Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Goldenwattle

Some COs don't take kindly to NM, and then the NA (because the NM was ignored)

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 So there are conditional exceptions to the maintenance standards outlined in the guidelines?  Is that what you're saying?

No.  That is not what I'm saying. 

 

I'm saying that imposing black/white interpretation of what appears to be shades-of-grey decision-making doesn't seem to be bringing resolution to the disagreement.

 

There can be conditions that alter a finder's personal choice on how they react to a need for maintenance. 

Even if those conditions - if any - would not impact your choice, it appears that they do for others.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I didn't say anything about legal responsibility. I'm talking moral responsibility. 

 

Since it doesn't seem you read prior comments, let me quote again again:

 

On 9/27/2019 at 1:08 PM, thebruce0 said:

I'll say it again: Don't take someone else's property unless you know they've abandoned it, or your personal moral choice to "clean up the environment" is more important to you than your potential theft of someone else's property*. It's not your responsibility or obligation. It's a really simple concept.

 

It absolutely does come down to legal rights, and whether your moral choice (there is no objective "moral responsibility" - that's a term used to justify a moral choice despite legal ramifications) you feel outweighs your actual responsibility. You do absolutely nothing wrong objectively if you do not pick up trash. You definitely do absolutely nothing if you don't assume something that might still have purpose and belong to someone is trash and take it without permission.

 

9 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

You pick up trash because it's the right thing to do. You call 911 when someone has a heart attack because it's the right thing to do.

 

You don't pick up random items you think are trash without defining trash and making a choice.

You don't perform CPR on a person if you don't know CPR. And, if you DO have training but do nothing, you can also be held accountable. There are laws that cover these situations. Everyone should call 911 when someone has a heart attack, but you won't be held legally responsible if you don't.  And actions to save a human life are not comparable to picking up a piece of human trash.  Not on ANY moral compass.

 

I'm not arguing that you or I don't have a right to have a moral stance on littering, and in no way am I even implying that picking up trash is not a good thing to do, especially for the environment.

 

And yet, in case the quote above is forgotten already:

Don't take someone else's property unless you know they've abandoned it, or your personal moral choice to "clean up the environment" is more important to you than your potential theft of someone else's property*. It's not your responsibility or obligation. It's a really simple concept.

* Read: This is where CITOs apply, this is where garbage collection applies, this is where laws and common sense about littering apply.

 

9 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Ah, I see: if nobody notices the problem then it's not really a problem. Let's just brush it under the rug. What's one more piece of litter?

 

Who is even saying that?!

 

6 hours ago, dprovan said:
9 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Ah, I see: if nobody notices the problem then it's not really a problem. Let's just brush it under the rug. What's one more piece of litter?

Physically, a container is exactly as much of a problem, exactly as much of an ecological nightmare, while it's an active geocache as when it's a hypothetically abandoned geocache. Your logic leads to the conclusion that it's a moral responsibility to pick up any cache, active or not.

 

Yep.

What's the difference between a geocache container with an owner and a geocache container that's listed as archived on some website?  They're both human items left out in nature. I think both shouldn't belong there, therefore I think they're both trash - therefore it's my "moral responsibility" to take them out.

Rubbish

Pun intended.

 

 

ETA: To restate my recommended strategy to deal with a cache container we believe to trash: Make a few attempts to contact the owner in an attempt to get permission first (since it's not our responsibility or property) - but if after an arbitrary amount time there is no response from its owner to confirm or deny active property ownership, then go out and retrieve it.  Once retrieved, keep it for an arbitrary amount of time before making the final decision that it isn't conclusively trash.

Arbitrary: Subjectively determined amount of time dependent on context and circumstances. Any amount of time between 1 second to forever.  See points above about weighing the situation to justify the decision between moral choice and legal theft.

 

Remember that whole geocaching thing about "respect property"? It's not just land property we should be respecting, but also cache owners' property.  As soon as it's placed and listed on the site, it is to our knowledge always and perpetually owned by that person until someone decides that it's abandoned and has made that above judgment.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I've had snark from a CO,  because I posted a NM. In my situation a long-standing Atlas Obscura curio was the host for the Premium geocache. As soon as I attained Premium Member status, I went to the GZ and saw the curio had gone, with a taped note on the ramp-rail behind it that the Atlas Obscura went "walkie bye bye." I didn't have a camera on hand to post proof, and the CO posted "Geocaching Rule #2847: finder's inability to find the cache did not necessitate any work on the Cache Owner's part."

 

The curio was a pop/soda machine, about 1.85 metres tall, so hardly concealed or tricky to find. I'd seen it and used it for years prior to it being used as a geocache location.

 

  • Surprised 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/13/2019 at 9:28 PM, Goldenwattle said:

I've had similar from a CO, who had several caches that needed new logs. They said they expected finders to maintain their caches. When I reported that here, I also got lots of criticism from some people here for also not maintaining their cache, by replacing all the missing logs, rather than log NMs. For those that criticised me, I still don't intend to replace a heap of logs on another COs power trails, and I don't expect anyone, or even want them to, to replace full logs on my caches, without checking with me first. Log a NM please and I will fix the problem. I maintain my caches, and don't leave it up to others to do this for me.

Yes, that irked me, both that CO and then some people (not everyone) here saying how they maintain other CO caches and suggesting I should do the same for a CO who couldn't be bothered. It wasn't one cache, it was quite a few in the power trail. It would have used up a lot of logs.

The CO did end up replacing the full logs, after the reviewer came in and said there was nothing "malicious", as the CO called it, in logged a NM.

 

I thought we were done but your post in the "What irks you most?" thread resurrected this but that thread isn't the place to address this topic. 

 

The bolded part is, once again, the issue I have with the actions you have taken.   If the COs aren't active and abandoned their caches (for whatever reason), then they "couldn't be bothered" to pick up their caches and archive them like the guidelines state they should.  Yet you chose to do maintenance for COs who "couldn't be bothered" to properly archive their caches and will never archive them.  If the COs are active but haven't done any needed maintenance or preventive maintenance (willfully ignored it), then they "couldn't be bothered" to maintain or archive their caches as needed.   Yet you chose to do maintenance for COs who "couldn't be bothered" to regularly visit (since they're remote I'm sure a reviewer would allow some latitude vs. the regular 30 day grace period) and take care of their caches like the guidelines state they should.  If the COs are active and reach out to you to thank you for their maintenance (which you stated some did), then they "couldn't be bothered" to do it themselves and were grateful that you did it for them.  Yet you chose to do maintenance on their caches for them, all the while espousing the concept that " I maintain my caches, and don't leave it up to others to do this for me" and expecting other COs to follow suit, which they didn't do.

 

Your defense of your actions rests solely on the notion that they're remote caches and that once gone, there won't be anything left for anyone to find and it's unlikely that anything will get put out there.  You're right.  That's certainly the most likely scenario.   However, that cannot and does not negate the fact that all of these COs you did maintenance for "couldn't be bothered" to do it themselves and your actions are enabling the very type of CO you're complaining about.  I'm not telling you to do maintenance for COs who "couldn't be bothered".  I'm telling you that you've already done it.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

I thought we were done but your post in the "What irks you most?" thread resurrected this but that thread isn't the place to address this topic. 

