sidekeck

Whoa!!! I think that was a bit over the line, sidekeck! Yes the OP did some things wrong, but you have to admit that it is extremely likely that the cache is indeed missing, when you look at the logging history, and it is at least possible that the cache owner has gone AWOL, having not logged in since June, has only found 23 caches, and hidden only 1. And their last actual find was well over a year ago. That has all the earmarks of an abandoned cache to me. Keep in mind that a NA log does NOT archive a cache. All it does it to notify the reviewer of a potential problem, and I do think that was very appropriate in this case. I do not make assumptions about cache owners. Not logging in since June 8 doesn't raise any red flags for me. We have a local cacher here that has Stage IV cancer. He hasn't logged in for quite some time but we, as a caching community, know of his situation and we collectively keep his caches going. We do maintenance on them when they need it, despite the fact we don't own them. So no, log in dates don't automatically raise flags. Not here. RI is a small state with a tight knit community of people. We pretty much know everyone here. And if we don't, we will soon enough.

It says right here in the knowledge books not to use 'needs archived' when you did not find a cache. That wasn't difficult to find.

My first reaction when I read this post was, "wow." I actually read this at 3am this morning. And it's taken me until now to respond. And I've been approached by more than one person asking to respond. Interesting, don't you think? My 'found it' log was quoted somewhere along the way by somebody...I don't recall who. I knew exactly which cache this was by just reading my log. But, I digress... If you had spoken to me, as you responded to the MA state reviewer, you would not have liked my reply. At all. I don't care if it relates to one's job, social events, volunteer efforts or as in this case--a game--there is absolutely no need for that. You are two and a half months new to this speaking to someone with multiple years experience under their belt. Do you really believe you know more than they do and are entitled to that tone and judgment of how they do their job? A job that is strictly on a volunteer basis that sucks up valuable time that takes them away from their paying job, family, friends, social events and other things they would rather be doing other than listening to people get unnecessarily snippy with them. I recently had a PA cache owner berate me, via email(in bolded, huge font, all capital letters), for getting one question of five wrong on a virtual cache. I kindly explained to him that if he was going to get that bent out of shape over a game then perhaps it was time to re-evaluate his life. I might throw that suggestion out to you as well. There are a lot of different ways to educate yourself about geocaching. The knowledge books on the website are a start. Contacting experienced cachers in your area is another. Attending events, meeting people, asking questions and asking to go caching with experienced cachers is another. We had an event in RI this July and our RI state reviewer flew in for that. What a grand learning opportunity missed right there. Above all else, being kind and courteous goes a long way. Never underestimate the power of that. Regarding DNF, NM and NA around here. Avenois summed it up pretty well so I won't rehash it. You wouldn't know this because you are too new, but the reviewer archive notices are all canned. They are not personalized for each cache or cacher. Joe_cacher doesn't get 10 days vs. Bob_cacher's 20 days vs. Fred_cacher's 30 days. If you look at CTReviewer's notes, gpsfun's notes and madmin's notes they are all canned responses--albeit they each have their own version. So for you to be a stickler and demand that a reviewer abide by the x-day timeframe in their canned response is akin to demanding Publisher's Clearinghouse pay you $35 million dollars each time that letter comes in the mail. And while we are being technical (your term, not mine) Shoelaces is in Mass, not Rhode Island. And technically you do not definitely know that it is lost. You definitely know there is a number of DNF's, including your own, although you did not care to post it as such. If you wanted to confirm that this cache was missing, you could easily contact a previous finder (since the CO was unresponsive) and ask them for hints or ask them your questions, couldn't you? Or you could even ask them to accompany you out to GZ to look for it. Or you could ask them to go check on it for you. You had any number of options long before you hit the NA. Anyway, as I said before I was contacted by a few for assistance. I am by no means a saint. I'm not even a nice person. I'll admit that. My logs ought to be proof enough. But I did abandon my plans to hide two caches of my own this evening to go check on this cache. It was not in the hidey hole I originally found it in. I expanded my search ~40-50ft and did not see it. But this area is a huge party spot, so it doesn't surprise me that it went missing. So there you have it. But there's a lesson in this for you, I'm certain of that. I do hope your experiences with others in the local caching community are more positive--for yours and the collective's sake.

