Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
Rock Chalk

Community conversation about geocache quality

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I know for fact I'm not the only one who doesn't consider this hobby a "numbers game"...

I'd hope you're reasonable enough to realize that rating people would soon become questionable under the TOU.

 

Many of us have seen examples of "cache of the week" that don't conform to guidelines.  "High scorer".   Yeah, that means something all right...   :)

I'm not a numbers cacher either.    I was just thinking if the cache owners score was visible for all to see it may encourage better cache maintenance.  

 

Sorry but what is TOU? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
6 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

So why did you log a find when you didn't find anything? 

Because I had gone to the effort to solve the puzzle, walked up the hill in freezing, windy weather (it wasn't summer in Iceland) and because I noticed the CO was letting others log it, so I thought if they are logging it, so will I. Plus I was not able to return, and Iceland doesn't have many geocaches.

 

I have told finders of my caches, who have logged DNFs and who I believe looked for it, and then after I have checked the cache is truly missing (and then replaced), that they are free to log. It wasn't their fault they found it missing, and they were considerate enough to log a DNF, when many don't. Those who don't log DNFs don't get this consideration, even if I find out later they tried to find it, but it was missing.

 

A few years ago I posted about logging a cache a cache in a similar scenario.  The cache was "all about the view" and I took several photos while I was at GZ.  The CO offered to let me log it as a find after I had logged the DNF.  I was there during a brief period when the cache had gone missing and he had not yet been able to get there to replace it (I think it was missing for about 3 weeks).   After getting the same response you have about logging something you didn't find I eventually went back and changed my found it to a DNF.  The cache was in Singapore and would have been my furthest find from home (about 9400+ miles).  I found a few others that day in Singapore though, one that was about 1/4 mile away.  I also will unlikely ever get to Singapore again (though I not be real surprised if I did) and I am definitely not a "numbers cacher" (I have found 13 so far this year) so didn't really care about the +1 on my find count.  On the other hand, I have often felt that whether or not a found it is allowed on a cache like that is entirely between the "finder" and the cache owner, and in that case I had met the reason that the CO had placed the cache (to bring me to that specific location).  There are, however, many that think logging that cache is "wrong" (one is not playing the game in the same way they are) and will insist that the found it log should be deleted.  I'm still not sure what is worse;  logging a find on that cache, or caving to the whim of those that insist that everyone must play the game "their way".

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

It would have to be hidden otherwise it will get abused by the stats seekers.

It may still end up abused by cache owners who are active but never intend to go back to their caches. I've seen a few post OMs to ward off reviewer archival. Eventually, their cache still ends up archived by a reviewer but instead of taking one month it may take 6 months to a year. 

 

When planning a geocaching trip to parts unknown, I really want a way to filter for cache owners who are still playing (logged into the site in the last year), have been hiding caches for more than 1 year (this way I hopefully filter out those fly by night cachers), and those who have never received a reviewer disable or archival. I wonder if a third party app could do this?

 

I wish there was a way to filter for hiders whose posted coordinates, posted sizes and D/T ratings are accurate. And for those hiders who respond quickly to problems. 

Nothings going to stop people from trying to game the system.   People are going to post fraudulent owners maintenance logs whether there's a cache owner score or not.    Just another thing the schemers have to think about.    If nothing else it may be a number cachers can take pride in and others will strive to achieve. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I'm still not sure what is worse;  logging a find on that cache, or caving to the whim of those that insist that everyone must play the game "their way".

 

Me - I like to stick to the facts - it's much simpler than inventing some delusion that allows me to claim I've done something that I know very well I haven't done.

 

I don't insist anyone plays "my way" but I do deserve the right to hold my nose at the whiff of cheesy practices :ph34r:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Nothings going to stop people from trying to game the system.   People are going to post fraudulent owners maintenance logs whether there's a cache owner score or not.    Just another thing the schemers have to think about.    If nothing else it may be a number cachers can take pride in and others will strive to achieve. 

