What Irks you most?

[+lee737]

This has irked me on a few occasions now - as a CO, the inability to edit/reliably censor a log on an owned cache. I'm mostly talking about spoilers, like virtual answers. A newbie with half a dozen finds found my virtual today, and posted the answers in their log. I messaged them and asked them to edit it (most can't do that anyway), but didn't hear back from them, so deleted their log. I'd much prefer to be able to blank out part of a log, I know I can 'encrypt' their log, but with a decrypt button right there it is hardly an encryption. 

[+barefootjeff]

45 minutes ago, lee737 said:

This has irked me on a few occasions now - as a CO, the inability to edit/reliably censor a log on an owned cache. I'm mostly talking about spoilers, like virtual answers. A newbie with half a dozen finds found my virtual today, and posted the answers in their log. I messaged them and asked them to edit it (most can't do that anyway), but didn't hear back from them, so deleted their log. I'd much prefer to be able to blank out part of a log, I know I can 'encrypt' their log, but with a decrypt button right there it is hardly an encryption. 

 

I don't use the app much, but having just had a bit of a play, it doesn't look like there's a way to edit your logs on it once you've submitted them. With most of the newbies now being app-only and never visiting the website (they probably don't even know there is one), I fear it's going to be a growing problem.

[+lee737]

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I don't use the app much, but having just had a bit of a play, it doesn't look like there's a way to edit your logs on it once you've submitted them. 

 

I only use the app for messaging and souvenir hunting really, so wasn't sure of that part.... I was assuming that... no need to edit "TFTC!" 

[+L0ne.R]

When the cache is described as:

 

Quote

Very ingenious style of cache. Love it! Koodoos

Quote

Wow nice cache construction!

 

And this is what it looks like—a pipe bomb:

 

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by L0ne.R

[+CAVinoGal]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I don't use the app much, but having just had a bit of a play, it doesn't look like there's a way to edit your logs on it once you've submitted them.

This is true.  And one of the reasons (the primary reason) I use a draft when caching with the app, then write a real log when I get to my computer.  

[+dprovan]

7 hours ago, lee737 said:

This has irked me on a few occasions now - as a CO, the inability to edit/reliably censor a log on an owned cache. I'm mostly talking about spoilers, like virtual answers. A newbie with half a dozen finds found my virtual today, and posted the answers in their log. I messaged them and asked them to edit it (most can't do that anyway), but didn't hear back from them, so deleted their log. I'd much prefer to be able to blank out part of a log, I know I can 'encrypt' their log, but with a decrypt button right there it is hardly an encryption. 

I think it would irk me much more if the CO could edit my logs and change what I said. I don't see anything to be irked about for your case: you gave them a chance, they didn't correct it, so you had to delete it entirely (a.k.a., "reliably censor"). I don't think you should feel bad about that. It's just a log. I don't have any Virtuals, but I'm guessing I would have done it the other way: immediately delete their spoiler log and tell them they can relog it without the spoiler. Not only does that immediately solve the very real problem they have created for your cache by giving away the answer, it also avoids the problem of them having to know how to edit their log because they don't edit their log, they just enter a new one.

 

What irks me is the idea that deleting a log is an inherently negative action by the CO, as if it hurts someone's feelings. The seeker made an honest mistake, the CO is sincerely helping them fix it, and if anyone's getting bend out of shape about it, they need to reconsider what's going on.

[+cerberus1]

7 hours ago, lee737 said:

 I'd much prefer to be able to blank out part of a log, I know I can 'encrypt' their log, but with a decrypt button right there it is hardly an encryption. 

 

Not to interfere with your irk, but for us, if I say " boy, this cache could really use some work...", I wouldn't want to  see that deleted later if I ever went back.

While it sounds nice to be able to delete spoilers, the same option would allow COs to control what folks say about anything.

 

 

On encrypted logs...  since I do caches singly, when I see a log encrypted,  they're the first I'd read.  Kinda defeats the purpose.  

[+niraD]

8 hours ago, lee737 said:

This has irked me on a few occasions now - as a CO, the inability to edit/reliably censor a log on an owned cache.

I have to agree with dprovan on this one. Delete the whole thing, encrypt the whole thing, or let the whole thing stand. Otherwise...

