Jump to content

Ragnemalm

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ragnemalm

  1. Doesn't the % FPs say more? 8 FPs on a hide with 200 finds is not as convincing as 8 FPs on a cache with 10 finds.
  2. Not the way I see it. An FP is a recommendation, to other cachers to try the cache, and, also important, to tell the CO that the cache is good and therefore worth maintaining and keeping. No FP = downvote, uninteresting, don't bother keeping it. TFTC and copy-paste logs are also downvotes as I see it because yes, a good log counts, but not numerically. So I tend to archive caches with no or few FPs. It is the only measure I have on whether a cache is worthwhile or not.
  3. For caches: Taking a photo of the log book, a very specific requirement for specific situations, is not the same thing as bringing back arbitrary ALRs. For events: Like I said, I see absoluetly no reason why the event log book should not be signed. Bad rule, fix it! Putting the responsability on the CO does not work. Once a CO quits, cheaters can log all the COs lost caches as much as they please. The CO won't care. There are cheaters, and one big problem they make is that they keep lost caches alive.
  4. Interesting distribution, which fits well in that you clearly prefer to make caches with a mental challenge, right? "Sweet spot" around D3T2 instead of my D2T3. Sound good, different because we have a different preference and that is a good thing.
  5. We have talked about cheating elsewhere, but how about possible ways to prevent it? Maybe with help from Groundspeak. Logging caches that are lost. Nobody can prove you did not find it! But how about putting some burden of proof on the finder? If you log an archived cache, or a cache with three or more recent DNF, how about demanding a photo as proof? The same goes for logging an archived cache. Logging an event you did not attend. This one is easy: Demand everybody to sign the log book. And don't give that "what if the EO did not attend". If the EO was not there it is equivalent to a CO not placing a cache when publishing it. Any other cases? Other possible improvements/solutions? Let us not complain about the existence of cheaters, let us consider solutions.
  6. Nice! It looks like we share the idea of the "sweet spot" in the middle. My first was also a 1.5/1.5. It is the natural place to start, but I left it pretty soon. My D1T5 was a tree climbing cache where you needed gear, but it was visible from 100 meters! I was kind of proud of that. That is a D1! Several of my 4.5's and one T5 are over water. 4.5's are easy enough to swim.
  7. 10% caches I most want to recommend, for whatever reason. All there is to it IMHO.
  8. I think an interesting related question is the distribution of the placed caches, and why. I have placed 240, 79 archived. But what I find important is where my peak is: D2T3, with most caches around that, with a considerable number at T3.5 and T4. Why? Because that is what I consider the "sweet spot", caches that are not super easy but not too hard, managable for most people but a bit challenging. I don't care much for the highest D, nor T5, and it is pretty obvius that I don't make many 1.5/1.5's. This is my take on making caches. Many multis, often free climbing in trees. It is what I feel I want to do. But we are all different so how about you?
  9. I must share a related experience. I logged a Wherigo a few years ago. At one stage, it pointed straight into someone's garden (I think it was a summerhouse)! After walking about for a bit outside, my locaction was finally identified as outside but inside the zone, but it was clearly too close to the garden. I informed the CO who got angry with me for "whining" and told me to go and log PTs instead. Not OK! I was trying to help him to avoid conflicts and he took offense instead of showing any interest in fixing the problem. The privacy of people near our caching activities must have priority.
  10. I think gadget caches would be the perfect exception from that statement. It is much more relevant for cache bombs, filling an entire area with petlings.
  11. Opt-in feels fair, but it would need to be opt-in, because a CO making a CO will make as little settings as possible, while a CO building a gadget cache has spent more time and can take the extra time to uncheck a checkbox. But let us consider when this is at all relevant. Most caches are archived when not maintained, and the CO all to seldom takes care of the remains. It stays in the forest as litter. So it is mainly things like 2001-2002 caches that we want to adopt, and they are not under any new adoption rules. So would an "set up for adoption as needed" option actually solve anything? So maybe we should stop trying to solve the wrong problem. Now, how about the cache bombs? Is there any reasonable way to avoid to have COs with a thousand petlings filling every possible space? Or is it desirable to have as many (simple) caches as possible around? Is that what the hobby is about?
  12. I think this is a good idea, especially if COs can opt-out. The example of having an expensive gadget cache force-gifted away is valid, but it is a wider problem than that. Having a simple space-filler petling archived by a reviewer or force-adopted is nothing, little is lost so that could happen quickly. Caches with much work put into them should deserve a little more slack. The actual value is higher. They should not be archived as easily and quickly. However, it is hard for reviewers to know whether that is the case. They have D/T, attributes, description and the FP rating, but all of these can be high for other reasons than a hard-work, valuable construction. So how can we tell reviewers that a cache is a gadget cache?
  13. Since I like tree climbing caches, this suits me just fine, especially when I am placing a cache.. higher. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qETFkVmXvs
  14. On a 2009 cache, yes. On a 2002 cache, no, then we may helping the CO, who may not be active, to maintain it. We don't have to but since old caches is a thing in the hobby, they have a special value.
