Found but not Signed

[+FloridaPanther]

I'm finding a trend of geocachers logging a "found" on a cache but not "physically" signing the log.  This comes to my attention on hard D/T caches.  I love hiking in the woods and it's easily spotted as very few cachers go after these hard to get caches.  Thoughts??

Back in March of this year, I hiked over 5 miles to do a Multi caches.  The last person that "actually" found it did maintenance in 2016.  There was another recent "found" logged but no signature on the physical log.  I made a note of it and got 2 nasty emails from that cacher but at least they deleted their log.  Have seen that same cachers name as "found" but not "signed" on other caches in that area that we went to around the same time.

[+Tassie_Boy]

My brother in law got into caching in a big way and amassed a large number of finds fairly quickly.  Went out caching with him one day and one of the caches on the list was my own (think I was dropping a tb while we are out and about). 

I gave him the log to sign and he handed it straight back saying he never bothers.  The look on his face was priceless when I told him I'd delete his log if he didn't sign the paperwork and that other COs had the right to do so too.  Not sure if he ever changed his ways.

[+Manville Possum]

I delete finds with no signature on MY log book, and I don't accept throwdowns either. 

[+cerberus1]

5 hours ago, FloridaPanther said:

I'm finding a trend of geocachers logging a "found" on a cache but not "physically" signing the log.  This comes to my attention on hard D/T caches.  I love hiking in the woods and it's easily spotted as very few cachers go after these hard to get caches.  Thoughts??

Back in March of this year, I hiked over 5 miles to do a Multi caches.  The last person that "actually" found it did maintenance in 2016.  There was another recent "found" logged but no signature on the physical log.  I made a note of it and got 2 nasty emails from that cacher but at least they deleted their log.  Have seen that same cachers name as "found" but not "signed" on other caches in that area that we went to around the same time.

If I'm seeing a few fakers (rarely mention in a log unless higher D/T), I'll sometimes include a pic of the log. 

 - Tough for the fakers to get nasty when it's presented for all to see... 

[+captnemo]

On 10/28/2017 at 7:12 AM, Manville Possum said:

I delete finds with no signature on MY log book, and I don't accept throwdowns either. 

Same here.  No signature no smiley.  Have deleted a few find logs were there was no signature.

Recently we were out doing some higher D/T caches.  First one we DNFed it for the 2nd time but only after it had been "found" since first we looked.  The rest of the day we checked the logs for the "found" cacher and they had not signed any of the logs even though finds were claimed.  Point is we wasted almost an hour looking for the first cache because of a arm chair cacher.  Sent a note to the CO.

[+Shjosan]

On 10/28/2017 at 4:12 PM, Manville Possum said:

I delete finds with no signature on MY log book, and I don't accept throwdowns either. 

 

4 hours ago, captnemo said:

Same here.  No signature no smiley.  Have deleted a few find logs were there was no signature.

As you say that you need a signature in your logbooks. How do you deal with "photo logs"? Where cachers forgot their pen etc. You let them have it?
Being quite new to the game, I just wonder how you do it.
 

[+on4bam]

24 minutes ago, Shjosan said:

As you say that you need a signature in your logbooks. How do you deal with "photo logs"? Where cachers forgot their pen etc. You let them have it?
Being quite new to the game, I just wonder how you do it.

It's up to the discretion of the CO in that case, however, "sign the log and log online" remains. So even after a photolog, your "found it" may still be deleted if there's no signature on the paper log. Carry a few pens or use an alternative writing method and avoid disappointments, it's as easy as that.

 

[+Mausebiber]

Quote

It's up to the discretion of the CO in that case ...

If you allow virtual logs you might run into problems, see reviewer note    from 13 Sep 15.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

38 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Quote

It's up to the discretion of the CO in that case ...

If you allow virtual logs you might run into problems, see reviewer note    from 13 Sep 15.

Reviewers have stepped in when a CO has basically turning a traditional cache into a virtual by explicit stating that photo logs are allowed (as in the case of that cache).  That's not the same as a CO occasionally allowed found it logs when a geocacher has forgotten their pen or the container is frozen shut.

