Jump to content

Quarterly Sweeps for unfound caches


addisonbr
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Hi folks - I saw this note on a cache I've been watching and was wondering if anyone knows whether it's a new site-wide policy, or a system that's unique to Ontario?

 

Hello fellow geocacher. I'm one of the volunteer reviewers for Geocaching

 

***Unfound for more than six months***

 

Starting in the spring of 2010 a quarterly sweep across Ontario will be performed on all geocaches that have not been found during a six month period. At this moment, your geocache has never been found. This purpose of this note is to give you a heads-up that it may be best if you can physically visit your cache and have ensured that everything is still in place and the cache is ready to be found. Once completed you should post an Owner Maintenance log on this geocache. This will let people know that they can safely attempt to find your cache, as they may have been waiting to see if there is any activity from you or others.

Link to comment

Hi folks - I saw this note on a cache I've been watching and was wondering if anyone knows whether it's a new site-wide policy, or a system that's unique to Ontario?

 

Hello fellow geocacher. I'm one of the volunteer reviewers for Geocaching

 

***Unfound for more than six months***

 

Starting in the spring of 2010 a quarterly sweep across Ontario will be performed on all geocaches that have not been found during a six month period. At this moment, your geocache has never been found. This purpose of this note is to give you a heads-up that it may be best if you can physically visit your cache and have ensured that everything is still in place and the cache is ready to be found. Once completed you should post an Owner Maintenance log on this geocache. This will let people know that they can safely attempt to find your cache, as they may have been waiting to see if there is any activity from you or others.

 

While it is true that some things in here seem to be regional in nature, and even that can change from day to day, I don't believe that that includes the site's guidelines.

Link to comment

That will be interesting when they do it in Montana. There are 97 caches in MT that have not been found since 2008. Of them:

19 haven't been found since 2006. (I love GSAK!)

4 haven't been found since 2004.

10 were placed before 2003.

8 of them have DNFs as their most recent log.

61 have a terrain rating of greater than 3*.

24 are puzzles or multi-caches.

 

Several of these caches were placed early in the activity and their placers are really not active anymore. Would be really sad to see them go just because they haven't been found in a while.

Jen

Link to comment

Hi folks - I saw this note on a cache I've been watching and was wondering if anyone knows whether it's a new site-wide policy, or a system that's unique to Ontario?

 

Hello fellow geocacher. I'm one of the volunteer reviewers for Geocaching

 

***Unfound for more than six months***

 

Starting in the spring of 2010 a quarterly sweep across Ontario will be performed on all geocaches that have not been found during a six month period. At this moment, your geocache has never been found. This purpose of this note is to give you a heads-up that it may be best if you can physically visit your cache and have ensured that everything is still in place and the cache is ready to be found. Once completed you should post an Owner Maintenance log on this geocache. This will let people know that they can safely attempt to find your cache, as they may have been waiting to see if there is any activity from you or others.

 

Well, I never did see a site-wide Virtual Cache massacre such as happened in Ontario last year. :D

 

I just looked at the oldest unfound cache in Ontario, and I see it has the same note. If that thing was archived I would be sad. Very, very sad.

Link to comment

All cache owners must do a physical visit every 6 months if the cache has not been found. (edit to remove quote marks as it was my take on the note and not actually a quote)

I didn't see that in the guidelines that are being linked to.

 

I have a cache that hasn't been found in 6 months and is a 25K (15 mile) hike, I guess I am going to get a lot of exercise.

 

If this is not a new guideline, I would hope Groundspeak would have the reviewer remove all those notes.

 

 

That is one of the caches I found the log below on

 

GCDFB 4.5lb Walleye by Jamie Matear (4.5/2.5)

December 23 by CacheDrone (2 found)

Hello fellow geocacher. I'm one of the volunteer reviewers for Geocaching

***Unfound for more than six months***

 

Starting in the spring of 2010 a quarterly sweep across Ontario will be performed on all geocaches that have not been found during a six month period. At this moment, your geocache has never been found. This purpose of this note is to give you a heads-up that it may be best if you can physically visit your cache and have ensured that everything is still in place and the cache is ready to be found. Once completed you should post an Owner Maintenance log on this geocache. This will let people know that they can safely attempt to find your cache, as they may have been waiting to see if there is any activity from you or others.

 

CacheDrone: Volunteer Geocaching Reviewer (visit link)

The latest Listing Guidelines: (visit link)

Guide to Getting your Cache Listed Quickly: (visit link)

Communicating with Reviewers: (visit link)

 

[view this log]

 

Edited by Nozzletime
Link to comment

Nothing rogue about this. There's no threat of archiving, or of anything else, for that matter. It's just a friendly reminder to those who may have an issue with their cache. But I'm sure that won't stop the tin-foil-hat brigade from forming their own theories.

