Jump to content

narcissa

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    7386
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by narcissa

  1. This looks awesome. I hope some day I can travel to California and find some of them. I'm going to show my husband, who loves LBHs.
  2. What strikes me is that none of these measures are addressing the caches that are probably the most neglected of all, which are some (not all) power trails and other caches that are placed with the assumption that other cachers will take care of them by dropping replacements. The logs on those caches are generally monotonous copy-and-paste, so unless someone like me comes along and is willing to blow the whistle by saying NEEDS MAINTENANCE, THERE ARE FIFTEEN PILL BOTTLES ON THE GROUND HERE, nothing is done. Don't even get me started on the insidious trend of cut-and-paste logs that each say "Cache was in great condition." Instead of raising the bar and holding power trail cache owners responsible for each and every cache they put out, Groundspeak is inventing measures that are placing a greater burden on cache owners who place more traditional-style caches. The cachers who go for those ones are more likely to leave wordy logs and post DNFs and NMs, but now, those logging practices are being weaponized in the name of "quality." But those logs are rarely applied to the caches that are actually bad! For a long time I've made an effort to write informative logs (especially on caches that are infrequently found) and diligently log DNFs, NMs and NAs where needed. But now, I feel like these habits - which have long been touted, at least in my community, as best practice - seem like they're more like to harm than help. I don't want a cache owner to be hounded to check on a cache that's in perfectly good shape because I DNFed or used the word "trouble" or something in my log. And I can't even add detail to an NM without retracing steps and editing the log, so what is even the point if the notification the owner sees won't contain my notes anyway?
  3. We see things the way we want to see them..... Indeed. It's a shame that we have this vocal cadre of cachers who don't understand that cache owners are the life blood of the game.
  4. Punishment, stealing, criminals, retribution?? I'm sorry narcissa, but the only person I have ever seen use such terms here, is you. Taking other peoples caches because they no longer have an active listing on this listing site is stealing. Putting cachers on probation or parole for allowing a container to get shabby is punishing them and treating them like criminals. The general attitude that cache maintenance efforts must involve punishment for the cache owner, rather than simply delisting or suspending the cache itself, suggests a desire for retribution. These cachers talk about their experience being ruined and their time being wasted and they want someone else to hurt for it. All of the items I listed in my previous are earnest suggestions that have been made or supported by people who are still participating in the forum and who continue to promote this vision for the game.
  5. What new rules proposal? We are merely applauding reviewers for enforcing old rules - i.e. maintenance guidelines. The container fetishists are constantly asking for ridiculous things, like: - demanding cache owners be banned if a cache they own is disappointing - wanting cachers and cache owners to be actively punished, somehow, for various container-related transgressions - Groundspeak to expand reviewer responsibilities to include physically removing (i.e. stealing) archived caches - forcing people to assign FPs based on container-related criteria rather than subjective personal enjoyment - forcing people to revisit and reassign FPs if the container condition of a cache declined I don't think there is ever a period of time where there the front page of this section doesn't have some new proposal for treating other geocachers like criminals. None of these proposals ever actually seeks to address these issues in a constructive or collaborative fashion. It's all about punishment and retribution. Let's replace "TFTC" with "HDYFMTFTC." HOW DARE YOU FORCE ME TO FIND THIS CACHE. Right?
