Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SeattleWayne

  1. On 12/20/2014 at 11:22 AM, 4wheelin_fool said:


    I find it unusual that a reviewer would take it personally enough to quit, and have no idea why such a decision could affect them to that extent. Everyone makes mistakes, and if they don't believe that they do, they certainly should not be a reviewer. Likely the cache owner has much more vested time and energy in it than they do.

    Because it's a volunteer based employment and feeling unsupported at "work" drives one to want to quit. 

  2. On 12/19/2014 at 7:20 PM, JASTA 11 said:




    About a month later a new cache was published nearby, by a different reviewer this time, that has a title nearly identical to the wording in the image I had to delete. What gives?



    Nearly identical but not quite. There's your answer. 

  3. On 12/17/2014 at 4:21 AM, JASTA 11 said:

    We are 0 for 3 in the appeals game.


    Without going into details, my take is that Groundspeak will go out of it's way to not overrule a reviewer.


    After all, why would they risk losing an unpaid volunteer who's efforts help the company earn profits? :unsure:

    Or the fact that the Reviewer is probably right, and doesn't want to bend the rules to make a Cacher happy. This reminds of working retail and when you tell a customer, "Sorry, lady. I can't return this ratty, stinky handbag that you've had in the trunk of your car for last two years." Then she throws a fit and wants to speak to a manager. 

    • Upvote 1
  4. 48 minutes ago, Tylers883 said:

    I have an idea for my first hide, can you give me any insight on how to do this where I don't violate any basic principles of geocaching?


    I good place to start is the guidelines for placing a cache. 

    • Upvote 1
  5. 1 hour ago, mvhayes1982 said:

    I saw one last time I was looking with a placed date of December, 2016!  Turns out, it's apparently a Christmas light cache of some sort? GS let's the CO activate and disable it every December and January, respectively. Needless to say, I was very confused by the 12/2016 placed date. 

    Where is this one at?

  6. 6 hours ago, Astro_D said:

    There is a virtual that was just published not too many feet from our traditional cache that has been in place for the last 11+ years..*sigh* Feeling very frustrated right now and thinking of archiving ours. There is no point in having two caches so close together to highlight the same thing. Wish there would be more review process before hitting the submit button on these new virtuals. After all the work we went through to secure permission for an actual cache at the location, to come back from vacation to find this. Yeah.......very frustrated and not happy right now. This is my introduction to this new virtual thing, and unfortunately, it's been cast as something negative. Will let the emotions calm down and then re-evaluate the situation. Thanks for letting me vent.


    Why is this such a bad thing? Cachers can log the Virtual then find yours or vice versa. 

  7. On 8/24/2017 at 0:09 PM, The Magna Defender said:

    I'd be interested to learn more details of the algorithm. Nine years in caching and hundreds of caches hidden, adopted and maintained, with a variety of different cache hides thrown in, each with large amounts of favourite points. If this isn't good enough, then I may as well just archive all my caches now. 


    • Upvote 1
  8. 23 hours ago, bigjim4life said:

    And that's what I've done.  But if I notice, "hey, look", for the last six months, there are two NM posts, and almost every one of the "Find" logs indicate that the cache is not functioning properly, or the log is unwriteable or practically destroyed, and the CO is either completely inactive or simply not taking care of their own cache, then logging a third NM or whatever won't do a dadgum thing to get the cache fixed.  At that point, is it not clear that if the CO wont get involved anymore, it's time to archive it?

    Yeah, you could do a NA log. But make sure you indicate the inactiveness of the CO, that the cache is not being repaired and there's no log book to properly sign. Other route you could take is that you've already put your NM log and move on. 

  9. 2 hours ago, bigjim4life said:

    Thanks!  And so far, out of the three NA's that I've marked, all three have been temporarily disabled by my local Reviewer.  Must have done something right...

    Of course they have. That's the job of the Reviewer. They will now follow up with the cache owners in 30 days or so, and if the CO failed to respond with their intentions, the Reviewer will archive the cache. 

    If you find a cache, and the log book is in terrible condition and you're not able to sign or you tried and your pen keeps punching through the paper or it literally falls apart in your hands, there's no reason not to claim this as a Find. Log your Find, drop a NM on the cache and move on. 

  10. 9 minutes ago, *B'Elanna* said:

    I just hope it to be obvious enough not to be CITO'd. If it's not, I guess I'll have to live with it and continue producing new ones


    Another idea could be to make a trackable pocket-CITO from it - a folded bin liner, covered by a wrap with the tracking code on it and instructions how to use it.

    or just print it out, laminate it and stick it to some metal disc (1-cent-coin?) - like micro-geocoins.

    There are so many ideas in my head to use this code, I wish I had some more of them ;-)

    So you have the TB code available to be discovered. Is that your intentions? I wanted to ask before I discover it. 

  11. 16 minutes ago, K13 said:

    Wow! The first one published and it has an ALR! You MUST POST A PHOTO of yourself at the location.


    I guess the rules are different for the new Virtuals?

    It doesn't appear to have any Finds? Not sure what "ALR" is. There's just notes on there as of right now. 


  • Create New...