Non Loggers

[+The HERB5]

I gave a non-caching work colleague the details for Masquerade (GCBF82) to see if they could find it; this one is found without the use of a GPS.

 

He recognised a GPS in the hand's of strangers and his kids went straight up to them and said 'Have you found it?', they said 'yes'.

Out of interest I looked for their visit log but there wasn't one.

 

Similarly, I have a TB which has been moved between 2 caches but again no logs, but the logbook was updated.

 

Is this usual/common ?

 

PS I know where the TB came from and intend to log the mileage before moving it on. Is this correct ?

[+mongoose39uk]

Not that unusual. I know one of my friends visits caches but never logs them online.

[+Alibags]

Likewise, one of my friends does as well. He only used the web to locate caches to find.

[+McDeHack]

This I cannot understand. Are these people shy? Or maybe they just want the fun of finding the caches. Puzzeled??

[+mongoose39uk]

The guy I know is a colleague of another cacher, just adds to his walks. not hat interested in caching, more in orienteering.

[+Gary & Jane]

Is this usual/common ?

Out of the 1089 finds on our currently active caches, 961 were logged online and 128 were not. This gives 11% of finds not logged online. Does anyone else have any figures for their caches?

[+Flackadder]

Possibly not shy or anything. Just can't be bothered I expect. Not in a bad way, more of a 'that takes time' sort of way.

[+klaus23]

My girlfriend has a gc.com account and was initially very keen on logs and sharing photos, but now she just enjoys the diversions and walks in nice places and doesn't bother with the logs at the end of the day. She's never really given a reason for the slight change in practice, but I guess she finds the whole write-up thing tedious, and finds it's best left to me.*

 

*while she's off cooking after the day's walking (*ducks*)

 

 

(edited for spelling)

Edited April 26, 2005 by klaus23

[+Renegade Knight]

Where I've noticed it, it's about 40% in my area who do not log online at all.

[Dave from Glanton]

Possibly not shy or anything.  Just can't be bothered I expect.  Not in a bad way, more of a 'that takes time' sort of way.

This may sound a bit hypocritical cos I'm not a paid-up member of GC.com but just using the site to find caches but not logging finds seems like a case of far less give than take.

Even if you use the site as a free member, logging cache finds and sharing your stories at least gives something back to the caching community. Getting feedback from finders (and DNFs) through logs is all part of caching for me, and certainly a big incentive for planting a cache in the first place.

Besides, if you've got the time to go traipsing around looking for a cache, can it really be that inconvenient to spend a moment logging the cache - even if it's just a TFTC out of courtesy?

[+Bill D (wwh)]

Gary & Jane wrote:

This gives 11% of finds not logged online. Does anyone else have any figures for their caches?

Last year there was a similar thread in the general forum. I checked my logbooks and found that around 14% of the finders hadn't logged online.

[+Learned Gerbil]

She's never really given a reason for the slight change in practice, but I guess she finds the whole write-up thing tedious, and finds it's best left to me.*

 

*while she's off cooking after the day's walking (*ducks*)

 

 

(edited for spelling)

Edited by whom?

Edited April 26, 2005 by Learned Gerbil

[+The Forester]

I've got about a dozen locationlesses which I've bagged in the sense of having taken the photo, but haven't ever got around to booking online.

 

If I could learn how to become obsessed by numbers and passing century milestones, I might be more conscienscious about keeping my tally up to date.

 

Of course, all that may change if the moratorium on locationlesses is lifted....

Edited April 27, 2005 by The Forester

[+Alibags]

I don't know why my friend does not log his finds, but he infrequently does caches when he is travelling around for work, as something to fill in the time when he is waiting around. I personally think that logging finds (and indeed DNFs) is the reward for the hard work of the cache setter, as well as providing them with useful feedback. However, we all play the game differently, I guess.

 

I have also discovered that my colleague in the USA has found, but not logged caches, when out snowboarding or mountainbiking, and the caches were not the major reason for him being out there.

 

Finally, I was telling another colleague about SP's cache 'Military Intelligence' and as he lives nearby and owns a GPS, he set off to find it. He found it, but as far as I know did not sign the log, and did not log it online. To him it was just a curiosity, but nothing to get interested about. Mind you, he plays golf, which I find completely inexplicable!

