Logging An Missing Cache As Found

February 10, 2004

I think you should post a "Found It" on anything you want, whether you found it or not, as long as you can come up with some lame pretzelogical reason to feel good about it. Why is everybody so hung-up on "Finding" the cache? You drove there, got out of the car and walked around a bit, that's good enough.

Good one -- taken seriously by some -- but clealy a pun.

HM :blink:

1.1k · February 10, 2004

I think we all have different opinions on what we consider a find, and there is nothing wrong with that, as I feel we are caching for our own enjoyment and not what the guy next door who has different opinions think. If I don't find a cache I alsways log it as a DNF to indicate to the owner and others that perhaps it is in fact missing, which I think is important to do...certainly nothing to be ashamed of to log a DNF and I have averaged about 1 DNF a month. However I do see a number of logs where people post a find it log even if in their logs they write that they didn't find it...I've even seen people visit a physical cache that has been archived for a year and still say something like that they were there so they count it as a find. Although I would never do that, I have no problem with them doing it...afterall what business is it of mine really?

The way I figure it is that geocaching is about guidelines and not rules (as it is so often mentioned), so it is totally up to the individual on how they play and enjoy the game and keep it fun. And what adds to the game is that there is no winner or loser here, just a bunch of people enjoying a similar interest, each playing it a little bit differently.

February 10, 2004

I think of Geocaching as a game. I think logging a missing cache is cheating. If it's not found it is not found.

Think of it this way . . . if you cheat at solitaire you are only cheating yourself . . . same thing here.

What is the point???

February 10, 2004

I think of Geocaching as a game. I think logging a missing cache is cheating. If it's not found it is not found.

Think of it this way . . . if you cheat at solitaire you are only cheating yourself . . . same thing here.

What is the point???

:blink: Very nicely put GH!!

38.2k · February 10, 2004

Although I would never do that, I have no problem with them doing it...afterall what business is it of mine really?

You may have missed an earlier post that pointed out that these fake finds can cause other geocachers to waste time and gas searching for a cache that is not there. If that happened to me, I would certainly consider it to be my business. The poster cited this example.

February 10, 2004

You may have missed an earlier post that pointed out that these fake finds can cause other geocachers to waste time and gas searching for a cache that is not there. If that happened to me, I would certainly consider it to be my business. The poster cited

Where's the rope.. Let's string em up by their thumbs!

:blink: It still makes me wonder what part of You Find the Cache, and Log your visit don't some people undestand? If the cache is not there how can you find it? I have came accross a plundered cache, and I let the owener know that it was gone, and the owner was very happy that I notified them. I certainly did not log this as a find, even though, I am pretty sure where the container was supposed to be hidden.

I agree there is nothing more irritaing then going to a cache site, and later finding out that the cache was plundered. False find posts could certainly screw things up a bit and people need to let the owner know by logging a Frownie DID NOT FIND.

Edited February 10, 2004 by Hogarth

February 10, 2004

I have just read through 2 pages of utter rubish.

Either you find and sign the log book or you do'nt. Sign the log book and it's a find, don't sign sign the log book, tough! there are no grey areas.

Using the rules prefered by some, if I fly into Orlando I can log all caches in the area because I was near. Come folks lets get real. Either we are in this for the enjoyment of geocaching and it's rules whether written or understood, or we get out. I for one will only log true and accurate finds otherwise lifes a bitch.

Has anyone got an argument against this

February 10, 2004

I have just read through 2 pages of utter rubish.
Either you find and sign the log book or you do'nt. Sign the log book and it's a find, don't sign sign the log book, tough! there are no grey areas.

Using the rules prefered by some, if I fly into Orlando I can log all caches in the area because I was near. Come folks lets get real. Either we are in this for the enjoyment of geocaching and it's rules whether written or understood, or we get out. I for one will only log true and accurate finds otherwise lifes a bitch.

Has anyone got an argument against this

No argument from me. Your point is right on target!

1.1k · February 10, 2004

(Bucks Bodgers @ Feb 10 2004, 12:13 PM)
I have just read through 2 pages of utter rubish.

Either you find and sign the log book or you do'nt. Sign the log book and it's a find, don't sign sign the log book, tough! there are no grey areas.

Using the rules prefered by some, if I fly into Orlando I can log all caches in the area because I was near. Come folks lets get real. Either we are in this for the enjoyment of geocaching and it's rules whether written or understood, or we get out. I for one will only log true and accurate finds otherwise lifes a bitch.

