MINGO in jeopardy?

4.2k · January 31, 2012

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.

I agree with this completely, and the bolded section even more completely. :huh:

19k · January 31, 2012

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

And this thread. Soon, this thread will probably be considered historic by some.

1.2k · January 31, 2012

Nope...it will be Epic!!!

4.2k · January 31, 2012

MONUMENTAL!!!

2.6k · January 31, 2012

closed and pushed off the bottem of the page

3.9k · January 31, 2012

I will contend that Mingo's popularity did not come from the container, but from it's status as the oldest active geocache in the world. No, it's not the same experience when you visit, but it is the oldest cache listing.

January 31, 2012

What's the second oldest? Maybe we should start warming up to it...

2.6k · January 31, 2012

What's the second oldest? Maybe we should start warming up to it...

GC12 is the next oldest.

January 31, 2012

What I find passing strange is that not that people care or don't care about MINGO's status and future. But, rather that people seem to care, that others care when they themselves don't.

So, many don't care about the cache? Cool. But, some care enough about the fact that others care that they spend time & space on a message board to talk about it? Scratching my head. Especially for a hobby that seems to have a solid 'to each his own' ethos.

But, it's only a message board, so, post whatever you want I guess.

One noob's $0.02, FWIW.

Edited January 31, 2012 by RThreeSonz

3.6k · January 31, 2012

What's the second oldest? Maybe we should start warming up to it...

GC12 is the next oldest.

Correct, but its a little harder to get to than mingo and closed most of the winter. I got that one done. I really like the stones in the creek nearby.

GC17 is really close by and it require a hike and its one of my top fav cache that I every done.

February 1, 2012

I will contend that Mingo's popularity did not come from the container, but from it's status as the oldest active geocache in the world. No, it's not the same experience when you visit, but it is the oldest cache listing.

This is true. But would you bother making a trip to see the Sphinx if someone bulldozed it and someone else that made the trip and didn't want to have to go home without being able to say they saw it replaced it with an HO scale replica? I would contend that a throwdown micro does not a historic cache make nor justify keeping the listing active on gc.com.

10.2k · February 1, 2012

I will contend that Mingo's popularity did not come from the container, but from it's status as the oldest active geocache in the world. No, it's not the same experience when you visit, but it is the oldest cache listing.

This is true. But would you bother making a trip to see the Sphinx if someone bulldozed it and someone else that made the trip and didn't want to have to go home without being able to say they saw it replaced it with an HO scale replica? I would contend that a throwdown micro does not a historic cache make nor justify keeping the listing active on gc.com.

Interesting point. It's days are numbered, the Kansas stasher really needs to get out there and do something himself. You mention keeping the listing active on gc.com. Can you imagine if it were archived here, and he put it on *cough*Garmin*cough or another site?

February 1, 2012

1328050108[/url]' post='4961305']
What I find passing strange is that not that people care or don't care about MINGO's status and future. But, rather that people seem to care, that others care when they themselves don't.

So, many don't care about the cache? Cool. But, some care enough about the fact that others care that they spend time & space on a message board to talk about it? Scratching my head. Especially for a hobby that seems to have a solid 'to each his own' ethos.

But, it's only a message board, so, post whatever you want I guess.

One noob's $0.02, FWIW.

Weird post.

So you neither care or don't care. You just 'scratch your head' at those who don't care but care enough about those who DO care enough to post so you posted that you care.

Ummm, okay?

2.2k · February 1, 2012

The part I find fascinating about this discussion is it makes every one of us examine our beliefs about "what makes a cache?"

We see a lot of people saying that replacing Mingo with a micro means it is no longer the same cache. Does that mean if you originally found it when it was a Regular in the ground you would log it again? The general consensus in the past on the forums has been that you get 1 find per GC code so I would expect most would say "no".

So, is it the GC code that makes a cache? If the original Mingo were still completely intact but the owner decided to archive the the listing and then a week later republished it under a new GC code would Mingo still be the oldest cache? After all, the only thing that would have changed is its reference number in a database -- the experience is exactly the same. Yet, many would not hesitate to log it a Find on a second visit if the GC code was different.

It's a personal decision and between you and the cache owner.

Two things I know:

1) I'm still planning my trip back from GeoWoodstock to go past Mingo because I would like a chance to log a find on the oldest cache listing. I hope the cache survives until then.

