Jump to content

What Irks you most?


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, colleda said:

It irked me not a little when taking time and effort (having so little time) to comply and log this virtual only to read through other finders logs and see that most seem to have just taken a pic and done nothing else to claim their smiley. I think that is a little insulting to a CO who goes to the effort of  setting up such a cache.

 

It doesn't appear that the CO has done anything to police the logs in the last several years, so I guess they're not taking it too personally.

 

But yes, I agree, it's disappointing to see when folks only care about the smiley and don't put in the effort.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Found a nice section  of an abandoned rail line.  Hid three caches.  And mostly, I get the same the same log for all three.

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Found with A and B. Nice day to be out caching. TFTH

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Found with A & B. Nice day to be out caching. TFTH

 

Found itFound i t 02/17/2019

Found with A & B. Nice day to be out caching. TFTH

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Quick find with B & C  while out caching in a new area. TFTC!! Left a TB

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Quick find while out caching with B & C, great day to get outside before more snow. TFTC!!

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Quick find with B & C on a fun day of caching. TFTC!!

 

Same logs for C.

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Nice sunny day got us out of the house. TFTC.

 

Makes me wonder why I bothered.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Found a nice section  of an abandoned rail line.  Hid three caches.  And mostly, I get the same the same log for all three.

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Found with A and B. Nice day to be out caching. TFTH

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Found with A & B. Nice day to be out caching. TFTH

 

Found itFound i t 02/17/2019

Found with A & B. Nice day to be out caching. TFTH

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Quick find with B & C  while out caching in a new area. TFTC!! Left a TB

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Quick find while out caching with B & C, great day to get outside before more snow. TFTC!!

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Quick find with B & C on a fun day of caching. TFTC!!

 

Same logs for C.

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Nice sunny day got us out of the house. TFTC.

 

Makes me wonder why I bothered.  

I posted something like that some time ago. X posts "found with Y" and Y posts "found with X". Seems to happen quite often around here when two cache together.

Yep, why bother?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, colleda said:

X posts "found with Y" and Y posts "found with X". Seems to happen quite often around here when two cache together.

Yep, why bother?

Hubby and I usually cache together.  He writes very short, terse logs - Find # XXX @time, TFTC  I tend to be more wordy, and describe stuff so I can remember the cache and the hide.  We do mention if we were with each other - or a group - but his logs are short and mine are longer!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, colleda said:

I posted something like that some time ago. X posts "found with Y" and Y posts "found with X". Seems to happen quite often around here when two cache together.

Yep, why bother?

 

It doesn't always pan out that way when a log starts with "Found with X"...

 

Quote

Found itFound it

02/02/2019

Found with X. There really isn't much more I could add to his log below. Was an incredible adventure and a perfect geocache in my eyes. If anyone is watching this cache, go now as you won't be disappointed - just maybe bring 10kg of salt with you to combat the annelids.
Fav point for the unforgettable experience, smoothly put together multi and great final container. Ripper Jeff! Will certainly be returning here for another swim.

 

Found itFound it

02/02/2019

We had an absolute ball on this walk today, and really aren’t sure how so few finds are in the log, or how either Y and I haven’t come up here before!

To start from the beginning, an overcast, muggy day didn’t leave a great deal of options however, I remembered this cache I hadn’t done. Contacting Y, we met at the ‘puddles.’ A series of splashes and foolish decisions involving getting my car acquainted with a tree, I parked the car. Moving through the first few waypoints we could help but realise how full the creek is! The small amount of recent rain must have had some effect! We also noticed that a couple of the photos were a bit different with a decent flow of water. From this point, we were attacked by a continual stream of leeches, all starving for a feed.

A quick dip in a much more lively cascade that what the photo suggested and further toward the falls. There were shrill cries of delight on arrival as we had not expected anything nearly as amazing. I have driven hours away from home for much less that is to say. A succession of swims under the incredibly powerful falls and more shrieks of disbelief that we were actually here in the rain and bath temperature water in something that looked more like SE QLD not even 30mins from home. Of course a no perfect waterfall is complete with out a jump off either! Gingerly swimming out with phones, we got a few snaps before heading up the trail to some more creek. Familiar memories of placing Moon Lillies while checking out the dam. As we missed the first waypoint, it was a guessing game of what our friends from NP hate the least. We decided on something which turned out to be right.

