Community conversation about geocache quality

[+MAS83 43]

15 minutes ago, niraD said:

The way I do it is to select the text I want to quote (e.g., by triple-clicking to select an entire paragraph). Then a black "Quote this" popup appears, and I click the "Quote this" link.

 

Then I select the next text I want to quote. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

Ahh, thanks. At first I wondered why I didn't try that earlier, but then I remembered the first time I wanted to do it, I needed to quote something from 2 different pages, and every time I changed pages the reply box reset. So I figured you were supposed to do it in the editor.

 

But thanks for clearing that up, felt like a fool.

[+LizzyRN 16]

I find caches that are not maintained to be the worst. Easy, hard, flat or steep, to each his own!  I do think maintenance is an important part of ownership, especially here in the Pacific Northwest where we get a lot of rain. Mushy logs are no fun.

[+L0ne.R 682]

36 minutes ago, LizzyRN said:

I find caches that are not maintained to be the worst.

 

This is a recurring theme on the Geocaching Quality forum topic. Doing a word count, the word "maintenance" shows up 50 times on the first page. "Maintain" another 50 times on the first page.

Maintenance/maintain

Page 1 - 100 

Page 2 -  69

Page 3 - 80 

Page 4 - 113

Page 5 - 51

Page 6 - 33 

 

Another word I'm seeing come up a lot: container

Page 1 - 78

Page 2 - 59

Page 3 - 48

Page 4 - 74

Page 5 - 51

Page 6 - 71

[+dprovan 581]

21 hours ago, MAS83 said:

First off, can you tell me how you multiquote the same post? I can't figure that out at all!

i learned from niraD, so read his explanation.

 

21 hours ago, MAS83 said:

I have seen no one in this debate arguing for no change what so ever.

You couldn't have made my point better if you tried. I have, in fact, been arguing vehemently in this thread for no change whatsoever. (Well, not "no change" I suppose: it would be more accurate to say I've been advocating doing less of what they've already decided to do.) But you haven't noticed because the entire discussion has been framed by GS as "quality is a terrible problem, so what should we do about it?" My response denying that there was a problem to begin with doesn't fit the narrative, so it's easy to overlook.

 

21 hours ago, MAS83 said:

About the part where you thought I was taking it as a personal attack, I didn't.

OK, thanks. I think we'll get along.

[+dprovan 581]

20 hours ago, MAS83 said:

Ahh, thanks. At first I wondered why I didn't try that earlier, but then I remembered the first time I wanted to do it, I needed to quote something from 2 different pages, and every time I changed pages the reply box reset. So I figured you were supposed to do it in the editor.

Ah, yes, that's another oddity. I quote the way niraD taught me, then, if necessary, copy/paste it from the response section on the one page over to the other page where I have a second response section replying to other quoted stuff. It's such a pain, I often throw up my hands and just respond to the two separately.

[+cerberus1 1039]

From Insights...

Find a way to ensure that information on the cacher profiles (specifically - last visited) reflects access via the various apps at their disposal, and also shows up on the audit logs of PM caches.

 

There are more than a few people that try to remain as stalker-free as possible, thanks. 

This means PQs, bookmarks, lists, and even apps to deter COs with an obsessive attention to detail to blame them for something not true to keep check on their real-time activity.

If anything, I believe eventually the site will realize the failings of the "cache audit", and simply remove it from the system.

[+VAVAPAM 12]

I'll try to not make this a "me too" post, but frankly a lot of it is.

 

I am going to have to step onto the Not More Regulations camp. I recognize that many are offering these as a bona fide  effort to come up with solutions. It's just that this game is so wide-spread that what is a perceived problem in one region or community may not even exist in another. By the same token, *any* objection is valid and should be met with an open mind. We can't possibly know what an area on the other side of the world (or other side of the state) is experiencing; listen to what they're telling us. The "solution" for your area may very well actually *create* a problem somewhere else. Only regulations that are beneficial to the entire global community should be considered.

