Decoys

[+Don_J]

A comment in one of the other threads brought up an issue that I have a sore spot for.

 

Traditional caches that are really Multi caches. In other words intentional decoys where you find the cache at the obvious location and inside is a note that says "Keep looking" or some or such nonsense. IMO, this does not meet the definition of a Traditional cache as described in the guidelines.

 

I'm curious to hear other thoughts on this.

[+M 5]

If the cache is in the generally accepted GZ parameters, I don't see a problem with it. Although we'll get a whole new argument on the GZ limits.

[+captnemo]

Traditional caches that are really Multi caches!!!! I choose the type of cache based on how much time I have available to cache and being forced into a Multi when I only have time for a Traditional would tick me off too. If I have loads of time and energy that's when I want a Multi which I would miss out on if it's mislabeled!

[+M 5]

It's not a multi, if its in the area. Those are the only ones I've seen.

[+WRASTRO]

A comment in one of the other threads brought up an issue that I have a sore spot for.

 

Traditional caches that are really Multi caches. In other words intentional decoys where you find the cache at the obvious location and inside is a note that says "Keep looking" or some or such nonsense. IMO, this does not meet the definition of a Traditional cache as described in the guidelines.

 

I'm curious to hear other thoughts on this.

I really do not think you are describing anything other than a traditional. What happens if you find the correct container on your first try? If the cache is at the posted coordinates it makes no difference if there are a 100 decoys. It is still a traditional. You can choose not to hunt it.

[+KBLAST]

A comment in one of the other threads brought up an issue that I have a sore spot for.

 

Traditional caches that are really Multi caches. In other words intentional decoys where you find the cache at the obvious location and inside is a note that says "Keep looking" or some or such nonsense. IMO, this does not meet the definition of a Traditional cache as described in the guidelines.

 

I'm curious to hear other thoughts on this.

I really do not think you are describing anything other than a traditional. What happens if you find the correct container on your first try? If the cache is at the posted coordinates it makes no difference if there are a 100 decoys. It is still a traditional. You can choose not to hunt it.

A multi means you have to find a cache that leads to another cache. A decoy does not do this. A decoy tells you it is NOT there. If the decoy says, "Go 100 feet south" then yeah, I have a little issue with that. But if the cache is there and there is a decoy, at least you KNOW you are in the right spot. I have a love hate relationship with decoys for this reason. I have some caches with decoys, but I set the difficulty appropriately based on that fact.

[+clumzyfly]

A comment in one of the other threads brought up an issue that I have a sore spot for.

 

Traditional caches that are really Multi caches. In other words intentional decoys where you find the cache at the obvious location and inside is a note that says "Keep looking" or some or such nonsense. IMO, this does not meet the definition of a Traditional cache as described in the guidelines.

 

I'm curious to hear other thoughts on this.

I really do not think you are describing anything other than a traditional. What happens if you find the correct container on your first try? If the cache is at the posted coordinates it makes no difference if there are a 100 decoys. It is still a traditional. You can choose not to hunt it.

A multi means you have to find a cache that leads to another cache. A decoy does not do this. A decoy tells you it is NOT there. If the decoy says, "Go 100 feet south" then yeah, I have a little issue with that. But if the cache is there and there is a decoy, at least you KNOW you are in the right spot. I have a love hate relationship with decoys for this reason. I have some caches with decoys, but I set the difficulty appropriately based on that fact.

 

In my opinion, if that decoy was not there to tell you the real one is not there...then nothing would be there to tell you that it is not there. At least you know it's not missing. I see this saving unnecessary NM logs for missing caches.

[+Sol seaker]

Like others have said, it depends if the decoy is at the same coordinates.

 

Like the one I found two days ago. The decoy was at the exact same coordinates, it was just lower than the actual cache. In this case it was appreciated because it kept me from continuing to search in the wrong spot. I knew had to think outside of the box on that one.

 

But if the decoy was at the coords but the cache wasn't and the decoy gave you some message that lead you to the cache, then it's a multi.

