I have been told i am ruining cacheing!

March 9, 2012

I have been told i am ruining cacheing for setting some of my caches like GC3A3HT what people cant find :tired:

My point is if you dont like the fact you cant find a cache in five minutes there is a ignore button.

My caches are placed from my own cache experinces and all the messages give us a clue its about time you showed someone WHY!!

I know from the time it gets the 1st FTF that person will get 20 to 30 begging emails give us a clue like GC369B8 so is it really all about the numbers

And how am i ruining the fun?? :blink:

Edited March 9, 2012 by bazzer1975

March 9, 2012

No you are just testing us.

Keep up the good work.

There are around 100000 caches in the UK, folk have a great choice.

There will be a temptation to return and beat the illusive one. If that fits your demeanour then get out there and prove yourself.

11.6k · March 9, 2012

And how am i ruining the fun??

Unless you don't give us a hint, we'll get mad and say you're ruining the fun. That'll show you. :laughing: [i'm kidding]

Anyway, have you checked your difficulty rating for accuracy? Your description seems a vague "may be easy, may be tough". After a dozen DNFs, I'd consider it rating it a toughie. Some people want to know what to expect BEFORE looking and putting you on Ignore.

There were a couple of caches I placed where I worried nobody would ever find it (since I probably never would). Each one was found "by my two year old in seven seconds, thanks!", but I actually wondered what to do if it got only DNFs. I do not want that for my caches, partly because of the grief you get over that. But I do like to ponder the ones nobody can find.

And a cache I can't find goes to the bottom of the pile. I don't get mad, don't write threats about you ruining Geocaching to coerce a hint out of you, and do not go look again, unless I have a new plan of attack.

Edited March 9, 2012 by kunarion

March 9, 2012

i would love to be able to look for this cache.

my guess is with 81 DNF and 0 finds id say the diff is too low.

but i could be wrong. BUT thats alot of DNF's

i dont look at hiding a hard cache as ruining the game i think it helps the game.

i myself love hard caches. ive been to some caches 10-15 times before finding it.

but it will drive ya crazy

and i also see no reason to give hints for FTF

after the FTF matbe

Edited March 9, 2012 by mlrs1996

11.6k · March 9, 2012

i also see no reason to give hints for FTF

after the FTF matbe

That's something that I find annoying -- a tough cache nobody can find which suddenly develops a lot of hints, so it becomes super easy. It was an interesting challenge, an enigma worthy of my massive brain power to solve. So I planned a day trip, intent on working it out once and for all, against all odds. Then the description was changed to "look on top of the sign post", and twenty people found it that morning.

March 9, 2012

Are you sure it's not because of your grammar, lack of punctuation and spelling? :laughing: Just joking. I'm sure the cache title is a deliberate pun and the description cunningly worded.

1.4k · March 9, 2012

So YOU'RE the one ruining caching? No, you're not, that's just people who are ruining geocaching looking round for someone else to blame. You carry on. :laughing:

March 9, 2012

I have been told i am ruining cacheing for setting some of my caches like GC3A3HT what people cant find

My point is if you dont like the fact you cant find a cache in five minutes there is a ignore button.

My caches are placed from my own cache experinces and all the messages give us a clue its about time you showed someone WHY!!

I know from the time it gets the 1st FTF that person will get 20 to 30 begging emails give us a clue like GC369B8 so is it really all about the numbers

And how am i ruining the fun??

You are not ruining the fun, its nice to have an unusual hide to keep people guessing.

However, people have paid petrol money, took time to venture over to your cache, I can't blame them for being a tad annoyed if they are unable to find it after several tries.

81 DNFs and not a single find????

If it was a cache of mine, I would be getting worried that nobody was finding it.

No matter how well it is disguised, if the coords are spot on, somebody should have put their hand on it by now??

:blink:

p.s. - I'm too far away from Reading - wanna share your secret so I can hide a similar one up here? :anibad:

1.1k · March 9, 2012

I have been told i am ruining cacheing for setting some of my caches like GC3A3HT what people cant find

No, not at all.

However, if it was me, after 81 DNFs and no finds I would make ABSOLUTELY SURE the co-ordinates were bullet-proof - if they turned out to be a long way off then all those DNFs might justifiably feel a bit peeved.

