Treating Missing Cache As Virtual Until Archived

July 13, 2004

My question involves the following situation: We have thouroughly searched for a cache but could not find it but believe we are looking in the right place. Snap a picture of where we think the cache should be, based on descriptions/hints/etc.

Returning to the net, log a DNF. Very soon afterwards(days) the cache is archived because the owner checks and the cache has gone missing (there might be other DNFs at around the same time as ours that prompt the cache to be checked).

If we have proof that we have visited the cache site and identified the correct hiding spot, either through description or photos, can we log a find?

We have only found about 20 caches so far but have had the above scenario occur twice, i.e. we are some of the first cachers to visit after the cache went missing but before it has been noted or archived. The first time I emailed a photo to the owner and he thought it would be fair to log it as found based on the picture of the exact cache hiding spot (with the cache missing of course...)

It has now occured a second time. The owner has confirmed the picture of the hiding spot, but was unsure about logging it as a find, and I guess now I am too.

So, are there exisiting rules/guidelines for this situation?

Is it up to the owner?

I'm thinking the cache could be treated as a virtual cache by the owner until it is archived if the hiding spot is uniquely identifiable by description or photo.

Thanks in advance - smirlespies

July 13, 2004

There really aren't any set "guidelines" or "rules" for this sort of circumstance. It is generally up to the owner. I have heard of owners allowing the cache-finder to log a find before, but it is not common.

Personally, I wouldn't want to log it as a find, because I DIDNT find it! Caches are muggled everyday and it is part of the game. The owner is challanged to hide it well enough where it wont and the finder is challenged to get there before it does dissappear.

So, its whatever you and the owner decide together. If you log it as a find, nobody is going to "punish" you. It just depends how importand an accurate find count is for you.

Edited July 13, 2004 by Nappy10

9.4k · July 13, 2004

No, the cache was not a virtual. If you didn't sign the logbook, you should not claim it as a find.

How hard is this: Did you find the cache? NO! Then why would you log it as you did? That may cause someone else to hunt for it after seeing your smilie on the page.

Geocaching isn't about only getting "to the right spot" or "in the area".

Edited July 13, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

2.4k · July 13, 2004

You CAN if the owner lets you get away with it, the question is if you SHOULD I've seen it before, and I've even been in a case where a owner checked after I and a couple others DNF'd on their cache, and it was missing. The owner told us we could change our DNF's to FINDs, but considering that I DIDN'T FIND the cache, I left mine as a DNF. What you do is up to you, but if you do log it as a find, keep in mind you may lose the respect of at least some of your local cachers.........

38.2k · July 13, 2004

If we have proof that we have visited the cache site and identified the correct hiding spot, either through description or photos, can we log a find?

Why would you want to log a find if you didn't find the cache?

I thought the point of this sport was to find caches, not the spot where they once were, or might have been.

Edited July 13, 2004 by briansnat

July 13, 2004

If it is OK with both the owner and yourself, then you can go ahead and log it.

I wouldn't though. It has happened to me several times and my thinking in each case was "How could I possibly find a cache that wasn't there?".

In your case the owner was "unsure" - I think I'd assume that he or she is just being polite, realizes that you found the spot but not the cache, but doesn't want to give you a flat "No".

July 13, 2004

When you log your visit there are several possible choices. Two possible choices apply here. One says "Found It" which you use if you did find the cache. The other says "Didn't Find It" which you use when you didn't find the cache. In this case you didn't find the cache so you would use "Didn't Find It".

No need to thank me for the lesson.

24.7k · July 13, 2004

This isn't cut and dry yet. The Geocaching tournament rules have not evolved. Casual rules apply.

That means if the owner lets you log it, it's a find. I've allowed it before because they found the nothing there was to find and I knew the cache was gone beyond a showdow of doubt.

9.1k · July 13, 2004

This happened to me recently, I found the string that the microcache had been attached to. The person I was caching with and I both logged DNF's. The owner offered to let us log a find. Never gave a thought to changing my DNF, even though I was traveling out of state and may never get a chance to clear it up. I DID NOT FIND A CACHE and I DID NOT SIGN A LOG. Quite simple, really.

