justintim1999
-
Posts
2427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by justintim1999
-
-
23 hours ago, coachstahly said:
As I stated on the first page of this thread, the original comment by the CO doesn't appear to be chastising anyone, other than to let future finders know that if it continues, they'll archive the series. Here's the log -
"Hi its been a long wet winter and these caches haven't been found for a long time. If the logbook is wet, it's not my fault and if the comments continue, I will archive the series."
Abusive, rude, embarrassing, chastising, and threatening are all words that were used to describe this comment by the CO. Honestly, I don't see much of that here. Rudeness is the only thing, and it's not overly offensive, IMO. The threat is to archive the series, not towards a cacher. See below for my opinion on that.
And this is my exact response to the note that was posted by the CO.
Try this on for size. "Thanks for the info on the cache. It's been a long wet winter here and I'm sure I've got some cleaning up to do. Won't be long till I can get out and take care of this one."
I think it was the "not my fault" comment and the threat to archive the caches which bothered me.
You may have too many caches when........you post comments like this one.
-
.png)
1
-
-
On 4/11/2018 at 1:30 AM, CAVinoGal said:
YES! I typically try to see the goals of TB's in caches before I take them - if I can't get it to its goal I don't take it. OTOH, if I CAN help it along, I'll gladly take it and take photos as I move it.
I also enjoy seeing MY TB's being logged and visited and photos taken as they move along. I try to do the same for the TO's of those I am carrying.
I will typically pick one up even if I can't help it with it's goal. I look at it as TB's were meant to travel. The place you eventually drop it may be in a spot which allows someone who can help it along find it. On the flip side you may be leaving it behind only to fall victim to a whole host of things. You simply don't know, which is one of the most exciting aspects of TB's.
Besides I'd rather know that my TB is still active so the more people who pick it up and drop it off the better.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, EmzyJanezy said:
Thanks for this! I will start marking as 'needs maintenance' in the future. I was a bit nervous at doing so initially.
If a cache is archived do people who have found it lose it from their total finds?
Looking forward to finding more clean dry caches one day. I did wonder if the soggyness was an England thing what with all the rain we get haha!
2 minutes ago, EmzyJanezy said:Thanks for this! I will start marking as 'needs maintenance' in the future. I was a bit nervous at doing so initially.
If a cache is archived do people who have found it lose it from their total finds?
Looking forward to finding more clean dry caches one day. I did wonder if the soggyness was an England thing what with all the rain we get haha!
Excellent! Don't be nervous about posting any log you think is justified.
Soggyness is also a New England thing as well.
-
2 minutes ago, niraD said:
Wow. Do I actually agree with justintim1999 about something? Yes, yes I do.
-
27 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:
I disagree with your choice of time frame. I have ammo cans that have been out for 16 years, in hard-to-reach spots. They are doing fine. They have dry logbooks and contents.
We've been discussing the lack of maintenance by cache owners, and my point has been that using good cache containers to start with will vastly reduce the required maintenance. Yet there seem to be people in the thread who insist on focusing on the lack of maintenance rather than good cache containers to start with. They are tilting at windmills.
Something that lasts one year is not a good cache container. People are just not going to do maintenance that often. I know you wish it were different, but human nature is what it is and the ongoing discussions about lack of maintenance seem to be there mainly for people to complain about it. If we actually want to do something about the problem, then perhaps some standards for cache containers would be a good place to start.
IMO, the very shortest time frame we should consider for a good cache container is 5 years. Anything that does not last that long in the outdoors is not acceptable container.
I wish that every location would accommodate an ammo can and every cacher would use one. Unfortunately that's not the case. Selecting an appropriate container is very important as is learning ways to help make non-ammo can caches more weather resistant. Anything can be an acceptable container if the owner is willing to replace it when necessary.
In my opinion if every cache was an ammo can the game wouldn't be nearly so interesting.
-
2
-
-
20 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:
As a long standing and experienced cacher, I would expect nothing less of you.. and indeed I would have done the exact same thing, in fact a couple of years ago I did just that and the cache with the soggy log was archived that same day.. only to be re-instated with a new listing a couple of days later, when another cacher felt obligated to save the crumbling empire and put a new log in there..
But think about it from the newbies point of view..
They think they are doing the right thing, alerting a CO that their cache may need a little bit of TLC.. they probably even think this experienced cacher might be grateful for the heads up.. instead they are rewarded with a grumpy note suggesting that future mentions of something so trivial may end up with the caches being archived - and no doubt if that happens, the finger would be pointed firmly at them holding them responsible.
If that had happened to me when I was a newbie, I would almost certainly have thought twice before posting another NM which is of course, exactly what this CO wants.You bring up a lot of key issues.
