Jump to content

Right cache, wrong container.


Popo5525

Recommended Posts

I agree that there are two groups of annoyed people here. Those who see the Found It and DNF logs as both equally valid outcomes of a cache hunt and wish that people use the one appropriate to this group's definition of a find; and those who see a DNF log as somewhat of a negative and wish to avoid DNFs that are due to the cache being missing - either by leaving a throwdow or by accepting finding a throwdown left by someone else is a find.

 

If you don't want to be constantly annoyed I suggest a third group: those who see the online logs as irrelevant except in certain rare instances where a false log might cause them to make a decision that ends up with them feeling they have wasted time or money. This group might not even bother logging their own finds, and with those rare exceptions they don't care what logs others use.

Great definition of both sides!!!! I am in the first group!!!!

Link to comment

Please forgive me, Toz. I'm pulling your post totally out of context into this thread because the similarities between ALRs 6 years ago with and throwdowns today just seemed to be illuminated wonderfully with this post.

 

Because of "paperless" caching, people started to complain that they would find traditional caches and only when the went to log them would they find there was an ALR throwdown. So if the ALR was to take picture of yourself in a 'phoon' position throwdown was at the cache, you couldn't log your find (assuming you wanted to follow the request of the CO).

Link to comment

Please forgive me, Toz. I'm pulling your post totally out of context into this thread because the similarities between ALRs 6 years ago with and throwdowns today just seemed to be illuminated wonderfully with this post.

 

Because of "paperless" caching, people started to complain that they would find traditional caches and only when the went to log them would they find there was an ALR throwdown. So if the ALR was to take picture of yourself in a 'phoon' position throwdown was at the cache, you couldn't log your find (assuming you wanted to follow the request of the CO).

 

How is that even remotely equivalent?

 

An ALR is a requirement put in place by the cache owner.

 

A throwdown is a fraudulent piece of garbage placed with the intention of misleading other cachers and undermining the cache owner.

Link to comment
:blink: So in one thread I give an example of cacher who voluntarily decides they want to respect a request from a cache owner to do some ALR and decides not to log a cache (even though the cache owner probably wouldn't delete the log) and you think that means that cacher should not log a find on a throwdown? First of even if you know for certain that the cache owner does not accept the throwdown, there are times when a cacher might not know that they found the throwdown vs. the original cache. And second if the cache ownwer were to say "Hey you found the throwdown and not the cache which, by the way, was still where I hid it", a person is always free to respect the cache owner's request and change their log to a note or DNF. I'm all for allowing people to respect the wishes of a cache owner, I'm just not in favor of requiring it. Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
I agree that there are two groups of annoyed people here. Those who see the Found It and DNF logs as both equally valid outcomes of a cache hunt and wish that people use the one appropriate to this group's definition of a find; and those who see a DNF log as somewhat of a negative and wish to avoid DNFs that are due to the cache being missing - either by leaving a throwdow or by accepting finding a throwdown left by someone else is a find.

 

If you don't want to be constantly annoyed I suggest a third group: those who see the online logs as irrelevant except in certain rare instances where a false log might cause them to make a decision that ends up with them feeling they have wasted time or money. This group might not even bother logging their own finds, and with those rare exceptions they don't care what logs others use.

So where do people fit when they are using the Found It log as part of a metagame, like working on a streak or filling a grid? Such people may be torn between two unpleasant alternatives: keeping an inaccurate Found It log (on a throwdown left by someone else), or allowing an innocent mistake (not recognizing the throwdown for what it was) to derail their metagame.
Link to comment
I agree that there are two groups of annoyed people here. Those who see the Found It and DNF logs as both equally valid outcomes of a cache hunt and wish that people use the one appropriate to this group's definition of a find; and those who see a DNF log as somewhat of a negative and wish to avoid DNFs that are due to the cache being missing - either by leaving a throwdow or by accepting finding a throwdown left by someone else is a find.

 

If you don't want to be constantly annoyed I suggest a third group: those who see the online logs as irrelevant except in certain rare instances where a false log might cause them to make a decision that ends up with them feeling they have wasted time or money. This group might not even bother logging their own finds, and with those rare exceptions they don't care what logs others use.

So where do people fit when they are using the Found It log as part of a metagame, like working on a streak or filling a grid? Such people may be torn between two unpleasant alternatives: keeping an inaccurate Found It log (on a throwdown left by someone else), or allowing an innocent mistake (not recognizing the throwdown for what it was) to derail their metagame.

