What Irks you most?

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, MNTA said:

 

Shouldn't intentional "red herrings" be marked as not a cache? 

When you open them they usually are. That doesn't make them less annoying. The pleasure of finding it dashed away. I agree with LEE737's comment, "Yep, if there's a more reliable way to make me not give you an FP, I'm not sure what it is...."

[+lee737]

4 hours ago, MNTA said:

 

Shouldn't intentional "red herrings" be marked as not a cache? 

CITO them out....

[+colleda]

22 hours ago, kitt5 said:

True. But in over 1000 finds, I've never found such a thing.

I was looking for an ammo can cache in Alaska which had DNFs. I found a likely spot matching hint. Four or five metres away I spotted a birdhouse. Someone had left a signed bit of paper in it. It was a real birdhouse.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

8 hours ago, lee737 said:

CITO them out....

 

I hope the smiley face indicates that that's not a serious suggestion.

[+Gill & Tony]

Like most things, the first one got an FP from me, for the concept that I hadn't see before.  Mind you, I also gave an FP to my first LPC 

[+MFJefferis]

I'm fairly new to geocaching, so I'm still learning and I learned this past weekend that people will log a cache as found online without signing the log!  We were out riding our SXS last weekend and we stopped by our oldest hidden cache, it's been in place for about a year.  It has been logged 4 or 5 times online but the only signature on the physical log was the FTF!!

I was shocked, but makes me think that all but the FTF hadn't really found the cache   I should have guessed as the comments online were very generic even though the hide is in a very unique location and in a cute container, IMHO!

[+TeamRabbitRun]

2 hours ago, MFJefferis said:

I'm fairly new to geocaching, so I'm still learning and I learned this past weekend that people will log a cache as found online without signing the log!  We were out riding our SXS last weekend and we stopped by our oldest hidden cache, it's been in place for about a year.  It has been logged 4 or 5 times online but the only signature on the physical log was the FTF!!

I was shocked, but makes me think that all but the FTF hadn't really found the cache   I should have guessed as the comments online were very generic even though the hide is in a very unique location and in a cute container, IMHO!

 

If you care enough, as CO you're empowered to delete those 'Found' logs.

 

Many COs send a note first, asking the alleged non-finder to adequately describe the cache. If they don't answer or don't convince you that they were there, then they don't get to keep the 'Find'.

 

Many COs care about this, and many don't. You do you. Personally, I care.

 

Many people find and sign caches without logging online. That's fine if they really don't care about publicly tracking their hobby. But the other way? Nope; you don't get to do that to mine.

[+lee737]

6 hours ago, MFJefferis said:

I'm fairly new to geocaching, so I'm still learning and I learned this past weekend that people will log a cache as found online without signing the log!  We were out riding our SXS last weekend and we stopped by our oldest hidden cache, it's been in place for about a year.  It has been logged 4 or 5 times online but the only signature on the physical log was the FTF!!

I was shocked, but makes me think that all but the FTF hadn't really found the cache   I should have guessed as the comments online were very generic even though the hide is in a very unique location and in a cute container, IMHO!

If I were the CO I'd probably delete the logs.... if I weren't the CO, I'd certainly put a log photo in my log, perhaps message the CO.....

[+kunarion]

7 hours ago, MFJefferis said:

I should have guessed as the comments online were very generic even though the hide is in a very unique location and in a cute container, IMHO!

 

The Official Apps (IOS and Droid) default to "Found It" logs.  There are a bunch of caches that developed a list of DNFs, which I'm monitoring to be sure they can be found before I hunt them, but the vague logs seem to say the cacher did not find it, yet the log is a "Found".

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by kunarion

[+Gill & Tony]

2 hours ago, kunarion said:

The Official Apps (IOS and Droid) default to "Found It" logs. 

Since this is the irk thread - that is one of my irks

[+Goldenwattle]

10 hours ago, MFJefferis said:

I was shocked, but makes me think that all but the FTF hadn't really found the cache  

As TeamRabbitRun wrote, "Many COs send a note first, asking the alleged non-finder to adequately describe the cache. If they don't answer or don't convince you that they were there, then they don't get to keep the 'Find'."

