Celticwulf

There are a lot of good caches in the area, and many of the locals have "favorites" bookmark lists around as well. If you've got a vehicle, there's an area in the north side of the city called "Roseville" that has a ton of caches active in the parks there...in one evening you can walk through a nice park and get a handfull of caches of many varieties. I personally haven't done much caching downtown myself, but that's mostly because the area has so many nice parks with caches I haven't needed to head down there yet. I'd say you'll have plenty to do in those three days depending on your situation when you get here. Celticwulf

I wonder if it's something to do with a "blacklist" site...for it to be affecting all of these different ISP's, it's either something at Groundspeak, or something with an intermediate party that multiple services use. The reason I'm questioning is because the messages everyone seems to be missing all come from "noreply@geocaching.com" while both PQs and weekly notifications come from different emails. Just a thought, hopefully it gets fixed soon Celticwulf

Well, for the Twin Cities area, I'd say there are actually two "best" hiders (not to take anything away from others that have great caches, but two come to my mind right away). Nearest to my home coordinates, I've got Paklid who does a great job with puzzles and camo, and has lots of nice caches. Still in the cities but north of my area is Posen, who has taken over an entire suburb that local cachers have renamed "Posenville". His caches always have great camo and he's got major variations...they're either really easy and make you laugh out loud, or they're major difficult because of the intricate camo. So I'd say I'm lucky in having two great hiders in this area...again not saying there are tons of "bad" hiders either...just these two stand out. Hidden most...now THAT one is easy: I live in King Boreas territory. Although some of his may not be the greatest hides, others are (my favorite cache ever is still one of his, "Lair of the Three Headed Woman") amazing. And he's got so many areas of the state he's hidden things, it has brought me to great areas to visit. I like this question...trying to bring out the positives of areas, thanks for asking. And yes, I don't rate any of my caches that high, I just know I don't spend enough time on them to be great caches like these I've described, but I at least try to make them fun. Celticwulf

Actually, in all reality I do agree with you on your stance on "pocket caches" as you have described. They seem like a fun/harmless thing to do at events, and may help shy cachers meet others. I think the problem most people (myself included) get hung up on is the people who "have" to log a "find" on this type of cache online. To me, if the event has some temps for a purpose of meeting people (pocket cache) or having fun to win prizes (poker run), that's all part of the 1 event. One of the best event's I've been too in MN here was the Poker Run that one of our local cachers put on. Seven temp caches, all hidden well in different containers. The group I was with had tons of fun finding them, and the food and meeting people after was great. I got one smiley for that event. I did get other smiley's that day because he placed some of the temps near permanent caches in the area, so our group found some of those...but I had no valid reason for getting a "find" on the seven temps...they were temps, and they gave me a chance to win prizes at the resturant later. Somehow I ended up with good seats to a Twins game, but that just added to the fun make sense (decides to maybe stop babbling now) Celticwulf

Actually, I'd have to dissagree with you on this...I'd say it would be more accurate to state "are most concerned by accuracy of peoples find counts"...but then again, that's just my gut feel. Really, for me it comes down to how I feel about numbers in general. When I started, the first event I attended I was told that it's allowed to multi-log the event to state what caches you found. However, at the time I had a plan for what cache I wanted to be my 50th find, and the temps would have screwed up this plan...so I had one "attended" log where I wrote in every temp I found. I had fun finding the temps, and had a blast talking with other cachers, and I got one fun "find" out of the event. Going back and thinking about it, even then I thought it seemed a bit fishy, but since "everyone" was doing it, I figured it was just me wanting my count to be accurate. However, at this point, if you review Jeremy's past comments on the issue (see Criminal's post on page 4 of this thread I think), you'll realize that he finds the practice stupid and although has stated he wouldn't do anything at the time, he reserves the right to change how these are logged in the future. To me, if that isn't a clear enough signal that if things get out of hand the practice will be eliminated, I don't know what is. So for now, I'd personally say that anyone that is knowingly increasing their find count by multi-logging events is risking their find count dropping drastically at some point in the future. And anyone telling new cachers "it's OK" is risking them being hurt in the process. It really comes down to the fact that everyone who's find count is highly influnced (meaning in my mind 50+ multi-logs, but can be as few as 2+) by this multi-log process is saying that they are OK with thier find count dropping because of the stupidity of one other cacher in the future. I dunno, I'm thinking I'm happy that I wouldn't be affected by that change in the future Sorry, just chatty and philosophical today. Celticwulf

