Jump to content

Found but did not sign log


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Elektrazz said:

I have been finding many people report found but when I get to the cache there is no log entry.  Has anyone else seen this?

 

 

I think that's because many people realize there's no point in signing the log. There's no enforcement, no comradery, no connection with the cache owner since most owners don't care about the physical log.  

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Just now, L0ne.R said:

 

I think that's because many people realize there's no point in signing the log. There's no enforcement, no comradery, no connection with the cache owner since most owners don't care about the physical log.  

 

 

- how do you know if anyone has really been there?

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I think that's because many people realize there's no point in signing the log. There's no enforcement, no comradery, no connection with the cache owner since most owners don't care about the physical log.  

 

Another generalization with no factual evidence.  :)

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Another generalization with no factual evidence.  :)

 

As a cache owner I find little relevance in the physical log except as a ledger. I have never used the physical log as a ledger with which to meter out deserved finds but I have looked through each of mine. I enjoyed reading what finders wrote at ground zero. I enjoyed that connection. Now it's just trailnames, often group-of-the-day trailnames so I don't know who actually visited. 

 

Around 2006 (when micros started to become popular) I noticed that physical logs started to become just a sheet that quickly became old and tattered and ignored by most owners. Owners also started to publicly get upset that finders were using too much space on those sheets and they were getting NM logs for full sheets. Which said to me, that owners didn't want to have to deal with logs and found them to be a nuisance rather than a community connection, or even a ledger.

 

Finders see them as a ledger and I suppose many expect that owners will check them and compare them against online logs. A few cache owners will, but based on what I see when I visit most caches,  owners do not care about the physical log. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Finders see them as a ledger and I suppose many expect that owners will check them and compare them against online logs. A few cache owners will, but based on what I see when I visit most caches,  owners do not care about the physical log. 

 

As a cache owner and visitor I know how little the logsheet means to the owner, but as a visitor, I still have some interest. For some reason I am used to check who has recently visited before me and when. Seeing the log sheet on site gives me some feeling or touch to the history of the cache and makes it somehow more real :)

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

We started with ledger-sized books in our ammo cans.  Folks would not only write lengthy logs (some, none online), but draw, leave poems...one lady left pressed flowers in the books.

Around '08-'09 is when we started seeing the majority of folks leaving name and date on one line, and went to Rite in Rain notebooks instead.

We'll look for obvious fakers on the log, when their online says something not even representing the area. 

 - But we still look at them for that one-in-a-couple dozen who still leave a wordy cache log too.  Maybe hides left encourage that in some.  :)

Most COs  whose  caches we do are similar.     

 

Link to comment

It's one of those limbo areas where both the finder and the CO have enough leeway to cache with their own ethic , and when these loose ethics cross, that's when we get caches that are found but not physically visited/signed as well as never checked or visited by the CO. On the 'spirit of geocaching' side of the ethic, those are the ones where the logs are filled with signatures of previous finders, possibly some lengthier logs, and the CO regularly checks and visits the log to ensure there's room or to actually verify finders. But in the latter case, nothing can be done by the CO for suspected false find logs unless it can be verified that the logger did not visit gz - which usually means that no prior verified finder will confirm that they cached with them on that date.  Otherwise, they can just claim a group signature and log it found, with nary a thing the CO can do. (but you can always take it to appeals anyway)

 

All we can really do is choose how to handle the situation and other cachers' actions as the CO, and choose how we determine what we log online and under what parameters.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Gabeman26 said:

I've had to do that a couple of times. Try to sign log and its a mushy grey mess or its so tight in the cache its like trying to take it out of a black hole.

I will at least touch my pen so as to leave some ink. Then in my online log, I will say something to the effect "retrieved the cache, left some ink on the wet mushy log, and replaced the cache as found."

Link to comment
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

We started with ledger-sized books in our ammo cans.  Folks would not only write lengthy logs (some, none online), but draw, leave poems...one lady left pressed flowers in the books.

Around '08-'09 is when we started seeing the majority of folks leaving name and date on one line, and went to Rite in Rain notebooks instead.

We'll look for obvious fakers on the log, when their online says something not even representing the area. 

 - But we still look at them for that one-in-a-couple dozen who still leave a wordy cache log too.  Maybe hides left encourage that in some.  :)

Most COs  whose  caches we do are similar.     

 

 

This logbook, in a T3.5 cache hidden just a few months ago, is a thick 300-page notebook and most of the finders, including myself, have written more than just their name and the date. A big logbook like this almost begs a bit of prose.

 

Logbooks2.jpg.96829faaea9c60e0b05dc33f0b1a0205.jpg

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Team Christiansen said:

I will at least touch my pen so as to leave some ink. Then in my online log, I will say something to the effect "retrieved the cache, left some ink on the wet mushy log, and replaced the cache as found."

 

I have done the same thing.   Attempting to sign a full user name on a wet mushy log isn't going to leave any more evidence of a signature and just giving it a poke with a pen or pencil.  Last time I did that I poured an inch of water out of the broken plastic container then just poked the broken baggie that held the log.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I have done the same thing.   Attempting to sign a full user name on a wet mushy log isn't going to leave any more evidence of a signature and just giving it a poke with a pen or pencil.  Last time I did that I poured an inch of water out of the broken plastic container then just poked the broken baggie that held the log.  

 

Why bother on some of these no way ink is getting to paper. That's when I snap a picture and file a NM log on it. I'm starting to think a picture would help with better cache maintenance, avoid throw downs, and avoid false logging. Consider it a digital signature that is verifiable by the CO without having to trek out to the sometimes remote cache.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I have done the same thing.   Attempting to sign a full user name on a wet mushy log isn't going to leave any more evidence of a signature and just giving it a poke with a pen or pencil.  Last time I did that I poured an inch of water out of the broken plastic container then just poked the broken baggie that held the log.  

 

I place half a RIR strip with my sig in a baggy and place it on top if everything was floating when I got there. 

It gets an NM anyway, but there's no mistaking a new log with a signature on it.

Link to comment

I recently did a geocoin challenge and at one of the caches I was handing the log to the next person and I said something like, “Here, want the log?”

 

The guy took it but he also shrugged and said, “Nah, I don’t bother signing these things any more.”

 

really got me thinking. Maybe he just cares about his personal experience and doesn’t care about numbers? Or just lazy? Or what?

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Korichnovui said:

I recently did a geocoin challenge and at one of the caches I was handing the log to the next person and I said something like, “Here, want the log?”

 

The guy took it but he also shrugged and said, “Nah, I don’t bother signing these things any more.”

 

really got me thinking. Maybe he just cares about his personal experience and doesn’t care about numbers? Or just lazy? Or what?

 

Did you happen to notice if he claimed a find online?  If he did, that numbers thing's off the table ...    ;)

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I place half a RIR strip with my sig in a baggy and place it on top if everything was floating when I got there. 

It gets an NM anyway, but there's no mistaking a new log with a signature on it.

I do the exact same thing!  Have supplies with me all the time!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Korichnovui said:

I recently did a geocoin challenge and at one of the caches I was handing the log to the next person and I said something like, “Here, want the log?”

 

The guy took it but he also shrugged and said, “Nah, I don’t bother signing these things any more.”

 

really got me thinking. Maybe he just cares about his personal experience and doesn’t care about numbers? Or just lazy? Or what?

 

He probably doesn't see the point of it. 

Link to comment

I delete them when I can prove it. Like if they aren't part of a group, I double check if they logged the wrong date or signed in the back. What I hate is "found it but didn't have a pen" without showing anything else like photo or using something else to sign it.

Also when cachers sweep the area who came from another location. Like a bunch called " 9 swedes" came through and I checked and they did stamp mine. But one single cacher from Europe claimed 2 of my hides and didn't see his name on the logs. I deleted both, one he claimed by using hints from previous finder's logs to use to prove he found it such as that it was at eye level. I responded that the cache was replaced before he claimed the find and I didn't see his name, then he claimed he must have found the lost cache. That would be impossible because the tree was trimmed and the branch it was zipped tied on was removed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, jellis said:

I responded that the cache was replaced before he claimed the find and I didn't see his name, then he claimed he must have found the lost cache. That would be impossible because the tree was trimmed and the branch it was zipped tied on was removed.

:D

We only had one that I recall similar.  Don't ya love it?  Getting "creative" like that over a smiley.

 - Staying friendly,  wouldn't it be nice once-in-a-while to just say "Dude, you're busted.  Please stop now".    :D

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

A while back I had one of my Bison Trail series caches (a bison tube) go missing. I hunted for it but couldn't find it so I replaced it (in a small hollow in a tree) .  The next cacher to come along found the new cache but also found the old one among leaf litter on the ground where I had previously searched. Said cacher kept my bison tube and used it as a throwdown at the next cache he unsuccesfully searched for (not one of mine), he actually mentioned this in his logs. I went to that cache to retrieve my bison tube but could not find it (it was a cache I had previously found - a small Sistema container). The CO of the missing cache did place a new one but did not find my (throwndown) bison tube. 

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, colleda said:

A while back I had one of my Bison Trail series caches (a bison tube) go missing. I hunted for it but couldn't find it so I replaced it (in a small hollow in a tree) .  The next cacher to come along found the new cache but also found the old one among leaf litter on the ground where I had previously searched. Said cacher kept my bison tube and used it as a throwdown at the next cache he unsuccesfully searched for (not one of mine), he actually mentioned this in his logs. I went to that cache to retrieve my bison tube but could not find it (it was a cache I had previously found - a small Sistema container). The CO of the missing cache did place a new one but did not find my (throwndown) bison tube. 

 

That sounds a bit like one I found last year, a D3 traditional that's quite a tricky hide. A few years back, someone who couldn't find it said they'd left a throwdown, but when the CO checked, the original container was fine (and still is) but he couldn't find the throwdown to remove it.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...