Logging a find without finding the cache

[Stebin92]

Have you ever found someone who logs a find but in the text writes that s/he hasn't found the cache? In some cases those aren't newbies, but experienced cachers.

[+Max and 99]

Rarely! I've learned from experiencedl to check the actual cache  page before I message them because sometimes it was accidentally logged as a find and corrected right away. 

 

Edited July 16, 2024 by Max and 99

[+kunarion]

5 minutes ago, Stebin92 said:

Have you ever found someone who logs a find but in the text writes that s/he hasn't found the cache? In some cases those aren't newbies, but experienced cachers.

 

I've done that a few times, from The App and on the web site.  The logs had "Found" by default, and I hadn't selected "DNF".  Had to go back and fix it.

[+The_Jumping_Pig]

1 hour ago, kunarion said:

I've done that a few times, from The App and on the web site.  The logs had "Found" by default, and I hadn't selected "DNF".  Had to go back and fix it.

I've done that too. But I'm not sure if this is what is what the OP means...

 

I think (correct me if I am wrong) that they are talking about people who knowingly post a found it log even though the cache wasn't there, usually when the hiding place is 'obvious' like a LPH. I have seen this before and I think it is rude and disrespectful without permission from the CO. I think the CO definitely has the right to delete such logs.

[+kunarion]

30 minutes ago, The_Jumping_Pig said:

I've done that too. But I'm not sure if this is what is what the OP means...

 

I think (correct me if I am wrong) that they are talking about people who knowingly post a found it log even though the cache wasn't there, usually when the hiding place is 'obvious' like a LPH. I have seen this before and I think it is rude and disrespectful without permission from the CO. I think the CO definitely has the right to delete such logs.

 

Yes, that would be OK.  It's not a Find if not Found.

 

But... the cache isn't there?!  The CO needs to address that, so that cachers aren't looking for a missing container.

[+The_Jumping_Pig]

2 hours ago, kunarion said:

Yes, that would be OK.  It's not a Find if not Found.

 

But... the cache isn't there?!  The CO needs to address that, so that cachers aren't looking for a missing container.

I agree.

 

The cacher who thinks the cache is missing should post an NM... but not also log the cache as found. and cause a precedent... that makes many cachers log the cache as found.

 

 

 

[+Max and 99]

3 hours ago, The_Jumping_Pig said:

I've done that too. But I'm not sure if this is what is what the OP means...

Yes, I understood that to be the case. But I always check the cache page just to confirm.

 

2 hours ago, kunarion said:

But... the cache isn't there?!  The CO needs to address that, so that cachers aren't looking for a missing container.

For sure. 

 

27 minutes ago, The_Jumping_Pig said:

The cacher who thinks the cache is missing should post an NM

Yep. 

 

 

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, The_Jumping_Pig said:

I agree.

 

The cacher who thinks the cache is missing should post an NM... but not also log the cache as found. and cause a precedent... that makes many cachers log the cache as found.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, those are some absurd logs.  Some of those guys seem to be able to create a Find by merely declaring it to be so. I wonder why they bother with a trip to a cache site.  Plus, as you mentioned, fake logs screw up the game for others.  My App or database software may show consistent Finds, so I might go, when it's not there and everybody knows it.  Unlike them, I have a simple principle of Sign it, Log it.  No find for me.

 

And in the Op, someone used photographic proof that it's missing as justification to log a Find. 

 

Although it may possibly be not missing, if it's been in fact not found for a long time and has an unadressed NM about the issue, and I go and it does seem to be gone, I might just do an NA.  Try me.  

 

Edited July 17, 2024 by kunarion

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, kunarion said:

Yeah, those are some absurd logs.  Some of those guys seem to be able to create a Find by merely declaring it to be so.

For that, check out some of the logs of caches in central Buenos Aires. I got a lot of DNFs there, but others are happy to take a picture at GZ and call that a find. The CO of many of those caches excepts the logs. It gets a reviewer visit, the CO says the cache is fine or replaced, there are more DNFs, as it's VERY unlikely the CO visited those caches. Check their last cache find; they aren't in Buenos Aires. They have turned their caches into virtuals. I know there aren't that many caches for visitors to find, but it's frustrating to walk many kms day after day and log mainly DNFs.  Better they weren't there. The reviewer needs to ask to see a picture of the cache in situ, and then keep checking on the caches to make sure there aren't more DNFs and the photographs were real. A cache can be photographed anywhere.

