Frolickin
+Charter Members-
Posts
357 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Frolickin
-
Jeremy, This is not my preferred method of doing this, but these trouble tickets have gone unanswered dating back to March. Follow-up e-mail to to contact@, approvers@, the local approver, and Heidi has been ignored. Nate has addressed most items that fall into his realm. Will you please look into the following trouble tickets? #125724 (the added part after Nate addressed the initial item) #124031 #123180 #118000 #109701 #104065 #104147 #103916 #99834 Most important, will you or someone please contact me about these tickets? If they are to be dismissed, I would appreciate someone telling me that there is no interest in addressing these items. Thank you kindly, Fro.
-
There's not much school (at least public) in New Jersey during November (Veterans Day, NJEA Convention, Thanksgiving, half days for parent conferences, Election Day [i am not certain if anyone gets that off anymore though]). As for the Murder Mystery idea, sounds interesting. If you take it south, you could incorporate it around this cache. That might make it fun!
-
16 February 2004 is when the fence was first mentioned.
-
Cute. That is an interesting cache. The logs indicate there is a fence around the area leading to the bridge. That indicates to me that whoever put the fence there intends the bridge to be off limits. If the bridge is off limits, why is this one still listed?
-
I had hoped there would be a response from TPTB regarding my question. What is the proper protocol should I find a cache that is buried? Suppose there is a cache that is not in a natural hole, does not require an instrument to retrieve the cache, but was obviously dug to place . . . what would GC.com have us do with such a cache?
-
Secret/private/unreleased Caches
Frolickin replied to BassoonPilot's topic in General geocaching topics
As you know, yes, some folks truly seem to need the smiley that bad. What I have found interesting is that some people will skip the "other" cache (Navicache, private label, etc.) that is KNOWN to be in the same park, etc. because they do not get a smiley. Even when it has been reported that the "other" cache is a better hunt than the smiley-getting cache, people just do not seem interested in the cache unless is attached to the log. -
So, what is the proper protocol when finding a cache that has been buried? Is a SBA note appropriate or is there some other mechanism that should be used? For instance, there are a couple caches listed here that are now known to be buried. Are they left alone or will something be done about them? Just curious . . .
-
What Do You Want To Ask Your Fellow Geocachers?
Frolickin replied to Jeremy's topic in General geocaching topics
Perhaps these can be combined somehow with in a CITO section: Do you pick up trashed caches? Do you pick up abandoned caches? A question I have been interested in is whether folks will re-visit an area for a cache that has replaced a former cache. The wording of this will need to be tightened up, but if you found cache A, cache A is archived, cache B is placed in the same spot or very near the same spot, will you seek cache B? If so, why? If not, why? And for argument's sake, consider the area normal (nothing special like a mountain top, etc.). -
I have been trying to drop off some hitchhikers into one of my caches. Each time I tried to write a note on the page while selecting three hitchhikers from my inventory, the log failed to post because of the "Disk Full" error. Then I tried to drop off just one hitchhiker with the log. That seemed to work. Now I cannot get back to the cache page. Each time I try to access the Bombs Away cache page, I receive the following: An Error Has Occured The process cannot access the file "e:\caches\xml\121602\121602.xml" because it is being used by another process. On my cache page, I now see three notes posted to this cache. It seems like there are issues right now.
-
another possibility
-
Name 3. Please read what you quoted from my post again. I stated there were plenty of stats sites that exist that are able to generate the stats desired without having GC.com generate them. Here are three:So Cal Arizona Zinnware As you very well know, there are more than that too. As for naming a stats site which compiles data without violating GC.com's TOU . . . my site does so. No, you don't get to see it, but I will describe how one could do so without violating the TOU. Become a premium member. Place all the caches you want statistics from on your Watch List. GC.com then e-mails the logs of each cache you want stats on. This does not scrape the data, it does not put an unusual load on the site, etc. It is within the TOU. For discussion's sake, let's assume you want to track all the caching in Arkansas. Place each cache in Arkansas on your Watch List. Then create a one table database. That table could contain two fields: cacher and cache. That is not copyrightable material. When the e-mail comes in, add the two pieces of information to the table. To get the leaderboard, create a simple query. Basically, query your one table for the cacher and the cache. Set the the cacher to MAX and you have a leaderboard for the state of Arkansas. There's a little up front work to get the data in. Once that is done, it's a maintenance issue . . . for a state about the size of Arkansas, I estimate about spend about 15 minutes per week to update. Which is why my method will not work for you. But, those who have invested a little bit of time and effort into the process now have the stats desired. You? You are still complaining and apparently do not have what you desire. As I said to RK above, I am out of options for you. Nothing I can offer will satisfy your desires or RuffRidr's. I think you two have mis-read my side of the discussion. Nevertheless, best of luck to you in getting what you want.
-
There are plenty of stats sites that exist that are able to generate the stats desired without having GC.com generate them, and at least one which does so without violating the TOU. So, there is a procedure in place that is opt-in and can handle caches from multiple listing sites, but is worthless because people do not want to do the work. If cachers are not willing to participate (meaning actively logging their own number), then I do not have much more to offer. My understanding is that Dan's site violated GC.com's TOU. It sounds like this is a settled issue then. If the owner of the data does not want to offer this, there are alternatives. You and some others have dismissed doing the work to get what you want. I am out of ideas for you. The data exist. The data can be compiled. The rest is up to you . . .
-
Yes, right here.
-
Exactly. And if they are provided here, they do not include the online logs from Navicache or my site. You are the one who said . Everyone's participation can never be had.
-
Again, the same interest can be served, with no more expense to you, for Keen People to include more than just the US. I assume that is the case, I do not use that site. Further, because they are already in the stats business, as it were, and include stats from more than just one listing site, it can a better option than starting from scratch at GC.com. But, your reason for stats does not jive with RuffRidr's. If a leader board were built to show the above, it would read Lynn BruceS etc. but that doesn't help RuffRidr see how he ranks in his state. If we further break out the stats to list who has the best combination of cache density, time and resources to go hunting them by state, then someone will come around and state that it really is unfair because cacher X includes 256 locationless caches and cacher Y doesn't use a GPS, and cacher Z lives in an area with micros under every lamppost. Some would argue that because apples cannot be compared to apples, the mere compilation is problematic. Still, there are ways around that. It does not take a great effort to do what it seems like people want on your own. It would not be anonymous. I live in New Jersey. If StayFloopy were not to opt-in, everyone looking at the stats would know the anonymous cacher at the top of the list is him. That does not make Floopy anonymous. Isn't it Germany that has an active caching community at Navicache? Because you or someone else is not interested in including those caches, we can dicard them? Creating this for a given area, Finland for instance, is easy to do, can be done without violating GC.com's TOU, does not require everyone to participate, and gets you what you want.
-
Actually, Keen People is very much germane to this discussion. If you look at where I introduced that into the discussion, it was to offer RK and RuffRidr a solution to their problem. So, please do not be nasty. The short answer is because what you are paying for doesn't offer the feature you want, whereas the other site very well might. Your response further enunciates that we all play the game differently. And because of that, the validity of these statistics is flawed. Nevertheless, the stats are there for comparison, yet, it is too much work for people to update, people to visit another site, someone to maintain his own spreadsheet, etc. People are shopping for a solution that satisfies everyone. Like much in life, there is not one. I knew it was a mistake to offer my take on this here. Continue to beat this drum . . .
-
I have no idea if there are stats for Finland at Keen People or elsewhere. I think it would be an easy add-on for Keen People to provide you such a feature. Of course, building it yourself is an option.
-
You are incorrect. Do you use MS Office? Provide me your e-mail address and I'll send you an Access database set up to do so. It really is easy. That is a strong opinion and you are welcome to it. Mind you, it is also against your stated reason for wanting stats: I want to see where I rank among all the Geocachers in my state. So, in reality, you wish to compile stats in the manner in which you see fit. That may not be in the manner I see fit. Which does not necessarily jive with Team 360. We each play the game differently. If you want to filter the stats to fit your needs, do it yourself. Again, it is not that difficult. You want GC.com to change its policy to meet your needs. You want those who oppose stats to acquiesce to your wants. You want to exclude finds from other sites. You want to exclude (and call names) anyone who doesn't play the game the way you do. Perhaps now it becomes a little more clear why folks have an aversion to having their stats used as a comparison tool. You play the game one way. I play it differently. Team 360 plays it another way. To play the way you want to play, means we all have to do it your way. Again, you will not know how you really rank in your state. Again, because people are not playing it your way, you are imposing changes that affect us all. Perhaps because one has to manually update it and it's too much work, it really isn't as in demand as it is made out to be. If you want something that badly, you will find a way to have it. I have offered you two solutions to which you have expressed an unwillingness to do for the amount of work it will take you. It depends how it's done as to whether it is within GC.com's TOU. Scraping data violates the TOU of this site. Fair to everyone who agrees with you . . . not to everyone.
-
Just for the record . . . The Geocide in question This does not mean I'm leaving and never coming back.
-
But you do not have everyone's participation. No matter how this thing is built, you do not get Green Tartan, TwoTasselLoafers, MattedCat, Red Lips, and Full AmmoBox's statistics. If it only works with everyone's participation, then it cannot work. If it can work without everyone's participation, Keen People is already there.
-
Okay . . . then why isn't Keen People all you need? You can have your fun there. Does it need to be based here? If so, why?
-
I do not feel inferior to others caching. The number of FTFs tells one what? That some people are SAHMs? That some folks are retired? Others unemployed? The leaderboard tells you what? That some folks travel a lot and are able to have a flexible schedule? Doesn't Keen People have a leader board? Those who want it have opted in. Those who want this feature keep their stats up-to-date over there. I believe someone even created an application to make that routine even easier. Other than not having it posted on GC.com, what is lacking from that leader board? Once you have experience, you know who is visiting your caches. If there are names you do not recognize logging your caches, they are most likely new . . . at least new to the area. That alone should provide you enough information to determine whether or not you should check up on your cache. Put that in context of the recent finds, logs by known local cachers and you have all the information you need. A leaderboard is not needed for that example. The number next to my handle builds trust with you about the comments I may make about geocaching? Yet, that number does not include the finds I have for caches listed on other web sites, temporary caches, private labels, etc., which as time moves on is becoming a sizable number. So, GC.com not having the ability to compile those numbers already diminishes the trust you have for me. The number of times I successfully found a cache does not make my opinion more valid. The old way violated GC.com's TOU. The more this and other topics are discussed, the more I am inclined to think that the game would be better played without online logs and compiling numbers (as well as these fora). A site that listed only caches and their descriptions would lose the disputes in the fora and the trouble with logs. Sure, we might not know whether a cache is there or not with the absentee cache owners, but that seems a small price to pay to spare the incessant drolling on about being able to compare ourselves to one another. You want my membership dollars to finance what you are unwilling to do yourself? Blah! If you want this, make it happen. It isn't that difficult. Create a database or a spreadsheet. Enter the cacher, the cache found, and the date that cacher found the cache. Now, go through each cache in your state, and enter the information into your database/spreadsheet. After that, create a query to count the number of logs by cacher in the table. The technology to do what you want is rather basic these days. And you do not need a website at all to accomplish what you want. Irrational? That is a fallacy. Let's play this out a bit . . . Let's say Team 360 lives in your state. You get what you want and can look at the stats and see you are ranked 21st (or whatever, it does not matter). But you know Team 360 has more finds than you. So, now you know you are 22nd. Above you are five cachers who are listed as anonymous, but you know them to be Cacher X, King Cache, I Want 2 Cache, Cacherella, and CacheMom. You know these cachers by name because their logs have been public for four years and everyone around knows these folks. They have just opted not to share their stats. A year from now, as you expand your caching circle (you have now moved up to 11th in your state and only three anonymous cachers remain ahead of you), you begin recognizing a name of a cacher (or two or three or four or whatever) that seem to be in every cache you find. Not only that, but those names are nowhere on GC.com. Furthermore, as time moves on, you notice that those same cachers are logging caches in your home area. At an event you mention that you have been seeing logs of Green Tartan, TwoTasselLoafers, MattedCat, Red Lips, and Full AmmoBox in every log you find these days. The others attending also mention it. Someone even states that MattedCat and Red Lips are always the FTF on caches. How do you rank in your state? And if it is more than five unknown cachers, can you imagine, six people finding a cache and not logging it online for you to see how you rank in your state. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in the woods finding a cache and not logging online. And friends they may thinks it's a movement. Keen People has a leader board. It is opt-in. It allows you to compare yourself to everyone else in your state who wishes to participate. Why does GC.com need to be involved in this? Why not Navicache? Why not my private caches? Why not Criminal's? Keen People allows one to input all caches found. It allows those of us who wish not to partake to not be included. Why doesn't this satisfy your desire?
-
I do not believe it will go over well. From the guidelines:
-
Now we have the definitive answer to this question.
-
Unless something has changed, I believe that would violate the TOU for PQs.