Jump to content

Did I do the right thing here?


Recommended Posts

Try this link GC2JB0N

 

Did the CO delete your Note or NM log, then send you a not-so-nice email complaining that your Note/NM was rude? If not, then maybe your NA was a little premature even if it was likely needed.

I see your point about the throwdowns not being removed by the CO. That is a part of cache maintenance.

Link to comment

I guess I'm a glutton for punishment - what do you think, did I do the right thing here?

When taken in context with their other hides, I'd say yes. If you look through their other hides, it becomes clear that they haven't been maintaining their caches for some time now. Of all of their hides, this wouldn't have been the one I'd have started with, but it did have a problem as described in the NA log and the CO is free to rectify the problems anytime within the next few weeks if they want to have this cache continue to be available.

Link to comment

Well, here in Brazil I have many cases like this. I talked to the local reviewers and they advise me not to do anything.

 

In their opinion it´s the CO responsibility, and not a reviewer, to take care of the cache so a Throwdown is not a reviewer problem, it´s a CO problem.

 

In my opinion, and going against the reviewers opinion, I would pick up the cache and tell the guy that did the throwdown that I had his cache and the one he was supposed to find is probably not there and he should have kept it that way.

 

But, I respect the reviewers opinions, even tho I don´t agree with them, so when I find a situation like this I log a FOUND IT and say specifically: "I found the throwdown placed by "#$$$#$ and the CO is inactive for x months" this way if a different reviewers sees my logs he can deleted them if he thinks they are not according to the GS rules.

 

I hate throwdowns!!!!

Link to comment

 

But, I respect the reviewers opinions, even tho I don´t agree with them, so when I find a situation like this I log a FOUND IT and say specifically: "I found the throwdown placed by "#$$$#$ and the CO is inactive for x months" this way if a different reviewers sees my logs he can deleted them if he thinks they are not according to the GS rules.

 

The problem with doing that is that it doesn't get anybodies attention, it is just another Found log that is not going to raise any concerns unless somebody reads into it. Logging a NA brings it to the attention of reviewer/reviewers and somebody must then actively make a decision about it's future.

Link to comment

 

But, I respect the reviewers opinions, even tho I don´t agree with them, so when I find a situation like this I log a FOUND IT and say specifically: "I found the throwdown placed by "#$$$#$ and the CO is inactive for x months" this way if a different reviewers sees my logs he can deleted them if he thinks they are not according to the GS rules.

 

The problem with doing that is that it doesn't get anybodies attention, it is just another Found log that is not going to raise any concerns unless somebody reads into it. Logging a NA brings it to the attention of reviewer/reviewers and somebody must then actively make a decision about it's future.

 

I emailed all reviewers and they told me: "nothing we can do, it is the CO responsibility to keep the cache. If he is inactive it is not our problem."

 

So, even if I post a NA they will just leave it there since my reviewers, in my opinion, fell that there is no difference between a throwdown and replacement cache placed by the CO. In both cases the cache is ok to be found so no harm done.

 

I don´t agree with this but, it´s their call... maybe in other countries, with different reviewers my behavior would be different.

Link to comment

 

But, I respect the reviewers opinions, even tho I don´t agree with them, so when I find a situation like this I log a FOUND IT and say specifically: "I found the throwdown placed by "#$$$#$ and the CO is inactive for x months" this way if a different reviewers sees my logs he can deleted them if he thinks they are not according to the GS rules.

 

The problem with doing that is that it doesn't get anybodies attention, it is just another Found log that is not going to raise any concerns unless somebody reads into it. Logging a NA brings it to the attention of reviewer/reviewers and somebody must then actively make a decision about it's future.

 

I emailed all reviewers and they told me: "nothing we can do, it is the CO responsibility to keep the cache. If he is inactive it is not our problem."

 

So, even if I post a NA they will just leave it there since my reviewers, in my opinion, fell that there is no difference between a throwdown and replacement cache placed by the CO. In both cases the cache is ok to be found so no harm done.

 

I don´t agree with this but, it´s their call... maybe in other countries, with different reviewers my behavior would be different.

