Cache that make you mad

[+hayndog]

I have a cache I went to today along with my daughter and I have to tell you that as I was logging it I just got ticked off. The cache is called Are you a good little cacher? GC10KCV I am a paperless cacher and my daughter reads the PDA which is a Samsung SPH I500 phone (Very small PDA phone) for those of you not familiar, she reads a very long description rambling on about how to be a good cacher that you have to read the cache page otherwise you may not be aware of hazards or private property problems etc... in the area. I agree with all of that but I'm also an adult and figured I didn't need to be told by another adult that I'm either a good little cacher or a bad little cacher. At the end of this very long message it tells you to look at the back of the log book which will give you instructions on what to do to not be a bad cacher. Well of course my daughter didn't get to the end of the description and we had more than enough information to safely and legally obtain the cache so we did just that. Maybe I'm taking this all wrong and it's meant as a joke but it appears to be very Condescending.

 

What do you think?

[+redcoyote12]

Sounds like a bit much to me too, but it was probably done with tongue in cheek. But yeah, when I go, I want to find caches, not read some rant.

 

BTW I have that phone too, awesome isn't it? I was stoked when I realized I could put Cachemate on it.

[+hayndog]

Don't want to change the topice but when I found that phone on E-bay for $85.00 I couldn't bid quick enough. I have had the phone about 6 months and can't believe that no one else has made a phone this cool. It absolutely rocks. I wish it had bluetooth and speakerphone but other than that It is the best phone I've ever seen PERIOD.

[magellan315]

Cache in question

[Neos2]

I suspect you may have missed some fun or some interesting information by not reading the back of the logbook.

 

I didn't think the cache page was condescending. I do think the owner wanted you to read the cache page and if you had, you might not have posted here tonight. If it were me, I'd at least go back to the cache and see what it was I missed before I jumped to any conclusions.

 

And while I bet that cache page did seem long on a tiny cell phone screen, I'd recommend that you avoid any of my earthcache pages---if you thought that page was long, you'd really hate my earthcache descriptions!

[+hayndog]

The length of the cache page was not and is not something that upsets me and to tell you the truth as I sit her relaxed in my chair computing away I realize it's really not a big deal but the cache is an hour from home and my daughter and I were grabbing it while on a very specific mission so I probably won't be back to it soon. I'm not sure if you cache with kids or not but to make a long story short my daughter probably read the entire page at the exact same time I'm telling her where we need to park and then telling her to get her coat on while also grabbing my coat, the GPS'r and heading out the door, maybe she stopped reading because she got bored whatever the case I was posting my feelings about the cache. It doesn't make the cahe owner a bad guy, it doesn't make me a bad guy the name of this thread was cache that make you mad, this one did, that's it.

[+KBI]

Cache in question

WARNING: POSSIBLE CACHE SPOILER MAY FOLLOW (if my guess is correct, that is)

 

This appears to be an ALR cache -- a cache with an Additional Logging Requirement. Evidently the requirement is spelled out in the note at the back of the logbook. SPOILER: In this particular case it's not too difficult to figure out what that requirement is. Sounds like a fun one!

 

I agree with Neos2: I didn't get the impression that the cache owner was trying to be condescending. I would expect hayndog's log to be deleted due to not complying with the requirement -- unless his log is edited to comply, of course.

 

It would also appear that the cache owner, while encouraging everyone to be a GOOD little cacher and read the description (a recommendation I happen to agree with), might also want to be a GOOD little cacher himself and have his cache type changed to a Mystery/Puzzle cache ( instead of ) in order to comply with the new Guidelines. (The guidelines were updated shortly after the hide date indicated on the cache page, so he's probably excused from being required to change it under a grandfather rule.)

[+KBI]

This has happened to me before as well. I once went after a virtual cache which required an uploaded photo of one's GPS at the waypoint in order to comply with the logging requirement. I had no camera with me, and it was in a town that I didn't expect to visit again.

 

I didn't get angry at the cache -- or the cache owner. I got frustrated with myself for not reading the cache page description beforehand.

[+DocDiTTo]

I've been to caches that are frustrating, and to caches that irritate me enough that I walk away from them, never to return (99% of the time due to very poor placement). Caches with extra logging requirements can be annoying as well, but in the case of the cache you're referring to, the extra logging requirement was extremely simple -- and from the looks of the cache page, you're the only one who failed to complete it. If that makes you mad, then you may want to chill out a little. It's a pretty small thing to get all worked up about. But if it continues to bug you, head back out and read the back of the log book so you can complete the extra logging requirement.

