[Too Tall John]

So, I just found out that one of my hides had been "replaced" by a "helpful" cacher. It is a Bison Tube hidden magnetically on a railroad trestle. Not the easiest cache to find, but that's kinda the point. I got an email from the last finders of the bison tube with a photo attachment showing the log, missing signatures of those who logged the cache between 11/10/11 and 04/27/12.

I know the last cacher whose name wasn't on the log so I emailed him. Got back:

Quote

Ah I remember it well....it was my second trip back to try to find this one. This time I was accompanied by barefootgal who had a vague recollection of it. I searched from the deck of the bridge with no luck. Then I climbed down the rocks on the left side nearest the Pizza Barn. I searched the abutment of the bridge then started searching the beams. I finally found a magnetic "Hide-A-Key" stuck to an I-beam almost halfway across the width of the bridge. It was up pretty high and maybe ten feet from the end of the bridge. I believe the beam angles towards the center of the bridge. There were several other names in the log as I recall.

Here's the thing that really bugs me: According to the cache description, "There is no need to leave the decking." I thought about hiding the cache down below, but due to the icy grade around the bridge abutments leading into the sometimes fast-running, frigid river, this would be an extremely dangerous cache to attempt in winter, and since this rail-trail is primarily used in winter, I went for the hide reachable from the safety of the bridge deck. Also, why did I never get a note from whoever hid the hide-a-key? "Oh, hey, we couldn't find your cache, so we hid a new one!" And finally, there are about a bazillion potential places this cache could be hidden. Why on earth would you throw down a cache when you can't be sure the cache is still there? The Bison tube out there now is the 3rd container in the life of the cache. When I first got the pic showing missing sigs, I assumed that they had somehow stumbled across one of the older containers that I managed to overlook due to cache migration. If I can't be certain I'll find the cache, how can someone else!?!?

Last summer, I had another cache get hit with a Throw-Down. The logs now only exist in my email notifications, but here they are:

Quote

8/13/2011
Great morning caching with *** today...

Path is now a road, *** replaced the cache as we were thinking it may have been plowed under

Quote

8/13/2011
OH MY new WIDER trail now, in the past couple days... GZ was a bull dozed mess. Replaced cache with New container. TFTC

First off, if they read past logs, or even cache descriptions of the surrounding caches, they would have realized the caches were along an old woods road. There was no widening of the trail, they graded the potholes out of the road! They had managed to pull the grader over far enough to make a tree lean towards the cache, but that was about the extent of the damage to the hide. Next, if they had looked at the cache Title or Description, they would have read that this cache is a "Bison Tube." The description says "Hope you enjoy this hide, it's a bit different from your average Bison Tube Hide." Apparently, they took "different" to mean they should hide an Airborne Container. Actually, different means the container is a toy American Bison with a hole drilled through the body so a preform would fit. Here's what I thought about it at the time:

Quote

Too Tall John performed maintenance

Monday, 15 August 2011

With reports that the area had been bulldozed and that the cache had been replaced by the last two seekers, I set out to check for myself. Since the point of this cache is the "Bison-Tube-ness" of the cache and I don't currently have the necessary materials to replace it, I planned on archiving the cache if it was, indeed, missing. Gone or not, I needed to come back out here. If it was gone, I needed to verify that for myself, and remove the throwdown before archiving the cache. If it was still in place, I needed to remove the throwdown before someone else got confused by finding it instead of the real cache.

It was not missing. Cache was in place, I almost knelt on the throwdown when I retrieved the original. The road might be a couple feet wider than it used to be, but for the most part looks the same as it has since I first ventured out. Well, minus a few potholes. I must say the cache was just feet from destruction, but it was, and is, quite findable.

While I appreciate the sentiment of the two cachers who decided to replace the cache, I am a bit baffled at why they thought an Airborne container would be appropriate, especially when the cache is named "Bison Tube" and is described as "a bit different from your average Bison Tube Hide". Different it was, but it followed neither the spirit nor the letter of the cache description.

So, I'd say thanks for bringing me back out here, but I had other nearby caches that I haven't found yet that I didn't go after today so that I could come fix this one.

So, back to the title: If You 'Gotta' Leave a Throwdown...

• Be sure the cache isn't there. Can't be sure, DNF it.
• Read the cache page. It might have information that might not only help you hide the cache in an appropriate manner, it might help you find the cache!
• Let the Cache Owner know what you did. Your container could be potentially confusing for other cachers, or even placed in a spot the CO avoided for good reasons. Their name is now attached to what you did.
• Think again. You don't 'Gotta' Throw Down.
• DNF It's helpful to CO's to get DNF logs.
• DNF There is no shame in a DNF log.
• DNF Even if you feel ashamed of DNF's, nobody but you can pull up the full list of your DNF's. It's really ok.

