Jump to content

Really difficult cache...


ZeLonewolf

Recommended Posts

I love it that a sock puppet with no found or hide jump in to defense the CO!!

 

Yea I really trust that cacher 100%

 

I bet anything that his GPS or phone he is using is so off that's why no one can find it. He will not even tell you the size of the cache but it has to be smaller then a nano if it's in the location he said it is. Many of us spent hours and hours each visit as well as took some of the bricks off the top of the wall to look inside as well as on the front of the wall for small cracks and it's no where to be found. If the CO could not find the "Fake Cache" then he is blind as a bat as I found it 3 seconds after I got out of the car so that tells me his cache is no where within the location he posted.

Link to comment
I don't particularly like it when the Geocaching community is getting punk'ed. :mad:

 

I'm sorry that two dozen cacher's wasted their time looking for this fiction.

 

Would a cacher that is local to that area please contact the landowner and see if permission was granted to place the cache on their property? You may want to mention your concern, if you have one, about people dismantling parts of the wall to find the cache. If the answer comes back "No permission was granted" then please contact the local reviewer and notify them that the cache was placed without permission and that it should be archived.

 

And another busybody feels the need to take on the task of policing this hobby. :blink:

 

Because a cache hasn't been found yet, it MUST be a hoax?! Good grief -- get over yourselves. What exactly does this cache have to do with you? Why are you presuming to speak for the entire sport of geocaching?

Link to comment

Likely just something simple like a noob using the wrong datum. Had a cacher in my area who had several finds and started doing hides, only to have no one able to find them. Local cachers just trashed them in the cache logs rather then offering assistance. I offered assistance, cached my way out to their town (an hour away straight driving) the next weekend, gave half the team a crash course on cache hiding, and discovered that their GPS was set to the wrong datum. Corrected that, and ever since then, seekers have been finding their hides. Not sure how the heck they were able to find any caches with the datum putting them as far out as they were, but I guess they were just really persistent in the hunts.

Link to comment

I think that New York Admin hit the mark in his recent note (somebody also said this somewhere upthread). The cache owner is probably using the wrong datum. That would account for him being able to check his coords and report that they were within 7 feet, it would account for him reporting that his cache was there, but that he couldn't find the throw-down (whoever put that there... tks-tsk!!), it would account for the difficulty rating, and it would account for all the DNFs.

Link to comment

I don't particularly like it when the Geocaching community is getting punk'ed. :blink:

 

I'm sorry that two dozen cacher's wasted their time looking for this fiction.

 

Would a cacher that is local to that area please contact the landowner and see if permission was granted to place the cache on their property? You may want to mention your concern, if you have one, about people dismantling parts of the wall to find the cache. If the answer comes back "No permission was granted" then please contact the local reviewer and notify them that the cache was placed without permission and that it should be archived.

 

Karma is a <potty language removed>. LOL :mad::mad::mad::mad:

And now you're going to jump on the bandwagon and call for an NA?!

 

From cache log by Swineflew: "This cache isnt rated correctly and need to be archived. Sorry pal. This drama is going for too long."

 

Amazing. More long distance policing...

Edited by Motorcycle_Mama
Link to comment

I don't particularly like it when the Geocaching community is getting punk'ed. :blink:

 

I'm sorry that two dozen cacher's wasted their time looking for this fiction.

 

Would a cacher that is local to that area please contact the landowner and see if permission was granted to place the cache on their property? You may want to mention your concern, if you have one, about people dismantling parts of the wall to find the cache. If the answer comes back "No permission was granted" then please contact the local reviewer and notify them that the cache was placed without permission and that it should be archived.

 

Karma is a <potty language removed>. LOL :mad::mad::mad::mad:

And now you're going to jump on the bandwagon and call for an NA?!

 

From cache log by Swineflew: "This cache isnt rated correctly and need to be archived. Sorry pal. This drama is going for too long."

 

Amazing. More long distance policing...

 

That's just pathetic.

