[MOB Caches - a new tool]

13 hours ago, arisoft said:

This was an exception to the guidelines at the time and is not a publishable concept today.

I have failed to see where this is against the guidelines. Pointer, please?

[MOB Caches - a new tool]

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

It is all about data collection. So a statement that no user data is collected is what resolves all issues?

If that would be the case, it would be wonderful! I don't need to collect data to make a fun myst based on an online solution.

[MOB Caches - a new tool]

"www.geocaching.com says

You're about to leave Geocaching.com.
Please note: External links have not been reviewed by Geocaching.com."

 

Isn't this all Groundspeak needs to be safe? We are visiting all kinds of pages when solving mysteries. We are allowed to link to external pages, right? As long as they are not full with ads? Or not?

 

So if I make a mystery that links to my JavaScript game, it is not OK? Or my own myst checker?

 

Where is this rule actually stated in the guidelines?

[Comments on "Where are the missing DNFs?"]

1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

DNFs are hugely under logged.

I'd say they are both under-logged and over-logged. There are cases they are used when they shouldn't, and cases where they should. It is a pretty complex problem.

[Comments on "Where are the missing DNFs?"]

2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I had a little trouble understanding how they arrived at the conclusions in the blog post, liked the true DNF rate:

• Actual DNF rates were 3–5 times higher than what was reported in online logs, with some countries showing true DNF rates near or above 20 percent (compared with 6–8 percent in online logs).

Absolutely. What does this mean? What are the "actual DNF rates"? Is someone counting DNF-style "note", or "found it" that should be DNF? Sounds like an impossible job.

[Comments on "Where are the missing DNFs?"]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

This is a DNF that was recently logged on one of my multis:

 

 

Is that a valid DNF? I think it is because the logger had been trying to find the cache but didn't succeed in getting her name in the logbook. The DNF also puts a blue frowny on her map as a reminder to come back and try again sometime. I would hope that, if a DNF like this resulted in a CHS ping, the reviewer would at least read the log before deciding whether to take further action.

 

More problematic is this one though, also on one of my multis:

 

 

I messaged the logger to try to find out more information and they said they'd gotten to WP6 but then decided they weren't adequately dressed to head off-trail into the scrub to get to GZ.

 

DNF logs can cover a broad spectrum of scenarios so something more than just "DNF" is needed to be helpful to the CO, other searchers and the reviewers.

I think both your cases are good examples of bad DNFs. The first is "didn't really search - DNF", the other is "didn't find"- what? I got a DNF of a multi I have with four stages and final. I messaged the person logging DNF for some detail, no response.

 

There is a broad spectrum, and I include cases in that spectrum where the DNF really isn't called for.

 

But I must say that there is definitely the opposite case, especially "found it" when you didn't find it. I had one just a few days ago. Found my birdhouse, "there was no log in it", wrote a signature on the outside of the birdhouse! I definitely would have preferred a DNF there. Yes, there was a log, and I had to take down the birdhouse to paint over the incorrect log. On the positive side, it could use the paint.

[Comments on "Where are the missing DNFs?"]

Isn't it annoying with official blog posts that just isn't accurate? This blog post is one of them, IMHO.

 

The blog encourages DNFs any time you didn't find a cache, regardless of what the cache is. I quote:

 

"Maybe they think they didn’t spend enough time looking, or they only log a DNF if they feel certain the cache isn’t there."

 

This is exactly how you should think! If you didn't find a D4 after just searching a short time, a DNF is just harmful because:

 

"Some fear their DNF log will be the reason for a cache’s archival (it won’t)."

 

Yes, it will! It definitely will! I have seen caches archived by reviewers after as little as two DNFs (that is warning + archive), and we are talking about pretty hard caches.

 

"Not surprisingly, countries with more engaged cache owners have lower actual DNF rates on caches."

 

Yes, but if you make tough caches, you get both DNFs on caches that are there, as well as the equally annoying "found it" by people who saw the cache but didn't sign it because they could not reach it.

 

I strictly avoid DNF and NM on very old caches where the CO has quit. I don't want a 20 year old cache to be archived just becacuse the log book is a bit damp or because the locaction has gotten a bit harder, or it gets DNFs by people who didn't search well. I rather, if needed, try to do "non-owner maintenance" to keep it alive. Sadly, if such maintenance counts is totally up to the reviewer and AFAIK it doesn't raise the health score and the DNF lowers it.

