Really difficult cache...

[+John in Valley Forge]

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.

 

No offense, but that's just creepy that you found that.

[Mr.Yuck]

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!

 

Just-Do-somethin' AKA King Of NY!

 

Except unfortunately, many of the note posters were not from Long Island. You did own them, but I'd just go with King of Suffolk County for now, not NY.

[+SwineFlew]

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!

 

Just-Do-somethin' AKA King Of NY!

 

You wont go far with that statement.

[+Ecylram]

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.

 

No offense, but that's just creepy that you found that.

And impressive....and a little scary.

[+M 5]

I wanted to clarify my last post. It is in agreement if the hide was exactly as pictured, even though I strongly suspect that is was covered with more loose dirt and you would have had to use your fingers to move stuff around. That being said. Once I didn't see it in the obvious spots, and read all the drama, I would have put on my 5 star hunting hat and found it. All those cache hunters that didn't find it and went back repeatedly should have had the geosense to look harder and complain less. I mean, whats the difference of looking 50 feet off or more, which most of us have done, and not agreeing with the difficulty rating and having to look harder than you first thought you would. You just adjust and go on.

[+ubdylan]

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

 

You obviously have not read the entire story here. Go back and review.

[+Ecylram]

I wanted to clarify my last post. It is in agreement if the hide was exactly as pictured, even though I strongly suspect that is was covered with more loose dirt and you would have had to use your fingers to move stuff around. That being said. Once I didn't see it in the obvious spots, and read all the drama, I would have put on my 5 star hunting hat and found it. All those cache hunters that didn't find it and went back repeatedly should have had the geosense to look harder and complain less. I mean, whats the difference of looking 50 feet off or more, which most of us have done, and not agreeing with the difficulty rating and having to look harder than you first thought you would. You just adjust and go on.

For me, I will not do a 5-star hunt, which I consider a multi-hour process, on much lower rated caches. If I did that, I'd have a much lower find count. less hair, and only a few fewer DNF's.

[+M 5]

It wasn't a 5 star hunt. That was just a mentality after all the DNFs and drama that I would have taken. I don't do very many easy caches anymore. They are mindless. I even started hunting with no GPS some lately to up the challenge. I'd rather have one rated too low and have a good surprise than one rated grossly high and be disappointed.

[+42at42]

I wanted to clarify my last post. It is in agreement if the hide was exactly as pictured, even though I strongly suspect that is was covered with more loose dirt and you would have had to use your fingers to move stuff around. That being said. Once I didn't see it in the obvious spots, and read all the drama, I would have put on my 5 star hunting hat and found it. All those cache hunters that didn't find it and went back repeatedly should have had the geosense to look harder and complain less. I mean, whats the difference of looking 50 feet off or more, which most of us have done, and not agreeing with the difficulty rating and having to look harder than you first thought you would. You just adjust and go on.

For me, I will not do a 5-star hunt, which I consider a multi-hour process, on much lower rated caches. If I did that, I'd have a much lower find count. less hair, and only a few fewer DNF's.

 

Some lower rated caches are more fun. Who cares about numbers, if the finds are quality finds.

[+John in Valley Forge]

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!

 

Just-Do-somethin' AKA King Of NY!

 

Bravo!

 

You took us for a heck of a ride. It does sound like the difficulty rating was off, but i dunno, that rating system often confuses me.

 

I definately still think you are a sock puppet, no first time noob would come up with that!

[knowschad]

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.

Wrong. He did consider it, and came to the conclusion that it was correct for the hide. You happen do disagree, which is your prerogative, but it is also his prerogative to leave it where it is. Difficulty ratings are EXTREMELY subjective.

 

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

I think the damage had been done in full by that point. I'd be saying "Screw you guys", too, by that point. I'll bet you would, too.

 

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

See my last. This is what happens when you have a pile-on.

 

Apologies are owed. Very much so.

[+Ecylram]

I wanted to clarify my last post. It is in agreement if the hide was exactly as pictured, even though I strongly suspect that is was covered with more loose dirt and you would have had to use your fingers to move stuff around. That being said. Once I didn't see it in the obvious spots, and read all the drama, I would have put on my 5 star hunting hat and found it. All those cache hunters that didn't find it and went back repeatedly should have had the geosense to look harder and complain less. I mean, whats the difference of looking 50 feet off or more, which most of us have done, and not agreeing with the difficulty rating and having to look harder than you first thought you would. You just adjust and go on.

For me, I will not do a 5-star hunt, which I consider a multi-hour process, on much lower rated caches. If I did that, I'd have a much lower find count. less hair, and only a few fewer DNF's.