 

Qualifications for side games are not relevant. Cache owners should not be required to tolerate fraudulent behaviour or maintain inaccurate cache listings for fear of reprisal over side games.

Link to comment
I agree that there are two groups of annoyed people here. Those who see the Found It and DNF logs as both equally valid outcomes of a cache hunt and wish that people use the one appropriate to this group's definition of a find; and those who see a DNF log as somewhat of a negative and wish to avoid DNFs that are due to the cache being missing - either by leaving a throwdow or by accepting finding a throwdown left by someone else is a find.

 

If you don't want to be constantly annoyed I suggest a third group: those who see the online logs as irrelevant except in certain rare instances where a false log might cause them to make a decision that ends up with them feeling they have wasted time or money. This group might not even bother logging their own finds, and with those rare exceptions they don't care what logs others use.

So where do people fit when they are using the Found It log as part of a metagame, like working on a streak or filling a grid? Such people may be torn between two unpleasant alternatives: keeping an inaccurate Found It log (on a throwdown left by someone else), or allowing an innocent mistake (not recognizing the throwdown for what it was) to derail their metagame.
Qualifications for side games are not relevant. Cache owners should not be required to tolerate fraudulent behaviour or maintain inaccurate cache listings for fear of reprisal over side games.
I think it is relevant. After all, we are talking about "annoyed people", and having your metagame derailed by an innocent mistake could be very annoying to some people.
Link to comment
I agree that there are two groups of annoyed people here. Those who see the Found It and DNF logs as both equally valid outcomes of a cache hunt and wish that people use the one appropriate to this group's definition of a find; and those who see a DNF log as somewhat of a negative and wish to avoid DNFs that are due to the cache being missing - either by leaving a throwdow or by accepting finding a throwdown left by someone else is a find.

 

If you don't want to be constantly annoyed I suggest a third group: those who see the online logs as irrelevant except in certain rare instances where a false log might cause them to make a decision that ends up with them feeling they have wasted time or money. This group might not even bother logging their own finds, and with those rare exceptions they don't care what logs others use.

So where do people fit when they are using the Found It log as part of a metagame, like working on a streak or filling a grid? Such people may be torn between two unpleasant alternatives: keeping an inaccurate Found It log (on a throwdown left by someone else), or allowing an innocent mistake (not recognizing the throwdown for what it was) to derail their metagame.

 

Qualifications for side games are not relevant. Cache owners should not be required to tolerate fraudulent behaviour or maintain inaccurate cache listings for fear of reprisal over side games.

You are again misusing the word 'fraudulent'. Fraud is an intentional deception. Finding a cache at ground zero and logging your find online does not suggest an attempt to deceive anyone.

Link to comment
I agree that there are two groups of annoyed people here. Those who see the Found It and DNF logs as both equally valid outcomes of a cache hunt and wish that people use the one appropriate to this group's definition of a find; and those who see a DNF log as somewhat of a negative and wish to avoid DNFs that are due to the cache being missing - either by leaving a throwdow or by accepting finding a throwdown left by someone else is a find.

 

If you don't want to be constantly annoyed I suggest a third group: those who see the online logs as irrelevant except in certain rare instances where a false log might cause them to make a decision that ends up with them feeling they have wasted time or money. This group might not even bother logging their own finds, and with those rare exceptions they don't care what logs others use.

So where do people fit when they are using the Found It log as part of a metagame, like working on a streak or filling a grid? Such people may be torn between two unpleasant alternatives: keeping an inaccurate Found It log (on a throwdown left by someone else), or allowing an innocent mistake (not recognizing the throwdown for what it was) to derail their metagame.
Qualifications for side games are not relevant. Cache owners should not be required to tolerate fraudulent behaviour or maintain inaccurate cache listings for fear of reprisal over side games.
I think it is relevant. After all, we are talking about "annoyed people", and having your metagame derailed by an innocent mistake could be very annoying to some people.

 

It's also annoying when a cache owner is expected to respect the arbitrary rules of unofficial side games in which he/she did not choose to participate. Cache owners must be able to perform routine maintenance on their own caches without worrying about FTFs, fizzy this and that, or people who don't think they have to physically find the cache to find it. I refuse to have these shifty people dictate to me how I operate my cache listing. I will adjust my cache ratings as I see fit, and I will delete fraudulent logs.

