Jump to content

Plasma Boy

+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Plasma Boy

  1. I beg to differ. Groundspeak has a page devoted to advertising third party software packages (such as GSAK, Cachemate and others) that make offline databases possible. Offline databases, lower the need for cachers to constantly download PQs. I would imagine that these software packages make caching more enjoyable and I would say that they are part and parcel responsible for geocachings popularity. Without third party software packages, geocaching would be very difficult to manage. GC.com does not supply it's members with a database management tool of their own. They rely on the third party software packages to manage their PQs. The OP's (me) original question was asking why there can not be more PQs stored in our accounts. Offline DBs are a result of pocket queries. Having a higher limit will just make the administration easier for both the cacher and will reduce bandwidth load on GC servers.
  2. As CheesePizza says, it is all about database management. I use GSAK to manage my cache data. It is a very high powered extremely useful database management tool. The authors and contributors are to be commended. I have a set of base PQs for NS, another for PEI, another for NL and another for NB. I also have a set of last 7 day PQs that I access every week. The base ones I only access when I need to rebuild my database, so are not used often, but to rebuild them and recalculate the dates would be a pain in the a**. I also request PQs for areas that I will travel to in the future, like NWT, Yukon and California. If these PQs sitting in my account took up a lot of storage space or a lot of cpu time on the GC servers then I could see the limit of 40, but until a PQ is requested, it takes up very little storage space and no cpu time. 100 PQs sitting in my account would most likely take up less than 100 K of storage space. There are lots of features on the Premier Membership, that I have no use for, but just because I do not need them, I do not speak against the wants of other cachers. I do not have an Iphone, so I don't need that one. I do not cache along a route, so that one is useless to me. I only ever watchlist ~10 caches, so unlimited watchlists is not needed. I could live without the MAP IT feature and I really do not need to be notified about new caches ahead of the non PMs. I am not really into commando FTFs. The one feature that I use a lot and think needs improving are the PQ limits. Yes, it would be even more handy if the PQs could be larger, but that is not an issue for me, but if other paying clients wanted it, I would not object. If you do not need or want more PQs, it will not affect you if others want and or need more. Just like if someone wants to watchlist 1000 caches, I could care less.
  3. Does the off limits (bridges) apply here? The guidelines say "highway bridge". Is this an active or abandoned bridge? What exactly does "highway bridge" mean?
  4. We have a local cacher in Nova Scotia, who has been a member since 2001. Granted he has not been a premium member all of that time, but he has been a member all the same. He has the further distinction of placing the first geocache in Canada and maybe the 20th or so in the world. That cache is still active and well maintained. I personally think that if anyone deserves a charter membership, it is him. From the start he has worked to make geocaching better. He contributes regularly to group events and is very active locally and is extremely helpful to both new and old cachers. Personally, I think a charter membership should mean more than just joining early and paying up every year.
  5. What is the purpose of aa charter membership?
  6. Question. Do charter members pay a membership fee?
  7. Did a search and did not find an answer. If this has been answered, just point me to the forum. Why is the number of pocket queries that you can hold on your account limited to 40. These queries do not take up that much space. Performing the query requires time and resources, but storing them can not require that much space.
  8. I suppose the only thing I can say is that it is my understanding that seeking caches is not mandatory. I can not force anyone to look for them, just as I am not forced to look for others peoples caches. The people who did my caches, did them because they wanted to and apparently wanted to fulfill my legal requirements. Those who did not do my caches had their reasons for doing so, I hope the requirement of licking my nuts did not put them off. Your analogy doesn't really help your position. I do like ice cream and I really like having my nuts licked. Maybe I can work that into a puzzle cache. My logic is that you are correct that 20 emails is 20 emails. Your math is above reproach. But 20 emails and 100 logs make me feel that 80 of those loggers do no appreciate the effort I put into the creation of my cache. As I said I make the caches for me. I share them in the hope that cachers will appreciate them. If only 20% appreciate them, then I would rather not bother being a cache owner. So, as far as I know, I have not said anything personal against anyone on this thread. I have put my position forward politely. I accept the position of others on this thread, I just do not agree with many of them and have said so without making it personal. PS Could you give me the address of the ice cream shop you go to. I would really like to check out that place.
  9. Because the twenty who have done my cache have sent me very nice emails about my cache. That is a 100% joy factor. If only 20 out of a 100 send me emails, then I only have 20% of the joy. The other 80 loggers just get a smily and I do not have the joy of meeting them. They do not want to share in my investment. I would rather have 20 people really enjoy my cache, rather than 80 who just want a smily. The 20 who email, I see as givers. The other 80 are just takers. I prefer the givers. The takers can take from somewhere else.
  10. Apparently, it makes you happy to avoid answering that question. Allow me to restate it for you: Would you get more pleasure out of owning a cache that is enjoyed by 100 people, 20 of which send you a picture that makes you chuckle or a cache that is enjoyed by only 20 people, all of which send you a picture that makes you chuckle? Sorry, if that was not clear enough for you. OPTION 2
  11. Sorry, honestly. I follow the philosophy of that great American poet, Ricky Nelson. "You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself" I cache to make me happy. I was putting out caches because it made me happy. If fellow cachers are happy as a result of my being happy, BONUS. If I feel my effort is not appreciated then I am not happy and take measures to restore my happiness.
