Encouraging throw downs...

[+tozainamboku]

I haven't seen any cacher who leaves a throw down at every cache they can't find. And certainly haven't seen anyone who in lieu of searching just leaves a a ready made throw down.

 

So the conclusion that people do this just for the smiley or because they can't accept logging a DNF doesn't seem quite right.

 

From what I have seen the people doing this will search for some period of time and along with prior logs that may indicated this should be a relatively easy cache to find, will decide that the cache is missing. While I have seen some exceptions, most of the throw downs I have seen are in places where a cache owner would have to make a special trip to replace the cache. I believe that people leaving throw downs really do believe they are helping out.

 

As to claiming a find when you leave a throw down. That seems to have become accepted practice. Many people leave a throw down will argue that they should get credit for helping out. Some have said to me that the cache owner can always delete the find if they don't think this throw down is helpful.

 

One issue with throw downs occurs when a cache owner goes AWOL. The owner may not be responding to DNF or NM logs at all. The people leaving the throw down see this as a way of keeping a cache in play. Many would gladly adopt these abandoned caches - except that Groundspeak won't do forced adoptions anymore.

 

I'd like to see an education effort on when you should leave replacements, instead of just attacking the idea always bad. In most cases if a cache has a DNF or two on it, a cache owner will gratefully accept help - if you ask first. If you haven't found the cache before, this gives the cache owner the opportunity to give you a spoiler that might help find the cache it still is there. If the cache owner is absent then perhaps the best thing is to allow the cache to die. Then a new cache can be placed in the area for everyone to find.

[Clan Riffster]

I haven't seen any cacher who leaves a throw down at every cache they can't find.

I have. No, I won't cite a source.

 

So the conclusion that people do this just for the smiley or because they can't accept logging a DNF doesn't seem quite right.

I don't think anyone has made that argument. Rather, the point I keep seeing is that most throw down cachers do this just for the smiley. If getting the smiley was not their primary motivation, they would select the appropriate log types, specifically, a DNF to indicate that they failed to locate the cache, and a note indicating that they spit out a film can. Or, they could list both topics in a DNF.

 

While I have seen some exceptions, most of the throw downs I have seen are in places where a cache owner would have to make a special trip to replace the cache.

Uh... Isn't that true for most caches?

Unless the cache is in your front yard, or your job site, or some other location you visit on a regular basis, wouldn't you need to make a special trip to do the maintenance you agreed to perform when you hid the cache?

 

As to claiming a find when you leave a throw down. That seems to have become accepted practice

Just because an abhorrent practice is embraced by the numbers oriented cachers, is no reason not to vilify it.

 

One issue with throw downs occurs when a cache owner goes AWOL. The owner may not be responding to DNF or NM logs at all. The people leaving the throw down see this as a way of keeping a cache in play.

So, instead of one bit of litter at ground zero, which will never be removed, because the cache owner dropped out of the game and didn't even care enough to archive his listings, we now have two, or three? Yeah, that's a great plan. The proper response for a cache with significant issues and an absentee owner is an NA log, not a throw down.

 

I'd like to see an education effort on when you should leave replacements...

You already have, many times. You just choose to ignore it.

 

When To Replace 101:

1 ) When the cache is confirmed as missing.

2 ) When you have a container which is equal to, or better than the original.

3 ) When you have the owner's explicit consent, given before the replacement.

 

When Not To Replace 101:

1 ) Any situation not covered by the above 3.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Clan Riffster

[+Mudfrog]

I haven't seen any cacher who leaves a throw down at every cache they can't find. And certainly haven't seen anyone who in lieu of searching just leaves a a ready made throw down.

 

So the conclusion that people do this just for the smiley or because they can't accept logging a DNF doesn't seem quite right.

 

From what I have seen the people doing this will search for some period of time and along with prior logs that may indicated this should be a relatively easy cache to find, will decide that the cache is missing. While I have seen some exceptions, most of the throw downs I have seen are in places where a cache owner would have to make a special trip to replace the cache. I believe that people leaving throw downs really do believe they are helping out.

 

As to claiming a find when you leave a throw down. That seems to have become accepted practice. Many people leave a throw down will argue that they should get credit for helping out. Some have said to me that the cache owner can always delete the find if they don't think this throw down is helpful.

 

One issue with throw downs occurs when a cache owner goes AWOL. The owner may not be responding to DNF or NM logs at all. The people leaving the throw down see this as a way of keeping a cache in play. Many would gladly adopt these abandoned caches - except that Groundspeak won't do forced adoptions anymore.

 

I'd like to see an education effort on when you should leave replacements, instead of just attacking the idea always bad. In most cases if a cache has a DNF or two on it, a cache owner will gratefully accept help - if you ask first. If you haven't found the cache before, this gives the cache owner the opportunity to give you a spoiler that might help find the cache it still is there. If the cache owner is absent then perhaps the best thing is to allow the cache to die. Then a new cache can be placed in the area for everyone to find.

 

You don't get out much, do you?

 

On powertrails, do you honestly think the main reason people throwdown is to help? Heck no! They are on the trail to rack up smilies and they're gonna do it any way they can.

 

I do agree with you in that this stuff is becoming more accepted,,, Imo, by people who somehow think they are entitled. Anyone saying they should get credit for helping are being rediculous. I just can't see how "helping" a cache owner equates to logging found on a cache?

[+ubaphygg]

Throw-downs! Brilliant! - Now I can hide a cache let a few people find it, then take it up.

In a little while someone will throw down a cache and I can add it to my collection! Mwa-ha-ha-ha!

 

Or - adding "if you can't find this, please leave a cache in its place" is like saying "I know of this place, but couldn't place a cache there put your own cache here for me"

 

Honestly, after all of the DNFs I've logged and then have found after a couple attempts (usually on ones whose description starts "An easy PNG..." I wouldn't presume that the cache was missing just because I couldn't find it.

Get the CO's blessing first.

[Clan Riffster]

I just can't see how "helping" a cache owner equates to logging found on a cache?

You gotta admit. Toz does have an interesting concept. Being helpful = at least one smiley. I've written Wherigo apps for a few folks. That was pretty helpful. I've pulled out cachers who were stuck. Helped change tires. Drove cachers to gas stations. Explained how to get permits. Passed on phone numbers of other cachers. Gave container advice. The list is practically endless. I'm thinking, in accordance with the Toz Method, I should have more finds than Alamogul. (SP?)

[Mr.Yuck]

I haven't seen any cacher who leaves a throw down at every cache they can't find.

I have. No, I won't cite a source.

 

 

Same here. And this person has such a high find count, that they leave a copy and paste log for every cache they log, so throwdowns are never even mentioned. I have no source either.

[+J Grouchy]

One issue with throw downs occurs when a cache owner goes AWOL. The owner may not be responding to DNF or NM logs at all. The people leaving the throw down see this as a way of keeping a cache in play. Many would gladly adopt these abandoned caches - except that Groundspeak won't do forced adoptions anymore.

 

Yeah...I recently went to go look for a cache, but when I got there and started reading logs, I noticed the last couple finds indicated the cache was in pieces and hadn't been maintained even after a couple NM logs. I emailed the CO, offering to put down a replacement container that matched the original but got no reponse. From there, I put in a NA log to get the reviewer's attention. Archived...which I wasn't expecting, really. I figured he'd just disable it as a warning to get it maintained. Ah well...his prerogative. Sometimes the reviewer will disable it, sometimes he will archive it...and I can't figure out his decision-making process. ~shrug~

[+L0ne.R]

One issue with throw downs occurs when a cache owner goes AWOL. The owner may not be responding to DNF or NM logs at all. The people leaving the throw down see this as a way of keeping a cache in play. Many would gladly adopt these abandoned caches - except that Groundspeak won't do forced adoptions anymore.

 

Yeah...I recently went to go look for a cache, but when I got there and started reading logs, I noticed the last couple finds indicated the cache was in pieces and hadn't been maintained even after a couple NM logs. I emailed the CO, offering to put down a replacement container that matched the original but got no response. From there, I put in a NA log to get the reviewer's attention. Archived...which I wasn't expecting, really. I figured he'd just disable it as a warning to get it maintained. Ah well...his prerogative. Sometimes the reviewer will disable it, sometimes he will archive it...and I can't figure out his decision-making process. ~shrug~

 

So, did you plant a cache there? If not, why not?

[+tozainamboku]

I just can't see how "helping" a cache owner equates to logging found on a cache?

You gotta admit. Toz does have an interesting concept. Being helpful = at least one smiley. I've written Wherigo apps for a few folks. That was pretty helpful. I've pulled out cachers who were stuck. Helped change tires. Drove cachers to gas stations. Explained how to get permits. Passed on phone numbers of other cachers. Gave container advice. The list is practically endless. I'm thinking, in accordance with the Toz Method, I should have more finds than Alamogul. (SP?)

I'm just reporting why people who leave throw downs may feel justified in claiming a smiley. There are a lot more reasons that could be given.

 

When you look at the find count as a score, or if you believe that you can't log a find if you know where the cache is, then no justification that the person give for logging a find on a throw down will be satisfactory.

 

I believe that some people don't view this game as a competition. It is just a fun, light, activity. Caches go missing and by replacing missing caches you make the game more fun for the next cacher. When I complained when someone left a throw down on one of my caches, I was told I didn't understand this.

 

My reason for the post above was to argue that you aren't going to change the behavior if you keep accusing people who leave throw downs of cheating. They will simply retort that you completely miss the key goal of geocaching. "Sit in your fuddy-duddy no fun forum and grouch all you want," they will say, "I'm going to help out others".

 

My issue with throw downs is that they are becoming too common. I know there are times when I can't find even a simple hide. If someone comes along later and finds it, I will go back and try again. More and more, however, after I log a DNF, the next cacher leaves a throw down. Sometimes I can go back and find two caches and rather than calling someone a cheater, I get to say "I'm a better geocacher becuase I found two cache and you didn't find any". But sometimes I only find the replacement and have to assume that either I'm still missing something or the original cache really was missing. And sometimes I don't find anything and wonder if the replacement has already gone missing and if wouldn't have been better to let the cache be archived instead of leaving a replacement. Rather than trying to stop people from leaving throw downs altogether, I think that a better approach is to develop a culture that limits their use.

[+J Grouchy]

One issue with throw downs occurs when a cache owner goes AWOL. The owner may not be responding to DNF or NM logs at all. The people leaving the throw down see this as a way of keeping a cache in play. Many would gladly adopt these abandoned caches - except that Groundspeak won't do forced adoptions anymore.

 

Yeah...I recently went to go look for a cache, but when I got there and started reading logs, I noticed the last couple finds indicated the cache was in pieces and hadn't been maintained even after a couple NM logs. I emailed the CO, offering to put down a replacement container that matched the original but got no response. From there, I put in a NA log to get the reviewer's attention. Archived...which I wasn't expecting, really. I figured he'd just disable it as a warning to get it maintained. Ah well...his prerogative. Sometimes the reviewer will disable it, sometimes he will archive it...and I can't figure out his decision-making process. ~shrug~

 

So, did you plant a cache there? If not, why not?

 

Nah. It's not really in an area I regularly visit. If I hid one there, it would probably end up suffering the same slow death as the last one. I prefer to hide caches close to where I live and work so I know I can perform maintenance...or at least not have any excuses NOT to.

[Clan Riffster]

I just can't see how "helping" a cache owner equates to logging found on a cache?

You gotta admit. Toz does have an interesting concept. Being helpful = at least one smiley. I've written Wherigo apps for a few folks. That was pretty helpful. I've pulled out cachers who were stuck. Helped change tires. Drove cachers to gas stations. Explained how to get permits. Passed on phone numbers of other cachers. Gave container advice. The list is practically endless. I'm thinking, in accordance with the Toz Method, I should have more finds than Alamogul. (SP?)

I'm just reporting why people who leave throw downs may feel justified in claiming a smiley.

We know that there are folks who will justify even the most vile behavior. As a cop, I see this every day.

As a person who loves this hobby, I feel a need to protect it, which is why I spend so much time working with land managers. This desire to protect this hobby also drives me to speak out against behavior which I feel might have a negative impact on the game, as a whole. The throw down mentality is just one of those.

[+L0ne.R]

One issue with throw downs occurs when a cache owner goes AWOL. The owner may not be responding to DNF or NM logs at all. The people leaving the throw down see this as a way of keeping a cache in play. Many would gladly adopt these abandoned caches - except that Groundspeak won't do forced adoptions anymore.

 

Yeah...I recently went to go look for a cache, but when I got there and started reading logs, I noticed the last couple finds indicated the cache was in pieces and hadn't been maintained even after a couple NM logs. I emailed the CO, offering to put down a replacement container that matched the original but got no response. From there, I put in a NA log to get the reviewer's attention. Archived...which I wasn't expecting, really. I figured he'd just disable it as a warning to get it maintained. Ah well...his prerogative. Sometimes the reviewer will disable it, sometimes he will archive it...and I can't figure out his decision-making process. ~shrug~

 

So, did you plant a cache there? If not, why not?

 

Nah. It's not really in an area I regularly visit. If I hid one there, it would probably end up suffering the same slow death as the last one. I prefer to hide caches close to where I live and work so I know I can perform maintenance...or at least not have any excuses NOT to.

 

That is what tends to happen, a finder puts out a container (sometimes with the owner's permission) and it ends up prolonging the inevitable. That is, the CO never intends to perform maintenance. Eventually when the replacement container deteriorates it gets archived by a reviewer.

[+Team Microdot]

That is what tends to happen, a finder puts out a container (sometimes with the owner's permission) and it ends up prolonging the inevitable. That is, the CO never intends to perform maintenance. Eventually when the replacement container deteriorates it gets archived by a reviewer.

 

And thus those who think (or claim) that they are helping the community by leaving their own container, all too often are actually performing a disservice by perpetuating a sub-standard cache and also locking a location such that the opportunity for another hider who would maintain the cache to place one doesn't exist.

 

This in turn increases cache saturation with the knock-on effect that new caches start popping up in other locations ranging from less than ideal to utterly pointless. This in turn leads newbies to believe that these sub-standard caches are what the game is all about - such that they either become disillusioned and give up before they've even started, or go out and place more of the same themselves.

 

A steady, downward spiral.

[team tisri]

One issue with throw downs occurs when a cache owner goes AWOL. The owner may not be responding to DNF or NM logs at all. The people leaving the throw down see this as a way of keeping a cache in play. Many would gladly adopt these abandoned caches - except that Groundspeak won't do forced adoptions anymore.

 

If the owner isn't responding to NM logs then log NA, let the reviewer archive it and if the CO doesn't remove their old cache go and do it for them, and then hide one of your own in the same or a similar spot.

 

It seems to me that the throwdown can be justified as "keeping a cache alive" when the cache should be allowed to die, and unless the person placing the throwdown is willing to maintain it then they aren't actually doing anyone any favours. If the CO isn't maintaining their own cache why does anyone think they will maintain a film pot someone else threw down when the first one went missing?

 

I'd like to see an education effort on when you should leave replacements, instead of just attacking the idea always bad. In most cases if a cache has a DNF or two on it, a cache owner will gratefully accept help - if you ask first. If you haven't found the cache before, this gives the cache owner the opportunity to give you a spoiler that might help find the cache it still is there. If the cache owner is absent then perhaps the best thing is to allow the cache to die. Then a new cache can be placed in the area for everyone to find.

 

I'd say it's pretty easy, if the CO has given permission to replace the cache then by all means replace it, and claim it while you're there. Without that permission don't replace it.

[+briansnat]

I haven't seen any cacher who leaves a throw down at every cache they can't find.

I have. No, I won't cite a source.

 

 

Same here. And this person has such a high find count, that they leave a copy and paste log for every cache they log, so throwdowns are never even mentioned. I have no source either.

 

I believe there is a pair of cachers (based in the St Louis area I believe) who are so notorious for this practice that they are known as the "throw-down twins".

 

I think Team Microdot describes a darn good reason that this should not be acceptable. Another is that for every cache owner who is happy to have the "help", there is probably one annoyed that he has to make a special trip to the cache to remove the extra container. It's happened to me and I didn't appreciate the extra work I had to do because someone needed that smiley so badly.

[+tozainamboku]

I'd like to see an education effort on when you should leave replacements, instead of just attacking the idea always bad. In most cases if a cache has a DNF or two on it, a cache owner will gratefully accept help - if you ask first. If you haven't found the cache before, this gives the cache owner the opportunity to give you a spoiler that might help find the cache it still is there. If the cache owner is absent then perhaps the best thing is to allow the cache to die. Then a new cache can be placed in the area for everyone to find.

 

I'd say it's pretty easy, if the CO has given permission to replace the cache then by all means replace it, and claim it while you're there. Without that permission don't replace it.

Sure it's easy in the fuddy-duddy forums to make up rules and state either that they are consensus or that they are in the best interest of geocaching. Those doing the throw downs however are out looking for caches and don't care at all what we are saying in the forums. After all, geocaching is about fun. It's more fun to find something than to DNF it. And anyone hiding caches should be thankful for their help.

 

I've have a few of my caches now replaced with throw downs. What has happened since my leaving these caches is that the trails have been saturated as cachers who would never go and do a hike like this just to maintain their cache have left new caches. The community has come to believe that the caches on these trails are just like caches on a powertrail and they are expected to replace missing caches. Now even the hikers who will head out to get an FTF on a trail they've hiked several times, now leave replacements (often on caches they've already found) and expect that their caches will get the same treatment.

 

I've posted on one that I did not appreciate the help. It was next found by someone with whom I had already exchanged emails when he left a throw down on another cache of mine. His comment:

Deja vu on all this replacing a missing cache issue. I'm glad for those who play this game in a spirit of fun and clean sportsmanship. Even if there was a mistake in the process, who actually loses something substantial?

 

Obviously he believes that it's in the spirit of fun and clean sportsmanship to leave a replacement for missing caches. He believe that an extra container or a hide that is a little different than the owner intended is not a substantial loss. If anything he is saving the owner a trip.

 

You aren't going to stop this by complaining in the forums. I suspect that deleting these finds isn't going to make a substantial difference either. Most owners either don't want the confrontation of deleting logs or because most owners see the throw down as helpful, so the chances are only a few throw downs will get the logs deleted. Groundspeak isn't likely to take a stand on this, mostly because it is something that is not enforceable.

 

I think most complaints here are from people who like to acknowledge their DNFs and who often will come back after DNFing a cache to find it on another visit. But not everyone plays this way. They go out and have fun and don't intended to keep trying once the same cache over and over. They're the cache owners who will tell someone who logged a DNF that since they looked in the right place the cache isn't there so they should change the log to a find. Perhaps there is a feeling that DNF is a failure - a black mark - that nobody wants. Wouldn't it be nicer if we could just eliminate the DNFs and leave replacements when the cache is missing? For those of us who see DNF a just a report of the outcome of a search and not reflective on either the seeker or the hider (for not doing maintenance), this attitude may be hard to understand. But understand it we must if we want to get people to change their ways.

[Clan Riffster]

Obviously he believes that it's in the spirit of fun and clean sportsmanship to leave a replacement for missing caches. He believe that an extra container or a hide that is a little different than the owner intended is not a substantial loss. If anything he is saving the owner a trip.

 

The only thing obvious is that the throw downer believes if he spins a good enough fabrication, you, as the cache owner, might not delete his find. I'm not going to dig through all your cache logs to determine if you swallowed that heaping pile of malarkey.

 

You aren't going to stop this by complaining in the forums.

I disagree with this approach for two reasons. First, because it is factually inaccurate. New players come to these forums all the time to determine the finer points of acceptable behavior. By pointing out, often, that a particular behavior is despicable, we can impact the choices that those new players make. Further more, this bevahioral modification is not limited to new players. Someone who utilizes a monkey see - monkey do mentality might see others throwing down film cans every time they fail to locate a cache and think this is normal, and not realize it is problematic until seeing it vilified in here. Second, even if we were so deluded as to believe our opinions cannot impact the behavior of others, this is no reason to keep quiet about your convictions. Silence has never solved a problem.

[+Quossum]

I've found several throwdowns in my time (never placed one, for all the reasons stated), but here are examples of two where the throwdown substantially changed (for the worse) the caching experience the CO intended:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=7a22ff29-67ab-4335-b402-e0d1207cb0b3

Sweetwater Gentleman. The throwdown was a clear plastic film can in a tree. That didn't match the description at all, so we kept looking, with some trepidation...yep, the actual cache (a small lock and lock with a travel bug inside, so yes, much better than the throwndown) was found in the ancient, rather disturbing but more challenging...er...actual toilet area.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=2074f32a-5c03-40b6-b4d7-39f7945cbb53

Entomophobia. The throwdown was a lock-n-lock in plain sight. The original was a lock-n-lock in a hollow on the end of a string, so one had to spot the (camo color) string and reel it up. At least in this case a similar container was left, but the original one was cooler and more of a challenge.

