Jump to content


+Charter Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Frolickin

  1. 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)










    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,


  2. Nice - pulling the kids out of school in Nov for Disney...
    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!

  3. Sounds like those "more experienced cachers" would have potentially made excellent high-level military officials. :o

    Cute. B)


    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?

  4. 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?

  5. Do you need a friggin' smiley THAT bad?

    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 icon_smile.gif is attached to the log.

  6. 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 . . .

  7. 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.).

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

    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



    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.


    It has time and again been pointed out that manual updates (even from those who care) is absurd.
    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.

  10. Stats to be useful to those who liked them, or for the other things you can do with the same information that people who don't like stats did use they need to be complete within the limitations and flaws of the system.
    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.


    Keenpeople is incomplete. So far as I know I'm the only person who uses it in this town. That makes it worthless because there is no real basis of comparison.
    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.


    Especially in light of Dan's old site that was pretty good overall.
    My understanding is that Dan's site violated GC.com's TOU.


    GC doesn't allow the collection/use of the publially available data and GC doesn't offer these services.
    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 . . .
  11. If they're not logging online, then they won't be included no matter how a stats site is run.
    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

    stats are meaningless without everyone's participation
    . Everyone's participation can never be had.
  12. I already know they don't, so it's my interest to get the site I already am an avid user and member of to offer me one.
    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.


    I'm aware of that. Heck, I myself don't log finds for locationless caches. Thus, many people who do, would be 'ahead of me' in the stats. Do I care about that? No, I'd still enjoy having numbers to see. Like someone said somewhere else, a leaderboard just tells who has the best combination of cache density, time and resources to go hunting them. So? I'd still like stats.
    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 be a treat for myself and others who like numbers and statistics, and when the default option would be anonymity, there's hardly any harm to anyone.
    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.


    like the breakdowns of different cache types in different countries (and states for you US people, of course :o ), different log types, caches/cachers per capita, caches/cachers per square area etc etc. I'd love those too.
    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.

  13. I noticed you don't. Still, you were busy to tell people to use features that even aren't there. No, there are no stats for any other country that the US at Keenpeople.com.  Keen People is an invalid argument in this discussion.
    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.


    I don't use Keen People. I use Gc.com. Why should I register to some third party sites - which often mine data from Gc.com anyway - and beg them for some non-existent feature while the site I'm already using and paying for could easily provide me one?
    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 . . .

  14. Because I don't live in any 'state'. I can't compare myself with anyone in my 'state'. What is this 'state' you are talking about?

    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.

  15. Oh come on.  If it was that easy for me to do, I would have done it by now.  It's a little bit more complicated than a spreadsheet I'm afraid.
    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.


    I have no desire to see the stats of people that don't even have the common courtesy to post a log online. In my opinion, they are parasites of the website who do not contribute in the spirit of the game.
    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.


    No, Keenpeople does does fulfill my desire. The one big drawback of that site is that you have to manually change your stats on their page. It is too much extra work for people to do everytime they log caches. That's probably why you don't see more widespread use of it.
    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.


    Another website could, and has done this.
    It depends how it's done as to whether it is within GC.com's TOU. Scraping data violates the TOU of this site.


    It would be fair to all, especially if it had an opt-in system.
    Fair to everyone who agrees with you . . . not to everyone.
  16. Because stats are meaningless without everyone's participation.

    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.

  17. The numbers on the leaderboard add some fun to the game for some and others who didn't care never paid attention. Does there need to be much else?

    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?

  18. I question wanting to hide the stats. The only real reason that I can come up with someone wanting to do that is from feeling inferior compared to others.
    I do not feel inferior to others caching.


    Stats don't really exist as such without a leader board.
    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?


    I use the stats pages to determine how expierenced someone is . . .

    The stats are indeed useful for legit things

    User logs DNF for one of my caches. Should I run out and check it?

    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.


    Stats are just another tool for build trust in a relationship or a transation. As mentioned above, if I know someone personally than that trust level is going to be higher than normal.
    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 actually had stats and a leaderboard.
    The old way violated GC.com's TOU.


    I disagree that stats are an "issue of the game." Geocaching would survive in much the same form as it does now if the site were to totally cease counting finds and logs and posts and everything else.
    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.


    I want to see where I rank among all the Geocachers in my state. . . . No website that I could set up would ever be able to give me this function.
    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.


    I'm beginning to wonder why some of you are so anti-stat. Most of the arguements against it are irrational to say the least. You are arguing not only to not have your stats shown, but to make darn sure none of us that want them get ours shown either.
    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?

  19. I do not believe it will go over well.


    From the guidelines:

    Cache Permanence


    When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) may not be approved. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.


    We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons.  Please do your best to research fully, hide wisely, and maintain properly for a long cache life.

  • Create New...