Found It = Didn't Find It

[FallenFaery]

 

 

If these are temps that will be "logged" by logging mutliple "finds" to the event, then I agree, pretty lame.

 

That's exaclty the intent here. Happens all the time in that area.

 

 

I have an idea...

 

Hey.. I'm gonna place a box of 1000 "temporary caches" in my back yard. Stop by look in the box sign a log that will cover all the containers inside and log them all. I'll give ya a beer in celebration of your awesome achievement.

[+Kabuthunk]

WOOH! And then I'll log THAT twice, getting me TWO thousand logs! Yaaaay! It's much more fun to spend the next 10 hours in front of a computer copying and pasting a log than actually going out and caching

[+Isonzo Karst]

January 7 by USER (17 found)

What a walk, through some nasty stuff. Only to find the cache missing and not a log to sign.

[+fishingfools]

 

 

If these are temps that will be "logged" by logging mutliple "finds" to the event, then I agree, pretty lame.

 

That's exaclty the intent here. Happens all the time in that area.

 

 

 

Wow, I had heard of such things but never really believed it. What a silly thing to do.

[+Criminal]

October 7 by ZZZZZZ (11 found)

Found the site where the cache used to be and thatnk you, CACHEOWNER, for allowing this.

(PS: Nice City, Guthrie; I'd like to come back, someday)

[view this log on a separate page]

<DNF> August 12 by XXXXX (143 found)

Well now I know why I could not find it!

Enjoyed myself anyway.

[view this log on a separate page]

February 4 by YYYYYYY (225 found)

Thanks to the CACHEOWNER for allowing us to log this as a find - completed the series today in less than fine style! Well-placed and well-stocked containers all - hope this one gets up and running soon for others to enjoy. TFTC

[view this log on a separate page]

<ARCHIVE>January 30 by the CACHEOWNER(305 found)

We checked the cache and sure enough it has been abducted. Hey Batter, Batter is missing also. I will go to "You've Got to be Kidding," and put the coordinates directly on the webpage that would have been found in the lids of these two caches. Thanks YYYYYY for letting us know what was up.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Archived in January, 'found' in October.

Edited October 27, 2006 by Criminal

[+budd-rdc]

But this is just a game, albeit probably a reflection on the way people view life. I know Criminal has heard the phrase "You fight the way you play."

What does a person really have but their own integrity? Everything else is fleeting. To many, so is their integrity.

Hereby ends the sermon.

I much prefer having this thread (and Jamie Z and Criminal taking the heat) than seeing Groundspeak be in the business of being the dreaded "Cache Police." With the proper perspective, there's a lot of humor here.

 

I just hope people aren't selling out to the smiley so easily. For me, the issue isn't just about integrity. Next thing you know, you'll think TV shows and video games are real, and real life is fake...

[+Keruso]

there is no reset button in real life. no pause button either

[+jwucook]

i have a good one

 

this cache was disabled on may 4

 

June 17 by (name deleted) (418 found)

Found the spot while just riding through

ri for a birthday party. Does it count?

[view this log on a separate page]

 

it only counts if you were riding on an ATV because this cache is at the top of a hill

 

funny funny stuff

 

jwucook

[+NoLemon]

Found October 21 by FFFFFF_FFFF (2433 found)

Found by FFFFFF_FFFF 10-21-06. Talked to AA_x_BB and placed a temporary cache in the exact spot of the former cache. Hope this Ok with the owner until he can get out to do maintenance. FFFFFF_FFFF :>)

[view this log on a separate page]

 

DNF October 20 by DDDDDD & EEEEEEEE (497 found)

Couldn't find this one. No muggles, just a very bouncy GPS. We looked in several possible locations, but no luck.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

DNF October 17 by CCCCCCCCC (1492 found)

My second DNF of the day. When I pulled into the parking lot, there was a neighbour in his garage getting ready to mow his yard. He left after a little while, but I didn't feel comfortable and left after I have checked a few possible and promising hiding spots. I'll be back when the mowing season is over...

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Found October 7 by AA_x_BB (657 found)

AA found it pretty easily. We were the only people in the park, but when we got into the car to leave, we saw a young boy swinging nearby. Where did he come from?

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Can't find it? That's ok, just replace it with a "temporary cache" and claim a find. I guess that's how you get to 2400+ finds, eh?

[+Wadcutter]

Admits there is no cache but it's still worth a find.

"You've GOT to go see this". See what? Might be something worth seeing, but it wasn't a cache they were seeing. Doesn't matter, claim it anyway.

 

(smiley) July 31, 2005 by (phoneyfinder)(36 found)

I went here today - based on the logs - even though the cache appears to be gone. You've GOT to go see this - it would be a fine virtual. Thanks for leading me to see this magnificent living thing!!!

 

(disabled) July 16, 2005 by Cache owner (125 found)

Have moved will check out when i return.

 

(note) July 12, 2005 by XXXXX (38 found)

this was a little problem to find. The spot was there, but the micro was gone The cache was gone from hiding spot.

 

(DNF) July 9, 2005 by AAAAA (132 found)

Strike two. Looked first time before coordinates corrected. Looked again in same area but no banana.

 

(DNF) July 3, 2005 by BBBBB (861 found)

Several muggles in and about the treehouse today; unable to perform a proper search. Took some photos and did a little kissing in the 'shadows' - BF and I will always be lifetime friends. Thanks for taking us to a beautiful area; we'll be back.

Edited October 31, 2006 by Wadcutter

[+Criminal]

Seven found a lid on this cache and claimed it a a find.

[+Jamie Z]

Seven found a lid on this cache and claimed it a a find.

My favorite quote from the logs on that cache:

 

"Judging by the size of the lid, looked like a good cache."

 

Jamie

[+beejay&esskay]

October 30 by X (42 found)

DNF, either, but it was after you had already disabled it. i had old info in the PDA. will be back to check it's status...

 

October 29 by Y (700 found)

Well did find cache location, but was gone, as verified by owner. Z gave me permission to log a find, and since he is not going to enable it again, I shall record the Smiley - a first for me. Thanks, Z for the hide and your generosity! (Recorded as #699 - actually found as #695.)

 

Or not found as # who knows. It's clear why Y has trouble keeping tracking of his actual finds.

 

X correctly noted this a DNF.

[+Criminal]

November 8 by xxxxxx (794 found)

I have been paperless caching for a year now. Found the top of the container but the log is forever gone until a replacement comes along. Logging as a find, well actually a half find. TFTC and great hiding spot. I hope you replace it at the same location.

[view this log on a separate page]

<ARCHIVE> November 3 by CACHEOWNER (0 found)

missing item will replace

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Another lid find

[+Criminal]

November 8 by CACHER2 (228 found)

i was there with CACHER1 we were found where it was the owner come out and said was missing. tfth

[view this log on a separate page]

November 8 by CACHEOWNER (3619 found)

Picked it up for maintainance and got sent out of town. It will be back soon.

[view this log on a separate page]

<NOTE>November 8 by CACHER1 (65 found)

Went out looking for this one and the store owner came out.. to catch us "snooping" around. Standing at the door, looking where the cache should be... ITs appears to be missing!!! Wondering if you took it down or if its MIA... The Pc owner suggest a replacement of white instead of red. ;-)

 

Sheesh

[+Klatch]

January 8 by XXXX

 

Didn't make it up, but saw where it was. After being out for a while looking for this and Whaleback and enjoying the view, we were freezing and were ready to go home. There were scary people around this area though. I though the car may be in danger.

 

...and I had a really long pencil to sign that log.

Edited November 11, 2006 by Klatch

[+Criminal]

October 9 by NOTTHECACHEOWNER (120 found)

Replaced container with a micro. I have emailed the owner to update or to completely archieve. Hopefully this one will be back up soon.

 

Don't know what he 'found' exactly, maybe he should claim the FTF too.

[+Criminal]

November 16 by BBBBBB (2924 found)

Out caching with AAAAAA. Searched for this one extensively and came up empty. Called cache owner and was told we could log the find. Thanks.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

November 16 by AAAAAA (2460 found)

Couldn't snag this micro on a run today with AG. Looks like a rainstorm made short work of this beauty. Called the cache owner, and got permission to log the find. TFTC

[view this log on a separate page]

 

<DISABLE> November 16 by CACHEOWNER (937 found)

With the heavy rains I need to check this one out!

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Sheesh

[+Criminal]

October 22 by XXXXX (430 found)

we are counting this as our 400 find

we had a great time caching camping and sitting around the campfire with everyone

tfte

[view this log on a separate page]

 

The funny part is they attened this event at least 12 times.

 

That's some kind of magic.

[+GeoJunkie]

October 22 by XXXXX (430 found)

we are counting this as our 400 find

we had a great time caching camping and sitting around the campfire with everyone

tfte

[view this log on a separate page]

 

The funny part is they attened this event at least 12 times.

 

That's some kind of magic.

 

Looks like they weren't the only ones. Looks like everybody logged a separate entry for every cache they found AT the event! Looks like a good way to drive up everyone's numbers. Of course, I guess it could be said they legitimately found them all.

[+Criminal]

October 22 by XXXXX (430 found)

we are counting this as our 400 find

we had a great time caching camping and sitting around the campfire with everyone

tfte

[view this log on a separate page]

 

The funny part is they attened this event at least 12 times.

 

That's some kind of magic.

 

Looks like they weren't the only ones. Looks like everybody logged a separate entry for every cache they found AT the event! Looks like a good way to drive up everyone's numbers. Of course, I guess it could be said they legitimately found them all.

I logged several ‘finds’ on that event (found my car keys, found my way to work, and found that I suddenly had 342 finds) but the owner deleted them. My finds weren’t real geocaches any more than the temporary ones at the event so I don’t know what his problem is. I’ll probably find an angry email waiting for me when I get home.

Edited November 17, 2006 by Criminal

[+Bad_CRC]

I'm going to disagree with most everyone, and say that I consider finding a cache container to be a find. Personally, the way I enjoy geocaching, opening it up and signing the log is more of a drag than a thrill for me. (though I'm getting more into it as the hunts become more boring)

 

When I started, I logged a few finds that way. One on a bridge where you had to pull the cache up from a support, and if you slipped, the cache would be dropped into the river, one micro in a park surrounded by muggles, etc.

 

Since then, I've been told that it's "against the rules" to do it that way, I've been back and signed all the logs I had skipped, but only to avoid annoying anyone who is uptight... My fun (and isn't that what it's supposed to be about?) is finding the cache, not writing some bogus log in my horrible handwriting.

 

Now I always sign the log, (well littlecateyes usually does) unless it's wet or there is no pencil, which is rare.

 

 

I think it's silly that someone would log a find on a cache they couldn't find, but really... as long as they leave honest details, so what?

[+mudsneaker]

spotted this one tonite,

 

October 1 by Skittles' Crew (18 found)

Well, sort of. We found the location, but not the cache. However, after re-reading the hint, I think I know where to look, now! Avast!

 

for cache GCXQDG

 

thought I'd add to the list ....

[+Criminal]

I think it's silly that someone would log a find on a cache they couldn't find, but really... as long as they leave honest details, so what?

Well, look at it this way. When you go to log your find on the cache page, you have several choices in the drop-down box, Found It, Didn’t Find It, Write a Note, etc. There is no “Almost Found It” or “Found the Place Where it Used to Be” right? So if you did not find the cache, you have to lie to log it as Found It. Seems to me you have to be really desperate to impress everyone if you’re willing to sacrifice your integrity by telling lie while playing such a simple little game.

[+Wacka]

Certain people shouldn't be sending mean e-mails or posting nasty notes on caches they haven't found or searched for or on caches hundreds of miles away from their home.

[+budd-rdc]

I'm going to disagree with most everyone, and say that I consider finding a cache container to be a find. Personally, the way I enjoy geocaching, opening it up and signing the log is more of a drag than a thrill for me. (though I'm getting more into it as the hunts become more boring)

 

When I started, I logged a few finds that way. One on a bridge where you had to pull the cache up from a support, and if you slipped, the cache would be dropped into the river, one micro in a park surrounded by muggles, etc.

 

Since then, I've been told that it's "against the rules" to do it that way, I've been back and signed all the logs I had skipped, but only to avoid annoying anyone who is uptight... My fun (and isn't that what it's supposed to be about?) is finding the cache, not writing some bogus log in my horrible handwriting.

 

Now I always sign the log, (well littlecateyes usually does) unless it's wet or there is no pencil, which is rare.

 

 

I think it's silly that someone would log a find on a cache they couldn't find, but really... as long as they leave honest details, so what?

When I started, I had already found at least a dozen caches, tagging along with my brother. Even without "uptight" people harassing me, I did not log my finds on GC.com until my signature was in the log book. Yup, I went back to sign them, some requiring a hike of +2000' elevation change.

 

And in some way, the thread is respecting the disclosure of honest details by not disclosing who or where these occurred.

[+Bad_CRC]

Well, look at it this way. When you go to log your find on the cache page, you have several choices in the drop-down box, Found It, Didn’t Find It, Write a Note, etc. There is no “Almost Found It” or “Found the Place Where it Used to Be” right? So if you did not find the cache, you have to lie to log it as Found It. Seems to me you have to be really desperate to impress everyone if you’re willing to sacrifice your integrity by telling lie while playing such a simple little game.

 

don't know why you think I do that, because I don't. I post all my DNFs correctly.

 

If someone wants to log a find on a cache they didn't find, and they say so in the log, who does it hurt? Their total is not the same as others think it should be, but how does that hurt anyone else? They are happy, there is no confusion as to what happened... how come others even care?

[+GeoJunkie]

Hey, all. Just a friendly reminder of the purpose of this thread:

 

In another thread, the topic of logging a find when the cacher really didn't find the cache was mentioned. Someone suggested it would make an interesting topic on its own. I agree.

 

This thread is for all those smiley-faced logs that admit that the hunters did not really find the cache.

 

Let's not start a debate, or accuse people of cheating or any of that. No names, no links, just the log.

 

Here's my first contribution:

 

Found the spot, but not the cache! No film canister that I could find, but I was right on it at 0.0 feet! 1st find on my own!

 

There are other threads for debating what makes a DNF vs a find. This one is purely for the entertainment value.

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled finds.

[+R Scott]

in the area I live in and many others all the virtual caches are being logged by a lot of cachers from Germany, they are logging caches in about 4 or 5 different states and countries in the sameday all virtual at are easy to find the answers to.

 

November 15 by *************** (500 found)

Thank you for the good mystery and the voyage through the history.

We´ve send you an e-mail with the solution.

 

Sincerely from Germany ,

 

**************

[view this log on a separate page]

 

this cache was archived on June 4 2006 and has been logged 6 more time all in November

 

June 4 by Reviewer Jones (3 found)

Archiving.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

November 15 by ********* (1036 found)

Thanks for the virtual hunt and the "expedition"

*********

 

Gone cachin' or jeepin'

[view this log on a separate page]

 

CertificateExpedition.jpg

 

 

November 14 by *************** (500 found)

Thank you for the good mystery and the voyage through the history.

We´ve send an e-mail with the solution.

Sincerely from Germany ,

 

**************

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Grafik1.jpg

 

 

November 10 by ******** (2968 found)

Cool. Another one!! I love these caches. Great history lessons. Thanks for the cache.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Certificate!

 

 

November 10 by ************ (987 found)

Thank you for the nice mystery and many greetings from Germany

************

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Expedition (Virtual Cache)

 

 

November 7 by ******* (1014 found)

Immer noch virtuell auffindbar, danke für die Expedition!

********

[view this log on a separate page]

 

certificate.jpg

 

 

November 6 by ****** (981 found)

I have learned a lot about the Great Salt Plains and about their history - there are many interesting places to remember worth a visit.

THX4$ und so long

 

****** (Manz und Yogi)

 

****** is a proud member of the Team PLG

[view this log on a separate page]

[+Harry Dolphin]

Not sure that I understand this one. For an earthcache...

 

November 15 by (Reviewer) Published.

 

October 8 by LLLLLL Thanks for the geology lesson

October 8 by VVVVV Thanks for the tour

 

Reviewer hosts an event, and a month later publishes an earthcache at a nearby location. Two of the people who attended the event log the cache.

 

I've missed something here. Was the cache in the reviewer's pocket?!? We can prefind caches???

Okay, so it doesn't fit the category Found It = Didn't Find It. Found it = Won't be hidden for over a month

 

Prescience? Or can I attend the event a month later? I'm befuzzled.

[+knoffer]

September 22 by ????(4 found)

Found the tree but didnt want to climb up. Wasnt where I thought it was going to be in the park, nice hiding spot

[Neos2]

Not sure that I understand this one. For an earthcache...

 

November 15 by (Reviewer) Published.

 

October 8 by LLLLLL Thanks for the geology lesson

October 8 by VVVVV Thanks for the tour

 

Reviewer hosts an event, and a month later publishes an earthcache at a nearby location. Two of the people who attended the event log the cache.

 

I've missed something here. Was the cache in the reviewer's pocket?!? We can prefind caches???

Okay, so it doesn't fit the category Found It = Didn't Find It. Found it = Won't be hidden for over a month

 

Prescience? Or can I attend the event a month later? I'm befuzzled.

I'd have to see the actual EarthCache listing to be sure on this but...

October 8-14 was Earth Science Week. The GSA encouraged everyone to hold an event that week.

"Since October 1998, the American Geological Institute has organized this national and international event to help the public gain a better understanding and appreciation for the Earth Sciences and to encourage stewardship of the Earth."

 

Here's an example of an event that was held that week:

GCY1GR

 

I would hazard a guess that the EarthCache owner hoped the Earthcache would be approved by the date of the event, so that visitors could log the EarthCache itself--but of course, that was a busy time for the GSA anyway and about the same time as the shutdown on the caches as they moved from Waymarking back to gc.

 

As for the cache being in someone's pocket --now that's funny! Earthcaches, as you may know, are geologic features of our planet. They include things like sandstone formations, folding and faulting, waterfalls and so forth. If they are on state or federal land, the require permission from the lanmanager. They can take a while to get approved.

 

There is no container, nothing to sign, just something to see. If they saw this while they were at the event, they certainly gained the information they were supposed to, and are entitled to log it. In fact, if they saw it at the event, they probably got more exposure to it than if you were to wander there to look at it yourself today, without the owner there to fill you in on all the details.

 

In some ways, this highlights for me the whole reason that so many people are put off by this entire thread. People go hike to where a cache is, find a container--or the remains of one--see the view that was meant to be seen, enjoy the entire experience...except they don't sign some piece of paper, and suddenly they're being pointed out and labeled "cheaters" --I usually just shake my head and laugh at you guys for being so uptight about the signature, I mean, c'mon, how much is the experienced enriched by a signature? How much of the total experience is missing for the lack of a signature? If the signature is so all-fired important, can I stay home and sign my name all day and claim finds?

[+Keruso]

October 18 by Me (15 found) (disabled after doing this)

went to check on the cache today, since i didnt make it up there monday. stage two is soggy and i found stage one on the ground (didnt look for stage three, but im guessing what happened to that one). i will be replacing the vials with something more waterproof once i can find some waterproof material

 

November 19 by EEEEEEE (298 found)

I had found stage one on a day I didn't feel like looking for the second one. So the fact it was missing was not a issue.

Stage two was waterloged.

Stage three was ok but damp and ready to rip.

The final stage was in good shape though.

 

how could he have found stage 1 and two when i got them in my room???

[+Cache'n'Carey]

Not sure that I understand this one. For an earthcache...

 

November 15 by (Reviewer) Published.

 

October 8 by LLLLLL Thanks for the geology lesson

October 8 by VVVVV Thanks for the tour

 

Reviewer hosts an event, and a month later publishes an earthcache at a nearby location. Two of the people who attended the event log the cache.

 

I've missed something here. Was the cache in the reviewer's pocket?!? We can prefind caches???

Okay, so it doesn't fit the category Found It = Didn't Find It. Found it = Won't be hidden for over a month

 

Prescience? Or can I attend the event a month later? I'm befuzzled.

 

I know that at our local Earthcaching event during EarthScience week, one of the designated earthcaches was still "stuck" over at Waymarking.com because of the whole transition. Everyone had to complete the same requirements, but that earthcache had to be logged over there. Once the earthcache migrated over to GC.com, many people relogged it here. My bet is that you will see that those people logged the find properly at Waymarking, and backdated their log on GC.com to the date of the actual find once it was published here.

[+Criminal]

November 20 by XXXX (304 found)

Is this coming back soon?

[view this log on a separate page]

 

<DISABLE>January 31 by CACHEOWNER (296 found)

Will check it out.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

In their defense, I think that was a click error and not intentional.

Edited November 20, 2006 by Criminal

[+QuesterMark]

 

If someone wants to log a find on a cache they didn't find, and they say so in the log, who does it hurt? Their total is not the same as others think it should be, but how does that hurt anyone else? They are happy, there is no confusion as to what happened... how come others even care?

 

I can see your point here. I'm not going to let these people with questionable logging practices take the fun out of the game for me. I just have to assume that everyone else's numbers might be bogus.

 

And maybe THAT is what they don't like about the questionable logs. The fact that it makes EVERYONE's answers questionable.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'd have to see the actual EarthCache listing to be sure on this but...

October 8-14 was Earth Science Week. The GSA encouraged everyone to hold an event that week.

"Since October 1998, the American Geological Institute has organized this national and international event to help the public gain a better understanding and appreciation for the Earth Sciences and to encourage stewardship of the Earth."

 

Here's an example of an event that was held that week:

GCY1GR

 

I would hazard a guess that the EarthCache owner hoped the Earthcache would be approved by the date of the event, so that visitors could log the EarthCache itself--but of course, that was a busy time for the GSA anyway and about the same time as the shutdown on the caches as they moved from Waymarking back to gc.

 

As for the cache being in someone's pocket --now that's funny! Earthcaches, as you may know, are geologic features of our planet. They include things like sandstone formations, folding and faulting, waterfalls and so forth. If they are on state or federal land, the require permission from the lanmanager. They can take a while to get approved.

 

There is no container, nothing to sign, just something to see. If they saw this while they were at the event, they certainly gained the information they were supposed to, and are entitled to log it. In fact, if they saw it at the event, they probably got more exposure to it than if you were to wander there to look at it yourself today, without the owner there to fill you in on all the details.

 

In some ways, this highlights for me the whole reason that so many people are put off by this entire thread. People go hike to where a cache is, find a container--or the remains of one--see the view that was meant to be seen, enjoy the entire experience...except they don't sign some piece of paper, and suddenly they're being pointed out and labeled "cheaters" --I usually just shake my head and laugh at you guys for being so uptight about the signature, I mean, c'mon, how much is the experienced enriched by a signature? How much of the total experience is missing for the lack of a signature? If the signature is so all-fired important, can I stay home and sign my name all day and claim finds?

 

Okay. Gotcha! "I'm going to hide a cache here next month, and you can log it when it's published." Up to the cache owner. The earthcache I was looking at was hidden by geoaware. I can't say, from a cache standpoint, that the validation questions makes much sense. Heck, I could answer one of the questions from my computer. It's an area that I love, and have hiked in quite a bit, and I will be going back there this weekend. Ah, you see, I do follow the rules for logging caches. I just found it quite bizarre to log a cache a month before it was hidden. It certainly seems to have been done at the example that you cited. Live and learn.

[Neos2]

Okay. Gotcha! "I'm going to hide a cache here next month, and you can log it when it's published." Up to the cache owner. The earthcache I was looking at was hidden by geoaware. I can't say, from a cache standpoint, that the validation questions makes much sense. Heck, I could answer one of the questions from my computer. It's an area that I love, and have hiked in quite a bit, and I will be going back there this weekend. Ah, you see, I do follow the rules for logging caches. I just found it quite bizarre to log a cache a month before it was hidden. It certainly seems to have been done at the example that you cited. Live and learn.

Maybe you just really don't understand EarthCaches--there is no container hidden there. The formation IS the EarthCache.

 

The original rocks were laid down there during the Miocene era which began 17.5 million years ago and lasted until 6 million years ago--sometime after that period, the rocks were folded and tar was produced. Sometime after that, the rocks were exposed by weathering.

At the event last month, everyone there tromped around and saw all the formations in the area, and learned the anwers to the questions.

 

You can answer one of the questions from your computer, true, because the owner nicely told you all about it --with photos--however, you cannot answer the other two questions of the set of three. As an Earth & Space science teacher, with a great deal of interest in geologic formations, I can tell you that the questions make prefect sense for that type of formation.

 

There is nothing there now that wasn't there last month. The people at the event already looked for the anwers to the question. There is no container, nothing to sign. Why would someone need to visit it again if they have already had the full experience?

 

Oh and by the way, the owner of the cache is TerryDad2, who hosted the event and owns the other nearby EarthCaches. geoaware is the Earthcache reviewer.

[+budd-rdc]

There is nothing there now that wasn't there last month. The people at the event already looked for the anwers to the question. There is no container, nothing to sign. Why would someone need to visit it again if they have already had the full experience?

 

Oh and by the way, the owner of the cache is TerryDad2, who hosted the event and owns the other nearby EarthCaches. geoaware is the Earthcache reviewer.

 

Perhaps the fault is in trying to bundle Earthcaches with the "incidents" being reported here. To me, the different icon on Earthcaches represents a different experience.

 

It's courteous to shift the burden of verifying one's visit to oneself, rather than to the owner of the listing. That's what signing the log book is for. That's what sending e-mail verifications for Earthcaches are for.

[+Criminal]

November 21 by aCACHER (246 found)

Logging a find on this one with permission of the owners, Thank You CACHEOWNER.

[view this log on a separate page]

<NOTE>November 21 by CACHEOWNER (612 found)

Looking into this cache. More later.

[view this log on a separate page]

<DNF>November 19 by aCACHER (246 found)

I went looking for this one early this morning but I just couldn't find it, maybe next time.

[+Criminal]

<ARCHIVE>November 27 by CACHEOWNER (1337 found)

Checked out cache this morning. Either muggled, or very possibly pushed too far into hole to retrieve. Giving permission to FAKEFINDER to record as a find. May disable permanently, pondering.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

November 26 by FAKEFINDER (4143 found)

Permission to log via CACHEOWNER, thanks for the quick check on the cache, nice work on the hide.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

<DNF>November 26 by FAKEFINDER (4143 found)

We had our tools but were unable to see, much less find the cache.

[view this log on a separate page]

[+Eddieandeddie]

<ARCHIVE>November 27 by CACHEOWNER (1337 found)

Checked out cache this morning. Either muggled, or very possibly pushed too far into hole to retrieve. Giving permission to FAKEFINDER to record as a find. May disable permanently, pondering.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

November 26 by FAKEFINDER (4143 found)

Permission to log via CACHEOWNER, thanks for the quick check on the cache, nice work on the hide.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

<DNF>November 26 by FAKEFINDER (4143 found)

We had our tools but were unable to see, much less find the cache.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Who the hell cares, let alone goes searching all over the country for logs like this?

[+Criminal]

<ARCHIVE>November 27 by CACHEOWNER (1337 found)

Checked out cache this morning. Either muggled, or very possibly pushed too far into hole to retrieve. Giving permission to FAKEFINDER to record as a find. May disable permanently, pondering.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

November 26 by FAKEFINDER (4143 found)

Permission to log via CACHEOWNER, thanks for the quick check on the cache, nice work on the hide.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

<DNF>November 26 by FAKEFINDER (4143 found)

We had our tools but were unable to see, much less find the cache.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Who the hell cares, let alone goes searching all over the country for logs like this?

I the hell care, that's who.

[+Criminal]

November 28 by FAKER (1417 found)

Dear CACHEOWNER,

We were in the area today at 6:45pm on our Circumference de Ballarat Tour II. I had noted that the cache was offline and we called past to check on this cache. We had a quick search then called you for directions and confirmed that the cache was indeed missing. With your permission, we replaced the cache with a film canister. We did not have a film canister stash note so if the next person passing could supply one, that would be great. The cache is now alive in it's original hide. The park was fantastic as I think that it is the first green we have seen all day. Thanks for our 13th CACHEOWNER cache.

 

Sheesh, even the hide wasn't a geocache.

[+briansnat]

 

 

Who the hell cares, let alone goes searching all over the country for logs like this?

 

I get a kick out of all the people who spend time monitoring this thread and periodically chime in to chastize, scorn and belittle the participants. Why do they care so much about what is being discussed here?

[+Wacka]

Because certain people in this thread put nasty notes on cache pages calling people cheaters. It has happened to friends of mine.

The situation was that the finder went around a lake finding 5 caches by the hider. At one, there was a rattlesnake next to the cache. The owner told them to log it anyways as they described the cache and its locale in detail in an e-mail and not to worry about trudging back there to get the final cache. Then, one of the people who posts a lot in this thread sent e-mails to the people and posted on the cache page nasty notes about them being cheaters. This cache is >500 miles from the e-mailers home.

[+QuesterMark]

 

 

Who the hell cares, let alone goes searching all over the country for logs like this?

 

I get a kick out of all the people who spend time monitoring this thread and periodically chime in to chastize, scorn and belittle the participants. Why do they care so much about what is being discussed here?

 

These may be the same people that think things they don't like should be banned.

[+Criminal]

This is interesting...

 

[+chubby forest monkey]

This is interesting...

 

 

Excuse my ignorance, but does this mean that the cache owner is posting multiple logs on their own archived cache?

 

Do repeats increase the smiley count?

 

Wow!

[+Criminal]

This is interesting...

 

 

Excuse my ignorance, but does this mean that the cache owner is posting multiple logs on their own archived cache?

 

Do repeats increase the smiley count?

 

Wow!

Yes

 

Yes

 

Indeed