Jump to content

JPreto

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    529
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JPreto

  1. In the above case it was simple: logbook in German! Nothing supernatural... And I put in bold the cases where you should, plain and simple log a DNF! Of course!!! If I know it´s a amno box and I find a 35mm film I will log a find because there are some COs that don´t update the cache page (I always complain about this, maybe another reason for them not to like my attitudes) but the CO has the power to (and for me he really should) delete my log if I found a throwdown instead of the real cache.
  2. We are different geocachers... This is just an example of a situation like the one you describe! http://coord.info/GLE2KRYR First I found the green container which is a throwdown but I keept searching for the correct container and found it! So, what to do with the logs on the green container, that is a throwdown... But if you want yet another example you have this: http://coord.info/GLE2KVMH As my log says, the cache was always there but many people just either logged another logbook or didn´t log at all... In both cases none of the bogus logs were deleted meaning that the CO clearly don´t follow Groundspeak recommendations. Am I the only one to see this?
  3. Same story all over! Ok, lets think together: This is what the OP asked our opinion about! If I can read correctly, the OP says: So, it is clear the geocache was there, but people have not been finding it but another container (not the geocache) in a different place that the OP placed it. Basically is a situation like this: 1. I place a cache 3 meters high in a tree. 2. A "fellow geocacher" goes there, can´t find the geocache and places a throwdown at the base of the tree. 3. The next geocachers don´t even have to climb the tree since there is a new container at the base of the tree. Do you really think the next geocachers, that found the "base of the tree container" are "entitled" to say "Found it"?
  4. It might not be a bad idea. There's a geocache near here that was archived by the owner due to people finding a letterbox nearby in sad condition and posting NM notes on the geocache page. I can imagine the same thing happening with throwdowns, as they tend not to be very nice containers. At some point there needs to be a clear message sent that there should be more responsibility for knowing exactly what you are finding, as well as not littering the area with fake caches. Similar story with the games that use QR stickers. While it's unfortunate that some people are easily misled by a sticker or a piece of garbage near the cache, some COs do like to maintain a semblance of integrity. For all the fussing that goes on about other people false achievements somehow degrading their own real ones, it's a little surprising to see so many people defending poor behaviour. Not for me... I would be surprised if geocachers started deleting bogus logs and respecting what Groundspeak defends in their guidelines: Actually is a geocacher´s dutty to delete bogus and counterfeit logs. Simple, just follow the guidelines!
  5. Don´t be like that... It´s their company, they can do whatever they want!
  6. Maybe they should insert the following sentence into their challenge guidelines: Oh, wait. They already did. What is a "reasonable number"? In Brazil a reasonable number may be 1/300 and in the USA may be 100/30.000. Same odds... Again don´t you just love the subjectivity of the guidelines!
  7. Find 10 caches that are in a 10km radious from this one!
  8. Ohhh yes.... big difference! To the original OP just talk to the 18 players and let them all add, prior to their name ".O." then say in the cache page that for you to sign the cache you must have found at least 5 caches from users that start with ".O." In this way you are not specifying the cache owners because it can be ANY person with a ".O." at the start of their name. PS: Ohhh wait, I forgot... It´s bad to find ways to breach the guidelines, so even tho you can do this... don´t!
  9. My kind of person!!!! Lets start an Anti-Throwdown movement!!!!
  10. My kind of person!!!! Lets start an Anti-Throwdown movement!!!!
  11. What if I can show a photo with a cache box at that location, showing a logbook and - among others - my signature in it? Proof enough? How do you know it's the correct cache? I don´t... that is why I attach in all my logs a photo of the logbook and the cache. Sometimes a CO can´t even know that a throwdown was placed... If he looks at my log and say: "WTF, this is not my cache" he can delete my log (has reason for that because I didn´s sign the logbook) and go to the cache location, check if the original container is there and remove the throwdown. Geocaching is more than having a number... what is the problem of deleting the FOUND IT of a cache that you actually didn´t find? The container you found was not the correct one but one that some "fellow geocachers" placed. In my opinion you should be mad with the "fellow geocachers" that placed an extra geocache and not the CO. They were the ones that placed a new container clearly without the CO permit! If everybody complained about throwdowns and the COs deleted all logs that were placed in the wrong throwdown containers problems like these would cease to happen.
