Where's the Support

October 12, 2011

So what do you do when the CO refuses to repair their broken cache, & the ADMIN will not respond to e-mails or maintenance & archive postings?

Is there another level of support? Is there a higher level that you can take your grievances to? Can anything be done?

Or are you just S.O.L. & just have to let it go?

7.9k · October 12, 2011

Put the cache on your ignore list and move on.

It's not worth loosing sleep over.

5.7k · October 12, 2011

I guess you could vent your frustration here, so all of the reviewers can see...

(IBTL)

8.6k · October 12, 2011

Bryan...

I can feel your stressed out vibes even from over here in Wales, UK...

These caches... How long have they had the Needs Archived logs on them? The local reviewers get notified of NA logs (but not the Needs Maintenance logs). They usually get around to doing something, the "something" seems to vary a bit depending to where in the world you are and how busy the local reviewers are.

Try not to let it annoy you too much. One of the forum regulars has this as his tag line: "There is nothing that can't be handled with two stiff drinks and a bourbon-soaked, rare, bonein Ribeye." It's a good philosophy which I try to remember and adapt to my own preferences.

MrsB

8.6k · October 12, 2011

Mrs B got in just before me...

I hear what you are saying, but you left out one important fact... a timeline.

You talking about a week, month, 6-months....?

It's normal to grant somebody leeway regarding time to do repairs. There may well have been contact between the CO and reviewer that you are unaware of. There are a LOT of reasons for delay, not limited to death, surgery, family care, jail, on and on and on.

Your concerns may be well founded, but... only maybe.

EDIT: typo

Edited October 12, 2011 by Gitchee-Gummee

19k · October 12, 2011

How do you know that the reviewer has taken no action in private emails with the CO?

October 12, 2011

I guess you could vent your frustration here, so all of the reviewers can see...

(IBTL)

Ahh, but can the reviewers here do anything about the cache? or the reviewers in my area? There is the rub i believe. =(

October 12, 2011

Bryan...

I can feel your stressed out vibes even from over here in Wales, UK...

These caches... How long have they had the Needs Archived logs on them? The local reviewers get notified of NA logs (but not the Needs Maintenance logs). They usually get around to doing something, the "something" seems to vary a bit depending to where in the world you are and how busy the local reviewers are.

Try not to let it annoy you too much. One of the forum regulars has this as his tag line: "There is nothing that can't be handled with two stiff drinks and a bourbon-soaked, rare, bonein Ribeye." It's a good philosophy which I try to remember and adapt to my own preferences.

MrsB

Well the first Needs Archived post was 3.22.11

So one would think that by now that was enough time to take action.

2.1k · October 12, 2011

Looking at your find history, I'm guessing you're in CNY? Our NY reviewers are usually very good about addressing disabled caches & NA issues in a timely manner; I know Sapience Trek does monthly sweeps of disabled caches, prods the COs when appropriate, and archives after giving the CO a chance to address the issues.

It is quite possible that the reviewer (NY Admin or ST) has been discussing the situation with the owner behind the scenes and/or knows of extenuating circumstances. Or perhaps they believe that the NA log was posted in error, or the issues appear to have been addressed "silently."

It's also possible that the cache just slipped through the cracks; the NY reviewers were positively swamped this summer and had to call in reinforcements to help with publishing caches.

Have you contacted New York Admin or Sapience Trek with your concerns yet?

October 12, 2011

Mrs B got in just before me...

I hear what you are saying, but you left out one important fact... a timeline.

You talking about a week, month, 6-months....?

It's normal to grant somebody leeway regarding time to do repairs. There may well have been contact between the CO and reviewer that you are unaware of. There are a LOT of reasons for delay, not limited to death, surgery, family care, jail, on and on and on.

Your concerns may be well founded, but... only maybe.

EDIT: typo

The overall timeline is over a year. It goes a little something like this:

08.30.2010 found it. Log was soaking wet & the bag was ripped. Logged a separate needs maintenance log.

03.22.2011 logged a needs archived log

03.28.2011 the CO responded saying that the log inside the container does not matter as long as you can find the container. Because for the CO it is not about the log, it is about the find. so if people can find the broken container that is all that matters, they do not need to log it on the paper.

06.15.2011 logged another needs archived, since the first one was not responded to & left a not to the CO explaining the requirements of a cache include having a paper log.

