If You 'Gotta' Leave a Throwdown...

[+dprovan]

I understand that being farther from home makes it less likely that you'll return. But how does being farther from home make a "clearly missing" cache more of a find?

The idea is that the find is sufficient in either case, but it is more desirable to revisit the cache after the CO has performed the maintenance.

 

Hey, I'm just explaining the logic, I'm not insisting you agree to it.

[+OZ2CPU]

>I really had no clue whatsoever that I found someone's throw down until I got home and looked at all the logs.

>I do not feel a signer of a throw down should ever be penalized

 

but you did NOT FIND THE REAL AND CORRECT CACHE !

the real one IS there, and infact alot harder to find over the fake wrong one,

it was intended to be hard to find, not easy as the fake one,

so YES your log should be deleted.

a correct cache got a name, a log and is easy to identify as a correct cache.

 

a throwdown is NOT a cache, it is a FAKE way to cheat a find.

[4wheelin_fool]

It wouldn't necessarily be the cache owner punishing the finder for signing a throwdown, but the cacher who hid the throwdown, if it was deleted. Indicate the first name listed on the throwdown when you send a deletion notice. .

 

However, I wouldn't delete any logs unless the throwdown was significantly different. Outside the forums many cachers welcome throwdowns, which is why they exist. If the cache really is missing, verified by a PAF or CO and replaced with the same container or better quality.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

>I really had no clue whatsoever that I found someone's throw down until I got home and looked at all the logs.

>I do not feel a signer of a throw down should ever be penalized

 

but you did NOT FIND THE REAL AND CORRECT CACHE !

the real one IS there, and infact alot harder to find over the fake wrong one,

it was intended to be hard to find, not easy as the fake one,

so YES your log should be deleted.

a correct cache got a name, a log and is easy to identify as a correct cache.

 

a throwdown is NOT a cache, it is a FAKE way to cheat a find.

 

I can see your point if the cache is well described and difficult, and the throwdown is trivial and totally not similar. That would (and has) raised a flag for me when I've found a cache.

 

That said, the majority of throwdowns I suspect I've found have been:

- micros, probably never clearly labelled

- on caches that were, at best D1.5

- hidden in the same obvious way as the original

Perhaps I've found more of these than I suspect - how would I know? Also, as a finder who subsequently found one of these, how did I cheat? It is hard to tell one cheaply made micro from another often times.

 

Here's a real example. I logged a dnf on this nano hidden on a fence. Others do too. The owner replaces the nano. Ok fine so far. (btw this was at an interesting historical home, would've been a virtual at one time.)

 

A subsequent finder discovers the original nano on the ground, hidden in the grass. The CO missed it! So he logs it, rehides it, but now there are two caches here!

 

So which one is the valid find? If I find the rehidden original, with logs back to the FTF, should that log be deleted? Or the logs on the new container the CO placed? Neither?

 

If you deleted my log on a cache that I found in good faith, but turns out to be a throwdown, unknown to me, are you going to send me an email explaining the situation? Or am I going to have to go back and try to figure out what happened and what I did wron to have a find deleted and sort out my records of finds / DNF's? Does that sound like it is fun to you?

 

I do see your point on a cache with significant difficulty trivialized by a throwdown. I'd understand if my log were deleted in that case, although I wouldn't be thrilled about cleaning up my records. Whether or not I'd return would depend on the quality of the cache/location, and how politely you emailed me about the deletion. (if you imply I'm a cheater, I'd likely not return - again I didn't make the mess, just fell victim to it like the CO.)

 

BTW, in every situation where I've notified a CO about a suspected throwdown, I've yet to have a log deleted. I always ask about that, and inform them that I'll delete my log if they so desire. I don't care about +/- one smiley. It's one thing to deal with this on something I found last week.I would hate to try to figure out what the hell happened on a deleted log I filed months ago though!

[+bflentje]

>I really had no clue whatsoever that I found someone's throw down until I got home and looked at all the logs.

>I do not feel a signer of a throw down should ever be penalized

 

but you did NOT FIND THE REAL AND CORRECT CACHE !

the real one IS there, and infact alot harder to find over the fake wrong one,

it was intended to be hard to find, not easy as the fake one,

so YES your log should be deleted.

a correct cache got a name, a log and is easy to identify as a correct cache.

 

a throwdown is NOT a cache, it is a FAKE way to cheat a find.

 

If it were originally listed as a 4.5/4.5 I'd agree. But if it were listed as a 2/2 and a cacher inadvertently signed a throw down, deleting the log might be the puritan thing to do, but leaving it would bother me less than the other case.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

By the way, this may shock some purists, but I went ahead and took the find there, it was about 80 miles from home. If this happened on a local cache close to home, I'd probably delete my find log, replace it with a note with a wisecrack about throw downs, and go back and find the real cache.

I've never understood the concept that distance from home affects whether or not to count something as a find.

 

Because geocaching is not just about the count, it's also about the experience.

 

If it's 80 miles from home there's a reasonably good chance that one might be able to visit the cache again. If it's 7000 miles from home, it might be the only time one will ever be in the same country, let alone be able to visit the cache location again. There are more than a few cachers that enjoy coloring in county, state, and country maps when they've found a cache in a new area they've never visited. A cache 80 miles away is likely in the same Country, State, and even county in which they've already found a cache. A cache 7000 miles away may be in a Country they will never visit again in their lifetime, and may be the only cache within hundreds of miles.

It's not just about counting the find, it may also be about a once in a lifetime experience that's only missing the 2-3 seconds it takes to write ones name on a piece of paper. That kind of experience just doesn't compare to driving an hour or so from home to revisit a location.

[+Chrysalides]

Because geocaching is not just about the count, it's also about the experience.

...

There are more than a few cachers that enjoy coloring in county, state, and country maps when they've found a cache in a new area they've never visited.

...

It's not just about counting the find, it may also be about a once in a lifetime experience that's only missing the 2-3 seconds it takes to write ones name on a piece of paper. That kind of experience just doesn't compare to driving an hour or so from home to revisit a location.

I know what you mean, though I must point out that not being able to log a find and color in a country or region has little to do with being there to experience the place.

 

Edit to add that I think this is one of the reasons why virtuals are still extremely popular. It provides an easy way to color in the map when visiting a new area.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Chrysalides

[+CanadianRockies]

By the way, this may shock some purists, but I went ahead and took the find there, it was about 80 miles from home. If this happened on a local cache close to home, I'd probably delete my find log, replace it with a note with a wisecrack about throw downs, and go back and find the real cache.

I've never understood the concept that distance from home affects whether or not to count something as a find.

Because geocaching is not just about the count, it's also about the experience.

Absolutely. For me, however, the geocaching experience can be very rewarding even if it ends in a DNF. I guess that's not true for some.

 

There are more than a few cachers that enjoy coloring in county, state, and country maps when they've found a cache in a new area they've never visited. A cache 80 miles away is likely in the same Country, State, and even county in which they've already found a cache. A cache 7000 miles away may be in a Country they will never visit again in their lifetime, and may be the only cache within hundreds of miles.

