Logging a find - ethics.

[Attila]

If you have arrived at the waypoint, but did not actually locate the cache, can you log it as a find? This site brings up the question. I just returned from the area & realized that some serious preparation is needed to look inside the cache box. But, several people have logged finds just by getting to the entrance of the cave. Is this proper?

[+unclerojelio]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Attila:

If you have arrived at the waypoint, but did not actually locate the cache, can you log it as a find?

---

 

I would say that if you don't sign the log it's not a find. In this case it also looks like the cache is missing anyway. But this is a game and how you play is is your own personal business. If you felt you accomplished a goal just getting to the site and you want to log it, log it. If the cache owner feels otherwise, they could just as well delete your log.

 

... Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took the one less traveled by, ...

 

unclerojelio

[BassoonPilot]

No, it's not proper ... but it's up to the cache owner to enforce these things, and rarely does that happen.

[+WaldenRun]

It was also improper for the cachers who actually went in but did not find it to log a find. What is going on in Utah?

 

"Why worry when you can obsess?"

[+JLambert]

I saw the same thing with a cache in Pennsylvania. It was suspended by a nylon rope into an abandoned well. At least two finders did not "find" the string to pull it up, and logged it online as a find. The cache owner let it stand as a find. Why bother to sign the log.

[scooterj]

Read the cache logs on the cache in question... what a bunch of wimps!

 

"...water looked too deep and muddy..."

"...smells like a sewer..."

"...we did not enter because of the gross swamp, water and poison oak..."

"...would be a nice cache if the swamp dried up and the poison oak was dead..."

"...there is a lot of water and it's stinky..."

 

No offense intended to those who wrote this stuff, but this stuff is kinda funny.

[+Genius Loci]

As I understand the game, it seems to me that it's important that you do log this online, but as a ‘No Find’. Logging it as a ‘Find’ could be misleading to others who are planning to go looking for this cache.

 

I always glance at the most recent logs for any cache I'm considering going after - mainly to see if there's a good chance the thing is still there. If the last person logged it as a 'Find' then I can be pretty sure it's worth spending time and gas money on a trip to search for it. However, if the last person logged it as a 'Find' and didn't even see the cache box, how does anyone know if it's really still there? This could cause confusion for anyone (including the owner) who's trying to monitor the site.

 

If you searched for a cache, and didn't sign the paper log at the site, then log it as a 'No Find' online and let us know why (out of time, getting dark, racoon crap on the box, whatever). Lot's of times, the 'couldn't find it' logs are the most interesting! Besides, you can always go back and log it as a 'Find' when you have signed the paper log.

 

One of the things I really like about geocaching is that it’s really all about the SEARCH, not the find. Kind of reminds me of life…

 

- Genius Loci

[+Sabby]

For my money if you dont find the cache and enter something into the logbook then it is not a find.

[+briansnat]

It's not a find for all the reasons stated above. I can't believe all the people who logged this particular cache as a find, who didn't actually find it. Its akin to looking at a steep hill, saying "I know the cach is on top of that hill but I'm too tired to climb it, so I'm going to log it as found". Are people just not as honest in Utah? I found it odd that one guy wanted it archived (twice) despite admitting that he didn't actually search for it.

[+georgeandmary]

If you don't sign the log book, it's NOT a find. I don't care if it was stollen. Ultimately it's up to the cache owner but if you try to log one of mine without actually signing the book, I WILL delete it.

 

But you're not in California.

 

george

 

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

[+fizzymagic]

I went to a cache site in Southern California, and looked for about an hour... no luck. So I went online to log it as a no-find, only to discover that the owner had removed the physical cache and made it a virtual cache the day before! Yow. Something to do with some guy posing as a Forest Service ranger and leaving "tickets" in caches.

 

I logged it as a find, since it was a virtual cache when I went (even though I didn't know it), and I had certainly found the virtual cache spot!

 

But if the owner had simply removed the cache, and hadn't made it a virtual, I would have logged it as a no-find.

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

I found it odd that one guy wanted it archived (twice) despite admitting that he didn't actually search for it.

---

 

I'm sure that was for reasons of national security.

 

[mortonfox]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fizzymagic:

 

I logged it as a find, since it was a virtual cache when I went (even though I didn't know it), and I had certainly found the virtual cache spot!

 

But if the owner had simply removed the cache, and hadn't made it a virtual, I would have logged it as a no-find.

---

 

I had something similar happen but in a different sequence. The cache had gone missing. I went there and didn't find it so I posted a no-find log and described the implement I found that was used to hold the cache. The cache owner allowed the find and turned the cache into a virtual.

