Rebore
-
Posts
333 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rebore
-
-
I think the old system which required fellow cachers to log NM/NA worked quite well, at least in my area. Now you just have to click a checkbox to send a canned NM Message to the owner without explaining why. So Groundspeak invented the CHS and now an algorithm is deciding if a cache is in need of attention and is sending out another canned message to the owner. Great.
Your version of the text is more friendly than the actual one, though.
-
22 hours ago, dprovan said:
... but that's not likely to happen again since most of our COs will eventually get around to recovering the container or reusing the location for something else.)
Many, many owners all arount the world just don't care about the geolitter once they are no longer participating (or even if they are still out finding and hiding caches). I know, your area is different.
21 hours ago, CaverScott said:If that is the only reason it was archived, I would suspect the real reason is that the owner is no longer active so instead of posting a note asking the CO to fix the cache page, the reviewer simply archives it.
I think that would be a strange approch, since I know some owners who haven't found a cache in years and did not log in the website for a long time, too. Still, they are monitoring their hides, answering questions and doing maintainance if necessary.
-
9 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:
Have you ever attended a meet the reviewer event hosted in a pub?
No, but what are you trying to convey? If reviewers had enough drinks, they will switch to work mode and just answer like they were working off the unpublished caches queue?
-
50 minutes ago, The A-Team said:
I've met Wizard of Ooze, Skookum Bear, and geoawareCA in person, and they're very nice people
I agree and think most reviewes you meet in person are nice guys. But most of the players just submit their listing without ever having contact to one of the reviewers, and mail conversations are completely differnt compared to personal conversation.
-
4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:
I wouldn't consider a cache that used reflectors to be a gadget cache unless the there was something one had to do (beyond just moving it) with the reflector to get acces to the cache.
Just how far away was that cache "not too far away from the rails"? On my second attempt to hide a cache it was denied because it was too close to RR tracks. It was in a park next to the lake that required one to drive across the tracks to get into the park but my reviewer wouldn't allow it unless I got explicit permission from the park and the RR company. He also described an incident that occurred a few years previous of a geocacher that had to pay a fairly large fine for placing a cache to close to RR tracks (on RR property).
Pretty close. I know the rules are more stict in the US because the land next to the rails belongs to the RR company, which isn't the case here.It was actually at the station, but behind a noise barrier so you couldn't walk straight to GZ. You had to spot a fishing line to draw the styrofoamed, covered with leaves "bomb" container up to you. I just looked it up and saw that it was a birthday present for his daughter, he deceided that she would get "something else" the year after. Also the news article was not correct, the station wasn't closed and trains weren't stopped. Logs are in German, this was the cache: GC22XXT
-
On top of my head I remember a few hiders and hides.
There was a nice varation of a guardrail hide, utlizing one of the reflectors. Another one was hidden at a weather measurement station, and the hint was something like "Fresh air from your lungs". You had to take the cap of a pipe and blow into a tube to make the Micro appear. I was there three times before I realized what it's all about. However, the owner stopped hiding caches after the local railway station was closed for a day when the workers discovered something strange not too far away from the rails. I read it in the news, knew that it was about a cache he had hidden and wrote a message to him. He went to the polica station, apologized (there was a crazy number mentioned in the news article on how much costs this incident caused) and all was good. Those were the days :).
-
The "Horrible Reviewer Syndrome" thread gained much more traction than this one. I wonder why?
-
6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:
The only reason someone would feel belittled by the word "should" is if they realize there is a better way but, for whatever reason, they're unwilling to give it a try.
You shold really stop stating your opinion in this thread.
Why? If you don't like what I have to say than skip over my posts.
/end quote
If you don't see the irony, I was just using the word "should" in the hope you'll get my point. It seems you didn't.
-
.png)
2
-
-
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:
The only reason someone would feel belittled by the word "should" is if they realize there is a better way but, for whatever reason, they're unwilling to give it a try.
You shold really stop stating your opinion in this thread.
-
19 minutes ago, dprovan said:
Don't you think NMs should be logged against caches that are missing? No one's going to find any remains of a container that's just not there any more.
If there are several DNF logs before mine, I might log a NM trying to bring it to other cachers attention. In my maybe naive ways I asuume the owner reads all of the logs on his caches, so severeal DNFs will alarm him and no NM is needed. I think a NM log is more to make other cachers aware that there might be a problem and the owner is not responsive, but if I don't find anything, it's a DNF. Maybe it's still there, maybe it isn't. I simply don't know.
-
1
-
-
This is a thread to praise your reviewer:
Isn't it awesome how much work they put into our hobby just to get our caches published?
No critisizm here please, just explain why your reviewer is awesome and how s/he helped getting your cache published.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:
It's a good thing to do and something I think all cachers should practice if they're interested in keeping the game fun and relevant.
Again, I don't agree. Feel free to practice the hobby the way you want, but please refrain from using phrases like "All cachers should do this". No, they shouldn't. They should enjoy this pasttime their way, as long as it's in line with the guidelines.
-
2
-
-
44 minutes ago, TwistedCube said:
I've created a monster.
... ‘cause nobody wants ta
See Marshall no more, they want Shady, I'm chopped liver
Well, if you want Shady, this is what I'll give ya -
I think it is poor style to just log a NM without finding at least some remains of the container. I remember a cache where (I think several) NMs were posted because of a missing container and a wet log stripe. Well, all those guys signed on some piece of trash paper lying under a stone without a container, but the place still was fitting to the hint. The real cache was a nano 3m away from that stone, and everything was fine. The owner asked the next finder to remove the fake log after he checked the cache, because he didn't know what the heck all the "finders" and NM loggers were talking about. And yes, it was a D1.5
ETA: reference
-
10 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:
It looks to be an exact copy of the cache owner's disable log. Don't believe that an in house checker had anything to do with it.
You are right, it is indeed a copy of the disable log. So I'll kick my humotous thought in the can and change it to "That's a nice feture."
-
Can't stop laughing beause of the message. It seems the inhouse checker has grown out of puberty and is now responding on behalf of the owner.
-
46 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
Sorry, but it's this attitude that's led to the imposition of the CHS which tries to infer the NM you wouldn't log by counting DNFs, but it doesn't have the benefit you had of being at GZ and seeing whether it should've been an obvious hide or was indeed devious enough to cause you to look everywhere but in the right place. An NM isn't an insult to the CO or a black mark against the cache, it's just a formal request from a searcher to the CO asking them to check on the cache.
I'll try to put it another way. Container broken, lid missing, all is soaking wet, that are some cases when i'll log NM. If I didn't find the cache, it's a DNF. Some people post only NM and no DNF after they phoned a friend and are sure that the cache was originally hidden at the place they looked for it. I don't, because my geocaching pals live in a different area and haven't searched for the cache in question. Also, containers may move and even owners DNF their own cache that is still in place.
I know you dislike the CHS, but as far as I know it takes _multiple_ DNFs in account, too. I have no bad feelings for not logging a NM if I didn't find the cache, quite the opposite. I stand by what I said, if you didn't find it, how can you be sure it needs maintainance? As far as I know, NM logs are just forwarded to the owner , just like DNF or any other logs. If you want to put a red wrench on it because you didn't find it and think you were looking at the correct place, that's fine. I won't do that and I think that's ok, too.
-
I usually don't log NM if I couldn't find the cache. How do I know? I didn't find it.
A red wrench is not a reason for me to ignore a cache. Maybe the owner did maintainance an did'nt know that a OM log is needed to clear the red wrench. In this particular case, there has been a DNF before and several finds later, so I would give it a try. I wouldn't trust the NM of a DNF logger.
-
If Lab caches are one step ahead and trying to pull cache types out of the "catch all" Mystery zone, i think this thread is obsolete. They failed.
-
Thinking of old times, there was once a reviewer in Germany, whose style was very disputed in the community (or at least in the local forum called the "green hell"). You know, kinda like HHL but he was a reviewer. Is nobody reading this knowing who I mean that wants to share a story?
-
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:
Welcome to the forum
I guess this is the standard forum regulars answer to remarks like mine. It's poor and lame. Is there some kind of new cache type you would like to see?
-
Do I get this straight? There was a question from OP, then there was a lot of arguing because of the first proposal, and maybe two or three other answers (out of 30) that were targeted at the original question? You guys are funny.
-
26 minutes ago, baer2006 said:
... and owners, who hide their cache on the ground, and set the "Available in winter" icon - in an area where lots of snow is normal in winter. But to be honest, that doesn't really irk me ... only making me shake my head and ramp up my DNF count
.
If there is some kind of landmark close to GZ, like a tree or a large rock, the coords are good and there is a spoilerpic, you can always bring an avalanche shovel. Some guys did that in my early days and were quite successful.
-
Video caches. It's basically a Multi, but instead of following waypoints and answering questions stated in the listing, you watch a first person view video of the owner following the trail, asking questions at some points (where the answer is not visible in the video) to collect variables. To find the cache, you have to use a formula to calculate the final coords and your GPSr.
If the video can be downloaded and not just streamed, you wouldn't need internet access in the field. That can be already done with the multicache type, but it would be nice to be able to filter them out, either because you like or hate them.
.png)
.
A proposal for automated cache health score letter
in General geocaching topics
Posted · Edited by Rebore
Yes, it seems like TPTB are always fixing things that are not boken and one "fix" leads to another. But of course I don't have the insight that they hopefully have. Well-intentioned is often the opposite of well done.