A cache by another CO there. I DNFed it, even though I found the (empty) spot in the spoiler picture. This is the logless cache. No idea where that was hidden, as I visited twice and searched well. Might have been influenced too much by the spoiler photo and the like. No idea if the CO put this there, or another cacher. But it wasn't where the spoiler picture showed. Another virtual. (After writing this, I went and checked the photographs. One shows a log container with the duck. No log container now.)

 

After that, it was a pleasure to then move onto Santiago and the well kept caches there in great condition...and none turned into virtuals.

Edited July 17, 2024 by Goldenwattle

[+barefootguru]

7 hours ago, Stebin92 said:

Have you ever found someone who logs a find but in the text writes that s/he hasn't found the cache? In some cases those aren't newbies, but experienced cachers.

 

Yep, got someone here with 9,000 finds who is known for it.  She ignored my PM suggesting she'd made a mistake.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 minute ago, barefootguru said:

Yep, got someone here with 9,000 finds who is known for it.  She ignored my PM suggesting she'd made a mistake.

Delete! I would. And have deleted logs by a person with a far higher count than 9,000. 

[+kunarion]

10 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

For that, check out some of the logs of caches in central Buenos Aires. I got a lot of DNFs there, but others are happy to take a picture at GZ and call that a find. The CO of many of those caches excepts the logs. It gets a reviewer visit, the CO says the cache is fine or replaced, there are more DNFs, as it's VERY unlikely the CO visited those caches. Check their last cache find; they aren't in Buenos Aires. They have turned their caches into virtuals. I know there aren't that many caches for visitors to find, but it's frustrating to walk many kms day after day and log mainly DNFs.  Better they weren't there. The reviewer needs to ask to see a picture of the cache in situ, and then keep checking on the caches to make sure there aren't more DNFs and the photographs were real. A cache can be photographed anywhere.

A cache by another CO there. I DNFed it, even though I found the (empty) spot in the spoiler picture. This is the logless cache. No idea where that was hidden, as I visited twice and searched well. Might have been influenced too much by the spoiler photo and the like. No idea if the CO put this there, or another cacher. But it wasn't where the spoiler picture showed. Another virtual. (After writing this, I went and checked the photographs. One shows a log container with the duck. No log container now.)

 

After that, it was a pleasure to then move onto Santiago and the well kept caches there in great condition...and none turned into virtuals.

 

That's crazy!  In the past I've at least stated the situation in my DNF log, when I came across one of that kind of "virtual cache".  Lately I'm posting an NA a little more often.  And if it's my cache, I don't put up with that at all.  Someone stuck a piece of paper into a bottle cap and logged "There's a bottle cap but it was empty, so, Found It!"  My caches are in place, and none of them are "bottle caps".

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, kunarion said:

Lately I'm posting an NA a little more often.

I regularly do NM and occasionally NA at home, but in foreign countries I am more hesitant, as I don't know the 'lay of the land', so to speak. Especially when the language isn't English. I do DNFs though.

 

An example of how bad the caches are that I mentioned, here is one of them. After eleven DNFs the reviewer came in. A few suspicious finds between the DNFs. Another DNF, the reviewer disables the cache. The CO enables it. I doubt the CO visited. No logs since then, but with other caches of this CO the DNFs continue. Sigh, as time goes on it's annoying me less 😄, but I was very disappointed that these caches hadn't been arched so as to avoid wasting people's time. There will be other caches left. There won't be none.

[Stebin92]

I'd use DNF + NA only if I'm sure that the owner is no longer active or if the cache is placed in a permanently unsuitable place, for example if the land is access-restricted or if vegetation growth made the cache inaccessible.

If the cache is missing or the place is temporarily inaccessible (for example for works or flooding) but the owner is active I'd log DNF + NM. If the cache is damaged I'd log Find + NM (with a photo attached if the logbook is too rotten to sign).

No way I'm logging a find if I can't hold the logbook in my hands.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Corollary to the people who log a Find on every cache they look for, whether they find it or not: people who message you about a cache they can't find but never log a DNF, even when you pointedly ask them to.

 

Some people are apparently deathly allergic to logging DNFs. 

[+Goldenwattle]

4 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Corollary to the people who log a Find on every cache they look for, whether they find it or not: people who message you about a cache they can't find but never log a DNF, even when you pointedly ask them to.

 

Some people are apparently deathly allergic to logging DNFs. 

I have been known to contact people who have a DNF on my caches and ask if they would like another hint. I do want people to find them, and I know it can be disappointing to have DNFs. I used to just send an extra hint and it was well received, until some 'nark' went off at me for helping them. Saying I spoiled it and they wanted to find it themselves. Now I ask first, but no one since has rejected the help, and they have been grateful.

