Jump to content

What Irks you most?


avroair
Followers 50

Recommended Posts

On 3/22/2021 at 1:23 PM, L0ne.R said:

When nanos are listed as size 'small'. 

 

 

Woah, never met this kind of caches. Do you have an example? I think this would be commented and noticed by every finder.

On the other hand I saw many nanos listed as "other", when they clearly fit into "micro". But I can understand the logic behind it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
50 minutes ago, sernikk said:

 

 

Woah, never met this kind of caches. Do you have an example? I think this would be commented and noticed by every finder.

On the other hand I saw many nanos listed as "other", when they clearly fit into "micro". But I can understand the logic behind it.

I'm not sure if I have seen a nano listed as a small, but I have seen tiny little thin specimen tubes listed as small. Nothing but a sliver of rolled paper fits in them. Several of them would fit in a film canister; a micro. I recently did a power trail with a number of those "smalls". (That must mean a film canister is a regular.)

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

(That must mean a film canister is a regular.)

Had this as well. Usually, because the owner thinks the whole "setup" of the cache determines the size, and not the container. E.g., a largish piece of wood, into which a hole is bored which holds a micro.

And recently, I found a plain vanilla PET preform listed as "Regular". I commented in my log, as have others, but the CO is unimpressed ;) .

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, sernikk said:

 

 

Woah, never met this kind of caches. Do you have an example? I think this would be commented and noticed by every finder.

On the other hand I saw many nanos listed as "other", when they clearly fit into "micro". But I can understand the logic behind it.

 

Generally I see this when the original cache was listed as small, and it was actually a small container but ends up replaced by the owner with a nano size container. Examples of replacements that I've encountered: dog tag capsules (these are half the size of a bison tube) and button nanos. The owner doesn't change the size from small to micro. The other frustrating part is, when I leave a note saying the cache is now a micro/nano the owner does nothing about it. 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Generally I see this when the original cache was listed as small, and it was actually a small container but ends up replaced by the owner with a nano size container. Examples of replacements that I've encountered: dog tag capsules (these are half the size of a bison tube) and button nanos. The owner doesn't change the size from small to micro. The other frustrating part is, when I leave a note saying the cache is now a micro/nano the owner does nothing about it. 

That's because if you change it you get screamed at by people who don't want their stats affected. ?

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 2
Link to comment
Just now, Max and 99 said:

That's because if you change it you get screamed at by people who don't want their stats affected. ?

If the size gets changed does it no longer count as a find?

 

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Smory said:

If the size gets changed does it no longer count as a find?

 

I'm sure you noticed you still have your "finds" on now-archived caches you've done.       :)

The only thing a CO can't change on their cache during its lifetime is type. 

Once you've found a cache and logged it, it's a find forever. 

 

Similar to Max and 99, we know a few people that if any part of their stats change, they definitely know it.  Some do get upset, especially D/T.

 - I usually don't know what my "stats" even are unless someone mentions something here for me to look.

 I'm in the minority at most events attended.   

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, sernikk said:

 

 

Woah, never met this kind of caches. Do you have an example? I think this would be commented and noticed by every finder.

On the other hand I saw many nanos listed as "other", when they clearly fit into "micro". But I can understand the logic behind it.

 

I've found a tiny perfume sample vial - which I'd class as nano more than micro - listed as regular. It was attached to a stick. Apparently that makes it regular sized.

From the same owner: a 35mm classed as large. Attached to a stick. Both placed as such.

Needless to say, I no longer bother going anywhere near their caches.

Edited by Blue Square Thing
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Blue Square Thing said:

 

I've found a tiny perfume sample vial - which I'd class as nano more than micro - listed as regular. It was attached to a stick. Apparently that makes it regular sized.

From the same owner: a 35mm classed as large. Attached to a stick. Both placed as such.

Needless to say, I no longer bother going anywhere near their caches.

 

At the risk of being branded a heretic, I prefer the size rating to reflect how big the thing is I'm looking for rather than how much space there is inside it. I'm not interested in swag and rarely have trackables to drop, but in the typical sandstone hiding places around here, I'd like to know whether I'm looking for something miniscule tucked deep into the honeycombing or something much larger that would only fit under the ledges. So if there's a larger outer container with a smaller inner container for the logbook, I want to know how big that outer container is.

