Find Now, Log Later?

Yes, it is possible. Contact the individual and ask for a description of the parking, the walk to the cache location, the container, and its contents. If the cacher "can't remember," or chooses not to respond, do what your conscience tells you to do .. . delete the log or allow it to stand. I think a lot of people that log finds to archived caches are hoping the cache owner is no longer involved with the activity ... it's an even easier way to amass large numbers of finds than attending a "GeoWoodstock."

Hmmm .... I could see "introducing the masses to geocaching." I could understand "enticing" people to explore geocaching. But "luring" them in? Would that be under false pretenses or on false promises?

To one who geocaches as an escape from the pressures of every day life, geocaching is a much needed diversion. To one whose goal is to visit somewhere new, get out in the fresh air, and take a nice walk, geocaching is a recreational activity. To one whose goal is to be FTF on every new cache in has/her region, geocaching is a competitive game. (Geocaching is a "sport" to those adults embarrassed to admit that they "play.") To those less-concerned with "the numbers," geocaching is simply a game of "hide-and/or-go-seek." To one who spends more time thinking and talking about geocaching than doing it, geocaching is an obsession. Ditto for one who feels compelled to snag every cache in his/her region, regardless of quality. Obsessions are rarely healthy.

I sincerely believe that most of the reviewers strive to uphold the rules/guidelines in as unbiased and objective a manner as is humanly possible ... that includes most of the reviewers who have chosen to operate using 'administrative accounts.' However, it is widely known, or at least widely believed, that a small number of reviewers operating anonymously under 'administrative accounts' do so precisely because actions attributed to their 'known username(s)' have been far from admirable. In my opinion, that tends to erode the level of trust one can or should place in any reviewer operating anonymously under 'administrative accounts.'

You are quite correct. The reviewers are VOLUNTEERS; not MARTYRS. As far as I can tell, nobody has forced the odious task of reviewing caches upon them, and no one is forcing any VOLUNTEER to continue against their will. The reviewer, regardless of whether s/he is a volunteer or paid staff member, needs to know the actual location of every stage of a cache in order to properly fulfill his/her duty. They do not need to know the solution to puzzles, or how a puzzle works.

I've observed couples "in the act" many times while I was hiking and/or geocaching. Can't say I ever "stumbled upon" them, though ... I always kept my distance and kept moving.

Oh, and after recovering the cache from your cat's litter box, I hope you reminded it of the "No Buried Caches" rule.

Welcome to the club.

The hours figuring out the puzzle is probably spent in an area where bleeding to death by mosquito is probably not a problem . Well, at least the geocacher "bleeding to death by mosquito" will enjoy a brief feeling of euphoria before passing on to "the great unknown." I feel greater sorrow for geocachers that spend several hours deciphering a "clever" puzzle only to discover the cache was hidden behind the dumpster at the neighborhood "Piggly Wiggly." (Incidentally, do you think the number of geocachers that have "bled to death by mosquito" is greater or fewer than the number of geocachers that have died from a "sudden coronary event" while scoffing down a Big Mac while deciphering a "clever geocache puzzle.") Leisure time spent is leisure time spent, so I just find it somewhat peculiar that many geocachers devote so much more time to the sedentary "indoor aspect" of geocaching than they do to the physical, out-of-doors aspect. The latter is purportedly the object of the activity.

I agree that most geocachers prefer seeking "the largest container an area can support." That's because, for most geocachers, the activity is one of merely "getting there." Most geocachers don't seem to be interested in undertaking a serious "search" after arriving at the GZ coordinates. I've always found it somewhat ironic that geocachers will eagerly devote hours and hours to figuring out complicated problems/puzzles, but they won't devote even an hour to a careful and methodical search for a cache.

I do, however, admire your honesty.

Methinks you don't know even the partial story. The fact is, I intentionally included the "profanity" because I knew it would not be posted ... because over the past several months, any number of posts of mine also never appeared, and no reason was ever given. Other posts, both of an innocuous and substantive nature, were apparently withheld for days (or longer) without explanation ... I can only assume the intent on the part of the moderator was to derail the natural course of those discussions. And the most important fact of the matter is, the post containing the "profanity" proved to be a most effective tool, because since I submited that post, every one of my subsequent posts has appeared in a reasonably timely manner. Now, let's examine the recent behavior of the moderator to whom the "profanity post" was a response: In the days leading up to the post, that moderator (let's use the pseudonym "G.L."): 1. Posted under a sockpuppet account. 2. Posted off-topic in and/or derailed numerous threads. 3. Habitually showed disrespect to other posters, sometimes within the same post where "G.L." was "reminding" other participants to "be respectful." To me, that's clear evidence of a lack of regard for the rules/guidelines that that moderator is charged with upholding. It clearly suggests that the other moderators do not hold "G.L." to the same standard of accountability that they hold "regular forum users." It also raises serious concerns about whether "G.L." performs his "behind the scenes" duties with similar wanton disregard for the rules/guidelines he is supposed to be upholding. Respect and Accountability. It ain't just for "forum users."

