hotshoe

Until recently I could click on either the pencil icon or on the coordinates themselves; now neither one works. The only thing that happens when I click is that the URL in my browser's address line gets a '#' added to the end of it. The box for entering new coords doesn't show up. That's how it used to be. Now the corrected coords (on caches that I entered new coords for before this change) are shown without italics. Yep, same problem here. A cache for which I updated coords a year ago now shows non-italicized, no way of telling from the page appearance whether it's the dummy coords or the solved coords. Fortunately I have a separate googledoc with my puzzle solutions so I could crosscheck that the non-italicized coords are actually the solved coords for that particular one. But it's stupid for geocaching.com to break one of the few features they had which I found useful, and make people like me rely on alternate-site hacks. MIght as well go back to writing puzzle solutions on little scraps of paper. Any plans for this bug to be fixed?

Ignore it. If you had not happened to find the other "time capsule" container, you would never have known that she missed finding the actual cache. You never would have noticed the absence of her signature from the actual log. The fact that, just by chance, you did happen to find the other container and did happen to notice her signature in the wrong place does not suddenly make you a member of the cache police. You have no directive to intervene. It won't help anybody, not her, not you, not the cache owner, to try to teach her a lesson about being more careful with her finds. Unless you know her personally well enough to be sure she would appreciate being corrected ... but you said that you don't really know her. Do nothing more than what you've already done by posting a comment about it here.

Yeah, I go along with you. I just posted a find on one of your new-ish caches - Mt Caroline livermore - and the last time I hiked there was many years ago. I remembered nothing about the trail nor where I found the previous cache - archived - not even what side of the trail it had been on. If the old cache were still there, instead of your new one, it still would have been a "new experience" to me, and I would be perfectly fine with a smiley for the feels-new-to-me second find. Even if I remembered exactly where the cache was, behind which bush, I would probably look for it anyways just out of curiosity to see how it had held up over the years. As a matter of time and energy to travel new places, I don't hike the same trail twice anywhere; in the whole decade that was the first time it's happened - but I can see that re-finding an old cache is definitely in the spirit of the game envisioned by the founders. I log my finds as "Finds" in service for all the other geocachers, who use recent finds in sorting their PQs; and for the cache owner, too, who gets better information about their cache from find logs than from having to read through their "note" log emails. If anyone finds one of my caches a second time, I would be happy for them to log a "find"; I don't have any desire to tell them they have to post a "note" instead. Why try to be bossy? It's stupid for people to complain that geocaching has gotten to be too much about the numbers and then turn around and expend energy trying to make it all about the numbers - oh, no, the sky is falling because the numbers don't match up exactly! So what! I don't have any idea how many caches I've found - well, I do know it's thousands and I think they're all unique except 2 - I could not care less about the numbers and all I care about is whether they were interesting experiences with good caches. If a person thinks geocaching is too much about the numbers, then they should ignore the numbers altogether, not focus more and more attention on rules about numbers. Don't rigidly and meanly try to suppress other people's numbers. Don't try to incite TPTB to make a new rule that no one can log a cache more than once, no matter what, "because it messes with the numbers". You should never care about someone else's numbers Even if you have to be absolutely anal about your own because you can't just relax and enjoy the experiences, then be polite and keep it to yourself.

Sorry, I should have asked "how to find cacher's name when we don't know exactly how it's spelled" Since the Geocaching interface is behind the times as far as search functions, there's no way to enter "walru" and get results that include "WalruZ" - at least, not as far as I can find. Since this thread is about google-whispering to make up for the lack of search functionality here, I'm hoping someone knows how to google-whisper cachers' names, or any other trick.

Anyone have any idea how to search for a cacher's name?