Ya know, after reading through all the discussion here, I've come to one conclusion. My conclusion is that eventually, TPTB will implement the "one gc number/one smiley" rule. And it comes down to the simple fact that at some point, someone will push the issue to the extreme and the easiest way to deal with it will be to eliminate the practice altogether. The only way to do this will be to implement that change, and although some will be angered, overall the "stats" will be more accurate. Why do I come to this conclusion? Easy, just looking at past history and the stupidity of humans in large numbers. Stupidity of humans in large numbers is easy to find, so I don't think I need to give an example, but the past history is easily seen with last years GW4 crackdown. Two major things happened there that caused some major changes to the game, and caused many caches to be archived (I'm refering to the "moved" cache controversy). Basically, in the past these things happened, and since it was on a minor scale and the owner was involved, most of the time the false logging was just overlooked in what I saw as not an "approval" of the practice, but in a "oh crap, I hope this just goes away" state of mind. Then suddenly the poo hit the fan when someone got so caught up in the practice that a physical cache that is located in Iraq was logged as "found" by people at GW4. When this was shown, most people saw this as something we couldn't comprehend, but to the people doing it...it's the way they learned how to log things, and so they never thought about it. That kinda does show both things, because I'll bet if any of the people who logged "found" on this cache ever did actually think about it, they would realize that what they were doing was innappropriate. So with this, history tends to show that although a practice is not banned at the moment, at some point somebody will push it to the extreme limit and cause a major change. It won't be these small discussions in the forum that will cause the change...it will be some event that will go overboard and suddenly the choice will have to be made. Nobody can really say when it will happen, but seeing as how "standard" this practice has become recently, I'd expect the trigger will happen sooner than anyone will like. And the thing is, when that change happens, I actually will feel sorry for some people. There are a large group of these people who see absolutly nothing wrong with this multi-logging events practice even though they know it's basically gaming the system for a find count. These types of people I have no real sympathy for, because they know what they are doing is not "approved" but only something that TPTB is allowing to happen for now but have stated they can change whenever they wish. The ones I'm going to feel sorry for are the newer cachers...the ones who start caching in an area that this is a prevalent occurance and are told at thier first event that this IS approved and IS standard practice. The one's I'm talking about are the smaller number cachers, but ones who try to remember all of them. These are the ones that are truely going to be affected by this, because they've been told (falsely I would say) that this is something that "everybody" is doing. And I just wonder if some of the people that are doing this as standard practice and telling new cachers it's OK are going to feel sorry for what they've done at that point? In some ways, just because of those newer cachers, I hope that I'm wrong...perhaps something like having itsnotaboutthenumbers.com become more used and stats generated based on the "one gc, one find" rule will keep this from occuring. But I don't see it happening...I just see that there will be someone who does go to the extreme with an event and has a table covered in 35mm containers that says "go ahead and log the event 500 times, I've got that many in the pyramid of film containers here". Or something else...I just can't see it not happening soon because of the stance that some have taken. We'll see where things go from here... Celticwulf

Oh, I'm so on Cornerstone4's side on this one...just to see the havoc in the forums caused by one little programming change could be WAY too entertaining Oh, and I don't think Jeremy has ever stated he will "never" make this change. Every post I've seen of his states that he does reserve that right to make that change. So that is a question for everyone who thinks these logs are valid: what happens when/if Jeremy ever does get fed up with this monthly argument and just makes the change to one log counts per GC number? Celticwulf

Again, I wasn't along but somehow have suckered myself into commenting in this thread, so better keep going for at least one more post First off, the group that went out are all more recent cachers (started within the last year). Second off, to my knowlege (and only having 550+ finds in the area, mine may not be great) we do not have ANY liars caches in this nearby vicinity...we may and I just don't know about them, but we don't have them in this specific area. Thirdly, with those two facts known, remember the group was coming from MN where a lot of newer cachers don't leave the immediate area because of the decent quantity of caches in the area...we've got King Boreas placing caches all over, and some really creative hiders here. So in general, newer cachers don't head out 6+ hours to cache in that area. Also, realize that the group did NOT head out there in a single van...since everyone got off work at different times and had different caches they wanted to do, seperate vehicles were taken...which is how only one person found out about it at first and then the cell phones notified everyone in transit. This also happened because many of the cachers start from different areas of MN, and with our rush hours in the cities it is many times easier to just meet at the final location than try to carpool. So, since none of the cachers involved had ever found a "liars cache", and only hints were given that these things existed in the MNGCA forum, why should this be OBVIOUS? As stated, the one MN cacher that knew about this before they left didn't say anything...and all others didn't have a real idea...heck, until I actually spoke to the people involved I wanted to get another cacher to run out there with me the next weekend to look for the blood trail left by the injured cacher Remember, things that may be common in one area (liars caches, temp logging, fake logging, puzzles, multis, psyco urbans) may and probably aren't common elsewhere...and really until you know all the possiblities what are you supposed to look for ahead of time? Really, I'm guessing everyone enjoyed their first Lamp Post Cache, because this was something new and it felt like something secret that only a few people knew about. Once you see a town littered by lamp post caches, you realize that maybe they aren't the greatest thing...but every single one of those can be a new experience to another cacher. When you drive up and know where the cache is right away, that means YOU have the experince...that doesn't mean EVERYONE does or should. Make sense? Celticwulf

