Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 51
avroair

What Irks you most?

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

I saw that. Thankfully none have sticked out like a sore thumb for me. 

 

Consider yourself lucky.  That thread has 78 pages with I think 50 posts per page of examples of "Found It" logs where its obvious that the geocache didn't find the cache.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Consider yourself lucky.  That thread has 78 pages with I think 50 posts per page of examples of "Found It" logs where its obvious that the geocache didn't find the cache.  

 

 

I don't consider myself anything. Spread that out on a world map and those suspicious finds will probably look insignificant. Geocaching is a fun hobby for me, I won't ruin it by turning into some kind of dictator over my hides and be suspicious of every logged find. 

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Consider yourself lucky.  That thread has 78 pages with I think 50 posts per page of examples of "Found It" logs where its obvious that the geocache didn't find the cache.  

 

Yep, and this is only around 1% of members who post in the forums.   :)

We're often surprised how many renowned folks with high numbers we find later are a bit "creative" in their find count.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

 

I don't consider myself anything. Spread that out on a world map and those suspicious finds will probably look insignificant. Geocaching is a fun hobby for me, I won't ruin it by turning into some kind of dictator over my hides and be suspicious of every logged find. 

COs are not "dictators" when they check logs and are not "suspicious of every logged find". You seem to have a poor perception of this however, if that's your perception then that's your reality alone and not that of others and , dare I say it, the majority. I hardly see how, by maintaining a conscientious approach to cache ownership and its responsibilities, is going to "ruin" the game.

Personally, I would get real ticked off about anyone armchair logging my caches after I have put in the time, effort and expense of placing and maintaining them for the enjoyment of (the majority) people who play this game legitimately.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, colleda said:

COs are not "dictators" when they check logs and are not "suspicious of every logged find". You seem to have a poor perception of this however, if that's your perception then that's your reality alone and not that of others and , dare I say it, the majority. I hardly see how, by maintaining a conscientious approach to cache ownership and its responsibilities, is going to "ruin" the game.

Personally, I would get real ticked off about anyone armchair logging my caches after I have put in the time, effort and expense of placing and maintaining them for the enjoyment of (the majority) people who play this game legitimately.

^This!

 

A while ago I got a find log on one of my caches, which sounded clearly "suspicious". Also, I knew from other contexts, that the cacher has, let's say, flexible logging ethics :rolleyes:. So I went to cache on the following weekend, and (unsurprisingly) their signature was nowhere to be found. Log deleted. And just because I can, I photographed the whole logbook (no big deal, the cache doesn't get that many finds), and compared it to the online logs later. Result: another 4 deleted logs. Doing all this, I didn't feel like a "dictator" at all. Geocaching is not an armchair hobby, and if someone is too lazy to do a 1 km one-way hike into the woods (as is necessary for my cache), then why should they log it as "found"? Deleting fake logs is also a service to those, who do not follow the "Everyone can play the game as they like; they only cheat themselves" line.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

COs who won't acknowledge their cache is underrated, but as good as admit it is underrated, writing, " Just need to have patience and perseverance. "

  • Difficulty: 1.5 out of 5
  • Terrain:1.5 out of 5 (This is maybe okay)
  • Found it 11     Didn't find it 5

2.png1924 Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

22/Jan/2020

It's there. Just need to have patience and perseverance. The rating is suitable for this cache so no need to change it!

 

2.png10663Needs MaintenanceNeeds Maintenance

22/Jan/2020

Over a month since the DNFs began so needs a CO check. If this Nano is still here, the rating needs to be marked more realistically.

 

2.png11333 Didn't find itDidn't find it

22/Jan/2020

Too good for me today.