 

Some lower rated caches are more fun. Who cares about numbers, if the finds are quality finds.

Perhaps I should say... Fewer experiences instead.

 

For example, I had a DNF on a 1.5-1.5 cache recently. After about a minute I determined the cache was likely a victim of recent road work. I posted the DNF and a NM then moved on to several other caches. As it turns out the cache was gone and the CO replaced it. I could have done a 5-star hunt but at the end of the day I wouldn't have had found the cache and I would not have been able to enjoy the other caches I did after that.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

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.

If that were the case, I'd expect that we would have heard "Hey, that picture posted isn't where I hid the Cache" or "What's this frog that everyone is finding? There are no frogs near my Cache"

[knowschad]

]

 

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.

"US"? You live in Oregon, for Pete's sake. What part of "us" are you? That post was in defense of a friend that was unjustly being piled on. I saw nothing snarky about the CO's attitude prior to the snarky DNFs and notes by folks from far away. You were also wrong, and very possibly running amuck of the Terms of Use by doing that bit of cyber-stalking and posting the account here. Consider yourself lucky that you didn't get your own hand slapped!

[knowschad]

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.

There are no guidelines against a poorly rated difficulty. As far as I know, no reviewer has ever archived a cache because of that alone.

[knowschad]

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!

 

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.

I agree with what you say, but I'm not so sure that you are the right one to say it right now.

 

To Just-Do-somethin'... before a moderator says something, you should be careful of calling other members names like that, no matter how you feel. Those darned Terms of Use and Forum Guidelines and all those bothersome details, y'know?

[+Ecylram]

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!

 

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.

I agree with what you say, but I'm not so sure that you are the right one to say it right now.

That's a fair point. I'd have to agree.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

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.

Actually...the CO DID reconsider the ratings, and used the tool suggested and decided not to change them.

[+Ecylram]

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.

Actually...the CO DID reconsider the ratings, and used the tool suggested and decided not to change them.

I believe we have different operating definitions for what constitutes real "consideration". For me it invokes a certain level of introspection I did not see.

[knowschad]

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.

Actually...the CO DID reconsider the ratings, and used the tool suggested and decided not to change them.

I believe we have different operating definitions for what constitutes real "consideration". For me it invokes a certain level of introspection I did not see.

Who are you, or anyone else, to say that any cacher MUST reconsider their ratings at all? You can suggest, but you cannot expect! I will do my very best at rating my caches, and I will consider input from others, but I still will rate it at what I think it should be rated at. If you don't like it, ignore my cache, but don't bash my cache.

 

Moreover, the CO wrote that he went back and used the rating site again (not sure if it was the old Clayjar site or the new Groundspeak one) and, by using his input to the site, came up with the same rating. Do I agree with that rating? Not on your life. But I will uphold his right to rate it as he believes without having to be attacked by a screaming, torch-bearing mob.

[Clan Riffster]

I am a real person, who hid a real cache...

As I suspected. Thank you, JDS, for upping the ante and not plopping out another 1/1 film can.

You took the time to create a challenging cache. Kudos, Sir!

Since those cachers who wronged you won't let go of their pride long enough to do so, allow me to apologize on their behalf.

They behaved like spoiled children with entitlement issues, and as a fellow cacher, you deserve better.

Going by your picture, I ran it thru Clayjar and came up with the same 1/2.5 that you did.

I hope you won't let the "Gimme Gimme" crowd keep you from creating more challenging hides.

[+Ecylram]

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.

Actually...the CO DID reconsider the ratings, and used the tool suggested and decided not to change them.

I believe we have different operating definitions for what constitutes real "consideration". For me it invokes a certain level of introspection I did not see.

Who are you, or anyone else, to say that any cacher MUST reconsider their ratings at all? You can suggest, but you cannot expect! I will do my very best at rating my caches, and I will consider input from others, but I still will rate it at what I think it should be rated at. If you don't like it, ignore my cache, but don't bash my cache.

 

Moreover, the CO wrote that he went back and used the rating site again (not sure if it was the old Clayjar site or the new Groundspeak one) and, by using his input to the site, came up with the same rating. Do I agree with that rating? Not on your life. But I will uphold his right to rate it as he believes without having to be attacked by a screaming, torch-bearing mob.

I'm not a fan of absolutes statements (must) or screaming torch-bearing mobs (Young Frankenstein flashback). He or anyone have the right to rate caches as they wish. But poorly rated caches have consequences and responsible CO's should listen to feedback and make adjustments as necessary. Obstinately sticking to a rating when the user experiences don't bear it out is foolhardy.