 

The bolded part is, once again, the issue I have with the actions you have taken.   If the COs aren't active and abandoned their caches (for whatever reason), then they "couldn't be bothered" to pick up their caches and archive them like the guidelines state they should.  Yet you chose to do maintenance for COs who "couldn't be bothered" to properly archive their caches and will never archive them.  If the COs are active but haven't done any needed maintenance or preventive maintenance (willfully ignored it), then they "couldn't be bothered" to maintain or archive their caches as needed.   Yet you chose to do maintenance for COs who "couldn't be bothered" to regularly visit (since they're remote I'm sure a reviewer would allow some latitude vs. the regular 30 day grace period) and take care of their caches like the guidelines state they should.  If the COs are active and reach out to you to thank you for their maintenance (which you stated some did), then they "couldn't be bothered" to do it themselves and were grateful that you did it for them.  Yet you chose to do maintenance on their caches for them, all the while espousing the concept that " I maintain my caches, and don't leave it up to others to do this for me" and expecting other COs to follow suit, which they didn't do.

 

Your defense of your actions rests solely on the notion that they're remote caches and that once gone, there won't be anything left for anyone to find and it's unlikely that anything will get put out there.  You're right.  That's certainly the most likely scenario.   However, that cannot and does not negate the fact that all of these COs you did maintenance for "couldn't be bothered" to do it themselves and your actions are enabling the very type of CO you're complaining about.  I'm not telling you to do maintenance for COs who "couldn't be bothered".  I'm telling you that you've already done it.

 

 

I have no wish to continue discussing this. I placed this in 'What irks me'. Well, it irks me that you lifted it from there and placed it under another heading, so you could continued the argument. Well I am not taking the bait and arguing this further. Over and out.

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

It seems some COs don't take kindly to logs reporting rubbish at GZ, reviewer intervention, well anything I guess...

 

Quote

ArchiveArchive

02/12/2019

I hate the game of geocaching because it seems like you can only hide one where no-one even goes and you just can’t have a life outside your geocaches. I will bring every one that goes missing from now to the archive along with this one. I bloody hate the people who complain about the rubbish. Not my fault there’s rubbish there, I actually avoided places of rubbish for new places just to suddenly appear full of rubbish since I placed my cache. I wonder if it was the cachers who did this. I also hate it when they say how bad the bloody hide was. I’m a friking novice at hiding caches give a break and constructive criticism or just say found in your log and don’t bother. I know this isn’t a great series, but still I’m a novice so leave me alone. I also hate the ones who pester me about when I’m going to replace it. Hey, I have a life you know, unlike you. I also hate it when the reviewer (cough cough, Tiddalik) just archives the cache even though I’ve bloody posted a note for g@ds sake, can you not read. I doubt I will place any more than 1 physical geocache (which will be right next to my house more or less) after this series and will really only place Earthcaches (probably at Barrington Tops National Park). So please just see what I’ve been through doing this and maybe think about your actions next time in posting logs.

 

  • Funny 3
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

It seems some COs don't take kindly to logs reporting rubbish at GZ, reviewer intervention, well anything I guess...

 

 

:signalviolin:And they took their ball and went home. Childish!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

:signalviolin:And they took their ball and went home. Childish!

 

Thank gosh they took their ball and went home. Some people should not be COs. And their departure might be a relief for the community.  

 

I get the feeling that this hider is addicted. He placed a "series" which I assume means 'power trail', and will probably continue to hide since he said he 'doubts he'll place anymore'.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I get the feeling that this hider is addicted. He placed a "series" which I assume means 'power trail', and will probably continue to hide since he said he 'doubts he'll place anymore'.

 

It wasn't a power trail, rather a series of 16 traditionals spread out around his or her local suburbia and bushland reserves.

Share this post


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

He placed a "series" which I assume means 'power trail', and will probably continue to hide since he said he 'doubts he'll place anymore'.

 

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

It wasn't a power trail, rather a series of 16 traditionals spread out around his or her local suburbia and bushland reserves.

 

There you go with your assumptions.  I have two series as well (and two others that ran their course).  Does that mean both of them are power trails in your book?

 

They've certainly not quite got the temperament for being a CO.  They also have little idea of what maintenance apparently entails.  I am curious to know if any of the finders (or the CO for that matter) did any CITO or if they were more interested in the +1.  I almost always end up removing some sort of trash item(s) while I'm out maintaining my caches or finding others.  

 

Perhaps they'll learn something from this experience but somehow I doubt it.

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

:signalviolin:And they took their ball and went home. Childish!

 

I'm a little confused by this notion.  So you want them to continue playing?  Do you really want this CO to continue hiding caches that they apparently can't maintain in a manner that would preclude the reviewer from archiving one of their caches (if not more)?  Would you rather they continued to place caches in areas that apparently "suddenly appear full of rubbish"? @L0ne.R has done the same thing but for different reasons (and without reviewer intervention) and I see no one calling their actions childish.  You can certainly call the manner in which the aforementioned CO logged their archive of the cache as childish but I think they chose the correct course of action, which is actually the adult thing to do here.  I would think that we would want to discourage this type of CO from placing caches and would think that it's the right thing to do and not call it childish, but rather appropriate based on what we know of them (granted, it's limited based on their log). 

 

The other option is that someone reaches out to them to try to explain things so that perhaps they become a better CO.  If someone were patient enough, perhaps, but one can always hope that this CO could be redeemed and turn into the type of CO we all like to see.  

Share this post


Link to post

Some people are insanely easy to offend. I know at leats one CO, who made good caches, who stopped because people had opinions. Over-reacting on NM is a similar thing. It is sad when you can't point out a problem or even suggest an improvement without these people taking it as a personal insult.

 

I try to remember who these are and tiptoe through my logs. Just write about the weather... Of course I want people to make new caches, but it is so sad when they openly refuse to maintain them, like the people mentioned in this thread. Even worse, they are 99% certain to leave their caches out there when they are archived. Just abandon them.

 

Solution? Be so nice to them that they decide to actually go out and replace the full and wet logbooks? Is it possible? I never wanted to offend anyone but some people can't take a problem report.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

To be a devil's advocate... we don't know what his experience was like, we only have what he wrote.  And it sounds like the community didn't really do anything to encourage or teach him.  Maybe they did, it's only one side of the story. But, to give the benefit of the doubt, if his whole experience was sour, is it entirely his fault that he "took his ball and went home?"  I know a number of cachers in the region who will check the hide/find count and if it's low, either be a lot more forgiving in logs, or reach out to help or guide if prudent...  Instead of mob mentality jumping all over him because of his seemingly overthetop rant, maybe we should be - to a degree - a little more forgiving or gracious.

Of course he really could be that kind of person and this is all the way it should have played out :P Nonetheless, just some thoughts.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Ragnemalm said:

...or even suggest an improvement...

 

Do you mean something to make the cache "better" in your eyes or do you mean something that reflects the status of the cache that more approximates the D/T rating or better coordinates or some such thing?  If it's the latter, I'm fine with that, even if the CO, for whatever reason, chooses to ignore the suggestion.  "I think the terrain rating is a bit low for this one as there doesn't appear to be an easy way to get to GZ."

 

If it's the former, I don't think it's my place to say anything that ventures onto the grounds of a more nebulous "improvement" of the cache.  They placed the cache the way they wanted to and it seems to me to be a bit condescending to suggest a way that this could be made "better", whatever that might mean.  "Since this is a bird themed cache, this would have been so much better if it were a fake bird with the bison tube zip tied to it instead of just zip tied to the tree."

