Jump to content

What The @#$%&!??


Kealia
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I've seen one of these posted here and there, but after a recent trip to Hawaii I've seen MANY more now (mostly in the Hawaiian caches that I'm now watching):

 

"Thanks for the cache,I stayed away and just took a picture of it!" - Posted as a FOUND IT :) . By someone with 1098 finds no less B) .

 

Two other entries from other caches:

"I set out on this trek not knowing the cache had been archived. I found the spot where it was located." (The cache was actually disabled, not archived) - Logged as a find - 40 found

 

"Didn't get the message that this cache had been archived. Found the spot where it was located." (Again, not archived) -Listed as found - 96 found

 

So back to my question; what the #@$%&!??!?!

 

Since when does finding the SPOT qualify you to post a find? Now before you tell me to chill out because it's not hurting anybody - I realize that. I'm not sure if I'm confused by them, irritated because people can't/don't follow the simple rules, or if I'm just amused by thier lack of comprehension.

 

I can see the trend now as couch potatoes begin to get more into caching:

 

B) "Found general area but decided to not to the final climb to the cache - thanks!"

 

:) "Found the trailhead that I'm sure led to the cache - neat spot I bet."

 

:bad: "Cracked the hint on my PC so I'm sure I knew where it was - whew! That one was tough. Glad I didn't actaully HIKE for it!!"

 

If anyone can supply me with an explanation of why these people think they can claim the find, I would appreciate it :( . Just can't figure it out.....

Link to comment

They are just OBLIVIOUS. These are the same type of people who let their kids run around screaming in a resturant, who take 20 items in the "10 items or less" lane at the grocery store, who pull up to the toll booth and then start to look for change, etc...etc...

Link to comment

My rule on this is:

 

If I am not aware of my cache having been plundered and they find and describe exactly where it was or describe the trashed container they found nearby they can have the find. That's a one time deal for the person who tells me. Aftet that I'll either archive the cache or replace it but there are no other finds on the missing cache. Call it a thanks for telling me.

 

On the took a photo...Ha! That's just funny. Call me the cache nazi, "No find for you!."

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

We're not alone - we knew it!!

 

Could these be the same people who stand in line at McDonald's for 5 minutes then stare at the menu when they get to the front!?!?

 

HINT: The menu hasn't changed in 30 years! *

 

 

* OK, I'll allow that it has changed slightly to include a few items, but you get the point.

 

And yes, I do take my daughter to McDonalds.

And no, I do not place the McToys in caches.

Link to comment

I look at it like I look at golf, if you're not keeping a correct score, you're only cheating yourself. And like golf, you're not playing against other players as much as you're playing against the course. Keeping score in either sport is for reference to see how you did personally, not so much as a competition, but everyone plays their own game. Just my 2 cents.

Link to comment
I've seen one of these posted here and there, but after a recent trip to Hawaii I've seen MANY more now (mostly in the Hawaiian caches that I'm now watching):

 

"Thanks for the cache,I stayed away and just took a picture of it!" - Posted as a FOUND IT B) . By someone with 1098 finds no less :) .

 

Two other entries from other caches:

"I set out on this trek not knowing the cache had been archived. I found the spot where it was located." (The cache was actually disabled, not archived) - Logged as a find - 40 found

 

"Didn't get the message that this cache had been archived. Found the spot where it was located." (Again, not archived) -Listed as found - 96 found

 

So back to my question; what the #@$%&!??!?!

 

Since when does finding the SPOT qualify you to post a find? Now before you tell me to chill out because it's not hurting anybody - I realize that. I'm not sure if I'm confused by them, irritated because people can't/don't follow the simple rules, or if I'm just amused by thier lack of comprehension.

 

I can see the trend now as couch potatoes begin to get more into caching:

 

:bad: "Found general area but decided to not to the final climb to the cache - thanks!"

 

:P "Found the trailhead that I'm sure led to the cache - neat spot I bet."

 

:) "Cracked the hint on my PC so I'm sure I knew where it was - whew! That one was tough. Glad I didn't actaully HIKE for it!!"

 

If anyone can supply me with an explanation of why these people think they can claim the find, I would appreciate it :) . Just can't figure it out.....

Pretty cheesy and lame on their part, but really, why should *I* care? It's the cache owner's job to delete bogus finds or NOT. Anyway, when Jeremy starts handing out gold bars for legit finds, I'll worry how others manage THEIR accounts when I don't get the gold for having too few finds.