[+kunarion]

intentional decoys where you find the cache at the obvious location and inside is a note that says "Keep looking" or some or such nonsense. IMO, this does not meet the definition of a Traditional cache as described in the guidelines.

At one time, I had four decoys at one of my caches. Two were "red herrings" (actual pictures of herrings, which were red), and one time a cacher mentioned finding a red herring. I thought it might be fun for people to lift a rock and find a herring. I think nobody's been too annoyed, maybe they even had a little chuckle when finding those. One was in the spot where the land manager said he'd hide the cache if he were to hide one. Every decoy was within a few feet of the actual cache, but you'd only find them if you weren't reading description and clue carefully. None of them were containers. I wouldn't place a "decoy" which might be mistaken for the actual container (well, I did once, but at the time didn't think it could possibly be mistaken for the container, and it had no "keep looking" note).

 

I agree that placing extra containers is likely to cause problems. But it's probably a great idea in just the right situation.

Edited December 29, 2010 by kunarion

[+Don_J]

A comment in one of the other threads brought up an issue that I have a sore spot for.

 

Traditional caches that are really Multi caches. In other words intentional decoys where you find the cache at the obvious location and inside is a note that says "Keep looking" or some or such nonsense. IMO, this does not meet the definition of a Traditional cache as described in the guidelines.

 

I'm curious to hear other thoughts on this.

I really do not think you are describing anything other than a traditional. What happens if you find the correct container on your first try? If the cache is at the posted coordinates it makes no difference if there are a 100 decoys. It is still a traditional. You can choose not to hunt it.

 

I can't make that decision until I am at GZ and find the decoy. I have been at GZ, on a 1.5D cache, see a suspicious rock pile, recover a container that has a note that is IMO, doing a raspberry in my face, "Look harder", so I do and find a D3 hanging in a bush 30' away.

 

Too me, this is not much different than intentionally posting soft coordinates to make your cache more difficult. In other words, I appreciate a clever hide, clever cammo, but I don't appreciate being toyed with.

[+niraD]

The decoys I've seen have fallen into two types: the "keep looking" decoys (placed within a few feet of the cache) and the "try again" decoys (placed at the incorrect solutions of puzzles). Some of the "keep looking" decoys have really been part of the camouflage: the cache by itself makes the structure it's on look asymmetrical, but adding a matching decoy restores symmetry.

 

Although I have found one old cache that was listed as a traditional, but had elements of a puzzle multi-cache. I suspect that it was grandfathered at some point. But even so, a lot of people find it simply by expanding their search radius.

[+WRASTRO]

A comment in one of the other threads brought up an issue that I have a sore spot for.

 

Traditional caches that are really Multi caches. In other words intentional decoys where you find the cache at the obvious location and inside is a note that says "Keep looking" or some or such nonsense. IMO, this does not meet the definition of a Traditional cache as described in the guidelines.

 

I'm curious to hear other thoughts on this.

I really do not think you are describing anything other than a traditional. What happens if you find the correct container on your first try? If the cache is at the posted coordinates it makes no difference if there are a 100 decoys. It is still a traditional. You can choose not to hunt it.

 

I can't make that decision until I am at GZ and find the decoy. I have been at GZ, on a 1.5D cache, see a suspicious rock pile, recover a container that has a note that is IMO, doing a raspberry in my face, "Look harder", so I do and find a D3 hanging in a bush 30' away.

 

Too me, this is not much different than intentionally posting soft coordinates to make your cache more difficult. In other words, I appreciate a clever hide, clever cammo, but I don't appreciate being toyed with.

That would be annoying for sure. It would still be a traditional. If the coordinates are soft I woud suggest posting alternate coordinates.

[+Don_J]

Too be clear, I am talking about instances where the actual cache has a different set of coordinates then that which is posted.

 

We found a cache a couple of weeks ago that had a standard mini logbook in it. On the first page was a message that we had to look harder. Inside the same container was two identical refrigerator type magnets stuck back to back. The actual log was between them. Since the name was "Cache in Cache", this wasn't a problem.