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Do you mean something to make the cache "better" in your eyes or do you mean something that reflects the status of the cache that more approximates the D/T rating or better coordinates or some such thing?  If it's the latter, I'm fine with that, even if the CO, for whatever reason, chooses to ignore the suggestion.  "I think the terrain rating is a bit low for this one as there doesn't appear to be an easy way to get to GZ."

 

If it's the former, I don't think it's my place to say anything that ventures onto the grounds of a more nebulous "improvement" of the cache.  They placed the cache the way they wanted to and it seems to me to be a bit condescending to suggest a way that this could be made "better", whatever that might mean.  "Since this is a bird themed cache, this would have been so much better if it were a fake bird with the bison tube zip tied to it instead of just zip tied to the tree."

 

Some people indeed think you try to give them orders just by voicing an opinion, a reaction to the caching experience. Maybe I need to specify the difference before writing the reflection?

 

Case in point: A cache required some rock climbing, so I suggested that a bit higher T would describe it better than T2. A simple adjustment suggested by what it felt like for me. That was enough to offend him.

 

I often make special note in my cache descriptions that opinions and suggestions are welcome. And I mean all kinds.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I just thought about what I think about "potentially offensive logs". What can I expect, what have I seen?

 

I think the T is a bit high/low. Strongly considered, often reacted upon. I am very happy to get these.

I think the D is a bit high/low. Even better. D is really hard to judge as CO. I love them!

You forgot to include the parking available attribute. Oops, thanks very much!

Did you see that better hiding spot 10 meter to the left? Oh, I didn't see that. Wonderful! I might move there.

Considering this location, how about making the cache a bit more thematic because of the (for example) zoo nearby. Maybe a (for example) little parrot in that tree there? How could this offend me? An idea for a better, more fun cache suitable for the location! I can make a better cache without figuring it all out myself! What could be better?

Oh, just a lock&lock clone in a typical place. Not as positive, but good information, whatever point I saw with the place was not noticed, or the place is not interesting enough. Bring them on! I want to know!

Bad container, this kind takes in water. Another log I definitely don't want to live without.

Too close to a house, the people living there seemed disturbed. What can be more important? Deactivate, check out how to handle it.

Did you need to have tree climbing on the final too? This one I did get once, and although I don't quite agree, I fully respect the cachers opinion and would not want to be without the opinion! Your vote counts!

Does it have to be so hard? Don't you want many logs? This one I also got, and understand. And I consider the ratio easy/hard in the neighborhood and question my judgement. Again, I don't necessarily change but the vote counts and makes me consider alternatives. Well, actually, I did react to it a bit, but making some caches with lower T but a bit higher D instead. Not super easy because those are amny enough but some with different D/T balance. So you encouraged me/reminded me to be more diverse, thanks!

The log is full. NM. (To connect with the thread.) Of course you should post that!

 

So I love them all. Anything that tells me something more than TFTC or copy-paste. However...

 

We logged 200 caches today and this was one of them. OK, this one makes me irritated if it is on a highly original, more or less custom built cache maybe in a very special place.

 

Am I a very odd person who takes these comments (except the last one) as positive things? Someone did tell me about ideas, feelings, problems... Yes, I know that too many people can not take these too well, as seen in this thread. I try to teach them by showing my own attitude to getting such logs by asking for them. Maybe that is all I can do. Is there any other way? Padding opinions with text about my opinions being only my personal reflections and not demands, or something like that?

Edited by Ragnemalm
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

Am I a very odd person who takes these comments (except the last one) as positive things?

 

I think your point about the content being good is absolutely true. But often it's how those logs are worded that makes them 'offensive' or not.

 

"I think the D could be a little higher" is more much cordial than "your D is WAY off and you need to change this asap" for example. Or the note instead of a find "I'm not a tree climber, but I did see it in the tree; I'll pass for now" rather than a Find log "I can't believe you made this a tree climb! Trees should be protected and respected AND you didn't put the attribute on - I could have skipped this. But I saw it, so I'm claiming it."

(not that I've seen any of these posted anywhere, but just demonstrating that manner of expressing the content is the bigger issue than merely the existence of helpful information in a log ;) )

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

I think the T is a bit high/low. Strongly considered, often reacted upon. I am very happy to get these.

I think the D is a bit high/low. Even better. D is really hard to judge as CO. I love them!

You forgot to include the parking available attribute. Oops, thanks very much!

Too close to a house, the people living there seemed disturbed. What can be more important? Deactivate, check out how to handle it.

The log is full. NM. (To connect with the thread.) Of course you should post that!

 

None of these call into question the reason behind why or how a cacher has opted to hide a cache for others to find.  They're all valid comments that could be made that don't really apply to making the cache "better" in the sense that it's a more enjoyable experience.  These go directly to the types of regular things needed to let the cacher know what to expect.  How to make things more detailed that a cacher can use to determine if they'd like to visit your cache or not, based on the factors you have listed here.  

 

A cacher with limited mobility wants to find caches but sees that someone posted a log that says it's a bit harder to get to than what's listed.  That's a good reason to skip it and come back to it when they have more mobility.

 

A new cacher wants to find caches but sees that someone posted a log that says it's a bit harder to find that what's listed.  That's a good reason to skip it and come back to it when they have more experience.

 

A cache shows up on the map in the middle of nowhere but doesn't show where to park, leaving the cacher wondering how to get to the cache, both legally and with the least amount of hassle.  A log says that here is good parking (legal and suggested) makes the logistics of the trip much easier.

 

A new cache is published but the first few logs all comment on how it appears to be disturbing the nearby home.  I read those logs and I won't go because it tells me that there's an issue and I might make it worse.

 

Many of you already know my disposition as it pertains to a full log.

 

1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

Did you see that better hiding spot 10 meter to the left? Oh, I didn't see that. Wonderful! I might move there.

Considering this location, how about making the cache a bit more thematic because of the (for example) zoo nearby. Maybe a (for example) little parrot in that tree there? How could this offend me? An idea for a better, more fun cache suitable for the location! I can make a better cache without figuring it all out myself! What could be better?

Oh, just a lock&lock clone in a typical place. Not as positive, but good information, whatever point I saw with the place was not noticed, or the place is not interesting enough. Bring them on! I want to know!

Did you need to have tree climbing on the final too? This one I did get once, and although I don't quite agree, I fully respect the cachers opinion and would not want to be without the opinion! Your vote counts!

Does it have to be so hard? Don't you want many logs? This one I also got, and understand. And I consider the ratio easy/hard in the neighborhood and question my judgement. Again, I don't necessarily change but the vote counts and makes me consider alternatives. Well, actually, I did react to it a bit, but making some caches with lower T but a bit higher D instead. Not super easy because those are amny enough but some with different D/T balance. So you encouraged me/reminded me to be more diverse, thanks!

 

All of these types of comments are evaluations of a hide that get into the enjoyment or likability of a cache.  Most of these are things that cachers don't need to know as it pertains to what to expect when looking for a cache, compared to what you stated above and I quoted.  These are the type of extra things that not everyone agrees make a cache better.  In many cases they're just personal opinions about your cache and their experience of your cache.  I'm not saying that they can't have opinions.  I'm saying that their opinions about what might make a cache better (in the examples above) don't necessarily apply to every cacher's likes and what one cacher may find enjoyable, another will not like.

 

What you see as a better hiding spot might actually be more prone to being discovered because the CO already noted that spot and it didn't work.  I've had a couple muggled that way and moving it 30 ft./10m made all the difference in it staying in place.  I found a cool old foundation within a city park and placed a cache there.  It didn't last long because others knew it was there.  I moved it away from the foundation and it lasted much longer.  Flooding eventually caused me to archive that one and move it somewhere else.  It also could be seen that you think your way is better than the CO's way.  