[knowschad]

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.

Actually...the CO DID reconsider the ratings, and used the tool suggested and decided not to change them.

I believe we have different operating definitions for what constitutes real "consideration". For me it invokes a certain level of introspection I did not see.

Who are you, or anyone else, to say that any cacher MUST reconsider their ratings at all? You can suggest, but you cannot expect! I will do my very best at rating my caches, and I will consider input from others, but I still will rate it at what I think it should be rated at. If you don't like it, ignore my cache, but don't bash my cache.

 

Moreover, the CO wrote that he went back and used the rating site again (not sure if it was the old Clayjar site or the new Groundspeak one) and, by using his input to the site, came up with the same rating. Do I agree with that rating? Not on your life. But I will uphold his right to rate it as he believes without having to be attacked by a screaming, torch-bearing mob.

I'm not a fan of absolutes statements (must) or screaming torch-bearing mobs (Young Frankenstein flashback). He or anyone have the right to rate caches as they wish. But poorly rated caches have consequences and responsible CO's should listen to feedback and make adjustments as necessary. Obstinately sticking to a rating when the user experiences don't bear it out is foolhardy.

They don't have those consequences in my territory.

 

By the way... I notice that you are from Colorado, not New York, and that you don't have any hides of your own, and yet you have been one of the most vocal posters about this cache. You should possibly be listening and learning rather than talking and teaching, shouldn't you?

[+roziecakes]

I know that if a bunch of people went onto one of my cache pages and started accusing me of starting a hoax and being a sock puppet, etc etc I would be pretty peeved too, and may have acted much less gracefully than the cache owner.

 

No matter how closely we follow the clayjar system or any other method of determining cache hide ratings it will always be subjective. I agree with the dog with glasses there.

 

And as I said, we can't just assume the story unless we really know. Remember what happened several months ago when the lady posted about the cache in her garden...

 

as I said earlier, no matter what happened... This was just embarrassing.

[+roziecakes]

Moreover, the CO wrote that he went back and used the rating site again (not sure if it was the old Clayjar site or the new Groundspeak one) and, by using his input to the site, came up with the same rating. Do I agree with that rating? Not on your life. But I will uphold his right to rate it as he believes without having to be attacked by a screaming, torch-bearing mob.

 

Which is exactly what it looked like. A new cacher being ganged up on by a mob.

[+42at42]

But poorly rated caches have consequences and responsible CO's should listen to feedback and make adjustments as necessary. Obstinately sticking to a rating when the user experiences don't bear it out is foolhardy.

 

What are the consequences? Being verbally attacked by geocachers who can't find the cache. Having your cache archived. Being called a sock puppet. I guess these are the consequences, because this is what happened.

 

Sounds fair to me. The cache rating system was used, more than once. The CO used the rating system and used his best judgement.

 

Until the cache is found, how can anyone say the cache should be rated differently? These cachers gave up too easy.

 

The next time these cachers can't find a good hide, are they going to harass the CO into archiving his cache again.

 

I guess my next DNF log should be followed by a NA log.

[+Cach-n-Carry]

Wow is all I have to say. I know the CO personally as he has cached with me before and shot me a note when he placed this one as he was very proud of it and as well he should be! I have had it on my watch list since just about the start and bite my tongue so many times from not posting a note on there. This is what still drives me crazy...it is that EVERYONE who has been complaining about this cache is making their most dominant complaint about the D/T star levels. Come on!!! When are people going to get it in their head that those are just there for a little bit of guidance THEY WILL NEVER HELP YOU ACTUALLY FIND THE CACHE YOU HAVE TO STILL LOOK FOR IT!!!! As for those that did lift the rocks and look inside, why didn't you just run your hand over the top layer of stuff in there just to see if anything popped out at you? IMO you have no one to blame for not finding it other than yourself. Maybe he should have put a big sign on the cache that said it is right here because it seems to me that those in long island don't seem to really want to hunt that hard for a cache. I would have loved to have hunted one like this...come out here to the Chicagoland area and try to hunt some of the nano's that are hidden in the woods here! At least you had it just in a brick out there! LOL...I personally loved the cammo job on it and what makes it even better is that it wasn't even totally cammoed so again a simple brush over would have exposed it right away. I do agree that those who bashed this cache and the CO should say that you are sorry, and who ever dropped the fake cache out there, come on do you really have to stoop that low? There are a couple of cachers out here in my neck of the woods who don't have very many finds, but some awesome hard hides! It is all in the mind and as the CO said in his note on here you have to sometimes think outside of the box! I too will thank those who have stood up for the CO on here you are awesome!

