Jump to content

When People Don't Log Their Finds


Recommended Posts

The only time it gets on my nerves when people don't log the caches is, 1) don't log travel bugs out of the caches they found, but did not log online. 2) didn't report that a cache needs maintenance bad, even well maintained caches sometimes have accidents. 3) When a person who searched for a cache and is 99% sure the cache is gone, but doesn't log their concerns. (I have been guilty of not logging DNF's, usually I feel that it wasn't missing, but I couldn't find it because of my own stupidity, but that is no excuse) :laughing:

Link to comment
(briansnat @ Mar 28 2005, 01:18 PM)

Without the feedback that comes from online logs, I doubt that I'd be so enthusiastic about placing caches.

 

You hit the nail on the head, briansnat!

I'm sure I've moderated a bit, but I want to see logs (even if it is only TNLN - which is a whole 'nother subject), and some Sunday nights I just wait and wait and the logs never come....(I have a solution: I "watch" some caches up in the city that our team has out - up there a week never goes by without logs. Down here, months go by, in the winter) A year ago I was considering closing my caches because of sparse activity - I'm over that now, but I like to see logs.

 

Then again, I like to watch Names. When a brand new cacher comes around I usually send a small encouraging email. When SerenityNow logs one, I cheer. I'm just waiting for The Leprechauns, or Jeremy....or inlove6.gifHydee!inlove6.gif

Link to comment
I don't care if people are tardy in their logging, my point is that the system doesn't work if you don't log at all. I stick by my "rude" comment.

The "system" of logging online was not even part of the original game of geocaching. It came later on. You wrote in the logbook and optionally emailed the cache owner. I fail to see how people playing the game the way it was originally conceived and intended could ever be thought of as rude.

Then I assume you don't look at past logs to determine whether or not to go seek a cache...

 

And you would assume correct. As a rule I also do not read the cache descriptions either. I plot out coords on a map, pick an area that looks like it will contain the types of caches I'm interested in doing that day, decide what looks like good parking coords for each cache, and go. I manipulate the waypoints before loading them in my GPS so I can tell cache type, size, and difficulty/terrain rating right in the GPS and that's what I start with. I do carry a PDA, and if I can't find the cache I will try reading the description. In extreme cases (usually after an hour of looking) I may decrypt the hint.

Those people who are saying there is no need to log your finds/dnfs online are basically saying:

 

1) I will use *your* information to help me decide which caches to seek.

2) I will NOT help you out by providing the same information.

 

Does that seem fair? Not to me. Am I trying to force anyone to log, no. If you don't log fine, but I don't have to agree with your attitude. Do I care that there are people who are uncomfortable with computers and they don't log. No, not at all.

See, that's the problem with assuming everyone is the same as yourself. You're often wrong.

1) I Don't use "your" log to find the cache.

2) My caching partner DOES log her finds online quickly, and since we always cache together, you will get the the same essential info. You are only "missing" my retelling of the same log.

Link to comment

:rolleyes:

I wouldn't call someone rude for not logging a find on Geocaching. I expect there may be a lot of reasons, I just don't agree with them. Again, how would you like it if you hiked 10 miles with an elevation change of 10,000 feet thinking the cache has not been found and when you finally find it someone signed the cache log a week ago? Yes, it may not be a written "Rule", but let's all stop logging on the computer and see where the game goes! :laughing:

Link to comment
Again, how would you like it if you hiked 10 miles with an elevation change of 10,000 feet thinking the cache has not been found and when you finally find it someone signed the cache log a week ago?

 

Arriving at a cache thinking you'll be the first only to find out that somebody has already signed the log is a part of the game. So is going to a cache to see if you can grab a YJTB or a Geocoin or some other TB only to find out somebody has already grabbed it but not yet logged the grab.

 

But in response to your question, if I had just hiked 10 miles with an elevation change of 10,000 feet I think I'd be pretty pleased with myself regardless of what I found at the cache. That's a great hike :laughing: ! Later, when I logged my adventure online, I'd be sure to mention that I had hoped to be first, but somebody beat me to it.

Link to comment

As a cache owner I place caches intended to make you smile, either by taking you somewhere nice, or with one of my quirky containers/locations. I certainly smile back when I get to read your online log, but it doesn't detract from my day if you don't.

As a cache seeker I always try to keep up with my online logs. Like others have already noted, the amount of my effort is usually comparable to the effort put forth by the cache owner, but I'll still log it. I have yet to find a cache that didn't deserve at least a TNLNSL.

