Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by justintim1999

  1. Make sure to get permission.   Always think of safety & about the impact your cache will have on the area.     All of my hides are on conservation land so I'm very careful how and where I hide caches.   It's very important in these situations to hide your cache in an environmentally responsible way.   It's equally important to think about the impact cachers will have on the area while searching.     By getting permission and establishing a relation ship with the property owners I was able to gain information about sensitive areas and habitats I wouldn't have known about and avoid those areas altogether.      Believe me this attention to detail will go a long way in developing your reputation as a good cache owner and will make getting permission in other like areas much easier.    


    As for the hide itself.   For me there are three criteria for a good hide.  


    Location - Find a spot that people are going to enjoy getting to.  

    Presentation - Hide the cache in a way that's unique and interesting.

    Camouflage - Disguise your container or use a container that's unusual.    


    If you can incorporate one or two of these in your cache hide It will be a good one.  


    Good luck.

  2. 2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:


    it's just if it was the reviewer that had an issue with the cache, why wouldn't they archive it themselves? Why involve a lackey in another country? It seems more likely someone in HQ has gotten wind of an issue of an EC involving lingerie and jumped to the wrong conclusion. Hopefully it can all be resolved through the appeal process with everyone on the same page.

    Could be something as simple as that.  

  3. 5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:


    Which reinforces my view which is to wait for the appeals process to take its course and to engage in open and honest dialogue with Groundspeak in a bid to achieve the best outcome for all concerned which, in my view, is to get the Earthcache unarchived.



    Sound strategy.    I really hope it all works out for you

  4. 1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:


    I'm not. That's why I asked you why you think that way.


    I assume that there's some degree of logical deduction behind your musings rather than nothing more than dramatic conspiracy theory?

    Comments like this one.    Conversing with you on this forum is purely voluntary so I'm responsible for taking any abuse thrown my way.


    Now If it was my job to deal with you and these comments  I'm sure I'd have built up a little resentment over time.    Now I don't hold grudges and regardless of what I may think of someone,   I would always be fair.


    That's me though.


    I'm not saying this is the case but it did cross my mind.



    • Upvote 1
  5. 9 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:


    Is there anything in particular that makes you think that?

    Don't start trying to read into things.   It's just seems to me you've had more troubles like this than anyone I've encountered and I don't understand why unless........  



  6. 1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:


    Just noticed this one - thanks for the pointer B)



    Sorry Team Microdot I didn't see your clarification on the door and the ownership of the establishment.   


    Thanks to all the kind and understanding people here I think I get it now. 


    If that's all to the story the archival doesn't make sense to me either.     


    I'm going to throw it out there because I'm sure others are thinking it.   Maybe it has nothing to do with the cache itself.   Maybe it's something between you and your reviewer.    If I'm wrong than I apologize but when I re-read everything it's the first think that jumped to my mind.               

    • Upvote 1
  7. 11 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

    Here's the silliness of one of the positions expressed in this thread.


    A person wants to declare a new unilateral change to the meaning of the "DNF" log type because GS is (may be) using it in a manner that's substantially different than it's original intended and stated purpose.


    This change in usage was made without alerting the two million users currently applying the function.


    Continued use of the original method and intent may result in what many people with 'skin' in the 'cache-ownership' game might consider undue pressure to take unneccesary trips into the field, many of which could be difficult, for no good reason.


    There's no way to communicate the new intent because GS doesn't want to publicize the new methods lest they be 'gamed', and should that change, there's absolutely no way in the world to change the behavior patterns of millions of players.


    Just ain't gonna happen.


    So, the rational thing to do in my opinion is for GS to change the CHS 'DNF' trigger, IF in fact there actually is one.


    It appears as though they're taking concrete action on how they 'wish' people would use the DNF Log Type, and that's just foolish. No insult intended.

    None taken.

  8. 13 minutes ago, dprovan said:

    It's so typical of today's society that we can discuss this, in detail, over and over for weeks on end, and you still have learned nothing about the other side of the argument and think everyone that disagrees with you is just "set in their ways".


    It's also quite normal for someone like you to give up trying to convince grownups through logical discussion and, instead, decide to capture the next generation before they hear the other side of the argument and can make up their own minds.

    Easy buddy.   No need to be nasty. 


    I just don't think like you do.

  9. On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 4:31 PM, The A-Team said:

    Just to be clear, your EarthCache requires finders to look in the window of the "secretive" store to inspect the floor? I can see why some could interpret that as less family friendly than other examples here like being outside in the parking lot.

    I agree but as a cache owner I wouldn't want to be sending families to the parking log of a gentlemen's club either.


    On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 3:52 PM, Team Microdot said:

    The store which seems to be an issue now is owned by an American designer,

    If I understand this correctly the store changed hands?    If so what was it when the cache was published? 

