Jump to content

Caching Standards


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

I was somewhat displeased to receive a bunch of logs on some of my caches today where, almost every log gave a clear indication of each cache position. Two of the logs revealed that those paper logs were not signed, one being too squishy the other they were in to much of a hurry to sign it.

 

The caches were set with no or minimal hints by choice and are not difficult, although some seem to struggle at times.

 

That in my view is how caching should be, no reading/decrypting hints before commencing a seek, just difficuly enough to require a hunt but not prolonged.

 

My immediate response was to email the seeker thanking him for his logs but I would rather not receive logs of that type.

 

Also;

 

"The question that comes to the fore is;

 

Why do you geocache?

 

When;

 

You explicitly reveal the hide in your logs,

 

You claim finds on caches where you reveal you haven't fulfilled the basic requirement of signing the mandatory log within.

 

The series has brought much pleasure to many, none are difficult finds although some seem to struggle. that is what caching is about though. Now the future of the series is in the balance as I might archive the lot as a result of your logs."

 

Do others think caching standards or morals are dropping? Was I justified in my retort? Or am I just a Grumpy Old G**? :anicute:

Link to comment

I was somewhat displeased to receive a bunch of logs on some of my caches today where, almost every log gave a clear indication of each cache position. Two of the logs revealed that those paper logs were not signed, one being too squishy the other they were in to much of a hurry to sign it.

 

The caches were set with no or minimal hints by choice and are not difficult, although some seem to struggle at times.

 

That in my view is how caching should be, no reading/decrypting hints before commencing a seek, just difficuly enough to require a hunt but not prolonged.

 

My immediate response was to email the seeker thanking him for his logs but I would rather not receive logs of that type.

 

Also;

 

"The question that comes to the fore is;

 

Why do you geocache?

 

When;

 

You explicitly reveal the hide in your logs,

 

You claim finds on caches where you reveal you haven't fulfilled the basic requirement of signing the mandatory log within.

 

The series has brought much pleasure to many, none are difficult finds although some seem to struggle. that is what caching is about though. Now the future of the series is in the balance as I might archive the lot as a result of your logs."

 

Do others think caching standards or morals are dropping? Was I justified in my retort? Or am I just a Grumpy Old G**? :anicute:

 

I totally agree with you - maybe I am a GOG though!

But far too many logs just say "TFTC" or even less and far too many micros are placed where this is plenty of opportunity for a decent box not to mention the cache descriptions and logs where the cacher does not seem to know how to use capitals or punctuation!

Oh dear , I really am getting to be a GOG. I even had a cache archived yesterday - but it was in the middle of a field of newly planted crops with no access. Now of course all my caches are perfect . . . !!

Edited by John Stead
Link to comment

Were they fairly new cachers?

 

Squishy log? Hmmmm. How squishy is unwritable, I wonder?

 

As for "they were in to much of a hurry to sign it" I wouldn't have any sympathy with that! Delete! :D

 

It's your choice whether there should be any hint for your cache so I'd suggest you could either permanently decrypt their log, or email them and ask them to edit it, or (use with caution!) delete their log and explain why and ask them to re-log it.

 

See info here: Knowledge Books - Log Deletion

 

MrsB

Link to comment

If I saw a log saying they were in too much of a hurry to sign the log I'd delete it straight away!

 

What an cheek!

 

When we did the Way Down West series last year, the last person to log a find on each cache hadn't signed any of the logs 'to save time' and even claimed a find on ones they admitted they couldn't find!

 

 

Mark

Link to comment

Yep, if they didn't sign then it's a DNF. If they did find the cache and signed the logbook, then I'm afraid you'll have to accept that they can write as little or as much as they like in the log. It's not up to you to influence that. "TFTC" is perfectly fine, so is ".".

I should add that many people like to look at the hint before commencing the search. If you prefer not to; fine, but don't insist that other people should cache that way. It's still valid and shouldn't be criticised.

That's quite different from claiming a find without actually signing the log book (as best you can) which is not actually geocaching.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

Cachers profile claims to have cached in almost 100 countries with sub 500 finds.