[+on4bam]

12 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Reviewers have stepped in when a CO has basically turning a traditional cache into a virtual by explicit stating that photo logs are allowed (as in the case of that cache).  That's not the same as a CO occasionally allowed found it logs when a geocacher has forgotten their pen or the container is frozen shut.

Exactly. Anyway, photologs can be deleted as can any other log where there's no signature paper log.

 

[+Manville Possum]

4 hours ago, Shjosan said:

 

As you say that you need a signature in your logbooks. How do you deal with "photo logs"? Where cachers forgot their pen etc. You let them have it?
Being quite new to the game, I just wonder how you do it.
 

No signature, no find. Photo logs are not accepted. Most of these "I forgot my pen" logs are fake. I don't believe Groundspeak supports photo logs either and if I allow them my geocache listings can be archived by HQ.

My rule # 1 is if you don't sign a log is not to mention it in your online log for everyone to read.

 

My style of geocaching is to sign the log, take a picture of my signature and upload it with my finds log to the cache page

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, Manville Possum said:

No signature, no find. Photo logs are not accepted. Most of these "I forgot my pen" logs are fake. I don't believe Groundspeak supports photo logs either and if I allow them my geocache listings can be archived by HQ.

My rule # 1 is if you don't sign a log is not to mention it in your online log for everyone to read.

 

My style of geocaching is to sign the log, take a picture of my signature and upload it with my finds log to the cache page

MP, how do you feel about a signature signed in crushed leaf or dirt? I've signed using leaves, dirt or tearing a small hole, then photographed the page for backup. As a CO do you find these methods acceptable?

[+Manville Possum]

35 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

MP, how do you feel about a signature signed in crushed leaf or dirt? I've signed using leaves, dirt or tearing a small hole, then photographed the page for backup. As a CO do you find these methods acceptable?

 

As long as you sign it I accept it. 

 

Edit to add: My geocaches are not tiny little micros and contain a pencil unless removed.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Manville Possum
I don't hide micros

[+NYPaddleCacher]

2 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

6 hours ago, Shjosan said:

 

As you say that you need a signature in your logbooks. How do you deal with "photo logs"? Where cachers forgot their pen etc. You let them have it?
Being quite new to the game, I just wonder how you do it.
 

No signature, no find. Photo logs are not accepted. Most of these "I forgot my pen" logs are fake. I don't believe Groundspeak supports photo logs either and if I allow them my geocache listings can be archived by HQ.

My rule # 1 is if you don't sign a log is not to mention it in your online log for everyone to read.

 

My style of geocaching is to sign the log, take a picture of my signature and upload it with my finds log to the cache page

Here we go again.

That may be your rule, but that doesn't mean that every other cache owner has to comply with your rule. 

 Groundspeaks guidelines do not stipulate that a cache owner must delete a log if someone posts a photo log in lieu of a signed physical log.  Groundspeak (or a reviewer) has archived cache when a cache owner explicitly allows photo logs on their cache listing. There is nothing in the guidelines which prohibits a cache owner from allowing a photo log for the occasionally finder that for a reason deemed reasonable by the cache owner why they didn't sign the physical log.  What Groundspeak does support is the ability for a cache owner to delete a log if the physical log is not signed.  It gives the cache owner the option of deleting the log.  It does not mandate that a cache owner delete every log which is not associated with a signed physical log.

We went over this over and over in a previous thread with several people explaining exactly what the policy is, yet you continue to insist that your rule is how everyone else must play.

A little over a week ago I found a cache in Kansas City with a cracked lid and poured out quite a bit of water before opening up the container.  Inside, everything was soaked.  The "log" was floating in water inside a plastic baggie.  There was no way attempting to "sign" the log would have left anything legible.  I just gave the soggy mess inside the plastic baggie a poke with my pen and considered it "signed".  Are you honestly suggesting that the CO of that cache should allow an illegible signature to stand, but a photo of the soggy mess isn't equally sufficient evidence of "a find"?

 

[+Manville Possum]

5 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Here we go again.

That may be your rule, but that doesn't mean that every other cache owner has to comply with your rule. 

