Ragnemalm

I know that your son liked it. My point was that it had been ignored by the person it was actually intended for.

Absolutely. It is done all the time, not least with JiGiDi puzzles. And there are various caches based on JavaScript programs. It is not very different from googling for answers to a mystery. What I would not do is to download a binary to run on my computer. Then there are no safety barriers to my data and not even a virus checker would help.

FTF price ignored by the person making the FTF? That is my experience with placing FTF prices. I had a few in my early caches but they were totally ignored. Same thing with tradable items, they stay forever. I have stopped placing these extras, they are not meaningful.

Most souvenirs are like this. They just roll in by themselves by logging a few caches. It was even worse with the "Memory Lane", which just came by itself with 10-20 finds. The souvenir page is littered with souvenirs that I never tried getting.

Did you skip real lab caches??? Are we talking about the same kind of lab caches, the temporary, physical ones, often highly advanced and special, on mega events? They are a prime attraction on mega events, but I don't know if they will survive ALCs.

I totally understand your feeling! And hiding them from yourself doesn't help because you know that the ALC s may limit (eliminate?) the interest in Wherigos and lab caches (the original kind), and also make virtuals obsolete shortly after reviving them. ALCs pop up everywhere now. It seems virually everyone gets one. But we can't do anything but watching and see if this changes the hobby in the long run. Are Groundspeak trying to change geocaching into being mainly virtual or is this something temporary?

The short life of O-rings when exposed to sunlight is a major problem on cheap bison tubes. There are bisons with good O-rings, but I don't know how to spot them. BTW, bisons come in many varieties, and at least for a while I could get them very cheap. A quick dive in my cache material surfaced five different sizes, and I have at least one more, plus that I also know of the "bullet" kind that I don't have. The variety of sizes gives some freedom. I like the smallest best, 14mm I think, because it is small enough to comfortably drill a hole in a piece of wood (not a living tree, of course) to hide it. And hiding it where the sun doesn't shine on it will prolong the O-ring's life by years, literally. The bigger ones are harder to make enclosures for but it can be done. Not to mention that the popularity of the cache will be a lot higher if it is more than just a plain bison tube. I have one that is protected by a small plywood box looking like a very small birdhouse. Much more fun to find! Protecting the O-ring can be even easier. I figured out that I could make small caches with locks with a transparent plastic test tube with a 14mm bison. I hade one of those hanging from a tree several years. Finally, the test tube fell apart from the wear of the sunlight but the O-ring was fresh! The transparent plastic had protected it from the UV so it hadn't deteriorated!

You are perfectly right, I misread/misunderstood the question. Of course it is questionable for them to review their own caches. Then the question makes more sense.

Interesting thought. A reviewer will have all information about other caches, so finding free locations is then trivial, often a tough problem for the rest of us. Speaking of that, I wish us "common folks" could get a level of trust where we could find free spots in myst-heavy areas. Personally, I know the locaction of literally hundreds of mysteries that I havn't solved, given to me by other caches simply for finding free space, and I do not log a single one of them without solving them myself. But I know, how can GS know that I am to trust on that with thousands of people logging other's solutions, or having other cachers putting their name in the log while they stand besides just waiting? Reviewers are expected to have their own regular account so why should they not publish their own? IMHO, the knowledge of final locations of mysts and multis is must more sensitive and where they must be given the highest level of trust.

But if you are only caching casually, do you need a premium subscription? But I agree, COs that maintain more than they (that is, we) log should be acknowledged a little more as volounteers than as users. Except for summertime, I tend to do more maintenance than logging.

Nice or in other ways spectacular places, like a dump, in both cases I hope visitors will react on it. Some places are nice except for litter. CITO time!

It depends on the cache, but for unusual caches, there are a few typical logs that make me suspicious. I mean custom caches, gadget caches and well as many high T caches, and high D that are not solve-at-home-mysteries, caches that are intended to give a unique experience of some kind. Simple caches, a plain petling in some dull place or a lock-and-lock under a pile of branches, for those anything goes, but if an unusual cache gets: TFTC Easy find (imagine that on a 4-stage D4T4 multi with field puzzles or similar) "We logged 200 caches today and this was one of them" LOOONG copy-pastes without a single word about the cache or anything else that just treats my special cache as dirt, as just-another-boring-cache then I get suspicios. I call them "half an NM", if nothing else I should check the log, if it has been signed. I know that many beginners log TFTC on everything, they havn't realized what the log is for yet, but experienced cachers are not expected to log TFTC on a custom cache. (Some do, yes.) And often it hasn't been logged. Sometimes it is just the same old "saw it but couldn't reach it". There could be a throwdown, or the cache may be broken. I have had one cache with a lock where the lock was forced, destroyed. Another was quite weird‚ a T4 at about 7 meters up in a tree where there is a fake cache at the ground with a clear message that this is not the cache. Someone climbed up, brought the log down and put it in the fake! (Straight up sabotage, just not as destrucive as the broken lock.) Of course I got suspicious logs after that. So, my answer to the question is simply, if the log just doesn't match the cache, then I get suspicious.

Good example of a cache that you should not archive because of few finds. Some of the best caching experiences are made on these caches. It is more an issue for the other thread, though, a cache that hopefully gets a good FP percentage, although never high numbers. (Percentages with few finds are, however, very sensitive to downvotes.)

I just found this thread, so let me comment on the start. (Yes, I have read several follow-ups.) Encouraging using FPs doesn't make ordinary ones "losing", it just gives us another measure than number of finds. Many COs aim totally for getting many finds, which gives us long trails of 1.5/1.5's. That's their goal. If some of us instead aim for getting nice logs and FPs, it will give the game some more variation. This is especially true when measuring FP% or Wilson (which, unfortunately, Groundspeak has not provided as a tool, but Project-GC does). Face it, quality caches drown in power trails, but if people start looking for them they have a chance. So who is the loser? The one who gets 1000 finds but no FPs, or the one who gets 10 finds and 100% FPs? I say: both! We all decide on our goals. The FPs just help the variation to stay alive in the flood of petlings and film canisters in uninteresting places.

That's what I asked for, a reference! That explains the comment.

In what context? When, why? After how long?

It definitely isn't geocaching, but can be done - with great risks of landing illegaly or impossible to find. (Risk for litter remaining in forests.)

Different topic, but that is what I personally call real caching! Some year ago we were three who went out to log some pretty tough caches a bit out in the wilderness, one of which we had tried twice before! We needed rope for safety, despite T3 and T3.5! (Very steep places, could have been climbed without rope but that would have been very dangerous.) Took several hours, only two caches, but we were happy! Overcoming a true challenge is worth so much more than logging for numbers. The caches are gone now, but I hope to be able to replace when with some even better ones this summer, if I can find the motivation. Great place, and I already have permission of the land owner.

That is what I see too and that is why I made the mistake (like many others). I should check if I can make the page default to the old logging page. OTOH, as long as "archive" isn't default...

Update: In order to test my idea and revive my caching in my home area, I have been revisiting over 200 caches during 2020! I do that with the rules that I have set up for myself: Must be at least 2 years since original find. Mysts and multis should be solved again. Only once per cache (or maybe after another 2 years, but that is irrelevant now). All revisits are properly recorded in a revisit history. Conclusion: In most cases, it feels like new! Caches are moved, vegetation has changed, I have often forgotten about the hiding place and/or the surroundings (especially when 7-8 years have passed). And I gave myself over 200 extra reasons to go out caching, often including cycling or walking long enough to be decent exercise. My own home area is suddenly fresh and new to explore as caching area. And I can do caching without travelling long distances to find ones I havn't logged.

I read the thread and I see two kinds of problems: Very careless COs that don't react on multiple problems. Accidentally logging OM when you really just want to make a note stating your plan for maintenance. I have done the latter a few times, totally unintentional. OM is the default, so I have to change to note, and if I am in a hurry I can forget - and then the NM flag is taken down. Should OM really be the default?

My list was entirely revised during the year. The mega was cancelled, and I was not allowed to make the bathing event either. My archiving was modest, way lower than intended. Like the easy and unpopular tree climbing cache that I just liked too much to archive. So the intended 50 was more like 10. I better repeat that goal. But I did fulfill the goal of not letting any cache be archived by a reviewer. The last goal, caching more for exercise, was fulfilled far beyond my ambition, since I decided to start revisiting caches (logged 2 years back or more) on a regular basis. I have revisited more than 200 caches and it was very valuable for reviving my caching! Most were just like going to a new one, since they very often had changed over time. But I also put up two more goals later during the year, closely related: Reach 16% FPs. This meant archiving a few bad ones and publishing ambitious ones. (16% is not very high but a level I could reasonably hope for.) Beat the two biggest COs in Sweden on number of FPs. (This is questionable since it means comparing few with relatively much work put into them to mass-placement but it felt tempting.) This also means getting triple diamond on the "favorited owner" badge. Both were fulfilled. Of course this was very much a question of hoping for visitors to like my caches and waiting for some positive effect, but also about maintenance and keeping a high level on new caches. I have started making my caches with my 3D printer, initially with designs off the web but then moving mostly into custom designs, typically thematic. Some went very well, and they are definitely different from all the petlings and film canisters.

YES! Not to mention this: Adventure Labs should be kept separate from Lab Caches! Adventure Labs, the way they work now, with logs for each stage, waters down geocaching logs. Are Groundspeak considering turning geocaching all virtual? And they are quickly growing. Two new in my area TODAY! So Groundspeak, what is the intention? Are you intentionally moving towards all-virtual? Why not making this a separate activity?

I can mention at least two cases on our own caches where it would have helped to know beforehand that you don't need tools, and plenty more on other COs. Just the other day, I was fortunate enough to have a cacher mentioning that he had seen something suspicious and thought he would need to come back with tools - which could render the whole construction useless. Fortunately, I could stop him and tell him that no tools were needed. On a mega event, before the cache publications at the end, we were explicitly instructed that we needed to bring screwdrivers. Those screwdrivers that have damaged caches for me in the past! I didn't like to hear that. And indeed, there were damaged caches out there. If this attribute doesn't matter since people don't check attributes, then no attributes are worth anything. With a negative attribute, you get three cases: Positive: You need tools for this cache. None: This is a simple cache so it is obvious that you don't need any so it isn't stated. Negative: Please do NOT use tools on this cache. That sounds like how attributes are supposed to work. Just like tree cimbing, either it is, or it obviously isn't, or it is important to inform you that it isn't. The attributes are added when they give some valid information.

I realized that there is no negative attribute to "special tool required". Why is that omitted? I would definitely use it a lot. It is well known that amazing gadget caches are often damaged by "special tools", screwdrivers in particular but also wrenches and pliers. Also, objects near caches are taken apart, sometimes with destructive results. We can't forbid people to being screwdrivers and wrenches, but they cause much harm. It would help to simply check an attribute, hinting that no tools are needed, telling people to try without. We know that not all people check out the attributes, but for those who do, it can be a valuable hint. So, again, why is there no negative version of "special tool required"?