Virtual and Earthcache find logs that make you sigh...

[+ArtieD]

If you own an Earthcache or a Virtual, have you gotten logs that because of the way they are written, and from past experience you just know the finder is not going to follow through with the requirements? I got this log notification not long ago:

 

Highway 54 Filled Sinkhole (GC24FZD) has a new log:

 

Logged by: XXXXXXXX

Log Type: Found it

Date: 7/16/2015

Location: Missouri, United States

Type: Earthcache

 

Log:

Fun hunt

 

I have found that logs that are that short and pretty much emotionless or fail to mention anything about the Earthcache are likely to not send in answers. A Virtual cache owner I know has said similar things about his caches, saying a short, no effort log akin to "TFTC" will usually not send the information he seeks.

 

Apart from just deleting the logs, what can (or should) be done?

 

The one thing that I will not do – and people have disagreed with me on – is try to explain the concept of Earthcaches or Virtuals to people who obviously don't get it. Each of my Earthcaches explicitly say what a cacher needs to do to claim a find, and I feel that if you can't be bothered to read a cache page, then I cannot (and should not) help you.

 

Some say you should help them, for they obviously do not know what they are doing.

 

What say you?

Edited July 17, 2015 by Arthur & Trillian

[+bflentje]

Tough for me disagree since almost all of the logs on my caches are TFTC.

[+Manville Possum]

Here is one from a mega cacher posted on one of my EC's.

 

Out on a 2 day run with XXXXXX and XXXXXX, signing the logs as XXX. Finding all but a few that we looked for, replaced some broken containers, and replaced lots of wet logs! Picking up some puzzles that I had solved and some earth caches along the way, since theses are some of our favorites!! Thanks everyone for placing and keeping these up!! TFTC and a great run!

 

Well, really. If EC's are one of their favorits would it be too much trouble to actally post a log to the cache page and not a canned GSAK log? Wow, and this person has over 17K finds.

[+NanCycle]

If you own an Earthcache or a Virtual, have you gotten logs that because of the way they are written, and from past experience you just know the finder is not going to follow through with the requirements? . . . .

The one thing that I will not do – and people have disagreed with me on – is try to explain the concept of Earthcaches or Virtuals to people who obviously don't get it. Each of my Earthcaches explicitly say what a cacher needs to do to claim a find, and I feel that if you can't be bothered to read a cache page, then I cannot (and should not) help you.

 

Some say you should help them, for they obviously do not know what they are doing.

 

What say you?

 

I say those EC and VC owners who feel like trying to educate the ignorant should try, but those who, like you, don't feel like it don't have any obligation to do so. Just delete the logs; however if they ask why their logs were deleted, a brief explanation would be in order.

[+ArtieD]

If you own an Earthcache or a Virtual, have you gotten logs that because of the way they are written, and from past experience you just know the finder is not going to follow through with the requirements? . . . .

The one thing that I will not do – and people have disagreed with me on – is try to explain the concept of Earthcaches or Virtuals to people who obviously don't get it. Each of my Earthcaches explicitly say what a cacher needs to do to claim a find, and I feel that if you can't be bothered to read a cache page, then I cannot (and should not) help you.

 

Some say you should help them, for they obviously do not know what they are doing.

 

What say you?

 

I say those EC and VC owners who feel like trying to educate the ignorant should try, but those who, like you, don't feel like it don't have any obligation to do so. Just delete the logs; however if they ask why their logs were deleted, a brief explanation would be in order.

 

To be honest, I will say I would rather have those who don't understand the process over the ones who blatantly don't do what's required. A sampling of the logs like this...yes, I keep them, LOL:

 

"I was here, but did not feel like answering the questions. I'm claiming the find anyway."

"The questions were too hard and felt like schoolwork and I refuse to do that on summer break. TFTEC"

"I don't agree with answering questions. Thanks for the find."

 

...and my favorite...

 

"I shouldn't have to answer any questions to claim a find. I was here, I took a picture, so I deserve the find."

Edited July 17, 2015 by Arthur & Trillian

[+narcissa]

I try to handle it on a case-by-case basis. If it seems like it's a new person making an honest mistake, I'll send a note. If you mention a logbook, I'm deleting you and I'm not looking back.

 

Sadly, one of my Earthcaches is near one of those silly lines with several hundred caches where people find a couple and then log all of them. My Earthcache sometimes gets swept up in someone's auto-logging. These logs are pretty obvious, and I delete them without remorse.

[+narcissa]

If you own an Earthcache or a Virtual, have you gotten logs that because of the way they are written, and from past experience you just know the finder is not going to follow through with the requirements? . . . .

The one thing that I will not do – and people have disagreed with me on – is try to explain the concept of Earthcaches or Virtuals to people who obviously don't get it. Each of my Earthcaches explicitly say what a cacher needs to do to claim a find, and I feel that if you can't be bothered to read a cache page, then I cannot (and should not) help you.

 

Some say you should help them, for they obviously do not know what they are doing.

 

What say you?

 

I say those EC and VC owners who feel like trying to educate the ignorant should try, but those who, like you, don't feel like it don't have any obligation to do so. Just delete the logs; however if they ask why their logs were deleted, a brief explanation would be in order.

 

To be honest, I will say I would rather have those who don't understand the process over the ones who blatantly don't do what's required. A sampling of the logs like this...yes, I keep them, LOL:

 

"I was here, but did not feel like answering the questions. I'm claiming the find anyway."

"The questions were too hard and felt like schoolwork and I refuse to do that on summer break. TFTEC"

"I don't agree with answering questions. Thanks for the find."

 

...and my favorite...

 

"I shouldn't have to answer any questions to claim a find. I was here, I took a picture, so I deserve the find."

 

This wasn't on my Earthcache, and the dolts who wrote it at least had the decency to log it as a DNF, but this one is a real gem:

This is a lovely cache, a lovely place. However, the questions that accompany this cache are detailed, extensive, and not friendly for those accessing using smart technology from providers out of the country.

