RichardMoore

That's basically it but the cache owner would also be able to see the gong count and gong comments too. Unlike the SBA for lame cache idea this has the advantage of discretely telling the cache owner to fix his cache. However, if he does nothing and five gongs pile up then the admin would get involved. Edit: I really think that this could send a message out to people without embarrassing them to let them know that they have a cache that is bad enough to be gonged. Maybe they would try harder and we all would benefit! Sorry, but I still keep seeing that you're telling an admin that the cache should be archived because it's a lame cache. You're just calling it a "Gong" instead of an "SBA", and wanting four people to agree with your opinion of the cache. What if the cache owner thinks his cache is fine because 60 people have found it and none of them complained in the logs? Will the admin archive the cache anyway, based on the opinion of five people?

From the guidelines: Any place that has any rules has someone responsible for that area. Any place that has someone maintaining it has someone responsible for it. That person should be asked before you place a cache there. Does every hider ask permission? No. Does hiding caches without permission cause problems? Yes. Don't assume that just because it's "public property" you can do whatever you want there.

I keep thinking that I'm misunderstanding something. Under your system: * Finders can "gong" a cache that they feel is lame. * The only people that can see these "gongs" are the admins, or an automated e-mail system. * If a cache receives five "gongs", either a reviewer will get involved, or an automatic e-mail will be sent the cache owner. The cache owner will be told to either fix or archive the cache. * If the cache owner does nothing, the reviewer will archive the cache. Is this correct?

I think your thick-skin and good attitude are not so common these days! I know we would have many people crying if this idea were ever implemented. Unfortunately there so many people that are incredibly thin-skinned these days. The idea was meant to provide a way to get rid of very undesirable caches. But I can see now that the only way this idea would ever fly is if the gongs were only visible to the admins. The admins could sort out the local caches in order by ones with the most gongs and then ask trusted volunteers to check out the top vote getters. I'm sure they would find that many of them should be moved or archived! Anyhow, if this alternative idea was implemented, you would have a trusted fair impartial judge making the final decisions. I'm not sure how that process could be abused or offensive to anyone..... If you want the admins to archive a cache that you think is undesirable, why don't you just log an SBA on the cache? The thing about the GONG attribute is that it would have to be received by a particular cache several times, submitted by different cachers, before a Reviewer would be notified. Maybe after five GONGS, an SBA would be automatically sent to the Reviewer. Then they could look into the problems with the cache. An example: Last week I went to a cache hidden in someone's front yard. There were stinky garbage cans in the driveway and the noisy trash truck was coming up the narrow alleyway. Plus, even though the cache was rated a 1/1, I couldn't find it. Any cache rated a '1' for Difficulty should practically be in plain sight. I had a terrible experience at that cache, but that doesn't mean it deserves an SBA. However, I could give it a GONG. If four more cachers also feel uncomfortable searching in that location and also believe it is a "lame" cache and give it a GONG, then the cache owner can be notified by the Reviewer to either improve, move, or Archive their cache. An SBA does not automatically mean that the cache will be archived. It means that a reviewer will look into it. If you SBA'd that cache, the reviewer could work with the owner to get the problem resolved with the first complaint rather than waiting until there were five complaints and then it being brought to their attention. I still have the problem with accountability. Will the cache owner know who is making the complaint against their cache? An SBA is right there for everyone to see, whereas a gong would not be.

I think your thick-skin and good attitude are not so common these days! I know we would have many people crying if this idea were ever implemented. Unfortunately there so many people that are incredibly thin-skinned these days. The idea was meant to provide a way to get rid of very undesirable caches. But I can see now that the only way this idea would ever fly is if the gongs were only visible to the admins. The admins could sort out the local caches in order by ones with the most gongs and then ask trusted volunteers to check out the top vote getters. I'm sure they would find that many of them should be moved or archived! Anyhow, if this alternative idea was implemented, you would have a trusted fair impartial judge making the final decisions. I'm not sure how that process could be abused or offensive to anyone..... If you want the admins to archive a cache that you think is undesirable, why don't you just log an SBA on the cache? Because then it's just my opinion. The idea was to get a consensus. Edit: Plus we can do it that way now and nobody ever does. But that's understandable because most people don't like being the bad guy! But if 5 or 6 people log SBA's wouldn't that be the same as your gongs? Having it be viewable only to the admins makes them out to be the bad guys ("Everyone who's gone to my cache likes it. The admin hates me so he archived my cache and is just saying that it was gonged."). They already take enough abuse for a job they don't get paid to do.

