Is it OK to not sign the paper log?

[+CFphoto]

What I've learned from the forums: never admit in your online log that you forgot your pen.

 

Most cache owners treat the log as if they wish they didn't have to include one. They throw in a scrap piece of paper because they have to.

 

I sometimes wonder why I bother signing logs. Especially the moldy ones. I doubt any owner of an moldy old log is going to be checking it against the online logs. I've stopped signing nano logs, how would a cache owner even decipher the blobs and squiggles. I also stopped signing bison tubes logs that are tattered and moldy (often damp or wet or soaked). The owner doesn't care, neither do I. So many of the caches in my area are abandoned, may of them throwdowns, the owner is never going to check and those owners that are still active could care less about the paper log (given that the container is leaky and the logsheet is a scrap bit of torn paper or a thrown in replacement from a finder).

 

In the old days, a cache was expected to have a pen/pencil. Many of us carried our own but the cache had a back up. We would even note in our logs if there wasn't a pen/pencil in the cache. I always include a pen/pencil or two in our hides and replace/add them when I do a maintenance run. I'm still old-school when it comes to hides. I see it as a courtesy to finders and it doesn't cost me much. About 3 cents, I get dollar store pencils and cut them in 3 to make small pencils that fit even film canisters. I sometimes put them in caches I find. I read occasionally that the next finder appreciated the pencil in the container.

 

But I have on occasion signed with a stick and mud or green stain from a leaf. I'll do that on the logbooks where the owner appears to care about their hides and maintain their cache.

 

I realize that the paper log signature is a form of proof. I understand when a CO suspects that some cachers are not actually finding their cache but recording a find anyway. Deleting a log may help to discourage this behaviour. But as a CO if you have the feeling that the finder really did find the cache and they really didn't have a pen, deleting the log seems unfair. Especially when things like group finds under one group name doesn't get deleted, yet maybe only 1/5 of the group actually saw the cache. Or high terrain caches where maybe one person rowed over and signed for the other 10 people waiting on shore.

 

I never felt that signing the paper log's most primary function was mandatory enforcement of a find. What I like about the signing experience is the connection with the next finders, with the CO in a more personal way, by leaving a note at the scene in my handwriting. It's different from logging online.

 

I think you absolutely nailed it. I treat logs with the same level of respect that the CO has for them. A well maintained cache with a dry and appropriate sized logbook? Signed! A moldly logbook within a poorly placed cache where the owner hasn't been active in years? Not going to waste my time.

[thrillseeker69]

Yup.

It seems with many of these microcaches that the owners need to refresh their log sheets more frequently.

Many cases there is no longer room to sign, or in some instances can't even remove the log sheet without a pliers or something. Ridiculous!

[+Team_Vod]

What I've learned from the forums: never admit in your online log that you forgot your pen.

 

Most cache owners treat the log as if they wish they didn't have to include one. They throw in a scrap piece of paper because they have to.

 

I sometimes wonder why I bother signing logs. Especially the moldy ones. I doubt any owner of an moldy old log is going to be checking it against the online logs. I've stopped signing nano logs, how would a cache owner even decipher the blobs and squiggles. I also stopped signing bison tubes logs that are tattered and moldy (often damp or wet or soaked). The owner doesn't care, neither do I. So many of the caches in my area are abandoned, may of them throwdowns, the owner is never going to check and those owners that are still active could care less about the paper log (given that the container is leaky and the logsheet is a scrap bit of torn paper or a thrown in replacement from a finder).

 

In the old days, a cache was expected to have a pen/pencil. Many of us carried our own but the cache had a back up. We would even note in our logs if there wasn't a pen/pencil in the cache. I always include a pen/pencil or two in our hides and replace/add them when I do a maintenance run. I'm still old-school when it comes to hides. I see it as a courtesy to finders and it doesn't cost me much. About 3 cents, I get dollar store pencils and cut them in 3 to make small pencils that fit even film canisters. I sometimes put them in caches I find. I read occasionally that the next finder appreciated the pencil in the container.

 

But I have on occasion signed with a stick and mud or green stain from a leaf. I'll do that on the logbooks where the owner appears to care about their hides and maintain their cache.

 

I realize that the paper log signature is a form of proof. I understand when a CO suspects that some cachers are not actually finding their cache but recording a find anyway. Deleting a log may help to discourage this behaviour. But as a CO if you have the feeling that the finder really did find the cache and they really didn't have a pen, deleting the log seems unfair. Especially when things like group finds under one group name doesn't get deleted, yet maybe only 1/5 of the group actually saw the cache. Or high terrain caches where maybe one person rowed over and signed for the other 10 people waiting on shore.

 

I never felt that signing the paper log's most primary function was mandatory enforcement of a find. What I like about the signing experience is the connection with the next finders, with the CO in a more personal way, by leaving a note at the scene in my handwriting. It's different from logging online.

 

I think you absolutely nailed it. I treat logs with the same level of respect that the CO has for them. A well maintained cache with a dry and appropriate sized logbook? Signed! A moldly logbook within a poorly placed cache where the owner hasn't been active in years? Not going to waste my time.

 

Do you still record it as a find on geocaching.com? I was told in not so certain terms even if I actually find it and log it online it is NOT found unless I sign the log. To some it makes no difference if a geocacher does not have a writing implement or if the log is missing, damaged, wet, or unable to be signed for pretty much any reason it is not a find and shall not, cannot, and will not be counted as such, in some people's minds, until the log is signed regardless of the reason why there is an issue with the log.

 

I know you stated you do not bother with caches that are not large enough to hold swag. I imagine even these can have missing, damaged, wet, etc. logs.

