Really difficult cache...

[+SwineFlew]

People need to grow up. Its a geocache...

unless there isn't really a geocache there.

 

Yep, I am getting the feeling its a hoax and part of me wanna post a NA log for being a jerk.

[+JeremyR]

FOUND IT!!!

<trim>

Too obvious?

 

I thought of that too, but I am really sure it been checked.

That was my first thought, too, as soon as I saw the photo. It looks a concrete lump as used to anchor a metal post in the ground. In which case, is the metal pole still set into the concrete and how far into the ground does it extend? If there is a cache there, and I see no reason to presume that there isn't just because it's flummoxed a bunch of finders , then I'd be looking up inside that hole for a bison tube way up inside or perhaps a length of fishing line sitting there ready to be pulled. Of course if I'm right, the Pointy Object Debate should get itself into the wings ready for a good airing

 

If the CO is inexperienced, I think I'd be inclined to take the D/T ratings with a large pinch of salt... It takes time to get to grips with the assumptions that surround certain ratings, like T1 = wheelchair accessible...

[+Ecylram]

The 1 star terrain indicates it HAS TO BE in or right next to the wall.

No, it doesn't. It should be, by the rating system, and by the community opinion, but to say that is HAS to be is incorrect.

My first sentence: "It's a hoax or badly rated." I was referring to either rating. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Ecylram

[+TomToad]

There is one nearby with a 3 difficulty that I was FTF on. Then there was a string of DNFs. Everyone was sure it was missing despite the CO assuring it was still there. 51 days after my find, the STF found it. Then there was a string of finds for a while, then a list of DNFs again for quite a while until the next person found it.

 

My theory is that after a couple of DNFs, following cachers go looking with it in mind that the cache isn't really there. After someone actually verifies that it is there, people go back with a more positive attitude, until another couple of DNFs come along.

 

I think it might be possible that the cache is there, but slightly more difficult than expected. Maybe it should be a 3? But people are going there searching with the thought that it really isn't there, and give it only a half hearted search. I bet if someone does find it, it will be followed by a string of finds with posts in the order of "This was so simple, I can't believe you guys couldn't find it."

[+Castle Mischief]

Someone posted a picture of area early on. I can just imagine that wall is completly ripped apart by now

 

One cannot help but notice the rock wall in the picture, which looks very similar to the rock wall cache that was talked about in this thread and archived because it was believed that no cache actually existed.

 

If the cache was actually there, perhaps it's the same type of hide?

 

 

Um... maybe, but not from where I'm looking. One looks like a cinder block retaining wall and the other looks like what could be actual cut stone or maybe just a facade of cut stone built up around the real support structure.

 

I don't think it's logical to draw any conclusions based on the superficial appearance of these two locations.

[+addisonbr]

My theory is that after a couple of DNFs, following cachers go looking with it in mind that the cache isn't really there. After someone actually verifies that it is there, people go back with a more positive attitude, until another couple of DNFs come along.

I've observed this with my listings. Ignoring situations where the cache actually was missing, I've noticed that DNFs rapidly escalate the chances of other DNFs to follow (ignoring DNFs that come from different cachers in the same group). I agree with you; I think that when people think it's probably not in place, they're a lot less likely to find anything, even if they search for the same amount of time.

[+nimrodblack]

This cache is bringing out the worst in cachers.

 

I am going to

1. Assume it is real.

2. Assume you can reach it from the pavement (Terrain 1)

 

Difficulty 2.5.....

Given that I am new to the game I have used the rating system to rate my 3 very easy caches just to make sure i was following the rules. Lets assume he is an experienced cacher under an assumed name.

 

The rating descriptions:

1. Cache is in plain sight or location is fairly obvious.

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

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

4. Cache likely requires special skills, knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days or trips to find.

5. Finding this cache requires very specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment. This is a serious mental or physical challenge.

