MoonMatt
-
Posts
14 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MoonMatt
-
-
11 minutes ago, Team Canary said:
Posting Needs Maintenance Logs or Needs Archived logs is sadly seen the wrong way by too many people.
I've given up logging them recently after receiving feedback for my approach.
Its hard because we all draw different lines in different places.
I agree its difficult to word it so people don't take it the wrong way. All we can do is try to be polite and if our log is taken the wrong way nothing we can do. Thanks for sharing your views!
-
.png)
2
-
1
-
.png)
1
-
-
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
One of my caches (GC8RTKC) is like that. My intended access is along the fire trail to the reference point I marked, then across an open rock shelf to the cache with no bush-bashing required at all, but being a traditional, people don't read the description and instead just follow their arrow which points them off the trail at a bend and across a thickly-vegetated gully.
Probably as a result, it's my least-favourited cache with just one FP from 24 finds in two years. According to the Year of the Hide recommendations, I should probably archive it even though I don't think there's anything particularly bad about it, with a nice view from GZ and a good quality container and logbook.
That does look like an awesome view. Some cachers like to make their own D/T ratings and don't pay attention to the info the CO provides. But maybe they learn for next cache.
-
10 minutes ago, baer2006 said:
I agree that there is no need to be rude in cache logs, even if there is some real problem with the cache (e.g. coordinates way off). OTOH, it must be possible to state such problems the logs without being accused of being "just a complainer". I have encountered many cache owners (mostly newbies, sorry to say), who saw even the most well-meaning and constructive criticism as personal offense.
And BTW, regarding the thread title: I tend to ignore requests, which end in multiple exclamation marks and don't even contain a "please"
.
I appreciate your comments. I did at least end the post with "Please be kind!!!"
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, lee737 said:
We've had criticism in the past for the density of bushbash that was needed to get to the cache, where, if the finder had paid attention to the description, they would have been directed to a fairly open way to traverse across to the hide, which was a 20L/5ga bucket, so couldn't really be popped under a seat on the main track....
I find great humor when I "find" the clearly marked path leaving a cache i just bushwhacked to but never thought of criticizing the CO for MY stupidity. We just need to be humble and kind.
-
3
-
-
29 minutes ago, NanCycle said:
This brings back to mind a cache that had coordinates that were way off (70 ft and in someone's fenced back yard) which had been commented on (in Found logs) 14 times over two years and completely ignored by the CO. I made my comment in a NM log and started a whole s***storm which culminated in the CO writing me into the cache description as a complainer. The cache started out as an ammo can and has degraded to just a gallon-sized zip lock bag, which may even not be there anymore either.
We have also had attempted to find a cache from a new and/or careless CO and brought to an unsafe or awkward location. By all means it is our responsibility as cachers to note that in logs for the CO AND other Cachers. But we can still do so in the spirit of kindness. That is all I am saying.
-
3
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:
With no examples, it's kinda tough to figure where your limit's at.
We started with people yelling at us (a cache maggot stealing as we started...), and now it's a "duck's back" thing...
If someone is vulgar or threatening, an email to Geocaching HQs a good bet.
This is why I went this route to just remind us to be kind
Behavior that Geocaching HQ will not act on
- Rude behavior. Some geocachers may create a negative experience for other geocachers, but their behavior does not violate our Terms of Use.
-
.png)
1
-
1
-
11 hours ago, lee737 said:
I agree with your sentiments, but constructive criticism can be useful, like container suitability and ratings (when they are *way* off).
Constructive criticism is always helpful to improve our caches. I am not referring to those logs.
-
14 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:
We disagree... In fact, my log saying that "we found this cache no where near coordinates, the hide is a 1/1.5 when it says 4 in terrain, and a chinese take-out container isn't gonna last past this summer" is the CO's clue that something's off.
I spend the gas and a day to visit one's cache, and it turns out to be a horrible experience, that's the closest I'll come to "nice"...
Most people are sensitive when told "your baby is ugly". Maybe it's in the wording...
We've found hides that are up-to 400' off, and I don't feel one needs to be "kind" about someone who paid no attention to guidelines.
The other 2/3rds gave up the hobby for a while now, a FTFer who's no longer interested in being a beta-tester for clueless people...
The last couple of years I've tried to be nice, saying, " looking for a small cache to leave a trackable, but found another micro" (pill bottles mostly).
No one fixes it. Maybe a NM would clue them in. A dozen logs saying "pill bottles are not small caches" may get the CO to understand too...
"Log soaked!", "Pile of goo for a log...", and "Log looks like a dead soaked moth" are telling a CO who may read logs that there's a problem.
It should be NM, since it may be months before it's fixed, but some caches with log issues for years never seem to get NMs...
I think your examples are appropriate and give details that need to be fixed or at least checked on by CO. I am referring to outright attacks that do not benefit the caching experience at all.
-
If you enjoy the excitement of a new cache being published for you to go find (and possibly an FTF), keep in mind that a fellow cacher put in time and effort to place and maintain these caches for us to seek.
I have seen way too many negative and disparaging comments made by cachers who didn't find a cache as quickly as they expected. Honestly this has turned me away from hiding new caches. I am not talking about caches that may need better coordinates or other suggestions from helpful cachers. We all want our caches to be found, but negative comments criticizing the hide or rating are not helpful. We are living in unprecedented stressful times. Geocaching is intended to be a hobby to enjoy. Transferring your stress to a Cache Owner is not acceptable behavior. We are better than that! If every Cache Owner gives up placing new caches as I am inclined to do, there won't be anything for you to find.
So Please Be Kind!!!
-
2
-
4
-
2
-
-
First I think the Advanced Search does have some nice features to filter down the list of caches to your specific criteria. I was recently using this to find the caches of an Owner that I have not found yet. The results did include the ones I was looking for but it also included a couple for other owners. It looks like the results include ALL caches that have had corrected coordinates even though they were owned by another CO.
Just wanted to mention this to see if it is a known issue - not a big issue for me.
Thanks for your support to help us enjoy this game!
We released an update to the search page this afternoon which fixes a bug that we believe was causing the issue you described (along with other erroneous results). Please try your initial search again and let us know if you continue to see errors in the results. Thanks for reporting your issues!
Ben
I retested the original search as well as some others where I noticed erroneous results and they all returned the expected results!
Thanks for your quick attention to resolving this issue!
MoonMatt
-
First I think the Advanced Search does have some nice features to filter down the list of caches to your specific criteria. I was recently using this to find the caches of an Owner that I have not found yet. The results did include the ones I was looking for but it also included a couple for other owners. It looks like the results include ALL caches that have had corrected coordinates even though they were owned by another CO.
Just wanted to mention this to see if it is a known issue - not a big issue for me.
Thanks for your support to help us enjoy this game!
Can you tell us exactly which criteria you're using, so others can try it and see if they get similar results? You mention "I haven't found", "Hidden By", and "Has Corrected Coordinates". Are there any others, or is that it?
One possibility: for the ones that show as being owned by a different owner, can you double-check that those are truly owned by a different user? If someone adopts a cache and doesn't change the "Placed by" text field, it would still show the old owner's name, so I'm wondering if that's what has happened here. To confirm who the owner is, you need to open up the cache page and click on the "Placed by" name to see which profile it takes you to.
Here are the steps I did to reproduce this and I did have another cacher do the same test as well.
Play --> Find A Geocache
Search by zip code and then Add Filter
In the filter I expanded the search area from 10 miles to 30 miles
I selected the radio button for Caches I Haven't Found
I added A Hidden By to add the CO I was searching for
The results included two caches that I verified were not the owner I was searching for and both of these had corrected coordinates.
I went back to the change the search filer and removed the Hidden By and selected the Radio Button for Yes Has Corrected Coordinates and got the same two that also appeared with the Hidden By CO search.
Please let me know if you need the exact values I was using.
Thanks!
Matt
Here is one of the searches I was doing that includes incorrect results.
Search Zip Code 12801 for 10 Miles
Caches that you have not found that are owned by Oxyperious
I got 244 Results that include the following 3 caches that are NOT owned by Oxyperious
GC2C7Z2 GC4NVKH and GC3DT3D
Hope this helps!
Matt
-
First I think the Advanced Search does have some nice features to filter down the list of caches to your specific criteria. I was recently using this to find the caches of an Owner that I have not found yet. The results did include the ones I was looking for but it also included a couple for other owners. It looks like the results include ALL caches that have had corrected coordinates even though they were owned by another CO.
Just wanted to mention this to see if it is a known issue - not a big issue for me.
Thanks for your support to help us enjoy this game!
Can you tell us exactly which criteria you're using, so others can try it and see if they get similar results? You mention "I haven't found", "Hidden By", and "Has Corrected Coordinates". Are there any others, or is that it?
One possibility: for the ones that show as being owned by a different owner, can you double-check that those are truly owned by a different user? If someone adopts a cache and doesn't change the "Placed by" text field, it would still show the old owner's name, so I'm wondering if that's what has happened here. To confirm who the owner is, you need to open up the cache page and click on the "Placed by" name to see which profile it takes you to.
Here are the steps I did to reproduce this and I did have another cacher do the same test as well.
Play --> Find A Geocache
Search by zip code and then Add Filter
In the filter I expanded the search area from 10 miles to 30 miles
I selected the radio button for Caches I Haven't Found
I added A Hidden By to add the CO I was searching for
The results included two caches that I verified were not the owner I was searching for and both of these had corrected coordinates.
I went back to the change the search filer and removed the Hidden By and selected the Radio Button for Yes Has Corrected Coordinates and got the same two that also appeared with the Hidden By CO search.
Please let me know if you need the exact values I was using.
Thanks!
Matt
-
First I think the Advanced Search does have some nice features to filter down the list of caches to your specific criteria. I was recently using this to find the caches of an Owner that I have not found yet. The results did include the ones I was looking for but it also included a couple for other owners. It looks like the results include ALL caches that have had corrected coordinates even though they were owned by another CO.
Just wanted to mention this to see if it is a known issue - not a big issue for me.
Thanks for your support to help us enjoy this game!
.png)
.png)
.
.png)
Be Kind To Cache Owners!!!
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Thats sad that they didn't get more help to learn the ropes. I hope they try again someday.