What should I do ?

[ook the librarian]

Hi all,

I had a cacher log a find on one of my caches today that has been archived for at least 3 months, they backdated the log to 06/09/08.

They only have 3 finds, 2 from today and mine backdated.

The cache went missing, so I cant check the log book.

What do you think I should do ?

a. Ignore it and mind my own business.
b. Contact them and ask politely why.
c. Delete the log.

[Graculus]

... perhaps he found your cache in September, never logged it because he wasn't sure how to or didn't realise he had to and then today when he went and found a couple more he realised he needed to log yours too.

Delete his log? I don't think so, it could just cause bad feeling.

Email him? Could do and politely ask why his log was late.

Ignore it? That would be my option

Chris (MrB)

[Mrs Blorenge]

We had a three "late logs" appear on one of our archived caches and two that were still active. When I checked back in each case the caches were found by another caching team on those dates and I didn't see any other names in the physical log books.

I politely emailed the late logger to enquire about the logs and it turned out that he was a friend of the other caching team who had tagged along with them when they found the caches. Then a few months later he'd got more interested, created his own account and decided to log those caches he'd done earlier with his friends. OK... so technically he hadn't signed the log books originally, but... that was a good enough explanation for me.

[martybartfast]

When my missus signed up for her own ID she logged the caches we'd done that day first, I then set about logging all the caches we'd found together, maybe that's what this cacher is doing, although I did add an explanation to the old logs to avoid any confusion.

[Happy Humphrey]

As the log book isn't available, I don't see that there's any option but to accept the find.

[ook the librarian]

When my missus signed up for her own ID she logged the caches we'd done that day first, I then set about logging all the caches we'd found together, maybe that's what this cacher is doing, although I did add an explanation to the old logs to avoid any confusion.

Yes I think that is it.

My girlfriend must have at least a hundred finds with me but has only started logging under her own account a few months ago. I told her that she couldn't count the ones we had done together before, as she hadn't signed the log.

Each to their own, maybe I am being to pedantic.

Thanks for your replies. :cheers:

[Bill D (wwh)]

ook the librarian wrote:
My girlfriend must have at least a hundred finds with me but has only started logging under her own account a few months ago. I told her that she couldn't count the ones we had done together before, as she hadn't signed the log.

I'd say tell her to log those joint finds under her own name, making sure she backdates the log to the correct date and saying that she found them with you. I think most cachers will be happy with that. I've had a lot of logs like that, mainly from children who found the cache with their parents then later signed up for an account themselves. I let the logs stand unless I've got any particular reason to be suspicious of them.

[Bear and Ragged]

Yes I think that is it.

My girlfriend must have at least a hundred finds with me but has only started logging under her own account a few months ago. I told her that she couldn't count the ones we had done together before, as she hadn't signed the log.

Each to their own, maybe I am being to pedantic.

Thanks for your replies. :cheers:

Pedant!

OK. I split from my caching partner... It was 50/50 as to which of us signed the log book -with our joint name- I've re-named the account, and cache on my own.

In your book:**
1. Do I have to go and put Bear and Ragged in all the previous finds?
1. Do I need to go and write in all the caches it wasn't me that signed the log?

Back to your question.
As Mrs B and Martybartfast say
It's either:
1. Someone back dating their finds to when they found it.
2. A team split.
3. Someone cached with a friend, and has now started to log their own account.

** Hypothetical question.
I'm playing by my own rules! ie "What I say, goes" :lol:

[ook the librarian]

Pedant!

OK. I split from my caching partner... It was 50/50 as to which of us signed the log book -with our joint name- I've re-named the account, and cache on my own.

In your book:**
1. Do I have to go and put Bear and Ragged in all the previous finds?
1. Do I need to go and write in all the caches it wasn't me that signed the log?

Back to your question.
As Mrs B and Martybartfast say
It's either:
1. Someone back dating their finds to when they found it.
2. A team split.
3. Someone cached with a friend, and has now started to log their own account.

** Hypothetical question.
I'm playing by my own rules! ie "What I say, goes" :lol:

Firstly, I didn't mean to offend anyone.

So pedant it is then, but I can live with that....

To answer your questions:
1. No
1 (?) No.

Still not going to let my girlfriend log her finds, as it would mean that she was catching me up. (note to self. Stop her reading this forum).

[Mrs Blorenge]

Firstly, I didn't mean to offend anyone.

So pedant it is then, but I can live with that....

To answer your questions:
1. No
1 (?) No.

Still not going to let my girlfriend log her finds, as it would mean that she was catching me up. (note to self. Stop her reading this forum).

Nobody offended here in the Blorenge household, I can assure you...

It was a fair question and it shows that you're monitoring the logs appearing on your caches, which is one of the responsibilities of a good cache owner.

Now... for another major ethical issue in the World of Geocaching, how about answering my Poll question below?

[Bear and Ragged]

Not offended.
(Well, not over this thread anyway!)