...So, other than perhaps a couple extra "DNF"'s, what else did I leave off this list?

(In the interest of full disclosure, I have "Thrown Down" a cache. Sort of. I had the cache owner on the phone, who verified that I was looking in the right place, and as it was a location that wasn't easy to get to, he asked me to replace it. So, now that I think of it, not really a throwdown at all.)

[The A-Team]

Too Tall John, on 30 April 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Why on earth would you throw down a cache when you can't be sure the cache is still there?

Because some cachers are just too lazy and can't be bothered to perform a thorough search. It's much easier to get the smiley by dropping a film canister than it is to spend half an hour scouring a rock pile, or even just spending a couple of minutes checked the few obvious spots.

Quote

(In the interest of full disclosure, I have "Thrown Down" a cache. Sort of. I had the cache owner on the phone, who verified that I was looking in the right place, and as it was a location that wasn't easy to get to, he asked me to replace it. So, now that I think of it, not really a throwdown at all.)

I agree that that isn't a throwdown at all. You replaced a cache with the blessing of the owner. Totally different.

I think I'll revise your list a bit:

If You 'Gotta' Leave a Throwdown...

• Don't!
  
• Don't!
  
• Don't!
  
• Don't!
  
• Don't!
  
• Don't!
  
• Don't!

[uxorious]

I'm a fairly relaxed CO, and there isn't many reasons I would delete someones find. However, if someone left a throw down on one of my caches I would delete their log in a sec.

[DarkZen]

The A-Team, on 30 April 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

If You 'Gotta' Leave a Throwdown...

• Don't!
• Don't!
• Don't!
• Don't!
• Don't!
• Don't!
• Don't!

8. Don't!
9 Don't!
10. Have the CO's approval beforehand.

[jellis]

The A-Team, on 30 April 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

Too Tall John, on 30 April 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Why on earth would you throw down a cache when you can't be sure the cache is still there?

Because some cachers are just too lazy and can't be bothered to perform a thorough search. It's much easier to get the smiley by dropping a film canister than it is to spend half an hour scouring a rock pile, or even just spending a couple of minutes checked the few obvious spots.

Quote

(In the interest of full disclosure, I have "Thrown Down" a cache. Sort of. I had the cache owner on the phone, who verified that I was looking in the right place, and as it was a location that wasn't easy to get to, he asked me to replace it. So, now that I think of it, not really a throwdown at all.)

I agree that that isn't a throwdown at all. You replaced a cache with the blessing of the owner. Totally different.

I think I'll revise your list a bit:

If You 'Gotta' Leave a Throwdown...

• Don't!
  
• Don't!
  
• Don't!
  
• Don't!
  
• Don't!
  
• Don't!
  
• Don't!

Totally agree.
I had a nano on a bench and someone put a 35mm and hung it in the tree behind the bench with a ripped out piece of a phone book for a log. Talk about lazy.

[eusty]

I think it must be a US thing? I've never had any of mine or even heard of someone replacing a cache in the UK.

Isn't that the point of a NM.....

[OZ2CPU]

NEWER EVER Throwdown !!
you got to find a way to make people stop doing this !!

if a cache can not be found : log a DNF
if you are sure it is gone, clear evidence, then log a N.M.
if maintenence is not performed within a normal accepted time, log a N.A.
but NEWER place a new cache before you have a nice OK from the CO !!

---

what you could do is delete all logs written in the WRONG Throwdown cache,
and also all logs where you dont see their name in the real paper log,
and encurage all your other local CO to do the same,
now it is no more full to Throwdown..

This post has been edited by OZ2CPU: 01 May 2012 - 01:15 AM

[OZ2CPU]

one of my caches is a little bit hard to find SMALL..
and I located an EMPTY AMMO box 2 meter from the real hide out.
inside the ammo lit is written very big : THIS IS NOT THE CACHE !!
you be amazed how many paper notes with logs I find in the WRONG container,
the hint, discription, size, diff, do NOT match the ammo..

when I delete peoples logs, I tell them nice and friendly.

if you did not find something that say : GEOCACHE
and written in its LOGBOOK, you did not find the cache,
it is that simple, the idea with my cache is simply to educate people :-)

This post has been edited by OZ2CPU: 01 May 2012 - 01:25 AM

[BC & MsKitty]

uxorious, on 30 April 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

I'm a fairly relaxed CO, and there isn't many reasons I would delete someones find. However, if someone left a throw down on one of my caches I would delete their log in a sec.

Absolutely!!!

[Mr.Yuck]

eusty, on 01 May 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

I think it must be a US thing? I've never had any of mine or even heard of someone replacing a cache in the UK.

Isn't that the point of a NM.....

Don't leave out those whacky Canadians. Trust me, I live 10 miles from there, and have almost 500 finds there. they have throw-downers. I seriously never considered that this might be a North American only thing.

You're too nice, TTJ. I agree with the guy who copied your list, but made every number "Don't".

P.S. The only throw-down I have ever had on one of my caches was by someone on their 2nd day of caching with a Nuvi from their windshield, during the then new "find caches with your car GPS" craze. I can't argue that most throw-downs are of the cheesy high-number cacher variety, but there are times people just think they're being helpful.

P.P.S. TTJ, does anyone mention leaving the throw-down in their log for the railroad trestle cache? Not that you personally couldn't figure it out from the first signature in the hide-a-key. A few months ago, I found a throw-down by a high number duo, found their 3 month old cut-and-paste log, and they didn't even mention leaving it. I of course didn't realize I'd found someone's throw down until I got home and went to log the cache.

P.P.P.S. Evil micros, or "micros in the woods" have a very high probability of having throw downs thrown down.

This post has been edited by Mr.Yuck: 01 May 2012 - 03:41 AM

[WestSideDaddy]

OZ2CPU, on 01 May 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

what you could do is delete all logs written in the WRONG Throwdown cache,
and also all logs where you dont see their name in the real paper log,
and encurage all your other local CO to do the same,
now it is no more full to Throwdown..

While I agree that you should/could delete the log of the person who threw down, I can't see any reason why you would want to delete the logs of anyone else who signed in it. They can't have known can they? They found a container with a log at ground zero. They shouldn't be punished for following the rules, especially is they didn't know it wasn't the correct container.

[J the Goat]

OZ2CPU, on 01 May 2012 - 01:24 AM, said:

one of my caches is a little bit hard to find SMALL..
and I located an EMPTY AMMO box 2 meter from the real hide out.
inside the ammo lit is written very big : THIS IS NOT THE CACHE !!
you be amazed how many paper notes with logs I find in the WRONG container,
the hint, discription, size, diff, do NOT match the ammo..

when I delete peoples logs, I tell them nice and friendly.

if you did not find something that say : GEOCACHE
and written in its LOGBOOK, you did not find the cache,
it is that simple, the idea with my cache is simply to educate people :-)

Not always true, only one of my caches has a sticker on it that identifies it as a geocache. I should label them, but I generally dont.

The idea of throwdowns is funny to me. Funny in a shake my head and facepalm sort of way usually...

[Mr.Yuck]

WestSideDaddy, on 01 May 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

OZ2CPU, on 01 May 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

what you could do is delete all logs written in the WRONG Throwdown cache,
and also all logs where you dont see their name in the real paper log,
and encurage all your other local CO to do the same,
now it is no more full to Throwdown..

While I agree that you should/could delete the log of the person who threw down, I can't see any reason why you would want to delete the logs of anyone else who signed in it. They can't have known can they? They found a container with a log at ground zero. They shouldn't be punished for following the rules, especially is they didn't know it wasn't the correct container.

See my post #10, right above yours. I was the victim of finding a throw down pill bottle micro a few months ago (real cache is apparently a cylindrical waterproof matchbox container nearby). Although I do have a paperless GPS that holds the last 5 logs, I really had no clue whatsoever that I found someone's throw down until I got home and looked at all the logs. I do not feel a signer of a throw down should ever be penalized.

By the way, this may shock some purists, but I went ahead and took the find there, it was about 80 miles from home. If this happened on a local cache close to home, I'd probably delete my find log, replace it with a note with a wisecrack about throw downs, and go back and find the real cache.

[CanadianRockies]

Mr.Yuck, on 01 May 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

By the way, this may shock some purists, but I went ahead and took the find there, it was about 80 miles from home. If this happened on a local cache close to home, I'd probably delete my find log, replace it with a note with a wisecrack about throw downs, and go back and find the real cache.

I've never understood the concept that distance from home affects whether or not to count something as a find.

[Mr.Yuck]

CanadianRockies, on 01 May 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

Mr.Yuck, on 01 May 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

By the way, this may shock some purists, but I went ahead and took the find there, it was about 80 miles from home. If this happened on a local cache close to home, I'd probably delete my find log, replace it with a note with a wisecrack about throw downs, and go back and find the real cache.

I've never understood the concept that distance from home affects whether or not to count something as a find.

Yeah, I dunno, that's how I rolled in that case. You're right, I have seen a few "found where it's supposed to be, but I live 200 miles away" find logs over the years. Hey, if enough people quote me, and respond to what I did, I will go back and delete that log. That is in fact the first time I am aware of that I have ever "found" a throw down, while the real cache was present the whole time.

This post has been edited by Mr.Yuck: 01 May 2012 - 06:22 AM

[The A-Team]

Mr.Yuck, on 01 May 2012 - 03:11 AM, said:

I seriously never considered that this might be a North American only thing.

I have a feeling that the "cradle of civilization" for throwdowns is somewhere in the deserts of the American southwest. I'm sure throwdowns happened occasionally everywhere before power trails came into being, but that it became more prevalent after that. Like a disease, cachers went to that area to do some power trails, learned that they could throwdown a film canister to claim a find (got infected), then went home and spread the disease around their home area.

[briansnat]

Quote

So, back to the title: If You 'Gotta' Leave a Throwdown...

Be sure the cache isn't there. Can't be sure, DNF it.

Absurd, if you log a DNF you don't get a +1 for your find count.

[4wheelin_fool]

Wait until you find the first stage of a multi with the coords intact, along with a piece of notepad next to it with names and dates on it.

[uxorious]

CanadianRockies, on 01 May 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

Mr.Yuck, on 01 May 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

By the way, this may shock some purists, but I went ahead and took the find there, it was about 80 miles from home. If this happened on a local cache close to home, I'd probably delete my find log, replace it with a note with a wisecrack about throw downs, and go back and find the real cache.

I've never understood the concept that distance from home affects whether or not to count something as a find.

If I found and signed a cache that I did not know was a throw down, I would not delete it later. If someone put a throw down at one of my caches, I would only delete the log of the one who did the throw down.

I really can't blame those that find a throw down. Unless of course the throw down is very obvious as to what it is.

[Too Tall John]

Too Tall John, on 30 April 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

When I first got the pic showing missing sigs, I assumed that they had somehow stumbled across one of the older containers that I managed to overlook due to cache migration. If I can't be certain I'll find the cache, how can someone else!?!?

Well, this is embarrassing...

I stopped off today to pick up the Hide-a-Key. I didn't find it, I found one of the earlier containers, hidden underneath the bridge as described in the email:

Quote

Ah I remember it well....[snip] I finally found a magnetic "Hide-A-Key" stuck to an I-beam almost halfway across the width of the bridge. It was up pretty high and maybe ten feet from the end of the bridge. I believe the beam angles towards the center of the bridge. There were several other names in the log as I recall.

Opened it up, and there was their signature, so it wasn't a Hide-a-Key after all. Glad I didn't start deleting logs just yet. Still want to know how the container got so very far away from where it belongs...

Another mystery: There is still one signature missing from the combined sets of logbooks. What did they find???

[bflentje]

So, I am obsessed why everyone feels compelled to start their posts with SO.

[Too Tall John]

bflentje, on 01 May 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

So, I am obsessed why everyone feels compelled to start their posts with SO.

I start my THREADS with "So" but I start many of my posts (including the last one) with "Well"

This post has been edited by Too Tall John: 01 May 2012 - 09:38 AM

[bflentje]

The problem I see here is that anyone here in the forums on a regular basis is probably out maintaining their caches. Throw downs for a delinquent owner, where the cache is confirmed missing, I am not sure I have a problem with. A NM or NA would be better of course. But in the case where the cache AND the owner are confirmed missing? A throw down is better than doing nothing.

[Too Tall John]

bflentje, on 01 May 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

The problem I see here is that anyone here in the forums on a regular basis is probably out maintaining their caches. Throw downs for a delinquent owner, where the cache is confirmed missing, I am not sure I have a problem with. A NM or NA would be better of course. But in the case where the cache AND the owner are confirmed missing? A throw down is better than doing nothing.

Sounds like a NA would be the appropriate action for a cache like that. Perpetuating a cache that doesn't have an owner is a bad idea.

[bflentje]

Too Tall John, on 01 May 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

bflentje, on 01 May 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

The problem I see here is that anyone here in the forums on a regular basis is probably out maintaining their caches. Throw downs for a delinquent owner, where the cache is confirmed missing, I am not sure I have a problem with. A NM or NA would be better of course. But in the case where the cache AND the owner are confirmed missing? A throw down is better than doing nothing.

Sounds like a NA would be the appropriate action for a cache like that. Perpetuating a cache that doesn't have an owner is a bad idea.

There, I highlighted it for you

[vagabond]

Here's my log from one I found a few years ago,
Tuesday, 13 October 2009California

WOW The Caches at this site are reproducing like the rabbits, we were looking for one cache and found 2. Anyway we signed both logs and put the caches right next to each other, maybe the owner should come out and chase one away before they reproduce anymore caches
Signed the log thanks for the hides??

