Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 50
avroair

What Irks you most?

Recommended Posts

Numerous things irk me.

But the words I would describe two particularly troublesome local cachers I unfortunately share an area with aren't allowed to be mentioned on this forum

Oh if only there was a cacher blocking button like on Facebook 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/24/2013 at 3:28 AM, The_Incredibles_ said:

Ooh, ooh, I've got a good one.

 

Cut and paste logs. :rolleyes:

 

Well what do you expect when the cache is yet one more under the light pole skirt micro?  there is just nothing to say...

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Grey_One said:

Well what do you expect when the cache is yet one more under the light pole skirt micro?  there is just nothing to say...

Since you asked: I would expect - or let's say prefer - either no search and consequently no log at all or - if caught by surprise - a log stating the fact that there is nothing to say.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Most irksome:  deliberately inaccurate d/t ratings such as miles of identical caches placed in a nearly identical manner all about 50 feet from a county highway and all rated as 2/2.5.   

Close second:  Micros in the Woods With No Hints 

Share this post


Link to post

Geocaches icons that are stacked on top of each other on the map. I can hover over a cache icon and tell there are more than one cache listed, but since they use the exact same coordinates, I can only select the top one.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, igator210 said:

Geocaches icons that are stacked on top of each other on the map. I can hover over a cache icon and tell there are more than one cache listed, but since they use the exact same coordinates, I can only select the top one.

When you hover over it and select the top one, you can then click the next button the see the next one, and the next one etc.

In this example it shows there is 1 of 2 nearby results.. and you click next to look at the 2nd.
 

Screenshot 2018-04-10 22.05.09.png

Edited by LFC4eva
Add example screenshot
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:

When you hover over it and select the top one, you can then click the next button the see the next one, and the next one etc.

This is correct...but what DOES cause problems is when the icon is right on top of the clickable location name (park, landmark, etc.) and the location pops up when you are trying to click the cache.  Sometimes even zooming all the way in isn't enough.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

The bitter complainers who show up on every social media or blog post irk me. Take for example the newest post about virtuals. It's been almost 8 months and people are still angerly raving about the selection process for the new virtuals. I'll be up front, I did receive one (though I'm not 100% why) but it's hard to enjoy it when there's a large number of people grumbling about players not deserving it every chance they get.

Edited by Pezdude
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, LFC4eva said:

When you hover over it and select the top one, you can then click the next button the see the next one, and the next one etc.

Yes, but only if you're using the browsing map.  If you do a Search and map the search results, then the icons will overlap and you won't see the "1 of 2" or "Prev | Next" options.  I posted about this last summer.  Topic is  HERE

Edited by noncentric

Share this post


Link to post

On a lighter note, I get irked with myself when I miss the giant spiderweb in front of my face :lol:

IMG_1331.JPG

Share this post


Link to post

Lately, I've been irked by the weather forecasts being "off".  The 11pm news tells me that the weather is going to be cloudy and wet the next day, so I decide to attend to other things that do not include caching or hiking - then the next day it's blue skies and sun. Perfect weather to go look for caches.  Argh!

Edited by noncentric

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎26‎/‎05‎/‎2013 at 3:00 PM, 4wheelin_fool said:

 

If the logbook is wet, replacing it rarely fixes anything. The new logbook will end up wet also.

 

Also, full logbooks are often the most interesting part of the cache. Having someone else remove them and replace it with a crappy replacement with pages falling out, rather than the owner, is irksome.

I'll admit I'm very new, but I don't understand why geocachers would remove and replace full log-books when they aren't the CO.  Isn't the log book there for the CO's info / interest?  If a geocacher can just come along and take away the log book what is the point in that log book having been filled in in the first place?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

So I'm new with only 12 finds to my name so far.

In my limited experience I am irked by:

1) Poorly maintained caches (broken containers, waterlogged caches, full or soggy log books, log books that have been eaten by snails and slugs)

2) Poor co-ordinates - or the cache has a new location yet the co-ords still point to the old location with a note that simply says its been moved nearby

I'm sure I'll pick up more as I continue geocaching lol

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

When a cache is clearly abandoned (no CO maintenance, not logged in for years, etc.) and someone comes in and logs a find, writing "thanks for placing and maintaining this cache".  I know it's just a boilerplate/cut-and-paste deal, but that just makes it doubly bad.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, EmzyJanezy said:

I'll admit I'm very new, but I don't understand why geocachers would remove and replace full log-books when they aren't the CO.  Isn't the log book there for the CO's info / interest?  If a geocacher can just come along and take away the log book what is the point in that log book having been filled in in the first place?