 Groundspeaks guidelines do not stipulate that a cache owner must delete a log if someone posts a photo log in lieu of a signed physical log.  Groundspeak (or a reviewer) has archived cache when a cache owner explicitly allows photo logs on their cache listing. There is nothing in the guidelines which prohibits a cache owner from allowing a photo log for the occasionally finder that for a reason deemed reasonable by the cache owner why they didn't sign the physical log.  What Groundspeak does support is the ability for a cache owner to delete a log if the physical log is not signed.  It gives the cache owner the option of deleting the log.  It does not mandate that a cache owner delete every log which is not associated with a signed physical log.

We went over this over and over in a previous thread with several people explaining exactly what the policy is, yet you continue to insist that your rule is how everyone else must play.

A little over a week ago I found a cache in Kansas City with a cracked lid and poured out quite a bit of water before opening up the container.  Inside, everything was soaked.  The "log" was floating in water inside a plastic baggie.  There was no way attempting to "sign" the log would have left anything legible.  I just gave the soggy mess inside the plastic baggie a poke with my pen and considered it "signed".  Are you honestly suggesting that the CO of that cache should allow an illegible signature to stand, but a photo of the soggy mess isn't equally sufficient evidence of "a find"?

 

 

No, I'm not getting pulled into you twisting my words to make it look as if everyone should play by my rules. Only on my geocaches, not those of others. I was asked a question about what I allow on MY geocaches and I require a signature on MY log book if the finder wants to log it as found online.

Really quite simple to understand don't you think?

[+Manville Possum]

3 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

It would be simpler to understand if you didn't post absolute statements like this:

 

No, it's more simple just to block you and not get trolled.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

7 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

No, I'm not getting pulled into you twisting my words to make it look as if everyone should play by my rules. Only on my geocaches, not those of others. I was asked a question about what I allow on MY geocaches and I require a signature on MY log book if the finder wants to log it as found online.

Really quite simple to understand don't you think?

It would be simpler to understand if you didn't post absolute statements like this:

No signature, no find. Photo logs are not accepted. Most of these "I forgot my pen" logs are fake. I don't believe Groundspeak supports photo logs either and if I allow them my geocache listings can be archived by HQ.

 

[+NanCycle]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

MP, how do you feel about a signature signed in crushed leaf or dirt? I've signed using leaves, dirt or tearing a small hole, then photographed the page for backup. As a CO do you find these methods acceptable?

Tearing a hole is not a signature, it is vandalism.  Please don't even suggest that tearing a hole in the log is somehow signing it.  

I think I have deleted only one found log for lack of a signature; it was a puzzle cache and the person's only "find "in Colorado on what seemed to be an armchair tour of the western US.  Another time I suggested to the finder who "forgot his pen" that he delete his log until he came back to sign it, adding that he could have used the pencil that was in the cache. He did not delete his log, but he did come back and sign it.  I have deleted found logs on throw downs, or when someone said they found the "camo" but the cache was gone.

[+egroeg]

48 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

I was asked a question about what I allow on MY geocaches and I require a signature on MY log book if the finder wants to log it as found online.

And how do you address the issue of an unsignable log?  If YOUR log book has turned into soggy cellulose paste and cannot be signed, do you allow an alternate proof?

[+Manville Possum]

7 minutes ago, egroeg said:

And how do you address the issue of an unsignable log?  If YOUR log book has turned into soggy cellulose paste and cannot be signed, do you allow an alternate proof?

My geocaches are maintained and are signable so I don't have that problem.  

[Stoplight25]

I once saw 2 caches on opposite side of a mall parking lot and the same person had loged them BOTH as found, but said that they couldn't sign due to black widow spiders on BOTH of them. Seems a bit suspicious to me.

[+L0ne.R]

3 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Edit to add: My geocaches are not tiny little micros and contain a pencil unless removed.

Mine too. I'm old school that way.

[+L0ne.R]

2 hours ago, NanCycle said:

Tearing a hole is not a signature, it is vandalism.  Please don't even suggest that tearing a hole in the log is somehow signing it. 

Yes, wrong choice of words. Tearing does sound destructive. I have poked a small hole with a twig, without damaging any other signatures. When leaves or dirt/mud were not available. But I agree, it's not a good way to sign a log. Not sure that dirt is either. But sometimes, to be on the safe-side I will resort to it if I have a niggling that the owner might be the type who does check their paper logs for the purpose of taking inventory.

