Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
jellis

throwdowns

Recommended Posts

I am getting really tired of someone putting throwdowns at my cache sites just because they couldn't find mine and not contacting me to see if they have permission. Latest one I was watching how my evil hide was getting easier to find. So on a maintenance run I photographed logsheets and looked at the cache pages to compare. I noticed over a year between logs but cachers were logging them. Most are cachers I know and ones that are veterans. So the only thing I can figure out is someone left a cache because they couldn't find it. This isn't the first time. What would you do about all those logs who didn't find my real cache?

Edited by jellis

Share this post


Link to post

Few go back and "re-find" caches.

If they didn't find your cache when it was yours, how would they know it isn't now?

If there was a way to be positive (admitted in the log?) who was the throwdowner, that could be the guy who no longer has a smiley, and I believe Groundspeak says so too..

Share this post


Link to post

Few go back and "re-find" caches.

If they didn't find your cache when it was yours, how would they know it isn't now?

If there was a way to be positive (admitted in the log?) who was the throwdowner, that could be the guy who no longer has a smiley, and I believe Groundspeak says so too..

 

The first name in the logbook?

Share this post


Link to post

I am getting really tired of someone putting throwdowns at my cache sites just because they couldn't find mine and not contacting me to see if they have permission. Latest one I was watching how my evil hide was getting easier to find. So on a maintenance run I photographed logsheets and looked at the cache pages to compare. I noticed over a year between logs but cachers were logging them. Most are cachers I know and ones that are veterans. So the only thing I can figure out is someone left a cache because they couldn't find it. This isn't the first time. What would you do about all those logs who didn't find my real cache?

 

put a note on your cache listing that says "there is a throwdown here, if you don't find MY cache with the fill_in_ with _ something _ unique in MY cache, you find the throwdown and it will be deleted"

 

and forget about it. ya, someone can still need with it and add a dozen td's but they're just pricing how lame they are in the process.

 

water off a duck's back

Share this post


Link to post

Last couple of times I became aware of someone doing a throwdown for one of my Listings, I merely Archived the Listing and contacted the *helpful* User and told them to submit a Listing of their own, rather than doing unsolicited maintenance on my caches.

 

Edit to add:

 

In the interest of being helpful myself, and turning the annoyance into a *teachable* moment, I usually include a link to the relevant Help Center article in my email/MC:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=427

Edited by Touchstone

Share this post


Link to post

Few go back and "re-find" caches.

If they didn't find your cache when it was yours, how would they know it isn't now?

If there was a way to be positive (admitted in the log?) who was the throwdowner, that could be the guy who no longer has a smiley, and I believe Groundspeak says so too..

 

The first name in the logbook?

Well, maybe at one time. I believe they're a lot smarter about it now.

 

We had one cache in a series that was made to be a bit harder to find.

It got the most throwdowns, by out-of-State numbers folks mostly.

It wasn't until we got an email from new folks asking, "We're the fifth to sign. Is it okay we log on the FTF line?", that we noticed most of those throwdowner's names on that and other logs weren't the first name, but intentionally down the line (on the first page though).

Now that we're seeing micro logs in even large caches (that's weird...) and many not dating, I don't believe there's a way to prove that it's simply, "the first name on the log" anymore. :)

Edited by cerberus1

Share this post


Link to post

I am getting really tired of someone putting throwdowns at my cache sites just because they couldn't find mine and not contacting me to see if they have permission. Latest one I was watching how my evil hide was getting easier to find. So on a maintenance run I photographed it. This isn't the first time. What would you do about all those logs who didn't find my real cache?

There are two victims here. one the cache owner whose cache is messed with. Two are those who had nothing to do with the throw down found a cache and now have their logs deleted.

Share this post


Link to post

I am getting really tired of someone putting throwdowns at my cache sites just because they couldn't find mine and not contacting me to see if they have permission. Latest one I was watching how my evil hide was getting easier to find. So on a maintenance run I photographed it. This isn't the first time. What would you do about all those logs who didn't find my real cache?

There are two victims here. one the cache owner whose cache is messed with. Two are those who had nothing to do with the throw down found a cache and now have their logs deleted.

Why would they have their finds deleted?

Share this post


Link to post

What would you do about all those logs who didn't find my real cache?

I agree with the gc.com suggestions that the subsequent finders of the throwdown should not have their Find Its deleted. The cache owner does have to "smell the rat" and go to the site to confirm and fix the situation if necessary when they thing something is amiss.

