Jump to content

Logging a "FIND" when cache has gone missing


Recommended Posts

To me, logging a "find" implies that there is a cache to find and a log to sign. I recently found the location of a cache, but the container was gone. All that was left was a piece of string with nothing attached. I duly logged "DNF". Two subsequent "cachers" did the same but logged a "find", even though there was nothing to find or sign.

More cases of cheating themselves ?

Link to comment

To me, logging a "find" implies that there is a cache to find and a log to sign. I recently found the location of a cache, but the container was gone. All that was left was a piece of string with nothing attached. I duly logged "DNF". Two subsequent "cachers" did the same but logged a "find", even though there was nothing to find or sign.

More cases of cheating themselves ?

You are correct sir, and you did the right thing. The others... not so much. Did you also post a NM log?

Link to comment

To me, logging a "find" implies that there is a cache to find and a log to sign. I recently found the location of a cache, but the container was gone. All that was left was a piece of string with nothing attached. I duly logged "DNF". Two subsequent "cachers" did the same but logged a "find", even though there was nothing to find or sign.

More cases of cheating themselves ?

When we first started, I DNFd quite a few caches, and some I even wrote NMs on, thinking that string, pen (and "no container"), piece a velcro, or gladware lid was part of the cache, and it's now gone.

Wrong many times.

 

If folks are cheating (maybe not...), I now kinda look at it as "what do you expect?".

Games often get cheaters.

This didn't seem to happen as much when it was (to me, and still is...) a hobby. :)

Link to comment

The worst thing about this cheating is that COs and visitors get confused with false smileys.

 

DNF - too early to worry about...

DNF - hmm...

DNF - well, it's probably muggled, will check it next week...

Found it - oh, it seems to be in it's place?

DNF - or maybe not?

...

Link to comment

I just love the ones that say " I was in the right area and nothing is here" FOUND

 

Had one that a newbie cacher logged as Found but the log said they couldn't find it. I deleted it thinking maybe they made a mistake. A week later they contacted me asking why I deleted their found log. I explained. They said they were in the right spot but the cache was not there. I asked them why are you logging a Found if you didn't find it. They said we were there. I asked did they look up in the tree. They said "What tree?". Turned out it was a puzzle and they were at the Posted Coords.

Link to comment

To me, logging a "find" implies that there is a cache to find and a log to sign. I recently found the location of a cache, but the container was gone. All that was left was a piece of string with nothing attached. I duly logged "DNF". Two subsequent "cachers" did the same but logged a "find", even though there was nothing to find or sign.

More cases of cheating themselves ?

 

As a cache owner this is a minor nuisance that can be dealt with by deleting the log. When it's happening on someone else's cache that you have already visited and logged as a DNF, I don't really see the utility in fussing about it.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

To me, logging a "find" implies that there is a cache to find and a log to sign. I recently found the location of a cache, but the container was gone. All that was left was a piece of string with nothing attached. I duly logged "DNF". Two subsequent "cachers" did the same but logged a "find", even though there was nothing to find or sign.

More cases of cheating themselves ?

 

As a cache owner this is a minor nuisance that can be dealt with by deleting the log. When it's happening on someone else's cache that you have already visited and logged as a DNF, I don't really see the utility in fussing about it.

 

I've suggested a "report phony found-it log" we'll see if we see this option soon. Tired of people "finding" caches that really are GONE.

Link to comment

To me, logging a "find" implies that there is a cache to find and a log to sign. I recently found the location of a cache, but the container was gone. All that was left was a piece of string with nothing attached. I duly logged "DNF". Two subsequent "cachers" did the same but logged a "find", even though there was nothing to find or sign.

More cases of cheating themselves ?

 

As a cache owner this is a minor nuisance that can be dealt with by deleting the log. When it's happening on someone else's cache that you have already visited and logged as a DNF, I don't really see the utility in fussing about it.

 

I've suggested a "report phony found-it log" we'll see if we see this option soon. Tired of people "finding" caches that really are GONE.

 

Again, the solution when this happens to your cache is to disable the cache until you can fix it, and delete logs.

 

There doesn't need to be a reporting feature because you resent someone else finding a cache you missed.

