Jump to content

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

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.   

 

 

Well, the problem was that they replaced the hide but didn't remove the old container, then deleted my log when I found their geotrash. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
2 hours ago, ByronForestPreserve said:

Well, the problem was that they replaced the hide but didn't remove the old container, then deleted my log when I found their geotrash. 

My comment was responding more to deleting a find because of the "I didn't have a pen" thing.    

 

In your case I don't agree with having your find deleted.     I also think one smiley isn't worth the time and effort. 

 

 

  • Funny 1
Link to post
On 4/27/2021 at 5:40 PM, 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 not what "wet logbook" means.

  • Funny 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

They're happy to claim smileys on a cache they couldn't reach and say it needs maintenance in their logs

They may be new and not realize the value in different log types (or even that they posted a find). Also, 'bad cacher' could apply to the CO who isn't contacting them and asking them to edit their log to be appropriate (I try to do that if it's clearly an inconsistent log type).

It also bugs me when there are finds (valid) all saying the cache coords are inaccurate, upwards of 10m off, without really providing any other descriptions, and especially without providing their own coordinates to perhaps make things easier... and then those COs who if it seems many are reporting bad coordinates make no effort to adjust their cache.

Maybe this is an irk topic :P

  • Funny 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

They may be new and not realize the value in different log types (or even that they posted a find). Also, 'bad cacher' could apply to the CO who isn't contacting them and asking them to edit their log to be appropriate (I try to do that if it's clearly an inconsistent log type).

 

One of them is a newbie but the other three have been in the game for several years and ought to know by now what constitutes a find and what an NM log is for. The CO has been inactive for some time and many of their other hides have already been reviewer archived. This one really ought to follow the same fate but people will have to start logging DNFs, NMs and ultimately an NA for that to happen.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

For me, there are a few bad cacher types, on various degrees of bad. They have one thing in common: No regard for others.

- Cache saboteurs. In the worst case, they damage the cache, intentionally or not. They break locks, pry boxes open, disassemble what should not be taken apart. Others leave it in a bad state that ruins the experience for others, not putting things back properly.

- Throwdowns. Didn't solve the puzzle? Just put in a fake log! Didn't find the cache? Or couldn't reach it? Hang a petling at face hight and pretend it is the cache.

- Copy-pasters. Looong boring logs about nothing (just to fake that author badge) and not a single word about the cache, on a special, unique cache with much work in it. Yes it is legal. Legal to be impolite. I don't mind a TFTC much, but getting piles and piles of these boring copy-paste logs on something I have worked hard on... it makes me considering quitting the hobby. Really.

- People who can't communicate. People who misunderstand everything, takes offense when you try to help them, or don't respond. Can be both COs and finders.

 

But now I'd better think about the good cachers. Cachers who have fun and let me know it. Cachers that are careful. Cachers that you can talk to.

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

- Copy-pasters. Looong boring logs about nothing (just to fake that author badge) and not a single word about the cache, on a special, unique cache with much work in it. Yes it is legal. Legal to be impolite. I don't mind a TFTC much, but getting piles and piles of these boring copy-paste logs on something I have worked hard on... it makes me considering quitting the hobby. Really.

 

"One of 35 caches I found today with Cacher A, Cacher B, and Cacher C.  Signed as 'TeamABC'.  Thank you to all the COs to placed and maintained these geocaches."

 

:mad:

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
14 minutes ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

 

"One of 35 caches I found today with Cacher A, Cacher B, and Cacher C.  Signed as 'TeamABC'.  Thank you to all the COs to placed and maintained these geocaches."

 

:mad:

 

I was with a group like that once.  They sign it as "Everybody", and now they're back in the van, impatiently waiting for me.  I think I might have seen the cache box for a moment.

  • Surprised 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

 

"One of 35 caches I found today with Cacher A, Cacher B, and Cacher C.  Signed as 'TeamABC'.  Thank you to all the COs to placed and maintained these geocaches."

 

:mad:

And that's one of the good ones! The ones I complain about are the ones that go on for a paragraph, not about the cache or the experience, but all about the vacation they're on, then ending with "thank-you" translated into 37 languages.

 

Having said that, I don't consider that a bad cacher. That's mainly laziness and not thinking. I don't think it shows what Ragnemalm called "No regard for others." In fact, I think they believe people will value the description of their trip and the fact that they say "thank you" so that anyone in the world can understand them....over and over and over in log after log after log.

