What is a "hint"?

[+thebruce0]

Just now, arisoft said:

I am talking about misuse of the hint not wether I like the hint or not.

 

I don't see any misuse of the Hint field here. As I explained in my post above.

Yes, there are favourable uses of the Hint field, inferred by its name and function in the listing, but there is no objectively defined "misuse". And that is the whole point.

 

Ultimately this discussion comes down to (and you can see it in the thread comments) descriptions of what people like to see as hints, and what we don't like to see. But none of it is abuse.  If it were abuse, you could report it, and the owner would be required to change it or archive it due to contravening the agreed-to guidelines and TOU for the website.  Content such as course or offensive language, agendas, etc - the sort of content disallowed in the description itself. The question was raised because of the odd requirement of a reviewer for the CO to change the hint because it was "too vague".  Because of this unique and apparently abnormal request, it raised the question of what a "hint" is.

 

But for the context of the Hint field on a listing, it is anything that is allowed by the guidelines.  And some of those possible and allowable uses are what you would consider "abuse", and that is where I'm saying you're wrong. You don't like it, and that's fine. I don't like much of the uses either.

 

But I would never claim that a cache owner is ABUSING the system by providing a hint that I don't like.

[+arisoft]

5 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

But I would never claim that a cache owner is ABUSING the system by providing a hint that I don't like.

 

Neither do I.  Thanks for clarifying what do you mean.

[+coachstahly]

16 minutes ago, arisoft said:

How do you explain abuse?

 

Not in the manner you do.  This is not abuse.  There is NOTHING in the guidelines to address "proper" usage of the hint box so there's no way that anyone can be abusing its use.  You, like myself and others, believe that the hint box probably shouldn't include information that's vital to solving or finding a cache but just because we believe it to be that way doesn't mean that it MUST be that way.  We've all seen (or heard about) examples of COs who use the hint box in a much more non-traditional manner and while we may not agree with that, there's nothing to say that they can't do it that way.  Therefore, it's not going to be abuse, regardless of how you might want to spin it.

 

"...contrary to good order established by usage..." - seeing as how there is no singular "established" usage of the hint box and the hint therein, there can't be any contrary usage.  You can believe it should be used a certain way but it's not the only way it can be used.

 

"Departure from reasonable use..." - See above.  The fact that some COs include information that many of us don't deem to be a "proper" hint doesn't detract from the fact that there is also no singular manner in which the hint box may be used so any use can be deemed reasonable.  The more "non-traditional" use of the hint box that goes against what many of us think may be the more "traditional" form of use is reasonable in its own right, despite many of us not really liking it used that way.  

 

"..immoderate or improper use..." - see above.  There is NOTHING in the guidelines that stipulates what we may or may not put in the hint box.  You believing that only a certain type of thing should go in there is fine, but saying that everyone else who does it differently is doing it improperly isn't correct.  There can't be any improper use because there's nothing outlining the definitive details of what a hint may or may not include.

 

"...mental maltreatment" - Not even close.  When most of us who are native speakers think of abuse, this is what comes to mind.  Disliking something due to the way in which it's done is fine but it doesn't approach the realm of mental maltreatment.

 

"Misuse" - again, see the first three points.  They're NOT misusing it.  They're using it in a manner that you (and others including myself) believe to be not in line with the intent of what a hint is.  Since there's no delineation about what may or may not be placed within the hint box, there's no way it can be misused.  It's used in different ways by different COs.  We just don't think that was the intent of the hint box and that use of it in that manner doesn't fall into the category that many of us think it should.

 

"Deception" - how are they deceiving you if they use it in a manner that runs counter to how you think it should be used?  The information you need is located in a spot that many of us don't think it should be located in.  That doesn't mean that they're trying to deceive any of us.

[+rapotek]

4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Disgusted is awfully strong.

 

 

Not in my language. Maybe a translation is precise but the full meaning with its subtleties differs.

 

4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

By your own admission, the hint isn't vital at all so I'm not sure why you would be so fed up with a CO who might be the only one who gets the reference to a particular hint (which, I agree is pointless and disappointing).  Does the same go for you if it's a cultural, regional, or generational thing that you just didn't understand?