 

Re, allergic to logging DNFs. I did have someone once ask for help, saying they had searched for one of my caches several times. I replied I don't see a DNF, and if they had made one I would have likely already contacted them to offer help, but I don't offer help without a DNF. They got snarky (refused to do a DNF) and wrote back with 'whatever floats your boat'. I replied what floats my boat is that now I am not going to help them. Never a DNF from them.

 

I have on several occasion's been the only one in a small group who has logged a DNF. A few times I have listed everyone in the group, so it can be seen I wasn't the only DNF. I find non logging of DNFs on my caches frustrating, as I might not know there is a problem I need to fix. Fortunately I do eventually check my caches without needing a DNF but, as on one occasion, I go to check my cache, find it missing, check logs and no logs for several months, whereas nearby caches have been getting logs. So likely unlogged DNFs.

 

I logged a DNF in NZ after no logs for six months. Going on past logging rate over several years, there should have been about twenty logs during that time, so that many people wouldn't log DNFs. The CO checked and thanked me for the DNF, as it was missing.

[+CAVinoGal]

5 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Some people are apparently deathly allergic to logging DNFs.

 

(Thought I had posted a reply, but it seems to have gone missing....)

 

I log my DNF's, typically for both hubby and me when we cache together, and sometimes for a group (I don't see the sense in multiple DNF logs for the same search, so one of us, usually me, will log it for the group.  I do mention that there were several sets of eyes looking!)

 

Just out of curiosity, I checked my stats and hubbies.  We both stand at 3,126 finds.  Over our 7 years of geocaching, I've logged 194 DNF's, he's logged 7.  Granted, we usually cache together, and I do the DNF logs, but still, that's quite a difference!  I like to see the DNF's on my map if we revisit an area, and there are some I've turned into finds.  It's all a part of my geocaching days, and I like to log all of it!

[+Goldenwattle]

44 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

I do mention that there were several sets of eyes looking!)

That doesn't assist the algorithm to pick up on possible missing caches.

[+niraD]

7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

That doesn't assist the algorithm to pick up on possible missing caches.

 

All hail the great and powerful algorithm!

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

 

All hail the great and powerful algorithm!

 

Which has never come after one of my caches, because I maintain them. But it it does; shrug. I'll attend to the problem.

[+TeamTJ]

On 7/17/2024 at 1:12 PM, Stebin92 said:

No way I'm logging a find if I can't hold the logbook in my hands.

Normally I would follow this, too, but the other day I opened a cache (ammo can) and immediately was swarmed with thousands of ants.

 

I closed it back up and Scooby-Doo'd myself far away as fast as possible.

 

I logged that one as found...because I found it. :-)

[+barefootjeff]

10 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Which has never come after one of my caches, because I maintain them. But it it does; shrug. I'll attend to the problem.

 

Even caches that have nothing wrong with them can get DNF logs, especially the more challenging ones where there are a lot more opportunities for not succeeding in finding it. Get enough of those in a random cluster and you'll likely get that dreaded email. My cache that got pinged, a 2/5 multi, was only 6 weeks old and had just one find and one DNF, the latter due to muggles encamped close to GZ. Murphy's Law also says that it'll come at the most inconvenient time for doing a cache check, especially if getting to the cache takes a lot of effort. Mine came between Christmas and New Year when the otherwise quiet waterway was teaming with water-skiers and jet skis, hence the muggles at GZ, and not good for trying to paddle a kayak any sort of distance.

[+Goldenwattle]

  

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

My cache that got pinged, a 2/5 multi, was only 6 weeks old and had just one find and one DNF, the latter due to muggles encamped close to GZ.

Then there should be no problem. Do an OM say one find, and the DNF was because they couldn't search because of campers,  not because it was missing. None of my caches have ever been pinged, even after DNFs. But no problem if one was pinged. I would either do a NM, saying there was a mistake because one DNF without looking does not mean it's missing, or if in doubt go take a look.

Edited July 19, 2024 by Goldenwattle

[+colleda]

I DNF'd a cache in Spain 2022. Logged DNF plus NM, then later, NA. It had DNFs and "generic" Found It logs.

The non maintenance of this cache irked me, as a visitor on an organised tour with limited time which could have been spent searching for a different cache which was still there.

GC7Y7ZR

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

26 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

  

Then there should be no problem. Do a NM, say one find, and the DNF was because they couldn't search because of campers,  not because it was missing. None of my caches have ever been pinged, even after DNFs. But no problem if one was pinged. I would either do a NM, saying there was a mistake because one DNF without looking does not mean it's missing, or if in doubt go take a look.