[+J Grouchy]

5 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Yes, wrong choice of words. Tearing does sound destructive. I have poked a small hole with a twig, without damaging any other signatures. When leaves or dirt/mud were not available. But I agree, it's not a good way to sign a log. Not sure that dirt is either. But sometimes, to be on the safe-side I will resort to it if I have a niggling that the owner might be the type who does check their paper logs for the purpose of taking inventory.

This whole "make a mark with a leaf or mud" thing is ludicrous.  Might as well indent the paper with your fingernail and call it a signature.

Let it be known that if you are finding one of my caches and, for whatever reason, are unable to sign the log with a pen, I'd rather you not smear it with biological materials or rip it or poke holes.  If it's one of my more difficult caches, just snap a photo of the log or write a PM to me with a description and we're all good.  Just please...no mud, blood, spit or bug juice.  

[+Rebore]

22 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

This whole "make a mark with a leaf or mud" thing is ludicrous.

Did ypu see that ludicrous display last night?

[+niraD]

Because ink has never been made from biological materials like oak galls...

[+J Grouchy]

11 minutes ago, niraD said:

Because ink has never been made from biological materials like oak galls...

Seriously...you know what I'm talking about.  No need to be pedantic.

[+niraD]

19 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Seriously...you know what I'm talking about.  No need to be pedantic.

Yes and no. I can understand being concerned about people signing with blood (although hopefully they would use readily available blood from existing scrapes and scratches, or from squished mosquitoes, rather than drawing blood specifically for the purpose of signing the log ). But I really don't think chlorophyll from a leaf or minerals/organics from mud is an issue. I would applaud a geocacher who used readily available materials like leaves or mud to sign one of my logs, not worry that they had contaminated my precious logs with "biological materials".

Did you know that I carry tubes of CHEMICALS with me when I geocache, specifically so I can use those CHEMICALS to sign the logs of the geocaches I find. And those CHEMICALS were created specifically for the purpose of using them to create CHEMICAL stains on paper?

[+Manville Possum]

I have used organic ink from polk berries on a sharpened twig. 

[+J Grouchy]

Again...you are going too far down the rabbit hole here.  I speak only for myself, only for my own caches.  I don't want anything but pen or pencil on my logs.  Using anything else is silly and completely unnecessary.  Fortunately, most people would never go to such lengths just to put a mark on a log sheet and claim it as a "signature".  Only people who come in here to the forums to debate about the meaning of "signature" and "container".  

Edited October 31, 2017 by J Grouchy

[+egroeg]

2 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

My geocaches are maintained and are signable so I don't have that problem.  

I like to think that I do a good job of maintenance, but there are always times when I don't learn of a problem until I see someone's log.  If they report an unsignable log, I will check, and if this is the case, I will let the log stand, as well as doing the fixing.

I checked some of your caches, and think I found the same.  After each of these logs on one of your caches, you did maintenance.  But you allowed the logs to stand, so I believe I have the answer to my original question - what would you do if your log was unsignable.

 Found it

08/03/2014

Hiked from Hanging Rock Rec Area to middle falls. Beautiful hike, although a bit tricky with all the rocks and fallen trees. Log was so crubly and rotted it was impossible to write on. TFTC.

 Found it

05/02/2013

#5 log book is soaked and pen is almost dry but a wonderful hide !!!!

 Found it

04/28/2013

Log is full but signed on the officers note also. Kind of added to to fun

[+Manville Possum]

3 minutes ago, egroeg said:

I like to think that I do a good job of maintenance, but there are always times when I don't learn of a problem until I see someone's log.  If they report an unsignable log, I will check, and if this is the case, I will let the log stand, as well as doing the fixing.

I checked some of your caches, and think I found the same.  After each of these logs on one of your caches, you did maintenance.  But you allowed the logs to stand, so I believe I have the answer to my original question - what would you do if your log was unsignable.

 Found it

08/03/2014

Hiked from Hanging Rock Rec Area to middle falls. Beautiful hike, although a bit tricky with all the rocks and fallen trees. Log was so crubly and rotted it was impossible to write on. TFTC.

 Found it

05/02/2013

#5 log book is soaked and pen is almost dry but a wonderful hide !!!!

