Could delete some 'found it' logs, but SHOULD I?

[+Korichnovui]

Hey everyone,

 

Relatively new cacher here. I've done a fair amount of finding, at this point, but some CO experiences are still rather new to me.

 

Today I checked on one of my caches that had a DNF. It was still present and accounted for, but I noticed that 2 of the "found it" logs online did not have corresponding signatures on the log. Now, I know that it would be within my rights to delete those 'found it' logs but it's not something I've done before, and I wanted to get some insight and advice from you all. To be honest, I'm a little torn on how to proceed. I appreciate following the rules for the sake of the integrity of the game/hobby/whatever, but I'm also concerned about being off-putting.

 

Some more details about the incident:

*The cache is a magnetic nano, the ones with the reeeeally annoying tiny rolled up log that takes forever to roll back up.

*One of the finders in question is a new cacher with < 100 finds total.

*I don't know either cacher at all.

 

PROS

Maintains the integrity of the game, sets a standard, it's just the rules

 

CONS

Possibly develop a negative reputation, possibly offend someone out of the hobby, possibly make an enemy??

 

After thinking about this on my own for a bit, I'm inclined to reach out to the 2 finders via message in a friendly manner to ask why they didn't sign the log. This will have the added effect of creating a record (in my message center) of what happened with these finders, so that if it happens again I can see that they are repeat offenders, which may change my views on how to proceed.

 

What do you think? Also, what good or bad consequences have ensued from you deleting 'found it' logs?

[+L0ne.R]

Boy oh boy. I'm impressed that a button nano owner looks and compares the logs. 

LIke you I feel awkward about deleting logs. 

I once noted in my OM log that 2 of the previous finders before my OM visit, hadn't signed the paper log. It was possible that they found something else near my cache, so I noted that possibility and I'm keeping an eye on it and the logs that come through. 

[+cerberus1]

We never met a nano owner that checks logs.  I imagine you did look at both sides, and/or the ends, right ?

 - We know a lot of people that won't unravel the whole thing...

Kinda easy for me maybe (C1),  but always wonder how some can really decipher names from a tiny, often damp and smearing,  paper strip  

 

You don't mention the D/T.   If it bugged me enough, I might mail who I thought didn't sign the log.

Our last remaining low D/T micro (and first cache),  we're a bit more lenient with logging and new folks. 

Where it is, we look at that one more as an introduction to the hobby than a rigid requirement for a smiley.

 - If a log shows that the person had no clue of what the hobby entails, we'll probably send a mail with links.  

[+Korichnovui]

Yes, I'm not the biggest fan of the nano containers but it really was the best option I could think of for this particular location. It's at the top of a significant hike up a hill. No other geocaches are on the hill because there are strict rules about staying on the path and not messing up the area. I had to get special permission to put this on a park bench at the top of the hill. I was going to use a larger magnetic container but I discovered that it was just too big to be nicely compatible with the structure of the bench. I didn't want to do a "rock pile" or something nearby.

 

It's a newer cache at the end of an uphill hike, so not too many people have gotten it yet, so it was 100% clear on the log who has signed, and who has not.

 

The D/T is rated at 1.5/3. I could see being more stringent about deleting logs on higher difficulty caches, that makes sense to me. This one isn't meant to be real tough, just meant to be a little reward or extra incentive for hiking the hill in the first place. And with that said, I feel reasonably sure that both of the loggers in question did actually do the hike.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Korichnovui

[+coachstahly]

Technically, you're in your rights to delete their found logs.  No signature, no online found it log.  As the others have mentioned, did you thoroughly check both sides?  Nano logs are certainly annoying to unroll and replace and oftentimes (on my few nanos that are out) I need to unroll it all the way and check both sides for verification.  That being said, I'd certainly contact the finders to see why they claimed the find despite not signing the log.  Occasionally, that right there gets them to delete their find.  Otherwise, I'd let them know that you're contemplating deleting their finds because you can't verify their signature on the log.  Ask them to describe where they found it and what they found.  That way you'll know if it's a throwdown (because it doesn't accurately describe what you hid) or if they're just winging it and hoping to armchair log a find.  You could let it slide but then you might get the reputation that you're a "forgiving" CO and more likely to overlook finds that are questionable.  You could also delete the logs and possibly get the reputation of a CO who follows things to the letter of the law.