Actually, I'm one who reads the cache page entirely, but I leave the past logs alone until I'm really stumped. I'll go for the random cache around the cities here with just PDA and not logging, but anything further out I'll usually at least check the cache page so I have an idea what I'm doing...I'd rather NOT read the logs because they usually do give a clue, and I'd rather try on my own to find the cache first. But I'll add my nod to the idea an extra atrribute would be great to eliminate some of the upset and angst...well maybe in the forums at least Celticwulf (starting to wonder why I've just quoted Vinny WAY too often today )

See my post above on reading the caches...but here's the answer to that question: Remeber the group found out it was a liars cache the day BEFORE they were supposed to do it, when one person ran over to see what the terrain looked like for the SECOND stage. They then CALLED the 7th person who came down the next day, and HE knew at that point about the cache, but wanted to come and cache with the group through the day... make better sense now? and again, I repeat, this is a thread created by someone NOT involved in the story...and we've got others in this thread that are now just finding out about these things...the thread IS serving some purpose in getting people to discuss the issue. However, yes the cache in question is archived now, but the discussion is still open... personally I like Vinny's statement they should all be puzzles...because in reality, for a multi it could have the first stage at walmart but the second down a cliff and the terrian would need to be rated for the cliff... (edit) But basically the thread was started not to focus on one cache in general, but ALL liars caches and thoughts about it. In reality, in my opinion they probably have their place...but any cache that would cause this much anger is not really a good thing. Within a guideline of remembering that we ALWAYS have new cachers coming in, and that some people may not have seen this style cache, anything that would help make it easier to eliminate the anger would be good...and that may include making it mystery, or having some blatent hints...or at the very least NOT making it sound too much like an amazing cache people would drive for miles to do expecting a great view/experience and then have neither be the case. But that's just my thoughts. (end edit, cause I realized I posted before finishing entire thought ) Celticwulf

Vinny = Non gullible. _______ (<~~insert name) = gullible. So much drama makes my hair hurt & my teeth itch. Personally, my own preferred way of phrasing it is not in terms of "gullible", but rather, Vinny and many others did their research and paid attention, and some other cachers, namely some from MN, did not do their due diligence research or did not pay attention. And my ultimate point, of course, for those who made themselves "victims" is: why blame someone else, such as the cache owner, for your own failure to perform due diligence? Vinny, how many times does it need to be repeated that if you DON"T know there are such things as liar's caches, what exactly are you supposed to be looking for. ESPECIALLY if it's in another state. For everyone who has cached in multiple states (and I'll admit I don't have many to speak of ), from what I've seen each state/area hides and logs things a bit different. Yes, there's some similarity, but there are differences too. How many areas have people that NEVER log DNF's, or have owners who delete them? Really, it's like telling a child they should have known not to touch a hot stove...how do they know this if they've never touched one? The only thing they can do is rely on others...and in this case I know a LOT of preperation was done and emails exchanged...but obviously nobody said "this is a liars cache". In reality, if that had been said early on...a group would still have run out to do it, but probably not in the cold and not ONLY that cache, but a trip to find caches in that entire area. I'll admit to being a bit biased from the fact I know the group from MN that was involved, and was asked to come along but had something else I was doing that weekend. The thing is, from my perspective that's probably a good thing, because although the people that did the cache were civil about it at the event...I'm doubtful I would be able to be civil about that type of thing. I also have this bad tendency to open mouth and insert foot, so combined, it's probably a very good thing I was not involved. From my perspective, I know the Dells area, and want to head there caching...but if I'm going specifically for something "special" and not just to explore the area, I would be very upset to find NOTHING special. Would I still try to make the best of it, probably...but as stated I wasn't along, and only know the story from the MN side. But in reality, the fact that the "liars cache" logs were deleted when the "death" was posted also shows something of the story. If the logs have to continue to be creative, that's pretty darn creative in my opinion. As is, I tend to agree that things SHOULD settle down, but again, relize that BOTH sides have come into this disucussion in the forums BECAUSE of other's posts. Not on their own volition, but because people asked them to come in and explain. And in reality, the MN side I've spoken too were going to only tell people IN PERSON and not go overboard...it was the email exchanges and log deletions that continued to upset them to the point of where we are. Overall, liars caches seem to have their place, and in some ways if this hadn't happened, I would still see some humor...but at this point I'm equating what happened here with another repeated story in the forums about how a fake "found it" log can cost money and hurt feelings. At this point I already know I won't make a fake "found it" since many of us judge the repair of our caches based on logs...I'll have to figure out what I'd do if I ever find a "liars cache". Celticwulf