You may be new, but you are very insightful.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
1 hour ago, EmzyJanezy said:

I'll admit I'm very new, but I don't understand why geocachers would remove and replace full log-books when they aren't the CO.  Isn't the log book there for the CO's info / interest?  If a geocacher can just come along and take away the log book what is the point in that log book having been filled in in the first place?

You may be new, but you are very insightful.

Agreed. Sometimes it takes a fresh perspective to reignite awareness about things everyone has come to accept as the norm.  It's refreshing :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, EmzyJanezy said:

I'll admit I'm very new, but I don't understand why geocachers would remove and replace full log-books when they aren't the CO.  Isn't the log book there for the CO's info / interest?  If a geocacher can just come along and take away the log book what is the point in that log book having been filled in in the first place?

Agreed.  There have been a few occasions where I've found a micro or a nano where the log was too full to even sign OVER someone else's signature and I've taken out the log to put in a fresh one.  In ALL of those cases, though, I've noted it and reached out to the COs, offering to give them the logs.  I think I still have these somewhere in my geocaching box...nobody ever took me up on my offers. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Oooh, I'm blushing now lol.  Thank you.  I'm aware newbies can get given a bad rep so I'm trying not to come across as a know-it-all beginner.  Enjoying chatting about geocaching though, and still learning how it all works etc from the pros :)

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

Agreed.  There have been a few occasions where I've found a micro or a nano where the log was too full to even sign OVER someone else's signature and I've taken out the log to put in a fresh one.  In ALL of those cases, though, I've noted it and reached out to the COs, offering to give them the logs.  I think I still have these somewhere in my geocaching box...nobody ever took me up on my offers. 

I've done this as well.  We carry several sizes of log sheets with us, and replace as needed, but (almost) always keep the original logsheet to return to the CO.  In some cases it's total garbage and unreadable moldy pulp, but if it's somewhat legible, we'll save it.  We haven't had anyone wantit back though.  And, we only do this on caches where we know the CO - I wouldn't presume to do maintenance for someone I didn't know!

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎24‎/‎05‎/‎2013 at 1:01 AM, fbingha said:

I got a good one..

 

Those who find oodles of caches but don't give back by hiding <and maintaining> their own.

Is this something we are supposed to do, as a rule, then?  Is it generally considered good etiquette to "give back" in this fashion?

I would think, if somebody doesn't want the bother of maintaining a cache, that it would be better for them to NOT hide their own cache at all as opposed to feel pressured to hide one and not be able to maintain it.  If you're going to hide one you need to be willing and able to keep it in good condition, IMO.  

I'd like to hide a cache one day but I'm not ready yet.

Share this post


Link to post

A new irk I've got today:

People who log a cache as 'found' and then write something like "didn't see the cache but spotted its clever hiding place"

Probably shouldn't really irk me that much if I'm not the CO but if I'm reading logs of caches I'm hoping to visit I'd like to know if the cache was actually FOUND.  Also kind of feels a bit like cheating but hey I guess they're only cheating themselves.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 14/04/2018 at 6:03 AM, EmzyJanezy said:

Is it generally considered good etiquette to "give back" in this fashion?

No.

Especially when 'give back' is in the form of cheap leaky caches that never or rarely get maintained. And cheap leaky micros that exclude part of the community--families with children, people who like trackables, and signature items.

People can give back by writing good descriptive logs which include DNFs, NMs and NAs. It's a good thing, it helps the community, and may encourage better caching experiences for all. 

Quote

I'd like to hide a cache one day but I'm not ready yet.

Exactly right. This is 'giving back' more than hiding something out of some perceived obligation. 

Edited by L0ne.R
Added the last bit. Typo.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I got a good one..

 

Those who find oodles of caches but don't give back by hiding <and maintaining> their own.