Having a decent search at GZ, I was pleased to turn up the goods in what seemed like an ambiguous location. The trip back was full of leeches, literally I have open wounds from the various ‘blood baths’ on my feet. Despite this, we had an awesome time up here on one of the best caches I have done in a long time. Take the time and the effort to come up here! TFTC!!!!!

 

It's logs like these that make it worth all the effort of hiding the cache.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

COs who won't delete obviously false logs, even when pointed out to them. Also challenge logs where someone is allowed to keep their log when they haven't done the challenge. This is especially bad when it's a difficult challenge, such as example below. To drive this it's thousands of kms. I drove about 12,000kms to fulfil this. To fulfil this challenge a cache in every state and territory of the mainland of Australia (including Tasmania) must be logged within twelve months.

Perhaps some COs don't want to annoy the cacher by deleting their log, but they could be annoying a whole lot more cachers by not deleting it.

 

Found it (Proof supplied)

Found it (Proof supplied) "We concur with (previous cacher's) observations."

Write Note (Photograph of log supplied showing the two below didn't find this cache. No signature for either.) " I include a photograph of the log, which shows who has really found this."

Found it (Proof supplied of caches found in the States & Territories) But they had not visited this cache to sign the log.

Found it (NO proof) 10 finds - I checked their finds and they have only found caches in ONE state.

Found it (Proof supplied)

Found it (Proof supplied)

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

COs who won't delete obviously false logs, even when pointed out to them.

 

While I agree with you, and I will always take the side of integrity, it's their cache at the end of the day.  Cheating cheapens the cheaters' finds, but it only taints your find from your perspective.

 

I have one challenge cache on my watchlist.  It doesn't get found much - I'm the fifth to log a find, and sixth to sign the log.  I watch it more out of curiosity as to who else is trying to complete it than anyone else.  I leave it to the CO to check any other finder's homework.

 

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

To fulfill this challenge a cache in every state and territory of the mainland of Australia (including Tasmania) must be logged within twelve months.

 

Were I the CO, I'd up the difficulty.  I'd say 12,000 km of driving, plus a flight to Hobart, rates a bit higher than 1.5 stars.  That, plus from your log, it looks like a tough hide.  But again, rating a cache, like policing the log, is the CO's responsibility.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:
3 hours ago, hzoi said:

flight to Hobart

I took the car ferry. My one night cruise I joked.

 

You must have taken a lot of searching to find the cache I referred to.

 

Not really.  I figured if it meant that much to you, it must be a favorite.  Not many challenge caches in your favorites, so it wasn't hard.  Definitely a 1.5 star difficulty, or less.  :laughing:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Oxford Stone said:

GC5BFD9, first search result if you google "to fulfil this challenge..." + "geocache"!

 

That would have been a good way to find it.

 

For the record, the second result in that search, GC6VF7W, is rated at five stars and has no time limit.  So my bigger irk with that challenge would definitely be the low-ball rating.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, hzoi said:

For the record, the second result in that search, GC6VF7W, is rated at five stars and has no time limit. 

 

If we only had started caching a bit earlier. SA and ACT are still on "the list" and NSW/QLD were pre-caching visits. So not so hard to do, even for antipodes.

 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, hzoi said:

While I agree with you, and I will always take the side of integrity, it's their cache at the end of the day.  Cheating cheapens the cheaters' finds, but it only taints your find from your perspective. 

 

Insofar as finding, sure, but false logs can also mislead potential finders. To the original point, COs who don't delete false finds aren't just allowing 'cheating' to perpetuate (that doesn't bother me as much, as you describe), but rather that the CO knows the log's integrity is false and implies an unverified status for potential finders. A Find implies 'findable as of...', but if there's a problem that would have hindered that find (especially if it's actually missing as of that date), then find is then misleading. (as one example)

A known false log should be deleted by the CO. Not for the sake of thwarting cheaters, but for the integrity of the log history accordingo the CO's best knowledge.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I must go log that one when next in the area, as I qualify.

