Absent Caches

[+Dragontree]

Recently I have noted the launch of a cache and travelled some distance to seek and perhaps get a FTF only to find nothing solely because the owner hadn't placed it. This is very annoying and time wasting. Have other cachers encountered this many times as it has happened to me twice in the last couple of months?

[Lactodorum]

If we'd known at the time that the cache wasn't in place we'd never have published it.

[+jerryo]

Recently I have noted the launch of a cache and travelled some distance to seek and perhaps get a FTF only to find nothing solely because the owner hadn't placed it. This is very annoying and time wasting. Have other cachers encountered this many times as it has happened to me twice in the last couple of months?

How do you know it wasn't placed? I put one out recently and it was muggled before it was found but the mugglers had left sign so the potential FTFers knew it was out. If there was nothing left for your hunt it could be the same sort of thing happening? Or do you know for a fact?

[Deceangi]

If this happens to anyone, I'd suggest the following actions.

 

Post a DNF to the cache page [you never know the container could have been muggled, or the owner failed to untick the box whilst writing the page before locating the container. And a eager Reviewer comes along and publishes it ]

 

Contact the owner to find out the actual status of the container. If they failed to located the container before it was submitted for review, politely point out to them that the container MUST be in it's location before the cache is submitted for review.

 

If the same person does the same thing again, quietly contact one of the reviewers. Who will quietly have a word with the person and explain the situation [no need to name or shame anyone, which is exactly the correct approach taken by Dragontree by not naming the cache or owner ]

[lakeuk]

There was a cache locally last week that came up which I would of rushed out for as it was on a regular route of mine, but I held back for two reasons, the placer was a newbie and hadn't made any finds plus the description consisted of 2 short sentences so my first thought was maybe 'sock puppet' account

 

My suspicions were partly founded as the first two cachers posted a DNF, turns out the newbie had made the mistake of requesting a review before putting the cache, after he/she posted a note to say it's been placed someone came and found it. You weigh things up and make a choice

 

Every other occasion I've gone out for a FTF having already noted some DNF's, I don't fully expect to find them and normally take in other caches to make up the day and class these as a bonus. I don't travel distances just for a FTF

[+Teuchters]

What happens if you want to put out a cache for an event and need it published beforehand so to give folk traveling a distance the opportunity to plan the trip or download the details into their paperless caching program in advance..

 

BUT you clearly say on the cache page that it won't be placed until the event day???

[+mollyjak]

I did that for our event in S Wales just over a week ago.

I submitted the information the night before and stated on the page that it would not be in place until AFTER we got there and that seemed to be fine and didn't give any problems - at least none that I heard about.

I have since edited the page and deleted that info.

[Deceangi]

What happens if you want to put out a cache for an event and need it published beforehand so to give folk traveling a distance the opportunity to plan the trip or download the details into their paperless caching program in advance..

 

BUT you clearly say on the cache page that it won't be placed until the event day???

 

Nick your referring to a situation which on the cache page it is made clear that the cache has been released early to allow those attending enough time to run PQ's and plan their caches. In this situation the cache owner has worked with the reviewer.

 

What the OP is referring to is, caches submitted for review and published that does not have the container in situ. And which people have gone searching for, only to find on their return home that they had been on a wasted journey. If the reviewer who published these ones had known that the container was not in situ, the cache would not have been published.

[+Dragontree]

The two caches to which I referred were not placed, as I stated. Both owners were contacted and the first had published before he had arranged transport to get to the site, I would guess perhaps 20 miles from home.

Yesterdays eg was an owner who placed it and then removed it to add some TBs. Why he couldn't bring the TBs to the Cache is beyond me.

I suggested to both owners the correct procedure and hoped they would bear in mind for subsequent caches.

[+milvus-milvus]

The latest trend seems to be placing caches without a log book - this is taking "paperless caching" to the extreme! (mentioning no names Taz)

[+Dragontree]

Baz has been reading my log re Taz, I presume? Thought you would have beaten me to them!

