ArtieD

Newsflash...those items are NOT against the rules. Fair enough on that one. It is not your place to play swag cop. If you don't like a certain type of swag, fine...don't take it. It does not give you the right to remove it.

Much like the debate about what the definition of a "quality" cache is, endorsing a rule change to create a "better" experience fails because there is no one definition of a "better" experience. Like it or not, some people like the McToys and stuff like that. Some people only like high-end swag. Some people like skirt lifters and some like mountain climbing caches. With different kinds of players comes different ideas of what a generally good all around caching experience is about. Stifling the freedom to place whatever swag that floats a cacher's boat is imposing a singular ideal on caching, which is wrong. As long as people follow the basic rules/guidelines/whatever of swag, they should be able to use what they want. Again, you are far too new and inexperienced to be promoting a massive rule change based on a few dozen finds. Come back when you have more experience.

There's no good way to implement it. Anonymous down-votes would just lead to even more anger and mistrust. Attaching names to the down-votes would lead to retaliation. The game has enough negativity an in-fighting as it is without this. I agree. I don't think it should be implemented at all. I was just referring to the least objectionable version if it were done.

I have an idea. Why don't you try to get some more time in the game and more finds under your belt before presuming to dictate how the game should be played and what swag should and should not be allowed in caches. The beauty of the game is that people have the right to choose what swag to fill caches with (within reason...no non-family friendly stuff and like items). I'm not even going to touch the trackables issue. Play as you wish to play, but don't tell others that they should play like you want to play.

I think the last thing geocaching needs is the ability to take potshots without accepting responsibility. It's a bad idea even if you think there's a problem. But I don't think there's a problem, anyway: geocachers have plenty of ways to express their appreciation or displeasure through logs, private e-mail, and talking at events. Besides, I don't like the idea of a CO that's doing something interesting being lambasted just because what he's doing doesn't happen to fit into the current community's preferences. +1 This...this...THIS! Having an anonymous negative vote system would just enable cache bullies or anyone to pick on another cacher or group of cachers by voting down their caches, no matter how good or bad they may be. A system that lists the names of the cachers that downvote a cache would be better, but it still would not prevent vindictive negative votes.

But you still refuse to define quality. Oh, good grief! OK, here you go... from Wikipedia: Quality in business, engineering and manufacturing has a pragmatic interpretation as the non-inferiority or superiority of something; it is also defined as fitness for purpose. Quality is a perceptual, conditional, and somewhat subjective attribute and may be understood differently by different people. I remind you that this is a discussion forum, not a debate forum. I dislike this sort of nit-picking discussion. My whole point is that we (the majority of people) agree within pretty close parameters what the word, "quality" means, and we don't need a nit-picking definition of it, just as we (the majority of people) pretty much agree on what "blue" looks like. Even though we may all be thinking of a somewhat different shade, we don't confuse it with red or yellow or green. Anything more is simply being argumentative for the sake of arguing. All of this being a long-winded way to say that you're right, but I'll still argue the point because I refuse to admit I am wrong.

Not really...say by putting the time down, people know how long it took me to get there, so they can adjust the way they do things accordingly. In my area, sometimes FTF takes a while, so why let them know if I got there immediately or it took me two hours? See above. One can get a better notion of when they should act to counteract my rush for FTF... I do, but more often than not, I wait until I get home to log, and that may be hours after the fact.

They are the OP's trackables, so they are free to do what they like with them! I find nothing wrong with discoveries. As far as a sheet, you'll just have to manually enter them all in and print it out.

I almost always sign in the very next spot, but I almost never put the date in, unless it's the FTF, because half the time I don't know the proper date, anyway. For FTF, I will check the date. I know many do, I also intentionally never put in the FTF time. Why should people get a glimpse at when I got the cache? They might be able to extrapolate the times I am free and exploit that.

I can't say that I ever personally interacted with JoGPS, but I did see him at GW12...our condolences.

Holy elitist attitude, Batman! Geocaching is about the adventure for people, but that adventure is what the person thinks it is. Climbing a tall mountain for one cache or doing a nice power trail in the country can both be adventures. Since you've appointed yourself the all-knowing guru of what caching is supposed to be about, do explain for the class what "certain things" caching should be about. Most of all, if you think people should follow your narrow-minded caching ideals I strongly suggest you rethink your priorities in life.

What is quality?

Seriously...and I mean this in all earnestness... How can discuss "quality" caches when there is no set definition of what "quality" entails?

Categorically untrue. If you speak of container quality, I give it to you. If you speak placement, there is a lot of wiggle room. Different strokes... I am not referring to container quality. Tell me of one person that would consider, say, a LPC in a Walmart parking lot a "quality" cache. You know how they say there's someone for everyone on this big ol' Earth? There you go. No doubt there are some who like them. Oh, I have NO DOUBT there are some that LIKE them. But I still say they would not consider them "quality". Big difference. Without a strict definition of quality, we cannot make that call.

Categorically untrue. If you speak of container quality, I give it to you. If you speak placement, there is a lot of wiggle room. Different strokes... I am not referring to container quality. Tell me of one person that would consider, say, a LPC in a Walmart parking lot a "quality" cache. You know how they say there's someone for everyone on this big ol' Earth? There you go. No doubt there are some who like them.

Categorically untrue. If you speak of container quality, I give it to you. If you speak placement, there is a lot of wiggle room. Different strokes...

Oh, I'm pretty sure most people share a pretty similar idea of what "quality" means. The problem is that some don't care, or, at best, don't think that's what geocaching is all about. For the most part, one man's junk is another man's junk. To a degree you're right. I am very sure people would generally agree about quality when it comes to container choice, namely the resiliency of the container against the elements. When it comes to placement, though, outside of a really nasty, dirty spot, it gets a bit more complicated...

This.

That's why it's best you're not. Truth. Even in the winter of early 2006 when I started, people were talking about the same very thing. Truth again. As long as a cache meets the criteria, it gets to live...for better or worse. I kinda like it that way, too, because it is the most fair way to do it. If we were to only get published based on perceived awesomeness of a cache, it would be a royal pain in the tuckus... You mean like Terracaching? Yeah, it's a rousing success. Part of the problem is, in order to promote the "quality" aspect of the game, one must first be able to quantify what "quality" actually means in a way that everyone agrees with. Problem is, we can't do that. In terms of quality, one man's majestic vista is another man's guardrail cache...

Well, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Have a great day!

No, not really. It more indicates that the sport is populated by a lot of whiners. Nice. Thank you for your trolling. Actually, I'm not. Hitting five pages in the forum, complaining about logs when there are probably bigger issues? Come on. Go deal with the bigger issues then. No need to waste your time coming over here, then pushing this discussion to 6 pages as we respond to your trolling. So disagreeing with the status quo is trolling now? Here I thought that people were allowed differing opinions here. Again, I assure you that what I say, I truly believe. You can disagree with me all you wish, but do not label me because you do.

No, not really. It more indicates that the sport is populated by a lot of whiners. Nice. Thank you for your trolling. Actually, I'm not. Hitting five pages in the forum, complaining about logs when there are probably bigger issues? Come on.

No, not really. It more indicates that the sport is populated by a lot of whiners.

Threads like this always amuse me. Cache logs are serious business!

... to you. ...to anyone who doesn't get their panties in a wad over something so trivial. Sounds to me as though you might have some untwisting of your own to do. But thank you for your opinion. It was very nice of you to drop by. TTYL Ah, so you are the final arbiter of what opinions are valid? I see. While I appreciate your blatant condescension, I think I'll hang around.