 

I assume you mean OM, not NM, but my understanding is that you should only log an OM if you've actually visited the cache yourself and confirmed everything is good.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I assume you mean OM, not NM

Thank you. Corrected.

 

If I were to get a 'ping' following one DNF because someone didn't search for some reason on one of my caches, I would do an OM and say they didn't even get to the cache., because a ping for that is just silly. If I thought it genuine, of course I would go check. However as I said, I haven't had one yet.

[+barefootjeff]

Getting back onto the topic of this thread, at the other extreme I got this log recently on one of my caches, where they just posted a note saying they'd found it rather than logging a find.

 

Out of curiosity, I went out to the cache and they'd signed the logbook. Weird. Looking at their profile page, it says they joined in 2021 and last visited the website the day before they signed up, though I'm not sure how that's possible:

 

 

In any case, it appears they exclusively use the app for all their caching, which seems to be a common factor in most of the finds-that-weren't-finds and vice versa that I've encountered.

[+Viajero Perdido]

11 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

last visited the website the day before they signed up, though I'm not sure how that's possible:

 

 

Australia.  Date line between you and Seattle.  Time zones are hard.  

[+barefootguru]

On 7/17/2024 at 4:56 PM, Goldenwattle said:

Delete! I would. And have deleted logs by a person with a far higher count than 9,000. 

I would if it was mine, but she logs them on caches with inactive COs.

[+MNTA]

6 hours ago, colleda said:

I DNF'd a cache in Spain 2022. Logged DNF plus NM, then later, NA. It had DNFs and "generic" Found It logs.

The non maintenance of this cache irked me, as a visitor on an organised tour with limited time which could have been spent searching for a different cache which was still there.

GC7Y7ZR

 

 

We share an irk. Missed out on an Indiana find because of the same scenario. Time for one and could have chosen an alternative direction to go in but choose wrong. Now when in a similar situation I do a little more homework. 

[+CAVinoGal]

13 hours ago, niraD said:

21 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

That doesn't assist the algorithm to pick up on possible missing caches.

 

All hail the great and powerful algorithm!

 

LOL at this... (in reference to my comment that I will usually be the one to log the DNF if there is a group searching)

 

I don't see the need for each of us to log a DNF, if we were all there, searching, on the same day at the same time.  I will mention how many of us were looking, how long we spent, and other details.  It does somewhat irk me when I see 4 recent DNF's, and then realize that 3 of them were all the same day, and the same "search".  Four DNF's spread over a few weeks by different search parties is more meaningful, IMHO.

[+hukilaulau]

A few of my favorites:

"I won't be passing through here again so I'm claiming a find."

"If it had been here I'd have found it so I'm claiming a find." (Found by several cachers over the next couple of days.)

"I couldn't find it so I left something for others to find and claimed the smiley." (MANY versions of this over the years)

"I saw where I would have placed it so I'm claiming a find."

"I lookd for a long time so I deserve a smiley"

 

These logs ranged from newbies with one or two finds to veterans with tens of thousands of finds.

[+niraD]

24 minutes ago, hukilaulau said:

A few of my favorites:

"I won't be passing through here again so I'm claiming a find."

"If it had been here I'd have found it so I'm claiming a find." (Found by several cachers over the next couple of days.)

"I couldn't find it so I left something for others to find and claimed the smiley." (MANY versions of this over the years)

"I saw where I would have placed it so I'm claiming a find."

"I lookd for a long time so I deserve a smiley"

 

These logs ranged from newbies with one or two finds to veterans with tens of thousands of finds.

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

It does somewhat irk me when I see 4 recent DNF's, and then realize that 3 of them were all the same day, and the same "search".  Four DNF's spread over a few weeks by different search parties is more meaningful, IMHO.

 

My experience with group caching is that, once at GZ and if the cache isn't immediately obvious, everyone starts searching, usually spreading out over a fair radius and each with their own ideas of what the container might be and how it might be concealed. Unless we're pressed for time, the search will often go for longer than it would have if I'd been searching alone as no one wants to be the one to call it quits, and often someone will eventually call out "Found it!", whereupon I turn to see them triumphantly extracting the cache from a place I would never have thought of looking, or conversely from a place I thought I'd already thoroughly searched. Unless only one person does the searching while everyone else pulls out snacks and starts chatting amongst themselves, that bunch of DNFs probably carries at least as much weight as the same number of individual DNFs.

