Jump to content

If you can't praise a cache to high heaven. . .


NanCycle
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I happened to be looking at my list of Favorites today and noticed that one of them had just been archived; wondering why, I looked it up and found:

 

IN THE CACHE DESCRIPTION:

 

***** ATTENTION*****

As of 7-19-15, This cache will be DESTROYED and REMOVED . If there are any trackables or other wanted items in this cache they will be forever lost and pitched once I shut it down...!! I am SICK of people B1TcH1nG about it's difficulty rating, it's location, it's contents not being "up to date" etc... I am shutting down my account and ALL my hides.... and will most likely NEVER return. SO, if you don't want any bugs or trackables or valuable trinkets to be lost, go get them out NOW.....!!!!!

 

THE ARCHIVE LOG:

 

Too many people complained too much about the location, the difficulty rating, the fact that the box was wet, the fact that someone actually put a cool cache out and people just HAD to FIND something to B1TcH about... so it's getting shut down as promised on 7-19-15... it's too bad that my newborn son of only 6 days will not get to partake in Geocaching... because his dad felt like people just didn't care to appreciate a simple "go find it game..." too many people in this world spoil it for everyone else. Sorry Folks!!! Thank you to those who had used and enjoyed it over the years... and to those of you who B!TCHED about it... may you get lost and trip and fall seeking the cache you deem you wish to find....

 

I read back through 5 years of logs and did not find any “B1TcH1nG about it's difficulty rating, it's location, it's contents not being "up to date" etc”. Either the CO has been deleting anything he considered too negative or he’s one of those folks who just can’t stand anything but unadulterated praise.

 

The most negative comments I found were like these, all of which I consider just factual statements of the cachers’ experiences :

 

Found the right road and drove up the hill to the parking lot. Saw some bones from a dead animal on our way over to make an easy find. There are NO Trackables in this cache.

 

Walked all around it until I saw it was incredibly exposed

 

We thought it might be suitable for dropping a trackable, but, sad to say, the trackable that was dropped here in 2011 hasn't been seen since

 

Once again the travel bug inventory is incorrect.

 

The log was very damp.

 

the cache itself needs maintenance. when I went to log it is the book the book was very damp. Also the container was falling apart.

 

No trackables, even though the inventory shows 2.

 

Wouldn't you know it, days without rain and we got rained on at this cache

 

Didn't see either of the travel bugs

 

Container is cracked. Needs maintenance.

 

i feel stupid i walked around it for half an hour then finally had great aunt use gps to lead me to actually finding the stupid thing

 

All 7 of this CO’s caches have been archived; 3 others with exactly the same language as quoted above. I did not read back through logs on any of the other caches to see if I found more blatant negativity on them.

 

(In case anyone didn't get it, the thread title is tongue-in-cheek, though this isn't the first CO I've run across who took the simplest non-praise comment as "complaining" or "b----ing." But to the point of geocide, come on, really?)

Link to comment

Well the logs do point out one thing, that for some strange reason folks believe that the cache owner it totally and completely responsible for the traveler inventory on the cache. News flash - That inventory list is created by Groundspeak and only reflects the care cache finders use to insure the travelers are properly logged in and out. The CO has nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of that list. This CO seems to be a bit more thin skinned about the accuracy of the list than I am. He seems to take it personal and considers it b1tching. I simply ignore it on my caches and the caches I seek, but this is not to say I won't log and move travelers.

Link to comment

When I hear about cases like this, my reaction is that it sounds like someone is looking for an excuse to quit, so the actual stated reasons won't necessarily make sense.

 

After all, it's far, far easier to simply ignore the caches and stop looking at logs than it is to go on a rampage declaring in multiple places how badly he's been treated. It's as if he's trying to convince himself he has good reasons and there's more to it than just that he's bored with geocaching and wants to move on to some other hobby.

Link to comment
News flash - That inventory list is created by Groundspeak and only reflects the care cache finders use to insure the travelers are properly logged in and out. The CO has nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of that list.

:huh:

 

CO's have the ability to mark TBs missing. Therefore, they DO have something to do with the maintenance of the list.

