Jump to content

Should CO's Delete False Find Logs?


CrazySanMan

Recommended Posts

I've taken a casual approach to it. If the log doesn't have accompanying pictures, then I look at the logger's other finds for the same day or surrounding days. If they don't appear reasonable, then I'll delete or hide the log and send a PM to the person and advise them why. Otherwise, I leave the online log alone.

Link to comment

In addition to the possibilities suggested by others, if it has been a while, then some of the finders could have changed names. This happens when geocachers simply decide to change their usernames. It also happens when new people sign with one name and then create an account with a different username. Or if they forget that their preferred username wasn't available, and keep using it for a while before remembering that their username is actually something different. Yes, I've seen all these happen.

 

But yes, part of maintenance is deleting bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate online logs. Just be sure that they really are bogus or counterfeit before deleting them.

Link to comment

The title of the thread is "Should CO's Delete False Find Logs?", and my basic answer to that is, "Yes." But what you're describing doesn't amount to "false find logs" without additional evidence. This problem sounds systemic, and my suspicion is that there's a second container nearby, either an old, archived cache, a throwdown someone left, or a letterbox. In one case I ran into, an old active puzzle cache published before they put final coordinates in the database was near a newer traditional, so more than half of the people that thought they were finding the traditional were actually signing the puzzle cache's log. It didn't help that the tranditional's posted coordinates were closer to the puzzle final than to the cache's actual location.

 

I would suggest contacting some of the recent finders to see if you can work out if there's any legitimate reason for confusion. If, in the end, you believe there really are a lot of people lying about finding your cache, feel free to delete the logs, but I wouldn't go too far into the past: if the logs are too old, people won't be able to defend themselves, and that will make them angry whether they have a good reason for not signing the log or not.

Link to comment

I vote the "take it slow" route.

First: Decide if it really matters that much to you. Your cache, your maintenance plan. If you want to follow up, then you are entitled to do so.

Next: Take a day or two and revisit how much it matters to you. (see above statements about angry emails, or possible reasons it doesn't line up)

 

Second: Feel like you want to face the issue head on? Start by considering the possibility of sending a kindly worded email to the folks who don't have their name on the physical log. Don't assume anything, and don't accuse anyone of anything untoward.

 

Third: Take another break, and decide if you really wanted to send that email. Still do? Ok, then hit send.

 

Fourth: Be prepared to have the recipients ignore the email...intentionally, or unintentionally. This would account for roughly half, I would guess, of those you send the email to. The other half might respond. A good portion of those that respond will be reciprocally kind in their email back to you. Some, however, will reply with some colorful language directed toward you and the implied accusatory tone.

 

Fifth: No doubt dealing with the impression that half of those you contacted aren't "legitimate" cachers, who clearly don't care for returning your kindly inquiry, you will either decide to send another, more pointed email on the subject, or all-out delete the logs. This will net you your goodly portion of those contacted being firmly in the upset demographic.

 

Sixth: The remaining kind respondents will be your salvation, and likely have a simple, yet legitimate reasoning for their apparently missing signature. You can ask them to return to sign in, you can delete their logs anyway, or you can let it go. You're still faced with the other sizeable portion of your list who has either not responded, or has responded in a less than kindly way.

 

Seventh: You find that only a small number of those contacted end up returning to the cache to sign the cache log. You're left with the majority of your missing signatures (or marks) on the logbook still outstanding, and those you contacted have become wasps in a lightly bumped nest. Not too many stings yet, but any more agitation and they're bound to all sting.

 

So, you're left having put in all of this effort to find yourself roughly where you started. And for what, the pleasure of lording over others your rather stalwart cache maintenance? If that is your perogative, then by all means put in the effort.

 

I've found that taking the time to think it all through, do some sleuthing of the accounts of those who have apparently bypassed the physical logbook, and then decide on a case-by-case basis. I've only ever found 1 or 2 cachers who are deliberate geocaching "cheats". So, I don't concern myself too much with the issue.