Edited May 23, 2016 by SUX_VR_40_Rider

[+CFphoto]

I record it as a find if it's a normal sized cache that I found the logbook. I don't feel compelled to sign the logbook if it's sopping wet. I know to many here that's sacrilege, but to me the important thing is finding the container, not physically signing the logbook. This becomes exponentially more true as the condition of the cache deteriorates. If a CO wants to delete my online log, so be it! I don't give one iota what my online cache count is. Heck, much of the time I don't even record my finds online at all, which is why I only have 50-something in 5 years of caching! I play for fun experiences, not cache count measuring.

[+L0ne.R]

What I've learned from the forums: never admit in your online log that you forgot your pen.

 

Most cache owners treat the log as if they wish they didn't have to include one. They throw in a scrap piece of paper because they have to.

 

I sometimes wonder why I bother signing logs. Especially the moldy ones. I doubt any owner of an moldy old log is going to be checking it against the online logs. I've stopped signing nano logs, how would a cache owner even decipher the blobs and squiggles. I also stopped signing bison tubes logs that are tattered and moldy (often damp or wet or soaked). The owner doesn't care, neither do I. So many of the caches in my area are abandoned, may of them throwdowns, the owner is never going to check and those owners that are still active could care less about the paper log (given that the container is leaky and the logsheet is a scrap bit of torn paper or a thrown in replacement from a finder).

 

In the old days, a cache was expected to have a pen/pencil. Many of us carried our own but the cache had a back up. We would even note in our logs if there wasn't a pen/pencil in the cache. I always include a pen/pencil or two in our hides and replace/add them when I do a maintenance run. I'm still old-school when it comes to hides. I see it as a courtesy to finders and it doesn't cost me much. About 3 cents, I get dollar store pencils and cut them in 3 to make small pencils that fit even film canisters. I sometimes put them in caches I find. I read occasionally that the next finder appreciated the pencil in the container.

 

But I have on occasion signed with a stick and mud or green stain from a leaf. I'll do that on the logbooks where the owner appears to care about their hides and maintain their cache.

 

I realize that the paper log signature is a form of proof. I understand when a CO suspects that some cachers are not actually finding their cache but recording a find anyway. Deleting a log may help to discourage this behaviour. But as a CO if you have the feeling that the finder really did find the cache and they really didn't have a pen, deleting the log seems unfair. Especially when things like group finds under one group name doesn't get deleted, yet maybe only 1/5 of the group actually saw the cache. Or high terrain caches where maybe one person rowed over and signed for the other 10 people waiting on shore.

 

I never felt that signing the paper log's most primary function was mandatory enforcement of a find. What I like about the signing experience is the connection with the next finders, with the CO in a more personal way, by leaving a note at the scene in my handwriting. It's different from logging online.

 

I think you absolutely nailed it. I treat logs with the same level of respect that the CO has for them. A well maintained cache with a dry and appropriate sized logbook? Signed! A moldly logbook within a poorly placed cache where the owner hasn't been active in years? Not going to waste my time.

 

Do you still record it as a find on geocaching.com? I was told in not so certain terms even if I actually find it and log it online it is NOT found unless I sign the log. It makes no difference if a geocacher does not have a writing implement or if the log is missing, damaged, wet, or unable to be signed for pretty much any reason it is not a find and shall not, cannot, and will not be counted as such, in some people's minds, until the log is signed regardless of the reason why there is an issue with the log.

 

I know you stated you do not bother with caches that are not large enough to hold swag. I imagine even these can have missing, damaged, wet, etc. logs.

 

Yes, I still log it online. Often with a photo of the condition of the cache and log (if it will photograph well). I had to use hand sanitizer after touching this one. I did not sign the log. The cache owner (a teacher who hid the cache with her/his grade 5/6 science class students) was long gone. I posted a find and then an NA.

 

 

 

I log a DNF on a string, a magnet, a ziptie, a lid (sorry SUX), part of a cache. Mostly because I don't want to give the impression to the next finder that the cache is there. It will waste the time of any cacher who values the container and contents part of geocaching. And also because my DNF starts the clock ticking towards archival.

 

Every few months I will go back over my DNFs and if more DNFs, and NMs occur with no response from the owner, or if someone throws down a cache, my next step is to log an NM. If there's a throw down I'll mention it in my NM. If the OM doesn't respond, a month after my NM I'll post an NA and list all the issues. "People have been logging a find on a lid for the last 2 months. Before that there were issues with a soaked log because of a broken bottom, those go back 3 more months. It was only a lid with camo tape when I visited. The cache owner is still active but has not responded to logs mentioning the problem. The cache owner has not responded to last month's NM. This cache could use a temporary disable to save someone a wasted trip until the cache can be fixed by the cache owner."

Edited May 23, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+Team_Vod]

What I've learned from the forums: never admit in your online log that you forgot your pen.

 

Most cache owners treat the log as if they wish they didn't have to include one. They throw in a scrap piece of paper because they have to.

 

I sometimes wonder why I bother signing logs. Especially the moldy ones. I doubt any owner of an moldy old log is going to be checking it against the online logs. I've stopped signing nano logs, how would a cache owner even decipher the blobs and squiggles. I also stopped signing bison tubes logs that are tattered and moldy (often damp or wet or soaked). The owner doesn't care, neither do I. So many of the caches in my area are abandoned, may of them throwdowns, the owner is never going to check and those owners that are still active could care less about the paper log (given that the container is leaky and the logsheet is a scrap bit of torn paper or a thrown in replacement from a finder).

