Logging a find/DNF question.

[+TheAuthorityFigures]

On a handful of caches I have logged a dnf because I couldn't physically sign the log, either because I couldn't get the log out of the container to sign it (stuck logs in nanos happen sometimes) or it simply had no log to sign. Reading some of the online logs of caches with similar problems it seems I am in the minority. It makes no difference to me personally if others claim finds when the didn't/couldn't sign the log, it's a personal standard for me though. If my signature isn't on the cache log I didn't find it.

What is your standard? Are cachers like me the minority?

[+J Grouchy]

Are cachers like me the minority?

 

Yes.

 

Hold whatever standard you want, it honestly seems a bit strange to me. No log, wet log...seems like a good opportunity to take advantage of the "Needs Maintenance" log. That's kind of what it's for, after all.

Edited August 30, 2016 by J Grouchy

[+kunarion]

On a handful of caches I have logged a dnf because I couldn't physically sign the log, either because I couldn't get the log out of the container to sign it (stuck logs in nanos happen sometimes) or it simply had no log to sign. Reading some of the online logs of caches with similar problems it seems I am in the minority. It makes no difference to me personally if others claim finds when the didn't/couldn't sign the log, it's a personal standard for me though. If my signature isn't on the cache log I didn't find it.

What is your standard? Are cachers like me the minority?

A DNF is one way I keep track of caches I would like to log a Find on. Also for unfound caches that I hope to never unfind again , but for the purposes of this thread, sure, DNF is appropriate. It's a record of the hunt, and it helps the CO manage the cache. On both of your examples, you could log a "NM" as well.

 

I'd say I'm in that same minority. But maybe I take it a step further. One time, I had found the bison tube (in a sewer grate ), brought it back to my car (I didn't want to hang out at the sewer grate), opened the container just fine, and there was a log sheet just fine which I unrolled. I got my pen out and it was a half-inch from contacting the log sheet -- I was all prepared to sign it -- and I heard "Sir, you can't park here!". A park security officer had pulled up behind me. So I put everything back in place as he drove off. DNF.

Edited August 30, 2016 by kunarion

[+J Grouchy]

On a handful of caches I have logged a dnf because I couldn't physically sign the log, either because I couldn't get the log out of the container to sign it (stuck logs in nanos happen sometimes) or it simply had no log to sign. Reading some of the online logs of caches with similar problems it seems I am in the minority. It makes no difference to me personally if others claim finds when the didn't/couldn't sign the log, it's a personal standard for me though. If my signature isn't on the cache log I didn't find it.

What is your standard? Are cachers like me the minority?

A DNF is one way I keep track of caches I would like to log a Find on. Also for unfound caches that I hope to never unfind again , but for the purposes of this thread, sure, DNF is appropriate. It's a record of the hunt, and it helps the CO manage the cache. On both of your examples, you could log a "NM" as well.

 

I'd say I'm in that same minority. But maybe I take it a step further. One time, I had found the bison tube (in a sewer grate ), brought it back to my car (I didn't want to hang out at the sewer grate), opened the container just fine, and there was a log sheet just fine which I unrolled. I got my pen out and it was a half-inch from contacting the log sheet -- I was all prepared to sign it -- and I heard "Sir, you can't park here!". A park security officer had pulled up behind me. So I put everything back in place as he drove off. DNF.

 

Yeah...I think this sort of mentality is extremely odd, some sort of geocaching equivalent of self-flagellation or something.

[+narcissa]

On a handful of caches I have logged a dnf because I couldn't physically sign the log, either because I couldn't get the log out of the container to sign it (stuck logs in nanos happen sometimes) or it simply had no log to sign. Reading some of the online logs of caches with similar problems it seems I am in the minority. It makes no difference to me personally if others claim finds when the didn't/couldn't sign the log, it's a personal standard for me though. If my signature isn't on the cache log I didn't find it.

What is your standard? Are cachers like me the minority?

 

In some situations like that I have logged a DNF, and returned to sign when the issue was corrected.

[+TheAuthorityFigures]

Are cachers like me the minority?

 

Yes.

 

Hold whatever standard you want, it honestly seems a bit strange to me. No log, wet log...seems like a good opportunity to take advantage of the "Needs Maintenance" log. That's kind of what it's for, after all.

 

My link

 

Just one example. The log was wound so tight and dense I thought a fusion reaction might happen at any moment. I found myself without tweezers at the time but next time I'll have them. It was just a quick on the scene judgement on my part but I didn't feel I needed to post a NM at that time.

