Jump to content

The New Numbers Game


Recommended Posts

It was a nice try... Just a kick in the pants to remind folks that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances when you find a cache. It is easy to "label" someone a cheat isn't it? Drawer slams shut...

 

P.S. I believe he found this cache on his own, without help from the owner. But if I sat around reading other people's logs all day, I could have interpreted it as cheating.

Link to comment

December 10, 2005 by Criminal (318 found)

Found this one on a cache maintenance visit with the owner. It takes some technique to retrieve it. Thanks!

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Is not finding a cache with the owner cheating/lying? A bit hypocritical...

Not necessarily. Consider this hypothetical: I'm visiting Criminal's area and we meet up for lunch. Nearby, is one of his caches that he's especially proud of. He dares me to try to find it. I punch the coords into my GPSr and off we go.

 

I look for that thing forever before finally finding it. Meanwhile, he's laughing his butt off.

It's like you know me! :laughing:

Link to comment

It was a nice try... Just a kick in the pants to remind folks that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances when you find a cache. It is easy to "label" someone a cheat isn't it? Drawer slams shut...

 

P.S. I believe he found this cache on his own, without help from the owner. But if I sat around reading other people's logs all day, I could have interpreted it as cheating.

There were more than a few possibles I did not add to the bookmark list because it wasn't crystal clear they were pocket caches. Multiple event logs are not so ambiguous.

Link to comment

It was a nice try... Just a kick in the pants to remind folks that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances when you find a cache. It is easy to "label" someone a cheat isn't it? Drawer slams shut...

 

P.S. I believe he found this cache on his own, without help from the owner. But if I sat around reading other people's logs all day, I could have interpreted it as cheating.

 

Deep...friggin' deep. Where's the clapping hands emoticon when you need it? :laughing:

Link to comment

It was a nice try... Just a kick in the pants to remind folks that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances when you find a cache. It is easy to "label" someone a cheat isn't it? Drawer slams shut...

 

P.S. I believe he found this cache on his own, without help from the owner. But if I sat around reading other people's logs all day, I could have interpreted it as cheating.

 

If you're going to go to the trouble to make up a sock puppet, at least make the posts worthwhile.

 

Now run along, the adults are having a conversation.

Link to comment

These posts from another thread pertain to my next question on this topic:

Just put a Travel Bug tag on a chain around your neck and use that for cachers to claim a find on...

 

My personal feeling on 'Pocket Caches' is they are rather like autograph collections of those who attended the Event. Did I sign a couple of PCs while at GW4? Sure I did, because I won't be rude to those cachers who came up and asked. Will I add them to my 'finds'? No, because my 'caching ethics' wouldn't allow me to feel right about claiming a find on them.

They were fun to do, and I got to meet and chat with several cachers because of it. So there WAS some good that came of them.

 

Ethics has nothing to do with it for me. I signed 'em all too with no intention of logging them save ONE. I got my "license to chill" card just minutes before I proposed to The Snoogstress. I was in fact, still wearing the coconut bra and Hawaiian lei and had the card in my pocket when I proposed. I would have certainly considered that log a special find except for this:

 

LAME-O-RAMA!!!!!!!!! :(B)<_<:ph34r::huh:

 

Wow, 'by order of Groundspeak', eh? I don't know if I should stand up and salute at that one...

 

Yea, next it will be "TELL ME WHERE THE REBEL BASE IS OR WE WILL DESTROY YOUR PLANET!" [/bREATHING]

 

OKAY cache police tell me if I'm a cheater.......

 

I've NOT logged online roughly 1 in every 5 caches that I have found at this point. Currently showing fewer than 400 finds when in fact I'm pushin' 500 if not over. Prolly never will catch up, nor do I care to, but I would have logged THAT pocket cache.

 

It's certanly not to pump my numbers as my NEFGA pals will attest since about 70 or more of those unlogged caches happened at GW3...... 36 of which were in the company of over 30 others...........

 

Cheater or no? I'm just beggin' to be judged. Give me your best shot. Let's pretend that cache wasn't archived and locked.... :laughing:

Link to comment

LOL -

 

One cache = One log

 

Why is this so difficult for you folks to figure out?

 

I love these threads. Much adieu about nothing....

 

Get a life, get over it, move on!

 

 

Right now you've got a current president that hates the environment, doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground, and is fighing a war that no one wants.

 

Yet...

 

All you people can do is cry about people that log physical caches at events?

 

I love this country and how we have our priorities arranged.

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

LOL -

 

One cache = One log

 

Why is this so difficult for you folks to figure out?