I can hardly believe some people are so weirdly restrictive about finding a cache twice. I've done it, and it was completely legitimate - and if the owner deleted what they thought was a "duplicate" log, I'd get Groundspeak to reinstate my second find. For example, I found one in April 07. Six years later, I am trying to do the community a favor by replacing a beloved and apparently-missing cache after recent DNFs but first I have to search a reasonable area around GZ to ensure I'm not placing a duplicate. I don't remember the hillside, I don't remember the deer trails, I don't remember the bushes, I don't remember if the original hide had good coords or was off a little ... I'm very surprised and happy to find the original container under the third or fourth bush I check, and almost exactly at the listed coords. Hell yes, I'm going to post a second find log for that. (And yes, I sign the log a second time). It was every bit as unique a find to me as it would have been to find a more recent cache that I had never searched for in a similar hiding spot it similar terrain. Now, if I go back next week and I remember the trail and I remember "it was under one of these dark green bushes at the edge of the clearing" then, no, I won't count that as a new find. I won't cheat myself out of the experience of a genuine find, and I also won't cheat myself out of claiming the smiley when I do genuinely have to search for and find something when I have no memory from previous find to help me with the current attempt. Of course, this kind of find won't happen often, but it could happen more often as some of us get older and start to lose our minds

771 Have fun!

Cache owners, like jellis, have a responsibility to delete known bogus logs. In this case, jharrisonjr knows he screwed up and has posted a note on his profile page. His cache finds as of this morning still have a hundred fake logs in CA, but that's an improvement! "A tool running wild" ... I would sure like to know how that happens. But not enough to worry about it if he finishes cleaning up after himself.

jelllis, are you talking about jjharrisonjr? Bogus logs on caches all over CA. But the total is a lot fewer than 700 now, as some get deleted by cache owners.

I always log every DNF and have done that as far back as I can remember. But I don't think it's straightforward to calculate my ratio. Since I often go on hikes with other cachers, there are surely hundreds of caches I have a smiley for which I wouldn't have gotten if it were just me. I would have either not found it at all, or spent so much time on the attempt that I would miss out on further finds. My DNFs are (usually) mine alone, my finds are often the group find. It's not comparing apples to apples. Note: this works in favor of making the ratio appear better than it would otherwise. So although my calculated rate is 13% my "personal" DNF rate is something between 1 out of every 6 and 1 out of every 5 of my solo finds. And I could probably count on my fingers the number of times the cache was really missing when I DNFd it. It's not because I'm trying to do only high-rated hard-to-find caches, either. It's just that I'm not particularly good at finding things. Doesn't stop me from enjoying the process, though.

Yep. That's why I would never recommend a CO to delete a log - it's a lot riskier for the cache owner than it is for the cache "finder". The finder only risks losing one smiley, the CO risks losing a cache. Not even through maliciousness, but like you say, because the next time that finder is in a muggle situation, s/he will be more likely to drop caution and just grab the cache no matter what. Cache owners should really think through what message they are sending - "I don't care if my cache gets muggled because someone was desperate to sign it" - is that really the message you want to spread with your insistence on deleting unsigned finds ?

I think a blanket statement like this bears scrutiny. From where I sit, the guidelines do have some grey areas. Not just in interpretation, but in practice as well. Looking at the list prepared by Ecylram, I don't see a single one that should be archived, based on just those descriptions. For instance, we know that bridges are not entirely verboten. Only those bridges that might make a handy terrorist target, or otherwise cause undue alarm were a cache to be hidden there. Quaint little bridges along country lanes seem to be perfectly OK for hiding near. It is unclear from the descriptions Ecylram posted what kind of bridges were involved in these hides. It is also unclear if sprinkler head caches actually violate the buried guideline. I've seen Reviewers in this forum opine that wiggling a container into leaf litter or soft soil is OK, so long as it's not completely covered. The sprinkler head caches I've seen were similar, in that the stem portion simply had to be wiggled into the soft soil. No dirt was removed, and no pointy object was used. Personally, I think sprinkler head caches are horrible ideas, as I feel they lead to folks disassembling real sprinklers, but I'm not convinced they are automatic violations. Again, with Ecylram's list, it is unclear from the description whether or not those should be archived. It gets a little clearer with the holes drilled in trees caches listed. What mook would drill a hole in a tree? And yet, if I created one of these in my front yard, and described in detail how it was made so there was no doubt in the Reviewer's eyes that a hole was drilled into a living tree, I could probably get it published. After all, it's my tree. Finally, the hole in the ground caches. In Ecylram's description, he doesn't mention whether or not the owner utilized an existing hole. As I understand it, if I hide a cache in a natural depression, it does not violate the guidelines. While Ecylram's list gives great examples of terrible cache hides, there are potential exceptions which could make each of those types legal, from a Reviewer standpoint. Exceptions = grey areas. +1 Ask yourself is the cache itself, i.e., the container holding the log buried? Does one need a pointy object to retrieve the container? If the answer is no then your probably entering a twilight area that has lots of grey. I've pulled lots of containers out of pipes that were in the ground. Would I post a NA? No, first of all because I can not say for certain how the pipe was placed in the ground and by who, and secondly because I did not have to dig to retrieve the container. We are dealing with guidelines, not rules, interpretation and exceptions do count for a lot. Well said, thanks.