[+Astro_D]

I don't own any virtuals or eathcaches. But I would be inclined not to help them. if they can't be bothered to read the cache page, I don't think they're going to care to receive any 'help' that may come their way anyways. Of course, that means one may miss the odd duck who would appreciate the heads up. I would like to think if they cared, they'd at least read the cache page and realize more is required than just showing up/driving by GZ.

[+The A-Team]

I've only ever gotten a few logs with no accompanying answers on my EarthCaches, and no "stuff it"-style logs. I did send emails to the cachers who didn't send their answers, and I never got a response from any of them, so I just deleted the logs. I recently created a new EarthCache in a tourist-hotspot, though, so I expect I'll start to see more of these type of problems. So far, I have one log where it's been almost a month since they logged and no answers yet. There was also a pair of cachers 3 weeks ago who said in their log that they'd send their answers when they got home (they were traveling), but nothing yet even though they appear to have logged some caches near their home in the last few days.

 

I suspected I may have increased problems with this particular EarthCache simply due to the higher numbers of people doing it, so right from the start I had a warning at the top of the listing that I'd delete no-answer logs after 30 days. They've been given fair warning. I'll send these cachers a final-notice email along the lines of "I haven't received your answers yet...answers are required to prove you learned something and that you were there...if you're still traveling, let me know...if I don't get your answers by [insert date here], I'll be forced to delete your log." We'll see what happens.

[+ArtieD]

...I had a warning at the top of the listing that I'd delete no-answer logs after 30 days.

 

You're a lot nicer than I am. I give them two days to send answers before I send them a reminder email. If I get no response after seven days from the initial cache log, it gets deleted.

 

If they say they are traveling, I give a bit more leeway. However, if I see they have been caching since then and it doesn't appear to be part of a trip, then all bets are off. If you have time to cache, you have time to send answers.

[+The A-Team]

...I had a warning at the top of the listing that I'd delete no-answer logs after 30 days.

You're a lot nicer than I am. I give them two days to send answers before I send them a reminder email. If I get no response after seven days from the initial cache log, it gets deleted.

I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt. This is a touristy type of town where many visitors could be on Alaska cruises, so I want to give them time in case they're still on the cruise. They may also have simply forgotten, and I'm not in so much of a hurry that I can't give them a nudge. I haven't drafted it yet, but I'll probably have a form letter I can just copy-and-paste, so it isn't like it would take a lot of time out of my day. Personally, I take pains to keep all my logs in order, so I'd prefer not to cause such an issue for another cacher by deleting what later ends up being a valid log.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

If you own an Earthcache or a Virtual, have you gotten logs that because of the way they are written, and from past experience you just know the finder is not going to follow through with the requirements? I got this log notification not long ago:

 

Highway 54 Filled Sinkhole (GC24FZD) has a new log:

 

Logged by: XXXXXXXX

Log Type: Found it

Date: 7/16/2015

Location: Missouri, United States

Type: Earthcache

 

Log:

Fun hunt

 

I have found that logs that are that short and pretty much emotionless or fail to mention anything about the Earthcache are likely to not send in answers. A Virtual cache owner I know has said similar things about his caches, saying a short, no effort log akin to "TFTC" will usually not send the information he seeks.

 

Apart from just deleting the logs, what can (or should) be done?

 

The one thing that I will not do – and people have disagreed with me on – is try to explain the concept of Earthcaches or Virtuals to people who obviously don't get it. Each of my Earthcaches explicitly say what a cacher needs to do to claim a find, and I feel that if you can't be bothered to read a cache page, then I cannot (and should not) help you.

 

Some say you should help them, for they obviously do not know what they are doing.

 

What say you?

 

Take a look at some the logs on this cache near a large power trail. http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC24KBM_pisgah-lava-tubes

 

There are a bunch that are obviously cut-n-paste logs that the probably posted for the PT.

 

[+geodarts]

I recently got a pair of TFTC's on one of my earthcaches, without being sent any answers to fulfill the logging requirements. The earthcache is on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon so it is not like they were caught up in a repetitive trail. Both of them only had a handful of finds in the area. And it is not like there was nothing that might have inspired them to write more than the initials.

 

I did not mind the TFTC logs, though, so I did what I normally try to do -- wait a day or so and then send an email explaining that the logging questions are fundamental to earthcaches but if they could not send them within a short period and their log is deleted, they should feel free to relog it when it was convenient to send me the answers. It would be even easier if I wrote a form letter on the notes app so it would just be a matter of copying and pasting.

 

So far, I have not heard anything back, which is too bad because I am relatively easy. I do not consider earthcaches to be a test, but to be an opportunity to think about the geology at the location.

 

In fact, I can't recall any time when someone has ended up sending me the answers after a log is deleted under similar circumstances, so they could relog a find. I did have someone log one again, without sending the answers. It was easy in that case to delete it without further comment.

Edited July 18, 2015 by geodarts

[+JL_HSTRE]

I would think that the kinds of geocachers that enjoy Earthcaches are not the kind who leave TFTC logs.

 

If I get a log on one of my Earthcaches, I give the finder a few days to message me the answers. If they don't, I sent a friendly reminder. After a week without answers I delete the log.

[+jellis]

If you own an Earthcache or a Virtual, have you gotten logs that because of the way they are written, and from past experience you just know the finder is not going to follow through with the requirements? I got this log notification not long ago:

 

Highway 54 Filled Sinkhole (GC24FZD) has a new log:

 

Logged by: XXXXXXXX

Log Type: Found it

Date: 7/16/2015

Location: Missouri, United States

Type: Earthcache

 

Log:

Fun hunt

 

I have found that logs that are that short and pretty much emotionless or fail to mention anything about the Earthcache are likely to not send in answers. A Virtual cache owner I know has said similar things about his caches, saying a short, no effort log akin to "TFTC" will usually not send the information he seeks.

 

Apart from just deleting the logs, what can (or should) be done?

 

The one thing that I will not do – and people have disagreed with me on – is try to explain the concept of Earthcaches or Virtuals to people who obviously don't get it. Each of my Earthcaches explicitly say what a cacher needs to do to claim a find, and I feel that if you can't be bothered to read a cache page, then I cannot (and should not) help you.

 

Some say you should help them, for they obviously do not know what they are doing.