Do I see a flaw in the requirements? "Each state and territory" Australia has ten territories and six states. One territory is in Antarctica which would push the difficulty rate up a tad.

The wording could be amended each state plus ACT and NT.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, colleda said:

Do I see a flaw in the requirements? "Each state and territory" Australia has ten territories and six states. One territory is in Antarctica which would push the difficulty rate up a tad.

The wording could be amended each state plus ACT and NT.

 

Looks like GS mislabels Jervis Bay Territory caches as either NSW or ACT. Looks like an opportunity for another regional souvenir.  

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, MNTA said:

 

Looks like GS mislabels Jervis Bay Territory caches as either NSW or ACT. Looks like an opportunity for another regional souvenir.  

I did not know that there was a Jervis Bay Territory until now. Live and learn.  Australian Antarctica Territory has a Webcam with one find which took 15 years to FTF.

Link to comment
On 2/20/2019 at 3:14 AM, Harry Dolphin said:

Found a nice section  of an abandoned rail line.  Hid three caches.  And mostly, I get the same the same log for all three.

Makes me wonder why I bothered.

Out of curiosity: The three caches are lying within 700m, all three listings have the same, short description not giving any clue what could be the difference experience in finding the one or the other. Granted two are smalls, one is a micro.

 

So what is you expectation? How would you write three individual find logs on this three caches?

 

When I happen to visit this area I would log one cache with an individual text describing a bit my experience in the area and maybe the condition of the cache. I might have a look for the other caches out of curiosity but (as I assume from afar) most probably would not log the other caches online since I simply would not know what to write and I will never make a c&p log. And I would have loved to hunt instead for an easy Multi along this short trail.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Hynz said:

I might have a look for the other caches out of curiosity but (as I assume from afar) most probably would not log the other caches online since I simply would not know what to write and I will never make a c&p log.

 

As a CO, I'd prefer a C&P log to no log at all.  And as a future searcher, it's always nice to know the cache is there to be found.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Hynz said:

So what is you expectation? How would you write three individual find logs on this three caches? 

Shouldn't be difficult. There might be a generic somponent, as there's only three, but I'm not keen on repeating the same thing ad nauseum. I might write something like,

 

Cache one: 'I saw these three caches, so I thought I would take the walk and find them. Lovely day, although there are clouds on the horizon. This cache was quickly found and the cache and log are good. Then it was off to number two. TFTC.

 

Cache two: 'After a pleasant walk I arrived at the second cache. It too and its log are in good condition, although only a few spaces left to sign, so the CO might consider a visit to replace the log. The clouds have crept a little closer, so I do think rain is on the way. I spotted an orchid beside the tracks, not where I expected to see one. Off to number three. TFTC.

 

Cache three: Final find, and another log that could do with a replacement. Did I have a fright, a black snake slithered across my path, but after I recovered, I pulled out my camera and followed it to take its photograph (included). A handsome specimen. Now back the way I came. Thank you for this excellent series; I did enjoy the short outing. I felt the first sprinkles of rain as I reached my car. TFTC.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 2
Link to comment

After my previous one and made up answers I checked an actual short series of caches for the real logs I made. Maybe not as verbose as the made up ones I wrote, but still a different log for each. I had a lot of logging that day and was travelling away from home, to put it into perspective.

I have been known to do generic logs for long power trails, but even then, if something stands out, such as cache needs maintenance, wonderful view from a cache, or that snake; I would add an individual comment for that cache.

 

Real logs:

Cache 1: I found this quickly. This is a great hide and idea. Worth a favourite point. TFTC

 

Cache 2: I searched for AGES for this and was thinking this was going to be a DNF, but then I found it, about 14 metres from where my GPS indicated. (All the others in this series my GPS agreed with the coordinates; just this one it didn't.) TFTC

 

Cache 3: The coordinates were spot on for this one, which made a quick find. TFTC

 

Cache 4: More good coordinates. This walk is good exercise, over the sand. TFTC

 

 Cache 5: The last of the four, and then I sat down to work out the final. TFTC

 

Cache 6: The final coordinates worked out, I set out to claim this one. I had a different number for 'S', but it didn't make sense, so I substituted the logical number, which let me to GZ. This gave me good exercise over the sand and got me out of my car. About a five kilometre walk. Worth a favourite point for the series. TFTC

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have been known to do generic logs for long power trails, but even then, if something stands out, such as cache needs maintenance, wonderful view from a cache, or that snake; I would add an individual comment for that cache.

