[DRSolly]

Ok I might be a bit late - in the meantime drsolly has already passed the 11,000 mark (how many caches do you do in a month?! ) - but I still want to express my BIG congratulations for this significant milestone. Not only for the number of caches found, but even more for still taking the time to write detailed and interesting logs on every cache.

 

Now, how many months until #20,000? Bets are open

[Who's been at it longest?]

They haven't logged in since May so are they still active?

 

They haven't logged a cache since September 2004, so I'd say they are not VERY active...

[Release Notes May 20 2009]

Can't folks just chill out, forget about the site for a few hours, go and have a few coffees, come back when it's all done?

What?! A few hours?!? I don't think I could survive more than half an hour without looking at the site Even if it just says "Sorry, site down for maintenance"

 

This is just a hobby/past time/game/whatever!

No it's not... it's an addiction

[Release Notes May 20 2009]

I'll elaborate on my "site is slow" comment a little. Microsoft had 12 hotfixes for us to apply and surprise of surprises, they aren't working right.

 

We're in the process of rolling back the "fixes" Microsoft install on our servers and will have things back to normal in the next few hours. The site will be slow, but we are working as fast as we can.

 

At least from what I can see from this end, it looks like the site is back to normal Thanks for the hard work, guys!

 

Nice update, the new CAaR tool is great and very helpful, I'm sure I'm going to use it more often than before. I also like the new link under my profile in the "Search Options" box saying "List newest in United Kingdom" (is it new actually?)

 

Apart fro that, shame on Microsoft of creating "fixes" like that I stopped using automatic updates on Windows as some of their "fixes" have kept me from work more than once for half a day or more... but that's a different story.

[Release Notes May 20 2009]

No matter what address I enter in the search box I get an error "unknown address: No corresponding geographic location could be found for the specified address"

I have tried all sorts of addresses and combination

 

What route are you trying to create? Are you sure you clicked on "create new route" first? I get from your profile that youre from Ashland, MA. So I just tried as an example "Ashland, MA to Portland, ME" (without the quotes) and it gives a pretty neat route of 135.4 miles. Or try just ZIP codes, I don't know what codes you have over there, but just tried as an example in California "94101 to 92103", which gives a nice route from San Francisco all the way down to San Diego. (even though the tool complains it's over 500 miles.. it's 500.2 actually )

[Release Notes May 20 2009]

I can't see this new tool?

 

You're too fast rutson, you should wait until after the release

 

Geocaching.com is temporarily down for maintenance. We apologize for any inconvenience that this might cause. While you are waiting, may we suggest:

["Adjust zoom level...."]

 

Has anyone noticed this with any other browsers?

 

I don't think it has anything to do with the used browser... more with the browser width or screen width. I have a relatively small screen (old laptop) but the "red bar" still covers up less than it does in your screenshot. Do you have a particularly small screen, or is your browser not "maximized" to screen size?

 

You could also increase the map width by "hiding" the map controls on the right side (as at this moment there are no caches in your view, you probably don't need the controls anyway...) by clicking on the vertical button with a small arrow on it which shows at the bottom right of the map (just left of where the list of caches would be displayed).

[update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009]

I'm sorry, you can parse any statement you want, but for those actually reading this, they will note I HIGHLIGHTED your words for you...wriggle out of that, please!! I also used your own words when you yourself said you didn't read the thread, I could highlight that too if you need reminded!! So, forgive me if I don't answer to those posts which obviously have no merit!

Yet the funny thing is that you still do answer them

 

Sorry too long to read every post. I've read as much as possible of it, but unfortunately caching and reading forums is not (yet) my main occupation.

Ok please go ahead and quote the part where I said I'm not reading the thread or your answers?

 

And yes I noticed your HIGHLIGHTED words and replied to most of them, even though you take them out of context on purpose. But I can do again if you didn't read my answers:

1. The fact that I don't own an ALR cache has nothing to do with my opinion on them.

2. Making is not forcing, you're free to decide not to do any cache, same as a hard puzzle or T5 Trad.

3. If you're trying to tell me that, because the owner of one ALR cache deleted your log incorrectly, you now hate all ALR caches, then I think you're just going too far. If it's something else, than I'm sorry but I might have got you wrong.