Link to comment

You are again misusing the word 'fraudulent'. Fraud is an intentional deception. Finding a cache at ground zero and logging your find online does not suggest an attempt to deceive anyone.

 

If someone gives you a counterfeit $20 bill without your knowledge, you still aren't allowed to spend it. I appreciate that the unsuspecting finder is also a victim of a charlatan's poor behaviour, but they didn't find the cache.

Link to comment

Please forgive me, Toz. I'm pulling your post totally out of context into this thread because the similarities between ALRs 6 years ago with and throwdowns today just seemed to be illuminated wonderfully with this post.

 

Because of "paperless" caching, people started to complain that they would find traditional caches and only when the went to log them would they find there was an ALR throwdown. So if the ALR was to take picture of yourself in a 'phoon' position throwdown was at the cache, you couldn't log your find (assuming you wanted to follow the request of the CO).

 

How is that even remotely equivalent?

 

An ALR is a requirement put in place by the cache owner.

 

A throwdown is a fraudulent piece of garbage placed with the intention of misleading other cachers and undermining the cache owner.

 

If everyone in is thread were asked to complete this sentence:

 

A throwdown is ....

 

I bet there would be a huge variety of responses but none would be imply that the intention of the throwdowner was to mislead other cachers or undermine the cache owner.

 

 

Link to comment

I bet there would be a huge variety of responses but none would be imply that the intention of the throwdowner was to mislead other cachers or undermine the cache owner.

 

What other possible intention could there be?

 

Well, not that I agree with it, some throwdowners actually believe that they're doing the cache owner and future seekers a favor by replacing what the might believe is a missing container, and by doing so feel justified in logging a find.

 

 

 

Link to comment

I bet there would be a huge variety of responses but none would be imply that the intention of the throwdowner was to mislead other cachers or undermine the cache owner.

 

What other possible intention could there be?

 

Well, not that I agree with it, some throwdowners actually believe that they're doing the cache owner and future seekers a favor by replacing what the might believe is a missing container, and by doing so feel justified in logging a find.

 

I don't believe that any reasonable person honestly believes they are helping. They are placing the container so they can fraudulently claim a find.

Link to comment

I bet there would be a huge variety of responses but none would be imply that the intention of the throwdowner was to mislead other cachers or undermine the cache owner.

 

What other possible intention could there be?

Depends on how you view the game.

 

If your view of geocaching is: A hides a cache and B finds the cache A hid, then a throwdown has no part in the game.

 

If your view of geocaching is: A hides a cache, B goes and looks for the cache A hid, B finds what he thinks is the cache, and both A and B are happy that B found something and had fun; then a throwdown can seen as assuring there is something to find and adding to A and B's enjoyment of the game.

 

My objection to throwdowns is not that B is gaming the system by logging whatever they find as the cache, or that C is a wicked evil person who has subverted the game by leaving the throwdown; but that C has made the assumption the A and B share his view of geocaching.

Link to comment

You are again misusing the word 'fraudulent'. Fraud is an intentional deception. Finding a cache at ground zero and logging your find online does not suggest an attempt to deceive anyone.

 

If someone gives you a counterfeit $20 bill without your knowledge, you still aren't allowed to spend it. I appreciate that the unsuspecting finder is also a victim of a charlatan's poor behaviour, but they didn't find the cache.

If someone unknowingly hands you a fake $20, then that person did not commit fraud. They probably aren't 'shifty' either, but that's a nit with how you are mislabeling other players in a different post.

Link to comment

I bet there would be a huge variety of responses but none would be imply that the intention of the throwdowner was to mislead other cachers or undermine the cache owner.

 

What other possible intention could there be?

 

Well, not that I agree with it, some throwdowners actually believe that they're doing the cache owner and future seekers a favor by replacing what the might believe is a missing container, and by doing so feel justified in logging a find.

 

I don't believe that any reasonable person honestly believes they are helping. They are placing the container so they can fraudulently claim a find.

I think that your emotions might be fogging your opinions on that issue. A person could certainly replace a cache that is believed to be missing out of altruism for the cache owner and future seekers.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I think that your emotions might be fogging your opinions on that issue. A person could certainly replace a cache that is believed to be missing out of altruism for the cache owner and future seekers.

 

And that person would a dullard who is beneath my regard. Reasonable people don't behave in such a careless way.