Edited by Motorcycle_Mama
Link to comment

I think that New York Admin hit the mark in his recent note (somebody also said this somewhere upthread). The cache owner is probably using the wrong datum. That would account for him being able to check his coords and report that they were within 7 feet, it would account for him reporting that his cache was there, but that he couldn't find the throw-down (whoever put that there... tks-tsk!!), it would account for the difficulty rating, and it would account for all the DNFs.

 

Because I try and believe the best of folks, I favour this explanation too. I suspect the cache owner's co-ords are out for some reason.

 

MrsB

Edited by The Blorenges
Link to comment
I don't particularly like it when the Geocaching community is getting punk'ed. :mad:

 

I'm sorry that two dozen cacher's wasted their time looking for this fiction.

 

Would a cacher that is local to that area please contact the landowner and see if permission was granted to place the cache on their property? You may want to mention your concern, if you have one, about people dismantling parts of the wall to find the cache. If the answer comes back "No permission was granted" then please contact the local reviewer and notify them that the cache was placed without permission and that it should be archived.

 

And another busybody feels the need to take on the task of policing this hobby. :blink:

 

Because a cache hasn't been found yet, it MUST be a hoax?! Good grief -- get over yourselves. What exactly does this cache have to do with you? Why are you presuming to speak for the entire sport of geocaching?

Sometimes the facts warrant it.

 

In this case, it's painfully clear that there is no 2.5 difficulty/1.0 terrain cache at that coordinates. Even if it isn't a hoax, the CO states they could not find a 1.0 or 1.5 difficulty container that someone else placed at the posted coordinates. There's a problem.

 

What is going to happen is people are going to start prying at the block caps and the wall will be damaged. I've seen this happen with wall hides. When geocachers start damaging the search area, it puts a black eye on the sport.

 

As for your comments regarding my opinion...

 

As anyone else here on the board, I have a right to state my opinion about the sport. I did not represent my comments as anything else but my own opinion, please do not put words in my mouth.

 

***Edited to delete a statement of mine. What I wrote was accurate, in my opinion, but in reflection added nothing but a 'gotcha'. Life's too short and I'd prefer to keep this discussion on geocaching.

Edited by Ecylram
Link to comment

Likely just something simple like a noob using the wrong datum. Had a cacher in my area who had several finds and started doing hides, only to have no one able to find them. Local cachers just trashed them in the cache logs rather then offering assistance. I offered assistance, cached my way out to their town (an hour away straight driving) the next weekend, gave half the team a crash course on cache hiding, and discovered that their GPS was set to the wrong datum. Corrected that, and ever since then, seekers have been finding their hides. Not sure how the heck they were able to find any caches with the datum putting them as far out as they were, but I guess they were just really persistent in the hunts.

 

I'm surprised an enterprising local cacher hasn't converted the coords from various other datums (data?) to WGS 84 to generate a list of alternate locations to search. How many different ones are there on a typical GPSr? If that's actually the issue, it would be some sweet bragging rights to whomever bagged the FTF that way. Plus, you could probably eliminate some of the datum possibilities if the coords put you somewhere that's not terrain 1.

Link to comment

 

Amazing. More long distance policing...

 

And you are not doing the same from the west coast?

 

Is he posting notes to the cache page like it's a discussion forum and calling for archival from across the country?

Neither I nor Mountainman38 (to the best of my knowledge) have posted notes, NM's or NA's on that cache. All conversation has been in this thread.

Link to comment

 

Amazing. More long distance policing...

 

And you are not doing the same from the west coast?

 

Is he posting notes to the cache page like it's a discussion forum and calling for archival from across the country?

 

No. thankfully most of us are keeping our comments here. Nor, as far as I can tell, did Ecylram post on the cache page.

Edited by John in Valley Forge
Link to comment

 

I'm surprised an enterprising local cacher hasn't converted the coords from various other datums (data?) to WGS 84 to generate a list of alternate locations to search. How many different ones are there on a typical GPSr? If that's actually the issue, it would be some sweet bragging rights to whomever bagged the FTF that way. Plus, you could probably eliminate some of the datum possibilities if the coords put you somewhere that's not terrain 1.

