Jump to content

What Irks you most?


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Just because it hasn't been found for several years and the most recent log was a DNF doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it.

 

 

Indeed.

 

I just hid a cache near where we'd hidden a multi over ten years ago.  The old cache had been taken over by another geocacher when we moved, then archived after people reported construction in the area - reviewer disabled then archived, as the new owner dropped out of the game.  Then when we hid our new cache, people started mentioning another cache container in the area, so I went back out. to check it.  The old multi final was right where we'd hidden it back in 2008 or so, and where it was when it was archived in 2015.  Despite three years of inactivity, the contents were in great shape.

 

We also recently hid the final to a puzzle cache in an area we'd used before.  The last cache there was a micro we'd hidden and left active when we moved, then the tree branch it was on broke and there was a string of DNFs.  So we archived it.  Then wehen we hid the new cache, we found the old PETling micro in the base of the tree, right where we hid the new cache.  Contents were immaculate.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, on4bam said:

People asking help on a forum with too little info on the problem they have and not returning to give the details needed to help them.

Agreed.

We even noted folks who never returned for info asked for.  So many, we finally gave up. 

I think maybe some simply forget where they asked.

I was tempted once to just leave a post of "You're welcome..." , when they haven't logged in for six months or so.   :D

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I back....

I've been pretty inactive about caching lately.  But, I just returned from Texas for a visit with my daughter.  While there she wanted to cache so we loaded up the phones and headed out.  

I still have the same irks as always.  We found several replacement caches.   While some may consider dropping a replacement cache a good thing, it's only a "good" thing if you're certain that the original is gone (I know - let's start the CO responsibilities arguement again).  

Line in particular irked me.  A simple 1.5/1.5 near a cemetery.  Listed as a "small" in the description and the hint pointing to a bush / tree.  It wasn't till after we tromped around for a while that we checked the hint.  Then another period of tromping.  Then reading a bunch of old posts in which one had new coords by someone that replaced it with a film canister.  The new one was over 50yds away and outside the cemetery.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I have a few irks.... (no particular order)

1) People who keep travelbugs

2) People who don't trade swag fairly and particularly those who replace it with rubbish, if you're going to take something then just take it, why bother putting an old raisan carton / train ticket / plain rock inside, it's not fooling anyone.

3) People who hide micros in areas where you could easily hide a bus.

4) People who copy and paste ridiculously long logs full of twaddle not even related to geocaching let alone that particular cache. 

5) Armchair loggers - what is the point? 

6) Certain long term cachers who make snidey remarks about new cachers and immediately dismiss anything they say about anything based on their number of finds. It doesn't cost anything to be polite and helpful. 

6a) Particularly those who make derogatory remarks about 'smartphone cachers', why do we need to buy an additional GPS device when a battery pack for the phone will do?

Best moment ever was bumping into a geocacher at GZ with a very expensive GPS who told me I was searching in the wrong spot because his GPS said it was 30ft the other way and my phone was obviously wrong, turned out it was exactly where my phone said and his GPS was out, we continued along the trail together for a while longer and every time my phone was more accurate.

7) Cache owners who moan about logs not being full or detailed enough. 

I can see why it may be annoying when it is a good cache but if it's a micro hidden on the back of a street sign in a big standard residential street what more do you want someone to say other than TFTC? 

 

However, none of those irks stop me from enjoying caching with the kids. 

We appreciate cache owners who put out any cache but particularly those who make interesting caches in nice locations. 

Caches full of rubbish are annoying but we tidy them up and if I have enough on me to spare I will restock them. 

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment

Spot on with all of those. I was just about to add something like #4. did a trail of 18 caches last weekend, made the effort to write individual logs for each cache, not far below the 5 figure cacher with "quick find at the GZ due to the helpful hint and great coordinates"  on every cache including the ones with no hint / clearly incorrect hint / bad coordinates! Why bother?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Oxford Stone said:

Spot on with all of those. I was just about to add something like #4. did a trail of 18 caches last weekend, made the effort to write individual logs for each cache, not far below the 5 figure cacher with "quick find at the GZ due to the helpful hint and great coordinates"  on every cache including the ones with no hint / clearly incorrect hint / bad coordinates! Why bother?

