ClayJar
-
Posts
962 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ClayJar
-
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:Or how about just some ice cream to go with the pie?
Yipee! Ice cream!
-
I know of many people who swear by their compasses... or was that at their compasses?
I've only forgotten my compass on one cache hunt, and it was not my most pleasant experience. I was introducing my mom to geocaching, since she has always wondered what exactly I do out there. I rode with her to a suburban cache, and when we got there, I realized I had left my compass in my car around my gearshift (where I always keep it). It was only a couple hundred feet, but it was much less pleasant than looking down and then taking a bearing, especially at the fork in the trail.
Oh, and as Maj. Keith Hauk said, "A computer with a bullet in it is just a paperweight. A map with a bullet in it is still a map." The same thing applies to a compass... well, how about "A GPS receiver with dead batteries is just a paperweight. A compass with dead batteries is still a compass." (Of course, I'd keep the batteries away from the compass... no point in giving yourself false readings.
) -
I know of many people who swear by their compasses... or was that at their compasses?
I've only forgotten my compass on one cache hunt, and it was not my most pleasant experience. I was introducing my mom to geocaching, since she has always wondered what exactly I do out there. I rode with her to a suburban cache, and when we got there, I realized I had left my compass in my car around my gearshift (where I always keep it). It was only a couple hundred feet, but it was much less pleasant than looking down and then taking a bearing, especially at the fork in the trail.
Oh, and as Maj. Keith Hauk said, "A computer with a bullet in it is just a paperweight. A map with a bullet in it is still a map." The same thing applies to a compass... well, how about "A GPS receiver with dead batteries is just a paperweight. A compass with dead batteries is still a compass." (Of course, I'd keep the batteries away from the compass... no point in giving yourself false readings.
) -
quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:If anonymous person "A" refuses to register to the site because he is paranoid that Big Brother will be looking over his shoulder, then he obviously CAN'T log any of his finds online.
If the site requires log-on to VIEW the cache coordinates (and person "A" is still too paranoid) then he won't be looking for and finding any caches. (Or "not many" I should say...perhaps he could triangulate, or use parking coordinates and/or clues to look for a few...but he would be seeking significantly fewer caches, anyway.)
If this is only true for ONE troll...and he would currently only have ever looked for (and found) ONE cache, than is ONE cache currently found but not logged. If that same would-be troll now is looking for ZERO caches (and there's still zero logs from him), then the percentage just increased. And while any guess as to exactly how many similar trolls would be turned away would be just a guess, I think it's safe to say that it would be more than one.
*PAUSE THE DISCUSSION! Okay, now that I have your attention, time for a little step-back-and-look-around. We are coming from two diametrically opposed lines of logic. I believe that it may be far closer to impossible to come to a consensus on this one than we realize.
In the quote above, Zuckerruebensirup brings up a theoretical case of a person, whom he refers to as a troll, who would have searched for a cache but not logged it online. With the requested change being discussed here, that person would not have searched for the cache at all, and therefore the percentage of finds logged online would theoretically increase. Zuckerruebensirup considers this a good thing and uses it as a justification of making the requested change.
The opposing ideology, on the other hand, holds that the goal of geocaching is to provide an open experience for any and all who would like to play. In that view, the case of someone searching for a cache but not logging it online is a loss to the community, as their experiences are not shared with the rest of us. However, if they were to be prevented from even searching, not only would the community lose the benefit of their logs, but now they also would lose the benefit of the community. This would be a very bad thing, and is considered adequate justification for not making the requested change.
Unfortunately, or perhaps even misfortunately, I see no way of convincing either camp to change their mind to the opposing viewpoint. Those that would consider a cacher who doesn't log online to be a troll are not likely to decide to further aid that troll, and those who consider a cacher who doesn't log online to be a wanted yet somewhat dysfunctional member of the community are not likely to suddenly decide to cut off the very people who need to learn how to become an active part of the community.
There are only two ways I see of ending this standoff. One possibility is that we decide that the middle ground of allowing the cache owners to make the decision about coordinate visibility. This is not going to please everyone. Those that consider non-loggers trolls will not like the fact that Geocaching.com is still feeding them, and those who consider Geocaching.com an open community for the benefit of even its dysfunctional members will not like the fact that part of the community is now cut off. Still, if any consensus can be reached, this is likely the only viable option.
The other possibility, and the one that is more likely to remain the case unless this thread starts being more of a summit and less of a debate, is for Jeremy and the staff of Geocaching.com to declare by fiat what the coordinate visibility will be. Not everyone will be happy with the results, but the fact that the issue can be decided is a Good Thing. (Hey, even the Linux kernel has its Benevolent Dictator.)
