Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 53
Jamie Z

Found It = Didn't Find It

Recommended Posts

Woohoo! Jackpot. This one from a virtual--so not only was there nothing to find in the first place, even that is gone and folks still logged it. In chronological order,

 

The last legitimate find:

:D January 17, 2004 by CACHER (57 found)

Ninth cache found today on a beautiful day for caching and riding in the desert. This large [virtual cache object] really stands out amongst the normal desert colors. Thanks!!

Then,

:lol: February 21, 2004 by CACHER (546 found)

Found the location with CACHER and others during the X cache-a-thon. Unfortunately it looks as though someone has swiped the [virtual cache object]. :-(

And,

:lol: February 21, 2004 by CACHER (1905 found)

Yep, the [virtal cache object] is gone. Was here with a whole bunch of cachers and we had a good long look. There were some fresh tire marks in the area. We took a group photo to show that we were there! Sorry about the [virtual cache object]!

and,

:( February 21, 2004 by CACHER (766 found)

Well, we found where it USED to be!

tn/ln/sn

"sn," gotta love that.
icon_sad.gif February 21, 2004 by CACHER (2000 found)

10:35 am.

MIA. Walked over with CACHER. Took a photo of GPSr at the zero point but that doesn't seem to count as a find. Maybe another a replacement will emerge someday.

Yay, a real DNF!

 

But then,

:D March 20, 2004 by CACHER (236 found)

Not knowing that it was gone, we had 9 people looking for this for at least 15 minutes. We never found it, but we shall be bold and take credit for our efforts none the less, since there was nothing actually there to find.

Wow! A whole 15 minutes!

Finally, an SBA is logged:

icon_remove.gif November 21, 2004 by CACHER (0 found)

Since the [virtual cache object] is gone, I should go away, too

And then the owner:

traffic_cone.gifNovember 21, 2004 by OWNER (11 found)

The Un-cache was stolen. It was fun for awhile.

 

Jamie

Edited by Jamie Z

Share this post


Link to post

Two logs on the same cache by the same cachers. First was a DNF, then a second Found It log:

 

June 20 by XXXXX XXXXC-XX (174 found)

:lol: Was confirmed by owner at the event that I was in the right spot. But alas it has flown the coup yet again. Thanks YYY? YYY!.

 

June 16 by XXXXX XXXXC-XX (174 found)

:lol: WAhhhhhh!! Ants......I looked again and nothin'. Muggled already??

Share this post


Link to post

Well, folks, to add a bit of illumination on some of the gray areas in this discussion, consider this recent situation which happened to us in real life this past weekend. Please note as you read the tale below that we simply made a choice in this matter which felt best to us, and I would certainly not judge either option (both of which will be outlined below) as being right nor wrong.

 

This past weekend, we happened to decide to tackle a riddle multi-stage 5/5 while on a trip to visit relatives in another state. We completed the first eight multi stages with ease, covering several miles of trails, and finally got to the final cache site. The final cache turned out to be a micro, an Altoids tin with a magnet attached, located on a rusty beam under an abandoned railroad bridge, high over a river gorge; reaching the cache involves a definite element of danger, even with technical safety gear. On our first day at the final cache site, we managed to identify what looked like the cache container on the structure, and, with some trouble, we retrieved it on the second morning. It turned out to be a solid block of slightly corroded ferrous steel , much the same size and shape as an Altoids tin.

 

We then looked even further, and located the real Altoids tin just 9 feet from its accidental look-alike cousin. Since we were 250 miles from home, I did not have any of my rock climbing safety gear with me, but we then spent several hours trying to retrieve the tin from its precarious perch high over the river gorge without putting ourselves in significant danger. We managed to contact the tin several times with a magnet-tipped telescoping retrieval tool, but could not grab it, and were unwilling to make the trek out to grab the tin in person without safety gear (which was at home 250 miles away.) We finally decided to give up on the retrieval effort, and to come back within two months armed with appropriate technical protection gear.