    On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 3:52 PM, Team Microdot said:

    Does this mean that now any geocache which causes a person to walk past a shop selling women's underwear is at risk of being archived?

    You not asking someone to turn their head and walk past something that could be potentially offensive to parents and their children.   Your requiring them to stare in the window.   Big difference.


    11 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

    However, I don't think the answer to this debate is to try and define DNF precisely (e.g. to only apply when you reach GZ and give a good search).   

    My question is why not?   The definition of a FIND is pretty cut and dry although some have found ways to circumvent that as well. 

    Why wouldn't we want to define DNFs?   Wouldn't that make the use of them easier and the significance of them clearer?

    16 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

    there are so many factors and different situations

     What other factors can't be communicated through a NOTE or NM?   I'm asking for your insite here because I really can't think of one.

    17 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

    would rather try and get cachers to at least consider how others interpret a DNF, and then make their own judgements.  

    It's this interpretation of the log that's the issue.   To me it's implied that a DNF means an unsuccessful  search at GZ but obviously others don't see it that way. 


    21 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

     I'm walking down a footpath to find a cache on a small island.     There is a footbridge on the path to give access to the island.   I get to the island, and the bridge is closed, with a sign saying it is unsafe and under repair, do not use.     I would log a DNF,  as there is an issue here that I want others to notice, and the DNF is more likely to be noticed.

    I get this one but I still think a NOTE would serve the same purpose.   I agree a DNF would get more attention but I've been lead to believe that everyone reads information contained in the logs so if that's true a NOTE should suffice.   Maybe even a NM could be used if attention is what your after.    Maybe a new "Needs Reviewer Attention" log would be the perfect solution to this problem.    I personally wouldn't post a DNF in this situation because I wasn't able to search GZ and there are other log options available that would work.   


    25 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

    So rather than try to define it, my plea to others is to at least consider how DNFs are interpreted.      

    Regardless of what side of the fence your on this is always good advice,  with any log. 


  11. 27 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

    If one considers this, and decides DNF is still best, then fine.   One could still consider it in the text.

    To me these are the two options.   Posting a DNF without an actual search tells me nothing.  In fact, as you noted above, that DNF not only negatively effects the CHS but it can negatively effect the cache owner as well,  prompting them to unnecessarily check up on their cache.   It could also  cause other potential cachers to pass it by.   In many of these cases a NOTE would do none of that.   If you wanted to tell the world you reached the parking lot and decided to go for ice cream instead of hunting down the cache,  why not say all that in a NOTE?   With all the possible negative ramifications,  why use a DNF in that situation when you have another, in my opinion, better option?  

  12. 15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

    If you leave your DNF in place after you've gone back and subsequently found the cache, isn't your DNF still having a negative impact on the cache's CHS?

    That DNF represents my experience.  I reached GZ and searched.  I wouldn't change that log later if I did return and FOUND it.   If a cache had 5 DNFs on it and I actually searched and couldn't find it I'd post a DNF even though I know that my DNF could be the one that triggers the e-mail or reviewer action.   My responsibility to everyone involved  is to post an accurate log that describes my experience and let the reviewers decide if any action is necessary.   


    My argument is the context in which some choose to use DNFs.    The CHS aside it makes no sense to me to post a DNF on a cache you never actually searched for.    To me a DNF indicates a search was conducted without success.   That DNF could mean many things and as much as some don't want to admit it, one of them is the cache is actually missing.  I have no idea what percentage of DNFs are posted on missing caches.  I do know that the people with that information decided to include that possibility into the CHS.


    All that being said I feel it's my responsibility to have made an honest effort to have searched before I post one.   To me that's reaching GZ and trying to find it.        

  13. 18 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

    accepting that that is never going to happen because this is all an argument about opinions and preference.

    I can't accept that.   Those that are set in their ways may never change but those who are new to the activity may see some sense in what I'm saying and be willing to make that change or at least think about what logs they post before they post them.      

    • Upvote 1
  14. 24 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

    If you read my comment, I'm effectively taking a centrist stance.  I'm disagreeing with you on one thing, while in agreement on another. The other end of the spectrum is making CHS to be the bad guy causing people to change their logging habits to appease it. I didn't say you said it was, I was stating my position - my comment about deaf ears was directed at the thread in general.



    I know. But you're effectively demanding everyone be reasonable by your definition, instead of accepting that that is never going to happen because this is all an argument about opinions and preference. You can explain why you think posting certain logs is better in certain cases because that makes sense to you, but you keep labeling people as unreasonable or just wrong when to them their actions are perfectly reasonable. That's why this argument keeps going around in circles. Accept that you have a way that you prefer, and other people have a way they prefer - and the CHS has to deal with BOTH of those, because they are all allowable.

    I'm defiantly not demanding anything  and if I am it's not been very effective. 


    Let me clear this up once and for all.   I'm not advocating we change the way we use DNFs BECAUSE of the CHS.  I'm suggesting we consider changing it because I believe it's a better use of the log.   GS isn't asking anyone to change.  I am.   