Link to comment

We won't log a find unless we actually find it (have our hands on it, and there's a log in it). There's been a few that we logged a DNF even though it was painfully obvious we were at the right place...and it's gone missing. We could be wrong...and it is there, we just overlooked it. Also..logging a DNF would help establish a pattern there's a problem if others chime in with DNF's...making the CO aware there's an issue..and they'll go back and check on it. We've logged a couple of DNF's where others have logged "finds", and I just can't see how because GZ is torn up by road construction. Maybe they got to it before the area got tore up..or they found the spot, but not the geocache. Most of the time I chalk up our DNF's to being new/still learning, and it's still there.

Link to comment

To me, logging a "find" implies that there is a cache to find and a log to sign. I recently found the location of a cache, but the container was gone. All that was left was a piece of string with nothing attached. I duly logged "DNF". Two subsequent "cachers" did the same but logged a "find", even though there was nothing to find or sign.

More cases of cheating themselves ?

 

As a cache owner this is a minor nuisance that can be dealt with by deleting the log. When it's happening on someone else's cache that you have already visited and logged as a DNF, I don't really see the utility in fussing about it.

 

I've suggested a "report phony found-it log" we'll see if we see this option soon. Tired of people "finding" caches that really are GONE.

 

That action may be a little harsh unless your sure that the cacher is doing it maliciously. Something like that would have to be used with care and a little thought.

Link to comment

Cache owners can delete 'found it' logs if they can back up their claim it is bogus. When I've done a maintenance walk of my caches I will usually take a photo of the log, especially if there have been dubious online ones. I've archived quite a few armchair logs that way, never with any complaint.

 

If I am finding someone elses cache, and, say, it's a hard find, and when I eventually spot it I notice that the previous cacher ( whose online log I probably just looked at for a hint !) has not signed it, I may photograph the paper log and upload it with my online one. Then it's up to the cache owner to decide if they want to take action or not. This also reduces the natural irritation I feel when I spot a cheat.

 

If you document the lack of a signature, and mention it in your log, and the CO acts appropriately, I can't see the need for a special report phony log. The phony log , er , log would, I imagine, simply require the CO do a maintenance visit and check the paper log then delete any no signature online logs.

 

Practically speaking I can't imagine the frog paying anyone to administrate and arbitrate this from HQ, or passing on more responsibility and potential grief on to the volunteer reviewers, so it would have to be devolved to the CO anyway.

Link to comment

How about this one?

 

a9a26de4-8a8e-4ad5-a842-8b9156850f9b.png

 

The CO obviously isn't bothered, he allowed the log to stand despite there not being a cache in place nor a log to sign.. but this was the ONLY *cache* (I use that term loosely) this cacher found on that day and yet they are able to claim smileys for the many 366 consecutive days challenge caches *because their geocaching profile shows they completed 366 days*.. so they are not only cheating themselves, but all those challenge cache owners who accept their qualification in good faith.

Link to comment

How about this one?

 

a9a26de4-8a8e-4ad5-a842-8b9156850f9b.png

 

The CO obviously isn't bothered, he allowed the log to stand despite there not being a cache in place nor a log to sign.. but this was the ONLY *cache* (I use that term loosely) this cacher found on that day and yet they are able to claim smileys for the many 366 consecutive days challenge caches *because their geocaching profile shows they completed 366 days*.. so they are not only cheating themselves, but all those challenge cache owners who accept their qualification in good faith.

- And a slap in the face to those who honestly did it...

Link to comment

How about this one?

 

a9a26de4-8a8e-4ad5-a842-8b9156850f9b.png

 

The CO obviously isn't bothered, he allowed the log to stand despite there not being a cache in place nor a log to sign.. but this was the ONLY *cache* (I use that term loosely) this cacher found on that day and yet they are able to claim smileys for the many 366 consecutive days challenge caches *because their geocaching profile shows they completed 366 days*.. so they are not only cheating themselves, but all those challenge cache owners who accept their qualification in good faith.

- And a slap in the face to those who honestly did it...

 

There are very few good reasons for paying attention to someone else's caching behaviour.

 

Was the log on your cache?

