Jump to content

You have too many caches when...


Followers 7

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

What needs to be edited?  I for one have another account for my hides.

I’ve been hiding caches since 2002. On average had 15 active cache hides a year. We have always taken great pride in providing a good experience from start to finish. 15 active cache has been easy to manage with our busy schedule (family and full time jobs). We’re  down to 4 active cache hides now because I’m not crazy about the current quantity-over-quality culture and how group caching for numbers have affected our cache hides. 

I agree. I am completely nonplussed every time I see a set of micros with the description like "Cuddles #77 - This is the 77th micro of my favorite pet names series."
Makes no sense.

Like why (other than numbers) should anyone care about your favorite pet names, much less you have 77 FAVORITE PET NAMES? (Can't you be normal and narrow it down to 10 or so?)
And what do all these pet names have to do with this trail/path/highway?

(Now I'm just using that type series as an example. You can plug in anything to want like "Famous people who don't know this place exists," or "Great Inventors who never visited this spot," and the always popular........"Here's tree cache #48 of 2981.")


 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
11 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

They don't have to be expensive. You can get quality authentic Lock&Locks in bulk - 4 for £6.67 FREE UK delivery

The brand-name Lock&Locks (such as those you have linked) are very poor cache containers.  The hinges, which are just thin sections of the plastic, become brittle and break off in a couple of years.  I am shocked that you would consider them acceptable.

There are some variants (that have mechanical hinges made out of more than one piece of plastic) that last longer, but  Brand-name Lock&Lock containers are maintenance problems waiting to happen.  They are terrible cache containers.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 minute ago, fizzymagic said:

The brand-name Lock&Locks (such as those you have linked) are very poor cache containers.  The hinges, which are just thin sections of the plastic, become brittle and break off in a couple of years.  I am shocked that you would consider them acceptable.

 

Are you sure you are seeing actual Lock & Locks(TM) with the L&L symbol embossed in the lid? A lot of knock offs look the same.  See examples:

49134838-83c3-4c68-9f22-18586f54aa21_l.j 9d76be09-2400-4105-9686-3b54d798217c_l.j

This almost identical container is a knock-off. Notice no logo on the lid:

55148cb2-2505-4e48-bfa2-512a7b36d8d2_l.j

I've found many knock-offs that look exactly like authentic Lock&Locks(TM) with broken tabs and always check for the label because I'm surprised when a brand-name Lock & Lock is missing a tab. 

They are a good container which should last about 3 years. The problem is absentee owners who never go back to check those containers. Over 16 years of using them, mine have lasted 3-5 years. They should be checked every couple of years, but so many owners have lost interest by then (or never intend to go back), and ignore reports of broken tabs.

The majority of owners ignore "the cache is broken and leaky" reports. At least the authentic Lock & Lock container has the best chance of retaining tabs and lasting at least 2 years, compared to leaky and wet containers from the get-go.  

I can't think of a better plastic swag size container that will last 3+ years, with a good a silicone ring and good tabs for around $3 per container and one that is widely available. There are other good plastic swag size (100ml+) containers for more money: Plano, Pelican. And of course there's the ammo can, which in Canada starts at about $20 for the small ammo can (if you can find them). 

What inexpensive, watertight, swag-size container would you suggest, instead of the brand-name Lock&Lock(TM)?

 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 4/8/2018 at 3:19 PM, Team Microdot said:

I already have a life thank you.

And not that it makes the slightest difference but just for the sake of flirting with the facts, I have found the cache in question and it's not the only one with this sort of CO abuse.

On 4/8/2018 at 3:08 PM, The Magna Defender said:

You have too much free time when you're going through logs that aren't on caches you own, plan to find, have found or are even in your local area. 

 

Get a life! 

It seems to me that this conflict will hurt that caching community more then the wet log.  A wet log is a easy fix with a better container and a piece of paper.  This here might need some more work.   You both have been playing a lot and my $.02 is to try and remember we are all playing together to have fun.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Are you sure you are seeing actual Lock & Locks(TM) with the L&L symbol embossed in the lid? A lot of knock offs look the same.

What inexpensive, watertight, swag-size container would you suggest, instead of the brand-name Lock&Lock(TM)?

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree.  Perhaps if they stay out of the sunlight they will not get brittle, but every lock-n-lock (yes, the brand name) I have seen older than 2 years has the hinge problem I described.

It's just a natural consequence of chemistry.  UV undoes the plasticizers and the plastic becomes brittle.  Making a hinge from a thin section of plastic is cheap and suitable for indoor use, but it won't last outdoors.

These are much better than lock-n-locks.  Notice that they have real mechanical hinges, not just thin sections of plastic. Weathering will not cause those to get brittle and crack.  I can't speak for the quality of the container seal itself, but you can see the difference.

If you really want to be watertight and about that size consider a Pelican or Otterbox, although those can have moisture problems because of the pressure-normalizing hole in them that allows water vapor (but not liquid water) to pass through..

I think the word "inexpensive" in your post reveals a lot. I would vastly prefer a hider to hide one cache that cost $20 than 20 that cost $1. Much of the trouble with lousy caches you bemoan without ceasing here in the forums is a result of people putting out too many caches in horrid containers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

What inexpensive, watertight, swag-size container would you suggest, instead of the brand-name Lock&Lock(TM)?

This series of freezer boxes are widely used over a decade in Finland. It is extremely inexpensive but survives most geocachers and harsh weather even when placed undor a rock in moisture dirt. The only reason not to use this box is because it is so widely used that is may seem too ordinary. Known problems are geocachers who do not push the lid tightly or let dirt enter into the seal.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, garyo1954 said:

I agree. I am completely nonplussed every time I see a set of micros with the description like "Cuddles #77 - This is the 77th micro of my favorite pet names series."
Makes no sense.

Like why (other than numbers) should anyone care about your favorite pet names, much less you have 77 FAVORITE PET NAMES? (Can't you be normal and narrow it down to 10 or so?)
And what do all these pet names have to do with this trail/path/highway?

(Now I'm just using that type series as an example. You can plug in anything to want like "Famous people who don't know this place exists," or "Great Inventors who never visited this spot," and the always popular........"Here's tree cache #48 of 2981.")


 

I saw a series of about 80 caches that was based on "things you can do with duct tape".  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

What inexpensive, watertight, swag-size container would you suggest, instead of the brand-name Lock&Lock(TM)?

I'm not sure that "inexpensive" is really possible (or I guess it depends on where that $$ line is for you) but try wide mouthed water bottles, the nalgene work quite well.

  As far as I now know, there are 3 good containers, by size: preforms , wide mouthed water bottles (no spout, screw off lid and hang tab or loop as part of construction is best) and ammo cans. 

I've  stopped placing Lock n Locks, aside from tabs breaking, the gasket molds and then wicks water.   In the Humidity state, I think 3 years is terribly optimistic. You can extend their useful life by taping the lid and hinges, don't use rounds (much less hinge length, quicker to fail) and visit and remove and clean the gasket and rim annually.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, PlantAKiss said:

By doing cache maintenance.

My caches don’t get found often because they are old timers, but I still check on them regularly.

This ^.

This talk about containers is fine but it comes down to monitoring and maintaining what we've put out in the wild. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

I think as long as a container has outdoors life of say at least a year (totally arbitrary, for the sake of argument), then it's "good" -- good IF, and only if, the owner understands the quality and lifetime of the container they're putting out and responsibly maintains the cache. Honestly, who cares what kind of cache it is, if the contents are safe and secure? If the CO replaces their LnL after 2 years, before it gets to a bad condition, then there's absolutely no issue with the container selection.  So I'd echo Lone.R's question - "What inexpensive, watertight, swag-size container would you suggest, instead of the brand-name Lock&Lock(TM)?"  I'd say inexpensive is a perfectly legitimate parameter for the question, given LnL does have high quality storage albeit for a slightly less life than some more expensive containers.

Maybe someone could whip up a chart of common containers.  Those listed can only be ones that are able (generally speaking, under a standard context) to protect its contents for at least a year (or else per gc.com, the minimum time required for a listing's life, or minimal required CO maintenance schedule). Then COs can compare sizes, cost (not currency cost, but like restaurant priciness ratings 1-5), and average lifetime before requiring maintenance to retain that storage quality standard, even also include known weaknesses and strengths.  Then choose the container that's right for your placement context/region/budget/schedule. We can already imagine how large this list would become - of actual viable usable containers, because it's the greater context that matters, not any one specific aspect of it.

eg, Ammo cans aren't the only "good" container. But they do minimize potential maintenance checkups due to damage or degredation, have a longer lifespan, and cost more. LnL's are cheap, have a shorter life, but are generally easier to find and protect their contents well for the duration of their life.  etc

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 4:05 PM, Team Microdot said:

I see this sort of thing with increasing regularity:

Cacher X: Found cache log book was wet tftc

Cache owner: Hi its been a long wet winter and these caches haven't been found for a long time. If the logbook is wet, it's not my fault and if the comments continue, I will archive the series.

One of the reasons I no longer tell people about geocaching. It's embarassing.

I would have written 2 comments a day for as long as it took.   Imagine,  A cache owner like this actually OFFERING to archive their caches as if the game couldn't live without them.     

Edited by justintim1999
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

 A cache owner like this actually OFFERING to archive their caches as if the game couldn't live without them.     

Exactly! This is not a threat but a promise and some sort of offer.

- if geocachers bother to dry the logbook everything goes as before.

- If geocachers do not want to dry the logbook and continue asking to be served the cache will be archived.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I would have written 2 comments a day for as long as it took.   Imagine,  A cache owner like this actually OFFERING to archive their caches as if the game couldn't live without them.     

As a long standing and experienced cacher, I would expect nothing less of you.. and indeed I would have done the exact same thing, in fact a couple of years ago I did just that and the cache with the soggy log was archived that same day.. only to be re-instated with a new listing a couple of days later, when another cacher felt obligated to save the crumbling empire and put a new log in there..

But think about it from the newbies point of view..

They think they are doing the right thing, alerting a CO that their cache may need a little bit of TLC.. they probably even think this experienced cacher might be grateful for the heads up.. instead they are rewarded with a grumpy note suggesting that future mentions of something so trivial may end up with the caches being archived - and no doubt if that happens, the finger would be pointed firmly at them holding them responsible.

If that had happened to me when I was a newbie, I would almost certainly have thought twice before posting another NM which is of course, exactly what this CO wants.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:

As a long standing and experienced cacher, I would expect nothing less of you.. and indeed I would have done the exact same thing, in fact a couple of years ago I did just that and the cache with the soggy log was archived that same day.. only to be re-instated with a new listing a couple of days later, when another cacher felt obligated to save the crumbling empire and put a new log in there..

But think about it from the newbies point of view..

They think they are doing the right thing, alerting a CO that their cache may need a little bit of TLC.. they probably even think this experienced cacher might be grateful for the heads up.. instead they are rewarded with a grumpy note suggesting that future mentions of something so trivial may end up with the caches being archived - and no doubt if that happens, the finger would be pointed firmly at them holding them responsible.

If that had happened to me when I was a newbie, I would almost certainly have thought twice before posting another NM which is of course, exactly what this CO wants.

You bring up a lot of key issues.

 Anyone who reacted like this cache owner did should reconsider whether or not they really want to be one.

I'm beginning to think comments like this do more to damage to the game than caches that are a sloppy mess.

To be honest chastising newbies is one of my pet peeves.   My head explodes when I hear of an experienced cacher who thinks it's their goal in life to point out every mistake a newbie makes.  God forbid a newbie posts a questionable NM.   The cache owner may have to go out of their way to check up on their cache.

We can't have that now can we? :mad:    

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
9 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree.  Perhaps if they stay out of the sunlight they will not get brittle, but every lock-n-lock (yes, the brand name) I have seen older than 2 years has the hinge problem I described.

Maybe it depends on how often the cache is found (and therefore opened and closed)? Or that only round L&L's with the short hinges have the problem?

I have hidden many L&L's, in different sizes, but always the rectangular ones with long hinges. I admit that the gaskets degrade a bit over the years, but so far I didn't have any problems with broken hinges. A few weeks ago I did an OM on a cache with an L&L final, which has been lying in the woods for almost 9 years now. Condition was not perfect, but still usable, and the contents were dry. I once had to archive a cache (because of technical issues with the puzzle), whose final was an L&L, having been around for about three years. It was effectively as good as new, and I re-used it for another cache. I'm living in Munich, where we have more than enough humidity :rolleyes: (both rain and snow).

So my bottom line is: For "average" conditions, L&L's should be a good choice in terms of value for the money.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

  As far as I now know, there are 3 good containers, by size: preforms , wide mouthed water bottles (no spout, screw off lid and hang tab or loop as part of construction is best) and ammo cans.

Good points.  Polycarbonate water bottles with screw-on lids seem to work pretty well.  And I don't recall ever having found a wet preform.

OTOH, something else to avoid:  centrifuge tubes.  Those things are horrible containers. I've had them literally turn to dust in my hand.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I think as long as a container has outdoors life of say at least a year (totally arbitrary, for the sake of argument), then it's "good" -- good IF, and only if, the owner understands the quality and lifetime of the container they're putting out and responsibly maintains the cache.

I disagree with your choice of time frame.  I have ammo cans that have been out for 16 years, in hard-to-reach spots.  They are doing fine. They have dry logbooks and contents.

We've been discussing the lack of maintenance by cache owners, and my point has been that using good cache containers to start with will vastly reduce the required maintenance.  Yet there seem to be people in the thread who insist on focusing on the lack of maintenance rather than good cache containers to start with. They are tilting at windmills.

Something that lasts one year is not a good cache container. People are just not going to do maintenance that often. I know you wish it were different, but human nature is what it is and the ongoing discussions about lack of maintenance seem to be there mainly for people to complain about it.  If we actually want to do something about the problem, then perhaps some standards for cache containers would be a good place to start.

IMO, the very shortest time frame we should consider for a good cache container is 5 years.  Anything that does not last that long in the outdoors is not acceptable container.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

And I don't recall ever having found a wet preform.

When you own some caches using preforms you will find that occasionally they get wet because the cap was not closed properly. Sometimes squirrels make holes to the cap.

Sometimes I use preforms for a log sheet cover instead of ziplock inside a bigger container. Works extremely well.

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

I disagree with your choice of time frame.  I have ammo cans that have been out for 16 years, in hard-to-reach spots.  They are doing fine. They have dry logbooks and contents.

We've been discussing the lack of maintenance by cache owners, and my point has been that using good cache containers to start with will vastly reduce the required maintenance.  Yet there seem to be people in the thread who insist on focusing on the lack of maintenance rather than good cache containers to start with. They are tilting at windmills.

Something that lasts one year is not a good cache container. People are just not going to do maintenance that often. I know you wish it were different, but human nature is what it is and the ongoing discussions about lack of maintenance seem to be there mainly for people to complain about it.  If we actually want to do something about the problem, then perhaps some standards for cache containers would be a good place to start.

IMO, the very shortest time frame we should consider for a good cache container is 5 years.  Anything that does not last that long in the outdoors is not acceptable container.

My point was that the minimum (ie, worst case) time for a container to keep their contents in good shape should be somehow based on the time set by Groundspeak - either by the minimum expected life of a new listing (which is what, 6 months?) or amount of time TPTB expect (as in responsibility) owners to visit and maintain their caches. A container should be able to last at least that long. At least.

So, in my opinion, 1 year is a decent amount of minimal time for a container lifespan. Most cheap containers won't last that long without requiring maintenance. A LnL, generally speaking, will. I wouldn't want to impose a 5-year-required container lifespan on a cache container -- recommend, certainly. 16 years? Even better. But there's a balance between all those factors I mentioned above. Generally, the longer the life span, the more expensive (high quality) the container. Not always feasible. Generally, the larger the container, the more expensive. Generally the cheaper the container, the smaller and shorter a life span.  Assuming any viable container that has a minimum life span of X years keeping contents in favourable condition, then those factors will balance depending on context and owner.

Find the best container that suits your needs and abilities, and dedicate yourself to the expected requiremed maintenance schedule for that container. Whether it's 1 year, 5, or 16.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
54 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

Good points.  Polycarbonate water bottles with screw-on lids seem to work pretty well.  And I don't recall ever having found a wet preform.

OTOH, something else to avoid:  centrifuge tubes.  Those things are horrible containers. I've had them literally turn to dust in my hand.

Wide mouth nalgene screw top bottles are good.

Preforms are great for the first year. I’ve found many older preforms with broken lids. Duct tape on the lid helps if exposed to the sun. 

Centrifuge tubes—ugh. Those hinges lids never stay on and quickly break off.

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

I disagree with your choice of time frame.  I have ammo cans that have been out for 16 years, in hard-to-reach spots.  They are doing fine. They have dry logbooks and contents.

We've been discussing the lack of maintenance by cache owners, and my point has been that using good cache containers to start with will vastly reduce the required maintenance.  Yet there seem to be people in the thread who insist on focusing on the lack of maintenance rather than good cache containers to start with. They are tilting at windmills.

Something that lasts one year is not a good cache container. People are just not going to do maintenance that often. I know you wish it were different, but human nature is what it is and the ongoing discussions about lack of maintenance seem to be there mainly for people to complain about it.  If we actually want to do something about the problem, then perhaps some standards for cache containers would be a good place to start.

IMO, the very shortest time frame we should consider for a good cache container is 5 years.  Anything that does not last that long in the outdoors is not acceptable container.

I wish that every location would accommodate an ammo can and every cacher would use one.   Unfortunately that's not the case.  Selecting an appropriate container is very important as is learning ways to help make non-ammo can caches more weather resistant.   Anything can be an acceptable container if the owner is willing to replace it when necessary. 

In my opinion if every cache was an ammo can the game wouldn't be nearly so interesting.   

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

My point was that the minimum (ie, worst case) time for a container to keep their contents in good shape should be somehow based on the time set by Groundspeak - either by the minimum expected life of a new listing (which is what, 6 months?) or amount of time TPTB expect (as in responsibility) owners to visit and maintain their caches. A container should be able to last at least that long. At least.

From the "long term" section of the guidelines: "Temporary caches intended to stay active for fewer than three months will not be published."

And the "cache maintenance" section of the guidelines says only: "Visit the geocache regularly." Here in the forums, people seem to interpret "regularly" as anything from a time measured in weeks to a time measured in decades.

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

I wish that every location would accommodate an ammo can and every cacher would use one.   Unfortunately that's not the case.  Selecting an appropriate container is very important as is learning ways to help make non-ammo can caches more weather resistant.   Anything can be an acceptable container if the owner is willing to replace it when necessary. 

I wouldn't go that far.  Even if a CO visits the location every two weeks there's always a chance that several geocachers may attempt to find it in between visits.  The better the container (and how/where it's hidden) the better chance that those geocachers are going to find a dry cache and log sheet/book.  

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I wouldn't go that far.  Even if a CO visits the location every two weeks there's always a chance that several geocachers may attempt to find it in between visits.  The better the container (and how/where it's hidden) the better chance that those geocachers are going to find a dry cache and log sheet/book.  

Okay along those lines, I'll go wayyyyyyyy out on the edge of the limb and let everybody with chain saw start cutting the tree down.

IMHO, there should be some, "When a NM is logged, CO visit is required (within this time frame) or it will be deleted/disabled/removed cutoff time frame. Any CO who can't make a visit should make contact with a reviewer to disable cache until maintenance is performed. There will be no exceptions."

That would clean up a lot of the abandoned waterlogged geo-garbage, with saturated logs, and rusting metal.

(I already hear the hum of the chainsaws.)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On ‎09‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 8:31 AM, grimpil said:

On a slightly sad note I have yet to discover any swag worth doing a swap for - most is either inappropriate for my advancing years or is just mouldy wet tat.  No point me leaving some decent little trinket if that is how it will end up.  But my motivation never was aquiring stuff so it matters little to me, but again I feel this reflects the "let's up our log count & move on to the next site" atmosphere that pervades.

I'm new to geocaching - just a few days old in fact - but I've noticed the same.  I'm not in it for the "stuff" but I love the idea of leaving little trinkets for other geocachers to find and collecting a pot full of cute bits and pieces from various locations.

I go out with my two daughters - aged ten and six - and there's not even any plastic tat for them to get excited about.

We made some little glass nuggets to drop into the caches we find but since they are backed with paper I worry the moisture in most of the caches will destroy them.  However, I've been dropping them into the dry caches I come across, even though there has been nothing to take.  I just think its a nice way to spread a little cheer.

30516169_2027153554275131_1836157037969408000_n.jpg

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

I'm new to geocaching - just a few days old in fact - but I've noticed the same.  I'm not in it for the "stuff" but I love the idea of leaving little trinkets for other geocachers to find and collecting a pot full of cute bits and pieces from various locations.

I go out with my two daughters - aged ten and six - and there's not even any plastic tat for them to get excited about.

We made some little glass nuggets to drop into the caches we find but since they are backed with paper I worry the moisture in most of the caches will destroy them.  However, I've been dropping them into the dry caches I come across, even though there has been nothing to take.  I just think its a nice way to spread a little cheer.

30516169_2027153554275131_1836157037969408000_n.jpg

Same here. I was putting out little boxes with necklaces and whatnot, and posting on a rock painting group when someone pointed out geocaching. Its not adding up to what the perception conveyed. It may have been better back between 2010 - 2015, but sadly enough, it doesn't live up to its potential here.

Those are gorgeous! I'd love to find treasure like that!

Link to comment

Well the most common recommendation is, if you're ready to hide caches, hide what you like to find. Only you can steer the community towards a geocache landscape that you think is better for the community!  Find better locations, use better container, fill'em with more swag... if people see it and enjoy it, they'll be encouraged to follow suit. Takes time shaping a local geocaching community if you're the only one, but in the long term it can be work it!

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

It may have been better back between 2010 - 2015

It was better pre-2010 before they opened up the Power Trail floodgates and allowed people cart-blanche on the number of caches they could hide .1 miles between each other in a row. Then it became mostly leaky micros with wet logs and no room for tradeables, and neglected poor quality larger containers.Most COs are only interested in hiding lots and lots of power-style caches. We end up with more discussions about owners who have too many caches--too many to maintain, too many to invest in better quality containers (100 containers at even $1 a piece is too much).

I find that better quality containers result in nicer swag items because people like you, and Emzy (and myself) would rather leave our handcrafted stuff in containers that are reasonably clean and reasonably dry.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, LFC4eva said:

As a long standing and experienced cacher, I would expect nothing less of you.. and indeed I would have done the exact same thing, in fact a couple of years ago I did just that and the cache with the soggy log was archived that same day.. only to be re-instated with a new listing a couple of days later, when another cacher felt obligated to save the crumbling empire and put a new log in there..

But think about it from the newbies point of view..

They think they are doing the right thing, alerting a CO that their cache may need a little bit of TLC.. they probably even think this experienced cacher might be grateful for the heads up.. instead they are rewarded with a grumpy note suggesting that future mentions of something so trivial may end up with the caches being archived - and no doubt if that happens, the finger would be pointed firmly at them holding them responsible.

If that had happened to me when I was a newbie, I would almost certainly have thought twice before posting another NM which is of course, exactly what this CO wants.

As a owner of a few caches, my limited experience shows most of the NM's are posted by people with less than 100 finds and many with less than 10, so can this be they have too high expectations ?

so the more they find,  they released that a clean shiny log is not normal, unless you FTF from the start?

I know of caches that have 70 plus Fav points, the log may not be in good contain, if people are that bothered about a clean dry log, they should carry spares and replace as required.

so a message from a CO explaining the weather conditions and the last person states in his log that it was raining  may not be a grumpy note suggesting they dont do a NM again, it may be an experienced co giving helpful advice?

but what do I know as I am not a high number cacher

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

so a message from a CO explaining the weather conditions and the last person states in his log that it was raining  may not be a grumpy note suggesting they dont do a NM again, it may be an experienced co giving helpful advice?

 

Newbie or not, there is no need for a CO to explain to him about the weather conditions.. he lives in the NW of England.. he knows that it rains a lot.

He also knows he couldn't sign the log because it was wet.. and he did the right thing in alerting the CO that his cache needed maintenance.

There is no need for the CO to comment at all.. he just needs to make a mental note that the containers on that series are not as water tight as he hoped and pencil in a maintenance run sometime soon.

Posting a note saying " If the logbook is wet, it's not my fault and if the comments continue, I will archive the series."  is not friendly advice.. it is grumpy at best and a warning that if people keep complaining about the log he will archive the cache(s).

A NM log is not a criticism of the CO.. it's a heads up that your cache needs some TLC.  There is no need to be offended by it.
 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
13 hours ago, LFC4eva said:

Newbie or not, there is no need for a CO to explain to him about the weather conditions.. he lives in the NW of England.. he knows that it rains a lot.

He also knows he couldn't sign the log because it was wet.. and he did the right thing in alerting the CO that his cache needed maintenance.

There is no need for the CO to comment at all.. he just needs to make a mental note that the containers on that series are not as water tight as he hoped and pencil in a maintenance run sometime soon.

Posting a note saying " If the logbook is wet, it's not my fault and if the comments continue, I will archive the series."  is not friendly advice.. it is grumpy at best and a warning that if people keep complaining about the log he will archive the cache(s).

A NM log is not a criticism of the CO.. it's a heads up that your cache needs some TLC.  There is no need to be offended by it.
 

when I was new at puzzles I got this message from a CO - 

Just out of interest.. what has led you to show an interest in my blank puzzle? It's not exactly on your doorstep.. and looking at your finds.. you've not really done very many puzzles and so it's a bit of a tricky one for someone new to puzzlin'. :)

so this could have put me off - is this classed as   - rewarded with a grumpy note ?? for asking a newbie question ?

 

Edited by CHEZRASCALS
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I think as long as a container has outdoors life of say at least a year (totally arbitrary, for the sake of argument), then it's "good" -- good IF, and only if, the owner understands the quality and lifetime of the container they're putting out and responsibly maintains the cache. Honestly, who cares what kind of cache it is, if the contents are safe and secure? If the CO replaces their LnL after 2 years, before it gets to a bad condition, then there's absolutely no issue with the container selection.  So I'd echo Lone.R's question - "What inexpensive, watertight, swag-size container would you suggest, instead of the brand-name Lock&Lock(TM)?"  I'd say inexpensive is a perfectly legitimate parameter for the question, given LnL does have high quality storage albeit for a slightly less life than some more expensive containers.

Maybe someone could whip up a chart of common containers.  Those listed can only be ones that are able (generally speaking, under a standard context) to protect its contents for at least a year (or else per gc.com, the minimum time required for a listing's life, or minimal required CO maintenance schedule). Then COs can compare sizes, cost (not currency cost, but like restaurant priciness ratings 1-5), and average lifetime before requiring maintenance to retain that storage quality standard, even also include known weaknesses and strengths.  Then choose the container that's right for your placement context/region/budget/schedule. We can already imagine how large this list would become - of actual viable usable containers, because it's the greater context that matters, not any one specific aspect of it.

eg, Ammo cans aren't the only "good" container. But they do minimize potential maintenance checkups due to damage or degredation, have a longer lifespan, and cost more. LnL's are cheap, have a shorter life, but are generally easier to find and protect their contents well for the duration of their life.  etc

Around here, the most commonly used containers are the Sistema Klip It ones, which are sealed with hinged clips and last very well in our coastal subtropical climate. They're made in New Zealand, so I don't know whether they're available in the USA or Europe, but here they're stocked by the supermarkets and the smallest size (200ml) sell as a three-pack for about $5. Just last weekend I found one that had been sitting in a pocket of subtropical rainforest for nine years and was still pretty much in pristine condition. The contents, including the logbook from 2009, were bone dry.

DSC_0309_small.jpg.e42d9333d2e48ec3f62100276aec7d4c.jpg

As another example, here's one of mine that I hid three years ago and checked on last week. The only thing that's changed since the day I hid it is the names written in the logbook.

