Found but not Signed

[+noncentric]

6 hours ago, niraD said:

6 hours 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?

Because turning a 'physical' cache into a Virtual cache is not okay. If a CO adds something like "if you can't find the cache container, then taking a selfie of yourself at GZ is acceptable" will get a cache disabled/archived.

[+niraD]

22 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Because turning a 'physical' cache into a Virtual cache is not okay. If a CO adds something like "if you can't find the cache container, then taking a selfie of yourself at GZ is acceptable" will get a cache disabled/archived.

But I don't think people are talking about the kind of situation that turns a physical cache into an ersatz virtual cache.

I think peopler are talking about situations where a physical cache was found, but for one reason or another, a new mark was not made on the physical log. The guidelines tell cache owners to delete "logs that appear to be false or inappropriate." Not everyone takes the position that a log is automatically false (or inappropriate) just because a new mark was not made on the physical log. There are situations where reasonable cache owners can decide that an exception to the "signature == smiley" rule is appropriate.

[+noncentric]

53 minutes ago, noncentric said:

7 hours ago, niraD said:

7 hours 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?

Because turning a 'physical' cache into a Virtual cache is not okay. If a CO adds something like "if you can't find the cache container, then taking a selfie of yourself at GZ is acceptable" will get a cache disabled/archived.

24 minutes ago, niraD said:

But I don't think people are talking about the kind of situation that turns a physical cache into an ersatz virtual cache.

What I understood from Mb's post, he was talking about what's stated online. A CO posting online, on the cache page, that it's okay not to sign the logbook is essentially allowing 'virtual' types of finds. Here is one example.  See CO's log from 7/2016 and subsequent 'find' logs starting 9/2016.  If the Reviewers were made aware of that allowance earlier, then I suspect there would've been action, but instead it took a bit longer.  There are other, better examples that I've seen, but I'd have to go looking for them because I can't recall them off the top of my head as easily as I can with this one.

 

24 minutes ago, niraD said:

I think peopler are talking about situations where a physical cache was found, but for one reason or another, a new mark was not made on the physical log. The guidelines tell cache owners to delete "logs that appear to be false or inappropriate." Not everyone takes the position that a log is automatically false (or inappropriate) just because a new mark was not made on the physical log. There are situations where reasonable cache owners can decide that an exception to the "signature == smiley" rule is appropriate.

Yes, that is what most of the posts have been about and I agree that CO's can accept other forms of 'proof'. Whether it's a photo attached to the finder's online log or a photo/description/etc communicated to the CO outside of the online log. I stated as much in an earlier post.

[+Mausebiber]

Quote

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.

We having this situation once and a while and my answer to this is: "You know that you may log only if you signed the logbook, but if you really want to log online, I'm not deleting your log".  I have told the cacher the rules, now it's up to him to comply or not.

[+Mausebiber]

7 hours ago, niraD said:

Why not?

Very easy:

Groundspeak says: online logs only with physically signing the logbook

So, what do you want to say?  "Yes, go ahead and sign anyway".

Both can't be right.

[+barefootjeff]

27 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Very easy:

Groundspeak says: online logs only with physically signing the logbook

So, what do you want to say?  "Yes, go ahead and sign anyway".

Both can't be right.

The guideline doesn't include the word "only". It says Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook, not only after - that's the difference. To use mathematical terminology, visiting the location and signing the log is a sufficient condition for logging the find, not a necessary one.

[+Mausebiber]

8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

To use mathematical terminology, visiting the location and signing the log is a sufficient condition for logging the find, not a necessary one.

Yes, you are right, visiting and signing is sufficient, you do not have to dance or smile.

Do you have an example please where you may log you find without those sufficient conditions.

[+barefootjeff]

10 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Yes, you are right, visiting and signing is sufficient, you do not have to dance or smile.

Do you have an example please where you may log you find without those sufficient conditions.

Yes, if it's clear the finder found the cache and would've signed the log except for a technicality like a broken pen, a waterlogged logbook, a jammed cache lid or other circumstance which the CO is willing to accept. Ultimately it's the CO's call.

If you want an actual example of this, see my log on GC3Y75D (link to log) where the logbook was such a blob of wet pulp I simply couldn't leave a mark on it with any of the writing implements I had. The CO has, to date, allowed my find to stand even though I technically didn't sign the logbook.

