thehoomer

All joking apart, I would be interested to hear how you know this cache to be more interesting than 'base of tree' when you have yet to complete it? Just because there is a PROW, you don't have to put a cache there. Wacky I know but sometimes, common sense needs to play a part in where you place a cache too, strange but true. I wait with baited breath for you to return here after Christmas and regale me with how much 'fun' you had on Christmas day doing this cache .

When the road is quite what? I could never wiegh in on this dangous cache, its not recemended and permission would be denined by Mr Hoomer, espaecially on Chrestmaz Day.

I canhowever, express an opinion on what has been said about it. I can also 'ask' for more information from the CO and the people who have found it so far. No one has told us yet....Why is this a good cache or a worthy location? If there was a circle of prehistoric standing stones, an interesting monument or a great view at this location, I could understand Bozoid's passion but really....

It's a heck of a lot better than lots of others I've found in supposedly safe locations. How? What makes this a good cache? For a start it was safer for me to get to! Fair enough. I can’t comment on this cache personally but from what I have read, its redeeming features are: Smelly. Dirty. Lots of rubbish. Dangerous to get to/from. So, aside from the fact that it isn’t as hazardous to access as some other caches, please can Bozoid tell me why this is a good cache?

It's a heck of a lot better than lots of others I've found in supposedly safe locations. How? What makes this a good cache?

Bozoid, can you please give your reason/s why you think this makes a good cache?

Have just put my Cra*hoppers fleece in the charity bag.

Ahh, that explains it then, I suspected it may have been something like that. Thanks both Note to self..... Emerge from the Dark Ages. Actually, scrap that, I quite like it here . Edited to add... More and more people are caching by phone now, does this mean that GC.Com needs to look at this or isn't it important? I think it is.

Just a quick one. We logged a DNF on 27th October on GC2YB13. It has been found today by magd2884 who has well....(ahem), only a few cache finds under his belt. How embarrassing . Why the confusion then? Well, when I went into his profile, it says his joining date and his last visit was on 27th Sept. He has found and logged several caches since 27th Sept, including his find today. Is this because he has logged the caches by phone or something? I'm not a Techie-Becky .

:laughing: , One can always rely on Mrs B for a humour injection. Thanks :laughing: .

It wasn't really a "line of questioning", just several attempts to get to the core of the original question. I'll ask someone else should this arise again. Anyway, clearly we've taken this as far as it can go (and perhaps a bit further!). Thanks for persisting, and sorry if it felt like the third degree. No worries HH, we got there in the end....of a sort! Cheers .

Well, you say you're considering offering this, so you must feel that it's worthwhile in some way; so it would be useful to explain your logic. If it was me I'd simply say that the cache has been replaced and those who couldn't find it before should now be able to return and find it if they wish. What's wrong with that? There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that because that is how YOU would do it and in most cases, I would too. My logic is transparent, lucid and comprehensible and has already been defined several times. I am offering, to those that want it, the option of a smiley on a cache which wasn’t present when they had worked hard to find it. I fail to see or understand why I need to develop any further on this. THAT is my logic - simples. Besides, as I have also already said, how can I answer your demand-like question when it is not something I would do? I have already taken your comments on board and thank you for your input. I fully appreciate that this is not something you understand and would not ever do but I confess, short of getting some 'Janet and John' books out from the library, I feel that I have now exhausted all ways of explaining this. It seems to me, we are now in the realms of drilling unnecessarily into the molecules of the thread. I originally asked if anyone thought there were any pitfalls and apart from a couple of people who would find it confusing, no pitfalls have presented themselves. I am sorry if you are still struggling to get to grips with this but I can go no further with your particular line of questioning. Your answer to this question will not and can not come from me.

No, to me logging a DNF as a find is weird and odd. Nothing to do with stats, but sometimes I'll look back over my caching records and it's useful to see that I didn't find a certain cache. It's like a caching diary. Sometimes I then have a look and see whether a cache has been found since I posted the DNF (or disabled, or whatever). It's surprising how often someone comes along the next day and claims an easy find, even though I spent half an hour searching! I might then go and have another try. But sometimes there's a note from the CO that they've checked, and agree that the cache has gone. I may then put the cache on watch and return once it's been replaced (or, sometimes, when another cacher has found the seemingly missing cache). As you hadn't (and still haven't) attempted an explanation as to why someone would log a DNF as a Find, I was trying to surmise what you meant. Perhaps incorrectly, but there's not much to go on. I still don't know what advantage there for someone to log a cache as "Found" when they didn't find it, although I've pointed out disadvantages. I can only guess that you regard the "Found it" log as meaning anything from "Found it" to "Didn't find it", so naturally it follows that in principle you'd be OK with logging anything as a "find". We've already seen that if it's not your fault that you didn't find it, then it's a find; also, if the cache appears to be missing and later gets replaced then you've "found" the new version automatically even if you have been nowhere near the cache. There are probably a lot of other scenarios as well, but I can't really guess what they might be. But the main point is still: why? The only answer seems to be "why not?" which is just another question, and having tried to answer that one I feel that the "why?" question should be attempted by someone! Thank you for your explanation in para 1, I am clear on that now . Cachers would and indeed have logged caches as found (when they didn't find them) because for whatever reason, the CO has granted them permission to do so. I have already said, we would not take a CO up on this offer but there are cachers out there who would like to be rewarded with a smiley when they have worked hard on a multi/puzzle but were unable to sign the log because the cache was missing. So, in the scenario mentioned above this is 'why'. If you are asking me to answer this as a general question, I have already told you, logging a find on a cache I didn't find is not something I would do, so how am I supposed to answer? You will have to direct your question to those that would. Moreover, am I on trial here............... 'As you hadn't (and still haven't) attempted an explanation as to why someone would log a DNF as a Find Why do you feel it is my responsibility to answer this question anyway?

