Jump to content

I Hate Rules As Much As The Next Guy, But...


Recommended Posts

Posted

First. a note to the moderator:

 

I posted in this thread topic because I have had some recent frustrations with this very issue and rather then create a whole new thread, I posted this thread because it neatly applied to the very discussion I want to have on this particular issue. It may be old hat for some of our fellow grounspeak forum members, but its very much on my mind right now and is new to me. I didn't do it simply blindly bump an old thread.

 

I had an idea of what I wanted to talk about, and did a search to see if any threads already fit my topic of discussion. That is proper protocol as it limits the number of useless duplicate useless threads. M'kay?

 

And I may be a newbie to this board, but not to forum software or online communities.

 

I do wholeheartedly appreciate the efforts of the forum moderators, being a mod not an easy job and they should be thanked often for their continued effort to keep this forum a nice place to visit. :anibad:

 

Now back to our normal programming...

 

 

The previous poster made some valid points. You probably should find several caches before hiding a cache, but then again, I think some people "get it" right away. So any imposed number of cache finds is

not practical. It is a good PERSONAL guideline to follow when putting in your first cache, but I don't feel that geocaching.com need enforce it nor should the geocaching community.

 

Besides, a new account doesn't necessarily equate to "I am new to the sport". Also, nothing says you have to report your all of your finds, or any of your finds. Find logs are a metric used for the purposes of tracking one's own adventures in the game and sharing those adventures with others.

 

It isn't intended to be used as a yardstick to gain full permission to the kingdom of geocaching.

 

On snobery:

 

I dislike snobery of any kind. Feeling strong about an intrest or an issue is good. Passion is good. But I don't like to see people who use their passion as an excuse to displace good manners and make someone else feel bad or small because they didn't do things "the proper way" to that persons liking.

 

Constructive criticism is good. Being a jerk to make yourself feel superior to someone else is not.

Posted (edited)

First. a note to the moderator:

 

I posted in this thread topic because I have had some recent frustrations with this very issue and rather then create a whole new thread, I posted this thread because it neatly applied to the very discussion I want to have on this particular issue. It may be old hat for some of our fellow grounspeak forum members, but its very much on my mind right now and is new to me. I didn't do it simply blindly bump an old thread.

 

I had an idea of what I wanted to talk about, and did a search to see if any threads already fit my topic of discussion. That is proper protocol as it limits the number of useless duplicate useless threads. M'kay?

 

And I may be a newbie to this board, but not to forum software or online communities.

 

I do wholeheartedly appreciate the efforts of the forum moderators, being a mod not an easy job and they should be thanked often for their continued effort to keep this forum a nice place to visit. :anibad:

 

And a note right back at ya. I'm not a mod in THIS forum, just in the Getting Started. I was not saying your resurrection of an old thread is a problem in any way. I congratulate you on taking the time to find a thread that fit your needs and bringing the historical posts back.

 

I was merely cautioning those that read through the thread and start replying to some of the older posts that they are indeed older posts. Some of the individuals (as mentioned above) are banned from posting, and some have left. Others may have changed their opinions.

 

So no malice was intended - I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that this was a historic thread resurrected.

Edited by Markwell
Posted

Markwell makes a good point and one that I was thinking of when I posted this morning in the 'multiple logs' thread.

 

I think that it's great to bring back an old thread, but if you bring back a really old thread, it is pretty likely that peoples attitudes will have changed over the years. I know that I have modified my opinion of micro caches and multiple logging in the last couple of years. I probably will again.

 

Also, I'm reminded of the old threads that extolled the benefits of film cans as micro cache containers. Who would have been able to predict the venom that is currently spewed regarding them.

Posted

Actually, when I posted, I knew it was an old thread, and since I didn't know what happened to the OP, and since I always enjoyed his threads, it was good to see his name again. :anibad:

Posted (edited)
Markwell makes a good point and one that I was thinking of when I posted this morning in the 'multiple logs' thread.

 

I think that it's great to bring back an old thread, but if you bring back a really old thread, it is pretty likely that peoples attitudes will have changed over the years. I know that I have modified my opinion of micro caches and multiple logging in the last couple of years. I probably will again.

 

Also, I'm reminded of the old threads that extolled the benefits of film cans as micro cache containers. Who would have been able to predict the venom that is currently spewed regarding them.

