Confused?

[+Dame Deco]

 

We cannot know anyhow when a cache was hidden except for our own caches. I have encountered caches that have been published several years after having been hidden (no fake date). I guess for those who want to compete the publish date is the one to care about anyhow.

 

It has nothing at all to do with "competing." You do like label anyone who is interested in facts and keeping track of things properly as "competitive," don't you? Why do you choose that word? I study history, I teach history--I just like to have the facts straight, it has nothing to do with competing at anything.

[cezanne]

 

We cannot know anyhow when a cache was hidden except for our own caches. I have encountered caches that have been published several years after having been hidden (no fake date). I guess for those who want to compete the publish date is the one to care about anyhow.

 

It has nothing at all to do with "competing." You do like label anyone who is interested in facts and keeping track of things properly as "competitive," don't you? Why do you choose that word? I study history, I teach history--I just like to have the facts straight, it has nothing to do with competing at anything.

 

My statement was that for those who wish to compete, the publish date should be the relevant one and not the hidden date. That was not a statement about you (and also not about myself, your profession or mine). I did not say that you are competitive. I do not know you.

 

In history some dates are known for sure, others are not. We all have to live with that. That's similar to the situation that we will never know when a cache really has been hidden.

Doesn't it suffice in case of a cache to orient yourself with the help of the publish date?

[+Dame Deco]

You often imply that people who cache differently from you are in it for competition--you've implied it in a number of posts in this thread while having a discussion with me. Cezanne = proper values, others who disagree = competitive.

 

I value accuracy. Of course some dates, etc., can't be known--but to be inaccurate on purpose bothers me. That's why this whole situation bothers me. When a GS lackey replaces a cache that nobody has seen for 7 years--not the original owner or the adopter--and has never been found, then has the next cachers come along and log the replacement as the first people to find the oldest unfound cache in Washington State, that sets up a problematical situation. The record for this cache, and the history of caches in Washington State, is now inaccurate.

[cezanne]

You often imply that people who cache differently from you are in it for competition--you've implied it in a number of posts in this thread while having a discussion with me. Cezanne = proper values, others who disagree = competitive.

 

I'm not writing in my native language. I might not have formulated what I wrote carefully enough. In any case, I do not occupy myself with the question of proper values in geocaching.

 

I could not think of another reason than competitiveness why it is important whether the container that can be found now has been hidden by Derek recently or years ago by someone else.

 

I value accuracy. Of course some dates, etc., can't be known--but to be inaccurate on purpose bothers me. That's why this whole situation bothers me. When a GS lackey replaces a cache that nobody has seen for 7 years--not the original owner or the adopter--and has never been found, then has the next cachers come along and log the replacement as the first people to find the oldest unfound cache in Washington State, that sets up a problematical situation. The record for this cache, and the history of caches in Washington State, is now inaccurate.

 

I also value accuracy. As the facts are available in the log history, I do not agree that the history of the cache discussed here is now inaccurate. What might get inaccurate is if some people create automatic leaderboards, ranking lists, statistics etc without taking all data and available information into account. The human brain is able to interpret the available information correctly - there is no lie included and no inaccuracy.

 

As we agreed above, there is no way to make everyone happy and I'd say that in the case of a cache it is more important to make those happy who belong to the target audience of the cache. I value it as more important that climbing cachers now again have a container to find than ensuring that automatically generated data are accurate.

 

Suppose the owner went there and hid a new cache himself. That would not change a bit with respect to the fact that the recent finders found a new container and not the old one.

So somehow you would need a new cache listing whenever a new cache container or logbook is hidden which does not make sense at all in my opinion.

Edited July 27, 2015 by cezanne

[+J Grouchy]

You often imply that people who cache differently from you are in it for competition--you've implied it in a number of posts in this thread while having a discussion with me. Cezanne = proper values, others who disagree = competitive.

 

I value accuracy. Of course some dates, etc., can't be known--but to be inaccurate on purpose bothers me. That's why this whole situation bothers me. When a GS lackey replaces a cache that nobody has seen for 7 years--not the original owner or the adopter--and has never been found, then has the next cachers come along and log the replacement as the first people to find the oldest unfound cache in Washington State, that sets up a problematical situation. The record for this cache, and the history of caches in Washington State, is now inaccurate.

