Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
colleda

CO Rant

Recommended Posts

I spotted this one today. A rant posted by a CO after his cache was temporarily disabled by a local reviewer. This CO has many caches with long term unactioned NMs and reviewer TDs. This cacher needs to clean up his/her act. The recent NA was deserving and the logger is a regular visitor to this forum but I don't know if he has seen the CO's response. The cache has logs going back more than six months mentioning missing log books and container lid.

prem_user.gifPremium Member

Profile photo for earthly65

2.png2613

Write noteWrite note

16/05/2019

wow!!..really...a cacher requests a cache be archived..depriving other cachers of the opportunity too seek the cache merely because they had to put a piece of paper in it...the cache IS there...I guess not all cachers are considerate of CO efforts and would..clearly..rather whinge about condition of the cache and do nothing themselves...we..and frankly most cachers we know...carry spare containers..logs etc..supporting eachother and keeping caches in play...fact is here tho..that this cache IS in action and if we didnt regularly replace the cache it simply would not be there at all...it is very fragile..and cachers may be a bit rough with it..we do maintenance more often than we remember to log and even tho its a bit of a pain really..cachers have enjoyed this type of cache so we keep making them..perhaps cachers who can make the effort to request a cache should be archived could better utilise those efforts in a nicer way..after all a CO has gone to effort for others enjoyment..we replace caches and logs wherever we go caching..caching community minded!..we will replace cache soon😊

 

Share this post


Link to post

I love that word "whinge".  So expressive of it's meaning.

 

Everyone gets burned out at some point I suppose.  Hopefully they take a break and come back refreshed and ready.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

It isn't our job as searchers to maintain a CO's cache. It may be a common courtesy, but a cache that isn't maintained by its CO won't last long. I find it funny that this CO mentions how the NA logger is whinging while simultaneously engaging in a rant about how others aren't doing a good enough job maintaining their caches for them. Maintenance or NA log is posted > cache owner addresses the problem. 'Nuff said. The logs are there to keep the community notified, not to act as an insult to one's honor. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, TheLimeCat said:

a cache that isn't maintained by its CO won't last long

 

I just mentioned this in another thread, but it simply isn't true for well-made caches, especially if their hiding place protects them from the elements. This one I placed four years ago I visited a couple of weeks back, when this photo was taken, and prior to that had only visited it a couple of times to move on some TBs. It's still the original container with its original logbook and original pencil, entirely unchanged since I put it there except for the 15 names in the logbook.

 

20190429_105808.jpg.ce96ad128a406405a360fc12de79c5ae.jpg

 

I've found others that go back to the early 2000s that are still the original container and logbook (with plenty of room for decades more logs) and have never had or needed maintenance. This one was placed in 2002 and was most recently found in February this year, still in great condition in spite of having had no maintenance in all that time.

 

ThunderBlunder.jpg.cb38386876fb93e1bdb2b0bef4a50168.jpg

 

If a CO wants to place something delicate and fragile then they have to expect it to be regularly damaged, but with a bit of thought given to the container and hiding place, it's not that hard to produce a cache that's essentially set and forget.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like I'd have to see it to understand your point. The CO's log sounds like someone posted an NA simple because the log was missing. Wouldn't that would annoying any CO?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Sounds like I'd have to see it to understand your point. The CO's log sounds like someone posted an NA simple because the log was missing. Wouldn't that would annoying any CO?

 

At the end of the "rant", the CO says they're going to replace the cache so it sounds like more than just the log is missing.

 

And no, if the log was missing on one of my caches and someone logged an NA to tell me that, I'd probably be bemused rather than annoyed, thank them for the heads-up on the missing log, disable the cache, replace the logbook as soon as I could and put it back on line. If there's a problem with one of my hides I want to know about it, and I'd rather even an NA than them just stuffing in a scrap of paper and not saying anything.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

At the end of the "rant", the CO says they're going to replace the cache so it sounds like more than just the log is missing.

Well, if you're going to look at the end, also notice the smilie which kinda undermines the entire "rant" description.

 

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

And no, if the log was missing on one of my caches and someone logged an NA to tell me that, I'd probably be bemused rather than annoyed, thank them for the heads-up on the missing log, disable the cache, replace the logbook as soon as I could and put it back on line. If there's a problem with one of my hides I want to know about it, and I'd rather even an NA than them just stuffing in a scrap of paper and not saying anything.

I guess you have more time on your hands than I do, and are more understanding, too. I'd be annoyed if someone posted an NA on a perfectly fine cache in good working order because they had to put their own log in it -- especially since I've seen this happen when they just missed the original log that was, in fact, there -- even if I was already planning on visiting the cache that day.

 

Anyway, my main point in bringing this up is that if this is the best example of a misbehaving CO anyone can come up with, I don't think misbehaving COs are a big problem. Even if you grant everything wrong about this log, it still strikes me as within the limits of a CO having a bad day and taking it out on someone that didn't deserve it. Big deal. Show me a CO that does this all the time with very little justification, and I'll take more notice...and be happy if you bring it to GS's attention so they can notice, too.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I just mentioned this in another thread, but it simply isn't true for well-made caches, especially if their hiding place protects them from the elements. This one I placed four years ago I visited a couple of weeks back, when this photo was taken, and prior to that had only visited it a couple of times to move on some TBs. It's still the original container with its original logbook and original pencil, entirely unchanged since I put it there except for the 15 names in the logbook.

 

20190429_105808.jpg.ce96ad128a406405a360fc12de79c5ae.jpg

 

I've found others that go back to the early 2000s that are still the original container and logbook (with plenty of room for decades more logs) and have never had or needed maintenance. This one was placed in 2002 and was most recently found in February this year, still in great condition in spite of having had no maintenance in all that time.

 

ThunderBlunder.jpg.cb38386876fb93e1bdb2b0bef4a50168.jpg

 

If a CO wants to place something delicate and fragile then they have to expect it to be regularly damaged, but with a bit of thought given to the container and hiding place, it's not that hard to produce a cache that's essentially set and forget.

 

That's a fair point. I have found more than my fair share of this type of cache, however, my comment was in response to this specific situation in which maintenance was being done by finders. If finders are performing maintenance, then there is necessarily some issue to be addressed by the CO, hence my comment. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

Well, if you're going to look at the end, also notice the smilie which kinda undermines the entire "rant" description.

 

I guess you have more time on your hands than I do, and are more understanding, too. I'd be annoyed if someone posted an NA on a perfectly fine cache in good working order because they had to put their own log in it -- especially since I've seen this happen when they just missed the original log that was, in fact, there -- even if I was already planning on visiting the cache that day.

 

Anyway, my main point in bringing this up is that if this is the best example of a misbehaving CO anyone can come up with, I don't think misbehaving COs are a big problem. Even if you grant everything wrong about this log, it still strikes me as within the limits of a CO having a bad day and taking it out on someone that didn't deserve it. Big deal. Show me a CO that does this all the time with very little justification, and I'll take more notice...and be happy if you bring it to GS's attention so they can notice, too.

Did you miss the point I made that this CO has a history of neglected caches (has over 100 trads) some of them archived by a reviewer for neglected maintenance. There are at least a couple that have been disabled by a reviewer for a few months and still no action from CO, not even a WN as to why nothing has happened. As to whether or not this latest one will be attended to we'll have to wait and see but I'm not holding my breath. Past performance is a good indicator to future performance someone once said.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, dprovan said:

Sounds like I'd have to see it to understand your point. The CO's log sounds like someone posted an NA simple because the log was missing. Wouldn't that would annoying any CO?

Did you miss this line in the OP?

 

"The cache has logs going back more than six months mentioning missing log books and container lid."

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 5:55 PM, colleda said:

we replace caches and logs wherever we go caching

Sounds like this person drops throwdowns too, probably calling them "angel caches" and patting themselves on the back for being such a good cacher...

  • Upvote 4
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post

I noticed yesterday that the CO has had another cache disabled by a reviewer. A D1.5 with DNFs going back more than six months, and two ignored NMs before a NA. We'll see how this one goes.

  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/22/2019 at 9:27 AM, colleda said:

I noticed yesterday that the CO has had another cache disabled by a reviewer. A D1.5 with DNFs going back more than six months, and two ignored NMs before a NA. We'll see how this one goes.

Surprise, surprise, surprise says Gomer. This one's been fixed. Having said that another from this CO has just been TD'd by a reviewer.

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 1

×