What is a "hint"?

[+K13]

11 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Cachers can also take a photo of the cache to prove it's a find.

Not unless the cache owner is gracious enough to grant that as a find. The Guidelines state that a cacher may log a find online after they have signed the log in the cache, not after they have provided a photo of the container.

[+HunterandSamuel]

14 hours ago, colleda said:

If I find a cache and have, say, left pen in car I'll go back for it. If that's not practical I'll find some way to leave a mark of some sort (oft mentioned in this forum) on the log and describe it in my log OR come back later and sign it. As a CO I would be reluctant to accept a photolog without good reason. I once deleted two finds by a cacher that logged the old "forgot my pen/pencil" where there was a working pencil in the caches. The finder complained and only then sent me photos of the caches complaining she was walking a baby in a stroller and didn't have time to sign? Had time to take a picture though, had time to search, yeah, right. I let the deletions stand as the finder was a regular user of the track and could come by and sign it later but never did.

Also, with photolog, there's the ever present problem of the photo being a spoiler if posted with their log. And, photologging is poor form if newbs see as a common practice and it goes the way of throwdowns - monkey see, monkey do, aaarrrghh!.

Going caching? Carry a pen or three.

I'm not talking of a photo log. I'm talking about messaging the CO a photo of her/his cache for proof and approval. 

[+colleda]

2 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I'm not talking of a photo log. I'm talking about messaging the CO a photo of her/his cache for proof and approval. 

Same thing. Using a photo to enable the logging a find online.

[+HunterandSamuel]

7 hours ago, K13 said:

Not unless the cache owner is gracious enough to grant that as a find.

Yes, that's what I said. I'll say it in another way for all to understand. If a pen was forgotten, take a photo of the cache, send it to the owner for approval of a find. If approval is given...then log it as a find. You can even write that the CO gave approval.  And if you can...return with a pen or pencil and sign the log. In my case, the cache was out of State but the next time we were in that State, we climbed that dadgum hill and signed the log. Now that's geodedication. <patting myself on the back>

[+HunterandSamuel]

Just now, colleda said:

Same thing. Using a photo to enable the logging a find online.

Yep. Nothing wrong with that. 

[+HunterandSamuel]

13 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Yes, they can, but it does not matter because it does not proof that the player visited the cache. And it may be a spoiler.

Sure it does. And there's no spoiler because the photo isn't logged but sent to the owner for approval. 

[+colleda]

13 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Yep. Nothing wrong with that. 

Up to the CO to allow, its his/her cache but still outside the guidelines which most here appear to support. Find cache, sign log. log find online.

If cache was out of state makes no difference or out of country I would not log a find if I could not, somehow, get some sort of identifiable mark in/on the log.

As you stated, you are a newb and some slack can be cut as you familiarise yourself with this new, to you, experience. Rather than taking a stand on your point of view and guideline interpretation, take on board the advice that's being offered and, as you mature in the game, it can be to your future benefit.

Edited December 21, 2019 by colleda

[+HunterandSamuel]

17 minutes ago, colleda said:

Up to the CO to allow, its his/her cache but still outside the guidelines which most here appear to support. Find cache, sign log. log find online.

Didn't I say that???

 

17 minutes ago, colleda said:

If cache was out of state makes no difference or out of country I would not log a find if I could not, somehow, get some sort of identifiable mark in/on the log.

Good for you. I'll still log it as a find if I forgot my handy pen and approved by the CO. 

17 minutes ago, colleda said:

As you stated, you are a newb and some slack can be cut as you familiarise yourself with this new, to you, experience. Rather than taking a stand on your point of view and guideline interpretation, take on board the advice that's being offered and, as you mature in the game, it can be to your future benefit.

Naw, thanks anyway, I'm fine and will keep doing what I'm doing but when someone is respectful in giving me some advice...I'll take it into consideration. 

[+arisoft]

49 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Sure it does. And there's no spoiler because the photo isn't logged but sent to the owner for approval. 

 

The picture may be taken by anyone who visited the cache. It is easier to sign the log than take a picture at the same level of evidence value.

Log is not signed only for the CO. It is signed also for the next visitor who may find  missing names strange.

[+HunterandSamuel]

2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

The picture may be taken by anyone who visited the cache. It is easier to sign the log than take a picture at the same level of evidence value.

