Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
TrailGators

Finder Assigned Attribute: The Gong!

Recommended Posts

But if 5 or 6 people log SBA's wouldn't that be the same as your gongs? Having it be viewable only to the admins makes them out to be the bad guys ("Everyone who's gone to my cache likes it. The admin hates me so he archived my cache and is just saying that it was gonged."). They already take enough abuse for a job they don't get paid to do.

The only time people use SBAs is when the cache is repeatedly DNFed and the owner is doing nothing to fix it. I am not aware of anyone ever using an SBA for a lame cache. I really don't think most would be comfortable doing this. So I don't think this would be an effective way to purge the area of really lame caches. But I appreciate your suggestion! :unsure:

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

 

If you want the admins to archive a cache that you think is undesirable, why don't you just log an SBA on the cache?

Because then it's just my opinion. The idea was to get a consensus.

 

Edit: Plus we can do it that way now and nobody ever does. But that's understandable because most people don't like being the bad guy! :unsure:

 

I don't know about other people, but I have no hesitation about posting SBAs. I've never posted an SBA for a "lame" cache, but many for missing caches that the owner does nothing about.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't know about other people, but I have no hesitation about posting SBAs. I've never posted an SBA for a "lame" cache, but many for missing caches that the owner does nothing about.

Would you post an SBA for a very lame cache?

Share this post


Link to post

I keep thinking that I'm misunderstanding something.

 

Under your system:

* Finders can "gong" a cache that they feel is lame.

* The only people that can see these "gongs" are the admins, or an automated e-mail system.

* If a cache receives five "gongs", either a reviewer will get involved, or an automatic e-mail will be sent the cache owner. The cache owner will be told to either fix or archive the cache.

* If the cache owner does nothing, the reviewer will archive the cache.

 

Is this correct?

Share this post


Link to post

I keep thinking that I'm misunderstanding something.

 

Under your system:

* Finders can "gong" a cache that they feel is lame.

* The only people that can see these "gongs" are the admins, or an automated e-mail system.

* If a cache receives five "gongs", either a reviewer will get involved, or an automatic e-mail will be sent the cache owner. The cache owner will be told to either fix or archive the cache.

* If the cache owner does nothing, the reviewer will archive the cache.

 

Is this correct?

 

Not exactly.

 

With the GONG the cache meet all listing requirments and be well maintained, but since it sucks it gets it's GONGED.

 

The SBA log is for a problem (and only after you email the owner). Hopefully the SBA log is not used just because the cache sucked.

 

Edit:

On second thought you are close since the idea is to archive or flag sucky caches.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post
I keep thinking that I'm misunderstanding something.

 

Under your system:

* Finders can "gong" a cache that they feel is lame.

* The only people that can see these "gongs" are the admins, or an automated e-mail system.

* If a cache receives five "gongs", either a reviewer will get involved, or an automatic e-mail will be sent the cache owner. The cache owner will be told to either fix or archive the cache.

* If the cache owner does nothing, the reviewer will archive the cache.

 

Is this correct?

That's basically it but the cache owner would also be able to see the gong count and gong comments too. Unlike the SBA for lame cache idea this has the advantage of discretely telling the cache owner to fix his cache. However, if he does nothing and five gongs pile up then the admin would get involved.

 

Edit: I really think that this could send a message out to people without embarrassing them to let them know that they have a cache that is bad enough to be gonged. Maybe they would try harder and we all would benefit! :unsure:

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
The SBA log is for a problem (and only after you email the owner). Hopefully the SBA log is not used just because the cache sucked.

This was my understanding as well. I think SBA communicates that a cache and it's owner both are missing.

Share this post


Link to post
I keep thinking that I'm misunderstanding something.

 

Under your system:

* Finders can "gong" a cache that they feel is lame.

* The only people that can see these "gongs" are the admins, or an automated e-mail system.

* If a cache receives five "gongs", either a reviewer will get involved, or an automatic e-mail will be sent the cache owner. The cache owner will be told to either fix or archive the cache.

* If the cache owner does nothing, the reviewer will archive the cache.

 

Is this correct?