Has anyone got an argument against this

I agree with you completely (almost...remember, there are no rules, just guidelines, and perhaps that is why this is being discussed), however there are MANY who still log it as a find, whether they find it or not, and obviously they feel justified to themselves, whether we agree with their reasoning or not. I am not going to be the one to tell them not to, as it is not any of my business what they do on someone else's cache. Everyone plays by their own rules and what thye think is right. Before I go out to hunt a cache now I almost always read the last few logs to make sure I am not wasting my time, but even if I do waste my time hunting for a cache that isn't there, odds are it still brought me to some new and interesting place. When I first started I would go out many times to hunt for a cache because it was loaded on my GPS, only to spend an hour and not find it. I still get no finds, but not as often anymore.

2.3k · February 11, 2004

I have just read through 2 pages of utter rubish.
Either you find and sign the log book or you do'nt. Sign the log book and it's a find, don't sign sign the log book, tough! there are no grey areas.

Using the rules prefered by some, if I fly into Orlando I can log all caches in the area because I was near. Come folks lets get real. Either we are in this for the enjoyment of geocaching and it's rules whether written or understood, or we get out. I for one will only log true and accurate finds otherwise lifes a bitch.

Has anyone got an argument against this

Yes, I have a couple of arguments against this.

1: You find the cache, but there is no log book, therefore it can't be signed.

According to your understanding of the rules it is not a find.

2: You find a log book to a cache on the ground, all the rest of the cache is gone. You sign the log book. Bingo! A find according to your understanding of the rules, even tho the cache AND where it was hidden was never found.

I don't think many would have a problem with anyone logging BOTH of those examples as finds, and more would probably find the first one more of a 'legit' find than the second.

There are gray areas to this sport- those are just a couple that apply to this topic.

I do agree that what you say in essence- as cheating does hurt and cause problems, as shown by a couple of examples in this thread. Just wanted to point out that there are not the absolutes you imply in your post.

This is also why I beleive that ANY kind of stats etc. are essentially meaningless as regards to geocaching in it's present form. Until there is an absolute way to verify a find, any kind of record keeping will be on the honor system and at the best very unreliable.

I also hesitate to mention how caching 'groups' as opposed to individuals log finds, as that is for another discussion (altho it applies here somewhat).

February 11, 2004

I have just read through 2 pages of utter rubish.
Either you find and sign the log book or you do'nt. Sign the log book and it's a find, don't sign sign the log book, tough! there are no grey areas.

Using the rules prefered by some, if I fly into Orlando I can log all caches in the area because I was near. Come folks lets get real. Either we are in this for the enjoyment of geocaching and it's rules whether written or understood, or we get out. I for one will only log true and accurate finds otherwise lifes a bitch.

Has anyone got an argument against this

Yes, I have a couple of arguments against this.

1: You find the cache, but there is no log book, therefore it can't be signed.

According to your understanding of the rules it is not a find.

2: You find a log book to a cache on the ground, all the rest of the cache is gone. You sign the log book. Bingo! A find according to your understanding of the rules, even tho the cache AND where it was hidden was never found.

I don't think many would have a problem with anyone logging BOTH of those examples as finds, and more would probably find the first one more of a 'legit' find than the second.

There are gray areas to this sport- those are just a couple that apply to this topic.

I do agree that what you say in essence- as cheating does hurt and cause problems, as shown by a couple of examples in this thread. Just wanted to point out that there are not the absolutes you imply in your post.

This is also why I beleive that ANY kind of stats etc. are essentially meaningless as regards to geocaching in it's present form. Until there is an absolute way to verify a find, any kind of record keeping will be on the honor system and at the best very unreliable.

I also hesitate to mention how caching 'groups' as opposed to individuals log finds, as that is for another discussion (altho it applies here somewhat).

well said

February 11, 2004

I thank Corp of Discovery for offering a couple of arguments against my previous post.

However the arguments are not really valid.

No 1. A cache with no log book:- fairly basic under my understanding From my caching emergancy kit I would either add a new log book or leave a note stating the problem, log my find and notify the owner. This now becomes a legitimate cache find.

No 2. A log book with no cache:- again fairly basic. My understanding of the log book is that it is only a record that the cache had been found. Since there was no cache found, then thats cheating The log book could from anywhere or placed anywhere so by definition it's a DNF. Again I would notify the owner.

It's a well known fact that cheats never prosper. We are a self regulating organisation and we are all aware that the odd bad apple turns up occasionally. So it's up to all us to try and keep it simple but honest. That's all I ask.

