Jeep_Dog

Yikes! There's PM or "email" through the forums?!?!?!? (just goes to show ya that someone can easily overlook the obvious, and unintionally be rude...)

The 12 difference described here equates to Locationless Caches count. I noticed that last year, where the overall count for cachers includes locationless, but the locationless do not get picked up in the "records" count. Now, the disturbing bit about all of this is the fact that I noticed this phenomena in the first place...

Did you perhaps generate the PQ prior to logging the last 5 finds? How did you determine the PQ was only 1996 finds? Did your external program state this? If so, it could be you had 2001 finds on 1996 unique hides (eg, in the past took that "extra smiley" for being clever and breaking a "bonus" riddle or something along those lines). Just a couple of possibilities for consideration...

Mule Ears - Thanks for taking the time into researching this issue. You may remember meeting one of my caching kids at the CCR#2. He's one that is hypo-allergic to peanuts, and it can be life threatening. Also, hopefully, he can grow out of the allegy. At any rate, I was a bit surprised with the callous attitude displayed by many posting on this topic, but on the same thought was not at all surprised, since it appears many Americans cannot think outside of their particular understanding of the world. Hey - that's my society, c'est la vie, and I just "gotta deal with it." I believe it is certainly each cacher's responsibility to avoid circumstances where they may be injured or find other harm. Indeed, is that not what is behind the disclaimer of "Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache"? As a cache placer, I will place and annotate with terrain difficulty a "reasonable" assessment. As a cache seeker, I have and will continue to abort hunts that do not seem safe for either me or any other person in my party (if any are along). Now, my 2 year old caching kid sometimes lacks this kind of judgement, so I expect all cache owners to anticipate his peanut allergy and place caches accordingly. Alright, that was sarcasm. As a parent, it is my responsibility to look out for these circumstances and make that judgement call. I know, a parent excercising responsibility for their children can be appalling to some folks. If I see a container that seems to be very obviously peanut related, then I can explain that to the little one (he's quite keen on the allergy being life-threatening, and until he's probably 3 or 4, will willingly comply with avoidance of items deemed such), or abort the hunt. Again, MY responsibility kicks in here. Oh, yeah, and in the event of something overlooked - as Mule Ears mentioned, the epi-pen in the backpack is a back-up plan to good judgement.

Cache Stats is one of the easier ways, provided you put in "FTF" in the logs. It will pick up anytime you use "FTF" however, even if you say "Hey Joe, congrats on the FTF!" Link provided (logicweave.com) since I note the website mentioned above is incorrect. Hope this helps!

Cache Stats is fairly useful in generating cool stats, and even US/World maps. The program converts what you need into HTML and puts it on your clipboard for easy inclusion into your stats page.

Have you tried reading the guidelines backwards? After reading them backwards, the reviewing standards were perfectly clear. What was perfectly unclear, however, was why I had sudden urge to send Hydee chocolate and send $1000 checks to Prime and Rocky Mtn Reviewers.

I think there should be a "Signed Cache Log" online log. This type of on-line log should tally a count, but not count as a smilie find. See, that way, those who like to keep track of how many caches they have been to and signed the log, but don't want a "cache found" count, would still have a (unofficial) number. See?

Which ones do you find interesting? That could be an interesting discussion. I assume you do not refer to the "Not Another Altoid Tin! in Iraq" series.

Interesting. Over the 4th of July, I deliberately went after some caches that had NOT been found since last fall. Just for the fun and thrill of the experience. Sort of like a brand new cache (is it really there? - went through my mind), without the stigma of being burdened as an FTFer. Someone who caches with me, lately on a fairly regular basis, as an exception actually logs on line. I believe her thoughts are something along the lines of geocaching not being about the smiley icon and being about finding geocaches in great places. After reviewing the guidelines, I can't point a finger at her as being "wrong" with this opinion. She finds a geocache, she signs the logbook, if she takes something, she leaves something. Besides, she knows I will log the geocache (since as I point out, it is nice as a cache owner to get instant gratification with an on-line notification when a cache is found). I agree - one should log a "found it," but one does not have to log a "found it." Ah, such freedom, such Zen.