 

In the old days, a cache was expected to have a pen/pencil. Many of us carried our own but the cache had a back up. We would even note in our logs if there wasn't a pen/pencil in the cache. I always include a pen/pencil or two in our hides and replace/add them when I do a maintenance run. I'm still old-school when it comes to hides. I see it as a courtesy to finders and it doesn't cost me much. About 3 cents, I get dollar store pencils and cut them in 3 to make small pencils that fit even film canisters. I sometimes put them in caches I find. I read occasionally that the next finder appreciated the pencil in the container.

 

But I have on occasion signed with a stick and mud or green stain from a leaf. I'll do that on the logbooks where the owner appears to care about their hides and maintain their cache.

 

I realize that the paper log signature is a form of proof. I understand when a CO suspects that some cachers are not actually finding their cache but recording a find anyway. Deleting a log may help to discourage this behaviour. But as a CO if you have the feeling that the finder really did find the cache and they really didn't have a pen, deleting the log seems unfair. Especially when things like group finds under one group name doesn't get deleted, yet maybe only 1/5 of the group actually saw the cache. Or high terrain caches where maybe one person rowed over and signed for the other 10 people waiting on shore.

 

I never felt that signing the paper log's most primary function was mandatory enforcement of a find. What I like about the signing experience is the connection with the next finders, with the CO in a more personal way, by leaving a note at the scene in my handwriting. It's different from logging online.

 

I think you absolutely nailed it. I treat logs with the same level of respect that the CO has for them. A well maintained cache with a dry and appropriate sized logbook? Signed! A moldly logbook within a poorly placed cache where the owner hasn't been active in years? Not going to waste my time.

 

Do you still record it as a find on geocaching.com? I was told in not so certain terms even if I actually find it and log it online it is NOT found unless I sign the log. It makes no difference if a geocacher does not have a writing implement or if the log is missing, damaged, wet, or unable to be signed for pretty much any reason it is not a find and shall not, cannot, and will not be counted as such, in some people's minds, until the log is signed regardless of the reason why there is an issue with the log.

 

I know you stated you do not bother with caches that are not large enough to hold swag. I imagine even these can have missing, damaged, wet, etc. logs.

 

Yes, I still log it online. Often with a photo of the condition of the cache and log (if it will photograph well). I had to use hand sanitizer after touching this one. I did not sign the log. The cache owner (a teacher who hid the cache with her/his grade 5/6 science class students) was long gone. I posted a find and then an NA.

 

 

 

I log a DNF on a string, a magnet, a ziptie, a lid (sorry SUX), part of a cache. Mostly because I don't want to give the impression to the next finder that the cache is there. It will waste the time of any cacher who values the container and contents part of geocaching. And also because my DNF starts the clock ticking towards archival.

 

Every few months I will go back over my DNFs and if more DNFs, and NMs occur with no response from the owner, or if someone throws down a cache, my next step is to log an NM. If there's a throw down I'll mention it in my NM. If the OM doesn't respond, a month after my NM I'll post an NA and list all the issues. "People have been logging a find on a lid for the last 2 months. Before that there were issues with a soaked log because of a broken bottom, those go back 3 more months. It was only a lid with camo tape when I visited. The cache owner is still active but has not responded to logs mentioning the problem. The cache owner has not responded to last month's NM. This cache could use a temporary disable to save someone a wasted trip until the cache can be fixed by the cache owner."

 

With cache's where for example only the lid was found and after you do all this work, checking DNF's, filing NM and then an NA, if it comes to that and reporting what basically amounts to a timeline of problems with this cache and it is obvious it has been abandoned and it is still not archived by a reviewer for what ever reason, there is no longer a reviewer or that person has become complacent, etc. what then? If it is obvious the cache is going to remain active despite all that you and/or anyone else does to fix it, what then?

[+L0ne.R]

What I've learned from the forums: never admit in your online log that you forgot your pen.

 

Most cache owners treat the log as if they wish they didn't have to include one. They throw in a scrap piece of paper because they have to.

 

I sometimes wonder why I bother signing logs. Especially the moldy ones. I doubt any owner of an moldy old log is going to be checking it against the online logs. I've stopped signing nano logs, how would a cache owner even decipher the blobs and squiggles. I also stopped signing bison tubes logs that are tattered and moldy (often damp or wet or soaked). The owner doesn't care, neither do I. So many of the caches in my area are abandoned, may of them throwdowns, the owner is never going to check and those owners that are still active could care less about the paper log (given that the container is leaky and the logsheet is a scrap bit of torn paper or a thrown in replacement from a finder).

 

In the old days, a cache was expected to have a pen/pencil. Many of us carried our own but the cache had a back up. We would even note in our logs if there wasn't a pen/pencil in the cache. I always include a pen/pencil or two in our hides and replace/add them when I do a maintenance run. I'm still old-school when it comes to hides. I see it as a courtesy to finders and it doesn't cost me much. About 3 cents, I get dollar store pencils and cut them in 3 to make small pencils that fit even film canisters. I sometimes put them in caches I find. I read occasionally that the next finder appreciated the pencil in the container.

 

But I have on occasion signed with a stick and mud or green stain from a leaf. I'll do that on the logbooks where the owner appears to care about their hides and maintain their cache.

 

I realize that the paper log signature is a form of proof. I understand when a CO suspects that some cachers are not actually finding their cache but recording a find anyway. Deleting a log may help to discourage this behaviour. But as a CO if you have the feeling that the finder really did find the cache and they really didn't have a pen, deleting the log seems unfair. Especially when things like group finds under one group name doesn't get deleted, yet maybe only 1/5 of the group actually saw the cache. Or high terrain caches where maybe one person rowed over and signed for the other 10 people waiting on shore.