06.24.2011 CO posts Owner Maintenance saying big deal the container is broken it is all about the find not the log

08.05.2011 i posted another needs maintenance log since the container was still broken & the log was once again wet & the bag was ripped again.

10.10.2011 i posted a Needs Archived log to try one last time to get the ADMINS to take notice.

& yes you are correct there may have been contact between an ADMIN & the CO. One never knows. Which is why i have kept up with the posts, but the lack of response to me looks like the ADMIN does not care. That & the ADMIN does not respond to e-mails that i have sent in regards to this issue. So . . .

October 12, 2011

Looking at your find history, I'm guessing you're in CNY? Our NY reviewers are usually very good about addressing disabled caches & NA issues in a timely manner; I know Sapience Trek does monthly sweeps of disabled caches, prods the COs when appropriate, and archives after giving the CO a chance to address the issues.

It is quite possible that the reviewer (NY Admin or ST) has been discussing the situation with the owner behind the scenes and/or knows of extenuating circumstances. Or perhaps they believe that the NA log was posted in error, or the issues appear to have been addressed "silently."

It's also possible that the cache just slipped through the cracks; the NY reviewers were positively swamped this summer and had to call in reinforcements to help with publishing caches.

Have you contacted New York Admin or Sapience Trek with your concerns yet?

ThanXX for this tid bit of info.

I was not aware of ST, but i will try to contact ST later. I may have better luck there. I am aware that the NYADMINs have been swamped this summer, i figure that my e-mails to them have just slipped through the cracks or have been postponed until things let up.

At this point i am just ready to give it up & let it go.

21.9k · October 12, 2011

I believe the cache in question is GC1Z5VV. I'd advise the OP not to worry quite so much about this. Geocaching is supposed to be fun. Speaking of which, it looks like finders are enjoying the cache, and also are helping with maintenance needs. The cache has an active and responsive owner. Under these circumstances there is no need for action by the volunteer cache reviewer. As explained in the Knowledge Book page about Needs Archived logs, there's no guarantee that a listing will be archived or disabled by the reviewer upon receipt of the report. If the owner is responsive we prefer to let the owner work through the issue. Sometimes, the reviewer will put the listing on a bookmark list for monitoring, send an email to the owner, or take some other action behind the scenes.

If a geocacher believes that a volunteer cache reviewer is not adequately performing their duties in this regard, please write to Groundspeak. That is your recourse.

October 12, 2011

I believe the cache in question is GC1Z5VV. I'd advise the OP not to worry quite so much about this. Geocaching is supposed to be fun. Speaking of which, it looks like finders are enjoying the cache, and also are helping with maintenance needs. The cache has an active and responsive owner. Under these circumstances there is no need for action by the volunteer cache reviewer. As explained in the Knowledge Book page about Needs Archived logs, there's no guarantee that a listing will be archived or disabled by the reviewer upon receipt of the report. If the owner is responsive we prefer to let the owner work through the issue. Sometimes, the reviewer will put the listing on a bookmark list for monitoring, send an email to the owner, or take some other action behind the scenes.

If a geocacher believes that a volunteer cache reviewer is not adequately performing their duties in this regard, please write to Groundspeak. That is your recourse.

Yes it is "just a game" but every game has rules. If the rules are not followed, then it ruins the game.

There are rules about the CO needing to maintain their caches, just as there are rules about getting permission before placing a cache. But when you have to walk past a "No Trespassing" sign to get to GZ, it makes you wonder a little about if the CO got permission or not. The rules are there for a reason. It may "just be a game" to most, but enough bad press about geocacheing & you might just see an end to the game. All because some people didn't want to follow the rules. It is up to US the game players to ensure that everyone else follows the rules & plays nice. It is up to US to help each other out & make sure that the game stays fun.

& in the end it all comes down to a simple question of how hard is it for the CO to just fix or replace the stupid container? That IS their job/responsibility.

7.3k · October 12, 2011

I believe the cache in question is GC1Z5VV. I'd advise the OP not to worry quite so much about this. Geocaching is supposed to be fun. Speaking of which, it looks like finders are enjoying the cache, and also are helping with maintenance needs. The cache has an active and responsive owner. Under these circumstances there is no need for action by the volunteer cache reviewer. As explained in the Knowledge Book page about Needs Archived logs, there's no guarantee that a listing will be archived or disabled by the reviewer upon receipt of the report. If the owner is responsive we prefer to let the owner work through the issue. Sometimes, the reviewer will put the listing on a bookmark list for monitoring, send an email to the owner, or take some other action behind the scenes.