 

3 hours ago, EmzyJanezy said:

Is this something we are supposed to do, as a rule, then?  Is it generally considered good etiquette to "give back" in this fashion?

I would think, if somebody doesn't want the bother of maintaining a cache, that it would be better for them to NOT hide their own cache at all as opposed to feel pressured to hide one and not be able to maintain it.  If you're going to hide one you need to be willing and able to keep it in good condition, IMO.  

I'd like to hide a cache one day but I'm not ready yet.

There is no rule or guideline, and there is no reason for a person to get irked. Not everyone wants to or is cut out to be a cache hider. A person can choose to hide one of their own if they want,,, when they are ready. ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, EmzyJanezy said:

People who log a cache as 'found' and then write something like "didn't see the cache but spotted its clever hiding place"

Probably shouldn't really irk me that much if I'm not the CO but if I'm reading logs of caches I'm hoping to visit I'd like to know if the cache was actually FOUND.  Also kind of feels a bit like cheating but hey I guess they're only cheating themselves.

Yes, exactly. In cases like that, the minimal rule for logging online, which a CO can (and ideally should) enforce is the finder's caching name in the logbook. If that's not there, then there's really no evidence that the cache was found and it's honour system. Ultimately the responsibility falls on the CO for confirming finds. The vast majority of COs don't though, so logs like that often go unmanaged.

If someone admits to not signing the log in their online Found note, then the CO has to make a call - personally I think that means either asking the finder to describe the hide (to confirm that the implication of their log is accurate), or checking the logsheet itself.

Now if the cache is say up a tree and they didn't climb (and no one did), then technically it should not be listed as a find -- cache properties describe what has to be done to sign the sheet (whether it's hiking 5km, canoeing, climbing, crawling, unlocking, etc). If that didn't have to be enforced, and spotting the cache was all anyone needed to do, then we could all just sign the vast majority of caches out there without effort, or we could just do away with all these frivolous descriptive properties.

Basically, the CO should ensure that
A] the minimum requirements for logging the find online are met and/or
B] at least the minimum tasks required to verify that a found it log is accurate have been accomplished.
The second one is more about the accuracy of the cache log history and what it implies for other people who may want to find it. False logs (Finds, DNFs, NMs, etc) can give people the wrong impression about the cache. The CO is the only one who can (and should) maintain as consistent and accurate a log history as they're feasibly able. That's part of the agreed responsibility of cache ownership (container and listing maintenance).

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, EmzyJanezy said:

Is this something we are supposed to do, as a rule, then?  Is it generally considered good etiquette to "give back" in this fashion?

I would think, if somebody doesn't want the bother of maintaining a cache, that it would be better for them to NOT hide their own cache at all as opposed to feel pressured to hide one and not be able to maintain it.  If you're going to hide one you need to be willing and able to keep it in good condition, IMO.  

I'd like to hide a cache one day but I'm not ready yet.

Yep.  :)

Veering OT, but we know some who rarely find caches anymore, but have oneheckofalotta hides out, some that have been basic members for years, but have an extensive trackable collection and introduce many new folks to the hobby.   All "giving back", if that somehow extends to this hobby.  

Those who contribute to this hobby do so of their own volition, not by something demanded or expected.

I'd rather someone felt like placing a cache than have it pushed on them.  I'd also prefer that they didn't rush into it as well...  as many examples of  lack of permission, poor placement and inferior containers sometimes show.

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

A new irk I've got today:

People who log a cache as 'found' and then write something like "didn't see the cache but spotted its clever hiding place"

I agree with this. There are some more difficult caches near me where people just say "didn't touch the cache, but saw where it was hidden."

Share this post


Link to post

Cachers that expect every cache to accommodate aspects of the game that they like, without regard for the fact that plenty of cachers don't care about that aspect of the game. For example, some caches are hazardous to reach and are not appropriate for children, but plenty of adult cachers have fun overcoming those hazards. For example, some caches require quite a bit of physical exertion that many cachers cannot accomplish, but plenty of cachers seek out those types of caches. For example, some caches are too small for swag and/or trackables, but plenty of cachers don't care about swag and would prefer to have a micro cache without swag/tb's in an area that a larger cache would not work.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Cachers that expect every cache to accommodate aspects of the game that they like

Yes, emphasis on "every".   And then complain in their log thusly that they couldn't get the cache; which of course is a Found It.