 

I never felt that signing the paper log's most primary function was mandatory enforcement of a find. What I like about the signing experience is the connection with the next finders, with the CO in a more personal way, by leaving a note at the scene in my handwriting. It's different from logging online.

 

I think you absolutely nailed it. I treat logs with the same level of respect that the CO has for them. A well maintained cache with a dry and appropriate sized logbook? Signed! A moldly logbook within a poorly placed cache where the owner hasn't been active in years? Not going to waste my time.

 

Do you still record it as a find on geocaching.com? I was told in not so certain terms even if I actually find it and log it online it is NOT found unless I sign the log. It makes no difference if a geocacher does not have a writing implement or if the log is missing, damaged, wet, or unable to be signed for pretty much any reason it is not a find and shall not, cannot, and will not be counted as such, in some people's minds, until the log is signed regardless of the reason why there is an issue with the log.

 

I know you stated you do not bother with caches that are not large enough to hold swag. I imagine even these can have missing, damaged, wet, etc. logs.

 

Yes, I still log it online. Often with a photo of the condition of the cache and log (if it will photograph well). I had to use hand sanitizer after touching this one. I did not sign the log. The cache owner (a teacher who hid the cache with her/his grade 5/6 science class students) was long gone. I posted a find and then an NA.

 

 

 

I log a DNF on a string, a magnet, a ziptie, a lid (sorry SUX), part of a cache. Mostly because I don't want to give the impression to the next finder that the cache is there. It will waste the time of any cacher who values the container and contents part of geocaching. And also because my DNF starts the clock ticking towards archival.

 

Every few months I will go back over my DNFs and if more DNFs, and NMs occur with no response from the owner, or if someone throws down a cache, my next step is to log an NM. If there's a throw down I'll mention it in my NM. If the OM doesn't respond, a month after my NM I'll post an NA and list all the issues. "People have been logging a find on a lid for the last 2 months. Before that there were issues with a soaked log because of a broken bottom, those go back 3 more months. It was only a lid with camo tape when I visited. The cache owner is still active but has not responded to logs mentioning the problem. The cache owner has not responded to last month's NM. This cache could use a temporary disable to save someone a wasted trip until the cache can be fixed by the cache owner."

 

With cache's where for example only the lid was found and after you do all this work, checking DNF's, filing NM and then an NA, if it comes to that and reporting what basically amounts to a timeline of problems with this cache and it is obvious it has been abandoned and it is still not archived by a reviewer for what ever reason, there is no longer a reviewer or that person has become complacent, etc. what then? If it is obvious the cache is going to remain active despite all that you and/or anyone else does to fix it, what then?

 

That's only happened once to me. I posted an NA on a cache that was still there but the lid had lost all 4 of it's tabs and was not doing anything to protect the contents. The CO was non-responsive to all the found logs that mentioned the problem and several NMs. I was asked to post an NM instead (despite 3 other NMs). I did.

 

I think reviewers like to see the normal procedure followed. That is, don't skip steps. Generally I think it makes their job easier when the cache goes completely missing and there are several DNFs on a cache that was previously regularly found. If the cache is just in bad shape, they may still feel it's viable.

For missing caches: DNFs>NM>NA.

For broken caches: Found logs reporting the problem, followed by a couple of NMs with no response from the CO, (especially from a CO that hasn't logged in in 6 months or more), then an NA.

 

I kept a watch on the broken cache in my example above, and eventually after about another 6 months the cache container disappeared. After about a couple more DNFs I checked, it was gone. I posted another NM. Waited a month and posted an NA.

 

It's a long process and can take several months to a year (sometimes more). The database is so full of junk caches. I get quite frustrated when I explore new places to geocache and find mostly nothing, or throwdowns, or abandoned junk. I feel I'm contributing to a better cache experience for those whole like caching for more then the smiley count, so I'm willing to take to time to persevere and go through the steps.

[+noncentric]

Do you still record it as a find on geocaching.com? I was told in not so certain terms even if I actually find it and log it online it is NOT found unless I sign the log. To some it makes no difference if a geocacher does not have a writing implement or if the log is missing, damaged, wet, or unable to be signed for pretty much any reason it is not a find and shall not, cannot, and will not be counted as such, in some people's minds, until the log is signed regardless of the reason why there is an issue with the log.

I haven't reviewed all of the responses, but if my memory functions correctly - I don't recall cachers saying that not signing a sopping wet log is not a find. IIRC, the majority of comments were that a find is okay if the log is present, but it's in such poor condition that it can't be signed. It's one thing to log a find if the log can't be signed because of its condition VS because of forgetting to bring a pen/pencil.

 

With cache's where for example only the lid was found and after you do all this work, checking DNF's, filing NM and then an NA, if it comes to that and reporting what basically amounts to a timeline of problems with this cache and it is obvious it has been abandoned and it is still not archived by a reviewer for what ever reason, there is no longer a reviewer or that person has become complacent, etc. what then? If it is obvious the cache is going to remain active despite all that you and/or anyone else does to fix it, what then?

I'm not sure there are ever cases where "there is no longer a reviewer". The original Reviewer that published the cache may no longer be reviewing, but in such cases the Needs Archived notification will be reviewed by a different Reviewer. I also don't think that Reviewers "become complacent". They may become busy or sick or take a vacation, but 'complacent'?

 

Can you provide an example of a cache with an NA that hasn't been addressed? In most cases, a Reviewer will allow some weeks after an NA log before taking action against the cache. A notable exception is in cases where the NA log is because of land permission issues, in which case the Reviewer will take action right away.

[+edscott]

I just gave a cacher permission to claim a find for a cache of mine that does not have his signature. I have two Multi caches totaling 11 stages over about a 6 Km circuit that is almost all off trail navigation in thick and somewhat rocky woods. He found 10 of the 11 containers, but the final stage for the first half of the loop was missing. I replaced it and gave permission of log the find. After all, he had saved me the time of doing my normal spring checkup of all these sites. I knew he and been to the location of the missing cache as his tracks were still there and without being there, the first stage of the next phase of the puzzle would be nearly impossible to find. Seemed only fair to allow him to log a find.

[+dprovan]

I think you absolutely nailed it. I treat logs with the same level of respect that the CO has for them. A well maintained cache with a dry and appropriate sized logbook? Signed! A moldly logbook within a poorly placed cache where the owner hasn't been active in years? Not going to waste my time.

Do you still record it as a find on geocaching.com? I was told in not so certain terms even if I actually find it and log it online it is NOT found unless I sign the log.

What I'm wondering is if he isn't signing because he doesn't feel it's up to his standards, why would he claim it as a find on-line? He's giving credit to a cache that he clearly feels doesn't deserve it.

 

Don't get me wrong: I would claim the find on a cache with a disgusting logbook I couldn't sign, and I'm fine with anyone else claiming it. But I justify not signing the cache because it's physically impossible. It seems contradictory to justify not signing the physical log based on the amount of respect the CO shows the cache, but then logging the find on-line, anyway. If the physical cache isn't worthy, how is the idea of the cache at GC.com worthy?

[+L0ne.R]

I think you absolutely nailed it. I treat logs with the same level of respect that the CO has for them. A well maintained cache with a dry and appropriate sized logbook? Signed! A moldly logbook within a poorly placed cache where the owner hasn't been active in years? Not going to waste my time.

Do you still record it as a find on geocaching.com? I was told in not so certain terms even if I actually find it and log it online it is NOT found unless I sign the log.

What I'm wondering is if he isn't signing because he doesn't feel it's up to his standards, why would he claim it as a find on-line? He's giving credit to a cache that he clearly feels doesn't deserve it.

 

Don't get me wrong: I would claim the find on a cache with a disgusting logbook I couldn't sign, and I'm fine with anyone else claiming it. But I justify not signing the cache because it's physically impossible. It seems contradictory to justify not signing the physical log based on the amount of respect the CO shows the cache, but then logging the find on-line, anyway. If the physical cache isn't worthy, how is the idea of the cache at GC.com worthy?

 

To me it's a "what's the point" thing.

Why bother pulling the pen out of the pocket to sign a scrap of paper that you get a pretty good feeling the CO will never look at.

Why get frustrated pulling the tightly wound scroll out of the button nano and write on that tiny bit of paper, then worse, re-rolling it to fit back in to the lid. Especially when you know that there's no way any cache owner will actually be able to decipher most of the squiggles and initials on the scroll, if they bother looking. (Anyone here own a button nano and compare the squiggles against the online logs?)

Why bother extracting the moldy bison log when you know the owner is a carpet bomber, has over 1000 hides that he doesn't maintain, except to asks finders to please leave a throwdown if they can't find the cache.

What's the point of signing a log that the cache owner doesn't care about? Why expend the energy and sometimes the aggravation?

 

[+narcissa]

I think you absolutely nailed it. I treat logs with the same level of respect that the CO has for them. A well maintained cache with a dry and appropriate sized logbook? Signed! A moldly logbook within a poorly placed cache where the owner hasn't been active in years? Not going to waste my time.

Do you still record it as a find on geocaching.com? I was told in not so certain terms even if I actually find it and log it online it is NOT found unless I sign the log.

What I'm wondering is if he isn't signing because he doesn't feel it's up to his standards, why would he claim it as a find on-line? He's giving credit to a cache that he clearly feels doesn't deserve it.

 

Don't get me wrong: I would claim the find on a cache with a disgusting logbook I couldn't sign, and I'm fine with anyone else claiming it. But I justify not signing the cache because it's physically impossible. It seems contradictory to justify not signing the physical log based on the amount of respect the CO shows the cache, but then logging the find on-line, anyway. If the physical cache isn't worthy, how is the idea of the cache at GC.com worthy?

 

To me it's a "what's the point" thing.

Why bother pulling the pen out of the pocket to sign a scrap of paper that you get a pretty good feeling the CO will never look at.

Why get frustrated pulling the tightly wound scroll out of the button nano and write on that tiny bit of paper, then worse, re-rolling it to fit back in to the lid. Especially when you know that there's no way any cache owner will actually be able to decipher most of the squiggles and initials on the scroll, if they bother looking. (Anyone here own a button nano and compare the squiggles against the online logs?)

Why bother extracting the moldy bison log when you know the owner is a carpet bomber, has over 1000 hides that he doesn't maintain, except to asks finders to please leave a throwdown if they can't find the cache.

What's the point of signing a log that the cache owner doesn't care about? Why expend the energy and sometimes the aggravation?

 

Which logically leads to the next question, which is: what's the point of logging such a miserable cache online? Why mar your caching history with it?

[+L0ne.R]

1464233729[/url]' post='5586691']

1464214435[/url]' post='5586607']

1464213129[/url]' post='5586600']

1463953451[/url]' post='5585569']

1463845342[/url]' post='5585301']

I think you absolutely nailed it. I treat logs with the same level of respect that the CO has for them. A well maintained cache with a dry and appropriate sized logbook? Signed! A moldly logbook within a poorly placed cache where the owner hasn't been active in years? Not going to waste my time.