 

Your most recent post came through and it's hard to figure out why they'd go on that hike, find the cache and then not sign the log.  If you believe they did the hike and for whatever reason, opted not to sign the log but they did find the cache, then I'd go with your gut instinct.

[+TriciaG]

I'd probably send them a nice message, saying you noticed that they hadn't signed the log. "I realize a lot of people don't like to get the log out of a small cache container. But I would like to verify that you found the cache. Would you please tell me how it was hidden, or what the cache container looked like?"

[+barefootjeff]

13 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

I'd probably send them a nice message, saying you noticed that they hadn't signed the log. "I realize a lot of people don't like to get the log out of a small cache container. But I would like to verify that you found the cache. Would you please tell me how it was hidden, or what the cache container looked like?"

 

That's my approach too. Usually either they have an acceptable explanation for the lack of a signature or it turns out to be a mistaken log that was meant to be a DNF (the log type defaulting to Found It on the website is a cause of many of these situations). It's usually only when there's been no response after several weeks to both the Message Centre and email requests that I'll delete the log.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

47 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

I'd probably send them a nice message, saying you noticed that they hadn't signed the log. "I realize a lot of people don't like to get the log out of a small cache container. But I would like to verify that you found the cache. Would you please tell me how it was hidden, or what the cache container looked like?"

 

I'd probably go this route as well. However, I would also be very understanding if the person couldn't recall the cache. Memory is a funny thing. Obviously, the really cool and memorable caches, I can remember those pretty well for years after the find. But, I've found plenty of "ordinary" caches in ordinary locations and I can still recall finding them. I may not have the exact details correct every time, but I can still picture them in my mind.

 

Other caches, I forget five minutes after I walk away from them and really struggle to write a log for them just because they're a hole in my memory.

 

Honestly, I would message them and unless they gave some completely wacky answer that all but screamed that they never actually found the cache, I'd let it go. Unless it's an obvious case of someone armchair logging, I don't want to take away a find from someone who found the cache but for whatever reason didn't sign the log.

 

Now me personally, I don't even open nano caches. I just take a picture with it in my hand and note it in my find log that I didn't sign the log but took a photo if the owner needs proof. To date, I haven't had a single CO ask for that proof.

[+colleda]

2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Technically, you're in your rights to delete their found logs.  No signature, no online found it log.  As the others have mentioned, did you thoroughly check both sides?  Nano logs are certainly annoying to unroll and replace and oftentimes (on my few nanos that are out) I need to unroll it all the way and check both sides for verification.  That being said, I'd certainly contact the finders to see why they claimed the find despite not signing the log.  Occasionally, that right there gets them to delete their find.  Otherwise, I'd let them know that you're contemplating deleting their finds because you can't verify their signature on the log.  Ask them to describe where they found it and what they found.  That way you'll know if it's a throwdown (because it doesn't accurately describe what you hid) or if they're just winging it and hoping to armchair log a find.  You could let it slide but then you might get the reputation that you're a "forgiving" CO and more likely to overlook finds that are questionable.  You could also delete the logs and possibly get the reputation of a CO who follows things to the letter of the law.

 

 

Totally agree with this course of action. Good advice.

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

PROS

Maintains the integrity of the game, sets a standard, it's just the rules

No, the rules really aren't important, so don't delete a log just because you think the rules have to be enforced. The reason to delete a log is because you know it's inaccurate. You don't really know whether these people found your cache or not. You might have missed their signature. They might have gotten distracted and forgot to sign. Whatever. Unless you have reasons beyond a missing signature to think the logs are lies, just accept them at face value and forget about it.

 

4 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

CONS

Possibly develop a negative reputation, possibly offend someone out of the hobby, possibly make an enemy??

