AustinMN

No it won't +1.

But this might only be true for the first finder. Once a temp. log is put in the container the intention is no longer clear. How would one know that it is a decoy if there is no indication on the cache page or in the container? And how long would it take before someone puts a signed slip of paper in that decoy? I believe that all the decoy containers I have found had an indicator that they were not the true container. Usually a slip of paper that says something like, "Nope", "Keep Looking", "Strike Two", etc. Or a piece of paper someone else put in and empty container, just like the OP did and I have done on some occasions, "This is not the container, keep looking". I think the real problem here is that some people know they would have been tricked. I probably would have been tricked myself. I don't have a problem admitting it. Aparently, some people do. Austin

Was this explained already and I missed it? I'm having a hard time imagining what could make a container that could hold a log clearly and obviously not the container that's supposed to hold the log. You have an odd definition of decoy. Where I'm from, a decoy is supposed to have the look, feel, smell, or whatever of the real thing, but not actually be the real thing. So expecting a decoy cache to be "clearly and obviously not the container that's supposed to hold the log" does not in any way fit any definition I know of for the word "decoy." However, since the top section did not have a log, and the bottom hidden section did have a log, it then becomes clear and obvious that to the CO, the top was a decoy and the bottom was the real cache. Austin

Except that this was not a decoy container, and it did have a log. The top half was clearly and obviously a decoy container. It was supposed to be difficult to find the actual log. It was meant to confuse, and it worked perfectly. In fact, it is still working. Austin

I could see where that goes...he NA'd mine, so I'll NA one of his...and down from there.

The faact that the original moratorium post stated to the effect that a big part of the problem was reviewer workload, I think there are a lot more issues with challenge hide appeals than with find appeals. That does not preclude education from being a big part of the problem, of course. As in any game, knwing the rules is important. The rules around challenges can get rather involved and subject to widely varying interpretation. Education won't necessarily stop a cache hider from having an emotional investment in a particular type of challenge that is never going to be approved, but it could help them figure out a way to structure it in a way that might get approved. In any case, there are always going to be people who refuse to be educated no matter how hard the rest of us try. Austin

Before anyone gets too upset, I don't have a specific situation in mind, but I could see this happening. I have seen caches where there were suddenly several DNF's, and then I posed a NM, then someone else posts a NA (or someone else posts the NA and after several months I post the NA), and in time it gets archived. But here's the problem I'm having. Now I'm tempted to go and do a hide at or near that location. I'm afraid that it looks like I got rid of that cache so I could hide my own. I don't want to alienate the local caching community by doing something that could be taken the wrong way. Any thoughts? Austin

I might reply to the upset cacher that I don't ever get that worked up over a game, and if I "cheated," what rule did I break? There are no Groundspeak rules that I know of about FTF. Or I might just ignore them completely and go find more caches. Austin

Several years and over 450 finds. I am only a casual cacher and I only hide the kinds of caches I like to find. I only have two hides, with two more in the works. Austin

Most of my own logs are only a couple sentences. The one I linked to took a couple hours (round trip) and three attempts, so there's something to talk about. It takes a fairly boring cache to get me to throw letters at it, and I have learned how to not look for those in the first place. My own caching aspiration is to add quality photos to every log, but I'm not there yet either. Austin You can come up here and do my caches anytime! I had to check your caches to see if I might have already. I'm in Anoka County, so going down to where you are just to go caching is a stretch but not out of the question. We've been down that way before. Austin

You own stock in permethrin manufacturers.

It would be nice if Groundspeak implemented a challenge verification system something along the lines of GSAK macros or Project-GC's "challenge checkers." But Groundspeak doesn't have a good track record of querying their database. Last August, they struggled to implement their "The Achiever" souvenir, which was awarded if you received their six other special August souvenirs. And they've had to restrict their new Search page to looking for caches within 30 miles of a designated point because extending that limit places too great a burden on their database. So, I'm not holding my breath for that particular enhancement. Fixed the attribution...please be a bit more careful when quoting. I did not say what you quoted me as saying.

I have zero. Does that count as a DNF?

