Jump to content

Abandoned


cachychris

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

These are all wonderful examples of exceptions but that's all they really are,  exceptions.   Let's think bigger picture here and start advocating reasonable action based on what the norm is.    For every one of these I'm sure I could find 50 that really need attention. 

First you refuse to accept facts.

Then you demand examples.

Then, when given the examples you asked for you dismiss them out of hand.

Ignorant and rude in equal measures.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

There's no reason why anyone shouldn't be able to  look at any cache page and instantly know the overall health of that cache.  At least that should be the goal.    

Yes, it should be the goal, but for some reason, many people seem afraid/reluctant to say anything critical about a cache whatsoever.  Many we've found had long strings of "Found"s, with no critical commentary, yet when we got there.... YEESH!  Dirt/mud, bugs, moisture/sitting water, rust, holes/cracks, mildew, unidentifiable... (well, it was unidentifiable).  Is "Tftc" code for problems?

I think lack/absence of full-compliance candor (and since that's subjective, it can be difficult to ensure) not to mention in/actions of COs (like deleting logs they don't like) complicates achieving that goal.  YMMV.

How far back should someone reasonably have to look to determine overall health?  5 logs? 10? 20? Back to publishing?  IMO, more than 5 isn't "instantly" and I say that only because that's generally how many are loaded into my GPS in a PQ.  I try to check caches out before going into the field, but in the real world, things happen, and it's not unusual to have to improvise and pursue some we hadn't planned ahead.  5 logs is all the "Health check" that can be done on the spot.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, RufusClupea said:

Yes, it should be the goal, but for some reason, many people seem afraid/reluctant to say anything critical about a cache whatsoever.  Many we've found had long strings of "Found"s, with no critical commentary, yet when we got there.... YEESH!  Dirt/mud, bugs, moisture/sitting water, rust, holes/cracks, mildew, unidentifiable... (well, it was unidentifiable).  Is "Tftc" code for problems?

I think lack/absence of full-compliance candor (and since that's subjective, it can be difficult to ensure) not to mention in/actions of COs (like deleting logs they don't like) complicates achieving that goal.  YMMV.

 

This matches my experience too - I've lost count of the number of caches I've found which were in a shocking condition and have been subjected to prolonged deterioration but there's absolutely no mention of the fact in any of the previous logs.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, RufusClupea said:

Yes, it should be the goal, but for some reason, many people seem afraid/reluctant to say anything critical about a cache whatsoever.  Many we've found had long strings of "Found"s, with no critical commentary, yet when we got there.... YEESH!  Dirt/mud, bugs, moisture/sitting water, rust, holes/cracks, mildew, unidentifiable... (well, it was unidentifiable).  Is "Tftc" code for problems?

I think lack/absence of full-compliance candor (and since that's subjective, it can be difficult to ensure) not to mention in/actions of COs (like deleting logs they don't like) complicates achieving that goal.  YMMV.

How far back should someone reasonably have to look to determine overall health?  5 logs? 10? 20? Back to publishing?  IMO, more than 5 isn't "instantly" and I say that only because that's generally how many are loaded into my GPS in a PQ.  I try to check caches out before going into the field, but in the real world, things happen, and it's not unusual to have to improvise and pursue some we hadn't planned ahead.  5 logs is all the "Health check" that can be done on the spot.

 

All anyone has to do is ask themselves that same question.   How many dnf's on one of your caches would prompt you to head out and take a look?  How long would it take you to respond to a NM?  I myself try,  within reason, hold other cache owner to the same standards I hold myself too.    This isn't hell night,  it's geocaching.  It's suppose to be fun.

Sooner or later we have to start expecting a certain level of commitment when it comes to cache ownership and hold those owners to that level.  The only way to do that is to post relevant logs.    

I look at three things when I decide to go for a cache.   A Needs Maintenance attribute,  How many owner's maintenance logs have been posted on the cache and the last log.   Takes about 20 seconds for me to have a good idea what to expect.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

First you refuse to accept facts.

Then you demand examples.

Then, when given the examples you asked for you dismiss them out of hand.

Ignorant and rude in equal measures.

Let's not get nasty now. 

You can play the obscure example card all you want but we both know your examples are not the norm and the norm is what's relevant here.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Let's not get nasty now. 

You can play the obscure example card all you want but we both know your examples are not the norm and the norm is what's relevant here.  

I'm certainly not the one playing games here.

You asked for an example which conformed to a precise definition.

The example I provided was a precise match and thus highly relevant.

If you're going to set a context for discussion you should at least try to stick to it yourself, even if you do find it difficult.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm certainly not the one playing games here.

You asked for an example which conformed to a precise definition.

The example I provided was a precise match and thus highly relevant.

If you're going to set a context for discussion you should at least try to stick to it yourself, even if you do find it difficult.

So if I make a statement and you can come up with one example that contradicts what I said than my whole argument is ridiculous?   Is that how this discussion thing works?

Instead of providing a dozen examples of how my augment is wrong why don't you look at the thousands that apply.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Instead of providing a dozen examples of how my augment is wrong why don't you look at the thousands that apply.  

Perhaps we're fans of the atypical 1% of geocaches that will be negatively affected by a proposed automated system, and really couldn't care less about the typical 99% of geocaches that will be positively affected by that system.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, justintim1999 said:
10 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm certainly not the one playing games here.

You asked for an example which conformed to a precise definition.

The example I provided was a precise match and thus highly relevant.

If you're going to set a context for discussion you should at least try to stick to it yourself, even if you do find it difficult.

So if I make a statement and you can come up with one example that contradicts what I said than my whole argument is ridiculous?   Is that how this discussion thing works?

Instead of providing a dozen examples of how my augment is wrong why don't you look at the thousands that apply.  

Relax.

Let's return again to the facts.

You asked for an example - then took offence because I couldn't be bothered (and I think we can all see now what precipitated that sentiment).

I decided to make the effort and provided the example you asked for.

Nobody - absolutely nobody even hinted, even slightly, that your whole argument was ridiculous.

Returning to the original point which appears to have stirred up this unrest:

Quote

if a cache is allowed to have 10 dnf's posted on it without the owner checking in,  there's an issue.

This is not a universal truth - there are exceptions and probably plenty of them.

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

I agree. For the majority of caches out there, there's a good chance one showing 10 DNFs in a row has an issue. I'm not debating that at all. And i do agree that we're all in this together and that we all can help keep geocaching "cleaned up". Imo though, it's not my place, nor my right, to say anything from afar when the only thing i have to go on is logs posted on a cache page. 

If not you, who? After 10 unexplainable DNFs, who's going to bother to go look again?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, RuideAlmeida said:

Just a little reminder that the private messages are better suitable to dispute "details" between one or two users... not this forums.

Thanks.  You were just in time.  What I had ready to post would have more than likely got me tossed.  

I'll be happy to share it via private message if anyone would like to read it. 

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

All anyone has to do is ask themselves that same question.   How many dnf's on one of your caches would prompt you to head out and take a look?

That depends entirely on the content of the DNFs. If they imply a thorough search on a cache that should be easy to find, then yes, but if they say something like "Had a quick look in a couple of obvious places but it was getting late and the kids were grizzly so will have to come back another time" then perhaps not. From my own experience, I've had about 70 DNFs across all my hides and none have been due to a missing cache.

And just a few days ago I logged four DNFs on a bike trail but I'm sure they're all there; they were micros in the bush (most D3 or higher) with just too many possible hiding places and not enough time / too many muggles for me to do a good enough search to find them, and I said as much in my DNF logs. If I was that CO, I wouldn't be dashing out to check on them as a result of my DNFs.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Just now, barefootjeff said:

That depends entirely on the content of the DNFs. If they imply a thorough search on a cache that should be easy to find, then yes, but if they say something like "Had a quick look in a couple of obvious places but it was getting late and the kids were grizzly so will have to come back another time" then perhaps not. From my own experience, I've had about 70 DNFs across all my hides and none have been due to a missing cache.

And just a few days ago I logged four DNFs on a bike trail but I'm sure they're all there; they were micros in the bush (most D3 or higher) with just too many possible hiding places and not enough time / too many muggles for me to do a good enough search to find them, and I said as much in my DNF logs. If I was that CO, I wouldn't be dashing out to check on them as a result of my DNFs.

I totally agree.  The question is how many people have to look and not find before bells start going off and you actually go out and check up on it?   Keep in mind that the vast  majority of caches were talking about here are not 5-5's.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, justintim1999 said:
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

That depends entirely on the content of the DNFs. If they imply a thorough search on a cache that should be easy to find, then yes, but if they say something like "Had a quick look in a couple of obvious places but it was getting late and the kids were grizzly so will have to come back another time" then perhaps not. From my own experience, I've had about 70 DNFs across all my hides and none have been due to a missing cache.

And just a few days ago I logged four DNFs on a bike trail but I'm sure they're all there; they were micros in the bush (most D3 or higher) with just too many possible hiding places and not enough time / too many muggles for me to do a good enough search to find them, and I said as much in my DNF logs. If I was that CO, I wouldn't be dashing out to check on them as a result of my DNFs.

I totally agree.  The question is how many people have to look and not find before bells start going off and you actually go out and check up on it?   Keep in mind that the vast  majority of caches were talking about here are not 5-5's.  

For the reasons I just stated I can't put a number on it. DNFs are not all the same. There's a cache in the Watagan Mountains in a gully with poor GPS reception so the CO provided a spoiler photo on the cache page. Without the photo, it's a very tiny needle in a haystack. It gets lots of DNFs which usually say "I forgot to print out the photo and there's no internet access here". No need for the CO to spend most of the day driving out there and doing the hike, regardless of how many "forgot the photo" DNFs it gets.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

So to sum up the last page or so:

13 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

...if a cache is allowed to have 10 dnf's posted on it without the owner checking in,  there's an issue.

to which Team Microdot responded -- reluctantly, although at some length -- that in some rare cases, the issue is easily explained. Is that about it?

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

So to sum up the last page or so:

19 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

...if a cache is allowed to have 10 dnf's posted on it without the owner checking in,  there's an issue.

to which Team Microdot responded -- reluctantly, although at some length -- that in some rare cases, the issue is easily explained. Is that about it?

No. You missed out the section which referenced the fact that the cache page alone can be a very poor indicator of cache health.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

All anyone has to do is ask themselves that same question. How many dnf's on one of your caches would prompt you to head out and take a look? 

I don't think I could put a specific number on it--too many variables, and as has been noted, depends on the reasons for the DNFs.

Quote

How long would it take you to respond to a NM?

Me, or some average/typical person?  Again, there are variables.  I'm not even sure yet what's average/typical in this game; therefore I don't have a handle on what's reasonable, and a reasonable length of time is--IMO--the answer.  I think the reviewers may have a better idea of that--they're ostensibly dealing with hundreds of these things a year.

With one cache I recently thought was missing, the CO responded to my NM literally within minutes (dumb luck & totally unexpected) and said he'd look into it within a couple days.  It took him 5 (IIRC) but I'm not complaining.  Another cache I reported as possibly missing took the CO a week to acknowledge.  It's now been a month with no further action, and said CO hasn't been on here since 8/27.  I'm not complaining about that one either (though I am wondering/curious).

Meanwhile, I'll just keep on cachin'... (...to the tune of Truckin'  :P)

Link to comment
23 hours ago, justintim1999 said:
23 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

That very much depends on the nature of the cache in question.

Ok,  I'll bite.   Give me an example of a cache that has 10 dnf's in a row that should be exempt from a cache owner checking up on it?

Look at Shelter II and Shelter III by IMM (Indiana Magic Man).  Both had well over 100 DNFs before they were first found.  The CO did check on it and confirm that it was still there though not as frequently as every 10 DNFs.  Both have been in play for over 10 years.   Shelter III has eleven owner maintenance logs (and there's never been a NM log) in 11 years. 

 A DNF log means that the cache isn't found.  A cache that isn't found very often because it's hidden really well isn't found by muggles or would otherwise go missing.  The log book doesn't get full, and as long as it's got a good container or is otherwise protected by the elements (as a cache hidden in a shelter would be)  why would an owner need to check up on it frequently?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Today I found a D3/T2.5 traditional - the previous log was also a find but the five before that were DNFs. Mine came within a whisker of being a DNF too, but just as I was about to walk away I spotted the clever camo. It's still the original container and logbook from when it was hidden in 2007 and everything's bone dry, as would be expected given its hiding spot - whatever else might happen, it's not going to get wet and I very much doubt it'd ever get muggled. In hindsight it's a great hiding spot with good coordinates, but if you don't spot the camo, well...

Going back through the logs, it often gets batches of several DNFs in a row. The longest one was seven (not quite justintim1999's magical ten but close), after which some "helpful" soul with 8000 finds dropped a film cannister throwdown, followed very soon afterwards by a terse note from a previous finder saying the original cache was still there but they couldn't find the dadgum throwdown to dispose of it.

A string of DNFs might mean an LPC is missing, but the same definitely isn't true for more challenging hides, which is why I keep saying counting DNFs really tells you nothing about the state of the cache.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Mine came within a whisker of being a DNF too, but just as I was about to walk away I spotted the clever camo. It's still the original container and logbook from when it was hidden in 2007 and everything's bone dry, as would be expected given its hiding spot

I wonder how many charges of "the cache probably isn't there" and "but caches are meant to be found!" and "why would anyone place a cache they didn't want to be found" this CO received for 10 years... merely because it was difficult. :ph34r:

Good thing no one found the container and thought it might have been an abandoned cache.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Going back through the logs, it often gets batches of several DNFs in a row. The longest one was seven (not quite justintim1999's magical ten but close), after which some "helpful" soul with 8000 finds dropped a film cannister throwdown, followed very soon afterwards by a terse note from a previous finder saying the original cache was still there but they couldn't find the dadgum throwdown to dispose of it.

I don't know if it's the heat here, the lack of sleep or coffee, or what, but that strikes me funny this am. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

I wonder how many charges of "the cache probably isn't there" and "but caches are meant to be found!" and "why would anyone place a cache they didn't want to be found" this CO received for 10 years... merely because it was difficult. :ph34r:

I've gotten some of those just asking hypothetical questions. :P

Something tells me I'm going to get into big trouble once I actually start hiding caches...  :ph34r:

Link to comment

Don't hypothesis, that will only put you in a corner banging your head on the wall wondering why your hypothetical questions are unanswered, because they are HYPOTHEICAL!

I think in the computer world it's called an endless loop. Unless your vision of a hide includes nuclear fission/fusion I suspect most here will support your hide. Read the rules, don't analyze the rules and just hide something. Dude.   

Link to comment
8 hours ago, 31BMSG said:

Don't hypothesis, that will only put you in a corner banging your head on the wall wondering why your hypothetical questions are unanswered, because they are HYPOTHEICAL!

I think in the computer world it's called an endless loop. Unless your vision of a hide includes nuclear fission/fusion I suspect most here will support your hide. Read the rules, don't analyze the rules and just hide something. Dude.   

No, don't just hide something dude. That's one of the reasons this thread came about. People just hiding something then forgetting about it when they move on to something else.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

No, don't just hide something dude. That's one of the reasons this thread came about. People just hiding something then forgetting about it when they move on to something else.

I didn't go into enough detail, my intent was guidelines are published and the reviewer will review before the cache is published. I could spend years analyzing possible outcomes but in the mean no action occurs. People hiding a cache then forgetting about it is a personal responsibility thing beyond the scope of GS and this forum which could be discussed for decades. This is a game with loose guidelines vice hard rules, enjoy the variables.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, RufusClupea said:

I needn't go into it again, but I came away better understanding the adage that it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. ;)

From my point of view, exactly. I'm old but trying to avoid being set in my ways, after years of focus I enjoy the variables.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, 31BMSG said:
5 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

No, don't just hide something dude. That's one of the reasons this thread came about. People just hiding something then forgetting about it when they move on to something else.

I didn't go into enough detail, my intent was guidelines are published and the reviewer will review before the cache is published. I could spend years analyzing possible outcomes but in the mean no action occurs. People hiding a cache then forgetting about it is a personal responsibility thing beyond the scope of GS and this forum which could be discussed for decades. This is a game with loose guidelines vice hard rules, enjoy the variables.

But encouraging people to "just go out and hide something" is vastly oversimplifying. There's no reason not to encourage people to not take hiding a cache lightly. It is a responsibility. The fact that some do it without accepting the responsibility is no reason to just shrug it off and tell people to 'just do it'.   Reviewers will indeed review caches, but they can't review the future; they can't tell if a person is going to be a good cache owner. Of course caching history can influence a perception of the cacher, but they really only reviewe the cache and whether it's publishable.  So it's up to community to help encourage, teach, and show people what owning a geocache listing is all about. If the experienced take a hands off implying anything goes, the whole game will go to hell in a handbasket right quick.  Know the rules, think about what you want to hide, understand the process of finding, and the responsibilities of owning, then hide something you think people will enjoy and that you can reasonably maintain. (that's a little more than 'just hide something')

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...