Find on Missing Cache - Full Credit?

July 3, 2002

In the spirit of Partial Find On Multi Stage - Partial Credit, I want to ask about the following situation.

If you go on a cache hunt out of state where the cache was stolen, should you get full credit? Normally I would wait IF they replaced the cache and do it again, but this cache I did while on vacation:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=7733

and it is 4 hours away and I won't be going back there. I KNOW that I was in the right spot as the spoiler says look under the "Red Christmas Tree" and there is only one tree that fits the bill (there is even a plaque that reads "Red Pine Tree"). My daughter and I got scratched while getting underneath the tree, and went as far as to spread around the needles underneath in case the cache owner buried it.

After several people posted a no find, the owner left a note that they would check on it. They have since archived it.

My question is should we get to count it as a find since we were in the EXACT location and that it is out of state and that it would be unduly burdensome to have to go back?

Thanks for your time,

GPS Grasshopper

5k · July 3, 2002

This is an oft-asked question, and I refer you to this line in your log:

"no cache was to be found"

That, to me, means a no-find, just like you have logged.

Of course, you are welcome to do what you feel comfortable with, as no one (except maybe the cache owner) will ever question you...

It's a personal thing, and my personal opinion is that if you don't find the cache, it's a no find. Simple.

Jamie

7.4k · July 3, 2002

In my opinion, no. The general rule is if you don't successfully retrieve and sign the logbook, then it does not count as a find. Obviously, there will be exceptions to that rule, but this seems like a fairly straightforward case of a no find (just not one that is due to failure on your part).

Moun10Bike's Geocaching Pages

July 3, 2002

I go for somewhere in the middle. I can't rightly claim a find, but it doesn't seem fair to log a no-find when the cache was obviously plundered.

When I'm pretty sure I found the location, but the cache appeared obviously plundered, I "log only" on the web site (so my record of where I've been is up to date) and then stick it on my watch list just in case somebody later finds it (in which case I'd edit my log to a no-find).

So far I think my numbers are something like 105 found, 1 no-find ( dadgum! ) and 4 would'a but found them plundered.

2.6k · July 3, 2002

I was doing some random cache searches a month ago. Just going for the next closes on the gps and I got to one cache and I found just the lid. It was a typical rubermaid lid with geocache and the coords written on top of it. Obvously this cache was plundered.

When I got back home that evening, I logged the find. I normally don't claim a find unless I sign the log, but there was no log left. I guess I could have signed the lid.

I met the cache owner a couple weeks after that and we discussed it. He said he wasn't sure if he considered a find and hadn't decided on what to do about it. I told him it was up to him.

Is that a find?

george

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

7.4k · July 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by vds:

I go for somewhere in the middle. I can't rightly claim a find, but it doesn't seem fair to log a no-find when the cache was obviously plundered.

I can understand that position, but respectfully disagree with it. To me, if you looked for it and didn't find it, it's a "Not Found," even if it ends up having gone missing. "Fairness" isn't an issue here unless you take "Not Founds" to have some level of dishonor associated with them, which I advocate that they shouldn't. Instead, I see them as a way to quickly indicate to the owner and other cachers viewing the site that there is a potential problem with the cache without them having to necessarily read through the logs.

That latter point is the main reason I feel strongly that plundered caches should not be logged as "Found." The smiley face indicates that the cache is all right, and updates the "Last Found" date on the search page to make it look like the cache was recently found.

Moun10Bike's Geocaching Pages

July 3, 2002

I had one of these when I was on a business trip in Cali last month. There had been a couple of other cachers that couldn't find it even though the spot was obvious. I just posted a note because while I couldn't count it as a find, I didn't think you could not find something that is not there. This still lets the owner know there is a problem, but you avoid that frowny face as well. I kept watching it while I was there and the owner never did anything about it, so I never went back.

5k · July 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by niskibum:
...you avoid that frowny face...

What's with the stigma of a frowny face? Heck... I logged a no-find on a cache I never even searched for.

Obviously there are other viewpoints (or we wouldn't be having this discussion) but to me it's clear. If you look for it and don't find it, it's a no-find. Black and white.

I'm not ashamed of no-finds. It just means that I have to go back later and try again.

Jamie

July 4, 2002

I vote that it should be a "no find".