That should be Washington AC (Above California)! Good one. I needed something to smile about on this grim news day, thanks !

Then perhaps, you should stop searching for nanos? What I find presumptuous is cachers noting on the log that they didn't bother to sign the cache. Ya know, if you hadn't slapped me in the face with that, I probably would never have noticed. But, if you're going to point it out to me, I will delete the log! (Not aimed at escomag, but at the cacher who noted than on the log.) I sent him an e-mail that he did not qualify for a find. That is not a fair answer. I can find nanos, just not easily sign them. Its hard enough to un roll the log, find a place to make a mark and re-roll. I do take the time to do that much. Otherwise, the best thing I could offer, would a preprinted piece of paper. I would have to throw out the old log, but I would at least have the find. Could I create a cache that the log was individual rice grains, and to log a find you had to clearly write your handle and date on a grain? We all have those problems, but we still manage to get the job done. If you can't take the time to unroll/sign/reroll, then don't log it. Harry's response was right on the mark, IMO. Your strawman is being ignored, as it should be. You're wrong to take that scolding tone. Escomag clearly states that s/he takes the time to unroll/make a mark/reroll, so you have zero grounds for complaint. Maybe you should learn a little compassion for your fellow humans, who don't all have perfect eyesight and perfect hand/eye coordination and a perfect level of health that would allow them to sign legibly in a nano's tiny space. I would a lot rather escomag puts a Sharpie dot on my nano cache log than scribble something I couldn't read anyways and take up two spaces doing it.

Sorry, when you are not a premium member, PM caches are not visible on the map at all. But the are still listed in the "Find ... all nearby caches" search link from any nearby cache. So what will work for the OP is: open the geocaching map of the general area where the PM cache is, identify which non-PM cache looks to be the nearest on the map, open that cache page, then click the search link for "Find ... all nearby caches. Whichever PM cache shows up closest, that' s the GC # to use for the "backdoor" log. Warning: it's possible there are more than one PM caches the OP has not found in the general area. Use triangulation to identify which GC# is the correct one, in that case.

Yeah, I would be thrilled if someone would replace a container for me if it had been destroyed/lost in a situation like this where the trees were trimmed. And as far as I'm concerned, my thanks for that is they get a free smiley on my cache even though they didn't "really find" it. That said, I know there are lots of problems where impatient cachers leave a replacement for a cache that is still really there - the post above said it happened 9 out of 10 times to his caches. So I can see why deleting the found log for the not-really-found cache might be a good idea - if it discourages impatience and the resulting confusion. It's certainly within the owner's right to delete such a find log as bogus if he wishes. Groundspeak will back the owner up in this case. Still, I'm pretty sure it won't be worth the hard feelings if the CO deletes this log. What's the point of causing hard feelings when it's just a game. I'd feel better if I just thanked the "finder" for the cache container, made use of it, and moved on.

