Jump to content

How do you define a find (log it as found)?


crr003

Recommended Posts

quote:
Originally posted by crr003:

Hmm - 44 views and 10 votes

 

No one is tracking your response - surely everyone has a vote on this, the most basic of decisions?

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum


 

This has been talked over before. And it seems that the number of views and votes will vary(sometimes by a very large number). This is because of several things, one is that you can only vote once but view a page as many different times as you want, some people are just lurking about and dont vote, or maybe someone looked at the page but couldn't deside how to vote (yet) and will return later. I'm sure theres a couple more reasons I can't think of right now.

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

"Found definite signs of the cache - the container maybe, but no log book"

 

Whats definite?

If I found a busted up container that said geocache down the side, I could see claiming that. But not for finding say, an empty ziplock, or something else that may or may not have come from a geocache.

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

Sure, I know it's been discussed before (hence the no Markwelling comment), but I feel that the concept is intrinsic to the spirit of the game/sport/hobby. As we are now receiving the Christmas entry of new GPS receiver owners, I thought it reasonable to raise the question - and everyone should vote - it's free. And if you really have to think about it.......maybe it deserves more discussion?

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

I have to find the cache! That means I can't just spot it from a distance or get to where the GPSr says it should be. If there is a logbook, I always sign it; but if I should happen to find a cache and lack a writing instrument, I'm not going to cut myself and sign the log in blood. I will truthfully log the cache as "found" online.

 

And on two occasions thus far I've found definite remnants of destroyed caches at the posted coordinates. I've logged those as "found" because I found them (or at least what was left of them.)

 

I won't lose any sleep over others who set more stringent or lenient standards for themselves for whatever motives.

 

Worldtraveler

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by welch:

"Found definite signs of the cache - the container maybe, but no log book"

 

Whats definite?

If I found a busted up container that said geocache down the side, I could see claiming that. But not for finding say, an empty ziplock, or something else that may or may not have come from a geocache.

 

http://brillig.com/geocaching/http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/22008_1700.gif http://www.gpgeocaching.com/


 

Exactly - a box with "geocaching" on the side would indicate a real sign of a valid cache. Now, you need to ask yourself one question - is it actually at the location specified, or maybe tossed out onto a path for anyone to find? Do you claim the find? Did you really find it or are you accepting an easy questionable find? I've seen a claim for a find that found a speck of green paint at the location and the cache was documented as painted green.

 

All I'm asking for is the answer to the ultimate question - "If you don't sign the log book, is it a find?" icon_razz.gif

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by worldtraveler:

......

And on two occasions thus far I've found definite remnants of destroyed caches at the posted coordinates. I've logged those as "found" because I _found_ them (or at least what was left of them.)

......

Worldtraveler


 

Nah, sorry - if you don't sign the log book you don't claim it (IMHO). Now maybe if the log is soaking wet and you can't physically sign it - I'd just add a piece of paper for a physical log (if I didn't have a spare log book). But then again if I wasn't sure I was putting the cache back in the original hider's position, I wouldn't claim it.

 

Just my opinion, but them again it's my poll question - icon_wink.gif

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by crr003:

Sure, I know it's been discussed before (hence the no Markwelling comment), but I feel that the concept is intrinsic to the spirit of the game/sport/hobby. As we are now receiving the Christmas entry of new GPS receiver owners, I thought it reasonable to raise the question - and everyone should vote - it's free. And if you really have to think about it.......maybe it deserves more discussion?

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum


Sure, hence my response.

And the lack of any linking...

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by crr003:

Exactly - a box with "geocaching" on the side would indicate a real sign of a valid cache. Now, you need to ask yourself one question - is it actually at the location specified, or maybe tossed out onto a path for anyone to find?


Another question to ask, is a cache without a specified location really a cache?

 

quote:
Do you claim the find? Did you really find it or are you accepting an easy questionable find?

