Look Out !

July 18, 2005

See the following log entries for 17 July - nice guy don't you think?

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...5b-e4023ef8bcc5

And . . .

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...40-33cdd6710e22

July 18, 2005

ha, bad day ? that is the geohike guy aint it ?

Edited July 18, 2005 by stonefisk

July 18, 2005

Although the language is very "direct" he has every right to express an honest opinion. If people were a little less reticent about criticising caches they felt didn't "come up to the mark" maybe cache quality would go up.

And no I haven't visited these two caches so I can't comment on what they are like, I'm just saying that logs are meant to be an honest expression of a finder's opinion.

July 18, 2005

Handbags ready.......................

OOOOooooooooooooooooohhhhh!

:rolleyes:

Edited July 18, 2005 by Team 'James W'

July 18, 2005

Criticising a cache because his GPS didn't like the tree cover seems a bit daft to me. That's part of the challenge. Lots of other cachers have found it OK.

2.5k · July 18, 2005

I agree with the sentiment that one should post honest feedback on one's logs. Those logs do perhaps read as a bit petulant, but remember, this is the internet, it's very easy to read all sorts of stuff into what people write. The brevity could be due to various reasons. Then again, he may have hated the caches! :rolleyes:

July 18, 2005

:rolleyes:

That's what you get when you've walked 26 miles on a very hot day and ran out of drink with ten miles to go and then get held up in traffic on the way home.

Still stand by what I say though and if the language seems harsh it only goes to drive the point home.

July 19, 2005

Ah-ha! Davestre my lad. Having succesfully flushed you out into the open there are one or two points I want to make about your comments on Crundale Cache:

First of all I don't think anyone would object to having their cache constructively, and politely, criticised by someone who had found it. However it is an entirely different matter, and breathtakingly arrogant, to criticise as you have done a cache that you have never seen - because you failed to find it.

What is just as unacceptable is that you assert the cache is buried deep in a thick wood. How on earth would you know that? You failed to find it. For your information Davestre, the cache is no more than two feet into the woods from the edge of a wide open field.

You know, I think we have all experienced a loss of GPS signal at a critical moment in the hunt, and on such occasions we rely upon our determination, our cacher's eye and our commonsense to see us through. Unfortunately it would seem that on this occasion you lacked some or all of those attributes.

Finally, let me assure you that your childish, petulant and ill-mannered comments will remain on the log page for all to see, because they say far more about you, than the simple little cache that defeated you.

Night-night. :rolleyes:

July 19, 2005

Great stuff Davester, I get very tired of the nice walk, great view type logs, sometimes I think there should be an automatic "yeah Ive bin here" button that enters simplistic tripe, leaving us more time to write decent logs for the caches that proved of greater interest.

July 19, 2005

This could get interesting......!

July 19, 2005

Opinions are only as the word says "an opinion" .....constructive critisiscm can be a great thing(As long as IT IS constructive) BUT to completely slag a cache off surely isnt right?

Anyone who has laid a cache has put effort into doing so....regardless of its shape,form or whereabouts.(This is only my OPINION)

ALSO.......Its summer... Woods,leaves,nettles etc etc do grow at this time of year ya know ! I for one expect finding caches in wooded areas(or any area that has some kind of "growth") to be a little more difficult during summer months.

I can HONESTLY say that I have appreciated every single cache I have found,even those that I have falied to find.If I turn up at a site that has grown up a bit because of the time of year then maybe I should have thought to bring some gloves or some kind of protection.

HO HUM the joys of caching :blink:

(sits back and waits for the onslaught...bring it on )

NES

July 19, 2005

I am with davester on this one, lets have some emotional honesty in our logs.

The only point I will take him to task on is that the log fails to mention that he had just slogged X miles to get there, was tired, and presumably well *******ed.

The **** are for Alibags benefit.