 

Sn B):( gans

Link to comment
It's not about the numbers, so who cares how they log, right? If they want to cheat on their stats, it's none of my business.

Maybe that's because you haven't spent a big chunk of your time looking for a missing cache, because the PQ you did made it clear that the cache had just been "found" yesterday--and you didn't have the time to comb the logs for happy faces that read: "found where it should have been!" So you went out and wasted your afternoon.

 

Compound this a few times, and you'll understand why not logging DNF's is so wrong. Not to mention, it makes it more difficult for the cache owner to realize that something has gone amiss with the cache.

Link to comment
It's not about the numbers, so who cares how they log, right? If they want to cheat on their stats, it's none of my business.

Maybe that's because you haven't spent a big chunk of your time looking for a missing cache, because the PQ you did made it clear that the cache had just been "found" yesterday--and you didn't have the time to comb the logs for happy faces that read: "found where it should have been!" So you went out and wasted your afternoon.

 

Compound this a few times, and you'll understand why not logging DNF's is so wrong. Not to mention, it makes it more difficult for the cache owner to realize that something has gone amiss with the cache.

Excuse me?.....yes I have spent quite a bit of time hunting for a cache that wasn't there.

 

And I leave notes for those types of hunts unless I am positive that it was there and I did not find it. I don't do FOUNDS and DNF's on account of people that use PQ's either. Read the logs like the rest of us before you go. I don't logs finds unless I've signed a log book, plain and simple.

Link to comment
And I leave notes for those types of hunts unless I am positive that it was there and I did not find it. I don't do FOUNDS and DNF's on account of people that use PQ's either. Read the logs like the rest of us before you go. I don't logs finds unless I've signed a log book, plain and simple.

But sometimes, people just skim the logs. You see the :) Found, and you assume that means the cache was found. I have seen logs where it isn't really exciting reading (like some of mine I'm sure), but it's not until the end that you see the "I didn't really find it, I just found where it should be."

 

Other times, you don't even read the logs. If you're using something like GSAK, you just check green vs. red boxes. If it's all green, you might assume it's a safe search.

 

Reading the logs first is fine, but shouldn't be a necessity, especially since sometimes there are spoilers in them

Link to comment

You probably haven't seen this thread where this has been discussed at length.

 

Here are some excerpts:

 

:) 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!

Hmmmm, wonder what the second is gonna be like...

 

  B)  Got held up in traffic leaving the City of Brotherly Love...reached the SITE shortly after they must have closed the gate...sat in my car debating WHAT to do??? I saw the cache as approx. .14-.15 from my spot...hmmmm? Saw the water hazard too THEN I saw the 2nd gate CLOSE! Drat, had just missed it by about 15 minutes!!!! Snapped some photos to confirm my visit...hope you will allow this as a 'find'.

There's a park by me with 10 caches. If I snap a photo of the entrance can I claim 10 finds? :bad: (this one from a prominent geocacher with thousands of finds who should know better. Or maybe this is how they got many of those smileys).

 

:P  DIDN'T FIND THE CACHE! but logging this as a find anyway because we went all through the park and I think that's what the owner had in mind anyway....

I think he might have had something else in mind after seeing that log :) .

 

:( The cache is no longer there. I am logging this as a virtual since I followed the directions in the clue and can say with confidence that the cache has been removed.

I can say with confidence that's a DNF. B)

 

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's amazing and pretty pathetic what people will do to claim a find. And before someone here chimes in with the "they're only cheating theirselves" crappola, that's baloney. Fake finds have caused people to waste their valuable time looking for caches that are missing. I recall a post from Lep (I think) who explained how he was was enticed by a fake find to go on a fruitless 100 mile drive to find a cache that was missing.

 

--Edit--

Here it is already:

 

It's not about the numbers, so who cares how they log, right? If they want to cheat on their stats, it's none of my business.

 

Its becomes my business when someone fakes a find which results in me wasting my time. A "found it" tells the owner and other geocachers that the cache is there. I know I'm more likely to put in extra time looking for a cache if I know that someone just found it yesterday.

 

Also, many geocachers are hesitant to go after a cache unless there is a recent find, specifically because they don't want to waste their time looking for something that's gone. Then one of these cheaters comes along, logs a fake smiley, which sends others out to look for something that is not there.

 

Fake finds are dishonest and do effect others.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I agree Briansnat. And I also agree with Snoogans that it's the cache owners responsibility to delete logs that don't count as a legitimate find. Most don't do it. So that's why I always read the logs before I go on a hunt for any cache. I can't let someone else dictate my time by logging a bogus find.