Link to post
35 minutes ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

One of 35 caches I found today with Cacher A, Cacher B, and Cacher C.  Signed as 'TeamABC'.

If I'm with a group and we're signing with a team name, then I'll copy-paste something like this into every log. But the rest of the log will be about that cache.

 

 

20 minutes ago, kunarion said:

I was with a group like that once.  They sign it as "Everybody", and now they're back in the van, impatiently waiting for me.  I think I might have seen the cache box for a moment.

I've been in one group that drove from cache to cache, but that was an Evil Cache Run™. Since the point was to find "evil" caches (well-camouflaged caches, often hidden in plain sight), everyone saw every hide, and we mostly played "huckle buckle beanstalk" style so everyone who wanted to could spot the hide before it was spoiled. We weren't after numbers that day, so the pace was relaxed and friendly, with much oohing and ahhing at the clever cache designs. And rather than fill up the logs with all our names, we signed "Evil Cache Run" or "ECR" depending on how big the log was.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, niraD said:

everyone saw every hide, and we mostly played "huckle buckle beanstalk" style so everyone who wanted to could spot the hide before it was spoiled. We weren't after numbers that day, so the pace was relaxed and friendly, with much oohing and ahhing at the clever cache designs.

 

That's more my pace.  I'm definitely too slow for the power caching group in a van.  They look for 5 seconds, then they're on the phone for the spoiler info, grab the cache I'd been pondering for ten years, and they're onto the next one.  Or they hand me the cache box and now they're back in the van.  ...I wonder where this box goes...?

  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 1
Link to post

Around my community there is a type of bad geocacher - the muggle. It is a wild creature that can be domesticated and indoctrinated, but the muggle species without training can remove and destroy many caches. Just one multi of mine has had stages replaced 9 times due to muggle activity. 
But for real, I hear stories but haven't met anyone who was a bad geocacher yet (knowingly armchair logging and such).

  • Funny 1
Link to post

One of my friends has an excellent Arduino-based PMO gadget multi (91% FPs) that someone recently decided to smash, but only after playing the game on it to get the final coordinates as they then proceded to smash the final as well. There's not much you can do to stop that sort of determined vandalism, one can only hope the caching gods take vengence upon the perpetrator.

  • Surprised 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
On 5/19/2021 at 4:47 PM, kunarion said:

I was with a group like that once.  They sign it as "Everybody", and now they're back in the van, impatiently waiting for me.  I think I might have seen the cache box for a moment.


Spot on! They might have seen the cache! How about at least touching the cache that you log? Or in some way contributing?

  • Funny 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

Spot on! They might have seen the cache! How about at least touching the cache that you log? Or in some way contributing?

Most of the group caching that I have done has used the "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" method, so everyone has a chance to spot the hide before it is spoiled by someone revealing it. Often, the only person to touch the cache is the last person to spot it. That person retrieves the cache, signs the log and then passes the log around (or just signs for everyone), and replaces the cache.

 

Everyone is participating, even if only one of us actually touches the container.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/25/2021 at 6:20 PM, niraD said:

Most of the group caching that I have done has used the "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" method, so everyone has a chance to spot the hide before it is spoiled by someone revealing it. Often, the only person to touch the cache is the last person to spot it. That person retrieves the cache, signs the log and then passes the log around (or just signs for everyone), and replaces the cache.

 

Everyone is participating, even if only one of us actually touches the container.

Actually, the case when touching the cache has a point is for high T, like swimming, boating, climbing etc. Unless we need to keep the time short, we insist on touching the cache even if the log is already signed. No "logging from ground/shore" if I can avoid it.

 

Groups that don't do this are easily spotted. At most one log actually notes the design of the cache. The others log "one of the ones we logged today", clearly not knowing or caring about the point of the cache.

 

But at least they didn't damage it.

Edited by Ragnemalm
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Bad cachers to me are COs that ignore NM requests and let caches go months or years with DNFs, as far as finders go then people that log a find that truly didn't find it, just recently saw one where the cache was gone but after a few DNFs someone said they found it with a quick log, nothing else and turns out the CO said it wasn't there...LOL.  That's a bad cacher.  

 

Good cachers log DNFs and NM requests and if they have the means will happily replace a bad or missing log, O-ring, pencil etc and keep up on any caches they own.  

 

Just my $0.02 worth.  :antenna:

Link to post
On 5/19/2021 at 10:47 AM, dprovan said:

The ones I complain about are the ones that go on for a paragraph, not about the cache or the experience, but all about the vacation they're on, then ending with "thank-you" translated into 37 languages.

