Didn't have a pen.

[+jellis]

A semi new cacher logged finds on about 5 of mine and when I was in the area I checked them. All but one were actually signed. So I deleted those logs. The cacher asked me why I deleted them. I told them and they responded they didn't have a "writing untensil". I let them know they have to sign the log sheet. I also said I would except mud, blood or photo of the logsheet. I would have excused them if it weren't that about 50% of their find logs on other caches also said they didn't have a pen. They asked me if they have to go back and sign the caches of mine. I told them that is how you play the game. But noticed they recently are still logging caches that they didn't have a pen and some with photos of the logsheets. I would give them a pen but you wonder why after being called on it they haven't gotten one to use all the time.

[+funkymunkyzone]

54 minutes ago, jellis said:

A semi new cacher logged finds on about 5 of mine and when I was in the area I checked them. All but one were actually signed. So I deleted those logs. The cacher asked me why I deleted them. I told them and they responded they didn't have a "writing untensil". I let them know they have to sign the log sheet. I also said I would except mud, blood or photo of the logsheet. I would have excused them if it weren't that about 50% of their find logs on other caches also said they didn't have a pen. They asked me if they have to go back and sign the caches of mine. I told them that is how you play the game. But noticed they recently are still logging caches that they didn't have a pen and some with photos of the logsheets. I would give them a pen but you wonder why after being called on it they haven't gotten one to use all the time.

 

Your prerogative as cache owner but IMO, it's just a game...  I might have reminded them they need to at least have proof and try to remember that in future, but I would have given them benefit of the doubt and wouldn't have deleted their logs.

 

I must also admit, I don't understand the relevance of their other logs on other people's caches, whether they did or didn't have a pen for those, as to being a factor in excusing them on your caches...  Seems like you're establishing their character and behaviour pattern, like in a court case

 

Anyway, in saying that, I'm sure you will get a load of support from others here on the forum!

[+niraD]

11 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

I must also admit, I don't understand the relevance of their other logs on other people's caches, whether they did or didn't have a pen for those, as to being a factor in excusing them on your caches...  Seems like you're establishing their character and behaviour pattern, like in a court case

To me, it sounds like you understand the relevance perfectly.

[+funkymunkyzone]

10 minutes ago, niraD said:

To me, it sounds like you understand the relevance perfectly.

Fair enough - I'd then revert back to "it's just a game".

[+K13]

6 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Fair enough - I'd then revert back to "it's just a game".

And the game has rules.  Find the cache. Sign the log. Replace the cache, Log it online.

[+funkymunkyzone]

2 minutes ago, K13 said:

And the game has rules.  Find the cache. Sign the log. Replace the cache, Log it online.

Actually, it just has guidelines.  And I just don't think it's a big deal to let things slide a bit especially when you can tell that the person in question is not necessarily a cheater (evidence provided on some finds).  But that aside, you don't need to dispute my opinion because you won't change it.  But by all means respond to the OP with your full support.  Cache on!

[+colleda]

But where does one draw the line? This cacher carries on logging finds without signing logs then to them it becomes the norm. Others see that and would expect it applies to them also. Where does it end? Diligent CO mainteance perhaps?

Broken window effect? Nip it in the bud.

[+cerberus1]

5 hours ago, colleda said:

But where does one draw the line? This cacher carries on logging finds without signing logs then to them it becomes the norm. Others see that and would expect it applies to them also. Where does it end? Diligent CO mainteance perhaps?

Broken window effect? Nip it in the bud.

Yep.

There was one near us we happened to follow often, and noticed that most were never signed. 

"Forgot pen" the norm in the log.

One very-small cache we did the same day had a pen and a pencil in it's container.  "Forgot pen" yet again...

 -  Our log of "Used the pen enclosed in this nice little cache to sign log" drew a lot of attention, and a buncha CO's did maintenance at least once. 

Some who did maintenance in-between the last finder and this cacher said it never moved from the covering they last placed on them.