 

I am not a rabid disapprover of replacement caches but I can't bring myself to log one as found if I do the replacing. It doesn't seem right. Cache finds are not awards you get for good intentions or actions.

Share this post


Link to post

I am getting really tired of someone putting throwdowns at my cache sites just because they couldn't find mine and not contacting me to see if they have permission. Latest one I was watching how my evil hide was getting easier to find. So on a maintenance run I photographed it. This isn't the first time. What would you do about all those logs who didn't find my real cache?

There are two victims here. one the cache owner whose cache is messed with. Two are those who had nothing to do with the throw down found a cache and now have their logs deleted.

Why would they have their finds deleted?

If the cache owner is strict and a stickler, then yes, a log(s) may be deleted.

Share this post


Link to post

I am getting really tired of someone putting throwdowns at my cache sites just because they couldn't find mine and not contacting me to see if they have permission. Latest one I was watching how my evil hide was getting easier to find. So on a maintenance run I photographed it. This isn't the first time. What would you do about all those logs who didn't find my real cache?

There are two victims here. one the cache owner whose cache is messed with. Two are those who had nothing to do with the throw down found a cache and now have their logs deleted.

Why would they have their finds deleted?

If the cache owner is strict and a stickler, then yes, a log(s) may be deleted.

 

For me it would depend. If the cache was just a simple hide (pill bottle in a tree or nano on a sign, etc.) I wouldn't worry. If it was a special type of hide (modified bird house, for example, with a pill bottle wedged in the tree as a throwdown), I would consider deleting invalid finds.

 

Hasn't happened to me yet, though...so who knows if I would follow through with deleting. More likely I would just delete the find from the one who left a throwdown (assuming I know) and move on. If others want to claim a find on an inferior cache, their loss.

Share this post


Link to post

I am getting really tired of someone putting throwdowns at my cache sites just because they couldn't find mine and not contacting me to see if they have permission. Latest one I was watching how my evil hide was getting easier to find. So on a maintenance run I photographed it. This isn't the first time. What would you do about all those logs who didn't find my real cache?

There are two victims here. one the cache owner whose cache is messed with. Two are those who had nothing to do with the throw down found a cache and now have their logs deleted.

Why would they have their finds deleted?

If the cache owner is strict and a stickler, then yes, a log(s) may be deleted.

Luckily this example hasn't happened yet to me.

If it was one that seemed to matter to me, I'd press the issue.

After reading Groundspeak's policy, I'd bet that a help center message to them would get me my smiley back. :)

Share this post


Link to post

That would be an ironic situation to be in. CO isn't maintaining there cache properly, but when someone takes matters into their own hands, they suddenly decide it's time to take action and start deleting log entries. Sounds too little, too late to me.

Share this post


Link to post
That would be an ironic situation to be in. CO isn't maintaining there cache properly, but when someone takes matters into their own hands, they suddenly decide it's time to take action and start deleting log entries. Sounds too little, too late to me.
Who said anything about not maintaining the cache properly? I thought we were discussing a well-camouflaged cache that was being ruined by a throwdown. Is the owner of a well-camouflaged cache supposed to visit the site and check for throwdowns after every Find log?

Share this post


Link to post
That would be an ironic situation to be in. CO isn't maintaining there cache properly, but when someone takes matters into their own hands, they suddenly decide it's time to take action and start deleting log entries. Sounds too little, too late to me.
Who said anything about not maintaining the cache properly? I thought we were discussing a well-camouflaged cache that was being ruined by a throwdown. Is the owner of a well-camouflaged cache supposed to visit the site and check for throwdowns after every Find log?

 

Seriously. If anything is ruining the game, it's this weird attitude that each and every DNF is some sort of emergency that means the cache is gone. Sometimes caches are supposed to be difficult to find, people.

Share this post


Link to post

Seriously. If anything is ruining the game, it's this weird attitude that each and every DNF is some sort of emergency that means the cache is gone. Sometimes caches are supposed to be difficult to find, people.

 

Some think a DNF is personal failure while it's just a record that they couldn't find it for whatever reason.

I've DNF'd a nearby cache 3 times and on a 4th visit found it in seconds, I could have put a throwdown the first time and logged a find :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Seriously. If anything is ruining the game, it's this weird attitude that each and every DNF is some sort of emergency that means the cache is gone. Sometimes caches are supposed to be difficult to find, people.

