Jump to content

Dnsl


Recommended Posts

Ok, help me out here. we in North East Florida have encountered a cacher that is logging a lot of finds in a short amount of time and posting "DNSL". I have checked the caches that he did this to that are mine and he Did Not Sign Log. Several of us here have emailed him and he has not given anyone a good reason as to why. What are your suggestions?

Link to comment

From what I have seen from reading the board, is that the log is the ultimate teller of your visit and that the log is very important. Signing the log only takes a few seconds while the cache is open. I do not see any reason why to never sign a log unless it would be too wet to write on. Since you said he did not give a very good reason for not signing the log, I personally would ask him to go back and sign the log to keep credit for his find - if he does not, I would delete his find. Sounds to me like he is playing a number game. As the cache owner, you have the ultimate say if they actually found the cache.

Link to comment

If Brian has the correct username of the person in question then I would say he's a total farce considering he's logged 181 finds in less than a month. If I were the cache owner I would send an email telling him/her that this smells fishy and to either find a way to confirm the find or the log will be deleted asap.

 

Scoob

Link to comment

Smells mighty fishy, and us kittys have a nose for fish.

 

The only way to prove you were there is to sign. If signing the log were not a requirement, there would be LOTS of folks who would boost their numbers the couch potato way. Not kosher.

 

BTW- I noticed he uses some abbreviations I'm not familiar with:

TFTH

MEFF

 

Can someone define for me?

 

He's been doing this for about a month. I wonder if anyone has called him on it yet.

 

GPSKitty

Link to comment

He's been doing this for about a month. I wonder if anyone has called him on it yet.

 

GPSKitty

Yes, we (serveal area cachers) have emailed him and no one as of yet has gotten a response yet. He posted all these finds in a matter of 24 hours. One cacher told me that he did a couple of his in one day that were too far apart location wise to be logged in the same day.

Link to comment
It could be, this is 1/2 of a caching team who decided to finally register with their own username, then log all those caches they found with their partner.  DNSL is much easier to type than a lengthy explanation.

 

But if that were the case, he would/could/should respond to emails that have reportedly been sent requesting an explanation.

 

GPSKitty

Link to comment
It could be, this is 1/2 of a caching team who decided to finally register with their own username, then log all those caches they found with their partner.  DNSL is much easier to type than a lengthy explanation.

 

But if that were the case, he would/could/should respond to emails that have reportedly been sent requesting an explanation.

 

GPSKitty

I smell guano.

Link to comment
It could be, this is 1/2 of a caching team who decided to finally register with their own username, then log all those caches they found with their partner. DNSL is much easier to type than a lengthy explanation.

 

Then again...I could be full of guano.

A cut and paste would be better, write one log and copy it, then paste it to each time, much better then DNSL. They could say I was with so and so at the time and am logging my own caches now. I have seen it done with a few cachers who tagged along and now purchased their own GPS to go out on their own. Responding to emails would also help the situation. I would consider deleting their finds and forwarding the log.

Link to comment

Just to play the other side, the amount of caches hes doing are NOT impossible. With proper planning it is possible to do what most people think is impossible. Still, even guys like BruceS who do 30-50 caches a day sign the logbook. If there is no sig, and no reasonable reason not to sign it, then the hider must delete the find.

Link to comment

The goal is that they found the cache and that's about it. Signing the log isn't fool proof. There was a wet mushy log that I didn't sign this weekend. I coudln't unroll the log, to sign it let alone sign it if I managed to get it unrolled. However I found the cache just the same.

 

The email was the way to go. There are also plenty of people who I cache with who right now are "and crew" in my logs. I don't use their real names and they don't have a moniker yet. Some of them will move on to get their own GPS and when they do they will have some catching up to do and a bunch of "yeah I was there but didn't have a name yet" to explain.

 

If they don't respond to the email and you feel the need to delete the log without that explanation then by all means delte the log and let them know why.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

No excuse not to sign the log....that many times. I could see pencil missing, and perhaps didn't have one, but that's when you get creative and dog-ear a corner of the log, use a spot of mud, blood, etc. I agree with the masses on this one, e-mail him and give him a reasonalble amount of time to answer. When he doesn't, delete the logs.

Link to comment

Just to play devil's advocate, the guide to finding a cache does not say you HAVE to sign the log...

 

Step 4 – The Find

 

Huzzah! You found the cache! Congratulations! Now what?

 

Usually you take an item and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.

Make sure to seal the cache and place it back where you found it. If it had some rocks covering it, please replace them. It’s pretty straightforward.