You're correct. Groundspeak does cover people when they find a cache and the cache owner deletes the online log for no reason or for the wrong reason. But you may have to PROVE YOU FOUND the cache first. And how are you going to prove that if you have not signed the physical log ? Well, in some cases you could prove you found the cache by describing the container, exactly where it was located, what was in it (if there was no log in it to sign or the log was too wet to sign, etc, what else can you testify was there), perhaps supply a photograph of you with the cache at the location ... But that's not what you're trying to do here, is it. It doesn't seem to make any sense to invite that kind of disagreeable trouble (I found it but I didn't sign it, I can't prove it, and now I'm going to ask Groundspeak to force the CO to allow my found log). You're right. You don't HAVE to sign the physical log to log as found. And if you want the security of not having your logs deleted ever and having to hassle to get them reinstated, then it's just the sensible thing to do. Sounds like you're on the winning side now. Happy caching !

Yes, your online finds can be deleted and this one is a good example why. How do you know that film can was the actual cache ? Maybe it was a decoy. I know one lamp-post hide where there are TWO decoys at the posted coordinates, so you really have to keep looking. If you take the time to open it up and find the log, then you assure yourself it's really the cache after all. And while you've got it open and you're looking at the log, take one extra second to sign it. Saves a trainload of possible disappointment and embarrassment down the way. Now, some cache owners let your online finds remain - that's up to the owners, if they're convinced you actually found the cache. But geocaching.com permits them to delete your online finds anytime there is no physical signature on the actual log.

I think it's fabulous ! Congratulations on keeping up with your challenge figure for more than two years - that takes some doing ! Well worth logging the smiley for not just meeting the challenge but exceeding it so far.

Tried for a cache today that was in the same parking lot as one of the ones we found our first day out back at the end of 2003. Got chased away by a security guard today. A couple of finds and an archive. But I think you must admit I walk the walk. No? Yes, you do. Not hard to admit it. Too bad about the security guard. And the archived cache. Can't win 'em all.

I guess as long as you don't mind seeing something like this on your stats year after year after year: You've found 5361 caches (5320 distinct) That is from my own stats. When I was new at this, some cachers told me that it was OK (and even normal) to log my temp caches at those events. Which meant logging the event multiple times. Now, I don't think that makes me a bad person. But in hindsight, I'd sure prefer if it said 5320 out of 5320. I am feeling pretty pure right now. You've found 2936 caches (2936 distinct) since your first cache find on 12/26/2003. You can undoubtedly call me all sorts of bad names but you certainly can't claim I don't walk the walk. Let us guess - you got a GPS for Christmas that year, didn't you !

I guess as long as you don't mind seeing something like this on your stats year after year after year: You've found 5361 caches (5320 distinct) That is from my own stats. When I was new at this, some cachers told me that it was OK (and even normal) to log my temp caches at those events. Which meant logging the event multiple times. Now, I don't think that makes me a bad person. But in hindsight, I'd sure prefer if it said 5320 out of 5320. Oh, that's the good kind of problem to have - because it's solvable. You can delete those multiple logs, even on archived caches, as long as the cache page hasn't been locked (which most aren't).

Well, I think you're wrong in your idea about "justify anything", but at least you're reasonable about it ! All in all, I'd go caching with you. And if you were looking to find a cache you've found before just so you could claim another Found it, I'd roll my eyes and probably give you a hard time, and then we'd move on to another cache. Happy Caching! Thanks, BlueDeuce. I loved Iowa the last time I was there and changed my travel plans to stay an extra day ... wish it could have been more. Get in touch if you're heading for the West Coast and we'll look for some high mountains and some caches neither of us have found.

Well, I think you're wrong in your idea about "justify anything", but at least you're reasonable about it !

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I know better than to try to "help you understand" again after the last times. Guess now you'll never know. Ah, what a tragedy. But for the record - if you read the posts - you can see "scummy" is only addressed to that NeesesandNephews crack about me, which was an order of magnitude more insulting than your ".misunderstandings". Once less thing for you to worry about, if that's any consolation ....