On the other hand, if you're convinced the log is inaccurate, delete the log. As long as you're nice about it and explain why you're doing it, you won't offend anyone and your reputation will be unsullied.

 

4 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

After thinking about this on my own for a bit, I'm inclined to reach out to the 2 finders via message in a friendly manner to ask why they didn't sign the log.

Sure, if you're curious. There's nothing wrong with talking to someone that's filed a log on your cache. Just don't accuse them....

 

4 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

This will have the added effect of creating a record (in my message center) of what happened with these finders, so that if it happens again I can see that they are repeat offenders, which may change my views on how to proceed.

...and try to have an open mind.

[+bflentje]

Delete if you have to. Just make darn sure you're certain you're able to line up the paper with online. Depending on the state of the log, I may sign my name, in order or out of order, using any one of the following: bflentje, bartflentje, bart, bf, and sometimes b (think nano). If you delete my log because you deem my signature inappropriate well then I'll have a backup photograph to take with me to appeals.

[+MegaGengar]

I’ve recently deleted 2 logs, both by relatively new cachers of my “small” 2/1.5 cache. I make it very clear on ALL of my cache pages (including one of a nano) that signing the log is a MUST or I will delete their log. 
 

for the logs, I checked the cache and noticed it was missing 2 signatures. I checked everywhere, front and back. It’s accessible easily without any TOTT. I contacted both cachers to no response after a week, so I deleted their logs. Got no message back. 
 

For me, I am very strict about deleting logs and make it clear on my cache page. I know that it’s on the cachers if they want to do armchair logs, but my philosophy is not on my caches at least. I feel like they ruin the game by doing so and am doing everything in my power to prevent it.
 

Yes, I may make an enemy, which would be unfortunate, but I wouldn’t want to be friends with someone who writes bogus logs. Plus, I ALWAYS contact them and wait at least a week. I normally phrase the message like “I noticed you found my cache, xx (GC). When checking on it, I couldn’t find a signature—would you mind telling me what you signed the cache as because, as stated on my cache page, if you didn’t sign it I will, unfortunately, have to delete your log.” 

 

Of course, I realize that they may have signed as something else which is why I check the log throughly. All signatures were accounted for. A lot of the time, cachers, myself included, will add things like “signed as MG” in their log for clarity. I love it when others do it as it makes matching quite easy. 
 

note: sometimes I encounter logs that say they couldn’t sign the logbook because they forgot a pen and will be back to sign. To that, I don’t delete their log, but instead let them know that I’m planning to visit the cache on xx date and if it’s not signed by then I’ll delete their log. Other well known cachers write notes if they don’t have a pen. 
 

edit (for clarity): I don’t do the last paragraph anymore. Read my later response for more info. 

 

Edited October 1, 2019 by MegaGengar

[+MegaGengar]

On 9/17/2019 at 2:56 PM, Crow-T-Robot said:

 

I'd probably go this route as well. However, I would also be very understanding if the person couldn't recall the cache. Memory is a funny thing. Obviously, the really cool and memorable caches, I can remember those pretty well for years after the find. But, I've found plenty of "ordinary" caches in ordinary locations and I can still recall finding them. I may not have the exact details correct every time, but I can still picture them in my mind.

 

Other caches, I forget five minutes after I walk away from them and really struggle to write a log for them just because they're a hole in my memory.

 

Honestly, I would message them and unless they gave some completely wacky answer that all but screamed that they never actually found the cache, I'd let it go. Unless it's an obvious case of someone armchair logging, I don't want to take away a find from someone who found the cache but for whatever reason didn't sign the log.

 

Now me personally, I don't even open nano caches. I just take a picture with it in my hand and note it in my find log that I didn't sign the log but took a photo if the owner needs proof. To date, I haven't had a single CO ask for that proof.

For me, I delete nano logs with no signature. I haven’t had to yet (probably because my one nano has a difficult puzzle attached so all cachers will likely have a tott kit) but I make it clear on my cache page that they MUST SIGN THE LOG (or else I’ll delete it) and that signing is part of the difficulty. This is partly because I would give nanos a higher D rating than, say, a well camoed amo can, because of the effort it takes to sign the log. 
 