 

I am not fed up with a CO, I try to look at the cache only, not at its owner. And even in case of a bad hint there have to be other disappointing things as well in the whole cache to merit low marks from me. As I recall, so far I met with only one hint which I did not understand but in that case I assumed it's me who should know more. The hints far from being helpful are informing me f.ex. that this big thing visible over 50 meters from GZ is not what I am looking for. But I suppose you all have seen worse than this.

[+BethDaddyKaty]

11 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

I disagree with this, specifically as it applies to higher difficulty caches.  If it were to confirm a location, it would be easier to find and therefore more likely to be found, which leads to an easier D rating, not a harder one.  High D rated caches are expected to garner more DNFs rather than less so if the hint is too specific it will increase the find rate.  I expect any hint to be more vague and less forthcoming than an easier D rated cache.  The goal of this type of hint is to narrow the search somehow, not focus it in on a specific location.  

Why would you think that a DNF is misleading?  All it's telling the CO and other seekers that you didn't find the cache.  There's no such thing as a guaranteed find, nor should there be.0

To me it would be helpful with a high difficulty cache to know the logger was looking in the correct location but genuinely DNF, as opposed to looking in the wrong location due to poor GPS.

 

However - if a high dfficulty surely more experienced people would search much more thoroughly - therefore strings of DNF are more likely to indicate AWOL cache?

 

Either way, I'm currently reticent about logging a DNF even on dark winter nights without a hint to confirm the DNF is genuine. Normally just write a note instead. Perhaps it's inexperience;.

[+K13]

5 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

To me it would be helpful with a high difficulty cache to know the logger was looking in the correct location but genuinely DNF, as opposed to looking in the wrong location due to poor GPS.

 

However - if a high dfficulty surely more experienced people would search much more thoroughly - therefore strings of DNF are more likely to indicate AWOL cache?

 

Either way, I'm currently reticent about logging a DNF even on dark winter nights without a hint to confirm the DNF is genuine. Normally just write a note instead. Perhaps it's inexperience;.

I don't understand your reticence to log a DNF. Your Write Note is likely worded exactly as would have worded your DNF log. Why not just use the log type the system has in place for when you don't find the cache?  To many of us, using the correct log type is an important part of this hobby.

[+Harry Dolphin]

9 minutes ago, K13 said:

I don't understand your reticence to log a DNF. Your Write Note is likely worded exactly as would have worded your DNF log. Why not just use the log type the system has in place for when you don't find the cache?  To many of us, using the correct log type is an important part of this hobby.

 

With the new CHS, I'm leery to post more than one DNF on a cache.  I have lots of DNFs!  I don't want a cache disable because I couldn't find it twice.  

[+K13]

1 minute ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

With the new CHS, I'm leery to post more than one DNF on a cache.  I have lots of DNFs!  I don't want a cache disable because I couldn't find it twice.  

 

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.

[+niraD]

31 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

However - if a high dfficulty surely more experienced people would search much more thoroughly

I don't think that's a given. A lot of more experienced geocachers (especially if you measure by find count) use a 5-minute rule, or something similar. After searching for a cache for 5 minutes, they give up and move on.

 

32 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

Either way, I'm currently reticent about logging a DNF even on dark winter nights without a hint to confirm the DNF is genuine.

If you searched for a cache and did not find it, then your DNF is genuine. Full stop.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

With the new CHS, I'm leery to post more than one DNF on a cache. 

Or maybe we could encourage Groundspeak to fix the CHS, to provide a mechanism to handle false positives appropriately.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, daddybeth said:

To me it would be helpful with a high difficulty cache to know the logger was looking in the correct location but genuinely DNF, as opposed to looking in the wrong location due to poor GPS.

 

However - if a high dfficulty surely more experienced people would search much more thoroughly - therefore strings of DNF are more likely to indicate AWOL cache?

 

Either way, I'm currently reticent about logging a DNF even on dark winter nights without a hint to confirm the DNF is genuine. Normally just write a note instead. Perhaps it's inexperience;.

