Jump to content

Gan Dalf

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    619
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gan Dalf

  1. I have a question to the folks, from where ever, who complain about all these people who get together and scam a co-ftf together. I'm honestly confused. It doesn't seem like you are saying that if one person comes upon one other person they haven't met before that if the share the ftf after 30 mins of looking, then the second person is wrong in claiming the co-ftf?

     

    One thing I (Honestly!) don't understand is I hear all these people in my area speak of how hard it is to get an FTF these days. By the time they get to GZ it's already found and done with. So how can there be this large group of folks who manage to, at a moments notice, all get together and agree that all of them will get Co-ftf? Are they all hanging out beforehand? Are we talking about especially hard caches that take awhile for someone to find? How does it work that all of them are able to get together to work this scam when others can't even see a blank log or another human when they show up 20 mins after publish. I also don't understand how this is the new thing to do among cachers. I've seen as many large ftf parties now as I did when I started (To be fair I haven't been around THAT long.). How do they plan it? Why is it "dreaded"? Why not go, help find the cache, and then not log a Co-FTF. I suppose we FTF'rs are just so repugnant that you can't deign to be around us. I could be wrong. Someone help me with the logic that A) No one can get an FTF around here because people grab them so fast that they are found before they can even arrive and B)There are so many "5 - 10 Person shared FTF's" and Dreaded FTF parties where everyone in the zip code gets an FTF for being in the same park. How do those to things work together?

     

    I don't buy it, especially as there are no examples. The large majority of my FTF's were solo (About 100), the next amount were with 1 other person I did not come with (20-30) and the smallest is with large groups (10-20). I am certainly not in the category of cachers being described. Although I have fully enjoyed most of my FTF parties. If the rule of "FTF's, There Can Be Only One!" had been standard I can think of at least half a dozen situations where two people were within inches of the cache and most likely would have "fought" over the right to sign first. I also would have NEVER become an FTF'r if that had been the case generally. I have enough confrontation in my life at work telling people all their photos and documents are gone forever to want it in my hobby. Also, some of my best caching stories have come out of them.

     

    I really think most of this is along the same line as how Smart Phone cachers are "ruining the game". Longer term cachers seem to think sometimes that if a new cacher is doing it, it must be a fad or the hot new thing and they will never be "real cachers". And if you don't enjoy it, than no one else should either. They should be put in shame for being part of a "dreaded" ftf party. It means that some of the old time cachers may have to talk to one of the plebes. Just a theory.

     

    I also am so sick of people who don't enjoy the FTF game calling it meaningless (BTW You can't make something "more" meaningless). Honestly, what is the true "meaning" of Geocaching? If those folks so strongly argue that it's meaningless then how in the world can you be strongly arguing about it? Makes no sense. Leave it alone. Why do you feel the need to denigrate what other people enjoy when it does no harm to you? Let's take a look at a particular example of the words/phrases "Not real" and "Meaningless".

     

    "Well, when it comes down to it, Christianity/Buddhism/Judaism/Islam is meaningless."

     

    (This is only an example to make a point) Hmmmm. Would that be upsetting to practitioners of any of the above? Probably. Is it upsetting (Or incorrect) to me? Not particularly. As an Atheist, it pretty much is to me. BUT I understand that since I don't care about religion, ergo find it meaningless, I have no reason to point it out to someone who may feel differently. Why?

     

    Because it doesn't harm me at all to do it, and I may be unnecessarily offending/bothering/irritating/slightly upsetting someone for no good reason.

     

    "Well, when it comes down to it, The FTF side game is meaningless."

     

    Same thing. Don't act like the constant "meaningless" is not intended an insult to the people who really enjoy it when you would never do the same with other beliefs.

     

    Even in this thread, notice when I was responded to originally, I attempted to add clarifying information instead of going off of one sentence in someones response or ignoring newer additions to the thread. The reason I do this is because, unlike the vast majority of regular posters here, I am always looking for ways to make myself better understood and to gather information and even to, GASP, change my mind! I don't know why I expect that from people anymore, but I approach (almost) every conversation/debate/argument here like that. Yet every time it ends up as a straight back and forth focusing more on more on a single piece of minutiae getting farther and farther away from enlightenment on the subject at hand. Why not focus on the broader point and information the baths the subject in more daylight? Honestly, I am probably expecting too much, but like a starving man in a barren wasteland, I would be ecstatic for a mere morsel.

