Jump to content

MartyFouts

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    357
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MartyFouts

  1. quote:Originally posted by Rubbertoe: quote:Originally posted by Markwell:One of my bugs was temporarily messed up because a cacher (CACHER A) felt the need to log that they found the bug. Before CACHER A logged it, another cacher (CACHER found it in the cache, went home and logged that they had taken it from the cache. CACHER A then "grabbed it" from CACHER B to keep the integrity of the fact that they found it and left it in the same cache. Now we had to e-mail CACHER B to have them "regrab" it. EXACTLY. Not only do I not see the point of logging a bug that you don't move, other than to pad your stats - this can only lead to problems like you mentioned above. People seem to have a hard enough time figuring out how to log a bug, without things like this coming into the equation. --==< http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe >==-- Don't tell me there's a travelbug-finding competition too. Anyway, I've been known to "grab" a travel bug and put it back in the cache. It's happened twice because I tried to log a note for the bug and managed to log a find instead. I think that's a bug in the travelbug handling software. But I'd do it for the simple reason that it gives me a list of the travel bugs I've seen. I might not want to follow them all all of the time, but sometimes it's fun to go back and look at where they've gone since the last time I thought about them.
  2. quote:Originally posted by Rubbertoe: quote:Originally posted by Markwell:One of my bugs was temporarily messed up because a cacher (CACHER A) felt the need to log that they found the bug. Before CACHER A logged it, another cacher (CACHER found it in the cache, went home and logged that they had taken it from the cache. CACHER A then "grabbed it" from CACHER B to keep the integrity of the fact that they found it and left it in the same cache. Now we had to e-mail CACHER B to have them "regrab" it. EXACTLY. Not only do I not see the point of logging a bug that you don't move, other than to pad your stats - this can only lead to problems like you mentioned above. People seem to have a hard enough time figuring out how to log a bug, without things like this coming into the equation. --==< http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe >==-- Don't tell me there's a travelbug-finding competition too. Anyway, I've been known to "grab" a travel bug and put it back in the cache. It's happened twice because I tried to log a note for the bug and managed to log a find instead. I think that's a bug in the travelbug handling software. But I'd do it for the simple reason that it gives me a list of the travel bugs I've seen. I might not want to follow them all all of the time, but sometimes it's fun to go back and look at where they've gone since the last time I thought about them.
  3. quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: quote:Originally posted by seneca:I use the "Tortoise GAQ" based on trying to find one quality cache per week. Some weeks it is hard to find even one quality cache. Other weeks, it's hard to find a lame one. If today's any indication this week's gonna be one of the latter.
  4. quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: quote:Originally posted by seneca:I use the "Tortoise GAQ" based on trying to find one quality cache per week. Some weeks it is hard to find even one quality cache. Other weeks, it's hard to find a lame one. If today's any indication this week's gonna be one of the latter.
  5. quote:Originally posted by Geo Jeff:I think a little competion is okay, but the numbers mean nothing if people don't find a cache but log a FIND anyway. I hate it when people do that because the "Last found" date looks like the cache is there when in fact it may not be. I also don't agree with people "Finding" their own cache, but thats another story. Geo Jeff (leave more than you take) You shouldn't really rely on the logs to determine if the cache is there or not, of course. It may have disappeared since the last person was there. Even a bunch of 'can't find' in a row doesn't mean it's not there. I know of one cache that several people were unable to find but that turned out to be there, and I bet most people have seen logs for such a cache. About the only thing in a log that should be relied on is a note from the hider saying they checked and the cache was/wasn't there on a given date.
  6. quote:Originally posted by Web-ling: quote:Originally posted by Marty Fouts: quote:Originally posted by Team Golden:Marty - Who is forcing anything on anyone? Well I'm off to the freezer section if anyone wants to meet me there.... No one yet. It's a refernce to attempts by people to have locationless or virtual caches 'done away with' in one way or another. Nobody's forcing anyone to compete. And I don't think that those who are trying to get rid of virtuals and locationless are doing it because of competition. Most of them are doing it because they don't consider it geocaching. I like the friendly competition. It was pretty cool being the first person in Texas to reach 300, beating another cacher by about an hour. But nobody's forcing it on anyone. The guy I nosed out for #300 couldn't care less (or so he tells me... ). Team Golden: See ya in the freezer section. http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/25021_1200.gif Actually, Steve Bukosky started a thread in which he pretty much said he wanted to "do away" with virtual and locationless specificly for competitive reasons. "Do away" means count separately to Steve, I think, not completely delete. I won't rehash the are-to/are-not debate on virtuals here, it's been done enough time. Ditto the somewhat different debate on locationless.
  7. quote:Originally posted by Web-ling: quote:Originally posted by Marty Fouts: quote:Originally posted by Team Golden:Marty - Who is forcing anything on anyone? Well I'm off to the freezer section if anyone wants to meet me there.... No one yet. It's a refernce to attempts by people to have locationless or virtual caches 'done away with' in one way or another. Nobody's forcing anyone to compete. And I don't think that those who are trying to get rid of virtuals and locationless are doing it because of competition. Most of them are doing it because they don't consider it geocaching. I like the friendly competition. It was pretty cool being the first person in Texas to reach 300, beating another cacher by about an hour. But nobody's forcing it on anyone. The guy I nosed out for #300 couldn't care less (or so he tells me... ). Team Golden: See ya in the freezer section. http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/25021_1200.gif Actually, Steve Bukosky started a thread in which he pretty much said he wanted to "do away" with virtual and locationless specificly for competitive reasons. "Do away" means count separately to Steve, I think, not completely delete. I won't rehash the are-to/are-not debate on virtuals here, it's been done enough time. Ditto the somewhat different debate on locationless.
  8. I'm a number junkie. I love setting silly meaningless goals and achieving them. So I've been thinking about 'reaching 100' as a goal. So far, I've come up with: first 100 caches first 100 non-locationless caches first 100 non-locationless non-virtual caches first 100 local caches 100 caches in 100 days but the one I like best is: closest 100 caches (not including those you place) because, of course, every time someone places a new cache nearby, you get to try for it again. (Provided you've gotten there the first time. I sure haven't. ) So, what variation on 'finding 100' do you have in mind?
  9. I'm a number junkie. I love setting silly meaningless goals and achieving them. So I've been thinking about 'reaching 100' as a goal. So far, I've come up with: first 100 caches first 100 non-locationless caches first 100 non-locationless non-virtual caches first 100 local caches 100 caches in 100 days but the one I like best is: closest 100 caches (not including those you place) because, of course, every time someone places a new cache nearby, you get to try for it again. (Provided you've gotten there the first time. I sure haven't. ) So, what variation on 'finding 100' do you have in mind?
  10. quote:Originally posted by seneca:I use the "Tortoise GAQ" based on trying to find one quality cache per week. After 32 weeks, mine is now a healthy 1.28! _You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)_ Oooh... I like it. I like it.
  11. quote:Originally posted by seneca:I use the "Tortoise GAQ" based on trying to find one quality cache per week. After 32 weeks, mine is now a healthy 1.28! _You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)_ Oooh... I like it. I like it.
  12. I live in an area with an over-abundance of parks of various sizes, so I'm sort of stumped as to why the boundry that people talk about is sort of 'one park.' (Especially around here where parks butt up against each other.) As for how far apart, put me in the crowd that suggests that the distance matters less than that each cache have some merit to it.
  13. i can't remember how old i am. but i can remember where i was when kennedy was assassinated.
  14. a distance-from-target would be good for those caches that have destinations.
  15. a distance-from-target would be good for those caches that have destinations.
  16. quote:Originally posted by Team StitchesOnQuilts:Maybe going to the Vasona Park Picnic on Saturday was good luck? Well, okay, maybe not, but it's my theory and I'm sticking to it. Shannah whether it had anything to do with the travel bugs or not, it was good ju ju
  17. quote:Originally posted by Team StitchesOnQuilts:Maybe going to the Vasona Park Picnic on Saturday was good luck? Well, okay, maybe not, but it's my theory and I'm sticking to it. Shannah whether it had anything to do with the travel bugs or not, it was good ju ju
  18. Welcome to the hobby. I hope you'll continue to be "looking forward to the next one" each time you finish one for a long time to come.
  19. If I get close enough to the coordinates to search for the cache, I always post a log, whether I find the cache or not. I've just gone back and looked. I've posted 6 "couldn't find logs", 3 of which I was later able to change to finds. Of these, only once did I suggest that the cache might not be there, and that time I asked, rather than declaring it to be missing. Turns out I was wrong (by 3 feet) and the cache was there. Fortunately, the cache hider knew that, gave me some encouragement, and I went back and found it. I think we should log not-founds, but that we should be careful not to jump to the conclusion that it wasn't there, unless we have evidence, like finding the plundered bits of the cache. Even though I've now found all but two of the caches I've looked for, I'm still not willing to claim a cache isn't there just because I couldn't find it.
  20. Of course, literally minutes after I posted this thread, the finder of the bug reported placing it in another cache. I love the gentle irony that after months of being missing three of my four travel bugs should show up in the same weekend.
  21. Of course, literally minutes after I posted this thread, the finder of the bug reported placing it in another cache. I love the gentle irony that after months of being missing three of my four travel bugs should show up in the same weekend.
  22. Movin' to Montana was placed in Page Mill Pull Out the day the cache was created on 15 May 02. It was picked up 2 days later. I heard nothing about it before this morning. I was about to send email to the cacher and checked the log page. Lo and Behold. The bug's in another cache. OK, it went 2700 miles the wrong way, but at least it's moving. [This message was edited by Marty Fouts on August 18, 2002 at 02:14 PM.] [This message was edited by Marty Fouts on August 18, 2002 at 02:14 PM.]
  23. Movin' to Montana was placed in Page Mill Pull Out the day the cache was created on 15 May 02. It was picked up 2 days later. I heard nothing about it before this morning. I was about to send email to the cacher and checked the log page. Lo and Behold. The bug's in another cache. OK, it went 2700 miles the wrong way, but at least it's moving. [This message was edited by Marty Fouts on August 18, 2002 at 02:14 PM.] [This message was edited by Marty Fouts on August 18, 2002 at 02:14 PM.]
×
×
  • Create New...