kayak'n Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 I know this subject has been discussed before, but don't remember the prevailing opinion. So if you want to direct me to the page # or month that's fine. Guess I'm naive but have now run across a cacher who is claiming finds he has not logged in the book. Is this best ignored? E-mail the cache owner? Which was done when we found we were the 1st to make the find, but he logged it as a find at the website. I really don't want to start a war, but this does annoy me. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 There are some people who do this. Some log finds on their own caches, some log finds on caches that they looked for and were "sure they were in the right spot" and some have even been known to fake logs for caches they haven't visited. You can certainly alert the cache owner. Some owners will delete the false finds. Other than that, there isn't much you can do other than feel sorry for these people. Their lives must be pretty lame if they feel they have to cheat. "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Link to comment
scooterj Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 I'm currently dealing with a newbie caching team who attempted a cache of mine with a 4.5 difficulty, failed to find it, posted a log accusing me of poor maintenance, and posted it as a find anyway calling it a virtual. I went out and found the cache to be perfectly in order. I asked this team to change their log to a not-found, they said they don't do not-founds. I replied back that I cannot let them keep their find because it cheapens the finds of those who actually completed the task. I'm giving them until morning to do so or I'm deleting their find. Quote Link to comment
+Sissy-n-CR Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 I'm not sure, but I believe the whole idea of stamps in letterboxing is proof you've found the box. Anyone in the community could challenge if you've actually found the box or not. The answer would be the boxer producing that boxes stamp impression. Could be the same here, but you have to actually go to the cache and see if they've signed the log. If not, they're busted. But without the owner of the cache deleting the log, there's not much you can do about it. CR Quote Link to comment
+Caching In Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Scooterj: quote: I asked this team to change their log to a not-found, they said they don't do not-founds. That is like a field goal kicker demanding his 3 points, even when he's wide right! You can't just arbitrarily change the rules--deleted 'em. Quote Link to comment
+Byron & Anne Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 quote:Originally posted by kayak'n:I know this subject has been discussed before, but don't remember the prevailing opinion. So if you want to direct me to the page # or month that's fine. Guess I'm naive but have now run across a cacher who is claiming finds he has not logged in the book. Is this best ignored? E-mail the cache owner? Which was done when we found we were the 1st to make the find, but he logged it as a find at the website. I really don't want to start a war, but this does annoy me. From all that's been said before, the accepted response is this a capital crime. Byron Quote Link to comment
+Mopar Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 quote:Originally posted by kayak'n:I know this subject has been discussed before, but don't remember the prevailing opinion. So if you want to direct me to the page # or month that's fine. Guess I'm naive but have now run across a cacher who is claiming finds he has not logged in the book. Is this best ignored? E-mail the cache owner? Which was done when we found we were the 1st to make the find, but he logged it as a find at the website. I really don't want to start a war, but this does annoy me. This is probably NOT the right way to do it, but post links to the logs in question. Peer pressure and humility can be a wonderful thing. Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon. Quote Link to comment
scooterj Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Caching In:Scooterj: quote: I asked this team to change their log to a not-found, they said they don't do not-founds. That is like a field goal kicker demanding his 3 points, even when he's wide right! You can't just arbitrarily change the rules--deleted 'em. In my case the people redeemed themselves and changed their log entry. Hooray! Quote Link to comment
+sledgehampster Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 All I have to say about it is...GET THE ROPE!!! Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 My daugher changed her geo name after 100+ finds. She wouldn't be in the log either under the new name. Some people don't computer log but log the paper. Some probably do vice versa. My paper log is short and sweet, and if they don't have a working pencil doesn't exist because I don't carry one. Let them worry about it. You probably haven't yet found all the caches. Wherever you go there you are. Quote Link to comment