     

    I'm sure I'll get flamed now, but my reaction will be more likely to be stop reading these forums (Been close to that one for weeks now) then to read each response with pleasure (The troll response).

     

    Hmm, I may have gone off topic for a moment. To the OP, great question. There, on topic.

     

    TL,DR: I'm too high strung. (But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.)

     

    Very well put and I agree with most of the OT stuff about how people should be treated. I will attempt to respond without sounding as though I am flaming but sometimes that is diffiulct to do.

     

    My original (somewhat aggressive) repsonse was in regard to the statement that the widely held belief in your area is that all FTF's should be shared with all present and that everyone around here feels that way. Even your clarification statement was all inclusuive to all those that enjoy participating in the FTF game. My response was to point out that not everyone feels that way and even those that enjoy going out for FTF's don't feel that way, myself being one of them. Besides the ones that claim not to care (and more than one of them has responded here) there are others that like to go out and get the FTF that don't either 1) becasue as you say, they are so hard to come by, 2) they don't want to share it 3) the effort and gas to get it are too much for the trouble or 4) they simply lack the time to do it.

     

    To the point of the large FTF parties are rare. Yes, the majority of the FTF hunts are going to be solo especially for the relentless FTFers such as yourself and a couple of others, but even your own numbers suggest that they are not uncommon. Subtract out the power trail that you were FTF for on most of them last weekend (which I considered going for myself BTW) and somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-50% of all your FTF's have involved at least one other person.

     

    You seem to want examples. I feel that the point above is enough to prove FTF parties are far from rare and I've been reluctant to provide them becasue I didn't feel it necessary to drag others into our debate but if it will help I will provide three. There are plenty of others easily found with a small amount of searching; just read the first few logs of a few different caches.

     

    The first is the example I spoke of before, where Co-FTF was claimed (but not granted by the CO) by someone that arrived after the cache was found but claimed it because it had not been replaced. The second is an example where others had been at the location searching for more than 10 minutes when another cacher arrived, was there for barely a minute when the cache was found by the others, but still claimed Co-FTF. The third(complete with pictures) is an example where to your point, they were all there happily searching together, eliminating other areas and a Co-FTF could be justified for all of them.

     

    My original response was to point out that not everyone feels the way you and the others you have encountered and shared an FTF with do. My response was curt and somewhat in your face and for that I apologize. You seemed to be speaking for all of us that cache around here and like to get FTF's and it was that I was taking exception to. If you had said somthing like, "those that I have encountered at group FTF's usually agree to a Co-FTF once the cache is found", then my response would have been different; something more along the lines of, "I don't care for this practice." From your original and even clarifying statement I interpretated it as you speaking for me and I prefer to do that myself.

     

    I really don't care what others do, and I am even still willing to share with others that are there if I find it first, I've done it before just as others have shared with me. The provided examples are where I would draw the line but the reality is, it really doesn't matter what I think. More recently I have practiced if I am there with a group and did not make the find myself, then I do not claim the Co-FTF. If I am the one that finds it while others are there then I am happy to say you can claim it too if you want. I'm not such a jerk that I'm going to tell someone I won't share but if the FTF prize is nice, I'm going to take it.

     

    It's not completely meaningless to me, becasue I enjoy hunting for them and tracking how many I've got, but as others have said, there is no stat tracked by Groundspeak, anyone can claim it and check the little FTF box in GSAK and post their FTF's on their profile page. Some use that stat as a badge and as proof of relevance, perhaps posting it on your profile alone (mine included) is a form of that. Others use their counts as evidence of why their arguments are the correct one, I'm not trying to do that. I'm just saying what my opinion is on the subject and that I am not alone. Perhaps, if we meet at an event, we can still be civil and discuss (debate) the matter further. I hold no ill will.

     

    ***edit to fix link***

  2. (Keep in mind, ratings are highly subjective)

     

    I'd go 2/2. The hole might not be obvious to everyone (sounds like it wasn't to you) and even if it is, some might not consider a likely spot if it is not reachable w/o assitance. If the only way to get to it is to climb something (be that a stool, the tree itself, or someones shoulders) then it's at least a two.

     

    My rule of thumb is 1 obatainable while seated in a wheel chair, 1.5 can be done on crutches. If neither of those apply then it's at least a 2.

     

    just my $0.02

  3. Lets stop arguing about what is done in Seattle. Its just one region of the world and this is a national topic. Obviously a few folks here in Seattle disagree, but I am just arguing saying in my experience and the people I personally talk to about it. Yes, there are some exceptions, some are in this thread.

     

    I guess your request to stop arguing about what happens in Seattle applies to everyone but you?

  4. I would love to be a reviewer though

     

    Douglas Adams said it first, but it rings true in my life experience...... The person who most wants the power is the absolute last person you should trust with it.

     

    jimmy-carter.jpg

     

    Just sayin'.....

     

    Could keep going. They all wanted the power.

     

    This one didn't, and he was assasinated for his trouble...

  5. As a general rule, caches are not located inside a business due to the following portion of the Guidelines:

     

    Commercial caches are disallowed. As a general rule, reviewers will not publish cache pages that seem commercial. A commercial cache has one or more of the following characteristics:

     

    1. It requires the finder to go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

     

    Link for reference:

     

    Listing Guidelines that Apply to all Geocaches

     

    Yes, one of the most favortited caches in the world (GCE02C) is a cache in New Orleans where you have to go inside a business and tell the Security Gaurd why you are there. They then call the CO on the radio and someone will come down to greet you and take you to the cache. One of the great things about this cache is that they will take you out on the roof of the building where you are treated to a sweeping view of the French Quarter and the Mississippi Delta. It was placed in 2003, under the current guidleines I don't think it would be allowed today...

     

    I would go back and reread the Descriptions before coming to any conclusions, but my guess would be that the cache is located someplace outside. On the other hand, there are a few Library caches about (not usually considered commercial in nature), but again, reading through the Description may be the only way to sort it out definitively.

     

    Good luck!

     

    While this is, indeed, in the guidelines, keep in mind it wasn't always the case. There are caches out there that were placed before this went into effect. I have found caches in museums, retail stores, bowling alleys, and more. As the above states, read the cache description for info. Also, in all cases, keep an open mind and take the age of the cache into account. The guidelines have evolved over time so not all caches out there are in compliance with the current rules.

  6. I have the GONIL counties in an offline database, so I can say that in the Chicago area with close to 11,000 active caches, the average difficulty is 1.81 and the average terrain is 1.75. The average cache is 820 days old (2.24 years).

    You sure that's not the mean? :anibad:

  7. Should I really log five DNFs on a cache before I log the one find? I think that'd clutter up the log unnecessarily.

     

    I understand your thought process on this one. We usually have one DNF log posted and we will edit it to add another date if we return. We think the CO gets a notice on a log edit, but we have never had one of our finders edit (we think).

     

    Just to make sure others notice, because FobesMan's response got buried in a quote, COs DO NOT get notified of a log edit. Only new logs (whether a find, DNF, note, etc.) generate an email.

     

     

    Thanks, that's what I get for trying to post a quote on the forums using my phone...

  8. Should I really log five DNFs on a cache before I log the one find? I think that'd clutter up the log unnecessarily.

     

    Edits do not get sent to a CO

     

    I understand your thought process on this one. We usually have one DNF log posted and we will edit it to add another date if we return. We think the CO gets a notice on a log edit, but we have never had one of our finders edit (we think).

  9.  

    I did not say any of what you are saying I did. Let me show you again what I said:

     

    "Among those who enjoy the FTF side game to some degree, I have yet to meet someone in my area who sees it different." That remains completely true when I originally wrote it, and now has only changed slightly to: Among those many folks who enjoy the FTF side game to some degree, I have only met one person in my area who sees it different.

     

     

    I still think you're just not asking the right people.

  10. Has anyone ever tried to figure out the math? Let's say you are the ultimate cacher and you have logged every single ACTIVE cache in the world. What would your difficulty and terrain rating be? :unsure: Some friends have suggested looking at some of the top cachers that are out there but i'm not quite sure if that would do it. I'm a stats fan and would love input from others with an inquiring minds! :)

     

    As someone that has a large area arond my home coords cleared I think I can say that it would most likely be somewhere around 1.5/1.5. thats the most common rating that I have seen on peoples profiles.

  11. One of my earliest TB's disappeared at an event not even a month after I released it. It was gone for over 3 years when someone logged that they had it but had no idea for how long or where they got it. They had been at the event and were occaisional cachers that moved across the country. They vowed to put it in another cache soon. That was 5 months ago and they still haven't dropped it anywhere.

  12. I think you'll get varying opinions on this one. In my opinion, go ahead and log it as a find but don't go with the "shared FTF".

    MULLY

    I have yet to meet someone in my area who sees it different and I have 145 FTF's. Every person who is looking is eliminating a spot and therefore helping find it.

    You have met one now.

     

    I have participated in the group FTF before but it is one reason why I hardly ever rush out and get one anymore.

     

    I don't think I am alone in that regard. If you are polling people that are at the group FTF event then I think your sample is slightly skewed. I am sure that if you put up a poll on the NW forums that you would find a slightly different result to your survey...

     

    Let me rephrase for clarity. Among those who enjoy the FTF side game to some degree, I have yet to meet someone in my area who sees it different. If I took that poll how many would be folks who argue it somehow doesn't exist because there is not a rule specifically enumerating it.

     

    But that is just it, you are calling "those who enjoy the FTF side of the game to some degree" all those that agree that the FTF should be shared and love going out for an FTF to find several other people there searching. That's not true. I enjoy the FTF game "to some degree", I just think that it is silly for 4, 6 or 8 poeple all to claim it just because they were there. One other person, OK, two, maybe, but it's gotten so out of hand around here that it's just ridiculous. I know one particular person that shall remain nameless, that once claimed an FTF on a cache because the person who found it before the other even arrived was still standing there with the cache in his hand chatting to the CO. He said if it hadn't been put back yet that he could still calim Co-FTF. There are plenty of others around here that would enjoy going out for the occaisional FTF if they didn't think that 10 other people would show up at the same time all expecting a "Co-FTF".

  13. The other night we rushed out to find a newly published cache. Hoping to be FTF. Arrived on the scene and there were already cachers there searching. Starting searching ourselves and about 1 minute later one of the other cachers shouted Found It! She signed the logbook, asked us for our caching name, signed the log for us, then put the cache back. She said we could claim a 'Shared FTF find'. I logged the find, but feel somewhat uneasy about the whole thing. We didn't find the cache. We didn't even touch it! And couldn't quite see where it was hidden either.

     

    Does this even count as a find? :unsure:

     

    I see this as two seperate issues. one is the group FTF, the other is simply a find.

     

    If you are there with a group of others and someone else found the cache and signed your name then I see nothing wrong with claiming hte find. Have you never gone out with a group of four or five cachers or participated in a cache machine? In those situations you wold not always be the one to find the cache in it's hiding spot but you were still there helping, go ahead and claim your find.

     

    Now the FTF is another story. If someone else found it and you are not comfortable saying you were the FTF or Co-FTF then no sweat, don't claim it. The FTF game is a side game anyway and so it doesn't really matter.

  14. I think you'll get varying opinions on this one. In my opinion, go ahead and log it as a find but don't go with the "shared FTF".

    MULLY

    I have yet to meet someone in my area who sees it different and I have 145 FTF's. Every person who is looking is eliminating a spot and therefore helping find it.

    You have met one now.

     

    I have participated in the group FTF before but it is one reason why I hardly ever rush out and get one anymore.

     

    I don't think I am alone in that regard. If you are polling people that are at the group FTF event then I think your sample is slightly skewed. I am sure that if you put up a poll on the NW forums that you would find a slightly different result to your survey...

  15. One of my logs:

     

     

    icon_sad.gif Knowschad didin't find it

     

    Arrived at home tonight to a very interesting email:

     

    So you were geocaching in Wdbry today huh!? About 1145 or so.... I just took a call on some strange guy putting something in a pipe or retrieving something from the pipe. So here is your notice that the cops got called on you...thankfully I had already done this cache and was very familiar with it. Take Care

    ABaldEagle

     

    I saw the woman watching me from her kitchen window, and even smiled and waved at her. She waved back. I guess she thought I might be a terrorist anyway.

     

    Glad we've got friends on the Woodbury force!

     

    Thought I had the neccessary tools with me, but they failed me anyway.

     

    I'm a bit confused... so was the e-mail from a cacher who is a cop that got called to check out a spot where an old lady saw you looking for a cache that the cop/cacher had already found? How did he know it was you or are you really that weird looking? :lol:

  16. Some people play that way. Personally, I think you should log every visit. If you DNF it the first or second or third or whatever, just because you found it on a subsequent visit doesn't erase that DNF. Logs have dates for a reason. One day you couldn't find it, the next you did. Both logs stand on their own merits. I'm sure there will be some that disagree, no, actually I know there will be...

  17. we came across a cache where the owner had a requirement that if you take one you MUST leave one if not he will delete the log, the cache was literally stuffed with TB's so we took most of them and pointed out in our log that such requirement is not acceptable, he went on to delete our logs and a cat and mouse game ensued i reloged, he deleted, i reloged he deleted...eventually he archived it

     

    If you had simply reported him to Groundspeak to begin with, they could have reinstated your log, locked it so that he could not delete it and reminded him that ALR's especially those that are designed to keep TB's in his prison are against the guidelines. the result probably would have been the same (the archiving of his cache) and would have saved you much grief and allowed you to keep the smiley...

  18. They've tried to open a dialog. They could have just taken the cache without saying a word.

     

    True... but they could have also assumed that by doing that their pruprose would not be served. By threatening to remove future replacments of the cache they make it clear that they are serious about keeping cachers away.

     

    Apparently their attempt to communicate is unwelcome. At least they tried.

     

     

    I have no problem with geocaching. It is a lot of fun for many and done properly, no conflict with the environment or hikers which many of you are too. However, I also read in the cache placement rules that wilderness locations…which this is…is not allowed. Period. That seems a bit harsh too.

     

    I have removed the cache and will continue to do so on every visit if it returns. I may look for a better location for this cache on my next visit to Lake Dorothy & post that somewhere on this site. Suggestions?

    Consider hiding caches in areas by main trails that can handle the traffic. A boulder field for example is pretty hard to trample. Consider too, many GPS receivers have difficulty getting an accurate locate under trees, and that causes geocachers to trample a much wider area in their search. Adding something in the description to say if you are ever off trail and in vegetation, you are looking in the wrong area would help.

     

    I can see how you could have misudertood what I was saying.

     

    I agree, I'm just saying that simply taking it and not saying anything probably would not suit his purpose.

  19. but, to the point, lets say I have 20 caches listed in this challenge and lets say I had Mingo amongst them and had 4300 points. I have posted my list and done my find. Lets say tomorrow Mingo gets archived. I do not imagine Quinn is going to go through the back dated logs and change scores. I imagine he will only look at scores when folks want new scores updated.

     

    Actually he says he might go in from time to time and update the scores without being asked to...

  20. FobesMan, your reviewer is on vacation and will be back soon. Please be patient and he will resume the review when he returns. Continuity is important with a complicated EC like yours. Thank you for your understanding.

     

    I appriciate the quick reply. I completely understand those issues and that is all I needed to hear, thank you. I would have posted to the original appeal but it has been closed and so I didn't know where else to post it and knew reviewers monitor the forums and could answer my questions. Feel free to close the thread.

  21. I've read the other threads and understand that Earthcaches take longer and that there seems to be a reviewer shortage right now but I am really wondering why it has to take as long as it has. I think a little background would be helpful:

     

    I submitted an EC a month ago and it was reviewed 3 days after I realeased it. After a couple of exchanges between myslef and the initial reviewer, it was archived. I appealed that decision and a week later got a reply that I had to make some changes in order for my submission to be considered. I followed that reviewers suggestions, made some changes, and released the cache again. More than a week went by before I heard back from the reviewer again. Finally they replied and said that some additional changes still needed to be made. I made those changes, as requested to the letter of what they asked for, and released the cache again. It has now been another week and I still have not heard back as to if further changes are needed.

     

    I understand that EC's are different and that the review process can take longer but why does it have to take a week or more to get it reviewed again after changes are made. It seems to me that it should be much quicker and easier to see if change requests are carried out then it took to do the initial review. Does a cache get bumped to the bottom of the review queue if a change request has been made by a reviewer?

     

    Other than the initial reason I appealed the denial, I've been willing to make whatever changes are necessary to get it published, I'd just like to know if there are additional changes that are needed in a more timely manner... I even wrote directly to the reviewer letting them know that I had made the cahnges as requesated and it was ready for them to review again. Is there a reviewer that can take a look at my submission and see if more changes are needed. It is going to be another nice weekend and it would be nice if they cache was available for people to enjoy.

     

    Thanks

×
×
  • Create New...