 

Yeah, I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.. or something like that. We write good logs for ourselves, other finders, and the CO. In power trails, it's likely the CO isn't too attentive to every cache's log content, finders are likely not going to write unique and interesting logs, so the CO and other finders are likely not going to be interested in interesting logs, and so people write less interesting logs. The oly constant is really if you want to write a unique/good log for your own history. ANd most people likely think that just a waste of time on a powertrail, possibly writing a 'good' log on the first or last or something like that.

 

But yeah, completely agree with the copy/paste log that describes *A* cache experience, but it's posted to every find of that person for that day. If you didn't know any better, the log content could be entirely misleading, as per your example... :(

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I placed two series of about a dozen, and I did not make the cache listings different.  So I have no excuse to get irked when most cachers leave identical logs.

 

That said, I always avoid copy/paste.  I might write similar logs, but I write 'em all from scratch except the signature.

Link to comment
On 3/14/2019 at 5:27 AM, hzoi said:

I placed two series of about a dozen, and I did not make the cache listings different.  So I have no excuse to get irked when most cachers leave identical logs.

 

That said, I always avoid copy/paste.  I might write similar logs, but I write 'em all from scratch except the signature.


I am now caching with my phone and writing the logs on the fly. Yes...all my logs are the same and I dont care. Dont like it, go find a new hobby.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, SwineFlew said:


I am now caching with my phone and writing the logs on the fly. Yes...all my logs are the same and I dont care. Dont like it, go find a new hobby.

One of the reasons I make many of my caches Premium Members. It doesn't stop boring same logs, but it helps reduce the phone beginner's TFTC/Found?etc. I did a small series yesterday. Fairly short logs, but each individual; mentioning problems with logs etc if necessary. (And got a response from the owner, that they will be there in a fortnight to fix them.) Easy to do.

Link to comment
On 3/14/2019 at 1:27 PM, hzoi said:

I placed two series of about a dozen, and I did not make the cache listings different.  So I have no excuse to get irked when most cachers leave identical logs.

Indeed ;) .

 

I make a habit out of writing individual logs for all caches I do, even the most mundane park&grab (where the individual log would most likely consist of a single sentence, though). The only exceptions are caches in series, where the listings are all identical. My reasoning is simple enough: If the CO does copy&paste, I can do as well ;) .

Link to comment
3 hours ago, baer2006 said:

I make a habit out of writing individual logs for all caches I do, even the most mundane park&grab (where the individual log would most likely consist of a single sentence, though). The only exceptions are caches in series, where the listings are all identical. My reasoning is simple enough: If the CO does copy&paste, I can do as well ;) .

I'm the same, there was one series that I logged "Copy & Paste caches get a Copy & Paste log."

 

  • Funny 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
17 hours ago, SwineFlew said:


I am now caching with my phone and writing the logs on the fly. Yes...all my logs are the same and I dont care. Dont like it, go find a new hobby.

 

Imo, this is fine on lame-oh power trails or a series of caches with copy and paste descriptions. However, doing this on decent caches, caches whose owners have put some thought into, pretty much sucks cumquats. As a cache owner, I realize there are all kinds of logging styles out there and I do expect to see lots of variety come in. Short, long, complaint, praise, whatever, is fine but I dislike seeing copy and paste logs come in on caches we've placed, especially since none of our caches are of the power trail variety. 

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
On 3/17/2019 at 4:02 PM, SwineFlew said:

Well... I got a new one, getting private messages to remind me to give their so so cache a favorite point. That's a major turn off.   I dont see any "wow factor" of giving that so so cache a favorite point. 

 

Yeah, that would bother me too. Almost as much as getting the same copy/paste log from a cacher who found all our various hides. :ph34r:

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment

Probably been posted before, but have to add possible cheaters to the list.  One of my caches (traditional) was found yesterday, with a very long posting about his travels.  Sounded a bit odd, so I checked to see what other caches were found "yesterday".  He found 78 traditional caches in ID, WA, CA, OR, UT, AZ, CO, Baja CA, and NV, along with 7 virtuals in most of the same states, but adding NM.  Roughly tracking his route, from central WA to Phoenix, Google Maps puts the time at 20 hours, mostly freeways.  So, add in the time to find all those caches (most well away from the freeways).  I'm not in my home area at the moment, but will be checking to see if he signed the log when I get there.  

