Jump to content

niraD

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    14367
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by niraD

  1. An ALR by any other name would smell as... sweet? The groups I've been in that have used a team name have never been so large that everyone couldn't have signed the log individually, or that one person couldn't have signed for everyone. Actually, on some trips, we've alternated, depending on our mood, on the size of the log, on how easy it is to pass the log around (think kayak caches), on any number of things really. The largest group was over two dozen. That was for a destination cache: a night multi-stage puzzle cache. Yes, we had folks tagging along, not really helping much. But the group was small enough that anyone who wanted to could find a way to contribute, and anyone who wanted to could see how each stage worked even if they didn't help find it or work it out. Did everyone participate the same way? Not at all. But the CO (who accompanied us that night) was okay with that. And at the final, they passed the log around. I signed my own handle, as did others. Some signed for friends/family they had come with. The CO was okay with that too.
  2. I've often thought that the forum needs a "Sad" response: Not for things I disagree with though. Often, I agree with the comment, but I think the comment deserves a "Sad" response.
  3. Ah, yes. I forgot about the geo-kayaking trips. Keeping the log dry can be hard enough without passing it around for everyone to sign individual names.
  4. Exactly. The reason groups I've been in have used a team name to sign the log has been to avoid filling up the logs with everyone's signatures. It's a courtesy to the CO.
  5. Exactly. And that's the way it should be.
  6. Congratulations. I fondly recall finding a self-proclaimed "evil" cache for my 666th find. It was a difficult "hidden in plain sight" camouflage cache. I loved it, but knowing that it was an "evil" hide allowed me to ignore all the "usual" places and focus my search on more devious possibilities.
  7. I'll add only that some volunteer reviewers have been rather insistent that they do not approve cache listings, that they only review them for compliance with the (current) guidelines, and that if they did have to approve cache listings, then a lot fewer cache listings would be published. Oh, but that's another thread...
  8. I'm so sorry that you were misled by such a %$#@! cache owner.
  9. If I didn't make it one of my Favorites, then it isn't obvious (to me) that it is a "top cache". Therefore, I never downvote a cache. And I suspect that precious few geocachers ever downvote a cache.
  10. Or maybe it means (emphasis added to the description in the Help Center article Log types): The basic definition is "when you look for a cache but do not find it". Everything else is speculation. And for the speculation that a cache may be "extra difficult to find", there is no limitation on what might make a cache extra difficult to find for any particular geocacher or at any particular time. Only if you contort them and make them strange. I get that the CHS has encoded a lot of speculation into a software system. But the meanings of the logs haven't changed, and the CHS needs to work with the way people actually log.
  11. Yeah, I've had a number of rangers ask whether I was okay. I explained that I was fine and that I was geocaching. Sometimes I then had to explain what geocaching is.
  12. I once found a cache that had been placed on a grave marker by family members to honor the deceased. The cemetery had an official policy for flowers, memorial items, holiday decorations, etc., and they placed the cache container as one of their memorial items. The cache listing described the history of the events that led to the deceased coming to America. It was a very nice tribute to the deceased and to others like her.
  13. Why? It was in response to Keystone's "unorganized free-for-all" comment.
  14. Even in saturated areas, it is still possible to find places to hide new caches. Maybe you have to seek out a new place to hide a cache, but that was one of the original goals of the saturation guideline in the first place.
  15. I just want to assure everyone that I did not have Keystone (or any of the other volunteer reviewers) in mind when I posted the following:
  16. Nonsense. Not giving a Favorite Point is not a downvote. It's just saying that the cache isn't in the top 10% Or for some premium members, the top 9%, or the top 8%, or whatever. This isn't Lake Wobegon, where all the caches are above average--and not just above average, but in the top 10%. Sometimes a TFTC log or a copy-paste log has nothing to do with the cache. Sometimes they're just the way someone learned to (or decided to) post logs.
  17. For some of the "hidden in plain sight" camouflage caches I've found (the ones that routinely get DNF logs), a photo would be a spoiler. What if the cache is archived between the time I create my field note draft, and the time I actually log the Find? Or are you going to insist that everyone logs Finds in real time, from the field, with internet service at the cache location?
  18. They can just create multiple accounts to own all the caches.
  19. Back when the guidelines included the phrase, "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can," Groundspeak and the volunteer reviewers tried a number of ways to objectively define what "cache bombs" or "power trails" or "numbers trails" were, so they could block them. If an account's caches needed to be a mile apart from each other, then the numbers trail crowd just used 10 accounts to hide their numbers trail caches. If an account's caches needed to be 2 miles apart, then 20 accounts. And so on. Some people want fungible containers hidden every 528ft/161m. I don't see how to put that genie back in its bottle.
  20. On a more serious note, the more studious forum participants might notice the "if you're going caching, and one of the caches you plan on searching for" qualification you added in your original post. But when folk return to the thread and remind themselves of what it's about, they'll re-read the "How have fake find logs affected your caching experience?" heading at the top of the page. Good luck enforcing your (ever more) restricted view of what this thread should be discussing.
×
×
  • Create New...