 

I'd like to think I have a little experience in this game, having been doing it for almost 7 years with nearly 1100 finds and 43 hides/events (plus three adopted), yet I still often struggle to find easy P&Gs, especially when I'm away from my usual caching territory and encounter hiding techiques I'm unfamiliar with. A D3 or higher traditional is more likely than not to get a DNF from me on my first attempt, and a cache of any D rating that has muggles zooming towards it while I'm searching is also likely to get a DNF.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by a "genuine" DNF. Do you mean someone might be lying about not being able to find it? A DNF isn't a report on the state of the cache, it's a report of someone's lack of success in completing the find, and there are many reasons that could happen without inferring the cache might be missing or otherwise in need of some TLC. I posted this quote in another thread but it seems appropriate here; it's a recent DNF log on one of my hides:

 

Quote

Didn't find it

07/07/2019

Decided to do this one while out at mt wondabyne. Came across a large stubborn red belly a few meters into the track and decided to turn back.

 

In case you're wondering, a red-belly is a breed of snake in these parts, their bite potentially fatal to humans but they're generally not aggressive unless you really annoy them. Unless the snake ate the cache before sunning itself in the middle of the track, I don't think a maintenance visit is required or that a DNF like this should in any way count against the cache. Things like this happen and there's never a guaranteed find on even the most well-maintained cache.

Edited December 19, 2019 by barefootjeff

[+BethDaddyKaty]

8 hours ago, K13 said:

I don't understand your reticence to log a DNF. Your Write Note is likely worded exactly as would have worded your DNF log. Why not just use the log type the system has in place for when you don't find the cache?  To many of us, using the correct log type is an important part of this hobby.

Thanks - good points.

 

I should have said a lot of my caching is at night (NHS nurse so long shifts), so I sometimes feel it's not a true search if it's by torchlight.

 

But you're right, I should probably be more ready to log a DNF.

[+arisoft]

38 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

Thanks - good points.

 

I should have said a lot of my caching is at night (NHS nurse so long shifts), so I sometimes feel it's not a true search if it's by torchlight.

 

But you're right, I should probably be more ready to log a DNF.

 

When I log a DNF, the primary reason is to mark the cache on my map as "tried but not found" status. It helps me to focus on other caches not tried yet.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, daddybeth said:

Thanks - good points.

 

I should have said a lot of my caching is at night (NHS nurse so long shifts), so I sometimes feel it's not a true search if it's by torchlight.

 

But you're right, I should probably be more ready to log a DNF.

 

It's important to provide plenty of detail in your DNF log so the CO will be able to judge whether anything needs checking or even if the D rating needs tweaking. If you feel your search was hampered by having to do it by torchlight, just say so in your log.

[+thebruce0]

And further to the DNF/CHS thing, remember that even if there are a string of DNF logs where none of them are actually related to the state of the cache (per the red-belly example above), and if the CO gets an automated nudge email, the CO can choose to ignore it, or let a reviewer know (though posting an OM log to reset the score would not be ideal since no OM was done); and if the CO ignores it, nothing will happen unless a reviewer takes a look and judges from the past DNFs that the CO needs to do something. Otherwise, nothing happens to a cache by automation.

 

So, post your DNFs. They're informative, to cachers and the CO. The "score" isn't something that geocachers should blame for not posting appropriate logs in their hunts.  Actions taken ON a cache will always be done at the fingertips of a human who makes the decision, not an automated system that can much more easily misinterpret data.

[+coachstahly]

14 hours ago, daddybeth said:

To me it would be helpful with a high difficulty cache to know the logger was looking in the correct location but genuinely DNF, as opposed to looking in the wrong location due to poor GPS.

 

It's already been mentioned but even if you have poor GPS reception as you're looking for the cache and then you don't find it, it's still a DNF.  The poor reception doesn't mean it's a fake DNF.  If quite a few seekers post about wonky coordinates that bounce around then it might be in the CO's best interest to provide a more detailed hint.

 

15 hours ago, daddybeth said:

However - if a high dfficulty surely more experienced people would search much more thoroughly - therefore strings of DNF are more likely to indicate AWOL cache?

