JASTA 11
-
Posts
483 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JASTA 11
-
-
Bound to have been discussed previously......but I see "event" caches hosted (owned) by the creater, then logged as "attended"....which seems to make sence.....if you are the host, you are present. This then adds to that (host) owner "finds" count. Every one seems happy with that.
Not everyone.
So...I have seen (traditional) cache owners log a find on thier own cache. Obviously, they have been to the cache location to place the box. Then there is some grumble about that owner "finding" thier own cache. What is the difference I wonder.
To us, there is no difference. We won't do either. That's what a note is for.
Most folks would say that logging a find on your own cache is wrong, but an attended log on your own event isn't the same.
-
Where does it go from here?
The 'mother cache' has been archived and locked due to this practice, but the event page isn't locked.
If Groundspeak acknowledges the issue with the cache, why not the same with the event listing?
Inconsistency abounds.
-
The multilogging of the traditional is mentioned on the event page...
Reminding readers that this was added to the event page AFTER the event page was published. See my post #23 on page one.
Generally speaking, would a reviewer use their discretion and disable or retract the event listing once they learned of something like this happening?
-
Looks like the Reviewer never suggested the cache to be published and used to log the temp event caches.
Archive Archive 10/31/2014
Hello,
With the guidance of Groundspeak, I am archiving this listing since the event to which it has become associated has been archived. As the reviewer of this cache, I will state I at no time suggested using this cache as a logging place for temporary event caches.
Mr. Ollivander
Groundspeak.com Volunteer Reviewer
Nothin' like getting thrown under the bus!
-
I don't go to any event unless I'm packing a .45 and a six pack of Natty Light.
Dude, all this time I had you pegged as a Utica Club Ale guy.
-
I don't really want answer for a reviewer (it's a bit like logging finds on a cache for finding a different [temporary] cache), however I will say that Groundspeak has really tried to avoid creating guidelines to prevent logging of caches.
Instead they created a guideline that the maintenance responsibilities of a cache owner include deleting logs which are bogus (like a DNF on a cache you didn't look for), counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inapproriate (like a DNF log that really wasn't about your caching experiernce but instead was commentary better suited for the forums). This left the definitions of bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or inappropriate up to the cache owner. This had resulted in a few additional guidelines that limit the ability of the cache owner to delete logs by eliminating the practice of having additional requirements to log caches (of course challenge caches excepted).
Groundspeak certainly can have guidelines that make some attempt at forcing cache owners to treat certain types of logs as bogus. The main examples have been couch potato logs on virtual caches, and photo logs that convert a traditional cache into a virtual. In these case the logs aren't deleted, but the cache page is likely to be archived and locked. Groundspeak might be more consistent if they allowed these questionable logs along with logs for temporary caches or various outher 'bonus' logs. Perhaps a lackey can explain the difference. I suspect that the difficultly in enforcing these sort of guidelines makes TPTB wary of using them too often.
I wouldn't expect a reviewer to be responsible for policing through cache logs looking for any abuses. Instead, I would hope that a guideline would be published so that the encouragement of this type of behavior would not be included in the listing when it is published by the reviewer. The event this cache is tied to has just that.
What players do after that isn't for me to say. Logging multiple 'finds' on any single cache is foolish. Claiming a 'find' on an unpublished cache by posting it on a 'mother-ship' cache, even more ridiculous. Those are my beliefs, like them or not. That being said, after it's published, it's the CO's discretion.
In my opinion, Groundspeak should come up with a guideline that addresses this so the reviewer has something to reference when a listing like that is submitted..
-
I searched for the cache in question from here. Didn't find it.
So, thinking I was doing the right thing. I logged a DNF:
But, it was soon deleted:
I don't get it. Unlike the abundance of multiple find logs listed, my log was legit!
Somehow I don't think "finds" ever get deleted.
-
It has nothing to do with the publishing reviewer's "tolerance." The practice of multiple "attended" logs on event caches has been sanctioned for more than ten years as an alternative preferable (from a reviewer's standpoint) to publishing separate listings for each temporary event cache. When publishing the event, the reviewer did nothing contrary to guidance from Geocaching HQ.
A quick question:
In your experience as a reviewer over the years, as the 'guidelines' have evolved, and types of caches have come and gone, how hard would it be for Groundspeak to implement (or change) guidelines to discourage these kind of activities?
-
4,434 Finds and not a single Favorite Point?
What's with the premium members in Ohio?
If you've logged a find on this cache at least ten times you surely like it enough to give it one of those favorite points you've earned!
Points Hoarders.
-
Agreed, if you archive the listing - go recover the cache.
If it's still there however, why can't someone search and log a valid find?
Is there something unethical in this case?
Back in the day, the geocaching.com google maps used to show the location of archived caches.
-
There's nothing bogus about logging a cache that you found even after it's been archived. As have been mentioned, some people can log years late, but in my case, I get a kick out of finding physical containers that weren't cleaned up when the cache was archived. I found the cache, I signed the log, I see no justification in preventing me from logging it just because it doesn't show up on the map anymore.
+1
We've logged finds on archived caches that were still in place.
There are some multis around here that were archived by the CO because he was p-o'd with the reviewer. The guy put out some epic hides.
Most of them are still out there, and folks actively seek them out.
Like this one, archived in 2010: http://coord.info/GCHXBB
-
In this instance the cache listing in question is now locked to any future logs. That action was taken within two days of when this thread was started. I'd call that "swift" given that the topic was started on a weekend.
Swift?
I'd say more like freakin' light speed!
-
-
How far back would you expect someone to read past logs? Is it necessary?
