SG-MIN

But utilizing the search function would make a newbie aware of our rotting equine carcasses. I would suggest we add "search function" to our list, but I can't think of anyone who is argues against it.

Where did you get this information? I really would love to make plans to see it - even from Kentucky.

Try this. I just stripped some of the info out. <a href="http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=2d0f6ec0-05cb-4719-9321-c2f8e6bafce9"><img src="http://img.geocaching.com/stats/img.aspx?txt=Let's+go+geocaching&uid=2d0f6ec0-05cb-4719-9321-c2f8e6bafce9&bg=1"></a>

This piggybacks on Renegade Knight's thread: Oldest Dead Horse. Let this be a comprehensive list of the horses that have been beaten to death here in the forums. I will start with a few of the classics. Feel free to add you own: Cache Rating Systems Lamp Post Micros Logging your own cache

GCRAPS is unpublished GCRABS is archived GCRAGS is in germany, but archived GCGCGC is in Canada GCHAMP is archived in Sweden GCHEAP is in New York Okay, I have wasted enough time... but if anyone else is up for checking GC #'s, here is a great resource: http://www.morewords.com/wordsbylength/5c/

what about GCACHER

I am surprised more enviornmentalist have not spoken up yet. I certainly consider myself one - that is part of why I enjoy geocaching. I personally am against more people visiting our national parks. I would rather have the whole place to myself. I think sometimes the NPS caters too much to getting the lazy out from behind their playstation and at the cost of those of us who have always put in the grunt work to see the majesty of nature. Next thing you know, they will be putting an escalator down to phantom ranch at the Grand canyon.

So it is actually the south americans that have a direct route to china... perhaps we need to be looking south as we plan our defence against the red army

24

Great post tozainamboku. I was only going to reply to the last paragraph, but the couple posts above me were looking for an answer as to when it might be apporpriate to log a cache you own. I think you have put forth several good examples. I think the point you made in your last paragraph is the strongest point made yet: most people who log their own caches as finds are not trying to artificially inflate their find count. Now if we can all agree on this (even with the disclaimer that yes there are a few people out there that do self-log for number inflation) I would think this thread has served its purpose.

oooh... here is new one to throw in there. What about a virtual? You had to find that one in order to list it, and you really don't own anything.

So far the biggest reason to not log your own cache is because it could hurt your reputation. I would guess that most people don't interact with the larger geocaching community beyond their friends who cache, and a hurt reputation is not much of a deterant.

I have one multi-cache where a finder employed brute force tactics. Unfortunatly, this multi required finding other stages in order to unlock a combo lock at the final stage. This particular finder became frustrated and ended up breaking the locking mechanism. I don't think this was probably the brute force you were talking about eh?

Generally a find is a find especially when you are solving a puzzle. There is one place I disagree... when the puzzle is collecting information (especially from other caches). For instance, there is a cache in my area that require you to find 10+ other caches to find the final. I don't think you can claim the final if you dont find all the others. The Cache Across America series comes to mind here.

Great post-modern responce. I am reminded of the closing words of the book of Judges: "In those days there was no king in Israel; all the peopel did what was right in their own eyes." Of course this seems to be a critique of that worldview considering the last thing that happened before this statement is an entire town tries to break down the door of a man's house so they can sodomize his house guests, to which the man reacts by throwing out his concubine and the men of the town gang-rape her to death. And what is the man's responce? Of course, he cuts the deat concubine into 12 pieces and sends and sends the bloody mess to the tribal leaders. (oh, and the concubine mutilator is the good guy in the story). Well there is your sunday school lesson for the day. Oh, and CYBret, I agree with you, it is a great idea to let everyone do what is right in their own eyes (that is the story the usually skip over when editing the picture bible for little kids ;-) Seriously, it sounds like you're suggesting that because some dude a LONG time ago did horrible things to a woman after other people did horrible things to him, that we shouldn't log our finds the way we think is right. That's what you're saying, I'm almost sure of it. At least it seems that way to me. If I'm wrong, can you clarify your reply some? I thought my reference to an obscure Old Testament story would surely be understood as sarcasm. It just struck me that CYBret's words were very similar to those at the conclusion of Judges. I actually agree with CYBret's comment about everyone needing to do what is right in their own eyes - especially in a situation involving logging your own caches. My apologies if my sarcasm was not obvious enough. I am surely not advocating that since some people log their own caches that concubines, gang rape, and necro-mutliation are alright.

I had a similar problem with my garmin ledgen, but I was able to take it apart and clean a connection and the thing works like a dream now!!

Great post-modern responce. I am reminded of the closing words of the book of Judges: "In those days there was no king in Israel; all the peopel did what was right in their own eyes." Of course this seems to be a critique of that worldview considering the last thing that happened before this statement is an entire town tries to break down the door of a man's house so they can sodomize his house guests, to which the man reacts by throwing out his concubine and the men of the town gang-rape her to death. And what is the man's responce? Of course, he cuts the deat concubine into 12 pieces and sends and sends the bloody mess to the tribal leaders. (oh, and the concubine mutilator is the good guy in the story). Well there is your sunday school lesson for the day. Oh, and CYBret, I agree with you, it is a great idea to let everyone do what is right in their own eyes (that is the story the usually skip over when editing the picture bible for little kids ;-)

That was this morning... what time zone are you in? Central - the record was set at 10:46 CST today, which is 11:46 EST. For those of us on the Right Coast.... Left Coast people could still make it to church in time, I am sure. This tread is getting way to religious for the secular forums. We had better back back on topic and start talking about worldly things real fast or the mods might close us down.

I like it

[scold] You all should be in church!! [/scold] ;-)

Granted they watch, and are aware, but do they care enough go digging through people's profiles to check to see if they have 5 extra smilies because they logged their own caches. Oh and in responce to other recent threads, I don't think it is quite as obvious as we would like to think that self-logging is bad form.

This is the first post on this thread that threatens to move this thread towards angst. Here are some misconceptions you have included in your post: The only reason you would log your own cache is to increase your find countMany new cachers, myself included logged their own caches out of ignorance - the only place that this practice is clearly defined as a no-no is here in the forums. [*]You assume that other people are so worried about other people's numbers that they will search their profiles and if they find anything shady, lose respect for them. While this is true for some, most people will never notice. Obviously, the other angst filled threads have shown that some peopel will dig through thousands of logs to find ones that are not legit, but I highly doubt for the average cacher with 200 or less finds it will make a big differance. I mean most people don't have enough caches hidden to made a huge differance in their find numbers if the logged their own. While as we have seen, the idea of whether or not numbers matter is debatable, but I will argue this. For the average cacher who never steps foot in these forums, they don't give a rat's behind about other people's numbers beyond their own.

Yes, I had no idea, and originally logged my first hide. It was only after I started reading the forums that I realized most people considered it a no-no and deleted my log.

obviously this has been fixed since the OP now has a new forum title.

See, I agree with you. Numbers do matter, but that does not make it a contest. If peopel could conceed this point, I think we all would be better off. Instead we end up with people adamently argueing against grey area logging practicies (which affect numbers) while stating that numbers don't matter. Obviously for them, numbers do matter.