narcissa

No, I do not think that they will fill in details (and I mentioned this) but I think that some other group of cachers will do and that's enough to be helpful. I am not confident that the volume of data needed to make an effective recommendation system is possible if large swaths of cachers don't participate.

I did not mention a food challenge, yukonshadi. The problem I actually mentioned seemed to cause reviewers a lot of difficulty because they were trying to stop it from happening, but they can only decline publication if a cache violates the guidelines. The burden on reviewers is what led to the moratorium, bringing it all back to square one. This is all very challenge cache moratorium 101, so now that we're all caught up, let's move on. Two years later, we have what we have. It is working to eliminate the original issues, but some people think the new challenge caches are boring. Can that be addressed with small adjustments? Can we have a productive discussion about tweaking the existing system without going back two years every time it comes up?

The new challenges caches that I've seen are actual challenges. Find lonely caches (points for length of time). Find caches with over 1000 favorite points in North Jersey. Sort through your found list for 26 foods in a cache name is not especially challenging. And, no. Dolphins are not food! I don't consider the new ones boring, and they are actually challenges. Of course, as an old timer, I have already found caches hidden on every day of the year. But for the challenge cache hider, it was a challenge to find the final two so he qualified, and could hide the cache. I haven't looked at the challenges because it's not a cache type that interests me, but I have noticed many voices in the forum lamenting a lack of creativity. YMMV, whatever.

It seems however that your area does not have many repetitive trails and even for the series that exist like for example the Ram Fan geoart (which catched my attention on the map) the behaviour seems to be different than around here where the first or last cache of such a series would accumulate high numbers of FPs which makes FPs per se not very useful for cache selections in such areas. That's also why I think that additional data on why someone liked a cache would be helpful. I firmly believe that the area we cache in has a lot of impact on how difficult it is for us to select attractive caches. There seem to be very large differences even within the same country or within areas with comparable cache density. Some live in areas that are much more affected by some issues than others. For example, there have never been many challenge caches in my area while the area of Lone.R seems to have been heavily affected. In my area copy and paste logs and cachers leaving throwdowns are quite common meanwhile while they are much less common in other areas. There are many more examples along these lines. Moreover I think that experiencing the change continuously is easier than returning suddenly after a long break - this must be like a shock in many areas and certainly would be in my area. So you think that people who cut and paste logs and find 500 caches in a day are going to fill in details when they assign FPs? Is that how that is supposed to work?

Nothing controversial there. It's not particularly surprising that the Urban Dictionary did that, given its target audience. The very first defense that anyone uses to defend their use of a word like that is to back-pedal and claim they meant it in some other way. I'm sure everyone is talking about cigarettes and bundles of sticks too.

I think that in a game that is supposed to be inclusive, deleting that log was the correct course of action. That kind of language is just needless. I'm old and not familiar with a similar history for the other words in your list. Is there a particular group of people that are often labelled with those words? Are those words typically used to compare other people to those groups for the purpose of insulting or oppressing them?

Honestly, we don't. In fact, I can't even imagine why someone would comment on someone's sexual preferences based on what they found at a cache. And even if they thought they made some logical conclusion about sexual preferences and should state it -- impossibly unlikely, frankly -- I don't see why saying someone is gay is automatically a slur. Deciding any use a single magic word cannot possibly be interpreted as anything but a negative sexual reference is just the illogical politically correct knee jerk reaction. The logical conclusion is that they were just using "gay" as a synonym for "lame". Alas, because a geocaching log will be read by a wide range of people, it's probably entirely appropriate to delete the log just because of the number of people that will have the same reaction as you. Being politically correct is, after all, wildly popular. Using a word like "lame" or "gay" to signal that something is bad is derogatory to those people. If the cache is gay because the cache is bad, then the ultimate meaning is that gay is bad. Similarly, if the cache is disabled because the cache is bad, then the ultimate meaning is that disabled is bad. It isn't terribly difficult to understand why this is hurtful to specific groups of people. If the cache is gay because it prefers other caches of the same gender, that's fine, but I highly doubt that this is what the log means since caches are inanimate and, in English anyway, non-gendered. I also highly doubt that the word gay was used in a jaunty, high-spirited fashion to simply denote happiness at the find. The word "gay" has a long history of being used in a derogatory fashion. It's disgusting that the forum would use semantics to excuse such behaviour.