 

A person wouldn't need to really... just change the settings on your their GPS to a different datum set and go to those coordinates (as long as they match the 1 terrain setting), give a quick search, repeat with each set of datum until found. Make the FTF and correction notice to everyone.

Link to comment

 

Amazing. More long distance policing...

 

And you are not doing the same from the west coast?

Saying live and let live is somehow policing?

 

Swineflew is from the west coast, too, it appears.

 

Oh come on now man, telling Ecylram that they are a busybody that needs to get over themselves and basicly telling them to mind thier own buisness with a line like this "What exactly does this cache have to do with you?" is basicly policing.

 

*Most* of us are just posting opinions. There is nothing wrong with that.

Link to comment

 

I'm surprised an enterprising local cacher hasn't converted the coords from various other datums (data?) to WGS 84 to generate a list of alternate locations to search. How many different ones are there on a typical GPSr? If that's actually the issue, it would be some sweet bragging rights to whomever bagged the FTF that way. Plus, you could probably eliminate some of the datum possibilities if the coords put you somewhere that's not terrain 1.

 

That's a very good point. I was thinking the same thing. I think if you did (and I am not an expert at those conversions) it would put you right on the dirt trail that leads up the hill from the dumpster at the left end of the Sears store.

Link to comment

 

I'm surprised an enterprising local cacher hasn't converted the coords from various other datums (data?) to WGS 84 to generate a list of alternate locations to search. How many different ones are there on a typical GPSr? If that's actually the issue, it would be some sweet bragging rights to whomever bagged the FTF that way. Plus, you could probably eliminate some of the datum possibilities if the coords put you somewhere that's not terrain 1.

 

That's a very good point. I was thinking the same thing. I think if you did (and I am not an expert at those conversions) it would put you right on the dirt trail that leads up the hill from the dumpster at the left end of the Sears store.

That would definitely rule out the 1.0 terrain rating.

Link to comment
I don't particularly like it when the Geocaching community is getting punk'ed. :mad:

 

I'm sorry that two dozen cacher's wasted their time looking for this fiction.

 

Would a cacher that is local to that area please contact the landowner and see if permission was granted to place the cache on their property? You may want to mention your concern, if you have one, about people dismantling parts of the wall to find the cache. If the answer comes back "No permission was granted" then please contact the local reviewer and notify them that the cache was placed without permission and that it should be archived.

 

And another busybody feels the need to take on the task of policing this hobby. :blink:

 

Because a cache hasn't been found yet, it MUST be a hoax?! Good grief -- get over yourselves. What exactly does this cache have to do with you? Why are you presuming to speak for the entire sport of geocaching?

Sometimes the facts warrant it.

 

In this case, it's painfully clear that there is no 2.5 difficulty/1.0 terrain cache at that coordinates. Even if it isn't a hoax, the CO states they could not find a 1.0 or 1.5 difficulty container that someone else placed at the posted coordinates. There's a problem.

How do you know "Someone else" didn't then pick it up again? If someone's going to do something as ridiculous as place their own cache instead of finding the real one, who knows what kind of games they'll play.

 

What is going to happen is people are going to start prying at the block caps and the wall will be damaged. I've seen this happen with wall hides. When geocachers start damaging the search area, it puts a black eye on the sport.

This would be bad. However, if people start doing that, they're being as ridiculous as they're accusing the CO of being. We're all responsible for our own actions.

 

As for your comments regarding my opinion...

 

As anyone else here on the board, I have a right to state my opinion about the sport.

Of course you do -- no one is contesting that.

 

I did not represent my comments as anything else but my own opinion, please do not put words in my mouth.

I will quote from above: " I don't particularly like it when the Geocaching community is getting punk'ed." This says you are interpreting what is happening to the entire community. This is not particularly accurate.

 

As for the 'busybody' and 'policing' comments. I fail to see the distinction between my posting on a cache and your posting on my motives. After all, aren't you being a 'busybody' and 'policing' by saying I shouldn't have written that post? What difference is it to you and what dog do you have in this hunt? Pot, kettle, black.

You post an attacking note on a cache page, with no personal information other than what you read on the internet. This is being a busybody. I respond on a forum, calling you out on this action.