 

I love these threads. Much adieu about nothing....

 

Get a life, get over it, move on!

 

 

Right now you've got a current president that hates the environment, doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground, and is fighing a war that no one wants.

 

Yet...

 

All you people can do is cry about people that log physical caches at events?

 

I love this country and how we have our priorities arranged.

 

:laughing:

 

I thought this was about caching. If it bugs you that much, you can always log off. <_<

Link to comment

Dang, I missed the sock washing party.

 

Well I'll pull out a previous posting.

 

Are there any variations in the game?

 

YES! We strongly encourage it, actually. Geocaching is a game that constantly reinvents itself, and the rules are very flexible. If you have a new idea on how to place a cache, or a new game using GPS units, we'd love to hear about it.

 

You forgot to bold this part: we'd love to hear about it.

 

Translation: Before you decide for yourself on how to play the game here, you should should involve Groundspeak.

Link to comment

Maybe they could make "pocket caches" a 14th icon on the "Cache Type" list, like virtuals, traditionals, events, webcams...etc. That way, the person "placing" the cache (in their pocket!) could declare it as such, avoiding any potential misunderstanding about whether the cache was actually at the given coordinates. Those opposed to "pocket caches" could look at people's profiles and subtract the number of "pocket caches" they'd done, if they wanted to see how many "proper" caches they'd found.

 

They could even use a little icon of a "snot-rag" on the site to indicate "pocket caches", if they wanted. :laughing:

 

I'm pretty new to all this, so I hope you'll forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn. I'm really only jesting. Mostly. :ph34r: I don't have a real strong opinion on this one way or the other. I did a couple of the "pocket" caches at GW4, not previously having heard about whether or not there was any rule against them. These are ones that literally came to *me* - I didn't go around looking for them. I hadn't realized such a thing existed. It felt a *little* cheesy logging them - too easy, really - but that didn't stop me from logging them. The way I saw it, they weren't any less cheesy than some of the caches I've logged when I've hopped out of a car to find a cache in an obvious hiding spot. And they weren't really any easier that the ones I've logged even though someone else in a group I was caching with had found them and were squealing over them before I'd even gotten close enough to see where the cache was hidden. <_<

 

And it actually did take a -little- bit of effort, as I saw it, for me to find these "pocket caches". As a naturally shy person, I often find it difficult to carry on a conversation with folks I haven't met before or don't know very well. In the instances where I found "pocket caches", I actually had to meet and converse with the people carrying them long enough for them to reveal to me that they had a cache in their pocket (and were happy to see me!). I didn't know who had caches and who didn't (or even that the potential was there) when I first got to GW4, and literally met and spoke with -dozens- of people (a real feat for me, as well as a lot of fun), so I don't feel too bad about logging the 2-3 pocket caches that I "found".

 

One cache that has since been declared a "pocket" cache, the "Set On You" cache by Sandbassking and Queen, was a sheet of paper on which was listed 20 "icebreaker" activities. The idea was to get folks at GW4 to tell you "boxers or briefs", "cat or dog person" or do things like compare shoe sizes, call you on your cell phone, or yell "Huckle Buckle Beanstalks" before signing your sheet beside the requirement they'd completed. In my opinion, this took a lot more creativity on the part of the cache creators than many of the more traditional caches I've logged. And it required a lot more of me, initiative-wise, to complete and "find" it. And yet, when I went to log it on geocaching.com, I found it had been locked, due to it having been ruled a "pocket cache". I was disappointed, but I'll live. (I saved the sheet, and have added it to my GeoScapbook for posterity - as a reminder that it -can- be fun to go up to random people and ask them to do silly things, and as possible blackmail fodder later) :(

 

Anyway - my .02 ended up being quite a bit more. I hope I haven't offended anyone. It certainly wasn't my intention. And I apologize if I've re-hashed anything that's already been said - I'll admit I jumped in without reading the entire thread first.

 

Happy Caching!

 

Valerie (wowieann)

 

No one else quoted this excellent and very positive post, so I will. :huh:

 

Thank you Valerie. Being so new the the sport and these forums, I think your point of view is even more valid than some jaded old timers in here.

 

Folks, new cacher's enthusiasm is one of the reasons I like events so much. I knew we had a new event junkie when I finally met her at the second event I saw her at. (Would have met her at the first one, but had to leave early for work....)

Link to comment

 

Right now you've got a current president that hates the environment, doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground, and is fighing a war that no one wants.

 

Yet...

 

All you people can do is cry about people that log physical caches at events?

 

I love this country and how we have our priorities arranged.