 

Some think a DNF is personal failure while it's just a record that they couldn't find it for whatever reason.

I've DNF'd a nearby cache 3 times and on a 4th visit found it in seconds, I could have put a throwdown the first time and logged a find :ph34r:

 

We're currently dealing with an issue where it seems that someone put a throwdown at the incorrect coordinates they arrived at while trying to do one of my husband's letterbox caches. We don't know who did it originally, but we know that two or three other people seem to have made the same mistake and signed the fraudulent logbook. Unfortunately, we don't know where it is!

Share this post


Link to post

I am getting really tired of someone putting throwdowns at my cache sites just because they couldn't find mine and not contacting me to see if they have permission. Latest one I was watching how my evil hide was getting easier to find. So on a maintenance run I photographed it. This isn't the first time. What would you do about all those logs who didn't find my real cache?

There are two victims here. one the cache owner whose cache is messed with. Two are those who had nothing to do with the throw down found a cache and now have their logs deleted.

Why would they have their finds deleted?

If the cache owner is strict and a stickler, then yes, a log(s) may be deleted.

Luckily this example hasn't happened yet to me.

If it was one that seemed to matter to me, I'd press the issue.

After reading Groundspeak's policy, I'd bet that a help center message to them would get me my smiley back. :)

And i agree. It isn't a big issue because most owners do the right thing by not blaming finders who inadvertently find the throwdown. I also agree that there's a good chance GS will reinstate if a complaint is made. But if it does happen, then there's a decent chance some hard feelings will be had along with someone being upset. The thing is, none of these potential problems would surface if the throwdowns weren't tossed out in the first place.

Edited by Mudfrog

Share this post


Link to post

I am getting really tired of someone putting throwdowns at my cache sites just because they couldn't find mine and not contacting me to see if they have permission. Latest one I was watching how my evil hide was getting easier to find. So on a maintenance run I photographed it. This isn't the first time. What would you do about all those logs who didn't find my real cache?

There are two victims here. one the cache owner whose cache is messed with. Two are those who had nothing to do with the throw down found a cache and now have their logs deleted.

Why would they have their finds deleted?

If the cache owner is strict and a stickler, then yes, a log(s) may be deleted.

Luckily this example hasn't happened yet to me.

If it was one that seemed to matter to me, I'd press the issue.

After reading Groundspeak's policy, I'd bet that a help center message to them would get me my smiley back. :)

S

I have had both happen to me. Someone left a throw down on one of mine and after finding out about it I removed it but didn't delete any logs. The other case my log was deleted but restored after talking with the CO. Oh, the throw down I loggged was not an easy find but not like the original. All ended well.

Edited by captnemo

Share this post


Link to post

I posted on the cache page and the logs about the throw down, the cache was rated 2 which I just upped to 2.5. I didn't rate it too high because many experienced cachers seen this type before but some have not. I would not want to archive it due to the location. I don't visit often because it's a long drive. I happened to go through to cache and to see if any needed new log sheets. Yes I deleted the logs that were not on my cache. I gave those an option to re-log saying they have my permission cause they logged a fake cache or try again and find the real one. I am not meaning to punish those who signed the wrong one but as a CO they didn't sign the real cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I posted on the cache page and the logs about the throw down, the cache was rated 2 which I just upped to 2.5. I didn't rate it too high because many experienced cachers seen this type before but some have not. I would not want to archive it due to the location. I don't visit often because it's a long drive. I happened to go through to cache and to see if any needed new log sheets. Yes I deleted the logs that were not on my cache. I gave those an option to re-log saying they have my permission cause they logged a fake cache or try again and find the real one. I am not meaning to punish those who signed the wrong one but as a CO they didn't sign the real cache.

 

Generally if I go looking for a cache, and find a container that I believe to be the cache, I stop looking for a cache at that location. More often than not the option of going back to the location to search for the "real" cache is just not practical. A long drive for you might be a long drive after a several thousand mile flight for me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I had some reply they would go back and some re-logged saying the next time they are there they would out of curiosity on what they missed. This is a very historical location and many stop to see the stops and eat there. I understand those who only visited the location from far away. That is why I gave them the option.

