Bad Cachers

[+CommunistOnions]

Hello. I was just wondering what makes a cacher bad in a community. Full stop, just that.

Edited April 29, 2021 by CommunistOnions

[+kunarion]

Low self-esteem.

[+cerberus1]

6 hours ago, CommunistOnions said:

Hello. I was just wondering what makes a cacher bad in a community.

 

I think that'd depend on the community.  Here, one who didn't want to "fake" finds in any way was shunned by their "community".   

 

But most "bad" cachers we've met were anal, micro-managing monsters, who insisted that everyone in the area play the hobby their way.

One even decided to make himself the "president" of a group.  The groups name was classic and fit. 

After experiencing how crazy this person was, everyone left the group running.   

He finally left the area in a huff, and joined the military.  Hopefully they caught it, and fixed whatever was his problem...

Once people realize these nut cases are like that, they steer clear.  Simple.  This is a fun hobby,  Who needs that kinda carp ? 

 

[+dprovan]

If we set aside what makes a person a bad person in any context and focus specifically on geocaching, what I've noticed is that bad geocachers are the geocachers that don't understand that geocaching is a game that a bunch of people are playing together and, instead, see themselves playing against an impersonal machine that magically creates geocaches solely for their pleasure.

[+AllstarSS]

Geocaching is a game with no winners, but there sure are losers. Losers being the ones that tear communities apart and scare away many good people with their narcissistic, micro-managing, power-grabbing selves. 

Edited April 25, 2021 by AllstarSS

[+Pprime (P`)]

Community norms are important to understand ... and in most larger places (City/state based 'communities') there will be several sub-communities with intertwining 'norms', but there'll be things in common. Anything counter to the norm in some or all parts of the wider community will be perceived as 'bad'. Much more so if the same unwanted behaviour is constantly repeated ad-nauseum in many different places. New players especially cannot expect to change the community norms - not quickly and not alone anyway.

I find that in my broader community it is the naggers that get the bad rep ... those who seem to think that by repeatedly doing or saying something then "everyone else who has been doing this for decades will surely change their ways and do it my way now". No. In no way, No!

My community values (in general) the older caches, and the ones that get us to nice places or are interesting in their own unique ways. To have someone brand new come along and rush out archiving older caches (because of a wet logbook or because the CO appears not to have logged on for a year), gets tagged as 'bad'. See a wet logbook? Put a dry piece of paper in it, sign it and move on. CO hasn't used the website in a year? Maybe they are on the app, maybe they would appreciate some help from  "the community" rather than a nasty NA log without even the courtesy of a NM first. Or just fix the cache up for them and move along to the next one.  Got an "idea" for changing the way everyone plays this game? Really unlikely those with a decade or two of playing under their belts is going to see it the same way. And then to post notes every second day whining that "no one finds my cache" and in a dozen forums, and on reddit and god knows where else? Nagging, constantly annoying people, whining about everything - wins no friends in any established community. I've seen you around the place, and I must say if you want the answer to your question - buy a mirror. Some free advice: take a chill pill, be quiet for a while and observe how everyone else around you is playing, go find a few and resist the urge to complain about them. Maybe read a book or watch a sunset or something as well.

[+barefootjeff]

18 minutes ago, Pprime (P`) said:

See a wet logbook? Put a dry piece of paper in it, sign it and move on.

 

If you did that on one of my caches, you'd surely go on my "bad cachers" list. I put a fair bit of effort into my logbooks and don't want them quietly replaced by a scrap of paper, furthermore if they're wet I really want to know about it because that's a sure sign there's a problem with the cache that's letting water in. I'd much rather get an NM about a wet logbook than to do a routine visit six months later only to discover that my nicely printed logbook (note book, not sheet) has been replaced by a scrap of paper which itself has then turned to pulp because of a defect in the container.

[+Goldenwattle]

48 minutes ago, Pprime (P`) said:

Put a dry piece of paper in it, sign it and move on.

Please don't do that with one of my caches. Log that NM with information with what is wrong. I appreciate that. The scrap I paper I don't appreciate. I will go check out what the problem is myself. NM is for using. The only time I won't use it is for older, remote caches (such as in central Australia) where there are few, likely no other caches and if that cache is archived, it won't be replaced. Travellers tend to maintain them, but for others where there are plenty of caches, log a NM.

Edited April 26, 2021 by Goldenwattle

[+Lynx Humble]

22 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

If you did that on one of my caches, you'd surely go on my "bad cachers" list. I put a fair bit of effort into my logbooks and don't want them quietly replaced by a scrap of paper, furthermore if they're wet I really want to know about it because that's a sure sign there's a problem with the cache that's letting water in. I'd much rather get an NM about a wet logbook than to do a routine visit six months later only to discover that my nicely printed logbook (note book, not sheet) has been replaced by a scrap of paper which itself has then turned to pulp because of a defect in the container.