So they never even opened 'em, if there at all...

 

[+Goldenwattle]

19 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Yep.

There was one near us we happened to follow often, and noticed that most were never signed. 

"Forgot pen" the norm in the log.

One very-small cache we did the same day had a pen and a pencil in it's container.  "Forgot pen" yet again...

 -  Our log of "Used the pen enclosed in this nice little cache to sign log" drew a lot of attention, and a buncha CO's did maintenance at least once. 

Some who did maintenance in-between the last finder and this cacher said it never moved from the covering they last placed on them.

So they never even opened 'em, if there at all...

 

I have deleted forgot pen logs. If it doesn't seem the norm for this person I will send a message saying I will accept a photograph, or a very good description. If the person seems to do this all the time, I just delete. If someone does forget their pen, I feel the right thing to do is at most log a note, and then contact the CO with a photograph to show they were there, or at the least a VERY good description (under tree is not adequate, because it sounds like a guess). Then wait for permission to log. If I were contacted I would almost certainly give permission to log, as I believe most COs would. I have forgotten my pen a couple of times and each time was given permission to log. Same with caches I couldn't get open (not puzzle ones).

[+barefootjeff]

22 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have deleted forgot pen logs. If it doesn't seem the norm for this person I will send a message saying I will accept a photograph, or a very good description. If the person seems to do this all the time, I just delete. If someone does forget their pen, I feel the right thing to do is at most log a note, and then contact the CO with a photograph to show they were there, or at the least a VERY good description (under tree is not adequate, because it sounds like a guess). Then wait for permission to log. If I were contacted I would almost certainly give permission to log, as I believe most COs would. I have forgotten my pen a couple of times and each time was given permission to log. Same with caches I couldn't get open (not puzzle ones).

 

On the occasions I've forgotten a pen, I've either gone off to find a pen shop (for urban hides) or used a twig or gumnut to make some sort of recognisable mark in the logbook (which I've also photographed). I've claimed the latter as finds as there's nothing in the guidelines that says I have to mark the log with a pen. The only time I've claimed a find when I didn't mark the log was when it was such a soggy wet lump of pulp that none of the pens or pencils in my caching pack would leave any mark at all on it. In that case I reckon I did everything the CO expected of me and it wasn't my fault their log was unwriteable upon - that cache got an NM as well, of course.

[+Goldenwattle]

10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

On the occasions I've forgotten a pen, I've either gone off to find a pen shop (for urban hides) or used a twig or gumnut to make some sort of recognisable mark in the logbook (which I've also photographed). I've claimed the latter as finds as there's nothing in the guidelines that says I have to mark the log with a pen. The only time I've claimed a find when I didn't mark the log was when it was such a soggy wet lump of pulp that none of the pens or pencils in my caching pack would leave any mark at all on it. In that case I reckon I did everything the CO expected of me and it wasn't my fault their log was unwriteable upon - that cache got an NM as well, of course.

I once picked up a piece of burnt wood and wrote in charcoal, then photographed the squiggle. Charcoal would rub off, so hence the need to have it photographed. I would be hesitant to use a stick and like, for fear of damaging the log.

[+noncentric]

13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

On the occasions I've forgotten a pen, I've either gone off to find a pen shop (for urban hides) or used a twig or gumnut to make some sort of recognisable mark in the logbook (which I've also photographed). I've claimed the latter as finds as there's nothing in the guidelines that says I have to mark the log with a pen. The only time I've claimed a find when I didn't mark the log was when it was such a soggy wet lump of pulp that none of the pens or pencils in my caching pack would leave any mark at all on it. In that case I reckon I did everything the CO expected of me and it wasn't my fault their log was unwriteable upon - that cache got an NM as well, of course.