    The way some prefer to use DNFs can unnecessarily effect the CHS and cache owners in a negative way.   The caching from your car is one example.  


    I prefer to think about the effects of my log before I post it to make sure it's sending the intended information.    I think the log itself should convey some basic information and the words that accompany the log should expand on that.   In other words I don't think you should have to read the log to understand what transpired in the posting of that DNF.        

  15. 26 minutes ago, dprovan said:

    We aren't talking about not searching. We're talking about the other end, searching and seeing the cache, and then filing a DNF.


    But, yes, that's what some do. I don't, but I have zero problem with it if some want to log a non-search as a DNF because I'm going to read that they didn't get out of their car.


    And, actually, there are times I'd log a DNF without getting out of my car in special cases, like if the park was unexpectedly closed.

    Then we're on the same page except for the effect that DNF, regardless of what's written in the log, has on the CHS.  

  16. 19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

    The CHS is not The Bad Guy.

    Have I ever said it was?


    In fact I happen to think GS is the Good guy in all this.   I just think we could try to make an effort to work with them and the CHS.   


    27 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

    How about, let the DNF mean what the cacher wants it to (within reason to be understandable and relevant to the community)

    The fact that you had to included "within reason" tells me you get it.   I happen to think that the way some use DNFs are unreasonable. 


    23 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

    CHS is not evil.

    Have I ever said it was?


    Where have you been?   I'm one of the biggest supporters of the CHS and I know you know that soooooo what's this all about?  


  17. 4 minutes ago, niraD said:

    Actually, I am not taking issue with the way he logs. Or the way he claims to log.


    I am taking issue with his claim that his way is the One True Way™ for anyone to log, and that those who log any differently are logging in a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad way.



    That's fine.   I've explained why logging a DNF in situations where an individual didn't reach GZ and actually search can be detrimental to a cache owner and the CHS.   I haven't  heard any reasons how logging one without meeting those requirements are beneficial or help in any way other than ones own interests.


    When I was a new cache owner I needlessly ran out to check up on caches with every DNF posted.   I realized later that wasn't necessary but when your a new cache owner you want to make sure your cache is in good shape so people can enjoy finding it and your hyper sensitive to any potential issues.  Now I wish I could say I've mellowed in that regard but for the most part I still over react to every NM and DNF logged on one of my caches.


    For me it's all about improving Geocaching as a whole and I believe that making a few personal changes could help accomplish that.    Some simply don't want to change the way they do things even if the change is as simple as something like this.  I guess it's that attitude that boggles my mind and pushes me to continue this debate.


    It's like I've always said.  Don't do something because someone told you to.  Do it because it makes sense.                 

  18. 3 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    Really?  30 seconds and two logs?

    It was just an example. 


    5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    Your logic is skewed a bit here.  You would log the DNF, leave for 30 seconds and then log the find on your return.  2 logs for 2 searches in a span of roughly a minute.  You would log the DNF, leave for 30 seconds and then NOT log the DNF.  One log for 2 searches in a span of roughly a minute.  If they're both 2 searches (as you're claiming), then there should be 2 logs.  Where's the consistency?

    I think it would be common sense to log the Find on the second encounter because that adds new information to the cache page.  I wouldn't log the second DNF because it adds nothing new.  It would only be re-enforcing the fact that I still couldn't' find the cache and there's no need to negatively impact the CHS by doing that. 

    10 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    You're advocating for changing the log types because of possibly affecting the CHS of the cache

    No.  I'm advocating that certain conditions be met to log a DNF.             


    12 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    It's rendering DNFs as "bad", when in fact, they're just logs stating you couldn't find it.

    No.  It's allowing the DNF to be judged based on an actual search and not as a place holder for caches that you'll like to attempt another day.    The premise is simple.   That DNF means someone reached GZ and searched.   That's all.   Everyone else, including the CHS, can decide exactly what that DNF means in relation to the cache and it's other logs knowing that someone actually tried to find it and didn't.    That DNF would actually carry some weight knowing it meet those basic requirements.     

    17 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    Most of us aren't taking issue in the situation you describe above.  We're taking issue with you not logging a DNF when you see the cache but can't retrieve it to sign the log in order to claim the find and then claiming that you're changing the log type from DNF to note to spare the cache the hit from the CHS.  This is an example of how the CHS is affecting the game, and not in a good way.  Would you have logged the DNF or a note before the CHS if you had seen the cache but not been able to sign the log?

    I have no idea what your trying to say here.    I have basic requirements that need to be meet before I use any log.  Because of that I've never changed a log in my life.    This philosophy has proven itself over time and has nothing to do with the CHS.   The fact that I don't arbitrarily post DNFs combined with the way the CHS handles them is in my mind  conformation I'm doing something right.    

  • Create New...