 

That said - yeah, what everyone else said. :D

Link to comment

I happened to be looking at my list of Favorites today and noticed that one of them had just been archived

Dang it, why'd you have to go and take it off your list? I wanted to check it out! :laughing:

 

When I hear about cases like this, my reaction is that it sounds like someone is looking for an excuse to quit, so the actual stated reasons won't necessarily make sense.

 

After all, it's far, far easier to simply ignore the caches and stop looking at logs than it is to go on a rampage declaring in multiple places how badly he's been treated. It's as if he's trying to convince himself he has good reasons and there's more to it than just that he's bored with geocaching and wants to move on to some other hobby.

+1

The multiple logs mentioning the damaged container with (apparently) no maintenance being done tells me they either lost interest long ago or were never serious about wanting to take on the associated duties that come with cache ownership .

 

Out of curiosity, how long has this account been active and how many finds do they have? With the information provided, it smells like a n00b who didn't realize what they were getting into by hiding caches.

Link to comment
News flash - That inventory list is created by Groundspeak and only reflects the care cache finders use to insure the travelers are properly logged in and out. The CO has nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of that list.

:huh:

 

CO's have the ability to mark TBs missing. Therefore, they DO have something to do with the maintenance of the list.

Yes, they do have the ability, but don't ever make the mistake of saying that owners should be required to exercise that ability. Your head will be bitten off. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Well the logs do point out one thing, that for some strange reason folks believe that the cache owner it totally and completely responsible for the traveler inventory on the cache. News flash - That inventory list is created by Groundspeak and only reflects the care cache finders use to insure the travelers are properly logged in and out. The CO has nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of that list. This CO seems to be a bit more thin skinned about the accuracy of the list than I am. He seems to take it personal and considers it b1tching. I simply ignore it on my caches and the caches I seek, but this is not to say I won't log and move travelers.

 

I disagree that "folks believe that the cache owner it totally and completely responsible for the traveler inventory." In my logs I often remark on the absence of trackables listed as being in the cache, even to the point sometimes of a separate Note log. But I consider it just information I'm passing along to anyone who might be interested--maybe the CO, maybe future finders, maybe the TO. Sometimes the CO does mark the trackable missing based on my report, but often not. The Note that I write to the trackable's page just as often doesn't result in any action from the TO. Over the years I've become less interested in trying to keep trackable inventory correct, though; as in I've quit keeping lists, sending separate emails to CO's and TO's, and finally asking Eartha to fix it.

Link to comment
News flash - That inventory list is created by Groundspeak and only reflects the care cache finders use to insure the travelers are properly logged in and out. The CO has nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of that list.

:huh:

 

CO's have the ability to mark TBs missing. Therefore, they DO have something to do with the maintenance of the list.

 

That said - yeah, what everyone else said. :D

Of course I could take it off the list - after I trudge out to the cache to verify it is missing and all other trackables are present. Do you want to speculate on the probability of that happening? If I took it off the list and it was still there then things would be just as screwed up

Link to comment
News flash - That inventory list is created by Groundspeak and only reflects the care cache finders use to insure the travelers are properly logged in and out. The CO has nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of that list.

:huh:

 

CO's have the ability to mark TBs missing. Therefore, they DO have something to do with the maintenance of the list.

Yes, they do have the ability, but don't ever make the mistake of saying that owners should be required to exercise that ability. Your head will be bitten off. :ph34r:

 

I'm not gonna bite your head off. Just going to say I'd prefer to see it automated like this yet to be implemented, 4 year old request.

Link to comment

I happened to be looking at my list of Favorites today and noticed that one of them had just been archived

Dang it, why'd you have to go and take it off your list? I wanted to check it out! :laughing:

 

When I hear about cases like this, my reaction is that it sounds like someone is looking for an excuse to quit, so the actual stated reasons won't necessarily make sense.

 

After all, it's far, far easier to simply ignore the caches and stop looking at logs than it is to go on a rampage declaring in multiple places how badly he's been treated. It's as if he's trying to convince himself he has good reasons and there's more to it than just that he's bored with geocaching and wants to move on to some other hobby.

