Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 51
avroair

What Irks you most?

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I said it's up to them to decide whether they did enough for their log to stand.

I said something similar after not finding a signature. I did the usual, said I would accept the find with a description of the hide or a photograph. They supplied neither, but gave an airy-fairy  account of the wonderful day his daughter had with him and what fun they had had together and he thought this so wonderful (or words to that effect). Signing the log was unimportant; it was the experience. He did describe the area, so he was there, so not a complete armchair logger. But no proof he found the actual cache. He came across as having a head full of fairy floss.  I said I would leave it up to his honesty whether he found the log and to him whether to remove the log. Naively I hoped honesty would win out, but it didn't and the log stayed. I haven't removed the log, because I did say I would leave it up to him, and removing it, would make me dishonest too. Annoying though:rolleyes:.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Okay, they replied to my message with some answers, all of which are wrong, not just slightly wrong but, well, I have to wonder if they were even at GZ

 

They logged another EC near Sydney on the same day. Short log online. Maybe an armchair logger.

 

Looking at your EC we might have to revisit NSW (we did Sydney to Cairns in 2003 as our first trip to Oz). I'm sure we missed some nice stuff the first time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, on4bam said:

They logged another EC near Sydney on the same day. Short log online. Maybe an armchair logger.

 

They did find a bunch of other caches near the Sydney EC yesterday so unless they're all armchair logs it's probably more a case of an app-only cacher having no idea how ECs work. Mine's about an hour and a half's drive from the Sydney one so it's plausible for them to have visited both although they didn't find any other Central Coast caches while they were up here.

 

The Sydney EC has a photo requirement and they didn't include one, so I've just messaged its owner to see if they provided any answers on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I really hate this. ... Sigh, why did I ever want to own an EC?

I'm sorry you feel this way, and I'm not really qualified to comment on your feelings. But it sounds like you're doing a wonderful job of educating this newbie, so I hate to think of you hating that role. Newbies sometimes make mistakes and need to be educated, and I get the feeling you don't mind that part too much. The main problem here seems to be that the lesson wasn't learned, and in those cases I suggest you shake your head in amusement and delete their logs without any further concern. If they try to start a slanging match -- whatever that is :-) -- just send them to the principle's office...er, I mean refer them to GS.

 

I don't have any experience owning an EarthCache, but if this newbie really is as clueless and marketing driven as you say, it seems much more likely that they're just give up on the hobby and go away before they'll start slanging with you over a couple finds. I think it's the seasoned geocachers that develop that sense of entitlement.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, dprovan said:
23 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I really hate this. ... Sigh, why did I ever want to own an EC?

I'm sorry you feel this way, and I'm not really qualified to comment on your feelings. But it sounds like you're doing a wonderful job of educating this newbie, so I hate to think of you hating that role. Newbies sometimes make mistakes and need to be educated, and I get the feeling you don't mind that part too much. The main problem here seems to be that the lesson wasn't learned, and in those cases I suggest you shake your head in amusement and delete their logs without any further concern. If they try to start a slanging match -- whatever that is :-) -- just send them to the principle's office...er, I mean refer them to GS.

 

I don't have any experience owning an EarthCache, but if this newbie really is as clueless and marketing driven as you say, it seems much more likely that they're just give up on the hobby and go away before they'll start slanging with you over a couple finds. I think it's the seasoned geocachers that develop that sense of entitlement.

 

And, at least they replied. They care to some degree about logging the find. Which means either they're intentionally fudging the answers incorrectly, or they legitimately had no idea and you helped educate them. It's the ones that don't reply to any communications that are likely the ones drawn in by marketing and playing around without really caring :(

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

And, at least they replied. They care to some degree about logging the find. Which means either they're intentionally fudging the answers incorrectly, or they legitimately had no idea and you helped educate them. It's the ones that don't reply to any communications that are likely the ones drawn in by marketing and playing around without really caring :(

 

In handling questionable logs, I always try to assume the innocent explanation is the most likely one, but now I'm starting to wonder about this instance. I've had no reply to my "be nice to newbies" response to their made-up answers and have now been in touch with the owner of the Sydney EC they also logged on Sunday and he's also received no answers from them. I can't help feeling we're both being played for fools in this instance but of course I can't prove it so will probably just have to let it go.

 

This rash of COVID PM newbies who never visit the website and either have no idea of how the game is played (or desire to learn) or are just outright destructive like the one who urinated in one of my caches are really wearing me thin.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 so will probably just have to let it go.