To me, the requirements for claiming a find, and if a cache is too easy should you log it, are two different debates. Which one do you want to follow? icon_confused.gif

 

quote:
I've seen a claim for a find that found a speck of green paint at the location and the cache was documented as painted green.
Yea icon_rolleyes.gif, to me you should have found the cache(or what was the cache), and signed the logbook(unless impossiable like no log, or logs damaged).

 

quote:
All I'm asking for is the answer to the ultimate question - "If you don't sign the log book, is it a find?" icon_razz.gif

Thats like, "is the glass half full or half empty?" It just DEPENDS on how you look at it icon_eek.gif

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by welch:

quote:
Originally posted by crr003:

Sure, I know it's been discussed before (hence the no Markwelling comment), but I feel that the concept is intrinsic to the spirit of the game/sport/hobby. As we are now receiving the Christmas entry of new GPS receiver owners, I thought it reasonable to raise the question - and everyone should vote - it's free. And if you really have to think about it.......maybe it deserves more discussion?

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum


Sure, hence my response.

And the lack of any linking...

 

http://brillig.com/geocaching/http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/22008_1700.gif http://www.gpgeocaching.com/


 

Point taken - I guess I get bothered with polls that get many views and a small amount of votes. I'd thought of asking if it could be mandatory to vote when entering a poll thread. But then I realize some viewers might not feel happy or competent/experienced enough to vote on the topics raised. Maybe I should have added an "interested but just passing through - no vote" choice.

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by welch:

quote:
Originally posted by crr003:

Exactly - a box with "geocaching" on the side would indicate a real sign of a valid cache. Now, you need to ask yourself one question - is it actually at the location specified, or maybe tossed out onto a path for anyone to find?


Another question to ask, is a cache without a specified location really a cache?

 

quote:
Do you claim the find? Did you really find it or are you accepting an easy questionable find?

To me, the requirements for claiming a find, and if a cache is too easy should you log it, are two different debates. Which one do you want to follow? icon_confused.gif

 

quote:
I've seen a claim for a find that found a speck of green paint at the location and the cache was documented as painted green.
Yea icon_rolleyes.gif, to me you should have found the cache(or what was the cache), and signed the logbook(unless impossiable like no log, or logs damaged).

 

quote:
All I'm asking for is the answer to the ultimate question - "If you don't sign the log book, is it a find?" icon_razz.gif

Thats like, "is the glass half full or half empty?" It just DEPENDS on how you look at it icon_eek.gif

 

http://brillig.com/geocaching/http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/22008_1700.gif http://www.gpgeocaching.com/

 

Jeez Welch, this is getting far too complicated! That's why I asked for a vote! icon_smile.gif

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by welch:

quote:
Originally posted by crr003:

Maybe I should have added an "interested but just passing through - no vote" choice.

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum


 

Or maybe a "Don't know/Don't care" for those who can't decide.

 

http://brillig.com/geocaching/http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/22008_1700.gif http://www.gpgeocaching.com/


 

I think you and me are the only one's interested in this!

 

I sort of hoped the "Don't be judgmental - who cares about numbers?" would have dealt with this option.

 

Now it's up to 16 votes out of 136 views - pathetic!

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by crr003:

I think you and me are the only one's interested in this!

 

I sort of hoped the "Don't be judgmental - who cares about numbers?" would have dealt with this option.


Unless one doesn't know if they should be judgemental or not icon_razz.gif

 

quote:
Now it's up to 16 votes out of 136 views - pathetic!


Like I said, the number of view and the number of votes are going to be different. I've visited this page like 10 times now, but I already cast my one vote! icon_biggrin.gif

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by crr003:

Nah, sorry - if you don't sign the log book you don't claim it (IMHO)...


Oh yes I do! And that's not just my opinion, it's a fact! icon_biggrin.gif
quote:
Now maybe if the log is soaking wet and you can't physically sign it - I'd just add a piece of paper for a physical log (if I didn't have a spare log book). But then again if I wasn't sure I was putting the cache back in the original hider's position, I wouldn't claim it...