Link to comment

I bet there would be a huge variety of responses but none would be imply that the intention of the throwdowner was to mislead other cachers or undermine the cache owner.

 

What other possible intention could there be?

 

Well, not that I agree with it, some throwdowners actually believe that they're doing the cache owner and future seekers a favor by replacing what the might believe is a missing container, and by doing so feel justified in logging a find.

 

I don't believe that any reasonable person honestly believes they are helping. They are placing the container so they can fraudulently claim a find.

 

I think it's safe to say that there are lot of cachers that are not being completely honest in their logging practices. I still don't think that the even those are are dishonest about logging a cache they threw down as a find have the intention of undermining the cache owner or deceiving future seekers.

 

 

Link to comment

I bet there would be a huge variety of responses but none would be imply that the intention of the throwdowner was to mislead other cachers or undermine the cache owner.

 

What other possible intention could there be?

Depends on how you view the game.

 

(I) If your view of geocaching is: A hides a cache and B finds the cache A hid, then a throwdown has no part in the game.

 

(II) If your view of geocaching is: A hides a cache, B goes and looks for the cache A hid, B finds what he thinks is the cache, and both A and B are happy that B found something and had fun; then a throwdown can seen as assuring there is something to find and adding to A and B's enjoyment of the game.

 

My objection to throwdowns is not that B is gaming the system by logging whatever they find as the cache, or that C is a wicked evil person who has subverted the game by leaving the throwdown; but that C has made the assumption the A and B share his view of geocaching.

 

I think that your emotions might be fogging your opinions on that issue. A person could certainly replace a cache that is believed to be missing out of altruism for the cache owner and future seekers.

 

And that person would a dullard who is beneath my regard. Reasonable people don't behave in such a careless way.

It is certainly reasonable to hold view (I) above. But refering to somwone who holds view (II) as a dullard or careless might run afoul of the forum guidelines.

Link to comment

I think that your emotions might be fogging your opinions on that issue. A person could certainly replace a cache that is believed to be missing out of altruism for the cache owner and future seekers.

 

And that person would a dullard who is beneath my regard. Reasonable people don't behave in such a careless way.

 

My, aren't we full of ourselves?

Link to comment

I bet there would be a huge variety of responses but none would be imply that the intention of the throwdowner was to mislead other cachers or undermine the cache owner.

 

What other possible intention could there be?

Depends on how you view the game.

 

(I) If your view of geocaching is: A hides a cache and B finds the cache A hid, then a throwdown has no part in the game.

 

(II) If your view of geocaching is: A hides a cache, B goes and looks for the cache A hid, B finds what he thinks is the cache, and both A and B are happy that B found something and had fun; then a throwdown can seen as assuring there is something to find and adding to A and B's enjoyment of the game.

 

My objection to throwdowns is not that B is gaming the system by logging whatever they find as the cache, or that C is a wicked evil person who has subverted the game by leaving the throwdown; but that C has made the assumption the A and B share his view of geocaching.

 

I think that your emotions might be fogging your opinions on that issue. A person could certainly replace a cache that is believed to be missing out of altruism for the cache owner and future seekers.

 

And that person would a dullard who is beneath my regard. Reasonable people don't behave in such a careless way.

It is certainly reasonable to hold view (I) above. But refering to somwone who holds view (II) as a dullard or careless might run afoul of the forum guidelines.

 

I think everyone in this discussion has been quite clear about not doing this themselves.

Link to comment

I bet there would be a huge variety of responses but none would be imply that the intention of the throwdowner was to mislead other cachers or undermine the cache owner.

 

What other possible intention could there be?

Depends on how you view the game.

 

(I) If your view of geocaching is: A hides a cache and B finds the cache A hid, then a throwdown has no part in the game.

 

(II) If your view of geocaching is: A hides a cache, B goes and looks for the cache A hid, B finds what he thinks is the cache, and both A and B are happy that B found something and had fun; then a throwdown can seen as assuring there is something to find and adding to A and B's enjoyment of the game.

 

My objection to throwdowns is not that B is gaming the system by logging whatever they find as the cache, or that C is a wicked evil person who has subverted the game by leaving the throwdown; but that C has made the assumption the A and B share his view of geocaching.

 

I think that your emotions might be fogging your opinions on that issue. A person could certainly replace a cache that is believed to be missing out of altruism for the cache owner and future seekers.

 

And that person would a dullard who is beneath my regard. Reasonable people don't behave in such a careless way.