That's basically it but the cache owner would also be able to see the gong count and gong comments too. Unlike the SBA for lame cache idea this has the advantage of discretely telling the cache owner to fix his cache. However, if he does nothing and five gongs pile up then the admin would get involved.

 

Edit: I really think that this could send a message out to people without embarrassing them to let them know that they have a cache that is bad enough to be gonged. Maybe they would try harder and we all would benefit! :unsure:

Sorry, but I still keep seeing that you're telling an admin that the cache should be archived because it's a lame cache. You're just calling it a "Gong" instead of an "SBA", and wanting four people to agree with your opinion of the cache.

What if the cache owner thinks his cache is fine because 60 people have found it and none of them complained in the logs? Will the admin archive the cache anyway, based on the opinion of five people?

Share this post


Link to post
I keep thinking that I'm misunderstanding something.

 

Under your system:

* Finders can "gong" a cache that they feel is lame.

* The only people that can see these "gongs" are the admins, or an automated e-mail system.

* If a cache receives five "gongs", either a reviewer will get involved, or an automatic e-mail will be sent the cache owner. The cache owner will be told to either fix or archive the cache.

* If the cache owner does nothing, the reviewer will archive the cache.

 

Is this correct?

That's basically it but the cache owner would also be able to see the gong count and gong comments too. Unlike the SBA for lame cache idea this has the advantage of discretely telling the cache owner to fix his cache. However, if he does nothing and five gongs pile up then the admin would get involved.

 

Edit: I really think that this could send a message out to people without embarrassing them to let them know that they have a cache that is bad enough to be gonged. Maybe they would try harder and we all would benefit! :unsure:

Sorry, but I still keep seeing that you're telling an admin that the cache should be archived because it's a lame cache. You're just calling it a "Gong" instead of an "SBA", and wanting four people to agree with your opinion of the cache.

What if the cache owner thinks his cache is fine because 60 people have found it and none of them complained in the logs? Will the admin archive the cache anyway, based on the opinion of five people?

Not necessarily. He would check it out or ask a helper to check it out first. If it's near some migrant home then it should be archived. If it's in an unsafe place it should be archived.

 

We already explained what we thought SBAs should be used for.

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
The SBA log is for a problem (and only after you email the owner). Hopefully the SBA log is not used just because the cache sucked.

This was my understanding as well. I think SBA communicates that a cache and it's owner both are missing.

Not necessarily. The last SBA that I logged was after having a half-hour discussion with the maintenance people in a privately owned cemetery that were very upset that a cache was placed there, without permission, of course. They found and removed the cache, but people were still coming to look for it since it was still listed on the site. It needed to be removed from the listings as soon as possible, so I went home immediately, logged an SBA, and sent e-mails to the reviewer and the cache owner. It was archived within five minutes.

So the cache was missing, the owner was not, but immediate action needed to be taken.

Share this post


Link to post
The SBA log is for a problem (and only after you email the owner). Hopefully the SBA log is not used just because the cache sucked.

This was my understanding as well. I think SBA communicates that a cache and it's owner both are missing.

Not necessarily. The last SBA that I logged was after having a half-hour discussion with the maintenance people in a privately owned cemetery that were very upset that a cache was placed there, without permission, of course. They found and removed the cache, but people were still coming to look for it since it was still listed on the site. It needed to be removed from the listings as soon as possible, so I went home immediately, logged an SBA, and sent e-mails to the reviewer and the cache owner. It was archived within five minutes.

So the cache was missing, the owner was not, but immediate action needed to be taken.

I agree that any cache cache that violates guidelines should be SBA'ed too!

Share this post


Link to post
Sorry, but I still keep seeing that you're telling an admin that the cache should be archived because it's a lame cache. You're just calling it a "Gong" instead of an "SBA", and wanting four people to agree with your opinion of the cache.

What if the cache owner thinks his cache is fine because 60 people have found it and none of them complained in the logs? Will the admin archive the cache anyway, based on the opinion of five people?

Not necessarily. He would check it out or ask a helper to check it out first. If it's near some migrant home then it should be archived. If it's in an unsafe place it should be archived.