2) I don't think Mingo deserves any special status. If the owner decides that a throwdown Micro isn't acceptable and he can't replace it himself (or arrange to have someone else replace it) then the cache should be Archived. The the owner decides to replace it with a Micro (either the throwdown or one of his own) the the cache should be enabled and the reviewer should hold his nose and keep his personal beliefs out of it.

2.7k · February 1, 2012

The part I find fascinating about this discussion is it makes every one of us examine our beliefs about "what makes a cache?"

We see a lot of people saying that replacing Mingo with a micro means it is no longer the same cache. Does that mean if you originally found it when it was a Regular in the ground you would log it again? The general consensus in the past on the forums has been that you get 1 find per GC code so I would expect most would say "no".

So, is it the GC code that makes a cache? If the original Mingo were still completely intact but the owner decided to archive the the listing and then a week later republished it under a new GC code would Mingo still be the oldest cache? After all, the only thing that would have changed is its reference number in a database -- the experience is exactly the same. Yet, many would not hesitate to log it a Find on a second visit if the GC code was different.

It's a personal decision and between you and the cache owner.

To answer the question "what makes a cache?" you have to look past how you feel about the cache and look at the specs.

A cache is made up of 4 specs; Difficulty, Terrain, Size, and Location. Any major change in any of those specs and you've fundamentally changed the nature of the cache.

Two things I know:

1) I'm still planning my trip back from GeoWoodstock to go past Mingo because I would like a chance to log a find on the oldest cache listing. I hope the cache survives until then.

2) I don't think Mingo deserves any special status. If the owner decides that a throwdown Micro isn't acceptable and he can't replace it himself (or arrange to have someone else replace it) then the cache should be Archived. The the owner decides to replace it with a Micro (either the throwdown or one of his own) the the cache should be enabled and the reviewer should hold his nose and keep his personal beliefs out of it.

When Mingo gets archived there is another cache listing waiting to hold the title of oldest cache listing and when that one gets archived there will another and another and another...

3.6k · February 1, 2012

Don't shoot the reviewer. With this high profile cache I'm sure he has some backing by Groundspeak. If they didn't I would guess it would have been enabled by another reviewer/ lackey or Moun10bike by now. IMHO

2.2k · February 1, 2012

To answer the question "what makes a cache?" you have to look past how you feel about the cache and look at the specs.

I disagree. Often "How I feel about it" *IS* the answer to the question "What makes a cache?"

and the specs are of secondary importance. Years ago I drove from NY to AZ and Mingo was my most anticipated stop along the way. I also stopped at a number of other historical sites. If I were doing the trip today, I'd still stop by Mingo just to get a feel for the history of the place.

Some will scoff at that idea, but I say if you can't "feel history" in a spot you are missing something.

(In case it's not clear, I'm saying keep Mingo alive!)

3.1k · February 1, 2012

To answer the question "what makes a cache?" you have to look past how you feel about the cache and look at the specs.

A cache is made up of 4 specs; Difficulty, Terrain, Size, and Location. Any major change in any of those specs and you've fundamentally changed the nature of the cache.

I disagree as well. I've changed the difficulty rating of one of my puzzles from 3-stars to 5-stars. That didn't fundamentally change the nature of the cache, but it did more accurately reflect how hard it was to solve.

I changed the size of one of my caches from a regular to a micro. It's still out there on a mountain ridge near some nice views.

I moved one puzzle cache container more than a mile. The puzzle remains essentially the same, and the challenge wasn't spotting the container but rather getting inside it. I considered changing the GC code, but it was an easy decision not to do so.

Edited February 1, 2012 by CanadianRockies

14k · February 1, 2012

To answer the question "what makes a cache?" you have to look past how you feel about the cache and look at the specs.

I disagree. Often "How I feel about it" *IS* the answer to the question "What makes a cache?"

and the specs are of secondary importance. Years ago I drove from NY to AZ and Mingo was my most anticipated stop along the way. I also stopped at a number of other historical sites. If I were doing the trip today, I'd still stop by Mingo just to get a feel for the history of the place.

Some will scoff at that idea, but I say if you can't "feel history" in a spot you are missing something.