 

I would like to say most, if not all, North American reviewers do not recognize throwdowns as legitimate, and would have taken the action the reviewer did for the cache being discussed here. So true what you say about different reviewers in different countries. For example, many caches that involve what I'll call "illegal stunting" in Europe have been brought up here over the years. Such as rappelling off of an observation tower, climbing the girders to the top of an active bridge, or climbing the metal framework of a shopping mall sign. And there's a better chance of me being struck by lightning than seeing any of those caches approved over here. :lol:

Link to comment

Throwdowns are not so simply a topic. It is understandable that different reviewers will take a different approach if someone posts a Needs Archive on a cache where a throw down exists. There may even be reviewers who take a different approach on a cache by cache basis.

 

When Groundspeak made the announcement that they would no longer do non-consensual adoption I specifically asked about caches where the owner was no longer active but the cache was being maintained by members of the community.

(my post))

 

The response from Bryan was

Generally, if someone reports that a cache needs maintenance and then someone from the community reports that the maintenance has been completed, I believe that it is well within the volunteer reviewer's discretion to remove the needs maintenance attribute. That said, there are a variety of other reasons why the cache owner would need to be involved in active maintenance of the cache (land permit renewals, for example) and if the cache owner is unable to perform those functions, then I believe that it would be proper, and within the discretion of the volunteer reviewer, to archive the cache. Note that this is being written with a view towards providing discretion to the reviewers so that they can best handle the wide variety of cache maintenance related issues. But, it does not stand to say that because a cache needs maintenance and the owner is absent that it 'must' be archived.

 

I'm going to guess that this is still Groundspeak's policy, though throw downs were probably not as big of an issue back in 2008.

 

If a cache owner is active and someone leaves a throw down, the owner has the right to delete any find claimed by the person leaving the throw. (My personal experience is that often the person leaving the throw down will ask for permission to log the cache - or offer to remove the found log in the log itself - but that these people seem to be surprised when the cache owner won't accept the find log).

 

If there is no active cache owner, there is no one to disallow a throw down. One can view this as someone in the community deciding to help keep an old cache viable by doing the maintenance on it. When someone else in the community posts a Needs Archive log, what you have is a community dispute. Some people want to continue to maintain a cache while others may want to see this cache get archived so that the area is free and a new cache can be placed nearby. The reviewers are put in the position of being community judges. My guess is that they have some idea of what the generally consensus in the community is. In a country with relatively few caches - like Brazil - a reviewer may be inclined to let caches continue with community maintenance. In a dense ares - like much of North America - the reviewer may tend to side with archiving caches where there is no owner and someone wants to hide cache nearby.

Link to comment

My guess is that they have some idea of what the generally consensus in the community is. In a country with relatively few caches - like Brazil - a reviewer may be inclined to let caches continue with community maintenance. In a dense ares - like much of North America - the reviewer may tend to side with archiving caches where there is no owner and someone wants to hide cache nearby.

I can understand that difference of opinions but in most of the cases in this country, Brazil, Throwdowns are placed by foreigners and not local geocachers so, I guess the community is not worried about those caches, otherwise they would have done the trhowdown themselves. No?

 

Like this one, from 2011 that needs maintenance http://coord.info/GC1ZT97 or this one http://coord.info/GC1JAKQ

 

And a different case that the reviewer actually archived the cache after I placed a NA log: http://coord.info/GC3WZK1

 

But there are other cases that the CO accepts the Throwdown because he helps him in the maintenance work, like some said: "allowing someone to make a throwdown is for lazy CO" these are not my words but I agree with them. Then things like this happen:

 

http://coord.info/GLE2KRYR

http://coord.info/GLE2KVMH

http://coord.info/GLD6V6D0

 

Maybe if GS would have a clear ruling about throwdowns there would be less problems for the reviewers, COs and players... maybe...

Link to comment

I always thought this to be a prime example of why throwdowns are so wrong.

Fun in the Hamptons - Coney in the sky

It was a great cache. Pulley mechanism to lower the cache, shaped like a rabbit, through the hollow in a giant magnolia tree. Got 9 favorites.

The tree was cut down in March of 2011. Throwdown in April 2011 that had nothing to do with the original hide. Actually, there seem to have been two or three throwdowns! Then finders complained that the cache page was all wrong! Mixture of finds and DNFs, depending on whether cachers read the cache page, or the note from the throwdowner. Finally seven DNFs in 2012, and it was put out of its misery. Really sad.

Link to comment

I don't know why you bothered. What's the big deal about the cache not being what it once was? Why do you care? I understand objecting to throwdowns, but I don't understand stepping in to try to eliminate a cache that people are obviously enjoying finding. For heaven's sake, you don't even know whether the original cache is still there!

