What the Heck

[+Scubasonic]

Went after a cache that popped up August 16, of this year by the time I got it and logged it it was August 17 but then I noticed that it shows a Hidden Date of August 16, 2000 WOW looks like I got a FTF on one of the OLD ones.

 

Kinda Funny, I have reported it but nothing..........

 

Here is the cache I'm talking about

 

"The Time Machine" GC1X7PO

[+fegan]

The cache owner put a bogus hidden date...as is evident by the cache name (The Time Machine).

[+BlueDeuce]

The cache owner put a bogus hidden date...as is evident by the cache name (The Time Machine).

 

If I remember past history reviewers aren't real keen on that practice and will probably change it back once they know.

Edited September 12, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[+Scubasonic]

The cache owner put a bogus hidden date...as is evident by the cache name (The Time Machine).

 

If I remember past history reviewers aren't real keen on that practice and will probably change it back once they know.

 

I did report it, as I mentioned to the reviewer but they have not changed it yet and I reported it about 2 weeks ago.

 

SS

[+BlueDeuce]

The cache owner put a bogus hidden date...as is evident by the cache name (The Time Machine).

 

If I remember past history reviewers aren't real keen on that practice and will probably change it back once they know.

 

I did report it, as I mentioned to the reviewer but they have not changed it yet and I reported it about 2 weeks ago.

 

SS

 

Good. The one thing is this site, the reviewers, and now that think about it pretty much everyone else do not move as fast as I darn well think they should.

 

Yep.

 

Try again in a couple weeks. Just ask for clarification (without an opinion) and see what they say.

[+Scubasonic]

The cache owner put a bogus hidden date...as is evident by the cache name (The Time Machine).

 

If I remember past history reviewers aren't real keen on that practice and will probably change it back once they know.

 

I did report it, as I mentioned to the reviewer but they have not changed it yet and I reported it about 2 weeks ago.

 

SS

 

Good. The one thing is this site, the reviewers, and now that think about it pretty much everyone else do not move as fast as I darn well think they should.

 

Yep.

 

Try again in a couple weeks. Just ask for clarification (without an opinion) and see what they say.

 

OK

[+nikcap]

The cache owner put a bogus hidden date...as is evident by the cache name (The Time Machine).

 

If I remember past history reviewers aren't real keen on that practice and will probably change it back once they know.

 

I did report it, as I mentioned to the reviewer but they have not changed it yet and I reported it about 2 weeks ago.

 

SS

 

Maybe the cache was hidden in August 2000?

 

Is the publish date correct?

 

I have never heard of a reviewer changing the hide date on a cache, and if they did, I would call that a very bad practice on their part.

 

I'm sure it would be an easy fix for Groundspeak to hard code a time stamp for the hide date on cache pages to coincide when the page is generated. For that matter, maybe they can hard code a time stamp on Find and DNF logs.

[+ecanderson]

 

Maybe the cache was hidden in August 2000?

It could have been "hidden" in the 1800's, but when a user creates an entry at gc.com, even if it isn't ready for publication, it gets the next sequentially available GC code right then. No cache page initiated in 2000 (even if they existed back then) would have a waypoint code of GC1X7PO. Edited September 12, 2009 by ecanderson

[+BlueDeuce]

I have never heard of a reviewer changing the hide date on a cache, and if they did, I would call that a very bad practice on their part.

 

I have and only because of a system bug. Not sure why would I think the reviewer is the bad guy straight off.

 

[+Walts Hunting]

I suppose my take is who cares. I wouldn't waste my time over this.

[+Scubasonic]

The cache owner put a bogus hidden date...as is evident by the cache name (The Time Machine).

 

If I remember past history reviewers aren't real keen on that practice and will probably change it back once they know.

 

I did report it, as I mentioned to the reviewer but they have not changed it yet and I reported it about 2 weeks ago.

 

SS

 

Maybe the cache was hidden in August 2000?

 

Is the publish date correct?

 

I have never heard of a reviewer changing the hide date on a cache, and if they did, I would call that a very bad practice on their part.

 

No it was published on August 16,2009 and was placed just a few days before as the cacher owner was in the area getting other caches, I never said that the Reviewer changed the Hide date I think that the Cache Owner put that date in and it slipped past the reviewer.

 

SS

[+Hrethgir]

I suppose my take is who cares. I wouldn't waste my time over this.

 

Well, if someone is looking for the older caches, that wrong date will mess up their search, but besides that, I can't think of any bad side-effects.

[+Scubasonic]

I suppose my take is who cares. I wouldn't waste my time over this.