Link to comment

If I were to see a log like that on one of my caches I would delete it. If some one sends me a photo of were it was and it is gone I let them log it as found then I deactivate it untill I can replace it.

 

Part of the problem may be that some cachers do not understand the ratting system. Some geocachers think they should all only take 5 minutes to find.

Link to comment

The listing page can easily be considered to be part of the cache itself - the first "point of contact" that the seeker has with it.

 

As such, weeding out the false finds are a part of cache maintenance. Just as not everyone puts any real effort into maintaining their caches to make sure they stay worth finding, not everyone puts any effort into maintaining their cache page to make sure they stay worth seeking.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that it's disappointing to go after a cache that's gone missing and had false finds on it making it appear to still be there. Then again, this is just as much an effect of the cache owner failing to maintain the listing as it is the loggers generating false finds in the first place.

Link to comment
Most don't do it. So that's why I always read the logs before I go on a hunt for any cache. I can't let someone else dictate my time by logging a bogus find.

 

A lot of us don't like to read the logs beforehand to avoid spoilers and others just use Watcher, or GCSAK and don't see the logs. Yes, it would work for a lot of these, but not for the totally dishonest types who write bogus logs.

 

Most of us remember this guy whose logs were popping up all over the country for quite some time (but rarely in the logbook) and sometimes in caches that were actually missing:

 

Yippie, yahoo I found it.

Crew member was in the area today.

What a neat trail.  Traded items & signed in.

Thanks for the cache,

ELECTRIC SHAVERS

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I don't care how other people get their finds, I sign log books for mine, but not logging DNF's and not visiting a cache before signing the log is bad. I've not been out looking for very many missign caches (that I know of), but I'd hate for it to be because of a silly reason like # of finds :)

Link to comment
So that's why I always read the logs before I go on a hunt for any cache.

As others have said, this is part of the issue.

 

I don't like reading logs either. For me it spoils part of the fun. I don't want to know about others' experiences before I find the cache.

If I get stumped, then I read the previous logs.

 

If I still can't find it, then I move the clues.

 

Granted, in this case I didn't have my PDA with me or it would have made things easier (quicker to abandon anyway).

Sure, there are some that will cry 'sour grapes! You're just mad that you wasted your time' - Yes and no.

 

It wasn't a waste of time because the spot was beautiful. Yes, I'm a little mad that I wasted time searching for something that wasn't there.

 

Bottom line: I don't neccessarily want/mean to belittle the people that do this - we could do that all night. The consesus is that it's wrong; I just don't understand WHY they do this.

 

Then again I don't understand a lot of things people do.... :)

 

edited: forgot a few words....

Edited by Kealia
Link to comment
My rule on this is:

 

If I am not aware of my cache having been plundered and they find and describe exactly where it was or describe the trashed container they found nearby they can have the find. That's a one time deal for the person who tells me. Aftet that I'll either archive the cache or replace it but there are no other finds on the missing cache. Call it a thanks for telling me.

 

On the took a photo...Ha! That's just funny. Call me the cache nazi, "No find for you!."

That works for me.

Link to comment
Read the logs like the rest of us before you go.

Oh, I'm so sorry, Pandybat. I didn't realize I was indulging in elitist, non-log-reading snobbery. Wow! Well, I stand corrected--GSAK and Premium Memberships, begone!

Don't even go there with me. That's not what I was saying at all. Have a nice night!

Link to comment

We tried for a cache a couple of months ago and even took pictures of the tree it was hidden next to (confirmed by the cache owner). The cache itself was missing, so DUH, what else can it be but a NO find! Plain and simple, we didnt find the cache!!! :)

 

If we find the cache its a find. Heck, if we find the container and/or contents scattered on the ground, then we'll claim it as a find but of course explain in our log and email the cache owner that it needs help. If we dont find the cache or even if we see where the cache is but dont/cant make it to it, then its a NO find! Too easy folks!!! :bad:

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Foul Language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family friendly, and all posts and posters must respect the integrity of the site.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Link to comment
We tried for a cache a couple of months ago and even took pictures of the tree it was hidden next to (confirmed by the cache owner). The cache itself was missing, so DUH, what else can it be but a NO find! Plain and simple, we didnt find the cache!!! :)

See, it's simple - find the CACHE, get the Smiley.

No cache = no smiley.

 

And listen to the horse.