 

You do have an opinion, I never saw the OP require you to not. But, why not stop and think before adding more spew? Certainly not required of you, that'd stop your fun of spewing!

Hey, I'm still not spewing, just explaining why I think getting rid of ALRs is a loss in diversity for the game of geocaching.

 

I also see how you can't read numbers nor count...or was your misleading page count for effect?? Maybe to get out of having to actually read something so you know more about what your talking about??

How many pages do you see then? I get 41 now, that's just over 800 posts with 20 posts on each page. Maybe you have a different posts per page setting, no need to get angry or call names on this.

[update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009]

I'll stop answering your questions then, since you have no time to read my answers anyway!! :back

 

Right, now you can ignore entire posts based on that, if you don't have any answers. Hey, I'm reading all your answers to my questions.. just said I didn't have time to read through all ~40 pages of other questions and answers BEFORE that yet.

 

I love posts like this that are chock full of assumptions and contradictions to their own argument...NICE!!!

 

I love posters who contradict themselves in their own next post...NICE!!!

 

I know I said I'd not respond to your comments, but let's take this one further...

 

Ah, next one. Let me take the liberty of not feeling required to answer this one.

 

Let me get this straight, this doesn't affect you, but you feel the need to spew??? Well done!

 

Oh, third one. Hey, no need to go into defensive mode here, buddy. I'm not spewing, and I'm allowed to have an oppinion on something that DOES affect me as much as it does you. I do like ALR caches and you don't. You posted this as a reply to my post, so why shouldn't I reply again?

 

Why do you feel you need to MAKE someone try something?? Do you think they aren't smart enough to figure out what they consider fun? Do you think your fun HAS to be forced on others??

You still get that part wrong. Nobody is forced to do ANY cache, whether ALR or Puzzle or Multi or Trad. And requiring someone to do an ALR is not much different from requiring someone to solve a puzzle.

 

And, did you even read my post???? I know, you're far to busy with other things...right?? I see your problem, you spew without thought...cool!! Of course, reading the words written for you might help you, but plug on, it is amusing!

Yes I did read your post. Please try to calm down before your next one. Breathing helps.

[update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009]

If they didn't have a quasi monopoly and there were reasonable alternative sites, GS would maybe listen more to what the community wants. And of course it's not GS's fault that there are no reasonble alternative sites (by reasonable I mean similar cache density) - but GS is using their monopoly position to enforce their rules in something that is basically a global community game.

Don't be so certain that competition would make Groundspeak open up to direction they don't feel the hobby should grow. Other sites actually may well be more restrictive as to what they define as a geocache. I'm always tickled when I hear that the "super-competitive, Groundspeak-killer" geocaching site will allow everything under the Sun.

I didn't say I'm certain. I said "GS would maybe listen more" if there were other big sites around.

 

I don't think that 'arbitrary' means what you think it does.

I do think it does. We may disagree on my statement containing that word though.

 

You seem to forget that GC.com is part of a business. It is that business's responsibility to ensure that they keep going in a direction of their choosing. If they things start to go off in some other direction, they must make changes.

Yes it's part of a business, but a business that mainly functions through the community which it's guiding. Note that I say guiding, not ruling.

 

Here's the thing. They don't have a monopoly. They don't have a quais-monopoly (whatever that is). They don't have a 'near' monopoly. They don't have a 'semi' monopoly.

 

The very fact that cachers have gotten geocided (or gotten banned) and stomped off to create competing sites proves that barriers to entry are not excessively large and that GC.com does not exert undue control over the market.

 

Certainly, they are the big player in the game. But this is due to the fact that they do it best and have worked hard at being the best, not because they are a monopoly.

Not sure if we're working with the same definition of a "quasi" or "near" monopoly. The fact that there are competing sites only proves that it's not an "absolute" monopoly.

 

But hey, don't forget that I wrapped this part in [rant warning] tags.. this is not to be taken too serious and certainly not my central point. Which is, that the current Guidelines change is a loss of diversity in my favourite hobby.

[update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009]

Since a high number of people have already stated they simply ignore most blue ?, tis change should please people instead of irk them. More people will now visit your cache...PERIOD!

Is more finds always better? I don't mind anybody who ignores my Puzzle or Multi caches because they don't like Puzzle or Multi caches. Why should it be different with ALRs? I don't actually own an ALR cache, but I think it's very sad to see them pass away. I have done some ALR's (and ignored others that I don't like), and I have taken joy and pride in succeeding in some difficult requirements, just as I might take joy and pride in doing a T5* cache. Now, if others are allowed to do the same cache without doing the "difficult" part (climbing, ALR), wouldn't it take part of the fun of that cache away?

 

IF your cache was well thought out and placed in a nice location, I'm willing to bet you'll get the logs, the participation and the visitation you desire...while cache finders can also have their fun without worrying some control crazed owner might not like the way they were sitting while they typed their log and then delete a legit find.

It's not about control crazed owners. It's about diversity and having another way of making people try something new, as in for example a difficult puzzle.

 

I had this happen once!!! Since the owner wanted people to get into the spirit of baseball (it was a baseball themed cache), he required you to not only find the cache (which was already a puzzle), but to look up and send the words to a song to him as well. Caching related?? NO, but I wasn't too caught up on that, so I went after it.

I can understand if you're frustrated if a (control crazed or not) owner has deleted your log. But didn't you know about that requirement BEFORE you went there? Why did you decide to go anyway?

[update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009]

2. Now reviewers had to arbitrate what type of task was or wasn't appropriate for an ALR. In future they have to arbitrate what type of task is or isn't appropriate for a Challenge cache. Will it change much?

Those two are quite different since Challenge caches have a requirement that is geocaching-related.

Yeah but now they have to deide what is geocaching-related. For example a multi can have questions at different locations. Now somebody could come up with an Challenge multi that requires to take pictures at all stages of a multi (eg. a Train station, Police station etc...). Would that be geocaching related? Simple yes/no or possible debate?

 

I imagine that they weren't grandfathered for a couple of reasons. (1) It minimizes the constant explaining as to why new ones are denied, even though other similar caches exist. (2) It simplifies the mediation of denied logs. (3) It blunts the impact of those ALRs that were over the line.

(1) How about Virutals then?

(2) Sure? We'll have to see that first...

(3) I'm still looking for an ALR that was over the line, just to understand where "the line" is (or was). Can you give me a good example?

 

[bonus question] Why change the type of existing ALR caches from "?" to Traditional, and mess up existing challenges, people working on tasks, stats etc.?

I still don't understand why people weren't up in arms a few years ago when ALRs were changed from traditionals to "?". If this wasn't an issue then, I don't buy it as an issue now.

Sorry I wasn't around long enough... If I were here back then, I sure would have made an issue out of it

But hey, maybe it was because then, no "cache type" (ie ALRs) was dismissed, just changed into "?" category to make sure people actually look at the requirements before going for the cache?

[update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009]

They already HAD to figure out what was or wasn't a challenge cache, they just have LESS work now since they took a lot off their plates with the change. nNo matter how you wish to swing the whole thing to fit your little presentation, that is fact!

No mater how you wish to swing the whoe thing to fit your little presentation, people WILL start testing the borderline between allowed (challenge) and not allowed (ALR). Which I assume will come up to about the same amount of work for the reviewers. But then again I'm not a reviewer and I have no idea.

 

There will no longer be complaints about logs being deleted...are you reading the threads??

Sorry too long to read every post. I've read as much as possible of it, but unfortunately caching and reading forums is not (yet) my main occupation. So, what is going to happen if a (current) ALR cache owner still deletes logs? Complaints, maybe, until the cache is archived?

 

Been answered (the why not grandfather comment)...mainly because reviewers would then have to worry about answering to those who want to ask silly questions like "but why is that one allowed and not mine (that one being a grandfathered)" over and over for months on end!

Aha. what seems to work well for Virtuals, Webcams etc. doesn't work here. Well as there would be a guideline about exactly these grandfathered caches, they could just give a default reply to point them to this guideline. And those who ask silly questions will eventually understand. Just as now they'll have to reply to silly questions about "not yet changed ALR's" over and over from months on end...

 

The only thing that changes is people will actually have to call them what they are instead of pretend they're something else

Nobody pretended they were something else - they were ALR caches, there just wasn't a specific cache type for that, so the GS guidelines said they have to be classed as "Unknown/Puzzle". Which I think is fine because generally seeing a "?" cache means I have to read the description first to know what it actually is.

 

and putting your own artificial fun in as another hurdle so you can force your idea of fun on others!

You call that artificial fun and forcing your idea of fun on others, but not a 5* climbing cache? Hey, nobody was ever forced to do ALR caches.

[update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009]

I don't see where a creative ALR is different to a creative puzzle, other than in one you have to do a requirement to get the coords and in the other you have to do a requirement to be allowed to log.

Ah, but the "other than" bit is the whole point.

Yes that's the whole point. Some say there's a huge difference between the two requirements, others say it's not. Let's take the "wooden puzzle" example from somewhere further up this thread. Currently, it was an ALR to solve the puzzle and upload a picture with the log. Now, people suggest he could write some numbers on the same wooden puzzle, which, if you've solved it correctly, give you new coords where you actually sign the log. In both cases people can't just walk up and sign a log. Yes I see there's a difference, but I don't see why one shouldn't be allowed while the other is fine.

 

That's why your previous post about "Now what's to stop them getting rid of puzzles, multis, 5* terrain, and everything apart from lamppost hides" is close to a straw man argument.

That's not what this post was about, I wasn't saying this will happen. But I oppose arbitrary decisions to remove some type of caches, particularly if it's a type that brought some diversity into the overwhelming majority of "normal" Traditional caches in, let's say "not so interesting" locations.

 

For that matter, since it's Groundspeak's site, they could equally well remove lamppost hides as well and sit there going "Bwahahahaha, we sure showed those Geocachers who's boss".

[general rant alert]

Yes that's the problem, that's what they are doing now with ALRs and that's what they did with Virtuals some time ago. Thanks for putting it in these words, I couldn't have put it clearer. Of course it's their site, but if the community develops in some direction that doesn't fit into their view of the game, they just force it back into their line with new rules. Sometimes they seem to forget that they are merely the platform on which the game is propagated, and that the community actually runs the game (ie places caches, finds them etc.). If they didn't have a quasi monopoly and there were reasonable alternative sites, GS would maybe listen more to what the community wants. And of course it's not GS's fault that there are no reasonble alternative sites (by reasonable I mean similar cache density) - but GS is using their monopoly position to enforce their rules in something that is basically a global community game.

[/rant over]

[update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009]

It's been clearly explained over and over that the reason for the change is that ALRs had become a serious problem for the reviewers. Given the critical importance of the reviewers to the game, I don't see why you feel so strongly the need to postulate another reason. See Occam's Razor.

 

Go back and take a look at the early posts in this thread. The guideline change wasn't made because a bunch of whiners were complaining that they didn't want to phoon. The change was made largely because the reviewers were having to arbitrate what type of task was or wasn't appropriate for an ALR. Merely creating a new cache type wouldn't solve this. More likely, it would make it worse.

 

Sorry to say so but I find this a very shallow reason (or excuse). Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly value and appreciate the hard work our reviewers do, and respect any of their decisions whether or not to publish a cache. Sometimes I think there should be even more power with the reviewers and less in rules set in stone Guidelines.

 

But, what will these new guidelines change?

1. How many of the reviewed caches were actually ALR caches? 1%? 2%? more? less?
   
2. Now reviewers had to arbitrate what type of task was or wasn't appropriate for an ALR. In future they have to arbitrate what type of task is or isn't appropriate for a Challenge cache. Will it change much?
   
3. How much extra work will they get for complaints about some who keep deleting non-ALR-compliant logs (either because they didn't know about the new guidelines, or because they just refuse to accept them?). I'm sure this will go into lengthy discussions whether or not to archive a cache...
   
4. If it is really only because it "has become a serious problem for the reviewers to review these"... why does it apply for existing caches too? Why couldn't existing ALR caches be grandfathered? They don't need to be reviewed anymore. The guidelines could say that any cache published after 4/4/09 can't have ALR's. Why change the type of existing ALR caches from "?" to Traditional, and mess up existing challenges, people working on tasks, stats etc.?
   

[update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009]

I cache paperless. A lot of these additional requirements were embedded in a photograph or at the bottom of a very long cache description and were truncated. So, I found the cache at the posted coordinates and now what do I do? I sign the log book. Should my log be deleted because I couldn't read the ALR in the field?

 

That's why they had to be marked as "?" not as Traditional. Do you go up to Puzzle, Multi or Virtual caches and search for a box without reading the description?

[update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009]

He's referring to this post, and some subsequent mentions. I'm shocked - shocked I say - that you missed these amazing hula cache photos, which demonstrated that you can be silly and/or creative with a cache without requiring folks to do stuff, and that despite a task being optional, a surprising number of people will still do it.

...

From the looks of it, EpicGuy, Plasma Boy, rjb43nh, and luzian should check out this post, as well.

 

I've looked at that cache and it's great to see that SOME people are having fun there. However as others mentioned it's only a small part of the people logging the cache - I don't find it a very surprising number. It's not important if it's 1 in 5 or in 6 or in 10 (I'd actually give it between 1 in 4 and 5 based on multiple people on one picture). It's still a LOW number compared to the total number of finds (4 in 5 would be nice). Which is ok in this case because the owner didn't make it a requirement - but that gives an idea of how few people will comply with an ALS. I assume it will even be much fever in "dense" caching areas, as ALS caches will show up as "Traditional", many people won't even read the description before going there. Which I think is ok for Trads, but that's why having ALR showing as "?" was good... at least it makes most people have a look at the description before going there (because the cache might not even be at that location). And it gives everybody the decision to do the ALR (and the cache) or leave it.

 

If there's a puzzle that I can't solve, or a T5 cache that requires climbing which I'm unable to do or decide not to do, I'm not complaining either or asking to get a smiley for that cache anyway. If there's an ALR that I'm unable to do or decide not to do, it's just the same. I don't see where a creative ALR is different to a creative puzzle, other than in one you have to do a requirement to get the coords and in the other you have to do a requirement to be allowed to log. Geocaching was always about doing something new: discovering new locations, trying/learning things I haven't done before etc. If it's not about that anymore, and just about collecting up a maximum number of plastic boxes in random locations, then why even bother to have puzzle caches? Couldn't we just have a button on each puzzle cache page to display the coords, in case we get bored with the puzzle?

 

And back to the famous hula cache... What do you think, how many of the ~150 people that DIDN'T try the hula would actually have had fun if they had tried it?

[update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009]

I am glad I am not so possessed as to read and compare actual logbooks to online logs, get a life CO.

You are not required to be possessed, but according to the Maintenance Guidelines, you have to delete bogus/counterfeit logs...

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

[update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009]

Thumbs down Groundspeak on taking diversity away from the game!

 

 

Now ALR's are gone, because some caches with ALR "have little or nothing to do with geocaching: the act of finding a unique container/location using latitude and longitude."

 

So, what next? Dismiss Puzzles alltogether, because some puzzles have little or nothing to do with geocaching? Solving a Vigenere Cipher or learning Japanese letters hardly has more to do with "finding a unique container/location using latitude and longitude" than wearing a pink hat at the location where this container was found. The puzzle bit could just be made optional for those who like to solve them, with the actual cache coords ready for those who don't like the puzzle or are too lazy to solve it.

 

Then what, maybe Multis? Because, collecting clues in a historic old town's center, where hiding a cache might not be possible or appropriate, has nothing to do with finding a unique container. We could just place a Micro outside the town, mentioning that there's an old town nearby for those who aren't too busy collecting up a few hundred more Micros today.

 

And then? We should get rid of all T5 caches etc. because learning how to use climbing or diving gear has nothing to do with finding a container using latitude and longitude... there should just be a simple cache at the base of the tree/rock face or near the beach, stating that those who really want to could climb up or dive down...

 

And in the end, all there's left are 1/1 lamppost micros...

 

All thumbs down on that change of the rules!

 

[GeoCaching.com website update]

I haven't noticed any change in the format of the logs.

 

And on the subject of PDFs - save a tree, get a PDA.

 

Agreed. Printouts are SO 1985...

 

I also hear some people still drive to caches. Save a planet, get a bicycle! Cars are SO 1985...

 

[How to work around the 50 mile limit]

Even when something is a good idea, the regular forum users know that it takes time for these suggestions to be implemented. Often they are considered low priority compared to fixing bugs and making other enhancements that have been planed for awhile.

 

Often they are considered low priority compared to making other enhancements that nobody wants anyway. That's one of the problems here. Sometimes it seems that TPTB should listen more to what WE (ie. their customers) think is high priority...

[Google Maps distance/area limit]

It is probably done to reduce load on the database server (just a guess). In order to know if you have exceeded 500 in the current area - you need to query the database and count them. In a very dense area - a larger area would result in more database load and they therefore limit the size of the area you can view.

 

Thanks for the quick answer! True, this might be the reason why it's done this way.

 

However, I don't think querying the number of nearby caches should be such a big load problem (of course it doesn't need to query the full details for each cache, just the number of caches first) - the nearest cache search (without google maps) for a given location also shows the exact number of caches in the area: for example this search returns "Total Records: 9106 - Page: 1 of 456 -".

 

Of course I have no knowledge of the code and database structure, but if this one can count to 9000 without problems, I would assume counting to 500 shouldn't be a huge problem for the other one?

[Google Maps distance/area limit]

I think this has been mentioned before, but I can't find it anywhere.

 

I'm very annoyed by the fact that the Google Maps search page has a distance/area limit, ie. if you zoom out enough it doesn't show any more caches, even if there are only a few caches in the area. I totally understand the 500 caches limit and why the Map stops displaying caches if the result would contain more than 500 caches. (On a side note, being on a relatively old computer, I would sometimes be glad the limit would be lower than that because the browser blocks for ages when loading so many caches... an option in the profile to limit map display to 100 or 200 caches might help for that... but that's a different question and not the point of this post ).

 

But I don't see why a map size limit is needed. Right now, the limit seems to be around 50 miles map width (ie. when the 'scale' marker is at 5-10miles/10km). Above that, the map just shows the message "Adjust your zoom level to view caches". This may be fine for 'dense' cache areas (like most parts of the US or Europe), but can make the Google Maps completely useless in a less 'dense' caching area. Try to use Google Maps to find a cache for example in a place like Venezuela, Kenya or Cambodia, or northern Alaska or Canada for that matter. You'll soon find yourself desperately zooming and dragging the map, trying to get it to display some caches, but to no avail. If you're not aware of the distance/area limit, you might never get rid of the "Adjust your zoom level to view caches." message at all, as unfortunately the same message appears whether you're zoomed out beyond the limit, or you're zoomed into an area with no caches. This makes the Google Maps useless in such 'low density' areas.

 

I assume this should be a relatively easy fix, as somewhere must be a constant defined to stop requests if the map width is more than 50mi, or something similar. This could quite easily be removed (still keeping the 500 caches limit), or at least changed to something significantly larger (500mi or more). People in dense areas wouldn't be affected as they run into the 500 caches limit first anyway, but for those out caching in low density areas, this would make a major improvement.

 

And yes I know Google Earth works well for low density areas, but especially when out travelling in these areas, users might have to rely on internet cafés, where usually they have a browser ready but no possibility of installing Google Earth... so having this in the Google Maps would be really nice!

 

So much for my feature requests today, now back to work

[Feature request, My friends cache hiding]

The closest thing that I can see at this time, is using www.itsnotaboutthenumbers.com. You can compare your finds with another cacher, and put the results into GSAK, I believe.

 

That is true, it can be useful and works fine - although only for comparing two cachers' finds (not for "some" friends as the OP says), and of course only if all the relevant people are Premium Mebers.

 

For those who don't know how it works, you can find the feature here (after loading your stats), then select another cacher, and take the list from the lowest text field (it includes caches that at least one of you has found, because you want to filter these and only keep the ones not found by either of you). In the link just above the text field, there's an explanation how to set up the filter in GSAK.

[pushpin on the google gc map]

+1 vote for this idea!

 

(I know there's no vote going on about it... )