Jump to content

cezanne

Members
  • Posts

    6753
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cezanne

  1. Yep - I still stand by that - looks like the simplest and most sensible option to me. Is this what you're trying to claim makes life hard for someone? Yes, and also what would be needed to implement this (rigorous checks for personal data). Larger cache projects which require more than one person for maintenance and set-up would e.g. become unmanageable and it would also mean as I said before that someone with no caches at all cannot adopt caches. No, no and no. Rigorous checks for personal data doesn't even enter the equation. But how will you otherwise be able to detect whether someone uses a different account? How much experience do you with such projects? It was you who just recently wrote that you still stand by #7. You are confusing me as all these statements contradict each other - at least when you do not check rigorously for personal data which implies that you cannot detect the difference between the second account of cacher A and the sole account of cacher B both with no hides.
  2. Yep - I still stand by that - looks like the simplest and most sensible option to me. Is this what you're trying to claim makes life hard for someone? Yes, and also what would be needed to implement this (rigorous checks for personal data). Larger cache projects which require more than one person for maintenance and set-up would e.g. become unmanageable and it would also mean as I said before that someone with no caches at all cannot adopt caches.
  3. Yes, I read the thread title. However what you would like to see would imply that one would need to legitimate accounts in some way (credit card info, id card or whatever) and then also be restricted to a single one and would need to use that one for adoptions too. In post #7 you also clearly said that adoptions should be restricted to the player accounts.
  4. I see nothing wrong with the point of an adoption being to save the listing, GC code, or high terrain listing. Yes, let's complain about not maintaining the cache, since a lost or trashed container doesn't save anything, but I see no reason to complain because someone wants to save an old or unusual listing as long as the cache is maintained. Exactly. That#s also why I do not understand why so much energy should be spent in restricting adoptions and making life hard for many who take over caches and maintain them properly. Unmaintained caches are unmaintained regardless of whether they are owned by the original account or another account. There are mechanisms to deal with this issue and the health score project might be seen as a relatively new additional tool along these lines. I wonder why an adopted cache in bad condition is anything different than a cache in bad condition.
  5. Nein, es reicht auch wenn im Logbuch mit TeamXY1.Mai geloggt wird und keine zugehoerigen Personen erwaehnt werden vor Ort und der Name TeamXY1.Mai nur fuer diesen Tag erfunden wurde. Groundspeak hat das so bestaetigt als es im Raum meiner Heimatstadt Debatten gab und einige Cacheverstecker Logs loeschen wollten wo klar war dass nicht bei allen Caches alle die loggten anwesend waren und die Verstecker versuchten durch das Berufen auf die Namen der Loggenden im Logbuch vor Ort zu argumentieren. Das gilt auch dann wenn es kein Micro ist und das Logbuch vor Ort locker fuer 200 Logs reicht.
  6. Right, but at the same time you suggested not to allow a cacher to create new accounts or use existing alternative accounts for adopting caches which led me explain why I dislike this idea strongly. No I think I suggested that and I wasn't saying it shouldn't be allowed I was asking why would you need too. No, see post 7.
  7. If the group works together on different parts of the cache, they all need access to the cache description and the mails sent to the account. Moreover the group account was just one example. I have provided others before. All sorts of rigid approaches would decrease the number of cachers willing to adopt caches and to take care of them in the long run.
  8. My imaginary CHS would only beat down an inexperienced cacher who adopted caches with bad GHS. It would also beat down every sort of group account which is created by a group of very experienced and very considerate cachers to rescue a wonderful cache that happened to end up with a problem and where the responsible owner searched for cachers who could take the cache over and are able and willing to extend the life cycle of the cache and do the local community a big favour. It seems crazy to me to discourage this sort of behaviour.
  9. Can, open... worms, everywhere.......... What am I not seeing? What can of worms would it open? Could a CHS system be abused? I would think that it would encourage proper maintenance and decrease cache hiding addiction. I do not think so. It would encourage me and many others to take away all caches from gc.com and not hiding further ones. I guess one can blame me for many things, but certainly not for being addicted to hiding caches and not taking care of my caches properly. You do not like the effects of numbers on geocaching and yet you suggest another number playing a role. I never ever think that it is a good thing when it comes to geocaching to evaluate people and end up with scores.
