TeamJiffy

BigFont? Wasn't he a half-man, half-beast typesetter that has been occasionally photographed as he lumbered around in the woods of the Pacific Northwest and extreme Northern California? I agree - such a creature can be incredibly annoying! -Jif

Geocachers sometimes first poke around with a stick to make sure there are no snakes in there.

Others have said so much, but one thing that hasn't been commented on (or if it has, I missed it...) is this: the comment that her stated worry is that her friends think her husband is wierd and it will somehow come back to her. Ohh..kay... Well, at least as stated by the original poster, I don't read a lot of love coming from that wife - where is the concern over safety, the concern over doing things that might be illegal? Not the reason stated.. rather it is being looked down upon by her friends. If that is the case, challenge her simply with an agreement that you don't cache within five miles from home, so none of your friends catch you... ...in the meantime, you could always start grabbing matchbooks from the local gay leather bars and leave them lying around your coffee table when her friends come and visit. Then compromise by saying that you'll stop visiting gay leather bars (as Seinfeld says, "Not that there's anything wrong with that"), if you can continue to Geocache.

Finding your own cache is like trying to take yourself to the prom. There's a name I thought of for this, but my wife won't let me leave it on the forum... [This message was edited by TeamJiffy on November 04, 2003 at 01:14 PM.]

What a wonderful story! Too bad you didn't purchase a disposable camera and upload some photos of this activity! -Jif

My reply is to simply say "well, then, since you don't enjoy my doing it, it's good then that I am not trying to devote my leisure time to your personal benefit, isn't it?" smile, and walk away...

jarja_grl: It is fascinating. When I was a child, I saw a film version of the same by Charles and Ray Eames.

A mini-tool kit as a FTF prize in a cache by fizzymagic. -Jif

Thanks for your mature handling of the problem. Your approver was right, and you were right to recognize it. -Jif

Caching is pretty much the same. I have seen in the past year a true explosion of variety in the cache containers, hides, puzzles around them, style of the multicaches, etc. My wife and I have met lots of great friends - most of which I think/hope are the "staying kind" (i.e., even if we stop Geocaching, we'll keep in contact). We share a common leisure activity when we really didn't have too many of them before. So, all in all, Geocaching's been great for us! As to the site? Well, it's run pretty well. I'd do a few things differently (such as publish the database of caches in a series of ZIP files, like IMDB does), but that's not to complain about what's done here. As to the policy changes, I personally disagree with the degree of clampdown on the virtuals, but then, I am such a trivia nut that spending an afternoon reading every historical marker along the side of a fifty mile stretch of rural highway actually sounds pretty good to me! I get a real pleasure out of learning "80 years ago, the Whatever Company had a flour mill here that processed flour for the adjacent three counties." I like knowing that stuff. But, lots of people don't. (Lots of people think finding tupperware in the woods and film containers in city parks is pretty off the wall, too...) So, I can see how others feel, and I am not threatened by the virtual clampdown, even though I personally would handle it differently. Overall, I am happier with caching than when I started, and I believe my wife is too. -Jif

I'll add one thing: A puzzle cache should take you somewhere you would want to be at the end of it - build a good cache, following all good criteria, and then add the puzzle stuff to hide the coordinates. It is frustrating to solve a puzzle cache, and then be taken to the middle of a vacant lot next to a liquor store.

Sounds reasonable to me... sometimes I want to solve a puzzle cache, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I create them, sometimes I don't. Ain't choice great?

The problem many folks have with virtuals is that they like the find-the-container part of Geocaching as much or more than the get-to-the-general-area part of Geocaching. For them, a virtual cache creates a 528 foot radius “dead zone” where no real caches can be placed, so there’s no fun in the find anymore. The joy many folks have with virtuals is that they like the get-to-the-general-area part of Geocaching, as much or even more than the find-the-container part of Geocaching. Coming from such fundamentally different viewpoints as to what is enjoyable, it is easy to see why this debate will never end. What’s needed is FIRM LEADERSHIP at this point to stop the complaining. Groundspeak - how about doing something about this? So fix it, Jeremy - it’s the year 500, you’re the Pope, and the Eastern and Western Roman empires are starting to debate about statuary. If you do nothing, just wait. In a few more centuries, somebody’s gonna start nailing notes to the front of your churches. -Jif [This message was edited by TeamJiffy on October 22, 2003 at 06:36 AM.] [This message was edited by TeamJiffy on October 22, 2003 at 06:37 AM.]