I haven't been to Mingo so I have no idea if I'd "feel history" or not. I did feel it when I found "The Spot" but perhaps one of the strongest "feeling of history" I've ever had was when I went to the Baseball Hall of Fame Museum in Cooperstown, NY several years ago. I started playing little league baseball when I was 6 years old and have been a fan as long as I can remember. While touring the museum I found a lot of the exhibits very interesting and the idle chatter among other visitors could be heard throughout the museum as others discovered their favorite players. Kids ran around oblivious the history around players like Willy Mays, Mickey Mantle, and (at the time) the exhibit for Barry Bonds. Then I went into the Babe Ruth room. As I looked at one of the bats he used, his glove, and one of his uniforms I noticed the decibel level of the chatter about exhibits dropped to just above a whisper. Fathers held their sons a little be closer. There was definitely a feeling of history in that room that did not exist anywhere else in the museum.

I'm not saying that Mingo warrants the same amount of reverence I felt in the HOF museum, but I disagree with the other poster that a cache can be reduced to four related numbers. A "special" cache also has that intangible quality about it *makes* it special. We probably all felt it when we opened our first cache container or the first time we cracked open an ammo can. While some might not agree, for many, Mingo has that intangible quality.

2.7k · February 1, 2012

To answer the question "what makes a cache?" you have to look past how you feel about the cache and look at the specs.

A cache is made up of 4 specs; Difficulty, Terrain, Size, and Location. Any major change in any of those specs and you've fundamentally changed the nature of the cache.

I disagree as well. I've changed the difficulty rating of one of my puzzles from 3-stars to 5-stars. That didn't fundamentally change the nature of the cache, but it did more accurately reflect how hard it was to solve.

In this case you weren't making a change to the cache itself. You were changing your initial difficulty rating estimate for the cache. This happens often is why this rating can be changed.

I changed the size of one of my caches from a regular to a micro. It's still out there on a mountain ridge near some nice views.

Even though you may upset some people because this will change their statistics. I don't feel that this is a major of a change. It would be a major change if, for example, the size of the cache is tied to the difficulty. Like in cases where the cache is "cleverly camouflaged" is then changed to one that has no camouflage and the difficulty rating is lowered.

I moved one puzzle cache container more than a mile. The puzzle remains essentially the same, and the challenge wasn't spotting the container but rather getting inside it. I considered changing the GC code, but it was an easy decision not to do so.

In this case as long as the terrain rating stayed the same then there is no issue. But once the terrain rating changes you have to think about those who have already found the cache. Some areas can look the same for miles and miles and a large change in cache location would made very different. While other areas look completely different each time your found a bend in the trail and a change of a couple 100 ft would drastically change the hide.

3.1k · February 1, 2012

It would be a major change if, for example, the size of the cache is tied to the difficulty.

There's a new thread, "When does a replacement cache become a new cache," where this issue is more fully discussed.

I agree that a cache should receive a new listing if the overall experience associated with getting to and finding the cache changes significantly. Oftentimes, a major change to a cache's difficulty, terrain, size, and/or location will fundamentally change that experience. Oftentimes, however, it won't.

Edited February 1, 2012 by CanadianRockies

9.3k · February 1, 2012

A cache is made up of 4 specs; Difficulty, Terrain, Size, and Location.

I would argue that there are a lot more than 4 specs.

But I still agree with the overall sentiment.

If the experience at ground zero is significantly changed, so too, should the GC #.

14k · February 2, 2012

A cache is made up of 4 specs; Difficulty, Terrain, Size, and Location.

I would argue that there are a lot more than 4 specs.

But I still agree with the overall sentiment.

If the experience at ground zero is significantly changed, so too, should the GC #.

I would also tend to agree, but with a couple of caveats.

First, the "experience" is not just what happens at ground zero. Getting to ground zero may be the significant attribute about a cache. For example, the experience of getting to a cache that is along the edge of a gorge that requires a hike down and back up on the other side would be significantly changed if a bridge was built (or if there was a bridge at the bottom of the gorge that go washed out).