 

While I understand the concept of "learning by doing", I think requiring prospective COs to have X number of finds is missing the mark. Yes, I think it's important for folks to see what's what in the world of geocaching. But that is not the "doing" of making a cache. (Rather similar to the difference between watching a card game and actually playing a hand or two.) Some folks are fast learners; some read everything they can about the art of cache-making; some will make progressively better caches; some never will. While I understand the underlying intent is to dissuade fly-by-night cachers, the effect is going to do more damage than good for many areas. Crappy cache? CO gone? NM then NA. So it may take a while to have that offensive [insert your most hated type of find here] cache, but certainly not as long as it can take dedicated cachers to acquire X number of caches in some areas that - for that very reason - need more. I might just add that number of caches found does not always directly correlate to excellence of caches created... and what I have not seen addressed is the value of NOT finding caches, DNFs. These are important experiences, too, and should be taken into consideration. I recently did a "prison drain" cache. DNFed it. So what? We don't have any around here; it didn't give me any insights into making cache ... except maybe EVERYthing is fair game for placing a cache.

 

The most productive idea that I've seen in this discussion actually doesn't have anything to do with cache quality, rather it has to do with user friendliness or increasing the ability to tailor the game to our preferences. That is, enabling more refined filtering of caches and creating more attributes to enhance the search. I'm all for that. I'd like to see a separate search for wheelchair accessible caches (because not all T1s are accessible).

 

I do think that adding a nano size is related to cache quality in the sense that it more accurately reflects the type of cache in the most currently vastly variable "micro" size.

 

 

 

 

[+VAVAPAM 12]

40 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

From Insights...

 

There are more than a few people that try to remain as stalker-free as possible, thanks. 

This means PQs, bookmarks, lists, and even apps to deter COs with an obsessive attention to detail to blame them for something not true to keep check on their real-time activity.

If anything, I believe eventually the site will realize the failings of the "cache audit", and simply remove it from the system.

 

OK, I get that. Many people look at whether the CO has been active at all when considering NA. I know that is now not accurate on the main site.

 

The reason I want to see if somebody is accessing my PM: If I see somebody has accessed it 14 times today, I'm going to assume that they are either planning to find or are actively hunting that cache. If I don't see a log pop up within a few days, I'm going to check on that cache.

 

[+L0ne.R 682]

19 minutes ago, VAVAPAM said:

The reason I want to see if somebody is accessing my PM: If I see somebody has accessed it 14 times today, I'm going to assume that they are either planning to find or are actively hunting that cache. If I don't see a log pop up within a few days, I'm going to check on that cache.

 

Why would this spur you on to go check your cache? 

 

I use to have PMO caches (no longer). I did it at a time when new app cachers were at their most plentiful point. I had some caches I had worked on for weeks, so I wanted some added protection by limiting finds to those using GPS units or those who were more invested in the game (seemed to work, could have been a coincidence). 

 

On principle, I ignored the audit list. I have always found it a distasteful feature, designed to increase suspicion. I have yet to hear of a positive aspect of the audit inventory.  I'd like to see it go away. 

[+cerberus1 1039]

19 minutes ago, VAVAPAM said:

OK, I get that. Many people look at whether the CO has been active at all when considering NA. I know that is now not accurate on the main site.

 

The reason I want to see if somebody is accessing my PM: If I see somebody has accessed it 14 times today, I'm going to assume that they are either planning to find or are actively hunting that cache. If I don't see a log pop up within a few days, I'm going to check on that cache.

 

I look at logs on caches and see if any action from a CO is on them.  Trackable movements too. 

 - We know a bunch that don't cache, but maintain their hides, or have a lot of trackables out.  Changed one hobby for another.

 

I do caches singly, rather than load caches I won't do on the GPSr.

Often that means going back n forth between caches just to see if they'll "fit" the time allowed.

 Other times I'll go back to see if any new ones are in an area that I was interested in, and look back to those cache to see if anything's changed. 

 - Distance mostly, driving too far for only one cache just not practical.

Questioned by a few COs why I "was so interested" , "taking quite an interest...", "when you going to do this?", and only one asking if I needed help.

Hounded repeatedly by a couple, and the one accusing me of stealing a cache many miles away that was now missing, is what got me to stop doing pmo caches all-together.

I like the idea of pmo caches, a nice feature.   One of the good n bad things about most hobbies is anyone can play, and I'd prefer that the obsolete audit function, which many times creates more issue than help, finally gets removed.

[+cerberus1 1039]

From Insights...