 

Later that same day, we happened to relate our amusing tale, as well as our decision to declare a DNF and return in a few weeks to really grab the cache and sign the log, to the cache owner via e-mail. The owner immediately replied that he felt that we deserved to claim a find if we so wished. His reasoning was that we had completed the entire prelim series, we had found the final cache spot, we seen and even connected with the cache can, had even grabbed its fake cousin, and that the only thing we had not done was the act of signing the log. We thanked him for his kind offer, and advised him that, for now, we had chosen to graciously decline the generous and unsolicited but much-appreciated offer of a "Find", because we preferred to return to this site in a few weeks with appropriate technical safety gear to ACTUALLY retrieve the cache and sign the log, and that we hoped to log our Find at that time.

 

So, we made the decsion not to go for a "find", and instead I filed a long and humorous (and grateful) logging note (which the cache owner much appreciated) on the cache listing page. However, I certainly would not judge nor fault someone in a similar situation if they they had said "YES!" and accepted the offer to claim a find. For this one, it is just a matter of personal values and personal preference to me and to my wife, who is the other half of our team. Indeed, if I were the owner of a similar cache, I would make the same offer to anyone in this situation as did this cache owner. Meanwhile, I am organizing my climbing gear and strategizing how best to tackle this traverse journey on the rusty beam when we get back to the cache site in a few weeks!

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team

Share this post


Link to post
(snip)

 

This past weekend, we happened to decide to tackle a riddle multi-stage 5/5 while on a trip to visit relatives in another state. We completed the first eight multi stages with ease, covering several miles of trails, and finally got to the final cache site. The final cache turned out to be a micro, an Altoids tin with a magnet attached, located on a rusty beam under an abandoned railroad bridge, high over a river gorge; reaching the cache involves a definite element of danger, even with technical safety gear. On our first day at the final cache site, we managed to identify what looked like the cache container on the structure, and, with some trouble, we retrieved it on the second morning. It turned out to be a solid block of slightly corroded ferrous steel , much the same size and shape as an Altoids tin.

 

We then looked even further, and located the real Altoids tin just 9 feet from its accidental look-alike cousin. Since we were 250 miles from home, I did not have any of my rock climbing safety gear with me, but we then spent several hours trying to retrieve the tin from its precarious perch high over the river gorge without putting ourselves in significant danger. We managed to contact the tin several times with a magnet-tipped telescoping retrieval tool, but could not grab it, and were unwilling to make the trek out to grab the tin in person without safety gear (which was at home 250 miles away.) We finally decided to give up on the retrieval effort, and to come back within two months armed with appropriate technical protection gear.

 

Later that same day, we happened to relate our amusing tale, as well as our decision to declare a DNF and return in a few weeks to really grab the cache and sign the log, to the cache owner via e-mail. The owner immediately replied that he felt that we deserved to claim a find if we so wished. His reasoning was that we had completed the entire prelim series, we had found the final cache spot, we seen and even connected with the cache can, had even grabbed its fake cousin, and that the only thing we had not done was the act of signing the log. We thanked him for his kind offer, and advised him that, for now, we had chosen to graciously decline the generous and unsolicited but much-appreciated offer of a "Find", because we preferred to return to this site in a few weeks with appropriate technical safety gear to ACTUALLY retrieve the cache and sign the log, and that we hoped to log our Find at that time.

 

So, we made the decsion not to go for a "find", and instead I filed a long and humorous (and grateful) logging note (which the cache owner much appreciated) on the cache listing page. However, I certainly would not judge nor fault someone in a similar situation if they they had said "YES!" and accepted the offer to claim a find. For this one, it is just a matter of personal values and personal preference to me and to my wife, who is the other half of our team. Indeed, if I were the owner of a similar cache, I would make the same offer to anyone in this situation as did this cache owner. Meanwhile, I am organizing my climbing gear and strategizing how best to tackle this traverse journey on the rusty beam when we get back to the cache site in a few weeks!