 

When I'm up on a rocky hillside and the actual cache is intentionally 40' feet away from the posted coordinates, I do have a problem.

 

At any rate, I appreciate the comments.

[Mr.Yuck]

A comment in one of the other threads brought up an issue that I have a sore spot for.

 

Traditional caches that are really Multi caches. In other words intentional decoys where you find the cache at the obvious location and inside is a note that says "Keep looking" or some or such nonsense. IMO, this does not meet the definition of a Traditional cache as described in the guidelines.

 

I'm curious to hear other thoughts on this.

 

I honestly never thought of this. I do not like "keep looking" type decoys. There's only 1 CO in my area who has used them with any frequency, and fortunately, no one has seemed to "copy" them all these years.

 

I can see where you're coming from though, but I wouldn't go as far as not meeting the definition of a Traditional cache as described in the guidelines.

[+WRASTRO]

Too be clear, I am talking about instances where the actual cache has a different set of coordinates then that which is posted.

 

We found a cache a couple of weeks ago that had a standard mini logbook in it. On the first page was a message that we had to look harder. Inside the same container was two identical refrigerator type magnets stuck back to back. The actual log was between them. Since the name was "Cache in Cache", this wasn't a problem.

 

When I'm up on a rocky hillside and the actual cache is intentionally 40' feet away from the posted coordinates, I do have a problem.

 

At any rate, I appreciate the comments.

Intenionally soft coordinates = bad cache placement.

 

No argument from me on that. Unless it is an offset it is still a traditional with crummy coordinates.

[+crouchcrew]

I've come a crossed quite a few that actually have coordinates in them. IMHO I do not think of that type as being a decoy and should not be allowed.

[+n0k1a]

I've only run across a few decoys so far. One was as part of a large group night hike. I was the first person in the group to find what turned out to be the decoy, and the actual container was subsequently found within perhaps 10 feet. I found it more amusing than annoying, as I believe everyone else did.

 

Hopefully without giving enough detail to spoil it, there is one I found which has a significant number of almost identical containers. All are within a several foot radius, but only one contains a log. It is part of the theme of the cache, and totally works...one of the cooler caches I've found for multiple reasons.

 

If the 'decoy' is not at the same coordinates as the actual container, and especially if the 'decoy' contains coords pointing to a different GZ, I would classify that as a multi, and be at least somewhat annoyed that it was misrepresented.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Interesting thread.

 

I adopted a cache with decoys. The ammo can is suspended high in a tree, and on the ground nearby a number of rusted or burnt out cans, under Conspicuous Piles o' Sticks.

 

People keep adding logs to the cans on the ground, and even swag and TBs. They all had laminated "red herring - keep looking" notes.

 

I'm thinking the the time when this sort of thing was new and fun may be over.

I know that the number of times I've visited to remove the "helpful" logs and replace the "red herring notes" is getting old.

At the moment I believe there's a TB stuck in one of those cans.

 

I may just remove all the decoys and leave the can in the tree. Or try removing all the lids? or pull the whole thing....

[+Chokecherry]

I don't know. I really enjoyed the one cache I did with decoys. It was just a really fun cache. Was sure I had found it. What I found was the travel bug storage area (sanctioned because the actual cache couldn't fit a bug well). And after some thinking and getting mom out of the car to help we found the cache. It was clear on the cahce page if you didn't find the actual cache you couldn't log it. Before going out there I thought that was an obvious thing in geocaching. After getting out there and moving through a couple red herrings I understood it. The red herring containers were clearly marked as well.

 

I suppose if I came across a giant container of film cans or something I probably wouldn't have been as amused but just a small decoy thing like that I enjoyed.

[+twoodward15]

I think that your real issue is that it isn't a quick find and you have to work for the number count. If it was supposed to be easy they'd be a 1 difficulty or less. having the most finds doesn't get you anything more than having one find, except a false sense of entitlement..............

[+Ms.Scrabbler]

I have one that has been enjoyed by some cachers.

