Jump to content

Found It = Didn't Find It


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, colleda said:

I deleted this one today.

 

prem_user.gifPremium Member Profile photo for onyatrail

2.png1090

Found itFound it

28/02/2020

We are logging this as a 'find' as we located the black twine still tied in the mangrove but the cache is missing. There was a clear 750ml bottle of water with white nylon cord directly under the black twine. Had a search a few metres around for the 'log' with no luck.

 

Would you have preferred a simple TFTC or the notice of a problem with your cache? Had they signed tftc you never would have known because the log was missing.

 

For my caches if the problem was on my end I give them the option to make the find. Just the other day a CO contacted me about a DNF/NM I had filed a few weeks back and offered the same thing and thanked me for letting him know of the problem. 

 

Remember this is supposed to be fun. Whats the harm they made an effort they noticed a problem and helped someone in the future. I've done the same.  Would you have preferred a throw down cache or a piece of paper tied to the string? Or from the sounds of it add a piece of paper to the water bottle? I've seen all of the above.

 

I tend to also lose pens specially in brush country. I'll take a picture of a log as proof of a find any day. The beauty of this game is that it is not a competition it is for personal entertainment so if a guy arm chair logs my cache no skin off my back, and I have found a prolific finder of challenges not sign my cache. I do it for the logs that I got today on one of my challenge caches:

 

Yay, completed! We found and signed the log on January 24, 2019, at the beginning of our 25-day road trip from Seattle to the Mega in Yuma, AZ. On the trip we linked a chain of counties from Canada 🇨🇦 to 🇲🇽 Mexico, and got 28 more CA counties. You really gave us extra encouragement with your challenge - thank you

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
42 minutes ago, MNTA said:

Would you have preferred a simple TFTC or the notice of a problem with your cache? Had they signed tftc you never would have known because the log was missing.

 

For my caches if the problem was on my end I give them the option to make the find. Just the other day a CO contacted me about a DNF/NM I had filed a few weeks back and offered the same thing and thanked me for letting him know of the problem. 

 

Remember this is supposed to be fun. Whats the harm they made an effort they noticed a problem and helped someone in the future. I've done the same.  Would you have preferred a throw down cache or a piece of paper tied to the string? Or from the sounds of it add a piece of paper to the water bottle? I've seen all of the above.

 

I'll let colleda provide the definitive answer on this, but I found that cache in 2017 and it wasn't a water bottle. There's nothing in the logs about the container being changed since then so I suspect the thing the "finder" found wasn't the cache at all but just a piece of litter.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, MNTA said:

 

Would you have preferred a simple TFTC or the notice of a problem with your cache? Had they signed tftc you never would have known because the log was missing.

 

For my caches if the problem was on my end I give them the option to make the find. Just the other day a CO contacted me about a DNF/NM I had filed a few weeks back and offered the same thing and thanked me for letting him know of the problem. 

 

Remember this is supposed to be fun. Whats the harm they made an effort they noticed a problem and helped someone in the future. I've done the same.  Would you have preferred a throw down cache or a piece of paper tied to the string? Or from the sounds of it add a piece of paper to the water bottle? I've seen all of the above.

 

I tend to also lose pens specially in brush country. I'll take a picture of a log as proof of a find any day. The beauty of this game is that it is not a competition it is for personal entertainment so if a guy arm chair logs my cache no skin off my back, and I have found a prolific finder of challenges not sign my cache. I do it for the logs that I got today on one of my challenge caches:

 

Yay, completed! We found and signed the log on January 24, 2019, at the beginning of our 25-day road trip from Seattle to the Mega in Yuma, AZ. On the trip we linked a chain of counties from Canada 🇨🇦 to 🇲🇽 Mexico, and got 28 more CA counties. You really gave us extra encouragement with your challenge - thank you

 

 

The cache was not found. The log was not signed. The container was not a bottle. Correct log should have been DNF with, possibly, NM. The cacher has since logged a DNF.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
On 2/19/2020 at 10:54 PM, frostengel said:

 

Pen doesn't work (empty, broken, lost in the woods).

The rusty can won't open.

The logbook is wet and I don't want to touch it.

...

 

In each of the cases I have the cache in my hand and have successfully fulfilled the task given by the owner.

cany do you have a problem with me not signing the log? Only because of the rules?

 

(I don't talk about "seen it up in the tree and could not reach it" or "could not open the trick lock" or ....)

There are aways the occasional problem, such as the container won't open, but they are only very few caches. Most caches can be opened and the log signed, or attempted to sign. I found two soaked logs today, but still I signed them. I photographed the pale mark and included the photograph to prove I did sign. Very few excuses not to sign and I delete logs without an excuse and proof. I also carry two or three pens in case one runs out of ink. Today BOTH the pens ran out of ink, but I didn't use that excuse not to sign. I found a shop that sold pens and bought one.

