Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by L0ne.R

  1. There are 2 options below a log entry that you can choose from: "Great story" and "Helpful".
  2. Examples of rusted tin caches. Cookie tin geocache: Altoid tin caches: Coffee can tin:
  3. In your example I expect that you and all 25 people in the group were at ground zero. You saw the cache and watched as it was signed for the group. In my example 3 people actually saw the cache. 40+ more people logged the find. Regarding the logbook, it was a large logbook that could hold 500 signatures easily. Most geocachers in my area can get 50 signatures on a 1cm by 30cm strip of paper. I think the most pressing reason to use one signature is to speed things up. Standing around the cache as the logbook is being signed is boring and slows the day down. But I think a CO should be able to ask for signatures in the physical cache as would be expected when a lone cacher finds a cache. I realize that cheating could still take place--one person could write everyone's signature in the physical logbook, but I doubt they'll want to sign more than a handful of other names in the logbook.
  4. Unfortunately, at least in my area, when there's one "group" signature in a logbook it is considered a legitimate logging method. Anyone in that group gets to log a find online. I can not request that everyone who logs a find must have their signature in the logbook.
  5. That was something I couldn't muster. I stopped hiding caches because of too much cheating. Especially when a cache I worked really hard on to create a good experience from start to finish, got treated like it didn't matter. Well, except as a stepping stone to qualify for challenge caches. 40+ geocachers logged it as a find but didn't visit the cache or sign the log. I stopped planning geocaching vacations because of all the abandoned junk that was propped up by finders who left more abandoned junk in order to claim their "find". I still like to see what's going on in the forums, the debates continue to be interesting.
  6. I think the question is a broader one about the psychology of cheating. I found this article about cheating in sports interesting and could relate to geocaching. It seems to create a change, the moral high ground has to come from the top (not just lip-service). Here's a clip: Dr Shu says: “People have the ability to rationalise any behaviour post-hoc. They do psychological acrobatics to maintain their beliefs that they’re good people with high moral standards.” So people are well-equipped to rationalise their unethical behaviour after the event. The key is to make sure they don’t cheat in the first place. This is easier said than done, but there are practical steps that organisations can take, such as signing at the top of an honour code, a tax return, or, in this case, a doping drugs form. “Simple reminders such as the signature location on a form can lead people to be more honest. Bringing the signature to the top makes it top-of-mind and more salient.” Timing is important, too. Individuals should be asked to pledge their agreement to the honour code before they have the chance to cheat. “If you give people the opportunity to inflate their performance and then ask them to behave in line with the code of conduct, it’s too late. The morality train has already left the station.” You have to catch them at the right time. -------------------------- I don't think it's enough to tacitly agree to guidelines.
  7. I agree with TRR. I never want my caches adopted out. If I drop dead with no time to retrieve and archive, I'd rather they were archived. It would be nice if someone would then go out and retrieve the cache. Archiving preserves the history of the cache and it's still under my/our account. Call me skeptical but I think it's likely that someone who adopts our caches will do it to get an old GC code (and a bunch of FPs that they didn't earn). The new owner can change the listing completely--remove our trailname, change the hiding spot, change the description, etc. I don't want my seasonally-checked, water-tight, swag-size container to turn into a bison tube that never gets checked.
  8. This is what Groundspeak should pay attention too. As a business model, a database that can't be trusted is a poor way to grow and retain members.
  9. GCY4WF "DNF" Taking a quick look at this owner's history it seems his MO is to post: "I know... It's been a while. New and improved coming, I swear." Then he does nothing. He seems to string a cache along for a many months until his caches in need of maintenance end up sometimes archived by him but mostly reviewer archived.
  10. Keystone, I think this is a tongue-in-cheek topic. I get edexter's 'why pretend' point.
  11. Archive it and list a new one. The fav points were for the original unique cache. Keep the history accurate by archiving it and starting fresh with the new different unique container.
  12. Did your father want a chronological list of where those people were for the past 5 years before they bumped into each other? And did he feel it was his right to anonymously access that list? Perhaps available at city hall for those who are curious, and without notifying those people (after all the person looking has a right to some privacy ).
  13. Oh definitely. Seems people love smilies. Power trails proved it, so I'm not surprised with the AL development. Groundspeak found a market in smilies.
  14. They made the choice to talk about their lunch on Facebook. Maybe even limited that online discussion to "friends" (not public). The AGF list is not a choice.
  15. I think the AGF list should generate a list like the old Premium membership feature where if you looked at their PM cache your name appeared on a list. I recall a lot of people feeling very uncomfortable about the PMO list. Some used workarounds so they didn't appear on them. Or didn't search for PMO caches so they wouldn't show up on the list. Not because they had nefarious intentions, but because of their own sense of privacy. The PMO list affected how they played the game. The AGF lists affects how some can enjoy and participate in the game and affects how some COs get feedback.
  16. Yes and COs I'm sure would be happy for it. Personally, I'd rather they left a note. Especially if they will write a 'shared experience' log and add the community feel of geocaching that so many of us thrive on. I don't need to know that they were caching in Thailand in 2008, or even that they visited the nearby cache before they visited mine.
  17. Some reasons why someone might want their chronological list to be their right to disclose. They cache with a group of people and one of those people regularly checks the "All Geocache Finds" list to see what the group members have been up to and sometimes comments via social media/text message/meetup about where you've been. Sometimes asking why they didn't call her/him. Their manager/colleague geocaches too and sometimes checks the "All Geocache Finds" list. They occassionally comment at the water cooler or meeting 'Hey Fred, what was Rochester like this weekend?'. Sometimes they'd rather choose what to share with their colleagues about where they've been. A family member checks their "All Geocache Finds" list to see where they've been and asks why they were in the area and didn't get in touch. Their angry ex is actually stalking them. A person at a geocaching event, that they briefly met a couple of times, has taken an uncomfortable interest in their life and mentions how they noticed that they've been travelling out of state frequently. They don't want anyone to know that they travelled overseas last year for 3 days of geocaching adventure during a pandemic. They just want a modicum of privacy on the web where it can be had, especially when the feature involved is "oversharing". Is the "All Geocache Finds" feature necessary for others to find geocaches efficiently? We are not entitled to know where another geocacher has been. Regarding the "All Geocache Hides" feature. Is the AGH list necessary for others to geocache efficiently? I think a case can be made that "All Geocache Hides" feature is necessary for others to geocache efficiently. The AGH list is necessary to for efficiently getting a list of geocaches that a finder might find enjoyable. Where a person has been isn't an efficient tool for finding good caches. Many of the caches I've found were caches in rough shape or in unattractive locations. You are better off looking at my Favourites list (that list is meant for sharing to help others find good caches).
  18. I agree that total anonymity would make the game lose more of the important 'shared experience' side. These days I'm noticing, while out in the field and using an app, that some logs are hidden. It does give me a moment of pause. I do hope more people don't hide their comments in individual caches, but I see it as their perogative. I think the OP is asking for the stalking list on the profile page to be hidden if a member decides they would like it hidden. The game has lost a lot of it's 'shared experience' in the last decade. When I started it was normal to have a logbook in the cache. When microcaches showed up micrologs became the norm even in small or larger caches and owners asked people to not fill out the logsheets quickly, 'please write only your signature or initials'. Then everyone started treating all paper logs, even book size paper logs as if they were micro logs leaving only a signature. Then many of the online logs became TFTC only logs or meaningless cut n paste style logs--'I found a lot of caches today with some great caching pals. Thank you cache owners for placing your caches.'. It's the few who do post meaningful logs and share experiences that keep the community side of the game going and make it appealing to more players. I believe we need to encourage more 'shared experience' style logs on the individual cache pages. I don't see the chronological "All Geocache Finds" list having much to do with the shared experience.
  19. For the most part this is what I do, log notes instead of finds. Doesn't it seem creepy that we can get a handy list? For example, taking Max and 99's account, back in January they cached in neighboring state Kansas. And in January 2020 they had some geocaching fun in Arizona and California. Is it our right to have an easy-access chronological list of where and when someone has been caching? The OPs request/suggestion has been discussed on the forums for years. Link Link Link Link It's unlikely Groundspeak will do anything. Perhaps if privacy laws mandate it. The downside to logging notes instead of finds is we can't use the map tools to remove "found" caches. The only way I can think to do that is to add the found caches to my ignore list. A problem arises for those who like to hide caches. They won't know if an ignored cache is nearby.
  20. Generally I see this when the original cache was listed as small, and it was actually a small container but ends up replaced by the owner with a nano size container. Examples of replacements that I've encountered: dog tag capsules (these are half the size of a bison tube) and button nanos. The owner doesn't change the size from small to micro. The other frustrating part is, when I leave a note saying the cache is now a micro/nano the owner does nothing about it.
  21. When nanos are listed as size 'small'.
  22. From my experience I think there's a good chance the feature won't be used. I know I never remember to use the sort feature while I'm in the field. I only use it occassionally at the computer if I stumble upon a good log entry, or someone leaves a good log entry on one of my caches. If they don't turn this into another stat, I think it will be a tool that a few use, but generally it will be ignored.
  • Create New...