Finders write in logbook, but not online

June 6, 2003

I pulled one of my cache log books that had been in the wild since April 2001. There were 60 separate entries in this 26 month period. I noticed that 13 entries (21.6%!) did not have cooresponding online entries. What is more amazing is that none of these paper log entries was by someone who stumbled upon the cache. I was wondering if other cache owners noticed this in their logbooks.

8k · June 6, 2003

I imagine that many people search for caches without having a geocaching.com account. You can view the cache locations (except for members only caches) without logging in. There are even other sites that link to the cache pages here so one may not even realize that they are on geocaching.com. You do have to log in to log a cache online. There are various reasons why a person may not want to set up a geocaching.com account. But they can still play the game until TPTB change the site and require you to login to see the cache coordinates :

-- I found it in the last place I looked.

1.8k · June 6, 2003

I haven't actually counted them, but I would think the percentage on my own caches is about the same.

One instance of people who don't log online which I came across on someone else's cache was one where the people had taken my TB, apparently thinking it was just a swap item even though it was well labelled. As they don't have a gc.com account I couldn't contact them to try to get it back.

Bill

June 6, 2003

Yeah there are at least 2 cachers in my area that write in the log, but don't log the find online.

They happened to be the only 2 people who beat me out for first finder on a cache too!!!!

How annoying!

Signature? I don't need no stinkin signature!!!!

1.4k · June 6, 2003

I've got a couple of friends who found about 15 caches and several benchmarks with me, but never bothered to create user IDs for themselves. I finally created the user IDs myself, and logged their caches for them.

There are several cachers in my area who find a lot more than they log. They just never get around to it. It's all about the hunt, isn't it?

I have one cache that was logged by at least 3 tourists, a groundskeeper, and a parking lot attendant.

On another cache, the FTF went to a security guard at the location.

8.4k · June 6, 2003

Maybe they're paranoid, or more likely, embarrassed.

I happen to know one that caches with another cacher quite often and comes to the events. She says she just doesn't have time. That's fine with me. I know what she does for a living and I can understand.

Folks, ya gotta admit that this is time consuming.

Sngans

The greatest labor saving invention of today is tomorrow....

June 6, 2003

I know several cachers who aren't interested in logging online. One of them claims he's not interested in doing so because it seems like so many cachers are in it for the 'cache count' and bragging rights. Or, as he explained it, "I have more than you! I'm superior"

he does have a point I suppose. You do see that sort of attitude among certain cachers here on the boards.

You see remarks like, "And just who are you? You only have five finds. What do you know?" Funny when you think about it.

My friend prefers to keep a personal log/diary of his finds and that seems to make him happy.

Me? I like logging online more than I like signing the physical log books. I usually just put my name, time of day and a "thanks for the hunt" leaving the full details of my experience for the onlline log.

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

June 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Snoogans:
Maybe they're paranoid, or more likely, embarrassed.

That's certainly the case with at least one person I know. He's not very computer literate and a poor speller (he spells most words phonetically).

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

June 6, 2003

When I hadn't seen any new entries for awhile. I went to check two of my caches. one had four entries and the other had two that had not been entered on line. about a month later one cacher made an entree for one of the vistes they had made about two months before.

I have noticed in some others log that they saw other going to the cache but you never see an entry for them. A local cacher and I were talking about people not signing logs and he said there was a man in his office that goes caching but dose not have an account. Said he had come to work and told him about seeing some of his logs.

Guess it takes all kinds to make the world spinn.

Mejas

38.2k · June 6, 2003

quote:
I know several cachers who aren't interested in logging online. One of them claims he's not interested in doing so because it seems like so many cachers are in it for the 'cache count' and bragging rights. Or, as he explained it, "I have more than you! I'm superior"

It's a simple courtesy to log your finds online. It lets the cache owner know that their cache is being found, it's in good shape and that the finder appreciates their effort.

As one who has hidden a few caches, I admit that I eagerly await the e-mails that come when someone finds the cache. I enjoy placing the caches as much as I enjoy reading about the seeker's adventure.