 

Given that you cannot get the rating system to spit out a 2.5 it needs to be all of Rating 2 which describes what you have all done. Looked for a while.

 

Now assume 1/2 of difficulty 3: Very Well Hidden and use clues.....it was not stated as multileg.

 

The description is sparse. but the two images are spaced funny. I dont think that happened by accident. They look very much like blocks in a stone wall. Offset. And strangely the joints between blocks often also look like capital letter I's and capital L's which make up the title of the cache. He said its a long way between IL and LI.....so I assume that means there is a long mortar joint between the blocks that form those two letter combos.

 

Again, I have not looked for the cache. But these things jump out at me looking at that picture of ground zero. Good luck solving this...whatever the outcome is. I pretty much hate getting on and off long island so i am just going to watch the cache.

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

SMELLS TO US AS WELL LIKE AN EXPERIENCED GEOCACHER'S SOCK PUPPET HID THIS...

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

Does not look like a noobie hide to me either. Someone has taken the time to find (or take) the 2 photographs. Maybe they are available on the web but on the other hand they do look like they have been taken specifically for the purpose of this cache.

 

Then they have added the speed limit sign background to the cache page. I have never stopped to work out how you do that yet. It's probably easy but not normally something you see on a noob's first cache if they have just thrown it together with little thought.

 

The whole thing is just not what you normally find on a hide by someone who doesn't really know what they are doing.

 

There's a lot of mud being slung in the notes on the cache page: Prove yourself. Prove it is there. You don't know what you are doing. We don't believe you. Read the rules.

 

I remember when a similar thing happened here on the forums - a cache destroying a lady's garden?

All sorts of accusations were thrown and not very nice things said because people made assumptions.

When the truth came out there were a lot of red faces and a lot of apologies.

 

If it does turn out to be a clever hide - not difficult necessarily, but clever, and clearly fitting within the rating definition as given by nimrodblack above, then I hope the people who posted the nasty notes like the taste of humble pie.

 

We have a cache near us that gets lots of DNFs - and as someone has already said, once there are one or two DNF's they escallate as people approach the hide with a different mindset.

The one I have in mind is not difficult. It's hidden under some leaves at the base of a tree. It really couldn't be more obvious - once you know where it is!

But it took us over half an hour, and several very experienced cachers have logged a DNF after spending 'a long time looking', finding it when they came for a second visit.

Many have stated categorically that it must have been muggled as they searched everywhere - and then someone who found it previously pops along and confirms it is still there, where it has always been.

Can't explain why it is so difficult as when you know where it is, it is very easy

 

There is a chance that the cache in the OP is like this - although perhaps a clever container? - and until it is proved either way, I think some of the notes on the cache page are a bit OTT.

 

Shame it is 3,000 miles away as I think there could be an impromtu meet there at the weekend

[Mr.Yuck]

I just don't see any other way around this problem. We may lose a few good COs who aren't interested in finding a few caches but the benefit to the community far outweighs the few potential losses.

 

Those few good COs are the community as are we all. I think Jeremy has been pretty clear on this in the past- it ain't gonna happen.

 

Dang. I knew I should have saved this. Over the summer, and I'm guessing late July, early August, there was actually a very prominent blurb in the official Groundspeak weekly newsletter that said something to the effect of "consider finding several caches before hiding one of your own". Not that this means they'd ever drop a minimum on n00bs or anything, but I really have to believe the reviewers are seeing some pretty bad n00b hides on a consistent basis.

 

I'm leaning more heavily towards sock puppet here. You moved halfway across the Country, found an easy parking lot micro in Ohio on the way to begin your Geocaching career, then decided to alienate NYAdmin and the entire Long Island caching community? Yeah right, buddy.

[+Castle Mischief]

There's a lot of mud being slung in the notes on the cache page: Prove yourself. Prove it is there. You don't know what you are doing. We don't believe you. Read the rules.

 

What "rules" are you referring to?

