Verifying logs

[+justintim1999]

How many cache owners verify the online logs with the actual cache log?

[+Walts Hunting]

The number is small enough to be classified as insignificant.

[+cheech gang]

The number is small enough to be classified as insignificant.

 

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

[+Blue_Ranger]

A lot of the time it involves the cache itself. At the moment I only own one. If you didn't actually go for an easy, .16 mile walk in the woods, find the ammo can tucked into the ruins of some sort of very old concrete building, and sign the log-- you're only cheating yourself. But if I put out a hide that was really challenging to get to/find, I think I'd be more diligent in enforcing "no signie no smiley."

[+cerberus1]

The only logs we check on a normal basis are our higher terrain hides.

They get the most fake finds.

CJ's (on her account) seems to get the most of all, which seems odd, since it requires rope (or a really tall ladder).

A faker just logged our lengthy paddle-to a while ago too.

 

We'll check our lesser hides if word gets out of one of those nut-job multi state/nation loggers doing hundreds of finds across the globe, but that's about it.

Edited August 1, 2015 by cerberus1

[+kunarion]

Someone found a cache in Belgium on a Wednesday, and found my cache in Fayetteville, Georgia, that same day, a cache in Germany the next day, and no other caches in the USA. Hope you don't mind if I went to check that. It seemed like a thing.

 

It was signed. It's cool.

[+Uncle Alaska]

In case you want to see more answers to your question:

 

A recent identical thread (that also has a link to an older thread)

[+T.D.M.22]

About as often as I replace an intact log, and not manage to lose it by the time I get online.

 

So not very often.

Edited August 1, 2015 by T.D.M.22

[vagabond]

I only have 2 active right now and drive by them at least once a week, so it's easy to check on them

[+TriciaG]

There was one time someone said they didn't have a pen with them, so they signed using goldenrod pollen.

 

I had to go check. And yes, there was a goldenrod smear on the log.

[Pup Patrol]

How many cache owners verify the online logs with the actual cache log?

 

We do. Just did it today, in fact.

 

And, yes, have deleted false finds where the log was not signed. And the description of the location/hunt for the cache was way out of whack.

 

This current thread How often do you confirm logs? 2015 It's been asked before. How about now? didn't already address the same issue?

 

B.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Pup Patrol

[+Walts Hunting]

The number is small enough to be classified as insignificant.

 

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

You can object all you want but in your heart you know is true. I generally stopped signing Nanos long ago. Never been called on it.

[+narcissa]

I don't audit logs but I will take a look if I am suspicious for some reason. Doesn't happen often.

[+WarNinjas]

It would be a rare case for me to actually check. I would have to have a strong reason not to believe a log.

[+rowbucktommi]

I just finished a circuit of 25 caches all of which had been logged online that day by a certain user. None of the caches had been sign by that user.

Very irritating

[+justintim1999]

In case you want to see more answers to your question:

 

A recent identical thread (that also has a link to an older thread)

 

Great. Thank you

[+justintim1999]

How many cache owners verify the online logs with the actual cache log?

 

We do. Just did it today, in fact.

 

And, yes, have deleted false finds where the log was not signed. And the description of the location/hunt for the cache was way out of whack.

 

This current thread How often do you confirm logs? 2015 It's been asked before. How about now? didn't already address the same issue?

 

 

B.

 

Why do you check them? Whats your reason for doing so?

[Pup Patrol]

Why do you check them? Whats your reason for doing so?

 

What an odd question.

 

Why should I allow fake "found it" logs on my caches?

 

Why should I allow "found it" logs for my multicache when the person only found Stage 1?

 

What's the point in placing caches if people don't actually find them?

 

If people aren't really finding the caches, what's the point of the game?

 

A signature on the log is proof that they actually found the cache. Isn't that the point of the whole thing?

 

B.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Pup Patrol

[+narcissa]

Why do you check them? Whats your reason for doing so?

 

What an odd question.

 

Why should I allow fake "found it" logs on my caches?

 

Why should I allow "found it" logs for my multicache when the person only found Stage 1?

 

What's the point in placing caches if people don't actually find them?

 

If people aren't really finding the caches, what's the point of the game?

