[Az-Geocaching] Question about a survey answer

[Jim Scotti]

Yes, the survey has been very interesting.  I also don't understand why you
should have multiple unsuccessful attempts before logging a not found entry.  
Seems simple.  You get to ground zero on a cache, you hunt around and you
don't find it, you post a not found log.  You go back later and find it, then
you add a successful log - I leave the original not found log in that case
anyway (as I have twice after going back and actually finding the cache).  
If nothing else, it allows other cachers to get an idea of what the area is
like and if it is especially difficult to find.  Or perhaps the coordinates
are off.  It also gives the owner some feedback on his cache - maybe he needs
to update the coordinates or it's better hidden than he thought or whatever.  
Scott hits it right on the head when he says "You don't wait until you find a
cache 3 times before you log it as a found cache, so why wait until 3 if you
can't find it when you go hunting?"

Now, if you can't quite get to the site, that's totally different. But a note
as to why is useful since it could help other cachers know of some of the
difficulties of getting to that site (I had trouble getting to one cache last
month due to road construction which I logged as a note).

I think it's all part of the fun of the game to read about other cachers
trials and tribulations out on the hunt, successful or not.  And it helps
when you have trouble yourself to know that you're not the only one who
encounters obstacles while geocaching.  If the number of not founds on a
cache is high, but it's still being found, I know I should be more persistent
in the hunt.  I hate to say it, but not posting not found logs is essentially
cheating.

Jim.

On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Scott Wood wrote:

> I have been reading the survey responses and many of them are quite 
> interesting.  One question has come up though.
> 
> It seems that there are 2 normal answers to the question about how many 
> times you look before posting a no-find log.  It seems that the answers are 
> either 1 or 3.  I understand the 1, but don't really understand 3.  You 
> don't wait until you find a cache 3 times before you log it as a found 
> cache, so why wait until 3 if you can't find it when you go hunting?
> 
> This goes hand in hand with a question that I asked a number of months ago 
> about no-find logs.  Many people won't post no-find logs but will post a 
> note saying that they couldn't find the cache.  Why is this?  Do you look 
> at not being able to find the cache as some sort of failure?
> 
> Thanks for posting the survey, it has been very interesting to read 
> everyone replies.
> 
> In liberty,
> 
> Scott
> 
> wood@myblueheaven.com
> www.myblueheaven.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list
> listserv@azgeocaching.com
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
> 
> Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com
> 

Jim Scotti                              
Lunar & Planetary Laboratory         jscotti@pirl.lpl.arizona.edu 
University of Arizona                
Tucson, AZ 85721 USA                 http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/