kpanko

I think I get what you are implying: that writing a log is polite recognition for the effort that a cache hider has invested in our game. I agree with that. I usually write as much as I feel I can. But not every cache owner is like "mom." What if the "food" is terrible? Time to start "eating" somewhere else! Rather than writing a long rant about how awful the experience was, I might just write "did not enjoy the location. TFTC." Cache logs also help me as a cache seeker. Past logs can tell me a lot about a place before I ever leave my home. A string of blank logs would not tell me that much. So even as a cache seeker, I skip over the short logs, because I am usually trying to figure out how difficult the search will be, what kind of place it is, and that kind of thing. But, if all you can think of to say is "yeah, found it," then just go ahead and leave it blank. We don't need extra words for their own sake. The fact that you logged it online is still telling us that someone FOUND IT! The worst thing is when a cache gets NO logs at all for a long time -- is it missing, or good, or bad?

Most of them probably are not in the forums at all. I imagine that the people who voted after being asked, probably thought the cache was pretty good, and they probably had votes to spare. I think many people have a lot of spare votes right now, so they can toss one out when asked nicely. I used up all my votes (only 22 votes) so I would have to remove one to vote for a new one right now. I would only do that if the cache was more my favorite than the one I have to remove from my list. So I have to think carefully about giving a vote out. That could happen, especially if there is no downside for the cache owner. Advertising, spam, and junk mail also "work" even though everybody hates that stuff. 99.99% of people will delete spam, but it only takes 0.01% to buy the product, and the spammer makes a profit because it costs almost nothing to send out the spam. If it cost even 1 penny to send an e-mail, it would no longer be worth sending spam. If this does become an issue, we could discourage cache owners from spamming people by threatening to remove the favorite votes if they do not stop doing it. Or turn off their ability to send messages. Or poke them with sharpened sticks.

I also prefer that the owner does nothing to "influence" me. At the very least, please do not send me a message or offer prizes. That said, I think it would be fine if your cache already has some favorite votes, then you may express gratitude on the cache page. That is polite behavior. The best and simplest way to get a lot of favorite votes is to create a cache that people really love!

The guidelines are being violated here: A problem has been reported. It has been more than a few weeks. The owner is responsible for checking on it. The listing should at least be disabled so that others will know not to search for it. But it should be checked on within a couple of months after that. That brings us to the next paragraph of the guidelines: Living too far away is not an acceptable reason to ignore a cache for more than a few weeks. What you want to do about this is entirely up to you. Log a needs archived, or send a note to your reviewer (either way, it basically does the same thing). The reviewer knows the rules and will give the cache owner a fair chance to replace it before archiving the cache. Volunteer to help take of the cache if you want.

I think geocaching.com has found a new front page video!

I was making my own point, not really arguing with yours. But if you insist... The conclusion that everything must be only micro/small/regular/large is firmly rooted in logic, but assumes that there will only be one container, and that only the size of the container that opens is the important size. I disagree with these assumptions, therefore, "other" is a reasonable choice in some cases. Here is how I feel about it: - Not Chosen: The cache owner does not want to say anything about the container. - Other: The container is unusual in some way, and the owner wants you to know this.

The container is a bison tube, so I would choose 'micro'. Yes, if the container were all that ever mattered, it would be a micro size. But the typical micro cache is a small thing, like a matchstick holder. Some people filter micros out of their search query because they do not want to find a small thing. But a five foot tall statue is not a small thing! This is no pill bottle with camo tape, and it seems wrong to stick it in the same category. Therefore, I think size "other" is fine to use for "unusual" hides. This does raise some questions about leaving gigantic man-made objects in the woods ...

I met a cacher in my town by accident while searching for a cache. We both use smartphones, not the bright yellow garmin units. I thought she was a "muggle" for about 10 minutes until I realized, we are both just circling around the same general spot... Hmm, maybe there is a reason for that!

You can also remove the log that says you dropped it. I think you also need to "grab" the bug; deleting the log will not actually put it back in your inventory. (I'm not certain what will happen.) Go to http://www.geocaching.com/my/ and click on "Visit Log" next to the incorrect log. Then you will see a button saying "Delete Log."

So, you think it's that easy? That you just push a button, follow the arrow, and walk right up to it? No way, it's a lot more difficult than that! Typically, you will have to figure out how to drive there and where to park. Then, find the trail, if there is one. You may have to cross water, or other natural barriers. Once you reach the cache location, you still have to figure out where it is hidden. The GPS cannot tell you that. Some caches are hidden hidden so well, I have looked for hours and still not found them yet. The above description is only for the basic style of cache. Other styles require finding several hidden objects, or solving puzzles, riddles, or whatever. It's actually pretty difficult sometimes.

Some cache owners will write "Congratulations to XYZ for getting FTF!!!" in the cache description area.

Are you being serious? That is nothing like what I would want!

Then I conclude that nobody can ever know who found it first. If you found it first, the other finder would have seen your name on the log, except he did not actually see the log. If you found it second, you would have seen initials on the container, except you did not check for that. So, nobody will ever know the truth. This is the reason that the log sheet should be signed. I suppose the other finder should have signed the log, so their claim is invalid, and you are the first to find it in the proper way. Who knows -- maybe a muggle was the real first to find! Someone noticed it, did not sign, and put it back without telling anyone.

Go to this page and skip to The Cot-Caught Merger.

If someone in my area did this, I would not look down on it. I think if you go to the effort to (for example) find a cache in every USA state, then you deserve a little reward.

Nobody will ever find it!

AFAIK, a challenge cache is the same as any other, except that you have to meet some kind of challenge (stand on your head for 2 days; find the mole people and thumb wrestle their leader; etc.) first. Then you simply go and find the cache like any other traditional cache. So you still have to look for it and find it. Meeting the challenge is only the first step.

+1 There are a few names that pop up often enough in my area that I feel like I know that person a bit. If I meet them at an event, or exchange mail with them, we may discuss caches in our area. "Shop talk," you know. It's nice to follow along online with your friends. The way the site works now, you can only follow along with "found" logs, unless you happen to find a cache page where they wrote the DNF log. Many times now, I will seek a cache in my area and discover, "Oh! My friend was here last week, but he did not find it." So, the DNF log is no secret, but it is just more difficult to find them. It has nothing to do with comparing statistics. More about comparing the places we have been, so I do not have to ask "so, have you ever been over to so and so cache yet?" I wonder if having it more public would really cause people to stop writing DNF logs. Let's have an experiment -- we'll need to set up two versions of geocaching.com and have one show the DNF logs on the person's profile, and the other will not...

tags: goodidea to-do canofworms

dadgum! I knew I should have actually checked without assuming.

I suppose there is a fourth possibility: - Premium members who have set up an insta-notify watch for N/A logs in their local area.

I just realized the implied statement here. Would you say there should be some minimum standard for a geocache to be a favorite? This is not a "scale from 1 to 10" rating system. Either the cache was your favorite, or it was not. So, maybe only the very best ones can be favorite, and those that were merely good but not great, do not get any votes? My approach is a bit different. I think I should cast all my votes because that tells the community the most information. In doing so, I have to lower my standards until I use up all my votes. (Of course, I only got 23 votes so far. So, I did not have to find hundreds of caches like some of you might.)

Yes -- once the system has existed for a while, and people have cast their votes. My point is that casting votes is what makes the system useful. Not voting, for whatever reason (you do not think there are any caches worth voting for, you do not want to take the time to vote, or whatever your reason may be) makes the system less useful. If a cache gets zero votes, and people are casting their votes, then it is not a special cache. However, if people are not casting votes, then you cannot draw any conclusion based on the number of favorite points. The original premise, that a vote is more meaningful if cast by a person with many unused votes, and less meaningful if that person casts all their votes, is what I disagree with. If you choose not to cast all your votes, that's fine, but I do not think that makes your other votes more special. Voting for favorites, like logging online, is not required, but I think it does help the game if you choose to do it.

I do not like that idea because it encourages people to not use their votes, and it favors people with a higher "found it" count. The favorite system will work best when people are encouraged to cast all their votes. Otherwise, we will see the majority of caches having zero votes, which is almost the same situation as not having a favorite system at all. I do not think the system should favor people with a higher found count. Should the system favor someone who has found 5,000 caches and weight their opinion more than someone who has found only 500?

Noob! You can step right over those things if you do it right.