mini cacher

I'm not confused by it. I just accept it as flawed reasoning. It isn't any more valid than saying that a house with an unlocked front door means it is ok to move in there. {insert dramatic pause for those that just didn't get that these two sets of quotes had nothing to do with each other}

Less about the date thing and more about the bug drop logs.... I've always thought it was strange that you have to put in a log for the bug pick up... but not for the bug drop. I don't know about you but I would tend to have a lot more to say about the bug when I'm dropping it off. I mean if I've just picked up the bug, I'm not as likely to have a story to tell about it. But when I'm dropping the bug sometime later, I may have more to say... like "third cache today that I tried to drop XXXXX in... finally fits here" or something like that. I think the logging restrictions are back words. But I do think its strange that if you didn't have to enter a log when you first dropped it off that you would when you edit it. something seems a little odd over all.

I will refrain from getting into the debate over numbers and how the cache placement guidelines can be interpreted... those are no-win situations for everybody becasue there is not one right answer. The part I will cover is about one find/attended log per cache/event and no find log for the owner. I'm all for it. There have been several reasons given for the *need* for multiple logs per cache but I don't think they are all that common and/or valid. <- simply my opinion to be viewed as such... One reason is caches where you have to find multiple things to get to the final and you can log each step of the way. Never mind that this sounds more like a multi-cache... if you truly have a series of things to find and want them to all be loggable, then make it a series of caches that all must be found in order to get to the final... people do that a lot already. Problem solved. Another reason is if the cache hide has changed so much that it really is a new find.... well, while there is no rule that you can't change a cache, if it truly changes that much to make it a new find... then just make it a new cache and archive the old one. This aproach is even better because: 1) it doesn't allow you to get around the aproval process for new caches; 2) it freezes the old listing as it was when every one found it the first time and opens the new listing for the next round; 3) it brings it back into the "new" list.... that sounds like much better record keeping. Problem solved. Another reason is where the cache was moved a great distance with the same GC number thus is a new find on the same cache. This may have been an issue in the past, but you can no longer move a cache very far before you have to just create a new cache. This is no longer an issue. Plus there are the same benefits as with the last reason. Problem solved. Another one is the logging multiple "Attended" logs to one event to account for finding the temp caches. While we could probably debate the guidelines to death about what they can and cannot do at a event or if the temp caches are allowed yada... yada... yada... but the simple, and undisputable, fact is that the log you enter to an event is "Attended"... so I don't see how any one could reasonably think that it was ok to claim you attended the event more than once. If you feel you should be able to log those temp caches then you really need to apeal to TPTB (privately or openly like this thread) to build in some mechanism to do this. Problem solved. Another was locationless... mute point now. Another is a few grandfathered traveling caches. While not a popular view, I would say those edge cases may suffer a bit... but their rarity should not be a show stopper. And concidering TPTB had no problem 86ing virts, etc... I see no good reason they couldn't just nix these too... since they are no longer in line with the current guidelines. As for the "no find for owner"... about the only reason given why this is a problem is that people some times addopt a cache they have once found. OK, fine... but you've already found and logged it so it really isn't a problem... unless for some strange reason you physicaly found it but then adopted it before you had a chance to log it... but if that's the case then I doubt you are smart enough to find your front door to get outside and actually look for a cache. I would imagine, like a lot of changes to the site, that a change like this would not be retroactive. Retroactive change would mean digging through years of database entries and trying to figure out what should be there or not. A "from now on" change simply means changing the logic of the logging page to not allow you to enter a "found/attended" log for caches/events you have already found/attended or currently own. There is one tiny exeption... but one that kind of makes sense. The person who creates (owns) an event cache really should be able to "attend" it as well. And that's about all I have to say about that. Thanks.

I'm not aware of any "pocket cache/pocket lint" thing that was been talked about but from the sounds of it I don't care to know. I like the idea of having some sort of list (mutual or otherwise) of cachers you've met. How that is done can increase or decrease my level of interest. I don't think I'm entirly sold on the "dance like a monkey and I'll give you my code... but you only have until midnight to enter it because I play the game my way by changing it nightly" type of set up as Jeremy has proposed. I think that type of approach is an attempt to artifically induce a social aspect into an encounter that by nature is social but at its own level. Not everyone IS social in that way. But it is not completely out in left field and would propably work for the mojority of the situations. I think people are being a little short sighted when they refer to meeting a person specifically in juncture with a cache or event. If the Social log was limited to those cases only, then it will not be that great. I think no matter how many safe guards are thought about and implemented, you will always get some AppleHead that will find a way to "abuse" it and then hide behind "I play my way". Regarding privacy on the public net... I will agree that if you are super concerned about strangers kowing that you are attending an event, then don't post your intention to attend. But I'm also a believer in not making it EASIER for those that wish to do harm. Currently, there is no one place to go to see a list of events a member is "planning" to attend. Your caches pages only shows events you HAVE attended.... old news. So if a person wants to know which events you are planning to attend, they would need to do a lot more work by looking at all the events that you might be going to to see if you are going. This is going to take more time. Having a nice list of people you stalk... er met... with a list of events they plan to attend is just too easy. There are mounds and mounds of personal data on just about everybody on the internet... but its spread out all over the place, hard to find and generaly useless by itself. The real problem comes up when you get a site that is able to gather all those little useless peices into one place and they suddenly become very useful... and easy to get. Now, here we're talking about pretty minor data about where and when you'll be... but there is no need to make it super easy to get the info. An analogy... I used to work with a guy that always left is car unlocked... often windows down. He always told me that if someone wanted to steal his radio, they were going to steal it regardless. Why have to deal with a broken window as well. I always thought that to be a lame thing... still do. That's my take on the topic. I always enjoy reading the reasons others are for or against a perticular issue. Thanks for an enjoyable read.

I don't know if these things were available when this thread was first post (almost 2 years ago!), but they are now, and are very useful! They are very handy as a "community made" work around for a "whole" in the site. But it does require that you click the "All on one page" link becuse the script can only work with what is listed in the HTML. It would be worth while for GC to add this to the initial page load so that it doesn't require a second page load with 250 logs to get the break down.

Overall a nice addition. However, I'm finding Google Maps to be less useful since their servers tend to be getting slower... perhaps with more site feeding off them. I frequenty get "We don't have an image for this area" images even though I know they do. I think it just times out and displays the default. Sometimes a page refresh takes care of it... sometimes two or three do it. Now the missing image/timeout is not your fault.... but as far as a cache description page goes...the missing Google map is NOT better than the previous map. However, when its working... I like the page where you can see other caches in the map and have it update in real time as you drag and zoom. It is a very nice solution for caches-along-a-local-route. One suggestion... when you click from the cache page to the bigger map and it gives you the "*Showing 20 Random Caches out of xxx." But it would be nice if the #1 slot for the first page was always the cache you just came from. It seems to be caught up in the randomness. Once you get to where the caches are few enough to not be random (ordered by distance I imagine) the original cache is #1. Of course all bets are off once you start dragging the map around. It seems the #1 slot is always the center which makes sense.

Speaking of the branding and the initial McDonalds category... it would seem that the more people "pointed out" (aka complained... as I did) that some of the categories were a bit lame and uninteresting, the more people took it as a challange to see who could suggest the lamest category and get a vote... just because of the percieved "anything goes" attitude. I think I share Fizzy's thoughts (feelings?) on the subject.

The real problem here is that too many people are too lame to tell the difference between "supporting a cause" and "supporting the right to have a cause". I can respect the position the Groundspeak is forced to take in this situation. And if it were me, I'd make the same one. It would take way too much of their resources trying to put out the fires caused by one person trying to shut down the freedoms of another. I for one would not think that Groundspeak was "supporting" Greenpeace if they were to hold an event cache listed on this site. That doesn't mean I support their cause... but support their right to have such a cause. But situations like this are "all or nothing" because you get into more trouble trying to draw a line in the middle. The easiest solution is to go the "nothing" route. As it has been pointed out, then the only fire you need to deal with is the "Why nothing" fire. And that fire can be easily snuffed by simply pointing the person to the guidelines, saying nothing more and letting it fizzle out... like this one will eventually when the last few get tired of posting here and start posting in another hot thread. I quote I really like from another forum I frequent:

if it doesn't get added to the site.. it sounds like that would make a nice greasemonkey script for us FF users.

Ctrl+F

Since puzzle cache is a catch-all and this one does involve a puzzle, I'd say the puzzle aspect of this planned cache trumps the multi-stage aspect. The multi-stage aspect just makes the difficulty go up a bit since you'll need to solve more than one puzzle. In my opinion anyway.

Walmart micros are good... its all about the numbers anyway, isn't it.

Sorry to go off topic here, but I had been creating a bookmark list of some caches for a week or so and then a few hours before I was leaving for the weekend I created and scheduled a PQ from the bookmark list. It never came. It was no big deal since I would not have had time to cache anyway. I just figured it was either a Bookmark=>PQ issue or a Saturday morning issue. I blamed myself for not doing it the night before.

I guess the key is "almost always". I've sheduled a PQ a few hours before I needed it and it never arrived... not even after I had already left. There might be a few people willing to pay extra for "always"... instead of getting "almost always" for free. I wouldn't though.

Exactly! I never had a problem with the already run PQs being sorted by last run. My problem was with the ones that don't have a last run date. I was offline for the past week so I never saw the switch that was later reversed... but it doesn't sound like what I was talking about. I never intended to cause such a stir... but I still think the topic needs to be revisited. Thanks for trying though.

telling me to run a PQ that I don't need to run is not a solution. That is called a work around. A work around that is not nearly as good as the solution. And if everyone did it, would put undue strain on PQ server. The solution puts no more strain on anything.

the difference? no copy and paste required.

It also appears that a personal coin does not have to actually have your name on it. So some people have made "personal" coins that look very much like state/group coins. If the "unofficial" rules ever become "officail", this should be changed, IMO.

I'll throw my 2 geo-cents in. I am a firm believer that if you don't want to see it... don't look. If you don't want your kids to see it... pay attention to what they are doing (and maybe talk to them about it). But I hope that doesn't prevent me from getting to it if I want and without a million clicks. Video stores have a curtain between the good stuff and the other stuff (you decide which is which). They don't make you walk down a 5 mile maze of hallways and stairs, learn a secret hand shake and recite the last chapter of "War And Peace" to get there. Let's at least keep it simple. If you are browsing the directory and you see categories that have titles that offend you, please don't click on that link and then try to blame anyone else for your bleeding eyes. The only real issue I can see is what happens when you are searching and the "bad" things come up in the search. But again, if the Waymark listing offends you, don't click it. I can't imagine what you'd be searching for and accidentally get a strip club. I would think that with some type of restrictions on the types of pictures and language that you allow on the site, there shouldn't be a need to do a whole lot of filtering etc. I can understand people being offended by things... but does that mean they wish to deny that it even exists. I don't think I'd want my under age children GOING to a strip club, bar, etc but it really wouldn't bother me if they knew where one was... any more than if they knew where a church was. I'm pretty sure both are listed in the phone book... and some probably have a picture.

I worry about those things as well... but in this case the solution appears to be quite easy. I doubt either of the others will be solved in my lifetime... if ever.

But then the three "never" run PQs I currently have would remain in the same order... yet they change almost everytime I visit the page.

I guess I'm the only one.

To all the FireFox users out there... I offer these two greasemonkey scripts: Nearby Waymarks - Adds links for nearby waymarks search to Geocaching.com. Nearby Caches - Adds link for nearby caches search to Waymarking.com. Let me know what you think.

sounds nice. would they have to be on a tower like your examples? We have an old clock downtown that is not so "towering"... it is just a nice round clock on a pole maybe 8-10 feet tall on one corner of the main intersection of downtown. Also, would it have to be functional? I think there needs to be a standard definition of "old".