 

I hear you...and I totally get it. I'm about as uninterested in most of the stats involving Jasmer and the like as anyone, but it does get under my skin a bit. I think cezanne just brings up competitiveness because many folks do rely on false data to fill in whatever grid or stat they are looking to fill. A cache from 2000 may be getting replaced by cachers, the owner LONG gone from the game. Those folks aren't really finding a 15 year old cache...they're finding a one or two or five year old cache. They may even be aware of that fact, but don't care as long as it fills in the little square on their grid.

[+narcissa]

You often imply that people who cache differently from you are in it for competition--you've implied it in a number of posts in this thread while having a discussion with me. Cezanne = proper values, others who disagree = competitive.

 

I value accuracy. Of course some dates, etc., can't be known--but to be inaccurate on purpose bothers me. That's why this whole situation bothers me. When a GS lackey replaces a cache that nobody has seen for 7 years--not the original owner or the adopter--and has never been found, then has the next cachers come along and log the replacement as the first people to find the oldest unfound cache in Washington State, that sets up a problematical situation. The record for this cache, and the history of caches in Washington State, is now inaccurate.

 

You're not required to find any cache or report any statistic that doesn't meet your personal geocaching accuracy standards.

[+Dame Deco]

J Grouchy, thanks for the comments, I think you're right. Cezanne--I think you responded fairly, and I understand what you are saying. But now maybe you see that there could be an explanation other than competitiveness.

 

I've found Mingo, mostly because it was on my route one day, and I thought--why not? But it wasn't very exciting--talk about a butchered cache history. Arikaree on the other hand--I went hundreds of miles out of my way for that one. I found it before the original logbook was lost, and I just got chills visiting that gorgeous place and seeing the original log book from over a decade before. If all I cared about was the oldest date--I should have given a favorite point to Mingo, but my favorite point went to Arikaree. It's younger (not the OLDEST cache), but it was a more exciting visit for me personally.

[+Dame Deco]

You often imply that people who cache differently from you are in it for competition--you've implied it in a number of posts in this thread while having a discussion with me. Cezanne = proper values, others who disagree = competitive.

 

I value accuracy. Of course some dates, etc., can't be known--but to be inaccurate on purpose bothers me. That's why this whole situation bothers me. When a GS lackey replaces a cache that nobody has seen for 7 years--not the original owner or the adopter--and has never been found, then has the next cachers come along and log the replacement as the first people to find the oldest unfound cache in Washington State, that sets up a problematical situation. The record for this cache, and the history of caches in Washington State, is now inaccurate.

 

You're not required to find any cache or report any statistic that doesn't meet your personal geocaching accuracy standards.

 

I know, and for the most part--I don't.

[cezanne]

I've found Mingo, mostly because it was on my route one day, and I thought--why not? But it wasn't very exciting--talk about a butchered cache history. Arikaree on the other hand--I went hundreds of miles out of my way for that one. I found it before the original logbook was lost, and I just got chills visiting that gorgeous place and seeing the original log book from over a decade before. If all I cared about was the oldest date--I should have given a favorite point to Mingo, but my favorite point went to Arikaree. It's younger (not the OLDEST cache), but it was a more exciting visit for me personally.

 

I can fully understand what you wrote above. The same has happened to me. There are old caches that fascinated me and others that I did not enjoy that much.

 

What you brought into the play above is just what I have mentioned before: Every cache has its own situation and all available details play a role when evaluating whether a particular cache is worthwhile for oneself (or rather how much worthwhile - iot's not only black and white).

 

So while I have no problem at all to understand why someone (or maybe the majority) might be more thrilled to find a seven year old unfound cache with the original container than a replacement container, I still do not understand why a replacement turns the cache into an illegitimate one. As I said before it can also happen that the cache owner has to replace a cache and it also happened to me several times (and by the way it also happened to my first cache from February 2003).

 

When you rely on our human capacities to process information and not just on some automatic tools, you can clearly distinguish between a cache like the discussed one and a cache that still has its original container. The truth is to be found in the logs for that cache. So the only thing that can happen is that leaderboards for the longest unfound caches, the finders of the longest unfound caches etc get distorted but such boards are of no relevance in my opinion outside of competitions as they are not created in a proper way but just based on some automatically generated data that never can lead to results that are meaningful in all cases. I do not think that we can equate history with poorly generated data from automatic sources.

Edited July 27, 2015 by cezanne

[+Dame Deco]

This is a very specific case: 7 years old. Never found. Never seen since the day it was placed by anybody. Comparing it to caches that have been found from time to time, or maintained in any way, is like comparing apples and oranges. It should have just been archived, and a new cache page put in its place. It could be owned by either the adoptee owner or by Derek. That would be a more accurate representation of the history of the cache.

[+narcissa]

This is a very specific case: 7 years old. Never found. Never seen since the day it was placed by anybody. Comparing it to caches that have been found from time to time, or maintained in any way, is like comparing apples and oranges. It should have just been archived, and a new cache page put in its place. It could be owned by either the adoptee owner or by Derek. That would be a more accurate representation of the history of the cache.

 

Comparing it to other caches is apples and apples. Caches are caches. You may assign subjective value to characteristics like cache age, but imposing that value on everybody else doesn't make any sense. If you don't want to find a cache because you don't think it is accurate, cool. Don't.

Edited July 27, 2015 by narcissa

[+Dame Deco]

Hmmm…didn't realize I was imposing anything on anyone. Did someone die and make me King? All I'm doing is expressing an opinion in a discussion on an online forum. I thought some might be interested in my opinion, for I am interested in theirs.

[+narcissa]

Hmmm…didn't realize I was imposing anything on anyone. Did someone die and make me King? All I'm doing is expressing an opinion in a discussion on an online forum. I thought some might be interested in my opinion, for I am interested in theirs.

 

And I am discussing your opinion in an online forum.

[cezanne]

This is a very specific case: 7 years old. Never found. Never seen since the day it was placed by anybody. Comparing it to caches that have been found from time to time, or maintained in any way, is like comparing apples and oranges. It should have just been archived, and a new cache page put in its place. It could be owned by either the adoptee owner or by Derek. That would be a more accurate representation of the history of the cache.

 

My intention was not to compare apples and oranges or different caches to each other. My intention was to raise general questions.

 

In order to learn about the accurate history of a cache, one always needs to do more than looking at the hidden date and the date of the first find. I still claim that the history of the cache discussed here is accurate. Read the log by Derek. It tells you all about what he did. If someone wants to find an old cache with the original container, then this person will choose another cache to find.

 

Of course, in theory a new cache page could have been created, but where is the borderline where you wish to have a new cache page? Would it have been acceptable for you to keep the cache page if the current owner went there to replace the container? Would it have been acceptable after 3 years instead of 7 years? 1 year? Many questions once you start to question what happened and no clear answers in my opinion.

We could have an attribute for "original container and logbook" that would help in selecting caches of the type some appreciate. We also could in theory (I do not think that Groundspeak will ever implement that) have a cache history with all the dates when the container has been replaced (there are cache pages where the owner includes a history list similar to the change list for software).

 

In my opinion, the problem is not caused by the fact that no new cache page has been created, the problem in such cases comes from using automatically generated data without looking into the details. It rather shows how absurd it can be to rely on such data. What keeps someone who has certain criteria for what makes a cache worthwhile to select caches according to that criteria? The discussed cache is one that needs preparation anyway - so noone will go for it without having had a look at the cache page. So it cannot happen that someone ends up at the cache and is deeply disappointed about having been tricked and having found a new container while having expected a 7 years old one.

 

It's like in history - one needs to look deeper into the details and cannot just rely on a single line of a document which well might contain a mistake. Such a mistake will not fake the history.

[+DanOCan]

I kind of have to laugh--was just checking on oldest hides in UK, and one was hidden in 1955 and another in 1982 (published in 2014 and 2015). Someone posted a "needs archived" on one of them, and the reviewer responded with "There is nothing in the guidelines to say that the hidden date must be accurate." That kinda tells me everything about the way GS runs the hobby that I need to know!

There may be nothing in the guidelines, but it is certainly enforced on a reviewer by reviewer basis.

 

I hid a cache in November and it ended up being too close to a stage of a Multi so it couldn't get published. Four months later I went out and moved it so it didn't have proximity issues and submitted it again, still with the original November hide date and the reviewer told me I needed to change the date on it before it could be published. That's off topic though.

 

As to this topic?

 

I don't see any issue here. Someone replaced a cache with the owner's permission. Happens all the time. The fact that the cache was adopted, was unfound, was old, was high Terrain...all strike me as irrelevant. Heck, it's not even like Derek logged a Find on it. Seems we should be saving our precious forum outrage for a situation where someone brings a throwdown for an old unfound cache and then claims the Find. That would be a different situation.