I have never read a single news article where I knew the facts where the article had a paragraph without an error...yes, in hundreds of articles in dozens of publications, I have yet to read a single paragraph on a topic I understood where all the facts were straight. I assume that all articles where I don't know the facts are just as bad. Austin

I wasn't even done reading the original post and this was what I was thinking. It doesn't pass the "verifiable" requirement and would not get published. For those who don't understand what is wrong with challenges, think about this. It is emptionally important to the OP, but it won't get published. It results in a rejection by the reviewer, which probably generates an email exchange (a good and patient reviewer probably repeatedly suggesting the hider appeal). More messages exchanged between GS appeals and the hider, with the end result being the cache does not get published. A lot of work. No cache published. Austin I wonder if part of what comes of this is a requirement for a challenge to be checkable via the stat page and/or some sort of tool or macro prior to even being submitted...with the reviewer not even responsible for considering it without something like that in place. I could imagine the 1-year part is so that GS would have time to bring software tools on line if that becaomes part of the solution. As a programmer, I can think of all kinds of verifiable stats, but it would take me some time to develop coding for them. I would start by creating a mechanism for plugging in new modules so that new stats could be added easily. Austin

I wasn't even done reading the original post and this was what I was thinking. It doesn't pass the "verifiable" requirement and would not get published. For those who don't understand what is wrong with challenges, think about this. It is emptionally important to the OP, but it won't get published. It results in a rejection by the reviewer, which probably generates an email exchange (a good and patient reviewer probably repeatedly suggesting the hider appeal). More messages exchanged between GS appeals and the hider, with the end result being the cache does not get published. A lot of work. No cache published. Austin

It can't be to much of a problem to make a description that makes it clear what the requirements are for a challenge. And even then, it's the reviewer that has to deal with any problems first. As I see it appeals is a "last resort". My understanding is that it was reviewer complaints that triggered the action.

Last time I checked, volunteer reviewers were, um, volunteers. Austin Volunteer reviewers don't handle appeals GS does and last time I checked they make money, they should be happy the have volunteer reviewers or they'd have to do even more work and might have to place a moratorium on all new caches. Original Post included: "Challenge caches can also be very difficult to publish due to the large amount of subjectivity involved relative to other geocaches." Last time I checked, caches were published by reviewers. Before there is an appeal, there has to be a rejection by a volunteer reviewer. They had to do enough homework to justify the rejection. My company makes money. But if 50% of our expenses were for 1% of our business, we would quit doing that business. Businesses that don't do that don't stay in business.

I have to agree. I find ads for camera equipment and photography classes, because I've been buying lenses and watching photo how-to videos on youtube. If the OP is seeing R- or X-rated ads, he/she needs to find out who has been using the computer to search for nefarious sites. Austin

Last time I checked, volunteer reviewers were, um, volunteers. Austin

As touchstone says, it depends on the circumstances. On two occasions I have removed a log from a cache. In both cases, there was nothing left but rotting pulp. On more than 20 I've added a sheet and left the original in place. On hundreds of occasions I signed a damp log. I will NM if it's called for (i.e. log is too wet to sign or worse). Austin

Yup. It's a game. While I might have done what the OP did, I would not get upset about it. All kinds of people do hides, all kinds of people go find them, with all kinds of reasons. But in the end, it's a game. Austin

A year isn't that long at all if the chosen direction requires software changes (back-end database and/or web site). Austin

Most of my own logs are only a couple sentences. The one I linked to took a couple hours (round trip) and three attempts, so there's something to talk about. It takes a fairly boring cache to get me to throw letters at it, and I have learned how to not look for those in the first place. My own caching aspiration is to add quality photos to every log, but I'm not there yet either. Austin

I've been seeing a lot of comments about a good log being as much or more thanks than a favorite point. But what is a good log? Post one or two examples of your own logs that you consider examples of really good logs. Note for new cachers: Don't think you have to measure up to these...consider them something to aspire to instead. Just try to avoid the "tftc" that seems to be so common. See This Log of mine at East of Aidan. Austin