If a geocacher believes that a volunteer cache reviewer is not adequately performing their duties in this regard, please write to Groundspeak. That is your recourse.

Wow, some really nasty replies from that cache owner. :blink:

Are cache owners allowed to post personal attacks on their cache pages?

7.5k · October 12, 2011

I believe the cache in question is GC1Z5VV. I'd advise the OP not to worry quite so much about this. Geocaching is supposed to be fun. Speaking of which, it looks like finders are enjoying the cache, and also are helping with maintenance needs. The cache has an active and responsive owner. Under these circumstances there is no need for action by the volunteer cache reviewer. As explained in the Knowledge Book page about Needs Archived logs, there's no guarantee that a listing will be archived or disabled by the reviewer upon receipt of the report. If the owner is responsive we prefer to let the owner work through the issue. Sometimes, the reviewer will put the listing on a bookmark list for monitoring, send an email to the owner, or take some other action behind the scenes.

If a geocacher believes that a volunteer cache reviewer is not adequately performing their duties in this regard, please write to Groundspeak. That is your recourse.

The CO says "as far as we are concerned it's all about the site and the find and not a log". Essentially the CO does not understand the guidelines, a cache must have a log or it becomes an old-fashioned virtual which is no longer a cache type allowed on the gc site. However, the CO insists that the log is dry and write-able. It's hard to believe given that the log is not protected (the lid doesn't stay on). It would be tempting to go back and take a photo of the log then post it. The CO does not say that they replaced it only that the log was dry and readable. One month ago the log was "in extremely bad condition". Maybe someone replaced the log since then. But at some point it's time to give up and ignore the cache. Personally I'd want to ignore all of the COs caches (about 10% of them have NMs on them) but at 317 hides, ignoring the caches one at a time would take hours. These types of cases, make me wish there were an 'Ignore all cache hides by xxxxx' feature. It would save some aggravation.

2.1k · October 12, 2011

I don't think a wet log is grounds for a Needs Archived.

Have a donut:

:omnomnom:

1.2k · October 12, 2011

IMHO you should not get worked up over this cache. Those types of key holders do loose their tops all the time. I've found lots of them. Yes sometimes the log will become damp (or even soaked if the bag is ripped). But the container is still there so I see no reason this cache should be archived. Should the CO be a little more caring and replace the cache with a matchstick container, sure. But if I got this worked up over every cache like that I would go insane.

11.6k · October 12, 2011

Or are you just S.O.L. & just have to let it go?

You have to let it go. For this one, you've already gone above and beyond to get it fixed. It's the wrong container for the spot, even somehow getting broken and the ziplock filled with water frequently. It's unfortunate that some containers seem to be sabotaged by locals, which may be the case here.

Some COs seem to get a pass on their consistently bad caches. Whatever, it's time to move on.

3.6k · October 12, 2011

And the cache name is "I'm No Angel" That add it all up about the CO. :unsure:

October 12, 2011

Even with all of the complaining, I'm not seeing DNFs on the cache. I agree it would be great if the container was pristine and the log was always present and always usable (I'd be frustrated by no-log). However, everyone else in the area seems to deal with this cache just fine.

*shrug*

October 12, 2011

The CO says "as far as we are concerned it's all about the site and the find and not a log". Essentially the CO does not understand the guidelines, a cache must have a log or it becomes an old-fashioned virtual which is no longer a cache type allowed on the gc site. However, the CO insists that the log is dry and write-able. It's hard to believe given that the log is not protected (the lid doesn't stay on). It would be tempting to go back and take a photo of the log then post it. The CO does not say that they replaced it only that the log was dry and readable. One month ago the log was "in extremely bad condition". Maybe someone replaced the log since then. But at some point it's time to give up and ignore the cache. Personally I'd want to ignore all of the COs caches (about 10% of them have NMs on them) but at 317 hides, ignoring the caches one at a time would take hours. These types of cases, make me wish there were an 'Ignore all cache hides by xxxxx' feature. It would save some aggravation.

