Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ragnemalm

  1. It depends on the cache, but for unusual caches, there are a few typical logs that make me suspicious. I mean custom caches, gadget caches and well as many high T caches, and high D that are not solve-at-home-mysteries, caches that are intended to give a unique experience of some kind. Simple caches, a plain petling in some dull place or a lock-and-lock under a pile of branches, for those anything goes, but if an unusual cache gets: TFTC Easy find (imagine that on a 4-stage D4T4 multi with field puzzles or similar) "We logged 200 caches today and this was one of them" LOOONG copy-pastes without a single word about the cache or anything else that just treats my special cache as dirt, as just-another-boring-cache then I get suspicios. I call them "half an NM", if nothing else I should check the log, if it has been signed. I know that many beginners log TFTC on everything, they havn't realized what the log is for yet, but experienced cachers are not expected to log TFTC on a custom cache. (Some do, yes.) And often it hasn't been logged. Sometimes it is just the same old "saw it but couldn't reach it". There could be a throwdown, or the cache may be broken. I have had one cache with a lock where the lock was forced, destroyed. Another was quite weird‚ a T4 at about 7 meters up in a tree where there is a fake cache at the ground with a clear message that this is not the cache. Someone climbed up, brought the log down and put it in the fake! (Straight up sabotage, just not as destrucive as the broken lock.) Of course I got suspicious logs after that. So, my answer to the question is simply, if the log just doesn't match the cache, then I get suspicious.
  2. Good example of a cache that you should not archive because of few finds. Some of the best caching experiences are made on these caches. It is more an issue for the other thread, though, a cache that hopefully gets a good FP percentage, although never high numbers. (Percentages with few finds are, however, very sensitive to downvotes.)
  3. I just found this thread, so let me comment on the start. (Yes, I have read several follow-ups.) Encouraging using FPs doesn't make ordinary ones "losing", it just gives us another measure than number of finds. Many COs aim totally for getting many finds, which gives us long trails of 1.5/1.5's. That's their goal. If some of us instead aim for getting nice logs and FPs, it will give the game some more variation. This is especially true when measuring FP% or Wilson (which, unfortunately, Groundspeak has not provided as a tool, but Project-GC does). Face it, quality caches drown in power trails, but if people start looking for them they have a chance. So who is the loser? The one who gets 1000 finds but no FPs, or the one who gets 10 finds and 100% FPs? I say: both! We all decide on our goals. The FPs just help the variation to stay alive in the flood of petlings and film canisters in uninteresting places.
  4. That's what I asked for, a reference! That explains the comment.
  5. It definitely isn't geocaching, but can be done - with great risks of landing illegaly or impossible to find. (Risk for litter remaining in forests.)
  6. Different topic, but that is what I personally call real caching! Some year ago we were three who went out to log some pretty tough caches a bit out in the wilderness, one of which we had tried twice before! We needed rope for safety, despite T3 and T3.5! (Very steep places, could have been climbed without rope but that would have been very dangerous.) Took several hours, only two caches, but we were happy! Overcoming a true challenge is worth so much more than logging for numbers. The caches are gone now, but I hope to be able to replace when with some even better ones this summer, if I can find the motivation. Great place, and I already have permission of the land owner.
  7. That is what I see too and that is why I made the mistake (like many others). I should check if I can make the page default to the old logging page. OTOH, as long as "archive" isn't default...
  8. Update: In order to test my idea and revive my caching in my home area, I have been revisiting over 200 caches during 2020! I do that with the rules that I have set up for myself: Must be at least 2 years since original find. Mysts and multis should be solved again. Only once per cache (or maybe after another 2 years, but that is irrelevant now). All revisits are properly recorded in a revisit history. Conclusion: In most cases, it feels like new! Caches are moved, vegetation has changed, I have often forgotten about the hiding place and/or the surroundings (especially when 7-8 years have passed). And I gave myself over 200 extra reasons to go out caching, often including cycling or walking long enough to be decent exercise. My own home area is suddenly fresh and new to explore as caching area. And I can do caching without travelling long distances to find ones I havn't logged.
  9. I read the thread and I see two kinds of problems: Very careless COs that don't react on multiple problems. Accidentally logging OM when you really just want to make a note stating your plan for maintenance. I have done the latter a few times, totally unintentional. OM is the default, so I have to change to note, and if I am in a hurry I can forget - and then the NM flag is taken down. Should OM really be the default?