Because some of the forum moderators have been known to abuse their positions, it seems perfectly fair to, as you say "make them (all) jump through a few hoops" to assure forum participants that the moderators are also held accountable for their actions. For example, what is the timeframe in which posts must be reviewed? A few hours? A few days? A few weeks? What are the criteria that cause a post to be rejected outright? What are the criteria that would cause a post to be withheld for days before it finally "appears" in its original, unaltered form? Precisely what, and who, determines "the duration of time" that someone "would have been on moderated posting?" The moderators should be held to at least as high a level as accountability as all users.

I don't think you read my post correctly. I did not call for increased moderation. I would suggest you attempt to comprehend the original post prior to posting questions of an incendiary nature.

I would have talked to the person that seemed most like me. And I am not afraid to admit that or apologize for it. As it happens, I am neither 60 nor 25 ... I'm smack in-between, and don't identify myself closely with "the stereotypes" typically associated with either age group ... therefore, my procedure seems ideal. Regarding the last sentence of your quote: I hope you would also not be afraid to admit that you were wrong (and perhaps even apologize) should you subsequently discover that you actually had much more in common with the individual you originally "discriminated" as being "least like you."

I would say something and gauge their reactions. (Verbal and/or physical.) I would direct my next statement to the one who seemed to be more receptive. What would you have done?

I agree with you that "racism" and "discrimination" are not one-and-the-same ... but sadly, I also remember when the verb "to discriminate" was used literally ... the ability "to discriminate" was a positive attribute. Unfortunately, that's just not the way it is in many parts of the world, including many areas of our beloved USA, where many people tend to immediately ostracize anyone that is in any way different from themself. I suppose it is some kind of misguided defense mechanism.

... that, should it be be necessary for moderators to review the contribution of any forum user prior to posting the contribution for public consumption, the forum user is notified, via PM or e-mail, at the time the contribution is reviewed and posted or rejected. The full text of the contribution should be appended to the notification, and, should the moderator decide the contribution needs to be edited or rejected, the forum user should receive a complete and concise explanation as to why such action was deemed necessary.

If some ultimate authority were able to "ban" every sophisticated piece of technology that had been reduced to a mere "high-tech toy," there would be no geocaching. I don't have a problem with any legal and tradeable item someone might choose to leave in a cache. But what does it really matter, anyway? From the logs I read, only a small minority of geocachers actually bother to trade at all ... that aspect of the game has, for the most part, withered and died. It probably won't be long before the commonly seen "TNLNSL Thanks" is shortened further to merely "SLT."

Bingo! Let's see ... the OP thinks the cache should be re-rated "at least 3 stars," but made at most a "2 star" search. Hmmm .... perhaps if the OP had put as much effort into his search as he put into disparaging the subsequent finder, his results might have been different.

Which is it; a "game" or a "sport?" Personally, I think geocaching is an "activity." Clearly, it is in the best interests of Groundspeak, Inc. to promote their "brand" of geocaching, but I think geocaching was a lot better off when it existed "off the radar screen." Too many areas now have too many caches of too low qualities, and too many land managers/government agencies have taken notice of the activity and overreacted badly. Two of the three objects you listed are redundant, but I think the real objects of geocaching (things that would differentiate the "fun" derived from geocaching from the self-enjoyment derived from any other leisure time activity) are to find things hidden by others, or to hide things for others to find. Nothing more; nothing less.

How ironic that "respect" is not also "required" of those posting logs to cache pages. I think idiotic logs like the "Llama" one are both more disrespectful and more offensive than if the claimant simply wrote "your cache stunk and was a waste of our time."

The point of your log was that you didn't like the cache but were pretending to be too politically correct to state the obvious ... but you were not politically correct enough not to ridicule the cache, and its owner, anyway. So that is an example of "your manners" and how one should endeavor to "get along?" And you wonder why I think so many people involved with geocaching are absolute jerks?

That's precisely the type of log that deserves to be immediately deleted by the cache owner. If someone doesn't want (or doesn't have the guts) to state whatever it is they really think, they shouldn't waste everybody else's time with their efforts at being "clever" or "cute" ... because almost invariably, they are neither.

Though that may sometimes be true, it is not "a given" and is therefore not "a rule." It must be "a guideline." And we all know how much unnecessary trouble mere guidelines cause.