 

I decided to make a tacky cache more interesting

 

I put it in a far corner of a WMart parking lot, decoy is under .... drum roll .... the lamp post skirt. In that pill container it reminds the cacher to use the hint which is "use perifial vision" and the real cache is in a shrub 2 steps away.

[+addisonbr]

Two or three years ago we placed a small cache in the root system of a tree in a nearby park. There were a lot of possible hiding spots in the roots, so in addition to the cache we hid about a half-dozen micro containers with digital voice recorders in them, with my kids giving various different messages ("Keep looking..." "You haven't found the right one yet!" etc.). When it got published we all went down to the park and played soccer while the first wave of finders puzzled over it.

 

It got muggled a fair amount - four times in a few months. We finally gave up and archived it after about a year, as it was pretty expensive to recreate, but it was fun while it lasted.

[+bflentje]

Too be clear, I am talking about instances where the actual cache has a different set of coordinates then that which is posted.

 

We found a cache a couple of weeks ago that had a standard mini logbook in it. On the first page was a message that we had to look harder. Inside the same container was two identical refrigerator type magnets stuck back to back. The actual log was between them. Since the name was "Cache in Cache", this wasn't a problem.

 

When I'm up on a rocky hillside and the actual cache is intentionally 40' feet away from the posted coordinates, I do have a problem.

 

At any rate, I appreciate the comments.

 

Good thing you clarified this because your orginal post mentioned NOTHING about soft coordinates.

 

I think soft coordinates should be illegal. But nothing else about this game is worth crying about.

[+Stargazer22]

Interesting thread.

 

I adopted a cache with decoys. The ammo can is suspended high in a tree, and on the ground nearby a number of rusted or burnt out cans, under Conspicuous Piles o' Sticks.

 

People keep adding logs to the cans on the ground, and even swag and TBs. They all had laminated "red herring - keep looking" notes.

 

I'm thinking the the time when this sort of thing was new and fun may be over.

I know that the number of times I've visited to remove the "helpful" logs and replace the "red herring notes" is getting old.

At the moment I believe there's a TB stuck in one of those cans.

 

I may just remove all the decoys and leave the can in the tree. Or try removing all the lids? or pull the whole thing....

 

I found this cache and enjoyed it. We spotted the real cache pretty early but continued looking around just for the fun of seeing how many other decoys we could find. I can see where it could be a lot of maintenance though.

 

My feeling is that if the decoys don't list different coordinates that take you a significant distance away from the coordinates listed for the cache, then it's a traditional. If the real cache and all the decoys are within a hundred feet or so of each other then I'd call that a traditional. If you only need to walk a short distance away to find the cache, and there are no additional coordinates in the decoy caches, then that's a traditional cache (with decoys)to me. There is a difference between a decoy and a multi.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I adopted a cache that used a decoy. The cache was on a metal structure that had four "legs". A decoy was on one leg and the real cache on another. Some of the logs mentioned finding the decoy first (perhaps the rest found the real cache first) but none of them sounded like they were displeased on finding a decoy.

 

I can see how the use of decoys could be really annoying. For example, a fake rock in a rock pile is annoying enough, but several decoy fake rocks in a rock pile could be really annoying. There's a cache in St. Paul, MN that is on a set of metal stairs that's probably 10 stories high. Since I didn't look for it myself I don't know how high up it is, but several decoys on different levels with a note which reads "higher" or "lower" (or warmer, colder) might be used to help narrow down the search and reduce the looking for a needle in a haystack potential a hide on such a structure would have.

 

There is a spot that I've wanted to place a cache but my email request for permission didn't get a response. I found a large log on the ground that would where an ammo can could be placed. It's along side a creek just downstream from a tall waterfall under a bridge. The creek runs next to a parking lot for a private club with a skirted light pole about 20' from the log. The location almost cries out for placing a LPC decoy. Of course, I'd set the size to regular but I suspect a lot of geocachers would still look in the light pole skirt first.

[+lachupa]

A multi disguised as a traditional would annoy me. I like multi caches but I like to know that's what I'm doing when I set out.

 

A decoy that is the wrong answer to a puzzle or one that provides a hint would not annoy me in the least.

