Zuckerruebensirup

quote:Originally posted by bunkerdave: Of course, my immediate response was a BIG thumbs down, for all the obvious reasons. First, odds are, many, if not most of those caches would have SUCKED. Second, it would be nothing more than Geotrashing, and it would only increase the risk that more caches would be abandoned, and draw the attention of an already hostile environmental extremist faction in our state. And so on. These are excellent points. I would rather have a few GOOD caches, and approval of the NPS and similar organizations, than to have a bunch of poorly planned/implemented caches, and a poor reputation with the people we don't want to get on the wrong side of. quote:Originally posted by bunkerdave: I notice the OP is from MI. I do not know off the top of my head how MI is doing cache-wise, but let's assume this is an effort to jump-start the caching in your area. Areas like Detroit (and its suburbs) are doing great. I just happen to live in a little 'one-traffic-light' town, where caches are few and far between. But I wouldn't trade my daily (and ongoing) breath of fresh air for all the caches in the world. I enjoy being out in nature, and don't really need an excuse to do so...it's just that the caching adds an element of fun. I can be patient. Here it is, still middle of dead winter, and new caches are popping up here and there. I'm sure it'll only get better once nice weather gets here to stay.

quote:Originally posted by mcb: I wrote this for the "pay to play..." thread but Jeremy close that behemoth of a thread before I could post mcb, you make some very good points. Thanks for sharing them! P.S. In your initial comment, I believe you were thinking of the Are you going to charge us to go Geocaching? thread. The Pay to Play? one is still open.

quote:Originally posted by mcb: I wrote this for the "pay to play..." thread but Jeremy close that behemoth of a thread before I could post mcb, you make some very good points. Thanks for sharing them! P.S. In your initial comment, I believe you were thinking of the Are you going to charge us to go Geocaching? thread. The Pay to Play? one is still open.

quote:Originally posted by Jeremy Irish: Weird old posts keep cropping up with futuristic dates. Any idea what's causing that?

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis: I suppose that hiding and placing are both fun in different ways. Hmmm...here's an idea that I bet no one has posted on the Unusual forum before: What if someone buried themself alive (with an airtube, of course ), and posted the coordinates for geocachers to find them. Maybe they could turn it into a blind date kind of thing, with a "Finders, Keepers!" theme. ____________ (Note: FTR: Just in case anyone is tempted to flame me for this outrageous suggestion...it's just humor. I'm not seriously suggesting it. It's just what popped into my mind when I read Nemesis' comment.)

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis: I suppose that hiding and placing are both fun in different ways. Hmmm...here's an idea that I bet no one has posted on the Unusual forum before: What if someone buried themself alive (with an airtube, of course ), and posted the coordinates for geocachers to find them. Maybe they could turn it into a blind date kind of thing, with a "Finders, Keepers!" theme. ____________ (Note: FTR: Just in case anyone is tempted to flame me for this outrageous suggestion...it's just humor. I'm not seriously suggesting it. It's just what popped into my mind when I read Nemesis' comment.)

quote:Originally posted by Web-ling: Placing caches is just about as much fun as finding them. That's all the incentive I need. Please come place some in my area! It's getting so I have to drive nearly 100 miles round trip to find any new caches. {sigh}

quote:Originally posted by Web-ling: Placing caches is just about as much fun as finding them. That's all the incentive I need. Please come place some in my area! It's getting so I have to drive nearly 100 miles round trip to find any new caches. {sigh}

quote:Originally posted by Elias: I agree that there are far more positive reasons to allow editing of posts so I've disabled the time restriction. Yay!

quote:Originally posted by Elias: I agree that there are far more positive reasons to allow editing of posts so I've disabled the time restriction. Yay!

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis: Check out these threads: Thank you for the links. It sounds to me like the general rule of thumb varies depending on the variance of the terrain and quantity of nearby caches, etc. Really, all it takes is a little common sense and curtesy. (Not so easy for some, I realize.) I suppose it only makes sense that in urban areas, just by sheer numbers of population, there will be more geocachers...and thus more geocaches than in less populated areas.

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis: Check out these threads: Thank you for the links. It sounds to me like the general rule of thumb varies depending on the variance of the terrain and quantity of nearby caches, etc. Really, all it takes is a little common sense and curtesy. (Not so easy for some, I realize.) I suppose it only makes sense that in urban areas, just by sheer numbers of population, there will be more geocachers...and thus more geocaches than in less populated areas.

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis: In looking at the results of your poll so far, many seem to be opposed to it. Yes, I was surprised to see absolutely nobody has thought it was a good idea so far. (I imagine you're right about the number of poor quality caches that would get placed, just for the sake of making a quota. That wouldn't be a good thing.) But, oh well, it was just a thought. quote:Originally posted by Nemesis: BTW, It's great that we can now change the Chartered Geocacher label to plain old Geocacher. Yes, I agree that was a nice change. Along with those who've gone back to 'Geocacher', it's been interesting to see the other creative titles people have given themselves.

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis: In looking at the results of your poll so far, many seem to be opposed to it. Yes, I was surprised to see absolutely nobody has thought it was a good idea so far. (I imagine you're right about the number of poor quality caches that would get placed, just for the sake of making a quota. That wouldn't be a good thing.) But, oh well, it was just a thought. quote:Originally posted by Nemesis: BTW, It's great that we can now change the Chartered Geocacher label to plain old Geocacher. Yes, I agree that was a nice change. Along with those who've gone back to 'Geocacher', it's been interesting to see the other creative titles people have given themselves.

Hmm...I hadn't thought about the fact that it might encourage a bunch of poorly thought out caches. Point well taken. Maybe there could be standards set for what qualified, i.e., no virtual caches, micro-caches only if they are part of a multi-cache that ends with a regular 'trading' cache, etc. The thing is, whenever you try to put qualifiers on something, it often gets subjective, and leads to arguments. It might be trickier to implement than I was originally thinking, but I still think the idea merits some thought. Personally, I'd like to see more caches in my area...and in rural/small town areas in general. Big cities seem to have huge concentrations, but us country folk often have to drive a long way to find new caches.

Hmm...I hadn't thought about the fact that it might encourage a bunch of poorly thought out caches. Point well taken. Maybe there could be standards set for what qualified, i.e., no virtual caches, micro-caches only if they are part of a multi-cache that ends with a regular 'trading' cache, etc. The thing is, whenever you try to put qualifiers on something, it often gets subjective, and leads to arguments. It might be trickier to implement than I was originally thinking, but I still think the idea merits some thought. Personally, I'd like to see more caches in my area...and in rural/small town areas in general. Big cities seem to have huge concentrations, but us country folk often have to drive a long way to find new caches.

quote:Originally posted by JeepNAz: Frankly Ive heard (read) about all I care to about Pay to Play or Charter Members or MoCaches or...AdInfinitum IM GONNA GO FIND A CACHE! Thanks for bringing us back into focus.

quote:Originally posted by JeepNAz: Frankly Ive heard (read) about all I care to about Pay to Play or Charter Members or MoCaches or...AdInfinitum IM GONNA GO FIND A CACHE! Thanks for bringing us back into focus.

quote:Originally posted by seneca: Yes I have read all of these -- although I agree some responses have had a whining (and sometimes rude) tone to them -- the gripes are overall legitimate (not necessarily correct but legitimate). [...] I am certain that Jeremy would much rather have these concerns brought to his attention than having them surpressed Yes, you have a point, seneca. I agree that the feedback is legitimate...it's the tone that tends to get my hackles up. Thank you for helping me to remember to listen to others' points of view...even if I don't necessarily feel the same way. They have just as much right to share their opinions as I do...that's the beauty of freedom of speech.

quote:Originally posted by seneca: Yes I have read all of these -- although I agree some responses have had a whining (and sometimes rude) tone to them -- the gripes are overall legitimate (not necessarily correct but legitimate). [...] I am certain that Jeremy would much rather have these concerns brought to his attention than having them surpressed Yes, you have a point, seneca. I agree that the feedback is legitimate...it's the tone that tends to get my hackles up. Thank you for helping me to remember to listen to others' points of view...even if I don't necessarily feel the same way. They have just as much right to share their opinions as I do...that's the beauty of freedom of speech.

quote:Originally posted by BrownMule: Why should jeremy take the hit for this. The sport is building and there is no need for incetives to hide at this point. My thought was that the incentive will lead to more caches...and more caches will lead to more seekers...and more seekers will translate into more people who'll likely sign up (and pay for) memberships. So I doubt he'd be taking a hit. Plus, how many out there, thinking they will hide 12, will only end up hiding 10? That'll be a bunch more caches at no cost to Jeremy. (Besides, he wouldn't be actually be 'paying' for those memberships...he'd simply be allowing extra people to use the premium services for a year at no charge. Chances are they'll not want to lose them, and they'll pay to re-enlist...another bonus to Jeremy.)

quote:Originally posted by BrownMule: Why should jeremy take the hit for this. The sport is building and there is no need for incetives to hide at this point. My thought was that the incentive will lead to more caches...and more caches will lead to more seekers...and more seekers will translate into more people who'll likely sign up (and pay for) memberships. So I doubt he'd be taking a hit. Plus, how many out there, thinking they will hide 12, will only end up hiding 10? That'll be a bunch more caches at no cost to Jeremy. (Besides, he wouldn't be actually be 'paying' for those memberships...he'd simply be allowing extra people to use the premium services for a year at no charge. Chances are they'll not want to lose them, and they'll pay to re-enlist...another bonus to Jeremy.)

I've always tried to be discreet about what I'm doing, so I try to keep my GPS out of sight as much as possible, so people aren't as apt to get curious, and discover the cache.

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis (in this thread): I have spent many hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars putting together, hiding, and maintaining my 30 or so caches. Is that not contribution enough to the sport? Maybe I should get a free year of subscription I think Nemesis was just kidding, but actually, I think that's a great idea! Jeremy, what do you think of the idea of offering everyone who places (and continues to maintain) a minimum of 12 new (non-MOC) caches over the course of a year (that's averaging one per month) a free membership for the following year? I think it would be great incentive to get people out there adding new caches. And think of the additional exposure your site is likely to get. Plus, it might ease the concerns many people seem to have that the new mocache feature is going to kill the public cache stats.

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis (in this thread): I have spent many hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars putting together, hiding, and maintaining my 30 or so caches. Is that not contribution enough to the sport? Maybe I should get a free year of subscription I think Nemesis was just kidding, but actually, I think that's a great idea! Jeremy, what do you think of the idea of offering everyone who places (and continues to maintain) a minimum of 12 new (non-MOC) caches over the course of a year (that's averaging one per month) a free membership for the following year? I think it would be great incentive to get people out there adding new caches. And think of the additional exposure your site is likely to get. Plus, it might ease the concerns many people seem to have that the new mocache feature is going to kill the public cache stats.