 

Likewise. The only times I really do a 100% c/p log are literally long stretches of identical caches on a powertrail. And I do those much less often these days as they're typically less interesting.  Since I compose each log individually I often generate a generic 'day' short paragraph (sentence or two) and even that may morph over time, followed by a sentence or more of comments about that particular cache. Rarely is the entire log a duplicate of the others that day.

I think that using the field note Draft Compose page helps to push you into that mentality. But I am seeing more people in my region these days doing many more generic c/p logs.

 

Not many do that multi-paragraph "here how my entire wonderful day went and thank you to all cache owners for contributing to our wonderful day. Find #239847129" impersonal block that probably barely anyone reads at all. (save those for blogs and facebook posts please :P )

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Granted, I haven't read all of these replies, but I have not seen mentioned when a couple has a single account for both of them, and they double their counts by caching individually.  I saw one user finding caches in Arizona and Florida simultaneously for weeks on end.  Turns out the husband was visiting family in Arizona while the wife was on vacation in Florida.  This would be compounded if the entire family shares an account, and the parents are caching at home, sister in college in another state, brother at camp, etc.  I get that it's adorable for everyone in a family to have the same caching account, but if you are caching individually, you really should have individual accounts.  (On my end, when my kids got a little older and wanted to go caching with me, I insisted they get their own accounts, so that they would never log a find under my name when I was not there.  Just seems dishonest.)

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Ageleni said:

Granted, I haven't read all of these replies, but I have not seen mentioned when a couple has a single account for both of them, and they double their counts by caching individually.  I saw one user finding caches in Arizona and Florida simultaneously for weeks on end.  Turns out the husband was visiting family in Arizona while the wife was on vacation in Florida.  This would be compounded if the entire family shares an account, and the parents are caching at home, sister in college in another state, brother at camp, etc.  I get that it's adorable for everyone in a family to have the same caching account, but if you are caching individually, you really should have individual accounts.  (On my end, when my kids got a little older and wanted to go caching with me, I insisted they get their own accounts, so that they would never log a find under my name when I was not there.  Just seems dishonest.)

I don't understand either why people share accounts, because people are not always together. Imagine a power trail. They only find every second one, because their partner is finding the other. I would feel dishonest doing his, but I suspect some at least of joint accounts would do this. No wonder they have such large amounts of finds. I don't like including children either. I think when they are old enough to log a find they should have their own account. I have seen a number of cases of children, now older, logging finds and saying I found this as part of (name) and now I have my own account I am now logging caches I found.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

 Imagine a power trail. They only find every second one, because their partner is finding the other. I would feel dishonest doing his, but I suspect some at least of joint accounts would do this.

This is done by separate accounts too, or cachers going out in teams. Each finds part of the caches and logs for everyone, in the end everyone logs all caches. Nothing to do with shared accounts.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, on4bam said:

This is done by separate accounts too, or cachers going out in teams. Each finds part of the caches and logs for everyone, in the end everyone logs all caches. Nothing to do with shared accounts.

 

Our group has always done this cache by cache together. Not that we have done heaps of power trails. One person drives (as sometimes parking is iffy, it's also a safety thing that the driver stays there and watches for traffic), the others hop out and sign. If they can't find the cache the driver gets out too to search, but for power trails the cache is often obvious from the car.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Ageleni said:

Granted, I haven't read all of these replies, but I have not seen mentioned when a couple has a single account for both of them, and they double their counts by caching individually.  I saw one user finding caches in Arizona and Florida simultaneously for weeks on end.  Turns out the husband was visiting family in Arizona while the wife was on vacation in Florida.  This would be compounded if the entire family shares an account, and the parents are caching at home, sister in college in another state, brother at camp, etc.  I get that it's adorable for everyone in a family to have the same caching account, but if you are caching individually, you really should have individual accounts.  (On my end, when my kids got a little older and wanted to go caching with me, I insisted they get their own accounts, so that they would never log a find under my name when I was not there.  Just seems dishonest.)

