Jump to content

Radman Forever

+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Radman Forever

  1. http://radman2005.homestead.com/index.html Just my personal site for stats, links, and history.
  2. Why is "force" tossed around so much lately? Earthcaches do the same thing, and no head honcho has EVER listed "forcing another to answer questions" as a reason for getting rid of virtuals. * I force someone to visit the exact place I did when I hid the cache in a spot I expect it to stay. * Virtuals/Earthcaches don't have a container. There used to be a time when virtuals were just part of a game that people chose to do along with geocaching. At least they allowed it on another website, which would've been find if earthcaches hadn't come along. The one major reason for hiding a virtual was because of a few things: *There are parks that have banned geocaching and virtuals were the only way of allowing the game inside its boundaries. * Many interesting areas that geocachers wanted to hide a cache had no room for even a micro, or the micro could not be hidden well enough for muggles not to find it. Waymarking was going to be a way to keep virtual enthusiasts happy, but it just hasn't caught on like I am sure they were hoping for. I know waymarks in Michigan that haven't been found since the website was introduced!
  3. Yeah, and if you've seen a lamp post, there's no point to geocaching. Yeah, but i get a smiley, which makes up for LPCs! I have tried Waymarking, but I never got behind it. Despite LPCs, Geocaching has taken me to enough exciting places and I have done enough challenges to be kept in the game. Waymarking is too conformed for me, I need the diversity! Virtuals took you to great historical places, and because there are traditionals nearby usually, it spiced things up for me to like them. To each their own!
  4. I had fun taking it too! Made me think of terms I used to have defined in my head, but word association is hard for me somehow!
  5. Fixed it with an edit to one word - "me". 'WOW is something that makes me... ' You inadvertently hit upon the exact problem - what is WOW to you is not interesting at all to someone else... WOW can only be judged for oneself. I cannot (nor could the Reviewers) decide what would WOW you. Some people think that the Grand Canyon has WOW factor - I see it as wasted land that should be dammed to make a huge hydroelectric production facility. WOW was, is and ever shall be subjective in the eyes of the beholder. Heck, with all of the natural disasters, it will probably be filled with floodwater in no time! Anyways, I like the idea of Earthcaches, but I hate that we accepted the reasons listed previously. * Earthcaches aren't caches either. They can be monitored by another website, but they are still listed on a geocaching website, thus contradicting themselves. * Earthcaches can also be used by an excuse by land managers to exclude caches from their parks. "Hey y'all, there is a swamp in the back of the park, can't that be acceptable?" I know a swamp isn't good enough, but tell that to a stubborn land manager! This hasn't happened yet, but it could happen! * There has to be a dead animal next to an earthcache somewhere. Not all earthcaches/virtuals/traditionals are exciting, but that was never really a good enough excuse to get rid of any cache type, IMO. And Waymarks aren't virtuals. If you have seen one post office/road marker/rest area, you have just about seen every waymark out there. I kid, but not really.
  6. That isn't quite true. No guideline on this site restricts a hider's freedom to participate in geocaching. This site's guidelines only affect what is allowed on this site. Geocaching.com may be the most popular listing site for geocaches, but you are free to play anywhere you want. You're even free to start your own site if you want. That's the beauty of capitalism. Yeah, but it is like GC.com being the drug supplier and I am the addict. I get angry when the supplier changes what I got used to and the supplier tells me I can go somewhere else. Of course I cannot go somewhere else, because I am addicted to this place! I have been here for six years, so I cannot just leave my addiction. At least the drug supplier gave me a forum where I can speak my disgust for the change. Maybe they will someday be more receptive, but I will continue to play either way. We'll see when the next cache type becomes a pain in the rear. I await the next announcement.
  7. I have a Golden Retreiver and love dogs. However, your dog means nothing to me. Sorry. I always wonder about people that spend a ton on geocoins honoring their dead pets too. I'm sure they loved them but I think it's a bit presumptious to think that anyone else gives a hoot. Like seeing pictures of pets online, I love seeing pets on trading items, geocoins, and pathtags! Especially when it is a companion that goes with the geocachers on their trips. Honoring a pet who has passed on by putting their image on a coin or TB is pretty cool. I've seen a lot creepier things on travel bugs than a picture of dead pet. If you do not like it, then just leave the traveler alone. Many pet lovers/geocachers love them and they hurt nothing and nobody. I think no one cares when people say they don't care about something a geocacher does, because that seems presumptuous.
