narcissa
-
Posts
7386 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by narcissa
-
-
4 hours ago, The Jester said:
But how many CO's pay attention to find activity on caches near theirs? I've never looked at cache near mine to see if mine were skipped, or if finders of mine found any of those others. So unless you're leaving "couldn't be bothered to stop" logs on the caches, I doubt you are making much impact on them.
I once had a local cacher email me to ask why I hadn't spent time on their geolitter trail because they noticed I had found some caches nearby. I didn't respond.
-
.png)
1
-
-
The cache needs to be NMed or NAed due to its condition.
The need for maintenance is not really relevant to whether or not it is a "good cache." The condition of the container has very little impact on my overall enjoyment of a geocaching excursion. This is a cache in need of maintenance. I don't know if it is good or bad overall.
If I was just interested in looking at squeaky clean containers, I would to the housewares department at Walmart.
-
It looks like this area is already well served by geocaches. Maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board and find a hiding spot somewhere else, or wait a year or two until a space clears up. It's great that you want to guve back to the community by hiding a geocache, but it looks like other geocachers have this particular area covered for now!
-
5
-
-
In the long run, the person most likely to read and re-read my logs is me. My logs are as long or short as I see fit.
Just another example of things nobody can possibly get right. Short logs, long logs, everyone gets flamed by a mean person in the end.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Harry Dolphin said:
Ah, yes. The dumbing of America. And perhaps the rest of the world? "First" means "first". Not 'second'. Not 'out with someone who found it.' Two people cannot be 'first'. They are first and second. Twenty-three cachers line up to sign the log? The are First through Twenty-third! They cannot all be 'first'!
I no longer go for for FTFs much. Twelve years ago, however, my partner and I went for a FTF. Another cacher came by, and waited whist we searched. My partner was FTF. I was 2nd to find. The other (great) cacher took Third to Find. That's the was it used to was. First is First. Anyone else is Second to Find or Twenty-eighth to find. There is only one First. Sort of the definition of the word?
Some geocachers believe in a collaborative and friendly approach to group caching wherein all members of the group "find" the cache simultaneously. When this approach is crossed with the "first to find" side game, it is not problematic to call everyone "first to find." It may be a bit quantum physical for some people to grasp, but this has nothing to do with anybody's country of origin becoming "dumb."
-
7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
I don't think the CO should be deciding who was FTF and who wasn't. FTFs aren't awarded by the CO, they're claimed by the finders and it's up to the finders to resolve amongst themselves any differences of opinion. If that means a toss of a coin or a fist fight, so be it, but it's not something the CO should become enbroiled in.
Next time I put out a cache, the FTF shall be determined through trial by combat.
-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Start a fresh account and stop airing your dirty laundry with fellow geocachers unless they are close friends. This is a game. It's supposed to be fun. Nobody wants to be put in a position where they feel they are taking sides with acquaintances. Breakups can suck, but you need to find a more appropriate outlet for dealing with your personal issues.
-
11
-
On 19/09/2017 at 0:18 AM, WarNinjas said:
Giving a favorite point to a FTF probably isn't helpful to others but I often really enjoy running out and getting to be the first to find a new cache. I think it was cool it was placed in a spot and time that I was able to be first. I enjoyed the experience so sometimes I will give them a favorite when I might not have if I had been 10th to find. It still stood out above the average 10 I have found on a fun factor for me.
Not that I give all FTF's a favorite but I am sure they have a better chance then others.
I don't see a problem with this at all. A good portion of my points are awarded to caches simply because I have a happy memory or a great adventure attached to them. Many of them were already archived when I awarded the points.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Joshism said:
I have found FPs to very useful as a guide. In my experience nearly all caches with 10+ Favorites are worth finding even they aren't all caches I would want to award a FP to.
It's nice that your tastes align that way. Mine don't. 10+ points isn't going to point me to what I want and my FPs aren't likely to point to what the mainstream wants. I am not changing the way I assign my points in order to make them useful for others.
-
It isn't possible for FPs to be truly useful as a guide. The aspects that make a cache good for me are unique to me. I mark caches with a point when I enjoyed them. They're called favourite points, not "predict what the mainstream likes" points.
-
1
-
-
On 09/09/2017 at 8:25 AM, Müllipützchen said:
Dear Geocacher,
If you want to give favorite-points to a cache, you do this because of two different reasons. Either, you like the location, where the cache is hidden, or you like the idea of the Cache itself.
The other way round, if you see that a cache has a lot of favorite-points, you don't know, if the Cache is attractive of cause of the landscape etc. or of cause of the disign of the Cache.
That's why I suggest to seperate the favorite-points, so that every cacher has the possibility to distinguish, why he adores a Geocache and relieves us to choose the best caches.
What do you think about this? I am curios about your opinions
Greetings from Germany, Müllipützchen
I give FPs because I enjoyed the entire experience of finding the cache. I use the points to flag the caches that meant the most to me. I do not intend for my points to be helpful or meaningful to others and I don't look at points when selecting a cache to find.
If the points system got gummed up with categories and other complications, I would probably just stop using it.
-
9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
The actual wording is:
Events cannot be held in or near transportation centers such as
- Airports
- Cruise ship ports
- Train stations
I don't see anything there to exclude events requiring some hiking to the location. Some of the most enjoyable events I've attended (and one I hosted) have involved a hike of a few kilometres to reach.
I note that the list isn't exhaustive so presumably events can't be near other transportation centres like ferry wharfs and bus interchanges. Is the intention to stop people using public transport to attend events? If so, why?
I suspect this is intended to prohibit these "hey I am on a cruise" and "hey I am at the airport for an hour" events where only the organizer ends up attending. Key word here being suspect.
If my suspicion is correct, then there could be a better way to address it in the guidelines.
-
20 hours ago, wimseyguy said:
Kudos to the OP for being in touch with his emotional younger self. That post reads like a whiny entitled millennial, not someone from the so-called older generation.
Seems about on par for a boomer. Or maybe pigeonholing everyone based on age is just a poor individual decision that has nothing to do with age.
-
On 01/09/2017 at 2:19 PM, Team Christiansen said:
Great question!!
But I would disagree with these items being labeled as just "best practices".
The listing guidelines include things we acknowledge that we must abide by in order to get the cache listed in the first place. That includes maintenance of the cache listing.
The guidelines mention specifically that log-quality control is "included" in this responsibility. This is not an all-inclusive listing.
Then, the help center lists "responsibilities" not "best practices".
It is not inappropriate for anyone to post an NM on any of the 8 bullets above.
Since both listing guidelines and help center are published by GS, one can't suggest that the listing guidelines are official but the help center is not (just as it would be silly to say that the listing guidelines aren't requirements, because the title says they are only "guidelines" or best practices).
If you take a moment to review what a reviewer has posted in this thread, it will help you better understand how these documents are distinct.
There is nothing wrong with pointing to either document in a discussion, but don't be disingenuous by conflating them. They are not the same thing.
-
1 hour ago, Team Christiansen said:
Guidelines seem "Pretty explicit" to me. See the language in red:
Those aren't the guidelines. The title of the document is explicit.
-
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:
I agree. Many we introduced were well into their fifties. All noticed that mechanical devices on rope is easier than they imagined.
That's awesome.
I have trouble with elevated caches because I have a crippling fear of heights. I am still in my 30s. I am okay knowing there are caches I won't get at all, or won't reach without teamwork.
I know cachers in their 60s and 70s who are very adventurous and physically capable. I don't think those cachers would appreciate others complaining on their behalf on the basis of age.
-
Not all caches are for all people. Rather than complaining about a tiny proportion of caches you can't do, move on to ones you can.
And please leave it to individuals to determine their own capabilities. It has little to do with age.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, strontium87 said:
My experience with geocaching is that it overwhelmingly white and male. That influences the caches placed, the (obvious) anger about being even possibly challenged on the appropriateness of a cache, and what new people might be drawn to this game.
Most seem to think this post is political or supporting a specific agenda, though not my intention in the least. I can appreciate, however, that many, many, many of you don't want to think about these issues because geocaching is just a fun/game/hobby/good time for you. Cool! It's more than that to me.
Peace and love from the Lone Star State.
The cache placement guidelines prohibit caches that promote an agenda of any sort.
If you feel that someone is using a cache page to promote hatred, please report it to Groundspeak.
If you feel that a monument in your community promotes hatred, ask your local politicians to remove it.
-
1
-
-
Sounds like the town is well served by geocaches already.
-
2
-
-
20 hours ago, dprovan said:
More to the point, it wasn't a race. You just imagined it was.
Oh, but my phone tracked how fast I ran. The fact that I have statistics means it was a race. Right?
-
20 hours ago, dprovan said:
Something was taken away from me for no good reason.
And the people with complaints and concerns about challenge caches also feel their whining is legitimate. It's just a lot of whining all around at this point. No need to privilege one side or the other.
-
On 10/08/2017 at 11:59 PM, Mudfrog said:
For sure, FOR SURE! I never understood the "i don't like that cache and it should be abolished" mentality. A person can make the choice to skip a cache if they don't like it. And please, they shouldn't go to whining that it upsets them that they see it on a map or that it's taking up space for a park and grab.
People can easily set challenges for themselves with no limits, and yet there is incessant whining about the end of challenge caches. Why is that whining okay?
-
5 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:
Why would someone secretly try to snag more caches then you this weekend without mentioning their intentions?
That's the point. How can geocaching be competitive without others consenting to be part of the competition?
I can run down a busy sidewalk and yell at everyone that I've won, but that doesn't mean much if nobody else knew it was a race.
-
2
-
-
26 minutes ago, DarkZen said:
I don't see how this type of hyperbolic "contribution" helps the discussion. I've read the whole thread and did not see one mention conspiracy theories.
The entire discussion *is* a conspiracy theory that Groundspeak has created a new secret rule (false) in order to deliberately stifle creativity (false) and stop geo-art (false) and that the game is being ruined because of something to do with someone's version of "common sense" (what?). Those are your hyperbolic contributions right there.
In actuality, a reviewer has simply noted a potential issue with one cache, and has asked for that minor issue to be addressed before that cache can be published.
.png)
Virtuals... ethics?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Just talk to the cache owner and respect his or her wishes.