Jump to content

Why No One Visits The Forums


Recommended Posts

No wonder why newbie cachers come to the forums read and never return. I post a nice congrats topic only to have the first 10 posters to use it as a way of bashing another person.

 

Have a little respect for others...

 

Let's see... there were only 12 replies, period, before you locked it - one was you, at least 3 gave props, and of the other 8, only two were clearly bashing.

 

Yet you counted it as 10. Talk about your artificially-inflated numbers! <_<

Link to comment

Look at it this way.

What if you really did NOT care about your stats?

What if you were not competing against anyone else but yourself?

What if you had no interest in other people's find counts, or what they considered a find or not? (as shown by the number of threads, there are tons of different opinions about what constitutes a smiley log)

What if you just geocached the way it made you happiest?

 

What if your "caching range" covered several thousand square miles, with 10's of thousands of caches, most of which you've already visited?

What if you were not worried about what others think, or how they play the game?

What if using the GPS to find the spot the cache should be (the hunt) is the most exciting part of geocaching, not signing the log book? After completing the hunt, you don't really care to return there; you've already moved on to the next "hunt".

You've done the hunt, you aren't going back, get that cache off your list and move on.

 

I'm not saying it's the way *I* cache, but what works for me doesn't work for the next cacher, or the one after that.

Link to comment

Look at it this way.

What if you really did NOT care about your stats?

What if you were not competing against anyone else but yourself?

What if you had no interest in other people's find counts, or what they considered a find or not? (as shown by the number of threads, there are tons of different opinions about what constitutes a smiley log)

What if you just geocached the way it made you happiest?

 

What if your "caching range" covered several thousand square miles, with 10's of thousands of caches, most of which you've already visited?

What if you were not worried about what others think, or how they play the game?

What if using the GPS to find the spot the cache should be (the hunt) is the most exciting part of geocaching, not signing the log book? After completing the hunt, you don't really care to return there; you've already moved on to the next "hunt".

You've done the hunt, you aren't going back, get that cache off your list and move on.

 

I'm not saying it's the way *I* cache, but what works for me doesn't work for the next cacher, or the one after that.

I think all your points above are valid and worth talking about. My comments:

 

I believe that we have a generally-accepted tenet of Geocaching that a Find = actually physically processing the cache in some fashion. This goes to the point several others have made as to CCCA's known times of not necessarily doing that and still claiming a Find.

 

And I stand by my OPINION stated earlier in this thread, that I believe that CCCA *does* care about her stats and her #1 world ranking, otherwise she wouldn't claim all those would-be Finds, nor would she have the stomach to be able to spend so much time and gas on Spewed Micros to continue to run up those stats. I can't imagine anyone considering doing that over and over and over and over and over and... again without the motivation of the stat numbers...what other motivation could there be to keep chasing so many of those that often and for so long a period of time? I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG ON MY OPINION of her motivations, and I state again that I HAVE NO PROBLEM with Numbers Ho's who own up to what they are (I was one, pre-'04, I fully admit!). Just please, don't tell me you're "just having way too much fun", and have no other motivation than that, after literally thousands of Spewed Micros . Tell me "Yeah, I like the stat high I get from days and days of guardrails and lampskirts", I can accept that. Honestly.

 

And finally, even if her stats really DON'T matter to her, the fact that we discuss her stats, how she compiled them, and her #1 ranking, means that in some fashion, they DO matter in SOME way in the context of our game.

Link to comment

Can't we all just get along?

 

I thought cachers were supposed to be one big happy family. When we first started caching we heard all the stories of the friendships made, the comraderie, how cachers would invite out of towners in their homes for a meal, a place to sleep etc. Lately all I see in these forums is a lot of petty criticism of other cachers. This is a game and you are free to play it however you want.

 

If one is a numbers ho and only goes after 1/1 micros to inflate their numbers (by no means am I saying this is the case with CCCooper) who cares, they are playing their way. It in no way affects me or anyone else. If you enjoy nothing but a 5 mile hike to find a regular container hidden behind a tree so be it. It's not for anyone here to decide who is playing the "right" way and who is not.

 

To quote a cacher we have met "Play YOUR game YOUR way and quit the beyotching". <_<

Edited by The 4 F's
Link to comment

Can't we all just get along?