 

Okay, I feel better now and I think that is all I have to say, but if more comes to mind I will just add another post.

[+Cach-n-Carry]

Oh sorry I just remembered that there was one other thing that I wanted to state..I don't remember who it was that made the post on here but was really looking into the cache page and how it was laid out and any connections with everything on there. I was pretty impressed with the out of the box thinking on it, though sad to say that I am pretty sure everything that was thought of had nothing to do with the cache, but I haven't confirmed that with the CO. IL to LI stood for Illinois to Long Island because he started in IL and headed out to LI. As for the lay out of the pictures I am pretty sure that is just how they fell, no connection with the actual layout of the bricks though that would have been pretty cool. Also you went really deep there when you even saw the letters in the morter holding the bricks together! Nice job I liked that thinking!

[+kunarion]

why didn't you just run your hand over the top layer of stuff in there just to see if anything popped out at you?

That's a 30-foot diameter top layer to run your hand over, using the typical GPS accuracy. That would explain all the talk about the Difficulty level.

 

But your point's well taken. I was giving the CO the benefit of the doubt, although after his nyah-nyah post, I'm only a little embarassed for doing so.

Edited October 16, 2010 by kunarion

[+Cach-n-Carry]

why didn't you just run your hand over the top layer of stuff in there just to see if anything popped out at you?

That's a 30-foot diameter top layer to run your hand over, using the typical GPS accuracy. That would explain all the talk about the Difficulty level.

 

But your point's well taken. I was giving the CO the benefit of the doubt, although after his nyah-nyah post, I'm only a little embarassed for doing so.

 

Where are you getting a 30' diameter top layer from? Someone who actually hunted the cache said that their GPSr was taking them to within the same 3' everytime. Not only that, but there were only a couple of bricks that could be lifted off to get inside, so unless those bricks are each 10', i don't know what to say to that except that from the pic they don't seem to be that big. As for the difficulty level, I will say it again, if you can't find it on how you normally search for a cache at that level then you need to look harder. Remember that the CO came from IL so maybe our hides out here are harder than those out there and this is how we rate them. I saw the pic and spotted the cache right away from it, had I been there physically looking for it I am sure that I would have still seen it. I is all in perspective and how much you want to hunt for a cache. That's my opinion at least.

[+Waazdag]

"Where are you getting a 30' diameter top layer from?"

 

That would be typical error margins... just because one GPS brings you to within 3 foot, or even zero, does not mean the same GPS on another day will do the same thing. All very dependent upon what satellites the GPS is locking onto that day. Given even a 15 foot radius circle, a person would be looking at 2221 square feet of surface space to search for a nano cache: even more if you start adding 'layers' onto it (such as a wall would do). These things are not dead on accurate... if they were this game would really be boring,

 

"but there were only a couple of bricks that could be lifted off to get inside"

 

If any bricks were lifted (25 lbs one searcher said) though, that weakens the bonds between other bricks... and the mortar that is loose today, will lead to even more loose mortar tomorrow: especially with each searcher adding to/weakening the wall. Also, just because one person finds a brick "loose" does not mean that another (with say a physical impairment) will find any bricks loose, and someone who is more muscular will definitely find more "loose" bricks... and then the next hunter would find even more loose bricks after that fellow...

 

I was not going to critique, but hiding under a brick, or even under a capstone (judging from the picture it was under a brick though: which means under the capstones and then under the brick beneath the capstone: move 2 capstones and 1 brick to get to cache) is a rather poor judgment call on behalf of the CO. Hidden as it was would lead to the degradation of the wall if cachers were lifting capstones and bricks from the wall: which they would have to do to find the cache. Unless owned by/maintained by the CO, the "in wall" cache that would lead to wall degradation would be skirting the lines of private property at the least.

 

Using the "given guidelines" for determining cache difficulty is all but useless. Relying on that as a tool to judge one's hide difficulty would rate most all caches lower then they actually are. Unlike the terrain rating tool, it seems the "difficulty" is determined by a single question. Quite misleading and open to the CO's interpretation/opinion... maybe they need a better tool for rating difficulty levels.

 

The camo/cache itself though seemed most excellent from the photo. Has given me some ideas for some micros to be hidden next year. Will not be utilizing the same hide style mind you...

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

 

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.

 

Under the SECOND stone that moves, the cache is hidden.