Link to comment

That's the point. No one knows if the original cache is still there. And the CO isn't around to verify one way or the other. I could go "find" this throwdown for the numbers, but to me, it's not the same. Just doesn't feel right. Thanks for all your input, though, I do appreciate seeing all the different opinions.

Link to comment

I could go "find" this throwdown for the numbers, but to me, it's not the same. Just doesn't feel right.

It doesn't feel right to you. It's another cache in the same place for other seekers. I understand why you don't want to look for it. What I don't understand is why you want to eliminate it so no one else can look for it, unconcerned as they might be because they don't know the history or don't care.

 

Yes, the cache is less good. When you asked for it to be archived, you unilaterally decided that it was worthless.

Link to comment

Yes, the cache is less good. When you asked for it to be archived, you unilaterally decided that it was worthless.

 

I'm getting kind of tired of people criticizing others for taking action. Look, the OP has no power to archive the cache. Ultimately, it's up to the reviewer what happens. All the OP's done is alert the reviewer.

Link to comment

Yes, the cache is less good. When you asked for it to be archived, you unilaterally decided that it was worthless.

 

Incorrect. This action merely asks for a reviewer to take notice of a geocache that seems to have an issue. The "worth" of a geocache has nothing to do with it.

Link to comment

Yes, the cache is less good. When you asked for it to be archived, you unilaterally decided that it was worthless.

Incorrect. This action merely asks for a reviewer to take notice of a geocache that seems to have an issue. The "worth" of a geocache has nothing to do with it.

I'm one of the biggest advocates of "needs archived" being seen as alerting the reviewer of a potential problem without implying a final pronouncement, but my point remains that the OP is declaring that this is a problem when there's really no problem here at all. The cache simply isn't as good as it was. It makes no more sense to alert the reviewer to this than it does to alert the reviewer when the CO himself replaces an ammo can with a film canister.

 

Furthermore, I don't think it's worth wasting the reviewer's time over. I'm not surprised the one reviewer mentioned said, essentially, "What do you expect me to do about it?"

 

Mind you, I don't think the OP's a jerk or anything, I just think he's misguided.

Link to comment

My guess is that they have some idea of what the generally consensus in the community is. In a country with relatively few caches - like Brazil - a reviewer may be inclined to let caches continue with community maintenance. In a dense ares - like much of North America - the reviewer may tend to side with archiving caches where there is no owner and someone wants to hide cache nearby.

I can understand that difference of opinions but in most of the cases in this country, Brazil, Throwdowns are placed by foreigners and not local geocachers so, I guess the community is not worried about those caches, otherwise they would have done the trhowdown themselves. No?

 

Like this one, from 2011 that needs maintenance http://coord.info/GC1ZT97 or this one http://coord.info/GC1JAKQ

 

And a different case that the reviewer actually archived the cache after I placed a NA log: http://coord.info/GC3WZK1

 

But there are other cases that the CO accepts the Throwdown because he helps him in the maintenance work, like some said: "allowing someone to make a throwdown is for lazy CO" these are not my words but I agree with them. Then things like this happen:

 

http://coord.info/GLE2KRYR

http://coord.info/GLE2KVMH

http://coord.info/GLD6V6D0

 

Maybe if GS would have a clear ruling about throwdowns there would be less problems for the reviewers, COs and players... maybe...

 

Ah, you never said it was mostly foreigners, but that makes perfect sense. I thought you meant throwdowns were common in the small, but growing Brazillian caching community. You know, I don't think it's ever been discussed around here, but just from personal observation, throwdowns most often occur with "vacation caches", in Countries where Geocaching is not wildly popular, and I'd count any Country in South America among them.

 

They don't publicize it, but Geocaching is only popular in the U.S., Canada, most (but not all of Europe), South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, and Japan. And no where else. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Yes, the cache is less good. When you asked for it to be archived, you unilaterally decided that it was worthless.

Incorrect. This action merely asks for a reviewer to take notice of a geocache that seems to have an issue. The "worth" of a geocache has nothing to do with it.

I'm one of the biggest advocates of "needs archived" being seen as alerting the reviewer of a potential problem without implying a final pronouncement, but my point remains that the OP is declaring that this is a problem when there's really no problem here at all. The cache simply isn't as good as it was. It makes no more sense to alert the reviewer to this than it does to alert the reviewer when the CO himself replaces an ammo can with a film canister.

 

Furthermore, I don't think it's worth wasting the reviewer's time over. I'm not surprised the one reviewer mentioned said, essentially, "What do you expect me to do about it?"