That's what I do. No answer, or only a generic answer (ie, they can't describe the cache), I delete their logs.

 

I have softened up a bit lately. I have allowed some very new geocachers (under five finds) to keep their 'find', but explained the need to sign the log * in the future. I don't want to discourage new members. If they continue to cache though and I find a later log not signed by them I will delete it, and likely delete the earlier one then too, because now they can't say they didn't know they must sign the log.

 

* Not rocket science though. There's a paper log with signatures on it that, doh!, others have signed. I easily worked this out on my first cache and signed the log .

[+thebruce0]

People just need to change their goal - it's not about "finding the container", you are successful when you sign the logsheet. And that applies to so much more, once you start getting into gadget caches, field puzzles, red herriings, trick containers, etc... The logsheet should always be a geocacher's goal, when it's a physical geocache.

[+Mudfrog]

On 4/16/2023 at 10:23 PM, Goldenwattle said:

When you open them they usually are. That doesn't make them less annoying. The pleasure of finding it dashed away. I agree with LEE737's comment, "Yep, if there's a more reliable way to make me not give you an FP, I'm not sure what it is...."

 

Goes to show you how all of us are different. I enjoy those kinds of caches and in my opinion, I'd rather they not be so rare. For me, there's actually the feeling I've accomplished something when finally discovering the real cache amongst the red herrings. Traditional micro caches hidden same ole same ole are the ones that I pay little attention to. As far as throwing favorite points their way,, forget about it!.

[+Bonnie_ft_Clyde]

On 4/21/2023 at 4:31 AM, thebruce0 said:

People just need to change their goal - it's not about "finding the container", you are successful when you sign the logsheet. And that applies to so much more, once you start getting into gadget caches, field puzzles, red herriings, trick containers, etc... The logsheet should always be a geocacher's goal, when it's a physical geocache.

 

I think that one exception to this is when the logbook is drenched, full or missing, and you can't replace it. Sometimes I happen not to carry my Geocaching stuff, but I still will go for the cache on my way. And if I can't physically log it because of one of these problems, I will take a picture of the cache and of the logbook and write in my online log that I took a picture, and if the CO wants me to prove my find I can send him the picture.

 

Obviously this applies to usual caches, not to the special ones like red herrings etc.

[+thebruce0]

9 hours ago, Bonnie_ft_Clyde said:

I think that one exception to this is when the logbook is drenched, full or missing, and you can't replace it.

Technically not even that. If you don't sign the logsheet, the CO can delete your log. Strictly speaking. Of course there are exceptions and edge cases and 'spirit' of the activity.

My comment about changing the goal was not every single person must sign every single logsheet of every single physical geocache they find or the game is wrong. I was pointing to the spirit of the activity - don't aim to find or spot 'the container' - change your goal to signing the log sheet. That's the only time you know that you are able to log the find with full legitimacy. And yes of course that's the spirit of the goal, not the letter of the goal. 

[+kitt5]

On 4/20/2023 at 8:19 AM, MFJefferis said:

It has been logged 4 or 5 times online but the only signature on the physical log was the FTF!!

I was shocked, but makes me think that all but the FTF hadn't really found the cache 

This goes back to my original statement. If I were in your shoes, I'd message everyone but the FTF ( who physically signed the log) and give them notice that if the actual log is not signed, then their online log will be deleted.

[+Goldenwattle]

26 minutes ago, kitt5 said:

This goes back to my original statement. If I were in your shoes, I'd message everyone but the FTF ( who physically signed the log) and give them notice that if the actual log is not signed, then their online log will be deleted.

Yes non-signers are an irk. My most recent received answers to a query about their non-signing.

 

"Oh sorry it’s just I never carry a pen"

 

"Ok why is it such a big deal"

 

 

I did let them them keep their log, after I got a reasonable description, but that took backwards and forwards to get it.

[+CCFwasG]

I agree about the find logs online that aren't backed up by an actual signature - I have found an increasing number lately, almost always new(ish) cachers, but some that are really obviously just false. Definitely an irk but if I'm not the CO all I can do is put a log photo (often do anyway).

I came back to the "irks" thread for a new irk but a question. This was discussed recently but my issue might be slightly different. When a cache with a certain D/T rating is moved a bit or changed then the discussion was whether the D/T rating should be updated or whether a cache archived & new one published etc. Varying opinions in that discussion, understandably. (Though I feel badly if someone completes a fizzy based on a rating that changes & then they are incomplete.)

My irk is about a cache I tried to get recently. It's a challenge I fulfill. I saw that the T rating was high but also that someone I know who is shorter than I am did find it 1+ year ago. However, that container is gone (not sure if on purpose or not, the original attachment to the tree branch is still there) and the cache was adopted. The new container placement is WAY WAY more difficult, now needing equipment to get it, which it did not originally. So my question for people is: if the original cache maybe really didn't live up to its T rating of 4.5 (subjective though!) and so the new CO made it much tougher, am I right to be a bit angry that a friend managed to get it before it was moved, and I'm just "out of luck" (per the new CO)? What should have happened here - or should nothing? Curious for peoples' thoughts.

[+fuzziebear3]

Sometimes on a challenge cache, the rating also reflects the D/T needed to qualify, not just the final find.

 

Yes, sometimes you find a high terrain one in an easier position or easier conditions, and you benefit from that.  But now that it is tougher, you will have to do what you need to accomplish putting your signature on the log.   Bring a tool, bring a friend, wait for the wind to knock it down ...

[+lee737]

5 hours ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Bring a tool, bring a friend, wait for the wind to knock it down ...

We found a T5 cache (technical tree climb) on the ground on the weekend..... so you can get lucky. Not with this one now, we retied it in place....

[+lee737]

Stuff like this in response to EarthCache answers:

Quote

 

You answered most of the questions correctly, even the number of trees! and most don’t get it right. 

<snip>

I will let your FIND stand for another week while you resubmit your homework…..

 

Most of the questions? sounds like a pass to me!

[+niraD]

6 minutes ago, lee737 said:

Stuff like this in response to EarthCache answers:

Quote

You answered most of the questions correctly, even the number of trees! and most don’t get it right. 

<snip>

I will let your FIND stand for another week while you resubmit your homework…..

Most of the questions? sounds like a pass to me!

Yeah, it's owners like this who give EarthCaches a bad name.

 

As an EarthCache owner, I might delete a Find log if it's clear that the person didn't even try. But even if all the answers are wrong, if it's clear the person tried, I'll respond with corrections and explanations, not threats to delete the Find log.

[+cerberus1]

55 minutes ago, lee737 said:

We found a T5 cache (technical tree climb) on the ground on the weekend..... so you can get lucky. Not with this one now, we retied it in place....

 

AAAHH ! That looked like fun. This doc better get me fixed soon...

[+lee737]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

But even if all the answers are wrong, if it's clear the person tried, I'll respond with corrections and explanations, not threats to delete the Find log.

Exactly. I do the same. Some people just use it as a power-trip..... I think I'll just put it in my pay-no-mind basket. If he deletes it I'll ask him to explain to HQ.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Yeah, it's owners like this who give EarthCaches a bad name.

Yes, and why for years I ignored Earthcaches. They weren't fun to do; more like answering a school exam.

However, I will be visiting Europe soon, and I am pleasantly surprised that so far, most of the Earthcaches don't seem too hard to answer. Easier than some Australian ones. I even have my answers ready to submit for many of them. I just need to get the necessary photograph and/or answer a site specific question.

I was told by one CO that my answers were better than most, but still, not enjoyable when the list is long and tricky. This is sad, as often Earthcache take you to fascinating places. They should encourage a visit, not discourage by hard and too many questions.

[+lee737]

15 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

This is sad, as often Earthcache take you to fascinating places. They should encourage a visit, not discourage by hard and too many questions.

True. I enjoy them, to be honest this would be the first time I've ever been asked to resubmit with a threat of log deletion. They are supposed to be a learning op, aimed at a junior high school level.

The question we missed wasn't even geological, clearly needs research - find the name of some pioneer family who used to quarry rocks from the area.... it wouldn't be allowed now anyway.

[+Gill & Tony]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Yes, and why for years I ignored Earthcaches. They weren't fun to do; more like answering a school exam.

However, I will be visiting Europe soon, and I am pleasantly surprised that so far, most of the Earthcaches don't seem too hard to answer. Easier than some Australian ones. I even have my answers ready to submit for many of them. I just need to get the necessary photograph and/or answer a site specific question.

I was told by one CO that my answers were better than most, but still, not enjoyable when the list is long and tricky. This is sad, as often Earthcache take you to fascinating places. They should encourage a visit, not discourage by hard and too many questions.

I print out the earthcache and virtual cache pages for ones I plan to tackle and will complete those answers I can before I go.  The completed pages mean I don't have to remember the answers when I get to a place I can log them.

[+colleda]

7 minutes ago, Gill &amp; Tony said:

I print out the earthcache and virtual cache pages for ones I plan to tackle and will complete those answers I can before I go.  The completed pages mean I don't have to remember the answers when I get to a place I can log them.

That's what I did before a recent cruise stop at  Komodo Island.  Pink Beach Earthcache GC76381 was at the spot where we were snorkeling. I left the printout on the ship, totally forgetting about the EC. Oldtimers irks me.

[+lee737]

6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

AAAHH ! That looked like fun. This doc better get me fixed soon...

It was fun.... the first TTC's we've done for a few months, not really high (25-30'), out of (safe) ladder range for sure.....

[+CCFwasG]

13 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

My irk is about a cache I tried to get recently. It's a challenge I fulfill. I saw that the T rating was high but also that someone I know who is shorter than I am did find it 1+ year ago. However, that container is gone (not sure if on purpose or not, the original attachment to the tree branch is still there) and the cache was adopted. The new container placement is WAY WAY more difficult, now needing equipment to get it, which it did not originally. So my question for people is: if the original cache maybe really didn't live up to its T rating of 4.5 (subjective though!) and so the new CO made it much tougher, am I right to be a bit angry that a friend managed to get it before it was moved, and I'm just "out of luck" (per the new CO)? What should have happened here - or should nothing? Curious for peoples' thoughts.

 

Only one reply?

And I won't even start on earthcaches and the variety of COs. 

[+Goldenwattle]

8 hours ago, Gill &amp; Tony said:

I print out the earthcache and virtual cache pages for ones I plan to tackle and will complete those answers I can before I go.  The completed pages mean I don't have to remember the answers when I get to a place I can log them.

That's what I have done with those that it's possible to do this with.

[+Gill & Tony]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's what I have done with those that it's possible to do this with.

If you use GSAK try my Duplex Print macro.  It lets you control exactly what gets printed and starts each cacheon a new sheet.

[+SoonerCardsFan]

I haven't read all 92 pages so this has probably all ready been beaten to death. It's just that I found a bunch last weekend that this applies to. 

Finders need to learn how to properly fold or roll a log sheet. I HATE a log wadded up and stuffed in a pill bottle, preform, key holder, etc. 

[+lee737]

4 hours ago, SoonerCardsFan said:

I HATE a log wadded up and stuffed in a pill bottle, preform, key holder, etc. 

Related to this is the CO who stuffs so much log paper into a (usually inappropriate) small container, with a massive ziplock bag you need to fold over 5 times to get back in. It's as if they think if they squeeze in half an exercise book they'll never need to maintain it, where all they are doing is ensuring it will be a tatty mess in a month, and as the container (commonly a non-waterproof mint-tin) is rubbish, it will rust away long before anyway....

[+CCFwasG]

6 hours ago, SoonerCardsFan said:

I haven't read all 92 pages so this has probably all ready been beaten to death. It's just that I found a bunch last weekend that this applies to. 

Finders need to learn how to properly fold or roll a log sheet. I HATE a log wadded up and stuffed in a pill bottle, preform, key holder, etc. 

 

Over the past many months I have seemed to be "following" a certain local cacher. I'm sure they are very nice & our occasional comms have been friendly... but EVERY TIME they just wad up the log and stuff it back in. (Cachers after me are lucky I straighten it all out LOL!!!)

[+MNTA]

New hiders with 1 find.

 

Currently on a geocaching road trip. In between jobs right now so have some extra time on my hand.  Last night checked for new caches along my route. Wow one town I was planning to drive through had 4. As a recovering FTF addict  I had to try.  Don't worry I'm not going back to being crazy besides it was a new provinceI where I did not have one in yet.

 

Long story short was 1/4. Which is fine I am regularly the first to dnf caches. Though I was not alone others had issues. Just really bad hints like "cap" The cache name had emojis of baseball caps. Or "Please find the frog". So terrible hint. I'll message the owner and offer a few suggestions.

 

Just venting

 

 

[+SoonerCardsFan]

12 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

 

Over the past many months I have seemed to be "following" a certain local cacher. I'm sure they are very nice & our occasional comms have been friendly... but EVERY TIME they just wad up the log and stuff it back in. (Cachers after me are lucky I straighten it all out LOL!!!)

I've developed a bit of a local reputation for my dislike of wadded up logs. A friend I go caching with holds the log up like she's going to wad it up. Then she does it properly while laughing. 

[+SoonerCardsFan]

I just thought of another thing. There's a local cacher that has had business card like cards printed. There's some graphics on one side and on the other is "(Cacher's name) found this on (blank for the date)". In an ammo can, lock & lock or any similar sized container fine. But this cacher manages to cram a folded card into pill bottles, key holders, etc. making the real log very difficult to get out.

[+cerberus1]

14 hours ago, MNTA said:

New hiders with 1 find.

 

As a recovering FTF addict I had to try.  

 

Just venting

Hear ya...   The other 2/3rds was a FTF monster, leaving half made pies to run out with a notification.   

That all changed the last couple years.  New people, some PMs, placing caches with one or no finds...

Eventually she just got tired of Beta-testing for the people who don't read the guidelines/helpful info.

Her last was 400 feet off. She thought, "where's an obvious spot" and found it.

She took the batteries out of her GPSr when home and hasn't cached since.  Still keeps track of her coin Discovers...

[+CCFwasG]

On 5/2/2023 at 7:19 PM, CCFwasG said:

 

Over the past many months I have seemed to be "following" a certain local cacher. I'm sure they are very nice & our occasional comms have been friendly... but EVERY TIME they just wad up the log and stuff it back in. (Cachers after me are lucky I straighten it all out LOL!!!)

 

On 5/3/2023 at 8:11 AM, SoonerCardsFan said:

I've developed a bit of a local reputation for my dislike of wadded up logs. A friend I go caching with holds the log up like she's going to wad it up. Then she does it properly while laughing. 

 

The other day I opened a cache... found this. Did I guess correctly who it was? Yes, yes I did!  
 

[+baer2006]

Annoying: Cachers who don't log DNF when failing to find the cache when going for FTF

 

Had this happen twice in the last few weeks in my home area: A new cache is published (low D/T, nothing special), in an area where the FTF is usually logged within hours, but definitely on the same day. But no logs on the publish day, nor on the next day. I don't believe for a second, that none of the "usual suspects" tried to get the FTF. I really wish people had the b***s to write a DNF, admitting that their FTF attempt was unsuccessful.

 

Regarding the two caches, that's what happened eventually:

In one case, the CO logged a note on the 3rd day, saying like "Sorry!! The coords were way off!". And in the second case, a DNF was finally logged on the 3rd day - final resolution (cache missing, difficult hide, incorrect coordinates) still pending.

[+lee737]

2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Annoying: Cachers who don't log DNF when failing to find the cache when going for FTF

People who don't/won't log a DNF at other times too..... We recently went looking for a few tough hides (DNF'd them all!) - reading logs I noted several times - 'found on our third attempt' etc, 'found after returning with a hint'.... but there were non prior DNFs..... :O

 

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Annoying: Cachers who don't log DNF when failing to find the cache when going for FTF

 

I seem to have developed a knack for getting first-to-DNF on new caches. I've achieved that honour four times so far this year, not bad considering how rare new caches are around here. Nothing wrong with the caches, just my own ineptitude or shortcomings. One I didn't log my first attempt as I realised when I got there that I'd solved the puzzle incorrectly and was in the wrong place, but my second attempt became my official DNF and then finally found it on my third attempt.

Edited May 17, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+MNTA]

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I seem to have developed a knack for getting first-to-DNF on new caches. I've achieved that honour four times so far this year, not bad considering how rare new caches are around here. Nothing wrong with the caches, just my own ineptitude or shortcomings. One I didn't log my first attempt as I realised when I got there that I'd solved the puzzle incorrectly and was in the wrong place, but my second attempt became my official DNF and then finally found it on my third attempt.

 

I share that problem as well. First to DNF lol.

 

Did a bike trail today. Found 2 DNF 3.  From the sounds of the logs 2/3 were problems the 3rd may be a tough one I ran out of time and had to run.

 

[+cerberus1]

21 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Annoying: Cachers who don't log DNF when failing to find the cache when going for FTF

 

Had this happen twice in the last few weeks in my home area: A new cache is published (low D/T, nothing special), in an area where the FTF is usually logged within hours, but definitely on the same day. But no logs on the publish day, nor on the next day.

 

Yeah... And it looks like a hurricane blew through, with footprints everywhere too.  

[+Goldenwattle]

20 hours ago, lee737 said:

found on our third attempt

How about, found on our sixth attempt, and not one DNF from them. Cowards?

[+baer2006]

Not nearly "what irks me most" (or at all), but something which I find a bit sad ...

 

From time to time, I'm in the mood of browsing the cache map in really "exotic" and remote places (like, say, Central Africa) and see, if there are caches, and if they have actually been found. With the hope to get some interesting stories and photos in the logs. But often all I can see are obvious fake logs - and not so rarely, this "all" is literally all, as in "every single log".

[+colleda]

On 5/18/2023 at 6:48 AM, lee737 said:

People who don't/won't log a DNF at other times too..... We recently went looking for a few tough hides (DNF'd them all!) - reading logs I noted several times - 'found on our third attempt' etc, 'found after returning with a hint'.... but there were non prior DNFs..... :O

 

I've been seeing a few like that on my caches. Having a few series I often see suspicious gaps between the Found Its.

[+Gill & Tony]

This often comes down to a personal definition of DNF.  I log all "Did Not Find", but don't log "Did Not Search" unless the reason for my failure to search might be of interest to others.  If I'm driving along picking up caches in a series, I may skip some this run, because I found them on an earlier run, or because I didn't like the look of the climb up the embankment in my dress shoes, or I'm fed up with bison tubes in signs or mint tins in armco or whatever reason occurs at the time.

[+colleda]

3 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Not nearly "what irks me most" (or at all), but something which I find a bit sad ...

 

From time to time, I'm in the mood of browsing the cache map in really "exotic" and remote places (like, say, Central Africa) and see, if there are caches, and if they have actually been found. With the hope to get some interesting stories and photos in the logs. But often all I can see are obvious fake logs - and not so rarely, this "all" is literally all, as in "every single log".

Fake logs such as with this one. Twenty four finds logged but only one looks genuine.

Two irks here. One, the fake logging. Two, the non maintenance of  logs by the CO.

Penguin's Island Virtual Cache

GC7B6QJ