Zuckerruebensirup

quote:Originally posted by Zentreri: The funny part was that when we found a good spot to stash a cache there was some simple grafetti nearby. We're thinking of naming the cache after the grafetti and providing a picture of it as the only hint. I'd recommend caution about associating a geocache with graffiti (even graffiti that already existed, and that you had nothing to do with creating). I'm afraid it could somehow end up backfiring and causing bad press for geocaching. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

quote:Originally posted by Markwell: Just seeing if I could get a rise out of anyone. No way, not in this crowd! We refuse to allow ourselves to become agitated over anything!

quote:Originally posted by sbell111: If I like a logo, and the vote supports another logo, I can't use the logo I like, even though its public domain? Of course you can. The idea of having an "official" logo is for the 'instant recognition' factor of a single logo that's popularly used throughout the community. However, individuals (or groups) could still use anything they like for their own personal use (or whatever other use they may have). The only downside is that people may not as quickly recognize the symbol as a representation of Geocaching. (And some may not even consider that a downside. They may enjoy having a sense of uniqueness in their own logo.)

As Gustaf so aptly stated, a community endorsed logo is intended to make us automatically think of geocaching when we see it. In order to have that 'instant recognition' factor, it would be beneficial to vote on a single "official" logo accepted by the geocaching community as a whole. (It would still be acceptable for individuals to use any or all of the other logos that have been shared, or even to continuing creating new designs of their own, if they like, for personal use. Nobody is saying that anyone 'has' to use the official logo, but just that it would allow for a universally recognized symbol for the community in general.) My suggestion is that we set a timeframe for accepting additional logo entries...and at the end of that timeframe, have a voting period for choosing the official logo. I think there are a lot of people who are excited about this, and would like to order some logo merchandise; but would like to use the 'official' version, whatever it may end up as. So rather than drag this thing out forever, how about we set a deadline? What seems like a reasonable timeframe to continue accepting submissions? (After that's decided, we can then decide how long the voting polls should be left open. But first things first...) The last day for submissions should be:

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup: Can someone refresh me on why we're not ready for a vote? We will NEVER come up with a logo that EVERYONE likes. That's why the democratic voting process was invented. As they say in my industry, "It's time to shoot the engineer, and go into production." quote:Originally posted by geospotter: Gee, let's give it a LITTLE time. It's only been a week. Just like your industry, the production crew always gives the engineers unreasonable deadlines . Sure, that sounds reasonable. (I personally sympathize with the engineers. They are a poorly misunderstood, and under-appreciated group of individuals.) So, for the twenty four thousand question...what sounds like a reasonable amount of time to continue taking submissions?

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup: Can someone refresh me on why we're not ready for a vote? We will NEVER come up with a logo that EVERYONE likes. That's why the democratic voting process was invented. quote:Originally posted by fizzymagic: Gee, I don't know. [1] Maybe the fact that this whole logo thing is only about a week old might have something to do with it. Fair enough. So how about we set a deadline for submissions, and a date the vote will take place on? quote:[2] Maybe the fact that several people have expressed valid concerns about the Gx logo might have something to do with it, too. If the concerns are widespread enough, that design will get voted down. I never suggested that we simply make the Gx logo official. I suggested that we VOTE on it. What part of 'vote' do I need to explain? quote:And your comments about the "democratic process" are insulting to those of us who actually believe in a democratic process. What exactly did I say that was insulting? Please clarify, and I will offer an apology, if appropriate. quote:What do they teach in the schools in Michigan, anyway? Similar subjects as they teach in California, I imagine (since we have national standards). If you weren't being sarcastic, and seriously want a breakdown, I'd be happy to e-mail you the list (to the best of my knowledge, anyway...it's been a few years since I graduated). Just let me know.

quote:Originally posted by CYBret: Couldn't Groundspeak use the same system used for mapping travelbugs to map cachers themselves? I mean, we've each got an ID number, just like the bugs, how difficult would it be to set the system up to track us? Sure they could. Just add your request to the ever-growing Wish List, and then hold your breath. Actually, I imagine this is a feature that'll eventually be incorporated. A lot of people seem interested in the concept. But if/when it's added, there's still the issue of incorrect mileage credit for Locationless caches. My proposed solution above would still apply.

quote:Originally posted by Gustaf: I'm voting for a vote The logo is supposed to make you think of geocaching when you see it. That is impossible if we all use different logos or different variations of a logo. I will use the logo that gets the most votes, so you won't see any drive by caching from us "Globes". And I just might vote for the GX myself. I like it. Well said. My sentiments, exactly. It seems like people would rather hash and rehash than to just choose something and go forward. In the MiGO group, the voting on a logo of our own will begin on November 1st. At this point, we're considering Leatherman's Gx logo to be the 'unoffical official' global geoaching symbol that we'd like to incorporate into it. If the group here can agree to make something official, it would be nice to have a vote take place in time adjust our internal direction, if necessary. If we'd all rather discuss and argue until the sport dies out, then the idea of creating a universally accepted 'public domain' logo will basically have been a waste of everyone's time. Can someone refresh me on why we're not ready for a vote? We will NEVER come up with a logo that EVERYONE likes. That's why the democratic voting process was invented. As they they in my industry, "It's time to shoot the engineer, and go into production."