+1

The multiple logs mentioning the damaged container with (apparently) no maintenance being done tells me they either lost interest long ago or were never serious about wanting to take on the associated duties that come with cache ownership .

 

Out of curiosity, how long has this account been active and how many finds do they have? With the information provided, it smells like a n00b who didn't realize what they were getting into by hiding caches.

 

I always take FPs back from archived caches--I wanted to award them to other caches.

 

I did not quote the entire log history of the cache; I selected the most negative ones I could find over the last 5 years. Just because I didn't include logs about maintenance it shouldn't be assumed that no maintenance was performed.

 

The account goes back to Nov. 2007; this cache was placed in June 2008 and was their 6th placement; they had 15 finds before placing this one and 17 finds since.

Link to comment

To me that this CO really should have only put out a few and see if they can handle it.

 

I had posted a few DNFs and NMs on some caches (not realizing they were the same COs caches). He responded with comment almost like I was finding entertainment posting DNFs and NM on his cache and if I didn't like them he would archive them. And he did! All of his. Of course cachers blamed me for his actions.

Link to comment

Here is the key that explains why this family went off the deep end:

 

it's too bad that my newborn son of only 6 days will not get to partake in Geocaching..

 

No matter how excited a couple is about their new child, becoming a new parent is more tiring and stressful to many (most? all?) than they ever imagined.

 

The geocide occurred after a week of sleep deprivation and one of the biggest life changes someone can face. Under those circumstances, it's completely understandable.

Link to comment

Here is the key that explains why this family went off the deep end:

 

it's too bad that my newborn son of only 6 days will not get to partake in Geocaching..

 

No matter how excited a couple is about their new child, becoming a new parent is more tiring and stressful to many (most? all?) than they ever imagined.

 

The geocide occurred after a week of sleep deprivation and one of the biggest life changes someone can face. Under those circumstances, it's completely understandable.

So they take it out on cachers?

 

edit to add: I live in a house with 2 babies, two other adults and to young girls. I don't get a lot of sleep either when the parents sleep right through the 2 babies crying. I would NEVER take it out on others for my lack of sleep.

Edited by jellis
Link to comment
News flash - That inventory list is created by Groundspeak and only reflects the care cache finders use to insure the travelers are properly logged in and out. The CO has nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of that list.

:huh:

 

CO's have the ability to mark TBs missing. Therefore, they DO have something to do with the maintenance of the list.

 

That said - yeah, what everyone else said. :D

 

I always thought I was doing other cachers a favor by mentioning that the TB isn't there. It used to be that people would go after a cache because it had a trackable in it (though in the past few years, that seems to have mostly ended). Telling them in the log that there isn't one saves them a little disappointment. Whether the cache owner marked it missing is up to them.

Edited by AustinMN
Link to comment

I happened to be looking at my list of Favorites today and noticed that one of them had just been archived; wondering why, I looked it up and found:

 

IN THE CACHE DESCRIPTION:

 

***** ATTENTION*****

As of 7-19-15, This cache will be DESTROYED and REMOVED . If there are any trackables or other wanted items in this cache they will be forever lost and pitched once I shut it down...!! I am SICK of people B1TcH1nG about it's difficulty rating, it's location, it's contents not being "up to date" etc... I am shutting down my account and ALL my hides.... and will most likely NEVER return. SO, if you don't want any bugs or trackables or valuable trinkets to be lost, go get them out NOW.....!!!!!

 

First off... it should be its. No apostrophe. "It's" means "it is".

 

Second...dude needs to get a grip.

 

That is all.

Link to comment

I've got a TB missing out of one my caches, but I'm not sure whether to mark it missing or not since other people have discovered it elsewhere. It's just mislogged, not actually missing. What should I do?

 

Mark it missing from your cache. Next person to retrieve it will get it going again.

Link to comment

I've got a TB missing out of one my caches, but I'm not sure whether to mark it missing or not since other people have discovered it elsewhere. It's just mislogged, not actually missing. What should I do?

 

Mark it missing from your cache. Next person to retrieve it will get it going again.

 

This. Marking it "missing" just changes the location from your cache to "unknown location". People can still discover it and log it. Hopefully, eventually someone will retrieve it (on the website/app), then the location will be updated.