Nice hat Prime!

Link to comment

Six months seems a bit short. I have to imagine that Ontario has terrain that is inacessible up to eight or nine months out of the year. There are caches up here in Alaska that would be foolhardy to attempt outside a narrow late Spring/Summer window. There are other caches by their very location that may be visited only every few years due to the expense/logistics required to get to them. A reviewer sweep like that of Alaskan cachers would leave the review spinning his/her wheels unless the intent is to begin eliminating remote or moutainous caches.

Edited by Ladybug Kids
Link to comment

Nothing rogue about this. There's no threat of archiving, or of anything else, for that matter. It's just a friendly reminder to those who may have an issue with their cache. But I'm sure that won't stop the tin-foil-hat brigade from forming their own theories.

The part that worries me is where the note asks the owner to post an Owner Maintenance note on the cache. As I posted earlier, several of the caches in Montana that could potentially be tagged like this in a sweep are owned by non-active/inactive placers. The cache is probably still present but they may never respond.

 

So what happens if no response is made to this note? What is the next step in the process? Should we expect to see older caches with inactive placers archived? Just wondering.

Jen

Link to comment

It looks to me like nothing more than a friendly reminder to cache owners.

 

Not a "Your cache is about to be archived," but simply a "Hey, just making sure you’re alive out there."

 

If they hear from you at all about your cache, they’ll probably be happy.

Link to comment

That will be interesting when they do it in Montana. There are 97 caches in MT that have not been found since 2008. Of them:

19 haven't been found since 2006. (I love GSAK!)

4 haven't been found since 2004.

10 were placed before 2003.

8 of them have DNFs as their most recent log.

61 have a terrain rating of greater than 3*.

24 are puzzles or multi-caches.

 

Several of these caches were placed early in the activity and their placers are really not active anymore. Would be really sad to see them go just because they haven't been found in a while.

Jen

 

Jen,

 

Man I wish I knew how to work GSAK as good as you Nice work.

 

ScubaSonic

Link to comment
"All cache owners must do a physical visit every 6 months if the cache has not been found."

I didn't see that in the guidelines that are being linked to.

I don't see that in the geocache logs pasted into this thread either. Language is important, please don't embellish.

 

Embellish??

 

If my cache is not found for 6 months I have to visit it and post an owners note, does that not sound like a MUST?

 

How should I view it?

As of now there are over 700 caches unfound in the last 6 months, I imagine by March or April(the end or the winter season) it will be much higher.

 

Starting in the spring of 2010 a quarterly sweep across Ontario will be performed on all geocaches that have not been found during a six month period. At this moment, your geocache has never been found. This purpose of this note is to give you a heads-up that it may be best if you can physically visit your cache and have ensured that everything is still in place and the cache is ready to be found. Once completed you should post an Owner Maintenance log on this geocache. This will let people know that they can safely attempt to find your cache, as they may have been waiting to see if there is any activity from you or others.

 

Oh Thanks for showing me how to bold something too!

Link to comment

The reviewer's note might have several interpretation, but I understand it as targetting caches that have never been found and have been placed over 6 months ago, not all existing caches that have not been found in the last 6 months.

 

Considering how much of a FTF race there usually is in most areas, I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect a problem if a cache has never been found after so long. Asking the owner to confirm that there is no mistake in the coordinates and that the cache is still there seems like a good thing to me. I know of a couple caches that are supposed to be easy, have no found, a bunch of DNFs and no word from the owner. After a few weeks, people just stop trying to find them. Would be nice to have the reviewer ask the owner to check on those caches...

 

For very remote caches, a longer delay (one year?) could be better, and the reviewers would certainly allow some extra time if an area was unaccessible in certain seasons.

 

Of course, in the "old days" people could place a cache far from home without being expected to ever go back there, so maybe that warrants an exception for very old remote caches... they're not "blocking a spot" or anything. Though having a confirmation that they are still findable might certainly renew interest in those unfound caches... :D

Link to comment

That will be interesting when they do it in Montana. There are 97 caches in MT that have not been found since 2008.

 

I wonder what the stats would look like for some of the many areas in Africa, South America, and other places when do not get many geocachers. Look at some of the smaller (and even fairly large) countries in Africa and you'll find a *lot* of caches that have never been found. They may very well be still there but because the areas get so few visiting geocachers the caches have never been found. I've had my eye on a couple of caches in Iquitos, Peru (because there is a greater than zero chance I may visit the area next year) that have note been found, including an Earthcache that has been "in place" since September, and I'm pretty sure it's still there.