Personally, those colored areas reflect locations where I have found caches--not those locations where I bent to temptation and claimed a find I normally wouldn't have claimed. It would diminish the meaning of those maps for me, and looking at them would be a constant reminder of what I did.

[+adt1982]

Here's a throwdown comment I've never seen before. There are 3 caches in the middle of a series of caches on a trail that were all archived because the owner has apparently quit caching.

 

Since this one was archived, **** checked with (local geocaching group) and verified that we would be okay per agreement with (cache owner) to drop a replacement cache. Hopefully that will get this one unarchived soon.

 

Do what now?!?!?

[knowschad]

I think we're in 99.99% agreement here, so why are there still throwdowns being placed?

That's easy. It's because we aren't the people who leave throwdowns.

I count perhaps 20 unique respondents in this thread. Assuming 100,000 active geocachers (from 83516 geocachers logging a cache on leap day) that's 0.02% of all geocachers. 99.99% of 0.02% is not a high percentage of geocachers

 

We're not a representative microcosm of the geocaching universe? I'm shocked!

[+tozainamboku]

a throwdown is NOT a cache, it is a FAKE way to cheat a find.

OMG the official score is wrong!! Someone found something other than the geocache that the owner left. And the audacity to claim they found it, when they signed that log and not the one in the original cache. Why, the only reason to do this must be to obtain that smiley by fraud!!

 

Are someone's knickers twisted? This really seems to bother you a lot.

 

We're talking about someone who in good faith found what appears to be a cache and signed the log. Only after they got home did they notice that someone had left throw down. You're now calling that person a cheater because they went ahead an logged the find.

 

Perhaps a cache owner might want to remove the logs of those who found the throwdown because these give a false impression of how difficult it is to find their real cache. But to accuse these people of cheating is pretty silly. If the cache owner is aware that people are finding a throwdown instead of their cache they ought to do maintenance and remove the extra container and stop calling people cheaters.

[4wheelin_fool]

The perception in the forum is that the only motivation to leave a throwdown is to obtain a smiley. The reality is that many cachers place them to help other cachers out. If a maggot has stolen the cache to annoy the cache owner, or in the hopes to hide their own nearby, the throwdown will only annoy them instead. Only in the case of if the hide is intentionally tricky, well camoed, or difficult, then it is not helpful. Most cachers I know, in most cases would not object, but rather welcome it.

[+briansnat]

The perception in the forum is that the only motivation to leave a throwdown is to obtain a smiley. The reality is that many cachers place them to help other cachers out. If a maggot has stolen the cache to annoy the cache owner, or in the hopes to hide their own nearby, the throwdown will only annoy them instead. Only in the case of if the hide is intentionally tricky, well camoed, or difficult, then it is not helpful. Most cachers I know, in most cases would not object, but rather welcome it.

 

I think in the majority of cases it's done simply to obtain a smiley. When was the last time you saw someone throw down a cache and log a DNF or a note? It's nearly always a "found it" even though they found nada. I'm sure they justify it by making believe they are doing the CO a favor.

 

As a CO I don't consider it a favor. First off because the thowree doesn't know precisely where the cache was hidden, he doesn't know whether it is actually missing. Even it it is missing he doesn't know where the throwdown should go.

 

I still need to visit the site and check on the location to verify that my cache is really gone and the throwdown in the correct place. Second, these throwdown caches are invariably poor quality containers and whether or not my cache was missing, I still have to replace the throwdown. So since I have to go to the cache site whether they threw down a cache or not, they might as well saved their leaky film canister and logged a DNF.

Edited May 3, 2012 by briansnat

[+dprovan]

I still need to visit the site and check on the location to verify that my cache is really gone and the throwdown in the correct place.

I find this the most illuminating comment so far. And the other side of that coin: in other cases, the original cache could have been no better than a throwdown to begin with. Why replace a cache like that? So whether the throwdown's good enough or not, either way it seems pointless.

 

And I'm not saying that because I'm too lazy to carry around throwdowns so I can get those extra smilies.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

The perception in the forum is that the only motivation to leave a throwdown is to obtain a smiley. The reality is that many cachers place them to help other cachers out. If a maggot has stolen the cache to annoy the cache owner, or in the hopes to hide their own nearby, the throwdown will only annoy them instead. Only in the case of if the hide is intentionally tricky, well camoed, or difficult, then it is not helpful. Most cachers I know, in most cases would not object, but rather welcome it.

 

I think in the majority of cases it's done simply to obtain a smiley. When was the last time you saw someone throw down a cache and log a DNF or a note? It's nearly always a "found it" even though they found nada. I'm sure they justify it by making believe they are doing the CO a favor.

 

Not that I condone this practice at all Briansnat, nor am I trying to defend it - but if you have a cache with a string of DNF's, and you replace the cache, logging a note or another DNF doesn't really tell subsequent finders that a cache is findable again.

 

For example many use filters in software like GSAK to filter out caches that have long strings of DNF's. Logging a "found it" lets others know that maintenance was performed. (I have requested that a "non-owner maintenance" type log be added, so that people could actually log what they have done, rather than using "found it" as a proxy for this. I have zero expectation that this will actually be implemented.)

 

I think in many places people do it to be helpful, although getting a smiley is also likely part of the motivation. I am particularly suspicious of people who sneak the mention of the throwdown into the midst of a longer log - making it sound like they found something, when they really PLACED something.

 

It's one thing to do this on a trivial hide with an absentee owner. It's quite another to attempt it on a challenging hide or any hide with an active owner. I think both of those are horrible ideas - indeed, I think that in general, a throwdown is a terrible idea.

 

BTW, even on trivial hides on a power trail (a situation where many would argue that a throwdown is most appropriate), I've seen situations where throwdowns caused a lot of grief for the CO. I found and reported a couple of duplicate caches along a local power trail. Someone else had done more of the trail and noted several more, although unlike me, they didn't note *which* of more than 200 caches had duplicate containers present. (They just copied-n-pasted this into most of their logs for the trail.) So, the local reviewer made the CO temporarily disable and physically check a couple of hundred caches along the trail, to find 3-4 duplicates. The CO dutifully did this, but it took a while. The vast majority of the caches had no issues at all. A few were missing and were replaced, and a few duplicate caches were fixed up.

 

I'd guess this particular situation happened for the reasons you state Briansnat +1 smiley. This particular section of the power trail employed 3-4 different hiding techniques, and some of the hides were clever for a power trail - some of them could've taken up to 5 minutes to find!!!! I mean, really, who has 5 minutes on a power trail? So in that case, it is hard to believe the dude who threwdown had pure motives at all. I didn't find any of the ones I looked for to be particularly difficult to find, and I'm terrible at this game.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I still need to visit the site and check on the location to verify that my cache is really gone and the throwdown in the correct place.

I find this the most illuminating comment so far. And the other side of that coin: in other cases, the original cache could have been no better than a throwdown to begin with. Why replace a cache like that? So whether the throwdown's good enough or not, either way it seems pointless.