Edited by jellis

Share this post


Link to post

I had some reply they would go back and some re-logged saying the next time they are there they would out of curiosity on what they missed. This is a very historical location and many stop to see the stops and eat there. I understand those who only visited the location from far away. That is why I gave them the option.

 

I think the key here is that you communicated with them and didn't just delete without explaining why.

 

As a cacher, I would appreciate knowing that I had been misled by someone's throw-down and there's a solid chance I would opt to find the cache again rather than keep the log from the fake.

Share this post


Link to post

I had some reply they would go back and some re-logged saying the next time they are there they would out of curiosity on what they missed. This is a very historical location and many stop to see the stops and eat there. I understand those who only visited the location from far away. That is why I gave them the option.

 

What option are you giving them? From what I read, you're deleting all logs from those that signed a log sheet on a throwdown. If the purpose of the cache is to bring people to a very historical location, see the stops and eat in the area, it seems to me that someone going to GZ would have done that whether they signed the log on your original or on what they *thought* was the real cache. Those that live close enough that a return visit is practical may choose to come back. Those that lives hundreds or thousands of miles away probably won't. That's not a choice that *you* are giving.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I had some reply they would go back and some re-logged saying the next time they are there they would out of curiosity on what they missed. This is a very historical location and many stop to see the stops and eat there. I understand those who only visited the location from far away. That is why I gave them the option.

 

What option are you giving them? From what I read, you're deleting all logs from those that signed a log sheet on a throwdown. If the purpose of the cache is to bring people to a very historical location, see the stops and eat in the area, it seems to me that someone going to GZ would have done that whether they signed the log on your original or on what they *thought* was the real cache. Those that live close enough that a return visit is practical may choose to come back. Those that lives hundreds or thousands of miles away probably won't. That's not a choice that *you* are giving.

I think jellis' remedy was perfect. She communicated with the finders involved in the fake find. Those who found the throwdown still had the option to relog their find. She just asked that they note in their log that they found a fake instead of the real cache. This could actually help anyone who reads the logs on the cache realize that throwdowns do cause problems.

Share this post


Link to post

I had some reply they would go back and some re-logged saying the next time they are there they would out of curiosity on what they missed. This is a very historical location and many stop to see the stops and eat there. I understand those who only visited the location from far away. That is why I gave them the option.

 

What option are you giving them? From what I read, you're deleting all logs from those that signed a log sheet on a throwdown. If the purpose of the cache is to bring people to a very historical location, see the stops and eat in the area, it seems to me that someone going to GZ would have done that whether they signed the log on your original or on what they *thought* was the real cache. Those that live close enough that a return visit is practical may choose to come back. Those that lives hundreds or thousands of miles away probably won't. That's not a choice that *you* are giving.

I think jellis' remedy was perfect. She communicated with the finders involved in the fake find. Those who found the throwdown still had the option to relog their find. She just asked that they note in their log that they found a fake instead of the real cache. This could actually help anyone who reads the logs on the cache realize that throwdowns do cause problems.

 

Okay, I misread that she would allow those that had logged the throwdown.

 

I realized that we'll probably never eliminate throwdowns entirely (and I'm not so sure that they should be, depending on how one defines a throwdown) but from a throwdown finders perspective, they may have no evidence whatsoever that the container they've found isn't the "real" cache if the throwdown is indistinguishable from the original from a reading of the cache description.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I posted on the cache page and the logs about the throw down, the cache was rated 2 which I just upped to 2.5. I didn't rate it too high because many experienced cachers seen this type before but some have not. I would not want to archive it due to the location. I don't visit often because it's a long drive. I happened to go through to cache and to see if any needed new log sheets. Yes I deleted the logs that were not on my cache. I gave those an option to re-log saying they have my permission cause they logged a fake cache or try again and find the real one. I am not meaning to punish those who signed the wrong one but as a CO they didn't sign the real cache.

 

Communicated or not, this was pretty lame and mean spirited. I am all for rules and guidelines but for me this crosses the line into "it's just a darn game".

Share this post


Link to post

I posted on the cache page and the logs about the throw down, the cache was rated 2 which I just upped to 2.5. I didn't rate it too high because many experienced cachers seen this type before but some have not. I would not want to archive it due to the location. I don't visit often because it's a long drive. I happened to go through to cache and to see if any needed new log sheets. Yes I deleted the logs that were not on my cache. I gave those an option to re-log saying they have my permission cause they logged a fake cache or try again and find the real one. I am not meaning to punish those who signed the wrong one but as a CO they didn't sign the real cache.

