Revisiting a cache

[azog]

About a week ago, I tried a cache, but did not find it. My own fault. I logged it as a "not found", but with a clear explaination that it wasn't due to a missing cache.

 

Today, I tried again, and found it. I edited my log, rather than post a new entry. Is that acceptable? Should I rather have no logged the "not found"? I am still rather new to the sport.

[+sbell111]

This is one of those things that is totally up to the individual. You will find that there are many opinions on this.

 

Personally, I would have logged the original search as a 'not found'. After I returned and found the cache, I would have created a new log documenting the find. I would not have changed or deleted the 'not found' log.

 

I like to keep the frowny logs because it documents my experience for my use. I find it interesting to read my old logs from time-to-time.

[+Team Dralasites]

Yeah, this is one of those things that people seem to disagree on. Personally, I would have logged the first visit as a "note", and the second time as a "found" (a new entry). I only use the "not found" option as a way to alert the owner (and potential visitors) that the cache might have gone missing.

 

Dralasites: biological, not geological.

[evilrooster]

I just found a cache I had previously searched for with no luck. Because it's a popular one (well, for my area, anyway. We're a bit short of cachers & stashers over here), I didn't want to clutter the cache info with a "found" as well as my first "not found" log.

 

(I'd had good reason to post a "not found", since the previous cache in the area had disappeared. I had failed to find the new one after an hour of searching, albeit on a steep grassy hillside in the pouring rain.)

 

So I amended my "not found" log to turn it into a "found". I didn't delete the text about not finding the cache, just added some about coming back again and finding it this time.

 

But since I'm also watching this cache, I noticed that an edit of a log doesn't generate an email (nor should it - think how many people do minor corrections on their logs!) That means the cache owner, who emailed me to tell me that others had found the cache recently, wouldn't know that I had found it.

 

In the end, I copied all the text out of my original log, deleted the original log, and pasted it into a new "found" one. Upshot: notification emails went out, all my search notes are in one place, and the cache logs stay uncluttered.

 

evilrooster

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

[+clatmandu]

The flip side of this is when you go and re-find a cache. You should use the post a note log so you don't end up with 2 finds for the cache (unless it has been moved to a new location). I recently went back to the second cache I found on the 1 year anniversary of when I started caching. First one has been archived. Used the post a note to enter my log for the anniversary find. Was much nicer this year, only 1-2 mosquitos compared to about a bazillion last year.

BTW, it's not nearly as fun finding it the second time, you already know where it is.

[+clatmandu]

The flip side of this is when you go and re-find a cache. You should use the post a note log so you don't end up with 2 finds for the cache (unless it has been moved to a new location). I recently went back to the second cache I found on the 1 year anniversary of when I started caching. First one has been archived. Used the post a note to enter my log for the anniversary find. Was much nicer this year, only 1-2 mosquitos compared to about a bazillion last year.

BTW, it's not nearly as fun finding it the second time, you already know where it is.

[+Mudfrog]

There have been a couple of times where i didnt really get a chance to even look for a cache. Example being that when arrived, someone showed up and lingered, making it impossible to search. Another time, car broke down about 1/4 mile from the cache. Both of these happened on this one,,,

 

Pleasure Island

 

In these cases i posted a note. Finally on the 3rd try we were able to post a Found It log!

 

Also if im positive that im at the right spot and the cache isnt there, i post a note stating to that fact.

 

There have been a couple that i just couldnt find and in these cases i logged as a Not Found. I finally got to go back and find one of them then posted a new log as Found.

 

This seems appropriate since there are no specific guidelines for logging at this time.

[+jhwf44]

It's definetly a matter of personal opinion, but I sure like it when people let me know of a "Not Found" and why, so I don't have trouble finding it for the same reason. I think it's good to log it when there not found and leave it even if you do find it again and post is as a found cache. The more info the better (well that's the way I view it)

[+Markwell]

Why is it that people put such a stigma on a frowny face for either their personal list or the cache's list. It's no sin not to find a cache. It also does not "clutter up" the cache pages. If you didn't find the cache, you didn't find it. That's the history of a cache!

 

When you edit a "not found" to a found, the people that are on the watch list will not hear of your success (neither will the owner), unless they visit the page - and if it's not on the top of the logs, they'll probably NEVER see that you eventually found it.

 

Leave your "not found" logs as "not found" - not notes either). Sheesh. It's not a competition with anyone.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[+Markwell]

Why is it that people put such a stigma on a frowny face for either their personal list or the cache's list. It's no sin not to find a cache. It also does not "clutter up" the cache pages. If you didn't find the cache, you didn't find it. That's the history of a cache!

 

When you edit a "not found" to a found, the people that are on the watch list will not hear of your success (neither will the owner), unless they visit the page - and if it's not on the top of the logs, they'll probably NEVER see that you eventually found it.

 

Leave your "not found" logs as "not found" - not notes either). Sheesh. It's not a competition with anyone.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[+Clan Ferguson]

Well said Markwell,

 

But he forgot to mention what I consider very important:

 

Not Found logs let owners now if there is a possibilty that the cache went missing!!!!

 

Between maintence checks it's the only indication that our caches our still there. Thats how we discovered Double Diamond went missing.

 

There is no shame in Not found I have 3 for the same cache on my list.

 

Cache On!!

 

James

"Big Dog"

-Clan Ferguson

[+Team GeoDat]

I think Not Founds helps others to realize it may be a harder hunt than they originally thought. I often persist when I see Not Founds followed by founds. It just shows me I'm not looking creatively or hard enough.

[+majicman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clan Ferguson:

Well said Markwell,

 

But he forgot to mention what I consider very important:

 

Not Found logs let owners now if there is a possibilty that the cache went missing!!!!

 

Between maintence checks it's the only indication that our caches our still there. Thats how we discovered http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=7135 went missing.

 

There is no shame in Not found I have 3 for the same cache on my list.

---

 

I totally agree with Clan Ferguson on this. My daughter (mommy#1) recently went to a cache and after a short search decided to try it another day (too dark.)

 

I told her how important it was to log it (even if as a note) so that others will know that it should not be tried late in the evening, and so that the cache owner knows that people are still trying to find the cache.

 

--majicman

 

(Always trade UP in both quantity and quality and Geocaches will be both self-sustaining and self-improving!)