Anyone who reacted like this cache owner did should reconsider whether or not they really want to be one.
I'm beginning to think comments like this do more to damage to the game than caches that are a sloppy mess.
To be honest chastising newbies is one of my pet peeves. My head explodes when I hear of an experienced cacher who thinks it's their goal in life to point out every mistake a newbie makes. God forbid a newbie posts a questionable NM. The cache owner may have to go out of their way to check up on their cache.
We can't have that now can we?
-
3
-
-
On 4/8/2018 at 4:05 PM, Team Microdot said:
I see this sort of thing with increasing regularity:
Cacher X: Found cache log book was wet tftc
Cache owner: Hi its been a long wet winter and these caches haven't been found for a long time. If the logbook is wet, it's not my fault and if the comments continue, I will archive the series.
One of the reasons I no longer tell people about geocaching. It's embarassing.
I would have written 2 comments a day for as long as it took. Imagine, A cache owner like this actually OFFERING to archive their caches as if the game couldn't live without them.
-
3
-
-
You could probably ask the owners of those caches if they would mind having their cache part of your mystery series.
Would any additions or changes need to be made to the existing caches?
-
7 hours ago, Korichnovui said:
That's what I was worried about. I mean, probably not a big deal in this case, but good to know in other situations.
Having the D/T accurate is the most important thing. Although it could mess up someone else's stats I would hope they would understand.
-
4
-
-
On 4/7/2018 at 3:42 AM, arisoft said:
Yes, it is true that there is no such "agreement" but if you do not respond to DNFs then the reviewer may respond. And there is also no agreement that you need to respond to reviewer notes. Conclusion: If there is no NM log you do not have to respond to anything regarding online logs.
If your only goal is to keep GS off your back than, as a cache owner, you'll do as little as possible to accomplish that. If your goal is to provide others with clean, well maintained caches than the information given in those other logs will be important to you.
-
2
-
-
51 minutes ago, arisoft said:
Not a word about promoting geocachers to log their experiences. One of those resposibilities seems to be questionable.
"Choose an appropriate container that is watertight." is not always the best choise. Sometimes you need to drill severing and ventilation holes to keep the logbook dry. Making the cache watertight means that the logbook will never get opportunity to dry. Watertight does not mean vapor-tight like PET-preforms are. Many watertight containers will get wet because the water vapor condensation inside.
If they choose not to write a log that's fine but what's wrong with encouraging people to do so?
-
55 minutes ago, StumblinMonk said:
I have a fairly close to home location scouted out for the first find. It is in a well trafficked area, but will be off trail enough to not be easily found unless looking. I do this mostly with my 8 yer old son, so I have to keep that in mind when traveling to GZ.
I am getting a little discouraged with the whole idea of TB's. We went out on Sunday (like everyone else does) and as I was reviewing my finds I noticed that 2 were listed as having TB's in them, but nothing was there but a log. I am going to head back and double check this week, as well as reach out to another cacher I crossed paths with to make sure that she is not moving them along. They seem to disappear fairly easily. I have family going to Germany in a few weeks, and am thinking I might ask them to drop one there for me with the goal to make it home.
They do go missing although I have a couple that traveled over 10,000 miles and I've picked up some that had over 60,000. For me it's worth the 5 or 6 bucks to watch them travel even if only for a little while. Before you go to find your next TB take a minute to look at the TB page to see when it was dropped off. If it's been within a week or two chances are it will still be there. I have to admit I'm a travel bug nut. sometimes I'll plan a whole caching day just going after caches that have TB's in them.
When you do find one try to help it on it's goal if you can. If you can't take a picture of it and upload it along with your TB log. I love seeing pictures on my TB in new and interesting places.
Good luck.
-
7 minutes ago, arisoft said:
I can not ask but I can tell you that nowadays it is surprise if someone logs a DNF. For me it makes this game easier. As long as there is nothing in the log, I can focus to other CO duties. It is not CO's job to promote DNF and NA logs. CO has only agreed to respond to DNF and NA logs.
A cache owner agrees to maintain their cache so if there's information in any log that suggests there may be something wrong, than it's their responsibility to look into it.
You did hit on one of the major problems. People not posting accurate logs that describe their experience. A cache finder shouldn't hesitate posting any log they feel accurately describes their experience or the condition of a cache. A good cache owner will take notice of multiple dnf's (regardless of what's written in the log) and take action if they feel something is wrong.
In fact I find it harder to determine the significance of a dnf when one is posted without any information in the log at all.