Share this post


Link to post

There are two things that really irk me.

Although I do enjoy finding a cache, I really enjoy designing, building and hiding caches.

I hate it when, after all the effort I've put into it, someone just signs the log: "got it, on to the next" or just simply "tftc". Log it like you mean it. I've spent time on it, why can't you?

The other irk is people who search for a cache, even though it has a difficulty of 4 or 5 and say it's not there. And even worse, can't find it after a couple of tries and bad-mouth it publicly then say it should be archived.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Active cache owners who will not archive their own cache. They make reviewers do it. 

Cache owners who temporarily disable their cache and then do nothing. The cache (after months in TD mode) gets a reviewer note, sits for another month or two (or more) with no response from the active owner, or sometimes another note saying they'll fix it, then they do nothing. After months, sometimes years, the cache is finally archived by a reviewer.  Why? 

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/11/2018 at 11:28 PM, CAVinoGal said:

I've done this as well.  We carry several sizes of log sheets with us, and replace as needed, but (almost) always keep the original logsheet to return to the CO.  In some cases it's total garbage and unreadable moldy pulp, but if it's somewhat legible, we'll save it.  We haven't had anyone wantit back though.  And, we only do this on caches where we know the CO - I wouldn't presume to do maintenance for someone I didn't know!

This may sound dumb, but I have a whole notebook full of filled up logs that I've retrieved from my caches.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, kitt5 said:

This may sound dumb, but I have a whole notebook full of filled up logs that I've retrieved from my caches.

Not "dumb" at all.  We saved every full-sized log that managed to be filled.     :)

- Though most that were logged as "full" had the other half of each notebook page untouched.  We mentioned "you know, there is another side to a page..." afterwards, but sometimes grabbed them anyway.    :D

The ledgers we started out with in 50cals got replaced with RiR notebooks when we realized that lengthy logs, drawings, and poems we had so much fun with, were replaced with a name/date on each line.  We don't keep the RiR strips for our last micro.  It rarely has decipherable names in it, and few matched the online logs anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Not "dumb" at all.  We saved every full-sized log that managed to be filled.     :)

Same here. 2 shoeboxes full. Goes back to 2002. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/14/2018 at 3:03 AM, EmzyJanezy said:

I would think, if somebody doesn't want the bother of maintaining a cache, that it would be better for them to NOT hide their own cache at all as opposed to feel pressured to hide one and not be able to maintain it.

Exactly. For people who can't (or don't want to) maintain a cache, they actually "give back" more to the community by not hiding caches than by hiding caches that will be essentially abandoned from the moment they're hidden.

Besides, as others have pointed out, there are plenty of other ways to "give back" to the geocaching community.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/20/2018 at 11:23 AM, Rebore said:

All formulas should be written in reverse Polish notation. ;)

Thank you for being part of the inspiration to put out a cache called Ray Gam - ie Hungarian backwards. I'll let you guess the rest... oh and it's a bison 20+ feet up a tree. D5T4.5...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/20/2018 at 6:23 AM, Rebore said:

All formulas should be written in reverse Polish notation. ;)

I just learned something new!  Never heard of Polish notation before. LOVE it!  :D

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
On 2/20/2018 at 3:23 AM, Rebore said:

All formulas should be written in reverse Polish notation. ;)

I just learned something new!  Never heard of Polish notation before. LOVE it!  :D

Note that Polish notation and reverse Polish notation are not the same thing. Actually, one is the reverse of the other.

Polish (prefix) notation looks like this: + 1 2

Reverse Polish (postfix) notation looks like this: 1 2 +

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yep, researched both and fully understood both.

Great opportunity for puzzly math. Which I'm confident has already been done, probably quite often, in various forms :)

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

I just learned something new!  Never heard of Polish notation before. LOVE it!  :D

I guess that you've never owned an HP calculator.   I worked for Hewlett Packard for 13 years and got a discount on a HP 16C when they first came out, which had RPN.  

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 1:16 AM, SwineFlew said:

Self righteous wanna be mod or reviewers.

tangent to that.... inconsistency with cache reviewing based on geographical acceptances.  There are certain parts of the country that do not accept certain hides/locations and it seems built into the particular reviewer's preferences (flaunted as "the rules").

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, BulldogBlitz said:

tangent to that.... inconsistency with cache reviewing based on geographical acceptances.  There are certain parts of the country that do not accept certain hides/locations and it seems built into the particular reviewer's preferences (flaunted as "the rules").

Of course, there's always the possibility that "the particular reviewer" is correct, and the places elsewhere in the country where such hides/locations are "accepted" have been assigned to a reviewer who is a dog* that's not as good at following directions.

There's always the possibility that the issue is a "grey area" within the listing guidelines, and two different reviewers doing their best to interpret the guidelines come to opposite conclusions.  That's fine.  It happens in our court system.  It is why there are appeals courts for lawsuits, and why there is an Appeals process with Geocaching HQ for cache placements.

There's always the possibility that there is a published regional guideline in the Policy Wiki, such as dry stone walls in the UK, that isn't followed elsewhere.  That's fine.

There's always the possibility that a land manager policy leads to different results for the same cache placement in two different locations.

There's always the possibility that the cache in the other part of the country was published prior to a guidelines change, and your current reviewer is enforcing the current version of the guidelines.  Publication of any prior cache does not serve as precedent for any future caches.

But yeah, other than that, reviewers are evil and they love flaunting made-up rules.

*Many Reviewers are dogs.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Of course, there's always the possibility that "the particular reviewer" is correct, and the places elsewhere in the country where such hides/locations are "accepted" have been assigned to a reviewer who is a dog* that's not as good at following directions.

There's always the possibility that the issue is a "grey area" within the listing guidelines, and two different reviewers doing their best to interpret the guidelines come to opposite conclusions.  That's fine.  It happens in our court system.  It is why there are appeals courts for lawsuits, and why there is an Appeals process with Geocaching HQ for cache placements.

There's always the possibility that there is a published regional guideline in the Policy Wiki, such as dry stone walls in the UK, that isn't followed elsewhere.  That's fine.

There's always the possibility that a land manager policy leads to different results for the same cache placement in two different locations.

There's always the possibility that the cache in the other part of the country was published prior to a guidelines change, and your current reviewer is enforcing the current version of the guidelines.  Publication of any prior cache does not serve as precedent for any future caches.

But yeah, other than that, reviewers are evil and they love flaunting made-up rules.

*Many Reviewers are dogs.

One of the areas where I have seen some inconsistency relates to the "interaction with employees" guideline.  I've seen several caches that are located within businesses, and in some cases a geocache has to "ask for the cache".  These are typically in areas with very few caches and may be the only opportunity for geocachers to find a cache at all in the area.  I know of one which was originally hidden outside the building but after being muggled several times it was moved inside where a caretaker could keep the cache safe.  I appreciate the inconsistency in this case.  Whenever I've read logs on caches like that it almost always mentions what a pleasure it was to meet the caretaker of the cache. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

One of the areas where I have seen some inconsistency relates to the "interaction with employees" guideline.  I've seen several caches that are located within businesses, and in some cases a geocache has to "ask for the cache".  These are typically in areas with very few caches and may be the only opportunity for geocachers to find a cache at all in the area.  I know of one which was originally hidden outside the building but after being muggled several times it was moved inside where a caretaker could keep the cache safe.  I appreciate the inconsistency in this case.  Whenever I've read logs on caches like that it almost always mentions what a pleasure it was to meet the caretaker of the cache. 

We did several of those. In all case it was a pleasure going in and asking for the box. We even had one of a small ferry (less than 100m crossing a river) where we were startled by the final coordinates being in the water. This was in our beginners period and we didn't understand where the mistake could have been to get those coordinates.

Another one was in a tourist info office where the lady behind the counter was very pleased that so many were interested in the town's history to collect info to find the cache. We only have positive experiences "interacting".

BTW, we "interacted" in at least 5 countries so far, not only in Europe, so it seems "common sense" (fortunately) still prevails over "hard guidelines".

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like the "you can't log your own caches anymore" rule has, as expected, been circumvented. I noticed new caches being published by a "zero finds" account that have been found (cache testdrive) as the main account of the same cacher.

 

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 50

×
×
  • Create New...