Secondly, although related to "the experience", what seems even more important to me is, the intent or reason that CO might have for placing the cache. I know that there are a lot of caches out there where the only reason for the existence seems to be to provide an opportunity for others to increment their find count but there can be many reasons why a CO might place a certain kind of container at a specific spot. For example, I have a cache that is about 200' from a parking area, across a flat (but sometimes muddy) field, to a tree. Since there are no other trees within 200' it's really obvious where the cache is hidden as soon as you get out of the car. So why would I even place a cache there? From that field there is a very good view to the south overlooking a valley and rolling hills beyond. Even if the cache was moved 200-300 feet away the view would essentially be the same, and if you get there as the sun is setting it can be spectacular. In this case, the size of the container, the difficulty, terrain, and even the specific location really don't matter. The cache is all about the view.

If a bunch of apartments were put up in that field which blocked the view, even though the container, difficulty, terrain, and location were unchanged I'd archive the cache because my *reason* for placing it there would no longer be viable.

9.3k · February 2, 2012

First, the "experience" is not just what happens at ground zero.

Good point. If I were to take all my night caches, Wherigo caches, puzzle caches and multi caches and make them traditionals, the location, container and hide style, (ground zero stuff), would remain the same, though the overall experience would be significantly different.

February 2, 2012

I will contend that Mingo's popularity did not come from the container, but from it's status as the oldest active geocache in the world. No, it's not the same experience when you visit, but it is the oldest cache listing.

This is true. But would you bother making a trip to see the Sphinx if someone bulldozed it and someone else that made the trip and didn't want to have to go home without being able to say they saw it replaced it with an HO scale replica? I would contend that a throwdown micro does not a historic cache make nor justify keeping the listing active on gc.com.

This reminds me a bit of when I was in Japan 3 years ago and was lucky enough to go see the golden temple in Kyoto (Kinkaku-ji), where I overheard a guide mention offhand that the building burned down several times during its history, most recently in the 1950s due to arson (not surprising as it's been there for centuries and is made of wood). The tourist he was showing around then became obsessed with how this wasn't the "original" or "real" temple because clearly the building wasn't the same as the one built in the 14th century, and the current one was just a fake copy. This confused the heck out of her guide as he kept insisting that it was the real temple because it was rebuilt at the same site and was taking into account the same properties etc.

At some point I realized that I was witnessing a bit of a cultural schism whereby Western cultures care a bit more about the physical materials for authenticity, the Eastern more on the idea/spirit of a place. Conclude what you will out of this for Mingo. :laughing:

3.9k · February 2, 2012

I will contend that Mingo's popularity did not come from the container, but from it's status as the oldest active geocache in the world. No, it's not the same experience when you visit, but it is the oldest cache listing.

This is true. But would you bother making a trip to see the Sphinx if someone bulldozed it and someone else that made the trip and didn't want to have to go home without being able to say they saw it replaced it with an HO scale replica? I would contend that a throwdown micro does not a historic cache make nor justify keeping the listing active on gc.com.

This reminds me a bit of when I was in Japan 3 years ago and was lucky enough to go see the golden temple in Kyoto (Kinkaku-ji), where I overheard a guide mention offhand that the building burned down several times during its history, most recently in the 1950s due to arson (not surprising as it's been there for centuries and is made of wood). The tourist he was showing around then became obsessed with how this wasn't the "original" or "real" temple because clearly the building wasn't the same as the one built in the 14th century, and the current one was just a fake copy. This confused the heck out of her guide as he kept insisting that it was the real temple because it was rebuilt at the same site and was taking into account the same properties etc.

At some point I realized that I was witnessing a bit of a cultural schism whereby Western cultures care a bit more about the physical materials for authenticity, the Eastern more on the idea/spirit of a place. Conclude what you will out of this for Mingo.

I am finding myself looking for the 'like' button for that post.

4.2k · February 2, 2012

This reminds me a bit of when I was in Japan 3 years ago and was lucky enough to go see the golden temple in Kyoto (Kinkaku-ji), where I overheard a guide mention offhand that the building burned down several times during its history, most recently in the 1950s due to arson (not surprising as it's been there for centuries and is made of wood). The tourist he was showing around then became obsessed with how this wasn't the "original" or "real" temple because clearly the building wasn't the same as the one built in the 14th century, and the current one was just a fake copy. This confused the heck out of her guide as he kept insisting that it was the real temple because it was rebuilt at the same site and was taking into account the same properties etc.

At some point I realized that I was witnessing a bit of a cultural schism whereby Western cultures care a bit more about the physical materials for authenticity, the Eastern more on the idea/spirit of a place. Conclude what you will out of this for Mingo.