[+hayndog]

KBI I absolutely assume that you are correct and that is what is going to happen here. Probably what upset me about the cache was that as I was logging it and having no idea that it was possibly a puzzle cache I just drove an hour , retrieved one cache and it's going to be taken away because we did not read (or pay attention) to the last line. I am as upset with myself as I am with anyone else. I still think that he was condescending in the cache page but that's my opinion and my opinion and a dollar nine will get you a cup of coffee at Mickey D's. Everyone lighten up in these forums will ya.

[+KBI]

I still think that he was condescending in the cache page .

I agree that it potentially sounds condescending. I just don't think it was intended that way. I might be wrong. Emotional tone is sometimes difficult to express accurately in a text-only format.

 

Everyone lighten up in these forums will ya.

See what I mean?

 

but that's my opinion and my opinion and a dollar nine will get you a cup of coffee at Mickey D's.

No thanks. That stuff burns my legs.

[+hayndog]

Doc, I will say this, how do we have any idea if everyone else followed the directions if he removes your post if you didn't follow the directions.

 

Again folks have you ever been mad because you bit your lip or stubbed your toe, have you ever been mad because you paid eight dollars for a movie that stunk. I don't need to chill out, it's not like I'm sitting here needing to take Prozac because I'm probably going to get my name taken off the log. The question was have you ever been to a cache that made you mad, other than saying that his comments seemed condescending I've not indicated I'm going off the deep end here.

 

Should I have used the word dissappointed instead would that be kinder and friendlier?

[+hayndog]

KBI you rock and I think you get it and you are correct that it is difficult to express yourself in text only.

[+KBI]

Gonna edit your log?

[+hayndog]

Forgot what I wrote but I will go check right now and probably will, cooler heads prevail. See everyone this is exactly why I SHOULD have posted in here because it gave me some different perspective.

[+hayndog]

KBI

What do you think of the edited log.

[+StarBrand]

You had fun looking? You found the cache? You signed the log? You replaced the cache courtesly where you found it?

 

The owner is the one with a problem if your log gets deleted. Shake it off and go have more fun.

[+KBI]

Maybe I should have been more specific. What I should have asked is this: Gonna edit your log to comply with the apparent requirement?

[+KBI]

The owner is the one with a problem if your log gets deleted.

I disagree.

[+hayndog]

Starbrand, Where were you earlier when I could have used some back-up.

[+hayndog]

The owner is the one with a problem if your log gets deleted.

I disagree.

KBI I agree with your disagreement but it felt good to have someone on my side for a minute.

[+hayndog]

Here is the bottom line everyone. I have decided I should have read on. I will be back to the area some time before the summer is here and will log this correctly. I will find 100 caches before the summer is here and this one will be a distant memory. I have enjoyed having a post that was actually looked at by more than ten people and it was fun talking with and hearing the opinions of all of you. It is after midnight in Michigan and I'm going caching tomorrow so I gotta go get some sleep. Good night everyone!!!!

 

HAYNDOG

[+DocDiTTo]

Doc, I will say this, how do we have any idea if everyone else followed the directions if he removes your post if you didn't follow the directions.

 

I don't see on the cache page where he says he'll delete your log if you're a "bad" cacher, so maybe he won't. I think doing so would be quite petty, but I'm not a huge fan of extra logging requirements anyway...

 

I don't need to chill out, it's not like I'm sitting here needing to take Prozac because I'm probably going to get my name taken off the log.

 

Glad to hear that. I wasn't sure there for a bit after your first couple posts.

 

Should I have used the word dissappointed instead would that be kinder and friendlier?

 

It probably would have portrayed your feelings more accurately. As someone else said, all we get is what we read here, so emotions are often hard to judge.

 

I've been in your shoes, caching without reading the cache page only to find there's an extra requirement. I looged the cache as found after signing the log book, and took my chances that the owner would let it slide, because I wasn't prepared to play whatever stupid human tricks the cache page asked for. Had the owner deleted my find, I'd have been a little put out, but he'd have had every right to do so. It was my fault for not being prepared, after all. The find was allowed, so it worked out well. But I really am not a fan of extra logging requirements, and I try to avoid caches that incorporate them.

[+KBI]

Hayndog;

 

I'm posting this message here in the thread because I want to make sure you see it. (Sometimes a PM reply doesn't pop up in its own window.)

 

Is this how you just sent that message or was it by some other means, I wasn't trying to blow you off, I just went to see what you were talking about and think I got it.

Hayndog

I think you've got the right idea ... but I think you left out the brackets.

 

Try

[

]

 

instead of

 

... in your cache log.

[+hayndog]

Thanks all!

[+KBI]

I really am not a fan of extra logging requirements, and I try to avoid caches that incorporate them.

I'm guessing that that was the main reason for the adjustment to the definition of Puzzle/Mystery caches in the Guidelines. A lot of folks had asked for a way to detect such caches without having to read each and every description.

 

I changed my ALR cache as soon as I heard about the Guideline update. I was happy to comply with the new definition.