Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
Rock Chalk

Community conversation about geocache quality

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

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).

 

2 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

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).

I agree and if I were doing just that I'd expect to be called out on it.     Problem is I am gullible.   Most times when someone claims not to have a pen and couldn't sign the log,  I believe them.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

 

I agree and if I were doing just that I'd expect to be called out on it.     Problem is I am gullible.   Most times when someone claims not to have a pen and couldn't sign the log,  I believe them.  

That's fine, and no CO gets their cache disabled because of this. It's only a problem, if an owner knows perfectly well, that the cache is missing, and still allows find logs.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

That's fine, and no CO gets their cache disabled because of this. It's only a problem, if an owner knows perfectly well, that the cache is missing, and still allows find logs.

I'm sure it happens but for the most part when I do something like this it's more a sign of good will.   I don't have time to track down people who are only cheating themselves by lying about such things like no pens, bogus OML's and armchair finds.  If I become aware of it I'll correct it but I don't go out of my way to prove everyone's honest.   I think most people are so why waist my time with the few that are not?           

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

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. 

 

 

1

 

I wouldn't want to see that either. I didn't think we were talking about that but rather about caches that are not there or were not there.

 

It's the cache owner that posts an OM log that says "The cache is back. DNFers go ahead and log finds" that I thought we were talking about. An OM log like that should be deleted. It encourages others to do the same (i.e. delay fixing or replacing their caches then hand out finds) and encourages finders to think the game primarily about collecting smileys. 

 

What's worse is cache owners who log OM logs after a throwdown with "Thanks GeoGeorge for the throwdown. All DNFers can go ahead and log a find." The OM log should be deleted for 2 reasons: 1. encourages people to log finds on missing caches 2. the CO did not check that throwdown to make sure it conforms to the cache description and hint, and is in an adequate container for outdoor use. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 26/6/2018 at 9:18 PM, cerberus1 said:

The site (seems to me...)  has always been against the idea of folks to "downvote", or create any actions pointing negatives about others.

-  I don't see them "rating" people any time soon.

 

Which is for the best IMO. The ability to downmark will just end in grudge wars, "you gave my cache a negative mark, so here is one for yours". Also the first cache someone places is rarely very good. Most hiders needs to test the water, and use their first hide to get familiar with the progress. If they get swarmed by negative marks, they might stop geocaching due to the negativity before they get to place their amazing hides.

 

I honestly doesn't see any bonus from being able to negative downmark caches/hiders.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

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. 

 

I am pretty sure that people that doesn't care that their caches are in poor condition, doesn't care about an arbitrary score either. :)

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours 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.   

 

How would this "Owner Score" work? Each DNF is minus 5 points, NM is minus 10, NA is minus 20, OM is +100 etc? Or Does a caches start at 100% and that is as high as it goes, and every time OM is logged, it goes back up to 100%, but DNFs,NM,NA reduces the %?

 

I can't see a way where that system would work without abuse.

 

If logs are point based, an owner can log OM after each log to drive up the score several 100s of points, then when there are issues, the caches is still ridiculously highly scored, even if it is wet, broken and a muggler threw it into a bush 20meters off.

 

If it is percentage based, a single OM log negate all logs.

 

As is stands I need to see someone lay down how such a system would work before I can get behind it. It needs to be BOTH idiot proof, and "That Guy" proof. And no algorithm rarely covers that.

 

Besides: Even if we got the perfect system in place that can't be tampered with, and is perfect in every way, what would that bring to the table that the "Need Maintenance" attribute doesn't provide already?

 

That attribute is there to tell you this cache is not up to code. Then you can look through the recent logs to see what is wrong. Is the log full, and you have a spare log in your bag, you can go replace that log for the CO. What more could a score system tell you?

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

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.

With my NZ example I signed the inside of the container. A few months later I was back there and checked on it and there was still no log sheet so I added a small one. This was before the reviewer sorted it.

