game will collapse if we don't all log online, but rather that if it becomes commonplace that there is no online logging, the game will suffer. those two statements are not the same thing!

I know that there's no campaign to stop online logging. And of course, as long as there are "numbers game " cachers, there's going to be online logging

Yes, I was exaggerating because I saw the posts bemoaning missing on-line logs as tending towards the-sky-is-falling absurdity. While someone not logging on-line can cause small individual problems, there's no chance at all that it will lead to any kind of trend towards more people not logging, let along most people not logging.

[+geocat_]

As an aside, I have signed a physical log with blood Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

If we all feel that strongly about logging finds on-line than Groundspeak should make it a requirement of using the service.

 

 

Another clearly thought out position

 

And how would they do that? I go out, find a cache, sign the log and make a personal note that I found it. Maybe keep track in GSAK. They have no way of knowing I went there so unless they have unearthly powers that would be an impossibility.

 

Personally I don't log DNF's on micros in shrubbery which I only give a couple of minutes to before moving on. The powers will never know I was even there.

 

Why couldn't Groundspeak require something be typed in the comment section before you could submit the on-line find? No log no smiley.

 

Well, since we're talking about someone not logging anything online, GS would be pretty powerless to require anything of that cacher. If a person chooses to not log their finds online, or sign the physical logbook to truly remain a ghost cacher, there is nothing anyone can do about it.

 

If, by chance, you should see someone find a cache and you find out they never signed the log or logged the find online, what are you going to do? Somehow track them down, put a gun to their head and force them to submit a log? Of course you wouldn't. By the same token, why would someone finding caches without signing/logging them bother anyone? It's not a widespread practice so I don't think CO's are missing out on too many logs.

 

Heck, for all we know, there could be someone out there right now who has found over a million caches and never signed or logged a single one.

[+niraD]

As an aside, I have signed a physical log with blood Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

I've always used pen or pencil myself, although I've found a few caches with logs that had clearly been signed with something improvised: leaf juice, mud, bug juice, etc.

[+justintim1999]

If we all feel that strongly about logging finds on-line than Groundspeak should make it a requirement of using the service.

 

 

Another clearly thought out position

 

And how would they do that? I go out, find a cache, sign the log and make a personal note that I found it. Maybe keep track in GSAK. They have no way of knowing I went there so unless they have unearthly powers that would be an impossibility.

 

Personally I don't log DNF's on micros in shrubbery which I only give a couple of minutes to before moving on. The powers will never know I was even there.

 

Why couldn't Groundspeak require something be typed in the comment section before you could submit the on-line find? No log no smiley.

 

Well, since we're talking about someone not logging anything online, GS would be pretty powerless to require anything of that cacher. If a person chooses to not log their finds online, or sign the physical logbook to truly remain a ghost cacher, there is nothing anyone can do about it.

 

If, by chance, you should see someone find a cache and you find out they never signed the log or logged the find online, what are you going to do? Somehow track them down, put a gun to their head and force them to submit a log? Of course you wouldn't. By the same token, why would someone finding caches without signing/logging them bother anyone? It's not a widespread practice so I don't think CO's are missing out on too many logs.

 

Heck, for all we know, there could be someone out there right now who has found over a million caches and never signed or logged a single one.

 

What if it was a widespread practice? What if the majority of geocachers only used the site to search for cache information and nothing more?

 

I'd like to think that geocaching started out as a fun, exciting activity designed to get people out and re-connect with nature. As more and more people discovered geocaching things began to change. For many, numbers became more important then the experience. What is the purpose of a guardrail cache or a park and grab? Most are designed to become a quick and easy cache owner or as a vehicle to boost numbers. Unless the area has some historical significance, why would I want to visit a guardrail unless I'm a guard-rail enthusiast?

 

If your only interested in numbers than guardrail caches, park and grabs and power trails make perfect sense.

 

Here's the 180. All of this is ok. The bottom line for me is your outside having fun.

 

Most of the cache quality complaints come from people who enjoy the longer walks, nice trails and interesting locations. Unfortunately, in today's world, we're the minority. I just feel that the numbers game has pulled us away from what this activity should be.

 

That being said I admire the anonymous cacher for not getting caught up in the race.