 

A signature on the log is proof that they actually found the cache. Isn't that the point of the whole thing?

 

B.

 

+1

[+justintim1999]

Why do you check them? Whats your reason for doing so?

 

What an odd question.

 

Why should I allow fake "found it" logs on my caches?

 

Why should I allow "found it" logs for my multicache when the person only found Stage 1?

 

What's the point in placing caches if people don't actually find them?

 

If people aren't really finding the caches, what's the point of the game?

 

A signature on the log is proof that they actually found the cache. Isn't that the point of the whole thing?

 

B.

 

Here's another odd one. Why do you care so much?

 

Is it the Numbers? Is it on principal?

 

Is it worth the time and effort to worry about a cacher who may be getting away with..... what..... an unearned smiley?

 

I think the last observation in your quote is the crux of the whole matter. I think the point of the whole thing is to get people outside and away from the tv and computer to enjoy nature and have a little fun. Finding my cache is irrelevant. If they do great, if they don't great. The mission was to get them out there trying. They get the smiley for that. If they logged that they found my cache from their livingroom sofa and never left the house, so what. Why should I spend one second worrying about this person? Ok, congratulations. You've found every cache in the continental United States. Now what?

 

I understand that there is a perceived status in this game. I have 100,000 finds, I have 100,001. I've done this cache with no shoes on and only one sherpa. What surprises me is how passionate people are about these things.

Check out this thread. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=333931. This is why you should allow someone to log a fake (according to the guidelines) find.

 

When common sense fails it's all about the guidelines.

[+cerberus1]

Check out this thread. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=333931. This is why you should allow someone to log a fake (according to the guidelines) find.

 

When common sense fails it's all about the guidelines.

I don't see that as a good example of whatever kinda point you're trying to make at all.

Caching since '10, with no clue of the basics that most newbies read and understand in Geocaching 101.

Common sense would simply have had that person notice the D/T or cache info, and realize that cache isn't for them.

[+cerberus1]

Why do you check them? Whats your reason for doing so?

 

What an odd question.

 

Why should I allow fake "found it" logs on my caches?

 

Why should I allow "found it" logs for my multicache when the person only found Stage 1?

 

What's the point in placing caches if people don't actually find them?

 

If people aren't really finding the caches, what's the point of the game?

 

A signature on the log is proof that they actually found the cache. Isn't that the point of the whole thing?

 

B.

 

+1

Yep. +1

[+Ben0w]

Why do you check them? Whats your reason for doing so?

To help the geocacher who obviously has logged the wrong cache instead of that one he signed the log.

[+justintim1999]

Check out this thread. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=333931. This is why you should allow someone to log a fake (according to the guidelines) find.

 

When common sense fails it's all about the guidelines.

I don't see that as a good example of whatever kinda point you're trying to make at all.

Caching since '10, with no clue of the basics that most newbies read and understand in Geocaching 101.

Common sense would simply have had that person notice the D/T or cache info, and realize that cache isn't for them.

 

Sticks and stones. I understand the basics just fine thanks. Although the basics have nothing to do with this particular situation. Common sense would simply have taken the finders physical ability into consideration and allowed the find to stand. Is that so hard to do? Would doing that really undermine the whole game? Again, the Golden Rule. Due into others.

[+K13]

So, if I go caching in a chair with wheels, I should be able to log all the high terrain caches? If I also wear a cone-shaped hat, can I log all those high difficulty puzzles?

Common sense says NO, just follow the guidelines about signing the cache log before claiming a find on line.

[+TriciaG]

I think the point of the whole thing is to get people outside and away from the tv and computer to enjoy nature and have a little fun.

If they logged that they found my cache from their livingroom sofa and never left the house, so what.

Same post, same poster.

[+cerberus1]

Check out this thread. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=333931. This is why you should allow someone to log a fake (according to the guidelines) find.

 

When common sense fails it's all about the guidelines.

I don't see that as a good example of whatever kinda point you're trying to make at all.

Caching since '10, with no clue of the basics that most newbies read and understand in Geocaching 101.

Common sense would simply have had that person notice the D/T or cache info, and realize that cache isn't for them.

