Locationless Cache Maintenance

[+Renegade Knight]

These buggers are more work than I thought. Certainly more work than my traditional cache.

 

Should morons who are arrogant, rude, and condesending be blacklisted even if they post a valid find later?

 

I'm thinking they should.

 

Should "close but not quite" finds be allowed.

 

Or should whatever the heck people think meets your criteria be allowed on the honor system?

 

The last is a lot less work on my part.

[+mtn-man]

quote:

---

Should "close but not quite" finds be allowed.

---

NO!

 

quote:

---

Or should whatever the heck people think meets your criteria be allowed on the honor system?

---

NO!

 

It is YOUR cache, and the rules you set up are YOUR rules. If they do not like the cache criteria, they should not do the cache in the first place. It is like saying "Well, I got in the area where I think the tupperware container is, but I did not see it anywhere. I must have been in the right place so I am going to log the cache as found." Sorry, but no dice.

 

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

 

Should morons who are arrogant, rude, and condesending be blacklisted even if they post a valid find later?

---

 

I agree with mtn-man on the two questions above. As for this one, I say that no, they should not be blacklisted. One, because a valid find is a valid find, and I don't think the rules should be bent because of our personal feelings for someone. (The opposite side of this coin would be to let our friends log finds on our caches that they haven't found, just because we want to help them with their counts.)

 

But maybe even more important than the above is that, if you blacklist someone, you're liable to tick them off...and then what's to stop them from targeting your traditional caches, and plundering them as revenge? (Unless they don't live in your area...but even in that case, I still don't recommend blacklisting someone. If they put rude or inappropiate posts on your cache page, those would be fair to delete, though.)

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

[+Renegade Knight]

Can't say people don't have an opinion. Amazingly enough the first two posters agree.

 

So Be It. I'll maintain it until either I realise that the cache is a loser (can't get my good find ratio to about 90%) or it's just getting time to retire it.

 

no non finds,

and I won't blacklist anyone (though I may ignore their email bleeting)

 

Thanks

[+Bufford]

I was a bit worried when I read your post, I knew I'd either been researching or done your locationless. Luckily I'm not the jerk and was only in the planning stage. It is a very clever cache though and I plan on doing it this weekend. Hmmmmm...should I do Davis Mtn. or Crane Prairie Resv?

[+Bufford]

I was a bit worried when I read your post, I knew I'd either been researching or done your locationless. Luckily I'm not the jerk and was only in the planning stage. It is a very clever cache though and I plan on doing it this weekend. Hmmmmm...should I do Davis Mtn. or Crane Prairie Resv?

[+Renegade Knight]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bufford:

I was a bit worried when I read your post, I knew I'd either been researching or done your locationless. Luckily I'm not the jerk and was only in the planning stage. It is a very clever cache though and I plan on doing it this weekend. Hmmmmm...should I do Davis Mtn. or Crane Prairie Resv?

---

 

Actually I think the cache you are talking about will take care of itself. "Fill in The Blanks" I like it. It's simple, maybe not so easy, You get double credit for the work, plus the rest of us get a new cache. It's my other evil Locationless that is causing so much trouble. Oh well, live and learn.

[+Renegade Knight]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bufford:

I was a bit worried when I read your post, I knew I'd either been researching or done your locationless. Luckily I'm not the jerk and was only in the planning stage. It is a very clever cache though and I plan on doing it this weekend. Hmmmmm...should I do Davis Mtn. or Crane Prairie Resv?

---

 

Actually I think the cache you are talking about will take care of itself. "Fill in The Blanks" I like it. It's simple, maybe not so easy, You get double credit for the work, plus the rest of us get a new cache. It's my other evil Locationless that is causing so much trouble. Oh well, live and learn.

[+jef]

I posted elsewhere about an idea I had for enforcing locationless cache finds. The hider would specify a code word or words; seekers would have to enter one of those words to successfully log a find. The words would be something you find on the cache, or a question you could answer at the cache. Both hiders and seekers could also mark specific photos as being locked to all but valid finders.

 

I think this would be a pretty cool feature to add. Besides cutting down on the abovementioned log maintenance tasks, this would also help with the problem of locationless caches getting orphaned, and having no one to do the maintenance.

[+erik88l-r]

Jeff, I think your a bit confused. It's the virtuals that your find verification idea might help with, not the locationless caches. The locationless caches also don't have maintenance needs, the traditional ones do.

 

But maybe your not totally confused: The one and only virtual cache I've posted was plundered and stolen after only one geocacher logged it, so you never know! ~erik~

[+jef]

You're right, I was confusing the two types. Thanks.

[+rdw]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

These buggers are more work than I thought. Certainly more work than my traditional cache.

---

 

You aren't kidding. Don't Know Much About History has been a major pain in my a$s. Three major requirements: Coords, pic, text. But many people can't get all three into the log. I spend tons of time checking logs and hounding people to meet all of the requirements. I get the impression that other locationless cache owners are having similar problems.

 

quote:

---

Should morons who are arrogant, rude, and condesending be blacklisted even if they post a valid find later?

 

I'm thinking they should.

 

Should "close but not quite" finds be allowed.

 

Or should whatever the heck people think meets your criteria be allowed on the honor system?

 

The last is a lot less work on my part.

---

 

No and no. The requirements are the requirements. On the other hand, it is your cache.

 

rdw

[+Web-ling]

Then there's the problem of people logging the cache who never actually visited the location. There are some VERY resourceful jacka$$es out there who feel that if they can figure out your "password" or other verification without visiting the site, they should be able to count it as a find. I've had one guy who flat out said in his email to me that he hadn't actually been there. I deleted his log. He reposted it. I deleted it again. He reposted. Finally I insisted he clearly state in his log that he had NOT been there, and I let it stand. (now the guy's holding my travel bug hostage, but that's another thread...)