 

Here's an example of one of mine, where the outer container is a regular-sized wombat but the inner container for the logbook is a small Sistema:

 

hollow_wombat.jpg.2b2749e01ecca7ec817dad87da1d7a5a.jpg

 

I've listed that as a regular and so far no-one's complained, especially since there are oodles of places around GZ where a small could be hidden but really only one for a regular and spotting that amongst the undergrowth (which is now much thicker than when this photo was taken) is tough enough.

 

HidingPlace.jpg.ccaa1f8c7a4b4d0eefd59d004514d3c9.jpg

Edited by barefootjeff
Spelling
Link to comment
5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Generally I see this when the original cache was listed as small, and it was actually a small container but ends up replaced by the owner with a nano size container.

This forum really needs a "Sad" response.

:sad:

 

4 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

That's because if you change it you get screamed at by people who don't want their stats affected. ?

Yep. This forum definitely needs a "Sad" response.

:sad:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Blue Square Thing said:

 

I've found a tiny perfume sample vial - which I'd class as nano more than micro - listed as regular. It was attached to a stick. Apparently that makes it regular sized.

From the same owner: a 35mm classed as large. Attached to a stick. Both placed as such.

Needless to say, I no longer bother going anywhere near their caches.

I have found similar but it seems rare here to have such a disparity. I have, on occasion, logged a NM with an explanation and leave it at that. I have also seen multiple finders' logs on a cache mentioning mint tins and film pots are not small but micro with the result sometimes being the CO amending the listing.

I always list the container size, anything else is camo and I mention that in the cache description. Naked bison tube v. camo bison tube.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
5 hours ago, sernikk said:

Is a +1 small find so much worth today? :D

 

The other 2/3rds was a FTF monster, and tons of 1.5 or less finds kept our D/T low.

Finally tired of beta-testing for new, no finds hiders, she finally stopped for a while, after her last find was 400 feet off.  She found it...

I'm now able to head to caches I like to do, and that means a terrain of 2 or better simply because it's usually the woods. 

A friend noticed that our D/T went up a bit over time.  The day our terrain went to two, I got an email from them.   :)

So yeah,  it was one cache that raised it to T2 , and some people care enough that they do notice.

Odd thing is the only time I look at our "stats" myself is when it's brought up in these forums.    :laughing:

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
13 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Had this as well. Usually, because the owner thinks the whole "setup" of the cache determines the size, and not the container. E.g., a largish piece of wood, into which a hole is bored which holds a micro.

And recently, I found a plain vanilla PET preform listed as "Regular". I commented in my log, as have others, but the CO is unimpressed ;) .

No, it wasn't because of the set up in this case. These are placed in a tiny slot on the back of signs, some big signs, so if it were because of the sign, it would be marked large.

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
18 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

At the risk of being branded a heretic, I prefer the size rating to reflect how big the thing is I'm looking for rather than how much space there is inside it. I'm not interested in swag and rarely have trackables to drop, but in the typical sandstone hiding places around here, I'd like to know whether I'm looking for something miniscule tucked deep into the honeycombing or something much larger that would only fit under the ledges. So if there's a larger outer container with a smaller inner container for the logbook, I want to know how big that outer container is.

 

Here's an example of one of mine, where the outer container is a regular-sized wombat but the inner container for the logbook is a small Sistema:

 

hollow_wombat.jpg.2b2749e01ecca7ec817dad87da1d7a5a.jpg

 

I've listed that as a regular and so far no-one's complained, especially since there are oodles of places around GZ where a small could be hidden but really only one for a regular and spotting that amongst the undergrowth (which is now much thicker than when this photo was taken) is tough enough.

 

HidingPlace.jpg.ccaa1f8c7a4b4d0eefd59d004514d3c9.jpg

 

Not a big issue for sure. Imo though, the size of the container itself is what's more important. For example,, if a person sees a cache listed as regular, then they will probably assume that it will hold a travel bug or some swag that they might want to bring and leave behind. Not the end of the world if it doesn't work out but it could lead to some annoyance just the same.

 

The way I look at it,, finders spotting your Wombat will know right away that it is, or at least holds the cache. I doubt any cacher would think to themselves, "that fake Wombat doesn't belong here but it can't be the cache because the cache is listed as a micro". :D

 

  • Funny 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

At the risk of being branded a heretic...

It irks me when I write up a lengthy, detailed rejoinder only to realize just before posting that I'm commenting on something off topic in the irk thread. It irks me even more when I do it twice in two days because I forgot I made the same mistake about the same post yesterday.

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Not a big issue for sure. Imo though, the size of the container itself is what's more important.

 

It's only important to someone wanting to leave something in the cache, for everyone else the internal volume is irrelevant. It's even more irrelevant for caches hidden in national parks here where trackables and swag aren't allowed. Should they be listed as Other? Only 6 of my 44 active hides currently have trackables in them and some of those are lucky to get one find a year so I really have to wonder why someone would leave them there. In all likelihood I'll end up moving them along myself on my next routine visit.

 

5 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

The way I look at it,, finders spotting your Wombat will know right away that it is, or at least holds the cache. I doubt any cacher would think to themselves, "that fake Wombat doesn't belong here but it can't be the cache because the cache is listed as a micro". :D

 

 

You missed my point. It's not a matter of recognising the wombat as the cache after spotting it, it's reducing the number of potential hiding places that need to be searched before finding it. One of the recent finders on that ended up sending me a PAF as they couldn't spot its hiding place in amongst the undergrowth that's recently covered that area and it would have been even tougher for them if I'd listed it as a small. On at least one occasion I've DNFed a cache listed as a micro because there were just too many places around GZ that a micro could be hidden, only to find out later that the cache was actually something much larger which I would have easily found if I'd confined my search to places something like that could lurk, but had a micro-sized inner container. So to get this back on topic, my irk is caches like that where the size doesn't reflect the size of the thing you're looking for. But I know I'm in the minority for saying that.

Link to comment
On 3/24/2021 at 5:37 AM, Max and 99 said:

That's because if you change it you get screamed at by people who don't want their stats affected. ?

It's better in most cases if the cache is accurately rated than worry about someone statistics, because most caches are not the high number rated caches, and it will make little difference. There are plenty more caches with that rating and the finder likely already has several more on their list. That's most of caches out there, and likely the ones people are complaining about. The few high rated caches, so rarely found that they are not usually the caches that are the ones people usually comment on being rated wrongly, need more consideration.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Only 6 of my 44 active hides currently have trackables in them and some of those are lucky to get one find a year so I really have to wonder why someone would leave them there. In all likelihood I'll end up moving them along myself on my next routine visit.

When I leave a trackable I check how often the cache is found and won't leave a trackable in a rarely found cache. The cache I leave a trackable in, has to be dry, found often enough, not likely to be muggled, flooded out at the next flood and the like. Nothing is guaranteed though.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hynz said:

This "official" blog post irks me:

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2021/03/i-thought-it-was-a-geocache/

 

Not a single word in the text from HQ (or one of the commenters) towards newbies that some (IMHO most) of that stories are showcases of thoughtless hiding and/or searching.

 

I'd upvote this post many times if I could.

 

Engendering and celebrating irresponsibility!

 

I destroyed someone's sprinkler - that's hysterical!

 

I poked around in an electrical box because I don't really know what I'm looking at - Wow! So much fun - you should, too!

 

I think I'll put my fingers inside this strange metal machine with moving parts - Whoops! Almost lost one! So funny I almost peed my pants!

 

Come on, GS, Really?   This isn't like silly warning labels on products (Don't drink this poison!) placed there because SOMEONE once sued someone; it's ACTUAL encouragement from your company to do this dangerous, counterproductive stuff.

 

WE, on THIS side of our relationship are continually encouraged to be good geocaching citizens (Placement Permission, CITO, etc.). How about THAT side?

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 6
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Hynz said:

Not a single word in the text from HQ (or one of the commenters) towards newbies that some (IMHO most) of that stories are showcases of thoughtless hiding and/or searching.

Well, except these aren't newbies. They are geocaching officials, so they should know better. I understand the emotions. When I first started, I thought about searching, and sometimes did search, in stupid places because I thought the only thing that mattered was finding the cache. But as I matured, I started to regularly come to a point in the search where I decide "if it's hidden there, I don't want to find it, anyway." So I don't look "there" and, routinely, it turns out that it wasn't hidden there, so I saved time -- and possibly fingers -- by not searching where it wasn't hidden. (Sometimes that *is* where it's hidden, of course, but *shrug*.)

 

In most, if not all, of the examples in the blog, the hider might have picked a poor locale, but it's the seeker that did something stupid instead of just skipping a cache they thought was hidden in a dangerous manner. These aren't things to laugh about....well, except for the toad. :-) (In my case, it was a rattlesnake, but fortunately I thought twice before grabbing "the camo".)

