Jump to content

paleolith

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    964
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by paleolith

  1. I like it. It's a good start. As you say, I would expect it to be expanded to include other variants once there's critical mass. Now there's that issue of "different web site" ... Edward
  2. Advertising on the web is either per-impression or per-click, never per-site. And I'm sure that Groundspeak has a single point of sales, so advertisers don't have to sign up twice and sign two contracts. So it makes no difference to the advertisers whether it's one web site or a hundred web sites. They pay either by the number of times the ad is shown or by the number of times it's clicked on. The second web site may help both Groundspeak and the advertisers by bringing more traffic, but that's a different matter. Edward
  3. I think you hit the nail on the ... point. The head of the nail is that not everyone-all-the-time wants to know. People are looking for a pleasant surprise, something outside the mundane, something where they don't know everthing about the category in advance, and are saying that wm.com doesn't provide this. I've only logged two virtuals. Though they weren't huge surprises, I'm glad they were there. (Both are on NPS property, and making them stages of multis would be nothing but a stupid kludge which would add nothing to the finder's experience.) I had passed by both locations before (one a trail turnoff, one a road turnoff) without visiting. I've also walked past a great virtual without stopping to visit because I'd visited the spot before. Probably I'll eventually revisit it to log it, but in most cases I would not. Perhaps wm.com could set up a category which corresponds to what people want from virtual caches: some element of surprise, not mundane, not otherwise strictly categorized. Perhaps this already exists -- I've spent less than an hour looking at wm.com -- but no one on the forums has cited it. And then link them with gc.com, especially the maps ... frankly, I'm not going to more than one web site for "finding places", and I think a lot of other people are saying the same thing. I spend too much time planning to find caches as it is. (And for those such as toz who say that geocaching is "finding a box", I say that view of geocaching is rather narrow. For many of us, it's far more "finding places", and the box is a control rather than the goal.) 1) Set up a WM category which really corresponds to good virtual caches. 2) Link it to the gc.com google maps and to gc.com searchs. Then your claim that Waymarking can replace virtuals has a chance of flying. Edward
  4. That IS quite an assumption unless you've found and searched property records. In my home town there are city parks which look more like private property than this. I know about them in part because the city parks and recreation department has been placing caches. Sure, the odds are that it's private, but "crystal clear" it is not, not from what's been said in the forum. Edward
  5. Most of the arguments against virtuals are severely undercut by the continued listing of Earthcaches. And there are lame Earthcaches and lame parking lot micros, so it's not only virtuals that are sometimes lame. Those who would like to bring back virtuals would seem to have a better chance by trying to expand the Earthcache program, perhaps to historical sites or human artifacts, finding an outside, somewhat official agency to review and approve. (Of course, having an outside reviewer hasn't prevented lame Earthcaches.) Note that this is purely a personal opinion; I have no idea whether an attempt to expand the Earthcache idea would have any chance of landing on fertile ground. As for why not Waymarking ... I looked at the site. In the area I've done most of my geocaching, with many hundreds of geocaches, there is exactly one waymark after excluding a couple of benchmarks. And that's a house -- a Frank Lloyd Wright house, probably quite interesting, but not a peak or a viewpoint or any other natural place, nothing to hike to. Waymarking obviously has not caught on among mountain hikers. This area even includes several large NPS sections, the largest of which has no virtual caches. No waymarks in the NPS areas at all. I find the maps on Waymarking.com to be lame. It's nice having a Google map on the main page, but what then? I could not find any way to expand it beyond the thumbnail size or to change to a different view (sat/topo/etc). That's lame. Maybe there's a trick, but until it's obvious, that's lame. When I panned the map around, no waymarks showed up until I clicked "search from center". That's lame compared with the operation of the Google maps on gc.com. Sure, the latter have their problems, like hanging up my browser for minutes when I hit a spot with too many caches, but it's a far sight better than what I see on wm.com. What would increase my interest in waymarks? Having them show up on my gc.com maps! Obviously this should be controlled by a checkbox on the map, since many will not want to see them. Maybe this option is something planned for the long-rumored Big Upgrade. And then being able to log them via the same interface. I don't care if they count toward my geocache count or if I have a count at all, as long as I can review my list AND I DON'T HAVE TO GO TO ANOTHER WEB SITE TO DO IT. But then ... how would that differ from bringing back virtuals? Edward
  6. Everything everybody else has said. But this criterion shows especially well why one-size-fits-all doesn't work. You are saying that star caches should be terrain 1.5 or less, MAYBE 2.0. For me, star caches would be terrain 3.0 to 4.5, MAYBE 2.5 for a cache that's especially good otherwise. Yeah, I don't always like the time spent pre-evaluating which caches I'm going to look for. But it's that variety of caches which provides the varying experiences that different people want. Edward (oops, only noticed after posting how old the OP is ... well, I guess that didn't stop anyone else.)