 

:laughing:

 

And a thousand babies an hour being killed. And two hundred unknown species becoming extinct in the rainforest. And a thousand tons a minute of polar ice cap melting. And two hundred people an hour dying of AIDS. And ..... And....

 

I guess some people just have to push their personal agenda ANYWHERE they can get a soap box. Topic be darned.

 

Whay doesn't somebody CLOSE this crazy thing?

Link to comment

But the other "game" isn't geocaching. I don't know what you want to call it ..."Meet Folks", "Bag a Smiley", "Numbers Madness" - but it no longer involves using a GPS to find a hidden container. I'm fine if the others want to play that game, but why do they have to do it on a geocaching website?

 

Maybe it would fall under a waymark?

 

 

 

:laughing:

 

Why doesn't geocaching.com just require that pocket snot be approved and published, and green Signal the Frog's son icon posted for a "pocket snot find" and those numbers be counted. This will make the Numbers Ho community happy and show the world who counts snot and who counts not.

 

I for one would rather pal around with Captain Clorox and his purple friends than have the little green icon on my Geocaches Found list.

 

As to the question of numbers counting: Of course the numbers matter to you and I both. If they didn't, we wouldn't go out when we can to cache. We wouldn't group unfound caches next to the one we really want and get those while in the area. When we fill our gas tanks, how many Smileys does that represent? And when we DNF, don't we recalculate the "cost" of a trip based on the total number of finds from that day and NOT the total number of caches that we visit (including our own)?

 

Personally, when I look at some of the top cachers (not all) in Texas, knowing how some of their numbers get accumulated, I multiply by a factor of about .80 to see what a reasonable count is for that cacher. One of those very cachers is the head of the whining committee that suggests that these incredulous activities be allowed.

 

Also, why doesn't someone suggest to geocaching.com that when a cache is archived, NO additional cache finds are allowed to be posted?

 

This entire discussion boils down to the guidelines established by geocaching.com. I play the game under the same rules that all others play by, except for the creative ways that some others discover to log finds! If the current guidelines need revision, why aren't those revisions suggested and considered BEFORE individual cachers decide on their own what is right and what is wrong? Was it not in extremely bad form that relatively new cachers are making decisions about how to hold a mega event, where some of those decisions cause archival of some long-standing caches, and there is NO accountability to either those planners OR the cache owners themselves???

 

I think that it was best said that the integrity of game is what is being questioned here. We clearly see those who love the game, who hopes that it survives. We also clearly have seen that there are others who appear to love the game so much that any change to make the game "more fun" is acceptable and should be done WITHOUT approval. I personally do not believe that the court of public opinion matters to this last group.

 

We sit here hoping that those with the most experience in this game step up and express concerns with this loss in integrity. I have seen several. At the same time, we see several from this group who seem to be the problem and NOT the solution.

 

When I joined this game ten months ago, a find meant that I walked out and physically located the valid cache, signed the field log, and then posted an online log. At the same time, a valid cache meant an active, published cache "in good standing." This is possibly the real issue here. There are no guidelines that govern the cache post publication. Sure, there are guidelines that allowed the cache to be approved for publication, but following that date it becomes the responsibility of the cache owner and the local approver when contacted. We are now starting to see those needed guidelines being developed and enforced.

 

Geocaching.com - We NEED to KNOW the RULES.

geocachers - We NEED to FOLLOW the RULES.

 

-period-

Link to comment

In regards to the sock puppets accusation against Criminal:

 

What happens if you go to the cache with the owner, identify the hiding spot and then the owner looks for the cache and can't find it. Then you take a shot at finding the cache and do? Do I get an extra smiley for that? Yes, some weird things can happen. Most of what I've seen does not fall under that tho. It's readily apparent what is going on.

 

BTW: yes, the situation I describe above really happened. I logged it once, as is only right. I identified the hiding spot and found the cache after the owner said that it was gone.

Link to comment

 

Is not finding a cache with the owner cheating/lying? A bit hypocritical...

 

No, unless the owner shows the person where it is. My wife has a number of finds on my caches when I went on a maint visit. She follows the GPS and I tag along. When we get to ground zero I sit down and get a good bit of entertainment while she looks. She's even had to log a few DNFs because she gave up and I had to show her where it was.

Link to comment

 

Is not finding a cache with the owner cheating/lying? A bit hypocritical...

 

No, unless the owner shows the person where it is. My wife has a number of finds on my caches when I went on a maint visit. She follows the GPS and I tag along. When we get to ground zero I sit down and get a good bit of entertainment while she looks. She's even had to log a few DNFs because she gave up and I had to show her where it was.