 

We already explained what we thought SBAs should be used for.

I give up.

Just put me down for voting against your idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Sorry, but I still keep seeing that you're telling an admin that the cache should be archived because it's a lame cache. You're just calling it a "Gong" instead of an "SBA", and wanting four people to agree with your opinion of the cache.

What if the cache owner thinks his cache is fine because 60 people have found it and none of them complained in the logs? Will the admin archive the cache anyway, based on the opinion of five people?

Not necessarily. He would check it out or ask a helper to check it out first. If it's near some migrant home then it should be archived. If it's in an unsafe place it should be archived.

 

We already explained what we thought SBAs should be used for.

I give up.

Just put me down for voting against your idea.

Think of a gong idea as 5 strikes. The very lame cache owner gets to see and react to each strike. Plus he gets to see those strikes in private. There is no humiliation. But if he does nothing to improve the concerns voiced by the first four gongers then let the admin handle it when he gets his 5th gong!

 

Why is this so objectionable? I honestly don't get it.....

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
Sorry, but I still keep seeing that you're telling an admin that the cache should be archived because it's a lame cache. You're just calling it a "Gong" instead of an "SBA", and wanting four people to agree with your opinion of the cache.

What if the cache owner thinks his cache is fine because 60 people have found it and none of them complained in the logs? Will the admin archive the cache anyway, based on the opinion of five people?

Not necessarily. He would check it out or ask a helper to check it out first. If it's near some migrant home then it should be archived. If it's in an unsafe place it should be archived.

 

We already explained what we thought SBAs should be used for.

I give up.

Just put me down for voting against your idea.

Think of a gong idea as 5 strikes. The very lame cache owner gets to see and react to each strike. Plus he gets to see those strikes in private. There is no humiliation. But if he does nothing to improve the concerns voiced by the first four gongers then let the admin handle it when he gets his 5th gong!

 

Why is this so objectionable? I honestly don't get it.....

60 finders have no problem with the cache.

5 finders gong it.

An admin says "Change it or I'll archive it".

And you can't see why this would be objectionable?

Share this post


Link to post
Sorry, but I still keep seeing that you're telling an admin that the cache should be archived because it's a lame cache. You're just calling it a "Gong" instead of an "SBA", and wanting four people to agree with your opinion of the cache.

What if the cache owner thinks his cache is fine because 60 people have found it and none of them complained in the logs? Will the admin archive the cache anyway, based on the opinion of five people?

Not necessarily. He would check it out or ask a helper to check it out first. If it's near some migrant home then it should be archived. If it's in an unsafe place it should be archived.

 

We already explained what we thought SBAs should be used for.

I give up.

Just put me down for voting against your idea.

Think of a gong idea as 5 strikes. The very lame cache owner gets to see and react to each strike. Plus he gets to see those strikes in private. There is no humiliation. But if he does nothing to improve the concerns voiced by the first four gongers then let the admin handle it when he gets his 5th gong!

 

Why is this so objectionable? I honestly don't get it.....

60 finders have no problem with the cache.

5 finders gong it.

An admin says "Change it or I'll archive it".

And you can't see why this would be objectionable?

60 cachers find a cache in a urine stenched migrant home and they think it's OK? :unsure:

Did you read my examples????

 

Edit: If the admin or his helper(s) check out a gonged cache and they think the cache is actually OK; then the admin would reset the gong for that cache. Then five new people would have to gong the cache when they logged their finds.

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
Sorry, but I still keep seeing that you're telling an admin that the cache should be archived because it's a lame cache. You're just calling it a "Gong" instead of an "SBA", and wanting four people to agree with your opinion of the cache.

What if the cache owner thinks his cache is fine because 60 people have found it and none of them complained in the logs? Will the admin archive the cache anyway, based on the opinion of five people?

Not necessarily. He would check it out or ask a helper to check it out first. If it's near some migrant home then it should be archived. If it's in an unsafe place it should be archived.

 

We already explained what we thought SBAs should be used for.

I give up.

Just put me down for voting against your idea.