 

But in any case, a DNF in and of itself isn't a report on the state of the cache, it's just an account of the searcher's attempt to find it, in the same way a find log is. If only one person from the group should log a DNF if the search is unsuccessful, by the same argument only one should log a find if it succeeds.

Edited July 19, 2024 by barefootjeff

[+Goldenwattle]

8 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

I don't see the need for each of us to log a DNF, if we were all there, searching, on the same day at the same time.  I will mention how many of us were looking, how long we spent, and other details.  It does somewhat irk me when I see 4 recent DNF's, and then realize that 3 of them were all the same day, and the same "search".  Four DNF's spread over a few weeks by different search parties is more meaningful, IMHO.

Still four people who couldn't find the cache, whether on the same day or over several weeks. Same value; four DNFs. For an active CO this makes no difference, as they will check. But for an inactive CO it's important to have those four DNFs, no matter whether it's on the same day, or weeks apart, so it will bring the reviewers attention to it.

I also would speculate that people who don't log DNFs when in a group, also tend to not log DNF's when alone.

Besides, a group tends to do a better search, all searching different places, and as bareootjeff says, a longer search. So if a group can't find it, that can carry more weight than four individual searches, that the cache is missing. So LOG those DNFs, each and everyone!

Edited July 19, 2024 by Goldenwattle

[+Goldenwattle]

On 7/17/2024 at 2:38 PM, Goldenwattle said:

On 7/17/2024 at 1:30 PM, kunarion said:

Yeah, those are some absurd logs.  Some of those guys seem to be able to create a Find by merely declaring it to be so.

For that, check out some of the logs of caches in central Buenos Aires. I got a lot of DNFs there, but others are happy to take a picture at GZ and call that a find. The CO of many of those caches excepts the logs. It gets a reviewer visit, the CO says the cache is fine or replaced, there are more DNFs, as it's VERY unlikely the CO visited those caches.

 (How I felt when logging these DNFs after walking kms, believing the cache was there, when it haven't been for some time)

 

Still happening and this is being allowed to happen. On some of the caches people are logging finds for DNFs on these caches. I have a watch on those caches I had DNFs for. The CO is reactivating without replacing the caches, because they are treating their caches as Virtuals and accept non find logs.

The latest: DNF, DNF, DNF, DNF, DNF, DNF, DNF, DNF, Reviewer, CO reactives it, DNF (more to follow)

Edited July 19, 2024 by Goldenwattle

[+MNTA]

10 hours ago, hukilaulau said:

A few of my favorites:

"I won't be passing through here again so I'm claiming a find."

"If it had been here I'd have found it so I'm claiming a find." (Found by several cachers over the next couple of days.)

"I couldn't find it so I left something for others to find and claimed the smiley." (MANY versions of this over the years)

"I saw where I would have placed it so I'm claiming a find."

"I lookd for a long time so I deserve a smiley"

 

These logs ranged from newbies with one or two finds to veterans with tens of thousands of finds.

Um delete no brainer

[+Sottiwotti]

I really like this one. From a cache in my town

 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2024 by Sottiwotti

[+Sottiwotti]

16 hours ago, hukilaulau said:

A few of my favorites:

"I won't be passing through here again so I'm claiming a find."

"If it had been here I'd have found it so I'm claiming a find." (Found by several cachers over the next couple of days.)

"I couldn't find it so I left something for others to find and claimed the smiley." (MANY versions of this over the years)

"I saw where I would have placed it so I'm claiming a find."

"I lookd for a long time so I deserve a smiley"

 

These logs ranged from newbies with one or two finds to veterans with tens of thousands of finds.

 

Makes me furious

 

 

[+CAVinoGal]

16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

that bunch of DNFs probably carries at least as much weight as the same number of individual DNFs.

 

But in any case, a DNF in and of itself isn't a report on the state of the cache, it's just an account of the searcher's attempt to find it, in the same way a find log is. If only one person from the group should log a DNF if the search is unsuccessful, by the same argument only one should log a find if it succeeds.

 

16 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

So if a group can't find it, that can carry more weight than four individual searches, that the cache is missing. So LOG those DNFs, each and everyone!

 

Points well taken!  Thank you for that perspective!

[geoawareUSA9]

There was a long-running thread here in the forums, Found It = Didn't Find It.

 

It devolved often into cachers calling out other cachers in the forums, which as my colleague @Keystone had to repeatedly point out, is not allowed.

 

As he noted when locking that thread, "No replacement thread should be started." And yet, here we are.

 

We are, therefore, done here.