 

Edited to add: I apologize for saying that you posted on the cache page. I had you mixed up with someone else.

 

That's a rather amazing question -- "What dog do you have in this hunt?" I find it annoying when people stick their noses in other people's business. What dog do you have? I can see the local cachers being annoyed at not finding the cache, but not someone who isn't even looking for it!

 

Sadly, I must leave for the weekend now. I'll be interested to see what happens in the next couple of days...

Edited by mountainman38
Link to comment

 

That's a very good point. I was thinking the same thing. I think if you did (and I am not an expert at those conversions) it would put you right on the dirt trail that leads up the hill from the dumpster at the left end of the Sears store.

That would definitely rule out the 1.0 terrain rating.

 

True, but if you add in a 20' error radius it could end up being a magnetic nano placed ON the dumpster.

Link to comment

Edited to add: I apologize for saying that you posted on the cache page. I had you mixed up with someone else.

 

That's a rather amazing question -- "What dog do you have in this hunt?" I find it annoying when people stick their noses in other people's business. What dog do you have? I can see the local cachers being annoyed at not finding the cache, but not someone who isn't even looking for it!

 

it was someone else that posted the NA on the log and posted it from out west too. I think the only people that have a claim to post logs are those that have walked around that parking lot.

 

That's why I am keeping my snarkiness here, where it belongs.

Link to comment

True, but if you add in a 20' error radius it could end up being a magnetic nano placed ON the dumpster.

 

Dumpster is more like 60' feet from the spot he listed.

 

Man this CO not only has the DNF cachers fighting but people fighting on here with each other.

Edited by SXR800
Link to comment

o.k. you all seen this picture (a friend took it and posted it on the cache log).

 

IL2LI.jpg

 

The red Dot is where we got 2-3 feet to the location of the cache and the 2-3 feet was pointing to the grass area on top of the wall. The red dot is on top of the wall on the second brick from the left of the stepup. The Greeen lines mark 3 bricks that are lose and can be lifted up (yes we looked under them as well as down the inside of the wall.

 

I have seen 6 GPS's that showed anywhere from 2-3 feet from that red dot, 5 of them were different make or model and 2 were the same gps.

 

So at rating 1 anything past the wall is no longer a 1, the really are not alot of places to hide this cache and if he has it somehow stuck in the crack of the wall betweeen two bricks then he needs to let you know you will need somethign to remove it from a tight spot.

 

As far as the Fake cache goes, it was places rigth were the right hand side green line is, the was a space between the top brick and the little wall that steps the wall up by a foot and it was a 35mm film canister, very very easy find.

Edited by SXR800
Link to comment

Funny this had been posted in here... I had been following all the drama as the cache is actually in my hometown, where my parents still live. Don't know why you'd want to hide a cache there anyway... Oh well, archived now... guess I don't have to go see what all the fuss is about when I'm home for Thanksgiving. :blink:

Link to comment

It's interesting that the cachers are so intent on looking right at GZ when obviously it is not there.

 

I've seen caches get published and then later have their coords updated 1000 feet.

 

I know someone who was placing caches with an I-phone. I offered (and she accepted) to go with her to her caches and get good coords with my GPS.

 

Her hides were 100 feet off.

 

So I wonder if someone hasn't gone in an ever widening radius around this.

 

I guess at this point people can get p-- uh mad, or take it as a puzzle cache.

 

The idea that he has used the wrong datum is a great idea.

 

Is anyone who lives near GZ following this?

 

Like the guy who started this thread?

 

We're all on the edge of our seats wondering where it is.

 

It's just the geocachers nature you know.

 

I'll bet people are getting mad on the forums out of frustration more than anything.

 

We can't exactly fly out there and look for it.

Link to comment

hmm still think it was not in that spot because I looked under that brick 3 times, once at night 2 times in daytime.

 

Not everyone would be able to look under that brick as it is a private wall and the brick is about 25lb easy that is jammed between 2 other bricks that are 25lb each. I know because my girlfriend tried to look under it the second time out and I had to pick it up for her.

 

those 3 bricks are now in real bad shape as the edges are chipped off and big cracks in at least 1 of the brick from people lifting and dropping it.

Edited by SXR800
Link to comment

Posted now with a spoiler pic... I can see it in the pic I think, the part that is just too round in the middle of the pic. NOT a 2.5 difficulty, more like a 4.5, not going to critique the style, I'm sure the flames here will do that well enough. But looks like a good camo job.

Link to comment

I did some searching of what TheGirlwith1RedShoe said.

 

She said, (she edited it but I saved it) "I currently have 1826 finds and I own 179 hides"

 

So here is the profile that matched the quote.

 

1826 finds and 179 hides. :mad:

 

I said to myself, "self, it would be super easy to go to the Illinois page at cacherstats.com, and check for someone with approximately 1826 finds, and has 179 hides". Not that I would post that info here, of course. :blink:

 

Well, this thread has been a total embarrassment. I hope no one is going to change their username to XXRIPXX and Geocide because of it. :mad:

Link to comment

I will concur with the total embarrassment part!

 

I will say that not only was the difficulty wayyyyy out of line, but the terrain rating also was not a 1. Most of us understand a 1 to mean that you can retrieve and replace the cache from a wheel chair, and that certainly would not have been the case. But that is only a common understanding, not the law.

 

We have all seen our share of caches with bad D&T ratings without going off on a rant like this. I think some folks owe the cache owner apologies.

Link to comment

The following post is my opinion, and therefore not subject to being flamed, as it typically is:

 

I think this cache has really gotten out of hand, especially with the last few posts. If the CO is going to belittle a fellow cacher on the log, what's the point? The good news is that the cache is archived. The bad news is that it's not permanent yet. And the worse news is that the CO is being a jerk.

 

Again, in my own (extremely humble, because otherwise I'll get yelled at) opinion.

Link to comment

Well, this has been an interesting read! While I think the terrain was not rated correctly, I do feel the difficulty is good. Maybe there are regional differences in what the local community thinks as far as the ratings go. Maybe it is just a Midwest thing. I don't know as I have not been doing this as long as most of you.

Link to comment
The following post is my opinion, and therefore not subject to being flamed, as it typically is:

 

I think this cache has really gotten out of hand, especially with the last few posts. If the CO is going to belittle a fellow cacher on the log, what's the point? The good news is that the cache is archived. The bad news is that it's not permanent yet. And the worse news is that the CO is being a jerk.

 

Again, in my own (extremely humble, because otherwise I'll get yelled at) opinion.

Not yelling, just stating... the cache owner put out a cache for others to find. Others got all snooty because they couldn't find it. Cache owner went out and verified the coordinates and the presence of the cache. Cachers continued to be snooty. I'd be a jerk by that point as well, wouldn't you?

 

A recent note posted to the now archived cache page from Brandeeberry:

None of this had to happen.... ALL you had to do was take just ONE

of us and shown us it was real ..... but, it was your choice to drag

it on this long ... you cant move from Illinois to Long Island and not

expect us NY'ERS to put up a good fight !!!

 

Brandeeberry, baloney!! At no point does a cache owner have the obligation

to prove that his cache is real. The ONLY fault the cache owner made here

was providing poor D/T ratings, and that goes on all the time. So, are you

claiming that "NY'ERS" are typically as rude, overbearing, and agressive as

some of those that have posted to the cache page?

Link to comment

Wow. Just wow. I have read through this entire thread now, and here's what I think.

 

1) I don't have any way to tell whether the cache actually was there or not, since I don't live in the area, and thus did not search for it.

 

2) I don't have any way to see how accurate the coords are, etc for the reasons mentioned above.

 

3) The CO may have been a sock puppet, but again, I don't really know for sure. How can I?

 

4) What I do see is that this was handled very badly I think. If the person was just a noob and either rated the cache wrong, or what not, how on earth does this make the situation better?

 

Badger the poor thing until they freak and archive the cache? <sarcasm>Awesome. How helpful and kind.</sarcasm> If this person actually was a legitimate noob who made a mistake, how would this color their perception of geocaching? I don't think it would make it look very good.