[+niraD]

Unless the area has some historical significance, why would I want to visit a guardrail unless I'm a guard-rail enthusiast?

FWIW, I did find a guardrail cache once that was an interesting location, because it made no sense for there to be a guardrail there. Not that I'm a guardrail enthusiast, but it was interesting.

[+dprovan]

Unless the area has some historical significance, why would I want to visit a guardrail unless I'm a guard-rail enthusiast?

FWIW, I did find a guardrail cache once that was an interesting location, because it made no sense for there to be a guardrail there. Not that I'm a guardrail enthusiast, but it was interesting.

A couple days ago, I found a guardrail cache along a busy street at its bridge over a major Interstate. The CO was, as people are saying, aiming at a quick park&grab, but I found the area quite interesting and had enjoyed my 2 mile hike to GZ, since I'd ignored the nearby pullout as a possible place to start. I don't need the CO's help to enjoy my caching experience.

[+justintim1999]

Unless the area has some historical significance, why would I want to visit a guardrail unless I'm a guard-rail enthusiast?

FWIW, I did find a guardrail cache once that was an interesting location, because it made no sense for there to be a guardrail there. Not that I'm a guardrail enthusiast, but it was interesting.

A couple days ago, I found a guardrail cache along a busy street at its bridge over a major Interstate. The CO was, as people are saying, aiming at a quick park&grab, but I found the area quite interesting and had enjoyed my 2 mile hike to GZ, since I'd ignored the nearby pullout as a possible place to start. I don't need the CO's help to enjoy my caching experience.

 

I'm sure there are exceptions but would you agree in general?

[+J Grouchy]

As an aside, I have signed a physical log with blood Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

Great. Maybe I need to find some biohazard stickers to put on my cache containers...

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Unless the area has some historical significance, why would I want to visit a guardrail unless I'm a guard-rail enthusiast?

FWIW, I did find a guardrail cache once that was an interesting location, because it made no sense for there to be a guardrail there. Not that I'm a guardrail enthusiast, but it was interesting.

 

I've seen a couple of spots like that. When you went to search for the cache, did you immediately start searching the guard rail once you say it in an unusual location. I'd be tempted hide a cache "near" the guard rail but not on the guard rail itself.

 

I found a cache in a guard rail at a scenic view pull off area along a highway. The container was a fairly large lock-n-lock and there were dozens of people wandering around taking in the view.

 

Of course, these types of caches are exceptions to a typical guardrail cache: a hide-a-key with a wet log sheet, hidden along a busy road with an uninteresting view.

 

[+dprovan]

Unless the area has some historical significance, why would I want to visit a guardrail unless I'm a guard-rail enthusiast?

FWIW, I did find a guardrail cache once that was an interesting location, because it made no sense for there to be a guardrail there. Not that I'm a guardrail enthusiast, but it was interesting.

A couple days ago, I found a guardrail cache along a busy street at its bridge over a major Interstate. The CO was, as people are saying, aiming at a quick park&grab, but I found the area quite interesting and had enjoyed my 2 mile hike to GZ, since I'd ignored the nearby pullout as a possible place to start. I don't need the CO's help to enjoy my caching experience.

I'm sure there are exceptions but would you agree in general?

No, I'm sorry, that was intended as an example, not an exception. I always consider it my job to make my geocaching adventure fun. Historical significant or other interesting qualities of a geocache can add to the experience, but if I don't enjoy the experience without the geocache providing a bonus, I'm not doing it right.

[+cleandrysurface]

 

What if it was a widespread practice? What if the majority of geocachers only used the site to search for cache information and nothing more?

 

 

Um, yeah. Like that would ever happen, because human beings are so adverse to posting things online.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Unless the area has some historical significance, why would I want to visit a guardrail unless I'm a guard-rail enthusiast?

FWIW, I did find a guardrail cache once that was an interesting location, because it made no sense for there to be a guardrail there. Not that I'm a guardrail enthusiast, but it was interesting.

A couple days ago, I found a guardrail cache along a busy street at its bridge over a major Interstate. The CO was, as people are saying, aiming at a quick park&grab, but I found the area quite interesting and had enjoyed my 2 mile hike to GZ, since I'd ignored the nearby pullout as a possible place to start. I don't need the CO's help to enjoy my caching experience.

I'm sure there are exceptions but would you agree in general?