[Lactodorum]

The latest trend seems to be placing caches without a log book - this is taking "paperless caching" to the extreme! (mentioning no names Taz)

Let the reviewers know about any examples and they'll be dealt with!!

[+Eckington]

The latest trend seems to be placing caches without a log book

 

The guidelines clearly state a container and a log sheet/book is the minimum requirement for a cache. If the cache page states, or hints at no log book it will not be published.

 

If one slips through, as they will occasionally as we three are human and make mistakes (well, I am, not quite sure about Laccy and Decky ), we will archive the cache when the mistake is brought to our notice.

 

The simplest way to sort things out is to communicate with us, much better than open forum posts and often quicker too

[+milvus-milvus]

Sorry - don't go archiving anything - it was meant tongue-in-cheek (hence the winky smiley) - and I'm sure Taz will have sorted it already. She's not a bad girl really...

 

Edited May 16, 2007 by milvus-milvus

[Deceangi]

Sorry - don't go archiving anything - it was meant tongue-in-cheek (hence the winky smiley) - and I'm sure Taz will have sorted it already. She's not a bad girl really...

 

 

The offending caches had been spotted the assessment was that the setter had a bad log day so it was down to error only and not a genuine attempt to list logless caches So Taz has no worries about my esteemed colleague taking any action

 

Me I'm waiting for the bribe to arrive

 

Edited to correct spelling mistake spotted by Dragontree [well I am well known for not being able to spell ]

Edited May 17, 2007 by Deceangi

[+Dragontree]

It was all sorted quickly by Taz and WE know the reasons.

 

However, I'm very worried about these 'colleges' ?

[+careygang]

The two caches to which I referred were not placed, as I stated. Both owners were contacted and the first had published before he had arranged transport to get to the site, I would guess perhaps 20 miles from home.

Yesterdays eg was an owner who placed it and then removed it to add some TBs. Why he couldn't bring the TBs to the Cache is beyond me.

I suggested to both owners the correct procedure and hoped they would bear in mind for subsequent caches.

 

Dragontree, we had a related sort of incident recently.

Basically we had embarked for the day, having seen that this cache had just been maintained, but along with another team of cachers couldn't find it. I felt really sorry for them as it was their first one, but I see it didn't put them off as they are nearly up to 50 now. When we got home found that the owner had aledgedly maintained it but then changed his mind and gone back to remove it to dry it out. I thought I had been reasonably polite in my post, but he got a bit of a stress on in his private response. Unfortunately there are people out there with no common sense.

The logs went like this:

 

April 8 by careygang (148 found)

Any cache that is reported as needing maintenance should be temporarily disabled until it has been sorted out.

We had checked the listing at around 11:30, seeing that it had allegedly received some maintenance, all looked good. So late this afternoon spent a wasted trip looking for this cache. We even had a TB that we had planned to leave here.

A very disappointing end to a days outing.

 

April 8 by The zzzz zzzzz (61 found)

Walk around %%%%% was lovely especially in the sunshine!!! Kids loved doing the clues however couldnt find the cache at the end.

(edited to remove ref to cache name and protect the guilty)

 

April 8 by (xxxxx)

Discard previous log, I have taken cache to dry out. Should be replaced this evening.

 

April 8 by (xxxxx)

Carried out some maintenance and dropped off Travel Bug Golden Tiger

 

I guess the clue to this one was that the cache is hidden under a railway sleeper crossing of a water drainage gully alongside a track in a country path - no wonder it is getting wet!! Just one of the frustrations we have to live with a cachers.

Edited May 17, 2007 by careygang

[+The Fair Bears]

Erm in my defence......

 

As soon as i was notified that i'd forgotten the log sheets which i was positive that i'd checked before placing the caches i did put a note on the cache page and the logs were put into the caches first thing the next morning. I am sorry if any inconvienience was caused, i take caching seriously, maintain all my caches regularly and check on any problems with them as soon as i am notified.

 

Blame it on the hormones as everything else i've lost at the moment ends up in the fridge!!

 

Taz

 

TFB

[DaBeEm]

Ive just had my first NWF (never would find). Luckily (?) it was my nearest to home.