blackdog7

So this boils down to a debate over semantics and people being upset that others don't play the game the way they do. Is that about right?

I get that you loathe the numbers game, but it seems that you're still refusing to accept that Challenge-type caches don't exist simply to motivate high number finds. There are dozens in Alabama which require finding only a hand full of caches and not even on the same day. Why is it so unfair for some people to enjoy a part of the game that you don't care about? For example, these 'numbers based' Challenges you've found: GC3P070 - Finding 20 caches. GC3VBKA - Finding 50 caches. GC49YYB - Finding 100 caches.

I get that you loathe the numbers game, but it seems that you're still refusing to accept that Challenge-type caches don't exist simply to motivate high number finds. There are dozens in Alabama which require finding only a hand full of caches and not even on the same day. Why is it so unfair for some people to enjoy a part of the game that you don't care about?

Curious, was the creativity the cache itself, or it's hidden spot? One near us was a creative container, but replaced a number of times with some not so much. Seemed to get worse with time. IIRC, it ended up a pill bottle (from an ornate bird house) before it was finally archived. It's historic value was simply the date placed. Folks who tried to keep it going needed that date for challenges I guess. I'd say both, it was a cache hidden by hanging fishing line over, under then over a set of limbs in a tree. You would initially spot what looked like the log container hanging from fishing line, but the actual container was further up in the tree. You had to use the different turns in the fishing line as a sort of pulley system to retrieve the log. Several DNFs were logged because people saw the first 'container' and thought the log sheet was missing. As far as I know, one of the local cachers has taken it upon himself to keep it as close to the original as possible.

I'm not trying to prove anything. We've all seen good caches by newbies and terrible caches by oldies, and vice versa. My only point it that, as with all hobbies, a certain number of people will try it and lose interest quickly. A short waiting period would no doubt filter out a number of caches that probably shouldn't be published. Still, I doubt GS will (or even should) do anything about it. Again, this is why I appreciate the Needs Archived option. To be honest, one of the better and older caches in my area was placed by someone who was active for only a month or two...it has gone missing several times over the years, but due to its historic value (and creativity) local cachers continue to replace it and keep it alive. EDIT: I'm using the Needs Archived example as a remedy for these types of caches already in place. That's all.

A waiting period? Are we buying a firearm or geocaching? I've seen great caches placed by new players just as I've seen poor caches placed by seasoned players. To me it's more about the thought process of the individual when placing a cache. I don't see how a waiting period would change this. Perhaps reviewers are overwhelmed with the amount of new caches awaiting approval and poor caches are getting through. If this is the case, we should have more reviewers where needed. Just an opinion. As I said, I see the argument for both sides. A waiting period built into the review process would definitely filter out a few cachers who go missing after a week or two. With the smartphone app, we're seeing more one and done profiles being created. For example, we have a few caches scattered around the town where my wife's parents live...all put out within 10 days of the COs account activation and she hasn't logged in since a couple days after their publication. All caches are missing. The coordinates are on average 50-80 feet off. Since the caches are active, they are limiting the placement of new caches (a problem I'm attempting to deal with). My suggestion would've prevented this from happening. Is it really that big of a deal? No. A simple Needs Archived and eventually the caches will be replaced or archived. And I completely agree that the majority of thoughtless caches I've found were placed by seasoned cachers. I would much rather see Groundspeak ban lamp-skirt caches. EDIT: A waiting period for firearms!?! Who you kiddin'? This is America brah

This log was approved by my dog.

Court? Seriously? And what do you mean by 'cache maggots'? Yep. Just do a forum search on rome, new york. We've called cache thieves maggots since we started. What do you call 'em? Forum search: will do. Cache thieves: maggots seems appropriate.

Obsession with numbers/stats on their page. Plus, like with most things, there will always be cheaters who try to play.

Curious - how is that used? I would assume (hope) to unearth a buried or covered benchmark.

I don't think anyone is going to object to copy/paste on a Power Trail. In my opinion, the repetitiveness of a Power Trail warrants a copy/paste log. Also, as Uncle Alaska pointed out (and I think the varying opinions put forth here prove) there's really no reason to fret over the type of log you leave. You are eventually going to encounter a CO who disagrees with you.

I don't think anyone is going to object to copy/paste on a Power Trail. In my opinion, the repetitiveness of a Power Trail warrants a copy/paste log.

Court? Seriously? And what do you mean by 'cache maggots'?

That wouldn't change anything. For one thing, there are basic members who find PMO caches. For another, well, even premium members don't always take care of trackables. And third, ignoring what I already said, how would it help if so eon takes it from that PMO cache, drops it in a normal cache, and then the same caches picks it up and keeps it? With any trackable, there's the chance it will go missing, get stuck, whatever. You can try to slow it from happening, but you will never stop it. I've heard that before. It's a delusional disorder thinking that a PMO cache is any "safer" for a trackable. Sooner or later, it'll find its way into a regular cache.... then whatchagonnado? Probably the same thing as you are now... worry about it. Great points. I guess my thinking was that releasing it into a PMO cache would have delayed the inevitable. It is the first trackable we've released so I guess I had my hopes up too much.

I probably should've placed it in a PMO cache to begin with.

