Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.

Should the cache be logged as a find ?

Yes, it is a valid find and deserve the smiley.
60
95%
No, it is not a valid find, (please say why in a post)
3
5%
 
Total votes: 63

jonnosan+2
Posts: 48
Joined: 20 September 11 10:29 pm
Location: Leura, NSW, Oz

Re: Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by jonnosan+2 » 08 February 12 9:49 pm

lemmykc wrote:
jonnosan+2 wrote:I mean log it online.
I don't know how the CO would take to this considering his name wouldn't be in the logbook anymore (they replaced the logbook).....
excuse my newby-ness but don't logbooks regularly get replaced (e.g. when full)?

I can understand the CO wishing the cache hadn't been published and found, but given it was , I can't see how a CO would gain anything (real or even perceived) by pretending that it wasn't.

User avatar
quiet1_au
5500 or more caches found
5500 or more caches found
Posts: 338
Joined: 24 April 10 1:26 pm
Location: Box Hill South

Re: Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by quiet1_au » 08 February 12 11:27 pm

Perhaps these specific "log-after-XX/YY/ZZZZ" caches should include this vital information in the cache description text. It may not stop accidental publication and/or finds but at least its there in black and white if there's some sort of problem like this?

I saw this cache published but was too far away & busy to go after it. Its quick disabling caught my eye, and I did think it a little harsh on the early finders - I can understand there's some significance to the date and so on by the CO. I'm guessing there'll now be a camp-out queue of these early-finders at GZ at the correct time of publishing - which will make for an easier find the rest of us! :mrgreen:


:-$

User avatar
fluffyfish
850 or more found!!!
850 or more found!!!
Posts: 331
Joined: 09 January 09 10:21 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by fluffyfish » 08 February 12 11:57 pm

I logged a ftf on a gc.com cache I stumbled across whilst looking for a GCA cache. It was published the next day. I claimed it after checking with the owner :oops:

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16371
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by caughtatwork » 09 February 12 8:41 am

quiet1_au wrote:Perhaps these specific "log-after-XX/YY/ZZZZ" caches should include this vital information in the cache description text. It may not stop accidental publication and/or finds but at least its there in black and white if there's some sort of problem like this?

I saw this cache published but was too far away & busy to go after it. Its quick disabling caught my eye, and I did think it a little harsh on the early finders - I can understand there's some significance to the date and so on by the CO. I'm guessing there'll now be a camp-out queue of these early-finders at GZ at the correct time of publishing - which will make for an easier find the rest of us! :mrgreen:


:-$
I don't read the description, so I would have ignored the request. Also sounds like an ALR to me.

I think it's sad for the owner, but it was out there, it got found, it should stand. If it were me, I would have archived the listing, let the find stand and then rehidden (and relisted with a different GC number) the cache in a different location so it would stand as a cache by itself.

I'm not sure why it had to be published on a given day. Maybe that information could explain the need for no finds to be made prior to that occasion.

User avatar
Happy Chappies
2000 or more caches found
2000 or more caches found
Posts: 506
Joined: 04 July 09 12:18 am
Location: Box Hill

Re: Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by Happy Chappies » 09 February 12 9:43 am

covert wrote:
So where does that leave me with my 2 hours of time 60k+ km of travel ?
I have to admit, that comment really stuck in my head and made me do some thinking. Maybe (perhaps obviously) the way we play the game is different, but I don't see how the CO's decision needs to change that for you. You made the trip, you made the find, hopefully you had a good experience in doing that. What the rest of the world sees/thinks is relatively insignificant to what the 2hours/60kms meant to you, isn't it? You got the FTF, so mark it down in GSAK and don't worry about it (We all know the FTF game is a bit of an arbitrary shenanigans anyway). You got the find, so if the CO won't let you log it online just log it in GSAK as found and ignore it on GC.com.... Sure, it'll be nice and respectful if the CO recognises your effort and the find, but in the end it's about your experience, not what everyone else thinks or recognises.

Perhaps that's a simplistic interpretation of the game (apologies - I'm a 'simple' person :) ), and I know you play the game a lot more seriously than I do (and I'm not trying to judge you for that) but to feel like you'd wasted 2 hours and 60kms of travel just because of this seems a bit unfortunate.

User avatar
oakydog
1100 or more caches found
1100 or more caches found
Posts: 80
Joined: 11 October 09 5:06 pm
Location: Almost @ GZ

Re: Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by oakydog » 09 February 12 10:16 am

Had me wondering what happened to this one
I think the best option would be to archive the cache, let C@H have the find and republish a whole new cache
Mark III ( hopefully on the right date) easy and everyone is happy. I do believe 18th Feb is the date, Im guessing about 9 pm ish  :-k
Boy it dose seem a lot of work for T1.5 and the original was only a T1 
Last edited by oakydog on 09 February 12 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jonnosan+2
Posts: 48
Joined: 20 September 11 10:29 pm
Location: Leura, NSW, Oz

Re: Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by jonnosan+2 » 09 February 12 12:34 pm

What exactly is the cache?