July 4, 2002

I agree with the others, that it should be marked as a "not found". To me, the "not found" option means "it probably isn't there anymore". There shouldn't be any dishonor or stigma involved with logging a "not found". You're just conveying some useful information about the cache to its owner and any potential cache visitors. Marking the cache as a find when you clearly didn't find it would be untrue and misleading.

Dralasites: biological, not geological.

July 4, 2002

Most of the responses here are that it is a "No Find". I have to disagree, however, it is also not a "find" since there was nothing there to find (unless it was virtual ). Anyway, since there are THREE choices there, I opt for the third choice of "Note". Yes, I was there, no I did not find it because it was simply not there. Even if, like in the case of George where he found the lid, the cache itself was not there.

From personal experience in Florida, we found the shell (box) of a plundered cache and logged it as a "Note" so no one else would try for it. We also emailed the cache owner who suspended it within hours. He verified the cache was indeed missing and has since replaced it (in a different location).

Bear & Ting

I thought I was a little off, then I looked at my GPS and discovered I accurate to 12 ft.

Geocachers don't NEED to ask for directions!

July 4, 2002

Most of the responses here are that it is a "No Find". I have to disagree, however, it is also not a "find" since there was nothing there to find (unless it was virtual ). Anyway, since there are THREE choices there, I opt for the third choice of "Note". Yes, I was there, no I did not find it because it was simply not there. Even if, like in the case of George where he found the lid, the cache itself was not there.

From personal experience in Florida, we found the shell (box) of a plundered cache and logged it as a "Note" so no one else would try for it. We also emailed the cache owner who suspended it within hours. He verified the cache was indeed missing and has since replaced it (in a different location).

Bear & Ting

I thought I was a little off, then I looked at my GPS and discovered I accurate to 12 ft.

Geocachers don't NEED to ask for directions!

2.6k · July 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:
When I got back home that evening, I logged the find. I normally don't claim a find unless I sign the log, but there was no log left.

Is that a find?

No.

Preperation, the first law to survival.

2.6k · July 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by vds:
I can't rightly claim a find, but it doesn't seem fair to log a no-find when the cache was obviously plundered.

Obviously you don't deserve the find.

quote:
When I'm pretty sure I found the location, but

but you didn't find it...

quote:
I "log only" on the web site (so my record of where I've been is up to date) and then stick it on my watch list just in case somebody later finds it (in which case I'd edit my log to a no-find).

How selfish. Lead people to believe that you found the cache, just so you can take it off your search page. Not only will people believe that the cache is still there, but it will drop off the watch list for Admin. So that it doesn't get archived. After you falsely log your visit, those other people watching the cache head back out to search for it again because you logged as a find.

quote:
So far I think my numbers are something like 105 found, 1 no-find and 4 would'a but found them plundered.

That's 5 no-finds.

Preperation, the first law to survival.

July 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:
Obviously there are other viewpoints (or we wouldn't be having this discussion) but to me it's clear. If you look for it and don't find it, it's a no-find. Black and white.

I'm not ashamed of no-finds. It just means that I have to go back later and try again.

Jamie

There is a difference between a not found and a missing cache. If I look back at my list I can tell the difference between those that are missing and those that, because of the cleverness of the owner, I was not able to locate. I like to be able to tell the difference, so I put a note on the one's that are missing. If the owner let's us know that it is not missing then I will be happy to change it to a no find (and you can bet I will be back there pronto with some new respect for the owner!) I happen to like the difficult ones a lot more. If I see one that has a lot of no finds mixed in with some finds, it's at the top of my list. If it has notes that it's probably missing it has less priority.

On another note, by the reasoning of most people here, shouldn't all virtuals be no finds? You have not found a phisical cache, and you have not signed a log, therefore no find. The same should go for locationless. I don't believe in black and white, just different shades of grey.

July 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:
Obviously there are other viewpoints (or we wouldn't be having this discussion) but to me it's clear. If you look for it and don't find it, it's a no-find. Black and white.

I'm not ashamed of no-finds. It just means that I have to go back later and try again.

Jamie

There is a difference between a not found and a missing cache. If I look back at my list I can tell the difference between those that are missing and those that, because of the cleverness of the owner, I was not able to locate. I like to be able to tell the difference, so I put a note on the one's that are missing. If the owner let's us know that it is not missing then I will be happy to change it to a no find (and you can bet I will be back there pronto with some new respect for the owner!) I happen to like the difficult ones a lot more. If I see one that has a lot of no finds mixed in with some finds, it's at the top of my list. If it has notes that it's probably missing it has less priority.