 

Curious what "double their counts" actually means to anyone.  What do find counts mean to you ?     Are there prizes ? 

I could care less about stats, only looking at my stat page when somebody brings something up. 

If I could change one thing in this hobby,  it'd be "find count". 

I only log finds today because the system can't delete a cache from search without it...

 

A bit different in start times in this hobby, but all caching couples we knew when we started had shared accounts.

We were usually together, most could tell by logs when we weren't.  One of us went solo, the other simply wouldn't cache.

The other 2/3rds doesn't cache anymore ("beta testing" newbies cache placements ...), but did have a basic account to hold her couple-hundred coins.

 - At the time, we had to scroll through that mess of trackables just to log a found it.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I could care less about...

 

I know this is just one of those examples of two nations divided by a common language, and that this is completely normal usage in the US, but it does still irk me!

 

Vive la difference! ;-)

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Ageleni said:

Granted, I haven't read all of these replies, but I have not seen mentioned when a couple has a single account for both of them, and they double their counts by caching individually.  I saw one user finding caches in Arizona and Florida simultaneously for weeks on end.  Turns out the husband was visiting family in Arizona while the wife was on vacation in Florida.  This would be compounded if the entire family shares an account, and the parents are caching at home, sister in college in another state, brother at camp, etc.  I get that it's adorable for everyone in a family to have the same caching account, but if you are caching individually, you really should have individual accounts.  (On my end, when my kids got a little older and wanted to go caching with me, I insisted they get their own accounts, so that they would never log a find under my name when I was not there.  Just seems dishonest.)

 

I know a few couples who have a single account; their logs typically make it clear if it was one or the other or both caching.  I have no problem with that.

 

My only caveat...  If (and this is only an if!) a couple were caching separately at the same time, and were to use these finds for ‘dubious’ challenge cache qualification then I’d find that a little disingenuous.

 

Personally, however, the day my other half found her first cache without me (in Vatican City, no less), was the day I set up her separate account.

Edited by IceColdUK
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
13 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

 

I know this is just one of those examples of two nations divided by a common language, and that this is completely normal usage in the US, but it does still irk me!

 

Vive la difference! ;-)

It may be common usage in the US, but it's still wrong. If everyone said 2+2=5, it'd still be wrong. ;)

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
On 2/23/2019 at 7:28 PM, IceColdUK said:
On 2/23/2019 at 1:02 PM, cerberus1 said:

I could care less about...

 

I know this is just one of those examples of two nations divided by a common language, and that this is completely normal usage in the US, but it does still irk me!

 

Vive la difference! ;-)

 

With you on that.

But I convinced myself that the writer of said phrase knows a reasonable alternative explanation that still allows the phrase make sense by its implied usage. That is: "I could care less, but I'm doing you a favour by caring as much as I am." :laughing:

But yes... otherwise, "couldn't"... couldn't couldn't couldn't... irk irk irk... :P

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

With you on that.

But I convinced myself that the writer of said phrase knows a reasonable alternative explanation that still allows the phrase make sense by its implied usage. That is: "I could care less, but I'm doing you a favour by caring as much as I am." :laughing:

But yes... otherwise, "couldn't"... couldn't couldn't couldn't... irk irk irk... :P

Here in Oz we say "couldn't care less" but it means the same. Just regional differences as mentioned above.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, colleda said:

Here in Oz we say "couldn't care less" but it means the same. Just regional differences as mentioned above.

Yes, I think the intended expression everywhere, regardless of region, is grammatically correct as "couldn't care less". Which is why it's so irksome when someone says "could care less" =P

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Yes, I think the intended expression everywhere, regardless of region, is grammatically correct as "couldn't care less". Which is why it's so irksome when someone says "could care less" =P

 

Either phenomena is fine with me as long as they are discrete about it.