  7. Another example is my DNF log for Super Secret Spy Stuff. My very first FTF, the GPSr was more of a hindrance than a help. The hider had accidentally transposed the last two digits of the latitude, and as a result the cache was about 100' from the posted coordinates. Several cachers had understandably failed to find it. On my third attempt, I found it based on the description and the hint (which I had helpfully left at home on the first two attempts). Thus for this find I used ordinary searching skills far more than the GPSr -- of necessity. Note that many offset caches and perhaps most letterbox hybrids force you to depend on more traditional searching skills, with the coordinates only getting you started. For many of these, you can do just as well without the GPSr. Same with some puzzle caches, though in many cases the result of solving a puzzle is coordinates which you then use as with a traditional cache. Note that modern offset caches are a subset of multicaches but that older traditional caches are sometimes offset caches. Edward
  8. Found a long list of dry boxes. I have no recommendation for or against this merchant, just found the list useful. They list Otterbox, Pelican, Underwater Kinetics, and S3. Elsewhere I saw a much larger line of S3 boxes. All of these seem to be made of ABS, which is looking like the plastic of choice for the outdoors. I'd still prefer polycarbonate or PVC in theory, but ABS should work very well -- hold up to both sunlight and physical trauma and resist warping which would compromise the seal. I can't evaluate the latches from looking at them online, so that remains my biggest concern. Well, that and the cost of course. Knowing that these are made for water sports gives me some ideas of where to look in local stores. The prices on all the boxes seem comparable, in the range of $25 for something the size of an ammo can, $20 or a little under for a somewhat smaller box, and $10-$12 for a wallet+ size box. All this is very rough. If comparing online prices, keep in mind that these, being much lighter than ammo cans, will be a lot cheaper to ship, though certainly the total cost will still be more. Edward
  9. I'll add to my previous post that I would accept PVC or ABS also. I haven't seen any sufficiently atractive containers of PVC, though I haven't looked much. I gather there is some concern about ABS and cunlight, but in the time scale of decades. The Waterproof Store's collection of hard cases are mostly ABS and include some good looking ones. As Rick618 pointed out, they do cost more. Also, the waterproof locker which I used for one cache did not, to me, have a very secure latch -- it is certainly securely waterproof as long as the catch is properly in place, but I think that an animal could knock it loose -- much better chance than with an ammo can anyway. I also ran across the SealMate polycarbonate containers. I haven't examined one in person and cannot vouch for them. The latches look possibly insubstantial. Also, I could not find a retailer -- the web site above claims retail but I did not find a way -- so I suspect they are out of business. Edward
  10. I found a lock-n-lock a few days ago. All four tabs were broken off and lying on the ground, and the sides had large pieces missing. I replaced it with the ammo can I had brought for that purpose. Yes, it had been there for maybe five years, and if you only plan to leave your cache in place for a couple of years, then a lock-n-lock may be pretty good. But for something that's going to last, the only plastic I would trust outdoors is polycarbonate. So far I haven't seen a complete container made of polycarb which is satisfactory as a cache. Surfas Restaurant Supply carries the Cambro line of polycarbonate food containers, but the ones which are all polycarb (including the lid) are not designed to seal tightly. Edward
  11. I basically agree with C&S 143. And I would add that this does not to me have the feel of a capacity problem (which could be anticipated) but of something breaking. At this point we don't AFAIK even know whether it was actually a gc.com problem. At the same time, I'll say that it helps users A LOT for someone to take the time -- 3 minutes every two or three hours -- to post a quick note giving the status. Yes, I know how hard it can be to break away from the repair effort. Often, though, the break results in better thinking as well as much happier users. The status note doesn't have to be much more than "our provider is suffering from a DoS attack", or "two of our three servers suffered disk failures and we are rebuilding", etc. Again, I know that this kind of status update requires a special effort. But it's very much worth the small amount of time it takes. Edward
  12. Literally true, yes. But it's probably optimized to store the number of watchers in the cache record so that it doesn't require an extra lookup to display the cache page. More specifically: yes, there has to be a table (using SQL terminology) relating caches to watchers. But you don't want to be doing a lookup, counting all records in that table related to a given cache, every time you display the cache. So every time you update the watchlist table, you adjust the count in the cache record. This is extra work when the watchlist is updated, but displaying a cache page is probably at least 100 times more frequent than adding or deleting it from a user's watch list (and quite possibly 1000 times more frequent), so you do the extra work during a watchlist update rather than during a query. And yes, of course you can always look up the list of watchers (as opposed to just the number). You have to do that to send them email when the cache is logged. It's a reasonably efficient operation (although my guess is that for notifications, it is NOT done in real time, but rather the cache is put on a "to notify" list and the notification operation is done on a time-available basis). But it still takes significant web design and programming work to create the page to show the watch list and to integrate it into the owner version of the cache page. Given that it probably only shows 10% of the users getting notifications on the cache, and that perhaps half of the ones it shows aren't really receiving the notifications, what's the value? That's why I say that a request needs to be justified with a description of the value. This is standard procedure for requesting new features in software. In this case, the cost is not enormous but is still significant, and the value is not obvious at all. Edward
  13. The more appropriate question is, why would it be worth the programming cost and server load to provide this information? What's it worth? If you really think it has value to you, explain why -- provide justificaiton for your request. It's not something they intentionally turned off, it's just something they haven't ever implemented. In any case, just showing the watch list won't tell you who is getting notifications on the cache. I'm probably watching a hundred caches, and only about a dozen are on my watch list. I'm watching the rest via bookmark lists. Those don't show on the watch count on the cache page. Showing that count, and retrieving all the IDs from all the bookmark lists, would be more programming and more server load. Finally, remember that for old caches, probably 3/4 of those watching are no longer getting email at the address on record with gc.com. gc.com doesn't purge members just because they don't log in. So the count is suspect at best, and the list would be even more suspect. Edward
  14. If you want guaranteed 7x24 uptime, with the servers and bandwidth and staff to support that, you are talking subscription prices in the range of $300/year, not $30/year. If you are willing to pay for that service, then enter a suggestion. My guess is that most users will prefer to accept an occasional outage. Or you could just upgrade to Platinum, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. Edward
  15. So is anyone building a bookmark list of all these? Edit: oops, I see that some was building a list called Really Cool Caches, but when I opened a couple from the thread, I didn't see the bookmark list.
  16. Nah, just the empty bucket, skip the water. It's a bridge, remember? Back to the beginning ... Edward
  17. Your argument is: a. geocaching is said to be 1, 2, and 3 b. but 1 and 2 don't always apply c. therefore 4 cannot possibly apply Now, as someone else has mentioned, I need to apologize for injecting logic into a perfectly good rant. But you keep citing this list, and yet your own argument shows that it's just an informal introduction, not a formal description or set of rules. For me, geocaching.com is an important part of geocaching. Logging finds is part of that. If someone wants to find my caches and not log online, fine, I have no problem with that. But I won't know they exist until some future time when I retrieve the log books, and at that point I probably won't even notice that the books contain logs from cachers who didn't log online. OK, if that's the way they want it. But most of my contact with other geocachers is via gc.com, so I'm sad that I won't know about their adventures. Edward
  18. Basically, advanced search and pocket query should be the same -- same user interface, same capabiities. A PQ should be just an advanced search results sent by email. Some envelope of options or capabilities restricts non-premium members (of course platinum members are never restricted). The current system approximately corresponds to PMs get email results and several additional search criteria, but cannot combine those criteria with the keywords available in advanced search. Unifying the search would make it easier on users and easier to decide what should require payment. Edward
  19. Only thing I'd add, don't try too many new things all at once. GC hunt and scavenger hunt might be too much for one day. Geocaching seems obvious to many once they've done it a couple of times, but it still takes a bit of orientation, plus some people don't latch onto the technological part as quick as others. You know your audience, so think in terms of what they will absorb in the time available. If horses are special equipment, then are hiking boots too? Edward
  20. Happened to me recently. I was hiking past a cache I'd found, checked up on it, found that the ammo can had been ripped off (that's 101 other threads but no linky). The contents had been left but the baggies were not in good shape and the stuff was going to get wet soon. Packed it out, emailed owner, mailed contents to owner, who thanked me. Depends on my attitude. If I think they were really lazy, no banana. Most other reasons, hey, they posted a photo! I like that! I like seeing photos people took at my cache! Hey, there's a great photo of tozainamboku at the steering wheel of one of my caches! When someone has fun AND passes some of that fun on to me, I'll grant them a LOT of slack. Lotsa good answers already, of course that won't stop me. Found one puzzle cache where the description was enough to find it without solving the puzzle if you read carefully, and it was obviously a for-fun puzzle and not intended as a serious challenge. If I found a puzzle cache where the owner was obviously serious about the puzzle, I'd probably skip logging it as a find. Note maybe. Unless the owner annoyed me, in which case I'd log the find anyway. Edward
  21. Impacts me, because I don't like hanging out with jerks, and I consider intentional liars to be jerks. No, I'm not talking about mistakes or all the other reasons toz listed that the cache log might not match the online log or that perceptions may vary of what constitutes a find. And I haven't personally run into intentional lying about finds other than armchair logging of virtuals. But when there are liars in the game, that directly affects me. Personally I need all the spoilers I can find. Edward
  22. Gosh, and I thought it happened to me just because I was aging. Edward
  23. It's absolutely certain that the people who post in these forums are unusual among geocachers. I wouldn't say the difference is necessarily demographic -- it might be, but it is far more certainly a different distribution of personality type. (Though I have a particular version of personality type in mind, the statement is probably true no matter what version of personality type you use.) What portion of cachers EVER post to a forum? Somewhere between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000? How many read forums without posting? Probably about 10 to 20 times as many as post based on studies going quite a way back. Which means that at least 90% have never read ANYTHING in the forums. That may seem terribly odd to those of us posting here -- it does to me -- but that's the world. Edward
×
×
  • Create New...