If people don't sign there is no proof they found the cache. Yes, other proof can be give. A photograph or a very good description, but gees, it's a lot quicker and easier to sign.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
58 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

If people don't sign there is no proof they found the cache. Yes, other proof can be give.

 

Other way round: if a nickname is signed into a logbook this does not proof that the person found the cache. Someone found the cache and wrote the name in the logbook (or used a stamp with different names).

We have some "special cachers" here (and I am sure there are several "special cachers" world wide) cheating - other persons logging caches for you is the simplest way.

 

So in the end even a name in a logbook doesn't prove anything. In my eyes usually the log will tell if people did my caches as intended. That is another thing: going directly to a multi final (after you got the coordinates from a friend) makes you sign the logbook but not solve the cache.

 

And ....?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 3/12/2004 at 1:10 PM, Jamie Z said:

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.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to post

A certain statue, and everything associated with it (pedestal, sign, landscaping, etc) has been removed temporarily due to a construction project. The statue is going to be replaced when the work is done (lasting about a year).

 

Since the statue was removed (and thus nothing to log until it's replaced), the associated Virtual has received 18 Finds and 3 DNFs. Of the 18 false finds, only 2 are by people with less than 1000 lifetime Finds. On the contrary, 7 are by cachers with more than 10,000.

 

If I didn't know the town was going to put the statue back, probably later this year, I would have posted a NA on it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

A certain statue, and everything associated with it (pedestal, sign, landscaping, etc) has been removed temporarily due to a construction project. The statue is going to be replaced when the work is done (lasting about a year).

 

Since the statue was removed (and thus nothing to log until it's replaced), the associated Virtual has received 18 Finds and 3 DNFs. Of the 18 false finds, only 2 are by people with less than 1000 lifetime Finds. On the contrary, 7 are by cachers with more than 10,000.

 

If I didn't know the town was going to put the statue back, probably later this year, I would have posted a NA on it.

I will never forget the embarrassment when I logged a DNF on a virtual. I felt like an idiot. I think it was later that day that someone else logged a DNF. Turns out that the info for the Virtual was no longer there, so everyone figured it was a super easy Find and kept logging Found Its even though there was nothing there. 

Link to post

I was wondering why a cache was archived, when the last person logged a Found It. Until I read the log:

 

(Found it)

Gave this one another go this morning, found the spot, but the cache container was now missing. Placed a new micro under the rock at GZ, all should be good to go now. Thanks for the cache!

  • Surprised 1
Link to post
On 3/3/2020 at 5:47 AM, JL_HSTRE said:

A certain statue, and everything associated with it (pedestal, sign, landscaping, etc) has been removed temporarily due to a construction project. The statue is going to be replaced when the work is done (lasting about a year).

 

Since the statue was removed (and thus nothing to log until it's replaced), the associated Virtual has received 18 Finds and 3 DNFs. Of the 18 false finds, only 2 are by people with less than 1000 lifetime Finds. On the contrary, 7 are by cachers with more than 10,000.

 

If I didn't know the town was going to put the statue back, probably later this year, I would have posted a NA on it.

Is the cache disabled? If it wasn't, I don't see any problem with the dnf's, unless they faked photos of the statue being there. 

Link to post
53 minutes ago, papu66 said:

Is the cache disabled? If it wasn't, I don't see any problem with the dnf's, unless they faked photos of the statue being there. 

 

Why would someone logging a DNF want to fake a photo of the statue being there? Or are you suggesting the statue's really there but they Photoshopped it out of their photos to prove they couldn't find it? Bizarre.

Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Why would someone logging a DNF want to fake a photo of the statue being there? Or are you suggesting the statue's really there but they Photoshopped it out of their photos to prove they couldn't find it? Bizarre.

 

You'd be surprised what people do.

I logged an old Virtual in Wellington NZ, within 50m there's a traditional we found too and when I looked at the virtual's logs I saw a familiar name. I looked at his profile and saw it was his only NZ found. A reverse lookup of the photograph yielded the original photograph.  So yes, some do extreme things. This one was probably to fill his Jasmer grid.

Link to post
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Why would someone logging a DNF want to fake a photo of the statue being there? Or are you suggesting the statue's really there but they Photoshopped it out of their photos to prove they couldn't find it? Bizarre.

Sorry, my bad. I meant to say I have no problem with the found it logs.

I understand that the purpose is to visit the coordinates and picture of the statue is only necessary as a proof.

Link to post
12 hours ago, papu66 said:

Is the cache disabled? If it wasn't, I don't see any problem with the dnf's, unless they faked photos of the statue being there. 