Link to comment

Today's irk is on a cache I was just looking at by a very experienced CO down Sydney way. The hint is BYOP. Really? Surely you need to know that before you set off to find the cache, not when you're at GZ scratching your head. If you had the foresight to bring a pen, the hint is useless, but if you didn't it's also of no help.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 2
Link to comment
21 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

I destroyed someone's sprinkler

I almost did, but fortunately I managed to reconstruct it. Getting the spring in was tricky. Took me ages. However, the next searcher did the same thing, but wasn't able to get the sprinkler back together, writing they couldn't manage that. I wonder how hard they tried.

The CO added to their description, "Not a sprinkler."

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Today's irk is on a cache I was just looking at by a very experienced CO down Sydney way. The hint is BYOP. Really? Surely you need to know that before you set off to find the cache, not when you're at GZ scratching your head. If you had the foresight to bring a pen, the hint is useless, but if you didn't it's also of no help.

Occasionally, I've seen hints that looked useless, but were actually clever hints about how to find the cache. But yeah, usually those kinds of hints (BYOP, parking suggestions, "too easy for a hint", etc.) are just useless.

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, niraD said:

But yeah, usually those kinds of hints (BYOP, parking suggestions, "too easy for a hint", etc.) are just useless.

Yes, if it's in a road guard, etc (I have seen "too easy for a hint" for guards), say it's in a road guard, etc. It helps with knowing where to pull over.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, niraD said:

Occasionally, I've seen hints that looked useless, but were actually clever hints about how to find the cache. But yeah, usually those kinds of hints (BYOP, parking suggestions, "too easy for a hint", etc.) are just useless.

 

Of course it's not as much of an irk as it used to be, but back when we were caching on paper, it used to frost the &%^$# out of me when someone put in a hint like "You shouldn't need a hint."

For you non-paper cachers, the reason that the ROT-13 grid appears on the cache page is so that we could decrypt it in the field, if you can picture such a thing!!!

 

So, standing there in the cold, driving rain, you're trying to decrypt "Y-O-U-S-H-O-U-L-D-N-'-T-N-E-E...."


N - N - N - E - E - T - T - T - U - U - U !!!

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I have only found a few ALs and all until the last two I attempted, have had the first WP at the mark on the map. I started one the other day. I cycled to the green pointer on the map and then pulled out the phone from my pannier to start the AL. What I had thought was the first WP wasn't, it was only a marker on the map. Once I started this AL the first WP moved to several kms away. Disappointed I couldn't continue as it was in the wrong direction and I needed to get home and cook dinner. (I am a carer.)

Then today, I again cycled to a AL only AGAIN to find that the first WP was not there, and again I was unable to start this.

 

This irks me :mad:!!!

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 2
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment

The other day, while I was on a caching tour, I got a message (via GC "Message Center") from a cacher I've never heard of, that they can't find a stage of one of my multis, and if I could give them a hint. There is a spoiler photo for that stage, so I asked if they had seen it and also added a short description of the hide. No success at first, but after a bit of back-and-forth messaging, they finally wrote "Found it. Thanks". All this took 15-20 minutes in total, while I was in the woods, interrupting my own hiking and caching every few minutes to type on the phone. But that's not what irked me - support for finders of owned caches is, at least to some extent, part of the job as a CO.

 

What did irk me, were the logs I received for the multi (a 7-stage,  5 km, T3 affair with several "interesting" locations) and the bonus. The multi got two words + an emoji, while the bonus got only an emoji. Nothing about the experience, and not a single word mentioning, let alone thanking for, the "live support".

  • Upvote 4
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, baer2006 said:

What did irk me, were the logs I received for the multi (a 7-stage,  5 km, T3 affair with several "interesting" locations) and the bonus. The multi got two words + an emoji, while the bonus got only an emoji. Nothing about the experience, and not a single word mentioning, let alone thanking for, the "live support".

 

I'm so sorry you received those lousy logs.  The same has happened to me when I've responded instantly to questions from unknown cachers out in the field.  The descriptive logs that reward cache owners are becoming a lost art.  That irks me, regardless of whether I helped the finder via the message center.

 

In contrast, on the few occasions when my partner and I have reached out to a CO for help, it instantly becomes a memorable part of the cache hunt and thus a vital part of my log.  I offer this example, and you are welcome to pretend that you received this log (it's actually from a 5/3 gadget cache halfway up a mountain):

 

Quote

Team Irish Gold finally succeeded in opening this cache and signing the logbook after spending around an hour in two different visits, separated by a much easier visit to another of your gadget caches nearby. We also met one other group of muggle hikers, plus a neighboring landowner enjoying the area on his Quad.

While it turned out we found all we needed to find, and we had some good ideas for the cache's final secret, it took some coaching and encouragement via messaging with the helpful CO to boost us to final success. This is one of the most difficult caches I've ever found, and it's deserving of all its stars for both difficulty and terrain. It's also deserving of not just a favorite point, but also a spot on my "Top 5% Greatest Caches" bookmark list. We had a great day of geocaching to take our minds off the pandemic, and most of that was thanks to you.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, baer2006 said:

What did irk me, were the logs I received for the multi (a 7-stage,  5 km, T3 affair with several "interesting" locations) and the bonus. The multi got two words + an emoji, while the bonus got only an emoji. Nothing about the experience, and not a single word mentioning, let alone thanking for, the "live support".

I like to write good logs on 'proper' caches, so a multicache would be a 'proper' cache and you would more than likely get a descent log from me. Where I am failing to write decent logs (any log in fact) is for ALs. One because I have heard that COs don't get notifications of 'finds' and the other reason is my annoyance that these are taking over from 'proper' caches, and I simply can't be bothered to write a nice log for them. I mostly only find ALs within cycling distance of my house, because that gives me exercise, and I am more motivated to get this exercise, if I have a destination. If I travel to other places I mostly ignore them, unless I have already cleaned out other caches from that area. Or if I am with other people and they want to do the AL. I had to do one AL, because I collect SideTracked caches, and the bonus cache was the SideTracked cache, so to find the coordinates for that, I had to complete the AL. Late in the day, I was running late for dinner and the AL was taking me all over the place and I was grumbling :anibad:, as all I wanted was the bonus cache to get my SideTracked score up one more. Finally got the coordinates to the real cache :laughing:.

You would get a decent log from me for a 5 km multi. To do otherwise, would trivialise the effort of both parties.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, WendeeP said:

Geocachers who log finds online but don't sign the logbook.

How do I know they have really found the cache.

Should I delete their online logs?

 

Most CO's (who care) will reach out to them once, asking for an explanation and some proof that they were really there, such as a description of the hide, position, container, etc., and if there's no response in a month or the response sounds bogus, delete.

 

Just be prepared to answer questions from HQ if they try to get their log reinstated.

 

Also, there's the nasty question of retribution, but oh, I'm not going there.

 

Thanks for thinking this is import. I think so, too.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, WendeeP said:

Geocachers who log finds online but don't sign the logbook.

How do I know they have really found the cache.

Should I delete their online logs?

I would contact them first and ask for an explanation. Are you sure they did not sign the log? Were they with a group of people who all signed one name? I would ask first before deleting the online log. 

This is just my personal opinion. When I get a bunch of logs from the same geocacher saying they found the cache but didn't sign the log cuz they didn't have a pen, I will send them a friendly note letting them know I'm giving them one free pass but in the future they need to bring a writing utensil with them. But this is assuming they can provide some kind of evidence that they were actually at the geocache. If they can describe it to me or something unique about it then I'll give them a free pass. But only one. ?

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, WendeeP said:

Geocachers who log finds online but don't sign the logbook.

How do I know they have really found the cache.

Should I delete their online logs?

 

That bugs us too.     You go to your cache and look ?     If you've looked, their signature's not there, and you feel you need to.

Link to comment

I'm having trouble with  new cache I just placed.

 

Its a magnetic stuck to the bottom of a bridge.

 

First FTF cacher found it on the ground and put it back.

 

--I went and maintenance

 

2nd cacher found it and placed it and "made it more hidden"

 

3rd cacher with 1 find found it no problem

 

after the 3rd cacher I went to the bridge and the cache is nowhere to be seen..

 

I think there must be a gang of kids or something that like to hang out at the bottom of the bridge. As soon as I placed it and made it "live" the FTF found it on the ground..I don't get it..

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
17 hours ago, The Leprechauns said:

I'm so sorry you received those lousy logs.  The same has happened to me when I've responded instantly to questions from unknown cachers out in the field.  The descriptive logs that reward cache owners are becoming a lost art.  That irks me, regardless of whether I helped the finder via the message center.

 

There's a cacher in my area who knows I believe the reward for a well-placed cache is reading the logs and that I use online logs as a critique to improve my cache design and hiding.  He only gives me logs with the word "Found".  We both know that irks me.  It wouldn't be as bad if he wasn't one of the area's major players.  For if you're a major player, you're responsible for setting an example to the other players.

 

Oh, and these newer cachers irk me.  A decade ago, everyone would find a cache I hid without intention of making it difficult to find.  These days, a noticeable percentage of newer cachers frequently post DNFs on caches that are hidden and don't have hints telling you exactly where to look.  I then waste my time going out to check on it only to find it's still there.  What's worse is when someone posts a DNF on a mystery cache with two physical stages and doesn't even tell me which stage he or she couldn't find or if the person had trouble with assembling the coordinates.  That wastes even more of my time.  Since I'm also a major player in the area, I try to be nice about it and state in an online log which stage I checked and ask if that was the stage the person had trouble finding.  A reply never came.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
20 hours ago, WendeeP said:

Geocachers who log finds online but don't sign the logbook.

How do I know they have really found the cache.

Should I delete their online logs?

I photograph the paper log and add it to my OM (owner maintenance) log which I make when I check one of my caches. Then I contact any geocachers whose signatures I can't find, telling them I can't see their signature there, but saying perhaps I missed seeing it (I did actually once not recognise the scribble as someone's signature) and could they please point out their signature to me. If they haven't signed it, could they please supply photographic proof or describe the cache and hide. I used to give them a fortnight, but after an increase of unsigned logs, I reduced that to one week. I don't believe one week has made any difference, because from my experience, those with proof of find will get back to me fairly quickly. Many with no proof, never reply, or get all vague. One got very vague and keep asking me what proof I wanted. I kept repeating the same thing. I deleted her log. She's still doing this. If she finds the cache she will sign the log and log her find, but if she can't find the cache she still logs the find. She thinks visiting a place, even if she has never managed to find the cache, is good enough. She will log a find in the middle of a long list of DNFs. She isn't a beginner.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
23 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I've been getting irked lately with the number of new geocachers who post dnf on puzzle caches that they didn't solve. As others have stated this has happened quite frequently in the past year. 

 

You could probably cull a few DNFs like that occasionally without any major issue (other than some irking on the geocachers' side, relative to how 'friendly' you make the process). It's not like deleting find logs. You could post a note explaining the dnf deletions that weren't related to the container at all. I mean, if DNFs could count as "couldn't solve the puzzle" then the puzzle-caching realm could be overloaded with them legitimately, which is just dumb.  If a DNF moreso implies trouble finding a container, cleaning them up from your own listings I think is actually a good thing towards a more accurate impression of the cache state... :) 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, sernikk said:

I think I got a new one:

Lack of response for reported bugs

 

:unsure:

I reported something last year.  When you make an email address your main one, it disappears from the list of email addresses to which you can send pocket queries and notifications.  Because of that, I don't have any email addresses listed for either of those features.  Fortunately, I can still reuse old pocket queries and I don't need to be involved in the FTF game anymore.  I thought about using my moderator privileges to contact someone inside Groundspeak directly, but that's not fair to everyone else who has problems, so I must instead follow the normal process.

 

10 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I photograph the paper log and add it to my OM (owner maintenance) log which I make when I check one of my caches. Then I contact any geocachers whose signatures I can't find...

When I do maintenance on a cache that matters, I also audit the online logs.  I give people a couple weeks to let me know what team name they used if I don't see a date with a team name on the log, then I delete the log a few months later when I get around to doing so.  I might find a cache a day, but the logging thing happens whenever I feel like it, and so will getting around to deleting those logs.  On the other hand, if it's a cache I don't care about--one of the few park and grabs I've hidden--I don't even bother auditing.  When I get around to doing maintenance, I just archive the cache to decrease the number of caches I have to the ones I still care about these days.  And there's one cache in particular that would take me weeks to maintain--my 42 or 43 mile hiking cache--so I only check on a quarter to a third of its stages every year (but due to how I've hidden the stages, not a single one has ever needed maintenance in its eleven and a half year life--but due to the hike's length, I still make sure to check).

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Ranger Fox said:

team name on the log

There is the occasional team log, but they are not common here. Most people log individually, even when part of a team. The only time I have been part of a team log, was when a group of about 30 of us tackled a difficult cache (underground), and it would also have been a 'job' for the CO to go change the log, if we all signed and filled it up. Besides standing in the dark holding torches, with water about our feet and passing around a bit of paper would not have been a good idea. The person who organised this group outing, had us write down our names and she listed all the attendees in her log.

A group that size is very rare here. Most groups have less than ten people.

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

There is the occasional team log, but they are not common here. Most people log individually, even when part of a team. The only time I have been part of a team log, was when a group of about 30 of us tackled a difficult cache (underground), and it would also have been a 'job' for the CO to go change the log, if we all signed and filled it up. Besides standing in the dark holding torches, with water about our feet and passing around a bit of paper would not have been a good idea. The person who organised this group outing, had us write down our names and she listed all the attendees in her log.

A group that size is very rare here. Most groups have less than ten people.

I remember doing underground caches.  There was one that had over a dozen different underground sections.  Once the cache was archived, the cache owner told me I was the only one to ever attempt his cache completely solo.  I was surprised.  (Not like I had a choice: no one else was interested in driving three hours away to do something like that.)

 

I don't have too many teams come through my area as well, but I have the occasional log that said a couple friends grouped together and signed all logs using parts of everyone's handles.

 

I'm on the fence about doing team cache runs.  I don't mind as long as there are four or fewer people on a team.  Any more than that and I get nervous about people wanting to split up and claim everything.  I was once invited to do a number run in France, but backed out when I heard around twenty people were going to go.  Sure enough, they split apart and claimed everything, rightfully upsetting the French cache owners.  After being involved once in divide and conquer by accident, I made sure other runs I'd be on wouldn't do that.  Now, because of my morality, I find myself having to do trips alone--and that's no fun.  I'm not sure what lesson I learned.

 

Here's another think that irks me: people not doing what you agree upon.  I was in the desert with someone--not even on a road.  She lost her phone the day before.  We split up to do a rectangle of about a dozen caches total because of the terrain (she wasn't able to walk to those, so had to drive around).  We started at the northwest point and I said I'd walk south and meet her at the southwest point, then head west.  We'd only be apart for about forty-five minutes, if at that.  I'll be brief because this is a whole story.  Five hours later, I still hadn't seen the person.  I only had one bottle of water and that had been exhausted.  I finally had to call some other cachers to pick me up.  What happened was she decided to go east instead.  That wasn't the plan.  And it upset me even more that later I had to comfort HER, saying it was okay she broke our agreement and left me stranded in the desert as everything turned out fine.  No apology.

 

I could go on, but I have to put in more uncompensated overtime at work now.  Ay, Hamlet, there's another thing that rubs.

Edited by Ranger Fox
  • Upvote 3
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Ranger Fox said:

underground

We did two caches on that day.  The two caches were both close together. The first leg (there were other sections) was about a km along an underground storm water pipe. We had checked the weather carefully.

Entering the under world.

1947767113_UndergroundCanberra4.thumb.jpg.c24b4de441f4e434566538527fdc8191.jpg

 

Looking for one of the caches

971616352_UndergroundCanberra6.thumb.jpg.9592aa4651f99e8e64ec902fa712cbbc.jpg

 

Amazing where shopping trolleys can be found

359816350_UndergroundCanberra19.thumb.jpg.7b61728f9573ae65456edc5bdc155d1d.jpg

 

There were areas of light.

1692133107_UndergroundCanberra8.thumb.jpg.aad3232b4f24c6e790ab7c6a67d5dd12.jpg

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

We did two caches on that day.  The two caches were both close together. The first leg (there were other sections) was about a km along an underground storm water pipe. We had checked the weather carefully.

Thank you for sharing the photos.  A lot of the drain tunnels I've had to enter involve either crawling or duck walking (knees bent to the extreme and hunched over).

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Ranger Fox said:

Thank you for sharing the photos.  A lot of the drain tunnels I've had to enter involve either crawling or duck walking (knees bent to the extreme and hunched over).

Another tunnel did get like that. One cache involved three tunnels. Most of those photographs are from the first tunnel; the big one. We followed that for about a km. Information was worked out for the multi (local knowledge) which meant we could miss doing the second tunnel. Some still insisted on doing it though and they came back muddy. I think the end of that tunnel involved crawling, low through mud. The third tunnel involved wading under a shopping centre. We started singing, and it must have been weird above, as I imagined our ghostly choir sounds would have filtered up through the grids above. How much people had to bend also depended on height. Some people did a lot more bending than others.

Link to comment

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...
Followers 50
×
×
  • Create New...