Anyway, can we of both persuasions just put the pies down and sit back down at the table now?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:If anonymous person "A" refuses to register to the site because he is paranoid that Big Brother will be looking over his shoulder, then he obviously CAN'T log any of his finds online.
If the site requires log-on to VIEW the cache coordinates (and person "A" is still too paranoid) then he won't be looking for and finding any caches. (Or "not many" I should say...perhaps he could triangulate, or use parking coordinates and/or clues to look for a few...but he would be seeking significantly fewer caches, anyway.)
If this is only true for ONE troll...and he would currently only have ever looked for (and found) ONE cache, than is ONE cache currently found but not logged. If that same would-be troll now is looking for ZERO caches (and there's still zero logs from him), then the percentage just increased. And while any guess as to exactly how many similar trolls would be turned away would be just a guess, I think it's safe to say that it would be more than one.
*PAUSE THE DISCUSSION! Okay, now that I have your attention, time for a little step-back-and-look-around. We are coming from two diametrically opposed lines of logic. I believe that it may be far closer to impossible to come to a consensus on this one than we realize.
In the quote above, Zuckerruebensirup brings up a theoretical case of a person, whom he refers to as a troll, who would have searched for a cache but not logged it online. With the requested change being discussed here, that person would not have searched for the cache at all, and therefore the percentage of finds logged online would theoretically increase. Zuckerruebensirup considers this a good thing and uses it as a justification of making the requested change.
The opposing ideology, on the other hand, holds that the goal of geocaching is to provide an open experience for any and all who would like to play. In that view, the case of someone searching for a cache but not logging it online is a loss to the community, as their experiences are not shared with the rest of us. However, if they were to be prevented from even searching, not only would the community lose the benefit of their logs, but now they also would lose the benefit of the community. This would be a very bad thing, and is considered adequate justification for not making the requested change.
Unfortunately, or perhaps even misfortunately, I see no way of convincing either camp to change their mind to the opposing viewpoint. Those that would consider a cacher who doesn't log online to be a troll are not likely to decide to further aid that troll, and those who consider a cacher who doesn't log online to be a wanted yet somewhat dysfunctional member of the community are not likely to suddenly decide to cut off the very people who need to learn how to become an active part of the community.
There are only two ways I see of ending this standoff. One possibility is that we decide that the middle ground of allowing the cache owners to make the decision about coordinate visibility. This is not going to please everyone. Those that consider non-loggers trolls will not like the fact that Geocaching.com is still feeding them, and those who consider Geocaching.com an open community for the benefit of even its dysfunctional members will not like the fact that part of the community is now cut off. Still, if any consensus can be reached, this is likely the only viable option.
The other possibility, and the one that is more likely to remain the case unless this thread starts being more of a summit and less of a debate, is for Jeremy and the staff of Geocaching.com to declare by fiat what the coordinate visibility will be. Not everyone will be happy with the results, but the fact that the issue can be decided is a Good Thing. (Hey, even the Linux kernel has its Benevolent Dictator.)
Anyway, can we of both persuasions just put the pies down and sit back down at the table now?
-
I'm still hoping we get attributes sometime so we can get along without adding 300 cache types, but for the meantime, how about this: For mobile caches, you could do cartoon-style multi-view. You know, like in some cartoons when a character is moving really fast, you'll have, like, three exposures, the real one, the faded previous location, and the really faded previous previous location.
/me wishes I was at home so I could draw it.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:I'm not sure how I managed to paste the poll _here_, rather than in the Geocaching.com Discussion area.
No problem. I think we've all misposted before; as long as it wasn't intentional, hehe.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:I'm not sure how I managed to paste the poll _here_, rather than in the Geocaching.com Discussion area.
No problem. I think we've all misposted before; as long as it wasn't intentional, hehe.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesehead Dave:I'd like to be able to write one hint that doesn't give away much, but can help put someone on the right track ("The cache is easier to get to if you turn right at the fork") and a second hint that can give away more ("The cache is in the hollow log next to the big rock")
I did precisely this with Ferengi Wormhole. It's exceedingly inaccessible to me, so I included multi-stage hints for the hunters. If you get stuck, you just decode the next more detailed hint, and so on until you find the cache.
quote:
That would be nice for multicaches as well, so you could give a separate hint for each stage. That way the cacher can look at a hint for just the stage they are having difficulty with without having to give away hints for the whole thing.Actually, with the [unencrypted text] feature (thanks again, Jeremy), you can do this quite easily. Just include the parts you don't want encrypted in [square brackets]. For example:
quote:
[Micro #1] Look at the roots of the really big oak tree next to the flag. [Micro #2] If you really wanted a hint for this one, well... [Final Cache] Take two hundred feet five degrees east of magnetic north of the brass marker and look for the holy stump.
becomes:
quote:
[Micro #1] Ybbx ng gur ebbgf bs gur ernyyl ovt bnx gerr arkg gb gur synt. [Micro #2] Vs lbh ernyyl jnagrq n uvag sbe guvf bar, jryy... [Final Cache] Gnxr gjb uhaqerq srrg svir qrterrf rnfg bs zntargvp abegu bs gur oenff znexre naq ybbx sbe gur ubyl fghzc.
