Rockin Roddy

So we're supposed to know that the hide is so devilish that no one could find it, we should warn the reviewers of the possibility of a lot of DNFs and we should jump through hoops not jumped through by other hiders all because we're creative? And so what? If people can't find it and complain, do you believe TPTB would have acted any different? We're helping THEM. Without US hiding caches, how far would this activity go?? After talking with a cacher in Alaska, I can tell you what a lack of caches to find means...to them!! Without us hiding caches, there'd be no need for reviewers at all.... OK, I have to completely and thoroughly disagree with RR here. As a cache hider, it is your responsibility to rate your cache placement reasonably accurately. Most cachers know and understand the difference between an easy cache and a very hard one. As for US helping THEM, the reviewers are not paid to do their "job" they are VOLUNTEERS, this means that the time they spend on that part of the sport is time they are taking away from their families, hobbies, etc. Even if they were being paid, why in the he** would you want to make the job HARDER??? I see noting wrong with the idea of being proactive and giving the reviewer some "extra" information on a tough hide. Hey, if SF had sent Nomex a few photos of the container, do you really think we would have even had this thread? Even if he had archived the cache anyway, I'm 100% positive TPTB would have quickly overruled that decision. BTW, what's the GC # of the cache at the bottom of the ocean? Where in the whole thread did you see that the hide was rated improperly? Where in te thread or ANYWHERE did you see me say we shouldn't rate the caches properly? How did you come to adding this in the comment? No, they're NOT paid to do their "job", they asked to. They wouldn't even HAVE that "job" if it weren't for people hiding caches. Since we are ALSO volunteers, why should WE be made to work harder than the other hiders? Do others have to photogragh their hides? I see nothing wrong with the reviewer ASKING for more info if they feel the need, we shouldn't suddenly be told we MUST jump hoops simply because some think we should be doing the reviewers' jobs. If the reviewers had ASKED for a picture, do you think we would have this thread? We as hiders can't POSSIBLY know that our hides will be so hard that no one will be able to find them. I have hidden caches that I thought would surely fool the masses which were found very quickly, I have hidden caches (like my Where's The Elevator) which is so simple, it took us all of 5 minutes to place and has proven to be very difficult to find. Unlike the CO, I walked people to the find, I basically held their hands while they searched...but I shoulnd't have to be a mind reader and KNOW that the reviewers want photograghiv proof when they don't even HINT at it. Don't pretend the reviewers are doing anything they don't already want to be doing, they wouldn't be volunteers if that were the case. Rocky, I gotta disagree with you here. There are a lot more hiders than there are reviewers. The more information a hider can provide up front, the easier it makes it on everyone on the back end. I placed a cache in a park that happened to be close to a railroad. The reviewer sent me a note asking about the tracks. Instead of trying to explain the placement, I went right out and took pictures of the placement, the park, and the tracks so that the reviewer had a good idea of the placement without trying to figure out a description. In hindsight, having seen the tracks when I placed the cache, I should have taken those pictures and offered that information when I activated the cache listing. As for the reviewers wanting to do the job, that's really irrelevant. I have volunteered my time for similar endeavors. I can tell you that even though I really enjoyed the job, my patience was really taxed from time to time by certain players. A lot of players get the idea the reviewers sit all day long and approve or archive caches. That could not be further from the truth. Reviewers have a finite amount of time they can devote to the job and still work, see their family, cache, etc. Anything a hider can do to speed things up is probably greatly appreciated. Yep, you were ASKED to clarify and you did. Nothing out of the usual, I've done this many times. And?? Had you not been asked to clarify and you were just denied without anything other than "check if container is there", would you have known to provide info on the tracks?? The fact you provided pics merely tells me you knew the process would go faster so your cache would be approved. I highly doubt you did so for the sake of saving the reviewer time...ICBW Where on earth did you see me or anyone else say we thought the reviewers had nothing but time on their hands?? I agree, anything a hider can do to help...no problem there. BUT, anything a reviewer can do to help the CO would CERTAINLY spped up the process, therefore helping the reviewer...right? If you need a photo...ASK!! That's all I'm trying to say here. I'm not a mind reader, I have never known a CO required to provide photo proof and it should either be written in the guidelines or ASKED for! Simple. If the reviewers don't want to do their jobs, I bet they know full well how to be relieved. Seen it done not so long ago. Likewise, if GS feels the burden is too high on their reviewers, they know how to get more. I don't recall saying we should keep any important facts from the reviewer, I post ALL important info in my first post to him. I would expect the same consideration if there's something needed, like a picture perhaps. It's a two-way street which is EXACTLY my point!