 

Mind you, I don't think the OP's a jerk or anything, I just think he's misguided.

 

The throwdown was placed without the owner's explicit approval, there is confusion about whether or not the original cache is there, and the owner is not logging in to perform maintenance. In this case, "needs archived" is totally appropriate.

Link to comment

The cache simply isn't as good as it was. It makes no more sense to alert the reviewer to this than it does to alert the reviewer when the CO himself replaces an ammo can with a film canister.

 

Mind you, I don't think the OP's a jerk or anything, I just think he's misguided.

Actually, if the CO was the one that replaced it, I would have no issue with this. But he isn't. It's not really about how the cache "isn't as good as it was", it's about how nobody owns this cache now. No one will keep it up, and it's just taking up space. As 'The A-Team' mentioned, this isn't the only one of the CO's hides that is having issues, but it is the only one that has been replaced by someone who couldn't find it, as far as I know. The others with issues are slowly going through the DNF/NM/NA process, which is fine, but that won't happen when throwdowns occur. That's the main issue - the throwdown. If the reviewer disagrees, he has the option to do nothing. In this case, he disabled the cache.

Link to comment

I wouldn't haven written a NA in this situation, since there is no emergency situation here that requires immediate archiving or attention from a reviewer.

I first would have contacted the CO or other cachers (if CO wouldn't reply within a few days) who have found it. I would have explained the situation and would have asked if they could explain how the cache is hidden so I would be able to try again to find it or discover for real that it is gone.

 

If I then find the original cache, I would take along the throw down and place a find log explaining this and also asking others not to place throw downs.

If I don't find the original cache I would write a needs maintenance note to explain what is going on and that the CO should take a look and decide what he wants to do with the cache.

 

If a need maintenance log isn't handled within a couple of months, a reviewer will look at it eventually and if the owner does nothing the cache will be archived after some time. It gives the CO some time to take action, usually a couple of months, in a friendlier way than writing a needs archived. I like to take into account there might be something going on in a CO's life that keeps him from responding immediately, so give him/her some time. Not having logged into the website, doesn't mean he won't see the logs and notes on the cache page.

 

I do agree with you that people shouldn't place these throw downs. If you haven't been asked by a CO to replace it, there is no reason to assume automatically that it is what the CO wants. If a cache is gone it is up to the CO to decide whether the cache should be replaced (and by whom) or be archived.

 

There are so many caches that I simply don't understand the need of some cachers to place a throw down just to be able to log a find, although they actually didn't find anything. And there is nothing wrong with a cache being archived eventually when it is not maintained, since if the place is really interesting I'm sure another cacher will place a brand new (and maybe even better) one there one day.

Link to comment

Actually, if the CO was the one that replaced it, I would have no issue with this. But he isn't. It's not really about how the cache "isn't as good as it was", it's about how nobody owns this cache now.

I understand you do not like that someone placed a throwdown, but you are responding to that person's irresponsible action by attacking the cache itself, which is an innocent victim.

 

No one will keep it up,...

Well, no, in fact someone is keeping it up: the person that dropped the throwdown. You don't like it and you don't consider it valid maintenance, and you won't think any better of the next throwdown, but there is a container and a log at the location.

 

The very least I would require of you is that you talk to a previous finder, get the exact location of the original hide, and confirm that it's not there. With that due diligence, I can see you posting a Needs Archived and then collecting the throwdown once the cache is archived. But as I said at the first, I'm not sure why you would bother.

 

...and it's just taking up space.

If you're anxious to take over the space, I completely see why you want it archived. Although if that's the case, I'd have to reconsider whether you're merely misguided.

Link to comment

Well, no, in fact someone is keeping it up: the person that dropped the throwdown. You don't like it and you don't consider it valid maintenance, and you won't think any better of the next throwdown, but there is a container and a log at the location.

 

Since the cache owner is MIA, that throwdown doesn't count as proper maintenance. Needs archived lets the reviewer know that the cache is being neglected by the actual owner. It's entirely appropriate.

Link to comment

Dropping a throwdown is not maintaining a cache...it's padding your numbers.

I have no problem whatsoever with you being upset with the person throwing down a container. My only problem is with you taking out your disgust with his actions on a cache someone else owns.

