Tick Box

[+Clongo_Rongo]

Would this be a good 'New Requirement' ? 

 

I was wondering, when you log a cache as found, you have to click the box to say 'YES'  I signed the log - as per guidelines to claim the find

 

This would reduce the no pen/logs photo attached and also make caches aware of the importance of signing the log.

 

if you click on 'No' you can explain the reason and this will let the CO know for him to decide to approve or not ?

 

 

 

 

[+lee737]

I'm just going to record my vote as 'no thanks', and leave it at that.

 

Edited November 3, 2019 by lee737

[+niraD]

I think it would just become another checkbox that everyone checks automatically, with no thought given to it at all. Just like all the "I agree" checkboxes that people select automatically when installing software,

[+L0ne.R]

12 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

Would this be a good 'New Requirement' ? 

 

I was wondering, when you log a cache as found, you have to click the box to say 'YES'  I signed the log - as per guidelines to claim the find

 

This would reduce the no pen/logs photo attached and also make caches aware of the importance of signing the log.

 

if you click on 'No' you can explain the reason and this will let the CO know for him to decide to approve or not ?

 

 

 

 

What will we do about group caching, where only one person signs for everyone? 

[+Max and 99]

16 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

Would this be a good 'New Requirement' ? 

 

I was wondering, when you log a cache as found, you have to click the box to say 'YES'  I signed the log - as per guidelines to claim the find

 

This would reduce the no pen/logs photo attached and also make caches aware of the importance of signing the log.

 

if you click on 'No' you can explain the reason and this will let the CO know for him to decide to approve or not ?

 

 

 

 

I don't think that will work.

[+arisoft]

34 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

This would reduce the no pen/logs photo attached and also make caches aware of the importance of signing the log.

 

The best way to reduce these is to delete all of them.

 

What we need is a canned explanation sent with the deletion message. The system can translate the canned message according to the player's language settings.

 

I don't understand why we have a such message when we delete a photo but  nothing when we delete a log.

[+Clongo_Rongo]

32 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

What will we do about group caching, where only one person signs for everyone? 

It will depend on if the CO has placed a cache with a high D rating and wants everyone to get it or not , eg up a tree, if one climbs it, should 10 people below log it ?

 

[+barefootjeff]

Just leave a pencil in your caches, then no-one will have the forgot-my-pen excuse.

[+kunarion]

43 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Just leave a pencil in your caches, then no-one will have the forgot-my-pen excuse.

 

Wellll…. maybe .  Here's log on a cache of mine that had at least three working pens inside:

 

"Unfortunately, my pen was still packed in my carry-on bag but I'll make it a point to return to officially put my ink on the log."

 

I then placed a couple of pencils in addition to the pens.

[+barefootjeff]

31 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

Wellll…. maybe .  Here's log on a cache of mine that had at least three working pens inside:

 

"Unfortunately, my pen was still packed in my carry-on bag but I'll make it a point to return to officially put my ink on the log."

 

I then placed a couple of pencils in addition to the pens.

 

Yep, I've had one of those too. They knew they didn't have a pen with them so didn't even open the container to see if there might be a writing stick inside (there were two). You can lead a horse to water...

[+Goldenwattle]

15 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Yep, I've had one of those too. They knew they didn't have a pen with them so didn't even open the container to see if there might be a writing stick inside (there were two). You can lead a horse to water...

They should have checked, but as a person who carries pens (plural in case I lose one or one runs out of ink) I rarely consider that there might be a writing tool in the cache (and in most caches there isn't, or the pen long ago ceased to write), so I can sort of imagine a person arriving at a cache, realising they don't have a pen, and then writing they need to return to sign the log. After all, as I mentioned, most caches don't having a writing tool. None of my caches do, and I don't plan to start leaving pens in them either. I have no trouble carrying pens, so others shouldn't either. I knew to carry a pen to the very first caches I found. How else did I expect to sign the log. Common sense.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, kunarion said:

Wellll…. maybe .  Here's log on a cache of mine that had at least three working pens inside:

 

"Unfortunately, my pen was still packed in my carry-on bag but I'll make it a point to return to officially put my ink on the log."