[+Mausebiber]

We are having this discussion every year  https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/253838-logging-find-and-did-not-sign-log/  and it always ends like this. We are mixing up two things, one is the wording in the guidelines and for me, it is quite clear: "Found it – It’s a well-earned smiley when you choose this option. You’ve found the geocache and physically signed the log sheet.

"  My interpretation is, a found it means, you found the geocache and have signed the log sheet.

Now, how you play this game might be totally different.  Not signing the log sheet and still claim a found is your way, fine with me, do I really care?  This is a family friendly game and if you want avoid frustration, sure, fine, as long as everyone is happy, I will be happy too.  If Groundspeak agrees to this, even better.

I think the guidelines are made to give us a common base, and as long as they are not quite clear for everyone they allow variations.

Thanks for the interesting discussion and always happy caching

Mausebiber

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

15 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

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

That does not say that caches can not be logged as found if someone hasn't signed the log book.  The way it is written allows a CO to except some other form of evidence that someone found the cache.

[+justintim1999]

I'm not sure how this could be viewed as anything but a cache owner's judgement call.  Mandating that cache owners verify every find by checking the physical log would be a full time job in itself.   Making it a requirement only add importance to the numbers which is not what I think caching is all about.   It's a good tradition and one I think should continue but there has to be some wiggle room.

I probably have a few finds on my caches that on the surface look legit but may not be.   I can't see spending hours upon hours verifying every find,  trying to spot the one who thinks they're getting away with something that really doesn't matter much in the first place.  

 

  

[+Manville Possum]

I have thought about attaching a discover only TB inside of an ammo can along with a traditional log book. 

[+hzoi]

4 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

I have thought about attaching a discover only TB inside of an ammo can along with a traditional log book. 

That's how the A.P.E. cache in Washington was set up.  That would give pen-free cachers a way to verify they were there.  (Until a picture with the code gets into the TB gallery, of course, and then it'll get discovered all over the globe.)

[+J Grouchy]

7 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

We are having this discussion every year  https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/253838-logging-find-and-did-not-sign-log/  and it always ends like this. We are mixing up two things, one is the wording in the guidelines and for me, it is quite clear: "Found it – It’s a well-earned smiley when you choose this option. You’ve found the geocache and physically signed the log sheet.

 

"  My interpretation is, a found it means, you found the geocache and have signed the log sheet.

Now, how you play this game might be totally different.  Not signing the log sheet and still claim a found is your way, fine with me, do I really care?  This is a family friendly game and if you want avoid frustration, sure, fine, as long as everyone is happy, I will be happy too.  If Groundspeak agrees to this, even better.

I think the guidelines are made to give us a common base, and as long as they are not quite clear for everyone they allow variations.

Thanks for the interesting discussion and always happy caching

Mausebiber

 

Yeah, to me, your anal retentive outlook on log signing is the very opposite of "happy caching"...but to each their own.

17 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm not sure how this could be viewed as anything but a cache owner's judgement call.  Mandating that cache owners verify every find by checking the physical log would be a full time job in itself.   Making it a requirement only add importance to the numbers which is not what I think caching is all about.   It's a good tradition and one I think should continue but there has to be some wiggle room.

I probably have a few finds on my caches that on the surface look legit but may not be.   I can't see spending hours upon hours verifying every find,  trying to spot the one who thinks they're getting away with something that really doesn't matter much in the first place.  

 

  

Truth.  The only guideline there is is one that will back up the CO in the event they want to delete a log.  A trigger-happy CO could arguably be almost as unpleasant as an armchair cacher.

[+Manville Possum]

8 minutes ago, hzoi said:

That's how the A.P.E. cache in Washington was set up.  That would give pen-free cachers a way to verify they were there.  (Until a picture with the code gets into the TB gallery, of course, and then it'll get discovered all over the globe.)

 

Yes, codes do get passed around. I once found an interesting Waymark that had a geocoin nailed to a post. It was fun, something a little different. 

[+Rebore]

A local owner adds something along these lines to his puzzle caches:

"Yes, I know, puzzles can be tiresome, time consuming and frustrating. Sometimes you don't know where to start or how to proceed. If you have any questions, contact me and I'm glad to help. If that is still too much trouble for you, feel free to log your find online without visiting the final location. Just pick a date before publish and wait until FTF is logged."

