Jump to content

"fish"

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by "fish"

  1. I wouldn't. Too much angst for too little gain. That being said, if I suddenly found myself working at Groundspeak, and Jeremy directed me to come up with a way to make it happen, I would first find a set of folks who loved virtuals, probably through stalking profile pages. I would recruit these folks as a volunteer virtual reviewer staff, and ask for their opinions. There are a few ideas I would bounce off the staff, which, if they agreed, would become part of the guidelines. First, I would remove all virtuals, new and old, from the total find count. While locating a plaque on the side of the road can be pretty kewl, a plaque is not, by my own, inner, biased definition, a geocache. In this, they would show up like benchmarks. I know this would cause the numbers cachers to squawk, but it's how I feel. I would further suggest to Jeremy that all Earth Caches, events, CITOs, locationless, mega-events, 10-10-10 events and webcam caches, (basically anything without a container and logbook), be removed from the total cache find count. The site would still tally them, it just wouldn't up your find count. I would suggest not placing any rigid proximity rules, other than one dictating that the same object/building/etc could not get more than one GC number. If BillyBobNosePicker can articulate why one way kewl spot, which happens to be close to an existing virtual, should be listed, it will be listed. The burden of proof would be on the submitter to show why a spot deserved to be a virtual. This would be made clear in the guidelines, in the hopes of reducing the amount of angst heaped upon the reviewers when BillyBob's favorite McDonalds got rejected. Once a virtual was submitted, it would enter a queue established specifically for the virtual reviewers, so they would not clog up the primary reviewer queue. Once in the queue, it would undergo scrutiny. At least three reviewers would need to check off on the virtual, acknowledging that it does meet the guidelines. The types of locations that could qualify as a virtual cache would likely be the greatest source of angst. To qualify as a virtual location, a spot must have substantial historical significance. While that definition sounds like it could be highly subjective, I think if three reviewers, who are all on the same sheet of music, can agree on a spot, that would be good enough for me. If a spot is so questionable that three reviewers can't be found who are willing to sign off on it, that also is good enough for me. The owners of existing virtuals would be notified, and given the opportunity to demonstrate why their virtual should remain active. Any virtual not demonstrably in compliance with the new guideline would be archived eventually. In an exception to the current status quo, if a virtual owner has left the game, and as such, does not respond to the aforementioned notification, their virtual would not automatically be archived. Instead, it would go under further scrutiny, to see if it could be brought into compliance. The reviewer staff would be given the opportunity to adopt it or kill it, according to how they felt about it. That way, really kewl virtuals with long histories, could survive. Finally, I would suggest that Jeremy fully support the decisions of the virtual reviewer staff. If a virtual was denied by the group, it would stay denied. Just one ole fat crippled guys thoughts on the matter. I seriously doubt any of them will be implemented. i agree completely
  2. just my 2 GMC Dually 4X4 with a 454 in it should get ya where you want to go just dont pass up a gas station
  3. Who shaves the barber? his sock puppet account
  4. i agree with this post
  5. I like seeing the shapes
  6. i just wanted to say thanx for the laughs my girlfriend was sleeping. . opps i am over it i hope she gets over it
  7. a pint of some type of alchol some gummies (annnnny type) and a pack or three of winstons if im hungry ill stop at speed way for hot dogs 2 for 2 rocks
  8. i have found a victorinox swiss army knife 90.00 that is my best treasure to date
  9. its going to be fun ill be there
  10. i will ad my thoughts to this thread also DOIN IT MY WAY IN THE DARK
  11. i like mre's i think the food is exelent in them actually the food has come along way i remember eating them in the mid 80's at that time they were not that good but so far all of the different ones i have eaten are quite well
  12. congrats on your achievement and greetings from the state of Michigan in the USA
  13. can i be on the list of cachers visited
  14. why keep looging im only 9 or 10 from 1000 finds and my 1000th find will be my 1000 th find i will log it a few more times so that my count is right when i hit 1000
  15. this is todays log fishing0023 found Your Out! (Traditional Cache) thanx for the cache theres nothin you can do about my name in the book unless you remove other peoples names also then whos the bad one
  16. I WAS AWAY FOR A MIN AND back to logging his cache
  17. blue duce i sent you a email yesterday tellin you that i was over it that was be for the cache owner sent me a email
  18. GCWK56 OPPS SORRY im was not HAPPY with a email that i got from the owner
  19. the cache is gcwk56 i keep logging the find he keeps deleeting it one of us will quit POST SOME MORE NOTES FOR HIM WILL YA ITS A PRISON FOR TBS I WILL ALWAYS MOVE BUGS AND COINS ALONG
  20. 17 and a half encounters the half he didnt talk to us he must have known what we were doing and once there was two encounters in the same night once i found out that i forgot to pay a fine (OOPS) glad i was along way from home that time.
  21. keystone you can lock thread if you wish thanx for answering so fast
×
×
  • Create New...