No, I'm sorry, that was intended as an example, not an exception. I always consider it my job to make my geocaching adventure fun. Historical significant or other interesting qualities of a geocache can add to the experience, but if I don't enjoy the experience without the geocache providing a bonus, I'm not doing it right.

 

Reminds me of what I did a few weeks ago. Yes. I incorporate exercise into geocaching. Twenty-eight inches on snow on the ground here, so I went a bit west where there was less snow. Ten park and grabs in mall parking lots. Got eight of them on a two mile walk. Yup. I walked to most of them.

[+justintim1999]

 

What if it was a widespread practice? What if the majority of geocachers only used the site to search for cache information and nothing more?

 

 

Um, yeah. Like that would ever happen, because human beings are so adverse to posting things online.

 

I agree. That's why I posed the question "What if?"

[+Crow-T-Robot]

What if it was a widespread practice? What if the majority of geocachers only used the site to search for cache information and nothing more?

 

 

Um, yeah. Like that would ever happen, because human beings are so adverse to posting things online.

 

I agree. That's why I posed the question "What if?"

 

I don't think I would be alone in saying that if logging finds was not part of the geocaching experience, it's possible but not likely that I would go out hunting geocaches, but I certainly wouldn't be out hiding geocaches (not that I hide many anyway). I would guess most owners would feel the same and the hobby would've died on the vine long ago.

[+niraD]

I've seen a couple of spots like that. When you went to search for the cache, did you immediately start searching the guard rail once you say it in an unusual location. I'd be tempted hide a cache "near" the guard rail but not on the guard rail itself.

Yeah, some of my longest searches have been for caches near "obvious" hiding spots, where the cache was actually hidden some other way. It's amazing how long it takes to find an obviously fake hide-a-key rock when your attention is focused on something else.

 

One cache was even placed at a location where there were three different "obvious" hiding spots within arm's reach of each other.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I've seen a couple of spots like that. When you went to search for the cache, did you immediately start searching the guard rail once you say it in an unusual location. I'd be tempted hide a cache "near" the guard rail but not on the guard rail itself.

Yeah, some of my longest searches have been for caches near "obvious" hiding spots, where the cache was actually hidden some other way. It's amazing how long it takes to find an obviously fake hide-a-key rock when your attention is focused on something else.

 

One cache was even placed at a location where there were three different "obvious" hiding spots within arm's reach of each other.

 

I posted a photo here a while back that I took near GZ of a cache. In the picture there was a couple of small pine trees, a green electrical box, a chain link fence with fence posts, a guard rail, and about 200' away, a dumpster and a light pole with a liftable skirt..

 

The cache was in one of the pine trees.

 

 

 

[+justintim1999]

Unless the area has some historical significance, why would I want to visit a guardrail unless I'm a guard-rail enthusiast?

FWIW, I did find a guardrail cache once that was an interesting location, because it made no sense for there to be a guardrail there. Not that I'm a guardrail enthusiast, but it was interesting.

A couple days ago, I found a guardrail cache along a busy street at its bridge over a major Interstate. The CO was, as people are saying, aiming at a quick park&grab, but I found the area quite interesting and had enjoyed my 2 mile hike to GZ, since I'd ignored the nearby pullout as a possible place to start. I don't need the CO's help to enjoy my caching experience.

I'm sure there are exceptions but would you agree in general?

No, I'm sorry, that was intended as an example, not an exception. I always consider it my job to make my geocaching adventure fun. Historical significant or other interesting qualities of a geocache can add to the experience, but if I don't enjoy the experience without the geocache providing a bonus, I'm not doing it right.

 

I understand where your coming form. For me that's just a find and a smiley and a way to get that cache off my map so I don't have to keep looking at it. I enjoy being out and I appreciate the cache owner for placing it but I can't think of many that are on my favorite list.

 

That's me. I'm sure there are people who feel the same way about ammo cans in the woods.

 

I think that most of the non-loggers don't like what caching has morphed into and choose not to be a part of it.

[+AustinMN]

I keep thinking, "How absurd would a rule be that required logging on-line?"

 

How would such a rule be enforced? Is the CO going to go out and erase your log from the paper log? Not in this lifetime!

Is the CO going to try to chase down the cacher and force them to stop counting the cache as "found?" Even more absurd.

 

I log my finds on-line, as does my wife. But none of my children do unless there is something unusual (such as a baby's first cache or moving a trackable). There is nothing selfish about it. There is nothing wrong about it.

[+narcissa]

I keep thinking, "How absurd would a rule be that required logging on-line?"

 

How would such a rule be enforced? Is the CO going to go out and erase your log from the paper log? Not in this lifetime!

Is the CO going to try to chase down the cacher and force them to stop counting the cache as "found?" Even more absurd.

 

I log my finds on-line, as does my wife. But none of my children do unless there is something unusual (such as a baby's first cache or moving a trackable). There is nothing selfish about it. There is nothing wrong about it.

 

Block the IPs of anyone who looks at a cache description but doesn't log it within a month.

[+justintim1999]

I keep thinking, "How absurd would a rule be that required logging on-line?"

 

How would such a rule be enforced? Is the CO going to go out and erase your log from the paper log? Not in this lifetime!

Is the CO going to try to chase down the cacher and force them to stop counting the cache as "found?" Even more absurd.

 

I log my finds on-line, as does my wife. But none of my children do unless there is something unusual (such as a baby's first cache or moving a trackable). There is nothing selfish about it. There is nothing wrong about it.

 

Block the IPs of anyone who looks at a cache description but doesn't log it within a month.

 

Ouch! I'd be blocked the first month. I look at the descriptions of many caches that I don't actually go out and find. Although my numbers would probably go through the roof.

Edited February 16, 2016 by justintim1999

[+bflentje]

I keep thinking, "How absurd would a rule be that required logging on-line?"

 

How would such a rule be enforced? Is the CO going to go out and erase your log from the paper log? Not in this lifetime!

Is the CO going to try to chase down the cacher and force them to stop counting the cache as "found?" Even more absurd.

 

I log my finds on-line, as does my wife. But none of my children do unless there is something unusual (such as a baby's first cache or moving a trackable). There is nothing selfish about it. There is nothing wrong about it.

 

Block the IPs of anyone who looks at a cache description but doesn't log it within a month.

 

That's got to be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, ever.

[+narcissa]

I keep thinking, "How absurd would a rule be that required logging on-line?"

 

How would such a rule be enforced? Is the CO going to go out and erase your log from the paper log? Not in this lifetime!

Is the CO going to try to chase down the cacher and force them to stop counting the cache as "found?" Even more absurd.

 

I log my finds on-line, as does my wife. But none of my children do unless there is something unusual (such as a baby's first cache or moving a trackable). There is nothing selfish about it. There is nothing wrong about it.

 

Block the IPs of anyone who looks at a cache description but doesn't log it within a month.

 

Ouch! I'd be blocked the first month. I look at the descriptions of many caches that I don't actually go out and find. Although my numbers would probably go through the roof.

 

Exactly, we all do. How can anyone possibly know that someone found a cache and didn't log it? It's just so absurd.

[+justintim1999]

I keep thinking, "How absurd would a rule be that required logging on-line?"

 

How would such a rule be enforced? Is the CO going to go out and erase your log from the paper log? Not in this lifetime!

Is the CO going to try to chase down the cacher and force them to stop counting the cache as "found?" Even more absurd.

 

I log my finds on-line, as does my wife. But none of my children do unless there is something unusual (such as a baby's first cache or moving a trackable). There is nothing selfish about it. There is nothing wrong about it.

 

Block the IPs of anyone who looks at a cache description but doesn't log it within a month.

 

Ouch! I'd be blocked the first month. I look at the descriptions of many caches that I don't actually go out and find. Although my numbers would probably go through the roof.

 

Exactly, we all do. How can anyone possibly know that someone found a cache and didn't log it? It's just so absurd.

 

I'll play along. What if, when you went to log the find online, you had to write something in the comment section before the submit button became available? It may be a bunch of nonsense or simply TFTC but it's something. I know I'm being the devils advocate here. Posting information regarding the condition of the cache is not required. If posting a DNF isn't required, why should posting a find be? My point is, Most of this activity is already done voluntarily. you could make posting a log mandatory but would that make the game any better?

[+AustinMN]

I keep thinking, "How absurd would a rule be that required logging on-line?"

 

How would such a rule be enforced? Is the CO going to go out and erase your log from the paper log? Not in this lifetime!

Is the CO going to try to chase down the cacher and force them to stop counting the cache as "found?" Even more absurd.

 

I log my finds on-line, as does my wife. But none of my children do unless there is something unusual (such as a baby's first cache or moving a trackable). There is nothing selfish about it. There is nothing wrong about it.

 

Block the IPs of anyone who looks at a cache description but doesn't log it within a month.

 

That's got to be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, ever.

 

I think that was the point. The only way to enforce a rule requiring on-line logging would be to do something really absurd.

[+narcissa]

I keep thinking, "How absurd would a rule be that required logging on-line?"

 

How would such a rule be enforced? Is the CO going to go out and erase your log from the paper log? Not in this lifetime!

Is the CO going to try to chase down the cacher and force them to stop counting the cache as "found?" Even more absurd.

 

I log my finds on-line, as does my wife. But none of my children do unless there is something unusual (such as a baby's first cache or moving a trackable). There is nothing selfish about it. There is nothing wrong about it.

 

Block the IPs of anyone who looks at a cache description but doesn't log it within a month.

 

Ouch! I'd be blocked the first month. I look at the descriptions of many caches that I don't actually go out and find. Although my numbers would probably go through the roof.

 

Exactly, we all do. How can anyone possibly know that someone found a cache and didn't log it? It's just so absurd.

 

I'll play along. What if, when you went to log the find online, you had to write something in the comment section before the submit button became available? It may be a bunch of nonsense or simply TFTC but it's something. I know I'm being the devils advocate here. Posting information regarding the condition of the cache is not required. If posting a DNF isn't required, why should posting a find be? My point is, Most of this activity is already done voluntarily. you could make posting a log mandatory but would that make the game any better?

 

Unless there's a reasonable mechanism for enforcing a rule, creating the rule makes no sense. There is no reasonable way to require people to post logs online.

[+justintim1999]

I keep thinking, "How absurd would a rule be that required logging on-line?"

 

How would such a rule be enforced? Is the CO going to go out and erase your log from the paper log? Not in this lifetime!

Is the CO going to try to chase down the cacher and force them to stop counting the cache as "found?" Even more absurd.

 

I log my finds on-line, as does my wife. But none of my children do unless there is something unusual (such as a baby's first cache or moving a trackable). There is nothing selfish about it. There is nothing wrong about it.

 

Block the IPs of anyone who looks at a cache description but doesn't log it within a month.

 

Ouch! I'd be blocked the first month. I look at the descriptions of many caches that I don't actually go out and find. Although my numbers would probably go through the roof.

 

Exactly, we all do. How can anyone possibly know that someone found a cache and didn't log it? It's just so absurd.

 

I'll play along. What if, when you went to log the find online, you had to write something in the comment section before the submit button became available? It may be a bunch of nonsense or simply TFTC but it's something. I know I'm being the devils advocate here. Posting information regarding the condition of the cache is not required. If posting a DNF isn't required, why should posting a find be? My point is, Most of this activity is already done voluntarily. you could make posting a log mandatory but would that make the game any better?

 

Unless there's a reasonable mechanism for enforcing a rule, creating the rule makes no sense. There is no reasonable way to require people to post logs online.

 

Even if there were a way to enforce it, I still don't think it should be a rule.

[+cerberus1]

I keep thinking, "How absurd would a rule be that required logging on-line?"

 

How would such a rule be enforced? Is the CO going to go out and erase your log from the paper log? Not in this lifetime!

Is the CO going to try to chase down the cacher and force them to stop counting the cache as "found?" Even more absurd.

 

I log my finds on-line, as does my wife. But none of my children do unless there is something unusual (such as a baby's first cache or moving a trackable). There is nothing selfish about it. There is nothing wrong about it.

 

Block the IPs of anyone who looks at a cache description but doesn't log it within a month.

 

That's got to be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, ever.

When pm, the reason I stopped doing pmo hides (before you could skirt the audit) was a coupla COs who were "more than curious" why I'd look at their cache a number of times, never going to it.

Most simply had to do with grabbing it with a couple others, and time.

 

- Course if they could block me from looking at only their hides, I'd kinda be happy about that (save me all those ignores).