 

Why should any hider have to prove a cache is there to anybody but a reviewer? It looks like the reviewer is working with the CO. If there was more "rule reading" going on there wouldn't be people posting notes to the cache page and trying to use it like a discussion forum and making snide remarks directed at the CO.

[+Castle Mischief]

...then decided to alienate NYAdmin and the entire Long Island caching community? Yeah right, buddy.

 

I'm just not getting that from the logs.

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

There's a lot of mud being slung in the notes on the cache page: Prove yourself. Prove it is there. You don't know what you are doing. We don't believe you. Read the rules.

 

What "rules" are you referring to?

 

Why should any hider have to prove a cache is there to anybody but a reviewer? It looks like the reviewer is working with the CO. If there was more "rule reading" going on there wouldn't be people posting notes to the cache page and trying to use it like a discussion forum and making snide remarks directed at the CO.

 

I'm not referring to any rules, just quoting the kind of things that are being posted in notes on the cache page.

 

I think you misunderstood me or misread my post - they are not things I am saying, they are things that are being written on the cache page, in notes, by others. Replace the colon with the words "Such as" and it probably makes more sense

[+nimrodblack]

I would like to add to my previous post in this thread.

 

The only cache he has found is "Filling in the cracks", IL and LI look like mortar joints the photos are aligned like blocks of stone...

 

and if you read his log on that previous cache....he says this was his first Solo find. Which means he was part of a team/group before. No offense to those peeved but I think you have been beaten by a new kid in town.

[+addisonbr]

Dang. I knew I should have saved this. Over the summer, and I'm guessing late July, early August, there was actually a very prominent blurb in the official Groundspeak weekly newsletter that said something to the effect of "consider finding several caches before hiding one of your own". Not that this means they'd ever drop a minimum on n00bs or anything, but I really have to believe the reviewers are seeing some pretty bad n00b hides on a consistent basis.

You have a good memory. Looks like you're referring to (1) below.

 

Hello from Groundspeak! This is your weekly update from Groundspeak for 08 July 2010 to 15 July 2010.

 

--------------------------------------------------

Five Important Things to Know Before Placing a Geocache

--------------------------------------------------

 

There are now more than 1.1 million active geocaches around the world. The most exciting geocaching experiences come from fun, creative and challenging geocaches. If you would like to add your own cache to the growing tally, here are five important things to consider before you get started.

 

1. The more experience you have finding caches, the better you will be at knowing what makes a great hide. So, get out there and find a bunch of caches before you consider hiding your own.

 

2. Review the guidelines for placing a geocache at http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx. They are fundamental to ensuring that your cache can be listed on Geocaching.com.

 

3. Geocaches cannot be placed within 1/10th of a mile (161 m) of one another. Visit www.geocaching.com/seek and conduct a search for caches in the area that you have chosen for your cache. If the area is saturated with geocaches, you may want to consider a more unique location.

 

4. A volunteer reviewer looks at each new geocache listing before it is published on Geocaching.com. Work with your local reviewer. They are highly experienced geocachers and may have follow-up questions or advice that will help expedite the review process.

 

5. Owning a geocache requires an ongoing commitment. Maintenance requirements include upkeep of the container, replacing the logbook and addressing any unforeseen problems. If you want to place a geocache, make sure that the area is accessible to you so that you can fulfill this obligation.

 

Find more information about placing a geocache in the Groundspeak Knowledge Books: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?p....page&id=77

[+Castle Mischief]

There's a lot of mud being slung in the notes on the cache page: Prove yourself. Prove it is there. You don't know what you are doing. We don't believe you. Read the rules.

 

What "rules" are you referring to?

 

Why should any hider have to prove a cache is there to anybody but a reviewer? It looks like the reviewer is working with the CO. If there was more "rule reading" going on there wouldn't be people posting notes to the cache page and trying to use it like a discussion forum and making snide remarks directed at the CO.