 

Sticks and stones. I understand the basics just fine thanks. Although the basics have nothing to do with this particular situation. Common sense would simply have taken the finders physical ability into consideration and allowed the find to stand. Is that so hard to do? Would doing that really undermine the whole game? Again, the Golden Rule. Due into others.

My reply had nothing to do with you, but the person who's thread you referred to.

Sheesh...

[Pup Patrol]

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=311521

 

B.

[+narcissa]

Monitoring found it logs and removing fraudulent ones is part of general cache maintenance. If you don't feel comfortable with that, no problem, don't hide caches. Cache ownership isn't for everyone.

[+Harry Dolphin]

While I don't often check logs (and this has been mentioned in other threads)...

I have checked on caches where the finds seemed deliberately fraudulent.

Example: Major snowstorm. Basically, the state was closed. Cacher driving a semi came through. My cache was in a rest stop only available to cars. Trucks not permitted. Same cacher logged a cache on the other side on the Interstate. Minimum of a six mile U-turn to get both. The other cache was down an unmaintained backroad. It does not get plowed. It takes months to get the blowdowns cleared. The cacher did not log my cache. Drive by.

The other major case was a cacher driving around the country. Logged many caches near the major highways. I had two caches about a mile-and-a-half apart. About an hour's drive between the two, and a $15 toll. No one had ever logged both In one day. Bizarre for a tourist travelling about the country. The cacher had not signed either cache. Others checked on his finds across the country. No one ever found his signature in any of the thousands of caches he logged. All of his logs were deleted.

Geocaching is not about going out and having fun. Geocaching is about going out, finding caches, signing the log. Having fun is not required, but it is a bonus. You do not seem to understand the concept of geocaching.

[+kunarion]

Geocaching is not about going out and having fun. Geocaching is about going out, finding caches, signing the log. Having fun is not required, but it is a bonus.

Of my caches, the ones that tend to have non-standard logs are the easy Micros in the parks. The caches are found by new or very casual cachers, with Find logs like “I forgot my pen”, the caches require little effort to find, and in some cases no effort seems to be placed into logging them.

 

My more serious caches tend to not be found by the pen forgetters. I think all my caches are in cool places, that's why I placed them. But for the Micros, the casual cachers log just a “Found It, forgot my pen”. At most. So those logs tend to be pretty messed up. And gone. With the whole match tube and its mount. I check the paper logs sometimes when something odd is logged online. Otherwise, I just marvel at what got signed and what did not.

 

The caches that require a little more walking, or are tougher to find, those logs are, I guess, from a better caliber of cacher. The log books more closely match reality than the Micros do. I don't do a lot of careful signature comparisons on the Micros. They're a mess.

[+hykers]

Why do you check them? Whats your reason for doing so?

 

What an odd question.

 

Why should I allow fake "found it" logs on my caches?

 

Why should I allow "found it" logs for my multicache when the person only found Stage 1?

 

What's the point in placing caches if people don't actually find them?

 

If people aren't really finding the caches, what's the point of the game?

 

A signature on the log is proof that they actually found the cache. Isn't that the point of the whole thing?

 

B.

 

Here's another odd one. Why do you care so much?

 

Is it the Numbers? Is it on principal?

 

Is it worth the time and effort to worry about a cacher who may be getting away with..... what..... an unearned smiley?

 

I think the last observation in your quote is the crux of the whole matter. I think the point of the whole thing is to get people outside and away from the tv and computer to enjoy nature and have a little fun. Finding my cache is irrelevant. If they do great, if they don't great. The mission was to get them out there trying. They get the smiley for that. If they logged that they found my cache from their livingroom sofa and never left the house, so what. Why should I spend one second worrying about this person? Ok, congratulations. You've found every cache in the continental United States. Now what?

 

I understand that there is a perceived status in this game. I have 100,000 finds, I have 100,001. I've done this cache with no shoes on and only one sherpa. What surprises me is how passionate people are about these things.

Check out this thread. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=333931. This is why you should allow someone to log a fake (according to the guidelines) find.

 

When common sense fails it's all about the guidelines.