 

There have been others, but these two spring to my mind. The cachers who left these throwdowns weren't doing anyone a favor but themselves. They couldn't find (or in the case of the first one, perhaps didn't WANNA find) the actual cache, so they just left their own.

 

--Q

[team tisri]

I'd like to see an education effort on when you should leave replacements, instead of just attacking the idea always bad. In most cases if a cache has a DNF or two on it, a cache owner will gratefully accept help - if you ask first. If you haven't found the cache before, this gives the cache owner the opportunity to give you a spoiler that might help find the cache it still is there. If the cache owner is absent then perhaps the best thing is to allow the cache to die. Then a new cache can be placed in the area for everyone to find.

 

I'd say it's pretty easy, if the CO has given permission to replace the cache then by all means replace it, and claim it while you're there. Without that permission don't replace it.

Sure it's easy in the fuddy-duddy forums to make up rules and state either that they are consensus or that they are in the best interest of geocaching. Those doing the throw downs however are out looking for caches and don't care at all what we are saying in the forums. After all, geocaching is about fun. It's more fun to find something than to DNF it. And anyone hiding caches should be thankful for their help.

 

... which is all well and good if the original container had actually gone missing. Someone already posted here (I think it was briansnat but could be wrong) that it can create extra work for the owner to visit the site and remove the throwdown container if it transpires the cache isn't actually missing.

 

Geocaching is about fun but if the only way you can have your fun is to find everything you seek, even if the only way to find it is to assume it's missing and "find" the film pot you left to replace it, then why even bother going out at all? Why not go for a nice walk in the woods, overlay a GPS track log against a caching map, and log finds on everything that's within 100 yards or so of where you walked? After all if you made the effort to be there you deserve the smiley, right?

 

I've have a few of my caches now replaced with throw downs. What has happened since my leaving these caches is that the trails have been saturated as cachers who would never go and do a hike like this just to maintain their cache have left new caches. The community has come to believe that the caches on these trails are just like caches on a powertrail and they are expected to replace missing caches. Now even the hikers who will head out to get an FTF on a trail they've hiked several times, now leave replacements (often on caches they've already found) and expect that their caches will get the same treatment.

 

... in other words people expect that they can be lazy cache owners and let someone else do all the work for them?

 

I've posted on one that I did not appreciate the help. It was next found by someone with whom I had already exchanged emails when he left a throw down on another cache of mine. His comment:

Deja vu on all this replacing a missing cache issue. I'm glad for those who play this game in a spirit of fun and clean sportsmanship. Even if there was a mistake in the process, who actually loses something substantial?

 

Obviously he believes that it's in the spirit of fun and clean sportsmanship to leave a replacement for missing caches. He believe that an extra container or a hide that is a little different than the owner intended is not a substantial loss. If anything he is saving the owner a trip.

 

Who loses out? Anyone who finds the throwdown and signs its log if the cache owner subsequently checks logs against the original cache, if it's still there. If future seekers find the throwdown and get their logs deleted because they didn't find the real cache they might well be annoyed at the situation. The owner loses out if the cache was still there and they end up with a duplicated cache and the choice between the confusion that can cause or a special trip to remove the duplicate.

 

You aren't going to stop this by complaining in the forums. I suspect that deleting these finds isn't going to make a substantial difference either. Most owners either don't want the confrontation of deleting logs or because most owners see the throw down as helpful, so the chances are only a few throw downs will get the logs deleted. Groundspeak isn't likely to take a stand on this, mostly because it is something that is not enforceable.

 

If Groundspeak don't take a stand it's probably more to do with not upsetting paying customers than wanting to make the game consistent.

 

I think most complaints here are from people who like to acknowledge their DNFs and who often will come back after DNFing a cache to find it on another visit. But not everyone plays this way. They go out and have fun and don't intended to keep trying once the same cache over and over. They're the cache owners who will tell someone who logged a DNF that since they looked in the right place the cache isn't there so they should change the log to a find. Perhaps there is a feeling that DNF is a failure - a black mark - that nobody wants. Wouldn't it be nicer if we could just eliminate the DNFs and leave replacements when the cache is missing? For those of us who see DNF a just a report of the outcome of a search and not reflective on either the seeker or the hider (for not doing maintenance), this attitude may be hard to understand. But understand it we must if we want to get people to change their ways.

 

If people want to guarantee they find everything they seek they might as well just claim a find against caches they were near without even bothering to look for it. Why bother fighting through the mud and brambles, or through the spider webs on the back of road signs, when you can just claim a find even if you didn't actually find the cache? We might as well turn the game into one where you just upload a GPS track log to prove you were somewhere loosely nearby and claim the find, with a load of provisions for people who didn't keep a track log to claim it anyway.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I just noticed a cacher who has been placing a bunch of caches lately and all of them have the following line in the text "If it's not there a replacement can be signed, placed, and logged."

 

Basically he's placing caches and wants others to maintain them for him, and rewards them with a smiley for doing do. Hopefully a trend that doesn't catch on. Why even bother looking? Just toss down a film canister and move on.

 

Can a CO be told to remove that statement from their description? Can the cache be archived because the owner hasn't got a maintenance plan? http://www.geocachin...achemaintenance

Yes. I refuse to publish cache listings that include this statement, on the grounds that it isn't an adequate maintenance plan. Groundspeak confirmed my interpretation of this guideline.

Thank you. You are a good reviewer IMO, and a great geocacher.

 

Having met Mr. Keystone I wholeheartedly concur.

 

However, I'll be the voice of dissent and take the flak. I have no problems with " throw downs " ( yet another downer catch word coined by a group I'll call the " negative bunch " )....it is a cache container w/log placed when a geocacher has reason to believe a cache is missing and is attempting to help the CO ( he's already there and the CO might not be for weeks ) and by doing so future seekers may have a cache to find for another couple of years or so. I've had a PVC pipe cache replaced with an ammo can ( pipe was still there)....no big deal, I just picked one up when I was in the area. On one of my harder hides two replacements eventually joined the original which was still there.....again, it didn't really bother me which one folks found ( some found two ). I agree that on high diff. hides no replacement's should be put out as the CO went to a lot of effort to make it a hard hide....can't find it, log a DNF and move on. I feel the vast majority of cache replacements and log replacements are really appreciated by CO's....I know I do. The more we help others the more caches will be in play for all of us to find.

I'm with Bamboozle on this one. I think it's a matter of trust. I trust cachers to do a good search before calling it a DNF, and I include my contact info in my cache listings. If they do a good search and at least try to contact me or a previous finder for a hint (or actual instruction) then I greatly appreciate them replacing it. I see no reason for DNFs and having them return, nor having to disable it until I can get there. If I find one that needs maintenance I clean it up. If I can't find it and have valid reason to believe that it is gone I will put something in its place. I expect (and history has proven) that if I leave a replacement the CO will be along shortly to see what's up as part of his due diligence and cache management. If what I left is inappropriate he will remove it or put a proper cache in its place.

 

A casual 'throw-down' done with little or no reason but to avoid a DNF is wrong, but I really don't think many cachers do this.

 

Besides, the point of a cache, for me, is to introduce cachers to an interesting location, so whether they find it or not the purpose is served.