It is certainly reasonable to hold view (I) above. But refering to somwone who holds view (II) as a dullard or careless might run afoul of the forum guidelines.

 

I think everyone in this discussion has been quite clear about not doing this themselves.

 

Actually, I hold view II insofar as "B finds what he thinks is the cache, and both A and B are happy that B found something and had fun". I don't believe in being the C guy just because I don't think you should be performing other people's maintenance without being requested to do so.

 

So I'm not sure if I'm a dullard or not.

Link to comment

 

Actually, I hold view II insofar as "B finds what he thinks is the cache, and both A and B are happy that B found something and had fun". I don't believe in being the C guy just because I don't think you should be performing other people's maintenance without being requested to do so.

 

So I'm not sure if I'm a dullard or not.

 

Are you throwing down geocaches when you can't find them under the misguided notion that you're somehow helping?

Link to comment

 

Actually, I hold view II insofar as "B finds what he thinks is the cache, and both A and B are happy that B found something and had fun". I don't believe in being the C guy just because I don't think you should be performing other people's maintenance without being requested to do so.

 

So I'm not sure if I'm a dullard or not.

 

Are you throwing down geocaches when you can't find them under the misguided notion that you're somehow helping?

 

I did once. We found the velcro strip where the cache had been. Reglued a new cache to it. Put it on my watchlist and maintained that cache for a number of years. Of course, I finally asked myself why the heck I was maintaining this guy's cache for him when he apparently left the game many moons ago.

 

Does that mean I WAS a dullard and have since become enlightened?

 

I'm pretty sure I'm still a dullard. Just ask my wife.

Link to comment

Actually, I hold view II insofar as "B finds what he thinks is the cache, and both A and B are happy that B found something and had fun". I don't believe in being the C guy just because I don't think you should be performing other people's maintenance without being requested to do so.

 

So I'm not sure if I'm a dullard or not.

 

Are you throwing down geocaches when you can't find them under the misguided notion that you're somehow helping?

 

I did once. We found the velcro strip where the cache had been. Reglued a new cache to it. Put it on my watchlist and maintained that cache for a number of years. Of course, I finally asked myself why the heck I was maintaining this guy's cache for him when he apparently left the game many moons ago.

 

Does that mean I WAS a dullard and have since become enlightened?

 

I'm pretty sure I'm still a dullard. Just ask my wife.

 

Possibly, but you're unlikely beneath your wifes regard.

Link to comment

Actually, I hold view II insofar as "B finds what he thinks is the cache, and both A and B are happy that B found something and had fun". I don't believe in being the C guy just because I don't think you should be performing other people's maintenance without being requested to do so.

 

So I'm not sure if I'm a dullard or not.

 

Are you throwing down geocaches when you can't find them under the misguided notion that you're somehow helping?

 

I did once. We found the velcro strip where the cache had been. Reglued a new cache to it. Put it on my watchlist and maintained that cache for a number of years. Of course, I finally asked myself why the heck I was maintaining this guy's cache for him when he apparently left the game many moons ago.

 

Does that mean I WAS a dullard and have since become enlightened?

 

I'm pretty sure I'm still a dullard. Just ask my wife.

 

Possibly, but you're unlikely beneath your wifes regard.

 

Yes, she thinks she's better than me too. <_<

Link to comment
It's also annoying when a cache owner is expected to respect the arbitrary rules of unofficial side games in which he/she did not choose to participate. Cache owners must be able to perform routine maintenance on their own caches without worrying about FTFs, fizzy this and that, or people who don't think they have to physically find the cache to find it. I refuse to have these shifty people dictate to me how I operate my cache listing. I will adjust my cache ratings as I see fit, and I will delete fraudulent logs.
I absolutely agree that the CO can and should maintain the cache, and isn't bound to acknowledge or support any side games while doing so. And part of that maintenance is deleting bogus online logs. However...

 

A lot of people care about their Finds beyond their value as an accurate record of their geocaching activity. Yes, milestones and streaks and grids and challenge caches and so on are side games. But deleting a Find can affect all of them. So deleting a Find is likely to annoy people, regardless of the side game(s) they are playing.

 

At some point, I think it becomes unreasonable for a CO to expect seekers to recognize a throwdown, and becomes reasonable for seekers to think they have found the real cache, and that their Find logs will not be deleted (thus affecting any side games they may be playing). Consider, for example:

 

Cache A: As you approach the site of a large-size cache, you pass someone who says, "It was missing, but I had a film canister with me and replaced it."

