Jump to content

Are you serious?


Followers 2

Recommended Posts

OK everbody, just back off!

 

It is clear that the log book, for a geocache that includes a container, must be inside said container.

 

Subject closed. Do not be argumentative....or nit-picky.

 

Hey, I signed an actual piece of log with a dremel at an event cache. I suppose you can say it fit inside the event grounds. :)

 

There's a cache in my area that has become rather controversial, as it definitely contains no container or logbook. It's currently disabled by the reviewer. It certainly doesn't help matters that probably 90% of the "finders" have said what a great idea it is.

Link to comment

I having a similar problem with the same reviewers.

 

I placed another cache and the reviewer sent a form letter and one of the questions was asking if there was a logbook!

 

Well if this caching thing has gone that far off the deep end what is next? :P

 

Back to the original post:

Is anyone else out there having to routinely inform their reviewer that there is a log book in the cache?

What about give specific information on the type of container, where it is located, how it is hidden and what is in the container?

 

I live in the same area as Influence Waterfowl Calls and a couple months ago I was noticing a pattern of new caches in the area having descriptions of exactly what the cache container was, where it was hidden and how it was hidden. I questioned the cache owners about it and explained to them that I wished I had never read the description because it left no mystery about the hunt and made the hides really boring.

I was informed by two cache owners that they were asked so many questions while trying to get the caches listed that they felt they had to place the information in the cache description just to get the caches listed.

 

I was also contacted by a fellow cacher for feedback on his descriptions as he went through a series questions from the reviewer. I made suggestions on cache description modifications and told him to just answer remaining questions in reviewer notes.

 

There has been some discussions in the area wondering why, all of the sudden and after many successful hides, cachers began receiving such questions as "is there a log?" and to describe their container.

 

So I am wondering is this the new norm in the review process in other area?

Link to comment

I having a similar problem with the same reviewers.

 

I placed another cache and the reviewer sent a form letter and one of the questions was asking if there was a logbook!

 

Well if this caching thing has gone that far off the deep end what is next? :P

 

Back to the original post:

Is anyone else out there having to routinely inform their reviewer that there is a log book in the cache?

What about give specific information on the type of container, where it is located, how it is hidden and what is in the container?

 

I live in the same area as Influence Waterfowl Calls and a couple months ago I was noticing a pattern of new caches in the area having descriptions of exactly what the cache container was, where it was hidden and how it was hidden. I questioned the cache owners about it and explained to them that I wished I had never read the description because it left no mystery about the hunt and made the hides really boring.

I was informed by two cache owners that they were asked so many questions while trying to get the caches listed that they felt they had to place the information in the cache description just to get the caches listed.

I was also contacted by a fellow cacher for feedback on his descriptions as he went through a series questions from the reviewer. I made suggestions on cache description modifications and told him to just answer remaining questions in reviewer notes.

There has been some discussions in the area wondering why, all of the sudden and after many successful hides, cachers began receiving such questions as "is there a log?" and to describe their container.

So I am wondering is this the new norm in the review process in other area?

This probably should be started as a new thread, but the obvious question is, have you asked your reviewer about it yet? That is certainly where you need to start.

 

There was another thread not long ago about the "Is there a log" question, but I don't remember where it was. The general response had to do with caches that do not have a container for the log (eg: magnetic vinyl signs, zipties, stuff like that) but perhaps it actually goes beyond that. But again, a straightforward discussion with the reviewer seems to be the right place to begin the discussion.

Link to comment

There has been some discussions in the area wondering why, all of the sudden and after many successful hides, cachers began receiving such questions as "is there a log?" and to describe their container.

 

So I am wondering is this the new norm in the review process in other area?

Sounds to me like the Reviewer is dealing with a spate of non-conforming caches and perhaps a bit of, uh, misdirection from area cachers so he feels the need to crack down and put a stop to the shenanigans.

 

It's been my experience that when a Reviewer is comfortable that an area's cachers are pretty much doing the right thing and policing themselves then he doesn't have to micromanage their caches. Trust but verify, ya know?

 

Just a guess. :P

 

Plus, listing the contents of any new cache (that has any) is pretty much the norm, I can't see how that takes the fun out.

Link to comment

.... have you asked your reviewer about it yet? That is certainly where you need to start.

 

I haven't, but I haven't placed any new caches. I made the same suggestion to a couple people that mentioned it to me. I just saw this thread and was curious if it was the new standard or a regional thing.

Link to comment

Sounds to me like the Reviewer is dealing with a spate of non-conforming caches and perhaps a bit of, uh, misdirection from area cachers so he feels the need to crack down and put a stop to the shenanigans.

 

It's been my experience that when a Reviewer is comfortable that an area's cachers are pretty much doing the right thing and policing themselves then he doesn't have to micromanage their caches. Trust but verify, ya know?

 

Just a guess. :santa:

Yeah that was my first thought when a new cacher made reference to the questions, but then experienced cachers with several hides started getting the same questions. It just struck me as odd and, as IWC was, experienced cachers were a bit insulted by the questions when they had never had a problem with any of their previous hide.

 

Plus, listing the contents of any new cache (that has any) is pretty much the norm, I can't see how that takes the fun out.

 

Yeah, me neither and I don't know anyone that has said that, but maybe if someone that feels that way reads this it will make them feel better that you feel that way :P:D

 

Oh, maybe you misunderstood what I typed earlier? :) What I was making reference to was a new cacher that listed very specific information about the hide on the cache page:

 

... having descriptions of exactly what the cache container was, where it was hidden and how it was hidden.

 

The cache pages are changed now but they told where to park, that the cache was a medium lock n lock, outside the cemetery fence, near the south west corner beneath cedar trees, covered with rocks. Another page said that it was small lock n lock, covered with bark, in a hole on the north east side of a tree and even how many feet the tree was from the road.

 

Yeah that took all the imagination and thrill out of the hunt. The cacher told me that after many emails back and forth to the reviewer they felt they had to place all of that information in the description just to get the listing published, so 5 caches to follow they followed suit and all of their cache description read that way. They did not like it and did not want it that way but felt they had to. I suggested they double check with the reviewer but I was pretty sure the reviewer just wanted the information in a reviewer note and not on the cache page and they could edit it to read the way they wanted.

Link to comment

...They did not like it and did not want it that way but felt they had to. I suggested they double check with the reviewer but I was pretty sure the reviewer just wanted the information in a reviewer note and not on the cache page and they could edit it to read the way they wanted.

Yep, that would be my guess. Folks with a mad on are liable to act out in any sort of way.

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 2
×
×
  • Create New...