Jump to content

Geocache Hider Hypocrisy


WalruZ
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

This is something that's been bugging me for a few weeks and I just want to vent. It is cumulative and not directed at anyone in particular. Most of my local cohorts are very responsible and responsive.

 

But....

 

GeoCachers who hide something expect their cache to be approved as soon as possible. Same day is nice, same hour is even better. more than a day and many of them get all huffy. After 3 or 4 days they're up in arms and ready to stick their local approver in the public stocks for rotten tomato practice.

 

But let that same cache come up missing a few months later and where's the sense of urgency? DNFs pile up on caches and nothing happens, or perhaps a flip note about how the cache will be looked at or replaced 'soon', followed by no activity (other than a few more DNFs) for a month, or two, or even far longer. Even if the cache is disabled it often sits for a good long time. I see this happen alot. Do you?

 

I feel like if approvers are held to a 'speedy' standard, so should cache hiders. Maybe even a rule that caches won't be approved if you have outstanding disabled caches, or caches with 'issues'. Ok, that's a little extreme, but why shouldn't what goes around, come around?

 

AFA excuses go, there's wintertime. I live in california, I'm not talking about wintertime. (chumps). Don't give me wintertime, I don't wanna hear about it.

Link to comment

ain't it the truth. I have seen the same thing. It really irks me when the hider won't at least go check a cache with a lot of DNFs. Worse yet, people whose caches were removed by authorities because they were placed without permission, but they don't archive them. Some have even been replaced! Again without permission, and with a nasty taunting method. (FTR the area in quesiton now has a caching policy) Some call it impatience, I call it an entitlement mentality. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

How about the simple 1/1 caches that get like 4 or 5 dnf's from "accomplished cachers"? Then after the local approver says something, the owner says " I checked on it and its still there!" and suddenly the finds start happening again.

 

 

(edit:spelling)

Edited by Destitute
Link to comment
hehe, yeah.....but my point was, its gone and they replaced it without owning up to the fact that it was gone. but you knew that  :lol:

Yeah, I've seen that happen myself. What the heck is the shame in admitting that your cache has disappeared?

 

This one went missing three times in three months. This one disappeared before it was ever approved.

 

Come on, people! Own up to it! :rolleyes:

Link to comment

When people are jerks, they are often jerks in all directions. So if somebody is a PITA whiner about how long approval takes, very likely the same person is going to be a PITA do-nothing when it comes to fixing their own stuff. You're not going to be able to legislate them into being decent human beings, and they'll just find some other way to annoy you.

 

The inverse (converse?) is much more pleasant and profitable to concentrate on. Now that you've gotten the rant out of your system, you can take a deep breath, sit back and think about all the really great people you know who you can count on to behave well no matter what the situation. Even in situations more important than (say) geocaching. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

"I see this happen alot. Do you?"

Not really, but I suppose it does.

 

"I feel like if approvers are held to a 'speedy' standard, so should cache hiders."

Ok, I would however like to point out who sets these speeds. GC.com says, "expect to see your cache approved within 24-48 hours", while where is there a given time limit for fixing damaged caches? Or on how DNFs are allowed before a visit is required? Sure we all can give our opinions on these, and the guidelines say something about using the disable cache feature to fix things normally a few weeks. But no where is there a specific time limit like their for the approvers. I wouldn't find this helpful in trying to explain that cache hiders are supposed to fix in quick and timely manner where possiable.

Urgency for action shouldn't stop when your the one at the wheel?

Link to comment
I too have wondered why hiders that have so many non-maintained caches get new ones approved... I think the approvers should take that into account...

I'm pretty sure that my approver does take that into account. Seems he was telling me a month or so ago about a local who has over 80 hides and several disabled ones that he wanted him to fix the broken ones before he'd approve another from him.....I think that's only logical. If you can't maintain the caches you have, why should you be allowed to hide more?

Link to comment
I too have wondered why hiders that have so many non-maintained caches get new ones approved... I think the approvers should take that into account...

I'm pretty sure that my approver does take that into account. Seems he was telling me a month or so ago about a local who has over 80 hides and several disabled ones that he wanted him to fix the broken ones before he'd approve another from him.....I think that's only logical. If you can't maintain the caches you have, why should you be allowed to hide more?

While I fully agree with the spirit of such an idea, I do think that it could open itself up to a high degree of subjectivity when put into practice. Look at it this way:

 

I have one cache that is currently disabled because the camo came apart. The replacement is on back order and will probably take another several weeks to get. However, I have 41 other caches that are active and doing well. Not a problem, right?

 

But what if that one was my ONLY cache, and I had to disable it, but in the meantime I wanted to place another? If my only cache were disabled, should I be forbidden from leaving another one somewhere else?

 

Further, a disabled cache doesn't necessarily mean the owner isn't doing anything about it. I had to disable one cache for several months because squatters were living a few feet away from it. Another one is soon to be disabled for a couple months due to road construction. Sometimes parts are hard to come by. There are any number of possibilities, and it can be really tricky to draw the line fairly.

Link to comment

I'll get to it when I get time. Not before then. My rule of thumb is being able to get to a remote cache within 6 months. Yup 6 months. Local caches are when my schedule permits. Life happens and when it does it takes priority over all aspects of caching. This is as it should be. I do cover a lot of ground, but that doesn't mean I cover it all on a weekly basis as many would think you should. Last but not least I'm not afraid to adopt out a cache if I can't meet my own minimal criteria, I'm also not afraid to ask for help if I won't get to it for some time.

Link to comment

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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...