Share this post


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

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. 

 

I hope you can distinguish between a lazy owner that just gives blanket permissions to everyone to log it as found because they don't want to replace the cache or archive it, and then a CO getting a DNF on a cache then go out and acknowledge it is gone, replace it and then telling the person that DNF'ed the cache that he has permission to log it as it as found.

 

I just had a geocacher from another country log a DNF on one of my caches, I immediately disabled the cache and a few days later I went out and checked, and it was gone alright. I replaced it, went home enabled it again, then wrote him to give permission to log it. He was clearly there since he knew it was gone, he had solved the puzzle to get the coordinate. He did 99% of the job, and due to things he had no control over, the last 1% was impossible to accomplish. In my eyes he deserved the find. But he respectfully declined the offer, and that was that. I had offered it, we both had a pleasant time due to mutual respect, despite my cache was missing.

 

Don't get me wrong, the permission to log a missing cache is for the owner to offer, not something you beg for, in my opinion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

Don't get me wrong, the permission to log a missing cache is for the owner to offer, not something you beg for, in my opinion.

 

Or you could all just stick to the facts.

 

Unsurprisingly, nobody will die.

 

And then just get on with your lives.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

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

 

And who are they hurting? I really don't care about couchloggers. If they want to waste their energy on doing that, just let them. Luckily we don't have those in my area (that I know of) so I haven't had to deal with them.

 

I get it for special occasions, like the FTF, I will instantly delete someone logging a false FTF on my caches, luckily it has never happened. Also really special caches that doean't get many logs and are very difficult to get to/find, caches that have some prestige, they should be audited with force. But a random cache, with 100's of finds? Why bother. I don't even think that people that couchlogs stay interested in geocaching very long. For me the most tedious part of geocaching is logging caches after a long day of geocaching. Imagine doing only that, never getting the thrill of the search, that excitement when you see when the distance get under 10 meters. I can't imagine anyone couchlogging getting more than a few 100s of "finds" before getting bored and move onto to something else.

Edited by MAS83
Forgot quotationmarks around "finds"

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

 

And who are they hurting? 

 

I expect they'll appreciate your support and encouragement.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours 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. 

 

Then report a NA if they don't maintain a cache and just gives blanket permission to log. Don't go bash hiders who care enough about the game to spread a little love and happiness.

 

We need to encourage good hiders, not scare them off with negativity. If you don't think it's okay to log a missing cache with the owners permission, then don't. And if people ask for permission on your caches if it is gone, tell them no.

 

I think it is scary how many cachers out there are having this "my way or the highway" mentality, especially if HQ starts listening to them. Why can't it just be a fun hobby/game for people to enjoy how they want? (Within the already rather strict rules)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Team Christiansen said:

 

Well, it is addressed, at least minimally.

From the Help Center:

 

and

 

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

 

Yes, and that is what people are doing. But then when the CO acts on the DNF and realize the cache is gone, they offer the cacher that bothered to log a DNF to log a Found it aswell, since it wasn't his fault for not finding it. Also as a thank you for logging the DNF and alerting the CO there was a problem. People in this thread are talking about giving incentives to log a DNF, that is one right there.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

I think it is scary how many cachers out there are having this "my way or the highway" mentality, especially if HQ starts listening to them. Why can't it just be a fun hobby/game for people to enjoy how they want? (Within the already rather strict rules)

 

I know - so many people wanting to log caches they haven't found and getting all aggressive if anyone points out how silly it is to feel the need to break the two simple rules of the game.

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

How would this "Owner Score" work? Each DNF is minus 5 points, NM is minus 10, NA is minus 20, OM is +100 etc? Or Does a caches start at 100% and that is as high as it goes, and every time OM is logged, it goes back up to 100%, but DNFs,NM,NA reduces the %?