 

By the way, did you try contacting the owner? Yeah, he's ignored the archive request for a couple weeks, and he doesn't find caches very often, but he is active, so maybe if you talked to him he'd either archive it for you or ask you to maintain it properly for him. I just looked at the logs and the owner's recent activities a little more carefully, and I have no reason to think he didn't consider and approve of the throwdown placed 4/20/2014 without saying anything publically, which would, in fact, make it proper maintenance.

Link to comment

Dropping a throwdown is not maintaining a cache...it's padding your numbers.

I have no problem whatsoever with you being upset with the person throwing down a container. My only problem is with you taking out your disgust with his actions on a cache someone else owns.

 

By the way, did you try contacting the owner? Yeah, he's ignored the archive request for a couple weeks, and he doesn't find caches very often, but he is active, so maybe if you talked to him he'd either archive it for you or ask you to maintain it properly for him. I just looked at the logs and the owner's recent activities a little more carefully, and I have no reason to think he didn't consider and approve of the throwdown placed 4/20/2014 without saying anything publically, which would, in fact, make it proper maintenance.

 

If that's the case, the owner can clarify that to the reviewer and future finders will know what to expect at that cache.

Link to comment

In any case scenario, if the CO knowns about a Throwdown in his cache shouldn't he at least put a note saying there is Throwdown there?

 

Or just disable the cache until he does the proper maintenance?

 

If it is the case of the CO still Boeing parte of the game...

Link to comment

I have no problem whatsoever with you being upset with the person throwing down a container. My only problem is with you taking out your disgust with his actions on a cache someone else owns.

The OP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they're taking out their disgust on someone's cache because another cacher placed a throwdown. They're bringing a cache that isn't being maintained to the attention of a reviewer. The only way the throwdown comes into play is as a demonstration of the lack of maintenance by the CO.

 

We also need to clarify the use of the term "throwdown", because I think it's being misused in some of this discussion. AFAIK, the definition of a throwdown is something along the lines of "a cache seeker, determining in their opinion that a cache is likely missing, throws down a new container so they then have a log to sign and claim a find". This is usually completely different from a member of a local caching community going out and replacing the container on a local cache that appears to be missing, and either not claiming a find or have already claimed a find at an earlier date.

 

In the former ("throwdown"), the cacher has done this primarily for their own benefit and is unlikely to return to perform further maintenance, so the cache is still essentially unmaintained. This sounds like it's the case with the Brazilian caches.

 

In the latter (community maintenance), the local cacher is doing it primarily for the benefit of the community and is more likely to or may have the full intention of maintaining the cache in the long-term.

 

Anyway, the motivation of the throwdown/community-maintenance cacher notwithstanding, the cache still isn't being maintained by the CO which makes it eligible to be archived.

Link to comment

The throwdown was placed without the owner's explicit approval, there is confusion about whether or not the original cache is there, and the owner is not logging in to perform maintenance. In this case, "needs archived" is totally appropriate.

This is an opinion. I happen to agree with this opinion, but I also think that a valid opinion is that the throwdown is helping to maintain a cache at this site for others to find. If the owner is absent it makes no difference what the owner wants. If the original cache is present, so what if there are two containers to find? People who go to the site will find one or the other, or possibly both, or possibly neither; but they will have had a cache to search for that would not exist if the cache is archived instead.

 

Now as I said, I don't agree with the alternate opinion, but it is hard to argue to someone that no cache to find at a spot is better than a throwdown. I think we need to come up with a reason this is so if we expect to reduce the incidents of throwdown caches.

 

Dropping a throwdown is not maintaining a cache...it's padding your numbers.

Comments like this do not help reduce throw downs. As I said above, people who leave throw downs do see this as maintenance and as helping other cachers. While is is true they seem to think that leaving a throwdown entitles them to a WIGAS, I'm not convinced that the smiley is the primary reason.

 

It has been pointed out that throwdowns are often left by someone not from the area. I suppose there may be a bit a rationalizing. "I'll never be this way again, so there is no advantage logging DNF or NM. If the cache owner replaces the cache, I can't come back and find it. So instead I'll leave a throw down. If the cache owner is happy that I helped out with maintenance (and most are), they'll let me log a find (or they won't delete my find). And if they didn't want a throwdown they'll delete my find and I'll won't be any worse off than if I logged a DNF."

 

All the experiences I've seen with throwdowns, have been where there is either no find logged until the owner says it's OK, or the find is logged provisionally with the expectation that if the owner wants to delete the log they can. Of course if someone knows that a cache owner is no longer active and no longer checks their email, a provisional log is pretty much guaranteed to not be deleted.

 

In one case, I was contacted by a group that left a throwdown on one of my caches to see if that was OK. I told them the throwdown was not OK, but if they wanted to log a find I wouldn't delete it. The response I got was so full of indignation that I would suggest the throwdown was left to get a smiley that you could cut it with a knife. On top of that I was accused of not understanding the game and being ungrateful for the help I was being given. I was told I was the only person who ever refused the help. After this it was not enough for them to log their DNFs but they posted a NM with a comment "There is no cache at the location". I archived the cache. Though it seems silly to me to say there was no cache at the location since there was now at least the throwdown and possibly the original cache. But at this point I wasn't about to be tricked in to accepting the throwdown.

 

When people on the forum argue that throwdowns are just meant to get smileys on caches you didn't find, I know they haven't been accused of being ungrateful and of taking the simple joy of finding a cache and complicating it by rejecting an unsolicited offer to help with maintenance. I now have the reputation among people whom I considered friends of being some kind of geo-grinch. Instead of giving me this carp about throwndowns being just for a smiley, please help with some real reasons why people shouldn't be leaving throwdowns.

Link to comment

The Throwdown (TD) theme as been recurrent here in the forum, at least in the last few months.

 

For me, a TD is any case that a player places a new cache:

 

1) Not being the CO and without CO approval,

2) Not being the CO, with CO approval but without knowing the exact place where to place it.

 

Usually in these cases, the player that makes the TD also logs a FOUND IT. The cases where a player places a cache but he had previously found the cache and has CO approval are not TD for me, just helping with maintenance.

 

tozainamboku and odder elder (not by age but by experience) geocachers have put their opinion on this subject but still doesn´t solve some issues:

 

1) To whom belongs (property) this new cache?

2) Who is responsible for the maintenance?

 

So there are 2 big situations:

 

A- The CO is alive and kicking, playing the game.

B- The CO is absent from the game, MIA or just doesn´t find a cache or log in for a long period of time.

 

In the case of A (CO is playing) there shouldn´t be many problems, the CO is aware of the Throwdown and according to the guidelines he should check the cache ASAP!

 

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.

 

So, the CO should always go to the place and check it. Until that moment, it is my opinion, that the cache should be disabled but this is a CO´s choice. So for me, there is no big issues in the case A, where the CO is playing the game.

 

For me, the big issues are in case B (CO is absent from the game) and in these cases the best solution, in my opinion, is to follow the DNF/NM/NA protocol and never put a Throwdown.

 

If in this case a community geocacher wants to help maintain the cache but he gets no answer from the CO I feel that the best is to archive the cache and he can put a new cache and listing, in the same place if he wants, after the archiving process is concluded. It would be easier if GS would allow adoption of abandoned caches but it doesn´t, and I understand why: "The caches are property of the CO, so if any cache would be adopted by the CO without his permission it would be stealing". Simple as that!

 

So, i understand that sometimes geocachers want to help others but, they think they are helping but they are not, actually they are just forcing the COs to visit the cache ASAP to verify the TD.

 

So again I say, in my opinion, there are no reasons or excuses to place a TD, it is just bad geocaching attitude.

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

Comments like this do not help reduce throw downs. As I said above, people who leave throw downs do see this as maintenance and as helping other cachers.

 

I stand by my statement. They use "maintenance" as a rationalization when called out on leaving a throwdown. I've noticed that most people only get indignant if you hit a nerve.

 

I asked if I did the right thing, because soon after the reviewer disabled the cache, it was found - "Found it today. No big problem. TFTC. Cache On!" I thought I had overstepped. I now see that I made the right call. Too many cachers agree with me.

 

In answer to the question of calling him - The CO has never once answered an email of mine. I tried to adopt one of his caches that he had adopted earlier, because it was important to a series of Camp Adair caches, and the original CO wanted it to stay in play, but wasn't close enough to maintain it. I emailed him, the original CO emailed him, no answer. I understand life intrudes, and at that time, he was not active at all. We waited for the cache to be archived and I put that cache back into play. He has some excellent hides in the area that are still being found and given favorite points. Nobody is helping this guy by throwing down a cache here. He's 1,000 miles away, and has a new life. Let's let his caches die a natural death. Throwdowns aren't part of that process.

Link to comment

Comments like this do not help reduce throw downs. As I said above, people who leave throw downs do see this as maintenance and as helping other cachers.