Link to comment
The cache I refered to earlier about having to read the logs has been approved. For your perusal here is the link to Make or Model.

 

John

Man....can this game and its guidelines get any more confusing!? What is the difference between this and a traveling cache (which is not allowed)? Maybe I would have to see where this has been placed to truly understand how it is setup. I kinda get the idea about how it works. I'm not bashing the cache hider by any means...sounds like a cool cache. But it also seems like this borderlines the no traveling cache guidelines.

Link to comment

Nah, I'm guessing there are just multiple "bodies" within the same general search area...probably doesn't move more than 15 feet or so.

 

Withe the EPE being off sometimes, thsi is normal. OF course someone will log the find for just finding the area! :)

Link to comment
Nah, I'm guessing there are just multiple "bodies" within the same general search area...probably doesn't move more than 15 feet or so.

 

Withe the EPE being off sometimes, thsi is normal. OF course someone will log the find for just finding the area! :)

Ok.....I think I see the difference....a little. Instead of posting new waypoints, they post the make and model. Still borderlines a traveling cache to me but hopefully this one works out ok for the cache hider.

Link to comment

There is a cache on I-5 highway that we found after searching and it has several dnf that said, we found the perfect spot but the cache was gone. We did find the "perfect spot" and then found the cache. It has been found several time since but some still find the "perfect spot" and now someone has placed a cache container where it should have been and someone else has now added a log book. Now there is two caches where one is listed.

Link to comment
We tried for a cache a couple of months ago and even took pictures of the tree it was hidden next to (confirmed by the cache owner). The cache itself was missing, so DUH, what else can it be but a NO find! Plain and simple, we didnt find the cache!!!  :)

 

If we find the cache its a find.  Heck, if we find the container and/or contents scattered on the ground, then we'll claim it as a find  but of course explain in our log and email the cache owner that it needs help.  If we dont find the cache or even if we see where the cache is but dont/cant make it to it, then its a NO find! Too easy folks!!!  :bad:

Couldn't have said it better Froggy! :)

Link to comment

Too many problems with traveling caches....that's why they aren't allowed. I can see where they would run into all kinds of problems...someone not being able to get back to log the newest coords in time, someone posting wrong coords, someone forgetting to place the cache in another spot, etc.

Link to comment
It has been found several time since but some still find the "perfect spot" and now someone has placed a cache container where it should have been and someone else has now added a log book. Now there is two caches where one is listed.

 

That's another issue. People who don't find the cache after a few minutes of looking, then drop off another one and call it a find.

Link to comment

A show of hands: Would this be counted as a find?

My log entry before Zoejam72's:

June 5 by TwentySeven (101 found)

Out caching with ZoeJam72. The Whole area is flooded! I was afraisd the cache was gone, but no! Tina saw it floating in a "safe" area. If the water goes down slow enough it may just 20-30 feet away from the original hide! It may not get relocated like some river caches this year. We didn't feel like swimmng or we would have retrieved it. Zoejam72 took a picture. They will get it uploaded soon.

Shane

My previous find of said cache:

April 25 by TwentySeven (101 found)

Visited this one while dropping a cache off in Walnut Grove and making a virtual cache in Sleepy Eye. Traded Bubbles for a metal Scottsman. Nice hide, I kept walking past it looking in the "obvious" places! Thanks for the hunt.

 

Thanks for your opinion. I personally had no problem with the find and when I talked to the cache owner he thought it was funny.

 

Shane

Edited by TwentySeven
Link to comment
A show of hands: Would this be counted as a find?

My log entry before Zoejam72's:

June 5 by TwentySeven (101 found)

Out caching with ZoeJam72. The Whole area is flooded! I was afraisd the cache was gone, but no! Tina saw it floating in a "safe" area. If the water goes down slow enough it may just 20-30 feet away from the original hide! It may not get relocated like some river caches this year. We didn't feel like swimmng or we would have retrieved it. Zoejam72 took a picture. They will get it uploaded soon.

Shane

My previous find of said cache:

April 25 by TwentySeven (101 found)

Visited this one while dropping a cache off in Walnut Grove and making a virtual cache in Sleepy Eye. Traded Bubbles for a metal Scottsman. Nice hide, I kept walking past it looking in the "obvious" places! Thanks for the hunt.

 

Thanks for your opinion. I personally had no problem with the find and when I talked to the cache owner he thought it was funny.