Well in my area putting a NM on a wet logbook would be putting yourself on the bad cacher list.

[+oz_bean_counter]

56 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

Well in my area putting a NM on a wet logbook would be putting yourself on the bad cacher list.

 

Exactly the same here - and even more so if the cacher in question has an obvious motive for the use of NMs .

 

If I find a wet log , I'll replace it with something like for like, and mention it in my log, but I won't put an NM on a cache. I certainly wouldn't put an NA on a wet log. The CO can read my found it log and act on it. If it appears to be a very special logbook, I might also write a quick message to the CO. But in general, the idea here is helpfulness, not hostility... and I think that is pretty evident from how the logs are worded. We're a community of people with common interests and friendliness and helpfulness goes a long way. 

 

That said, it probably is possible to be helpful while using NMs, especially in an area where the norms are to use them, but again that would be clear in how you write your logs. I've seen some distasteful looking write notes and some kind NM notes. 

 

tl;dr - be helpful not hostile 

 

Happy caching folks.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, Lynx Humble said:

Well in my area putting a NM on a wet logbook would be putting yourself on the bad cacher list.

The NM isn't for the wet log. It's for a cache container that isn't protecting the log.

[+Goldenwattle]

4 minutes ago, niraD said:

The NM isn't for the wet log. It's for a cache container that isn't protecting the log.

Which is why most logs get wet. People might replace the log, but that won't solve the problem. That's why I log NMs.

[+oz_bean_counter]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

The NM isn't for the wet log. It's for a cache container that isn't protecting the log.

 

Sometimes it is just that the previous cacher didn't close the cache container properly! Frustrating, but it happens.

 

All this is a bit of a moot point though. Context matters and that is going to vary cache to cache. If a genuine intent for helpfulness is coming through in the logs, be they a write note, in the found it log, or in the NM log, none of these issues really matter. Sure, there are regional norms that vary, but the intent is usually clear. Good intent = good cacher, bad intent = bad cacher. 

[+barefootjeff]

10 hours ago, oz_bean_counter said:

If I find a wet log , I'll replace it with something like for like, and mention it in my log, but I won't put an NM on a cache. I certainly wouldn't put an NA on a wet log. The CO can read my found it log and act on it. If it appears to be a very special logbook, I might also write a quick message to the CO. But in general, the idea here is helpfulness, not hostility... and I think that is pretty evident from how the logs are worded. We're a community of people with common interests and friendliness and helpfulness goes a long way.

 

How is an NM hostile? It's a heads-up to the CO about a likely problem that needs their attention, not a reprimand, or at least that's how I see it. I want finders to have the best possible experience of my hides but I can't check on my caches every day, so in between my routine visits I rely on finders to report any problems they observe. An NM is helping me to do my job, even if it turns out to be a false alarm. If there's water in my cache, I want to know how it got there so I can stop it from happening in the future. If it turns out to be due to someone not closing the lid properly or signing the log during a downpour then fine, these things happen and I can either dry it out if it's recoverable or replace it if it's not, but I still want to be the one to do it. If that makes me a bad cacher then so be it, but we sure live in a topsy-turvy world.

[+fuzziebear3]

So this discussion goes exactly to what PPrime said.   You need to figure out the norms in your community, and even down to individual cachers.   Some places community maintenance is encouraged; other places not so much.  Some cache owners welcome maintenance, or even throwdowns, while others do not. 

 

But in either case, it doesn't really make you a bad cacher, or a bad cache owner.  Intention, trying to be helpful, and communication with the cache owner will work out the best.  Get to know the people in your community to establish rapport with them and understand their positions. 

[+justintim1999]

I try not to confuse "Bad" with "Inexperienced".    I can't think of any bad cachers. 

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I try not to confuse "Bad" with "Inexperienced".    I can't think of any bad cachers. 

 

 

I think I'd classify the one who urinated in my cache as "bad". Even an inexperienced cacher ought to realise that's not how you sign the log.

[+The Jester]

22 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

If you did that on one of my caches, you'd surely go on my "bad cachers" list. I put a fair bit of effort into my logbooks and don't want them quietly replaced by a scrap of paper, furthermore if they're wet I really want to know about it because that's a sure sign there's a problem with the cache that's letting water in. I'd much rather get an NM about a wet logbook than to do a routine visit six months later only to discover that my nicely printed logbook (note book, not sheet) has been replaced by a scrap of paper which itself has then turned to pulp because of a defect in the container.

I'm not seeing where he said "replace" the wet log, but "add" a dry sheet signed.  

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, The Jester said:

I'm not seeing where he said "replace" the wet log, but "add" a dry sheet signed.  

 

So if the wet logbook is still in there, how long will that dry piece of paper stay dry? "See a wet logbook? Put a dry piece of paper in it, sign it and move on" implies to me that it's bad form to bother the CO about it, but that's just the sort of thing I want to be bothered about.

[+The Jester]

Just now, barefootjeff said:

 

So if the wet logbook is still in there, how long will that dry piece of paper stay dry? "See a wet logbook? Put a dry piece of paper in it, sign it and move on" implies to me that it's bad form to bother the CO about it, but that's just the sort of thing I want to be bothered about.

Sorry, it sounded like you were complaining that the logbook was replaced, not that you weren't told about it.  Every time I've found a wet log (to the point of not usable) I add a sheet in a separate baggie, but mention it in the log & generally a NM.

[+thebruce0]

And, a new dry sheet added to the container doesn't imply that it will become THE logbook and never have issues. It's a bandaid. I'd do that and say so in my log, so that the CO can decide whether and when to come and fix the 'bad' logbook - but at least the old log is there for them, and it allows, for at least a short while, other geocachers to continue to sign something.

 

 

So, knowing that local community norms vary from place to place, the 'safest' way to not step on anyone's toes is the hands-off approach. If you're not sure whether doing something would be seen as helpful or hostile, especially if you're from out of town, no matter how nicely worded you explain what you did and your good intentions, the best thing would be to do what need to do for your own logging according to cache-logging rules, and leave everything as close to the way you found it as possible.

I'd do that and in the log text explain how I found it and how I left it. If someone wants to get on my case for not 'proxy' helping, so be it - that's not the finder's responsibility. And I'm long gone by then too

 

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

So, knowing that local community norms vary from place to place, the 'safest' way to not step on anyone's toes is the hands-off approach. If you're not sure whether doing something would be seen as helpful or hostile, especially if you're from out of town, no matter how nicely worded you explain what you did and your good intentions, the best thing would be to do what need to do for your own logging according to cache-logging rules, and leave everything as close to the way you found it as possible.

I'd do that and in the log text explain how I found it and how I left it. If someone wants to get on my case for not 'proxy' helping, so be it - that's not the finder's responsibility. And I'm long gone by then too

 

 

Maybe we need a Community Maintenance/No Community Maintenance attribute .

Edited April 28, 2021 by barefootjeff

[+Lostboy1966]

Handlebar mustaches and stovepipe hats, preferably with a black cape.

[+niraD]

17 minutes ago, Lostboy1966 said:

Handlebar mustaches and stovepipe hats, preferably with a black cape.

"I'm thinking of growing a big black mustache. I'm a traditionalist."

- Simon Tam (Firefly, "War Stories")

[+oz_bean_counter]

16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

How is an NM hostile? 

 

I've since expanded my point - see below. Happy caching

 

On 4/27/2021 at 12:26 PM, oz_bean_counter said:

 

Context matters and that is going to vary cache to cache. If a genuine intent for helpfulness is coming through in the logs, be they a write note, in the found it log, or in the NM log, none of these issues really matter. Sure, there are regional norms that vary, but the intent is usually clear. Good intent = good cacher, bad intent = bad cacher. 

 

 

[+Pprime (P`)]

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So if the wet logbook is still in there, how long will that dry piece of paper stay dry? "See a wet logbook? Put a dry piece of paper in it, sign it and move on" implies to me that it's bad form to bother the CO about it, but that's just the sort of thing I want to be bothered about.

 

Yeah, I would definitely add to my statement that you would tell the CO what you did. And if the logbook is 'special' and not just a piece of paper itself that would be different. A note to the CO, and a photo to prove I was there (as a message usually) in that case.
My point was it is rare that a cache being found regularly with no hint of an issue deserves a straight Needs Archived just because the logsheet is wet. A comment, message or a note, or at most a NM is all that warrants. 

[+kunarion]

14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I think I'd classify the one who urinated in my cache as "bad". Even an inexperienced cacher ought to realise that's not how you sign the log.

 

That's how one signs one's name in snow.  

 

I once cleaned a urine-filled cache at an RV park.  I had access to soap and water, and extra log sheets.  I made a standard "it was wet" Found It log, and sent the CO a more detailed story.  I will not do all that every day, but this time I did.  OK, lots of people insist that a unrinater isn't a bad cacher, because that's no geocacher, it's just someone who found the geocache.  

 

Someone placed a poop in my ammo box cache that hung in a tree.  They lowered the container, sealed the poop inside, raised the container back in place, and made no note about it.  The next cacher found it, understandably grossed-out.  If nobody can think of a bad cacher, I can hardly wait til there is one that could be called "bad cacher".  

[+MsGumshoe]

Hello Everyone. Reading these comments has led me to some questions re: bad cachers and etiquette. I’m pretty new at this but on more than one occasion  I have found a cache that did not have a logbook or a piece of paper at all.  I see that some COs consider it bad form for a cacher to put a piece of paper in the cache. Isn’t one of the rules: “you can’t log it as found if you didn’t sign the logbook? In my experience so far, I have added a piece of paper when one isn't enclosed, and noted it in the log.  I’m not going to mark it as a DNF after making the effort to find it. I wouldn’t code it as NM unless the cache is really beat up... I wouldn’t want another cacher to not go looking for that particular cache because it’s marked NM only because it was missing a logbook.  That being said, I also wouldn’t personally message the CO if it was only missing a logbook  but everything else was intact,  because I am under the impression that CO’s watch their hides and read the logs,  so when I state that there was no logbook, and that luckily I had a piece of paper on me and enclosed it, I imagine the CO would see that. Does that make me a bad cacher? ????‍♀️

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, MsGumshoe said:

Hello Everyone. Reading these comments has led me to some questions re: bad cachers and etiquette. I’m pretty new at this but on more than one occasion  I have found a cache that did not have a logbook or a piece of paper at all.  I see that some COs consider it bad form for a cacher to put a piece of paper in the cache. Isn’t one of the rules: “you can’t log it as found if you didn’t sign the logbook? In my experience so far, I have added a piece of paper when one isn't enclosed, and noted it in the log.  I’m not going to mark it as a DNF after making the effort to find it. I wouldn’t code it as NM unless the cache is really beat up... I wouldn’t want another cacher to not go looking for that particular cache because it’s marked NM only because it was missing a logbook.  That being said, I also wouldn’t personally message the CO if it was only missing a logbook  but everything else was intact,  because I am under the impression that CO’s watch their hides and read the logs,  so when I state that there was no logbook, and that luckily I had a piece of paper on me and enclosed it, I imagine the CO would see that. Does that make me a bad cacher? ????‍♀️

 

Yes, you're terrible!  Bad cacher!  

 

And I used to do the exact same thing.  I had extra log sheets inside little ziplock bags, ready for when I found soaking wet cache contents.  Instant "Find", log is now perfect, it's a win-win, right?  But I began to notice that caches were stuffed full of the wads of soaking wet logs of helpful finders.  I won't participate in that anymore.  If I can dry any one of the wads of log sheets enough to sign, I'll do that -- if I feel like hanging around letting a log dry.  If it's unmaintained, a crappy container, in an uninteresting place that I don't even want to explore, what is the value of this cache?  Is this a cache that I want to help remain here for a little longer -- that I want to help the CO avoid maintaining for a while longer?

 

For me, this idea started after I had been caching for only one month.  A cache was "full of water", "wet and smelly", and worse.  I did not log a Find, I walked away.  No way I'm "Finding" that Geocache, that was so gross!  That got the cache archived, and a better cache in its place, a suitable outcome.

 

People do place little slips of paper in this case.  I won't do that anymore.  Your mileage may vary! 

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by kunarion

[+barefootjeff]

4 minutes ago, MsGumshoe said:

That being said, I also wouldn’t personally message the CO if it was only missing a logbook  but everything else was intact,  because I am under the impression that CO’s watch their hides and read the logs,  so when I state that there was no logbook, and that luckily I had a piece of paper on me and enclosed it, I imagine the CO would see that.

 

I don't get many finds on my caches, in fact some months I don't get any, but when I do they often come in batches, with the email notifications usually arriving when I'm in the middle of doing something else. A few years back I got this log on one of my hides:

 

Quote

Found it

Found 4:20 pm with a companion. I was out to pick something up for my companion and we spoke about lunch and we decided to come down to Hardys Bay at Kilcare to have lunch at the cafe. Now that I was here I said I should see what caches are around. Asking my companion if interested in tackling this multi the answer was yes. So after lunch we headed over to the trailhead for this cache then we set off after finding where the track started after some messing around to find it. I should've read the description properly first. We headed up to the first coordinates and found the sign so we knew we were on the right track. After getting the required information we headed up to the first waterfall worked out which waterfall picture it was and then on to the second waterfall. We found it a little more difficult going and my companion decided to stop and wait whilst I continued on my own and I went up to the second falls found three kids there on their way down. After determining the required information I made my way tortuously to the third falls. Locating these and taking my snaps I then headed back down slipping and sliding at times. Back to where I had left my companion to find no one there. Hmm not being sure decided to go back down the trail and I then found my companion at the first falls. From there we made our careful way back to the geovehicle. At the geovehicle did some calculations and then over to where I could get phone reception. I noticed in this area I couldn't get any Optus signal. Moments later where I could get a signal I knew where we had to go and then off we went to locate GZ. After stopping to admire the view we located GZ and the cache was found in short order. In fact it was somewhat exposed. Signed the log and returned the cache to its hide, hiding it a little better than it was.
Thanks for the cache.

 

This all looked pretty typical for a find on that cache and, my fault I know, I didn't pick up on the last two sentences of that big long first paragraph, or if I did I was probably thinking that the cache had been visible under its rock ledge and the finder had simply put its camo rock back in place. It was only when I bumped into another cacher a few weeks later that I learnt the cache had been sitting out in the open a few metres from where it was meant to be and the finder's "hiding it a little better than it was" involved just covering it with some sticks and bark. Needless to say I dashed up to GZ as soon as I could, amazed it hadn't been muggled in all that time and wishing that finder had logged an NM when he found it sitting out in the open and wasn't sure where it was meant to be. If he had I'd have been up there in a flash.

 

I can only imagine that a CO who gets many logs coming in could easily miss a wet or missing log mentioned in passing amongst all the usual stuff one comes to expect in logs. An NM, though, is much harder to overlook and I really don't know why its use is so frowned upon. Or am I the only CO who wants to be responsible for maintaining my caches?

[+TriciaG]

1 hour ago, MsGumshoe said:

Hello Everyone. Reading these comments has led me to some questions re: bad cachers and etiquette. I’m pretty new at this but on more than one occasion  I have found a cache that did not have a logbook or a piece of paper at all.  I see that some COs consider it bad form for a cacher to put a piece of paper in the cache. Isn’t one of the rules: “you can’t log it as found if you didn’t sign the logbook? In my experience so far, I have added a piece of paper when one isn't enclosed, and noted it in the log.  I’m not going to mark it as a DNF after making the effort to find it. I wouldn’t code it as NM unless the cache is really beat up... I wouldn’t want another cacher to not go looking for that particular cache because it’s marked NM only because it was missing a logbook.  That being said, I also wouldn’t personally message the CO if it was only missing a logbook  but everything else was intact,  because I am under the impression that CO’s watch their hides and read the logs,  so when I state that there was no logbook, and that luckily I had a piece of paper on me and enclosed it, I imagine the CO would see that. Does that make me a bad cacher? ????‍♀️

Are you sure it was the cache, and not either some random piece of trash, or a physical stage of a multi-cache?
I probably would have done the same thing, if I was sure it was the final and actual cache. But I would have logged a NM along with adding the paper in the cache. Some COs have hundreds of finds and don't read the Found It logs, so a NM log will stand out for them (and for "regular" cache owners). But to answer your question: no, it doesn't make you a bad cacher.

[+frostengel]

On 4/25/2021 at 9:47 AM, CommunistOnions said:

Hello. I was just wondering what makes a cacher bad in a community.

 

Geocachers are people so whatever makes people bad makes geocachers bad, too: bad manner when talking to you, don't caring for others stuff (e. g. caches by other owners), ..... long list!

 

Or do you want to know what makes a cacher bad as cachers especially? I would make two lists here:

 

1) Be a bad finder by ...

- ... getting mystery and multi finals from online data bases or cheating in any other way.

- ... not taking care for caches and stages (for example when putting the logbook back).

- ... using copy and paste logs for each cache.

In general: ... putting your own statistics (that's everything, of coruse) higher then the demands of the owners forgetting that these are the people who take time and money to just create th caches.

 

2) Be a bad hider by ...

- ... hiding uninteresting caches, mainly micro traditional caches in boring places.

- ... not being any creative with their own caches (hide and listing). Look in your hidden profile and you see an example: seven caches which are absolutely the same.

- ... being resistant to good advice (you don't have to to everything others suggest but think about it) especially when they have done something wrong.

- ... don't maintaining their caches though several finds have told about a problem.

 

Both:

- ... don't caring about environment, animals, people nearby, ...

 

And there is much more but without exactly knowing what's your purpose with the question - posts like yours are what makes a bad forum user - that should be enough by now.

You posted the topic and haven't replied at all - that's not how communication in the forum works. :-(

 

Jochen

[+niraD]

[+MsGumshoe]

1 hour ago, TriciaG said:

Are you sure it was the cache, and not either some random piece of trash, or a physical stage of a multi-cache?
I probably would have done the same thing, if I was sure it was the final and actual cache. But I would have logged a NM along with adding the paper in the cache. Some COs have hundreds of finds and don't read the Found It logs, so a NM log will stand out for them (and for "regular" cache owners). But to answer your question: no, it doesn't make you a bad cacher.

Thanks. ?Of course every cache situation is different and needs to be assessed  as to what course of action to take,  in my experience so far these are definitely marked, single Geocaches that are in perfect condition except for not having a log. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by MsGumshoe

[+MsGumshoe]

2 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

Yes, you're terrible!  Bad cacher!  

 

And I used to do the exact same thing.  I had extra log sheets inside little ziplock bags, ready for when I found soaking wet cache contents.  Instant "Find", log is now perfect, it's a win-win, right?  But I began to notice that caches were stuffed full of the wads of soaking wet logs of helpful finders.  I won't participate in that anymore.  If I can dry any one of the wads of log sheets enough to sign, I'll do that -- if I feel like hanging around letting a log dry.  If it's unmaintained, a crappy container, in an uninteresting place that I don't even want to explore, what is the value of this cache?  Is this a cache that I want to help remain here for a little longer -- that I want to help the CO avoid maintaining for a while longer?

 

For me, this idea started after I had been caching for only one month.  A cache was "full of water", "wet and smelly", and worse.  I did not log a Find, I walked away.  No way I'm "Finding" that Geocache, that was so gross!  That got the cache archived, and a better cache in its place, a suitable outcome.

 

People do place little slips of paper in this case.  I won't do that anymore.  Your mileage may vary! 

 

Thanks. ? Of course every cache situation is different and needs to be assessed  as to what course of action to take. Luckily these few caches were in perfect condition except for no log. I hope I don’t run into any of the WORSE ones!  Happy caching ?

Edited just now by MsGumshoe

[+MsGumshoe]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I don't get many finds on my caches, in fact some months I don't get any, but when I do they often come in batches, with the email notifications usually arriving when I'm in the middle of doing something else. A few years back I got this log on one of my hides:

 

 

This all looked pretty typical for a find on that cache and, my fault I know, I didn't pick up on the last two sentences of that big long first paragraph, or if I did I was probably thinking that the cache had been visible under its rock ledge and the finder had simply put its camo rock back in place. It was only when I bumped into another cacher a few weeks later that I learnt the cache had been sitting out in the open a few metres from where it was meant to be and the finder's "hiding it a little better than it was" involved just covering it with some sticks and bark. Needless to say I dashed up to GZ as soon as I could, amazed it hadn't been muggled in all that time and wishing that finder had logged an NM when he found it sitting out in the open and wasn't sure where it was meant to be. If he had I'd have been up there in a flash.

 

I can only imagine that a CO who gets many logs coming in could easily miss a wet or missing log mentioned in passing amongst all the usual stuff one comes to expect in logs. An NM, though, is much harder to overlook and I really don't know why its use is so frowned upon. Or am I the only CO who wants to be responsible for maintaining my caches?

That cacher sure left you a short story! ? 

[+Max and 99]

3 hours ago, MsGumshoe said:

. I wouldn’t code it as NM unless the cache is really beat up...

It's really important to log a need maintenance instead of just adding a sheet of paper. If you had, maybe the person who found the cache a month after you wouldn't have had to dump all the water out. 

[+kunarion]

On 4/28/2021 at 11:50 AM, Max and 99 said:

It's really important to log a need maintenance instead of just adding a sheet of paper. If you had, maybe the person who found the cache a month after you wouldn't have had to dump all the water out. 

 

+1

 

It also helps get a cache started to a well-deserved Archive.  So many are like, just wow, it's been soaking wet for 3 years, people are just logging "Finds", with an occasional mention of an ever-increasing grodiness.  Don't make me be the only one doing NM on these things.  Don't be a bad cacher.   

 

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by kunarion

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, frostengel said:

 

Geocachers are people so whatever makes people bad makes geocachers bad, too: bad manner when talking to you, don't caring for others stuff (e. g. caches by other owners), ..... long list!

 

Or do you want to know what makes a cacher bad as cachers especially? I would make two lists here:

 

1) Be a bad finder by ...

- ... getting mystery and multi finals from online data bases or cheating in any other way.

- ... not taking care for caches and stages (for example when putting the logbook back).

- ... using copy and paste logs for each cache.

In general: ... putting your own statistics (that's everything, of coruse) higher then the demands of the owners forgetting that these are the people who take time and money to just create th caches.

 

2) Be a bad hider by ...

- ... hiding uninteresting caches, mainly micro traditional caches in boring places.

- ... not being any creative with their own caches (hide and listing). Look in your hidden profile and you see an example: seven caches which are absolutely the same.

- ... being resistant to good advice (you don't have to to everything others suggest but think about it) especially when they have done something wrong.

- ... don't maintaining their caches though several finds have told about a problem.

 

Both:

- ... don't caring about environment, animals, people nearby, ...

 

And there is much more but without exactly knowing what's your purpose with the question - posts like yours are what makes a bad forum user - that should be enough by now.

You posted the topic and haven't replied at all - that's not how communication in the forum works. :-(

 

Jochen

I just can't get all worked up about all that.   All you can do about most of it is log your NM and move on.   The only thing I can really control is my own geocaches.   Lead by example and sooner or later people with notice.  

 

I think you'd be better off if you'd stop obsessing about what others are doing (or not doing)  and concentrate on enjoying the experience.

 

People choose to play the game all kinds of ways.   Why not just let them do that?     

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, frostengel said:

On 4/25/2021 at 3:47 AM, CommunistOnions said:

Hello. I was just wondering what makes a cacher bad in a community.

Geocachers are people so whatever makes people bad makes geocachers bad, too

That was my thought as well. What kinds of things make anyone bad in a community? It really doesn't matter what kind of community: a workplace, a homeowners' association, a youth sports club, a hobby club, a non-profit service organization, a group of friends who get together for dinner a couple times a month, whatever...

 

As a kindergartener, did you learn how to "play well with others"?

[+MsGumshoe]

58 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

It's really important to log a need maintenance instead of just adding a sheet of paper. If you had, maybe the person who found the cache a month after you wouldn't have had to dump all the water out. 

I understand that, but I’m speaking about caches that are in perfect condition not a waterlogged cache. Every situation is different and needs to be assessed as to what steps to take. But I wouldn’t want to necessarily mark it as NM because many people would not search for it in that case. I would note it in the log and if it was warranted I would personally message the CO. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by MsGumshoe

[+ByronForestPreserve]

On 4/25/2021 at 9:50 AM, cerberus1 said:

 

I think that'd depend on the community.  Here, one who didn't want to "fake" finds in any way was shunned by their "community".   

 

But most "bad" cachers we've met were anal, micro-managing monsters, who insisted that everyone in the area play the hobby their way.

One even decided to make himself the "president" of a group.  The groups name was classic and fit. 

After experiencing how crazy this person was, everyone left the group running.   

He finally left the area in a huff, and joined the military.  Hopefully they caught it, and fixed whatever was his problem...

Once people realize these nut cases are like that, they steer clear.  Simple.  This is a fun hobby,  Who needs that kinda carp ? 

 

My area had a caching family banned several years ago. They put out very difficult caches and policed the heck out of them. I found a relatively easy one and got a message a couple days later: "We didn't see your name on the log and we think you didn't find it, we're going to remove your log." I replied by describing the find in detail, to which they said, "Oh, that was the OLD container. You didn't find the new one."  I sometimes wondered if micromanaging their cache logs was their full-time job. 

 

I'm also convinced, but cannot prove, that they had bogus accounts to "find" caches that got NM or NA logs to make it look like the cache was in good shape. Actually, maybe someone proved it and that's why they were banned....

[+Max and 99]

11 minutes ago, MsGumshoe said:

I understand that, but I’m speaking about caches that are in perfect condition not a waterlogged cache. Every situation is different and needs to be assessed as to what steps to take. But I wouldn’t want to necessarily mark it as NM because many people would not search for it in that case. I would note it in the log and if it was warranted I would personally message the CO. 

I'm talking about a cache where the contents are wet and you just added a new piece of paper. Noting an issue in your log and personally messaging the cache owner did not provide the sufficient notification for future seekers. Needs Maintenance is the proper log. The person who found the cache a month after you dumped out a bunch of water. 

11 minutes ago, MsGumshoe said:

But I wouldn’t want to necessarily mark it as NM because many people would not search for it in that case

 

If there's a cache whose contents are wet, you don't want people coming to find it!!  You want the maintenance issue taken care of first, before they come looking for it. 

 

From The Help Center:

If you find a geocache in need of help (e.g. logbook is full or container is damaged), add a “Report a problem” option to your log.

 

When you select “Report a problem” on Geocaching.com, the system adds a “Needs Maintenance” log and an attribute Needs maintenance attribute to the page to alert the cache owner and other geocachers that the cache may need attention

[+justintim1999]

3 hours ago, ByronForestPreserve said:

My area had a caching family banned several years ago. They put out very difficult caches and policed the heck out of them. I found a relatively easy one and got a message a couple days later: "We didn't see your name on the log and we think you didn't find it, we're going to remove your log." I replied by describing the find in detail, to which they said, "Oh, that was the OLD container. You didn't find the new one."  I sometimes wondered if micromanaging their cache logs was their full-time job. 

 

I'm also convinced, but cannot prove, that they had bogus accounts to "find" caches that got NM or NA logs to make it look like the cache was in good shape. Actually, maybe someone proved it and that's why they were banned....

I have no problem with someone following the guidelines to a T.    If you are a cache owner I'm sure you've had your share of "Didn't sign the log.   Forgot a pen".  I can't remember the last time I've forgotten a pen but if for some reason I didn't sign the log I wouldn't expect the cache owner to let it slide.   They have every right to delete my find and I'd double check my bag to make sure I had a couple of pens with me next time.      

 

I consider myself a responsible cache owner but I can count on one finger the number of finds I've deleted. 

 

I guess I'm just to darn trusting.  I could never be a judge (or reviewer).....everyone would be innocent.   

 

 

[+MsGumshoe]

5 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I'm talking about a cache where the contents are wet and you just added a new piece of paper. Noting an issue in your log and personally messaging the cache owner did not provide the sufficient notification for future seekers. Needs Maintenance is the proper log. The person who found the cache a month after you dumped out a bunch of water. 

 

If there's a cache whose contents are wet, you don't want people coming to find it!!  You want the maintenance issue taken care of first, before they come looking for it. 

 

From The Help Center:

If you find a geocache in need of help (e.g. logbook is full or container is damaged), add a “Report a problem” option to your log.

 

When you select “Report a problem” on Geocaching.com, the system adds a “Needs Maintenance” log and an attribute Needs maintenance attribute to the page to alert the cache owner and other geocachers that the cache may need attention

I didn’t disagree with you about proper protocol for a soaking wet logbook or cache, but it seems you’re speaking to me is if I personally placed a sheet of paper inside a soaking wet cache and then did nothing about it. If so can you tell me which one it was?  Thanks 

[+cerberus1]

10 hours ago, MsGumshoe said:

I have found a cache that did not have a logbook or a piece of paper at all.

 I see that some COs consider it bad form for a cacher to put a piece of paper in the cache. Isn’t one of the rules: “you can’t log it as found if you didn’t sign the logbook? In my experience so far, I have added a piece of paper when one isn't enclosed, and noted it in the log.  I’m not going to mark it as a DNF after making the effort to find it. I wouldn’t code it as NM unless the cache is really beat up... I wouldn’t want another cacher to not go looking for that particular cache because it’s marked NM only because it was missing a logbook.  That being said, I also wouldn’t personally message the CO if it was only missing a logbook  but everything else was intact,  because I am under the impression that CO’s watch their hides and read the logs,  so when I state that there was no logbook, and that luckily I had a piece of paper on me and enclosed it, I imagine the CO would see that.

Does that make me a bad cacher?

 

No.   Idealistic maybe ...      

We know many folks who simply do not act on their logs from cache finds for maintenance issues, and wait until someone leaves a NM.

We understand you're thinking, but we're one of only a couple in our entire area that do act on logs. Most think someone will "help out".

 - That's why we now have a Cache Health Score...

If the cache needs some paper, we'll leave a small rite in rain strip to tide the CO over until they can do maintenance, and then leave a NM.

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by cerberus1
an 's...

[+Max and 99]

I'll try this from a different perspective and keeping with the subject of this thread. 

 

And keeping it general...

 

If I go to find a geocache and there's so much water in it that I have to dump it out I will wonder why the person before me who found it didn't log a needs maintenance when they knew water was getting inside. 

I would certainly not call that person a bad cacher for that, but I would say that they should have logged an NM. This is exactly what the NM log is for. 

 

[+oz_bean_counter]

2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I'll try this from a different perspective and keeping with the subject of this thread. 

 

And keeping it general...

 

If I go to find a geocache and there's so much water in it that I have to dump it out I will wonder why the person before me who found it didn't log a needs maintenance when they knew water was getting inside. 

I would certainly not call that person a bad cacher for that, but I would say that they should have logged an NM. This is exactly what the NM log is for. 

 

GC930HD

[+coachstahly]

11 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I'll try this from a different perspective and keeping with the subject of this thread. 

 

And keeping it general...

 

If I go to find a geocache and there's so much water in it that I have to dump it out I will wonder why the person before me who found it didn't log a needs maintenance when they knew water was getting inside. 

I would certainly not call that person a bad cacher for that, but I would say that they should have logged an NM. This is exactly what the NM log is for. 

 

 

You're under the assumption that the container was an issue from the find before yours.  What if they were the ones that improperly closed the container, which allowed the water to get inside?  What if a critter found it and chewed a hole in it during that gap in time?  What if a muggle found it and left it so that it would fill up with water?  What if the container was dry when they found it?

 

There are so many variables that can come into play between finds that I rarely fault the previous cacher for any issues I may come upon while out caching.  There are some obvious exceptions and the logs generally support those exceptions (repeated notes of a wet log) but sometimes the find between mine and the previous one result in a change in the cache's status that wasn't previously an issue or one that wasn't an issue at the time because the environment wasn't right for that issue to appear.  The fact that I also focus more on non-traditional caches means that there's usually a larger gap in time between finds, making it harder to pinpoint a specific time when something occurred that caused the deterioration of the container and the contents inside.

 

Is the log wet because the container is no longer good or is it wet because the container was closed improperly (decon only snapped shut on 3 of the 4 corners, ammo can closed with something sticking out that ruins the integrity of the rubber gasket on the lid) or is it wet because the log was signed in the rain and stayed wet because the container is still doing its job?

[+Max and 99]

4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

You're under the assumption that the container was an issue from the find before yours

I'm not assuming it. In my scenario, the previous finder's log stated it was wet inside the container. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Max and 99