[+Ike 13]

Depends.

 

This area has had a problem in the past with people adding decoys to other peoples hides. That is bad.

 

A traditional should be at the posted coordinates, but if there's a few decoys in that same area then I'm okay with it. I've found one like this. The container is exactly at the coords listed, but very well hidden. There is a decoy at the same location. If you decide to move out from that location you'll find more and more decoys. The ratings reflected the difficulty well and it was pretty clear from the cache page decoys were involved.

[+SwineFlew]

Decoys is fine. However, people that dont maintenance their caches and the decoys become a cache itself when the real cache is missing. I see it happens.

[jd-mitchell]

There's one I was looking @ (Before the weather & my work schedule turned south) that has the same stuff. I went to the most obvious location, found a decoy that said "not the cache". I think I know where it is, just a matter of rooting around & finding it.

[knowschad]

I'd be in favor of a new "annoying" attribute. It would also be great for those caches with 100 film cans in a jar.

 

[+niraD]

I know that the number of times I've visited to remove the "helpful" logs and replace the "red herring notes" is getting old.

I've seen "replacement" logs added to decoys too. I think the safest way to handle a decoy is to use something that isn't a container. Maybe you could paint an ammo-can size block of wood with camouflage patterns and paint an "OFFICIAL GEOCACHE DECOY - KEEP LOOKING" sign on it, rather than using an actual ammo can. Or maybe do the same thing with an ammo-can size block of concrete.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I think the safest way to handle a decoy is to use something that isn't a container....an ammo-can size block of wood with camouflage patterns and paint an "OFFICIAL GEOCACHE DECOY - KEEP LOOKING" sign on it, rather than using an actual ammo can. Or maybe do the same thing with an ammo-can size block of concrete.

 

good idea - however my cache is a mile and half or 2 miles from parking, and the last .4 is all bushwhacking (easy, open forest) - so hauling that kind of weight isn't real appealing. I've lost track of how many ammo cans are there now. For a few years, I routinely took all my burnt cans to the hide.

I disabled it today, another log came in that suggested a find on a can on the ground.

 

Need to get out there and do ? mmm something....

[+Harry Dolphin]

I've done a few decoy caches. One was a lot of fun. Tough hide. Six of seven notes saying "Keep looking". Coords for the cache were good. The decoys were within ten feet. Great cache! On my favorite list!

Did an ammo can with eight film canisters in it. Seven said Keep Looking. Three of those were signed by cachers.

Found an ammo can that said Keep Looking. Stage of a multi was a micro three feet away. Cute.

The worst was one where the coords led to a fence post. Lift the post cap, and it said Keep Looking. The cache was under the fence post thirty feet away. That was deliberate bad coords.

If the cache is at the listed coordinates, then the decoys do not affect it. It's a traditional.

One does run the risk of people leaving logs in the decoys, or signing the note that says "Keep Looking."

[AZcachemeister]

Hows about a true multi where each of the stages has decoys.

Never did complete that one since it got archived before I could finish.

[+geodarts]

Generally I am not a big fan of decoys. I put them in the same category as hints that state that there is no hint. Especially the ones under a lot of tree cover in canyons. But there is no category for annoying caches so they might as well be a traditional.

[+n0k1a]

For another twist on this theme, there's the one which a friend DNF'd a few years ago. I found it this year. I later returned with him to hit some others in the area, and we figured he could avenge his DNF. I was a bit surprised when he found a different container than the one I found, about 3 feet away, also with a log. Turns out the original was thought to have gone missing, and a replacement container was added. We found both of them.

 

The bad part is that this situation was actually described in old logs, and the CO never bothered to do anything about it. It was promptly archived after my friend posted his log...

[+Don_J]

I think that your real issue is that it isn't a quick find and you have to work for the number count. If it was supposed to be easy they'd be a 1 difficulty or less. having the most finds doesn't get you anything more than having one find, except a false sense of entitlement..............

 

No, the real issue is that it is marked as a 1.5 and once on GZ, I'm excepted to jump through hoops.