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, GrateBear said:

Probably been posted before, but have to add possible cheaters to the list.  One of my caches (traditional) was found yesterday, with a very long posting about his travels.  Sounded a bit odd, so I checked to see what other caches were found "yesterday".  He found 78 traditional caches in ID, WA, CA, OR, UT, AZ, CO, Baja CA, and NV, along with 7 virtuals in most of the same states, but adding NM.  Roughly tracking his route, from central WA to Phoenix, Google Maps puts the time at 20 hours, mostly freeways.  So, add in the time to find all those caches (most well away from the freeways).  I'm not in my home area at the moment, but will be checking to see if he signed the log when I get there.

 

Not saying that this is what happened, or that if it happens it's just fine and dandy buuuuut... it could be possible that the user is documenting a long road trip but forgot to change dates. I know when I use field notes drafts, that stores the date, but if for some reason I go to the cache listing and post from there, the date defaults to today. I often edit my logs and re-visit any personal trackables on the correct date.

 

Anyway, point being, that is a big red flag of course - but the only true verification that it's a false log is if their name isn't in the logbook...

Link to comment
1 hour ago, GrateBear said:

Probably been posted before, but have to add possible cheaters to the list.  One of my caches (traditional) was found yesterday, with a very long posting about his travels.  Sounded a bit odd, so I checked to see what other caches were found "yesterday".  He found 78 traditional caches in ID, WA, CA, OR, UT, AZ, CO, Baja CA, and NV, along with 7 virtuals in most of the same states, but adding NM.  Roughly tracking his route, from central WA to Phoenix, Google Maps puts the time at 20 hours, mostly freeways.  So, add in the time to find all those caches (most well away from the freeways).  I'm not in my home area at the moment, but will be checking to see if he signed the log when I get there.  

 

The (unscrupulous) things some people will do for a smilie!  Yesterday a Texas cacher logged about 34 virtual and earth caches in Rocky Mountain National Park "while visiting Colorado in the snow."  So what, you ask?  Well, RMNP is buried in snow.  Several of the caches they claim they found are spread out along a 25 mile stretch of Trail Ridge Road that is under many feet of snow, has been closed since last fall, and probably won't reopen until at least Memorial Day.  The information needed to complete some of the caches they claim they found is buried in several feet of snow and it wouldn't be possible at this time to gather the information without shoveling a whole bunch of snow.  About a dozen caches they claim they found are in areas that take many miles of hiking to get to, hikes that take long hours in the summer, let alone winter.  Plus, these hiking caches are in at least three different parts of the park and would require many miles and hours of driving to the different trail heads to start their hikes.

 

Interestingly enough, today about 10 of those logs from yesterday have disappeared.  The logs now gone are ones that require long hikes which makes me believe the cacher is trying to cover his tracks after being called out for his log on a particular rarely hiked to cache.  And if I had to guess, once the cacher figures out the caches along Trail Ridge are dadgum near impossible to get to this time of year, those logs will disappear too.  

 

The cacher posted a generic log on every single one of them saying they'd provide emails "when necessary."  I acknowledge that a few of the caches logged can be accessed currently but only a handful of them.  The cacher logged caches in Texas on the 15th, a few in Steamboat on the 16th, a whole bunch in Steamboat on the 17th, and then these virts and ECs before noon on the 19th.  It's just not possible to do all the virts and ECs they logged in 1 1/2 days, even in summer conditions.  Hopefully every one of those finds not documented according to the cache pages get deleted by the owners.  I know when I'm in Texas I sure won't be doing any of this person's caches.

 

(There, I feel better now, rant over.  I tried to hold back posting about this but in the end I couldn't let it go. If they had been LPCs I'd have moved on.  But these definitely touched a nerve, particularly after having put in the hard work necessary to log a number of them myself.)

Link to comment
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Not saying that this is what happened, or that if it happens it's just fine and dandy buuuuut... it could be possible that the user is documenting a long road trip but forgot to change dates. I know when I use field notes drafts, that stores the date, but if for some reason I go to the cache listing and post from there, the date defaults to today. I often edit my logs and re-visit any personal trackables on the correct date.

 

Anyway, point being, that is a big red flag of course - but the only true verification that it's a false log is if their name isn't in the logbook...

