Wide choice of caches - isnt it great!

[DaBeEm]

I am glad there are so many caches around, so I'm not worried about this email received - 'delete the log...im not changing it...but dont bother logging any of my

caches as the compliment will be returned..'

 

all because i asked for a log to be amended to remove a spoiler!

 

I know its only a game, but i dont like spoilers in logs - does anyone think the same?

[+bargee]

I agree with you, a log shouldn't include a spoiler, but sometimes a few covert references are helpful especially with some of the puzzles up in cheshire[:-)].

 

If the email sender cant take a request in good humour its there problem. go ahead and delete their log, and forget about it.

 

Iain the bargee

[+Simply Paul]

Can you permanently encrypt the log so the spoiler is hidden, but you don't have to delete the log? It's a shame when people take what is quite a silly game too seriously

[+third-degree-witch]

As cache owner has seen fit to make it public it was i who wrote the reply...the cache concerned is a micro,no ifs or buts and i wont be bullied into changing my log.if u dont like it delete my log !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. simple.

[DaBeEm]

Can you permanently encrypt the log so the spoiler is hidden, but you don't have to delete the log? It's a shame when people take what is quite a silly game too seriously

 

Thats a good point, maybe i'll do that. Thanks

[DaBeEm]

As cache owner has seen fit to make it public it was i who wrote the reply...the cache concerned is a micro,no ifs or buts and i wont be bullied into changing my log.if u dont like it delete my log !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. simple.

 

And I wanted not to name names! - it was raised just to guage other peoples responses without making it personal.

 

(saw SP's reply before this, which i replied to first)

[+third-degree-witch]

You will find i have no problem with making stuff public when it regards myself,unlike many i dont hide behind a keyboard !.....Go ahead delete the log..i will still think the cache its a micro.

[Lactodorum]

As cache owner has seen fit to make it public it was i who wrote the reply...the cache concerned is a micro,no ifs or buts and i wont be bullied into changing my log.if u dont like it delete my log !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. simple.

I published the cache in question and without giving too much away I would suggest that there IS some question as to whether it is a regular or micro cache. In your opinion it's a micro, in the owner's opinion it's a regular. Knowing what it is (as I do) I'm not sure either way so I'm happy to leave it as it is.

 

Let's not get too agitatated about a worthless "box in the woods"

[+Mr'D]

I know its only a game, but i dont like spoilers in logs - does anyone think the same?

Yes.

However I have no problem with encrypted logs.

Jon

[+Pengy&Tigger]

It doesn't look like the log on the cache gives away anything that isn't given away by the name of the cache or the description.

 

Is the issue the supposed spoiler, or the fact that you don't think it's a micro? Either way, I can't really see the need to go as far as deleting a log. It's a pretty serious action to delete a log, and can cause a fair bit of future antagonism. I know, as someone deleted a log of mine once for no reason.

 

T

[+Stuey]

I'd probably respect the cache setters request.

[+Pieman]

I am glad there are so many caches around, so I'm not worried about this email received - 'delete the log...im not changing it...but dont bother logging any of my

caches as the compliment will be returned..'

 

all because i asked for a log to be amended to remove a spoiler!

 

I know its only a game, but i dont like spoilers in logs - does anyone think the same?

If you asked politely then the response is just weird. On the couple of occasions I've asked people to amend logs because they've revealed something I'd rather they didn't, I've had no problem.

[DaBeEm]

It doesn't look like the log on the cache gives away anything that isn't given away by the name of the cache or the description.

 

Is the issue the supposed spoiler, or the fact that you don't think it's a micro? Either way, I can't really see the need to go as far as deleting a log. It's a pretty serious action to delete a log, and can cause a fair bit of future antagonism. I know, as someone deleted a log of mine once for no reason.

 

T

 

As I said, originally i didnt want to go into specifics - I just wanted to guage generally peoples thoughts on spoilers or misleading comments in logs (also within the context of my future logs being deleted - which the issue really isnt that important!)

But now that you have brought it up - the container is a log, (refered to on the page as a regular sized container). The logbook is contained within a film canister (more waterproof then just a plastic bag) within a hollowing. The finder is meant to look for a large container (not a micro) because thats what the cache is - looking for a micro they may not find it - I didnt want to make it that hard. The log IS misleading. It gives information about the cache which is misleading by mentioning micros and by reading the logs finders may be mislead into looking for a micro, so i just asked for the log to be amended - wheres the harm in that.

 

I had forgotten that the logs could be encrypted, so this could be an alternative to deletion.

[+third-degree-witch]

My short reply was because of the previous email i recieved...

 

QUOTE....