My opinions have changed too. :anibad:

 

I think "venom" is an exaggeration. It's similar to the difference between dislike and hate. IMHO many people "don't like" certain kinds of micros. It's simple as that. It's also good feedback for those that really listen. After all, God gave us two ears and one mouth so we could listen twice as much as we talk... :anibad:

Edited by TrailGators
Posted
Markwell makes a good point and one that I was thinking of when I posted this morning in the 'multiple logs' thread.

 

I think that it's great to bring back an old thread, but if you bring back a really old thread, it is pretty likely that peoples attitudes will have changed over the years. I know that I have modified my opinion of micro caches and multiple logging in the last couple of years. I probably will again.

 

Also, I'm reminded of the old threads that extolled the benefits of film cans as micro cache containers. Who would have been able to predict the venom that is currently spewed regarding them.

My opinions have changed too. :anibad:

 

I think "venom" is an exaggeration. It's similar to the difference between dislike and hate. IMHO many people "don't like" certain kinds of micros. It's simple as that. It's also good feedback for those that really listen. After all, God gave us two ears and one mouth so we could listen twice as much as we talk... :anibad:

Had I been referring to you, I would have mentioned you.

Posted

Please stay on topic and don't allow venom seepage into this thread.

 

Pretty please?

Back to "newbies needing to pass a test." :anibad: Something happened here that was pretty funny. Two cachers who have more than 4000 finds, and more than 100 hides, put out a new cache and posted the wrong coordinates. :o

 

The FTF hounds had a heck of a time trying to find the cache 600' feet away from where it really was. :anibad:

 

So . . . as long as newbies read the guidelines, I mean really read the guidelines, and double and triple check their coordinates and the rest of the information on their cache pages, they'll do just as well or better than people who have been around for a long time and occasionally make the "newbie" mistake. :D

Posted

Please stay on topic and don't allow venom seepage into this thread.

 

Pretty please?

Back to "newbies needing to pass a test." :o Something happened here that was pretty funny. Two cachers who have more than 4000 finds, and more than 100 hides, put out a new cache and posted the wrong coordinates. :D

 

The FTF hounds had a heck of a time trying to find the cache 600' feet away from where it really was. :anibad:

 

So . . . as long as newbies read the guidelines, I mean really read the guidelines, and double and triple check their coordinates and the rest of the information on their cache pages, they'll do just as well or better than people who have been around for a long time and occasionally make the "newbie" mistake. :o

Everyone makes mistakes. I think the idea of newbies taking a test was just to thoroughly understand the guidelines before placing a cache. People say they read them but we all know that many really don't. Jeremy was warm to this idea in a previous thread on the same topic. Don't make me find his post because I'm not good at that like Markwell...Oldbies should also take the test too. It could actually be fun! :anibad:
Posted

Here's the logic of the situation: You are free to seek the caches or ignore them. Maybe the caches are good, maybe not; as with any cache placed by anyone, there is no guarantee of quality. Caveat emptor.

 

That's Ok if the cache page states "This is a sucky cache with bad coordinates" Usually they don't, so we find out after a drive and a walk.. or worse yet a half hour sitting in traffic. Perhaps the best way to police cache quality is to stop sugar coating our logs. Call 'em as we see 'em.

Posted

 

That's Ok if the cache page states "This is a sucky cache with bad coordinates" Usually they don't, so we find out after a drive and a walk.. or worse yet a half hour sitting in traffic. Perhaps the best way to police cache quality is to stop sugar coating our logs. Call 'em as we see 'em.

Which is exactly what I've been doing.

 

It is probably the best way to let a hider...new or not...if the cache is in need of help or re-tooling.

 

If the cache is lame, by pretty much any standard, I'll say so. In so many words. If it is uber-lame, I just leave the find number with no comment. If they can't try any harder than that, I see no reason to leave enve a word of log.

 

On the flip side, if it was a fun hunt, I will say that.

Posted (edited)

I am not a newbe but we travel to much to hide a cache. We usually move every 2 weeks or so. I have had good idea for caches but will not be able to take care of it for long periods of time.

 

I raised this issue some time ago and got berated for bringing up an issue like this. Several responders pointed out that a number of hides are by sock puppets. All that kind of thing aside, I agree with Sept1cTank on this one. This hider has been a member for almost a year and to date has one hide and that only recently. What was this person doing for a year? It was, obviously, not learning how to use the GPSr. For a hide to be 150 feet off, something must be very wrong or the user has no clue on how to use the unit. I would go even higher on the lower limit. I think it should be at least 25, but it ain't a gonna happen.

