Cache Log Book Entries v GC.com Log Entries

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
madcat
100 or more tracks walked
100 or more tracks walked
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 October 03 10:47 pm
Location: Loxton S.A.

Cache Log Book Entries v GC.com Log Entries

Post by madcat » 11 October 04 10:03 pm

I had to do a bit of maintainance on one of my caches over the weekend and out of interest I counted how many entires/finds were in the log book, then once home, checked up on the web to see if the number was the same, but it was way short.
<br><br>
I did this a year age with another cache of mine and I came up at least 10 short..
<br><br>
So how do you really know how many times your cache has been found without going out and doing a pysical count of log book entries?
<br><br>
Has anyone else had similar experiances??

User avatar
Team Piggy
Posts: 1601
Joined: 02 April 03 5:16 pm
Location: South Australia

Post by Team Piggy » 12 October 04 12:19 am

Ouch.. This one is a tricky subject..
I too have found similar in a few of mine ages ago.
I guess you have to accept the pen/pencil may have failed etc.
Thats one option :( Or some people just want the points.. Thats another option.

I would prob mail the people involved and ask what/when they were there and can they prove it ? was there a reason they didnt log it in the book ?
Or just dont worry, its only themselves they may be cheating, if points are worth that much, good on them !

I take Pictures (digital) at all my finds to prove I was there if anyone asks.

BeccaJ
100 or more tracks walked
100 or more tracks walked
Posts: 41
Joined: 18 April 04 3:40 am
Location: Vermont South, Victoria
Contact:

Post by BeccaJ » 12 October 04 9:54 am

I have a tendancy to log all of my finds in a single sweep. If I go caching on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, I log all of my finds/no finds on Sunday night (or Monday morning). This means that sometimes my addled brain can forget a cache or two. :?

Often when I compare (not in a competitve way I promise!! :D ) my finds to the friends I cache with, I realise that I have forgotten to log it online and do it retrospectively. In one case, it took about a month for me to remember!

That would be one way the online count would be off. Also the online count doesn't look at possible muggle activity either.

User avatar
Cached
2500 or more caches found
2500 or more caches found
Posts: 3087
Joined: 24 March 04 4:32 pm
Location: Launceston, Tasmania
Contact:

Post by Cached » 12 October 04 10:46 am

I think that madcat is saying that there were more finds in the logbook than on the net.

Mind Socket
Posts: 1329
Joined: 29 March 03 6:04 pm
Location: Gladesville, Sydney
Contact:

Post by Mind Socket » 12 October 04 12:31 pm

::Edit: oops, misread the post ... the below was if there were more logs on the net than in the logbook ...::

If that's the case, then I'd contact the loggers with missing logbook entries with a "please explain", pending deletion of their log. The log book is the real proof of find. If there's no mark in there, and they can't explain the absence, then they were never there. I've only once been caught out without a pen, and I trusted that my embossed log and explanation would be acceptable. If not, I can accept a deletion (even 1000kms away).

One explanation to keep in mind is the possibility of pages being removed by a 3rd party.

- Rog
Last edited by Mind Socket on 12 October 04 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gunn Parker
400 or more spectacular views seen
400 or more spectacular views seen
Posts: 1357
Joined: 08 April 03 1:14 pm
Location: Perth Western Australia
Contact:

Post by Gunn Parker » 12 October 04 12:44 pm

I would agree with Team Piggy, if they log it on the net but not in the log book then who cares, if they are only after numbers then so what, they are just cheating themselves.
imho

Mind Socket
Posts: 1329
Joined: 29 March 03 6:04 pm
Location: Gladesville, Sydney
Contact:

Post by Mind Socket » 12 October 04 12:59 pm

Fair enough, it's up to the cache owner. If it happened on one of my caches, especially one that is reasonably challenging, I'd rather not see a false representation on my cache page. For me, it's not about stopping someone inflating their count, it's about the logs being a truthful account of people's experiences of your cache placing effort.

- Rog

User avatar
Aushiker
350 ? I am the lizard queen
350 ? I am the lizard queen
Posts: 1397
Joined: 30 July 04 2:35 pm
Twitter: Aushiker
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Post by Aushiker » 12 October 04 1:02 pm

Hi

MadCat was referring to more logs in the book than on the website, which is a different issue from what the majority are referring to.

Andrew

Mind Socket
Posts: 1329
Joined: 29 March 03 6:04 pm
Location: Gladesville, Sydney
Contact:

Post by Mind Socket » 12 October 04 1:05 pm

yeh sorry about that. :p

More logs in the book than on the net don't bother me. It would be nice to at least see a note, but I don't expect it.

I've actually found more caches than anyone, but I don't log them all online. muahahaha :twisted: j/k

madcat
100 or more tracks walked
100 or more tracks walked
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 October 03 10:47 pm
Location: Loxton S.A.

Post by madcat » 12 October 04 10:56 pm

yes I did mean more hand written log book entries, than entries on the net..
<br><br>
ie. people not letting you know that they found your cache :)

User avatar
Team Piggy
Posts: 1601
Joined: 02 April 03 5:16 pm
Location: South Australia

Post by Team Piggy » 12 October 04 11:34 pm

Aha, that changes things then. Yep I am prob one of the culprits :P
I rarely log my finds on Geo.com, cause its a flaky bastard server that always falls apart !
I log them usually on my own pages, and every now n again I will go and log a heap of finds from my site to geo.com if it is working ok.

I know of other cachers who dont give a booey about the points either, and refuse to log on geo.com, dont we kevin :o !

SNIFTER
500 or more caches logged
500 or more caches logged
Posts: 764
Joined: 05 April 03 5:40 pm
Location: Share Hounddogs Kennel in Sydney

Post by SNIFTER » 13 October 04 12:16 am

Quite a few of our caches have been found by bush walkers etc and they usually put in a nice log. One of those logs was for wombat stash and the local fire brigade found it and put in a great log. The next finder duly photographed and put the log on the cache site for all to see. Not all finders are computer owners so as long as there are more logs in the log book than on the geo.com site I have no worries. It is nice to know that there are some people out there that have some respect for other peoples property.

User avatar
Webguy
2100 or more geocaches found
2100 or more geocaches found
Posts: 938
Joined: 10 May 04 2:19 pm
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by Webguy » 13 October 04 9:57 am

There is a recent muggle entry in Trogdelight.

ian-and-penny
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found
Posts: 1067
Joined: 13 October 03 11:45 am
Location: Travelling Australia using a Garmin Montana 650T

Post by ian-and-penny » 13 October 04 12:36 pm

Team Piggy wrote:I rarely log my finds on Geo.com, cause its a flaky bastard server that always falls apart !!
I have been caching for quite a while now & have never had any problem with GC.com

I have always been able to log on to log my finds, and I always log them. Some belatedly, but still always logged.

Maybe the IT savvy people in this group could try to narrow it down to:
:?: User(s)
:?: Time
:?: ISP
:?: Cable or Dial Up
:?: Etc

User avatar
Cached
2500 or more caches found
2500 or more caches found
Posts: 3087
Joined: 24 March 04 4:32 pm
Location: Launceston, Tasmania
Contact:

Post by Cached » 13 October 04 12:56 pm

If logging belated finds, should you log them with the date found or the date logged online?

Post Reply