[+hykers]

I actually have a reason why cheaters matter. It's happened to me twice, once recently. I was in Flagstaff, about 2 hours from my home. A multi caches stage two was behind construction fence and the earth totally upturned. I posted a DNF and posted a note regarding the construction. (it was DNF twice before me btw) I get home to Phoenix, and noticed somebody had found it. I PMed them, and they said there was no fence. I went back up to Flagstaff the next weekend and the fence was still up, and GZ all torn up.

 

The point is, we rely on finds to determine the viability of a cache.

 

Also, as a side note, this same person's stats show they have over 50K finds, and their best day was 1036 finds in a day. That's 43 finds an hour for 24 straight hours.

[+justintim1999]

Check out this thread. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=333931. This is why you should allow someone to log a fake (according to the guidelines) find.

 

When common sense fails it's all about the guidelines.

I don't see that as a good example of whatever kinda point you're trying to make at all.

Caching since '10, with no clue of the basics that most newbies read and understand in Geocaching 101.

Common sense would simply have had that person notice the D/T or cache info, and realize that cache isn't for them.

 

Sticks and stones. I understand the basics just fine thanks. Although the basics have nothing to do with this particular situation. Common sense would simply have taken the finders physical ability into consideration and allowed the find to stand. Is that so hard to do? Would doing that really undermine the whole game? Again, the Golden Rule. Due into others.

My reply had nothing to do with you, but the person who's thread you referred to.

Sheesh...

 

I apologize then. I thought you were referring to something in one of my posts.

[+justintim1999]

Monitoring found it logs and removing fraudulent ones is part of general cache maintenance. If you don't feel comfortable with that, no problem, don't hide caches. Cache ownership isn't for everyone.

 

I understand the concept. My question was how many cache owners actually do that on a regular basis?

[+justintim1999]

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=311521

 

B.

 

This is interesting. Thank you.

[+justintim1999]

While I don't often check logs (and this has been mentioned in other threads)...

I have checked on caches where the finds seemed deliberately fraudulent.

Example: Major snowstorm. Basically, the state was closed. Cacher driving a semi came through. My cache was in a rest stop only available to cars. Trucks not permitted. Same cacher logged a cache on the other side on the Interstate. Minimum of a six mile U-turn to get both. The other cache was down an unmaintained backroad. It does not get plowed. It takes months to get the blowdowns cleared. The cacher did not log my cache. Drive by.

The other major case was a cacher driving around the country. Logged many caches near the major highways. I had two caches about a mile-and-a-half apart. About an hour's drive between the two, and a $15 toll. No one had ever logged both In one day. Bizarre for a tourist travelling about the country. The cacher had not signed either cache. Others checked on his finds across the country. No one ever found his signature in any of the thousands of caches he logged. All of his logs were deleted.

Geocaching is not about going out and having fun. Geocaching is about going out, finding caches, signing the log. Having fun is not required, but it is a bonus. You do not seem to understand the concept of geocaching.

 

Wow. "Geocaching is not about going out and having fun. Geocaching is about going out, finding caches, signing the log."

 

Forgive me father for I have sinned. I had fun caching today. That's ok my son. Do 3 terrain 4 puzzle caches and don't let it happen again.

[+justintim1999]

Geocaching is not about going out and having fun. Geocaching is about going out, finding caches, signing the log. Having fun is not required, but it is a bonus.

Of my caches, the ones that tend to have non-standard logs are the easy Micros in the parks. The caches are found by new or very casual cachers, with Find logs like “I forgot my pen”, the caches require little effort to find, and in some cases no effort seems to be placed into logging them.

 

My more serious caches tend to not be found by the pen forgetters. I think all my caches are in cool places, that's why I placed them. But for the Micros, the casual cachers log just a “Found It, forgot my pen”. At most. So those logs tend to be pretty messed up. And gone. With the whole match tube and its mount. I check the paper logs sometimes when something odd is logged online. Otherwise, I just marvel at what got signed and what did not.

 

The caches that require a little more walking, or are tougher to find, those logs are, I guess, from a better caliber of cacher. The log books more closely match reality than the Micros do. I don't do a lot of careful signature comparisons on the Micros. They're a mess.

 

Thanks. I find that's the case also. I mean how can I complain when I myself have reached in my bag only to find out that all my pens are gone. I guess you have to take people at their word unless you have a reason not to.

[+justintim1999]

I actually have a reason why cheaters matter. It's happened to me twice, once recently. I was in Flagstaff, about 2 hours from my home. A multi caches stage two was behind construction fence and the earth totally upturned. I posted a DNF and posted a note regarding the construction. (it was DNF twice before me btw) I get home to Phoenix, and noticed somebody had found it. I PMed them, and they said there was no fence. I went back up to Flagstaff the next weekend and the fence was still up, and GZ all torn up.

 

The point is, we rely on finds to determine the viability of a cache.

 

Also, as a side note, this same person's stats show they have over 50K finds, and their best day was 1036 finds in a day. That's 43 finds an hour for 24 straight hours.

 

I would have to agree that the person you mention is fraudulent. I have a hard time believing that Groundspeak is not aware of this person. Have there been any attempts to put a stop to him/her? he/she obviously has an agenda and I could care less what it is. I won't waist one second worrying about a person like that.

[+on4bam]

With all these threads about logging finds online while not signing the logs and even admitting they where at GZ but found nothing it still surprises me that people react with "let them have/keep the smiley".

I wouldn't even consider going out to a T5 (or less for that matter), seeing the cache but not signing the log and then log a found log online.

Come to think of it, in 2008 we were in Florida close to an underwater cache, I don't dive but the CO should give me that smiley anyway, right?

As for "forgetting a pen", when going out caching it's normal to take the needed tools. Doing a nightcache but forgot a flashlight or UV light.. just log "sorry, forgot flashlight, hope it's OK to log this a a find".

[+J Grouchy]

Someone found a cache in Belgium on a Wednesday, and found my cache in Fayetteville, Georgia, that same day, a cache in Germany the next day, and no other caches in the USA. Hope you don't mind if I went to check that. It seemed like a thing.

 

It was signed. It's cool.

 

Maybe a studio exec visiting Pinewood?

[cezanne]

Check out this thread. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=333931. This is why you should allow someone to log a fake (according to the guidelines) find.

 

When common sense fails it's all about the guidelines.

 

I do not have any issue with a cache owner who allows such finds. I would never accept such an offer however and never make such an offer. I have some handicaps that keep me from getting to quite a number of caches. It does not change anything if someone offers me a found it log or comes along and retrieves the cache container for me. It's still the same experience for me with or without a found it log. It's a different thing if external help would allow me to reach a location I could not reach just being on my own, but that's not what that thread is about.

I do not think that it is an issue of abilities but rather one of what a found it log really means and if it is really that important.

 

To reply to your orginal question: I check the log books of my caches only very occasionally but most online logs let me already know whether or not someone visited the cache.

[+justintim1999]

Check out this thread. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=333931. This is why you should allow someone to log a fake (according to the guidelines) find.

 

When common sense fails it's all about the guidelines.

 

I do not have any issue with a cache owner who allows such finds. I would never accept such an offer however and never make such an offer. I have some handicaps that keep me from getting to quite a number of caches. It does not change anything if someone offers me a found it log or comes along and retrieves the cache container for me. It's still the same experience for me with or without a found it log. It's a different thing if external help would allow me to reach a location I could not reach just being on my own, but that's not what that thread is about.

I do not think that it is an issue of abilities but rather one of what a found it log really means and if it is really that important.

 

To reply to your orginal question: I check the log books of my caches only very occasionally but most online logs let me already know whether or not someone visited the cache.

 

Thanks for the reply. I think you get the whole concept of what caching should be. This post was prompted by a situation that involved a disabled cacher who went to ground zero. found the cache but couldn't climb the tree to retrieve it and sign the log. In this case the cache owner asked that the found it log be deleted because the cacher did not sign the log. I think that the requirement to sign the log is important but not in this case. I guess this topic was started because I was wondering how the cache owner knew that the log was unsigned. Did they check the cache log or did the finder mention the fact that they were disabled and unable to retrieve it?

[+justintim1999]

With all these threads about logging finds online while not signing the logs and even admitting they where at GZ but found nothing it still surprises me that people react with "let them have/keep the smiley".

I wouldn't even consider going out to a T5 (or less for that matter), seeing the cache but not signing the log and then log a found log online.

Come to think of it, in 2008 we were in Florida close to an underwater cache, I don't dive but the CO should give me that smiley anyway, right?

As for "forgetting a pen", when going out caching it's normal to take the needed tools. Doing a nightcache but forgot a flashlight or UV light.. just log "sorry, forgot flashlight, hope it's OK to log this a a find".

 

In 99% of cases I agree with you. But in the case noted above I understand what the requirements for logging a find are but I don't understand why the exception couldn't and wouldn't be made. Obviously people have different ideas as to what the game is all about and how it should be played. Seems this cacher took the time to get to ground zero (disability and all) and locate the cache. I couldn't imagine telling them too bad, didn't sign the log, no find.

Edited August 3, 2015 by justintim1999

[+on4bam]

In 99% of cases I agree with you. But in the case noted above I understand what the requirements for logging a find are but I don't understand why the exception couldn't and wouldn't be made. Obviously people have different ideas as to what the game is all about and how it should be played. Seems this cacher took the time to get to ground zero (disability and all) and locate the cache. I couldn't imagine telling them too bad, didn't sign the log, no find.

 

Well, I have zero tolerance for discrimination (any kind) so I just think the TS in the closed thread should have prepared his cachingtrip a bit better knowing a cache in a tree would be something (s)he couldn't log. I tried a challenge cache Saturday rated T3.5 It was a tree that was partly easy to climb but I didn't see the micro and didn't want to take risks.. DNF it is. No hesitation for even a split second.

I've had plenty of "founds" where the cache was clearly missing and where the CO said to log a found but I always refuse. I keep statistics on just about anything caching and would hate to see them messed up with "founds" that were not "really" found. For the same reason, I don't accept solutions for mysteries, I'll accept a hint to get me in the right direction but never an answer on a silver platter.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Check out this thread. http://forums.Ground...owtopic=333931. This is why you should allow someone to log a fake (according to the guidelines) find.

 

When common sense fails it's all about the guidelines.

 

I do not have any issue with a cache owner who allows such finds. I would never accept such an offer however and never make such an offer. I have some handicaps that keep me from getting to quite a number of caches. It does not change anything if someone offers me a found it log or comes along and retrieves the cache container for me. It's still the same experience for me with or without a found it log. It's a different thing if external help would allow me to reach a location I could not reach just being on my own, but that's not what that thread is about.

I do not think that it is an issue of abilities but rather one of what a found it log really means and if it is really that important.

 

To reply to your orginal question: I check the log books of my caches only very occasionally but most online logs let me already know whether or not someone visited the cache.

 

Thanks for the reply. I think you get the whole concept of what caching should be. This post was prompted by a situation that involved a disabled cacher who went to ground zero. found the cache but couldn't climb the tree to retrieve it and sign the log. In this case the cache owner asked that the found it log be deleted because the cacher did not sign the log. I think that the requirement to sign the log is important but not in this case. I guess this topic was started because I was wondering how the cache owner knew that the log was unsigned. Did they check the cache log or did the finder mention the fact that they were disabled and unable to retrieve it?

 

A while back I went to find a cache and found that it was up in a tree. I don't have a physical disability, but at my age I just couldn't physically get up onto the first branch in order to climb the tree? I was by myself and I tried a few times to climb it but just couldn't manage to do it. Should I get to post a found it log as well?

Meanwhile, that cache was placed the day before a local event and there were 8-10 people that posted found it logs on that day and from reading the logs it looks as if only 1-2 two of them actually went up into the tree, but due to "the requirement to sign the log" in order to log it as a found, either the person that went up in the tree signed for everyone or the cache was dropped to the ground so that everyone could sign it. Either way, watching someone climb a tree isn't much different than standing at the base of the tree by your self. As I see it, the CO placed the cache in the tree so that geocachers could climb the tree to retrieve the cache, and someone that physically could not climb the tree (whether or not they had a disability) or chose to watch someone else climb the tree did not find the cache. Posting a found it log in that case is just taking advantage of a loophole in the guidelines.

 

 

[cezanne]

This post was prompted by a situation that involved a disabled cacher who went to ground zero. found the cache but couldn't climb the tree to retrieve it and sign the log.