 

That bright parrot, this close to the zoo, might be seen by kids and lead to it being taken.  Also, does that really make the cache any better?  Some cachers find it cute but others could care less.  I found a cache that was a top 10 favorite point cache in my state at the time I found it (it might still be).  It was fishing based and it was a rubber bass hanging from the branch of a tree on fishing line with a bison tube inside it in a mall parking lot.  I didn't think that was a better cache than the bison tube hanging from a fishing line I found shortly thereafter in a neat old bridge base that took me to a much neater location.

 

Some cachers prefer a boring old lock-n-lock hidden in just an OK place, as long as it's maintained.  Not every location is worthy of a cache so why not make the container/cache the point rather than the location, which the CO probably knows isn't very thrilling, especially now as saturation is an issue.  It's certainly not positive either as you are basically saying that it's nothing special.  What if it's this CO's only hide?  What it it's a hide that holds some sort of special meaning?  Perhaps it's placed in honor of a geocaching friend?  I've got a good caching friend who passed away and his wife placed a cache along the fence of the cemetery near his marker.  It's a bison tube attached to the fence.  It's nothing overly special but the sentiment behind it is.  Most people don't even read the cache description to know why this cache is there so all I see when it's found are the same old type of log you'd find for any other bland cache that's nothing more than a +1.  You don't know the reason for the cache being there but you're OK with basically telling them it was just a +1.

 

Why should a cacher's opinion about your hide, which you chose to hide the way you did for a reason, matter to you or your cache?  You obviously chose to have it as a tree climb.  The cacher may or may not have known there was another tree climb involved.  I see this more as a complaint about the cache rather than anything constructive.  It's a personal opinion and provides nothing constructive at all, other than to let future seekers know that yes, there's another tree climb at the final.  What did their vote count toward?  You say their vote counts so what did it get them.  Did you change the final hide because they weren't happy to find another tree climb?  If not, then their vote actually doesn't count. In their opinion, they're complaining about the experience that you specifically set up for them to experience because you thought they'd appreciate it more.  This is exactly why I'm hesitant to even offer up comments about making a cache better because what I think is better and what someone else thinks is better are often not the same.

 

You made it hard for a reason and they complained about it.  There are tons of easy caches to find. There aren't as many hard caches out there.  If they want easy, then they shouldn't have chosen the particular cache that this comment was made.  I'm assuming you made it obvious, per your D/T rating that this was a difficult cache.  They opted in and then they went and complained about it being too hard?  That's on them, not on you.  Did you actually change this cache based on their comments?  Or did you hide others that were easier and more varied?  If you changed the cache in question because they thought it was too hard, you changed the experience that previous finders had and lessened the experience for future finders.  If you created more caches with varied D/T because of this log, you always had that ability.  This log shouldn't have been the thing that made you realize you could have placed other types of caches out that were easier.

 

2 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Bad container, this kind takes in water. Another log I definitely don't want to live without

 

Not everyone can afford the best containers.  Ammo cans (which I consider to be the best) are priced much higher than they used to be and are prone to being taken, especially in an urban area.  Lock-n-locks (and other brands that follow the same concept) all can have failures, some working great for a period of time while others last less than a week.  Sometimes it's the container's fault and sometimes it's the finder's fault.  I've been seeing more of the plastic ammo cans out and for me they're either great or horrible.  Some have been filled with water while others have been dry as a bone inside and most all have been hidden in the same manner in the same type of environment.  Unless a pill bottle has punctures or is warped due to heat/sun exposure, I actually find them to be rather good containers as they're usually rather dry inside.  That being said, I dislike pill bottles as containers because of the narrow neck that makes getting things in and out too much of a hassle.  I'll never say a container is bad but I'll certainly mention that the container needs some attention because it's getting the contents inside wet due to some problem (hole, missing snap lock, missing o-ring, etc...) and I'll certainly mention that the container is in great shape because everything inside is as dry as the day it was placed.  You saying it's a bad container means that YOU think it's a bad container.  Just like one man's trash is another man's treasure, one man's "bad" container is another man's "good" container.

 

2 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Am I a very odd person who takes these comments (except the last one) as positive things?

 

You take them for what they're worth to you and what they mean to you.  I take them for what they're worth to me and what they mean to me.  Where you see positivity and better possible caches, I see cachers complaining about the experience I created and hoped they would get (in some things).  Things that allow a cacher to get a better understanding of what to expect when they go looking for a cache are all up for comment and I'll certainly listen to their reasoning.  Things that cachers comment about that are what they think would make for a better experience for other cachers tells me that they don't think my cache was worth the time I took to place it, get the coordinates, find the right container for the location, create the cache page and then publish it for others to find.  I created a cache that I hoped cachers would like but then I get complaints about it being too hard (when it's a high D/T cache to begin with) or set up in a manner that I want them to experience something (yes, that means another tree climb in this multi) that they then complain about isn't positive at all.  Neither of those things are constructive criticism.  Telling me that there's a better hiding spot less than 30 feet away.  Telling me that my well maintained lock-n-lock is nothing better than a +1.  Telling me that my cache could be so much better if I did this or that.  Those are examples of a cacher not liking their experience and letting the CO know about it and I find very little that's positive about that.  

 

They're more than welcome to voice their displeasure with my hides and the experience they had but when it's not really constructive criticism and is instead based on likes and dislikes of individual cachers, then, for me, it ventures into the negative rather than the positive.  That doesn't mean that their opinions and logs are worthless.  They're a recounting of what that particular cacher encountered when doing my cache.  At it's essence, even worded carefully as Bruce has mentioned, they're not telling you anything good about your cache.  They're only telling you what they think is wrong with it.  In the case of something that was brought to my attention about parking, D/T, too close to someone's home, trash, and yes, even a full log, those are things that can prepare future cachers for a visit to the cache (or a decision NOT to visit).  Those are constructive, even if the CO chooses to ignore them.  Ignoring something like that will most likely lead to less visits and a "reputation" as a CO who doesn't listen.  However, when it gets into more subjective areas where an individual's preferences become the reason for comments and supposed constructive criticism, then I'm less likely to listen because their preferences aren't necessarily the preferences for everyone else.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/2/2019 at 8:41 PM, coachstahly said:

Why should a cacher's opinion about your hide, which you chose to hide the way you did for a reason, matter to you or your cache?  You obviously chose to have it as a tree climb.  The cacher may or may not have known there was another tree climb involved.  I see this more as a complaint about the cache rather than anything constructive.  It's a personal opinion and provides nothing constructive at all, other than to let future seekers know that yes, there's another tree climb at the final.  What did their vote count toward?  You say their vote counts so what did it get them.  Did you change the final hide because they weren't happy to find another tree climb?  If not, then their vote actually doesn't count. In their opinion, they're complaining about the experience that you specifically set up for them to experience because you thought they'd appreciate it more.  This is exactly why I'm hesitant to even offer up comments about making a cache better because what I think is better and what someone else thinks is better are often not the same.

 

Thanks for your extensive comments! I appreciate it even though we don't agree on everything. ;)

 

Yes, I do like that "complaint", but no, I don't often immediately change for one single opinion. I don't have to agree, but I can listen, and if a lot of people see a problem, then I might change. Most other people are happy, so it is fine, but I still don't mind that he disagrees. Some see complaints an whining, I see reflections and feedback.