My first sugestion would be to clear out your cache history and cookies. Sometimes these things get cluttered and cause sites to not work properly. I've had to do that myself a couple of times with the MNGCA forums, and I know others have as well. Try that and see if it works. The only other thought I would have is if someone who has been banned for various reasons somehow has access to the same ISP you do, which may have caused a ban on that IP number. There have been problems I know of some people signing the site up for spam and other various things, which can cause problems for everyone else who uses the site. That's all I can think of for now Celticwulf

Actually Bad_CRC, I'm slightly offended by the offhand "they don't seem very welcoming toward new people comment". I saw the post and have been trying to figure out a response, but just leaving that statement here with no rebuttal seems detrimental to MN caching overall in my mind. Personally, I would say that statement is completly inaccurate. Both the ongoing monthly event's open to EVERY cacher in MN no matter what group, as well as our WeekNIGHT caching runs in the cities area, I have NEVER seen the group be unwelcome to newcomers when met in person. Forum posts are one thing, but we're cachers and we're real people, and the events in the area prove to me that members of BOTH groups are decent people. Do both groups have their own idiosyncricies: Yes, but you'll find that everywhere. Yes, the MNGCA has been around for a while, and was orginazed to work with park districts, but most of the active members I speak to all have done the same thing I did. I attended an event, met some of the people involved, and then joined up once I realized these were people just like me, that enjoyed getting out and finding tupperware in the woods Please, to everyone, MEET some of the people you're talking about IN PERSON before making judgements on entire organizations based on what you've heard or what you read in a forum...I think you'll find the MNGCA is as welcoming of a group as I have once you do that. Sorry, I just had to respond...sorry if it seems a bit much... Celticuwlf

Each Reviewer mention gets one ballot. Not a ballot for each time they are mentioned. This is the fairst way I know to conduct the contest. El Diablo Thanks for the clarification. That's the way I thought you were doing it too, but was getting confused by all of the extra votes from people. Great looking staves, here's hoping my local reviewer wins so I can check it out more in detail at an event sometime! Celticwulf

I don't know about other areas of the world, but in Minnesota in our metro area, there's a decent amount of us that heavily cache in winter and do other things in the summer. Partially since our winters are so long, and partially because it gives us something to do besides huddle inside, but mostly because it's sometimes easier in winter depending on the cache Things to look for (besides wearing proper gear of course) is anything that's listed "winter friendly". Another idea would be to look at older caches that have been found in the past in the winter, or just watch for new caches that pop up. All of those things make it more likely to be a decent cache for winter finding. One of the things we've done around our metro area is something we call "WeekNIGHT caching". Basically someone in the area picks 2-3 new caches somewhere in the area, and we all meet at a parking spot nearby. We wander as a group to each cache to find it...and as each person finds it they try not to let on so others still search. Afterwards we all head to a local resturant nearby the caches and hang out to talk and eat for a while. It's a great way we've found to meet new cachers and have fun finding caches in winter. Usually on the coldest days we're only outside for an hour before the resturant, so we don't get too cold. All of this is done on our local forums, so it's not an "official" event, but the whole "go as group to find caches" isn't supposed to be an event anyway. We all just have fun and give the slow finders a hard time depending on how we're feeling that day. Hope this helps ya out some, but yeah, caching is a year round event in Minnesota at least. Celticwulf

Yeah, I'm kinda curious on this one too. Does it help if everyone "votes" for their favorite, or is it like I read in the first post just going to be a name out of hat based on if their name was mentioned? Just in case the votes count, I'm so putting in Surfer Joe again. Celticwulf

Actually, I'm thinking the "rules" are pretty straight-forward, although perhaps out of order for the TNLN logs, but still applicable. Basically, the way I'm seeing it the rules are: 1) Take Something - Well, I took the log out of the container... 2) Leave Something - yup, gonna put the log back before I leave, so I'll leave the log in place... 3) Record it in the logbook - Well, that's what I took the log out to do anyway, so why not... Anyone else think that makes sense? or am I forgetting that common sense isn't as common as once thought Celticwulf

I'm not sure where you're seeing that. Perhaps? "a few thought it was too dangerous for their pets or kids. Fine" I think that's was a 'Fine, you didn't like it.' Not 'Fine, go ahead and log it." The OP posted on note on the cache page saying you could log the cache in the manner that he's now fuming about. That's the confusion. Why would you say, 'OK do it', and then scream about it when they do? The "Log your visit" post? Yeah, I'm confused too... Am I understanding that people say the OP's post on the page saying "Please Log Your Visit" has been interpeted as "Go ahead and log a 'found it' even if you don't"? Am I the only one that would read that as "please let me as owner know that you visited this cache, either as a note or DNF if you don't find the cache"? Just trying to clear up confusion in my head...there's enough there already I don't need more Celticwulf

Am I the only one confused by the "the website allows it" statement? The reason I say this is, take the OP link. CLICK on the persons event's listing (not just look at the total). Now, when you click that link for "geocaches", it shows 20 listings per page. So if you check the OP link, you see only 2. How can this be...oh yeah, multiple "attended" logs. To me, that indicates that the website does NOT support multiple logs on a cache...but I guess I must be the only one that feels that way. Really, if you can't see them separated, how does the multiple logging help anything BUT the total find count???? But since I basically proposed the same thing on a different thread a few days ago, I guess I've been solidly in the single log camp for a bit Celticwulf

There are a couple of problems with this idea. The most obvious is moving caches. Aren't there a few grandfathered ones still active? Most people agree (I thiink) that multiple finds on these are fine, as long as they aren't consecutive. Some, don't even mind if the owner logs a find once the cache has begun moving. Dangit...I knew I missed something...I remembered adopted caches but forgot the grandfathered moving... Well, I really don't know my thoughts on that subject, only knowing of one nearby and not having had a chance to log it yet. Because of this, I really don't know what my absolute feelings are on moving caches, but when I've thought about it in the past, I've still kinda had the same feeling of what I just proposed in the (summed up: one GC number, one stat count) rules...I'd have fun finding a moving cache a second time, but my second log would probly be a "note". Again, I can't say for sure since I haven't done one yet, but that's my current thoughts. But a very valid point, anyone else have sugestions? Celticwulf

OK, for this I've got a question for everyone that has said "it's not about the numbers" but also has logged events multiple times and their own or archived caches. What would you do if Groundspeak decided to change the current database to allow as many logs per page as you want, but only one "found it" or "hidden it" adds to your stats? Basically, you can go to an event and log every temp you want, but your total number of finds only goes up one. And, if you've hidden a cache, you can log every find you want (which sometimes due to movement it's tough to find your own cache ) but it doesn't add to your total "find" count. And from the perspective of adopted caches, your "find" on it means that once you've adopted it, you don't get a "hide" for it, just the original find. Would this be OK with people? And just to see how people react: what if this was retroactive? Just some questions... Celticwulf

See this posting on the Signing cache container instead of log thread. Celticwulf

Ummmm...no thank Goodness! I'm sorry about that then...we've got a few around here that are very fun and creative, and it makes the cache that much more fun to bring others too. It's hillarious watching others trying to find the cache and then realizing what they just picked out wasn't the real cache. Search for "shelter ii" and "shelter iii" in the midwest forums to see what fun people have with evil hides that include decoys. But, now that I've pointed out that there ARE cachers that put out decoys to make things more interesting, does that change your opinion at all about signing the container rather than the log? Celticwulf

I've seen two situations where FTF was marginally an issue, but not really in my opinion: First, on my third hide I placed it specifically for an "event" (non-GC published) that we have in our area. I checked with the reviewer to see if they could hold off publishing until a certain time of night, but they didn't really like the idea that they would be involved in who got "FTF", which when they mentioned it I went "D'oh!" and just had him publish it. The change was that, the FTF prize was specifically for the group that came later, so I held it for FTF during the event. The actual FTF didn't mind because he's ignored FTF prizes in the past and would have that time too. So there were "two" FTF's, one for the cache publish and one with our group out caching, but everyone had fun Second was again this same "event" a month or two later. The reviewer had some questions about the hide, so the hide was not published yet. The group was basically beta testers on the hide, and the logbook was signed "pre-published" find. Once the cache was published, we logged the actual date found at that time, but the true FTF post publish (and yes, he had to change a couple things) was still open. I'm planning on going back and checking the slight differences soon, but will log my visit as a note since I've already "found" the cache, but it's one of my favorites Just my thoughts...basically to me you can claim what you want based on the owners feelings, but at least you found the cache and signed the log Celticwulf

Without opening it and signing the log, how do you know you found the right container? Or don't you have people who hide decoy caches nearby just to make the hunt more interesting? Celticwulf