[The A-Team]

bflentje, on 01 May 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Too Tall John, on 01 May 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

bflentje, on 01 May 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

The problem I see here is that anyone here in the forums on a regular basis is probably out maintaining their caches. Throw downs for a delinquent owner, where the cache is confirmed missing, I am not sure I have a problem with. A NM or NA would be better of course. But in the case where the cache AND the owner are confirmed missing? A throw down is better than doing nothing.

Sounds like a NA would be the appropriate action for a cache like that. Perpetuating a cache that doesn't have an owner is a bad idea.

There, I highlighted it for you

I think TTJ was referring to the last scenario, where both the cache and owner are gone. The container should never be replaced in that scenario, but rather a NA should be logged.

[bflentje]

The A-Team, on 01 May 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

bflentje, on 01 May 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Too Tall John, on 01 May 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

bflentje, on 01 May 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

The problem I see here is that anyone here in the forums on a regular basis is probably out maintaining their caches. Throw downs for a delinquent owner, where the cache is confirmed missing, I am not sure I have a problem with. A NM or NA would be better of course. But in the case where the cache AND the owner are confirmed missing? A throw down is better than doing nothing.

Sounds like a NA would be the appropriate action for a cache like that. Perpetuating a cache that doesn't have an owner is a bad idea.

There, I highlighted it for you

I think TTJ was referring to the last scenario, where both the cache and owner are gone. The container should never be replaced in that scenario, but rather a NA should be logged.

Sure. But I am suggesting that in that scenario, a throwdown is better than DOING NOTHING. That's all I meant. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Too Tall John]

bflentje, on 01 May 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

The A-Team, on 01 May 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

bflentje, on 01 May 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Too Tall John, on 01 May 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

bflentje, on 01 May 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

The problem I see here is that anyone here in the forums on a regular basis is probably out maintaining their caches. Throw downs for a delinquent owner, where the cache is confirmed missing, I am not sure I have a problem with. A NM or NA would be better of course. But in the case where the cache AND the owner are confirmed missing? A throw down is better than doing nothing.

Sounds like a NA would be the appropriate action for a cache like that. Perpetuating a cache that doesn't have an owner is a bad idea.

There, I highlighted it for you

I think TTJ was referring to the last scenario, where both the cache and owner are gone. The container should never be replaced in that scenario, but rather a NA should be logged.

Sure. But I am suggesting that in that scenario, a throwdown is better than DOING NOTHING. That's all I meant. Nothing more, nothing less.

And what I meant is that doing nothing is better than a throwdown in that case.

[dprovan]

A lot of good points made in this thread. Often I feel people overlook the impact of throwdowns on other finders, but that's been brought up nicely here from a few angles.

I just wanted to comment on one somewhat tangential point:

Too Tall John, on 30 April 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Here's the thing that really bugs me: According to the cache description, "There is no need to leave the decking." I thought about hiding the cache down below, but due to the icy grade around the bridge abutments leading into the sometimes fast-running, frigid river, this would be an extremely dangerous cache to attempt in winter, and since this rail-trail is primarily used in winter, I went for the hide reachable from the safety of the bridge deck.

Then say, "DANGER: DO NOT LEAVE THE DECKING" instead of "There is no need to leave the decking." I can't count the number of times that looking up from below revealed a cache that would be otherwise impossible to see and nearly impossible to find by feel. (I'm sorry to say it, but COs have been known to forget that how much easier it is to slap a cache in an arbitrary spot that cannot be seen than it is to find such a cache with no clue about where it is other than a possibly unreliable GZ or with no idea about how it's attached other than a useless hint like "magnetic".) So I would never dream of taking your remarkably casual tip as a warning trying to specifically tell me that that approach would be both dangerous and useless.

[dprovan]

CanadianRockies, on 01 May 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

I've never understood the concept that distance from home affects whether or not to count something as a find.

It's a relatively simple concept: the further away from home you are, the less likely you'll ever be back at some later point after the required maintenance has been done. I've even used that logic once or twice myself, but it has to be very special circumstances such as a puzzle cache or multi where the final hide location is undeniable yet the cache is clearly missing or damaged beyond being able to sign the log. And I'm prepared for my judgement to be overruled by the CO when I explain it in my log. But I don't think anything short of a CO's request justifies a throwdown and, if anything, to me, the further away from home you are, the less sense a throwdown makes.

[CanadianRockies]

uxorious, on 01 May 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

CanadianRockies, on 01 May 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

Mr.Yuck, on 01 May 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

By the way, this may shock some purists, but I went ahead and took the find there, it was about 80 miles from home. If this happened on a local cache close to home, I'd probably delete my find log, replace it with a note with a wisecrack about throw downs, and go back and find the real cache.

I've never understood the concept that distance from home affects whether or not to count something as a find.

If I found and signed a cache that I did not know was a throw down, I would not delete it later.

But I assume you wouldn't delete it regardless of whether the cache was 80 miles from home or 0.8 miles from home. It's the distance having an affect that has me perplexed.

This post has been edited by CanadianRockies: 01 May 2012 - 10:47 AM

[CanadianRockies]

dprovan, on 01 May 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

CanadianRockies, on 01 May 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

I've never understood the concept that distance from home affects whether or not to count something as a find.

It's a relatively simple concept: the further away from home you are, the less likely you'll ever be back at some later point after the required maintenance has been done. I've even used that logic once or twice myself, but it has to be very special circumstances such as a puzzle cache or multi where the final hide location is undeniable yet the cache is clearly missing or damaged beyond being able to sign the log.

I understand that being farther from home makes it less likely that you'll return. But how does being farther from home make a "clearly missing" cache more of a find?

[Mr.Benchmark]

CanadianRockies, on 01 May 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

dprovan, on 01 May 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

CanadianRockies, on 01 May 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

I've never understood the concept that distance from home affects whether or not to count something as a find.

It's a relatively simple concept: the further away from home you are, the less likely you'll ever be back at some later point after the required maintenance has been done. I've even used that logic once or twice myself, but it has to be very special circumstances such as a puzzle cache or multi where the final hide location is undeniable yet the cache is clearly missing or damaged beyond being able to sign the log.

I understand that being farther from home makes it less likely that you'll return. But how does being farther from home make a "clearly missing" cache more of a find?

A damaged cache with an unsignable log isn't clearly missing. Hey, you found a cache. A throwdown is also not clearly missing to the finder. (This is one of the reasons I hate throwdowns - I don't want to unwittingly be part of someone else's possibly misguided little stunt.)

I do agree that if the final is clearly missing, this is a DNF, regardless of distance. I would be somewhat more frustrated if I put a lot of effort into finding a cache at some distance away and couldn't find the final - but I would still log a DNF.

[CanadianRockies]

Mr.Benchmark, on 01 May 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

CanadianRockies, on 01 May 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

dprovan, on 01 May 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

CanadianRockies, on 01 May 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

I've never understood the concept that distance from home affects whether or not to count something as a find.

It's a relatively simple concept: the further away from home you are, the less likely you'll ever be back at some later point after the required maintenance has been done. I've even used that logic once or twice myself, but it has to be very special circumstances such as a puzzle cache or multi where the final hide location is undeniable yet the cache is clearly missing or damaged beyond being able to sign the log.

I understand that being farther from home makes it less likely that you'll return. But how does being farther from home make a "clearly missing" cache more of a find?

A damaged cache with an unsignable log isn't clearly missing. Hey, you found a cache. A throwdown is also not clearly missing to the finder.

But a cache that is clearly missing is clearly missing. I've now bolded the portion of dprovan's post that I was quoting.

Mr.Benchmark, on 01 May 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

I do agree that if the final is clearly missing, this is a DNF, regardless of distance. I would be somewhat more frustrated if I put a lot of effort into finding a cache at some distance away and couldn't find the final - but I would still log a DNF.

That's my point. By my way of thinking, a find is a find (or a DNF is a DNF) regardless of its distance from home.

[Mr.Benchmark]

CanadianRockies, on 01 May 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

That's my point. By my way of thinking, a find is a find (or a DNF is a DNF) regardless of its distance from home.

OK, sounds like we agree. I don't understand the notion of "well I WOULD have found it, so I'm logging a find." I'm not super happy with ambiguous situations like "this is bound to be the geocache - there's more of it here, than not, but I can't really sign this mess," but in that case I am more comfortable with logging "found" if it really seems like I did indeed find something. (I'd follow up with NM and owner email though.)

I don't think I'd do as Mr.Yuck threatens, and go back and turn one of my "found" logs into a DNF because it turned out that I had unwittingly signed a throwdown while the original was still present. I say this because I can't think of why, unless I suspected at the time something was fishy and the cache was added to my watch list, or the cache was really spectacular, I would ever go back and read subsequent logs. And even if that were the case, I'm not sure I'd do it anyway, because it isn't always very clear from reading logs what REALLY is going on, and in my effort to fix up the past and have a perfectly 100% accurate accounting of my real and true finds, I might well screw up and just muddle things worse than they already are. So I try to just honestly report what I believe I found, and move on. If it turns out I was in error, meh - I'm human, and sometimes the situation on the ground is ambiguous.

This post has been edited by Mr.Benchmark: 01 May 2012 - 11:22 AM

[Too Tall John]

This thread is about Throw Downs and the cachers who throw them.

The discussion about logging Finds vs DNFs on caches far from home, while an interesting topic, belongs in it's own thread.

This post has been edited by Too Tall John: 01 May 2012 - 11:28 AM

[Mr.Benchmark]

Too Tall John, on 01 May 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

This thread is about Throw Downs and the cachers who throw them.

The discussion about logging Finds vs DNFs on caches far from home, while an interesting topic, belongs in it's own thread.

Apologies. OK - here's my take:

Just don't ever throwdown a cache. There is never a good reason to do this.

[Nomesquad]

The only good place to throw down that spare film cannister with a log in it is in the trash as far as I'm concerned. As a CO I do want to know if one of my caches has gone missing, and I will get out to it within a day or two to get it fixed up. Now I realize that there are many remote caches out there and next day service isn't available, but before we go out on a cache trip I do try to look and weed out the ones that have 5 DNFs or the ones that have NM recorded multiple times without any note from the owner saying the issues have been fixed.

If someone wants to throw down a cache, they're welcome to do so, record the coords and submit it to the "hide a cache" page for review.

[B+L]

See, there really is no need to bring back virtuals. Throwdowns are just variations on the theme.

[uxorious]

CanadianRockies, on 01 May 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

uxorious, on 01 May 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

CanadianRockies, on 01 May 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

Mr.Yuck, on 01 May 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

By the way, this may shock some purists, but I went ahead and took the find there, it was about 80 miles from home. If this happened on a local cache close to home, I'd probably delete my find log, replace it with a note with a wisecrack about throw downs, and go back and find the real cache.

I've never understood the concept that distance from home affects whether or not to count something as a find.

If I found and signed a cache that I did not know was a throw down, I would not delete it later.

But I assume you wouldn't delete it regardless of whether the cache was 80 miles from home or 0.8 miles from home. It's the distance having an affect that has me perplexed.

You would be right. How I would log has nothing to do with how far, or how close it is. I have my own feelings about what is or is not a find, and distance has nothing to do with it.

[knowschad]

I think we're in 99.99% agreement here, so why are there still throwdowns being placed?

[niraD]

knowschad, on 01 May 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

I think we're in 99.99% agreement here, so why are there still throwdowns being placed?

That's easy. It's because we aren't the people who leave throwdowns.

[Mr.Benchmark]

knowschad, on 01 May 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

I think we're in 99.99% agreement here, so why are there still throwdowns being placed?

The slippery slope on the road to throwdown:
1. A decent cache goes missing, the CO is gone. You are in the park anyway, you've found it before, you search around, it ain't there, so you replace it. (This is relatively virtuous.)

2. You don't find a cache, and it's in a remote area - it'll take the CO a while to get out that way. But it's pretty obvious where it has to be from description and hint, so you replace it. Maybe you find the remains of the cache. (Depending on the circumstances, this one can also be relatively virtuous.)

3. A cache goes missing, so does the CO - lots of DNF logs. You've never found it before, but it is in a trivially obvious hiding spot, so you replace it. If you don't log a find, people won't know that it can be found. (We're going down hill here...)

4. Cache #87 for the day, spent 2 minutes searching, can't find it, darn, quick and pop out a handy replacement. Log found so next guy knows it's in play. (Hey, with 10,000 finds, if you don't find it, it's gotta be missing!) Later on, can't remember which ones you through down, was it #86 or #93... (Rock bottom)

I think the second example is more common in sparsely populated areas with low cache density. In all cases I'm quite certain the person doing the replacement believes they are providing a service.

BTW, I've seen examples of case #1 where the CO themselves accidently created a duplicate cache at their location. (It can be hard to find a missing nano, so you replace the one you think is missing, then someone else finds it in the tall grass, putting it back where they think it goes.)

[the4dirtydogs]

knowschad, on 01 May 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

I think we're in 99.99% agreement here, so why are there still throwdowns being placed?

Because I'm entitled to a find everytime I search for a geocache.

[Chrysalides]

niraD, on 01 May 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

knowschad, on 01 May 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

I think we're in 99.99% agreement here, so why are there still throwdowns being placed?

That's easy. It's because we aren't the people who leave throwdowns.

I count perhaps 20 unique respondents in this thread. Assuming 100,000 active geocachers (from 83516 geocachers logging a cache on leap day) that's 0.02% of all geocachers. 99.99% of 0.02% is not a high percentage of geocachers

[AZcachemeister]

I don't like throwdowns.
There is no 'gotta leave a throwdown...'
There is 'gotta post a DNF' and 'gotta post a Needs Maintenance' or even 'gotta post a Needs Archived'.
I have logged maybe two or three over the years, but with some very serious personal rationalization required to do so.

In almost any case I could be easily convinced to remove a throwdown if I knew about it in advance.

I am currently watching a cache that is now a throwdown, and I refuse to go there until the CO posts an 'Owner Maintenance' to confirm that the original is missing and the throwdown is now the valid cache.

[Flatiron & Mrs. Wrangler]

Throwdowns seem to be norm around here, as numerous cachers have not only used 35mm film canisters, but spent shotgun shells, plastic water bottles, etc. instead of notifying the owner of a DNF or needs maintenance. The power trails that I'm referring to are the lizard and snake caches put out in the Florence, Az. area. I guess some folks just can't stand to log a DNF and will resort to ANYTHING to get a smiley. Pretty sad state of affairs..........

[tozainamboku]

briansnat, on 01 May 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

Quote

So, back to the title: If You 'Gotta' Leave a Throwdown...

Be sure the cache isn't there. Can't be sure, DNF it.

Absurd, if you log a DNF you don't get a +1 for your find count.

I don't understand the attitude that people are leaving throw downs solely to increment their find count.

I truly believe the most throw downs are left because people want to help out the cache owner with maintenance and to ensure that other cachers will have something to find at the spot. The game is not about some imaginary score; the find count is not motivating what most people are doing to have fun. Not finding is generally less fun than finding. So, some individuals try to help out when they find a cache that they are pretty certain is missing; they leave a replacement for the next cachers. Sure most will mark this as Found online as well. After all they now know where the cache is located - so it doesn't make much sense to come back - and they probably signed the log in the cache they left - so by some puritan magic they found it. And the online find now shows others that the cache has been replaced. This is particularly useful if the cache has been missing for awhile and had several DNFs posted. People who are not worried about the score so mach as about having fun, probably can't see why someone gets their knickers in such a twist over the use of a Found log when a replacement was left for a missing cache.

That said, I don't want to come across as encouraging leaving replacements. Originally, it seems replacements were only left when cachers were reasonably certain the cache was missing. Either this was an easy cache that suddenly started getting only DNFs, or perhaps there was a spoiler hint or photo so that they cacher could be certain they looked in the proper hiding place. In many case the replacement was left only after getting permission of the cache owner, though sometimes it was left for a cache where the owner seemed to be unwilling to do maintenance or mark the cache as disabled. I think in some areas the throw down is now used way too often. My opinion is that replacement should not be left unless you first get the permission of the cache owner. If the cache owner is AWOL or not maintaining a cache then a NM or even a NA archive is a better approach to have the missing cache location removed from peoples searches.

[WRASTRO]

tozainamboku, on 01 May 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

briansnat, on 01 May 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

Quote

So, back to the title: If You 'Gotta' Leave a Throwdown...

Be sure the cache isn't there. Can't be sure, DNF it.

Absurd, if you log a DNF you don't get a +1 for your find count.

I don't understand the attitude that people are leaving throw downs solely to increment their find count.

I truly believe the most throw downs are left because people want to help out the cache owner with maintenance and to ensure that other cachers will have something to find at the spot. The game is not about some imaginary score; the find count is not motivating what most people are doing to have fun. Not finding is generally less fun than finding. So, some individuals try to help out when they find a cache that they are pretty certain is missing; they leave a replacement for the next cachers. Sure most will mark this as Found online as well. After all they now know where the cache is located - so it doesn't make much sense to come back - and they probably signed the log in the cache they left - so by some puritan magic they found it. And the online find now shows others that the cache has been replaced. This is particularly useful if the cache has been missing for awhile and had several DNFs posted. People who are not worried about the score so mach as about having fun, probably can't see why someone gets their knickers in such a twist over the use of a Found log when a replacement was left for a missing cache.

That said, I don't want to come across as encouraging leaving replacements. Originally, it seems replacements were only left when cachers were reasonably certain the cache was missing. Either this was an easy cache that suddenly started getting only DNFs, or perhaps there was a spoiler hint or photo so that they cacher could be certain they looked in the proper hiding place. In many case the replacement was left only after getting permission of the cache owner, though sometimes it was left for a cache where the owner seemed to be unwilling to do maintenance or mark the cache as disabled. I think in some areas the throw down is now used way too often. My opinion is that replacement should not be left unless you first get the permission of the cache owner. If the cache owner is AWOL or not maintaining a cache then a NM or even a NA archive is a better approach to have the missing cache location removed from peoples searches.

Well I am indeed happy that I managed to focus and read the entire post. While I may not agree with some of the comments I do indeed agree with the final opinion as stated.