 

2.png3355 Didn't find itDidn't find it

07/Jan/2020

I'm not having a lot of luck today. 🙁

 
2.png10663 Didn't find itDidn't find it
15/Dec/2019

I expected a 1.5D to be a quick, easy find, so travelling with a non cacher who didn't want me to take too long, I stopped here thinking this would be a quick park and find. I would be surprised if this is a 1.5D, especially if it's a nano. Anyway after searching inside metal places I had to move on. DNF icon_smile_sad.gif

 

2.png36 Didn't find itDidn't find it

15/Dec/2019

Even with the hint couldn't find it as wasn't stopped for long. Assuming it was a nano I think I had the right spot, However it still eluded me. For another time it is

 

Some comments by those that found it:

2.png7138  “Almost home now but a quick pitstop for a couple of final caches. I admit I had a search while fitzy was in getting a coffee....I couldn't find it in the rain. Then fitzy came for a look and thankfully made the find. Argh...I had looked there!”

 

 

2.png6794  “This is one very hard to find cache. Its very well hidden.”

 

 

2.png5251 “This one gave a fair bit of trouble. The coordinates were good. The hint was very misleading.”

 
Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

COs who won't acknowledge their cache is underrated.

  • Difficulty: 1.5 out of 5
  • Terrain:1.5 out of 5 (This is maybe okay)
  • Found it 11     Didn't find it 5

2.png1924 Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

22/Jan/2020

It's there. Just need to have patience and perseverance. The rating is suitable for this cache so no need to change it!

 

2.png10663Needs MaintenanceNeeds Maintenance

22/Jan/2020

Over a month since the DNFs began so needs a CO check. If this Nano is still here, the rating needs to be marked more realistically.

 

2.png11333 Didn't find itDidn't find it

22/Jan/2020

Too good for me today.

2.png3355 Didn't find itDidn't find it

07/Jan/2020

I'm not having a lot of luck today. 🙁

 
2.png10663 Didn't find itDidn't find it
15/Dec/2019

I expected a 1.5D to be a quick, easy find, so travelling with a non cacher who didn't want me to take too long, I stopped here thinking this would be a quick park and find. I would be surprised if this is a 1.5D, especially if it's a nano. Anyway after searching inside metal places I had to move on. DNF icon_smile_sad.gif

 

2.png36 Didn't find itDidn't find it

15/Dec/2019

Even with the hint couldn't find it as wasn't stopped for long. Assuming it was a nano I think I had the right spot, However it still eluded me. For another time it is

 

Some comments by those that found it:

2.png7138  “Almost home now but a quick pitstop for a couple of final caches. I admit I had a search while fitzy was in getting a coffee....I couldn't find it in the rain. Then fitzy came for a look and thankfully made the find. Argh...I had looked there!”

 

 

2.png6794  “This is one very hard to find cache. Its very well hidden.”

 

 

2.png5251 “This one gave a fair bit of trouble. The coordinates were good. The hint was very misleading.”

 

 

I wonder if owners like that want a lot of DNFs and the only way to get them is to lure more cachers with a purposely low D rating. I think it’s obnoxious behaviour. 

Share this post


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

I wonder if owners like that want a lot of DNFs and the only way to get them is to lure more cachers with a purposely low D rating. I think it’s obnoxious behaviour. 

 

I suspect it's more that they want it to be visible to basic members using the app and might not even be aware that it recently increased from D/T 1.5 or less to D/T 2 or less. Though I've DNFed my fair share of genuinely-rated D1.5s (and even D1s) - if there's a way of not seeing an obvious cache, I won't see it, particularly if there are other distractors like muggles at GZ.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I suspect it's more that they want it to be visible to basic members using the app and might not even be aware that it recently increased from D/T 1.5 or less to D/T 2 or less. Though I've DNFed my fair share of genuinely-rated D1.5s (and even D1s) - if there's a way of not seeing an obvious cache, I won't see it, particularly if there are other distractors like muggles at GZ.