 

The squishy cache log was checked today as I work within a few hundred yards. Its been squashed into the container instead of being tightly rolled over the term, there was plenty of white space remaining its not pristine but certainly not sodden.

The other one not signed was where a completely new container was placed a month ago and should only carry 3 legitimate logs. Both of these caches does need a seeker of a certain stature, but that is advised on the cache pages.

 

Though I could hit the delete button I'm unlikely to. Likewise I'm unlikely to complete my threat to archive them, after all the logs will drop off most seekers scope of view within a few finds.

 

It did irritate initially though and I contrast it to the honesty and morals of another seeker of my caches with a similar cache find count, who when offered the opportunity to log a technical find on a missing (now archived) cache, declined saying I'll only log caches I actually find. We all know often greater effort is put into finding a missing cache than a present one. This particular cacher also does not use a GPSr finding all caches by maps alone.

I know which type of log I prefer. :D

 

It'll be good to see what the topic reveals on folks conjecture of standards though, keep your views coming. ;)

Link to comment

I'd not get too uptight about any of this; after all who is it hurting, blood pressure can lead to worse things than an unsigned log book.

 

(If this post has caused you, or any of your friends distress by it's nature or content, please contact the Author directly, and he will put you in touch with an organisation in your area who might be able to help you through the issues raised)

Link to comment
Do others think caching standards or morals are dropping? Was I justified in my retort? Or am I just a Grumpy Old G**? :anicute:

 

Posting information in logs that's enough to give away the location of the cache is the kind of thing that just seems out of line to me, especially if the cache page is structured so as not to give too much away. I'm not a cache owner but if I were that's the kind of thing I'd delete and invite the cacher to log again without the spoilers.

 

If the log isn't signed then I'd say it's up to the cache owner whether to accept a Found log based on whatever evidence is provided that the cache was found. Some folks are sticklers for the log being signed, personally I'm more interested in whether the cache was demonstrably found or not. If I found a cache but couldn't open it because it was rusted shut I'd still claim a find (obviously if opening it was part of the challenge, like some of purple pineapple's RTB caches then failure to open it would count as failure to find). If the log was sodden and I couldn't mark it, or if I didn't have a pen with me (I have been known to lose my pen on a caching run) then I'd still consider it a Find but would post evidence I had actually found it (e.g. a photo of the cache, or a note to the owner with a description of the hide that is sufficiently detailed to confirm I found it). Obviously a bit of common sense is needed - I've "found" caches in the sense I sighted the cache 20 feet up a tree from the ground, but since the goal was clearly to climb the tree and retrieve it I wrote a note (I couldn't class it as a Find because I hadn't done what was obviously needed to retrieve it, but didn't want to log a DNF because the cache was visible in place)

Link to comment

I sign all I find.

I log all finds and also DNF's.

I appreciate the hints and think there should be 2 levels of hints. 1 the original hint from the placer and the second by people who find it and think the original clue was too hard or easy. which tends to happen in the logs.

 

I havent found many yet as I have not been able to get out too often due to illness.

 

I can understand that in certain circumstances why someone might not be able to sign a log as my illness has left me wearing a nappy permanently and I would rather abandon what I am doing and get to a loo than fill it.

 

Fortunately, I have so far not been in the above predicament but would go back as soon as possible even if it was a week later to sign the log.

 

The person who didnt sign your logs could have problems, they may also believe your clue or lack of are wrong.

 

I do not condone laziness and agree with what you said on the whole.

However, be aware that there may be circumstances that you are not aware of.

 

None of the above is meant to offend and if I have spoken out of turn (again) I am sure I will be shot.

Link to comment

... think there should be 2 levels of hints. 1 the original hint from the placer and the second by people who find it and think the original clue was too hard or easy. ...

 

Depending on the location and difficulty a hint on the cache page can be invaluable so I'm with you on the first part; however it's not up to finders to decide how easy or difficult a cache should be so finders shouldn't put hints in their logs just because they think it's too difficult, and the hider would be quite right to ask for these to be removed.

Link to comment

... think there should be 2 levels of hints. 1 the original hint from the placer and the second by people who find it and think the original clue was too hard or easy. ...

 

Depending on the location and difficulty a hint on the cache page can be invaluable so I'm with you on the first part; however it's not up to finders to decide how easy or difficult a cache should be so finders shouldn't put hints in their logs just because they think it's too difficult, and the hider would be quite right to ask for these to be removed.

 

Thats fair enough, but if there was a way of the finder posting a hint that could be encrypted like the hiders hint that would be better for those absolute hard ones. I am not saying to spoil it by saying where it is but extra hints may be needed sometimes.

Link to comment

... think there should be 2 levels of hints. 1 the original hint from the placer and the second by people who find it and think the original clue was too hard or easy. ...

 

Depending on the location and difficulty a hint on the cache page can be invaluable so I'm with you on the first part; however it's not up to finders to decide how easy or difficult a cache should be so finders shouldn't put hints in their logs just because they think it's too difficult, and the hider would be quite right to ask for these to be removed.

 

Thats fair enough, but if there was a way of the finder posting a hint that could be encrypted like the hiders hint that would be better for those absolute hard ones. I am not saying to spoil it by saying where it is but extra hints may be needed sometimes.

 

Surely it is up to the cache setter how hard or easy the cache is.... If someone thinks it is too hard they should say so and suggest that the difficulty rating may need upping. If they think caches should be handed over on a plate let them set their own.. I might read a log to see what others thought as it can help with a search (clever hide... never seen one like this)but to be handed a direct spoiler........

Oh and no log no find if you haven't got time call again and then you have the find

Link to comment

... think there should be 2 levels of hints. 1 the original hint from the placer and the second by people who find it and think the original clue was too hard or easy. ...

 

Depending on the location and difficulty a hint on the cache page can be invaluable so I'm with you on the first part; however it's not up to finders to decide how easy or difficult a cache should be so finders shouldn't put hints in their logs just because they think it's too difficult, and the hider would be quite right to ask for these to be removed.

 

Thats fair enough, but if there was a way of the finder posting a hint that could be encrypted like the hiders hint that would be better for those absolute hard ones. I am not saying to spoil it by saying where it is but extra hints may be needed sometimes.

 

Surely it is up to the cache setter how hard or easy the cache is.... If someone thinks it is too hard they should say so and suggest that the difficulty rating may need upping. If they think caches should be handed over on a plate let them set their own.. I might read a log to see what others thought as it can help with a search (clever hide... never seen one like this)but to be handed a direct spoiler........

Oh and no log no find if you haven't got time call again and then you have the find

 

You have missed the point that I was trying to make.

Link to comment

Thats fair enough, but if there was a way of the finder posting a hint that could be encrypted like the hiders hint that would be better for those absolute hard ones.

 

There is, when writing your online log tick the box saying "Encrypt this log entry", and then put the text you DONT want encrypted between [ ] . E.G.

 

[had a lovely walk,] its under the dead tree [ thanks for the cache]

 

I still think the hints should be up to the hider and finders shouldn't take it upon themselves to give extra hints; I've only ever used this when I wanted to make reference to the hints the cache hider gave and I didn't want to give anything else away.

Link to comment

Thats fair enough, but if there was a way of the finder posting a hint that could be encrypted like the hiders hint that would be better for those absolute hard ones.

 

There is, when writing your online log tick the box saying "Encrypt this log entry", and then put the text you DONT want encrypted between [ ] . E.G.

 

[had a lovely walk,] its under the dead tree [ thanks for the cache]

 

I still think the hints should be up to the hider and finders shouldn't take it upon themselves to give extra hints; I've only ever used this when I wanted to make reference to the hints the cache hider gave and I didn't want to give anything else away.

 

I dont know how I missed that, I know I havent found many but hey ho, I must wear my glasses more.

Thanks ever so much.

Link to comment

... think there should be 2 levels of hints. 1 the original hint from the placer and the second by people who find it and think the original clue was too hard or easy. ...

