Jump to content

MINGO in jeopardy?


Followers 14

Recommended Posts

As it is, this has turned into a cache thief's wildest dream. I can just see him now sitting in his undies in his mom's basement eating cheetos and giggling his butt off while reading this thread and the notes on the cache listing.

 

Wow! Did you see this picture in the gallery?!?

 

ar12827475502798.JPG

 

I KNEW IT!!! I KNEW HE WAS A CHEETOS EATING FOOL! :D

Link to comment

"The first time it went missing was June 26th. The cachers found an empty hole and drove 8 miles to find a suitable replacement. When they returned, it was filled with dirt. They dug out the dirt and replaced it. It sounds like a good samaritan act to me.

 

The second time it went missing was 3 months later on September 25th, when the hole was filled in with insulation foam. At that time it was replaced with a bison tube. A month or so went by before the CO replaced it with a similar container.

 

Since it has gone missing again and filled with cement."

 

I do not think that it was a cacher that took the cache, filled the hole with dirt, insulation and then concrete. I think that it was someone who lives or works in the area that just got irritated at cachers parking along the road. Or cachers using driveways to back out or turn around. Or for any reason.

Link to comment

Of course many presume that the cache is not buried IN the concrete/cement/grout with the stake in it! It may well be under the plug.

 

Foam capped with cement/concrete is also a way that a few groups cap old wells. There are well registry projects in many areas, they also watch for old mine shafts. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Mingo's hole in the ground was actually a pipe, so it might have been a water well or something. Looks like not a good area for oil etc. but test wells get put everywhere in the past.

 

Just a thought

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

Of course many presume that the cache is not buried IN the concrete/cement/grout with the stake in it! It may well be under the plug.

 

Foam capped with cement/concrete is also a way that a few groups cap old wells. There are well registry projects in many areas, they also watch for old mine shafts. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Mingo's hole in the ground was actually a pipe, so it might have been a water well or something. Looks like not a good area for oil etc. but test wells get put everywhere in the past.

 

Just a thought

 

Doug 7rxc

 

Little known fact. Jed Clampett was a geocacher.

Link to comment

Of course many presume that the cache is not buried IN the concrete/cement/grout with the stake in it! It may well be under the plug.

 

Foam capped with cement/concrete is also a way that a few groups cap old wells. There are well registry projects in many areas, they also watch for old mine shafts. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Mingo's hole in the ground was actually a pipe, so it might have been a water well or something. Looks like not a good area for oil etc. but test wells get put everywhere in the past.

 

Just a thought

 

Doug 7rxc

 

That would be possible, except that it had been ok for 10 years. Why the sudden urge to fill with dirt, then foam, then concrete in random intervals? The DOT is well aware of it, and has given express permission knowing the exact nature of the hide, so it seems awfully suspicious as if someone is trying to make it appear that it is official in some way.

Link to comment

This cache has become somewhat of a joke in my opinion. People continue to talk about the need to keep it going in their logs while they post finds on a cache that is temporarily disabled and according to the owners own note needs to be replaced. But does the owner make any effort to maintain the cache page and delete logs of those that clearly did not find the cache? Nope. Because it seems that having the oldest inactive active geocache is more important than expecting people to only log legitimate finds. I will say again that I think the powers that be have given far too much special consideration to this cache.

Link to comment

I see my old pal Frank is still posting "it's just a game", and "get a life" posts to threads. You need to find something else to do, Frank. :ph34r:

 

Now, seeing as this is a forum for the (admittedly small percentage) of Geocachers who like to offer opinions on Geocaching, here's mine. This is The Kansas Stasher's note posted to the Mingo cache page earlier this month:

 

I will try to get out to Mingo and repair the cache in the next week or so.

 

On a personal note, I think a lot of people are taking geocaching way too serious. This started out as a "hey do you think we could hid something and have someone find it with only a GPS" idea on the news groups. It turned out to be fun and spread. Now we have too many rules and arguments about the size and types of caches, is it the "original" container or not. In my opinion, if you find the location, you can log it on the website (and don't start the virtual cache argument with me). Since this one is getting vandalized so often, you have to make exceptions.

