Can a "bad" cacher be reported?

[+eaglesong]

There is a cacher (a married couple) from Florida who recently came through California and Oregon. They logged MANY finds in my small town. Some were legitimate but some were not. They are "replacing" caches that are not missing. In some cases they are just not finding a cache so they drop a replacement and log it as a find. In two of these instances the actual cache was fewer than 3 feet from their replacement and was clearly visibile. In other cases they didn't bring TOTT and (since they couldn't retrieve the cache) just dropped a replacement and logged a smiley. In one instance we found that they physically took a cache from it's location (it was a small) and placed it INSIDE another cache (a large) several miles away.

 

They have logged over 35k finds but judging from the percentage of "faux" finds in our area alone I would say a good 10% of their finds are not legitimate.

 

I'm not usually one who is super picky about the "rules" but these people are creating confusion by dropping unnecessary (and therefore duplicate) replacement caches and are moving people's containers away from their proper coordinates. Considering the frequency of these actions here, I can only imagine how much havoc they've caused with their other 34k finds across the country.

[+LashRash]

If you know the person(s) who are doing this, I recommend going to this link, CLICK HERE, and fill out the form. Explain what has been going on and I'm sure that they can direct you to the best internal department for handling this issue. I thank you personally for coming forward to share with us this distasteful situation and hopefully it will help raise awareness for others who may find themselves in the same boat in the future.

Edited September 25, 2013 by LashRash

[+NeverSummer]

If you know the person(s) who are doing this, I recommend going to this link, CLICK HERE, and fill out the form. Explain what has been going on and I'm sure that they can direct you to the best internal department for handling this issue. I thank you personally for coming forward to share with us this distasteful situation and hopefully it will help raise awareness for others who may find themselves in the same boat in the future.

There is that^ way to report.

 

Also, by the time it all blows over, it doesn't really matter. All that needs to happen is for the owners of the thrown-down cache locations to go and check on their caches, remove the "red herring" and go about their business.

 

I'm finding more and more that it really isn't making the game any better to get worked up about how others play the game. You can control how you play: How you place caches, deal with your cache listing, how you find caches, and how you log caches. Eventually those who are breaking guidelines, or just ignoring geocaching social norms burn out and fade away.

[+cheech gang]

Eventually those who are breaking guidelines, or just ignoring geocaching social norms burn out and fade away.

 

35,000 "finds" is a very slow fade away...

Edited September 25, 2013 by cheech gang

[+NeverSummer]

Eventually those who are breaking guidelines, or just ignoring geocaching social norms burn out and fade away.

 

35,000 "finds" is a very slow fade away...

Fading away can take many forms. In a game where find count gets you no tangible rewards, they are only cheating themselves.

[+lamoracke]

Perhaps if all the COs who were annoyed emailed them relatively politely and told them what they are doing is causing them extra work and even deleting a few logs where they just put a throwdown, they might get the message. If no one says boo, they might not even realize. They still might not care, but at least folks are saying a little peace. Obviously it was not hard to figure out who you were talking about.

[Clan Riffster]

I'm not usually one who is super picky about the "rules"...

Are any of these faux finds on your caches?

[+Ma & Pa]

I guess it is guilty till proven innocent. Nice of you to give enough details for everyone to find out who you are accusing. Also was good of you to make assumptions about the rest of their caching career.

 

*****************

 

Here is an accusation someone made about us at a cache which was hidden about 7 meters from a letterbox container. Like many others, we mistakenly signed the letterbox (and we left 2 trackables in it). You will also note that we were accused of leaving a throwdown which we didn't do.

 

This was odd. Found letterbox first (and took 2 TB's left by Ma and Pa for unknown reason- it was clearly NOT the cache) and then found their throw-down cache on ground. (No wonder those Ma and Pa folks have so many finds, hah!). Signed both. Who knows where original is/was...

[+T.D.M.22]

What do you expect to happen to them if you report them? Their finds deleted? They could just log them again. They get banned or blocked, or otherwise no access to the website? New account. There's really nothing you can do other than deleting false finds on your own caches.

[+Mudfrog]

There is a cacher (a married couple) from Florida who recently came through California and Oregon. They logged MANY finds in my small town. Some were legitimate but some were not. They are "replacing" caches that are not missing. In some cases they are just not finding a cache so they drop a replacement and log it as a find. In two of these instances the actual cache was fewer than 3 feet from their replacement and was clearly visibile. In other cases they didn't bring TOTT and (since they couldn't retrieve the cache) just dropped a replacement and logged a smiley. In one instance we found that they physically took a cache from it's location (it was a small) and placed it INSIDE another cache (a large) several miles away.

 

They have logged over 35k finds but judging from the percentage of "faux" finds in our area alone I would say a good 10% of their finds are not legitimate.

 

I'm not usually one who is super picky about the "rules" but these people are creating confusion by dropping unnecessary (and therefore duplicate) replacement caches and are moving people's containers away from their proper coordinates. Considering the frequency of these actions here, I can only imagine how much havoc they've caused with their other 34k finds across the country.

 

Unfortunately, this kind of thinking is prevalent among number's hounds. The increase in power trails has only added to the silliness with some owners condoning throwdowns. How a person justifies logging a find on a cache they didn't find is mind boggling to me, yet it happens all the time these days.

 

Without a doubt, this couple has claimed finds on caches they didn't really find. This in itself doesn't bother me a bit but their actions of leaving throwdowns and such can cause problems for cache owners and future finders.

[+K13]

Eventually those who are breaking guidelines, or just ignoring geocaching social norms burn out and fade away.

 

35,000 "finds" is a very slow fade away...

Fading away can take many forms. In a game where find count gets you no tangible rewards, they are only cheating themselves.

 

As I see it, they are cheating numerous people...

They are cheating those who learn to cache by following their example.

They are cheating those who go behind them and find multiple containers at GZ, not knowing which is the real cache.

They cheat the cache owners who have to return to their cache location and remove the geolitter (throwdown cache container).

[+briansnat]

 

Fading away can take many forms. In a game where find count gets you no tangible rewards, they are only cheating themselves.

 

If that were only true. What about the cache owners who have to make an extra trip to remove the throw-down? What about the searchers who are deprived of experiencing the original hide as set out by the cache owner?

 

As far as tangible rewards? How about recognition on local club websites for reaching certain milestones? Events held in honor of cachers who reach certain milestones? Geocoins awarded to cachers who reach certain milestones? Golden ammo cans presented to geocachers who reach certain milestones (maybe today it should be a golden film canister)? Or perhaps or the celebrity status of being a numbers hound (I've actually seen people lining up to talk with them or posing for photos with them as if they were Madonna, Brad Pitt or Art Linkletter).

Edited September 25, 2013 by briansnat

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

There is a cacher (a married couple) from Florida

It wasn't the Zimmerman's was it? Bwhahahahaha. I mean we are talking about not finding stuff and claiming they saw something...right.

Edited September 25, 2013 by TheWeatherWarrior

[+Chief301]

This wouldn't happen so much if more CO's were more diligent about their responsibilities. Not only should they go out and remove any throwdowns they are made aware of, they should delete the bogus logs of the throwdown perpetrators. If this was done consistently, across the Geocaching world, the throwdown crowd would quit doing it when they realize their bogus logs won't stand.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

Or perhaps or the celebrity status of being a numbers hound (I've actually seen people lining up to talk with them or posing for photos with them as if they were Madonna, Brad Pitt or Art Linkletter).

If Art Linkletter was standing around posing for photos... today... I certainly WOULD get his autograph.

[+L0ne.R]

Fading away can take many forms. In a game where find count gets you no tangible rewards, they are only cheating themselves.

 

If that were only true. What about the cache owners who have to make an extra trip to remove the throw-down? What about the searchers who are deprived of experiencing the original hide as set out by the cache owner?

 

As far as tangible rewards? How about recognition on local club websites for reaching certain milestones? Events held in honor of cachers who reach certain milestones? Geocoins awarded to cachers who reach certain milestones? Golden ammo cans presented to geocachers who reach certain milestones (maybe today it should be a golden film canister)? Or perhaps or the celebrity status of being a numbers hound (I've actually seen people lining up to talk with them or posing for photos with them as if they were Madonna, Brad Pitt or Art Linkletter).

 

And what about throwdowns on abandoned caches, cheating the caching community of a potentially better cache in that location that is maintained by an active CO.

[+KazumiSun]

Thanks for the post...I hope this never happens where I live, however, I now know what to do if it does. Hope it all works out and geo goes back to a fun game for you. Take care

[+Walts Hunting]

As the obsession with numbers has increased I find that spending time doing this the way I want too and not getting my knickers in a bunch over how others do it provides the most enjoyment.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Fading away can take many forms. In a game where find count gets you no tangible rewards, they are only cheating themselves.

 

If that were only true. What about the cache owners who have to make an extra trip to remove the throw-down? What about the searchers who are deprived of experiencing the original hide as set out by the cache owner?

 

As far as tangible rewards? How about recognition on local club websites for reaching certain milestones? Events held in honor of cachers who reach certain milestones? Geocoins awarded to cachers who reach certain milestones? Golden ammo cans presented to geocachers who reach certain milestones (maybe today it should be a golden film canister)? Or perhaps or the celebrity status of being a numbers hound (I've actually seen people lining up to talk with them or posing for photos with them as if they were Madonna, Brad Pitt or Art Linkletter).

 

And what about throwdowns on abandoned caches, cheating the caching community of a potentially better cache in that location that is maintained by an active CO.

 

It has been my experience in my home area that a replacement cache continues to provide possibly years of continued finds and is appreciated by the caching community. Should the cache be allowed to go belly up the chances of a new cache being placed is slim unless their was something special about the location and these days that is seldom the case.

[cezanne]

This wouldn't happen so much if more CO's were more diligent about their responsibilities. Not only should they go out and remove any throwdowns they are made aware of, they should delete the bogus logs of the throwdown perpetrators.

 

Actually, I do not see going out and removing throwdowns as the cache owner's responsibility. When I started with geocaching (11 years ago) and also when I hid most of my caches throwdowns were not known. I blame Groundspeak for having allowed powertrails and for bothering cache owners with something which is not their job.

 

There are lots of caches in remote areas and/or high up the mountains. Do you really think that a cache owner would want to go there just because someone leaves a throwdown? This would also be a way to demotivate cache owners on purpose and bring them to archive their caches that are perfectly fine. Think e.g. for a cache up a rock where one needs to be a good climber to reach it and someone leaves a film can down below the rock. It is completely absurd to ask the cache owner to go there and remove such containers.

 

Cezanne

[+dprovan]

Actually, I do not see going out and removing throwdowns as the cache owner's responsibility. When I started with geocaching (11 years ago) and also when I hid most of my caches throwdowns were not known. I blame Groundspeak for having allowed powertrails and for bothering cache owners with something which is not their job.

You make a good point, but I'd claim that the throwdown's we're talking about are in the same class as a stolen or muggled container: the cache is compromised, and although that's through no fault of the owner, it's still the owner's responsibility to correct the problem for the simple reason that it's no one else's responsibility. Blame whomever you want, but you still have to fix it.

[cezanne]

Actually, I do not see going out and removing throwdowns as the cache owner's responsibility. When I started with geocaching (11 years ago) and also when I hid most of my caches throwdowns were not known. I blame Groundspeak for having allowed powertrails and for bothering cache owners with something which is not their job.

You make a good point, but I'd claim that the throwdown's we're talking about are in the same class as a stolen or muggled container:

 

No if the original cache is not there any longer, there is nothing to be found for honest cachers.

If the original is still there, the situation is different.

 

One might add a comment to the cache description. Moreover, future visitors could remove the throwdown.

If nobody helped out, I would visit my cache once, but then remove it and archive it.

I would be not willing to waste my time.

 

Cezanne

[+SwineFlew]

I would be very careful about deleting logs because sometime the person that threw down a cache didnt sign the log or log it online. I know a case that I found a cache and there was no signature on the log after a long list of DNF logs. No, the CO didn't placed it there.

 

The game itself is going down hill. The ball was kicked downhill once powertrail was allowed and there is no stopping the ball now.

[Clan Riffster]

...once powertrail was allowed and there is no stopping the ball now.

Groundspeak could stop the ball, if they chose to.

But some time ago they recognize the dollar value of the numbers game.

Since then, it's been about quantity, not quality.

[+Ma & Pa]

...once powertrail was allowed and there is no stopping the ball now.

Groundspeak could stop the ball, if they chose to.

But some time ago they recognize the dollar value of the numbers game.

Since then, it's been about quantity, not quality.

 

We love the quality

We love the quantity

We love the power trails

We love biking the power trails

We love hiking the power trails

We love the views

We love the Interstate rest areas

We love the cemeteries

 

We love going downhill

[+NeverSummer]

 

Fading away can take many forms. In a game where find count gets you no tangible rewards, they are only cheating themselves.

 

If that were only true. What about the cache owners who have to make an extra trip to remove the throw-down? What about the searchers who are deprived of experiencing the original hide as set out by the cache owner?

 

As far as tangible rewards? How about recognition on local club websites for reaching certain milestones? Events held in honor of cachers who reach certain milestones? Geocoins awarded to cachers who reach certain milestones? Golden ammo cans presented to geocachers who reach certain milestones (maybe today it should be a golden film canister)? Or perhaps or the celebrity status of being a numbers hound (I've actually seen people lining up to talk with them or posing for photos with them as if they were Madonna, Brad Pitt or Art Linkletter).

 

Everyone seems to have misinterpreted what I mean by "cheating". I used "cheat", and I meant it as such. I shouldn't have to post a dictionary definition of the word for one to know its meaning... For example, one could be defrauded by the cheat, but semantics are best left alone, methinks...

 

I see how it can affect others in the game, but it doesn't "cheat" anyone other than the liar. I was only intending for my comment to apply toward the "cheater", not the owner or future finders. The lair, fraud, swindler, cheat is just that. Are they a waste a cache owner's time? Sure. Cause distress to a cache owner? Why not.

 

I don't feel "cheated", "defrauded", or "swindled" when someone logs my cache online but doesn't sign the logbook, however. I simply audit the logbook, and delete the online log which doesn't check out. Then, if there happens to be an issue with my cache container, location or the like, I deal with my obligation to whatever the case calls for.

 

In my earlier post I mention that you (one) can (may) control how you play: How you place caches, deal with your cache listing, how you find caches, and how you log caches. We have responsibilities as cache owners to maintain our listings and cache hides. If that means a trip out to my cache to remove a possible throwdown, I know that it comes with the territory of cache ownership. I can remove the throwdown, make a note on the cache page, delete any log I see fit based on the guidelines provided for gameplay, and send a report if I desire. Bottom line is that I--we--have an obligation to maintain our cache containers, cache contents, cache locations, cache listings, and online cache logs. If a throwdown was placed and I don't want it there, I should go remove it--not ask someone else to do it for me. It just comes with the territory.

 

Report them, yes. Remove throwdowns from your cache site, yes. Dislike the behavior, and work to steer the game away from those behaviors in the future, yes. Let it take over your emotions so that it angers and "stresses you out"? No.

 

As for "tangible rewards", I've never personally received a "reward" for my finds. I know that, when I joined this listing site, people who had 1000 finds were incredible examples of achievement, and usually were thrown an event to recognize them. Nowadays, 1000 can be done in 48 hours. But, if someone is "outed" as having logged more caches online than had actually signed, I doubt the party would be as celebratory. So, out them. Delete their logs if the name wasn't on your logbook. That is your "right" as a cache owner on the listing service of Geocaching.com, brought to you by Groundspeak. Just be completely aware that mistakes are made, and things aren't always what they seem. Frauds and swindlers will, in my experience, stop the behavior when outed. If they don't quit, they are a sociopath, and there is nothing that can truly be done other than to keep up on your own cache maintenance.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm an ungrateful cache owner who has no idea of what geocaching is about.

 

How do I know this?

 

Over the past year I've had four of my caches "replaced" without someone asking in advance if I wanted them to do this.

 

In two of the these case I found out about because I got private email - before the caches were logged - saying that they were pretty sure the cache was missing so they left a new cache, and that if that was not OK with with me they would not log a find.

 

When I responded that it was not OK with me, in each case I got another email basically saying that most cache owners are grateful that cachers are willing to help one another out and leave caches when someone's cache goes missing, particularly one in a location that is difficult to get to. They told me that it wasn't simply that they couldn't find the cache, but others had DNF'd the cache as well they were pretty certain it was gone. Also they would not have replaced my cache if they didn't have a similar container (but I think this means any micro is similar to any other micro, because neither of the replaced caches was the same kind of container that I hid; and unless they had called a previous hider, they really would not have known the kind of container I hid).

 

In one of the response I indicated that I would not delete a find if they choose to log one, but that I would probably post a note to indicate that I did not approve of the replacement. That was the wrong thing to say. It was strongly thrown back at me that no find log had been entered pending my instruction. I still have the impression that there was an expectation that I would be grateful for the replacement and happy to allow a find. Apparently, some who log finds on throwdowns do so only because cache owners tell them to do so. But I wonder if I had said, "Thank you for replacing my cache but you really didn't find anything" what they would have done. Or what they would do if they got no response from me>

 

The other two replacements were logged as finds.

 

In one the log seems to indicate that I can delete it if I don't approve of the replacement. I did not delete the log but instead posted a note indicating that I don't approve of throwdowns. That note earned me an email from a different cacher indicating that I was making too big of a deal of the well intentioned cacher trying to help. It stated that it was no big deal if there were now two cache there. The point of geocaching is to go and have fun and most cacher would not care or even know that found the replacement and not my cache. One the other hand, my cache might really be missing, and without the replacement I would either have to make the maintenance trip to replace it or others would have no cache to find and the cache should be archived.

 

The final cache which was logged as found, I got a private email saying again that they would change the log to a DNF if I asked. Instead I asked that the mention of replacing the cache be removed. I also provided a spoiler as to where the cache was and it appears that the cacher may not have looked there. That cacher remove the comment about replacing the cache, but kept the find.

 

I have little doubt that some in the forum will say I did the right thing - or perhaps even that I was too lenient. But I wonder instead if it was all worth it. It may be easier to thank the cachers for helping out, indicate that it is their choice whether to log a find, and request that for my caches, at least, they forgo making replacements from now on. Unless someone has a particularly difficult hide or very special container, it doesn't seem there is a strong reason to argue against replacements.

[+wmpastor]

Logging "maintenance" notes after a couple of DNF's might discourage the "throw-down" fanatics. And make sure the difficulty rating is high enough. Not finding something doesn't prove it's missing. I don't want throw-downs - they cause confusion, and really mainly benefit the seeker, who can claim a find while mistakenly telling himself he's a thoughtful hero.

[+QuiltinNana]

To me claiming a find on a container that you thrown down yourself is like a CO logging a find on their own container when they first place the container. You didn't find anything - you put something there.

