Jump to content

carleenp

+Charter Members
  • Posts

    4782
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by carleenp

  1. They are happy to stay as an officer, so all is well.
  2. My assumption was that if I didn't hear from them they were likely inactive or uninterested and I also would prefer active accounts as officers even though in reality I always approve the waymarks rather quickly. I also don't want to make anyone be an officer without their permission. Anyway, I did hear from them. They had no idea that the group/category even existed. I'm waiting for them to respond as to whether they want to stay as an officer or if they want me to demote them and find someone else. I'll do whichever they prefer.
  3. I asked the other Officer if he promoted them and he did not. The FAQ makes it sound like only I can do so. But I bet it was some sort of automatic thing not covered in the FAQ. If I don't hear back from the person promoted in a few days, I'll recruit another officer and then set up the vote to demote them.
  4. Yes, I know. As I said, I misspoke. Group is Pokémon, Category is Pikachu Sightings.
  5. I messaged the person to see if they want to be there as an officer. It is fine by me. I just wanted to be sure there wasn't something weird going on! I can't find anything in the FAQ about automatic promotions.
  6. I have a Waymarking group (pokemon sightings) and after an officer quit the group, suddenly a new one appeared who is a person I do not know. I did not add them. Is this an automatic function? They don't appear to be a person who added a lot of waymarks to the group. I sent them a message to see what they know of it, and they are welcome to be an officer if they desire since we do need another one, but mostly I am mystified as to how it happened. The group is active and waymarks promptly approved etc. The person never contacted me asking to be an officer.
  7. This! ^^^^ I note that the person quoted started in 2002. Quality was easier to find then, but as he noted, this issue was also still there at that time, just not as overwhelming as it is now. It has gotten more challenging, but still is easy. Go old fashioned and look at the maps. Find the green park areas and caches rated above one or two stars. Take a hike and find something nice that way. I don't bother with anything these days that isn't a bit of an adventure. I prefer it that way. That is not to be a knock against the numbers crowd, to each their own, but I personally have gotten pickier and picker as time goes on.
  8. I put this on Facebook just a bit ago, although Nate corrected me and the photo was actually in Florida: As a bit of background, Joe saying "sign my name!" is one of my favorite memories of him from a crazy and fun 24 hour caching run years ago and it was a long standing joke with him. He truly was a great figure in geocaching and a truly good friend. I was in Nashville just this past weekend and thought about contacting him but didn't because I was on a tight schedule. I regret not doing so now. The caching community has lost an icon and a precious advocate and friend.
  9. Wow! I knew that you were around when I started caching, but I had no idea you went back as far as you do! And yeah... Mitsuko!! Now, there was a sock!! I'd like to see Mitsuko and BobLog in a steel cage, Jello wrestling match. That would indeed be interesting.
  10. I did the same and have a ton left. I plan to go back and add some more since my first run through was fast and ignored a bunch of archived caches. But I'll still have extra. I think the number of points I have left will balance out over time though because I no longer go on cache runs as often as I used to and tend to only go for ones that particularly appeal to me now. So, I imagine that I'll be earning less new ones but will be giving more away.
  11. Nope.. I'm picking out my favorites regardless of their current status. Maybe an archived one with loads of votes will spur someone else to put out a replacement, or at least look at what makes a good cache. I've used 104 of my votes and 25 are on archived caches. Another 200+ votes will probably never be used. I've seen a few votes on archived caches. Makes sense. If a cache was a favorite of yours the fact that it archived shouldn't change a thing. I put a favorite on an archived cache and will likely go back through and add some more. What I've done so far were based on just a quick run through. I figure my favorites are my favorites, archived or not, but the archived status does make me want to think about them a bit more before losing a point on one.
  12. LittleDogWithNoTail is a premium member and is often along when we go caching.
  13. The dog parks I have been to in my area have all been quite clean. But the parks here tend to enforce things quite a bit and many of them require pay permits, which I think helps. I also think that many dog owners are quite conscientious about cleaning up after their pets. Unfortunately there are always a few bad apples in every group though. In any event, if it is a concern, using the ignore list is always a good option.
  14. I'm so sorry for your loss. Tia was obviously a great companion.
  15. Hi Matt, I listed your caches a little while ago. You fixed the issue with them and reenabled them just after I left town for the holiday weekend. Thanks! Carleen (Electric Mouse)
  16. I saw this on Facebook just a bit ago and thought it could apply pretty well to any internet interactions: "Attitudes are contagious, make sure yours are worth catching" I must say though, I have seen some pretty darn hostile internet forums. I don't think the ones here are all that bad.
  17. I think Palmetto hits on a real problem with the idea. I do like in theory the idea of a place where people could ask reviewing questions and get answers. But most reviewers are pretty busy already and/or don't post on the forums all that much. Further, as others have pointed out, the best place to get the answer is with the local reviewer who may or may not be reading the forums. Sending an email with questions is likely the best option. I know that in my capacity as a reviewer I like to be as available as I can be and I try to answer questions that are sent to me as quickly as I can, but even then I often have some lag time in responding. I definitely wouldn't have the time to also monitor another forum and respond there as much as I would like. I also think that it would lessen my enjoyment of interacting in the forums as a regular geocacher. Reviewing takes an awful lot of time, more I think than many realize. So finding volunteers to add even more onto their duties could be a bit difficult.
  18. carleenp

    Allanon

    I was very saddened to learn today of Brian's passing. He will be missed. My condolences to all of Brian's friends and family.
  19. I have a Fossil canvas handbag that is generally cute, but fairly rugged, with several pockets, and on the larger side. After I tired of using it as an actual handbag, I took to carrying caching stuff in it.
  20. I think putting a sticker on the outside of a container, or even the outside of the log book, is tacky and amounts to minor vandalism. With that said, I don't think I would delete someone's log over it.
  21. Bitter? No...maybe surly, but not bitter. I also find it strange that "squid" was removed from the banned substances list after 2006. Explain that one... Ingestion of squid, while it can be disgusting, does not affect the ability to geocache, not positively anyway. As a member of the SOUSGE Board I take offense at all of these suggestions of impropriety on our part.
  22. There is no magic number in terms of hides for reviewers, and some don't have numbers as high as you suggest. Instead, the question is whether the person has shown that they know and respect the guidelines for hiding a cache. Owning many caches that conform to the guidelines is one way to demonstrate that, but it is not the only way.
  23. I ignore most tiny caches and give up looking for other ones rather quickly. I just don't care all that much if I don't find any particular cache. However, I have been known to obsess over a difficult puzzle or two.
×
×
  • Create New...