 

Enough of my rant, Mingo will return.

 

To me, this statement screams laid back old timer. He doesn't know or care anything about Power trails, LPC's, metal boxes on transformers, etc..... It almost seems like a "there's still 200 caches in the whole world" opinion. :P

 

It could be read that he has no problem with people finding a replacement bison tube (and I'll bet you a dollar he doesn't even know what a bison tube is :lol:), but I read it more as he is actually OK with people just finding the spot, or location. This to me says he would have no problem at all "changing" his cache to a virtual, which was a VERY COMMON opinion and practice among laid back old timers in the 2000-2002 era.

 

But of course that ain't gonna happen. And from the reviewer notes posted to the page, permanent bison tube ain't gonna happen either. If it were just any old repeatedly muggled cache, it would be time to let it go. I suppose it would be time for this one too.

Link to comment

JeePSer it is just a fun game sir.... with no prizes or scoreboards.

 

But he's right. Most "normal" caches in this situation would have been shut down for good by this time.

 

..... and

All caches needs to be treated equal by the law of the land.

 

Actually most "normal" caches in this situation would have been enabled by now.

 

There is absolutely no reason why the size cannot be changed from regular to micro, especially with a persistent muggle problem.

 

The only reason why it is disabled is because the reviewer does not like micros.

Link to comment

I see my old pal Frank is still posting "it's just a game", and "get a life" posts to threads. You need to find something else to do, Frank. :ph34r:

 

Huh? Me?? not a chance, you cannot see through my simple diabolical style of keeping alive..... how dastardly! :P

 

Really though, no way on the get a life.... you read too much into that one my north towns friend. Just stirring the soup as it was starting to burn.

Link to comment

 

The only reason why it is disabled is because the reviewer does not like micros.

 

hmmm i was curious where that comment comes from

so i found this...is this reviewer for real? :blink::rolleyes:

 

all i can say is: ridiculous!

 

Post Reviewer Note Post Reviewer Note

12/19/2011

 

Mingo is not Mingo unless it is a regular-sized container. I disabled it last time a micro showed up in it's place and will do so again if anything besides a regular shows up. This historic cache needs to be done right, or not done at all.

Link to comment

Although this in no way seems related to Mingo I did check out your links and would think that if there was no active webcam then there couldn't possibly be an active webcam cache. I like others hate to see webcam and virtual caches go since once they are all gone they are gone. But if the webcam is no longer there keeping the cache active makes about as much sense as keeping a virtual cache active even though the thing it was supposed to be bringing you to see no longer exists.

Edited by Sandy
edited removed quote linking to a cacher's profile
Link to comment

 

The only reason why it is disabled is because the reviewer does not like micros.

 

hmmm i was curious where that comment comes from

so i found this...is this reviewer for real? :blink::rolleyes:

 

all i can say is: ridiculous!

 

Post Reviewer Note Post Reviewer Note

12/19/2011

 

Mingo is not Mingo unless it is a regular-sized container. I disabled it last time a micro showed up in it's place and will do so again if anything besides a regular shows up. This historic cache needs to be done right, or not done at all.

 

Okay, so I will spare everyone my personal opinion on whether Mingo should stay or whether it being replaced by a micro is dumb.

 

That being said I cannot believe that a Reviewer is making up rules as they go! If I were the CO I would not stand for that. Unless I'm missing something it appears as if this reviewer is allowing their personal opinion about what this cache should be to decide its fate. Mingo or a random L and L, that would bother me either way. Makes me yet again very thankful for the AWESOME 4 reviewers I am privileged to deal with on a regular basis.

Link to comment

 

The only reason why it is disabled is because the reviewer does not like micros.

 

hmmm i was curious where that comment comes from

so i found this...is this reviewer for real? :blink::rolleyes:

 

all i can say is: ridiculous!

 

Post Reviewer Note Post Reviewer Note

12/19/2011

 

Mingo is not Mingo unless it is a regular-sized container. I disabled it last time a micro showed up in it's place and will do so again if anything besides a regular shows up. This historic cache needs to be done right, or not done at all.

