Changing DNFs to Finds

[+Tape worm]

I have a question and sorry if this has been addressed already.

 

Is it ok to delete a find log that the log owner changed from a DNF to a find on a old archived cache? Only reason I ask is looking threw some of my old archived caches, I noticed a logger has changed their DNF to a find, three years after I archived it. They left the log the same and clearly stating it wasn't found, it's just been edited to a find with the edit note on the bottom of the log.

 

To me it's a bogus find, but wanted to know the thoughts before I did anything. Because it was edited I didn't get a email alert like a new log posting or would have taken care of it much sooner. I didn't think we needed to monitor old archived caches.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Yep. Bogus log.

Delete it!

 

What some will do to up their numbers.

Probably think you're not watching the cache.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Bear and Ragged

[+Viajero Perdido]

?!?

 

By "edit note", I assume you mean "This log has been edited by [...] on [...]"?

 

The system stopped doing that maybe half a year ago, at least for normal circumstances. (As an experiment, I just edited a log on an archived cache of my own, and the note wasn't created, but then I wasn't given "Found it" as an option; silly new rule.)

 

Are you sure it was done recently?

[+Tape worm]

No these weren't done recently. About two years ago. But since editing a log doesn't send out a alert, I just noticed.

 

The edits where done 3 years after it was archived.

[+narcissa]

Do you have the logbook? Is it possible that this person did return and find it after-the-fact, and this was just a ham-fisted way of logging the find? Do you have any other reasons to be suspicious of this cacher?

[+Tape worm]

It was archived and removed. The online log was edited 3 years later. It clearly still states they didn't not find it, yet it's now a found it log.

[+narcissa]

It was archived and removed. The online log was edited 3 years later. It clearly still states they didn't not find it, yet it's now a found it log.

 

Yes, that's understood from the original post.

 

Do you have the logbook?

 

Other than what you've already stated, what are your reasons for casting suspicion on a fellow geocacher?

 

Is it possible that this person did find the cache later and chose to change the old log without editing the text? Can you tell if the log date changed?

[+Tape worm]

And I wasn't suspicious of these two catchers at all. I've let people log a archived cache before if they got it before I picked it up.

 

Just happened to notice it when I was going threw some of my old caches. I don't care to hand out a GC# or a link to the log, because I don't want to damage credibility.

[+Tape worm]

Yes the log date change is in the edited time/date stamp at the bottom of the log.

[+dprovan]

If you want to delete them, I see no reason not to. I think I would. On the other hand, if you have any second thoughts, it's really not a big deal that this guy for unknown reasons wants his DNF to be counted as a find. There's no law saying we have to stop people from being stupid.

[+kunarion]

It was archived and removed. The online log was edited 3 years later. It clearly still states they didn't not find it, yet it's now a found it log.

Are you sure it has not been a "Found It" log all along (sure, with "didn't find it" text in the log)? I see logs all the time where the logger states they didn't find it, and yet they select the "Found It" icon. That is, how can you tell the "DNF" was changed to a "Found It"? Or do you keep great records of what log was what? I also wonder if you have the actual paper log for comparison.

 

The reason I ask is, it could be a "DNF" the whole time, never changed, accidentally (or whatever ) selected to be a "Found It". In which case, it can be deleted anyway. It was a DNF all along. Maybe.

 

But I'd ask the Finder/DNFer first.

Edited May 1, 2017 by kunarion

[+Tape worm]

The 3 year later edited mark made by the logger, editing the cache log. Doubt a typo was being fixed after 3 years but who knows.

[+narcissa]

The trouble with log deletion is that it's hard to defend if you don't have the logbook and the cacher decides to fight about it.

[+dprovan]

The trouble with log deletion is that it's hard to defend if you don't have the logbook and the cacher decides to fight about it.

This is a good point, and if I deleted such a log -- as I said I would -- and the cacher contested it, I'd just say, "Oh, sorry, when you didn't change the text, I came to the wrong conclusion." Then I'd forget about it. narcissa is suggesting that unless the find is denied by the physical log, one should forget about it right off the bat. I find that equally reasonable even though it's not what I'd do.

[+narcissa]

The trouble with log deletion is that it's hard to defend if you don't have the logbook and the cacher decides to fight about it.

This is a good point, and if I deleted such a log -- as I said I would -- and the cacher contested it, I'd just say, "Oh, sorry, when you didn't change the text, I came to the wrong conclusion." Then I'd forget about it. narcissa is suggesting that unless the find is denied by the physical log, one should forget about it right off the bat. I find that equally reasonable even though it's not what I'd do.

 

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just musing about things to consider when making the decision. I understand the impulse to delete a log that seems questionable, and for me it would come down to calculating the odds that I would have to hear about it again later.

 

If I was suggesting something, I would say "You should do X" or "The correct action is X."

[+dprovan]

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just musing about things to consider when making the decision. I understand the impulse to delete a log that seems questionable, and for me it would come down to calculating the odds that I would have to hear about it again later.

Right, I understand. And I was mentioning that in this case, even hearing about it later doesn't strike me as a big deal.

 

If I was suggesting something, I would say "You should do X" or "The correct action is X."

Oh. Good to know. If you had said either of those things, I would have thought you were doing much more than merely suggesting them. To me, those ways of putting it sound more like demands than suggestions.

[+narcissa]

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just musing about things to consider when making the decision. I understand the impulse to delete a log that seems questionable, and for me it would come down to calculating the odds that I would have to hear about it again later.

Right, I understand. And I was mentioning that in this case, even hearing about it later doesn't strike me as a big deal.