 

Are you in some sort of pre-arranged competition with this cacher?

 

Interpreting someone else's shenanigans as a "slap in the face" is a choice. Mentioning suspicious behaviour to a cache owner is a courtesy that some will appreciate, but beyond that, you need to let it go. You'll burn out so fast in this game if you insist on being this angry and upset about other people doing this stuff.

Link to comment

How about this one?

 

a9a26de4-8a8e-4ad5-a842-8b9156850f9b.png

 

The CO obviously isn't bothered, he allowed the log to stand despite there not being a cache in place nor a log to sign.. but this was the ONLY *cache* (I use that term loosely) this cacher found on that day and yet they are able to claim smileys for the many 366 consecutive days challenge caches *because their geocaching profile shows they completed 366 days*.. so they are not only cheating themselves, but all those challenge cache owners who accept their qualification in good faith.

- And a slap in the face to those who honestly did it...

 

There are very few good reasons for paying attention to someone else's caching behaviour.

 

Was the log on your cache?

 

Are you in some sort of pre-arranged competition with this cacher?

 

Interpreting someone else's shenanigans as a "slap in the face" is a choice. Mentioning suspicious behaviour to a cache owner is a courtesy that some will appreciate, but beyond that, you need to let it go. You'll burn out so fast in this game if you insist on being this angry and upset about other people doing this stuff.

 

Constantly warning others against having / airing their views because they don't align with your own is also a choice.

Link to comment

If it's your cache and the log says "I only found a string but I'm logging the find anyway," as a cache owner you can delete that log.

 

I see, thank you. Yes I can. The problem is however that (as a CO) I usually don't know when the problem appeared.

 

Cacher 1: Found it

Cacher 2: Found it

Cacher 3: DNF

Cacher 4: Found it

Cacher 5: I only found a string but TFTC

 

With the last log I know (almost) for sure that the cache needs maintenance. However, I have no proof from any other sources to decide upon which logs are bogus. So, if I delete the last log (cacher 5) it happens that my decision is based on his own words only. In very simple words: one who did at least something (shared info about the problem) looses his smiley, others (who probably didn't sign any logs too but didn't mention the problem) keep their smileys.

Link to comment

That's odd, been here for a while now, have opinions, and still not even close to burning out.

I don't understand where I presented myself as angry.

Weird isn't it? :laughing:

 

That's a tactic often employed in this forum. If someone has a different opinion then it's much easier to characterize that opinion as being expressed out of anger or other emotion rather than address the opinion on it's merits.

 

 

Link to comment

 

There are very few good reasons for paying attention to someone else's caching behaviour.

 

Was the log on your cache?

 

Are you in some sort of pre-arranged competition with this cacher?

 

Interpreting someone else's shenanigans as a "slap in the face" is a choice. Mentioning suspicious behaviour to a cache owner is a courtesy that some will appreciate, but beyond that, you need to let it go. You'll burn out so fast in this game if you insist on being this angry and upset about other people doing this stuff.

 

Here's a good reason for paying attention to someone else's caching behaviour: next time I see they have a 'found it' log on a cache several others have DNF'd, I am unlikely to believe it and waste my time hunting for a missing cache.

 

And another one: when I meet them at an event I will not be in awe of their astonishing caching record, and I will certainly not think of them as part of my circle of caching friends.I like to be around honest people. From what I've seen this foolishness is perpetrated by two main groups of cachers: first beginners who know no better, and second the 'all about the numbers' types who lose all sense of proportion as they pursue their found count/ streak / DT grid looping / whatever "glory".

Link to comment

Cacher 1: Found it

Cacher 2: Found it

Cacher 3: DNF

Cacher 4: Found it

Cacher 5: I only found a string but TFTC

 

With the last log I know (almost) for sure that the cache needs maintenance. However, I have no proof from any other sources to decide upon which logs are bogus. So, if I delete the last log (cacher 5) it happens that my decision is based on his own words only. In very simple words: one who did at least something (shared info about the problem) looses his smiley, others (who probably didn't sign any logs too but didn't mention the problem) keep their smileys.