Edited by camperbeast
Posted (edited)
Here's the logic of the situation: You are free to seek the caches or ignore them. Maybe the caches are good, maybe not; as with any cache placed by anyone, there is no guarantee of quality. Caveat emptor.
That's Ok if the cache page states "This is a sucky cache with bad coordinates" Usually they don't, so we find out after a drive and a walk.. or worse yet a half hour sitting in traffic. Perhaps the best way to police cache quality is to stop sugar coating our logs. Call 'em as we see 'em.
That is fine, if you are willing to live with the blowback your actions cause. Edited by sbell111
Posted

There's a certain amount of chutzpah involved in assuming that one understands enough to place a cache when one has just begun geocaching. That's the nicest word I could find to describe the phenomenon.

 

But don't you find that true elsewhere? We live in a fast-food environment where superficiality is the norm and people are too busy, too impatient, or just too full of themselves to be bothered to apprentice at anything.

 

It's unfortunate but not surprising to see that attitude carry over into geocaching.

 

-- Jeannette

Posted (edited)
Placing a cache isn't rocket science. I believe that most people can figure it out.
Most do but we still get to read about issues the other end of the bell curve cause. So we can either be proactive and try to think of ways to shift the curve or we can be complacent and accept the fallout. IMHO, a guideline test could be both fun and beneficial for the game. :laughing: Edited by TrailGators
Posted

As Miragee hinted at, those of us who are 'experienced' are just as likely to miss something because we get overconfident whereas a noob is more likely to double and triple check.

 

My point is, I don't think that this is a noobie issue.

Posted
As Miragee hinted at, those of us who are 'experienced' are just as likely to miss something because we get overconfident whereas a noob is more likely to double and triple check.

 

My point is, I don't think that this is a noobie issue.

I agree. I'm not sure the reason is overconfidence or just a basic lack of understanding. However, if you make sure that everyone understands the guidelines from day one that is the best approach. The existing cachers could take a test whenever they want to or least prior to placing their next cache.
Posted

..snip

 

After all, God gave us two ears and one mouth so we could listen twice as much as we talk... :anicute:

 

Now, with the invention of online groups, some folks have changed the analogy a bit...

 

They think since they have 10 fingers and two eyes...they should type 5 times more than they read! :laughing:

Posted

As Miragee hinted at, those of us who are 'experienced' are just as likely to miss something because we get overconfident whereas a noob is more likely to double and triple check.

 

My point is, I don't think that this is a noobie issue.

 

As a fairly newbie to hiding caches (just 12) I can say that I took great care in getting it right starting with cache #1. I also try to do something original for my neck of the woods and also look after my caches, probably a lot more than many old pro's with many more caches. Why just yesterday, I found a few caches on my way back from a business trip, and 3 of 6 were in bad condition (I did what I could to help out). A greater problem than Newby error are the plethora of abandoned caches by old pro's who place a large number of caches and never do any maintenance.

Posted

..snip

 

After all, God gave us two ears and one mouth so we could listen twice as much as we talk... :back:

Now, with the invention of online groups, some folks have changed the analogy a bit...

 

They think since they have 10 fingers and two eyes...they should type 5 times more than they read! :laughing:

:unsure::anicute:
Posted
Placing a cache isn't rocket science. I believe that most people can figure it out.
Most do but we still get to read about issues the other end of the bell curve cause. So we can either be proactive and try to think of ways to shift the curve or we can be complacent and accept the fallout. IMHO, a guideline test could be both fun and beneficial for the game. :laughing:

It would neuter creativity. The thicker the guidelines the more chains and hobbles that a newbie would have to cope with. The real issue is so much simpler than the 20,000 rules that would and could be used to box it in.

Posted
Placing a cache isn't rocket science. I believe that most people can figure it out.
Most do but we still get to read about issues the other end of the bell curve cause. So we can either be proactive and try to think of ways to shift the curve or we can be complacent and accept the fallout. IMHO, a guideline test could be both fun and beneficial for the game. :laughing:
It would neuter creativity. The thicker the guidelines the more chains and hobbles that a newbie would have to cope with. The real issue is so much simpler than the 20,000 rules that would and could be used to box it in.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. I wasn't proposing more rules. I was proposing a simple fun quiz to reinforce the existing ones.
Posted (edited)
Placing a cache isn't rocket science. I believe that most people can figure it out.
Most do but we still get to read about issues the other end of the bell curve cause. So we can either be proactive and try to think of ways to shift the curve or we can be complacent and accept the fallout. IMHO, a guideline test could be both fun and beneficial for the game. :anicute:

It would neuter creativity. The thicker the guidelines the more chains and hobbles that a newbie would have to cope with. The real issue is so much simpler than the 20,000 rules that would and could be used to box it in.

