Diadem

I've done the survey, and I appreciate the opportunity. One needs to agree on what quality means first, before trying to determine the means of increase it. The survey, as I see it, was trying to do both at the same time, but not doing either justice . I've seen a few posts argue similarly (more eloquently than I) , and others pushing their favourite indicator. I'd like to see 'quality' broken down into separate factors, such as maintenance, ingenuity, location, challenge, experience, etc. 'Maintenance' indicates if the cache is well maintained - has a dry log, a log not full, a writing implement (if appropriate), etc. 'Inginuity' indicating how well the cache container, hiding methods, camouflage, etc, makes you go "wow". 'Location' indicating that there is a great view, an interesting story, took you where you'd never have gone otherwise, etc. 'Challenge' - how hard you worked to get to GZ (or to work out where GZ actually is). 'Experience' will be most subjective, but when one found the cache, despite it being mouldy, in a boring location, and being a drive-by to boot, was this an experience that I'd rather not have missed out on (I give favourite points to experiences, which are subject to the conditions at the time - meaningful to me, but perhaps not so helpful to others). Ideally the factors would be orthogonal, but challenge and experience crossover a bit and perhaps others could come up with better indicators. It is apparent that different geocachers will have different weightings placed on the indicators, but having a single indicator of the concept of quality is not solving the problem (consider CHS and Favorites), otherwise we'd not be having surveys and such discussions.

On face value yes, but was there a clear intent to cheat (or laziness) or was there a mistake in good faith? I've found similar caches. I have assumed all but one of the tins was a decoy, and sure enough after opening enough tins I'd find a log. If I found all tins empty I'd assume the log is missing; a cache full of decoys being itself a decoy is not something that would readily jump to my mind. Were you being too 'clever'? Having multiple decoys in a cache container is not a novel idea, but I've never found one where all the tins were decoys. Is there a clear means for people to realise that the decoys are themselves within a decoy? Another cache I found contained 50 decoy tins - in all but one there was a note saying "No". The real tin had a log book instead. In that case, if all tins had "No" or "Decoy" written inside then I'd start to suspect something is not quite as it seems. Actually, all decoys I've found had some indication that I'd not found the true cache or log. So was a mistake made in good faith by the original cacher that put the slip of paper in place? Finding a log and assuming it is the legitimate log is also too easy. I actually found one such cache with paper in two tins - I signed both to be sure, but if I had not looked in all tins (out of curiosity) I'd never have known there was another log. What if the first one I found was not the true log and I'd not been curious? Checking many tins and then finding a slip of paper would lead most people into thinking they had found the log as per your requirement. So again, could a mistake have been made in good faith by following cachers?

Hello forum readers, I'm in a little quandary and I was hoping to get some opinions on my next course of action. A short time ago I picked up a trackable from a geocache. It was a figuring attached to a TB dog tag. Once i logged the TB I was looking at the figuring more closely and I noticed it has a trackable code too - not the same code and not an alternate reference code. It is a code for a long missing trackable. The original trackable was put in a cache in 2010. Very shortly thereafter I am presuming a new cacher came upon the trackable but didn't recognise it for what it was and kept it. The owner then logged it as missing. Then one day in 2016 after learning of trackballs at some stage, the new cacher attached a TB dog tag to the figuring and sent it on its way. No-one else has noted this issue in previous logs. I am presuming most cachers would easily miss the tracking code, as it is very small. My quandary is what to do. I emailed the original owner of the figurine trackable and have not received a reply. There may be many reasons for this, but that may not be important. As I see it I have several options: 1. Forget I saw the code and release the trackable back into the wild (as a figuring attached to a TB dog tag) 2. Discover the other trackable. And do (1). 3. Grab the original trackable, release both as one unit but log them separately. I would also attached a little note to later finders of the second code. I would appreciate any thoughts, as doing (1) would simply ignore a lost trackable. Has this happened to anyone else before? Many thanks, Diadem