"Unfortunately, I can't accept your find since you didn't find the cache, but I really appreciate you logging the problem. I'll get out to fix it as soon as I can. I wonder how many idiots before you logged the cache as found and didn't mention it was missing. Some people's priorities are really messed up."

Link to comment

 

There are very few good reasons for paying attention to someone else's caching behaviour.

 

Was the log on your cache?

 

Are you in some sort of pre-arranged competition with this cacher?

 

Interpreting someone else's shenanigans as a "slap in the face" is a choice. Mentioning suspicious behaviour to a cache owner is a courtesy that some will appreciate, but beyond that, you need to let it go. You'll burn out so fast in this game if you insist on being this angry and upset about other people doing this stuff.

 

Here's a good reason for paying attention to someone else's caching behaviour: next time I see they have a 'found it' log on a cache several others have DNF'd, I am unlikely to believe it and waste my time hunting for a missing cache.

 

And another one: when I meet them at an event I will not be in awe of their astonishing caching record, and I will certainly not think of them as part of my circle of caching friends.I like to be around honest people. From what I've seen this foolishness is perpetrated by two main groups of cachers: first beginners who know no better, and second the 'all about the numbers' types who lose all sense of proportion as they pursue their found count/ streak / DT grid looping / whatever "glory".

 

Sure. But is it necessary to obsessively watch their account and feel personally slighted by every fake find they rack up? I only need to encounter someone's poor behaviour once to know that they are beneath my regard. I don't even need to look at their account for that.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

To me, logging a "find" implies that there is a cache to find and a log to sign. I recently found the location of a cache, but the container was gone. All that was left was a piece of string with nothing attached. I duly logged "DNF". Two subsequent "cachers" did the same but logged a "find", even though there was nothing to find or sign.

More cases of cheating themselves ?

 

As a cache owner this is a minor nuisance that can be dealt with by deleting the log. When it's happening on someone else's cache that you have already visited and logged as a DNF, I don't really see the utility in fussing about it.

 

I've suggested a "report phony found-it log" we'll see if we see this option soon. Tired of people "finding" caches that really are GONE.

 

That action may be a little harsh unless your sure that the cacher is doing it maliciously. Something like that would have to be used with care and a little thought.

 

It's not harsh, that person didn't find the cache, they should've put a "needs maintenance" log instead therefor they shouldn't recieve credit for finding the cache. Also, sometimes people "find" caches multiple times if its a duplicate log then COs should be deleting the logs but they're not, weather they're not geocaching anymore, don't realize theres a phony log, or simply don't care.

Link to comment

It's not harsh, that person didn't find the cache, they should've put a "needs maintenance" log instead therefor they shouldn't recieve credit for finding the cache. Also, sometimes people "find" caches multiple times if its a duplicate log then COs should be deleting the logs but they're not, weather they're not geocaching anymore, don't realize theres a phony log, or simply don't care.

 

What do you mean "credit?" What is the value of a find on a stranger's profile? You can delete fraudulent logs on your own caches.

Link to comment

It's not harsh, that person didn't find the cache, they should've put a "needs maintenance" log instead therefor they shouldn't recieve credit for finding the cache. Also, sometimes people "find" caches multiple times if its a duplicate log then COs should be deleting the logs but they're not, weather they're not geocaching anymore, don't realize theres a phony log, or simply don't care.

 

What do you mean "credit?" What is the value of a find on a stranger's profile? You can delete fraudulent logs on your own caches.

 

I have deleted fradulent logs on my caches. But others have not deleted fradulent logs. On your profile it shows the caches you've found. Somebody should not have a cache listed as a "find" since they didn't find they cache.

Link to comment

It's not harsh, that person didn't find the cache, they should've put a "needs maintenance" log instead therefor they shouldn't recieve credit for finding the cache. Also, sometimes people "find" caches multiple times if its a duplicate log then COs should be deleting the logs but they're not, weather they're not geocaching anymore, don't realize theres a phony log, or simply don't care.

 

What do you mean "credit?" What is the value of a find on a stranger's profile? You can delete fraudulent logs on your own caches.

 

I have deleted fradulent logs on my caches. But others have not deleted fradulent logs. On your profile it shows the caches you've found. Somebody should not have a cache listed as a "find" since they didn't find they cache.