 

Okay, so I will spare everyone my personal opinion on whether Mingo should stay or whether it being replaced by a micro is dumb.

 

That being said I cannot believe that a Reviewer is making up rules as they go! If I were the CO I would not stand for that. Unless I'm missing something it appears as if this reviewer is allowing their personal opinion about what this cache should be to decide its fate. Mingo or a random L and L, that would bother me either way. Makes me yet again very thankful for the AWESOME 4 reviewers I am privileged to deal with on a regular basis.

 

Oh gosh, in this particular case, oldest active cache in the world, I'm gonna bet tbe reviewer got guidance from Groundspeak, or the super top-secret reviewer only forum. Heck, there could very well be a "mingo in jeopardy" thread over there too. :lol:

 

I must agree with the basic premise, there are many who think some reviewers make up their own rules. :ph34r:

 

 

 

:) I was being very sarcastic.

 

Yes, and they say I am bad.... {grin}

 

No, not "they", that was just me, Frank. :lol:

Link to comment

There's no reason a cache owner shouldn't be allowed to replace a regular container with a micro, even if its a historic cache. A few of the other early hides have shrunk in size over time or turned into virtuals. But if some random cacher replaces a lost regular container with a micro, then I think its within the Reviewers rights to archive the cache assuming the cache owner is no longer active.

 

Fortunately, Kansas Stasher is still around.

Link to comment

The only reason why it is disabled is because the reviewer does not like micros.

 

hmmm i was curious where that comment comes from

so i found this...is this reviewer for real? :blink::rolleyes:

 

all i can say is: ridiculous!

 

Post Reviewer Note Post Reviewer Note

12/19/2011

 

Mingo is not Mingo unless it is a regular-sized container. I disabled it last time a micro showed up in it's place and will do so again if anything besides a regular shows up. This historic cache needs to be done right, or not done at all.

 

Okay, so I will spare everyone my personal opinion on whether Mingo should stay or whether it being replaced by a micro is dumb.

 

That being said I cannot believe that a Reviewer is making up rules as they go! If I were the CO I would not stand for that. Unless I'm missing something it appears as if this reviewer is allowing their personal opinion about what this cache should be to decide its fate. Mingo or a random L and L, that would bother me either way. Makes me yet again very thankful for the AWESOME 4 reviewers I am privileged to deal with on a regular basis.

 

Oh gosh, in this particular case, oldest active cache in the world, I'm gonna bet tbe reviewer got guidance from Groundspeak, or the super top-secret reviewer only forum. Heck, there could very well be a "mingo in jeopardy" thread over there too. :lol:

 

I must agree with the basic premise, there are many who think some reviewers make up their own rules. :ph34r:

 

 

:) I was being very sarcastic.

 

Yes, and they say I am bad.... {grin}

 

No, not "they", that was just me, Frank. :lol:

 

haha you big bully you...:P

Link to comment

The reviewer noted today The ominous tick tick tick of the archive clock...

 

the same reviewer which said that Mingo should be the same size it originally was or not be at all, which seems out of left field to me given its just a traditional. Unless Groundspeak is instructing guidance on this one, I wish a different reviewer would handle this cache or explain themselves where in the guidelines it says it needs to be.

Link to comment

Not many reviewers want to deal with this issue. (its common for reviewers to ask another reviewer to over look a "hot" cache) Its hot radiation and you need a correct suit for it. :laughing:

 

I am really sure there is a topic about this cache in the reviewer forum of how to handle it. I also got a feeling that this reviewer isnt acting alone (assuming they are working together and only one reviewer is doing the "dirty" work.) In other words, dont take it out on this reviewer because you might have no idea how many reviewers are working together on this and maybe a few of GS are behind this as well. Take it out on him, but you might be taking it out on the whole team work.

 

This same reviewer archived a really old cache in Cal because the CO was giving him a run around. Dont play around with a reviewer or your cache will get archived. :unsure:

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

I've noticed that there are three new logs for Mingo, even though it is disabled (two in the past 48 hours). One alludes to a cache container being there. Is that possible that it's been replaced but not activated?

