The Necessity of Signing the Log

[mmacgown]

There is a relatively newer cacher out there who has been logging finds on Long Island whose logs on the cache page consistantly is "Photo Only." So I emailed the guy to question him about it with: "I've noticed your online logs for a few of my caches saying "photo only". Do you sign the logs for the cache as well as taking a photo?" His response is: "Negative; I seek to disturb the cache and its lie as little as possible." So, I wrote back to him the following: "Rule #7 of the basic rules of geocaching follows:

Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

Technically, you can't claim a find of a cache unless you sign the logbook for each one you find.
Any cache owner who wishes to verify finds on his caches and doesn't see your name there has every right to delete your log. You should sign the logs for all that you've found. Please do so for the future finds like everyone else does.

As stated in cache GC2DDBQ:

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE - just figuring out where the container is is not enough to claim a smiley for this cache! You MUST have the log in hand - and sign the log! - to count this cache as completed!"

Any suggestions or comments about this?

[Child Of Atom]

I'd say it's up to the individual CO. As is oft repeated we all play the game differently. If it is one of your caches and you disagree with his methods... delete his logs. I wouldn't, but then I also wouldn't log a find without signing it.

[ruthny]

I found the quoted cache, earlier today. Good luck logging!

[addisonbr]

Generally speaking, I don't mind. I might mention it if there is a reason that signing the log in particular is distinct from figuring out where the container is - for example:

- if the container is locked and you have to figure out the combination to free the log
- if the container is visible but difficult to access (like at the top of a tall pole or under water or something)
- etc.

But other than some special situations like that I don't think I would care too much. In a way I think the way this guy is logging his finds is kind of a clever twist.

[mmacgown]

I got a response from the cacher, who I am led to believe he didn't completely understand that signing the log was a necessity. He deleted his logs, even though I told him not to, but in the future to make sure that he did. I don't like scaring off cachers, because one, it's mean, and two, they could be potential hiders of new cache placements. But, in this instance the cacher said it was just as well, since one cache owner actually wrote him to tell him they were deleting his logs, and that he was a "cheater and cheaters are what spoils the game." She went on to say that she was going to check all of her caches and was planning on deleting them all. So, rather than ask for an explanation from him, she gave him a negative feeling towards the game, which in turn has likely turned the guy off of the game. Now I know that the guy has found all of the caches if not a special few, since he found WRR's caches in Southaven and emailed the pics of the parts with the coords for the multi, because they will be picked up at the end of the day of the In Memory of WRR. So, she basically po'd the guy rather than make a friend of the guy. And we most likely lost a player to the game.

[addisonbr]

That's certainly the downside of the "everyone has to play the way I do" game. Drat.

[halijusapa]

[slukster]

This is a topic that is fiercely debated over in the GC forums:


With most of my caches if a cacher is unable to sign the log due to it being wet, can't open the container frozen in place, is missing the log, etc. then I will happily allow the person to log the cache. It is something out of his control and they physically had the container in their hands. I have even allowed logs when the container is missing and the cacher sends me a photo of the cache hiding spot. The only caches of mine that I insist on a log in the book are my tree climbing caches. Most you can see from the ground but clearly that is not my intent for a find when I hid the cache. I clearly inform cachers that climbing is required to access the cache ("Climb tree, find cache" is the name of some of my caches) so a person can't claim that they didn't know that it was required when they got to GZ.

But as has been pointed out many times, it is up to you the CO to decide whether to delete the logs or not. Any time I was going to delete a log I always email the cacher first asking them to delete the log themselves and the reason why. I always send a nice email trying not to piss them off. If I do not hear from them then I delete their log. That usually gets an email response. LOL

[Kbd71]

I read that thread over at the gc forums. Wow. If there is a reason I can't sign the log (too wet, full, or yes, even I forgot my pen), I'll take a picture of the log to prove I found it and hope the CO isn't inflexible. Because the website drop-down clearly states "Found it". It doesn't say "Signed log". That said, I've only had to do that once. If I don't find it, it's a dnf.

I'd do the same if I had any hides. I would take "Found it" to mean "Found it". I can see how others strictly interpret the rules, and "Found it" means "Signed log", but it's been my experience that if you force people to follow your interpretation of the rules, or indeed anything else in life, it tends to piss them off. I certainly wouldn't want someone who knows I delete online logs for not signing the paper log (regardless of reason) to find my cache on the day he forgets his pen, and just steals the log or the whole cache ("those darn muggles") and log it as a find on the website ("sure I signed it. What do you mean, it's missing? Oh darn.") Especially when I could have just accepted a picture.

Just my .02

[addisonbr]

Yeah. Life is pretty short. I'm no fan of unadulterated German couch caching, but if it seems within the spirit of the game, I am just glad people are enjoying my hides.

As far as not having a pen, I watched a documentary about geocaching where a guy proudly recounted a time that he forgot a pen so he pricked his finger and signed in blood. Seriously, I'd rather forgive a forgotten pen than have people think that they're living up to the rules by bleeding on my logbook.

I do have a cache where there is some language about being required to sign the log, but it's actually intended to be a subtle hint to the hide rather than a strong-form declaration of the rules.

[halijusapa]

When conditions prevented signing the log (a recent one in Mamaroneck was soaked through and through) I make sure to put our "signature item" in which is a "business card" with our caching name.

[buzzy_cacher]

[halijusapa]

[buzzy_cacher]

I was thinking about it but if I claim the find it will mess up my milestones. My geocaching profile counts your # of finds to determine milestones. I wish I could just enter it in.

[halijusapa]