Zuckerruebensirup

No, you don't have to choose ahead of time where you will place the bug. A second log is created after you've placed it. Once you've entered the retrevial log, it places the bug in your personal 'inventory' for easy placement when you log a new cache. (By selecting a bug to place in the cache when you are logging the cache log, it automatically updates the travel bug to reflect the placement, and to link it for showing up on the cache. As for where/how far to place the bug, it's best to read the stated goals for that particular bug on it's traveller page. Different people feel differently about whether they'd rather have you hold on to it until you can move it a long way, of if they'd just as soon you place it somewhere close if you have to...as long as you keep it moving. As for how long is ok to hold on to it, there are varying opinions on that, as well. (My own personal goal is to try to re-place a bug before the second weekend of my having it passes.) However long you keep it, I believe it's a fairly unanimous consensus that if you haven't placed the bug fairly quickly, it's a good idea to e-mail the owner, to let them know that you haven't forgotten about it, and to inform them of the bug's status, and how soon you plan to place it again. Welcome to Geocaching, by the way. I hope you enjoy it as much as I have. Zuck

No, you don't have to choose ahead of time where you will place the bug. A second log is created after you've placed it. Once you've entered the retrevial log, it places the bug in your personal 'inventory' for easy placement when you log a new cache. (By selecting a bug to place in the cache when you are logging the cache log, it automatically updates the travel bug to reflect the placement, and to link it for showing up on the cache. As for where/how far to place the bug, it's best to read the stated goals for that particular bug on it's traveller page. Different people feel differently about whether they'd rather have you hold on to it until you can move it a long way, of if they'd just as soon you place it somewhere close if you have to...as long as you keep it moving. As for how long is ok to hold on to it, there are varying opinions on that, as well. (My own personal goal is to try to re-place a bug before the second weekend of my having it passes.) However long you keep it, I believe it's a fairly unanimous consensus that if you haven't placed the bug fairly quickly, it's a good idea to e-mail the owner, to let them know that you haven't forgotten about it, and to inform them of the bug's status, and how soon you plan to place it again. Welcome to Geocaching, by the way. I hope you enjoy it as much as I have. Zuck

quote:Originally posted by macro: I think some people are in it for the fun, and not into tracking their progress. I log all my finds both in the book and on this site...but some folks just arent into it I guess. They like geocaching, but maybe just aren’t into the accounting part of it. Yet another example of the selfish trends our society has moved toward. Someone goes to the trouble to do the research and groundwork for placing a cache…then they go out and spend their own money to put the cache together, so that others can get some enjoyment out of being able to enjoy mother nature while having a fun challenge. And then, some people choose not to share their findings and/or appreciation online, just because they aren’t “into” that aspect of it. I realize that there is no ‘requirement’ to log our finds online (with the exception of travel bugs), but in my opinion, unless a person has a valid excuse for not doing so, it’s rather thoughtless and selfish of them not to. I understand that not everyone will share my viewpoint, and I place caches with the understanding that not everyone will log their finds online…and I accept that. I just don’t have to like it. If you feel differently, you’re entitled to do so. I’m not trying to start an argument here…just sharing my two cents. Z

quote:Originally posted by Renegade Knight: If I had my way I'd only log online. I always pass the log to whoever I can con into writing it. quote:Originally posted by Jamie Z: I'm with RK, except that I almost always cache alone. Maybe I should start bringing an ink pad with me, and just let Daisy mark her paw print in the logbook of the caches we find together...and then I'll handle the on-line logs.

quote:Originally posted by Renegade Knight: If I had my way I'd only log online. I always pass the log to whoever I can con into writing it. quote:Originally posted by Jamie Z: I'm with RK, except that I almost always cache alone. Maybe I should start bringing an ink pad with me, and just let Daisy mark her paw print in the logbook of the caches we find together...and then I'll handle the on-line logs.

"Took Jimmy Hoffa; Left a used golf ball."

"Took Jimmy Hoffa; Left a used golf ball."

Some people just aren't comfortable with having to give out personal information to register to online forums. I'm sure that's not the ONLY reason logs don't get made, but I'm betting that it accounts for a good number of them.

And the point would be?

I don't recall what TTracker's tag looked like, so I can't speak for it; but I definitely thought Markwell's was well done. If you ask nicely, I can practically guarantee that he'd be happy to share his template with you.

I don't recall what TTracker's tag looked like, so I can't speak for it; but I definitely thought Markwell's was well done. If you ask nicely, I can practically guarantee that he'd be happy to share his template with you.

quote:Originally posted by MissJenn: Maybe it was placed in a cache but it just was not logged IN that receiver cache? Why would a person place it into a cache and NOT log it...then turn around and LOG the travel bug into a cache that they admit they never visited? (They specifically said they left the bug at a bus stop. Unless there is a 'Bus Stop' cache listed somewhere in Iceland that I'm not aware of.)

I've started some groundwork on a virtual cache in the Marshall area, to take people through a tour of some of the historic sites. I recall at least one of them mentioning something about the Underground Railroad. (I'm not sure if that counts or not.) I'll have to take a closer look for more Civil War references.

We have pasties, too. It's a U.P. (Upper Peninsula, that is) thing, mostly. And the same jokes go around about the pronunciation as was mentioned on the Montana link you shared.

It's a dead giveaway that someone's not a local (Michigander) when they pronounce Mackinac Island, or Charlotte, MI wrong. (Correct: "Mackinaw" and Shar-LOT')

It's a dead giveaway that someone's not a local (Michigander) when they pronounce Mackinac Island, or Charlotte, MI wrong. (Correct: "Mackinaw" and Shar-LOT')

quote:Originally posted by Butano:But I do like the idea of special ones available only to people that have achieved a certain count. Do you think there's a chance this would encourage increased numbers of people 'stretching' the criteria for logging finds? For example, logging each of their own caches as found. Or logging repeat visits to the same cache (like when dropping off a travel bug) as another find. How about 'no-GPSr-required to find' caches (like Hometown, or Speed Trap)? Should those count toward a person's total? And who's going to review/approve the Found lists of those who request the pins?

quote:Originally posted by james f weisbeck kd7mxi terra utah, April 01, 2002 07:33 PM: it's pronounced crick not creek guys ...about the guy who was canoeing all day long. When he finally came out of the river at the end of the day to set up his camp site, he bent over to pick up his canoe paddle...only to have his back lock up on him, with a crick so back that he couldn't stand up straight again. Being all alone, without any help, he thought quickly, and used the paddle to support himself as he slowly moved hand over hand into an upright position. In no time at all, he was up the paddle without a crick.

quote:Originally posted by james f weisbeck kd7mxi terra utah, April 01, 2002 07:33 PM: it's pronounced crick not creek guys ...about the guy who was canoeing all day long. When he finally came out of the river at the end of the day to set up his camp site, he bent over to pick up his canoe paddle...only to have his back lock up on him, with a crick so back that he couldn't stand up straight again. Being all alone, without any help, he thought quickly, and used the paddle to support himself as he slowly moved hand over hand into an upright position. In no time at all, he was up the paddle without a crick.

quote:Originally posted by SirRalanN: Just my opinion, but terrain and difficulty should be seeker ratable as well as the fun factor. I like this idea. Sometimes, even when using the provided rating system, I'm not sure what's the 'right' rating for a cache I'm placing. For example, should a multi-stage cache automatically be a "3", even if it's only two stages, and they are really simple? If cache finders could rate the terrain/difficulty, it might be useful. (But, in support of the opposition, I can also say first hand that someone has commented in a log that my cache seemed more difficult than I had rated it, and I took their information into review, and re-evaluated the cache rating accordingly.)

quote:Originally posted by bluespreacher: Isn't that what the cache logs already are? I mean, don't we put subjective stuff in there as it is? Sure, some may hurt the hider's feelings, but it's a free world (mostly), right? Yes, the cache logs are a great place for giving feedback on the cache, but I'm thinking that when someone is scanning a large list of caches to choose from, it would be nice to have a quickie indicator (like the difficulty and terrain ratings) that gives them a feel of the overall reaction to the cache. If someone wants more detail or clarification, they can still choose to peruse the individual posts.

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: I think that if such a system is implemented, each finder's 'rating' of the cache should appear right next to that finder's name on the header of the log, and the cumulative average would then be displayed on the cache page near the cache owner's suggested difficulty and terrain ratings. I like this idea. It would keep people a little more honest, rather than deliberately going out and slamming someone they happen to have a bone to pick with, for whatever reason. When we are held accountable for our votes and judgments, I believe we think a little more carefully before making them.

I guess that was the April Fools joke on us.

I guess that was the April Fools joke on us.

quote:Originally posted by Ridgerunner4: Top Ten Things You Don't Want to Find in a Cache # 11 would definitely have to be, "Used golf balls."