I love finding nanoes because it is so satisfying to see all the signatures before me and sign it myself. I love using my tools to do so. If I’m out and want to cache but don’t have my kit with me, I will look for caches without a micro or unknown size. Then, I will scour the description and log to make sure I don’t need any tools and will make the find. 

[+kunarion]

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 3:16 PM, Korichnovui said:

What do you think? Also, what good or bad consequences have ensued from you deleting 'found it' logs?

 

The only "Found It" logs I've deleted so far are the duplicates.  Used to be that you could make a bunch in a row, especially with The App and a bad data signal (or whatever, never found out exactly what was going on).  I would write to the cacher to give them a heads-up, so they don't become concerned that I'm deleting a bunch of their logs.  And I'd give them time to fix it themselves.  It was a very one-way conversation.  Nobody cares.  So I deleted the extra logs.

 

Then there are the ones with the "Looked everywhere, did not find anything" automagic App default "Found It" logs... The "Only found a rusty bottle cap, so I stuffed a piece of paper in it, Found It Gimme A Point"... things like that... they are super annoying, now that you mention it.  Don't tempt me.

[+bflentje]

3 hours ago, MegaGengar said:

I’ve recently deleted 2 logs, both by relatively new cachers of my “small” 2/1.5 cache. I make it very clear on ALL of my cache pages (including one of a nano) that signing the log is a MUST or I will delete their log. 
 

for the logs, I checked the cache and noticed it was missing 2 signatures. I checked everywhere, front and back. It’s accessible easily without any TOTT. I contacted both cachers to no response after a week, so I deleted their logs. Got no message back. 
 

For me, I am very strict about deleting logs and make it clear on my cache page. I know that it’s on the cachers if they want to do armchair logs, but my philosophy is not on my caches at least. I feel like they ruin the game by doing so and am doing everything in my power to prevent it.
 

Yes, I may make an enemy, which would be unfortunate, but I wouldn’t want to be friends with someone who writes bogus logs. Plus, I ALWAYS contact them and wait at least a week. I normally phrase the message like “I noticed you found my cache, xx (GC). When checking on it, I couldn’t find a signature—would you mind telling me what you signed the cache as because, as stated on my cache page, if you didn’t sign it I will, unfortunately, have to delete your log.” 

 

Of course, I realize that they may have signed as something else which is why I check the log throughly. All signatures were accounted for. A lot of the time, cachers, myself included, will add things like “signed as MG” in their log for clarity. I love it when others do it as it makes matching quite easy. 
 

note: sometimes I encounter logs that say they couldn’t sign the logbook because they forgot a pen and will be back to sign. To that, I don’t delete their log, but instead let them know that I’m planning to visit the cache on xx date and if it’s not signed by then I’ll delete their log. Other well known cachers write notes if they don’t have a pen. 

 

 

I sign all of my finds one way or the other. But now that I know you get entertained by playing the game this way I would intentional walk past your caches.

[+MegaGengar]

53 minutes ago, bflentje said:

 

I sign all of my finds one way or the other. But now that I know you get entertained by playing the game this way I would intentional walk past your caches.

I mean if I contact them and they get back saying that they signed it a certain way I’m fine with it. 
 

about the last paragraph, I don’t do that anymore (should have made it more clear). Strangely, in that specific incident (happened once a few years ago) I found their signature when checking on it. I don’t get entertained by it at all rather it’s my way of trying to stop armchair logging. If I contact them and they get back saying they were there and they have SOME sort of proof or if they’re a well known positive cacher with or without proof I probably won’t delete it. I’m just trying to stop armchair logging. 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

15 hours ago, MegaGengar said:

I mean if I contact them and they get back saying that they signed it a certain way I’m fine with it. 
 

about the last paragraph, I don’t do that anymore (should have made it more clear). Strangely, in that specific incident (happened once a few years ago) I found their signature when checking on it. I don’t get entertained by it at all rather it’s my way of trying to stop armchair logging. If I contact them and they get back saying they were there and they have SOME sort of proof or if they’re a well known positive cacher with or without proof I probably won’t delete it. I’m just trying to stop armchair logging. 