Remember that waypoint we suggested you create where your car/trail was located? Use that now to get back! You’ll be glad you had it.

When you get home, email the person who hid the cache and let them know you found it! They’re always happy to know the condition of their cache and it’s nice to know that people are looking for them.

 

Bold added by me. Usually does NOT mean MUST. Finding the cache is the main thing as seen in the second highlighted part. Third never mentions logging it on this site, but when is the last time you emailed a find to a hider?

 

This is not to say I think what is being done is right, but I just wanted to point out that it is not necessarily wrong either....

Link to comment
Just to play devil's advocate, the guide to finding a cache does not say you HAVE to sign the log...

 

<snip>

 

Bold added by me. Usually does NOT mean MUST. Finding the cache is the main thing as seen in the second highlighted part. Third never mentions logging it on this site, but when is the last time you emailed a find to a hider?

 

This is not to say I think what is being done is right, but I just wanted to point out that it is not necessarily wrong either....

 

Per convention, although neither is required, IMO the 2 are nonetheless linked. You may, if you desire, play the game without signing the physical logbooks and simply emailing (or not) the owner. However, if you wish to play the game in which your finds are tallied on the website, I feel you must also accept the other part of the convention in which you have a responsibility to actually sign the log.

Link to comment

I see that several of the caches that he logged as "found" were virtuals. Did he e-mail the owners with the required information? On those it would not be a matter of signing the logbook, he would need to e-mail the proof that he was there to log the find.

 

RichardMoore

Edited by RichardMoore
Link to comment
Usually you take an item and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book.

 

It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.

 

Usually you take an item and leave an item

 

++I interpret this to mean you don't HAVE to trade, but it's customary++

 

 

and enter your name and experience in the log book.

 

++I see this as separate from the first part. The trade is optional, the sign-in is not.++

 

some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book

 

++This reinforces what I just said....even if you don't trade, you sign the log.++

 

It's an accomplishment enough to locate the cache

 

++To me this means that you didn't go caching with the idea of getting a new trinket, you just wanted to find it. I see no connection to this part and whether or not you are supposed to sign the log++

 

GPSKitty

Link to comment

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

 

2. Leave something in the cache

 

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Where you place a cache is up to you.

 

copied straight from the FAQ section....

Link to comment

It sure sounds like someone is cheating. If this happened with any of my caches I would ... do nothing about it at all. Except be amused that anyone would do such an thing. Seems like I'm in the minority here in not being outraged, but it wouldn't effect me in the slightest - he is just cheating himself.

Link to comment
It sure sounds like someone is cheating. If this happened with any of my caches I would ... do nothing about it at all. Except be amused that anyone would do such an thing. Seems like I'm in the minority here in not being outraged, but it wouldn't effect me in the slightest - he is just cheating himself.

Like in all sports, cheating is destructive to the sport as a whole and discouraging to individuals participating. Even though there is no 'winner' in Geocaching, cheaters should still be stopped.

 

This guy is obviously cheating and all of his logs should be deleted.

Link to comment
It sure sounds like someone is cheating. If this happened with any of my caches I would ... do nothing about it at all. Except be amused that anyone would do such an thing. Seems like I'm in the minority here in not being outraged, but it wouldn't effect me in the slightest - he is just cheating himself.

No, as has been stated many times before, he's NOT just cheating himself. He's telling a cache owner that all is find with his cache, when maybe it's missing. He's tellling other cachers all is fine, which encourages them to spend more time searching...it was just "found" yesterday. Granted all these caches may be there, and may not have any problems, but I don't know that, and really, unless you've checked on them all, neither does anyone else. But to someone who is considering looking for one, and doesn't know the guy's a cheater, they think all if fine with the cache, because it has a recent find log, that doesn't mention any problems with the cache.

 

DELETE THE "FIND(S)"

Link to comment

It would be much more honest if he would just go hide a bunch of caches and go find them a few days later to boost up his cache count! :D He could probably get some FTFs that way too.

 

Regarding the logs and cheating: It's like cheating at school. People say you only hurt yourself. That is until you get into a job interview and mention the name of the school you went to.

Link to comment
But to someone who is considering looking for one, and doesn't know the guy's a cheater, they think all if fine with the cache, because it has a recent find log

Good point. If there are no other recent 'found' logs it makes sense for the cache owner to delete the suspect log or add a note, so that no one is mislead.

Link to comment
Seems like I'm in the minority here in not being outraged, but it wouldn't effect me in the slightest - he is just cheating himself.

