Karma Hunter

Blue Hole lives on! Their website has a good summary of the company's history. I was familiar wih them when they were in Tennessee. Didn't know so much had happened since then. Another good canoe company that didn't get a lot of exposure outside the southeast is Dagger. They were bought by the Perception/Watermark conglomerate a few years ago. Seems like their focus has move to kayaks since then, but if you can find a used one they're quite nice. For those interested in an Old Towne alternative, you may also want to look at We-no-nah and Mad River. Nice boats. And because you don't spend enough time in forums already, here is a canoe forum to visit.

Used to have a couple of canoes. Old Towne and Blue Hole (anyone remember Blue Hole?). Now we have two whitewater kayaks. We miss the canoes though. They were much better for leisure paddling, carrying gear, taking beginners, etc.

I took the Less Responsibility = Less Pay package.

Sorry in advance if this topic has been discussed before. I'm curious what kinds of jobs people have. It looks like some folks have figured out how to make time to be logged into the forums most of the day, go out and find oodles of caches, and have families too. I'm clearly doing something wrong by spending 40 hours a week as a muggle . So what's the secret?

Jeepers! This all explains some people's stats. We don't even have 15 caches within 20 miles. To get to a hundred we'd have to drive for hours in many directions. I'm not complaining- we live in a beautiful place and I'm happy about it; but each cache is a major undertaking. Those of you who have more than five caches you could call "lunch caches," or more than a handful you can reach in an afternoon, BE THANKFUL!

Are you saying we should take a topic that has been discussed heavily, then discuss it again? On purpose? Maybe I'm gullible, but I believed you when you said

Since you're "between sigs" how about: This is a test of Sturgeongeneral's signature line. This is only a test. or This signature line is currently under construction.

You could get a 60c and add sensors to it yourself. Might even save yourself some money...

Didn't mean to press your button. Not trying to play mod, just reflecting on my actions, others actions, and how they affect each other. For example, why a person would choose to respond to a thread when they "hardly think a thread was needed." Edit: Added smiley. Two actually.

I like the forums. They're informative, interesting and surprisingly funny. But I've noticed that there seems to be a small percentage of participants who post primarily for attention rather than to be constructive (or even funny, which is constructive in its own way). There's no need to name anyone, or point to any threads, but I think most people know what I'm talking about. Sometimes threads along the lines of "I stubbed my toe today!" or "Should I have a salad for lunch?" (fictional threads, I hope) lead to interesting discussions about all sorts of things. But some are intended to lure people into responding, usually by making a statement that is designed in some way to provoke or annoy. I know I don't have to read them or respond, and sometimes I don't. But sometimes I do. And sometimes after that I wonder how I got sucked in to a waste of time and energy. And then I realize I'm feeding the problem. What I'm wondering is whether the efforts at provocation would diminish if people didn't respond to them. Maybe the posters would find other forums to feed their need. Feel free not to respond. It's good practice.

I agree 100%! I live in a place where dial-up is the only option. Thank you so much for making this site slow-poke friendly! And thanks for all the other efforts that go into site maintenance too. You probably only hear about things when they go wrong, but GC.com is great and enriches a lot of people's lives! Thanks!!!

You could add a note to the cache page saying something along the lines of "please leave the cache hidden exactly as you find it..." Lots of cache owners do that. But that only helps if someone reads it. Of course then you could have the opposite problem if a muggle ravages your cache and leaves it strewn hither and yon. Then you may NOT want the next cacher that comes along to leave it that way. Whatever you do, don't make the HINT a disertation about how to re-hide it. If sit there for an hour in the rain decoding it with my broken pencil, only to read about re-hiding, I'll wanna bonk you on the head. I guess if you're really anal you could take a photo of the hiding place as you like it and place it prominently inside the cache.

Well, after you said this: I'd have been shocked if you DIDN'T get a warning. You misrepresented what the mod said, and on top of that suggested harrasment, which isn't OK in the forums under any circumstances. Ironically, it was in a thread about someone else being surprised that THEY got a warning. Actually, it isn't. It's like having someone say "hey we can't have that here." You made up the part about anyone saying it was right. You didn't get a warning just for signing up for the forum. You got a warning for breaking the rules. It has nothing to do with being new either. Lots of people never get warnings at all. The few that do often get more than one. Now why would that be? If you think it's some kind of mod conspiracy, you'll probably never see the real reason. It's not really my business whether you got a warning or not. But you did ask for my opinion...

Yes, that's correct. But thanks to the recent availability of Viagra, it's not such a big deal anymore. Nowadays, it is as you said,

Hellooooo... Site administrators? Knock, knock, knock. I can see your shadows moving around behind that two-way mirror. Can we please get some "official" input as to the viability of this idea: Is there any reason NOT to try something like this that we've overlooked?

Yes it does. My question though is will the average cacher, when reading that description, think to look for wheelchair accessible issues. It may sound silly, but all I'm really saying is change "handicapped" to "wheelchair" in the description. Seems like it would be a good reminder, even though they are commonly used as interchangeable terms. But, if no one else thinks so then I'm fine with it the way it is. To get things back a little closer to what you wanted in the first place, it seems like the biggest issue is the one you started the thread with, which is I still totally agree, and think this would prevent the vast majority of incorrect 1 ratings. So what do we all do to help make it happen?

Yes, but it seems that a cache could meet these standards and not be wheelchair accessible (mud, curb cuts, gates, etc. ; oh, and if we're talking wheelchair access then "hike" may be a little misleading). If everyone agreed that the definition is good then there wouldn't have been any discussion about it earlier in this thread. Yes, and I support it. Lots of people do, and it is helpful. But what I meant is a mass email from GC to all cache owners explaining that many caches are rated incorrectly, and to be sure that 1's meet the correct criteria.

And yes, I left out changing the actions of the approvers on purpose. It sounds like they're doing the best they can with the limited info an owner provides. It also sounds like they would benefit from a clearer definition of a 1 as much as the rest of us would.

Not that we need more worms, but if the definition of a 1 is part of what's causing the problem, then it seems like the thing to do is start there. Maybe we could: I) Define what a 1 should be (something simple, but indicating wheelchair access?) II) Come up with a way to make sure that people are less likely to rate new caches a 1 without thinking (some sort of pop-up question or email?) III) Look for ways to fix the existing caches that are mis-rated (email to exisiting owners to make sure their caches are correctly rated using the clarified standard) In that order. Yes no?

This (and the rest of your post) is understandable. However, I've yet to hear a reason why this idea: wouldn't work. CO Admin took the position that all handicaps are different, and therefore the 1= "handicapped accessible" rating is not helpful. I disagree. A 1 indicates that the owner thinks it is accessible. Someone who wants to know the details before visiting could contact the owner by email, but would at least know that the odds are good and that they cache is worth investigating. Under the current system there are enough 1's that aren't accessible in any way shape or form, that inquiring about them individually would be a waste of time. Sax's suggestion wouldn't change the current system, just make it accurate enough to be useful.

OK, so your focus in this thread is on existing caches, rather than new listings. I can see the difference, although it was not initially clear to me. My suggestion (quoted from the other thread) is This is based on fixing the method of rating new listings first, then asking owners of existing caches to review their ratings to ensure they are using the same standards (which are really the standards they should already have been using, so don't let 'em whine about it being a hassle...). This prevents having to come up with a new system of identification, which would probably be a major coding project, and therefore less likely to happen. Trying to find the balance between having perfect information, and not making it so difficult to implement that nothing happens at all.

I would guess because it is an issue having to do with how caches are listed on the website. Yes, it is an issue for all cachers, but so are all the other website threads. I understand this is a very important issue for you. I support making cache terrain designations more accurate, as you already know if you've read my posts in the other threads. However, I don't see a raeson to have started yet another one. You started it with Does this not seem similar to Sax's thread that you referenced which begins with The thread goes on to discuss the exact issue you brought up (again) for two pages. As has been discussed ad naseum in this thread it is not necessary to start many threads on the same topic, especially when the pre-existing thread is only 24 hours old is active enough to have been at the top of the thread list all day. I support your goal. I will continue to support it. But how about if we do it right, have some patience, and work with the system rather than against it.

My tax dollars have to be going somewhere. No, wait:

Not sure I understand this feature, but it appears to raise some privacy concerns. Rather than derail your topic and start a discussion about it, is there an existing thread about this somewhere that you can point me to?

If you're way behind in a race, and then catch up a little, it still doesn't mean you're winning.