I think your thick-skin and good attitude are not so common these days! I know we would have many people crying if this idea were ever implemented. Unfortunately there so many people that are incredibly thin-skinned these days. The idea was meant to provide a way to get rid of very undesirable caches. But I can see now that the only way this idea would ever fly is if the gongs were only visible to the admins. The admins could sort out the local caches in order by ones with the most gongs and then ask trusted volunteers to check out the top vote getters. I'm sure they would find that many of them should be moved or archived! Anyhow, if this alternative idea was implemented, you would have a trusted fair impartial judge making the final decisions. I'm not sure how that process could be abused or offensive to anyone..... If you want the admins to archive a cache that you think is undesirable, why don't you just log an SBA on the cache?

I was wondering that same thing. I saw another thread pop up about micros today and it sure didn't take long for the criticizing about starting another micro thread began. These forums are for discussions and for giving opinions. They can sometimes become heated as cachers certainly think differently from one another about certain issues. This is where we can and should have our civilized debates. But to come in off topic with rude remarks because of a thread repeat is just plain childish. Folks, there is an easy solution for your dislike of certain threads,,, DON'T READ EM! How can you be sure you're going to dislike the thread without reading it? And if you just skip the thread based on the title or opening post you might miss it if someone comes up with a new idea or outlook. The problem isn't necessarily the repetition of the thread as much as the repetition of the responses. The same people give the same responses and get in the same arguments. Notice I said arguments, not discussion.

I wear hiking boots while hiking in the CMP. They're Herman Survivor's "Commander" that I buy at Walmart. They're big, black, heavy, and waterproof (not water resistant). So, while others are trying to gingerly cross streams while balancing on rocks, I just walk across. And you need the traction on some of the hills, especially with all the rain we've had lately. If my feet do get wet (time to re-waterproof the boots), it's like in the 80's out there. That cool water feels good.

And that would be an educated guess. Truth be told, no one knows how many cachers there are out there. Jeremy and TPTB may know how many accounts there are. But even they don't know how many cachers there are for each account. Just think of how many geocaching families you know. Everyone in the family would be considered a cacher, but there's just one account. There are several multi-cacher accounts just in the responses to this thread.

I remember reading in here somewhere something like: "A man with a GPSr knows exactly where he is. A man with two GPSr's is lost."

If you gong my cache and I delete your log, will the gong remain? Or will it be a gone gong? Or is the gong going to be anonymous so the gongers have no accountabilty for their gong?

My first cache hide cost me under a dollar. I took a Tupperware container that I hadn't used in years, and looked around my apartment to find things to fill it (For those of you who are concerned, they were all new items. Luckily, I'm a bit of a packrat). The only thing that I had to buy was a notebook to use for the logbook.

You know, I'm really starting to hate this phrase.

My thinking exactly! I agree with leaving the finder's finds intact. But I'm not sure about deleting the re-hider's find. I think that would depend on how long ago this happened. If, when you went and verified that your cache was gone and couldn't find theirs, you questioned them about it and/or deleted their find, that would be fine. But you allowed the find before and would now disallow it? Part of the blame is your's for not following through thoroughly enough. How many throw-down caches would they not have done since if you had deleted their find for this one?

For those of you who believe that there might be a very good reason for driving a stake into a tree, check out this book. I have a copy and it doesn't mention trees.