 

Sometimes cache owners permit finds that you wouldn't. They have some discretion to do that.

 

The snitch line you're proposing just takes this responsibility away from owners and adds one more burden onto Groundspeak. Who is going to investigate when someone uses the phony log button?

 

This is a game, but it isn't a competition. Another person's find count is not relevant. If someone in your community is a geocache jerk, the best thing you can do is pretend they don't exist. Don't look at their profile, don't speak to them at events and don't talk about them to others. Set an example of good conduct and worry less about policing everyone else.

Link to comment

The snitch line you're proposing just takes this responsibility away from owners and adds one more burden onto Groundspeak. Who is going to investigate when someone uses the phony log button?

 

If owners are not monitoring the cache pages properly then reviewers should be able to step in and delete fraudulent logs so Groundspeak themselves don't have to.

Link to comment

The snitch line you're proposing just takes this responsibility away from owners and adds one more burden onto Groundspeak. Who is going to investigate when someone uses the phony log button?

 

If owners are not monitoring the cache pages properly then reviewers should be able to step in and delete fraudulent logs so Groundspeak themselves don't have to.

 

Cache owners are given some latitude to determine which logs are invalid. Some cache owners might make a different decision than you would like. It doesn't mean they aren't monitoring their caches.

 

If you honestly believe that a cache is not being maintained, you can post a Needs Archived note detailing your concern. We don't need a button so you can snitch on everyone who has a higher find count than you.

Link to comment

The snitch line you're proposing just takes this responsibility away from owners and adds one more burden onto Groundspeak. Who is going to investigate when someone uses the phony log button?

 

If owners are not monitoring the cache pages properly then reviewers should be able to step in and delete fraudulent logs so Groundspeak themselves don't have to.

 

Reviewers have plenty of things to do, worrying about someone claiming a find they didnt 'earn' is not one of them. That is for the cache owner and the cache owner alone. Remember that reviewer has probably never found that cache either.

 

(True fraudulent/spam style problems have been dealt with by Groundspeak when necessary).

Link to comment

You are always going to have people that cheat and really in the end what does it matter if someone logs a cache they did not visit? It’s not a professional sport or a contest with cash and prizes. If someone fraudulently logs a cache I’m going to visit, it will have no effect on my caching experience. Are numbers really that important and define you as a geocacher?

Edited by TahoeJoe
Link to comment

You are always going to have people that cheat and really in the end what does it matter if someone logs a cache they did not visit? It’s not a professional sport or a contest with cash and prizes. If someone fraudulently logs a cache I’m going to visit, it will have no effect on my caching experience. Are numbers really that important and define you as a geocacher?

You personally, correct? :)

 

- Because for me, can't tell you the number of distant "lonely" caches I've gone to (after a recent "find"), to realize the cache hasn't really been there in some time.

That's precious time (and money) spent, from that jerk's post, when I could have used the day(s) heading for one I knew (by the CO) was actually present and intact instead.

Link to comment

You are always going to have people that cheat and really in the end what does it matter if someone logs a cache they did not visit? It’s not a professional sport or a contest with cash and prizes. If someone fraudulently logs a cache I’m going to visit, it will have no effect on my caching experience. Are numbers really that important and define you as a geocacher?

You personally, correct? :)

 

- Because for me, can't tell you the number of distant "lonely" caches I've gone to (after a recent "find"), to realize the cache hasn't really been there in some time.

That's precious time (and money) spent, from that jerk's post, when I could have used the day(s) heading for one I knew (by the CO) was actually present and intact instead.

Good point, I've never run into that situation yet but you would never know if the log was bogus if the cache was missing. :D While I might be a little disappointed the cache was missing, I would still have enjoyed the hike to the cache. At least I'll be able to post a needs maintenance log for the CO. If a cache in an interesting location has several DNF's I'm still inclined to go look for it just for the excuse to hike.

Link to comment

You are always going to have people that cheat and really in the end what does it matter if someone logs a cache they did not visit? It’s not a professional sport or a contest with cash and prizes. If someone fraudulently logs a cache I’m going to visit, it will have no effect on my caching experience. Are numbers really that important and define you as a geocacher?

You personally, correct? :)

 

- Because for me, can't tell you the number of distant "lonely" caches I've gone to (after a recent "find"), to realize the cache hasn't really been there in some time.

That's precious time (and money) spent, from that jerk's post, when I could have used the day(s) heading for one I knew (by the CO) was actually present and intact instead.

 

And this issue is best addressed by using the "Needs Maintenance" or "Needs Archived" logs to warn other cachers about what you found at the GZ.

 

Except in cases of obvious spam, how can you "report" a fraudulent log unless you've visited the site anyway?

Link to comment

You are always going to have people that cheat and really in the end what does it matter if someone logs a cache they did not visit? It’s not a professional sport or a contest with cash and prizes. If someone fraudulently logs a cache I’m going to visit, it will have no effect on my caching experience. Are numbers really that important and define you as a geocacher?

You personally, correct? :)

 

- Because for me, can't tell you the number of distant "lonely" caches I've gone to (after a recent "find"), to realize the cache hasn't really been there in some time.

That's precious time (and money) spent, from that jerk's post, when I could have used the day(s) heading for one I knew (by the CO) was actually present and intact instead.

Good point, I've never run into that situation yet but you would never know if the log was bogus if the cache was missing. :D While I might be a little disappointed the cache was missing, I would still have enjoyed the hike to the cache. At least I'll be able to post a needs maintenance log for the CO. If a cache in an interesting location has several DNF's I'm still inclined to go look for it just for the excuse to hike.

I disance hiked years before there was such a thing as caching.

Odds are (for me), unless it's a truly unique location, I've simply already been there. ;)

I agree, always in for a good hike, but that cache was the reason I picked that spot to head to this time. :)

Link to comment

The snitch line you're proposing just takes this responsibility away from owners and adds one more burden onto Groundspeak. Who is going to investigate when someone uses the phony log button?

 

If owners are not monitoring the cache pages properly then reviewers should be able to step in and delete fraudulent logs so Groundspeak themselves don't have to.

 

Cache owners are given some latitude to determine which logs are invalid. Some cache owners might make a different decision than you would like. It doesn't mean they aren't monitoring their caches.

 

If you honestly believe that a cache is not being maintained, you can post a Needs Archived note detailing your concern. We don't need a button so you can snitch on everyone who has a higher find count than you.

 

Some cache owners never delete logs at all even if 10 people log "finds" that didn't exist. A couple cache owners even said their caches were still there even though they were/are gone. I think reviewers should be able to step in and say "hey owner please delete fraudulent logs and repair/replace your cache or else it will be archived for nonresponsiveness"

Link to comment

I don't see a big disagreement here, so just to sum up:

  • Enjoy the experience even if you DNF, whether you had a good reason to think the cache was there or not.
  • Bogus finds are bad for various reasons including because they can make a missing cache look like it's in place.
  • A feature flagging a log as bogus is uninteresting because it's more to the point and more useful to post an NM reporting the correct status of the cache.

Link to comment

You are always going to have people that cheat and really in the end what does it matter if someone logs a cache they did not visit? It’s not a professional sport or a contest with cash and prizes. If someone fraudulently logs a cache I’m going to visit, it will have no effect on my caching experience. Are numbers really that important and define you as a geocacher?

You personally, correct? :)

 

- Because for me, can't tell you the number of distant "lonely" caches I've gone to (after a recent "find"), to realize the cache hasn't really been there in some time.

That's precious time (and money) spent, from that jerk's post, when I could have used the day(s) heading for one I knew (by the CO) was actually present and intact instead.

Good point, I've never run into that situation yet but you would never know if the log was bogus if the cache was missing. :D While I might be a little disappointed the cache was missing, I would still have enjoyed the hike to the cache. At least I'll be able to post a needs maintenance log for the CO. If a cache in an interesting location has several DNF's I'm still inclined to go look for it just for the excuse to hike.

I disance hiked years before there was such a thing as caching.

Odds are (for me), unless it's a truly unique location, I've simply already been there. ;)

I agree, always in for a good hike, but that cache was the reason I picked that spot to head to this time. :)

 

Yes, if you think a cache is in poor repair for whatever reason, and the owner is ignoring it, use the NA feature.