You evidently didn't read the part where I said these were destroyed caches. There was no intact container in which to put a new logbook! One of the caches had been run over by a bush hog mower. The tupperware container and contents were pretty well shredded. I did find the logbook, but I didn't sign it. I took it home and emailed the owner. He didn't want it and told me to just keep it or throw it away. I found just the weathered and faded out log page from the second cache (a micro). Someone had stolen the container and thrown the log page on the ground. I didn't sign it, either. What would be the point? I did find both caches, however, and that's why I logged them as found (along with the news they had been destroyed and plundered.)

 

Worldtraveler

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by worldtraveler:

quote:
Originally posted by crr003:

Nah, sorry - if _you_ don't sign the log book _you_ don't claim it (IMHO)...


Oh yes _I_ do! And that's not just my _opinion_, it's a _fact_! icon_biggrin.gif
quote:
Now maybe if the log is soaking wet and you can't physically sign it - I'd just add a piece of paper for a physical log (if I didn't have a spare log book). But then again if I wasn't sure I was putting the cache back in the original hider's position, I wouldn't claim it...

You evidently didn't read the part where I said these were _destroyed_ caches. There was no intact container in which to put a new logbook! One of the caches had been run over by a bush hog mower. The tupperware container and contents were pretty well shredded. I did find the logbook, but I didn't sign it. I took it home and emailed the owner. He didn't want it and told me to just keep it or throw it away. I found just the weathered and faded out log page from the second cache (a micro). Someone had stolen the container and thrown the log page on the ground. I didn't sign it, either. What would be the point? I _did_ find both caches, however, and that's why I logged them as found (along with the news they had been destroyed and plundered.)

 

Worldtraveler


 

OK, now it's getting interesting! - I've just had the experience of finding a cache obviously violated and no log book to be found - I put a piece of paper in as a temp. log book and signed it, but I couldn't be sure where to put the cache back so I put it somewhere close and emailed the owner. I didn't claim it as I actually did not find it at its published coords (But it was obviously the cache - it said it on the container) - talk about anally retentive! But that's just me. Hence the poll.

 

If you can sleep at night with your convoluted justification, so be it (just kidding icon_biggrin.gif)

 

It is a game and I'm just trying to highlight the complexities to the new players.

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Searching_ut:

Personally, I tend to forget, or not get around to posting finds on the web page more often than not. I always write in the log book though, and even take a pencil and piece of paper just in case.

 

The log book shows who was really there. Who cares what ends up on the web??????

 

Jeff


 

If a person has placed a cache and gone to the trouble of posting on the web page, surely you owe them the courtesy of a web log to let them know somebody has visited their cache?

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Searching_ut:

 

The log book shows who was really there. Who cares what ends up on the web??????


 

Who cares? The cache owner does. And just about anyone interested in searching for it. The on-line log give an indicator to others as to what condition it's in, or whether or not it even still exists. When I'm planning out a group of caches to go after, I'm far more likely to include a cache that I know has been found recently, rather than one that hasn't been found in many weeks, or one where the last few logs have been no-finds.

 

Even if your log consists of nothing more than "Found it", that performs a valuable service.

 

3608_1400.gif

Link to comment

I see no reason NOT to log a "found it" if I find the remains of a cache, and the owner confirms the rest of the cache is gone. The game is called geoCACHING, not geoLOGGING. To me, the CACHE is the focus of the search, not the logbook.

 

In 500+ caches found, I've only had a few cases of finding "part" of a cache.

 

I one case, I found a piece of container with "Geocaching.com" written on it. I logged a "note," and emailed the owner. It turned out the container was damaged, but still in its hiding place. I had just found a piece. I changed my "note" to a "not found." I then went back and found the entire cache, and logged a "found it" (leaving the previous "not found.")

 

In another case, I found the melted remains of a cache that had burned in a brush fire. All that was left were a few coins and a melted glob of plastic. I logged a "found it," because I found all that was left of the cache. The owner confirmed the cache was gone.

 

In one other case, I found the logbook, but not the cache. I signed the logbook, and rehid it as best as I could, and emailed the owner. Logged "found it."

 

It's just not all that common to find "part" of a cache, so I'm not sure what the big deal is. In my case, I have two "questionable" finds of "partial" caches out of over 500 caches found. I'm sure not going to lose any sleep over less than 0.4% of my finds being "questionable" to some other cachers.

 

ntga_button.gifweb-lingbutton.gif

 

[This message was edited by Web-ling on January 13, 2003 at 11:49 AM.]

Link to comment

Looks like I’ve been chastised for good reason. I’m embarrassed to say I hadn’t considered the cache placer in my thought process for logging finds. I recon you don’t really have to look very hard to see where that’s a fair bit on the rude side.

 

Show my revised thought process as still thinking it’s only a “Find”, if you actually open it an log your entry in the log book. A respectful geocacher will then log the appropriate “Find” or not on the webpage.

 

Jeff

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:

..........

It's just not all that common to find "part" of a cache, so I'm not sure what the big deal is. In my case, I have two "questionable" finds of "partial" caches out of over 500 caches found. I'm sure not going to lose any sleep over less than 0.4% of my finds being "questionable" to some other cachers.

 

......


 

There is no big deal - just a simple poll in which 85% of the participants think the log book is important. But the turn out of voters has been very poor - only 47 votes out of 27k members; maybe the weather kept them at home. icon_smile.gif

So it's probably not a very meaningfull result with such a low sample.

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

 

[This message was edited by crr003 on January 14, 2003 at 03:46 AM.]

Link to comment

I say that you should log the find, at the cache, or you didn't find it.

If there is a problem, like one cacher, who decided to visit this cache when it was -17ºC, so he could walk on the ice instead of swimming, but found that the log was a frozen block of ice. He put in a piece of paper in the box.

Allright, when the log has been refreshed, the cache owner (i.e. me) will transfer his note into the log, so that it contains the proper logs.

 

As you can see, I found it myself once, about 25 meters from the correct position. The box was intact. I just put it back, but if it hadn't been my own cache, I would have logged that as a "Find" (I did find the box, complete with log book) and mailed the owner, so he could go there and put it back in the proper position.

 

If I had found the lid of the cache container only, no book nor anything else, I would log as a "No find" and describe what I did find. Then the owner could go there and fix it, or disable it, if he preferred that.

 

Anders

Link to comment

I voted that you need to sign the logbook. icon_smile.gif

 

But I also have to add that if you find the cache and it is not possible to sign the logbook or leave a message on another sheet of paper, to me it still is a find.

 

Red and I found a cache that was full of water, the container was cracked and it was on the Wet side of the Cascades. We had already used up all the ziplocks and extra containers we had that weekend but we still claimed it as a find.

 

Another cache, All I found was the 3x5 cards used for the logbook. In a ziplock within several feet of the cache location, in a illegal garbage dumping area. I dropped something back into the logbook bag and stuffed the bag back where I found it and emailed the owner.

 

But on the other hand, I have logged a not found even when I have located the cache but as I hate getting stung, icon_mad.gif I left it till the freeze killed all those little buggers. icon_biggrin.gif Then went back and signed the logboook.

 

TTFRN, logscaler

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Anders:

..........

If I had found the lid of the cache container only, no book nor anything else, I would log as a "No find" and describe what I did find. Then the owner could go there and fix it, or disable it, if he preferred that.

 

Anders


 

OK - now we are widening the discussion - what constitutes a No Find? Probably should be another poll.

 

For me, the situation you describe I would log as a Note. It's not like I looked for the cache and couldn't find it (I've found part of it albeit maybe not at the coordinates intended). Maybe if it hadn't been trashed I would have found it, maybe not; but even I wouldn't be so hard on myself to log a No Find in this situation.

 

(Yes I know No Finds are "OK", and my therapist has explained this, but there's no point in proclaiming a failure if you don't need to, is there?). Now maybe failure is too strong a word.....(that's why I'm seeing the therapist icon_biggrin.gif).

 

Still, it's better than logging a Find icon_wink.gif IMHO

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

Who cares? The cache owner does. And just about anyone interested in searching for it. The on-line log give an indicator to others as to what condition it's in, or whether or not it even still exists. When I'm planning out a group of caches to go after, I'm far more likely to include a cache that I know has been found recently, rather than one that hasn't been found in many weeks, or one where the last few logs have been no-finds.


 

That's interesting. I agree that if the last few logs have been no-finds, there's hardly any point to going. On the other hand, if the cache hasn't been found recently, I'll often bump it up to the top of my list, just to check and see if it's actually there. I'd like people to do that for my cache.

 

Shannah

Link to comment

To me a find is signing the logbook. I can see in some circumstances where you could find the remains of a trashed cache and claim that as a find, but I would not do it without contacting the cache owner, describing exactly where I found it, where I thought the cache was originally hidden, and then only if he okayed it would I log it. I also think it is incumbent upon the cache owner to check the logbook in the cache periodically and see if people who logged it online actually put an entry in the logbook, or at least if they say they "forgot" to sign the book, then check and see if one of the geoswag items they left is in there or is logged as having been taken by someone else. The cache owner, in my opinion, always has the right to delete a find if the cache owner is sure it really wasn't a find. I had a log on one of my caches that said he found the remains of the cache. I went and checked, and the cache was still there and intact. I emailed the individual, and asked him to describe specifically where he "found" the cache. He was at the wrong end of the tunnel, about 500' away from the cache. I informed him that the cache was in fact intact and he did not find it, and he could either change his log to a not found, delete it or I would delete it. He chose to delete it.

 

This is a good topic, I would hate to see it get to the point where people were claiming "finds" based on driving to near where they think the cache should be.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BigHank:

...The cache owner, in my opinion, always has the right to delete a find if the cache owner is sure it really wasn't a find...


I agree. You might want to check the logs on your "See Rock City" locationless cache. At least a few people have logged birdhouses instead of the real barns your cache requires.

 

I'm openly biased against the principle of locationless caches, but I think falsely claiming a "find" on one sets a new "low" in the annals of geocaching. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

Worldtraveler

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BigHank:

...........

This is a good topic, I would hate to see it get to the point where people were claiming "finds" based on driving to near where they think the cache should be.


 

I'm pretty surprised it has gone smoothly (so far) - just a small off topic bit on logging on line (which is important though). I thought there would be more comments from the "numbers don't matter" contingent.

 

I didn't think there would be any votes for getting close; I was just filling up the choices. icon_smile.gif

 

Still, would have thought the total votes would have been higher.

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

I couldn't care less about my number of finds vs. no find. I think the fun of caching is that you get to see a lot of different places, which you probably wouldn't have seen, if it wasn't for the cache.

 

Then it's fun if you do find the cache, but if not, well...

There is a cache not too far from where I live. I've been there a couple of times, but couldn't find it. I know it's there, because others have found it in between my visits.

But the place was very nice (an old water-powered sawmill), so I enjoyed it anyway. There are other caches to find.

 

I checked my own ratio of found vs. not found, and realized that it's exactly two to one right no (56 found, 28 not found).

What's yours?

 

Anders

Link to comment

I have the situation right now of looking for a cache, knowing I'm at the right spot because of all the tracks but still haven't found the actual container so I have not claimed it.

 

I found out that it was moved a 'little bit' because of the traffic so I guess I'll have to revisit the area and try again.