 

:rolleyes:

 

(yes, I did that on purpose)

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

I went to an event yesterday.  The CO archived all the caches in the area before the event, and hid new ones.  Event was 1 PM to 3 PM.  At 2:30, the new caches were published.  Well, they are NOT showing up on my GPS!

Likely an exclusive phone cacher, and thinks everyone uses their phone.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

I went to an event yesterday.  The CO archived all the caches in the area before the event, and hid new ones.  Event was 1 PM to 3 PM.  At 2:30, the new caches were published.  Well, they are NOT showing up on my GPS!

 

I don't like when COs archive caches just to put new ones on the same area. However, these were archived years ago  (if I'm looking at the right spot) for various reasons, so  I guess that's okay. 

He could have handed the new coordinates on paper for those present, I have seen that happen.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

I went to an event yesterday.  The CO archived all the caches in the area before the event, and hid new ones.  Event was 1 PM to 3 PM.  At 2:30, the new caches were published.  Well, they are NOT showing up on my GPS!

 

Back in the days when we set up new caches for events, we'd have a handout for this. 

 

I've seen some COs/event hosts have a laptop or two set up with GPX files.

 

I have started embracing the phone more, now that our phone is somewhat accurate.  But the GPSr is still my primary means of location.

Link to comment

We see the same around here but caches are archived well in advanced of the (yearly) event. GPX files with the new caches are loaded from laptops to USB sticks or GPS' and by the time the event ends the caches are published. Several events have printed "roadbooks" with all caches in it so all possibilities to have cache info are catered for. I'm not an event goer but I prefer GPX files to be put on an USB stick so I can load the caches to my laptop with GSAK and load my GPS myself. the roadbook then serves as notebook to collect info for waypoints of multis and values for bonuscaches.

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, papu66 said:

 

I don't like when COs archive caches just to put new ones on the same area. However, these were archived years ago  (if I'm looking at the right spot) for various reasons, so  I guess that's okay. 

He could have handed the new coordinates on paper for those present, I have seen that happen.

Near me a prolific finder and CO archived a series of about 20 caches then relaunched a series of about 20 caches... same ones in same places as we found when we did the walk! Just new log paper. We took the finds and enjoyed the walk, but had to wonder "why did you do that?".

Last week I picked up 3 caches that were fill-ins for archived caches in a series I'd already done several years back, where the CO "was too busy to maintain the caches in 2018" - that was OK I suppose, again a pleasant walk and at least these hides were slightly different from the originals.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Oxford Stone said:

Near me a prolific finder and CO archived a series of about 20 caches then relaunched a series of about 20 caches... same ones in same places as we found when we did the walk! Just new log paper. We took the finds and enjoyed the walk, but had to wonder "why did you do that?".

 

That happens often around here for challenge caches. Once a challenge becomes too "easy", or the CO just wants to do something fresh, they leave the container in place, don't bother checking it or cleaning it or even giving it a new logbook, and publishes a new listing with a new challenge. Clever idea for challenge caching, but not a great idea for the fun of finding containers.

  • Surprised 2
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

That happens often around here for challenge caches. Once a challenge becomes too "easy", or the CO just wants to do something fresh, they leave the container in place, don't bother checking it or cleaning it or even giving it a new logbook, and publishes a new listing with a new challenge. Clever idea for challenge caching, but not a great idea for the fun of finding containers.

 

The bolded part is not awesome.  And not how I believe it's supposed to be done.  New listing should mean new log.

 

Before I started just archiving our caches when we moved and picking up the containers, I would arrange for local cachers to sort of adopt them - I'd disable my listing, but keep the container in place, and the new CO would check out the container, add a new log in, and submit a new cache page.  The reviewers we worked with were fine with that and archived our listings at the same time as they published the new listing, but they required a cache check and a new log.

 

I'm not going to go snooping to try and figure out who you're talking about, but you might want to shoot your local reviewer(s) an email, as they may not know this is happening.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

Well the only evidence I've seen over the years is occasionally finding a cache I've already signed even though it's a new listing. There are also the occasional "I jacked your cache" published which (I'm assuming) are with the original owner's permission, and I think and believe the idea behind those is an archival without a retrieval then someone comes along and publishes in the same place with the same container (though I have no idea if the new co does a check).

