TeamVE

Yes, I agree that it would be nice to have a way of counting the number of UNIQUE viewers. Until then, all we have is "VIEWS" Which doesn't seem to work quite the way I expected: When I started this poll, I discovered,after I had viewed it three times myself, and at least one other person had voted, that the "VIEWS" count was (insert drum roll) 0 (Yes, that's a a zero)

In addition, you also may want to check out www.mngeo.com and/or any of the organizations on the state search page (You can get to it thru "search by state" on the main page) At least one county park system specifically ALLOWS geocaching, thanks to the dedicated work of a number of Minnesota Geocachers.

Out of curiousity, I posted a poll about TB statistics here

There have been a number of ideas here: What statistic would people like to see? If you have a suggestion, feel free to post it... [This message was edited by Team VE on November 19, 2002 at 09:50 AM.]

quote:Originally posted by welch: Thats the same arguement that another supporter of the bug made and i still think its flawed.. It's odd that you never mentioned that opionion in the appropriate thread when I made that contention before. quote:_Yes, Lets_ FTR- you were the one who started "us" off topic with who was referring to which thread etc... You may want to check your records there: I have only dealt with subjects here that have been mentioned here. I'm waiting for you to return to the appropriate thread if you want to continue your arguments and personal attacks there. [This message was edited by Team VE on November 18, 2002 at 06:58 PM.]

The Leprechauns: The reason I jumped on your 'Question' was the fact that said thread has been languishing for a week now with no rebuttal. It seemed to me that the "Question" had been closed and that it was clear that the CB-GPSR's travel bug www.mngeo.com is a legitimate bug being used legitimately within the bounds of the geocaching system. I respect your right to place an opinion. I believe that you should also respect my right disagree with your opinion. ------------- Welch: Interesting of you to bring that survey back up again now: Let's check the current stats.... Out of 797 views 35 against 12 for {Insert Math Here}(by rounding 797 to 700 to compensate for potential duplication) 5% against 2% for 93% don't care enough to vote. If you really want to bandy statistics, by looking at the ID #'s it looks like there are currently slightly over 85400 user ID's registered with the website. Should we recalcuate with that number? -------- Now, shall we get back to the topic of THIS thread? I belive that there is no one statistic that will satisfy everyone. A nice solution would be if Jeremy & co had the time to make it so you could look at one of a few different statistics, perhaps even with a way to suggest statistics of your own that you'd like to see. Nice, yes... A Priority? That's why I'm not trying to make an issue of it. [This message was edited by Team VE on November 18, 2002 at 03:05 PM.]

Perhaps I should make my Avatar a lemming since I'm posting this here....

quote:Originally posted by The Leprechauns:...Now there is a question whether THAT method is being abused, through giving out a bug's code number ... If you are referring to This Thread I must take issue with your remark: Having been there and having seen said travel bug in person and currently possesing one of the infamous "note log tags" I can tell you that the intent of www.mngeo.com is not for the number to be passed out willy nilly, but rather to simplify the logging of a bug that makes it to a large gathering. As was pointed out in This Thread since the statistic is Travel bugs "Owned/Found" not "Owned/Moved", and notes posted on a TB count as "Finds" the BEST method of logging a bug that you FIND this was the method chosen to record the activity of the Travel Bug. If instead everyone had posted a "Found it" and "grabbed it" would you be any happier? Would that have been any less legitimate? Anyway, back to the main point: Everybody is going to care about a different statistic. I myself would prefer a top ten based on mileage, with all bugs that have been found by less than 3 accounts filtered out to remove TB's like Tabitha, but I also think that there may be a few issues that Jeremy is working on that are more important than setting up a way for everybody to pick a preferred statistic... [This message was edited by Team VE on November 18, 2002 at 02:58 PM.]

quote:Originally posted by The Leprechauns:...Now there is a question whether THAT method is being abused, through giving out a bug's code number ... If you are referring to This Thread I must take issue with your remark: Having been there and having seen said travel bug in person and currently possesing one of the infamous "note log tags" I can tell you that the intent of www.mngeo.com is not for the number to be passed out willy nilly, but rather to simplify the logging of a bug that makes it to a large gathering. As was pointed out in This Thread since the statistic is Travel bugs "Owned/Found" not "Owned/Moved", and notes posted on a TB count as "Finds" the BEST method of logging a bug that you FIND this was the method chosen to record the activity of the Travel Bug. If instead everyone had posted a "Found it" and "grabbed it" would you be any happier? Would that have been any less legitimate? Anyway, back to the main point: Everybody is going to care about a different statistic. I myself would prefer a top ten based on mileage with all bug that have been found by less than 3 accounts filtered out to remove TB's like Tabitha, but I also think that there may be a few issues that Jeremy is working on that are more important than setting up a way for everybody to pick a preferred statistic...

