Actually, if you read the journal entries, there is many miles between release and where the books were caught.
Okay, but still, since the books are still indicated as being in the wild, what indication do we have that the finders possibly did not tick the box?
Are you really suggesting that all Bookcrossers lose 10% of their 'catches' and I am the only one who notices?
No, I'm not suggesting such a thing. It seems rather more plausible to me that most BookCrossers either accept the 'magic box' feature the way it is. But sure, there must be many of us who do not watch our stats (such as me), and thus don't notice discrepancies. That doesn't mean we're unintelligent, it means that we have other priorities.
And it wouldn't surprise me if 10% of finders tick that box for one reason or another.
Here's a thought; why not treat it as a 'bug' and fix it?
Here's my guess: Because it's debatable whether it's a bug. Is a book caught if someone leaves it in place, but reports it? I can see either side of that.
(And then of course there's as always the scarcity of BC's programming resources. Personally I'd give higher priority to the error messages people get when registering a book, and the problems people have with their shortcut lists. But that, too, is debatable and as you know, I'm not in a position to fix any of these problems.)