Philipp
1350 or more caches found
1350 or more caches found
Posts: 591
Joined: 24 January 10 3:08 pm
Twitter: derfuzzel
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Contact:

Re: Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by Philipp » 09 February 12 3:02 pm

Happy Chappies wrote:You got the find, so if the CO won't let you log it online just log it in GSAK as found and ignore it on GC.com.
Well the rules are with covert: He signed the log so he can log it online. If he wants to keep his statistic on GC.com clean it's his bragging right. From a social point of view it would be easiest if covert just walks away without insisting on it but I do see a problem if people start to make up their own rules which conflict with the established ones.

Has anyone talked to the owners and mentioned this part of the guidelines?
jonnosan+2 wrote:What exactly is the cache?
Was this one: http://geocaching.com.au/cache/gc3b3gt but it has been retracted. It's the reincarnation of http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... x?wp=gcc81

User avatar
Big Matt and Shell
6500 or more caches found
6500 or more caches found
Posts: 1905
Joined: 11 February 07 9:53 pm
Twitter: BigMattandShell
Contact:

Re: Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by Big Matt and Shell » 09 February 12 3:14 pm

Big Matt and Shell wrote:Did you sign the log? If so you can log it online.
If you found it you can log it as found. (once it is republished) If your log is deleted, follow the instructions here. http://support.groundspeak.com//index.p ... age&id=204

I quote this from the bottom of that topic.
We know that sometimes this issue can be contentious. If the other party is being stubborn, ask yourself, "Is this dispute really worth my time?" Try being the bigger person and conceding the point. You may discover that you feel better for doing so. At the very least, it will put the matter quickly behind you.

User avatar
Marcus Vitruvius
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 297
Joined: 23 July 07 12:35 pm
Location: Newcastle, NSW

Re: Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by Marcus Vitruvius » 09 February 12 3:26 pm

You could award joint FTF's? Allow covert his find, and whoever finds the cache once it's republished as joint FTF's! No one loses out.

User avatar
FarmerFrentzen
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 August 08 11:09 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by FarmerFrentzen » 09 February 12 5:45 pm

Marcus Vitruvius wrote:You could award joint FTF's? Allow covert his find, and whoever finds the cache once it's republished as joint FTF's! No one loses out.
Now there's a sensible solution.

User avatar
lemmykc
2500 or more caches found
2500 or more caches found
Posts: 328
Joined: 29 August 10 1:36 pm
Location: Hampton, Victoria, Australia

Re: Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by lemmykc » 09 February 12 5:46 pm

FarmerFrentzen wrote:
Marcus Vitruvius wrote:You could award joint FTF's? Allow covert his find, and whoever finds the cache once it's republished as joint FTF's! No one loses out.
Now there's a sensible solution.
+1 :D

User avatar
gmj3191
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1315
Joined: 22 April 03 12:37 am
Location: Sandringham, Vic Garmin Oregon 650

Re: Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by gmj3191 » 09 February 12 9:58 pm

covert wrote:
jonnosan+2 wrote:Unless I'm missing something (which is probable given the only information I have about the scenario is what's on this page) isn't the "win-win" outcome here for the finder to wait till the cache is officially published, and then re-log it?
You mean to log it online when it is officially published or go sign the logbook again after it is officially published ?

I have yet to log the find online.
I think someone who is a master of technology and knows a cache is published seconds after it happens, and obviously has the technology and capability to do so, should log a quick FTF log immediately it's found. A more elaborate log can be done later on if required. This would save a lot of people the effort to get there first, only to find the trip was in vain.

PrincessDiala
2300 or more caches found
2300 or more caches found
Posts: 415
Joined: 29 April 09 10:46 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by PrincessDiala » 10 February 12 6:52 am

Have you had communications with the cache owner themselves?

covert
150 or more caches found
150 or more caches found
Posts: 476
Joined: 30 July 08 11:47 am
Location: VIC

Re: Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by covert » 10 February 12 12:14 pm

Marcus Vitruvius wrote:You could award joint FTF's? Allow covert his find, and whoever finds the cache once it's republished as joint FTF's! No one loses out.
I have no problem with joint FTF's. I think this is a great idea.
gmj3191 wrote:I think someone who is a master of technology and knows a cache is published seconds after it happens, and obviously has the technology and capability to do so, should log a quick FTF log immediately it's found. A more elaborate log can be done later on if required. This would save a lot of people the effort to get there first, only to find the trip was in vain.
Reply hidden in spoiler to highlight it is off topic.
Spoiler: show
I hate it when I get a log on my cache "Log to follow","logged in the field" log alert in my inbox. I read the incoming logs from my email, having to go back to the website to then read the full log is double handling, not to mention you don't know when the log had been updated. A waste of time in my books, of little time I don't have. I work hard to be flexible in my time. Just be happy that your effort got you out and about to experience a new geocache you have not seen. Be grateful the owner has taken time and effort to place a cache for you to visit. Your welcome to start another thread on it but please keep this thread to the topic.
PrincessDiala wrote:Have you had communications with the cache owner themselves?
Nope. I wanted a non bias opinion from the community and is also the reason I have not named the cache. I also feel the owner has said there position on the matter in the note. See first post.
Big Matt and Shell wrote: If you found it you can log it as found. (once it is republished) If your log is deleted, follow the instructions here. http://support.groundspeak.com//index.p ... age&id=204
Thanks for that. I have been through that process twice before, both times with success.

Post Reply