    What steps can Geocaching HQ take to improve geocache quality?

Avoid promoting numbers over quality.

That includes the active marketing promotions, of course. The current Hidden Creatures promotion is all about numbers: 100 smileys in 4 weeks yields all the Souvenirs. Past promotions have focused on finding a specific cache (e.g., a multi-cache for this Souvenir, or a 5-star cache for that Souvenir), which I think is a much better approach.

But it also shows up in other ways. My stats list my "Best Day", my "Best Month", and my "Best Year", and those are solely about find count. The day listed as my "Best Day" was a good day: it was an enjoyable hike with good friends. But I don't remember much about the 28 caches I found that day. On the other hand, there have been several days that I would consider among my best geocaching days, and they generally feature spending hours to find a single high-quality cache.

 

Yep.

I'm again refraining from caching while yet another numbers promotion is in effect.   Too many to email HQ about to delete.

 - I can't place a cache that would make folks change their caching behavior...

 

Our "best day" was on one cache.  We spent all day (even took a picnic lunch) to complete it. 

 - The 32  on my birthday once was fun, but definitely not my "best".

[+VAVAPAM 12]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Why would this spur you on to go check your cache? 

 

 Perhaps it's not there, but  - as is very common in this area - the cacher didn't want to log a DNF.

Perhaps it's more difficult than I initially rated; or the terrain has changed.

It's more for me to assess. I haven't yet actually contacted some cachers who sporadically access a particular cache a few months apart; but I did compose a pretty good list of questions/hints just in case a request for assistance came to me. Frankly, that's what it was looking like was happening.

[+VAVAPAM 12]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

Questioned by a few COs why I "was so interested" , "taking quite an interest...", "when you going to do this?", and only one asking if I needed help.

Hounded repeatedly by a couple, and the one accusing me of stealing a cache many miles away that was now missing, is what got me to stop doing pmo caches all-together.

I like the idea of pmo caches, a nice feature.   One of the good n bad things about most hobbies is anyone can play, and I'd prefer that the obsolete audit function, which many times creates more issue than help, finally gets removed.

 

I'm sorry to hear that. It's a very unfortunate use of what I consider to be a tool to check the pulse of my cache. If it looks like somebody is planning to hunt for it and I haven't checked on it in a long time, I might very well go out there just to make sure everything is in order before they arrive. I did this with my caches before the current promo.

 

The caches that I refer to, by the way, are in an area subject to severe weather, and we've had quite a bit in the past few years, such as triple-storm strikes, severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, and floods. The caches themselves are secured well to prevent displacement by nature; however, downed trees across bike paths or blocking access to the trail, floods making the area inaccessible are beyond my control. If that's happened, I want to know and will  post a note to that effect on the cache page. (Sort of adding to my answer to L0ne.R here, too.)

Edited July 9 by VAVAPAM
etc, etc

[+VAVAPAM 12]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I do caches singly, rather than load caches I won't do on the GPSr.

Often that means going back n forth between caches just to see if they'll "fit" the time allowed.

 Other times I'll go back to see if any new ones are in an area that I was interested in, and look back to those cache to see if anything's changed. 

 - Distance mostly, driving too far for only one cache just not practical.

 

I do this also, and it's especially true when I'm planning to cache out of town.

[+niraD 1047]

From the User Insights thread:

1 hour ago, Hazmatematician said:

To improve cache quality, I believe that reviewers should have more power and be more involved in the posting of caches. When a cache is submitted the reviewer could examine if the cache meets the definition of a "high quality geocache" as defined by the results of this survey. If not they could decline the cache or begin a conversation with the future CO to find ways to improve the cache.

 

Additionally, I think there should be a process by which users can submit suggestions for virtual caches. These could then be reviewed by reviewers to determine if they meet a certain set of pre-requisites (similar to earth caches).

Because what the volunteer reviewers really want most of all is another opportunity to tell people that their babies are ugly.

[+L0ne.R 682]

3 hours ago, VAVAPAM said:

 Perhaps it's not there, but  - as is very common in this area - the cacher didn't want to log a DNF.

Perhaps it's more difficult than I initially rated; or the terrain has changed.

It's more for me to assess. I haven't yet actually contacted some cachers who sporadically access a particular cache a few months apart; but I did compose a pretty good list of questions/hints just in case a request for assistance came to me. Frankly, that's what it was looking like was happening.