Let me make an attempt at this. Jomarac5 - I believe the approvers need to be doubly anonymous because all of us are largely singly anonymous. Let's make up a geocaching username for the sake of discussion. Let's call him/her "HairTrigger". All GC.com knows about HairTrigger is a username (and a perhaps made up first/last name, and the username can be a hotmail account). So, HairTrigger (let's say "he") can be really anonymous. Now, let's make up an approver whose caching name is "JRandomCacher" - this cacher is your average cacher, nice to meet at events - and at these events, he/she meets a lot of other people who he/she (let's say, "she") really doesn't know - except by anonymous username. These people can be the most ethical people in the world, or perhaps the most petty and vicious when crossed - JRandomCacher really doesn't KNOW - because we don't know the backgrounds of these folks. Now you ask JRandomCacher to be an admin. They make an AWFUL admin, but they are TRYING to do the best job. What if JRandomCacher disapprove's one of HairTrigger's caches, and HairTrigger REALLY doesn't like it - and HairTrigger more than flames, HairTrigger tries to get even. Perhaps it will be juvenile tactics - such as stealing JRandomCacher's caches. Or perhaps it will be WORSE - who knows - we are largely anonymous and unknown to each other. But, if HairTrigger really came down on JRandomCacher in the forums, or elsewhere, what if that made JRandomCacher afraid or uncomfortable to attend cache events. Now, you could be the nicest cacher in the world, but JRandomCacher has to deal with DOZENS if not a couple of hundred, AT LEAST. One of them could very well be a HairTrigger. Why take the chance of having the activity of Geocaching RUINED for JRandomCacher just because they tried their best at being an admin, but failed at it! Rather, use a second name "JRandomAdmin" and if they are an awful admin, they should be able to stop, and go back to being JRandomCacher and still enjoy the activity without worrying about teasing, flaming, harrassment, etc. If the approvers got PAID, I'd agree with them not keeping them anonymous - because they would be accepting a JOB - but because the approver job pays NOTHING - it seems reasonable to allow them privacy so they can go to event caches in peace, so they don't have to worry about retribution for their acts as an admin, etc. Remember, all of us are largely anonymous with each other, but the admin becomes a focus for 100s.

We liked the cookie jar shapes, but the colors were too bright and candyish - I guess that's what people are referring to when they say "Disneyish". We liked the original ones (the blue and orange oatmeal containers) best of all. The current icons look like wrapped sticks of butter. So... Oatmeal? Candy Jars? Sticks of butter? What other food theme could be used instead?

quote:Originally posted by Cooter13:I wonder what Christopher Columbus would have been like with a GPSr? Answer: FRUSTRATED. Now, if you asked "I wonder what Christopher Columbus would have been like with a GPSr and a functional array of satellites, and a solar-powered AA-recharger", I would have given a different answer. [] -Jif

I like "event of cachers" as well. But that is a little too "in-humor" (I.e., you have to know about event caches, etc.) Perhaps something more germane to the task of caching: You can describe the group by size: "A micro of cachers" vs. "A regular of cachers" vs. "A large of cachers" or you could describe it in this way: Use minutes/sub-minutes/degrees to describe the group.... as in: 6 cachers equal ".1 minutes of cachers" 60 cachers equal "a minute of cachers" 3600 cachers equal "a degree of cachers" or you could use aspects of the GPS... A "waypoint of cachers" or stuff like that... -Jif

The only part of this entire debate I see as indicating a true mistake in overlap between the multiple games of physical vs. virtual is a concern expressed by a few of the folks over virtuals taking space in the ".1 mile apart" restriction. Virtuals and physical caches really should be two universes as far as the proximity rule is concerned. However - I think that is the only point I agree as being a *reason* for separate games vs. what is really a preference choice. Why? Because when you take that issue away, it turns out that we are then playing the game on separate "fields" - the sports analogy falls apart once this is done. Geocaching.com is primarily a DATABASE - it tells me what virtual, locationless, and real GPS findable ites exist. I can choose to "hunt" whatever ones I desire. It reports, on the user stats page, what I have found of each type. If it would sum up the total of regular+multi+(perhaps) Other to give "physical cache count", then I could easily keep track of my statistics, and so could others. Once that is done, I fail to see any other argument as anything more than "I don't want that kind of game played here because well, ..., I just don't WANT it." If you feel that way, fine, but don't cloak that desire in some sort of logical explination complication. It needs none. You are allowed to prefer apples. I am allowed to prefer oranges. We don't need to justify it. My preference - and that's all it is - is that I can use a single database lookup to find both physical and virtual caches in my area, and that I can see my 'find' list as a union of both. If Groundspeak chooses to separate these, so I have to make two queries, sigh... , that will be a real hassle for me, as I like to find both. But, I know that this is simply a *preference* of mine. There is no "reason" behind it. -Jif

The "VALUE=" options in my <LI> statements is still not working. Now what happens is that the VALUE= are stripped not only on the displayed generated page, but my actual edits include the VALUE= are lost (as in <LI VALUE=10> gets changed to <LI> when I hit the "Edit Page" button). My cache page with this problem: Lumber-Room of Your Library The <LI> that begins the paragraph saying "The first on-camera kiss" is supposed to read <LI VALUE=10>. Each time I try to add that, and then click "EDIT", the changes are lost. Thanks for looking into this. "Jif"

Hi - another issue. The "ALIGN=" option to the <IMG> syntax (in my case, ALIGN=RIGHT) causes the image not to get included properly in the generated cache page. If I take the ALIGN= option away, the image is referred to properly in the generated page. If I put it back in, the image does not properly load. Thanks for looking into this! "Jif" The documentation for IMG on htmlhelp.com is located here: <IMG> documentation My cache page where this failure is seen is here: Lumber-Room of Your Library

Hi - The recent changes have broken two of my cache pages. The "VALUE" option for the <LI> syntax is still stored on my cache pages that use it, but the processed pages strip it. Here is documentation on <LI> from htmlhelp.com: Documentation for LI Here is a cache of mine that breaks because of stripping the VALUE= option off of the <LI> command. I have more than one of these... Lumber-Room of Your Library Please fix this. Thanks! "Jif"

quote: C'mon, TeamJiffy, I can see you're trying hard from the audit trail, but your reputation as the leaders of the South Bay Brain Trust is dimming on this one. That would have been 2 of us looking at the page multiple times (thus increasing the page viewing statistics that much more), especially this morning as we both had printed it out before heading out there, yes, this morning. We've been running behind because a picnic and some out-of-area caching got in the way, not to mention outside activities. quote:So how was the picnic? My new computer and router arrived yesterday, so I had to set up everything. It took more than all day, but it seems to be working. And speaking of the picnic, what a blast! We missed you and others who weren't able to make it. One more thing: quit spying! Wait, I'm saying this to someone who's the creator of “FBI Quiz” and “Operation Futari”? Who am I kidding? All kidding aside, check our logs of the cache as well as your “Nykebut” cache and you'll know how much we love tearing through your caches. When's your next one? -Fy [This message was edited by TeamJiffy on October 06, 2003 at 02:38 AM.]

Hey, listen up Bay Area cachers! There is a themed cache that has been around forever - For Your Eyes Only - and it has a sequel - You Only Live Twice. A whole group of us discussed these at a cache event a couple of weeks ago, and we agreed to try them out on Sunday. The first cache was originated in July, 2001 - it is probably one of the very earliest themed multi-caches. The story line is great, hunting the legs is fun, there is a surprise at the end, etc. I think because they are old, so they are never on a new cache list, and because they start between Davenport and Santa Cruz on Hwy 1, that many people never see them in their 'closest cache' list. That's a shame. These caches were fantastic. However, take our advice: Start at the starting point. Allow yourselves 5-6 hours, including eating, enjoying the area, etc. Again: These caches are fantastic. I am talking "Double Agent", "Operation Futari" and "Fellowship of the Ring" here, folks! -Jif

I fully respect the approvers; they do a great job! I also like to think that in my work, I do a great job. One of the things I have to do, as a manager, is approve the purchase orders of my employees. For example, if someone on my team needs a new PC, I can approve that, and the company will order it based on my approval. But if I need a PC for myself? Well, my manager needs to approve it. Do I take that as a insult from my employer? Of course not! My employer properly believes that it is not best to have people approve their own decisions - meaning that even approvers need approvals for their own stuff. It just makes sense to have another person review things. For example, the best doctors typically also do not write prescriptions for themselves or diagnose their own illnesses - it's good to have that "other person" do the check. It may be that Jeremy feels that the approvers get flack from us gripe filled users for a volunteer job. I agree. They do get lots of stupid flack. So, it may be that he's handing this out as a perk to balance the "approver experience" in a positive direction. I would ask him to re-think that. Not because people on the forums gripe about the 'unfairness of it' - that's not the point. It's just that it's never a good idea to have people approve their own work. -Jif

Actually, there is a point to using a softer name. "Pirates" creates a lot of negative assumptions. I suggest instead of Pirate Caches, we call these "Communist Baby-Harp-Seal-Clubbing Bald-Eagle-Hunting Secondhand-Smoke Caches" -Jif