 

Only one paragraph? Amateurs. To really pad your log length you thrown in several paragraphs of quotations that have nothing to do with geocaching or the location at all.

 

But every geocacher is a special snowflake entitled to log however they want...

  • Surprised 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, BOTOCH said:

Bad cachers to me are COs that ignore NM requests and let caches go months or years with DNFs, as far as finders go then people that log a find that truly didn't find it, just recently saw one where the cache was gone but after a few DNFs someone said they found it with a quick log, nothing else and turns out the CO said it wasn't there...LOL.  That's a bad cacher.  

 

Good cachers log DNFs and NM requests and if they have the means will happily replace a bad or missing log, O-ring, pencil etc and keep up on any caches they own.  

 

Just my $0.02 worth.  :antenna:

 

Hey, keep in mind that DNFs are not actionable by themselves and don't imply that there's anything wrong. They only mean that THAT cacher on THAT visit didn't hold it in his or her hand: nothing more.

 

If I get DNFs on one of my caches, i DO NOT go check on it. Sure, to be reasonable, if I get a string of them I might stop by and if all is well, file a reassuring OM log, but don't consider a CO a 'bad cacher' because someone couldn't find their cache.

 

I know, I know, I read here that many people are only filing DNF's when they think it's missing or there's a problem and if that's how they want to play, that's fine, but it's not how I play. Five of my six hides are rarely found, and a year isn't uncommon. In my opinion, they're worth the wait and people who seek them have a good time doing so.

 

There's the dreaded Cache Health Score, which some people blame for the 'Death of DNFs',  That's nonsense; even the CHS when evaluated correctly only encourages COs to respond to STRINGS of DNFs. Yes, in its early stages it needed tweaking, but I think it's better now. There's always an anecdote of a CO whose cache was archived after a single DNF, but I'm skeptical.

 

They don't say anything else about you as a cacher, either. 

 

So, don't demonize the "DNF" and get over it; file more of them yourselves.

  • Upvote 3
  • Surprised 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
On 5/27/2021 at 1:45 PM, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Hey, keep in mind that DNFs are not actionable by themselves and don't imply that there's anything wrong. They only mean that THAT cacher on THAT visit didn't hold it in his or her hand: nothing more.

 

If I get DNFs on one of my caches, i DO NOT go check on it. Sure, to be reasonable, if I get a string of them I might stop by and if all is well, file a reassuring OM log, but don't consider a CO a 'bad cacher' because someone couldn't find their cache.

 

 

Yes I agree and should have clarified meaning multiple DNFs as I highlighted what you said. for the most part mine are quite easy and geared towards families out so if I get a DNF or especially a couple I will go check it out.

 

Thanks!

Link to post

Abother example of a bad cacher would be one who finds a TB and travels with it for a while.  Then just keeps the thing.  I found a TB shortly after my wife died.  I brought it from Hawaii to NY.  This woman took it all over for about six months.  Hasn't logged it in about five years now but it is still "in her hands".  That is a bad cacher.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
On 6/2/2021 at 12:09 PM, Seadog6608 said:

Abother example of a bad cacher would be one who finds a TB and travels with it for a while.  Then just keeps the thing.  I found a TB shortly after my wife died.  I brought it from Hawaii to NY.  This woman took it all over for about six months.  Hasn't logged it in about five years now but it is still "in her hands".  That is a bad cacher.

I quit trackables because of this. My first one immediately got taken to Europe and traveled around for a while (to caches & events that had nothing to do with the goal) but now has been with the same person who essentially quit the game and still has it. Not one person ever posted a photo of any of the places it had been or mentioned the goal of the trackable in any way. I'm done with them.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
On 5/27/2021 at 12:58 PM, BOTOCH said:

Bad cachers to me are COs that ignore NM requests and let caches go months or years with DNFs, as far as finders go then people that log a find that truly didn't find it, just recently saw one where the cache was gone but after a few DNFs someone said they found it with a quick log, nothing else and turns out the CO said it wasn't there...LOL.  That's a bad cacher.

Definitely. "DNF cheating" is the worst kind, they indicate that the cache is still there, that everything is fine. A non-caring CO is causing this, but is not helped by ordinary-looking logs.

 

Another kind is the kind who see a desperate need for maintenance and ignore it. We once found a T5 on the ground. Recent finders logged TFTC. Yes, we alerted the CO.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
56 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

Definitely. "DNF cheating" is the worst kind, they indicate that the cache is still there, that everything is fine.

 

A part of this is due to "Found it" being the default log type on the website. I've had a few finds logged on my caches where it's been clear from the content of the "found" log that it was meant to be a DNF. Most times they've spotted the error straight away and corrected it, but occasionally I've had to send a message querying it. I've been caught myself, logging an accidental find on a cache I was intending to post a WN on. I really really wish they'd do away with default log types and go back to the old system where you had to select a log type before submitting it.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2
Link to post
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

A part of this is due to "Found it" being the default log type on the website.

 

 

Yep.  Which is yet-another of a ton of reasons, we still prefer (and use)  the "old" log form.  We thought default logs were limited to "the app"...

It feels like the "old" log page was created when people were able to think for themselves, but of course probably not so.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 2
Link to post
23 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

A part of this is due to "Found it" being the default log type on the website.

 

And this is probably one of the BIGGEST, most enormous curiosities I've had with the web design decisions on GC.com, because this isn't just aesthetic, it's a functional choice that leads to many errors/mistakes and even from a 'business logic' standpoint it just does not make sense to default an action log on an item to "Found" when "Post a log" could mean any number of things - "Found" being the potentially most misleading.  I would love to hear the reasoning behind this decision - assuming it was consciously decided, and not just an oversight that hasn't been corrected in so long...

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to post

I think I'm a fair to middling cacher when I can find a cache. Until I can't - then I think I'm a bad cacher.

 

It happens more often than I'd like. For every ten caches I've found, I've not found one. But usually it's not just one - it starts out as one, and then it happens again, and I start getting frustrated and lose patience.

 

Though I never wish anyone's caches to be missing, I am always relieved when it turns out I couldn't find a cache, not because of my own impatience or incompetence, but because it wasn't there for me to find.

 

On 6/11/2021 at 3:18 AM, thebruce0 said:
On 6/10/2021 at 3:20 AM, barefootjeff said:

A part of this is due to "Found it" being the default log type on the website.

 

And this is probably one of the BIGGEST, most enormous curiosities I've had with the web design decisions on GC.com, because this isn't just aesthetic, it's a functional choice that leads to many errors/mistakes and even from a 'business logic' standpoint it just does not make sense to default an action log on an item to "Found" when "Post a log" could mean any number of things - "Found" being the potentially most misleading.  I would love to hear the reasoning behind this decision - assuming it was consciously decided, and not just an oversight that hasn't been corrected in so long...

 

What confounds me is that it's not the default for all cache types. It's the default for all the caches you can claim with a "found it" log, and "Webcam photo taken" is the default for webcams. OK, that's not ideal, for the reasons stated above, but it's at least consistent.

 

But then, there's events.

 

If I haven't already logged "will attend" on an event cache, then "will attend" is the default log. I suppose that makes sense. Miss Manners always recommends an RSVP for social gatherings.

 

But if I have already logged that I'll attend, "write note" becomes the default, not "attended." I've had to go back and fix more than one event log that was supposed to be "attended" but was just a note.

 

Seinfeld on Twitter: ""Serenity Now! Serenity Now!" #Seinfeld  http://t.co/qhF7k2FrfK"

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to post

I've been geocaching for about a month now and I'm learning I'm a bad cacher. I'm starting to wonder if others like me get excited by the hobby and don't have time to sit at our computers or on our phones and learn the etiquette that would make us "good" cachers. 

 

A couple of examples - there's a couple of caches here in my town that we looked for and didn't find. I failed to log them as DNF, but drive by them all the time and think I need to do a DNF and then fail to get it done. Another example is how I and my family have been handling TB's. The website makes it extremely easy to log a visit of a trackable in your possession. In fact, I thought this was what we were supposed to be doing - taking the TBs with us and logging that they're moving around. I'm learning they're not supposed to "visit" caches, but be dropped in and retrieved from caches. I don't honestly understand WHY this manner of doing things is so important. If the TB is MOVING to a variety of caches, why does it matter who moves it? I'd think we'd want TBs to be in the hands of someone who is actively caching, as opposed to sitting in a cache waiting for someone to come along who may just keep the thing.... I have a couple of TBs of my own that I've not released yet, because there aren't any good places to put them. I've visited a couple of TBHs in my area. One was completely and totally overrun with fire ants and the other was too small to hold my TBs. Anyway - the expectations for TBs are confusing for me. 

 

I'm wondering if there's some shift happening with new-to-caching cachers who don't know any better and use the features of the site/apps thinking they're doing things the right way, but apparently aren't if you were to ask a long-time cacher. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
11 hours ago, D41 said:

I've been geocaching for about a month now and I'm learning I'm a bad cacher.

 

From what you've said I wouldn't call you a bad cacher. For one, there will always be people who don't like someone's etiquette. You can't make everyone happy. Secondly, I'd say a "bad cacher" is more likely someone who is intentionally doing things that knowingly make the game worse for others, whereas you certainly seem to be doing what you think is right and are willing to learn etiquette where possible. (though there will still be people who just hate "newbies" who they think don't get it - that is, their own way of doing things).

 

All that said, for the travelbugs, there's no "right way" except for what the TB owners wants for their TB. But when there's no clear instruction, I think the fallback to a generalized balance of "visits, photography, and movement" is the safest mentality. If I pick up a TB and it has no goal, I'll likely hold it no shorter than a couple of days, may or may not take photos with it, and may or may not 'dip' it into caches that I think are relevant to its theme (there's always a theme, even if it's totally inferred :)), but I'll drop it somewhere else, hopefully not right next to it, so it gets some mileage.

 

I don't think you were doing anything wrong, if I read your comment right. Unless you were doing something with the TB that was not what its owner wanted. And yeah, sometimes it might be better to leave a TB in a cache rather than pick it up, but I find that's very rare (like it's almost met its goal and is waiting to be picked up by someone near its destination, for example).

 

Many have had TBs reach a destination area only to be picked up casually and taken across the world to be dropped off again. Argh! ;D

 

I think if you're trying to be a 'good cacher', then you're not a 'bad cacher', even if you make mistakes. But you'll never be free from someone's criticism, that's for sure; no one is, sadly.

  • Love 1
Link to post
16 hours ago, D41 said:

The website makes it extremely easy to log a visit of a trackable in your possession. In fact, I thought this was what we were supposed to be doing - taking the TBs with us and logging that they're moving around. I'm learning they're not supposed to "visit" caches, but be dropped in and retrieved from caches. I don't honestly understand WHY this manner of doing things is so important. If the TB is MOVING to a variety of caches, why does it matter who moves it?

To me as somebody starting caching in 2004 where TBs didn't had "visit" and "took it" logs was (and up to this date for me still is) the fun aspect that I can follow the path of the "item" moved by different cacher and not to follow the path of a handfull of "cacher" holding the TB for an extended period of time. In combination with the fact that cacher like to visit (and "took it" TBs to) high number of caches makes most of the TB listings and the map view practically unreadable and uninteresting.

But apparently (and unfortunately for me) that's part of the shift you are an example of. But I would not say you are a bad cacher.

  • Helpful 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, Hynz said:

To me as somebody starting caching in 2004 where TBs didn't had "visit" and "took it" logs was (and up to this date for me still is) the fun aspect that I can follow the path of the "item" moved by different cacher and not to follow the path of a handfull of "cacher" holding the TB for an extended period of time. In combination with the fact that cacher like to visit (and "took it" TBs to) high number of caches makes most of the TB listings and the map view practically unreadable and uninteresting.

But apparently (and unfortunately for me) that's part of the shift you are an example of. But I would not say you are a bad cacher.

 

+1

 

 

TB Owners typically buy and place a TB with the general impression that a TB is by default dropped into a cache and retrieved by a different cacher.  TB Takers often have the impression that it's fine to carry it around and make empty "Took It To" logs, because they can.  One reason is, yeah, it's so easy.  Another reason is the TB page will tend to have a goal "To VISIT caches all over the world" or whatever.  TB Owners need to be careful about wording if they wish for TBs to be placed into a cache by each cacher.  But have a heart... I typed a half-dozen paragraphs on some of my TBs, exactly because of misconceptions about how TBs work. Yet most Takers just do what is easy and don't respect the TB Goal, they don't respect the Owner.

 

There's absolutely no suggestion that the whole idea of a TB was that it will be grabbed and held by a stranger for many "visits".  If you think about it, the TB Owner, if that was the expectation, could have carried it around just like that, rather than placing it into a cache.

 

The reason it's so important to drop it into a cache, make a suitable human-typed log (and a photo or two), and then different cachers Discover it or and someone later logs (with a human-typed log) the Retrieval from the cache is:

That's evidence that the TB is still in play, physically being at or in caches.  Sometimes, the only evidence.

 

If one person forevermore is making the easy logs from an App, it's hard to tell if, for example, the TB was lost a long time ago.  That's why.

 

Don't make the mistake of assuming that by not contacting a Taker, the TB Owner approves of the person making a bahzillion blank Visit logs.  Because that Taker's thoughtlessness is a sign of an unbalanced person that has kidnapped the Trackable, and the Owner may decide that making waves makes the situation worse.  Look at the many threads about this very thing.

 

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
On 7/14/2021 at 11:01 AM, D41 said:

A couple of examples - there's a couple of caches here in my town that we looked for and didn't find.

I failed to log them as DNF, but drive by them all the time and think I need to do a DNF and then fail to get it done.

 

Another example is how I and my family have been handling TB's. The website makes it extremely easy to log a visit of a trackable in your possession. In fact, I thought this was what we were supposed to be doing - taking the TBs with us and logging that they're moving around. I'm learning they're not supposed to "visit" caches, but be dropped in and retrieved from caches.

Anyway - the expectations for TBs are confusing for me. 

I'm wondering if there's some shift happening with new-to-caching cachers who don't know any better and use the features of the site/apps thinking they're doing things the right way, but apparently aren't if you were to ask a long-time cacher. 

 

We've always thought of logging and such as part of the learning experience.    :)

Years ago you really needed to know as much of this hobby as possible, after spending bucks for a GPSr just to play.

 - Today, it's load and go on your phone, many phone users tend to 'wing it" just like any other game app.

Eventually folks figure out the odds and ends at an event or reading Geocaching 101, which is for some-odd-reason not on profiles anymore, and it's been changed with a lot less info, or the Help Center.

 

In the Help Center on Trackables, it says, "  Only take a trackable if you are going geocaching in the next 2-3 weeks.", and "Trackables are like hot potatoes, they don't want to stay in one person's hands too long !"

It's not that they can't visit, it's just that most Trackable Owners don't want someone holding their trackable hostage for months/years on end either...

If you're having trouble finding a cache for a trackable you took, just email the TO and let them know.  That's etiquette.    ;)

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
On 7/14/2021 at 5:01 PM, D41 said:

A couple of examples - there's a couple of caches here in my town that we looked for and didn't find. I failed to log them as DNF, but drive by them all the time and think I need to do a DNF and then fail to get it done.

 

Another example is how I and my family have been handling TB's. The website makes it extremely easy to log a visit of a trackable in your possession. In fact, I thought this was what we were supposed to be doing - taking the TBs with us and logging that they're moving around. I'm learning they're not supposed to "visit" caches, but be dropped in and retrieved from caches. I don't honestly understand WHY this manner of doing things is so important. If the TB is MOVING to a variety of caches, why does it matter who moves it? I'd think we'd want TBs to be in the hands of someone who is actively caching, as opposed to sitting in a cache waiting for someone to come along who may just keep the thing.... I have a couple of TBs of my own that I've not released yet, because there aren't any good places to put them. I've visited a couple of TBHs in my area. One was completely and totally overrun with fire ants and the other was too small to hold my TBs. Anyway - the expectations for TBs are confusing for me.

DNF: No need to log a DNF if you don't feel sure that it is gone. DNF on a cache that is just hard to find makes more harm than good.

 

TBs: Of course you can log "visit". When you do, the owner sees that it is active, which makes the owner happy. Don't feel bad about that. I can't understand why someone would oppose to "visit" logs. They are there for a reason.

 

Some TBs are hard to place. Take  this for instance:

 

https://coord.info/TB679VA

 

I had that for a while. My intention was to place it in a "large" cache that I own, but it was too large! And it isn't the largest TB I have seen.

  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 2
Link to post
44 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

DNF: No need to log a DNF if you don't feel sure that it is gone. DNF on a cache that is just hard to find makes more harm than good.

 

If you feel sure it's gone you should be logging a "Cache might be missing" NM. That's what that log's for and that's what I'd want someone to log if they were sure one of my caches was missing, or even if they weren't sure but were concerned enough to want me to check on it. A DNF just means your search was unsuccessful, and is the right thing to log whether your unsuccessful search was on a D1 or D5. This skewing of logs to make DNF into an NM and NM into an NA really annoys me.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 2
Link to post
2 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

I disagree. A DNF means "I didn't find this cache" regardless of its difficulty or whether it's really there or not.

