BassoonPilot

You used the term "leading hider" a couple of times in that post. Does "leading hider" mean "the individual who hides the most caches" or "the individual who hides the best caches?" Just wondering, because the term is so subjective. I wonder if the percentage of people that belong to local geocaching organizations is any higher than (or even as high as) the percentage of geocachers that read these forums?

That's a great idea. Why don't all the cache reviewers resign immediately; they're no longer needed.

Absolutely. Someone placed a several-stage multi in a small park near here. I think three or four people completed the multi. Then the cache owner changed the final stage to a stand-alone cache, and more people flocked to it. Shows how lazy people are.

I agree with you; if the cache owner does not think a "found it" log is legitimate, then s/he should delete it immediately. I also agree that cache owners often require geocachers to "jump through hoops" while seeking their caches. "Seeking" being the operational word. So there is a major difference.

Don't do it. Take a deep breath, and walk away. Leave it as a multi.

Do they enjoy the new "Malibu Vader?" (It was introduced in yesterday's "Get Fuzzy" comic strip.)

Great idea. Too bad people weren't talking about this two or three years ago ... oh, they were.

Team DEMP wasn't talking about any proposed Groundspeak, Inc. policy. I got the impression he was speaking on behalf of those forum participants who believe they own and control the game.

Because "what's fair for one is fair for all?" Individual cache reviewers HAVE made efforts to get certain caches adopted or to assist people in adopting caches. The policy should be consistent: Either geocaching.com allows caches to be adopted or it doesn't. Now, back to the topic: In my experience, most cache owners don't reply to "confirmation e-mails" if the information provided was essentially correct. I never waited for permission from a cache owner before posting my legitimate find ... it's a stupid thing to "require" because it is impossible for the owner to enforce. What are they going to do, delete your find even though you provided accurate answers?

Mind-numbing puzzle caches that took us directly to piles of refuse behind the "PigglyWiggly" store. Though I am not convinced that would be any worse than all those micros currently hidden under waste baskets in parks on which homeless people (and others) urinate 20 times a day.

"We?"

That's definitely the case.

I didn't say that. I also expect people will be whining about the same things long after I'm gone ... the only reason they weren't complaining about micros before I joined was because there were very few micros, if any. (Or perhaps they were still a welcome "novelty"). I think we can agree that there is no longer anything remotely "novel" about them.

I see a problem with it. In my experience, people who don't recirculate travel bugs don't even have the courtesy of replying to polite e-mails regarding the status of the travel bug. Assuming they read the forums, you think they'd go to the expense and effort of mailing the travel bug to you?

People have been complaining about micros, etc., for a far longer time than you two have been geocaching. And they will probably still be complaining about them long after you are gone. I have no problem with people voicing their opinions. Hopefully the whiners that whine about whiners will give up after a while.

To paraphrase something I see in these forums on practically a daily basis: Darn. I think there should have also been a "get a life" in there someplace.

You mean in the same way people take it upon themselves to follow all the other rules and guidelines? You mean in the same way people exercise "peer pressure" on their geocaching friends to follow the rules and guidelines? You've got it backwards. Oh, there is "peer pressure," all right. But the nature of it is to see how far the rules/guidelines can be stretched/evaded before someone says anything. Roll 'em out. They are way overdue. I would expect that such information, if not displayed on a cache page in a "Note" (visible or archived but viewable by cache reviewers), could be obtained via a quick e-mail from the cache reviewer. Naturally, because the individual is interested in their new cache being approved, they would immediately provide the reviewer any and all information requested. Is that one of the "design changes going on behind the scenes that we don't know about?" Go for it. If it were my decisiion, I would allow caches to be disabled for 30 days only. After that, the cache would be flagged for removal and archival.

In my opinion, that statement is false. Who wants, or needs, more and more caches of lower and lower quality? You might want that; I absolutely do not. The ultimate geocaching cop-out. It can be found in practically every thread. In a word, "yes." In some cases, they have even been known to encourage it.

Hey, maybe he'll luck out and receive some fan e-mail, too.

I've seen something similar to this stated a couple of times in the thread, but I haven't seen any information that would tend to substantiate it. Do most cache owners own so many caches, so many of which are temporarily disabled at the time they submit new caches for approval, that this suggestion would prove to be such an odious task? Smells like a cop-out to me. But if it were true, there is a simple solution that I recommended over a year ago that should lighten their work load significantly: Allow the site volunteers to decide how they want to serve the site. Cache reviewers don't need to be forum moderators, and forum moderators don't need to be cache reviewers.

Okay, I accept that you are "only following the guidelines." You must not be one of the cache reviewers that believes in being "proactive." But you also offered a personal opinion that appears to be in agreement with the premise of the thread ... it is therefore reassuring to know that you are working hard behind the scenes to amend the guidelines. Otherwise, your "only doin' my job" position is a cop-out. Probably because I specifically stated this in the opening post of the thread:

I used to, when people used to place them. Now they don't, so I can't. What passes for a "hard cache" these days is usually some puzzle or mental challenge and then a short walk over flat terrain to an easy find. I've spent more time and effort searching the family room for my keys.

I was joking. I own more than one gps, and I use them for much more important tasks than geocaching. Please refer to the second half of my username.

Hey, if you're going to have cache ratings, just keep it all "public" so everybody can see exactly what everybody else had to say. I'm always SHOCKED! when I meet someone who left a positively effusive online log on a cache ABSOLUTELY TRASH the cache and/or its owner in private. Allow people to rate caches? Sure, but keep them accountable for those ratings, or else we'd probably end up with a bunch of caches with effusive logs but "0" rating.

Okay, but one of your statements does tend to support it: If they were on their own, they would need their own unit. More potential sales! You're quite correct ... I have met many geocachers along the trails, but have never participated in one of these "group hunts." My intent is never to do so; these large group hunts are counter to why I choose to geocache. Incidentally, in the dozens of times I've met other geocachers on the trail to caches, only one person ever beat me to a cache. I like my gpsr just fine, but I guess that model must be better. I suppose it's also a good way to see who relies too much on their equipment and not enough on their own eyes, intelligence, experience, and common sense.