  6. Examples please of these geocachers who are posting NMs/NAs, and the reviewers who are archiving these caches that are in perfect condition, with excellent swag, and positive logs (I assume you mean the cache has no logs stating the cache is in need of attention). I can't think of one example that we've been talking about here, or anywhere on the site that fits that description. I think you're replying to the wrong post. The text you quoted doesn't say anything about NM or NA. It's talking about an oft-described methodology for selecting caches to find. Oh yes, I see now....I think you were referring to me spending an inordinate amount of time trying to find good caches but ending up at a lot of junk caches. It's true. I've been filtering more and more over the years to try to find better caches. First it was filtering out micros. It helped. Initially about 1/3 of the smalls were actually micros. But at least 2/3 were small and mostly were in decent condition. People generally looked after them (or maybe I got to them before they turned to junk). Now, especially with the growing PT mentality, it's about 2/3 of smalls are actually micros (pill bottles, film canisters, matchstick containers, magnetic key holders). Regular and Large size followed up with at least a couple of favourite points almost always produced more than enough decent caches, many ammo cans. Not anymore. Most of those caches are cheap/free throw away leaky containers. Probably a PT mentality thing again--hide lots, pay little or nothing for containers because you plant dozens, maybe 100s. Favourite points are old. You can't tell when they were given. Some got their FPs when they were new. Now they're 3 years old and in bad shape because the owner never returned. And people love things screwed and drilled in to trees, fences, posts that do not belong to them. Those things get lots of FPs, and you don't know until you get there that they are a guideline breaker. I could go on and on, but you've read my legitimate complaints (often with examples) about what geocaching is turning into and yet you insist "Something just isn't adding up here." Yes, thank you for reiterating the litany of complaints you have about this game and the people who play it. I do virtually nothing to filter caches. I look for a spot that looks cool on the map and go for it. Yet I rarely find anything as bad as these horror photos you like to post.
  7. Congratulations- you're very fortunate! These caches are out there. It's not whether the previous poster scrubbed through the DB or not. It's that these caches are it there. I've come across them as I'm sure others on this bread have. Those are the type of caches that need to be resolved / fixed / archived regardless if they're in a "cool spot." I like to find clean, welll maintained caches as well as cool spots. No, a crappy cache doesn't completely negate a beautiful view, but it certainly makes the find less fun. It's certainly a turn off... If I didn't want to find cool / maintained caches, I'd give up the hobby and just start hiking. Yes, they're out there. Is the database really so "full" of them that a geocacher who claims to spend a considerable amount of energy avoiding them still can't manage to find a good cache? This is not what I find at all, and I do virtually nothing to avoid caches like this. I use NM when I come across them. Do we really need to treat all cache owners like garbage because sometimes there's a bad cache?
  8. Yeah, this is how I would feel. In practice I have yet to run across someone who wants to cache this way. If I did, I would just bid them good luck and find someone else to cache with. For as long as I have cached, I have known group caching to be a group effort.
  9. Many of us do. I also letterbox from time to time and appreciate that LBH caches were developed to provide a bridge to that game. I am not good carver but I use custom themed stamps in my hybrid caches that are sometimes made from the art I submit. While I have found some hybrids with cheap store bought stamps (or something left over from a kid's art supply kit) that seem to be an afterthought, this does not lead me to conclude that hybrids should be grandfathered any more than poorly done caches of any type would lead to the same conclusion. We have homemade stamps for letterbox hybrids. There aren't many of them around, but when we travel we will sometimes make them a target cache because it's a little bit more interesting than a traditional.
  10. Examples please of these geocachers who are posting NMs/NAs, and the reviewers who are archiving these caches that are in perfect condition, with excellent swag, and positive logs (I assume you mean the cache has no logs stating the cache is in need of attention). I can't think of one example that we've been talking about here, or anywhere on the site that fits that description. I think you're replying to the wrong post. The text you quoted doesn't say anything about NM or NA. It's talking about an oft-described methodology for selecting caches to find.
  11. I must live in an alternate universe. I often cache on back roads in the country, by canoe, and when possible, in more remote areas where one would expect to find caches that are, perhaps, in worse shape than high traffic caches in urban areas, and yet I rarely ever find a cache that looks as bad as those pictures. They happen, but they are rare. And yet here is another cacher who claims to spend an inordinate amount of time painstakingly combing through the database trying to flag caches in perfect condition, with excellent swag, positive logs, etc. and not only claims that the database is "full" of these terrible, disgusting caches, somehow manages to find them at an alarming rate despite taking extreme measures to avoid such caches. Something just isn't adding up here.
  12. I think Groundspeak realizes that a database full of caches that look like these below, are detrimental to sustaining customers. Full?
  13. It doesn't have to be competitive if you don't want it to be. Some people like to talk about movies before they see them, even if those discussions reveal key plot points. Other people like to view movies without learning key plot points (or even minor plot points) in advance. Not spoiling a movie for someone isn't about any competition. It's about letting them experience the movie the way they want to experience it, and not doing something that's going to screw that up for them. The same goes for not spoiling geocache hides when you're caching with someone who enjoys the experience of spotting the hide. It's a valid method, it's just not a method I would personally enjoy and I wouldn't join a group that subscribed to this philosophy. The idea of making someone stand there because they're the last person to spot the cache just doesn't seem like my idea of fun. But if it's fun for the people who choose to do it, great. My main concern is when this method, or any method, is inflicted on others as being "correct" compared to others. There's plenty of room for everyone to adjust these things to their own tastes.
  14. And for some cachers, the logbook paper being a bit wrinkled, a broken pencil, or disappointing swag is a real problem. I don't think we should be designing the game around people who have such a poor attitude that they honestly feel personally wronged because a cache didn't stand up to rain as well as it should have. Show me some cache listings that have been archived by a reviewer because of a wrinkled logbook/sheet, broken pencil or disappointing swag. What is the relevance of this bizarre demand? My point is that the new features all seem to be catering to extremely negative cachers who subscribe to this notion that any issue, no matter how small, is extremely dire and the details don't matter. DNF is now a red flag. NMs no longer ask for details, because all that matters is the fact that someone complained. It doesn't matter if someone's complaining because the swag was disappointing, or if they're complaining because the cache is literally in pieces. The system doesn't care about anything but the fact of the discontent, and it's frustrating to see context forgotten simply because a vocal handful of anhedonic complainers can't cope with the minor disappointment of finding a pill bottle where they expected a sandwich sized LnL. I don't think the game should be catering to this impulse to exact revenge on every cache owner who didn't rush out to restock a cache with swag at the first whine.
  15. And for some cachers, the logbook paper being a bit wrinkled, a broken pencil, or disappointing swag is a real problem. I don't think we should be designing the game around people who have such a poor attitude that they honestly feel personally wronged because a cache didn't stand up to rain as well as it should have.
  16. Unlikely to happen when there's a nice big logbook.
  17. Is central authority a new membership tier? Higher than platinum?
  18. Be reasonable. A personalized stamp is equivalent to a written name and date. Many geocachers use stamps to log geocaches.And some of us who don't normally use stamps to sign geocache logs will both sign and stamp an LBH log. Yeah, my stamp is just my name, so I always add the date and a note when I use it.
  19. Be reasonable. A personalized stamp is equivalent to a written name and date. Many geocachers use stamps to log geocaches.
  20. This is my thinking as well. If the cache is a bit leaky, but it's not catastrophic, I used to log an NM with a very clear description of what's happening, sort of a "Hey bud, next time you come out you should probably bring a new container with you." I trust the cache owner to use that information to make an informed decision about cache maintenance. The new system is so unwieldy and frustrating that I probably won't use NM as much. I'll just log my find and put the details there and hope the cache owner sees them. But the key point I was trying to make, which I fear has been deliberately misinterpreted, is that there's no reason for a geocaching experience to be spoiled because the cache is a bit leaky. It's not the end of the world. I still got out to a cool place with good company and had a great time. It's just really sad that some cachers would find the same cache and choose to be miserable about it. When you leave containers outside in the woods, they're going to fail sometimes. It doesn't mean the cache owner is a bad person who needs to be banned from the game and beaten in the street.
  21. I don't like caches like the one you described either. I don't like caches which are overlooked by houses, or by the boundary of private property.. etc. But nothing Groundspeak is doing address that. I generally look at the logs before seeking a cache, if I saw logs like that I would ignore it. While on the other hand, if the cache is a nice walk and in a quiet location, I'll enjoy it even if the log is wet and the CO is deceased. I'm not saying I don't prefer dry logs to wet ones, it just isn't that important to me. This is just it. I know very few geocachers who allow themselves to be so thrown off by a minor cache repair issue. I prefer a dry logbook to write in just as much as anyone else, but I'm not going to leave a cache in tears because it's a bit damp or the pencil was broken. When I think about the best geocaching experiences I have had, I really don't have strong memories of most of the caches themselves because it's the journey and the people I was with that made it fun. Ultimately I think the obsession with container quality and brand new swag is incompatible with an element of the game that I think is far more important, which is cache permanence. It's nice when a cache develops a history. Given the choice between a clean new container in a boring location next to a parking lot, and a 10-year-old cache with a couple of leaks in a really cool spot, I'll take the latter (of course, I have always included pertinent details in my log and written an NM log if needed - information is power! Sadly, the NM feature is now just a flag with no information added.). But there's no room for those caches in this game anymore. They must be removed, and the evil-doers must be punished.
  22. I'm not talking about people who are too busy. I'm talking about people who are making the same well-reasoned decisions about their caches that they always have now being nagged by an automated system that is incapable of taking context into account, and then being further nagged by reviewers when they don't act on the automatic nuisance messages. My greater concern is that this change fundamentally alters the meaning of DNF. We've always had a problem with a segment of cachers not logging DNFs out of some misplace sense of shame or embarassment. Now people are going to be even more hesitant to log them because they don't want to cause trouble for fellow geocachers. It's a real blow to the integrity of the game that these valuable insights and interesting cache details will be lost because these logs are now treated as a negative hit against a cache. I really don't see how deterring people from providing information - which is already sadly lacking now because of poor logging habits in general - is going to improve the quality of caches or the health of the game. Right now there's a very unreasonable faction of this game that is extremely vocal. If their caching experience isn't exactly what they had hoped for down to the brand of container and specific items of swag, they aren't merely disappointed, they must lash out and hurt the people responsible for "wasting their time" by dreaming up revolting schemes for punishing other geocachers. Good cachers are being caught in the crossfire.
  23. Interesting. I prefer the huckle-buckle approach. And when the first person in the group spoils the hide, it feels a bit like I've wasted all the time I spent searching, because I didn't get to finish the search and figure out the hide on my own. Exactly... Heck - why not just accompany a thourough searcher? Get to GZ and have a seat. When HE finds it, jump up and down congratulating yourself... Even better - just sit in the car and watch. That way, no dirty boots... Without the buckle-buckle approach, there's no incentive to search thoroughly... When I cache with a group, it's for the social aspect. I wouldn't cache with a group that used this method. It adds a competitive element that would spoil it for me. I see no problem with it as a personal preference but I find it troublesome when people try to enforce it as more correct than other methods. When I cache with my family, we're a team. We have different strengths and we all search thoroughly to the best of our abilities, and we all claim the find on our own accounts. That is exactly what I do with my family and close group of friends. It works well for us. For some other groups it may not. Yeah, for me the two most important things with FTF are to be on the same page as the people you associate with, and respectful of the cache owner.
  24. Interesting. I prefer the huckle-buckle approach. And when the first person in the group spoils the hide, it feels a bit like I've wasted all the time I spent searching, because I didn't get to finish the search and figure out the hide on my own. Exactly... Heck - why not just accompany a thourough searcher? Get to GZ and have a seat. When HE finds it, jump up and down congratulating yourself... Even better - just sit in the car and watch. That way, no dirty boots... Without the buckle-buckle approach, there's no incentive to search thoroughly... When I cache with a group, it's for the social aspect. I wouldn't cache with a group that used this method. It adds a competitive element that would spoil it for me. I see no problem with it as a personal preference but I find it troublesome when people try to enforce it as more correct than other methods. When I cache with my family, we're a team. We have different strengths and we all search thoroughly to the best of our abilities, and we all claim the find on our own accounts.
×
×
  • Create New...