 

Please, if the person who creates the Owner Score is reading this, don't include DNFs in it, or if you do, provide another log type we can use to just say "I didn't find it" without casting aspersions on either the cache or its owner. There are lots of ways to not find a cache without there being anything wrong with it and lots of caches that are just tricky to find.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Or you could all just stick to the facts.

 

Unsurprisingly, nobody will die.

 

And then just get on with your lives.

 

What facts? That he didn't write his name in a non-existent logbook, that neither of us had any idea was missing before he went there?

 

To use your terminology: Who dies if I give him permission to log it?

 

I just try to spread happiness in this little game, I can recommend it, it makes geocaching more fun for everyone. :)

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I expect they'll appreciate your support and encouragement.

 

I neither support nor encourage them, I just ignore them. I don't care, they are only cheating themselves. Negativity breeds negativity.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I know - so many people wanting to log caches they haven't found and getting all aggressive if anyone points out how silly it is to feel the need to break the two simple rules of the game.

 

 

 

Yeah, so... I don't care how you are geocaching. I don't demand you to log a Found It if the CO gives you permission. That is entirely up to you.

 

I want you to geocache how you like it, the way that makes you happy. You on the other hand seems to get really mad at the idea of people playing the game "wrong".

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

I just try to spread happiness in this little game, I can recommend it, it makes geocaching more fun for everyone. :)

 

Actually what you do is cultivate an attitude and culture that a CO who expects people to live with by the basic rule of find cache sign log is a bad person which fuels conflict and abuse.

 

No fun at all for anyone.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, MAS83 said:

 

Yeah, so... I don't care how you are geocaching. I don't demand you to log a Found It if the CO gives you permission. That is entirely up to you.

 

I want you to geocache how you like it, the way that makes you happy. You on the other hand seems to get really mad at the idea of people playing the game "wrong".

 

The power of imagination is nothing short of amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Please, if the person who creates the Owner Score is reading this, don't include DNFs in it, or if you do, provide another log type we can use to just say "I didn't find it" without casting aspersions on either the cache or its owner. There are lots of ways to not find a cache without there being anything wrong with it and lots of caches that are just tricky to find.

 

Just to be clear, I don't promote the idea of a cache score/owner score at all. I find it silly, and it wouldn't accomplish anything. Nothing good at least. :)

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Actually what you do is cultivate an attitude and culture that a CO who expects people to live with by the basic rule of find cache sign log is a bad person which fuels conflict and abuse.

 

No fun at all for anyone.

 

Would you like to elaborate on how that "fuels conflict and abuse"? I am actually curious, I might have overlooked something and am willing to learn.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

The power of imagination is nothing short of amazing.

 

I have no idea what you were trying to say here. Did you quote the wrong post?

Share this post


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

 

 

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.

 

Here's a photo of the area around GZ that I took last September. It doesn't look disturbed or disrupted to me, no more than the bulldozed fire trail that's close by.

 

DSC_0922.jpg.678159e293e74f44ae51eff8471fc821.jpg

 

Finding this cache and the "nearby" one 20km away by road down another long fire trail took me the best part of a day, and I don't think it's reasonable to insist a CO who owns many such hides to be constantly visiting them for no good reason.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

What facts?

 

The fact that they didn't find the cache.

 

2 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

Would you like to elaborate on how that "fuels conflict and abuse"?

 

A cache owner rewarding the cacher the ability to log a "Found it" log that implies they found it when they simply didn't, simply to increase their number count. Allowing them to log a Found it when they didn't Found it creates an atmosphere of self-entitlement and turns geocaching into a competitive numbers game. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

 

The fact that they didn't find the cache.

 

 

A cache owner rewarding the cacher the ability to log a "Found it" log that implies they found it when they simply didn't, simply to increase their number count. Allowing them to log a Found it when they didn't Found it creates an atmosphere of self-entitlement and turns geocaching into a competitive numbers game. 

 

Thank you for providing this clear explanation to MAS83.

