Jump to content

Find Now, Log Later?

Banned
  • Posts

    336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Find Now, Log Later?

  1. If this were true, then why has Groundspeak invested a year's worth of programming resources into a new game that won't involve cache containers, labels or travel bugs? A "year's worth of programming resources?" That's interesting, but doesn't really say much ... it certainly doesn't negate the statement you quoted. Of one thing I am sure: Like any business, Groundspeak needs to generate revenue simply in order to survive (not to mention grow.) It is therefore unlikely that Groundspeak (or any other small company) would devote the time and resources necessary to developing a "new game" without a reasonable expectation of profit. So despite your intention, your response appears to support my earlier statement.
  2. Well, one rather cynical, but entirely plausible, reason might be that virtual caches create very little demand for microcache capsules, fake rocks, cache labels, TB tags, etc. Bandwidth is expensive, you know ...
  3. Darn. Knew the title of the thread was too good to be true.
  4. Never. The cache owner should immediately delete any and all information that would tend to compromise the cache hunt the cache owner intended. That would include photos, descriptions, and track logs. Assuming a cache placement had no problems, I see no reason why the goal shouldn't be for the 100th seeker to enjoy the same unspoiled experience as the initial seeker.
  5. I don't understand why people apparently believe that having a slew of essentially redundant threads is a good thing. It's not ... it just makes 'searches' cumbersome, which probably leads to the creation of additional redundant threads. I predict that at some point (in the near future?) the forums will have become such a mess that people will be required to obtain 'moderator approval' prior to opening a thread.
  6. Apparently so. I suspect that in the near future, a Congressional Hearing will be convened to investigate the matter. I agree that rules are not guidelines and guidelines are not rules. That argument is moot, however, because the word used in the FAQ entry is "rule." Here is the full entry from the FAQ: What are the rules in Geocaching? Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple: 1. Take something from the cache 2. Leave something in the cache 3. Write about it in the logbook Where you place a cache is up to you.
  7. Whose problem is that? The cache owner's. It is the cache owner's responsibility to determine the status/condition of the cache and to maintain the cache on a regular basis. Unfortunately, instead of making periodic maintenance visits to their caches, far too many cache owners never revisit their caches; they rely instead on the good will of other cachers to correct any/all problems reported in the online logs. Such "owners" should not be permitted to list caches on geocaching.com, and any active caches they have should be, through official action, archived and removed.
  8. No. "The least someone should do" is follow the published rules of the game. The FAQ linked on the geocaching.com homepage lists the following "rules" for cache finders: 1. Take something from the cache 2. Leave something in the cache 3. Write about it in the logbook Online logs are not mentioned on that list, much less anything that would suggest that cache finders are obligated to write (in the logbook or online) logs that heap(perhaps unwarranted) praise upon the cache or stroke the ego of the (perhaps undeserving) cache owner. Fortunately, cache owners interested only in hearing how wonderful their cache was, even when it wasn't, appear to be few in number.
  9. All I can say is, why not? I think it's great that you "find everything right here" that you want, but "there are other fish in the sea." Yes, well, there is very little incentive for people to seek caches listed on other sites that are also listed here. But I found your statement somewhat surprising, because in your years of geocaching, you've sought only a miniscule percentage of the caches this website has listed in our region. (I conclude from that fact only that the sheer number of cache listings has been of little importance to you.) I'm surprised more people don't create caches unique to other listing services that exploit the differences in rules/policies you mentioned. I suspect that if people did so, the other services would receive much more traffic.
  10. Yes. The NTSB database contains information on every aircraft-related accident/incident that occurs within the United States. It also contains brief listings summarizing the factual elements of events involving aircraft of US manufacture that occured outside of the US.
  11. Wonderful. And regardless of whether you state it with "authority" or "conviction," I believe you, Brian; I really do. That's why I find it so peculiar that a couple of your forum postings from the week prior to the appearance of your first "Lame" series cache appear to indicate otherwise.
  12. Incidentally, I'm not at all bothered by someone taking a parting shot and closing their thread. Why, it doesn't even bother me when the forum moderators or the website owner take parting shots and close threads in which they participated and made a mess of things.
  13. Want more irony? One of your posts to that thread contains the same mathematical myth that has been busted in these threads dozens of times over the years.
  14. That doesn't appear to be the way things work around here, where "in your face" seems to be the preferred solution to most issues; so yes, I think the constant debate over "lame micro caches" has caused many a geocacher to go and intentionally place lame micro caches. And that would most definitely include the individual I quoted. The person you quoted currently owns 3 micros out of 86 active hides. While the overall quality of these micros can be debated, none are in Walmart parking lots, attached to dumpsters or in similar, unappealing areas. I don't recall the percentage of "lame" caches placed or currently active being part of the conversation. Are you saying that you did not, in fact, initiate your "Lame" series of caches (regardless of their actual degree of "lameness") in response to one or more of the many "lame" forum threads? If so, then that's more revisionism than I can stomach for one morning.
  15. Let's see ... the cache owner is required to provide only starting coordinates and cache type. Perhaps the cache owner who provides "worthless" hints is telling people to be more self-reliant and not to "take the easy way out."
  16. That doesn't appear to be the way things work around here, where "in your face" seems to be the preferred solution to most issues; so yes, I think the constant debate over "lame micro caches" has caused many a geocacher to go and intentionally place lame micro caches. And that would most definitely include the individual I quoted.
  17. I do not consider any of the "Weird NJ" publications to be reliable research material any more than I do the "Globe" or "National Enquirer." Fun to read, perhaps, but neither reliable nor terribly accurate. Since the earlier post, I also checked a database of non-combat-related military aircraft accidents/incidents from 1967-1968. No matches. The fact that the event fails to appear in both databases suggests to me that even the reported date of the event is suspect.
  18. How about posting the actual article? I'm disappointed an historian didn't provide a single verifiable date. I checked the NTSB database for the period of 1/1/1962 (that's as far back as the database goes) and 12/31/1979. During that period, there were 149 fatal airplane-related events in NJ. None involved a jet aircraft, and none were in the West Milford area. I then decided to check all non-fatal aircraft incidents/accidents in NJ from 1967-1969 (the period suggested on the cache page. It is documented that a hunter stumbled upon the jet in December 1968.) Within that three year period, there were approximately 500 events; none appear to even remotely match "The Downed Jet."
  19. No, those would be the people who use screws, pop rivets, and/or "5 Minute Epoxy" to attach their incredibly lame micros to just about everything.
  20. Good question. But I wouldn't worry: These days, we have local reviewers who are intimately familiar with the territories assigned them.
  21. Either post a link to the cache that is from, or see your physician to have your medications adjusted.
  22. Yes, but the cache itself could have been a "golden calf" or some other "graven image." The thing that matters the most for a successful cache approval is that the true nature of the cache is not disclosed on the cache page.
  23. The only reason? I would agree the failure to meet the guidelines is the primary reason behind most rejections, but it is hardly the only reason. Last-come first-served? We see a lot of that in society these days. It's "The New American Way."
  24. Because the information is provided to geocaching.com for free? I agree with you that for those people who use geocaching.com exclusively, the service provided by Buxley is available here. But I think it is unreasonable to argue that it wouldn't be quite useful having the information from all of the caching sites conveniently displayed on one set of maps. Change the name of the site to "The Geocaching ClearingHouse," if you like. Such a service could effectively eliminate the necessity of posting duplicate cache listings on the various listing services ... one click on the map would take one to the correct source. In my opinion, such a service would serve to increase the paid membership at geocaching.com.
×
×
  • Create New...