But really, it's not relevant.
The CO let a single NM log post go up their backside.
The OP asked about the negativity towards NA and NM logs. I offer that part of the reason is the fear of a poor reaction from the CO.
Our example shows that.
There was no insult or criticism in the log. No reason for the CO to lash out.
But yet that's what happens.
Some folks believe that their farts smell like roses, and that other peoples just smell like ****.
-
I suggest not reading anger into anything. I don't actually think this response counts as anger, but my advice would be the same even if the anger were overt: ignore the anger and simply help him by pointing out that if he's going to be delayed fixing his cache, he should disable it, since not everyone reads the logs before they head to GZ. That's what disabling is for. You can, if you want, "apologize" for the ignorance that led to you telling him something he already knew and not realizing he had a "good excuse" for not doing the required maintenance on his cache.
Apologize? No. I did nothing wrong. I posted a NM, the only NM, on a cache that was in serious need of maintenance. The CO's (over)reaction doesn't make my actions a mistake.
I didn't know of, nor expected to be given, an excuse. The CO let me know how far they lived from the cache in their email to us. It's far. If it's too far away to maintain then archive it. Should players not post a NM on caches based on distance from their home?
Then they throw in the comment about a perceived political affiliation. What does politics have to do with a cache that needs maintenance? Trying to insult me? Didn't work.
Apology from us, nope.
It won't stop us from logging them though.
-
Why the anger?
Probably not anger, but I agree that your NM was unneeded as the wet log has been reported on September 27 and the owners wrote that they will change the log as soon as possible on September 28. Your NM log is from September 29 and just repeats what they were already aware of and mentioned that they will take care about just a day before.
Being told the same repeatedly without any good reason (for example, when one might think that someone forgot about an issue) is not very motivating.
Did you read the logs before writing your log?
Cezanne
Here's the way it went down: I was out hiking for three days in the back country and found the cache on the 25th. Found a few more on the 26th and 27th.
Got home on the 28th. Went to go log them on the 29th. Logged the 'find' and changed the date to the 25th. Logged the NM, but the present date (29th) got recorded.
To answer your question, I didn't go back online and log a NM four days after logging the find.
When I went online to log I looked to see if there was a red wrench (NM) icon or an attribute. There were none.
Regardless, the CO's response was a bit much. To us, it came off as if they had been insulted.
This may be a reason why players won't post a NM or NA, they're afraid of pushback.
-
Any CO that get upset over a N/M or N/A logs tell me alot about them.
If it becomes too much of a chore to check on a cache, it's time to consider archiving it.
Just recently, we found a cache in dire need of maintenance:
Found it A quick find on our way towards Xxxx Xxxx and Xxxxx for the night.
Managed to scrawl a 'J11' into the soaked log.
Also, we posted a 'Needs Maintenance':
Needs Maintenance
The log is just about mush. There's no seal on the container to keep the water out.
The CO expressed their appreciation in an email to us:
"We live in the Democratic Socialistic State of Massachusetts, and if you had read the log for Xxxxx's Xxxxx you would have noticed a note by the CO that we would be there to change the log and cache as soon as we could. "VOTE REPUBLICAN""
The reference to Massachusetts comes from our profile page, but I really don't get the rest.
The cache is in a neighboring state, about a three and a half hour drive from the state border.
Why the anger?
Hung-over on a Monday morning perhaps?
-
What image is shown for DNF? Joe Biden?
HAH! You beat me to it!
-
Multiple stamps with LAME on them shouldn't cost you too much.
-
Absolutely.
I'm surprised that we haven't maxed ours out yet.
-
Without a doubt: Blackwater River
-
The last time we saw this topic posted we learned that the only requirement to be a letterbox hybrid was the stamp. Letterboxing-style clues aren't a requirement.
We have one letterbox hybrid, it's cross-listed on AtlasQuest. It uses GPS coordinates to take you to a place where you start to follow clues. Not being very artistic, we had a hand carved custom stamp made for us. It's attached to the container by a lanyard.
Personally, I like the added challenge of the letterboxing clues. We keep a logbook stamped with our LB finds. Store-bought stamps are a downer.
-
On a mountain top cache with a several hour hike involved:
HikingThrowDowner
Found it!Hi All; Now this Geocache was right up there with what I like to do. Almost extreme geocaching. We (my hiking partner) looked for about 20 minutes for this one, but I knew before hand that it might be misplaced. I brought a new container and log sheet and placed it at the same coordinates. I met [another cacher] at GZ and [they] signed the log sheet as well. Cache info was sent to the cache owner and all should be good to go for the next hiker in this really neat area. This one gets a favorite point from me.
Thanks Again for the adventure.
[HikingThrowDowner]
-
OK, I guess I can say I know a few who stopped hiding and/or archived their existing caches over it. I personally don't know any who have completely quit finding though.
We'd agree with you there.
The person who introduced us to geocaching quit the game altogether because of how things were changing. Also because a local geo-cop was giving him a hard time. He has recently returned to caching (after about four years) with his kid, but he'll never place another cache.
Another local cacher recently committed 'near-geocide'. Archived almost all of their caches due to a reviewer retracting a listing without any warning. From what I understand, the cache was along the border with a nearby state. Players were crossing private property to get the cache, so the CO moved it (less than .10 mile) across the border to the other state in order to keep folks from going across the private property. The reviewer from the state the cache was in originally retracted the listing. No temporary disable, no email contact, nothing according to the CO. They'll keep finding, but not hiding.
Found it
4,380 finds and it was just hidden on October 17th?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
The threshold has been breached. Will anything change because of it?