 

So, my point is that things are not as simple as this blog says.

[Location already taken]

On 4/13/2023 at 1:38 PM, JL_HSTRE said:

Only if your goal is numbers.

That is certainly one pf the advantages, but not the only one. Even if your goal isn't to log a lot fast, you get pretty intensive action. Mixing a multi-stage multi and a Wherigo doesn't give you more logs that two traditionals but a lot more things happen on that way there. ALC's, however, are very much constructed for numbers as goal.

[Location already taken]

On 4/13/2023 at 11:34 PM, colleda said:

I've had pending caches archived, without notice, by a reviewer a couple of times. The last was a mystery but it was in a spot which compromised an existing D5 mystery.  I had a sentimental reason for the spot I had chosen for my mystery but I had a suspicion it was close to the 161m of the D5. I thought my pending cache would be ok until I could solve the D5 and re-adjust my coordinates. As I suck at puzzles, I made almost no headway solving the D5 but I would periodically return to it. My cache was in place and was actually found by Lee737 IIRC. All came to an end when a reviewer archived it. I've now given up on it.

So how long had it waited until it was archived?

[Have your priorities changed?]

My top priorities:

1) Tree climbing at T3-T4 = free climbing on moderate difficulty. Definitely my #1!

2) Other "sweet spot" caches, T3-T4, D2-D3. Not trivial, takes a bit of effort and can be a bit tricky but it usually works out. Fun stuff!

3) High FP caches. (High Wilson score.)

4) Old caches.

5) High T that look possible. I don't dare the most extreme T5's any more. It was close enough once...

6) Smart mysts that are not wild guessing and not plain time wasters.

7) Lab caches - and I mean the real ones, temporary, usually physical and often very original caches at mega events.

8) FTFs. They are not super important but it can be fun to be first once in a while.

 

I opt out of

 

- most challenges, since the new ones are not challenges at all. Many old ones are good.

- ALCs, since they mess up my lab cache statistics and the concept is flawed anyway.

- JiGiDi puzzles. No thinking, just mechanically spend too much time.

- Most 1.5/1.5. Default D/T is a warning signal, can be a careless CO.

- Power trails. Feels like working.

[Location already taken]

On 12/13/2021 at 10:53 PM, JL_HSTRE said:

While they don't technically block the space, placing a Traditional that's near an EarthCache AND an Adventure Lab seems kind of unnecessary. Cachers already have two reasons to visit the location. 

That is usually considered an advantage.

[Location already taken]

On 12/5/2021 at 10:43 AM, Max and 99 said:

6.16. Unpublished geocaches may be archived

It’s good etiquette to submit your cache page for review within three months of creation. Inactive and unpublished cache pages may delay the review of newly submitted geocaches. To prevent this, inactive cache pages that are older than ten months may be automatically archived.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=97&pgid=460

That is one of the sources I referred to above. It says:

 

"Inactive and unpublished cache pages may delay the review of newly submitted geocaches. To prevent this, inactive cache pages that are older than ten months may be automatically archived."

 

Ten months... or three... or one.

[What Irks you most?]

On 3/18/2023 at 1:49 AM, niraD said:

Since we're in the "irk" thread...

 

It irks me when listings are churned, when listings are archived and replaced with new ones, when the caches are essentially the same. Sure, you replaced the container with a different kind of container, or hid it under an unnatural pile of stones instead of an unnatural pile of sticks, but if the reason for the cache is the same (the hike, the view, the historic location, the public art, whatever), then it's the same cache. Update the listing. Don't archive it and relist the same cache with a new GC code.

I agree with you, but I know people who encourage this, simply because they get more finds.

 

But in my experience, they don't appreciate it with FPs even if it is enhanced. I had an IMHO pretty good cache that didn't work well since it was too easy to cheat. I archived it and built a better version of it. No, it didn't help. It was just another logg.

[Location already taken]

It often takes time for me to complete planned caches, so I need to hold the place with an unpublished listing for some time. My caches are often dependent on the location, have to be built, have to be planned in detail...

 

...but how long can I hold the place (granted that it was free in the first place) without making reviewer notes, before it is archived? I have seen three different rules:

 

- 30 days

- 3 months

- one year

 

In case someone else tries to get the place, I will either give it up or complete my cache very quickly. So that is not the case I am thinking of here. My cases are caches in not very busy areas where the location is not expected to be in high demand so there are rarely collisions with others.

 

So what are the rules?

[Goals (not ghouls)]

On 1/17/2022 at 10:02 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

That 3..4/3 was only the average of the six caches I'd done since the start of this year. Overall, it's sitting at 2.08/2.22. One of my caching friends has an overall D/T average of 2.72/2.76 from 1455 finds which is pretty impressive I think!

It is definitely high. I am at 2.11/2.18 and that is when actively prioritizing high T and D!

[Challenge cache ideas that seem good but don't get past the reviewer]

On 2/23/2018 at 11:22 PM, Cacheism 500 said:

   I wanted to do one where you have to first find two trads within 60 seconds of one another on foot and upload 'proof.' (161 metres minimum distance, achievable if you leg it!) 

 

  Anyone else had any good but unpublishable ideas? 

 

Lots and lots of them. Anything that is actually a challenge!

 

I am totally against the challenge rules. The current challenges are horrible. They are mainly a tool for experienced caches to intimidate the newcomers. New challenge: Old cachers fulfill it immedialtely and it is just another petling. New cachers can not fulfill it withing a year or even five! They are not challenges! A challenge is something you accept and try to fulfill within a limited time.

 

So my idea about a challenge is almost completely reverse to what we have today:

 

- Must be actively accepted at a certain time.

- Must be finished in a limited time, no more than a month. (Long-time challenges are bad and tend to make cachers give up the hobby after finally fulfilling them!)

- Anything you did before accepting the challenge does not count.

- Does not require a log in a physical cache.

 

That's what I call a challenge! Beginner friendly, does not give you a long-time stress, can not be pre-fulfilled.

 

A checker would be nice, and are not technically impossible to make for many cases.

[Challenge cache ideas that seem good but don't get past the reviewer]

On 2/26/2018 at 1:06 PM, Isonzo Karst said:

The Lonely Cache Challenge (in some areas, Resuscitation) - typically find of a cache that hasn't been found in a year, sometimes more. Or sometimes less - as 4 finds of caches that haven't been found in 6 months, for instance (more suited to large urban areas). 

This one gets messy , example: cache unfound a year, on one day  5 cachers in two different groups find it - group 1 signs at noon, and group 2, not knowing about group 1, signs at 2pm - did they all find a lonely cache? did only  members of group 1, maybe one 1 member of group 1? . Not all areas have enough caches to support this.

A project gc checker can't be written for this,  so no Lonely challenges. 

The people that this appeals to tend to do it with or without challenge log to sign. But that's true of a lot of caching goals.

 

Lonely Cache challenges are the best challenges of all! They encourage finding old caches, which often leads you to nice, off.trail places. It will give the CO of a rarely found cache more finds. There are some variations of it, like finding a number of caches in one week with 2000 "lonely days" or finding 3 of the 10 "most lonely".

 

I see absolutely no problem with this as a challenge. It is fun, it is challenging, and it is good for CO and thereby for the whole community. I have logged a few of its kind and I have always finished them in one single day.

 

I don't know if Project-GC can make a checker but technically it is possible to make one.

[old not used usernames]

On 8/8/2022 at 5:55 PM, TeamRabbitRun said:

Because a geocacher's legacy means something in this hobby.

 

And an E-mail you have put into research publications does not...

[Geocaching bingo - a different one]

On 7/11/2022 at 3:47 PM, CheekyBrit said:

EG: Remember that one time we hiked 20 miles getting poison ivy exposure, did a 10 mile kayak, then the geocache wasn't there and we got arrested for trespassing. Man that was funny. (made up for comic example)

 

Wow! That must have felt bad at the time, but something you will never forget!

[Geocaching bingo - a different one]

On 6/7/2022 at 3:35 PM, thebruce0 said:

Yeah, lots of optional nakedness; heck you could do it whenever it's not illegal and you're comfortable :P.   But "to reach a cache" implied necessity.  Unless you could say perhaps your clothing was hindering your reach, lol

I meant necessary at the moment for you, not mandatory for the cache itself. Like a cache intended for boat, or bathing clothes, but you had none with you so...

 

This happened on one of my caches. The cacher had brought wading boots, but it was too deep, so on to solution #2.

[old not used usernames]

On 7/5/2022 at 11:11 PM, GeoTrekker26 said:

 

I don't know what you mean by this. The only user created item I know that expires is a Pocket Query link to the results.

 

I mean everything outside geocaching expires. When I left the university, my very personal E-mail address was removed in no time, and when I came back, I had to choose another one. My phone account (including my phone number!) expires if I don't use it for one year. Web domains are promptly deleted and grabbed by someone else if you miss a payment.

 

If other things, much more valuable than a GC nick, expire that quickly, why would an abandoned GC nick last forever?

[Why is "Boat required" automatic T5?]

The D/T ratings are shaky, since we all have different views. A cache may seem easy for the CO, who knows how to find/solve it, but others can get sidetracked and it can suddenly be very hard. Also, how hard a physical challenge is depends on COs and visitors shapes. But it is sad that the system in some ways encourage obvious misses, where easy caches are rated higher than the harder ones just because of some trivial tool.

 

I don't find the island caches too hard to rate. If it is a short swim, safe for most people to swim: T4 or T4.5. If it is a long swim, or you cant reach the cache if you are swimming, then you need a boat and it is T5. However, it is most likely much easier than a T5 where you need rope and harness, and most T4.5s will be harder.

 

We had a CO in my area who made very hard T5's, very high up in trees, with need for climbing gears and often complicated rigging like double ropes, and also hard to find so you may need to get the rope up several times just locating it. We were disussing putting in special T5 symbols for the different kinds of T5, T5-basic (boat), T5-medium (tough climbs but straight forward so you don't need things like multiple ropes), T5-expert... They were never used though.

 

Online jigsaw puzzles and rods are two problematic ones. With a rod, you are standing on the ground and the problem is to handle the rod. D or T? Jigsaw puzzles take time, a lot of time, but they are trivial, no mental challenge, you will finish them just by spending time. D1 or D5? Both are commonly used to shortcut the high ratings, not least when doing things like the D/T "bombs", that is areas with all D/T ratings on one trail.

[Geocaching bingo - a different one]

On 6/7/2022 at 10:29 PM, CheekyBrit said:

I get the vibe that this is a bingo of specifically geocaching misfortune.
That said, the worst day of geocaching is better than the best day of most things.

Let's call it memorable moments.

[old not used usernames]

On 6/9/2022 at 2:19 PM, ras_oscar said:

I had a hiatus of several years, because, ya know, life got in the way. I returned and would have been quite upset if my user name (and the attached finds) had somehow been given to another player.

 

But why? Everything else expire, why not an unused user nick?

 

The attached finds, of course not.

[Geocaching bingo - a different one]

9 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

At least 10 of 25, with no bingos, in 11 1/2 years of gecaching.

 

1. Not a harvester, but other mechanical chopping devices, several times. Either for land clearing for construction or as a "mechanical burn" as an alternative to a prescribed burn or to prepare an area for a prescribed burn in the future by reducing fuel load.
2. I've done some hikes without water where I regretted it. Particularly when I misread the map and the hike was twice as long as expected and the trail wasn't maintained.
3. Lump of wet pulp is probably 20% of my Finds. Yay Florida climate!
4. I'm sure I've had my pen die at least once. However, much more common is losing my pen mid-hike. Probably happens at least once a year.
5. I don't think I was stung for about 15 years before I started caching. Then I got stung twice my first year. Apparently wasps sometimes nest on palmettos! Then I went 10 years without another sting. One got me last year while checking on one of my geocaches.
6. I've been stopped by the police only once, I think. Very early on. When I explained what geocaching was the officer asked if people ever set booby traps to surprise seekers (he seemed to think the suggestion amusing).
7. Dying cell or GPS battery has cut my caching short several times.
8. I've found archived caches several times. My favorite was when I placed a plastic jar (stating as such in the description) letterbox and a seeker was confused when they found an ammo can with no stamp. In investigated, found and removed the ammo can, and learned via inquiry to my local Reviewer that it was the final to a multi archived years earlier.
9. I've encountered wild hogs caching in the Florida wilds a number of times. They've always fled as soon as they realized I was there. Only scary instance was a time I heard what sounded like a very large hog running full speed crashing through the palmettos. I couldn't tell where relative to my position. I hurried to the nearest open area on the trail and began whacking the nearest palmettos with my hiking pole to alert the pig to my presence. I never did see the hog. I wasn't concerned he was deliberately charging me; rather the opposite. He might barrel into me unaware I was even there.
10. I've found several caches signed by muggles. The most memorable was a GRIM by a canal with a note inside stating "We thought this was a bomb".

Many fine memories! (At least they are fine afterwards.)