 

8 hours ago, lee737 said:

This has irked me on a few occasions now - as a CO, the inability to edit/reliably censor a log on an owned cache. I'm mostly talking about spoilers, like virtual answers. A newbie with half a dozen finds found my virtual today, and posted the answers in their log. I messaged them and asked them to edit it (most can't do that anyway), but didn't hear back from them, so deleted their log. I'd much prefer to be able to blank out part of a log, I know I can 'encrypt' their log, but with a decrypt button right there it is hardly an encryption. 

 

[+TeamRabbitRun]

 

 

 

Agree - Technically, lee737 typed it! YOU just erased some letters!  (Sorry, Lee)

Like Michaelangelo said (maybe): "'David' was always in there - I just took out the extra parts."

Edited August 21, 2020 by TeamRabbitRun

[+barefootjeff]

I'm just watching events unfold on Lee's virtual, with the newbie whose log he deleted now posting a note. So I wonder, if the CO deletes a log, does the app allow you to post a new find or does it think you've already done that so only allows a WN?

[+lee737]

20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm just watching events unfold on Lee's virtual, with the newbie whose log he deleted now posting a note. So I wonder, if the CO deletes a log, does the app allow you to post a new find or does it think you've already done that so only allows a WN?

Amusing hey! Newbies do the darndest things! I've sent them another message.....

 

[+lee737]

5 hours ago, niraD said:

I have to agree with dprovan on this one. Delete the whole thing, encrypt the whole thing, or let the whole thing stand. Otherwise...

The encryption would be fine, but how it currently stands, is akin to sticking a post-it note over the text, and hoping nobody peeks.... If they change it to a one-time-pad cipher, and let the CO pick the key, I'll be happy!

[+Harry Dolphin]

25 minutes ago, lee737 said:

The encryption would be fine, but how it currently stands, is akin to sticking a post-it note over the text, and hoping nobody peeks.... If they change it to a one-time-pad cipher, and let the CO pick the key, I'll be happy!

 

A CO encrypted one of my logs.  In the edit log, I decrypted it!

[+lee737]

3 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

A CO encrypted one of my logs.  In the edit log, I decrypted it!

Yes, its useless - its an honesty encryption system....

 

Edited August 21, 2020 by lee737

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, lee737 said:

The encryption would be fine, but how it currently stands, is akin to sticking a post-it note over the text, and hoping nobody peeks.... If they change it to a one-time-pad cipher, and let the CO pick the key, I'll be happy!

ROT13 had never been used for secure encryption. The point isn't to prevent someone from reading something. The point is to allow people to choose whether or not they want to read something.

[+ecanderson]

11 hours ago, niraD said:

ROT13 had never been used for secure encryption. The point isn't to prevent someone from reading something. The point is to allow people to choose whether or not they want to read something.

Yes, but which of us doesn't recognize the word 'magnetic' in ROT-13 at a glance, now?

[+IceColdUK]

7 hours ago, ecanderson said:

Yes, but which of us doesn't recognize the word 'magnetic' in ROT-13 at a glance, now?

I hate spotting ‘vil’ in a hint.  E-vil more like!

[+barefootjeff]

This is the latest log on one of Barrenjoey headland caches I adopted a couple of years ago:

 

 

What charming people these modern day app-wielding cachers are. Looks like I'd better postpone my planned caching trip up north tomorrow and instead take the ferry over to Palm Beach to check on it. Why did I ever want to be a CO?

Edited August 23, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+colleda]

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

This is the latest log on one of Barrenjoey headland caches I adopted a couple of years ago:

 

 

What charming people these modern day app-wielding cachers are. Looks like I'd better postpone my planned caching trip up north tomorrow and instead take the ferry over to Palm Beach to check on it. Why did I ever want to be a CO?

Perhaps you could wait for other logs to establish if there is really anything wrong. Pissant can have several meanings.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 minutes ago, colleda said:

Perhaps you could wait for other logs to establish if there is really anything wrong. Pissant can have several meanings.

I suspect many of these caches are not found very often. barefootjeff might be waiting for months to find out.

[+colleda]

3 minutes ago, colleda said:

Perhaps you could wait for other logs to establish if there is really anything wrong. Pissant can have several meanings.