July 19, 2005

<<That's what you get when you've walked 26 miles on a very hot day and ran out of drink with ten miles to go >>

Sorry Davester... I'm trying to think of an appropriate description for someone who does something that stupid... and then criticises a cache! The word "loony" springs to mind... and no offence intended!!!

July 19, 2005

probably off topic, definately getting daft, so moderators please feel free to chop this post, no offence will be taken

what we need for those of us that do not take enough water with them is to club together and build a few of these:-

Take one SART, adapt the trigger mechanism with a 'dead' man alarm circuit, requiring manual reset every 30 minutes, failure to reset will trigger audible alarm for 3 minutes, further failure to reset will trigger SART.

this will then enable PyroDave or similar experienced cache event organiser to set up CITO event to recover remains of cacher for return to his/her immediate family.

Costs for the SART equipment would be recovered by selling dead cachers items on ebay, GPSr, rucksack, clothes, boots, walking stick, ''empty'' water bottle etc.

stay safe people, water is essential....finding the cache is not....

Bill

1.1k · July 19, 2005

Good idea. I had to look up that SART is a Search And Rescue Transponder. I thought for a minute it might be Sarcastic Attitude Readjustment Tool.

Edited July 19, 2005 by NickPick

July 19, 2005

With you all the way davester - say it how you see it. :blink:

Some may agree , others disagree ; but they're just your views and make the whole thing much more interesting.

2.5k · July 19, 2005

The **** are for Alibags benefit.

Thanks 2202, just shows that one can express oneself adequately without the need for profanity (well, with it but edited for family reading!)

Whilst I am not sure that I would have been quite as 'direct' in my logs as Davester was, I am all in favour of saying what you actually think at a cache. I was pretty disgusted with a cache a while ago and had a conversation with one of our splendid UK approvers, who encouraged me to express my worries, but to do so in such a way that although my comments were made, they were not made in a way that in itself would cause offense.

Or, put another way: If you say "this is a cr*p (edited for the benefit of 2202) cache", somebody reading you log would think you were very rude. However, were you to say "cache was under a pile if parallel sticks by the side of the busy footpath, I was concerned that it was a bit too easy to spot and perhaps the owner should pay a visit and review the situation" then you have basically said the same thing, you have added WHY you thought it was cr*p AND you have not been rude to the cache owner.

As I said originally, there may have been reasons why Davester was so short and to the point, and I think he explained why that was (adequately or otherwise). I would not have chosen to express myself in the same terms, but I fully support his honesty. Makes a change from TNLNSLT4TC logs, which tell you absolutely nothing. As for letting the logs stand, well I also agree with that. I am SURE that all of us have local cachers of whom we have formed an opinion based on reading their logs. If Davester is truly a total g** then I am sure that will come out in time I have no special opinion either way. I am sure though that debating this point further here will shed no light on the matter. I am interested on peoples take on quite how they communicate negative thoughts about a caches though. It's something that gives me pause for thought.

3.1k · July 19, 2005

I was once honest in my reporting of a cache (although not as blunt as Davester) and I recieved a barrage of insults via email from the cache owner...

No, if the cache is cr*p, I just do a v short log, and save my passionate writing skills for those that we've really enjoyed!

6.2k · July 19, 2005

Having read this thread and then the logs I don't know what all the fuss is about. He just sounded disappointed and grumpy to me. I get grumpy sometimes, and disappointed even more often (the price you pay to be an optimist). I was expecting a tirade of abuse in the logs, but all I detected was frustration - I know I've read much crosser stuff in logs.

SP

July 19, 2005

What is just as unacceptable is that you assert the cache is buried deep in a thick wood. How on earth would you know that? You failed to find it. For your information Davestre, the cache is no more than two feet into the woods from the edge of a wide open field.

You know, I think we have all experienced a loss of GPS signal at a critical moment in the hunt, and on such occasions we rely upon our determination, our cacher's eye and our commonsense to see us through. Unfortunately it would seem that on this occasion you lacked some or all of those attributes.