...this was pretty lame and mean spirited. ...but for me this crosses the line into "it's just a darn game".

Mean spirited it is not.

 

Odd, awkward, probably unnecessary, annoying to some, misunderstood by several... yes to all. But no harm has been done, anyone can relog the find. She is just trying to get the word out that there was a throwdown and some people were finding and signing it.

 

This might actually be interesting to some locals and returning visitors. I would go back again if I could because it adds a bit of adventure and another chance to post an interesting log. If I could not get back I would just relog the find. If I was the throwdowner I would not have logged a find in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post

If I was the throwdowner I would not have logged a find in the first place.

 

I think you don't understand why people do throwdowns.. ;)

 

They can't find it and are desperate for a smiley so they just leave a throwdown and add an extra point so they can be admired by people with less finds and/or more DNFs :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

This should be simple but for many, it doesn't seem to be. A person goes to look for a cache but doesn't find it. The common sense thing to do is to say oh well, i didn't find it and log the DNF. But because most throwdowners want that smiley so bad, they make excuses for doing it. The throwdown is bad enough but i suppose i can understand why a few might honestly think they're helping a cache owner. The really lame part is when they log the, usually inferior container they threwdown, as found. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

I posted on the cache page and the logs about the throw down, the cache was rated 2 which I just upped to 2.5. I didn't rate it too high because many experienced cachers seen this type before but some have not. I would not want to archive it due to the location. I don't visit often because it's a long drive. I happened to go through to cache and to see if any needed new log sheets. Yes I deleted the logs that were not on my cache. I gave those an option to re-log saying they have my permission cause they logged a fake cache or try again and find the real one. I am not meaning to punish those who signed the wrong one but as a CO they didn't sign the real cache.

 

Communicated or not, this was pretty lame and mean spirited. I am all for rules and guidelines but for me this crosses the line into "it's just a darn game".

Yeah, I agree. I thought cruel, and micro-managing, but yours works...

There's at least one link to Groundspeak's thoughts on this.

 

Having to re-log with "Jellis gave me permission to log this, cause I found a fake cache" is demeaning, and I'd try a route through the Help Center first.

Share this post


Link to post

Mean spirited it is not.

 

Odd, awkward, probably unnecessary, annoying to some, misunderstood by several... yes to all. But no harm has been done, anyone can relog the find. She is just trying to get the word out that there was a throwdown and some people were finding and signing it.

It depends on your goal as a cache owner: If your goal is to bring people somewhere new/cool/interesting, have an adventure, and write about it online, then the mission was accomplished by those that signed the throwdown in good faith and logged online. If the container was integral to that adventure then I see some justification. As a cache owner that's pretty much what you hope for and why DNF logs can be just as good as found it's. But why retroactively punish the (good faith) throwdown finders for the acts of the throwdowner?

 

If your goal as a cache owner is to have a pristine log book and online record then that was met to...I guess.

 

From a personal perspective, given this situation I would have preferred the opportunity (and likely pro-actively) to change my "found it" to a DNF or a note... If my log was deleted I likely would not relog out of respect as the CO seems interested in log integrity over cache adventures. YMMV

 

Discussions of this type often make me consider not logging online at all, but writing a short story can be fun and 90% of cache owners appreciate them.

Share this post


Link to post

There are two victims here. one the cache owner whose cache is messed with. Two are those who had nothing to do with the throw down found a cache and now have their logs deleted.

While I can see the subsequent seekers feeling disappointed, I don't think it rises to the level of being a victim. So they didn't get the find. Big deal. They might not have found it even if there weren't a throwdown, and they certainly wouldn't have found it if it were missing. I refuse to concede that someone is a victim simply because they don't have a legitimate claim to a find, even when they can show it's not their fault.

 

I don't recall one of my finds being denied because of a throwdown, and I wouldn't deny such a find if it were my cache, but if it did happen, my reaction would be to thank the CO for pointing out my mistake. But I'm not rigid about it: a couple of times I've discovered that I probably found a throwdown, but I saw no reason to withdraw my find.

 

But because most throwdowners want that smiley so bad, they make excuses for doing it.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I have to object to this point. I actually think that most people dropping a throwdown only think about how they're doing everyone a favor. I think it's more accurate to think of them as misguided rather than lying cheaters.