Bolded emphasis is mine. That's my take-away from this. That and the temple was rebuilt, they didn't just rely on a passing stranger to inflate a bouncy castle and call it the new temple.*

(Edited to remove two layers of quotes.)

*However, that sounds like the most funest temple EVER.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Castle Mischief

February 6, 2012

But one has to wonder why a reviewer in northern California is taking responsibility for a cache in Kansas. The latest reviewer comment on the Mingo page makes me wonder even more.

Don't shoot the reviewer. With this high profile cache I'm sure he has some backing by Groundspeak. If they didn't I would guess it would have been enabled by another reviewer/ lackey or Moun10bike by now. IMHO

1.2k · February 6, 2012

It is all one big conspiracy! I think the secrets to who killed Kennedy and where Jimmy Hoffa is buried is under that concrete and GS is covering up for the US government, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Oh ya and they are doing it to stop ya all from noticing the NY GIANTS won the Super Bowl.......

Plus to give Mr Yuck one more historical fact about geocaching, he is a walking geocaching historian. I wish he would have an event on that subject.

6.1k · February 8, 2012

Mingo is an historical cache. If it gets archived, it will be the first cache in history to be archived due to not being replaced with one of identical size, and from a non local reviewer. If the terrain was altered, I'd say it was different. Is it language of location? or language of cache size conformity due to personal tastes? :rolleyes:

Edited February 8, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

4.2k · February 8, 2012

Mingo is an historical cache. If it gets archived, it will be the first cache in history to be archived due to not being replaced with one of identical size, and from a non local reviewer. If the terrain was altered, I'd say it was different. Is it language of location? or language of cache size conformity due to personal tastes?

However, it wouldn't be the first to be archived due to CO inactivity.

19k · February 8, 2012

Mingo is an historical cache. If it gets archived, it will be the first cache in history to be archived due to not being replaced with one of identical size, and from a non local reviewer.

Wouldn't that just make it all that much more historical?

:lol:

2k · February 8, 2012

Mingo is an historical cache. If it gets archived, it will be the first cache in history to be archived due to not being replaced with one of identical size, and from a non local reviewer. If the terrain was altered, I'd say it was different. Is it language of location? or language of cache size conformity due to personal tastes?

However, it wouldn't be the first to be archived due to CO inactivity.

True. All that needs to happen, in my opinion, is for the CO to update the listing to indicate it is now a micro. You should not allow the cache size to physically change to micro while continuing to indicate that it is a regular on the listing.

February 26, 2012

I think that Mingo should be allowed to survive in its current location, even if the owner chooses to leave it as a micro now instead of a regular. I'm in the "a cache is more than the sum of its parts" group. The history behind Mingo alone makes it a cache I desperately want to visit at some point. Yes, I'm disappointed the original container is gone, but forcing the CO to archive it because of a container change seems to me to be way overstepping the bounds of a reviewer. While I would like to see Mingo restored to its original style, I also know that in the winter in Kansas the ground freezes pretty solidly and digging a new hole to put the new container into isn't easily done. And I definitely don't understand why a reviewer in CALIFORNIA has ANY business dealing with a cache located in Kansas!

So I guess I'm basically saying that I believe the reviewer should back off at least until Spring has sprung in Kansas to give the CO a chance to replace the container if he so desires, and that he should, as another commenter said, "hold his nose and let the cache be active as a micro" if that is what the CO chooses to do. I think it would be tragic for an historic cache such as this one to be archived when the location is still being actively visited by folks who are travelling to do so just because some reviewer doesn't agree with its current manifestation. I do think the CO ought to indicate in a note on the cache what he is planning on doing so it is clear he's still invested in the cache. (And I also think the reviewer needs to stop jumping down his throat every time he does so as well).

3.6k · February 28, 2012

But one has to wonder why a reviewer in northern California is taking responsibility for a cache in Kansas. The latest reviewer comment on the Mingo page makes me wonder even more.

Don't shoot the reviewer. With this high profile cache I'm sure he has some backing by Groundspeak. If they didn't I would guess it would have been enabled by another reviewer/ lackey or Moun10bike by now. IMHO

We have had out of state reviewers in our area. They are not completely restricted to one area. Maybe they asked each other who wants to be the Bad Guy here to archive Mingo. Shoot, I felt sorry for Moun10bike having to archive his APE cache.

