Jump to content

The Magna Defender

+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The Magna Defender

  1. If someone hasnt signed a log on one of my caches, it's down to them to decide to claim the cache or not. If they didn't have a pen whoopee soo I've been there. If they're sat in their armchair, then it's only themselves they are cheating. Though it's very irritating when people clearly log a cache that isn't there, but that's a complete different issue

    • Upvote 3
    • Helpful 4
  2. I have a series of Premium Member Only caches, some of these series are ammo boxes and one hide is a hollowed out stump with a box on the inside of it.


    Earlier in the year I had one ammo box disappear which I put down to being too open to muggles, I had one problematic hide that seemed to disappear as soon as it was replaced, literally the same day. I moved that particular hide and it has lasted.


    The series hasn't been done since early June and someone has gone round today and DNFed 5 of the caches. Two being the last remaining ammo box (in a secluded location) and the hollowed out stump. The stump they've removed the box but not the stump.


    This tells me its Geocachers who are removing these hides.


    I took a look at the Audit log and one name appeared which has been looking at the series intently for 2 months. This account has been a member for a year, is a premium member however hasn't found or hidden any caches. 


    My question - can HQ trace the IP address of that account ?

    • Helpful 1
  3. Weren't you told by the reviewer to only log a NM or NA when you've actually been to the cache yourself ?


    You also didn't answer my previous question.


    How do you know the cache owner hasn't visited GZ in 12 months? Do you have a camera set up at each of his 986 cache hides?


    If so could I borrow some as someone keeps nicking my caches ?


    • Upvote 1
  4. The logbook was reported as dry in march.


    Therefore the logbook and the newspaper will have been signable.


    The thing that seems to offend you most is the fact the CO logged OM without visiting GZ. How do you know he hasn't been to GZ?


    On the other side of the coin, if you are having an issue with a CO virtually logging an OM, then how is this different from you logging a NM or NA without visiting GZ?

    • Upvote 1
    • Helpful 1
  5. Please refer back to my evidence.


    Logbook reported as wet.

    Then logbook reported as dry and signable

    Then logbook reported as wet.


    The second comment regarding the logbook being signable nullifies your "no maintenance for a year" comment.


    You are making this person out to be a poor cache owner. Why should a cache owner rush out due to potentially false information.




    • Upvote 1
  6. Actual evidence:


    Log reported as wet may 2017

    Log reported as signable march 2018

    Log reported as wet again June 2018


    Today Armchair NM logged by thread poster without visiting GZ and acting on out of date second hand information in an attempt to cause defamation of character to a popular cache owner who sets quality caches and regularly performs maintenance.




    • Upvote 1
  7. 14 hours ago, Blue Square Thing said:


    There are plenty of them. I've done three of them this month already. They have a place, but so do the multiple stage ones and, if anything, it's possible to argue that some of the single photo ones are a teensy weensy bit boring in some ways - it's more interesting when there's a variety I think. My favourite recently was https://coord.info/GC7B9ND which is simple but interesting and requires just a touch of effort.


    I'm also pleased to see some that require a tonne of effort.

    The ones I have seen locally to northwest England and Yorkshire are all unnecessarily complicated ones where you either have to drive round numerous stages for miles or walk round posh houses or buildings which are only open during certain hours. 


    Surely the idea of a virtual was to put them at places a container wouldn't last, such as a hard to get to island or a summit where a container isn't possible... But no they'd rather waste their virtual cache on a fancy building where a multi would have been more appropriate.

    • Upvote 1
  8. 6 hours ago, Team Microdot said:


    Now this one is a bit different - https://coord.info/GC7B8KN


    The irony here is that the CO had a traditional cache here previously - with almost exactly the same name - and that was archived by a volunteer reviewer after a spell of DNF's and ignored NM.


    For me that's something of a failing in the selection process for sure.



    To that example.... I agree with mr microdot. Most caches by that CO have been archived. Absolutely disgusting. A kick to the teeth of worthy COs. 

    • Upvote 1
  9. 2 hours ago, TriciaG said:

    I took a closer look at the account. Not only does what Anna say here pertain, but all the archived caches were well-maintained by the CO. None of them were archived by a reviewer, but were responsibly archived by the CO. Looks like a great candidate for the virtual reward.

    Yes it takes real effort to just archive a cache as soon it needs maintaining. It's a bit of a kick to the teeth of cache owners who have maintained caches for over ten years. 


    As usual with the virtual it's a poor example again, with it being a multi stage one just to look at a services tower from varying angles. This is Lancashires only new virtual. I'm proud. 


    I don't understand why all the new virtuals seem to be long and complicated with numerous stages. Whatever happened to a single photo virtual ? 

    • Upvote 2
  10. 2 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:
    • What steps can Geocaching HQ take to improve geocache quality?

    have a ban feature on owned caches to stop troublesome loggers that have nothing better to do than find a problem when there is not one.


    a report feature on negative and unwarranted comments in logs


    reviewers take action when the same people make regularly needs archiving/maintenance when not required and suspend for a period of time depending on an accumulated number when proven incorrect.


    more reviewers, this would add more local knowledge and spread the burden on one reviewer that have large area's to look after,  a good starting point would be when the reviewer goes on holiday or needs a break.


    support co's with disputes better and also be more helpful  when issues arise when trying to get a cache published.


    a big fat thumbs up to this guy

    • Upvote 2
    • Love 1
    • In your mind, what is a high quality geocache?

    a nice big box in a beauty spot.

    • In your mind, what is a low quality geocache?

    one thats in a urine soaked layby with no hint.

    • What steps can the community take to improve geocache quality?

    help guide newer cachers into what consitutes a higher quality cache, rather than lambasting them and logging needs archive for trivial issues. 

    • What steps can Geocaching HQ take to improve geocache quality?

    the current system is fine as it is. maybe change needs archived need's reviewer attention. take on more reviewers to look at policing abandoned caches more often. 


    ps a lot of people on here think cachers with high amounts of hides are just power trail hiders, this is not always the case and policies from people on here requiring a cap on hides or point scheme wouldn't really be fair to hiders who have been active for a number of years. 

    • Upvote 1
    • Helpful 2
  11. Just now, redsox_mark said:


    The "Fine Pair" series (phone box and post box) seems to be doing well and expanding, at least near me.   But yes, the caches can't be in the phone box itself (if it is still a BT phone box).  


    Yeah they can't be in phone boxes anymore because of NIMBYs and a now ex reviewer concocting a phoney story about a BT maintenance man finding a cache in a phone box and reporting it head office. 

    • Upvote 1
  12. Phone boxes were a popular series like that locally, until two locals conspired with a now ex reviewer; a phony story about BT having a problem with phone boxes. The "big box little box" series was quickly destroyed just because of two NIMBY locals who didn't want a phone box series in their local area. <_<

    • Upvote 1
  13. 17 minutes ago, K13 said:

    I hope that none of the rewards are given to others. Too much unwarranted grief from the first round.

    Why not, there are more deserving hiders who have amassed thousands of favorite points over years of hiding and have arranged events in their local community. 

    Just because a hider has many hundreds of hides doesn't mean they are a power trail hider. I have many on hills, ones in tunnels and have hidden ammo boxes at considerable expense. In the eyes of the algorithm I'm a power trail hider apparently not worthy of a virtual. 

    • Upvote 3
  • Create New...