Honestly personally that doesn't bug me in principle, if there's been permission.  I mean it's kind of annoying, and seems to go against the 'spirit' of cache ownership (it's your baby, not someone else's), but in practice if the cache is in good condition, there isn't really a problem. I'm not a cache cop (generally) so I'm not going to report if I think something like that has happened, especially if the listing implies something like that.  But I think reviewers are aware, if not have a suspicion, that old containers are being 'recycled' for new listings occasionally. I'd be surprised if they didn't at least have a suspicion (I often see new listings use the same coordinates as old ones - is it safe to assume that the new COs always go to replacing or replenish the old container? enh)

That's why it's just an irk and not a report ;P

Link to comment

What i find really annoying is the caches that are still published but haven't been found in years and the CO hasn't been on line for years also.  Seem the powers that be should be looking at these caches and achieving them if the CO has not been on line or the DNF go back for years.  Just my two cents!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Fah-Troop said:

What i find really annoying is the caches that are still published but haven't been found in years and the CO hasn't been on line for years also.  Seem the powers that be should be looking at these caches and achieving them if the CO has not been on line or the DNF go back for years.  Just my two cents!

Not sure why that would be an annoyance.  Just ignore it if it isn't your cup of tea.  Finding caches that are still active but haven't been found in years is one of my top caching interests.  Doesn't matter if the owner's been on-line a day ago or ten years ago as long as the cache is still a viable cache.  I know quite a few cachers that covet "lonely" finds.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Fah-Troop said:

What i find really annoying is the caches that are still published but haven't been found in years and the CO hasn't been on line for years also.  Seem the powers that be should be looking at these caches and achieving them if the CO has not been on line or the DNF go back for years.  Just my two cents!

 

One of my caches (GC664DZ) was last found well over two years ago in December 2016 and was then DNFed in May 2017. It's still there, though, it's just that everyone who's wanted to find it already has (except that last DNFer who hasn't been back). Fine, have it archived if you want, but I don't know how doing so will benefit the game.

 

My region, the New South Wales Central Coast, has 572 caches, 38 of which haven't been found for more than a year (4 of those mine) and 3 more than two years. The one at the top of the list is just a few days short of three years since its last find but to the best of my knowledge there's nothing wrong with that either - the last log in March 2016 was a find and the finder gave it an FP. It's a D2/T5 water-access-only cache that just doesn't get many finds.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, icezebra11 said:

...  Finding caches that are still active but haven't been found in years is one of my top caching interests.  Doesn't matter if the owner's been on-line a day ago or ten years ago as long as the cache is still a viable cache.  I know quite a few cachers that covet "lonely" finds.

Agreed. 

I got "ticked-off" ( but not hate)  mail from many who were planning on doing distant, "long-forgotten" hides, when I just happened to find it a week before.   :D

Distance and/or higher terrain are my favorites. 

Most of those are "lonely" these days...     :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 3/2/2019 at 5:14 PM, Fah-Troop said:

What i find really annoying is the caches that are still published but haven't been found in years and the CO hasn't been on line for years also.

 

1.  The "Last visited" date on someone's profile only indicates the last date they visited geocaching.com via a browser of some type.  it does not indicate either the last time they checked their email to see the latest logs, or the last time they used a geocaching application to check their hides or find caches,

 

2.  It's unclear what you mean by not found.  Just because no one has had the courage to seek it, doesn't mean it's not there.  

 

3.  If a cache is no kidding no longer at the coordinates, it may be time for someone to log a Did not find plus either a Needs maintenance or Needs archived on it.  Otherwise the problem is not going to fix itself.

 

On 3/2/2019 at 5:14 PM, Fah-Troop said:

Seem the powers that be should be looking at these caches and achieving them if the CO has not been on line or the DNF go back for years.

 

That's pretty much the intent of the Cache Health Score, which flags potential problem caches for an automatic email to the owner suggesting a check and is available to reviewers to check caches that may need intervention.  In other words, this should already be happening.  But if it's not, again, people should be logging not just Did not find logs, but also either Needs maintenance or Needs archived, as appropriate.

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...