A NM is for "I'm sure this is gone".

I use NM when the cache needs maintenance, even if it's still there. But I think we're on the same page. 😁

47 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

DNF: No need to log a DNF if you don't feel sure that it is gone. DNF on a cache that is just hard to find makes more harm than good.

Just no. DNF means Did Not Find. Period. 

 

 

  • Upvote 7
Link to post
1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

Some TBs are hard to place. Take  this for instance:

 

https://coord.info/TB679VA

 

I had that for a while. My intention was to place it in a "large" cache that I own, but it was too large! And it isn't the largest TB I have seen.

This TB (a heavy frying pan) has currently 514 "took it" logs and the map view suggests that this TB was all over Europe. At how many of that 514 caches this TB was actually present you think?

Can you try to explain why the owner of this TB should be happy to have this partly forged history but no hint what way the frying pan actually went and since "placed" logs went out of fashion it is even impossible to reconstruct in which caches this TB actually was placed.

 

So trying to be on topic: I consider thoughtless "took it" logs as bad but would not call out the geocacher as bad.

But "took it" logs when the TB is not even close to the cache are made by bad cachers.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

DNF: No need to log a DNF if you don't feel sure that it is gone. DNF on a cache that is just hard to find makes more harm than good.

 

TBs: Of course you can log "visit". When you do, the owner sees that it is active, which makes the owner happy. Don't feel bad about that. I can't understand why someone would oppose to "visit" logs. They are there for a reason.

 

Some TBs are hard to place. Take  this for instance:

 

https://coord.info/TB679VA

 

I had that for a while. My intention was to place it in a "large" cache that I own, but it was too large! And it isn't the largest TB I have seen.

Yea... I'm a little worried about a trackable of my own that I've not released to go out on it's own yet... It's got a large keychain on it and I'm not sure if that will keep it safe or make it end up in a garage sale after a kid has snatched and hoarded it... https://coord.info/TB9D6WT

 

Edited by D41
Link to post
6 minutes ago, D41 said:

Yea... I'm a little worried about a trackable of my own that I've not released to go out on it's own yet... It's got a large keychain on it and I'm not sure if that will keep it safe or make it end up in a garage sale after a kid has snatched and hoarded it... https://coord.info/TB9D6WT

 

We've yet to see demands placed on cachers met, and I promise that PMO caches isn't happening.   :)

 - Thinking that people paying money are somehow more honest/responsible isn't true anyway...  

I don't think any "part" of a trackable is what makes people take 'em.  "Looks like a toy" is the first problem for many missing.

I feel the "treasure" in what has been called a treasure hunt for years another, or maybe just because the weekend n done cacher found it wasn't true, and this is payback...

 

But to be clear, any Trackable log, including  "Visit",  doesn't mean anything other than the cacher still has the tracking code in their inventory.

Can't tell you how many times we meet someone on trail, water bottle only, then find they logged 37 trackables to every cache found that day.

Sheesh...

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

DNF: No need to log a DNF if you don't feel sure that it is gone. DNF on a cache that is just hard to find makes more harm than good.

 

TBs: Of course you can log "visit". When you do, the owner sees that it is active, which makes the owner happy. Don't feel bad about that. I can't understand why someone would oppose to "visit" logs. They are there for a reason.

 

A DNF says you didn't find it.  That's all.

 

Any log is better than none, but there is no log that shows the TO that their trackable is anywhere but in that cacher's inventory, by it's code.

The majority of people we've talked to that are opposed to "Visit" logs don't want their property held hostage by the same person for months/ years... to find it's being used as the cachers personal mileage tracker, and hasn't been with them since the Retrieve two years earlier.

Link to post
5 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I use NM when the cache needs maintenance, even if it's still there. But I think we're on the same page. 😁

Just no. DNF means Did Not Find. Period. 

 

 

Yes - I totally agree that DNF means I looked and did not find. NM is for I found it and it's in sorry shape or I know it should be here and it isn't. 

I recently searched for a 2.5D for about 30 minutes and it should have been a simple find really, but I was on my hands and knees with gloves ready for use as it said you may need them, and I searched and searched. I marked it as a DNF. The CO was out just a few days later and posted a note that it was indeed gone and had been replaced. I quickly went out to find it haha. I think the DNF was correct here, but it's hard to know sometimes. The ones I drive by and failed to mark as DNF I think are there somewhere, but I was too nervous about muggles so I wasn't looking hard enough or long enough. 

 

50 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

We've yet to see demands placed on cachers met, and I promise that PMO caches isn't happening.   :)

 - Thinking that people paying money are somehow more honest/responsible isn't true anyway...  

I don't think any "part" of a trackable is what makes people take 'em.  "Looks like a toy" is the first problem for many missing.

I feel the "treasure" in what has been called a treasure hunt for years another, or maybe just because the weekend n done cacher found it wasn't true, and this is payback...

 

But to be clear, any Trackable log, including  "Visit",  doesn't mean anything other than the cacher still has the tracking code in their inventory.

Can't tell you how many times we meet someone on trail, water bottle only, then find they logged 37 trackables to every cache found that day.

Sheesh...

 

I put the PMO in simply to encourage thoughtful dropping .. IDK if it'll do any good. I saw it in a trackable and thought it was a good idea. The SUE tag on my trackable has in big letters "DO NOT KEEP" and explains the mission and everything - It's a custom metal luggage tag I ordered on amazon. I likely spent too much money on something that will go missing, but it's the fun in creating it for me so it's already been worth it. 

I totally agree with the visits being silly now that it's been explained to me. I explained it to my family and they all understood too. We're set on changing our ways :)

 

 

 

 

I thought of maybe some "bad cacher" examples, but I like what someone on page 1 said - there's likely not "bad cachers" so much as there are inexperienced cachers. In a cache I found recently, someone had left packets of instant coffee and oatmeal from a hotel. I was under the impression food items are a no-no, due to ants and what not, so I ditched those items from the cache. Am I the bad cacher or are they? :)

 

 

Edited by D41
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
11 minutes ago, D41 said:

 In a cache I found recently, someone had left packets of instant coffee and oatmeal from a hotel. I was under the impression food items are a no-no, due to ants and what not, so I ditched those items from the cache. Am I the bad cacher or are they? :)

 

I'll raise you over a dozen used virus masks, a number of (opened) lip balms, and more than I cared to find condoms.   :D

 - Though when we had caches on the AT, we regularly stocked them with stuff like you had.  TP was a godsend !   Cachers were clever trail hikers.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I'll raise you over a dozen used virus masks, a number of (opened) lip balms, and more than I cared to find condoms.   :D

 - Though when we had caches on the AT, we regularly stocked them with stuff like you had.  TP was a godsend !   Cachers were clever trail hikers.

 

When caching, how many do you care to find?

Edited by TeamRabbitRun
  • Funny 2
Link to post
On 7/16/2021 at 6:59 PM, cerberus1 said:

A DNF says you didn't find it.  That's all.

Sorry, this is not true! DNF means very clearly "I have searched well and believe it is gone". That is how it is interpreted by reviewers.

 

If I get a DNF on one of my tree climbing caches from someone who didn't dare to climb, I will ask it to be changed to a note for that reason. I call that a "DNR" log - did not reach - and it must be a "note", not a "DNF", to avoid unnecessary trouble like having it deactivated until I can assure the reviewer that it is still there, or, for that matter, having other cachers skipping it because they think it is gone, due to the same interpretation.

 

Many log types are strange. "Needs maintenance" means "This has serious problems and will be archived if the CO doesn't fix it soon". This has caused many fine caches to be archived just because the log book was a llittle damp. "Needs archived" means "a reviewer needs to have a look at this".

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

DNF means very clearly "I have searched well and believe it is gone".

DNF could mean that (although not "very clearly"), but it ALSO means, I searched and couldn't find it; too well hidden for me. The log should mention what the reason for the DNF means. I doubt one DNF will get the reviewer checking it, but several in a row on a D1.5 might, and so it should, because even if the cache is still there, either the coordinates are out (need fixing), or getting several DNFs in a row, the D rating is too low for those who don't know where it is, and this needs a correction. Might seem easy to the CO, who knows where it is, but not to those not in the know. If the D is higher, it is less likely to get attention.

1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

"Needs maintenance" means "This has serious problems and will be archived if the CO doesn't fix it soon".

No, Needs Maintenance doesn't mean "This has serious problems and will be archived if the CO doesn't fix it soon"". It means their is a problem and the person logging the NM, is being helpful and letting the CO know. NA means "This has serious problems and will be archived if the CO doesn't fix it soon".

 

It seems you are upgrading in your thinking, each notice higher to the next level.

  • Upvote 5
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...
×
×
  • Create New...