May I suggest that thick woodland (regardless of whether the cache in question is or isn't in thick woodland) is part of the course with geocaching. We have one cache that is in a tunnel, we have found one cache that was in a tunnel and we have found 2 caches in caves. In all of these the GPS doesn't work at all and you have to use your compass and pace out the distance from the last good GPS fix. Its all part of the fun and challenge :blink:

As for expressing your opinion, we have not felt comfortable on saying how bad certain caches have been on the cache page for the same reason as Hazel and Phill. We end up saying something like "Found it.". We normally write a fair amount if it was good. What I have noticed is the ratings list is working. Here you can anonymously slate a cache and its starting to show which caches are bad and which are good as more people use it.

July 19, 2005

Finally, let me assure you that your childish, petulant and ill-mannered comments will remain on the log page for all to see, because they say far more about you,

Ummm?

July 19, 2005

Having just read davester logs on the day in concern a picture of his day immerges that starts off bright and hopeful but slowly de-generates as the day wears on.

I particularly liked the comment about the locals on his 5th of the day, http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...3e-74b632a05eee

Keep it up davester!!

July 19, 2005

You sound abit stressed Davester - hopefully the fragrant oil you swapped at your 5th cache was lavender - take a big sniff and relax!

1.2k · July 19, 2005

I had a mildly 'honest' log deleted once, so I replaced it with a very bland log.

I'd rather we were comfortable saying what we think in our logs, I assume that a short bland log is an indication that there was no enjoyment, but it may be that it's just been found by a cacher who leaves short bland logs as a matter of course.

The GCUK star ratings are excellent though - there's a only a few "half star" caches that I've found, but I've enjoyed marking them more than I enjoyed finding them.

July 19, 2005

While it might be disappointing or annoying to receive a not-very-complimentary log for a cache that you own, these need to be taken with a pinch of salt, but I'm happy to receive constructive cristicism.

A single negative log doesn't say a lot; a series of consecutive logs making similar comments if a different matter. The only time I would ask someone to delete a log is if personal comments were made that have little to do with the cache itself.

There are few occasions when I feel the need to write anything negative in a log, but I think it's better to be politely honest than to write a meaningless bland comment. If you can't manage honesty politely, then stick to TNLNSL!

3.8k · July 19, 2005

I had a mildly 'honest' log deleted once, so I replaced it with a very bland log.

I'd rather we were comfortable saying what we think in our logs, I assume that a short bland log is an indication that there was no enjoyment, but it may be that it's just been found by a cacher who leaves short bland logs as a matter of course.

The GCUK star ratings are excellent though - there's a only a few "half star" caches that I've found, but I've enjoyed marking them more than I enjoyed finding them.

I have no problem at all with folk being 'honest' with their comments in logs on any of my caches. If anyone says 'It's crap' then I'll take that at face value and do something about it. I certainly won't just delete their log and ignore it. In comparison with some, I haven't placed that many caches but my intention is that folks enjoy those that I have placed.

As caching has evolved, caches seem to be moving away from the simple 'I hide it, you find it.' sort of thing. Sophisticated, complicated and in some cases almost unsolvable puzzle caches are becoming more and more popular... at least with cache setters!!! Cache finders may have different views!!! A good, simple, traditional cache that was perhaps set two years ago may well, in some peoples view, be a 'crap cache' compared to one of the latest puzzle caches. That doesn't make it any the less valid for those that enjoy the simple thing in life, providing it's been maintained and hasn't been left to degenerate into geo-litter.

OK... so what point am I trying to make with all this rambling...

Simply this.... errrmm.... 'One man's crap is another man's poison'... no, that doesn't seem quite right but I'm sure you get my drift!!!!

2.5k · July 19, 2005

Some of my caches are intentionally easy. Not every cache has got to be a work of art. My caches which are part of a series are like this. I reckon that the pleasure will be in finding a number of caches in a series, rather then the achievement of solving some monster puzzle. The difficulty ratings I have assigned to them reflect this. I do have some ideas to try to keep the interest (if not the difficulty level) up. For every 'you cache was too easy' log, I have had 'thanks for our lovely day out' log, which suggests to me that I am getting the balance just about right. What point am I trying to make? Like Pharisee "one person's cr*p is another person's poison.