It's still hard to see how this explains it, but I'll have a go. I think you're saying that recording your caching doesn't matter at all, and if you record a DNF as a find then it also doesn't matter. You're also saying that it's the same for almost everyone, and as we'd generally prefer to be logging finds rather than DNFs then why not just log everything as a "find" if you want to. You've saying that the only reason someone would record a DNF is for their stats (such as number of finds, or when you went caching, or which caches you looked for), and if you're not interested in stats then it's pointless; you can log it however you want and it doesn't confuse anyone (except two fuddy-duddies that like to keep things simple!). In the absence of an explanation, I hope that's near enough. I'm not sure where you get the fact that I think recording your caches isn't important, of course I do, otherwise, we wouldn't have 7000+ caches recorded. You are correct in your 2nd point though. If a cacher wants to log a DNF as a find it is perfectly ok, if a scenario like I have already mentioned has taken place. It is entirely up to the CO and the cacher in question if they choose to have this arrangement. The point I was trying to make about stats could've perhaps been explained a little better. I shall try to elucidate... I do not understand or care about stats at all (I do appreciate that there are many that do) but I took it from one of your previous posts, that logging a DNF as a find somehow messes up your stats when you look back over them and then causes you to become confused. Perhaps I misread your post? I have at no time suggested that we all log everything as a find and I am baffled as to where and how you arrived at this.

To be honest, I think the misunderstanding (on my part) must be because we cache in a different way. We are not interested, nor do we use, look at or keep, any kind of 'stats' and wouldn't even know how to find them. I will say again though, if a cacher logs a find on a cache which wasn't there, providing the CO is ok with it and keeps an accurate record of what has gone on on the page and replaces the cache before the retrospective 'find' is entered, where's the rub? Lets get this into perspective too, this may only occur on a 'couple' of our caches over the course of a 'couple' of years. If people want to consider us lazy, they only have to look at our caches to see how well maintained they are. When we complete a puzzle/multi, we are only concerned that we completed it correctly, enjoyed it and managed to locate the box at the end. We couldn't be less interested in looking through log history. The only time we would ever look at past logs, is if we couldn't find the cache and would hope to glean some tips from what past cachers had written. In this scenario, providing there was an audit trail (just like B&R says), I would know that the cache was missing but had now been replaced. I have tried hard (truly I have) to become confused at this but have failed dismally. As I say though, it may be because I simply don't understand. I originally asked for 'pitfalls' and whilst I have absorbed and am sorry that it may cause a couple of people to become confused, I'm not sure I have read evidence enough to take this policy back to the drawing board.....yet .

On the first point, the "gesture of goodwill" argument makes no sense. Jonovich has tried to explain, but it seems strangely difficult. I'll try with an analogy. Let's say you organise a one-day free rock festival on a Saturday; although originally it was scheduled for a Sunday you had to move it a day forward and you thought that the change was well publicised. It goes with no problems, but a week later you get a complaining letter from someone who turned up on Sunday and found the site closed. This is like replying to them, offering that they can tell people that they went to the festival. How is that "goodwill"? They still didn't go, just like the people that didn't find the cache still didn't find it. It may have not been their fault, but why would they go around telling people that they went when they didn't, just like your non-finders are going around telling people that they found a cache when they didn't? As I've detailed above, I've wasted time on caches recently because of what looks like bogus "finds", hence the interest in the topic. I do tend to read past logs on some caches (usually in the field when struggling) and pretend "finds" would be unhelpful. I can't say that I am annoyed if someone logs bogus retrospective "finds", but if it happens too often it does start to undermine the game a little and I'm still unsure as to what the point is supposed to be. I started typing a lengthy reply to this but then got lobotomized and deleted it. You still haven't told me how me allowing a 'RETROSPECTIVE FIND' on a cache we have 'REPLACED' would cause confusion to a FUTURE cacher? I'm not being argumentative, I just want to be secure in what I already know to be right .

Why though? The cache seeker visited ground zero, they either didn't find it, or the cache wasn't there to be found, EITHER way, THEY DID NOT FIND IT! What purpose does them logging it as found or changing their log to say they did find it do? It's a LIE, a MIS-TRUTH, a FALSE entry.... Anything they wish to say about their hunt can be covered in a DID NOT FIND log. Even if they are out caching for the numbers, if they log a DNF as a FOUND then the numbers become meaningless as they no longer reflect how many caches they actually found... Logging a DNF as a FOUND just does not make sense to me and I'm struggling to understand why someone would want to do this? The only reason I can think of is vanity - not wanting to have a DNF log on their otherwise unblemished record of caches found for the 'series' or whatever. Jonovich I completely understand where you are coming from and we would never take anyone up on this offer. The point is though, some people would and we want to extend that offer to them. Mis-truth or not, it is up to the individual. When we bought a set of pillows recently, they weren't up to standard. We took them back and were offered a full refund. We complained to the store manager that we had had to make an extra journey to take them back and also had to pay for parking/petrol again. After a bit of foot stamping (on our part), we were also offered the excess costs we had incurred in the whole saga. The way I see it, we are just offering cachers the same courtesy. It is up to the individual if they take us up on it isn't it?

Why though? The cache seeker visited ground zero, they either didn't find it, or the cache wasn't there to be found, EITHER way, THEY DID NOT FIND IT! What purpose does them logging it as found or changing their log to say they did find it do? It's a LIE, a MIS-TRUTH, a FALSE entry.... Anything they wish to say about their hunt can be covered in a DID NOT FIND log. Even if they are out caching for the numbers, if they log a DNF as a FOUND then the numbers become meaningless as they no longer reflect how many caches they actually found... Logging a DNF as a FOUND just does not make sense to me and I'm struggling to understand why someone would want to do this? The only reason I can think of is vanity - not wanting to have a DNF log on their otherwise unblemished record of caches found for the 'series' or whatever. Jonovich

From my point of view, its not about a cacher logging a 'bogus' find. Simply a gesture of goodwill from the CO. We have taken many items back to stores and have managed to also get parking/petrol refunded because of the inconvenience caused to us. If a cacher wants to absorb this 'find' into his/her stats, it is purely personal choice surely and is not up for debate or a request to ask for a reason why? I am a cache owner and if I chose to allow a fellow cacher to log a 'retrospective' find on a cache which was previously missing but has now been replaced, I am struggling to see what the problem is but I am open to comments as to why this would cause 'confusion' to a future cacher? Edited to add.... You embark on a multi, find all the waypoints, do the maths and go on to make the find, which has been recently replaced (despite the previous gratis 'finds'). I am still open to views on this but please tell me how is this confusing? Like I said, its probably something I haven't considered but am definitely open to further comment.

Hopefully my plan would not cause confusion or waste people's time. As I already mentioned, we would only give cachers the option to log a 'retrospective' find, once we had visited the site and replaced the cache if it was missing. I'm still taking on board all the opinions though, so haven't made my mind up yet .

'Window Sill'? Luxury. I dream of having a window sill. We’ve just got a hole in the wall.

Hello and welcome to the game . I'm pleased that you have found your first few finds enjoyable but totally agree with Jonovich and B&R here. Please think about finding some more caches before you hide one yourself. We had been involved in the game for 5 months and had 200 finds under our belt before we hid our first cache. I am so glad that we waited until we had more experience and because of this experience, we set a cache which we are still immensely proud of 6 years later. It always generates good logs and has been well favourited since the system was introduced. I'm not suggesting that you wait this long but please give some thought to getting a wider view before you introduce us all to your cache hiding skills.

I take all your points on board. I wasn't intending to make it a blanket policy for all our caches, simply the stand-alone's/puzzles/multi's. If implemented, it would be as a gesture of goodwill and nothing more. If we ever have cause to disable a cache through DNF's, it is rarely disabled for longer than a week before it gets checked and replaced if necessary. So any retrospective 'found' logs would be granted once the cache had been replaced anyway. If my memory serves me right, we have never accepted this kind of offer ourselves but I know plenty who would be appreciative of the smiley after some reasonable leg or detective work. To be frank, I am grateful of the DNF's which highlight a potential problem and am staggered at the number of VERY experienced cachers who do not log them.

Allowing DNF'ers on our caches to log a retrospective 'find' if we visit the site and cant find the cache ourselves and have to replace it. If the cache proves to be present when we do a maint trip (after a few DNF's), we would obviously not extend this offer. What do you all think? Pitfalls?

No, it's not wrong to be honest in logs - it's the best thing to do for the overall benefit of caching. If all you have ever found are sympathetically hidden caches in great locations, clean and dry with space in the log book, then you've been very lucky indeed. If a cache is sub-standard then it needs to be mentioned, else everyone who follows you will see the same problems. The log in question wasn't rude, it wasn't even negative, it just stated things as the finder found them, which is exactly what logs are for. Rgds, Andy I agree wholeheartedly with Andy. I would also add, that being honest in logs (in my opinion obviously ) is a very important part of the game both now and for the future. As has already been mentioned, it is sometimes crucial too.