Yep, I have thought about that, but checking several other days, it's a long way between caches found on the same day.  Could just be a very active cacher!  I'll be checking mine probably next week.  

Link to comment
21 hours ago, icezebra11 said:

I know when I'm in Texas I sure won't be doing any of this person's caches.

 

(There, I feel better now, rant over.  I tried to hold back posting about this but in the end I couldn't let it go. If they had been LPCs I'd have moved on.  But these definitely touched a nerve, particularly after having put in the hard work necessary to log a number of them myself.)

 

Sometimes I wonder if people log like this to 'test the waters' as it were, see which owners are active and attentive. I mean really what is the point? What's the fun? *sigh*

Link to comment
22 hours ago, icezebra11 said:

Hopefully every one of those finds not documented according to the cache pages get deleted by the owners.

Unfortunately many owners won't delete logs, even when it is pointed out to them it's an armchair logger. We had an armchair logger go through our area. Several owners checked and finding no signatures deleted the logs. (Some multies they logged were impossible to do in one afternoon. That's where they became unstuck, logging a multi that involved a journey through three states - Australian states are bigger than US states - and either an overnight ferry ride, or a plane flight, and claiming they did this in an afternoon.) Sadly, several (active) owners didn't delete these logs, even when told about these loggers. Annoying. Then these armchair loggers, published an armchair cache. It was frustrating to see how many people made the effort to find a non existing cache. That was finally deleted by the armchair cacher when the reviewer became involved. I expect a number of the logs will never be deleted.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Sometimes I wonder if people log like this to 'test the waters' as it were, see which owners are active and attentive. I mean really what is the point? What's the fun? *sigh*

 

What's the point indeed.  That cacher is a prolific hider too.  I bet he'd probably take issue if everyone used his method of caching and just went ahead and logged them all on-line without bothering to actually find them.

 

Glad to see the number of logs still posted is now down to 10.  The others have been deleted.

Link to comment

Leaderboard behaviour like this example.:

 

***** I am currently writing detailed logs because of a challenge provided by Project-GC. "The Author" Badge challenges geocachers to average one hundred words or more in each log. As 7th March 2019, my average was 90 words per log, which seems close to the 100 words per log target. However given that I have found so many GC caches, I have to write many logs with well over 100 words for a long period of time to get my average to the target. 
Apologies to anyone who finds the logs tedious but it is the only way that I can strive to attain this challenge. After 4500 plus caches (which includes all cache finds up and including yesterday), the average log length is just over 90 words. I am now entertaining the possibility that I might be able to achieve my task before this year ends. Progress has been better than anticipated.*****

 

The same 5 stanza poem and disclaimer was added to each log that day (and I opened up a March find and it was there). 

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 3
Link to comment
16 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Leaderboard behaviour like this example.:

 

***** I am currently writing detailed logs because of a challenge provided by Project-GC. "The Author" Badge challenges geocachers to average one hundred words or more in each log. As 7th March 2019, my average was 90 words per log, which seems close to the 100 words per log target. However given that I have found so many GC caches, I have to write many logs with well over 100 words for a long period of time to get my average to the target. 
Apologies to anyone who finds the logs tedious but it is the only way that I can strive to attain this challenge. After 4500 plus caches (which includes all cache finds up and including yesterday), the average log length is just over 90 words. I am now entertaining the possibility that I might be able to achieve my task before this year ends. Progress has been better than anticipated.*****

 

The same 5 stanza poem and disclaimer was added to each log that day (and I opened up a March find and it was there). 

 

And the irony is lost on people that do that. Its not a challenge if you just copy / paste filler words.

I usually have a little one sentence quote as a signature, but that is for my amusement and nothing to do with trying to earn a badge

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 3/22/2019 at 2:11 AM, L0ne.R said:

Leaderboard behaviour like this example.:

 

***** I am currently writing detailed logs because of a challenge provided by Project-GC. "The Author" Badge challenges geocachers to average one hundred words or more in each log. As 7th March 2019, my average was 90 words per log, which seems close to the 100 words per log target. However given that I have found so many GC caches, I have to write many logs with well over 100 words for a long period of time to get my average to the target. 
Apologies to anyone who finds the logs tedious but it is the only way that I can strive to attain this challenge. After 4500 plus caches (which includes all cache finds up and including yesterday), the average log length is just over 90 words. I am now entertaining the possibility that I might be able to achieve my task before this year ends. Progress has been better than anticipated.*****

 

The same 5 stanza poem and disclaimer was added to each log that day (and I opened up a March find and it was there). 

 

Whoever invented this did not think things through. This probably would not be accepted as a challenge cache since it is hardly challenging to copy paste logs.

 

I don't copy paste myself but have to admit my logs don't have much content either. ?

Incidentally, I have been thinking about a challenge of writing one log upto or exceeding the maximum log length, but I suspect that would not be accepted either..(yes, I qualify)

 

As a CO I don't mind long logs, but when you are out caching and want to find out if previous cachers actually found the cache or what difficulties they encountered, then it's frustrating reading some long copy pasted travel documentary that says nothing about the cache in question. Especially if you follow their trail and read the same dang thing over and over..

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, papu66 said:

As a CO I don't mind long logs, but when you are out caching and want to find out if previous cachers actually found the cache or what difficulties they encountered, then it's frustrating reading some long copy pasted travel documentary that says nothing about the cache in question. Especially if you follow their trail and read the same dang thing over and over..

Yes, boring, irrelevant 'novels'.

Link to comment
On 3/23/2019 at 1:34 AM, papu66 said:

some long copy pasted travel documentary

 

How about 35 long copy pasted travel documentaries in a row, by a mob that collectively decided cache pages are as good a blogging platform as any?

 

[link redacted to protect the guilty, though they don't really deserve it]

 

I never want to cross paths with these people.

 

Edited by Viajero Perdido
Diplomacy. Greetings from [...]
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, luvvinbird said:

I love it when a CO spends a lot of time scouting out an appropriate area, camouflaging a container and ends up with logs like this, and only this: ? or this ? or 'FTF 458'

 

Or these three in a row in separate months on what I thought was a well-crafted themed container and hiding place:

 

image.png.0ee53235a8166a2944b53f6ac3cbbdaa.png

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
On 3/24/2019 at 10:25 PM, Viajero Perdido said:

 

Different, yeah, so you need to skim 35 vacation reports to see if there's anything specific about the cache in question.

 

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that if there was anything about the specific cache, that it contained less than a sentence worth of information.

 

How accurate of a sentiment is that?

Edited by STNolan
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, WearyTraveler said:

I'll stir it up again...  I was looking at a cache log.  Two FTFs.  So, two catchers are looking and they both claim FTF?  Come on.  There's an FTF and a STF.  Whoever spotted it first was the first to find.  The second set of eyes are just a smiley.

What if one sets eyes on it first, but the other actually OPENS it first? What if one spots it first...up in a tree, and the other retrieves it? :drama:

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
55 minutes ago, WearyTraveler said:

I'll stir it up again...  I was looking at a cache log.  Two FTFs.  So, two catchers are looking and they both claim FTF?  Come on.  There's an FTF and a STF.  Whoever spotted it first was the first to find.  The second set of eyes are just a smiley.

Or is it the one that touches it first? Or is it the one that opens it first? Or is it the one that signs it first? Or is it the one that says, "It must be there, take a look"?

 

No, it's not "the one" who spotted it first. It's the team that, through their combined efforts, found it first.

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

Or is it the one that touches it first? Or is it the one that opens it first? Or is it the one that signs it first? Or is it the one that says, "It must be there, take a look"?

 

No, it's not "the one" who spotted it first. It's the team that, through their combined efforts, found it first.

 

Wrong! It's the one who cares to be FTF :ph34r:

 

Edited by on4bam
Link to comment
3 hours ago, WearyTraveler said:

 I was looking at a cache log.  Two FTFs.

I don't always (in fact, rarely) cache alone.  FTF's are often CO-FTF's, with one or two other cachers.  And I try to mention in my log that it's a CO FTF.  Then again, I don't bracket or otherwise designate for Project GC or other companion apps to be able to distinguish those logs so I really have no idea how many FTF's I have. I'd really have to dig through my logs to figure out how many...but I won't because it's not that important a number to me.