I notice that a large majority of the discussion here has to do with whether this feature would have an effect on reducing the rate of plundered caches. MY purpose for wanting this feature is to discourage trolls (or whatever the PC equivalent term is: 'people who selfishly go out and seek caches, but won't bother to log any feedback onto the cache page' perhaps?). If it's too much trouble to take a couple of seconds to log in before viewing my cache coordinates, then I'd just as soon you not take advantage of the hours and hours of time I spent in planning and placing the cache, thank you very much.

I'd still like to see this feature added. If it's done as a CHOICE by each individual cache owner, I don't see how giving it a chance can hurt anyone. Jeremy, is it even on the list of 'things being considered'? The current poll results show that most respondants are for the idea.

quote:Originally posted by Gary and Mary Adventurers: IMHO It would be nice to see something like 'The 15th of 55 finds for this user' The '15' could be static and indicate the find #, and the '55' could be updated at each new log entry. That would satisfy most everyone. I use the counts to add weight to their comments, but I also admit that the competition of seeing counts adds a little extra to the sport for me. Great suggestion! I second it.

If you decide to follow the advice of those who have recommended that you delete the log, I would suggest doing one of two things: Either 1) e-mail the logger that you've deleted their find since it didn't meet the specifications, or 2) post a note on the cache page, mentioning that you deleted it. It's simple common courtesy to let the person know that they haven't met the requirements, in case they want to go back and log this cache at a later date. It was only after I decided to create a personal travel bug to track my own caching travels, that I noticed that a couple of my Find logs had mysteriously disappeared (without a word to me). I have no idea if they were deliberately deleted by the owners, or if it was due to some kind of a glitch. A little communication can go a long way. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

I think mileage for the user-entered coordinates should be credited for locationless cache entries, rather than the posted cache coordinates. (See my poll in the Geocaching.com Disscusion forum.) As far as I know, though, there isn't currently any way to log a travel bug into locationless cache without getting bogus mileage...and I won't hold my breath that it'll be changed anytime in the near future, either. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

quote:Originally posted by Egnix: I do agree with you and like the idea...as I didn't get to log my personal tb into the 1 locationless I did. But I wonder if people would abuse the freedom of specifying the coords the bug was placed in. I know it would be silly, but there's a ton of people out there who do silly things like that! What would be the ramifications of the 'abuse'? A lot of people seem to behave as if Finds and/or mileage are a contest here. I don't personally understand what all the hub-bub is about. (As it is currently, people can abuse the system by logging the cache's posted coordinates and get HUGE mileage credit that is completely bogus.) quote:Also, what happens if you accidentally enter the wrong coords and now the bug shows an incorrect milage? Hopefully they would notice that on the map, and modify their cache log, then delete and re-add the TB log to correct it. If they don't notice it, their mileage will be off. It's pretty difficult to come up with a system that idiot proofs against typos by people who are careless and don't bother to double check their entries.

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:On the other hand, I've seen travel bugs that have been noted by several cache finders to be missing from the cache...and neither the cache owner or the TB owner do anything about removing the false link from the cache. quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:Ya know, there's nothing the cache owner can do about it. We keep asking, but there's still no way for a cache owner to say "it's not really here." Yes, that's a complaint. Ah, that's a good point. And I second your complaint...cache owners ought to be able to break false travel bug links from their caches.

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: Slugs/snails are known hermaphrodites, so I suggest you just go and SHPX yourself. Thank you for the suggestion. I'll take it into consideration. ------- "I may be slow (or I may not be)...but, in either case, it sure beats being a Buffoon!"

quote:Originally posted by Tellulah: People who log a cache and complain about how a travel bug wasn't there, and how hard they worked and how far they traveled to get it...TOUGH LUCK!!! Waaa Waa Waaa, move quicker next time!!! And don't announce to the geocommunity that you're a sore loser! On the other hand, I've seen travel bugs that have been noted by several cache finders to be missing from the cache...and neither the cache owner or the TB owner do anything about removing the false link from the cache. Yes, people could read the logs before going out to seek a cache (at the risk of reading spoilers, of course), and sometimes it's the breaks that a travel bug will be taken between the time you last viewed the page and the time you open the cache...but it's one of my pet peeves when cache/bug owners ignore the constructive feedback that people take the time to give. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

quote:Originally posted by Tellulah: People who log a cache and complain about how a travel bug wasn't there, and how hard they worked and how far they traveled to get it...TOUGH LUCK!!! Waaa Waa Waaa, move quicker next time!!! And don't announce to the geocommunity that you're a sore loser! On the other hand, I've seen travel bugs that have been noted by several cache finders to be missing from the cache...and neither the cache owner or the TB owner do anything about removing the false link from the cache. Yes, people could read the logs before going out to seek a cache (at the risk of reading spoilers, of course), and sometimes it's the breaks that a travel bug will be taken between the time you last viewed the page and the time you open the cache...but it's one of my pet peeves when cache/bug owners ignore the constructive feedback that people take the time to give. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

quote:Originally posted by sbell111:I was confused the first time I read the post. This is because I typically use this field to note when my coords greatly differ from the posted coords. [...] Yes, sbell111, you've described my question (and my stand on it) perfectly. I completely forgot to clarify that I was refering to Locationless caches. That would have made the entire context easier to decipher, huh? As for physical caches whose posted coordinates vary signicantly from where our own GPSr says the cache is located...the special field for entering alternate coordinates seems kind of silly. It only saves us typing TWO letters (the N and the W, in my case). If they can't be used for tracking purposes, it seems like it would be just as easy to note the coordinates in our find logs. (It's not like it's the case very often that caches are notably off. While, with Locationless, there will ALWAYS be alternate coordinates.) ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

quote:Originally posted by sbell111:I was confused the first time I read the post. This is because I typically use this field to note when my coords greatly differ from the posted coords. [...] Yes, sbell111, you've described my question (and my stand on it) perfectly. I completely forgot to clarify that I was refering to Locationless caches. That would have made the entire context easier to decipher, huh? As for physical caches whose posted coordinates vary signicantly from where our own GPSr says the cache is located...the special field for entering alternate coordinates seems kind of silly. It only saves us typing TWO letters (the N and the W, in my case). If they can't be used for tracking purposes, it seems like it would be just as easy to note the coordinates in our find logs. (It's not like it's the case very often that caches are notably off. While, with Locationless, there will ALWAYS be alternate coordinates.) ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: 'edited for relevant content. There was none; it was just Zuck's typical haranguing.' And now YOU are the relevancy judge? (As if your original post which prompted my reply was in any way relevant to this topic thread. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't you say?) LOL quote:But hang around; she'll be back in a minute or two with another "last word." Why did you put "last word" in quotes? And what do you mean by another last word? You really can't stand it when anyone comments on ANYthing you post, can you? I've noticed that whenever someone counters any of your points (or stands up to your attempts at belittlement), you invariably end with 'graciously' letting them have the last word. I guess that's a way of saving face when you run out of rebuttals, huh? (Next will be your announcement that you're off to do something more important with your time, like going out to go geocaching.) It's rather humorous how consistently predictable you are.

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: 'edited for relevant content. There was none; it was just Zuck's typical haranguing.' And now YOU are the relevancy judge? (As if your original post which prompted my reply was in any way relevant to this topic thread. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't you say?) LOL quote:But hang around; she'll be back in a minute or two with another "last word." Why did you put "last word" in quotes? And what do you mean by another last word? You really can't stand it when anyone comments on ANYthing you post, can you? I've noticed that whenever someone counters any of your points (or stands up to your attempts at belittlement), you invariably end with 'graciously' letting them have the last word. I guess that's a way of saving face when you run out of rebuttals, huh? (Next will be your announcement that you're off to do something more important with your time, like going out to go geocaching.) It's rather humorous how consistently predictable you are.

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: The purpose of statistics is to compare and contrast them. Some of us like to discuss statistics. If you don't enjoy such discussions, that's fine; please feel free to ignore such discussions without haranguing those of us who do enjoy them. I would hardly consider my question to be 'haranguing'. It seems to me that, since every cache is unique and completely different from every other cache (not to mention each individual cache seeker's route, weather conditions, etc., to that very same cache), it is a futile exercise to try to 'compare' various users' find counts in any kind of meaningful way. My apologies for asking the question, but it just gets tiring to see people (and usually the same ones) continually bring the subject up, no matter what the topic at hand is. (And, by the way, if I should feel free to ignore your ongoing off-topic dead-horse-beatings...you, likewise, should feel free to ignore my responses to them. )

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: The purpose of statistics is to compare and contrast them. Some of us like to discuss statistics. If you don't enjoy such discussions, that's fine; please feel free to ignore such discussions without haranguing those of us who do enjoy them. I would hardly consider my question to be 'haranguing'. It seems to me that, since every cache is unique and completely different from every other cache (not to mention each individual cache seeker's route, weather conditions, etc., to that very same cache), it is a futile exercise to try to 'compare' various users' find counts in any kind of meaningful way. My apologies for asking the question, but it just gets tiring to see people (and usually the same ones) continually bring the subject up, no matter what the topic at hand is. (And, by the way, if I should feel free to ignore your ongoing off-topic dead-horse-beatings...you, likewise, should feel free to ignore my responses to them. )

quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy: Have you tried my converter yet? Doh! I just posted a note related to this topic on another thread. I guess I'll have to check out the converter, and see how it works on my PDA. (I'm assuming that I'll have to use the text format, rather than the Palm, since my PDA has a Windows CE operating system.) I'm curious how your method handles the encrypted hints? The old layout that I used had a convenient Hint link on each cache page that automatically decrypted the hint for you. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"