 

And that will teach them early on that fake logs are OK which in the long run is bad for the hobby.

 

 

 

Edited by on4bam
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, on4bam said:

 

And that will each them early on that fake logs are OK which in the long run is bad for the hobby.

 

 

 

I contacted four people (all relatively new to the game) about missing signatures yesterday. I have only heard from one, who after considering it, I had decided to allow the log to stay, as they signed a close neighbouring one and reported another likely missing (it was) in the series, and so at least they were in the area. They went back and signed the log and sent me a photograph. When I told them I had decided to allow their log I got the following message, which I think is lovely. "No worries  i rather to be honest and be a true colour for geocaching as im love it every single mins when i go out do geocaching" Great attitude. They also went and found the replacement I left yesterday for the missing cache.

The other four signed none of the caches they claimed, so they are a different matter, and will likely be deleted. But I give everyone a chance of reply and to explain, before I do. No reply from them yet. Waiting :drama:.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, on4bam said:

And that will teach them early on that fake logs are OK which in the long run is bad for the hobby.

Reminds me of something which regularly irks me:

A CO posts (in a forum, on FB, in a maintenance log on their cache, etc.) that they have done a routine check on their not-so-easy to solve/reach/find cache, and noticed that some of the more recent online finders are nowhere in the logbook. And then they continue along the lines of "But I'll let the logs stay. They only cheat themselves!".

 

If a CO never bothers to look into the physical log after placing the cache, and therefore doesn't even have a theoretical chance to notice fake-loggers - fine (or not). But if they already noticed a fake log (by coincidence, or because of actively checking the log), then why let it stand?! Are they afraid of nasty replies from the fake loggers? Anyway, in the end it leads to what on4bam said: The overall impression, that fake logs are OK (and sometimes by extension, that CO's who do actually delete them, are just "cache police" or "overreacting" - yes, I've read such comments).

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Cache sizes.

 

Today: 35mm as a small cache; magnetic key holder as a small cache. The latter hidden by someone with more than 4,000 finds and 10 years experience.

 

I can live with the 4-5 litre container I found earlier in the day being classed as large. I mean, it's not, but it's not hideous. I can even understand the nano tube embedded in a big old log being classed as regular (I mean, it's not, but I get why).

 

Thank you - that's that off my chest.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Blue Square Thing said:

Today: 35mm as a small cache; magnetic key holder as a small cache.

We need a nano rating. That would likely correct that, but it doesn't appear likely to happen. My irk, no nano rating.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

My irk, no nano rating.

My irk, too many nanos :P.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

My irk, too many nanos :P.

But if there were a nano rating, you would know which caches to ignore :laughing:.

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

But if there were a nano rating, you would know which caches to ignore :laughing:.

People would still call them Regular... (I have found a "large" cache consisting of a tiny plastic tube atop a stick - I stopped looking for that persons caches at that point)

 

Once it starts you can't stop it.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, baer2006 said:

But if they already noticed a fake log (by coincidence, or because of actively checking the log), then why let it stand?!

It's called "benefit of the doubt": allowing for the possibility that it isn't a fake log because the seeker did find the cache and extracted the log, but there's an explanation the CO would accept for why no corresponding signature is found.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

In handling questionable logs, I always try to assume the innocent explanation is the most likely one, but now I'm starting to wonder about this instance. I've had no reply to my "be nice to newbies" response to their made-up answers and have now been in touch with the owner of the Sydney EC they also logged on Sunday and he's also received no answers from them.

 

As the cache owner of an EC, you have the right to delete a log that you feel is false in that the person either made no effort to complete the task(s)/question(s) or didn't visit gz. Especially if you've contacted them and explained the situation, especially especially if you've noted that the log could be deleted.  If they don't reply, go ahead and delete it. If they want it back, they can convince appeals that they did the work. :)

 

30 minutes ago, dprovan said:
5 hours ago, baer2006 said:

But if they already noticed a fake log (by coincidence, or because of actively checking the log), then why let it stand?!

It's called "benefit of the doubt": allowing for the possibility that it isn't a fake log because the seeker did find the cache and extracted the log, but there's an explanation the CO would accept for why no corresponding signature is found.

 

You could do like some reviewers do with cache archivals - with the log deletion explanation that if it can be proven the cache was found or the CO simply didn't see the signature, then by all means the find log can be reinstated. Especially if the CO has given the person enough time to respond. But yeah, if it's an admitted/determined fake log, it shouldn't be left standing. Mistakes can be fixed. But falsehoods shouldn't be condoned.