 

I'm not referring to any rules, just quoting the kind of things that are being posted in notes on the cache page.

 

I think you misunderstood me or misread my post - they are not things I am saying, they are things that are being written on the cache page, in notes, by others. Replace the colon with the words "Such as" and it probably makes more sense

 

My apologies. You are correct, I did misread your post.

[+mountainman38]

SNIP

Why should any hider have to prove a cache is there to anybody but a reviewer? It looks like the reviewer is working with the CO. If there was more "rule reading" going on there wouldn't be people posting notes to the cache page and trying to use it like a discussion forum and making snide remarks directed at the CO.

I suspect some of the anger comes from people finding caches where the difficulty is highly over rated. Because they've found some 3 or 4 difficulty caches, they feel they should be able to find ANY 2.5. The problem is, I've found caches rated 4 stars for difficulty that I could basically walk up and point out.

 

Ratings are not exactly the same for everyone, and it sounds like this one might very well be accurate.

[knowschad]

Geeze... the cache is getting pummeled by angry, challenging notes from both locals, and a couple from the forums! I'm sorry, but to my mind, nobody needs to prove the existence of their cache, even if everybody for miles around puts it on their ignore list.

 

This sort of thing is happening more and more often. It's disrespectful. Cache finders are starting to get mad as heck and they're not going to take this anymore.

 

If geocaching doesn't implement something, then cachers will feel it necessary to use the logs to get their message across to COs. The forums don't work, probably only 5% of cachers read the forums. The online logs get the message across to the CO and to future finders.

What is disrespectful... the cache, or those notes? If people want to send a message to the cache owner, just ignore the cache. If nobody is looking for it, they'll get the message soon enough.

[Mr.Yuck]

...then decided to alienate NYAdmin and the entire Long Island caching community? Yeah right, buddy.

 

I'm just not getting that from the logs.

 

OK, alienate is a pretty strong word. Strike that from the record. Especially considering there's a 99.9999% chance the CO is going to end up in this thread.

[+L0ne.R]

Geeze... the cache is getting pummeled by angry, challenging notes from both locals, and a couple from the forums! I'm sorry, but to my mind, nobody needs to prove the existence of their cache, even if everybody for miles around puts it on their ignore list.

 

This sort of thing is happening more and more often. It's disrespectful. Cache finders are starting to get mad as heck and they're not going to take this anymore.

 

If geocaching doesn't implement something, then cachers will feel it necessary to use the logs to get their message across to COs. The forums don't work, probably only 5% of cachers read the forums. The online logs get the message across to the CO and to future finders.

What is disrespectful... the cache, or those notes? If people want to send a message to the cache owner, just ignore the cache. If nobody is looking for it, they'll get the message soon enough.

 

It's all unfortunately disrespectful but I wonder if the CO is somehow enjoying the angst. I doubt, as a community, this sort of thing can be switched off, i.e. ignored, especially if the CO takes offense and gets snarky. I'm of the mind that constructive criticism is more useful then ignoring these kinds of caches. It tells COs that wild goose chases are not appreciated.

[knowschad]

I would like to add to my previous post in this thread.

 

The only cache he has found is "Filling in the cracks", IL and LI look like mortar joints the photos are aligned like blocks of stone...

 

and if you read his log on that previous cache....he says this was his first Solo find. Which means he was part of a team/group before. No offense to those peeved but I think you have been beaten by a new kid in town.

Both good points, especially your catch on "first SOLO find". May be connected with the move to Long Island.

[+miamiyogi]

Would you have stopped geocaching or planting geocaches if you had to wait until you found 100 caches?

 

Good question, in my case it may have encouraged me to cache more. Personally I probably would have gone on a geofrenzy. I don't think I would have been a better cacher for it. My point was that making someone wait won't make them any better. I researched a lot before my first hide, I wanted something unique for the area so I handmade the cache from hardware store parts. Thats just the way I am, 100 caches would not have improved me.