The cache was rated a 5/5, meaning special equipment was required. You did not have the special equipment, you did not retrieve the container and sign the log. Sounds like an appropriate DNF to me.

 

Heck of an effort, though!

 

Ed

TB&TB

Share this post


Link to post
Well, folks, to add a bit of illumination on some of the gray areas in this discussion, consider this recent situation .... SNIP

If the cache owner is willing to allow finds on his cache, when it is only partially completed, I would not even bother to hunt for it.

 

Finding a cache that wasn't actually found is bad enough, but an owner who "allows" people to log a tough cache as found cheapens it for those who actually completed it.

Share this post


Link to post
June 25 by x (257 found)

I am logging this even though I didn't find it for 4 reasons.

1. I stuck my hand in a mess of yellow jackets while looking

2. After talking to y I found out that I was right next to it.

3. I had to get a jumpstart from one of the local volunteer firefighters at the cache sight.(Note other car troubles at this cache site!)

4. I just had to retype this log because my stupid computer erased it once.

 

Well, of course you'd count that as a find! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post

In the hiking community, we have the saying "Hike your own hike." I think "Hunt your own hunt" works too. Ultimately, everyone else's numbers don't affect mine. My finds don't affect theirs. For all I know, I may be one of the lauded cachers in the previous pages. But realistically, if you cache based on the way others are enjoying the game, I think you're missing the point.

 

If a cache owner doesn't want the guy listed as a find, they'll delete the log. If they don't, and that's reason enough for you to not hunt the cache, then don't. This seems like an opportunity to hunt out and belittle other cachers and their own enjoyment of the game. Even if you don't post the name of the cacher here, you and the cacher both know and putting them on the spot in the forums just doesn't seem copacetic.

 

YMMV,

VW

Share this post


Link to post

VW had written:

 

In the hiking community, we have the saying "Hike your own hike." I think "Hunt your own hunt" works too. Ultimately, everyone else's numbers don't affect mine. My finds don't affect theirs. For all I know, I may be one of the lauded cachers in the previous pages. But realistically, if you cache based on the way others are enjoying the game, I think you're missing the point.

 

If a cache owner doesn't want the guy listed as a find, they'll delete the log. If they don't, and that's reason enough for you to not hunt the cache, then don't.

 

VW, I largely agree with what you have writtten. My approach too, is similar and I often say: "To each their own way and their own game, and God bless them all!" However, I nonetheless do get some great belly laughs out of some of the "finds" claimed by some people, but that does not mean that I need to judge them nor condemn them for what they write nor for what they do. This too is fie with me. Frankly, it does not matter to me if some folks do inflate their finds counts with "fake finds" -- that is their business, and not mine. And, there are also grey areas, as my recent tale illustrated. I am not in this sport to have high find numbers, but to have fun, to get exercise, and to find interesting and weird caches!

 

Vinny

Share this post


Link to post

Very noble of you, Vinny & Sue. I think it's kind of silly to bother making a 5/5 cache and then saying "Well, you were able to see it but you couldn't get to it - that's good enough." The point of a 5/5 is being difficult =|

Share this post


Link to post
In the hiking community, we have the saying "Hike your own hike." I think "Hunt your own hunt" works too. Ultimately, everyone else's numbers don't affect mine. My finds don't affect theirs.

 

That would be nice if your finds didn't affect others, but they do. Many geocachers will not waste their time looking for a cache with a bunch of DNF's. But if someone comes along and logs a false find, they are in effect telling the geocaching community that the cache is there. This could result in people going after the cache and wasting their time.

 

I think it was Lep who was enticed into a fruitless, 100 mile RT drive by someone who lied about finding a cache. Many others have been lured out by fake finds. Not only that, they may put additional effort into their search because "It has to be here, xxxxx found it yesterday".

 

Lying about finds could also fool an owner into thinking his cache is there and fine, when it actually needs to be replaced.

Share this post


Link to post

Yep, what Briansnat just said; your log is where you share information with the geocaching community. When you don't find a cache LOG A DNF. Whether you enjoyed the hunt, the hike, the location, or whatever, the real information is that you DNFed the cache. It's not about the numbers, it's about being part of the community.

 

09deae10-fbdc-4229-bd46-b700f5ee4162.jpg

Edited by Isonzo Karst

Share this post


Link to post

I got this log yesterday:

I located the actual cache at the cache sight. However, I did not sign in or even get to open the cache. There was someone very suspicious in the parking lot and a couple of others not far behind (who were not apparent when Cacher arrived here). You know, the types you read about "be cautious of people who....." So, I began the search, found it, but abruptly cut it short and hi-tailed it out based on what street-smarts tell you. I doubt he (they) were fellow geocachers waiting me out because any geocacher with half a brain would not want to look that suspicious. And I worried about looking suspicious! Anyway, this is a nice view, and I'm sure this area is perfect any other time, it was just not the afternoon to be up here.

Sad, but interesting story, but it sounds like a DNF to me, and have requested a change from a 'find' to a note.

Share this post


Link to post

:mad: July 3 by Cacher1 (18 found)

Cacher2 and I "kinda found it" today. I think we found where it SHOULD be but wasn't. I know it was temporarily disabled but the coords were in my GPSr so we thought we would try it...nice walk anyway."

 

:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

Since this is my first post forgive my ignorance....

 

Saying you found something when you didn't is odd to me.

 

Is there some status in the community for finding caches? Should I consider this when I post my finds?

:P

 

I think I won't though... it's just too weird for me.

Share this post


Link to post

Some people are so into the numbers, they forget what "finding the cache and signing the log book" means . . . apparently . . . B)

Share this post


Link to post

icon_smile.gifApril 23 by USER (82 found)

First off all, I DIDN'T FIND IT, but I don't think I will ever come back and it was clear that the cache is gone. I was exactly at the spot but there was no cache. But it was clear that it once had been there.

But for the rest the place was beautiful. You could see the lake and .......

Share this post


Link to post

I'm enjoying this thread because of something I experienced last year. Over the course of a few weeks caching and posting my own logs on the website, I noticed what seemed like a suspiciously high number of finds in the area by one person, who never gave any details. This was all on Hawaii's Big Island, and most of the caches are in unbelievably beautiful spots. Most people post logs that say "wow, fabulous place" and give rapturous details about the scenery, weather, etc. But this one mainland cacher would just say "found it" without so much as "TNLN" or mention that hey, the spot was pretty incredible. I got rather suspicious, so I started to look for his log entries in the actual physical caches. And guess what...THEY WERE THERE. Obviously this cacher does not like to write, but he can cache. That's cool, we can't all be annoyingly verbose like I am. But it just goes to show, a physical entry in the cache's log book is the acid test of did you/did you not find the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Recorded as a find:

 

"Found the exact hiding spot using the clue, but the film canister wasn't there. We looked around for a bit since it had been moved before, but we didn't find anything. We left a asprin bottle as a replacement container and left the cache description as a log book. No views today. Dreary, overcast and misty. TFTC!"

 

I deleted the log and then got a not so pleasant email from the cacher saying this was common practice. Is this common practice? :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Recorded as a find:

 

"Found the exact hiding spot using the clue, but the film canister wasn't there. We looked around for a bit since it had been moved before, but we didn't find anything. We left a asprin bottle as a replacement container and left the cache description as a log book. No views today. Dreary, overcast and misty. TFTC!"

 

I deleted the log and then got a not so pleasant email from the cacher saying this was common practice. Is this common practice? :laughing:

It's not "normal", but I've seen it done. (And I'm sure if you read this entire thread you'd find other instances of cachers creating their own replacement container and recording it as a find...sometimes when the original cache is still present.)

 

You were right to delete the find. They didn't find your cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I ran into a couple caches this weekend that were muggled. I logged one as a find, and one as a DNF for a couple different reasons.

 

To me, it's all about the log. I rarely do trades, unless the cache swag is a bit above the typical McToy.

 

In the case of the first cache, we didn't find the cache, but we found the remains of the cache, including the log book, which had all the past cachers logs ripped out. But we do have the book, so I counted that one as a find.

 

In the second case, we found evidence that the cache was most likely muggled. What we found was a small depression under the log, that looked like it was made by a cache container, in the most likely place for a cache. We also found several broken McToy's, and a few pencils, and pens laying on the ground.

 

Since there was no log book to be found, that really doesn't prove the cache was muggled, so we logged a DNF.

 

Right or wrong?

Share this post


Link to post

"Better to fail with honor

than succeed by fraud."

- Sophocles

 

Credibility is everything, and I know a few cachers with cachelust in this area whose finds were later demonstrated to have been completely engineered.

 

The funny thing is once you start pulling at one loose thread, it's amazing how much of their comfortable and highly padded "Found It" blanket suddenly unravels!

Edited by Wreck Diver

Share this post


Link to post
I'm enjoying this thread because of something I experienced last year. Over the course of a few weeks caching and posting my own logs on the website, I noticed what seemed like a suspiciously high number of finds in the area by one person, who never gave any details. This was all on Hawaii's Big Island, and most of the caches are in unbelievably beautiful spots. Most people post logs that say "wow, fabulous place" and give rapturous details about the scenery, weather, etc. But this one mainland cacher would just say "found it" without so much as  "TNLN" or mention that hey, the spot was pretty incredible. I got rather suspicious, so I started to look for his log entries in the actual physical caches. And guess what...THEY WERE THERE. Obviously this cacher does not like to write, but he can cache. That's cool, we can't all be annoyingly verbose like I am. But it just goes to show, a physical entry in the cache's log book is the acid test of did you/did you not find the cache.

I spent several hours over a consecutive four day period trying to locate a series of micro caches in the Dominican Republic last month and though we wasted a tremendous amount of vacation time on the caches and posted some strongly worded DNFs on the cache pages along with corroborotive photographs, we come home from the tropics and find that a cacher logged all of the caches as easy finds.

 

Unfortunately for them (and their credibility) the legitimate FTF posted a photograph of the log book when he signed it. The post-dated FTF must have used invisible ink, and it apparently spilled on the micro caches as well!

 

The micro caches were:

 

Rettungsturm

Bushaltestelle (archived after our DNF)

Unterstand (archived after our DNF)

 

I would have thought that this was a isolated case, but a week after I get home and post a lengthy log about dropping three travel bugs off at the Punta Cana Christmas Geocache a few miles further up the beach, I get a notification that the cache was (supposedly) found. Like you observed, they never gave any details, and they certainly never made mention of the unusuable condition of the log book.

 

Again, I'll leave the reading of the logs and the drawing of conclusions to the forum members.

Share this post


Link to post
:unsure:  August 2 by XXXxxxxxXxxxxx (xxxxx found)

Logged with permission.

 

Log after log like this by these cachers...makes ya wonder if they really "found" it :unsure:

Edited by The Badge & the Butterfly

Share this post


Link to post
August 11 by xxxxxxxxxx (371 found)

We are going to claim this as a find but I'm not really sure it was the actual cache we located. While rooting around for the cache we came across something..."got it" yelled Geo-Hubby as he got out his camera to snap a picture. He got it alright but I'm pretty sure it was the hidden library key and not the actual cache.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right...you didn't find it. That's one reason caches have log books. :D

Edited by beejay&esskay

Share this post


Link to post

Ahhh nevermind, I was replying to a post that was a year old. :D

Edited by TeamZebra

Share this post


Link to post

Ok here is another one...

 

"Another one pulled that I did'nt know about. Guess I'm not as blind as I thought I was after spending so much time and coming up empty handed for the second time."

 

I guess 2xdnf=smiley face.

Share this post


Link to post
:anibad:  August 2 by XXXxxxxxXxxxxx (xxxxx found)

Logged with permission.

 

Log after log like this by these cachers...makes ya wonder if they really "found" it :lol:

Check where they were and where the caches were... in some cases they were caching several hundred miles away on the same day. I noticed that pattern in a lot of archived caches in this area. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
:anibad:  August 2 by XXXxxxxxXxxxxx (xxxxx found)

Logged with permission.

 

Log after log like this by these cachers...makes ya wonder if they really "found" it :)

Check where they were and where the caches were... in some cases they were caching several hundred miles away on the same day. I noticed that pattern in a lot of archived caches in this area. :lol:

This is really off topic and probably was discussed last spring when it happened, but I just checked out a cache that I had attempted twice and not found.. once it was gone and then the replacement was moved to a slightly different location.. but anyhow it is now archived. The day before it was archived four people "found" it and logged it with "owners permission". I was curious about the scope of this number padding so I checked it out.

 

Account #1 started geocaching by logging in 174 of these "with permission" caches. They now are in the 700s.

Account #2 must have had second thoughts.. I only found a few.. maybe 10 regular caches for them. I didn't check for virtuals or multis.

Account #3 "did" 45 regular caches.. I didn't bother counting the virtuals and multis... These were all in PA or MD.. they then scooted over to Indiana and did 33 more the next day + one in PA. :lol:

Account#4 "Did" 88 of the "With Permission" caches.

 

There may be more accounts that participated in this as I just saw the ones that had claimed the cache that I was checking on to see if it had ever been reactivated.

 

Just wondering what enjoyment they got by punching find logs into a computer.. and also wondering why if they were going to copy and paste the same log a hundred times they wouldn't check to be sure all 20 of the words were spelled correctly. (OK: 18 of 20 is 90% ;))

Share this post


Link to post

Here's an interesting Found it = Didn't Find It that I ran across:

August 9 by <Cacher> (227 found)

[i am claiming this as a find even though I didn't actually find The Cache] ... but I did find a couple of pieces of Velcro in what one might call Cachers Formation sufficient to convince my easily-molded mind that I had found The Right Home of a Sadly Missing Cache. I don't THINK I'm being guilty of the stereotypical newbie "I looked for it for 5 minutes, didn't find it, so it MUST be lost" syndrome, but it will not be all that difficult to delete this log if you think I am.

[in any event, your hide made for a nice walk in a fun town. I'm in from <Somewhere>, on some family business, and having an easy-but-interesting cache to seek is a great diversion. <XYZ> really is a great place to visit - and, from what my Father has told me - an even better place to live! This whole area is a great exampe of what he means ... and I was glad of the chance to visit it.

Thanks for giving me a good reason to look around - a lot!]

Share this post


Link to post
August 24 by XxxxXxxxx (9603 found)

Picked up this cache while headed north on our (with xXxxxxx) pilgrimage to OR/WA for the Orignal Stash and the Tunnel of Light caches. xXxxxxx had found this cache before and found the spot empty, so we replaced the cache. Thanks

 

This was logged onto one my my caches. They didn't find it, so replaced it and logged it as a find. :ph34r:

 

I have requested they change the find to a DNF (or at least a note), and I'll confirm it's missing, thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah. No one warned me about DNF equals Find, when I started hiding caches. Perhaps I'm too ingenuous. It would never have occurred to me to log a cache that I haven't found and signed the log (if appropriate).

I have a webcam that is not an easy one. Weather can be bad. Cell phone connection can be bad. Some interesting DNFs = Finds.

This was particularly ingenious:

"Twelve people. I ask 12 friends, brothers and sisters to watch me on internet last Saturday early in the afternoon.

OK our climb took a bit longer and we were in position late in the afternoon, but that's no excuse when all you have to do is stay in front of your PC.

(And that is certainly no excuse for my sister who dutyfully stayed in front of her screen all FRIDAY afternoon).

Anyway, since I could not get a picture of me by the webcam (why in the world are they not saving pictures for a couple of days?) I took a picture of the webcam by me."

It would never have occurred to me to log that as a find. I do log 'Oh, well' a lot.

Share this post


Link to post

some enlightenment from someone who has been there and done that:

as a newbie cacher it is very frustrating to go out and spend time and money

just to get nil out of it... atleast to log then a find is the reward (no matter if

you did... hey! I searched for it after all, right?)

There is several instances where I found what I thought to be the remains of

caches and logged those as a find; just to see a few days later other cachers

(or the owner) [steamingly] reporting that the cache is still right where it was

and what I was allowing myself.

 

you have to give a newbie atleast the benefit of the doubt; there is so much

litter out there, hard to tell what are remains of a cache or just some kids

lunch-wrapper...

 

we all live and learn

Share this post


Link to post
some enlightenment from someone who has been there and done that:

as a newbie cacher it is very frustrating to go out and spend time and money

just to get nil out of it... atleast to log then a find is the reward (no matter if

you did... hey! I searched for it after all, right?)

There is several instances where I found what I thought to be the remains of

caches and logged those as a find; just to see a few days later other cachers

(or the owner) [steamingly] reporting that the cache is still right where it was

and what I was allowing myself.

 

you have to give a newbie atleast the benefit of the doubt; there is so much

litter out there, hard to tell what are remains of a cache or just some kids

lunch-wrapper...

 

we all live and learn

OK, mistakes are made but of course the site is designed so you can edit your smiley face to a DNF as soon as the mistake is recognized.

Share this post


Link to post
some enlightenment from someone who has been there and done that:

as a newbie cacher it is very frustrating to go out and spend time and money

just to get nil out of it... atleast to log then a find is the reward (no matter if

you did... hey! I searched for it after all, right?)

There is several instances where I found what I thought to be the remains of

caches and logged those as a find; just to see a few days later other cachers

(or the owner) [steamingly] reporting that the cache is still right where it was

and what I was allowing myself.

 

you have to give a newbie atleast the benefit of the doubt; there is so much

litter out there, hard to tell what are remains of a cache or just some kids

lunch-wrapper...

 

we all live and learn

Remains a cache don't make. If you didn't sign the log (or find one, for that matter), then you didn't find the cache and don't get the smiley. I woulda thunk even a noob would know that signing the log is part of the game.

 

.......or is it a contest to see who can get the most smilies? Seems that way for some. It's funny to read the logs by those with quadruple digit find counts and also to read back through the threads on here where even some in the top 5 have been proven time and time again to be falsifying smilies just to increase their numbers....and egos, I presume. Sad........

Share this post


Link to post

....and a similar method is when you can't find a cache call it "missing" and replace it with one you carry along and then "find" it for a smiley. Happened near here once and caused a bunch of confusion until I went in and found them both and combined the booty into one box.

Share this post


Link to post

How about this:

 

You hide a cache.

 

Cacher X can't find it (even though it is there), assumes it's missing, and places their own container, complete with log book.

 

I come along and find Cacher X's cache and sign the book, thinking it's your cache.

 

Do you allow the find?

Share this post


Link to post
.......or is it a contest to see who can get the most smilies posts?  Seems that way for some.  It's funny to read the logs posts by those with quadruple digit find post counts and also to read back through the threads on here where even some in the top 5 have been proven time and time again to be falsifying smilies posting just to increase their numbers....and egos, I presume.  Sad........

Corrected. <_<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just messing with ya Sparky. :huh:

Where ya been hiding?

Share this post


Link to post
.......or is it a contest to see who can get the most smilies posts?  Seems that way for some.  It's funny to read the logs posts by those with quadruple digit find post counts and also to read back through the threads on here where even some in the top 5 have been proven time and time again to be falsifying smilies posting just to increase their numbers....and egos, I presume.  Sad........

Corrected. :huh:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just messing with ya Sparky. ;)

Where ya been hiding?

ROFL!!! <_< I haven't heard the ol' "post count padding" jabs in a long time!!

Share this post


Link to post
How about this:

 

You hide a cache.

 

Cacher X can't find it (even though it is there), assumes it's missing, and places their own container, complete with log book.

 

I come along and find Cacher X's cache and sign the book, thinking it's your cache.

 

Do you allow the find?

I would let your find stand, go in and combine the caches and remove the trash-cache box and log.

Share this post


Link to post
:laughing:  September 1 by Xxxxxxxxxxxx (1546 found)

Hate these purple frownies!!! No luck on finding this one.

Tanks for the fun

 

I think it might have been a mistake? Has a found smilie, but states they DNF'd

Share this post


Link to post

Logging DNF as Smileys is about like logging your own hides as finds. I ran across one from Rapid City, SD area with 368 finds but it looks like almost every cache they hide they end up also logging it as a find, sometimes multiple times. Did they forget where they put their caches?

Share this post


Link to post

Just got this report on one of my multis.

 

 

[parent #1]  found **** (Multi-cache) at 9/5/2005

 

Log Date: 9/5/2005

Geocaching on Labor Day with [child], [parent #2] and [dog]. Found 1st through 3rd stage. We know where the fourth is, from hiking through park in the past. However, between myself being pooped from celebrating a long weekend, and [child]'s tiny legs being tired, we called it a night before we completed the final stage. Great hides! [other notes describing the cache deleted]

 

 

Ah well. I am not that hung up about the "legality" of the find and thus -- especially since geocaching with a child in the midst of the woods is hard -- am not going to disqualify the find. However I thought that I would pass along another FI=DFI story.

Share this post


Link to post

There were three DNFs on this cache prior to this log:

 

:lol:  March 14 by Xxxx-xx-xxxxxxxx (66 found)

Muggles everywhere one sat in her car reading and stuff. tried to wait her out for 30min but left to find other caches. Returned in an hour and she was replaced by another one reading a map and I waited for another 30min and eat lunch and she didn't heed. I could see it and I so wanted to retrieve it but I didn't want to give away the location. Some night when I'm going by I will open it. tfth

 

There are two DNF after this "find" and the cache has been disabled since. I think whatever they think they saw wasn't really the cache.

 

edit to close tags

Edited by The Badge & the Butterfly

Share this post


Link to post

Why did it have to be snakes?

 

:laughing: August 27 by xxxxx (33 found)

Took some work, but found the cache with the help of a 2,000,000 candle power flashlight. Seriously. I wasn't gonna be one of those people that didn't find this thing!  TNLN and didn't sign the log because there was a snake near the cache, and since I don't really know anything about the different species that inhabit xxxx, I didn't want to take any chances.

Share this post


Link to post
B)  8/13/2005 by xxxxxxx

Got the first two stages and logged each one - ran out of time for stage 3...

 

3 part multi...the cacher did the first 2, didn't complete it, logged a find anyways

Share this post


Link to post

2 logs by the same cachers. They logged a "find" then posted a note saying they logged the find in error (but left the find in place).

 

6/18/2005 by Xxxxx Xxxxerss (xxxxxx/xxxxxx)

Made a mistake, I didn't do this one today. Sorry.

  B) 6/18/2005 by Xxxxx Xxxxxxx (xxxxxx/xxxxxx)

Never knew this park was here...Thanks for the cache

Edited by The Badge & the Butterfly

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 53

×
×
  • Create New...