I just swapped out a full log sheet from one of my micros, and every single physical log was also logged online (except for two young kids who have accounts that their parents maintain for them). That seems to be the trend here. I'm not aware of anyone who doesn't log online, or is a ghost/parasite. I found a fairly old cache a few weeks ago that had a few names in it I didn't recognize though, and one physical log from an acccidental finder.

I wonder why other areas experience these situations more than we do here?

Link to comment
There are poeple who don't log. I think its rude. If someone takes the time, effort and expense to place a cache, the least someone can do is tell the owner they found the cache and enjoyed the hunt.

No. "The least someone should do" is follow the published rules of the game.

 

The FAQ linked on the geocaching.com homepage lists the following "rules" for cache finders:

 

1. Take something from the cache

 

2. Leave something in the cache

 

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Online logs are not mentioned on that list, much less anything that would suggest that cache finders are obligated to write (in the logbook or online) logs that heap(perhaps unwarranted) praise upon the cache or stroke the ego of the (perhaps undeserving) cache owner.

 

Fortunately, cache owners interested only in hearing how wonderful their cache was, even when it wasn't, appear to be few in number.

So everyone that TNLN is in violation of the RULES, There are NO rules, just guidelines. People can do what they want to a point. Logging finds is an easy way to keep track of what you have and havent done. Some folks just do one or tow finds a year or lifetime so it is NO big deal to them and probable more of an incovience.

As far as I know there is nothing that says your have to log you find or DNF.

cheers

Link to comment
Without the feedback that comes from online logs, I doubt that I'd be so enthusiastic about placing caches.

You hit the nail on the head, briansnat!

I agree that I like the online logs, but I know that some people are uncomfortable with writing things online. The number of these are low enough as not to really be an issue. My brother has been caching with his kids on occasion but hasn't to my knowledge logged any of the finds online.

 

When I do cache maintenance, I read through the physical log book and get my positive reinforcement from the finders that haven't logged their finds online. I am perfectly fine with this.

 

The only case where I say it would be greatly appreciated is when there is an issue with the cache that needs my attention.

 

--Marky

Link to comment
So everyone that TNLN is in violation of the RULES ...

Apparently so. I suspect that in the near future, a Congressional Hearing will be convened to investigate the matter.

 

I agree that rules are not guidelines and guidelines are not rules. That argument is moot, however, because the word used in the FAQ entry is "rule."

 

Here is the full entry from the FAQ:

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

 

2. Leave something in the cache

 

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Where you place a cache is up to you.

Link to comment

I know of some people who cache and sign logs, but don't do online logs because they wish to remain anonymous. Take the example of wil wheaton he still caches but does not log online there are many who cannot log online or they would get deluged with e-mail. Now as a cache owner I do like feedback on my caches however to get upset because someone does not tell you "hey I found it" is kinda childish, and I think that there are some really petty compaints on the forums this should not be one to worry about. most cachers will log online it's just a few that have their own personal reasons to just log in the field.

Link to comment

I am finding a growing trend not to log online. When I check my caches these days, I generally find about 3 logs in the field for every 2 that were logged online. I miss hearing about your adventures. Who you were with, why you decided my cache was worth your visit, what it was like when you found it etc..... There are valid reasons for not going online, I understand that but I sure do like reading your stories and knowing you were there. Some of my caches go months between internet logs but onsite I find 4 - 5 visits. I know, I can read the logbook later (assuming the muggles don't get it) but I like getting the emails too. Nothing worse than no online log and a TNLNSL in the logbook with no signature.

Edited by StarBrand
Link to comment

hmmm....I thought that the log book was the be-all end-all.

 

are you saying that cache owners never refer to the physical log for reference?

 

If people don't want to log online, so what? Now, when they stop posting their hides, that will be a bit difficult.

Link to comment
The "system" of logging online was not even part of the original game of geocaching. It came later on. You wrote in the logbook and optionally emailed the cache owner. I fail to see how people playing the game the way it was originally conceived and intended could ever be thought of as rude.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...dpost&p=1184334 :)

 

i get plenty of logs on my caches that if some choose not to log their find online, i'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Link to comment
The "system" of logging online was not even part of the original game of geocaching. It came later on. You wrote in the logbook and optionally emailed the cache owner. I fail to see how people playing the game the way it was originally conceived and intended could ever be thought of as rude.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...dpost&p=1184334 :)

If Jeremy says it's rude then it must be so. icon_rolleyes.gif I just don't share that opinion.

 

I own caches, too but I don't hide them just to see what people write in their online logs. I could care less if finders fail to log their finds online. I can read the logbook if I feel the need that sort of validation. I hide caches to for other cachers to find in return for the caches that they hide for me to find.