 Found it

04/28/2013

Log is full but signed on the officers note also. Kind of added to to fun

 

So now that you have cyber stalked me you know the truth. I let about anything stand on my listings. Even the one on my Wherigo that had a bat roosting on it.

But also note that I once owned caches in the hundreds and I'm slowly weeding them out and archiving them. 

Lots of nuts out there in the geocaching world. Stalkers, ect.

[+MartyBartfast]

3 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

My geocaches are maintained and are signable so I don't have that problem.  

You can't state that as an immutable fact. What if (for the sake of argument debate) :

• I find your cache
• I don't put the lid on properly
• It rains
• The next cacher finds an unsignable  soggy log

You might go out straight after and replace it but there's still one cacher who might have had to "photo log" it....

What would you do then eh?

[+Manville Possum]

9 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

You can't state that as an immutable fact. What if (for the sake of argument debate) :

• I find your cache
• I don't put the lid on properly
• It rains
• The next cacher finds an unsignable  soggy log

You might go out straight after and replace it but there's still one cacher who might have had to "photo log" it....

What would you do then eh?

 

I have always allowed it. It's the fake finds, no signature, no photo, and they post on my cache page that they did not sign the log gets a delete.

 

[+Mausebiber]

4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

There is nothing in the guidelines which prohibits a cache owner from allowing a photo log for the occasionally finder that for a reason deemed reasonable by the cache owner why they didn't sign the physical log.

I think the Guidelines are quite clear:

Physical caches

For physical caches other than challenge caches, any additional logging requirement (ALR) beyond finding the cache and signing the log must be optional. Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

May I repeat: ".. signed the logbook".  A very easy rule if anyone is taking it serious, no signature (for whatever reason) no online log. But geocaching should be fun and not frustrating, therefore I understand that variations may apply. 

Best greetings, MB

[+J Grouchy]

14 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

I think the Guidelines are quite clear:

Physical caches

For physical caches other than challenge caches, any additional logging requirement (ALR) beyond finding the cache and signing the log must be optional. Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

May I repeat: ".. signed the logbook".  A very easy rule if anyone is taking it serious, no signature (for whatever reason) no online log. But geocaching should be fun and not frustrating, therefore I understand that variations may apply. 

Best greetings, MB

There's a difference between allowing it and requiring it.  An ALR is an "additional logging requirement," which is not allowed.  A CO is clearly able to allow any log they wish.  So your point is not really valid.

Edited October 31, 2017 by J Grouchy

[+Manville Possum]

9 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

There's a difference between allowing it and requiring it.  An ALR is an "additional logging requirement," which is not allowed.  A CO is clearly able to allow any log they wish.  So your point is not really valid.

 

Even fake ones. 

[+egroeg]

24 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

I have always allowed it. It's the fake finds, no signature, no photo, and they post on my cache page that they did not sign the log gets a delete.

 

That's the kind of answer I was looking for, and I'm with you 100%!! 

I take my responsibilities as a cache owner seriously, and have deleted logs that I determined to be fake.  And I have allowed some logs without signatures, but only after checking into them.  It's how I roll.

[+Mausebiber]

24 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

A CO is clearly able to allow any log they wish.  So your point is not really valid.

Again:  Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

You as a cache owner have no option and no authority to allow anything as far as logging is concerned.  But again, who cares about rules, you are playing it your way.

[+J Grouchy]

19 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Even fake ones. 

Of course.  

[+egroeg]

10 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Again:  Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

You as a cache owner have no option and no authority to allow anything as far as logging is concerned.  But again, who cares about rules, you are playing it your way.

So, once again I am asking this question - How do YOU address the issue of an unsignable log?  If your logbook has turned into soggy cellulose paste and cannot be signed, do you allow an alternate proof?

[+niraD]

12 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Again:  Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

Does that sentence from the guideline allow for the possibility that their might be other situations when caches can be logged online as "Found"?

Or does that sentence specify the one and only situation ("visited the coordinates and signed the logbook") when caches can be logged online as "Found"?

You seem to interpret it one way. Others of us interpret it the other.

[+Mausebiber]

Quote

do you allow an alternate proof?

