Always & Forever 5

I don't post my golf scores ANYWHERE...but that's besides the point. Golf has hard, fast, carved-in-stone rules. Geocaching doesn't. THAT'S the difference. That, along with the fact that I can golf with a PGA card carrying golfer, and my scores won't affect his game one bit.

You may be on the fairway and you may be kicking a ball back and forth. It may even be a golf ball, but you aren't playing golf. You may even be recording whatever score you wish, but it is meaningless to someone actually playing golf. The problem here is that people are recording their scores on this site and they aren't playing the same game that the site was designed for. Go make your own site and record whatever score you wish, just don't interfere with our game here. Just as it is impossible for the ball kickers to "interfere" with others on the course merely by having a different scorecard, it is impossible for any cacher to "interfere" with another cacher merely by logging differently. One way is not "more right" than the other. I would have thought anyone could figure that one out by now, especially since TPTB have stated there is no "rule" on this issue.

Apparently some people are worried that a cacher will receive some coveted "1000 Finds!" geocoin or some such other trivial trinket when they only have 985 finds, thereby earning the undying respect and admiration of us mere mortals with only a few hundred finds. We will all have to bow to them when approaching them in public, and can no longer speak to them without them addressing us first. The infinite title of Lord Cacher will be forever bestowed upon them, and the rest of the caching population with fewer finds will forever be shunned. Let it go, people, hmm?

Go right ahead. Personally, I don't treat anyone with 2000 finds any differently than someone with 200, but if you choose to, it's your decision. But, just to satisfy my curiosity... how DO you treat a 2000 find cacher, and how is that different than a 200 find cacher? It must suck being a cacher in your area, knowing that if I only have 200 finds and bump into you in the woods you would look down your nose to me... Sheesh!

Which is completely unnecessary. Logging into GC and finding caches implies you have read and agree to the terms and conditions for hiding/finding caches. No disclaimer required.

What about all those cachers who don't know about caches hidden in sprinklers? Are they automatically irresponsible? What about those cachers who truly would not imagine that cachers would tear up flowers looking for a cache? Should they warn against something that is a total implausibility, in their opinion? That's why I said if you are aware of something that could be a potential problem, why not mention it? Finders are responsible for their own behavior. But as mule ears said, it doesn't really matter who's fault it is. It's still a ding against geocaching. If you can do something to prevent bad behavior, why not do it? So, you're proposing we list all the places that the cache isn't, just to prevent some goober from damaging property? Why not just list exactly where it is, instead? Wouldn't that be a much shorter list? Besides, having people have to look for it is the whole point, is it not? I shouldn't have to worry that they will destroy something in the process. It should go without saying.

I don't either. But if I did, it sure wouldn't be my fault. I'm responsible for hiding caches in accordance with the GC guidelines. Nothing more, nothing less. Not that I don't think things out, but as long as it's hidden correctly, the responsibility from that point on lies with the finder.

<Gasp!> Oh, the horror! And, either one of these scenarios affects the way I play the game... just how, again? I just attended another event this past weekend. I logged one time, as that was the rule established by the host of the event. We talked about this practice among ourselves, and our general conclusion was that too many people worry too much about this non-issue. It doesn't change the way we play the game, so who really cares? As for "cheating"...how can you "cheat" at a game with no winner?

Yeah! Great idea! Then, I could use them for this cache...

My take on this is that respectable and honorable, maybe. If you didn't know they were religious they probably aren't. At least not truthfully. As a Christian, if nobody knows I'm "religious", then I'm not doing my part. It should show in everything I do. Do I fail? Oh, yeah. Miserably, at times. Doesn't stop me from trying, though.

Thanks! Got it now! Mod, please close.

I have received an email from Groundspeak asking me to validate my account. I know this is supposedly due to a problem with bounced emails, but I haven't received a validation code and have verified my email account is correct. How do I validate without a code, or, how do I receive another one? Thanks! A&F5

How about, "The reason I bring people to this park is to find my cache"? Why does EVERY cache have to be a mind-blowing experience? Funny, I look at the site of the original cache, and see nothing at all to bring people there other than to find the cache. When did it become all about the location and not all about finding caches???

I don't log anything I trade in or out. When my swag shows up in a cache, is that a miracle, too?

I'm not sure either, but I think with a little tact and diplomacy the same message can be conveyed without being nasty, can't it?

Sorry, I can't think of any time that writing a nasty log can be a "good thing". Not unless you believe that nastiness is good. Constructive criticism? Yeah, that can be good. Not always in a log, though. What's wrong with an email to the owner? Why do you have to show public nastiness? Yeah, it's way too PC to be discreet. Much too PC to be constructive and kind instead of nasty. Much better to write publicly embarrassing logs and point out your disappointment for all to see. Sheesh... Here's some constructive criticism for ya...try spell checking next time you post.

Good job! So, you pop into a forum, half scan what's there, mouth off and insert your rude comments, disappear again for a while, pop back in and claim "it's the internet" (?) which justifies your lack of need to apologize? Wow...that's how they do things in Michigan, is it? Oh, to stay OT...I still like the idea.

Neither do virtuals, events, or Earthcaches. Wanna "halve" the smileys for them, too? I don't know why this is such a topic of contention. I like the idea. I know if I'm looking for a regular cache, like an ammo box...why not arm everyone with the upfront knowledge they are looking for a nano? Edited to fix quotes.

Maybe a new size category, below "micro"? Maybe a new size category, below "micro"? Why? 'Cuz you come in here, call people 'thick skulled', and wonder why they get upset?

Ummm, I'll just buy mine one at a time, then, and save $1...

Your link to the guy with a monkey under his hat trying to board a plane is completely irrelevant. He was breaking a rule (regarding bringing animals onboard aircraft). It doesn't matter whether or not they asked him if he had a monkey under his hat. It is still a rule. See that bold word in your quoted post above? That's the issue here. They aren't hard, fast, cut 'n dried rules. They are guidelines. The way I look at it, if it's a cache hidden that I can find, it was a fun cache. I don't police every single cache I find, because I make them all fun. Have I found buried caches? Yep. Did I get to the cache, discover it was buried, and then rant and rave that the owner didn't follow the guidelines? Nope. Did I write the reviewer, and demand that the cache be archived? Nope. Did I log that I enjoyed it? Yep. Just like others before me, and others since. We, the Geocaching community, have the entire burden placed on us to make this an enjoyable pasttime. If I ever find a cache that was placed completely void of any thought, disregarded every guideline, and was a hazard to those around it, I would turn it in. Until then, I'm content finding caches. All caches.

Aaaahhhhhhh. After re-reading this post, I understand you are saying this: "I'm one of the number obsessed people that can't be bothered reading logs to determine what caching method is being used, so I'd like a shortcut to take any effort on my part out of the picture." Okay. I get it now. Even more reason for me to vote "no".

And, if you read my post again, I said you can't go solely by the number. I seen people with literally thousands of finds log DNF's on caches that I found in a matter of minutes. The number alone won't give you their experience level, even if it describes what logging method they use. And, anyway, who cares? The number is only as useful or as worthless as each individual makes it. I like the numbers, but I don't care if someone "pads" their own number or not. Means nothing to me. I don't care what "logging method" anybody else chooses to use.

Never! You must be new around here, aren't ya?

Same here. And, instead of coming out with a new and improved product, Magellan should revamp their abysmal customer service policy, which seems to be one of the driving factors in more Garmin products being purchased. Why buy a product that the company won't stand behind?