Jump to content

"found" Logs Not Allowed Pt Deux


Recommended Posts

Since the other topic was closed, and I didnt have time to congratulate the hider WH, I created another topic.

 

I think it it a great idea! If all caches did this it would be a problem, but this is more a lets get to the root of geocaching and look around. I have been to so many beautiful areas due to geocaching, and would search for geocaches if there weren't stats. I would have no problem searching for this cache and posting a note.

 

I do realize I am in the minority hehe

Link to post

Yep, I've been to a lot of cool places where I didn't geocache.

 

Once I had a real hard time finding the hotel, but they wouldn't let me even post a note.

 

Edit: Whoa, just figured out what's next.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to post

I don't have a problem with folks not wanting to log caches or not logging caches as long as they are not mine B) . You see I go to a lot of trouble to place my caches, so I don't see it as a big ask for those who then find them to log them. Therefore I ask that logs be made on gc.com in my cache page. That way, those not into logging know where I am coming from and can avoid my caches B) .

 

Simple really.

 

Andrew

Edited by Aushiker
Link to post
Since the other topic was closed, and I didnt have time to congratulate the hider WH, I created another topic.

 

I think it it a great idea! If all caches did this it would be a problem, but this is more a lets get to the root of geocaching and look around. I have been to so many beautiful areas due to geocaching, and would search for geocaches if there weren't stats. I would have no problem searching for this cache and posting a note.

 

I do realize I am in the minority hehe

[devil's advocate]

If you're not interested in logging your finds, but just visiting sites, why not purchase a copy of Streets and Trips? Then you can see where all the parks and preserves are in your area and can bypass GC.com altogether.

[/devil's advocate]

Link to post
I just wish people would let others play the game the way they want to without all the criticism. If you don't like the cache, don't visit it. Its pretty simple.

I agree 100%, as long as both the finder's approach and the hider's (owner's) wishers are taking into considertion. After all both parties are involved in the game piece.

 

Andrew

Link to post
I just wish people would let others play the game the way they want to without all the criticism. If you don't like the cache, don't visit it. Its pretty simple.

I agree 100%, as long as both the finder's approach and the hider's (owner's) wishers are taking into considertion. After all both parties are involved in the game piece.

 

Andrew

And in this case, it doesn't take the finder's into consideration. Just adds a stat for the hider and annoys those who have it showing up on their "nearest" list, and wasting space in their Pocket Query (which they're paying for, BTW)

Link to post

i'll still go on record as not liking it, but it think what happened in the approval process was kind of the equivalent of the approver saying "why, sure, selling spinach-and-tripe fudge is legal; i just dont think it will sell. i see your application is in order. here's your vending permit."

 

and look! people are lined up around the block to say they don't care for the flavor! it's like the time i handed this really bad smelling thing to crashco and said "here, this smells really bad." and he smelled it. he had the option not to. none of us has to go find that thing.

 

ok, NOW how much would you pay for that "ignore" button?

 

i have an ignore button. it came with my super-secret extra-premium membership. what?... you didn't get one?

Link to post
I just wish people would let others play the game the way they want to without all the criticism. If you don't like the cache, don't visit it. Its pretty simple.

I agree 100%, as long as both the finder's approach and the hider's (owner's) wishers are taking into considertion. After all both parties are involved in the game piece.

 

Andrew

And in this case, it doesn't take the finder's into consideration. Just adds a stat for the hider and annoys those who have it showing up on their "nearest" list, and wasting space in their Pocket Query (which they're paying for, BTW)

I agree, says it all and to the point

Link to post
I just wish people would let others play the game the way they want to without all the criticism. If you don't like the cache, don't visit it. Its pretty simple.

I agree 100%, as long as both the finder's approach and the hider's (owner's) wishers are taking into considertion. After all both parties are involved in the game piece.

 

Andrew

And in this case, it doesn't take the finder's into consideration. Just adds a stat for the hider and annoys those who have it showing up on their "nearest" list, and wasting space in their Pocket Query (which they're paying for, BTW)

Yeah, well some times life involves some little inconviences. But, really is that big an issue to get upset over? Gee there are some far more serious issues in the world than this.

 

Personally, I have some archived caches that show up on my "nearest list." Do I spit the dummy at gc.com over it? No, I move on .... like it really isn't that big an issue.

 

Surely, the game should be big enough to allow diversity in play?

 

All that said, I use GSAK, so the "nearest list" issue isn't a problem for me. As regards my pocket query ... really can't get that upset about it.

 

Cheers

Andrew

Link to post
And in this case, it doesn't take the finder's into consideration.  Just adds a stat for the hider and annoys those who have it showing up on their "nearest" list, and wasting space in their Pocket Query (which they're paying for, BTW)

On top of that, lots of times I go caching without looking at the description. I use Spinner, so my waypoint names are changed to GC for geocaches, MC for multi-caches, VC for virtual caches and so on. If I see a GC dot on my GPS I see if I can find it without knowing what it is. I like not knowing if it is a micro or a 5 gallon bucket. It adds more fun and more of a challenge to me. If I get stuck I look at the PQ give to me by Spinner on my PDA.

 

I would be upset if I wasted my time on this cache. I like finding caches and posting found it logs. I am not in a numbers race with anyone, but I do want my numbers to reflect the number of caches I have found so I can keep up with my personal goals. It would also bother me that it would never leave my nearest cache list. I would see it over and over, and I would say to myself "oh yeah, that is that cache that that jerk put out that cannot be cleared from my lists".

 

Personally, I have some archived caches that show up on my "nearest list."

Archived caches don't show up on your nearest list. Once archived they are no longer on your searches. Disabled caches do, but not archived ones.

Link to post

I would do one of two things, totally ignore the cache or find it, log it in the log book but make no mention of it on the on-line cache page. If I can't post a find, I'll post nothing at all. What's he going to do, post a dnf for me?

 

is this true?

Mopar Posted: Jan 7 2005, 04:38 PM 

or a cache that can only be logged if you have over 1000 finds

 

If thats the case then I think the next caches I put out there will stipulate that the only way you can log this cache is if you have at least 2, 5 or 10 hides of your own. I have my own opinions on " payback" to the sport and now I can impose that on others :rolleyes:

Edited by Geo-Explorer
Link to post

The following note was just placed on the cache by the reviewer.

 

Greetings, WH & Rlahti.

 

We have received a request to archive your It's Not About The Numbers

cache GCKV1B.  This has been an interesting experiment; however, the

premise of the cache is to promote an agenda (not a fan of cache

statistics) which is not an accepted use of the web site. In addition, the

logging restriction being imposed has a negative impact on the use of the

site's tools by other geocachers. 

 

Please note that we are not challenging your opinion of geocaching

statistics.  An active cache page is just not the place to advocate a

personal position.

 

I plan to leave the cache page as-is for five days.  If you want to

appeal, you may do so by e-mail directed to me or by commenting in the

forums. The cache logs are not the place for ongoing discussion.

 

You can contact me through my profile or by sending an e-mail to

gpsfun at geocachingadmin dot com

 

Thank you.

 

-gpsfun

 

This little experiment has really opened my eyes to the atitude of the geocaching community as a whole. I love the game and most of the poeple in it are real nice. However, theyll turn on you in a second if you dare try a new concept such as this.

 

Once the 5 days has expired, I will voluntarily archive the cache and allow all people who have actually visited the cache to edit their logs to finds. Please log only notes or DN'Fs until then.

 

(moderator edited gpsfun's email address to help prevent spam)

Edited by mtn-man
Link to post
Once the 5 days has expired, I will voluntarily archive the cache and allow all people who have actually visited the cache to edit their logs to finds. Please log only notes or DN'Fs until then.

But, as you stated

The whole point is to bring people to a nice area just for the

enjoyment of

it...not the numbers.

Why not leave it up and just remove the restriction?

It would be a shame to archive a good cache just because your experiment didn't work as you'd hoped.

Link to post
is this true?
Mopar Posted: Jan 7 2005, 04:38 PM 

or a cache that can only be logged if you have over 1000 finds

 

If thats the case then I think the next caches I put out there will stipulate that the only way you can log this cache is if you have at least 2, 5 or 10 hides of your own. I have my own opinions on " payback" to the sport and now I can impose that on others :rolleyes:

Yes that's an actual, existing cache. Sure, it MIGHT be obtainable for some, but someone who caches like Briansnat (and I'm not knocking his find count. A look at his finds is generally an easy way to see the better quality caches in his area) is gonna have to see it on his nearby list for 10-12yrs before he can log it.

There is also a cache you could only log as a milestone cache (logging requirements since relaxed)

My last example if probably the closest to WHs cache for most people. It was a "newbie only" cache. You had the have less then 99 finds (I think that was the number) to be able to log the cache. So if you were over the limit, you could NEVER log it as a find.

Link to post
The following note was just placed on the cache by the reviewer.

 

Greetings, WH & Rlahti.

 

We have received a request to archive your It's Not About The Numbers

cache GCKV1B.  This has been an interesting experiment; however, the

premise of the cache is to promote an agenda (not a fan of cache

statistics) which is not an accepted use of the web site. In addition, the

logging restriction being imposed has a negative impact on the use of the

site's tools by other geocachers. 

 

Please note that we are not challenging your opinion of geocaching

statistics.  An active cache page is just not the place to advocate a

personal position.

 

I plan to leave the cache page as-is for five days.  If you want to

appeal, you may do so by e-mail directed to me or by commenting in the

forums. The cache logs are not the place for ongoing discussion.

 

You can contact me through my profile or by sending an e-mail to

gpsfun at geocachingadmin dot com

 

Thank you.

 

-gpsfun

 

This little experiment has really opened my eyes to the atitude of the geocaching community as a whole. I love the game and most of the poeple in it are real nice. However, theyll turn on you in a second if you dare try a new concept such as this.

 

Once the 5 days has expired, I will voluntarily archive the cache and allow all people who have actually visited the cache to edit their logs to finds. Please log only notes or DN'Fs until then.

Now THIS sets a dangerous precedent.

If you're gonna archive a cache because being anti stats is an agenda, then any caches that are pro stats is also an agenda, no? That means archive all the power trails. Archive all the events that allow you to log 20 times. Archive any cache that was placed just for the sake of adding 1 more notch to your hide belt.

 

There are thousands of caches hidden for the sole purpose of upping people's find stats, gonna archive all of them too?

 

Now that I think about it, isn't placing a cache to bring you to a cool overlook or a pretty waterfall an agenda? And every single virtual cache has an agenda.

 

(moderator edited gpsfun's email address to help prevent spam)

Edited by mtn-man
Link to post
I just wish people would let others play the game the way they want to without all the criticism. If you don't like the cache, don't visit it. Its pretty simple.

I agree 100%, as long as both the finder's approach and the hider's (owner's) wishers are taking into considertion. After all both parties are involved in the game piece.

 

Andrew

And in this case, it doesn't take the finder's into consideration. Just adds a stat for the hider and annoys those who have it showing up on their "nearest" list, and wasting space in their Pocket Query (which they're paying for, BTW)

It's quite simple my friend. Don't go after this cache if you don't like the rules for it.

Link to post

My finds are there for my benefit. Just like everyone else, I like to keep track of which I have and have not found. If there way a way to hide my stats and still have the site keep track of which I have and have not found, Id do it.

 

I could care less if anyone takes me seriously or not.

Link to post

This little experiment has really opened my eyes to the attitude of the geocaching community as a whole. I love the game and most of the poeple in it are real nice. However, they'll turn on you in a second if you dare try a new concept such as this.

 

Once the 5 days has expired, I will voluntarily archive the cache and allow all people who have actually visited the cache to edit their logs to finds. Please log only notes or DN'Fs until then.

 

Nothing against you personally. Most of us just don't think it's a good idea for a cache. Unlike some other controversies we've had here in the forums, I think this disagreement was been suprisiningly civil and mostly free of personal attacks. Please don't take it personally just because most have disagreed with the concept. As my dad would say, think of it as a learning experience. Apparently, when most people find a cache, they'd like to see the smiley in their logs, whether they cache for the numbers or not.

 

If the cache is in a nice spot why archive it? Just relax the requirements. To me, archiving the cache would actually be going against the "cache permanence" guidelines.

Link to post

This little experiment has really opened my eyes to the attitude of the geocaching community as a whole. I love the game and most of the poeple in it are real nice. However, they'll turn on you in a second if you dare try a new concept such as this.

 

Once the 5 days has expired, I will voluntarily archive the cache and allow all people who have actually visited the cache to edit their logs to finds. Please log only notes or DN'Fs until then.

 

Nothing against you personally. Most of us just don't think it's a good idea for a cache. Unlike some other controversies we've had here in the forums, I think this disagreement was been suprisiningly civil and mostly free of personal attacks. Please don't take it personally just because most have disagreed with the concept. As my dad would say, think of it as a learning experience. Apparently, when most people find a cache, they'd like to see the smiley in their logs, whether they cache for the numbers or not.

 

If the cache is in a nice spot why archive it? Just relax the requirements. To me, archiving the cache would actually be going against the "cache permanence" guidelines.

The cache will be reborn in a different location. Right after my cache was approved, this cache was placed .1 mile away in protest. For those of you who can't view MO caches, heres the text of the cache:

 

As the waters of Mulberry Brook flow south from Old and New Ponds, they enter the 1000+ acre Wheaton Farm conservation area. There is currently a trio of caches in these woods for you to hunt.

 

The obvious route to the cache site takes you between Ward Pond and Fuller Hammond Reservoir. They are both impoundments of Mulberry Brook. You will not have to stray very far from the wide trails to access the cache.

From the main parking area (see maps below), this cache comes before mine, and this cache comes after it. Because local folks have worked quite hard on preserving these lands, I hope you can take the time to explore and find all three caches.

 

The cache owner has edited the cache description. It used to have a line allowing people to post a second find on the cache provided they foud all 3 caches in the area.

 

The reborn cache will be the same with a few slight changes:

 

1. I would ask, not require, that people post finds as notes

 

2. I would offer some small reward for people who comply

Edited by WH
Link to post
is this true?
Mopar Posted: Jan 7 2005, 04:38 PM 

or a cache that can only be logged if you have over 1000 finds

 

If thats the case then I think the next caches I put out there will stipulate that the only way you can log this cache is if you have at least 2, 5 or 10 hides of your own. I have my own opinions on " payback" to the sport and now I can impose that on others :rolleyes:

Yes that's an actual, existing cache. Sure, it MIGHT be obtainable for some, but someone who caches like Briansnat (and I'm not knocking his find count. A look at his finds is generally an easy way to see the better quality caches in his area) is gonna have to see it on his nearby list for 10-12yrs before he can log it.

There is also a cache you could only log as a milestone cache (logging requirements since relaxed)

My last example if probably the closest to WHs cache for most people. It was a "newbie only" cache. You had the have less then 99 finds (I think that was the number) to be able to log the cache. So if you were over the limit, you could NEVER log it as a find.

This is true for me as well, and to make matters worse, it is less than 1 mile from my house. I'm going to go get and log it a note...woohoo ... since numbers don't matter... but then again its not going to take me to a nice park either....I dont think

Link to post

It seems a shame to archive a perfectly good cache, or I should say, good in all respects but one (according to the majority of posts). I've been trying to think of ways that the cache could be salvaged, but still retaining the spirit of the original idea.

 

The only thing that comes immediately to mind is to make a nearby "bonus" cache. Put the coordinates of the bonus cache in the first cache, and post the bonus as a Puzzle/Mystery Cache. You could call it something a little self depricating like, "I Guess It Really Is About The Numbers".

 

I would like to point out that this concept is not totally new. About a year ago (maybe longer) there was a "lame roadside cache" back east that had a simlar theme. It was kind of an anti-micro at a truckstop thing. In that case, all the participants were in on the joke, and all agreed to post DNF's as a kind of protest of lame roadside caches. I seem to remember a memorable DNF by Lep that included pictures of him getting run over by the cache owners car :rolleyes: .

 

I think the main difference between that one and this is that the people involved all consented to the theme of the cache. I think it's pretty natural for most people to react with, "you're not going to tell me what to do!"

Link to post
My finds are there for my benefit. Just like everyone else, I like to keep track of which I have and have not found. If there way a way to hide my stats and still have the site keep track of which I have and have not found, Id do it.

 

I could care less if anyone takes me seriously or not.

My finds are there for my benefit. Just like you, I like to keep track of which I have and have not found. If there were a way to ignore your "no-find" cache after I had posted a note and keep track of it as a find, I'd do it.

 

I could NOT care less if you can't see the hypocrisy in using the system in place to track your completions via logging finds...but no one else is allowed to do the same on finding your placed cache.

 

You should be big enough to acknowledge that you concocted a loophole in the current find/list system that antagonized the local number hounds. There is *nothing* more wrong about their approach to the game than your's and by intentionally creating a cache that would always come up at the top of their filtered finds...you had the equivalent of a sharp stick poking in their eye when they would log in or PQ. You knew it and you did it anyways.

 

But the situation is resolved. Maybe you should save your idea for when people can selectively remove caches from searches or as a private cache offered in the logbook of a regular cache (no smilie...caching for caching's sake).

Link to post

I place ammo cans in the public domain. I work hard on hiding them and love to here about the find, the hunt, and the joy. It makes my day to see that someone found my cache. If you don't want to sign my log in the box or online then I will not judge you.

 

Nuwati

Link to post
This little experiment has really opened my eyes to the atitude of the geocaching community as a whole.

 

I think a lot of us will take you a bit more seriously the minute you delete your 488 finds.

Yeah, I think it is hipocritical too. There are members who do not log their finds. I might take this more seriously from one of them.

 

I guess I just don't understand why you would do this. It seem you have a rift going with the local community now anyway. Your cache is obviously meant to widen the gap and make the rift worse. I just don't understand this.

 

I think it is great that another cacher placed a cache next to yours to allow the community to log two finds so they could keep the cache find count accurate. It almost sounds as if you were offended by that action. Once again, this is a hipocritical attitude if that was your feeling.

 

(I am editing gpsfun's address above because of spamming.)

Link to post
The following note was just placed on the cache by the reviewer.

 

Greetings, WH & Rlahti.

 

We have received a request to archive your It's Not About The Numbers

cache GCKV1B.  This has been an interesting experiment; however, the

premise of the cache is to promote an agenda (not a fan of cache

statistics) which is not an accepted use of the web site. In addition, the

logging restriction being imposed has a negative impact on the use of the

site's tools by other geocachers. 

 

Please note that we are not challenging your opinion of geocaching

statistics.  An active cache page is just not the place to advocate a

personal position.

 

I plan to leave the cache page as-is for five days.  If you want to

appeal, you may do so by e-mail directed to me or by commenting in the

forums. The cache logs are not the place for ongoing discussion.

 

You can contact me through my profile or by sending an e-mail to

gpsfun at geocachingadmin dot com

 

Thank you.

 

-gpsfun

 

This little experiment has really opened my eyes to the atitude of the geocaching community as a whole. I love the game and most of the poeple in it are real nice. However, theyll turn on you in a second if you dare try a new concept such as this.

 

Once the 5 days has expired, I will voluntarily archive the cache and allow all people who have actually visited the cache to edit their logs to finds. Please log only notes or DN'Fs until then.

Now THIS sets a dangerous precedent.

If you're gonna archive a cache because being anti stats is an agenda, then any caches that are pro stats is also an agenda, no? That means archive all the power trails. Archive all the events that allow you to log 20 times. Archive any cache that was placed just for the sake of adding 1 more notch to your hide belt.

 

There are thousands of caches hidden for the sole purpose of upping people's find stats, gonna archive all of them too?

 

Now that I think about it, isn't placing a cache to bring you to a cool overlook or a pretty waterfall an agenda? And every single virtual cache has an agenda.

 

(moderator edited gpsfun's email address to help prevent spam)

Setting rules on a cache page that limit someone's use of the site is a more dangerous precedent than any of the others.

Link to post

Sure, the cache in question promotes an agenda (to the same extent every other cache promotes an adgenda; at the very least, every cache promotes it's own adgenda: "Find this cache").

 

I think this cache falls within the guidelines. Furthermore, I view it as an interesting twist to the game. In other words, I like it.

 

Perhaps, to appease those who have differing opinions, the owner could place an additional cache somewhere in the vicinity, one that would require "not finding" the original and obtaining some key information from it that facilitates the logging of the second. ;):rolleyes:

Link to post

So the lesson learned today is that if the lynch mob has a tree picked out and the noose already tied all you need is enough riders to get an unpopular cache{r} archived? ;):rolleyes:

 

I like numbers, especially mine. I like finding and hiding caches. I even like posting DNF's sometimes. I'll agree that this one does smell a bit, and was obviously as someone esle put it "intended to be a stick in the eye". But it like some others we have seen recently complied with the posted guidelines, and was approved. What is that telling the rest of us? B)

Link to post

Setting rules on a cache page that limit someone's use of the site is a more dangerous precedent than any of the others.

How is this any different than what Mopar posted: not being able to log a cache unless one has 1000 caches.? There is one in my area that is that way. I disagree with the cache rules, but like the person that posted it so i wont name the cache.

 

I agree with Wimseyguy as well, i guess mob rules *sigh*

Edited by Volwrath
Link to post
But it like some others we have seen recently complied with the posted guidelines, and was approved. What is that telling the rest of us? :rolleyes:

That the guidelines are just that. Guidelines, not an "all inclusive set of rules for getting/keeping a cache listed here".

Link to post

I don't like it, probably wouldn't go find it (since I like an accurate representation of my own finds), but I accept that it should be listed. If WH is willing to take lumps for his controversial listing, so be it.

Link to post

Setting rules on a cache page that limit someone's use of the site is a more dangerous precedent than any of the others.

How is this any different than what Mopar posted: not being able to log a cache unless one has 1000 caches.? There is one in my area that is that way. I disagree with the cache rules, but like the person that posted it so i wont name the cache.

 

I agree with Wimseyguy as well, i guess mob rules *sigh*

With a "must have 1000 finds to log it", everyone ultimately has the chance to do just that and get the appropriate credit.

Same thing with a 5/5 cache. If someone is willing to put forth the effort and learn the skills needed for say, a scuba cache, they could do so.

 

This cache says no matter what your reasons for caching, you can't log it. I don't cache for the numbers, but I wouldn't want it sitting on my nearest caches list after I found it. I cache to learn about the area I live in, to learn about the areas I visit, to exercise, to teach my kids about respecting the environment, and to just plain get out of the house.

 

That said, I still like to have a list of the caches I've found easily accessible to me. I do that by looking at the smilies on "My Cache Page". Notes don't stand out the same way, and I can't just count the notes to see how many I've found.

Link to post

So first the approver says this:

 

In my opinion, a cache with logging requirements as you have stated can be posted to the web site. As the owner, you may state whatever logging parameters you choose.

 

and approves the cache. Then the next day he says this:

 

the premise of the cache is to promote an agenda (not a fan of cache statistics) which is not an accepted use of the web site.

 

and schedules archiving the cache. Consistency rules! It is accepted on Friday and rejected on Saturday. Do the website's rules depend on the day of the week?

 

WH, I think you should not accept gpsfun's decision. Appeal. Your cache has been approved. Now it should be left alone.

Link to post
My finds are there for my benefit. Just like everyone else, I like to keep track of which I have and have not found.

Which is the gist of what people are suggesting is wrong with your cache. It prevents them from doing the exact same thing you like to do with your found-it logs... keep track of caches you have found. Not being able to log a :rolleyes: on your cache messes up people's own tracking of caches they've found, which seems to be the point everyone is trying to make.

Link to post
With a "must have 1000 finds to log it", everyone ultimately has the chance to do just that and get the appropriate credit.

Same thing with a 5/5 cache. If someone is willing to put forth the effort and learn the skills needed for say, a scuba cache, they could do so.

I will respectfully have to disagree. I have been geocaching for 2 years and only have ~200 caches. Granted I am not as hardcore as alot of people, but nonetheless, I will not make it to 1000 in the near future so.....

 

I will NEVER get to log this cache, DUE ONLY TO ITS RULES. (Well i might not be able to find it either but thats another thing entirely).

 

A more interesting idea is to do a cache that if you have 500 or less you can log it found, but as soon as you go over 500, it becomes a DNF.

Link to post
So first the approver says this:

 

In my opinion, a cache with logging requirements as you have stated can be posted to the web site. As the owner, you may state whatever logging parameters you choose.

 

and approves the cache. Then the next day he says this:

 

the premise of the cache is to promote an agenda (not a fan of cache statistics) which is not an accepted use of the web site.

 

and schedules archiving the cache. Consistency rules! It is accepted on Friday and rejected on Saturday. Do the website's rules depend on the day of the week?

 

WH, I think you should not accept gpsfun's decision. Appeal. Your cache has been approved. Now it should be left alone.

If a cache is approved by mistake, the admins have every right to archive it.

 

See Mtn-Man's post about it here

Link to post

It was not a mistake, and it's not "the admins" that want to archived it. It's the same guy who approves a cache on Friday and archives it on Saturday, on a whim. This is unacceptable.

Edited by as77
Link to post
It was not a mistake, and it's not "the admins" that want to archived it. It's the same guy who approves a cache on Friday and archives it on Saturday, on a whim. This is unacceptable.

It wasn't just "on a whim" read the original note, it was basically given "conditional approval" to see how the geo-community would react to it. Those in the community that responded, for the most part, didn't like it/think it was right. The "conditional approval" was revoked.

Link to post
It was not a mistake, and it's not "the admins" that want to archived it. It's the same guy who approves a cache on Friday and archives it on Saturday, on a whim. This is unacceptable.

It wasn't just "on a whim" read the original note, it was basically given "conditional approval" to see how the geo-community would react to it. Those in the community that responded, for the most part, didn't like it/think it was right. The "conditional approval" was revoked.

Where did you see that "conditional" part? It's not there. The cache was approved, period. The fact that the approver has changed his mind is his problem. Next time he should think harder before approving a cache. And even if the approval had been conditional (which I don't believe it was), a test period of 1 day is ridiculous. Also, to judge a cache based on what a few bobbleheads (© Jeremy) write in the forum is absurd.

Link to post
With a "must have 1000 finds to log it", everyone ultimately has the chance to do just that and get the appropriate credit.

Same thing with a 5/5 cache. If someone is willing to put forth the effort and learn the skills needed for say, a scuba cache, they could do so.

I will respectfully have to disagree. I have been geocaching for 2 years and only have ~200 caches. Granted I am not as hardcore as alot of people, but nonetheless, I will not make it to 1000 in the near future so.....

 

I will NEVER get to log this cache, DUE ONLY TO ITS RULES. (Well i might not be able to find it either but thats another thing entirely).

 

A more interesting idea is to do a cache that if you have 500 or less you can log it found, but as soon as you go over 500, it becomes a DNF.

It's not very likely, but it isn't impossible. You never know if you hit the lottery and reitre to do caching everyday and eventually hit 1000 caches. :rolleyes: With the cache rule of logging only notes for finds prevents you from being able to keep your find records straight. :rolleyes:

Link to post
It was not a mistake, and it's not "the admins" that want to archived it. It's the same guy who approves a cache on Friday and archives it on Saturday, on a whim. This is unacceptable.

Contrary to your statement, when the cache owner proposed the idea to me, I did not recognize the potential agenda issue, which is probably minor in comparison, or the impact that the logging requirement for no "finds" would have on usage of the site's tools by others. These points were identified in mostly polite and objective forum posts.

 

I retain the right to alter my perception upon receipt of new information. Thus, when a geocacher posted a should be archived log on the cache page, I posted a note to the owner.

 

Also contrary to your statement, the cache has not been archived.

 

edit - fixed typo

Edited by gpsfun
Link to post
Where did you see that "conditional" part?

From the original thread, when WH posted his log to the reviewer and the reply.

It is an interesting concept, and I would like to see how it is

received by

the local geocaching community

 

Sounds conditional to me.

Link to post
Contrary to your statement, when the cache owner proposed the idea to me, I did not recognize the potential agenda issue, which is probably minor in comparison, or the impact that the logging requirement for no "finds" would have on usage of the site's tools by others.  These points were identified in mostly polite and objective forum posts.

 

Once you decided that the cache is OK to go you should stick to that decision because it is utterly unfair to the hider that you suddenly change your mind and withdraw your approval to a previously approved cache. BTW I don't think the "agenda issue" is real, it seems a made-up excuse to me. There is no fundamental reason why this cache should not be allowed. Jeremy also said it should be listed. You still have the right to reject it but you should have thought of the issues you are mentioning before approving the cache, not thereafter.

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...