B+L
-
Posts
545 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by B+L
-
-
The anonymous quotes I posted earlier were written by Jeremy and a long-time reviewer. The disdain they are expressing for virtuals is not inferred.
I guess anyone can post some anonymous quotes and attribute them to whom ever they like. I'm sure that you can find quotes from Jeremy you can take out of context and interpret them as saying he has disdain for virtuals.
I'll ignore the hypocrisy of that statement. I guess anyone could search using the those quotes and find their source, but that would mean it wouldn't be so easy to ignore what they are saying.
In the end he felt that Waymarking.com would work better for sharing container-less locations than geocaching.com. I was among several who argued that Waymarking categories were not at all like virtual caches and even made this suggestion as way to make my point. However, I didn't stop there, I actually did propose a category that was designed to be more like virtual caches. In doing this I discovered why Jeremy was not satisfied with any of the definitions of virtual cache. Everyone seemed to have their own definition of what made a virtual cache.
Yes, the original intent was to convert all virtuals to waymarks and move them to Waymarking.com. That was not a popular idea, to put it mildly. Everyone seems to have their own idea about what signing a logbook means, but that has not resulted in the elimination of logbooks.
I don't think you really want that.
I've given up any hope that someone was going to explain why a "wow factor" was imposed on virtual caches, but not on regular caches. What I really want is for people to think about what they are saying instead of blindly repeating Groundspeak's line. I haven't even been advocating in favor of the return of virtuals, but against all the pretenses, contradictions, misinformation, fear and hype surrounding them.
This thread is full of posts from people who either don't like virtuals, or worry that they would proliferate and overwhelm "real" caches. To the first I say, too bad. To the second, I say if Groundspeak provided us with better tools, it wouldn't even be an issue. We could filter out out the things we don't enjoy, puzzles, LPCs, power trails, virtuals, Earthcaches, whatever. Has anyone ever tried to ignore a power trail? it can be done using third party tools (and some sql), but that's not why we pay Groundspeak.
But the real crux of the matter is found in the standard fallback line for virtuals: "they only want the smiley". Pretty funny when you think about it. The uproar that started the second challenges were rolled out was over them beng counted just like "real" caches. Sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it? To quote Jeremy again: "... [it's] resistance to change" (as well as elitism).
Signing up for some website before someone else does not bestow any special insights, but people here sure do like to play that card as if it does. The entire history of geocaching is available online. And it's searchable.
-
I only brought it up because i believe the thinking is flawed. It only has merit if virtuals are considered inferior to "real" caches. Dave Ulmer was already experimenting with virtuals within weeks of placing the first cache, but somehow virtuals are not part of the core value of geocaching.
Narrow-mindedness, bigotry and provincialism won the day.
I'm not sure that Jeremy has ever indicated that virtuals are inferior to physical geocache.
I quoted him earlier. His posts on the topic are still available. It's not like he ever hid his thoughts on the subject. It would be much more useful to actually read what he's said rather than pontificating endlessly about what you think he might have said.
It is disingenuous to claim that Groundspeak has a narrow-minded, prejudicial, provincial attitude toward virtual caches. They have gone out their way - first to make virtuals work better when they were listed.
It is disingenuous to rephrase something so that you can fashion a strawman out of it. It is also disingenuous to ignore or dismiss anything that does not fit into your existing narrative. Go ahead, cling to the non-sensical belief that adding a "wow factor" requirement was an improvement. The anonymous quotes I posted earlier were written by Jeremy and a long-time reviewer. The disdain they are expressing for virtuals is not inferred.
Dave Ulmer might not be God, but he did invent this game and it would be a lot more interesting today if it had been allowed to stay truer to his vision for it.
I've always felt that different locations require creative different
solutions to creating a stash. So far the webmasters of this game are making
the rules and any innovation in stashing is ruled out of bounds and won't be
published on their sites.