And, speaking of creativity, this new cache has people stumped, so far, and every time I look at the page, there is another person watching it. :laughing:

 

Edit to add appropriate quote

Edited by Miragee
Posted (edited)
Placing a cache isn't rocket science. I believe that most people can figure it out.
Most do but we still get to read about issues the other end of the bell curve cause. So we can either be proactive and try to think of ways to shift the curve or we can be complacent and accept the fallout. IMHO, a guideline test could be both fun and beneficial for the game. :P

It would neuter creativity. The thicker the guidelines the more chains and hobbles that a newbie would have to cope with. The real issue is so much simpler than the 20,000 rules that would and could be used to box it in.

And, speaking of creativity, this new cache has people stumped, so far, and every time I look at the page, there is another person watching it. :sad:

 

Edit to add appropriate quote

It's definitely a mystery cache. I've never heard of a cache that makes you wait 48 hours in between attempts but I guess the guy wants to reset the cache and the two decoys. So the one that was a decoy could now be the cache next time you go back. :anicute: So if I am reading it correctly then you have even odds of this taking you 6 days to complete. Where is that ignore button? :tired: Edited by TrailGators
Posted
Placing a cache isn't rocket science. I believe that most people can figure it out.
Most do but we still get to read about issues the other end of the bell curve cause. So we can either be proactive and try to think of ways to shift the curve or we can be complacent and accept the fallout. IMHO, a guideline test could be both fun and beneficial for the game. :P

It would neuter creativity. The thicker the guidelines the more chains and hobbles that a newbie would have to cope with. The real issue is so much simpler than the 20,000 rules that would and could be used to box it in.

And, speaking of creativity, this new cache has people stumped, so far, and every time I look at the page, there is another person watching it. :anicute:

 

Edit to add appropriate quote

:tired:

Wow now there's a mass confusion.

Posted
Placing a cache isn't rocket science. I believe that most people can figure it out.
Most do but we still get to read about issues the other end of the bell curve cause. So we can either be proactive and try to think of ways to shift the curve or we can be complacent and accept the fallout. IMHO, a guideline test could be both fun and beneficial for the game. :P

It would neuter creativity. The thicker the guidelines the more chains and hobbles that a newbie would have to cope with. The real issue is so much simpler than the 20,000 rules that would and could be used to box it in.

I think RK is on to something here. The Guidelines have grown in length over the years, and run ten or so pages if you print them out. Each sentence is pregnant with meaning, backed up by years of forum debates, interpretations by the reviewers, etc. Some say to add more details to explain what those short sentences mean. But then the Guidelines would be twenty pages long!

 

Rather than imposing a test, what if the focus shifted to presenting the Guidelines in a different way that was easier to digest? (Not even changing the substance of the Guidelines, but just how the content is presented....)

Posted (edited)
Placing a cache isn't rocket science. I believe that most people can figure it out.
Most do but we still get to read about issues the other end of the bell curve cause. So we can either be proactive and try to think of ways to shift the curve or we can be complacent and accept the fallout. IMHO, a guideline test could be both fun and beneficial for the game. :P

It would neuter creativity. The thicker the guidelines the more chains and hobbles that a newbie would have to cope with. The real issue is so much simpler than the 20,000 rules that would and could be used to box it in.

I think RK is on to something here. The Guidelines have grown in length over the years, and run ten or so pages if you print them out. Each sentence is pregnant with meaning, backed up by years of forum debates, interpretations by the reviewers, etc. Some say to add more details to explain what those short sentences mean. But then the Guidelines would be twenty pages long!

 

Rather than imposing a test, what if the focus shifted to presenting the Guidelines in a different way that was easier to digest? (Not even changing the substance of the Guidelines, but just how the content is presented....)

That would work. How would you do that? One thought is that maybe the reviewers could come up with a top 10 list why caches are often rejected. This might even lighten their load if submitters reviewed this list prior to submitting a cache. Edited by TrailGators
Posted
Placing a cache isn't rocket science. I believe that most people can figure it out.
Most do but we still get to read about issues the other end of the bell curve cause. So we can either be proactive and try to think of ways to shift the curve or we can be complacent and accept the fallout. IMHO, a guideline test could be both fun and beneficial for the game. :P

It would neuter creativity. The thicker the guidelines the more chains and hobbles that a newbie would have to cope with. The real issue is so much simpler than the 20,000 rules that would and could be used to box it in.

