Logging multies you did not find

[+TomToad]

Yesterday, I spent a considerable amount of time searching for the final of a multicache that is probably missing http://coord.info/GC2339F . I figured it must be there since the last 3 cachers had found it. Unfortunately, because of the length of the description, the actual logs were not downloaded into my GPSr, so I couldn't see what they said, only the status of the find. Even if I did have them, I most likely wouldn't have read them for a while to prevent spoiling the cache. When I got to Wi-Fi access to log my caches for the day, I read the previous logs and discovered that only the first of the 3 found the final. The next person found stage 2 broken and on the ground, which he replaced where he thought it might've been, but he couldn't find stage 3. The cache was actually last found 3 months ago, not 2 weeks ago, like the log status would make you believe.

 

So I logged a DNF and even pointed out in my log that the last 2 were not really finds just in case the CO didn't actually bother to read the logs and assumed the cache was alright due to the smilies. Now another cacher has just posted a find, but in his description posted that he couldn't find the final after 30 minutes.

 

This isn't the only multicache I've seen this happen to. I realize people post finds on other types of caches just because they spent 3 minutes searching the "correct" spot or they solved the difficult puzzle, but it seems multies attract more of these. I guess they think that since they actually found a physical container, even though it is just one stage, then it counts as a find. I have even seen one CO in his description telling people to post a separate find log for every single stage of a multi (a cache I still want to find, but I am only going to post 1 find when I sign the final).

 

So what is everyone's take on this? Am I wrong and this is actually acceptable behavior? Am I right and these logs are creating unnecessary confusion for future cachers and COs?

[+team.evanczik]

I guess my only issue with this is whether it's a smiley or a sad face on the log! If you didn't find the entire thing, it should be considered a DNF, however frustrating that is. However, if they wrote long posts detailing what they found/didn't find, the condition of the caches, etc, then that's totally appropriate. It's a good idea to let the next cacher know what to look out for, especially on those long multi-caches.

[RKip]

Because I bookmark my DNF's that I feel I might return to, I became aware of a similar problem, for Traditional caches. In two specific cases, I found very distinctive cache remains. In both cases I felt confident that I did not simply "not find" the cache, but rather found what remained of a destroyed cache (posted photos in both cases). After making a "Need Maintenance" log entry, I looked forward to these caches being replaced and I could return for another search. Some time later, because they were bookmarked, I received alerts that the caches were logged as FOUND.

Over time, both these caches have been logged multiple times (as found) and the "finders", in most cases, made note that what they had found was the remains and not an actual cache. So, they did find (as did I) "the cache", or what remained of it, but not as originally placed (and since there was no log... nothing was signed).

 

Are their finds legit? Everyone plays their own game.

 

Along the same lines, I recently had a cacher e-mail me for help on finding one of my caches. Because this cache had a reputation for being quite hard to find, I sent him very detailed help, along with a photo. When he responded after his second visit, he told me the cache was missing.

Because I no longer live in the area and couldn't replace it, I had to archive the cache. Being confident he had actually made the visit (twice) I told that cacher he could make a "found" entry. I know I've had the same offer made to me under very similar circumstances, and I believe that I probably took them up on the offer (don't really recall for sure).

 

Looking in the "Golden Book Of Rules to Live & Geocache By", Rule 1254, it clearly states, "... see Rule 14,0003", which states, "see Rule 219", which states...

 

P.S. Both the mentioned caches are still active and neither has had a acknowledgment log entry made by the CO's.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I guess my only issue with this is whether it's a smiley or a sad face on the log! If you didn't find the entire thing, it should be considered a DNF, however frustrating that is. However, if they wrote long posts detailing what they found/didn't find, the condition of the caches, etc, then that's totally appropriate. It's a good idea to let the next cacher know what to look out for, especially on those long multi-caches.

 

Quite often I'll find the first stage of a multi, discover that the finale is in the opposite direction I'm traveling and then sometimes find the finale on another day. To me, that's neither a Find nor a DNF, and I'll often point a note log describing my experience at preliminary stages.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Some geocachers do not understand that, in order to log a find on multi, they need to find the final.