-
P.S. Nothing would be funnier right now than to see Snoogs change his forum title to "Groundspeak Fanboy".
Too late. His amateur status was revoked when he received compensation from the frog.
-
BTW, why is it OK for this site to be negative towards everyone else, but it's apparently a problem for you if other sites turn negative towards Groundspeak?
Now, what about that coin promotion attempted to take something away from another listing site?
Secondly, to use your own words how is this site negative towards everyone else?
If you view promotions as a zero sum game, then I guess you could say they were attempting to take something away.
When I say site, I mean it loosely, as in the forums, the facebook and twitter feeds of certain high profile individuals, comments made my moderators, etc, etc. There has been a lot of negativity directed at that other site, as well as the other would be competitors, but that does not seem to bother you like it did when the other sites turned negative.
Having said that, the biggest mistake that other site made was allowing it to become a haven for people who've been eighty-sixed from geocaching.com, as well as the union hall for the Axe Grinders, Shoulder Chippers, Sock Puppeteers and Malcontents, Local 01000111010000110100001001010101010011010100111101010101010101000000110100001010.
-
It's the tactics I don't like. They are cheesy and beneath the Garmin brand in my opinion.
Other than fanboyism,
Wow. I would never have thought anyone would call me a fanboy. My teeth must be getting dull.
if you are a fanboy, you'd be the last one to know about it
But i wasn't singling you out anyway.Well, except there is this:
So we asked current Groundspeak Premium Members to share why they value Premium Memberships. True, we promised them a Groundspeak Lackey Coin in exchange for their help, but we think that the comments show how Premium features make caching even more enjoyable!
I am a Premium Member because I want to contribute to this activity/website that has had such a positive effect on my life and the price of premium membership is a very small expense every year compared to the years of wonderful experiences and memories I have and the many great friends I have made all over the country and the world.
-Snoogans
Was it cheesy to "bribe" people in exchange for a testimonial? I'd say no, not unless they called it an unsolicited testimonial.
Groundspeak used to bundle a free month of premium membership with some GPS models (maybe they still do), but I neither recall anyone thinking it was cheesy or underhanded of them to do so, nor do I remember anyone calling it an act of desperation.
BTW, why is it OK for this site to be negative towards everyone else, but it's apparently a problem for you if other sites turn negative towards Groundspeak?
-
It's the tactics I don't like. They are cheesy and beneath the Garmin brand in my opinion.
Other than fanboyism, I'm not sure why offering incentives would be perceived as problem, or why anyone would object to a company pushing their own products on one of their own web properties.
If they really want to offer a good incentive, how about a nice discount for early adopters of their beta quality handhelds?
-
Perhaps non waterproof, buried caches hidden on private property containing food items should be part of the core values?
Aren't they? Better move them over to Waymarking before anyone notices.
-
One other factor that lead to end of virts, is that some land managers were banning physical caches because you could put a vitr there instead. To keep the 'core' value (find container) alive, virts had to die.
Cathy did bring that up (managers banning physical caches, and asking for virts) and so did B+L when he resurrected the discussion on her response. I've always said that issue has merit.
I only brought it up because i believe the thinking is flawed. It only has merit if virtuals are considered inferior to "real" caches. Dave Ulmer was already experimenting with virtuals within weeks of placing the first cache, but somehow virtuals are not part of the core value of geocaching.
Narrow-mindedness, bigotry and provincialism won the day.
-
BTW The only people that would start with something are the people who participated in the original challenge. I didn't see your name on there so you'd be starting with zero. The reasoning for that is they put in some hard work to find those caches and I believe they should be able to keep the fruits of their labor. I may make the sticky rule retroactive to any cache that they found but later dropped off the list (before the original was archived) if I can find a reasonable way to do so. I think just going by their old logs would work but I haven't thought it all the way through yet.
I'm not so sure you can do that under the current guidelines for challenge caches. You would not be allowed to say some of The Jester's previous finds don't count because he was not participating in the old challenge, but those same caches could count for people who were participating. The qualifying caches have to be available to everyone and can't be restricted by date, or at least that's the way I read it. I guess we'll find out when you get the challenge published.
-
It would still be another couple of months before geocaching.com even existed, but within eight weeks of hiding the first cache, Dave Ulmer had already had it with all the squabbling about what a true geocache was.
I am personally tired of all the squabbling over what is a True GeoCache or
not. I've always felt that different locations require creative different
solutions to creating a stash. So far the webmasters of this game are making
the rules and any innovation in stashing is ruled out of bounds and won't be
published on their sites. This attitude has caused me to give up on the game
and am planning on taking any new ideas somewhere else...
Dave...
I think he got it exactly right. It's really sad, maybe even tragic, that mediocre web development was able to stifle his vision.
-
One other factor that lead to end of virts, is that some land managers were banning physical caches because you could put a vitr there instead. To keep the 'core' value (find container) alive, virts had to die.
Ironic then that Dave Ulmer was already having second thoughts about placing physical containers only 5 weeks after placing the first one.
You really don't see the problems with a sport until you get deeply involved
in it. As the one that has placed the most stashes so far, I began to see
the problems that it created. Some of my stashes are placed on tree farms
owned by a large corporation. They are not, No Trespassing areas but they
are private property. I didn't think too much about it at first because
woods is woods around here, and a cache bucket seems like a pretty benign
thing. The problem I saw was with the published coordinates attached to an
uninvited bucket attached to my name could some day cause trouble. Some
corporate dude five years from now could decide to prosecute me for
littering or something just for the fun of it. For that reason I've decided
to remove the stash buckets but keep the coordinates that are interesting
for another game.
The second major problem I found with geocaching was that you couldn't
easily place them in urban areas or other areas of special interest. One of
the goals I had for geocaching was to attract people to some of those
"special spots" that only local people know about. I know of many unique
spots in the urban area that I would like to identify for people to visit. I
tried the CyberStashing concept that seemed to solve all the problems, but
that was a flop, it was too complicated.
So now I'm on to the Wondert game. Looking for places where just being there
is the reward. I think it might work, I'll let you know when I get back from
vacation. I know my Billy Graham stash would make a good Wondert and
probably Williams Lake too. The two cyberstashes are certainly candidates.
I'll see what other Wonderts I can find.
So go visit my Wonderts and see what you think.
-
I can recall that the proximity rule at the time applied to virts. So someone could list a lame virt which had you get the number off a telephone pole. It would then block the area for eternity for actual caches.
If Groundspeak is "just a listing service", shouldn't they avoid imposing their own standards of taste and just publish the caches as submitted?
Plus, virts don't actually exist. Try explaining to a muggle that there is a virtual invisible cache at the location, and they will think you are nuts.
Missing caches don't actually exist either, but that doesn't stop people from logging finds on them. Some people think that's nuts.
-
nthacker66, I see you began geocaching in 2008, long after virtuals were no longer accepted for publication. Virtuals seem like they're all at great locations now and many of them were back then too, but a lot of the poor quality ones have been weeded out over the years so what you see now is not what it looked like when virtuals were still being published. It is easy to think the "good old days" were better than they actually were if you weren't there to see them for yourself.
The complete history is available to anyone willing to read through the forum archives. Someone's start date is not a very reliable indicator of their understanding of the issues.
Along with some great locations, there were submissions for dog poop, decaying animal carcasses, stop signs, and shoes tossed up into trees, among other things. Groundspeak tried to limit the publishable submissions to "quality" locations with a "wow" factor, but that quickly became a slippery slope that caused tremendous stress for the reviewers. It was not fair to them to have to arbitrarily decide where the line would be for every virtual cache submission and have to deal with the inevitable argument that would come from the owner of every cache that was not published.
Groundspeak stopped publishing virtuals due to quality control issues, yet they continue to publish physical geocaches without any such concerns. Why is that? The obvious solution would have been to go back to publishing virtuals using the same standards applied to physical caches, yet that has never even been a consideration. As has been pointed out in these forums many times, the decision to halt the publication of virtuals was a policy decision. The stated reasoning given for that decision has always seemed pretty dubious:
In fact by removing virtuals from being listed on geocaching.com you open up the possibility of having physical caches in National Parks. Right now the old standby is "why not just have a virtual in a National Park?" Perhaps now the National Park Service will pay more attention to the possibility of allowing caches there.
One was the "lame virt" phenomenon. There were entire downtown areas of midsized cities where one could not place a cache because every point of historic interest had been made a virtual cache, blocking the area around it. Another reason was land managers. Park rangers were saying "we don't want hidden containers, but we like these virtual caches; please set up some of those."
I suspect that the actual reasons for doing away with virtuals are hinted at here:
No offense meant to Dave Ulmer, but he never actually had to maintain the web site nor had an active role in the growth of the hobby.
And here:
Fine, keep submitting the virtuals and the site volunteers will keep archiving 95% of them in order to keep the area free for geocaches.
And finally, the nail in the coffin:
I lived outside Washington DC for most of my life and have visited almost all of the "virtuals" listed. I still have no idea what a virtual is but I have a firm grasp of what a cache is.
Virtuals were not killed by lameness, they were killed by contempt (and possibly structural issues with the web site).
-
Here's what I learned: when the lily pad puts its foot down, it's down.
Usually. But here's two counter-examples: the Off-Topic forum and Google Maps. Here's another: when the Hiking forum got canned, one person complained loudly about it and it was reinstated, even though hiking has about as much to do with geocaching as automobiles do (less actually). Since it worked once before, maybe they think they can achieve a similar result with virtuals.
-
Those of us who have been around long enough to see the guidelines evolve have some idea of the reasons the various guidelines exist. A newbie is likely take a guess at the reasons based on their own experiences or on some comment she heard from a reviewer or saw on the website.
Not to pick on you Mr. Namboku, but you have touched upon something bothersome that's ingrained into the forum culture here: a lot of time and energy is expended trying to divine the motives for someone's post, rather than just addressing the topic directly. Similarly, a lot of words get written trying to explain the rationale behind the various guidelines, but no one seems to spend much time on the actual meaning of those guidelines.
flyfshrgrl is not the first person to be disoriented by the inconsistencies in the guidelines, but three pages of questioning her motives and telling her what should or should not be doing is not really helping matters. I was not being facetious back in post #90 when i suggested adding a negating clause to each guideline. They really are easier to understand that way. Especially when you realize there's one guideline to rule them all: "Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches."
-
You obviously have not played this game that much. I have found caches where the coordinates were off by a couple *miles* and others that were off by several hundreds of feet. Sometimes you just need to use the information given and make some good guesses.
What was I just saying?
Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates, except when they do not.
-
Would someone please explain why Geocaching.com allows park 'n grabs but wants people to not place hides for the purpose of just placing a geocache?
The guidelines are a lot easier to understand if you add a negating clause:
All local laws and documented land management policies apply, except when they do not.
Geocaches are never buried, except when they are.
Geocaches are not placed on school property or military installations, except when they are.
Physical elements of different geocaches should be at least 0.10 miles (528 ft or 161 m) apart, except when they are not. (Strike that. That one is enforced, except when it's not)
Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates, except when they do not.
Commercial geocaches are disallowed, except when they are allowed.
You get the idea.
-
-
I think you're just trolling now.
The ice cream metaphor was of course meant only to poke fun a the use of metaphors like the car. These have little to do with the finding of caches.
When I look for cache, I am not the police investigating a car robbery. Instead I'm engaging in a fun activity. Certainly, the cache owner can decide that if I wasn't able to sign the log, I might not have found his cache, and per the guidelines, he is allowed to delete my online found log. What is absurd is the claim that there is some requirement that prevents cache owners from accepting online finds with a physical log being signed or that finders who post such logs are cheating. Often in cases like the OP, where some remains are found that are convincing evidence of the cache, cache owners will allow a find. If as a player you don't want to log a find if you find remains, nobody is forcing you to log a find.
The second car example that I gave was supposed to show the absurdity of insisting on a signed log. But of course a stolen car is different, for one thing, it has a VIN number, so the police don't actually insist on finding your registration.
Trolling? How is it trolling to illustrate the absurdity of finding something that is not there? You are completely missing my point (not to mention your insistence on treating the metaphorical as literal). Finding some stuff that might have been part of your car is not the same thing as finding your car, just like finding some some stuff that might have been part of a cache is not the same thing as finding the cache. If the cache is not there anymore, there is nothing to find.
What some owners may or may not allow is not the question. The question is whether or not a missing cache should be logged as found. There is an obvious answer and it does not start with Y.
As for your accusation of trolling, I have seen you have admit to trolling these forums yourself, so it is more than a little hypocritical to accuse someone else of it. Not entirely unexpected, when hypocrisy is what this topic is about anyway.
The issue is where you draw the line. If the police only recover the steering wheel and one hubcap, you may not think they found enough to say they recovered the car. But it may be enough for the insurance company to say the car is a total loss and make a payment. And it may be enough for the prosecutor to bring charges against someone for receiving stolen property.
At what point is there "enough" car? What if just the stereo was removed? or the GPS? What it the car had no registration papers or license plates and had to be identified by the VIN number?
Unlike the police trying to recover a stolen object, geocaching is supposed to be a fun game. Certainly someone claiming a find when they are sitting at home or even because they were in the neighborhood of the cache, is not what the find log is for. However many players choose to use it when they do find something they are pretty certain is or was the cache. You choose to have a definition that you find something only when you have signed the log. Just two extremes of what to call a find. I've personally not log a find three times when all that I found was a logbook - not even a baggie. I could have claimed that I signed the logs and taken a smiley, but I chose not to. On the other hand, I accepted the log of someone who found only the log sheet when looking for one of my caches. It's not worth getting one's knickers twisted over anyone else's definition of a find.
You sure like talking about knickers, but you really will do just about anything to avoid a direct response. Take jholly's advice and report this thread as stolen.
-
You might be a tad optimistic about how much snow is still up there. It's on a South facing slope, but it's also at 5700', shaded by trees, and the coordinates are a little fuzzy. We saw what you did at SiHi last year, so you may mange to dig it out despite all that.
-
Perhaps Wikipedia can help:
A 'metaphor' is a literary figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object.
I used a metaphor to illustrate the absurdity of the situation. If metaphors are not to your taste, I think Post 47 should have been clear enough.
You compared a light pole cache to an automobile. At what point are they the same? That was not a metaphor, it was a joke.
No. I compared finding some stuff that might have been part of a cache to finding some stuff that might have been part of a car. The whole point was that it does not make sense. Allow me to quote what i said in post 47 that you've linked to, but are so studiously ignoring:
What is expected is pretty simple, but these forums are teeming with examples of how people rationalize ways to say they found something that isn't there. Then we get to read all the reasons why DNFs are not actually DNFs. Did everyone grow up writing lies in their diaries or something?
Logging a find on some stuff found near where you think a cache was makes about as much sense as finding an old saddlebag in the desert with the initials "L.D." on it and claiming you found the Lost Ductchman mine.
This has become a fascinating cognitive dissonance exhibition, but I think I've provided enough entertainment for the ever-present dwellers of these forums. You are now free to return to your regularly scheduled Thursday topic, which I believe was "Will it Log?"
-
I think you're just trolling now.
The ice cream metaphor was of course meant only to poke fun a the use of metaphors like the car. These have little to do with the finding of caches.