Link to comment

I've got a TB missing out of one my caches, but I'm not sure whether to mark it missing or not since other people have discovered it elsewhere. It's just mislogged, not actually missing. What should I do?

 

It is just a headache.....as a previous poster said I would let the TB game play out on its own, no need to intervene or interfere.

I own a TB Hotel that I try to keep accurate and will check if someone requests it but I view that differently from my other regular caches.

Its just another thing that pushes folks to hide micro's.

Link to comment

Here is the key that explains why this family went off the deep end:

 

it's too bad that my newborn son of only 6 days will not get to partake in Geocaching..

 

No matter how excited a couple is about their new child, becoming a new parent is more tiring and stressful to many (most? all?) than they ever imagined.

 

The geocide occurred after a week of sleep deprivation and one of the biggest life changes someone can face. Under those circumstances, it's completely understandable.

So they take it out on cachers?

 

edit to add: I live in a house with 2 babies, two other adults and to young girls. I don't get a lot of sleep either when the parents sleep right through the 2 babies crying. I would NEVER take it out on others for my lack of sleep.

 

I didn't say it was logical or mature, just that the family was apparently stressed in general and negative cache feedback was the last straw.

Edited by wmpastor
Link to comment

I will say it again...

 

Not everybody is cut out to be a CO.

 

I always roll my eyes at some finder logs. :rolleyes:

 

Would that not more likely tell you that not everybody is cut out to be a finder?

 

I always roll my eyes at some posts here.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

I think narcissa said it best:

 

Some people are just unstable. A person who can't handle factual statements about their geocache really shouldn't be a cache owner. All's well that ends well - someone who isn't a lunatic can put a great cache in that spot instead.

 

And it was a nice area for a cache, maybe not at that exact spot though.

Link to comment
News flash - That inventory list is created by Groundspeak and only reflects the care cache finders use to insure the travelers are properly logged in and out. The CO has nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of that list.

:huh:

 

CO's have the ability to mark TBs missing. Therefore, they DO have something to do with the maintenance of the list.

Yes, they do have the ability, but don't ever make the mistake of saying that owners should be required to exercise that ability. Your head will be bitten off. :ph34r:

 

I'm not gonna bite your head off. Just going to say I'd prefer to see it automated like this yet to be implemented, 4 year old request.

 

I would think that there is a reason cache owners have the ability to mark travel bugs missing. The fact that they can would imply that they should attempt to keep the cache inventory somewhat accurate. I don't mean running out there every week to check on travel bugs but if you discover, during a maintenance run, that something is wrong you should fix it. Owning a cache is not like a Ronson rotisserie chicken where you set it and forget it. It takes a little work to do it right. I know there are people who could care less about trackables but in my opinion anything within the cache is the responsibility of the cache owner. If the CO doesn't want to be bothered with the trackable inventory simply put out a micro or a nano or include in the description that the cache is not for trackables.

Link to comment
News flash - That inventory list is created by Groundspeak and only reflects the care cache finders use to insure the travelers are properly logged in and out. The CO has nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of that list.

:huh:

 

CO's have the ability to mark TBs missing. Therefore, they DO have something to do with the maintenance of the list.

Yes, they do have the ability, but don't ever make the mistake of saying that owners should be required to exercise that ability. Your head will be bitten off. :ph34r:

 

I'm not gonna bite your head off. Just going to say I'd prefer to see it automated like this yet to be implemented, 4 year old request.

 

I would think that there is a reason cache owners have the ability to mark travel bugs missing. The fact that they can would imply that they should attempt to keep the cache inventory somewhat accurate. I don't mean running out there every week to check on travel bugs but if you discover, during a maintenance run, that something is wrong you should fix it. Owning a cache is not like a Ronson rotisserie chicken where you set it and forget it. It takes a little work to do it right. I know there are people who could care less about trackables but in my opinion anything within the cache is the responsibility of the cache owner. If the CO doesn't want to be bothered with the trackable inventory simply put out a micro or a nano or include in the description that the cache is not for trackables.