There's a Found It log today  stating all is good.

[+colleda]

Just now, Goldenwattle said:

I suspect many of these caches are not found very often. barefootjeff might be waiting for months to find out.

the cache is in a popular spot for visitors.

[+The Jester]

It brought to mind some advice I heard a long time ago:  If someone calls you a horse, ignore him.  If two people call you a horse, think about it.  If three call you a horse, buy a saddle.  So I'd hold judgement until a second or third make comment...

[+colleda]

20 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

This is the latest log on one of Barrenjoey headland caches I adopted a couple of years ago:

 

 

What charming people these modern day app-wielding cachers are. Looks like I'd better postpone my planned caching trip up north tomorrow and instead take the ferry over to Palm Beach to check on it. Why did I ever want to be a CO?

I've just noticed that the finder has logged finds on a few of my caches. At least the log on yours is a real word. This is a one word log they left "Ldmsbfkelsn". Other logs had similar nonsense(?).

Nonsense logs irk me.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, colleda said:

There's a Found It log today  stating all is good.

 

That log might have today's date, but it was posted at 1am and their signature in the logbook precedes the "pissant" one. So yes, I did go and check and, apart from it again not being placed back correctly, it was otherwise okay. This is the cache and contents:

 

 

The view from GZ:

 

 

and the close-by historical marker where the first lighthouse on the headland was built, after which the cache is named:

 

 

So I don't know why that logger thought it was worthless, contemptible, insignificant or an ant that smells of urine. At least they didn't piss in it, which is something I suppose; after what happened a week ago, I was half expecting that. Maybe they were expecting the Great Wall of China and the Lighthouse of Alexandria, the latter being an appropriate Wonder for this cache to have I guess.

 

Edited August 24, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+colleda]

38 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

That log might have today's date, but it was posted at 1am and their signature in the logbook precedes the "pissant" one. So yes, I did go and check and, apart from it again not being placed back correctly, it was otherwise okay. This is the cache and contents:

 

 

The view from GZ:

 

 

and the close-by historical marker where the first lighthouse on the headland was built, after which the cache is named:

 

 

So I don't know why that logger thought it was worthless, contemptible, insignificant or an ant that smells of urine. At least they didn't piss in it, which is something I suppose; after what happened a week ago, I was half expecting that. Maybe they were expecting the Great Wall of China and the Lighthouse of Alexandria, the latter being an appropriate Wonder for this cache to have I guess.

 

This is a cache I should have as I've been to Patonga a few times, as recently as two weeks ago but never at a convenient time to get the ferry over. I'll get there one day.

Lethargy irks me. I've been meaning to post that for a while now.

[+on4bam]

Same irk as before.

Cache placed July 25th 2020, archived August 24th 2020 CO log: Too much maintenance

Cache placed July 24th 2020, archived August 23th 2020 CO log: cache destroyed a few times... removed

Cache series placed June 16th 2020, archived August 24th 2020 CO log: Too much maintenance  (the whole series of 28 caches was archived)

 

Second irk: logs in the above series "didn't find but found" (found log)

 

Wouldn't it be nice if CO's who don't keep their caches active (and maintained) for at least 3 months got a "time out" for placing new caches?

 

While we're at it, one traditional cache in a series had posted coordinates about 50m  off. The listing said "cache is really at N***** E***** but that's too close to GCxxxxx so cache is not at posted coordinates".

The cache was found and DNF'd several times before someone posted a NA. A reviewer quickly archived the cache.

 

 

[+coachstahly]

9 hours ago, on4bam said:

Same irk as before.

Cache placed July 25th 2020, archived August 24th 2020 CO log: Too much maintenance

Cache placed July 24th 2020, archived August 23th 2020 CO log: cache destroyed a few times... removed

Cache series placed June 16th 2020, archived August 24th 2020 CO log: Too much maintenance  (the whole series of 28 caches was archived)

 

Second irk: logs in the above series "didn't find but found" (found log)

 

Wouldn't it be nice if CO's who don't keep their caches active (and maintained) for at least 3 months got a "time out" for placing new caches?

 

While we're at it, one traditional cache in a series had posted coordinates about 50m  off. The listing said "cache is really at N***** E***** but that's too close to GCxxxxx so cache is not at posted coordinates".

The cache was found and DNF'd several times before someone posted a NA. A reviewer quickly archived the cache.

 

 

 

While I have an issue with "too much maintenance", there are times when a new cache just isn't feasible for the location it was placed and it should be archived.  I don't know if that's really grounds for a temporary ban on new placements.  If it's a regular thing, then maybe but even then the best laid plans don't always succeed.  I think your second example is one that was most likely out of the CO's hands since it was destroyed repeatedly rather than a maintenance expectation that exceeded their original thought.

 

I would be curious to know if the "not really at posted coordinates" was added after publication, as I expect it probably was.

[+on4bam]

Some more

Placed by CO with 17 finds: placed Aug 16th, archived by reviewer. Listing: Cache can be found 30m to the right of posted coordinates  (archived by reviewer).

 

[+Goldenwattle]

23 hours ago, on4bam said:

Cache placed July 25th 2020, archived August 24th 2020 CO log: Too much maintenance

Some COs lack the intelligence and imagination to see that a cache of that size (say nano)/placed in that location/etc would need lots of maintenance. It's not just inexperience; there should be some common sense (intelligence) by those COs.

 

23 hours ago, on4bam said:

Wouldn't it be nice if CO's who don't keep their caches active (and maintained) for at least 3 months got a "time out" for placing new caches?

 

Agreed. Also, need to have a minimum of finds before being able to place a cache. This could be flexible, depending on the location.

 

23 hours ago, on4bam said:

While we're at it, one traditional cache in a series had posted coordinates about 50m  off. The listing said "cache is really at N***** E***** but that's too close to GCxxxxx so cache is not at posted coordinates".

The cache was found and DNF'd several times before someone posted a NA. A reviewer quickly archived the cache.

Ha, ha, I had 'conversations' both with logs and private messages with one CO with a cache that had off-coordinates. Others were doing similar. I think 150 to 200 metres off in this location. I carefully and patiently explained how to fix the coordinates a number of times. They called me a troll, and said they would report me. I can't remember what I replied, but I might have said, 'go ahead', knowing the reviewer would not side with them. Turns out there was another cache near where they placed their cache and so they couldn't have that spot, but they thought it was their right to have that spot. Meanwhile several cachers were messaging each other about this CO. One messaged me to say, "They're mad". The reviewer came in and disabled the cache. The CO immediately re-enable it without moving their cache. The reviewer came back and said they were not playing games and disabled it again. It was archived.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Goldenwattle

[+barefootjeff]

On 8/26/2020 at 7:24 PM, on4bam said:

Wouldn't it be nice if CO's who don't keep their caches active (and maintained) for at least 3 months got a "time out" for placing new caches?

 

Sometimes things can go bad in spite of the CO's best intentions. My Nemophilist Challenge cache, published last October, was only active for a month before I had to disable it for most of the summer as the surrounding national park was closed due to the extreme fire risk. It was only a fortuitous wind change that kept the Three Mile fire from spreading east into the park, otherwise it would have been curtains for that cache. Should I have been given a "time out" for that?

 

Natural calamities, and even man-made ones like a tree-climb cache having its tree cut down, can happen at any time. I've lost a few due to huge seas, floods and a rock fall, fortunately the caches concerned had a reasonable lifespan before those things forced their achival but that was just good luck rather than any foresight on my part.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

<...>

 

Agreed. Also, need to have a minimum of finds before being able to place a cache. This could be flexible, depending on the location.

 

<...>

 

GW - As attractive an idea as this is, it's been argued six ways from Sunday in these fora and it always comes down to being an unworkable concept for a whole passel of very valid reasons. 

 

I DON'T want to open up the whole debate again, but I urge you to do some research in here and catch the arguments, both for and against.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

GW - As attractive an idea as this is, it's been argued six ways from Sunday in these fora and it always comes down to being an unworkable concept for a whole passel of very valid reasons. 

 

I DON'T want to open up the whole debate again, but I urge you to do some research in here and catch the arguments, both for and against.

I don't need to do the research, as I have read them, both for and against, but I am still entitled to reiterate my point of view in passing. If you hadn't unnecessarily commented in the way you did, that would have been it. Just a casual, passing comment; nothing more; slotted between other comments. You made it more.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Agreed. Also, need to have a minimum of finds before being able to place a cache. This could be flexible, depending on the location.

 

It would have to be.  My issue with the minimum number of finds before placing a cache suggestion is that for a cache dense area, which may not need more caches, it would be very easy to get enough finds to place more caches.  For cache sparse areas, places which could use more caches, it could be a challenge to nearly impossible to place a new cache without traveling elsewhere to finds a few caches.  

Edited August 27, 2020 by NYPaddleCacher

[+niraD]

25 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

It would have to be.  My issue with the minimum number of finds before placing a cache suggestion is that for a cache dense area, which may not need more caches, it would be very easy to get enough finds to place more caches.  For cache sparse areas, places which could use more caches, it could be a challenge to nearly impossible to place a new cache without traveling elsewhere to finds a few caches.  

Also, spending a weekend on a numbers trail with some geocaching buddies teaches a newbie very little about geocaching or about cache ownership. Finding half a dozen varied caches would teach a newbie a lot more. But guess which newbie would qualify to hide a cache under these "minimum number of finds" suggestions that keep popping up...

[+Goldenwattle]

30 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

For cache sparse areas, places which could use more caches, it could be a challenge to nearly impossible to place a new cache without traveling elsewhere to finds a few caches.

That's why I said it would need to be flexible. I was thinking of areas with few caches, and especially areas where people are only beginning to cache. Someone has to place the first caches there, and that might need to be beginners, because there is no one else who can. However, in areas with lots of caches to find, I think beginners should be given the opportunity to get more experience finding caches, before they can place a cache.

[+niraD]

8 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

However, in areas with lots of caches to find, I think beginners should be given the opportunity to get more experience finding caches, before they can place a cache.

But how do you measure that experience? The raw find count is the wrong measure.

 

Besides, there are things you learn only by owning and maintaining a cache. No number of finds will teach you those things.

[+frumiousb]

On 8/20/2020 at 10:20 AM, GeoElmo6000 said:

Similar to a previous post and hopefully not already covered.

 

When someone logs your cache and writes "This gets a favorite point!" but your cache doesn't get a favorite point.  Let it go?  Send a reminder?

I'm that person.  Sometimes I thought I clicked "favorite this" for the cache but didn't, and may or may not notice the oversight later.  Sometimes I want to, then find out I'm out (I tend to award ALL of my FPs), and then when I do have an available FP again I have to remember to go back to find the log where I said I'd favorite it.  But I can't always remember which one it is, especially back when I was streaking and getting at least one every day, or when I was on a trip, and searching old logs isn't easy.  I do (or did) have GSAK but it doesn't always work on my Mac, so my GSAK list is VERY old. 

 

Instead of the CO sending a reminder (which could look needy), I'd like to see the *site* implement reminders.  Have {FP} or [FP] (case-insensitive) be a tag you can put in your logs.  Once a day, week, month, whatever (I'm thinking month, to give folks time to earn enough FPs to cover the ones they'd like to give), GC - or Project-GC, whoever wants to do this - runs a script that compares this tag with whether you really did leave a FP for that cache or not.  If you did, fine; you get an EOMonth summary of any/all caches you've favorited.  If not, you get a list of the ones that you tagged but didn't favorite with a suggestion to either add the FP (if you have one available) or to remove the tag. 

Monthly note to cachers could look something like this (with the GC# linked to your log on each cache page):
~~~ frumiousb's favorite caches for August 2020 ~~~

 

You logged these caches as favorites and awarded each an FP:

GCABCDEF1 - D/T - name - placer - location
your log: [...]
GCABCDEF3 - D/T - name - placer - location
your log: [...]
GCABCDEF7 - D/T - name - placer - location
your log: [...]

 

You logged these caches as favorites but did not award them an FP (yet?).
Click on the GC# to go to your log if you want to award an FP now or edit your log to remove the tag.

GCABCDEF2 - D/T - name - placer - location
your log: [...]
GCABCDEF5 - D/T - name - placer - location
your log: [...]

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

--Pickypicky

Edited August 27, 2020 by frumiousb
more to add

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, frumiousb said:

Instead of the CO sending a reminder (which could look needy), I'd like to see the *site* implement reminders.  Have {FP} or [FP] (case-insensitive) be a tag you can put in your logs.  Once a day, week, month, whatever (I'm thinking month, to give folks time to earn enough FPs to cover the ones they'd like to give), GC - or Project-GC, whoever wants to do this - runs a script that compares this tag with whether you really did leave a FP for that cache or not.  If you did, fine; you get an EOMonth summary of any/all caches you've favorited.  If not, you get a list of the ones that you tagged but didn't favorite with a suggestion to either add the FP (if you have one available) or to remove the tag. 

 

I just have a private list called FP-Pending, which I add caches to that I want to give an FP to but don't have any spare, then when I have another one available I give it to the cache that's been on the list the longest and remove it from the list. It seems to work pretty well in practice.

[+funkymunkyzone]

11 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't need to do the research, as I have read them, both for and against, but I am still entitled to reiterate my point of view in passing. If you hadn't unnecessarily commented in the way you did, that would have been it. Just a casual, passing comment; nothing more; slotted between other comments. You made it more.

To be fair, you did use the word "need", which implies it is imperative, not just nice to have.

 

Personally I feel that we all ought to chill out a bit on the whole "new cachers must have x amount of experience before hiding a cache".  I think most do anyway, and i don't think it's much of a precursor to success.  I hid my first after only a handful of finds, it had an issue or two, but then it lasted for a while and it was a fun cache.  I made a few more mistakes over time, but ultimately it worked out - I've hidden some good and bad caches, and three "geocache of the week" awards, so as an official Mr Average my lack of experience initially didn't turn out totally bad.  And, well, how many caches did Dave Ulmer find before he hid his first?

[+barefootjeff]

23 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Personally I feel that we all ought to chill out a bit on the whole "new cachers must have x amount of experience before hiding a cache".  I think most do anyway, and i don't think it's much of a precursor to success.  I hid my first after only a handful of finds, it had an issue or two, but then it lasted for a while and it was a fun cache.  I made a few more mistakes over time, but ultimately it worked out - I've hidden some good and bad caches, and three "geocache of the week" awards, so as an official Mr Average my lack of experience initially didn't turn out totally bad.  And, well, how many caches did Dave Ulmer find before he hid his first?

 

Yes, I'd found just 20 before hiding my first one (GC4CAXV) in a bushland reserve near home, but those 20 covered a fair range of hiding locations and container types. Here's my D/T grid from those finds:

 

 

It didn't get any FPs in its almost two years of life but was well received by the community, with accurate coordinates and a container/hiding place that kept the logbook and contents dry. I archived (and retrieved) it when a tree fell right on top of its hiding place. In most respects it's no different to my most recent traditional (GC8TAFN), in that it's a Sistema containing a notepad logbook and a pencil placed in a hollow at the base of a tree, except it's a bit more of a hike to GZ and is probably a more interesting experience for the finders. Cache location, story-telling and themes are the main things I've learnt since then, but that learning experience would have been essentially the same if I'd waited another year or two before hiding my first one.

[+Goldenwattle]

7 hours ago, niraD said:

But how do you measure that experience? The raw find count is the wrong measure.

 

Besides, there are things you learn only by owning and maintaining a cache. No number of finds will teach you those things.

That's where I disagree, and I was able to know how inexperienced I was when I started and knew I needed to find plenty of caches before placing one, and even then I still felt presumptuous to place a cache, when I did finally place my first cache. I thought the nano bit of chewing gum cache was unique, proving I really did need more experience .

[+barefootjeff]

34 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's where I disagree, and I was able to know how inexperienced I was when I started and knew I needed to find plenty of caches before placing one, and even then I still felt presumptuous to place a cache, when I did finally place my first cache. I thought the nano bit of chewing gum cache was unique, proving I really did need more experience .

 

Finding a hundred pill bottles thrown under bushes doesn't teach you much more than finding just a few and you only have to find one rusting Eclipse tin to know that they make terrible containers. All it takes is a little exposure to what makes a good cache (and probably what makes a bad one) to be able to come up with something half-decent yourself. The rest is learning from experience of your own hides. I still consider Quest for the Middle Sea Diamond to be my flagship cache, the one against which I judge all my other hides, but I would never have come up with that as a first hide. It took a mix of hiding and finding experience, as well as meeting with other cachers in the region, to bring all the elements together for that one.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

8 hours ago, niraD said:

But how do you measure that experience? The raw find count is the wrong measure.

 

Besides, there are things you learn only by owning and maintaining a cache. No number of finds will teach you those things.

That's where I disagree,

I'm confused. What do you disagree with?

 

The idea that the raw find count is the wrong measure of experience? Or the idea that there are things you don't learn from finding caches, that can be learned only by owning and maintaining a cache? Or... something else?

 

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

and I was able to know how inexperienced I was when I started and knew I needed to find plenty of caches before placing one, and even then I still felt presumptuous to place a cache, when I did finally place my first cache. I thought the nano bit of chewing gum cache was unique, proving I really did need more experience .

Well, yes, thinking that something readily available online is unique does indicate a certain lack of experience. But I don't see how familiarity with the full range of commercially available camouflaged containers is the kind of experience that a CO needs to be a good CO. Just as I don't see how finding hundreds of fungible film canisters is the kind of experience that a CO needs to be a good CO.

[+funkymunkyzone]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I thought the nano bit of chewing gum cache was unique, proving I really did need more experience .

 

Just because it didn't turn out to be as unique as you had thought doesn't make it a bad cache or you a poor CO for placing it.  Besides, they're not that common so still fun to find something "different".

[+Goldenwattle]

45 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

Just because it didn't turn out to be as unique as you had thought doesn't make it a bad cache or you a poor CO for placing it.  Besides, they're not that common so still fun to find something "different".

It was a nano. Except for a few exceptions, most nanos by their nature are, ...ordinary at best. I have never placed another nano. I archived that cache after two nanos went missing. I suspect they were taken by birds, not humans. I have another cache nearby, but it's a micro now. I would have put a small if there were a safe place for it.

[+igator210]

I don't know why this irks me.... but for events where a TB is dropped and goes missing.... Why do owners post notes asking where their TB is and then ask why doesn't the Event Owner mark the TB as missing. I've seen these notes posted on events up to two years later.
 

I understand that people are concerned, but its not like those notes are going to reach the intended audience. Only the Event Owner and the random person that looks back at an event are going to see the notes. And a TB owner can mark their own TB as missing. I've had to do that to some of mine.  

 

 

[+coachstahly]

12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's where I disagree, and I was able to know how inexperienced I was when I started and knew I needed to find plenty of caches before placing one, and even then I still felt presumptuous to place a cache, when I did finally place my first cache.

 

You (and others) seem to believe that finding X number of caches will help determine who a "good" CO will be, even if it's on a sliding scale based on cache density of an area.  Finding "plenty of caches" doesn't mean anything if you find 200 pill bottles, mint tins, film cans and nothing else.  It's just a number and one container type/size, which is why the number of finds is so inherently tough to mandate as to whether or not a cacher is ready to become a CO.  All it really tells us is that the cacher is able to find X number of caches and tells us nothing about what they're going to be like as a CO.  I would think that a variety of D/T rated caches , a variety of sized finds, and a variety of cache types would be a much better indicator for a cacher to determine whether or not they are ready to become a CO.  However, even that has its own issues as there's no good indicator as to whether or not a CO will be a good CO.  All it means is that they've managed to find lots of different types, sizes, and D/T combinations of hides.  What does anything about "number" of finds (regardless of how that is interpreted) indicate about the viability of someone becoming a CO who is willing to maintain their caches in a manner outlined in the guidelines?

 

It's the inherent traits of a cacher to be mindful of maintenance requirements as well as what they think caching should be like for their hides that will determine the viability of a CO who maintains their caches.  Someone who is a numbers cacher (meaning they like to find LOTS of caches) will most likely put out caches that are easy park and grabs.  Whether or not they will be maintained is irrelevant to the type of hide that is placed but is instead something the CO already has inside of themselves, a sense of responsibility to take care of what they have placed.  Finding 100 caches, 10 of each size, 5 of each kind, 20 of the 81 D/T grid, or any other arbitrary number that is put out there tells us absolutely nothing about what they're going to be like as a CO.  Sure, it exposes them to 100 caches, 7 different sizes, 9 different cache types, and a variety of D/T combinations, which would hopefully allow them a varied experience that could help determine their likes and dislikes, but it does nothing to provide them with the needed dedication to be the type of CO that takes care of their caches.  

 

This is like telling an aspiring musician to watch 50 Broadway shows, go out and listen to 20 different musical styles, and watch 15 other musicians at work before you attempt to become a musician.  All of that exposure is probably good for them but it doesn't tell us anything about what type of musician they're actually going to become.  The only true way for them (and us) to learn what type of musician they can become is with hands on experience.  What level of dedication anyone applies to their craft can't really be determined by those pre-requisites we place in front of them.  That's something that's inherent in each and every person. We can improve our craft (whatever that craft might be - lawyer to CO) by watching others and learning from them but the desire to use and implement what we learn and see has to come from within.  If I want to be a good musician, then watching what others do and listening to a variety of music won't actually make me become better.  Practice of my chosen instrument or practical application within my field of music study is what would make me a good musician and that dedication can only truly come from within.

 

13 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I thought the nano bit of chewing gum cache was unique, proving I really did need more experience .

 

It didn't show that you needed more experience.  It showed that you learned you weren't content with placing this type of cache because it ran against some ingrained feeling of dissatisfaction that arose within you.  You performed a hands on activity that you thought was going to be satisfactory to your sense of what a good cache might be and then found out that you weren't content with it.  Some of that can be contributed to finding a few like that (they're not really that common) but most of it is probably because you felt it wasn't "worthy" of the type of cache you wanted to put out.  There are many cachers out there that would enjoy a hide like this, especially if it were regularly maintained (log not full).  It's not a "bad" cache, in and of itself.  It's just not a cache that you want to be associated with because you believe it to be antithetical to your sense of what types of hides you want to own and maintain.  That's most likely due more to internal processes (your belief in what constitutes a "good" cache) than external processes (finding more caches).

 

While my personal preference is to hope that potential COs experience a variety of hides, sizes, types, and D/T combos, I don't believe that those experiences should be mandated.  I've found enough poorly maintained caches from COs with lots more finds than I have and I've found enough well-maintained caches from COs with far less finds than I have to realize that the number of finds isn't a good indicator of who will or won't be a good CO when it comes to maintaining their caches.  I've found enough poor "quality" caches (per my personal preferences) from COs with lots more finds than I have and I've found enough good "quality" caches from COs with far less finds than I have to realize that the number of finds isn't a good indicator of who will or will not hide "quality" caches that I prefer to find. 

 

[+TeamRabbitRun]

52 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

<...>

 

...good indicator of who will or will not hide "quality" caches that I prefer to find. 

 

 

Aaaaaand, of course, a new account with no finds doesn't mean that it's a new cacher with no finds or previous hides.

 

" You can't divorce me; you'd have start again from scratch with your new caching account!"

[+AsphaltCowGurl]

I saw a reply to this topic where someone mentioned, hiking out into the woods just for a micro. Last weekend, I went hiking into the woods for a cache where the CO said, you could reach it either from the park or the church. The woods (dense) are between them. So, since I was in the park I went that route. I thought I was ready. I had on long pants so as to not get mosquito bites. After about 20 mins of pulling out of thorns and nearly twisting my ankle, I came to a creek. The creek wasn't the problem. The problem was, it was 20ft straight down (like a cliff) and 20ft up the other side. I looked at my GPS and it said the cache was on the other side. I was not expecting this with a 3 difficulty in terrain. I walked up and down the creek looking for a good place to cross without needing climbing gear to get out. After searching for a spell, I gave up and concluded I needed to approach from the church. It was getting late so I called it a day. The next morning, I was covered in spider bites all over my legs. they were so bad, I couldn't sleep they were so itchy. So, not only was I mad that the CO didn't accurately rate the terrain or the gear you might need but I came away with a dozen spider bites. It's just part of the "fun" I guess. Although finding Letterbox caches with no stamp and no pads are highly frustrating for me, especially when no one mentions they're missing and it's obvious the CO has not been keeping up with their caches.