 

And I'm not saying that because I'm too lazy to carry around throwdowns so I can get those extra smilies.

 

Non-owner maintenance of a power-trail would be the reason to do this. See my prior post for why this isn't a great idea either.

[+briansnat]

Not that I condone this practice at all Briansnat, nor am I trying to defend it - but if you have a cache with a string of DNF's, and you replace the cache, logging a note or another DNF doesn't really tell subsequent finders that a cache is findable again.

 

But shouldn't that be a DNF and a NM?

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Not that I condone this practice at all Briansnat, nor am I trying to defend it - but if you have a cache with a string of DNF's, and you replace the cache, logging a note or another DNF doesn't really tell subsequent finders that a cache is findable again.

 

But shouldn't that be a DNF and a NM?

 

That's certainly what I'd do. However, I'm not apparently a power trail kind of cacher. Given the logistics of some of the bigger power trails, I can understand why some would feel like non-owner replacement was expedient and even a good idea.

 

I've also noticed this tendency locally in rural Oklahoma. There aren't a lot of cachers compared to some other places, and there are towns where more or less the only hides present are by CO's who are no longer playing. In a case like that, I can see how someone would feel it was more useful to replace a cache, than to DNF / NM / NA a cache, because once the cache is archived, there may well be no replacement for it anytime soon. I don't agree with this line of thinking either - but I think that is what is happening in some cases. (They have a point too - I've observed locally the count of caches going downwards nearby me. Oh to be sure in populous areas like Tulsa and OKC, this is a total non-issue, but in less populous / more remote areas it seems to happen, at least here.)

 

I can also kind of understand this in areas where the cache is really remote - there are some out here where NOBODY lives nearby. You can flag it NM (and again, that's precisely what I'd do), but the owner is likely going to be quite a while visiting the cache. And even when it's nearby, there are some CO's who aren't fast about maintenance. (The one time I've considered replacing a container was in a situation like this - I found the ruins of the log / container in a really remote, but extremely interesting cache. The CO is easily 100 miles away, and the last 15-20 of those miles are NOT trivial. Note - I would only consider this because I'm certain I know where the cache belongs, because I found clear and unequivocal remains of the cache, and I'm still iffy on doing it.)

 

Filing "NA" logs on caches that you didn't find, and haven't been found for a long time without CO maintenance works just fine. People seem to be reluctant to file these logs though for some reason. Perhaps people are nervous that the cache really isn't missing? Perhaps it is viewed as just being too much trouble? Perhaps people, in general, don't understand how to use these logs? Well, whatever the reasons, throwing down a cache solves the perceived problem right there on the spot.

 

The most recent throw down I found was no doubt done precisely to let the finder and his buddy get +1 smiley. (Seems to me that was the motivation from reading the log, anyway.) It was an LPC at a QuikTrip gas station in a big city. I reported the throwdown to the CO (the container was, shall we say, unusual. It was also hilarious and didn't seem to fit the description on the cache page.) I think the CO decided it was OK, and left it. So I don't think I accomplished much. Under the circumstances, I have a hard time coming up with reasons the throwdown was just terrible. I don't like the idea - but one LPC container was replaced with another. It was a low cost container in a fairly routine location replaced by another. Ultimately the CO seemed fine with it. What was the problem exactly, other than general principles?

 

I dunno, maybe some people are just better at rationalizing this stuff and I'm just taken in by it. Mostly I'm just trying to understand why people do what they do, I hope.

[+Sol seaker]

I am very much against "throw-downs" yet I found what I felt was an exception. Kind of.

We had a rash of cache thieves here in WA last summer. The thief would target entire trails, and trails that were the favorite of cachers here.

 

This was around the time the Ape cache was taken. People used to travel from all over the world to find that cache. To take it meant somehow getting around the huge chain that chained it to the rock. They also took all the caches in the area of the ape cache.

 

Another cache that was targeted was the oldest cache in WA state that that time. Once again, the entire trail was cleared of all caches. It maybe had around ten of them on it.

 

Those two trails were really high profile. There were forum threads on them. A number of people got together and replaced those caches. Groups of cachers went out to each trail and replaced a whole lot of caches, rather than waiting for each cache owner to get up that trail and get their cache. It had already been confirmed by many finders they were gone, including, in most cases, people who were there a second time with their friends.

 

They got permission of the cache owners, and replaced all the caches they had permission for.

 

I feel this was rather a sort of anti-terrorism sort of thing, rather than throw-downs. Permission was gotten ahead of time, and it was a special circumstance. The whole community here supported the action of those people.I think it was good people weren't going to stay victims to the cache thief, but do something about it.

 

Fast-forward to 9 months later.

There was another trail cleared of it's caches that was not so high profile. There wasn't any special caches on it, but just another trail in the woods. Because it wasn't so special, and wasn't cached as often, so the DNF's trickled slowly in, but many knew the trail was cleared out. A lot of people were waiting for the caches to be replaced to do that trail again. I was one who was waiting. And waiting. And waiting. My friend wanted to do that trail, and I let her know the caches weren't there and only one of them had even been disabled. It had been 9 months since they were cleared out, but could be another year or two before the trail got up and running again. I said, "the heck with it" and started emailing cache owners.

Of all the emails I sent, most replied. Only one said to leave one cache if we didn't find it, because it was a special container that matched the hide. He had two hides, and said to replace the second hide if it was gone.

My friend and I got together backpacks full of containers and headed up the trail. At each cache we spent a long time looking. Together we exhausted every possible hiding spot within a huge circumference of GZ before calling it gone. We cache together often. She has around 6,000 hides, so between the two of us we've found some very difficult caches, and these were all very easy hides. We found a couple of them, one was a very difficult find off trail that we didn't think the cache maggot could find, and the other was VERY difficult to get to, where a lot of trees had been downed and it was a very long difficult hike off the trail. We figure he didn't bother with that one. All the rest were gone.

We were not able to get all the way up the trail due to the snow level, but all the ones we reached we had permission ahead of time for. We ended up with two spare containers at the end, and placed two new caches ourselves, to complete the trail. Later I came back with a small container for the parking area, so parking could be easily found. That was the only cache in the area that was taken and had been archived.

 

We did not do it to get the smilies. I will admit we claimed the smilies, but I felt we did earn them in a different sort of way.

I really felt like we did it

1. To get the trail going for geocachers again

2. to get a good hike in that day

 

I think one of the most important things geocaching does for people is to get them out of the house and get them in the great outdoors and get them exercise. I'd love to see more caches on every trail around here (and may be placing more soon).

This is a beautiful trail that people will find now. There's a great string of caches there now and more people WILL hike that trail, what would not have before.

 

That's what caching is about to me.

 

I have benefited from many people placing caches and doing maintenance over the years. I haven't taken on many caches because I don't think I would be good with maintenance. I don't think people should take on caches who think they won't be good with maintenance. I've wanted to give back in some way. This, I felt, was a good way to do it.

