Dame Deco

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Hope that you enjoy another hobby--good bye.

Recently viewed takes up way too much space, and I don't want to see my friends logs. I'm going to have to unfriend them if this isn't changed. Why can I turn off my logs in their dashboards, but I can't block theirs? This makes no sense to me at all. Totally agree with the person above who said I don't need to be reminded of how many retired friends I have who can cache whenever they want while I'm at work. Let me turn off seeing my friends' logs.

I didn't see a place to turn that off--only a place to turn mine off on their dashboards. Did I miss something? Here's what I'd like an answer to: Recently viewed/friends logs takes up 3/4 of the page and the links to things I actually use in my dashboard are on a little vertical list off to the side. Why is that, exactly? Very confused...

Wow--the new dashboard is absolutely horrific. I mean like--the worst change GC.com has made to the site since I began in 2010. The recently viewed is BIGGER, darn it! It fills the page. And I don't want to see my friends' activities--how do I turn that off?

Or you could log a Needs Archived, wait for it to archived, and place a cache of your own there. Why preserve an old abandoned cache? Put out a new one and everyone that found the old one will have a new reason to visit the spot.

I would probably go with if I don't have the physical log to back up my decision, I would let it go and not delete the log.

Nature’s first green is gold, Her hardest hue to hold. Her early leaf’s a flower; But only so an hour. Then leaf subsides to leaf. So Eden sank to grief, So dawn goes down to day. Nothing gold can stay. The newness wears off everything in life. Things change. There are new things happening in geocaching, and if you don't like the new things there are still some exciting old caches to find. Back in the old days, you had to really search for caches and drive a long way to find them. Today, you have to work hard to find the kind you like and drive a long way to find them. What's the difference?

Being completely serious, and truly trying to help you, I would suggest that geocaching is probably not a good activity for you. You might want to try something else that you will find less frustrating. If you consider the gas and time to get to a sub-optimal cache container "wasted," then I don't think that geocaching will ever be enjoyable for you except under the most restrictive circumstances. Now, in less a spirit of helpfulness: if your aversion to caches that don't meet your standards is so extreme that you spend all your time on the forums trying to figure out ways to punish those who don't maintain their caches to your standards, then I suggest (rather un-gently) that you find something else to do and leave those of us who actually enjoy geocaching alone. Thanks. Being completely serious, and truly trying to help you, I would suggest that geocaching is probably not a good activity for you. You might want to try something else that you will find less frustrating. If you consider hobbies that grow and change with the times in unexpected ways, then I don't think that geocaching will ever be enjoyable for you except under the most restrictive circumstances. Now in less a spirit of helpfulness: if your aversion to change is so extreme that you spend all your time on the forums trying to figure out ways to punish those who don't cache the way you do, then I suggest (rather un-gently) that you find something else to do and leave those of us who actually enjoy geocaching alone. Thanks

+1 I just don't see archiving caches as a great tragedy--we never get new ones if old ones are never archived.

Hmmm...well, perhaps I have to think again. The Saffin Pond cache has picks of a perfectly dry log that aren't that old, and the CO has been gone for awhile, but again-not that long. If it was indeed automated, I agree that's a problem. But if it's an actual reviewer--maybe they know more about the disappearing CO than I do. I'm just not one who thinks archiving caches is a great tragedy--we need new caches, especially in nice places. But...this particular cache seems to be in a gray area.

I'm guessing that the reviewer read the logs AFTER the keyword search--they didn't just disable based on keyword search alone. Heck--give reviewers that much credit, can't you? And caches that aren't being maintained because the COs aren't active should be archived and room made for new caches. The reviewer didn't archive immediately based on a mold log--they disabled first. Looks like the reviewer is doing their job properly to me.

I do see your point, but..."nothing gold can stay." The newness wears off everything in life. And as for needing to drive 50 miles to find a challenging cache--wasn't that true back in 2002 when there were hardly any caches? Ignoring 99% of the caches and going for the kind you like is easy enough, isn't it?

Really? I didn't realize that Mingo, currently the oldest active geocache, was off in the woods, I thought it was in a very public, boring spot off I-70...

Because it's an internet forum, and that's just how they are. Geocaching is fine--started in 2010, and loving it still!

It's your fault, actually, OP. If only you hadn't taken that break, if only you had provided an unbroken line of leadership through the years, geocaching would still be the pure hobby it was way back when.

Do you know what cache violates that guideline--put a cache in a spot where you want people to come? Why it's...Mingo, the oldest active cache in the world. I was so very disappointed when I found it. Boring spot right off the highway. Arikaree, now, that was a pretty spot.

Well, what if some folks think the Jasmer is fun? Why do you act like those are mutually exclusive thing?

Ah, Mudfrog--but the ones you just described are in boring places to you! The places you value are filled up with caches, aren't they? What if there were new caches in places you wanted to go?

I don't see how anything posted after contradicts the first part of what I wrote: "Geocaching is about going out and finding caches." That is the definition of geocaching, is it not?

Geocaching is about going out and finding caches. If caches just sit there forever taking up all the space, and there are no new hides, then perhaps geocaching really will die. Folks decry oldtimers leaving the hobby because cache quality is down--maybe they're leaving the hobby because there's nothing close to go search for anymore.

Just to clarify--I don't mean archiving and replacing in the same spot. I mean archiving after 5 or 6 years and replacing in a different spot, or a different kind of cache--or letting someone else take the spot so that you can find the cache in your favorite park. I'd just like to see more turnover in geocaching, that's all. And for those special caches placed by special cache hiders--wouldn't you like some new caches by them if they archived their old ones?

I find it annoying that people like yourself prop up old junk thinking they are helping geocaching by doing so. Tossing out a throwdown is not helping. It only holds up an area where an active geocacher could place and maintain a geocache. Things like this have killed the sport. Adopt a geocache? Why? Archive it and make room for a new placement. This is my position exactly, I wish folks archived caches more often so we'd get new placements. I've never quite understood the notion of "freeing up a spot for new placements". If an area is so saturated that a CO can't find a place to hide a cache, perhaps there are already enough caches in the area. If an area is heavily saturated, expanding the area where one might hide a cache will effectively provide new placements. Those looking for new caches to find may just need to travel further to find a cache. There are no geocaches I haven't found within 5 or 6 miles of my house. If I want to to go to a local park and walk my dog and find a cache, that's impossible because it's full of 6 or 7 year-old caches. Archive them, give me some new ones, I'd like to cache without driving 30 minutes to get to a cache. I'm not taking that position so that I can hide caches--I'm taking that position so that I can FIND caches. Does that make more sense?

I find it annoying that people like yourself prop up old junk thinking they are helping geocaching by doing so. Tossing out a throwdown is not helping. It only holds up an area where an active geocacher could place and maintain a geocache. Things like this have killed the sport. Adopt a geocache? Why? Archive it and make room for a new placement. This is my position exactly, I wish folks archived caches more often so we'd get new placements.

Log date found, always, always, always. Anything else could lead another cacher to believe it's been found recently when it might be missing. I already know one local who I never trust to log on the date found, so I disregard those finds as the most recent ones.

I think that taking away the ability to delete logs would be fine within a time frame. Perhaps 1 month would be too short, but what about logs are set after 3 months? Certainly logs should be set after a year. Currently, everyone lives with the knowledge that there's nothing to stop someone deleting their first cache find 5 years ago, if they so desire. On second thought--that wouldn't work. You'd have jokers logging caches 5 years after the fact just for fun... Maybe the system is fine as-is. Fixes only bring new troubles in cases like this.