For those of you who are concerned about the tree: Don't be. The tree will be fine, or at least as fine as any other trees in the area. Granted, damage to the bark does increase the chance of disease getting into the tree, but that increase is minuscule. Trees put up with a lot more abuse than having a stake driven into them. For those of you who are not concerned about a logger's safety: Shame on you. Whether you agree with logging or not, you're talking about the life and health of a human being. And how do you know that it would be a logger that is cutting the tree? It could be a park employee putting in a new trail, or clearing an existing trail if the tree falls across it. As for Criminal's comment, which I believe was made in jest, there are eco-terrorists out there who do just that. They'll go into an area that's scheduled to be logged and drive spikes into the trees hoping that enough loggers get injured to keep the rest out. Others have said it, but let me repeat: It's not the actual damage to the tree, it's how the non-geocaching public views the sport that is the concern. Just a few months ago I had a long discussion with a park volunteer about geocaching. Not knowing that I was a cacher, she started telling me about all of the damage that was being done to the park. The examples that she gave me were either there before the cache was placed, or in an area that had no caches. I was able to change her mind about caching, but I couldn't have done that if one of her examples had been a tent spike driven into a tree to hang the cache.

I've done a few. But I always have the idea that some guy is going to come running out his door with a shotgun because I've got the wrong house.

The answer is to look at each one on an individual basis and make a decision. I would suggest on erring on the side of allowing the log, however. Why do people want to make so many rules? As long as there are those that will break them for the sake of breaking them, rules will be necessary. The absence of rules would be pure anarchy. There are those that assume that the lack of a rule implies that it is okay. These are the people that require rules because they apparently lack any kind of moral guidelines and rely on rules to determine what is right and wrong. Another way to look at it is that we haven't needed this rule for the last several years, why do we need it now? Can't cache owners just review these on a case-by-case basis, just as we always have done? Good question. As near as I can figure it, there are some people out there who believe that the cache owners aren't intelligent enough to determine what is a reasonable find on their own caches. They consider themselves to be the solely responsible for determining the difference between right and wrong and will loudly proclaim anyone who doesn't agree with them to be a cheater. They're rather pitiful, actually.

I would like more details on the logs that you deleted. Did the finder give a reason why they were so late? Did you ask them? Did the log date correspond with the dates that the cache was available? How old is the finder's account? If it's a new account, but there are a lot of old logs on it, many of the possibilities listed by other posters could apply. I've had people log finds on my archived caches, but they had good reasons so I didn't have a problem with it. I also don't understand why you don't keep the log pages. It's not like they take up a lot of room. Reading the actual log book from the cache is as enjoyable, if not moreso, than reading the on-line logs.

Of course, this will give you the straight line distance to the cache. That would be the actual distance only if your geo-vehicle was a helicopter, or maybe a tank. It doesn't include missing the turnoff, going past the cache, driving around in circles trying to find the driveway to the #$%*^& little community park only to discover that it doesn't have one, and then once you get near the cache walking around in circles for what seems like miles because your GPSr is in a nasty mood and keeps changing how far away from the cache you are and in which direction even though you're not moving.

There are people out there who read the cache page and believe the instructions don't apply to them. One of the most common being cachers in a park at night knowing that the park closes at dusk. Even if you delete their log, they still will have been there when you weren't expecting them. And, since no one can see a deleted log, other cachers wouldn't know that you deleted it. But my question is: What if someone makes an appointment and then doesn't show up? Or is running late? Folks who are spending the day caching can't keep to a strict schedule, and they could be burning more energy than anticipated and not be out as long as intended. So someone makes an appointment for 9:30. You wait until 10:00 and they don't arrive so you go into your house. They show up at 11:00, you're not there so they start the search without you. Another question (Okay, another several questions): How long is the appointment for? An hour? Two hours? How far apart are the appointments? What if someone decides that it's nice out there and wants to spent a couple hours after finding the cache just admiring nature? Are you going to stand there and wait for them? On a personal note, I probably wouldn't search for the cache. But that's because I usually cache alone and wouldn't want the cache owner standing there watching me.

You may want to check this out. Edited to say that that was a totally unintentional library book joke.

Those look suspiciously like Fibonacci numbers.

I tried it when I heard about it and wanted to see if it worked. I was rather surprised it did.Here and here are my two tries (one a multi and one a traditional) Although I don't believe what I did for these two was harmful (the original icon is still plainly visible), I don't think this is going to last much longer. As near as I can tell, the "custom" icon is only visible on the cache page, not on the search results page. Is that correct? If so, what good is it? Granted, if gives a little more uniqueness to the cache page, but that's about it.