In hindsight, his coordinates were probably the most accurate I have ever seen. With accuracy like that, the difficulty came from the camo on the cache. I reckon it was about right. Any higher and I think that would have been misleading. People would have complained said things like:

"A nano sat under a brick with spot on coordinates is no way a 4 difficulty, I've found caches that blah blah blah <insert stories of really difficult caches people have found with ratings lower than 4>"

 

I have sympathy with the CO on this one, having read every post in this thread and everything posted to the cache page.

For what it is worth, I think he has been treated very badly and can understand him finally snapping back at everyone who has been laying into him on the cache page.

 

If folk had thought there was something wrong with the hide or the hider, they should have just added it to their watch list and moved on to the next. But many went out after this all kicked off (presumably to get the glory of a FTF on a now notorious cache) and when they couldn't find it just joined in the slanging match.

 

One final point, why is no one other than the CO having a go at the person who threw down the cache that was found? (If it is known who they are).

Seems they have got off quite lightly in all this considering how out of order they were.

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

That would be typical error margins... just because one GPS brings you to within 3 foot, or even zero, does not mean the same GPS on another day will do the same thing. All very dependent upon what satellites the GPS is locking onto that day. Given even a 15 foot radius circle, a person would be looking at 2221 square feet of surface space to search for a nano cache: even more if you start adding 'layers' onto it (such as a wall would do). These things are not dead on accurate... if they were this game would really be boring,

Would a nano always be higher than a 2.5 difficulty then?

 

Not questionning your argument as I think it is valid, the search area is big if you assume standard error margins.

 

But that would mean that every single nano is a needle in a haystack and would have to be higher than a 2.5

 

As for putting it in a wall that could get damaged, that probably was a bad idea. But it didn't impact on people not being able to find it. Someone already said they lifted that brick 3 times, and noted that it was getting chipped (so many others must have lifted it too).

 

The only reason people didn't find this one seems to be the camo applied to the nano.

Oh, and perhaps getting into the wrong mindset by everything else that had been posted on the cache page.

[+J the Goat]

I've read this entire thread, and I think that on a few levels, there are lots of you who are silly for continuing to post for as long as you have.

 

Don't know if it'll be seen or not, but I'll ask a mod to close this thread. It has nowhere else to go.

Edited October 16, 2010 by J The Goat

[+scaramedic]

From the sounds of it the cache was grossly under rated. A nano under a rock is never a 2.5 difficulty.

 

I guess I am curious about something. The person who made that statement on the cache page is a reviewer. And after looking through the online application for placing a cache I have a simple question.

 

Why is there not a requirement to describe how and where the cache is to be placed. If there was then this reviewer or another reviewer could have said, wait this difficulty is too low. By what I see there is no such requirement to specifically say how it is going to be placed. The note to reviewer almost seems to be an option.

 

Example...

 

I am going to put it under capstone that is part of a brick wall along the highway. The capstone is about chest high and weighs in at about 25lbs. The container will be a small plastic container approx. 1"X2" black in color to blend in with the darkness of the hole.

 

Maybe this would help in dealing with improper placements and improper ratings.

[+keehotee]

From the sounds of it the cache was grossly under rated. A nano under a rock is never a 2.5 difficulty.

 

I guess I am curious about something. The person who made that statement on the cache page is a reviewer. And after looking through the online application for placing a cache I have a simple question.

 

Why is there not a requirement to describe how and where the cache is to be placed. If there was then this reviewer or another reviewer could have said, wait this difficulty is too low. By what I see there is no such requirement to specifically say how it is going to be placed. The note to reviewer almost seems to be an option.

 

Example...

 

I am going to put it under capstone that is part of a brick wall along the highway. The capstone is about chest high and weighs in at about 25lbs. The container will be a small plastic container approx. 1"X2" black in color to blend in with the darkness of the hole.

 

Maybe this would help in dealing with improper placements and improper ratings.

 

I believe some of the reviewers might occasionally get time away from their 'puters when - amongst other things - they might also like to do a bit of caching themselves....?

Apart from the needless extra work that your suggestion would involve, it might also spoil things if they're trying to find the cache too ???

[+addisonbr]

Why is there not a requirement to describe how and where the cache is to be placed.

I believe some of the reviewers might occasionally get time away from their 'puters when - amongst other things - they might also like to do a bit of caching themselves....?

Apart from the needless extra work that your suggestion would involve, it might also spoil things if they're trying to find the cache too ???

FWIW I am routinely asked to explain how puzzles are solved before publication. I also live in an area where exactly how caches are hidden can be a potentially sensitive issue, so I've gotten into the habit of describing the hides to my reviewer so that he/she has as much info as possible before pushing the button. It hasn't been too much work, and I've never gotten the impression that my reviewer resents the spoilers or anything. Just the two of us working together, in a sense, to cut down on misunderstandings.

[+L0ne.R]

Moreover, the CO wrote that he went back and used the rating site again (not sure if it was the old Clayjar site or the new Groundspeak one) and, by using his input to the site, came up with the same rating. Do I agree with that rating? Not on your life. But I will uphold his right to rate it as he believes without having to be attacked by a screaming, torch-bearing mob.

 

I don't think there's much you can do about a torch-bearing mob. It is, as some have said "the evolution of the game". COs with zero or a couple of finds, post a cache within the first week of registration. Flags go up - sock puppet, or newbie using google maps/earth for coords. It already puts finders on edge. Then you add a bad D/T rating, a parking lot, no mention of size, a cement wall that needs to be dismantled to find the cache, a stubborn CO, you got a recipe for disaster brewing.

[knowschad]

Moreover, the CO wrote that he went back and used the rating site again (not sure if it was the old Clayjar site or the new Groundspeak one) and, by using his input to the site, came up with the same rating. Do I agree with that rating? Not on your life. But I will uphold his right to rate it as he believes without having to be attacked by a screaming, torch-bearing mob.

 

I don't think there's much you can do about a torch-bearing mob. It is, as some have said "the evolution of the game". COs with zero or a couple of finds, post a cache within the first week of registration. Flags go up - sock puppet, or newbie using google maps/earth for coords. It already puts finders on edge. Then you add a bad D/T rating, a parking lot, no mention of size, a cement wall that needs to be dismantled to find the cache, a stubborn CO, you got a recipe for disaster brewing.

I see it a bit differently. One of the most creative cache hiders of all time in my area hid his first cache within a week of signing up, and he had only 5 finds under his belt. There are parking lot caches everywhere, a great many caches with unspecified cache size, D/T ratings that I happen to disagree with (doesn't make them "bad" per se). As to the stubborn CO statement... you don't know that, nor do I. All we have is the word of a couple that emailed him, and we have no idea of the contents of the emails he received, nor his replies. By the time his public replies had started to get obstinate, there was plenty of publically visible reason for that attitude, IMO.

 

No, the way I see it is, a few cachers with attitudes start posting accusations on the cache page, a forum thread is started about it, and a pile-on of senseless speculation and long-distance cache policing begins. THAT is a recipe for disaster.

 

If this is what "evolution of the game" is leading to, then I'm getting out of the game.

[+roziecakes]

No, the way I see it is, a few cachers with attitudes start posting accusations on the cache page, a forum thread is started about it, and a pile-on of senseless speculation and long-distance cache policing begins. THAT is a recipe for disaster.

 

If this is what "evolution of the game" is leading to, then I'm getting out of the game.

 

I hope that you don't decide to get out of the game. This game needs people like you; people with critical thinking skills and ethical consideration. It's so important.

 

I do agree with you about the recipe for disaster.

 

Anyhoo, I'm heading out to a couple of great events today, so I'm not going to let this sour my fun, but I must admit I feel a little sad and discouraged...

[+ZeLonewolf]

Wow, just wow. As the OP, I had no idea this would blow up to this degree. Hopefully Long Island will allow me to go back there for all the ruckus I've caused! It was never my intention to gang up on this cache, I was just curious about what others thought about the unusual circumstance.

 

I don't think there's much you can do about a torch-bearing mob. It is, as some have said "the evolution of the game". COs with zero or a couple of finds, post a cache within the first week of registration. Flags go up - sock puppet, or newbie using google maps/earth for coords. It already puts finders on edge. Then you add a bad D/T rating, a parking lot, no mention of size, a cement wall that needs to be dismantled to find the cache, a stubborn CO, you got a recipe for disaster brewing.

 

Some good points here. There is an old expression, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and it was in play here. There were red flags all over the place on this one. It had all the signs of either fraud or newbie-ism, yet it was there the whole time. Given the preponderance of evidence, it was understandable that the locals got upset. It was inexcusable, however, for all the non-locals to pile on in the cache page, and as others have noted here, it was out of line.

 

I think, however, the most important thing to remember is that geocaching is supposed to be both fun and in good faith. A "great hider" in my opinion is not someone who puts out hard to find caches; rather, a "great hider" is someone who has a positive, can-do attitude and puts out caches time and time again that the community enjoys seeking. So, to put out a cache that nobody found and then brag about how they were "king" of the local cachers totally misses the point about what this sport is all about.