 

I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that your proposed Cache Owner Score would rely heavily on regular and frequent OM logs, so I'm wondering how you'd see it working on remote hides that are made to last, with a robust container, a hiding place that protects it from sun and weather, and a logbook that will last many decades at the likely find rate they'll get. An example is GC525B hidden in 2002 with not a single OM log in sight, still with the original container and logbook and still in essentially pristine condition if you don't count the odd scratch and bit of dust on the outside of the container. In all that time it's only had 38 finds (as I said, it's remote) and no DNFs, or anything else for that matter besides a couple of WNs. In my log last September I wrote "The fifteen-year-old cache is in great condition with the contents, including its original logbook, bone dry. It just goes to show what a decent container in a sheltered hiding spot can do." Is this a high quality cache or a poorly maintained one? Is the CO good for making a long-lasting trouble-free cache or bad for not constantly visiting it and logging OMs?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

Tough luck, but you still haven't found the cache. I have solved many difficult puzzles, where I ended up with a very annoying DNF in the field. Sometimes after a very exhausting physical experience. But it was still a DNF, as I did not find the cache.

 

Just because others don't understand the meaning of "found it" vs. "DNF", so will I? Ok, it's a sure sign, that your "Found it = DNF" type log will not be deleted. But it still doesn't feel right to me to log a find.

 

I've seen that "excuse" numerous times when people log a DNF as find. I think it's ridiculous to derive a right to log a DNF as a find from the distance between the cache and your home zone.

 

Anyway, to connect all this to the thread topic ;) ... a very basic requirement for a quality cache is that there is actually a cache to be found. And to achieve this, honest logs (i.e. log DNF, NM, NA when it's appropriate) are important. Others may see it differently, but for me the goal of a cache hunt is not to get the "smiley" by all means, but to find the cache. Usually I don't read the logs before I start searching. But if I don't find anything, and run out of ideas, I look into the previous logs to see if there are any subtle hints (or not so subtle ones, like better coordinates 20m off the listed ones). And when I then find out that the cache has been missing for several months, and everyone just logs a find because "the owner gives permission" or "everyone else did so", I'm definitely not amused!  It's perfectly ok for me, if the CO, when verifying after a DNF or NM that the cache is actually missing, allows the DNF/NM logger(s) a "find". But after that, the listing must be disabled until the cache is replaced.

We have a different opinion on this. I logged a DNF, after the owner said I could log. I found the exact place where a cache should have been; it wasn't that I couldn't have found the cache if it had been there. I wasn't sitting at home in an armchair logging caches I have never been to. After solving the puzzle I went to GZ. Major difference! I could have left a throw down (as many do) and gone on my way and no-one would have known the difference, but I logged a DNF to let the CO know it was missing. Then after the CO asked for a description of GZ I logged this with their permission. I have also given permission in similar situations to others to log my caches, and no-one has had a problem with this, until here. (The difference is though, is that I went out and replaced my missing cache.) Similarly, I have also on occasions sent an email to give an extra hint to someone who is struggling to find my cache, especially if they have logged more than one DNF. (Reward for logging all DNFs :) )  Is that unfair too, as that is giving more information than is on the log page? I consider that as being friendly. After all it's a game. The others who logged this cache I was talking about were also told to log it by the CO; as far as I know it wasn't that they "don't understand the meaning of "found it" vs. "DNF"". They were told to log. Basically the CO had turned the cache into a virtual when they shouldn't have and this is why the cache was archived.

If what I did is not right, than so is people logging puzzles they didn't solve, when say in the company of someone who did solve it, or if they are given the solution (Happy Birthday, dear, here's your present, I solved you a puzzle :wub:), or logging a puzzle or multicache they stumble upon because they didn't solve that one. I have accidentally found several caches (okay, I might have been hunting for one or two, knowing they were there somewhere:rolleyes:, but others I have found accidentally. Best example, I reached into a hole and said, "This would make a great hide"...and pulled out the cache for a puzzle:o..."Just like his one!:D" (20 or more people have now signed that log without solving the puzzle. Don't blame me for that; it turns out I am not the only person who stumbled upon it.) Or logged an archived cache, etc.

It's a game.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

@fizzymagic had a comment in the User Insights thread which I think merits more discussion:

 

"the community can and should develop a culture of helping cache owners maintain their caches in excellent shape.  The attitude of many in the forums, who insist that such a culture results in "lazy" cache owners, seems utterly wrong-headed to me.  The current culture (at least as it is represented in the forums) is a culture of blame and stigmatization, rather than a culture of cooperation."

 

First and foremost, I think if we are to change this CO attitude needs to change. CO's are usually appreciative of finder maintenance, but I have found many COs, especially those with lots of caches expect community maintenance. For example, they get offended by being told the cache needs a new log. The finder should have replaced the log themselves and if they weren't carrying spare logs they should have been! This is a wrongheaded attitude that makes people not want to help you. Besides, some of us simply travel light when caching. I don't have a cache repair kit, especially not backpack ready, and even if I did I rarely carry a backpack. 

 

Second, if community maintenance is to be encouraged then the Guidelines need to specify that and what kind of community maintenance is appropriate. Replacing a logsheet or baggie is one thing. A throwdown on a DNF is not.

 

A trashed/ruined container should be CITO (with photos to show it reallly is reduced isn't salvageable) and the CO can decide to replace or archive. However, I'm not sure I would formally encourage this behavior because I can imagine it would be abused, both intentionally and naively. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that your proposed Cache Owner Score would rely heavily on regular and frequent OM logs, so I'm wondering how you'd see it working on remote hides that are made to last, with a robust container, a hiding place that protects it from sun and weather, and a logbook that will last many decades at the likely find rate they'll get. An example is GC525B hidden in 2002 with not a single OM log in sight, still with the original container and logbook and still in essentially pristine condition if you don't count the odd scratch and bit of dust on the outside of the container. In all that time it's only had 38 finds (as I said, it's remote) and no DNFs, or anything else for that matter besides a couple of WNs. In my log last September I wrote "The fifteen-year-old cache is in great condition with the contents, including its original logbook, bone dry. It just goes to show what a decent container in a sheltered hiding spot can do." Is this a high quality cache or a poorly maintained one? Is the CO good for making a long-lasting trouble-free cache or bad for not constantly visiting it and logging OMs?

Well if the cache needs no maintenance than nothing needs to be done.    Your cache owner score is not effected.

 

You must be referring to the "occasional visit" requirement.

 

I'd rather not get into that again (unless you want me to) because that will just muddy the waters on what's so far been a very simple (and cordial) discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, justintim1999 said:

Well if the cache needs no maintenance than nothing needs to be done.    Your cache owner score is not effected.

 

You must be referring to the "occasional visit" requirement.

 

I'd rather not get into that again (unless you want me to) because that will just muddy the waters on what's so far been a very simple (and cordial) discussion. 

 

No, I don't want to get into that again, at least not in this thread, but I was just curious how an Owner Score algorithm might cope with a cache like this, particularly with all the clamour on the Insights thread to enforce annual (or more frequent) visits. It'd be a shame to see remote caches like this go because the CO lacks the time (or stamina) to make what would be just book-keeping visits to caches that are tough to reach and designed to be maintenance-free.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

@fizzymagic had a comment in the User Insights thread which I think merits more discussion:

 

"the community can and should develop a culture of helping cache owners maintain their caches in excellent shape.  The attitude of many in the forums, who insist that such a culture results in "lazy" cache owners, seems utterly wrong-headed to me.  The current culture (at least as it is represented in the forums) is a culture of blame and stigmatization, rather than a culture of cooperation."

 

First and foremost, I think if we are to change this CO attitude needs to change. CO's are usually appreciative of finder maintenance, but I have found many COs, especially those with lots of caches expect community maintenance. For example, they get offended by being told the cache needs a new log. The finder should have replaced the log themselves and if they weren't carrying spare logs they should have been! This is a wrongheaded attitude that makes people not want to help you. Besides, some of us simply travel light when caching. I don't have a cache repair kit, especially not backpack ready, and even if I did I rarely carry a backpack. 

 

Second, if community maintenance is to be encouraged then the Guidelines need to specify that and what kind of community maintenance is appropriate. Replacing a logsheet or baggie is one thing. A throwdown on a DNF is not.

 

A trashed/ruined container should be CITO (with photos to show it reallly is reduced isn't salvageable) and the CO can decide to replace or archive. However, I'm not sure I would formally encourage this behavior because I can imagine it would be abused, both intentionally and naively. 

