GeoMike11

I have thought about making a wood hiking stick that separates into two pieces when not in use. I was wanted to use the same joint as that of a cue stick. As anyone seen anything similar to this?

Hmmm.... then why are "stats" part of GC.com But I know stats are part of the game for some and if the OP wants credit for a find...then there seems to additional alternatives offered (IF the 3rd attempt on the log gets deleted )

Yep. Ah! Then it would seem TPTB "should" have a bit of a say. Not on the content...but whether or not it was a valid find.

I apologize in advance for the newbie question, but.... If the owner deletes the log....does that also remove the "find" from Captn Russell's numbers? If not, then I don't see what's the big deal (other than the owner being "difficult")

I prefer the sturdiness of a wooden staff. For "collapsability" ... has anyone seen one that could be broken down like a pool stick....perhaps in 3 separate pieces of 18 - 24"? Not sure how sturdy that would leave it....but just a thought.

That is true. But over time, the varied responses would average out to a rolling average....which, to me, would be useful. As it is now, the difficulty/terrain rating is relatively subjective...right?

No more than the 'Why did you choose that screen name?' or 'Who's lurking?' threads. Ya got me there!!

Enjoying the thread...but should this be in the "off topic" forum?

Why must they be gc.com-centric? Why can't they simply make generic references to things like rules? For instance, it was noted in an earlied post that TC article stated that something was "against the rules" and those were specifically the rules of gc.com. Why not just say that it is against the rules on "some sites"? Or even mention that is against gc.com rules...but there are different guidelines other sites (like 123.com, xyz.com, etc)

Isn't that why most businesses even have "articles" in magazines and newspapers....to "advertise" their existence? Do we really think most businesses have articles written for trade magazines, newspapers, etc simply for providing unbiased information about the subject matter.

I also took the time to read...and I felt it was an article simply explaining to the reader the gist of terracaching (which the title implies). I personally do not see this as a "rival" to gc.com...just a variant of the activity of caching. Something that SHOULD be in a magazine with the title and tag line that it uses.

Thanks for sharing the article. Now that I have read it....I am amazed that it is not in the magazine that touts itself to be for cachers everywhere. But they really mean "for cachers everywhere IF you subscribe to gc.com rules only" Which I find perplexing because it would seem to be in their best interest to keep the scope of the magazine as broad as possible.

Nobody would be debating this issue if the owner of TC wasn't starting these threads. I repeat, the owner of TC is the one who keeps starting these threads. I say again, for emphasis, the owner of TC is the one who starts these threads. For you folks at the magazine to get all indignant about some having criticisms of your mag is absurd when the OWNER of the mag keeps starting threads with titles like "Today's Cacher, biased?" For crying out loud, go publish the magazine, put whatever you want into it, stop posting about it here when the posts are nothing but flamebait. I completly agree!! And to add to it...it has also been suggested that these threads are to simply advertise the magazine.

Too funny!

Is there an "official" symbol that represents Geocaching (besides, of course, the gc.com logo)? Just trying to determine a signature item and was wondering on putting the gc.com logo on it or a more "generic" symbol that represents Geocaching. - GeoMike

That's right, it is subjective. If you don't want to deal with that type of guideline, then place a physical cache at or near the same location. Poof! You don't have to deal with subjectivity! Problem solved, I'll send you my bill. I completely agree that this a better solution! Makes the hunt more interesting as well. And I agree with the guidelines for virtuals being a bit more strict. Perhaps they should start removing the virtuals from the site that are no longer "up to snuff"? Hmmm...sounds like a good thread topic.... - GeoMike

But the WOW factor is different for everyone. How can it realistically be used to judge the acceptability of a virtual cache? Use other black and white guidelines...but not one as that is extremely subjective. GeoMike

That is definitely what is seems like. Otherwise, why even bring it up in these forums. So if it an be viewed as blatant advertisement...why isn't this topic closed and removed by TPTB? Hmmmm..... Just 2 days ago...they closed a topic just because TPTB "felt" like the rules were broken. - GeoMike Closing duplicate threads is not unusual. If you have an issue with forum moderation, take it up with TPTB. First.....to stay "on topic"...as a newbie...I enjoy Today's Cacher. And to be honest, I am still too new to even know that there be any gc.com centric tendencies in the articles. After reading this thread...I am learning that there are other sites I was not even aware of. And if the Editor, indeed, has no qualms about being gc.com biased...I am completely okay with it. But I agree with another poster that say "just remove the statement saying it was meant for Geocachers everywhere " Now back to responding to your statement.... Understood about the duplicate postings....but according to that thread, it was done in the multiple countries areas to insure folks in each country saw it. The original poster was advised that threads meant for all areas should be in the "Geocaching topics" area. The original poster also apologized. So if they are going to close duplicates...then close the threads in other listings and not the one in the area where the poster was advised it should be. So did TPTB close ALL threads on this topic in an effort to stiffle the dicsussion? And the point I was originally attempting to make is....they closed that other discussion very quickly, but I see this one continuing without intervention..even though one could very easily perceive the OP as advertisement My point is.....TPTB felt that duplicate post was a violation of gc.com policy and closed the thread very quickly to prevent further discussion. The OP on this thread seems to violate gc.com policy by being an advertisement for a "for profit" venture thinly disguised as an stating an "opinion" and essentially telling everyone that it was "tuff sh*t" if others didn't agree with him. - GeoMike

That is definitely what is seems like. Otherwise, why even bring it up in these forums. So if it an be viewed as blatant advertisement...why isn't this topic closed and removed by TPTB? Hmmmm..... Just 2 days ago...they closed a topic just because TPTB "felt" like the rules were broken. - GeoMike

If they are looking for a "wow" factor....then I have to say "Wow!....I cannot believe the approver did not think this qualified as a virtual". Of course, opinions might differ, but how is that different from this cache about atrain caboose or this cache about a train engine? Around these parts, these sights are almost "a dime a dozen". So why did they get approved as virtuals? Having rules is one thing...but this cache was not approved based on opinion...not the rules. (which is my opinion ) - GeoMike

I tell ya...a lot of the responses on this topic kinda has me wondering about the Geocaching community. They seem pretty harsh for a 20 minute Q/A session of which we really don't know the complete story. For those that say they would not have put up with it and just walked away. WOuld you REALLY do that if you were actually standing there be asked the questions? I seriously doubt it. If you, indeed, felt that authority stepped in and infringed on rights. How is that any different when a forum admin just "feels" like rules were violated in a thread such as the one about a "World Cache" and simply closes the topic? To me, that was pretty harsh treatment (and comments towards the original poster) by the Forum Admin. - GeoMike

No offense to traeumer (original poster)....but there is always two sides to a story. We have no knowledge of what information the FBI officials were actually acting upon when they first approached traeumer. For all we know, there was someone they were looking for that had the characteristics as that of traeumer at they time they stopped him for questioning. Just my thoughts..... GeoMike

Wow! Great responses. Good Idea about using the terrain rating. I was not thinking about that to at least give me a good query with which to start checking out the logs. I definitely will check-out the one at Sam Houston State park. I went to college in that area for 2 semesters before moving up to the DFW area and did not even step foot in the park. Now it's a good excuse to make a nastagic visit to the area. I also like the idea of stringing several caches together! Thanks all!

I have only found 8 so far...but all but 1 has turned out to be within a couple hundred yards of the nearest parking spot. One reason I started this was to get more active with the expectation that there would be a lot of hiking. Some of them are very obvious by the cache description...some are not. But even so...it seems one must look at the description page for each cache to determine whether or not a good hike is also involved. I was wondering if there was an easy way to find cache listings that required a good hike?

I am sure this will evolve into that eventually. But sponsorship would have to be based off of results at monitored Geocaching events and not the finds posted at Geocaching.com.