 

If the cache is not at the listed coordinates, it's not a traditional cache. Plain and simple.

[+KBLAST]

There are a number of decoy caches around our area. I tend to enjoy them. I have a cache with MANY decoys. 12 j00 1337?!!!!121 I built the cache to mimic what would happen if a hacker were to place a geocache. Most people who would be annoyed by all the decoys were already annoyed by the name of the cache and the cache page (if they even looked at it) and have already thrown it on their ignore list before they ever made it to the cache site. My whole point is that I personally enjoy decoys, so long as there is a purpose behind them.

 

To respond to the poster who talked about the cache being missing, you'll see in the logs that I went and checked on the cache after just about every DNF because I know that it has gone missing and could go missing again. Maintaining a cache with decoys is REALLY important.

[+twoodward15]

You aren't "expected" to do anything. You chose to try this cache. If you walked up and found the real cache, you'd never even know there were decoys. This is all for fun, there are no winners or losers. If the cache is in the general vicinity of GZ, then it shouldn't take that long to find, even with decoys.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think that your real issue is that it isn't a quick find and you have to work for the number count. If it was supposed to be easy they'd be a 1 difficulty or less. having the most finds doesn't get you anything more than having one find, except a false sense of entitlement..............

 

No, the real issue is that it is marked as a 1.5 and once on GZ, I'm excepted to jump through hoops.

 

If the cache is not at the listed coordinates, it's not a traditional cache. Plain and simple.

 

Intentionally placing a cache not at the listed coordinates and marking it as a traditional is a separate issue, something that shouldn't be done whether or not decoys are used.

 

I don't see how using a decoy increases the difficulty, unless it's one of those 100 film cans in a bucket caches. IMHO, there's also nothing wrong with making finders jump through hoops as long as the cache is rated correctly and the proper cache type specified. Not all caches are meant to be easy. I was just looking at a cache that has the highest favorite ranking of all caches within 50 miles of me that I have not found. It's an "in the field puzzle" where one has to figure out how to open the container to sign the log. Most of the finders indicated that it took a half an hour or more to figure it out, several indicated that they had to go back more than once to solve it, but the logs on the cache are overwhelmingly favorable. However, it's rated as a 3.5 for difficulty, which given the amount of time most seem to be spending to get inside to sign the log seems about right.

[KevBru]

I just joined the site and currently learning everything before I go off for my first cache hunt. Personally if I found a decoy saying to keep looking it would add maybe an extra edge to the whole search. However having multiple cache decoys with hints and clues and what not would completely turn me off from finding the actual cache.. Being that it's traditional to have just 1 cache at the respected coordinates I would say everyone should stick with the tradition and keep it as is.

[+hotshoe]

I'd be in favor of a new "annoying" attribute. It would also be great for those caches with 100 film cans in a jar.

Funny, the one cache we found like that was our favorite find for that month. It was a hoot opening the ammo box and throwing the "wrong" film cans into a pile as fast as we could. I recollect we got through 34 in about two minutes, before we found the film can with the cache log.

 

Takes all kinds !

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

If I can't find the actual cache I just log the decoy as found.

 

Just kidding. But I do love finding decoys. They make me laugh and I figure at least I found something. Now, 3 decoys is about my limit. Any more than that I get frustrated.

 

I found 2 caches and found 5 decoys at each! I gave up and DNF both caches. So, there's a limit for me.

 

I prefer 1-3 decoys. Sometimes they help locate the cache.

[+Racettes]

Might as well throw my two cents in

I have a hide - very simple, a 2/2 on the D/T scale

The container is in a hollow log that is about 3ft off the ground, a curve in a tree I guess you can say

The tree about two feet away has a hollow at the bottomw of the truck along the ground

I put a 1x4 board in the hollow at the bottom - on one side it says "not here"

and on the flip side it say "hole in log, reach in and pull"

Cache is called "Here or There??" - so the title kinda gives you the impression that there could be a decoy and the hint on the page is "hint is on the board"

 