20180406_093142.jpg.f728f41d840901cd119a7390f632d8f2.jpg

The only one of these I can recall finding that had really gone off had been sitting at the base of a tree in a sun-exposed spot for nine years and its lid had gone brittle and cracked.

 

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

To be honest chastising newbies is one of my pet peeves.  

As I stated on the first page of this thread, the original comment by the CO doesn't appear to be chastising anyone, other than to let future finders know that if it continues, they'll archive the series.  Here's the log - 

"Hi its been a long wet winter and these caches haven't been found for a long time. If the logbook is wet, it's not my fault and if the comments continue, I will archive the series."

Abusive, rude, embarrassing, chastising, and threatening are all words that were used to describe this comment by the CO.  Honestly, I don't see much of that here.  Rudeness is the only thing, and it's not overly offensive, IMO.  The threat is to archive the series, not towards a cacher.  See below for my opinion on that.

 

20 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Anyone who reacted like this cache owner did should reconsider whether or not they really want to be one.

And this is my exact response to the note that was posted by the CO.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, garyo1954 said:

That would clean up a lot of the abandoned waterlogged geo-garbage, with saturated logs, and rusting metal.
 

Nope.  You would think so, but a NM isn't a log that gets a reviewer involved.  It's the NA.  Do you really want to go down a road where EVERY NM log now gets a reviewer involved and leads to possible archival?  What about those that are mistakenly filed because people aren't used to the "new" method of logging and inadvertently post one?  It's my guess that it would have 2 effects that would be detrimental to the activity, of which we see some occurring already.  1. NMs get logged LESS frequently because it will lead to more caches being removed from the game.  2.  It will lead to more armchair OM logs, when maintenance isn't really done, rather than actual OM logs when maintenance was done.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

It was better pre-2010 before they opened up the Power Trail floodgates and allowed people cart-blanche on the number of caches they could hide .1 miles between each other in a row. Then it became mostly leaky micros with wet logs and no room for tradeables, and neglected poor quality larger containers.Most COs are only interested in hiding lots and lots of power-style caches. We end up with more discussions about owners who have too many caches--too many to maintain, too many to invest in better quality containers (100 containers at even $1 a piece is too much).

I find that better quality containers result in nicer swag items because people like you, and Emzy (and myself) would rather leave our handcrafted stuff in containers that are reasonably clean and reasonably dry.

I'm not disputing the point you raise about the PTs and the subsequent decline in a variety of ways, but we've had this discussion before about caching before PTs and the smart phone.  There were just as many caches with issues as without, it's just that it's been romanticized as the "golden" age of geocaching, when most caches required a small hike, were well maintained, and were mostly regular in size.  I only looked at the first 9 caches that were part of a challenge here in Indiana to find active 2000/2001 caches.  5 had issues, meaning more than 50% of the caches had problems that the CO didn't address right away (or at all), and there were significantly LESS caches owned by COs back then, meaning maintenance should have been easier and quicker.  

GC23C0 - 2001 cache - log in 2005 mentions water in cache.  Three finds and then 3 straight DNFs over 3 years and CO replaces it with a micro in 2008 - first visit in 3 years after yearly visits the first 4 years.

GC180E - 2001 cache - log in 2002 mentions crack in container. Log 2 months later mentions hole in container. 2 months later another log, cracked container. 1 1/2 years after first mention of bad container, CO replaces it.

GC5C9 - 2001 cache - full log noted in found log in 9/2001 and next 9 finds over 2 months.  Next finder replaces log for CO.

GC115C - 2001 cache - not even a month old and contents are wet. 3 months later, another log with cache 3/4 full of water. frozen items 2 months later. No logbook a month later. 3 months later, wet and still no log. 

GC1736 - 2001 cache - box damaged noted on 1/03. 7/03 - someone apparently muggled it and the finders restocked it.  another new log book put in a month later.  

 

There are certainly some aspects of caching that were different (and better in some instances) than what we find ourselves seeing today.  MUCH of that can be attributed to the explosion of caches that occurred when PTs were allowed, but also due to the ability of more people to participate in this activity with the advent of the smart phone and the subsequent apps that allowed people to find caches without the need of a GPS unit.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
18 hours ago, EmzyJanezy said:

I'm new to geocaching - just a few days old in fact - but I've noticed the same.  I'm not in it for the "stuff" but I love the idea of leaving little trinkets for other geocachers to find and collecting a pot full of cute bits and pieces from various locations.

I go out with my two daughters - aged ten and six - and there's not even any plastic tat for them to get excited about.

We made some little glass nuggets to drop into the caches we find but since they are backed with paper I worry the moisture in most of the caches will destroy them.  However, I've been dropping them into the dry caches I come across, even though there has been nothing to take.  I just think its a nice way to spread a little cheer.

30516169_2027153554275131_1836157037969408000_n.jpg

Those are lovely.  I am not involved with children & whilst I don't have an overwhelming desire to collect stuff I can see that swapping little treasures gives added value to the hobby for the young participants.

Could you put those glass nuggets into tiny sealed bags?  Or perhaps varnish the paper to prolong its life?

Link to comment
6 hours ago, grimpil said:

I am not involved with children & whilst I don't have an overwhelming desire to collect stuff I can see that swapping little treasures gives added value to the hobby for the young participants.

And old alike.

I use to collect those little plastic animals. There's almost always one in every swag size cache. The silly bit of anticipation is fun.  'When I open up this cache will there be a little plastic animal I don't have?'. And when there was, it added an extra level of amusement. I used a few for art projects. But mostly I stored them in a shoebox and when it was full I donated them to the local Goodwill, so hopefully some kids end up having fun with them.

I also love seeing actual geocoins and pathtags. They are remarkable. I appreciate the design and quality.

Signature items are another nice find. I enjoy seeing what others have created to mark their presence in the game.

Edited by L0ne.R
typo
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 4:32 PM, fizzymagic said:

The brand-name Lock&Locks (such as those you have linked) are very poor cache containers.

 

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 11:11 AM, fizzymagic said:

And I don't recall ever having found a wet preform.

It's interesting how different everyone's experiences are. While fizzymagic has found that Lock & Locks are poor and preforms are good, I've seen exactly the opposite. There are countless Lock & Locks in my area that have been out for over 10-15 years with no problems, and it's rare that I find a preform that has a dry interior. There are many factors in play regarding how well a container will work, including the level of care in which the hider protected the container, the hiding spot, the type of environment, etc. Around here, a painted or camo-taped Lock & Lock can easily last for well over a decade, even after being opened hundreds of times.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
23 hours ago, coachstahly said:

As I stated on the first page of this thread, the original comment by the CO doesn't appear to be chastising anyone, other than to let future finders know that if it continues, they'll archive the series.  Here's the log - 

"Hi its been a long wet winter and these caches haven't been found for a long time. If the logbook is wet, it's not my fault and if the comments continue, I will archive the series."

Abusive, rude, embarrassing, chastising, and threatening are all words that were used to describe this comment by the CO.  Honestly, I don't see much of that here.  Rudeness is the only thing, and it's not overly offensive, IMO.  The threat is to archive the series, not towards a cacher.  See below for my opinion on that.

 

And this is my exact response to the note that was posted by the CO.

Try this on for size.   "Thanks for the info on the cache.  It's been a long wet winter here and I'm sure I've got some cleaning up to do.   Won't be long till I can get out and take care of this one."    

I think it was the "not my fault" comment and the threat to archive the caches which bothered me.  

You may have too many caches when........you post comments like this one.      

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

I think it was the "not my fault" comment and the threat to archive the caches which bothered me.  

Once I asked help from puzzle cache owner to solve the puzzle and the reponse was only similar threat to archive the cache. I manager to solve the puzzle anyway but I did not understand the way to respond this way at all.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Once I asked help from puzzle cache owner to solve the puzzle and the reponse was only similar threat to archive the cache. I manager to solve the puzzle anyway but I did not understand the way to respond this way at all.

I wouldn't expect an owner to help me with a puzzle cache.    I've asked a few times and was happily steered in the right direction but if for some reason they didn't want to I'd respect that.   There's really no reason to be anything but cordial in matters like this.  

When you think about it why would a cache owner react like this?   Why even reply at all?   The only reason I can think of is the owner simply can't be bothered and they're trying to avoid more NM's which will eventually get a reviewer involved.    

It brings me to something I've never understood.   Why is owning a cache so important?    So much so that the owner can't bring themselves to archive it and in turn will jump through all sorts of hoops to keep something they're unwilling or unable to take care of.  

 

Link to comment
On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 9:00 PM, The Magna Defender said:

[Text removed by moderator] This particular series has only been out a year, it got a flurry of finders when it was new and now its been sat there without finds for about 8 months. Of course the caches will be inevitably wet. This one guy was the first to turn up in ages. I never said I wouldn't maintain it, I said I would archive them if the situation continues. How am I supposed to know what state a cache is in if it hasn't been visited for 8 months??

 

The problem I have is that most cachers nowadays are so fixated on the state of the cache, they never ever say anything about the walk they've done, the wildlife theyve seen or the gorgeous views. They are just so fixated on the scrawl of dingy paper they write nothing else on their online log. As a CO I want to hear about their experiences and frankly that's gone out the window in recent years. 

Before I proceed with this I would like to know what situation?   The situation of the caches getting wet or the situation of people commenting on the fact?

 

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 7
×
×
  • Create New...