 

Nope.  I've found quite a few caches that were DNFed by finders who I considered more experienced than me, including easier D caches.  Not all of us will find everything we look for.  I've missed finding quite a few lower D (1, 1.5) caches and the next log, from a newer cacher says, "Easy and quick find."  It's just the way it is sometimes.  With a higher D cache, I never assume the cache is missing.  I almost always assume that the cache is there and I didn't find it.  

 

15 hours ago, daddybeth said:

Either way, I'm currently reticent about logging a DNF even on dark winter nights without a hint to confirm the DNF is genuine. Normally just write a note instead. Perhaps it's inexperience;.

 

If you looked and didn't find it, it's a DNF.  As has been mentioned above, note that you were searching at night with a flashlight.  That lets the CO know that someone looked for their cache and didn't find it.  There's lots of debate about when to log a DNF vs. a note.  Jeff noted that someone logged a DNF before getting to GZ because of a snake they encountered on the trail/path.  Personally, I'd log a note rather than a DNF because I didn't get to GZ to search but I have no problem with the cacher who logged the DNF because in their mind, the search began the moment they hit go (or whatever it was they did to start out getting to GZ).  It's your personal preference as to what to log but don't ever be afraid to log a DNF.

[+cerberus1]

15 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

With the new CHS, I'm leery to post more than one DNF on a cache.  I have lots of DNFs!  I don't want a cache disable because I couldn't find it twice.  

 

I'm not sure any of us know how that chs thing is working now, IIRC it's been tweaked a few times already, but I sorta agree. 

Just last week I attempted a "gadget" that simply wasn't working.  Internal battery operated, the cold probably killed it.

It wasn't a DNF,  I "found it", even looked to see if there was some way to rig it to work,  and just couldn't access the log. 

I used a Write Note to notify the CO (and a mail).  My Write Note mentioning the issue is just as "informative" to other cachers too.

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by cerberus1
to be clear....

[+HunterandSamuel]

I have met cachers that refuse to read hints unless absolutely necessary (like searching for a cache for more than 15 minutes). In the beginning my hints were too hard so I changed them to be more reasonable. It's a learning experience!

[+HunterandSamuel]

Is there a thread started about FTFs? I don't want to duplicate a topic. I would like to know what kind of treasures/prizes people leave for FTFs. Thank you! 

[+cerberus1]

20 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Is there a thread started about FTFs? I don't want to duplicate a topic. I would like to know what kind of treasures/prizes people leave for FTFs. Thank you! 

 

What swag,    Worst swag,   Best swag   are a few.  Just hit "swag" or "treasures" in search (at the top of all forum threads).

Money in a geocache,   ftf prize,    ftf prize ideas  with "prize" as the search word... 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by cerberus1
addification

[+HunterandSamuel]

11 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

What swag,    Worst swag,   Best swag   are a few.  Just hit "swag" or "treasures" in search (at the top of all forum threads).

Money in a geocache,   ftf prize,    ftf prize ideas  with "prize" as the search word... 

 

 

Thanks!

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Internal battery operated, the cold probably killed it.

It wasn't a DNF,  I "found it", even looked to see if there was some way to rig it to work,  and just couldn't access the log.

 

I'd wager the term "did not find" is a remnant of the early hobby when, really, if you found the container, you signed the logbook.  It never changed as the containers grew to incorporate additional aspects like field puzzles or increasingly ingenious camo.  Today "Did Not Find" doesn't mean only "I did not find the container" - everyone knows it implies that you didn't sign the logbook, as the base fundamental. On top of that, it could mean any number of things let to it (and there isn't a rule about what it must constitute, other than not signing the logbook).

 

People may or may not use the log type for any number of reasons, and have their own justifications for note vs dnf. But it should be clear to everyone that if used, at least today it means the logbook was not signed (or, the minimum requirement for a +1 Smiley log was not achieved)

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Is there a thread started about FTFs? I don't want to duplicate a topic. I would like to know what kind of treasures/prizes people leave for FTFs. Thank you! 

