grey_wolf & momcat
-
Posts
71 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by grey_wolf & momcat
-
-
Here is a prime example of "#1" subverting the rules to garner smilies.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...42-aca01180c1bc
She logged her own cache ten times.
Ooh. This is very sad. I guess that's one way to get to 15500 finds! Logging your own cache, ten times, because you could not log ten other caches. Very sad.
Wow. I guess people don't believe in karma. There is one fix to this. Change the software so you can only have one "Found It' per cache.
Hmmmmmm 
-
What I see as their short sighted error was the way these previously acceptable practices were summarily archived without warning, etc. I've heard all the arguments for this action and understand them BUT they had been winked at by TPTB for a loooong time so a better way to solve the problem would've been to send out a proclamation with a timetable attached. THAT would've been the way to settle this issue rather than it deteriorating into a witch hunt complete with name calling, accusations, gnashing of teeth, and MUCH bad feelings on both sides. Again, I agree that pocket caches got out of hand and went beyond their designed purpose. I am not arguing FOR them, just taking exception with the way the whole issue was handled - especially here in the forums.Translation: TPTB made a short sighted error and are playing catch-up.Just for fun, what do you see as their short-sighted error?
It seems like it all goes back to that old post by Jeremy that stated that he didn't wish to take action but would if things got out of hand. It did and he did.
I guess that i was caching on that day and not paying attention to FORUMS. I guess I will now spend a bit of time here trying to get a better handle on which "cachers?" that Jeremy is listening to and what is in the works.
-
You folks delete your own numbers and just leave mine alone I didn't personally appoint you a "god" or my overseer. If something really bothers you don't log any caches, you can find them without logging them.
Um. It depends on what you think the logging function is for. I see it as a way to provide feedback to the cache owner. Using the proper log-type is also essential to provide the proper feed-back.
Sure, I suppose I could email the cache owner, but then that email wouldn't be part of the cache history online.
Then that is what YOU use it for. I don't DNF until I am sure it is not there. AND I don't call the cache owners or anyone else for hints to help find caches.
-
After the number padding bunk I've seen, especially in the last few days, I'd just as soon see all the find count be removed from this site. you want to see how many caches i've found? Then count 'em by hand. Everwhere I look is my find count - in the cahes I log, in my profile, etc. Enough. Get rid of the numbers. They're pointless anyway. And with so many people faking them, they're completely meaningless. Nuke the numbers, I say!
I agree, they should just remove the number showing in the LOG. You could still click on a profile and see how many finds they have, but in the plain log it should not show..
Then all the cheaters, would really be only doing it for their own viewing. And only people really interested in another user would be looking at the numbers.
My 2 cents.
You folks delete your own numbers and just leave mine alone I didn't personally appoint you a "god" or my overseer. If something really bothers you don't log any caches, you can find them without logging them. -
I think that a "Statement" needs to be made. IF you cache a lot you get HIGH numbers. You can sign logs and log only one time on an event or any other cache and you still get Higher numbers. If some don't like people with higher numbers, CACHE MORE.
Or, just log a bunch of bogus finds for unlisted caches as is the norm for some folks.
Whatever you can live with, I have my standards and I expect most others have theirs.
-
I am not sure why everyone is getting upset about all this stuff. It is a game, or hobby. I don't care how many finds you do or do not have. I could care less if you found 1000 lamppost micros, even if you never left your chair. I am not impresssed by anyones stats. I am impressed meeting someone with some really good stories at an event. Most of the stories I have heard were not about caches hidden in a wall mart parking lot. I have met several cachers who do not log there finds, would that make them less of a cacher. If so Dave Ulmer is not a real cacher and he started all this. Do I like stats, yes my own. I like knowing how many I have found. We our on the honor system here, and some people will take advantage of that just to feel good about them selves. There is a cacher in my area that claims to have many finds and there is a question about the validity of several of them. We talk about him at some of the events and joke about it. There is no prize for the most finds, so why the heck get worked up about nothing. Much like the geocoin thing. I don't see the point of logging a bunch of coins you saw at an event, that just brings up you stats. I must admit I have broken that with three coins, two original stash coins and one moun10 bike coin. I viewed those as part of our history and was honored that I got to see them, as I know I will never see those in an actual cache. The bottom line is when my head hits the pillow at night I know all my finds were because I signed the log book, I'm not going to loose sleep over anyone who feels the need to log false finds just so they can feel good. I actualy feel sorry for them that there life is so empty they feel the need to cheat themselves. I worry more about the new cachers who go out looking for a few caches can't find them and are ready to give up on it all together. I am sure someone here will pick apart everything I just wrote, but I really don't give a crap about that either. When I meet a fellow cacher and the introduce themselves with how many finds they have I alway ask them what there favorite one was and listen to why. I do not rush out and try to check the log books of them to see if they were really there or not.