If I had a log that said "this cache is cr*p" I would be inclined to think that the logger was a person who was accustomed to performing an act of self gratification (euphemism!), but if they said "the cache is damp, it's hidden under an obvious pile of sticks and there is a big pile of rubbish next to it, so I didn't enjoy it at all" I would be more inclined to be concerned that the poor logger had had a bad experience and go rushing out to rectify the problems. I guess it all boils down to why you write what you write : a good old vent of your annoyance or an attempt to communicate with the cache owner.

I try to write full logs as I personally am disappointed if a cache of mine is logged with a very brief log, and I see an interesting log as my paying back the setter for the effort they put into hiding the thing. Not everybody likes to write long logs, but that might just be their personal preference, so it is hard to tell if a TNLNSLT4TC log actually is a subliminal hint that your cache was cr*p (unless you know that cacher and know that they normally leave 1000 word essays). oops, that's me I guess! I shall shut up! :anicute:

July 19, 2005

Must admit he sounds like a rude, arrogant, grumpy old man to me. D:

July 19, 2005

Im all for 1000 word essays......As long as im NOT the one writing them. :anicute:

July 19, 2005

so davester with your vast experience of placing one cache yours is brilliant then

July 19, 2005

Like I said, I got home tired and hungry and typed what I though. I have made similar comments about caches in the past and you are happy to go and seek them.

To answer a couple of points..

What is just as unacceptable is that you assert the cache is buried deep in a thick wood. How on earth would you know that? You failed to find it. For your information Davestre, the cache is no more than two feet into the woods from the edge of a wide open field.

The tree cover I refer to was on the main path. I strayed from the main path in the direction of the field. To gain a decent GPS signal for me to get a vague direction the cache was in would have required me to enter said wide open field. In doing so I would have been trespassing. Are you advocating that cachers trespass to find your cache?

so davester with your vast experience of placing one cache yours is brilliant then

I have actually placed six caches of my very own, early in my geocaching experience. Some of these were in another cacher's name, the others have been adopted. I would reconsider the value of one or two of these cachers having nowed gained much more experience of caching.

1.7k · July 19, 2005

so davester with your vast experience of placing one cache yours is brilliant then

I quote from the Forum Guidelines:

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

This is getting very close. The OP quoted specifics so is acceptable comment. Let's try and keep within the recognised limits. :anicute:

6.2k · July 19, 2005

Of all the terrible things one could be guilty of while caching (trashing a cache, not rehiding a cache properly, not sealing the box, taking but not leaving, trading down, taking a TB and not logging it, being seen by muggles, logging a find when you didn't mark the logbook... etc.) I suggest not finding the box, being cross and unimpressed and expressing that in the online log is rather low down on the list. Let's all keep some perspective, eh?

SP

July 19, 2005

Poor Davester, all he did was be honest, maybe the phrasing could have been better but it was how he felt at the time. We are all entitled to our opinion.

As we and others have said in this thread, we don't feel comfortable with being honest with how we feel about a cache if it is not as enjoyable as most others precisely for this reason. Its bad enough to get an email from the cache owner slating your comments but for this to be done in a public forum is even worse.

Personnally I think it would be nice if people could be honest about how they feel about a cache. We had a terrible day a few weeks back, all caches were in dodgy places and really not worth the bother of visiting. Nothing negative has been said on their pages yet speaking to other cachers about these caches none of them rated them that highly. We would never have planned that day if people had been honest.