 

Depending on the location and difficulty a hint on the cache page can be invaluable so I'm with you on the first part; however it's not up to finders to decide how easy or difficult a cache should be so finders shouldn't put hints in their logs just because they think it's too difficult, and the hider would be quite right to ask for these to be removed.

 

Thats fair enough, but if there was a way of the finder posting a hint that could be encrypted like the hiders hint that would be better for those absolute hard ones. I am not saying to spoil it by saying where it is but extra hints may be needed sometimes.

 

Surely it is up to the cache setter how hard or easy the cache is.... If someone thinks it is too hard they should say so and suggest that the difficulty rating may need upping. If they think caches should be handed over on a plate let them set their own.. I might read a log to see what others thought as it can help with a search (clever hide... never seen one like this)but to be handed a direct spoiler........

Oh and no log no find if you haven't got time call again and then you have the find

 

You have missed the point that I was trying to make.

 

Sorry should have said 'you can encrypt logs......etc' but my point was if you encrypt a log how do I know that it contains a direct spoiler before I decode it. If the CO had wanted to tell me where it was they would have put it in their clue. To me it's just like a log saying I didn't like where you hid your cache so I moved it

Edited by fuzzybears
Link to comment

... think there should be 2 levels of hints. 1 the original hint from the placer and the second by people who find it and think the original clue was too hard or easy. ...

 

Depending on the location and difficulty a hint on the cache page can be invaluable so I'm with you on the first part; however it's not up to finders to decide how easy or difficult a cache should be so finders shouldn't put hints in their logs just because they think it's too difficult, and the hider would be quite right to ask for these to be removed.

 

Thats fair enough, but if there was a way of the finder posting a hint that could be encrypted like the hiders hint that would be better for those absolute hard ones. I am not saying to spoil it by saying where it is but extra hints may be needed sometimes.

 

Surely it is up to the cache setter how hard or easy the cache is.... If someone thinks it is too hard they should say so and suggest that the difficulty rating may need upping. If they think caches should be handed over on a plate let them set their own.. I might read a log to see what others thought as it can help with a search (clever hide... never seen one like this)but to be handed a direct spoiler........

Oh and no log no find if you haven't got time call again and then you have the find

 

You have missed the point that I was trying to make.

 

Sorry should have said 'you can encrypt logs......etc' but my point was if you encrypt a log how do I know that it contains a direct spoiler before I decode it. If the CO had wanted to tell me where it was they would have put it in their clue. To me it's just like a log saying I didn't like where you hid your cache so I moved it

 

At no point would I expect a direct "where it is" in any clue.

Recent cache that I didnt find that could have done with an extra clue was "First Kiss". Why - well the clue which I only read after going said it was underneath some concrete.

 

There had been some dumping of concrete, tarmac, cement, posts etc at least 6 months ago going off the growth around it.

~~~

My point has been answered.

However, I was trying to point out to the original poster that there are cases when a second layer of help could be invaluable.

~~~

Link to comment

Although i have been caching for only a little while compared to some (a mere 3 years)i have noticed a drop of in cache etiquette.

The logs have become shorter, personally i blame iPhones and the like where logs are done on the fly.

I also think that if more cachers were encouraged onto the forums things would improve.

I have also in the past found the need to delete logs, but found a polite email to the log owner asking them to refrain from making blatant comments about the cache in question.

It is entirely up to the Cache owner to set the difficulty of the cache, but up to cachers to suggest whether this is correct or not, preferably in their DNF logs ( which i always log even on the 10th attempt).

However whether the grammar is correct, well that's a personal thing, i just prefer a decent understandable log. I thank god for google chrome which does try its best to point out my spelling mistakes but does not always offer the required word while its trying to correct me, as not every one left school with all the education one should have and i was terrible at english all those years ago and a bit dyslexic (and google chrome came to the rescue on that one!).

 

Edited to try and correct everything that was wrong.

Edited by burtsbodgers
Link to comment

I was somewhat displeased to receive a bunch of logs on some of my caches today where, almost every log gave a clear indication of each cache position. Two of the logs revealed that those paper logs were not signed, one being too squishy the other they were in to much of a hurry to sign it.