Next chapter: Cache owners who attempt to "convert" their plundered physical caches to virtuals because they're too lazy to do cache maintenance or figure out a sufficient hiding spot to prevent muggling.

5.6k · July 13, 2004

But isn't NOT finding something that is NOT there a success?

July 13, 2004

Next chapter: Cache owners who attempt to "convert" their plundered physical caches to virtuals because they're too lazy to do cache maintenance or figure out a sufficient hiding spot to prevent muggling.

I've got a pair of those from a couple of years ago. The caches were physically there when we found them, then archived because in one case, the hider hadn't secured permission to place it (and wouldn't have received it if he had), and in another, it was vandalized. The owners (apparently) changed the cache types to virtual prior to archiving them, and I now have two virtuals that I didn't find.

2k · July 13, 2004

I had a similar situation: While looking for a micro in a fence the owner of the cache came out and told me it had gone missing for the third time and he was going to archive it. I added it as a find even though it didn't exist any more. I'm not sweating the numbers as bad as some folks. I did have a nice chat wih the cache owner and see him on occasion as his business is on one of my regular routes.

2k · July 13, 2004

But here's another twist, the owner had archived the cache and I found it. Now I can't get the owner to un-archive it, but I'm still claiming my find.

9.5k · July 13, 2004

But isn't NOT finding something that is NOT there a success?

If you had fun at it... yes!

6.5k · July 13, 2004

If we have proof that we have visited the cache site and identified the correct hiding spot, either through description or photos, can we log a find?

No. Finding a phyisical cache means finding an actual real cache and signing the logbook.

So, are there exisiting rules/guidelines for this situation?
Is it up to the owner?

The existing rules are do whatever is required for the cache (by both the owner and whatever general rules apply). The general rule for phyisical caches are that you sign the logbook. There may also be other requirements the cache owner has set, do these too.

In special cases, a cache owner may take pity/compassion? on the person who spent all day looking and couldn't find it cause its been stolen or whatever. But these are rare, decided by the cache owner and is the owner's choice, and NOT the normal thing. If you weren't meant to find the cache, there would be no reason for the cache or the logbook .

On the other topic, Torry if you can't get that guy to have the cache unarchived (and how do you force someone to do to their cache? be it place a new one, remove an old one , or update the descrption? ) either try to adopt it (sounds like lots of work) or just be the good guy and CITO out the junk.

2.5k · July 13, 2004

I agree in principle with those that say they wouldn't log a find it they didn't actually hold the cache in their hands--but I am not so sure that you must actually sign the log to have a legitimate find. There are reasons why you might not be able to physically sign the log--It might be missing, too damaged to sign, too full to sign etc. There isn't always room to add your own peice of paper, or you may not have a piece of paper with you.

I found a cache that had that kind of problem..sort of...I found a cache container in the right location, but it didn't match the description of the container and it was seriously damaged. Looked like a lawnmower had tried to eat it. The log had obviously been wet and then dried out again. If I tried to uncurl the log, I would have torn it, and since it was open on one end, any paper I added would just become damaged also.

I emailed the owner to ask about the container, and learned that it was a container that had previously gone missing. He graciously told me to log it as a find. Since it had once been the official container, I did log it as a find, even though I had not signed the log.

2.5k · July 13, 2004

I would say it comes down to the cache owner.

There are some cachers who believe it's about the hunt, not the find... I know there were a few on GeoWoodstock that we were told to log as finds by the owners... One of EssPea's dalmation caches was missing and she told us to log it anyway, because she knew we were in the right spot and it was about the hunt not the find in her opinion.

There was another one that was muggled but we were with one of the hiders, so we were told to log that since he was at the spot and couldn't find it...

Like I said, it comes down to the cache owner and the situation.

I once had a cacher that told me to log my dnf as a find when the container was there and I didn't find it. That one I wouldn't log, but the ones from GeoWoodstock I did.