I'd just keep an eye on other caches they log, to see if you can see a pattern, ie is there another cacher also logging/logged the cache on the same day.
(But then I'm curious/nosy with things like that!)

[adsandco]

If they're a new cacher and the cache was archived some months ago, Id assume that there would have been some digging to find a link for the page which wouldnt normally be readily available? with that in mind i'd assume they'd found it or as others have said, with someone else (who then possibly gave them the page link)

At the end of the day, the principle we use on ours is that its down to the finders conscience, as long as its not obvious or spoiling anyone elses enjoyment each to their own and all that (though we do check the books h34r

Incidentally, the very first cache that we actually found / signed was when we were out walking with some friends, this came as a complete surprise, when they suddenly dived into some bushes! It was disabled and then subsequently archived by the time we finally created an account, so we never bothered to log it.

[von-horst]

Perhaps they entered the wrong GC number?

[Family_Moose]

We began a family "account" a few weeks after Daddy_Moose did a few finds of his own...... as the few finds he'd one on his own were all within easy reach of our house, we went and did them again and signed the log book with our family name!

I wonder if we would have logged any "further afield ones" with our family names!?!

I would imagine the best thing is to let it lie, I can't see there being any malice in why they've only just logged it.... possibly as has been said, someone dabbling with friends and then a while later getting the bug themselves and wanting to add to their tally!

Mummy_Moose

[Stokesy]

Perhaps they entered the wrong GC number?

This is a posibility, I had a log on one of my caches from some Canadian cachers, when I checked their finds for that day, they had found about 20 caches in California, and one in the West Midlands.

They were grateful when I contacted them and asked them if I could borrow their jet!

[Happy Humphrey]

On at least one occasion I've found a cache, signed the log book and then it's been months before I logged it on gc.com. On other occasions it's taken two or three weeks. So it happens. There are (as we've seen) several valid reasons for this.

In the "long-delayed" case I'd have been quite annoyed to receive an e-mail from the cache owner questioning my find. If the cache was known to be available on the date logged (i.e. it was found by others on or after that date), and there's no evidence to suggest that the log was a mistake (or bogus), my find should be allowed to stand unquestioned (whether or not my signature can be found in the log book). It makes no difference to anyone else, so why would someone feel obliged to query it?
Bear in mind that, once the question is asked, the accused is forced to answer otherwise the log will have to be deleted.

A "genuine find" might seem a simple concept on the face of it, and a cache owner claiming that only "genuine" (i.e. verifiable) finds are allowed sounds reasonable.
But there are endless circumstances where a "find" is unverifiable. What if you write in the log book but only put the date and forget to write your name? What if you're so interested in the swaps that you forget to sign the book altogether, even though you thought you did?
What if someone rips a page out of the book with your entry on it? What if the log book gets wet and turns to pulp? Or disappears? And so on.

My personal rule is that if I've been to the cache site and had (what passes for) the log book in hand, then I can log a find on the web site and don't expect that to be queried without very good reason.

[Mrs Blorenge]

...My personal rule is that if I've been to the cache site and had (what passes for) the log book in hand, then I can log a find on the web site and don't expect that to be queried without very good reason.

Interesting.

I'm sure you're aware of the bit in the GSP Guidelines for cache owners which says

"The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

My various reading of topics on the GSP forums has made me aware that some cache owners follow this guideline more stringently than others: Some make a point of checking all their old logbooks against the on-line logs and delete any logs that don't tally.

Others take the attitude of "what does it matter?" if someone's claiming a find but there's no sign of their signature in the book.

I was interested to note these two recent logs on "Summit or Submit" where the owner has deleted on-line logs after finding no corresponding logs in the physical log book.

[Happy Humphrey]

Yes, I know the guidelines and various discussions around them. But in practice, they can't always be strictly applied.
For instance, if the log sheet is in too poor a state to be signed. Normally, you might add a signed scrap of paper; although that often turns to mush along with the original (particularly in leaky micro containers). Another example is if (as I mentioned above) I signed the log but the signature is no longer in evidence.

And would you really try to argue that once a log book (or cache) has gone missing, all unverified finds have to be deleted? I don't think so. So a certain latitude has to be given.

I've logged "Summit or Submit" as it happens, and can understand that it's one of those caches where you'd feel it devalued should people regularly add bogus logs. So, good of Scottpa to check! If I'd received a query from him after his "check and delete" exercise, I wouldn't be upset at having to justify my "find" (as he would have good reason to be suspicious).

But I would expect him to accept my assurance that I did have the cache in hand on the date, and would be annoyed if he strictly kept to "no signature=no log" in these circumstances, even if I was unable to explain the lack of signature in the book (see the "page torn out of log book" scenario or the "date but no name" scenario above!). After all, we're only trying to eliminate mistaken cache identity and deliberate fraud here, not honest people who've actually found the cache and logged the fact.