The issue here is not the size of the cache, it is to do wih the wording of

the log - giving in effect a spoiler. The choice is in fact yours - amend

the log and not spoil it for others, or lose the find.

 

I await your decision

 

David.....UNQUOTE

 

Sorry but it is to do with the size of the cache,plus i wont be threatened with a log deletion if i dont comply LOL. After nearly 2200 cache finds i know the difference between a Micro and a Regular.....also there is no doubt as to the quality of my eyesight.

[DaBeEm]

My short reply was because of the previous email i recieved...

 

QUOTE....

The issue here is not the size of the cache, it is to do wih the wording of

the log - giving in effect a spoiler. The choice is in fact yours - amend

the log and not spoil it for others, or lose the find.

 

I await your decision

 

David.....UNQUOTE

 

Sorry but it is to do with the size of the cache,plus i wont be threatened with a log deletion if i dont comply LOL. After nearly 2200 cache finds i know the difference between a Micro and a Regular.....also there is no doubt as to the quality of my eyesight.

 

Thats good -you have quoted that email as if i just gave you a blunt ultimatum! So lets have rest and see what came before:

 

1.

Hi there,

Re my Nature walks 2 - i'm afraid i have to disagree with you on this

one! the container you are looking for is the log with the moveable

lid - the film container is to protect the logbook, a plastic bag just

would not have done the job. If I had described this as anything other

than a traditional sized container i believe that would be misleading.

Obviously there are sufficient clues to give the game away on the

cache page, but i feel that your log is unhelpful so i would be

grateful if you could amend it.

 

Thank you

 

David

 

2.

Greetings

 

Sorry but i feel our log is correct,its a micro pure and simple,the

other cacher with us seems to agree to.Regardless of the hide you used

the actual container you used for logbook is a simple micro.you even

describe it as being unable to take swaps etc.thats just about covers

it

 

bright blessings

 

TDW

 

3.

I am satisfied that the cache is described and listed correctly. Your

view is just your opinion, but it is incorrect (you seem to be the only 2

out of nearly 60 with that view!), Once again I ask you to please amend

your log as it gives the game away/ is a bit of a spoiler, and i do not

wish it to be so obvious. I dont want to have to delete the log, but i do

not want that information there.

 

Thank you

 

David

 

4.

do what u need to do,im not changing log...its a micro !

 

5.

The issue here is not the size of the cache, it is to do wih the wording

of the log - giving in effect a spoiler. The choice is in fact yours -

amend the log and not spoil it for others, or lose the find.

I await your decision

 

David

 

6.

delete the log...im not changing it...but dont bother logging any of my

caches as the compliment will be returned..

 

Anyway - log encrypted now.

[+third-degree-witch]

I could have done that to ! I was responding to someone elses comment not yours !...Anyway the fact remains.its a M I C R O log encryption or not NEXT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[+purple_pineapple]

purely my opinion (how boring if everyone's was the same!) I think I'd describe it as a regular. If you took the film canister away and had the log in the cavity, then it would obviously be a regular. The addition of a waterproof container for the log is incidental to the actual cache, I would say. If I put out an ammo can and inside that the log is in a small bag, then i would not call it a micro, as the finder is looking for the ammo can... Also, if it is essential to find the 'log' and then work out how to open it or somehting, i would be VERY disappointed to have overlooked it while looking for a micro.

 

Having said this, I haven't read the log, and have no opinion on whether it is a spoiler or not!

 

Cheers!

 

Dave

[+sssss]

 

But now that you have brought it up - the container is a log, (refered to on the page as a regular sized container). The logbook is contained within a film canister (more waterproof then just a plastic bag) within a hollowing. The finder is meant to look for a large container (not a micro) because thats what the cache is - looking for a micro they may not find it - I didnt want to make it that hard. The log IS misleading. It gives information about the cache which is misleading by mentioning micros and by reading the logs finders may be mislead into looking for a micro,

 

i have a cache very similar to this after doing someone elses cache in a log, its a listed as a micro (as was the other) as its a micro and so far no one has had a problem with it, even TDW managed to find it, list it as it is, a micro.

[+Birdman-of-liskatraz]

So if I hid a film container in a hole in a Giant redwood.. then that wouldn't be a micro? It would be a Large cache?

[+McPhan]

Thought I'd stumbled into the US forum by mistake.

 

I recently did a cache a little bit similar and described it as micro. In the description I added that it was hidden in a larger organic container. (people are still searching in rocks though )

 

This is a different approach to a similar hide, not better or worse, just different.

 

No endorsement either way.

[+McPhan]

Back to the original question and being generic.

 

Email to finder asking to change/amend their log giving your reasons.

 

Read reply and if not in agreement with answer move on because 1) likely argument ensues and 2) the log will only be viewed for the next few finds anyway.

 

Having said that I'm yet to get spoilers on one of mine.

[+lost!]

Hmmmm. Intrigued about all the kerfuffle I read the log in question. Whether or not it should be a micro or not I think the log was down right rude designed to get this type of reaction!!! I think I would have got upset too!! Being new to this game I didn't realise it was all taken so seriously.

[+mongoose39uk]

 

Next!

[+Sensei TSKC]

I have always thought of REGULAR caches being those that can and do take swaps. IMHO this is a MICRO.

 

As has been said, if you hide a logbook in a 35mm film case and then hide that in a scaffold pole; tree; or anything else for that matter, if you don't / can't leave swaps; pens; calling cards and other Geolitter outside the 35mm container (in the confines of the item containing it) then it's a MICRO.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Would it be better to call it a Puzzle cache?

 

I think it's a micro...

 

G

[+lost!]

So, in conclusion, it could be a micro or a regular, so everyone is right so everyone can be happy

 

Love and Peace Man!

 

The End!

[+Stuey]

It's not a puzzle cache type, but.... it could be listed as an "unknown" sized container.

 

I personally would have said it was a regular, to avoid the very thorough combing of an area that can be sometimes be witnessed after people spend time looking for a micro hidden in a rural area.

[+DcCow]

Would it be better to call it a Puzzle cache?

 

I think it's a micro...

 

G

 

Maybe listing the cache size as "Not Listed" or "Other" would have been more appropriate.

 

DC

[+The Blorenges]

FWIW From the description given of this cache, there's an identical one in the vague area of the Forest of Dean. It's an excellent hide and it's been around for 3 years... listed as a MICRO.

 

MrsB

[+purple_pineapple]

I have always thought of REGULAR caches being those that can and do take swaps. IMHO this is a MICRO.

 

As has been said, if you hide a logbook in a 35mm film case and then hide that in a scaffold pole; tree; or anything else for that matter, if you don't / can't leave swaps; pens; calling cards and other Geolitter outside the 35mm container (in the confines of the item containing it) then it's a MICRO.

 

if the tree had been specially manufactured to hide the cache, and had a swivel top that moved apart to reveal a hidden compartment, then yes, you could say its a large!

 

I might be wrong, but I understood that the cache was inside a doctored log, which had been engineered to provide a hidden compartment... the fact that a film canister was in there is incidental - the log could have been placed in this compartment without the canister (although it would have got wet!)

 

I'm not sure that the amount of things that can fit in a cache is relevent at all - If I use an ammo can and fill it with ever decreasing size containers (maybe a puzzle cache and they all have locks on...) until we get to a tiny little container with a log book in, does that make it a nano? hardly!

 

I'd forgotten about the 'not known' size option - probably a good choice for this one!

 

(Oh, and sorry sensei - not aimed at you particularly - just the most convenient one to reply to! )

[+Sensei TSKC]

(Oh, and sorry sensei - not aimed at you particularly - just the most convenient one to reply to! )

Seen and noted!

 

[DaBeEm]

NOTE these are general comments and not aimed at anyone in particular

 

 

At the end of the day should it not be down to the cache setter to decide what size to call the container - we do seem to have proved that it is open to interpretation?

 

Should it not also be down to the setter to monitor the content of the logs (with regards to language, spoilers, information that he deems to be inappropriate within the parameters that he has set) and to request that they are amended accordingly if he feels they are incorrect?

 

In both cases shouldn't the finder accept the setters requirements with good grace even if he thinks that they are wrong, in the interests of sportsmanship etc, especially if that finder is also a setter knowing that he may be in a similar position with his own caches?

 

Surely this should be able to be done without fear of a slanging match and fear of retribution?

 

it is only plastic boxes we are looking for after all!

[+third-degree-witch]

SO..by your own arguement surely we should be able to log without retribution as well ? say as you see i say...i did and will continue to do so...with or without retribution

[Samurai Dan]

Hi all,

 

I was the other cacher in question at the time of this find with TDW and Lorraine. I have found caches made in the same way, they were listed as micro's.

 

I was also asked to change my log entry which I did as the cache owner took exception to the words bloody and and hell (used in different lines).

 

quote

"Out caching with Lorraine and TDW

Splash! Splash! Splash! Splash!

Where the hell's that cache?

Lorraine found it in the end

100ft from co-ords.

Im surprised it didnt float off as a raft

it's not a REG it's a bloody MICRO

T4TC Signed Log!

Samurai Dan"

 

End quote

We spent an hour looking for a regular cache container. Had the area had the usual muggle activity it normally would have "the game" would've been up. I'm not interested in getting into arguments as they are a waste of time and energy so I changed my log entry to keep the peace.

 

I do however remember the cache owners and make a point of not doing them again as it just isn't worth the hassle.

 

I understand there can be a difference of measurement between the etrex and a vista it works out at 33' but 100' out? and the 2 maintenance notes on 2 of thier other caches probably didn't help DaBeEms' mood either.

 

Samurai Dan

Edited March 7, 2007 by Samurai Dan

[+John Stead]

I seem to remember some years ago when a thread developed where one party could not possibly be wrong - in his opinion - however carefully another point of view was put.

I will say no more as it does not seem likely to do any good.

[DaBeEm]

Oh - missed the hell - and yes i do think bloody isnt appropriate - it isnt language i let my children use and as 2/3 of my team I wouldnt like them seeing it on my cache pages. It may seem tame in this day and age but that is the standards i keep and so think it inapproriate. I am sorry that you do not.

 

Incidentally there is nothing wrong with my mood, thank you.

[Samurai Dan]

DaBeEm,

 

I know you don't know me and this is the first interaction we have had, my post (and the spur of the moment poem) was made based on the conversations I have had with many other cachers. Every one of them I have spoken too refers to micros' as "not another bloody micro". You asked me to remove it and I did respecting your wishes as the cache owner.

[+third-degree-witch]

I think the simple answer is to agree to disagree..your perception of caches is obviously different to mine.

[+tteggod trackers]

phew i'm glad thats over ! must have been a bad day for co ords! not found a single log mentioning co ords out since the cache was hidden!

Edited March 7, 2007 by tteggod trackers

[+John Stead]

I think the simple answer is to agree to disagree..your perception of caches is obviously different to mine.

 

Thank you

[+Jaz666]

Asking Jon to remove the spoiler from his log is a bit of a mute-point now, considering the hiding method has been well and truly spoilt in this thread.

[DaBeEm]

.... You asked me to remove it and I did respecting your wishes as the cache owner.

 

which i have already thanked you for, as you know.

 

As for as for the reference to 'another bloody micro' - i obviously wasnt aware of the meaning you had placed on it so i guess i owe you an apology for that (but not for the fact that the cache isnt a micro - and i dont want to go there again!) - maybe the form 'ABM' should be used - similar to TNLN etc, in logs.

[DaBeEm]

Asking Jon to remove the spoiler from his log is a bit of a mute-point now, considering the hiding method has been well and truly spoilt in this thread.

 

yes - anyone want to 'out' any of my other caches while we are at it?

[+third-degree-witch]

Quote.....But now that you have brought it up - the container is a log, (refered to on the page as a regular sized container). The logbook is contained within a film canister (more waterproof then just a plastic bag) within a hollowing...Unquote

 

I dont think we need to,youre doing a great job of it yourself !!!!!!!!!!!

[DaBeEm]

There was no other way of explaining my position, once the 'nitty gritty' on the page had been refered to. As i stated at the beginning i had only intended keeping it on a general basis - others started the level of specifics.

[+third-degree-witch]

Well...thats what happens when you bring your woes into the public arena.People express their views n opinions.

[nobby.nobbs]

haven't had a good argument here for ages.

 

let it be and let's move on.

Edited March 8, 2007 by nobby.nobbs

[+Sensei TSKC]

Asking Jon to remove the spoiler from his log is a bit of a mute-point now, considering the hiding method has been well and truly spoilt in this thread.

 

Only for those cachers that use the Forum, don't have Firefox or if they have, didn't hit the ignore Thread (if script installed) AND failing all of that dibn't read the thread in the first place, otherwise it might have.

 

Forgot to mention, if they have memory problems, a bit like mine, it won't matter anyway, cos by the time I get round to doing it, I would have forgotten about it.

 

I could then get back on the forum and start a debate about whether or not that particular cache was a REGULAR or a MICRO.

 

What were we talking about anyway?

 

[+NinjaPete]

Warning. Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links.

 

Anyone recognise the warning above? You should because it appears on every cache page, which kinda negates the whole crux of this thread.

 

p.s. I would call it a micro

[+arock&ahardplace]

What I find thoroughly offputting is the fact that this situation has degenerated so badly.

I have seen both sides of this fence, having both asked and been asked to amend logs due to spoilers. I believe that the best route in this situation is to politely respect the cache owner's request, even if I don't totally agree with them. Then I forget about it and move on. As others have said, it's just a game!

Threatening to delete any cache logs, based solely on a mere grievance over the size of this cache, well, I don't think that is in the best interests of the game. If things continue to break down like this, it could lead to cache warfare (as has happened in other places), and that's too ugly to think about.

Please, put down the axes, pick up your GPSr's and move on.

Well, back to finding silly plastic boxes (and tiny metallic objects) for me!