Link to comment
I know of some people who cache and sign logs, but don't do online logs because they wish to remain anonymous.

 

How can you get any more anoymous than hiding behind screen names like Starbrand, Norbu, and ChinCache, etc...?

Most cachers aren't hiding very well.

It took me under 60 seconds to find Starbrand's (the first name on your list) full name, home address, po box, home phone #, and more (like he was raised on a farm NW of Morrill), based just on "starbrand", "Nebraska" (where he has most of his finds) and "geocaching". I remember a forum thread a few years ago where people tried to guess where other cachers lived based strictly on plotting their finds. If I remember right, often people came pretty close.

Link to comment
i'm currently almost 50 caches behind in my logging because if i'm not disposed to sitting down and making a good log, i wait until i am. it's a project, because i like to write a log worth reading.

 

I, too, like to leave an intelligent log. That's not exactly the reason I'm logging Thanksgiving's finds now, but I do find it worth it to leave an intelligent, well-thought-out log.

Link to comment
... and more (like he was raised on a farm NW of Morrill),

No I wasn't.......... :laughing:

 

Makes me wonder how good the rest of the information you "found" is.....

 

Also since I design web pages and own an Internet hosting company that also taglines my user name - I was probably a lot easier than most would be.

 

Also I am the president of our local geocaching group and a member of the executive council for Nebraskache - that gets my name out a lot more than most.

 

If I wanted to hide behind a user name it would be quite easy. (sock puppet account etc....)

Edited by StarBrand
Link to comment
i'm currently almost 50 caches behind in my logging because if i'm not disposed to sitting down and making a good log, i wait until i am. it's a project, because i like to write a log worth reading.

 

I, too, like to leave an intelligent log. That's not exactly the reason I'm logging Thanksgiving's finds now, but I do find it worth it to leave an intelligent, well-thought-out log.

And procrastinating helps this how??? :laughing:

 

I find if I don't log right away I forget everything...

Link to comment
I know of some people who cache and sign logs, but don't do online logs because they wish to remain anonymous.

 

How can you get any more anoymous than hiding behind screen names like Starbrand, Norbu, and ChinCache, etc...?

Most cachers aren't hiding very well.

It took me under 60 seconds to find Starbrand's (the first name on your list) full name, home address, po box, home phone #, and more (like he was raised on a farm NW of Morrill), based just on "starbrand", "Nebraska" (where he has most of his finds) and "geocaching". I remember a forum thread a few years ago where people tried to guess where other cachers lived based strictly on plotting their finds. If I remember right, often people came pretty close.

Only because he made no effort to hide his real name and associated it with his geocaching name. If you make up a geocaching name and link it to a throw away Hotmail account and don't use that name for anything else, it will be difficult to find out who the person is.

Link to comment

Since a few are going off on tangents here, I'll go half-tangent and say I don't like another side of this thread topic: when people don't sign the physical log but log a find online. I've been tempted sometimes to write a note about it with their name in it for all to see, but I haven't.

Link to comment

You know, I think the biggest reason is laziness. I know there's a local cacher who went to one of my caches months and months ago (he's the only person we've ever caught at it in 54 finders) and he hasn't logged my caches yet.

 

He just 'hasn't gotten around to it' - nevermind that there's a program where you just put in your gc number and say thanks and it will automatically log your caches for you.

 

At least he signs the log books. lol.

Ironically, he's top 15 in the world. Not counting a couple hundred caches he needs to log.

Link to comment
...when people don't sign the physical log but log a find online.

The log is a form of proof of the visit. If there is no proof, then the online Found It log should not stand.

I just can't see going that far. Physical logs get stolen with amazing regularity around here. For more than a few the online log is all there is of their visit because the cache owner is never going to have the pleasure of reading the physical log. So long as you found the cache you should be good to go. I'd trust you for example if you said you found the cache but the log was full/wet/no pen/ etc.

Link to comment

:ph34r:

Repeat, repeat, repeat----------what if everyone did not log on line? Where would this leave the game? Come on folks, you know the answer. Don't log on line if you don't want to. Maybe you can be the first to help flush geocaching down the tubes. No logs on line, no cache pages, no TBs (cause you have to log them too), no meeting other local geocachers, no geocaching period. Get real! :D

Link to comment
I'd trust you for example if you said you found the cache but the log was full/wet/no pen/ etc.

A very prominent cacher logged a find on a cache of ours and claimed it was missing. Was I to just trust them on that? Good thing we didn't because it was there and still is to this day.