I don't have kids and I always keep baby wipes in the car. Stupid poison ivy.

Really? I looked at all three of their hides after reading this, and I have no clue what about their cache descriptions may seem rude to you! They all seemed very straightforward and polite to me. WOW! This is NOT the way it read a few days ago! It has been highly edited since then. I would not have commented on this one if this is what it originally said. OP? comment? "Originally I placed this cache out here just before Hallowe'en filled with Hallowe'en toys for the kids, to honor "The Haunted Monastery". However, I now suspect the area is ACTUALLY HAUNTED by the spirits of grumpy and cranky geocachers! The original cache was protected by a guardian, but a well meaning geocacher took him away as trash. The new cache also has a guardian, not a very scary one, but he shoots so be careful! Please don't put him IN the cache as another well meaning geocacher did. If the guardian is there, it will be easy to find. This is the second cache, since the first one got stolen (pitty too, it was a nice solid ammo box). It's in a slightly different location so make sure your coordinates are updated" The Cached (no pun intended) page from Google shows a different page, but I'd hardly consider this an "ignore all hides" write-up. Personally, something like an entire cache page that says "Quick P & G, BYOP" would be an ignore all hides offense for me. Hah! I hadn't seen that revision of the cache page. That's some silly stuff. When I originally found that cache (and my log is there, unchanged, for all to view) the cache had just been replaced from it's original location. I was caching with someone who had looked for it in it's original spot. He said the original spot was indeed a 4 terrain, but we both agreed the new spot wasn't. But I don't pay much attention to CO's who don't get it right, particularly when they have 3 finds and 3 hides. How can they possibly know much with that kind of experience? I just annotate my thoughts on it in my log and move on. If the CO wants to use it as a learning experience, great. If they want to get cranky, great. Do I care? Nope. The version I read said that they used Groundspeak's rating system to set the terrain level. Presumably, you wouldn't to have any experience as long as you plug in the correct answers to the questions. One would think. I use that system each time and for the last cache I placed it severely overrated the terrain--by double. I answered all the questions quite accurately and it gave my 2 terrain cache a 4 terrain rating. I've also had that tool give a cache a 4 difficulty and 1 terrain on a cache that should have had a 1.5/3 rating. My caching experience raised the red flag on those ratings and I adjusted accordingly. I think the tool is a good start, but it's not the end-all be-all for ratings. Experience has to kick in at some point. There's way too many factors for an on-line tool to cover it all.

Wow...you read my mind. I learned from the best. I don't do anything half-way.

I agree that we all have to start somewhere, and for many of us it's the knowledge books, forums, and the experience of getting out there and finding caches. I am seeing far too many hides by cachers with less than 10 finds that either break the rules (buried cache), are hidden with no plan for longevity and hence they become geotrash, or are quick "slapstick carpet bombs" as the OP stated. I read what I could on the forums and in the knowledge books before I even considered placing my first cache and the advice was to have at least 100 finds before hand. How else does one know what types of hides are out there if all they've ever found was under a lamp post skirt. I spent a lot of time caching with experienced cachers then out on my own checking out the good, the bad and the ugly before I started hiding--at the ripe old number of 8-900 finds. I waited for no other reason than to get the experience and knowledge so I could contribute positively to the sport, and avoid being blasted as an idiot newbie with lame caches. At least now the only thing that sticks is idiot, and let's face it that was there long before geocaching.

Yeah Hobo's WAY bitchier. LOL

side keck, not kick which is where most of the planet goes horribly wrong. That's okay, I just drop kick (not keck) them.

