Stop throw down caches just log a DNF

[+STNolan]

On 8/15/2018 at 5:20 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Doubling your salary seems fair.

 

Hell, triple it!

 

[SuperKrypto]

we enjoy finding double caches if we've read the logs and know that the co had put out a replacement and then the original showed up - but if it seems like the co knows nothing about it then it is no fun because it makes us think someone was just too lazy to search for the actual cache that the co took the time to hide - it isn't finding a cache if you place your own

 

we are still confused about this one that we were so excited about because we thought it'd been years since the last find but now we don't even know if we found the actual cache or not? https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC68DNP_laurelwood-lookout?guid=c6bcb8a7-32d0-4ca2-9173-7f458ceaca18

 

we don't mind if someone puts a replacement for a legitimately missing cache

[+The A-Team]

1 hour ago, SuperKrypto said:

we don't mind if someone puts a replacement for a legitimately missing cache

...and how does a finder determine that the cache is "legitimately missing"? That's something that the CO should be deciding, because they're the one that has the full knowledge of the cache. If the circumstances are such that the cache can clearly no longer be there (e.g. GZ is in the middle of a construction site or the only tree in the area has been cut down), then it's still the CO that needs to decide how to handle the situation, not a finder that can't live with a DNF.

[SuperKrypto]

15 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

...and how does a finder determine that the cache is "legitimately missing"? That's something that the CO should be deciding, because they're the one that has the full knowledge of the cache. If the circumstances are such that the cache can clearly no longer be there (e.g. GZ is in the middle of a construction site or the only tree in the area has been cut down), then it's still the CO that needs to decide how to handle the situation, not a finder that can't live with a DNF.

yes the co definitely needs to be involved - you shouldn't do it without permission - like if a cache is temporarily disabled and the co knows it needs replacing then we might offer to put out a replacement if we are headed to the area - we talk with them and they tell us what container the cache was and exactly where it goes - it helps a fellow co out

[+thebruce0]

Ultimately, even with absolute guidance from the CO while on the phone, the CO still can't be 100% positive the replacement is as intended. The CO should technically always be the one to provide the final first-hand confirmation that a cache is "legitimately" missing.  Obviously of course it's the CO's judgement call whether they feel the cache is actually missing if it's based on 2nd hand reports.

[+noncentric]

On 8/15/2018 at 8:47 AM, L0ne.R said:

Some sweep. Some do keyword searches. Some reviewers might be OK with removing throwdown finds. Or at least remove the throwdown language from the log, so others don't think it's OK/expected/sanctioned.

Some do and don't mind it, but you said it should be "mandated" which means required, and that's a very different ask.  You say some are already doing it, so that's great.  But again, applying expectations to a global audience (all Reviewers) is not appropriate, just as it would be to assert that the global caching community is as bad as is seen in a local caching community.

 

 

On 8/15/2018 at 10:42 AM, L0ne.R said:

That's when a cacher gets labelled a 'cache cop'. How often does a guy that posts those kinds of logs get patted on their back for sticking their neck out, or get supportive logs backing them up when the owner gets publicly snarky? Generally the support goes to the popular cache owner. 

I've actually received, via personal message, thank you for logging an NM because otherwise the CO wasn't aware of the problem. One such CO, after I logged an NM on their cache for a full logbook, said that he wished more cachers would report issues with his caches.

Regarding the snarkiness, the snarky CO can get a reputation in their local community if they are a 'jerk' to other cachers. And most people don't like jerks. If a CO is "popular", then it's often because they are likable and nice in-person and they put out good caches. That's what makes them popular. They become unpopular pretty quickly if they act like a jerk.  There may be CO's that have a lot of hides, but that doesn't mean they're 'popular', just 'prolific'.

 

 

On 8/15/2018 at 10:42 AM, L0ne.R said:

Based on human behavior it would have more effect when coming from authority figures (reviewers or GCHQ). 

One way to combat this is to refer to Help Center articles, like the one about Throwdowns, when pointing out problems with a cache.  The other person can't say much if they are referred to the "authority" site.

 

[+noncentric]

This reminds me of a throwdown that I found a while back.  There were a couple dozen PT caches mixed in around some non-PT caches that had been placed a few years prior. One cache that was not part of the series was in it's spot and in fine condition, but a prolific finder must've been in PT mode and dropped a throwdown when they didn't see the cache in the spot they expected to find the cache.

 

My log mentioned this:

" Spotted and removed a throwdown container that matched the type of container used in the mini-PT series nearby. The presumed throwdowner's stamp was the only signature on the logsheets. The actual cache was easy enough to spot and was in good shape, with a dry log. "

 

Interestingly, I've heard negative comments about this particular 'prolific' cacher. Other cachers at an event basically did eye-rolls when 'prolific cacher' was mentioned. In a local community, cachers can get a reputation.