Have fun picking this apart and replying to it, I'm going to see if there are any new caches on my way home.
Well said, thanks
-
It makes the count bogus, and it put suspicion on others that don't log finds on caches that are not gc.com caches.
It makes the count bogus for puritans
. I'm not sure how, someone else logging multiple finds puts suspicion on people that don't log finds on caches that are not gc.com caches. If you feel your numbers are suspect because of what someone else claimed as a find, you could alway add a Truth In Numbers section to your profile where you can state publicly which questionable logging practices you have or have not engaged in.I realize that i am a little late on responding to this post, but I am wondering if it is not just as incorrect to NOT log a cache as it is to log one incorrectly? Either way throws off the whole balance of the logged caches for everyone. Hmmm, this is really something to ponder.
-
hat person got praised in local circles for a "great day of caching," while others like me, who also had a "great day of caching" went unnoticed.
Which is why I think that fake stats are not 'harmless'. They erode the ties that bind the geocaching community together.
If you know that your numbers are good and someone elses are not: you can have a smug inner feeling about it. Thats what it is all about, how we personally feel about our numbers isn't it. -
Well, you ARE the one who countered my post in a civilized debate by bringing up my find count, aren't you?
You might want to go back read it again and read it in context.
That's some pretty weak backpedaling, CR. I read the linked post when it first went up, and I interpreted it the same way ParrotRob did. It was pretty clear to me that you were not-too-subtly referring to his find stats.
The context of which was you blathering on about doing your homework before going out to hunt a cache.Not only did you pointlessly drag PR's find count into the discussion, you completely missed the point of his "homework" comment. He was responding to sbell111's post about paperless caching, and whether skipping such 'homework' (reading the cache descriptions in advance) might help one avoid some of the 'undesirable' (lame) caches.
What does blathering about his stats have to do with any of that?
Not everyone caches with such a slow and methodical way as you do. Don't assume they should.Why so defensive about the homework/preparation comment, CR? By any chance have you caused yourself any embarrassments by failing to be slow and methodical lately?
I don't recall anyone saying or implying that you have to do your homework, CR. You're free to proceed as responsibly (or irresponsibly) as you like. The point is that when you choose not to read cache descriptions, you also choose whatever problems you bring upon yourself as a result.
HERE we go into the fire.
It seems that the folks that don't cache "much or any" seem to be the most offended when numbers are brought up. I truly believe that most cachers use the smileys on gc to keep track of their numbers. There are some I know that don't log any caches. But they are very few. If you haven't done certain types of caches, it is real hard to feel that you are an expert on them.
Shields Up -
My comment about "fine cachers and those that need to do more caching"...
...On the other hand, I feel that if you have been on ground speak for 3 to 5 years and still are under 100 caches, you are not really a cacher. (my opinion) In the few caches I have located, I am sure there are a few good caches.
We must refer back to the Geocaching.com licensing manual before statements like this can be made. Quoting from the manual:
Novice Cacher: 1 to 19 finds (no license yet)
"A" License: (Beginner) 20 finds
"B" License: (Intermediate) 50 finds
"C" License: (Advanced) 100 finds
"D" License: (Expert) 200 finds
The manual specifically states that "License ratings shall not expire due to the passage of time. Experience, once gained, shall not be diminished in any manner during a period of inactivity no matter how long that period might be."
So there you have it.
Cute 
-
I don't much care what people say about anything. Folks will gripe about anything no matter what it is. That's out of way. We had a blast with the temporary caches at GW4 You actually had to go from person to person to find them. If you saw something a little out of the ordinary you asked them if that was a cache. You got to meet folks that you may not have if you hadn't been a little brave and gone to talk to them. On a couple of the temps we got in long conversations about caches we had found of theirs and just generally had a good time. We didn't get to log them because they were already archived by the time we got home. Lighten up folks and just enjoy geocaching for what it is... a game to enjoy. I was inspired by Paint's post and surely not by most of the others in this thread.
Sad I have to come out of lurking for a post like this:
I'm going to be a bit blunt. Because, quite frankly I'm very tired of seeing caches around here dropping like flies because of all of the invalid logs.
Did you physically visit these caches you intended to log? Did you sign the little piece of paper in the cache's container? If so, it's a find. If not, Its not a find no matter how you sugarcoat it.
"Pocket Caches" to be completely honest was a bad idea.
Personally, I'm very happy you didn't get to log them. You didn't visit the cache, so how could you even think about counting it as a log?
Do you know why they were archived? People like you.
A very heartfelt thanks for the lost opportunity to find certain caches. I suppose I should have jumped out there earlier before GW4 and found them.
You are from Plano, Tx and weren't at GWIV. You missed a good time. As for the pocket caches, etc. we didn't log them (but don't care that others did), but running around seeing everyone each year and each event that you can get to is a real HOOT! And 12 or so caches one way or another is not a big thing to most that were there. Don't worry about those pocket caches, just go caching for the ones that you like. There are 3000 or so near you!!
-
To answer your question - no. The minimum distance between caches is .1 mile. It doesn't matter what the cache container is. The reason I didn't re-post the original quote is so some of you can hopefully scroll back through all the garbage and BS that's been posted. Most of the new generation cachers place a cache for convenience. It's too much of a problem to get a waterproof ammo box, fill it with items and hike out in the woods. (After all, there are snakes and animals and mud!) To justify this laziness, they make quotes to 'guidelines', 'your opinion' and spend more time posting here as opposed to... caching.
People who want to hike in the woods (with snakes and animals and mud) will hide caches out in the woods. If they like to find ammo cans with lot of trade items, they will hide an ammo can with lots of trade items. People who want to find caches by driving their car to Wal*Mart will hide caches in Wal*Mart parking lots. I wouldn't call these people lazy or cheap or uncreative. They prefer a different type of caching experience. Perhaps they like getting a high find count or perhaps they feel that a hike in the woods is too difficult for them.
Some people will search for any cache that is out there. They like geocaching. Many of them will prefer the experience of a hike in the woods but the Wal*Mart hide is also an enjoyable experience at a different level for them. They tend to hide a mixture of urban micros and both micro and full sized non-urban caches.
My suggestion: Look for the kinds of caches you like to find. Ignore the caches that you don't like to find. Hide the kinds of caches you like to find. Have fun. If you're not having fun, find another hobby.
We must agree with this statement. We consider ourselves middle of the road as numbers go. We like hiking caches, but we love Geocaching period and will take them on as they pop up in the queries and on the GPSr. AND, we have not yet met a Cacher in person that we didn't like. -
To answer your question - no. The minimum distance between caches is .1 mile. It doesn't matter what the cache container is. The reason I didn't re-post the original quote is so some of you can hopefully scroll back through all the garbage and BS that's been posted. Most of the new generation cachers place a cache for convenience. It's too much of a problem to get a waterproof ammo box, fill it with items and hike out in the woods. (After all, there are snakes and animals and mud!) To justify this laziness, they make quotes to 'guidelines', 'your opinion' and spend more time posting here as opposed to... caching.
I thought that I would post this statement that I posted on another forum here. Lazy is an opinion I think.
""I think that a "Statement" needs to be made. IF you cache a lot you get HIGH numbers. You can sign logs and log only one time on an event or any other cache and you still get Higher numbers. If some don't like people with higher numbers, CACHE MORE.""
-
I think that a "Statement" needs to be made. IF you cache a lot you get HIGH numbers. You can sign logs and log only one time on an event or any other cache and you still get Higher numbers. If some don't like people with higher numbers, CACHE MORE.
-
I guess two posts are better than none -- sorry
-
Quote from SEMPER___-
For an example there is a cache in our area that I am working on now that requires you to find things at 6 locations in town to collect information to get the coords for the final. The owner is allowing a find on each of those 6 locations plus the final. With a numeric value the owner could put a 7 on there to set a ceiling vs. a 1 or unlimited choice. That is just 1 example. There are many caches (around here at least) that awards mutliple finds in a single cache for various reasons.
If you allow a ceiling setting you are keeping the multiple find logs option open but the owner can limit it to prevent his/her cache from being used for an unlimited number of bogus finds for pocket caches, temp caches, or whatver else gets thought up.
Are you stating that a "smiley" is being taken for each leg of a multi? HMMMMMMM
-
For an example there is a cache in our area that I am working on now that requires you to find things at 6 locations in town to collect information to get the coords for the final. The owner is allowing a find on each of those 6 locations plus the final. With a numeric value the owner could put a 7 on there to set a ceiling vs. a 1 or unlimited choice. That is just 1 example. There are many caches (around here at least) that awards mutliple finds in a single cache for various reasons.
If you allow a ceiling setting you are keeping the multiple find logs option open but the owner can limit it to prevent his/her cache from being used for an unlimited number of bogus finds for pocket caches, temp caches, or whatver else gets thought up.
Are you stating that a "smiley" is being taken for each leg of a multi? HMMMMMMM
-
When placing or seeking geocaches, I will:
1) Use my brain.
2) Try to make the game fun for others
3) Try not to be too full of myself
cool statements huh.
Ah, the 'Creed'.
I know, I follow #1 and #2 much more carefully than #3, but I try.
Seems like i have the same thing going on #3, but I do try to keep a balance.
-
So all this arguing doesn't change the fact that the while the discussion is called micro vs. traditional yet micro caches are traditional caches.
"Micro" is a size. "Traditional" is a type. Two different things. Like "small" and "American."
And with most (but not all) cachers, numbers do count.Only on a certain level. There are different reasons for watching one's numbers. The folks that are only keeping track out of curiosity aren't the one's harming the hobby. It's the one's that are activity trying to artificially raise their numbers that are harming the hobby. While I feel those are in the minority they are having a disproportionally larger negative influence on the hobby.
While there are a lot of micros out there, i don't know how much a negative influence that they have on the hobby. I have a tendency to not do caches by certain cachers instead of types of caches. There are some very good micros out there.
-
Micro's are classed as traditional caches. Some folks prefer urban micros over going into the Woods, marsh, bush, etc and visa versa. I think the problem comes when the folks that go for the urban caches end up with a higher "smiley" count than the folks that only do large caches. (there are just more of the small caches) And with most (but not all) cachers, numbers do count. The statement about "quality caches" comes up often, but IMHO the level of quality is in the eyes of the beholder. I sometimes bypass caches, but not because of their size or location (this is probably my personal "quality filter" coming into play) Shields are up
-
scare me please.
Mike
OK, you asked for it:
BOO!!!
Thanks, that took care of my aerobics for today.
-
And some don't. The quality of my GC finds went up astronomically, in my opinion, when I started excluding micros on my pocket queries for unfound caches.Some people actually prefer micros. Should your preference have greater weight than theirs? Discuss.
I fixed it for you.
Unfix it, please. That is not what I said, that is not what I meant. It was a straightforward statement of fact; please don't change my posts like that.
Because it bothers you so much, I will.
My point is, your statement was true about your experience. It was your opinion of that experience.
When placing or seeking geocaches, I will:
1) Use my brain.
2) Try to make the game fun for others
3) Try not to be too full of myself
cool statements huh.
-
I enjoy all TYPES of caches. A well placed micro in a high visibility area where maximum stealth is required is almost as much fun as an ammo can in the swamp next to a gator slide.
:P Either way you're trying not to be noticed.
no doubt.
-
my statement was an imperical one. It had nothing to do with logging caches or events, or anything else in particular.
It didn't have anything to do with logging caches? Let's take a peek at part of your quote....
In caching as in life...The second word is what threw me off I suppose.
BUT, I always assume that the ones that react the most had to most to react for. I expected that the concept would be over the heads of some readers. Well, your post IS in the thread about logging events multiple times, right? Why is it surprising that someone thought you were talking about logging caches or events?
Backpeddling is a concept that is not over the heads of some readers, and you've shown us a great example of it.
Because I do not do something and you do, does not automatically make it right or wrong. BUT, I am always interested in all of the ways that words can be twisted and restated for purposes that are still unknown or to get some kind of effect for some personal gain. I am sure the purposes will be revealed in time and in future posts.
Hmmmmmm 
You folks delete your own numbers and just leave mine alone I didn't personally appoint you a "god" or my overseer. If something really bothers you don't log any caches, you can find them without logging them. 
. I'm not sure how, someone else logging multiple finds puts suspicion on people that don't log finds on caches that are not gc.com caches. If you feel your numbers are suspect because of what someone else claimed as a find, you could alway add a 
Shields Up 
:P 
The New Numbers Game
in General geocaching topics
Posted