I'll also take the time to check out a cache that hasn't been logged for some time, to make sure it's still there and I'm annoyed when I find recent logs. It's a waste of my time.

Jolly B, I wish you would talk to your friends and have them reconsider their point of view. If people put in the time and effort to place a cache, the least finders can do is let them know it was found.

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

June 6, 2003

maybe GC.com should allow for posts from non-logged people. They of course wouldn't get credited, and there's no way to guarantee uniqueness or realness, but it might just be the fear of giving their email address that stops some people. Not being part of find-counts is another benefit.

Down-sides? Cache owners would most likely have to police the logs more, since anonymous posters are more likely to post junk.

I'd like to know how often & why people don't post on the web. There might be simple fixes that encourage people to post more.

3.8k · June 6, 2003

I have a friend who caches occasionally with me but he doesn't own a computer and has no interest in the virtual log.

He still signs the physical log and trades items. I see nothing wrong with that.

June 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by timpaula:
it might just be the fear of giving their email address that stops some people.

<timpaula>

Simple fix for this. Just create a junk hotmail account specifically for the purpose of the sign up procedure. You can make a hotmail account with a fake name, and they don't have to check it if they don't want to.

Besides, hotmail is free. I've got 3 hotmail accounts myself. One for my friends to e-mail. One for gaming stuff, and one for geocaching

Signature? I don't need no stinkin signature!!!!

38.2k · June 6, 2003

quote:
I have a friend who caches occasionally with me but he doesn't own a computer and has no interest in the virtual log.

He still signs the physical log and trades items. I see nothing wrong with that.

If he goes with you and you log the cache, then nothing. If he goes alone and refuses to log online, then I think it's thoughtless.

His non-log could result in the cache owner running out to check on the condition, because it hasn't been found for a while. Also, other geocachers may skip that cache because there aren't any recent finds.

The online logs aren't a perfect system, but they do help keep the cache owner (and geocaching community) apprised of the condition of the cache.

Heck, someone takes the time, money and effort to place a cache, the least the finder can do is log it online to let the owner know what's up with the cache and say thanks.

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

2.6k · June 6, 2003

As a owner of couple of caches, I must say I agree with BrianSnat 100%.

- I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. -

2.8k · June 6, 2003

quote:
Heck, someone takes the time, money and effort to place a cache, the least the finder can do is log it online to let the owner know what's up with the cache and say thanks.

AMEN!

1.7k · June 6, 2003

My first cache had a nice (expensive, too) First Finder's prize.

I had 2 people go to the cache the second weekend it was out in effort to be first finder.

It turns out that someone who left no name in the written log (and did not leave any on-line log) had already been there the week before, and he/she took the prize.

DustyJacket

Not all those that wander are lost. But in my case...

June 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by sept1c_tank:
I have a friend who caches occasionally with me but he doesn't own a computer and has no interest in the virtual log.

He still signs the physical log and trades items. I see nothing wrong with that.

I agree. At least I don't mind if someone finds my cache and doesn't log it online. Makes little diff to me as long as they enjoy the hunt. People who find caches adn don't long their experience online seem to be few and far between from my experience. Just doesn't happen often enough to really bug me.

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

June 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

It's a simple courtesy to log your finds online. It lets the cache owner know that their cache is being found, it's in good shape and that the finder appreciates their effort.

Oh I would agree. It is a simple courtesy. WHich is why I ALWAYS log both in the field and online. I guess my take on it is that it doesn't personally bother me if others don't log my caches online. I mean it really doesn't bother me in the least.

As long as they respect the cache and don't destroy it and play nice I wouldn't even know they found my cache anyway so where's the harm? More to the point there's really nothing we can do to stop such practice. I mean a person can browse caches without even logging in to geocaching.com.

My feeling is this. When I place a cache I'm inviting people to visit it. I'm playing host in a way. As long as my guests have a good time during their visit and follow the rules I'm not going to grumble. Sure it'd be nice if they acknowledged their visit and left a thank you in the form of an online log. But I certainly don't demand they do so.