9.5k · July 13, 2004

I would say it comes down to the cache owner.

Mostly I agree with this...but...

There are some cachers who believe it's about the hunt, not the find... I know there were a few on GeoWoodstock that we were told to log as finds by the owners... One of EssPea's dalmation caches was missing and she told us to log it anyway, because she knew we were in the right spot and it was about the hunt not the find in her opinion.

There was another one that was muggled but we were with one of the hiders, so we were told to log that since he was at the spot and couldn't find it...

IMVHO, that just waters down the intent of the sport. Of course it is about the hunt, but the reward is in the actual finding and logging of the cache. You couldn't possibly justify you found it if you didn't have it in your greedy little hands!?! It is still a DNF.

Like I said, it comes down to the cache owner and the situation.

If you didn't find it and you still log it as a find by the owner's request, then it is no longer about the hunt but about the numbers more than anything else. I had one owner (whom later became a friend of mine), tell me to post my note as a find after I described the container and admittedly didn't fully read the cache notes so didn't realize I needed a pencil to sign the log. I did post it as a find, but I was right out there to sign the log a couple of days later when I was back in the area. I would never be in the area, and declare I didn't find the cache and then post it as a find. That's fudging the numbers and only cheats yourself just to keep up with the joneses. A skunk by any other name still stinks, you're just trying to mask it with perfume.

July 13, 2004

I did have one case where I couldn't find a cache in its hiding spot, in a park near the park manager's office. As I was looking the manager walked over and told me she had removed the cache. I followed her into her office and "found" it on her desk, and later logged it online as a find. Also emailed the owner to let him or her know of the situation.

3k · July 13, 2004

I replaced a cache that had gone missing twice (site went under construction as they renovated a lighthouse), the spot is very much worth a visit and hard to get to. It's on an island, there are ferries and airplanes, but it's expensive. It's not my cache but I help out when I can, because I get to go there often at minimal cost to me. When the first replacement went missing, one cacher said hey, let's count the windows on the lighthouse and make it a virtual with that for an answer. The cache owner didn't post anything about yes or no, nor did they disable it, or change the cache type. A few more cachers showed up and logged it as a find. I went back and put another new container out there, after discussing it with the cache owner. Now it's a traditional cache again. It really is all up to the cache owner how they want it treated, but you should never log a find, because you did not find it. The owner would never know it was gone! If the owner says log it then fine, after you've let them know it's missing. Sometimes it isn't missing, you're just not finding it. But it's always good to let them know. I won't log a DNF if I didn't get close to the cache area, only if I searched for it.

7.2k · July 13, 2004

No. You didn't find the cache. It's not a find.

Yes, you will be considered by many as a cheater and the cache owner as too lenient, maybe even worse. Many won't come out and say in an open forum, but they'll think it.

If there is a log available to sign, you must sign it, period. No excuses. No pen? No find. The log is never too full to put your mark somewhere. Ever. Even then, there is no excuse to not have a scrap of paper on you to put in there.

Log too wet to sign? Replace the log. Container damaged? Film cannisters are generally free at Walmart, a scroll log will get you by until the owner can confirm the find.

No physical cache there to find? IT IS NOT A FIND. Period. End of story. Go home.

Am I hardass on issues about what consititutes a find? You bet.

And especially don't even ever consider logging one of my physicals as a virt. Ever. The most prolific finder ever got on my bad side for doing that. She is one you can thank for my attitude on this issue.

</rant>

Whew! Now that that's off my chest. My advise is stop worrying about a cache you didn't find. Get out there and hunt another one. There's too much fun out there waiting for you to worry about the one that got away.

It's kind of like fishing. If you didn't get him in the boat, did you really catch him?

9.4k · July 13, 2004

No. You didn't find the cache. It's not a find.

Yes, you will be considered by many as a cheater and the cache owner as too lenient, maybe even worse. Many won't come out and say in an open forum, but they'll think it.

If there is a log available to sign, you must sign it, period. No excuses. No pen? No find. The log is never too full to put your mark somewhere. Ever. Even then, there is no excuse to not have a scrap of paper on you to put in there.

Log too wet to sign? Replace the log. Container damaged? Film cannisters are generally free at Walmart, a scroll log will get you by until the owner can confirm the find.

No physical cache there to find? IT IS NOT A FIND. Period. End of story. Go home.

Am I hardass on issues about what consititutes a find? You bet.

And especially don't even ever consider logging one of my physicals as a virt. Ever. The most prolific finder ever got on my bad side for doing that. She is one you can thank for my attitude on this issue.

</rant>

Whew! Now that that's off my chest. My advise is stop worrying about a cache you didn't find. Get out there and hunt another one. There's too much fun out there waiting for you to worry about the one that got away.

It's kind of like fishing. If you didn't get him in the boat, did you really catch him?

CR, this is one issue I agree with you on 100%.

Here's my log from my most greuling DNF. I even took a picture to "prove" I was there, which the owner confirmed. He told me to log a find but I didn't find his well-hidden container. My log stands as-is. I'll go back out there on a cooler day to find it.

1.4k · July 13, 2004

Ya, I don't think the self policing thing really works since there are cache owners that will let people log caches when they got within .2 miles or it was too slippery to get to the cache and junk like that. If you didn't find it, you didn't no matter what the cache owner says. And I guess it comes to the rest of us to say it's not okay.

38.2k · July 13, 2004

There are some cachers who believe it's about the hunt, not the find... I know there were a few on GeoWoodstock that we were told to log as finds by the owners... One of EssPea's dalmation caches was missing and she told us to log it anyway, because she knew we were in the right spot and it was about the hunt not the find in her opinion.

If its about the hunt, then why log it as a find? Does a DNF mean you didn't hunt the cache? That you didn't enjoy yourself? How does the fact that you got a "smiley" make it more of a hunt than if you got a "frownie"?

When you start logging finds for caches you didn't find, that proves that its not about the hunt, its about the numbers.

If there is a log available to sign, you must sign it, period. No excuses. No pen? No find. The log is never too full to put your mark somewhere. Ever. Even then, there is no excuse to not have a scrap of paper on you to put in there.

Log too wet to sign? Replace the log. Container damaged? Film cannisters are generally free at Walmart, a scroll log will get you by until the owner can confirm the find.

Am I hardass on issues about what consititutes a find? You bet.

I'm pretty strict, but that's a lot stricter than I would be. If I find the cache, I log it.

If the log book is too wet, it's not my job to hike 3 miles back to the car, drive to the store, buy a book, hike 3 miles back to the cache, sign it and hike 3 miles back to the car again, which is what I would have had to do to log one cache if I used these criteria. Instead, I stuck my business card inside and took a photo of me with the cache. I think that's enough.

Edited July 13, 2004 by briansnat

July 13, 2004

What are the morals on the following situation?

Cache owner creates a virtual cache.

Virtual cache is later archived because owner wants to free up the space (528 ft. rule) for another traditional cache.

Information required to "find" original cache is still there.

Would you log a find?

9.5k · July 13, 2004

I'm pretty strict, but that's a lot stricter than I would be. If I find the cache, I log it.

If the log book is too wet, it's not my job to hike 3 miles back to the car, drive to the store, buy a book, hike 3 miles back to the cache, sign it and hike 3 miles back to the car again, which is what I would have had to do to log one cache if I used these criteria. Instead, I stuck my business card inside and took a photo of me with the cache. I think that's enough.

That's why I started carrying 2 sizes of labels and signature cards. If nothing else.. I will leave evidence that I was there. In fact, I'm told that on a recent find, I did that twice! I guess two of the cards got stuck together. Never-the-less, I learned from the first time I didn't have a pen with me, that IF I don't have a working pen with me, to have something unique to leave behind to prove the find.