 

I'm aware of that. As you repeatedly stress the category disabled cacher, I wonder how you define what is enough of a disability to make you feel that a cache owner should allow a found it log?

There are so many different sorts of handicaps and disabilities around and there are thousands of cachers worldwide who are not able to climb up trees.

 

In this case the cache owner asked that the found it log be deleted because the cacher did not sign the log. I think that the requirement to sign the log is important but not in this case. I guess this topic was started because I was wondering how the cache owner knew that the log was unsigned. Did they check the cache log or did the finder mention the fact that they were disabled and unable to retrieve it?

 

My guess is that the cacher mentioned in his log that he could not reach the cache and logged a found it nevertheless. That's not uncommon and I have encountered many such cases, and I do believe that it makes sense to address such cases as cache owner even if one allows logs without a signature in the log book in special cases. Letting such logs stand uncommented creates a wrong impression for new cachers in my opinion.

It's a different type of thing to offer a found it log to someone who wrote a note or DNF than to let an unsolicited found it log stand that creates the impression that the finder is not aware of the guidelines.

 

It's a bit like acting against unsolicited throw downs where someone cannot find a cache and leaves a replacement container without consent of the cache owner. In some areas many cachers believe meanwhile that this the way it is supposed to be. Even though there are more important aspects of geocaching than the guidelines, it is unfortunate if such developments happen.

[+narcissa]

Monitoring found it logs and removing fraudulent ones is part of general cache maintenance. If you don't feel comfortable with that, no problem, don't hide caches. Cache ownership isn't for everyone.

 

I understand the concept. My question was how many cache owners actually do that on a regular basis?

 

Your original question was followed by some rather startling commentary of your own on the subject.

[+justintim1999]

This post was prompted by a situation that involved a disabled cacher who went to ground zero. found the cache but couldn't climb the tree to retrieve it and sign the log.

 

I'm aware of that. As you repeatedly stress the category disabled cacher, I wonder how you define what is enough of a disability to make you feel that a cache owner should allow a found it log?

There are so many different sorts of handicaps and disabilities around and there are thousands of cachers worldwide who are not able to climb up trees.

 

In this case the cache owner asked that the found it log be deleted because the cacher did not sign the log. I think that the requirement to sign the log is important but not in this case. I guess this topic was started because I was wondering how the cache owner knew that the log was unsigned. Did they check the cache log or did the finder mention the fact that they were disabled and unable to retrieve it?

 

My guess is that the cacher mentioned in his log that he could not reach the cache and logged a found it nevertheless. That's not uncommon and I have encountered many such cases, and I do believe that it makes sense to address such cases as cache owner even if one allows logs without a signature in the log book in special cases. Letting such logs stand uncommented creates a wrong impression for new cachers in my opinion.

It's a different type of thing to offer a found it log to someone who wrote a note or DNF than to let an unsolicited found it log stand that creates the impression that the finder is not aware of the guidelines.

 

It's a bit like acting against unsolicited throw downs where someone cannot find a cache and leaves a replacement container without consent of the cache owner. In some areas many cachers believe meanwhile that this the way it is supposed to be. Even though there are more important aspects of geocaching than the guidelines, it is unfortunate if such developments happen.

 

I guess that's the right word, unfortunate.

[+dprovan]

Here's another odd one. Why do you care so much?

It's not big deal, honest. I like to set the record straight, but I don't care all that much.

 

Is it the Numbers? Is it on principal?

Accuracy.

 

Is it worth the time and effort to worry about a cacher who may be getting away with..... what..... an unearned smiley?

I'm not worried about the cacher. I could care less what they count. I care about the log: it has an error, I correct it.

 

I understand the concept. My question was how many cache owners actually do that on a regular basis?

Fortunately bogus logs are quite rare in my area, so I don't have to do it at all. I'll casually check a log I replace, and sometimes when I do a health check, I'll look at the last few signers to see if they jive with the log. But I feel no reason to take my checks very seriously since signatures are not always orderly, and sometimes people can't sign or forget to sign, which isn't something that matters to me.

 

I check more carefully if I smell something fishy, but that's only happened a couple times.