Offer to pay shipping to send it back to you. I've considered that. I would much prefer it find its own way out of Canada...seeing as that's where we started it off. I've checked several caches in the area this person has found most of her caches and they've been found a good deal in the last few weeks. I'm trying to avoid thinking that she' simply lying to me about it and has actually lost the TB. Hopefully I'm just being a pessimist.

I can understand that completely. The instance I was referring to involved a cacher with fewer than 10 finds. It seemed to me that they thought they were looking for a container. I don't think they realized the difference b/t an EC and a Traditional, and it was pretty obvious they hadn't read the cache page.

Anyone here from the Montreal/Quebec City area? I have been dealing with a cacher who seems to be from that area who refuses to release a TB I released during our honeymoon in Alberta last summer. She claims that all of the caches near her are either frozen or buried in snow so she can't release it. It is particularly frustrating because the TB has been moved only once since June. The person who originally picked it up is a newbie, logged it as 'discovered' and had an unverified email so I couldn't contact her. It finally appeared in a cache near Quebec and was picked by another fairly new cacher...who has had it for going on 5 months now.

I disagree. I've had three new ECs published in the last few weeks. But perhaps this is an issue with a specific reviewer. I also disagree here. The Netherlands contains a lot of rivers, wetlands and coastline, which means sedimentation and erosional processes. I think with enough effort, you could publish plenty of ECs associated with these bodies of water. You should also have a fairly significant amount of glacial deposits which would make a great EarthCache.

Haha. I logged an EC once that had a DNF logged previously. The DNF stated: 'Looked and looked but nothing was there. It may be missing." I'll let you guess how many finds the cacher had...

Rarely? We have/had 283 challenges in the state of Washington. Sure there are some challenges that require #s in a daily basis (17 of the 283), a monthly (4), a week (1), a year (3). That is 25 on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basis, probably up to 30 if you count other oddballs. So 30 out of 283 that require you to finish them in a period of time. Then there are streak challenges which could be argued for the numbers and if you are looking at just caching totals, like total # of finds, you can find those but I can find a huge # of challenges that have nothing to do with raw numbers, or worrying about finishing in a specific period of time. Course, a cache requiring you to find 50 earth caches total is just promoting earth caches, not making you do it in a week or month, just asks you to go out there and find earth caches, at your speed. For example, challenges in my state with no time restraints... Washington Delorme, County Grid Challenges (Skagit, Snohomish, Kitsap, Island, Spokane, Pierce, Thurston, King), finding caches in 50 different state parks, finding the 25 or so oldest caches in the state, finding old caches in general, finding caches on 2 dozen different islands, finding caches in rest stops, finding caches near lighthouses, hiking 50,000 feet of elevation, hiking 100 miles, complete the triad of caching, find caches from 50 different charter members, find night caches, find caches in 4 different geotours, taking pictures while caching, find caches in 120 different cities and towns in our state, find a cache in every county in our state, finish the Fizzy with caches in Washington, and find caches in cemeteries. Then there are all the challenges that you have to find ones with various names. No rush for those. Anyway, there are a ton of challenges out there. If one hates all challenges, one hates them. If one hates certain kinds of challenges, then there are probably many out there one might like. I personally do not like blackout challenges anymore and streak ones bore me (despite once having done 400 days), but there are many I do like. Folks should not hate all challenges because there are some they do not like. I do not hate all traditional caches because some are placed lamely in a Walmart parking lot. Personally I would agree with you, if there was a challenge saying find 50 multis in a day, that would promote sharing final coordinates, but we do not have that one and if we did, I would just hit ignore. I found one recently the OP would qualify for, it's called the No-No Challenge and it requires the finding of exactly ZERO caches: GC4MJXT. I think the beautiful thing about this game is that we can modify it to fit our own preferences. You don't like Challenge caches? Don't do Challenge caches. I love them, so I seek them out. The idea of speed-caching a 1500+ Power Trail where you move containers sounds like a complete insult to the game, in my opinion, but I'm not about to insist we ban Power Trails. And I'm a little surprised by this notion of a CO wanting to force people to avoid his caches as part of a challenge...that sounds very much like somebody imposing his own rules on the entire community.

This maybe makes sense to me because it was acting as a link but it took me to a geocaching.com page saying the link was broken or page expired. I'm away from the computer at the moment but can try again when I get home. I figured I was making a simple mistake. Thanks again guys. Yeah, you're providing a relative URL (so it appends www.earthcache.org to your current URL) instead of an absolute URL if you omit http:// Problem solved. It's working perfectly. Cheers

This maybe makes sense to me because it was acting as a link but it took me to a geocaching.com page saying the link was broken or page expired. I'm away from the computer at the moment but can try again when I get home. I figured I was making a simple mistake. Thanks again guys.

I will try those suggestions. Thanks.

I'm trying to add a link to the Earthcache website through an image on a cache page. I am absolutely ignorant when it comes to html/code. For some reason it says the link is broken when I try to use it. The html I entered is: <p style="text-align:center;"><a href="www.earthcache.org"><img alt src="http://s5.postimg.org/xnj82txrb/Earthcache_USGS.jpg" /></a></p> Can someone help?