 

Now, we can move the conversation over to discussion over cache maintenance and log checking in situations like 2000-cache owners. If someone decides to armchair the ET highway, I'm hard pressed to believe that the owner has ever audited their logbooks for the entire (or even part of) the series. This means that someone, somewhere, can be racking up numbers from the comfort of their armchair at home. That chaps my hide a bit. But, here's the context that always calms me down:

 

This is just a game. There are no winners in this game. More finds does not a better cacher make. Someone who armchair logs is not getting (what I consider) the same pleasure out of the game as I, and that's their perogative.

 

We can do what we want with our caches, but sometimes the situations created with mass accusations are just not worth it. If you do decide to address this issue, take it slow. Be kind. And be ready to just let it go.

Link to comment

Interesting. I always find *more* signatures on my logs than online logs. :unsure:

 

I wouldn't bother deleting them, unless you're really sure. It's just going to make for alot of angry emails. Do you really need that?

I check the log fist then I delete. I just had a cacher in europe logging finds on my caches I checked no sig all are deleted (yes I mean it)

Link to comment

If me, unless I notice a pattern of something larger and impossible, I would keep the log. I once tried to check my Peace Puzzzle caches and especially around Woodstock it was virtually impossible with team names. Not that I was planning to delete any (I did delete some dupes) but it was for my own curiosity more than anything else. Deleting a log is a harsh thing and unless I know for sure its bogus, I'd not bother.

 

The tougher the cache, the more I would question it. Someone logs a quickie, I probably would not even notice.

Link to comment

Interesting. I always find *more* signatures on my logs than online logs. :unsure:

 

Same here. I used to email the cachers and remind them to log their find. To date not one single person has responded to me or logged online. Curious...

There's a guy around here who's not that into "recordkeeping. " He logs most, & misses some.

 

Also, sometimes prospective members come along as guests on the cache-hunt & sign the log as part of the event, but never join the organization or log the find.

Link to comment

 

Also, sometimes prospective members come along as guests on the cache-hunt & sign the log as part of the event, but never join the organization or log the find.

 

I've seen alot of these types of signatures. Lots of people using their real names, perhaps because they're new to geocaching and/or they happened to be caching with friends and family. Muggles also will sign their real names.

Link to comment

That sounds like a lot to have 30 missing, half of the finds. There must be something else going on especially if no one says anything in there logs about why they didn't sign it. I wouldn't just start deleting as many might get upset and if you want to play this game for a long time as we hope to some of those finders who you don't know, you might end up meeting at a event or just become friends with in another way. I'm sure it would always be in the back of there minds...oh yea this cacher who deleted my find for no reason. We are working on a crazy long streak for fun and often only have time for one find in a day so one deletion could be a big deal for us. Especially if it was from a month or so back so we couldn't remember what it was about. If a CO decided to delete one of our finds for whatever reason it wouldn't matter to much in the big picture but if it messed up our streak we wouldn't be to happy. If I was one to worry about stuff like this I would find a active cacher who's name was missing and send them a email to ask if they knew what was up.

Link to comment

Also, sometimes prospective members come along as guests on the cache-hunt & sign the log as part of the event, but never join the organization or log the find.

 

I've seen alot of these types of signatures. Lots of people using their real names, perhaps because they're new to geocaching and/or they happened to be caching with friends and family. Muggles also will sign their real names.

 

I almost always use my real first name when signing the logbook. I've done it that way since I started, so if a CO went looking for a Crow-T-Robot signature, they wouldn't find it. I do include my real first name in the online log just in case a CO wanted to verify that I found the cache.

 

As to the original question, my answer is to consider just how much drama you want to take on. There are CO's (some right in this thread) who will religiously check the logbook and delete online logs if they don't find your name. They have every right to do that but I just find that to be taking all this way too seriously. I look at geocaching as a lightweight pasttime/hobby/recreation and someone out there racking up finds from the couch really doesn't bother me.

Link to comment

It does seem odd to have half the signatures missing.

I assume you've ruled out things like a page falling out of the logbook.

Do you find other signatures which don't have an online log?

 

Personally, unless I have some reason to suspect something is "bogus", I would not delete any logs. But maybe if I had that number missing I might email some of those who didn't seem to sign to ask why; maybe I'd find a pattern.

 

I don't know how much time has gone by but that would also be a factor. Most cachers are honest. If a CO sent me a mail stating they could not see my signature on a cache I found 2 years ago, I would not be able to explain it, as I would have signed the log or would have explained at the time why I did not.

Link to comment

If I haven't signed the log then I say why. It's normally because caching is spur of the moment and don't seem to have a pen in my bag. I do have blonde moments sometimes.

 

and I have to say as a CO I am okay with not seeing a sig in the log book if they have explained why they haven't signed it

Edited by sparklefingers
Link to comment

I recently checked the log of one of my caches and compared it to the online log. There are roughly 30 online logged finds that do not appear in the physical logbook, about half of the total finds logged online. Should I delete the finds that are logged online that do not appear in the physical log?

Was there any missing pieces of log sheet/log book.

 

I had found a number of caches with log sheets all loose and the wind can take one. (I had never lost a log sheets, but close a few time.) Oh I wont be surprise if this happen.

Link to comment

One of your caches that I opened has 7 finds logged on the same day, they mention "part of Team XXX". I bet they signed once, "Team XXX", and all logged separately. This kind of group signature might account for more logs.

The same cache has a more recent mention that the log was too wet to sign.

 

I've deleted logs a few times, but only when the cacher was logging stuff all over the world on the same day. Deleting bogus logs is a cache owner duty - but figuring it out is often not worth the effort ;-) hey, it's supposed to be fun, all of it.

 

...and once when someone logged a large number of my caches, all with the same log, back-dated several years. I checked the rarely found multi-caches in that group, all ammo cans with the original logs, nothing to correspond to their finds. I left the trad finds, didn't check them. They probably found some of those.

Edited by Isonzo Karst
Link to comment

The short answer to OP's question....yes, as far as geocaching guidelines are concerned, the general consensus is to sign the log and then claim a find.

 

I generally let it slide if it's not one of the "main offenders". Sometimes it's simply not worth the trouble, as some people take log deletions very seriously. Sometimes it can result in retaliation and other unwanted strife.

 

When I check on a cache and find "sandbag" logs, I'll normally post a note on my page with a picture of the log and mention that there were more finds claimed than signatures. That leaves it up to the community that's viewing your cache to judge that perso, as opposed to making somebody mad by taking something away from them.

Link to comment

I have only deleted logs when I was certain they were bogus. If there is a good possibility the person actually found the cache but didn't sign for some reason, forgot a pen, log was wet, they signed as part of a group, etc. I won't delete them. It's not worth the bad blood that might develop.

 

Due to the sheer number of missing signatures in your case I suspect that you might have a case of bunch of cachers signing as a group. I can't imagine that many armchair finds on a cache.

Link to comment

To date, I have never conducted an inventory of a logbook in one of my caches, comparing the signatures to the online logs. I would rather bathe in freshly roasted sand spurs than be that anal. I don't get into hobbies to increase my stress. Quite the opposite, really.

 

Exactly. I think the only time I would even bother would be if it was one of my puzzles that doesn't get many finds and suddenly people started logging it. Even then it would have to be pretty clear to me that they likely didn't actually go find it.

 

Only log I ever deleted was a duplicate log. One actually was a log they wrote, and the other one (the one I deleted) was the good old "found using the free Geocaching app" log. Sometimes I really wish we could have logging requirements...

Link to comment

To date, I have never conducted an inventory of a logbook in one of my caches, comparing the signatures to the online logs. I would rather bathe in freshly roasted sand spurs than be that anal. I don't get into hobbies to increase my stress. Quite the opposite, really.

 

I'm in love!! LOL

 

OMG, I had to google 'sand spur' because I had no idea what that was - and I'm laughing really hard right now. In our neck of the woods - Burn Hazel. OUCH!!! :laughing:

 

But yeah....I totally agree.

Edited by Lieblweb
Link to comment

Reading through this thread, looks like it mostly comes down to personal preference and willingness to delve into a potential time-suck. For what it's worth I'll share two reasons why I would delete logs.

  1. Obviously false log that is an affront to your sensibilities. Just last weekend I deleted a log for the first time. A new user had recently posted a find on my puzzle cache with one word "Lame". Since I put some effort into both the puzzle and the hide location, I was pretty miffed at this log. What exactly did the finder think was lame? I emailed the user with this inquiry and didn't get a response. I checked their profile and they were brand-new, found only 5 other traditional caches nearby on that same day, and have yet to try geocaching again. Wasn't too hard for me to guess the situation (there's even a thread about this Are new users killing the hobby?). I suspect that they didn't understand what an "unknown" cache was, went to the posted coordinates which for inside a locked observatory and thought to themselves, "how lame that there is a cache in this locked building that I cannot even try to hunt for". Still, I let the log stand for a few weeks (also waiting for a reply from them) until I had time to go out and visit the cache, at which point I verified that they hadn't signed the log (made a thorough check of all blank pages and back covers etc...) and deleted their log. Why did I bother? Mostly because their log rankled me. If they had posted something like, "fun cache and hike, thanks", I probably never would have checked and even if I had checked I wouldn't feel compelled to delete the log. If they contact me and are unhappy about my action, I'll be more than happy to explain to them how the puzzle works and encourage them to find the cache. Since they didn't respond to my first email though, I doubt that they will respond to the deleted log notification.
  2. Side-games. In my caching area there is a geocaching side-game that assigns point values to caches based upon how lonely they are. I wouldn't say this side game is all that popular, but there is certainly a dedicated bunch of cachers that really enjoy this aspect of caching, hunt out the lonely caches to get high "points" and are competitive about it. False logs affect the point values for this side-game, so these cachers and owners are pretty good about policing their logs. For the caches I own that have high "lonely cache points" I know I would make an effort to verify logs. And I expect as much from the other lonely cache hiders. So for us, this has become a good reason to delete logs and not just accept false logs. It really only applies to those geocaches which only have a few logs anyways, and the logs on those caches tend to be high quality anyways. The caches we own that get found frequently aren't "worth many points" and therefore have less motivation to keep accurate logs or weed out false ones. For a cache such as the one the OP posted with dozens of finds, I wouldn't be concerned about false logs (unless they were like example #1). While this reason for why you "should" delete a log is rather colloquial, I can see how other regions may have similar side-games that encourage cachers to audit their log books.

Link to comment

My diagnosis is that you may have unfortunately developed a case of a throwdown. The good news is that it can be cured. Go out and locate it. The only log you need to delete at this point is the first person listed in it. If that person does not exist or did not log it, then delete the second one. Sometimes these viruses will mimic others, so that they can replicate easier. After you are done post a photo on the cache page to prevent reinfection.

Link to comment

I only made a quick read of a few... but if the most recent (TO! K H M) one is indicative at all.

The problem is probably due to lack of log space to maintenance issues... it still has a NM marker and the log has been replaced once already by a cacher and is full again. Anyway, no place to sign might well account for there being missing signatures on that one. Not everyone has the materials (all the time) to replace logs sheets.

And helpful cachers that do can't reset the NM marker. And that is just one cache.

 

It probably requires frequent maintenance trips by the CO or at least some attention to user maintenance notes if that is too much trouble.

 

If it's another cache, then I'd look for similar conditions at the same time as analyzing logs for indications.

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

I recently checked the log of one of my caches and compared it to the online log. There are roughly 30 online logged finds that do not appear in the physical logbook, about half of the total finds logged online. Should I delete the finds that are logged online that do not appear in the physical log?

This is a log that will delete today-I guess in Idaho sighing a log is optional

TFTC Thought would grab a few early morning caches From out of town from Idaho and did not have a tool to retrieve so did not sign log

Link to comment

I recently checked the log of one of my caches and compared it to the online log. There are roughly 30 online logged finds that do not appear in the physical logbook, about half of the total finds logged online. Should I delete the finds that are logged online that do not appear in the physical log?

This is a log that will delete today-I guess in Idaho sighing a log is optional

TFTC Thought would grab a few early morning caches From out of town from Idaho and did not have a tool to retrieve so did not sign log

See, to me, that sounds like a legitimate deletion. I mean, if the cache is rated for the necessary retrieval method, and the location and purpose of the cache is related to having to retrieve it, then not signing the log because one can't retrieve it for lack of time/tool that's a DNF in my book.

 

If it were a rusted-shut altoids tin, I'd sign the exterior, log the find, and then a NM. The difference is subtle, but that's just how I, personally, think about these two instances.

Link to comment

I recently checked the log of one of my caches and compared it to the online log. There are roughly 30 online logged finds that do not appear in the physical logbook, about half of the total finds logged online. Should I delete the finds that are logged online that do not appear in the physical log?

This is a log that will delete today-I guess in Idaho sighing a log is optional

TFTC Thought would grab a few early morning caches From out of town from Idaho and did not have a tool to retrieve so did not sign log

See, to me, that sounds like a legitimate deletion. I mean, if the cache is rated for the necessary retrieval method, and the location and purpose of the cache is related to having to retrieve it, then not signing the log because one can't retrieve it for lack of time/tool that's a DNF in my book.

 

If it were a rusted-shut altoids tin, I'd sign the exterior, log the find, and then a NM. The difference is subtle, but that's just how I, personally, think about these two instances.

I agree. Lack of tool or ability (tree climb etc.) gets deleted.

Link to comment

Rusted altoids tin! That's what a leatherman toon is for I have never been stoped by an altoids tin.

It was an example. <_<

 

I have, however, been thwarted by a rusted cache contatiner before, and I was using my multitool to try and open it. The only option was going to be to break the container, so I stopped short.

 

I'm not about to destroy someone's cache completely...so that's where the owner comes in.

 

But, back on subject, either way it makes sense why someone might DNF a cache like that, versus when they don't actually try to retrieve it from a hidey hole or tree...and admit it in their log!

Link to comment

To date, I have never conducted an inventory of a logbook in one of my caches, comparing the signatures to the online logs. I would rather bathe in freshly roasted sand spurs than be that anal. I don't get into hobbies to increase my stress. Quite the opposite, really.

Same here as well. My stress level is high enough the way its! I use geocaching to relax me, not to increase my stress level all the more. If people want to cheat, I let it be.(if you logged caches all over the world in one day and one of them is my cache, very likely I will delete the log)

Link to comment

My diagnosis is that you may have unfortunately developed a case of a throwdown. The good news is that it can be cured. Go out and locate it. The only log you need to delete at this point is the first person listed in it. If that person does not exist or did not log it, then delete the second one. Sometimes these viruses will mimic others, so that they can replicate easier. After you are done post a photo on the cache page to prevent reinfection.

:laughing:

Link to comment

To date, I have never conducted an inventory of a logbook in one of my caches, comparing the signatures to the online logs. I would rather bathe in freshly roasted sand spurs than be that anal. I don't get into hobbies to increase my stress. Quite the opposite, really.

Same here as well. My stress level is high enough the way its! I use geocaching to relax me, not to increase my stress level all the more. If people want to cheat, I let it be.(if you logged caches all over the world in one day and one of them is my cache, very likely I will delete the log)

I check the logs if I suspect a problem, in the case of the cache that I deleted the log for today, he admitted that the log was not signed. Now this cache is rated a 5 and it is close to home so I check anyway from time to time.

Link to comment

To date, I have never conducted an inventory of a logbook in one of my caches, comparing the signatures to the online logs. I would rather bathe in freshly roasted sand spurs than be that anal. I don't get into hobbies to increase my stress. Quite the opposite, really.

Same here as well. My stress level is high enough the way its! I use geocaching to relax me, not to increase my stress level all the more. If people want to cheat, I let it be.(if you logged caches all over the world in one day and one of them is my cache, very likely I will delete the log)

I check the logs if I suspect a problem, in the case of the cache that I deleted the log for today, he admitted that the log was not signed. Now this cache is rated a 5 and it is close to home so I check anyway from time to time.

 

Not me. I let it stand so I can laugh at them.

Link to comment

If someone else has a different way of playing, who am I to say no to them? I supply the cache, and they have fun finding it however they feel. Unless it was a really tough hide, I wouldn't be worried.

The problem isn't how they're playing, it's the false information they're generating. For example, their find log might make it look like a cache is there when it isn't.

Link to comment

If someone else has a different way of playing, who am I to say no to them? I supply the cache, and they have fun finding it however they feel. Unless it was a really tough hide, I wouldn't be worried.

For example, their find log might make it look like a cache is there when it isn't.

That's true. However, since it's equally true for every single cache on the planet, this concern rates naught more than a "Meh". Any cache can disappear betwixt the last guy to find it and your find. I suppose, for those numbers oriented cachers, who don't feel as if they have succeeded at this hobby unless they walk away with a smilie, this might be a noteworthy concern. They might pop off with some silliness about how their 'time was wasted'. Frankly, I don't see it. I enjoy the other details involved in this hobby, such as plotting a route to the best parking, getting to ground zero and conducting a hunt. These are fun, for me. So, if said hunt ends in a DNF, I won't be singing the blues.

Link to comment

If someone else has a different way of playing, who am I to say no to them? I supply the cache, and they have fun finding it however they feel. Unless it was a really tough hide, I wouldn't be worried.

The problem isn't how they're playing, it's the false information they're generating. For example, their find log might make it look like a cache is there when it isn't.

 

+1. The different way of playing is a bogus argument. A basic tenet of geocaching is that you navigate to a cache location and hunt for it. Armchair logging is not simply a different way of geocaching, it has nothing whatsoever to do with geocacing.

Link to comment

If someone else has a different way of playing, who am I to say no to them? I supply the cache, and they have fun finding it however they feel. Unless it was a really tough hide, I wouldn't be worried.

The problem isn't how they're playing, it's the false information they're generating. For example, their find log might make it look like a cache is there when it isn't.

 

+1. The different way of playing is a bogus argument. A basic tenet of geocaching is that you navigate to a cache location and hunt for it. Armchair logging is not simply a different way of geocaching, it has nothing whatsoever to do with geocacing.

 

+2

Link to comment

To date, I have never conducted an inventory of a logbook in one of my caches, comparing the signatures to the online logs. I would rather bathe in freshly roasted sand spurs than be that anal. I don't get into hobbies to increase my stress. Quite the opposite, really.

Same here as well. My stress level is high enough the way its! I use geocaching to relax me, not to increase my stress level all the more. If people want to cheat, I let it be.(if you logged caches all over the world in one day and one of them is my cache, very likely I will delete the log)

I check the logs if I suspect a problem, in the case of the cache that I deleted the log for today, he admitted that the log was not signed. Now this cache is rated a 5 and it is close to home so I check anyway from time to time.

 

Not me. I let it stand so I can laugh at them.

 

Best answer yet.

Link to comment

As a CO, I generally check my caches at least once a month to make sure they aren't wet and that they're still there. If someone logged a find and didn't actually find it, oh well. I'm going to be there soon enough to check on it. Also, even if someone has found it doesn't mean it's going to be there for the next person anyway. People worry too dadgum much about how other people are playing the game. I'm over it. I'm not playing to please other cachers, I'm playing because I enjoy it.

Link to comment

If someone else has a different way of playing, who am I to say no to them? I supply the cache, and they have fun finding it however they feel. Unless it was a really tough hide, I wouldn't be worried.

The problem isn't how they're playing, it's the false information they're generating. For example, their find log might make it look like a cache is there when it isn't.

 

+1. The different way of playing is a bogus argument. A basic tenet of geocaching is that you navigate to a cache location and hunt for it. Armchair logging is not simply a different way of geocaching, it has nothing whatsoever to do with geocacing.

 

+2

 

+3. My biggest concern about this is the maintenance dilemma. While some cachers may check their caches regularly and won't bat an eye at a fake log, there are lots of caches out there with inattentive CO's. That opens the flood gates for fake logs. There's nothing I hate more than searching for a cache that's not there because the last finder posted a fake log and falsely led me to believe the cache was there.

 

My favorite though.....is the shameless false loggers. The ones that will post a find on a cache with 4 or 5 dnfs. There's nothing like seeing a fake find with dnfs both in front and behind it. It's almost comical to me that some people need a smiley that bad.

Link to comment

There's nothing I hate more than searching for a cache that's not there because the last finder posted a fake log and falsely led me to believe the cache was there.

As noted earlier, a DNF is not a life changing event. I enjoy the process of getting to the cache and hunting for it, almost as much as actually finding the container. For me, no hunt is a 'waste', since I am having fun playing a game I enjoy. Since history tells us that any cache can disappear at any time, I try not to make too many assumptions. If I see a 1/1 with a string of finds, followed by a string of DNFs, with one smilie stuck in the middle, I probably will make an assumption that someone posted a bogus log. Then, it's on me. If I choose to hunt that cache, I am the only one responsible for the expected outcome.

 

On that same note, since any cache can disappear at any time, every single hunt puts you in a situation where you might have to face what you supposedly hate the most. To misquote War Games, (if a find is your only measure of success), "The only way to win is not to play".

 

I suppose, for those numbers oriented cachers, who don't feel as if they have succeeded at this hobby unless they walk away with a smilie, this might be a noteworthy concern.

Maybe we could start a thread listing those things we hate 'more than searching for a cache that's not there'?

I'll start: (In no particular order)

Violence against helpless victims.

Chiggers.

Tyranny.

Brussel sprouts.

Link to comment
Maybe we could start a thread listing those things we hate 'more than searching for a cache that's not there'?

I'll start: (In no particular order)

Violence against helpless victims.

Chiggers.

Tyranny.

Brussel sprouts.

 

That's easy. The number one thing I hate more than searching for a cache that's not there is (drum roll, please) not being able to search for a cache that's not there. Try it. Next time you're in a situation where you can't cache, in bed sick, have to work on a perfect day, whatever, bet most people would gladly be out there instead, even if it's for a cache that isn't there.

 

As for deleting logs, I haven't yet hidden any caches, but when I get around to doing that, I can't see myself getting all worked up over anything unless it's really blatant. I think I'd find those logs more of a nuisance on the same level as people not posting dnf's.

Link to comment

To date, I have never conducted an inventory of a logbook in one of my caches, comparing the signatures to the online logs. I would rather bathe in freshly roasted sand spurs than be that anal. I don't get into hobbies to increase my stress. Quite the opposite, really.

 

^^This.^^

 

I look through the paper logs just to see what people wrote, not to audit.

 

If someone were to log a totally false log on one of our caches, say, they logged in thirteen countries at once or something, I'd delete it. Otherwise I tend to give people the benefit of a doubt.

 

For that matter, I've only deleted one or two fake earthcache finds, and that was after bending over backward to try and get people to even remotely come close to the EC lesson.

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...