 

Shane

It would depend on if the cache owner wants to accept it as a find. Personally, I didn't sign the log book, so I wouldn't count it as a find for myself. I would probably log this one as a note to the cache owner and go back out after it after the water went down and it was more accessible. If I wasn't planning on going back to it later, I would log it as a DNF because even though I found the cache, I didn't sign the log book. That's just how I prefer to do log finds. Everyone does it differently.

 

What's confusing is, why is the pic that zoejam72 took the same pic shown on the cache page?

Link to comment

Just wanted to add, that it might be a good idea when hiding caches to establish what is and what is not acceptable to log as a find in the cache page description. That way when someone logs a questionable find, you reserve the right to delete it if they didn't actually find the cache itself.

 

For example, I plan on stating in my cache description that unless they sign the logbook, I won't count it as a find and the log will be deleted. May cause some rifts but at least it won't mislead other cachers that don't read the logs before they go after my cache to make sure the cache is still there.

Link to comment
Joejam72 and I took the pic. King boreas posted the pic we took on the font page. The king let them keep the find. They DID find it. But did not want to wade out in the water to sign the log. That would be half a find.

OIC....thanks for the explanation.

 

Half a find...LOL

Link to comment
A show of hands: Would this be counted as a find?

 

Part of finding a cache is getting to it and opening it. Just seeing it from a distance doesn't count. OK maybe if you touched it and the lid was frozen shut, I may give that to someone, but this? Nah, I wouldn't count it.

 

I think one good guideline is that if you have to ask if it could be counted, it probably shouldn't be.

Link to comment
They are just OBLIVIOUS. These are the same type of people who let their kids run around screaming in a resturant, who take 20 items in the "10 items or less" lane at the grocery store, who pull up to the toll booth and then start to look for change, etc...etc...

The toll booth one really burns me. I love it when there is a line 10 cars deep and they still didn't didn't have enough time to find the change.

 

It's up to the owners to police the logs...

Link to comment
I wish there was a duplicate log notice.  Something that says "Cacher X posted a second find on your X cache"  "Here is a link to log 1 and one to log 2."

 

Then I'd not have to remember all 600 cachers who have logged all my variouse caches.  I could just use my duplicte log notice and work from there.

Getting a bit O/T-but thought this tip that was shared with me a while back might help:

Control F brings up a "find this text" window. Enter the suspect cachers name. It will find all mention of them on the web page being searched.

I find this really useful for LC's where there are 300-1200 logs already posted to be sure my find isn't already taken. But of course LC's aren't really caches are they? :tongue:

Link to comment
:unsure: I found the webpage that talked about the cache, so I wouldn't have any problem of actually going there to get it. So I am marking this as a find. Thanks for the hunt. Now if I can just find the Yellow Jeep Fever Locationless Cache. I swear a pirate stole that one :tongue: SWLN (Signed webpage, left nothing.)
Link to comment
:unsure: I found the webpage that talked about the cache, so I wouldn't have any problem of actually going there to get it. So I am marking this as a find. Thanks for the hunt. Now if I can just find the Yellow Jeep Fever Locationless Cache. I swear a pirate stole that one :unsure: SWLN (Signed webpage, left nothing.)

HEEHEE! :tongue:

Link to comment
Stunod - oblivious is not the word - stupid comes to mind - no consideration?

 

But what stops someone from just simply logging a find with TNLN thanks and racking them up say 10 in a day? Of course if you are in a spot where they are 50 m iles appart that is hard.

I like to say they're oblivious because they don't realize how it affects other people. As others have said, if you log a find it might give the wrong message to future hunters or the cache owner. Just like those bad parents in resturants, the rude shopper in the express line, or the tollway idiot: most of them just don't realize that they are p***ing people off.

Link to comment
Hi I was able to locate this cache with the help of EXODUS81753. We are in a UPOC Chatroom via mobile phone =TEXT MESSAGING= and he was not aware of Geocaching but had a GPS unit available to him. I am in Rxxx xxxxda and he is in NC. I gave him Coordinates via UPOC Chatroom =TEXT MESSAGING= and he was able to locate your Geocache and Reestablish Log Book and Watertight Container and Contents. It was a Remote Find for me and have decided to go ahead and log this as a find for myself also since i provided all the information and hints and picture descriptions during the Trek Live via TEXT MESSAGING. I may use this method again with other Geocaches. Thanks for a New Experience it was Fun and a Wonderfull Cache Find. xxxxx xxxxx zip code 89xx9

 

Remotely controlled find :tongue:

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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...