 

Cache B: A micro-size cache is described as a film canister, and the log sheet in a film canister includes signatures that match online logs going all the way back to the FTF.

 

When you find a film canister for Cache A, you can be pretty sure it's a throwdown. Sure, there's a chance that the CO replaced a missing large-size container with a film canister without updating the description, and you found that film canister rather than the one left by the person you passed. But a reasonable person would probably assume that it's a throwdown.

 

And when you find a film canister for Cache B, you can be pretty sure it is not a throwdown. Sure, there's a chance that the FTF lost/broke the original cache and replaced it with another film canister, and that everyone since has been finding and logging something other than the CO's original cache. But a reasonable person would probably assume that it is not a throwdown.

 

Yes, these are extreme examples. In real life, most cases will be somewhere in between. But at some point, it becomes reasonable for seekers to assume that the container they found is the CO's original container, a replacement container left by the CO, or at least a container left by someone else and acknowledged as a replacement container by the CO. And at some point, deleting online Find logs of a throwdown becomes more about punishing anyone even remotely associated with the throwdown, and less about correcting the online record.

Link to comment

It all comes to the conclusion, that throwdowns are a bad idea and simply should not be done.

 

I may use this line in other discussions as well...

My kind of person!!!! Lets start an Anti-Throwdown movement!!!!

 

I agree a local cacher in my town no longer maintains his caches he had two other cachers placing throw downs so he could keep them on line and stop other hiders from hiding in the area. If you can't check your own caches then archive them don't get others to replace them.

Link to comment

deleting online Find logs of a throwdown becomes more about punishing anyone even remotely associated with the throwdown

 

It's not really the cache owner's concern if someone chooses to interpret log deletion as "punishment." It's simply not possible for cache owners to keep track of the myriad things random geocachers might decide to be upset about. I don't expect others to cater to any personal side games or challenges I've chosen to participate in.

 

Going by what my own feelings would be, I have to say that I would feel far more violated by finding a throwdown at my cache, than I would at having a log deleted.

 

I find it really weird that so many seem to think the online log is more important than the geocache itself. The geocache is the point of the game. It's the reason we're all here.

Link to comment

 

Actually, I hold view II insofar as "B finds what he thinks is the cache, and both A and B are happy that B found something and had fun". I don't believe in being the C guy just because I don't think you should be performing other people's maintenance without being requested to do so.

 

So I'm not sure if I'm a dullard or not.

 

Are you throwing down geocaches when you can't find them under the misguided notion that you're somehow helping?

 

I've helped many cache owners in this manner. I always take plenty of extra pill bottles to replace caches that i find are missing. Being a PC (professional cacher), i know when a cache is missing. What can i say, the opportunity to help out fellow cache owners by throwing out a pill bottle to replace their missing ammocan just makes my day. Of course, me getting that well deserved smiley is good too! ;)

 

Seriously, i do believe that some people honestly feel they are helping when they throwdown, especially on those harder to reach caches. And yes, there are COs that appreciate this at times. But i'd bet money that most throwdowners aren't thinking about the CO at all. They're pretty much after one thing...

Link to comment

I find it really weird that so many seem to think the online log is more important than the geocache itself. The geocache is the point of the game. It's the reason we're all here.

 

I'm not a fan of throwdowns at all, however the caches I like the most are much more than a container. The container in the end is the least important part. So if the finder had no chance to realize that he signed in the wrong container, there is neither anything the finder can be blamed nor anything missing from the experience the cache has been hidden for.

 

For me it's the overall experience and not a container that is most important and a geocache is much more than a container for me.

I do not know a single person who for example would hike more than 80km and quite a number of height meters for this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2WT7J_steirischer-02-fischbacher-alpen?guid=00e23785-0a1f-4794-8369-920a194d4714

for the tiny plastic box hidden at quite an ordinary location. It's the hike through a phantastic landscape.

I can assure you that the experience would be the same extraordinary one if there happened to be a second container there.

 

Of course you are free to delete logs in wrong containers for your caches, but this does not mean that your idea of what

makes up a geocache is the only legitimate one. So maybe it helps you to dissolve what seems weird to you when you

take into account that what's important about a cache is quite subjective.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I'm not a fan of throwdowns at all, however the caches I like the most are much more than a container.

 

That is true for many of us, but it is not universal and it does not change the fact that the container is an essential element of the game.

 

The entire point of the game is that one person places a container, and another person uses GPS to find that same container.

 

Putting a different container where you think the other one should be is not part of the game. While it's unfortunate that some charlatans are intent on doing this, leading cachers to inadvertently "find" things that aren't the cache, it's not reasonable to expect cache owners to tolerate any of it.

Link to comment

I find it really weird that so many seem to think the online log is more important than the geocache itself. The geocache is the point of the game. It's the reason we're all here.

 

Exactly. So why do you think a cache owner needs to delete someone's online log if they have a different definition of a "find"? Just because you hold the belief that you can only "find" the cache if it is the cache owner hid, doesn't mean someone else might not define "find" as finding something that appears to be a legitimate replacement and can't tell if this was an unwanted throwdown or one the owner has accepted. It seems more reasonable for the owner to inform someone that what they found was an unwanted throwdown or something other than the cache and leave up to the logger to decide whether to change their log.

Link to comment

It seems more reasonable for the owner to inform someone that what they found was an unwanted throwdown or something other than the cache and leave up to the logger to decide whether to change their log.

 

Or they could just stick to the facts - Did you find what I hid? Yes? Great - log it as found / No? Sorry - DNF :)

 

But even as I write this I ask myself a question - having previously deleted found logs by throw-downers on occasion.

 

Let's say that I discover my cache has been replaced by a throw-down at some point - but I don't know when - because the throw-downer didn't mention the fact...

 

Would I delete in good faith logs by those who were completely oblivious to the fact they didn't find what I hid? How would I even know who found what I hid and who didn't? Answers respectively - probably not and how would I know who found what unless they describe it in their logs?

Link to comment

 

Of course you are free to delete logs in wrong containers for your caches, but this does not mean that your idea of what

makes up a geocache is the only legitimate one.

 

Cezanne

 

As a CO you can delete any and all logs you want including NM and NA....whether its the right thing to do and would the deletion stand if a protest was made to TPTB is another question.

Link to comment

how would I know who found what unless they describe it in their logs?

 

You don't look at the logbook during routine cache maintenance?

On more than one occasion now I have found the original cache where a cache owner doing routine maintenance has left a replacement when they couldn't find their cache. Now when I've posted in my log that I found the original container the owner has thanked me and of course let my log stand. But you could argue (especially if I've read the logs and seen that owner had replaced the cache) that I found the wrong container. Of course, if I hadn't read the logs and seen that there was a replacement, and later the cache owner checked the replacement they left and found that I hadn't signed it, they would delete my log and accuse me of making a bogus log. :unsure:

Link to comment

On more than one occasion now I have found the original cache where a cache owner doing routine maintenance has left a replacement when they couldn't find their cache.

 

My bold.

 

Which is exactly what happened to me recently - and I found both caches close to GZ years after one of them had originally 'gone missing'.

 

There were numerous signatures in both logbooks - so I put both of them in one container and put that one container back where I'd originally hidden the cache. All the online logs stand as posted.

Link to comment

I'm not a fan of throwdowns at all, however the caches I like the most are much more than a container.

 

That is true for many of us, but it is not universal and it does not change the fact that the container is an essential element of the game.

 

The entire point of the game is that one person places a container, and another person uses GPS to find that same container.

 

Putting a different container where you think the other one should be is not part of the game. While it's unfortunate that some charlatans are intent on doing this, leading cachers to inadvertently "find" things that aren't the cache, it's not reasonable to expect cache owners to tolerate any of it.

 

When you write "find things that aren't the cache" you equate cache and cache container and that's what I do not agree with regardless of my negative opinion on throw-downs.

Link to comment

On more than one occasion now I have found the original cache where a cache owner doing routine maintenance has left a replacement when they couldn't find their cache.

 

My bold.

 

Which is exactly what happened to me recently - and I found both caches close to GZ years after one of them had originally 'gone missing'.

 

There were numerous signatures in both logbooks - so I put both of them in one container and put that one container back where I'd originally hidden the cache. All the online logs stand as posted.

 

Yes, I have seen this happen many times. Not really relevant unless you want to define an owner's replacement as a throwdown.

Link to comment

When you write "find things that aren't the cache" you equate cache and cache container and that's what I do not agree with regardless of my negative opinion on throw-downs.

 

If you're not looking for a container, then what are you looking for? Without the container, you're just using a GPS to go to a spot.

Link to comment

When you write "find things that aren't the cache" you equate cache and cache container and that's what I do not agree with regardless of my negative opinion on throw-downs.

 

If you're not looking for a container, then what are you looking for? Without the container, you're just using a GPS to go to a spot.

 

Most of my favourite caches involve a long journey where you have found many things (informations, experiences, sometimes containers, puzzles, adventures etc depending on the cache) before the final container with the log book. That's much more than using a GPS to go to a spot as you put it. Whether someone logs in the log book of cache container 1 or cache container 2 does not play an essential role for such caches which does not mean that I encourage throw-downs. Those who leave unsolicited throw-downs do not deserve a found it log, but that's a different story.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

When you write "find things that aren't the cache" you equate cache and cache container and that's what I do not agree with regardless of my negative opinion on throw-downs.

 

If you're not looking for a container, then what are you looking for? Without the container, you're just using a GPS to go to a spot.

 

Most of my favourite caches involve

 

 

We're not talking about personal preferences here.

 

The basic essence of this game, geocaching, is that there is a container at a location that you find with a GPS. Everything else is a nice-to-have.

 

While you may feel personally satisfied with an experience that doesn't involve a container, the fact remains that (virtuals, etc. nothwithstanding), a geocache is a container that was placed for the purpose of being found by others. This is pretty 101-level stuff here.

Link to comment

We're not talking about personal preferences here.

 

The basic essence of this game, geocaching, is that there is a container at a location that you find with a GPS. Everything else is a nice-to-have.

 

While you may feel personally satisfied with an experience that doesn't involve a container, the fact remains that (virtuals, etc. nothwithstanding), a geocache is a container that was placed for the purpose of being found by others. This is pretty 101-level stuff here.

 

I did not talk about an experience that does not involve a container. What you write above is true for (most) traditionals (even though even in that case other things are nice to have).

For many other cache types, it's true that the cache involves finding at least one container at least one spot, but can involve much more (many containers, many locations, many other things in between). To reduce what geocaching is about to going to one spot and finding a single container is wrong in my opinion and excludes many cache types.

It has nothing to do with virtuals that I do not feel that cache and cache container are the same thing.

 

Using your definition above which you call pretty 101-level stuff, an offset cache where you use the GPS to locate a hidden sign somewhere in the forest and read off some data

and then follow a letterbox style description to the container, would not be a cache. So it's not as simple as that to define what the essence of geocaching is.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

We're not talking about personal preferences here.

 

The basic essence of this game, geocaching, is that there is a container at a location that you find with a GPS. Everything else is a nice-to-have.

 

While you may feel personally satisfied with an experience that doesn't involve a container, the fact remains that (virtuals, etc. nothwithstanding), a geocache is a container that was placed for the purpose of being found by others. This is pretty 101-level stuff here.

 

I did not talk about an experience that does not involve a container. What you write above is true for (most) traditionals

 

[snip]

 

 

At the end of it, there is a final container with a logbook that you sign. Again, 101-level stuff here.

 

I realize that you are intent on derailing every conversation into a detailed manifesto of your particular geocaching preferences, but none of that is relevant.

 

A geocache is a container that is meant to be found. It's not merely a location where other people leave containers of their own.

Link to comment

I realize that you are intent on derailing every conversation into a detailed manifesto of your particular geocaching preferences, but none of that is relevant.

 

No that's not my intent. I used examples to explain why I think that your statement that a geocache is a container is wrong.

 

A geocache is a container that is meant to be found. It's not merely a location where other people leave containers of their own.

 

I have said many times that I'm against throw-downs. This will not change that I think that "A (physical) geocache involves at least one container meant to be found" is true, but that the statement "A geocache is a container" is wrong.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
I find it really weird that so many seem to think the online log is more important than the geocache itself. The geocache is the point of the game. It's the reason we're all here.

 

If this happened to me, I would audit the logs and delete everyone who signed the throwdown.

 

I find it really weird (and inconsistent) that the black/white supporters of deleting logs of cachers who signed the throwdown in good faith, do not apply the same rigid scrutiny to themselves as the cache owner.

 

Cache owners are required to address the throwdown/maintenance issue immediately, right?

 

Wait, I as the CO did not know there was a throwdown until... I hear you say,

 

Well there’s the rub ... neither did the other cachers ...(other than the naughty throwdowner)

 

 

 

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