Also, if the spelling mistake in the title is deliberate, that's fine, but if it is accidental it would be better to correct it, else it might lead people to try and find a non-existent hidden meaning.

Rgds, Andy

March 9, 2012

NO the spelling mistake in the title is deliberate but i cant spell anyway :laughing:

I must admit i have been a PAF (phone a frend) in the past but normally its part of a series of caches 1 in 15 is really annoying :angry:

March 9, 2012

I'd noticed that cache and wondered how long it would be before it was discussed on here .

I've not looked for it, and won't while it has no finds and at least 80 DNFs (you can be sure there are many more than the present 81 DNFs). Mind you, I don't like searching for caches in places like university campuses. I've cached at Whiteknights before and never felt comfortable there.

My personal views aside, it's perfectly acceptable to place a cache which is challenging to find but do remember that the point of a cache is to be found. As Andy says, make sure the coords are correct; also ensure that the terrain and attributes are appropriate.

Also consider the area where the cache is placed. Even with careful searching it's inevitable that cachers damage the environment around the cache. The harder it is to find the cache, and the more cachers who search unsuccessfully, the greater the damage and the wider the area. I've seen woodland within 30m of a cache almost completely destroyed at ground level within a few weeks of a hard-to-find cache being placed.

March 9, 2012

Hi Alan

I know what you mean round there however i did check before, and you are right the area has been trashed and the 81 DNFs are more like 130 as people dont like to log a DNF :tired:

ALSO i really must get round to doing your cache YES and to point out i have been offered the info for that cashe by so many people hence the amount of finds you have had on it in the last 12 months or so for that reason we have done our home work and will make the trip to do it soon

3.3k · March 9, 2012

It's rated D4.5, presumably for a reason.

If it started life as a D1/T1 cache but was really fiendish to find, or clearly not even remotely possible for a wheelchair user to retrieve, then perhaps people are justified in getting irritated. For all I don't use a wheelchair myself if I see something is wheelchair accessible I'll assume it isn't going to involve me reaching high over my head to get at it; if it's D1-2 I'll expect it to be the kind of thing that's fairly obvious once you get to GZ.

D4.5 on the other hand, that suggests it's going to take me a lot of hunting. I'll be in Reading soon and not far from the campus, so if I have chance I might just swing past and take a peek. It would be neat to get FTF on one that's been there a while. Feel free to send me a clue :anitongue:

11.6k · March 9, 2012

after 81 DNFs and no finds I would make ABSOLUTELY SURE the co-ordinates were bullet-proof - if they turned out to be a long way off then all those DNFs might justifiably feel a bit peeved.

If the logs seem to suggest that the spot doesn't match the description (where people suspect the coords are off), I will search as if they are wrong. In that case, I can rule out an area 30 feet in diameter from GZ, and try to match the description to other nearby objects. But I've also seen a DNF cause an epidemic of DNFs, due to people expecting not to find anything.

March 9, 2012

A quick sanity-check: is it within a very few steps of where Google Maps says it is?

30af7e19-bcd7-4494-a295-f66cb9af0c97.png?rnd=0.8905538

1.7k · March 9, 2012

...the area has been trashed and the 81 DNFs are more like 130 as people dont like to log a DNF :

I would say that you are being extremely irresponsible encouraging an area to be trashed! :mad:

Even the most careful searching will cause damage to an area after so many visitors.

Mark

March 9, 2012

not far at all all though on the geocache website it is closer to the bridge <_<

And for the record you can get it from the path although the path is a bit rough which is why its a 1.5 not a 1

March 9, 2012

It's rated D4.5, presumably for a reason.

That's simply a very recent reaction to it not being found. In my GSAK database, updated daily, it's still D3 and I recall it started life less than that. Sometimes caches are harder to find than the owner expects.

March 9, 2012

...the area has been trashed and the 81 DNFs are more like 130 as people dont like to log a DNF :

I would say that you are being extremely irresponsible encouraging an area to be trashed!

Even the most careful searching will cause damage to an area after so many visitors.

Mark

all caches i place i try and make shore i consider the enviroment they are in the good thing with round the uni the students have already broken everything :mad:

1.4k · March 9, 2012

...the area has been trashed and the 81 DNFs are more like 130 as people dont like to log a DNF :

I would say that you are being extremely irresponsible encouraging an area to be trashed!

