salmoned

Congratulations to ShadowAce! He has e-mailed claiming to have the location of the first hide. Upon confirmation, he will be awarded the $40 FTS prize. I was seriously worried this mystery may have been beyond the ken of mortal man. There's still the gold bullion up for grabs (but ShadowAce has an edge now).

Way to go, BigHank, for properly maintaining your e-logs. The problem in my area is most finders are so kind in their e-logs (for lousy caches) that you can't really determine the lame from the decent/good. Critiquing a cache may lead to log deletion or pariah status. So a simple "Found It" is often the only honest answer available.

What? An opportunity to toot my own horn? "Nereus' Nickname" may be an interesting puzzle challenge for intelligent cachers (No one's found it yet, so I can't say for sure). There's a $40 prize for the first cacher to e-mail me with the location of the 1st hide, too (no need to actually find it).

Well, I believe the teams couldn't jump from the first vessel simultaneously because the team vessels could only come alongside one at a time (to make the swim equivalent for each team). The final ammo boxes appeared to use a lock similar to a keypad Supra lock, with a beeper added. The product promotion seems a repetitive drag on the flow of the action - is there anyone who doesn't realize the benefits (and limitations) of a cell phone or a wi-fi internet access? They should get extra brownie points for finding the caches along the way - I've found the two at Wainapanapa...

Why contemplate a new feature when concurrent loggers can just say, "Me too!" or "Ditto!"?

I'd like to see you prove that assertion. Finding caches gives every bit as much to the activity as placing caches. Participation is...the whole shebang! What???? I think you misunderstood!?! A text, out of context, as a mistext! What's there to misunderstand? You stated "...none of us are perfect...", I'd like to see proof. If you define "perfect" as "something none of us are", then you may as well say "none of us are supernovae" for each has equal value, that is, none.

Taking a contrary position, I believe 'spoilers' demand immediate deletion to prevent 'spoiling' the fun for future seekers (at least, those incapable of not peeping). Spoilers are the only reason a log should be deleted BEFORE e-mailing a request for content modification.

I'd like to see you prove that assertion. Finding caches gives every bit as much to the activity as placing caches. Participation is...the whole shebang!

Agreed, an unsolvable puzzle is moot. However, just because a puzzle goes unsolved doesn't mean it's unsolvable, or even that it's difficult. What makes for a good puzzle is the expansion of consciousness necessary to find the solution. Some very easy puzzles are also very good (and some are not), some very difficult puzzles are a waste of time (and some are not). I believe my unsolved puzzle is very good, but I may be mistaken. The answer must be found in the heart of the finder(s). In any case, I believe having unsolved puzzles "out there" is good for the community.

Ha, ha! If you interminably reduce the allowable rules to one person's opinion, only one person will want to play (at most). The foundations of the activity are based on "hokey" practices like using aliases. It seems the pride and self-esteem of 'hard liners' is threatened by what they deem as non-sensical or 'wrong' behavior of those marching to their own drums on this issue. I play as a 'hard liner', but don't begrudge others a different form of enjoyment in caching.

Yes, if the cache is recovered at/near its original hide coords (i.e., not "carried elsewhere for logging by others"). To me, such a cache is one that was merely archived without the owner going back to retrieve the container...fair game for a Found It log, I agree. These other uses for archived caches, though: NO! Agreed! I was only objecting to the categorical denial of 'Found It!' logs for archived caches (stipulated by geoholic28).

Personally, I feel if a person recovers an archived cache and signs the log in the recovery process, they should be allowed to log the find.

That's easy, you check every skirt, twisting half of the hidden nuts as a 'tightness test'. Then you write something down on your notepad. After doing them all, you do it again to the other half to replace it. Oh, and don't forget to ask for spare change...

Huh? I've never blown-off a cache due to muggles - why would anyone feel the need? If muggles become curious or interested in my searching, they soon come to believe I'm just a nut and pay less attention, especially if they question me (Friend, can you spare a couple bucks?). When I find the cache, I grab it, but continue the antics for a few minutes before opening & signing the log. Then it's back to the antics to replace it. Intense focus and/or 'strange' behavior can be one of the best stealth methods in high traffic areas. Didn't find it? That's okay, I can soothe my bruised ego with a double espresso at the nearby Starbucks with some of the spare change I panhandled during the search.

Very good information for all of us. This is one statement that is going to freak some people out in this article: "There are at least 250,000 caches hidden throughout the world on any given day." Let's see 5 years of Geocaching would put the cache total at about 450 mil. That works out to be a geocache for every 15 people on the planet. That's enough to get anyone concerned about saturation. Well, your calculations would hold only IF the statement read,"There are at least 250,000 new caches hidden throughout the world every day." Addendum - There is, of course, a distinct difference between those who only read, write and speak the language and those who understand it.

There you go, the correct answer is never use the 'needs maintenance' option. Just post a note that maintenance is needed, so the owner OR some other cacher can do so. Then that cacher can indicate the maintenance completed with another note. Ta Da!

My previous comments contain no hostility or threats, though such ideas could be falsely presumed by anyone so inclined. Adding unusual logging requirements (or suggestions) doesn't make a cache different, nor is difference for it's own sake a virtue, as I have clearly demonstrated. I do believe Clan Delaney's idea could lead to an interesting cache.

Being "different" is just stupid sometimes and I think it applies here. This is just the sort of cache I'd like to muggle, just to be different...

Not necessarily. I often leave my caches out for a month or two after archival so stragglers who may still have the waypoint on their GPS and don't realize its archived can find it. I'd be pretty ticked if one of them walked off with my ammo box. I think the owners should be contacted. In some cases the cache is reported missing and they archive without checking on it. They may be happy that its there and re-activate it, or they may be happy that you offer to remove it for them. Now if there is an unresponsive owner and the cache is there but archived AND you are sure its not listed on another site (there are only a few others so that won't be hard to check), it is garbage and should be removed. I disagree. Either the cache is the owner's to do with as he may, and a finder should never retrieve, clean, refurbish, or modify it in any way, or it's public property and the finder may do with it as he wishes. If you've archived your cache and not stated that you were leaving it out there for an extra month for stragglers to log, I don't have the leisure to contact you and find out the specifics of your wishes. I will pick it up and notify you I have your cache for reclamation. I can only behave as I deem appropriate in the field. I pick up apparently muggled caches, caches archived by the owner (even if in good condition), and any caches I feel violate my personal sensibilities. Whether the cache is listed or not is immaterial.

Cachers scoring PCs is no worse than having owners delete my legitimate finds because they believe I haven't jumped through their hoops properly, even though I've signed the logbook. To disapprove of one and not the other is a bit disingenuous. Cache owners have been given discretion over their e-logs. Should that discretion be modified? I think not.

FIrst, what's the point of this OP? Is it to encourage TPTB to discourage the actions of this owner? An e-mail to TPTB would suffice. Is it to bully the owner by force of consensus to reconsider? If logic didn't work, why would bullying? Is it to point out how perverse is man? So be it!

Yup! I found (and often revisited) 50 caches before venturing to place one. I noticed a few always seemed to have been moved around. I didn't want that to happen to mine, so I tied them down. It's as easy as that.

You've now posted your log for posterity, so all parties should be satisfied, eh? If you really find it distasteful, I suggest you muggle the cache when it's replaced to let the owner know of your disapproval.

Expanding the game can be good or bad. If we expand it in directions contrary to the interests of many players, there's a chance of diffusing and losing their support. Growth for it's own sake has never led to stability or longevity in any enterprise. That's one reason I applauded the 'demise' of virtuals. That said, I still support micros, as long as they adhere to the general requirements. What I don't support are special logging requirements (other than no spoilers). If I find a cache and sign the log, I should be allowed to log a find.

They are a different catagory; size. You can become a premium member and use pocket queries to filter them out, or use a 3rd party software like Gsak to filter them, or use the "ignore" feature to, well, ignore them. The problem is you are just eliminating all micros, both okay ones and lame ones. I'm still looking for the "lame filter". Ed I consider "Size" to be a description and "Micro" to be a category like "Traditional" and "Multi". I would like Micros to be a separate category and carry their own distinctive icon. I also agree that some sort of quality rating would be extremely useful, especially when planning road trips into unfamiliar areas. I agree with edscott completely! Micros, almost by definition, are incapable of holding any trade items and are therefor like virtuals or locationless in that their only purpose is the hunt. Here in the Raleigh, NC area, micros are a plague that, coupled with the propensity for listing caches as being much easier than they really are, makes me hate them with a passion. Were they listed as a category along with a special icon, it should be easy to "ignore" them all. I also agree with the person who said that listing the cache size should be required. Not true. Micros can and sometimes do hold better swag than regulars. In fact, I think I may need to place a micro with $20 bills for all finders just to prove the point... Let's see how many cachers put it on their "ignore" list.