  12. I'm rubber and your glue, anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you. See, I can be juvenile also.
  13. Yea, I know it's sad. My mum had to tie a pork chop around my neck to get the dog to play with me. I would cry myself to sleep.
  14. Why would I want to quit? I have some good cache buddies. I have a new guideline to follow. I will have more time on my hands, because I will not need to maintain caches. If caches are reestablished on my old sites, I can log them and push up my numbers. I no longer need to try and think up thought provoking caches. I won't be inviting friends and people I meet on the trails to join, mostly because I will not be talking about geocaching that much. What's to talk about? Go to a web site, get some coords, follow the directions and sign a piece of paper, log online. Rack up the numbers. They should hire me in PR. I'll just collect numbers. Find a cache, sign the log. Perfect. I had no expectation that my views would change the new guideline. But, that does not stop me from saying that I do not like it. I have said so and have justified my opinion. Many do not agree. Good on ya. When the next edict is bought down from TPTB, that I do not agree with I will comment on that as well. I invite you to do the same. For or against.
  15. If you are in the position, I would like to know as I stated earlier, how many of the 3/4 of a million cachers complained about ALRs? Was it 50%, 80%, 0.08%? How many? That is the number I would like to see. I understand me knowing the number will not make a difference or change the guidelines back, but I would like to know how many complainers or constructive criticizers, if that sounds better, it takes to change a GC guideline.
  16. How about I stop using it when you or a GC rep publishes the stats. Out of the 3/4 of a million cachers, how many complained about ALRs? Should be easy enough to figure out with the honking big database GC has.
  17. Not true. If they no longer are required to email me answers then the back and forth conversation never happens. Do you send an email to all of the people who complete your caches? Cachers contact me and sometimes we become friends. I have met a few people from around the world who I would not have met except for them completing the ALR.
  18. I know this is a done deal and I am dealing with it in my own way. Having said that, I have made a lot of friends from around the world, because of my ALRs. If my caches were the suggested traditionals, I would not know these fellow cachers. When the cacher sends me an email with the answers, I verify that they are correct or I correct them and some have continued to email back and forth. If you read the comments in the logs of my caches, most of them are positive and praising. I have not received one bad response to any of my 4 ALR related caches. No one has ever complained to me directly or through a GC rep. I was informed of my need to change after I brought up my position in a local forum. I would really like to see the stats on the complaints received about ALRs. As most of you know, happy people do not contact to praise things. Disgruntled people always contact to complain about things. I do not know if it is a valid method for deciding if guidelines need to be changed. Did GC follow up on complains, by reading logs of offending caches or did they just revise the rule because of a small vocal negative section of the members?
  19. Which is what you stated and are trying to mislead people with on your Earthcache pages. Which are not affected by the rule change, just your attitude is. Sorry, was not meant to be misleading. Just copied and pasted the same text without thinking. I have corrected it. Thanks for pointing out my error.
  20. Yes, it all comes down to the guidelines. I intend to comply with the guidelines. I will comply by removing my illegal caches from the hunt. I will not change them, because until this latest arbitrary rule change they were legally designed and approved. I did not cheat. I discussed the caches with the reviewer and they were allowed to be published. Everyone should be happy, the guidelines will be complied with. I see you have only disabled your caches not removed them. You also disabled your Earthcaches which are not affected by the new guidlines. Note from your Meguma and the Man Earthcache: So which GC.com representative said that an AlR on an Earthcache is no longer valid? That sounds like you are wanting to punish everyone by removing viable caches just because you refuse to alter the others as others have tried to reason with you. I find some of your ALRs cumbersome and would probably do your caches but skip the logging of them. I am happy visiting the site and you will never know if I did or not, but I am happy and that is what counts with ME. I am not interested in numbers just visiting interesting sites. I disabled everything because I will either stay in the cache owning business or I will get out of it and just collect caches. That is until the next guideline change comes along that makes it mandatory to hide caches.
  21. See I guess it is all about perspective. I did not post on this forum to ask for your help in complying with a new guideline I do not agree with. I posted here to pose my opinion and see if any one agreed. A very few do, but most do not. I know it is a battle I can not win. I accepted that when I disabled my caches.
  22. Just because my perspective is different from yours and others does not make it wrong. It is just different.
  23. Yes, it all comes down to the guidelines. I intend to comply with the guidelines. I will comply by removing my illegal caches from the hunt. I will not change them, because until this latest arbitrary rule change they were legally designed and approved. I did not cheat. I discussed the caches with the reviewer and they were allowed to be published. Everyone should be happy, the guidelines will be complied with.
  24. In order to log a find on a puzzle cache you must solve the puzzle. Why is me skipping a puzzle cache because I do not want to or can not solve it any more or less valid? Perspective. It's obvious from your other posts that you just don't have it. Wow, a moderator insulting some one he moderates. So, how is my perspective skewed? In order to log a puzzle you must solve the puzzle or not do the cache. My cache requires you to answer questions or you do not do the cache.
  25. In order to log a find on a puzzle cache you must solve the puzzle. Why is me skipping a puzzle cache because I do not want to or can not solve it any more or less valid?
  • Create New...