Here is the comment from the FTF "the coordinates are good we were at 5 to 7 feet standing at GZ so I'd call that pretty good, I liked the decoy Nice Job on the hide"

 

It only has 5 finds, but my coords are right on and only 2 of the 5 people to find it have actually looked at the decoy

I did cover the hollow in the truck with branches to make it look obvious

 

So does this make it a multi - IMO, no, Im not giving coords to the next stage and the actually container is all but a few feet from the decoy

I think the occasional decoy adds a bit of fun to the game, as long as it doesnt get out of hand

Racettes

[+DragonflyTotem]

I guess that I'll ask the questions that I didn't see anyone else yet ask -- what makes you think that it was the "obvious" location for the cache, or (as you later added) that the coordinates were soft?

 

What might seem to be an obvious location might not mean much if the D factor is higher than a 1. And then there is the whole issue of GPS error and accuracy rates and such. As a CO (have 60 caches) I can tell you that many times when I have had someone complain about the coordinates being off that their listed GPS is....well, not really ideal. I have an electronics background and worked with GPS and related schtuff for years and can say that some GPS units being sold....being polite, just really aren't all that good. And even with the same models of GPS, many factors can make it seem like soft coordinates (signal blockage or degradation). And when I've had reports about the coordinates being off, when I asked for someone with a decent GPS to check it, amazingly the coordinates are dead on.

 

But I'd go so far as to suggest that perhaps the CO might have put a decoy there at that spot for those exact reasons (it was a "lure you in" location, and within the error/accuracy rate area). So perhaps the CO is trying to do you a favor, knowing that you might not otherwise make the find, but nudged onward you have a chance of it.

[+Racettes]

I guess that I'll ask the questions that I didn't see anyone else yet ask -- what makes you think that it was the "obvious" location for the cache, or (as you later added) that the coordinates were soft?

 

Out here in central MN, it seems like I have found quite a few caches in the hollow of a tree trunk that have a piece of bark covering the cache - Ive even found one cache (w/o my GPS) by looking for such beacon

I figured if they were holding their GPS about belly level, then would be looking down for the most part and see these branches covering the whole, making it the obvious spot

 

You can actually see the hole in the log where the cache is actually at if from your vehicle when you park (which I know for a fact that one finder saw it and didnt even go for the decoy)

 

Its only a D2 cause the fact that the actual location and the decoy location are so close together

Without the decoy, it would be a D1.5

My coords are right on, Ive had two of the finders say their GPS si showing 5-10feet when they are holding the cache in their hands

Im pretty anal about getting the best coords I can before I do a hide, this one I had to do about 6 times before I got a set of coords that took me to the correct spot

 

I do really like the thought of having a decoy to help you out with a "lure you in" decoy

Not the reason I put a decoy, just thought I would have a little fun

 

Racettes

[+harbhippo]

I wouldn't mind a decoy that plainly states it's not the cache. What chaps my hide is finding a container at exactly the coordinates, opening it to find a log with a number of signatures, no clear hint that it isn't the real cache - and then having the log deleted after I'm home, 400 miles away, and getting an email inviting me to come back and try again. Maybe people who plant decoys could include something in the hint that there might be a decoy involved? Ya think? So we could keep looking while we're in the same state??

 

You people that like decoys go ahead and enjoy them. But my experience with GC1TEE2 has pretty much soured me on the concept. At the very least, you should visit your cache once in a while and remove any logs that have appeared.

[+Doctroid]

Hmm, I've never seen a cache with a decoy. Western US phenomenon? Or am I just (un)lucky?

 

Having read this, I think if I were to plant a decoy, I'd use a container filled with concrete (and a note).

[+niraD]

harbhippo - I imagine it would be very annoying to discover that you didn't find the actual cache in such a situation.

 

I found a decoy that contained a laminated note that clearly said that this was not the cache, and that you needed to go back and solve the puzzle correctly. It still acquired a "replacement" log sheet, and a few people signed it before the CO figured out what was going on.

 

I think the best decoys are ones that cannot be mistaken for containers. A solid object with an explanation written on it cannot acquire a "replacement" log sheet.