Edited August 13, 2013 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Corp Of Discovery]

This cache has some interesting posts about throwdowns: Under the Lamppost's Skirt? #34

The situation is also relevant to some other topics as well.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Corp Of Discovery

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

This cache has some interesting posts about throwdowns: Under the Lamppost's Skirt? #34

The situation is also relevant to some other topics as well.

The problem with that cache is the CO's control issues. He calls it a determination to "play the game right" but deleting logs and fussing about a throw-down is causing problems. He could just as well go fix the problem when he sees a log that indicates someone left a throw-down or signed the wrong cache.

 

I've never understood the laser focus on absolute rules...even Groundspeak calls them guidelines to allow a bit of discretion and wiggle room. Be flexible, have fun, allow others to have fun.

[+Straight-Cache-Homey]

This cache has some interesting posts about throwdowns: Under the Lamppost's Skirt? #34

The situation is also relevant to some other topics as well.

Sheesh.

 

They're not necessarily bogus logs if an unsuspecting cacher found a throwdown.

 

Oh well. Some people take things more seriously than others I suppose.

[+L0ne.R]

I've found several throwdowns in my time (never placed one, for all the reasons stated), but here are examples of two where the throwdown substantially changed (for the worse) the caching experience the CO intended:

 

http://www.geocachin...02-e0d1207cb0b3

Sweetwater Gentleman. The throwdown was a clear plastic film can in a tree. That didn't match the description at all, so we kept looking, with some trepidation...yep, the actual cache (a small lock and lock with a travel bug inside, so yes, much better than the throwndown) was found in the ancient, rather disturbing but more challenging...er...actual toilet area.

 

http://www.geocachin...d7-39f7945cbb53

Entomophobia. The throwdown was a lock-n-lock in plain sight. The original was a lock-n-lock in a hollow on the end of a string, so one had to spot the (camo color) string and reel it up. At least in this case a similar container was left, but the original one was cooler and more of a challenge.

 

There have been others, but these two spring to my mind. The cachers who left these throwdowns weren't doing anyone a favor but themselves. They couldn't find (or in the case of the first one, perhaps didn't WANNA find) the actual cache, so they just left their own.

 

--Q

 

Another example: GC1JJYR

 

Logs indicate that the original cache is a clever in-plain-sight swag-size cache with a cute pen and logbook.

 

I was distracted by the interesting swag and unsigned log. Swapped travelers;

I really like the cute pen and log

 

Then 4 years later the first DNF.

 

Didn't find it 07/21/2012 - Unfortunately, this was not one of them. Looked a long time from all angles.

 

Next cacher logs a find with this comment:

 

Found it 11/24/2012 Definitely gone. I took the liberty of replacing with a cache that is also in-theme. Now under a rock, however.

 

This is the throwdown:

 

Several Find logs, several DNF logs and 2 NMs have been logged since the throwdown. The active cache owner (logged in today) has not responded. I'd say that this throwdown is a smiley throwdown. It's not a help to the community - I know I would not be pleased to find it and would assume that the owner considers this a suitable cache experience.

[4wheelin_fool]

This cache has some interesting posts about throwdowns: Under the Lamppost's Skirt? #34

The situation is also relevant to some other topics as well.

Sheesh.

 

They're not necessarily bogus logs if an unsuspecting cacher found a throwdown.

 

Oh well. Some people take things more seriously than others I suppose.

 

Someone stole the original, so it was replaced with something more difficult.

 

Someone else could not find it, so they placed a throwdown. Motive could have been to help them out if they assumed it was taken, but if the original is more cleverly hidden, its not the same.

 

I just cant understand people finding a replacement 70' away from the original unless the coords were really bad.

[+J Grouchy]

This cache has some interesting posts about throwdowns: Under the Lamppost's Skirt? #34

The situation is also relevant to some other topics as well.

The problem with that cache is the CO's control issues. He calls it a determination to "play the game right" but deleting logs and fussing about a throw-down is causing problems. He could just as well go fix the problem when he sees a log that indicates someone left a throw-down or signed the wrong cache.

 

I've never understood the laser focus on absolute rules...even Groundspeak calls them guidelines to allow a bit of discretion and wiggle room. Be flexible, have fun, allow others to have fun.

 

Yeah...I likely would have just combined the two logs, tossed out the throw-down container and let the cache stand.

 

One by me just happened to be about 20 feet from a letterbox that had been abandoned...so in the logs people kept saying the log was soaked and the container was broken, when the REAL cache was a shiny new bison tube.

 

Then they both went missing and the cache owner archived it...and now there is nothing there at all.

[+Don_J]

 

Who loses out? Anyone who finds the throwdown and signs its log if the cache owner subsequently checks logs against the original cache, if it's still there. If future seekers find the throwdown and get their logs deleted because they didn't find the real cache they might well be annoyed at the situation. The owner loses out if the cache was still there and they end up with a duplicated cache and the choice between the confusion that can cause or a special trip to remove the duplicate.

 

 

An area cacher had his cache archived and locked for threatening to do just that. The reviewer made it clear that this was a path that he did not want to head down.

 

Punishing subsequent finders by deleting logs is not a solution.

[+Don_J]

I've found several throwdowns in my time (never placed one, for all the reasons stated), but here are examples of two where the throwdown substantially changed (for the worse) the caching experience the CO intended:

 

http://www.geocachin...02-e0d1207cb0b3

Sweetwater Gentleman. The throwdown was a clear plastic film can in a tree. That didn't match the description at all, so we kept looking, with some trepidation...yep, the actual cache (a small lock and lock with a travel bug inside, so yes, much better than the throwndown) was found in the ancient, rather disturbing but more challenging...er...actual toilet area.

 

http://www.geocachin...d7-39f7945cbb53

Entomophobia. The throwdown was a lock-n-lock in plain sight. The original was a lock-n-lock in a hollow on the end of a string, so one had to spot the (camo color) string and reel it up. At least in this case a similar container was left, but the original one was cooler and more of a challenge.

 

There have been others, but these two spring to my mind. The cachers who left these throwdowns weren't doing anyone a favor but themselves. They couldn't find (or in the case of the first one, perhaps didn't WANNA find) the actual cache, so they just left their own.

 

--Q

 

Another example: GC1JJYR

 

Logs indicate that the original cache is a clever in-plain-sight swag-size cache with a cute pen and logbook.

 

I was distracted by the interesting swag and unsigned log. Swapped travelers;

I really like the cute pen and log

 

Then 4 years later the first DNF.

 

Didn't find it 07/21/2012 - Unfortunately, this was not one of them. Looked a long time from all angles.

 

Next cacher logs a find with this comment:

 

Found it 11/24/2012 Definitely gone. I took the liberty of replacing with a cache that is also in-theme. Now under a rock, however.

 

This is the throwdown:

 

Several Find logs, several DNF logs and 2 NMs have been logged since the throwdown. The active cache owner (logged in today) has not responded. I'd say that this throwdown is a smiley throwdown. It's not a help to the community - I know I would not be pleased to find it and would assume that the owner considers this a suitable cache experience.

 

If this were in my area, I would have absolutely no problem posting a NA on the cache, explaining to the reviewer that the cache is missing and people are signing a piece of litter in it's place. In fact, I have done that and our reviewer took quick action.

 

Anyone that thinks that there are not those out there that are completely self serving and are only trying to help future cachers have a cache to find only has to look at this.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Anyone that thinks that there are not those out there that are completely self serving and are only trying to help future cachers have a cache to find only has to look at this.

Of course there are. 'Geocachers' is a big demographic. The more people in any group the more bad apples - you have to look at it as a percentage of the whole, not as exceptions. The percentage of self-serving geocachers is no higher than you would find in any group, and it's been my experience that it's likely a lot lower.

[+Don_J]

Anyone that thinks that there are not those out there that are completely self serving and are only trying to help future cachers have a cache to find only has to look at this.

Of course there are. 'Geocachers' is a big demographic. The more people in any group the more bad apples - you have to look at it as a percentage of the whole, not as exceptions. The percentage of self-serving geocachers is no higher than you would find in any group, and it's been my experience that it's likely a lot lower.

 

If you asked me five years ago, I'd have said that it was lower. Now, I'm not so sure. Technology has brought the instant gratification, self indulgent crowd into the game.

[Pup Patrol]

I wish Groundspeak would put a date on new articles in the Help Center. I don't recall seeing this before today, and I check these articles often.

 

Home → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship → Throwdowns - How to handle them

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=427

 

3.8. Throwdowns - How to handle them

 

A throwdown is when a geocacher places a new geocache container when the previous geocache is missing or cannot be found. Throwdowns are placed so the geocacher can log a find on a geocache that they couldn't find and suspect is missing. Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner as this frequently leads to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find.

 

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed. If this is not done, there will be no way for geocachers to be sure they are finding the correct geocache container. If subsequent find logs indicate multiple or inconsistent containers, it can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place. In these cases, it is reasonable for the geocache owner to allow finds of the throwdown to be logged online as found because the finder generally cannot determine whether they found a throwdown instead of the original container. The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

 

 

B.

[+L0ne.R]

Home → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship → Throwdowns - How to handle them

 

http://support.Groun...=kb.page&id=427

 

3.8. Throwdowns - How to handle them

...The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

 

Ooooo. If only that could be enforced - reviewers allowed to change a Found It throwdown log to a Note - if they couldn't claim a find I bet that would stop most people from leaving throwdowns.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Solitario R

[+tozainamboku]

... which is all well and good if the original container had actually gone missing. Someone already posted here (I think it was briansnat but could be wrong) that it can create extra work for the owner to visit the site and remove the throwdown container if it transpires the cache isn't actually missing.

Sure it can be extra work for a owner to check if there is an extra container or if the throw down doesn't meet his standards in someway. But, to quote the person who left a throw dowm on one of my caches - who actually loses something substantial?

 

Some owners might care about their reputation for leaving quality hides - if they believe the throw down is inferior. And some might worry that they'll be cheated of a favorite point because the throw down isn't as interesting of a cache as the original. But these might be seen as minor problems compared to having a cache sit for months with nothing to find until the owner makes the trip to fix it.

 

Geocaching is about fun but if the only way you can have your fun is to find everything you seek, even if the only way to find it is to assume it's missing and "find" the film pot you left to replace it, then why even bother going out at all? Why not go for a nice walk in the woods, overlay a GPS track log against a caching map, and log finds on everything that's within 100 yards or so of where you walked? After all if you made the effort to be there you deserve the smiley, right?

It's pretty rare to find someone who says that finding a cache is less fun than not finding one.

 

Throw downs are often left because the someone believes that others will have more fun finding the throw down than not having a cache to find at all.

 

I personally like to record my DNFs and often to go back several times till I find a cache. But not everyone has this same motivation. Sadly there are many cache owners who feel guilty when people look for there cache and find it was missing. They offer people to change DNF to found it. As long as you have owners like this you will have people leaving throw downs.

 

I've have a few of my caches now replaced with throw downs. What has happened since my leaving these caches is that the trails have been saturated as cachers who would never go and do a hike like this just to maintain their cache have left new caches. The community has come to believe that the caches on these trails are just like caches on a powertrail and they are expected to replace missing caches. Now even the hikers who will head out to get an FTF on a trail they've hiked several times, now leave replacements (often on caches they've already found) and expect that their caches will get the same treatment.

 

... in other words people expect that they can be lazy cache owners and let someone else do all the work for them?

I'm probably being overly critical of people leaving caches on hiking trails they aren't planing to return to. However, yes, that seems to be what is happening where I am. Would these people leave as many caches if they knew they would have to hike back to do maintenance. Probably not.

 

Deja vu on all this replacing a missing cache issue. I'm glad for those who play this game in a spirit of fun and clean sportsmanship. Even if there was a mistake in the process, who actually loses something substantial?

 

Who loses out? Anyone who finds the throwdown and signs its log if the cache owner subsequently checks logs against the original cache, if it's still there. If future seekers find the throwdown and get their logs deleted because they didn't find the real cache they might well be annoyed at the situation. The owner loses out if the cache was still there and they end up with a duplicated cache and the choice between the confusion that can cause or a special trip to remove the duplicate.

Very few people are such puritans that they will delete logs of people who found the throw down. While an owner may have to go check now to see if the original is missing or if the throw down is inferior, it could be said that they would have to check on the DNF anyhow, so they aren't really taking an extra trip.

 

You aren't going to stop this by complaining in the forums. I suspect that deleting these finds isn't going to make a substantial difference either. Most owners either don't want the confrontation of deleting logs or because most owners see the throw down as helpful, so the chances are only a few throw downs will get the logs deleted. Groundspeak isn't likely to take a stand on this, mostly because it is something that is not enforceable.

 

If Groundspeak don't take a stand it's probably more to do with not upsetting paying customers than wanting to make the game consistent.

I'll address Grounspeak's stand below.

 

If people want to guarantee they find everything they seek they might as well just claim a find against caches they were near without even bothering to look for it. Why bother fighting through the mud and brambles, or through the spider webs on the back of road signs, when you can just claim a find even if you didn't actually find the cache? We might as well turn the game into one where you just upload a GPS track log to prove you were somewhere loosely nearby and claim the find, with a load of provisions for people who didn't keep a track log to claim it anyway.

Different people have differnt motivations for geocaching and find different aspects of it fun. I'm more in your camp. But I do pay attention to what people who leave throw downs are saying. I believe that insinuating that they are cheating isn't going to convince them to change. You may believe they are deluded when they claim that leaving a throw down is helpful and good sportsmanship. But that is what they believe.

 

 

3.8. Throwdowns - How to handle them

 

A throwdown is when a geocacher places a new geocache container when the previous geocache is missing or cannot be found. Throwdowns are placed so the geocacher can log a find on a geocache that they couldn't find and suspect is missing. Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner as this frequently leads to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find.

 

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed. If this is not done, there will be no way for geocachers to be sure they are finding the correct geocache container. If subsequent find logs indicate multiple or inconsistent containers, it can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place. In these cases, it is reasonable for the geocache owner to allow finds of the throwdown to be logged online as found because the finder generally cannot determine whether they found a throwdown instead of the original container. The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

Another example of Groundspeak giving into puritan pressure. The truth is that I have found more caches with multiple containers where the replacement was left by the cache owner who couldn't find their own cache when doing maintenance than I have found multiple caches left by strangers leaving throw downs. If Groundspeak is going to consider multiple containers a sign of lack of maintenance, they've got it wrong.

 

About the only thing good here is the suggestion that it is reasonable to allow finds for people who found the throw down and perhaps some confirmation that person leaving the throw down would not have a strong claim if their log was deleted.

 

However this seems to be a guideline about cache owner resposibility and likely to cause more controversy. I would have like the section one never replacing a cache without permission to be emphasized more. I suspect that people leaving throw downs will not read this - and even if they do - will rationalize that permission is assume and that cache owners are the ones responsible for cleaning up any mess.

[Pup Patrol]

The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

 

Ooooo. If only that could be enforced - reviewers allowed to change a Found It throwdown log to a Note - if they couldn't claim a find I bet that would stop most people from leaving throwdowns.

 

Gosh, I wish folks would be careful when editing quotes.

 

"I" did not post that. That is a quote from the Groundspeak Help Center article.

 

If you could fix that, I would appreciate it a lot.

 

 

B.

[+Team Microdot]

Throw downs are often left because the someone believes that others will have more fun finding the throw down than not having a cache to find at all.

 

How often is that the case?

 

Would you say it's more frequent than people's primary motivation being to avoid a DNF, or vice-versa?

 

In any case - whatever the motivation - it probably leads to this - unless of course the person leaving the throw down continues to take responsibility for it - and cleans up their mess afterwards and I'd say the frequency of that is pretty much zero.

[Clan Riffster]

Anyone that thinks that there are not those out there that are completely self serving and are only trying to help future cachers have a cache to find only has to look at this.

Of course there are. 'Geocachers' is a big demographic. The more people in any group the more bad apples - you have to look at it as a percentage of the whole, not as exceptions. The percentage of self-serving geocachers is no higher than you would find in any group, and it's been my experience that it's likely a lot lower.

For the purpose of this debate, the issue really isn't about the percentage of self serving people found within the whole population of cachers. Since Toz is promoting the silliness that folks who spew out throw downs are doing so out of the kindness of their hearts, i'd argue that the demographic needs to be narrowed down significantly. Rather than taking the percentage of self serving people from the whole, I'd like to see the percentage of self serving people amongst the throw down spewers. I suspect that this number is much higher than the general population.

[Clan Riffster]

Another example of Groundspeak giving into puritan pressure.

Another example of Groundspeak standing up for individual accountability.

Not sure why some folks feel the need to denigrate any aspect of a hobby they don't care for.

[+Mudfrog]

Anyone that thinks that there are not those out there that are completely self serving and are only trying to help future cachers have a cache to find only has to look at this.

Of course there are. 'Geocachers' is a big demographic. The more people in any group the more bad apples - you have to look at it as a percentage of the whole, not as exceptions. The percentage of self-serving geocachers is no higher than you would find in any group, and it's been my experience that it's likely a lot lower.

 

If you asked me five years ago, I'd have said that it was lower. Now, I'm not so sure. Technology has brought the instant gratification, self indulgent crowd into the game.

 

Ain't that the truth!

 

By the way, you left out one other adjective,,, entitled.

[+niraD]

It's pretty rare to find someone who says that finding a cache is less fun than not finding one.

To me, it is more fun to find an interesting cache after a long search, or to DNF an interesting cache and then later return to find it, than to find a lame throwdown. And I'd rather post a DNF/NM/NA for a missing cache placed by a flash-in-the-pan CO, than find a lame throwdown.

 

Not that I think I'm a typical geocacher...

 

Very few people are such puritans that they will delete logs of people who found the throw down.

I would delete the logs of anyone who knew they didn't find my cache. That includes the person who left the throwdown, and anyone geocaching with them.

 

For those who found the throwdown innocently, I'd just send email letting them know that they found a throwdown, and that they might want to return since my actual cache is more interesting than the throwdown. Then I'd leave it up to them.

[+L0ne.R]

If you could fix that, I would appreciate it a lot.

 

Done

Edited August 13, 2013 by Solitario R

[JASTA 11]

I've found several throwdowns in my time (never placed one, for all the reasons stated), but here are examples of two where the throwdown substantially changed (for the worse) the caching experience the CO intended:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=7a22ff29-67ab-4335-b402-e0d1207cb0b3

Sweetwater Gentleman. The throwdown was a clear plastic film can in a tree. That didn't match the description at all, so we kept looking, with some trepidation...yep, the actual cache (a small lock and lock with a travel bug inside, so yes, much better than the throwndown) was found in the ancient, rather disturbing but more challenging...er...actual toilet area.

 

 

NASTY! I remember searching for that one years ago. You left out the part about the black widow spider infestation inside the brick ****house. We walked away from that one.

 

Just about any throwdown would have been a better caching experience.

 

[Mr.Yuck]

I wish Groundspeak would put a date on new articles in the Help Center. I don't recall seeing this before today, and I check these articles often.

 

Home → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship → Throwdowns - How to handle them

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=427

 

3.8. Throwdowns - How to handle them

 

A throwdown is when a geocacher places a new geocache container when the previous geocache is missing or cannot be found. Throwdowns are placed so the geocacher can log a find on a geocache that they couldn't find and suspect is missing. Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner as this frequently leads to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find.

 

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed. If this is not done, there will be no way for geocachers to be sure they are finding the correct geocache container. If subsequent find logs indicate multiple or inconsistent containers, it can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place. In these cases, it is reasonable for the geocache owner to allow finds of the throwdown to be logged online as found because the finder generally cannot determine whether they found a throwdown instead of the original container. The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

 

 

B.

 

Wow! First I had to check that today wasn't April 1st, and second I had to check that the URL was correct, and someone didn't make a phony Groundspeak help center web page hosted on their own domain.

 

In other words, I'm quite shocked to see that article. Probably not as shocked as Toz though. Of course I agree with it, I'm sure his opinion is different.

[+tozainamboku]

Probably not as shocked as Toz though. Of course I agree with it, I'm sure his opinion is different.

I gave my opinion in post #133. But that won't stop me from elaborating further.

 

You know I agree with most of the people here in disliking throw downs and want to see them be used only in limited circumstance and only with permission of the cache owner. Where I disagree is with the characterization of the those who leave throw downs as numbers padders who do it just for an easy smiley.

 

My experience is that people do it because they believe they are being helpful and that it is the right thing to do. I don't believe that if everyone started deleting finds that it would stop throw downs. I also don't believe that Groundspeak could enforce a rule that owners delete throw down "finds".

 

The Help Center article is a start in that it tries to explain why throw downs are bad. I happen to feel that extra containers is, in most cases, a minor annoyance and not a sign of lack of maintenance by the owner. As I pointed out above, I've found multiple containers more often where a cache owner replaced their own cache when they couldn't find it when doing maintenance. It's even happened to me. So I challenge Groundspeak's simplification of the problem and their throwing the responsibility back on the owners.

[+CanadianRockies]

You know I agree with most of the people here in disliking throw downs and want to see them be used only in limited circumstance and only with permission of the cache owner. Where I disagree is with the characterization of the those who leave throw downs as numbers padders who do it just for an easy smiley.

 

My experience is that people do it because they believe they are being helpful and that it is the right thing to do. I don't believe that if everyone started deleting finds that it would stop throw downs. I also don't believe that Groundspeak could enforce a rule that owners delete throw down "finds".

I agree that if everyone started deleting finds for people who throw down caches without permission, then it would not stop unapproved throwdowns. But I think it would cause their numbers to drop rather significantly, for a couple reasons.

 

First, I think a significant portion of people who throw down caches are indeed motivated in large part by the easy smiley (even if they won't tell you that is part of their motivation). Second, I think they eventually would learn that this practice is discouraged by Groundspeak.

 

Of course, Groundspeak cannot enforce a rule that all owners must delete every unauthorized throwdown find. No more than they can enforce a rule that owners must delete every bogus find. What Grounspeak can do is make it clear that cache owners are allowed to delete finds for bogus finds, including unapproved throwdown finds.

[+J Grouchy]

Yeah, I've seen at least one or two examples of throwdowns being done only to get the smilie and move on. This one is the most egregious example: http://coord.info/GC42G92

 

Guy with over 60000 finds couldn't find a simple cache I literally almost tripped over it was so easy. It was a clearcut example of someone not wanting to log a DNF. I'm willing to bet he never even actually LOOKED for it, just surveyed the area (a wooded hillside), thought to himself "nope...I don't feel like it" and tossed in a pill bottle or something. Problem is, now that puts into question that 60,000 number. I honestly have to wonder how many thousands are really and truly DNFs (or maybe they should have a new log called "DNET"...Did Not Even Try).

[4wheelin_fool]

Probably not as shocked as Toz though. Of course I agree with it, I'm sure his opinion is different.

I gave my opinion in post #133. But that won't stop me from elaborating further.

 

You know I agree with most of the people here in disliking throw downs and want to see them be used only in limited circumstance and only with permission of the cache owner. Where I disagree is with the characterization of the those who leave throw downs as numbers padders who do it just for an easy smiley.

 

My experience is that people do it because they believe they are being helpful and that it is the right thing to do. I don't believe that if everyone started deleting finds that it would stop throw downs. I also don't believe that Groundspeak could enforce a rule that owners delete throw down "finds".

 

The Help Center article is a start in that it tries to explain why throw downs are bad. I happen to feel that extra containers is, in most cases, a minor annoyance and not a sign of lack of maintenance by the owner. As I pointed out above, I've found multiple containers more often where a cache owner replaced their own cache when they couldn't find it when doing maintenance. It's even happened to me. So I challenge Groundspeak's simplification of the problem and their throwing the responsibility back on the owners.

 

It is not written in way in which the owners are expected to comply, rather it allows tolerance for the finders of throwdowns to not have their log deleted. (as long as they did not place it)

 

In these cases, it is reasonable for the geocache owner to allow finds of the throwdown to be logged online as found because the finder generally cannot determine whether they found a throwdown instead of the original container. The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

 

It also says that the throwdown should be removed if the original container is still there.

 

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed.

 

If the geocacher is genuinely helping out, there should be no problem if the owner is aware of what they are doing. It only discourages unauthorized replacements.

[+tozainamboku]

It also says that the throwdown should be removed if the original container is still there.

 

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed.

Multiple conatainers at a location do not only occur due to unauthorized throw downs. In fact, in my experience, they are more likely to occur from cache owners replacing caches they couldn't find when doing maintenance and from authorized replacements (where I believe people will take less time looking for the cache than an unauthorized replacement - even less if cache owner has given the authorized replacer a spoiler). I have also found multiple containers where a person has reused a old cache location that has been archived.

 

By making it a policy that cache owners should check as soon as they are aware of throwdowns and remove the throwdown if the original container is still there, Groundspeak has levied a new maintenance requirement on cache owners.

 

I believe that cache owners should make their own decision of what to do after an unauthorized throw down. That could be to check the cache and if they find both the original and the throw down remove one of them. But it could also mean to accept the throw down since they believe the cache was likely missing or to accept the fact that there may be two containers and they will accept find logs for either one. I am looking forward to the Needs Archive logs when people find two containers at a cache site.

Edited August 14, 2013 by tozainamboku

[Clan Riffster]

Yeah, I've seen at least one or two examples of throwdowns being done only to get the smilie and move on. This one is the most egregious example: http://coord.info/GC42G92

 

Guy with over 60000 finds couldn't find a simple cache I literally almost tripped over it was so easy. It was a clearcut example of someone not wanting to log a DNF. I'm willing to bet he never even actually LOOKED for it, just surveyed the area (a wooded hillside), thought to himself "nope...I don't feel like it" and tossed in a pill bottle or something. Problem is, now that puts into question that 60,000 number. I honestly have to wonder how many thousands are really and truly DNFs (or maybe they should have a new log called "DNET"...Did Not Even Try).

Am I just not seeing it? I looked at the cache you linked to, Miami Circle, and unless I'm blind, the highest find count I see is about 28,000

[+fbingha]

Yeah, I've seen at least one or two examples of throwdowns being done only to get the smilie and move on. This one is the most egregious example: http://coord.info/GC42G92

 

Guy with over 60000 finds couldn't find a simple cache I literally almost tripped over it was so easy. It was a clearcut example of someone not wanting to log a DNF. I'm willing to bet he never even actually LOOKED for it, just surveyed the area (a wooded hillside), thought to himself "nope...I don't feel like it" and tossed in a pill bottle or something. Problem is, now that puts into question that 60,000 number. I honestly have to wonder how many thousands are really and truly DNFs (or maybe they should have a new log called "DNET"...Did Not Even Try).

Am I just not seeing it? I looked at the cache you linked to, Miami Circle, and unless I'm blind, the highest find count I see is about 28,000

 

The CO deleted the log as there is a note about it on the page.

[+J Grouchy]

Yeah, I've seen at least one or two examples of throwdowns being done only to get the smilie and move on. This one is the most egregious example: http://coord.info/GC42G92

 

Guy with over 60000 finds couldn't find a simple cache I literally almost tripped over it was so easy. It was a clearcut example of someone not wanting to log a DNF. I'm willing to bet he never even actually LOOKED for it, just surveyed the area (a wooded hillside), thought to himself "nope...I don't feel like it" and tossed in a pill bottle or something. Problem is, now that puts into question that 60,000 number. I honestly have to wonder how many thousands are really and truly DNFs (or maybe they should have a new log called "DNET"...Did Not Even Try).

Am I just not seeing it? I looked at the cache you linked to, Miami Circle, and unless I'm blind, the highest find count I see is about 28,000

 

The CO deleted the log as there is a note about it on the page.

 

Yep...she deleted it. The person who logged it was a cut/paster who added in a line about putting in a replacement container but claimed the find.

Edited August 14, 2013 by J Grouchy