 

The most recent of those logs:

 

Found the replacement container soon after and signed the log.

 

I'm sure the cache owner can change the container size, just like any of us can. But the reviewer has stated that the micro replacement cache is not the cache owner's cache, and I have to agree with him. Its been almost a month since Kansas Stasher has said that he will get over there and check on it, and yet he hasn't done so yet. That is not cache maintenance... that is cache neglect.

Link to comment

I'm in the camp that MINGO is not MINGO if it's a Bison tube.

I see this in no way a reviewer "making up rules". Many cachers share this opinion. This is simply the opinion of a loyal cacher that has concern about the integrity of the game/sport/hobby.

 

There are three key elements that make up a cache in my mind. Location, Hide and Container. As these elements change, the original cache become less like itself and more like a new placement. Changing two of these elements should result in re-listing of the cache. For that reason, changing the container size really isn't acceptable as the physical location isn't that spectacular (the main reason for bring a player there by 2012 standards). So it would seem that unfortunately, MINGO has run it's course.

 

However, there is hope. Unless a cache is on private property it can be restored. Every time is see a cache involuntarily archived by a reviewer, I see this text in the archive note "If you wish to repair/replace the cache sometime in the future, just contact us (by email, include the GC Code), and assuming it meets the guidelines, we'll be happy to unarchive it." So, why can't the cache just be archived and then, when it meets the guidelines and is returned to MINGO's original glory it can be un-archived.

Edited by ekitt10
Link to comment

I see this in no way a reviewer "making up rules".

I'm in agreement with everything except this line. The Reviewers have certain limits on their authority. Refusing to activate a cache listing solely because of the container, goes well outside those limits. There is no "rule" saying a Reviewer can enforce their personal bias. Since the Reviewer is enforcing their personal bias, they are, by definition, "making up rules".

 

But I'm with you on Mingo ain't Mingo if it's a Bison tube. :ph34r:

Link to comment

I see this in no way a reviewer "making up rules".

I'm in agreement with everything except this line. The Reviewers have certain limits on their authority. Refusing to activate a cache listing solely because of the container, goes well outside those limits. There is no "rule" saying a Reviewer can enforce their personal bias. Since the Reviewer is enforcing their personal bias, they are, by definition, "making up rules".

 

But I'm with you on Mingo ain't Mingo if it's a Bison tube. :ph34r:

 

Why not - with the argument always being made that GS is "just" a listing service, if the "OWNER" wants to change it, is it not his prerogative?

Link to comment

There are three key elements that make up a cache in my mind. Location, Hide and Container. As these elements change, the original cache become less like itself and more like a new placement. Changing two of these elements should result in re-listing of the cache. For that reason, changing the container size really isn't acceptable as the physical location isn't that spectacular (the main reason for bring a player there by 2012 standards).

 

The cache is whatever the cache owner wishes to make of it. Kansas stasher, like many CO's, are more focused on the location than the container. It's their choice.

Edited by Ecylram
Link to comment

I see this in no way a reviewer "making up rules".

I'm in agreement with everything except this line. The Reviewers have certain limits on their authority. Refusing to activate a cache listing solely because of the container, goes well outside those limits. There is no "rule" saying a Reviewer can enforce their personal bias. Since the Reviewer is enforcing their personal bias, they are, by definition, "making up rules".

...

 

Perhaps I missed this detail, by why can't the CO enable the cache.

 

FWIW, I can't recall a time when one of my local reviewers enabled a cache. That is usually left up to the CO

 

But I'm with you on Mingo ain't Mingo if it's a Bison tube. :ph34r:

 

Why not - with the argument always being made that GS is "just" a listing service, if the "OWNER" wants to change it, is it not his prerogative?

 

This is true. But it really drives to the point. What is a Geocache?

If it's a combination of Geographical Location, Physical Hide, and Container. Which in the case of MINGO is Somewhere in the middle of Kansas, in a hole along a fence and a 6" round white with black lid container. Than the current incarnation of MINGO has a significant change on two of those points. The finders experience is significantly different.