I agree. The other thing is that it is not just me that is mentioning the fact that the log is wet. Granted those users are not posting that it needs maintenance like they should, but the logs are there showing that it needs work. Theese type of COs just (IMHO) ruin the "game" for everyone else.

3.2k · October 12, 2011

Yes it is "just a game" but every game has rules. If the rules are not followed, then it ruins the game.

There are rules about the CO needing to maintain their caches, just as there are rules about getting permission before placing a cache. But when you have to walk past a "No Trespassing" sign to get to GZ, it makes you wonder a little about if the CO got permission or not. The rules are there for a reason. It may "just be a game" to most, but enough bad press about geocacheing & you might just see an end to the game. All because some people didn't want to follow the rules. It is up to US the game players to ensure that everyone else follows the rules & plays nice. It is up to US to help each other out & make sure that the game stays fun.

& in the end it all comes down to a simple question of how hard is it for the CO to just fix or replace the stupid container? That IS their job/responsibility.

I assume for every one of your logs, you visited the cache or you would be posting the logs improperly and not in good faith.

If this is in fact the case, and for some reason this cache seems to be something you care deeply about, why is it that you have not fixed the container or at least replaced the baggy, log and or lid?

I could probably get behind you if there was no cache there and the owner were allowing logs on something that is missing, however that does not appear to be the case here.

@GeoGeeBee Needs maintenance logs are misnamed. More accurately they are Needs Reviewer Attention logs. If a owner were ignoring maintenance requests, it would be reasonable for someone to post an NA, however generally if I find a cache and/or post a NM or NA, I rarely check back on the issue. If it were a real problem, others will post similar, if it was just an issue to me and did not get handled, no reason to push it.

October 12, 2011

I don't think a wet log is grounds for a Needs Archived.

Have a donut:

What kind of doughnut? Strawberry jelly filled? or Apple filled? =)

No the Needs Archived did not happen until 6 months after the needs maintenance was posted. IMHO if the CO can not replace a wet log after 6 months then the cache needs to be Archived.

October 12, 2011

I don't think a wet log is grounds for a Needs Archived.

Have a donut:

What kind of doughnut? Strawberry jelly filled? or Apple filled? =)

No the Needs Archived did not happen until 6 months after the needs maintenance was posted. IMHO if the CO can not replace a wet log after 6 months then the cache needs to be Archived.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that. The point people have made is that you've done your part - you pointed out a deficit. Move on.

Getting so worked up over 1 little cache isn't healthy for YOUR enjoyment of the game.

October 12, 2011

You have to let it go. For this one, you've already gone above and beyond to get it fixed. It's the wrong container for the spot, even somehow getting broken and the ziplock filled with water frequently. It's unfortunate that some containers seem to be sabotaged by locals, which may be the case here.

Some COs seem to get a pass on their consistently bad caches. Whatever, it's time to move on.

I hear you! ThanXX for the support. =)

2.1k · October 12, 2011

Even with all of the complaining, I'm not seeing DNFs on the cache. I agree it would be great if the container was pristine and the log was always present and always usable (I'd be frustrated by no-log). However, everyone else in the area seems to deal with this cache just fine.

A cache doesn't need DNFs to be in need of archival. There's one in my area that's never had a DNF, but the container is destroyed and the log pretty much is as well. The owner hasn't logged into the site in close to 3 months. Needs Maintenance logs have gone unheeded for the same period of time.

7.5k · October 12, 2011

Should the CO be a little more caring and replace the cache with a matchstick container, sure.

That would be the perfect micro for the location. The attraction is old machinery that is the same color as the matchstick containers:

19k · October 12, 2011

I would think that a cache owner with over 1300 finds would know enough to not use such a poor container, though. These things suck worse than film cans!

Also, the cache owner, by his own words in the logs, is counting on others to do his cache maintenance (which the OP did once, on the day he posted his find: We tried to dry things off as best we could, & added some dry paper as a temp log.

This may not be grounds for archival, but it sure is a poster child for poor cache ownership.

October 12, 2011

Even with all of the complaining, I'm not seeing DNFs on the cache. I agree it would be great if the container was pristine and the log was always present and always usable (I'd be frustrated by no-log). However, everyone else in the area seems to deal with this cache just fine.
A cache doesn't need DNFs to be in need of archival. There's one in my area that's never had a DNF, but the container is destroyed and the log pretty much is as well. The owner hasn't logged into the site in close to 3 months. Needs Maintenance logs have gone unheeded for the same period of time.