-
Okay, here I go with an attempt at reductio ad adsurdum.
- Only showing the coordinates to people who login will save at least a few caches from being plundered, therefore we should implement it, but...
- ROT13-ing all the cache pages will save at least a few caches from being plundered, therefore we should ROT13 all cache pages, but...
- Translating the cache pages into Japanese will save even more caches from being plundered, therefore we should definitely translate all cache pages into Japanese, but...
- Closing Geocaching.com will save far, far more caches from being plundered, therefore we should absolutely close Geocaching.com!
Making a change to Geocaching.com cannot be based solely on the fact that it may prevent some caches from being plundered.
I am not disputing the fact that some caches likely would be saved by requiring people to login before they could view the coordinates. What I am saying is that there must be a better justification for removing functionality than that.
The balance between convenience and safety is a precarious one at best. Move a little too far toward convenience, and any pretense at safety may be lost; move a little too far toward safety, and the convenience on which some rely is destroyed. With Geocaching.com, the balance has always been slightly in favor of convenience, and many of us have become comfortable with that state, and yet, in order to accomodate those who would like to trade a modicum of convenience for at least a small additional amount of safety, the "members-only cache" (or "mocache") was created.
When the mocaches appeared, there was considerable outcry from a number of people on the forums who felt as if the status quo of free, open, unfettered use of Geocaching.com was abridged. It is my opinion that the alleged abridgement was vastly exaggerated by those opposed to mocaches, and I come to that opinion by virtue of the fact that only those caches specifically designated as mocaches by their owners were unavailable for public consumption outside the confines of membership. This is acceptable because it has always been the perogative of the owner to remove his or her cache from public consumption at his or her option.
What has been proposed here is the universal abridgement of the ability of the anonymous public to participate in geocaching using Geocaching.com. This differs from the mocache debate in that it is a request for a universal reduction in functionality instead of providing additional functionality, albeit to a smaller cross section of the geocaching population.
On the other hand, I would not be opposed to OUTSID4EVR's suggestion in his post of May 29, 2002 12:57 PM. By allowing cache owners to decide, you are providing a net increase in functionality, rather than the net decrease that a universal coordinate block would cause. I am not saying that I am in favor of this particular piece of possible additional functionality, but if it were implemented as an option, I would not at this time be opposed to it, rather, I leave it in the capable hands of the administrators, who I know are reading our discussions here quite thoroughly.
-
Just in case anyone really wants to talk about it, there has been a discussion on this going on in the login to see coordinates thread on the Geocaching.com Discussion where it belongs.
(I am abstaining from posting a full reply here on principle. I'll post it there instead.)
-
I've got a good handful of various brands of NiMH cells, and it's definitely a nice thing. I never worry about leaving my receiver on, since all I'll have to do is charge them up again with my Rayovac PS-4 1-hour charger when I get home.
-
Now that's a cool idea. I'm going to abstain from the voting, at least for now, but it definitely is something interesting. (Of course, some of the... um... dedicated cachers won't care for more hints, but it's still an intersting idea.)
-
Do you think they'd mind putting a TopoZone link on the coordinate transform page, just until the datum conversion is done here?
-
Do you think they'd mind putting a TopoZone link on the coordinate transform page, just until the datum conversion is done here?
-
quote:
Originally posted by RAD Dad:I mean really, if it only reduced plundered caches by 1/3 wouldn't that be worth it?
Absolutely, it would indeed be worth it. I am not convinced at all it would reduce plunders by even 1%. You are making an assumption, and the rest of us are making a different assumption. By your values, it is worth it, but by ours, it is not. If you can find a way to justify your assumption, minds will change, but the burden of proof is on you. (Why? Inertia. "If it ain't broke..." and all.)
-
I haven't made another trip through Mississippi yet, but obviously I'm going to sooner or later. If you archive it now due to inactivity, I won't be able to try it on the way through one of these days.
-
I haven't made another trip through Mississippi yet, but obviously I'm going to sooner or later. If you archive it now due to inactivity, I won't be able to try it on the way through one of these days.