 

"The hardest thing to find is something that's not there!"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Anders:

I couldn't care less about my number of finds vs. no find. I think the fun of caching is that you get to see a lot of different places, which you probably wouldn't have seen, if it wasn't for the cache. ... I checked my own ratio of found vs. not found, and realized that it's exactly two to one right no (56 found, 28 not found).

What's yours?


 

763 finds / 7 (ultimately) not found; approximately 99%. icon_smile.gif

 

There were 22 caches I didn't find the first try and succeeded finding on my second attempt.

 

I agree 100% that most of the fun is derived from visiting interesting places I might not have visited otherwise.

 

My choice in the poll was #1 - found the cache, signed the logbook (or provided the verification information.)

Link to comment

Well, we are fairly new at this sport, but are completely hooked. I guess, as a newbie viewpoint, I would say that a FIND can be verified, by a description of the cache itself. This description could be parts of it, or the entire cache. The Cache Hider can verify if the Find is correct or not... much like is done with a Virtual Cache. I really feel that is someone claims a find that is NOT verifiable, then it is the responsibility of the Hider to contact that Cacher, and suggest they attempt their quest again.

 

Also as newbies, we've noticed that MANY actual Cache Logs have more entries in them, than on the website. Not all people log them online. I can't really understand why they wouldn't other than being distracted, or having technical problems, but that's their choice. I mean, no one gets a Million Dollar Prize for finding the most caches, so numbers really don't matter, other than personal ego (ours included icon_cool.gif).

 

Oh, and this poll isn't very clear. I had a hard time distinguishing just how to vote. I actually could have voted in two categories. Yes, ideally, it is best to sign the log to clarify a find, but if we only found CONTENTS or REMNANTS of an obvious (and if it wasn't obvious, we'd contact the hider before claiming it found) cache, we'd probably claim that as found too.

Link to comment

Regarding finding the suspected remains of a cache, that's still a no-find.

 

Here is a good example, the August 18 log specifically. The cacher found a container near the coordinates, which matched the description of the cache. He even sent photos to the cache owner (and me, on my request. since I was the last finder, I felt somewhat responsible for the state of it), and even from the photos, it sure looked like the cache was trashed. They did log it as a no-find, even tho all circumstantial evidence showed that they did probably find it.

 

But, as the logs show, it was NOT the cache, nor the container.

 

----------

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be also be like him.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Last Lap Gang:

........

Oh, and this poll isn't very clear. I had a hard time distinguishing just how to vote. I actually could have voted in two categories. Yes, ideally, it is best to sign the log to clarify a find, but if we only found CONTENTS or REMNANTS of an obvious (and if it wasn't obvious, we'd contact the hider before claiming it found) cache, we'd probably claim that as found too.


 

Oh, I'm sorry. I would have hoped the first choice was considered the "ideal" and those below it less than "ideal" (my ideal). So in your case as described, choice 3 would be the selection.

 

I've sent off for the "Beginner's Guide to setting a perfect poll", but it hasn't arrived yet. icon_biggrin.gif But seriously, I've thought of variations on the choices too - and I'm sure others have.

 

I hope this won't detract from your geocaching pleasure in the future icon_wink.gif

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

........

763 finds / 7 (ultimately) not found; approximately 99%. icon_smile.gif

 

There were 22 caches I didn't find the first try and succeeded finding on my second attempt.

............


 

Just a question as you are a obviously a major league player - how do you decide to finally log it as a Not Found? Sounds like you give it two attempts and then log it NF.

 

My philosophy has been if I give it a good search on the first attempt and can't find it, I log it NF. Subsequently if I find it on another visit I leave the original NF and add a Found log.

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

Signing the log is the criteria I use, with an IF. If, for some reason, the log is missing or it is impossible to sign, I would still count it as a find as long as I found the container.

 

I found the log and contents of one of my caches encased in a large block of ice recently. Someone had left the lid off, it filled with water and froze. No way I'd expect someone to have signed that log.

