Dubious Finds

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
User avatar
Richary
8000 or more caches found
8000 or more caches found
Posts: 4189
Joined: 04 February 04 10:55 pm
Location: Waitara, Sydney

Re: Re:

Post by Richary » 01 December 14 10:46 pm

ian-and-penny wrote:
Bronnie_1990 wrote: dont know what to do, considering they havent valicated their email yet. Yes, they may have a total of 3 finds (ok 2 now) but I just want to let them know, they need to sign the bloody log!
Keep deleting their log. Eventually they will get the hint, or will contact you to ask why.
And if you want to, add a note where their log used to be saying they have to sign the log to claim the find.

As for holiday caches, I may not always log "on the day" if I don't have internet access or time that night which with mobile internet is rare these days. But I will still log the found date correctly even if for some reason it is a few days later that I actually get around to writing the online log.

biggles1024
2500 or more caches found
2500 or more caches found
Posts: 99
Joined: 15 June 12 9:42 am
Location: SE Melbourne

Re: Re:

Post by biggles1024 » 02 December 14 9:55 am

Richary wrote: And if you want to, add a note where their log used to be saying they have to sign the log to claim the find.

As for holiday caches, I may not always log "on the day" if I don't have internet access or time that night which with mobile internet is rare these days. But I will still log the found date correctly even if for some reason it is a few days later that I actually get around to writing the online log.
Adding a note is a good idea, imo but I would also quote the guideline and provide a link to the guidelines so its clear that its coming from GS and not from you as a CO.

WRT the date on a log, I'm seeing an increasing number of cachers who log up to a few weeks after the find which unless its a FTF doesn't bother me, but they don't bother to log the correct date. It might be of no consequence to them but for others who are attempting challenge caches, it could be significant.
I don't know if this behaviour is the result of ignorance in that they aren't aware that they can control the date of their log or that they just don't care.

User avatar
Richary
8000 or more caches found
8000 or more caches found
Posts: 4189
Joined: 04 February 04 10:55 pm
Location: Waitara, Sydney

Re: Re:

Post by Richary » 02 December 14 8:06 pm

biggles1024 wrote:[WRT the date on a log, I'm seeing an increasing number of cachers who log up to a few weeks after the find which unless its a FTF doesn't bother me, but they don't bother to log the correct date. It might be of no consequence to them but for others who are attempting challenge caches, it could be significant.
I don't know if this behaviour is the result of ignorance in that they aren't aware that they can control the date of their log or that they just don't care.
Actually it's probably going to come back and haunt them more than others when they realise there are challenge caches, and they could have completed a streak or something. But then again I doubt these cachers who log later or just use a phone app to say TFTC will even realise there are challenge caches or rewards for particular "achievements".

Not that I personally fuss that much about challenge caches, the ones I can claim I will, but I won't change my caching habits to qualify for another, but that's my personal choice and good luck to those who attempt them. I never want geocaching to feel like something I have to do, hence my desire never to pursue a streak. Knocking off the final couple of days for the Jasmer challenge was the closest I have gone, saving a couple of GCA trigs near home for emergencies.

Goldenwattle
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found
Posts: 389
Joined: 07 October 12 1:59 am
Location: Canberra

Re: Dubious Finds

Post by Goldenwattle » 04 December 14 11:57 am

I have now checked another cache. I found NINE names that had logged, but there is no sign of their signatures on the log. I was very surprised by the high number; some of them reasonably well established cachers. I gave a couple the benefit of the doubt, but the others I send emails to, to ask them to describe the cache. So far I have received no reply to any of them. Am I the only one shocked? :shock:

User avatar
Bronnie_1990
1000 or more caches found
1000 or more caches found
Posts: 681
Joined: 21 September 10 4:20 pm
Twitter: bronnie1990
Location: Tuggeranong, Canberra.

Re: Dubious Finds

Post by Bronnie_1990 » 04 December 14 5:18 pm

Goldenwattle wrote:I have now checked another cache. I found NINE names that had logged, but there is no sign of their signatures on the log. I was very surprised by the high number; some of them reasonably well established cachers. I gave a couple the benefit of the doubt, but the others I send emails to, to ask them to describe the cache. So far I have received no reply to any of them. Am I the only one shocked? :shock:
Geez, i thought 3 names that didn't really sign the log was bad!!

One of those three people is a "reasonably well established cacher" (well he's got over 2000 finds and seems legit last time i met him), but he did move a travel bug along, and was able to answer my email asking him to describe the cache.

So...i'm a bit shocked. How long ago did you send the emails? Give them a week or two (maybe more lenient towards the two weeks!) and delete it. If all else fails they can email you back saying "oh yes i found it but my pen died, blah blah blah"

Goldenwattle
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found
Posts: 389
Joined: 07 October 12 1:59 am
Location: Canberra

Re: Dubious Finds

Post by Goldenwattle » 04 December 14 10:53 pm

I sent the emails for this latest cache log that have I checked, a couple of days ago. I was planning to give them a week to reply.

The log belonging to another cache, where I found one person who didn't sign, I gave them almost three weeks to reply to two emails, but never had a reply. I deleted that log and I still haven't heard from them.

Now I have another cache to check. I know there is at least one missing signature on that.

Post Reply