Found It = Didn't Find It

[+Criminal]

April 27 by CACHER1 (2225 found)

CACHE OWNER has given me the okay to log this as a find (thanks so much). This is a good placement and should be fun when replaced...Sac-KY.

[view this log on a separate page]

April 27 CACHER1 (2225 found)

I think this may be missing. I'll send an e-mail with details. Thanks...Sac-KY.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Should we be encouraged that he at least logged the DNF? I wish I had over 2K finds...

[+Wadcutter]

I wish I had over 2K finds...

 

You ought to be able to get 2K+ finds. It should be simple enough to do. Just check for all the archived caches, then email the owners requesting permission to claim them as finds. You could say that if their caches hadn't been archived then you would have looked for them. And it sounds like looking is just as good as finding. You should be able to get a couple of thousand caches logged in my the first of next month.

[+Wacka]

 

Should we be encouraged that he at least logged the DNF? I wish I had over 2K finds...

 

You might be closer to 2K finds if you went out and found caches instead of searching through logs and complaining about other peoople. I mainly go caching on the weekend and have 2300 finds. You've been caching 2 years longer than me.

[+briansnat]

 

Should we be encouraged that he at least logged the DNF? I wish I had over 2K finds...

 

You might be closer to 2K finds if you went out and found caches instead of searching through logs and complaining about other peoople. I mainly go caching on the weekend and have 2300 finds. You've been caching 2 years longer than me.

 

Or he can do it like so many others and just make up the finds.

 

BTW, I don't think Crim does parking lot micros. Its a lot harder to rack up 2k+ finds when you usually spend your entire caching day going after one cache.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Should we be encouraged that he at least logged the DNF? I wish I had over 2K finds...

You might be closer to 2K finds if you went out and found caches instead of searching through logs and complaining about other peoople. I mainly go caching on the weekend and have 2300 finds. You've been caching 2 years longer than me.

Or he can do it like so many others and just make up the finds.

 

BTW, I don't think Crim does parking lot micros. Its a lot harder to rack up 2k+ finds when you usually spend your entire caching day going after one cache.

 

 

Good point! Well made!

[+Wacka]

So you think that everyone with say>1000 finds are making a lot of them up?

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

So you think that everyone with say>1000 finds are making a lot of them up?

 

Well, no one is saying that you do that, but this entire topic IS about people who invent finds, and a goodly number of those folks DO have have high find counts. However, Brian's point is that many folks who have high find counts have a find list which includes lots of 1/1 urban micros. To me, that is all he was saying, no more and no less.

[Jacquee]

So you think that everyone with say>1000 finds are making a lot of them up?

 

Well, no one is saying that you do that, but this entire topic IS about people who invent finds, and a goodly number of those folks DO have have high find counts. However, Brian's point is that many folks who have high find counts have a find list which includes lots of 1/1 urban micros. To me, that is all he was saying, no more and no less.

 

I have 5,412 finds but I deleted most of them so people wouldn't think the number was suspicious.

[+briansnat]

So you think that everyone with say>1000 finds are making a lot of them up?

 

Everyone? No. But a lot do. It seems in many cases the more obsessed with numbers someone is, the broader their definition of a find becomes. Hey, look at the numbers of many of the people who are mentioned in these logs in this thread. You see a few newbs, but an awful lot of them have thousands of "finds". I never got this "The owner told me I could log it" excuse. If the owner told you to strip naked, cover yourself with maple syrup and lay down next to an ant hill, would you? Don't answer that Vinny.

Edited April 30, 2006 by briansnat

[+Wadcutter]

[ Its a lot harder to rack up 2k+ finds when you usually spend your entire caching day going after one cache.

 

So what do the numbers mean?

I thought I'd see just how far from home I'd have to go to log 2000 caches. Doing a search for the closest 2000 caches to my home I have a circle 125 miles radius or over 49,000 square miles. I have logged all the caches within 40 mile radius of my home except for the most recent 11 that just was put out last weekend.

Doing some playing around with the numbers (hey, it's raining, what else to do) for some locations I find if I lived in NYC that from Battery Park, a person has 2000 caches within 43 miles. San Francisco - 2000 caches within 23 miles. LA - 2000 within 23 miles. Tampa - 44 miles. North Chicago - 39 miles. With each of those the mileage only extends out 180 deg from center point due to the oceans/gulf/lake on one side. Seattle - 29 miles. For Dallas, TX there are 2000 caches within 19 miles radius.

However, if a person lived in Circle, MT they'd have to draw a circle 337 miles in radius to get 2000 caches or an area of about 357,000 square miles. Just how big is 357,000 sq mi? That's bigger than the land mass of MT, ND, SD, and WI combined.

So a person from Dallas, LA, SF, Seattle, or Chicago with 2000 finds? Yawn. A person from Circle, MT with 2000 finds, now that person has been hitting it hard.

[+WeightMan]

The number of finds that a cacher has is dependent on many variables. You have touched on one of them. Others would be inclination to a type of hide. Another would be the amount of time you are willing to devote to hunting. I'm sure there are others, but those come to mind quickly. The problem with the cachers with a large number of finds that obsess on that number is that they seem to feel that the number of finds has some relation to their ability as a cacher. There are too many other factors at play for that to be a valid relationship.

 

From my home in Seattle, there are about 3700 caches within 50 miles. Many of those do not interest me in the least. I just don't care to pump up my numbers with parking lot micros. Will I do those caches, sure, from time to time, but I don't make a day of those. I just get them as I pass by on my way to better locations. In fact one of my finds is a parking lot micro hidden by Criminal, who has never found a parking lot micro. The difference is that this parking lot micro was a clever hide and predated most parking lot micros. It was my first find that was in plain sight.

[+Wadcutter]

The number of finds that a cacher has is dependent on many variables. You have touched on one of them. Others would be inclination to a type of hide. Another would be the amount of time you are willing to devote to hunting. I'm sure there are others, but those come to mind quickly.

 

Exactly. I just couldn't figure out a way to quantify those numbers tho.

We ran across a cacher in some of our travels who logged their own caches multiple times. Reading their caches, a day or 2 after they placed a cache they would go back out to "find" it to make sure their coordinates were on. They would log it as a find, and so would each member of their family who was logging under the same "team" name. Anytime they'd do cache maintenance or bug swap they'd also log it as a find. So they would have one cache, which they hid, and several smileys. When I was logging their caches I couldn't figure out what they were doing. What brought it to my attention was one of their caches we'd found had been logged 10 times, our log and 9 of their finds. Didn't seem to make sense. Still doesn't. I'm forgetful, comes with age I guess, but I think I can pretty much walk up to a cache that I've hidden without too much trouble.

[+Criminal]

April 23 by OOOOOOOOOO (358 found)

OK...I was there when it was placed so I'll log a find, but after checking on caches today with the owner this one appears to have floated away.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

How easy do you want them?

[+Criminal]

April 29 by SSSSSSSSSS (305 found)

was with HHHHHHHHHH and she found this red thing strung on to a tree that i am sure was part of the cache

[view this log on a separate page]

 

April 29 by HHHHHHHHHH (226 found)

Found what we thought was it! There was a red cap rubberbanded to the tree but now that we see it has been disabled maybe we found what was left of the cache. Find #7 for the day at 1845

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Find #7?

Edited April 30, 2006 by Criminal

[+Criminal]

April 29 by IIIIIIII (302 found)

Cache is still gone but velcro and the sticker for UUUUUUU live on. I guess I claim this on but I think the snails got the best of me. TFTC

[view this log on a separate page]

 

April 7 by TTTTTTTT (1309 found)

Found the velcro and stickers but no container. Still a great hide. Thanks for the destination/

[view this log on a separate page]

 

April 6 by FFFFFFFF (1345 found)

Left sticker.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

April 6 by UUUUUUU (1308 found)

Found this one I think! The velcro is there but that is all. So we left our sticker in the lid. No snails today.

[view this log on a separate page]

[+Criminal]

April 29 by CCCCCCC (520 found)

I was originally going to report this as a "not found". But now that I see that it was archived nearly two weeks ago (I should've checked before heading out with an old printout from April 6th), and we DID find a ziploc bag there, we're going to claim a "find" if it's OK with you.

 

TFTC anyway

snip

[view this log on a separate page]

 

April 17 by CACHE OWNER(439 found)

Visited the site today and

renoved the remains of the cache.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

I have a box of ziplock bags in a drawer in the kitchen, gonna log those too?

Edited April 30, 2006 by Criminal

[+WeightMan]

The number of finds that a cacher has is dependent on many variables. You have touched on one of them. Others would be inclination to a type of hide. Another would be the amount of time you are willing to devote to hunting. I'm sure there are others, but those come to mind quickly.

 

Exactly. I just couldn't figure out a way to quantify those numbers tho.

 

 

But that is exactly what I want to say. The fact that the desire to do certain caches is not quantifiable just shows that the numbers don't matter.

[+beejay&esskay]

March 13 by xxxx (308 found)

Book MIA

Nice place though... been here before.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

February 18 by yyy (752 found)

I had the same experience here as the other recent logs indicate - will also log this one unless told otherwise.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

February 9 by zzz (844 found)

I went there to look like others did, not in its place and the computer system confirms it's missing. So I'll log it as a find.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

January 27 by www (19 found)

The book isn't there and the library lists it as missing so I guess I will claim it as found until told otherwise.

 

Cache that was evidently hidden in a book. And evidently the cache owner didn't respond very quickly to "finds" when it wasn't there to be found...(It was finally archived...but, why?...people keep finding it?

[+Criminal]

April 30 by CCCCCCCC (4275 found)

Accepting the gracious offer of the owner and logging as a virtual. Class guy! TFTC!

[view this log on a separate page]

 

...uh....logged it as what?

Edited May 1, 2006 by Criminal

[+Jamie Z]

Sent to me for posting. Classic "owner permission."

 

April 29 by CACHER (67 found)

I found the hiding place, but not the cache.

Yay! A DNF, but then from the same guy:

 

April 29 by CACHER (67 found)

Logging as a find with permission of owner. Thanks

 

Jamie

[+Criminal]

NOTE May 1 by AAAAAAA (3111 found)

I think a find is defined as signing the log. But I may be wrong I have not been caching very long.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

May 1 by BBBBBB (119 found)

Found the camo tape. Hope this still counts as a find.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

May 1 by CCCCCCC (65 found)

Just out with the boys getting some caches befor the sun comes up.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

May 1 by CACHEOWNER (1139 found)

This one appears to be MIA.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

May 1 by DDDDDDD (244 found)

Night caching with BBBBBB & CCCCCC. Found the camo tape, but it appears the cache is missing.

[view this log on a separate page]

[+Tsmola]

This was on a cache I recently upgraded from a micro to a small, someone claimed a find the same day it was upgraded, read the next log after that.

 

April 26 by Tsmola (130 found)

N 41° 56.448 W 086° 02.343

Stopped by and "upgraded" this cache to a camo coffee creamer. If it looks familar, that's because it used to be Snake in the Grass II. Updated coords slightly, I was surprised to find what was left of Sandhill Crane Cache. Looks like the owner forgot to pick it up when it was archived. I hid the new upgrade nearby and removed the archived container, contacted the owner to see if they wanted it. I'm pretty pleased with the traffic this one has gotten so I felt it deserved to be a bit bigger cache. Enjoy!

 

April 26 by mmmmm (778 found)

Last find of the day. TFTC.

 

4 days later the new container was found....

 

April 30 by mmmmmmmm (39 found)

[Found this one with my sister on a windy, rainy day. Had on my yellow rain slicker which made it difficult to be stealthy in retrieving this.....wonder what those people driving by thought I was doing! Not sure I got the container back in the same spot as I accidentally moved] a branch with a robin's nest on it [so wanted to get out of there quick.]

[Not a soul had signed the log so I got a small taste of FTF feeling, even though I wasn't. Took a sharpie pen and, as there was a lot of room in the container, filled it up a big daddy tape measure, sunglasses clip, a sig. card, and some other stuff I can't remember. TFTC]

 

so now I don't know if the person that claimed a find the same day as the upgrade really found it or not, I checked the micro log, there's no entry in there from them.

[+Criminal]

It's spreading overseas:

 

April 30 by YYYYYYYYY (58 found)

Found the coordinates, searched high and low for over half an hour, but could find no trace of the cache. Got home to find that the cache was muggled after I had printed out the the information. Thanks to CACHEOWNER for emailing us the clue for the next cache in the series and saving the day.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Then the next cache can be claimed as a find, this, however, is a DNF.

[+Criminal]

March 28 by 00000000 (1284 found)

I went after this cache with none other than the Infamous DP4C herself. We got to the cache site to find that the cache was truely missing. She told me I looked in the correct area, and if the cache were there, I would have found it, so with her permission I log this cache as a find. I know that she is at this very minute, working on the replacement for this cache. Nice easy stroll to the site. TFTC

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Woulda, shoulda, coulda....

 

Thanks for what?

[+express_girl]

i agree with you all for the most part...if i do not find the cache i don't log it as a find, but i do believe if i want to find a cache that has special instructions (ie repelling etc) and i actually see the cache but cannoy get to it it should be ok to log it as a find. i mean we got the spot saw the cache, and not every one can scale a 20' foot or repel down a cave or squeeze under a railroad tie. LOL just my humble opinion

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

i agree with you all for the most part...if i do not find the cache i don't log it as a find, but i do believe if i want to find a cache that has special instructions (ie repelling etc) and i actually see the cache but cannoy get to it it should be ok to log it as a find. i mean we got the spot saw the cache, and not every one can scale a 20' foot or repel down a cave or squeeze under a railroad tie. LOL just my humble opinion

 

EEEKK! ALACK!!! ALAS!! Oh, woe is me! The world is going to hell in a handbasket, and (no offense to the poster quoted) this post above is the final and absolute proof of it! Sigh!

[+RPW]

Express_girl:

 

What I think Vinny & Sue were trying to say in a (imho) not very effective way is that some caches are simply not meant to be found unless the cache hunter is willing and able to expend extraspecial effort to find the cache. In other words, if a cache is at the bottom of a cliff that can only be accessed via repeling then the cache hunter must be willing and able to do the repelling. Ideally such caches would be labeled with a "5-star" terrain -- "needs special equipment."

 

Another way to think of this is to suppose that you were handicapped and confined to a wheelchair. You could not then expect to be able to find every cache. Instead you would have to limit yourself to "1-star" terrain caches -- "handicapped accessible," Those of us who can not repel or are too claustrophobic to go into a cave or do not own a canoe, etc. are "handicapped" in a limited sense. We simply can not hunt those caches which require special equipment or skills. Even if we can "see" the cache we have not "found" it. We must sign the log in order to claim the find.

 

Vinny & Sue:

Be nice to the tadpoles please. They are ignorant and do not know better and thus we owe them a complete explanation. Let's direct our comments towards the 1000+ found cachers who should know better. :-)

 

[Edited to take out the word "flame" (which wasn't very accurate) and replaced it with "comments"]

Edited May 2, 2006 by RPW

[+Criminal]

Express_girl:

 

What I think Vinny & Sue were trying to say in a (imho) not very effective way is that some caches are simply not meant to be found unless the cache hunter is willing and able to expend extraspecial effort to find the cache. In other words, if a cache is at the bottom of a cliff that can only be accessed via repeling then the cache hunter must be willing and able to do the repelling. Ideally such caches would be labeled with a "5-star" terrain -- "needs special equipment."

 

Another way to think of this is to suppose that you were handicapped and confined to a wheelchair. You could not then expect to be able to find every cache. Instead you would have to limit yourself to "1-star" terrain caches -- "handicapped accessible," Those of us who can not repel or are too claustraphobic to go into a cave or do not own a canoe, etc. are "handicapped" in a limited sense. We simply can not hunt those caches which require special equipment or skills. Even if we can "see" the cache we have not "found" it.

 

Vinny & Sue:

Be nice to the tadpoles please. They are ignorant and do not know better. Let's direct our flames towards the 1000+ cachers who should know better. :-)

I could not have said this better myself, and prolly would not been nearly as kind. You're right though, and I have a lot of patience for the new players misunderstanding what 'found' means as it pertains to geocaches. I have none for experienced cachers who only want to puff themselves up. Thanks RPW. Now, to get JamieZ’s thread back on track, I’ll have to go find another fake finder. This won’t take long…

Edited May 2, 2006 by Criminal

[+Criminal]

Well that didn't take long. Please don't try to guess who this is:

 

April 28 by CACHER#1 (14570 found)

Several days and states later on my logs. Found all the proper hiding spots that led to the final with CACHER#2 & CACHER#3. Even volunteered to be the one to get dirty knees and have my hair drag in the mud at the final. No dice. Called up 2 previous finders who confirmed it MIA or significantly moved as we were at the correct coords which I'm mailing to you. This was fun and i remember hunting another cache in this park years back.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

April 28 by CACHER#2 (492 found)

WEnt a-hunting for this one on a gorgeous day with CACHER#1 AND CACHER#3. Had fun w/all the parts but when we hit the spot where the cache should have been, we came up empty handed. We searched a while... then xxxxx and I decided a that there was a really cool spot there warranted a little rest, so while yyyyy and zzzz tried looking all over and even checking w/other cachers to verify we were looking in the right spot, we soaked up some of the rays. Emailing you final coords for verification as the container may have gone missing. Cool park for a cache!

[view this log on a separate page]

[Mustcache]

It's spreading overseas:

 

April 30 by YYYYYYYYY (58 found)

Found the coordinates, searched high and low for over half an hour, but could find no trace of the cache. Got home to find that the cache was muggled after I had printed out the the information. Thanks to CACHEOWNER for emailing us the clue for the next cache in the series and saving the day.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Then the next cache can be claimed as a find, this, however, is a DNF.

 

Gee my TB was lost when this cache was muggled. I guess YYYYYYYYY should have gotten credit for retrieving the TB (since it would probably have been there if the cache still existed)!

 

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Express_girl:

 

What I think Vinny & Sue were trying to say in a (imho) not very effective way is that some caches are simply not meant to be found unless the cache hunter is willing and able to expend extraspecial effort to find the cache. In other words, if a cache is at the bottom of a cliff that can only be accessed via repeling then the cache hunter must be willing and able to do the repelling. Ideally such caches would be labeled with a "5-star" terrain -- "needs special equipment."

 

Another way to think of this is to suppose that you were handicapped and confined to a wheelchair. You could not then expect to be able to find every cache. Instead you would have to limit yourself to "1-star" terrain caches -- "handicapped accessible," Those of us who can not repel or are too claustrophobic to go into a cave or do not own a canoe, etc. are "handicapped" in a limited sense. We simply can not hunt those caches which require special equipment or skills. Even if we can "see" the cache we have not "found" it. We must sign the log in order to claim the find.

 

Vinny & Sue:

Be nice to the tadpoles please. They are ignorant and do not know better and thus we owe them a complete explanation. Let's direct our comments towards the 1000+ found cachers who should know better. :-)

 

RPW, great reply, although I would have also stressed more the requirement of signing the log (although more and more people nowadays seem to be ignoring that requirement -- witness this thread!) As for the latter part of your post; my post was not -- at least to me -- a not-nice post either by design, intent or by accident. You may wish to re-read it; perhaps you read it too fast. To my knowledge, I have never sent a really cranky post to the geocaching.com forums. There may even have even been a bit of subtle humor embedded in my original post, although I will never admit to it.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+express_girl]

Hello every one its me again

 

Even if we can "see" the cache we have not "found" it. We must sign the log in order to claim the find.

 

I never really knew that and I really do think you make a great point. And me, as a newbie, I dont even attempt anything over a 2 right now. So by the time I am ready for those 5-star caches I will know enough to follow the rules

 

(by the way I am not easily offended so I appreciate all the responses)

[+Criminal]

May 1 by CACHEOWNER (19 found)

I did find this one Maybe cause i placed it But gave THE FTF to who ever could get there first. GOOD JOB FTFer!!!!

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Newbie error?

[+express_girl]

May 1 by CACHEOWNER (19 found)

I did find this one Maybe cause i placed it But gave THE FTF to who ever could get there first. GOOD JOB FTFer!!!!

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Newbie error?

 

Even i thinks that ones...well....criminal LOL

( ok so it was a dumb joke)

[jamieb520]

Just started playing this game a few weeks ago and was suprised when I would see peoples names with like a few thousdand finds, now I know how they have that many finds. They don't, lol. Why are numbers on here so important to people? The number of finds doesn't mean [anything] to me really. Is this a compitition? How does someone win? Most of the cache's that I've found, I've been a few feet from them, before I started this game. Now that I am I have to wonder how I didn't know it was there before when I was so close. And there are lots more that I've looked up and I know I've been really close to them before, but can I log them as finds? Ummmm NO lol.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Keystone

[+Tsmola]

Why are numbers on here so important to people?

 

You, me and just about everyone else in this thread is wondering the same thing

[+GeoJunkie]

NOTE May 1 by AAAAAAA (3111 found)

I think a find is defined as signing the log. But I may be wrong I have not been caching very long.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

3000+ finds and they haven't figured out what defines a find?

 

Edit: Emphasized the parts of the quote I found most interesting.

Edited May 3, 2006 by BooBear

[+Stunod]

NOTE May 1 by AAAAAAA (3111 found)

I think a find is defined as signing the log. But I may be wrong I have not been caching very long.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

3000+ finds and they haven't figured out what defines a find?

 

Edit: Emphasized the parts of the quote I found most interesting.

 

That was a sarcastic NOTE made on the cache page

[+Criminal]

NOTE May 1 by AAAAAAA (3111 found)

I think a find is defined as signing the log. But I may be wrong I have not been caching very long.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

3000+ finds and they haven't figured out what defines a find?

 

Edit: Emphasized the parts of the quote I found most interesting.

 

That was a sarcastic NOTE made on the cache page

Why, whoever would do such a thing?

[+Criminal]

April 30 by BBBBBBBBB (69 found)

found a magnet at the top of a horizontal limb but didnt think that was the cache. After emailing owner turns out it was the only thing left of the cache. hope owner puts another out soon.

 

You hope he puts out another what exactly?

[+Criminal]

After a dozen or so DNFs, a few players decided to adjust what the word 'found' means.

 

October 17, 2005 by AAAAAAAA (8 found)

I ACTUALLY FOUND THE LOCATION...NO CACHE...LIVED HERE FOR YEARS BUT DIDNT KNOW THAT WAS THERE, AND I WAS A B-BALL COACH THERE

[view this log on a separate page]

January 4 by BBBBBBBB (178 found)

decided to find this stone anyway. I remember it from when I was a kid and wanted to see it again. I would like to see this cache up and running again. TNLN NLTS.

 

[view this log on a separate page]

January 31 by CCCCCCC (139 found)

There are 2 hollow trees, nothing at either one.

[view this log on a separate page]

Edited May 4, 2006 by Criminal

[+Criminal]

February 26 by DDDDD (1564 found)

10:45am The ammo can was gone but the contents of this cache were scattered about. Chew marks on the contents but what I can't figure out is why a critter would open an ammo box? That would be one nosey critter. They usually don't bother unless there is food to be gotten.

Two legged Muggles stumbled upon it you say? Nah, not here in bushwack heaven. And, most puzzling is the question of what did the critter do with the ammo can he took?

Maybe he will setup a new cache. Yea, thats the ticket!!

 

I called the cache owner about the condition of his cache.

Thanks, CACHEOWNER, for the Cache!!

 

Then you can go back and actually find a geocache!

Edited May 4, 2006 by Criminal

[+Criminal]

It's always pleasing to see someone who is willing to be a bad influence.

 

September 23, 2005 NEWBIE (11 found)

Decided if BIGNUMBERSGUY was in the right spot, so was I... If the cache had been there, I would have found it.

[view this log on a separate page]

September 20, 2005 CACHEOWNER (49 found)

cached is indeed missing in action, may wait till next summer for a new container.

[view this log on a separate page]

September 13, 2005 by BIGNUMBERSGUY (1339 found)

I talked to the owner and we verified that the cache was missing and that I was looking in the right spot.

[view this log on a separate page]

Edited May 4, 2006 by Criminal

[+Criminal]

April 13 by GGGGGGG (98 found)

Found lots of squirrel nesting material...but could not find the cache.

The cache owner was kind enough to confirm it was the right spot and suggest logging this as a find.

[This entry was edited by GGGGGG on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 7:20:57 PM.]

[view this log on a separate page]

 

That #100 will be extra special!

Edited May 5, 2006 by Criminal

[+sixgunklr]

Well, I'm the January 4th entry listed here, but thanks for protecting my identity.

 

At that time I had a whole 2 caches under my belt and didn't really understand alot about the Geocaching culture or practices. I had been doing it for 9 days.

 

I know better know. Wow, you're from Tacoma Washington and you went all the way to Peru, Indiana looking for evidence to prove your point. You're either deeply disturbed or deeply committed. Either one's a judgement call.

 

Thanks for the taste of much correction,

 

six

 

After a dozen or so DNFs, a few players decided to adjust what the word 'found' means.

 

October 17, 2005 by AAAAAAAA (8 found)

I ACTUALLY FOUND THE LOCATION...NO CACHE...LIVED HERE FOR YEARS BUT DIDNT KNOW THAT WAS THERE, AND I WAS A B-BALL COACH THERE

[view this log on a separate page]

January 4 by BBBBBBBB (178 found)

decided to find this stone anyway. I remember it from when I was a kid and wanted to see it again. I would like to see this cache up and running again. TNLN NLTS.

 

[view this log on a separate page]

January 31 by CCCCCCC (139 found)

There are 2 hollow trees, nothing at either one.

[view this log on a separate page]

[+Criminal]

Well, I'm the January 4th entry listed here, but thanks for protecting my identity.

 

At that time I had a whole 2 caches under my belt and didn't really understand alot about the Geocaching culture or practices. I had been doing it for 9 days.

 

I know better know. Wow, you're from Tacoma Washington and you went all the way to Peru, Indiana looking for evidence to prove your point. You're either deeply disturbed or deeply committed. Either one's a judgement call.

 

Thanks for the taste of much correction,

 

six

 

A little of both, but mostly disturbed. I always thought it was such a simple concept; load the coordinates, find the container, write in the logbook, log it online. If we cannot find the cache for whatever reason, we log a ‘did not find’. If we merely wanted to comment on the cache, we ‘write a note’. It was never intended for the cache owner to go out periodically to verify that the people who claimed to have found the cache actually did, it is all dependant on the honor system.

 

It’s relatively new as games go, so how much more will it devolve in the near future?

 

And BTW, I didn’t have to go all the way to anywhere to find these, they’re posted constantly throughout the day. If I devoted any time at all to it, this thread would be 100 pages long by now. That is very disturbing.

[+Wacka]

What's disturbing is that you have over 10 times more posts than finds and act like the lord god cache cop.

 

Why don't you get off your butt and find more than a cache a week?

 

I have found more since Christmas than you have since you started. (and that's basically caching on the weekends).

 

I don't like people making up finds, but if you go there and the owner is convinced you actually were there, it is missing, says to log it, WHY DO YOU CARE?

 

Get outside more often and stop p***ing and moaning about other people.

Edited May 5, 2006 by Wacka

[+Criminal]

What's disturbing is that you have over 10 times more posts than finds and act like the lord god cache cop.

 

Why don't you get off your butt and find more than a cache a week?

 

I have found more since Christmas than you have since you started. (and that's basically caching on the weekends).

 

I don't like people making up finds, but if you go there and the owner is convinced you actually were there, it is missing, says to log it, WHY DO YOU CARE?

 

Get outside more often and stop p***ing and moaning about other people.

What's your point?

 

Please point out a single piss or moan. I posted the fakes that I noticed, in keeping with the intent of the OP.

 

Cache cop? I have no problem with any of those caches.

[+beejay&esskay]

I don't like people making up finds, but if you go there and the owner is convinced you actually were there, it is missing, says to log it, WHY DO YOU CARE?

 

I care because when I see a "find" I tend to think the cache is actually there. If the cacher had the courage to post a DNF when he Did Not Find it, then I could rely on summary information and wouldn't have to worry about the actual text to tell me that the find meant it wasn't there.

 

This thread is also useful to work off the related frustration of non-find finds. Since I watch all the caches I plan to visit, I see the invalid find claims. Being able to post them here keeps me from an intemperate note on the cache.

[+Criminal]

April 29 by VVVVVVVVVV (496 found)

I am going to go ahead and log this one as found as per instructions from the owner even though the container is not there. Thanks.

[view this log on a separate page]

April 29 by CACHEOWNER (1822 found)

It has fallen to the bottom of the post. If you logged a DNF in the last couple of days and prior to posting this note., please log it as a find.

[view this log on a separate page]

April 28 by ZZZZZZZZZ (342 found)

We were out and about with Halfamind and we feel very strongly we were right on the cache. If it was a magnet cache as we feel it was, maybe it has dropped to the bottom. Wish we had a way to get to it. Thanks for the cache anyway, maybe it will be up and running next time we are in the area.

Just seen your log where we can log as a find. I just changed from a note to a find. Thanks

Enjoyed several of your caches.

[view this log on a separate page]

April 28 by XXXXXXXXXX (860 found)

CNF either. And there was four of us looking.

[view this log on a separate page]