Don_J

Add me to the confused crowd. How can you view it as a competition if YOU are not participating? Otherwise it's just your name on a list somewhere. Well apparently, a blank on a list somewhere. This has been my opinion since I started reading this thread. Feeling icky, months to get over the anger? If someone came up to me at an event and said, "I see you passed so and so in the standings", I'd probably simply tell them that I had no idea and that all that is important is that I have a good adventures hiking through the mountain and hopefully find some good caches in the process. If someone insists on ranking me against themselves or anyone else, I would simply ignore them. I would never conceive of giving them the power over me to make me feel icky.

You have another alternative. Simply ignore it. If I'm at a stop light and a car pulls up next to me and the driver wants to drag race, I ignore him and go on about my business.

In case no one has noticed, the name has been changed and the account validated. poniesandrainbows

Where is the Nevada Star? an you offer a GC#?

Exactly. I've never adopted out a cache, but I was recently chatting with another cacher who won't adopt out their caches specifically because of this issue. It just seems ridiculous that the site offers no way to do this. It would also be helpful for people who have joint ownership of caches. Instead of having the FTF hounds and whiny competitive cachers get their feathers all ruffled because a joint cache owner logged it as found, why not allow joint ownership to be tracked on the site? Problem with joint ownership. Say you and I have joint ownership on a cache, we have a big falling out and both of us wants to take sole ownership of the cache. Who get's to arbitrate? I seriously doubt that Groundspeak would ever want to open that can of worms.

What improvements would you suggest? Decide when, where, how, I get notification. Have the option to turn off notifications by email when someone finds my cache so the 130 caches I have don't dominate my email and only things like DNF, NM, NA logs come through. Easy way (even I can do it) to keep your email neat & tidy is to use filters to send all your geocaching emails to a separate folder. You could probably even figure out how to auto-delete the ones you've decided in advance that you're not interested in. There is an even easier way to avoid all those pesky emails. Don't be a cache owner. Owning a cache is a responsibility. Part of that is reading the logs, all of the logs.

Wet. Slimy. Water damaged. Items in it beyond repair. But apparently no one thinks the CO should be alerted with an NM. People are hesitant to post NM or NA logs, because they're worried that a CO or another cacher will hassle them for it. It seems weird so many would note the maint issues in their logs, but not post a NM. Maybe because the log is still viable? I think they just don't want flack for being the one who is responsible for the wrench appearing. What's more likely is that they just don't know about "needs maintenance" logs. The focus has been so much on "found it", that newer cachers have no idea that there are ways to alert the cache owners, and the Reviewers, about caches that are in dire need of maintenance. There's been a lot of discussion of how cachers will post a "found it" log that says quite clearly that they did not find it at all. They don't know about the other log types, it's as simple as that. It would be prudent to post the appropriate "needs maintenance" log first, with photos, before jumping to the "needs archived". Because of the lack of NM logs, it would look odd for a Needs Archived log to suddenly appear. Perhaps when the Reviewer does see the NA, he/she will review the log history and see that the cache has been a disgusting, slimy mess for quite some time. I wouldn't worry at all about posting NM, or NA. I guess I'm not that bothered by what other "local" cachers or cache owners think of what I log. To not log Needs Maintenance is doing a disservice to your fellow cache seekers. If one wants to filter their searches to not include those caches with maintenance issues, they are being misled by the lack of honesty and correct logging by other finders. B. I know what the typical protocol is, but if I found a cache in such a condition and then read the logs and saw that it had been this way for almost three years, I'd go straight to posting a NA log. The CO hasn't logged in for four and a have years and hasn't found a cache in five. In such a situation, posting a NM and waiting 30 days seems silly. Lately, when our local reviewers see a NA log on such a cache, they have been archiving them outright without giving the 30 day waiting period.

This is really sad. It not only effects the CO's but the rest of the community that might be looking for those caches.

1. Pay attention to Jholly's post #30. 2. Use the the menu Database - Repair/Defrag. 3. Jholly is correct. If after setting interrogate and then doing the Repair/Defrag, if the problem in not corrected, you should post to the GSAK General forum. You will find that the folks there are very responsive and very helpful.

That's a pretty big "if"...Just interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. IAAL.Okay, IANAL, but I do know something about logic. You start with an "if" clause that isn't necessarily true. That undermines the support for your "then" clause. Alamogul has been geocaching since 2002. He's logged dozens of locationless caches, and I'm sure he's found plenty of traveling caches too. He found many caches back when it wasn't unheard of for cache owners to change a hide completely, update the coordinates and other listing details, and encourage everyone to log another find even though the GC code didn't change (because the CO had recycled the listing). All of this pokes holes in the idea that there is "no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache", and in any assumption that multiple finds for a single GC code must be fraudulent numbers padding. I have three caches that I have double logged, and I consider all of my logs to be legitimate. Would you consider this double log from just a few months ago legitimate? No, that's obviously an api error, most likely with one of the apps.