Edited April 27, 2005 by Alibags

[+bargee]

I am hampered by regular access to a computer previously as i don't own one and can only access at work and that depends on the length of lunch hour wether i log a visit quickly enough.

some visits made on thursday or friday night then are not logged until tue or wed the next week as and when i can.

logging on in mufti

[+pieces_of_8]

Yep i've a friend to who has only logged 2 caches though he's done more... one in Cuba no less. He now seems to think that it's too late to log them because they were a while ago.

 

Mart

 

Yes i'm talking about YOU John Mc

Edited April 27, 2005 by pieces_of_8

[+lathama]

i have a mate who does this also. he aint shy he just didnt feel comfortable by giving his email address when registering

[+Pieman]

Last time I checked one of my caches (been there a year) there were no finds not logged on line. Having said that, another one of my caches has a TB in it according to the listing which is no longer there and whoever took it didn't sign the log either.

[+spindlewood]

Logging a cache, gives information to other cachers relating to the cache 'find rate', also it's existence, at the log date at least. Not logging, whilst always up to the individual, simply means that the geo-caching game/sport is not being played as intended. Like playing football and not counting the goals scored! Often done and acceptable in certain circumstances, but not the true game.

[+sTeamTraen]

Well, at least people who don't log online can't be accused of being in it for the numbers.

[+spindlewood]

Yes you are right and the same would apply to footballers.

[+klaus23]

 

(edited for spelling)

Edited by whom?

LMAO

 

In my defence, she's in Bristol at the moment, while I'm sitting here in Galway, Ireland... this once, I'm not under the thumb.

 

However, she was reading this thread last night and was not impressed.

 

Anyway, back to the subject...

 

A good example I know of a non-logger is a geocacher here by the name of Kyle. He's a good friend of Donnacha's, and a veteran hillwalker and member of the Wicklow Mountain Rescue. He has visited most of the caches in the greater Dublin and Wicklow area, but never logged them, because he just was not bothered.

 

Lately, having become more and more involved in the community, he's logging his caches after visiting them, and is stopping by caches previously visited to sign the book again and register the find on the website. So for him, it was the community involvement that got him to pay greater attention to the logging side of things.

 

I'll throw out two reasons why I think people may not log online. One is that they might want to, odd as it does seem, preserve their anonymity. They can browse gc.com all they want, visit caches and never have to tell anyone. Some people are just like that, and I respect their wishes and attitudes.

 

Another one is that you may find people may be poor spellers or consider themselves no good at doing even a small writeup. My own brother, Johnny Cache is a good example. His spelling is fine, but he's just not bothered in writing more than two or three lines. I also think that occasional threads along the lines of "better logs please, TNLN just won't do" do more harm than good, as people who might already be considering giving up logging could see this aimed at them.

 

Personally I find it very easy to write lengthy logs - providing the cache visited merits one, as I have been writing prose, poetry and short stories since I was young, and have had a reasonable amount published. But I can also see (if my own hypothesis has a degree of truth in it), why people may not want to.

[+Pengy&Tigger]

I don't understand why people don't log online, even if it's just a short one. At least it helps keep track of which ones you had found. If you didn't, the same ones would show up on your searches all the time.

 

T

[+Kitty Hawk]

I've done a locationless without bothering to log it, didn't even bother to take the photo!

[+Firth of Forth]

I've got about a dozen locationlesses which I've bagged in the sense of having taken the photo, but haven't ever got around to booking online. 

 

If I could learn how to become obsessed by numbers and passing century milestones, I might be more conscienscious about keeping my tally up to date.

 

Of course, all that may change if the moratorium on locationlesses is lifted....

You also did this virtual cache, emailed to claim your find in February, were given permission to claim the find and never logged it on the cache page.

Edited April 27, 2005 by Firth of Forth

[+Gary & Jane]

I'll throw out two reasons why I think people may not log online. One is ... Another one is that you may find people may be poor spellers or consider themselves no good at doing even a small writeup.