Even the most careful searching will cause damage to an area after so many visitors.

Mark

My thoughts as well :unsure:

March 9, 2012

It's rated D4.5, presumably for a reason.

That's simply a very recent reaction to it not being found. In my GSAK database, updated daily, it's still D3 and I recall it started life less than that. Sometimes caches are harder to find than the owner expects.

No Alan it was a D3 from the start as they all where infact i am going to review them all as some are alot easier than D3s

1.1k · March 9, 2012

all caches i place i try and make shore i consider the enviroment they are in the good thing with round the uni the students have already broken everything

So because the students have broken everything its ok for cachers to do the same and more? :blink:

March 9, 2012

420201_10150857240654698_510659697_12806454_1555635100_n.jpg

you see there is nothing to trash cos there is nothing there

Edited March 9, 2012 by bazzer1975

6.1k · March 9, 2012

But

you see there is nothing to trash cos there is nothing there

is at odds with

...the area has been trashed and the 81 DNFs are more like 130 as people dont like to log a DNF :

So either there's nothing to trash, or the areas has been trashed....

In any case, assuming the cache is in the picture you posted, it's natural that if cachers don't find it they will extend their search into the surrounding area, which seems to be trees & bushes, and some damage is likely if they're having to search that hard.

March 9, 2012

It's going to be easy to find a cache at those coords on 01 April...

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=566097bd-3aab-4df8-8427-153628ab9744

March 10, 2012

Personally I think if I had more than 5 DNF is a row I would od something, add a hint , make something more obvious etc, or treble check you haven't broken any rules by placing the cache somewhere it should not be.

Yes we like a challenge , but what is the point in placing a cache that no-one can find?

If I were looking after 10 DNF's in a row I would not even bother - we only after all have your word there is a cache there!!!!!

AS a CO I get satisfaction out of people finding my caches not logging DNF's

Saying all that if the cache is genuinely there and I lived in Reading again , i'd be in the location till I found it!

1.1k · March 10, 2012

No, you're not ruining caching. Just the opposite - caching shouldn't just be about locating a pile of parallel sticks at the base of a tree.

I was there recently (for the second time). The area has NOT been trashed. Nor has any area around it. Indeed, there's no sign that cachers have been there.

I spent about an hour there, with ladysolly, at the weekend; we saw very few students, and one other cacher who was just giving up at the time we arrived.

What would be nice, however, is a post from the CO on the cache page to say that he's checked and it's still there.

March 10, 2012

I think the CO has said in several sources that the cache is indeed present and can be seen in the photos he has posted in this and other postings.

I certainly believe that to be true. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I thought I the good doctor would have made a more thorough examination. :anicute:

1.4k · March 10, 2012

you see there is nothing to trash cos there is nothing there

and, somehow, on the day of the flashmob at exactly the same location everybody is supposed to 'you blend in and look inconspicuous until the event begins'

It all seems very contradictory as one minte you say the 'the area has been trashed' and then you say 'you see there is nothing to trash cos there is nothing there'

Maybe the cache is just a lead up to an April Fools day flash mob.

March 10, 2012

Has anyone tried a metal detector? It could be one of those God-awful nanos, stone-coloured, stomped into the ground near the concrete. In fact ... wait ... I can see it! Oh, but Reading's too far away for it to be worth the journey.

1.4k · March 10, 2012

Has anyone tried a metal detector? It could be one of those God-awful nanos, stone-coloured, stomped into the ground near the concrete. In fact ... wait ... I can see it! Oh, but Reading's too far away for it to be worth the journey.

I can think of something/someplace relating to the hint where it could be.

March 10, 2012

Has anyone tried a metal detector? It could be one of those God-awful nanos, stone-coloured, stomped into the ground near the concrete. In fact ... wait ... I can see it! Oh, but Reading's too far away for it to be worth the journey.
I can think of something/someplace relating to the hint where it could be.

Tell me now or I will tell everyone what you said(*) at the 29 Feb event!

(*) - I'll make something up and find co-conspirators to claim they heard it too.

1.4k · March 10, 2012

*rubs hands* Great, this should be good!

March 10, 2012

PMs sent. You'll be hearing from the Lackeys shortly. Or the local constabulary.