  15. As far as I can see, the only way to reduce "cache bombs", filling up the entire neighborhood with park-and-grabs, would be to limit the number of caches one CO can have. Even then, some COs would just register several accounts to get around the problem, but I guess most COs would take the hint and not take every free position available. We all know the citation "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." But few care about that.
  16. AFAIK HQ can do nothing, or little. They are responsible for what goes online, but the caches are our responsibility. We have had some cases of cache sabouteurs. One was in my home area, a kid who started stealing all caches (at least the asy ones). The solution was to make all caches premium and then the problem disappeared. Another case was a TB hotel, which was repeatedly sabotaged and quite a few TBs were lost. (My guess is that they are in the nearby bushes somewhere.) The solution was to move it and make it a bit harder to spot. A third case was a unique cache I made, and put in what I thought was a discrete place where nobody goes. First version, rather primitive, might look like trash. Muggled. OK, so I made a new, in a neat hand-made box. Content gone, box found smashed. Hopeless case, archived and made a new one in a tougher place, but not as unique any more. Felt so-so, but at least the saboteur didn't find anything more to destroy. Generally, the trick is to give the sabouteur nothing to sabotage for some time. Deactivate all caches and take them in. Here is one case where HQ could possibly help: To allow these caches to be inactive for extensive time, preferrably several months, so you don't have to archive and re-submit every single cache. Can HQ accept that?
  17. 15', that's feet, right? 4.5 meters. That's nothing! Or at least not much. To me, high caches are not "grr" but "wow!" (if they are not too hard). My latest cache is 10 meters up in a tree, and you can not use a pole, you must climb it. But you are not expected to use a ladder, no, it is ment for free climbing (I am not talking about T5's). Wonderful tree. I like free climbing caches a lot, with no need for ladders and rods. I am no great climber and not young, so I can't climb anything, but like those medium tough climbs. I see many advantages: I find tree climbing to be fun and challenging. It is a good exercise. Otherwise, the hobby will only train my legs. The risk for muggling goes down a lot! (Tends to happen only if the tree gets cut down, unless it is popular with children of course.) Tree climbing and mounting climbing caches are the ones that my children enjoy. But I strongly believe that they should only be logged by people who enjoy climbing. Those caches are a very small minority of caches so they should not pose a problem, they don't fill large areas. Most caches in my area are 1.5/1.5 or similar, simple caches at face height. It does happen that a CO has a strong tendency for a cache type that you don't like, be it hard mysteries, long Wherigo's, tree climbing, pole fishing... Then you just make some yourself of the kind you like and contribute to the variety. Sorry if I said this before but I felt it is relevant for the thread.
  18. Only one year. The kinds that bother me are things like "full calendar" challenges and similar, not least with not so common types like multis. They take forever to fulfill and feel more like show-offs from the most experienced cachers than "challenges". Anyway, that was not what the thread was about, just a reason why I have trouble logging many new caches.
  19. The problem you are describing is one of the reasons that I suggest that revisiting caches should be a thing. In my area, most caches that I havn't logged are either trivial and uninteresting (1.5/1.5 petling behind a sign), challenges that would take 2-3 years or more to complete (why are these even allowed?) or impossible mysteries. So in order to keep the hobby alive (especially now when we can't travel) I have been revisiting, with my own rules for what counts. And all caches either feel like new or are so good that they are worth revisiting anyway. Not to mention that good locations are always worth it. So yes, I have found myself in your position and found a way to deal with it. But it is not an official thing.
  20. I had the same thing recenly from a beginner who thought finding the start of two of my multis would count. I politely wrote back and explained the rules. No reply. Deleted. The same beginner has two suspicious finds on two T5s that are likely to be gone. Anyone TFTC log on a T4+ or D4+ is suspicious, and even more so after those two proven fakes.
  21. These "lonely days" challenges are absolutely great and should be allowed! But it would help them if COs checke on suspicous fakes.
  22. Fake logs keep broken caches alive, not least caches that are lost and/or unmaintained, where the faker can log safely. Fake logs routinely downvote great caches, both in FPs and in words. They increase the ratio of unappreciative logs, which makes it less encouraging to build advanced custom caches. Yes, you always get a number of TFTCs, but fakers make it worse. Fake logs create extra work for the CO to check, double-check that there is no log, contacting the cheater to as politely removethe log, and then monitor the result until it feels right to remove it. Some would remove immediately, of course, but doing that too quickly can cause conflicts. Fake logs take up space in the history and the COs mailbox. Therefore, yes I do care about them. They do hurt the hobby.
  23. Just scanning a QR code to get coordinates is simple and fairly common. We have a whole series of QR caches here, with various twists, with things like recoded images that you have to process in some way to make is valid to scan. There are many variations of the concept once you leave the simple "scan QR to get final". At least that is what it looks like here. QR codes are fairly common.
  24. Definitely. "DNF cheating" is the worst kind, they indicate that the cache is still there, that everything is fine. A non-caring CO is causing this, but is not helped by ordinary-looking logs. Another kind is the kind who see a desperate need for maintenance and ignore it. We once found a T5 on the ground. Recent finders logged TFTC. Yes, we alerted the CO.
×
×
  • Create New...