 

How is that working out for you?   While there may be some cache owners that are strict about signing the physical log (no exceptions), most COs don't compare physical logs to the online log.  Armchair cachers know this so they'll continue to try and (and will) get away with claiming a find a cache they have never visited.  

[+Korichnovui]

Thank you so much for your input and food for thought in this matter. I am digesting it all!

So I sent polite inquiries. One of the people eventually got back to me and expressed surprise that I was being a diligent CO. He said the hike had been spontaneous and neither he or his friends had brought a pen.

The other cacher has not gotten back to me. He appears to be very "green".

[+Goldenwattle]

On 10/2/2019 at 8:50 PM, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

How is that working out for you?   While there may be some cache owners that are strict about signing the physical log (no exceptions), most COs don't compare physical logs to the online log.  Armchair cachers know this so they'll continue to try and (and will) get away with claiming a find a cache they have never visited.  

I compare physical logs to the online logs; after which I post a photograph of the physical log. If a signature is missing I contact the geocacher and ask them to please point out their signature on the log, as perhaps I missed seeing it. I did once miss seeing it. It that case I apologised for missing the signature. (Although if they had signed properly, rather than left a faint squiggle it would have been easier to spot.) Some never reply, so after giving them a couple of weeks it's delete. Others come back with some proof, which I usually accept if it's good enough, but do point out if they couldn't sign the log it's best to contact the CO before logging it. As I do, as I would feel it's impolite not to contact the CO first, and I've never had a log request knocked back after providing good proof I found it. I have only ever forgotten my pen about three times though. Some people seem to always forget their pens, or variation, lose it. I am now starting to check other logs of theirs, and if this happens log after log, I can no longer be bothered to contact them; I just delete. But reasonable people who contact me with proof, I accept their logs.

[+edexter]

(Goldenwattle (above) seems to follow the same procedure that I do...)

In my experience, the easier the cache is to find, the higher the likelihood of someone claiming a find who didn't actually sign the log.  Most of my caches are multis in the woods and whenever I replace a log and match up the names, they match.  On the opther end of the spectrum,  I have a silly LPC cache that gets found frequently and whenever I replace that log there are a number of people who didn't sign it.  (I guess when you find 50 of these in a day, you "forget" to sign some of them).  Anyway, I use a simple routine:  1, I contact everyone who didn't sign in, tell them about the descrprepancy and ask them about it.   2, I post a photo of the sign in log on my OM log showing all the signatures. 3,  I wait a week or so and then delete anyone who doesn't respond.  Those who do respond generally say "they forgot" to sign and either delete their own log or offer some explanation or evidence that they actually found the log (a photo, a description of the cache, etc.) and I ask them to add this to their found log.  I'm sympathetic with the "I forgot the pen crowd" as, I am often among them and substitutes are fine with me.  A few times folks have not responded, then relogged a find after I deleted the first one and then ignored my second email asking for an explanation, so I delete them again.  My reasoning is if you can't be bothered to sign a log in a cache that takes 15 seconds to find, open and sign, well, then "no soup for you!"  Ah well.

[+hzoi]

A little off topic, I'm a little tempted  (though of course I won't) to delete the copy/paste log I just  got, since it thanks someone else for hiding and maintaining the cache.  Uh...yeah, thanks.  You just made all that earthcache research totally worth it.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

A little off topic, I'm a little tempted  (though of course I won't) to delete the copy/paste log I just  got, since it thanks someone else for hiding and maintaining the cache.  Uh...yeah, thanks.  You just made all that earthcache research totally worth it.

At the very least, I'd send email asking them to verify that they logged the right cache, explaining that their log doesn't match the details of the cache.