Log is not signed only for the CO. It is signed also for the next visitor who may find  missing names strange.

Ah, good points, Arisoft. Thanks.  

[+NYPaddleCacher]

21 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Yes they can. Many around here have taken photos, sent it to the CO, who then gives permission to log it as a find.

 

Cache owners are under no obligation to accept a photo as proof of a find, and especially if the photo doesn't show the cache they have hidden.  

[+funkymunkyzone]

I thought this thread was about hints, but it seems to be about photo logs..... my mistake...

[+Ragnemalm]

On 12/19/2019 at 3:06 AM, K13 said:

 

I have no concern about that. The CO will address it if that happens. And if not, the cache is not worth being listed any longer.

 

This is way off topic, but I avoid NM or DNF on any cache where I know or suspect that the CO is inactive. This is particularly true for good or very old caches. Most caches from the early years, say 2000-2005, have inactive COs. Some can still be contacted, some may post OM if you fix the problem for them, but many don't reply or even turn off the possibility to send them messages. If I want these caches to remain, I need to maintain them myself and never, ever post DNF or NM on them.

 

Caches with active COs, or filler caches like PTs, are a totally different matter.

[+Ragnemalm]

On 12/23/2019 at 2:50 AM, funkymunkyzone said:

I thought this thread was about hints, but it seems to be about photo logs..... my mistake...

 

I suppose a spoiler photo is a kind of hint, maybe. But quite a bit off the topic of strange usage of hints.

[+K13]

On 12/25/2019 at 5:20 PM, Ragnemalm said:

 

This is way off topic, but I avoid NM or DNF on any cache where I know or suspect that the CO is inactive. This is particularly true for good or very old caches. Most caches from the early years, say 2000-2005, have inactive COs. Some can still be contacted, some may post OM if you fix the problem for them, but many don't reply or even turn off the possibility to send them messages. If I want these caches to remain, I need to maintain them myself and never, ever post DNF or NM on them.

 

Caches with active COs, or filler caches like PTs, are a totally different matter.

 

It doesn't matter if the cache is from the first 4 years, if the CO is gone/not responding, then the neglected listing should be archived.

[+BethDaddyKaty]

1 hour ago, K13 said:

 

It doesn't matter if the cache is from the first 4 years, if the CO is gone/not responding, then the neglected listing should be archived.

I appreciate it's controversial but MO it's not crazy to expect those who find the cache to perform  basic mantenance, e.g. clean out containers, dry logs if you are in a car, patch any peeling camo tape.

 

I appreciate some will say it's interfering with other COs caches. Personally especially for relatively inaccessibly caches if it's a case of evicting some ants it makes sense for people who find the cache to show some care.  After all, the game doesn't work with rushed cachers but no COs.

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, K13 said:

On 12/26/2019 at 10:20 AM, Ragnemalm said:

This is way off topic, but I avoid NM or DNF on any cache where I know or suspect that the CO is inactive. This is particularly true for good or very old caches. Most caches from the early years, say 2000-2005, have inactive COs. Some can still be contacted, some may post OM if you fix the problem for them, but many don't reply or even turn off the possibility to send them messages. If I want these caches to remain, I need to maintain them myself and never, ever post DNF or NM on them.

 

Caches with active COs, or filler caches like PTs, are a totally different matter.

 

It doesn't matter if the cache is from the first 4 years, if the CO is gone/not responding, then the neglected listing should be archived.

 

When I look at the caches around my local area that aren't mine, about half have inactive owners yet for the most part those caches are still quite serviceable, especially the older ones that were built to last. Archiving them just because they get a few DNFs and their owners are unresponsive, especially if those DNFs have nothing to do with the state of the cache, would only further erode the limited caching opportunities in this neck of the woods. Sure, if an ownerless cache goes missing or is burnt in the fires, it should be archived, but not if there's nothing wrong with it.

 

I always provide lots of detail in my DNF logs to make it clear to anyone reading them that the cache is most likely fine. On those rare occasions when I think it might really be missing, I'll log an NM as well, or an NA if there's aleady an NM. I would hope that any reviewers contemplating disabling or archiving a cache just because of some DNFs will take the time to read those logs before acting.