 

Hopefully it will sink in.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

 

Would you like to elaborate on how that "fuels conflict and abuse"? I am actually curious, I might have overlooked something and am willing to learn.

 

It's self explanatory.

 

Try reading it again.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

 

I have no idea what you were trying to say here. Did you quote the wrong post?

 

Not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Team Christiansen said:

 

The fact that they didn't find the cache.

 

 

A cache owner rewarding the cacher the ability to log a "Found it" log that implies they found it when they simply didn't, simply to increase their number count. Allowing them to log a Found it when they didn't Found it creates an atmosphere of self-entitlement and turns geocaching into a competitive numbers game. 

 

But there was no cache to be found, to no fault of either the owner or the geocacher. He was clearly there, did the effort to look for it. Maybe even spend 30-60 minutes looking for it, making him making more effort than any other, but somehow he doesn't deserve recognition because his name isn't in a literal non-existent logbook? What about if 2 cachers go out together, should only the person who ACTUALLY finds the cache get to log the Found It, while the other has to log a DNF, because TECHNICALLY he didn't find it, his friend did?

 

Before you say that example is ridiculous, I agree, but they are equally ridiculous to me.

 

I would like you specify how allowing a cacher to redeem a DNF on a muggled cache, will make them entitled and turn it into a numbers game?

 

Besides if someone wants to make their geocaching adventures a "number game" how does that effect you? Is it envy that you can't/won't get that many finds? I am genuinely curious.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

It's self explanatory.

 

Try reading it again.

 

Just now, Team Microdot said:

 

Not at all.

 

Alright, I have to assume you are trolling now. Either that or you have realized that you are wrong, and are trying to save face, because you have no actual response to my questions?

 

Either way, until you contribute properly to the debate again, I'll just stop responding to you, nothing positive can happen from it, sadly. :(

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, MAS83 said:

 

 

Alright, I have to assume you are trolling now. Either that or you have realized that you are wrong, and are trying to save face, because you have no actual response to my questions?

 

Either way, until you contribute properly to the debate again, I'll just stop responding to you, nothing positive can happen from it, sadly. :(

 

I'm okay with that.

 

Until you've read and made a genuine effort to appreciate what others have written I've better things to do with my time anyway.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

A cache owner rewarding the cacher the ability to log a "Found it" log that implies they found it when they simply didn't, simply to increase their number count. Allowing them to log a Found it when they didn't Found it creates an atmosphere of self-entitlement and turns geocaching into a competitive numbers game. 

 

Last year three of us attempted a D2/T4 multi that involved an hour's hiking down 200 metres into a river gorge, finding waypoints along the way, with the cache on the opposite side of the river to us. The other two, being a lot younger and more nimble than I, were able to rock-hop across and found the cache while I remained on the far bank photographing their efforts. They even wrote my name in the logbook but I declined to log a find, instead logging a note describing my part in the adventure. The CO offered, well almost insisted, that I change my log to a find as I'd put in all the effort to get as far as I had and it was a team find, but I declined, saying I'd prefer to try again another time when the river's a bit lower. Four months later, when the weather turned drier and the river dropped, that came to pass and I was able to reach the cache and sign my name myself, not because I wanted the +1 to my find count (there are far easier ways to achieve that) but because it was a challenge I'd set myself. But had I accepted his offer, I don't think that would've created an atmosphere of self-entitlement and turned geocaching into a competitive numbers game.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I just realized, that giving permission to log a found on a missing cache (that is verified as missing from the CO and replaced) will promote DNF logs. While not doing it might promote people just logging a found and hope the cache is missing. That way overzealous COs like those above me can't dispute their find AND doesn't get noticed about a missing cache. How is that better?

 

I will just say this again: Negativity breeds negativity.

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

I hope you can distinguish between a lazy owner that just gives blanket permissions to everyone to log it as found because they don't want to replace the cache or archive it, and then a CO getting a DNF on a cache then go out and acknowledge it is gone, replace it and then telling the person that DNF'ed the cache that he has permission to log it as it as found.