 

What say you?

I had one similar. Someone posted they found my cache. But it was an Earthcache. I asked if they were going to send me the answers. But the cacher only responded they were with someone else. But that someone didn't log the Earthcache. We went back and forth and I guess that cacher asked their friend and turns out the cacher logged the wrong cache.

[+Mudfrog]

If you own an Earthcache or a Virtual, have you gotten logs that because of the way they are written, and from past experience you just know the finder is not going to follow through with the requirements? . . . .

The one thing that I will not do – and people have disagreed with me on – is try to explain the concept of Earthcaches or Virtuals to people who obviously don't get it. Each of my Earthcaches explicitly say what a cacher needs to do to claim a find, and I feel that if you can't be bothered to read a cache page, then I cannot (and should not) help you.

 

Some say you should help them, for they obviously do not know what they are doing.

 

What say you?

 

I say those EC and VC owners who feel like trying to educate the ignorant should try, but those who, like you, don't feel like it don't have any obligation to do so. Just delete the logs; however if they ask why their logs were deleted, a brief explanation would be in order.

 

To be honest, I will say I would rather have those who don't understand the process over the ones who blatantly don't do what's required. A sampling of the logs like this...yes, I keep them, LOL:

 

"I was here, but did not feel like answering the questions. I'm claiming the find anyway."

"The questions were too hard and felt like schoolwork and I refuse to do that on summer break. TFTEC"

"I don't agree with answering questions. Thanks for the find."

 

...and my favorite...

 

"I shouldn't have to answer any questions to claim a find. I was here, I took a picture, so I deserve the find."

 

This wasn't on my Earthcache, and the dolts who wrote it at least had the decency to log it as a DNF, but this one is a real gem:

This is a lovely cache, a lovely place. However, the questions that accompany this cache are detailed, extensive, and not friendly for those accessing using smart technology from providers out of the country.

 

Not sure why you called that person a dolt. I've come across many virtuals and earthcaches with ridiculously tough and imo, unnecessary requirements. While some of those caches were interesting and educational, they won't get a log from me because i'm not going to jump through all the hoops some COs seem to enjoy imposing on finders. I'm a geocacher, not a rocket scientist!

[+narcissa]

If you own an Earthcache or a Virtual, have you gotten logs that because of the way they are written, and from past experience you just know the finder is not going to follow through with the requirements? . . . .

The one thing that I will not do – and people have disagreed with me on – is try to explain the concept of Earthcaches or Virtuals to people who obviously don't get it. Each of my Earthcaches explicitly say what a cacher needs to do to claim a find, and I feel that if you can't be bothered to read a cache page, then I cannot (and should not) help you.

 

Some say you should help them, for they obviously do not know what they are doing.

 

What say you?

 

I say those EC and VC owners who feel like trying to educate the ignorant should try, but those who, like you, don't feel like it don't have any obligation to do so. Just delete the logs; however if they ask why their logs were deleted, a brief explanation would be in order.

 

To be honest, I will say I would rather have those who don't understand the process over the ones who blatantly don't do what's required. A sampling of the logs like this...yes, I keep them, LOL:

 

"I was here, but did not feel like answering the questions. I'm claiming the find anyway."

"The questions were too hard and felt like schoolwork and I refuse to do that on summer break. TFTEC"

"I don't agree with answering questions. Thanks for the find."

 

...and my favorite...

 

"I shouldn't have to answer any questions to claim a find. I was here, I took a picture, so I deserve the find."

 

This wasn't on my Earthcache, and the dolts who wrote it at least had the decency to log it as a DNF, but this one is a real gem:

This is a lovely cache, a lovely place. However, the questions that accompany this cache are detailed, extensive, and not friendly for those accessing using smart technology from providers out of the country.

 

Not sure why you called that person a dolt. I've come across many virtuals and earthcaches with ridiculously tough and imo, unnecessary requirements. While some of those caches were interesting and educational, they won't get a log from me because i'm not going to jump through all the hoops some COs seem to enjoy imposing on finders. I'm a geocacher, not a rocket scientist!

 

If I am caching on the fly while travelling and I am not equipped to access a cache page, I don't whine to the cache owner because I didn't come prepared.

 

Not all caches are for all people.

[+geocat_]

"I was here, but did not feel like answering the questions. I'm claiming the find anyway."

"The questions were too hard and felt like schoolwork and I refuse to do that on summer break. TFTEC"

"I don't agree with answering questions. Thanks for the find."

 

...and my favorite...

 

"I shouldn't have to answer any questions to claim a find. I was here, I took a picture, so I deserve the find."

 

Wow! Just WOW! I cannot tell you how delighted I would be to delete those logs!!!

 

As for the original post, it depends on the mood I am in at the time. I have both educated and not educated. For me, it's usually with challenge caches as no one has messed up logging my EC so far.

[+humboldt flier]

If you own an Earthcache or a Virtual, have you gotten logs that because of the way they are written, and from past experience you just know the finder is not going to follow through with the requirements? . . . .

The one thing that I will not do – and people have disagreed with me on – is try to explain the concept of Earthcaches or Virtuals to people who obviously don't get it. Each of my Earthcaches explicitly say what a cacher needs to do to claim a find, and I feel that if you can't be bothered to read a cache page, then I cannot (and should not) help you.

 

Some say you should help them, for they obviously do not know what they are doing.

 

What say you?

 

I say those EC and VC owners who feel like trying to educate the ignorant should try, but those who, like you, don't feel like it don't have any obligation to do so. Just delete the logs; however if they ask why their logs were deleted, a brief explanation would be in order.

 

To be honest, I will say I would rather have those who don't understand the process over the ones who blatantly don't do what's required. A sampling of the logs like this...yes, I keep them, LOL:

 

"I was here, but did not feel like answering the questions. I'm claiming the find anyway."

"The questions were too hard and felt like schoolwork and I refuse to do that on summer break. TFTEC"

"I don't agree with answering questions. Thanks for the find."

 

...and my favorite...

 

"I shouldn't have to answer any questions to claim a find. I was here, I took a picture, so I deserve the find."

 

This wasn't on my Earthcache, and the dolts who wrote it at least had the decency to log it as a DNF, but this one is a real gem:

This is a lovely cache, a lovely place. However, the questions that accompany this cache are detailed, extensive, and not friendly for those accessing using smart technology from providers out of the country.

 

Not sure why you called that person a dolt. I've come across many virtuals and earthcaches with ridiculously tough and imo, unnecessary requirements. While some of those caches were interesting and educational, they won't get a log from me because i'm not going to jump through all the hoops some COs seem to enjoy imposing on finders. I'm a geocacher, not a rocket scientist!

 

Amen,

 

Visited an Earth Cache in Yellowstone a few days ago and my feelings mirror the last poster.

 

Appreciate a visit to an awesome location, HOWEVER, I do not have a Phd. in the earth sciences soooooooooo may not even attempt the questions and pass on logging the find. The site was indeed awesome and the informational signage was most educational. But the questions ... sheeeeeeshhhhh

 

*** Take me somewhere, show me something, teach me something, do NOT beat me over the head with your over the top ego or your Phd. in Earth Sciences.

[cezanne]

 

Visited an Earth Cache in Yellowstone a few days ago and my feelings mirror the last poster.

 

With which D-rating? There are some ECs with high ratings and I think that difficult questions are ok for those that require more than copying some words from a sign.

 

Of course they are not for everyone and not everyone will enjoy them, but that's true for any cache. There could be a cache 50m up a tree at a beautiful location. I might be able

to reach the location, but certainly not the cache.

[+narcissa]

If you own an Earthcache or a Virtual, have you gotten logs that because of the way they are written, and from past experience you just know the finder is not going to follow through with the requirements? . . . .

The one thing that I will not do – and people have disagreed with me on – is try to explain the concept of Earthcaches or Virtuals to people who obviously don't get it. Each of my Earthcaches explicitly say what a cacher needs to do to claim a find, and I feel that if you can't be bothered to read a cache page, then I cannot (and should not) help you.

 

Some say you should help them, for they obviously do not know what they are doing.

 

What say you?

 

I say those EC and VC owners who feel like trying to educate the ignorant should try, but those who, like you, don't feel like it don't have any obligation to do so. Just delete the logs; however if they ask why their logs were deleted, a brief explanation would be in order.

 

To be honest, I will say I would rather have those who don't understand the process over the ones who blatantly don't do what's required. A sampling of the logs like this...yes, I keep them, LOL:

 

"I was here, but did not feel like answering the questions. I'm claiming the find anyway."

"The questions were too hard and felt like schoolwork and I refuse to do that on summer break. TFTEC"

"I don't agree with answering questions. Thanks for the find."

 

...and my favorite...

 

"I shouldn't have to answer any questions to claim a find. I was here, I took a picture, so I deserve the find."

 

This wasn't on my Earthcache, and the dolts who wrote it at least had the decency to log it as a DNF, but this one is a real gem:

This is a lovely cache, a lovely place. However, the questions that accompany this cache are detailed, extensive, and not friendly for those accessing using smart technology from providers out of the country.

 

Not sure why you called that person a dolt. I've come across many virtuals and earthcaches with ridiculously tough and imo, unnecessary requirements. While some of those caches were interesting and educational, they won't get a log from me because i'm not going to jump through all the hoops some COs seem to enjoy imposing on finders. I'm a geocacher, not a rocket scientist!

 

Amen,

 

Visited an Earth Cache in Yellowstone a few days ago and my feelings mirror the last poster.

 

Appreciate a visit to an awesome location, HOWEVER, I do not have a Phd. in the earth sciences soooooooooo may not even attempt the questions and pass on logging the find. The site was indeed awesome and the informational signage was most educational. But the questions ... sheeeeeeshhhhh

 

*** Take me somewhere, show me something, teach me something, do NOT beat me over the head with your over the top ego or your Phd. in Earth Sciences.

 

I have yet to see an Earthcache that required anything more than reading the page and visiting the site.

 

The "detailed, extensive" questions that were the subject of this particular complaint were stunners like "estimate the height of this" and "tell me the name of this, you can read it on the sign." All you had to do was follow an established trail and visit the landmarks that you were there to see in the first place.

[+J Grouchy]

If you own an Earthcache or a Virtual, have you gotten logs that because of the way they are written, and from past experience you just know the finder is not going to follow through with the requirements? . . . .

The one thing that I will not do – and people have disagreed with me on – is try to explain the concept of Earthcaches or Virtuals to people who obviously don't get it. Each of my Earthcaches explicitly say what a cacher needs to do to claim a find, and I feel that if you can't be bothered to read a cache page, then I cannot (and should not) help you.

 

Some say you should help them, for they obviously do not know what they are doing.

 

What say you?

 

I say those EC and VC owners who feel like trying to educate the ignorant should try, but those who, like you, don't feel like it don't have any obligation to do so. Just delete the logs; however if they ask why their logs were deleted, a brief explanation would be in order.

 

To be honest, I will say I would rather have those who don't understand the process over the ones who blatantly don't do what's required. A sampling of the logs like this...yes, I keep them, LOL:

 

"I was here, but did not feel like answering the questions. I'm claiming the find anyway."

"The questions were too hard and felt like schoolwork and I refuse to do that on summer break. TFTEC"

"I don't agree with answering questions. Thanks for the find."

 

...and my favorite...

 

"I shouldn't have to answer any questions to claim a find. I was here, I took a picture, so I deserve the find."

 

This wasn't on my Earthcache, and the dolts who wrote it at least had the decency to log it as a DNF, but this one is a real gem:

This is a lovely cache, a lovely place. However, the questions that accompany this cache are detailed, extensive, and not friendly for those accessing using smart technology from providers out of the country.

 

Not sure why you called that person a dolt. I've come across many virtuals and earthcaches with ridiculously tough and imo, unnecessary requirements. While some of those caches were interesting and educational, they won't get a log from me because i'm not going to jump through all the hoops some COs seem to enjoy imposing on finders. I'm a geocacher, not a rocket scientist!

 

Amen,

 

Visited an Earth Cache in Yellowstone a few days ago and my feelings mirror the last poster.

 

Appreciate a visit to an awesome location, HOWEVER, I do not have a Phd. in the earth sciences soooooooooo may not even attempt the questions and pass on logging the find. The site was indeed awesome and the informational signage was most educational. But the questions ... sheeeeeeshhhhh

 

*** Take me somewhere, show me something, teach me something, do NOT beat me over the head with your over the top ego or your Phd. in Earth Sciences.

 

I have yet to see an Earthcache that required anything more than reading the page and visiting the site.

 

The "detailed, extensive" questions that were the subject of this particular complaint were stunners like "estimate the height of this" and "tell me the name of this, you can read it on the sign." All you had to do was follow an established trail and visit the landmarks that you were there to see in the first place.

 

I don't usually enjoy ECs, primarily because many of them have at least one or two questions that seem to call for knowledge outside of that which can be obtained by reading the cache page or visiting the site. Personally, I feel like those two things are all that SHOULD be necessary. At the very least, provide resource links to materials used when creating the EC, to be used in conjunction with the information gathered during the visit to GZ. Just haphazardly googling the answers to questions that don't even necessarily pertain to the area immediately around GZ seems like more of a chore than a learning experience.

[+on4bam]

I don't get it. To difficult, to much effort... then ignore these caches (EC or other). Next thing we know, there's a one year moratorium on earthcaches

[cezanne]

 

I don't usually enjoy ECs, primarily because many of them have at least one or two questions that seem to call for knowledge outside of that which can be obtained by reading the cache page or visiting the site. Personally, I feel like those two things are all that SHOULD be necessary. At the very least, provide resource links to materials used when creating the EC, to be used in conjunction with the information gathered during the visit to GZ. Just haphazardly googling the answers to questions that don't even necessarily pertain to the area immediately around GZ seems like more of a chore than a learning experience.

 

Good difficult ECs does not ask for haphazardly googling for answers but they might require much more effort and preparation work than just spending 2 minutes at the location.

 

For example, this EC in the Yellowstone area http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2F44C_yellowstones-solitary-geyser appears one of the more difficult ones but it looks interesting (from what I can say from the distance) and the D=4* clearly indicates that the cache is not about taking a photo and spending 30 seconds at the location like for a waymark.

 

Cezanne

[+J Grouchy]

 

I don't usually enjoy ECs, primarily because many of them have at least one or two questions that seem to call for knowledge outside of that which can be obtained by reading the cache page or visiting the site. Personally, I feel like those two things are all that SHOULD be necessary. At the very least, provide resource links to materials used when creating the EC, to be used in conjunction with the information gathered during the visit to GZ. Just haphazardly googling the answers to questions that don't even necessarily pertain to the area immediately around GZ seems like more of a chore than a learning experience.

 

Good difficult ECs does not ask for haphazardly googling for answers but they might require much more effort and preparation work than just spending 2 minutes at the location.

 

For example, this EC in the Yellowstone area http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2F44C_yellowstones-solitary-geyser appears one of the more difficult ones but it looks interesting (from what I can say from the distance) and the D=4* clearly indicates that the cache is not about taking a photo and spending 30 seconds at the location like for a waymark.

 

Cezanne

 

Who said anything about spending 2 minutes (or 30 seconds) at the location? Not me. I was merely saying that I feel that EC questions ought to pertain to observable aspects of that specific GZ instead of just generalized questions about the particular aspect of geology it is highlighting. In one near my office, there are several questions that are so general it doesn't even require a visit to GZ:

 

1. What two distinct regions does the xxxxx fault divide?

2. In your own words, tell me what a fault is.

3. What states have the xxxxx fault in them?

 

I could just google all the answers instead of going there...so really what's the point of posting that cache at that location?

Edited July 22, 2015 by J Grouchy

[+narcissa]

I don't get it. To difficult, to much effort... then ignore these caches (EC or other). Next thing we know, there's a one year moratorium on earthcaches

 

That's what I don't get. Look at the rating. Read the cache page. If it's not for you, skip it. If I posted an angry DNF every time I decided a cache wasn't worth the trouble, I wouldn't have time to actually go geocaching.

[cezanne]

 

Who said anything about spending 2 minutes (or 30 seconds) at the location? Not me.

 

Yes, not you but that's what many visitors of ECs expect. They see them as waymarks where it's only about visiting the location.

 

I was merely saying that I feel that EC questions ought to pertain to observable aspects of that specific GZ instead of just generalized questions about the particular aspect of geology it is highlighting. In one near my office, there are several questions that are so general it doesn't even require a visit to GZ:

 

I agree that there are many poorly devised ECs. However in my experience ECs for which the answers can be quickly googled are not those which cause the most complaints. The latter are typically about those ECs where one needs to spend more time with making observations, interpreting them, thinking about reasons etc

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Who said anything about spending 2 minutes (or 30 seconds) at the location? Not me.

 

Yes, not you but that's what many visitors of ECs expect. They see them as waymarks where it's only about visiting the location.

 

 

In that case, those visitors have invalid expectations for the type of cache they're "finding". Earthcaches would not exist if not for the efforts that the GSA has made in publishing guidelines for the creation of an EC and provides volunteer reviewers to ensure that those guidelines are met. A couple of the relevant guidelines include:

 

 

- EarthCaches must be educational. They provide accurate, educational, but non-technical explanations of what visitors will experience at the site. The cache page, including the description and logging tasks, must assume only a basic knowledge of geology. (educational aspects of EarthCaches defined)

 

- Logging an EarthCache requires visitors to undertake a site-specific task which provides a learning opportunity related to the topic.

 

I was merely saying that I feel that EC questions ought to pertain to observable aspects of that specific GZ instead of just generalized questions about the particular aspect of geology it is highlighting. In one near my office, there are several questions that are so general it doesn't even require a visit to GZ:

 

I agree that there are many poorly devised ECs. However in my experience ECs for which the answers can be quickly googled are not those which cause the most complaints. The latter are typically about those ECs where one needs to spend more time with making observations, interpreting them, thinking about reasons etc

 

I agree with J Grouchy here. The "observable aspects of that specific GZ" matches up with the "undertakes a site specific task" described in the guidelines. One of my favorites had a few simple tasks that could only be completed on site. It was located on some sand dunes in the outer banks.

 

1. Identify the two bodies of water on each side of the dunes (this could actually be done using Google).

2. Describe a specific phenomenon about the sand dunes. The information required to answer the question could be found at the nearby information center (which I believe was used for the published coordinates.)

3. Hike the the highest point on the dunes and capture a waypoint. Post the coordinates in the log with the distance from the waypoint in the previous log.

 

It was interesting to look at the logs and see how far and how fast the highest point moved and the view from that highest point was really nice.

[+bflentje]

 

Visited an Earth Cache in Yellowstone a few days ago and my feelings mirror the last poster.

 

With which D-rating? There are some ECs with high ratings and I think that difficult questions are ok for those that require more than copying some words from a sign.

 

Of course they are not for everyone and not everyone will enjoy them, but that's true for any cache. There could be a cache 50m up a tree at a beautiful location. I might be able

to reach the location, but certainly not the cache.

 

Did you miss this part from the humboldt flyer?

 

may not even attempt the questions and pass on logging the find.

[cezanne]

 

Did you miss this part from the humboldt flyer?

 

may not even attempt the questions and pass on logging the find.

 

No, I did not miss it. I was referring to the somehow complaining part of the post.

I got the impression that humboldt flyer has an issue with ECs of the type he described.

 

I come across complaints about too difficult questions and the alleged need to have a degree in

earth science, computer science or whatever very often while I hardly ever encounter complaints

about physically too demanding caches. I'm neither a climber nor a physicist, but what makes knowledge in

physics any worse than the ability to cope with difficult clombing tasks? Neither can be acquired by everyone and neither

is directly cache related. I do not think that the EC in the Yellowstone area is indeed that hard that a degree in

earth sciences is required but it well may be a more difficult one. I appreciate that there are difficult (earth) caches too and not

only trivial ones.

[+HB-vanislelady]

Wow and yes as an owner of ECs I have seen answers like this and yes I do delete logs after a specific time. What I will not do is delete the log if it is wrong. For me as an owner and a finder is that I visited the site and I learned something and/or that I tried..It's all about the learning and experience. If some cachers don't get that then that is their loss. For me there are no wrong answers only no answers...

[+humboldt flier]

Wow and yes as an owner of ECs I have seen answers like this and yes I do delete logs after a specific time. What I will not do is delete the log if it is wrong. For me as an owner and a finder is that I visited the site and I learned something and/or that I tried..It's all about the learning and experience. If some cachers don't get that then that is their loss. For me there are no wrong answers only no answers...

 

A great approach in my estimation ...

[+humboldt flier]

Ohhhhhhhhhh Myyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy,

 

It would seem as though my slightly off topic comment yesterday has stirred up a comment or two.

 

I have a tad more than 140 Earth Cache visitations so I am not exactly the youngest rock in the sedimentary layer.

[+narcissa]

Wow and yes as an owner of ECs I have seen answers like this and yes I do delete logs after a specific time. What I will not do is delete the log if it is wrong. For me as an owner and a finder is that I visited the site and I learned something and/or that I tried..It's all about the learning and experience. If some cachers don't get that then that is their loss. For me there are no wrong answers only no answers...

 

That's a good approach. I look for an honest attempt to learn about the site.

 

If I really felt like someone totally missed the point, I might think about sending them an email about it, but that's never come up.

[+humboldt flier]

 

Visited an Earth Cache in Yellowstone a few days ago and my feelings mirror the last poster.

 

With which D-rating? There are some ECs with high ratings and I think that difficult questions are ok for those that require more than copying some words from a sign.

 

Of course they are not for everyone and not everyone will enjoy them, but that's true for any cache. There could be a cache 50m up a tree at a beautiful location. I might be able

to reach the location, but certainly not the cache.

 

Did you miss this part from the humboldt flyer?

 

may not even attempt the questions and pass on logging the find.

 

I am certainly not going to arm wrestle with the CO:

 

I enjoyed the site I was taken to ... and am content to put my tail between my legs and walk away ... with the pleasure of having visited an awesome site.

 

As with all of my logging the CO will get a thank-you for having placed ... (Hey I even throw out a thank-you for my purple frownies ... it is not the CO's fault that I am a doltish blockhead.

Edited July 23, 2015 by humboldt flier

[cezanne]

Wow and yes as an owner of ECs I have seen answers like this and yes I do delete logs after a specific time. What I will not do is delete the log if it is wrong. For me as an owner and a finder is that I visited the site and I learned something and/or that I tried..It's all about the learning and experience. If some cachers don't get that then that is their loss. For me there are no wrong answers only no answers...

 

In my opinion, it would be helpful to provide feedback about wrong answers and the chance to get the wrong answers right (possibly with help and/or hints if needed). Otherwise, for me it is not a real learning experience. That's not an issue of whether or not a log should be deleted but whether or not learning at a reasonable level took place.

 

I'm very unhappy about how many EC owners do not reply to the sent in answers even if it is clear that not everything can be alright for example if one offers 2 alternatives and mentions that one is not sure which one applies. I'm not happy with the approach that the goal is just trying to answer and that no feedback is required.

[cezanne]

I have a tad more than 140 Earth Cache visitations so I am not exactly the youngest rock in the sedimentary layer.

 

Actually, I have much less EC visits than you (there are not so many geological places in my area) and it might well be that being confronted with the EC where you gave up I would have done the same (I have done it before for other caches that seemed too tiresome for me). I cannot judge on this as you did not mention which EC you refer to, but it's not the point I tried to made anyway.

 

It's a nice habit of yours if you thank the cache owner for the experience in case of ECs you do not log as finds or in case of DNFs for physical caches.

 

It has not been my intent to criticize how you approach ECs or any other type of caches (I do not know you anyway and it's not my business).

 

I just was not that happy with your post where you agreed with the previous post (which among others contained this "I've come across many virtuals and earthcaches with ridiculously tough and imo, unnecessary requirements. While some of those caches were interesting and educational, they won't get a log from me because i'm not going to jump through all the hoops some COs seem to enjoy imposing on finders. I'm a geocacher, not a rocket scientist!") and then you

wrote "do NOT beat me over the head with your over the top ego or your Phd. in Earth Sciences."

 

Have you ever encountered a reference to an over the top ego or the competence of a professional climber when it came to a difficult climbing cache? I have not. Like I try to assume that a cache 50m up a tree is hidden because the

hider enjoys such caches/challenges, I try to do the same for a a difficult EC and try to avoid making conclusions about the ego of the cache owner.

[+narcissa]

I have a tad more than 140 Earth Cache visitations so I am not exactly the youngest rock in the sedimentary layer.

 

Actually, I have much less EC visits than you (there are not so many geological places in my area) and it might well be that being confronted with the EC where you gave up I would have done the same (I have done it before for other caches that seemed too tiresome for me). I cannot judge on this as you did not mention which EC you refer to, but it's not the point I tried to made anyway.

 

It's a nice habit of yours if you thank the cache owner for the experience in case of ECs you do not log as finds or in case of DNFs for physical caches.

 

It has not been my intent to criticize how you approach ECs or any other type of caches (I do not know you anyway and it's not my business).

 

I just was not that happy with your post where you agreed with the previous post (which among others contained this "I've come across many virtuals and earthcaches with ridiculously tough and imo, unnecessary requirements. While some of those caches were interesting and educational, they won't get a log from me because i'm not going to jump through all the hoops some COs seem to enjoy imposing on finders. I'm a geocacher, not a rocket scientist!") and then you

wrote "do NOT beat me over the head with your over the top ego or your Phd. in Earth Sciences."

 

Have you ever encountered a reference to an over the top ego or the competence of a professional climber when it came to a difficult climbing cache? I have not. Like I try to assume that a cache 50m up a tree is hidden because the

hider enjoys such caches/challenges, I try to do the same for a a difficult EC and try to avoid making conclusions about the ego of the cache owner.

 

For some reason, Earthcaches, which require a bit of reading and hands-on learning, seem to touch a nerve with people. I see this "I'm not a rocket scientist" type of complaint about them frequently.

 

It's sad that people interpret them so negatively. I really doubt that anybody goes to the trouble of creating an Earthcache in order to "beat" people "over the head" with anything. I guess that's the trouble with being a nerd and being excited about intellectual pursuits. Some people just don't understand how others can be excited about something that isn't shopping or sports.

[+on4bam]

For some reason, Earthcaches, which require a bit of reading and hands-on learning, seem to touch a nerve with people. I see this "I'm not a rocket scientist" type of complaint about them frequently.

 

Not only EC's. Mysteries are to difficult, challenges unattainable, multi's to long...

[+narcissa]

For some reason, Earthcaches, which require a bit of reading and hands-on learning, seem to touch a nerve with people. I see this "I'm not a rocket scientist" type of complaint about them frequently.

 

Not only EC's. Mysteries are to difficult, challenges unattainable, multi's to long...

 

Yeah, I guess there will always be cachers who see a difficult cache close to home and take it as a personal slight.

[+ArtieD]

For some reason, Earthcaches, which require a bit of reading and hands-on learning, seem to touch a nerve with people. I see this "I'm not a rocket scientist" type of complaint about them frequently.

 

Not only EC's. Mysteries are to difficult, challenges unattainable, multi's to long...

 

Yeah, I guess there will always be cachers who see a difficult cache close to home and take it as a personal slight.

 

LOL, yeah, but I really don't. There's a certain DGS member that thought it'd just kill me to place a very, very hard puzzle within a half mile of my house, knowing I have the immediate area (around 35 miles) cleared. Thing is, I looked at it, knew the person, and figured what they were doing, confirmed by a friend of mine. So, I put it on ignore. Funny thing is, other area cachers have basically done the same thing, seeing the cache for what it is. None are working on it, LOL.

[+narcissa]

For some reason, Earthcaches, which require a bit of reading and hands-on learning, seem to touch a nerve with people. I see this "I'm not a rocket scientist" type of complaint about them frequently.

 

Not only EC's. Mysteries are to difficult, challenges unattainable, multi's to long...

 

Yeah, I guess there will always be cachers who see a difficult cache close to home and take it as a personal slight.

 

LOL, yeah, but I really don't. There's a certain DGS member that thought it'd just kill me to place a very, very hard puzzle within a half mile of my house, knowing I have the immediate area (around 35 miles) cleared. Thing is, I looked at it, knew the person, and figured what they were doing, confirmed by a friend of mine. So, I put it on ignore. Funny thing is, other area cachers have basically done the same thing, seeing the cache for what it is. None are working on it, LOL.

 

Private jokes between geocachers notwithstanding - that kind of thing goes on around here, and I certainly hope it's done in a lighthearted way.

 

But I really don't think that an Earthcache owner who creates a comprehensive cache page and an engaging list of tasks is actually trying to stick it to a stranger from around the world who couldn't be bothered to download the cache page in advance, years after the cache was created.

[+ArtieD]

But I really don't think that an Earthcache owner who creates a comprehensive cache page and an engaging list of tasks is actually trying to stick it to a stranger from around the world who couldn't be bothered to download the cache page in advance, years after the cache was created.

 

I'd like to think so.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

For some reason, Earthcaches, which require a bit of reading and hands-on learning, seem to touch a nerve with people. I see this "I'm not a rocket scientist" type of complaint about them frequently.

 

Not only EC's. Mysteries are to difficult, challenges unattainable, multi's to long...

 

Yeah, I guess there will always be cachers who see a difficult cache close to home and take it as a personal slight.

 

LOL, yeah, but I really don't. There's a certain DGS member that thought it'd just kill me to place a very, very hard puzzle within a half mile of my house, knowing I have the immediate area (around 35 miles) cleared. Thing is, I looked at it, knew the person, and figured what they were doing, confirmed by a friend of mine. So, I put it on ignore. Funny thing is, other area cachers have basically done the same thing, seeing the cache for what it is. None are working on it, LOL.

 

If I put every cache within 100 miles on an ignore list that wouldn't mean that I've cleared the area within 100 miles.

 

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Wow and yes as an owner of ECs I have seen answers like this and yes I do delete logs after a specific time. What I will not do is delete the log if it is wrong. For me as an owner and a finder is that I visited the site and I learned something and/or that I tried..It's all about the learning and experience. If some cachers don't get that then that is their loss. For me there are no wrong answers only no answers...

 

In my opinion, it would be helpful to provide feedback about wrong answers and the chance to get the wrong answers right (possibly with help and/or hints if needed). Otherwise, for me it is not a real learning experience. That's not an issue of whether or not a log should be deleted but whether or not learning at a reasonable level took place.

 

Who defines "learning at a reasonable level". The EC guidelines only state that an EC has to provide a learning experience but doesn't quantify how much learning needs to take place.

 

 

[+ArtieD]

For some reason, Earthcaches, which require a bit of reading and hands-on learning, seem to touch a nerve with people. I see this "I'm not a rocket scientist" type of complaint about them frequently.

 

Not only EC's. Mysteries are to difficult, challenges unattainable, multi's to long...

 

Yeah, I guess there will always be cachers who see a difficult cache close to home and take it as a personal slight.

 

LOL, yeah, but I really don't. There's a certain DGS member that thought it'd just kill me to place a very, very hard puzzle within a half mile of my house, knowing I have the immediate area (around 35 miles) cleared. Thing is, I looked at it, knew the person, and figured what they were doing, confirmed by a friend of mine. So, I put it on ignore. Funny thing is, other area cachers have basically done the same thing, seeing the cache for what it is. None are working on it, LOL.

 

If I put every cache within 100 miles on an ignore list that wouldn't mean that I've cleared the area within 100 miles.

 

It effectively is, as I do not even consider it a cache but more like a childish prank. If we do go that route, then let's call it that I have cleared out everything that is worthy of my time.

[+ArtieD]

Wow and yes as an owner of ECs I have seen answers like this and yes I do delete logs after a specific time. What I will not do is delete the log if it is wrong. For me as an owner and a finder is that I visited the site and I learned something and/or that I tried..It's all about the learning and experience. If some cachers don't get that then that is their loss. For me there are no wrong answers only no answers...

 

In my opinion, it would be helpful to provide feedback about wrong answers and the chance to get the wrong answers right (possibly with help and/or hints if needed). Otherwise, for me it is not a real learning experience. That's not an issue of whether or not a log should be deleted but whether or not learning at a reasonable level took place.

 

Who defines "learning at a reasonable level". The EC guidelines only state that an EC has to provide a learning experience but doesn't quantify how much learning needs to take place.

 

It's in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

[+redsox_mark]

I've seen both "extremes" if you like.

 

Earth Caches are required to be educational. I know EC owners who weren't particularly interested in Earth Sciences, but wanted to place an Earth Cache, and had some back and forth with their reviewers because their cache wasn't educational enough - eventually getting it published.

 

On the other hand, there are some Earth Caches in my area set by a local professor in Earth Sciences, which I have found difficult. Many of them have a dozen or more questions. And on most of her caches I've submitted some wrong answers. But the CO kindly replied and explained what I got wrong as well as what I got right, and said to log it. And I learned more as a result of it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

For some reason, Earthcaches, which require a bit of reading and hands-on learning, seem to touch a nerve with people. I see this "I'm not a rocket scientist" type of complaint about them frequently.

 

Not only EC's. Mysteries are to difficult, challenges unattainable, multi's to long...

 

Yeah, I guess there will always be cachers who see a difficult cache close to home and take it as a personal slight.

 

LOL, yeah, but I really don't. There's a certain DGS member that thought it'd just kill me to place a very, very hard puzzle within a half mile of my house, knowing I have the immediate area (around 35 miles) cleared. Thing is, I looked at it, knew the person, and figured what they were doing, confirmed by a friend of mine. So, I put it on ignore. Funny thing is, other area cachers have basically done the same thing, seeing the cache for what it is. None are working on it, LOL.

 

If I put every cache within 100 miles on an ignore list that wouldn't mean that I've cleared the area within 100 miles.

 

It effectively is, as I do not even consider it a cache but more like a childish prank. If we do go that route, then let's call it that I have cleared out everything that is worthy of my time.

 

There are a lot of caches in my area that I wouldn't consider worthy of my time but that doesn't mean that I've found them. It sounds like "clearing an area" doesn't mean the same thing as "finding every cache in an area".

 

IMHO, if someone is going to claim to have accomplished some sort of geocaching milestone, it shouldn't come with a list of disclaimers.

 

 

[+ArtieD]

For some reason, Earthcaches, which require a bit of reading and hands-on learning, seem to touch a nerve with people. I see this "I'm not a rocket scientist" type of complaint about them frequently.

 

Not only EC's. Mysteries are to difficult, challenges unattainable, multi's to long...

 

Yeah, I guess there will always be cachers who see a difficult cache close to home and take it as a personal slight.

 

LOL, yeah, but I really don't. There's a certain DGS member that thought it'd just kill me to place a very, very hard puzzle within a half mile of my house, knowing I have the immediate area (around 35 miles) cleared. Thing is, I looked at it, knew the person, and figured what they were doing, confirmed by a friend of mine. So, I put it on ignore. Funny thing is, other area cachers have basically done the same thing, seeing the cache for what it is. None are working on it, LOL.

 

If I put every cache within 100 miles on an ignore list that wouldn't mean that I've cleared the area within 100 miles.

 

It effectively is, as I do not even consider it a cache but more like a childish prank. If we do go that route, then let's call it that I have cleared out everything that is worthy of my time.

 

There are a lot of caches in my area that I wouldn't consider worthy of my time but that doesn't mean that I've found them. It sounds like "clearing an area" doesn't mean the same thing as "finding every cache in an area".

 

IMHO, if someone is going to claim to have accomplished some sort of geocaching milestone, it shouldn't come with a list of disclaimers.

 

You are free to think as you wish. Since this is not your caching area or your caching experience, then your opinion is about as worthless as that cache.

 

Back on topic now...