Think of a gong idea as 5 strikes. The very lame cache owner gets to see and react to each strike. Plus he gets to see those strikes in private. There is no humiliation. But if he does nothing to improve the concerns voiced by the first four gongers then let the admin handle it when he gets his 5th gong!

 

Why is this so objectionable? I honestly don't get it.....

60 finders have no problem with the cache.

5 finders gong it.

An admin says "Change it or I'll archive it".

And you can't see why this would be objectionable?

60 cachers find a cache in a urine stenched migrant home and they think it's OK?

You started this idea as a way to get rid of lame caches. Is a cache "in a urine stenched migrant home" your definition of a lame cache?

But, since you brought it up, if the cache location was that unsafe or unhealthy, shouldn't it be removed from the listings immediately? Why wait until four others agreed with you, gonged the cache, and an admin sent someone out to check on it? An SBA would go to an admin immediately, he would then disable the cache and make an attempt to contact the cache owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Sorry, but I still keep seeing that you're telling an admin that the cache should be archived because it's a lame cache. You're just calling it a "Gong" instead of an "SBA", and wanting four people to agree with your opinion of the cache.

What if the cache owner thinks his cache is fine because 60 people have found it and none of them complained in the logs? Will the admin archive the cache anyway, based on the opinion of five people?

Not necessarily. He would check it out or ask a helper to check it out first. If it's near some migrant home then it should be archived. If it's in an unsafe place it should be archived.

 

We already explained what we thought SBAs should be used for.

I give up.

Just put me down for voting against your idea.

Think of a gong idea as 5 strikes. The very lame cache owner gets to see and react to each strike. Plus he gets to see those strikes in private. There is no humiliation. But if he does nothing to improve the concerns voiced by the first four gongers then let the admin handle it when he gets his 5th gong!

 

Why is this so objectionable? I honestly don't get it.....

60 finders have no problem with the cache.

5 finders gong it.

An admin says "Change it or I'll archive it".

And you can't see why this would be objectionable?

60 cachers find a cache in a urine stenched migrant home and they think it's OK?

You started this idea as a way to get rid of lame caches. Is a cache "in a urine stenched migrant home" your definition of a lame cache?

But, since you brought it up, if the cache location was that unsafe or unhealthy, shouldn't it be removed from the listings immediately? Why wait until four others agreed with you, gonged the cache, and an admin sent someone out to check on it? An SBA would go to an admin immediately, he would then disable the cache and make an attempt to contact the cache owner.

The cache we found near the migrant home wasn't unhealthy. It was disgusting. There are other disgusting locations too! They are lame IMHO!

Share this post


Link to post
Sorry, but I still keep seeing that you're telling an admin that the cache should be archived because it's a lame cache. You're just calling it a "Gong" instead of an "SBA", and wanting four people to agree with your opinion of the cache.

What if the cache owner thinks his cache is fine because 60 people have found it and none of them complained in the logs? Will the admin archive the cache anyway, based on the opinion of five people?

Not necessarily. He would check it out or ask a helper to check it out first. If it's near some migrant home then it should be archived. If it's in an unsafe place it should be archived.

 

We already explained what we thought SBAs should be used for.

I give up.

Just put me down for voting against your idea.

Think of a gong idea as 5 strikes. The very lame cache owner gets to see and react to each strike. Plus he gets to see those strikes in private. There is no humiliation. But if he does nothing to improve the concerns voiced by the first four gongers then let the admin handle it when he gets his 5th gong!

 

Why is this so objectionable? I honestly don't get it.....

60 finders have no problem with the cache.

5 finders gong it.

An admin says "Change it or I'll archive it".

And you can't see why this would be objectionable?

60 cachers find a cache in a urine stenched migrant home and they think it's OK?

You started this idea as a way to get rid of lame caches. Is a cache "in a urine stenched migrant home" your definition of a lame cache?

But, since you brought it up, if the cache location was that unsafe or unhealthy, shouldn't it be removed from the listings immediately? Why wait until four others agreed with you, gonged the cache, and an admin sent someone out to check on it? An SBA would go to an admin immediately, he would then disable the cache and make an attempt to contact the cache owner.