 

I stand by my statement. They use "maintenance" as a rationalization when called out on leaving a throwdown. I've noticed that most people only get indignant if you hit a nerve.

And I stand by my statement - arguing that throwdowns are nothing by a cheap way to increase your finds will not stop throwdowns. In my opinion it may even encourage them.

 

Once people find out that some portion of geocachers find is acceptable to log throwdowns they will be much quicker to leave them - even if Groundspeak were to adopt a policy of automatically archiving any cache with a throwdown that the cache owner hasn't explicitly accepted.

 

I'm not convinced that a blanket policy of posting NA on caches that have a throwdown is a good idea, or that reviewers should enforce this by automatically archiving these caches. Perhaps you can give me a few reasons why you posted a NA on this cache.

I asked if I did the right thing, because soon after the reviewer disabled the cache, it was found - "Found it today. No big problem. TFTC. Cache On!" I thought I had overstepped. I now see that I made the right call. Too many cachers agree with me.

The opinions on the forums don't reflect the real opinions of the geocaching community. I know of no throwdowners who spend any time in the forums, certainly not in threads on when to log NM or NA. The opinion of those who tend to leave throwdowns is that this is a silly but enjoyable game. When there is an actual cache to find, it's a lot more enjoyable then where there is nothing to find. If they feel strongly enough that the cache is missing and not just that they didn't find it, their attitude is that it is better to help out with a a throwdown. If in fact that this means that there may be two containers at ground zero, so what? People will find one, the other or possibly both. In any case that is more fun than searching for a missing container. As to whether leaving the throwdown should count as a find, again their attitude is it's a silly game and no real score. If they just wanted a smiley why not just post a TFTC log; if the cache is missing who's going to check the log? Unfortunately, some people get their knickers in a twist when someone uses the found log in a different way they they do. I can't help you if the finds that get posted on throwdowns cause your underwear to bunch up. My experiences in that quite a number of geocachers find it a perfectly accept use of the find log.

 

My guess is that outside of the forums you might find that most geocachers will think you made the wrong call. Once there is a replacement people will find it and log a find on the cache. Most are much happier that someone took the initiative to help out and keep the cache going. There is no reason to archive the cache because there is something to find there.

 

To reduce throwdowns you need to convince people that it is seldom better to keep an abandoned cache alive than it is to get it archived - and not waste your breath telling people that it's the smiley that causes throwdowns. I don't care if that's what you believe, I just think that it doesn't help to keep harping on that.

Link to comment

Perhaps you can give me a few reasons why you posted a NA on this cache.

I posted a Needs Archived on this cache because the original cache may be missing and the CO is in no position to maintain it. Or to even check if it is still there. And is giving no inclination that he even cares about this or any of his other caches in this area. If he doesn't care about it, it should be archived. If he's not maintaining it, it should be archived. If it's missing, and he can't or won't replace it, it should be archived. I don't really care why throw downs happen, they are, by definition, unmaintained caches.

Link to comment
If it's missing, and he can't or won't replace it, it should be archived. I don't really care why throw downs happen, they are, by definition, unmaintained caches.

 

So, contrary to your first post, you weren't actually soliciting opinions. You were trolling for pats on the back.

 

Whatever.

Link to comment

Apparently, the local reviewer agrees with the OP and thinks there are issues with this cache.

 

Good Day,

 

This cache appears to have some issues. I'm temporarily disabling it to give the owner the opportunity to check on the cache and repair it if necessary. If the owner feels they will not be able to repair this in a timely manner (i.e., within two weeks), let me know, and I'll archive it. This will keep the cache from continually showing up in search lists.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you,

 

GeoCrater

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Link to comment

Apparently, the local reviewer agrees with the OP and thinks there are issues with this cache.

 

Good Day,

 

This cache appears to have some issues. I'm temporarily disabling it to give the owner the opportunity to check on the cache and repair it if necessary. If the owner feels they will not be able to repair this in a timely manner (i.e., within two weeks), let me know, and I'll archive it. This will keep the cache from continually showing up in search lists.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you,

 

GeoCrater

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

 

Oh, come on. This has nothing to do with what the local reviewer thinks. The local reviewer had exactly zero latitude in this situation and had no choice but to respond in this manner.

 

You really don't get how this whole thing works, do you?

 

The entire discussion here is about whether bringing this cache to the local reviewer's attention was appropriate. Citing the reviewer's response as if it justified the notification is, ahem, not particularly germane to the subject, to put it nicely.