-
1 minute ago, icezebra11 said:
Same can be said about virtuals. I've done about 70 virtuals and 30 ECs and if I had to guess I'd say I've only gotten a 10-20% response rate from COs on both types.
Very true. It seems odd that specific requirements are given to log a find but in many cases meeting those requirements doesn't seem to mean much. As I said before, maybe the educational aspect of Earth Caches is enough to keep them around regardless of whether or not the owners are still active. When you think of it, other than a conformation of success from the owner, these caches basically run themselves
-
On 4/4/2018 at 7:52 PM, niraD said:
Maybe. Maybe not.
I've found well-camouflaged "hidden in plain sight" caches with high difficulty ratings, where multiple DNF logs in a row was normal and routine, and not at all a sign of "something not right". There are a number of those among my Favorites.
niraD is right on this one. That scenario doesn't necessarily mean that somethings wrong with the cache.
What I do like is your thought process regarding the situation. If that were my cache I'd eye the find with a wrinkled brow and would probably look into it a little closer. Or I could put all doubt to rest and just take a look for myself.
The point I'm trying to make is, if your paying attention to your caches you'll notice those things.
-
On 4/4/2018 at 6:24 PM, arisoft said:
I guess no cache owner relies on other geocachers to help but all of them, after getting some experience, relies on that what ever they do some geocacher will break it for sure, earlier or later. At least, some will expose the cache to muggles and then it may disappear shortly.
Fixing the cache is not favor to the absent cache owner but the next finder if the cache is worth of it. I fixed one broken cache eight years ago by replacing the container and it is still on-line. Once the log was wet but it has dried itself.
Having to fix caches from time to time is part of the job of cache owner. It's what we signed up for when we hit that submit button. Fixing up the cache may help the next finder, but what about the finder after that? If nothing else we need to be consistent in how and when we log MN's. Keep in mind a NM is not a black eye on a cache and it's certainly shouldn't be an inconvenience to a cache owner.
Ask yourself "if it were my cache wouldn't I want someone to tell me when something was wrong with it?"
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, Touchstone said:
Like any other Listing on the site, the CO has the responsibility to maintain the Listing page on the site, to make sure the content is up to date, and deal with bogus or inappropriate language in the log entries.
There is no requirement for the CO to respond. Regarding justintim1999's suggestion of having some sort of auto-responder to verify visits, this has been tried and no longer allowed. The FAQ section of the GSA website addresses this issue:
If the CO is unresponsive, you COULD post an NM on the Listing page. There's nothing stopping you from doing that, but I doubt that an unresponsive CO is regarded as a reason, in the absence of other issues, to take action on a Listing page. On the other hand, hypothetically speaking, if the Land Manager requires the CO to respond to Finders as a condition of the placement, I could see that as a reason to have a Listing Archived, for breach of the original agreement (not that I've ever heard of this happening).
With very little maintenance having to be done on an Earth Cache and finds not having to be verified in any way, it seems to me that an Earth Cache owner could walk away and be gone for years and no one would be the wiser.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
I can't see anything in the Help Centre that mentions the CO replying to answers so that doesn't seem to be a requirement, just a courtesy. I suppose one way to see whether the CO is still active would be to submit deliberately wrong answers (or no answers at all) and see if they delete your log, but that might dent your reputation if they are active.
Keeping the cache page accurate is one. Wouldn't incorrect find logs qualify? Then again how would anyone know since the answers are sent directly to the owner?
In addition to a smiley, earth caches do include an educational component. Combine that with the need for very little maintenance and I guess I can see why not being a hands on earth cache owner wouldn't attract too much attention. I was only wondering why there wasn't a mechanism that could be used to verify finds on earth caches. Something like when you log one, your smiley appears but in red. The owner of the earth cache must verify your information and check a box to confirm. Then your red smiley becomes yellow.
Just some way to confirm that someone is still watching over things.
-
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:
One of the responsibilities is maintaining the cache page, particularly if there are links to outside resources that might break. Mine is based on tidal potholes so I included a link to a tide prediction site, which I occasionally check to make sure it still works. So I guess a broken link would justify an NM.
For ECs that rely on signage at GZ or waypoints, those are also possible sources of NMs if they're changed or go missing. And I suppose a rockfall at GZ obliterating the object of the EC would be the ultimate one, probably worthy of an NA.
But assuming everything remains in place for doing an EC, an absent owner wouldn't be at all apparent.
Dose the owner of an earth cache have to respond to answers that they require be submitted? If you submit your answers for the earth cache and log it as found right off the bat dose is the fact that the owner allows the find to stand without responding acceptable? If so how dose anyone know if the owner is still active in the game?