  12. Aren't you the one who is in the habit of photographing his logbook signings (with some sort of poker chip, as I recall)? What do you think that TPTB will do when someone offers up such a photograph to substantiate their claim? Further, what if ten or more people make the same claim? If I found the wrong container (the photo I took is of the wrong container) then I have no claim that I found the geocache. If the CO would just tell me I found the wrong cache I would say: "Ok, I will delete my log but please remove the wrong container!" And I would post a note on the cache listing with the photo of the container saying: "This is not the correct container" Simple!
  13. If you were to delete my log thusly, I would appeal the deletion to TPTB and recommend that everyone else did, also. When those logs were then reinstated, would you still consider the problem solved? The logs would be reinstated and you're local caching community would have yet one more reason to dislike you. Your actions wouldn't solve the problem. It would merely ratchet up the angst level. You really think so? What about my proof that they didn´t sign the logbook? A simple photo of the logbook solved the problem... Exactly like "narcisa" puts it! This for me is the way to do it... Wrong cache on the garbage, where it belongs! All online logs that have no signature in the correct logbook delete!!! Simple... And if it was like "sbell111" says, that all deleted logs would be reinstated by Groundspeak, anyone of those "achievers" would go in any cache, place a new cache, write any name and they sign the logbook and there would be no way that the CO could delete the log. Or even more just say: "I wrote my name on the logbook, maybe someone stole the cache that I sign after I did it. Not my problem." This just doesn´t make any sense for me... It really seems very hard to believe that Groundspeak would reinstate a log when a person didn´t sign the cache´s logbook, but I have no proof in either way, not a single example in my caches so far that I deleted a log were reinstated and all the logs that the CO deleted my log were reinstated by Groundspeak after I complain. By the way, I take photos of every logbook I sign, also showing the cache, so the owner knows how the cache is at the moment and know who signed the logbook or not. So it is pretty easy to prove I sign the logbook placed in the correct cache!
  14. Even if the person leaving the throwdown intends it as a gift, it's not a gift if the cache owner doesn't accept the gift (and the responsibilities of such a gift). And while some who leave throwdowns certainly intend for them to be gifts, it's not at all clear that everyone has such intents. One could leave an ammo can as a throwdown with the intention of reclaiming it at some future date. They might even list that ammo can on an alternative geocaching site. You ungrateful bastard! If your grandma sends you a sweater you didn't want do you simply ignore it? Maybe you re-gift it. Maybe you put in the donation box. Maybe you even throw it away. But you don't say "Grandma, I don't want this sweater, take it back". ... You don't need to be grateful for the "gift", but you sure as heck own it. If anyone has any unwanted kittens or puppies, then feel free to leave them on Toz's front porch. Fact 1: Any "gift" belongs to the person who is giving the "gift" until acceptance of the gift by a second person. Fact 2: The acceptance of the "gift" must be declared in any way. Like saying "thank you" or any other form. Fact 3: If you refuse the "gift" the person who tried to give you the "gift" is fully responsible for it. No need to talk about cats and dogs, talk about garbage... Garbage belongs to the owner until it is placed in the garbage can outside your home/property (street, curb,...). From that moment on, the garbage belongs to either the municipality or the company that manages garbage because you are saying: "I don´t want this anymore" and the answer is automatic: "Ok, we want it and will take care of it". The company can forbid and sue a person from picking garbage from their garbage can. If you look closely almost all garbage cans say: "Property of...." there is a reason for that! So, if I place my garbage in your house is it yours immediately? Or you have to accept it? Good analogy. A homeowner is responsible for the removal of garbage from his property regardless of how it arrived. Similarly, a cache owner is responsible for any and all garbage that his cache attracted. Wrong!!!! If someone else places the garbage there it is not your responsibility... Imagine that you have cameras recording that clearly show that person throwing the garbage you can sue that person! Let´s install webcams in all the caches!!!!
  15. All I ask is you do not freaking tell JPreto about this. As a matter of fact, they should add that to the bottom of the Groundspeak Help page article. Are you talkin to me? Delete all logs in your listing that are written in that logbook, none of the people that logged it found the correct container so... they didn´t actually found it, right? They found another thing, not the container you placed!!!!! Problem solved!!!!! If it was in one of my caches this would be what I would do.
  16. Even if the person leaving the throwdown intends it as a gift, it's not a gift if the cache owner doesn't accept the gift (and the responsibilities of such a gift). And while some who leave throwdowns certainly intend for them to be gifts, it's not at all clear that everyone has such intents. One could leave an ammo can as a throwdown with the intention of reclaiming it at some future date. They might even list that ammo can on an alternative geocaching site. You ungrateful bastard! If your grandma sends you a sweater you didn't want do you simply ignore it? Maybe you re-gift it. Maybe you put in the donation box. Maybe you even throw it away. But you don't say "Grandma, I don't want this sweater, take it back". ... You don't need to be grateful for the "gift", but you sure as heck own it. If anyone has any unwanted kittens or puppies, then feel free to leave them on Toz's front porch. Fact 1: Any "gift" belongs to the person who is giving the "gift" until acceptance of the gift by a second person. Fact 2: The acceptance of the "gift" must be declared in any way. Like saying "thank you" or any other form. Fact 3: If you refuse the "gift" the person who tried to give you the "gift" is fully responsible for it. No need to talk about cats and dogs, talk about garbage... Garbage belongs to the owner until it is placed in the garbage can outside your home/property (street, curb,...). From that moment on, the garbage belongs to either the municipality or the company that manages garbage because you are saying: "I don´t want this anymore" and the answer is automatic: "Ok, we want it and will take care of it". The company can forbid and sue a person from picking garbage from their garbage can. If you look closely almost all garbage cans say: "Property of...." there is a reason for that! So, if I place my garbage in your house is it yours immediately? Or you have to accept it?
  17. Great... this topic was not started by me but I replied it in another topic! 1. It is clear that the CO is responsible for his own listing. 2. The container that is placed in the location mentioned in the listing is property of the CO. No doubts until this point, right? 3. A second player places a new container in the location mentioned by the CO. Now, this is the tricky part, since the new container belongs to the second player and that player is offering it to the CO. The CO can accept the offer or not, it is his choice. By accepting the offer, the property of the new container passes from the second player to the CO. But if the CO doesn´t accept the offer, or doesn´t mention he accepts the offer (silence is not prof of acceptance) the new container will always belong to the second player. If the CO is logging into the game and know about the new container the should, as advised by Groundspeak: But if the CO is absent form the game, the new container will always belong to the person that placed it! This is why I my opinion is that all caches that the COs are absent and new caches have been placed should be archived because the ownership of the new container is not the same as the listing! Thus, the person responsible for the listing is not responsible for the new container. I am 100% against Throwdowns!!!!
  18. I can´t see the Guidelines of these Souveniers anywhere but in the page where they are mentioned do they tell the year? Maybe it´s just that, yet another open to discussion topic... because if no year is refered in the page then, any year can be!!!! It´s just like writting "September 1st" or "this September 1st", there is a big difference between both of them!
  19. 69,307 They're going backwards now. I think 69,696 was MKFmly's guess for the (virtual) premium membership contest, not the displayed count. Oops, although it wouldn't have surprised me if it was going backwards. Owners are deleting fake logs! Let's make some more wild guesses! But even if a CO deletes the log the person doesn't loose the souvenir... Só, how can it go backwards? Is Groundspeak removing souvenirs? Can't believe that...
  20. First is vague in geocaching and find is even vaguer (if this word exists) because for some find means placing a new cache, for other find means reaching the coordinates, for others find means not leaving home and clicking some mouse buttons... Welcome to GEOCACHING game!
  21. I would really say more... Geocaching is an americano game! And there are no other countries in the world. Europe is probably an Island somewhere....
  22. I really agree with this and I had: "I think souvenirs increase the number of people that enforce bad geocaching practices, either by logging fake logs or placing caches without quality."
  23. Great conclusion!!!! In geocaching many english words are interpreted differently, we could actually build a English-Geocaching dictionary, with example: First = I was there for the FIRST time Found it = I saw this listing online and FOUND IT great I am sure you can help me with more examples!!!!
  24. Sorry but no matter if I used a . or a , to separate units from decimals. Fact is, if I wanted to say 8km why would I say 8.000km or 8,000km? Wouldn´t it be simpler for me to write 8km? In another hand, if I had such a precision in order to say that I lived 8,000km or 8,000km (with 4 significant figures not 7,989km or 7.989km) and I would have to know the precise location of all reviewers and all their houses be equidistant to mine in 8,000km or 8.000km, right?
  25. El ejemplo viene de arriba... mejor todavía! Seguro que "not encouraged" significa "podemos hacerlo" y yo pensaba que significaba "no debemos hacerlo"... debe de ser mi ingles, que es muy malo!!!
×
×
  • Create New...