 

 if it works that we get it, that's cool, but if someone else is on the scene first, I'm cool with that, too.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

So if a team of 10 is out there gaggling a cache, after the first one to see it screams "there it is - WE found it!"  Then everyone runs over and there are 10 FTFs...  come on...  

 

I know, I'm anal...  I take the term "first to find" literally while some take it to mean "I was in the group too!"

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, WearyTraveler said:

I'll stir it up again...  I was looking at a cache log.  Two FTFs.  So, two catchers are looking and they both claim FTF?  Come on.  There's an FTF and a STF.  Whoever spotted it first was the first to find.  The second set of eyes are just a smiley.

 

I'll agree.  There is only one FTF.  Whoever signs the log first is FTF.  The other is second-to-find.  Two people cannot both be first!  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, WearyTraveler said:

I'll stir it up again...  I was looking at a cache log.  Two FTFs.  So, two catchers are looking and they both claim FTF?  Come on.  There's an FTF and a STF.  Whoever spotted it first was the first to find.  The second set of eyes are just a smiley.

I don't agree. If people are searching together, it's a shared FTF. The place where the cache was found might have been the first place the second person (or more people, even all the people in the group) would have searched first if they had not been searching together. But because the other person 'got' in front of them they went to look somewhere else (rather than shove the other person aside to get in front), even though they thought that the spot the other person was checking was a better hide. They might even had said, you search there and I'll check here. In other words, the second person could even have suggested it. To suggest that only the first person to place their hands on a cache is the only FTF, makes geocaching more a game of rugby and a scramble in a scrum, where only the first person to get their hands on the ball can claim it. Not the aggressive game I want to play. The person who put their hands on the cache first was only able to do that, because of group co-operation working together. I prefer friendly group cooperation, rather than the rugby scrum and first takes all.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Just now, Goldenwattle said:

I don't agree. If people are searching together, it's a shared FTF. The place where the cache was found might have been the first place the second person (or more people, even all the people in the group) would have searched first if they had not been searching together. But because the other person 'got' in front of them they went to look somewhere else (rather than shove the other person aside to get in front), even though they thought that the spot the other person was checking was a better hide. They might even had said, you search there and I'll check here. In other words, the second person could even have suggested it. To suggest that only the first person to place their hands on a cache is the only FTF, makes geocaching more a game of rugby and a scramble in a scrum, where only the first person to get their hands on the ball can claim it. Not the aggressive game I want to play. The person who put their hands on the cache first was only able to do that, because of group co-operation working together. I prefer friendly group cooperation, rather than the rugby scrum and first takes all.

 

That ignores reality.  Only one person can be first.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

That ignores reality.  Only one person can be first.

Obviously a rugby scrum fan. I am not. Not my game at all.

I refuse to race in front of someone rudely because I think that's where the cache is when they are heading there. I would say okay, you search there, I will look here, just in case. Keep it friendly. The first person was able to place their hands on it, because of group cooperation.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

That ignores reality.  Only one person can be first.

Except for caches that require multiple people to work together to retrieve/replace them.

 

And maybe for other caches where people choose to work together, even though technically the cache doesn't require it.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, niraD said:

Except for caches that require multiple people to work together to retrieve/replace them. 

 

And maybe for other caches where people choose to work together, even though technically the cache doesn't require it.

Then someone says, that didn't need a group to retrieve that cache up the tree as one person can do it, and then others say, it did for us old people. There could be a disagreement there too. I am happy to accept a group of people can make a FTF. By group though, I don't mean huge, such as say, 20 or 30. That's a bus tour.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

That ignores reality.  Only one person can be first.

But first what?  In groups various do things that can all be considered "firsts" - which is the real "first"?  I've been the first to see it, but the other person was closer and grabbed it first.  I've also been on hunts where the container was hard to open, the person who grabbed it wasn't able to open it, someone else did that.  The first person to open it may be more interested in the trackables inside and the log is opened by someone else.  Or, as happens around here sometimes, everybody spots the cache but doesn't say anything until everybody has "found" it.  Since we tend to keep searching for a bit so there isn't clues to where it is, who can say exactly who was first to see it?  Because the last to see it is the first to pull it out.

 

I accept your right to an opinion, but don't accept that you insist that it's the only real one.  Besides, it doesn't leave room for ties.  Try and prove who really saw it first.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...