Jump to content

You can't find the Micro so you put one there you can Find?


Dufer
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I have been caching for about 4 years.I am a disabled Veteran and due to health reasons I have not been active the last couple a years.

 

My wife and kids started getting active again so we started putting out caches in our area.

 

We have had some rather hard to find micros and recently put a new one out GC15FWM Kendra's Day Caching With Grandma

 

the first couple a people came and did not find it so on 8-31-07 we went to check on it and found it where we placed it.

 

On 9-1 a cacher (with over 3000 finds) comes along and places their own container at our location and called it a find!?

 

I have never herd of this before. I have made many trips to locations looking for a cache untill I finally find it.

 

BUT I HAVE NEVER HERD OF ANYONE JUST PLACING THEIR OWN CACHE CONTAINER AT A CACHE LOCATION THAT THEY DID NOT OWN SO THEY COULD GET A FTF>

 

Has this happened in your area or to you???

 

Is this the direction that GEOCACHING is going???

 

I sure hope not. I am unhappy with some of the changes that have happened in the in the last couple years with GEOCACHING but this too???

 

WHat do you think??

 

Post edited for readability

Edited by CYBret
Link to comment

This is a somewhat-common practice by some cachers when they think -- or know -- a cache is missing . . . but I've never known of someone doing that for the FTF. :)

 

That said, I place my own caches so people can find them. I always include a hint so cachers can find the cache once they have made a trip to the location. You have the cache rated as a '1' for Difficulty and a '1' for Terrain. With that many DNFs on a '1' Difficulty cache, I can see why people thought it was missing. Now if you had rated it a '4' or '5' for Difficulty, perhaps cachers would not have made the incorrect assumption about the cache and whether it was there or not. If the cache is that difficult to find, you should adjust the Difficulty rating.

Link to comment

WHat do you think??

 

I think BIG text is hard to read on a small monitor :)

 

Personally, I think the practice is pretty lame. A similar situation was brought up recently in another thread, and I think that most geocachers do not approve of it.

 

If people are having difficulty locating the cache, and you meant for it to be a challenge, you may want to consider increasing the difficulty rating, so that people know to expect a challenging hunt.

Edited by DavidMac
Link to comment

WHat do you think??

 

I think BIG text is hard to read on a small monitor :)

 

Personally, I think the practice is pretty lame. A similar situation was brought up recently in another thread, and I think that most geocachers do not approve of it.

 

If people are having difficulty locating the cache, and you meant for it to be a challenge, you may want to consider increasing the difficulty rating, so that people know to expect a challenging hunt.

Yes this has been brought up many times. If the owner is OK with it and you confirm the cache is missing then it's OK.
Link to comment

The difficulty should be rated higher on a cache three people in a row could not find. That being said it still does not excuse the behavior of a cacher who would just add his own container. If he thinks that's OK he is just nutz. ( :) )

 

Not many reasons I would delete a find, but this is one of them.

Link to comment

Power Cachers have been doing that for years in So Cal. I've been to more than one cache where I found the original and the PCC "Power Cacher's Cache." To me it's a lame way to rack up "yet another smiley."

 

If anyone ever did that on one of my caches, and I verified that the original was still there, I would delete there find with an explanation why.

Link to comment
Power Cachers have been doing that for years in So Cal. I've been to more than one cache where I found the original and the PCC "Power Cacher's Cache." To me it's a lame way to rack up "yet another smiley."

 

If anyone ever did that on one of my caches, and I verified that the original was still there, I would delete there find with an explanation why.

This does happen a lot but the Phone a Friend network usually kicks in and the person finds out exactly where it was hidden before doing that. Maybe some people drop caches without doing that, but I haven't seen it happen.

 

One time a friend of mine checked on one of my missing caches. He knew where it was because he saw me re-hide it the last time it went missing. Anyhow, it was gone so he replaced it for me. Then the next cacher comes along and finds two caches. As it turns out the orginal cache got hidden in the wrong place by someone. Anyhow, now both caches are missing so I need to go down there again. Anyhow, my point is that people need to put the cache back where they found it. I have no idea why some people feel the need to move caches. This is a big contributing factor to this issue.

Link to comment

I was just looking at the cache page. It's showing it as a small cache "Roadside Park North of Richmond MO, small cache, could hold very small items" and difficulty rated as 1. Then in your posted note stating it's a micro and a coin wouldn't fit. Looks like your cache page is misleading in more ways than one. It doesn't warrant someone placing there own and claiming FTF, but it doesn't warrant you getting all bent about it either. Fix your page to reflect the actual cache and you probably would of avoided all this in the first place.

Link to comment

If the finder didn't know the cache's exact hiding spot, then they shouldn't have hid one of their own. However, it sounds like they did have good intentions and shouldn't have to be subjected to this much grief by the owner. That owner chould have simply contacted the finder to let them know of their concerns which would have straightened things out and probably turned in to a learning experience for the finder.

 

The owner has discrepencies in her cache page. It's listed as a small, says it can hold very small items but then in her log note, says that it is a micro and won't even hold a geocoin. It's kinda misleading having both terms on the page and since small caches are usually easier to locate, i can see why some would think that it was missing when they made their search. Not that this makes what the finder did appropriate, but it could cause some finders to stop searching prematurely thinking that a usually easier to find small cache is probably missing.

Link to comment

I was just looking at the cache page. It's showing it as a small cache "Roadside Park North of Richmond MO, small cache, could hold very small items" and difficulty rated as 1. Then in your posted note stating it's a micro and a coin wouldn't fit. Looks like your cache page is misleading in more ways than one. It doesn't warrant someone placing there own and claiming FTF, but it doesn't warrant you getting all bent about it either. Fix your page to reflect the actual cache and you probably would of avoided all this in the first place.

 

Three DNFs doesn't warrant a 1* difficulty.

Link to comment

I was just looking at the cache page. It's showing it as a small cache "Roadside Park North of Richmond MO, small cache, could hold very small items" and difficulty rated as 1. Then in your posted note stating it's a micro and a coin wouldn't fit. Looks like your cache page is misleading in more ways than one. It doesn't warrant someone placing there own and claiming FTF, but it doesn't warrant you getting all bent about it either. Fix your page to reflect the actual cache and you probably would of avoided all this in the first place.

Good points... I think this cache in question needs a higher Difficulty rating and maybe some tweaks to the cache listing page description. I abhor the idea of "throwdown" cache (usually done for micros), that is, tossing down a container where you believe the cache should have been located after you have hunted unsuccessfully for it for five minutes, but I very much endorse and appreciate the concept of replacing a truly missing cache (i.e., one which had been muggled) after conferring with the owner and receiving explicit permission from the owner. In fact, folks have done that for us, and I have done that for other local cachers (always on caches of theirs which I had found long ago and then had subsequently been muggled, and I replaced the cache container and logbook for the owner since I was gonna be passing the cache hide site anyway.)

Link to comment

Interesting. You deleted his log, as I would have since he didn't actually "find" it, and then he posts a note saying that it will be the last time he will ever try to "help" one of your caches. :D:D

 

I would say: "Thank you! Please don't ever 'help' one of caches again."

 

Discrepancies in the cache page aside, in my book, there's a word for someone who puts out a new cache, and logs a find, when they cannot find it. And, it's not a nice word.

Link to comment

Interesting. You deleted his log, as I would have since he didn't actually "find" it, and then he posts a note saying that it will be the last time he will ever try to "help" one of your caches. :):)

 

I would say: "Thank you! Please don't ever 'help' one of caches again."

 

Discrepancies in the cache page aside, in my book, there's a word for someone who puts out a new cache, and logs a find, when they cannot find it. And, it's not a nice word.

 

It's not a nice word and it rhymes with Peter.

Link to comment

The only time we've ever replaced a cache container was when it was seriously damaged and we had an intact container in the car that we could put in there. we've never replaced a log or contents. would never dream of doing that without contacting the cache owner first. and we always contact and get permission from the owner before replacing a container. i cannot imagine replacing a cache just because it is supposedly missing. why didn't anybody contact the owner and wait a reasonable amount of time for a response before simply putting a new cache in? i don't get that at all. i feel it's the cache owner's responsibility - if a cache can't be found and it is presumed to be gone, contact the owner. surely the owner would give hints if asked. even if the difficulty level is not appropriate, i would still contact the cache owner and tell them what i did to find it, where I looked, and ask if i was in the right place or could it be gone. if the owner doesn't do anything about it or doesn't reply at all for months or something, then aren't we supposed to contact a reviewer about adopting the cache site? otherwise, it's totally stepping on toes to replace a cache. jmho

Edited by kyk96
Link to comment

Just the other day someone apparently found the logbook for one of my caches scattered around GZ and put a new cache in the general area he thought it should be. I greatly appreciated his gesture, as other cachers have been to the site since him and before I could get there.

 

The only difference between my situation and the one here is that the finder of my cache didn't log a find; even though he was more than certain it was there.

 

But I do think that the person who "replaced" and FTF'd your cache was doing it with good intentions..

Link to comment

Just as yet another voice to add to the pile already saying it... your difficulty/size is abnormally deceptive, and it's no wonder it's never been found. You list it as a 1/1, small cache... which from any geocacher's perspective should be ridiculously easy to find.

 

Your note you posted on the cache specifically states that it's a difficult micro.

 

it is a MICRO CACHE. We have several caches that are dificult to find!

 

If you're not aware, there's a link on the geocache creation page that will give you an estimated difficulty/terrain level that you should be using. You may also want to include some attributes when creating your cache page. And finally... keep in mind that it may seem easy for YOU to find the cache... since you're placing it and know where it is and such... but others that didn't place it don't have that benifit.

Link to comment

Just as yet another voice to add to the pile already saying it... your difficulty/size is abnormally deceptive, and it's no wonder it's never been found. You list it as a 1/1, small cache... which from any geocacher's perspective should be ridiculously easy to find.

 

Not only ridicuously easy to find, but ridicuously easy to find and wheelchair accessable. So a handicapped geocacher should be able to roll up to your 1/1, and find it almost instantly.

 

This is not to say a 3000+ find cacher dropping a new cache and claiming a find isn't absurd. And expected, in most cases. :D

 

 

If you're not aware, there's a link on the geocache creation page that will give you an estimated difficulty/terrain level that you should be using. You may also want to include some attributes when creating your cache page. And finally... keep in mind that it may seem easy for YOU to find the cache... since you're placing it and know where it is and such... but others that didn't place it don't have that benifit.

 

You mean the Clayjar geocache rating system?

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

I've seen it this summer on one of my caches. Totally not acceptable.

 

I appreciate the thought but how can they possibly KNOW for sure that it is missing. Even more upsetting was the fact that the replacer also stated that they "verified" the missing status by contacting "numerous" previous finders. They also contacted me but I declined to give any addtional hints. Seems like you really don't even need to hunt them anymore either - just contact all the previous finders for the exact location.

Link to comment

I have been caching for about 4 years.I am a disabled Veteran and due to health reasons I have not been active the last couple a years.

 

My wife and kids started getting active again so we started putting out caches in our area.

 

We have had some rather hard to find micros and recently put a new one out GC15FWM Kendra's Day Caching With Grandma

 

the first couple a people came and did not find it so on 8-31-07 we went to check on it and found it where we placed it.

 

On 9-1 a cacher (with over 3000 finds) comes along and places their own container at our location and called it a find!?

 

I have never herd of this before. I have made many trips to locations looking for a cache untill I finally find it.

 

BUT I HAVE NEVER HERD OF ANYONE JUST PLACING THEIR OWN CACHE CONTAINER AT A CACHE LOCATION THAT THEY DID NOT OWN SO THEY COULD GET A FTF>

 

Has this happened in your area or to you???

 

Is this the direction that GEOCACHING is going???

 

I sure hope not. I am unhappy with some of the changes that have happened in the in the last couple years with GEOCACHING but this too???

 

WHat do you think??

 

Post edited for readability

 

You have multi stage Micro Puzzle caches that are a difficulty 1????

Link to comment

The only time we've ever replaced a cache container was when it was seriously damaged and we had an intact container in the car that we could put in there. we've never replaced a log or contents. would never dream of doing that without contacting the cache owner first. and we always contact and get permission from the owner before replacing a container. i cannot imagine replacing a cache just because it is supposedly missing. why didn't anybody contact the owner and wait a reasonable amount of time for a response before simply putting a new cache in? i don't get that at all. i feel it's the cache owner's responsibility - if a cache can't be found and it is presumed to be gone, contact the owner. surely the owner would give hints if asked. even if the difficulty level is not appropriate, i would still contact the cache owner and tell them what i did to find it, where I looked, and ask if i was in the right place or could it be gone. if the owner doesn't do anything about it or doesn't reply at all for months or something, then aren't we supposed to contact a reviewer about adopting the cache site? otherwise, it's totally stepping on toes to replace a cache. jmho

 

Yes...and this was much appreciated!! THANKS!

Link to comment

The incorrect size and difficulty rating probably caused some confusion. I doubt that anyone was trying to cheat. They were likely trying to help. They THOUGHT they were seeking a difficulty "1" small cache when in fact it's a micro that no one can find. Better descriptions and difficulty ratings may have prevented this problem, IMHO.

I hope I am not wading into a hornets nest by posting about a local issue on a national forum, but I generally agree with the above post.

 

That's not to say I agree with replacing the cache...I personally believe that, US Americans are unable to do so, because, uh, some people out there in our nation that don't have maps...... ;)

Link to comment

The incorrect size and difficulty rating probably caused some confusion. I doubt that anyone was trying to cheat. They were likely trying to help. They THOUGHT they were seeking a difficulty "1" small cache when in fact it's a micro that no one can find. Better descriptions and difficulty ratings may have prevented this problem, IMHO.

 

Wait...let me make sure I am following this logic correctly...if I can not find a cache, I can simply put one out myself, claim it as a find then later (if caught) claim the difficulty or terrain rating was wrong to justify it. Is this correct?

 

How is this any different than the cache actually going missing? How on earth can you "find" something that is not there? How is it different from people hiding in a different location because they think it is "better" than where the hider put it.

 

I will grant you that the ratings may have been off, and no one but the person making the dishonest find claim is affected by it, however at least just admit it was number padding and move on.

 

There have been a couple 1 ratings that took me a couple of tries and when finally found turned out that I just needed to adjust perspective. There is never a reason to replace a cache not found without consulting the owner.

Link to comment

The incorrect size and difficulty rating probably caused some confusion. I doubt that anyone was trying to cheat. They were likely trying to help. They THOUGHT they were seeking a difficulty "1" small cache when in fact it's a micro that no one can find. Better descriptions and difficulty ratings may have prevented this problem, IMHO.

 

Wait...let me make sure I am following this logic correctly...if I can not find a cache, I can simply put one out myself, claim it as a find then later (if caught) claim the difficulty or terrain rating was wrong to justify it. Is this correct?

 

No, none of that is correct. I would never replace a cache that I couldn't find either.

 

My point is that the misleading difficulty and cache container size may have led the cacher to the (apparently wrong) conclusion that the cache was missing. It's entirely possible that this person THOUGHT they were helping out, rather than trying to cheat.

 

The way I see it this was, at best, a poorly thought out bonehead move, and, at worst, a blatant attempt to cheat. I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, but feel free to judge them as you see fit. ;)

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment

This is the cache in question http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...e3-63d433739554

 

As of the date and time of this post the cache is listed as a small cache with terrain rating of 1 and a difficulty rating of 1.

 

On Sept 1 the OP made a log entry and in it he said "This is not our first cache and it is a MICRO CACHE."

So which is it? A small cache as listed or a micro cache as the log entry says.

 

The difficulty is listed as 1 which means "Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching."

I can assume that by the number of DNF logs on the page this cache is not in plain sight nor can it be found in a few minutes of searching.

 

The terrain is listed as 1 which means "Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)"

Here is a map of the location.

Unless the cache is RIGHT off that loop it looks like there is small elevation change and in a wooded area. I have not been to the area but by looking at this and other maps I'm sure I can safely assume that anything not within arms reach of the road that makes the nearby loop wouldn't be considered handicapped accessible by most people.

 

Why are there so many inconsistencies in the listing? No wonder people can't find this cache and are confused. They are looking for a small 1/1 cache when the cache that actually was hidden is a micro 2+/2. If these inconsistencies are intentional then the cache type is incorrect. Traditional caches should be listed honestly. If the hider is going to intentionally obscure the true size, difficulty and/or terrain for a cache then the cache should be listed it as a Mystery cache and not a Traditional cache.

Link to comment
<quote>

It's not a nice word and it rhymes with Peter.

</quote>

 

It's killing me! What's the word???? Cannot think of anything rude that rhymes with Peter! ;)

 

Cheater?

 

Pumpkin Eater?

That's what I was thinking.... ;)

 

Okay...so you guys are much more polite then I am...I was searching my mind for far ruder things! :D

Link to comment

The incorrect size and difficulty rating probably caused some confusion. I doubt that anyone was trying to cheat. They were likely trying to help. They THOUGHT they were seeking a difficulty "1" small cache when in fact it's a micro that no one can find. Better descriptions and difficulty ratings may have prevented this problem, IMHO.

I hope I am not wading into a hornets nest by posting about a local issue on a national forum, but I generally agree with the above post.

 

That's not to say I agree with replacing the cache...I personally believe that, US Americans are unable to do so, because, uh, some people out there in our nation that don't have maps...... ;)

 

Because U.S. Americans need maps and such and as such in The Iraq, South Africa, and the Asian Countries.

Link to comment
It's not a nice word and it rhymes with Peter.
It's killing me! What's the word???? Cannot think of anything rude that rhymes with Peter! ;)
Cheater?
Pumpkin Eater?
Derek Jeter?

 

Back to the topic...

 

It happens.

 

I would send the guy an email explaining that the cache was still there and asking him to change his log. If he didn't, after a week or so, I'd delete it and send another email.

 

I would also fix the errors on my cache page. People are likely not finding your cache because they are confused about what they should be looking for. If your page was clear, perhaps you wouldn't be having this problem.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

My caching buddy had this happen to one of his caches too. It was a guardrail cache, magnetic, and had been logged about a half-dozen times. So this "uber-cacher" logs that they were with someone who already found it and it obviously was missing so they replaced it... less than a yard from the original cache (which was in fact, still there). It was a guardrail cache... how hard could they have looked?

 

They must have been in a hurry to pick up a couple hundred more that day. :laughing:

 

DCC

Link to comment

Seems like people are confusing two separate things here.

One is the cache page seems to be poorly written, or very misleading. The second is someone putting their own log down when they cannot find one, then claiming a find.

The one might explain the other, but it sure doesn't excuse it.

Also I don't think it was any intentional cheating on the part of the finder, just poor judgment.

I would hope both would learn from this. (As well as the rest of us who are involved in the debate. :laughing: )

Link to comment

The incorrect size and difficulty rating probably caused some confusion. I doubt that anyone was trying to cheat. They were likely trying to help. They THOUGHT they were seeking a difficulty "1" small cache when in fact it's a micro that no one can find. Better descriptions and difficulty ratings may have prevented this problem, IMHO.

I hope I am not wading into a hornets nest by posting about a local issue on a national forum, but I generally agree with the above post.

 

That's not to say I agree with replacing the cache...I personally believe that, US Americans are unable to do so, because, uh, some people out there in our nation that don't have maps...... :ph34r:

 

Because U.S. Americans need maps and such and as such in The Iraq, South Africa, and the Asian Countries.

Oh, you guys are just mean . . . :laughing:

 

How many times did you have to watch U-tube to get the quote correct? :D:ph34r:

Link to comment
The incorrect size and difficulty rating probably caused some confusion. I doubt that anyone was trying to cheat. They were likely trying to help. They THOUGHT they were seeking a difficulty "1" small cache when in fact it's a micro that no one can find. Better descriptions and difficulty ratings may have prevented this problem, IMHO.
I hope I am not wading into a hornets nest by posting about a local issue on a national forum, but I generally agree with the above post.

 

That's not to say I agree with replacing the cache...I personally believe that, US Americans are unable to do so, because, uh, some people out there in our nation that don't have maps...... :ph34r:

Because U.S. Americans need maps and such and as such in The Iraq, South Africa, and the Asian Countries.
Oh, you guys are just mean . . . :laughing:

 

How many times did you have to watch U-tube to get the quote correct? :D:ph34r:

I felt kind of bad for her. You could tell that she was expecting a different kind of question and the little gears in her had got jammed when she tried to pull out an answer, but she had to follow through and say something.
Link to comment

A finder can't flip down a container and say they have replaced the cache without the verification that it's missing, of they are holding the carcass of the old container in their hands.

 

Anything other than that is not helping the community. It's also not a find. I'd ask them to change their log and come back and pick up their container to prevent confusion. If they refused, it's time to delete.

 

The cache rating isn't relevant for replacing the cache in any way. However it's always fair to review a cache rating if there are signs it's not accurate. A 1 difficulty cache should not skunk anyone ever unless it's missting. You may want to up the find difficulty.

 

Lastly a cacher with 3000 finds should know that a lot of caches are mis-rated. They should know better than to assume they can walk up and see the cache then plop one down.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...