 

Interesting and nice to read that a cache owner wants to make the finder's trip worthwhile. 

 

I'm wondering though if the average person who views the cache, views it 14 times before going to the cache. It may not be an accurate indication that your cache is about to be visited. My guess, and you might experiment by checking your audit list against those that had visited, that most visit the page one or two (or no times if using the app only) before logging a find. 

 

Is this a rarely visited cache? Most of my caches have gone quiet and get a couple of visits a season. I try to get out once per season or at minimum once a year to make sure they're in good shape for the next finders. 

[+VAVAPAM 12]

1 minute ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Interesting and nice to read that a cache owner wants to make the finder's trip worthwhile. 

 

I'm wondering though if the average person who views the cache, views it 14 times before going to the cache. It may not be an accurate indication that your cache is about to be visited. My guess, and you might experiment by checking your audit list against those that had visited, that most visit the page one or two (or no times if using the app only) before logging a find. 

 

Is this a rarely visited cache? Most of my caches have gone quiet and get a couple of visits a season. I try to get out once per season or at minimum once a year to make sure they're in good shape for the next finders. 

14 was an exaggeration just for illustration purposes. I think the most I've seen in one day is 4 or 6.

Yes, it's rarely visited nowadays, so log feedback isn't steady, and since it's an ammo in the woods, it requires a hike to check, not just a drive-by.

[+barefootjeff 910]

From the Insights thread:

Quote

Finally, caches that have not been found for a certain period of time (1-2 years) should be flagged as "needs maintenance" or something similar. This would allow the CO to go out and check on the cache to verify that the container is still there and everything is in good working order. If the cache does not get maintained or CO does not address the maintenance then the cache could be archived to allow other players to place caches in that area. Exception should made through an appeal process for high difficulty/terrain caches that inherently are going to receive less traffic and appeal to a smaller subset of the geocaching community. This implementation may help to address over saturation of geocaches in urban areas however.

 

Just because a cache isn't found for a year or two doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. In many parts of the world there are few cachers, so once the locals have all found it, it could well be a long time between visits. Remote high-terrain caches too are expected to go a long time between visits and, as is typically the case, if they're a robust container in a sheltered hiding place unlikely to be visited by muggles, they won't just spontaneously go bad or disappear between finds.

 

As an example, take a look at GC4R0YC. This was last visited in March 2016 by a couple of cachers, then prior to that was my visit with another group in March 2015. Getting to the cache requires a longish kayak paddle and then a steep climb to the top of the ridge with quite a bit of boulder-hopping along the top. There's nothing wrong with this cache. It doesn't need maintenance. It doesn't need archiving. And even if something bad did happen to it between visits, is that such a calamity? When I go hunting caches like these, I know a smiley is by no means a certainty; that's part of the attraction of remote unloved hides. Fix it or archive it when it's actually broken, but until then leave it be. Please don't kill off or discourage such caches with suggestions like this.

[+coachstahly 192]

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Finally, caches that have not been found for a certain period of time (1-2 years) should be flagged as "needs maintenance" or something similar.

 

He didn't say it, someone else did, just for clarification if someone attempts to quote me to respond.

 

If that were the case, 13 of mine would hit the 1 year plateau and 6 would hit the 2 year plateau (or longer).  With the exception of the one not found the longest (since it's been awhile since my last visit to the final location), I'm rather certain that all the caches are in fine working order.  The exception cache is actually chained and locked so I'd be a bit surprised if it went MIA.

 

The one thing those 13 caches have in common is that they're non-traditional hides.  They're either puzzles or multis.  

 

I don't think a mandatory NM log on all caches not found within a certain time period is going to address cache quality.  I would venture to guess that the caches that need the maintenance the most are ones that are found regularly (once a week or more frequently) and have some issues that no one has addressed with a NM log but mention in their found log.  Caches that are handled less frequently also have less chance of issues arising that would call for maintenance.

[+Team Microdot 961]

A great example of the type of attitude that hurts cache quality by intimidating people into not posting NM logs and the like.

 

Polite note from cacher A to the cacher B - the cache owner:

 

Quote

I'm heading over to [redacted] next weekend and hoped to pick up this A to Z series for a local challenge. Please can the CO confirm these are there to be found as the last found logs suggest only the camo is left? No need to rush out on my account though as a more local A to Z series appeared this morning.. but I'd still like to grab a few [redacted] caches while I am in the area. It might be an idea to temp disable those which are known to be missing. Cheers [:)]

 

Cacher C - for reasons best known to cacher C - responds:

 

Quote

the owner of this cache has much experience in both finding and hiding caches, he certainly doesn't need somebody from the comfort of their armchair teaching him how to suck eggs.

 

Cacher A deletes the polite note in a bid to avoid conflict.

 

Please discuss.

 

 

[+niraD 1047]

37 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Please discuss.

The best thing about geocaching is that anyone can play.

The worst thing about geocaching is that anyone can play.

[+Team Microdot 961]

30 minutes ago, niraD said:

The best thing about geocaching is that anyone can play.

The worst thing about geocaching is that anyone can play.

 

Sometimes you remind me of me

[+dprovan 581]

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Quote

the owner of this cache has much experience in both finding and hiding caches, he certainly doesn't need somebody from the comfort of their armchair teaching him how to suck eggs.

 

Cacher A deletes the polite note in a bid to avoid conflict.

 

Please discuss.

 

Yeah, some people are jerks. No question about that.

 

You say "Polite note from cacher A to the cacher B - the cache owner", which I was thinking was a private conversation. That's how I would expect someone to make such a request. But then you say cacher A deleted the note, so I gather this wasn't from A to B at all, but a Note posted in the cache log for all to see. Perhaps not so polite in that context. If so, cacher C was responding to what he saw as a public haranguing. Cacher A could have posted NMs if warranted, or he could have privately requested status if that's what he wanted. Posting a Note strikes me as somewhat self centered. Why would anyone but the CO care that cacher A might possibly look for certain caches? Cacher C's note was certainly rude and uncalled for, but he might still have a point.

 

In any case, I don't see the connection between cacher C's rude behavior and discouraging people not to post NMs. His comment wasn't even about an NM or the cache's quality. It was all about cacher A. If anything, I see cacher A's note having more relevance: it seems clear cacher A thinks the cache needs maintenance, but instead of being a request for maintenance, the note takes on this passive-aggressive nature of not saying it needs maintenance, but still suggesting the CO disable it until he gets a chance to perform maintenance. It might have been more productive to just post an NM. That's what I would have done if I'd cared enough to bring it up at all. I don't always go to GZ before posting an NM, but in a case like this I would have wanted to check the situation out for myself first. But it sounds like cacher A would have considered that a waste of his precious time.

[+Team Microdot 961]

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

You say "Polite note from cacher A to the cacher B - the cache owner", which I was thinking was a private conversation. That's how I would expect someone to make such a request. But then you say cacher A deleted the note, so I gather this wasn't from A to B at all, but a Note posted in the cache log for all to see. Perhaps not so polite in that context.

 

Cacher A probably erred on the side of caution here given cacher B's publicly declared intense dislike of NM logs - especially from any cacher not considered 'local'.

 

That said - I still can't fathom why you'd consider cacher A's note impolite given that you'd be OK with precisely the same information being presented as a Needs Maintenance log. Or maybe I can.

 

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

If so, cacher C was responding to what he saw as a public haranguing.

 

I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if cacher C made such a claim. What it has to do with cacher C though I have no idea. Not forgetting of course that using the cache page as a forum is a direct contravention of official guidelines.

 

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

Posting a Note strikes me as somewhat self centered.

 

But an NM with precisely the same information would be fine? mmmmmm

 

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

In any case, I don't see the connection between cacher C's rude behavior and discouraging people not to post NMs. His comment wasn't even about an NM or the cache's quality. It was all about cacher A.

 

I'm would say cacher C's rude behaviour said more about cacher B than cacher A. In any case, the point is that future viewers of the logs on that cache page are quite likely to come to the conclusion that a polite approach to a cacher with unmaintained caches is frowned upon, which makes it much more likely that they themselves will avoid making such requests in any form thus leaving unmaintained caches unmaintained - which quite possibly suits cacher B.