With the nature of this game, the only answer I see is to read the logs, and hope that people have logged their experiences properly. Yes. That may give you spoilers. That's the trade off.

[+madmomma72]

I was out one day learning to use the GPSr, and just kept hitting "next cache" and it took me to a multi that I didn't know was a multi. So I found the one that the coords took me to, and when I got home to log, I realized I hadn't found the other part of it. I posted a note to the effect that I found one but wasn't aware of the other, and that I hope to make it back to find the other so I can log the find.

 

In my mind, it's important to play the game as fairly as possible...that to me means making it as challenging as the owner intends it to be...if it's a multi, the owner expects cachers to find every stage of it, otherwise why would that person bother? If it's a puzzle, figure it out...the closest cache to me is a puzzle and I still don't have it figured out because I know nothing about species of fish, so it's going to take me longer than someone with good knowledge of the kinds of fish in Wisconsin, but that's up to me to learn and then use what I learn to then try to solve the puzzle. I'm kind of stubborn, too, will spend more time than I should finding caches and it's hard for me to give up.

 

IMO. YMMV

 

mm72

[+briansnat]

From my experience it is usually newbies who don't know better who log finds on stages of multis.

 

As for logging finds on regular caches after "looking in the right spot" and not finding it, those are usually numbers hounds who won't walk away from a hunt without another smiley. Sometimes they go as far as throwing down a cache of their own on the spot and calling it a find.

 

No, I don't think most geocachers think this stuff is acceptable and yes it can create confusion.

Edited November 15, 2010 by briansnat

[+KBLAST]

I just had a case where a new person posted a "found it" on my tree climbing multi cache, and in their log, they said, "found the first stage - lots of fun!" I wrote them and congratulated them on their find, then explained that the log should have been a note, not a found it, because they didn't find the final. I then kept the following responses in case it ever comes back to bite me in the future:

 

Her response:

Thanks for the congrats.

 

The found-it says we found stage 1. It is just a log of what we completed, so I think it will work just fine. If we have time to go back in the future and climb some more trees, we may do so. If not, that is cool too.

 

My response:

Actually, found-it logs on multicaches are reserved for people who have completed the multicaches. Notes are there for people who want to track their progress or comment on partial finishes. As the cache owner, I agreed to Groundspeak guidelines which ask me to delete any found-it logs where the physical logbook was not signed. You can simply edit your log and change it to a note, or I will have to delete your log altogether.

 

I understand you are new to the game... I'm just trying to help you understand the multicache side of it.

 

Have a great day!

 

Her response:

you can delete it. Its a silly game... calm down. The world is not ending.

 

My response - I deleted the log. Some people just don't get it, and don't want to.

[+JesandTodd]

From my experience it is usually newbies who don't know better.

 

My experiences have been opposite...I see veterans logging trash and calling it cache remains, logging finds on missing caches because they were, "at the coords", using throwdowns, etc, etc...

[+JohnnyVegas]

Yesterday, I spent a considerable amount of time searching for the final of a multicache that is probably missing http://coord.info/GC2339F . I figured it must be there since the last 3 cachers had found it. Unfortunately, because of the length of the description, the actual logs were not downloaded into my GPSr, so I couldn't see what they said, only the status of the find. Even if I did have them, I most likely wouldn't have read them for a while to prevent spoiling the cache. When I got to Wi-Fi access to log my caches for the day, I read the previous logs and discovered that only the first of the 3 found the final. The next person found stage 2 broken and on the ground, which he replaced where he thought it might've been, but he couldn't find stage 3. The cache was actually last found 3 months ago, not 2 weeks ago, like the log status would make you believe.

 

So I logged a DNF and even pointed out in my log that the last 2 were not really finds just in case the CO didn't actually bother to read the logs and assumed the cache was alright due to the smilies. Now another cacher has just posted a find, but in his description posted that he couldn't find the final after 30 minutes.

 

This isn't the only multicache I've seen this happen to. I realize people post finds on other types of caches just because they spent 3 minutes searching the "correct" spot or they solved the difficult puzzle, but it seems multies attract more of these. I guess they think that since they actually found a physical container, even though it is just one stage, then it counts as a find. I have even seen one CO in his description telling people to post a separate find log for every single stage of a multi (a cache I still want to find, but I am only going to post 1 find when I sign the final).

 

So what is everyone's take on this? Am I wrong and this is actually acceptable behavior? Am I right and these logs are creating unnecessary confusion for future cachers and COs?

Well I think that the technical term would have to be stupiditcus maximus

[+TomToad]

Well I think that the technical term would have to be stupiditcus maximus

I'm not sure what you meant by that. Not being familiar with that term, I googled it. Seems the meaning is people who micro-manage something to the point where they create bigger problems than they are trying to solve.

 

If that is what you are saying to me, then I can assure you that is not the case. I normally don't care what other people do, I just play the game my way and not be concerned. Once in a blue moon, I search for a recently found traditional, just to find out later that the last find was really a DNF. I just chalk that up to being part of the game. But this happens with regularity with micros. So much, that I can't reasonably rely on the find status alone. I am forced to read the logs to make sure those smilies are legit, or face the possibility of wasting my time quite often. That changes the way I play and therefore becomes a concern of mine.

 

This is a real shame because it puts a damper on what is normally my favorite cache type.

 

I think I also need to clarify part of my OP. The cacher who allows multiple finds on his multi doesn't really bother me. There is ample warning in the description that there will be multiple smilies from the same person, as well as a caveat that no find can be posted until all the stages are found. I only brought that cache up as evidence supporting my theory that cachers think finding any physical stage should count as a find.

[+team.evanczik]

I'm kinda curious why you're so oppposed to reading through the recent logs. Are a lot of people in your area posting detailed "spoilers" in their logs? I honestly can't say I've ever run into reading a log that ruined the cache for me. I've definitely forgotten to read the logs, gotten to the cache, and then realized that I should have noticed the 10 DNFs before me, though!

[+TomToad]

I am not opposed to reading cache logs. There isn't a huge problem with cachers posting detailed spoilers, even though it does happen on occasion, but even some vague descriptions could lessen the experience. For example, one cache I found, the description warned to be careful of fire ants. When you reached the cache, you discover it is hidden in a huge fire ant. If I read the cache logs beforehand, I would read about people jumping at the sight of the cache, and even one that poked it with a stick to make sure it wasn't real. Even though none of the posts mention exactly what the container was, it wouldn't take much to put two and two together, thus lessening part of the experience.

 

In the case of the multi in the OP, one cacher writes she was afraid of touching the final because she has "squishyphobia." Since the cache description is about a bird named Squishy, I now know the final is cammoed with birds. In this case, it is ok because I DNFed the cache and now was searching the logs specifically for spoilers, but if I read the logs before searching, then the surprise at the end would be ruined.

 

Thing is I want to be able to read the logs when I want to read the logs; whether it be before I hunt, in the field, or when I get home to log my find or DNF. What I'm opposing is people who make it more difficult for me to make my own decisions by posting inaccurate logs.

[+familycachefinders]

Wow, I didn't know Squishy was so popular. I never read forums... I guess I should start. This cache is mine. I went out there this weekend because of Toms log in November. I know-it took me long enough...... but, when I got there, stage one was there and ok. Stage 2 is there and also ok, Stage 3 coordinates were off about 20', but in fairness to me, it is a big red birdhouse. It measures about 16"x16" about 5 foot off the ground in a pine tree. Sure you may have to look a little bit for it, but it is still there exactly like I placed it about a year ago. It isn't even behind any foiliage, just hanging there on a tree.

 

I'm not sure what this issue is with the "finders". I posted a warning to them two weeks ago that if their name wasn't on the log that it would be deleted, and they can email a description of what is in the final container if they actually did find it. I'm sure some of you will call this micro-management, but when it affects other honest cachers like Tom, then the situation needs to be resolved.

 

I commend you Tom for doing the right thing. I don't read my logs as often as I should or this would not have happened. For that I am sorry. Sometimes work gets in the way of the important things in life:)

 

Cache On!!!

[AZcachemeister]

I've seen it.

Most notably when the CO put a logbook in each of the stages.

[+chuck4564]

Yesterday, I spent a considerable amount of time searching for the final of a multicache that is probably missing http://coord.info/GC2339F . I figured it must be there since the last 3 cachers had found it. Unfortunately, because of the length of the description, the actual logs were not downloaded into my GPSr, so I couldn't see what they said, only the status of the find. Even if I did have them, I most likely wouldn't have read them for a while to prevent spoiling the cache. When I got to Wi-Fi access to log my caches for the day, I read the previous logs and discovered that only the first of the 3 found the final. The next person found stage 2 broken and on the ground, which he replaced where he thought it might've been, but he couldn't find stage 3. The cache was actually last found 3 months ago, not 2 weeks ago, like the log status would make you believe.

 

So I logged a DNF and even pointed out in my log that the last 2 were not really finds just in case the CO didn't actually bother to read the logs and assumed the cache was alright due to the smilies. Now another cacher has just posted a find, but in his description posted that he couldn't find the final after 30 minutes.

 

This isn't the only multicache I've seen this happen to. I realize people post finds on other types of caches just because they spent 3 minutes searching the "correct" spot or they solved the difficult puzzle, but it seems multies attract more of these. I guess they think that since they actually found a physical container, even though it is just one stage, then it counts as a find. I have even seen one CO in his description telling people to post a separate find log for every single stage of a multi (a cache I still want to find, but I am only going to post 1 find when I sign the final).

 

So what is everyone's take on this? Am I wrong and this is actually acceptable behavior? Am I right and these logs are creating unnecessary confusion for future cachers and COs?

 

The trouble with Squishy is that the coordinates for stage three are off by 50-100 feet. Despite numerous comments in the logs about it, the CO has declined to make a change. An argument in the COs favor is that many people have found it.

 

I routinely log DNFs for multi-caches where I didn't make it all the way to the final. In some cases it means I didn't find a preliminary stage and sometimes it means I found all the preliminary stages but didn't find the final. In some cases I'll post a note. I tend to use the note approach when something interrupts the caching adventure other than my failure, such as darkness, rain, other obligations...

 

I have posted finds for cases where I have found cache remains. I have done so when the items found were clearly cache related. In one case the CO requested that I change my found log to a note. In that particular case the CO had already been there and cleaned up most of the remains, and unknown to me, archived the listing.

 

In general, the found logs are better left to those instances where the final is found and the log signed. Creating found logs for unfound finals doesn't appear to be particularly useful.

[+DanOCan]

Yes, those sorts of logs cause confusion.

 

I normally filter out caches in GSAK if the last three logs are all DNFs. I was hunting for a Traditional and the only info I had was that the last three logs were FDDD -- a string of DNFs, but the most recent log was a Find. I searched and searched, convinced it must be there and just harder than the 1.5 Difficulty would have me believe.

 

I got home to log my DNF only to discover the previous logger called it a Find because he had found a broken McToy that "appeared to have come from the cache which seems to missing." Not surprisingly, the logger was a local cacher with a reputation for doing whatever it takes to increase his number of smileys.

 

These false Finds often create the illusion for other seekers and the cache owner that the cache is in place and everything is fine.

[Clan Riffster]

What I can't figure out is why the owner of that cache hasn't fixed the coords for the final.

The logs indicate that the final is farther away than what is commonly acceptable.

 

Back on topic:

 

Wait till you receive a Found It log saying;

"Got to ground zero. Found a bison tube. Some goober wrote a set of coords on the log. TNLNSL"

[+California66er]

They just don't know that smilies are for closers!

[+BlueDeuce]

ND.

Over time, both these caches have been logged multiple times (as found) and the "finders", in most cases, made note that what they had found was the remains and not an actual cache. So, they did find (as did I) "the cache", or what remained of it, but not as originally placed (and since there was no log... nothing was signed).

 

Ah, pretend caching.