The cache we found near the migrant home wasn't unhealthy. It was disgusting. There are other disgusting locations too! They are lame IMHO!

So maybe you and four others are more sensitive than the other 60 who found the cache? They didn't have a problem with it, but you did so it should be archived?

I can easily find five cachers who think that placing a cache in a cemetery is disgusting.

I can also find five cachers who think that having to walk down a muddy trail is disgusting.

You want caches archived based on the opinion of a minority of the finders.

I don't agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Sorry, but I still keep seeing that you're telling an admin that the cache should be archived because it's a lame cache. You're just calling it a "Gong" instead of an "SBA", and wanting four people to agree with your opinion of the cache.

What if the cache owner thinks his cache is fine because 60 people have found it and none of them complained in the logs? Will the admin archive the cache anyway, based on the opinion of five people?

Not necessarily. He would check it out or ask a helper to check it out first. If it's near some migrant home then it should be archived. If it's in an unsafe place it should be archived.

 

We already explained what we thought SBAs should be used for.

I give up.

Just put me down for voting against your idea.

Think of a gong idea as 5 strikes. The very lame cache owner gets to see and react to each strike. Plus he gets to see those strikes in private. There is no humiliation. But if he does nothing to improve the concerns voiced by the first four gongers then let the admin handle it when he gets his 5th gong!

 

Why is this so objectionable? I honestly don't get it.....

60 finders have no problem with the cache.

5 finders gong it.

An admin says "Change it or I'll archive it".

And you can't see why this would be objectionable?

60 cachers find a cache in a urine stenched migrant home and they think it's OK?

You started this idea as a way to get rid of lame caches. Is a cache "in a urine stenched migrant home" your definition of a lame cache?

But, since you brought it up, if the cache location was that unsafe or unhealthy, shouldn't it be removed from the listings immediately? Why wait until four others agreed with you, gonged the cache, and an admin sent someone out to check on it? An SBA would go to an admin immediately, he would then disable the cache and make an attempt to contact the cache owner.

The cache we found near the migrant home wasn't unhealthy. It was disgusting. There are other disgusting locations too! They are lame IMHO!

So maybe you and four others are more sensitive than the other 60 who found the cache? They didn't have a problem with it, but you did so it should be archived?

I can easily find five cachers who think that placing a cache in a cemetery is disgusting.

I can also find five cachers who think that having to walk down a muddy trail is disgusting.

You want caches archived based on the opinion of a minority of the finders.

I don't agree with that.

You were the one that was recommending that those caches be SBAed! That means the opinion of ONE cacher versus 60! :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Sorry, but I still keep seeing that you're telling an admin that the cache should be archived because it's a lame cache. You're just calling it a "Gong" instead of an "SBA", and wanting four people to agree with your opinion of the cache.

What if the cache owner thinks his cache is fine because 60 people have found it and none of them complained in the logs? Will the admin archive the cache anyway, based on the opinion of five people?

Not necessarily. He would check it out or ask a helper to check it out first. If it's near some migrant home then it should be archived. If it's in an unsafe place it should be archived.

 

We already explained what we thought SBAs should be used for.

I give up.

Just put me down for voting against your idea.

Think of a gong idea as 5 strikes. The very lame cache owner gets to see and react to each strike. Plus he gets to see those strikes in private. There is no humiliation. But if he does nothing to improve the concerns voiced by the first four gongers then let the admin handle it when he gets his 5th gong!

 

Why is this so objectionable? I honestly don't get it.....

60 finders have no problem with the cache.

5 finders gong it.

An admin says "Change it or I'll archive it".

And you can't see why this would be objectionable?

60 cachers find a cache in a urine stenched migrant home and they think it's OK?

You started this idea as a way to get rid of lame caches. Is a cache "in a urine stenched migrant home" your definition of a lame cache?

But, since you brought it up, if the cache location was that unsafe or unhealthy, shouldn't it be removed from the listings immediately? Why wait until four others agreed with you, gonged the cache, and an admin sent someone out to check on it? An SBA would go to an admin immediately, he would then disable the cache and make an attempt to contact the cache owner.

The cache we found near the migrant home wasn't unhealthy. It was disgusting. There are other disgusting locations too! They are lame IMHO!

So maybe you and four others are more sensitive than the other 60 who found the cache? They didn't have a problem with it, but you did so it should be archived?

I can easily find five cachers who think that placing a cache in a cemetery is disgusting.

I can also find five cachers who think that having to walk down a muddy trail is disgusting.

You want caches archived based on the opinion of a minority of the finders.

I don't agree with that.

You were the one that was recommending that those caches be SBAed! That means the opinion of ONE cacher versus 60! :unsure:

Thank you for your high opinion of my ability to have a cache archived, however you should know that an SBA from anyone, even me, does not automatically mean that a cache will be archived.

If, in your SBA log, you give a good reason for the need for archival it may be archived immediately and then investigated. If your SBA log simply states that you think the cache is missing, or some other problem, it won't be archived until that is confirmed.

Once again, I see no real difference between logging a "gong" and logging an "SBA", except that your "gong" is based on your personal opinion of the cache and not connected with any guidelines for cache placement.

So how about this:

If more than half of the finders log a "gong", instead of just five, a message is sent to the cache owner. It is up to the cache owner to determine what to do about the cache, but as long as the cache follows the guidelines it would not be archived.

I would still like to see those who log the "gong" being held accountable for it, but I'm sure you'll say that finders wouldn't "gong" the cache then.

Share this post


Link to post

quick question. who exactly will go to the cache to measure its lameness after it recieves it's gongs. because as you said earlier 5 people gong it and than someone goes to see if its really as bad as all that. you state that he will check it out or ask a helper, but know you have one person making the call again. five recommended it but only one is making the decision and to tell the truth I would rather the reviewers spend their time accepting new caches than looking for lame ones.

 

I wouldn't want to find a cache in a location filled with human waste either, but I would probably notice how nasty it was and walk away long before I was close enough to hunt it.

 

I like the sentiment but am not sure of the practicality

 

(btw who pays the gas for the trips that the volunteers waste go to do a physical check of the lame cache?)

 

bwmick

Share this post


Link to post
The SBA log is for a problem (and only after you email the owner). Hopefully the SBA log is not used just because the cache sucked.

This was my understanding as well. I think SBA communicates that a cache and it's owner both are missing.

Not necessarily. The last SBA that I logged was after having a half-hour discussion with the maintenance people in a privately owned cemetery that were very upset that a cache was placed there, without permission, of course. They found and removed the cache, but people were still coming to look for it since it was still listed on the site. It needed to be removed from the listings as soon as possible, so I went home immediately, logged an SBA, and sent e-mails to the reviewer and the cache owner. It was archived within five minutes.

So the cache was missing, the owner was not, but immediate action needed to be taken.

 

I think we are in general agreement, just not on some nuances. I would have emailed the owner first and if they didn't respond then did the SBA. Having been in a similar postion I even called back the land owners when the situation was resolved and let them know.

Share this post


Link to post

quick question. who exactly will go to the cache to measure its lameness after it recieves it's gongs. because as you said earlier 5 people gong it and than someone goes to see if its really as bad as all that. you state that he will check it out or ask a helper, but know you have one person making the call again. five recommended it but only one is making the decision and to tell the truth I would rather the reviewers spend their time accepting new caches than looking for lame ones.

 

I wouldn't want to find a cache in a location filled with human waste either, but I would probably notice how nasty it was and walk away long before I was close enough to hunt it.

 

I like the sentiment but am not sure of the practicality

 

(btw who pays the gas for the trips that the volunteers waste go to do a physical check of the lame cache?)

 

bwmick

In a local caching community, the Reviewer will probably know, or know of, most of the cachers who GONG a cache. The Reviewer, looking at the comments that accompany each of the GONGs, will decide what to say in the email to the cache owner -- whether the cache should be moved, improved, or Archived.

 

The only problem I see with this is that it adds to the Reviewers workload. :laughing:

 

If the cache submission page was more difficult to navigate by the inclusion of mandatory Variables that a hider had to review, some newbies anxious to place their very first 35mm film canister under a lampost skirt might be put off and not proceed.