 

If this became a global policy it could eliminate the only viable caches in some countries and for those that like to color in new countries on a map where they've found a cache it would be pretty frustrating.

Link to comment
"All cache owners must do a physical visit every 6 months if the cache has not been found."

I didn't see that in the guidelines that are being linked to.

I don't see that in the geocache logs pasted into this thread either. Language is important, please don't embellish.

Embellish??

 

If my cache is not found for 6 months I have to visit it and post an owners note, does that not sound like a MUST?

 

How should I view it?

As of now there are over 700 caches unfound in the last 6 months, I imagine by March or April(the end or the winter season) it will be much higher.

 

Starting in the spring of 2010 a quarterly sweep across Ontario will be performed on all geocaches that have not been found during a six month period. At this moment, your geocache has never been found. This purpose of this note is to give you a heads-up that it may be best if you can physically visit your cache and have ensured that everything is still in place and the cache is ready to be found. Once completed you should post an Owner Maintenance log on this geocache. This will let people know that they can safely attempt to find your cache, as they may have been waiting to see if there is any activity from you or others.

There, now you know how to change color in the text as well :D I don't know what will happen during the quarterly sweep - if caches get archived because they haven't been found for a while, we can have another round of "lynch the reviewer" here. As it is, I read the text as a suggestion to do a favor for cachers in your area, and definitely not as the statement you wrote earlier.

 

My personal feeling on this is that unless there's been a change in GS policy we didn't know about, the reviewer is being a little too enthusiastic in his or her duties. I would definitely like to know if an unfound cache is still there before I visit, but since the activity is voluntary, it's up to me to decide if I want to make the trip in the first place.

 

Edit to add:

 

The cache you mentioned (GCDFB) has 32 (!!) watchers. Owner also said he will check on it 1.5 years ago without a follow-up. I think a reviewer note in this case is somewhat justified.

Edited by Chrysalides
Link to comment
The reviewer's note might have several interpretation, but I understand it as targetting caches that have never been found and have been placed over 6 months ago, not all existing caches that have not been found in the last 6 months.

The fact that this cache does not have that note, despite having gone unfound since May, would seem to lend credence to your view that the note refers to caches that have never been found. Of course, it also could mean that the reviewer is still busy posting those notes, too.

 

 

Has anybody yet taken the time to email the reviewer and ask?

Link to comment
Was the reviewer note written by someone named "nomex"?

Just curious.

Maybe there is a silent campaign to make sure caches actually exist. I seem to remember a thread about this happening somewhere else.

The details are foggy.

No, the note was written by CacheDrone:

December 23 by CacheDrone (2 found)

Hello fellow geocacher. I'm one of the volunteer reviewers for Geocaching

***Unfound for more than six months***

Starting in the spring of 2010 a quarterly sweep across Ontario will be performed on all geocaches that have not been found during a six month period. At this moment, your geocache has never been found. This purpose of this note is to give you a heads-up that it may be best if you can physically visit your cache and have ensured that everything is still in place and the cache is ready to be found. Once completed you should post an Owner Maintenance log on this geocache. This will let people know that they can safely attempt to find your cache, as they may have been waiting to see if there is any activity from you or others.

CacheDrone: Volunteer Geocaching Reviewer (visit link)

The latest Listing Guidelines: (visit link)

Guide to Getting your Cache Listed Quickly: (visit link)

Communicating with Reviewers: (visit link)

This particular cache was placed in 2001 by an account showing no finds and only one hide. The cache owner was last online in August of this year (better than I would have expected, at any rate!). There has really only been on attempt to find it (or one posted DNF, at least), though, and it would seem to be extremely remote, so that may not be any big surprise. Edited by knowschad
Link to comment
Was the reviewer note written by someone named "nomex"?

Just curious.

Maybe there is a silent campaign to make sure caches actually exist. I seem to remember a thread about this happening somewhere else.

The details are foggy.

No, the note was written by CacheDrone

I'm sure he knows, or at least knows how to find out if he was interested. I wasn't sure if that was a cheap shot or humor, so I gave bittsen the benefit of doubt and didn't post a snarky reply. Besides, I wouldn't want to offend the wrong personality from the 300+ who posts under that name :D

Link to comment
Was the reviewer note written by someone named "nomex"?

Just curious.

Maybe there is a silent campaign to make sure caches actually exist. I seem to remember a thread about this happening somewhere else.