Yup.   I've been consistent in my view that owning a cache should be a privilege not a right.    Cache owners should be held to a higher standard.   I've always wondered why we highlight caches with favorite points.   We post find counts and offer badges for prolific finders,  Yet the good cache owner goes virtually un-noticed.   In my opinion good cache owners are the most important part of the entire game.  

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Yup.   I've been consistent in my view that owning a cache should be a privilege not a right.    Cache owners should be held to a higher standard.   I've always wondered why we highlight caches with favorite points.   We post find counts and offer badges for prolific finders,  Yet the good cache owner goes virtually un-noticed.   In my opinion good cache owners are the most important part of the entire game.

 

I'm voting this my post of the day - probably even post of the week! B)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

No, I don't want to get into that again, at least not in this thread, but I was just curious how an Owner Score algorithm might cope with a cache like this, particularly with all the clamour on the Insights thread to enforce annual (or more frequent) visits. It'd be a shame to see remote caches like this go because the CO lacks the time (or stamina) to make what would be just book-keeping visits to caches that are tough to reach and designed to be maintenance-free.

Well if you start a 100% and you have no issues you remain at 100%.    What's there to deal with?    Seems like your trying to dance around the "occasional visit" thing here and I understand why.   The type of caches and owners your referring to here are not my focus in this discussion.    As a matter of fact those type of caches would be the easiest to maintain a high owner score on.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I'm voting this my post of the day - probably even post of the week! B)

I am truly honored by the nomination.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

No, I don't want to get into that again, at least not in this thread, but I was just curious how an Owner Score algorithm might cope with a cache like this, particularly with all the clamour on the Insights thread to enforce annual (or more frequent) visits. It'd be a shame to see remote caches like this go because the CO lacks the time (or stamina) to make what would be just book-keeping visits to caches that are tough to reach and designed to be maintenance-free.

Someone can claim they visited their cache. Who is to know otherwise, especially if the cache is a remote one, one of those with a good container, in a good shelter, that will last decades. You just wrote it's "just book-keeping".

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

It's a game.

 

The three little words most often spoken by those who have fallen short of actually playing the game to the proper standard. :ph34r:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I'm voting this my post of the day - probably even post of the week! B)

I am truly honored by the nomination.  :D

 

Don't get too excited - there's no cash prize or anything :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Well if you start a 100% and you have no issues you remain at 100%.    What's there to deal with?    Seems like your trying to dance around the "occasional visit" thing here and I understand why.   The type of caches and owners your referring to here are not my focus in this discussion.    As a matter of fact those type of caches would be the easiest to maintain a high owner score on.   

 

Actually the wording changed to "regular visits" a year or two back and, if you haven't noticed, a lot of people on the Insights thread have been calling for this to be tightened to at least annual visits. I'm imagining an Owner Score would reflect that and my concern is the impact such a change would have on caches like this.

Edited by barefootjeff
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

The three little words most often spoken by those who have fallen short of actually playing the game to the proper standard. :ph34r:

Thank you, but I play it to a high standard. My caches are looked after, unlike most people I actually CHECK the logs and take appropriate action, I take it seriously to look after TBs and place them in good caches (don't always get that right, but I try to), I supply the TB owners regular photographs of where their TBs have visited; I don't just log them in and out of caches with nothing more, like most people; I even try to take the TB (if possible) to the TB's owners desired destination, and have managed this on a number of occasions. I attend events.

Personally I think the 'forced' checking of caches once a year is a silly idea. That's what Needs Maintenance' is for. It's a good idea if people want geocaching to be less popular and to have less caches. I do, by the way, check most of my caches at least once a year.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Don't get too excited - there's no cash prize or anything :D

To be positively recognized by your peers is reward enough.

 

I guess that's what my whole point here is all about.   

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Actually the wording changed to "regular visits" a year or two back and, if you haven't noticed, a lot of people on the Insights thread have been calling for this to be tightened to at least annual visits. I'm imagining an Owner Score would reflect that and my concern is the impact such a change would have on caches like this.

I have no problem with an annual required visit for the majority of caches out there.   Ones such as yours should be given special dispensation based on the difficulty, terrain and your current cache owner score.:)  

Share this post


Link to post
On 20/6/2018 at 1:09 AM, The Magna Defender said:

removing the FTF part of the game would sort out a lot of politics between finders and hiders. 

 

This must be very region specific, because I have no idea what you mean with "politics between finders and hiders" in regards to FTF. Are people in your region getting mad about FTF, to the point they are making rules about who can be FTF, or even delete FTF posts by someone they don't like?

 

In my area we have FTF hounds, and we we tend to poke a bit of fun at them. I personally think FTF hunts are fun, but not at any cost, most of my FTFs are from events, but I think I might still be considered one the FTF crazies still.

 

We have 0 drama in regards to FTF here, and I feel sorry if your community suffers from FTF drama. But I can't see how anyone outside your community can fix it for you, unfortunately.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

 

This must be very region specific, because I have no idea what you mean with "politics between finders and hiders" in regards to FTF. Are people in your region getting mad about FTF, to the point they are making rules about who can be FTF, or even delete FTF posts by someone they don't like?

 

In my area we have FTF hounds, and we we tend to poke a bit of fun at them. I personally think FTF hunts are fun, but not at any cost, most of my FTFs are from events, but I think I might still be considered one the FTF crazies still.

 

We have 0 drama in regards to FTF here, and I feel sorry if your community suffers from FTF drama. But I can't see how anyone outside your community can fix it for you, unfortunately.

Similar to where I live. No problems with DNFs here either, so I also don't know what is meant by "politics between finders and hiders" .

Share this post


Link to post
On 26/6/2018 at 12:20 AM, JL_HSTRE said:

Favorite points were a good way to help point out quality, but those who value quality have fewer finds thus fewer rewards to hand out. Maybe we need some kind of short, simple optional voting system with results that can be sought via PQ based on percentage of votes. Such as:

 

1. Were the cache container & log in good shape?

 

2. Did the cache have good swag?

 

3. Was the cache container creative?

 

4. Was the cache scenic?

 

5. Was the cache educational?

 

All questions Yes or No. Voting only if you log a Find.

 

Thoughts?

 

I have a feeling that will become tedious VERY fast, and rarely used by anyone after a few weeks. Just look at how many does the standard log for ALL their finds, there is no way even a fraction would be using something like that in the long run.

 

It would probably be better if the CO could label those things, and then the community could disagree with it by clicking on it. Kind of like attributes, maybe even just attributes, otherwise a separate system under it, where you click those you disagree on. But having people evaluate EVERY cache they find, will in the best case lead to few people using the system, and worst case giving labels to wrong caches because they forgot to change the settings (because you know it will be implemented in GSAK).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

 ...because I noticed the CO was letting others log it, so I thought if they are logging it, so will I.

 

We see that often, so many have that opinion.  If you're okay with that, cool.   :)

 

We were at an after-event cache walk with many others once.  

The cache we were heading to wasn't even there any longer (taken by a cemetery crew - no permission),  yet every one of those people but us logged it as a find anyway.

A cacher in another state noticed, and we made the "found it - didn't find it" thread as the "Only honest cachers in the bunch !".   :D

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

We see that often, so many have that opinion.  If you're okay with that, cool.   :)

 

We were at an after-event cache walk with many others once.  

The cache we were heading to wasn't even there any longer (taken by a cemetery crew - no permission),  yet every one of those people but us logged it as a find anyway.

A cacher in another state noticed, and we made the "found it - didn't find it" thread as the "Only honest cachers in the bunch !".   :D

I would not have logged that cache either, without permission of the owner. I don't log caches just because I can't find them. Only when the owner says I can, and I was sure I actually found GZ and the cache is definitely missing. Usually after the owner has checked the cache is missing too.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I would not have logged that cache either, without permission of the owner. I don't log caches just because I can't find them. Only when the owner says I can, and I was sure I actually found GZ and the cache is definitely missing. Usually after the owner has checked the cache is missing too.

 

The owner, who was present at the "after event" , told all that they could log it.  

 - A cache that not only wasn't there, but placed without permission.    :)

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I would not have logged that cache either, without permission of the owner. I don't log caches just because I can't find them. Only when the owner says I can, and I was sure I actually found GZ and the cache is definitely missing. Usually after the owner has checked the cache is missing too.

 

But you still definitely log caches you haven't found.

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Actually the wording changed to "regular visits" a year or two back and, if you haven't noticed, a lot of people on the Insights thread have been calling for this to be tightened to at least annual visits. I'm imagining an Owner Score would reflect that and my concern is the impact such a change would have on caches like this.

 

 

Using the wayback machine , here's what the GC site guidelines said August 11 2002:

 

Step 5 - Maintain the cache

Once you place the cache, it is your responsibility to maintain the cache and the area around it. You'll need to return as often as you can to ensure that your cache is not impacting the area, and ensure that the cache is in good repair.

Once people have visited the cache, inquire about the cache and their opinion of the location. Does the area look disturbed? Are visitors disrupting the landscape in any way? If you have concerns about the location, feel free to move or remove it from the area.

Edited by L0ne.R
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

without permission of the owner

COs do this to appease people for their lack of maintenance.

They contribute to the mindset that the geocache part doesn't matter, it's the smiley that counts. Whether a cache is there is moot as long as the cache owner will allow a smiley. 

Anytime a cache owner posts a log offering people a smiley for not finding their cache ("DNFers can go ahead and claim a smiley"), that log should be removed by GC/reviewer and a canned message regarding owner responsibility should be emailed to the owner. If it continues to happen, perhaps a freeze on cache hides from that account should occur. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I would not have logged that cache either, without permission of the owner. I don't log caches just because I can't find them. Only when the owner says I can, and I was sure I actually found GZ and the cache is definitely missing. Usually after the owner has checked the cache is missing too.

Good for you.   I don't care if the cache was on the moon and was stolen by a Martian.   You searched for it and the cache owner said you could log the find.    I'm good with that.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Good for you.   I don't care if the cache was on the moon and was stolen by a Martian.   You searched for it and the cache owner said you could log the find.    I'm good with that.  

 

A complete joke.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

A complete joke.

I can allow a find on one of my caches if I see fit.   What business is that of anyone else?

Edited by justintim1999
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I can allow a find on one of my caches if I see fit.   What business is that of anyone else?

 

I don't understand the question.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I don't understand the question.

Maybe I didn't understand the answer.   Joke as in "funny"  or joke as in "I don't agree?"

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, justintim1999 said:

Maybe I didn't understand the answer.   Joke as in "funny"  or joke as in "I don't agree?"

 

Joke as in anybody bothering to log a cache they did not find - and thinking that somehow CO permission makes the slightest difference.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I can allow a find on one of my caches if I see fit.   What business is that of anyone else?

 

See my answer above. Unfortunately offering or accepting finds on caches that aren't there, encourages the mindset that the cache part of geocaching is irrelevant. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Joke as in anybody bothering to log a cache they did not find - and thinking that somehow CO permission makes the slightest difference.

Let's say I know the cache is missing and I haven't had a chance to replace it.  Someone actually takes the time to search for it and asks me if they can claim the find.   I'm gonna say yes because I can't see punishing them for my mistake.   Especially if they're from Mars and won't be around this way again for a while. ;)

 

The first thing that jumps to mind when someone reads a situation like this is "Here's a cache owner who isn't maintaining their caches and just passing out smiles left and right to avoid a dnf or nm." 

 

I'm not one of those cache owners.    Most are not.     

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, L0ne.R said:

 

See my answer above. Unfortunately offering or accepting finds on caches that aren't there, encourages the mindset that the cache part of geocaching is irrelevant. 

As a responsible cache owner I think I'm able to determine when it's ok to allow it and when it isn't.    

 

Funny but to me the cache part of geocaching really isn't the most important thing.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Funny but to me the cache part of geocaching really isn't the most important thing.   

 

To some people it's clearly important enough to falsify their find history...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

To some people it's clearly important enough to falsify their find history...

Again,   allowing a find like this is not the norm for me but I have allowed a few.  As the cache owner it's my decision to make.   I'd rather let 10 people get away with a fake smiley than punish just one person who truly put in the effort.   Especially when I'm to blame for putting off replacing the cache.

 

Dumb logic I know but it is what it is. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

When that intro app fiasco was still around, we had a couple ammo cans "re-hidden" by newbs not knowing how to play.

On two we had folks "find the area' in their DNF logs, and we scrambled to the others to be sure this wasn't gonna be a repeat with all, and replace if needed.

One included a pic of the indented spot in the ground where one sat.  Another told us the tree type that was used as it's covering.

