Jump to content

Old Log Sent For Cache On Watchlist


as77

Recommended Posts

I just received the following e-mail about a cache on my watchlist:

 

From: <noreply@geocaching.com>

To: ...

Subject: [LOG] Watchlist: Maxtrax found Dowd Multicache (Traditional Cache)

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:05:07 -0700

 

This is an automated message from Geocaching.com

 

You are receiving this email because this listing is on your watch list. Visit the web site to change your watchlist settings.

 

Location: New York, United States

Maxtrax found Dowd Multicache (Traditional Cache) at 8/16/2002

 

Log Date: 8/16/2002

Challenging, but a lot of fun. 

 

Visit this log entry at the below address:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...f5-7acf4eb718b8

 

Visit GC6A52

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ca-3d5095420986

 

Profile for Maxtrax:

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=11...98-2579cf54a698

 

Search for caches from this location:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...8.7271833333333

 

Now it's great that Maxtrax found this cache in August 2002 but it's 2004 now and more than 40 logs have been added to the cache page since this log.

Link to comment

Well, I posted a DNF to this cache on August 15 this year and started to watch it then. This is the first log I received, and it's from two years before my DNF. Doesn't help a lot...

 

When you logged your find 11-12 months late, did the log show up at the top of the list on the cache page or was it inserted in the middle according to the date you entered?

Link to comment

Retro-logging happens all the time. People caching as part of a team decide to get separate accounts. Couples break up, but continue geocaching separately. Kids grow up and say "Mom, can't I have my very own account now?" And so on.

 

I don't think that the website randomly generates notices for two year old logs.

 

Late logs show up in proper chronological order on the cache page.

Link to comment
Did you try to email the cacher to see if the log date was accurate? Some people have trouble with thier keebored. :D

That's true, but you have to specifically choose '2002' from the dropdown menu, because the default there is 2004 at the moment.

 

That doesn't, of course, mean they still couldn't goof it themselves. Emailing and asking them is an option, if you can't sleep any more. :blink:

Link to comment

Yeah, what Keystone said.

 

It could be someone that went caching occationally and never got a username until now, too. I remember SBUX had done that at one point and then when she got an account she logged all the caches she had been along on.

 

I just logged a cache a couple weeks ago that I had found on July 4. I had messed up my record keeping and couldn't figure out which cache one of them was and finally figured it out. Granted it wasn't two years, but just another example of waiting a while to log.

Link to comment
It could be someone that went caching occationally and never got a username until now, too.

Certainly possible, but this guy has had his account since March 2002. He waited more than two years to log one of his finds? Seems unusual, but I accept that this is the most likely explanation.

 

The notification almost made me think that the cache has been found after all, so I could go for it again. It's a good thing I noticed the date. Still my DNF is the last log.

Link to comment
It could be someone that went caching occationally and never got a username until now, too.

Certainly possible, but this guy has had his account since March 2002. He waited more than two years to log one of his finds? Seems unusual, but I accept that this is the most likely explanation.

 

The notification almost made me think that the cache has been found after all, so I could go for it again. It's a good thing I noticed the date. Still my DNF is the last log.

I did that for a while and never went back to log those finds. It wouldn't really matter though because most of the caches I found I found in 01 and they're archived now.

Link to comment

Also, I hate to be the one to say it, the person logging the find might just be logging it for a find just for the number, because if the cache is missing, who can verify if he actually logged it or not. Check his profile and see what other 'activity' he has done in the last 2 years, specifically archived caches.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...