You've Got To Be Quick!

[+The Klever Boys]

I noticed this cache earlier:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...93-5502fd30cce6

 

It was only published yesterday, had two DNFs and a SBA from a cacher with 13 finds and placed off line by Alba because the owner "hasn't responded to the DNFs"

 

Blimey...give 'em chance!

[+drdick&vick]

Whoops system playing up Sorry!!

Edited October 20, 2008 by DrDick&Vick

[+drdick&vick]

System really being a pain. If a moderator could remove these two unneeded posts please.

Thanks and sorry.

Edited October 20, 2008 by DrDick&Vick

[+drdick&vick]

Must admit that this seems a case of wearing hob nail boots for a bit of ballet dancing. An over reaction if you ask me.

How does the cacher who entered the SBA know that it has been muggled, it's not as if the 2DNF and 1 SBA cachers are not the most experienced in the world (under 100 between the three of them).

 

I visited a cache yesterday and it too had been made 'Temp Unavailable' due to 5 DNF's and an entry that simply said 'Time to remove/Replace?' yet we found it in about 45 seconds (actually found by my son who has only a total of 16 finds too his credit so not that hard to find) no problem and emailed the reviewer responsible for making it temp inavailable who promptly re enabled it, once again a bit of a premature action. I think the reviewer(s) need to be a little less hasty with these.

Edited October 20, 2008 by DrDick&Vick

[+Mad H@ter]

I'm speechless

 

Let's just hope that this was an oversight and not a sign of things to come,

I'm sure that it must have been an oversight.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

Well one of the finders and the cache setter seem to have a dialogue going on on other pages. Yesno94 is someone who sets a cache a logs it as a find.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if they both know eachother and have a combined age of less than 25.

[+Simply Paul]

Well one of the finders and the cache setter seem to have a dialogue going on on other pages. Yesno94 is someone who sets a cache a logs it as a find.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if they both know eachother and have a combined age of less than 25.

I'm not sure it's the SBA we should be worried about- anyone can log one, for any reason, even by accident... they are only there to draw a cache to the attention of a Reviewer, after all... It's how our new Reviewer has reacted to this one that might need to come under closer scrutiny from her peers!

[SlytherinAlex]

It's how our new Reviewer has reacted to this one that might need to come under closer scrutiny from her peers!

One can only hope so. Not a great start.

[+Haggis Hunter]

I would like to think that this is an oversight. Let's not jump to conclusions until we know the whole details.

[+Alba15]

Ok. I apologise.

 

I'll sort out the issue now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[+JeremyR]

I suspect a little patience is all that is required here, I'm sure the time-space continuum will reorder itself shortly...

 

(In other words, lets not get too jumpy, we all balls things up when we're new at stuff...)

 

(Quicker than I can write two sentences and post them three times it seems )

Edited October 20, 2008 by JeremyR

[+Haggis Hunter]

Well there you go all sorted, and Alba has even admitted that she jumped the gun. I guess we all can't be perfect can we?

 

Well done Alba for a quick turn round on what was obviously a mistake.

[+Simply Paul]

Well done on fixing things so quickly Alba. All part of the learning curve, I'm sure

[+careygang]

OK, the SBA by a novice cacher may seem a little harsh, but look at the other facts.

 

The Owner only has 13 finds to their name.

The cache listing is pretty basic "Base of medium size tree in corner under twigs".

The satellite photo of the area shows it to be not exactly 'out in the depth of the woods'.

The Additional Hint is hardly a help, more a warning of the obvious dangers.

 

So all-in-all, I think this might well be a muggled cache caused by the inexperience of the owner placing a 'small' where most would at best place a nano/micro.

 

It may have been a good call by the reviewer after all...

 

Or else the owner has pulled a stroke of sheer genius in hiding a small in such a built up area!!!

[+JeremyR]

The cache listing is pretty basic "Base of medium size tree in corner under twigs".

The satellite photo of the area shows it to be not exactly 'out in the depth of the woods'.

The Additional Hint is hardly a help, more a warning of the obvious dangers.

The hint fits the posted coords though - I can't see a post box but that looks like a bus stop to me... And there's a medium-sized tree within a couple of feet of the marker. Assuming it's not in the back garden of the house to the NE of course

[Deceangi]

OK, the SBA by a novice cacher may seem a little harsh, but look at the other facts.

 

The Owner only has 13 finds to their name.

The cache listing is pretty basic "Base of medium size tree in corner under twigs".

The satellite photo of the area shows it to be not exactly 'out in the depth of the woods'.

The Additional Hint is hardly a help, more a warning of the obvious dangers.

 

So all-in-all, I think this might well be a muggled cache caused by the inexperience of the owner placing a 'small' where most would at best place a nano/micro.

 

It may have been a good call by the reviewer after all...

 

Or else the owner has pulled a stroke of sheer genius in hiding a small in such a built up area!!!

 

Ermm the map you've posted is localish to where I live, in fact I'll be traveling past there this morning. The cache in question is around 190 miles away from there

[+Bear and Ragged]

So all-in-all, I think this might well be a muggled cache caused by the inexperience of the owner placing a 'small' where most would at best place a nano/micro.

 

Qudos on fitting the biggest cache possible in a hide!

[+dino-irl]

Wow! Tough crowd....glad we Irish are a little bit more forgiving and patient

[+dino-irl]

**burp**

Edited October 21, 2008 by dino-irl