That's a pretty big "if"...Just interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. IAAL.Okay, IANAL, but I do know something about logic. You start with an "if" clause that isn't necessarily true. That undermines the support for your "then" clause. Alamogul has been geocaching since 2002. He's logged dozens of locationless caches, and I'm sure he's found plenty of traveling caches too. He found many caches back when it wasn't unheard of for cache owners to change a hide completely, update the coordinates and other listing details, and encourage everyone to log another find even though the GC code didn't change (because the CO had recycled the listing). All of this pokes holes in the idea that there is "no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache", and in any assumption that multiple finds for a single GC code must be fraudulent numbers padding. True on all counts about a handful of duplicate logs. Does he have any? I wasn't paying attention. I can remember there were at least a few Locationless that would allow multiple finds. Finding different waterfalls is one that pops into my head. And some newer people think I'm nuts when I tell them this, but there was a cache the next town over from me that was converted from a traditional to a 4 leg multi with the same GC number (in 2004 or 2005). And the traditional was removed, and it's location not even used in the multi. People did stuff like that. Or move their cache 1/4 mile, and invite new finds. One of my duplicates was a trail side Altoids tin that was converted to a four stage night reflector cache. I can't see any reason why I shouldn't log it twice. The other was a LPC in a park parking lot that became a Lock n' Lock down a 3 terrain cliff at the edge of the parking lot. I personally think that a new GC # should have been created, but they weren't. In my opinion, they were new caches, so I logged them.

That's a pretty big "if"...Just interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. IAAL.Okay, IANAL, but I do know something about logic. You start with an "if" clause that isn't necessarily true. That undermines the support for your "then" clause. Alamogul has been geocaching since 2002. He's logged dozens of locationless caches, and I'm sure he's found plenty of traveling caches too. He found many caches back when it wasn't unheard of for cache owners to change a hide completely, update the coordinates and other listing details, and encourage everyone to log another find even though the GC code didn't change (because the CO had recycled the listing). All of this pokes holes in the idea that there is "no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache", and in any assumption that multiple finds for a single GC code must be fraudulent numbers padding. I have three caches that I have double logged, and I consider all of my logs to be legitimate.

Finally this thread has some purpose. Nice to see someone wanting to learn. First off there is the GPS forum. Unless you are somewhere in the middle of nowhere or doing some extreme hiking I'd recommend downloading the geocaching app for your phone as it is more than adequate to get the job done and is paperless. Should you still wish to buy a GPS (I did - Oregon 450) i'd recommend two things: 1) Do some research on the GPS forum. 2) But the best GPS you can afford. Also check out the Getting Started forum, it has some great resources. Finally I highly recommend getting a premier membership, it'll make geocaching a whole lot easier. Lastly, have fun. Let's not forget the Geocaching.com Help Center

Funny, I read the archival log and got the impression that the reviewer was putting out the message that even if a cache is inventive and clever, it still has to meet the guidelines.

I suspect most non-premium logs on premium caches are family members of a premium member. Offering a discounted family rate would solve that problem, but policing who is and isn't "family" probably would open a new can of worms. Again, this was not my issue. I believed that two brand new Intro app users had found and logged my PMO cache. A cache that I thought was hidden to them. It was my mistake that I failed to notice that both had bought a premium membership on the same day that they joined and my belief that one could not buy a PM without validating an email address. I have absolutely no problem with regular members logging my PMO caches when they find them while caching with PM's. My issue is with non-validated members logging my caches. There is a regular poster here on the forums that is not a premium member and he enjoys working out were the PMO caches are and then go find them and log them. It is possible to work out where a PM cache is with the tools on the website, it just takes a bit of work and the the desire to solve a puzzle. And I would have no problem with that at all as he is an established cacher that is using the tools available on the website to find caches. In fact, I played an off forum exercise with this individual where he nailed down one of my caches within 60' of the actual coordinates. Like I have said, my original post was an over-reaction, but I do still have a problem that someone can load up the app, buy a PM and then go find a PMO cache without ever visiting the website, validating an email address or learning anything about Geocaching except follow the needle.

I suspect most non-premium logs on premium caches are family members of a premium member. Offering a discounted family rate would solve that problem, but policing who is and isn't "family" probably would open a new can of worms. They could just offer a discounted "group" rate instead of a "family" rate, I suppose. It's not something that's really a problem for us... when we cache more, we buy the additional membership so we can run more pocket queries and keep better track of individual stats. When we aren't caching as much, renewing memberships isn't a big priority. It would never occur to me to investigate someone who found one of my caches and take issue with their membership status, unless they wrote a log that was very alarming. Of course, I would never hide a PMO cache to begin with. Attention on the underlined. Then again, if I see a new name log any of my caches, I tend to look at the profile. Not because I am suspicious, or want to play cache police on my caches. I just want to see who the new players are and maybe welcome them to the community. In this case, both wrote nonsense logs and neither can be contacted by email.

I suspect most non-premium logs on premium caches are family members of a premium member. Offering a discounted family rate would solve that problem, but policing who is and isn't "family" probably would open a new can of worms. Again, this was not my issue. I believed that two brand new Intro app users had found and logged my PMO cache. A cache that I thought was hidden to them. It was my mistake that I failed to notice that both had bought a premium membership on the same day that they joined and my belief that one could not buy a PM without validating an email address. I have absolutely no problem with regular members logging my PMO caches when they find them while caching with PM's. My issue is with non-validated members logging my caches.

One should not assume that a reviewer has ignored an NA log just because there has been no response, as yet, by a reviewer. As should be clear from this thread, the issues involved are not always black and white, multiple perspectives may exist, and it can take time to consider the situation. It's speculation because there is no other type of explanation available. Yes, we could imagine that there are intense discussions going on behind the scenes, but with complete silence following, that seems silly. Often it is said that it is a private matter, despite the hide being posted for all of the public to visit and discuss. Something like this should be archived if it is in direct conflict with what the reviewer has been led to believe, or the guidelines. Unarchival is always an option. It would have been appropriate that LavaLizard disclosed that they were offering their opinion from the perspective of the reviewer that will ultimately decide the fate of this cache. Until they do so, I'm giving them the benefit of doubt. What bothers me is the fact that we keep hearing that this is in a park. If it was out in the desert where only geocachers and illegal dumpers visit, I wouldn't be so concerned. I personally think that the three Southern California reviewers are probably the most responsive in the entire world. If there is a lag in getting a cache archived, then I am certain that something is going on in the background.

I am well aware of this, and I even invite them to do so on my cache page. I was confused as to how they could do this without visiting the website. As it is, I didn't notice that they were premium members.

Thank you Roman. I guess I over reacted. I saw the non validated and joined today and my knee jerked. I didn't even notice that they had also bought a premium membership. It does bring up the question though. I thought that you had to visit the website to pay for a PM. Can this now be done through the app? I really wish Groundspeak would make people visit the website.

Earlier today, I had two non validated members that created their accounts today, log my most precious Premium Member Only cache. How is this possible? If this is going to be allowed, I'll need someone to forward that link the the Geocide form, because I'll be done. eta: The cache is Summer of Love.

You just hit my nerve....right on...cachers with 6 or 8 thousand caches and 5 or maybe 17 hides. They are just like leeches. Ok, so this bothers me...I have just heard about Geocaching. My husband just retired from the Air Force, the kids are grown and on their own. We are have sold our home and bought a 5th wheel which we will be traveling and living in year round. I only have 14 finds under my belt, but we thought this would be a great way to see and learn so much history about our great land. Due to the fact that our home is now on wheels I am unable to doing any hiding of caches and maintain them as required. I have tried to do my part in properly returning the caches in the places they were found, report any damaged caches, and warned future finders of any dangers, such as wasp, spiders, etc. I want to continue on my searches with a clear mind. I will do what is asked of me to keep my name in good standings within the Geocaching community. My question is how do I explain my situation so that I am compared to "leeches"? Groundspeak, the owners of Geocaching.com has have made it more then clear that it it is NOT necessary to hide caches in order to find them. This is because of situations such as yours as well as many others. I find myself envious of you. My answer to the the age old question, "if you suddenly found yourself a millionaire", would be to buy myself a custom motor home and visit every corner of this country.

THAT is an idea I can support. Better yet...why have ANY log type be a default? GS really needs to force the user to select the log type each and every time. There is no default log, at least not on the website.

Wow! I just read Moun10bike's response. I guess in the big scheme of things, millions of accounts that only log caches for a few days and then quit is more important than those that go out daily and find and hide caches, and have done so for years? I'm sorry Jon, but you have told us in the past that the PQ and advanced search features were on the back burner in favor of offering the third party partners these features through the api. The fact that the api is now almost completely useless to me, makes this a critical issue, not a moderate one. Please don't take my message personal, I realize that you are our very important conduit between us and those guys that can make a difference. While this issue may only affect a low percentage of Geocachers, it may be true that this low percentage are finding and logging the higher percentage of Geocaches.

Yes, things seems to have degraded. The api has been a very interactive experience for me since yesterday morning. I basically have to babysit it. 30 calls, 3 3 minute timeouts, then an error, which I can respond to, to continue what used to be a seamless process. I'm trying to not be overly critical here, but we have been told that PQ and search development on the web site has been rolled back in an effort to develop the api for the third party partners to provide these services. Currently, I can't use my third party app, (GSAK), to get the status of the caches in my db because of the constant errors. If the issue is that too many GSAK users are placing too many calls on the server, then get with Clyde. I'm sure that he can roll out an update that throttles things on his applications end.