Jump to content

False Log Information!!!!


Recommended Posts

Here is the scenario: I am after a cache that is listed as a micro and the hint is, "You don't have to leave the sidewalk to find this one". I get to the site, a bus stop, open the Palm and read the last few logs (all 'found' entries I might add). One says, left a golf ball and took nothing. The next log entry says "The cache is pretty full so I took the golf bal." Reading this I begin a search for a container large enough to handle a golf ball, in other words, I quit looking for a micro. That only leaves a bush and a light pole in arms distance from the sidewalk, that could house a cache that could house a golf ball. I didn't find it in either place. I left the area (we were in the area on a small vacation), and logged a DNF when we got home. Then I wrote to the cache owner for info about the cache, so I could learn from the experience. Nothing heard so I then wrote the last geocacher that found this cache. He wrote back, 'oh, that is our signature'. He went on to explain that the cacher before him was his wife and that is how they log caches they find, as two separate entries. She signs that she leaves a golf ball and he signs that he picks it up. Now my questions are:


1. Should I get over it?


2. Should the cache owner edit the log since it could NOT be true (the cache is a magnetic thimble?)


3. Should the husband and wife team be told not to do this?


4. Should this be allowed as a reverse spoiler, ha, ha got me!


5. Suggestions ___________________________



Link to comment

Well , I vote for #1 , you should probably just get over it , it is not uncommon for a husband and wife team to have two seperate accounts . And if that is how they choose to log as there "signature" then I see nothing wrong with it . You had a choice stick to what the discription on the cache page told you or to follow assumptions based on the log entries. Sometimes log entries are purposely deceptive. We all just hate to log a DNF but we all learn from the experience.



Link to comment

I agree, you'll probably have to resort to #1. But you know...it is downright deceiving to say she put a golf ball in it when she didn't. Signature or not. She should also not log that she found it if:


1) she helped hide it


2) he told her where it is.


Goes to show...people will do just about anything for a smiley. I see similar stuff in other hobbies I have where there is a tally to be made. :) Frustrating. You learn over time who the honest ones are.


I would make the husband aware that these logs can be misleading. Then it's up to them to decide whether they want to continue logging caches like this.


Very true. It just may never have dawned on them that someone would use that information to try to deduct the size of a cache.

Edited by Birdsong-n-Bud
Link to comment

The golf ball TB is a good idea.


As a cacher who has often used the posted logs to help in finding a difficult cache, I can understand your frustration. I don't think the team is malicious, but maybe directing them to this thread would help them understand how their logs can be misleading. And, they may not care - people play this game in all sorts of ways, and sometimes people hunt caches in ways that impact other cachers or the cache owners - and it really doesn't matter to them.

Link to comment

I'd forget it and move on.


I understand your frustration, but don't really have strong feelings about the golf ball drop/take myself, so if it was me I wouldn't bother sending a note to the previous finders. I've seen lots of instances where somebody will drop a TB at a micro and somebody else will pick it up, and in most cases you can tell its just people caching together and swapping bugs at a cache without the TB ever really being left there. If you relied on the log entries and saw TB activity, you might be misled into thinking the cache was bigger than it actually was. I don't see anything wrong with this as long as they are being accurate with the TB logging.


edit: typos

Edited by cache_test_dummies
Link to comment

I'd say #1 but I agree with others, you might just gently let them know that it kinda messed up your hunt. I don't think it's cool myself, but I try not to get too hung up on how others play the game. I think if you mean to put something facetious in your logs it ought to be REALLY obvious. Like this log for a micro smaller than a film canister:


"Took 42" LCD HDTV Left Pocket Lint & a can of Tomato Soup" I chided him for leaving food in a cache.


Or my log for a really tough, bushwacky hunt :

"Took beautifully landscaped moving sidewalk under enclosed mosquito netting and followed the neon Burma-shave signs to the day-glo yellow cache resting on a silver platter. Long hike, but the drink cart came by twice, driven by a 21 year old Hooters girl. The salted pork is particularly good!"

Edited by Spencersb
Link to comment
She should also not log that she found it if:


1) she helped hide it


2) he told her where it is.

Why not? In case 1, she has no other recourse since the site doesn't allow you to ignore caches or allow multiple cache owners. In case 2, "the group caching" case, only one person generally finds a cache in a group but everybody signs the log and logs a find online. This is totally acceptible in my book.


As for the original poll, I'd say #1. Don't believe everything you read in logs. I thought the log entries were cute.



Edited by Marky
Link to comment
Your only hope for sanity is to go with #1. But I'd be mighty tempted to send a note to the husband and wife politely suggesting they turn their "golf ball" into a personal TB.

If I was to receive a note suggesting that my log entries were somewhat deceptive, I might take offense at first, but then logic and reason would prevail and I'd reassess my methodology.


I might use an object for my "game" that didn't lend itself to size judgments - "I left a cog" or "I left a ball bearing" or even "I left a grommet".


Heck, a grommet can fit in even the smallest caches!



January 23, 2005 @ 3:35 PM

N40°46.565' W073°58.756'

Link to comment

OOPS!!!!! I'm the wife and the offender. Just to clarify a few things....


My husband and I cache separately on occasion. I signed the log. He DID NOT tell me where it was.

The rest of the story is......

When I opened the car door, a golf ball fell out and was in the gutter. When we were leaving the location, my husband picked it up. That is what happened. This is not our signature. The cache is a micro. I wasn't trying to throw anybody off or ruin anyone's vacation.


The cacher e-mailed my husband and this is his reply to them.


Oops.......sorry about the golf ball thing. Shoebugs is my wife and anytime she logs finding the glow in the dark golf ball, I log that I took it. I'll tell her not to do that again, but she doesn't listen to me much.

Happy Caching,


Just to keep the peace. I deleted my find from this location. I don't have a numbers problem. We apologize again....publicaly.


By the way...

This all started when this cacher e-mailed both of us separatly, wanting to know where some caches are out here that they couldn't find. Not hints....just the details. THEN...they start this stuff AFTER he told them where it was. How kosher is that?????

I forwarded the inquiry that I received to the cache owner. He said that he had heard from these people before.


Thanks to those of you who have come to my rescue. This was not a malicious statement...just in fun.

Link to comment

I give you a lot of credit for coming clean and publicly apologizing, since wornout was kind enough not to identify you in his thread! And you certainly deserve to relog the find.


It's obvious from your post that there was no malicious intent, and that you learned something from the experience (that others may look to your logs for clues, so you should make it obvious when you're kidding around). I can see why wornout would have been frustrated that he was mislead by the logs, even though that's not what you intended.


Most people would say it's not kosher to ask for the details on exactly how to find a cache, however, wornout said he'd left the area and asked just to learn from his experience. Assuming that he won't be returning to "find" these caches, I don't see a problem with asking. Of course, with nearly 2 years experience and 692 finds, I'm surpised wornout felt the need to ask - he seems like he's pretty experienced already. But even if he does return and claim those finds, he's only cheating himself (it shouldn't matter to anyone else how many finds he has).


Which brings me to what most people have recommended in this thread: time for everyone to get over it and get back to having fun geocaching!

Link to comment

My vote is number 1. Now you know the logging style of a team. You also know to take a log with a grain of salt. Which is what you should do.


No way no how would I want to give up logs like those mentioned in this thread just for the sake of having to tell it exactly like it is. We would soon live in a world of TSLS or TNLN. Both of which are true enough and boring as hell.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

I think it's funny - if you read the logs in advance of searching for a cache - you've got to take the good with the bad.


One cache I hid - I mentioned I was leaving a "shirt" for a FTF prize. It was a micro and the shirt was actually a WG$ folded up to look like a shirt (I wish I still had that website where I found the instructions for folding it like that!).


You don't want to be mislead? Don't read the logs before you find the cache!

Link to comment
I think it's funny - if you read the logs in advance of searching for a cache - you've got to take the good with the bad.


One cache I hid - I mentioned I was leaving a "shirt" for a FTF prize.  It was a micro and the shirt was actually a WG$ folded up to look like a shirt (I wish I still had that website where I found the instructions for folding it like that!).


You don't want to be mislead?  Don't read the logs before you find the cache!

Don't forget Lep's hilarious log for a reststop micro where he camps out and has to ski to get to the cache, then gets run over. That'll throw off people!

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
...  It was a micro and the shirt was actually a WG$ folded up to look like a shirt (I wish I still had that website where I found the instructions for folding it like that!)....

Try this site.

The shirts are preaty cool.


thanks for the link.


My son is taking one to school for show n' tell Monday. :)


Just to stay on topic, I'm still going with #1

Link to comment

I would suggest getting over it for your own sake, but I would certainly email the couple as well as the cache owner and inform all parties that the bogus logs caused you an inconvenience.


If it were my cache I would delete their entries and their find from my cache just to cause them some irritation.


It's a karma thing, not that I believe in karma.

Link to comment
I've logged that I needed a rope and grappling hook for a cache. Was that wrong?


The cache was just hard to find, it didn't really need the "specialized equipment", but in context with the cache page it's funny.


This is funny too...but only if you can find the cache. The log is a paper shred (like from a shredder!)

Link to comment
I suggest you guys read the entire thread before posting, not just the opening post. (Well, provided you read this post...)

A good suggestion indeed.


Deleting logs 'cause you don't like 'em? Bizarre. Changing your search methods based on the size of the container inferred by a finder's log and not the hider's explicit information. Foolish. There are many virtual caches that have had TBs pass through them - Impossible :wub: Actually not - people pass things hand-to-hand quite often.


Besides, the information on the cache page says the logs may contain spoilers. For you this was more literal than anyone could have ever expected.:o:wub:


The apology, although quite classy, was entirely unnecessary. Write what you want.


You're now a more experienced cacher. Maybe you should send a thank you note.

Edited by pdxmarathonman
Link to comment

I actually thought the log was amusing. I normally don't read the logs before I hunt a cache, unless I'm having problems. If the owner listed it as a Micro...that's what I'm looking for, even if someone said the left a football in there.


El Diablo

Edited by El Diablo
Link to comment
The apology, although quite classy, was entirely unnecessary. Write what you want.



Caching at your own risk includes inferring things posted in notes. Stick with the formally posted information on the cache page and stop blaming others when looking for extra hints from previous cachers.

Link to comment

I would say get over it and learn a leason. The logs are not an offical part of the cache and what ever someone says is up to them. I drop and then retived a 19 inche tall gnome from a cache. Would he fit in the contaier NO but I could have give folks the impression it was a large contaier when it was not. Yes the logs are helpful sometimes but dont really up on them. The main part of this sport is how devious folks can be in placing a find.


Link to comment

Maybe i missed where this has been brought up above but on the cache page it states right above the logs that there may be "spoilers" present in the logs. Seems to me that could go both ways, making it either easier or harder to find the cache. In other words, dont depend on the logs for totally reliable information. :wub:


The reliable source of information was in the cache description where the owner stated that it was a micro. Yes, the owner could be offbase with his description but i would think that most people would call it right about the size of the container they had placed!


Number 1 is your best bet,, you're definitely taking this stuff too seriously!!! :o

Link to comment
This (now archived) cache had a requirement that you tell a lie in both the physical log book and the online find log.  It was a lot of fun.

So you are required to lie, and you are saying it was a lot of fun. Are you really saying that it wasn't a lot of fun? :sad:


edit: typos. No, no typos. I didn't edit anything. Or did I?

Edited by cache_test_dummies
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.

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.

  • Create New...