 

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

I don't always go to GZ before posting an NM, but in a case like this I would have wanted to check the situation out for myself first. But it sounds like cacher A would have considered that a waste of his precious time.

 

Given the number of times you've denied in previous threads here any need to visit GZ yourself before logging NM/NA and instead remained  resolute that an NM/NA is fine on a cache you've never been near so long as you think it's deserved I'm surprised you'd admit here that it's because you'd consider such a visit a waste of your precious time.

 

 

 

 

[+colleda 168]

7 hours ago, niraD said:

The best thing about geocaching is that anyone can play.

The worst thing about geocaching is that anyone can play.

I had a laugh at that one. It reminded me of a guitar magazine many years ago conducting a reader survey of most popular/unpopular British bands.

Most popular band - Oasis.

Most unpopular band, yep, Oasis

[+niraD 1047]

1 hour ago, colleda said:

I had a laugh at that one. It reminded me of a guitar magazine many years ago conducting a reader survey of most popular/unpopular British bands.

Most popular band - Oasis.

Most unpopular band, yep, Oasis

When I write a gimmick car rallye, I ask the rallyists for feedback, including what their favorite gimmick and least favorite gimmick were. There is always a gimmick that is someone's favorite, and someone else's least favorite. Sometimes one person will list the same gimmick for both favorite and least favorite.

[+dprovan 581]

3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

That said - I still can't fathom why you'd consider cacher A's note impolite given that you'd be OK with precisely the same information being presented as a Needs Maintenance log. Or maybe I can.

I wasn't saying that just changing the log type from Note to NM would make it OK. I was saying that a true NM could be posted to make a case for the NM and stick to the facts without the irrelevant description of cacher A's impending visit. It's the difference between "this needs fixed, and here's why" and "I'm so important, you must assure me that this cache is in place even though I only have a hint that it might be missing."

 

3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if cacher C made such a claim. What it has to do with cacher C though I have no idea. Not forgetting of course that using the cache page as a forum is a direct contravention of official guidelines.

What did I say the made you think I'm defending cacher C? I said he had a point, but I also said it was clearly rude. My guess would be that cacher C has some kind of protective feeling towards cacher B, but that's no excuse.

 

3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

In any case, the point is that future viewers of the logs on that cache page are quite likely to come to the conclusion that a polite approach to a cacher with unmaintained caches is frowned upon, which makes it much more likely that they themselves will avoid making such requests in any form thus leaving unmaintained caches unmaintained - which quite possibly suits cacher B.

Cache C's note certainly might suggest a hostile environment, so I suppose you have a point. But I read the text as a reaction to cacher A's attitude, not anything about what cacher A said about the cache quality. So I don't think from this information alone we can predict what cacher C would have said if cacher A had only said, "Please can the CO confirm these are there to be found as the last found logs suggest only the camo is left?" without giving cacher B instructions about disabling the cache until he did so or suggesting that cache B should consider cacher A's input important because there's a challenge cache to find.

 

3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Given the number of times you've denied in previous threads here any need to visit GZ yourself before logging NM/NA and instead remained  resolute that an NM/NA is fine on a cache you've never been near so long as you think it's deserved I'm surprised you'd admit here that it's because you'd consider such a visit a waste of your precious time.

I didn't see the other logs, so I don't know if there's enough information to make a clear case for an NM. In fact, since the note wasn't an NM, I was assuming a good case wouldn't be possible, so I'd need to go to GZ to gather more information. The point I've made over and over elsewhere is that when there's a clear case, a visit isn't necessary. I certainly don't think a single log saying they only found the camo is enough to support an NM by someone that hasn't been there.

[+Team Microdot 961]

8 hours ago, dprovan said:

I wasn't saying that just changing the log type from Note to NM would make it OK. I was saying that a true NM could be posted to make a case for the NM and stick to the facts without the irrelevant description of cacher A's impending visit

 

Another way to look at it is that cacher A is just sharing information about when they intend to visit. Cacher B (the CO) could easily respond to say yes - I can do that within that time frame or I won't be able to do that and thus cacher A could postpone said visit and spend their time on something else instead. At least cacher B knows that someone is still interested in finding their caches for the time being.

 

8 hours ago, dprovan said:

What did I say the made you think I'm defending cacher C? I said he had a point, but I also said it was clearly rude. My guess would be that cacher C has some kind of protective feeling towards cacher B, but that's no excuse

 

What did I say that made you think I thought that?