The details are foggy.

No, the note was written by CacheDrone

I'm sure he knows, or at least knows how to find out if he was interested. I wasn't sure if that was a cheap shot or humor, so I gave bittsen the benefit of doubt and didn't post a snarky reply. Besides, I wouldn't want to offend the wrong personality from the 300+ who posts under that name :D

Oh, I'm sure that it wasn't a cheap shot. Definitely humor.
Link to comment
Was the reviewer note written by someone named "nomex"?

Just curious.

Maybe there is a silent campaign to make sure caches actually exist. I seem to remember a thread about this happening somewhere else.

The details are foggy.

No, the note was written by CacheDrone

I'm sure he knows, or at least knows how to find out if he was interested. I wasn't sure if that was a cheap shot or humor, so I gave bittsen the benefit of doubt and didn't post a snarky reply. Besides, I wouldn't want to offend the wrong personality from the 300+ who posts under that name :D

Oh, I'm sure that it wasn't a cheap shot. Definitely humor.

 

347

 

Most definately

Link to comment

My personal feeling on this is that unless there's been a change in GS policy we didn't know about, the reviewer is being a little too enthusiastic in his or her duties. I would definitely like to know if an unfound cache is still there before I visit, but since the activity is voluntary, it's up to me to decide if I want to make the trip in the first place.

 

Edit to add:

 

The cache you mentioned (GCDFB) has 32 (!!) watchers. Owner also said he will check on it 1.5 years ago without a follow-up. I think a reviewer note in this case is somewhat justified.

 

Enthusiastic, yes. Too enthusiastic? Naw. Different reviewers have different amounts of time available, and may interpret the guidelines and their responsibilites differently.

Looking back at caches that I've found, or looked for, in many different states, I do find that they are handled differently in different areas. All within the guidelines. In one area, a cache may be 'temporarily unavailable' for nine months, with no action taken. In another area, three months of 'temporarily unavailable' will get a warning from the reviewer. No action taken with get it archived the next month.

This does weed out inactive owners. Sometimes I do think that a long string of DNFs should evoke a note from the reviewer. But I do not think the system is set up for that.

I did not see anything in the quoted note from reviewer that a maintenance visit was required, much less every six months. Just that it was suggested. But it does have rogue reviewer overtones to it. I have some evil mystery caches that do not get found very often. One is over a year since the last find. But no DNFs on it. Likewise a traditional with three star terrain is approaching a year since the last find. Again no DNFs. A required visit every six months would definitely change my thought process on hiding difficult caches. Ain't nobody going to muggle them except, possibly, a bear.

But, except for the Rogue Reviewer thread, I have seen nothing to indicate that GC is contemplating such a requirement.

Link to comment

Hi gang!

 

The short version (and long one to follow) goes like this...

 

There are 24 caches that have never been found in Ontario that were posted over 6 months ago. Many are remote locations, but is not really a factor that I considered. As evidenced by others, many of them are being 'watched' and for various reasons. Some I would suspect are waiting to see if the cache gets found before they attempt it. If the Cache Owner was to actually check on their cache and post an Owner Maintenance log it might actually get people to go out and try to find it!

 

Basically "My cache is still waiting for an FTF. I've checked on it just to make sure everything is great so that you don't waste your time and effort. Come and find it!"

 

I have no intention of doing anything else, just trying to suggest a reason why people might be avoiding these caches... because there is no activity on them!

 

The long version

 

As 10 of these 24 caches are over 2 years old, who knows what might have happened by now. Animals may have dragged it off. Hunters/Fisherman or others unaware of our game might have removed it. Flooding may have washed it away. I would think that the people that placed these caches actually would like them to be found. So for all 24, why not check on it and let everyone it is fine?

 

But come spring time I hope to also get a list of caches that have a history of DNFs on them and request that the Cache Owner check up on them. We see people disable their cache, and usually after a reminder they are able to enable it again. That is a system that already works. However, there is the other part of the game, the caches that were being found but then go missing. DNF after DNF piles up and then everyone stops looking for it. Months pass, then more months. Everyone is just waiting for someone else to try and find it, but no one does. Doesn't it make sense that if more than 6 months have gone by and no one has found your cache that you might want to check on it to make sure it is actually still there? Of course it does. And if you do, a great way to let everyone know that your cache is fine is to post an Owner Maintenance log.

 

I realize that there are some really challenging and difficult caches out there. Without a doubt there are some that can easily go 6 months without being found. But at some point you have to ask yourself why that is? If it is because a bunch of DNFs are scaring everyone away... check on it! If it is a really challenging cache... check on it. Then in both cases, your Owner Maintenance log might inspire people to go try it out!