 

I would never, ever place a throw-down without extreme circumstances like this. I felt in this case it worked well. It got a good trail going that would have been down a long time before each owner got up that trail to check their cache. Most of the owners, after 9 months, still didn't know the trail had been cleared out.

 

We didn't do it for the smilie. It seems to be well received here.

I posted it to the local forums so people were aware the trail was up again and could ask questions.

I'm really glad people could get out on that trail and enjoy the beauty of that place.

 

(edit for typos)

Edited May 3, 2012 by Sol seaker

[+NYPaddleCacher]

By the way, this may shock some purists, but I went ahead and took the find there, it was about 80 miles from home. If this happened on a local cache close to home, I'd probably delete my find log, replace it with a note with a wisecrack about throw downs, and go back and find the real cache.

I've never understood the concept that distance from home affects whether or not to count something as a find.

Because geocaching is not just about the count, it's also about the experience.

Absolutely. For me, however, the geocaching experience can be very rewarding even if it ends in a DNF. I guess that's not true for some.

 

It is for me. I've even sent a cache owner a PM thanking him for placing a cache at a specific location even though I didn't find it (and upon logging it discovered that it had recently been muggled). If the CO had not placed that cache I may never had gone down that trail and witnessed a spectacular view along the Maine coast. Although some players have a distinct line between a Found it and a DNF, even the guidelines acknowledge that the line between DNF and Found may be a diffuse grey. The fact that the guidelines allow a cache owner to allow a "Found It" log when something like a photo of the container has been provided tells me that the distinction between DNF and Found is something negotiable between a cache owner and a seeker of their cache. Yes, there are players that will still hold fast to that thin line but I really suspect those players are in the minority. I believe that the act of putting ones name on a piece of paper inside the cache is only a small part of the total experience, and that many cache owner will factor in how far one may have traveled to get to ground zero and locate the container, and consider that when allowing a Found it log to be posted or demanding that the seeker of the cache repeat that experience sometime in the future.

 

 

There are more than a few cachers that enjoy coloring in county, state, and country maps when they've found a cache in a new area they've never visited. A cache 80 miles away is likely in the same Country, State, and even county in which they've already found a cache. A cache 7000 miles away may be in a Country they will never visit again in their lifetime, and may be the only cache within hundreds of miles.

Personally, those colored areas reflect locations where I have found caches--not those locations where I bent to temptation and claimed a find I normally wouldn't have claimed. It would diminish the meaning of those maps for me, and looking at them would be a constant reminder of what I did.

 

I understand what you mean. Several years ago I found a cache very close to the border between California and Nevada. I hadn't looked at the cache listing closely, and although from my perspective it was clearly on the Nevada side (it was at the edge of a casino parking lot), the CO had selected "California" when submitting the listing. I went searching for another cache further from the border, but we had a 1 and 2 year old that we're having melt downs so I had to cut the search short. When I logged it I asked to CO to confirm which side of the border it was on (I wasn't the only one to do so). Since I was convinced it was on the Nevada side I would edit the "State" value in GSAK before producing my stats map. It ate at me for a long time until the CO finally updated the listing and changed the State to Nevada.

 

For what it's worth, I've never had to consider the temptation of posting a found it log on a cache far from home so that I could color in a section of the map. I've had a legitimate find by any definition for at least one cache in every location depicted on the map (23 states, 13 countries, 4 continents). I can only think of two caches in which I found the container (or a portion of it), didn't put my name down on a piece of paper, and are still part of my find count. In both cases I had posted DNFs and the CO sent me a PM and insisted that I post a Found it log. I can think of a more instances when I had touched the container or met all the criteria for a virtual but have *not* posted Found it logs.

[+Chrysalides]

In both cases I had posted DNFs and the CO sent me a PM and insisted that I post a Found it log.

Insisted?

 

(Disclaimer : I have no issues with it. I just find the choice of word amusing. "Change that to a Found It, or I'll... delete your DNF?" )

[Mr.Yuck]

 

Another cache that was targeted was the oldest cache in WA state that that time. Once again, the entire trail was cleared of all caches. It maybe had around ten of them on it.

 

Those two trails were really high profile. There were forum threads on them. A number of people got together and replaced those caches. Groups of cachers went out to each trail and replaced a whole lot of caches, rather than waiting for each cache owner to get up that trail and get their cache. It had already been confirmed by many finders they were gone, including, in most cases, people who were there a second time with their friends.

 

They got permission of the cache owners, and replaced all the caches they had permission for.

 

 

I cut a few parts out. You're giving Toz a run for his money. Very nice heartfelt post, and it sounds like you and your friend had fun, and did a good deed in the eyes of many. But believe it or not, I will take issue with it.

 

I remember those threads you speak of well. Per what I'm quoting above though, I'm going to have to beg to differ. The replacement for the oldest cache in Wa. at the time was a classic throw-down, left there before contacting the owner. They had every intention of contacting the owner, and to not log a find until they were told it was OK, but still a case of bringing along a container with intent to replace someone else's cache before asking.

 

Fast-forward to 9 months later.

There was another trail cleared of it's caches that was not so high profile. There wasn't any special caches on it, but just another trail in the woods. Because it wasn't so special, and wasn't cached as often, so the DNF's trickled slowly in, but many knew the trail was cleared out. A lot of people were waiting for the caches to be replaced to do that trail again. I was one who was waiting. And waiting. And waiting. My friend wanted to do that trail, and I let her know the caches weren't there and only one of them had even been disabled. It had been 9 months since they were cleared out, but could be another year or two before the trail got up and running again. I said, "the heck with it" and started emailing cache owners.

Of all the emails I sent, most replied. Only one said to leave one cache if we didn't find it, because it was a special container that matched the hide. He had two hides, and said to replace the second hide if it was gone.

 

I would never, ever place a throw-down without extreme circumstances like this. I felt in this case it worked well. It got a good trail going that would have been down a long time before each owner got up that trail to check their cache. Most of the owners, after 9 months, still didn't know the trail had been cleared out.

 

We didn't do it for the smilie. It seems to be well received here.

I posted it to the local forums so people were aware the trail was up again and could ask questions.

I'm really glad people could get out on that trail and enjoy the beauty of that place.

 

 

Here's where I'll disagree. I'm of the opinion, and I'll bet the majority of volunteer reviewers are too, that someone who leaves the listing for an obviously missing cache sitting there without even disabling it for 9 months doesn't "deserve" to have someone go out and replace it for them. How many times have we heard in the forums "Post an SBA, and place a cache of your own there if it's a good spot". Heck, don't hold me to it, but I'll bet I can find a quote from a volunteer reviewer saying that (a couple words here or there, of course). As I said before, I remember the other thread well, and what you guys did does seem to be common in the Pacific NW. It certainly isn't where I come from.

 

What it boils down to is perpetuating an old cache for someone who left the listing there without disabling for 9 months. And I'd say there's a pretty good chance if it went missing again, the same thing would happen. Nope, I say give someone else a chance at a 528 foot radius from where the missing cache was. So there's another perspective from someone who lives in an area where maintenance by community is uncommon. Even though everyone in the Pacific NW probably thinks I'm nuts.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

 

What it boils down to is perpetuating an old cache for someone who left the listing there without disabling for 9 months. And I'd say there's a pretty good chance if it went missing again, the same thing would happen. Nope, I say give someone else a chance at a 528 foot radius from where the missing cache was.

 

So suppose nobody replaces the cache with a new listing? There are areas where this happens - how is that a good outcome? I'm not trying to argue for the practice of throwdowns, and in populous areas, I think good spots barely get cold after being archived before a new cache is listed. But in remote areas with few cachers, you could well end up -1 cache, and that's the end of it. How is that a better outcome?

[Mr.Yuck]

 

What it boils down to is perpetuating an old cache for someone who left the listing there without disabling for 9 months. And I'd say there's a pretty good chance if it went missing again, the same thing would happen. Nope, I say give someone else a chance at a 528 foot radius from where the missing cache was.

 

So suppose nobody replaces the cache with a new listing? There are areas where this happens - how is that a good outcome? I'm not trying to argue for the practice of throwdowns, and in populous areas, I think good spots barely get cold after being archived before a new cache is listed. But in remote areas with few cachers, you could well end up -1 cache, and that's the end of it. How is that a better outcome?

 

Well, in this case two people were going to replace the caches. Sol seaker did explain how they themselves do not own many listings (apparently only 2 before adding 2 to this trail recently), and they looked at it as a way to give back. But they could have easily been new listings.

 

I can see where you're coming from though, in this special case, and only this special case, of mass cache theft. If the container isn't replaced, and no one else opts to place a cache there, it can give the appearance of the cache thief winning. In the end though, it's just a cache. We got up to 1.8 million active listings and near exponential growth in 12 years despite a few cache thieves.

 

EDIT: And thinking about it even more, I could definitely be persuaded to soften or even change my opinion in the case of mass cache thefts. Anyone else have an opinion? The two replacers could have replaced the caches without claiming finds for something they put there themselves. Or "enjoyed the trail" by just going for a hike along it.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+SwineFlew]

this cache keeps disappearing...so cachers were putting throwdowns to get the smiley so the CO archived the cache.

 

this!

Edited May 4, 2012 by SwineFlew

[Mr.Yuck]

a throwdown is NOT a cache, it is a FAKE way to cheat a find.

OMG the official score is wrong!! Someone found something other than the geocache that the owner left. And the audacity to claim they found it, when they signed that log and not the one in the original cache. Why, the only reason to do this must be to obtain that smiley by fraud!!

 

Are someone's knickers twisted? This really seems to bother you a lot.

 

We're talking about someone who in good faith found what appears to be a cache and signed the log. Only after they got home did they notice that someone had left throw down. You're now calling that person a cheater because they went ahead an logged the find.

 

Perhaps a cache owner might want to remove the logs of those who found the throwdown because these give a false impression of how difficult it is to find their real cache. But to accuse these people of cheating is pretty silly. If the cache owner is aware that people are finding a throwdown instead of their cache they ought to do maintenance and remove the extra container and stop calling people cheaters.

 

Sorry, I got tied up discussing the replacement of other people's caches in the case of a mass cache theft. Thanks, Mr. T. But I did have two detractors, one of which implied that it could have been done for the numbers, so I have decided to delete the find where I found a throwdown, but didn't discover it was a throwdown, and the real cache was still there, until I got home. I must retain my Puritan status, you know. So I now have 2,369 finds, not 2,370. Even though I really enjoyed the cache I choose for my 2,370th milestone find.

 

The throwdown cache was hidden in a similar fashion to the one that's apparently still there. Both micros in sawed-off tree stumps in a cemetery, the real cache probably being 10-15 feet away, judging from the other sawed-off tree stumps I saw. I informed the CO of the throwdown via email (didn't say anything in my log), and it was definitely the first he had heard of it.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

So suppose nobody replaces the cache with a new listing? There are areas where this happens - how is that a good outcome? I'm not trying to argue for the practice of throwdowns, and in populous areas, I think good spots barely get cold after being archived before a new cache is listed. But in remote areas with few cachers, you could well end up -1 cache, and that's the end of it. How is that a better outcome?

EDIT: And thinking about it even more, I could definitely be persuaded to soften or even change my opinion in the case of mass cache thefts. Anyone else have an opinion? The two replacers could have replaced the caches without claiming finds for something they put there themselves. Or "enjoyed the trail" by just going for a hike along it.

 

If they didn't log a find, how would anyone know they'd replaced the caches and they were findable? A DNF would likely just blend in with the string of other DNF's. A note doesn't stand out very well. I wouldn't feel comfortable logging a find, but practically speaking, if you want to replace a cache and tell others "yep, it's there now" in a way they'll notice, you should log a find.

 

I requested on the suggestion forum a "non-owner" maintenance log type for this sort of situation, so that someone could clearly note non-owner changes to a cache in a way that stood out from other logs. There are always unusual circumstances where someone helping out isn't actually a terrible thing to do.

 

What would seem ideal to me would be to encourage is people to help out in ways that help others, as opposed to mostly just helping themselves alone, and actually making problems for others. This is the main issue, to me, with dropping throwdowns after a cursory search - someone who does this may feel good logging the find, but they likely left a duplicate cache and a messy situation for everyone else subsequently. If someone is going to do this type of maintenance, they really need to understand what they are doing, have a good reason for doing it, and they should document it.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Mr.Benchmark

[+CanadianRockies]

In both cases I had posted DNFs and the CO sent me a PM and insisted that I post a Found it log.

Distance from home doesn't factor into what I consider a find. Nor does the cache owner's definition of a find factor into what I consider a find. I've had a dozen or so cache owners read my DNF logs and email me notes saying I could count these as finds, if I wanted. In each case, I thanked them and politely declined their kind offers.

 

But we're getting even farther off topic.

Edited May 4, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+tozainamboku]

The perception in the forum is that the only motivation to leave a throwdown is to obtain a smiley. The reality is that many cachers place them to help other cachers out. If a maggot has stolen the cache to annoy the cache owner, or in the hopes to hide their own nearby, the throwdown will only annoy them instead. Only in the case of if the hide is intentionally tricky, well camoed, or difficult, then it is not helpful. Most cachers I know, in most cases would not object, but rather welcome it.

 

I think in the majority of cases it's done simply to obtain a smiley. When was the last time you saw someone throw down a cache and log a DNF or a note? It's nearly always a "found it" even though they found nada. I'm sure they justify it by making believe they are doing the CO a favor.

 

I realize that by your definition of a find, they didn't find the cache. In fact from a puritan literalist view of the word find, it would seem pretty obvious that if you left a replacement you didn't didn't find the cache. What bothers me about your charge is that you are unable to accept that people define and use the online find log in ways that are different than a literalist interpretation of a find. You assume that the only motivation is to get that extra point you wouldn't get otherwise.

 

Now you may personally say that for you there is no score and your only concerned is that a different definition of find gets your knickers in a twist. When you state that the main motivation is the smiley count it gives the impression that you are concerned about their score. I don't understand why you would want to give this impression. If you really don't think the "score" should matter, then it shouldn't bother you what someone else's score is - or what their motivation for logging a find is. But I still think you are wrong.

 

I believe there are some good reasons for claiming a find if you leave a throwdown. For one, someone using GSAK or other tool to weed out caches that haven't been found recently will now see the cache is there and is findable. For another, the found log serves the purpose of marking the caches you have "done". Perhaps you didn't "find" the cache according to the literalist definition, but since you have left a replacement their isn't much point in leaving in on your unfound list. Log a find and mark it complete. Cache owners may allow the logs to stand because many actually do appreciate someone helping them with maintenance.

 

Perhaps there are some ares where the practice of leaving throwdowns has become so widespread that people will leave them just because they can't find the cache. Certainly on some power trails, it's become common practice to bring extra film cans to replace any caches that have gone missing. However, I have not seen this much. It seems to me that throwdowns are a rare practice reserved for caches that have obviously gone missing where the cache owner hasn't done maintenance or where the cache owner has requested that people help with maintenance. If the only motivation was a smiley, and not to help out cache owners and other cachers, the people leaving throwdowns would do so at every cache.

As a CO I don't consider it a favor. First off because the thowree doesn't know precisely where the cache was hidden, he doesn't know whether it is actually missing. Even it it is missing he doesn't know where the throwdown should go.

 

I still need to visit the site and check on the location to verify that my cache is really gone and the throwdown in the correct place. Second, these throwdown caches are invariably poor quality containers and whether or not my cache was missing, I still have to replace the throwdown. So since I have to go to the cache site whether they threw down a cache or not, they might as well saved their leaky film canister and logged a DNF.

This part I will agree with. That's why I have said that leaving a replacement without cache owner permission is bad. It generally doesn't help the cache owner with maintenance at all - for the very reasons you gave.

[+Too Tall John]

How many times have we heard in the forums "Post an SBA, and place a cache of your own there if it's a good spot". Heck, don't hold me to it, but I'll bet I can find a quote from a volunteer reviewer saying that (a couple words here or there, of course).

Does Briansnat count?

I agree with the others. Time for a NA. If you like the spot then place your own cache once it's archived. If you replace the cache you are simply keeping an unmaintained cache going.

[+Sol seaker]

 

What it boils down to is perpetuating an old cache for someone who left the listing there without disabling for 9 months. And I'd say there's a pretty good chance if it went missing again, the same thing would happen. Nope, I say give someone else a chance at a 528 foot radius from where the missing cache was.

 

So suppose nobody replaces the cache with a new listing? There are areas where this happens - how is that a good outcome? I'm not trying to argue for the practice of throwdowns, and in populous areas, I think good spots barely get cold after being archived before a new cache is listed. But in remote areas with few cachers, you could well end up -1 cache, and that's the end of it. How is that a better outcome?

 

Well, in this case two people were going to replace the caches. Sol seaker did explain how they themselves do not own many listings (apparently only 2 before adding 2 to this trail recently), and they looked at it as a way to give back. But they could have easily been new listings.

 

I can see where you're coming from though, in this special case, and only this special case, of mass cache theft. If the container isn't replaced, and no one else opts to place a cache there, it can give the appearance of the cache thief winning. In the end though, it's just a cache. We got up to 1.8 million active listings and near exponential growth in 12 years despite a few cache thieves.

 

EDIT: And thinking about it even more, I could definitely be persuaded to soften or even change my opinion in the case of mass cache thefts. Anyone else have an opinion? The two replacers could have replaced the caches without claiming finds for something they put there themselves. Or "enjoyed the trail" by just going for a hike along it.

 

 

Yeah, I knew someone would go ballistic over it. (actually you didn't go ballistic) I wondered my sanity in posting it. I really expected more fireworks really. If these forums have one thing, they have great fireworks.

 

Anyway,

I think it would be better to wait for DNF's in most situations too. I'd rather see them replaced or archived by their owners.

the problem is that in this case because of the remote locations of these caches, to get enough DNF's to disable, then to wait for replacement or archival would have taken at least two years at the rate it was happening. I mean I guess I could have hiked up there every week for a while and DNFed it every week, but they really need to hear it from more than me. People weren't hiking up there because these were gone, so there was no one to DNF them.

We all know a great percentage of the people who DNF, don't log it.

So with that, these were getting one DNF every six months or so, and that on only some of them.

So, do we just sit and wait for at least two years for a great area to be returned after some cache maggot sets out to ruin our fun? Who knows? Maybe it would have been three before even half were dealt with.

I decided not to wait. I chose to be proactive. The cache owners agreed.

Everyone wouldn't agree. Heaven knows, there's really nothing that everyone in these forums agree on.

Most of the local community is happy to be caching again. After all, that's what the game's about. We're here to cache. So let's play.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Sol seaker

[Mr.Yuck]

 

What it boils down to is perpetuating an old cache for someone who left the listing there without disabling for 9 months. And I'd say there's a pretty good chance if it went missing again, the same thing would happen. Nope, I say give someone else a chance at a 528 foot radius from where the missing cache was.

 

So suppose nobody replaces the cache with a new listing? There are areas where this happens - how is that a good outcome? I'm not trying to argue for the practice of throwdowns, and in populous areas, I think good spots barely get cold after being archived before a new cache is listed. But in remote areas with few cachers, you could well end up -1 cache, and that's the end of it. How is that a better outcome?

 

Well, in this case two people were going to replace the caches. Sol seaker did explain how they themselves do not own many listings (apparently only 2 before adding 2 to this trail recently), and they looked at it as a way to give back. But they could have easily been new listings.

 

I can see where you're coming from though, in this special case, and only this special case, of mass cache theft. If the container isn't replaced, and no one else opts to place a cache there, it can give the appearance of the cache thief winning. In the end though, it's just a cache. We got up to 1.8 million active listings and near exponential growth in 12 years despite a few cache thieves.

 

EDIT: And thinking about it even more, I could definitely be persuaded to soften or even change my opinion in the case of mass cache thefts. Anyone else have an opinion? The two replacers could have replaced the caches without claiming finds for something they put there themselves. Or "enjoyed the trail" by just going for a hike along it.

 

 

Yeah, I knew someone would go ballistic over it. (actually you didn't go ballistic) I wondered my sanity in posting it. I really expected more fireworks really. If these forums have one thing, they have great fireworks.

 

Anyway,

I think it would be better to wait for DNF's in most situations too. I'd rather see them replaced or archived by their owners.

the problem is that in this case because of the remote locations of these caches, to get enough DNF's to disable, then to wait for replacement or archival would have taken at least two years at the rate it was happening. I mean I guess I could have hiked up there every week for a while and DNFed it every week, but they really need to hear it from more than me. People weren't hiking up there because these were gone, so there was no one to DNF them.

We all know a great percentage of the people who DNF, don't log it.

So with that, these were getting one DNF every six months or so, and that on only some of them.

So, do we just sit and wait for at least two years for a great area to be returned after some cache maggot sets out to ruin our fun? Who knows? Maybe it would have been three before even half were dealt with.

I decided not to wait. I chose to be proactive. The cache owners agreed.

Everyone wouldn't agree. Heaven knows, there's really nothing that everyone in these forums agree on.

Most of the local community is happy to be caching again. After all, that's what the game's about. We're here to cache. So let's play.

 

I was going to post to this thread in response to Mr. Benchmark, and say "Mr. Benchmark has Mr. Yuck on the mat, and the ref has already counted to two". Yes Mr. B, good point, logging them as finds in that case would be the only real way to let people know they were back.

 

So yeah, I'm doing a 175 in this case. Note I didn't say 180, only 175. I would say how do you know where the caches you replaced were supposed to be hidden? But I suppose some of the owners could have given you detailed information there. Certainly not a foolproof method though. I also can't get 100% behind the idea of replacing a cache for someone who hasn't said anything about it probably being missing, or even disabling it. But there are so many factors here; they're hiking caches that don't get hit too often, not a cache in a park 500 feet from parking that gets hit 100 times a year. So I'll go with that, I'm doing a 175.

 

I'd post a animated GIF of Fireworks here, but it's too early in the morning EST for that, I don't feel like it.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I think turning a 175 degree turn is acceptable under the circumstances. The situation sol seaker found, and the replacement that followed is making the best of a bad situation. I wouldn't ever think non-owner / non-prior finder replacement was ever a great outcome. Just in this case it was the best outcome in a horrible situation. I am not advocating this in general. I'd point out that UNLIKE most throwdown situations, sol seaker had some knowledge about the situation, had thought it over, and had a plan.

 

I'll point out again that I suggested over in the suggestion forum a "non-owner" maintenance type cache log, just for situations like this. Most didn't like it because they felt it was prone to abuse. They have a point, but my point is that all this stuff happens, whether for good or bad, so documenting what really happened with a special log doesn't change one thing, it just clarifies and documents what has happened with the cache over it's history.

[+jellis]

Well it happened to me again. I was caching in Lodi and decided to check my caches near Locke and Isleton. The one in Locke was reported being wet. But when I got there it was completely dry with no sign of it ever being wet like runny ink or smears. The baggie had no hole in it. So I contacted some finders who were not on the logsheet. Turns out someone put a key holder near the cache. Mine is a fake face plate. I left the cache because in case it was from another site and posted in the main copy, hint and log that this other cache is not mine.

[+Fredact]

By the way, this may shock some purists, but I went ahead and took the find there, it was about 80 miles from home. If this happened on a local cache close to home, I'd probably delete my find log, replace it with a note with a wisecrack about throw downs, and go back and find the real cache.

I've never understood the concept that distance from home affects whether or not to count something as a find.

 

If I found and signed a cache that I did not know was a throw down, I would not delete it later. If someone put a throw down at one of my caches, I would only delete the log of the one who did the throw down.

 

I really can't blame those that find a throw down. Unless of course the throw down is very obvious as to what it is.

 

Fortunately I've not run across this problem yet in my area. But I think as a cache owner, if someone replaced one of mine, I'd delete their log, aa well as anyone that found the fake cache. I don't look at it as "blaming" those that found the fake, they just didn't find the real cache. I want them to find MY cache.

[+Sol seaker]

By the way, this may shock some purists, but I went ahead and took the find there, it was about 80 miles from home. If this happened on a local cache close to home, I'd probably delete my find log, replace it with a note with a wisecrack about throw downs, and go back and find the real cache.

I've never understood the concept that distance from home affects whether or not to count something as a find.

 

If I found and signed a cache that I did not know was a throw down, I would not delete it later. If someone put a throw down at one of my caches, I would only delete the log of the one who did the throw down.

 

I really can't blame those that find a throw down. Unless of course the throw down is very obvious as to what it is.

 

Fortunately I've not run across this problem yet in my area. But I think as a cache owner, if someone replaced one of mine, I'd delete their log, aa well as anyone that found the fake cache. I don't look at it as "blaming" those that found the fake, they just didn't find the real cache. I want them to find MY cache.

 

I have to agree.

Someone replaced it just because they couldn't find it and didn't have permission to do so.

I'd delete their find (I would assume it was the first name on the log sheet) then use their container for a hide somewhere else.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

But I think as a cache owner, if someone replaced one of mine, I'd delete their log, aa well as anyone that found the fake cache. I don't look at it as "blaming" those that found the fake, they just didn't find the real cache. I want them to find MY cache.

 

Would you delete the log of the person who informed you - "hey, I think this is a throwdown, you might wanna check this out?" Because I always do this. And whenever I do this I let the CO know that they are welcome to delete my log, even though I'm the one letting them know about a potential problem. However, I have to be honest - that is a lie. If someone deleted my log after I warned them about a possible throwdown, I'd be annoyed and likely never look for another one of their caches again, filing it under "no good deed goes unpunished." I hold a grudge forever. (See my avatar picture - I clearly have issues.) Just food for thought for you.

 

OK, I'm not sure I'd really hold a grudge, but unless your cache was spectacular I'd likely not return if you deleted my log on the throwdown - especially if I'm the one who warned you about it in the first place. (Realistically, I'd probably hold a grudge, too, at least for a while.)

 

I can totally appreciate deleting the log on the person who threw down in the first place - especially if they didn't directly email you to tell you in no uncertain terms that they did this because they were sure your cache was missing, instead trying to sneak it in to a log, i.e.:

 

"Well me and ____ were out caching on this fine day. Easy find on the cache ... blather blather blather ramble ramble ramble, couldn't find the original so left a substitute in good shape ... blah blah blah more stuff about the 170 other caches they found that day.... TNLNSL TFTC!!!!" i.e. a log that is an excellent candidate for the FI = DNF thread...

 

Or just not saying anything, doing the throwdown, signing it, and logging TFTC.

[+Chrysalides]

Would you delete the log of the person who informed you - "hey, I think this is a throwdown, you might wanna check this out?" Because I always do this. And whenever I do this I let the CO know that they are welcome to delete my log, even though I'm the one letting them know about a potential problem. However, I have to be honest - that is a lie. If someone deleted my log after I warned them about a possible throwdown, I'd be annoyed and likely never look for another one of their caches again, filing it under "no good deed goes unpunished." I hold a grudge forever. (See my avatar picture - I clearly have issues.) Just food for thought for you.

 

OK, I'm not sure I'd really hold a grudge, but unless your cache was spectacular I'd likely not return if you deleted my log on the throwdown - especially if I'm the one who warned you about it in the first place. (Realistically, I'd probably hold a grudge, too, at least for a while.)

 

I can totally appreciate deleting the log on the person who threw down in the first place - especially if they didn't directly email you to tell you in no uncertain terms that they did this because they were sure your cache was missing, instead trying to sneak it in to a log, i.e.:

 

"Well me and ____ were out caching on this fine day. Easy find on the cache ... blather blather blather ramble ramble ramble, couldn't find the original so left a substitute in good shape ... blah blah blah more stuff about the 170 other caches they found that day.... TNLNSL TFTC!!!!" i.e. a log that is an excellent candidate for the FI = DNF thread...

 

Or just not saying anything, doing the throwdown, signing it, and logging TFTC.

I think I know what you're saying. OK, I lied, I don't. Maybe I do. A little bit, anyway

 

But I agree with what you said.

 

I think.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

[i think I know what you're saying. OK, I lied, I don't. Maybe I do. A little bit, anyway

 

But I agree with what you said.

 

I think.

 

LOL - obviously I don't know what I think either! It is a messy and ambiguous situation!

 

Being more serious - I really don't care about +/- one find really at all, although deletion of a log would be a mortal insult to some. I wouldn't be thrilled with cleaning up my records of finds / DNF's that would be caused by such a deletion of my log. (Especially if I'd logged the cache sometime in the past and didn't remember it well - and had to go back digging to figure out why my records were off.) Unless the cache were really spectacular, I'd be unlikely to repeat it. Personally I would not hold a grudge against the CO - life is too short and this is just a game. I feel very sure that some people would though.

[+jellis]

[i think I know what you're saying. OK, I lied, I don't. Maybe I do. A little bit, anyway

 

But I agree with what you said.

 

I think.

 

LOL - obviously I don't know what I think either! It is a messy and ambiguous situation!

 

Being more serious - I really don't care about +/- one find really at all, although deletion of a log would be a mortal insult to some. I wouldn't be thrilled with cleaning up my records of finds / DNF's that would be caused by such a deletion of my log. (Especially if I'd logged the cache sometime in the past and didn't remember it well - and had to go back digging to figure out why my records were off.) Unless the cache were really spectacular, I'd be unlikely to repeat it. Personally I would not hold a grudge against the CO - life is too short and this is just a game. I feel very sure that some people would though.

What I do is not blame the ones who logged the wrong one, I do ask them to change their log to read "logged by permission" and to mention that there was another cache that was not the correct one.

Added: I had the key holder removed and was told the log was soggy but some cachers names were listed. But could not read who was the first name which in most cases would be the one who replaced it (but not always)

Edited May 8, 2012 by jellis

[+Mr.Benchmark]

[i think I know what you're saying. OK, I lied, I don't. Maybe I do. A little bit, anyway

 

But I agree with what you said.

 

I think.

 

LOL - obviously I don't know what I think either! It is a messy and ambiguous situation!

 

Being more serious - I really don't care about +/- one find really at all, although deletion of a log would be a mortal insult to some. I wouldn't be thrilled with cleaning up my records of finds / DNF's that would be caused by such a deletion of my log. (Especially if I'd logged the cache sometime in the past and didn't remember it well - and had to go back digging to figure out why my records were off.) Unless the cache were really spectacular, I'd be unlikely to repeat it. Personally I would not hold a grudge against the CO - life is too short and this is just a game. I feel very sure that some people would though.

What I do is not blame the ones who logged the wrong one, I do ask them to change their log to read "logged by permission" and to mention that there was another cache that was not the correct one.

 

That seems fair to me.

[+bflentje]

But I think as a cache owner, if someone replaced one of mine, I'd delete their log,

 

Agree 100%

 

as well as anyone that found the fake cache.

 

Disagree 100%. Sounds a bit heavy handed and aggressive to me. UNLESS, it were a high star cache and the throw down was freely accessible with no effort. Then I'd agree. But on a lamo cache with less than a couple of stars overall? Who gives a rip.

[+Gustav129]

But I think as a cache owner, if someone replaced one of mine, I'd delete their log,

 

Agree 100%

 

as well as anyone that found the fake cache.

 

Disagree 100%. Sounds a bit heavy handed and aggressive to me. UNLESS, it were a high star cache and the throw down was freely accessible with no effort. Then I'd agree. But on a lamo cache with less than a couple of stars overall? Who gives a rip.

 

If I noticed a post that said that it was a throwdown, I would go out to the cache site and see what was going on right away. I think I would prefer a NM before a throwdown.

[+ArcherDragoon]

as well as anyone that found the fake cache.

 

Disagree 100%. Sounds a bit heavy handed and aggressive to me. UNLESS, it were a high star cache and the throw down was freely accessible with no effort. Then I'd agree. But on a lamo cache with less than a couple of stars overall? Who gives a rip.

I would leave the log as well...it isn't their fault I didn't get my butt out there sooner to go take care of my cache.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

as well as anyone that found the fake cache.

 

Disagree 100%. Sounds a bit heavy handed and aggressive to me. UNLESS, it were a high star cache and the throw down was freely accessible with no effort. Then I'd agree. But on a lamo cache with less than a couple of stars overall? Who gives a rip.

I would leave the log as well...it isn't their fault I didn't get my butt out there sooner to go take care of my cache.

 

True, but in fairness - you may not have known until much later. Sometimes people who throw down don't mention it. Sometimes they do, but obfuscate it in a lengthy "found it" log. It sure would be nice if there were a log that told you "hey, I changed your cache, maybe a lot. Maybe you should go check it."

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=293763

[+jellis]

But I think as a cache owner, if someone replaced one of mine, I'd delete their log,

 

Agree 100%

 

as well as anyone that found the fake cache.

 

Disagree 100%. Sounds a bit heavy handed and aggressive to me. UNLESS, it were a high star cache and the throw down was freely accessible with no effort. Then I'd agree. But on a lamo cache with less than a couple of stars overall? Who gives a rip.

 

If I noticed a post that said that it was a throwdown, I would go out to the cache site and see what was going on right away. I think I would prefer a NM before a throwdown.

My cache is faceplate so when cachers found a key holder they didn't know it was a throwdown. I went to check the cache just before I found that out. I only went to check reports that the log was wet. My cache was completely dry and I still didn't suspect there was a throwdown there.

[+OZ2CPU]

a REPLACEMENT cache, put there by others, with permission by the CO,

is not a throwdown !

it is a way to help CO in need, and in many cases like the mentionened vadalism examples,

a good solution to get alot of caches back up and running.

----

a throwdown is a fake cache put there with NO prior permission,

it is put there due to not finding the real cache,

then the placer log a FIND,

this behaviour must be stopped as soon as possible before the idea spread too much.

----

a normal finder of a cache, specially if a bit experianced,

must more or less know if he finds a real cache or a throwdown !

A real cache got its cache name, GC number, owner info with how to contact, and stash-note

all this is explained in the normal guidelines of making and placing a cache,

if you find a nasty throwdown, its container should also look susperious to you.

yes I know some real caches kind of go very close to a throwdown in their quality and style,

that is VERY poor CO style, and another issue to deal with, please try to fix this too.