Cache Log Book Entries v GC.com Log Entries

Mind Socket · Post by **Mind Socket** » 13 October 04 1:03 pm

Use the date that you signed the logbook on.

As for gc.com problems, all the possible other causes can be eliminated by simply visiting another site. gc.com has a tendency to suck more around the end of weekends (sunday night, monday).

- Rog

Aushiker · Post by **Aushiker** » 13 October 04 1:48 pm

All Cached Up wrote:If logging belated finds, should you log them with the date found or the date logged online?

I don't know what the protocal is but I use the found date and I log my finds on gc.com out of consideration for the cache owner who has gone to the trouble for my enjoyment.

Andrew

teamkittens · Post by **teamkittens** » 13 October 04 2:02 pm

Aushiker wrote:
All Cached Up wrote:If logging belated finds, should you log them with the date found or the date logged online?

I don't know what the protocal is but I use the found date and I log my finds on gc.com out of consideration for the cache owner who has gone to the trouble for my enjoyment.

Andrew

You should always use the actual find date. One very good reason is to enable logically keeping track of the cache status..
For example, you find a cache, and its then muggled just after you find it but you dont log it for a couple of weeks. During those two weeks a couple of other people don't find it and log that fact on the website. This results in two not finds then a find so that the owner might not bother going out and checking on its status., assuming the other two people just didn't look hard enough...

Aushiker · Post by **Aushiker** » 13 October 04 2:23 pm

[/quote]You should always use the actual find date. One very good reason is to enable logically keeping track of the cache status.

Which is what I do. I like the reasoning, which adds further weight to the logging argument as well IMO.

Andrew

Aushiker · Post by **Aushiker** » 13 October 04 2:23 pm

[/quote]You should always use the actual find date. One very good reason is to enable logically keeping track of the cache status.

Which is what I do. I like the reasoning, which adds further weight to the logging argument as well IMO.

Andrew

SNIFTER · Post by **SNIFTER** » 13 October 04 3:23 pm

Put the date you found it and if you can't remember and took a digital photo that will have the date on it.

teamkittens · Post by **teamkittens** » 13 October 04 3:42 pm

SNIFTER wrote:Put the date you found it and if you can't remember and took a digital photo that will have the date on it.

We almost always take a photo of our logs so that we can do them pretty much the same online as in the logbook. It also helps to remind us which ones we did in which order after a big day of caching. Though lately I've been using the GPSmap60CS's geocaching feature, it puts a calender entry in for each cache as you find it., handy.

Team Piggy · Post by **Team Piggy** » 13 October 04 7:44 pm

I usually log mine on the date I found them, but admit my last logging session when geo.com didnt Sh&t the bed was all the same date (slack I guess)..

GammaPiSigma · Post by **GammaPiSigma** » 13 October 04 7:58 pm

madcat wrote:Has anyone else had similar experiances??

Madcat,
 
I helped a friend do his third cache today (4 hrs in 37C heat). But he hasn't registered with gc.com yet. So there are three caches that have logbook entries but no gc.com log. It does happen.
 
Mike.

Aushiker · Post by **Aushiker** » 13 October 04 8:02 pm

malapertmike wrote:I helped a friend do his third cache today (4 hrs in 37C heat). But he hasn't registered with gc.com yet. So there are three caches that have logbook entries but no gc.com log. It does happen.

But we could reasonably assume that your friend will register on gc.com and belatedly log the caches?

Andrew

GammaPiSigma · Post by **GammaPiSigma** » 13 October 04 9:37 pm

Andrew,
 
Yes, he will be. He just hasn't gotten around to it yet, but he appears to be in no hurry to do so which could result in no gc.com log for some time. I am inclined to think that maybe there are cachers that are just not interested in how many caches they have. I remember reading an article on the Todays Cacher web site about a guy who writes really strange logs. He had over a thousand caches but had logged only a relatively small number: http://www.todayscacher.com/2004/jul/people.asp. All kinds of people cache, some seem to consider logs (or scores) important others don't.
 
Regards, Mike.

alex · Post by **alex** » 14 October 04 1:27 am

Guilty as charged sir! I have about 20 or 30 found but not web-logged caches. Not through any problems with the secondary site, just slackness on my part. I do have most of my finds recorded in my notebook and when I do get around to logging them I will attempt to enter them on the actual found date.

I think nearly all of my placed caches that I have checked have been logged in the book but not on the web at least once. The most rewarding are those logs from muggles wishing us well in our game.

Geocaching Australia

Cache Log Book Entries v GC.com Log Entries

Re: Cache Log Book Entries v GC.com Log Entries

Re: Cache Log Book Entries v GC.com Log Entries