The other 2/3rds sent each a mail thanking them for the heads-up (we act on logs, well before it becomes NM), and told them it was okay to log a found. 

 - Neither did.    I sent both a sig geocoin for their integrity.

Both went back to find them when they were replaced.    :)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 27/06/2018 at 12:07 PM, justintim1999 said:

As a responsible cache owner I think I'm able to determine when it's ok to allow it and when it isn't.    

 

Funny but to me the cache part of geocaching really isn't the most important thing.   

 

Hopefully it is of significant importance. I'm guessing location is the most important thing for you. But if geocaching were all about the location we'd be playing a Waymarking-style game (go to these coordinates, log that you were there).

 

I think that is what most people would prefer a Waymarking-style game, but not via the Waymarking site, they prefer the GC site, the format, and the smiley.  

Edited by L0ne.R
typo
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

 As the cache owner it's my decision to make. 

 

I'm not sure that it is. GC HQ hasn't addressed this issue but I think they should. 

I've seen many addicted hiders abuse this privilege. They don't do maintenance and hand out "finds" instead. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Hopefully it is of significant importance. I'm guessing location is the most important thing for you. But if geocaching were all about the location we'd be playing a Waymarking-style game (go to these coordinates, log that you were there).

 

I think that is what most people would prefer a Waymarking-style game, but not via the Waymarking site, they prefer the GC site, format, and smiley.  


The most important thing for me is seeing people get outside and having fun.  To me Geocaching is a great vehicle in making that happen.    Location, interesting hides, well maintained containers are all important in getting people involved and keeping them involved.    

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I'm not sure that it is. GC HQ hasn't addressed this issue but I think they should. 

I've seen many addicted hiders abuse this privilege. They don't do maintenance and hand out "finds" instead. 

Well I'm not one of them.

 

If GC HQ told me I had to delete a found log by a little girl in a wheelchair who found my cache but couldn't reach it to sign the log,  I'd be gone tomorrow.    I follow the guidelines.....to a point. 

 

Some things are just good judgement and common sense.      

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I'm not sure that it is. GC HQ hasn't addressed this issue but I think they should. 

 

Well, it is addressed, at least minimally.

From the Help Center:

 

Quote

You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

and

Quote

Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it.

 

Looks pretty simple to understand to me. But people will continue to play anyway they want to play.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

 As the cache owner it's my decision to make. 

 

I'm not sure that it is. GC HQ hasn't addressed this issue but I think they should. 

I've seen many addicted hiders abuse this privilege. They don't do maintenance and hand out "finds" instead. 

I don't think, that GS has somewhere stated if a CO is completely free to allow "finds" on missing caches. But in my area reviewers disable (and, if nothing happens, archive) caches, when the become aware that the CO is treating the cache like a virtual (i.e., not replacing a missing container and allowing "photo logs" instead).

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

First and foremost, I think if we are to change this CO attitude needs to change. CO's are usually appreciative of finder maintenance, but I have found many COs, especially those with lots of caches expect community maintenance. For example, they get offended by being told the cache needs a new log. The finder should have replaced the log themselves and if they weren't carrying spare logs they should have been! This is a wrongheaded attitude that makes people not want to help you. Besides, some of us simply travel light when caching. I don't have a cache repair kit, especially not backpack ready, and even if I did I rarely carry a backpack. 

 

Second, if community maintenance is to be encouraged then the Guidelines need to specify that and what kind of community maintenance is appropriate. Replacing a logsheet or baggie is one thing. A throwdown on a DNF is not.

 

A trashed/ruined container should be CITO (with photos to show it reallly is reduced isn't salvageable) and the CO can decide to replace or archive. However, I'm not sure I would formally encourage this behavior because I can imagine it would be abused, both intentionally and naively. 

 

I sorta agree, and see a few posts that are mostly self-serving in the "quality"  insight thread.

Close coordinates, better hints, parking ... one even wants to see quality swag (but no plan on who pays for it :-)  seem (to me) all about making ease of finding a priority more than striving for cache "quality".    Maybe thinking folks won't recognize it as so...

Add in more  "community involvement"  on cache maintenance mentioned frequently, sounds (again, to me...) simply self-serving.   :)

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

×