 

It's like saying Van Halen was the same band after they kick DLR out or Aerosmith was the same after a couple of months with Betty White. <_<:rolleyes::smile:

Link to comment

I've noticed that there are three new logs for Mingo, even though it is disabled (two in the past 48 hours). One alludes to a cache container being there. Is that possible that it's been replaced but not activated?

 

The most recent of those logs:

 

Found the replacement container soon after and signed the log.

 

I'm sure the cache owner can change the container size, just like any of us can. But the reviewer has stated that the micro replacement cache is not the cache owner's cache, and I have to agree with him. Its been almost a month since Kansas Stasher has said that he will get over there and check on it, and yet he hasn't done so yet. That is not cache maintenance... that is cache neglect.

I would agree with this...

[opinion]

I think the reviewer was making a comment about those not finding the cache and placing a "throw-down" mirco in order to be able to log the cache...and addressing emails and comments the reviewer most likely received from various people watching that cache and asking some one to step in and do something...

[/opinion]

Link to comment

I'm in the camp that MINGO is not MINGO if it's a Bison tube.

I see this in no way a reviewer "making up rules". Many cachers share this opinion. This is simply the opinion of a loyal cacher that has concern about the integrity of the game/sport/hobby.

 

There are three key elements that make up a cache in my mind. Location, Hide and Container. As these elements change, the original cache become less like itself and more like a new placement. Changing two of these elements should result in re-listing of the cache. For that reason, changing the container size really isn't acceptable as the physical location isn't that spectacular (the main reason for bring a player there by 2012 standards). So it would seem that unfortunately, MINGO has run it's course.

 

 

If Groundspeak wanted every cache listing to remain as it was the day it was published, they'd take away the tools to edit anything about your cache page. If that were the case, if you were tired of your ammo can being stolen and wanted to change it to a micro, you couldn't and the listing would be archived. As has been pointed out, GS simply lists the geocache. The cache owner is free to make changes the page and swap out an ammo can for a bison tube, if that is what they wish to do. A reviewer stepping in and telling the owner they can't change container sizes IS making up rules.

Link to comment
But I'm with you on Mingo ain't Mingo if it's a Bison tube. :ph34r:

 

Why not - if the "OWNER" wants to change it, is it not his prerogative?

 

I should have specified that the last statement was simply my opinion on Mingo, and in no way should be interpreted as anything official. When I envision Mingo, my brain produces a regular, not a micro. That's just a quirk deep down in my gray matter. I should probably point out that any opinion I might offer is less than valid, as I've never been to Mingo.

 

Obviously, the cache belongs to the owner, and they can do with it as they wish.

Link to comment
But I'm with you on Mingo ain't Mingo if it's a Bison tube. :ph34r:

 

Why not - if the "OWNER" wants to change it, is it not his prerogative?

 

I should have specified that the last statement was simply my opinion on Mingo, and in no way should be interpreted as anything official. When I envision Mingo, my brain produces a regular, not a micro. That's just a quirk deep down in my gray matter. I should probably point out that any opinion I might offer is less than valid, as I've never been to Mingo.

 

Obviously, the cache belongs to the owner, and they can do with it as they wish.

 

Got ya! kapeesh!

Link to comment

I'm in the camp that MINGO is not MINGO if it's a Bison tube.

I see this in no way a reviewer "making up rules". Many cachers share this opinion. This is simply the opinion of a loyal cacher that has concern about the integrity of the game/sport/hobby.

 

There are three key elements that make up a cache in my mind. Location, Hide and Container. As these elements change, the original cache become less like itself and more like a new placement. Changing two of these elements should result in re-listing of the cache. For that reason, changing the container size really isn't acceptable as the physical location isn't that spectacular (the main reason for bring a player there by 2012 standards). So it would seem that unfortunately, MINGO has run it's course.

 

----snip---

 

I agree. There is nothing historic about Mingo in it's current form. Container isn't original, it's a completely different size, no original logbook or even an older logbook, and hide the style is totally different. People who are finding Mingo now are not finding the same Mingo that the rest of the caching world has been finding for the past 10 years.

 

The only thing that is being perpetuated here is an online listing.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 14
×
×
  • Create New...