Is it common to adopt a cache one hasn't found?

[+bflentje]

So, a simple checkbox statement such as, "I understand that I will not be able to log this as a find after I take ownership of this cache," or something - whether the adopter had found it or not - might indeed serve to give notice and pause to some who might expect to have been able to do so, thereby precluding some disgruntled adopters' complaints.

+1

I like that idea, especially as a checkbox that goes on every adoption form, regardless of whether the adopter has found the cache or not. Having it a standard part of the form would presumably be easier than customizing the form to only present that warning only if the adopter had not yet found the cache.

 

An easy work around.. I'll just log the cache before I accept the adoption request. Problem solved.

[+J Grouchy]

The other case I've seen is COs that really did have to look for their cache because it wasn't where they hid it or the hide was sufficiently harder than originally intended for one reason or another. Sure, they don't have to be able to log a find in that case, but since it's an accurate report of what happened, why prevent it? Indeed, in general: why is the default position that I have to provide enough good reasons to do it when no good reason has been presented to prevent it?

 

You really went there, eh?

 

Seems we're just making up reasons to justify logging of one's own cache now. What counts as "have to look for their cache" now? Are we talking seconds? Minutes? Maybe the CO has to pull up photos of when they hid it to remember? Or maybe they just have 100 other caches and it takes them a couple minutes of scrutinizing the trees to recall it? Or maybe the last finder stuck the nano on the underside of the lamp skirt instead of the bolt where it was originally placed and those extra 10 seconds mean the CO had to put a minimal amount of effort into finding it?

 

If you're going down that route, then there's little point in debating the point with you.

[+VAVAPAM]

 

An easy work around.. I'll just log the cache before I accept the adoption request. Problem solved.

 

Bingo!

[+dprovan]

You really went there, eh?

 

Seems we're just making up reasons to justify logging of one's own cache now. What counts as "have to look for their cache" now? Are we talking seconds? Minutes? Maybe the CO has to pull up photos of when they hid it to remember? Or maybe they just have 100 other caches and it takes them a couple minutes of scrutinizing the trees to recall it? Or maybe the last finder stuck the nano on the underside of the lamp skirt instead of the bolt where it was originally placed and those extra 10 seconds mean the CO had to put a minimal amount of effort into finding it?

I gather you think these are all ridiculous cases that justify preventing it, but I look at them and wonder why you aren't willing to leave it up to the CO. I see no reason to prevent it even if the CO was only making a joke. What earthly difference does it make to you whether he logs a find, let alone why?

[+VAVAPAM]

I wanted to know why for a couple of reasons. First, to better prepare myself for a situation that might arise that I hadn't foreseen. Second, I wanted to better understand your reasoning/logic, because mine did not follow yours.

 

So thank you for clarifying both points for me.

[+VAVAPAM]

 

Reminded me of this:

 

 

Love this!

[+J Grouchy]

You really went there, eh?

 

Seems we're just making up reasons to justify logging of one's own cache now. What counts as "have to look for their cache" now? Are we talking seconds? Minutes? Maybe the CO has to pull up photos of when they hid it to remember? Or maybe they just have 100 other caches and it takes them a couple minutes of scrutinizing the trees to recall it? Or maybe the last finder stuck the nano on the underside of the lamp skirt instead of the bolt where it was originally placed and those extra 10 seconds mean the CO had to put a minimal amount of effort into finding it?

I gather you think these are all ridiculous cases that justify preventing it, but I look at them and wonder why you aren't willing to leave it up to the CO. I see no reason to prevent it even if the CO was only making a joke. What earthly difference does it make to you whether he logs a find, let alone why?

 

See, that's the thing. What I see YOU doing is looking for any instance to justify the act of logging one's own cache where any reasonable person might understand that doing so is a pretty stupid thing to do.

 

I would argue that logging one's own cache with the intention of getting the +1 is actually very rare. Most often what I see is the CO logging a find when they are dropping a TB or performing maintenance. So instituting this new 'rule' actually prevents quite a bit of - and I'll put it bluntly - stupidity on the part of uninformed COs.

[+dprovan]

See, that's the thing. What I see YOU doing is looking for any instance to justify the act of logging one's own cache where any reasonable person might understand that doing so is a pretty stupid thing to do.

I think you've nailed it. I could care less if someone does something stupid as long as it doesn't impact me. You can't stand the idea. It would be funny if it weren't for the fact that what you list as stupid things to do are obviously nothing more than judgement calls you disagree with.

[+Team Microdot]

I could care less if someone does something stupid as long as it doesn't impact me.

 

It seems to me the truth or otherwise of that depends very much on the context and / or the thread you're taking part in at the time.

[+J Grouchy]

See, that's the thing. What I see YOU doing is looking for any instance to justify the act of logging one's own cache where any reasonable person might understand that doing so is a pretty stupid thing to do.

I think you've nailed it. I could care less if someone does something stupid as long as it doesn't impact me. You can't stand the idea. It would be funny if it weren't for the fact that what you list as stupid things to do are obviously nothing more than judgement calls you disagree with.

 

Quite a few things they disallow have no impact on you. Do you "have sympathy" for those affected by these rules?

 

There there, now...

[+Team Microdot]

See, that's the thing. What I see YOU doing is looking for any instance to justify the act of logging one's own cache where any reasonable person might understand that doing so is a pretty stupid thing to do.

I think you've nailed it. I could care less if someone does something stupid as long as it doesn't impact me. You can't stand the idea. It would be funny if it weren't for the fact that what you list as stupid things to do are obviously nothing more than judgement calls you disagree with.

 

Quite a few things they disallow have no impact on you. Do you "have sympathy" for those affected by these rules?

 

There there, now...

 

Be careful - what qualifies for sympathy can vary from post to post

[+dprovan]

Quite a few things they disallow have no impact on you. Do you "have sympathy" for those affected by these rules?

I am against disallowing things for no reason other than that someone thinks they're stupid. There are plenty of good reasons to disallow things even when they don't affect me.

[+niraD]

I am against disallowing things for no reason other than that someone thinks they're stupid.

But then we wouldn't have all those wonderful lists of 25 Ridiculous Laws That Still Exist! (#11 will shock you!)

[+jellis]

I adopted caches not too long after I started because I wanted to try out owning one before placing one. Plus they were old caches. Most I still own. Only one I didn't find and ended up archiving it because I read the history of it too late, finding out a neighbor behind the open space kept stealing it.

Edited April 12, 2017 by jellis