  10. My imaginary CHS would only beat down an inexperienced cacher who adopted caches with bad GHS. That seems a little unfair. If a cacher adopts a cache that has a bad GHS why should that effect their CHS? That may cause good cachers to avoid adoption. Maybe the new cache owner could be required to preform maintenance on the adopted cache (which is what should be done anyway) to verify that it is indeed in good shape before being transferred ownership. Then the cache could be re-assigned a cache score based on the new owners CHS or simply start at 100%. It's not unfair at all. The adopting CO still gets exactly the same grace period to bring the cache up to health that any other cacher would. But still some cachers never ever would want to decrease their score which they would see as a rating or sort of grade. It would keep many cachers from adopting caches and bringing them into good shape. It's something different and much less problematic to assign a score to an item like a cache than to a human being (if multiple accounts are not allowed, then it would not be about accounts but really about human beings).
  11. Right, but at the same time you suggested not to allow a cacher to create new accounts or use existing alternative accounts for adopting caches which led me explain why I dislike this idea strongly.
  12. I does not change my strict opposition to the idea. Many cachers are not new but have no hides - it's perfectly ok if they decide to take over a cache, in particular in a cache dense area. In my area there are many cachers with hundreds of finds and a lot of experience but no hides. As your suggestion is regarded - the system does not know who is behind an account and that's good. Otherwise we would need to provide personal credentials for creating an account which I object to.
  13. Weder anspruchsvoll noch unterhaltsam sind fuer mich persoenlich Kriterien. Es ist sehr wohl subjektiv. Ueber Deine Geocaching-Praeferenzen weiss ich das was man Deinen Postings hier entnehmen konnte, das doch schon eine gewisse Richtung vorgibt und mich Dich eher als Erlebniscacher einordnen laesst - komplexe Raetsel oder das Suchen nach sehr gemein versteckten Caches an urbanen Plaetzen duerfte nicht so sehr Deine Vorliebe sein um nur 2 Beispiele zu waehlen. Fuer den einen ist das Finden eines gemein getarnten Fake-Objekts nach 2 Stunden Suche ein Erlebnis, andere sind nach 10 Minuten genervt. Ich erlaube mir nicht zu definieren was Cachen fuer andere zu sein hat.
  14. The title of the thread and the terminology used by the OP. If it would allow new accounts and accounts with no cache score to adopt caches too, then yes. Otherwise this would be the issue I have as explained before.
  15. Yes, until now it is used in this manner, at least according to some reviewers and lackeys. However the OP in this thread suggests a different usage that would go beyond. That's why I'm saying that the adoption ban issue is a whole different one.
  16. Wer macht das? Niemand. Wie kommst Du auf diese Gedanken? Also ICH schrieb, daß schon ein Logbuch viel Kreativität bietet. Ein Logbuch bietet die Kreativitaet fuer den Loggenden, der sich in verschiedener Art betaetigen kann. Wenn ein echtes Logbuch vorhanden ist, ist allerdings die Cacheausfuehrung meist konventionell und der Weg zum Logbuch bzw. das Finden des Caches eher Nebensache und Dinge wie das Zeigen eines Ortes oder ein toller grosser Behaelter mit netten Tauschsachen stehen dann im Vordergrund. Einen Rueckschritt wenn man Praeferenzen wie Du und ich hat - sonst nicht. Wenn man zB einen Cache als Alltagsgegenstand tarnt, dann findet dort meistens kein echtes Logbuch Platz ohne dass es dann auffaellig wird, was ja genau nicht der Fall sein soll. (Zb Grab-LED Kerzen, Sicherungen, Springlerkoepfe, Regenschirme und vieles andere)
  17. That sort of thing fits into the other thread and has been discussed there. As soon as one tries to use the health score to ban someone from adoption or to even change the adoption system at all, we are at a completely different issue as currently reviewers are not involved in adoptions at all. Implementing adoption bans would require quite a substantial change from the currently used system. Yes it probably dose but since it was in response to something bearfootjeff said we'll address it here and I'll wait to hear what he has to say. When it comes to me, you can write here whatever you wish to write. My comment was just to point out that it is a different thing to appreciate the positive sides of the health score system and to welcome the adoption ban idea which somehow would need to be based on automatic decisions without human involvement or would require a complete restructuring of the adoption process with all its consequences.
  18. That sort of thing fits into the other thread and has been discussed there. As soon as one tries to use the health score to ban someone from adoption or to even change the adoption system at all, we are at a completely different issue as currently reviewers are not involved in adoptions at all. Implementing adoption bans would require quite a substantial change from the currently used system.
