SG-MIN

The dates will not change. You will never need to adjust the lower dates, because it is impossible for more caches to be placed between Jan 01 and Jan 03 for instance. Going by size and container type will constantly flux.

Where abouts in the Daniel Boone are you from? My father used to work on the Boone, and I grew up in the area.

I am going to call your bluff on this one. Looking at your profile I would say you generally like multi's more than most people. Also, you tend you go after slightly harder caches than average and prefer them to regular sized caches, but you will tolerate smalls. So all that being said, if we were to go find all the regular sized, 2.5 / 2.5 multi-caches, even with those distinctions, some of those are always going to be better than the others. In fact they will run the gamat between awsome and awful. All you have addressed is specific types of caches. Within those types there will always be some that stand out. I am advocating for an easy way to find those that stand out.

A couple things to consider though. Cache submission drop in the winter HOWEVER I anticipate a race at the end to get GCZZZZ. I actually think it may get here earlier than anticipated because people will start submitting bogus requests just to get either GCZZZZ or the new 7 digit GC#

Or if I may, if you are going to a specific area, lets say Nashville for sbell's sake, and you really like puzzle caches, a rating system could help you. If there are 200 puzzle caches in nashville and you can only do 3, would you not want to do the 3 that people in the community generally prefer. JD - I have a real simply solution for you... DON"T USE IT IF IT IS IMPLEMENTED. In the mean time, if it would help me, let me have my fun. The horse isn't dead yet.

that "specificly defined" is what you are paying the big buck ($3/month) for!! It really is worth it.

Groundspeak will be expecting your subscription anytime now. Yes it is possible. I just ran a pocketquery that gave me the closest 500 caches to your last find that were either a scenic view or involved a stenuous hike. you can download the file and take a look at www.kickert.info/qteam.zip

I consider what you are suggesting "Phase II" of this project.

Man, we are so close... lets get those final caches placed!! BTW where do we stand with the placement of the DC final cache?

Okay, I couldn't even stay out of the conversation for 1 full day. In the end, I really would like to get some responces on the system I proposed in the last thread. It seems to be an option that has the fewest overall objections BTW, I did edit this post slightly for clarity.

I am staying out of this one - you only have to go to page 2 to see a three page discussion of this topic. [Q-team, just know that I am on your side.]

"He that would pun, would pick a pocket" —Alexander Pope Pun (n.): the lowest form of humour" —Samuel Johnson, lexicographer "Puns are the last refuge of the witless." "Hanging is too good for a man who makes puns; he should be drawn and quoted." —Fred Allen [Edited to include the following admital of guilt: I too enjoy a punny one-liner]

Hold down shift when you press enter to put in a single line break. like this or just hit enter by itself to get the double line break. notice this won't happen with the fast reply feature.

so basicly this has nothing to do with real geocaching... it is just a fictional math problem. I think that is where most of the confusion was coming from. The question you are asking us actually has nothing to do with geocaching (no more than the ole "two trains traveling in opposite directions" has to do with actual station masters.) That being said, I would proceed with your math problem by determining the weight/time ratio of each cache so you know which caches are worth it. Then focus on an area that has the highest concentation of high weigh/time ratios that are centrally located.

I would just hope for an atmosphere where we can be encouraging of good ideas. I apologize if I was rude. Mtn-main, I value your opinion on caches because of your extensive find count (and reputation); I however would rather hear a developer comment on the feasibility of new features.

I never said you should not have a voice in the matter. Here are my points (and my only points): 1.) There is no reason to argue against a proposed feature unless that feature would clearly negatively affect your personal caching experiance. 2.) The most common arguement against a feature often is its effect on the website/servers or the difficulty in developing it. I am simply saying that the people who should speak to these server/development issues should be the developers rather than the average cacher who has absolutely no connection with the actual behind the scenes development and implementation of the features. Now if someone were to be advocating the implementation of a feature such as the ability to "impeach" a cache (i.e. 10 votes against a cache and it is archived), then yes people could argue against that because it could have a negative affect on people's personal experiance. In that case, experianced cachers would have much more to say.

And where did I talk down to you? If you read my post is has nothing to do with pulling PQ's or database load or anything like that (and thus is admittedly off topic). I was just stating my disdain for people who argue against a new site feature for no reason. Maybe I was talking about, but more than likely I was not. I just think it is ridiculous for people to balk at new feature ideas when in truth if they were to be implemented it would have absolutely no affect on them. A side point to that, concerning the database, was the fact that many people, in the course of their arguing against feature ideas, often talk as if they have authority over GC.com's servers. Only the developers know the limitations of a particular system, and thus they should be the ones talking about feasibility and the such rather that John Q. Cacher. And by the way, how does having 140 caches instead of 1527 make me any less qualified to speak to the attitude of cachers in regard to new feature requests?

Solo Traveler is the Director of Marketing at Groundspeak. I'm sure that there are better ways to do it but this seems like a perfectly fine and fun way to do it. I did not mean to start a stir, I was just curious. I have seen plenty of sock puppet accounts with only a few posts, so I was a bit hesitant to post anything.

This post seems a bit fishy to me. Solo Traveler only has 6 posts, and this is one of them. Seems like if GC.com really were looking for new photos, they would have a better way, and would come from a more notable source. Just a thought.... I could be totally wrong and just stepping on the toes of the hand that feeds me (or something like that).

I am blown away by the way people respond to feature requests. Inevitably, someone requests a feature, and within a couple posts someone is explaining why we should not have it. I have never witnesses such a love for status quo. Take this thread for instance, why in the world would you argue against it. Having an upper limit of 1000 would not in any way negatively affect your caching experiance. If it would help others, then it seems like a valid request. Also, it drives me nuts how quickly individuals speak on behalf of the developmers at Groundspeak. Talk about backseat drivers - how can you all speak about sever loads, or development agendas, or the such. If there is a valid disadvatage then that needs to be discussed, but let the experts talk about server-side issues. They are one who know what is possible.

I am feeling pretty good about this date here... hey, wait a second, isn't there usually some money in an office pool?

So is the final finished and just waiting for all the "reindeer" caches to be placed? I haven't heard anythign about the DC cache, but I am wondering now that we are closing on the end of this project.

Only in geocaching...

I have only driven about 30 miles for a cache specific trip - of course it was multi so I ended up putting about 80 miles on the car to get there, get the cache and get back. However, I did drive 13.5 hours from Kentucky to Minnesota instead of flying so I could add 4 more states to my life list. I figure 27 hours of driving to light up 4 red areas on my profile map... yeah it was worth it.

Why did he have to be black? I don't think you're allowed to change. Unless you're Michael Jackson. LOL - Litterally I am laughing out loud even as I type this.