 

Active caches that are not being looked for don't serve anyone any good, and to me there is nothing worse than an active cache that isn't there and everyone is avoiding it because there is a long history of DNFs on it.

Link to comment

"All cache owners must do a physical visit every 6 months if the cache has not been found."

I didn't see that in the guidelines that are being linked to.

 

I have a cache that hasn't been found in 6 months and is a 25K (15 mile) hike, I guess I am going to get a lot of exercise.

 

If this is not a new guideline, I would hope Groundspeak would have the reviewer remove all those notes.

 

Re: the bold text. Do not put words in my mouth that I did not say! :D That is the second time you have done so in the public forums, and I expect you to exercise some restraint here after.

 

I will not be removing the notes as they were posted as a courtesy.

Link to comment

"All cache owners must do a physical visit every 6 months if the cache has not been found."

I didn't see that in the guidelines that are being linked to.

 

I have a cache that hasn't been found in 6 months and is a 25K (15 mile) hike, I guess I am going to get a lot of exercise.

 

If this is not a new guideline, I would hope Groundspeak would have the reviewer remove all those notes.

 

Re: the bold text. Do not put words in my mouth that I did not say! :D That is the second time you have done so in the public forums, and I expect you to exercise some restraint here after.

 

I will not be removing the notes as they were posted as a courtesy.

It's been pointed out above. #10 and #13. I think most of us read the note as the way you intended it.

Link to comment

Because i am too lazy to do any investigating, I would like to ask some questions.

 

Is CacheDrone a reviewer?

 

If CacheDrone is a reviewer, is the note posted on the cache pages something that is not related to reviewer duties but rather something that is being done for personal reasons as indicated by the recent reply of wanting to be sure before CacheDrone goes after them in the Spring?

 

I'm just asking questions, no accusations at all.

Link to comment
Because i am too lazy to do any investigating, I would like to ask some questions.

Is CacheDrone a reviewer?

If CacheDrone is a reviewer, is the note posted on the cache pages something that is not related to reviewer duties but rather something that is being done for personal reasons as indicated by the recent reply of wanting to be sure before CacheDrone goes after them in the Spring?

I'm just asking questions, no accusations at all.

Do you really think that you are fooling us with these silly disclaimers that you have been adding to many of your posts?

 

Yes, Cachedrone is the reviewer, and we all know that you are not too lazy to do the research, and you know it. What part of his explaination did you not understand? Perhaps he can restate it.

Link to comment
Because i am too lazy to do any investigating, I would like to ask some questions.

Is CacheDrone a reviewer?

If CacheDrone is a reviewer, is the note posted on the cache pages something that is not related to reviewer duties but rather something that is being done for personal reasons as indicated by the recent reply of wanting to be sure before CacheDrone goes after them in the Spring?

I'm just asking questions, no accusations at all.

Do you really think that you are fooling us with these silly disclaimers that you have been adding to many of your posts?

 

Yes, Cachedrone is the reviewer, and we all know that you are not too lazy to do the research, and you know it. What part of his explaination did you not understand? Perhaps he can restate it.

 

Now I consider THAT a personal attack.

 

My disclaimer and laziness in this situation are genuine. If you can't accept that then I invite you to keep your comments to yourself.

Link to comment

Doesn't it make sense that if more than 6 months have gone by and no one has found your cache that you might want to check on it to make sure it is actually still there? Of course it does. And if you do, a great way to let everyone know that your cache is fine is to post an Owner Maintenance log.

No. I cannot say that that makes any sense whatsoever. Assuming no DNFs, the cache has not been looked for. This is not uncommon. Want a couple of mile round trip hike, with 400' of climb, and a hiking permit required? Or even without the hiking permit? After Cindy Bear chewed on a couple of my waypoints, I've learnt my lesson. I hide them pretty darned well. Some cachers say that I'm hiding them from the bear, and they are right. They're still there. You can take my word for that! Your logic here fails me completely!

I realize that there are some really challenging and difficult caches out there. Without a doubt there are some that can easily go 6 months without being found. But at some point you have to ask yourself why that is? If it is because a bunch of DNFs are scaring everyone away... check on it! If it is a really challenging cache... check on it. Then in both cases, your Owner Maintenance log might inspire people to go try it out!

Why that is? Because most geocachers are after cache and dashes? A string of DNFs? That would be a concern. One reasonable DNF? Yes. That would be a concern. No one's found it in six months? That is common, and not a concern in the slghtest!