-
quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:I don't really quite understand how logging in would abridge any of abilities to geocache. You log in to get to the discussion forum and that isn't so difficult. Once logged in you would be able to do everything you do now.
Actually, that's not a good example. I *don't* log in to get to the discussion forums most of the time. If I'm on my personal PC, I'm logged in, but on *all* the other PCs I read the forums from, I read them without logging in.
Obviously, if I feel I have something I need to post, I log in (just like I log in whenever I'm posting to a cache page), but if I'm just checking up on threads, there's absolutely no point to logging in, so I don't. I would venture to say there are many people like me. (Incidentally, IIRC, you *do* have to be logged in to get to the "Geocaching.com Discussion" forum here, but all the other ones are world readable.)
quote:
It was only a suggestion, however I personally have decided not to place any more caches as long as it's so easy for an outsider to get the coordinates. That will be my solution to my problem.It is up to you whether you place caches or not, but I am sorry you feel the need to hide. While I am not clairvoyant, I cannot see any possible way to allow geocaching to continue in the spirit of geocaching and still prevent outsiders from getting the info. If you're not up to the risks of living in an uncertain world, there's nothing any of us can really do. (Well, you could put out a cache and e-mail the coordinates and description to only a very select few trusted cachers to hunt, but that's not a good solution, except for special "birthday present"-style caches.)
quote:
As far as members only caches go, while I'm not opposed to giving something back to the game, what's to stop a member from plundering a cache as well?*ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!*
In fact, there's nothing to stop Joe "Devil's Uncle" Cacherobber from paying the $30 for a charter membership. Joe could theoretically be a valid member, in seemingly good standing, even, and still plunder your cache. In fact, Joe could have a thing against you because you called him a "super-doofus" in second grade in front of the teacher he had a crush on... he may be trying to make you pay for that trauma by plundering your caches.
Anyway, now that we've explained what we all already know, let me quote the original post with which this thread was begun: "If I'm going to have my cache plundered, it may as well be by someone who has logged in." Should I take it that now you have decided that you have changed your mind and now want a way of making your caches plunder-proof? If that is indeed what you are now seeking, we can just end the thread here, because we all know (painfully, some of us) that there simply is no way of doing that and retaining the spirit of geocaching.
-
quote:
Originally posted by borg7531:OK, I'm in the minority (even though almost 1/2 the replies were by charter members).
Hehe... and there are so many of us for a reason.
Seriously, though, I've spent $30 on gas in a weekend of caching. If I can't spare it once a year, I really need to sell my GPS receivers on eBay... I could probably get about what I'd spend in a decade on memberships. (In fact, I'm pondering getting an SD card that costs about three years of charter membership here.)
-
quote:
Originally posted by borg7531:OK, I'm in the minority (even though almost 1/2 the replies were by charter members).
Hehe... and there are so many of us for a reason.
Seriously, though, I've spent $30 on gas in a weekend of caching. If I can't spare it once a year, I really need to sell my GPS receivers on eBay... I could probably get about what I'd spend in a decade on memberships. (In fact, I'm pondering getting an SD card that costs about three years of charter membership here.)
-
- I've paddled with rbdupuy six miles to a lighthouse in the *middle* of Mobile Bay... in a canoe... with a dingy... and back!
- I've paddled with rbdupuy six miles to a lighthouse in the *middle* of Mobile Bay... in a canoe... with a dingy... and back!
-
- I've paddled with rbdupuy six miles to a lighthouse in the *middle* of Mobile Bay... in a canoe... with a dingy... and back!
- I've paddled with rbdupuy six miles to a lighthouse in the *middle* of Mobile Bay... in a canoe... with a dingy... and back!
-
It seems to me that if you want to make a cache with coordinates that can only be viewed by logging in, you can make it members only. This is precisely one of the reasons mocaches were added. As far as *removing* functionality from geocaching.com to please a few people (even though the "problem" is legitimate), that's just not going to go over well.
For example, I quite often browse the cache pages without logging in. The first things I look for on a new cache are 1) the stars and 2) the coordinates. I would be *quite* unhappy if my ability to use geocaching.com were abridged as you suggest.
Basically, it seems to me like you need to think hard and come to a decision: Do you want to try to protect your cache by reserving it for logged-in members, or do you want to risk it being plundered but have it available to everyone? It's probably not an easy decision to make, but it's the decision you have.
On my caches, I've decided to risk being burned by putting them out in the open. I consider that risk just a part of caching. If I ever get to the point where I feel the need to obscure the coordinates, I'll probably make a mocache, but I'll cross that bridge if/when I come to it.
login to see coordinates
in Website
Posted
Yipee! Ice cream!