 

Even if the person was just a sock puppet, other legitimate noobs may look at this cache page and get a really bad idea and possibly untrue of what the geocaching community is like, since they really will have no clue. To the unsuspecting noob, it might look like a situation where a new person was treated like crap until they archived their cache.

 

Kudos to those who logged onto the page offering to help the person, I think that's great.

 

Other than that... the cache page looks like a great big middle school / high school drama fest and I am disgusted.

 

I am also not a fan of long-distance policing of caches. I think it's pretty lame and uncalled for.

 

I am just bothered by this, regardless of the validity of the cache in question. :grin:

Link to comment

I think the difficulty was right on. The suggested ratings in the knowledge book is 2 stars is:

Average

The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

and 3 stars is:

Challenging

An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

 

so somewhere between 30 minutes and a good portion of an afternoon sounds reasonable. Based on the picture, its not that hard of a hide if you think to lift the stone slab. Of course this is all based on the assumption that it was there the entire time, which is still being questioned by some of the hunters.

The terrain is not too far off. A handicapped person (even in a wheelchair) can get to the hide area. May not be able to see the hide. Its a 1/2 star off at most. Better than many i've seen around.

Link to comment

I can't say this deserves an apology to the CO as he was asked several times to reconsider the difficulty rating and didn't. Assuming the cache really was there, the CO could have avoided all this with a higher difficulty rating. From the cache logs:

* Cache was published on 9/6.

* On 9/22 the area reviewer, New York Admin, asked the CO to double check his coordinates and rethink the difficulty.

* The response from the CO was:

1. The cache is exactly were I placed it.

2. The coords are dead on with a 7ft accuracy reading.

3. After using the link provided, my cache was rated a 2/1. I will not lower it and I will not raise it either, it's fair where it's at.

* On 10/13 another request was made of the CO to revisit the difficulty rating.

* On 10/15 two more notes stating that the rating must be incorrect.

* After that, on 10/15 the area reviewer asked the CO again to recheck coordinates with another cacher and commented on the 2.5 difficulty not being findable

* Again on 10/15, two different cachers offered to help the CO.

* Instead the CO disables the cache and posts this:

Under the SECOND stone that moves, the cache is hidden. It is a DIRT CAMO'D NANO. It is hidden down the CENTER ROW.It looks like any other little rock in there but if you lift it up, you'll see the BLACK NANO bottom clear as day.

* The CO's last post was to insult a skeptical cacher:

RED5 Your horrible at caching! I know you placed the fake cache container there, then posted your LAME FTF post! You had no problem searching there but since you couldn't find it, it became an issue that it was on private property? Your HORRIBLE, stick to your 1 star finds!

 

If the cache was there AND the CO had listened to his feedback & adjusted his ratings this all would have been avoided.

 

Y'all can argue what the difficulty rating should have been on this cache but it certainly wasn't a 2.5. I'd rate a nano-disguised-as-a-rock-hidden-inside-of-a-cinder-block-wall-with-other-rocks closer to a 4.0 or 4.5.

Edited by Ecylram
Link to comment

The following post is my opinion, and therefore not subject to being flamed, as it typically is:

 

I think this cache has really gotten out of hand, especially with the last few posts. If the CO is going to belittle a fellow cacher on the log, what's the point? The good news is that the cache is archived. The bad news is that it's not permanent yet. And the worse news is that the CO is being a jerk.

 

Again, in my own (extremely humble, because otherwise I'll get yelled at) opinion.

 

I think the CO was forced into a corner. After so many attacks, most people would strike back. Especially when he did nothing wrong.

 

Here is the note I was going to post, but posting is closed.

 

I can't believe you archived it. I guess your skin can only be so thick. Now that I see where it is I ran the rating system helper. I would have given it a 3/2. The 3 because it is a difficult/tricky hide. I would give it a 2 only because it is not wheelchair accessible.

 

It would have been a great hide and I would have kicked myself when I finally did find it.