Same here.  Any time that I haven't signed the log, then I've included a photo.  It hasn't happened often.  It might be my own fault, in which I'd make a mark with something (chlorophyll ink, bark), or the fault of the cache with the logbook being too wet to sign.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The only time I've claimed a find when I didn't mark the log was when it was such a soggy wet lump of pulp that none of the pens or pencils in my caching pack would leave any mark at all on

 

A poke with a sharp stick will make a mark on a soggy wet lump of pulp.  I might not be permanent or legible.   The "rules" just state that one must sign the log.  They don't say that it has to be legible.  

[+Touchstone]

Link to related thread of many such examples:

 

I love the refrain, "...it's just a game...", but in all honesty, it's nice to see the Consistency so oft complained about in terms of the Reviewing Process also applied to the Cache Owners.   Thanks to the OP for taking the time to check up on this issue with their caches, and contacting the User to explain the expectation.

[+dprovan]

So, yes, it's just a game, and that means one shouldn't be upset or angry with a newbie that's slow on the learning curve. But it's also "just a game" to the OP, so she should also be free to enforce the find requirements strictly and delete these logs as long as she's willing to explain her action when asked. She's gone beyond that to the point of doing a little mentoring.

 

Like the OP, I don't understand why the newbie hasn't yet learned the lesson of "bring a pen", but they'll figure it out soon enough. It only takes so many on-line logs explaining over and over why they didn't sign the physical log before they figure out it's easier to just remember to bring a pen.

[+JL_HSTRE]

This is my 9th year geocaching, with over 5000 lifetime finds. I still sometimes forget a pen. Sometimes when I remember a pen I loose it along the way.

[+MtnGoat50]

9 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

This is my 9th year geocaching, with over 5000 lifetime finds. I still sometimes forget a pen. Sometimes when I remember a pen I loose it along the way.

This used to happen to me all the time so I got one of these.  It's brutally expensive but there are cheaper alternatives.  It's with my car keys and I don't leave home without it. 

[+IceColdUK]

57 minutes ago, MtnGoat50 said:

It's with my car keys and I don't leave home without it. 

 

+ I wouldn’t leave home without it.

- I’d probably lose my car keys! ;-)

[+funkymunkyzone]

On 1/19/2019 at 4:52 AM, Touchstone said:

Link to related thread of many such examples:

 

I love the refrain, "...it's just a game...", but in all honesty, it's nice to see the Consistency so oft complained about in terms of the Reviewing Process also applied to the Cache Owners.   Thanks to the OP for taking the time to check up on this issue with their caches, and contacting the User to explain the expectation.

 

My bolding above.  I totally agree.  But IMO deleting logs in this case, while totally within the guidelines as recourse open to the CO, is a little OTT....  IMO.... I wouldn't do it.

[+Goldenwattle]

On 1/18/2019 at 7:41 AM, jellis said:

A semi new cacher logged finds on about 5 of mine and when I was in the area I checked them. All but one were actually signed. So I deleted those logs. The cacher asked me why I deleted them. I told them and they responded they didn't have a "writing untensil". I let them know they have to sign the log sheet. I also said I would except mud, blood or photo of the logsheet. I would have excused them if it weren't that about 50% of their find logs on other caches also said they didn't have a pen. They asked me if they have to go back and sign the caches of mine. I told them that is how you play the game. But noticed they recently are still logging caches that they didn't have a pen and some with photos of the logsheets. I would give them a pen but you wonder why after being called on it they haven't gotten one to use all the time.

I knew the first time I logged a cache I needed to sign it. I was alone (I didn't have a GPS; I had printed out the cache page and taken that with me to find the cache), with no-one there with me to explain this, but it was OBVIOUS that's what was needed (there was a log with signatures, gee whiz), so I don't accept that a newbie didn't know that was what was required. If they didn't sign they must be exceptional stupid...or lying. As for pens; I take two now, in case I genuinely lose one, or the ink runs out. If someone continuously doesn't have a pen, I delete their log. I am willing to accept a photograph, or a very good description for the person who genuinely, for whatever reason can't sign.