[4wheelin_fool]

...then decided to alienate NYAdmin and the entire Long Island caching community? Yeah right, buddy.

 

I'm just not getting that from the logs.

 

OK, alienate is a pretty strong word. Strike that from the record. Especially considering there's a 99.9999% chance the CO is going to end up in this thread.

 

Suppose they wait until the thread is 15 pages long, the cache is being watched by over 100 people, and several people start having dreams about it?

 

Then what?

Edited October 13, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+L0ne.R]

Would you have stopped geocaching or planting geocaches if you had to wait until you found 100 caches?

 

Good question, in my case it may have encouraged me to cache more. Personally I probably would have gone on a geofrenzy. I don't think I would have been a better cacher for it. My point was that making someone wait won't make them any better.

 

It would have shown that you had commitment to the game. That you were likely going to stick around to take care of your cache once you planted it. That you likely experienced a few disappointing caches and will hopefully learn what not to do.

 

But for me, it's mostly about commitment. The CO is less likely to be a fly-by-nighter, toe-dipping, not-sure-they-even-understand-caching newbie CO if they find a few over a period of time. I'm in favor of a minimal amount of caches and a short time period just to weed out the fly-by-nighters.

[+Castle Mischief]

Would you have stopped geocaching or planting geocaches if you had to wait until you found 100 caches?

 

Good question, in my case it may have encouraged me to cache more. Personally I probably would have gone on a geofrenzy. I don't think I would have been a better cacher for it. My point was that making someone wait won't make them any better.

 

It would have shown that you had commitment to the game. That you were likely going to stick around to take care of your cache once you planted it. That you likely experienced a few disappointing caches and will hopefully learn what not to do.

 

But for me, it's mostly about commitment. The CO is less likely to be a fly-by-nighter, toe-dipping, not-sure-they-even-understand-caching newbie CO if they find a few over a period of time. I'm in favor of a minimal amount of caches and a short time period just to weed out the fly-by-nighters.

 

Can we have electro-shock generators attached to Travel Bug tags? If you have haven't found more than x number of caches then you can't pick up my TB.

 

 

Let's assume that there's another website out there that requires you to jump through certain hoops and fulfill certain requirements before you can hide a cache. You know what my interest would be in doing the hoop jumping and requirement filling? Zero. But if I ever get the urge to jump some hoops then I'll be sure to hunt down an alternate listing service that may or may not actually exist.

 

EDIT: Do you think that finding 100 caches would prevent people that have never seen a cache location and have only read about it from deciding that there is no container? 'Cause am all on board for that.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+John in Valley Forge]

How do we know the CO (which I think is a sock puppet account) isnt sitting at home, reading these comments, posting under his/her real account and laughing his head off?

[Mr.Yuck]

...then decided to alienate NYAdmin and the entire Long Island caching community? Yeah right, buddy.

 

I'm just not getting that from the logs.

 

OK, alienate is a pretty strong word. Strike that from the record. Especially considering there's a 99.9999% chance the CO is going to end up in this thread.

 

Suppose they wait until the thread is 15 pages long, the cache is being watched by over 100 people, and several people start having dreams about it?

 

Then what?

 

He will find my post, single me out, and flame me. I know, it's happened twice before.

[knowschad]

How do we know the CO (which I think is a sock puppet account) isnt sitting at home, reading these comments, posting under his/her real account and laughing his head off?

We don't, and so what?

 

IMO, this is really getting out of hand. I have a watch set on that cache, and a Needs Archived log was just posted, then deleted (hit & run NA):

 

TerraViators (from Denton, Texas, mind you, not Long Island!)

"Log Date: 10/13/2010 Sock puppet"

[Mr.Yuck]

How do we know the CO (which I think is a sock puppet account) isnt sitting at home, reading these comments, posting under his/her real account and laughing his head off?

We don't, and so what?