Share this post


Link to post

My husband noticed some strange logs on one of his caches commenting that the hint was wrong, the cache was some distance away from the posted coordinates, and describing a hiding place that didn't make sense. Sounds like a throwdown!

 

When he arrived at the GZ, he quickly found the suspected throwdown. It used the same container as his actual cache (a red bison tube, which was still in place). When he opened it to examine the log, he discovered that it isn't a throwdown at all. It's a piece from someone else's scavenger hunt game!

Share this post


Link to post

Just got an email from a high-number cacher about one of my caches. So this one has had a few DNFs lately, one of them being posted by this particular cacher. The email asked if I would like help maintaining the cache since he was in the area. To me, this translates to: can I leave a new cache here so that I can get my smiley?

 

Guess I should at least be happy that he asked...

Share this post


Link to post

Just got an email from a high-number cacher about one of my caches. So this one has had a few DNFs lately, one of them being posted by this particular cacher. The email asked if I would like help maintaining the cache since he was in the area. To me, this translates to: can I leave a new cache here so that I can get my smiley?

 

Guess I should at least be happy that he asked...

 

Well do you want help or not? (it wasn't me).

Share this post


Link to post

Just got an email from a high-number cacher about one of my caches. So this one has had a few DNFs lately, one of them being posted by this particular cacher. The email asked if I would like help maintaining the cache since he was in the area. To me, this translates to: can I leave a new cache here so that I can get my smiley?

 

Guess I should at least be happy that he asked...

 

Well do you want help or not? (it wasn't me).

 

Should be obvious by my post...but no. Especially not if it means a throwdown and the guy claiming a +1 on what would amount to his own cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Mean spirited it is not.

 

Odd, awkward, probably unnecessary, annoying to some, misunderstood by several... yes to all. But no harm has been done, anyone can relog the find. She is just trying to get the word out that there was a throwdown and some people were finding and signing it.

It depends on your goal as a cache owner: If your goal is to bring people somewhere new/cool/interesting, have an adventure, and write about it online, then the mission was accomplished by those that signed the throwdown in good faith and logged online. If the container was integral to that adventure then I see some justification. As a cache owner that's pretty much what you hope for and why DNF logs can be just as good as found it's. But why retroactively punish the (good faith) throwdown finders for the acts of the throwdowner?

 

If your goal as a cache owner is to have a pristine log book and online record then that was met to...I guess.

 

From a personal perspective, given this situation I would have preferred the opportunity (and likely pro-actively) to change my "found it" to a DNF or a note... If my log was deleted I likely would not relog out of respect as the CO seems interested in log integrity over cache adventures. YMMV

 

Discussions of this type often make me consider not logging online at all, but writing a short story can be fun and 90% of cache owners appreciate them.

 

This is how I see it. I just can't see deleting someone's find through no fault of their own.

Share this post


Link to post

Just got an email from a high-number cacher about one of my caches. So this one has had a few DNFs lately, one of them being posted by this particular cacher. The email asked if I would like help maintaining the cache since he was in the area. To me, this translates to: can I leave a new cache here so that I can get my smiley?

 

Guess I should at least be happy that he asked...

I don't understand. Why wouldn't you be happy he offered to help? You can always say "no" if you want, of course, if that's what your pride dictates, or you can give him instructions that would result in exactly what you would have done if you'd gone out there yourself (including, for example, finding the existing cache). There's really shouldn't be any downside for someone offering to help someone else whether you want help or not.

Share this post


Link to post

Just got an email from a high-number cacher about one of my caches. So this one has had a few DNFs lately, one of them being posted by this particular cacher. The email asked if I would like help maintaining the cache since he was in the area. To me, this translates to: can I leave a new cache here so that I can get my smiley?

 

Guess I should at least be happy that he asked...

This doesn't bother me. Almost every time I've been asked, I've been fine with it. I believe we should assist others with maintenance if given the opportunity.

 

I suppose it can be one part self-serving and one part community serving, but it's really a non-issue for me.

Share this post


Link to post

Just got an email from a high-number cacher about one of my caches. So this one has had a few DNFs lately, one of them being posted by this particular cacher. The email asked if I would like help maintaining the cache since he was in the area. To me, this translates to: can I leave a new cache here so that I can get my smiley?

 

Guess I should at least be happy that he asked...