[+J Grouchy]

On 1/17/2019 at 3:41 PM, jellis said:

I also said I would except [sic] mud, blood or photo of the logsheet

 

That's disgusting.

 

 

[+Rayvan43]

Ive thought about smashing my finger with a rock to draw some blood but I decided that it would be less painful 

to just take a picture 

[+Goldenwattle]

Very recently I deleted a log by a newbie who didn't sign the log, when they wrote, "I didn't have a pen'. That was admittance enough, admitting they knew they should have had a pen, and they didn't contact me or supply any other proof. I have always accepted photographs and/or a good description. Normally I would have contacted them first, but this time I just couldn't be bothered, so delete.

 

Another in January when I couldn't find their signature I contacted them with a photograph of the log and their reply was, " It is also possible that we forgot our own and just went for the enjoyment of the find and not to be pedantic about recording it. "

 

Not to be pedantic about it, I deleted the log.

[+DerDiedler]

"it's just a game"

Can´t stand it any more. It´s a game for everyone including the CO´s. And like any other game it just works fine for all, when everybody stick to the rules.

When I play Ludo with others, and I roll the dice, and predent to have a six each and every time I roll the dice, no matter what I really rolled. Would it be fun for the others, for the co-players to play with me? No? Hey why, c´mon, it´s just a game.

I as a owner put efforts in setting up and maintaining a cache. I´d like to see this effort respected. Respected by logging it propperly. No over expectations, just sign that dang thing mannerly.

Of course, loosing or forgetting a pen, it happens to people. Even to me. But in that rare cases (should be rare, not usual and intentional) I´d expact some effort from the finder to excuse him self and satisfy my need of a found proof. 

 

[LastMohawkians]

Yesterday my husband and I took the kids out and found our first ever geocache. I'm familiar with it all because my mom loved doing this.

It wasn't until we finally found it I realised we didnt have a pen, so I took a pic. But once at home logging it, I realised I was so excited I took the pic of the container And spot! Opps... but that's why I'm here reading up, to learn some geocaching etiquette.

Like real life, some people are jerks, even in games ? if it makes you feel bad maybe add some directions in there for newbies and jerks to help everyone in the right direction.

[+grimpil]

>>>When I play Ludo with others, and I roll the dice, and predent to have a six each and every time I roll the dice, no matter what I really rolled. Would it be fun for the others, for the co-players to play with me? No? Hey why, c´mon, it´s just a game.

I as a owner put efforts in setting up and maintaining a cache. I´d like to see this effort respected. Respected by logging it propperly. No over expectations, just sign that dang thing mannerly<<<

 

If some people think it is not essential to have a pen & sign the log or to provide some proof of finding a cache then what is the incentive to actually find it?  If I go off on a walk & along that walk there are a dozen caches which I shall pass close by then why not just log them as "did not have a pen" simply because I know I was within yards of them but cannot be bothered actually locating them.  Will this give me satisfaction?  No.  Will it give the CO satisfaction? Possibly, possibly not, judging by comments made here.  But it is a very odd way to play the game, as illustrated by the Ludo scenario from DerDiedler.  There is someone in my area logging lots of local caches as "sorry - no pen to sign".  I strongly suspect they are an armchair cacher & I just find it bizarre as I cannot understand what satisfaction they get?  

 

Many COs have expressed a view that they really don't mind unsigned logs but I wish just one person who is caching this way would explain what they feel they achieve.  Getting my name on that bit of paper is the main point of the game for me.  Perhaps I am not seeing the real nature of the game?  Or perhaps I should be logging as found all the caches that belong to those COs that say they really don't feel a necessity for the log to be signed.  I could up my count very quickly just sitting in the comfort of home & perhaps even bag a few country badges along the way!!  

[+MartyBartfast]

1 hour ago, grimpil said:

 

Many COs have expressed a view that they really don't mind unsigned logs but I wish just one person who is caching this way would explain what they feel they achieve.  Getting my name on that bit of paper is the main point of the game for me.  Perhaps I am not seeing the real nature of the game? 

 

If this is true, then I think this is genuinely the saddest thing I have ever read about Geocaching.

What do I feel I achieve from caching? Well for a start it's not primarily about achieving anything, it's about:

 

• Having a peaceful walk in the countryside.
• Seeing some great views.
• Having an exciting tree climb.
• Having a peaceful paddle along a river.
• Getting my heart rate up by crawling into a drain/culvert/tunnel.
• Visiting an interesting historic site.
• Finding somewhere I might otherwise have never found.
• Searching for and successfully finding (hopefully) something someone chose to hide from me.

 

None of the above "achievements" will be diminished in the slightest if, on occasion, I don't manage to scrawl my name on a bit of paper, that the CO is unlikely to ever look at, and even if they do there's a good chance that it would have got wet, or worn, and faded so much that my name would be illegible anyway.

 

If "Getting my name on that bit of paper is the main point of the game" for you  then I think you are not seeing the real nature of the game*.


*: I use game in the sense of "An activity that one engages in for amusement or fun." and not " A form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules." because Geocaching is not intrinsically competitive, though some choose to make it so.

Edited February 7, 2019 by MartyBartfast

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, grimpil said:

If some people think it is not essential to have a pen & sign the log or to provide some proof of finding a cache then what is the incentive to actually find it? 

 

Curious, what's the incentive for you, as you seem to suggest that the incentive is simply a smiley. 

For me, the incentive would be to visit that (hopefully...) awesome area, unique location, or  task needing to be accomplished (a high climb, or long paddle-to for example).

To be clear, I even keep a space bullet pen refill in my wallet, so I'm never without a writing instrument...

The only reason I log online is to remove the cache from future searches. I've signed the logs on hundreds of caches, but never logged them online.

 -  One batch was to show a pesky CO that yes, I did see their hides, just that it's rare that I'd log numerous nondescript "placed on my way to..." hides that simply lead to the cache that even they strived for. 

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by cerberus1
erasification :)

[+grimpil]

>>>>Curious, what's the incentive for you, as you seem to suggest that the incentive is simply a smiley<<<<<

 

I don't give a monkeys about the number of smileys.  Is anyone interested in how many I got? Why would they be?  All they do is remind ME of places I have visited & when.  Surely it is the people who don't sign the log but post a "found it" online are the ones concerned with how many smilies they achieved.  I do see many instances where it seems to be a competiiton as to who can get the most.  If someone gets 300 caches in 24 hours am I supposed to be impressed?  Sadly not - I  just wonder what they missed along the way!

 

The point of geocaching for me is to find the cache & sign the log.  BUT I don't go out just to look for caches.  They are an added extra to my other activity, not the activity per se.  I go out for long walks mainly the objective of which is to enjoy the countryside, the views, interesting places etc etc.  Or I visit particular places like parks, gardens, historic monuments, churches.  Any caches in the locality are just a bonus, liking hoping to see a deer, an unusual flower, a mushroom etc along the way.  Even the point of discovering a nice pub en route is to enjoy a pint of real ale.  But I didn't just go out & head for a watering hole as an objective in itself.  I have no interest in power trails, drive bys, racking up record numbers in 24 hours etc etc.  However if I have spent a few minutes solving the riddle of the hiding place then leaving my name on the bit of paper it is a satisfying bonus on the day - like sinking that pint, smelling that flower or eating that mushroom.  Geocaching in isolation is pretty pointless!

 

[+funkymunkyzone]

16 hours ago, DerDiedler said:

When I play Ludo with others, and I roll the dice, and predent to have a six each and every time I roll the dice, no matter what I really rolled. Would it be fun for the others, for the co-players to play with me? No? Hey why, c´mon, it´s just a game.

 

 

I must admit I loled at this.  I like you're example, it's funny, but really, it bears no resemblence to geocaching at all.  Firstly the creators of the Ludo game, the manufacturer, the shop where you bought it (the CO in effect) don't care at all how you play it.  And as for the other players, in Ludo if you cheat, you directly affect their enjoyment of the game because you make them lose.  But in geocaching, if you claim a find when you didn't actually find it, you don't affect other players and you don't make them lose anything.

And please don't try and bring up extreme edge cases like a false find on a cache that's not there might make another player look for it for longer - we all look for caches for however long we choose, and caches can go missing any time.

[+DerDiedler]

5 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

I must admit I loled at this.  I like you're example, it's funny, but really, it bears no resemblence to geocaching at all.  Firstly the creators of the Ludo game, the manufacturer, the shop where you bought it (the CO in effect) don't care at all how you play it.  And as for the other players, in Ludo if you cheat, you directly affect their enjoyment of the game because you make them lose.  But in geocaching, if you claim a find when you didn't actually find it, you don't affect other players and you don't make them lose anything.

 

Yea, I know. It´s not the same. And I´m glad it worked out to be a little bit funny

In you comparison I´d see more Groundspeak as the shop owner who don´t (and can´t) care much. And the CO as a co-player.

For me the difference in Geocaching an Ludo is not that huge in the core. One is playing intentionally false, the other one feels cheated. That´s the crux of this matter. And thereby naturally one effects the other. A CO might not lose a game that way, but maybe a tiny little bit of dignitiy and will to play on.

 

 

 

[+on4bam]

9 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

But in geocaching, if you claim a find when you didn't actually find it, you don't affect other players and you don't make them lose anything. 

That's where you are wrong.

I've seen cheaters make a CO archive caches. I've written it here before but for a holiday "down under" (looking from "up here") I was working on a few old (2000-2001) caches in Melbourne. One was very difficult to  solve for a non-Aussie and after many hours I finally found the correct answers. A few weeks before we were to travel the CO archived the lot because of the constant stream of fake loggers (you know, "greetings from..."). Don't affect other players, you say? Don't make them lose anything? Think again.

 

 

[+on4bam]

Oh, and by the way, don't blame this on the CO that archived his/her caches. It's solely the cheater's fault.

 

[+eigengott]

13 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

if you claim a find when you didn't actually find it, you don't affect other players

 

My players opinion: This is plain wrong.

 

- the owner does get false info about the well being of his cache

- other players get false info about the well being if the cache

- other players might get misleading info about how hard/easy it is to find the cache

- other players might get misleading info about accessibility of the cache (think of  a cache covered in lots of snow)

- land managers might get misleading info on how often the cache is found

- etc.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, eigengott said:

- land managers might get misleading info on how often the cache is found

 

I might add:

- land managers might get info about the honesty and integrity of those that play the game that could negatively impact their decision to allow the game to be played on land they manage

[+Goldenwattle]

I have just checked a log after a couple of years. (Cache and log were still good with plenty of room left on the log.) I couldn't find four signatures. Another person who did sign wrote they found the cache with one of the non-signers and another of the non-signers said they dropped a TB *. I checked the TB and they did drop it into this cache and another person who signed the log picked up the TB from this cache a few days later. So I accepted the proof that both of those had actually visited the cache; even though they didn't sign. That left two others. I sent a message to each of them and a photograph of the log asking them to please point out their signatures. One (a beginner of only 2 finds) replied in minutes there hadn't been a pen there. I asked for a description of the cache (the way it's hidden is very unusual) and a very good description came back minutes later. I accepted the log, and wished them happy caching. They replied they would go sign the log anyway. (But whether they do or not I have accepted that log.) I haven't heard from the other yet and as they didn't respond to another message I sent them, I imagine in a couple of weeks time I will delete their log.

The beginner who responded quickly, I do believe their mistake in thinking they would find a pen there was genuine. Maybe now they will know to bring their own pen.

 

* This was a lucky TB to be released by this person, as checking their TB list, most TBs they pick up have never been seen again.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Goldenwattle
typo

[+barefootjeff]

All my caches have pencils in them and so far I've yet to have anyone claim they couldn't sign the log because they didn't have a pen (with one exception, see below). A stationery chain here sells stubby little pencils in boxes of 50, which will fit comfortably inside the smallest Sistema container, and I always carry a few with me when doing cache checks in case one's gone missing or been broken.

 

 

The exception I mentioned was the very first finder of my very first cache, who posted a note to say he'd found it but forgot to bring a pen so went back home to get one. While he was doing that, someone else arrived to claim FTF. When the original finder returned, he wasn't amused to see someone else's name in the log, until he checked the photo he'd taken on his first visit. This is what he said in his eventual Found It log:

 

Quote

Ok I don't feel stupid at all !
I went home to get a pen and returned to find it already signed - and a pencil in the plastic bag with the log book
Checked the pictures I took before and yep. There is the pencil staring at me 8•|
Gutted

 

This brings back memories of when we used to have enough cachers around here to have FTF races - the cache was published at 5:47pm and had six finders that evening. These days I'm lucky to get any finders at all in the first week of a cache being published.

[+Goldenwattle]

24 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

This brings back memories of when we used to have enough cachers around here to have FTF races - the cache was published at 5:47pm and had six finders that evening. These days I'm lucky to get any finders at all in the first week of a cache being published.

Here there is serious competition for FTF. I have given up trying, unless it's very close to where I live, and even then I have been beaten.

I was thrilled on a visit to the coast when I found a mini power trail of about eight caches had not been logged yet...a week after they were published . I have also found a few in country towns a week or two after publication still waiting for FTFs.That wouldn't happen in Canberra. Anyway, I made my way from one to the next and got FTFs on all of them .

Edited February 11, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Here there is serious competition for FTF. I have given up trying, unless it's very close to where I live, and even then I have been beaten.

I was thrilled on a visit to the coast when I found a mini power trail of about eight caches had not been logged yet...a week after they were published . I have also found a few in country towns a week or two after publication still waiting for FTFs.That wouldn't happen in Canberra. Anyway, I made my way from one to the next and got FTFs on all of them .

 

My most recent hide, GC7YP51, a D1.5/T3 traditional, went for three days before someone drove up from Sydney to claim FTF. It then sat forgotten for another month before a couple of locals went out to do it. That was in mid November, then the next and last find was in late January by someone from Sydney who went past while hiking the Great North Walk. They all awarded FPs to it so I must be doing something right, and I gave it a plug on the local FB group just after it was published, but it seems no-one else is interested. It even has a pencil in it so you can forget your pen with impunity!

[+funkymunkyzone]

On 2/9/2019 at 1:35 AM, on4bam said:

Oh, and by the way, don't blame this on the CO that archived his/her caches. It's solely the cheater's fault.

 

 

Um yeah.  Ok, well I'm going to have to side with reality on this one.  Only the CO can hit the archive button.

[+funkymunkyzone]

On 2/9/2019 at 3:25 AM, eigengott said:

 

My players opinion: This is plain wrong.

 

- the owner does get false info about the well being of his cache

- other players get false info about the well being if the cache

- other players might get misleading info about how hard/easy it is to find the cache

- other players might get misleading info about accessibility of the cache (think of  a cache covered in lots of snow)

- land managers might get misleading info on how often the cache is found

- etc.

 

It's the CO's job to police the logs on the cache.  And finders should go looking for caches, and if they need to look at other players' logs, then they have to realise that other players might be cheating themselves and lying.  I've seen people intentionally say easy find for a really long hard find (yes they did find it)... so what?

 

I'll just have to agree to disagree with the pitchfork and burning torch bearing crowd.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

7 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

easy find

I have stopped saying that now. That's what beginners write when they make a lucky find, but aren't experienced enough to know the difference. I say quick find now instead, because that doesn't mean it was an easy find, only that I (lucky or otherwise) found it quickly. However, I mostly expand on that and say more.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+barefootjeff]

Yesterday I received this log on a cache I adopted last year, located in one of northern Sydney's tourist hotspots:

 

Quote

Found it

06/04/2019

Great spot. Coords exactly right. No pen but can send photo.

 

What was puzzling was that all my caches have pencils in them, so I thought I'd better go and check this morning. Sure enough, not only was there a pencil tucked in alongside the logbook in its baggie, there was also a second pencil and a sharpener. It even says in the description that there's a pencil in the container. Not sure whether it's a brazenly optimistic armchair logger or an extraordinarily unobservant (and forgetful) finder.

 

 

[+allrounder]

They posted the same on another cache

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

armchair logger

That!

 

It's always good to check what else they log. One I checked was continuously forgetting or dropping pens. I imagine I likely delete them.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+TriciaG]

11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Yesterday I received this log on a cache I adopted last year, located in one of northern Sydney's tourist hotspots:

 

 

What was puzzling was that all my caches have pencils in them, so I thought I'd better go and check this morning. Sure enough, not only was there a pencil tucked in alongside the logbook in its baggie, there was also a second pencil and a sharpener. It even says in the description that there's a pencil in the container. Not sure whether it's a brazenly optimistic armchair logger or an extraordinarily unobservant (and forgetful) finder.

 

Did you ask them to send the photo? It would be interesting to see what they send (if anything).

Edited April 7, 2019 by TriciaG

[+cerberus1]

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

What was puzzling was that all my caches have pencils in them, so I thought I'd better go and check this morning. Sure enough, not only was there a pencil tucked in alongside the logbook in its baggie, there was also a second pencil and a sharpener.

 

You're lucky.         

We have noticed that pencils in smaller caches here stay longer than caches with room, like ammo cans, for some weird reason.

 -  Like maybe they think smalls are supposed to have them

Here, we always place a couple new pencils, maybe a pen, and throw in a couple cheapy sharpeners too every  maintenance.

By next maintenance every pen, pencil and sharpener is gone.   Guess it's for that "no pen" on the next they find...

After a "no pen in cache" log once  in the end of Spring, I wrote that "If folks would stop taking them, they'd be there".

A  (expletives deleted) wrote in their log that they put an entire pack of pencils in the container, and "that should satisfy the CO !".

Wasn't my problem,  but every one was gone before Summer's end. 

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, TriciaG said:

Did you ask them to send the photo? It would be interesting to see what they send (if anything).

 

Yes, they responded to the message I sent them, saying they weren't expecting to do any caching when they left home so didn't take a pen and, when they found the cache, just assumed they wouldn't be able to sign the log so didn't open it. They provided a photo of the container in its hiding place so it seems legit even if a bit odd.

[+DerDiedler]

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yes, they responded to the message I sent them, saying they weren't expecting to do any caching when they left home so didn't take a pen and, when they found the cache, just assumed they wouldn't be able to sign the log so didn't open it. They provided a photo of the container in its hiding place so it seems legit even if a bit odd.

hmmmm, you still could delete the log in accordance with the guidelines. But now, with the given information, this would be odd too. I´d leave it like that. No one needs a odd/odd situation here

[+wmpastor]

The odd/odd situation here is that cachers without a pen continue to be perplexed about their "inability" to sign logs.  This is due either to lack of imagination or to an overly-restrictive view of what constitutes "signing," or both.

 

A physical mark intended as a signature *is* a signature.  Use of a pen is not necessary.  In past threads I've included photos of a couple of my signatures where I used a blade of grass and a key.  Other inventive ideas have also been suggested before.

 

Of course, an unusual technique like these may be overlooked or disrgarded.  The wise thing to do is to attach a photo of your improvised signature to the online log, or if that isn't possible, then at least mention in the online log what you did in the physical log.