[+Kezzza]

Hi, As a relative newbie, I think I would appreciate (as others have suggested) a message. I know there are a few caches that I haven't signed, simply because I forgot to take a pen with me. :-)

[+hzoi]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

4 hours ago, hzoi said:

A little off topic, I'm a little tempted  (though of course I won't) to delete the copy/paste log I just  got, since it thanks someone else for hiding and maintaining the cache.  Uh...yeah, thanks.  You just made all that earthcache research totally worth it.

At the very least, I'd send email asking them to verify that they logged the right cache, explaining that their log doesn't match the details of the cache.

They answered the logging questions correctly.  They just didn't pay attention to their copy/paste log.

[+niraD]

8 hours ago, hzoi said:

10 hours ago, niraD said:

12 hours ago, hzoi said:

A little off topic, I'm a little tempted  (though of course I won't) to delete the copy/paste log I just  got, since it thanks someone else for hiding and maintaining the cache.  Uh...yeah, thanks.  You just made all that earthcache research totally worth it.

At the very least, I'd send email asking them to verify that they logged the right cache, explaining that their log doesn't match the details of the cache.

They answered the logging questions correctly.  They just didn't pay attention to their copy/paste log.

I think I'd still send them email, pointing out that they seem to have posted their log for some other cache to my EC.

[+dprovan]

On 10/10/2019 at 9:33 AM, niraD said:

I think I'd still send them email, pointing out that they seem to have posted their log for some other cache to my EC.

From what hzoi describes, it wasn't a log for some other cache, it was a generic log posted to all caches found that day. Like hzoi, I wouldn't really do anything, but I'd think about "innocently" pretending I thought it was a mistake and deleting the "obviously erroneous" log "for them".

[+spacemule]

I have placed a few caches.  I have never checked the logs.  If someone gets their rocks off by cheating in a game like geocaching, I'll let them.  It makes no sense to me, but it doesn't hurt me either.  I view my find record as worth nothing to anyone but myself.  It's not a competition.  I put caches out for people to have fun finding them.  I have no interest in policing the way they play the game.  Just seems overly negative to me and not the reason I play.   But to each their own.

[+colleda]

Would you not be ticked off after going to all the trouble of finding a suitable, container and a nice spot to showcase  only to have people log a find from their armchair? Presumably you check the online logs? Word gets around "Hey, spacemule doesn't check logs. Yippee, don't have to waste any gas looking for theirs".

[+kunarion]

8 minutes ago, colleda said:

Would you not be ticked off after going to all the trouble of finding a suitable, container and a nice spot to showcase  only to have people log a find from their armchair? Presumably you check the online logs? Word gets around "Hey, spacemule doesn't check logs. Yippee, don't have to waste any gas looking for theirs".

Not only that, but real Geocachers could waste gas looking for a cache that was NOT in fact found.  Is it even there?  It’s especially annoying when it’s a tricky one that I’ve been waiting to see a Find on, before I go after it.
 

I don’t mind if someone such as a CO points out a cache I didn’t sign.   I sometimes make a mistake, and I like my stats accurate.  If I didn’t sign it, it was likely a different cache I found.  It may not hurt the CO if he doesn’t check logs, but it might help me if he did.

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by kunarion

[+spacemule]

7 minutes ago, colleda said:

Would you not be ticked off after going to all the trouble of finding a suitable, container and a nice spot to showcase  only to have people log a find from their armchair? Presumably you check the online logs? Word gets around "Hey, spacemule doesn't check logs. Yippee, don't have to waste any gas looking for theirs".

Cheaters are going to cheat anyway.  I like to think the vast majority of people in this hobby actually like to find the hides.  Why would a person even be a geocacher if they wanted to sit on their couch and fake it?  It seems foreign to me.  I can guarantee you there isn't a bunch of people sitting around researching the finds they can fake without being called on it.

[+colleda]

5 minutes ago, spacemule said:

Cheaters are going to cheat anyway.  I like to think the vast majority of people in this hobby actually like to find the hides.  Why would a person even be a geocacher if they wanted to sit on their couch and fake it?  It seems foreign to me.  I can guarantee you there isn't a bunch of people sitting around researching the finds they can fake without being called on it.

