justintim1999
-
Posts
2427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by justintim1999
-
-
On 7/26/2018 at 7:28 PM, bflentje said:
I was thinking about this.. MANY people nowadays take being challenged or questioned as being yelled at. When in reality, they're just being challenged or questioned and the real problem is that they take offense to it. [sigh]
That's it in a nutshell. If your NM is valid it really doesn't matter what the cache owner thinks. Sure they can ask for more details and you should provide them with that information. If their impolite in the request, just ignore them. If they become a nuisance report them. Regardless, don't let any one or anything stop you from posting a NM you think is justified.
-
15 hours ago, RevStabard said:
We both are, of course! I want to see if I can find a cache near a good fishing spot so we can do both
That's the beauty of geocaching. You can bend and mold it into whatever you want it to be. Have fun and be safe.
PS You'll find more fishing holes by geocaching than you could ever imagine.
-
Sweet. Who's more excited to go back out and find more you or your son?
-
On 7/23/2018 at 10:26 PM, Team Hugs said:
Why don't I post NMs? 'Cuz everytime I do around here, I get yelled at by the CO. The app/website specifically encourages me (as a finder) to log NMs when the log is full ... and pretty much every time I do that, I get a posting or a private note from the CO saying "don't do that", with varying degrees of politeness. (Not just one CO, mind you ... a number of them.)
Doesn't matter if I'm in the right or in the wrong. Geocaching is supposed to be a fun activity, and getting yelled at by a CO reduces the fun for me. Sure, I could complain to a reviewer or a lackey, but that just prolongs the argument. I don't need any additional stress in my life, thank you; I go caching to relieve stress, not add to it.
(Seriously. I'm in the middle of a 6+ year cache-a-day streak that got started one afternoon when I had a particularly bad day at work, said "screw this, I'm leaving early and grabbing a cache on the way home". The next day wasn't any better, and neither was the day after that. Before I knew it, I had a month-long streak, and the rest is stubbornness.)
So, I usually don't log NMs. I'll include status reports in the "Found" log itself, so a good CO that reads the logs might notice and perform the needed maintenance.
Want more NMs? Convince COs not to yell at folks who post them.
[dismounts soapbox]
So the cache owner wins. By allowing them to intimidate you into not posting a NM you're enabling them to continue the practice. It's like any other bully. They'll continue until someone punches them in the face.
When confronted with enough resistance people like this usually realize it's not worth the risk of doing it to someone who's not intimidated and willing to fight back.
-
I've been caching for 8 years and I still stick out like a sore thumb. Most of the time it comes down to good timing and quick reflexes.
-
17 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:
Agreed. Some of our oldest hiders used cookie tins and metal coffee cans, again with that black garbage bag wrapped around 'em.
On one, I replaced with a 30cal, after the finder before me couldn't open it (rusted).
- We got it open, and used another black garbage bag to bring it (along with the science experiment growing inside it) home.
Even no-name lock n locks are better, but (to us) those older hides did seem to be the best areas we've been to with this hobby.
Three cheers for Earl Silas Tupper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Tupper. He made the life of a cache owners (and cache finders) much better.
-
Glad you found your way here. Let's talk some Geocaching.
-
11 hours ago, JSCYYJ said:
To answer the original question. I log a DNF if I've gone to GZ and made an effort to search. I don't really put a time limit on it. I would probably not log anything if I walked up to GZ and had been there for 1-2 minutes before muggles or something else caused me to have to stop my search. In that case yes I did not find it but, I didn't really do a real search.
I'm wondering what the opinion is on a situation I found myself in recently. I found the cache but, it was only the lid of a lock and lock. The clues made me think it was a possibility that was all I was to find so I logged it as Found. But, once I got home and looked at pictures it seemed like it was supposed to be a complete lock and lock with a log. I'm conflicted if I should change my log to a DNF.
I think keep it as Found since I did find it even though I wasn't able to sign a log and the cache wasn't complete and return at a later date when it's repaired to sign. But, I can also see a DNF being a response since I didn't sign a log and the cache wasn't complete.A DNF and a NM sounds about right. DNF says you didn't actually find the cache and sign the log. NM let's the cache owner know you think they should check up on it. In you're NM log try to give the owner as much info as you can about what you did find and where.
-
.png)
1
-
-
On 7/4/2018 at 5:00 PM, cerberus1 said:
1 - Sorry, but (to me) a lamp post or guardrail mkh made pmo has no more "quality" than any other.