 

The caches were set with no or minimal hints by choice and are not difficult, although some seem to struggle at times.

 

That in my view is how caching should be, no reading/decrypting hints before commencing a seek, just difficuly enough to require a hunt but not prolonged.

 

My immediate response was to email the seeker thanking him for his logs but I would rather not receive logs of that type.

 

Also;

 

"The question that comes to the fore is;

 

Why do you geocache?

 

When;

 

You explicitly reveal the hide in your logs,

 

You claim finds on caches where you reveal you haven't fulfilled the basic requirement of signing the mandatory log within.

 

The series has brought much pleasure to many, none are difficult finds although some seem to struggle. that is what caching is about though. Now the future of the series is in the balance as I might archive the lot as a result of your logs."

 

Do others think caching standards or morals are dropping? Was I justified in my retort? Or am I just a Grumpy Old G**? :anicute:

Link to comment

I'm a bit late replying to this but there are some dreadful standards creeping in. A recent find by a geocaching friend of mine was a glove - yes, that's right, the cache was a disposable glove. The co-ords were way way off too.

 

I am relatively new to geocaching, having only started in March 2011, but I try to do it right and try to get tips from veterans. A bugbear of mine is when I go to check on my own caches only to discover that one finder has decided to move the cache to a different hide! Close by but not my own hide.

 

Another bugbear is terrible spelling mistakes and grammar in the descriptions / titles eg the use of 'of' instead of 'have' and wonder instead of wander, but perhaps I am being too picky there.

 

Also, there are a number of cachers who want only easy caches....to my mind that's boring. It's nice to have some easy ones but it's great to have a whole range of difficulty.

 

Worst of all though are the cachers who are unfriendly and are annoyed with you if you might get FTF before them / refuse to go for a joint FTF.

 

That's my rant over! Perhaps I should end on a more positive note? I could say lots of good things like how some of the experienced cachers have helped me such a lot with advice, support and encouragement, even passing on their own telephone numbers if I should need advice. Also, how friendly most people are who you meet on the cache trail and how great it is to meet all the friendly people and share a find.

Link to comment

 

That in my view is how caching should be, no reading/decrypting hints before commencing a seek, just difficuly enough to require a hunt but not prolonged.

 

 

Completely agree. I'd vote for doing away with hints completely.

 

I couldn't disagree more, Time and time again I need to use the clue's to find the cache when 15-20mins of fruitless searching has already occured. Unfortunately I find that in a significant number of cases the hint is actually entirely useless, ranging from the cache in a forest with the clue "tree" to some complex riddle that makes little sense to anyone (recent cache in amsterdam hint: "Day or night accessible").

 

I think that the hint is there to help people who are already a bit stuck with a find, making it harder for someone who is likely already frustrated is just being mean and ruins the hobby for some of us.

 

If you don't like hints, fine, don't use them, however often they are needed by many of us.

 

J

Edited by GeekKitty
Link to comment
... making it harder for someone who is likely already frustrated is just being mean and ruins the hobby for some of us.
I'm not for one minute suggesting hints should be done away with, I tend to use them after I've been searching for several minutes, or, if it is a muggly area, I'll look at it even before I start.

 

But the reason for my post isn't really connected with that. It's just to say, try not to get frustrated if you can't find it, and NEVER let a DNF ruin the hobby for you. If you can't find it then just enjoy your walk to the next one, there are 99,999 more caches in the UK, far to many to get upset about not finding one of them.

 

Last Sunday I travelled 250 miles and spent about 4 hours trying to get to a cache, without reaching it. Of course I would rather have found it, but I didn't get upset or lose any sleep over it.

 

On the scale of horrible things that might happen, a DNF doesn't even register :lol: .

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment
... making it harder for someone who is likely already frustrated is just being mean and ruins the hobby for some of us.
I'm not for one minute suggesting hints should be done away with, I tend to use them after I've been searching for several minutes, or, if it is a muggly area, I'll look at it even before I start.