I still have this thread on my watch but only peek once in awhile. Me I am just waiting for the ALARM to go off and get this over with one way or the other.

:drama:

Edited February 28, 2012 by jellis

March 1, 2012

I wondered about the reviewer since he also was responsible of archival of an old cache in my part of the country as well. It just seemed unusual since the reviewers here pretty much operate in harmony with the community, and don't put in comments like "tick...tick....tick" on a cache page. That almost seems to be taunting the community.

As for Mingo, I wish something would be done about it. If you look at the logs, there are still people logging it as a found, even though it's disabled. Those logs should be deleted, since you really can't find a disabled cache, no matter what is in it's place. If it can't be reactivated due to construction, fine, then keep it disabled till it can be. I know of caches that have been on the sidelines for 6-8 months due to road work, or bridge work, or other construction.

But one has to wonder why a reviewer in northern California is taking responsibility for a cache in Kansas. The latest reviewer comment on the Mingo page makes me wonder even more.

Don't shoot the reviewer. With this high profile cache I'm sure he has some backing by Groundspeak. If they didn't I would guess it would have been enabled by another reviewer/ lackey or Moun10bike by now. IMHO

We have had out of state reviewers in our area. They are not completely restricted to one area. Maybe they asked each other who wants to be the Bad Guy here to archive Mingo. Shoot, I felt sorry for Moun10bike having to archive his APE cache.

I still have this thread on my watch but only peek once in awhile. Me I am just waiting for the ALARM to go off and get this over with one way or the other.

3.6k · March 1, 2012

There is nothing wrong with logging a disabled or an archived cache as long as there is a cache there and the owner already says he doesn't care. Maybe Hemlock is doing it so the local reviewers don't get jumped on. Do you see and reviewers or lackeys stepping in? As I said maybe Mingo is ready to be retired.

2.7k · March 1, 2012

I wondered about the reviewer since he also was responsible of archival of an old cache in my part of the country as well. It just seemed unusual since the reviewers here pretty much operate in harmony with the community, and don't put in comments like "tick...tick....tick" on a cache page. That almost seems to be taunting the community.

Reviewer sock puppet account?

10.2k · March 1, 2012

I wondered about the reviewer since he also was responsible of archival of an old cache in my part of the country as well. It just seemed unusual since the reviewers here pretty much operate in harmony with the community, and don't put in comments like "tick...tick....tick" on a cache page. That almost seems to be taunting the community.

Reviewer sock puppet account?

That reviewer does that kind of stuff, has for years. They're a senior reviewer. They're probably a retired person who has time to devote to such extra duties, although that's merely speculation on my part.

I'd better edit that after reading it again. I mean "does that kind of stuff" in the context of helping out with sweeps of long-term disabled caches, caches in duress, caches that have throw-downs without owner action, etc..

Edited March 1, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

4.2k · March 1, 2012

If you look at the logs, there are still people logging it as a found, even though it's disabled. Those logs should be deleted, since you really can't find a disabled cache, no matter what is in it's place.

No, actually you really can log a disabled cache. Sometimes you can even log an archived cache. It's an archived and locked cache that you can't log.

I'm not saying that I'd log this cache after finding the throw-down replacement, but for a whole host of reasons you can log a disabled cache.

2.7k · March 1, 2012

If you look at the logs, there are still people logging it as a found, even though it's disabled. Those logs should be deleted, since you really can't find a disabled cache, no matter what is in it's place.

No, actually you really can log a disabled cache. Sometimes you can even log an archived cache. It's an archived and locked cache that you can't log.

I'm not saying that I'd log this cache after finding the throw-down replacement, but for a whole host of reasons you can log a disabled cache.

I agree that if a CO disables a cache but still allows new logs he is sending a mixed message. When a CO disables a cache he is signaling that there an issue with the cache and he doesn't want cachers to look for it. However, I also believe that it should be up to the CO if he keeps or deletes the new logs.

19k · March 1, 2012

Good grief! Its been almost two months since Kansas Stasher's last promise to get out there and fix it? He hasn't been to the web site since Jan 26. Ten "finds" of the throwdown micro... I think that Hemlock is being extremely generous in keeping this open. If it ends up being archived, there is only one person that can be blamed. Even if Kansas Stasher can't get out there himself for some reason, I'm sure he could contact some other local cacher to take care of it for him. Judging by the reviewer's "tick... tick... tick..." log on 1/29, Stasher has apparently not been sending PMs to the reviewer, either.