+Mopar Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Renegade Knight:My daugher changed her geo name after 100+ finds. She wouldn't be in the log either under the new name. Some people don't computer log but log the paper. Some probably do vice versa. My paper log is short and sweet, and if they don't have a working pencil doesn't exist because I don't carry one. Let them worry about it. You probably haven't yet found all the caches. Wherever you go there you are. Well, RK, you are the voice of reason, but I's sick and miserable right now, and I intend to take as many down with me as I can! The original poster said he was the first to sign the logbook, so that eliminates the changed geonick idea. You ARE however right that we dont know if there was a writing instument in the cache, although if there wasn't, a responsible cacher would have noted it in his log for the next finder to bring one( a REALLY responsible cacher carries extras just in case!). There is a possibility that someone doesnt sign the cache log, but does sign online, but I'm sure they are few. Even BruceS, who can hit more caches in one day they anyone I know, still takes the time to sign the log book. I've noticed that its usually the other way around. People sign the book but don't post online. Some are probably privacy-phobes who are afraid someone might track them via their logs (to some extent this is possible, I was once able to track down the home address of another cacher across the country, so someone could send him a gift, based purely on his online info.). Alot I suppose are just dont care about the numbers, or trading, they just want to hunt the cache. Both types still usually sign the logbook. I guess if we knew the cache/cacher in question, it would be easier to answer. It might be known locally that this cacher doesn't sign the logbook, just post online. Since we don't know that, and I'm still sick and miserable, I say a public hanging, or at least a flogging or caning, is in order. Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon. Quote Link to comment
+Marky Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Mopar:It might be known locally that this cacher doesn't sign the logbook, just post online. Personally, I would consider this "against the rules". It is implied that you have to physically log the find (unless it's an e-mail or photo verification). When I review my physical logs (a lot of cachers do in this area), I contact those that don't show up. If they can't convince me that they were there at the cache, their log gets deleted. --Marky "All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr" Quote Link to comment
+rusty_da_dog Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Just for the record I do believe the cache Kayak'n is referring to is my cache. There was writing utensil in the cache. Rusty RW Da Man!!! CHS#1 Quote Link to comment
+Web-ling Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 The only time I can remember offhand logging a cache on the cache webpage without signing the physical logbook happened over this last weekend. I couldn't get the container open, there were non-caching people around, and the container is tethered, so it couldn't be easily moved. Quote Link to comment
kayak'n Posted January 6, 2003 Author Share Posted January 6, 2003 Thanks for all the imput. We really liked everyone's thoughts on the subject. This is concerning one particular cacher. We are planning a cache soon and our thoughts on the finds will be, if it ain't in the logbook it ain't a find. Unless they can convince us otherwise. If someone feels they have to cheat...may we suggest they get a life!?!? Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 quote: In my case the people redeemed themselves and changed their log entry. Hooray That's great Scooter, but I noticed they still refused to post a "not found". What's the deal with that? As far as writing implements being in the cache, this is an issue. I once signed a cache with the burnt end of the cigar I was smoking during the hunt, because there was no pencil in the cache. Another time, I set out for a hunt when I realized there was no pencil in the cache after reading the page. I desperately searched the car (it was brand new, so there were no seats to look behind) for something to write with. As it turned out, I didn't find the cache, but I was considering using the end of my key to imprint my name on a page. So what I'm saying as I ramble (have another beer Brian), is that its possible the finder wasn't able to sign the logbook for some reason. If I were the cache owner, I'd ask for an explanation, and if it was plausible, I'd allow the find. If he's a cheater, everyone in the area will soon know. "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:...(it was brand new, so there were no seats to look behind) ... Who sold you a car with no seats? Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again. Quote Link to comment
+Criminal Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 Yeah Brian, you're pretty cheap....next time get the optional seats so the family will have a place to sit! Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 Ok wise arses. There were seats, but what I meant was that it was pointless to look behind them because it would be unlikely I'd find anything. "Paternalism is the greatist despotism" - Emmanual Kant Quote Link to comment
+Lance Ambu Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:Ok wise arses. There were seats, but what I meant was that it was pointless to look behind them because it would be unlikely I'd find anything. _"Paternalism is the greatist despotism" - Emmanual Kant_ That would be a "Not found", right? Lance It's dark and we're wearing sunglasses. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.