 

IMO, this is really getting out of hand. I have a watch set on that cache, and a Needs Archived log was just posted, then deleted (hit & run NA):

 

TerraViators (from Denton, Texas, mind you, not Long Island!)

"Log Date: 10/13/2010 Sock puppet"

 

Denton, The home of happiness. Someone will get that one. I hope.

[+redsox_mark]

Assuming the cache is real...

 

The difficulty definitions do not seem to apply well to this type of cache:

 

1 Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

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

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

4 Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

5 Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

 

So if the CO placed a cache which is easy to access (terrain=1), but is clever. Difficulty of 2.5 seems reasonable. Probably most finders would not have the patience to spend "a good portion of an afternoon" (Difficulty=3) looking for it. I'll spend an afternoon on a complex multi stage cache.. but on one you can drive right up to... no.

 

But if nobody can find it, then a higher difficulty (maybe 4?) seems appropriate?

[Clan Riffster]

TerraViators (from Denton, Texas, mind you, not Long Island!)

"Log Date: 10/13/2010 Sock puppet"

That's pretty sad.

[+L0ne.R]

How do we know the CO (which I think is a sock puppet account) isnt sitting at home, reading these comments, posting under his/her real account and laughing his head off?

 

He could be. He may not have planted a box on purpose, just to see who he can bait and string along. But we won't know unless he actually confesses. It's a bit of a surprise to me that it doesn't happen more often. The worst that could happen is the sock puppet account gets banned.

[knowschad]

How do we know the CO (which I think is a sock puppet account) isnt sitting at home, reading these comments, posting under his/her real account and laughing his head off?

 

He could be. He may not have planted a box on purpose, just to see who he can bait and string along. But we won't know unless he actually confesses. It's a bit of a surprise to me that it doesn't happen more often. The worst that could happen is the sock puppet account gets banned.

I sure wish you would stop tossing gasoline on this fire, Lone R. You have a right to your opinion, which you have stated, but an opinion is all that you've got. How do you know that there is anything to "confess", much less actions to get the account banned!

[+Castle Mischief]

How do we know the CO (which I think is a sock puppet account) isnt sitting at home, reading these comments, posting under his/her real account and laughing his head off?

 

He could be. He may not have planted a box on purpose, just to see who he can bait and string along. But we won't know unless he actually confesses. It's a bit of a surprise to me that it doesn't happen more often. The worst that could happen is the sock puppet account gets banned.

 

Who are you that this CO owes you a confession? Let the reviewers deal with it and move on.

 

The worst that could happen is that somebody's cache gets archived for no reason because of a bunch of busybodies on the interweb.

[knowschad]

TerraViators (from Denton, Texas, mind you, not Long Island!)

"Log Date: 10/13/2010 Sock puppet"

That's pretty sad.

Same person just posted a note to the cache page. It is certainly more polite than the Needs Archived log that they posted and deleted, but as far as I could tell, this account has never yet cached outside of their homestate of Texas!

 

Log Date: 10/13/2010

Perhaps the CO should give a courtesy check on the cache or

increase the difficulty rating before it is archived.

[+TerraViators]

But I for one, support the idea of not allowing anyone to do hides until they have found 100 caches, and this is why. (well part of it anyway)

 

Isn't that a little extreme...not letting people do a hide unless they have 100 caches? I might change my mind later, but I am a newbie with under 30 finds, I hid my first cache and I think the results have been pretty good.

 

Brickell By Broadway

 

I don't think it matters if you have 100 or 1000 caches, some people just will never get it.

 

Cheers!

Yogi

It doesn't.

[+TerraViators]

TerraViators (from Denton, Texas, mind you, not Long Island!)

"Log Date: 10/13/2010 Sock puppet"

That's pretty sad.

Same person just posted a note to the cache page. It is certainly more polite than the Needs Archived log that they posted and deleted, but as far as I could tell, this account has never yet cached outside of their homestate of Texas!