 

In this case, a simple "it's there, keep looking, you're in the right spot!" note would have gone a long way here. Words of encouragement are the appropriate response to a frustrated seeker. The reviewer's comments suggest that the CO wasn't really working with the reviewer, either. A simple PM to the reviewer to say "it's a nano under one of the bricks in the picture that one of the seekers posted" would have ALSO gone a long way to calm this all down.

 

Please remember that we are all people playing this game, and we all experience a wide range of emotions. Let's ALL try to keep the meanness, the bad attitudes, the insults, etc., out of this game and have some FUN.

 

And with that, I'm off to find some spray paint for some ammo cans I recently acquired...

[+Chokecherry]

Moreover, the CO wrote that he went back and used the rating site again (not sure if it was the old Clayjar site or the new Groundspeak one) and, by using his input to the site, came up with the same rating. Do I agree with that rating? Not on your life. But I will uphold his right to rate it as he believes without having to be attacked by a screaming, torch-bearing mob.

 

I don't think there's much you can do about a torch-bearing mob. It is, as some have said "the evolution of the game". COs with zero or a couple of finds, post a cache within the first week of registration. Flags go up - sock puppet, or newbie using google maps/earth for coords. It already puts finders on edge. Then you add a bad D/T rating, a parking lot, no mention of size, a cement wall that needs to be dismantled to find the cache, a stubborn CO, you got a recipe for disaster brewing.

I see it a bit differently. One of the most creative cache hiders of all time in my area hid his first cache within a week of signing up, and he had only 5 finds under his belt. There are parking lot caches everywhere, a great many caches with unspecified cache size, D/T ratings that I happen to disagree with (doesn't make them "bad" per se). As to the stubborn CO statement... you don't know that, nor do I. All we have is the word of a couple that emailed him, and we have no idea of the contents of the emails he received, nor his replies. By the time his public replies had started to get obstinate, there was plenty of publically visible reason for that attitude, IMO.

 

No, the way I see it is, a few cachers with attitudes start posting accusations on the cache page, a forum thread is started about it, and a pile-on of senseless speculation and long-distance cache policing begins. THAT is a recipe for disaster.

 

If this is what "evolution of the game" is leading to, then I'm getting out of the game.

 

My own selfishness does not want you out of the game. I am looking forward to finding some of your caches when I get down there and more over just from your information I was able to find some more caches that I kind of want to find as well.

 

I'm always uncomfortable when these things happen. I really enjoy the game. I enjoy the cachers I have met in person and many of the ones I've stumbled across online. For the most part people in this game I find are good people. It's just the good people are not always the loudest or the most tenacious. Incidents like this just suck. And there's no real excuse for it.

 

The only rating I'm concerned about being reasonably correct is the terrain rating. I don't know why people put SO much stock into that difficulty rating since it is incredibly subjective depending on owner experience and finder experience. I don't know why a difficulty rating caused this much angst in the first place. Maybe it was wrong. Maybe it was right. In the end was it worthy of this kind of reaction? I doubt it. Especially given how many other caches are out there with difficulty ratings that could be considered flawed...... just not all of them end up with their own thread in the forum for scrutinizing of the masses.

[+rafermadness]

After reading 5 pages of this back and forth banter, I'm glad I live and cache on the other coast.

 

Note: The giant sucking sound you just heard was the amount of time and drama spent/wasted on this cache when you could have just moved on and continued living life instead of obsessing on it. Sorry if I've stated the obvious.

[knowschad]

If this is what "evolution of the game" is leading to, then I'm getting out of the game.

Perhaps I should add that I do not believe the game is evolving as Lone R claims.

 

Well, I'm off to do a little caching, then an event. This thread should at least provide fodder for some conversations.

[GOF and Bacall]

What I can't figure out is why people couldn't just put this on their ignore list and move on?

[+Harry Dolphin]

No, the way I see it is, a few cachers with attitudes start posting accusations on the cache page, a forum thread is started about it, and a pile-on of senseless speculation and long-distance cache policing begins. THAT is a recipe for disaster.

 

If this is what "evolution of the game" is leading to, then I'm getting out of the game.

 

It's also called an abuse of TOS.

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

 

Busybody? Really? That's harsh, son. They're entitled to their opinion in a public forum. If we don't police this hobby ourselves who will do it? You? The Federal Government??? the Federation?

 

NOBODY said or implied that "Because a cache hasn't been found yet, it MUST be a hoax?!"

 

The cache doesn't have to "exactly have to do with" a poster to this thread for him to be concerned or voice an opinion.

