dprovan
-
Posts
7479 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dprovan
-
-
On 12/22/2022 at 3:42 PM, barefootjeff said:
I guess it depends on what you see the purpose of the game to be. If it's about scoring quick-fire points in a play-at-home phone game then fine, but if it's supposed to be about getting outdoors and visiting interesting places then perhaps not. Maybe it doesn't matter much to an individual but it does have a longer term impact on the community and their expectations.
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.
On 12/22/2022 at 3:42 PM, barefootjeff said:It's been recently suggested that my higher terrain bushland hides are killing off the game here and I should instead be putting out trails of quick and easy roadside micros because that's what today's players and the newcomers who've been drawn in through phone-based gaming want. Maybe that's true, and the distribution of find logs in this region suggests it is, but I think it's a sad shift in the spirit and intent of the game.
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.
-
On 12/22/2022 at 2:56 PM, Max and 99 said:
One impact these had on me: I drove two hours for new ALs, with plans to find some other geocaches while there. I arrive, spend a lot of time walking around the area, trying to figure out where the source of the location answer was. Maybe the coords were just off? After finding nothing, talking to people in the area, and then the staff, I figured out these were virtual adventure labs. There's absolutely no reason for me to drive out there and nothing for me to see. Huge waste of time. It never occurred to me to check the geofencing, as I made the assumption there was something to see there that would give me the location answers, but I'm working on that.
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.
-
On 12/22/2022 at 2:43 PM, HHL said:On 12/22/2022 at 2:36 PM, dprovan said:
but then I realized there couldn't be any other ALs in the area because they're all here, right?
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.
-
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?
-
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
Unnecessary if you load the ALs and location details into the cache while you have signal, if you just browse the map while traveling through, and have no signal, the app may see your location but it won't register your visit to the location until it's cached the AL contents.
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.
-
.png)
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Z_Statman said:
Recently I downloaded over a 1000 caches w/n 50 miles of my home location and the average D/T was 1.6 and most about .5 miles from a road - P&G proliferation is getting out of hand
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.
-
6 hours ago, fizzymagic said:
I understand the argument that the reviewers are likely those with the best local knowledge and existing relationships to deal with maintenance issues...
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.
6 hours ago, fizzymagic said:Perhaps with better community tools, a local caching community could deal with these issues without having to turn the reviewer into some kind of "enforcer." Sadly, with Adventure Labs, HQ seems to be moving in the direction of less community involvement, not more. Still, there are many ways that local communities can establish lines of communication to deal with these issues.
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!
-
32 minutes ago, edexter said:
Could someone enlighten me as to what The Reviewer role is once a cache has been placed and listed if it is not to monitor the condition of the cache to maintain the accuracy of the list?
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.
36 minutes ago, edexter said:Whose task is it aside from the CO?
It used to be everyone's task. Well, everyone *except* the reviewer.
49 minutes ago, edexter said:And when the CO abandons their responsibility who is supposed to step in aside from The Reviewer? Everyone who feels it is the COs job is correct but as my personal experience shows "urging" other cachers to maintain their caches fails because 1, they have left the game, 2, they just don't do it, 3, they get angry with you for suggesting it.
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.
56 minutes ago, edexter said:Try communicating with a few "no maintenance" caches owners it and see how that works out for you ;-)
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.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
Not in a remote area. See above map. Very few people live there to muggle a cache. Examples below.
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.
-
41 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:
Who said it wasn't there? An abandoned cache is still there; by definition.
No one knows whether an abandoned cache is still there. But the odds would be against it.
-
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
Not even when it's the only cache for 200kms? And even after that there might only be a couple of caches. So you would drive all day and ignore the cache. How many geocachers can manage that?
You'd rather have a cache listed that isn't there?
22 hours ago, L0ne.R said:It's unfortunate that TPTB are not concerned about a database that is so full of cache listings with long standing red wrench attributes.
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.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
We'll have to agree to disagree. They changed the name because of the issues raised by people who didn't like the name. You can debate as to whether those are good reasons or not, I'm not. That is all.
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.
-
15 hours ago, Team Canary said:22 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:
I dislike Adventures for many reasons so my solution is:
- I don't find Adventures / Lab Caches
- I don't care about other cacher's find counts or stats
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.
-
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.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
Implied intent by label vs what often happens with reviewer response. Already explained.
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.
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:"No one"? It happens.
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.
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:Some post it out of spite for a CO. Ire is raised. It happens. People reported getting po'd at wrong posted NA logs.
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.
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:I'm not stating my opinion or that this is the only or best solution, I'm just pointing out past sentiments expressed that almost certainly led to this move.
Right, that's what I said: the whining lead to this move.
-
9 hours ago, HHL said:
No. The 100 km fence is to unlock the "Answer" button within the app. This has nothing to do with answering later. If a Lab has a 20 m fence and you've unlocked the answer by visiting the location within these 20 m then you are able to answer the question later, even more than 100 kilometres away.
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.
-
On 12/13/2022 at 6:31 AM, thebruce0 said:
But there's a much greater difference between the implied intent and practical outcome of "Needs archived" and "Reviewer attention requested".
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.
On 12/13/2022 at 6:31 AM, thebruce0 said:If it gets archived after a reviewer attends to it, that's on the reviewer, and almost certainly called for. That is different than inter-user debates because a user keeps seeming to want caches "archived" when all they want is for a reviewer to check it out - or they don't post it because they don't actually want the cache archived, just a reviewer to check on it. Again, vaguely recalling past discussions about the matter.
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.
-
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
Yeah I think the push long ago to move away from "Needs Archived" was due to the practical aspect of what actions the log prompted. More commonly people were saying that the log was being used incorrectly or out of spite, that quite often the CO and reviewer determined it didn't need archival, etc. I think the sentiment was that the wording was pretty harsh - in a newer/younger/modern community - whereas in the early days it was likely all serious hobbyists who were playing the 'game' and were more likely to understand what the log implied and when to be used.
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.
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:These days I think the wording was adjusted to more accurately reflect what happens to the listing after the log is posted.
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.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
Ok you selectively chose not to quote the qualification for my statement. "unless there's a clear indication that it should be there but still can't find it." If it's clearly under a lamp post, for example, but there is nothing there, then the listing is not accurate, and it absolutely requires owner maintenance. I could just log a DNF, but I could also feel absolutely confident that a OAR log is appropriate. That goes for any listing for which the cache location or hide can be known with certainty. And, as I said, how would one describe the distinction between someone who thinks they know for certain, and someone who absolutely does know for certain? So I reiterate, "it might be missing" can be a legitimate reason for the log.
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."
-
28 minutes ago, niraD said:
I have friends who are lawyers. Not all lawyers are created equal. But yeah, the ones that demand idiotic "you clicked a link" popups when the user clicks a link are right down there with the marketing types who demand similar usability nightmares.
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.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
The tough part is - that is a legitimate reason for the log.
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*.)
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, A J Pombo said:
I think most owners don't check if the maintenance request is true or not, nor do they register the maintenance visit to remove this attribute from their cache.
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.
-
3 hours ago, edexter said:
dprovan's comment: "he should be asking why COs in his area don't maintain it correctly. And I mean literally asking the COs since that could actually make a difference, as opposed to complaining on the forums" makes the naive assumption that I haven't already done so.
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.
-
13 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
I thought that too, but I have noticed a few times a cache I have put a NM on has had a reviewer come in, after the CO has been given time to fix the cache. No other DNFs, and finds either side of me. Doesn't happen often, but it happens.
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.
-
1
-
.png)
"Virtual" Adventure Lab
in Playing Adventures
Posted
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.