  8. It's not a mantra, it's just never really picked up steam. Those who like to have ratings on their caches can do so with third-party software. The Amazon suggestion is a good idea. Does the owner see the ratings, or do you just see a list of caches you might like? It might be hard to apply to a website that has problems with the way it is now. Until then, living by example is the best way to go.
  9. I've seen logbooks added (and replaced), containers replaced, and swag added to caches. I can see BrianSnat's view of the cache owner seeing caches being made worse by a finder's good intentions. I still would rather have good intentions that I get that say "Fix your cache you stupid jerk". I will fix those caches someday!
  10. Rating systems are as old as the micro cache. It does seem simple to have a rating system on a cache to be able to give your approval or disgust with the cache. I've never liked the idea because there is a person behind that cache page. I didn't get in this hobby to hurt people's feelings. I've always believed that the best way a geocacher can improve the caches in their area the most is by leading by example. You can't rid the world of bad caches, but you can hide caches that make you feel better about your contribution to this great hobby. Others will take notice if they like the hide. "Monkey see, monkey do" does fit when it comes to geocaching, especially when it concerns newer cachers, who like to hide caches that they just recently found.
  11. Fixed it for ya! Back on topic: I've never met Roddy, but I think I can answer this one for him. (Roddy, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) Uh... Because he's a geocacher? And there are geocaches to find? Other cachers to schmooze with? Maybe some good vittles? Dude, is that really such a hard concept to grasp? Wow, I don't remember asking you why you wanted to attend this event, even though you probably don't understand the event I am talking about. It requires more than just talking and eating. Don't know a thing about it, but you have to be a smart*** to prove a point, right? Thanks for your input, it was totally necessary and worth it. I've about run my course and have little energy. Rod is right that there is little that can convince TPTB that they might be wrong or to let the geocaching community have a more open role in the course of geocaching decisions. I don't know why I did this after doing the same thing for virtuals five years ago. Guess I never learn eh?
  12. I have to ask you Rod, why do you like the Are You Geocacher Enough event? After all, it really is one big ALR-style cache that forces you to go find a bunch of caches set out for you to find. You are going to love this year, Sleepyweasel wants to put up puzzle caches and other mystery caches. Not really a bunch of quick finds. You have to find certain caches in order to claim for certain prizes. Is it the prizes? You don't like being told what to do by another geocacher, other than the occasional puzzle, which you are not actually being told to do something. The closest legal cache this comes to is the challenge cache, and I haven't seen any that you have found. Maybe events that require you to do something will no longer be allowed. It can only go back to the basics of meeting, eating, and leaving. That was the way the original cachers intended. Who knows? Maybe I'll have to come back and gripe about that when that happens.
  13. Rod, try to get my point before you claim I should do something. I know Rusty is against these also, my point was that he said these caches are no harder to review than traditionals. That was the point of my post, so try to get my point. You don't have to agree with it, because I don't care.
  14. True. Likewise, if you came up with a totally lame activity, many would still do it, however their degree of fun might be in question. (Makes me wonder, over the years, how many folks exclaimed in joy, "Yeah! I get to take a picture with a stuffed frog! Whoo Hoo!!) Either way, according to Groundspeak, folks coming up with a forced activity to claim a find, lame or otherwise, became a burden for the reviewers. Whether ALRs go the way of the do do, or they get reinstated with a new icon, matters little to me, so long as the reviewers are happy. Same can be said for finding a lame micro, or an owner going "Whoo hoo, someone gave me a TNLN TFTC log!" Serious now, reviewers had a problem with deleted logs, not with the caches themselves. They were no harder than any other mystery cache (a reviewer on my local group forums admitted that). They are still going to have to answer the million questions of "Is my challenge/puzzle/math/etc. cache impacted by this rule?" "Can I hide this such and such cache"? "What suggestions are fine and what aren't"? "Why aren't challenge caches banned also"? These questions that are (or at least trying) being answered on the forums, but only a small percetage of geocachers read these threads. You are still going to have thousands asking these questions. Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't. At least these caches would've still been left alone.
  15. Fine, I like the cache where owners still have ownership of their caches and geocachers still have the right to choose which caches they like to find. I still own my caches, but with less control. The decision has been made for me and now I am told what I can or cannot require on my cache. My opinion, my answer. If you came up with a fun activity that was required, those who wanted to do it have fun. First of all, why the heck is the word "phoon" used? Anyways, why do you assume that ALR cache owners only hid them to delete logs. Maybe they hid the cache to have them do something shows them something new, just like showing people a cool area by hiding a cache there. Making it required does have those who choose to do the cache do something.
  16. I like to say that I do not agree with this comment and find it highly offensive! I will later come back and write a 500-word response as to why your comment is incorrect.
  17. First of all, I meant "participation" as in participating in the things the cache asks you to do. Meaning more than just signing the log. But I'll think about this and respond. I'll use your option one: Option 1: You hide an AL(Request) cache that 100 people have fun finding. 20 of these people think your requested activity is a hoot and have loads of fun complying. The rest don't think your ALR is fun, so they skip it and have fun finding your fine cache. I'll come up with my option two: Option Two: The ALR cache become a cache with suggestion. Eighty people find the cache and move on without having to do the suggestion. They are as happy as one smiley can get you and you move on to the next cache. MAYBE 20 people do it say they did the task or put a photo up, but who says you will get twenty people to do the task after it is only made into a suggestion? Some people do a cache because it requires them too, but less people will do it if is a suggestion. The hula cache shows that as an example. 100 get a smiley otherwise and the owner gets a few pictures, but might be disappointed the cache is no different than their other traditionals. Obviously, not every cache is going to be like that, and owners might be happy that they have some participation. Others, however, might be disappointed to witness only seeing a minority of the geocachers doing what they ask. This is the situation where the owners lose. And to say it again, more finders does not make every owner happy. Participation with the cache might.
  18. Don't confuse requirements with just ALRs, because I have never hidden an ALR cache. The one traditional I mentioned was an ALS that became a regular cache and the other was a cache that had you answer Michigan history questions, with each answer being either a dead end stage or the stage that takes you to the next level. Now archived. I also never said people don't enjoy themselves without an ALR cache. I have gotten great logs from my basic caches, but I also have gotten TFTC logs also. I didn't get TFTC caches for my caches that had you do more than just sign the log (but didn't force you to do them), but I never forced them to log anything. They wrote long logs BECAUSE THEY LIKED IT, not because I had a requirement that they had to. So, since I didn't hide an ALR cache, I feel that all of my caches stand. You can't tell me to enjoy TFTC logs just like I wouldn't force finders to log more than TFTC. Looks like we both need to read before assuming. These are the two caches in question. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...81-803e7554d4b4 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c5-d0e0eb97ddbc
  19. Come up on US 127 sometimes and realize the shack where the frog was is about ten feet from your car. Hardly a challenge with the camera. And I never made it required. And the cache with the long logs didn't require you to do anything but find the stages and answer the questions in order to find each stage. You didn't have to have long logs, and there were those who only had a few sentences, but still said they had fun (which was still much more than TFTC TNLN). It was no different than your cache being found at night. It didn't force people to do anything if they didn't want to find the cache. Getting a million visitors with logs that say TFTC TNLN gets you excited, but I love log that state more than that. I can't force anybody to do anything, and I will never do that, but that doesn't mean I can't try to make the cache so fun and unique that they would feel bad to not at least write a couple sentences. That's not evil, that's fun caching! These two caches I mentioned are not ALR caches, but they did ask you to do more than just find the cache. They were just used to make a point. Did you bother to visit the cache I posted? Your argument shows otherwise!! Please, find me a single TNLN log on that cache...please?? Oh, wait, that darned Rusty didn't say anything but published. And, some of those logs were from kids, some were from family members who already had one person share their experience...but still no TNLN logs...go figure! I wasn't talking about your night cache's logs, which I did read the descriptions. I was talking about your cache being a night cache, which would like to have people find the cache at night (I say this because you say some stages will "require" a flashlight), it is no different than my mystery multi that had people answer questions to help them find the next stage. Thy both require you to do something, which is a lot like ALR caches! I just said about the logs because my one cache had long logs and I like reading long logs. You said you are just happy to get logs and I assume you like getting a lot of visitors. Getting more visitors doesn't make everyone happier than getting logs that are descriptive and fun to read. Edit: Sorry Rod, I left while typing this to talk to someone and didn't know you were leaving the thread. Sorry if it seems I am still trying to drag you into this thread!
  20. Is more finds always better? I don't mind anybody who ignores my Puzzle or Multi caches because they don't like Puzzle or Multi caches. Why should it be different with ALRs? [b]I don't actually own an ALR cache, but I think it's very sad to see them pass away. [/b] I have done some ALR's (and ignored others that I don't like), and I have taken joy and pride in succeeding in some difficult requirements, just as I might take joy and pride in doing a T5* cache. Now, if others are allowed to do the same cache without doing the "difficult" part (climbing, ALR), wouldn't it take part of the fun of that cache away? It's not about control crazed owners. It's about diversity and having another way of making people try something new, as in for example a difficult puzzle. I can understand if you're frustrated if a (control crazed or not) owner has deleted your log. But didn't you know about that requirement BEFORE you went there? Why did you decide to go anyway? Let me get this straight, this doesn't affect you, but you feel the need to spew??? Well done! Why do you feel you need to MAKE someone try something?? Do you think they aren't smart enough to figure out what they consider fun? Do you think your fun HAS to be forced on others?? And, did you even read my post???? I know, you're far to busy with other things...right?? I see your problem, you spew without thought...cool!! Of course, reading the words written for you might help you, but plug on, it is amusing! This didn't affect any of my caches, but I have the opinion that geocaching needs to expand, not contracted (or more regulated if you disagree with "contracted). That doesn't mean my opinion is any less. I had a cache that had requirements, but I did not force anybody to do anything. Don't like the cache, don't do the cache. No one is forcing their fun on anybody when they have the right to ignore the cache. Stinks for this stuff to be repeated, but some on both sides can't get all the points listed.
  21. Come up on US 127 sometimes and realize the shack where the frog was is about ten feet from your car. Hardly a challenge with the camera. And I never made it required. And the cache with the long logs didn't require you to do anything but find the stages and answer the questions in order to find each stage. You didn't have to have long logs, and there were those who only had a few sentences, but still said they had fun (which was still much more than TFTC TNLN). It was no different than your cache being found at night. It didn't force people to do anything if they didn't want to find the cache. Getting a million visitors with logs that say TFTC TNLN gets you excited, but I love log that state more than that. I can't force anybody to do anything, and I will never do that, but that doesn't mean I can't try to make the cache so fun and unique that they would feel bad to not at least write a couple sentences. That's not evil, that's fun caching! These two caches I mentioned are not ALR caches, but they did ask you to do more than just find the cache. They were just used to make a point.
  22. Maybe they should place better caches. I also present that maybe they're hiding caches for the wrong reason. Personally, I don't hide caches for my own enjoyment, but that of others. If I get back logs that they voluntarily wrote saying they enjoyed the cache--which is more than a TFTC--then I know I've done my job. That makes me feel good. Maybe you should not assume I need to hide better caches. I have hidden caches that are considered good by many. I hide caches like most owners, for others enjoyment and mine. I love reading logs and I have gotten some great ones over the years. In fact, the best logs I ever got was on a cache that required you to do something more than just signing the log. Just look at my previous post for proof.
  23. More people finding the cache does not automatically mean more participation. I should know, because I used to have an ALS cache that is one of the oldest caches in Mid Michigan. Back in the Old Shack used to have a frog that was located on a building near the cache on my family's property. I invited people to take a picture with the frog. Over the course of two years, eight people out out ninety-nine did the suggestion, in the early years of geocaching where the numbers game was a smaller part of the geocaching experience. After two years, the frog got run over by a lawnmower and I decided not to replace it. The best part of that cache's six year history was those two years of people participating with the frog, but the participation wasn't much. I never did something like it again, because the participation was so low I didn't feel it was worth it. But I did want to do a cache that took people on an adventure, and I knew that a puzzle would require people to complete the challenge. So I hid a puzzle/multi that required people to ultimately find the caches and take them on a journey. Here's a couple logs: All because I had requirements and people enjoyed the hunt. If there was a rule that said this cache's challenge had to be optional, I would've archived the cache so fast, your head would be spinning. So yes, optional caches can get less participation than required caches. Please don't try to tell me otherwise.
  24. Exactly, some owners are tired of hiding caches that get the same TNLN TFTC logs that they get receive. These caches were invented to invite more interaction and participation, IMO. You can claim that they were the product of control freaks that want to see the finders jump through hoops to get the find, but many people just avoid caches that they don't like (i.e. caches that are more than a park & grab). ALS caches will now exist, well, those that aren't archived, and now an unknown number will avoid the "suggestions" that are put on the page. These caches are made into traditionals which many of those who don't read the cache description will not even know anything that will be suggested. The owner gets tired of seeing a cache that they had previously seen active participation become another TNLN TFTC traditional. The suggestions either get dropped or the cache is just archived. A sad story. I know I am overgeneralizing, but so many anti-ALR cache people have done the same thing over the course of this thread, so I don't feel so bad doing it. Besides, it doesn't sound that far-stretched. ALS caches will get more finds, but less cacher participation. I would take one 100-word log over a hundred TNLN TFTC logs anyday.
  • Create New...