2 - We see this thinking often. "There's plenty of other caches for the little people... "
3 - As CO, you were keeping track of TBs in your caches when they were active. That's great, but has nothing to do with premium membership.
4 - As one who's seen a lot otherwise, premium membership doesn't make one more knowledgeable, honest, or trustworthy.
5 - All basic members can go after any cache except those called pmo. Those over 1.5 D/T are deemed "advanced", and a basic member can access them by simply using the site instead of the app. Yes, even the "difficult" ones.
- Most in the hobby a while realize there's very little difference between a regular vs. pmo cache other than the CO made it one, and become a premium member for all the other benefits provided (PQs, lists, and notifications are a few).
Nicely said. The whole "To PMO or not to PMO" comes down to what you're trying to accomplish by hiding caches. I try to make fun and interesting caches for two reasons. To thank the caching community for all the great hides I've enjoyed but also to hook new cachers in the hopes they will become old cachers.
It would be flattering if a new cacher became a premium member just so they could find my PMO caches (If I had any.) It's more flattering when that same person freely becomes a premium member because of the enjoyment the experienced from finding my Non PMO caches. A $30.00/yr premium membership is a small price to pay to support something you believe in and enjoy doing. $30.00 may not seem like much, but to some it is. That's why I love the fact that anyone can enjoy this activity for free.
The membership fee you pay every year, although important, isn't your greatest gift to GS. IMO the caches you hide and maintain are what makes this activity great and are far more valuable. That's why I believe those caches should be available to everyone.
-
4 minutes ago, MAS83 said:
Then what do you expect the score system to accomplish?
A way to Recognize good cache ownership.
It's time to stop focusing on how many and start focusing on how well.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, MAS83 said:
Conditions of a cache is very much tied to cache quality for me as well, but to force the CO visit a perfectly fine cache just to make some arbitrary score higher doesn't do anything. Forcing that will make people just log the OM without visiting the cache, and what has been accomplished then? Besides making a spontaneous OM visit look dodgy, discouraging proper COs to do a casual drive-by cache checkup on a cache they are passing, as it might look like a fake OM to bump up his score.
I have yet to see some of you in favor of a scoring system to point out a positive that a scoring system, and only a scoring system, can bring to the game.
An owners score has nothing to do with a CO visiting their cache on occasion. That's something that should be done regardless.
-
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:
So we're back to the annual visit and OM log again, I see. Consider GC5KEY1, a challenge cache hidden in 2015 that's had a total of six finds, but most of those were in groups so it's only had people visiting it on three different dates. Read the description of where it is, look at it on the satellite images and study the photos on the cache page of the terrain along the way there. Is it reasonable to expect its CO to visit it annually and log an OM, along with all his other caches in similar mountainous terrain?
An annual visit probably isn't anywhere near often enough for a magnetic nano under a piece of street furniture in the middle of a busy city that gets dozens of finds a week, but is total overkill for caches like this one and the one dating back to 2002 that I posted about a couple of days back.
Since I agree with the policy I obviously incorporate it into other threads like this one. I think condition of a cache is a big part of cache quality so it stands to reason I encourage owner visits.
So your all for some sort of required cache owner visits, just not for you.
-
1
-
-
On 6/25/2018 at 7:03 AM, EmzyJanezy said:
I often read people advise a "fingertip search". I presume this means if you can't see you can put your hand in or on top and try to find the cache that way. However, I worry I may put my hand onto or into something dangerous or scary! Does anybody else worry about this and are gloves generally recommended? However, wearing gloves may stop me feeling anything and therefore missing the cache by searching this way!
I guess my phobias may stop be being a very good geocacher
If at all possible never reach blind. An extendable mirror and a stick should serve in most cases.
-
12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
My concern would be for COs who get a low owner score through no fault of their own. No algorithm's going to be perfect, so there'll always be cases where it gets it wrong. For example, one of the documented factors that can give a cache a low CHS is "caches that have not been found in a long time" but what's the CO in an area with few cachers and few outside visitors supposed to do to fix that?
That would be a concern of mine as well.
If the only log on a cache for the whole year was an owners maintenance log, I think GS would be just fine with that.
-
18 hours ago, L0ne.R said:
True.
And unfortunately if it's visible then someone will want to make it a competition and many will game the system to up that score.