I thought of that and I have found way under rated caches by non-premier members, but this CO is a premier member. I don't understand why someone would mark a cache low here in Australia so the few non-premier members can find it. Most people in this country pay their membership, or at least those who visit my caches, and I am amazed how many beginners with only a few finds are premier members too, especially since I had found about 180 caches before I became a premier member; the same time I bought my first GPS (and I had no phone). Then I discovered there were caches I didn't know about. But I didn't feel cheated these had been hidden from me, and actually was pleased they had been, as there were now more caches close to home I could find. It was a pleasant surprise. So as long as there are plenty of cache in the area for beginners to find, no-one should worry about the non-premier members not being able to find some.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

So as long as there are plenty of cache in the area for beginners to find, no-one should worry about the non-premier members not being able to find some.

 

I think I mentioned elsewhere that caches visible to basic members using the app are rather scarce in my immediate neighbourhood (the Woy Woy peninsula).

 

image.png.3ef053734855c2c2a11f66c41e84ba41.png

 

One of them's mine, a 1.5/2 traditional in the Patonga Wetlands reserve (GC6647D). It had a couple of beginner finds during the July school holidays, with their usual one-word logs, but the rest have been by reasonably experienced cachers. I also have a 2/2 semi-urban multi which I created last May (GC879J3), which has had only one beginner log (they managed two words but misspelt both of them).

 

On Boxing Day someone else placed a 1.5/1.5 traditional near the ferry wharf at Ettalong but it only lasted three weeks before it was muggled. Its CO has disabled it pending replacement but I fear nothing will survive long there. Pretty much all the caches that have appeared along the waterfront over the years have been short-lived.

 

Only a couple of mine are PMO, the rest open to anyone using the website, but all my bushland hides are T2.5 or greater, with many having the takes more than an hour attribute as well, so they're not very appealing to most cachers, BM or PM.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I think I mentioned elsewhere that caches visible to basic members using the app are rather scarce in my immediate neighbourhood (the Woy Woy peninsula).

 

image.png.3ef053734855c2c2a11f66c41e84ba41.png

 

One of them's mine, a 1.5/2 traditional in the Patonga Wetlands reserve (GC6647D). It had a couple of beginner finds during the July school holidays, with their usual one-word logs, but the rest have been by reasonably experienced cachers. I also have a 2/2 semi-urban multi which I created last May (GC879J3), which has had only one beginner log (they managed two words but misspelt both of them).

 

On Boxing Day someone else placed a 1.5/1.5 traditional near the ferry wharf at Ettalong but it only lasted three weeks before it was muggled. Its CO has disabled it pending replacement but I fear nothing will survive long there. Pretty much all the caches that have appeared along the waterfront over the years have been short-lived.

 

Only a couple of mine are PMO, the rest open to anyone using the website, but all my bushland hides are T2.5 or greater, with many having the takes more than an hour attribute as well, so they're not very appealing to most cachers, BM or PM.

 

In areas with few non-premier caches, if someone wants to make it so non premier members can find it, then they can make caches no more than 2D/T, but if they do this they should have the real D/T to match this. It's when someone rates a cache less than the actually D/T it's annoying. Besides, most non premier members are beginners and so why would you want their first caches to be difficult?

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, colleda said:

COs are not "dictators" when they check logs and are not "suspicious of every logged find"

 

I didn't say they were. I said I will not become a dictator nor suspicious of every log find. Projecting? 

 

 

 

17 hours ago, colleda said:

You seem to have a poor perception of this however, if that's your perception then that's your reality alone and not that of others and , dare I say it, the majority. I hardly see how, by maintaining a conscientious approach to cache ownership and its responsibilities, is going to "ruin" the game.

 

 

Yup. You are correct.  It's my reality and that's all that's counts in my reality. Welcome to it or stay out of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, baer2006 said:

^This!

 

A while ago I got a find log on one of my caches, which sounded clearly "suspicious". Also, I knew from other contexts, that the cacher has, let's say, flexible logging ethics :rolleyes:. So I went to cache on the following weekend, and (unsurprisingly) their signature was nowhere to be found. Log deleted. And just because I can, I photographed the whole logbook (no big deal, the cache doesn't get that many finds), and compared it to the online logs later. Result: another 4 deleted logs. Doing all this, I didn't feel like a "dictator" at all. Geocaching is not an armchair hobby, and if someone is too lazy to do a 1 km one-way hike into the woods (as is necessary for my cache), then why should they log it as "found"? Deleting fake logs is also a service to those, who do not follow the "Everyone can play the game as they like; they only cheat themselves" line.