I then placed a couple of pencils in addition to the pens.

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Yep, I've had one of those too. They knew they didn't have a pen with them so didn't even open the container to see if there might be a writing stick inside (there were two). You can lead a horse to water...

 

We headed to one when a friend asked us to check coordinates.  Had two golf pencils inside and a coin-like thing for the other 2/3rds.

That same day, another who was known for "forgot my pen" was busted when I logged "we used one of the pencils inside" after his.   

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

They should have checked, but as a person who carries pens (plural in case I lose one or one runs out of ink) I rarely consider that there might be a writing tool in the cache (and in most caches there isn't, or the pen long ago ceased to write), so I can sort of imagine a person arriving at a cache, realising they don't have a pen, and then writing they need to return to sign the log. After all, as I mentioned, most caches don't having a writing tool. None of my caches do, and I don't plan to start leaving pens in them either. I have no trouble carrying pens, so others shouldn't either. I knew to carry a pen to the very first caches I found. How else did I expect to sign the log. Common sense.

 

Pens are a bad idea around here as it doesn't take too many hot days to dry them out, but I find the pencils last well; I've only had a couple go missing. Many of the caches here (apart from nanos, obviously) have pencils in them, perhaps because a well-known local cacher earned a reputation for never having a pen and signing the logs with charcoal.

[+Goldenwattle]

16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

charcoal

One of the few times (I can think of three) that I forgot a pen, I also signed in charcoal. Plenty of charcoal around often in the Australian bush with all the bushfires. I took a photograph of my signature on the log, as charcoal tends to rub off, and included the photograph with my online log.

[+barefootjeff]

19 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

One of the few times (I can think of three) that I forgot a pen, I also signed in charcoal. Plenty of charcoal around often in the Australian bush with all the bushfires. I took a photograph of my signature on the log, as charcoal tends to rub off, and included the photograph with my online log.

 

I've used a twig or gum nut when I've been caught short and haven't been able to find any charcoal. Not ideal but they do leave a sort-of legible mark and I also include a photo of it with my online log in case it fades or gets written over.

 

[garyo1954]

"Found it" and "I signed the log" have different meanings. Of course the rules clearly state part of finding is a requirement to sign the log.
I can also see losing your pen or pencil on some hunts; I can see a pen quit at the wrong time; so I keep one pocket in my backpack for pens and pencils. Nothing but pens and pencils. And I always take a picture of the signed log. The other day I picked up two nearby caches taking pictures as normal. But when I got home, they appeared to be identical.

I didn't upload either since I couldn't be sure which cache went to which picture. And wondered if I had taken pictures of both.
Nobody mentions it but pictures help COs see who is signing as well. So they serve a dual purpose.

This evening I signed a log 11-2-19 (realizing later it is the 3rd). 

But check boxes would become a default option, where a picture will always be worth a thousand words (+/- a day).     

Either way it doesn't matter to me. If I'm going to the trouble of finding it, I'm going to sign it one way or another.

[+niraD]

7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

What will we do about group caching, where only one person signs for everyone? 

Yep. I've been on a few group caching trips where everyone signed the log themselves, but most of the time, one person signs everyone's names, or one person signs a temporary group name (to conserve space on the log sheet).

 

And of course, there are geocachers who use a self-inking stamp, rather than writing by hand.

 

And of course, there are geocaching-oriented Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey scripts, some of which would be modified to just check the box automatically.

 

Personally, as much as I dislike armchair logging, I don't think this change would have any benefit, and I think the Groundspeak developers' time could be better spent.

[+fizzymagic]

Absolutely classic example of the "We need a rule to require everyone to do things my way" type of suggestion we get here often.  The thought that somebody else might (gasp) get away with something I don't like means we need more rules!

 

Reading these forums over the years has taught me so much about human nature.

[+papu66]

My most common reply would be "I signed something but not sure if it was a log" or else I would just lie.

The OP may have too rosy image of the state of geocaches in general.

[+DerDiedler]

I´d like to suggest the implementation of finger print or iris scanners at all caches. THIS would realy reduce the no pen/logs

[+on4bam]

27 minutes ago, DerDiedler said:

I´d like to suggest the implementation of finger print or iris scanners at all caches. THIS would realy reduce the no pen/logs

 

And take two independent witnesses on a caching trip or a bailiff. Official claims for a find should then be filed at the international court of geocaching. Special attention will have to be given so cachers solve mysteries themselves and T5 caches were not retrieved by someone else.

 

[+NanCycle]

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Just leave a pencil in your caches, then no-one will have the forgot-my-pen excuse.

 

Well, I had a pencil in a cache and still got the forgot-my-pen excuse.  I messaged him that he could have used the pencil that was in the cache, and asked him to delete his find until he came back and signed it.  He didn't delete, but did come back and sign.

[+LFC4eva]

 

On 11/3/2019 at 9:19 PM, L0ne.R said:

What will we do about group caching, where only one person signs for everyone? 

 

On 11/3/2019 at 9:58 PM, CHEZRASCALS said:

It will depend on if the CO has placed a cache with a high D rating and wants everyone to get it or not , eg up a tree, if one climbs it, should 10 people below log it ?

 

 

Maybe there also needs to be photographic evidence requirement on high D/T caches too so that everyone in the group can be seen *actually* at the cache location and signed the log for themselves?  After all, anyone can sign someone else's name on a log sheet - they don't even have to be there.

On a serious note - there is no need for a tick box at all.  Not all CO's are pedantic and most are quite happy to accept photo proof of finding a cache.  Those that are pedantic can exercise their right to delete the log.  Problem solved.

[+K13]

2 hours ago, LFC4eva said:

 

 

 

Maybe there also needs to be photographic evidence requirement on high D/T caches too so that everyone in the group can be seen *actually* at the cache location and signed the log for themselves?  After all, anyone can sign someone else's name on a log sheet - they don't even have to be there.

On a serious note - there is no need for a tick box at all.  Not all CO's are pedantic and most are quite happy to accept photo proof of finding a cache.  Those that are pedantic can exercise their right to delete the log.  Problem solved.

Maybe you will provide a camera for finders? My GPS does not have a camera function.

[+LFC4eva]

45 minutes ago, K13 said:

Maybe you will provide a camera for finders? My GPS does not have a camera function.

 

It wasn't intended as a serious suggestion - just on a par with the OP wanting a tick box to confirm the log has been signed.

I'm not pedantic enough to require proof of signature / proof of visit etc. and if a group of cachers find my caches together I am more than happy for them to sign in as a team with one signature - and that would apply even for high D/T caches. If a finder posts a photo log for whatever reason, then that's fine too.

[+L0ne.R]

On 11/3/2019 at 4:05 PM, CHEZRASCALS said:

I was wondering, when you log a cache as found, you have to click the box to say 'YES'  I signed the log - as per guidelines to claim the find

 

I understand your frustration. You want people to actually visit your caches, and actually sign the log as intended. If you own high T/D caches you'd like people to find it as intended, not just by getting someone else to sign the log. 

 

If numbers style gameplay is predominant in your area, cache ownership might not be satisfying for you anymore. It isn't for me, and I've stopped hiding caches.

[+VAVAPAM]

On 11/3/2019 at 4:05 PM, CHEZRASCALS said:

Would this be a good 'New Requirement' ?

I was wondering, when you log a cache as found, you have to click the box to say 'YES'  I signed the log - as per guidelines to claim the find

This would reduce the no pen/logs photo attached and also make caches aware of the importance of signing the log.

if you click on 'No' you can explain the reason and this will let the CO know for him to decide to approve or not ?

 

I get the reasoning behind it but as I recall, The App does remind beforehand, in describing the cache, to sign the log.  Adding a checkbox might be overkill?