 

I understand that you deeply desire geocaching to be a completely rules-based activity, with unambiguous "right" and "wrong" answers for every possible situation. Unfortunately, as most people learn in their teens, the real world does not work that way, and sometimes people have to use their judgment.

 

In this thread, I have quite consciously not chimed in with an opinion, because I don't know whether what the OP did was optimal or not. He used his judgment, and that needs to be honored at some level, even by those who disagree.

 

Trying to drag in the reviewer as some kind of moral authority for your particular opinion is merely childish.

Link to comment

Could we quit with the personal attacks, fizzy? You do this to just about everybody on here and it's against forum guidelines.

 

Apparently, myself, the OP and local reviewer all disagree with you. It's silly to say the local reviewer doesn't have a choice. Sure, they do. If they thought there was no problem, they would ignore the Needs Archive request.

 

I have to say I am LOL that someone with such a high IQ is taking his time out to defend a soggy little plastic baggie with a slip of paper inside. :laughing:

Edited by The_Incredibles_
Link to comment

Could we quit with the personal attacks, fizzy? You do this to just about everybody on here and it's against forum guidelines.

 

Unfortunately for you, attacking an argument is not the same as attacking the person. I know next to nothing about you. Your arguments, however, are quite weak.

 

I will plead guilty to not being sufficiently "respectful" of bad arguments. I keep hoping people will not make them.

 

OTOH, I am quite nice to most people on the forums. It is only a very small number who appear to appoint themselves High Poobahs of What Is Correct that tend to incur my wrath

 

I have to say I am LOL that someone with such a high IQ is taking his time out to defend a soggy little plastic baggie with a slip of paper inside. :laughing:

 

Didn't you even take the minimal time it might have required to read the part of my post in which I said I didn't have an opinion on this thread? Here's a hint: not even bothering to read posts to which you are responding does not lead to productive discussions.

 

This side discussion is going off topic. Message me if you want to continue.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

Leaving personal issues behind, I try to go back to the topic...

 

If in fact that this means that there may be two containers at ground zero, so what? People will find one, the other or possibly both. In any case that is more fun than searching for a missing container. As to whether leaving the throwdown should count as a find, again their attitude is it's a silly game and no real score. If they just wanted a smiley why not just post a TFTC log; if the cache is missing who's going to check the log?

 

If there was no problem about leaving 2 containers why did GS made a specific, very clear guideline for the COs on how to deal with a Throwdown?

 

And what if the cache isn´t actually missing and they write a "TFTC" log and then someone actually finds the cache and posts a picture of the logbook without their signature?

 

What is better, to make a throwdown and mentally say: "I was trying to help the CO" or logging a "TFTC" and then other geocachers knowing that it is actually a lie and he/she never did find the cache?

 

The thing is not about getting their knickers in a twist but about the truth to the game. There is one basic rule of the game: "Find the cache. Sign the log. Register online." and with a throwdown you are not finding the cache, you are placing it.

Link to comment

If that's the case, the owner can clarify that to the reviewer and future finders will know what to expect at that cache.

The owner could clarify, but they don't have to clarify.

 

In any case scenario, if the CO knowns about a Throwdown in his cache shouldn't he at least put a note saying there is Throwdown there?

Gee, it would be nice for the CO to go out of his way to explicitly approve a throwdown. But it's not a requirement, and his failure to do so doesn't strike me as grounds to archive the cache.

 

Another thing that gets me about this is that, according to the logs, the OP knows nothing at all about this cache. When they failed to find it, it was missing. So as far as the OP knows, the throwdown could be identical to the original hide.

Link to comment

So as far as the OP knows, the throwdown could be identical to the original hide.

What difference does that make? It's not a matter of better cache, worse cache, same cache. The CO is gone. As I stated in the NA log, if the original cache is still there, then by all means, leave it active. I want to find his cache, I don't want to find a throw down.

 

I was trying to get confirmation that it was still there, because who wants to keep going back to a place over and over if it's missing? I knew I wouldn't get anywhere with the CO by posting a Note, or even an NM. NA is all that was left. And as expected, he's out of commission as far as his Oregon caches go.

 

I'd be willing to adopt some of his caches, even this one, but he doesn't respond. Maybe the reviewer will have better luck.

 

I do appreciate everyone's opinion, though, other than the trolling comment. I guess I somewhat understand it, though, I'm a crotchety old man, too. :)

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...