For someone who doesn't care,you have expended a lot of energy trying to convince others of your view point. I think you're the only one posting for the defense, right now. Can you not accept that there was a break down in communications, that we will never be privy to all the details and that all attempts to find out those details will be futile? Right now you're trying to prove your point based on assuming facts not in evidence. You say the SF's hide wasn't fake. GS does, and has the evidence to prove it, which they rightfully have the right to withhold as this is not a criminal court. If you really, truly believe that the hide wasn't fake, provide proof. Otherwise, you are just rambling on to prove a point that the OP and the CO has decided is no longer worthy of their time. I'm not trying to convince ANYONE of anything. I am telling how I feel. If that convinces you, fine, if not, who cares? I believe I have said many times the problem was in the handling...I believe I accepted that from the start? GS has every right to withhold whatever....does that make them right? Should we believe them simply because they say so? If you really truly believe the cache was fake, please provide proof. Otherwise you're just rambling on to prove a point. Whether the CO agrees it's a waste of time or not, I don't think that comes into bearing with the posts I make, does it? And you want to bet there's more than just me still concerned? Prove it! I'm not trying to prove anything really, other than pointing out how circular and pointless this whole argument has become. You're doing a fine job proving my point for me. Seems you're happy to go circles with me?

For someone who doesn't care,you have expended a lot of energy trying to convince others of your view point. I think you're the only one posting for the defense, right now. Can you not accept that there was a break down in communications, that we will never be privy to all the details and that all attempts to find out those details will be futile? Right now you're trying to prove your point based on assuming facts not in evidence. You say the SF's hide wasn't fake. GS does, and has the evidence to prove it, which they rightfully have the right to withhold as this is not a criminal court. If you really, truly believe that the hide wasn't fake, provide proof. Otherwise, you are just rambling on to prove a point that the OP and the CO has decided is no longer worthy of their time. I'm not trying to convince ANYONE of anything. I am telling how I feel. If that convinces you, fine, if not, who cares? I believe I have said many times the problem was in the handling...I believe I accepted that from the start? GS has every right to withhold whatever....does that make them right? Should we believe them simply because they say so? If you really truly believe the cache was fake, please provide proof. Otherwise you're just rambling on to prove a point. Whether the CO agrees it's a waste of time or not, I don't think that comes into bearing with the posts I make, does it? And you want to bet there's more than just me still concerned? Prove it!

It's still hearsay. If past experience couple with hearsay leads to archival, this is bad bad bad....sure, watch more closely, but don't jump to conclusions! The fact remains that there was a container. I know some of the details of Krypto and it sounds to me like there's more to that story....a personal cache type thing? However, it's apples and oranges from this situation IMHO.

Ummmmm - really they do. The Colorado, Oregon, Dakota, Nuvi 500 series from Garmin are all enabled to drop the GPX directly on the unit and run - no need for even something like cache register. Even better. As for the older/other models - drop the GPX in EasyGPS and transfer takes about the same amount of time as fiddling with Cache Register. Even better? Don't you need to retrieve the PQ and then unzip? Seems like that's not better than simply syncing to me, but ymmv! And no, even if you do drop it into easygps, you've still done more than simply syncing.

That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT. Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough? My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE! If they can or can't prove anything is nothing about nothing at this point, I merely commented on a comment. Truly, I don't believe they CAN prove it. They believe their info to be correct and, it very well may be. However, this isn't proof, is it? Tell me, how would they be able to prove anything UNLESS they actually asked a local reviewer to go with the cache owner and check? Would THEY have believed a photo? So, short from hearing they did indeed ask the CO to lead a reviewer out there, no. But again, we're far past this point, and I am NOT asking for proof...haven't for several pages! I'm fairly confident that they would have believed a photo. What gives you the idea that a photo would not have been enough? Sadly, if the cache really existed and SF is telling the truth, it no longer exists. They could if a member of the team gave out the information. Well, I'd like to believe so as well, but the way they dismissed the word of the owner leaves doubt. Are you saying Mrs SF might have dropped a dime? I suppose anything is possible, but it surely is doubtful! Maybe because after previous actions of the owner(don't know if you remember the Kryptonite cache ordeal) his word might not mean much. I'm just throwing out possibilities. Maybe Mrs SF or kid SF could have let something slip. Anything is possible, but then, we're still talking about hearsay! And I would hope that past experience isn't the leading factor...nor even a tiny factor. btw...the Krypto cache, didn't that actually have a container?

That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT. Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough? My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE! If they can or can't prove anything is nothing about nothing at this point, I merely commented on a comment. Truly, I don't believe they CAN prove it. They believe their info to be correct and, it very well may be. However, this isn't proof, is it? Tell me, how would they be able to prove anything UNLESS they actually asked a local reviewer to go with the cache owner and check? Would THEY have believed a photo? So, short from hearing they did indeed ask the CO to lead a reviewer out there, no. But again, we're far past this point, and I am NOT asking for proof...haven't for several pages! I'm fairly confident that they would have believed a photo. What gives you the idea that a photo would not have been enough? Sadly, if the cache really existed and SF is telling the truth, it no longer exists. They could if a member of the team gave out the information. Well, I'd like to believe so as well, but the way they dismissed the word of the owner leaves doubt. Are you saying Mrs SF might have dropped a dime? I suppose anything is possible, but it surely is doubtful!

That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT. Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough? My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE! If they can or can't prove anything is nothing about nothing at this point, I merely commented on a comment. Truly, I don't believe they CAN prove it. They believe their info to be correct and, it very well may be. However, this isn't proof, is it? Tell me, how would they be able to prove anything UNLESS they actually asked a local reviewer to go with the cache owner and check? Would THEY have believed a photo? So, short from hearing they did indeed ask the CO to lead a reviewer out there, no. But again, we're far past this point, and I am NOT asking for proof...haven't for several pages!

You're making LOTS of friends in the reviewer ranks. I guess you don't want to have any other caches published on this site? I'm sorry if my stating the facts upsets you or anyone else, it certainly wasn't my intent. I hope you realize this to be fact though? btw, you may notice I have stated I am FRIENDS with my local reviewer(s)? Having over 100 caches/events under my belt, I don't think my stating a fact will harm that...and I do intend to have many more caches published, many coming in a few months!

I'd say that any hoax cache was rated improperly. It would surprise me to find that any of the reviewers asked for the job. It is my understanding that qualified individuals are approached about the positions, they don't seek them out. If teh cache 'owner' had submitted a pic with his appeal, we wouldn't be having this thread. Of course, you can't photograph what doesn't exist. When you can prove that cache was a hoax, your continued insistance it was will mean something. My mistake, they agreed to or chose to do what was asked them. Not a big difference IMHO. I wonder if any of the reviewers were forced into service? Any of you had a gun held to your heads when "asked" to become a VOLUNTEER?? And you can go in circles all day about the picture, the fact is NOT ONE hider has ever been known to be ASKED to provide photograghic proof. If this is what the reviewer wanted, they should have ASKED! Do you think that you could wander farther from this thread's topic? As for proving that the cache was a hoax, I don't have to. Nomex had the proof of this that he needed. His word and that of Miss Jenn is sufficient for me. The cache, therefore, was a hoax unless the cache owner is willing to prove otherwise. Gee, I answered your question and you complain I'm off-topic? Sorry, please don't ask if it's off topic then! Nomex nor Miss Jenn proved ANYTHING, or we'd not have a looong topic like this. They say they have proof, but is that proof hearsay? Is it indisputable? We'll never know! I don't doubt they believe they have proof, I just wonder how credible that proof is!

