nonaeroterraqueous
-
Posts
1189 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by nonaeroterraqueous
-
-
It's not a religion, and it's not a charity. It's not even a political action committee. If Groundspeak provides a little bit of worthwhile service to a lot of people or a lot of irreplaceable service to a few people, then they deserve the same level of reward in return. If they misjudge the service that they've provided and attempt to get more than they deserve, then we'll know it, because enough people will quit their service that they end up generating less revenue. That problem will likely correct itself.
-
IMO there are no " crappy ", " lame ", or " _________ " ( you're negative word here) caches.
I once found a cache that was camouflaged as a piece of trash. It was actually embedded in a piece of junk styrofoam and left at the edge of a drainage ditch next to some other, similar, trash. Much as I like your positive attitude, you've taken your stand on a broad generalization, which makes your argument harder to defend. The fact is, there will always be (your negative attribute here) caches in this world. It's just a question of how many, and what are we going to do about it. We can hide better caches, offer constructive criticism, ignore the ones we dislike or take advantage of the conversation opportunities to talk about it on the forums (my favorite). About the only thing we can't do is find a better species of hominid to play the game with. That one's out (sigh).
-
It's okay, as long as you stay in Kentucky.
-
Look until it isn't fun anymore. That's all there is to it.
-
In other words, nonaeroterraqueous, if we (premium members) are looking at a list of caches in a search, we can click the blue ribbon near the top, and sort the caches by favorite points. You can even do it for a whole State or Province, if you happen to be looking at them that way. In case you didn't know.
I did know, but thanks, anyway. Favorite points have little effect on whether or not I will search for a cache, so it still isn't worth the $$$ to me, yet.
-
BTW, the OP is a Basic Member and does not see favorite points.
Yes, we basic members do see favorite points.
-
Jellyfish everywhere are killing themselves in their attempt to find the geocache on your front porch.
What a bunch of spineless losers.
-
I always round up to the nearest whole fraction of whatever I feel like. Don't tell my boss.
-
What irks me is the most are people that get irks out by every little things in life.
Would that include people who get irked by people who get irked by every little thing?
-
Front yard is too easy. Raise the difficulty level and put it in your back yard, at the bottom of the swimming pool.
I ignore yard caches, and at least half of us do. Still, people do hide and find them.
-
I've been thinking about placing a cache up in the NC mountains near where my father has a cabin. I go up at least once a year...sometimes twice. I've been hesitant to put one together and publish it, though, since I couldn't just run up there at the first sign of trouble.
Compare it to caches of similar terrain and difficulty in the region. Look for the frequency of finds on those caches. The time between finds is similar to your desired response time. The more time between finds, the more leeway you have to get your gear together and pack it into the mountains for an inspection of the attenuated cache.
-
...because placing a new cache is fun. Replacing an old one is not so much fun. If I have a fresh new container and log book with swag, would I rather use it as a replacement for some tired old thing that hardly gets any finds anymore, or would I succumb to the temptation to place that cache and post a new listing?
-
The owner said he would delete the previous "find" if he discovered that the original cache was still in place. The previous find has not been deleted. Are you sure you didn't find the throw-down?
-
Also, by the way, this is probably about the 100th "My cache placed 300 miles from home was rejected, can someone get it for me?"
Yeah, no kidding. We've been seeing a lot of those, recently.
I realize that distance is relative to ability and enthusiasm, and I realize that a different person might have been able to maintain that cache in that situation, but it's a pretty big red flag when someone cannot even go back to move their cache after a reviewer rejects it.
That would certainly make for an interesting test: if the reviewer is suspicious of the owner's maintenance plan, then he/she rejects it because of some bogus mystery cache; tells the owner to go back and move it a few feet, and if the owner protests that it's too far away to go back to, then it never gets published, and the reviewer makes note of the owner's placing habit. -
...and then it goes back to being found easily and often, as though someone replaced it without mentioning it on the page.
-
Would you please put the cache back where you found it? Do they not remember where it was or do they feel they need to "improve" the cache?
When they put it back in the wrong place, it often ruins the spoiler hint, too. I'm starting to tether or hanger my caches to see if that helps.
-
...assuming it wasn't archived for being in a place where geocaches aren't allowed.
-
I've been wondering about a cache called Lovely Lily. A bear bit a great big hole out of the side of it, and the owner is obviously gone from the game. The container is still there, and it still has a log book, but how long does a cache get to rot, when you know the owner will never get back to it? Do we wait for the dark gray mold? Do we nudge a local non-cacher to go out and muggle it, so we can post a NA? Do we replace the Igloo, so the bear can come back and get curious again (it seems to have visited the cache twice, already)?
-
I ended up listing it on another service (I didn't want to have to go back in there to get the container).
You had to go back there to do maintenance on the container eventually, anyway, right? -
In my humble opinion, if a boat of any kind is needed, then it's special equipment and a five-star terrain, but if wading or swimming are possible but unlikely, then I give it a 4.5. If wading or swimming are reasonable enough options that the average unprepared seeker might make a go for it on any given day, then it's a four-star terrain.
-
In the early days the thought was to hide 1 cache for every 10 found.
Really, it would make more sense to say that if you want to give back to the community something comparable to what you get out of it, then instead of counting caches you would count cache logs. Not that I really care, but you could tally the number of finds people made on your caches and compare that to the number of finds you made on other people's caches that year. If one grossly outnumbers the other, then you could hide more or less to compensate.
-
Any other thoughts on this issue?
Yes.
1) This subject comes up every now and then. People take sides, argue it to death, and then the thread gets locked.
2) If you don't like the free exchange of ideas and having people lambast you for being wrong, then the geocaching forum is not the place for you, either.
3) If you're not a big fan of people trying to get others to see things their way, then you've got the paradoxical problem of having no way to tell us so, without contradicting yourself, which you kind of just did.
4) If you don't like the pamphlets, then remove them. That, also, is your free speech on the matter, only cheaper and easier.
-
If numbers really don't matter then is shouldn't matter if you don't add one smiley, or if you do.
The statement that "numbers really don't matter," can be understood in a few different ways.
Interpretation 1: Your thousand finds does not compare to my thousand finds. People start at different times, in different areas and pursue different difficulties in caches. The playing field is not level for all players, and every cache is not the same level of achievement.
Interpretation 2: It doesn't matter how many you find, as long as you enjoy doing it. The point is to have fun, not be competitive.
Interpretation 3: The value of the numbers is limited by the legitimacy of the find. A thousand "finds" by locating the area on satellite imagery is less than a thousand "finds" by driving past the spot and not stopping, which is less than logging every DNF as a find and dropping a throw-down, which is less than finding the cache and not opening it, which is less than finding the cache, opening it and signing the log.
I would argue that all of these are true, but my point was number three. Missing out on one smiley is less important to me than having every smiley mean that I put a signature of some sort (preferably a sticker) on a log sheet. I like leaving the evidence behind. I'm talking about personal preference, here, not about deleting other people's logs.
-
.png/220px-Minuet_(PSF).png)
A moderator might help this thread dance on over to the appropriate forum.
It's okay, as long as you stay in Kentucky.
That would certainly make for an interesting test: if the reviewer is suspicious of the owner's maintenance plan, then he/she rejects it because of some bogus mystery cache; tells the owner to go back and move it a few feet, and if the owner protests that it's too far away to go back to, then it never gets published, and the reviewer makes note of the owner's placing habit.
My avatar on someone else's post?
in Website
Posted · Edited by nonaeroterraqueous
I've seen this sort of thing only with Internet Explorer. Has anyone seen it with other browsers? If I'm not mistaken, I think it's incorrectly reading stored information from your own computer, not pulling it directly off of the internet. Try doing Control+F5.