But this particular cache IS getting "Found it" logs. You can't (by guidelines) log a cache as found unless you have signed the log. Therefore, it follows logically that those others have been able to sign the log. That means that the cache is usable and functional enough to allow for the cache to be found. Usable/functional caches don't need to be archived.

That's far different than your case of a 3 month neglicted cache. In this particular case, the CO responded via notes on the cache site almost same day. The CO is being responsive even though he isn't giving the action that most of us would hope to see.

Personally, I would hope the container would be replaced (broken containers suck) and the log would stay dry.

7.5k · October 12, 2011

If this is in fact the case, and for some reason this cache seems to be something you care deeply about, why is it that you have not fixed the container or at least replaced the baggy, log and or lid?

This only perpetuates this CO's poor job of maintaining their caches. Why bother if others will do it for you. It looks like they like placing them but don't like maintaining them. Plus they're getting around the guidelines regarding the old virtual type. It's better that this cache get archived and someone willing to do a better job of maintaining should have the spot.

October 12, 2011

Even with all of the complaining, I'm not seeing DNFs on the cache. I agree it would be great if the container was pristine and the log was always present and always usable (I'd be frustrated by no-log). However, everyone else in the area seems to deal with this cache just fine.

*shrug*

The point people have made is that you've done your part - you pointed out a deficit. Move on.

Getting so worked up over 1 little cache isn't healthy for YOUR enjoyment of the game.

I am sorry if it seems like i am worked up about it. I'm not really that bothered by the cache or the CO, but i am just bothered by the seemingly lack of response by the ADMINs. But as it was pointed out earlier, they have been swamped. I was just curious if there were other levels of support.

As for the lack of DNFs, my response to that is that this cache in the state that it is in is equivalent to just putting a Geocaching sticker at the GZ site. It is more of a benchmark or a waymark more than a cache. If you do not have a log to sign, then how is it a cache?

& yes i know you were not saying that you agree with it. I am just saying, "where is the support". =)

7.5k · October 12, 2011

But this particular cache IS getting "Found it" logs. You can't (by guidelines) log a cache as found unless you have signed the log.

If a CO doesn't care and considers it more of a "virtual" cache then people can go ahead and claim finds without signing the log. The CO said ""as far as we are concerned it's all about the site and the find and not a log". So DNFs would not be necessary since the CO, as far as they are concerned, consider a visit to the site as a find. Which would make this more of a waymark then a geocache.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Lone R

October 12, 2011

I would think that a cache owner with over 1300 finds would know enough to not use such a poor container, though. These things suck worse than film cans!

Also, the cache owner, by his own words in the logs, is counting on others to do his cache maintenance (which the OP did once, on the day he posted his find: We tried to dry things off as best we could, & added some dry paper as a temp log.

This may not be grounds for archival, but it sure is a poster child for poor cache ownership.

I agree. While i do not mind adding a bit of paper or a new baggie to hold things over, so that others can enjoy the cache. It is NOT my responsibility to maintain their cache. & this type of CO should NOT be allowed to continue to think that this is an allowable behavior. That was the whole purpose for trying to get the ADMINs to step in & talk with the CO.

8.6k · October 12, 2011

But this particular cache IS getting "Found it" logs. You can't (by guidelines) log a cache as found unless you have signed the log.

If a CO doesn't care and considers it more of a "virtual" cache then people can go ahead and claim finds without signing the log. The CO said ""as far as we are concerned it's all about the site and the find and not a log". So DNFs would not be necessary since the CO, as far as they are concerned, consider a visit to the site as a find. Which would make this more of a waymark then a geocache.

Not an argument for or against, but rather a different point-of-view regarding the CO considering it a "virtual"...

This would seem to be a method of simply skirting the guidelines and creating a virtual even though virtuals are not currently allowed.

Based upon that alone, it could well present itself as a candidate for archival.

October 12, 2011

But this particular cache IS getting "Found it" logs. You can't (by guidelines) log a cache as found unless you have signed the log. Therefore, it follows logically that those others have been able to sign the log. That means that the cache is usable and functional enough to allow for the cache to be found. Usable/functional caches don't need to be archived.

That's far different than your case of a 3 month neglicted cache. In this particular case, the CO responded via notes on the cache site almost same day. The CO is being responsive even though he isn't giving the action that most of us would hope to see.

Personally, I would hope the container would be replaced (broken containers suck) and the log would stay dry.

Just because the CO is responding on the page does NOT mean that they are doing anything about their broken cache. Just because they post a log saying that they did maintenance does not mean that it really happened. The fact that the container is still broken & that people are still commenting that it is broken & that the log is wet, is proof of that.

Yes posting a response is better than no response, but it does not mean that they are actively maintaining their caches.

October 12, 2011

Not an argument for or against, but rather a different point-of-view regarding the CO considering it a "virtual"...

This would seem to be a method of simply skirting the guidelines and creating a virtual even though virtuals are not currently allowed.

Based upon that alone, it could well present itself as a candidate for archival.

The problem is that it has been posted as a candidate for archival three times now & nothing as yet has been done about it. =(

(aside) whats wrong with cooking bacon in the nude? =)

2.1k · October 12, 2011

Even with all of the complaining, I'm not seeing DNFs on the cache. I agree it would be great if the container was pristine and the log was always present and always usable (I'd be frustrated by no-log). However, everyone else in the area seems to deal with this cache just fine.
A cache doesn't need DNFs to be in need of archival. There's one in my area that's never had a DNF, but the container is destroyed and the log pretty much is as well. The owner hasn't logged into the site in close to 3 months. Needs Maintenance logs have gone unheeded for the same period of time.

But this particular cache IS getting "Found it" logs. You can't (by guidelines) log a cache as found unless you have signed the log. Therefore, it follows logically that those others have been able to sign the log. That means that the cache is usable and functional enough to allow for the cache to be found. Usable/functional caches don't need to be archived.

Read the CO's notes on that cache. He's said that if you can't sign the log because it's wet, you can still log it as a find. He doesn't care whether you've signed it or not.

2.1k · October 12, 2011

If a CO doesn't care and considers it more of a "virtual" cache then people can go ahead and claim finds without signing the log. The CO said ""as far as we are concerned it's all about the site and the find and not a log". So DNFs would not be necessary since the CO, as far as they are concerned, consider a visit to the site as a find. Which would make this more of a waymark then a geocache.

Not an argument for or against, but rather a different point-of-view regarding the CO considering it a "virtual"...

This would seem to be a method of simply skirting the guidelines and creating a virtual even though virtuals are not currently allowed.

Based upon that alone, it could well present itself as a candidate for archival.

A very large number of this CO's caches (I've found/looked for several of them myself) would fit in very well on Waymarking.com. They're of the "oh, there's a <object>, I'll put a cache here" variety. 2 types of objects in particular. And it's not a bad assumption to believe that most do not have permission.

Edited October 12, 2011 by dakboy

11.6k · October 12, 2011

I can't help but think that if people would just stop maintaining caches that they do not own caches like this would go away quicker.

+1

1.2k · October 12, 2011

The CO says "as far as we are concerned it's all about the site and the find and not a log". Essentially the CO does not understand the guidelines, a cache must have a log or it becomes an old-fashioned virtual which is no longer a cache type allowed on the gc site. However, the CO insists that the log is dry and write-able. It's hard to believe given that the log is not protected (the lid doesn't stay on). It would be tempting to go back and take a photo of the log then post it. The CO does not say that they replaced it only that the log was dry and readable. One month ago the log was "in extremely bad condition". Maybe someone replaced the log since then. But at some point it's time to give up and ignore the cache. Personally I'd want to ignore all of the COs caches (about 10% of them have NMs on them) but at 317 hides, ignoring the caches one at a time would take hours. These types of cases, make me wish there were an 'Ignore all cache hides by xxxxx' feature. It would save some aggravation.

I agree. The other thing is that it is not just me that is mentioning the fact that the log is wet. Granted those users are not posting that it needs maintenance like they should, but the logs are there showing that it needs work. Theese type of COs just (IMHO) ruin the "game" for everyone else.

Get used to it - there are a ton of them here in NY - I get like you sometimes and it is a total waste of time. I really feel like just picking up the trash 'er cache and throwing it away many times, but the better half of me talks me out of it every time.

Yes, so called these power users sure do not have a respect for the game as you and I feel they should but complaining here and on the CO's cache log ain't gonna get it done. We do need a ignore by user feature!

1.2k · October 12, 2011

I just posted a note, sorry, could not help myself.

1.2k · October 12, 2011

Gitchee-Gummee and Lone R why do you consider this a 'vitrual' cache. There is obviously a container there just look at the photos posted by the OP and added to this thread by Knowschad. The only issue is a poor cache container where the log sometimes falls out or gets wet. I understand a cache needs a log, and as I said in my last post a great CO would replace that sorry key holder with a matchstick. I've been to many caches nano to regular where the log was full, wet, damp, or flat out missing. That doesn't make those caches virtual just in need of maintenance. I feel this cache falls into the quality gray area that cannot be enforced. It does not violate guidelines, it is there, and the owner is active.

10.2k · October 12, 2011

You have to let it go. For this one, you've already gone above and beyond to get it fixed. It's the wrong container for the spot, even somehow getting broken and the ziplock filled with water frequently. It's unfortunate that some containers seem to be sabotaged by locals, which may be the case here.

Some COs seem to get a pass on their consistently bad caches. Whatever, it's time to move on.

I hear you! ThanXX for the support. =)

If Kunarion's post is support, then I'll support you too, I guess. Pretty much how I would have put it. You just have to let this one go, and probably went too far as it is. But then again, I realize your frustration with the personal insults flung your way, and an overall pretty bad attitude on the part of the cache owner, who has over 300 hides. I didn't even know we had anyone in New York over 300 hides.

October 12, 2011

A very large number of this CO's caches (I've found/looked for several of them myself) would fit in very well on Waymarking.com. They're of the "oh, there's a <object>, I'll put a cache here" variety. 2 types of objects in particular. And it's not a bad assumption to believe that most do not have permission.

Bells & Angels, yeah i have done a lot of this COs caches as well. I waited about a year for him to get around to replacing one that had gone missing. In that time the ADMINs did nothing again & the cache remained open & active. A very large number of this CO's caches should be archived & set up as waymarks.

2.1k · October 12, 2011

Gitchee-Gummee and Lone R why do you consider this a 'vitrual' cache. There is obviously a container there just look at the photos posted by the OP and added to this thread by Knowschad.

Perhaps because the CO has stated that he doesn't care whether people sign the physical log or not? His only concern is getting people to this location. The cache is located on a retired deep-V snowplow at the highway department garage, out in front of the building. These are a dime a dozen in an area known for getting an average of 10 feet of snow every year, and he just wants you to come out and see this plow (or more likely, he said "oh, there's a plow, better put a cache on it" - because he's written as much in 3 other cache descriptions of his). Rarely are they remarkable in any way.

I see the CO has now posted the following log:

once again a voice heard from after never stopping by the cache. sorry but the game has never stated a cache must have a top only a site to visit and a lo9g to find GFYS

GFYS is shorthand for something that would get any of us banned from this forum. Edited October 12, 2011 by dakboy

2.1k · October 12, 2011

I didn't even know we had anyone in New York over 300 hides.

There's a second one who's coming up very close on her 300th as well. She's centered about an hour west of this CO.

October 12, 2011

I just posted a note, sorry, could not help myself.

Well if you have not checked back you might want to. He is now rudely remarking to you!

mermaidb50 - "once again a voice heard from after never stopping by the cache. sorry but the game has never stated a cache must have a top only a site to visit and a lo9g to find GFYS"

mermaidb50 - "frank you remaid me of Toilken and one of his unpublished characters.Douche Bagginns"

It is obvious that this CO has never read the rules or guidelines around what is required for a cache. Even though i had posted on his cache earlier the quote from the requirements that a cache must contain a log. & the CO's intelligence factor is openly shown by commenting that (in his opinion) a cache container does NOT need a lid.

October 12, 2011

If its really bothering you maybe you could ask the owner if you could take the cache over. Or you could replace it will a new container and paper with a friendly email saying hey cache was in bad shape hope you don't mind I gave it some TLC. Or just move on to the next cache. Sure theres bad caches but so what there are tons of great caches.

10.2k · October 12, 2011

I just posted a note, sorry, could not help myself.

And you got a GFYS out of the deal. C'mon Frank, help yourself next time.

2.8k · October 12, 2011

Wow, some really nasty replies from that cache owner.

Are cache owners allowed to post personal attacks on their cache pages?

Wow...those *are* pretty nasty.

Where's the Support

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment