Lonely Cache Game – Cycle 2

[seldom|seen]

I just assumed you could only log a cache once per time it was lonely. (Now if you DNF it and then go back on a separate visit and replace the container, then I’d allow the DNF visit to be deleted and replaced with the higher point value maintenance visit.) I think the rules should be changed to close this loophole and prevent people from padding their stats with spurious visits.

When I first started, I thought only one person could log a find on a lonely per period, that was early on. I think there are lots of rules to keep track of and that us “lonely cache” players have made the game more difficult than it needed to be. But, given where we are now, I tend to agree with Jeremy. Let’s remember what the point of the game is. Then let’s reduce the variables and get everyone on the same playing field.

My only concern is that this game has already become more than Dave expected it to be and adding more criteria will make that much more work to keep scoring fairly. Add to that the knowledge that as the weather warms there will be an increasing number of players out there, and you’ve got your work cut out for you. If you thought the first 2 months was fraught with issues and whining… just give it a couple months.

This is a monumental undertaking and at this point you may need to bring another cacher on board to assist in the score-keeping. It is going to get more intense, even if you keep the number around 500.

[labrat_wr]

just a question about the caches that will drop off the list. If a lonely cache was only confirmed present by a previous finder, will that cache still drop off?

Dave, I thank you for your efforts in bringing this game to us. It is a huge undertaking.

Disclaimer : Always answering to a higher power.

[Sagasu]

I’ve voted for the 500 or so limit to keep the game manageable, as long as truly “lonely” caches that haven’t been found for many months, sometimes over a year, are not excluded from the list. Those are the ones that need help the most, either in the form of confirming, replacing or adopting.

As far as some of the rules and issues pertaining to multiple logs and the so-called padding, I see the game played differently by players. One player replaces a cache, logs it, and submits a report as a find. Others call it a DNF, because they didn’t find it, but they replaced it. I chose the latter route to avoid the appearance of the so-called padding, but when I went back to log the cache as a find, without submitting any report at all for points, it appeared to some, at least, that there was some padding going on. I subsequently deleted the find, and sacrificed a find count to avoid even the appearance of padding, as I don’t really need any “extra” points. At the same time, I am going to be more judicious about replacing a cache in similar circumstances, as I would really rather just make the find, as long as the owner or someone salvages the cache, if it’s worth saving.

I really don’t normally spend a lot of time in the forums due to a heavy enough work and family schedule that makes me value my caching time – all year ’round, so I don’t get the opportunity to dabble in these political debates very often. Whatever simplifies this great idea for salvaging good caches best will work for me, as long as the original idea of clarifying their status for many who have had frustrations visiting something that’s no longer there, and giving such caches suitable attention or help can take place, particularly for the “loneliest” caches that have disappointed the most, or have had to be bypassed due to long strings of DNF posts, without owner response.

As those who know me have found, I am as serious about maintaining my own caches, and leaving others’ caches well hidden, with decent swag, and in good shape, as I am about having fun and seeing new places going out finding them. It’s disappointing when anyone doesn’t care enough about a cache they placed, supposedly for a good reason, like bringing people to a great place, or illuminating their lives with exposure to an historic or otherwise interesting spot, doesn’t take the time to keep that cache in good condition. At that point, it’s time to archive it so someone else can use the spot, or adopt it out so somebody will take good care of it. As an “unregulated” sport, geocaching needs the contributions of all who participate to keep caches in great shape for the fun of those who play.

As far as the gnarly puzzle cache category, my friend Shane, sign me up for the feathers contribution; there will be enough of them without adding more!

[gkrone]

Is there any way to just grab the oldest 500 regardless of how long they have been lonely?

[Team Deejay]

@gkrone wrote:

Is there any way to just grab the oldest 500 regardless of how long they have been lonely?

Sure, just run a pocket query for all caches in Wisconsin placed before 8/25/03. Of course, this date will change as older caches are archived, but you can play with the Pocket Queries to find the exact date at any given time.

[Ray]

@Team Deejay wrote:

@gkrone wrote:

Is there any way to just grab the oldest 500 regardless of how long they have been lonely?

Sure, just run a pocket query for all caches in Wisconsin placed before 8/25/03. Of course, this date will change as older caches are archived, but you can play with the Pocket Queries to find the exact date at any given time.

You would need to be a “Premium Member” to run a pocket query. And, if you are not a “Premium Member” you can go to the GC.com home page and select “Hide & Seek a Cache” from the menu at the left. Then search by state. it will return a listing of all 7,700+ caches in the state. They are in chronologic order so the oldest 500 would be found on the last 25 pages.

[-cheeto-]

They might have meant 500 “oldest” as in haven’t been found in the longest amount of time. Not oldest as in placed the earliest. A better word could be “lonliest”

At least that is how I interpreted the comment…

This would qualify a cache as being “lonely” and allow you to keep the returned list to 500 or whatever specific number you choose.

[gkrone]

@-cheeto- wrote:

They might have meant 500 “oldest” as in haven’t been found in the longest amount of time. Not oldest as in placed the earliest. A better word could be “lonliest”

At least that is how I interpreted the comment…

This would qualify a cache as being “lonely” and allow you to keep the returned list to 500 or whatever specific number you choose.

That’s right, I meant the 500 loneliest caches. If a cache has been lonely for longer than the time frame looked at will it be in the list?

[3 Hawks]

I’ve actually logged a few DNF’s and then revisited the cache, on another day, to log the find. On one cache, thin ice prevented me from getting the last 200 feet to the cache and I returned a week later to score the find once the ice had thickened.

Another cache was a three part multi. I DNF’d it in January and returned yesterday for the final. The second WP was in pieces and the coords to the final were missing on my first visit. The owner e-mailed me the coords for the final so I could try the final. I also replaced the second WP on yesterday’s visit.

Another cache is a tricky “evil monkey” like placement. I climbed around and dug through snow and ice for 45 minutes on my first visit but walked away with a DNF. An e-mail to a prior finder confirmed my feeling that the cache had gone missing. I came back a week later and replaced the cache, since the micro was not in the hiding spot.

You have to remember that many of these caches are on the “Lonely Cache” list for a reason. They are either tricky, out in the middle of nowhere, or they are often missing. I will not simply replace a cache unless I know the cache is in fact missing. That requires e-mails and phone calls and will usually require a second visit. Two feet of snow and 6 inches of solid ice also comes into play on many of these caches.

I’ve not intentionally padded my points and I’ve never been at the top of the leader board. I don’t see why logging and DNF and then logging a find on another day is wrong, unless you suspect people are cheating. If you consider what I did to be cheating, then get a life.

[Team Deejay]

@gkrone wrote:

@-cheeto- wrote:

They might have meant 500 “oldest” as in haven’t been found in the longest amount of time. Not oldest as in placed the earliest. A better word could be “lonliest”

At least that is how I interpreted the comment…

This would qualify a cache as being “lonely” and allow you to keep the returned list to 500 or whatever specific number you choose.

That’s right, I meant the 500 loneliest caches. If a cache has been lonely for longer than the time frame looked at will it be in the list?

I wish it were easy but it’s not. The easiest way (for YOU) is to use my bookmark list for the lonely cache game, which will show you all the caches not found since 8/31/07 as of January 1.

What I am doing is running pocket queries of all the caches in the state and then sorting by last found date, then creating a bookmark list for the loneliest caches. Right now, this is 17 pocket queries and only includes caches placed before 11/12/07. Usually I have to tweak a few where none of the last 5 logs are “founds” (I have a macro to do most of the “tweaking”.) I also try to look for obviously missing caches (this is not so easy to determine) and “reviewer disable” them before making the final list.

And right now, its looking like the date will be 9/16/07, so if a cache hadn’t been found since then, it will be on the March/April list. Like I said, there is no easy way to get this list, but I hope to have it public tomorrow.

As an aside, if anyone owns a cache that they do NOT want on the list, even though it meets the criteria, please let me know and I will exclude it.

[Team Deejay]

After getting more feedback than I could have hoped for, I added modified the rules slightly to make them more clear and correct the situation with “unnecessary” revisits. I simply modified the clarification (section 12d) to read as follows:

d. A cache cannot be confirmed (either way) after a find, a confirmation note, an enable note, or an owner maintenance visit log is posted during the 2 month period, unless there is a subsequent DNF.  If the last log on a cache is an confirmation note, it cannot be confirmed again, regardless of how long ago it was found. 

I received mixed feedback with regard to counting both DNFs and finds from the same person, so I left that as it was, meaning you can log both a DNF and a find on the same cache.

[-cheeto-]

that looks like a great improvement to the rules.. having 2 cachers confirm on revisits in the same month seemed kind of pointless and to me appeared to be more of a “padding of points” than dnf’ing and then logging a find or a replacement later.

great job on keeping it “real” 🙂 as the dawg would say.

[sandlanders]

@Team Deejay wrote:

I wish it were easy but it’s not.

We owe a big debt of gratitude to you for getting the list of the Lonely Caches together. It’s nice having something to work off of, whether one wants to play the game or not.

And the administration of this whole thing…AARRRRRGH!

thank you, thank you, thank you!

[zuma]

@Team Deejay wrote:

After getting more feedback than I could have hoped for, I added modified the rules slightly to make them more clear and correct the situation with “unnecessary” revisits. I simply modified the clarification (section 12d) to read as follows:

d. A cache cannot be confirmed (either way) after a find, a confirmation note, an enable note, or an owner maintenance visit log is posted during the 2 month period, unless there is a subsequent DNF.  If the last log on a cache is an confirmation note, it cannot be confirmed again, regardless of how long ago it was found. 

I received mixed feedback with regard to counting both DNFs and finds from the same person, so I left that as it was, meaning you can log both a DNF and a find on the same cache.

Hi Deejay,

Looks like a reasonable change, and thanks for soliciting input. For the good reasons outlined by 3 Hawks, I agree that it is often going to be reasonable to have a DNF, then a subsequent find, and am glad ya left that part alone.

Thanks again for starting this game and administering it so well. I am guessing that no matter how ya tweak the rules, Sagusu is gonna keep on winning cuz that guy is an unstoppable animal.

The only way around that I suppose would be to have a special Sagusu rule, something like “4f(1) Teams with Japenese names are not allowed to log points on days ending with a Y.” 😉

Anyway, again thanks for the great game. I am still hoping I can beat my friend Sagasu some month, but I am not counting on it.

zuma

[labrat_wr]

=”zuma
The only way around that I suppose would be to have a special Sagusu rule, something like “4f(1) Teams with Japenese names are not allowed to log points on days ending with a Y.” 😉

zuma

nichiyōbi getsuyōbi kayōbi suiyōbi mokuyōbi kin’yōbi doyōbi
(sunday)(moonday) (fireday)(waterday) (wood day) (gold day)(earthday)

That wouldn’t stop him either as the Japanese days end in “i” 😀

Disclaimer : Always answering to a higher power.

[Author]

Posts