Yeah! No kidding! I have not seen a 2006 Jeep TB (GJTB?) within .... at least 2000 miles! Sheesh! Oh, wait a minute. DOH! Nevermind, since there may be a valid reason for this "coincidence" .... Hey, just pointing out the bright side - at least you've got one in your paws and have seen one show up in a cache. I'd piss myself just to see the icon on a nearby cache.

First, in reqards to your question about what to do - may I suggest to do nothing? Ignore the person. Most rude people feed off the negative reaction their rudeness creates. If this is not the case, then ignoring is still good since they probably will not listen to anybody. Now, about your concern for veteran cachers and feeling bad for them. Do not feel bad for them. If they are veteran cachers, then they can fend for themselves. Just believe me on that one. In fact, I would bet you will probably find that they are ignoring this rude person. Good luck.

Funny. I thought it was called "Space Mountain," and somewhere near Orlando... See, I learn something new every day.

Well, I wear a hockey mask and carry a chainsaw. I have yet to have a problem with muggles staying around to watch me. What was it that 2 dogs said? Trust me. It works. Now that I think about it, this method also works well in parks in full daylight. Never had a problem with muggles in an urban environment, either.

No, thanks especially to smart sappers who swing by and place patches in my cache. I (almost) feel guilty with the ease which I obtained one of these wonderful patches. Super patch, by the way - great idea. Cache on, brother. I had to abort a hunt a little up north since a sniper took a liking to the cache area. Scurvy bastard, didn't he know I had some caching to do, and only one day at that camp? Anyhow, I figured the caching gods were not favoring me that day, so I stopped hunting altogether for the day up there.. perhaps a re-try in a week or so.

My friend 2 dogs- perhaps these kind of numbers say more about the geocachers than about the level of difficulty of caches in a particular nation? It is easy to note numbers in the thousands, but how many U.S. cachers to you note the difficulty of cache finds and time caching for those under 1000 finds? If these folks were more "noticeable," would you think that looking at the stats and types of caches logged by folks (such as Criminal and Jeremy) indicated that, goodness, caches in America have a significant "wow" factor and require a bit of a hike? It is my opinion that the numbers of which you speak paint a more clear picture of the type of cachers as opposed to the types of caches. Sometimes, we find that which we seek, whether that be a "lame" cache or a trend of geocaching in a particular nation...

I shall assume that you search for honest opinion, as opposed to throwing a line in the Sea of Controversy and seeing what bites. Yes, I place micros. My first cache was a regular cache. I prefer regular caches, however, many interesting places just will not hold a regular cache, so I placed micros. Other caches are theme and/or mystery caches, where the micro serves a purpose in that the hunter must solve riddles (yes, multiple riddles on one of my caches) to find the cache, as opposed to accidently stumbling upon the cache. Finally, here in Iraq, placing micros is the sure way to ensure survival of the cache. Regulars get plundered quite frequently, so a regular has to be one that gets checked on serveral times in a day (literally) - I placed a regular within these constraints. Of my micro caches, I would say that the first reason (neat/interesting area will not hold a regular) is the most prevalent for the choice of micro. Now, on to the questions. I numbered them in the quote to make the response a bit quicker. 1 - Yes, I consider in placing a micro that it may be ignored because it is micro. I also consider that for a cache that requires a hike (I have several of these), a mystery/puzzle cache, and for caches in high muggle areas. 2 - No, other folks' practice of ignoring would not affect in any way my placing of a cache. I put the same effort and thought into each cache, regardless of others' opinions. Maintaining personal standards is interesting that way... 3 - Yeah, what about it? It is their loss, not mine. Ignore my caches, regardless of size, at your own loss. If an area is appropriate for a regular, it will get one. The fact remains that a lot of the really cool places to visit just will not hold a regular. I could care a less that someone has ignored a cool place to visit. That is their loss as opposed to mine. 4 - Fair? I could care a less about "fair." Why is "fairness" relevant in the act of ignoring my cache? First, life is not fair. So be it, I have come to terms with that. I hardly expect "fairness" in geocaching, but even if I did expect it in this activity, I am the one making the choice, so I am brining the lack of "equity" upon myself. 5 - Definitely not, since I would not compromise my integrity just to "bait and switch" someone into finding my cache. What a silly notion. Please refer to my answer for question #2 for more detail and thoughts... There. An honest opinion from a micro owner. I hope it helps in your quest.

Yeah, you got better things like reviewing new caches. Quit moderatin' and get back to reviewin', thankyouverymouch!.

I sure hope this one had some hints posted. We wouldn't want the nearby cement trampled and dug up. Back OT, micro-spew and lack of ingenuity on a cache like this that generates longer logs and aborted hunts than some regulars in the area? The point seems moot to me. Not all regular caches are great. Not all micros are terrible. Most probable is the fact that a cache's value is probably and attribute of the effort put into the hide, not the cache's size. Yes, yes, an argument could be made due to micros being cheaper, blah blah blah, easier to find hiding spots, blah blah blah, etc cetera ad naseum, but really the only true point in all of this is - put good thought into each and every hide!

Well, obviously I haven't cached very recently, but within the last couple of months. Anyhow, we currently have a 3 year old and 1 year old. Both love getting out and about, and the 3 year old loves caching (well, ok, my wife correctly points out she loves the things asscoiated with geocaching - getting out, new places, PLAYGROUNDS!, and exploring, while she passively enjoys the actual caching). Anyhow, the "HOW" is simple. Finding family-friendly caches anchored in or near parks (with playgrounds, of course) are the key. We did do one in the Black Hills that required a bit of a hike, and we just had to go very SLOWLY for the three year old to explore everything. Yes, everything, including the rocks. Anyhow, my profile gallery has many photos (you have to get past the first page if Iraq caching photos to get to the family ones) and my commentary on how caching with a family does not facilitate lofty find counts, but sure is very enjoyable. Oh, the tykes get carried. My wife carried the one year old on his first cache at 17 or so days old (had .6 mile each way hike - the Mrs. did very well!). Good quality kid backpacks are the key (I recommend Kelty - great packs with lots of pockets and features, and very comfortable). Even the three year old likes to climb up in the kid cachemobile when she needs a break. Yeah, I suppose carting around 30 pounds of kid and 20 pounds of kid support equipment also adds to the healtful benefits of geocaching... Gosh, I miss caching with my family.... sniff sniff.... EDIT: Wow. I just re-read a log for one of the last caches I did with the little ones, and it really sums up the "how" of caching with wee ones (and a good photo of the backpack, to boot). The log was for this cache, and I'll copy it here since I like how it sums things up... "Came to the park for Duck Duck Goose, with little intention of finding micros today (one and three year olds have very little tolerance for micros, you see). You see, when there's a one year old on my back, I have this new rule when it comes to micros of not spending more than a minute searching (unless the GPSr is pointing to an obvious, and smallish, landmark). The new location for this cache fit my new rules. The GPSr pointed to an obvious spot, and about 5 seconds of searching turned up this micro. Aidan and I signed the log, took a photo or two (will upload sooner or later), and off we went happily down the trail again. Oh, the other micro on the other side of the field? Ha! The GPSr pointed nowhere in particular, so we did not even break stride to search. Thanks for the cache. Aidan really liked the fire pit for some reason. He called it "CHOO CHOO," which is what he lately calls everything he likes. "

The TV guys have it in their hotels. Yeah, they pay "local journalists" to got out and "report" the news, since they are too fearful to get out and about themselves to find the truth. Then, you are correct, they toast themselves in their brave achievements. Way to improve morale, pig.

Has evybuddy ben drinkin twonight? Uh, for some of us, it is 7:00 am. So, that leaves out "everybody." Oh, yeah, and there's no alcohol here, either! (slaps forehead)

I BEG YOUR PARDON! What a mutinous thing to say!!! Unless you could include cache trade items as "bounty." Hmmm...

Awww, you are showing your compassionate side as a reviewer. Rats, we can't recruit this lad into the Anti-Reviewer Leauge (ARL) quite yet. Anyhooo, that was a very nice post, Frank. Er, I mean Spartacus.

"Premium Members, do they really think they are better then non-premium members?" Some probably do think that, most premium members likely do not. It is sad this type of thing happened to you, but I certainly would not generalize PMs based on this experience. Nor would I generalize any geocachers based on any one encounter. The fact remains that there are those who think they are better than others regardless of their membership status on a web site. There are also those that have many privileges and perhaps even "power" (as perceived by others), and excercise enormous humility and are down-to-earth (I think of several revewiers in this case). So, what's your point? Geocaching, like life, has many good things, and sometimes some bad things. It is what you focus on and how you treat others that makes the difference on how it affects you.