 

 

I worry that it's a slippery slope. I worried about it at least 10 years ago. Back then I had logged a find on a couple of missing caches after the owners contacted me after a DNF and said 'Sorry. Go ahead and log a find'.  But subsequently reading forum posts I came to an understanding as to why it was not good for the pastime. ( I removed the finds from those owner sanctioned DNF=Found it.) 

 

The problem of DNF=Found it is increasing. You can't trust the Find logs.

When you can't trust the tools provided by the site, the tools that are for some of us essential to maximize our enjoyment of the pastime, then you might as well give up. And many of us have. I find less than a dozen a year when I use to find on average 200 per year. I use to plan short geocaching vacations and relied heavily on the tools provided by the site. Even short excursions have become too difficult - I have to read every log to determine if the cache is actually there (or did the owner tell everyone to go ahead and log finds anyway). Most of my time is spent crawling through recent logs. I often give up after reading through a few. 

 

One thing that should not happen is owners should not state publicly: "Go ahead and log a find". And finders should not publicly state in their logs that the cache is missing but the owner let them log a find. This just perpetuates the problem. If you must do this, do it privately (email, message center).  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

I just realized, that giving permission to log a found on a missing cache (that is verified as missing from the CO and replaced) will promote DNF logs. While not doing it might promote people just logging a found and hope the cache is missing. That way overzealous COs like those above me can't dispute their find AND doesn't get noticed about a missing cache. How is that better?

 

I will just say this again: Negativity breeds negativity.

 

So in your world a CO should reward DNF logs by encouraging people to pretend they found a cache that was never there to be found?

 

That's a great idea. As a CO I can save myself the time and effort of placing any actual caches at all!

 

Instead I can sit at home all day making cache pages for random sets of coordinates with no cache to find. Everyone will have lots of smileys though so everyone will be happy.

 

It's not geocaching though - it's just a game of make believe. It's not for me thanks.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

But there was no cache to be found, to no fault of either the owner or the geocacher. He was clearly there, did the effort to look for it.

 

Did he ask for the find? Most people don't. I've never been asked.  It's the owners usually offering up finds in exchange for forgiveness I guess.  

 

Share this post


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

 

I worry that it's a slippery slope. I worried about it at least 10 years ago. Back then I had logged a find on a couple of missing caches after the owners contacted me after a DNF and said 'Sorry. Go ahead and log a find'.  But subsequently reading forum posts I came to an understanding as to why it was not good for the pastime. ( I removed the finds from those owner sanctioned DNF=Found it.) 

 

The problem of DNF=Found it is increasing. You can't trust the Find logs.

When you can't trust the tools provided by the site, the tools that are for some of us essential to maximize our enjoyment of the pastime, then you might as well give up. And many of us have. I find less than a dozen a year when I use to find on average 200 per year. I use to plan short geocaching vacations and relied heavily on the tools provided by the site. Even short excursions have become too difficult - I have to read every log to determine if the cache is actually there (or did the owner tell everyone to go ahead and log finds anyway). Most of my time is spent crawling through recent logs. I often give up after reading through a few. 

 

One thing that should not happen is owners should not state publicly: "Go ahead and log a find". And finders should not publicly state in their logs that the cache is missing but the owner let them log a find. This just perpetuates the problem. If you must do this, do it privately (email, message center).  

 

I see your concern. The problem is if the CO start treating it as a virtual to avoid maintenance. I think we can all agree that needs to be stopped. My reasoning is that when a good CO get a DNF or maybe 2-3 depending on the cache, so when he realizes there might be a problem, he disables it. That tells everyone that something might be wrong with this cache, to prevent others from attempting to find a possible missing cache. Then when he has time to check up and realizes it is in fact gone, he replaces it and enables it again. Now everyone knows the cache is in order again, and he then writes DMs to the unlucky DNF'ers. That, to me, is like saying thanks for logging a DNF so I could fix my cache. Again, both the hider and the finder needs to agree on whether a found it is OK.