 

Log Date: 10/13/2010

Perhaps the CO should give a courtesy check on the cache or

increase the difficulty rating before it is archived.

I removed the NA to give the CO the benefit of the doubt.

 

I have cached outside of Texas...in OK, ME, NH, RI, MA and NY

[+mountainman38]

TerraViators (from Denton, Texas, mind you, not Long Island!)

"Log Date: 10/13/2010 Sock puppet"

That's pretty sad.

Same person just posted a note to the cache page. It is certainly more polite than the Needs Archived log that they posted and deleted, but as far as I could tell, this account has never yet cached outside of their homestate of Texas!

 

Log Date: 10/13/2010

Perhaps the CO should give a courtesy check on the cache or

increase the difficulty rating before it is archived.

I removed the NA to give the CO the benefit of the doubt.

 

I have cached outside of Texas...in OK, ME, NH, RI, MA and NY

Who made you the geocache police? Why are you posting an NA note on a cache that has nothing to do with you?

 

This is pretty much the definition of a busybody.

[+TerraViators]

TerraViators (from Denton, Texas, mind you, not Long Island!)

"Log Date: 10/13/2010 Sock puppet"

That's pretty sad.

Same person just posted a note to the cache page. It is certainly more polite than the Needs Archived log that they posted and deleted, but as far as I could tell, this account has never yet cached outside of their homestate of Texas!

 

Log Date: 10/13/2010

Perhaps the CO should give a courtesy check on the cache or

increase the difficulty rating before it is archived.

I removed the NA to give the CO the benefit of the doubt.

 

I have cached outside of Texas...in OK, ME, NH, RI, MA and NY

Who made you the geocache police? Why are you posting an NA note on a cache that has nothing to do with you?

 

This is pretty much the definition of a busybody.

Good point.

[knowschad]

TerraViators (from Denton, Texas, mind you, not Long Island!)

"Log Date: 10/13/2010 Sock puppet"

That's pretty sad.

Same person just posted a note to the cache page. It is certainly more polite than the Needs Archived log that they posted and deleted, but as far as I could tell, this account has never yet cached outside of their homestate of Texas!

 

Log Date: 10/13/2010

Perhaps the CO should give a courtesy check on the cache or

increase the difficulty rating before it is archived.

I removed the NA to give the CO the benefit of the doubt.

 

I have cached outside of Texas...in OK, ME, NH, RI, MA and NY

How does removing an NA log give the CO any benefit? He, the reviewer, and anybody watching the cache or that have bookmarked the cache have already received emailed notifications of it.

 

OK, so, have you got immediate plans to go caching in Long Island, and so you have a personal interest in knowing if this cache should be included? If not, why is it any of your affair?

 

Edited to add: I posted that before I saw this:

 

This is pretty much the definition of a busybody.

Good point.

Edited October 14, 2010 by knowschad

[+TerraViators]

TerraViators (from Denton, Texas, mind you, not Long Island!)

"Log Date: 10/13/2010 Sock puppet"

That's pretty sad.

Same person just posted a note to the cache page. It is certainly more polite than the Needs Archived log that they posted and deleted, but as far as I could tell, this account has never yet cached outside of their homestate of Texas!

 

Log Date: 10/13/2010

Perhaps the CO should give a courtesy check on the cache or

increase the difficulty rating before it is archived.

I removed the NA to give the CO the benefit of the doubt.

 

I have cached outside of Texas...in OK, ME, NH, RI, MA and NY

How does removing an NA log give the CO any benefit? He, the reviewer, and anybody watching the cache or that have bookmarked the cache have already received emailed notifications of it.

 

OK, so, have you got immediate plans to go caching in Long Island, and so you have a personal interest in knowing if this cache should be included? If not, why is it any of your affair?

I made a mistake and added it as an impulse. I do have plans to cache LI. Maybe I'll try to find this cache.

