Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 47
avroair

What Irks you most?

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

That happens often around here for challenge caches. Once a challenge becomes too "easy", or the CO just wants to do something fresh, they leave the container in place, don't bother checking it or cleaning it or even giving it a new logbook, and publishes a new listing with a new challenge. Clever idea for challenge caching, but not a great idea for the fun of finding containers.

 

The bolded part is not awesome.  And not how I believe it's supposed to be done.  New listing should mean new log.

 

Before I started just archiving our caches when we moved and picking up the containers, I would arrange for local cachers to sort of adopt them - I'd disable my listing, but keep the container in place, and the new CO would check out the container, add a new log in, and submit a new cache page.  The reviewers we worked with were fine with that and archived our listings at the same time as they published the new listing, but they required a cache check and a new log.

 

I'm not going to go snooping to try and figure out who you're talking about, but you might want to shoot your local reviewer(s) an email, as they may not know this is happening.

Edited by hzoi

Share this post


Link to post

Well the only evidence I've seen over the years is occasionally finding a cache I've already signed even though it's a new listing. There are also the occasional "I jacked your cache" published which (I'm assuming) are with the original owner's permission, and I think and believe the idea behind those is an archival without a retrieval then someone comes along and publishes in the same place with the same container (though I have no idea if the new co does a check).

Honestly personally that doesn't bug me in principle, if there's been permission.  I mean it's kind of annoying, and seems to go against the 'spirit' of cache ownership (it's your baby, not someone else's), but in practice if the cache is in good condition, there isn't really a problem. I'm not a cache cop (generally) so I'm not going to report if I think something like that has happened, especially if the listing implies something like that.  But I think reviewers are aware, if not have a suspicion, that old containers are being 'recycled' for new listings occasionally. I'd be surprised if they didn't at least have a suspicion (I often see new listings use the same coordinates as old ones - is it safe to assume that the new COs always go to replacing or replenish the old container? enh)

That's why it's just an irk and not a report ;P

Share this post


Link to post

What i find really annoying is the caches that are still published but haven't been found in years and the CO hasn't been on line for years also.  Seem the powers that be should be looking at these caches and achieving them if the CO has not been on line or the DNF go back for years.  Just my two cents!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Fah-Troop said:

What i find really annoying is the caches that are still published but haven't been found in years and the CO hasn't been on line for years also.  Seem the powers that be should be looking at these caches and achieving them if the CO has not been on line or the DNF go back for years.  Just my two cents!

Not sure why that would be an annoyance.  Just ignore it if it isn't your cup of tea.  Finding caches that are still active but haven't been found in years is one of my top caching interests.  Doesn't matter if the owner's been on-line a day ago or ten years ago as long as the cache is still a viable cache.  I know quite a few cachers that covet "lonely" finds.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Fah-Troop said:

What i find really annoying is the caches that are still published but haven't been found in years and the CO hasn't been on line for years also.  Seem the powers that be should be looking at these caches and achieving them if the CO has not been on line or the DNF go back for years.  Just my two cents!

 

One of my caches (GC664DZ) was last found well over two years ago in December 2016 and was then DNFed in May 2017. It's still there, though, it's just that everyone who's wanted to find it already has (except that last DNFer who hasn't been back). Fine, have it archived if you want, but I don't know how doing so will benefit the game.

 

My region, the New South Wales Central Coast, has 572 caches, 38 of which haven't been found for more than a year (4 of those mine) and 3 more than two years. The one at the top of the list is just a few days short of three years since its last find but to the best of my knowledge there's nothing wrong with that either - the last log in March 2016 was a find and the finder gave it an FP. It's a D2/T5 water-access-only cache that just doesn't get many finds.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, icezebra11 said:

...  Finding caches that are still active but haven't been found in years is one of my top caching interests.  Doesn't matter if the owner's been on-line a day ago or ten years ago as long as the cache is still a viable cache.  I know quite a few cachers that covet "lonely" finds.

Agreed. 

I got "ticked-off" ( but not hate)  mail from many who were planning on doing distant, "long-forgotten" hides, when I just happened to find it a week before.   :D

Distance and/or higher terrain are my favorites. 

Most of those are "lonely" these days...     :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 3/2/2019 at 5:14 PM, Fah-Troop said:

What i find really annoying is the caches that are still published but haven't been found in years and the CO hasn't been on line for years also.

 

1.  The "Last visited" date on someone's profile only indicates the last date they visited geocaching.com via a browser of some type.  it does not indicate either the last time they checked their email to see the latest logs, or the last time they used a geocaching application to check their hides or find caches,

 

2.  It's unclear what you mean by not found.  Just because no one has had the courage to seek it, doesn't mean it's not there.  

 

3.  If a cache is no kidding no longer at the coordinates, it may be time for someone to log a Did not find plus either a Needs maintenance or Needs archived on it.  Otherwise the problem is not going to fix itself.

 

On 3/2/2019 at 5:14 PM, Fah-Troop said:

Seem the powers that be should be looking at these caches and achieving them if the CO has not been on line or the DNF go back for years.

 

That's pretty much the intent of the Cache Health Score, which flags potential problem caches for an automatic email to the owner suggesting a check and is available to reviewers to check caches that may need intervention.  In other words, this should already be happening.  But if it's not, again, people should be logging not just Did not find logs, but also either Needs maintenance or Needs archived, as appropriate.

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/3/2019 at 7:27 AM, barefootjeff said:
On 3/3/2019 at 3:14 AM, Fah-Troop said:

What i find really annoying is the caches that are still published but haven't been found in years and the CO hasn't been on line for years also.  Seem the powers that be should be looking at these caches and achieving them if the CO has not been on line or the DNF go back for years.  Just my two cents!

 

One of my caches (GC664DZ) was last found well over two years ago in December 2016 and was then DNFed in May 2017. It's still there, though, it's just that everyone who's wanted to find it already has (except that last DNFer who hasn't been back). Fine, have it archived if you want, but I don't know how doing so will benefit the game.

 

For the record, I went and visited that cache this morning. Here's a photo of the (still original) logbook and container, not in bad shape for three and a half years old.

 

20190305_101101.jpg.9d9b544afa59886a95d76a65877db80b.jpg

 

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.

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post

An irk:

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.

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

A large number of recent posts were split off into their own thread.  This thread is best used for (1) expressing an irk; (2) hearing brief reactions/comments from others about that irk; then (3) moving on to the next irk.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

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?

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

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. 

Edited by SwineFlew

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 ;) .

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎5‎/‎23‎/‎2013 at 2:42 PM, avroair said:

What irks you most?

 

Folks that say if you don't like something they do, you should just go away. 

No, I can still dislike what you're doing, while still participating in what we enjoy, thanks.    :)

  • Upvote 5
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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...

Share this post


Link to post
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.)

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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*

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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'.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

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'

Edited by luvvinbird
  • Upvote 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

 

How about 35 long copy pasted travel documentaries in a row,

 

I hope they were at least different versions and not all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, papu66 said:

I hope they were at least different versions and not all the same.

 

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

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/25/2019 at 1:01 AM, papu66 said:

I hope they were at least different versions and not all the same.

I have a standard boilerplate log that I use for finds.  But if it's something more than a cache n dash, I try to add a small sentence or two about that specific cache.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

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 47

×
×
  • Create New...