 

8 hours ago, dprovan said:

Cache C's note certainly might suggest a hostile environment, so I suppose you have a point. But I read the text as a reaction to cacher A's attitude, not anything about what cacher A said about the cache quality. So I don't think from this information alone we can predict what cacher C would have said if cacher A had only said, "Please can the CO confirm these are there to be found as the last found logs suggest only the camo is left?" without giving cacher B instructions about disabling the cache until he did so or suggesting that cache B should consider cacher A's input important because there's a challenge cache to find.

 

My guess is that the related series of caches was placed specifically to facilitate qualifying for said challenge cache - or others like it. That being the case I'd say that the CO - cacher B - should expect enquiries / requests of this nature. If cacher B isn't prepared for this sort of request they probably shouldn't have put the series out in the first place. If this was a consequence that they had not anticipated they could always avoid future requests without affecting the caches themselves by just changing the cache names. Problem solved.

 

 

[+K13 254]

On 7/12/2018 at 8:36 AM, Team Microdot said:

A great example of the type of attitude that hurts cache quality by intimidating people into not posting NM logs and the like.

 

Polite note from cacher A to the cacher B - the cache owner:

 

 

Cacher C - for reasons best known to cacher C - responds:

 

 

Cacher A deletes the polite note in a bid to avoid conflict.

 

Please discuss.

 

 

How is this related to "Community conversation about geocache quality"? Your tangent would be a great topic for another thread, instead of derailing this one.

[+Team Microdot 961]

3 minutes ago, K13 said:

How is this related to "Community conversation about geocache quality"? Your tangent would be a great topic for another thread, instead of derailing this one.

 

The clue was in the very first sentence of mine that you quoted but allow me to elucidate

 

We are the community (you, me and everyone else here) and we're having a discussion here around the subject geocache quality.

 

This thread exists to facilitate discussion on the subject which was not allowed in the other thread.

 

In that other thread almost everyone who posted indicated that a clean, dry container, present at GZ, with a clean dry log was a primary component of what they considered a quality cache to be.

 

People being rude to other cachers who dare to log NM or NA or even politely enquire about the nature of caches which look like they have problems - might be missing for example - hurts cache quality because it makes people less and less likely to report problems and leads to things like Groundspeak feeling the need, along with their volunteer reviewers, to step in to try to improve quality.

 

Hopefully that's gone some way to explaining why what you've classed as a tangent is in fact bang-on-target for this thread.

 

[+OHSilky 0]

1. High quality caches from film containers to high end gadget caches and those with high favorite points should be in safe areas with available parking. Containers should be maintained and do their best to keep moisture out. There should be no "defined" exclusive containers.

2. Low quality caches are those that put cachers in an unsafe environment.  I am talking about broken glass, trash piles, unsafe traffic conditions and not terrain rated safety conditions. And obviously caches that are not maintained. Also caches where conditions have negatively changed over time

3. COs should maintain their caches as best able. Caches that have many DNFs over a period should be reported to the reviewers. For some high difficulty caches, this may not apply.

4. HQ should simply continue to support our awesome reviewers. No new "corporate" guidelines are necessary

 

Thank you for this opportunity.

[+CachedIronSkillet 11]

Our local geocaching group publishes a "Local Lonely Caches" list that is used as a friendly competition...   The list consists of caches in the area that have the longest time since last find   Obviously the list changes as caches are found and this allows the local group to help identify missing caches by having the most hardcore cachers involved, including those who have previously found the cache.

 

I make original gadgets.   I only have a few published, with about a dozen in various states in my workroom.   I publish them as traditional, with the field puzzle attribute... but also include the word "gadget" in their name.   Coming across a moderately hard puzzle which may even require a special tool which isn't provided shouldn't be a surprise... 

 

 

[+OldLog 5]

a big concern the many caches that are placed and never maintained by the owner. There are far too many left unattended 

[+dprovan 581]

2 hours ago, OldLog said:

a big concern the many caches that are placed and never maintained by the owner. There are far too many left unattended 

How many is too many? Do you have numbers that can show us how many missing or broken caches are unattended vs. maintained but temporarily out of service?