rjb43nh

For what it's worth a few minutes ago I went to the leader site I've used for years where I believe they just changed servers. My ZoneAlarm security suite blocked access and gave this warning: "This web site at www.cacherstats.com has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences." Not sure what the story is yet but if you use this site, you may want to be careful.

New Hampshire and Maine aren't really cache dense but there are areas in both states where it is possible to do over 100 caches in daylight and some cachers have hit 150 in 10+ hours. One long stretch of dirt road in Maine has caches about every .75 miles. Within the last 2 months about 30 cachers have completed a Maine challenge cache by logging over 100 finds in a day. It isn't something everyone would want to try but a lot of cachers have probably said: "I wonder if I could do that." To each their own.

The chemicals in stinging nettles (formic acid?) is neutralized by soaking or boiling. Young nettle leaves boiled and buttered make excellent greens and aren't as bitter as dandelions.

A valid find is generally considered signing the log book, no real problem here. The problem is what is a valid request by the cache owner. Asking that the cache container is replaced as found or not posting spoilers are valid but asking for something that is an ALR, like not logging the cache if you've been to some other cache, or you may find another cache later, is not valid.

Good retort! You do have to realize that we have heard from the erudite authority on twitism. If they can't wow us with facts and logic, they'll try burying us in snide remarks and personal insults. That is the sign of the intellectually bankrupt.

Your continual berating of others who hold different viewpoints than yours makes you look petty and small. One would think that after your tirade 2 days ago and the warning to you from the moderator about personal attacks you would try to act more civil.

I'm not taking it personally but you're making it appear that the only poster who understands what the thread is about is you and that certainly isn't the case. Others appear to understand what I have said. I apologize if you find my posts not up to your standards. Please don't delete my posts or email me telling me how to improve them!

I believe you're reading something into my post that just isn't there. I haven't said that anyone, other than the OP, has suggested deleting posts. Reading the thread you hill see that posters, other than the OP, have said they disagree with log deletions based on perceived quality. However he, and others, have remarked about sending an email to "educate" loggers on the proper way to log their caches. Either is a very bad idea and that is what I said.

Just to clarify, I'll reword what I posted to more closely convey what I meant generically: "If a cache owner were to either delete a cacher's log or email them to tell them to edit their log because it didn't meet their standards that would be the height of hubris." The OP suggested possibly deleting and/or emailing but I can't imagine anyone who would do either.

Whether you agree with Bittsen or not he made a perfectly reasonable reply that I fully agree with. Unlike Bittsen I do have enough finds and hides for even the most elite cacher to consider my opinion as valid(after reading some of the replies, maybe not ). Some of my hides have 100-300 logs and while I'd like everyone who logs my caches to stroke my ego and tell me how much they love the cache, I live in the real world and realize that just ain't gonna happen. A short log is only going to bother me if I let it bother me and life is too short for such pettiness. That they took the time to find my cache is good enough for me. Deleting a cacher's log or emailing them to tell them to edit their log because it doesn't meet your standards is the height of hubris. Around 2000 years ago Epictetus summed it up real well:"Of all existing things some are in our power, and others are not in our power. In our power are thought, impulse, will to get and will to avoid, and, in a word, everything which is our own doing. Things not in our power include the body, property, reputation, office, and, in a word, everything which is not our own doing" The best thing you can do is just forget it.

Well stated. I think that sums it up.

The problem is that there almost as many types of puzzles as there are cachers who hide puzzles. No matter how good you may think you are at solving puzzle caches there will be many that you just don't see for one reason or another. I have over 800 puzzle/unknown cache finds (no, I didn't solve them all myself) and I am continually amazed at what other cachers can come up with. Some, like the one being discussed by the OP are very well done and after you've done a number you look for certain 'clues' that may point you toward the answer. There are other puzzles that are amazingly complex and involve a lot of research or trial & error to solve. I have to resign myself to the realization that there are puzzles that I may never solve. Some I've put to one side and solve a year later but some are just as confusing to me as they were originally. I live in NH and we have a very active caching community and some great puzzle caches but if you look at any location you can find great puzzle caches from easy to the extreme. What many find helpful is to attend caching events and talk to other local cachers to get hint on how they have solved puzzles in general. One of the best ways to get information is to email the owner of a cache you are trying to solve. Most owners are willing to help but you should first tell them what you have tried to do to solve their puzzle. Don't just email someone and expect them to hand you the answer. If you let them know you've made an effort and are stuck, knowing what you've done can help them point you in the right direction. Try starting with puzzles that have a low difficulty rating. Solving a few of these will help build your confidence. Even if puzzle caches aren't your forte, there are a lot of caches out there to find.

So you've read that everyone regards it's bad form and you go right ahead and do it anyway.

Frumious is from one of my favorite poems. Note Carroll also coined the word 'whiffle' which is where the name for the Whiffle Ball came from. And of course the kid's TV show Jabberwocky. JABBERWOCKY -Lewis Carroll `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!" .....

This is a very well done simple puzzle involving one of my favorite subjects which allowed me to do it quickly from memory.

To me it sounds like that person was expressing their opinion just like you just expressed yours. I see nothing wrong with either but neither will change the 528' rule which is there to prevent cache saturation.

"The fault, … is not in our stars, But in ourselves”… Shakespeare

That could make it a "?" cache where you have to use some additional capabilities of your GPS to calculate a waypoint projection to get the final coordinates.

That find is not wiped out. This site now reports the statistics differently, but if you want to have accurate numbers you need to keep them yourself. This has always been the case ever since the first time anyone ever deleted logs for a reason more than the logger didn't find the cache. This has been the case with the D/T numbers. Some caches fluctuate seasonally or is now easier or harder than it was when you found it. Same with sizes--some get larger and some get smaller. Caches even move from spot to spot. We own a cache that has been moved 3 times. Types used to change before it was locked down. A cache might have been found as 3/3 regular multi. A year later it might have been 1/1 micro traditional. This is no different. Sorry you misunderstood what I was saying. If you read my previous post I said: I never meant to imply that the total number of finds was changed in any way. If you reread the section of my post you quoted above it says: I hope that makes it clearer.

This is one reason I've advocated giving ALRs their own category. If the Challenge Cache requirement is to find X puzzle caches, then doing an ALR really doesn't fulfill that requirement anyway. All you've done is find a "Unknown" cache, not a Puzzle cache. Again, let's break that Unknown category down a bit. My point is not whether there should or shouldn't be an ALR class of caches in the future but that an ex post facto ruling wiping out a cacher's legitimate "?" finds is unfair.

While I can see both sides of the issue of banning ALR caches, and I have found a number of them that I didn’t mind, or actually enjoyed doing, my feeling is that banning these “?” ALR caches without any warning, and not grandfathering the existing ones, was a very poor way to handle the situation. There are existing challenge caches that are perfectly legal within the new guidelines that have requirements to find certain types or a certain number of puzzle caches. For instance there is one cache that requires you to find several types of caches in each county in the state. Anyone who has completed that puzzle cache by using a “?” ALR cache that has now been converted to a “normal” cache, technically no longer fulfills the requirements for that cache. Anyone who has found a lot of puzzle caches will also find that their number of puzzle finds has taken a hit. I noticed one Colorado cacher that lost about 30 puzzle find because some of the “?” ALR caches that he found (using the Groundspeak rules in effect when he found those caches) have been changed to “normal” caches. I realize that his total number of finds remains the same but that isn’t the point. This is analogous to a baseball park changing the foul line and deciding that Babe Ruth should have X number of home runs subtracted from his total. So while in the overall scheme of things this may not be a biggie, and I’m sure the purpose of the change is for the better, the execution or implementation of the plan sucks. I just wish that Groundspeak could have found a better way to handle this without creating problems for cachers that, through no fault of their own, are adversely affected by this poorly thought out action.

I have a few hundred FTFs so I thought you might like to hear from "the other side." I don't have any notification but rely on being lucky and spotting new caches in the area when they are listed. A number of other local cachers take pride in saying they beat me to a new cache and I have met people in their pajamas that raced out early morning to get to a cache ahead of me then waited to tell me (with a huge grin ) that they were FTF. One cacher got phone notification on the road and took a short cut in through a swampy area in street shoes at 11pm to beat me. He figured distroying the shoes was worth it to personally tell me he beat me! It is all good natured and keeps interest in the game. Although a smaller state, New Hampshire has a very active geocaching community. I have also got FTFs 100-200 miles from my home just because no one else happened to go for them. I've also, accidently, found a cache or two before it was listed but didn't claim FTF because I don't feel it's a cache until it is listed. Waiting doesn't always mean you'll miss FTF and being lucky certainly helps. Competition isn't bad and I'll challenge anyone who says it is.

Hoisted by his own petard.

I'm not sure that this type of ALR would be permissible. Perhaps a reviewer could chime in with his/her thoughts. Having a little inside information about the poster of the inner quote makes me chuckle. As someone who has hidden a number of puzzle caches, I know that not everyone solves my puzzles-never will, and some have told me so. I freely give out hints, some cryptic, some easy, to help cachers solve the puzzles and the 'hints' can be rather explicit if need be. I also know that cachers have discussed my puzzles in groups and traded information and they mention this in their logs because they know I don't mind. I also know there are some cachers who do not want any hints because they want to solve my puzzles on their own no matter how long it takes. I also have many puzzle finds but I haven't solved all those on my own although I do get a pretty high percentage of them. No one can be an expert on every type of puzzle and if it wasn't for Google and other references I know my percentage would drop noticeably. I guess the bottom line is where you draw the line about getting information. I personally don't like the whole idea of a site set up for the sole purpose of giving answers to puzzles and I know lots of cachers won't go there for the same reason. On the other hand I don't feel guilty about using Googlet or asking the owner or fellow cacher for a nudge but that's just how I choose to play my game. Even if there were solutions to my puzzle caches posted, they will stay active as long as I feel there are cachers out there that get enjoyment from them.

BINGO! The only thing I would add is that the impression isn't limited to the few rude posts, or even to their posts in this thread. I see a pattern here.....