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

[This message was edited by Jolly B Good on June 07, 2003 at 04:09 AM.]

June 7, 2003

quote:
My feeling is this. When I place a cache I'm inviting people to visit it. I'm playing host in a way. As long as my guests have a good time during their visit and follow the rules I'm not going to grumble.

I agree.... I haven't put any caches out YET!, but when I do if the finder doesn't post online, so be it.....I feel that is an extra bonus. Like several have said before this place is about who got more than who....are you being the same when if you complain because they don't leave a digital signature, posting that more people have found your cache than your buddy you are competing with.

This isn't a competition, it is a fun way to relax out in nature.

quit whining because someone didn't want to bring technology into something that is completely natural (ok yes we are using technology to find it )

2.5k · June 7, 2003

So if they are not going to log online, how do they log their DNF's offline?

3.8k · June 8, 2003

Just FYI...My friend doesn't have a computer, so I doubt he goes caching alone.

June 8, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:
So if they are not going to log online, how do they log their DNF's offline?

Not sure it would matter would it? If it's not there and someone fails to report it the NEXT cacher would.

I guess it's like the riddle of of a tree falling in the forest. If no one's there to log it online does it make a sound? ;D

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

June 9, 2003

Confessions of an (apparent) 'non-logger'

I don't get on these boards very often (too busy out hunting caches) but this was a topic I felt I had to respond to. I notice that so far, there aren't any posts from people who actually admit that they find caches, sign the logbook, but don't post their finds online. So OK - here's one! I AM GUILTY!!!

So, first an apology to all those whose caches I've visited and not yet logged online (at this point, that's well over 150 caches). I'm sorry - I'll get around to it sooner or later. I did enjoy your cache - but I am very slow at logging online. Although Jolly is right in my neck of the woods, I don't think he was referring to me in his posts, and I'm ashamed to say that I've visited several of Cachew Nut's caches but didn't get around to logging them online for months. Again, I'm really sorry about that!

Now, I'll list some of my reasons (poor as they are) not to make excuses but just to satisfy your curiosity. First off, I don't imagine there will be many (if any) others who'll admit to this practice - partly because I suspect that we 'non-loggers' don't spend much (if any) time browsing the forums online, so not many of us will even see this post. I know that's hard to understand for the folks that are online day in and day out - but some of us just aren't that comfortable with online stuff, and we often get left behind in the electronic dust. You never even know it, because you're already on to the next topic before we've been able to get our thoughts together.

So, part of what's going on is NOT that I don't log my found caches online, I certainly do. It just takes me what most of you would consider a long time to do so. Hey, it really wasn't that long ago that it took a letter 6 months to get from New York to San Francisco, and some of us are still more comfortable with that pace!

Also, it may sound strange, but it almost always takes me longer to log a cache online than it does to actually find the cache. I guess I've visited a good number of caches, but I hate to 'rubber stamp' my online logs with a copy/paste of the same old 'TNLN,TFTC'. So I often spend hours in reflection writing an online log for a cache that I especially enjoyed. See my online logs for these caches and maybe you will understand:

Ms. Wiegand March 8, 2002

Everdon July 19, 2002

Putt Putt June 28, 2002

At this rate, I fear that my capacity for finding caches far outstrips my ability to log them, and I'd much rather be outside walking though the woods in any kind of weather than inside hunched in front of my computer screen. I have to sit in front of a computer all day at work; maybe I'd be better at logging if my job took me outdoors (or even offered a window to look out of...). I had big plans to log caches in the wintertime when the weather wouldn't allow me to get out and hunt, but guess what? I went outside hunting anyway, so it just made the problem worse...

As for 'No-Finds'; I do make an exception and log those immediately. I agree that the cache owner needs to know ASAP when there is a problem with his cache so that he can look into it before others 'waste' their time. But, that usually takes me quite awhile, too...