 

The reason cache owners have the ability to mark travel bugs missing is because a lot of cache owners do like to keep their listings as accurate as possible. The requests for this option go back at least as far as 2002.

 

But the fact that many cache owners requested that feature does not imply that every cache owner should worry about travel bugs.

 

Using that logic, since many cache owners like to acknowledge FTF, all cache owners should acknowledge FTF, in order to keep the listing as accurate as possible.

Link to comment
News flash - That inventory list is created by Groundspeak and only reflects the care cache finders use to insure the travelers are properly logged in and out. The CO has nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of that list.

:huh:

 

CO's have the ability to mark TBs missing. Therefore, they DO have something to do with the maintenance of the list.

Yes, they do have the ability, but don't ever make the mistake of saying that owners should be required to exercise that ability. Your head will be bitten off. :ph34r:

 

I'm not gonna bite your head off. Just going to say I'd prefer to see it automated like this yet to be implemented, 4 year old request.

 

I would think that there is a reason cache owners have the ability to mark travel bugs missing. The fact that they can would imply that they should attempt to keep the cache inventory somewhat accurate. I don't mean running out there every week to check on travel bugs but if you discover, during a maintenance run, that something is wrong you should fix it. Owning a cache is not like a Ronson rotisserie chicken where you set it and forget it. It takes a little work to do it right. I know there are people who could care less about trackables but in my opinion anything within the cache is the responsibility of the cache owner. If the CO doesn't want to be bothered with the trackable inventory simply put out a micro or a nano or include in the description that the cache is not for trackables.

 

The reason cache owners have the ability to mark travel bugs missing is because a lot of cache owners do like to keep their listings as accurate as possible. The requests for this option go back at least as far as 2002.

 

But the fact that many cache owners requested that feature does not imply that every cache owner should worry about travel bugs.

 

Using that logic, since many cache owners like to acknowledge FTF, all cache owners should acknowledge FTF, in order to keep the listing as accurate as possible.

 

First to find has nothing to do with the accuracy of the con tense of the cache. Although the accuracy of the listing is very important. I agree, it's not required that the cache owner keep track of travel bugs. I happen to think that they should to a point. I guess it comes down to whether or not you enjoy travel bugs as part of the game. I don't think is should be a requirement but more of a courtesy to the other players that do.

Link to comment
News flash - That inventory list is created by Groundspeak and only reflects the care cache finders use to insure the travelers are properly logged in and out. The CO has nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of that list.

:huh:

 

CO's have the ability to mark TBs missing. Therefore, they DO have something to do with the maintenance of the list.

Yes, they do have the ability, but don't ever make the mistake of saying that owners should be required to exercise that ability. Your head will be bitten off. :ph34r:

 

I'm not gonna bite your head off. Just going to say I'd prefer to see it automated like this yet to be implemented, 4 year old request.

 

I would think that there is a reason cache owners have the ability to mark travel bugs missing. The fact that they can would imply that they should attempt to keep the cache inventory somewhat accurate. I don't mean running out there every week to check on travel bugs but if you discover, during a maintenance run, that something is wrong you should fix it. Owning a cache is not like a Ronson rotisserie chicken where you set it and forget it. It takes a little work to do it right. I know there are people who could care less about trackables but in my opinion anything within the cache is the responsibility of the cache owner. If the CO doesn't want to be bothered with the trackable inventory simply put out a micro or a nano or include in the description that the cache is not for trackables.

 

The reason cache owners have the ability to mark travel bugs missing is because a lot of cache owners do like to keep their listings as accurate as possible. The requests for this option go back at least as far as 2002.

 

But the fact that many cache owners requested that feature does not imply that every cache owner should worry about travel bugs.

 

Using that logic, since many cache owners like to acknowledge FTF, all cache owners should acknowledge FTF, in order to keep the listing as accurate as possible.

 

First to find has nothing to do with the accuracy of the con tense of the cache. Although the accuracy of the listing is very important. I agree, it's not required that the cache owner keep track of travel bugs. I happen to think that they should to a point. I guess it comes down to whether or not you enjoy travel bugs as part of the game. I don't think is should be a requirement but more of a courtesy to the other players that do.