  19. Der Witz an einem Regenschirm Cache und aehnlichen Dingen dieser Art (bin kein Fan davon) ist jedoch, dass man wenn man die Art Caches nicht kennt, sie nicht als solche erkennt - bei einem Regenschirm in einem Behaelter faellt das weg. Da bleibt maximal die Idee bei einem Event auf einem Regenschirm loggen zu lassen wenn es zum Thema passt aber Events muessen sowieso keine Logmoeglichkeit bieten. Wenn ich auch selbst eine Praeferenz fuer klassische Wandercaches mit einem klassischen Logbuch und einem klassischen Standardbehaelter in einem ebensolchen Versteck habe, empfinde ich es als unfair das Niveau eines Caches in Beziehung dazu zu setzen ob die eigenen Praeferenzen erfuellt sind. Stempeln, Malen etc ist ein Aspekt zB bei Letterboxing oder bei Cachern die auf sowas Wert legen, jedoch nichts was generell fuer einen guten Caches essentiell ist.
  20. This thread is about adoption bans and adoptions restrictions and so the health score tool which should help reviewers is only a side issue. As the OP here I can confirm that the health score tool and potential extensions to it and how those things might assist reviewers are, and always have been completely relevant to this thread. But the way the tool assists reviewers to identify unmaintained caches has nothing to do with your wish to restrict adoptions.
  21. This thread is about adoption bans and adoptions restrictions and so the health score tool which should help reviewers is only a side issue.
  22. Well, regardless of what you consider, once you've adopted the cache, it is now your responsibility. You don't have to take credit for the initial idea - but you HAVE to take credit for the condition of the cache. You adopt it, you own it. Regardless of what "you consider". Yes, it is my responsibility to take care of the cache if I adopt it. I regard myself as caretaker and not as owner. That's why I would choose a separate account for separating these caches from the ones I created. A cache is much more than its condition and also more than a container or a set of containers. Of course it is me as person who has to go out to fix a problem for an adopted cache and not the person who adopted the cache out or someone else. The accounts on gc.com are however not a 1:1 assignment to persons. Also without adoptions I can have several accounts and still I'm of course responsible for what I do with all these accounts. The adopting account owns the listing but the listing is not the same as the cache.
  23. I do see this only as a measure used by GS in extreme cases and not something which should become common and as a result of some health score. In the case that it is a GS measure they have means to detect if someone is trying to circumvent a hiding ban if there are suspicious things happening. Such cases will be even more rare than hiding bans by GS. I'm not in favour of such a procedure as it would restrict the freedom of too many others who should not be affected. I know many, many examples of cache owners with several accounts and none of these examples has anything bad involved. An adopted cache is nothing which I consider as something owned by the person who adopts it. It's rather taking care of something which belongs to someone else. When they are out in the field and get stuck for example and have your phone number anyway (for a different purpose and reason). Many reasons come to my mind: To do the cache owner a favour. To rescue a cache for the community. I could e.g. imagine to adopt a decent traditional near one of my caches but I never would want it in my portfolio of owned caches where I would not want to have a traditional or a cache with a German only description. I would not want to change an adopted cache however more than necessary. As an owner I would not have an issue to paint the walls of a house in a new colour, as a caretaker I would not do that.
  24. Suppose you have a cache which covers 500km and involves a number of stages. If say 10 cachers work together and take perfect care of the cache and everyone knows for what he/she is responsible that is perfectly ok and nothing shady in my eyes. It also allows to have a joint e-mail account to which all involved cachers have access which makes sense of course so that everyone can answer for what he/she is responsible for without having to make the private e-mail account of cacher A available to all involved cachers. If someone has projects with different participants, it makes a lot of sense to have different accounts. Why in the world are you always already from the start assume that there are problems and that something is not maintained properly and abandoned? The majority of caches out there with a maintenance issue are not caches that ran into troubles due to a weakness of the adoption process. There could be many reasons. One very obvious one is that one does not want to be contacted by phone or means other than officially over sending a mail or message to the owning account. There are many other reasons. For example, one can decide to adopt a cache to help some people who feel attached to the cache but cannot keep them but one does not want to include the cache in one's own portfolio because it does not match one's personal geocaching philosophy. For example, I would not want to adopt certain types of mystery caches under my account but under certain circumstances would adopt them with a different account.
  25. This is where it leaves the rails - put your head between your knees - brace for impact In how many large geocaching projects are you involved? I know many different examples where cachers decided to hide or adopt caches with different accounts than their main player account. That's not something rare but quite common. When a cache has originally been set up as a group hide and maintained in that manner, it's quite natural that also a group will take over when it comes to adoption. There are also many cachers who care about the badges at project-gc and some of them want to earn them and not to profit from achievements of others. There are many more reasons for using different accounts for adoptions which are not at all related to my personal preferences and quite comming. A reason not yet mentioned is also that sometimes one does not want that everyone in the community knows that one took over a certain cache.
×
×
  • Create New...