This doesn't bother me. Almost every time I've been asked, I've been fine with it. I believe we should assist others with maintenance if given the opportunity.

 

I suppose it can be one part self-serving and one part community serving, but it's really a non-issue for me.

 

I take pride in my hides. No way I'd want someone to throwdown a cache if it's missing. I've never seen a worthy throwdown - they're either a pill bottle, bison tube, or some other type of small cheap leaky container.

And I don't buy the "help" excuse. Unless they mean help themselves to a smiley.

I might buy into their declared altruistic intent if they didn't count the cache they threw down as a find.

Share this post


Link to post

Just got an email from a high-number cacher about one of my caches. So this one has had a few DNFs lately, one of them being posted by this particular cacher. The email asked if I would like help maintaining the cache since he was in the area. To me, this translates to: can I leave a new cache here so that I can get my smiley?

 

Guess I should at least be happy that he asked...

This doesn't bother me. Almost every time I've been asked, I've been fine with it. I believe we should assist others with maintenance if given the opportunity.

 

I suppose it can be one part self-serving and one part community serving, but it's really a non-issue for me.

 

I take pride in my hides. No way I'd want someone to throwdown a cache if it's missing. I've never seen a worthy throwdown - they're either a pill bottle, bison tube, or some other type of small cheap leaky container.

And I don't buy the "help" excuse. Unless they mean help themselves to a smiley.

I might buy into their declared altruistic intent if they didn't count the cache they threw down as a find.

 

Agreed. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Just got an email from a high-number cacher about one of my caches. So this one has had a few DNFs lately, one of them being posted by this particular cacher. The email asked if I would like help maintaining the cache since he was in the area. To me, this translates to: can I leave a new cache here so that I can get my smiley?

 

Guess I should at least be happy that he asked...

This doesn't bother me. Almost every time I've been asked, I've been fine with it. I believe we should assist others with maintenance if given the opportunity.

 

I suppose it can be one part self-serving and one part community serving, but it's really a non-issue for me.

 

I take pride in my hides. No way I'd want someone to throwdown a cache if it's missing. I've never seen a worthy throwdown - they're either a pill bottle, bison tube, or some other type of small cheap leaky container.

And I don't buy the "help" excuse. Unless they mean help themselves to a smiley.

I might buy into their declared altruistic intent if they didn't count the cache they threw down as a find.

I agree with your point that you don't want a geocacher to replace an ammo can with a cheap food container. However, if I hid a match tube or bison and it's replace with the same thing, where's the harm in that? I'm sure I don't take it as seriously as some, but I don't want my hobby to be serious...I have enough serious with work and family obligations.

Share this post


Link to post

 

This is how I see it. I just can't see deleting someone's find through no fault of their own.

 

I had a new scenario a few days ago. I was at a museum in the Adirondacks that had a bunch of different exhibits. One of them was about geocaching. There was an ammo can shown as example with a plexiglass piece covering the opening (so one could see what was inside) and a log book next to it. The ammo can had an "official geocache" logo on it. There was also a nice poster next to it explaining a bit about the game.

 

I hadn't checked before I got to the museum whether or not there was a geocaching there but when I did, I could see that there was a listing. However, since I was inside a building I wasn't sure whether or not I was looking at a real cache or if there was another one nearby (and the description of the nearby cache did not make it obvious).

 

Once I got outside the building I could see on the app that there was a cache about 100' away in the parking lot near the entrance of the museum. The CO of the cache works at the museum and probably set up the exhibit as well. I found the "real" cache (also an ammo can) on the way out.

Share this post


Link to post

Just got an email from a high-number cacher about one of my caches. So this one has had a few DNFs lately, one of them being posted by this particular cacher. The email asked if I would like help maintaining the cache since he was in the area. To me, this translates to: can I leave a new cache here so that I can get my smiley?

 

Guess I should at least be happy that he asked...

This doesn't bother me. Almost every time I've been asked, I've been fine with it. I believe we should assist others with maintenance if given the opportunity.

 

I suppose it can be one part self-serving and one part community serving, but it's really a non-issue for me.

 

I take pride in my hides. No way I'd want someone to throwdown a cache if it's missing. I've never seen a worthy throwdown - they're either a pill bottle, bison tube, or some other type of small cheap leaky container.

And I don't buy the "help" excuse. Unless they mean help themselves to a smiley.

I might buy into their declared altruistic intent if they didn't count the cache they threw down as a find.

