Ragnemalm
-
Posts
317 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ragnemalm
-
-
Seriously? A souvenir about mountaneering that doesn't even give a bonus for high T? I see the point with the all-including style, but why not a bonus for high T (which then gives a bonus for climbing mountains - as well as other high T caches but that is hard to avoid). Or a bonus for high altitudes. Nothing mandatory, just a little bonus for being on the theme.
-
.png)
7
-
.png)
1
-
-
19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
I guess that makes me a very Bad Cacher then. These are some of my recent DNF logs:
- A terrain 4.5 cache hidden in a rock face where the limits of my climbing ability and the shortness of my arms meant I couldn't quite reach it.
- An AL bonus cache hidden in a tree but at the time I attempted it there was a family having a picnic right under it.
- Another AL bonus cache, this one a Bison tube on a fence, except there was a muggle sitting in his parked car right next to it.
- Yet another AL bonus cache, but on this one I was unable to get within the geofencing at one of its locations which was meant to be accessed from on board a train, and the only thing I could do was log a DNF on the bonus since you can't DNF an AL.
- A roadside cache in Newcastle where I made a cursory search but there was a muggle sitting in his car opposite and watching me so I gave up.
- A D3 traditional in a rocky gully, but it was raining at the time and there were places I couldn't look because of slippery rocks. I returned a few weeks later in dry weather and found it in one of those places.
- A coastal 11-stage Earthcache where I couldn't get to a few of the stages because of huge seas. I returned at a later date when the seas were calmer and was able to complete it.
- A cache hidden in a mangrove tree in wetlands. There'd been drought-breaking rain the week before and the mosquitoes were so thick they were going up my nose every time I inhaled. After a very cursory search I had to give up, but returned in drier and cooler weather and, covered with loads of repellent, was able to make the find.
- A cache next to a creek, but my GPSr was pointing me to the opposite side and, again after heavy rain, the creek was flowing strongly with lots of slippery rocks on its bed. On my next visit, in drier weather, I discovered (to the CO's amusement I'm sure) that I was on the right side of the creek after all and my GPSr had been leading me astray.
I would never log DNF in any of these cases, on a cache that I can't search for or can't reach. These are all DNR's in my book, a "note" saying that I can't log it now for whatever reason, not that I couldn't find it.
So in my area, you would get a message asking you to change the log type.
-
1
-
3 hours ago, niraD said:
I'm so sorry that you were misled by such a %$#@! cache owner.
I can't say I was miseld when I see caches being deactivated after just two DNFs. It seems to be the rules we have here. Even a DNF on a D3 will cause deactivation.
-
2 hours ago, kunarion said:
This seems common when a group of friends places a cache. One time I found a cache where the first log was a note that everyone's waiting for the "FTF" before they make their online find logs. Which is weird when they've already signed the log sheet. Plus they helped place the cache. I sometimes state in my Find log the time I found it, but I let everyone else decide who was "First". In reality where the concept of "time" exists, if I sign a cache log after others have signed it, it is impossible for me to be "First". But in Geocaching, it tends to be a lot more fluid.
I hope this isn't common because it totally ruins the FTF idea. When I place a cache together with a friend, my friend never try to FTF it, at least not without other people who are the real FTF hunters. Actually, we usually let quite some time pass before logging each other caches, if at all, especially if we are co-COs.
Because it feels like cheating.
However, FTF is not a formal thing. I have seen various variations on the concept. In one area, they decided that anything logged on the same day as the first find counted as FTF. And for some time, we had a series of events in our neighbor town, where each event ended with handing out GPX files to a bunch of new caches which were not yet released! This reserved all FTFs to the visitors of the event! This did cause some criticism by FTF hunters...
Sometimes I wish there were rules about FTFs, but we need to make those between us.
-
5 minutes ago, dprovan said:
No, *I'm* sorry. DNF means "didn't find". The fact that reviewers -- well, actually the automated scoring system the reviewers use -- misinterpret DNF doesn't change what it means to not find something.
Has this really happened to you? DNFs are fairly common in my area when a climb isn't attempted. If reviewers aren't reading the logs saying "DNF because I did not climb" and deactivating the cache anyway, I suggest that's the problem, not the people that couldn't find the cache for whatever reason posted a log saying they couldn't find the cache.