I think RK is on to something here. The Guidelines have grown in length over the years, and run ten or so pages if you print them out. Each sentence is pregnant with meaning, backed up by years of forum debates, interpretations by the reviewers, etc. Some say to add more details to explain what those short sentences mean. But then the Guidelines would be twenty pages long!

 

Rather than imposing a test, what if the focus shifted to presenting the Guidelines in a different way that was easier to digest? (Not even changing the substance of the Guidelines, but just how the content is presented....)

The guidelines are ok but the guides to finding your first cache and hiding your first cache could be made more promininant. And perhaps by making them interactive and with multimedia (e.g. Flash) you might be able confer more information including stressing some of the more important guidelines.

 

Of course you could have 3 sets of guidelines one of which is the real guidelines and the other two are decoys. If you find one of the decoys you must go and find another cache and then wait 48 hours before trying to read the guidelines again. During that time, TPTB may have switched the real guidelines and the decoys. :anicute:

Posted (edited)
For a hide to be 150 feet off, something must be very wrong or the user has no clue on how to use the unit.

 

Unfortunatley, some hiders use intentionally BAD coords. Rounding the 3rd digit to 0, or dropping it all together, etc. Some hiders are known for their Always BAD coords.

Some of those hiders keep hiding and hiding and hiding. My state will soon have 1000

of these "gems" hidden, and probably ALL of them are NOT at the listed coords.

 

"sneaky" they may call it, or whatever - but in the end- its just poor/sloppy use of the technology.

 

not only do I use a different, "sign the log book name." but i also use a different name when registering a hide. I'm not worried about proving how many caches i've found or hid, yet some see this as something different / etc.

 

i myself, started a thread about - asking what could be done to improve on getting caches posted sooner, and boy did i take some heat for that. everything from;

 

this guy hasn't even found a cache yet, or my hides were disabled or etc....

 

mind you all, that I currently have 3 on here that are active & have all recieved great reviews. :P

 

-----------

 

I started GEO hiding 1st, a few years ago. thats right, i hid geo caches 1st. I'm into Offroading & when ever i can bring the kids along for a friendly easy out day of offroading, i do... and it makes it alot of fun for dad, to hide treasures / geo caches when their not w/ me. along the trails I've hid dozens of finds and it's all word of mouth among other offroaders. i used my hides to sponsor offroad events or otherwise something to add to a weekend of offroading adventures.

 

now, i understand some people don't have a clue as to the basics or rules to follow / etc.

 

that is why i agree & understand the rules & guidlines on here for posting up new hides, but there are other sites / areas where people are posting up new Geo Cache hides. and i disagree w/ the thought thinking that unless a guy has 10 or 15 or 25+ finds under his or her belt they shoouldn't be allowed to post up new hides.

 

strongly disagree, it's up to the user & members to do the best they can in hiding & reporting the finds.

 

----------- just my opinion.

 

X. ZukPirate

Edited by zukpirate
Posted
...I think there's a misunderstanding here. I wasn't proposing more rules. I was proposing a simple fun quiz to reinforce the existing ones.

Your profession is showing. :P
I'm not a teacher (if that's what you mean).... :anicute:
Posted

That's Ok if the cache page states "This is a sucky cache with bad coordinates" Usually they don't, so we find out after a drive and a walk.. or worse yet a half hour sitting in traffic. Perhaps the best way to police cache quality is to stop sugar coating our logs. Call 'em as we see 'em.

 

Good luck with that.

 

People get pissy when you're honest.

 

 

michelle

Posted

That's Ok if the cache page states "This is a sucky cache with bad coordinates" Usually they don't, so we find out after a drive and a walk.. or worse yet a half hour sitting in traffic. Perhaps the best way to police cache quality is to stop sugar coating our logs. Call 'em as we see 'em.

 

Good luck with that.

 

People get pissy when you're honest.

 

michelle

Of course, honesty is nothing compared to the actions that some geocachers take... There was a Hawaiian cacher (he seems to have since disappeared; wonder why?) on the forums a year or two ago who claimed that his solution to Lame Urban Micros (LUMs) was simple; that he CITOed them and tossed them in the trash. And, I seem to recall that a couple of years ago there was an event held in WPA which was apparenty about collecting LUMs and burning them in a bonfire. :anicute::P

Posted

 

Of course, honesty is nothing compared to the actions that some geocachers take... There was a Hawaiian cacher (he seems to have since disappeared; wonder why?) on the forums a year or two ago who claimed that his solution to Lame Urban Micros (LUMs) was simple; that he CITOed them and tossed them in the trash. And, I seem to recall that a couple of years ago there was an event held in WPA which was apparenty about collecting LUMs and burning them in a bonfire. :anicute::P

 

Wow. That's *impressively* bad behavior, Vinny. How did people respond to those admissions?

 

-- Jeannette, amazed at what people do ...

Posted

That's Ok if the cache page states "This is a sucky cache with bad coordinates" Usually they don't, so we find out after a drive and a walk.. or worse yet a half hour sitting in traffic. Perhaps the best way to police cache quality is to stop sugar coating our logs. Call 'em as we see 'em.

 

Good luck with that.

 

People get pissy when you're honest.

 

michelle

Of course, honesty is nothing compared to the actions that some geocachers take... There was a Hawaiian cacher (he seems to have since disappeared; wonder why?) on the forums a year or two ago who claimed that his solution to Lame Urban Micros (LUMs) was simple; that he CITOed them and tossed them in the trash. And, I seem to recall that a couple of years ago there was an event held in WPA which was apparenty about collecting LUMs and burning them in a bonfire. :anicute::P

 

Well, I don't quite like the idea of destroying someone elses cache just b/c it didn't meet up to your standards... although, I've gotta tell you, there was one down the coast a fair piece here that I thought needed to do a disappearing act.

 

"Do you REALLY think a state park bathroom on a beach approach was the BEST place you could have put this?" (That would have been the nice version of my log if there had been a nice version.)

 

Anyway, I don't understand why people think they have the God-given right to tell me how _I_ can log a cache. And not even their cache, but to keep tabs on every log I write and then complain about how I've written them.

 

You may have noticed I've taken care of that problem.

 

BUT, I'm not happy about it.

 

 

michelle

Posted

That's Ok if the cache page states "This is a sucky cache with bad coordinates" Usually they don't, so we find out after a drive and a walk.. or worse yet a half hour sitting in traffic. Perhaps the best way to police cache quality is to stop sugar coating our logs. Call 'em as we see 'em.

 

Good luck with that.

 

People get pissy when you're honest.

 

michelle

Of course, honesty is nothing compared to the actions that some geocachers take... There was a Hawaiian cacher (he seems to have since disappeared; wonder why?) on the forums a year or two ago who claimed that his solution to Lame Urban Micros (LUMs) was simple; that he CITOed them and tossed them in the trash. And, I seem to recall that a couple of years ago there was an event held in WPA which was apparenty about collecting LUMs and burning them in a bonfire. :tired::P

 

Well, I don't quite like the idea of destroying someone elses cache just b/c it didn't meet up to your standards... although, I've gotta tell you, there was one down the coast a fair piece here that I thought needed to do a disappearing act.

 

"Do you REALLY think a state park bathroom on a beach approach was the BEST place you could have put this?" (That would have been the nice version of my log if there had been a nice version.)

 

Anyway, I don't understand why people think they have the God-given right to tell me how _I_ can log a cache. And not even their cache, but to keep tabs on every log I write and then complain about how I've written them.

 

You may have noticed I've taken care of that problem.

 

BUT, I'm not happy about it.

 

 

michelle

You sure got spunk. I like that! :anicute:
Posted

That's Ok if the cache page states "This is a sucky cache with bad coordinates" Usually they don't, so we find out after a drive and a walk.. or worse yet a half hour sitting in traffic. Perhaps the best way to police cache quality is to stop sugar coating our logs. Call 'em as we see 'em.

 

Good luck with that.

 

People get pissy when you're honest.

 

 

michelle

 

I agree.. that's why so few do it. But if more people spoke up about the quality of the caches they do, it would point out to everyone to what the expectations are. We might not agree with the results, but at least we would know what the local caching population wants.

Posted

That's Ok if the cache page states "This is a sucky cache with bad coordinates" Usually they don't, so we find out after a drive and a walk.. or worse yet a half hour sitting in traffic. Perhaps the best way to police cache quality is to stop sugar coating our logs. Call 'em as we see 'em.

 

Good luck with that.

 

People get pissy when you're honest.

 

michelle

Of course, honesty is nothing compared to the actions that some geocachers take... There was a Hawaiian cacher (he seems to have since disappeared; wonder why?) on the forums a year or two ago who claimed that his solution to Lame Urban Micros (LUMs) was simple; that he CITOed them and tossed them in the trash. And, I seem to recall that a couple of years ago there was an event held in WPA which was apparenty about collecting LUMs and burning them in a bonfire. :P:rolleyes:

 

Can you point me towards this post about the vigilante Hawaiian Cacher? I've seen you mention this twice lately and I am not sure you have the facts correct. If it is the same situation I am thinking of, he CITO'd an archived cache before the owner could pick it up.

Posted (edited)

That's Ok if the cache page states "This is a sucky cache with bad coordinates" Usually they don't, so we find out after a drive and a walk.. or worse yet a half hour sitting in traffic. Perhaps the best way to police cache quality is to stop sugar coating our logs. Call 'em as we see 'em.

 

Good luck with that.

 

People get pissy when you're honest.

 

 

michelle

 

I agree.. that's why so few do it. But if more people spoke up about the quality of the caches they do, it would point out to everyone to what the expectations are. We might not agree with the results, but at least we would know what the local caching population wants.

 

 

Well, I suppose a large part of the problem is that not everyone wants to find the same type of cache, nor does everyone care about the quality of a cache.

 

A number 'ho will take that number any way s/he can get it. Piece of crap? Big whoop... I'm up to 2500 caches found! (TFTH!) Nice location? Big whoop... I'm up to 2501... (TFTH!)

 

Ya know? Sometimes it just doesn't matter. In fact, I think a LOT of times it doesn't matter.

 

And hey, that's great. Each to his own.

 

However, as I mentioned above, I don't believe that gives anyone the right to criticize me because I'm vocal regarding what I LIKE and DON'T LIKE. I'm not just pissy about everything... If I like a cache, I am generally very clear, grateful, and thankful that someone took the time to do something that I found enjoyable. The same goes for a Crappy Cache.

 

Now it's kind of hit or miss as to whether I'll log it online either way.

 

 

 

michelle

Edited by CurmudgeonlyGal
Posted

That's Ok if the cache page states "This is a sucky cache with bad coordinates" Usually they don't, so we find out after a drive and a walk.. or worse yet a half hour sitting in traffic. Perhaps the best way to police cache quality is to stop sugar coating our logs. Call 'em as we see 'em.

 

Good luck with that.

 

People get pissy when you're honest.

 

 

michelle

 

I agree.. that's why so few do it. But if more people spoke up about the quality of the caches they do, it would point out to everyone to what the expectations are. We might not agree with the results, but at least we would know what the local caching population wants.

 

 

Well, I suppose a large part of the problem is that not everyone wants to find the same type of cache, nor does everyone care about the quality of a cache.

 

A number 'ho will take that number any way s/he can get it. Piece of crap? Big whoop... I'm up to 2500 caches found! (TFTH!) Nice location? Big whoop... I'm up to 2501... (TFTH!)

 

Ya know? Sometimes it just doesn't matter. In fact, I think a LOT of times it doesn't matter.

 

And hey, that's great. Each to his own.

 

However, as I mentioned above, I don't believe that gives anyone the right to criticize me because I'm vocal regarding what I LIKE and DON'T LIKE. I'm not just pissy about everything... If I like a cache, I am generally very clear, grateful, and thankful that someone took the time to do something that I found enjoyable. The same goes for a Crappy Cache.

 

Now it's kind of hit or miss as to whether I'll log it online either way. michelle

Don't you love the ones near toilets... :anicute: Honestly, what possesses some people? :anicute:
Posted

That's Ok if the cache page states "This is a sucky cache with bad coordinates" Usually they don't, so we find out after a drive and a walk.. or worse yet a half hour sitting in traffic. Perhaps the best way to police cache quality is to stop sugar coating our logs. Call 'em as we see 'em.

 

Good luck with that.

 

People get pissy when you're honest.

 

 

michelle

 

I agree.. that's why so few do it. But if more people spoke up about the quality of the caches they do, it would point out to everyone to what the expectations are. We might not agree with the results, but at least we would know what the local caching population wants.

 

 

Well, I suppose a large part of the problem is that not everyone wants to find the same type of cache, nor does everyone care about the quality of a cache.

 

A number 'ho will take that number any way s/he can get it. Piece of crap? Big whoop... I'm up to 2500 caches found! (TFTH!) Nice location? Big whoop... I'm up to 2501... (TFTH!)

 

Ya know? Sometimes it just doesn't matter. In fact, I think a LOT of times it doesn't matter.

 

And hey, that's great. Each to his own.