I'd say that any hoax cache was rated improperly. It would surprise me to find that any of the reviewers asked for the job. It is my understanding that qualified individuals are approached about the positions, they don't seek them out. If teh cache 'owner' had submitted a pic with his appeal, we wouldn't be having this thread. Of course, you can't photograph what doesn't exist. When you can prove that cache was a hoax, your continued insistance it was will mean something. My mistake, they agreed to or chose to do what was asked them. Not a big difference IMHO. I wonder if any of the reviewers were forced into service? Any of you had a gun held to your heads when "asked" to become a VOLUNTEER?? And you can go in circles all day about the picture, the fact is NOT ONE hider has ever been known to be ASKED to provide photograghic proof. If this is what the reviewer wanted, they should have ASKED!

Hey Keystone, let me ask...are you happy to do your reviewer chores? Are you happy to do your mod duties?? Would you be happy if cachers suddenly stopped hiding caches?

btw, I've had caches activated in minutes...but I never took a picture or read a reviewer's mind in the hiding or posting process. Some of you seem to think the reviewers are doing us hiders a favor...how? If I wanted to, I could hide caches all I want in other sites...reviewers not needed! I appreciate my reviewers, I appreciate the mods, the PTB and all of GS, but I'm not diluted in believing they're doing me a favor by doing what their "bosses" have empowered them to do.

Actually, those hoops should be jumped through by everybody. I put a cache in a park a few months ago, that already had two placed there. In a reviewer note, I told the reviewer up front that I had measured the distance from the other two caches and made sure that none of the waypoints used or the final violated the 528' rule. Sure, I could have let the reviewer do that and slow down the publication of mine and others, andI am still sure they at least did a quick check, but it was easy. And my cache got approved in about 3 hours. There seems to be a huge sense of entitlement around lately, that we should be getting a lot from the TPTB, and that they ask too much of us. These folks are mostly unpaid volunteers that do this on their free time, possibly cutting into their caching time. What's so wrong with helping a person out? I'm not sure where you're going with this. I can say this though: without reivewers, there would be no caches to find. A cyclical argument. I bet you think the reviewer simply took your word on the cache being far enough away? Not likely, my friend! They checked, you can bet on that...AND, while they likely appreciated your addition, it likely didn't speed up the process. You're acting like we hiders don't do this on a regular basis? I know my reviewer by name, by sight and by character, I know him as a friend. He's the one who usually OKs my hides, I leave notes that are more like friends chatting than a list of what is and isn't. I believe the reviewer knows my style of hides (should, I've hiddne plenty), just as I believe he knows I know what's expected of me. A normal note would say something to the extent of what the container is, how i's hidden, whether there's anything of concern around the hide etc...this is NORMAL for me. Now, what would be abnormal and what I would consider "hoops" would be if he asked me to take pictures of the container, of the hiding location or of the areas around the hides. What I would consider "hoops" would be being asked to PROVE my cache was there... Without hiders, there'd be no need for reviewers. Without hiders, there'd be no caching, period. That sense of entitlement...where is it? If, by entitlement, you mean we shouldn't expect the reviewers to do what they are supposed to do, I guess you're right!

So we're supposed to know that the hide is so devilish that no one could find it, we should warn the reviewers of the possibility of a lot of DNFs and we should jump through hoops not jumped through by other hiders all because we're creative? And so what? If people can't find it and complain, do you believe TPTB would have acted any different? We're helping THEM. Without US hiding caches, how far would this activity go?? After talking with a cacher in Alaska, I can tell you what a lack of caches to find means...to them!! Without us hiding caches, there'd be no need for reviewers at all.... OK, I have to completely and thoroughly disagree with RR here. As a cache hider, it is your responsibility to rate your cache placement reasonably accurately. Most cachers know and understand the difference between an easy cache and a very hard one. As for US helping THEM, the reviewers are not paid to do their "job" they are VOLUNTEERS, this means that the time they spend on that part of the sport is time they are taking away from their families, hobbies, etc. Even if they were being paid, why in the he** would you want to make the job HARDER??? I see noting wrong with the idea of being proactive and giving the reviewer some "extra" information on a tough hide. Hey, if SF had sent Nomex a few photos of the container, do you really think we would have even had this thread? Even if he had archived the cache anyway, I'm 100% positive TPTB would have quickly overruled that decision. BTW, what's the GC # of the cache at the bottom of the ocean? Where in the whole thread did you see that the hide was rated improperly? Where in te thread or ANYWHERE did you see me say we shouldn't rate the caches properly? How did you come to adding this in the comment? No, they're NOT paid to do their "job", they asked to. They wouldn't even HAVE that "job" if it weren't for people hiding caches. Since we are ALSO volunteers, why should WE be made to work harder than the other hiders? Do others have to photogragh their hides? I see nothing wrong with the reviewer ASKING for more info if they feel the need, we shouldn't suddenly be told we MUST jump hoops simply because some think we should be doing the reviewers' jobs. If the reviewers had ASKED for a picture, do you think we would have this thread? We as hiders can't POSSIBLY know that our hides will be so hard that no one will be able to find them. I have hidden caches that I thought would surely fool the masses which were found very quickly, I have hidden caches (like my Where's The Elevator) which is so simple, it took us all of 5 minutes to place and has proven to be very difficult to find. Unlike the CO, I walked people to the find, I basically held their hands while they searched...but I shoulnd't have to be a mind reader and KNOW that the reviewers want photograghiv proof when they don't even HINT at it. Don't pretend the reviewers are doing anything they don't already want to be doing, they wouldn't be volunteers if that were the case.

My condolences. I hope this thread will stay positive and not turn into a debate about liability, I'm sure that's not what was intended when this was started?

yep I reckon the Rat was keen on taking the toys - my next cache should have some lovely surprises for the next rats!!!! ...now that will solve a few problems..... Careful, that sounds like you might be threatening to leave it booby trapped? Without knowing more info, we can't tell what happened and can only assume that it very well could have been moved by rodents.

So we're supposed to know that the hide is so devilish that no one could find it, we should warn the reviewers of the possibility of a lot of DNFs and we should jump through hoops not jumped through by other hiders all because we're creative? And so what? If people can't find it and complain, do you believe TPTB would have acted any different? We're helping THEM. Without US hiding caches, how far would this activity go?? After talking with a cacher in Alaska, I can tell you what a lack of caches to find means...to them!! Without us hiding caches, there'd be no need for reviewers at all....

By this argument cache owners should never archive their own cache just because they think it is missing. But cache owners do this every day. Some do it simply based on the cache getting several DNFs - they don't even try to check to see if the cache is there. Are cache owners any different than a reviewer who sees evidence that a cache has gone missing or may have never even been there and archives it? The only difference is that when a reviewer archives a cache, the cache owner can present evidence that the cache is there and get it unarchived. The difference is, the owner has a CHOICE whether they want to archive unlike in this situation.

Then maybe you shouldn't bother to post if you can't be bothered to read. Your post is so far from what happened......

Absolutely there is a difference. One, there is a cache there waiting for someone smart/persistent/good enough to find it. The another there isn't. I went back and bolded the part of my comment that you might have missed. If a cache is so difficult that no one can find it, it is equivalent to a cache that does not exist. "No one can find it" would exclude anyone being smart/persistent/good enough to find it. Schrödinger's cache, if you will. If a cache falls in the forest and no one finds it, is it really there? Like Zen, the concept is so simple that it is difficult for some to grasp. Several times in this thread someone has mentioned the cache at the bottom of the ocean. Well, what's the point of that? I could flush a micro down my toilet and post the coordinates for my septic tank, but what's the point of that? The point of this game, if it has one, is NOT to create caches so hard that no mere mortal can find them. Any fool can do that. Weight down an ammo box and toss it overboard, or toss a blinkie into a swamp. But it takes real skill to create a cache that CAN be found, but only after extreme effort. A great cache provides an "aha" moment. An impossible cache only creates frustration. Did Jiendo really exist, or was it a hoax? It doesn't matter. If it had been found, it would have provided the finder with a tremendous "aha" moment. But it was not found, and now it never will be found. So, functionally, it is identical to a cache that never was. And you missed that it is still possible to find, just that those who tried weren't able to do so. If a cache is there, it has the possibility of being found. So what you're saying is that if I take a bison tube, disguise it like a rock, and toss it in a field of riprap and it is never found because of the difficulty of the hide ( a true needle in a haystack, if you will), then it is different than a cache that isn't there? Would you be able to find it? Would anyone? That is no different than if I published a cache page stating I had hidden such a hide and had not. In both instances, no one has the chance of finding it: on one occasion because I hid a weapons-grade stupid hide, and in the other because I just wanted to be a royal pain to other cachers. I suspect that if SF had been up front with the reviewer and said that this was to be a fiendish find, described it (with pictures or drawings), and stated that there might be a bevy of DNF"S on this thing, we'd not be in the situation we are today. Although, I know I'll just get some snarky comment back about how we shouldn't have to do that, and that there is nothing anywhere stating that we should/have/ought to, I'll save you that trouble. However, it's this sense that we should wait for GS or reviewers to ask us for something, when we should be proactive in helping them. If you design a devilish hide, be proactive about working with your reviewers. They're helping us,so why not make their job easier? *edited for grammar and what not One never knows, but at least I would have a chance, I WOULD!!! You can't say there's no difference, in one instance you LIED about placing the container, so there's ZERO chance of finding it since it's not there. In the other instance, you did hide it and I have a chance, no matter how remote. That's pretty obvious to me! And you can't say NO ONE, there's ALWAYS a chance if it's actually there!

gpsfiledepot is one place...

I didn't...for a looong time. Nut, you know me, BD, I can't stop myself at times!!

Or, it could be that some owners expect too much! Some people really don't see the "damage" a tag makes....complaining after the fact is tsome owners' way of handling it. I would choose a pro-active way if I were truly irked by the thought of someone adding something to my traveler. Of course, I'm more open to allowing people to add, it gives my traveler history...ymmv. Give it a bit of thought...you released a traveler. I think everyone here knows that you never release something you don't want to lose...right? So, if we release expecting things can happen (loss, stolen whatever), why do we act surprised or even irked if someone adds something? We're OK with the chance of an item being stolen but I'll be dogged if they "vandalize" it? And really, do you think you actually "own" this item once it's released? Sure, you have a nice page stating it's yours...does this seem to matter to BettyTBSnathcer? Considering you recommended people state on the bug that they don't want anything added means that you think they do have some measure of control after it is released. Yes, we expect bugs to be mistreated and mishandled but that does not give anyone permission to mistreat or mishandle them. As a community we have an agreement to assist bugs in a reasonable manner or we leave them alone. Taking advantage of the situation by grabbing a bug and saying well, you shouldn't have released it if you didn't want anything to happen to it is not cool in my book. I expect people to do lot's of things with bugs, good and bad, and I don't get overly excited when bad things happen, just like I don't get overly excited about someone adding a tag but if you think I am going agree the practice, you're wrong. Some people just don't know it's not accepted to put tags on. Some people don't care, but those people won't care if the page says not to attach. Those who don't know could care and, upon seeing the message, might not add. Will this stop the person(s) in question? I doubt it since I have mentioned it to both of them, but if I were an owner worried about attachements, I certainly would do whatever I could to try to stop it from happening. I'm not condoning nor condemning, and I don't care if you or anyone posts a message as I suggested, I am just sharing for those who are newbs etc.

Absolutely there is a difference. One, there is a cache there waiting for someone smart/persistent/good enough to find it. The another there isn't. I went back and bolded the part of my comment that you might have missed. If a cache is so difficult that no one can find it, it is equivalent to a cache that does not exist. "No one can find it" would exclude anyone being smart/persistent/good enough to find it. Schrödinger's cache, if you will. If a cache falls in the forest and no one finds it, is it really there? Like Zen, the concept is so simple that it is difficult for some to grasp. Several times in this thread someone has mentioned the cache at the bottom of the ocean. Well, what's the point of that? I could flush a micro down my toilet and post the coordinates for my septic tank, but what's the point of that? The point of this game, if it has one, is NOT to create caches so hard that no mere mortal can find them. Any fool can do that. Weight down an ammo box and toss it overboard, or toss a blinkie into a swamp. But it takes real skill to create a cache that CAN be found, but only after extreme effort. A great cache provides an "aha" moment. An impossible cache only creates frustration. Did Jiendo really exist, or was it a hoax? It doesn't matter. If it had been found, it would have provided the finder with a tremendous "aha" moment. But it was not found, and now it never will be found. So, functionally, it is identical to a cache that never was. And you missed that it is still possible to find, just that those who tried weren't able to do so. If a cache is there, it has the possibility of being found.