Respectful disagreement and debate, validated by opinion based on experience, does not mean people are not "getting along". IT'S OK TO AGREE TO DISAGREE. And, those of us who are willing to "pound our fists on the pulpit" verbally, more forcefully than others, are not doing so because we think your opinions don't deserve to be heard. We just think ours deserve to be heard MORE. If you're intimidated by that, either pound harder, or get out of the fray. (This is a direct response to the poster above who stated "don't take away my micros" when all I did was strongly state my opinion.)

Edited by drat19
Link to comment

In regards to "not caring about numbers", that issue is pretty simple. A few quick e-mails will get one's name removed from the leaderboard sites. I know one 2000+ finds cacher who did exactly that - that PROVES it to me. <_<

 

I care about my numbers, but not obessed by it. I have a few unlogged finds, and I've "wasted my trip" on many occasions by visiting a cache more than once. :(

 

And there's nothing wrong with having an obsession, as long as the person's actions don't negatively affect others. :lol:

 

In defense of CCCA who I've not yet met, I congratulate her dedication to Geocaching. In my local forums, I congratulate people for achieving milestones, but rarely mention the number itself. Maybe people should start doing that here, just say "congrats for your achievement." People who really care will find out the exact number by looking up the profile anyhow.

Link to comment

 

And I stand by my OPINION stated earlier in this thread, that I believe that CCCA *does* care about her stats and her #1 world ranking, otherwise she wouldn't claim all those would-be Finds, nor would she have the stomach to be able to spend so much time and gas on Spewed Micros to continue to run up those stats. I can't imagine anyone considering doing that over and over and over and over and over and... again without the motivation of the stat numbers...what other motivation could there be to keep chasing so many of those that often and for so long a period of time? I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG ON MY OPINION of her motivations, and I state again that I HAVE NO PROBLEM with Numbers Ho's who own up to what they are (I was one, pre-'04, I fully admit!). Just please, don't tell me you're "just having way too much fun", and have no other motivation than that, after literally thousands of Spewed Micros . Tell me "Yeah, I like the stat high I get from days and days of guardrails and lampskirts", I can accept that. Honestly.

 

And finally, even if her stats really DON'T matter to her, the fact that we discuss her stats, how she compiled them, and her #1 ranking, means that in some fashion, they DO matter in SOME way in the context of our game.

 

I'm impressed with the effort. Just the logging alone of 15k logs is a feat in itself. (Except for a few other top cachers, only forum posters can come close to something like that.)

 

edited: to be clear.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

In regards to "not caring about numbers", that issue is pretty simple. A few quick e-mails will get one's name removed from the leaderboard sites. I know one 2000+ finds cacher who did exactly that - that PROVES it to me. :(

 

I care about my numbers, but not obessed by it. I have a few unlogged finds, and I've "wasted my trip" on many occasions by visiting a cache more than once. :D

 

And there's nothing wrong with having an obsession, as long as the person's actions don't negatively affect others. <_<

 

In defense of CCCA who I've not yet met, I congratulate her dedication to Geocaching. In my local forums, I congratulate people for achieving milestones, but rarely mention the number itself. Maybe people should start doing that here, just say "congrats for your achievement." People who really care will find out the exact number by looking up the profile anyhow.

That's very well-stated. MY OPINION. :lol:

Link to comment

Sorry I missed the original post while I was at work. I'd offer Lynn my congrats as well, except for 2 reasons, neither of which has anything to do with questionable logs.

I: I know she doesn't bother with the forums. (Too busy out finding caches to sit here and talk about the proper way to find a cache)

2: I know she is not a numbers 'ho and cares very little what her find count says.

 

I've spend some time caching with that woman, and I challenge anyone else here to keep up the pace she does. For every one cache someone thinks is is questionable, there are the 300 more that she found while while caching all weekend, day and night, only taking a few quick naps at cache parking coords. I've known her to wake up hours before dawn, drive hundreds of miles to the first cache of the day, then cache until 10-11pm. I've seen her cache routes planned out in advance turn by turn, minute by minute, just like the groups that go for the record runs, only she caches like that almost every day, not once a year.

 

I don't care WHAT your find count is, if you can keep up that pace, day after day, year after year, you deserve some respect and congratulations.

Entirely true. I have seen the same from my perspective! I have also seen -- and heard tales of -- her run caching trip companions into the ground with her boundless energy and total lack of need for food and sleep. Amazing woman! Again, my congratulations!

 

As stated by others, she'll never see it here though. Other than getting a little overzealous in the early days, and looking up some virtuals on the internet (and being caught red-handed at it) I believe 99.9% of the finds to be legitimate. And how come I never see anyone question that Team Alamo guy?

Link to comment

Actually, that TeamAlamo guy gets a lot of heat from the locals, but we try not to air out the dirty laundry for all to see. You can go down the leaderboard and pick other people down the list, if you wish.

Edited by budd-rdc
Link to comment

Actually, that TeamAlamo guy gets a lot of heat from the locals, but we try not to drag out the dirty laundry for all to see. You can go down the leaderboard and pick other people down the list, if you wish.

Is it legitimate "heat"?

Link to comment

Actually, that TeamAlamo guy gets a lot of heat from the locals, but we try not to drag out the dirty laundry for all to see. You can go down the leaderboard and pick other people down the list, if you wish.

 

Naw, I'm sure they're all good <_< Unless they do the 20 logs for one event cache thing :lol:

Link to comment

Drat19, thank you very much for your light-hearted post with lots of substance. Some may regret this being buried off topic, but maybe that'll keep out the riff raff and keep this thread civil. <_<

 

June 19, 2004 sounds like a great date to me, especially since it doesn't conflict with major holidays or other important Geocaching dates. :lol: I'll second your declaration for that date as the Official Micro Spew Day.

 

Off topic of course :( But I do remember seeing a few, but not many, Highway rest area micros in 2003 (which have never bothered me at all, nice way to stretch the legs). This is the oldest active one I can think of. I also remember some New York State Thruway mileage marker roadside micros that may even have been placed in 2002, but they're long gone. I also have fond memories of about 30 storefront micros being spewed about 80 miles south of me by the same placer, submitted at all at once in April 2004, only because I submitted a cache the same weekend, and it took about 2 weeks to get approved :D

 

That being said, June 19, 2004 sounds like as good a day as any to mark Official Micro Spew Day, count me in.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

Actually, that TeamAlamo guy gets a lot of heat from the locals, but we try not to drag out the dirty laundry for all to see. You can go down the leaderboard and pick other people down the list, if you wish.

Is it legitimate "heat"?

Not from my perspective. He has signed the logs to all of my caches he has visited.

 

Naw, I'm sure they're all good <_< Unless they do the 20 logs for one event cache thing :(

 

Now that I talked about him, he might go hike 2000'+ elevation gain and place a cache in a park I just "cleared" :lol:

Link to comment

As for the CCCA I have not met her....but if she has signed her name to 15000 logs (or met the cache requirements if there was no log to sign) than that is amazing! WTG to her!

 

That is the issue. Most of us can respect the fury with which she caches, but have a hard time seeing beyond her very laissez-faire definition of 'found'. Merely believing that you would have found it (if it weren’t missing or moved) does not equal actually finding a cache.

 

Where does one draw the line? If you pull into the parking lot of the park but never get out, knowing that if the cache was there, you’d have found it, is that ‘found’? What if by reading the cache description at home one is sure they could locate it since they are familiar with the area?

 

Found means found. It doesn’t mean tried, almost found, or anything else.

 

If I might ask, what exactly is that definition? :(<_<:lol: "That is the issue. Most of us can respect the fury with which she caches, but have a hard time seeing beyond her very laissez-faire definition of 'found'.

Link to comment

Can't we all just get along?

 

I thought cachers were supposed to be one big happy family. When we first started caching we heard all the stories of the friendships made, the comraderie, how cachers would invite out of towners in their homes for a meal, a place to sleep etc. Lately all I see in these forums is a lot of petty criticism of other cachers. This is a game and you are free to play it however you want.

 

If one is a numbers ho and only goes after 1/1 micros to inflate their numbers (by no means am I saying this is the case with CCCooper) who cares, they are playing their way. It in no way affects me or anyone else. If you enjoy nothing but a 5 mile hike to find a regular container hidden behind a tree so be it. It's not for anyone here to decide who is playing the "right" way and who is not.