 

With that implementation, there would possibly be fewer caches to GONG in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
quick question. who exactly will go to the cache to measure its lameness after it recieves it's gongs. because as you said earlier 5 people gong it and than someone goes to see if its really as bad as all that. you state that he will check it out or ask a helper, but know you have one person making the call again. five recommended it but only one is making the decision and to tell the truth I would rather the reviewers spend their time accepting new caches than looking for lame ones.
If we use SBAs to report lame caches the admins would be even busier reviewing lame caches. At least if you gather 5 gongs it would only add legit issues to their plates.

 

I wouldn't want to find a cache in a location filled with human waste either, but I would probably notice how nasty it was and walk away long before I was close enough to hunt it. I like the sentiment but am not sure of the practicality
So what would you do after you walked away? In my case, I post my concerns in my find log to warn others. But this has been ineffective and has not changed anything. I think we need something a little stronger but not as strong as an SBA.

 

(btw who pays the gas for the trips that the volunteers waste go to do a physical check of the lame cache?)
We are lucky to have a good group of cachers/leaders out here. We would have no problem having someone check out a cache. In many cases if knowledgable cachers reported the issue already the admin could decide based on that. I just wanted a check and balance in case the 5 gongs were done by overly critical people.

Share this post


Link to post
The only problem I see with this is that it adds to the Reviewers workload. :laughing:

 

If the cache submission page was more difficult to navigate by the inclusion of mandatory Variables that a hider had to review, some newbies anxious to place their very first 35mm film canister under a lampost skirt might be put off and not proceed.

 

With that implementation, there would possibly be fewer caches to GONG in the future.

I like the idea of more stringent requirements. It would improve the quality of the caches and reduce the workload of the admins. However, I think these variables could be fudged by some people. So the bottomline is that you just don't know how appropriate/lame a cache is until you find it.

Share this post


Link to post
The SBA log is for a problem (and only after you email the owner). Hopefully the SBA log is not used just because the cache sucked.

This was my understanding as well. I think SBA communicates that a cache and it's owner both are missing.

Not necessarily. The last SBA that I logged was after having a half-hour discussion with the maintenance people in a privately owned cemetery that were very upset that a cache was placed there, without permission, of course. They found and removed the cache, but people were still coming to look for it since it was still listed on the site. It needed to be removed from the listings as soon as possible, so I went home immediately, logged an SBA, and sent e-mails to the reviewer and the cache owner. It was archived within five minutes.

So the cache was missing, the owner was not, but immediate action needed to be taken.

 

I think we are in general agreement, just not on some nuances. I would have emailed the owner first and if they didn't respond then did the SBA. Having been in a similar postion I even called back the land owners when the situation was resolved and let them know.

In another situation (same cache owners, actually) I did just that. I sent them an e-mail detailing my discussion with a police officer. In that instance there was no need for immediate action.

In this case, the maintenance people were aware of the website and watching the cache page. They had discussed it with two other cachers and had not seen any action being taken. Knowing the cache owners, I knew that there was a better than even chance that they were out of town for the weekend. If I had e-mailed them it may have been 48 hours before anything was done. I made a judgement call that, in a later discussion with the cache owner, the owner agreed with.

The cache was near the children's section of a cemetery. While searching for it I saw another cacher actually looking in the decorations on the children's graves. Is it any wonder the workers at the cemetery were upset? I wanted the issue resolved as quickly as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
While searching for it I saw another cacher actually looking in the decorations on the children's graves. Is it any wonder the workers at the cemetery were upset?
Some people are real moroffs (someone that is more off than on)! :laughing:

The problem is that some people don't take into account these people when they place a cache. I've seen beautiful flower beds and landscaping destroyed by moroffs trampling over the place. It's a shame. That is why we need to take ownership as a community of cachers to come up with effective ways to resolve these issues.

Share this post


Link to post

Heheh...

 

add9a38e-b10e-4f85-b241-7001c360bb55.jpg

 

I'm sure THAT would go over well.

 

YES. Good idea, but since there were very few comments on it, let me point out the bookmark lists section for any that missed it. (Scroll up and look if you missed it) I have not tried it, but I believe that anyone (well, any premium members) can create their own bookmark lists and mark them as public. Then they will show up on the cache listing. So, everyone can already create a bookmark list called "GONG" and add any bad caches to their list. The requested feature is there already, as Markwell illustrated for us.

 

People can also create bookmark lists called "Super Hides" or "My Favorites" or "This Rules" and make them public as well.

 

When creating bookmark lists, you also get a short description that will show up if someone views the list, so more details can be added.

Share this post


Link to post

Heheh...

 

add9a38e-b10e-4f85-b241-7001c360bb55.jpg

 

I'm sure THAT would go over well.

 

YES. Good idea, but since there were very few comments on it, let me point out the bookmark lists section for any that missed it. (Scroll up and look if you missed it) I have not tried it, but I believe that anyone (well, any premium members) can create their own bookmark lists and mark them as public. Then they will show up on the cache listing. So, everyone can already create a bookmark list called "GONG" and add any bad caches to their list. The requested feature is there already, as Markwell illustrated for us.

 

People can also create bookmark lists called "Super Hides" or "My Favorites" or "This Rules" and make them public as well.

 

When creating bookmark lists, you also get a short description that will show up if someone views the list, so more details can be added.

I like this idea but I still think that most people won't do it. I think if people were allowed to maintain their anonymity you would get a more accurate vote of how people feel. Since it's apparent that the gong idea will never fly, maybe a simple thumbs up/thumbs down would be a better approach. :laughing: Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

 

I like this idea but I still think that most people won't do it. I think if people were allowed to maintain their anonymity you would get a more accurate vote of how people feel. Since it's apparent that the gong idea will never fly, maybe a simple thumbs up/thumbs down would be a better approach. :drama:

 

Anonymity? Like pointy white hoods and long white robes?

 

I am not afraid to make a negative comment in my log if the cache deserves it ("trucker bombs" near the cache, for example, are given the thumbs down in our logs). I have mentioned in my logs that "this is a weird place for a cache...nothing interesting to see here." Sometimes, I even criticize Mother Nature herself for "nasty bugs," "icky caterpillars," "slimy mud," etc. But our name is there each and every time, and if the cache owner wishes to discuss the matter further or post an online rebuttal, he/she can do so. To allow anonymous comments to determine a cache's fate just doesn't sit right with me!

Share this post


Link to post

So, Let's say that I don't like a specific cacher. I gong his cache and have four of my buddies do the same. The reviewer (who doesn't live in the area) shoots an email to the cache owner explaining how lame the cache is and insisting that the problem be corrected. No action is taken with the perfectly fine geocache, so it is archived, thereby becoming geotrash.

 

Please let me know if I correctly understand this plan.

 

If I do, I'll pass. I think this is a really bad idea. If the cache meets the guidelines, it should be listed. If you don't like caches like it, filter them out. If you arrive at a disgusting location, write about it in your log. Make sure that you mention the CITO that you did or did not do.

Share this post


Link to post
So, Let's say that I don't like a specific cacher. I gong his cache and have four of my buddies do the same. The reviewer (who doesn't live in the area) shoots an email to the cache owner explaining how lame the cache is and insisting that the problem be corrected. No action is taken with the perfectly fine geocache, so it is archived, thereby becoming geotrash.

 

Please let me know if I correctly understand this plan.

 

If I do, I'll pass. I think this is a really bad idea. If the cache meets the guidelines, it should be listed. If you don't like caches like it, filter them out. If you arrive at a disgusting location, write about it in your log. Make sure that you mention the CITO that you did or did not do.

Do you really think people will conspire to do that? :drama: Anyhow, you can't filter those caches out. If we had a rating system we could filter them out but we don't so we can't.

 

Look we are experienced cachers. We do add comments in our cache logs. We do try to CITO them as best as we can and log what we did. We think those methods are ineffective. So let's stay on target with how to get rid a really lame caches and not give caching lessons! We are all ears for good suggestions! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...