Surely even the worst writer can manage "Thanks for a great cache. TNLN." which is better than no log at all. Cache owners don't get much reward for placing a cache. The least you can do is log your visit online to thank them.

[+klaus23]

I'll throw out two reasons why I think people may not log online. One is ... Another one is that you may find people may be poor spellers or consider themselves no good at doing even a small writeup.

Surely even the worst writer can manage "Thanks for a great cache. TNLN." which is better than no log at all. Cache owners don't get much reward for placing a cache. The least you can do is log your visit online to thank them.

Easy, Tiger.

 

It's a hypothesis, not my own opinion. And you left out two other points I made - a) anonymity and shyness, not to mention these threads about "short logs".

 

And at the end of the day, if they don't have to log, then it's their choice.

 

I agree with what you are saying - I also think that people should log their finds on the website, but what's the point in getting excited about it?

[+Pharisee]

In a recent log on one of my caches, the finder said that the logbook was full and needed replacing. So I duly went up the hill and replaced it. Out of curiosity, I checked the entries in the book against the web logs.

The g.com cache page shows 26 'found it' logs... there are 30 entries in the log book.

Of the four 'un-logged' logs (if you understand what I mean ) one is an obvious find by a 'muggle'. One is a 'this is my first cache and I'm so excited' log (obviously too excited to log it on the cache page). One is a log by some friends of a finder who logged properly. The fourth could be either a muggle or a cacher, very difficult to say which. So 4 out of 30... that's about 13% of finders not bothering to log on the cache page for one reason or another.

[+Firth of Forth]

oops

Edited April 29, 2005 by Firth of Forth

[+Firth of Forth]

I've got about a dozen locationlesses which I've bagged in the sense of having taken the photo, but haven't ever got around to booking online. 

 

If I could learn how to become obsessed by numbers and passing century milestones, I might be more conscienscious about keeping my tally up to date.

 

Of course, all that may change if the moratorium on locationlesses is lifted....

You also did this virtual cache, emailed to claim your find in February, were given permission to claim the find and never logged it on the cache page.

Happily, the find is now logged.

[markandlynn]

I've got about a dozen locationlesses which I've bagged in the sense of having taken the photo, but haven't ever got around to booking online. 

 

If I could learn how to become obsessed by numbers and passing century milestones, I might be more conscienscious about keeping my tally up to date.

 

Of course, all that may change if the moratorium on locationlesses is lifted....

You also did this virtual cache, emailed to claim your find in February, were given permission to claim the find and never logged it on the cache page.

Happily, the find is now logged.

Thats a great log had quite a smile when i read it.

[+The Forester]

Thats a great log had quite a smile when i read it.

Thanks.

 

I would have filed the log on the 7th of December last year if I'd been allowed to by the owner. but the rules of virtuals are very clear that it's not legal to file a find without confirmation from the owner that the find has been correctly reported.

 

The GC.com guidelines state:

Although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries

 

They also say:

The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was really there.

 

I went to considerable time and trouble to comply with the requirements and eventually, after very long delays, the owner relented and fell into compliance with the obligation to respond to one (only!) of my inquiries.

 

It's a good virtual cache and one which I'd recommend to anyone who has a half hour or so to spare in that part of Edinburgh. It's also a very good example of why there is sometimes a case to be made for a virtual instead of a traditional cache.

[+Firth of Forth]

Thats a great log had quite a smile when i read it.

Thanks.

 

I would have filed the log on the 7th of December last year if I'd been allowed to by the owner. but the rules of virtuals are very clear that it's not legal to file a find without confirmation from the owner that the find has been correctly reported.

 

The GC.com guidelines state:

Although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries

 

They also say:

The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was really there.

 

I went to considerable time and trouble to comply with the requirements and eventually, after very long delays, the owner relented and fell into compliance with the obligation to respond to one (only!) of my inquiries.

 

It's a good virtual cache and one which I'd recommend to anyone who has a half hour or so to spare in that part of Edinburgh. It's also a very good example of why there is sometimes a case to be made for a virtual instead of a traditional cache.

I'm pleased that The Forester enjoyed this virtual cache. It's a shame that he has to, yet again, bring into the public domain his differences with me.

 

I have not accepted private emails from him since the end of last year, and he knows this, and those of you who are regular readers of this forum will understand why. So, unless he unchecks the box "I want to send my email address along with this message" when he sends a message through g.com, his message will be rejected. I have informed him of this.

 

The only email claim for this virtual that I received was in February, and I immediately responded and told him to log his find. I did not know why he chose not to, and having reminded him, the log is now done. I can only presume that any other emails he sent to claim his find included his own email address.

Edited April 29, 2005 by Firth of Forth

[markandlynn]

Oh Dear.

I now regret complimenting what is or was a very good log about somewhere i am due to spend a weeks holiday in.

I am sure most people are aware of the undercurrents between FoF and The Forester i would personally prefer as has been requested before that these discussions are not carried out on these forums.

[+Firth of Forth]

Oh Dear.

I now regret complimenting what is or was a very good log about somewhere i am due to spend a weeks holiday in.

I am sure most people are aware of the undercurrents between FoF and The Forester i would personally prefer as has been requested before that these discussions are not carried out on these forums.

I agree absolutely; somehow it keeps getting dragged up again.

 

Good to hear that you are coming to Edinburgh, which has wide range of very good caches. I'm sure that you will enjoy them. Look at Haggis Hunter's profile for bookmark lists suggested cache trails.

Edited April 29, 2005 by Firth of Forth

[+mongoose39uk]

Oh Dear.

I now regret complimenting what is or was a very good log about somewhere i am due to spend a weeks holiday in.

I am sure most people are aware of the undercurrents between FoF and The Forester i would personally prefer as has been requested before that these discussions are not carried out on these forums.

I agree absolutely; somehow it keeps getting dragged up again.

 

Good to hear that you are coming to Edinburgh, which has wide range of very good caches. I'm sure that you will enjoy them. Look at Haggis Hunter's profile for bookmark lists suggested cache trails.

Never mind, give it a few weeks and you can join the friendly crowd in Manchester for an evenings caching and drinking falling over water.

 

In peace without any undertones

 

Cheers

 

Tony

[+Firth of Forth]

Looking forward to it Tony. I even have dispensation from Pengy & Tigger to find Spectrum Violet!

[+mongoose39uk]

Looking forward to it Tony. I even have dispensation from Pengy & Tigger to find Spectrum Violet!

No you cant be doing that I have been trying to cheat on that for days

[+Haggis Hunter]

Good to hear that you are coming to Edinburgh, which has wide range of very good caches. I'm sure that you will enjoy them. Look at Haggis Hunter's profile for bookmark lists suggested cache trails.

Yes please do.

 

Edinburgh's options 1 - 5 are all intended for the tourist without transport. I have also put together a list of caches that can be done by car, although I still haven't finished updating all of the parking co-ords.

 

I hope that you find them of use.

[+Cave Troll and Eeyore]

The only one i haven't logged online is the virtual for getting waas/egnos lock.

I finally got full lock and 6ft accuracy last Saturday and now the bloomin virt has been archived so i can't claim it after all.

[+Kitty Hawk]

If you can find the cache page, every else has carried on logging it reagrdless of it's archived status.

 

I did the same, got the signal, took the photo, looked for the page, it had gone, deleted the photo and found the page with it's unofficial activity.

[+Stuey]

If you can find the cache page

GCAE38. I wouldn't feel right logging it myself.

[+Cave Troll and Eeyore]

We found the page yesterday but if anyone tries to log it they get THIS message.

[+powerbook_fanatic]

Looking forward to it Tony.  I even have dispensation from Pengy & Tigger to find Spectrum Violet! 

No you cant be doing that I have been trying to cheat on that for days

Ho ho ho !

 

I'm GONNA watch that, but you two have to do it seperately to add to the fun.

 

I'll choose some pubs on that basis.

 

And YES it did take me 4 visits (well 4 and a half but that's another story) and at least two supportive clues from P & T.

 

Malcolm - the Powerbook Fanatic

[+Firth of Forth]

Ok Tony, you just have to follow me to the cache now!

 

Thanks for offering to organise a drinkies venue Malcolm.