 

But the reason for my post isn't really connected with that. It's just to say, try not to get frustrated if you can't find it, and NEVER let a DNF ruin the hobby for you. If you can't find it then just enjoy your walk to the next one, there are 99,999 more caches in the UK, far to many to get upset about not finding one of them.

 

Last Sunday I travelled 250 miles and spent about 4 hours trying to get to a cache, without reaching it. Of course I would rather have found it, but I didn't get upset or lose any sleep over it.

 

On the scale of horrible things that might happen, a DNF doesn't even register :lol: .

 

Rgds, Andy

 

 

Unfortunately there are so many cachers that ruin the game. Often using the hint as the first location method rather than last resort.

 

That is exactly why I rarely add hints.

 

Some of my latest placed K.I.S.S (Keep It Simple Setter) caches do not declare size, container description or hint.

This reverse psychology seems to work rather well in making seekers focus and be determined to make the find.

One or two have asked for help and made return visits but generally it infuses determination. :smile:

 

Yes there are 90000 caches in the UK but some of us get a little determined with some of them and perhaps my third visit to "Don't Leap Here Grinshill" may be made soon. :smile:

 

One thing we must be thankful for is the flexibility of the placement guidelines, how boring it would be is every box had to be filled in a prescribed format. Individuality rules :D

Link to comment

That is exactly why I rarely add hints.

 

Some of my latest placed K.I.S.S (Keep It Simple Setter) caches do not declare size, container description or hint.

This reverse psychology seems to work rather well in making seekers focus and be determined to make the find.

One or two have asked for help and made return visits but generally it infuses determination. :smile:

 

You see I would look at that, and then move onto other caches nearby, without even bothering with the cache. It takes all the fun out of it to have something entirely impossible. The cache size gives you an idea of what you are looking for, so you aren't looking for a hole in the tree big enough to take a ammo can. Container description allows you to not try and open every pine cone looking for the one with the bison tube in it, hint allows you to waste 10 mins on the DNF, not 1 hour...

 

Just my 2p worth.

 

J

Link to comment

Again its a matter of variety adds the spice. Good hints can be an art form in their own right.

 

I have done series with no hints. Challenging, but I made sure I gave myself time to do each one in the series and didnt get stressed and took it as the challenge it was meant to be.

 

Some cryptic or obtuse hints are excellent and only make sense with a little thought and even some prior preperation. I read a lot of logs where cachers enjoy guessing what the hint could mean as they walk to the cache especially if they are doing a series.

 

I am not keen on high stealth caches so often use the hint straight away for these but on other caches only use the hint as a backstop if we are struggling.

 

Sometimes I wish CO's would put more thought into their hints as I feel they should be 'Hints/clues' not simply telling searches where the cache is. I always feel sorry I looked when it says '3rd raling from left, magnetic, 1 metre up'.

 

Enjoy the hints but CO's should try and make them as interesting as possible.

Link to comment

Again its a matter of variety adds the spice. Good hints can be an art form in their own right.

 

I have done series with no hints. Challenging, but I made sure I gave myself time to do each one in the series and didnt get stressed and took it as the challenge it was meant to be.

 

Some cryptic or obtuse hints are excellent and only make sense with a little thought and even some prior preperation. I read a lot of logs where cachers enjoy guessing what the hint could mean as they walk to the cache especially if they are doing a series.

 

I am not keen on high stealth caches so often use the hint straight away for these but on other caches only use the hint as a backstop if we are struggling.

 

Sometimes I wish CO's would put more thought into their hints as I feel they should be 'Hints/clues' not simply telling searches where the cache is. I always feel sorry I looked when it says '3rd raling from left, magnetic, 1 metre up'.

 

Enjoy the hints but CO's should try and make them as interesting as possible.

 

Very few have trouble, in fact I think the original cache with the clip lock gave more problems that the replacement of unknown size. :D

Its certainly more exciting reading the logs, but judge for yourself (the list for the series is now a little defunct now that the replacements have been placed). :Dhttp://coord.info/GC2RPEH

 

Caching is about achievement and most go away from this one feeling they have achieved something. Not sure who is getting the kisses though :o See 4A for a Risky Kiss :P

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...