TopShelfRob

Let me know if you see any. I find it very unfortunate that "constructive comments designed to illict interesting and insightful discussion" often get mistaken for "intentionally inflammatory troll comments" depending on your viewpoint. "Thank god the cachers around me aren't like the majority of people in this thread. Would make me want to find a different game if I had to be around this bickering and BS's for months on end." Sounds constructive to me. No that one, definitely I agree.

Let me know if you see any. I find it very unfortunate that "constructive comments designed to illict interesting and insightful discussion" often get mistaken for "intentionally inflammatory troll comments" depending on your viewpoint.

Which do you object to? The people that feel it's okay to cheat or the people who complain about the cheaters? And I think the people like to bicker only do it here in the forums... I've never encountered bickering Geocachers out in the field.

That's their choice. Most people either try another store or would buy their second choice instead of pistachio. Most would not blame the vanilla for having to do so. I'm thinking there was one carton of pistachio, but it's buried on the bottom shelf between two non-descript cartons of vanilla and he missed it. It's because of all the boring vanilla ice cream that it's harder to find the pistachios. Me, I like all kinds of ice cream. Any day with any ice cream is better than no ice cream at all. When you do find that carton of pistachio, don't forget to thank the maker of the vanilla ice cream for putting it in there! ...and also thank them because it's because all of the vanillas are so boring that makes the pistachio that much more special.

I think the problem might be some new geocachers hear the rule "take something, leave something" and misguidedly figure it's better to leave something that's inappropriate than to not leave anything at all.

That's their choice. Most people either try another store or would buy their second choice instead of pistachio. Most would not blame the vanilla for having to do so. I'm thinking there was one carton of pistachio, but it's buried on the bottom shelf between two non-descript cartons of vanilla and he missed it. It's because of all the boring vanilla ice cream that it's harder to find the pistachios. Me, I like all kinds of ice cream. Any day with any ice cream is better than no ice cream at all.

Just make sure after every 5 or 6 DNFs or so, you post a note saying "just checked up on it, it's still there, look a little harder!" or otherwise people may lose interest. After about 100 DNFs you'll have people driving from miles around to find it and maybe even get it in the Geocaching Blog! After a few years, admit there never was a cache. Win, win, win!

Related question... if there is a cache that is a 2/2 in the winter and due to trail overgrowth is about a 2/3.5 in the summer, can I find it twice and cross two squares off of my grid?

We have a couple of those too. Somebody had to point out the meaning to me. DUH! I am not very swift. I got the "Wear The Fox" part, but the Hat One part has me stumped.

I don't want to go to far off-topic here, but I can't imagine how different of a game Geocaching is for people who have so many caches nearby them. I am aware of all of the specific caches everywhere in my area and I intentionally try not to grab all of them as fast as I could -- I don't want to wipe everything around me and have to drive 50 miles or have to take a trip to get to any unfound cache. I'll knock out one here and there near me, usually if I happen to be by it, or on the way to or back from a longer trip, but I certainly don't want to clear the whole area anytime soon. If I had 2000 within ten miles of me, I'd sure play the game a lot differently! (And I'd have a lot more finds, too)

2068, wow! There are 19 within ten miles of me. (And I didn't think it was that many, ten miles is a little further than I estimated in my head.)

I thought the whole point of why challenge caches are allowable ALRs and all other ALRs were disallowed was because challenges could be indisputably verified, i.e. either they found the qualifying caches or not. If now, due to changing D/T grids, etc. it can be argued that challenges could be just as disputable as far as verification goes, that hinders the whole basis on why they should be allowed and other ALRs shouldn't. It should be clear cut as to whether one qualifies for a challenge, otherwise it's no different than any other tpyes of ALRs, which are not permitted. The D/T rating is at the sole discretion of the cache owner, however if possible it should be possible for the system to keep in a cacher's stats the D/T rating at the time the cache was found. If a D/T rating changes, either due to actual change in conditions, or because the owner thought it needed to be adjusted, that shouldn't affect past finders. If a cache is rated 4/5 when someone finds it, thenm later becomes a 2/5, it should stay in the finder's stats (and grid) as a 4/5. If the system lacks a way to do that, and it must show up for anyone who ever found it's current D/T rating of 2/5, then that's a flaw in the system.

Does my essay have to agree with the premise of the question in order to have a chance to win? Of course. If you feel that find counts are important to you then this is not your thread. Sorry. Well, I think if I have a personal best of 14 finds in a day, or 24 finds in a month, and I want to set out to break that and set a new personal best, that kind of find count can be a good thing. But if 'finds count' refers to a quest to go grab 1,000 quick finds all 528' from each other to run up numbers as high as possible, then no, I'm opposed to them.

Does my essay have to agree with the premise of the question in order to have a chance to win?

For people that have moved is there a way of adjusting the 'distance from home' stats? For instance I used to live in Florida and found a bunch of caches down there, and now I live in South Carolina, so of course it shows a bunch of caches found in the 250 to 500 miles from home, whereas caches I found on vacation in Maryland should be the only ones showing up in that category. If there was a way to classify the distance from home based on your home location at the time you found them, rather than base the distance found for all of your caches on your current home location, it would make those stats useful. If I found a cache that was three miles from where I lived at the time, it's rather useless to count that as a 450 miles from home cache, I'd rather it should show up in the 1 to 10 miles range.

No you didn't find 3 geocatch today, unless you can explain what a geocatch is. You found 3 geocaches today. And you logged one of them (GC3324W) twice. I found 3 geocaches today, but I wanted to find only 2 caches. But one was a micro although the listing said it was a small, so I had to drive to another one to be able drop a geocoin. I think a Geocatch is a slang for a TB prison.

Groundspeak reserves the liberty to maintain a clean and classy site. Forget about parents shielding their children from the sight of vulgarity. If Groundspeak doesn't feel like playing host to course cache names then so be it. Good for them. It's their site. Fair enough. But who arbitrates what is vulgar and what isn't? What is famly friendly and what isn't? What is classy and what isn't? It's all opinion. The very point of this thread was to see if the OP's reviewer would allow it. So what if a reviewer where he is wouldn't allow something but another reviewer somewhere else would? Does that mean it is vulgar in one place but isn't somewhere else? This whole thing seems very arbitrary. One reviewer in Nebraska could deny a cache named "Saving Jack Schitt" but a reviewer in New Jersey could allow a cache named "Sofa King Hilarious". Yep, it's their site they can list whatever they want. But I would like to think even those who are most in favor of keeping the website as unoffensive as possible would understand that a standard that determines what should and should not be published should not depend on which reviewer you happen to get.

If the line was drawn outside of your realm of comfort, then you would not allow your children to go geocaching. Perhaps your line is different than others, so the line is drawn towards the more restrictive to accomodate more people. It is also not drawn so far that way that Groudspeak appears to be PC extremists and folks can't have some harmless fun. It's not about where the line should be drawn - wherever it's drawn, there will be people on both sides of it. The question is whether the line should be drawn at all by Groudspeak, or should people take the responsibility of parenting their own children and not abdicate that right to a geocache-listing website. Luckily for parents, they have Groundspeak to protect their children's eyes from seeing Jack Schitt. I'm sure we'll all sleep better for it. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, he who sacrifices liberty for security enjoys neither.

He should re-direct it to a static page that lists common reasons why caches suck. And then people could be referred there as necessary.

I'm just glad that the Geocaching community, as large as it is, is able to come to agreement on what is family-friendly and what isn't. I know I wouldn't want anybody deciding for me what my 10 year old should and shouldn't see. I'd prefer to decide that for myself.

I think it'd be real convienent, especially if you wanted to fudge a little on a streak, (which is only your own business) to not put a date. Otherwise, I'd say it'd just a be a courtesy for the rare CO that does like to verify the logs to maintain the integrity of the cache's logs. Although I guess most don't check it. Maybe it just helps maintain the illusion that people care about bogus loggings being detected.

Is there a bonus if the winner guesses it right on the nose?

10,933

Then they are free to skip any puzzle cache the don't want to solve. Oh, but they feel entitled to get the smiley anyway? Even if they don't want to do the puzzle? Maybe that's the problem. I "found" (not found found, but found located) a cache that is up a tree that I can't get to. I wouldn't dream of logging it as found unless I actually retrieved the cache. Same as if I didn't solve the puzzle. I know it's not the same thing, because you'll say, if you can log it, it should count. But to some of us it is. So what if I chopped the tree down to get to the log - is that the same thing as if I cheated on a puzzle to get to it? Would those of you who would cheat on a puzzle also chop down a tree to get a tree cache you couldn't reach? But that's not the same thing either, because you are ruining the cache expereice for the next finder. So I don't know then.

I would also reasonably expect that a puzzle CO that puts a lot of time and effort into to creating interesting and exciting puzzles only to find that the solutions get put on a list to be shared to the whole world via Facebook so anyone can easily cheat on them, would eventually get tired putting the effort into it and stop making new puzzle caches.