
Zuckerruebensirup
Members-
Posts
1056 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Zuckerruebensirup
-
quote:Originally posted by james f weisbeck kd7mxi terra utah: Poll Question: is the aircraft crash sites cache poor taste? if poor taste WHY? let jeremy and the othe staff @ geocaching know what you think Results (49 votes counted so far): NO 24/49% YES 13/27% [This message was edited by james f weisbeck kd7mxi terra utah on May 19, 2002 at 11:40 PM.] I find it curious that the totals and percentages shown above don't add up. It seems obvious to me that there must've been another choice that has since been deleted. (And who knows, maybe the two that are left have also been modified.) In my opinion, if a poll description has been changed after votes have been talled, the staff should delete it from the discussion boards, since there's no way of knowing whether the results been "tampered" with. quote:If you don,t like my views they must be truth!!! Ummm...I'm sorry, but I just don't get the logic in that. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
Locationless Cache Requirements
Zuckerruebensirup replied to Jeremy's topic in General geocaching topics
quote:Originally posted by El Diablo: I'm going to crawl out on a limb here and make a statement. Locationless caches are bogus. They are not keeping within the spirit of the game as I believe it was intended. That limb you've crawled out on has a lot of company. Have you read any of the previous discussion threads on this topic? quote:I know this is going to upset a lot of people, but someone needs to say it. The next thing we will be logging is dates on the coins in our pockets or four leaf clovers, even road kill. I mean...where does it end? This is EXACTLY the reason for the new requirements that have been added. None of the examples you just listed meet those requirements. Your comments make me wonder if you even read the original post that started this thread. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" -
Locationless Cache Requirements
Zuckerruebensirup replied to Jeremy's topic in General geocaching topics
quote:Originally posted by El Diablo: I'm going to crawl out on a limb here and make a statement. Locationless caches are bogus. They are not keeping within the spirit of the game as I believe it was intended. That limb you've crawled out on has a lot of company. Have you read any of the previous discussion threads on this topic? quote:I know this is going to upset a lot of people, but someone needs to say it. The next thing we will be logging is dates on the coins in our pockets or four leaf clovers, even road kill. I mean...where does it end? This is EXACTLY the reason for the new requirements that have been added. None of the examples you just listed meet those requirements. Your comments make me wonder if you even read the original post that started this thread. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" -
I've been hoping this feature would be added. Thanks, much!! ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
I've been hoping this feature would be added. Thanks, much!! ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
I've never started a cache hunt barefoot. I have had to cross a couple of shoe-sucking mud bogs that had me wondering if I would would be walking out barefoot. (So far I haven't, luckily.) ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
I've never started a cache hunt barefoot. I have had to cross a couple of shoe-sucking mud bogs that had me wondering if I would would be walking out barefoot. (So far I haven't, luckily.) ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
Locationless Cache Requirements
Zuckerruebensirup replied to Jeremy's topic in General geocaching topics
Will these new rules apply only to new Locationless caches being placed from here forward, or will you go back and evaluate the existing ones, and archive any that don't meet the requirements? ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" -
quote:Originally posted by Byron & Anne: Ahhhhh. When did PBS start selectively charging to view any of their programs or broadcast "Members Only Programs"????? Using the same PBS analogy. Would PBS be able to contine if they started "pay to view" specific shows? My guess they'd go away. My satellite program offers "Pay per View" shows, and (judging from how long they've been around), it appears very successful. quote:A recent dot com failure was a free site that started charging. They went under within a year. Whether they would have gone under sooner or not if they had not started charging, I don't know. I do know charging didn't prevent them from failure. Maybe they waited too long before deciding to charge, and were already too far into the red to recover. quote:I belive that turning geocaching.com into a pay to play site will kill the site. Creating the Members Only Cache feature is just that, attempting to turn it into a pay for play site. I disagree. Allowing MOC caches doesn't stop ANYONE from placing as many open-to-all caches that they want to. quote:Now that I've got that out of my system, let's get back to caching. Yes, let's! ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
quote:Originally posted by Byron & Anne: Ahhhhh. When did PBS start selectively charging to view any of their programs or broadcast "Members Only Programs"????? Using the same PBS analogy. Would PBS be able to contine if they started "pay to view" specific shows? My guess they'd go away. My satellite program offers "Pay per View" shows, and (judging from how long they've been around), it appears very successful. quote:A recent dot com failure was a free site that started charging. They went under within a year. Whether they would have gone under sooner or not if they had not started charging, I don't know. I do know charging didn't prevent them from failure. Maybe they waited too long before deciding to charge, and were already too far into the red to recover. quote:I belive that turning geocaching.com into a pay to play site will kill the site. Creating the Members Only Cache feature is just that, attempting to turn it into a pay for play site. I disagree. Allowing MOC caches doesn't stop ANYONE from placing as many open-to-all caches that they want to. quote:Now that I've got that out of my system, let's get back to caching. Yes, let's! ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
I was hoping that, along with the mileage handling change, we could start seeing state lines on the US tracking map. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
quote:Originally posted by beatnik: Nothing is worse than a bug listing for a cache you are watching. The bug comes and goes before you can even see what the bug was. With no way to find it. If someone brings and takes the bug without leaving it in the cache you never get to see it's page. It's for that exact reason that I always mention the tracking (TB) number of all bugs that I log...so they can be searched for by any subsequent visitors to the cache. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
quote:Originally posted by beatnik: Nothing is worse than a bug listing for a cache you are watching. The bug comes and goes before you can even see what the bug was. With no way to find it. If someone brings and takes the bug without leaving it in the cache you never get to see it's page. It's for that exact reason that I always mention the tracking (TB) number of all bugs that I log...so they can be searched for by any subsequent visitors to the cache. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
New Locationless Cache Type (Policies?)