-
There are many different reasons why we would post a NM on let's say a Traditional cache. The only reason I can think of to post a NM on an Earth cache is if something has changed within the physical location. For example a no trespassing sign has gone up or downed tree has blocked access.
Reading another topic got me thinking.
Apart from responding to questions and answers, what other responsibilities dose the owner of an Earth cache have?
If the owner of an Earth cache is unresponsive to questions and answers can you post a NM on the cache?
If the owner doesn't respond how dose anyone know if they're active or not? Since there's no physical cache to maintain dose anyone even care?
-
4 minutes ago, colleda said:
Just watching to see what happens, if anything.
It's one that I found about four and a half years ago and wondered at the time how long it would last. Lasted longer than I thought, a cache in a tree with a pulley system to retrieve it.
What puzzles me are the six people who posted found logs and all indicated that there was something wrong with the retrieval mechanism yet no one posted a NM....... Interesting. I'd have to agree with you, I'd bet it's gone as well.
-
32 minutes ago, colleda said:
I'm watching to see how many DNFs before this one gets pinged. It's urban bush, 0 finds last 2 years and 4 (logged) DNFs since, no NM and cache is gone.
If you're sure the cache is gone why not post NM yourself?
-
Sounds like you have the "trade equal or up" part of swag down.
As far as hiding a cache. When you decide where you'd like to place your first cache, make sure you get permission from the land owner or land manager first. An ammo can is a great container for a first hide, just be sure you mark "Geocache" on it so if it's found by someone not a geocacher they won't be alarmed. Also give some thought to a maintenance plan. There will be times you'll need to check up on your cache.
Make sure you attach the travel bug tag securely to what ever item you want to travel. Before dropping it off take a minute to check the history of the cache. See how often it's visited and how active the cache owner is. Keep in mind trackables go missing so don't get discouraged if yours dose.
Other than that have fun.
-
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:
Hmm, I've never heard Groundspeak being villified about Joe Scmo's abandoned caches, it's always "that bastard Scmo and his rubbish hides" that gets talked about at events. The big problem I see in all this is that their way of fixing the problem doesn't, and probably can't, satisfy everyone.
Here we don't have much of a cache maintenance problem. We have a cache-friendly cllimate, lots of bushland which encourages larger and more robust caches hidden out of the weather and away from muggles, and a community that's willing to step in and log NMs and NAs when a cache goes bad or missing. Any half-decent container stuck in a sheltered spot under a rock ledge away from mainstream muggledom will last pretty much indefinitely whether the CO is active or not - I've found plenty of Sistemas and ammo cans ten or fifteen years old with the original logbook (yes, a proper book with hard covers) bone dry and as good as the day it was bought. Archiving such caches simply because the CO doesn't respond to a CHS email and follow-up reviewer disable as a result of someone logging a DNF because they were looking under the wrong rock ledge doesn't improve the game in my opinion, rather it makes it worse, encouraging easy-to-reach guaranteed-smiley caches at the expense of the tougher more challenging ones.
I know I've started making my hints much more of a give-away than I used to, to try to keep the DNF count as low as possible after my run-in with the CHS. Is that a good thing? Maybe a few more people get quick smileys, but at the expense of the challenge of the tougher hide and the elation of finally cracking it on their second, third or fourth attempt. A side-effect of this one-size-fits-all push for "cache quality" seems to be to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator - roadside D1/T1.5 instant smileys that even Blind Freddy can find with his eyes closed, so no DNFs, no CHS pings and everyone's happy, except me and my mates who relish in those tough hides where a smiley is a bonus, not an expectation or entitlement and a DNF just means I didn't find it today but I'll be back to try again.
But you do hear rants about how GS has to do something to fix the "problem" or what they are doing is wrong. Seems like every time they step in and try implement something it's never enough or it doesn't quite please everyone. The subject of this thread is a perfect example. I guess that's the nature of the beast. Like I've said before, It will never be perfect but it can be better.
I get your point about ownerless caches but if we can't get responsible owner to at least communicate, how is any monitoring system suppose to work?
-
1
-
.png)
You have too many caches when...
in General geocaching topics
Posted
I wouldn't expect an owner to help me with a puzzle cache. I've asked a few times and was happily steered in the right direction but if for some reason they didn't want to I'd respect that. There's really no reason to be anything but cordial in matters like this.
When you think about it why would a cache owner react like this? Why even reply at all? The only reason I can think of is the owner simply can't be bothered and they're trying to avoid more NM's which will eventually get a reviewer involved.
It brings me to something I've never understood. Why is owning a cache so important? So much so that the owner can't bring themselves to archive it and in turn will jump through all sorts of hoops to keep something they're unwilling or unable to take care of.