 

Well, if someone is looking for the older caches, that wrong date will mess up their search, but besides that, I can't think of any bad side-effects.

 

I agree

 

SS

[+BlueDeuce]

Seriously, the date doesn't matter?

[knowschad]

Actually, the date may matter. There are challenge caches out there that say that the finds must be made prior to the date the challenge was created (to eliminate putting out caches just to satisfy the challenge).

 

 

I don't think the challenge cache owner(s) would really fall for it, though, if a cache claimed to have been created in 2000, yet the FTF was in 2009.

[+BlueDeuce]

Actually, the date may matter. There are challenge caches out there that say that the finds must be made prior to the date the challenge was created (to eliminate putting out caches just to satisfy the challenge).

 

 

I don't think the challenge cache owner(s) would really fall for it, though, if a cache claimed to have been created in 2000, yet the FTF was in 2009.

 

Good point.

 

I think if a recently placed cache was updated as being submitted several years ago and a reviewer changed it back I don't think I would have a problem with that.

 

Would you?

Edited September 12, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[+Chrysalides]

Well, if someone is looking for the older caches, that wrong date will mess up their search, but besides that, I can't think of any bad side-effects.

If you use the Markwell method of separating a radius into chunks of less than 500 caches using placed date, anything with a placed date before 1994 will not turn up in the PQ. For example, GC1H3WQ.

 

On the other hand, I appreciate the sense of humor shown by the reviewer in allowing the date to be tweaked.

[+fizzymagic]

Went after a cache that popped up August 16, of this year by the time I got it and logged it it was August 17 but then I noticed that it shows a Hidden Date of August 16, 2000 WOW looks like I got a FTF on one of the OLD ones.

And you even logged it in your usual classy style.

 

[+Smurf]

Went after a cache that popped up August 16, of this year by the time I got it and logged it it was August 17 but then I noticed that it shows a Hidden Date of August 16, 2000 WOW looks like I got a FTF on one of the OLD ones.

And you even logged it in your usual classy style.

 

 

Has no-one concidered that it may be just a typo - after all the "0" IS next to the "9" on the keyboard

 

(edit for bad typing)

Edited September 12, 2009 by Smurf

[+palmetto]

Placed date isn't a guidelines issue, and it's rarely something a reviewer would do more than advise on.

In this case, it seems quite apparent that the placed date was deliberate as a part of the time machine theme.

 

Some of you may be remembering a period where cachers using the Safari browser were getting a placed date of 1901. Many reviewers would correct that, as the cache owner couldn't.

 

Had I reviewed this I would probably have mentioned that the placed date would keep it out of the new cache email, and that it might drop out of some date ranged pocket queries. And then, without waiting for an owner response, I would have published it.

If the owner is concerned about those issues, they can edit. If they aren't they won't.

 

Re placed date and date ranged challenge caches; that's not this cache owner's concern.

[+briansnat]

Went after a cache that popped up August 16, of this year by the time I got it and logged it it was August 17 but then I noticed that it shows a Hidden Date of August 16, 2000 WOW looks like I got a FTF on one of the OLD ones.

And you even logged it in your usual classy style.

 

 

Has no-one concidered that it may be just a typo - after all the "0" IS next to the "9" on the keyboard

 

(edit for bad typing)

 

The default is 2009. He would have to make a conscious effort to change it.

 

The hidden date is not something reviewers generally would pay attention to. If one happened to notice it, he may say something to the cache owner, but if the CO pushed back about changing it I doubt most reviewers would press the issue, as there is no guideline against it.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

The cache owner put a bogus hidden date...as is evident by the cache name (The Time Machine).

 

If I remember past history reviewers aren't real keen on that practice and will probably change it back once they know.

 

I did report it, as I mentioned to the reviewer but they have not changed it yet and I reported it about 2 weeks ago.

 

SS

 

Maybe the cache was hidden in August 2000?

 

Is the publish date correct?

 

I have never heard of a reviewer changing the hide date on a cache, and if they did, I would call that a very bad practice on their part.

 

No it was published on August 16,2009 and was placed just a few days before as the cacher owner was in the area getting other caches, I never said that the Reviewer changed the Hide date I think that the Cache Owner put that date in and it slipped past the reviewer.

 

SS

 

Regardless of the PUBLISHED date, the cache could have been HIDDEN on an alternate date. Dontcha think?

[+Hrethgir]

Seriously, the date doesn't matter?

 

Generally speaking, no, not really. I've never paid much attention to the dates, and even then, I usually only notice it when I'm logging the find. I'll check the dates of the last finds in the logs as I want to make sure it's still there when I look for it, but the hidden/placed date really doesn't come into play for me.

[+paleolith]

This was an issue for the Washington History Challenge. The highest terrain cache on the list had a hidden date which differed from the publication date, and had later been changed to something pre-geocaching. Since there were no publication logs in those days, it took them quite a while to figure it out, and I think some seekers had done the trek (definitely had organized a trek). No one cried foul.

 

Spinal Tap has a rule that caches on the challenge list don't become required until they are three months old. I explicitly state that the publication log is used rather than the hidden date, for the reasons discussed here. In this case, caches old enough not to have publication logs are all required, so the lack of the pub log doesn't matter.

 

Edward

[+sbell111]

Went after a cache that popped up August 16, of this year by the time I got it and logged it it was August 17 but then I noticed that it shows a Hidden Date of August 16, 2000 WOW looks like I got a FTF on one of the OLD ones.

And you even logged it in your usual classy style.

 

You posted to this thread in your usual classy style.

[+andGuest]

As mentioned previously it can cause problems when people look for old caches. I like to try to find the oldest cache and/or older caches in as many states as possible. I almost did not notice the date on this cache: GC17NR7 when I was planning on my upcoming trip to New England. I would have been very angry if I did not realize it. I remember one in PA being listed for a while that was "older" then the oldest active in the state. After a few weeks it was either archived or corrected. I was aware that it was not the oldest because I had already found the oldest in PA. Therefore, to me it would only matter in regards to where it is listed in the states chronological list (especially if they use 1900 as on the search page it would use "00" as the year and I would initially thing 2000 and therefore think it was accurate).

[4wheelin_fool]

As mentioned previously it can cause problems when people look for old caches. I like to try to find the oldest cache and/or older caches in as many states as possible. I almost did not notice the date on this cache: GC17NR7 when I was planning on my upcoming trip to New England. I would have been very angry if I did not realize it. I remember one in PA being listed for a while that was "older" then the oldest active in the state. After a few weeks it was either archived or corrected. I was aware that it was not the oldest because I had already found the oldest in PA. Therefore, to me it would only matter in regards to where it is listed in the states chronological list (especially if they use 1900 as on the search page it would use "00" as the year and I would initially thing 2000 and therefore think it was accurate).

 

It's fairly easy to discern the older caches, as the GC#'s have fewer digits. The older ones have 4 digits or less after the GC.

[+Scubasonic]

And you even logged it in your usual classy style.

 

Yes as a matter of fact I did, why you got a problem with that?

 

SS

Edited September 15, 2009 by Scubasonic

[+mrbort]

And you even logged it in your usual classy style.

 

Yes as a matter of fact I did, why you got a problem with that?

 

SS

 

I figure as long as you actually physically signed the log (instead of claiming and logging a find without doing so) it doesn't, for your numbers at least, matter what you wrote.

[+Scubasonic]

And you even logged it in your usual classy style.

 

Yes as a matter of fact I did, why you got a problem with that?

 

SS

 

I figure as long as you actually physically signed the log (instead of claiming and logging a find without doing so) it doesn't, for your numbers at least, matter what you wrote.

 

mrbort,

 

Hmmm your starting to make sense to me (sorta), must be time to up my medication........

 

SS

[+mrbort]

And you even logged it in your usual classy style.

 

Yes as a matter of fact I did, why you got a problem with that?

 

SS

 

I figure as long as you actually physically signed the log (instead of claiming and logging a find without doing so) it doesn't, for your numbers at least, matter what you wrote.

 

mrbort,

 

Hmmm your starting to make sense to me (sorta), must be time to up my medication........

 

SS

 

Well, I was saying that in terms of specifically your numbers on this website, it doesn't matter what you write (as long as there is a corresponding signature in the logbook). In terms of logs that reflect respect for others and sportsmanship, that's a different issue altogether.

[+briansnat]

HMMMM

Edited September 15, 2009 by briansnat

[+Castle Mischief]

I've seen another cache like this. The reviewer didn't seem to have a problem with it and neither do I.

[knowschad]

I've seen another cache like this. The reviewer didn't seem to have a problem with it and neither do I.

 

 

In this case, it would appear that the reviewer may have a problem with it:

 

 

 

I have emailed the cache owner and asked for an explanation of their bogus hidden date and edited my published log so it can't be deleted by the CO to provide a permanent record of when the cache was actually listed.

 

Ice and Wind,

Geocaching.com Volunteer Reviewer

 

 

(I find the 2nd part of the sentence more intriguing the first, though, actually!)

[+sbell111]

I've seen another cache like this. The reviewer didn't seem to have a problem with it and neither do I.