Link to comment

I don't see a big disagreement here, so just to sum up:

  • Enjoy the experience even if you DNF, whether you had a good reason to think the cache was there or not.
  • Bogus finds are bad for various reasons including because they can make a missing cache look like it's in place.
  • A feature flagging a log as bogus is uninteresting because it's more to the point and more useful to post an NM reporting the correct status of the cache.

 

Even if somebody put a NM log, the CO could still ignore it and not delete the fradulent logs. Posting an NA log might work so that a reviewer can see there's a problem that isn't being addressed. But often times CO's still say their missing cache is in place and to "open your eyes"

Link to comment

Even if somebody put a NM log, the CO could still ignore it and not delete the fradulent logs. Posting an NA log might work so that a reviewer can see there's a problem that isn't being addressed. But often times CO's still say their missing cache is in place and to "open your eyes"

Yes, of course. I didn't say anything about how to finally get rid of the cache because this thread is about bogus finds.

Link to comment

I don't see a big disagreement here, so just to sum up:

  • Enjoy the experience even if you DNF, whether you had a good reason to think the cache was there or not.
  • Bogus finds are bad for various reasons including because they can make a missing cache look like it's in place.
  • A feature flagging a log as bogus is uninteresting because it's more to the point and more useful to post an NM reporting the correct status of the cache.

 

Even if somebody put a NM log, the CO could still ignore it and not delete the fradulent logs. Posting an NA log might work so that a reviewer can see there's a problem that isn't being addressed. But often times CO's still say their missing cache is in place and to "open your eyes"

 

Often, the missing cache is there. On caches where the last find was a DNF, I probably have a 50% find rate or better. DNF means you didn't find it. It doesn't mean it isn't there.

Link to comment

This is a game, but it isn't a competition. Another person's find count is not relevant. If someone in your community is a geocache jerk, the best thing you can do is pretend they don't exist. Don't look at their profile, don't speak to them at events and don't talk about them to others. Set an example of good conduct and worry less about policing everyone else.

If another person's find count is irrelevant, then why ignore them? Isn't shunning just another form of policing?

Link to comment

Even if somebody put a NM log, the CO could still ignore it and not delete the fradulent logs. Posting an NA log might work so that a reviewer can see there's a problem that isn't being addressed. But often times CO's still say their missing cache is in place and to "open your eyes"

Yes, of course. I didn't say anything about how to finally get rid of the cache because this thread is about bogus finds.

Right, but sometimes people log a "find" on the cache even though its not there. Sometimes people will log a "found it" log but its "no luck didn't find it"

Link to comment

Even if somebody put a NM log, the CO could still ignore it and not delete the fradulent logs. Posting an NA log might work so that a reviewer can see there's a problem that isn't being addressed. But often times CO's still say their missing cache is in place and to "open your eyes"

Yes, of course. I didn't say anything about how to finally get rid of the cache because this thread is about bogus finds.

Right, but sometimes people log a "find" on the cache even though its not there. Sometimes people will log a "found it" log but its "no luck didn't find it"

 

Often, those logs are mistakes by people using the app for the first time. Do you think that snitching on people for an honest mistake will make them feel welcome in the game?

 

If someone falsely logs your own geocache, you can delete the log.

Link to comment

Even if somebody put a NM log, the CO could still ignore it and not delete the fradulent logs. Posting an NA log might work so that a reviewer can see there's a problem that isn't being addressed. But often times CO's still say their missing cache is in place and to "open your eyes"

Yes, of course. I didn't say anything about how to finally get rid of the cache because this thread is about bogus finds.

Right, but sometimes people log a "find" on the cache even though its not there. Sometimes people will log a "found it" log but its "no luck didn't find it"

 

Often, those logs are mistakes by people using the app for the first time. Do you think that snitching on people for an honest mistake will make them feel welcome in the game?

 

If someone falsely logs your own geocache, you can delete the log.

 

Using the app or not they still selected "Found it" as their log type. I HAVE deleted logs on my cache pages that are fraudelent. None of the "found it" logs have been restored on my caches but a fradulent DNF was restored (long story).

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...