1.4k · March 10, 2012

you told them about THAT! but you told me that was just between you and me babe!

March 10, 2012

*blushes*

I'd better shut down the computer for a bit!

1.4k · March 10, 2012

*snigger*

March 10, 2012

Well done you are the master cache hider so good that no one can find the caches you hide. I'd put it on my ignore list but it's too far away to bother doing that. I'm amazed that people have been back multiple times to find it, is Reading that short of quality caches that everyone is desperate to find a nano near a bridge that has loads of muggle students around ;-)

March 10, 2012

I have no problem with a specifically rated difficult hide. In fact, bring them on (although Reading is a bit far away for us). However the test for this type of hide will be once it is actually found. There is a big difference between the following;

A cleverly hidden, excellently concealed cache.

A wind up/April Fool.

A needle in a haystack or the caching equivalent, a nano in the undergrowth with dodgy co-ordinates.

I will follow this thread/watchlist with interest to see what unfolds but I am hoping for the former of the above.

March 10, 2012

I notice one of your other caches 'UC Parth Pandam' is also building up the DNF's.

I smell trouble!

March 11, 2012

Having just got back from attempting this cache and recording the 91st straight DNF, I can confirm that the area is certainly not trashed at all. In fact you wouldn't really be aware a cache was even hidden there. This cache intrigues me as the area is relatively open land and is probably a very sneaky hide.

However I can't say I have the same desire to find the other 2 in the same series that I DNF'd - GC3CAMM and GC3CAMX. Especially the latter which seems to be a needle in a jungle and with dodgy coords to boot. I do feel that if cache sizes and clues are not to be given, the coordinates need to be immaculate for Trad caches, and I'm not sure that is the case for these latter two (and both have a fair degree of tree cover)

March 11, 2012

(and both have a fair degree of tree cover)

May be these are revenge on a certain cache setter and you need to borrow the CO's pole ladder. :laughing:

22k · March 11, 2012

oops. wrong thread

Edited March 11, 2012 by BlueDeuce

March 11, 2012

Just out of interest....

I don't think we have ever completed one of the CO's caches. Is he well known for setting VERY clever/ingenious caches? This must be close to the record of DNF's before a FTF by now surely?

I must admit, if I were the CO, I would be sweating a bit now. Is it definitely there? Are the co ords BANG on the money? If it turns out to be an ultra clever hide then I'm guessing we will all have to take our hats off to him but if something is wrong, I wouldn't want to be wearing the CO's shoes .

Still, we all have a choice to go and take a look, no one forces us.

March 11, 2012

(and both have a fair degree of tree cover)

May be these are revenge on a certain cache setter and you need to borrow the CO's pole ladder. :laughing:

That's alright Colin, #6 is at the publishers, and I've dedicated it to you B)

March 11, 2012

(and both have a fair degree of tree cover)

May be these are revenge on a certain cache setter and you need to borrow the CO's pole ladder. :laughing:

That's alright Colin, #6 is at the publishers, and I've dedicated it to you B)

#6 on the ignore list but thanks for the honour. :anicute: :laughing:

March 13, 2012

I just remembered this horror story: cache + topic.

Seems we're a little more stoic about DNFs than our friends across the water

March 13, 2012

I just remembered this horror story: cache + topic.

Seems we're a little more stoic about DNFs than our friends across the water

Blimey, what a kerfuffle :rolleyes: .

I wonder if Bazzer1975 would be willing to show a local trustworthy cacher where this one is? Obviously on the proviso that they remain completely silent . To be honest, If I were the CO, I would positively welcome my hide being verified at this point, even if only to prevent a similar scenario to the above link.

1.7k · March 13, 2012

There was also a nano under a railway bridge (in the US of A) a few years ago which got archived by a reviewer before it was ever found because it had so many DNFs on it.

It used to be on the watchlist but I think I must have removed it. Can't find it now

Mark

March 14, 2012

There was also a nano under a railway bridge (in the US of A) a few years ago which got archived by a reviewer before it was ever found because it had so many DNFs on it.

It used to be on the watchlist but I think I must have removed it. Can't find it now

Mark

hmm, are you talking about the fake brickwork? I think that one had like 25 pages of drama in the forums..

I have been told i am ruining cacheing!

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