38.2k · July 13, 2004

That's why I started carrying 2 sizes of labels and signature cards. If nothing else.. I will leave evidence that I was there. In fact, I'm told that on a recent find, I did that twice! I guess two of the cards got stuck together. Never-the-less, I learned from the first time I didn't have a pen with me, that IF I don't have a working pen with me, to have something unique to leave behind to prove the find.

Pen isn't a major issue. I've signed logs with the lit end of a cigar, a piece of rock and a stick dipped in mud.

What are the morals on the following situation?

Cache owner creates a virtual cache.

Virtual cache is later archived because owner wants to free up the space (528 ft. rule) for another traditional cache.

Information required to "find" original cache is still there.

Would you log a find?

I wouldn't look for it if I knew it was archived. If I went there in good faith, not knowing that it was archived, I'd probably log it and let the owner decide if it stays.

That's not a whole lot different than finding a real cache that had been archived.

Edited July 13, 2004 by briansnat

3.1k · July 13, 2004

It's amazing to me how many people here have said NO it's not a find.

Do they own the cache? It's up to the owner and unless all these folks here own that cache they have no say in it.

38.2k · July 13, 2004

It's amazing to me how many people here have said NO it's not a find.

Do they own the cache? It's up to the owner and unless all these folks here own that cache they have no say in it.

That's fine. If that's the way you think it it should be, then I give you permission to log a find for this cache.

I mean it's in the US and you live in the US, so why not. You've probably even flown over it once or twice if you've ever visited the east coast.

6.4k · July 13, 2004

What are the morals on the following situation?

Cache owner creates a virtual cache.

Virtual cache is later archived because owner wants to free up the space (528 ft. rule) for another traditional cache.

Information required to "find" original cache is still there.

Would you log a find?

I don't see this as any different then an ammo box that is removed by the owner and archived. If you are the type that would go to the coords on your GPS, and then claim a find because you were in the general area the ammo box used to be, then go for it. But don't be surprised if the owner deletes it or flames you in the forums for it.

Edited July 13, 2004 by Mopar

7.2k · July 13, 2004

It's amazing to me how many people here have said NO it's not a find.

Do they own the cache? It's up to the owner and unless all these folks here own that cache they have no say in it.

Doesn't matter.

Allowing a find for someone who didn't is just as bad as deleting a legitimate log.

Besides, while it is not within our power to force someone to play the game right, we certainly don't have to stand by and say "It's okay, it's your game, you go ahead and do whatever you want." No, it is behooved of us all to tell those who don't conform to easy, basic, and straightforward guidelines they are doing wrong.

6.5k · July 13, 2004

It's amazing to me how many people here have said NO it's not a find.

Do they own the cache? It's up to the owner and unless all these folks here own that cache they have no say in it.

I thought I had covered that in the special cases thing. Guess not?

If just looking for the cache was good enough for a find then there would be no reason to log a DNF, and the log book shouldn't be required since you don't even have actually locate the cache.

Yes, a cache owner can allow you to a claim a find for a cache they feel you've worked enough on. That is however, a special thing, decided case by case.

38.2k · July 13, 2004

It's amazing to me how many people here have said NO it's not a find.

Do they own the cache? It's up to the owner and unless all these folks here own that cache they have no say in it.

I thought I had covered that in the special cases thing. Guess not?

If just looking for the cache was good enough for a find then there would be no reason to log a DNF, and the log book shouldn't be required since you don't even have actually locate the cache.

Yes, a cache owner can allow you to a claim a find for a cache they feel you've worked enough on. That is however, a special thing, decided case by case.

For that matter, why even have a cache? We can just post coordinates and you go go to them and get a find.

July 14, 2004

We have that already with virtual caches.

Sure some virtual "placers" require some proof of having been there, but not all. Quite a few are content to have created the cache page, and watch people log it.

9.5k · July 14, 2004

Pen isn't a major issue. I've signed logs with the lit end of a cigar, a piece of rock and a stick dipped in mud.

True, and if there was something available at the time besides making a muddy fingerprint, then that would have been used too. The point I'm making is there are ways of leaving evidence you were there. I chose these things as the way to do so.

2.3k · July 14, 2004

This happened to me recently, I found the string that the microcache had been attached to. The person I was caching with and I both logged DNF's. The owner offered to let us log a find. Never gave a thought to changing my DNF, even though I was traveling out of state and may never get a chance to clear it up. I DID NOT FIND A CACHE and I DID NOT SIGN A LOG. Quite simple, really.<snip>

This also happened to me. It was the 4th cache I ever hunted for. I did log the find. Would I do it now? No. Am I going to delete it and post a DNF? No. That is because it is all part of my caching history, it will always be there to remind me of a line not to cross again.

It is ultimately up to the owner but alot of it is up to each individual cacher also. Until there is a need for very accurate stats, records or prizes are being awarded should it be that much of an issue to the community at large. And if it comes to that you better believe that I will be among the first to call for cache owners to confirm EVERY log also.

July 15, 2004

Opinions have been about evenly split between keeping a DNF and "it's up to the owner", with some DNFers taking a hardcore "log must be signed" stance. About half the "up to owners" felt they would not take the find even if offered by the owner though.

Frankly I'm satisfied with things as they stand(see initial topic post) with one owner seeing fit to grant a find and another not - it's not that important to me. I cache with my family and it really is mostly about the hunt, the effort, getting outside together.

Of course we enjoy finding a physical cache - and if we don't find one, we log a DNF and go back again another time, but if we have done all we can to find it AND the cache turns out to have been missing AND if it is the kind of location where we can prove we found the cache spot (i mean the literal 1 sq. ft. - not the acre wide boulder field, got to general area, etc...) AND the cache owner thinks it is fair, I'll add a find on top of the initial DNF.

Thanks - especially to those who managed not to get too snarky... :unsure:

July 15, 2004

I cache with my family and it really is mostly about the hunt, the effort, getting outside together.

That's a great attitude! Thanks for reminding us all of what this game is really all about.

7.2k · July 15, 2004

I wonder sometimes why people even ask. Maybe they're looking for the answer they want. When they get it, that's it. Never mind the majority of the opposing views come from some of the heavyweights of forums. (No , I'm not talking about myself.) These folks have helped shape caching as we know it today, but their opinions carry no more weight than a newbie that just joined.

Of those heavyweights, if I were to pick just one to pay attention to, pick just one to have newbies emulate, it would be The Leprechauns. In fact, if he and I disagree, I will likely re-evaluate my position! Not saying I would change my position, but I certainly would revisit the reasons I've come to the opinion I hold.

That's not to say to discount the opinions of the other verterans. In fact, I think the majority of those that have been around for a while hold all of the same core values. They are worth your attention.

38.2k · July 15, 2004

Opinions have been about evenly split between keeping a DNF and "it's up to the owner", with some DNFers taking a hardcore "log must be signed" stance. About half the "up to owners" felt they would not take the find even if offered by the owner though.

Frankly I'm satisfied with things as they stand(see initial topic post) with one owner seeing fit to grant a find and another not - it's not that important to me. I cache with my family and it really is mostly about the hunt, the effort, getting outside together.

Of course we enjoy finding a physical cache - and if we don't find one, we log a DNF and go back again another time, but if we have done all we can to find it AND the cache turns out to have been missing AND if it is the kind of location where we can prove we found the cache spot (i mean the literal 1 sq. ft. - not the acre wide boulder field, got to general area, etc...) AND the cache owner thinks it is fair, I'll add a find on top of the initial DNF.

Thanks - especially to those who managed not to get too snarky...

I think you just totally contradicted yourself. First you say its "about the hunt, the effort, getting outisde together", then you admit you would consider logging find for a cache you didn't find. I don't see a reason for doing that unless it was about the numbers.

Does a DNF mean that you didn't enjoy the hunt, the effort and getting outside together? Of course not! Then why take an undeserved "smiley" if not to pad your find count?

Edited July 15, 2004 by briansnat

July 15, 2004

My two Lincolns, remember the real reason we get out and hunt. Too get out and see and experience fun and new places. He aint heavy, he's my brother (sister)! Peace, Nolenator

38.2k · July 15, 2004

My two Lincolns, remember the real reason we get out and hunt. Too get out and see and experience fun and new places. He aint heavy, he's my brother (sister)! Peace, Nolenator

Judging from many of the responses in this thread, including the recent one from the OP, it not that. It's to add notches to their belt in the form of finds. If the point was to get out and see and experience new places, taking a DNF on a cache wouldn't change that.

Edited July 15, 2004 by briansnat

1.1k · July 15, 2004

How can you list a find if you don't actually find the cache. Okay your in the right area but most of the caches I have found are fairly well hidden. One I must have stepped on a dozne times walking back and forth before my daughter uncovered it. One micro the coordinates purt you in the middle of the bridge, and yes the cache was on the bridge but you GPS is NOT accurate so how can you be sure you haev fond the EXACT spot where the cache is located. I have finally realized that the person placing the cache is HIDING it. I know im in the general area wut here in a 20 to 50 f00t circle where is the cache???????

I dont know I am new to but have learned that the GPSr gets you close then it is a game between you and the hider. I guess some hiders hide it from casual passer-by but many hide it from some one even looking for it. So how do you know u found th exact spot where it was hidden. I dont know help me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cheers

July 16, 2004

Does a DNF mean that you didn't enjoy the hunt, the effort and getting outside together?

Not at all, and I log a DNF when we do not find a cache that was there - we did not find it due to our efforts. A DNF on our cache list means it is a cache we have not "finished" and would like to return too in the future. The DNF stands out as a "to do" on our list.

Then why take an undeserved "smiley" if not to pad your find count?

Because the DNF situation (not ANY DNF) that I describe was not for lack of effort on our part AND the cache owner agrees, etc. (as above) that the "smiley" IS deserved, we're not going back to that cache but move on to others and it's off our "to do" list. The posts in this topic showed the differing views on what is deserved or undeserved.

I don't expect anyone to care about our cache count one way or the other. We're not in competition with anyone - it's a planning/diary system for our outings and how we account is not hidden but right out in the open if for some reason someone does care.

It is ultimately up to the owner but alot of it is up to each individual cacher also. Until there is a need for very accurate stats, records or prizes are being awarded should it be that much of an issue to the community at large.

Does Barry Bonds loose sleep if I hit 62 home runs and bat 0.575 in my summer baseball picnic league, where we play with 10 players on the field, the bases are only 60 ft. apart and we play only 7 innings? If 4 buddies and I take turns pitching and hitting a ball to each other in a sandlot, are we not playing baseball? Would Barry think that was an indecent thing to do, somehow profane, because we are not playing by the real rules? Would we be watering down the "great game of baseball"? Unfortunately or not, right now, the geocaching equivalent of the sandlot gang, the bush leaguers and the major leaguers are all mixed together, perhaps with different interpretations of the game based on competitive level.

Cheers

9.1k · July 16, 2004

I wonder sometimes why people even ask. Maybe they're looking for the answer they want. When they get it, that's it. Never mind the majority of the opposing views come from some of the heavyweights of forums. (No , I'm not talking about myself.) These folks have helped shape caching as we know it today, but their opinions carry no more weight than a newbie that just joined.

Of those heavyweights, if I were to pick just one to pay attention to, pick just one to have newbies emulate, it would be The Leprechauns. In fact, if he and I disagree, I will likely re-evaluate my position! Not saying I would change my position, but I certainly would revisit the reasons I've come to the opinion I hold.

That's not to say to discount the opinions of the other verterans. In fact, I think the majority of those that have been around for a while hold all of the same core values. They are worth your attention.

Wow! That has got to be the nicest thing anyone's said to me in the forums since... I dunno when! Thanks!

CR and I often disagree about issues here in the forums, sometimes rather strongly. This thread is one of many issues that we agree upon: a find is a find and a DNF is a DNF. CR's post illustrates the best of what the forums ought to be about: respectful discussion, trying to learn from the other person's point of view, and recognizing that even people who disagree with you are being passionate about it because they love the sport as passionately as you do.