Shouldn't there be three clues and a thinking chair involved? (Sorry, I couldn't resist... My 2.5yr old loves Blue, so I've seen way to much of that show ) Cool Bug!

quote:Originally posted by welch: quote:Originally posted by Team VE: ...I would guess that the CB-GPSR's are either _a)_ waiting for a resolution to this discussion, because out of how many x thousand geocachers there out there, a poll with less than 100 replies is statistically insignificant,... you're right, but if we go with the "what a few out of thousands think" doesnt matter, how can you prove that those thousands that havent vote DO approve of this bug? so we're stuck with those who DO come to the forums, and more of them think this bug should be "wacked" than dont. Welsh's point is well taken that of the people who have chosen to vote in the poll are at the moment weighted in the favor of those who object. However, here's the numbers we perhaps should be looking at. At the moment, the Poll thread shows 756 views... Of those viewers, 35 Voted Whack 12 Voted No Whack Approx 709 said "I don't care enough to vote" The reason I said approximately, is of course, there will be multiple countings, etc, etc. so the total number of views will be greater than the number of actual cachers who looked at the thread, unless there is some filter on the "Views" total... Jeremy would have to answer that one. The point is that for the most part, it seems that the peoples mandate has been "Who Cares?" It's a lot easier to get people fired up to vote "No, I don't like that" than to get people who don't care to actually say "Why should we do anything?" The real number we should be looking at is the number of people who have looked at the poll vs. the number of people who have cared enough to say that the bug should be reworked... That number seems to be around 5% against and 95% don't care or say leave it alone. As for Team Dragon's response quote:Quote:Q. What is a Travel Bug? A. Simply put, a Travel Bug is a new form of hitchhiker you can track on Geocaching.com. A hitchhiker is basically an item that is carried from cache to cache (or person to person) and you can follow its progress online. So, the only objection based on the "Definition" of a Travel bug is the fact that the bug has not yet moved to a second cache? Does that mean that is CB-GPSR's passes the bug through another cache in Minnesota, as is their STATED intention on the TB page, that the bug is just as valid as Team Dragon's 84,000+ mile Tabitha? I think what we REALLY should have is a way for each individual user to pick what statistic they want to view their "Top 10" by. For me, I'd rather see bugs ranked by their milage, and filter out the ones that havn't left their masters (Such as Tabitha) than by this arbitrary "Found By" count. I've been ignoring that list ever since Key to the Nutria & the Wyle Coyote clones took hold of the top half of the list. To me none of those are travel bugs, but rather cache components in an area that I'm not going to be in anytime soon. I havn't made an issue of it because, frankly, I think there are more important things out there on the website than to set Jeremy & co. on reprogramming TB stats.

As for Team Dragon, you might want to check out this "Travel Bug" Team Dragon's Mascott. I seem to recall someone complaining to Centris that for one of her TB's she had logged 17 of the 23 moves on the bug.... And I think the other point that has been missed is that it is explicity stated in the TB description that once the initial note tags are depleted that this bug is/was going to be released into the wild. I would guess that the CB-GPSR's are either a) waiting for a resolution to this discussion, because out of how many x thousand geocachers there out there, a poll with less than 100 replies is statistically insignificant, gone hunting, or c) spending time with their 3 week old daughter. I know I'm not CCCooper Agency... Sometimes I find it difficult to move a bug on for a month or so when, as a parent, my free time just doesn't exist.

my 2 cents: Glisher is making a federal case of this just because THE WAY THE WEBSITE WORKS. When you "Post a Note" on a travel bug, it counds as a bug found for you and a finder for the TBug. CB-GPSR's didn't make it work that way, Jeremy did. He complains that this bug is "cheating". But Glisher has stated that he doesn't log his finds on the website, that's why he only registered a user name this week. (I would likr to point out that many of the MNGEO's who have logged the TBug are Charter memebers that have PAID to belong to this website., Who has more stake in the rules? A paying member or a troll?) And, since Glisher doesn't log his finds on the website, why should he care about a TBug? Personally, If I ever caught up with some of the people who move travel bugs around without logging them. Those are the type of people who make others reluctant to let their travel bugs go. Frankly, I remember not to long ago, when the TB top 10 list was based on Mileage. Of course, Jeremy ended up changing that because there were too many people who were hoaxing the milage on their TB's by moving them around the world virtually. In the end, it boils down to this: for the most part, this is an entirely legitimate Travel Bug under the current rules. For the most part, everyone who has logged it has come into physical contact travel bug itself, with the exception of a log or two that was generated by a few overzealous cachers (You can't blame the TB owner for that, that could happen to ay legitimate TB). The spawned TB's are physical objects that were originally attached to the main TB when it was released, and each has its' own unique ID above and beyond the base TB tracking number. The tags are not being attached to other bug by the CB-GPSR's but rather by the cachers who 'found' them and who wish to spread the knowledge of the MNGEO website in the Minnesota area. I actually think that 4 of the other Top 10 bugs are what I would rather call 'Cache Components' instead of Travel Bugs: Key to the Nutria & the Wyle A,B,C & D Operators. Their purpose is not really to Travel as much as to be in a variable location to increase the difficulty and challenge in finding a particular cache. Kind of like making a multi-cache using other peoples caches. If you really want to whack this TB those bugs should be knocked out too. OK, OK, I'm getting off my soapbox now... I didn't intend to get going so far on this one, but I was the one who made the observation to Markwell that 'posting a note' seemed to be the most legitimate way to tally a TB that you 'find' but leave in a cache because you are not in a position to help further it's goal. (Wonder Woman) TB Stats Discussion Thread I mentioned this at a MNGEO event and may have given the CB-GPSR's the idea for this bug in the first place...

quote:Originally posted by Lazy Leopard:I'd like to see a distinction between bugs currently held and bugs which have subsequently been placed. That'd give something like "Owned/Held/Moved" rather than "Owned/Found". ...and on the other matter, isn't it perfectly possible to add a note to a bug (if you have its tracking number) without actually grabbing it? Purrs... LazyLeopard I agree that Lazy Leopard has pointed out the correct way to log a Bug you 'Found' but didn't move. I myself 'Found' Wonder Woman (TB699) recently, but I KNEW I wouldn't be able to help her on her quest. But I noted her TB number so I could post a note along with a picture I took. I admit, I was originally going to do a 'pick it up and drop it again' with her to get credit for the 'find', but someone else picker her up to help her on her way before I could get to my computer. So I just posted a 'Note' rather than mess up the tracking system. I discovered that simply leaving a Note on the TB page (since you still have to have the tracking number) gives you a 'Find' credit. As for the Stats, I also think that Owned/Found/Holding would be good. Perhaps by adding that 'Holding' number we'll be able to get a few MIA bugs that are sitting on shelves moving again. I know it won't help with the ones that have gone unlogged and MIA, but perhaps it would speed up the turnover of bugs that spend a month or two in hibernation... Just my $.02

I agree that people logging 'Surprise' bugs should at least make some attempt to contact the last known holder of the bug or at least wait a little bit to give a person a chance to drop the bug. I would even like the idea of the alert on the website reminding people to give this courtesy. On a recent weekend caching trip , I dropped off a TB (Clean the World #2) (TB3ADA) at RR Gone Bye-Bye (GC792B). Wrote down the date and time in the log, and took a picture with my digital camera so I have the timestamp of when we were at the cache. The next morning when we got home, I went to log the drop and discovered that the bug was no longer in my inventory! Lookinh at the last edit time on the log where it was picked up, it appears that the pickup was logged less than 4 hours after I dropped the bug off. At the time the bug was being logged as picked up we were still at our next cache for the day! I've emailed the person who picked up the bug indicating the several methods we could use to straighten the bug log out, but havn't heard anything in reply in the week since then... I just would like the bug to get the credit for the 57 miles we traveled. So that's my $.02 worth..

quote:Originally posted by ThatRoyGuy:Maybe a different way to approach this is to have the option to be e-mailed about the caches you've found, since they're already being tracked for your account. That way you only need to actually watch caches you haven't found. There is a solution now, at least for those who have stepped up to charter membership: Check out the options on the 'Pocket Query Generator'. You could set up a query to specifically return the caches you've found or just the ones with a TB, etc... Even though the idea is targeted at handheld users (Palm, etc...) there IS a free reader appication that lets you read the ebook format on a Windoze PC (unfortunately for everybody else out there) (Think Different!) As Jeremy works out the details on the next format (GPX), it looks like there will be an open standard coming up that should open up a range of applications to handle the data...

quote:Originally posted by Moun10Bike:They have a web site at http://www.militaryspecialties.com, If you try clicking the original message link it might not work. It appears that the comma got included in the URL. try This

I'm not commenting on machete wielding geocachers here. Since the thread is about cheating hurting other , I would like to point out that Aloha has been found. Given what I know of the finders, if they say it's there, it's there...

I'm not commenting on machete wielding geocachers here. Since the thread is about cheating hurting other , I would like to point out that Aloha has been found. Given what I know of the finders, if they say it's there, it's there...

For those of you who followed "JayCookeStaff"'s rants about the evils of off-trail activity and how that isn't allowed in state parks: I present an intersting little article. http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/outdoors/3817376.htm The article doesn't state the date of the competition, but from eroom's comments on August 3 at 'Cooke's Cache' (GC194D) http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=6477 I think we can figure it out what day this was... My question for the geocaching community & the State Park officals who sanctioned this event is this: What is the difference between this sport and a geocache? My answer: Geocache = 15 - 30 visits per year based on a typical cache. People generally taking their time and respecting the environment. 'Rogaining' = 24 visits in a single day, with people "Butt-Sliding" through the 'sensitive environment' Which do you think causes more damage

In playing around with new pocket queries, I set one up to email the files to my work email as well as to my home, because the files were getting corrupted thru the webmail gateway I had to use to get my home email at work (that was before the Zip file feature which works just fine ) Now I tried editing that search, which was based on my home coordinates, to give me the caches centered around the zip code of my work. When I look at the query, everything shows up just like I set it up, ZIP code & all, but it is still returning the information based on the Lat/Lon search that I originally created the query based on. (My H.C. and work are 40 miles apart so the difference is pretty clear) Anybody else try to edit a quey and have something like this happen? I'm thinking it might be related to changing the search criteria type from a Lat/Lon to a ZIP based search..

In playing around with new pocket queries, I set one up to email the files to my work email as well as to my home, because the files were getting corrupted thru the webmail gateway I had to use to get my home email at work (that was before the Zip file feature which works just fine ) Now I tried editing that search, which was based on my home coordinates, to give me the caches centered around the zip code of my work. When I look at the query, everything shows up just like I set it up, ZIP code & all, but it is still returning the information based on the Lat/Lon search that I originally created the query based on. (My H.C. and work are 40 miles apart so the difference is pretty clear) Anybody else try to edit a quey and have something like this happen? I'm thinking it might be related to changing the search criteria type from a Lat/Lon to a ZIP based search..

Just My 2 cents worth Just for an open and honest record: here is a transcript of an email I sent to 'JayCookeStaff' after reading KingBoreas's log threatening to place 10 caches in the park: ----BOM (beginning of message) Dear Mr. Westerberg, Since I cannot be certain that you are w atching the commentary currently going on within the geocaching community, I am taking the time to write you this letter. While I am disappointed by the stance and attitude displayed by your postings, I do not aggree with King Boreas an d his angry response. While your posts were noted and being commented on by users from Washington to Maine, the majority of the caching community, such as in Pennsylvania and Virgina where geocaching has become and accepted use of state park land, are me rely disappointed in such behaviour from a state employee and only desire to improve the understanding and cooperation between the geocaching community and responsible state agencies. (I believe I can connect you with information about those states progra ms for granting geocaching permits if you are interested). That aside, in my efforts to understand the applicable statutes, I would like to know what statute you base your threat to have a tax paying, state park permit carrying member of the general publ ic arrested for trespassing on. So, once again, in closing: Please note, that of the several hundred people who read and were offended by your attitude and comments, the vast majority continue to work within the system, without threatening reprisal (aka 'I've got 10 caches with your name on them) to reach a point where there can be an agreement and understanding that geocaching is a reasonable recreational activity that can continue in a safe, environmentally friendly manner. "Cache in, Trash Out" LanceVE for TeamVE -----EOM PS. In my searches of state statues, it seems that under the section dealing with abandoned property, that if they can identify the owner of the property, they are REQUIRED by 2001 Statute 16B.25 Sub 2 ( http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/16B/25.html ) to notify the owner (by registered mail of all things) and provide the opportunity for the owner to reclaim the property (unfortunately to do so, said owner may be charged the cost of them going out to remove it) [This message was edited by Team VE on August 01, 2002 at 06:48 AM.]

I would suggest Jay Cooke State Park..... Except that, for us, it would be too far for a simple trip. Travelling with a 2 year old and another due in October kind of limits things for the moment...

I would suggest Jay Cooke State Park..... Except that, for us, it would be too far for a simple trip. Travelling with a 2 year old and another due in October kind of limits things for the moment...