 

If a recent fake find encouraged me to head out and look for a cache that was actually missing, I'd be a bit miffed. If I spent an extra half hour of my time looking for it because someone logged a find just yesterday, I'd be pretty pissed. If a faked find caused me to delay needed maintenance on my cache, I'd be annoyed and it would indeed effect other geocachers. He is not just cheating himself. He is potentially wasting the valuable time of others.

 

Edit: oops, looks like IV already made this point.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Look, if you want to require a person to sign the cache and verify that they were there in order for you to leave their log alone, then by all means do it.

 

But whether there's a fake log from yesterday that says it's there or the last log was 3 weeks before and said it was there or three people log DNF even though the cache was fine....it's up to you to figure if you're going to find a specific cache or not.

 

Fake logs don't hurt anything. If someone said they found it yesterday, it could have been stolen an hour before you got there the next day...it doesn't have anything to do with whether a fake log existed or not as to whether you find any particular cache any particular day.

 

If you're going to be militant about your caches, then you also need to be sure to verify every log (not just the DNSL)...imagine if a cheater was *really* trying to hide their activities instead of actually *telling* you the truth...

 

Sigh...or you could just let it go before this guy starts throwing your caches away instead of finding them without opening them and listing it on the website...

Link to comment
Fake logs don't hurt anything. If someone said they found it yesterday, it could have been stolen an hour before you got there the next day....

 

Yeah, its possible that a cache can be stolen an hour before you got there. That's just bad luck. But with fake logs, its possible that the cache has been gone for weeks and for someone to lie and say that the cache was there, when in truth they have no idea, is just plain wrong.

 

it doesn't have anything to do with whether a fake log existed or not as to whether you find any particular cache any particular day

 

No, but it may have some bearing as to whether I'm going to take the time to hunt for a certain cache. If I see 2-3 DNF's I'll probably hesitate to look for it, but if there suddenly is a find, it would encourage me to head out and look for the cache. If that find is from a cheater playing games, he will have wasted my time and I don't consider someone wasting my time to be harmless.

 

If you're going to be militant about your caches, then you also need to be sure to verify every log (not just the DNSL)...imagine if a cheater was *really* trying to hide their activities instead of actually *telling* you the truth...

 

I don't see following up on an obvious cheater as being militant. I recently placed a cache and the next day there was a FTF log online. The "second" finder noted there was no corresponding log at the cache by the FTF. Since this is a log only micro (no pencil) it's possible that the guy forgot to bring one, so I let it slide. BUT if it turns out that this person happens to "forget his pencil" at every cache he finds, I will certainly go back and delete his find. If that's being militant, then I guess I am.

 

Sigh...or you could just let it go before this guy starts throwing your caches away instead of finding them without opening them and listing it on the website...

 

You're assuming that this guy actually found the caches in question. It's more likely that he's never left the comfort of his computer workstation.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
You're assuming that this guy actually found the caches in question.

And you are assuming he did not find them.

Both assumptions are equally wrong.

 

There could very well be physical reasons why they can't sign the physical log, has anyone considered that? Maybe they have lost or just lost the use of their hands. I would imagine that it would be much easier to log online than in the field. I have full use of both but sometimes it still gets kind of tricky for me, what with carrying stuff etc.

 

As for the 'rules' mentioned by The SuzyQs, it also says "Where you place a cache is up to you. " Which I think almost everyone can agree is not true. There are many places that caches cannot be placed. I guess the point there is that some of the 'guidelines' and/or 'rules' may need to be gone over and reworded so they are not so vague and inconsistent and so that they reflect the current state of this pastime.

 

I have noticed a couple of people said "my understanding" or "my interpretation"- maybe they are just doing it according to their understanding or interpretation.

 

Again I'm just playing devil's advocate.

 

As for how I actually feel? Well I would say it is up to the individual cache owners to decide how they want to handle it. They are the ones who should occasionally confirm logs as that is just part of the normal upkeep of a cache as far as I'm concerned. If the cacher is not actually finding them then of course the online log should be deleted.

 

DNF's don't matter to me a whole lot, I don't log them and seeing them on a cache if anything gives me some incentive to find it where others have failed. Main reason I don't log them is that I find it hard enough to say something on a find and finding something to say on a DNF would be almost useless. So other than it being on the cache, and that is kind of tenuous to me, I don't see the overwhelming need for it. There has only been about 4-5 caches that we were unable to find and all but one of them we eventually found. We'll find the last one too, it's just a matter of time.

Link to comment

Check the logs. Finds puzzles by magic, doesn't need to translate... etc.. etc...