On another note, by the reasoning of most people here, shouldn't all virtuals be no finds? You have not found a phisical cache, and you have not signed a log, therefore no find. The same should go for locationless. I don't believe in black and white, just different shades of grey.

July 4, 2002

Credit? You get credit for finding a cache?

I need a new truck. How many cache credits will that take?

July 4, 2002

You guys are right, I shouldn't get to count it as a find since it wasn't there. However, I like the idea of niskibum to change it to a note and have done so. Since the owner has already archived it, it doesn't make a difference. Jamie, I don't like seeing a frowny face on my cache page because it makes me think I failed or did something wrong. I didn't fail because it wasn't there, so I don't want to see a frowny. You said it doesn't bother you because you can go back later. If it was one close to where I live I would agree with you, but the one in question is 4 hours away and I'm not going back later.

Thanks for everbody's input.

July 4, 2002

Let's say you know of a cache that was hidden extra-special-triple hard from its reputation and the logs. When you go hunt for it, you find it sitting on a picnic table (obviously not in the right place).

One side could argue that you signed the log book so it counts as a Found.

The other side could argue that you didn't find the correct place, so you shouldn't get a find.

Comments? I think a good rule of thumb would be, 'What was the intent of the cache owner?' Using this concept, the Triple Hard cache would not count as a find. The Red Christmas Tree would count as a Found.

Another factor is the number of stars. If George's lid was part of a 1 or 2 star cache then countit as a Found. If it was a 4 or 5 star cache then come back later to find it in its real spot.

July 5, 2002

well, this isnt a competition, it's a game of self enjoyment... so do whatever makes you the most happy!

If you feel you deserve it, you deserve it... you can only cheat yourself, and you are only cheating yourself if you diddn't get a good experience.

8.9k · July 5, 2002

After I hit about 40 finds, I started not caring about how many notes or frownies I had (I still like having an accurate number of smilies though). My wife is still hung up on the frownies. She doesn't like to give up.

I've posted my own personal guidelines before, but here they are again:

= I found it

= couldn't find it after a good search

= other information or aborted mission.

What's a good search vs. aborted mission?

That's a personal decision. There's a point in my caching that I can say: "I gave this a good try." Somewhere between not getting out of the car due to rain or incredibly whiny kids (that would be a note) and searched for an hour in a 100 foot radius (that would be a frowny).

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

1.8k · July 5, 2002

I don't see any stigma with the frownies. Heck, my best writeups have been no-finds. I'll leave a note if the cache is something I didn't look for (like, ''darn, I was going to place a cache there, but you beat me to it.'')

How dull this sport would be if I found the cache every time I looked...

And I think people are more likely to read my logs if I ''frownie'' them than if I ''note'' them.

'''I wonder what Latitude or Longitude I've got to?' (Alice had no idea what Latitude was, or Longitude either, but thought they were nice grand words to say.)'' -- Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

July 6, 2002

I think Markwell hit it deadon with his interpertation of Found, Not Found, and Note.

I also like travisl comment "And I think people are more likely to read my logs if I ''frownie'' them than if I ''note'' them."

When reading the online log of a cache I haven't been to, I always read the "not founds" throughly, usually a lot of good info and an indicator that cache is pretty tough.

It is suprising to me how important cache count is to some people and that some folks refuse to break their "found" steak. Of course it's not so hard when you refuse to log a "not found".

Oh well, it is an individual's game, so the rules or guidelines can be interpreted differently. Just remind me not to play golf with those folks Par, Again!

July 6, 2002

I think Markwell hit it deadon with his interpertation of Found, Not Found, and Note.

I also like travisl comment "And I think people are more likely to read my logs if I ''frownie'' them than if I ''note'' them."

When reading the online log of a cache I haven't been to, I always read the "not founds" throughly, usually a lot of good info and an indicator that cache is pretty tough.

It is suprising to me how important cache count is to some people and that some folks refuse to break their "found" steak. Of course it's not so hard when you refuse to log a "not found".

Oh well, it is an individual's game, so the rules or guidelines can be interpreted differently. Just remind me not to play golf with those folks Par, Again!