I didn't place my first one until I had somewhere around 8-900 finds. Mostly I just wanted to be sure I had enough experience, was ready for the responsibility and felt I could produce the type of quality hide I would want to find. I'm a slow learner.

Really? I looked at all three of their hides after reading this, and I have no clue what about their cache descriptions may seem rude to you! They all seemed very straightforward and polite to me. WOW! This is NOT the way it read a few days ago! It has been highly edited since then. I would not have commented on this one if this is what it originally said. OP? comment? "Originally I placed this cache out here just before Hallowe'en filled with Hallowe'en toys for the kids, to honor "The Haunted Monastery". However, I now suspect the area is ACTUALLY HAUNTED by the spirits of grumpy and cranky geocachers! The original cache was protected by a guardian, but a well meaning geocacher took him away as trash. The new cache also has a guardian, not a very scary one, but he shoots so be careful! Please don't put him IN the cache as another well meaning geocacher did. If the guardian is there, it will be easy to find. This is the second cache, since the first one got stolen (pitty too, it was a nice solid ammo box). It's in a slightly different location so make sure your coordinates are updated" The Cached (no pun intended) page from Google shows a different page, but I'd hardly consider this an "ignore all hides" write-up. Personally, something like an entire cache page that says "Quick P & G, BYOP" would be an ignore all hides offense for me. Hah! I hadn't seen that revision of the cache page. That's some silly stuff. When I originally found that cache (and my log is there, unchanged, for all to view) the cache had just been replaced from it's original location. I was caching with someone who had looked for it in it's original spot. He said the original spot was indeed a 4 terrain, but we both agreed the new spot wasn't. But I don't pay much attention to CO's who don't get it right, particularly when they have 3 finds and 3 hides. How can they possibly know much with that kind of experience? I just annotate my thoughts on it in my log and move on. If the CO wants to use it as a learning experience, great. If they want to get cranky, great. Do I care? Nope.

+1 That's an interesting observation. I hadn't looked at it that way, i.e. as a way of making a name for oneself. In my area large multi-use trailways are being carpet bombed. There's a steady rise, not quite exponentially but almost. One cacher once made a name for himself by holding the record for most cache finds. Now it looks like placing the first power trails in the area is the new goal. I don't hate power trails but I find them to be rather selfish especially when good trails with good swag size cache potential are taken up with pill bottles and film can hides. Power trails that include a variety of water tight cache types and different cache hides (not 100 pill bottles hanging in a tree every .1 miles) are a much better caching experience. But a trail with many caches placed by different cachers, in different containers, in a variety of hiding styles, with different online cache pages (not typical cut and paste power trail cache pages) is so much more satisfactory. Nobody said that name was good...or bad, for that matter.

+1 And cancel your premium membership. Don't forget about that.

If I'm laughing while putting a cache together, then I know it's going to be good. And considering I've been called just about everything under the sun--in logs and in person--I know I'm doing it right.

Is it gonna be in a pink house?

I figure my verbose monstrosities more than make up for any blank logs I might receive. I am fueled in mysterious ways.

1. a healthier heart 2. lower blood pressure 3. lower weight & bmi I'm not driving my car all over doing LPC after LPC. I'm hiking and mountain biking. It's a win-win-win.

I went to a cache recently where the CO screwed an eye hook into a tree right next to where three nails were already in place, onto which their bison tube could be hung. Don't see why s/he had to put that fourth piece of hardware in the tree, but whatever.

Oh...here we go again.

I know. I suck. Not a native RI-er, what can I say? I'll work harder next time.

I planted my first LPC today!

This one time, at band camp...

I'm eating pizza. And I'm over 18.

I was just in Harper's Ferry, WV last Friday and picked up a few caches. Scenic place with a few decent caches. I was there in the early morning and nothing was open so I can't recommend food places. Not sure if that's on your way or not, but I'll throw it out there. You can check out the caches I did on my profile--I have photos attached.

YA THINK? But not before I 'book' my 'flight' and log them all!!!