Some owners are more laid back than others, I guess.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

31 minutes ago, Rebore said:

If that is still too much trouble for you, feel free to log your find online without visiting the final location. Just pick a date before publish and wait until FTF is logged.

Thats's the kind of laid back attitude that will get a cache archived.  Many here may remember the notorious 4 Windows virtual cache that GS archived because the CO was allowing logs by people that didn't actually visit the location.  In this case, the CO is allowing found it logs even when someone hasn't even determined the the location of the cache.  

Slightly less laid back are cache owners of power trails or large cache series that allow found it logs from those that have employed "divide and conquer" and "three cache monte" techniques and welcomes throw downs if the cache can't be located.  In that case, there is no way for the CO to confirm that any individual cacher has found any specific cache in the trail.  

At the other end of the spectrum are cache owners which won't allow a found it log, unless that log has been legibly signed.  No exceptions.

Fortunately, I suspect that most cache owners fall somewhere in between.  Most expect geocachers to have at least visiting the location, and have at least touched the container (or been close enough to it that there wasn't anything prohibit them from touching it).  They would likely quickly delete logs from a suspected arm chair logger, but may make an exception on a case by case basis if due to some reasonable circumstance the log sheet wasn't signed.  

 

 

[+J Grouchy]

8 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Fortunately, I suspect that most cache owners fall somewhere in between.  Most expect geocachers to have at least visiting the location, and have at least touched the container (or been close enough to it that there wasn't anything prohibit them from touching it).  They would likely quickly delete logs from a suspected arm chair logger, but may make an exception on a case by case basis if due to some reasonable circumstance the log sheet wasn't signed.  

Basically my point.  There are instances where I've gone to confirm a signature after receiving a questionable 'found it' log.  I'm more likely to check on caches that involve puzzles or multiple stages.  I'm not against deleting logs if the find isn't valid.  I just take issue with anyone that maintains a 'zero tolerance' attitude on signatures...especially those that try to defend it by quoting the guidelines as if they were codified law.

[+Rebore]

51 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Thats's the kind of laid back attitude that will get a cache archived.  Many here may remember the notorious 4 Windows virtual cache that GS archived because the CO was allowing logs by people that didn't actually visit the location.  In this case, the CO is allowing found it logs even when someone hasn't even determined the the location of the cache.  

I think there is some sarcasm involved in the statement of the owner. You can determine the final coordinates by asking a previous finder or having access to a database/list of puzzles with spoiled coords. Before you go this way, just log it. So far nobody accepted the offer (or was willing to admit it).

[+NYPaddleCacher]

16 hours ago, Rebore said:

17 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Thats's the kind of laid back attitude that will get a cache archived.  Many here may remember the notorious 4 Windows virtual cache that GS archived because the CO was allowing logs by people that didn't actually visit the location.  In this case, the CO is allowing found it logs even when someone hasn't even determined the the location of the cache.  

I think there is some sarcasm involved in the statement of the owner. You can determine the final coordinates by asking a previous finder or having access to a database/list of puzzles with spoiled coords. Before you go this way, just log it. So far nobody accepted the offer (or was willing to admit it).

Okay, that makes little more sense.  It's kind of a passive-aggressive approach to saying "I created this puzzle cache with the intention that you solve the puzzle to obtain the coordinates.  If a found it log is more important to you than solving the puzzle, just go ahead and log it as found."

[+jellis]

I periodically check mine. Some signatures will be on the back or out of sync. What I hate is when you suspect someone and then find the cache is missing and you can't prove they didn't sign it.

Also not sure if  these cachers are smart enough when they post a Found It log saying they didn't sign it because they forgot their pen. Why not not mention it?

Had one recently on one of mine that is under a bench and you have to get down under to see it. The cacher logged a find "I saw it but too many muggles for me to sign it"

[+hzoi]

9 hours ago, jellis said:

Had one recently on one of mine that is under a bench and you have to get down under to see it. The cacher logged a find "I saw it but too many muggles for me to sign it"

Heh.  If you're already down there checking the oil, might as well finish the job.  I presume you deleted the find; certainly you have justification to do so.