Edited February 11, 2004 by Bucks Bodgers

6.4k · February 11, 2004

Here's an interesting solution, if you can't find it after a few minutes of looking, just hide a lame gladware w/logbook cache nearby, sign the new log, and claim it as a find.

February 11, 2004

Here's an interesting solution, if you can't find it after a few minutes of looking, just hide a lame gladware w/logbook cache nearby, sign the new log, and claim it as a find.

Okay . . . is it just me or is that messed up? :lol:

That's the equivalent of a hider logging his own cache as a find.

It's just plain stupid.

Whatever!

3.1k · February 11, 2004

Here's an interesting solution, if you can't find it after a few minutes of looking, just hide a lame gladware w/logbook cache nearby, sign the new log, and claim it as a find.

Well, I've called a cacher from the cell phone and asked them if they wanted me to replace their missing cache while still at the cache site. After getting detailed instructions where it was hidden and confirming it's gone I have replaced it with an emergency cache I carry along and I've signed it just like it was my own and claimed it as a find. Only done this a couple of times but I didn't feel like I was cheating either.

But if I win this game because of it I think I'll feel really bad.

6.4k · February 11, 2004

Here's an interesting solution, if you can't find it after a few minutes of looking, just hide a lame gladware w/logbook cache nearby, sign the new log, and claim it as a find.

Well, I've called a cacher from the cell phone and asked them if they wanted me to replace their missing cache while still at the cache site. After getting detailed instructions where it was hidden and confirming it's gone I have replaced it with an emergency cache I carry along and I've signed it just like it was my own and claimed it as a find. Only done this a couple of times but I didn't feel like I was cheating either.

But if I win this game because of it I think I'll feel really bad.

I would say yours is a slightly different situation. This case the cache owner is MIA, the new hiders had no idea where the cache should be, and they placed it 40ft away from where they thought the coords were, anyway. On top of that, they look like they're from out of state, so they probably can't/won't maintain the cache any better then the MIA hider. It look like me they took a bad situation and made it worse. Before you had a cache that was probably missing and should be archived. Now you have a cache that probably still should be archived, but there's still a cache out there.

February 11, 2004

No way. If I don't find the cache it's always a DNF. One time I actually found a cache that was plundered. As I came upon the cache, I saw log pages scattered all around the area. As I got closer I also found various toys and other items that were obviously part of the cache. I even actually found the ammo box just laying out in the open. Guess what? I still didn't log it as a find. Why? Because in my mind I didn't find the cache in the area that the hider intended.

With the cache owner's permission, I took the ammo box and all the loose stuff I could find and reincarnated the cache in another location.

February 11, 2004

although this may sound like anti-logic hear me out.....i consider my DNF's as a type of find........i TRIED to find it.....i got CLOSE to finding it.....and i did get MOST of the enjoyment of the hunt.......I did get to see the deer or the beautiful old oak tree anyways......besides that unhappy face will sit on my homepage until i do actually find it so it give me incentive to go find it......most of the cache owners in my area take good care of there caches and if a DNF appears they are out there within the week to confirm and/or replace it. So i just go find it later. As for out of state cachers.... " C'est la vie!" im still peeved about a cache in berlin that i could only get to within 150 feet of....but i still logged a DNF

2.3k · February 12, 2004

I thank Corp of Discovery for offering a couple of arguments against my previous post.
However the arguments are not really valid.

No 1. A cache with no log book:- fairly basic under my understanding From my caching emergancy kit I would either add a new log book or leave a note stating the problem, log my find and notify the owner. This now becomes a legitimate cache find.

No 2. A log book with no cache:- again fairly basic. My understanding of the log book is that it is only a record that the cache had been found. Since there was no cache found, then thats cheating The log book could from anywhere or placed anywhere so by definition it's a DNF. Again I would notify the owner.

It's a well known fact that cheats never prosper. We are a self regulating organisation and we are all aware that the odd bad apple turns up occasionally. So it's up to all us to try and keep it simple but honest. That's all I ask.

My examples were in direct response to this part of your first post: Either you find and sign the log book or you do'nt. Sign the log book and it's a find, don't sign sign the log book, tough! there are no grey areas. I used those examples to point out that there were indeed gray areas in this activity, nothing more.

As for your responses to my examples:

1: Not everyone carries an extra log book (even tho it IS a very good idea), so what to do if you do not have a spare? This is one of those gray areas.

2: Let me modify this slightly- lets say the logbook was in a ziplock bag and that IS the cache, a valid find? To me this is the same as a micro in an Altoids or breathstrip container. Again this is one of those gray areas- what constitutes a 'container'?

I think it can be safely said that it is the totality of the cache/logbook etc. that makes a (traditional) cache.

This thread is sort of related, in summary, it is about cachers who sign the physical log but do not log it online (or at least on this site). Does that mean it is not a legit find? I would not think so, but only not a find as it pertains to THIS site only.

If you look at the guide for finding a cache it does not even mention you HAVE to sign the physical log!! The wording it uses is: Usually you take an item and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache. Emphasis added.

It does say you should email the cache owner. Now- how many always email the owner after you find their cache? It also says NOTHING about logging your find on this website!

Again, I do believe we are (almost) all on the same page in regards to 'cheating' and the proper way to log a find.

Sorry about the length of this post, I don't mean to pick nits, just wanted to point some things out.

38.2k · February 12, 2004

No way. If I don't find the cache it's always a DNF. One time I actually found a cache that was plundered. As I came upon the cache, I saw log pages scattered all around the area. As I got closer I also found various toys and other items that were obviously part of the cache. I even actually found the ammo box just laying out in the open. Guess what? I still didn't log it as a find. Why? Because in my mind I didn't find the cache in the area that the hider intended.

I dunno, I'm pretty strict about what I consider to be a find, but I think I might count that one. More power to you though. If many geocachers had one tenth of your integrity this thread wouldn't exist.

Edited February 12, 2004 by briansnat

2.7k · February 12, 2004

<snip>(If Jeremy added links that would let you see the number of notes or DNFs you posted, along with the list of them, you wouldn't need to do this, right?)</snip>

Right.

Since my quests are going to be already archived caches for the most part, my logs are just going to be for the purpose of advising that the cache has been removed or the area confirmed clean. A note would be sufficient, but my stats page would be permanently empty as it stands now.

Since the caches are already archived, the "find" logs should not mislead anyone. The only people who will be able to see them in the first place are the owners, admins, and people who search other cachers' stats pages. Archived caches do NOT show up on general searches.

In cases where the caches are not archived but only "temprorarily disabled" - "TD", I will only post a note if I do not find it.

I will post a "find" in TD cases only if I FIND the cache and it is OK or I restore it to good condition. In TD cases I will not remove the cache unless it is in totally destroyed condition or upon request of the owner.

Actually, in the cases where I DO find remains, I think it can technically be considered a find anyhow. However, I imagine the most cases will be just confirmation that it is gone.

This is a new idea of mine and I might end up abandoning the idea anyway for lack of interest or perhaps uselessness of the endeavour. It is an experiment.

February 12, 2004

If I can't sign the log or meet the find requirements (ie virtual caches) of an individual cache it's a DNF. I'd never log one like this as a find, but as you can see, some do.

2.6k · February 12, 2004

Here's an example of a case where hunters solved the mystery of the missing cache. They found the people who had removed the cache (not understanding what it was), and logged it as a find, although they never even saw the container. They even placed a new cache nearby.

While it's not my business to tell them not to log it as a find (it's between the finders and the hider of the original cache), I just say that I would never have logged a missing cache a find, even if I found the reason it's missing.

February 12, 2004

It seems there are some good feedback on this so as I am new to this sport only logging 1 find so far I have something to say.

I go out and search and I have not found, It has never accrued to me to fake the find. Why would I? I could easily sit at home and just say I went. Example: I scan the other logs, write something of the same then say I think its missing and log it.

But wait, Isn't that stupid?!!!!! I got into this for the hunt I can find nothing on my own.

Besides it is the responsibility of the cache owner to check the logs to verify. I know some people do this as I logged a found and I didn't exactly do what I was supposed to do to get credit. I apologized and said truthfully that I had missed that as a requirement and that I would soon go out and get the thing he asked for. Then re-log it so as to get credit.

Getting credit for me is just my way of saying, hey went to find that thing you found and it was a great hide- thanks for the fun. The cache owner credits me = hey this guy really found it, good job

I see the bad things that could happen with this game, the world is a twisted place and one day a sick and twisted individual will get peeved off at another cacher and everyone here will become a target. soon to follow will be the eye of the wold then promptly the shutdown of the game.

I am looking forward to hiding some cache's and having people discover them (hid one but got rejected- still there so it is a really hidden cache :0 )

Logging An Missing Cache As Found

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

Join the conversation