What Some People Consider Finds

What in the World Cache? Geocache

One of the problems with logging finds over at GC.com is that a find count is associated with each profile. That in itself is not problematic, but it is what people do with the find count that bothers so many. One thing that is done is that some seek to increase the find count associated with their profile at all costs.

Consider the following:

  • finding a cache that the cacher hid under a different profile (often part of a group hide)
  • finding a cache that the cacher hid, but now has been adopted by another cacher
  • finding a cache that the cacher never located. For instance, being on a group hunt that splits into multiple groups, each finding caches and signing all the groups’ members to the log
  • finding caches online that have no location

Sometimes called number hounds, these folks justify their actions. Logging a cache that was hidden under a pseudonym is justifiable because otherwise it would show up on my closest to find list. Big whoop. Anyhow, there is now an ignore feature. Has it been used and the finds removed? The same can be applied to the adopted cache. Again, has it been used?

There is no justification for logging a find on a cache which one has not visited. None. Whether it be the split group, the waiting in a car while someone runs and logs it, or finding a cache on the Internet, none of these are finds.

I was reminded of this today. I installed a plug-in for Firefox that provides me a drop down search of GC.com. I was fiddling around with the different modes. The found: feature is something I do not use much, but I tested it today. Following a link from that, I came across the What in the World Cache? cache.

What in the World Cache? is an interesting cache to me. I believe I could have been the FTF on this cache way back when. I was in a chat and someone brought this cache to the group’s attention. Within five minutes I had the answer. It is possible others had logged this already; I cannot be certain it was so long ago. Anyhow, I knew all about it years ago. I did not log the cache for even though the cache owner encourages Internet finds, it is not a geocaching find. Using my definition of geocaching (using a set of coordinates recreationally to find something), one can easily see why. Yes, coordinates are used to locate, but it is the something at a location that fails with Internet finds. Using a set of coordinates to locate the name of a building using some maps, is not locating something.

While I disagree with those who log finds on their own caches as outlined above, the nearest to find list is helped by doing so. Yes, that is easily dealt with in many other ways, but that is a benefit. But Internet finds on a cache in Maine does not present that same situation. That cache is not clogging a nearest to find list. The only reason to log that cache without visiting it is vanity. The increase in a cacher’s profile is the only benefit gleaned from this. It doesn’t matter that it is tacitly permitted, logging it in this fashion puts another number on the find count and that is it.

Why do folks do this? I truly do not understand.

Loosening one’s personal ethics to accommodate this kind of find shares with the community what one is.

Also blogged on this date . . .

2 thoughts on “What Some People Consider Finds”

  1. Mixed CDs is a cache which has had my attention for some time.

    It is a cache in South Jersey placed by an out-of-state cacher. I was under the impression that that wasn’t allowed. Then a local cacher’s name was added to the cache page. I was told that with a local person watching the cache, all was copacetic. This “new” guideline always bothered me. There are numerous examples in the area where this has been granted, yet each of the caches has been unattended by the placer and the local “watcher”.

    Anyhow, the cache was found by some of the locals during the first few months it was available. Then in July 2004, it was missing. Several weeks later, rippietoe was in the area. She seems to visit in August and November/December each year. She rehabilitated it. It was found a week later on 22 August 2004. It has not been found since. There have been some travel bug drops in and out of this cache, always between the relatives (cache owner and the local maintainer). I contend those travel bugs were never in the cache. There is another cache in this same park used to transfer travel bugs between the two which never were in there.

    With only one find in the previous five months and the cache being unavailable, the local group still thought it was good enough to recognize as a Recommended Cache in October 2004. I wonder what was seen to place the imprimatur of the group behind this cache.

    This cache was on my issues list I used to keep for GC.com. Note the 22 February 2005 log.

    Mailed off replacement on step one to katiebTrekkers and will get this one back up soon I hope.

    If the replacement was mailed to the local maintainer and the cache has not been available for the next five months, either the local maintainer isn’t doing the job or the log is a lie. Either way it is an indication that this cache is just noise in the cache listings. GC.com is fully aware of this cache, yet it leaves it there. Given that it institutes guidelines for the betterment of the game, it is hard to take big green seriously when the cache has been available to be found for only a week or so out of the last year.

    Interestingly, there is a Found It! log from June 2005. I like Lynn and think a lot of the grief she receives is unwarranted, but it was well-established this cache was unavailable. I do not know the deal struck between the cache owner and seeker, but it was not within the spirit of what I consider a find.

  2. Markwell does a good job of condensing Fizzy’s comments about problematic caches. In an effort to compile a more complete list of questionable finds allow me to re-phrase these to match the style in the above piece:

    • finding a missing cache after you replace the container
    • finding a missing cache because the cache hider says it’s okay
    • finding a cache an additional time because it is a “bonus” find for something else
    • finding pocket caches
    • attending the same event multiple times

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.