Zuckerruebensirup replied to Jeremy's topic in General geocaching topics
Or rather four caches (Depots: GC4A5A, Wild things*: GC5164, American Flags: GC5192, and Watertowers: GC5282) with one picture! *Yep, there really is a bird in there! If I'd have waited long enough, I'm sure I could've gotten a yellow Jeep in the shot, too. I have to admit that I've enjoyed some of the well thought out and creative Locationless caches...but it seems to be getting out of hand. When it's too easy, it takes the fun out of it. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" [This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on May 13, 2002 at 10:32 PM.] -
New Locationless Cache Type (Policies?)
Zuckerruebensirup replied to Jeremy's topic in General geocaching topics
Or rather four caches (Depots: GC4A5A, Wild things*: GC5164, American Flags: GC5192, and Watertowers: GC5282) with one picture! *Yep, there really is a bird in there! If I'd have waited long enough, I'm sure I could've gotten a yellow Jeep in the shot, too. I have to admit that I've enjoyed some of the well thought out and creative Locationless caches...but it seems to be getting out of hand. When it's too easy, it takes the fun out of it. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" [This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on May 13, 2002 at 10:32 PM.] -
quote:Originally posted by Beast of Traal: [...] or scroll through all 1300 + pictures in the gallery 25 at a time and what if it miss it then you got to do it agin. And if the owner hasn't posted a picture of the bug, it doesn't show up in the gallery, either. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
quote:Originally posted by Beast of Traal: [...] or scroll through all 1300 + pictures in the gallery 25 at a time and what if it miss it then you got to do it agin. And if the owner hasn't posted a picture of the bug, it doesn't show up in the gallery, either. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
quote:Originally posted by SkyTrek: Well Mr. (or Ms.) Zuckerruebensyrup, under the current rules people that find your three multi-cache sites will not have them counted as traditional caches. I don't place caches so that people can increase their find totals. I place them so that they can go out and experience some enjoyable natural (or historical) places that they might not have otherwise visited. I enjoy reading about their impressions and the adventures of their search. If the only reason someone was planning to search for a cache of mine was merely to add one more find to their total, then they are completely missing the point of what I was hoping they'd get out of it...so if they choose not to search for the cache because of this new change, that's ok with me. If I was out to increase people's totals, I might as well have placed a half-dozen 1/1's in the local K-Mart parking lot...then, not only would they be quick easy finds, but nobody would have to worry about getting their feet dirty while looking for them. quote:I would say he [Jeremy] is getting the message that some of us think locationless caches are fine for people that like them but for the rest of us that enjoy the physical hunt and discovery, we would rather not see them totaled up as equals. In my opinion, they require different skill sets and should be totaled up separately. Many caches require different skills. I'm curious that I haven't been hearing people complain that a 5/5 cache gets the same amount of credit as a 1/1 cache. Perhaps it's because the people who go after the 5/5 caches (or even the 3.5/3.5's) are doing it for the personal challenge and/or to see the really cool place that takes such work to get there, rather than being so worried about that little number next to their name on the website. If people want to take Locationless out of the regualr count totals, I'm ok with that. But if we're going to start separating everything out in the name of reflecting the 'real picture' of the find totals, we might as well break them out by difficulty levels, as well. Perhaps my six leg multi-cache should count as six finds? Personally, I really don't care how Jemery does the totals. Just as the real treasure to this sport isn't the McToy at the end of the hunt, neither should it be the checkmark in the box when you log the find (IMHO, at least). For me, it's the whole experience...from the time I jump into my truck to drive to the location, the walk along the way, the challenge of finding the cache, the fun of seeing what trinket I want to trade for, the browsing through the previous log entries...and of course the sites, the views, the fresh air, and the chance of seeing some wildlife (or at least hearing some birds singing). I get to see what kinds of places other people enjoy, and to share with them some of the places I do. That's what geocaching is all about in my book. I'd much rather have my gravestone say, "Zuck loved the outdoors, and spent as much time as she could there. She was a good steward of the land, and left this earth better than she found it." than "Zuck found 130 geocaches in less than three months...and by the way, NONE of those were 'locationless'."
-
quote:Originally posted by SkyTrek: Well Mr. (or Ms.) Zuckerruebensyrup, under the current rules people that find your three multi-cache sites will not have them counted as traditional caches. I don't place caches so that people can increase their find totals. I place them so that they can go out and experience some enjoyable natural (or historical) places that they might not have otherwise visited. I enjoy reading about their impressions and the adventures of their search. If the only reason someone was planning to search for a cache of mine was merely to add one more find to their total, then they are completely missing the point of what I was hoping they'd get out of it...so if they choose not to search for the cache because of this new change, that's ok with me. If I was out to increase people's totals, I might as well have placed a half-dozen 1/1's in the local K-Mart parking lot...then, not only would they be quick easy finds, but nobody would have to worry about getting their feet dirty while looking for them. quote:I would say he [Jeremy] is getting the message that some of us think locationless caches are fine for people that like them but for the rest of us that enjoy the physical hunt and discovery, we would rather not see them totaled up as equals. In my opinion, they require different skill sets and should be totaled up separately. Many caches require different skills. I'm curious that I haven't been hearing people complain that a 5/5 cache gets the same amount of credit as a 1/1 cache. Perhaps it's because the people who go after the 5/5 caches (or even the 3.5/3.5's) are doing it for the personal challenge and/or to see the really cool place that takes such work to get there, rather than being so worried about that little number next to their name on the website. If people want to take Locationless out of the regualr count totals, I'm ok with that. But if we're going to start separating everything out in the name of reflecting the 'real picture' of the find totals, we might as well break them out by difficulty levels, as well. Perhaps my six leg multi-cache should count as six finds? Personally, I really don't care how Jemery does the totals. Just as the real treasure to this sport isn't the McToy at the end of the hunt, neither should it be the checkmark in the box when you log the find (IMHO, at least). For me, it's the whole experience...from the time I jump into my truck to drive to the location, the walk along the way, the challenge of finding the cache, the fun of seeing what trinket I want to trade for, the browsing through the previous log entries...and of course the sites, the views, the fresh air, and the chance of seeing some wildlife (or at least hearing some birds singing). I get to see what kinds of places other people enjoy, and to share with them some of the places I do. That's what geocaching is all about in my book. I'd much rather have my gravestone say, "Zuck loved the outdoors, and spent as much time as she could there. She was a good steward of the land, and left this earth better than she found it." than "Zuck found 130 geocaches in less than three months...and by the way, NONE of those were 'locationless'."
-
Photos greatly increase the fun.
Zuckerruebensirup replied to prv8eye's topic in General geocaching topics
Did anyone ever hear whether Wesley ended up having this film developed or not? -
Photos greatly increase the fun.
Zuckerruebensirup replied to prv8eye's topic in General geocaching topics
I'm wondering if the people who stole my cache developed the film from the camera, or just threw it out. (The main thing I was bummed about losing...other than my only ammo box...was the logbook.) ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" -
Photos greatly increase the fun.
Zuckerruebensirup replied to prv8eye's topic in General geocaching topics
I'm wondering if the people who stole my cache developed the film from the camera, or just threw it out. (The main thing I was bummed about losing...other than my only ammo box...was the logbook.) ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" -
quote:Originally posted by Alan2: If you explain that to me I'll tell you what broadcast TV is. I got laughed at a couple of months ago because my TV still has knobs you have to turn to change the channel. And no remote control, of course. (The dish controller has a remote, though, so except for turning it on/off, I can still be a couch potato.) ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
quote:Originally posted by Tom Cruise: Me! So Tom, how about posting a picture of yourself holding your Map V? ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
quote:Originally posted by Tom Cruise: Me! So Tom, how about posting a picture of yourself holding your Map V? ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"