And anyone that skips a tree climb because of DNFs they didn't look at probably isn't ready for a tree climb, anyway.
This is the problem: It says that it means "did not find" but in practice it is interpreted as "I think it is missing". So what it says does not stop it from meaning something else for users and reviewers.
In my area, it is generally accepted that DNF means that I need to check that it is still there. Some caches have been archived after just two DNFs (first deactivated, of course).
As a beginner, I logged DNF on a cache that I didn't dare searching for close to traffic, and got a complaint from the CO for this very reason: I had not searched enough to claim that it was gone!
However, I do know that practices can vary by area, so maybe DNF is just that in your area. Not in mine.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
So by your reasoning, we're all forced to downvote at least 90% of the caches we find, no matter how good they are. How do propose we not do that, apart from cancelling our premium membership so that our finds don't count in the FP percentage?
No, no, we upvote the 10% best and don't upvote the 90% that are quite that good... Downvoting is when we deliberately downvote obvious top caches.
-
2
-
-
On 7/16/2021 at 6:59 PM, cerberus1 said:
A DNF says you didn't find it. That's all.
Sorry, this is not true! DNF means very clearly "I have searched well and believe it is gone". That is how it is interpreted by reviewers.
If I get a DNF on one of my tree climbing caches from someone who didn't dare to climb, I will ask it to be changed to a note for that reason. I call that a "DNR" log - did not reach - and it must be a "note", not a "DNF", to avoid unnecessary trouble like having it deactivated until I can assure the reviewer that it is still there, or, for that matter, having other cachers skipping it because they think it is gone, due to the same interpretation.
Many log types are strange. "Needs maintenance" means "This has serious problems and will be archived if the CO doesn't fix it soon". This has caused many fine caches to be archived just because the log book was a llittle damp. "Needs archived" means "a reviewer needs to have a look at this".
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 7/16/2021 at 2:33 PM, niraD said:
Nonsense. Not giving a Favorite Point is not a downvote. It's just saying that the cache isn't in the top 10% Or for some premium members, the top 9%, or the top 8%, or whatever.
Of course it is a downvote! It is a "not in the 10% top" downvote. On a cache that clearly isn't of that quality, it is expected, and rather a missing upvote. For a 5% top cache, it is clearly a downvote.
You have 90% FPs on a particularly good cache. In comes the downvoters. 80%, or even 60%. Would that not be a downvote to you?
-
3
-
-
On 7/16/2021 at 5:43 PM, cerberus1 said:
We've seen guard rail and lamp post skirt hides with numerous FPs. Most have seen FTF put a FP on them "just because".
- A group we know FPs each other's cache because they're in their group.
Groundspeak itself says FPs are " a simple way to track and share geocaches that you enjoyed the most." That's all.
Exactly, that what GS says, and that implies that they are a recommendation.
And we all decide on why. A petling in a particularly nice spot is a perfectly good reason. FPs are sometimes given for reasons we may not agree to, but that's just the freedom we have. However, when I know that an FP is just "thanks for the FTF", I try to ignore it for evaluation purposes. I had one cache which had kind of a point. It got an FP for the FTF, none more. I scrapped it pretty quickly.
-
On 7/14/2021 at 10:22 PM, Lostboy1966 said:
I don't do gadget caches (yet), I just enjoy making odd containers. Not gonna lie, I've been playing since 2005 and had to look up what a 'petling' was. I assumed it was some kind of weird furry-like fetish, now I see it's just those preform micro containers. Glad to see I was wrong!
Either way, not my style of hide, but to each their own... 
The border between a gadget cache and a custom container is kind of floating. Custom containers can be fun and definitely are more fun to find than yet another petling. And you are not likely to place 100 of them at the same time, filling every possible spot.
-
On 7/14/2021 at 5:01 PM, D41 said:
A couple of examples - there's a couple of caches here in my town that we looked for and didn't find. I failed to log them as DNF, but drive by them all the time and think I need to do a DNF and then fail to get it done.
Another example is how I and my family have been handling TB's. The website makes it extremely easy to log a visit of a trackable in your possession. In fact, I thought this was what we were supposed to be doing - taking the TBs with us and logging that they're moving around. I'm learning they're not supposed to "visit" caches, but be dropped in and retrieved from caches. I don't honestly understand WHY this manner of doing things is so important. If the TB is MOVING to a variety of caches, why does it matter who moves it? I'd think we'd want TBs to be in the hands of someone who is actively caching, as opposed to sitting in a cache waiting for someone to come along who may just keep the thing.... I have a couple of TBs of my own that I've not released yet, because there aren't any good places to put them. I've visited a couple of TBHs in my area. One was completely and totally overrun with fire ants and the other was too small to hold my TBs. Anyway - the expectations for TBs are confusing for me.
DNF: No need to log a DNF if you don't feel sure that it is gone. DNF on a cache that is just hard to find makes more harm than good.
TBs: Of course you can log "visit". When you do, the owner sees that it is active, which makes the owner happy. Don't feel bad about that. I can't understand why someone would oppose to "visit" logs. They are there for a reason.
Some TBs are hard to place. Take this for instance:
I had that for a while. My intention was to place it in a "large" cache that I own, but it was too large! And it isn't the largest TB I have seen.
-
2
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, lee737 said:
Another reason community maintenance does the game a disservice. Caches from inactive players should be archived once problems aren't fixed - taking out unsupervised caches/logs and freeing up spots for other players.
You have a point in that even if an active cacher monitors the cache, that cacher can't delete a fake log. Everything else we can help with.
-
On 6/8/2021 at 12:29 AM, cerberus1 said:
I do agree that "quality" (to me) caches are fewer and far between. 1.5 in a row hides are old hat (for me), and I'd need a bit more for a FP...
I totally agree on that - most of the time. 1.5/1.5 petlings generally don't make it, and I often skip them becacuse they are not interesting.
But it has happened that we found an FP-worthy 1.5/1.5. We found a short trail, 4-5 caches in a nice area including a tree climbing cache (yes, bring them on!), but the first was 1.5/1.5 so we just walked past it to get to the tree climbing cache.
But they we noticed, it had something like 20 FPs! OK, let's give it a chance! And indeed, it was very nice, just easy. The CO quickly positioned himself as the best in the area, so we need to have some FPs saved before visinging any of his caches.
That is an exception, though. Usually, 1.5/1.5 and thereabout are just a petling at face height or a film canister behind a sign. No FPs unless the location justifies it.
I do "squirrel" some FPs, but I have too few since I am actively looking for good ones. I got the suggesting to take a power trail to get a bunch to spend, but no, I am not power trailing! Not my style. Thus, I always have too few.
-
On 6/8/2021 at 4:59 AM, mraudrey said:
If you want to find geocaches worthy of favorite points, look for caches hidden by COs who have a high favorite point to hide ratio. The best CO I know of around where I live is WarNinjas with almost 8 points per hide.
Doesn't the % FPs say more? 8 FPs on a hide with 200 finds is not as convincing as 8 FPs on a cache with 10 finds.
-
On 7/14/2021 at 11:59 PM, brodiebunch said:
A favorite point here is the equivalent to the heart on Instagram or a like on Facebook-meaningless in the scheme of life.
Not the way I see it. An FP is a recommendation, to other cachers to try the cache, and, also important, to tell the CO that the cache is good and therefore worth maintaining and keeping. No FP = downvote, uninteresting, don't bother keeping it. TFTC and copy-paste logs are also downvotes as I see it because yes, a good log counts, but not numerically.
So I tend to archive caches with no or few FPs. It is the only measure I have on whether a cache is worthwhile or not.
-
On 7/14/2021 at 2:31 PM, coachstahly said:
They got rid of ALRs for a reason and you want them brought back?
They also got rid of the requirement of an event having a log book. I'm not really sure why (I'm sure the reason was discussed here) but you'd want them to go back to the way it used to be, just like with the above ALR.
While there are certainly those that "cheat", I have to wonder at the percentage of overall finds that we're talking about. Are we talking about 10% of the overall finds logged or is it some smaller percentage? Or larger? Is cheating some rampant issue that's permeating the activity everywhere or is it somewhat isolated by a pocket here or there? I don't see a high number in my area of false logs from our regular cachers but I do see some that come through from elsewhere that have a tendency to be logging incorrectly, either via a claimed find with no signature or a throwdown.
The most effective way to combat this is to put the onus on COs and not on Groundspeak. That's the best solution, by far.
For caches: Taking a photo of the log book, a very specific requirement for specific situations, is not the same thing as bringing back arbitrary ALRs.
For events: Like I said, I see absoluetly no reason why the event log book should not be signed. Bad rule, fix it!
Putting the responsability on the CO does not work. Once a CO quits, cheaters can log all the COs lost caches as much as they please. The CO won't care.
There are cheaters, and one big problem they make is that they keep lost caches alive.
-
2
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, brodiebunch said:
17- all are archived now.
I now prefer to be a geocache finder than a geocache owner.
But the 17 you made still is a contribution.
-
On 7/14/2021 at 2:51 PM, coachstahly said:
D/T combos, types of hides, and sizes of hides.
I adopted 14 that were placed before I started hiding my own and 5 (plus a couple that have since been archived) more that were placed while I was hiding. 19 active adopted caches of the 87 I currently have active. Looks like I'm all over the place on my D/T grid and all over the place with type and size.
Interesting distribution, which fits well in that you clearly prefer to make caches with a mental challenge, right? "Sweet spot" around D3T2 instead of my D2T3. Sound good, different because we have a different preference and that is a good thing.
-
We have talked about cheating elsewhere, but how about possible ways to prevent it? Maybe with help from Groundspeak.
Logging caches that are lost. Nobody can prove you did not find it! But how about putting some burden of proof on the finder? If you log an archived cache, or a cache with three or more recent DNF, how about demanding a photo as proof? The same goes for logging an archived cache.
Logging an event you did not attend. This one is easy: Demand everybody to sign the log book. And don't give that "what if the EO did not attend". If the EO was not there it is equivalent to a CO not placing a cache when publishing it.
Any other cases? Other possible improvements/solutions?
Let us not complain about the existence of cheaters, let us consider solutions.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:
Mine also peaks at 2/3, although I haven't hidden anywhere near as many as you:
The three T5s are water access caches, there being lots of nice waterways for kayaking here. The one and only 1.5/1.5 was my very first cache (GC4CAXV) and the 1/1 was an event.
As you can see, neither of us are into creating difficult puzzles.
Nice! It looks like we share the idea of the "sweet spot" in the middle.
My first was also a 1.5/1.5. It is the natural place to start, but I left it pretty soon.
My D1T5 was a tree climbing cache where you needed gear, but it was visible from 100 meters! I was kind of proud of that. That is a D1!
Several of my 4.5's and one T5 are over water. 4.5's are easy enough to swim.
-
10% caches I most want to recommend, for whatever reason. All there is to it IMHO.
-
I think an interesting related question is the distribution of the placed caches, and why.
I have placed 240, 79 archived. But what I find important is where my peak is: D2T3, with most caches around that, with a considerable number at T3.5 and T4.
Why? Because that is what I consider the "sweet spot", caches that are not super easy but not too hard, managable for most people but a bit challenging. I don't care much for the highest D, nor T5, and it is pretty obvius that I don't make many 1.5/1.5's.
This is my take on making caches. Many multis, often free climbing in trees. It is what I feel I want to do. But we are all different so how about you?
-
I must share a related experience.
I logged a Wherigo a few years ago. At one stage, it pointed straight into someone's garden (I think it was a summerhouse)! After walking about for a bit outside, my locaction was finally identified as outside but inside the zone, but it was clearly too close to the garden.
I informed the CO who got angry with me for "whining" and told me to go and log PTs instead. Not OK! I was trying to help him to avoid conflicts and he took offense instead of showing any interest in fixing the problem.
The privacy of people near our caching activities must have priority.
-
3
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, Lostboy1966 said:
That descriptive has always stuck in my craw a bit, to be honest. I'm all for the 'we all are free to play the game our own way' mantra. My mantra happens to be putting a lot of effort into (hopefully) fun container builds. So yes, sometimes my only reason for placing a hide IS for the geocache. I have not had many complaints so far.
I think gadget caches would be the perfect exception from that statement. It is much more relevant for cache bombs, filling an entire area with petlings.
.png)
.png)
Either way, not my style of hide, but to each their own... 
Lonely Caches - Does time include maintenance/ CO check?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Time since last found and time since last maintenance are two different measures, both relevant. The last of the two, too. I wouldn't rule out any. I believe that the Project-GC number is about the last found.
The whole concept about lonely caches is important and I really would love to see "lonely days" challenges be allowed again. That is just about the only challenge I would consider creating myself.