 

However, as I mentioned above, I don't believe that gives anyone the right to criticize me because I'm vocal regarding what I LIKE and DON'T LIKE. I'm not just pissy about everything... If I like a cache, I am generally very clear, grateful, and thankful that someone took the time to do something that I found enjoyable. The same goes for a Crappy Cache.

 

Now it's kind of hit or miss as to whether I'll log it online either way. michelle

Don't you love the ones near toilets... :D Honestly, what possesses some people? :anicute:

:D:D:unsure:

 

Why would you put it near a toilet???? :anicute::anibad:

Posted

That's Ok if the cache page states "This is a sucky cache with bad coordinates" Usually they don't, so we find out after a drive and a walk.. or worse yet a half hour sitting in traffic. Perhaps the best way to police cache quality is to stop sugar coating our logs. Call 'em as we see 'em.

 

Good luck with that.

 

People get pissy when you're honest.

 

 

michelle

 

I agree.. that's why so few do it. But if more people spoke up about the quality of the caches they do, it would point out to everyone to what the expectations are. We might not agree with the results, but at least we would know what the local caching population wants.

 

 

Well, I suppose a large part of the problem is that not everyone wants to find the same type of cache, nor does everyone care about the quality of a cache.

 

A number 'ho will take that number any way s/he can get it. Piece of crap? Big whoop... I'm up to 2500 caches found! (TFTH!) Nice location? Big whoop... I'm up to 2501... (TFTH!)

 

Ya know? Sometimes it just doesn't matter. In fact, I think a LOT of times it doesn't matter.

 

And hey, that's great. Each to his own.

 

However, as I mentioned above, I don't believe that gives anyone the right to criticize me because I'm vocal regarding what I LIKE and DON'T LIKE. I'm not just pissy about everything... If I like a cache, I am generally very clear, grateful, and thankful that someone took the time to do something that I found enjoyable. The same goes for a Crappy Cache.

 

Now it's kind of hit or miss as to whether I'll log it online either way. michelle

Don't you love the ones near toilets... :anicute: Honestly, what possesses some people? :D

:anibad::D:D

 

Why would you put it near a toilet???? :anicute::unsure:

Now you know why I've been asking for this.
Posted

That's Ok if the cache page states "This is a sucky cache with bad coordinates" Usually they don't, so we find out after a drive and a walk.. or worse yet a half hour sitting in traffic. Perhaps the best way to police cache quality is to stop sugar coating our logs. Call 'em as we see 'em.

 

Good luck with that.

 

People get pissy when you're honest.

 

 

michelle

 

I agree.. that's why so few do it. But if more people spoke up about the quality of the caches they do, it would point out to everyone to what the expectations are. We might not agree with the results, but at least we would know what the local caching population wants.

 

 

Well, I suppose a large part of the problem is that not everyone wants to find the same type of cache, nor does everyone care about the quality of a cache.

 

A number 'ho will take that number any way s/he can get it. Piece of crap? Big whoop... I'm up to 2500 caches found! (TFTH!) Nice location? Big whoop... I'm up to 2501... (TFTH!)

 

Ya know? Sometimes it just doesn't matter. In fact, I think a LOT of times it doesn't matter.

 

And hey, that's great. Each to his own.

 

However, as I mentioned above, I don't believe that gives anyone the right to criticize me because I'm vocal regarding what I LIKE and DON'T LIKE. I'm not just pissy about everything... If I like a cache, I am generally very clear, grateful, and thankful that someone took the time to do something that I found enjoyable. The same goes for a Crappy Cache.

 

Now it's kind of hit or miss as to whether I'll log it online either way. michelle

Don't you love the ones near toilets... :anicute: Honestly, what possesses some people? :D

:anibad::D:D

 

Why would you put it near a toilet???? :anicute::unsure:

Now you know why I've been asking for this.

 

I've been using that 'feature' in GSAK for a couple of years now. PQ's designed to filter out micro's, unknown cache sizes, anything with a < [something] terrain ... and then GSAK out particular cache owners.

 

Quite honestly, once I filter on micro/unknown (which I've found in particular areas to be equal to 'Tupperware' or 'Ammo can's' that are Barbie or GI Joe size hidden in the middle of dense wooded areas) and cut out easy terrain, there's not much that actually makes it through still belonging to particular cache owners who's caches I don't care to spend time searching for.

 

Being a discerning cacher is a very solvable problem w/o requiring Groundspeak to come up with a new feature.

 

-=-

 

I bet you'd be surprised I don't use the 'friends' list either. Not that I don't have friends... I'm just not keen on it's future intended features.

 

michelle

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...