 

To quote a cacher we have met "Play YOUR game YOUR way and quit the beyotching". :D

 

Actually I don't think so. At least not on this topic. You can get along so long as you don't 'find' too many caches. It seems to be intimidating or scary or something. Perhaps it has to do with testosterone or something like that. Who knows, eh? I don't understand why having tons of fun isn't enough. <_<:lol::(

Link to comment

As for the CCCA I have not met her....but if she has signed her name to 15000 logs (or met the cache requirements if there was no log to sign) than that is amazing! WTG to her!

 

That is the issue. Most of us can respect the fury with which she caches, but have a hard time seeing beyond her very laissez-faire definition of 'found'. Merely believing that you would have found it (if it weren’t missing or moved) does not equal actually finding a cache.

 

Where does one draw the line? If you pull into the parking lot of the park but never get out, knowing that if the cache was there, you’d have found it, is that ‘found’? What if by reading the cache description at home one is sure they could locate it since they are familiar with the area?

 

Found means found. It doesn’t mean tried, almost found, or anything else.

 

If I might ask, what exactly is that definition? :(<_<:lol: "That is the issue. Most of us can respect the fury with which she caches, but have a hard time seeing beyond her very laissez-faire definition of 'found'.

 

I think what Criminal means is that her definition of a cache find doesn't always involve finding a cache.

Link to comment

Actually, that TeamAlamo guy gets a lot of heat from the locals, but we try not to drag out the dirty laundry for all to see. You can go down the leaderboard and pick other people down the list, if you wish.

Is it legitimate "heat"?

Not from my perspective. He has signed the logs to all of my caches he has visited.

 

Naw, I'm sure they're all good <_< Unless they do the 20 logs for one event cache thing :(

 

Now that I talked about him, he might go hike 2000'+ elevation gain and place a cache in a park I just "cleared" :lol:

 

Clarification. I meant "the other people down the list", as far as "I'm sure they're all good" (finds are all legitimate). Not that CCCA's and TA's are not as well. At least I think that's what I mean. I was supposed to swear off the forums last week anyways.

Link to comment

If I might ask, what exactly is that definition? :(<_<:lol: "That is the issue. Most of us can respect the fury with which she caches, but have a hard time seeing beyond her very laissez-faire definition of 'found'.

Found means you went to the cache coordinates and found the cache. If the logbook is there and in signable condition, you do that too. I can accept a liberal definition of 'found' but it has to involve the cache container.

 

Example: I found a five dollar bill in my dryer. It was torn and some chunks of it were missing. I took it to the bank and they decided that there was enough of it there and gave me a new five dollar bill. The same goes for a cache. No matter what you consider the definition of ‘found’ to be, it cannot mean going to a location and finding a hiding spot, or a piece of Velcro, or a string because none of those are a geocache.

 

This asinine debate is getting tiring. So far, I haven’t seen one single cheater offer up any intelligent justification for logging a find on something they admittedly did not find. Its affect, or lack thereof, is not a reasonable argument.

Link to comment

What if using the GPS to find the spot the cache should be (the hunt) is the most exciting part of geocaching ...

 

I kinda of like this one ... for me the most boring part of geocaching is signing the log. Once my eyes locate the cache, the fun is over.

Edited by clearpath
Link to comment

If I might ask, what exactly is that definition? :(:(:tired: "That is the issue. Most of us can respect the fury with which she caches, but have a hard time seeing beyond her very laissez-faire definition of 'found'.

Found means you went to the cache coordinates and found the cache. If the logbook is there and in signable condition, you do that too. I can accept a liberal definition of 'found' but it has to involve the cache container.

 

Example: I found a five dollar bill in my dryer. It was torn and some chunks of it were missing. I took it to the bank and they decided that there was enough of it there and gave me a new five dollar bill. The same goes for a cache. No matter what you consider the definition of ‘found’ to be, it cannot mean going to a location and finding a hiding spot, or a piece of Velcro, or a string because none of those are a geocache.

 

This asinine debate is getting tiring. So far, I haven’t seen one single cheater offer up any intelligent justification for logging a find on something they admittedly did not find. Its affect, or lack thereof, is not a reasonable argument.

 

Well that doesn't sound so "laissez-faire" to me. What's the problem? :tired::lol::lol:

Link to comment

As for the CCCA I have not met her....but if she has signed her name to 15000 logs (or met the cache requirements if there was no log to sign) than that is amazing! WTG to her!

 

That is the issue. Most of us can respect the fury with which she caches, but have a hard time seeing beyond her very laissez-faire definition of 'found'. Merely believing that you would have found it (if it weren’t missing or moved) does not equal actually finding a cache.

 

Where does one draw the line? If you pull into the parking lot of the park but never get out, knowing that if the cache was there, you’d have found it, is that ‘found’? What if by reading the cache description at home one is sure they could locate it since they are familiar with the area?

 

Found means found. It doesn’t mean tried, almost found, or anything else.

 

If I might ask, what exactly is that definition? :(:(:tired: "That is the issue. Most of us can respect the fury with which she caches, but have a hard time seeing beyond her very laissez-faire definition of 'found'.

 

I think what Criminal means is that her definition of a cache find doesn't always involve finding a cache.

 

Well that just don't seem right to me. What on Earth would make some one behave like that? :tired::lol::lol:

Link to comment

As for the CCCA I have not met her....but if she has signed her name to 15000 logs (or met the cache requirements if there was no log to sign) than that is amazing! WTG to her!

 

That is the issue. Most of us can respect the fury with which she caches, but have a hard time seeing beyond her very laissez-faire definition of 'found'. Merely believing that you would have found it (if it weren’t missing or moved) does not equal actually finding a cache.

 

Where does one draw the line? If you pull into the parking lot of the park but never get out, knowing that if the cache was there, you’d have found it, is that ‘found’? What if by reading the cache description at home one is sure they could locate it since they are familiar with the area?

 

Found means found. It doesn’t mean tried, almost found, or anything else.

 

If I might ask, what exactly is that definition? :lol::tired::tired: "That is the issue. Most of us can respect the fury with which she caches, but have a hard time seeing beyond her very laissez-faire definition of 'found'.

 

I think what Criminal means is that her definition of a cache find doesn't always involve finding a cache.

 

I decided to read some of her logs. This one of them states that she did not find the cache but replaced it with a cache that she had with her and she claimed a find on it. I am not so sure that is a find. I would not do that. That is NOT how I want to play the game. It is alos NOT how I want people to find my caches, I would delete the log. How does she know it was missing, (on this one it appears she called the owner, maybe). None the less she did not 'find' anything. The log also says that she has replaced other muggled/messed up caches. Is she claiming finds on those too? This woud surely qualify as a laissez-faire definition of 'found'. IMO

 

Now I can understand why some folks question the validity of her numbers.

 

But in the end it does not really matter. If that is what she needs to do in her life then that is ok. The rest of us should be happy and do the the things we need to do in our life. Then we can all be happy.

Link to comment

It is unfortunate that icon_smile.gif is called a Found It log and icon_sad.gif is called a Could Not Find It log. If we used icon_smile.gif to mean "I had a good time geocaching" and icon_sad.gif to mean "I didn't have fun", there would not be so much controversy over people's smiley counts. I could change a lot of my icon_sad.gif to icon_smile.gif since I often had a lot of fun on a nice hike just getting to the location where I couldn't find the cache. And I might even change a few icon_smile.gif to icon_sad.gif much to the delight of drat19 and those who detest Micro Spew :lol:

Link to comment

As for the CCCA I have not met her....but if she has signed her name to 15000 logs (or met the cache requirements if there was no log to sign) than that is amazing! WTG to her!

 

That is the issue. Most of us can respect the fury with which she caches, but have a hard time seeing beyond her very laissez-faire definition of 'found'. Merely believing that you would have found it (if it weren’t missing or moved) does not equal actually finding a cache.

 

Where does one draw the line? If you pull into the parking lot of the park but never get out, knowing that if the cache was there, you’d have found it, is that ‘found’? What if by reading the cache description at home one is sure they could locate it since they are familiar with the area?

 

Found means found. It doesn’t mean tried, almost found, or anything else.

 

If I might ask, what exactly is that definition? :lol::tired::tired: "That is the issue. Most of us can respect the fury with which she caches, but have a hard time seeing beyond her very laissez-faire definition of 'found'.

 

I think what Criminal means is that her definition of a cache find doesn't always involve finding a cache.

 

I decided to read some of her logs. This one of them states that she did not find the cache but replaced it with a cache that she had with her and she claimed a find on it. I am not so sure that is a find. I would not do that. That is NOT how I want to play the game. It is alos NOT how I want people to find my caches, I would delete the log. How does she know it was missing, (on this one it appears she called the owner, maybe). None the less she did not 'find' anything. The log also says that she has replaced other muggled/messed up caches. Is she claiming finds on those too? This woud surely qualify as a laissez-faire definition of 'found'. IMO

 

Now I can understand why some folks question the validity of her numbers.

 

But in the end it does not really matter. If that is what she needs to do in her life then that is ok. The rest of us should be happy and do the the things we need to do in our life. Then we can all be happy.

Well, as a few other posters have already pointed out, even if we assume a rather high number of questionable finds on her part, it still means that she has, at the most, one questionable find per about 300 finds. That is not bad at all! After all, how many among us do not have something at least a little bit fuzzy about at leasts one find in 300? The other point that has been made before about her massive number of finds is that even if ALL of her questionable finds were to be subtracted from her find count, it would still leave a find count of over 14,800 (and likely far higher, since people close to her know that she has never filed online find logs for some of her finds, due simply to time constraints...) Anyway, to me, that is pretty amazing! She literally lives for geocacing!

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment

What if using the GPS to find the spot the cache should be (the hunt) is the most exciting part of geocaching ...

 

I kinda of like this one ... for me the most boring part of geocaching is signing the log. Once my eyes locate the cache, the fun is over.

 

You know if we could just shoot it redneck style I'd be happier than signing the log. I'd evne put a special stamp on the bullet.

Link to comment

What if using the GPS to find the spot the cache should be (the hunt) is the most exciting part of geocaching ...

 

I kinda of like this one ... for me the most boring part of geocaching is signing the log. Once my eyes locate the cache, the fun is over.

 

You know if we could just shoot it redneck style I'd be happier than signing the log. I'd evne put a special stamp on the bullet.

Shooting caches ... now that would be fun!!! :ph34r::huh::huh:

Link to comment

Actually, that TeamAlamo guy gets a lot of heat from the locals, but we try not to drag out the dirty laundry for all to see. You can go down the leaderboard and pick other people down the list, if you wish.

Is it legitimate "heat"?

 

I have cached with him many times and as far as I have seen, he doesn't cheat. He is a dynamo and as soon as he has signed the log he's on his way back to the car or down the trail to the next cache. Every cache that he had logged before me and close in time (meaning that the log was not muggled or filled up and replaced) has had his signature. I have cached with 5 of the top 10 cachers in the world and I have not seen any of them cheat.

 

Go out, have fun and don't worry about other people. :ph34r:

Edited by Wacka
Link to comment

No wonder why newbie cachers come to the forums read and never return. I post a nice congrats topic only to have the first 10 posters to use it as a way of bashing another person.

 

Have a little respect for others...

 

Well I'm pretty new and I can't quit trolling. The bickering amongst veteran cachers and hilarious posts from Sue & Vinnie just keep me coming back! It's almost as good as dayskeyart9ow.th.jpg :huh::D:huh::ph34r:

Link to comment

I went back and read the topic that you had closed. If you think that is bashing you must be very thin skined. I have seen lots of real bashing in the threads, I have been to do some bashing on a rare occasion.

 

You aint seen noth'in.

 

Will all the cheap micro spew around, big numbers of finds do not mean what they ment two years ago. With all the cachers that are to cheap or to lazy to hide a large cache it has gotten to be real easy to run numbers up.

Link to comment
Will all the cheap micro spew around, big numbers of finds do not mean what they ment two years ago. With all the cachers that are to cheap or to lazy to hide a large cache it has gotten to be real easy to run numbers up.

AMEN to that, JV!

Link to comment

Actually, that TeamAlamo guy gets a lot of heat from the locals, but we try not to drag out the dirty laundry for all to see. You can go down the leaderboard and pick other people down the list, if you wish.

Is it legitimate "heat"?

 

I can only speak from my own experience. TA has been through my area a few times. I was surprised when he first logged one of my caches and talked about the experience of the find for that cache. No cut and paste!

 

Another time he emailed me asking for a hint on a cache before heading up this way again. I emailed back with a hint. When TA replied he did say thank you BUT from the tone of the messages I think he was disappointed that my hint had too much detail!

 

TA gets no "heat" from me. :)

Link to comment

I live in TA territory and have never seen or heard about him cheating. I've personally seen his signature in just about every cache I've found.

 

He even takes the time to help newbies out at local caching events. I've e-mailed him a couple of times and he's always responded the same day (where does he find time for this?). The most amazing thing about him though is his memory. He can tell you the type of container and hiding spot of just about every cache he's found (all 15,000 of them!). I'm lucky if I can remember what I found last weekend!

Link to comment

No wonder why newbie cachers come to the forums read and never return. I post a nice congrats topic only to have the first 10 posters to use it as a way of bashing another person.

 

Have a little respect for others...

I have heard this alot and have seen nothing to back this up, so I started a poll in our local forums, TRIGO. We had 63 people vote on this:

 

Why don't you post, or limit the amount of your postings, on the Geocaching.com forums?

  • I have no real interest/time for another forum 6 votes 9%
  • It is too rough a crowd there for me 2 votes 3%
  • I post there when I have something to say 10 votes 15%
  • I get all the information I need from TRIGO 7 votes 11%
  • I don't really have anything to contribute, but if I did I would post 9 votes 14%
  • I am more concerned with the local scene than the national scene 11votes 17%
  • I am more of a lurker than poster 13 votes 20%
  • I am not experienced enough yet to be able to help others 5 votes 7%

Based on this vote, and only 2 out of 63 thinking it too rough in here, I seriously doubt all the people using that as an excuse as to why people aren't posting here. I think they are just using that as a silent support to THEIR way of thinking. Most people just aren't into the forums enough to care one way or the other, but clearly they aren't scared away. Maybe we can stop using that as an excuse now.

Edited by pghlooking
Link to comment

What if using the GPS to find the spot the cache should be (the hunt) is the most exciting part of geocaching ...

 

I kinda of like this one ... for me the most boring part of geocaching is signing the log. Once my eyes locate the cache, the fun is over.

 

Where were these 'finding the cache is more important than signing the log' ideas when my team signed DRR to found caches? <_<:ph34r:

 

Anyhoo - two things - it's been interesting watching some of the most consistantly boorish posters jump through hoops trying to justify their behavior here... 'It must be okay because it's worse somewhere else'. Get a clue - it's never okay to be insulting, ugly, accusatory or mean in any public venue, no matter how long you've been here!

 

And, the questioning of CCCooper simply sux. I would love to be able to say she does not know or care what is written about her here, but she does, on both counts.

 

I have cached with Lynn often - day, night, heat, snow in many states and can attest that nothing slows her down... she's the Energizer Bunny of geocaching. She's also an honest woman of good character and high moral standard. She may not cache your way, but she is a great geocacher and a wonderful person, who does what she thinks is right. Folks who go read a few of her posts out of context and come back here and say 'yep, I agree she's a cheat and a liar' are seriously misguided - get the facts before you speak on any topic, especially before you disparage someone you don't know!

 

Okay - a third thing - If I go to find a cache and it is missing, if I am with another cacher who has found it, I call someone who has found it, or call the owner to tell them it's gone, and their best effort can't lead me to it, I will usually replace it - that's just the curteous thing to do and is common in my community. Worst case, the owner goes to check and his cache is in fact there, he picks up the cache I placed and all is well (that last scenario has never happened, yet I have replaced numerous missing caches).

 

I have been with Lynn when she replaced missing caches, and can tell you it wasn't just because it was a DNF - she had accurate reason to believe the cache was missing.

 

She's not perfect, none of us are, but I believe her to be the epitome of a great geocacher, and while I too am jealous of the time and resources she has available to use playing this game, I can't see that as any reason to try to deny her accomplishments!

 

Ed

Link to comment

I think throw-down caches are a bad idea. The cache may be missing, you don't know, even with the owner on the phone guiding you to the spot. How's that you ask? I though one of our caches was missing because it wasn't in its spot. Then, I got a found it log. Whoa! Wait a minute! How can you find a missing cache? Well, he did find it ... some 30'- 50' away from where it's supposed to be.

 

But suppose you do throw down a cache. What to say future finders find the original a few feet away?

 

The cache may be missing for a reason. I'd bet a park superintendent would be a bit upset if he has to continually pick up caches that are replaced by well-meaning cachers.

 

Park personnel might have picked the cache up for a reason, but might not have a valid contact for the owner and are simply waiting for the owner to contact them. Next thing they know another cache is in the original spot. As a land owner how would you feel?

 

While helping out the owner with a bit of cache maintenance is a very good thing, a throw-down cache is not. Mainly because you don't that the cache is, in fact, missing or why.

Link to comment

Maybe we can stop using that as an excuse now.

 

I'd say there seems to be enough people who make the observation that there must be some truth to it.

And as a relative "newbie", I will also say this board seems to have far more rude reponses than most boards I've posted at. Too rough a crowd? That's a bit of an exaggeration. But who wants to spend their free time with people being rude to them? I don't see excuses.

Edited by Sevilon
Link to comment

As for the CCCA I have not met her....but if she has signed her name to 15000 logs (or met the cache requirements if there was no log to sign) than that is amazing! WTG to her!

 

That is the issue. Most of us can respect the fury with which she caches, but have a hard time seeing beyond her very laissez-faire definition of 'found'. Merely believing that you would have found it (if it weren’t missing or moved) does not equal actually finding a cache.

 

Where does one draw the line? If you pull into the parking lot of the park but never get out, knowing that if the cache was there, you’d have found it, is that ‘found’? What if by reading the cache description at home one is sure they could locate it since they are familiar with the area?

 

Found means found. It doesn’t mean tried, almost found, or anything else.

 

If I might ask, what exactly is that definition? <_<:ph34r::ph34r: "That is the issue. Most of us can respect the fury with which she caches, but have a hard time seeing beyond her very laissez-faire definition of 'found'.

 

I think what Criminal means is that her definition of a cache find doesn't always involve finding a cache.

 

I decided to read some of her logs. This one of them states that she did not find the cache but replaced it with a cache that she had with her and she claimed a find on it. I am not so sure that is a find. I would not do that. That is NOT how I want to play the game. It is alos NOT how I want people to find my caches, I would delete the log. How does she know it was missing, (on this one it appears she called the owner, maybe). None the less she did not 'find' anything. The log also says that she has replaced other muggled/messed up caches. Is she claiming finds on those too? This woud surely qualify as a laissez-faire definition of 'found'. IMO

 

Now I can understand why some folks question the validity of her numbers.

 

But in the end it does not really matter. If that is what she needs to do in her life then that is ok. The rest of us should be happy and do the the things we need to do in our life. Then we can all be happy.

Well, as a few other posters have already pointed out, even if we assume a rather high number of questionable finds on her part, it still means that she has, at the most, one questionable find per about 300 finds. That is not bad at all! After all, how many among us do not have something at least a little bit fuzzy about at leasts one find in 300?

 

Well, I'm at 291 right now, so in the next few weeks, I can pop up and say all 300 of my caches are legit.

 

of course there was that time in mexico... :ph34r:

Link to comment
get the facts before you speak on any topic, especially before you disparage someone you don't know!

Does the following count as a fact?

 

As for the CCCA I have not met her....but if she has signed her name to 15000 logs (or met the cache requirements if there was no log to sign) than that is amazing! WTG to her!

 

This would be fine, however I think one of the requirements is to actually FIND the cache, at least make an attempt to. Read the note left on this cache by CCCA.

 

For many, even just an attempt like this brings a lot of "finds" into question.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

Maybe people are tired of the puritans demanding we burn the witches because they have done Satan's work by logging temporary event caches, retirements, and pocket caches; claiming a find when replacing missing containers on behalf of cache owners; or accepting bonus finds from morally corrupt cache owners that allow a find for something besides finding the cache. Maybe most people realize that geocaching is just a game. It's meant to have fun, and some people have fun by logging finds that others would not count. The puritans believe that the find count is a sacred recording given to us by the lord Jeremy and those who abuse it are worthy of ridicule in these forums.

Link to comment
get the facts before you speak on any topic, especially before you disparage someone you don't know!

Does the following count as a fact?

 

As for the CCCA I have not met her....but if she has signed her name to 15000 logs (or met the cache requirements if there was no log to sign) than that is amazing! WTG to her!

 

This would be fine, however I think one of the requirements is to actually FIND the cache, at least make an attempt to. Read the note left on this cache by CCCA.

 

For many, even just an attempt like this brings a lot of "finds" into question.

 

That's not a Found It log, that's a note. Did she later claim a find?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...