Logging "Finds" for Non-existent Caches

[Gaddiel]

This month, we had a find on one of our caches that had been not only disabled, but REMOVED a week prior!. Here's the log entry in question:

"Found the spot where the cache is and wasps come flying out every where. Saw a snake crossing the path to it as well. So could not sign the log. Now that I am home and logging my finds I see that you already no about the wasps and have dis-abled the cache. But going to try and log since I was there."

Should this bother me as much as it does?

[RuffRidr]

This month, we had a find on one of our caches that had been not only disabled, but REMOVED a week prior!. Here's the log entry in question:

"Found the spot where the cache is, lifted up the thing and wasps come flying out every where. Saw a snake crossing the path to it as well. So could not sign the log. Now that I am home and logging my finds I see that you already no about the wasps and have dis-abled the cache. But going to try and log since I was there."

Should this bother me as much as it does?

In this case I would send a polite email to them telling them that the cache had already been removed, so it was impossible to log. Then delete their log of the cache. Being there does not equal finding the cache in my book.

--RuffRidr

[GEO]

I agree if it was disabled,I would e-mail them,politely, and then delete it as well.

jokingly in this log GEO*Trailblazer 1 says
Otherwise 8O I will get those over yonder 8) that I walked by but they were gone,but thought I would try to log it anyhow :oops: .
found(did not :idea: ) find a few of those :?: .

[arkansas_stickerdude]

I agree with everyone If its not there its not a find. If that was the case I would have alot more finds.

[southdeltan]

It's more than possible that they found the cache while it was still there and just now got around to logging the find. If you're not used to logging finds AFTER the fact you may not notice that the GC.com website automatically selects "todays" date.

I'm not saying that's definetly the reason why, but it's a possiblity.

Where their any signs of wasps or a wasp nest?

sd

[Gaddiel]

It's more than possible that they found the cache while it was still there and just now got around to logging the find. If you're not used to logging finds AFTER the fact you may not notice that the GC.com website automatically selects "todays" date.

I'm not saying that's definetly the reason why, but it's a possiblity.

Where their any signs of wasps or a wasp nest?

sd

Well, they logged several other caches in the area on the same date, so I have my doubts that this was a simple oversight. And, yes, the wasps were the reason that we disabled the cache in the first place.

Now, our philosophy on logging finds is simple, and (I think) most people would agree: If you don't sign the logbook, you can't claim it as a find. Yeah, I know it's just a game, and all that, but if we have people going around logging finds that they didn't really find, it gives the cache owners a false report of the status of the cache. (The same, I might add, is true for NOT logging a DNF when you DON'T find the cache, but that's a discussion for a different thread on a different day... :) )

[nonnipoppy]

I certainly agree that they did not find it. Additionally that looks like cheating to us, but the only ones hurt is them.

We have found caches we could not log due to wet logs but if we did not touch it knowing it was the cache it was not a find for us.

It is your cache and your decision.

The call is yours....poppy

[arkansas_stickerdude]

In the case of a wet log I always leave my sticker somewhere in the cache so it shows that I was there this way I can log it as a find.

[Gaddiel]

Problem solved!

I sent a cordial email and the cacher changed their log to a note.

[RabidCat]

Hello everyone,

This is my first post on the wesite......So am just going to jump in here and say that I think you did the right thing by telling them to change it.

I agree that if you don't touch/sign the log....then you didn't actually find it.

That would be like saying....Well I was in the area, so I will log it because I was close by.

That would bother me as well.

[Gaddiel]

Hey, RabidCat! Thanks for the post and WELCOME to the group!!! We're glad you are here!

[DarkKnight]

I know of several people who "forgot" to sign the log or some other crap like that. I personally think, no name in the log = no find.......

But then again it is the people doing this that have to live with it, I mean its not like you win $1,000,000 if you are the first person to 1,000 finds or anything.

If their name ain't in the book can the log.

DK

[TeamMGGPS]

I logged a find last week that I actually found but there was no writing instrument in the micro and I didn't take one out with me. This is the first time I've not signed a log book but I still consider it a find. I guess if the cache hider wanted I could give an accurate description of the cache or go back out and take a pencil but I would just as soon go by the honor system.

[arkansas_stickerdude]

I logged a find last week that I actually found but there was no writing instrument in the micro and I didn't take one out with me. This is the first time I've not signed a log book but I still consider it a find. I guess if the cache hider wanted I could give an accurate description of the cache or go back out and take a pencil but I would just as soon go by the honor system.

I think in that case an accurate description would be a good idea also I almost went off without a pen but I went back to the truck and got one.