 

Regarding Azog's note a few posts above, he's right. Don't always be so sure you found the cache. The link he posted was to one of my caches. It is in a small white plastic container hidden in a stump. A cacher found an empty small white plastic container next to a stump and sent me a photo. Things didn't look good, so I went to check it out and found my cache intact. But about 30 feet away, I found the container and stump that were in the photo.

 

"Paternalism is the greatist despotism" - Emmanual Kant

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Anders:

I couldn't care less about my number of finds vs. no find. I think the fun of caching is that you get to see a lot of different places, which you probably wouldn't have seen, if it wasn't for the cache.

 

Then it's fun if you do find the cache, but if not, well...

There is a cache not too far from where I live. I've been there a couple of times, but couldn't find it. I know it's there, because others have found it in between my visits.

But the place was very nice (an old water-powered sawmill), so I enjoyed it anyway. There are other caches to find.

 

I checked my own ratio of found vs. not found, and realized that it's exactly two to one right no (56 found, 28 not found).

What's yours?

 

Anders


 

You're correct - getting out and seeing things is important; it's the reason I started Geocaching - it gave me a reason to get out there.

 

The 'Powers That Be' included a "Found It/Didn't Find It" choice on the log page. I'm just trying to see if there is any consensus on the forum as to what constitutes a "Found It" selection.

 

35 Finds, 2 No Finds (one of which would have been logged as Find by some members)

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

 

[This message was edited by crr003 on January 17, 2003 at 03:46 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

Signing the log is the criteria I use, with an IF.

If, for some reason, the log is missing or it is impossible to sign, I would still count it as a find as long as I found the container.

 

I found the log and contents of one of my caches encased in a large block of ice recently. Someone had left the lid off, it filled with water and froze. No way I'd expect someone to have signed that log.

 

_"Paternalism is the greatist despotism" - Emmanual Kant_


 

I was making the assumption that if the log book was physically incapable of being signed (wet, full, missing) the cacher would substitute with a new log book or a piece of paper. I guess the idea is to leave some proof you were there.

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by worldtraveler:

quote:
Originally posted by BigHank:

...The cache owner, in my opinion, always has the right to delete a find if the cache owner is sure it really wasn't a find...


I agree. You might want to check the logs on your "See Rock City" locationless cache. At least a few people have logged birdhouses instead of the real barns your cache requires.

 

I'm openly biased against the principle of locationless caches, but I think falsely claiming a "find" on one sets a new "low" in the annals of geocaching. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

Worldtraveler


 

I had deleted a few of the "bird house" finds on that one.... will have to go and delete more of them I reckon now. icon_smile.gif

 

I don't mind locationless caches (obviously, I have two of them), or virtuals, or micros or letterboxes or any variation as long as it requires you to travel to a destination and find something.... to me, that is the idea of geocaching and the variety of types of caches gives everyone a chance to participate...not everyone can climb mountains, ford rivers and hike for two days to find a cache; and for me personally, variety keeps things interesting and suits my moods...some days I feel like going out and hiking and looking in the woods for a cache, and other days I feel like riding around and seeing historical markers in areas I've never been before....but that is me, one of the beauties of this sport/hobby/game/addiction is that everyone can do the types of caches they like to do, and there's no rules saying you have to "sign up" to do any certain kind. Anyway, thanks again for the reminder to get rid of those "bird houses."

 

BigHan

Link to comment

I am new to the hobby, but I feel if there is some way to PROVE you found a cache, whether you signed the log or not (due to conditions or missing)

 

One good way is to post on the web what you LEFT in the cache. You can then tell if someone else posts that they took the item you left, that is obvious proof you were there, whether or not you signed a logbook.

Link to comment

All but one of my finds were also in the physical logbook (virtual caches excepted). In my one exception, I found an empty container within 30 feet of the posted cooridinates--I then went the .15 miles back to my car, found what trade items plus logbook I had rolling around in the back seat, and replenished the cache, then emailed the cache owner.

 

Think Globally, Act Locally

 

MnGCA-Button.gif

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...