 

Side note, I began a related mission / challenge in my 12 days of geovlogmas which I'm posing to the community - to give out a "Next To Find" prize. FTF prizes are for the first to find, but, kind of like paying it forward to the car behind you in the McDonalds drive thru, why not pay it forward and give a gift to the next to find the cache?  

[+cerberus1]

13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Today "Did Not Find" doesn't mean only "I did not find the container" - everyone knows it implies that you didn't sign the logbook, as the base fundamental. On top of that, it could mean any number of things let to it (and there isn't a rule about what it must constitute, other than not signing the logbook).

People may or may not use the log type for any number of reasons, and have their own justifications for note vs dnf. But it should be clear to everyone that if used, at least today it means the logbook was not signed (or, the minimum requirement for a +1 Smiley log was not achieved)

 

That's odd, by the Help Center ..." Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it."

[+thebruce0]

Yes, I know what the Help Center says. And, if you did not find the cache, you did not sign the log book did you?

Some people find the cache, but did not access the logbook, and choose to post a DNF. So again, it should be clear to everyone that if used, at least today it means the logbook was not signed.  It can mean more than that. But it cannot mean (or would be incorrect) that the logbook was signed and a Find claimed. Or in other words, the minimum meaning implied by a DNF log is that the logbook was not signed. The term is -- well see my prior comment.  Can you think of a legitimate reason to log a DNF when the logbook is signed as required (ie, a valid find)? But perhaps this is a topic best for a different thread.

[+barefootjeff]

41 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Yes, I know what the Help Center says. And, if you did not find the cache, you did not sign the log book did you?

Some people find the cache, but did not access the logbook, and choose to post a DNF. So again, it should be clear to everyone that if used, at least today it means the logbook was not signed.  It can mean more than that. But it cannot mean (or would be incorrect) that the logbook was signed and a Find claimed. Or in other words, the minimum meaning implied by a DNF log is that the logbook was not signed. The term is -- well see my prior comment.

 

Yes, the term "find" has special meaning in geocaching beyond just figuring out where the cache is, you have to actually reach it, open it and sign the log. Anything less isn't a find in our sense of the word, so if it's not a "find" it's a DNF.

[+thebruce0]

2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Yes, the term "find" has special meaning in geocaching beyond just figuring out where the cache is, you have to actually reach it, open it and sign the log. Anything less isn't a find in our sense of the word, so if it's not a "find" it's a DNF.

 

That would be an easier way of explaining it.   If you take all the labels and terms 100% literally in this game, you're going to have a very difficult time. Understanding a bit of how the terms likely came to be is a nice bonus.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Yes, I know what the Help Center says. And, if you did not find the cache, you did not sign the log book did you?

 

There is a special case when you find the cache but can not sign the logbook. For example, you don't have a pen. I post a DNF if I can not sign the logbook but I know where it is.

[+thebruce0]

Exactly. The "Did Not Find" doesn't literally mean 'I did not find the cache', it means 'whatever I did find or do, I didn't sign the log'.

[+colleda]

This morning I came across a hint on a Christmas event (in Spain) that brought a smile to my dial.

 

"[ES] Santa Atroz es alemán y por supuesto puntual....[UK] Santa Atroz is german and of course always on time... "

[+The Jester]

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Exactly. The "Did Not Find" doesn't literally mean 'I did not find the cache', it means 'whatever I did find or do, I didn't sign the log'.

Also, until you access the logbook, how do you know that the "container" is the cache?  I've seen red herrings and items that look they might be a cache, but without a logbook how do you know?

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, The Jester said:

Also, until you access the logbook, how do you know that the "container" is the cache?  I've seen red herrings and items that look they might be a cache, but without a logbook how do you know?

 

Sometimes, call it intuition if you like, but sometimes I just know that lump of concrete is going to be the cache...

 

[+Isonzo Karst]

At the risk of bringing the thread back to hints, here's what various places on Geocaching.com have to say on the subject:

1) CSP
Hint (Recommended)
If you don't want to include a hint, just leave this space blank

2) edit page of listing
HINT

Use this space to give geocachers a short, helpful clue to finding your geocache. This information will be encrypted on the site until a geocacher clicks on a link to decrypt it. Text within brackets [like this] will not be encrypted.