July 6, 2002

Was the log book signed?? That sums it up right there.

Of course that does not apply to Virts or other types of locationless caches....

"My gps say's it RIGHT HERE".

http://www.geogadgets.com

July 6, 2002

I've seen a Cacher with hundreds of finds (and no couldn't find it's) log a found it because he knew he was in the right place and the cache was not there. The next Cacher found it. I have no idea what the reasoning is for not logging a no find. Ego thing's only thing I can figure.

_______________________________

Thanks, Mike

It's Purple Martin Time in Tennessee

July 7, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by mikedx:
My question is should we get to count it as a find since we were in the EXACT location and that it is out of state and that it would be unduly burdensome to have to go back?

No way! If you didn't find the cache, you shouldn't log that you found it.

Perhaps the "log your visit" page should have the text "Found it!" changed to "Found the cache!" to avoid just this type of issue. I never really thought that the spirit of this sport was to find the area a cache was hidden. I always figured the idea was to find the cahce itself. Hell, if I can log a find on being in the right place, I can go log all those plundered caches I've been near.

5k · July 7, 2002

Hmmm... Here's another "perfect" record.

http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000977683&m=9450922605#7990962605

Jamie

July 7, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:
Hmmm... Here's another "perfect" record.

Jamie

Are we on a witch hunt here? Why is everybody so worried about every one elses record? It seems that the people that aren't ashamed of frownie faces are terribly concerned with what other people are logging as finds, or no finds, or notes. As long as you let people know that there may be a problem with a cache, I don't care how you do it. There is no prize for no frownies, or notes, or all smiles. If a cache is plundered and someone who feels they don't deserve a frown, because you can't find what isn't there, wants to put a note, what's the big deal? It's a game! Lighten up. It's not a find, but if they put a note or a frown it still doesn't show up like a found. Stop looking for people to point the finger at and relax, you'll live longer and get a bunch more smiles.

July 7, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:
Hmmm... Here's another "perfect" record.

Jamie

Are we on a witch hunt here? Why is everybody so worried about every one elses record? It seems that the people that aren't ashamed of frownie faces are terribly concerned with what other people are logging as finds, or no finds, or notes. As long as you let people know that there may be a problem with a cache, I don't care how you do it. There is no prize for no frownies, or notes, or all smiles. If a cache is plundered and someone who feels they don't deserve a frown, because you can't find what isn't there, wants to put a note, what's the big deal? It's a game! Lighten up. It's not a find, but if they put a note or a frown it still doesn't show up like a found. Stop looking for people to point the finger at and relax, you'll live longer and get a bunch more smiles.

24.7k · July 7, 2002

What's the issue. If you found it log it. If you didn't don't. This is pretty cut and dry. I don't care if it was 5' or 200' over from it's 'original spot' or plundered and you didn't know. Now if you find it scattered all over a hill side and you can tell it's the cache. It's a find. If you can't tell it's not just litter, it's not a fined.

July 8, 2002

To me it's a find (in these circmustances) only if you find compelling evidence that the cache is no longer there.

What qualifies:

findign a piece of the cache container with the word eocachi on a fragment along with other fragments and some thigs like a rubber duckie eraser a broken pen and some mangled trinkets.

What does not qualify is finding the hint landmark. Sometimes I'm sure I'm in the right spot only to find out after more searching that I'm not.

----(sig line)---> Did you ever do any trail maintainence? - if so you will know that all but the most worn trails need continuous maintenance to prevent mother nature from reclaiming it. herd paths are quickly reclaimed - k2dave

5k · July 8, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by niskibum:
what's the big deal? It's a game! Lighten up. It's not a find, but if they put a note or a frown it still doesn't show up like a found. Stop looking for people to point the finger at and relax, you'll live longer and get a bunch more smiles.

NSB,

You're right... I'm not all worked up about it. JUst a curious comment I saw that seemed to pertain to this thread.

Jamie

5k · July 8, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by niskibum:
what's the big deal? It's a game! Lighten up. It's not a find, but if they put a note or a frown it still doesn't show up like a found. Stop looking for people to point the finger at and relax, you'll live longer and get a bunch more smiles.

NSB,

You're right... I'm not all worked up about it. JUst a curious comment I saw that seemed to pertain to this thread.

Jamie

Find on Missing Cache - Full Credit?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation