Jump to content

justintim1999

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    2427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by justintim1999

  1. On ‎10‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 7:27 PM, thebruce0 said:

    Initially, I thought some kind of reward for finds on your caches would be intriguing, but even that could be games. There would be COs would not manage the logs on their caches. Problem with the cache? Don't worry, log it found anyway. A CO wanting that ownership reward would want to deter people recording they couldn't log it found. They'd encourage group caching; say it's perfectly fine if one person finds and the other 40 log it found, not a care in the world. If that wouldn't affect other people, I wouldn't have an issue. But illegitimate find logs do affect other geocachers, and that's why COs are prompted to watch and maintain their listing and log history and attempt to keep it accurate. I don't see how rewarding finds on a cache's CO encourages them to have a reasonably critical eye on Find logs.

    We can't reject good new ideas based solely on those who may decide to scheme them.    We're always going to have people trying to fudge the system.   Why not look at ideas based on people playing the right way, which is the way most players do?        

    • Upvote 1
    • Helpful 1
  2. 2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

    They don't make money of caches. They make piddly money off cache listings (so the more the better)

    Why dose it cost a bazillion dollars to run a commercial during the Super Bowl?    Because there are a bazillion people watching it and will see that commercial.    I'm sure GS makes money on adds but the amount of money depends on the number of people who will potentially see it.    The more members they have the bigger the advertising dollars will be.  

     

    As usual I've found a way to get off topic so this is my attempt to get back on.

     

    There should be some incentive  given to good cache owners who place quality caches.   What that incentive(s) could be I'm not sure but with this push for better cache maintenance I'd think that some sort of incentive would play well with that push.     Giving favorite points to cachers who don't have any because they spend most of their time developing new caches or maintaining existing ones makes sense to me because I'm in that very position.   What other ideas could be used?    

    • Helpful 1
  3. 2 minutes ago, BillyGee said:

    Hope you are fine when they decide to archive your cache because it looks a bit out of the guidelines (which, they say, are not rules). Today. It was OK yesterday but today, well... it is their site, right? You will be able to publish it somewhere else. Now that is an incentive for cache "owners" (in order to stay on topic ;)).

    If they come to the conclusion that my caches are no longer of any value I'll archive them myself.  That being said I'm not to worried about it.   It's been my experience that as long as you're up front and honest about following the rules and maintaining your caches there's not going to be a problem.    As of today I haven't seen any changes to the guidelines that make me want to move on. 

    • Upvote 1
  4. 1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

    Groundspeak doesn't profit from your geocache. They profit from people who wish to use the services they provide to list your geocache in a location that will guarantee people will see and may be interested in finding it (presumably why you placed it in the first place; or maybe the 2nd or 3rd place)

     

    I don't place and list geocaches to give Groundspeak money. I can do that because Groundspeak is able to support the work needed to let me do that; and for free.  If I want additional perks and functional benefits, I can choose to give Groundspeak money for those benefits in a premium membership.

     

    Groundspeak earns nothing from my geocache.  They can earn pennies from me choosing to list my geocache on their website by plopping a couple of ads on the page. But they earn the most from people who choose to pay them membership fees to access greater features and services.

    Each and every cache is part of the whole that is Geocaching.  This whole is what causes people to become members as well as premium only caches and various features,  so indirectly GS makes money on your cache and mine.     And I'm fine with that.

  5. Thanks for sharing this idea with us.   I think it's worthy of discussion. 

     

    I'm  Actually in the same boat as the person you mentioned.     Life's been busy and most of the caching related time I spend is on cache maintenance.    As of today I don't have a favorite point to give even if I wanted to. 

     

    It would be nice to acknowledge good cache owners is some way.  I don't see anything wrong in offering some sort of incentive to place better caches.     

  6. 1 hour ago, BillyGee said:

    On the other hand, only Groundspeak profits from your cache. So it is effectively theirs until it gets destroyed by a muggle.

    How is it I can pick up my cache and archive the listing any time I want to if GS owns it?

     

    1 hour ago, BillyGee said:

    Whenever somebody at Groundspeak decides that your cache breaks some stupid guideline or that your eyes are the wrong color or whatever, your cache is gone.

    Their listing site, their rules.    When you click that submit button your agreeing to all those guidelines,  regardless how stupid you may think they are.    If new guidelines are implemented and you don't agree with them,  your free to archive your cache or move it to another listing site.   

     

    28 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

    I think it’s for these very reasons Groundspeak has decided it wants nothing to with the ownership of the physical cache - no liability.

     Bingo!   The guidelines are known.   Your willingness to follow them are not.   Because of this ownership & Liability has to remain with the individual.   

    • Upvote 2
  7. On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 5:30 PM, The A-Team said:

    It wouldn't matter much to me. If I created "a nice cache in an interesting area", I'd feel it's more important that the person was able to have that experience than worry about whether they signed the log or not. Yes, it would be nice if they could sign the log, but sometimes "things happen" and you find yourself without a way of signing the log. Give me some proof that you were there and I'd be happy as a clam.

                                                                                                                                                            

    This sounds about right!

    • Upvote 1
  8. The fact your even asking this question is encouraging.   It tells me your thoughtful and care about how your actions are portrayed.    Three cheers to you. 

     

    Like Keystone said.   "Permission is a awesome thing".     It covers all persons involved.   

     

    Keep in mind that getting permission to do something doesn't always make it the right thing to do.   This is where you need to use your own good judgement to make the right call.  

    • Upvote 1
  9. I don't get it either but for whatever reason they enjoy armchair logging.  

     

    Find numbers mean little to me and I don't place caches so that people can pad their stats.    Don't waist your time and energy worrying about them.  Focus on more fun and creative endeavors like finding another cache or hiding one. 

     

    There's also nothing wrong with reporting suspected "fowl play" to GS and let them take it from there.         

  10. I personally don't see anything wrong with your first paragraph.  That being said I'm not a reviewer.   Despite popular belief reviewers are flesh and blood human beings.  Like all people they read and interpret things a little differently than your or I.     How you handle this situation will go a long way toward developing a good rapport with your reviewer.   I had the same situation and with a little tweaking I was able to satisfy myself and my reviewer.     Try incorporating your first paragraph into the history portion.  Sometimes a little creative writing will get you to where you want to go.   Good luck.   

  11. 10 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

     

    I agree with Mausebiber and redsox fan (go Yankees!).  

     

    In your example of a cache near a parking lot but up in a tree, the physical effort *includes* climbing the  tree (to get to the cache).   Where the confusion comes in is when someone adds to the D rating because the terrain is "difficult".   Whether someone has walked 200 feet or two miles, if you can see the container up in the tree from the ground, the difficulty shouldn't be more than a 1.5, but the terrain rating might be dependent upon the distance one has walked and the physical effort (and if equipment is required) to climb the tree.

     

     

    Both the Difficulty and Terrain ratings are supposed to be based on the "average" geocacher.   An "average" geocacher might be able to free climb a tree, and a T3 rating might be appropriate despite the fact that a less abled geocacher might not physically be able to climb the tree without extra equipment (e.g a ladder to reach lower branches).  

     

    Thanks.  Except for the go Yankees:D

  12. 6 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

     

    Yes.. if finding the cache requires a difficult tree climb, then I think the Terrain rating should reflect that, not the D.   

    The difficulty would be how easy it was to find the cache in that tree.    If it is a tiny nano and you can't see it from the ground, it is also very difficult.   If it is a ammo can with flashing lights, the difficulty would be low.   If you had to solve a puzzle to get the combination to open the box, that would also increase the difficulty.

     

    I think this is the most useful way to do it.    I'm not the youngest or most agile, so I'm looking for high Terrain ratings to flag up a possible warning to me.    I don't mind the cache being difficult to find, or a difficult puzzle.   Of course some T5 caches I can do, e.g. I have no problems paddling a kayak (on calm water).    

    Sounds logical to me.  Thanks for the explanation.   

  13. 3 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

     

    I agree.

    I think I see what your saying now.  Even if the cache was 20 feet from the parking lot but hidden in a tree your saying the terrain should be something like a 4.  If so where dose the difficulty come in?    How would you rate my example?

  14. 13 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

    This is very confusing and in my opinion not correct.  T-rating was (and perhaps still is) the effort it takes to get to the cache (not to the coordinates), this includes tree climbing or scuba diving. The way to the beach is T1.5, scuba diving is T5.0, so I feel the overall T-rating should be T5.

     

    And for me, only this makes sense.  If I query for cache and don't want to climb, my query would be T4 or less. How would I exclude tree climbing cache if they would be D-rated?

    Query D4 or less would exclude quite a lot of interesting cache I would like to visit and now miss.

     

    Definition should be:  Terrain:  Physical effort needed to arrive at the cache.

    If a cache was an easy walk to the cache hidden up in a tree to me that would be something like D3.5/T1.5.   

     

    16 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

    Terrain:  Physical effort needed to arrive at coordinates.  Difficulty:   Effort needed to solve and find the cache and logbook at GZ.

    I don't see how this is confusing.    It separates the difficulty levels in getting to the cache and signing the logbook which are two different things.   Changing the word cache to coordinates eliminates the need for both distinctions.      

  15. On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 10:35 AM, Goldenwattle said:

    I wish finders, with a minimum of finds to eliminate beginners who don't yet have the experience, could rate difficulty and terrain and the scores be averaged out and displayed.

    We all make mistakes.    I guess it depends on how many people have commented that the T/D is off.   One or two I'd ignore.  Five or six I would definitely take another look.   I've heard that the only problem with changing the D/T after the cache has been out for some time is some may be using that cache for a challenge and changing it would mess that up for them.  Is that true?   Even it that true having an accurate D/T is more important and should be changed if incorrect.  If the difference was negligible or the cache' as only been out for a short time I'd lean toward just keeping it as it is.   

  16. On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 9:48 AM, redsox_mark said:

    I agree the definitions are confusing:

     

    Difficulty:   Effort needed to solve and find the cache and logbook at GZ.    

    Terrain:  Physical effort needed to arrive at coordinates.

     

    In the case of a tree climb, where the tree is easy to walk to (say 1.5 to walk to the tree), but the tree is 50 feet up.   I think most people rate the tree climb as part of the Terrain, but you can read these definitions to say the effort needed to "arrive at coordinates" is T1.5.   But once you get to the coordinates, some difficult effort is needed to access the cache and logbook (which is part of the "find").    So you can read this as the tree climb should be reflected in Difficulty, not Terrain.  

     

     

    That's how I see it.

  17. 41 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

     

    No...I think for what they did and how they did it, they actually earned an even harsher response than I gave.  They took it too far, in my opinion.

    Your right.   We need to take this to another level.   I say we start with a few garden variety threats to see what we're dealing with first.    If it's true that sticks and stones may break your bones but words do permanent damage,  we may be able to get them to crack and see the error of their ways without having to go to phase 2. ;)  

     

    Or maybe,  just maybe, they may regret what they did and, with all sincerity , contact the other party and insist they re-log the cache as a find.  :D

     

     I kind of hope they don't though. I was kind of looking forward to initiating phase 2. :ph34r:

  18. On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 9:00 AM, J Grouchy said:

     

    Here we go again.

     

    It is 100% up to the CO.  If someone writes a log that says they couldn't or didn't sign the log sheet, GS will not step in and delete the log, precisely because of what I just said...it is 100% up to the CO whether they want to let it stand.  

     

    To CR:

    If you want to be a complete stickler for rules and regulations, dashing the joy of an 8 year old kid and making his family decide they'd rather not geocache because of the rude people who delete their finds....well, that's 100% up to you as well.  You and only you are making the choice to delete the log and don't try to claim that your hands are tied and you are "just following the rules".  You totally could have written that you hope they enjoyed themselves and would prefer it if they sign the log sheet in the future.  No, instead you pulled out your rule book and robot voice and potentially gave them reason to wonder if all folks in this game are joyless.

    Hey I would have allowed the find but I'm not going to berate the cache owner for following the rules.

     

    I'd only hope they would re-consider before deleting the next one.  

  19. On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 4:29 PM, The A-Team said:

    It's fine to be strict and require that finders sign the logbook of your caches, but please don't mislead people by quoting things as rules when they aren't. It is not a general rule that the logbook must be signed. I wish people would stop trying to say this is the case.

    Telling someone that signing the log isn't a general rule when it's the only requirement actually listed in the help center just rubbed me the wrong way.   If the CO is willing to accept a photo as fulfilling the requirement to log the cache online,  I applaud them for that.   If the CO wants to enforce the guideline and physically match the signatures with the online logs and delete those that are missing, I'd be saddened but I'd uphold their right to do so because it is the only stated requirement for logging a find online.

     

    An owner shouldn't have to put "you must sign the log book" on the cache page because It's already an established and accepted practice.   If it wasn't then why dose just about everyone get bent out of shape about armchair loggers?

     

    If your serious about deleting logs then you better be prepared to run out periodically and start checking log books.   In 8 years I've deleted -0- logs.  Not because I haven't had my doubts about a few of them,  but because 99 % of the logs are from good honest people who are just trying to have a little fun.   All that effort to catch the 1 or 2 that think they're getting away with something isn't worth my time.    More than that,  I hate myself if I deleted a find by a person who was trying to play the game right but made some innocent mistake like forgetting to bring a pen along. 

     

    • Upvote 4
  20. 5 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

    It's fine to be strict and require that finders sign the logbook of your caches, but please don't mislead people by quoting things as rules when they aren't. It is not a general rule that the logbook must be signed. I wish people would stop trying to say this is the case.

     

    It also might be a good idea to state in your description that you require a signature in the logbook and will delete finds if there isn't. Most COs are more lenient and the default assumption of most finders is that the CO will accept some other form of proof in a pinch, so those COs who take a strict view should say so up-front. I don't see anything like this in your Letterbox Challenge description.

    So what set of rules are we suppose to follow?   I go by the ones in the help center which say "  You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook".   It obviously holds some weight with GS as you can get a found log deleted if you can prove it's bogus. 

     

    Is there another set of rules I don't know about? 

     

    To the OP.  Instead of stating on your cache page that the log has to be signed, which is common knowledge already,  why not add that you'll accept photo logs as well.   That's something they may not already know.     

    • Upvote 2
  21. 7 hours ago, StumblinMonk said:

    For me this started as a way to get my kids off the couch and in nature.  Now my oldest has our main account that we log all our finds on.  In the first couple times out we learned a lot about a nature area across the street from our home.  It has put my family in situations that I do not believe they would attempt without the goal of a smiley in mind, last fall we had to cross about a 60' wide creek on a fallen tree.  I am also using this hobby as a training tool of sorts.  We are planning a Disney trip in a few months and I am getting my kids used to being out on their feet for extended periods, so 5 days in the parks is not a complete physical shock to them.  

     

    To make this even more fun, I have taken Cub Scout groups out in areas I have found and families that have lived in the area for generations did not know of some of the cool places this has taken me.  

    Forget the kids.  5 days at Disney almost killed me!  

  22. The rule is there for the benefit of the cache owner.  It allows them to delete finds, they believe to be bogus,  in which the log was not signed.   Other than that it's completely up to the cache owner to decide what's an acceptable find.

     

    Talk about geo-litter.  I'm probably responsible for a box or two of pens I've lost in the woods over the years. :blink:       

  23. 1 hour ago, dprovan said:

    It makes sense, but only as much sense as logging a note and explaining, "I found your cache and signed the log, but I'm going to post this as a note anyway." There's a found log I use when I found the cache according the the rules. There's a did not find log I use when I did not find the cache according to the rules. I don't mind that you want the find log to mean "found according to the rules" but the did not find log to mean "I cannot use the English word 'find' to describe what happened", but I don't think it makes as much sense as using "find" consistently for both types of logs.

    Now we're going to dissect the word find?   When the debate disintegrates to this level of minutia,  it's time to move on.

    • Upvote 1
  24. 43 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

    First you say...

     

    But then you betray your "I just don't agree" with...

     

     

     

     

    This is why the debate rages on - you say you understand, but you try to change people's ways. Why do you care so much? To others it's YOUR way that makes less sense. Who's right? You? Say who? You? That's what you are absolutely implying by telling people their methods don't make sense, and you want them to "see the light" and stop an "antiquated" practice. They've seen the light - it's not yours.

     

    If you truly do "understand that different people choose to post online logs differently", especially if their habits are irrelevant to your finding, then let it go. You're not debating an objective truth, you're trying to make your opinion about Notes vs DNFs the truth.

     

    People have a different qualification for a DNF log vs a Note. And that is absolutely fine.

    I understand that people continue to log this way because it's the way they've always done it.   I understand that some people are unwilling to change.   That doesn't mean I agree with the practice.   

     

     

  25. 15 minutes ago, niraD said:

    I don't agree with the way everyone posts online logs either. But I do accept that they post differently from the way I would, that they have their own reasons for doing it that way, and that they aren't going to change just because I do it differently.

    How about changing because it just makes sense?  Why not promote the common sense approach rather than defend a practice that antiquated? 

    There's no need for us to continue going back and forth.  I understand where your coming from and I've said all I can say to make you see the light.     I'm not naive enough to think  anything I say could make you do a 180.  I'm just hoping that some new cachers will think about all this and choose to follow what makes sense to them. 

×
×
  • Create New...