Recovery with a sense of humor

[+GrizzFlyer]

While reading through some benchmark descriptions (I'm not much of a BM hunter, but I may just change that), I ran across BM MC1382.

 

Read the entry for 1984. Usually these descriptions and recoveries are somewhat dry, to say the least. This one was different.

[CoyoteTrust]

Heh-heh, great find! Yet I wonder if that fella still works for the USPSQD.

[+BuckBrooke]

I wonder how the editing standards of the NGS have changed over the years, in regards to the format of reports.

Edited August 27, 2006 by BuckBrooke

[+4leafclover]

so....

 

who is going to go look for this one?

[+Black Dog Trackers]

The pay not that good remark was another humor item. The USPSQD are volunteer benchmark recoverers like we are.

 

There have been a few marks that I could've tried a bit of recovery humor I guess. One was in a large grassy area so I figured it to be a walkup-and-find, but the mark itself was smack in the center of a 10-foot diameter briar patch. Not to be deterred, I crawled in to the center of that briar patch on my hands and knees, using folded up datasheets for kneepads. It was quite grim.

 

There's also those marks that require the poison-ivy-high-step march, where you try to trample down the stems of 3-foot tall poison ivy shoots before they can reach you first.

[+BuckBrooke]

My favorite was the mark that I Notfounded (near ABQ) to the NGS, and then CallawayMT and I met essentially right on top of it, and he looked down and pointed it out to me.

Edited August 27, 2006 by BuckBrooke

[mloser]

Does anyone else feel that recovery is unprofessional, unnecessary and rude. I would never think of including humor, or whatever that would be considered, because I don't find it funny at all, in an NGS recovery.

[StripeMark]

I also thought it was pretty bad and very unprofessional. I'd put a comment like that here on the geocaching log, but defintely not on the NGS log.

 

....which got me wondering........

 

Does Deb, or someone else, actually read through, or edit, the text entries that we put in the NGS recovery logs before they are updated to the database?

 

I know there is a "holding" period where the logs are held for some time period, and then there is a batch update to the database, but does anyone review them while they are being "held"?

 

and yes, that log was done 22 years ago, so procedures have probably changed since then.

Edited August 28, 2006 by StripeMark

[+Ernmark]

..I get the impression that the logger was in a "3 days from retirement" mindset..

 

...regarding submissions 'holding' periods - I wonder how that works myself. I've seen one or 2 recoveries show up almost immediately & some take a while....

[mloser]

I got the idea the logger was 14!

[andylphoto]

I must admit that I did find the recovery somewhat humorous, but yes, completely unprofessional. I wouldn't dream of putting something like that in an NGS log. In fact, I have even left things out of NGS logs that could be useful because I couldn't do it to the professional standards I am used to seeing.

 

On one recovery, most referenced objects are completely obsolete (abandoned rail line). I had considered adding distances from several references, but did not have my 100-foot tape on this particular trip. I could have added approximate distances and gotten within a couple feet by stepping it off, but didn't think it would rise to the professional standards I have grown used to in recovery reports. I opted instead for posting HH2 coordinates in the report.

[fivethings]

Relayed from seventhings:

 

I thought the subject recovery was absolutley unprofessional.

 

When I first started reporting recoveries to the NGS, I assumed that someone would edit my submissions. Fortunately, I never submitted a recovery that included humor, vulgarity, etc., but one of my early submissions included a lot of descriptive material (it was a Mason-Dixon Stone) that was exceedingly superfluous. It got added to the datasheet verbatim. Since then, I've assumed (correctly by my observations) that my recovery reports would be added to the database exactly as written. I keep them as short and to the point as possible.

 

Regarding the "delay" in submissions and posting: I suspect that the database is updated in a batch process or something like it. That is, the recoveries get posted to the db whenever the process fits into someone's schedule. That may be two days, or it may be several weeks. Makes no difference to me -

 

7

[+PFF]

The Professionals have a way of giving you the story of a mark, while using formal language.

 

Check the last few lines of the original monumenting notes for station HUNT (EZ2882).

 

If you look at the photos, you will see how the stamping was corrected.

 

Last year, somebody in the Forum called attention to a recovery note which mentioned that the surveyor did not check measurements because of a swarm of bees or hornets.

 

As for that USPSQD description, above.....we chide the organization for simply saying, "Not Found". Perhaps we should let that sleeping dog lie, and not encourage them to elaborate.

 

-Paul-

[mloser]

But Paul!

 

That recovery should never have been submitted at all. It ain't a recovery!

 

There is a difference between "not found" and "not looked for". Just because a couple of dogs ran after them doesn't mean the mark is not findable. I am sure we have all had our runins with dogs and while none have ruined my hunt, if they had I wouldn't have logged the search as a not found.

[+PFF]

Good point, ML!

 

Between FOUND and NOT FOUND, we need a new category called TUCKED TAIL AND RAN.

 

Paul

[+Black Dog Trackers]

"not looked for"

That's what I use Post-A-Note for.

The NGS doesn't have a Post-A-Note option and I agree that no one should be using the NGS recovery submission form for doing that.

 

I have a theory on the USPSQD posting. There is the notation "SEE BELOW" in it. I seem to recall that the USPSQD used to use (or still does) a special form for submitting their reports. It pre-dated the NGS putting their form online, I'm sure. Anyway, it's possible that the recovery report had the informal notations (indicated by "see below") that somehow got added to the formal report, either by accident or on purpose. I'm thinking that the USPSQD recovery person hadn't meant for that part to be included in what was going to go into the NGS database.

 

To my way of thinking, a much more important thing than whether or not a bit of humor can be put in an NGS log is the question of whether or not it's a good idea to send any Not-Found recovery reports to the NGS. As I and some others have said before, we tend to shy away from doing that, especially without some statements about why the mark was not found. If I were running the NGS, I would reject any report that was just "mark not found" with no other statements, unless it was submitted with an approved agency code that I knew belonged to a professional surveying organization.

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

Must not have been a very good sandwich!!!!

 

I bless all my meals.

 

I have run across them mad dogs things before.

Now I carry a OAK pick handle.

 

Has detered many dogs to date now and it is legal to carry.

 

It is the time the dogs let you up to the mark and then all of the sudden become very unfriendly.

Like come on in here..............we won't argggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhurt you.