 

Same things with difficuly and containers. I don't have to change, it is just an opinion, not a command. One voice out of several. If that parrot is a good idea, that is something I will judge, it was a reflection, a possibility.

 

So many good ideas will be lost if people don't dare to share their ideas. But, too many COs can't handle them, as the thread shows.

Edited by Ragnemalm
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/3/2019 at 1:50 AM, Ragnemalm said:

I try to remember who these are and tiptoe through my logs.

Yes, I know some COs like that. I wonder what their home life if like for their family. Difficult I imagine. I like to write reasonable logs, but I have been tempted to just write TFTC whenever I find one of their caches. In fact sometimes I avoid finding their caches, because I can do without their tantrums, which can come across as abuse. (Back to my comment on wondering about their home life, or rather the home life of family members.)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/2/2019 at 6:00 PM, thebruce0 said:

 

I think your point about the content being good is absolutely true. But often it's how those logs are worded that makes them 'offensive' or not.

 

"I think the D could be a little higher" is more much cordial than "your D is WAY off and you need to change this asap" for example. Or the note instead of a find "I'm not a tree climber, but I did see it in the tree; I'll pass for now" rather than a Find log "I can't believe you made this a tree climb! Trees should be protected and respected AND you didn't put the attribute on - I could have skipped this. But I saw it, so I'm claiming it."

(not that I've seen any of these posted anywhere, but just demonstrating that manner of expressing the content is the bigger issue than merely the existence of helpful information in a log ;) )

 

Very true, we can express ourselves in an upset way which makes it more offensive to the reader. I think I made some other not so elegant logs when I was a beginner. Or maybe it was just before I learned who the sensitive CO is.

 

But that is one side of the coin: Expect beginners to have rough edges. They will not have found all the etiqette expected in the hobby.

 

Your example of a bad case, which I hope not to ever see, is one where we could be tempted to reply impolitely. I would do my best to be gentle when replying, but not accept it is a found.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Yes, I do like that "complaint", but no, I don't often immediately change for one single opinion. I don't have to agree, but I can listen, and if a lot of people see a problem, then I might change. Most other people are happy, so it is fine, but I still don't mind that he disagrees. Some see complaints an whining, I see reflections and feedback.

 

I have changed D/T ratings because enough people said in their logs they felt something was underrated or overrated.  I have no problems with those types of constructive criticism whatsoever and if enough people make those types of comments, there's substantiated evidence (from more than one finder) that I probably did over or under rate those caches.  If someone tells me there's a better parking spot than the one I added (or may not have added at all), then I'll absolutely change the cache page to reflect that.  Those are things that help each and every cacher have a better understanding of what that particular cache may entail.

 

However, when people complain/comment about having to climb another tree, that's not constructive.  If they tell me the tree is beginning to rot or has been pruned so that climbers can't reach the limbs to get up anymore, then that's constructive and lets me know that something needs to be done about that stage (or the cache if it's a traditional cache) because it affects ALL cachers.  However, saying they found out they had to do another tree climb isn't telling me anything about my cache that's constructive.  It's telling me that they didn't want to climb another tree.  It's more about them and less about my cache.  

 

Not everyone likes a "cute" container.  I didn't like the aforementioned hanging fish cache because it was in a mall parking lot but lots of other people do as it's got 192 FPs and is #22 in the state.  Telling the CO in your log that this cache would have been better if it had been placed on a hiking trail in the woods near a small pond doesn't mean it would actually be better.  It would just be better for anyone that likes that particular type of hide.  

 

The other hanging bison tube I liked better (due to the location) sits at # 16 in the state and has 222 FPs.  Telling this CO in your log that this cache would have been better if it had a "cuter" outer container (like a fake crystal that could be unscrewed since it's based on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom) around the bison tube doesn't mean it would actually be better.  It would be better for anyone that likes that type of thing.

 

At their essence, they're both bison tubes hanging from fishing line.  One has a "cute" outer container and is placed in a mall parking lot while the other is just a hanging bison tube but is at a location that's much more unique.  Making one more like the other doesn't necessarily make the cache better.  It just appeals to a different type of cacher whose preferences lean one way or another.  Telling them that their caches could have been better if they had done this or that is, to me, telling them that their caches weren't really that good because they think they could have done a better cache if they were the CO.  That's awfully presumptuous and somewhat a slap in the face of the CO, at least in my opinion.

 

I don't mind if they don't like my caches.  I don't mind if they let me know they didn't like my cache.  I know my caches aren't for everyone out there.  Caches that people like and caches that people dislike are usually based upon personal preferences.  Things like a crappy container, a wet log, trash around GZ, or badly rated caches (to name a few things) are generally viewed as things that most cachers don't like.  Most cachers don't enjoy containers that allow logs and swag to get wet and slimy.  Most cachers don't enjoy going to areas where trash has built up.  Most cachers don't like finding a 1 T cache up in the rafters or a 1 D cache that takes more than 30 minutes to find.  Things like a mile long hike in the woods, a particularly devious hide, a confusing but rewarding puzzle (once solved), or a long involved multi are not things that most cachers like.  Many cachers don't want to walk extended distances, many cachers could care less about a devious hide, many don't care about puzzles at all, and many don't want to spend a few hours working on a multi for a single find.  Any type of comment that focuses more on personal preferences than generally accepted norms of caching don't really offer up constructive criticism or feedback that's positive in nature.  The same goes for comments that are positive about the cache that are more about the finder's personal preferences than generally accepted norms.  It just tells me that this particular finder enjoyed my cache because it is similar in style to the types of caches they like.  Unlike a cache that gets negative comments, the feedback is positive but it's still not really constructive in any true manner.  It certainly feels nice to hear that but it doesn't make the cache any better or any worse.  It just reinforces their preference for a particular style of cache.


 

19 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Same things with difficuly and containers. I don't have to change, it is just an opinion, not a command.

 

I've never said that comments in a log are commands and I fully agree with this.  If enough people make the same type of comments about something like D/T ratings or a container that's gone bad, then that would behoove the CO to do something about it.  If everyone makes a comment about climbing yet another tree, then that, to me, tells me that they obviously didn't read the cache description, the attributes, or the logs, all of which mention climbing another tree.  I'm not going to change the cache because they couldn't take the time to read and figure out that there's more than one tree climb.  If they all mention that it's a long hike and they didn't like how long it was, I'm not going to change the cache to make it shorter.  I made it long for a reason and made certain to let them know in advance.  If I hadn't mentioned that in the cache description, then I would certainly need to address it and that would be grounds for changing the cache description.

 

19 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

If that parrot is a good idea, that is something I will judge, it was a reflection, a possibility.

 

I don't want to be told that my cache could be better if I attached the bison tube to a parrot.  That's a purely personal preference.  If I liked containers or ideas like that, I'd probably have done that.  As it is, I typically don't like those types of hides, unless I encounter them in a place that is completely unexpected.  I have a puzzle I've created that involves a triangle and some math. The final is a triangular container placed in a city park that's in the shape of a triangle.  What if many of the cachers said in their logs that this cache would have been better if it were placed along the river trail not too far away because it would have involved a nice walk instead of a quick park and grab? I tried to make this cache a bit more unique than the usual cache and they find my cache and say they would have preferred something else.  How is that a positive thing to say about a cache that you spent some time creating to make it just a little bit more creative than the typical puzzle?

 

20 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

So many good ideas will be lost if people don't dare to share their ideas. But, too many COs can't handle them, as the thread shows.

 

I don't disagree with this sentiment.  I'm all on board with comments about inaccurate ratings, missing attributes, better parking locations, trailheads missing a waypoint, lots of trash at GZ, lots of muggles during certain times of the day, poison ivy growing near the cache, maintenance issues, and safety concerns.  I draw the line at making comments, based on personal preferences, that imply that their suggestion could make the cache experience better than the experience they just had finding it. "I found your cache but I think it would be better if you did this or that to it."  How is a CO supposed to take that as a positive comment or constructive criticism?  They are, in essence, telling you that their idea is better than yours based on what they think "better" means, to them.  It's about what they think you might be able to do to make your cache better.  While that certainly sounds nice, it completely disregards the fact that the CO did put some thought into that particular cache and believed that the cache they hid was set up in a manner (from the cache description, to the verification of coordinates, to the selection of the hiding spot, to the selection of the container best suited for that particular hiding spot, to the D/T ratings, and to the selected attributes) that the CO believed worked best for that particular cache.

 

While I'm not a fan of power trails and I certainly don't enjoy traditional caches like LPCs or GRCs, those COs had to take some time of their own to do the things necessary to get the caches published for others to find.  On those rare occasions I find them, I'm not going to tell the CO that I think they could have had a better cache if they had done this or that.  I find it disrespectful of the time and effort, even if it was minimal, they took to place the cache, even if I don't find much about the hide or the experience particularly gratifying or enjoyable. I just don't believe that a public log that others can read is the place to suggest possible improvements to anyone else's cache, particularly as it applies to suggestions based around personal preferences.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/4/2019 at 7:08 PM, coachstahly said:

While I'm not a fan of power trails and I certainly don't enjoy traditional caches like LPCs or GRCs, those COs had to take some time of their own to do the things necessary to get the caches published for others to find.  On those rare occasions I find them, I'm not going to tell the CO that I think they could have had a better cache if they had done this or that.  I find it disrespectful of the time and effort, even if it was minimal, they took to place the cache, even if I don't find much about the hide or the experience particularly gratifying or enjoyable. I just don't believe that a public log that others can read is the place to suggest possible improvements to anyone else's cache, particularly as it applies to suggestions based around personal preferences.

 

I think you need to clarify LPC and GRC to me. I never heard those abbrevations before (despite being in the hobby for 9 years). There are many abbreviations in this hobby.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

I think you need to clarify LPC and GRC to me. I never heard those abbrevations before (despite being in the hobby for 9 years). There are many abbreviations in this hobby.

LPC = Light Pole Cache

GRC = Guard Rail Cache

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, colleda said:

LPC = Light Pole Cache

GRC = Guard Rail Cache

 

OK, thanks. Not quite as common as the traffic sign caches IMHO (do they have an abbreviation too?) but yes, they are standard solutions. Preferrable for mystery or multi in my book. Not interesting enough for a trad.

 

My favorite abbreviation is FTFTF. That's when someone gets their first FTF on one of my hides. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I found this one interesting:  GC7AJPB

Looks like the owner has been ghosted due to an erroneous NM log (can't see his Geocaches, Stats, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, tallglenn said:

Looks like the owner has been ghosted due to an erroneous NM log (can't see his Geocaches, Stats, etc.).

Hmm... I can see the owner's profile and stats just fine. My guess is that it's related to the recent update and any Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey scripts you're running, or the cookies your browser has stored, or the cookies your browser is allowing, or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like CO has suddenly left the game a year or so ago after being very active. Whatever the reason, there has been no maintenance of the COs caches and they're gradually being archived.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, colleda said:

Looks like CO has suddenly left the game a year or so ago after being very active. Whatever the reason, there has been no maintenance of the COs caches and they're gradually being archived.

 

It looks like this one is also about to be archived because of one unanswered NM about a "tattered log" that's almost full on one side. Yes, I get that the owner's no longer active, but as I said elsewhere, roughly half the caches around here have currently inactive owners and archiving all those for just that reason would make a huge dent in the available caching experience here.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Well, being a CO isn't for everyone.  Can't handle negative,  go find a new hobby. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

What I find weird is the CO writes about himself, " I am a White Male ." :wacko:<_<:rolleyes:

Um, er, what relevance is the non-importance of his complexion?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

What I find weird is the CO writes about himself, " I am a White Male ." :wacko:<_<:rolleyes:

Um, er, what relevance is the non-importance of his complexion?

I am a pink pig.  Happy now? 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, SwineFlew said:

I am a pink pig.  Happy now? 

I would have guessed that from your photograph :lol:. Although, I guess I could have been wrong; it is a b/w image.

 

And you can fly too ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

There are a number of geocaches around me owned by someone who has over 100 caches. They don’t seem to be very active in this area anymore and many of their caches need maintenance (containers replacing). I found one recently that someone had kindly replaced (is that a throw down?). However, a muggle had jumped up and down on it, and there were sharp shards of plastic everywhere. We cleared it up and left the lid where we though the cache might belong. I marked it as NM and messaged the CO offering to adopt it and another in the same location. I’ve not heard from him. I can’t decide if it’s better to maintain caches to keep them going or report as NA to clear the map for new caches. As a relatively new geocacher (almost a year) it’s disappointing to find caches that are unloved. They aren’t particularly interesting caches (standard Tupperware containers) but as someone said above, it will mean less caches in the area. But is quality better than quantity, and placing my own caches better than maintaining someone else neglected ones?

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, EssieandtheBears said:

(is that a throw down?)

Depends.  Technically, a throwdown is described in the related Help Center article like this:

 

" A “throwdown” is a container placed by a geocacher who cannot find the original cache. "

 

If they were a previous Finder, and had merely taken on the maintenance duties unofficially (several problems with this scenario which I'll elaborate later), then technically, it doesn't fit the HQ definition of a throwdown, although it can still create similar issues.

 

6 minutes ago, EssieandtheBears said:

I can’t decide if it’s better to maintain caches to keep them going or report as NA to clear the map for new caches.

On the whole, it's better to Archive the Listing in my opinion, rather than unofficially "adopt" it.  Some of the cons of maintaining abandoned caches is:

 

1. You won't be able to update the coordinates if the need arises to relocate the cache for whatever reason.

2. You won't be able to Edit the Listing page with updated Descriptions or Hints (e.g. change the container size, difficulty, etc.)

3. You won't be able to maintain other aspects of the Listing page, such as bogus log entries or spoiler photos.

  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, EssieandtheBears said:

There are a number of geocaches around me owned by someone who has over 100 caches. They don’t seem to be very active in this area anymore and many of their caches need maintenance (containers replacing).

I found one recently that someone had kindly replaced (is that a throw down?). However, a muggle had jumped up and down on it, and there were sharp shards of plastic everywhere. We cleared it up and left the lid where we though the cache might belong.

I marked it as NM and messaged the CO offering to adopt it and another in the same location. I’ve not heard from him.

I can’t decide if it’s better to maintain caches to keep them going or report as NA to clear the map for new caches.

As a relatively new geocacher (almost a year) it’s disappointing to find caches that are unloved.

They aren’t particularly interesting caches (standard Tupperware containers) but as someone said above, it will mean less caches in the area.

But is quality better than quantity, and placing my own caches better than maintaining someone else neglected ones?

 

When I hear "kindly replaced", I'm automatically thinking of a throwdown.    :)

Guess it's up to you, but you did leave a NM.  I'd move on and forgetaboutit. 

You say they aren't interesting places.  You wouldn't want that mediocre spot, right ?  

I feel keeping track after leaving an NM is a "getting even" mean thing.  We've heard of a couple that keep track to the day and add an NA.

Not sure if they're micro-managers , or what, but it seems creepy that someone pays that much attention and it's not theirs...

 

We haven't seen Tupperware containers used in over ten years. If the site worked I could see where you're finding them.  :D

Funny, but when we joined, the message was "the language of location", and we looked for and hid caches at cool locations,  the container (and it's coordinates) was the means to get you there.

 

Place your own, maintained hides.    Do you want to keep up someone else's carp, or have a rep for your cool caches ?  ;)

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/31/2019 at 8:08 PM, EssieandtheBears said:

There are a number of geocaches around me owned by someone who has over 100 caches. They don’t seem to be very active in this area anymore and many of their caches need maintenance (containers replacing). I found one recently that someone had kindly replaced (is that a throw down?). However, a muggle had jumped up and down on it, and there were sharp shards of plastic everywhere. We cleared it up and left the lid where we though the cache might belong. I marked it as NM and messaged the CO offering to adopt it and another in the same location. I’ve not heard from him. I can’t decide if it’s better to maintain caches to keep them going or report as NA to clear the map for new caches. As a relatively new geocacher (almost a year) it’s disappointing to find caches that are unloved. They aren’t particularly interesting caches (standard Tupperware containers) but as someone said above, it will mean less caches in the area. But is quality better than quantity, and placing my own caches better than maintaining someone else neglected ones?

Log a Needs Maintenance on any cache where needed. Put a Watch on it, then move on. If that listing is archived, you can place a new, well-maintained cache in that area. Everybody wins that way.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 1/1/2020 at 2:19 AM, SwineFlew said:

I am a pink pig.  Happy now? 

 

And I am a yellow cheese :)and that's all I want people to know. Age, sex, color of my skin... who cares?

 

In this hobby, what counts is that I try to be polite to others and be ready to take criticism. Also, to never ever get a cache archived by a reviewer nor be left in the forest after archiving, and to make caches that are better than average. So far it works pretty well.

Edited by Ragnemalm
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/31/2019 at 4:16 PM, barefootjeff said:

Yes, I get that the owner's no longer active, but as I said elsewhere, roughly half the caches around here have currently inactive owners and archiving all those for just that reason would make a huge dent in the available caching experience here.

 

Yes, it sucks when an otherwise good cache gets archived because a minor issue (quickly dealt with) leaves a mark on a listing that remains unaddressed by an inactive owner.

 

But, that individual agreed to maintain their cache and take on due responsibilities as its owner, including maintaining the online listing.  A listing that implies a geocache needs maintenance is not a "clean" cache as it can mislead geocachers who look at the listing. The cache owner is still at fault for not keeping their agreement to remain active as long as they have active listings on the website.

As always, the best answer in those situations is if the listing gets archived due to owner abandonment, then republish a new listing at the same location so it can continue to be enjoyed - even though it's a new listing

(and if you use the same physical container, you may personally take on the risk of being called out for "theft" of property if the old CO decides to come back wondering what happened to their container, or if they had it listed on some other service, or had other uses for it - unless, now, you get the 'okay' from HQ to do so according to the new TOU).

 

Owners can't forget the agreement they sign up for when listing their physical property here. And now with the new TOU their physical property can theoretically be given away to someone else if it's deemed that they've abandoned their cache owner responsibilities and the listing.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Owners can't forget the agreement they sign up for when listing their physical property here. And now with the new TOU their physical property can theoretically be given away to someone else if it's deemed that they've abandoned their cache owner responsibilities and the listing.

 

Yep.   Relates to the theory of a subject rather than its practical application...

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

As always, the best answer in those situations is if the listing gets archived due to owner abandonment, then republish a new listing at the same location so it can continue to be enjoyed - even though it's a new listing

 

Sorry, perhaps I'm missing something here but who is going to republish the listing? In this region, archived caches are rarely replaced with new listings, they just become another part of the map where there are no caches.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

As always, the best answer in those situations is if the listing gets archived due to owner abandonment, then republish a new listing at the same location so it can continue to be enjoyed - even though it's a new listing

 

Sorry, perhaps I'm missing something here but who is going to republish the listing? In this region, archived caches are rarely replaced with new listings, they just become another part of the map where there are no caches.

 

Why, anyone who wants to be a responsible cache owner, of course.

I know your point is that in your area there are few of those people at best, so a cache archival like that is more a reduction in geocaching options than other regions.  But that doesn't change the underlying point. Cache owners who abandon their listings are at fault here. Not HQ. It really is unfortunate if no one in a community wants to help keep the experience of the cache that was just abandoned and archived going for others to enjoy, but fundamentally speaking, that cache owner has to be active to keep their listing current.

 

If a community wants to keep a good cache going that's owned by a known AWOL owner, then they'll have to keep it their proxy maintenance going covertly, under the table, and encourage anyone who may find the cache to not post a NM log which sets a flag that only the CO can remove. And it would need to be under the table, because certainly if it became widely known that geocachers were propping up maintenance-shirkers' caches - whatever their condition - it's a good bet HQ would step in somehow.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Why, anyone who wants to be a responsible cache owner, of course.

I know your point is that in your area there are few of those people at best, so a cache archival like that is more a reduction in geocaching options than other regions.  But that doesn't change the underlying point. Cache owners who abandon their listings are at fault here. Not HQ. It really is unfortunate if no one in a community wants to help keep the experience of the cache that was just abandoned and archived going for others to enjoy, but fundamentally speaking, that cache owner has to be active to keep their listing current.

 

If a community wants to keep a good cache going that's owned by a known AWOL owner, then they'll have to keep it their proxy maintenance going covertly, under the table, and encourage anyone who may find the cache to not post a NM log which sets a flag that only the CO can remove. And it would need to be under the table, because certainly if it became widely known that geocachers were propping up maintenance-shirkers' caches - whatever their condition - it's a good bet HQ would step in somehow.

 

The long-gone CO might be the one at fault but they're not being hurt in any way by the archival, it's the community that ends up the losers in this process that sees caches archived for trivial reasons (in the case that prompted this discussion, a log that's a bit tattered and nearly full on one side). Which is the better outcome for the community in this situation - a spot on the map where there's now no cache or a cache that remains in play with a new log that someone other than the long-gone CO replaced?

 

To this end, and because this is becoming problematic in other parts of the state as well, a couple of years back Geocaching New South Wales formalised this Community Cache arrangement with our local reviewer. Sure it's not ideal, but in cache-poor regions like this one where many of the older cachers have moved on leaving behind some excellent historically-signicant caches that might just need a little bit of TLC occasionally, it's a better outcome for the locals and visitors than not having any caches at all.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The long-gone CO might be the one at fault but they're not being hurt in any way by the archival, it's the community that ends up the losers in this process that sees caches archived for trivial reasons (in the case that prompted this discussion, a log that's a bit tattered and nearly full on one side).

...and a listing that is telling the world the wrong thing.

 

 

7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

To this end, and because this is becoming problematic in other parts of the state as well, a couple of years back Geocaching New South Wales formalised this Community Cache arrangement with our local reviewer.

 

Exactly the solution I was talking about. And if it's condoned, supported, promoted by TPTB (rather than being done covertly by the community), well that's excellent then. Otherwise, it's quite unfortunate for a community.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

But, that individual agreed to maintain their cache and take on due responsibilities as its owner, including maintaining the online listing.

