Always & Forever 5

And he still won't get it. There is no way to "judge" someone's experience ONLY from his numbers, whether they are color coded or not. Nor should there be. Experience cannot be completely measured with tangible numbers. Experience is a combination of things too numerous to capture and decipher on a web page. He's looking for a sure-fire method to weed out the novice cachers from the pros, and it simply can't be done by only using the find totals.

1) Using your method, you would indeed be "deciding" something. The validity of a cacher and associated comments. 2) I didn't call them unacceptable, either. Hence the use of the quotation marks around the word. You know, as in 'lack of a better word'? 3) No 'might' about it. It would be continuously misused, and calling attention to other features in the system that are misused doesn't mean we should throw another one on the fire. 4) I missed where I was debating anything. In fact, I opened my post by stating "Let's see if I have this right". As you pointed out, it would be misused, and for that reason I am against it. No matter how many other things are.

Oh, <gasp!> the horror! Just think... someone, for example, could log a locationless cache more than once on a cache that allowed multiple logs, raising their find numbers! Then, they might end up having more total finds than unique finds! Which affects me by...er, uhmmm...with, ....uhhhhh... ...how, again? I'm for it.

Let's see if I have this right... You decide that a percentage of non-unique finds to total finds ratio of 10% is "unacceptable", and establish the color coding based on that number. Cacher "A" has a total of 112 finds with 100 unique caches, all of them 1/1 LPCs' (except the one event cache where he found 12 temps). Cacher "B" has a total of 5,575 finds with 5,000 unique caches, with an average difficulty/terrain level of 3/3. These could contain 100 event caches, with 575 temp caches total among them. By your color coded rating method, you would place more stock in cacher "A" than cacher "B"??? Just because his percentage is lower??? Not me. Of course, that's why I read the logs and use means other than strictly numbers to judge someone's experience.

What's "Closest to the Pin"?

Sarcasm aside, there's obviously quite a bit of difference doing what you proposed (re-classifying caches) and doing what the OP proposed (temporarily opening up a cache type to grab the icon). I really never quite understood the reasoning behind archiving all locationless caches anyway (not that I'm a huge fan to begin with), but the OP's idea was a reasonable request.

Fair enough. I don't know anyone who wouldn't think that was a good standard to follow.

Why??? Why make rules, for an activity/hobby/game/obsession with no winner??? Guidelines work fine. Yep. Easier, less stressful, and more enjoyable. If smiley's are so "not important", as some people claim, why are they continually discussed?

Yes, it is a sad correlation. Monopoly is a game with clearly defined rules (not guidelines), and a determined winner at the conclusion. Two main elements that don't exist in Geocaching. That's the difference. Just a few minutes ago I got a notification email that someone logged a find on one of my caches that they stated, "The logsheet was full and my pen was out of ink, so I didn't sign". Am I going to delete their find? Ummm, no. I don't really care if they actually found it or not. Their claim to a smiley didn't affect me one way or the other. And, just because they didn't sign the logsheet doesn't mean they didn't find it. If we were playing Monopoly, and they didn't pass Go, I wouldn't pay them their $200. But this isn't Monopoly, is it?

Yes, I suppose they could. I'm also sure many do. However, since this has NO BEARING on how I choose to play the game, I really don't care one way or the other. I have never deleted a log, and I doubt I ever will. There will never be a crowned "Geocaching Smilie Rackup Champion", so I will never feel like I "lost" to someone.

I found a ammo can that was half full of liquid that turned out to be waste products of a human animal - should that affect my feelings about ammo cans based on that experience.... I found this cache where the same thing had happened, and it wasn't an ammo box or a PB jar. So, if I apply the same logic...then we can safely say that all PB jars, ammo boxes, and tupperwares are unsuitable for caches. That leaves LPC's. Yippee.

Umm, I'm guessing no.

Cool! I made the list! I'm SOMEBODY now!! Having grown up in Idaho, I'd love to cache there now. Don't make it home too often, though...

Aww, c'mon now. You know that's not the point. The point of the OP is that handling peanuts for some people can be deadly. Touching a bullet is not deadly, unless you touch that bullet traveling at 1200 fps muzzle velocity. But, the point of the OP is lost anyway, since the chance of a cacher dying from handling unwashed PB jars while caching is probably astronimically less than the odds of them dying in a car accident on the way to the cache. It's a moot point. Ain't gonna happen. Probably not, anyways...right?

Actually, there are only a few posters in this thread that are arguing absolutes. Most of us are trying to point out what you said...that the "fun factor" is a shared responsibility of both the hider and seeker.

I stand corrected. That would be Wavevector that built the straw man. My apologies.

So am I. You created a thread on some touchy-feely group hug methodology to apply to geocaching, then you created a straw man argument about who is in complete control of a geocaching experience, whereas you state the hider is in FULL control and the seeker plays no part whatsoever. And, you haven't understood why it's gone this route until now??? So am I. Ambiguous, nonsensical arguments, diverted at every opportunity into a NEW ambiguous, nonsensical different argument. Surprise, surprise.

Well said. 'Nuff said.

And, thanks for asking, but just because I haven't weighed in much on this topic, don't assume I haven't read the drivel. I've read every tired, worn out argument you've offered. You choose to be a victim. I accept that. I choose not to. Shame on me.

Hmmm...judging from YOUR list... You never acknowledged a single aspect of the role the cache seeker plays in geocaching yet we are supposed to entertain your comments as relevant. How about that.

This is quite possibly the most pitiful post I've read in a long time. To place 100% of the responsibility for fun on the hider ("the outcome is entirely in the hands of the cache hider") is ludicrous. If you only make from life what others offer, your whole journey on Big Blue is all for naught. You must exist trapped in a horribly mediocre life, living as a victim of society. How sad. We choose to have an "adventure" every cache we find, no matter how 'lame' someone else might think it is. It's not that hard, really. You ought to try it some time.

Dang, man! This is the 21st century! We have no time for self responsibility and other such unimportant drivel! Blame me! Blame him! Blame somebody! Sheesh. I'm deathly allergic to bee stings. I carry an Epipen. Please, for the sake of my life, don't anybody hide a cache in an area where bees might frequent. Like parks, wooded areas, grassy areas...um, actually, I guess, anywhere outdoors. Please make all future cache hides indoors. TPTB, please immediately archive all caches found outdoors, due to my own concerns for my personal safety. Or, at a minimum, please mandate a disclaimer to be placed on all cache pages, so all responsibility is removed from me and placed on everyone else in the world. Thank you.

No matter how many times I read this, I still don't get it...

I wouldn't rely strictly on the notices, nor on PQ's, to find FTF's. Do a search of the area you are looking at, and the newly listed caches will show up with "new" next to them. That may help.

Ditto. And amen. What he said.