Do you still record it as a find on geocaching.com? I was told in not so certain terms even if I actually find it and log it online it is NOT found unless I sign the log.

What I'm wondering is if he isn't signing because he doesn't feel it's up to his standards, why would he claim it as a find on-line? He's giving credit to a cache that he clearly feels doesn't deserve it.

 

Don't get me wrong: I would claim the find on a cache with a disgusting logbook I couldn't sign, and I'm fine with anyone else claiming it. But I justify not signing the cache because it's physically impossible. It seems contradictory to justify not signing the physical log based on the amount of respect the CO shows the cache, but then logging the find on-line, anyway. If the physical cache isn't worthy, how is the idea of the cache at GC.com worthy?

 

To me it's a "what's the point" thing.

Why bother pulling the pen out of the pocket to sign a scrap of paper that you get a pretty good feeling the CO will never look at.

Why get frustrated pulling the tightly wound scroll out of the button nano and write on that tiny bit of paper, then worse, re-rolling it to fit back in to the lid. Especially when you know that there's no way any cache owner will actually be able to decipher most of the squiggles and initials on the scroll, if they bother looking. (Anyone here own a button nano and compare the squiggles against the online logs?)

Why bother extracting the moldy bison log when you know the owner is a carpet bomber, has over 1000 hides that he doesn't maintain, except to asks finders to please leave a throwdown if they can't find the cache.

What's the point of signing a log that the cache owner doesn't care about? Why expend the energy and sometimes the aggravation?

 

Which logically leads to the next question, which is: what's the point of logging such a miserable cache online? Why mar your caching history with it?

 

I found it. I want to log it as a record of my finds, and I can then filter it from my map. No I don't want a found cache on my ignore list.

[+narcissa]

1464233729[/url]' post='5586691']

1464214435[/url]' post='5586607']

1464213129[/url]' post='5586600']

1463953451[/url]' post='5585569']

1463845342[/url]' post='5585301']

I think you absolutely nailed it. I treat logs with the same level of respect that the CO has for them. A well maintained cache with a dry and appropriate sized logbook? Signed! A moldly logbook within a poorly placed cache where the owner hasn't been active in years? Not going to waste my time.

Do you still record it as a find on geocaching.com? I was told in not so certain terms even if I actually find it and log it online it is NOT found unless I sign the log.

What I'm wondering is if he isn't signing because he doesn't feel it's up to his standards, why would he claim it as a find on-line? He's giving credit to a cache that he clearly feels doesn't deserve it.

 

Don't get me wrong: I would claim the find on a cache with a disgusting logbook I couldn't sign, and I'm fine with anyone else claiming it. But I justify not signing the cache because it's physically impossible. It seems contradictory to justify not signing the physical log based on the amount of respect the CO shows the cache, but then logging the find on-line, anyway. If the physical cache isn't worthy, how is the idea of the cache at GC.com worthy?

 

To me it's a "what's the point" thing.

Why bother pulling the pen out of the pocket to sign a scrap of paper that you get a pretty good feeling the CO will never look at.

Why get frustrated pulling the tightly wound scroll out of the button nano and write on that tiny bit of paper, then worse, re-rolling it to fit back in to the lid. Especially when you know that there's no way any cache owner will actually be able to decipher most of the squiggles and initials on the scroll, if they bother looking. (Anyone here own a button nano and compare the squiggles against the online logs?)

Why bother extracting the moldy bison log when you know the owner is a carpet bomber, has over 1000 hides that he doesn't maintain, except to asks finders to please leave a throwdown if they can't find the cache.

What's the point of signing a log that the cache owner doesn't care about? Why expend the energy and sometimes the aggravation?

 

Which logically leads to the next question, which is: what's the point of logging such a miserable cache online? Why mar your caching history with it?

 

I found it. I want to log it as a record of my finds, and I can then filter it from my map. No I don't want a found cache on my ignore list.

 

Which also begs the question: how does a meticulous cacher come to search for a garbage cache by a known cache carpet bomber in the first place? If the hypothetical cacher in question already knew the cache was going to be garbage by a bad cache owner, why would the hypothetical cacher search for it at all?

[+cachepohl]

I have a simple 'ethic' when caching: If I can't sign the log'book' (of sorts), either I didn't find it or ... the log book is in such bad condition that the cache itself is not worth logging at all.

Only thing those tend to get from me is a NM, hoping the corresponding email is not filtered by the CO. At least it's not memorable to have in my found list ...

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I think you absolutely nailed it. I treat logs with the same level of respect that the CO has for them. A well maintained cache with a dry and appropriate sized logbook? Signed! A moldly logbook within a poorly placed cache where the owner hasn't been active in years? Not going to waste my time.

Do you still record it as a find on geocaching.com? I was told in not so certain terms even if I actually find it and log it online it is NOT found unless I sign the log.

What I'm wondering is if he isn't signing because he doesn't feel it's up to his standards, why would he claim it as a find on-line? He's giving credit to a cache that he clearly feels doesn't deserve it.

 

Don't get me wrong: I would claim the find on a cache with a disgusting logbook I couldn't sign, and I'm fine with anyone else claiming it. But I justify not signing the cache because it's physically impossible. It seems contradictory to justify not signing the physical log based on the amount of respect the CO shows the cache, but then logging the find on-line, anyway. If the physical cache isn't worthy, how is the idea of the cache at GC.com worthy?