 

But if a CO leaves the caches enabled, and post a "Just log a Found It" write note, without disabling it, then that is a problem, I totally agree. I just think there need to be a distinction between the 2 practices. One is in my eyes OK, the other is not.

 

One last thing: I don't think you should change your DNF to a Found It, but instead make a new log. So both logs are present, to clarify what went down.

 

Also thank you for keeping a proper tone while disagreeing, I respect that. :)

Share this post


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

 

Did he ask for the find? Most people don't. I've never been asked.  It's the owners usually offering up finds in exchange for forgiveness I guess.  

 

 

I have never asked for permission to log a cache I haven't found (at least not that I can remember) but have been offered a few times, and accepted every time. Also I tend to offer it for caches that are actually gone, except if I know the geocacher lives close to the cache, and can easily go out there again. That has made it so that I have never been asked by a geocacher for permission either, but if someone should ask, and I know the cache was missing, I would give them permission. All of this is according to memory, but to my best knowledge the above is true.

 

Also I have never offered in exchange for forgiveness or seen it like that when I was offered it, as I don't think it is the fault of the CO. Muggles are a big part of our game, whether we like it or not. :)

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

Besides if someone wants to make their geocaching adventures a "number game" how does that effect you? Is it envy that you can't/won't get that many finds? I am genuinely curious.

 

Those cacher hiders, usually numbers hiders, keep posting more set-em-forget-em containers. They hand out finds like owning a cache means you own smileys. They can relax and ward off archival by handing out smileys and hopefully the finder won't post an NM or NA and accept their offering.  Now more owners think it's an acceptable and expected courtesy to bestow finds.

 

The more I write, the more I think finds should not be considered the domain of the owner. It is a tool, not cache owner candy. Owners can't delete a smiley at whim, they can't put conditions on a smiley (ALRs), they shouldn't be able to bestow a smiley either. It is a tool for recording a find and for filtering out your finds when looking for caches you haven't found yet. 

Share this post


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

 

Those cacher hiders, usually numbers hiders, keep posting more set-em-forget-em containers. They hand out finds like owning a cache means you own smileys. They can relax and ward off archival by handing out smileys and hopefully the finder won't post an NM or NA and accept their offering.  Now more owners think it's an acceptable and expected courtesy to bestow finds.

 

The more I write, the more I think finds should not be considered the domain of the owner. It is a tool, not cache owner candy. Owners can't delete a smiley at whim, they can't put conditions on a smiley (ALRs), they shouldn't be able to bestow a smiley either. It is a tool for recording a find and for filtering out your finds when looking for caches you haven't found yet. 

 

I totally agree that allowing someone to log a find on a cache without verifying it is missing AND replacing it is a BIG problem. I am just trying to make sure people can see the difference between that and a CO not wanting to punish a geocacher that was the unlucky first arrival after a muggle incident.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

 

I totally agree that allowing someone to log a find on a cache without verifying it is missing AND replacing it is a BIG problem. I am just trying to make sure people can see the difference between that and a CO not wanting to punish a geocacher that was the unlucky first arrival after a muggle incident.

 

There is no difference.

 

Tbe facts are the same.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I think the main issue in this thread is that we don't know the reasoning behind these questions from HQ.

 

Some people see them as a way to change the game to fit their needs, and only their needs. And everyone else is worried that might happen, and ruin the game for them.

 

This whole thing could just be HQ wanting to re-label some keywords, and want to see what keywords are most popular, and we are all overreacting. Without the full picture we are all trying to paint in the missing information, and some of us ended up with this:

 

196px-The_Scream.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

I think the main issue in this thread is that we don't know the reasoning behind these questions from HQ.

 

Some people see them as a way to change the game to fit their needs, and only their needs. And everyone else is worried that might happen, and ruin the game for them.