 

So where do you draw the line? Somebody going out and not leaving or taking proof of the visit because the log is wet? A person who seeing the logbook is wet from a previous log claims to go out and find, but didn't?

 

I read a while back about a "friend" of a poster tht would look around for caches that went missing and claim a find with a note to the effect "sorry I'm logging so late." I guess they figured no one would call them on it. Who's to say they didn't find it because the log is gone?

 

I don't care if someone doesn't log one of my caches online, but I'll be damned if I'll let someone lie and claim a find on one of my caches they don't deserve. There really little excuse for not signing a logbook. We've been round and round with this before. Don't give me the log is wet. We've peeled half frozen wet logs open to leave our mark. A log book is never to so full you can't put your name somewhere on it. Tough doot you forgot your pen. You truly run into a situation where you can't sign the log, leave something unique or take a pix. Barring that, let it go, it's just a number.

Link to comment
I don't care if someone doesn't log one of my caches online, but I'll be damned if I'll let someone lie and claim a find on one of my caches they don't deserve. .... Barring that, let it go, it's just a number.

Let it go, it's just a false "find" in a sport where the numbers do not matter. :)

Link to comment
I don't care if someone doesn't log one of my caches online, but I'll be damned if I'll let someone lie and claim a find on one of my caches they don't deserve.  ....  Barring that, let it go, it's just a number.

Let it go, it's just a false "find" in a sport where the numbers do not matter. :)

No. Scruples and mores, apparently, are a little more important to me. I won't allow someone to use me or anything associated with me as a mechanism to cheat if it's within my power to prevent it.

 

While numbers aren't important to many people, there are those who find it important. Groups constantly celebrate milestones and compare themselves with others. It is for those people that I keep my caches' online log accurate with a count of those who wish to participate in an online count.

 

It is, partially, the reason "numbers don't matter" because ensuring online logs are valid is probably the most overlooked aspect of cache maintenance. As per The Guidelines, it is your responsibility to "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

 

So, no, I won't let it go. Logging in a physical logbook in order to claim a find is a basic element of geocaching. I'm not going to sit by and let the basic game get diluted. It is your duty and responsibility as a cache owner to delete, or at least question, false logs.

Link to comment
...So where do you draw the line?  Somebody going out and not leaving or taking proof of the visit because the log is wet?  A person who seeing the logbook is wet from a previous log claims to go out and find, but didn't?...

Until we have tournament rules the line is up to you as the owner. If you couldn't find my 1/1 I'd probaby trust you on that and go to replace it. If you coudln't find my 4/3 I'd wonder and probably go check it. Either way if you didn't sign the log (as opposed to wet, no pen etc.) I'd know.

 

Then again I said I'd trust you, I know your character (as well as you can in a forum). Someone else I've never met I wouldn't. I've had an 800+ finds mega cacher blow through town and log a DNF and rant about how it's not there. Wrong.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

Have seen a trend lately where the physical log is noted (name/date/TFTCSL) with little or no comment BUT the finder is generous with comment in his online log . . . the feeling seems to be that owners do not often see & read physical logs and they are only proof of the find, if there is a question BUT the owner does see the online log and can be encouraged & informed there, readily.

 

All-in-all, this seems a good trend, saves physical log space & time in-the-field for more caching . . . yep, more numbers, too!

Link to comment
It is, partially, the reason "numbers don't matter" because ensuring online logs are valid is probably the most overlooked aspect of cache maintenance. As per The Guidelines, it is your responsibility to "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

Friend, I agree with your point of view on this. Completely.

 

However, I will not be "damned," on a crusade, or holier-than-thou in hunting down "cheaters." My opinion is that attitude is taking it too far.

 

I am quite dilligent in stopping by my caches and checking their condition and logs. I'm probably more dilligent than most cache owners in this area, since I tend to make my rounds about once a week. Indeed, it is for this reason that I've "capped" myself on a low number of caches, so that I can maintain their quality. I believe in taking the time to recon an area, carefully choose the cache location, and make it fun and appropriate.

 

If I find what is a "false claim," I address the issue; I ask nicely to please remove the log. I'll allow some time for a reclamas, and in the absence of a good explanation, would delete the log. Yet, if things got "ugly," then I'd let it go, since to keep the sport friendly, I would rather "let it go" than continue my crusade of spreading my particular caching morals.

Link to comment

However, I will not be "damned," on a crusade, or holier-than-thou in hunting down "cheaters."  My opinion is that attitude is taking it too far. 

Amen, H.O.T. brother! This IS just a game afterall. Who are the cheaters really cheating? They aren't cheating me, you, or anyone other than themselves. While the "rules" of geocaching say to log your find, the "idea" of geocaching is exploration and adventure. If their idea of exploration is to search GC.com for caches to log artificially, then so be it. C’est la vie!

Link to comment
However, I will not be "damned," on a crusade, or holier-than-thou in hunting down "cheaters." My opinion is that attitude is taking it too far.

I'm not going around hunting down cheaters. I'm simply talking about upholding my responsibilities as a cache owner, something others obviously take lightly. If everyone took their responsibilities a bit more serious then the whole hobby would be better off.

Link to comment
Have seen a trend lately where the physical log is noted (name/date/TFTCSL) with little or no comment BUT the finder is generous with comment in his online log . . . the feeling seems to be that owners do not often see & read physical logs and they are only proof of the find, if there is a question BUT the owner does see the online log and can be encouraged & informed there, readily.

 

All-in-all, this seems a good trend, saves physical log space & time in-the-field for more caching . . . yep, more numbers, too!

I don't know that its a trend. I've pretty much done that since the beginning. At the cache site I'm often dealing with mosquitos, bad weather, muggles or whatever that makes my log brief. I usually wait until I log online to write something more lengthy.

Link to comment

I just had this situation come up a few days ago. My daughter went caching with friends of ours and they found two caches. She logged our name in the log book. I had to decide if I wanted to log it online and decided against it. My main reason is that I have personally been to every cache we have found and it just didn't feel right. She got the pleasure of signing the Log book log and doesn't care if I log it online or not (She is 10).

I guess we all have different reasons for doing what we do.

Link to comment

There have been about 10 - 15 caches that I have not logged the find, not out of protest or spite.

 

But purely because I lost the details of what caches I found that day :huh: and cannot even guess!

 

I often log caches 1 - 2 weeks after the find, so trying to pinpoint the occassional lost one is very hard.

 

:lol:

Link to comment

I can tell you that there are many many caches that I have found that I wont bother to log online.

 

I always log caches that I enjoy, or it was clear that the hider found a nice spot for a cache, or put some effort into it. I drop lots of new cache cameras, log books, extra swag, do cache maintenance, post online photos, etc for quality caches. I want to reward good hides as much as possible. I always log DNF's too, even for lame caches.

 

As an established cache snob, I protest lame caches by not logging them online. Caches poorly hidden en-masse, in garbage dumps, ugly locations, or any other reason that makes me ask myself "Why are they inviting me here? This was a waste of time." don't deserve the satisfaction of my online log. My log would not be positive anyways, so I suppose it's better that I say nothing.

 

Since the numbers are not important to me either.... no log!

 

Did not mean to derail this thread into a lame cache debate... Just answering why I dont log so many caches..

Link to comment
I wonder if the people who don't log their finds are the same people who leave the caches nearly uncovered, or poorly disguised, since they won't be known as the person who last visited the cache.

 

Sounds a lot like you are saying "Anyone that doesn't dress, act and believe like me must be my enemy!"

 

I don't log many caches anymore - I have maybe 1100 logged and ~300 that I didn't log - it really depends on my available time and interest. I will almost always and effusively praise great caches, caches that have some outstanding feature or experience.

 

If I don't log a cache it's probably because I'd rather spend that time I would spend logging out chasing the next one!

 

If I DON'T like a cache for some reason I will log that, as well as a complete explanation - dangerous, illegal, muggled, whatever, and try to help the cacher fix the problem. I've only had to do this on maybe 6 caches so far!

Link to comment

I really don't have a huge problem with people not logging their finds. Sure, I love to hear from those that found my caches, but that is not why I placed them. It sure does incourage me to place more though. However, if someone doesn't want to log the find, so be it.

All in all, it is a game, and if someone wants to play it slightly different thats okay with me.

Link to comment
I really don't have a huge problem with people not logging their finds. 

YEAH I now what you meen i did not have a problem with it at all till about a month ago (you too will find out in time) "my case in point" 1. have a new log book get filled up in just under about a week if that and then not being told about it!!!

 

2. and then I want down to check on my cache ( due to no one had loged it in a month and that i was getting the report of the log book being full) and to find out it was

TRASHED!!! and the only thing that i found to know that at lest some geocacher there. was a log that was inside the cache saying " had fun time nice cache too bad muggles don't know how to treat a cache this cache might need to be checked on!!) and thats the only log i got!!!

hum that looks more like somthing i need to get a email or at lest loged online about not just a log in the cache about it and never got

 

thats why cachers need to log there finds online it both helps the cache owner know whats going on and keeps the game fun

 

chuck

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...