Active caches that are not being looked for don't serve anyone any good, and to me there is nothing worse than an active cache that isn't there and everyone is avoiding it because there is a long history of DNFs on it.

Outside of mixing your metaphors here, you have me completely lost. There is a big diference between an active cache that isn't found, and an active cache that isn't there. Any cache with a long history of DNFs should be looked into. I encourage reviewers to do this. Even caches that haven't been found in six months, and are rated fairly easy, and only have two DNFs should be looked into. Is this cache still there? Put Me in Coach Frankly, I have my doubts. But I've been known to DNF caches that are still there...

This has nothing to do with caches that haven't been found in the last six months. You seem to be trying to weed out inactive cache woners. Which might not be a bad idea. But requiring owner maintenance every six months because a cache has not been found will only make people stop hiding difficult caches, and will lead to the proliferation of cache and dashes. I beg you to reconsider your motivation here.

Link to comment

 

I realize that there are some really challenging and difficult caches out there. Without a doubt there are some that can easily go 6 months without being found. But at some point you have to ask yourself why that is? If it is because a bunch of DNFs are scaring everyone away... check on it! If it is a really challenging cache... check on it. Then in both cases, your Owner Maintenance log might inspire people to go try it out!

 

Active caches that are not being looked for don't serve anyone any good, and to me there is nothing worse than an active cache that isn't there and everyone is avoiding it because there is a long history of DNFs on it.

I'm not certain I agree with the quoted material. An active cache that is not being looked for because it is really difficult or challenging serves as goal for people to wish to attain. Caches like these get lots of watchers and get put on bookmark lists. The few people who are able to do these may spend months planning for their attempt. If some others have attempted and posted a DNF, the few who might do a cache like this will look at the DNF. If it appears that the logger really did get to the location and performed a thorough search, there may be some who will avoid it until the cache owner confirms that the cache is still there. However, others may take it as challenge and be even more likely to go and look for the cache. Most of the time these caches are really about the adventure of getting to some remote place. It would seem to me that whether or not the cache is found is not as important as having it as target to go look for. The people doing these caches are not doing it to increment their find count, and I suspect that a DNF or two isn't going stop many of the people who would look for such a cache from doing so.

Link to comment
Because i am too lazy to do any investigating, I would like to ask some questions.

Is CacheDrone a reviewer?

If CacheDrone is a reviewer, is the note posted on the cache pages something that is not related to reviewer duties but rather something that is being done for personal reasons as indicated by the recent reply of wanting to be sure before CacheDrone goes after them in the Spring?

I'm just asking questions, no accusations at all.

Do you really think that you are fooling us with these silly disclaimers that you have been adding to many of your posts?

Yes, Cachedrone is the reviewer, and we all know that you are not too lazy to do the research, and you know it. What part of his explaination did you not understand? Perhaps he can restate it.

Now I consider THAT a personal attack.

My disclaimer and laziness in this situation are genuine. If you can't accept that then I invite you to keep your comments to yourself.

I'm not surprised. All I'm saying, though, is that your obvious disclaimers don't hide the real intentions of your posts. That is not an attack... it is an observation. Take it, or leave it. You have a right to post all the disclaimers you wish. I'm just pointing out that they don't do as much good as you may think.

 

Or, was it the "you are not too lazy" part that you thought was a personal attack?

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment
Because i am too lazy to do any investigating, I would like to ask some questions.

Is CacheDrone a reviewer?

If CacheDrone is a reviewer, is the note posted on the cache pages something that is not related to reviewer duties but rather something that is being done for personal reasons as indicated by the recent reply of wanting to be sure before CacheDrone goes after them in the Spring?

I'm just asking questions, no accusations at all.

Do you really think that you are fooling us with these silly disclaimers that you have been adding to many of your posts?

Yes, Cachedrone is the reviewer, and we all know that you are not too lazy to do the research, and you know it. What part of his explaination did you not understand? Perhaps he can restate it.

Now I consider THAT a personal attack.

My disclaimer and laziness in this situation are genuine. If you can't accept that then I invite you to keep your comments to yourself.

I'm not surprised. All I'm saying, though, is that your obvious disclaimers don't hide the real intentions of your posts. That is not an attack... it is an observation. Take it, or leave it. You have a right to post all the disclaimers you wish. I'm just pointing out that they don't do as much good as you may think.

 

Or, was it the "you are not too lazy" part that you thought was a personal attack?

 

You are saying I am lying with my disclaimers and I can assure you that each disclaimer is there to prevent people like YOU from putting word in my mouth. I have no reason to lie. I'm a jerk when I want to be and can usually imply when I am being a jerk quite adequately.

I am also a nice person when I want to be and you know it.

For YOU to continually imply that I'm being a jerk does nothing but get me in trouble and I would thank you to not post in the forums any further that you think I am lying. When in doubt, please keep it to yourself. Thank you.

 

Sorry mods, and everyone else, this had to be said here.

Link to comment
Because i am too lazy to do any investigating, I would like to ask some questions.

Is CacheDrone a reviewer?

If CacheDrone is a reviewer, is the note posted on the cache pages something that is not related to reviewer duties but rather something that is being done for personal reasons as indicated by the recent reply of wanting to be sure before CacheDrone goes after them in the Spring?

I'm just asking questions, no accusations at all.

Do you really think that you are fooling us with these silly disclaimers that you have been adding to many of your posts?

Yes, Cachedrone is the reviewer, and we all know that you are not too lazy to do the research, and you know it. What part of his explaination did you not understand? Perhaps he can restate it.

Now I consider THAT a personal attack.

My disclaimer and laziness in this situation are genuine. If you can't accept that then I invite you to keep your comments to yourself.

I'm not surprised. All I'm saying, though, is that your obvious disclaimers don't hide the real intentions of your posts. That is not an attack... it is an observation. Take it, or leave it. You have a right to post all the disclaimers you wish. I'm just pointing out that they don't do as much good as you may think.

 

Or, was it the "you are not too lazy" part that you thought was a personal attack?

 

You are saying I am lying with my disclaimers and I can assure you that each disclaimer is there to prevent people like YOU from putting word in my mouth. I have no reason to lie. I'm a jerk when I want to be and can usually imply when I am being a jerk quite adequately.

I am also a nice person when I want to be and you know it.

For YOU to continually imply that I'm being a jerk does nothing but get me in trouble and I would thank you to not post in the forums any further that you think I am lying. When in doubt, please keep it to yourself. Thank you.

 

Sorry mods, and everyone else, this had to be said here.

Relax!!! All I'm saying is that, if you think about how you word your posts before you write them, there is no need for these disclaimers. I am guessing that you have taken to using them because you have been misunderstood so often. I am not the source of that misunderstanding.

 

 

Now, back on topic.. are all/most of the caches in question here as remote as the one example that was posted? If so, I can see them going without being found (or even hunted for) in quite some time, but at the same time, if the hider can't check up on them from time to time, aren't they in the same league as a vacation cache?

Link to comment

"All cache owners must do a physical visit every 6 months if the cache has not been found."

I didn't see that in the guidelines that are being linked to.

 

I have a cache that hasn't been found in 6 months and is a 25K (15 mile) hike, I guess I am going to get a lot of exercise.

 

If this is not a new guideline, I would hope Groundspeak would have the reviewer remove all those notes.

 

Re: the bold text. Do not put words in my mouth that I did not say! :D That is the second time you have done so in the public forums, and I expect you to exercise some restraint here after.

 

I will not be removing the notes as they were posted as a courtesy.

 

I guess you will have to forgive me for misunderstanding what a quarterly sweep is.

A reviewer posts a note like below and says you should do a maintenance visit to say the cache is OK.

 

I wrongfully assumed that there would be a consequence for not doing it.

"to give you a heads-up that it may be best if you can physically visit your cache"

 

The note doesn't say this is a courtesy and "I have no intention of doing anything else"

 

I have the understanding that if there is a reviewers note posted on the page it typically means action is required.

 

Hello fellow geocacher. I'm one of the volunteer reviewers for Geocaching

 

***Unfound for more than six months***

 

Starting in the spring of 2010 a quarterly sweep across Ontario will be performed on all geocaches that have not been found during a six month period. At this moment, your geocache has never been found. This purpose of this note is to give you a heads-up that it may be best if you can physically visit your cache and have ensured that everything is still in place and the cache is ready to be found. Once completed you should post an Owner Maintenance log on this geocache. This will let people know that they can safely attempt to find your cache, as they may have been waiting to see if there is any activity from you or others.

Link to comment
Because i am too lazy to do any investigating, I would like to ask some questions.

Is CacheDrone a reviewer?

If CacheDrone is a reviewer, is the note posted on the cache pages something that is not related to reviewer duties but rather something that is being done for personal reasons as indicated by the recent reply of wanting to be sure before CacheDrone goes after them in the Spring?

I'm just asking questions, no accusations at all.

Do you really think that you are fooling us with these silly disclaimers that you have been adding to many of your posts?

