Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
goffyoffy

Deleting a " found " log when there is no entry in the logbook

Recommended Posts

I am having a " found " entry by one cacher in a number of the caches I have. There is no record of this cacher left behind in the logbooks. How do I delete the " found " entries ?

Share this post


Link to post

Hit the 'view log' link within their log on the cache page, then tap the bin symbol. This is simply a 'how to' not a 'should I' instruction..... I'd message them first and ask about the situation.

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I checked two caches recently and between them found about eight missing signatures. I messaged all of those involved. Only two have replied. I accepted one log (photographic evidence...of sorts...I was generous), but not the other, and I have not yet had replies from any others. The one I didn't accept, said they didn't know a signature was necessary :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::lol:. They have found 26 caches and they haven't yet figured out they need to sign all those strange logs.....:wacko::lol:. I told them I knew from the first cache I found I had to sign the log. After Christmas, I am deleting them all, unless I hear from them with proof of find. They should know after this what the log is there for.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

The one I didn't accept, said they didn't know a signature was necessary

They have found 26 caches and they haven't yet figured out they need to sign all those strange logs.....:wacko::lol:.

I told them I knew from the first cache I found I had to sign the log.

 

Yeah...I read everything, even the terms of use and glossary, before we went after our first "cache", a Virtual.

The other 2/3rds thought this was gonna be easy, one of those "they'll figure this hobby out on their own" types.

 - Then I had to add in reality,  and different cache types.  :D    She did go after quite a few Locationless though...

 

Some odd reason we're seeing this a lot lately in logs of caches I'm looking at.   Sometimes I'll take a pic of the log for the CO if it seems really bad...

Just a short while ago, a forum poster said they weren't directed to Geocaching 101 upon sign-up.   Not sure if that's true. 

We had issues years ago with that "intro" app where folks didn't have any idea how the hobby's played. 

We were a bit more lenient on our low D/T hides, thinking folks gotta learn somewhere, and with the app it's low D/T.

 - But with our 5T hides it's written on the cache page that we check the log.

I have some that sound like fakers on a 5T the last couple weeks, but with weather, hunting seasons, and current ailment,  won't get rope up there 'til spring now.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I told them I knew from the first cache I found I had to sign the log. After Christmas, I am deleting them all, unless I hear from them with proof of find. They should know after this what the log is there for.

 

butbutbut "Everyone caches their own way! If they had fun then that's all that matters! Don't be such a stickler for rules! It doesn't hurt anyone!"

<_<

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 6
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just out of curiosity: what were the other reasons given for not signing the log? That could be quite entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't give a sign in some of the logs too. I recently was on a long walk in the woods while it was raining heavily. When I found a log I had to think about signing or not: Sometimes it was really dirty or I had to fear the logbook gets wet. I do not want to ruin the experience for the other cachers. I am geocaching for my own entertainment and I do not want to harm any others thoughts. If I am able to find the cache, hold it in my hands and get the feeling of finding a treasure, I am done. That's all I want (besides of going outside and get some fresh air).

If you all say I am wrong then it's ok - and I will try to sign every cache/log I find. But I think signing is not mandatory to get the feeling of geocaching.

 

What do you think about this? Please be gentle as English is not my native language.

Edited by Khamsin0815
correctings

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Khamsin0815 said:

I didn't give a sign in some of the logs too. I recently was on a long walk in the woods while it was raining heavily. When I found a log I had to think about signing or not: Sometimes it was really dirty or I had to fear the logbook gets wet. I do not want to ruin the experience for the other cachers. I am geocaching for my own entertainment and I do not want to harm any others thoughts. If I am able to find the cache, hold it in my hands and get the feeling of finding a treasure, I am done. That's all I want (besides of going outside and get some fresh air).

If you all say I am wrong then it's ok - and I will try to sign every cache/log I find. But I think signing is not mandatory to get the feeling of geocaching.

 

What do you think about this? Please be gentle as English is not my native language.

 

You may make a "Note Log".  If I like the cache or the area but don't sign the log for some reason, I make a Note (or DNF, depending on the situation). But don't give away the hide style in any case ("Didn't sign the log, but I saw the pine cone camouflaged container up in the tree!")

 

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

You may make a "Note Log".  If I like the cache or the area but don't sign the log for some reason, I make a Note (or DNF, depending on the situation). But don't give away the hide style in any case ("Didn't sign the log, but I saw the pine cone camouflaged container up in the tree!")

 

 

Of course I won't share any of the secrets. Others will have to find the hidden cache by theirself.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Khamsin0815 said:

I didn't give a sign in some of the logs too.