I agree with your point that you don't want a geocacher to replace an ammo can with a cheap food container. However, if I hid a match tube or bison and it's replace with the same thing, where's the harm in that?

 

It permeates the whole hobby. I've watched throwdowns grow to never happened, to really rare, to it's current state where owners expect it and finders carry a sackful of replacements. Cemeteries (my favourite locations, especially pioneer cemeteries) that can support a larger cache, never get that larger cache (and hopefully well-cared for cache) if someone with a sackful of bison tubes arrives. That cemetery will forever have a cheap leaky bison of some description. The owner will ignore "wet log" reports and missing reports and someone will show up with a bison tube to claim a find. The finder will proclaim his altruistic intentions and the CO will applaud their help. Other people who care only for numbers will assume this is the norm and encouraged.

 

The truth is bison tubes (and other micros) require frequent visits to change logs and o-rings. If owners want less work, hide a good quality watertight container. Give the hide a little effort and find a good spot, not just 30 seconds to attach a bison tube to a fence, or a nano to the metal gate. Leave a logbook - most logbooks will last 5 years with no need to change it. These days with everyone writing minimally, 25 trailnames can usually fit on a notebook page.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Just got an email from a high-number cacher about one of my caches. So this one has had a few DNFs lately, one of them being posted by this particular cacher. The email asked if I would like help maintaining the cache since he was in the area. To me, this translates to: can I leave a new cache here so that I can get my smiley?

 

Guess I should at least be happy that he asked...

This doesn't bother me. Almost every time I've been asked, I've been fine with it. I believe we should assist others with maintenance if given the opportunity.

 

I suppose it can be one part self-serving and one part community serving, but it's really a non-issue for me.

 

I take pride in my hides. No way I'd want someone to throwdown a cache if it's missing. I've never seen a worthy throwdown - they're either a pill bottle, bison tube, or some other type of small cheap leaky container.

And I don't buy the "help" excuse. Unless they mean help themselves to a smiley.

I might buy into their declared altruistic intent if they didn't count the cache they threw down as a find.

 

This^^

To me, it's not even about the quality of the container...it's about the real intent behind it, which is often nothing altruistic. I've interacted with this particular person previously. It involved a cache that went unfound for a long while and they decided to leave a throwdown and claim the find...after which I went down and found the REAL cache shortly afterwards. Funniest part: nobody ever was able to find the throwdown.

 

Let's all be honest here. This person, who already posted one DNF, instead of posting yet another, decided they would rather "kindly offer" to replace the container (not knowing where the cache should be hidden) and, oh, while they are there, sure...let's claim that find cause, you know, they FOUND it while they were putting it there. Saves them oh so much effort of having to actually look for it any longer, after all. It's so annoying when one is unable to find a cache...much easier to just be done with it and leave a new one, right?

Edited by J Grouchy

Share this post


Link to post

"Can I help you with maintenance by replacing the container?"

 

"Yes, please! The original was a 450 mL Lock & Lock, wrapped in cammo duct tape, with a Write in the Rain full-sized note pad. If you'd replace that for me, I'd be grateful and even reward you with allowing your smiley!" :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

To me, it's not even about the quality of the container...it's about the real intent behind it, which is often nothing altruistic.

I think it comes back to whether the "altruistic" cacher has already found the cache in question or not. If they have, then I'd be more likely to accept their offer because their intent is clearly legitimately altruistic. However, if the cacher hasn't found the cache and is offering to replace it, it would feel like a subtle jab at me that my maintenance schedule isn't fast enough for them and they want to get their smiley sooner. In such a case, I might even consider Touchstone's route of archiving and telling them they're welcome to hide their own cache at the coordinates if the spot is that important to them. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with your point that you don't want a geocacher to replace an ammo can with a cheap food container. However, if I hid a match tube or bison and it's replace with the same thing, where's the harm in that? I'm sure I don't take it as seriously as some, but I don't want my hobby to be serious...I have enough serious with work and family obligations.

The harm is that, if the original cache is still there, there will now be two at the location. I've logged enough DNFs on D1 caches to know that even the easiest of hides can still be overlooked.

 

If I were to receive such an email on one of my hides, I'd thank them for the offer but say I'd prefer to check it out myself and make sure it really is missing. If so, and particularly if it was one that required a considerable effort to get to, I'd give them the option of claiming the find.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

×