  10. My list was entirely revised during the year. The mega was cancelled, and I was not allowed to make the bathing event either. My archiving was modest, way lower than intended. Like the easy and unpopular tree climbing cache that I just liked too much to archive. So the intended 50 was more like 10. I better repeat that goal. But I did fulfill the goal of not letting any cache be archived by a reviewer. The last goal, caching more for exercise, was fulfilled far beyond my ambition, since I decided to start revisiting caches (logged 2 years back or more) on a regular basis. I have revisited more than 200 caches and it was very valuable for reviving my caching! Most were just like going to a new one, since they very often had changed over time. But I also put up two more goals later during the year, closely related: Reach 16% FPs. This meant archiving a few bad ones and publishing ambitious ones. (16% is not very high but a level I could reasonably hope for.) Beat the two biggest COs in Sweden on number of FPs. (This is questionable since it means comparing few with relatively much work put into them to mass-placement but it felt tempting.) This also means getting triple diamond on the "favorited owner" badge. Both were fulfilled. Of course this was very much a question of hoping for visitors to like my caches and waiting for some positive effect, but also about maintenance and keeping a high level on new caches. I have started making my caches with my 3D printer, initially with designs off the web but then moving mostly into custom designs, typically thematic. Some went very well, and they are definitely different from all the petlings and film canisters.
  11. YES! Not to mention this: Adventure Labs should be kept separate from Lab Caches! Adventure Labs, the way they work now, with logs for each stage, waters down geocaching logs. Are Groundspeak considering turning geocaching all virtual? And they are quickly growing. Two new in my area TODAY! So Groundspeak, what is the intention? Are you intentionally moving towards all-virtual? Why not making this a separate activity?
  12. I can mention at least two cases on our own caches where it would have helped to know beforehand that you don't need tools, and plenty more on other COs. Just the other day, I was fortunate enough to have a cacher mentioning that he had seen something suspicious and thought he would need to come back with tools - which could render the whole construction useless. Fortunately, I could stop him and tell him that no tools were needed. On a mega event, before the cache publications at the end, we were explicitly instructed that we needed to bring screwdrivers. Those screwdrivers that have damaged caches for me in the past! I didn't like to hear that. And indeed, there were damaged caches out there. If this attribute doesn't matter since people don't check attributes, then no attributes are worth anything. With a negative attribute, you get three cases: Positive: You need tools for this cache. None: This is a simple cache so it is obvious that you don't need any so it isn't stated. Negative: Please do NOT use tools on this cache. That sounds like how attributes are supposed to work. Just like tree cimbing, either it is, or it obviously isn't, or it is important to inform you that it isn't. The attributes are added when they give some valid information.
  13. I realized that there is no negative attribute to "special tool required". Why is that omitted? I would definitely use it a lot. It is well known that amazing gadget caches are often damaged by "special tools", screwdrivers in particular but also wrenches and pliers. Also, objects near caches are taken apart, sometimes with destructive results. We can't forbid people to being screwdrivers and wrenches, but they cause much harm. It would help to simply check an attribute, hinting that no tools are needed, telling people to try without. We know that not all people check out the attributes, but for those who do, it can be a valuable hint. So, again, why is there no negative version of "special tool required"?
  14. ALs have plenty of problems, but isn't this one that it does not have? Since the AL stages are virtual, what are they taking over? There certainly are problems with good cache spots being blocked, especially by power trails and mystery finals, but not ALs. Right?
  15. But that is not the only problem. Lab caches may get less interest (less visible in your count), which can be a drawback for mega events. Lab caches are AFAIK less flexible than Wherigo. The first point is in my view the biggest problem. Why did ALs have to be logged as the same kind of cache as something entirely different? Since it is basically a less flexible Wherigo, what is the point? The AL stages are just virtual caches with a coordinate check. The difference is too small, while the difference to lab caches is enormous.
  16. I strongly agree, and add one more thing: Adventure labs water down the value of lab caches as a mega event feature. Suddenly your lab cache count skyrockets by just going to a place. Will this make the interest in lab caches drop? Maybe we should stop making lab caches and just turn them into "mega activities"? I have been offered an AL like everybody else, but I can't figure out how to make a good one. So, go to a nice place and count windows...? It doesn't sound interesting but more like a quick log immediately forgotten, easy come, easy go. No challenge, no interesting problem to solve, since the problems you can make AFAIK are only very trivial ones. With a Wherigo, I have some options to program it in custom ways that I can't see here. Yes, it pretty much is a Wherigo where you get half a dozen logs for a single Wherigo.
  17. Now you are misreading your own citation. Your citation doesn't say that it is a way for me to personally remember what I enjoyed, but to share. To tell others. Which is exactly what I have been talking about all along. Sharing, helping others. Helping the CO to know what the majority likes, helping others to find good caches.