 

Cache isn't disabled because of an inactive CO.

 

People are posting photos of the construction as proof of their "Find." The construction isn't preventing access to the statue; the statue is not there at all during the construction. The Virtual is specifically about the statue.

Edited by JL_HSTRE
  • Surprised 1
Link to post
Quote

XXX and I gave a good search, but did not find the cache. We left a replacement log in a little plastic sleeve that has the geocaching symbol on it. Hide under a red flat rock.

Will claim a find, but if the CO checks and finds the original container, I will change to dnf.

TFTC SL

 

Link to post

Found it  08 Mar 20

 

Log by member of German team (5049 finds) Wrong logdate

 

 

Found it  08 Mar 20

Log by member of German team (5055 finds) Wrong logdate

 

Found it  08 Mar 20

Log by member of German team (4854 finds) Wrong logdate

 

Found it  08 Mar 20

Log by member of German team (4847 finds) Wrong logdate

 

Found it  07 Mar 20

Log by member of German team (12950 finds)

 

Found it  07 Mar 20

Log by member of German team (10702 finds)

 

Found it 07 Mar 20

Cache is gone

 

Found it 07 Mar 20

 

Archive 07 Mar 20

By CO

 

Temporarily Disable Listing  07 Mar 20

CO publishes picture of the destroyed cache and wonders how people log it (Micro looks like a truck drove over it)

Edited by on4bam
Link to post
Quote

Found itFound it

I was seeking the xxx series and this was the end of the road here for me. Seeing the previous DNFs and after searching a looong time I hung a preform at N.XXX W.XXX for you before I saw your log. I had my older PQ loaded and missed you by one day I see! Feel free to remove it to place elsewhere, or perhaps you like this spot better as it is out of the way of the parking area compared to where GZ put me.

 

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to post
On 3/10/2020 at 7:45 PM, on4bam said:

Found it  08 Mar 20

 

Log by member of German team (5049 finds) Wrong logdate

 

 

Found it  08 Mar 20

Log by member of German team (5055 finds) Wrong logdate

 

Found it  08 Mar 20

Log by member of German team (4854 finds) Wrong logdate

 

Found it  08 Mar 20

Log by member of German team (4847 finds) Wrong logdate

 

Found it  07 Mar 20

Log by member of German team (12950 finds)

 

Found it  07 Mar 20

Log by member of German team (10702 finds)

 

Found it 07 Mar 20

Cache is gone

 

Found it 07 Mar 20

 

Archive 07 Mar 20

By CO

 

Temporarily Disable Listing  07 Mar 20

CO publishes picture of the destroyed cache and wonders how people log it (Micro looks like a truck drove over it)

Probably logged by the same members of the German team (none of whom have ever been to Australia) logging a TB in my TB Hotel here in Australia. It's a number game to them, not an actual find game. (Me, being cynical :rolleyes:.)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

We've gotten to the point where we take a picture of one of us actually SIGNING the log to show we're not "drive-by" cachers.

In "the old days" (ahem . . .) when you had to hand enter the coordinates into a GPS, and then come back to the caches on your computer to enter your finds, it fried me even THEN to find that the names on the physical log you signed sometimes were different than the logs online. Huh? Is this how some cachers get upwards of tens of thousands of caches logged?

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
35 minutes ago, T & G's Adventures said:

We've gotten to the point where we take a picture of one of us actually SIGNING the log to show we're not "drive-by" cachers.

In "the old days" (ahem . . .) when you had to hand enter the coordinates into a GPS, and then come back to the caches on your computer to enter your finds, it fried me even THEN to find that the names on the physical log you signed sometimes were different than the logs online. Huh? Is this how some cachers get upwards of tens of thousands of caches logged?

 

I still load caches manually, and write my online logs at home....   ;)

We have a local cacher that travels a lot.  They might be in AZ on monday, back in PA on thursday, then in AZ again on saturday.  :)

They enclose a pic of the log with their signature on every one JIC.

 

When we cache with a few people (rare), we'll use a "team name" covering all to save on log space, especially if almost filled.

 - At least one will note it in their log,  and that name will be different than online by how many cachers were in the group.

A kid that's old enough to break-away from their family's account will also have a different name in the online log, after back-dating their find.  

Link to post
15 hours ago, JASTA 11 said:

On a simple, two-stage multi:

 

image.thumb.png.83dfef09f9f827ca2be9a35254e932cf.png

 

 I love that second one - "Maybe you should just give the coordinates instead of solving this multi. Or create an app to give them to me."

 

Man, I HOPE that's a relatively new cacher.

Link to post

 

Quote

 

Found itFound it

05/16/2020

99.9999% sure I found the spot where it was supposed to be... But no sign of it. Going to log it anyways tho and maybe come back and sign when it is replaced

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to post

Geocaching Maintenance:  Logs from the CO.

Quote

Temporarily Disable ListingTemporarily Disable Listing

03/08/2020

Needs maintenance

 

Quote

Enable ListingEnable Listing

03/08/2020

Looking for it

 

Quote

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

03/08/2020

Cache was stolen! Need to plant a new one

 

Quote

Temporarily Disable ListingTemporarily Disable Listing

03/08/2020

This cache was stolen. We will plant a new one soon!

 

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 2
Link to post
On 3/5/2020 at 5:59 AM, papu66 said:

Sorry, my bad. I meant to say I have no problem with the found it logs.

I understand that the purpose is to visit the coordinates and picture of the statue is only necessary as a proof.

 

Not necessarily - the point of the Virtual may be to see the statue!

Just going there isn't good enough, in my eyes.

 

If I have a Virt that's a painting in a museum (I know, this is just for example) and someone never turns around and sees it, and logs "I was in the room but didn't see the painting, so I'm claiming the find", I'd have a problem with that.

Edited by TeamRabbitRun
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
First time cacher not realizing mysteries need to be solved to get the right coordinates. It was their first "find" and they haven't been active for 2.5 months after this log.
 
 
Quote

 

Found it Found it

 

Our first geocaching experience. We followed the instructions but didn't find anything. We didn't know what to look for as it's a mystery

 

 

 

 

 

  • Funny 2
Link to post

This one was more like a "Dipped Not Dipped".

Cache is in Egypt on the Eastern side of the Gulf of Suez about 2km from the water.

Cache published 31/3/18 with no finds, no DNFs - yet.

 

prem_user.gifPremium Member

2.png5308

Write noteWrite note

26/02/2020

Dipping our son's TB as he passes y on the motor Yacht Fxxxxxxx on the way to the med

 
Link to post

DNF  Did not find what should have been an easy grab from out boat. Is it still there? Should be checked on. Person before us said there was a string hanging.

 

Found it!  Found string it was connected to...

 

Found it! Found the GZ but no cache, only a wasp nest so once we spotted that we made a hasty retreat! Logging because I'm from Canada and friends took me out in a boat specially to get this one

 

Found it! Found the string but the container is gone. Needs maintenance

 

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to post
On 6/14/2020 at 5:32 AM, colleda said:

This one was more like a "Dipped Not Dipped".

Cache is in Egypt on the Eastern side of the Gulf of Suez about 2km from the water.

Cache published 31/3/18 with no finds, no DNFs - yet.

 

prem_user.gifPremium Member

2.png5308

Write noteWrite note

26/02/2020

Dipping our son's TB as he passes y on the motor Yacht Fxxxxxxx on the way to the med

 

 

Reminds me of the SpiderWings notes I used to see so often when first checking caches out back in 2007 - they "flew" flight simulator trips among states and countries and virtually dipped a TB in first/oldest caches to mark their flight simulator stops.

 

Ultimately harmless.  At least they didn't log a find.

Link to post

Same cacher, same cache,  same day:

 

prem_user.gifPremium Member  2.png171 

Write note  03/11/2019

Was mountain biking through the area and found that this one was missing, probably washed away by a flood.

 
 

prem_user.gifPremium Member  2.png171 

Found itFound it  03/11/2019

Forgot to log this one

 
Edited by NanCycle
Link to post
On 3/16/2004 at 6:22 PM, SBPhishy said:

Yup. I agree with Wacko. I have a cache with a lock on it, as done another cacher out here. If you just went and held the cache, that wouldnt be a find, in my opinion.

thats what i usually do, but they're mostly lpcs

 

edit: i haven't come across loked ones ever, but if i did, i would count unlocking it a find

 

i'd post a picture as proof

 

Edited by RedGuy11
Link to post

image.png.cdf7588f708a07723d7fd0e3229496f4.png

 

This was on one of my multis and Wanda is just the first stage. The final is 300 metres away horizontally and 100 metres up vertically so I was wondering how they'd managed the climb with a sprained ankle. I paid the cache a routine visit this morning and, sure enough, their name isn't in the logbook. This is one of the recent spate of PM newbies who have never visited the website and seem to have no idea how the game works beyond following the arrow on the app. I've sent them a message politely explaining how a multi works and suggesting they delete their log or change it to a WN (can you do that without visiting the website?) until they're able to complete the cache. The cache gets its T4 rating from that climb up the hill, getting to Wanda would be a T2.5 at most so it would seem unfair to the seven others who've made the climb to allow that log to stand.

  • Upvote 1
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...
×
×
  • Create New...