 

160+ finds in less than 30 days (okay, it can be done)

 

delete the logs I say, after trying to contact first

 

if no response and logs continue, seek to have account squashed if warranted

Edited by canadazuuk
Link to comment

Its not too hard to figure how is kidding on the finds, expcially if you have done them an know the hiking times and driving times. Some of these just dont compute when you sit down and figure it out. Then they dont sign the logs and in their records dont give any hints as to what was there or about. Some of these people should spend more time caching and less time researching the posts.

Link to comment

I mentioned in another thread that people cheat becasue they are under the impression that with a high find count comes a certain"status". One thing that could be done is to make a cacher's find count only visible to the cacher themself. This way there would be no "status" given to someone based solely on the fact that they have more finds than someone else IMHO.

Link to comment
And you are assuming he did not find them.

Both assumptions are equally wrong.

 

Equally wrong? Sorry. The idea that someone would go through the trouble of finding a cache and logging the find online, but not sign the paper log is a major stretch. Once or twice maybe, but 100+ times? I really doubt it. Is it possible that my assumption is wrong and this guy is indeed finding these caches and not signing the log? Sure. But I think most people will agree that its highly likely that this guy is faking these finds. This means that my assumption is probably right and Jul is probably wrong...so both assumptions are NOT "equally wrong".

 

here could very well be physical reasons why they can't sign the physical log, has anyone considered that? Maybe they have lost or just lost the use of their hands.

 

Oh, I didn't think of that one. That must be why he can't answer e-mails inquiring about his reasons for doing this.

 

One thing that could be done is to make a cacher's find count only visible to the cacher themself. This way there would be no "status" given to someone based solely on the fact that they have more finds than someone else IMHO.

 

Find counts have some importance to many of us. If a cache of mine gets a DNF from someone with 4-5 finds, it won't cause me much concern. If a Stayfloopy, or BruceS logs a DNF on one of my caches you can bet I'll run out there and check on it ASAP. Similarly, if it skunked 2-3 people with hundreds of finds each, I'm likely to raise the difficulty level, whereas if those 2-3 people had 10 finds between them I'd chalk it up to their inexperience.

 

Also, when someone has something to say in the forums, you can bet others check their find counts to see if they are experienced. Ideas coming from experienced geocachers tend to carry a bit more weight. Not that neophytes can't have valid opinions and ideas, but people are more likely to pay attention to someone who knows what the heck they are talking about.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
If you're going to be militant about your caches, then you also need to be sure to verify every log ...

That's is what we do. We print out the cache sheet and check off every name. If there is a name on the cache page and not in the logbook we email the person in question for explaination. Sometimes they forgot, sometimes they logged under a different name. While I know most people don't do it, verifying finds is part of your responsibility of being a cache owner.

 

Look, the logbook isn't in there to just take up space. It's there to record your visit. If you don't sign the logbook, then you can't claim the find.

Link to comment
here could very well be physical reasons why they can't sign the physical log, has anyone considered that? Maybe they have lost or just lost the use of their hands.

 

Oh, I didn't think of that one. That must be why he can't answer e-mails inquiring about his reasons for doing this.

 

That's it!!! He couldn't even open the ammo box without fingers.

Link to comment

Cheater, cheater, pumpkin eater....

 

Obviously it's someone who knows the lingo for the area (MEFF?) or they are copying something someone else wrote. Either way, I would find it hard for them to find that many caches in less than a month. Not impossible, but as you stated, all logged within a 24 hr time period. This is where cache owner maintenance comes in. You emailed them and they didn't reply. I would report the situation to TPTB and then after they saw it and under their guidance, remove the logs. I wouldn't remove them just yet. Give TPTB a chance to investigate it. If it was just one or two finds, then i would just delete them. Since this is 181 caches, I would leave it for TPTB to see and figure out.

Link to comment

I'd like to point out that there's a current record of over 200 caches in one day.

 

Anyone who thinks that 180 in 30 days is an insane pace should stifle that argument until this person logs more than 200 caches in one day. There is also a few hundred mile radius for proximity of caches in one day. I have seen CCC cache in about 4 different states in one day when I looked through their find records.

 

This user's pace should not be at issue at all as to their validity. As was mentioned previously, they know the regional lingo so they are not complete noobs at this. If you are Type A enough to want everything to match ala CR, then you will e-mail them and upon not receiving a sufficient explanation, you will delete their log from your cache. I noticed (if this is the right person linked above) that they even said they signed their most recent FTF, so why they chose to sign some and not others is beyond me, but given that they sign some of them, you might want to wait a day or two for their reply before you hasten your cache's demise at the hands of an upset finder.

Link to comment

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...