Zuckerruebensirup
-
Posts
1056 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Zuckerruebensirup
-
-
At the very least, I think a virtual cache should require you to get out and take a picture of your find, and to post the coordinates.
If a geocache doesn't require you to use your GPSr to find it, it should at least allow others to use theirs to go see first hand what you logged.
-
Snifter, the extra numbers are indicating the size of the photos that you uploaded. Did you actually select one of the photo names listed, and it still isn't showing up? (At the very least, you should be getting a box with a red X in it if you select one of the pictures and update the page.)
-
I'm beginning to wonder if Wesley used his real name, and then got arrested for child pornography or something...which is why he hasn't been able to post an update here to let us know what happened...he's behind bars, with no computer access.
-
I'm beginning to wonder if Wesley used his real name, and then got arrested for child pornography or something...which is why he hasn't been able to post an update here to let us know what happened...he's behind bars, with no computer access.
-
Ditto what they said.
-
quote:
Originally posted by GatoRx:What I find most interesting is that [Zephyrus] has never found a cache, but he hides some of the best caches in the area.
I wonder if he really hasn't found any, or if he just doesn't log them online. For some, the personal satisfaction of finding the caches is all they need/want. (Personally, I think it's a curtesy due the cache owner to log my finds, just so they know their caches are being found and are appreciated.)
-
quote:
Originally posted by the tapir:At the very least, _please_ give them a separate icon ... like a garbage can with a big red circle and slash through it.
LMAO at the icon suggestion!
-
quote:
Originally posted by the tapir:At the very least, _please_ give them a separate icon ... like a garbage can with a big red circle and slash through it.
LMAO at the icon suggestion!
-
Kudos
in Trackables
If/when you do release a travel bug, I'll be curious to hear how your experience goes.
We've had a long streak of less than idea weather here, so none of my bugs has moved since I posted this entry. But now that Spring has arrived (not that you'd know it from the snow and below freezing temperatures outside at the moment), I'm hoping geocaching activities in general will start picking up soon in my area.
-
Kudos
in Trackables
If/when you do release a travel bug, I'll be curious to hear how your experience goes.
We've had a long streak of less than idea weather here, so none of my bugs has moved since I posted this entry. But now that Spring has arrived (not that you'd know it from the snow and below freezing temperatures outside at the moment), I'm hoping geocaching activities in general will start picking up soon in my area.
-
I had seem some talk about the quilt, but didn't realize this was the end purpose of it. Very cool idea! Kudos to those who thought it up, coordinated it, and did the work to put it together (both literally and figuratively).
-
I had seem some talk about the quilt, but didn't realize this was the end purpose of it. Very cool idea! Kudos to those who thought it up, coordinated it, and did the work to put it together (both literally and figuratively).
-
I think it's interesting to see some of the lesser-known or creative places that people come up with in finding things to log on some of these 'multiple answer' virtual caches. (Yes, I've seen some that strike me as really lame, too...I simply ignore those, in lieu of the ones that interest me.) I also enjoy the sense of "community" that we seem to be establishing here...so seeing where people are from or grew up, etc., also interests me.
Although these "reverse engineered" caches don't require a GPSr to find them in the first place, by posting the coordinaties of the finds, others can use those coordinates to go check out the place after the fact, if it looks or sounds interesting to them. (Like "Nowhere, Oklahoma" for example.)
One of the main things I enjoy about geocaching is the motivation and inspiration to get out and enjoy nature and see places I might not have otherwise had the occasion to. Since these fulfill that, I think they should continue to be allowed on the site. But I like the idea of having a separate category for them, so that people who aren't interested in them can not have to be bothered with them, and those who ARE interested, can easily seek them out.
I'd like to see a separate counting system for those 'non-caches' as well, to keep things more fair for those who enjoy the competitive aspect of the hunt.
-
I think it's interesting to see some of the lesser-known or creative places that people come up with in finding things to log on some of these 'multiple answer' virtual caches. (Yes, I've seen some that strike me as really lame, too...I simply ignore those, in lieu of the ones that interest me.) I also enjoy the sense of "community" that we seem to be establishing here...so seeing where people are from or grew up, etc., also interests me.
Although these "reverse engineered" caches don't require a GPSr to find them in the first place, by posting the coordinaties of the finds, others can use those coordinates to go check out the place after the fact, if it looks or sounds interesting to them. (Like "Nowhere, Oklahoma" for example.)