In this case, it would appear that the reviewer may have a problem with it:

I have emailed the cache owner and asked for an explanation of their bogus hidden date and edited my published log so it can't be deleted by the CO to provide a permanent record of when the cache was actually listed.

 

Ice and Wind,

Geocaching.com Volunteer Reviewer

(I find the 2nd part of the sentence more intriguing the first, though, actually!)

Based on that second sentence, it does not appear that failure to correct the 'hidden date' would result in teh cache being archived.

[+Scooter Bill]

I have a former ALR cache with a similar concept and bogus hide date.

 

Daylight Saving Time Machine GC1HTTN

[+Castle Mischief]

I have a former ALR cache with a similar concept and bogus hide date.

 

Daylight Saving Time Machine GC1HTTN

 

That was the cache I was thinking of. Didn't want to mention it by name in case you didn't want your cache dragged into the discussion.

[+The Jester]

This was an issue for the Washington History Challenge. The highest terrain cache on the list had a hidden date which differed from the publication date, and had later been changed to something pre-geocaching. Since there were no publication logs in those days, it took them quite a while to figure it out, and I think some seekers had done the trek (definitely had organized a trek). No one cried foul.

<snip>

Edward

As the owner of the Washington History Challenge I'm aware of the cache and it's on my ignore list in GSAK so it doesn't show up in the DB.

[+shelrik]

I think ss has no room to talk as he is the king of bogas himself he has placed caches under a bogas name so he can claim FTF on them. also logged bogus finds online when he has not even really signed the log and takes thing out of other caches that belong to the cache, were not talking swag, more like the stash notes that are to be left with the cache that they were intended for and not to be taken to supply his own caches as we have found our stash notes in 2 of his caches in the same park, so far, I can see no one else really has a problem with our cache and the bogas date, it was just for fun, and a free space for a cache challenge of ours we did not want people to just get the free space without working for it IE finding the time machine, Get it Time Machine a cache brought back from the past Read the cache page it says it all and it is just a game, who cares, we can't help that poor sportsmanship and jelousy has brought this to any ones attention and really should have not been an issue for any one, the GC# should be a big clue for one thing its not low enough to be an older cache and there is nothing in the guide lines that say you can not place one in this manner, although you can not place a cache for the future the cache submission form won't let you, if I placed a cache last year but just got it posted this year, who cares, its just another smilie and a fun cache to find, if you have a problem with it then don't hunt for the cache, its family friendly and follows all the placement guidlines, if they did not want people to place caches for a date other then the day you wrote up the page then the dates should not be able to be set back to the 1900's there is a cache in Oregon (GC1E0TD)PPPP (Paulina Past Pitsua Panorama) Hidden: 12/13/1901 as the date claims but was published on July 9, 2008 by ThunderEggs I see no one has a problem with this one ,it was hidden way before GEO CACHING even existed this makes it the oldes cache in Oregon and the oldest cache in the world for that matter, and we know that gps's were not made back then, So stop being a poorsport and just play along with the game,,,, We thought we would Just put in our 2 cent's worth... Say what you want, it's all in the name of fun...

[+Lil Devil]

... then the dates should not be able to be set back to the 1900's there is a cache in Oregon (GC1E0TD)PPPP (Paulina Past Pitsua Panorama) Hidden: 12/13/1901 as the date claims

There was a bug in the Submit Cache form whereby those using a particular browser/OS could not enter a valid date, and 12/13/1901 was entered no matter what. I think this bug has been fixed recently.

 

I see no one has a problem with this one

I see one of the reviewers already spotted your message and fixed that one

[+fizzymagic]

he has placed caches under a bogas name so he can claim FTF on them.

Do I detect a hint of friction in the Pacific Northwest?

 

That's a pretty serious charge you are leveling. I'd be pretty hesitant to say something like that online unless I had some actual evidence.

[+bittsen]

he has placed caches under a bogas name so he can claim FTF on them.

Do I detect a hint of friction in the Pacific Northwest?

 

That's a pretty serious charge you are leveling. I'd be pretty hesitant to say something like that online unless I had some actual evidence.

 

You have to understand. We all start getting edgy when we start to dry out in the Summer.

 

[+hydnsek]

he has placed caches under a bogas name so he can claim FTF on them.

Do I detect a hint of friction in the Pacific Northwest?

 

That's a pretty serious charge you are leveling. I'd be pretty hesitant to say something like that online unless I had some actual evidence.

 

You have to understand. We all start getting edgy when we start to dry out in the Summer.

 

Let's not over-generalize.....those fractious folks are from the Portland area. Here in Seattle-land, everything is peachy keen. We even had rain over Labor Day weekend.

Edited September 16, 2009 by hydnsek

[gonegeofishing]

he has placed caches under a bogas name so he can claim FTF on them.

Do I detect a hint of friction in the Pacific Northwest?

 

That's a pretty serious charge you are leveling. I'd be pretty hesitant to say something like that online unless I had some actual evidence.

 

You have to understand. We all start getting edgy when we start to dry out in the Summer.

 

Let's not over-generalize.....those fractious folks are from the Portland area. Here in Seattle-land, everything is peachy keen. We even had rain over Labor Day weekend.

 

Everything is just fine East of Portland/Vancouver. Out in the Columbia River Gorge we have an abundance of sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows everywhere. Kinda like geocaching chicken soup for the soul.

[+Too Tall John]

...we have an abundance of sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows everywhere. Kinda like geocaching chicken soup for the soul.

Lollipops!?!?!?

 

Reads like some sort of geocaching nightmare, to me! Last time someone put a lollipop in one of my caches, a bear got into it!

 

Geocaching Chicken Soup for the Soul, indeed!

 

Oh, and backdating a cache is kinda like those lollipops, by the way. It might seem like fun to some, but not if you have to clean up the mess....

[+shelrik]

Rainbows and lollypops indeed.....Ran into Scubasconic today on an FTF find and we had a good discussion about this situation and I think we got everything sorted out. We came to an agreement and shook hands so everything is cool now ....sometimes it's better to discuss things face to face

[+the_bell_dingers]

The cache owner put a bogus hidden date...as is evident by the cache name (The Time Machine).

 

If I remember past history reviewers aren't real keen on that practice and will probably change it back once they know.

 

I did report it, as I mentioned to the reviewer but they have not changed it yet and I reported it about 2 weeks ago.

 

SS

 

Maybe the cache was hidden in August 2000?

 

Is the publish date correct?

 

I have never heard of a reviewer changing the hide date on a cache, and if they did, I would call that a very bad practice on their part.

 

No it was published on August 16,2009 and was placed just a few days before as the cacher owner was in the area getting other caches, I never said that the Reviewer changed the Hide date I think that the Cache Owner put that date in and it slipped past the reviewer.

 

SS

 

Reviewers can make mistakes!

[+Renegade Knight]

I suppose my take is who cares. I wouldn't waste my time over this.

 

Well, if someone is looking for the older caches, that wrong date will mess up their search, but besides that, I can't think of any bad side-effects.

 

Unless the cache really was hidden then. Then they would be dead on.

 

You have to do something with spent time capsules. Why not turn them into caches?

[+NanCycle]

I think ss has no room to talk as he is the king of bogas himself he has placed caches under a bogas name so he can claim FTF on them. also logged bogus finds online when he has not even really signed the log and takes thing out of other caches that belong to the cache, were not talking swag, more like the stash notes that are to be left with the cache that they were intended for and not to be taken to supply his own caches as we have found our stash notes in 2 of his caches in the same park, so far, I can see no one else really has a problem with our cache and the bogas date, it was just for fun, and a free space for a cache challenge of ours we did not want people to just get the free space without working for it IE finding the time machine, Get it Time Machine a cache brought back from the past Read the cache page it says it all and it is just a game, who cares, we can't help that poor sportsmanship and jelousy has brought this to any ones attention and really should have not been an issue for any one, the GC# should be a big clue for one thing its not low enough to be an older cache and there is nothing in the guide lines that say you can not place one in this manner, although you can not place a cache for the future the cache submission form won't let you, if I placed a cache last year but just got it posted this year, who cares, its just another smilie and a fun cache to find, if you have a problem with it then don't hunt for the cache, its family friendly and follows all the placement guidlines, if they did not want people to place caches for a date other then the day you wrote up the page then the dates should not be able to be set back to the 1900's there is a cache in Oregon (GC1E0TD)PPPP (Paulina Past Pitsua Panorama) Hidden: 12/13/1901 as the date claims but was published on July 9, 2008 by ThunderEggs I see no one has a problem with this one ,it was hidden way before GEO CACHING even existed this makes it the oldes cache in Oregon and the oldest cache in the world for that matter, and we know that gps's were not made back then, So stop being a poorsport and just play along with the game,,,, We thought we would Just put in our 2 cent's worth... Say what you want, it's all in the name of fun...

 

If you want people to bother reading what you write, try using real sentences, with punctuation and capitalization, maybe even a paragraph break. Trying to read a mess like this makes my head hurt.

[+the_bell_dingers]

agreed.