 

That, I agree with.

 

But if it was automated, it wouldn't even need to be a courtesy.

Link to comment
If the CO doesn't want to be bothered with the trackable inventory simply put out a micro or a nano
Except then you get complaints that you hid a micro in the woods, or that you didn't hide the largest container that the location could possibly support.

 

No matter how you're doing it, you're doing it wrong.™

Link to comment

But the fact that many cache owners requested that feature does not imply that every cache owner should worry about travel bugs.

Yes, that hits the nail on the head. Although while I definitely agree COs are not and should not be required to worry about travel bugs, I would nevertheless encourage them to mark them missing whenever they personally discovered they aren't there.

Link to comment
If the CO doesn't want to be bothered with the trackable inventory simply put out a micro or a nano
Except then you get complaints that you hid a micro in the woods, or that you didn't hide the largest container that the location could possibly support.

 

No matter how you're doing it, you're doing it wrong.™

 

Here is my answer to that.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC57F0K_bbvp-micro-in-the-woods-sort-of?guid=fb1ee4fb-ff2d-4519-a528-df634ffee544

Link to comment
If the CO doesn't want to be bothered with the trackable inventory simply put out a micro or a nano
Except then you get complaints that you hid a micro in the woods, or that you didn't hide the largest container that the location could possibly support.

 

No matter how you're doing it, you're doing it wrong.™

 

Here is my answer to that.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC57F0K_bbvp-micro-in-the-woods-sort-of?guid=fb1ee4fb-ff2d-4519-a528-df634ffee544

Yes, a good answer. However:

No matter how you're doing it, you're doing it wrong.™

Then people complain about ticks:

The first log made some reference to ticks. How bad could it be? After doing 5 and getting back to the car, my legs were crawling. There were easily 30 ticks on my pants legs. Doing a quick parking lot change, I headed home to do laundry and get rid of those ticks.

:signalviolin:

 

If you had done an *urban* micro, there would be no tick complaints. :P

Edited by wmpastor
Link to comment
If the CO doesn't want to be bothered with the trackable inventory simply put out a micro or a nano
Except then you get complaints that you hid a micro in the woods, or that you didn't hide the largest container that the location could possibly support.

 

No matter how you're doing it, you're doing it wrong.™

 

Here is my answer to that.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC57F0K_bbvp-micro-in-the-woods-sort-of?guid=fb1ee4fb-ff2d-4519-a528-df634ffee544

Yes, a good answer. However:

No matter how you're doing it, you're doing it wrong.™

Then people complain about ticks:

The first log made some reference to ticks. How bad could it be? After doing 5 and getting back to the car, my legs were crawling. There were easily 30 ticks on my pants legs. Doing a quick parking lot change, I headed home to do laundry and get rid of those ticks.

:signalviolin:

 

If you had done an *urban* micro, there would be no tick complaints. :P

 

I think we can all agree that you can't please everyone all the time. I don't look at this log as complaining. I see it as part of a game that involve hazards from being outside. It just so happens that this particular person got caught in ticknato. I've walked that trail a dozen times without a single bug bite.

 

Are we that thin skinned we would even consider packing up everything and go home because a few people complain that there were to many bugs or the coords were off 20 feet.

 

I place caches for that one person who says "Wow, that was awesome".

 

As long as your following the rules and your doing your best to be a good cache owner, there is no right or wrong in this game.

Link to comment

Some people are just unstable. A person who can't handle factual statements about their geocache really shouldn't be a cache owner. All's well that ends well - someone who isn't a lunatic can put a great cache in that spot instead.

 

Unstable? Lunatic? Sure is easy to judge, isn't it. You have no inside information other than what was posted publicly by an outside party. You don't know if there were private conflicts. You don't know if there were mental disabilities. You don't know if it was a maturity issue (age). You know nothing. But yet you label as unstable and lunatic? Perhaps a bit of self reflection once in a while.. or perhaps LESS self reflection in this case.

Link to comment

I will bring up that TBs are missing in a log. If it's just one or two, I usually just put a gentle reminder in my log that COs have the power to mark them missing, in case they didn't know. If it's a pile of them, they've all been gone for years, and other cachers have pointed out that they are missing, I will usually add a specific request to the CO to mark them missing. All that's in addition to notes on the TB pages asking the TB owners to do the same thing.

 

To date I've left notes on close to 900 missing TBs...sure would be nice if there was some sort of official system for doing it.

Link to comment

I will bring up that TBs are missing in a log. If it's just one or two, I usually just put a gentle reminder in my log that COs have the power to mark them missing, in case they didn't know. If it's a pile of them, they've all been gone for years, and other cachers have pointed out that they are missing, I will usually add a specific request to the CO to mark them missing.

 

Why don't you send notes the the TB owners, since it is actually their job?

 

If I got a note like that from you, I would ignore it.

Link to comment

I will bring up that TBs are missing in a log. If it's just one or two, I usually just put a gentle reminder in my log that COs have the power to mark them missing, in case they didn't know. If it's a pile of them, they've all been gone for years, and other cachers have pointed out that they are missing, I will usually add a specific request to the CO to mark them missing.

 

Why don't you send notes the the TB owners, since it is actually their job?

 

If I got a note like that from you, I would ignore it.

 

Whats wrong with thinking a CO could/should remove TBs that are not in the cache. TB owners may not be active anymore but a cache owner should be. If I get such notes, I quickly look at the inventory of my cache and if I see a TB which has been there for longer than the last few logs or some sort of eye test that its likely not there, I just mark it missing. Done, easy. Over with, that does not mean the coin is doomed, it just means its out of the cache so folks do not go looking for it in my cache.

 

Not sure why that is not reasonable to ask cache owners.

Link to comment

I will bring up that TBs are missing in a log. If it's just one or two, I usually just put a gentle reminder in my log that COs have the power to mark them missing, in case they didn't know. If it's a pile of them, they've all been gone for years, and other cachers have pointed out that they are missing, I will usually add a specific request to the CO to mark them missing. All that's in addition to notes on the TB pages asking the TB owners to do the same thing.

 

To date I've left notes on close to 900 missing TBs...sure would be nice if there was some sort of official system for doing it.

 

Why don't you send notes the the TB owners, since it is actually their job?

 

If I got a note like that from you, I would ignore it.

 

Restored and bolded the part you removed.

Link to comment

In the forum world we all know that COs can mark TBs missing, but many choose not to. In the real world, from my own very unscientific survey, most COs don't know they CAN do this. So I have put the occasional reminder in a cache log (as well as the TB log) - but not 900! When I do this I understand the risk that the CO knows and doesn't want to do this and may be annoyed by it.

 

I think TB owners are more likely to know they can do this as the "mark item missing" button is clear on the page.

Link to comment

I will bring up that TBs are missing in a log. If it's just one or two, I usually just put a gentle reminder in my log that COs have the power to mark them missing, in case they didn't know. If it's a pile of them, they've all been gone for years, and other cachers have pointed out that they are missing, I will usually add a specific request to the CO to mark them missing.

 

Why don't you send notes the the TB owners, since it is actually their job?

 

If I got a note like that from you, I would ignore it.

 

Whats wrong with thinking a CO could/should remove TBs that are not in the cache. TB owners may not be active anymore but a cache owner should be. If I get such notes, I quickly look at the inventory of my cache and if I see a TB which has been there for longer than the last few logs or some sort of eye test that its likely not there, I just mark it missing. Done, easy. Over with, that does not mean the coin is doomed, it just means its out of the cache so folks do not go looking for it in my cache.

 

Not sure why that is not reasonable to ask cache owners.

 

I think it's more than reasonable to ask a cache owner to remove a travel bug that's no longer there. I personally want my trackable inventory to be as accurate as it can be out of respect for those cachers who enjoy the aspect of travel bugs, although it's not mandatory for a cache owner to do so. I normally won't mark one as missing unless I've been to the cache and verified that it is no longer there and I've taken a look at the travel bug history. I think the word "missing" is what people get stuck on. Marking a travel bug as missing only means that it's not currently in the cache it's reported to be.

 

It takes time to maintain a cache but that's what I signed up for when I decided to be a cache owner.

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...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...