One of the main things I enjoy about geocaching is the motivation and inspiration to get out and enjoy nature and see places I might not have otherwise had the occasion to. Since these fulfill that, I think they should continue to be allowed on the site. But I like the idea of having a separate category for them, so that people who aren't interested in them can not have to be bothered with them, and those who ARE interested, can easily seek them out.
I'd like to see a separate counting system for those 'non-caches' as well, to keep things more fair for those who enjoy the competitive aspect of the hunt.
-
Two people have chosen that option since I added it, but only one of them explained. (Thanks, T-Storm!
) What use is telling us that none of those choices fit, if you don't explain how you do feel?
Or perhaps it was someone who already left a comment about why none of the choices fit, and they've come back and added the vote, now that the choice is available? (Yeah, I'm sure that's it! Or at least that's what I'm going to tell myself anyway.)
-
Two people have chosen that option since I added it, but only one of them explained. (Thanks, T-Storm!
) What use is telling us that none of those choices fit, if you don't explain how you do feel?
Or perhaps it was someone who already left a comment about why none of the choices fit, and they've come back and added the vote, now that the choice is available? (Yeah, I'm sure that's it! Or at least that's what I'm going to tell myself anyway.)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:I think the real problem with responses is that your questions are not very fair or impartial. None of the choices you’ve provided fits my feelings on this issue. As I mentioned in Clayjar's thread, I like some locationless caches, but not others. You did not give me a place to record such a vote. [...] Perhaps if you had a more even handed list, or at least had an “out” for those that don’t agree with any of your choices, you might have gotten more responses.
I've added a 5th choice, "None of the above" to accomodate this issue for future voters. (Although, I suppose that's not fair to the first 42 voters, who were forced to pick from the first four choices. Oh well, too late to go back now.) It'll be interesting to see if the new "out" will increase the percentage of voters from here on out.
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:You also only give us the option of accepting your view that the issue with such caches has something to do with "logging" them. I could frankly care less if people log each one of these, or any other cache a thousand times. It has nothing to do with the real issue for me.
Sure, there may be other issues. But the whole point of this particular poll was to see how people felt about having locationless caches vs. whether they should be counted as finds.
You're welcome to post a poll (or a discussion thread) on anything that you feel is a worthwhile issue to discuss.
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:I also think that last question was a bit offensive. Some folks may have not felt that such caches are a good idea, but were offended at the way you categorized them as "purists".
My apologies for coming across as offensive. My label was in no way intended to be an insult.
pur·ism
Pronunciation: pyoor'iz'm
1. strict observance of or insistence on precise usage or on application of formal, often pedantic rules, as in language, art, etc.
(purist: one who practices purism)
I don't see that there's anything offensive with precise observance of the guidelines of something. Do you? (Perhaps you mistook my meaning for that of 'puritanical', which means "extremely or excessively strict in matters of morals or religion"? While I still don't necessarily see what's wrong with that (as long as the person doesn't force their religion down my throat), I can see how it might be more likely to be taken offense at.)
Anyway, my point is that I wasn't trying to call anyone names, I was just trying to allow a voting category for those who would prefer not to see Geocaching diluted away from its original form. From what I read of your post, it sounds kind of like you fit into that category. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:As I mentioned before, I think that at some point, a line has to be drawn in the sand about what constitutes a cache and what doesn't. If we don't (or more appropriately Jeremy doesn't) do this, eventually the geocaching.com website will become a listing of points of interest and fun activities.
See what I mean?
(Again, I think that's a completely valid view. That was the point of my poll. To see how people feel about locationless caches, and whether or not they should be allowed and/or counted as finds. I certainly didn't intend to word my voting choices in a way that would offend anyone.)quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:Ponder on these ideas:
+ When was your town founded? (No need to leave the house! Just post when your town was founded!)
+ Post the location of your kids Little League Game. (Or any other sport.)
+ Any Corporate Office's in your town? Post them here!
+ Log the best places to buy caching gear!
+ What’s your favorite coffee shop?
+ Where are the cheap gas prices in your area?
These are some I came up with in just a few minutes.
Are these examples of approved caches you found? I haven't come across any like that, myself.
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:If this kind of thing was allowed, thousands of such listings could be posted in no time, making other perhaps more deserving listings harder and harder to find.
That's what I think is the cool thing about the polls I've seen Jeremy doing lately...to get concensus on "on the fence" caches. So far, the two I saw (McDonands and Favorite Sports Arena) were voted down.
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:I have no real problem with any of this kind of thing, but geocaching.com is not the place for them.
Why do you want to change what I consider a really cool game and “dilute” it? I happen to like geocaching the way it is and think the more we push the envelope on this, the worse the game becomes. For me, such a change is not a good thing.
Again, how is that not a purist view? (And again, not that there's anything wrong with that.)
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:To expand on that, one of the basic arguments in favor of all locationless caches seems to be that some people enjoy them, so therefore they should be allowed. The problem with this logic is that there are a lot of fun things in the world, but we don't (nor should we) allow all of them to be listed here.
Exactly the point of my poll!
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:We have got to have standards that determine what is, and what is not acceptable.
You know what I'm thinking here, so I won't repeat it again.
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:If I started using a cache page as just a way to correspond with one of my relatives for example, I think we'd all agree that that would not be an acceptable cache, but without some standard what’s to prevent me from doing that?
Good thing there are standards, huh? (Again, I think Jeremy's polling idea was a good one.)
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:As I mentioned before, the original premise of this game revolves around the use of coordinates to find something. To me, this is a central part of the game. As soon as you take that out of the equation, it becomes something else entirely. Just because a thing is fun, is not sufficient reason to list it here. [...] The other important part of the definition of geocaching is that it be something hidden.
The “out of sight, concealed, or secret” part is critical to defining all caches, including virtual caches. Locationless caches are a subset of virtual caches, so they must still abide by the same criteria or they simply are not caches.
So, what you're saying is that we should establish some formal guidelines for what a cache is, and then strictly observe them?
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:Thanks for listening.
No problem. And thank you for sharing!
Getting an idea of how people feel about locationless caches, and why, is exactly what I was hoping to do here. I appreciate your input.- Zuck
[This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on March 18, 2002 at 09:40 PM.]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:I think the real problem with responses is that your questions are not very fair or impartial. None of the choices you’ve provided fits my feelings on this issue. As I mentioned in Clayjar's thread, I like some locationless caches, but not others. You did not give me a place to record such a vote. [...] Perhaps if you had a more even handed list, or at least had an “out” for those that don’t agree with any of your choices, you might have gotten more responses.
I've added a 5th choice, "None of the above" to accomodate this issue for future voters. (Although, I suppose that's not fair to the first 42 voters, who were forced to pick from the first four choices. Oh well, too late to go back now.) It'll be interesting to see if the new "out" will increase the percentage of voters from here on out.
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:You also only give us the option of accepting your view that the issue with such caches has something to do with "logging" them. I could frankly care less if people log each one of these, or any other cache a thousand times. It has nothing to do with the real issue for me.
Sure, there may be other issues. But the whole point of this particular poll was to see how people felt about having locationless caches vs. whether they should be counted as finds.
You're welcome to post a poll (or a discussion thread) on anything that you feel is a worthwhile issue to discuss.
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:I also think that last question was a bit offensive. Some folks may have not felt that such caches are a good idea, but were offended at the way you categorized them as "purists".
My apologies for coming across as offensive. My label was in no way intended to be an insult.
pur·ism
Pronunciation: pyoor'iz'm
1. strict observance of or insistence on precise usage or on application of formal, often pedantic rules, as in language, art, etc.
(purist: one who practices purism)
I don't see that there's anything offensive with precise observance of the guidelines of something. Do you? (Perhaps you mistook my meaning for that of 'puritanical', which means "extremely or excessively strict in matters of morals or religion"? While I still don't necessarily see what's wrong with that (as long as the person doesn't force their religion down my throat), I can see how it might be more likely to be taken offense at.)
Anyway, my point is that I wasn't trying to call anyone names, I was just trying to allow a voting category for those who would prefer not to see Geocaching diluted away from its original form. From what I read of your post, it sounds kind of like you fit into that category. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:As I mentioned before, I think that at some point, a line has to be drawn in the sand about what constitutes a cache and what doesn't. If we don't (or more appropriately Jeremy doesn't) do this, eventually the geocaching.com website will become a listing of points of interest and fun activities.
See what I mean?
(Again, I think that's a completely valid view. That was the point of my poll. To see how people feel about locationless caches, and whether or not they should be allowed and/or counted as finds. I certainly didn't intend to word my voting choices in a way that would offend anyone.)quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:Ponder on these ideas:
+ When was your town founded? (No need to leave the house! Just post when your town was founded!)
+ Post the location of your kids Little League Game. (Or any other sport.)
+ Any Corporate Office's in your town? Post them here!
+ Log the best places to buy caching gear!
+ What’s your favorite coffee shop?
+ Where are the cheap gas prices in your area?
These are some I came up with in just a few minutes.
Are these examples of approved caches you found? I haven't come across any like that, myself.
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:If this kind of thing was allowed, thousands of such listings could be posted in no time, making other perhaps more deserving listings harder and harder to find.
That's what I think is the cool thing about the polls I've seen Jeremy doing lately...to get concensus on "on the fence" caches. So far, the two I saw (McDonands and Favorite Sports Arena) were voted down.
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:I have no real problem with any of this kind of thing, but geocaching.com is not the place for them.
Why do you want to change what I consider a really cool game and “dilute” it? I happen to like geocaching the way it is and think the more we push the envelope on this, the worse the game becomes. For me, such a change is not a good thing.
Again, how is that not a purist view? (And again, not that there's anything wrong with that.)
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:To expand on that, one of the basic arguments in favor of all locationless caches seems to be that some people enjoy them, so therefore they should be allowed. The problem with this logic is that there are a lot of fun things in the world, but we don't (nor should we) allow all of them to be listed here.
Exactly the point of my poll!
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:We have got to have standards that determine what is, and what is not acceptable.
You know what I'm thinking here, so I won't repeat it again.
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:If I started using a cache page as just a way to correspond with one of my relatives for example, I think we'd all agree that that would not be an acceptable cache, but without some standard what’s to prevent me from doing that?
Good thing there are standards, huh? (Again, I think Jeremy's polling idea was a good one.)
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:As I mentioned before, the original premise of this game revolves around the use of coordinates to find something. To me, this is a central part of the game. As soon as you take that out of the equation, it becomes something else entirely. Just because a thing is fun, is not sufficient reason to list it here. [...] The other important part of the definition of geocaching is that it be something hidden.
The “out of sight, concealed, or secret” part is critical to defining all caches, including virtual caches. Locationless caches are a subset of virtual caches, so they must still abide by the same criteria or they simply are not caches.
So, what you're saying is that we should establish some formal guidelines for what a cache is, and then strictly observe them?
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:Thanks for listening.
No problem. And thank you for sharing!
Getting an idea of how people feel about locationless caches, and why, is exactly what I was hoping to do here. I appreciate your input.- Zuck
[This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on March 18, 2002 at 09:40 PM.]
-
quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:Actually, I saw that. A conceptual discussion of locationless caches would have been off-topic for that thread. In addition, it is in "The Unusual", which is not the place for general discussion of concepts (unless they are concepts regarding UFO-proofing GPS receivers, but we've already had that discussion.
)Ah. I was thinking of "Unusual" as in "not your usual type of cache." In any case, I've definitely noticed that discussion threads posted under the General forum seem to get a lot more hits than those posted under the other categories.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:Actually, I saw that. A conceptual discussion of locationless caches would have been off-topic for that thread. In addition, it is in "The Unusual", which is not the place for general discussion of concepts (unless they are concepts regarding UFO-proofing GPS receivers, but we've already had that discussion.
)Ah. I was thinking of "Unusual" as in "not your usual type of cache." In any case, I've definitely noticed that discussion threads posted under the General forum seem to get a lot more hits than those posted under the other categories.
-
(Re: above post) LOL...now I've seen it all! Haiku described by way of haiku!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:So far, of 244 people who've visited this discussion thread, only 27 have voted.
That tells me the poll answer for the large majority (89%) is:
[_X_] I couldn't care less one way or the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk-eye:Well actually no ... it could just show that folks are stopping back in and viewing the results ... after they've voted. Just like I've done twice.
Ah, ok. I've opened the thread several times, myself. So, apparently it doesn't count the number unique visitors, but just how many TOTAL visits?
-
So far, of 244 people who've visited this discussion thread, only 27 have voted.
That tells me the poll answer for the large majority (89%) is:
[X] I couldn't care less one way or the other.
-
It never ceases to amaze me the different ways people think up to play with their gadgets.
)
ATTENTION ALL FLORIDA CACHERS
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Whew, I'm glad you didn't name yourselves the Florida Association of Geocachers.