As far as I know, no one's arguing responsibilities here. The point is that a good cache that people could have ignored disappears, making one less cache for people to enjoy. It seems wrongheaded to me to justify that one less cache based on a misguided sense of purity in enforcing an irrelevant responsibility.

 

7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

...and a listing that is telling the world the wrong thing.

Lots of listings tell the world minor wrong things, from bad coordinates to obsolete hints. I don't see an errant NM flag being any more important, and it's certainly less noticed. So I don't see a good case for singling it out for automatic archival.

 

9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Exactly the solution I was talking about. And if it's condoned, supported, promoted by TPTB (rather than being done covertly by the community), well that's excellent then. Otherwise, it's quite unfortunate for a community.

 I continue to advocate for the old approach: if any individual in the community sees an NM and decided it warrants an NA, then they post it, and the reviewer then kicks into gear. If no one posts an NA, then the community accepts the problem of an errant NM, and GS and their reviewers shouldn't get involved. I see no reason for the community getting together and negotiating their preference with GS. Well, I don't think there was a reason until GS started telling reviewers to never bother to wait for NAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

First, once again, I'm not saying I like for "good caches" that have been abandoned to be archived. I'm explaining why it's not a "Bad Thing", and why it's consistent and reasonable. Even though it's unfortunate.

 

22 minutes ago, dprovan said:

As far as I know, no one's arguing responsibilities here.

Well, I am. The owner agreed to be responsible for the listing, not just the physical container. By that clause alone the listing is indeed up for archival by being abandoned by its owner. Can exceptions be made? Sure. Those happen all the time. But for consistency, the general rule is - don't abandon your listing!  That also means clearing NM flags if they are no longer relevant, since they indicate an inaccurate, misleading state of the cache. Sure, a community can assume that they know it's in good condition despite the flag, but geocache listings aren't only for the local community. No one can ever say "everything is in perfect state (just ignore the flag)" and expect everything to be guaranteed hunkydory. And yes of course there could be inaccuracies and misleading errors even with responsible owners. The point isn't about responsible owners, the point is with abandoned listings.

If it comes to the point that HQ believe the owner has effectively abandoned the listing, then yep, it'll get archived.  No way around that, it's consistent, just, and the Right Thing To Do. Even if it sucks.

 

22 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Lots of listings tell the world minor wrong things, from bad coordinates to obsolete hints. I don't see an errant NM flag being any more important, and it's certainly less noticed.

Minor wrong things, bad coordinates, obsolete hints - all responsibilities of an active owner.

NM flag that cannot ever be changed by anyone because the owner has gone AWOL is a different matter (well, same with any of the above issues with an AWOL owner). The listing states the cache needs maintenance. Community says "no it doesn't!" But the community is not the listing, and no one can be blamed for "not getting the community memo" and making their decision based solely on what the [inaccurate] listing states. That's the point.

 

And what if a cache did need maintenance, it got fixed by community, they posted a note saying it was good to go, then right away something else happened?  Now the community is misleading geocachers, when ultimately it should be an issue put on the shoulders of the CO. Which it is. So now the AWOL CO and the proxy-maint community both have unresolved issues with the cache listing that's been abandoned and who knows what state the cache is actually in? Well, except the next innocent bystander geocacher who for whatever reasons decides to go for it.  It's a big huge mess of a situation. Because the cache owner has abandoned the listing and its actual current state can ultimately never be trusted or confirmed by its original owner.

 

It's a bunch of what ifs. But it can happen. We had crazy stories about just these very types of situations throughout the years, and that's why these rules and guidelines exist.

 

Nope, the only way to keep a "good cache" going despite a NM flag and a missing owner, is if

A] the community maintains at the behest of TPTB, or

B] the community maintains covertly and the cache listing never presents a problem only the CO can fix

 

22 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I continue to advocate for the old approach: if any individual in the community sees an NM and decided it warrants an NA, then they post it, and the reviewer then kicks into gear. If no one posts an NA, then the community accepts the problem of an errant NM, and GS and their reviewers shouldn't get involved. I see no reason for the community getting together and negotiating their preference with GS. Well, I don't think there was a reason until GS started telling reviewers to never bother to wait for NAs.

 

I agree, up until someone not "in the community" complains about the cache that seems to be needing Need Maintenance for years.  Will it be up to HQ then to tell that user "go and ask someone in that community to confirm the state of the cache, and ignore the NM flag until you hear back"? There's just so many problems with this situation...

Off paper it seems fine. But making an exception for listings flagged as Needs Maintenance if they have some proxy maintainer is just still so problematic, especially when you have to manage a set of rules for the general global community to keep up a minimal level of responsibility and quality and as little micromanaging as possible.

 

The owner maintains the listing. If the owner abandons the listing, the listing will get archived.  Can't get simpler than that. (Even though in some circumstances it sucks)

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

All that said... I could see room perhaps for a "secondary owner", like a 'next of kin' if anything were to happen to the primary owner, or they for whatever reason decided to up and leave.  Maybe a region could have a set of backup owners as a default.  In publishing a listing the owner could "opt in" to the backup ownership, agreeing to effectively auto-adopt the cache out (and physical property ownership) to another individual or group.

 

I wouldn't see that as a change being made to the global website any time soon, but I could see room for that as option...

Share this post


Link to post

There are also many instances of NM logs that don't mean there's anything wrong with the cache. There's one near me that was hidden in 2008, its CO long gone, that has one outstanding NM dating back to 2010, posted by someone as a heads-up to the CO about roadworks in the area that might have disturbed the cache. It turns out they didn't, the cache survived unscathed and has gone on to have 177 finds logged since then, the most recent being just before Christmas. Back then, an NM was just a wave to the CO suggesting they might want to check on the cache, it didn't mean the cache was unserviceable and ought to be archived if the CO didn't respond. Back then, that's what an NA log was for.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

All that said... I could see room perhaps for a "secondary owner", like a 'next of kin' if anything were to happen to the primary owner, or they for whatever reason decided to up and leave. 

Maybe a region could have a set of backup owners as a default.  In publishing a listing the owner could "opt in" to the backup ownership, agreeing to effectively auto-adopt the cache out (and physical property ownership) to another individual or group.

 

I wouldn't see that as a change being made to the global website any time soon, but I could see room for that as option...

 

That's easy, just give someone else your password.   What could go wrong ?   :D

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

There are also many instances of NM logs that don't mean there's anything wrong with the cache.

 

Of course not. I'm not arguing that a NM always means the cache needs maintenance. On the contrary, the NM implies the state of a cache. Whether it's accurate or not, it's calling for the owner to take action - fix the cache if it needs it, but then remove the flag. Both are responsibilities of the cache owner. Like I keep saying, yes, it sucks if there's nothing wrong with the cache and the cache owner has abandoned the listing. The cache owner should not abandon the listing, which may ultimately be stating the wrong thing about the listing.

 

It's fortunate if the local PTB/reviewership will allow a cache to remain (presumably under an approved proxy-maintenance plan), but they are under no obligation to allow it, because the cache owner has shirked their responsibilities and shirked the geocache listing which will inevitably fall into disrepair dependent upon all that may change over time of which it describes.

See possible option A and B I mention above. Apart from that, well, it sucks. It's unfortunate. But that's the way the cookie crumbles.

 

 

3 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

That's easy, just give someone else your password.   What could go wrong ?  

 

Famous last words :lol:

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 5

×
×
  • Create New...