When I look for cache, I am not the police investigating a car robbery. Instead I'm engaging in a fun activity. Certainly, the cache owner can decide that if I wasn't able to sign the log, I might not have found his cache, and per the guidelines, he is allowed to delete my online found log. What is absurd is the claim that there is some requirement that prevents cache owners from accepting online finds with a physical log being signed or that finders who post such logs are cheating. Often in cases like the OP, where some remains are found that are convincing evidence of the cache, cache owners will allow a find. If as a player you don't want to log a find if you find remains, nobody is forcing you to log a find.
The second car example that I gave was supposed to show the absurdity of insisting on a signed log. But of course a stolen car is different, for one thing, it has a VIN number, so the police don't actually insist on finding your registration.
Trolling? How is it trolling to illustrate the absurdity of finding something that is not there? You are completely missing my point (not to mention your insistence on treating the metaphorical as literal). Finding some stuff that might have been part of your car is not the same thing as finding your car, just like finding some some stuff that might have been part of a cache is not the same thing as finding the cache. If the cache is not there anymore, there is nothing to find.
What some owners may or may not allow is not the question. The question is whether or not a missing cache should be logged as found. There is an obvious answer and it does not start with Y.
As for your accusation of trolling, I have seen you have admit to trolling these forums yourself, so it is more than a little hypocritical to accuse someone else of it. Not entirely unexpected, when hypocrisy is what this topic is about anyway.
-
Well, instead of a car, suppose it was the carcass of a horse?
A valuable steed went missing, an investigation ensues, and it is presumed to be stolen. But they don't know where it is. Then someone finds the body, without the skull intact and calls the police. They do a DNA test and find that it is one of the same. They certainly would exclaim that the horse was "found" , even if it was unrecognizeable from being beaten severely long after it died..
I'm afraid you'll confuse the people who'll wonder what a horse has to do with an LPC, cars and ice cream. I almost have to admire trotting out the dead horse cliche, but getting in a couple good whacks on that carcass yourself.
As if anyone needed more proof, arguing just for the sake of arguing is most of what goes on around here.
-
The poor strawman has really met his match this time.
....
Let's say you were grabbing a few caches and you returned to where you parked your car only to find it gone. You report it as stolen and a few days later the police call to let you know they've recovered your vehicle. You go to the police station and the Desk Sargeant hands you a steering wheel and a hubcap and says, "here's your car." Would you honestly feel comfortable saying the police had found your vehicle? How would you feel if your insurance company agreed?
Did you, or did you not, compare how someone might feel about whether or not someone found a portion of a geocache with how they would feel if the police were able to recover only a portion of some vehicle? I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly wouldn't view those situations as being remotely comparable. I guess I don't understand your analogy.
BTW, I don't agree with the OP logging the cache "found". I don't think he has amazing evidence that he found the cache, which I think was one of your points. I don't think describing what he found as "found" in a geocache log provides very useful information for the next person who might choose to look for the cache, were they to read the log first, or note the "found it" status with a database search like GSAK. I don't really see this as a big deal, either way, though.
Perhaps Wikipedia can help:
A 'metaphor' is a literary figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object.
I used a metaphor to illustrate the absurdity of the situation. If metaphors are not to your taste, I think Post 47 should have been clear enough.
But i wasn't singling you out anyway.
An open letter to Groundspeak about Virtuals
in General geocaching topics
Posted
That doesn't even make sense, especially when you are repeating almost verbatim what CathyH said earlier in the thread. The question remains: why the wow factor only for virtuals?
Yes except the long-neglected Waymarking ghetto is painful to use and the search function is nearly useless. Waymarking is not a solution, it is a punt.
So there you have it. Virtuals are not geocaches. Why is that so hard for people to admit? That attitude is the reason the "wow factor" was imposed on them in the first place and also the reason they can't be listed any longer. Plus, it's much easier to remove something than it is to develop better search and filtering tools.
BTW, those other listing service all allow virtuals.