Sign in to follow this  
Followers 33
avroair

What Irks you most?

2027 posts in this topic

18 minutes ago, verano said:

Geocaching's response to my concern was "Notes are part of geocaching, they do not devalue find logs."

Huh... I thought their policy was that cache pages should not be used as a discussion forum, which is what it sounds like was happening. Caches have been archived because the CO didn't/couldn't delete Note logs when the cache page was being used as a discussion forum.

1

Share this post


Link to post

I love power trails that are along paths where I can hike into a place I've not been. Or where I can run, should I want a second workout of the day :) Power trails can mean so many different things. I've done some for numbers, and some for a good outdoor hike. Its a TOTALLY different kind of cache, like a puzzle, multi, etc. I am all for them. If you hate'em, x-out and move on. Right?

1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 4:14 PM, verano said:

I was really bothered by the over 100 Notes that were posted to some of the HQGT cache pages on New Years Day, which were not related to the cache and were just wishing Happy New Year and thanks for the souvenir.  If people want to wish HQ Happy New Year or thank them for something, I don't think a Note on a traditional cache is the right way to do it, and it makes it hard for real cache searchers to refer to older logs.  Geocaching's response to my concern was "Notes are part of geocaching, they do not devalue find logs."  I disagree.  See for an example, GC4GWB5

I looked at the cache you're referring to, and it now has several Found it! logs, which one log actually helps to find the cache.

These caches have such high traffic, that one night of "Thx for the souvenir" and "Happy New Year" will soon be drowned out by Found it! logs. In another week or two, you would have to scroll down quite a bit to see what you're actually talking about anymore.

It's nice to see, (and I'm sure for HQ too) people expressing their gratitude on a cache.

0

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 4:25 PM, niraD said:

Huh... I thought their policy was that cache pages should not be used as a discussion forum, which is what it sounds like was happening. Caches have been archived because the CO didn't/couldn't delete Note logs when the cache page was being used as a discussion forum.

...except people weren't really discussing anything.

0

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 9:00 AM, L0ne.R said:

 

I have seen examples in some areas of caches with multiple NAs being ignored, even multiple reviewer notes going on for months even years. Those caches are old pre-2005 and it seems some reviewers don't want to be the guy that archives an old cache. 

Years? Really?

Honestly, I wouldn't want to be that guy either. There are Virtual Caches in my area that belong to CO's who haven't Cached in years, and haven't logged into the website in years as well. Their cache description requires Cachers to send them emails to claim a find. There isn't an active CO to maintain the cache page or the logs. If someone posted a NA on those Virtuals based on non-existent COs , I don't think I'd like to be the reviewer to archive said caches.

0

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Honestly, I wouldn't want to be that guy either. There are Virtual Caches in my area that belong to CO's who haven't Cached in years, and haven't logged into the website in years as well. Their cache description requires Cachers to send them emails to claim a find. There isn't an active CO to maintain the cache page or the logs. If someone posted a NA on those Virtuals based on non-existent COs , I don't think I'd like to be the reviewer to archive said caches.

 

I'd feel worse being the cacher that posted an NA on one of these old community caches. :( Imagine if we as cache owners had to check in once a year or our hides would be set in motion for archival due to inactivity. :ph34r: I love these old community caches too, but maybe a shelf life on cache placements would make the game more interesting and create more active members.

1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SeattleWayne said:

If someone posted a NA on those Virtuals based on non-existent COs , I don't think I'd like to be the reviewer to archive said caches.

It happens.  Owner inactivity is by far the leading cause for archiving a virtual.  For example, I knew that the days were numbered for 16,000,000 Bricks before I even visited Dry Tortuga National Park, which is why I was so keen to get our two earthcaches approved out there.  That CO hadn't been around since 2007.

0

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Manville Possum said:
3 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

Honestly, I wouldn't want to be that guy either. There are Virtual Caches in my area that belong to CO's who haven't Cached in years, and haven't logged into the website in years as well. Their cache description requires Cachers to send them emails to claim a find. There isn't an active CO to maintain the cache page or the logs. If someone posted a NA on those Virtuals based on non-existent COs , I don't think I'd like to be the reviewer to archive said caches.

 

I'd feel worse being the cacher that posted an NA on one of these old community caches. :( Imagine if we as cache owners had to check in once a year or our hides would be set in motion for archival due to inactivity. :ph34r: I love these old community caches too, but maybe a shelf life on cache placements would make the game more interesting and create more active members.

Seems overly sentimental.

0

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Seems overly sentimental.

No, not sentimental. I was thinking about a recent archival where a noob posted NA on a community cache from 2002 and slowly it was archived due to no response from a inactive CO. I would have hated to have been that noob because of some comments on the cache page and social media. That's all I meant by not wanting to be THAT cacher that upsets the local geocaching community by causin' the death of an oldie.

0

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

No, not sentimental. I was thinking about a recent archival where a noob posted NA on a community cache from 2002 and slowly it was archived due to no response from a inactive CO. I would have hated to have been that noob because of some comments on the cache page and social media. That's all I meant by not wanting to be THAT cacher that upsets the local geocaching community by causin' the death of an oldie.

In which case, thank [insert name of chosen deity here] for noobs unfettered by overly sentimental nonsense and shame on those posting presumably offensive comments on the cache page and social media.

1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, hzoi said:

It happens.  Owner inactivity is by far the leading cause for archiving a virtual.  For example, I knew that the days were numbered for 16,000,000 Bricks before I even visited Dry Tortuga National Park, which is why I was so keen to get our two earthcaches approved out there.  That CO hadn't been around since 2007.

Glad I found that one (2008), don't remember if the CO replied but I did send answers. (It was my 128th find.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Seems overly sentimental.

:rolleyes:

3 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

No, not sentimental. I was thinking about a recent archival where a noob posted NA on a community cache from 2002 and slowly it was archived due to no response from a inactive CO. I would have hated to have been that noob because of some comments on the cache page and social media. That's all I meant by not wanting to be THAT cacher that upsets the local geocaching community by causin' the death of an oldie.

That's unfortunate.

0

Share this post


Link to post

And, sometimes, I just wonder...  Went looking for some P&Gs recently.  Bitter cold wind chill.  Two by the same CO were obviously throwdowns.  Did not match the photos from three years ago,  One had a frozen log.  CO has three finds from a few years back.  And 103 owned caches.  74 of which have been archived,  A power trail that  had been hidden, and archived twice.  Hidden and archived.  Now a fourth power trail in the same place!  I had considered going for it, but now I doubt that I would want to try it.  What gives here???  Why is this permitted?  A few other caches archived and rehidden.

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/26/2013 at 9:11 AM, 4wheelin_fool said:

Here's one: Morons who hide ammo cans on mountaintops.

 

First off, they are such a pain to get to. Do you think I have the friggen energy to climb all the way up there? What is wrong with the parking lot at the bottom? Second, being able to look out for several miles can make one dizzy, causing vertigo. Do you even care about the welfare of your fellow cachers? Thirdly, they very rarely need maintenance. This condition breeds lazy owners. A nice film can will draw water on a consistent basis, giving attentive owners a chance to show that they care. They also stimulate other cachers into performing maintenance, showing that they care also. Plus, why hide an ammo can anywhere, when a micro will do? </rant>

LOL!

0

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, SUV2003 said:

Happy Meal Toys

This makes me want to pitch a fit. Uggggghhhhh Happy Meal Toys, they are so irritating. Found this bobblehead HMT in a cache:

image.jpeg

:P

Edited by L0ne.R
0

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/11/2018 at 9:29 AM, SeattleWayne said:
On 1/9/2018 at 4:25 PM, niraD said:

Huh... I thought their policy was that cache pages should not be used as a discussion forum, which is what it sounds like was happening. Caches have been archived because the CO didn't/couldn't delete Note logs when the cache page was being used as a discussion forum.

...except people weren't really discussing anything.

People weren't discussing anything, but also their logs had nothing to do with the specific cache that the WN logs were posted to. Most of those WN's were posted by cachers that weren't even in the same country as the cache on those days (12/31 and 1/1).

 

That's very odd that it was the Bedazzling View HQ GT cache that received the WN logs. I don't see such WN's on other caches in that GT series, unless they've been deleted. Why did all those cachers choose that cache to post WN's? If they really wanted to send a message of thanks to HQ, then wouldn't the actual GC HQ cache have been a better choice?

0

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, SUV2003 said:

Happy Meal Toys

Don't mind Happy Meal toys at all, as long as they're in the plastic and/or, in good condition. It's the broken, dirty, junky ones that i dislike coming across.

1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, noncentric said:

Why did all those cachers choose that cache to post WN's?

Because its GC-code was shown on both 12/31 and 1/1 souvenirs. :anicute:

I can't believe HQ choose a random number. For some reason, they wanted cachers paying attention to have a look at this cache. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, noncentric said:

People weren't discussing anything, but also their logs had nothing to do with the specific cache that the WN logs were posted to. Most of those WN's were posted by cachers that weren't even in the same country as the cache on those days (12/31 and 1/1).

 

That's very odd that it was the Bedazzling View HQ GT cache that received the WN logs. I don't see such WN's on other caches in that GT series, unless they've been deleted. Why did all those cachers choose that cache to post WN's? If they really wanted to send a message of thanks to HQ, then wouldn't the actual GC HQ cache have been a better choice?

Yeah, it's some kind of weird geocaching conspiracy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 4:12 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

And, sometimes, I just wonder...  Went looking for some P&Gs recently.  Bitter cold wind chill.  Two by the same CO were obviously throwdowns.  Did not match the photos from three years ago,  One had a frozen log.  CO has three finds from a few years back.  And 103 owned caches.  74 of which have been archived,  A power trail that  had been hidden, and archived twice.  Hidden and archived.  Now a fourth power trail in the same place!  I had considered going for it, but now I doubt that I would want to try it.  What gives here???  Why is this permitted?  A few other caches archived and rehidden.

What exactly are you saying shouldn't be permitted?

0

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:
On 1/13/2018 at 7:12 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

And, sometimes, I just wonder...  Went looking for some P&Gs recently.  Bitter cold wind chill.  Two by the same CO were obviously throwdowns.  Did not match the photos from three years ago,  One had a frozen log.  CO has three finds from a few years back.  And 103 owned caches.  74 of which have been archived,  A power trail that  had been hidden, and archived twice.  Hidden and archived.  Now a fourth power trail in the same place!  I had considered going for it, but now I doubt that I would want to try it.  What gives here???  Why is this permitted?  A few other caches archived and rehidden.

What exactly are you saying shouldn't be permitted?

Just a guess, but a history of placing power trails without any sort of maintenance might be a justification for denying the cache owner the right to create new caches.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Just a guess, but a history of placing power trails without any sort of maintenance might be a justification for denying the cache owner the right to create new caches.  

You had also mentioned throw downs so I wasn't exactly sure.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SeattleWayne said:

You had also mentioned throw downs so I wasn't exactly sure.

 

It was Harry Dolphin that mentioned throwdowns.  I'm not exactly sure what the official GS policy is on throwdowns, for caches with names other than Mingo.  Personally, I think that a CO that allows other caches to drop a throwdown if they can't find the cache isn't maintaining their caches.  I suspect that most reviewers wouldn't consider a blanket permission to throw down a replacement if the cache can't be found to be a valid maintenance plan. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/15/2018 at 9:42 PM, Tungstène said:
On 1/15/2018 at 4:41 PM, noncentric said:

Why did all those cachers choose that cache to post WN's?

Because its GC-code was shown on both 12/31 and 1/1 souvenirs. :anicute:

I can't believe HQ choose a random number. For some reason, they wanted cachers paying attention to have a look at this cache.

Ah, I hadn't even noticed this. Thanks!

0

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 10:55 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

It was Harry Dolphin that mentioned throwdowns.  I'm not exactly sure what the official GS policy is on throwdowns, for caches with names other than Mingo.  Personally, I think that a CO that allows other caches to drop a throwdown if they can't find the cache isn't maintaining their caches.  I suspect that most reviewers wouldn't consider a blanket permission to throw down a replacement if the cache can't be found to be a valid maintenance plan. 

Oh, gotcha.

I've briefly skimmed the thrown down policy, and the phrase they used was "not encouraged" if I remember correctly.  

0

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 33