 

NOBODY presumed "to speak for the entire sport of geocaching,"

 

Where on earth to you get all that drivel? Get over yourself, yourself.

[+niraD]

Would a nano always be higher than a 2.5 difficulty then?

I think that depends on how/where it's hidden. A blinker in plain sight on a lone park bench or an isolated public sculpture could be 2 stars ("The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.") or less.

 

A well-camouflaged blinker that hasn't been found by multiple experienced cachers, despite multiple trips to the cache site should be 4 stars ("May require multiple days / trips to complete.") or higher.

 

Personally, I don't pay much attention to the questionnaire, especially the one question that relates to the cache's difficulty. I pay more attention to the descriptions of the various ratings. Unfortunately, you can't get the descriptions from the URL Groundspeak provides unless you submit the questionnaire form.

[Andronicus]

Wow, just wow. As the OP, I had no idea this would blow up to this degree. Hopefully Long Island will allow me to go back there for all the ruckus I've caused! It was never my intention to gang up on this cache, I was just curious about what others thought about the unusual circumstance.

 

I don't think there's much you can do about a torch-bearing mob. It is, as some have said "the evolution of the game". COs with zero or a couple of finds, post a cache within the first week of registration. Flags go up - sock puppet, or newbie using google maps/earth for coords. It already puts finders on edge. Then you add a bad D/T rating, a parking lot, no mention of size, a cement wall that needs to be dismantled to find the cache, a stubborn CO, you got a recipe for disaster brewing.

 

Some good points here. There is an old expression, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and it was in play here. There were red flags all over the place on this one. It had all the signs of either fraud or newbie-ism, yet it was there the whole time. Given the preponderance of evidence, it was understandable that the locals got upset. It was inexcusable, however, for all the non-locals to pile on in the cache page, and as others have noted here, it was out of line.

 

I think, however, the most important thing to remember is that geocaching is supposed to be both fun and in good faith. A "great hider" in my opinion is not someone who puts out hard to find caches; rather, a "great hider" is someone who has a positive, can-do attitude and puts out caches time and time again that the community enjoys seeking. So, to put out a cache that nobody found and then brag about how they were "king" of the local cachers totally misses the point about what this sport is all about.

 

In this case, a simple "it's there, keep looking, you're in the right spot!" note would have gone a long way here. Words of encouragement are the appropriate response to a frustrated seeker. The reviewer's comments suggest that the CO wasn't really working with the reviewer, either. A simple PM to the reviewer to say "it's a nano under one of the bricks in the picture that one of the seekers posted" would have ALSO gone a long way to calm this all down.

 

Please remember that we are all people playing this game, and we all experience a wide range of emotions. Let's ALL try to keep the meanness, the bad attitudes, the insults, etc., out of this game and have some FUN.

 

And with that, I'm off to find some spray paint for some ammo cans I recently acquired...

I'm voting for this as the best post!

[Clan Riffster]

A well-camouflaged blinker that hasn't been found by multiple experienced cachers, despite multiple trips to the cache site should be 4 stars

Not sure I agree with this train of thought. Judging from all the entitlement oozing from the cache page comments, I'm getting a sense that the vast majority of "experienced" hunters showed up with their minds firmly shut, and began some group calisthenics, jumping to woefully pathetic conclusions, to include the coords were wrong, and it was a hoax. This type of closed thinking stagnates mental progress, sticking one in an inescapable (il)logic loop. This was demonstrated with several seekers lifting the brick, but not one checking the dirt filled gap underneath.

 

From looking at the picture, we now know the terrain rating was accurate, as ground zero was, technically speaking, handicapped accessible. At that point, the only relevant debate would revolve around the difficulty rating, which is entirely subjective.

 

D-2 = "Cache could be in one of several locations. Hunter may have to look for a while."

Seems like a somewhat accurate description.

D-3 - "Cache may be very well hidden, may be multi-leg, or may use clues to location."

This also seems like an accurate description. Key words being "very well hidden".

Splitting the difference, (which I would do for a blinky hidden under a brick), gives us a 2.5.

 

Once the ClayJar calculations are submitted, the Groundspeak definitions show up, which gives very different definitions.

 

D-2 = "Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunt."

At that point, the description doesn't seem very accurate, as this cache was not average.

D-3 = "Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon."

This seems like a better description, though taking up "a good portion of an afternoon" might be a stretch, for a hunter with an open mind.

Again, splitting the difference gives us a 2.5.

 

Since Groundspeak can't even get the D/T definitions to match, how can we expect a cacher to do so?

 

I'm glad that D/T ratings don't fall under the guidelines.