 

This whole thing could just be HQ wanting to re-label some keywords, and want to see what keywords are most popular, and we are all overreacting. Without the full picture we are all trying to paint in the missing information, and some of us ended up with this:

 

Having set the ball rolling, I'm sure at the end of the day HQ will want to be seen as doing something to improve the perceived lack of cache quality, particularly as they didn't ask what I think should have been the most important question - do you think cache quality is a problem in your area? Judging by the responses in the Insight thread, my guess is we'll see a minimum find count before you can hide, perhaps with an exemption for developing countries, and a mandated minimum frequency of CO cache visits documented by OM logs. Other ones that might get up are automatic disablement and archiving following unresponded-to NMs or some set number of DNFs. Time will tell, of course, but I just hope I'm wrong.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Having set the ball rolling, I'm sure at the end of the day HQ will want to be seen as doing something to improve the perceived lack of cache quality, particularly as they didn't ask what I think should have been the most important question - do you think cache quality is a problem in your area? Judging by the responses in the Insight thread, my guess is we'll see a minimum find count before you can hide, perhaps with an exemption for developing countries, and a mandated minimum frequency of CO cache visits documented by OM logs. Other ones that might get up are automatic disablement and archiving following unresponded-to NMs or some set number of DNFs. Time will tell, of course, but I just hope I'm wrong.

 

I hope you are as well.

 

But I think you are right about the reason this happened. A few people have been angered by someone putting out a power trail near them, or other caches they deem not worthy and asked HQ to fix it. While 90%+ of the community are happy, doing what makes them happy. Most of them will probably never know about this thread, so only those angry geocachers are here to vent. I am just happy we at least are a few trying to stop the disaster. :)

 

Hopefully that is enough. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I just hope they add more attributes, and allow people to put attributes on ignore.

 

For instance: Add a power trail attribute. Then everyone who hates them can put that attribute on ignore, and all caches with that attribute will not show up for them.

 

I know that will cause problems when someone with 50% of the caches on ignore wants to place a cache, and have a hard time finding a spot, so there should be a toggle on the map to show ignored caches, so they can see where there is room for caches.

 

I just hope they don't knee jerk, or overreact again, like they did with challenges. Only time will tell, but one can hope they see the sensibility to cater to the 90%+ happy crowd instead of the angry vocal minority. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MAS83 said:

 

Yes, and that is what people are doing. But then when the CO acts on the DNF and realize the cache is gone, they offer the cacher that bothered to log a DNF to log a Found it aswell, since it wasn't his fault for not finding it. Also as a thank you for logging the DNF and alerting the CO there was a problem. People in this thread are talking about giving incentives to log a DNF, that is one right there.

 

But,  they did NOT find it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

But,  they did NOT find it.

 

I will ask you the same question I asked earlier.

 

If two geocachers are out geocaching together, should only the person who ACTUALLY find the cache be the only one to sign it? Technically the other didn't find it, his friend did?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

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. 

Depends on the owner. A few do, yes, but I have given permission to log the cache, and I DO maintenance.  It was a long multicache and the person had found all the waypoints, which can take hours. They deserved to log it.  I replaced that cache once I was informed it had fallen from the tree and been mown. (In a sense they found the cache, but scattered about in small pieces. I think they cleaned it up. But no log.) That cache had been there less than a year, so the idea being pushed by some (I think it's a silly idea, even though I do maintain my caches) I would not have discovered this for some months, if not informed by the finder.  We will continue to disagree on this, and we can both choose what we are happy with.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

 

I will ask you the same question I asked earlier.

 

If two geocachers are out geocaching together, should only the person who ACTUALLY find the cache be the only one to sign it? Technically the other didn't find it, his friend did?

 

The two questions are unrelated,  The cacher in question did NOT find the cache.  Enough is said,  The other question is an entirely different question.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

×
×
  • Create New...