6.1k · March 1, 2012

I think that Hemlock is being extremely generous in keeping this open. If it ends up being archived, there is only one person that can be blamed.

Actually there is a few. Namely the person who has repeatedly stolen the cache, as well as the reviewer who will not allow a micro to replace it. Kansas Stasher has his hands tied as it would be difficult to hide a regular cache in that place without it being buried. I think a micro is justified, as it is being stolen repeatedly, as well as a small plaque in the original spot.

19k · March 1, 2012

I think that Hemlock is being extremely generous in keeping this open. If it ends up being archived, there is only one person that can be blamed.

Actually there is a few. Namely the person who has repeatedly stolen the cache, as well as the reviewer who will not allow a micro to replace it. Kansas Stasher has his hands tied as it would be difficult to hide a regular cache in that place without it being buried. I think a micro is justified, as it is being stolen repeatedly, as well as a small plaque in the original spot.

Cache maintenance is the responsibility of the cache owner. If a cache gets stolen repeatedly and the cache owner decides to keep the cache alive anyway, that is his responsability, and his fault if the cache ends up being archived for lack of maintenance. I don't care if the cache gets stolen daily, the same thing is true.

It is my opinion that all the reviewer is saying about the micro is that a throwdown is unacceptable. I am quite certain that if the cache owner decided to change the cache listing to a micro and do his own cache maintenance, there there is nothing the reviewer could or would do about it.

5.2k · March 1, 2012

It is my opinion that all the reviewer is saying about the micro is that a throwdown is unacceptable. I am quite certain that if the cache owner decided to change the cache listing to a micro and do his own cache maintenance, there there is nothing the reviewer could or would do about it.

Mingo! err, I mean, Bingo!

9.3k · March 2, 2012

It is my opinion...

it is my opinion that the Reviewer is applying their personal bias, calling it policy.

But you know what they say about opinions...

2.3k · March 2, 2012

I just wish the reviewer would archive it already and be done with it.

4.2k · March 2, 2012

It is my opinion...

it is my opinion that the Reviewer is applying their personal bias, calling it policy.
But you know what they say about opinions...

I think you're ignoring at least two pieces of the guidelines in the name of "history".

2.3k · March 2, 2012

It is my opinion...

it is my opinion that the Reviewer is applying their personal bias, calling it policy.
But you know what they say about opinions...

I think you're ignoring at least two pieces of the guidelines in the name of "history".

I would go so far as to say what history in this context. Essentially the ignoring of guidelines is to preserve a cache page. The history is long gone at that site.

9.3k · March 3, 2012

It is my opinion...

it is my opinion that the Reviewer is applying their personal bias, calling it policy.
But you know what they say about opinions...

I think you're ignoring at least two pieces of the guidelines in the name of "history".

Could you expand upon that? I'm not asking to be difficult. I honestly don't see what you are saying. What guideline bits am I ignoring? :unsure: While I despise throw downs on general principle, especially when the throw down in question doesn't match the size of the original, so long as the cache owner accepts the throw down as a maintenance assist, have the guidelines been violated? Obviously we all recognize that it is the cache owner's responsibility to do maintenance. That's a given. I just don't think that having maintenance done by proxy, even if the proxy is granted after the fact, violates any guidelines.

Maintenance was needed.

Maintenance was performed.

(Just not by the same person)

If one of my ammo cans walked away, obviously, it would be in need of maintenance.

If you were to throw down an ammo can, would that not be an act of maintenance by proxy?

Likewise, if you were to throw down a small Lock & Lock, would that not be an act of maintenance by proxy?

What about a film can? If we accept that maintenance by proxy does not violate the guidelines, all that's left is size.

If I were to replace my stolen ammo can with a film can, would that violate the guidelines?

As to history, yeah, I am one of those guys who place a certain degree of value on longevity of a cache listing, and adding ones name to a list of cacher's names going back over a decade, in a hobby where most such lists are lucky to last a 10th of that time. I acknowledge that other folks don't feel the same way. But in my mind, the guidelines come first. If a cache is in need of archival, I won't argue to save it based solely on history.

-Sean

MINGO in jeopardy?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment