Jump to content

Can a "bad" cacher be reported?


eaglesong

Recommended Posts

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.

It's common down here in the San Francisco bay area, too. On the one hand, I agree with the logic that says these are not finds. But in practice, I think people see it as the CO giving a present of a free find to the people with him when he hid the cache without regard to whether that's logical.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

I agree, most seem like power trails. The only one we've done, the Alien Head in Roswell , is not unless you think a 5 mile hike in a 100 deg dessert is a PT.I got a shock when we flushed an antelope who was about 10' away , saw a few dessert tarantulas, and had a very good time overall.

Link to comment

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

"Beta testing" has been common practice in my area ever since we started, so 11 years now. It may be newer in your area, but at least here, this isn't a new trend.

Link to comment

1cd6dce8-46f4-478d-8c44-32de9a881be7.jpg?rnd=0.6465047

 

That's right.

 

You simply say, "found it, but my pen wouldn't work", and good ole Toz will understand.:D

The problem I have with expressing the reason I don't like throwdowns is that both sides will disagree with me.

 

I am not the least bit bothered that people leaving throwdowns - whether with the cache owner's permission or not - log a find. Nor am I concerned with all the side noise in this thread about logging finds when you are with the cache owner when he hides the cache.

 

It appears that many people would be quite happy with throwdowns if the people leaving them didn't log a find. I've certainly seen evidence that many of the people leaving throwdowns are happy to accept the decision of the cache owner to delete a Found It log (or to not have log a find in the first place unless the owner approves).

 

People seem to be upset when I say that the throwdown is not helpful.

 

Some cache owners take great pride in their caches, even when the hide is somewhat ordinary. They want the hide to reflect their personality and not just be a generic hide. Other cache owners don't care much. They hide caches just so there is something to find. Their caches are generic. It doesn't matter if the container or even the style of hide changes.

 

We more often see this argument about cache locations - with some owners picking great locations and other just putting out a cache becase there is a gap on the trail or a lamppost 528 ft from any other cache. It may be that some throwdowns are left to ensure there is a cache to find at a great location. But I suspect that this is rarely the motivation. Instead, the idea is to keep the number of caches that are "findable" to a maximum. Rather than having spots that people might skip because of all the DNFs, they leave a replacement so that others have something to find. Throwdowns tend to replace caches with ones of lower quality. I believe they encourage lower quality placements to begin with as well. At a minimum they cause lower quality caches to last longer than they wwould otherwise.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

 

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.

 

Now that, I think is silly. I haven't found a lot of Geoart caches, but the ones I have, I hiked through the sandy desert from cache to cache, finding four to five an hour and logging several miles on my hiking boots.

Link to comment

It appears that many people would be quite happy with throwdowns if the people leaving them didn't log a find.

I don't know about anyone else, but I object to logging the find because I claim that's why people do throwdowns. I agree with you that the throwdown itself is the evil, I just like to point out that, in addition to the other arguments against throwdowns, throwing down a throwdown doesn't logically justify logging a find. I think that observation alone would prevent 95% of all throwdowns. After that, we can engaged the somewhat more subtle arguments about the negative impacts to try to wipe out the remaining 5% done by people that are acting only because they truly think they're doing a good deed.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

Now that, I think is silly. I haven't found a lot of Geoart caches, but the ones I have, I hiked through the sandy desert from cache to cache, finding four to five an hour and logging several miles on my hiking boots.

Yeah, that's how it used to be. I belong to a Faceybook group which lists geo-art. Up until recently, all the art would be traditionals, with the occasional letterbox hybrid or multi tossed in for color. But lately, what we've been seeing is power trails, (caches placed 529' along some boring stretch of roadway), with puzzles building the artwork. It's what I call the lazy man's geo-art. I'd love to see this trend change, but I won't hold my breath.

Link to comment

It appears that many people would be quite happy with throwdowns if the people leaving them didn't log a find.

I don't know about anyone else, but I object to logging the find because I claim that's why people do throwdowns. I agree with you that the throwdown itself is the evil, I just like to point out that, in addition to the other arguments against throwdowns, throwing down a throwdown doesn't logically justify logging a find. I think that observation alone would prevent 95% of all throwdowns. After that, we can engaged the somewhat more subtle arguments about the negative impacts to try to wipe out the remaining 5% done by people that are acting only because they truly think they're doing a good deed.

You can claim that the reason for most throwdowns is to avoid the DNF and log a find instead, but I'm not sure I see any proof of this. As I pointed out earlier, each time one of my caches was replaced this past year, the people doing the replacement either sent email that they would not log the find until they got approval from me, or they logged a find but indicated that I could delete it if I desired.

 

I might agree that most people leaving throwdowns expect that cache owners will allow a find. When I responded to the two cases where I got email before the cache was logged, I got follow up email that stating the most cache owners appreciate the help (which I read as saying that I was an ungrateful bastard). It could be that people feel that allowing the find is deserved as a thank you or it could be that most owners don't bother to delete any logs.

 

Despite attempts over the years for a small group of puritans to define what constitutes a find and to make up rules that limit the use of the Found It log, Geocaching.com has decided to allow cache owners to determine when to delete logs. While Groundspeak could tell cache owners to stop allowing finds on throwdowns, I'm not sure how they would enforce this. Many caches owners will insist that they can give blanket permission for anyone to replace their cache, and even more will argue that once they accept the replacement it makes no sense to make the person who left it have to return for another visit to log it. Throwdowns may move underground with the details taken care of in private email and not showing up in logs.

 

Even if you could enforce a "no find on a throwdown" rule, I suspect that many cachers would still leave them for the reasons I gave above. These cachers perceive a missing cache as something that needs replacing and they believe that they are helping out cache owners by doing maintenance when they are in the area. I believe the only way to reduce the number of unwanted throwdowns is educate people as to why they are not universally appreciated.

Link to comment

I will not tolerate throwdowns on any of my caches.

 

If you didn't find the cache I placed, it's a DNF...plain and simple.

 

I'm sorry, but that is how it goes sometimes.

 

Post your DNF and I will have a look in due course...unless of course someone else finds it after you. :)

 

You are NOT 'doing me a favor' by replacing it and claiming a 'Found It', you are pumping your own numbers and everyone knows it.

 

I should post this on my profile page, as if anyone will notice or care. <_<

Link to comment

I am in the camp of "no throw-downs". I have in a few cases seen where a very clever/difficult cache hide was compromised because someone decided it was missing and they threw down a film canister (doing the CO a favor). I then saw subsequent finders not having the joy/aggravation/challenge of finding the original cache that had not been moved, because they immediately found the throw-down at GZ and not realizing it was a throw-down, stopped looking for the original. On a few occasions I have posted a note on the cache page that stated that from their logs, they did not find the cache and had missed out on the fun of the find. When a CO places a cache, they should be willing to check on it once in a while when it appears to have or has been noted that it has a problem. I know I don't have the numbers of hides that many do so my maintenance requirements are not as intense as some others CO's therefore I can probably maintain them a little easier. My hides are limited as I really want to provide something a little out of the norm for the caching community. Personal preference. Do I enjoy finding LPC's, etc. Sure! (I'll probably never hide one, but...)If nothing else is convenient, then I enjoy going for the hunt, even if it is trying to figure out which side of the skirt to look under. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

The throw-down thing wouldn't be so bad if cache owners could go along behind someone and pick up all the ammo cans and lock-n-locks. Unfortunately, this type cacher seems addicted to trashy and cheap film containers.

If you must leave a throwdown, leave a better container and hide it a least as well as the original was.

 

Oh wait, you didn't find the original - so you don't know for sure what kind of container it was or how the cache was hidden?

Link to comment

If you must leave a throwdown, leave a better container and hide it a least as well as the original was.

 

Oh wait, you didn't find the original - so you don't know for sure what kind of container it was or how the cache was hidden?

Just to be fair. I suspect that many, if not most, throwdowns are meant to be a temporary fix. Cachers who leave a throwdown are usually pretty sure the cache is missing and also that it has been missing for some period of time. The cache owner has had ample time to check on the cache, or at least disable the listing. Since the owner seems to have been unable to do this, the person leaving the throwndown is trying to ensure the other cachers will have something to find at ground zero. When the owner gets around to doing the maintenance they can replace the container if they don't want it; they can rehide it or another container in the manner they want; or they just remove it if they find their original cache is still there. Given the intent is a temporary stopgap until the owner does maintenance, those leaving the cache are not particularly concerned with quality.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

If you must leave a throwdown, leave a better container and hide it a least as well as the original was.

 

Oh wait, you didn't find the original - so you don't know for sure what kind of container it was or how the cache was hidden?

Just to be fair. I suspect that many, if not most, throwdowns are meant to be a temporary fix. Cachers who leave a throwdown are usually pretty sure the cache is missing and also that it has been missing for some period of time. The cache owner has had ample time to check on the cache, or at least disable the listing. Since the owner seems to have been unable to do this, the person leaving the throwndown is trying to ensure the other cachers will have something to find at ground zero. When the owner gets around to doing the maintenance they can replace the container if they don't want it; they can rehide it or another container in the manner they want; or they just remove it if they find their original cache is still there. Given the intent is a temporary stopgap until the owner does maintenance, those leaving the cache are not particularly concerned with quality.

 

If cache owner is unable to do required maintenance, unable to arrange for maintenance or unable to disable the listing until they are able to do said maintenance then it should be archived, let's face it who is going to look after the throw down? I'm sure that if that particular spot is such a great spot someone else will come and place a decent cache there in time.

Link to comment

The throw-down thing wouldn't be so bad if cache owners could go along behind someone and pick up all the ammo cans and lock-n-locks. Unfortunately, this type cacher seems addicted to trashy and cheap film containers.

If you must leave a throwdown, leave a better container and hide it a least as well as the original was.

 

Oh wait, you didn't find the original - so you don't know for sure what kind of container it was or how the cache was hidden?

Quite a conundrum.

Link to comment

If you must leave a throwdown, leave a better container and hide it a least as well as the original was.

 

Oh wait, you didn't find the original - so you don't know for sure what kind of container it was or how the cache was hidden?

Just to be fair. I suspect that many, if not most, throwdowns are meant to be a temporary fix. Cachers who leave a throwdown are usually pretty sure the cache is missing and also that it has been missing for some period of time. The cache owner has had ample time to check on the cache, or at least disable the listing. Since the owner seems to have been unable to do this, the person leaving the throwndown is trying to ensure the other cachers will have something to find at ground zero. When the owner gets around to doing the maintenance they can replace the container if they don't want it; they can rehide it or another container in the manner they want; or they just remove it if they find their original cache is still there. Given the intent is a temporary stopgap until the owner does maintenance, those leaving the cache are not particularly concerned with quality.

 

If cache owner is unable to do required maintenance, unable to arrange for maintenance or unable to disable the listing until they are able to do said maintenance then it should be archived, let's face it who is going to look after the throw down? I'm sure that if that particular spot is such a great spot someone else will come and place a decent cache there in time.

 

Exactly.

 

It's especially frustrating when someone has started the process of eventual archival, by posting an NM. Then along comes some who throws down a candy tin to give other people something to find. Then 2 months later that tin gets rusty and the contents are soaked. Someone posts an NM, then along comes someone who puts a new logsheet in a new baggie into the rusty tin. 2 months later someone reports a soggy logsheet, etc. etc. I know a couple of caches like this that have limped along for a couple of years. Finding a soggy moldy mess is not a pleasant caching experience.

Link to comment

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.

 

Agree..... it is not s simple case of they are just cheating and hurting themselves - briansnat said it best.

Link to comment

The throw-down thing wouldn't be so bad if cache owners could go along behind someone and pick up all the ammo cans and lock-n-locks. Unfortunately, this type cacher seems addicted to trashy and cheap film containers.

If you must leave a throwdown, leave a better container and hide it a least as well as the original was.

 

Oh wait, you didn't find the original - so you don't know for sure what kind of container it was or how the cache was hidden?

 

But, what if you have found the cache? I have only replaced a cache once without prior permission. I didn't have an ammo can, but I did leave a substantial plastic container. That was in Jan or '07 on a T4 far up in the mountains. 33 finds so far on my container.

 

Would I do it again? Probably not. The idea that I was leaving something for future cachers to find worked 6+ years ago as the caches were few and far between, especially on that mountain. Now, there are plenty of other caches to be found up there. We used to hike 10 miles round trip and find 8 caches. Yesterday, I hiked 10 miles on another mountain and found 27 along with 3 DNFs. I saw no point in replacing those, especially since I don't know the owner and had not contacted him previously.

Link to comment

The throw-down thing wouldn't be so bad if cache owners could go along behind someone and pick up all the ammo cans and lock-n-locks. Unfortunately, this type cacher seems addicted to trashy and cheap film containers.

If you must leave a throwdown, leave a better container and hide it a least as well as the original was.

 

Oh wait, you didn't find the original - so you don't know for sure what kind of container it was or how the cache was hidden?

 

But, what if you have found the cache? I have only replaced a cache once without prior permission. I didn't have an ammo can, but I did leave a substantial plastic container. That was in Jan or '07 on a T4 far up in the mountains. 33 finds so far on my container.

 

Would I do it again? Probably not. The idea that I was leaving something for future cachers to find worked 6+ years ago as the caches were few and far between, especially on that mountain. Now, there are plenty of other caches to be found up there. We used to hike 10 miles round trip and find 8 caches. Yesterday, I hiked 10 miles on another mountain and found 27 along with 3 DNFs. I saw no point in replacing those, especially since I don't know the owner and had not contacted him previously.

 

Yes, it would have been nice to get a hold of the cache owner before doing anything. However, i would bet that in a case like yours where you had already found the cache and knew where it was supposed to be, that this CO would be grateful for the help. Especially since it was up on a mountain. I wouldn't consider this a throwdown...

Link to comment

I'm a GSAK nerd and i like statistics.

I find several cases like this ones but i never thought about reporting them. It was not because I'd think I'd be judged or threaten or something like that but because i believe geocaching should be "played" whatever you wanted it to and, if the owner sees someone log "I didn't find it so I've placed a new one where i think it might have been", shouldn't the owner do something about it? I know i would!

 

I'm already a bad guy for warning owners that leave their geocaches for several months (and several DNFs later) without maintenance, reporting the "all about the numbers" geocachers would not be a problem but it wouldn't stop them. If they are happy raising the found stats this way, only the owners have the power to stop them. I placed the cache, i know where it should be, i should replace a broken/missing container unless i ask someone else to help me. That i did and will do it again. Otherwise, no go. It's not fair and it leads to the double found situation, when the dropper leaves a cache and the next guy founds two containers, the original one (that the dropper DNF) and the new one nearby.

 

 

How about a new attribute?

 

Throw downs OK:

 

4c6554d9-00e7-4632-995c-d56c95b60626.jpg

 

Don't throw down:

 

e651b97d-e3d4-4d45-8027-f43fb0e7bd24.jpg

 

That's great, Groundspeak should adopt that attributes and make a log type.

 

Note

Found it

Didn't find it

I Didn't DNF, i logged my own container and dropped it

Link to comment

this has been a problem in Sacramento recently, A cacher from Denmark has been claiming finds here that he/she has not found. Another cacher and I saw logs in on some of our caches I which this person claimed it was raining cats and dogs. Well I have been caching here ever day as far back as Sept 1st and it never rained. So I check my caches an this so called person had never sign any logs, so I have been deleting all his logs on my caches. I filled out the above mentioned form for ground speak last night.

Link to comment

I will not tolerate throwdowns on any of my caches.

 

If you didn't find the cache I placed, it's a DNF...plain and simple.

 

I'm sorry, but that is how it goes sometimes.

 

Post your DNF and I will have a look in due course...unless of course someone else finds it after you. :)

 

You are NOT 'doing me a favor' by replacing it and claiming a 'Found It', you are pumping your own numbers and everyone knows it.

 

I should post this on my profile page, as if anyone will notice or care. <_<

+1

Link to comment

I will not tolerate throwdowns on any of my caches.

 

If you didn't find the cache I placed, it's a DNF...plain and simple.

 

I'm sorry, but that is how it goes sometimes.

 

Post your DNF and I will have a look in due course...unless of course someone else finds it after you. :)

 

You are NOT 'doing me a favor' by replacing it and claiming a 'Found It', you are pumping your own numbers and everyone knows it.

 

I should post this on my profile page, as if anyone will notice or care. <_<

+1

Unlike AZcachemeister, I will tolerate a throwdown on my cache. At least I won't go deleting logs and telling people that they need to log a DNF. Though that would probably work better than what I have done.

 

Generally people will leave a throwndown and then send me email asking permission to log the find. What I've done is replied that they can log a find if they want but that I will likely post a note to indicate that the replacement was left without permission. The response that I get is that since I won't give permission after the fact, they won't log the find; but that I am being ungrateful when most owners would have graciously accepted the replacement and allowed the find. Some are even taken aback that when I say that I won't delete a found log. After all, they would never log a Found on a replacment throwdown unless the owner gives permission. Yet if you don't give permmission you're an ungrateful bastard. Since I didn't respond with "Thank you for replacing my missing cache, you may log a find," they log a DNF log asking the next person remove the replacement they left and then post a NA complaining that the owner isn't doing maintenance. If you don't want the reputations of being an ungrateful SOB who doesn't understand that the game is more fun when there is a cache to find (no matter if it is a crappy container hidden several feet from the real cache), they you'd better not just tolerate the throwdown but be grateful for it.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...