Do Not Find This Cache April 24, 2003

I really try to log Travel Bugs as soon as I can, too. Some bug owners are extremely nervous and motherly about their Bugs and I try to accommodate their wishes by posting the TB's as soon as possible. That also makes it easier for others who leave and take the TBs.

Adding to my 'Find' count doesn't motivate me much here, either. I am so far behind in my logs that I would certainly be first or second in the state if I'd just get off my butt and claim 'em online. Not logging them online keeps the competition at arms length for me, and reinforces my conviction that the main reason I'm into geocaching is for the adventure and (even more important) that it allows me to express my intense love of the local landscape and all it's mysteries.

As I mentioned earlier, I'll be first to admit that I think NOT logging online is poor form. I really enjoy the online logs I receive for my own caches, so I can sympathize with those who consider the practice thoughtless. All I can say is, please be patient, it's not that I don't log 'em, it's just that I don't log 'em soon enough for you!

So, I have resolved to start 'rubber stamping' more caches online. After I got over 200 caches behind a few months ago, I actually took the highly unusual step of accepting an offer from a friend to log them for me! So, I had a bunch 'ghost-logged' awhile ago, but I'm still several months behind. Every time I sit down and start to write the logs myself, I end up reliving my trip to the cache, lingering along the way to smell the roses... and before you know it, it's taken me all night just to write up one log. I guess it's sort of like this post...

Genius Loci ('the Guardian Spirit of a Place')

8k · June 9, 2003

I found a virtual cache that I didn't log . It was a pretty lame cache that just required reading a historical marker in a local park. It probably wouldn't be approved with the current rules. Just couldn't see taking credit for this. I supposed this is another topic.

-- I found it in the last place I looked.

24.7k · June 9, 2003

Genius Loci, even your worst drivel would be welcome to grace my online logs short and sweet as it may be.

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

2.8k · June 9, 2003

Genius Loci - As I was reading your post I was thinking How can you get 200 logs behind, and figuring you didn't really do much online logging at all. Then I looked at your profile! You've only failed to log about 30% of your finds. Good luck on the catching up. I don't think you're the typical non-logging cacher

1.8k · June 10, 2003

I've just replaced one of my caches, having temporarily disabled it. While it was pulled I compared the logs in the book with those online. Fifteen per cent of visitors didn't log online, if I don't count a few who seemed to be part of a team who did log online rather than separate teams.

Curiously, one of the teams who didn't log online had logged their first two finds online but then seem to have stopped doing so, and carried on caching but just logging in the book.

For what it's worth, two of my caches have had first finders who didn't log online.

Bill

June 10, 2003

I have not had my caches out there long enough to have log book only logs, but some may not logging online because it can track your movements of where you travel by looking at you find list and some people may not like being tracked.

Car37 & Shnde

2.7k · June 10, 2003

One of my biggest pet sleeves...please log online after doing the cache. I know a couple of friends who just log at the caches and I tried to convert them to logging online too, but they don't think it's important. Well, it's important to the cache owner and other finders...what if a first finder is one of those just cache loggers. That would P**s me off. Besides, it's fun reading logs of prior finders and this can give you important info regarding the cache's latest conditions.

June 10, 2003

The first cache I placed had twice as many log book entries as on-line logs. I thought this was cool and thought of them as "ghost geocachers".

Every hour spent geocaching is added to the end of your life

1.8k · June 26, 2003

quote:
boreal jeff & sons wrote:

. I thought this was cool and thought of them as "ghost geocachers".

Hey, I like that term for people who don't log online - ghost geocachers! It deserves to stay in use - perhaps we could shorten it and just call them ghosts.

Bill

-------------------------------

"Ah, take the Cache and let the Credit go..."

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, trans. Edward Fitzgerald

20.7k · June 26, 2003

I like 'ghosts'.

"Hey Steve, I haven't seen you on the forums lately."

"I've just been 'ghosting'."

Finders write in logbook, but not online

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

Join the conversation