Logging a "FIND" when cache has gone missing

[+narcissa]

Even if somebody put a NM log, the CO could still ignore it and not delete the fradulent logs. Posting an NA log might work so that a reviewer can see there's a problem that isn't being addressed. But often times CO's still say their missing cache is in place and to "open your eyes"

Yes, of course. I didn't say anything about how to finally get rid of the cache because this thread is about bogus finds.

Right, but sometimes people log a "find" on the cache even though its not there. Sometimes people will log a "found it" log but its "no luck didn't find it"

 

Often, those logs are mistakes by people using the app for the first time. Do you think that snitching on people for an honest mistake will make them feel welcome in the game?

 

If someone falsely logs your own geocache, you can delete the log.

 

Using the app or not they still selected "Found it" as their log type.

 

Oh well, it's a mistake. Anyone reading the log sees it's a mistake. You can delete it if it happens to your cache.

 

What is the giant problem that would be solved by having some kind of snitch button for logs you don't like?

[+noncentric]

I HAVE deleted logs on my cache pages that are fraudelent. None of the "found it" logs have been restored on my caches but a fradulent DNF was restored (long story).

I think most cachers have heard of 'Found It' logs being deleted by CO's - but deleting 'Did Not Find' logs? How does a CO know that a cacher didn't find their cache? Did the cacher sign the physical log and then not log a DNF online?

 

ETA: Fixed a typo, bolded above.

Edited April 25, 2016 by noncentric

[+Sherminator18]

I don't understand the point of deleting a "Did Not Find" log. Really, how do you know the person didn't find it? And again, who cares?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Even if somebody put a NM log, the CO could still ignore it and not delete the fradulent logs. Posting an NA log might work so that a reviewer can see there's a problem that isn't being addressed. But often times CO's still say their missing cache is in place and to "open your eyes"

Yes, of course. I didn't say anything about how to finally get rid of the cache because this thread is about bogus finds.

Right, but sometimes people log a "find" on the cache even though its not there. Sometimes people will log a "found it" log but its "no luck didn't find it"

 

Often, those logs are mistakes by people using the app for the first time. Do you think that snitching on people for an honest mistake will make them feel welcome in the game?

 

If someone falsely logs your own geocache, you can delete the log.

 

Using the app or not they still selected "Found it" as their log type. I HAVE deleted logs on my cache pages that are fraudelent. None of the "found it" logs have been restored on my caches but a fradulent DNF was restored (long story).

 

I recently sent a PM to a new cacher that had posted two found it logs on one of my caches. I wrote that I was just letting them know that they may have inadvertently posted two found it logs. The text of each log was actually different so it was possible that they had meant to post logs on two different caches. Turned out that they had posted from the app and couldn't tell that the first one "took". They asked about how to delete it and I replied with an explanation on how to delete one of the logs and a welcome to the game.

 

Mistakes like these are a good opportunity to welcome new cachers to the game. I got a similar welcome when I DNFd the first cache that I tried and it was that welcoming post from someone in the community that got me interested in the game.

[+dprovan]

I HAVE deleted logs on my cache pages that are fraudelent. None of the "found it" logs have been restored on my caches but a fradulent DNF was restored (long story).

I think most cachers have heard of 'Found It' logs being deleted by CO's - but deleting 'Did Not Find' logs? How does a CO know that a cacher didn't find their cache? Did the cacher sign the physical log and then log a DNF online?

A simple example would a DNF by a cacher that was obviously caching was on another continent that day, although such a log would more likely be a mistake than an attempt at fraud. And although I don't understand it and wouldn't do it myself, I've heard of COs that like to keep their logs "clean", so they delete DNFs when the text clearly indicates that the seeker never actually got to GZ so never actually looked for the cache and consequently, in the CO's way of thinking, can't legitimately be said to have not found it.

 

Having said that, Pond Bird's example of a DNF restored sounds more complicated, so I'd love to hear that long story.

[+Sherminator18]

I know the cache Pond Bird is talking about. He had 3 caches along the same trail come out at the same time. Naturally a bunch of people went looking for them after an event in the morning. No one could find the one particular cache so they all posted DNFs. He decided to delete some of them for some reason. It wasn't found until over a month later. GC56JT4

Edited April 25, 2016 by Sherminator18

[+narcissa]

I know the cache Pond Bird is talking about. He had 3 caches along the same trail come out at the same time. Naturally a bunch of people went looking for them after an event in the morning. No one could find the one particular cache so they all posted DNFs. He decided to delete some of them for some reason. It wasn't found until over a month later. GC56JT4

 

Thanks for sharing. This is certainly enlightening.

[+noncentric]

I know the cache Pond Bird is talking about. He had 3 caches along the same trail come out at the same time. Naturally a bunch of people went looking for them after an event in the morning. No one could find the one particular cache so they all posted DNFs. He decided to delete some of them for some reason. It wasn't found until over a month later. GC56JT4

 

Thanks for sharing. This is certainly enlightening.

From the "Post Reviewer Note" on that cache, it sounds like there were several DNF logs that were reinstated. Looking through the CO's other hides, there certainly are a lack of DNF's on most of them. Knowing that the CO has deleted DNF's in the past, then I'd wonder how accurate the cache history is on the other caches. Seems odd, to me, to advocate accurate cache history in regards to finds but not in regards to DNF's.

[+Pond Bird]

I know the cache Pond Bird is talking about. He had 3 caches along the same trail come out at the same time. Naturally a bunch of people went looking for them after an event in the morning. No one could find the one particular cache so they all posted DNFs. He decided to delete some of them for some reason. It wasn't found until over a month later. GC56JT4

 

Thanks for sharing. This is certainly enlightening.

From the "Post Reviewer Note" on that cache, it sounds like there were several DNF logs that were reinstated. Looking through the CO's other hides, there certainly are a lack of DNF's on most of them. Knowing that the CO has deleted DNF's in the past, then I'd wonder how accurate the cache history is on the other caches. Seems odd, to me, to advocate accurate cache history in regards to finds but not in regards to DNF's.

 

I only deleted a couple. It was a user named Eyeash that saw I deleted his log it wasn't his that was the fradulent one it was another but the reviewer saw I deleted another log in addition to Eyeash's hence the reviewer note. My other caches do have DNF logs to show the history of them. I do not delete DNF logs anymore even if they are fradulent. There has been a big spike in accounts just logging DNFs on caches a better thing to do would be a "write note" - I didn't look because of the DNFs please check." instead of "Add me to the DNF list" if you don't look don't expect to be on the list of DNFs, be on the "will search once situation on this one is that it is definitely there."

[+Sherminator18]

I know the cache Pond Bird is talking about. He had 3 caches along the same trail come out at the same time. Naturally a bunch of people went looking for them after an event in the morning. No one could find the one particular cache so they all posted DNFs. He decided to delete some of them for some reason. It wasn't found until over a month later. GC56JT4

 

Thanks for sharing. This is certainly enlightening.

From the "Post Reviewer Note" on that cache, it sounds like there were several DNF logs that were reinstated. Looking through the CO's other hides, there certainly are a lack of DNF's on most of them. Knowing that the CO has deleted DNF's in the past, then I'd wonder how accurate the cache history is on the other caches. Seems odd, to me, to advocate accurate cache history in regards to finds but not in regards to DNF's.

 

I only deleted a couple. It was a user named Eyeash that saw I deleted his log it wasn't his that was the fradulent one it was another but the reviewer saw I deleted another log in addition to Eyeash's hence the reviewer note. My other caches do have DNF logs to show the history of them. I do not delete DNF logs anymore even if they are fradulent. There has been a big spike in accounts just logging DNFs on caches a better thing to do would be a "write note" - I didn't look because of the DNFs please check." instead of "Add me to the DNF list" if you don't look don't expect to be on the list of DNFs, be on the "will search once situation on this one is that it is definitely there."

 

There is no indication that any of the DNFs are what you are calling "fraudulent." How do you determine if someone DIDN'T find the cache? Eyeash's log says nothing out of the ordinary, nor do any of the others. I have no idea why you would delete them. DNFs don't count for anything so what is the point of deleting them? Who cares if the cacher actually didn't find it or not?

[+narcissa]

I know the cache Pond Bird is talking about. He had 3 caches along the same trail come out at the same time. Naturally a bunch of people went looking for them after an event in the morning. No one could find the one particular cache so they all posted DNFs. He decided to delete some of them for some reason. It wasn't found until over a month later. GC56JT4

 

Thanks for sharing. This is certainly enlightening.

From the "Post Reviewer Note" on that cache, it sounds like there were several DNF logs that were reinstated. Looking through the CO's other hides, there certainly are a lack of DNF's on most of them. Knowing that the CO has deleted DNF's in the past, then I'd wonder how accurate the cache history is on the other caches. Seems odd, to me, to advocate accurate cache history in regards to finds but not in regards to DNF's.

 

I only deleted a couple. It was a user named Eyeash that saw I deleted his log it wasn't his that was the fradulent one it was another but the reviewer saw I deleted another log in addition to Eyeash's hence the reviewer note. My other caches do have DNF logs to show the history of them. I do not delete DNF logs anymore even if they are fradulent. There has been a big spike in accounts just logging DNFs on caches a better thing to do would be a "write note" - I didn't look because of the DNFs please check." instead of "Add me to the DNF list" if you don't look don't expect to be on the list of DNFs, be on the "will search once situation on this one is that it is definitely there."

 

What do you mean by fraudulent? What fraud is being committed?

[+Pond Bird]

I know the cache Pond Bird is talking about. He had 3 caches along the same trail come out at the same time. Naturally a bunch of people went looking for them after an event in the morning. No one could find the one particular cache so they all posted DNFs. He decided to delete some of them for some reason. It wasn't found until over a month later. GC56JT4

 

Thanks for sharing. This is certainly enlightening.

From the "Post Reviewer Note" on that cache, it sounds like there were several DNF logs that were reinstated. Looking through the CO's other hides, there certainly are a lack of DNF's on most of them. Knowing that the CO has deleted DNF's in the past, then I'd wonder how accurate the cache history is on the other caches. Seems odd, to me, to advocate accurate cache history in regards to finds but not in regards to DNF's.

 

I only deleted a couple. It was a user named Eyeash that saw I deleted his log it wasn't his that was the fradulent one it was another but the reviewer saw I deleted another log in addition to Eyeash's hence the reviewer note. My other caches do have DNF logs to show the history of them. I do not delete DNF logs anymore even if they are fradulent. There has been a big spike in accounts just logging DNFs on caches a better thing to do would be a "write note" - I didn't look because of the DNFs please check." instead of "Add me to the DNF list" if you don't look don't expect to be on the list of DNFs, be on the "will search once situation on this one is that it is definitely there."

 

There is no indication that any of the DNFs are what you are calling "fraudulent." How do you determine if someone DIDN'T find the cache? Eyeash's log says nothing out of the ordinary, nor do any of the others. I have no idea why you would delete them. DNFs don't count for anything so what is the point of deleting them? Who cares if the cacher actually didn't find it or not?

 

True. if the person didn't even look then they didn't find the cache. but I don't think they should log a DNF since they didn't search.

Eyeash edited his log and was given a hint I already apologized to him and vice versa. Those logging DNFs that don't search may just have that log to highlight caches that are hard so they don't search for them. Maybe the "Watchlist" would've been better? Again Eyeash DID look but didn't find it, it was the other person that didn't look.

[+Pond Bird]

 

What do you mean by fraudulent? What fraud is being committed?

 

True, it's not fraud to say you didn't find a cache you never searched for prior to the log.

[+narcissa]

I know the cache Pond Bird is talking about. He had 3 caches along the same trail come out at the same time. Naturally a bunch of people went looking for them after an event in the morning. No one could find the one particular cache so they all posted DNFs. He decided to delete some of them for some reason. It wasn't found until over a month later. GC56JT4

 

Thanks for sharing. This is certainly enlightening.

From the "Post Reviewer Note" on that cache, it sounds like there were several DNF logs that were reinstated. Looking through the CO's other hides, there certainly are a lack of DNF's on most of them. Knowing that the CO has deleted DNF's in the past, then I'd wonder how accurate the cache history is on the other caches. Seems odd, to me, to advocate accurate cache history in regards to finds but not in regards to DNF's.

 

I only deleted a couple. It was a user named Eyeash that saw I deleted his log it wasn't his that was the fradulent one it was another but the reviewer saw I deleted another log in addition to Eyeash's hence the reviewer note. My other caches do have DNF logs to show the history of them. I do not delete DNF logs anymore even if they are fradulent. There has been a big spike in accounts just logging DNFs on caches a better thing to do would be a "write note" - I didn't look because of the DNFs please check." instead of "Add me to the DNF list" if you don't look don't expect to be on the list of DNFs, be on the "will search once situation on this one is that it is definitely there."

 

There is no indication that any of the DNFs are what you are calling "fraudulent." How do you determine if someone DIDN'T find the cache? Eyeash's log says nothing out of the ordinary, nor do any of the others. I have no idea why you would delete them. DNFs don't count for anything so what is the point of deleting them? Who cares if the cacher actually didn't find it or not?

 

True. if the person didn't even look then they didn't find the cache. but I don't think they should log a DNF since they didn't search.

Eyeash edited his log and was given a hint I already apologized to him and vice versa. Those logging DNFs that don't search may just have that log to highlight caches that are hard so they don't search for them. Maybe the "Watchlist" would've been better? Again Eyeash DID look but didn't find it, it was the other person that didn't look.

 

I don't see anything in those logs to indicate that people didn't search.

[+noncentric]

I know the cache Pond Bird is talking about. He had 3 caches along the same trail come out at the same time. Naturally a bunch of people went looking for them after an event in the morning. No one could find the one particular cache so they all posted DNFs. He decided to delete some of them for some reason. It wasn't found until over a month later. GC56JT4

 

Thanks for sharing. This is certainly enlightening.

From the "Post Reviewer Note" on that cache, it sounds like there were several DNF logs that were reinstated. Looking through the CO's other hides, there certainly are a lack of DNF's on most of them. Knowing that the CO has deleted DNF's in the past, then I'd wonder how accurate the cache history is on the other caches. Seems odd, to me, to advocate accurate cache history in regards to finds but not in regards to DNF's.

 

I only deleted a couple. It was a user named Eyeash that saw I deleted his log it wasn't his that was the fradulent one it was another but the reviewer saw I deleted another log in addition to Eyeash's hence the reviewer note. My other caches do have DNF logs to show the history of them. I do not delete DNF logs anymore even if they are fradulent. There has been a big spike in accounts just logging DNFs on caches a better thing to do would be a "write note" - I didn't look because of the DNFs please check." instead of "Add me to the DNF list" if you don't look don't expect to be on the list of DNFs, be on the "will search once situation on this one is that it is definitely there."

In case you weren't aware, sometimes when people search for a cache and can't find it, then they will log a DNF and say "add me to the list of DNF'ers" or "I'll join the group of illustrious cachers that have admitted they couldn't find the cache".

 

Do you think that someone saying "Add me to the DNF list" means that they didn't search for the cache?

[+Pond Bird]

Do you think that someone saying "Add me to the DNF list" means that they didn't search for the cache?

 

If they didn't search for the cache thats one thing. But that's getting us off topic.

 

I saw some logs removed that were "found it" logs in lieu of DNF logs. But i still see people logging finds multiple times on the same cache. And people logging they attended an event 2 days after it actually happened.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Pond Bird

[+narcissa]

I saw some logs removed that were "found it" logs in lieu of DNF logs. But i still see people logging finds multiple times on the same cache. And people logging they attended an event 2 days after it actually happened.

 

Again, these seem like mistakes by novice geocachers. If they happen on your cache, you can delete them. The kind thing to do would be to reach out to let them know why.

 

I still fail to see the utility of a button that snitches on people for making such mistakes on other people's geocaches.

[+Sherminator18]

Do you think that someone saying "Add me to the DNF list" means that they didn't search for the cache?

 

If they didn't search for the cache thats one thing. But that's getting us off topic.

 

I saw some logs removed that were "found it" logs in lieu of DNF logs. But i still see people logging finds multiple times on the same cache. And people logging they attended an event 2 days after it actually happened.

 

The official Geocaching app does not let you change the date. Since a lot of new cachers only use the app and not a computer they sometimes have an incorrect date. But it doesn't affect you at all.

[+noncentric]

But i still see people logging finds multiple times on the same cache...

This is probably by mistake and they don't even realize they've logged the cache multiple times. You could send them a link to this page or even this tool.

 

...And people logging they attended an event 2 days after it actually happened.

Again, this doesn't mean that they didn't attend the event. Logging via the official app doesn't permit the cacher to change the date of the log. If someone attends an event and then submits the log via the app later, which is perfectly allowable, then they aren't presented with the option to modify the date.

Also, many cachers don't seem to know that they even can change the date of their log when they log online or through an app that allows changing the date. And some cachers that do know changing the date is an option don't understand why it matters to use the correct date.

If someone feels so passionately about other cachers doing things the 'right way', then perhaps that someone should try to help educate by sending a friendly email/message and providing links to appropriate Help Center articles.

[+Sherminator18]

But i still see people logging finds multiple times on the same cache...

This is probably by mistake and they don't even realize they've logged the cache multiple times. You could send them a link to this page or even this tool.

 

...And people logging they attended an event 2 days after it actually happened.

Again, this doesn't mean that they didn't attend the event. Logging via the official app doesn't permit the cacher to change the date of the log. If someone attends an event and then submits the log via the app later, which is perfectly allowable, then they aren't presented with the option to modify the date.

Also, many cachers don't seem to know that they even can change the date of their log when they log online or through an app that allows changing the date. And some cachers that do know changing the date is an option don't understand why it matters to use the correct date.

If someone feels so passionately about other cachers doing things the 'right way', then perhaps that someone should try to help educate by sending a friendly email/message and providing links to appropriate Help Center articles.

 

I believe I know the event that Pond Bird is referring to, as it was my event. GC6EMJD A brand new cacher with ONE FIND came to the event. I noticed he had not logged it so 2 days later I sent him a message explaining that events do count as finds and that he should write an "Attended" log for the event so he would get credit. His log has a date of 4/24/16 when the event was on 4/22/16. Like I said this cacher had ONE FIND before the event (now two) and only uses the Geocaching app. I doubt he has any idea about changing dates or that he should change the date or not. But does it really matter? He was there. Pond Bird even saw him. It's not affecting your caching in any way.

[+Pond Bird]

But i still see people logging finds multiple times on the same cache...

This is probably by mistake and they don't even realize they've logged the cache multiple times. You could send them a link to this page or even this tool.

 

...And people logging they attended an event 2 days after it actually happened.

Again, this doesn't mean that they didn't attend the event. Logging via the official app doesn't permit the cacher to change the date of the log. If someone attends an event and then submits the log via the app later, which is perfectly allowable, then they aren't presented with the option to modify the date.

Also, many cachers don't seem to know that they even can change the date of their log when they log online or through an app that allows changing the date. And some cachers that do know changing the date is an option don't understand why it matters to use the correct date.

If someone feels so passionately about other cachers doing things the 'right way', then perhaps that someone should try to help educate by sending a friendly email/message and providing links to appropriate Help Center articles.

 

So telling new (and old) cachers how to change their log date would be the appropriate thing to do. That sounds fair.

[+narcissa]

But i still see people logging finds multiple times on the same cache...

This is probably by mistake and they don't even realize they've logged the cache multiple times. You could send them a link to this page or even this tool.

 

...And people logging they attended an event 2 days after it actually happened.

Again, this doesn't mean that they didn't attend the event. Logging via the official app doesn't permit the cacher to change the date of the log. If someone attends an event and then submits the log via the app later, which is perfectly allowable, then they aren't presented with the option to modify the date.

Also, many cachers don't seem to know that they even can change the date of their log when they log online or through an app that allows changing the date. And some cachers that do know changing the date is an option don't understand why it matters to use the correct date.

If someone feels so passionately about other cachers doing things the 'right way', then perhaps that someone should try to help educate by sending a friendly email/message and providing links to appropriate Help Center articles.

 

So telling new (and old) cachers how to change their log date would be the appropriate thing to do. That sounds fair.

 

In this situation, the appropriate thing to do is to stop scrutinizing the logs on other people's geocaches.

[+Pond Bird]

In this situation, the appropriate thing to do is to stop scrutinizing the logs on other people's geocaches.

 

Again, thats off topic. On the plus side I saw many people change their "found it" logs to DNFs. And a cache was replaced recently at least I hope it was and not 2 people all of the sudden "found" a cache that was missing.

[+narcissa]

In this situation, the appropriate thing to do is to stop scrutinizing the logs on other people's geocaches.

 

Again, thats off topic. On the plus side I saw many people change their "found it" logs to DNFs. And a cache was replaced recently at least I hope it was and not 2 people all of the sudden "found" a cache that was missing.

 

Was it your cache?

[+Sherminator18]

In this situation, the appropriate thing to do is to stop scrutinizing the logs on other people's geocaches.

 

Again, thats off topic. On the plus side I saw many people change their "found it" logs to DNFs. And a cache was replaced recently at least I hope it was and not 2 people all of the sudden "found" a cache that was missing.

 

Was it your cache?

 

No, it's not his cache, because again, I know which one he's referring to. I was at the cache location yesterday with my boyfriend who found it. All cachers who posted Found It logs recently had signatures on the log sheet.

 

http://coord.info/GC5AVB1

[+narcissa]

In this situation, the appropriate thing to do is to stop scrutinizing the logs on other people's geocaches.

 

Again, thats off topic. On the plus side I saw many people change their "found it" logs to DNFs. And a cache was replaced recently at least I hope it was and not 2 people all of the sudden "found" a cache that was missing.

 

Was it your cache?

 

No, it's not his cache, because again, I know which one he's referring to. I was at the cache location yesterday with my boyfriend who found it. All cachers who posted Found It logs recently had signatures on the log sheet.

 

http://coord.info/GC5AVB1

 

The greater evil in this situation is someone logging a "Needs Maintenance" on a cache they haven't even found.

[+Pond Bird]

In this situation, the appropriate thing to do is to stop scrutinizing the logs on other people's geocaches.

 

Again, thats off topic. On the plus side I saw many people change their "found it" logs to DNFs. And a cache was replaced recently at least I hope it was and not 2 people all of the sudden "found" a cache that was missing.

 

Was it your cache?

 

No, it's not his cache, because again, I know which one he's referring to. I was at the cache location yesterday with my boyfriend who found it. All cachers who posted Found It logs recently had signatures on the log sheet.

 

http://coord.info/GC5AVB1

 

How come everybody said it was gone? Even your boyfriend said it himself and logged a DNF.

[+Sherminator18]

We did think it was gone. We had 10 people looking for it during the nearby Leap Day event. I found the cache in August or September 2014 and it was not in the same location where I found it originally. The location and container have completely changed. Hence why even I thought it was missing.

[+ShopCrazy]

People are concerned about false logs, and completed but not completed streaks...

A bigger concern in my books is people that can't find a cache so throw down a new container even though the original, creative, well hidden container is still in place. This behavior affects me more than cheats and people that don't know how to play the game.

[+Pond Bird]

We did think it was gone. We had 10 people looking for it during the nearby Leap Day event. I found the cache in August or September 2014 and it was not in the same location where I found it originally. The location and container have completely changed. Hence why even I thought it was missing.

 

Then the cache owner was right and multiple people were logging fake DNFs or thinking it was gone due to it being in a new location. This is an example of when an owner shouldn't have misleading DNF logs on their cache. makes the cache look missing so people don't look. i kinda feel bad for the owner now.

[+noncentric]

We did think it was gone. We had 10 people looking for it during the nearby Leap Day event. I found the cache in August or September 2014 and it was not in the same location where I found it originally. The location and container have completely changed. Hence why even I thought it was missing.

 

Then the cache owner was right and multiple people were logging fake DNFs or thinking it was gone due to it being in a new location. This is an example of when an owner shouldn't have misleading DNF logs on their cache. makes the cache look missing so people don't look. i kinda feel bad for the owner now.

DNF means "did not find". I really don't understand your concept of "fake DNFs". If someone has a bad GPS device, whether it's a GPSr or phone, and they're searching in the completely wrong area, then they will not find the cache even though it's probably in it's hiding spot. Sounds like you would consider that a "fake DNF"?

 

DNF does not mean "cache is missing", it means the cacher didn't find it. A lot of DNF's may be an indicator of a problem with a cache, but it's not the only thing to consider. If a D1 cache has a lot of DNF's, then there's probably something wrong with the cache and/or it's posted coords and/or it's difficulty rating. If a D4 cache has no DNF's then it's probably not really a D4 and the difficulty rating is incorrect.

Edited April 26, 2016 by noncentric

[+Sherminator18]

We did think it was gone. We had 10 people looking for it during the nearby Leap Day event. I found the cache in August or September 2014 and it was not in the same location where I found it originally. The location and container have completely changed. Hence why even I thought it was missing.

 

Then the cache owner was right and multiple people were logging fake DNFs or thinking it was gone due to it being in a new location. This is an example of when an owner shouldn't have misleading DNF logs on their cache. makes the cache look missing so people don't look. i kinda feel bad for the owner now.

DNF means "did not find". I really don't understand your concept of "fake DNFs". If someone has a bad GPS device, whether it's a GPSr or phone, and they're searching in the completely wrong area, then they will not find the cache even though it's probably in it's hiding spot. Sounds like you would consider that a "fake DNF"?

 

DNF does not mean "cache is missing", it means the cacher didn't find it. A lot of DNF's may be an indicator of a problem with a cache, but it's not the only thing to consider. If a D1 cache has a lot of DNF's, then there's probably something wrong with the cache and/or it's posted coords and/or it's difficulty rating. If a D4 cache has no DNF's then it's probably not really a D4 and the difficulty rating is incorrect.

 

Exactly. We looked for the cache and DIDN'T find it, so people posted DNF logs. Why would that be fake? I don't understand your thought process on that. For a long time the CO hadn't logged into the site or posted anything on the cache page to indicate that the cache was still there, or even that the cache had been moved or replaced. The DNFs aren't misleading. They just indicate that the specific cacher couldn't find the cache. DNFs also indicate to the CO that perhaps they should check on the cache, which the CO eventually did do. Whether it was missing or not it's there now. I saw it with my own eyes. So don't go making accusations without knowing the details of a situation.

[+narcissa]

We did think it was gone. We had 10 people looking for it during the nearby Leap Day event. I found the cache in August or September 2014 and it was not in the same location where I found it originally. The location and container have completely changed. Hence why even I thought it was missing.

 

Then the cache owner was right and multiple people were logging fake DNFs or thinking it was gone due to it being in a new location. This is an example of when an owner shouldn't have misleading DNF logs on their cache. makes the cache look missing so people don't look. i kinda feel bad for the owner now.

 

Why are the DNFs misleading? If someone didn't find the cache, they didn't find the cache.

 

If you choose to interpret "did not find" as "it certainly isn't there," that is your choice and has nothing to do with the cache owner or the legitimacy of the logs.

 

The only logs on that cache that approach "fraudulent" are the "needs maintenance" logs from people who didn't find the cache. Someone who hasn't found the cache is, usually, in no position to comment on maintenance. If there was a button for snitching on people for inappropriate logs, those are the logs that the button should be used to report.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

People are concerned about false logs, and completed but not completed streaks...

A bigger concern in my books is people that can't find a cache so throw down a new container even though the original, creative, well hidden container is still in place. This behavior affects me more than cheats and people that don't know how to play the game.

 

There are also a couple of logs that I might consider to be spoilers.

 

I drove by that cache on Sunday. If I wasn't already late for a meetup with a former regular poster here up in Buffalo I might have stopped to try and find it. I also drove right by one of Sherminators caches (that was just enabled) on the way home but didn't see the notification until last night.

 

[+Sherminator18]

People are concerned about false logs, and completed but not completed streaks...

A bigger concern in my books is people that can't find a cache so throw down a new container even though the original, creative, well hidden container is still in place. This behavior affects me more than cheats and people that don't know how to play the game.

 

There are also a couple of logs that I might consider to be spoilers.

 

I drove by that cache on Sunday. If I wasn't already late for a meetup with a former regular poster here up in Buffalo I might have stopped to try and find it. I also drove right by one of Sherminators caches (that was just enabled) on the way home but didn't see the notification until last night.

 

Yes I replaced that one yesterday. Some jerk stole it and then went in and bragged to some employees about it. But that's another topic entirely..

[+Pond Bird]

We did think it was gone. We had 10 people looking for it during the nearby Leap Day event. I found the cache in August or September 2014 and it was not in the same location where I found it originally. The location and container have completely changed. Hence why even I thought it was missing.

 

Then the cache owner was right and multiple people were logging fake DNFs or thinking it was gone due to it being in a new location. This is an example of when an owner shouldn't have misleading DNF logs on their cache. makes the cache look missing so people don't look. i kinda feel bad for the owner now.

 

Why are the DNFs misleading? If someone didn't find the cache, they didn't find the cache.

 

If you choose to interpret "did not find" as "it certainly isn't there," that is your choice and has nothing to do with the cache owner or the legitimacy of the logs.

 

The only logs on that cache that approach "fraudulent" are the "needs maintenance" logs from people who didn't find the cache. Someone who hasn't found the cache is, usually, in no position to comment on maintenance. If there was a button for snitching on people for inappropriate logs, those are the logs that the button should be used to report.

 

No needs maintenance means that those users expect there is an issue with the cache and that the owner is physically able to perform any needed maintenance. If I knew people were searching in the wrong spot then I would've looked instead of believing 20 people who insisted the cache was missing.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Pond Bird

[+narcissa]

We did think it was gone. We had 10 people looking for it during the nearby Leap Day event. I found the cache in August or September 2014 and it was not in the same location where I found it originally. The location and container have completely changed. Hence why even I thought it was missing.

 

Then the cache owner was right and multiple people were logging fake DNFs or thinking it was gone due to it being in a new location. This is an example of when an owner shouldn't have misleading DNF logs on their cache. makes the cache look missing so people don't look. i kinda feel bad for the owner now.

 

Why are the DNFs misleading? If someone didn't find the cache, they didn't find the cache.

 

If you choose to interpret "did not find" as "it certainly isn't there," that is your choice and has nothing to do with the cache owner or the legitimacy of the logs.

 

The only logs on that cache that approach "fraudulent" are the "needs maintenance" logs from people who didn't find the cache. Someone who hasn't found the cache is, usually, in no position to comment on maintenance. If there was a button for snitching on people for inappropriate logs, those are the logs that the button should be used to report.

 

No needs maintenance means that those users expect there is an issue with the cache and that the owner is physically able to perform any needed maintenance. If I knew people were searching in the wrong spot then I would've looked instead of believing 20 people who insisted the cache was missing.

 

If you didn't even search for the cache, you are in no position to comment on whether or not the cache needs maintenance.

[+Sherminator18]

Keep in mind also that no one knew they were looking in the wrong spot. There really wasn't much indication on the cache page that the cache was moved. And the cache is even that far away from there it was originally. A large group of people looked for probably 30 - 45 minutes and didn't find anything. Which led us to believe it wasn't there.

[+narcissa]

Keep in mind also that no one knew they were looking in the wrong spot. There really wasn't much indication on the cache page that the cache was moved. And the cache is even that far away from there it was originally. A large group of people looked for probably 30 - 45 minutes and didn't find anything. Which led us to believe it wasn't there.

 

And the deluge of DNF logs should be sufficient to let the cache owner know that they've goofed up a bit!

 

The "Needs Maintenance" logs from people who didn't even visit are just needless harassment of the cache owner. It doesn't need to be a pile-on.

[+MyBoyHarley]

To me, logging a "find" implies that there is a cache to find and a log to sign. I recently found the location of a cache, but the container was gone. All that was left was a piece of string with nothing attached. I duly logged "DNF". Two subsequent "cachers" did the same but logged a "find", even though there was nothing to find or sign.

More cases of cheating themselves ?

You are correct sir, and you did the right thing. The others... not so much. Did you also post a NM log?

Yes I did.