3) Help Center
6.6. Geocache hints
You can include an optional hint in your cache page to provide additional information for geocachers who have trouble finding the cache at GZ.
at GZ then links this definition

Ground Zero (GZ)  The point where your GPS device shows that you have reached the geocache location. At ground zero, you are zero feet (or zero meters) away from your destination.

[+thebruce0]

Another thing to consider - there are intended uses for every property of a cache listing. And yet, puzzles are often made by utilizing these fields - ie, not in the intended manner. Are those wrong as well? No, or they would not be published.

 

Again, it's best for every geocacher if they understand the intent of the data in listings (ie, the Hint field), but realize that it is not an absolute. Be prepared for red herrings, irrelevance, essential information, gibberish... it's all allowed even though it's not the intent of the field.

[+HunterandSamuel]

18 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

There is a special case when you find the cache but can not sign the logbook. For example, you don't have a pen. I post a DNF if I can not sign the logbook but I know where it is.

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

[+thebruce0]

38 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

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

 

No. They might take a photo of what they believe to be the geocache, and the CO can choose to allow it, but a photo is not an acceptable "evidence" of a find. A CO can delete a Find log even if a cacher sends a photo, if they did not sign the log sheet, and the decision will (generally) be upheld by HQ.  They'll recommend a CO not make a big deal about it (or the finder), but it's best to sign the log - you never know if there's a twist to the find that a cache may have missed, where taking a photo of the container is not sufficient evidence to have actually "found the cache [and signed the log]".

 

As a cacher, you need to do everything you can (within the guidelines) to ensure you've signed the intended logsheet of a physical cache if you want to guarantee that your Found It log online will stand. Plenty of disputes over this little aspect of the hobby over the years. And so now, name-on-logsheet is "evidence", the only way to lock in your online record of having found the cache (insurance against the CO deleting the log).

[+HunterandSamuel]

2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

No.

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

[+HunterandSamuel]

4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

As a cacher, you need to do everything you can (within the guidelines)

Ah, back to the guidelines. What did you just say to me about the guideline I posted earlier on hiding a cache?  General guide, not a requirement? Same in this case. If I find a cache but forgot a pen...I'll take a photo for proof that I found it.

 

[+thebruce0]

You misunderstood what I said. Due to endless disputes over the years, a geocacher must have their name in the logsheet to lock in their find as evidence for the online log. No, that doesn't mean that a signature is required in order to log online. There is a difference. A CO can choose to allow a find log to stand if they feel the geocache has been found (and cache owners can get in trouble for repeatedly allowing false finds).

"Guidelines" doesn't mean that nothing is enforceable and there are no rules. The hobby would be chaos.

1. A cache owner can allow a find log to stand if the finder presents a photo of the geocache and the CO feels it's legitimately found.

2. A cache owner can deny a find log even if a cacher has taken a photo of the container but can show no evidence of signing the proper logsheet.

3. A cache owner cannot (likely after dealing with the appeals process) delete a Found It log by a geocacher who can demonstrate they have signed the proper logsheet.

 

Per #2, a cache owner can indeed delete a Found It log on a geocache if the finder has only taken a photo of the cache. But again, depending on the circumstance, most likely HQ will encourage the CO to let it go. But in the cases where it's actually worthwhile for the CO to delete the log because the find evidence is not sufficient, it's typically because the cacher either 'borrowed' someone else's photo, lied in the online log, found/placed a throwdown that does not accurately reflect the listing, etc. (and there is no name on the logsheet to correlate to the user's online log)

It really is due to quarrels and quibbles over the years that HQ now enforces this practice, allowing a CO to delete a log if they deem it reasonable when a geocacher has not signed the logsheet.

 

And, typically, it's after an angsty appeal process on the part of either the geocacher or the cache owner.

 

 

tl;dr recap:

1. Signature on a logsheet is not required to log a find online.

2. Signature on a logsheet is the only evidence to ensure a find log cannot be deleted.

Edited December 20, 2019 by thebruce0

[+HunterandSamuel]

15 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

1. A cache owner can allow a find log to stand if the finder presents a photo of the geocache and the CO feels it's legitimately found.

 

 

Um, that's what I said. In my second post I clarified this.

[+thebruce0]

4 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

22 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

1. A cache owner can allow a find log to stand if the finder presents a photo of the geocache and the CO feels it's legitimately found.

Um, that's what I said. In my second post I clarified this.

 

Sure. I was expanding on this statement of yours:

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

 

A photo isn't proof of a find. Only the CO can decide if a photo is sufficient evidence to allow a log to stand, or if the log should be deleted.

Merely taking a photo of the (assumed) cache is not sufficient to guarantee your find log online.

If you agree with that, then excellent = )

Edited December 20, 2019 by thebruce0

[+HunterandSamuel]

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Sometimes, call it intuition if you like, but sometimes I just know that lump of concrete is going to be the cache...

 

That is so cool. We found a red stone rock that had a hole drilled into it and a capsule cache inserted inside. It was hidden under a bench but for some reason it kept getting tossed into a rock pile nearby. lol  Probably by maintenance.

Edited December 20, 2019 by HunterandSamuel

[+HunterandSamuel]

2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Sure. I was expanding on this statement of yours:

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

 

A photo isn't proof of a find. Only the CO can decide if a photo is sufficient evidence to allow a log to stand, or if the log should be deleted.

Merely taking a photo of the (assumed) cache is not sufficient to guarantee your find log online.

If you agree with that, then excellent = )

Like I said...take a photo of the cache for proof of a find if you forgot a pen. The CO will likely honor it as a find. If they don't, come back with a pen. No big deal.

[+thebruce0]

Just now, HunterandSamuel said:

Like I said...take a photo of the cache for proof of a find if you forgot a pen. The CO will likely honor it as a find. If they don't, come back with a pen. No big deal.

 

Ah, see the last part you didn't say with the comment I replied to. =P  Without that part, "proof of a find" implies the wrong thing. That's what I was attempting to clear up.

[+HunterandSamuel]

Just now, thebruce0 said:

 

Ah, see the last part you didn't say with the comment I replied to. =P  Without that part, "proof of a find" implies the wrong thing. That's what I was attempting to clear up.

I think what I said a few times already was plain enough. The last comment didn't even have to be tacked on my me.

[+HunterandSamuel]

Did you not see this?   "Many around here have taken photos, sent it to the CO, who then gives permission to log it as a find."

[+thebruce0]

Words matter. People can misunderstand with non-optimal words. Clarification is good everyone. If we agree about the function of a photo between a cache finder and a cache owner (it's not proof, but a cache owner can choose to allow it), then we're good.

[+HunterandSamuel]

23 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Words matter. People can misunderstand with non-optimal words. Clarification is good everyone. If we agree about the function of a photo between a cache finder and a cache owner (it's not proof, but a cache owner can choose to allow it), then we're good.

Agreed.

[+colleda]

3 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Ah, back to the guidelines. What did you just say to me about the guideline I posted earlier on hiding a cache?  General guide, not a requirement? Same in this case. If I find a cache but forgot a pen...I'll take a photo for proof that I found it.

 

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.

[+arisoft]

6 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

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

 

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.

Edited December 20, 2019 by arisoft

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour 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.

 

Yes, agreed. I've found myself at GZ without a pen on several occasions. One, which was close to home, I went back and got one, on a couple of urban hides I've gone off in search of a shop where I could buy a pen then returned to the cache to sign the log, and on more remote hides I've improvised with a twig or gumnut and then photographed the mark I'd left in the log in case it faded.

 

Then there are caches where going from "I can see it" (or photograph it) to having the logbook in my hand ready to sign isn't trivial. Some are in places I baulked at climbing to unaided (and usually returned another day with a ladder or a helper) and some are field puzzle caches where there's some trick to opening them (combination locks, cryptexes, ball bearing mazes, etc.). A photo of the cache in these cases falls well short of a "find".