[+mountainman38]

TerraViators (from Denton, Texas, mind you, not Long Island!)

"Log Date: 10/13/2010 Sock puppet"

That's pretty sad.

Same person just posted a note to the cache page. It is certainly more polite than the Needs Archived log that they posted and deleted, but as far as I could tell, this account has never yet cached outside of their homestate of Texas!

 

Log Date: 10/13/2010

Perhaps the CO should give a courtesy check on the cache or

increase the difficulty rating before it is archived.

I removed the NA to give the CO the benefit of the doubt.

 

I have cached outside of Texas...in OK, ME, NH, RI, MA and NY

Who made you the geocache police? Why are you posting an NA note on a cache that has nothing to do with you?

 

This is pretty much the definition of a busybody.

Good point.

At least you can accept our comments with good grace.

 

I really hope you're able to make it to Long Island, and find this cache!

[+TerraViators]

TerraViators (from Denton, Texas, mind you, not Long Island!)

"Log Date: 10/13/2010 Sock puppet"

That's pretty sad.

Same person just posted a note to the cache page. It is certainly more polite than the Needs Archived log that they posted and deleted, but as far as I could tell, this account has never yet cached outside of their homestate of Texas!

 

Log Date: 10/13/2010

Perhaps the CO should give a courtesy check on the cache or

increase the difficulty rating before it is archived.

I removed the NA to give the CO the benefit of the doubt.

 

I have cached outside of Texas...in OK, ME, NH, RI, MA and NY

Who made you the geocache police? Why are you posting an NA note on a cache that has nothing to do with you?

 

This is pretty much the definition of a busybody.

Good point.

At least you can accept our comments with good grace.

 

I really hope you're able to make it to Long Island, and find this cache!

Absolutely, why wouldn't I? It's geocaching (a game) not world hunger or the genome project. Hey, I still have to pay the mortgage whether people like my comments or not, hehe.

[knowschad]

I made a mistake and added it as an impulse. I do have plans to cache LI. Maybe I'll try to find this cache.

I think you missed the ammended/edited version of my post. I agree with Mountainman38 on you gracefully accepting our comments. Thanks!

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

IT'S BEEN FOUND !!!!

[+LightHouseSeekers]

Enquiring minds would like to know if the finder thought it was rated fairly.

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

Just as importantly, it has proved there was a cache there.

 

The finder had been twice already, so if there wasn't a cache originally but one had been put out since their previous visits, they would have known as they would have known if they had looked in the final location before - if that makes sense.

 

Some apologies might be due to the CO even before clarification of the D/T rating.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Just as importantly, it has proved there was a cache there.

 

The finder had been twice already, so if there wasn't a cache originally but one had been put out since their previous visits, they would have known as they would have known if they had looked in the final location before - if that makes sense.

 

Some apologies might be due to the CO even before clarification of the D/T rating.

 

Probably, at least for all the accusations that the cache was a hoax. On the other hand, it looks like the primary objection about the cache is that isn't under rated and the fact that the CO refuses to budge on the rating isn't likely going to win any fans in the local geocaching community, and could lead to anyone else that finds it deciding to ignore the CO's request not to share any hints regarding it's location.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Somebody just made a claim of FTF.

FTF on the cache

 

Kind of a bland log entry for such a sought after cache. Hope he adds more to it. His DNF logs had more info in them. He has posted a few DNFs on the cache, so I think it is a legit find.

 

Congrats Red5! Mystery solved.

Edited October 14, 2010 by John in Valley Forge

[knowschad]

On the other hand, it looks like the primary objection about the cache is that isn't under rated and the fact that the CO refuses to budge on the rating isn't likely going to win any fans in the local geocaching community, and could lead to anyone else that finds it deciding to ignore the CO's request not to share any hints regarding it's location.

Perhaps the cache owner simply thinks that New Yorkers are smarter than folks from his former state. He might have rated it higher, had he hidden it in Illinois.