Jump to content

Right cache, wrong container.


Popo5525

Recommended Posts

I hid my first geocache about a year ago, and today, as I stopped by to let a friend look for it, they found a small pill bottle, complete with a paper inside, hidden very near the coordinates. The problem is, this is NOT the container, nor the location, of the cache I placed. There have been multiple finds since I hid this, but only a handful actually found the real thing. What's worse, I found the original container broken.

 

Now, I need to acquire a new container to put back, and figure out what to do about all the fake finds. Confused about what the general protocol is for this sort of situation.

Link to comment

Reading through the logs it's impossible to determine who placed the throwdown. And from your OP it also sounds like some recent finders did find the container you placed. Since your page does not specifically mention the container type, I think you have to let those finds on the wrong container stay. Those cachers had no way of knowing that they were misled by the person who placed the throw down there instead of posting a DNF.

 

If you want to be confrontational, you could email the top name on the log of the pill bottle and ask them why they put it there. And you could delete their find if you wanted to. But not the following ones.

 

Here's the Help Center article on Throwdowns.

Link to comment

Reading through the logs it's impossible to determine who placed the throwdown. And from your OP it also sounds like some recent finders did find the container you placed. Since your page does not specifically mention the container type, I think you have to let those finds on the wrong container stay. Those cachers had no way of knowing that they were misled by the person who placed the throw down there instead of posting a DNF.

+1

Link to comment

Reading through the logs it's impossible to determine who placed the throwdown. And from your OP it also sounds like some recent finders did find the container you placed. Since your page does not specifically mention the container type, I think you have to let those finds on the wrong container stay. Those cachers had no way of knowing that they were misled by the person who placed the throw down there instead of posting a DNF.

 

If you want to be confrontational, you could email the top name on the log of the pill bottle and ask them why they put it there. And you could delete their find if you wanted to. But not the following ones.

 

Here's the Help Center article on Throwdowns.

 

I would let the logs stand as well since most of them were made in good faith. Most probably had no idea that someone threw down. The throwdowner's log, if i figured out who it was, would be deleted in a heartbeat. I'd also email to let them know that i didn't appreciate what they did. <_<

Link to comment

I would let the logs stand as well since most of them were made in good faith. Most probably had no idea that someone threw down. The throwdowner's log, if i figured out who it was, would be deleted in a heartbeat. I'd also email to let them know that i didn't appreciate what they did. <_<

 

I would disable until I could replace the container. I would not delete logs or contact anyone even though I'm not in favor of non-owner maintenance in the form of additional containers. Just not worth the hassle and bad blood.

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

The only log that people delete on those is the first one in the throwdown. However, I've noticed on one that I found, someone writing a fake name in the first spot, as what appears to be an intentional way to avoid that. :rolleyes:

 

Or, don't write your name.

If the CO calls you out, claim you logged on the original cache before the throwdown was placed...

Link to comment

How to handle throwdowns

 

Sorry that someone left a throwdown pill bottle at your cache site. Perhaps it's from another game, or perhaps someone felt they were "helping" when they couldn't find your cache. While this has always been an issue with the game, it seems to be becoming more the standard approach. :mad:

 

All I ask is you do not freaking tell JPreto about this. As a matter of fact, they should add that to the bottom of the Groundspeak Help page article. :ph34r:

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

I would let the logs stand as well since most of them were made in good faith. Most probably had no idea that someone threw down. The throwdowner's log, if i figured out who it was, would be deleted in a heartbeat. I'd also email to let them know that i didn't appreciate what they did. <_<

 

I would disable until I could replace the container. I would not delete logs or contact anyone even though I'm not in favor of non-owner maintenance in the form of additional containers. Just not worth the hassle and bad blood.

 

Or leave the throwdown as the official cache. <_<

Link to comment

It was probably the cacher with over 24,000 finds. :ph34r:

 

In future, you may want to check on your cache every few months. This might have prevented so many logs on the throwdown.

 

Edit to add a missed word :blink:

 

If I am getting found it logs and no NM I hardly ever check.

I think a better suggestion would be to indicate what the container is in the cache writeup. Then you might have someone mention a difference.