Quote

 

 

Good for you. Maybe, if ever, if I see a suspicious log, which I doubt, I might run to the cache and check the log for signatures, if I feel up to it. Or I'll chose to just let it go. 

Share this post


Link to post

Another irk of mine are basic geocachers who are quick to log a DTF because they either didn't take the time to find the cache or are just inexperienced at caching. From what I can remember I have only one DTF total on all my cache hides and the DTF was done by a new member for a P&G.  Before I could check to see if it was a missing an experienced cacher found it and also made a comment about the new member not finding it. That's my irk for the day. 

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Another irk of mine are basic geocachers who are quick to log a DTF because they either didn't take the time to find the cache or are just inexperienced at caching. From what I can remember I have only one DTF total on all my cache hides and the DTF was done by a new member for a P&G.  Before I could check to see if it was a missing an experienced cacher found it and also made a comment about the new member not finding it. That's my irk for the day. 

 

DTF?  

 

Do you mean DNF? ( Did Not Find?)   You can find it irksome but a DNF log is a valid log anytime someone searches for a cache and "Does Not Find" it.   It alerts the cache owner and other geocachers of a potential issue.  If someone does not find a cache, it may be that the cache *is* missing.  

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

DTF?  

 

Do you mean DNF? ( Did Not Find?)   You can find it irksome but a DNF log is a valid log anytime someone searches for a cache and "Does Not Find" it.   It alerts the cache owner and other geocachers of a potential issue.  If someone does not find a cache, it may be that the cache *is* missing.  

 

 

 

Yes, a DNT. In my case...it's an irk. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by HunterandSamuel

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Another irk of mine are basic geocachers who are quick to log a DTF because they either didn't take the time to find the cache or are just inexperienced at caching. From what I can remember I have only one DTF total on all my cache hides and the DTF was done by a new member for a P&G.  Before I could check to see if it was a missing an experienced cacher found it and also made a comment about the new member not finding it. That's my irk for the day. 

My irk is people who think DNF means The Cache Is Missing, rather than Did Not Find.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, niraD said:

My irk is people who think DNF means The Cache Is Missing, rather than Did Not Find.

 

My irk are people who get all irked over someone's irk. Are we done playing now? I have another irk to post about bad coords. 

Share this post


Link to post

I just remembered another irk. A sweet new geocacher hid his first cache. Not knowing how to do the coordinates properly (he admitted it later) he had us all running around searching and a string of DNFs. It was a hot day and a few of us were trying for that delicious FTF. The problem was, his coords brought us inside an apartment building outdoor court. Although he got permission, it was for on the outer edges of the court near the parking lot.  People were playing tennis, BBQing, sitting at tables in the sun. It was very uncomfortable. Twe tenants approached us and asked if they could help. We told them what we were doing, gave a bit of history on geocaching. They were fascinated and began helping us find the cache. lol Anyway, we finally got the correct coords from a seasoned cacher and searched again a month later. A find. We met one of the ladies again and she said they have been geocaching since meeting us. So there is a good ending to this irk. My irk are really bad coords that have us searching across half a football field distance. 

Share this post


Link to post

I would find it irksome if someone complained about a DNF that I logged. My DNF means one thing, that I did not find the cache. Doesn't matter if I searched 5 seconds or 5 hours, I looked for and did not find the cache. Being inexperienced makes absolutely no difference either. It wouldn't matter if it was a person's very first try for a cache, a DNF log would be the correct log if that person did not find the cache. ;)

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Another irk of mine are basic geocachers who are quick to log a DTF because they either didn't take the time to find the cache or are just inexperienced at caching. From what I can remember I have only one DTF total on all my cache hides and the DTF was done by a new member for a P&G.  Before I could check to see if it was a missing an experienced cacher found it and also made a comment about the new member not finding it. That's my irk for the day. 

I'm try to understand this - are you irked because someone didn't find your cache, or that they posted a DNF log?

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, The Jester said:

I'm try to understand this - are you irked because someone didn't find your cache, or that they posted a DNF log?

 

A good question. Thanks for asking respectfully! The cacher had just a few finds, became a member on 5/28/2019 and did the DNF on 5/31/19 and I was okay with her DNF but panic a bit thinking it was missing (no cacher likes to have a missing cache).  But then we got this log (below) from a seasoned cacher and my irk was born. lol  Sometimes I wonder if people sign up for basic membership just to mess with other geocachers. I saw another one that said "I think someone took it".  This basic member had only a few finds also and when you go into his profile it says ... Last visit: Never.  Odd. The cache is one of three that are not premium caches. I like to leave some for basic members to find, to get a taste of the enjoyment of caching and if taken will not be costly for us. This one is an official geocache magnet box hidden in a guardrail next to a pretty pond.  

 

 

Found itFound it

 

Here on business for a few days from xxxxxxx and some geocaching in my spare time.
Cache definitely right where it is suppose to be. No disrespect, but the previous cacher had less than 20 finds, so no surprise when they logged a DNF,
Both container and log in good shape.
TFTC and for making geocaching in xxx an awesome experience!!

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see why that would be an irk (I wouldn't be irked at least) - if a novice cacher couldn't find an easy cache and logged a DNF, it wouldn't bother me (and I'd be happy to see the DNF logged). If an experienced cacher couldn't find an easy cache (and posted a DNF), then I might be concerned about the state of the cache more immediately.  I think I'm actually a tad more irked that the finder above opted to state "No disrespect" as if confirming the cache was there was somehow an insult to the novice cacher who couldn't find it :P  We've all been a novice cacher. And I'm sure most of us have logged a DNF on an easy cache we kicked ourselves about later when we returned to find it; or someone right after us logged a find... it happens. I'm not irked by legitimate DNF logs.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

The novice cacher didn't find the cache and logged a DNF, that's how it supposed to work, not?

As for "Last visit: never" that's because the cacher uses an app. Last visit is, as far as I know, only last visit to the website.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

This basic member had only a few finds also and when you go into his profile it says ... Last visit: Never.  Odd.

 

Yes, as mentioned, that tracks website visits only, not app use.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I don't see why that would be an irk (I wouldn't be irked at least) - if a novice cacher couldn't find an easy cache and logged a DNF, it wouldn't bother me (and I'd be happy to see the DNF logged). If an experienced cacher couldn't find an easy cache (and posted a DNF), then I might be concerned about the state of the cache more immediately.  I think I'm actually a tad more irked that the finder above opted to state "No disrespect" as if confirming the cache was there was somehow an insult to the novice cacher who couldn't find it :P  We've all been a novice cacher. And I'm sure most of us have logged a DNF on an easy cache we kicked ourselves about later when we returned to find it; or someone right after us logged a find... it happens. I'm not irked by legitimate DNF logs.

 

 

Yeah, my irk is probably a shoddy irk. Thanks for getting me to see another side of it.  Good point about the no disrespect comment. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Yes, as mentioned, that tracks website visits only, not app use.

 

I forgot about that. Will check now. 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Yes, as mentioned, that tracks website visits only, not app use.

 

7/3/19 joined. 7/4/19 was his last find. I see he ended up finding my cache the same day after saying he thinks it's missing. lol  He found 6 caches in those two days and sounds like a very sweet person. I wonder why he stopped caching. Lesson learned...do not judge people until you know all the facts. 

Share this post


Link to post

"I think its missing" or "I think it's been taken" are common logs for novices, I'm sure many of us have seen this many times. It's most likely due to a novice finding what they believe to be the exact spot where the cache should be according to whatever device they are using. It's understandable because, as novices, they are usually not aware of the vagaries in taking coordinates, effects of weather, trees, buildings, and also the accuracy of their own GPS device - It says 0 feet or metres so it must be here.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, colleda said:

"I think its missing" or "I think it's been taken" are common logs for novices, I'm sure many of us have seen this many times. It's most likely due to a novice finding what they believe to be the exact spot where the cache should be according to whatever device they are using. It's understandable because, as novices, they are usually not aware of the vagaries in taking coordinates, effects of weather, trees, buildings, and also the accuracy of their own GPS device - It says 0 feet or metres so it must be here.

Happened to be browsing New Zealand caches and spotted this example.

reg_user.gifMember

2.png3

Didn't find itDidn't find it

04/12/2019

Looked for one hour could not find it,think someone stole it

 
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, colleda said:

Happened to be browsing New Zealand caches and spotted this example.

reg_user.gifMember

2.png3

Didn't find itDidn't find it

04/12/2019

Looked for one hour could not find it,think someone stole it

 

I don't think I would have been that presumptuous to write that when I started out. That is, presuming there wasn't a string of DNFs.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, colleda said:

Happened to be browsing New Zealand caches and spotted this example.

reg_user.gifMember

2.png3

Didn't find itDidn't find it

04/12/2019

Looked for one hour could not find it,think someone stole it

 

 

I got something similar on one of mine a few years back:

 

image.png.e582c9285d4d7bc97873843b9f1027cc.png

 

For me, a DNF log should never be about the cache, instead it should be about the searcher's unsuccessful attempt at finding it. If I want to request a CO check, I'll log an NM and if I want the reviewer to become involved I'll log an NA. My personal irk is the blurring of these log types where COs are now expected to act on DNFs and reviewers get involved in DNFs and NMs.

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, this is another of my irks that has just raised its head again. About to create the cache page for a new multi and this comes up:

 

image.png.d1f5000f64a0ad937858c9c7aeb393cd.png

 

I submitted my Caching Celebration event for review last Sunday but it's still sitting there unpublished. It doesn't need some attention other than from the reviewer and I really don't know what more I can do to get it in tip-top shape other than to pull it from the review queue and archive it.

 

My irk is that the system seems to think that unpublished caches awaiting review are in need of maintenance. Next thing I know I'll be getting a CHS ping on it.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Another irk of mine are basic geocachers who are quick to log a DTF because they either didn't take the time to find the cache or are just inexperienced at caching. From what I can remember I have only one DTF total on all my cache hides and the DTF was done by a new member for a P&G.  Before I could check to see if it was a missing an experienced cacher found it and also made a comment about the new member not finding it. That's my irk for the day. 

If it's P&G and advertised as such I'd slot 5 seconds time searching. Depends on d.

If it's a good hike away then half hour to full hour is decent time to search.

 

Cachers have different practices and standards so you shouldn't feel aggravated if someone does not find your "easy" cache.. However, it would be good to always mention the time spent and other circumstance that lead to this CGF. I don't do this always, but I should.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Okay, this is another of my irks that has just raised its head again. About to create the cache page for a new multi and this comes up:

 

image.png.d1f5000f64a0ad937858c9c7aeb393cd.png

 

I submitted my Caching Celebration event for review last Sunday but it's still sitting there unpublished. It doesn't need some attention other than from the reviewer and I really don't know what more I can do to get it in tip-top shape other than to pull it from the review queue and archive it.

 

My irk is that the system seems to think that unpublished caches awaiting review are in need of maintenance. Next thing I know I'll be getting a CHS ping on it.

I think it has always been like that. I have a couple unpublished caches. One is a Virtual and the other a Mystery that clashed with the final of another mystery by a different CO which I makes notes on periodically so that it doesn't get summarily archived. No big deal.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, colleda said:
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

My irk is that the system seems to think that unpublished caches awaiting review are in need of maintenance. Next thing I know I'll be getting a CHS ping on it.

I think it has always been like that. I have a couple unpublished caches. One is a Virtual and the other a Mystery that clashed with the final of another mystery by a different CO which I makes notes on periodically so that it doesn't get summarily archived. No big deal.

Yes, this has always bugged (irked) me too!  I have a few unpublished hides; just finalizing details and containers and fine tuning puzzles, but it seems to imply that unpublished means they need attention before I can publish another.  I"ve learned to ignore it and move on, but it seems an unnecessary reminder.  I KNOW they are unpublished...and they WILL be published...soon!

Share this post


Link to post

It wasn't always that way.  Like so many other listing guidelines and site design changes, this one was implemented due to abuse.  The "reminder" about unpublished caches, along with the auto-archive bot that cleans out old unpublished cache pages that haven't been worked on for many months, have helped to cut down on that abuse.  Cut down, but not eliminated it.  I am familiar with an example of abuse based on an unpublished cache page that occurred just this week.  It was a sad situation for the reviewer involved.  Had it happened to me, I would have asked for a pay raise.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Keystone said:

It wasn't always that way.  Like so many other listing guidelines and site design changes, this one was implemented due to abuse.  The "reminder" about unpublished caches, along with the auto-archive bot that cleans out old unpublished cache pages that haven't been worked on for many months, have helped to cut down on that abuse.  Cut down, but not eliminated it.  I am familiar with an example of abuse based on an unpublished cache page that occurred just this week.  It was a sad situation for the reviewer involved.  Had it happened to me, I would have asked for a pay raise.

Out of curiosity, what is the "abuse"?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Keystone said:

It wasn't always that way.  Like so many other listing guidelines and site design changes, this one was implemented due to abuse.  The "reminder" about unpublished caches, along with the auto-archive bot that cleans out old unpublished cache pages that haven't been worked on for many months, have helped to cut down on that abuse.  Cut down, but not eliminated it.  I am familiar with an example of abuse based on an unpublished cache page that occurred just this week.  It was a sad situation for the reviewer involved.  Had it happened to me, I would have asked for a pay raise.

 

Okay, but I'm still curious as to why an unpublished cache that's actually sitting in the queue awaiting review gets the "reminder" about needing some attention. There's nothing I can do to remedy the situation other than pull it out and archive it, which I presume isn't the desired outcome of this reminder.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Okay, but I'm still curious as to why an unpublished cache that's actually sitting in the queue awaiting review gets the "reminder" about needing some attention. There's nothing I can do to remedy the situation other than pull it out and archive it, which I presume isn't the desired outcome of this reminder.

 

The note says “may need attention”   “May” is used several times in the note. My guess, is coding for nuances in the system is not possible. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, papu66 said:

If it's P&G and advertised as such I'd slot 5 seconds time searching. Depends on d.

If it's a good hike away then half hour to full hour is decent time to search.

 

Cachers have different practices and standards so you shouldn't feel aggravated if someone does not find your "easy" cache.. However, it would be good to always mention the time spent and other circumstance that lead to this CGF. I don't do this always, but I should.  

 

I really appreciate this and Bruce's post. I honestly didn't feel irked until another cacher seemed irked about it. lol  Not that I'm blaming him for my getting irked about the new cacher, but it's good my irk was put into perspective. We need to have patience with new cachers. Another new cacher found my nano and messaged me that all that was there was a tiny black metal thing. lol She didn't log a DNF, that I was thankful for, thankful that she messaged me first to get this straightened out.  I messaged her back saying that was the cache, a tiny one that unscrews. lol She was cute. I let her log a found since she did find it. 

Share this post


Link to post

And to add to the story. A seasoned cacher was FTF on our newly published cache last year. But she signed the log in the FTF rock and not the cache log. lol I messaged her and she felt so bad. I told her to keep the FTF log and find. I switched logs. But being the dedicated cacher she is, she came all the way back from another state and signed the original log, took a photo of it to show me. Very sweet! And left the rock for the STF. 

Share this post


Link to post

I came into this thread to whine about throwdowns. Yeah, I know, not an original irk.  I just needed to whine some.  Me, whining...

 

however I see Jeff's irk about Your Existing Caches May Need Attention  applied to unpublished caches.

 

I got over being irked by that message a long time ago, sort of. I hope it sometimes pushes someone into thinking about their existing published caches that are disabled or have the NM attribute set. That's my  hope on the bright side.

 

 However,  I'm mildly  irked that the messaging  hasn't changed since whenever it started.   I've got unpublished listings so old they've got 6 digit GC Codes.  I test this and that. I map,

I fiddle with html. Nothing needs my attention. If they sit untouched long enough, the 'bot will kill them. Just one of those places where the message isn't a good match for the reality.

 

It's not horrible, nothing as irksome as freaking throwdown finds.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

The note says “may need attention”   “May” is used several times in the note. My guess, is coding for nuances in the system is not possible. 

 

 

 

My understanding is that an unpublished cache that's just sitting there has its disabled state set, which gets cleared when it's submitted for review. Since the same warning message comes up if you have any disabled published caches, it must surely be able to look at the disabled state of unpublished ones.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/23/2020 at 3:05 AM, barefootjeff said:

 

Okay, but I'm still curious as to why an unpublished cache that's actually sitting in the queue awaiting review gets the "reminder" about needing some attention. There's nothing I can do to remedy the situation other than pull it out and archive it, which I presume isn't the desired outcome of this reminder.

Well, in my case, it means I am still tweaking the puzzle or cache description and I'm still not ready to publish it.  Or I haven't actually placed the container yet so I can't submit yet.  I think it also reminds me that I disabled a cache that sounds like it's missing, but have yet to get around to physically checking/replacing it.  I actually like these reminders.

 

As for your situation, maybe you missed a question from the reviewer or maybe he missed your submission somehow.  If it's been there much longer than usual, you might try editing it and resubmitting.  You don't actually have to change anything, but just opening it for editing again will require clicking the Submit button again.

 

Edited by JohnCNA
spelling
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JohnCNA said:

As for your situation, maybe you missed a question from the reviewer or maybe he missed your submission somehow.  If it's been there much longer than usual, you might try editing it and resubmitting.  You don't actually have to change anything, but just opening it for editing again will require clicking the Submit button again.

 

There has been nothing at all from the reviewer, either in Reviewer Note logs or emails, it's just been sitting in the pending queue for the past week while lots of other caches in this state have been published. I'm a bit reluctant to pull it out and resubmit it because I guess that'll just put it back at the end of the queue and I'll have to wait at least another seven days.

 

image.png.8c01a54058d8611863041acb4fbb9605.png

 

I'm pretty sure I've done everything correctly. I've set the coordinates which show up in the correct place on the map, I've set the date, start and end times, I've set the D/T rating, attributes, the state and country are correct and the only other published event in Australia on that date is over 900km away in Tasmania so I would hope that wouldn't run afoul of the event stacking rules. The arboretum is a public place on local government land and there are no admission or parking charges. I guess there's something I've missed but I have no idea what.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post

You can always send a message to your local reviewer and find out what's going on. If they're friendly and you ask nicely, they could check. There's no mystical "wall" between players and reviewers, unless there's a reason for one :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm pretty sure I've done everything correctly. I've set the coordinates which show up in the correct place on the map, I've set the date, start and end times, I've set the D/T rating, attributes, the state and country are correct and the only other published event in Australia on that date is over 900km away in Tasmania so I would hope that wouldn't run afoul of the event stacking rules. The arboretum is a public place on local government land and there are no admission or parking charges. I guess there's something I've missed but I have no idea what.

 We had to resubmit one of our events a few times as it was submitted more than 3 months from event date..... and when they say 3 months, they mean 90 days..... and - I'm checking my calendar.... :)

 

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 51

×
×
  • Create New...