  18. Yes, you are downvoting. You have a choice and you choose to not make the choice. So you refuse to help the rest of us? Why? Just because the concept is "new"? Most people wouldn't consider a concept established more than a decade ago to be some new thing. And why do you ignore it just because it is too new for you? So just because the tool gives a few very old caches fewer votes, you refuse to use it? That sounds like you personally try to limit the value of this "modern concept" that you don't like. So what am I supposed to judge cache quality from? Logs? Well, I do that too. Every non-informative log is a downvote too, especially copy-paste which really means "I don't care at all about your cache so I refuse to even tell you if it is in good shape". I hate them. Every such log means "archive that cache, it is junk" to me. And yes, the positive ones are upvotes, but the bad ones always hits me harder. I can take constructive criticism (actually, I like it) but indifference is harder to take. Maybe I should just stop making caches at all. I care too much. I want to make good ones that people like, but when I get copy-paste logs on my most ambitious caches, it really feels that I should do something else.
  19. I am a but unsure about the rules here. I would like to promote our upcoming mega event, but the rules seem to be very restrictive about that. How am I permitted to use the word "mega"? Can it be in a cache name, in a cache description? Can it be that even when the mega event in question isn't pointed to? Can I have it in the description but not the title? Or nowhere? Or can I use the word "mega" freely as long as it doesn't explicitly link to the mega? Can a user name include the word "mega"? If I make a side event to a mega, surely I must be allowed to describe it as such and point to the mega?
  20. Well, you are answering yourself. The reason why FPs are given or not given can be, and often are, in the logs. Not so often for the ones that don't though - they are often copy-paste logs with no information whatsoever. FYI: A basic member doesn't count for the FP %. I very much count nice logs as well, and try to give them when I can't afford an FP or the cache is not quite good enough for it, but I still want to let the CO know that I liked it. Why should I not archive a cache with 3% FPs in order to replace it with something better? The users have voted, let it go, think again, improve. On a cache with few or even 30-40% FPs, FPs are very much a positive thing, but an omitted FP on a cache with 90-100% FPs is obviously a downvote. Of course it hurts to see a great cache falling from the local top 10 to an anonymous lower top 100.
  21. I am a paying member but get no notification on FP changes. I guess I have to activate that manually somehow, right?
  22. That's the "votes" that are valid for P&G and PTs. A CO making a PT wants a lot of logs and FPs are irrelevant since the caches are trivial. It says nothing about quality, only quantity. But this is totally irrelevant for a hard multi or a neat gadget cache where the numbers are lower and the quality a lot higher. This is not really the same thing. On the services you mention, only the number of likes matter, just like the "upvotes" you argue for above. On Geocaching, the percentage matters more. A good cache should have more than 10% FPs. If it has 1000 finds and 20 FPs, then it is probably not a very good cache. If it has 30 finds and 20 FPs, then it is likely to be really good. Why should I not put it on my death list if it is clearly not popular? I want to make good caches, not fillers and PTs. I want them to have a point. If I missed the point, then I can trash it and make a new, better one. So please rethink your downvotes. They don't matter on PTs and P&G, skip them as much as you like, just rethink for those caches that are really special, with much work put into, or a particularly nice location, great challenge or whatever. The ones that stand out. Don't treat them as another petling in a bush. We want your help to identify them.
  23. I am not so sure about that. Taking back an FP could also mean that the cache has gotten competition that deserved the FP better, but it could be nice to tell the CO that that was the case - you still like the cache but it is not quite top 10% any more. (FPs are primarily recommendations in my view.) However, there is one case where I think redrawing FPs is percectly fine, an archived cache belonging to an inactive CO, who you know has quit the hobby and does not care. That hurts nobody. I have at some time removed an FP from a cache belonging to an active CO that I know doesn't care about FPs, and doing that on an archived cache is just fine but not on an active one if I still believes it deserves it, for the good of other cachers, not the CO.
  24. If you are only quantity caching, power trailing, no problem, but you do realize that if you find a nice cache with many FPs, you are downvoting it by refusing to give it an FP? You may be the first to downvote an excellent gadget cache. Would you do that? You give FPs to help others, not yourself. You let the CO know if the cache is a good one, and others can use it as recommendation. If my cache has less than 10% FPs, I put it on my "death list" for likely removal since it obviously is below average. Using existing FPs for planning caching or not is a matter of cache style, and there we are different. Giving them is a matter of helping the community. BTW, how do you write your logs? TFTC? Copy-paste?
  • Create New...