 

To me it's a "what's the point" thing.

Why bother pulling the pen out of the pocket to sign a scrap of paper that you get a pretty good feeling the CO will never look at.

Why get frustrated pulling the tightly wound scroll out of the button nano and write on that tiny bit of paper, then worse, re-rolling it to fit back in to the lid. Especially when you know that there's no way any cache owner will actually be able to decipher most of the squiggles and initials on the scroll, if they bother looking. (Anyone here own a button nano and compare the squiggles against the online logs?)

Why bother extracting the moldy bison log when you know the owner is a carpet bomber, has over 1000 hides that he doesn't maintain, except to asks finders to please leave a throwdown if they can't find the cache.

What's the point of signing a log that the cache owner doesn't care about? Why expend the energy and sometimes the aggravation?

 

Which logically leads to the next question, which is: what's the point of logging such a miserable cache online? Why mar your caching history with it?

 

I found it. I want to log it as a record of my finds, and I can then filter it from my map. No I don't want a found cache on my ignore list.

 

Which also begs the question: how does a meticulous cacher come to search for a garbage cache by a known cache carpet bomber in the first place? If the hypothetical cacher in question already knew the cache was going to be garbage by a bad cache owner, why would the hypothetical cacher search for it at all?

 

One reason could be because Groundspeak doesn't give us many tools in which to filter out junk caches. There are tricks you can perform with GSAK to help, but if you didn't use that, putting a CO's junk caches on ignore one by one is a pain. It's sad that with all the technology at our dispersal, it's easier to just find a cache to remove it from the map than it is to do a mass ignore of what you know to be lame caches by poor cache owners.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Crow-T-Robot

[+narcissa]

I think you absolutely nailed it. I treat logs with the same level of respect that the CO has for them. A well maintained cache with a dry and appropriate sized logbook? Signed! A moldly logbook within a poorly placed cache where the owner hasn't been active in years? Not going to waste my time.

Do you still record it as a find on geocaching.com? I was told in not so certain terms even if I actually find it and log it online it is NOT found unless I sign the log.

What I'm wondering is if he isn't signing because he doesn't feel it's up to his standards, why would he claim it as a find on-line? He's giving credit to a cache that he clearly feels doesn't deserve it.

 

Don't get me wrong: I would claim the find on a cache with a disgusting logbook I couldn't sign, and I'm fine with anyone else claiming it. But I justify not signing the cache because it's physically impossible. It seems contradictory to justify not signing the physical log based on the amount of respect the CO shows the cache, but then logging the find on-line, anyway. If the physical cache isn't worthy, how is the idea of the cache at GC.com worthy?

 

To me it's a "what's the point" thing.

Why bother pulling the pen out of the pocket to sign a scrap of paper that you get a pretty good feeling the CO will never look at.

Why get frustrated pulling the tightly wound scroll out of the button nano and write on that tiny bit of paper, then worse, re-rolling it to fit back in to the lid. Especially when you know that there's no way any cache owner will actually be able to decipher most of the squiggles and initials on the scroll, if they bother looking. (Anyone here own a button nano and compare the squiggles against the online logs?)

Why bother extracting the moldy bison log when you know the owner is a carpet bomber, has over 1000 hides that he doesn't maintain, except to asks finders to please leave a throwdown if they can't find the cache.

What's the point of signing a log that the cache owner doesn't care about? Why expend the energy and sometimes the aggravation?

 

Which logically leads to the next question, which is: what's the point of logging such a miserable cache online? Why mar your caching history with it?

 

I found it. I want to log it as a record of my finds, and I can then filter it from my map. No I don't want a found cache on my ignore list.

 

Which also begs the question: how does a meticulous cacher come to search for a garbage cache by a known cache carpet bomber in the first place? If the hypothetical cacher in question already knew the cache was going to be garbage by a bad cache owner, why would the hypothetical cacher search for it at all?

 

One reason could be because Groundspeak doesn't give us many tools in which to filter out junk caches. There are tricks you can perform with GSAK to help, but if you didn't use that, putting a CO's junk caches on ignore one by one is a pain. It's sad that with all the technology at our dispersal, it's easier to just find a cache to remove it from the map than it is to do a mass ignore of what you know to be lame caches by poor cache owners.

 

I don't use the ignore feature, I just actually ignore caches I don't care to find. I can see the owner and the cache info on my GPS and I think oh, that's just more junk by so-and-so, I am going to spend my time elsewhere.

 

Finding a cache is always a choice.

[+Team Microdot]

I don't use the ignore feature, I just actually ignore caches I don't care to find. I can see the owner and the cache info on my GPS and I think oh, that's just more junk by so-and-so, I am going to spend my time elsewhere.

 

Finding a cache is always a choice.

 

I don't use the ignore feature on the forums, I just actually ignore posts I don't care to read. I can see the poster's name on my screen and I think oh, that's just more junk by so-and-so, I am going to spend my time elsewhere.

 

Ignoring posters who say things you don't like to hear is always a choice.

 

Different strokes for different folks

Edited May 26, 2016 by Team Microdot

[ohgood]

I went to a history presentation at the Sioux City Public Museum, my local museum, today about the history of bicycling in Iowa. I rode my bike down and after when I was riding home I remembered a geocache I wanted to try and find. I had some time to spare so I stopped, pulled up the app on my smartphone to check how close I was. I rode to the general area and eventually found the geocache. I logged it with the app right away and commented I did not have a pen to sign the paper log but found the cache. I do not carry any sort of writing utensil when I ride bike. So does this find still count for me as I did log it through the app? I can provide digital photographic proof if necessary as I took the cap off the cache and photographed the rolled up log inside the container. I can tell on the log it says "Name/Date" and I can see a letter "G" which I believe is part of the word "Geocache". So is this acceptable or should I go back and sign it when I have a chance?