Ever hear of the "broken window" effect?

[+Goldenwattle]

Just now, spacemule said:

Cheaters are going to cheat anyway.  I like to think the vast majority of people in this hobby actually like to find the hides.  Why would a person even be a geocacher if they wanted to sit on their couch and fake it?  It seems foreign to me.  I can guarantee you there isn't a bunch of people sitting around researching the finds they can fake without being called on it.

There are armchair loggers out there, and some write very realistic logs. See the attached image. They are not all only, "TFTC."

These ones got caught out for this log, because this multicache involves travel in three states and an overnight boat ride to Tasmania.GC2TR90

I deleted their logs from four of my caches.

Added: They did finally 'hide' a cache. No one was able to find it. I believe it was as 'real' as their 'finds'.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+CAVinoGal]

2 hours ago, kunarion said:

I don’t mind if someone such as a CO points out a cache I didn’t sign.   I sometimes make a mistake, and I like my stats accurate.  If I didn’t sign it, it was likely a different cache I found.  It may not hurt the CO if he doesn’t check logs, but it might help me if he did.

 

 

We all play this game our own way, and how I play may or may not have any effect on you, specifically.  But I think that how I play DOES effect other cachers in my local area, and visitors passing through.  I sign the logs I am claiming online, and if I can't sign the log, it goes down as a write note or a DNF.  And Yes, I do check logsheets and caches on my hides after there have been a few finds, just to ensure the cache is hidden as I intended, as caches tend to migrate....  and if there's a DNF, I'll check it out as soon as it's feasible to assure myself, and other cachers, that it's still in place and findable.

 

Fortunately, I haven't run into bogus logs yet that I am aware of.  I know most of the cachers who have found mine ( and hubby's, and a few of my son's that we are monitoring), and they are genuine finders!  

 

IF I ever some across a questionable online log, I would likely try and contact the person who logged it, and tactfully question them to see if they did, indeed, find it or not.  And I don't mind CO's questioning me about any of my finds - I know I found them and will do my best to prove it to the CO if there is ever a question.  I've also had other cachers contact me about some particularly tricky hides/puzzles that I have managed to log as a find, wanting details.  I'll give what I can without giving away the solution or hiding spot, and left them to figure it out as I did. 

 

And I've even had CO's contact me after a DNF telling me to log a find anyway - once we did (log the find without signing a log after finding "remnants" of the cache, confirmed by the CO), other times we waited till we could actually sign a log once the cache was replaced.  The one we claimed with CO permission went several months with finds in the same vein - (found attachment device but no container) before someone (NOT THE CO!) finally replaced the container.  In hindsight, I should have left that as a DNF until the CO replaced it as she said she would.  But it's done...and I'm rambling.

 

Back to the OP and the original question - as a CO it's entirely up to you how you handle this - if this is a one-off - just let it go.  If it continuously happens, then get more aggressive and delete obviously bogus logs.

 

[+cerberus1]

4 hours ago, spacemule said:

  I like to think the vast majority of people in this hobby actually like to find the hides. 

Why would a person even be a geocacher if they wanted to sit on their couch and fake it?  It seems foreign to me. 

I can guarantee you there isn't a bunch of people sitting around researching the finds they can fake without being called on it.

 

I agree, the majority of cachers find caches by guidelines.

But I wouldn't guarantee a thing.       

Many of us have seen enough "Greetings from [you know the country...]" logs to know you'd lose that bet. 

When third-party sites were created for stats,  you need "points" to play that game.

Add in that some "discover"  trackables many times over  hides they've found, and you can see that it's a bit more than "a bunch".

[+dprovan]

17 hours ago, colleda said:

Ever hear of the "broken window" effect?

Broken windows are obvious. If enough cheating is going on that people notice, then I concede you point. I think the original point was a CO saying they don't run out all the time just to make sure that, unbeknownst to anyone, some individual filed a false find. No chance of the broken window effect there.

 

If a problem is obvious, then of course the CO should take action, and if he doesn't, someone else should.