Joypa
-
Posts
473 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Joypa
-
-
gc.com cache sites provide ample opportunity to pad you stats, not just claiming your own cache. You can claim the same cache many times if the owner doesn't delete the posts. You can claim caches you never found unless the owner checks the log book and deletes your post. I call that cheating but the numbers you have for finds are only valid for you. They mean nothing to me (And vice versa). In the end, you must decide how much integrity you have vis a vis your numbers.
-
I have recent evidence that at least some people are not using the NM option. I recently archived a cache that had extremely wet contents. A few of the finders noted the wetness and one even cleaned out some items that were ruined. Reading these logs led me to act----but the NM was never used by any of the visitors.
-
Hey Rick, that cache was fun. Thanks for finding it. What a blast!
-
Come on, Rick. Get off your lazy behind. Don't let Kelly beat you to it AGAIN!
-
I suspect you are correct about the cache being opened during inclement weather. If so, I can figure out who did it. This cacher reported putting something into the cache that was not there nor reported removed, posted a duplicate find on the cache and left a worthless paper notepad (which was there). If this cacher also let the cache get wet, it would fit the bill. Ah, but there is no real proof.
-
While I have some time, there are some things on my mind. Yesterday, I went to check on a cache of mine, "Travelin' Jones". Posted logs indicated the contents were extremely wet. Upon locating the cache, I verified that the contents were, in fact, quite soaked. I was puzzled by this since the cache has been placed a year and a half ago and was an ammo can. I went back to the logs and saw that somewhere around November, logs spoke of wetness. Mind you, this was a year after placement. I did replace the original tupperware container with the ammo can back in February of 2005-still several months before it became wet. There were reports through the summer that the cache was in good shape. How did the contents get soaked? Needless to say, I archived the cache.
Theories- The ammo can leaks. Don't think so, but testable.
- Someone did not seal the container properly. Possible but unprovable.
- Someone did the nasty in there. Possible but no odor was present.
What do you guys think?
The other issue related to this cache is, having archived it, I went back and read the logs. (Its a good thing the log book was waterproof) I noticed several things. Some people sign the log book one way and the cache page another. A few claimed a find but were not in the log book. Several signed the log book but did not claim the find on line. Two people claimed the find twice. I deleted the second logs of the people who claimed two finds but took no action on any of the other discrepancies (having no solid evidence of shenagians). What are everyone's thoughts on this?
Yes, I have too much time on my hands.
-
Kelly,
Your avatar is hilarious. I promise not to laugh at your caches.
-
Yesterday was nasty in Lafayette. Snow, sleet, rain and wind. I was out setting up a cache and I wanted to get back in the car.
Well .... Did did you get the cache set up or did you jump back in the car ?
Star
I got the cache set up, proving my unstinting dedication to the hobby. -
Hey! You didn't do squat. I did all the work----and no credit for me.
-
Yesterday was nasty in Lafayette. Snow, sleet, rain and wind. I was out setting up a cache and I wanted to get back in the car.
-
This board is getting interesting again.
As for the topic, I see no reason to limit the number of caches a cacher hides to a specific number. The reviewer could take maintenance issues into account when approving a new cache and he/she could refuse to allow a new one. I think most reviewers would be loath to say no, however. We all like to search for caches and pissing off active cachers might be counter-productive.
-
I'm surprised no one mentioned Shelter II. The logs on this one are quite entertaining.
-
Check my favorites list. You can find it on my profile site. There are a number of challenging and fun caches there. Last I checked (yesterday) only one had been archived.
-
This is a shout out to Rupert2. Thanks for what you did. It was greatly appreciated.
-
Back at ya. You're my hero!
-
Don't post often anymore, but I just want to add that I had a blast on the APE road trip. Thanks to Shydog for organizing. Man, we ought to do this more often!
-
Well, as the originator of the idea, I hope you're cutting me in on the action!!
-
Just once..JUST ONCE I would like to see one of these b******s caught and hung by his sac. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever been caught and there is no realistic way to catch them. But just once....
-
For my next Travel Bug I'll attach the tag to a piece of cardboard. Any suggestions on a name?
-
Kearney, Nebraska: 114 active caches within 10 miles; population 28,000. I've enjoyed finding 12 of those caches and one is on my all-time favorites list.
Kane, Pennsylvania: 51 active caches within 10 miles; population 4,126. The cache population will increase by about ten in a few weeks because of an upcoming event cache. Similarly, Bradford PA has 89 active caches and a population of 9,175. These are towns in the middle of nowhere, up in the Allegheny National Forest.
Cool! I grew up in northwestern PA.
-
Thank you! You guys do listen! This is great!
-
It is in its own section and geocoins has its own forum now.
Right on! You guys do listen! Thanks!
-
For the first time since I began caching 16 months ago I am losing interest. The main reason is that I need to travel a bit (40-50 miles one way) to find any new ones. Most of the new ones I see are the same old same old so I don't get too exited about them. Now there is football and fantasy football to consume weekends. I'm pretty sure I need a break.
-
Leave the OP alone. I'm sure he/she meant well. The original question has been adequately answered. No need to pile on.
How Many Is Too Many
in Midwest
Posted