I recently was on a long walk in the woods while it was raining heavily. When I found a log I had to think about signing or not: Sometimes it was really dirty or I had to fear the logbook gets wet.

I do not want to ruin the experience for the other cachers. I am geocaching for my own entertainment and I do not want to harm any others thoughts.

If I am able to find the cache, hold it in my hands and get the feeling of finding a treasure, I am done.

That's all I want (besides of going outside and get some fresh air).

If you all say I am wrong then it's ok - and I will try to sign every cache/log I find.

But I think signing is not mandatory to get the feeling of geocaching.

What do you think about this? Please be gentle as English is not my native language.

 

Well, if you're logging "Found It" online without signing the cache log and a CO deletes it, don't be upset.     :)

Some folks here believe that most COs don't check.  We know by talking at events that that's not accurate.  Many check.  We do too.

This is an outdoor hobby.  Things get dirty and maybe damp.  Just a part of going outside and getting fresh air.

We know not to cache when it's pouring outside.  If we think it might rain, we carry an umbrella.  Protects you and the cache.

If you're only caching for your own entertainment, you can log a "Write Note"  just as easily...

 

Have you read Geocaching 101 ?

At its simplest level, geocaching requires these 8 steps:

  1. Register for a free Basic Membership.
  2. Visit the "Hide & Seek a Cache" page.
  3. Enter your postal code and click "search."
  4. Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.
  5. Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.
  6. Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.
  7. Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.
  8. Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/12/2020 at 7:35 AM, cerberus1 said:

Some folks here believe that most COs don't check.

I checked a cache this evening looking for a signature I was suspicious about. It wasn't there. I am going to send them a photograph of the log they claimed a find on to ask where is their signature, and ask for a detailed description of the cache and log. Many COs do check the logs and are meant to.

On 1/12/2020 at 3:58 AM, Khamsin0815 said:

If I am able to find the cache, hold it in my hands and get the feeling of finding a treasure, I am done.

Very sweet, but log a Note, not a find unless you sign the log.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Hynz said:

It seems this is not entirely true :rolleyes:

https://coord.info/GC2ZYBG

https://coord.info/GC2ZYB

 

Wow...    

"Nice hiding place, certainly easier to find in winter than in summer.  But I have to admit that I didn't climb. I could have damaged nature, which would have made the cache more difficult for lighter and younger climbers than me.", and "Found, but without climbing".

 

Well, at least they're honest...

Share this post


Link to post

Well, that's the point: I used the search option, found this thread and asked in hoping for a friendly community. As you can see I am at the beginning of my geocaching adventure.

 

Of course I am honest about it, that's the point of asking. What was I supposed to do? Wrote a "did not found" note? This would be a lie. I did find the caches which were in a high of 5-7m. I took a look at the trees and had to decide: Will the trees be able to hold my weight? Or am I able to climb until the end, up and down? I answered "no" to both questions.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Khamsin0815 said:

 What was I supposed to do?

 

In any case not a "Found it" as that's only supposed to be done AFTER signing the paper log.

In a case like that I log a DNF but you might just log a Note too.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Literally, yes it can be confusing - "I found the cache!" isn't the same what the "Found It" log means. The Found It log means that you did what was needed to sign the logsheet (in the case of physical geocaches). If you didn't sign the logsheet, the cache owner may decide they don't believe that you actually "Found It", and delete your log.

 

Many people in the case of seeing a geocache but being unable to reach or retrieve it or sign its log, may choose to post a Note, as a record of their experience, because they feel they didn't not find the cache, but they didn't sign the logbook. So it's kind of a compromise. Some people may on principle log a DNF in any case they didn't sign the logbook.

 

Which you choose is up to you. But the purpose of the "Found It" log is to mark the fact that you have your name written on the logsheet as of the log date.

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Khamsin0815 said:

Well, that's the point: I used the search option, found this thread and asked in hoping for a friendly community. As you can see I am at the beginning of my geocaching adventure.

 

Of course I am honest about it, that's the point of asking. What was I supposed to do? Wrote a "did not found" note? This would be a lie. I did find the caches which were in a high of 5-7m. I took a look at the trees and had to decide: Will the trees be able to hold my weight? Or am I able to climb until the end, up and down? I answered "no" to both questions.

In the hobby/game of Geocaching, the word "find" has a very specific meaning. "Find" means you have signed the paper log inside the cache, not that you located the container.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Khamsin0815 said:

Of course I am honest about it, that's the point of asking. What was I supposed to do? Wrote a "did not found" note? This would be a lie. I did find the caches which were in a high of 5-7m. I took a look at the trees and had to decide: Will the trees be able to hold my weight? Or am I able to climb until the end, up and down? I answered "no" to both questions.

 

Neither of the two examples are a "Found It" log...

I left you a link to Geocaching 101, so you could see yourself that "Found It" and just "seeing where it is"  aren't the same.     :)

 

If there's some reason I can't open the container to sign the log, I'd simply leave a  Write Note, explaining that the container won't open.  

If I ever came to a cache I can see but consider unsafe, or couldn't do, I'd log a Write Note with my opinion. 

Yes, some leave a DNF for the same thing,. 

Similar to you I feel I "found it", with the difference being I can't claim it as so if I can't sign the log. 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you all for your answers. I am sure they will help me for my future adventures. I think I have to find my own way (--> communicate with the owers of the unreachable caches). In my opinion this thread should be closed.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

If I ever came to a cache I can see but consider unsafe, or couldn't do, I'd log a Write Note with my opinion. 

Yes, some leave a DNF for the same thing,. 

 

A DNF log will put a blue frowning face on the map as a reminder to come back better prepared on another day. A note doesn't.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

A DNF log will put a blue frowning face on the map as a reminder to come back better prepared on another day. A note doesn't.

 

True.  If you're one who goes back to unfound caches, that can help remind you.

I don't...

Share this post


Link to post

And often if I'm with a group and we DNF, I won't post a DNF if there's already at least one or two DNFs explaining the group's efforts. It feels redundant, and now it likely affects the CHS (though I don't believe they weigh DNFs on the same day as if they're individual DNFs, to account for group activities).

If I want to record my non-find, I might add it to a bookmark list, or group offline, or highlight in my app, something like that, if I don't post a DNF.

Many ways to record your activities these days.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

And often if I'm with a group and we DNF, I won't post a DNF if there's already at least one or two DNFs explaining the group's efforts. It feels redundant, and now it likely affects the CHS (though I don't believe they weigh DNFs on the same day as if they're individual DNFs, to account for group activities).

If I want to record my non-find, I might add it to a bookmark list, or group offline, or highlight in my app, something like that, if I don't post a DNF.

Many ways to record your activities these days.

 

I'm kind of scratching my head here. If you're with your group and one person finds the cache then hands the log around for everyone to sign, or just signs everyone's names without handing it around, or even signs a group name, do you all log finds or does only the person who actually found the cache log a find and the rest of you post notes? If the former, how is not finding the cache any different? Especially if you all searched for the cache and none of you could find it? Surely then it makes more sense for everyone to log DNFs because that's describing what happened.

 

You're always telling us that the CHS doesn't archive caches, that a reviewer (human or canine) will always read through the logs before doing anything and a CO can ignore the CHS email with no adverse consequences if they think the cache is okay. So why the subterfuge to hide the fact that you all searched for the cache but none of you could find it? How is this any different to you searching individually and not finding it? I'm sure the reviewer would appreciate being able to tell at a glance that there was a bunch of keen-eyed people all looking for the cache and not just one.

 

If you were talking about NM logs instead of DNFs then it would make sense. A CO only needs to be told by one of the group that the log is full or the cache might be missing. But a DNF isn't a report on the state of the cache, it's a cacher's account of the outcome of their search, exactly the same as a Found It except it didn't end in a find. If a DNF log isn't a black mark against the cache (which it shouldn't be), why not log it if you searched but didn't find it?

 

If I was the CO, I'd probably be a bit perplexed if I saw that a group of people had searched in vain for my cache but only one had logged a DNF and the rest notes. I'd start wondering if maybe only one in the group did the searching while the rest sat around drinking beer.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm kind of scratching my head here. If you're with your group and one person finds the cache then hands the log around for everyone to sign, or just signs everyone's names without handing it around, or even signs a group name, do you all log finds or does only the person who actually found the cache log a find and the rest of you post notes? If the former, how is not finding the cache any different?

 

As an individual, because my personal record of DNFs is totally different than my personal record of Finds.  Both informationally and technically.

And all of the above. Sometimes we sign one group name. Sometimes one person signs everyone's names. Sometimes we sign our own individual names. And of course everyone logs a find if their name is in the logsheet, because the function of the personal Find history is different than the function of the personal DNF history.

 

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Especially if you all searched for the cache and none of you could find it? Surely then it makes more sense for everyone to log DNFs because that's describing what happened.

 

At least one person logs a DNF; the public record of what happened is there. Why duplicate it? If someone wants to, go ahead. I don't see a need for it, so I won't unless I decide to. Sometimes I have, sometimes I haven't. I deal with the decision on a case by case basis.

 

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So why the subterfuge to hide the fact that you all searched for the cache but none of you could find it?

 

Subterfuge??  What subterfuge?  The public record of the DNF is there, whether one of us logs it, or 5 of us log it. And yes, I prefer to see an accurate description of the attempt - that if there was a group of 5 or 30, that information is readily available for whoever reads it.  I personally don't see the benefit of redundancy, and I don't see any negative in not being redundant if all the information is available.

 

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

If you were talking about NM logs instead of DNFs then it would make sense. A CO only needs to be told by one of the group that the log is full or the cache might be missing. But a DNF isn't a report on the state of the cache, it's a cacher's account of the outcome of their search, exactly the same as a Found It except it didn't end in a find. If a DNF log isn't a black mark against the cache (which it shouldn't be), why not log it if you searched but didn't find it?

 

Because as a cache owner I know that multiple NMs are redundant, and I also know that if a local group of 30 people come by and every single cacher logs an identical DNF, it adds nothing; it's needless redundancy, for myself and anyone else coming to read it. So often in these groups not every single person logs that DNF notice - typically only a handful (and usually the bulk loggers).  But ultimately, I feel that one DNF explaining everything about the failed find for that one finding session (regardless of group size) is sufficient information for anyone reading.

 

I'm not saying people should not post redundant DNFs, I'm only saying I don't because I feel it can be redundant. If someone else in my group posts a DNF and I think they missed some details, then I may add my DNF with more info.  And it's also partly because I don't believe DNFs from the same day count negatively (at least significantly) to the CHS (based on an old thread discussion where it came up, I can't remember when), precisely because of the trend in group caching.

 

And since a human (or dog) checks details before taking any action, I feel information relevant to the situation is MUCH more important than count of log type which can be all over the board depending on how many cache in a group of 2 or more at any particular time.

 

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

If I was the CO, I'd probably be a bit perplexed if I saw that a group of people had searched in vain for my cache but only one had logged a DNF and the rest notes. I'd start wondering if maybe only one in the group did the searching while the rest sat around drinking beer.

 

It could also very well be a regional thing. We have MANY groups going on cache outings regular, and often not small groups.  To some it's a point of contention, especially when they all post copy/paste logs with very little detail about the cache.

I'd prefer to see (in however many DNFs) how large the group was that made the attempt and failed - a group of 30 experienced geocachers not finding a cache, informed in 1 DNF, is far more valuable to me as a CO than 30 "Nope" DNFs.  And AFAIK that difference in log count same-day doesn't mean much to the algorithm.

 

Cache log types, when the type has a relevant function, are important. But in every case information is the most important part of the logs. Redundant group-caching DNFs have much less cache type function than information which they, and any other log, contain that may be used functionally by a higher power when making a judgment call if a situation arises.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I'd prefer to see (in however many DNFs) how large the group was that made the attempt and failed - a group of 30 experienced geocachers not finding a cache, informed in 1 DNF, is far more valuable to me as a CO than 30 "Nope" DNFs.

 

So how is 1 DNF and 29 WNs saying "Nope" any different to 30 DNFs saying "Nope"? It still takes up the same amount of space on the cache page. We can't filter logs by type (although that'd be a handy feature to have) so the only difference I can see is the perceived stigma of DNF logs.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

So how is 1 DNF and 29 WNs saying "Nope" any different to 30 DNFs saying "Nope"?

 

I dunno, how is it? I never advocated for posting 29 Write Notes instead of 29 DNFs.

I don't recall even suggested writing a Note instead of a DNF in any case... and even if I did, that would have been one option to weigh amongst many as I described earlier - there are many ways to personally track DNF history, if that's something you want to do, and for myself I decide when the time comes what I'm going to log depending on the circumstances. But relevant information is always the highest priority.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

I dunno, how is it? I never advocated for posting 29 Write Notes instead of 29 DNFs.

I don't recall even suggested writing a Note instead of a DNF in any case... and even if I did, that would have been one option to weigh amongst many as I described earlier - there are many ways to personally track DNF history, if that's something you want to do, and for myself I decide when the time comes what I'm going to log depending on the circumstances. But relevant information is always the highest priority.

 

Sorry, I was sure there was something about logging a WN instead of a DNF when group caching, but looking back there wasn't. Not sure now what made me think that. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...