I'd like it have owner filtering options. Perhaps:
- Filter for owners who never got an NAs. (or no more than 1 NA)
- Filter for owners with less than 2 NMs
- Filter for owners who have logged in in the last year
- Filter out owners who have had caches archived by a reviewer
- Filter out owners who have not responded to reviewer disables
What I don't get is why we automatically jump to gaming the system?
For those that would, let them. The more bogus logs they post the greater the chance they'll be exposed.
-
18 hours ago, MAS83 said:
I am pretty sure that people that doesn't care that their caches are in poor condition, doesn't care about an arbitrary score either.
True but at least I have a quick way to see what I may be up against. Besides I think most cache owners would take pride in having a favorable owner score.
-
3 minutes ago, baer2006 said:
That's fine, and no CO gets their cache disabled because of this. It's only a problem, if an owner knows perfectly well, that the cache is missing, and still allows find logs.
I'm sure it happens but for the most part when I do something like this it's more a sign of good will. I don't have time to track down people who are only cheating themselves by lying about such things like no pens, bogus OML's and armchair finds. If I become aware of it I'll correct it but I don't go out of my way to prove everyone's honest. I think most people are so why waist my time with the few that are not?
-
2 minutes ago, baer2006 said:
I don't think, that GS has somewhere stated if a CO is completely free to allow "finds" on missing caches. But in my area reviewers disable (and, if nothing happens, archive) caches, when the become aware that the CO is treating the cache like a virtual (i.e., not replacing a missing container and allowing "photo logs" instead).
2 minutes ago, baer2006 said:I don't think, that GS has somewhere stated if a CO is completely free to allow "finds" on missing caches. But in my area reviewers disable (and, if nothing happens, archive) caches, when the become aware that the CO is treating the cache like a virtual (i.e., not replacing a missing container and allowing "photo logs" instead).
I agree and if I were doing just that I'd expect to be called out on it. Problem is I am gullible. Most times when someone claims not to have a pen and couldn't sign the log, I believe them.
-
8 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
I'm not sure that it is. GC HQ hasn't addressed this issue but I think they should.
I've seen many addicted hiders abuse this privilege. They don't do maintenance and hand out "finds" instead.
Well I'm not one of them.
If GC HQ told me I had to delete a found log by a little girl in a wheelchair who found my cache but couldn't reach it to sign the log, I'd be gone tomorrow. I follow the guidelines.....to a point.
Some things are just good judgement and common sense.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
Hopefully it is of significant importance. I'm guessing location is the most important thing for you. But if geocaching were all about the location we'd be playing a Waymarking-style game (go to these coordinates, log that you were there).
I think that is what most people would prefer a Waymarking-style game, but not via the Waymarking site, they prefer the GC site, format, and smiley.
The most important thing for me is seeing people get outside and having fun. To me Geocaching is a great vehicle in making that happen. Location, interesting hides, well maintained containers are all important in getting people involved and keeping them involved.-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
To some people it's clearly important enough to falsify their find history...
Again, allowing a find like this is not the norm for me but I have allowed a few. As the cache owner it's my decision to make. I'd rather let 10 people get away with a fake smiley than punish just one person who truly put in the effort. Especially when I'm to blame for putting off replacing the cache.
Dumb logic I know but it is what it is.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, L0ne.R said:
See my answer above. Unfortunately offering or accepting finds on caches that aren't there, encourages the mindset that the cache part of geocaching is irrelevant.
As a responsible cache owner I think I'm able to determine when it's ok to allow it and when it isn't.
Funny but to me the cache part of geocaching really isn't the most important thing.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
Joke as in anybody bothering to log a cache they did not find - and thinking that somehow CO permission makes the slightest difference.
Let's say I know the cache is missing and I haven't had a chance to replace it. Someone actually takes the time to search for it and asks me if they can claim the find. I'm gonna say yes because I can't see punishing them for my mistake. Especially if they're from Mars and won't be around this way again for a while.
The first thing that jumps to mind when someone reads a situation like this is "Here's a cache owner who isn't maintaining their caches and just passing out smiles left and right to avoid a dnf or nm."
I'm not one of those cache owners. Most are not.
-
3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
I don't understand the question.
Maybe I didn't understand the answer. Joke as in "funny" or joke as in "I don't agree?"
.png)
How do i deal with people trespassing on my property in search of geocache?
in How do I...?
Posted
It's not the mistakes we make but how we choose to handle them.
Nicely done!