Find Now, Log Later?
-
Posts
336 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Find Now, Log Later?
-
-
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.
-
About 2/3 of the 60+ reviewers use alternate accounts for reviewing. Some of them, including myself, are well known in their community. Others choose to stay anonymous.
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.'
-
I know I'm not the only one who spells out in entirety the solution for a puzzle, especially when the VOLUNTEER cache reviewer isn't too keen on puzzles. These people have a lot to do. If they want to do your puzzle, they'll do something to make it fair for them. ... Did I mention that these people are VOLUNTEERS who have other things to do than solving and finding caches before they're listed? If you don't want to disclose your solution fully, then write the puzzle and coordinates on some paper, put it in a river, and let someone find it.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
But suffice to say I'm an annoying insensitive hypocritical prick.
I do, however, admire your honesty.
-
One of the original poster's recent contributions to the forums contained profanity directed at a moderator. This was deleted.
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."
-
Your asking for the forum moderators to have to jump through a ton of hoops ... All posts that meet the forum guidelines will be posted without modification. That seems pretty fair.
If a user that is placed on moderated posting does not like the idea of his or her posts being read by a moderator before being posted I will offer them one additional option. They may send a request to me asking that terms of their posting ability be adjusted to "disable posting" for duration of the time they would have been on "moderated posting". Then nothing will be at risk of being deleted or edited.
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?
... ("The user") may send a request to me asking that terms of their posting ability be adjusted to "disable posting" for duration of the time they would have been on "moderated posting".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.
-
Are we moving back to Russia before the fall of the former Soviet Union?
Why the need for all this moderation? 
Do you feel the need for less freedom of speech? 
Is Groundspeak gonna pay to hire another staff member to head up this Gestapo moderator team? Is one question enough or are 5 too many? 
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.
-
What would you have done?
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."
-
Let's say you are a 60 year old white male. And you are in an elevator with two other people. One is a white male who looks about your age. The other is a white male that looks about 25. Who do you think you would be more likely to strike up a conversation with if the elevator stops and you are stuck between floors?
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?
-
Despite a certain reputation, most of us in the South are not racist - for us it's a lifestyle issue - speak English, dress and act somewhat as the community overall expects, and everyone gets along. Expect to live here, speak in a way that can't be understood, act poorly, keep house and yard filled with trash, and adhere to your "roots" and you likely won't be accepted by many, regardless of race or ethnicity. It's this lifestyle difference, not racism, that keeps segregation alive in the South.
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."
-
You can't blame a cacher for making a false find log based on your inability to find the cache. What are you going to do when there is another find? Accuse them too?
Maybe you should wait and see if there are more finds on this cache before making allegations. An apology to the cacher in question may be in order too.
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.
-
... It's a game. The object is to have fun, promote the sport and enjoy yourself.
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.
-
Something you constantly forget...
Some things to keep in mind when posting:
Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.
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 my log was not lost on our local caching community, who apparently were better able to divine its true meaning. ... I try not to flame a cache too too directly, since I have manners and I try to get along with others in my local community.
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?
-
CR, if you don't get too much out of a cache, like if it's on a guardrail 15 feet from a noisy road and 15 feet from a smelly restaurant trash dumpster, enter a llama log. ...
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.
-
One last rule. If you have the same problem with all the reviewers, then the problem is you. That can be a hard pill to swallow but it lets you work to solve the problem.
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.
. 
Why the need for all this moderation? 
Do you feel the need for less freedom of speech? 
Is Groundspeak gonna pay to hire another staff member to head up this Gestapo moderator team? 
Logging A Archived Cache
in General geocaching topics
Posted
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."