[+dprovan]

I'm normally fairly strict, so, for example, I won't claim a find if I can't get the container open. But I'll admit that if I'm sure I've found the cache and I can get the container open, then I'll claim the find. If the log's missing, I'll replace it. If it's stuck, I'll still claim the find. My thinking is that I can put ink to the log -- although I normally don't -- so the find's legit even though I can't get the log out, unfold it, and sign it in a way that can identify me. But that's me. What you do makes sense, too.

[+DanOCan]

What is your standard? Are cachers like me the minority?

My standards are lower than yours. As long as by claiming my find I am not violating the spirit/intent of the cache, I will claim the find even if I did not sign the log.

 

Examples:

 

- Cache is up a tree and I spot the container from the ground but do not climb the tree to reach the container? I'll post a Note.

 

- Ammocan is frozen to the ground and frozen shut? I'll post a Found It.

[+J Grouchy]

ME:

If I find the container and actually hold it, it's a "find". I make every effort to sign, but if there is no log (or a wet log) and I do not have a spare, I say so in my 'found it' log. If a photo of the container is not a spoiler, I post one. Likewise, if I cannot open the container for whatever reason - rust...damage... - I would probably post a 'Needs Maintenance' in addition to my "found it" log.

 

In the numerous occasions when these things have happened, I've been honest and explained that in my log. None have ever been challenged or deleted.

 

If I find the container but cannot reach it for whatever reason, I write a "note".

 

The only times I post a "Did Not Find", is when I did not find the container.

[+L0ne.R]

Are cachers like me the minority?

 

Yes.

 

Hold whatever standard you want, it honestly seems a bit strange to me. No log, wet log...seems like a good opportunity to take advantage of the "Needs Maintenance" log. That's kind of what it's for, after all.

 

My link

 

Just one example. The log was wound so tight and dense I thought a fusion reaction might happen at any moment. I found myself without tweezers at the time but next time I'll have them. It was just a quick on the scene judgement on my part but I didn't feel I needed to post a NM at that time.

 

I have stopped bothering to sign nano logs. I don't usually find micros but make an exception for cemetery caches. I will take a photo and log them as found. I found it. I held it in my hand but I don't see the point of unscrewing the tiny container, trying not to drop it or lose it, digging out the tight tiny scroll, unfurling about a foot of it to get to an empty spot, signing a squiggle to a 2mm spot, then spending another few minutes trying to wind it back up tight enough to get it back into the nano - usually takes several attempts. Why the exercise in frustration? The CO isn't going to check, how could they decipher the squiggles and compare them to the online logs?

Of the COs reading this, if you own a button nano, how many of you actually check the button nano paper log against the onlne log?

 

[+J Grouchy]

Are cachers like me the minority?

 

Yes.

 

Hold whatever standard you want, it honestly seems a bit strange to me. No log, wet log...seems like a good opportunity to take advantage of the "Needs Maintenance" log. That's kind of what it's for, after all.

 

My link

 

Just one example. The log was wound so tight and dense I thought a fusion reaction might happen at any moment. I found myself without tweezers at the time but next time I'll have them. It was just a quick on the scene judgement on my part but I didn't feel I needed to post a NM at that time.

 

I have stopped bothering to sign nano logs. I don't usually find micros but make an exception for cemetery caches. I will take a photo and log them as found. I found it. I held it in my hand but I don't see the point of unscrewing the tiny container, trying not to drop it or lose it, digging out the tight tiny scroll, unfurling about a foot of it to get to an empty spot, signing a squiggle to a 2mm spot, then spending another few minutes trying to wind it back up tight enough to get it back into the nano - usually takes several attempts. Why the exercise in frustration? The CO isn't going to check, how could they decipher the squiggles and compare them to the online logs?

Of the COs reading this, if you own a button nano, how many of you actually check the button nano paper log against the onlne log?

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 99.99% of all cache owners do not and would not check the log sheets and compare them to the online logs...no matter what size it is. I don't and I have no plans to do so except occasionally if I'm doing maintenance on a mystery cache I own.

[+on4bam]

ME:

If I find the container and actually hold it, it's a "find". I make every effort to sign, but if there is no log (or a wet log) and I do not have a spare, I say so in my 'found it' log. If a photo of the container is not a spoiler, I post one. Likewise, if I cannot open the container for whatever reason - rust...damage... - I would probably post a 'Needs Maintenance' in addition to my "found it" log.

 

Just a question, what would you do in the following case (I found this last Saturday BTW).

Found container (Large)

Found two codes to open locks and opened them.

Now I see two CD/DVD drives, one is supposed to hold a key to open the TB/coin compartment, the other should hold the logbook. Both have a button next to them and there is a grid of 100 (10*10) copper screws where you had to find two combinations with a 9V battery and press the button to open one of the drives.

First one we open holds the key, we open the compartment and also find the logbook, the second drive, after finding the correct screwcombination, "clicks" but doesn't move. Impossible to open without damage.

Because someone might have put the logbook in the wrong place (TB compartment) we could log but if everything would have been as per listing we might not have gotten to the logbook.

 

Should the logbook been in the second CDdrive would you still consider it a find?

[+on4bam]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 99.99% of all cache owners do not and would not check the log sheets and compare them to the online logs...no matter what size it is. I don't and I have no plans to do so except occasionally if I'm doing maintenance on a mystery cache I own.

 

While preparing for our vacation I came across a bunch of listing saying that paper logs will be checked again online logs and names not in the paper log would be deleted online. If more COs would do this maybe less people would post bogus found it logs (one can only dream).

[+J Grouchy]

ME:

If I find the container and actually hold it, it's a "find". I make every effort to sign, but if there is no log (or a wet log) and I do not have a spare, I say so in my 'found it' log. If a photo of the container is not a spoiler, I post one. Likewise, if I cannot open the container for whatever reason - rust...damage... - I would probably post a 'Needs Maintenance' in addition to my "found it" log.

 

Just a question, what would you do in the following case (I found this last Saturday BTW).

Found container (Large)

Found two codes to open locks and opened them.

Now I see two CD/DVD drives, one is supposed to hold a key to open the TB/coin compartment, the other should hold the logbook. Both have a button next to them and there is a grid of 100 (10*10) copper screws where you had to find two combinations with a 9V battery and press the button to open one of the drives.

First one we open holds the key, we open the compartment and also find the logbook, the second drive, after finding the correct screwcombination, "clicks" but doesn't move. Impossible to open without damage.

Because someone might have put the logbook in the wrong place (TB compartment) we could log but if everything would have been as per listing we might not have gotten to the logbook.

 

Should the logbook been in the second CDdrive would you still consider it a find?

 

Well, field puzzles are kind of a special case since "finding" involves more than simply finding the cache, but also finding the physical log...but if the logbook was inaccessible as part of a malfunctioning or damaged field puzzle, I'd log a 'Note' followed up by a 'Needs Maintenance'.

 

For me, DNF is almost always reserved for instances where I am unable to locate the cache container.

Edited August 30, 2016 by J Grouchy

[+dprovan]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 99.99% of all cache owners do not and would not check the log sheets and compare them to the online logs...no matter what size it is. I don't and I have no plans to do so except occasionally if I'm doing maintenance on a mystery cache I own.

I can't refute your 99.99% number, but I'm thinking more COs -- maybe 5% -- are like me and do, in fact, compare the logs -- if they get their hands on them -- to the on-line logs. I don't know any CO that would then automatically delete on-line logs without a corresponding signature, so if that's what you're talking about, then 0.01% would agree with my impression.

 

Because someone might have put the logbook in the wrong place (TB compartment) we could log but if everything would have been as per listing we might not have gotten to the logbook.

While this example offers lots of room for discussion, if I sign the logbook, I claim the find. It's not my problem if the logbook isn't where it's supposed to be. (In your case, I would even think about claiming the find if the logbook were in the right place -- i.e., out of reach because of a mechanical failure on an otherwise solved field puzzle -- although here speaking in the forums, I'm going to claim that I wouldn't.)

[+K13]

I have signed more than one nano log on the edges of the rolled up log - never bothered trying to unroll it because it didn't easily come out of the container.

[+Mudfrog]

I have signed more than one nano log on the edges of the rolled up log - never bothered trying to unroll it because it didn't easily come out of the container.

 

This is what i was going to suggest. If you can't get the log out, then put an initial or a mark on the end of the roll and call it good. What works best for me is to just avoid them tiny suckers in the first place.

[+lee737]

I'd claim a find if the log was just stuck in the container, I would usually take a photo, same as for full logs.

We still sign nano logs, although I am getting sick of extraction and re-rolling chores associated with them. By the time a nano log is full, the signatures are generally illegible, I doubt too many CO's dutifully check nano log rolls....