 

If I was suggesting something, I would say "You should do X" or "The correct action is X."

Oh. Good to know. If you had said either of those things, I would have thought you were doing much more than merely suggesting them. To me, those ways of putting it sound more like demands than suggestions.

 

The key point is that my words were incorrectly interpreted as a suggestion. There was absolutely no need to redirect my comment in that fashion.

 

Whether or not something is a "big deal" is up to the individual cache owner. If receiving complaints from fellow geocachers isn't a big deal to a particular CO, that's just dandy. I like to be able to back myself up if I'm going to take an action like that, because there is a strong likelihood that a fellow geocacher will feel antagonized if I just delete a log because I didn't like the look of it.

 

Something to consider, not a suggestion toward one action or another.

[+lee737]

.....editing a log doesn't send out a alert.....

 

Might be a good feature to add to the site.....

[+dprovan]

Something to consider, not a suggestion toward one action or another.

I think we have different ideas about the meaning of the word "suggestion". I myself in this thread suggested two diametrically opposite actions without favoring one or the other beyond mentioning which I'd choose.

[+dprovan]

.....editing a log doesn't send out a alert.....

Might be a good feature to add to the site.....

Funny you should mention it: just today I spotted typos in two logs I wrote last year, and I couldn't help but correct them. I certainly hope the CO doesn't get bothered with a notification.

[+Tape worm]

I just found out there is a way the project GC website will alert you via e-mail when a log is edited on any of your old archived caches. I'm going to look into that.

[+WearyTraveler]

I just found out there is a way the project GC website will alert you via e-mail when a log is edited on any of your old archived caches. I'm going to look into that.

Project GC is a pretty neat site. Where is this feature? And is it for paid or free accounts?

[+Tape worm]

I just looked it up but it's only for paid accounts.

[+Sagefox]

The trouble with log deletion is that it's hard to defend if you don't have the logbook and the cacher decides to fight about it.

Since the log says they didn't find it I would delete it and not be worried in the slightest about defending that action. The burden of proof here is on the finder. If they re-post a find and have a good story to tell then I would let it stand.

[+lee737]

.....editing a log doesn't send out a alert.....

Might be a good feature to add to the site.....

Funny you should mention it: just today I spotted typos in two logs I wrote last year, and I couldn't help but correct them. I certainly hope the CO doesn't get bothered with a notification.

 

I've had the Project GC notifications for a year or more, I think I had one (maybe even none) email about an edit..... I'm a bit anal, so do go back and edit typos from my logs if I see them, but I suspect most don't.....

 

 

[+edexter]

Hard to know what someone intended, but when I dnf a cache I log a dnf and if I later go back and find it, I log a find. This is the usual process. If someone logged a dnf, then instead of logging a find, changed the original dnf to a find with no other change to the log as you have described, I would delete it as bogus. If the logger actually found the cache, they can easily relog a find and describe it. Occasionally someone will report a dnf in the text of their log and but show a smilie find. I assume this is a simple mistake and email them requesting they change their log to a dnf or note. So far, folks either change the log or ignore the mail, in which case after a week or so I delete the log. It's just book keeping, but they are your books, so you get to decide. Be polite.

It's a similar issue to someone posting a find but not signing the log. I match up the physical logbook with the cache page and delete those missing, add an OM note mentioning I've done so, and invite folks to go back and sign it. Since this only seems to happen on the few P&Gs I have placed. some folks actually do go back and sign in.

[+cerberus1]

If the "finder" even stated, as you say, " clearly stating it wasn't found", they didn't find it - delete.

 

A little OT, found an odd one today.

Was looking for something simple for a souvi (a cache I DNF), thinking I'll try again, and all DNF logs are deleted.

Weird...

[+TeamRabbitRun]

<...>

 

A little OT, found an odd one today.

Was looking for something simple for a souvi (a cache I DNF), thinking I'll try again, and all DNF logs are deleted.

Weird...

 

That IS weird. Do you think the CO objects to the presence of DNF logs, like it's a personal affront or might discourage cachers from looking?

 

Maybe the presence of a DNF implies that there's SOME type of problem? Sounds like a find-entitled player; the kind that would "NM" every DNF.

 

Personally, I like to see a healthy mix of finds and DNFs on a cache.

[+Tape worm]

No, I don't mind DNFs at all. A DNF is good for a few reasons. Let's me know I may need to check on it and let's me know someone has been looking for it.

 

This whole topic is based on a couple of catchers editing their DNF to a found 3 years after the cache was archived but didn't even bother to change the log and it still clearly states they didn't find it.

[+narcissa]

<...>

 

A little OT, found an odd one today.

Was looking for something simple for a souvi (a cache I DNF), thinking I'll try again, and all DNF logs are deleted.

Weird...

 

That IS weird. Do you think the CO objects to the presence of DNF logs, like it's a personal affront or might discourage cachers from looking?

 

Maybe the presence of a DNF implies that there's SOME type of problem? Sounds like a find-entitled player; the kind that would "NM" every DNF.

 

Personally, I like to see a healthy mix of finds and DNFs on a cache.

 

It also seems a little rude from the individual finder perspective. Some of my favourite logs are on caches I DNFed. That's part of my caching history and I enjoy being able to look back at those logs.

 

Also, on trickier caches, or more isolated caches, the DNF logs can give future finders an idea of what to expect.

[+SeattleWayne]

Email the cacher and let them know how amazing their geosense are to find a archived cache that has been inactive for three years.

[+Dame Deco]

I would probably go with if I don't have the physical log to back up my decision, I would let it go and not delete the log.