Link to comment

I just actually looked at the cache, which I suppose is somewhat local to me (107 Miles SW of my home coordinates). I don't want to throw stones here, but there's a 30,000+ find couple in the logs there whom have been known to throw down when they can't find the cache. The way we figure this out when they throw down closer to my coordinates, is that their names are first in the log of "the cache" Because they never mention leaving a throwndown in their copy and paste logs. I'm certainly not publicly accusing them here, but in the case of ANY throwdown, the first signer of the log in the replacement cache is almost always the culprit. :ph34r:

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

I would suggest not to delete the logs of those who signed the throw down. We are working on a streak and occasionally only find one cache in a day to keep it going. We would probably have no idea we found the wrong container. That would really hurt.

We don't place throw downs but have replaced missing caches that the CO asked us to. Sometimes because the log is full. I usually don't sign those to save space on the log and the reason we are changing the log or replacing the cache. I feel the new log and/or cache will prove we were there.

Link to comment

I just actually looked at the cache, which I suppose is somewhat local to me (107 Miles SW of my home coordinates). I don't want to throw stones here, but there's a 30,000+ find couple in the logs there whom have been known to throw down when they can't find the cache. The way we figure this out when they throw down closer to my coordinates, is that their names are first in the log of "the cache" Because they never mention leaving a throwndown in their copy and paste logs. I'm certainly not publicly accusing them here, but in the case of ANY throwdown, the first signer of the log in the replacement cache is almost always the culprit. :ph34r:

 

Your 'culprits' might have a throw down reputation, but the only 30K finders on this one were there in July. According to the disable note the last finders on the original container's log was in March. There are a handful of finds posted in the months between. <_<

Link to comment

I just actually looked at the cache, which I suppose is somewhat local to me (107 Miles SW of my home coordinates). I don't want to throw stones here, but there's a 30,000+ find couple in the logs there whom have been known to throw down when they can't find the cache. The way we figure this out when they throw down closer to my coordinates, is that their names are first in the log of "the cache" Because they never mention leaving a throwndown in their copy and paste logs. I'm certainly not publicly accusing them here, but in the case of ANY throwdown, the first signer of the log in the replacement cache is almost always the culprit. :ph34r:

 

Your 'culprits' might have a throw down reputation, but the only 30K finders on this one were there in July. According to the disable note the last finders on the original container's log was in March. There are a handful of finds posted in the months between. <_<

 

Crap. We'll go with the 24,000+ finder in May then. Apparently "they" all do that. Just kidding. :laughing:

 

The only person to EVER throw down on one of my caches was out on their first ever day of caching (3 finds that day, never cached again).

Link to comment

How about when someone proudly logs a find on a stated throw down in their log? Not my cache, but I went to look for one near me and it was missing. I logged my DNF. Later that day the following was posted to the cache log:

 

"Today was not a day about the numbers, more about grabbing some older caches and filler caches. This one was the first on the list... Had read the previous log and did find that it was missing. I had a spare container and log with me so I replaced it. It is now a magnetic hiding under the rail."

 

Obviously for that cacher it was a day about the numbers. Why else blatantly place a throw down and then post about it? The original container was an ammo can in an obvious spot under the gate post. Not a wasted trip fro me as we had a nice visit with the RC aviation club members that were there.

 

I went back last night to try again. Still no ammo can. I choose not to log a find on the replacement as it was not placed with owner permission and is not in the spirit of the original intent of the cache. I also posted a NM log and have been in contact with the owner with an offer to replace the can. They politely declined and offered unnecessary apologies.

 

I just don't get the folks who are so obsessed with numbers that they would openly do this.

Link to comment

How about when someone proudly logs a find on a stated throw down in their log? Not my cache, but I went to look for one near me and it was missing. I logged my DNF. Later that day the following was posted to the cache log:

 

"Today was not a day about the numbers, more about grabbing some older caches and filler caches. This one was the first on the list... Had read the previous log and did find that it was missing. I had a spare container and log with me so I replaced it. It is now a magnetic hiding under the rail."

 

Obviously for that cacher it was a day about the numbers. Why else blatantly place a throw down and then post about it? The original container was an ammo can in an obvious spot under the gate post. Not a wasted trip fro me as we had a nice visit with the RC aviation club members that were there.

 

I went back last night to try again. Still no ammo can. I choose not to log a find on the replacement as it was not placed with owner permission and is not in the spirit of the original intent of the cache. I also posted a NM log and have been in contact with the owner with an offer to replace the can. They politely declined and offered unnecessary apologies.

 

I just don't get the folks who are so obsessed with numbers that they would openly do this.

 

Oh yeah, they openly do this all the time, and don't think twice about it. They think it's just normal behavior, and that any other Geocacher would do the same. Here's a throwdown log from April immediately after I was the 4th consecutive DNF'er:

 

Performed a little geo - maintanance for ya. From WV. Needed this high point. Tftc

 

Yeah, I "needed the highpoint" too Jack, I just didn't come away with a Geocaching find while I was there. But he did come away with one, for something he put there himself. :blink:

Link to comment

What's odd about this throwdown is that there are no logs admitting to it, nor any long strings of DNFs. I suspect someone found the pill bottle and assumed it was the cache and added a log sheet. People that place micros in place of missing ammo cans should be beaten. :)

 

I found a pill bottle buried in a rotted log. The cache was supposed to be a bison tube hanging in a tree. The CO was surprised, checked the cache out. Archived it, and hid a new one. The pill bottle had been found for about six months.

Link to comment

To the people who leave throw downs, a cache is generic. To them the point of geocaching is to find a cache. some of them are even puritans and insist you sign the log (that's why the name on the top of the throwdown log is probably the person who left the throwdown <_< ). So it isn't important if the cache is a ammo can or pill bottle, it isn't important if the cache is hanging in a bush or under a suspicious pile of rocks, and it is rarely important if the cache was difficult hide or had some special camouflage.

 

The important thing it that they verify the cache is missing and once they know the cache is missing, then it is always better to replace a missing cache, since a missing cache is impossible to find and the point of geocaching is to find a cache.

 

I'm not sure how they can be certain the cache is missing. I suppose they look and see a cache that was being found and now has a number of consecutive DNFs. I've seen comments posted where if some DNFs are from "experienced" cachers the cache must be really missing. Sometimes they will look at the difficulty or at past logs to see if the cache is tricky, but not always. I got a notification last weekend that a person who is known for leaving throwdowns left one at a difficult cache. Apparently there was a string of finds (including a couple of groups where someone had found the cache before) follow by five DNFs. Without looking at the logs of some finders (which indicate it took them multiple visits), or at difficulty (4 stars), he left a throwdown and a note. (This guy always asks for permission before logging the find, but if you don't give it like I didn't on one of my caches, he'll let you know what an ungrateful bastard you are.) I will point out that this guy went on and logged a couple of DNFs later in the day on much easier caches. In these cases there weren't prior DNFs so he was no longer certain that the cache was missing.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I would let the logs stand as well since most of them were made in good faith. Most probably had no idea that someone threw down. The throwdowner's log, if i figured out who it was, would be deleted in a heartbeat. I'd also email to let them know that i didn't appreciate what they did. <_<

 

I would disable until I could replace the container. I would not delete logs or contact anyone even though I'm not in favor of non-owner maintenance in the form of additional containers. Just not worth the hassle and bad blood.

 

Or leave the throwdown as the official cache. <_<

 

+1....at least until repairs are made.

Link to comment

Just my opinion..., but I'd rather find the CO's cache as it was intended to be. The spirit of Popo's cache was violated. I'd do as others have suggested.

 

So, my question is this: I've been planning a multi/puzzle for some time. A tribute series to some personal heroes of mine. As they don't have headstones yet (two separate accidents, they didn't know each other, same cemetery) I have plenty of time to do this right. A lot of thought and purpose is going into this. Obviously, I have a point and spirit to this cache idea. "If" you were to get a blatant I intentionally place a throw down log, would you delete it after explaining why? I didn't start caching to make virtual enemies, but..., (knowing the cache was fine) I'd have to delete a log like that.

Link to comment

I would let the logs stand as well since most of them were made in good faith. Most probably had no idea that someone threw down. The throwdowner's log, if i figured out who it was, would be deleted in a heartbeat. I'd also email to let them know that i didn't appreciate what they did. <_<

 

I would disable until I could replace the container. I would not delete logs or contact anyone even though I'm not in favor of non-owner maintenance in the form of additional containers. Just not worth the hassle and bad blood.

 

Or leave the throwdown as the official cache. <_<

 

+1....at least until repairs are made.

 

Here was a great cache: Fun in the Hamptons - Coney in the sky

Pulley system in a hollowed tree, to lower pine cones with the cache.

We found it it June 2010. CO departed in May 2012. Tree was cut down in March 2011. Thrown by mega-cacher in April 2011. Size, description, coords all off. Replaced by another mega-cacher in April 2011. (Cache is obviously gone, toss down a replacement that has nothing to do with the original cache! We don't do DNFs!)

December 2011 Not sure why the cache owner has not updated the details of this cache. The clue means nothing. There is no counterweight, no tree with a hole...get to ground zero and just look round. Completely ignore the clue. I wasted and hour trying to find the cache based on what the clue says. I imagine the original cache was muggled/ destroyed and a replacement was placed but no changes were made to the description or clue.

Ah! That's because the cache was destroyed seven months ago? All that's left is a throw down or two that have nothing to do with the original cache??? Cheap throw downs disappeared by April 2012. Finally archived in December 2012. It had been missing a year and a half! 25 finds logged on a missing cache and two throw downs.

But some cachers cannot accept that they cannot find a cache. Throw down! Found the cache that I threw down, that has anything to do with the original cache! Fortunately, most genuine cachers logged their DNFs.

Really sad!

Link to comment

I left this note on a cache web page for a cache that had a serious throw down problem.

 

"What a great idea. I think I will start carrying plastic film canisters with me to use as replacement caches whenever I can't find those pesky original caches. I see no problem with this since I have the supernatural ability to locate all things sought. If I can't find it, it must be missing. I also have the supernatural ability of knowing where the missing original caches were hidden. Life has gotten so much easier when I realized that rules are met for others and not me."

Link to comment

I appreciate DNF logs for a couple reasons. One, it gives a bit of a hint about the cache (or cacher). If a DNF is logged by someone who is obviously new, it may just mean they are inexperienced with that kind of hide. No big deal. If several more experienced cachers post DNFs it MAY indicate something is amiss and I may avoid that one for a bit. Two, if I were the CO of said cache, I would now have some indication that there is a problem before a NM log is posted and look into it.

 

I know not everyone sees this the same way. I'll gladly post my DNFs. Throw downs suck for a lot of reasons.

Link to comment

I would suggest not to delete the logs of those who signed the throw down. We are working on a streak and occasionally only find one cache in a day to keep it going. We would probably have no idea we found the wrong container. That would really hurt.

We don't place throw downs but have replaced missing caches that the CO asked us to. Sometimes because the log is full. I usually don't sign those to save space on the log and the reason we are changing the log or replacing the cache. I feel the new log and/or cache will prove we were there.

 

I think that's where the comment of describing what the container looks like in the text is good.

 

If the text says the cache is an ammo can and you sign a pill bottle it's fair game to say that the container was clear and what you signed clearly wasn't an ammo can. If that was your only "find" for the day and gets deleted then that's just too bad - if you'd read the cache description you'd know you hadn't found it.

 

If the text doesn't say what the container is you've got no way of knowing whether you're looking for a pill bottle or something big enough to climb inside, so deleting a log made in good faith does seem like bad form.

Link to comment
you've got no way of knowing whether you're looking for a pill bottle or something big enough to climb inside,

 

And 'Cache size' may be disregarded?

 

I think my point was pretty clear that if the cache page is such that you can reasonably conclude that the container you found isn't what the original hider left you can't be surprised if they delete your log. If the cache page is unclear, or what you found could reasonably be believed to be the cache described, it's a more reasonable position to expect your log to stand.

 

There's a potential grey area if the cache is listed as "small" - some people still use "small" to describe a film pot or a pill bottle (presumably because they are small containers). I think anyone with half a brain would struggle to claim they found the cache if the text said "you are looking for an ammo can" or the cache size was Large, and they found a film pot.

Link to comment

How to handle throwdowns

 

Sorry that someone left a throwdown pill bottle at your cache site. Perhaps it's from another game, or perhaps someone felt they were "helping" when they couldn't find your cache. While this has always been an issue with the game, it seems to be becoming more the standard approach. :mad:

 

All I ask is you do not freaking tell JPreto about this. As a matter of fact, they should add that to the bottom of the Groundspeak Help page article. :ph34r:

+1 :-D

Link to comment

If this happened to me, I would audit the logs and delete everyone who signed the throwdown.

That seems:

  1. Unnecessarily harsh - The finders may not have had any way of knowing they were signing a throwdown rather than the original. Why punish them for something they didn't do?
  2. Contrary to the advice given by Groundspeak - See the last portion of the second paragraph here. Related to 1. above.
  3. Likely to gain you a lot of enemies - Mass-deleting logs will likely not go over well in your local caching community.

Link to comment

If this happened to me, I would audit the logs and delete everyone who signed the throwdown.

That seems:

  1. Unnecessarily harsh - The finders may not have had any way of knowing they were signing a throwdown rather than the original. Why punish them for something they didn't do?
  2. Contrary to the advice given by Groundspeak - See the last portion of the second paragraph here. Related to 1. above.
  3. Likely to gain you a lot of enemies - Mass-deleting logs will likely not go over well in your local caching community.

 

Oh well.

Link to comment

If this happened to me, I would audit the logs and delete everyone who signed the throwdown.

That seems:

  1. Unnecessarily harsh - The finders may not have had any way of knowing they were signing a throwdown rather than the original. Why punish them for something they didn't do?
  2. Contrary to the advice given by Groundspeak - See the last portion of the second paragraph here. Related to 1. above.
  3. Likely to gain you a lot of enemies - Mass-deleting logs will likely not go over well in your local caching community.

 

Oh well.

 

I can vouch for something like this not going over well. Something similar happened to me, and i'm thinking around 10 others, about a year ago. It was a multi cache where we found the first stage and then the final,,, or so we thought. We signed a log (other names were already on it) that we found inside the cache. Little did we know that this was a throwdown log. The CO had originally placed a thumbdrive inside this 2nd container that had to be accessed in order to get final coordinates but again, we had no idea this was how the cache was set up.

 

Suffice it to say, we all get deletion notices about a year later when the CO checks and finds the throwdown log book. I normally wouldn't give a hoot and just go on my merry way but doing it a year later messed up my milestones statistics. I contacted him and explained and he offered to let me relog the cache. I took him up on it since i did originally sign the log in good faith. This little incident definitely caused a stir in the local geocaching community!

 

Again, i would not delete all of the find logs in the throwdown cache but i wouldn't have any problem deleting the throwdowner's.

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

If this happened to me, I would audit the logs and delete everyone who signed the throwdown.

That seems:

  1. Unnecessarily harsh - The finders may not have had any way of knowing they were signing a throwdown rather than the original. Why punish them for something they didn't do?
  2. Contrary to the advice given by Groundspeak - See the last portion of the second paragraph here. Related to 1. above.
  3. Likely to gain you a lot of enemies - Mass-deleting logs will likely not go over well in your local caching community.

 

Oh well.

How would you feel if those cachers complained to tptb and their logs were reinstated?

Link to comment

If this happened to me, I would audit the logs and delete everyone who signed the throwdown.

That seems:

  1. Unnecessarily harsh - The finders may not have had any way of knowing they were signing a throwdown rather than the original. Why punish them for something they didn't do?
  2. Contrary to the advice given by Groundspeak - See the last portion of the second paragraph here. Related to 1. above.
  3. Likely to gain you a lot of enemies - Mass-deleting logs will likely not go over well in your local caching community.

Oh well.

You can certainly try it if you wish, because the website will allow you to delete logs to your heart's content, but don't be surprised if you get a lot of nasty-grams and logs reinstated by GSHQ.

Link to comment

If this happened to me, I would audit the logs and delete everyone who signed the throwdown.

That seems:

  1. Unnecessarily harsh - The finders may not have had any way of knowing they were signing a throwdown rather than the original. Why punish them for something they didn't do?
  2. Contrary to the advice given by Groundspeak - See the last portion of the second paragraph here. Related to 1. above.
  3. Likely to gain you a lot of enemies - Mass-deleting logs will likely not go over well in your local caching community.

Oh well.

You can certainly try it if you wish, because the website will allow you to delete logs to your heart's content, but don't be surprised if you get a lot of nasty-grams and logs reinstated by GSHQ.

 

I'm not terrible concerned about:

 

1. The opinions of people who place, sign, or defend throw-downs. Good geocachers don't behave in this manner, and they're the only ones whose opinion counts for anything.

 

2. The likelihood of this ever happening to any of my caches, since I monitor the logs closely and only maintain as many caches as I can comfortably watch. Chances are, at the first inkling of a "throw-down" I would delete the log of the perpetrator, and disable the cache until the throw-down was thrown-out.

 

3. Log reinstatement, since I've been a strict cache owner for as long I've owned caches, and never had a blank log or no-response Earthcache finder complain about deletion.

Link to comment

If this happened to me, I would audit the logs and delete everyone who signed the throwdown.

That seems:

  1. Unnecessarily harsh - The finders may not have had any way of knowing they were signing a throwdown rather than the original. Why punish them for something they didn't do?
  2. Contrary to the advice given by Groundspeak - See the last portion of the second paragraph here. Related to 1. above.
  3. Likely to gain you a lot of enemies - Mass-deleting logs will likely not go over well in your local caching community.

Oh well.

You can certainly try it if you wish, because the website will allow you to delete logs to your heart's content, but don't be surprised if you get a lot of nasty-grams and logs reinstated by GSHQ.

 

I'm not terrible concerned about:

 

1. The opinions of people who place, sign, or defend throw-downs. Good geocachers don't behave in this manner, and they're the only ones whose opinion counts for anything.

 

2. The likelihood of this ever happening to any of my caches, since I monitor the logs closely and only maintain as many caches as I can comfortably watch. Chances are, at the first inkling of a "throw-down" I would delete the log of the perpetrator, and disable the cache until the throw-down was thrown-out.

 

3. Log reinstatement, since I've been a strict cache owner for as long I've owned caches, and never had a blank log or no-response Earthcache finder complain about deletion.

 

So imagine you were the OP. Exactly which online log would you identify as from the throwdowner. Exactly which log in this case would give you that "inkling"? Also tell us how any of the finders were supposed to know it was a throwdown.

 

Your mass deletion plan would only have merit if you retrieved the throwdown and positively identified the culprit, and then let everyone know who was really responsible for their log being deleted.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

So imagine you were the OP. Exactly which online log would you identify as from the throwdowner. Exactly which log in this case would give you that "inkling"? Also tell us how any of the finders were supposed to know it was a throwdown.

 

Your mass deletion plan would only have merit if you retrieved the throwdown and positively identified the culprit, and then let everyone know who was really responsible for their log being deleted.

 

For starters, a DNF on an unremarkable traditional is always a good sign that the cache needs a visit.

 

Any cache owner can audit the logbook in a cache at any time. In the case of a garbage throw-down cache, there's simply no need to provide people like that with an explanation. They don't deserve the acknowledgement. Throw the garbage away, and delete the finds that aren't in the actual cache. The end.

Link to comment

So imagine you were the OP. Exactly which online log would you identify as from the throwdowner. Exactly which log in this case would give you that "inkling"? Also tell us how any of the finders were supposed to know it was a throwdown.

 

Your mass deletion plan would only have merit if you retrieved the throwdown and positively identified the culprit, and then let everyone know who was really responsible for their log being deleted.

 

For starters, a DNF on an unremarkable traditional is always a good sign that the cache needs a visit.

 

Any cache owner can audit the logbook in a cache at any time. In the case of a garbage throw-down cache, there's simply no need to provide people like that with an explanation. They don't deserve the acknowledgement. Throw the garbage away, and delete the finds that aren't in the actual cache. The end.

 

Well I looked at the cache page and there isn't any way the throw downer could be identified, and most who signed it had no idea it was a throwdown. There are no DNF patterns either. If someone checks their cache after every single DNF, they are being a little obsessive.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Some people get way too upright about something that should be a fun past time.

 

Yeah, putting down a container when you can't find a cache is kind of uptight. Just log the DNF and try again another time.

I agree. Nothing wrong with logging a DNF.

 

Unfortunately we are in the minority. For some unexplained reason people feel they have less fun if they record a DNF. For some of these people, they rationalize that if a cache is in fact missing they shouldn't be punished with less fun, after all it is impossible to find a cache that is missing. So they perceive the throwdown as restoring the fun of the cache by not only allowing them to avoid the DNF log but also ensuring that subsequent cachers will have something to find.

 

If you were to tell these people to their face that you get no additional fun avoiding the DNF they would probably look at you like you are crazy. More over, if you were to delete logs of subsequent cachers who had fun finding the throwdown instead of possibly a DNF on your missing cache, they would view you as a cruel person who punishes people for having fun and making way too much of the way other people choose to play this game.

Link to comment

Some people get way too upright about something that should be a fun past time.

 

Yeah, putting down a container when you can't find a cache is kind of uptight. Just log the DNF and try again another time.

I agree. Nothing wrong with logging a DNF.

 

Some of my most memorable adventures were DNFs. Had one that took my wife and I 7 or 8 visits to find and it turned out to be a very easy cache. Duh on us.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...