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

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

Should this be a valid find ? (GC)

Post by covert » 08 February 12 1:49 pm

The Ministro (GC Reviewer) publishes a cache on geocaching.com
2 hours later the cache is found and the logbook stamped and dated.
14 hours later the owner disables the cache and says it is meant to be published in the future, with a note saying the container has been removed until that later date.

Owner states no found logs will be accepted prior to that date.

Is a found log still allowed to be made ?
Last edited by covert on 10 February 12 1:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Captain Terror
6500 or more caches found
6500 or more caches found
Posts: 292
Joined: 10 July 08 5:46 pm
Location: SEQ

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

Post by Captain Terror » 08 February 12 1:59 pm

It's not the finder's fault that the hider stuffed up. There was a published cache and it was found. That's a smiley without doubt.

User avatar
Papa Bear_Left
800 or more hollow logs searched
800 or more hollow logs searched
Posts: 2573
Joined: 03 April 03 12:28 am
Location: Kalamunda, WA
Contact:

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

Post by Papa Bear_Left » 08 February 12 2:21 pm

From the guidelines:
Your cache should be in place and ready to hunt at the time your cache page is enabled online
Unless Ministro misses a reviewer note asking for a delayed publication, then the cache was available to find and log.
Email the owner and tell them that you're about to re-enter the log, and why it's valid.
If they delete it again, complain to Ministro or Groundspeak.

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 » 08 February 12 3:44 pm

When I saw the listing I already wondered if some found-it logs have been deleted. Obviously that's the case and I call that a bad style by the owner. If they stuffed up and clicked the activae listing button: bad luck. If Ministro oversaw a reviewer-note: still bad luck. It's just a game and things like that happen.

If someone finds your cache and signs the logbook he gets the smiley - no matter if he found the they way you intended it or some other way. That's the rule.

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 » 08 February 12 4:19 pm

Did you sign the log? If so you can log it online.

Without knowing exactly the cache you're talking about, I had one that I got an email early this morning that they were wondering how it was published It seems that they had accidentaly activated it.

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 » 08 February 12 8:29 pm

:oops: :oops: :oops: Nope, that was my fault! I had a few notes back and forward to the CO and I missed the original note requesting that the cache be published on a set date. I've now retracted it.

It was bound to happen eventually, I'm only human. Sorry to the CO and anyone that went to find it.

The other cache that I was thinking about was in QLD.

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 » 08 February 12 8:41 pm

Big Matt and Shell wrote::oops: :oops: :oops: Nope, that was my fault! I had a few notes back and forward to the CO and I missed the original note requesting that the cache be published on a set date. I've now retracted it.

It was bound to happen eventually, I'm only human. Sorry to the CO and anyone that went to find it.

The other cache that I was thinking about was in QLD.
So where does that leave me with my 2 hours of time 60k+ km of travel ?

User avatar
Facitman
1400 or more caches found
1400 or more caches found
Posts: 463
Joined: 18 June 04 3:58 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

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

Post by Facitman » 08 February 12 8:45 pm

I hope cachers will understand the hiders intentions and accept the desire to wait until the specific date. I for one was excited to see this hide and hope there will be more like it.

<paid comment>
I wonder if we continue to reduce the "rights" for owners to control their caches we will find fewer people willing to put effort into creating complex caches.. More mint tins under bushes anyone?
</paid comment>

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 » 08 February 12 8:50 pm

covert wrote:
Big Matt and Shell wrote::oops: :oops: :oops: Nope, that was my fault! I had a few notes back and forward to the CO and I missed the original note requesting that the cache be published on a set date. I've now retracted it.

It was bound to happen eventually, I'm only human. Sorry to the CO and anyone that went to find it.

The other cache that I was thinking about was in QLD.
So where does that leave me with my 2 hours of time 60k+ km of travel ?
I did all WPs of this cache when no logs but the 'Published' log had been submitted, however the GZ was a bit too far to travel to on the night considering my home was within 5km of the WP before the final and I had school the next morning :P . However in saying that I DID get another FTF on the same night an hour later...... :wink:

I reckon you should claim the find. If they choose to delete, then complain.

Mind you, these are very experienced cachers we are talking about. Not really that relevant, but just putting it in perspective for some out of state readers.

The issue is that it is really nobodies fault. Ministro made a mistake, CO didn't want the mistake to happen so they don't want any finders, then you want the find because you rightfully served it. Just an unfortunate turn of events :evil:

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 9:01 pm

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?

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 » 08 February 12 9:13 pm

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.

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 9:17 pm

I mean log it online.

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 » 08 February 12 9:28 pm

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).....

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 » 08 February 12 9:41 pm

covert wrote:
Big Matt and Shell wrote::oops: :oops: :oops: Nope, that was my fault! I had a few notes back and forward to the CO and I missed the original note requesting that the cache be published on a set date. I've now retracted it.

It was bound to happen eventually, I'm only human. Sorry to the CO and anyone that went to find it.

The other cache that I was thinking about was in QLD.
So where does that leave me with my 2 hours of time 60k+ km of travel ?
Much richer for the journey. :mrgreen: I'd suggest you have a head start on others when it is listed again.

Post Reply