I handle it the following way: 

I don't need a photo log or anything, if someone telling me, they found the cache but the logbook cannot be signed, I just believe it. I disable the cache and ask the last finder to hold on with the online log until the logbook is replaced. All this is done via email and does not appear in and logs. I replace the logbook as soon as possible and put the name of this finder on the first page.  I send them an email telling them that they can log.  This is as close as it can get to the guidelines, I did not allow anything, the are in the logbook with the date the were visiting the location.

MB

[+Mausebiber]

Quote

You seem to interpret it one way. Others of us interpret it the other.

Understand.  Is a photo log of a "soggy cellulose paste " equal to a signature in the logbook?

Another source which is talking about logging a cache:  https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2013/08/master-the-5-ways-to-log-your-visit/

Quote:  Found it – It’s a well-earned smiley when you choose this option. You’ve found the geocache and physically signed the log sheet.

How do I have to interpret "physically signed the log sheet", maybe you can explain this to me.

Thanks, MB

Edited October 31, 2017 by Mausebiber

[+noncentric]

46 minutes ago, niraD said:

55 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Again:  Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

Does that sentence from the guideline allow for the possibility that their might be other situations when caches can be logged online as "Found"?

Or does that sentence specify the one and only situation ("visited the coordinates and signed the logbook") when caches can be logged online as "Found"?

You seem to interpret it one way. Others of us interpret it the other.

Ever since I started geocaching, I interpreted it the way Mausebiber does. I just recently caught up with that other thread where this was hotly debated and really didn't agree with the argument that the guidelines don't say that signing the physical log is a requirement to log online. Besides what Mausebiber quoted, there's also this from the Help Center in regards to the log types:  "Use a “Found It” log after you visit the cache and sign the logbook."

To me, the spirit of the guidelines is that signing is expected and CO's should delete logs if there isn't an accompanying signature, but only insofar as the lack of a signature suggests fraud.  If there isn't a signature, but the 'finder' provides other proof of their find, then it's fine for the CO to let their find remain.  There have been times that I've logged caches as Found even though I couldn't sign the log, but only in cases where there were cache issues (soggy logs).  In those cases, I attached a photo of the wet log to my online log, but other cachers could just state the condition and send photo or descriptive proof to the CO when/if asked.

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by noncentric

[+Mausebiber]

12 minutes ago, noncentric said:

If there isn't a signature, but the 'finder' provides other proof of their find, then it's fine for the CO to let their find remain.

I think this is perfectly fine, this a a private agreement between the CO and the finder and, as fas as I'm concerned, should not be published in any logs.

[+J Grouchy]

2 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Again:  Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

You as a cache owner have no option and no authority to allow anything as far as logging is concerned.  But again, who cares about rules, you are playing it your way.

That's a completely unreasonable and absurd position. The rigid adherence to guidelines as if they were enforceable laws is laughable. You do, in fact, have final say on who logs your cache found.  Yes, you can delete a log if a signature is not there, backed up by Groundspeak ...but the reverse is not true. GS will not require you to delete a log if they deem it false. They don't deem it anything unless you ask them to do some deeming. 

Your entire premise is shaky.

 

 

[+Mausebiber]

48 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

You do, in fact, have final say on who logs your cache found.

If I have found the cache container and have signed the logbook, there is nothing you can do to avoid my online log entry. Where is your final say now?

Quote

GS will not require you to delete a log if they deem it false.

All I said was, that you don't have the authority to allow online logs if the cacher has not signed the logbook.  One thing is, not to react to a "non signed logbook" online log, but telling someone "sure, go ahead, you are good to log even without signing the logbook" is not withing your authorization.

Quote

The rigid adherence to guidelines as if they were enforceable laws is laughable

Just because you think guidelines can't be enforced is no reason not to follow.

 

[+niraD]

15 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

telling someone "sure, go ahead, you are good to log even without signing the logbook" is not withing your authorization.

Why not?

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Again:  Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

You as a cache owner have no option and no authority to allow anything as far as logging is concerned.  But again, who cares about rules, you are playing it your way.

So what you're saying is that if someone messages me to say "I did the six hour hike to GZ and back, but when I got there my pen wouldn't work so here's a photo of me holding the cache and logbook. Can I log this as a find?" I have no authority to say yes and instead must insist he or she do the hike again and this time take some spare pens with them.

I'm sure if I did that I'd be lynched at the next event once word got out.