Yes, Cachedrone is the reviewer, and we all know that you are not too lazy to do the research, and you know it. What part of his explaination did you not understand? Perhaps he can restate it.

Now I consider THAT a personal attack.

My disclaimer and laziness in this situation are genuine. If you can't accept that then I invite you to keep your comments to yourself.

I'm not surprised. All I'm saying, though, is that your obvious disclaimers don't hide the real intentions of your posts. That is not an attack... it is an observation. Take it, or leave it. You have a right to post all the disclaimers you wish. I'm just pointing out that they don't do as much good as you may think.

 

Or, was it the "you are not too lazy" part that you thought was a personal attack?

 

You are saying I am lying with my disclaimers and I can assure you that each disclaimer is there to prevent people like YOU from putting word in my mouth. I have no reason to lie. I'm a jerk when I want to be and can usually imply when I am being a jerk quite adequately.

I am also a nice person when I want to be and you know it.

For YOU to continually imply that I'm being a jerk does nothing but get me in trouble and I would thank you to not post in the forums any further that you think I am lying. When in doubt, please keep it to yourself. Thank you.

 

Sorry mods, and everyone else, this had to be said here.

Relax!!! All I'm saying is that, if you think about how you word your posts before you write them, there is no need for these disclaimers. I am guessing that you have taken to using them because you have been misunderstood so often. I am not the source of that misunderstanding.

 

 

 

'CLIFFY'.......LOL

Link to comment
Because i am too lazy to do any investigating, I would like to ask some questions.

Is CacheDrone a reviewer?

If CacheDrone is a reviewer, is the note posted on the cache pages something that is not related to reviewer duties but rather something that is being done for personal reasons as indicated by the recent reply of wanting to be sure before CacheDrone goes after them in the Spring?

I'm just asking questions, no accusations at all.

Do you really think that you are fooling us with these silly disclaimers that you have been adding to many of your posts?

Yes, Cachedrone is the reviewer, and we all know that you are not too lazy to do the research, and you know it. What part of his explaination did you not understand? Perhaps he can restate it.

Now I consider THAT a personal attack.

My disclaimer and laziness in this situation are genuine. If you can't accept that then I invite you to keep your comments to yourself.

I'm not surprised. All I'm saying, though, is that your obvious disclaimers don't hide the real intentions of your posts. That is not an attack... it is an observation. Take it, or leave it. You have a right to post all the disclaimers you wish. I'm just pointing out that they don't do as much good as you may think.

 

Or, was it the "you are not too lazy" part that you thought was a personal attack?

 

You are saying I am lying with my disclaimers and I can assure you that each disclaimer is there to prevent people like YOU from putting word in my mouth. I have no reason to lie. I'm a jerk when I want to be and can usually imply when I am being a jerk quite adequately.

I am also a nice person when I want to be and you know it.

For YOU to continually imply that I'm being a jerk does nothing but get me in trouble and I would thank you to not post in the forums any further that you think I am lying. When in doubt, please keep it to yourself. Thank you.

 

Sorry mods, and everyone else, this had to be said here.

 

Relax!!! All I'm saying is that, if you think about how you word your posts before you write them, there is no need for these disclaimers. I am guessing that you have taken to using them because you have been misunderstood so often. I am not the source of that misunderstanding.

 

:D You know what....call me crazy but ....I think if you two ever met over grogs it would end happy.

I for one perk up when your both in the same thread :mad:......I dunno....just something about your

exchanges...can't put a finger on it,just a hunch you'd get along just fine.

 

.................then again I'd hate to see you both in bittsen pieces.......... :mad:

Link to comment
.................then again I'd hate to see you both in bittsen pieces.......... :D
LOL! I love a good bad pun!!! :mad::mad::mad:

:laughing:And so it goes here in the forum.Happy Holiday to you both and everyone!!!

I have learned much lurking here and I'm looking forward to 2010!

I Thank you all.

Rob

Same to you, Rob!!

[Edited to add:... and Bittsen and Calgriz, and everyone else!]

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

My tin-foil-hat prediction was right on the money. I'm amazed at how many people bought into the FAKE quote that Nozzletime apparently pulled out of his posterior, and acted as if it were fact.

 

The note is just a reminder to the owners of a group of caches that might have issues. No action was threatened. But apparently that fact isn't enough for some idiots people. You now have to tell them that there will be no action, to prevent them from thinking the sky is going to fall. What other things do you have to be told won't happen?

 

This is just sad. Get a life, everybody. If this is the best you can come up with to start a controversy, then you suck at starting controversies.

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 3
×
×
  • Create New...