Jump to content

dprovan

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    7479
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dprovan

  1. I suppose I meant they're rare broadly without worrying about how common they are in your area. Regardless of how many such hides you have, anyone that's complaining about them could, themselves, without blinking, put ten times as many of the cache they're suggesting your hide. So it's not your hides that are the problem, but the hides the people complaining aren't putting out. I don't think this is splitting hairs; I really think it's the only logical way to look at it.
  2. So you're worried it will kill of ALs? I was assuming people complaining about these were anti-ALs making the point that this proves ALs, in general, are lame. Thanks for making me aware of opposite position: that ALs are good, but these make them look bad. I can't imagine how anyone could think that a rare and out of the way kind of hide would prevent mundane hides, but this sounds like another topic.
  3. OK, thanks. I see. I was assuming you saw the mass and questioned it before going to look for them. I hadn't considered the possibility of thinking it looked like fun...only to discover it had nothing to do with the location after you went to all the trouble to go to the location.
  4. No, as there is no minimum distance (like we have for geocaches) for ALs. I was saying that it looked as if all the ALs allocated to the area must be in these ALs, so there couldn't be any used for anything else.
  5. I'm not supporting those ideas because I think they're pretty lame. But can those of you that have to deal with them go over the impact? I keep going around on it, and all I can think of is that you don't have any real ALs to do because they're all tied up in these. (At first I was thinking these would clog the AL app's making it hard to find decent ALs, but then I realized there couldn't be any other ALs in the area because they're all here, right?) Do they get in the way any other way? Yeah, it seems a shame they're being wasted, but if the owner doesn't want to make an interesting AL, what difference does it make if he doesn't put an AL out at all or puts one like this out?
  6. When I'm very careful about not using any other apps that might cause the AL app to forget what it's doing, and, of course, I only do that one AL, then sometimes I make it to the stages with the AL still active. As often as not, when I go look at the AL app, it goes to the intro screen and I'd have to, if I can, reload the AL from the network. The excessive fence allows me to unlock each stage as soon as I have the AL loaded, and, more importantly, see what questions I'll need to answer. I suppose in a perfect world, I wouldn't be a big fan of large fences in general, but they make perfect technical sense for ALs in areas with poor data reception. Of course, I'm talking about a real AL with physical locations where I have to go to each stage to answer the questions even when they've all been unlocked before I left home. The OP is talking about an AL that really appears to be virtual, with the intention being that you answer all the questions without leaving home. I don't mind owners making ALs like that if they want, but I also understand why some people think that going to the physical locations is a key part of ALs.
  7. The good news is that you can filter them out, and then you'll likely find far more caches of the type you want than you would have before park&grabs were popular. And if you don't, it's because people in your area that like them aren't planting them.
  8. I don't recall hearing that argument, actually. If I did, I'd point out that the reviewers' local knowledge and existing relationships would be better exercised in their roles as members of the community rather than in their capacity as reviewers looming over the community. I don't think the problem was ever a lack of tools but only that some communities sometimes don't use the available tools, and things go bad. People in those communities kept bitching about "cache quality" until GS took over and started eliminating both the tools and the standard of community involvement. Today, there's literally no way to say, "This cache needs maintenance." And the people cheer!
  9. In the modern world, GS has made that the reviewer's job, yes. As the game originally was designed, the reviewer (generally) only archived a cache when there was a request from the community via an NA with justification. That put the reviewer in a position that was always neutral, merely arbitrating when there was a problem. Nowadays, the reviewer is judge, jury, and executioner. It used to be everyone's task. Well, everyone *except* the reviewer. That's why the original official approach didn't have anything called "urging", it only has logs presenting facts: "This cache needs maintenance," and "This can hasn't been maintained, so it needs to be archived." Yes, it's true that the bogeyman of angry COs has always been around discouraging use of the system, but those angry COs are a problem in themselves, not something that can be "fixed" by failing to report maintenance issues using the appropriate logs. I don't remember ever getting a negative response to an NM or NA log except when the CO's objection was justified. I hear rumors about "no maintenance" COs. I've never run into one, but I pity people with them in their area. But, still, if I can't convince a CO to maintain his caches, the *last* thing I would want to do is allow the caches to fester waiting for someone "official" to notice the problem. I'd rather stick to the procedure and hope he either comes to his senses or leaves the game.
  10. That's fine. L0ne.R was talking about a general cache, hence my comment that assumed it would be missing. If you have additional information about a specific cache that causes you to ignore the red wrench in a very unusual scenario, go ahead and look for it. But don't pretend I was wrong to imply that an abandoned cache is very often a waste of time. But I think we agree on the underlying question: reviewers shouldn't archive caches just because they have the red wrench. I encourage local community responsibility precisely because your local community would likely all agree that those rare caches out in the middle of nowhere shouldn't be archived. I would say those caches aren't really abandoned so much as unwatched. To me, "abandoned" implies more than just it's uncared for: I take it as usually meaning that it's not worth caring for.
  11. No one knows whether an abandoned cache is still there. But the odds would be against it.
  12. You'd rather have a cache listed that isn't there? I'm fine with TPTB leaving it up to the community. But it is unfortunate that local geocachers are not concerned about local COs not clearing the NM flag.
  13. OK. That was my point all along. You can pretend this was a debate if you want, but you've just reiterated the same whining without actually addressing any of the objections. But that's what always wins the day with GS.
  14. Love this!!! I no longer look at others counts, they're irrelevant now. I assume what you two mean is that you don't compare other cachers' find counts to yours. I never did that, anyway. What I have always done, and what still strikes me as valid even in the face of ALs, is use the stats to tell the relative experience of the cacher. Sure, now there's a possibility of a cacher having thousands of finds that are only adventure labs, but I don't think the occasional inexperienced cacher that I mistakenly identify as highly experienced will be a big problem.
  15. Not practical. Progress towards the goal gets wiped out for reasons having nothing to do with what the seeker does. The number goes up and down all the time, and there's essentially nothing the seeker can do to ensure progress. Well, nothing that actually reflects the challenge, anyway. As it happens, it also violates the rules and would never be published, but that wasn't the question.
  16. Well, no. The implied intent is that the cache be archived unless it is, at the last minute, fixed. You're just pretending that that's not the implied intent by renaming the log, you haven't explained in what way it would no longer be the implied intent just because you call it something different. As far as I know, no one's claiming the outcomes will be any different, so, logically, there can't be any difference in the implied intent. Renaming only makes it less clear to people using the log that that's what the log will lead to. I'm not worried about hurting someone's feelings because they want a cache archived for personal reasons and they have to say "needs archived" to do it. In fact, one of my objections is that such scum can now legitimately claim that they weren't trying to get the cache archived, they only wanted the reviewer to look at it. How does changing the name help that? To me, it just takes an honest statement of opinion -- "this isn't being fixed, so it needs to be archived" -- and changes it into the passive-aggressive, "I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the cache, but a reviewer should look at it." That seems even more likely to be used spitefully, and even more likely to upset COs determined to get upset even when used legitimately. By the way, are you saying people reported that they themselves got upset with incorrect NAs? And they said they wouldn't get upset if the logs were called "needs reviewer attention"? I remember a lot of vague assertions that COs routinely get upset, but I don't remember any COs coming forward and saying they got upset because of the name. Right, that's what I said: the whining lead to this move.
  17. Yes, but remember that unlocking the answer requires having loaded the AL where you can and keeping it loaded until you get to the fence. The big fence allows the question to be unlocked wherever you are when you load the Adventure. Very frustrating to find myself in the fence, know what the question is and find the answer, yet not be able to unlock the question because the lab's not loaded. And loading the adventure later doesn't help because the question is only unlocked when you're in the fence with that adventure loaded and that stage open.
  18. Can you explain the difference? The only power the reviewer has is to threaten to archive the cache, so I honestly don't understand what the reviewer attention that is being requested is other than considering whether to archive the cache if nothing is done about it. I keep hearing "huge difference", and I keep asking what the difference is, but I never get an answer other than a vague claim that reviewers have explainable magic powers. No one *wants* a cache archived. But when the evidence tells us it has to be archived, anyway, the NA log points that out to the person that can archive it. You're vaguely recalling past discussions; I'm clearly recalling past vague discussions involving your kind of hand waving.
  19. Nothing about the wording change makes it harder to use incorrectly. In fact, it allows those intent on misusing it a passive-aggressive excuse: "Oh, I only said it needed reviewer attention. I didn't think that would cause it to be archived (*snicker*)." The original wording is, in fact, what the logs imply. It doesn't help amateurs to obscure that by changing the wording in order to make it seem like they imply less when they don't. Don't be silly. The wording was changed because people kept whining about it, not because there's any logic to it. It most definitely does *not* more accurately reflect what happens to the listing. A log asks for owner attention *because* it needs maintenance. There is nothing else a owner can do except maintain the listing. A log asks for reviewer attention *because* if nothing happens, it needs to be archived. A reviewer has no other power.
  20. You missed my point. "It might be missing" is not the reason: the *reasons* you're so sure are the reasons. I tell the difference between someone that thinks and someone that knows by the explanation that tells us all why they're so sure. That's what turns "it might be missing" into "you need to look at it."
  21. Unfortunately, I worry that it isn't the lawyers that are the problem, but rather a society that says when you do something stupid, it isn't your fault: the person who let you hurt yourself is legally responsible.
  22. I claim that "might be missing" is *not* a legitimate reason for logging an NM, and it shouldn't be encouraged. "Might be missing" is an opinion. Only facts should generate NM logs. So "many people have looked and it hasn't been found lately" is a good reason for an NM. "The hint clearly indicates it's hidden in a newsbox, but all the newsboxes have been removed from this location" might be a good reason for an NM. But "might be missing" is just an opinion, one lots of newbies have until they learn to look under lamp skirts. I've always been against these suggested renames. This is an example. Saying "needs owner attention" implies that there's a valid reason to call for owner attention other than it needs maintenance. This leads to the thinking that it's OK to call the owner's attention to it just because I couldn't find it. No, logging an NM should require me to have to good reasons to think that it actually does need maintenance, reasons that I can present in an NM log. (Oh, oops, NM logs are gone, too. Now I'm literally told to file a DNF and call for the owner's attention *because I couldn't find it*.)
  23. I'm sure it varies from place to place. Your numbers of 1 in 5 strikes me as high. But in my area, last I checked it was more 1 in 10. I think most owners just assume the maintenance is required and check the cache the next time it's convenient. Furthermore, most know to log an NM. But that still leaves lots of room for caches with NM set from the handful of owners that don't get it.
  24. Not a naive assumption, but, yes, I did take for granted that you hadn't talked to the COs because if you already had reactions from the COs, I would expected you to present those in order to make that the topic. The responses you've now told us about are the real problem that we can talk about solving. It's far less productive to start with the unsupported claim that the NM attribute is useless because you don't think it's being used correctly. But, I see, this way you got to call someone innocently trying to help you with your problem "naive", so that's always fun.
  25. Reviewers have always done that. I don't think it's driven by the CHS now any more than it was before the CHS existed. But I could be wrong.
×
×
  • Create New...