9.4k · July 16, 2004

Does a DNF mean that you didn't enjoy the hunt, the effort and getting outside together?

Not at all, and I log a DNF when we do not find a cache that was there - we did not find it due to our efforts. A DNF on our cache list means it is a cache we have not "finished" and would like to return too in the future. The DNF stands out as a "to do" on our list.

"Did Not Finish"...nice! I like that

3.1k · July 16, 2004

It's amazing to me how many people here have said NO it's not a find.

Do they own the cache? It's up to the owner and unless all these folks here own that cache they have no say in it.

That's fine. If that's the way you think it it should be, then I give you permission to log a find for this cache.

I mean it's in the US and you live in the US, so why not. You've probably even flown over it once or twice if you've ever visited the east coast.

Thanks Brian, it's logged

38.2k · July 16, 2004

Does Barry Bonds loose sleep if I hit 62 home runs and bat 0.575 in my summer baseball picnic league, where we play with 10 players on the field, the bases are only 60 ft. apart and we play only 7 innings? If 4 buddies and I take turns pitching and hitting a ball to each other in a sandlot, are we not playing baseball? Would Barry think that was an indecent thing to do, somehow profane, because we are not playing by the real rules? Would we be watering down the "great game of baseball"? Unfortunately or not, right now, the geocaching equivalent of the sandlot gang, the bush leaguers and the major leaguers are all mixed together, perhaps with different interpretations of the game based on competitive level.

If you want to use a baseball analogy, claiming finds when you didn't find the cache is like going 0 for 4, then telling everyone you're batting .500 because you hit the ball twice. So what that someone caught it. If you want to reach what you call the "major leagues" of geocaching, you'll get there a lot faster if you play honestly. Everybody knows who the stats padders are in their region and those people never make it to the "big leagues" no matter how many finds they have. IV Warrior mentioned the respect aspect in his post early in this thread. If adding one more smiley is so important to you that you're willing to risk the respect of your peers, then hey, who am I to tell you not to do it. Go for it!

Edited July 16, 2004 by briansnat

7.2k · July 16, 2004

I don't expect anyone to care about our cache count one way or the other. We're not in competition with anyone - it's a planning/diary system for our outings and how we account is not hidden but right out in the open if for some reason someone does care.

First, this discussion isn't about DNFs, it's about logging finds on a missing cache.

Like it or not, this site lists your find count. Someone not knowing you cheat will take that on face value. Basically, you've just lied to every person who takes that count at face value.

Besides, didn't we just get through going around and around with another new player who wouldn't log a DNF on cache she didn't find because you can't know it's there to be hunted if you didn't find it and you can't log a DNF on a cache that wasn't there?

A DNF on our cache list means it is a cache we have not "finished" and would like to return too in the future. The DNF stands out as a "to do" on our list.

First of all there is no list that highlights DNFs. The nearest list doesn't show you DNFs. Your log list shows ALL of your logs including DNFs where you've later found the cache. Your logic doesn't make sense.

Additionally, you shouldn't be worried about caches that are missing, unable to be hunted on your nearest list, because either it will later become available to be hunted (and legally logged) or it will be archived. Both solve your problem without falsifying a find.

There are even better reasons for folks to log a find on caches they did not find and yet they still don't. Here's one, you're with a friend when he places a cache. You don't get credit for placing it. You can't really "find" as you already know where it is. What do you do? The "good geocaching citizens" let it sit forever on their nearest list.

2.3k · July 17, 2004

Until there is a need for very accurate stats, records or prizes are being awarded should it be that much of an issue to the community at large.

What was I thinking? After re-reading this I see that I kind of mangled what I was trying to say.

Hopefully this is better:

Until there is a need for very accurate stats, records, or prizes are being awarded, it shouldn't be that much of an issue to the community at large.

Small difference, but makes it clearer I hope.

Treating Missing Cache As Virtual Until Archived

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment