What Irks you most?

[+MNTA]

1 hour ago, colleda said:

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

File the NM/NA if you don't I get an irk

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, colleda said:

Penguin's Island Virtual Cache

GC7B6QJ

Such childish logs. To get their thrills this way, their life must be very boring.

5 hours ago, colleda said:

the non maintenance of  logs by the CO.

I agree with this, and is a slap in the face for genuine finders.

[+MysteryGuy1]

On 5/17/2023 at 4:48 PM, 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

 

 

When I was relatively new to caching, I didn't log DNFs.  My reasoning, which made sense to me at the time, was that I was likely missing many of them due to lack of experience, as opposed to because they were very hard or missing.  I felt like logging a DNF could be misleading to others, if indeed I was simply not experienced enough to know all the right places to search.

 

Eventually, I discovered the benefits to logging my DNFs and have been doing so ever since.  Not only is this information potentially beneficial to the CO and other cachers, but it prevents me from later going after a "new" cache that I've actually looked for already!

Edited June 9, 2023 by MysteryGuy1

[+CAVinoGal]

I know it's been brought up before, many times in this thread alone, but a BIG irk of mine is throwdowns - and more specifically, those that don't say anything about replacing the cache.  They just log it as if they found it as expected, and we, as cache owners have no clue there's BEEN a throwdown until a log later on triggers suspicion.

 

It happened today on a hide of my son's that I monitor as he now lives an hour's drive away.  A recent log said something about the nice new clean logsheet....well, I knew it hadn't been replaced for awhile, so I looked at the history.   A bunch of finds up until May, then a DNF by someone with 14 finds (which I sort of discounted).  Then in July, "A quick find in the area today", a comment about the hint that made sense after seeing GZ, etc - and this from 2 cachers I know, a couple with 27K finds between them. So I didn't check it, just figured the newbie didn't find it.

 

Then a log 2 days ago, "Nice clean log on this one, thanks!"  That puzzled me as it *should* have had many (40+)  signatures going back many years (2018 or so), log still OK as I check it occasionally, but not a nice clean logsheet as the cacher stated!  So today I did check it - and there was a new container, nearly pristine logsheet, and just the 3 signatures, with the couple's about a third of the way down the page.  Oh boy - I know this container was placed by the cachers with 15K and 12K finds; and a quick call to my son confirmed that he didn't know they had placed it.  THROWDOWN!!! With no intention of reporting a DNF (and yes, he knows the CO is my son, and he has all our phone numbers to make this legit); just placing the throwdown, claim a find as if it was all as it should be, and hoping it'll just fly under the radar.  And it likely would have except for the comment about the nice clean logsheet!!

 

I know a lot of this couple's finds are legitimate, but it makes me wonder how many are not, and are just throwdowns?  A couple of other high number cachers I am aware of that we have "caught" doing the throwdown thing, one on one of my husband's caches (https://coord.info/GL1340GZ0) and the other because we were the finders next after the throwdown was placed and it was quite obvious it was a throwdown as xxx cacher was the only signature....

 

We will log a DNF or contact the CO and make it plain in our log what happened if we do replace the cache.  The above examples irk me because the CO (hubby, and son) had NO involvement at all; without carefully watching the logs and the caches, a lot of this goes without being noticed.  And high numbers cachers get even higher numbers....

[+barefootjeff]

29 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

I know it's been brought up before, many times in this thread alone, but a BIG irk of mine is throwdowns

 

Even worse when this results in there being multiple containers at GZ because the thrower-downer simply didn't find the original. There's a cache in a large cave where someone a few years back left a throwdown, then the CO visited and couldn't find either the original or the throwdown so left a legitimate replacement. When I visited, though, the cache I found was the original, with entries in its logbook going right back to the date it was published, but I didn't see either the throwdown or the CO's replacement. So now there are potentially three caches in there.

[+Goldenwattle]

4 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

throwdowns

I would be very tempted (and likely would) delete the log of those who did the throw down. I heard of one throwdown where the CO, when they discovered it, deleted every log on it, and there were many logs I was told. I thought that was unfair though on those who didn't know it was a throwdown, but strongly agree with deleting those who made the throwdown. In that case, as I believe the real cache was still there*, the CO should be able to tell who left the throwdown.

 

* Very well hidden, as I discovered when later I found that one.

[+baer2006]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I would be very tempted (and likely would) delete the log of those who did the throw down. I heard of one throwdown where the CO, when they discovered it, deleted every log on it, and there were many logs I was told. I thought that was unfair though on those who didn't know it was a throwdown, but strongly agree with deleting those who made the throwdown. In that case, as I believe the real cache was still there*, the CO should be able to tell who left the throwdown.

 

* Very well hidden, as I discovered when later I found that one.

According to this page, Groundspeak's recommendation is to keep the logs of the throwdown finders, but not necessarily the log of the one who placed it. And as you say, when looking at the throwdown's log sheet, it's usually not difficult to see who has placed it.

[+niraD]

4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

* Very well hidden, as I discovered when later I found that one.

Yeah, I've found a few throwdowns that were within arm's reach of the original (and much more cleverly hidden) container. I've been disappointed for the later finders of the throwdowns, who were robbed of the experience of finding the original container.

[+Harry Dolphin]

It irks me that GCHQ did not stop to realize that some of us old-fashioned geocachers do not have cell phone, and cannot do Lab Caches for this month's Wheel of challenges.  I've done lots of Challenges, but I am being discriminated against this month for being old fashioned.  And having a Web Site moderator leave some rather nasty comments.  I guess Geocaching is not interested in some old-fashioned geocachers, even those of us who have been playing this game for nineteen years!

[Keystone]

I'm closing this thread because it's better to have separate discussions for individual irks.  This avoids having redundant content posted to multiple threads.

 

For example, the posts from the last 24 hours would make for a good standalone thread about throwdowns, and the post above about the Wheel of Challenges contains subject matter already covered in existing threads about that souvenir promotion.