 

Link to comment

I think the difficulty was right on. The suggested ratings in the knowledge book is 2 stars is:

Average

The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

and 3 stars is:

Challenging

An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

 

so somewhere between 30 minutes and a good portion of an afternoon sounds reasonable. Based on the picture, its not that hard of a hide if you think to lift the stone slab. Of course this is all based on the assumption that it was there the entire time, which is still being questioned by some of the hunters.

The terrain is not too far off. A handicapped person (even in a wheelchair) can get to the hide area. May not be able to see the hide. Its a 1/2 star off at most. Better than many i've seen around.

 

Yes! We have some hiders in our area that are famous for their really tricky hides, and they probably would have rated it just the same way!

Link to comment

]

 

Yes! We have some hiders in our area that are famous for their really tricky hides, and they probably would have rated it just the same way!

 

Yes, I have to agree with that, however, they dont belittle us fellow cachers.

 

What make the matter worse was when the CO's friend came on with his sock puppet account and start taunting us. He delete all those logs after I emailed him that I figured out his real caching name. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, so for those that didnt have that cache page on the watchlist is missing the whole story.

Link to comment

Cache has been archived and locked with this note from the area reviewer:

Now that this cache has been archived I don't mind at all locking it. To continue this discussion please take it to a forum. From the sounds of it the cache was grossly under rated. A nano under a rock is never a 2.5 difficulty.

I'm assuming the reviewer meant to say a 'CAMOED' nano under a rock is never a 2.5 difficulty.

Edited by Ecylram
Link to comment

]

 

Yes! We have some hiders in our area that are famous for their really tricky hides, and they probably would have rated it just the same way!

 

Yes, I have to agree with that, however, they dont belittle us fellow cachers.

 

What make the matter worse was when the CO's friend came on with his sock puppet account and start taunting us. He delete all those logs after I emailed him that I figured out his real caching name. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, so for those that didnt have that cache page on the watchlist is missing the whole story.

 

I don't really care what the real story was, I'm not a drama fan. What matters is that the whole thing was handled VERY BADLY, and that's what bothers me.

Edited by nymphnsatyr
Link to comment

First let me start off by thanking everyone who has showed me support in this thread. I am a real person, who hid a real cache and my coords were dead-on accurate! Everyone can cry and complain about my ratings but you know what, ratings don't help you find a cache. Being a good cacher, one who thinks outside of the box and doesn't give up and doesn't cry and whine in their logs when they DNF a cache, that makes a good cacher. Thanks to everyone who visited my cache and had a good time even though they didn't find it. Thanks to everyone who didn't write crybaby logs. Thanks to everyone who didn't email me complaining about everything like so many of them did! Thanks to all of those who did email me, showing me support and telling me they wish they had the oppurtunity to hunt my cache. It's because of all the babies the others no longer have that oppurtunity. Thanks to everyone for showing their true colors, pay attention LI your surrounded by crybaby quitters! Thanks for providing me with a great story when I go back to IL to visit and tell everyone how this "newbie" OWNED all the New Yorkers. All is well here thanks for coming by! :grin:

 

Just-Do-somethin' AKA King Of NY!

Edited by Just-Do-Somethin'
Link to comment

First let me start off by thanking everyone who has showed me support in this thread. I am a real person, who hid a real cache and my coords were dead-on accurate! Everyone can cry and complain about my ratings but you know what, ratings don't help you find a cache. Being a good cacher, one who thinks outside of the box and doesn't give up and doesn't cry and whine in their logs when they DNF a cache, that makes a good caher. Thanks to everyone who visited my cache and had a good time even though they didn't find it. Thanks to everyone who who didn't write crybaby logs. Thanks to everyone who didn't email me complaining about everything like so many of them did! Thanks to all of those you did email me, showing me support and telling me they wish they had the oppertunity to hunt my cache. It's because of all the babies the others no longer have that oppertunity. Thanks to everyone for showing their true colors, pay attention LI your surrounded by crybaby quitters! Thanks for providing me with a great story when I go back to IL to visit and tell everyone how this "newbie" OWNED all the New Yorkers. All is well here thanks for coming by! :grin:

 

Just-Do-somethin' AKA King Of NY!

Taunting and insults are not helping your case. Take the high road and you'll have a lot more sympathy.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...