[+majicman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Attila:

If you have arrived at the waypoint, but did not actually locate the cache, can you log it as a find?

---

 

Attila,

 

If you went out on a treasure hunt for gold, and you got to the area you "thought" had gold, but you didn't see any gold, and you didn't smell any gold, and you didn't "find" any gold, and you don't have a picture of you with the gold there (or a stick you picked up right beside the gold)... would you consider that you "found" some gold?

 

(Part of the activity is getting to the "wrong" place, regardless of the reason, and NOT finding the cache. Then returning after resolving the error / problem and subsequently finding the cache. This is not possible if I just "believe" that I smelt the cache when I was in the general area that I believed was correct.)

 

i.e. Don't try to confuse me with the truth or those silly Facts things, my mind is already made up that I am right (again! and as usual!!)

 

majicman

[+ABXGuy]

How about this.... we made it to with 2 feet of a cache, could see that cache, but could not access the cache. Is that a find? I logged it as a find on June 8.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=4814

 

ABXGuy

[+travisl]

ABXGuy, I'd call that a ''not found.'' I tend to post a lot of ''not founds'', 'cause I don't see it as a failure, just a setback.

 

I haven't yet been in a situation where I've seen the cache but couldn't get to it, but I did visit a cache that was (supposedly) on top of a 25-foot high pedestal (not visible from the ground), and I wasn't prepared to climb it. ''Not found'' logged.

 

There's only one cache that I've logged as a ''found'' that I think is questionable -- we found the graffiti mark mentioned in the hint, and we found some of the cache contents in the area (a ferry schedule), so we figured the cache had been plundered; we did find whatever was left of the cache.

 

The cache owner never replied (and hasn't been heard from since), subsequent seekers weren't able to find it (although they found the ferry schedule, too), and the cache was eventually archived.

 

In the opposite aspect, I counted two finds on one cache (and two 'not founds'), because when I returned to the cache three months later, it had been moved by its owner by about 30 feet, and it took me three trips and almost three hours to find it again.

 

"If a boy has enough intelligence, he ought to go into the ministry, except that if when he enters college he is given to carousing, drinking, and wenching, then in that case he should enter the law." - Harvard Student Review, 1796

[+Jamie Z]

ABXGuy,

 

I refer you to what I call the Yrium Rule which basically states that you must log a no-find especially in the case that you can see the cache, but cannot touch it for some reason or another.

 

ABX, you were close, but not quite close enough. That's all part of the hunt, in my mind. I've been foiled by passersby before... just an added challenge.

 

Jamie

[+cone_dxf & family]

You should log it as not found if you didn't open the cache, and log your visit. Reasons for not found are useful for subsequent visitors, if there is some reason like poison ivy etc.

[+briansnat]

Sorry ABX that's a not found. Unless you have the cache in hand and sign the log book, then its a not found. I have a cache that takes a considerable amount of effort to get to, since there are a number of streams and swampy areas to negoitate. Its in a flood plain that sometimes can have water 4 feet deep, so the cache is hanging from a tree just above the high water mark. It can be seen, by those who know where to look, from 50 or more yards away.

 

Cachers could conceiveably walk the mile to the cache and negotiate the difficult terrain, only to find that they can see the cache, but can't reach it because the water is high. This is a not found in my mind. You shoud change your find, to a not found.

[+cachew nut]

I guess I would like to log finds without actually signing the book, but who would I be fooling except myself? I just recently logged 10 in the Bay Area, and these are way different then the ones around here. One cache called Bog, Log, Pollywog really had me fooled. My GPS pointed 100 feet into water. A big fat log went out into the water and I could see something floating in the water. However the log was broken and I wasn't going to attempt it. The other side of the water gave me a reading of 200 feet into the water. There were fishermen all around and I felt like, hey, maybe I should get credit, after all I did see it floating there. But, to me it's not a find so I did not log it as one. The next day I went back and found it on dry land, there are some channels of water and land, and it really wasn't the thing I saw floating in the water. So, if I would have logged it, I would have been wrong. Another cache is the Yellow Briefcase which I didn't particularly like, I climbed a huge steep mountain 2 days in a row and got close enough to know where it was. I ended up braving rattlesnakes and ticks to get to the cache on the second day. The hike was uphill and over a mile. Compared to some of the caches in California, all of the ones I've found in the flatlands have been one star. It wouldn't have counted to me unless I actually logged it. You can log whatever you want, but I know when I log one, I actually had my hands on it and looked inside

[michaelj]

You can get near the point within say 45 feet unless some of you out there have fancier units, but you still have to find the "treasure chest"

That's my opinion of course......Ps.found my first and I was ~~600 miles from home...had no idea where I was going just let the GPS guide me..