 

If I don't find the container, I log a DNF. I don't care if the cache owner allows replacements, I'm not doing it for them. I will however, put a fresh log sheet in the container or replace a ripped up baggie, or dump water out and move the contents to a new bag if needed.

[+Mudfrog]

To me claiming a find on a container that you thrown down yourself is like a CO logging a find on their own container when they first place the container. You didn't find anything - you put something there.

 

If I don't find the container, I log a DNF. I don't care if the cache owner allows replacements, I'm not doing it for them. I will however, put a fresh log sheet in the container or replace a ripped up baggie, or dump water out and move the contents to a new bag if needed.

 

I most definitely agree!

[+BAMBOOZLE]

...once powertrail was allowed and there is no stopping the ball now.

Groundspeak could stop the ball, if they chose to.

But some time ago they recognize the dollar value of the numbers game.

Since then, it's been about quantity, not quality.

 

We love the quality

We love the quantity

We love the power trails

We love biking the power trails

We love hiking the power trails

We love the views

We love the Interstate rest areas

We love the cemeteries

 

We love going downhill

 

+1.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Unless someone has a particularly difficult hide or very special container, it doesn't seem there is a strong reason to argue against replacements.

 

This is what I feel regarding replacements.

As far as multiple containers at GZ, so what. Its happened on a few of my caches.....I don't care which one ( or two, or three ) they log.This is just a simple, fun game we play and we should keep it that way.

[cezanne]

Unless someone has a particularly difficult hide or very special container, it doesn't seem there is a strong reason to argue against replacements.

 

This is what I feel regarding replacements.

As far as multiple containers at GZ, so what. Its happened on a few of my caches.....I don't care which one ( or two, or three ) they log.This is just a simple, fun game we play and we should keep it that way.

 

I do have several concerns with that somehow easy line of approach.

 

First, Groundspeak added a statement that they wish the cache owners to remove throwdowns, something I'm not willing to do.

Second, a lot of the throwdowns (I'm not talking about replacements where the cache owner has been contacted in advance and agreed)

come along with the trend that some cachers think that they are entitled to log a found it for a cache once they can prove that they have been

at the location. There is an ever increasing number of cachers who expect a cache owner to allow found it logs if the logger sends a photo of the cache location and who get very angry

and inpolite if the cache owner is replying that they should log a did not find. What fits to that trend is the development that if several cachers hide a cache together the ones who do not own the cache write a find out log for the cache and refer to themselves a beta testers something which seems incredibly silly to me just in the same way as to log a "found it" for a cache container one has not found and in some cases even has placed.

Third, if at a cache location there are more than one container and one (let's say the throwdown) is in a very bad condition, NM logs will be posted and one has to get to ground zero just to realize that one's own container is perfectly fine anyway.

 

Yes, geocaching might be a game for many (for me it is an outdoor physical activity), but ending up in debates with other cachers about issues that seem absurd to me is definitely not something which I regard as fun. This sort of debates can nowadays only be avoided if you say yes to almost everything and let everyone do what they want.

 

Cezanne

[4wheelin_fool]

There is a cacher (a married couple) from Florida who recently came through California and Oregon. They logged MANY finds in my small town. Some were legitimate but some were not. They are "replacing" caches that are not missing. In some cases they are just not finding a cache so they drop a replacement and log it as a find. In two of these instances the actual cache was fewer than 3 feet from their replacement and was clearly visibile. In other cases they didn't bring TOTT and (since they couldn't retrieve the cache) just dropped a replacement and logged a smiley.

.

 

That's just plain annoying.

 

In one instance we found that they physically took a cache from it's location (it was a small) and placed it INSIDE another cache (a large) several miles away.

 

But THATS disturbing.

 

There is a difference between a general discussion about common behavior that many find distasteful, and doing something completely wrong. Moving caches a few miles indicates that perhaps they should receive an e-mail telling them to just stop it. Perhaps they are living in an imaginary celebrity geocaching bubble that needs to be burst.

[+lamoracke]

 

What fits to that trend is the development that if several cachers hide a cache together the ones who do not own the cache write a find out log for the cache and refer to themselves a beta testers something which seems incredibly silly to me just in the same way as to log a "found it" for a cache container one has not found and in some cases even has placed.

 

Yes, geocaching might be a game for many (for me it is an outdoor physical activity), but ending up in debates with other cachers about issues that seem absurd to me is definitely not something which I regard as fun. This sort of debates can nowadays only be avoided if you say yes to almost everything and let everyone do what they want.

 

Cezanne

 

So, you think its silly for folks to "beta test" caches, but you think its less silly for these cachers to go back to Ground Zero later and pretend they do not remember where the cache is and waste gas and time to get there just to sign it on a different random day? To me a cache is either one you own or you can find as it will be an unfound cache on your map, so, in those cases, you would expect either a cacher to permanently ignore the cache or go back there once again and do it all over again whether it was a park n grab, climb a tree, whatever.