 

it's YOUR find, wether or not anyone puts their rubber stamp on it. enjoy the find every time, SAVE IT for youself in gpx format, offline (so that you actually control it, not someone else), and share the cool finds with friends.

[+Jeroniymo]

Really disturbed that some posters are talking about signing in blood earlier on ... even in jest.

 

The safety issues of this are scary.

[+Team Microdot]

Really disturbed that some posters are talking about signing in blood earlier on ... even in jest.

 

The safety issues of this are scary.

 

Just don't lick the log - even if you really, really want to

 

Apparently Hepatitis B virus can live in dried blood for up to a week but chances are that there are a lot of logbooks out there that contain all sorts of bacteria, mould spores and who knows what else and if anyone has ever died as a result of handling a diseased logbook - I'm yet to hear about it. Sounds like a subject for a new thread

[+narcissa]

Really disturbed that some posters are talking about signing in blood earlier on ... even in jest.

 

The safety issues of this are scary.

 

Unlike the rest of geocaching which is entirely safe at all times.

[+Ladybug Kids]

That's only happened once to me. I posted an NA on a cache that was still there but the lid had lost all 4 of it's tabs and was not doing anything to protect the contents. The CO was non-responsive to all the found logs that mentioned the problem and several NMs.

A reason a Reviewer won't archive a cache like this is that once archived, the container becomes geolitter, likely never to be picked up. Some Reviewers will post a Reviewer Note to the page asking the Cache Owner to fix the cache. If, after a period of time (a month in some cases), there is no response from the Cache Owner, the Reviewer will post a second Reviewer Note requesting the next finder to pick up what has for all intents and purposes become geolitter and to include that information in his/her log. The Reviewer will then archive the cache.

[+justintim1999]

You don't have to sign or log anything if your content with simply finding the containers. If you want to log your finds online than you must first have signed the physical log.

[ohgood]

I think you absolutely nailed it. I treat logs with the same level of respect that the CO has for them. A well maintained cache with a dry and appropriate sized logbook? Signed! A moldly logbook within a poorly placed cache where the owner hasn't been active in years? Not going to waste my time.

Do you still record it as a find on geocaching.com? I was told in not so certain terms even if I actually find it and log it online it is NOT found unless I sign the log.

What I'm wondering is if he isn't signing because he doesn't feel it's up to his standards, why would he claim it as a find on-line? He's giving credit to a cache that he clearly feels doesn't deserve it.

 

Don't get me wrong: I would claim the find on a cache with a disgusting logbook I couldn't sign, and I'm fine with anyone else claiming it. But I justify not signing the cache because it's physically impossible. It seems contradictory to justify not signing the physical log based on the amount of respect the CO shows the cache, but then logging the find on-line, anyway. If the physical cache isn't worthy, how is the idea of the cache at GC.com worthy?

 

To me it's a "what's the point" thing.

Why bother pulling the pen out of the pocket to sign a scrap of paper that you get a pretty good feeling the CO will never look at.

Why get frustrated pulling the tightly wound scroll out of the button nano and write on that tiny bit of paper, then worse, re-rolling it to fit back in to the lid. Especially when you know that there's no way any cache owner will actually be able to decipher most of the squiggles and initials on the scroll, if they bother looking. (Anyone here own a button nano and compare the squiggles against the online logs?)

Why bother extracting the moldy bison log when you know the owner is a carpet bomber, has over 1000 hides that he doesn't maintain, except to asks finders to please leave a throwdown if they can't find the cache.

What's the point of signing a log that the cache owner doesn't care about? Why expend the energy and sometimes the aggravation?

 

Which logically leads to the next question, which is: what's the point of logging such a miserable cache online? Why mar your caching history with it?

 

I found it. I want to log it as a record of my finds, and I can then filter it from my map. No I don't want a found cache on my ignore list.

 

Which also begs the question: how does a meticulous cacher come to search for a garbage cache by a known cache carpet bomber in the first place? If the hypothetical cacher in question already knew the cache was going to be garbage by a bad cache owner, why would the hypothetical cacher search for it at all?

 

One reason could be because Groundspeak doesn't give us many tools in which to filter out junk caches. There are tricks you can perform with GSAK to help, but if you didn't use that, putting a CO's junk caches on ignore one by one is a pain. It's sad that with all the technology at our dispersal, it's easier to just find a cache to remove it from the map than it is to do a mass ignore of what you know to be lame caches by poor cache owners.

 

store caches offline, keep separate directories for:

new

found

great

micros (the round file!)

dnf/NM/bad cords

 

you still have the waypoints regardless of what the co or gcing does.

[+boothie103]

And I always thought it was simple, if you can't sign the log due to the fact that it is terrain 5 and need climbing gear to get 20 metres up a tree, or you are like me with congenital ducks disease with a backside close to the ground and can't reach the cache, or you get a nose-bleed climbing on a chair to change a light globe, it is a DNF. You can say you found it, or you can see it, that is the story behind your visit, but you never had it in your hand to sign the log, even if you did have it in your hand. A pen or a pencil is a no brainer, I have one taped on the handle of my bike to write down the rego number of the car that nearly T-bones me on the round about so Mr Plod the policeman can talk to them!

I also have one tucked into my sleeve on my shirt whenever I ride my bike to sign logs on my rides looking for caches.