I don't believe you. Certainly, I can understand you being annoyed. I suppose I was once or twice until I got used to it, and I still don't like them. But I cannot believe you literally thought they were being rude. You must have recognized that they thought they were being nice to someone even if you didn't appreciate their action yourself. As a courtesy to you, they should do what you prefer.

That's a cool idea. I would like to be able to explain, too, and it seems like it's goes a long way to giving cezanne what she needs. Having said that, I don't actually think anyone would use it to help find caches they like. Even cezanne. I admit, I have no idea what's motivating people, but I think most caches most of the time are motivated by the experience. Yes, some -- perhaps many, although I doubt even that -- are then proud of their statistics, but I think they see the statistics as a reflection of the experience, not the motivation for it. But let me ask: How many people participating in this thread see themselves in any part of the diagram other than the right most section? I'm in the middle. I don't want high numbers, I want good numbers. I like seeing my D/T averages inch upward. I like the badge gen thing and set short goals for myself to achieve new badges. The interest in stats helps motivate me to seek out things that are sometimes outside of my comfort zone, and that's what leads to good experiences in the end. I think my diagram would need to include another circle to indicate interest in other people's statistics. I like keeping track of my own but I can't be bothered to click on someone else's profile, let alone track someone's else's statistics in relation to mine. I think there are cachers in each zone who are more or less motivated to compete with other geocachers in a similar category.

I'm starting to think this is our main disagreement. I think people should always be courteous. End of sentence. Geocaching considerations might play into courtesy, but courtesy is a larger, more inclusive concept. No one here has suggested anything like this. Furthermore, that's be explicitly pointed out to you multiple times. I do not believe there is anyone like this. And in addition, if someone did think they should be able to dictate when someone else is courteous, I don't think there's any reason to take them into account when deciding how to be courteous. It's not relevant if you think there is anyone like this. There could be. There are certainly plenty of people who are ambivalent about it, so there's no reason to hold this practice up as some sort of gold standard for FTFing. There are people who have all kinds of different preferences in this game. Some of those preferences may not make sense to you or to me, but they exist. It is simply not reasonable to expect or ask other geocachers to act in accordance with conflicting preferences. That's just maddening. I can't notify everyone of an FTF immediately AND keep the FTF mystery alive AND please a cache owner who wants the first log to be a good log. Those are all equally valid, but incompatible preferences. No matter what I do as the FTF, someone's going to be disappointed or annoyed. Why is the instant notification the courteous option here?

We are all adults who know darn well that this term, used this way, is an inexcusable slur against a specific group of people. It has no place in this game, and it is appalling to see the forum trying to defend this.

Thanks for your list. I have a question for you: How many of the local cachers participate in more than one such type of activity? I'm asking this because if all the groups are separate, it would rather remind of me many subcommunities instead of one community and that then would actually fit much closer what I observed in other areas. Personally, I would not enjoy participating in any of the events/activities you mentioned above. The death march would be too demanding and all others go in directions into which I have not the slightest interest. I also noticed in recent years when I attended events that there is just a tiny fraction of people to whom I like to talk - most are interested in things inside and outside of geocaching I do not care about. In the early times the group was more homogeneous and there have been some like-minded people around which created what I meant with "community feeling". What you have described above is certainly something nice to have in an area but it would not help me to get my "personal community feeling" back. So invent your own activities that will help get that feeling back.

Vandalism? Not sure what the question is here. Posting nasty logs is vandalism in my books. I suppose it is technically "cybervandalism," but using "cyber" as a prefix seems so 90s to me. Spray-painting "gay" on someone's wall or writing it on a public website, it's all the same destructive, impulsive stupidity. I hope their bad behaviour didn't extend to the cache itself, because that has been known to happen in cases like these - miscreants damage or steal the cache, and write a nasty log to match.

Overall, the new rules seem to have succeeded in eliminating the problems that were happening in our area. I realize those issues aren't universal, but many of the challenge caches being published before the moratorium were deliberately designed to exclude specific groups of cachers, and in some cases, specific individual cachers. That has stopped. That being said, I wouldn't be disappointed if they reevaluated where things stand and made some adjustments to allow a little more flexibility and creativity. There have been a lot of comments about the new challenge caches being boring. It just seems like a very difficult task when there is that small element in the game that will jump on any loophole in order to satisfy an impulse to exclude others by any means possible. I've always felt that it was a bit of a shame that challenges got so intertwined with actual geocaches as a way of denoting completion. The most satisfying challenge I ever did was one set up by a local geocacher who created a web page with a leaderboard. For a long time, it was something that many cachers in the community would get excited about. There was no cache at the end, just the satisfaction of knowing you'd accomplished something. I think this would be a better model for people who genuinely want to challenge each other, but it seems like nobody's interested if they can't chalk up another unknown cache find when they're finished. It's too bad, because this model, where challenges are just operated privately by people who are enthusiastic about geocaching, means that there are no guideline hoops to jump through because the challenge isn't tied to a specific cache at the end. It means endless creativity, but no official recognition with some sort of profile statistic.

You're adjusting the conversation. You starting out arguing against the suggestion that people be courteous, and I objected. Now you're pretending you were only questioning whether the suggested behavior should be considered courteous. I find that disingenuous. But, anyway, your point here is also wrong. Yes, some people don't like the quick and vacuous FTF logs -- in fact, as I've said a couple times now, I don't care for the quick, vacuous FTF logs -- but no one that's being reasonable could fail to recognize that they're an attempt at courtesy. People should always be courteous by following the basic parameters of the game and otherwise geocaching in a predictable manner. People should not expect others to adhere to arbitrary personal preferences and cry "courtesy" when their imaginary rules are ignored/unknown. The quick FTF logs may be an attempt at courtesy toward those who want them, but it is still very possible that other geocachers will interpret them as discourteous because they spoil the way they like to play the FTF side game. It's still just a side game with no established rules, no matter how loud a handful of misguided participants bluster about it. And telling someone who did nothing wrong that he/she should change to suit others in order to avoid poor treatment just plain stinks. I don't know why the forum is in such a rage to tiptoe around poor geocaching behaviour.

Deleting the derogatory log was the right choice. I hope their vandalism was limited to the cache page.

Everyone here has agreed that controlling, angry people are bad. What I don't like about your position is that you assume that anyone interested in the quick FTF message will automatically be a controlling, angry person. This makes you reject the courteous approach based on the thinking that no one should ever be courteous to a controlling, angry person. When I consider my own behavior, I don't think controlling, angry people are worth thinking about, which leads me to suggest being courteous because all I can imagine are the people that might appreciate the courtesy. I am sure that interest in the quick find note varies from person to person. I wouldn't be surprised if some FTFers don't like the quick find notes, while others are totally ambivalent. Which preference takes precedence if someone is genuinely trying to be courteous to everyone? When gestures of courtesy are predicated on arbitrary rules and preferences, rather than universal standards, it's an impossible task to be courteous to everyone. What is "courtesy" to one person may irk someone else. For another example, leaving toys is a courtesy for people caching with distracted children, and the most terrible thing you can do to someone who wants adult swag. How can anyone expect other geocachers to be courteous when the goal posts shift like that? If the point of suggesting the quick note is to mitigate abusive behaviour, it's a poor suggestion. If it's about courtesy, it's setting people up for failure. Either way, it's problematic. Cache according to the basic parameters and the process that works for you. Other geocachers are responsible for wearing their own grown up pants and managing their own reactions to benign geocaching activity.

Just saw this on Facebook. Looking forward to seeing what the decision is. Not a cache I'd ever be able to visit, but it would be cool to know it was back in action.

No one here has suggested anything else, regardless of your insistence on interpreting their statements otherwise. The ones imposing matters of personal taste are the FTF people who wrote angry logs to begin with. They're the ones assuming discourtesy in a benign action, they're the ones turning preferences into rules and complaining when people don't adhere to them. My point remains that I wish the forum would be more cautious about making well-meaning suggestions that only serve to promote the original problem. Dancing around arbitrary rules isn't courtesy.

I would say it goes without saying, both logically and from the English language, that courtesy cannot possibly extend to things that are impossible to do. Glad to hear it. People suggesting the quick find are suggesting it because it's nice to do if you can, not because they're assuming the worst in everyone. People are suggesting it because it might prevent a handful of bad people from directing their abuse at the OP. All it means is that those bad people will abuse the next person who comes along and runs afoul of their imaginary rules. What happens if someone decides that logging from the field spoils the FTF fun for them? I was looking forward to the mystery and uncertainty of the chase but some joker logged it from the field five minutes after it got published. Boo! Lack of courtesy! How can we possibly expect everyone to keep track of all these side games, imaginary rules, and personal tastes? How can anybody possibly be courteous to everyone if courtesy means bowing down to arbitrary preferences? It becomes ridiculous. You should do this nitpicky inconsequential thing because it's courteous to some people, but you should also do the exact opposite because it's courteous to other people. The most courteous way to geocache is to follow the basic parameters of the game and not impose matters of personal taste on others.

