[Team Periwinkle]

Wow. I understand the passion here, but as a relatively new 'cacher, I'm hoping that other new 'cachers don't read this thread and get scared off.

We recently logged a find of a nano, where it was a nano inside a slightly bigger nano / micro. The logbook was inside the nano inside the micro. We didn't figure that out until after we left the cache (and went to another similar cache that was using the same type of container). So we logged a "find" - heck, we left a trackable inside the cache - even though we didn't sign the log. And we acknowledged this whole story on the on-line post.

http://coord.info/GC1YY5V

[And I don't think the CO is trying to be nefarious with a cache inside a cache - the nano no longer was in good enough condition to be the only container, so they just put the nano inside the micro. I won't criticize the CO for this situation (and I'm putting this here as a pre-emptive strike against those who will blame the CO for a bad cache).]

So by some of the logic in this thread, my 'find it' might not count. I have a pretty good argument that it does count, but I can also understand the logic of "find it = must have signed log" so it doesn't count. [Although there is always an honor system in everything - is anyone doing signature recognition on the names in a logbook to verify that the 'cacher who signed the log is REALLY the person who was there? But I digress....]

Anyway, my real point is this: We - my kids and I (and my wife, when I can drag her along - are doing geocaching as a GAME. We're having fun, and the kids enjoy looking at our statistics on the website and finding out who finds our finds after us. If the CO had deleted our 'find' on the nit-picky technicality (and I'm using that phrase deliberately here [extra bonus points if you can name the actress and movie that quote is from]) then my kids would have been really upset, and they might start to lose interest in a game that is interpreted so rigidly. And I understand the rebuttal to that is "rules are rules" - but really?

There are gray areas in all parts of life, and before we come up with hard and fast interpretations of rules, consider the implications of your (or a CO) actions. In other words, let's not have hard and fast interpretations of rules, but rather let's analyze each situation independently. Certainly if someone is trying to log a find with ill intent and deception, I'm all in favor of deleting the log. But I don't think anyone here would think it is a good idea to alienate new 'cachers and little kids just doing this for fun and making innocent mistakes, right?

So can't we all just relax and get along? I like the idea that we're geocachers not geolawyers.

[baloo&bd]

As an employer, I guess I am starting to understand why it is getting more difficult to find quality young people if they are being taught that rules are to be followed only if they don't interfere with your fun and anyone wanting to play a game with you must adjust things to make sure you "win" and not be "nit-picky".

Yes, it is an honor system and yes, if you do not say anything in the log you will most likely get away with it. This, by the way, is the very definition on "without honor". To paraphrase a related quote "Honor is what you do when no one is looking". The person who puts in their log is not being punished for not getting a smiley because they admitted they didn't find the cache. It is simply they did not complete the task. If it is truly not about the numbers for that individual, it will not matter either way. If it is about the numbers, they have to find something. How simple is that?

A real world example of ignoring signing logs as GS has spelled out so clearly;

When looking for a cache recently, one we ended up DNFing however has been found by many (we're re-evaluating our interest in the game now), we came across a container within 20 feet of GZ. Upon opening it, we found the following;



No problem, we'll keep looking. As I went to put this back in the container, I noticed on the back;


(no, the comment visible is not mine or anyone in my group that day)

For those of you that care about such things, the cacher claimed FTF. Then, in the online found it log, complained that the CO had not made it clear what was going on. They decided that the signed log was not necessary as long as they found something. Is the CO justified in deleting this log? If not, please explain why not? If actually finding the cache is not what this game is about, what is it about?

Was this decoy possibly what was held on with that magnet that was found? Probably not, however could have been.

Based on this instance, next time your looking for a cache in a park and find a trash receptacle within an acceptable distance, sign any piece of paper you may find in it. After all, bringing you to the park is what it was all about, right? It's just a game.

Ultimately, it is up to the CO to decide. If they choose to ignore the agreement they made with GS and allow the unsigned/un-found log to stand, that is their choice however do not criticize those who choose to play the game as intended with derogatory terms such as "purist", "nit-picky" or the like.

[tozainamboku]

baloo&bd, on 11 April 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

If they choose to ignore the agreement they made with GS and allow the unsigned/un-found log to stand, that is their choice however do not criticize those who choose to play the game as intended with derogatory terms such as "purist", "nit-picky" or the like.

I almost was willing to agree with you till the last sentence, quoted above.

Two points. First, as I read them there is nothing in guidelines or TOUs a cache owner agrees to saying they must delete finds if the physical log was not signed. The maintenance guidelines make the cache owner responsible for the what is posted on the page and they are told to delete logs that are bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or inappropriate. I believe Groundspeak's concern is not whether the online find log meet anyone's definition of a find, but rather to avoid abuses and violations of the TOUs. They are probably more concerned with logs that contain offensive language or that are overtly commercial. The idea behind bogus log, IMO, is to prevent someone sitting at home posting TFTC on every cache (or creating a program that does this). Of course, where this happens, Groundspeak has been quick to ban the offending account.

Second, the way the game is intended to be played is as fun light activity. This is not a professional golf tournament. "There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy". Reasonable accommodations should be allowed for people who are unable to sign the log. Sure, if a cache owner has a decoy cache and someone logs a find online knowing that they signed the back of the decoy note and never found the actual cache, the cache owner has a good case for deleting the log. I have no objection to a cache owner saying the cache was not found and the find should be turned to a DNF or a note. But I also would have no objection if the cache owner allowed this find to stand.

[nusense]

Can I hijack the "never to be resolved" discussion (I'll state for the record that I tend to the side expressed by baloo&bd) and ask about the flip side of a CO deleting a DNF.

My Oct 2010 DNF log said:

Quote

Searched for a while; GPSr had me wandering around a bit. Had some ideas about what was up but nothing panned out. Was getting tired, too tired for a (3.5/3.5) so I started for home.

Those evergreen trees mentioned in the description ... a few aren't so, ah, green anymore.

The CO deleted my DNF (March 2012) and wrote me a note about how the cache is right where they left it; they also gave me some hints and finished with:

Quote

Deleting some of the no-finds today to clean up the logs. The cache is still there so feel free to try again!

Ah, but that's not the point. I'm not simply collecting smilies, I'm logging my activity. If I hadn't given a real try then I would have logged a note. But I did, so I logged the DNF. Deleting that kind'a ticked me off -- 'cause it's a lie (of omission). Those DNFs mean something to me, gosh darn it.

[firestronaut]

nusense, on 11 April 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

Can I hijack the "never to be resolved" discussion (I'll state for the record that I tend to the side expressed by baloo&bd) and ask about the flip side of a CO deleting a DNF.

My Oct 2010 DNF log said:

Quote

Searched for a while; GPSr had me wandering around a bit. Had some ideas about what was up but nothing panned out. Was getting tired, too tired for a (3.5/3.5) so I started for home.

Those evergreen trees mentioned in the description ... a few aren't so, ah, green anymore.

The CO deleted my DNF (March 2012) and wrote me a note about how the cache is right where they left it; they also gave me some hints and finished with:

Quote

Deleting some of the no-finds today to clean up the logs. The cache is still there so feel free to try again!

Ah, but that's not the point. I'm not simply collecting smilies, I'm logging my activity. If I hadn't given a real try then I would have logged a note. But I did, so I logged the DNF. Deleting that kind'a ticked me off -- 'cause it's a lie (of omission). Those DNFs mean something to me, gosh darn it.

Wow
DNF's are part of the story, how does one "tidy" up their logs? And what purpose does it even serve?
If I were you, I'd just relog the DNF with the original date and calmly explain to the CO that it's part of our logging activity and you'd like it to stay there.

[WRASTRO]

firestronaut, on 11 April 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

nusense, on 11 April 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

Can I hijack the "never to be resolved" discussion (I'll state for the record that I tend to the side expressed by baloo&bd) and ask about the flip side of a CO deleting a DNF.

My Oct 2010 DNF log said:

Quote

Searched for a while; GPSr had me wandering around a bit. Had some ideas about what was up but nothing panned out. Was getting tired, too tired for a (3.5/3.5) so I started for home.

Those evergreen trees mentioned in the description ... a few aren't so, ah, green anymore.

The CO deleted my DNF (March 2012) and wrote me a note about how the cache is right where they left it; they also gave me some hints and finished with:

Quote

Deleting some of the no-finds today to clean up the logs. The cache is still there so feel free to try again!

Ah, but that's not the point. I'm not simply collecting smilies, I'm logging my activity. If I hadn't given a real try then I would have logged a note. But I did, so I logged the DNF. Deleting that kind'a ticked me off -- 'cause it's a lie (of omission). Those DNFs mean something to me, gosh darn it.

Wow
DNF's are part of the story, how does one "tidy" up their logs? And what purpose does it even serve?
If I were you, I'd just relog the DNF with the original date and calmly explain to the CO that it's part of our logging activity and you'd like it to stay there.

In my opinion cache owners deleting DNF logs is one of the worst aspects of our game. They are nothing more than self serving to make it seem like the cache is always found. They change the true history of the cache. Fortunately there are very few cache owners who practice this ridiculous cache page "cleaning".

[Glenn]

baloo&bd, on 11 April 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

Well, look at that. I've been going about this thing the wrong way. I need to go back and correct a bunch of logs. I hope those who thought they had FTF all these years aren't too upset.

[Glenn]

WRASTRO, on 11 April 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

In my opinion cache owners deleting DNF logs is one of the worst aspects of our game. They are nothing more than self serving to make it seem like the cache is always found. They change the true history of the cache. Fortunately there are very few cache owners who practice this ridiculous cache page "cleaning".

That's one observation that comes with experience. A cache with a bunch of finds and no DNFs is suspicious. Even 1/1s get DNFed every now and then.

[Chrysalides]

Glenn, on 13 April 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

That's one observation that comes with experience. A cache with a bunch of finds and no DNFs is suspicious. Even 1/1s get DNFed every now and then.

That's assuming that a significant number of people actually log DNFs.

[Clan Riffster]

nusense, on 11 April 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

Can I hijack the "never to be resolved" discussion

Yes, please do! Once Toz gets his Puritan feathers riled, he's a force to be reckoned with. His whole "If you don't agree with me then you must be a Puritan" argument is one that generally gets a few chuckles, (or groans), from those of us who have seen it before.

To get back on topic:

I am horribly hypocritical where "Found It" logs are concerned. For caches that I search for, I will not claim a find unless my moniker is in the log. I make no exceptions to that self imposed rule. If I cannot open the cache because it is rusty, or I cannot sign the log because it is mush, or I cannot reach the cache, etc, etc, I do not log a find.

But for caches that I own, I make no such distinctions. If you log a cache of mine as found, I start with the assumption that you felt your actions, whatever they were, equated a find. I will not quibble over which definition of "Found" is better. If it works for you, I am perfectly content with it.