 

You mention caching can lose its fun due to debates, but making opinions whether folks should beta test and calling the people who do it and the practice "incredibly silly" seems to be part of the debate landscape about making it not fun. A beta test find is up to the cacher in question and the CO, not sure why you would care. The only time I can imagine a beta test find would rile someone up is when they claim FTF, which most beta testers do not in my experience. If its not fun to debate about it, why are you debating about it?

 

I am not going to brag about making a tough find on a beta test, but on the rare time I have helped a CO hide a cache, whether I was just there for the hike, helped find the location, helped find the hiding spot, actually supplied the container, or some combination, I will gladly log a beta test because in my opinion a cache is either available to be found or I hide it. So, I have padded my #s from 8650 to 8660 by beta tests, whoopie.

[+Mudfrog]

Unless someone has a particularly difficult hide or very special container, it doesn't seem there is a strong reason to argue against replacements.

 

This is what I feel regarding replacements.

As far as multiple containers at GZ, so what. Its happened on a few of my caches.....I don't care which one ( or two, or three ) they log.This is just a simple, fun game we play and we should keep it that way.

 

I agree it is simple. Finding a container and signing the logsheet is very simple. Yet some people have trouble figuring out this basic concept. They somehow justify to themselves that it's ok to log a find on a cache (throwdown) that they put out themselves.

 

This in itself doesn't bother me too much, do what you want with your find count. But in my case, i typically don't utilize baggies by themselves, 35mm film pots, nanos, matchstick holders, magnetic keyboxes, or bison tubes. You know, the types of containers that throwdowns usually consist of. The containers i put out are the ones i want cachers to find. I'll try to get out as soon as i can to check my cache if there looks to be a problem with it. The thing is, about half the time there is no problem.

[cezanne]

So, you think its silly for folks to "beta test" caches, but you think its less silly for these cachers to go back to Ground Zero later and pretend they do not remember where the cache is and waste gas and time to get there just to sign it on a different random day?

 

Frankly, I both regard as silly. I have hidden several caches together with someone else and it would not have occured me to log them as found it regardless when.

I did not mention coming back later as this is much more uncommon in my region and most of the caches I have in mind are not drive in caches, but hiking caches as I do not read the logs of those.

 

You mention caching can lose its fun due to debates, but making opinions whether folks should beta test and calling the people who do it and the practice "incredibly silly" seems to be part of the debate landscape about making it not fun. A beta test find is up to the cacher in question and the CO, not sure why you would care. The only time I can imagine a beta test find would rile someone up is when they claim FTF, which most beta testers do not in my experience. If its not fun to debate about it, why are you debating about it?

 

First, for me it is absuse of the term "betatest" to use it when one hides a cache together. New cachers will not learn in that manner what a betatest really means.

 

Second, what I meant with debate is not a discussion in a forum where I can decide on my own whether I take part or not, but the implicit pressure put on cache owners to reply posivitely to whatever they are asked. I'd like to have the freedom to say no to a request for a found it log when the cache went missing without ending up in a debate that almost all others react positively to such requests. It somehow spoils my fun as my caches is regarded when cachers that started to cache much later than myself are telling me how I have to handle my caches.

 

I am not going to brag about making a tough find on a beta test, but on the rare time I have helped a CO hide a cache, whether I was just there for the hike, helped find the location, helped find the hiding spot, actually supplied the container, or some combination, I will gladly log a beta test because in my opinion a cache is either available to be found or I hide it. So, I have padded my #s from 8650 to 8660 by beta tests, whoopie.

 

I do neither care about my own found count nor about that of others. What I really hate however is that if I'm expected to allow found it logs on my caches if they gone missing. I prefer to disable such a cache, go there and hide a new container and enable the cache again or to archive the cache. A found it log on a cache of mine where the cache container is missing somehow disturbs me, but that's an issue of logics and proper usage of terms, both things that I value highly.

I mentioned this sort of beta test logs because they fit into the idea of deserving a found it log for having been present at the cache location.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited September 26, 2013 by cezanne

[+CanadianRockies]

I am not going to brag about making a tough find on a beta test, but on the rare time I have helped a CO hide a cache, whether I was just there for the hike, helped find the location, helped find the hiding spot, actually supplied the container, or some combination, I will gladly log a beta test because in my opinion a cache is either available to be found or I hide it. So, I have padded my #s from 8650 to 8660 by beta tests, whoopie.

Like cezanne, I find this practice to be "silly." It doesn't rile me up when other people do it, but I do roll my eyes a little.

 

To me "beta testing" means I'm given coordinates before publication and use my GPSr to find the cache. In that case, I'll write my name in the log book but not claim an FTF.

 

If I accompany a cache owner while they hide the cache, then I don't bother logging a find for that cache. So my numbers are 8650 instead of 8660. No big deal. I add the cache to my Ignore List and don't worry about it. I don't need to find every cache that's out there.

[+tozainamboku]

Unless someone has a particularly difficult hide or very special container, it doesn't seem there is a strong reason to argue against replacements.

 

This is what I feel regarding replacements.

As far as multiple containers at GZ, so what. Its happened on a few of my caches.....I don't care which one ( or two, or three ) they log.This is just a simple, fun game we play and we should keep it that way.

 

I agree it is simple. Finding a container and signing the logsheet is very simple. Yet some people have trouble figuring out this basic concept. They somehow justify to themselves that it's ok to log a find on a cache (throwdown) that they put out themselves.

 

This in itself doesn't bother me too much, do what you want with your find count. But in my case, i typically don't utilize baggies by themselves, 35mm film pots, nanos, matchstick holders, magnetic keyboxes, or bison tubes. You know, the types of containers that throwdowns usually consist of. The containers i put out are the ones i want cachers to find. I'll try to get out as soon as i can to check my cache if there looks to be a problem with it. The thing is, about half the time there is no problem.

Some people have this silly overly serious view of what is just a fun pasttime. They invent strict rules for logging a find online and then call anyone who doesn't follow their rules a cheater. Those who just want to have fun realize that not finding a cache because the owner can't or won't check on every report of a DNF can be frustrating and less fun for the next cacher. They leave the replacement knowing the some cache owners are puritans about it and may delete a find log. Many will not log the find on the replacement until they get approval from the cache owner. Maybe they know that most cache owners are not puritans and will happily accept the replacement and allow the find to be logged. But the argument that people are leaving replacments because they are too lazy to actually search and too concerned with numbers to accept the DNF does not seem to be rooted in fact. Perhaps a small number of cacher leave replacements as way to pump up numbers, but mostly this seems to be a puritan lie (or at least an exaggeration).

 

My problem is that I would like the people who leave replacements to respect the preferences of the cache owner. If they make assumption that most cache owners are only too happy to accept the help, the replacement itself has already caused the owner hassles. Even it they won't log a find without permission or will accept a deleted log by an owner who doesn't approve of the replacement, the owner now needs to check on the replacement. Some owners may accept a replacement with an inferior container, or one that is hidden a few feet from the original hide which is still there. Other owners would have prefered that no replacement be left. The simple fact that an owner may have delayed a maintenance visit does not indicate a preference for a replacement. It may indicate the need for a Needs Maintenance log or even Needs Archive but it should not be used to automatically decide this cache should be replaced. Ascribing false motives to people who leave replacments will do nothing to stem the tide of this practice. Instead we need some better way to inform cachers not to make assumptions about the desires of cache owners regarding seemingly missing caches.

Edited September 26, 2013 by tozainamboku

[Clan Riffster]

To me "beta testing" means I'm given coordinates before publication and use my GPSr to find the cache.

That's always been my understanding of the term. I hide a lot of Wherigo caches, which can get complex. Prior to publication, I'll invite my friends to test drive it. I send them a link to the Wherigo file, and give them whatever information would be relavent from the cache page, (size, D/T, hint, etc), and tell them to go for it. I tell them they are welcome to log it as an FTF, if they wish. Mostly, they don't.

[+Manville Possum]

...once powertrail was allowed and there is no stopping the ball now.

Groundspeak could stop the ball, if they chose to.

But some time ago they recognize the dollar value of the numbers game.

Since then, it's been about quantity, not quality.

Now we have geoart, just another type of power trails.

[+fbingha]

cacher to permanently ignore the cache

 

Yes, exactly this. I think silly things about those who log "beta find" so that they can get a cheap smiley.

 

Sometimes, my children are with me when I hide a cache. They have their own account but I do not allow them to log my caches that they see me hide. They seem to understand why as they have no interest in logging them since they did not find them on their own.

 

 

[+lamoracke]

 

Now we have geoart, just another type of power trails.

 

You must have a different definition than me. They can be apples and oranges. There is GeoArt like some puzzle series in my area, BUGZ, NUTS, PEACE, WSGA, and the Temple. All puzzles and the hides are all done by different people and all over the place. No one who has done them would call them a power trail. Perhaps you are thinking of some high profile ones out in the desert. Not all Geoart is a power trail.

Edited September 26, 2013 by lamoracke

[+lamoracke]

cacher to permanently ignore the cache

 

Yes, exactly this. I think silly things about those who log "beta find" so that they can get a cheap smiley.

 

Sometimes, my children are with me when I hide a cache. They have their own account but I do not allow them to log my caches that they see me hide. They seem to understand why as they have no interest in logging them since they did not find them on their own.

 

Well, think of most cachers I know as silly as its a very (but not 100%) common practice in the Pacific Northwest so if you want to call almost all my friends cheap, go for it, am sure everyone has some behavior that someone finds odd. I was there. Had my GPS in hand, probably used it. Helped find a hiding spot. Hiked there. Got wet in the process most times. Signed the log. Seems a find in my book. They hid it, I found it, I signed it. No cheaper than a lamppost find or most of my other finds that are quick. I'd rather find such a cache than have it clutter up an ignore page and see it there for years and years and then wonder why its there. Its not like folks are padding their numbers that much with the odd beta test find. Twisty knickers.

[+frinklabs]

we need some better way to inform cachers not to make assumptions about the desires of cache owners regarding seemingly missing caches.

 

How about a new attribute?

 

Throw downs OK:

 

 

Don't throw down:

 

[cezanne]

cacher to permanently ignore the cache

 

Yes, exactly this. I think silly things about those who log "beta find" so that they can get a cheap smiley.

 

Sometimes, my children are with me when I hide a cache. They have their own account but I do not allow them to log my caches that they see me hide. They seem to understand why as they have no interest in logging them since they did not find them on their own.

 

Well, think of most cachers I know as silly as its a very (but not 100%) common practice in the Pacific Northwest so if you want to call almost all my friends cheap, go for it, am sure everyone has some behavior that someone finds odd. I was there. Had my GPS in hand, probably used it. Helped find a hiding spot. Hiked there. Got wet in the process most times. Signed the log. Seems a find in my book. They hid it, I found it, I signed it. No cheaper than a lamppost find or most of my other finds that are quick. I'd rather find such a cache than have it clutter up an ignore page and see it there for years and years and then wonder why its there. Its not like folks are padding their numbers that much with the odd beta test find. Twisty knickers.

 

Let me clarify that when I used the term stupid, I meant that beta test logs of the described type are stupid in my eyes. I was not using this term for the cachers that write such logs and I would not use silly either. For me there is a clear distinction between human beings and some of their actions. "Beta test" logs of described kind have also become common in my area with in the last years, but this does not change my personal opinion. When I started geocaching, no one even would have thought of beta test logs by someone who was present when the cache has been hidden. I still stick with my approach back then and I do it even though I cannot put a cache on an ignore list as I'm not a PM.

 

If someone who was present when the cache had been hidden, absolutely wants to log a find, then I'd prefer if the log just mentions this fact and at least refrains from using the term beta test in the log. A beta test is a means of quality control from my point of view and it is difficult to explain to newbies that it might make sense to have their caches (in particular if they are more complex) beta-tested when they get exposed to routine logs of beta-tests which are no tests at all.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited September 26, 2013 by cezanne

[+SwineFlew]

we need some better way to inform cachers not to make assumptions about the desires of cache owners regarding seemingly missing caches.

 

How about a new attribute?

 

Throw downs OK:

 

 

Don't throw down:

 

 

I call those virtual cache becuase u can log it without finding the cache.

[+NeverSummer]

To look back at the OP, the pattern I notice is that there are many finds of power trails for the user. Call me crazy, but I would guess that the owners of power trails are not heading out to audit their logbooks for signatures, especially when we know about the embraced practice of throwdowns in the cases of said powertrails.

 

It comes back to a maintenance plan, IMO. How can someone have so many caches (often not really that close to home for them) and regularly maintain them? By the good graces of the community, some will argue...by passing the buck, others will argue. Bottom line, those 35k finds are recent, completed en masse, and likely not checked against a physical logbook.

 

Low hanging fruit for a "numbers cacher".

[+Manville Possum]

 

Now we have geoart, just another type of power trails.

 

You must have a different definition than me. They can be apples and oranges. There is GeoArt like some puzzle series in my area, BUGZ, NUTS, PEACE, WSGA, and the Temple. All puzzles and the hides are all done by different people and all over the place. No one who has done them would call them a power trail. Perhaps you are thinking of some high profile ones out in the desert. Not all Geoart is a power trail.

We have a Hog Trail in West Virginia. They are all ? unknown cache types that form a pig on the map. The geocaches are placed 0.1 mile apart along the King Coal highway. If that ain't a power trail I'll kiss a pig. Here is a link to view the Hog Trail. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?tx=40861821-1835-4e11-b666-8d41064d03fe&u=HMGT

We completed the HMGT caches and the Lab caches at the MEGA event last month.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Manville Possum Hunters

[Clan Riffster]

 

Now we have geoart, just another type of power trails.

 

You must have a different definition than me. They can be apples and oranges.

I agree. Those folks who create geo-art out of traditionals have, in my opinion, accomplished something pretty kewl. But that doesn't seem to be the current trend, based on what I've seen. These days, it seems that folks creating geo-art just spew out what anyone would identify as a power trail, (P&Gs along some boring road, every 529'), then use puzzle icons placed to define the art, oft with the coordinates right on the cache page. To say all geo-art are power trails is, in my mind, inaccurate. A better statement would be almost all geo-art are power trails.