I guess we're going to be slated about our opinions now :anicute:

July 19, 2005

We all visit caches that maybe we think could have been done better, but then again when I look at one of my caches I wonder if that one could have been done better in hind sight. I think what I would object to is what seems to be the wording of the logs. Yes, I can see the cacher had a bad day, and we all get one of those from time to time. But maybe an email to the person that hid the cache would have been much better- or tactful to say the least. Of course, at the end of the day, as already has pointed out, it is only one bad log out of many good ones, and probably future cachers would not be put off, we would not for one. I am sure there is not one of us out there that is perfect, we all make mistakes, and of course a cache hidden in winter can throw up all kinds of horrors in summer with nettles, brambles, fern, etc. That is not avoidable, unless we were to research probable future caches in summer. At the end of the day, this is only a game. I have seen a fair bit of militancy of late, and that does not help the game in any way. Isn't it about time we all had a bit more tolerance of others, and enjoy the game even if we get the odd niggle from time to time..

July 19, 2005

There's nothing wrong with the opinion...we are all entitled to that.

However, I think it's perhaps *how* the opinion was expressed, rather than the negative opinion itself that has agitated people.

July 19, 2005

I guess we're going to be slated about our opinions now

Certainly not from this quarter.

July 19, 2005

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. ......

Doesn't the thread title breach the guidelines right from the start?

Its a shame to see differences like this aired in "public". It doesn't give a sound impression of our game - that's what it is isn't it?

3.8k · July 19, 2005

Must admit he sounds like a rude, arrogant, grumpy old man to me. D:

Who davester or tzus???

The way I see it is that Davester has been honest, albeit a bit frank and to the point but honest within his opinion.

tzus on the other hand, hasn't quite liked this honesty about his cache, and in his own words flushed davester out into the open, to make his personal attack, perhaps a polite email to davester would have been just as good?

davester despite the fact you have only placed a few caches, your Geohikes site is a credit to Geocaching within the UK. I have had the pleasure of using this site for my trip to Bute. It is also good to see that you get out and try to do the hikes that are listed on your site. It is a pity that other people are blinkered to other peoples efforts.

Edited July 19, 2005 by Haggis Hunter

July 19, 2005

We feel there is a a big difference between an on line log for an individual caches that is not seen by many on the scale of things countrywide/world wide versus this thread on this forum .

3.7k · July 19, 2005

So you're not allowed to post a grumpy log without being publicly flogged for it? What's the *** world coming to...(grumble, moan, whinge) (TWO DNF's this week).

(the *** are also for Alibags benefit, who's a sensitive soul, I'm led to believe...)

HH.

July 19, 2005

ratings list is working.

Is this for premium members only .

If not where can it be viewed? .

3.3k · July 19, 2005

www.geocacheuk.com Edited July 19, 2005 by Stuey

July 20, 2005

Thanks Stuey . We know the site ,but dont yet know how to view ratings .

2.9k · July 20, 2005

Try here click on caches to go into the search functions etc.

You can alos click on the links on our cache pages to rate them now with the nifty new icon.

I think this thread needs to be closed BTW as it should never of been started until after the normal routes of private emails and deleting logs had been followed.

July 20, 2005

thanks for pointers .

We have www.geocacheuk.com already on a link ,just dont know how to view ratings .

Guess will need to put some time into researching which button to press .

3.1k · July 20, 2005

Try here click on caches to go into the search functions etc.
You can alos click on the links on our cache pages to rate them now with the nifty new icon.

I think this thread needs to be closed BTW as it should never of been started until after the normal routes of private emails and deleting logs had been followed.

I tried to rate the caches I've done, but I don't know how to... any tips?

July 20, 2005

I think this thread needs to be closed BTW as it should never of been started

I'll second that

2.9k · July 20, 2005

try this one !! you may need to log in / create an account but they should appear at the bottom of the page.

3.8k · July 20, 2005

More info on the cache rating can be found HERE

On your "My stats" page, there will be a list of un-rated caches at the botom newest on the top of the list (if you put your pointer over the cache it will show you your log for that cache) after your rate the caches if you refresh the page. The rated cache will be removed.

If you search for a cache here on the results list it will show the rating in stars

sorry for the off topic post

Edited July 20, 2005 by Deego

Look Out !

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment