Skovar

So why did you assign blame to geocachers, when you were aware that non-cachers knew about your cache?

Both obviously. Why else would anyone that uses gc.com log a find? People have used the various types of logs available on cache pages for a multitude of reasons and agendas. Precisely; why bother? Judging from what I've read both in these forums and in cache logs, it appears that most cache owners happily allow just about anyone to log just about anything to their caches, regardless of whether the 'logger' actually found (or even attempted to find) the cache. If one needs to report a problem or issue to the cache owner, it can be done just as easily via e-mail ... I think the current notion that an online log is required in order to show gratitude to the cache owner is misguided; it very well may be the primary reason that logbooks are no longer a joy to read and/or have largely been replaced by "logsheets" where one merely "signs in." My, how times change! As I alluded to above, one of the greatest pleasures of the caching experience used to be opening up the logbook and reading the stories it contained. (Sometimes, the most interesting parts were unwritten: Look at that handwriting! Man, that guy was in shock! ... Look how that guy's log is smeared from his sweat, after he climbed up to the cache on a 100 degree day! ... Look! That guy didn't have a pen, so he signed the log with a mud-dipped twig ... and that guy signed with the ashes from his cigar! .... Oh, look! That guy's dog left a muddy paw print in the logbook! ... And sometimes, the best part was written, but must be read firsthand in order to properly be "shared": Hey, that guy left a marriage proposal to his girfriend in the logbook; she found the cache a few days later, read his log and left her response: YES!) I've personally witnessed every one of the preceding situations/events in logbooks. Those are shared experiences; merely reading about them in online logs are not. How sad that these days, most everyone is so busy running from cache to cache in order to sign in and earn that smiley, that there is no time left to savor the experience at-hand.

You betcha ... they are the most desirable and sought-after geocaching days. The bad days turn people into geocaching legends; nobody cares about the ordinary.

Yow. A really musty, mildewy "golden oldie" thread. Wow, it must have been a real accomplishment to reach the 1000 find plateau when the distances between caches involved travelling hundreds of miles instead of hundreds of feet. I suspect that a new cacher starting out today would have to amass 10,000 finds to equal the amount of time and miles CCCooper put into those first 1,000 finds. (But check back in 6 months ... it'll probably require 20,000 by then.)

You know what? Who gives a darn? Do people geocache in order to receive the stupid smiley face or to enjoy the experience and associated memories? Keep a personal diary of your finds, thoughts, and memories, or, if you're more high-tech, a personal database ... perhaps even a geocaching "blog," if you believe the rest of us simply can't live without experiencing your caching adventures vicariously.

Actually, now that I mention it, I'm mildly surprised that Jeremy hasn't weighed in on this topic; I would think he would have an opinion on a subject like this. So you think silence isn't a response? If you think not posting is a response, then what would no response be? Actually, I don't think Jeremy has been silient. That would be a message with no content, right? Or maybe just a blinking icon. Otherwise how do you know these messages have even been read? The thread is two weeks old and several pages long. You think Jeremy just hasn't noticed it yet, or do you think that the silence is deafening? I'd wager on the latter ... it's just another thread on a tired, old subject (newbies placing caches) that was intended to be controversial (make newbies take a test before allowing them to list a hide), but was really just a bad idea. So why would Jeremy allow himself to be sucked into, or for that matter even acknowledge it, by posting anything at all?

Actually, now that I mention it, I'm mildly surprised that Jeremy hasn't weighed in on this topic; I would think he would have an opinion on a subject like this. So you think silence isn't a response?

And geocoins and travel bugs, which often end up assigned to the archived event cache page in perpetuity.

Why even discuss it any more? It's time to wake up and smell the coffee: Microcaches are what the activity is being reduced to. It's our own fault. To answer your question directly, NO, I will not seek any microcache ever again, no matter how dastardly, clever, or worthwhile it is reported to be. Microcaches may have been fun when they were a novelty, but I consider a steady diet of them to be just a waste of one's time.

Today's "blue plate special": A free preview for non-subscribers of what the Off-topic forum must be like. Whaddaya think; only $3 a month/$30 per year, and worth every penny, eh?

I agree that different people find humor in different things. But that scathing putdown you or I might find hilarious someone else might find devastating. We are the nice, friendly, family-oriented activity that even Harriet Miers would approve of, aren't we?

When we search the forums back to the first couple of years of geocaching, we discover that it was considered extremely rude to post anything at all negative about any cache. (or cacher.) Times sure change; now, we even compete to see who can post the most negative things. Something definitely went wrong, somewhere ...

I agree that each of us is, ultimately, responsible for ourselves; no one is forced into doing a 'dangerous' cache. (Though I have read several logs from group caches where it seemed pretty clear that one or more 'nervous cacher' felt coerced by peer pressure into taking risks they otherwise wouldn't have.) Regardless of the validity of any "legal disclaimers," I just want to know how the owner of a cache with known, potential dangers would feel if someone was seriously injured or killed (as a result of the known, potential dangers) while doing their cache? And then I wonder, if such a thing were to occur, just how quickly a new rule would be instituted that banned similar caches? (And how broad or narrow the interpretation of the word "similar" would be.)

Nope, never noticed that. But now you've got the paranoids cowering in the corner over there ------->

I've been told that one of the earliest caches in NYC was hidden in a live electrical junction box near the New York Public Library. I was also told that rodents and other vermin were of greater concern than the wires.

My favorite is "The Staff of Groundspeak, Inc. Sing the Hits of Tiny Tim." If I am not mistaken, it was the video of their rendition of "Tip toe through the Tulips ... (while geocaching)" that got so many landmanagers up-in-arms. If you missed it, they look a lot like "Weezer," but that Jeremy has more moves than Gwen Stefani.

Just to be clear, I was speaking in the abstract, and not about CR's situation. I agree with CR that it is entirely possible the wrong person(s) would fall under suspicion. That's one of the reasons I used the LOL icon.

Which would you prefer ... someone to tell you in no uncertain terms what they thought of your cache, or for that someone to simply remove the cache, toss it into the nearest dumpster, and not say a word to anyone? I'd prefer the former; even if the person had been rude or unkind, I could always delete the log (and know who to suspect when the cache subsequently disappeared.)

That's for the best, I suppose ... but how long, or how many lousy caches, did that take?

Why did Voltaire pop into my mind when I read that quote? I wouldn't take someone else's word on whose caches to avoid or boycott by anything I heard at a cache event; especially not from some self-anointed local "authority." In order to avoid unwittingly participating in someone's personal vendetta, I'd go out and make my own determination. At the very worse, I would discover whether the information I had received was worth a grain of salt.

money The site is ruined with ads everywhere, and multiple monotonous pop-ups. The ads are annoying, but I think all the stupid sub-games based on ridiculous and easily faked/manipulated stats are what really ruined the WG game for a lot of people. I guess Hank hasn't noticed all those bills that regularly receive hits by "uber-Georgers" thousands of miles apart. Yes siree Bob; Hank really cleaned up WG. But the small number of bills circulated via geocaches are going to ruin the sanctity of the WG stats and game.

When I read your post, "Who's in control" was the first thought that crossed my mind. It wouldn't surprise me if that geocacher intentionally picked crummy locations for his caches because he realized that people wouldn't/couldn't resist seeking them.

Haha; sorry, but that's hilarious! I wonder if that was really a mistake, if the cache had actually been placed, or if it had been intentionally hidden (temporarily) outside of the standard deviation?

Of course you do, or you wouldn't go to such great lengths explaining why you do (or don't) do/see things the way that you do. I say, if someone wants to drop everything and run out of the house to grab some FTFs, good for them. Good luck and go for it. Don't gloat if you get them, and don't get mad or whine about it if you don't. I don't agree with that "ya snooze, ya lose" nonsense, but of course I agree the people who hold that opinion are entitled to it. Regarding the subtopic concerning geocachers competing for "valuable FTF grandprizes": I believe most of the adults playing this game have the disposable income to purchase themselves the equivalent of any FTF grandprize, or better. In my opinion, the entire situation of allowing oneself to be manipulated into dropping everything in pursuit of a token prize is downright silly. To me, that's when the game has crossed over from being a healthy recreational activity to being an unhealthy obsession.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that last example. I thought the big problem that got Hank's shorts in a knot were WG dollar bills actually being used like travel bugs ... like the WG dollars that were glued to the front of CD cases and used to track the enclosed CD, or the WG dollars that were encased in blocks of lucite, or the serial numbers and series from WG dollars that one guy engraved on his homemade jewelry/art objects to track their movements. Clearly, all of those examples violate the spirit of the WG game.