Yes, they could as they could actively engage the cachers and not rely only on what someone bought or looked up. It's in some way easier to do for geocaches. However of course there always will be outliers but looking through some recommendations is easier and less tiresome than looking through hundreds or thousands of caches in areas one is unfamiliar with. Actively engage cachers how? Which cachers? Aren't the majority of cachers just going to lead to the same caches the so-called selective cachers are upset about? The majority does not play a role when it comes to how the recommendations of a cacher that seems to like similar caches than you look like. What I meant with actively engaging is that GS could obtain more data than just the FPs - they could e.g. provide some common reasons for why someone awards a FP. And they would probably find that FPs are being awarded for reasons that are not relevant or useful to small factions of highly selective cachers. At a certain point, the cacher has to accept some responsibility for the way he/she chooses to play the game. Constantly raging at the system and all the other players isn't rational. There is nothing wrong with being selective, but how much can we expect Groundspeak to redesign the site to appease these highly specific tastes?

The only difference between doing something as a courtesy and doing it because you don't want a particular reaction is in the expectation that the other party will, in fact, have that negative reaction. So the suggestion is to do it as a courtesy: it makes absolutely no difference whether the other person is a nice guy that will appreciate the gesture or a jerk that will be set off when the courtesy isn't given. (By the way, I'm speaking in general: I don't myself like the technique of posting a quick, vacuous FTF log to be edited later, but it's OK with me if other people want to do it, and I can follow their logic. But allow me to point out that when I see people doing this, avoiding a negative reaction is never the thinking. In my area, when the FTFer posts the quick FTF log, it's specifically to communicate this information to people he considers friends.) I say that's exactly backwards: it's important not to consider expectation when deciding to be courteous. The idea of withholding courtesy because you "just know" that the other person is a jerk is both absurd and destructive. Why not just assume he's a nice guy? There's no downside to being courteous. You might even teach someone that would otherwise be a jerk how to be nice. On the other hand, if you insist on not doing simple things that cost you nothing on the grounds of "you can't make me", you set yourself up for an unnecessary and uninteresting fight. I think such a fight would be boring even when I know I can win it. The difference between courtesy and expectation is important in this game because we're all equipped with different means of playing the game. The most courteous players may or may not be technologically equipped for the immediate logging that a handful of poor sports seem to demand. I assume that most geocachers attempt a basic level of courtesy in their play. Their attempts at courtesy may or may not align with my personal preferences. I don't consider it discourteous when someone does something in a way that is in accordance with the basic parameters of the game, yet not in keeping with my preferences. I expect geocachers to follow the basic game parameters, and not use logs to write harsh, disparaging things about people who did nothing wrong. It is not reasonable to expect good geocachers to adjust their processes or buy new equipment to appease a very small group of poorly behaved people who can't control themselves. It is disappointing that the forum insists on defending such problematic ideas.

I said earlier that most FTF players seem to manage to play their side game nicely without making harsh comments to others. If you're doing something as a courtesy to others, great. If you're suggesting that someone else should do that thing to avoid receiving mean remarks from someone incapable of behaving him/herself, that's problematic. It's important to draw a line between courtesy and expectation, especially when it comes to side games with no rules. I don't know what the deal is with strange personal jabs from people I've never spoken to before, but that sort of thing seems to be more in line with "evil" than my point, which is that someone who is caching in full accordance with all reasonable expectations should not be told to tiptoe around bad people.

The person you quoted specifically denies his position was the same as whatever you were responding to. Obviously you should reconsider whether you understand his position, but more importantly, you should reconsider whether you understood any of the other people you think were presenting "the same basic message". For example, while I agree these suggestions are not that interesting, I disagree that the people making these suggestions are blaming the OP when they offer ideas for mitigating the possible poor reactions. Telling the OP to mitigate other people's poor behaviour isn't blame, but it does hand the responsibility to her. I recognize that these suggestions are likely meant to be helpful, but in the long run, tiptoeing around problem geocachers just exascerbates their behaviour. There is no need to differentiate the finer points between individual user comments when they're all saying the same wrong thing. The basic message of the forum chorus is "here's something you could do to not set someone off," and that's problematic whether it's being articulated by one user or many.