Jump to content


Photo

Hiding a cache without finding one first


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#81 Baytown Bert

Baytown Bert

    Short fat dude with good hygiene

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,895 posts
  • LocationBaytown, Texas

Posted 04 February 2013 - 11:41 AM

What does this mean exactly?  If I wanted to give someone else a chance for a FTF, I simply would wait until someone else found it and then go look, right?

Interesting read and this is why I much prefer to look for caches by experienced geocachers.

That is why some people have sockpuppet accounts to give others a chance for a FTF.


TXGA SETX Representative


#82 Muddy Buddies

Muddy Buddies

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,359 posts
  • LocationAlief

Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:51 AM

I'm taking it SP means that many will not go after a FTF from what they think is a newbie so someone like him will come up with a Sockpuppet account and those with that philosophy will miss out on the FTF and it will perhaps go to someone that doesn't get many FTFs.   I'm not sure if this is a valid theory or not, but there are some that won't go after an FTF of a cache by a newbie and let others be the guinea pigs. 


Posted Image

#83 jackrock

jackrock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 471 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:52 PM

GC43NAB This is one that puzzles me. Several experienced cachers have DNF this one from the start but two cachers with 1 find and 20 finds found it and claimed it to be easy. I am even wondering if those profiles are real.. Even the cacher with 20 finds logged most of their caches in one day everywhere from Alvin, Pearland, Memorial, and the Heights.. all in one day and their first day...

Coords are obviously off as it puts you in the road.

 I've seen this happen a number of times.  Of course, if you can't find it you can't see if anyone really signed the log.



#84 HoustonControl

HoustonControl

    Charter Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,689 posts
  • LocationBaytown

Posted 05 February 2013 - 08:28 PM

I think sometimes newbies hide a cache, then tell their buddies (other newbies) where it is so they can get the FTF -- before it's even published, most likely -- but their coordinates suck, so once it's published, ONLY their buddies will ever log it.  Color me jaded...


  • Baytown Bert likes this
img.aspx?txt=What+in+the+Hell?&uid=1dd8c

#85 Baytown Bert

Baytown Bert

    Short fat dude with good hygiene

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,895 posts
  • LocationBaytown, Texas

Posted 06 February 2013 - 04:52 AM

First skinny and now jaded? Yowzer!

Edited by Baytown Bert, 06 February 2013 - 04:52 AM.

TXGA SETX Representative


#86 jackrock

jackrock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 471 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 06:04 AM

The owner of GC41VJ5 posted this note today:

 

"I am working on getting the correct coordinates updated! The coordinates are slightly off and do not lead you to the cache, however, it is there still! I will update when it is all figured out. I am sorry for the confusion!!"

 

I think jackrock would agree that "slightly off" is not a precise description of the coordinate accuracy, but it's nice that he/she is looking into the matter.

 

Yesterday it was disabled with a note saying that he'll visit and get more precise coordinates.  Good to see this is someone that is paying attention and wiling to fix it. 



#87 Team Troglodyte

Team Troglodyte

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 369 posts
  • LocationConroe, TX

Posted 06 February 2013 - 06:34 AM

The owner of GC41VJ5 posted this note today:

 

"I am working on getting the correct coordinates updated! The coordinates are slightly off and do not lead you to the cache, however, it is there still! I will update when it is all figured out. I am sorry for the confusion!!"

 

I think jackrock would agree that "slightly off" is not a precise description of the coordinate accuracy, but it's nice that he/she is looking into the matter.

 

Yesterday it was disabled with a note saying that he'll visit and get more precise coordinates.  Good to see this is someone that is paying attention and wiling to fix it. 

 

 

I had suggested, very nicely with an explanation of why, that the cache be disabled until more accurate coordinates could be obtained.  He/she/they is/are at least trying.  Kudos.



#88 TeamBlacklist

TeamBlacklist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:24 PM

 

GC43NAB This is one that puzzles me. Several experienced cachers have DNF this one from the start but two cachers with 1 find and 20 finds found it and claimed it to be easy. I am even wondering if those profiles are real.. Even the cacher with 20 finds logged most of their caches in one day everywhere from Alvin, Pearland, Memorial, and the Heights.. all in one day and their first day...

Coords are obviously off as it puts you in the road.

 I've seen this happen a number of times.  Of course, if you can't find it you can't see if anyone really signed the log.

 

We looked for this one and I don't beleive that there is a cache at the GZ. The finds only came after someone suggested that the cache be achived. When we suggested that it be archived I mentioned that the finder only had one find and then it was found by someone with more than one find but all of their finds were the day after our log suggesting that this cache be archived. Very suspicious!



#89 heftydude

heftydude

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 665 posts
  • LocationHouston

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:39 PM

 

 

GC43NAB This is one that puzzles me. Several experienced cachers have DNF this one from the start but two cachers with 1 find and 20 finds found it and claimed it to be easy. I am even wondering if those profiles are real.. Even the cacher with 20 finds logged most of their caches in one day everywhere from Alvin, Pearland, Memorial, and the Heights.. all in one day and their first day...

Coords are obviously off as it puts you in the road.

 I've seen this happen a number of times.  Of course, if you can't find it you can't see if anyone really signed the log.

 

We looked for this one and I don't beleive that there is a cache at the GZ. The finds only came after someone suggested that the cache be achived. When we suggested that it be archived I mentioned that the finder only had one find and then it was found by someone with more than one find but all of their finds were the day after our log suggesting that this cache be archived. Very suspicious!

Quote: "Not that hard to find but nothing to sign.".  

 

Nothing to sign?  Well, that explains it.


  • Baytown Bert likes this
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users