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, dprovan said:

It's called "benefit of the doubt": allowing for the possibility that it isn't a fake log because the seeker did find the cache and extracted the log, but there's an explanation the CO would accept for why no corresponding signature is found.

Call me a jerk, but in such a situation I would expect an explanation by the finder up front why they couldn't sign the log. I'm prepared to accept the ubiquitous "lost my pen" excuse if it says so in the log, and they send me a photo of the cache in their hands without me having to ask for it.

Obviously all this only applies if my logbook is in excellent condition. If there is even a slight chance that pieces are missing, then I would of course not delete any logs.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

As the cache owner of an EC, you have the right to delete a log that you feel is false in that the person either made no effort to complete the task(s)/question(s) or didn't visit gz. Especially if you've contacted them and explained the situation, especially especially if you've noted that the log could be deleted.  If they don't reply, go ahead and delete it. If they want it back, they can convince appeals that they did the work. :)

 

 

My one is perhaps not quite so simple. The geological feature is only visible at low tide and can be tricky to examine close-up if there are waves breaking over it, so I'm pretty lenient with the answers, particularly if the logs and/or answers say something about the conditions at the time. For those that were unfortunate to be there at the wrong time (this usually happens on the International Earthcache Day weekend), I have some photos I send them to round off the experience and show them what they would have seen had the seas allowed. In the description I have warnings in bold letters about only attempting it at low tide and with calm seas, but these app-only cachers are taught to only look at the description if they get stuck and of course by then it's too late.

 

In this case I really don't know. Their log is just "Amazing geological features" and their answers were equally informative. In all likelihood they did visit the site and made their best guess based on what they could see at the time, but it could just as easily be an armchair log. As it stands, I don't think I have sufficient grounds to delete their log. Should I pursue it further? Probably. Do I want to? No. The Sydney one, with its four locations, is a lot more specific and unambiguous so if they are cheating they'll likely learn their lesson on that one, and if its CO ends up deleting their log I'll have another chat with him and perhaps take it further then.

 

In hindsight, mine was probably a bad choice for an EC site, but those that have managed to get the full experience when the sea's been cooperative have enjoyed it and it's had 12 FPs so I'm not quite at the point of wanting to archive it.

Edited by barefootjeff
Spelling
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Call me a jerk, but in such a situation I would expect an explanation by the finder up front why they couldn't sign the log.

The last few times I couldn't sign the log, because I forgot a pen (this happens rarely) I contacted the CO first with a photograph. I then logged AFTER being given permission to log. I too believe in contacting the CO to ask permission. If after a time the CO has not replied I log the find. I am not going to miss out, because of being ignored by a lazy CO. However, if a CO got back and said only logs are accepted that have been signed for, I would have to accept their decision. Their call.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

As it stands, I don't think I have sufficient grounds to delete their log. Should I pursue it further? Probably. Do I want to? No.

 

I'd agree, in your case it's probably not worth pursuing at all. This would be one of those "they're only cheating themselves" type of situations, I'd say, if they didn't do it properly. They're responsive, and you say the answers are there and just garbage. A good test might be to imagine how appeals might adjudicate the situation knowing they prefer people to sort it out themselves, avoid he-said-she-said, and tend not to change anything unless there's evidence of rule-breaking... :)

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Call me a jerk, but in such a situation I would expect an explanation by the finder up front why they couldn't sign the log.

That's fine. I'm not telling you how to feel about it, I'm just explaining why another CO might treat it differently.

 

12 hours ago, baer2006 said:

I'm prepared to accept the ubiquitous "lost my pen" excuse if it says so in the log, and they send me a photo of the cache in their hands without me having to ask for it.

Actually, I was thinking that they were so pleased with their accomplishment, so happy to have found it, so busy taking pictures, that they forgot to sign the log and just didn't realize they'd made a mistake by putting it back in the container without adding their mark. In other words, they have no idea they screwed up, so they would have no reason to offer an explanation unsolicited.

 

Mind you, I don't claim that's the most likely case, just that it's one a CO that prefers giving seekers every break might imagine.

Edited by dprovan
Added another point

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

... In the description I have warnings in bold letters about only attempting it at low tide and with calm seas, but these app-only cachers are taught to only look at the description if they get stuck and of course by then it's too late.

 

...

 

In hindsight, mine was probably a bad choice for an EC site, but those that have managed to get the full experience when the sea's been cooperative have enjoyed it and it's had 12 FPs so I'm not quite at the point of wanting to archive it.

 

I have [LOW TIDE ONLY] at the end of the cache title of my one.

 

I don't know whether that helps or not, but it's pretty remote at the end of the road on the Bay of Fundy and doesn't get many people visit it at all - no one this year at all. So I've only had a couple of people log it without even attempting to get answers and everyone else has done a decent enough job logging it. And tides are sort of a big thing in that part of the world anyway, so maybe people do pay a little more attention to it.

 

If anyone went there are obviously high tide then I think I'd ask them to log it as a note. I don't think low tide only sites make bad spots for earth caches, just add to the variety.

Share this post


Link to post

Loggers insisting that the 50ml preform they found is really a small and not micro as it's listed as.

 

Hoarding hundreds or even thousands of favorite points available to give.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GearHeadAZ said:

Hoarding hundreds or even thousands of favorite points available to give.

Hoarding? Are you suggesting FP's should be given because a cacher has plenty? I give FP's because it's .... well... a favorite cache not because I have 300+ to give.

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GearHeadAZ said:

Loggers insisting that the 50ml preform they found is really a small and not micro as it's listed as.

Interesting ;) . What irks _me_ is related, but more the other way round: Cache _owners_ insisting that their PET preform is a "small", when the guidelines (and several loggers) say that it's a micro.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, on4bam said:

Hoarding? Are you suggesting FP's should be given because a cacher has plenty? I give FP's because it's .... well... a favorite cache not because I have 300+ to give.

 

Agreed.  Nowhere near 1 in 10 caches that I've run across would really qualify for one, so the surplus points continue to accumulate.  Put a 35 under a lamp skirt, and you aren't going to get a favorite.

Put a 35 under a lamp skirt placed around a tree in the middle of a forest, I'll give you the favorite AFTER I get done laughing!

These are saved for caches that I'd make a point of sending someone else to visit.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, GearHeadAZ said:

Loggers insisting that the 50ml preform they found is really a small and not micro as it's listed as.

 

 

Tagging on to this irk.

Loggers who won't note in their log that the small size cache is really a micro.

It comes across as not caring about other finders, and not caring about using the tools of the site appropriately to benefit all players. 

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ecanderson said:
4 hours ago, on4bam said:

Hoarding? Are you suggesting FP's should be given because a cacher has plenty? I give FP's because it's .... well... a favorite cache not because I have 300+ to give.

 

Agreed.  Nowhere near 1 in 10 caches that I've run across would really qualify for one, so the surplus points continue to accumulate.  Put a 35 under a lamp skirt, and you aren't going to get a favorite.

Put a 35 under a lamp skirt placed around a tree in the middle of a forest, I'll give you the favorite AFTER I get done laughing!

These are saved for caches that I'd make a point of sending someone else to visit.

 

I have the opposite problem. There are no LPCs here since our lamposts don't have skirts and shopping centre carpark caches are exceedingly rare. In my region, over 40% of the caches are terrain 2.5 or higher, with the smalls and regulars outnumbering the micros by a good margin. I've started keeping a list of caches I'd like to give FPs to but don't have enough to give, and each time I've found another ten caches I take one off that list but usually at least one of those ten gets added to the other end. Yet in another thread we're being told that if you don't give a cache an FP you're effectively downvoting it as rubbish. Maybe when COVID is over I should do some travelling to find lots of unenjoyable caches as that seems to be the only way to play the game properly now.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm irked by someone swiping three of my bison tubes. One was inside a mint tin (for extra protection)being held by a magnet under a GR post kinda like a LPC. I did a maintenance check to find the bison tube missing but the rolled up RITR log sheet still in the mint tin.

The other two were from the same hide. I read a log (yes, some COs read finders' logs) mentioning the the log sheet being exposed(?). The cache was hanging by a wire inside a pipe. When I checked on it the wire was still there, the bison tube was gone, but the log roll was still there. The thief was kind enough to twist the end of the wire around the log roll and leave it in place. Well meaning, considerate, bison tube thief?  I replaced the bison tube and some months later same thing happened again. I archived the cache after that one.

  • Surprised 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, on4bam said:

Hoarding? Are you suggesting FP's should be given because a cacher has plenty? I give FP's because it's .... well... a favorite cache not because I have 300+ to give.

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. So out of 3,000 caches found, not a single one meets your standards? Get off your high horse. It doesn't have to literally be your favorite, they votes to tell other cachers which ones are the best of the 3,000. If you haven't found one favorite in the last 3,000 (ratio) then you sure as hell aren't gonna suddenly find 300 in a row that you deem worthy, so what's the point of saving them?  But hey, I'm just a peasant with 200 finds. It would sure be nice to have some more votes on the thousands of caches around me so I can visit the the better crappy caches over the worse crappy caches on my way to 300 finds.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, GearHeadAZ said:

That's exactly what I'm saying. So out of 3,000 caches found, not a single one meets your standards? Get off your high horse. It doesn't have to literally be your favorite, they votes to tell other cachers which ones are the best of the 3,000. If you haven't found one favorite in the last 3,000 (ratio) then you sure as hell aren't gonna suddenly find 300 in a row that you deem worthy, so what's the point of saving them?  But hey, I'm just a peasant with 200 finds. It would sure be nice to have some more votes on the thousands of caches around me so I can visit the the better crappy caches over the worse crappy caches on my way to 300 finds.

What is worth a favourite point is a personal thing and it's up to the individual to decide what that is. For me it could be a nice cache, something interesting I was brought to, a good view; even something as arbitrary as I wanted a coffee and the cache brought me near a cafe, or I wanted to buy some milk to take home, and the cache brought me to a shopping centre. I rarely give a nano a favourite, and it would have to be an exceptional cache for me to give a point to it, if the size or I considered the rating was wrong. Also very unlikely to give a favourite to a cache that needs maintenance. I might write something though like, "I would have given this a favourite, if the log was writeable on." None of us has the right to attempt to bully (as you are attempting to do) others into giving a favourite that they don't consider deserved. A gentle suggestion maybe (and leave it there), but not bully.

I have 56 favourites available to reward, but as I have 11,147 finds, that must mean I have given 1114 favourites.

on4bam has 10,842 finds, which means they have given more favourite points than they still have.

You have 224 finds, so you have only had 22 favourite points to give, which maybe is effecting your perspective on this.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I have the opposite problem. There are no LPCs here since our lamposts don't have skirts and shopping centre carpark caches are exceedingly rare. In my region, over 40% of the caches are terrain 2.5 or higher, with the smalls and regulars outnumbering the micros by a good margin. I've started keeping a list of caches I'd like to give FPs to but don't have enough to give, and each time I've found another ten caches I take one off that list but usually at least one of those ten gets added to the other end.

Wish I could donate some to your cause.  A friend and I have created a bit of a challenge for ourselves in our attempt to clear sections of map.  That means taking the good with the bad, so the 10:1 ratio has turned out to be a bit generous for us here.  As noted above, my formula is really, really simple:

 

if (cache == good enough that I'd make a point of sending a fellow cacher there for the experience)

then cachefavpoints++

else ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

if (cache == good enough that I'd make a point of sending a fellow cacher there for the experience)

then cachefavpoints++

else ...

 

 

For me it would depend entirely on who that fellow cacher is. I have one caching friend who loves climbing rocks and mountains, but another who won't do anything much above a T2. A cache one would love the other would hate and vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

What is worth a favourite point is a personal thing and it's up to the individual to decide what that is. For me it could be a nice cache, something interesting I was brought to, a good view; even something as arbitrary as I wanted a coffee and the cache brought me near a cafe, or I wanted to buy some milk to take home, and the cache brought me to a shopping centre. I rarely give a nano a favourite, and it would have to be an exceptional cache for me to give a point to it, if the size or I considered the rating was wrong. Also very unlikely to give a favourite to a cache that needs maintenance. I might write something though like, "I would have given this a favourite, if the log was writeable on." None of us has the right to attempt to bully (as you are attempting to do) others into giving a favourite that they don't consider deserved. A gentle suggestion maybe (and leave it there), but not bully.

I have 56 favourites available to reward, but as I have 11,147 finds, that must mean I have given 1114 favourites.

on4bam has 10,842 finds, which means they have given more favourite points than they still have.

You have 224 finds, so you have only had 22 favourite points to give, which maybe is effecting your perspective on this.

Bullying? Lol ok. I'm sure he doesn't care what some random newb says on a forum. Him and a few others' opinion is a favorite point is only for your favorites of all time. Me, I think they should be given as top 10% since that's how they are accrued. Favorites is the only form of a voting system we have so I feel like "voting" is contributing to the game. I think that YOUR perspective is skewed, you are such a vet and you've seen so many that you are forgetting how excited newbies are to find certain types of hides for the first time. Or maybe that newbie who hid a hide that they think it's super clever, even though YOU may have seen it 100 times... getting a favorite point here or there means a lot to them and may inspire them to keep making better hides.

 

EDIT: your give ratio is pretty good though. I'm definitely not saying you should give out every point as soon as you get it. But I've seen ratios mentioned that are worse than on4bam's

Edited by GearHeadAZ
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, GearHeadAZ said:

That's exactly what I'm saying. So out of 3,000 caches found, not a single one meets your standards? Get off your high horse. It doesn't have to literally be your favorite, they votes to tell other cachers which ones are the best of the 3,000. If you haven't found one favorite in the last 3,000 (ratio) then you sure as hell aren't gonna suddenly find 300 in a row that you deem worthy, so what's the point of saving them?  But hey, I'm just a peasant with 200 finds. It would sure be nice to have some more votes on the thousands of caches around me so I can visit the the better crappy caches over the worse crappy caches on my way to 300 finds.

No, don't make assumptions. Out of 10000+ I gave 700+ FPs. So get off your high horse and think for a moment.

I'm not even "saving" them, I don't look at them. What I do is give a FP when I find a cache memorable (for whatever reason) not because I have FPs to give. What looked as a clever hide 14 years ago now is "run of the mill", a cache that might have gotten a FP when we started might not get one now as we've "seen it (almost) all. We've done caches with 10's of FP where we thought "why?" and we've done series where every single one got a FP.

Giving FP's is a personal thing, no one should "expect" to get FPs. You might want to "read up" on some threads where FPs are discussed so you'll understand the different reasons people give FP's.

 

BTW, we're heading out today (one hour drive) with a 38 cache selection. I'm sure more than 1 in 10 will get a FP. The lowest FP count in our selection has 19FPs, the highest has 301. If I don't give the one with 19 an extra FP does that make it a bad or crappy cache? No, it might just not be a "favorite" or I may give it one if it is.

 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, GearHeadAZ said:

you are such a vet and you've seen so many that you are forgetting how excited newbies are to find certain types of hides for the first time.

When I started I never looked at favourite points; I just found caches near me, preferably in walking or cycling distance. Sometimes I did take a drive, using my car GPS to get me close to the cache. There was no app then (and I didn't have smartphone anyway), and  I didn't own a GPS either. I found the first 180 caches without a phone or GPS. I was just thrilled to find another cache.

 

Added: 'Unbelievably', I once gave a favourite point to a boring, micro mintie tin stuck under a sign. It was the only cache for about 150kms on a lonely outback road. I gave it a favourite point because it was there :laughing:.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just out of curiosity, I've gone through my list of favourites to work out the percentage of my finds that I've given an FP to for each terrain rating. Here it is:

 

Terrain    Percentage

     1               4.4

    1.5             2.6

     2               4.3

    2.5           15.7

     3             15.5

    3.5           20.0

     4             40.0

    4.5           42.9

     5             18.2

 

I guess that leaves little doubt as to what my taste in caches is like; it's the journey to GZ far more than the container hiding there that will get an FP from me. So if you're someone looking for quick easy finds, big containers full of swag or kid-friendly caches, just about the worst thing you could do would be to use my FPs as a guide.

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Is there anyone else like me who has never used a cache's FPs in determining if I should search for it?

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, colleda said:

Is there anyone else like me who has never used a cache's FPs in determining if I should search for it?

 

Yes! I prefer to use the map and the cache description to pick what I want to hunt.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't use favourite points. Locally I general find all caches that I physically can do, or if they are puzzles, I can solve.

When travelling, if there aren't many caches I will find any type, but if there are too many to find I will pick and choose for various reasons. I can't do them all, so I ignore some. The ignored ones are likely to be micros and multies, especially ones with many WPs. I often like multies, but travelling, with limited time, I don't want to spend a long time on only one cache. I don't do any puzzle caches, unless I solved them before leaving home. I would ignore most Earthcaches too, if the questions are too long winded. Caches that I can walk to get preference. I would rarely check favourite points.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, GearHeadAZ said:

Favorites is the only form of a voting system we have so I feel like "voting" is contributing to the game.

 

I didn't really want to get involved in this silliness, but favorite points, as even stated  in the Help Center, is just "a simple way to track and share the geocaches that you enjoyed the most. "     :)

When favorite points were added in December, 2010,  most caches we favorited were already archived years before you joined.  

That didn't help you, or anyone but us.    They were our favorites.  

 

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

This irks me.

 

When I log an NA for a neglected cache, explaining "No response to September's NM, December's NM and April's NM". Here's what the cache looked like:

 

Screenshot_7.png.e7da061b01f518c6ca43fdae8cd27337.png

 

Then the next person to visit leaves a throwdown. (I hope they cut off the zip tie that's girdling the tree). 3 months later the owner posts an OM (probably because they got a health notice). The CO's OM log says: "Everyone seems to be finding this one, so no idea where there is a NA. Maybe the n"geo-police" should relax a little... or at least actually visit the cache before logging a NA."

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, colleda said:

Is there anyone else like me who has never used a cache's FPs in determining if I should search for it?

 

Me.

 

As I play, the awarding of a FP is not "VOTING" for a cache, so NOT awarding a FP isn't voting AGAINST a cache.

 

Nor are they 'Likes', as commonly thought of in Social Media.

 

Whoever the heck it was that started this "FP" thing (THIS TIME!!), what you're missing is the common attitude that everybody plays this game and applies the guidelines as THEY SEE FIT within norms. The game is NOT designed to be a competition, despite what people make out of it and some of the things and language that HQ had added, and the vast majority of people who participate (not PLAY) are doing it for themselves.

 

So, for you to hold the attitude that if I don't feed your ego or I'm cheating the COs because I don't throw FPs at caches whenever I'm able ignores the fact that I'm playing for ME, not YOU. If I like a cache I'll say so in the log, directly to the person who put the effort into it. I may (and have) awarded FPs to some caches that struck me in some way, but the criteria for doing so is mine, and mine only.

 

Because of that, it's SILLY of you to seek caches based on FPs as a metric of cache quality, because not everyone uses them that way, regardless of how YOU think they should be awarded and your personal practice. Several people above have explained how because FPs are not always available the statistic is meaningless. And because people who DO award them, award them for different reasons, they cannot be used to evaluate your 'upvoting' and 'downvoting'.

 

They don't mean anything specific, across the board. If YOU want to "upvote" a cache by awarding a FP, but I don't evaluate FPs the same way you do, then you've accomplished ...nothing. Use them for your own purposes as they were intended.

 

So (again,) stop telling us that we're lousy cachers because we don't ascribe to your need to put a personal rating on everything you touch.

 

Geocaching is NOT THAT STRUCTURED.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, colleda said:

Is there anyone else like me who has never used a cache's FPs in determining if I should search for it?

 

Yep.  :D   

When seeing FPs placed for everything from FTF, to friends of the CO, to one under a porta potty, we don't feel that they mean anything (to us).

Our "favorite" points are often placed for areas with awesome views or unique spots.  The cache might be a taped pill bottle...

 

One earlier said that FPs mean they're "the best" caches you've found,  like a score, and we know the site says that's not so. 

How many place a FP on every cache in a series, even when each is at a unique spot ?   Most we know FP the first or last in a series.   

All caches in-between may be just as good, but you'd run outta FPs if placing one for each. It doesn't mean that those on each end are "better"...

My favorites are sometimes caches with terrain over 4. That's my favorite, just as some might like a power trail of caches placed every 528 feet.

If I place a favorite on a 5T tree hide, that doesn't tell another cacher not capable "it's better", and that they should go there too...

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Without controls and enforcement by TPTB the tools on this site usually end up  being used as self-interest rather than community-interest. Filtering cannot be used even somewhat reliably to help find caches we prefer to find.  For example, most "small" size caches are actually micros;  a cache listed as a T2 but turns out to be a tree climb, according to the owner the "easy" 10 foot climb up a tree doesn't earn a T4 score; a double-digit FP cache that turns out to be a broken 10-year-old wooden box, bolted with lag bolts to a tree, abandoned 5 years ago, now the home of mice.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, colleda said:

Is there anyone else like me who has never used a cache's FPs in determining if I should search for it?

 

The only time I've ever filtered for FPs was during the Cache Carnival promotion last year when caches with 50+ FPs earned the big points. That search led me to Sydney Harbour and a bunch of what I thought were fairly average caches in the tourist hotspots around Circular Quay. None of those caches got an FP from me.

 

Most of the time when I'm out and about caching, there aren't enough caches in the area to be fussy but I usually read the description and scan through recent logs to get an idea of what I'm likely to be up against. If it's a well-camouflaged micro in a high muggle area I might give it a miss.

Share this post


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

a double-digit FP cache that turns out to be a broken 10-year-old wooden box, bolted with lag bolts to a tree, abandoned 5 years ago, now the home of mice. 

 

If that box was at the end of a half-day mountain hike with some stunning scenery, I'd probably give it an FP too as long as the logbook was still signable. We all like different aspects of the game so my FPs won't help you find the caches you'll like.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

We all like different aspects of the game so my FPs won't help you find the caches you'll like.

 

Just to amplify this, if I was to be asked which of my favourites would best exemplify them, it would probably be this one I did a few years back that straddled the Hawkesbury River. It took me three days to complete - on the first day I did the steep climb up to waypoint one, the next day I kayaked across the river and did an even steeper climb to the second and third waypoints, with the third day being another kayak paddle and steep climb to GZ where this was the view:

 

ViewFromGZComposite.jpg.b8b592efa35ac83666befcf7df6783d8.jpg

 

The cache itself wasn't much, just a plastic jar tucked deep under a rock ledge near the edge of the cliff:

 

43e8de16-cc9e-450d-a0d4-387f8362b700_l.j

 

There was no swag in it and it wouldn't be a good place to leave trackables as in the four and a bit years since publication, it's only had 5 finders, 4 of whom have given it FPs, and the most recent find was nearly two years ago. Clearly this cache isn't of interest to most cachers, but for those that are, the number of FPs is unlikely to be of much relevance either. I know when I did it I didn't pay any attention to the FPs the previous two finders had left, in fact it still hadn't been found at the time I set off on day two, but I knew just from reading the description and looking at the map that, if I found it, it would be right up there near the top of my favourites list.

 

I doubt the CO will ever go back to do maintenance on that cache but he'll probably never have to. Even if each finder uses a whole page in the logbook, it's unlikely to fill up in his lifetime and, with the hiding place well protected from the sun and weather, the container will likely outlive him too. Given where it is, the chance of any muggles coming within a hundred metres of it are slim and even if they did, they'd be extremely unlikely to spot it. That cache really is a set and forget.

Edited by barefootjeff
Spelling
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/18/2020 at 9:54 AM, cerberus1 said:

 

I didn't really want to get involved in this silliness, but favorite points, as even stated  in the Help Center, is just "a simple way to track and share the geocaches that you enjoyed the most. "     :)

When favorite points were added in December, 2010,  most caches we favorited were already archived years before you joined.  

That didn't help you, or anyone but us.    They were our favorites.  

 

Riddle me this: If it's not voting then why would Groundspeak add the FP function and sort by FP to the game; when all those years up until that point you all already had YOUR favorites in your own personal favorites bookmark list?

 

What do you think they meant by to "share" your favorites? Because I'm sure nobody's inclined to go checking some random persons favorites list off their profile.... If they even have have a public list at all.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/18/2020 at 11:14 AM, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Me.

 

As I play, the awarding of a FP is not "VOTING" for a cache, so NOT awarding a FP isn't voting AGAINST a cache.

 

Nor are they 'Likes', as commonly thought of in Social Media.

 

Whoever the heck it was that started this "FP" thing (THIS TIME!!), what you're missing is the common attitude that everybody plays this game and applies the guidelines as THEY SEE FIT within norms. The game is NOT designed to be a competition, despite what people make out of it and some of the things and language that HQ had added, and the vast majority of people who participate (not PLAY) are doing it for themselves.

 

So, for you to hold the attitude that if I don't feed your ego or I'm cheating the COs because I don't throw FPs at caches whenever I'm able ignores the fact that I'm playing for ME, not YOU. If I like a cache I'll say so in the log, directly to the person who put the effort into it. I may (and have) awarded FPs to some caches that struck me in some way, but the criteria for doing so is mine, and mine only.

 

Because of that, it's SILLY of you to seek caches based on FPs as a metric of cache quality, because not everyone uses them that way, regardless of how YOU think they should be awarded and your personal practice. Several people above have explained how because FPs are not always available the statistic is meaningless. And because people who DO award them, award them for different reasons, they cannot be used to evaluate your 'upvoting' and 'downvoting'.

 

They don't mean anything specific, across the board. If YOU want to "upvote" a cache by awarding a FP, but I don't evaluate FPs the same way you do, then you've accomplished ...nothing. Use them for your own purposes as they were intended.

 

So (again,) stop telling us that we're lousy cachers because we don't ascribe to your need to put a personal rating on everything you touch.

 

Geocaching is NOT THAT STRUCTURED.

Why are you so offended at opinions that differ from yours? You don't have to justify yourself.

Edited by GearHeadAZ
Spelling
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 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 51

×
×
  • Create New...