A cacher came down from Northern Colorado a few months ago. We went to my nearest cache so he could find one of mine befroe we set out on the trail for the caches I hadn't found yet. I let the other cacher lead the way so he could look around for my cache. After a few minutes of watching him search, i realized my cache wasn't where it was supposed to be. We both spent about 20 minutes searching the area before he finally discovered it about 20 feet away from my hiding spot. My reward wasn't counting it is a "find". My reward was not having to replace the cache. I already had credit for hiding it, why take credit twice by logging a smilie?

Link to comment

 

Right now you've got a current president that hates the environment, doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground, and is fighing a war that no one wants.

 

 

People like this make me puke.

 

And they are teachers to boot.

 

God help us all.

Link to comment
It's certanly not to pump my numbers as my NEFGA pals will attest since about 70 or more of those unlogged caches happened at GW3...... 36 of which were in the company of over 30 others...........

 

Cheater or no? I'm just beggin' to be judged. Give me your best shot. Let's pretend that cache wasn't archived and locked.... <_<

 

I'll back Snoogens up on that claim. He took his brand new Xterra on the GW3 4X4 run through the Osceola National Forest with us last year. I'll give him credit for following us crazy Jeepers through the mud, sand and 2 1/2 to 3 feet of standing water in some places on the trail. What he hasn't taken credit for is any of the 36 caches we found during out 10 hour and 40 some odd mile adventure in the swamp and woods.

Link to comment

Caching is more than what is found at the end of a journey but the journey itself. The community of cachers you meet along the way is at the heart of the journey. Here is a place where politics and religous preference is set aside for people to enjoy the comraderie, the joy of finding new friends, and creating new stories that last for lifetimes.

 

Caching creates choices that teach us that not always is the path straight or in the direction you first perceived. But you can always choose to seek or not. To allow others to pursue what they choose knowing that the joy is a personal one should remain the only rule to guide each of us on our caching journeys.

 

How can pocket caches be so bad? They bring people together. To meet, to learn and to share. There have always been smiles and good memories of those that I met. It matters not to me nor should it to you that the cache was in someone's pocket. What should matter is that people were gathered together to share this experience and to promote the human community. And that they chose to do this in a manner that harmed no one.

 

When a few begin to take away the choices of others in order to force a single perception is when the path becomes less desirable. I ask only that you allow the evolution of this sport to follow whatever course it chooses, remain amazed at its transformations, and make your choices your own as to which ones you seek.

Link to comment
It's certanly not to pump my numbers as my NEFGA pals will attest since about 70 or more of those unlogged caches happened at GW3...... 36 of which were in the company of over 30 others...........

 

Cheater or no? I'm just beggin' to be judged. Give me your best shot. Let's pretend that cache wasn't archived and locked.... <_<

 

I'll back Snoogens up on that claim. He took his brand new Xterra on the GW3 4X4 run through the Osceola National Forest with us last year. I'll give him credit for following us crazy Jeepers through the mud, sand and 2 1/2 to 3 feet of standing water in some places on the trail. What he hasn't taken credit for is any of the 36 caches we found during out 10 hour and 40 some odd mile adventure in the swamp and woods.

 

It was the BEST day of cachin' I've ever had. I was even quoted in Today's Cacher commenting on it. I may still log them all some day, but I have the memory and that's what really matters. :D:P

Link to comment

Caching is more than what is found at the end of a journey but the journey itself. The community of cachers you meet along the way is at the heart of the journey. Here is a place where politics and religous preference is set aside for people to enjoy the comraderie, the joy of finding new friends, and creating new stories that last for lifetimes.

 

Caching creates choices that teach us that not always is the path straight or in the direction you first perceived. But you can always choose to seek or not. To allow others to pursue what they choose knowing that the joy is a personal one should remain the only rule to guide each of us on our caching journeys.

 

How can pocket caches be so bad? They bring people together. To meet, to learn and to share. There have always been smiles and good memories of those that I met. It matters not to me nor should it to you that the cache was in someone's pocket. What should matter is that people were gathered together to share this experience and to promote the human community. And that they chose to do this in a manner that harmed no one.

 

When a few begin to take away the choices of others in order to force a single perception is when the path becomes less desirable. I ask only that you allow the evolution of this sport to follow whatever course it chooses, remain amazed at its transformations, and make your choices your own as to which ones you seek.

Having read through this and other threads about the problems caused by GW4, I do not recall anybody saying that pocket caches should be banned per se. What is objectionable is the logging on GC.com of "finds" of things that do not meet the guidelines of GC.com. Nor do many object to you playing the game your way. What is objectionable is trying to get credit for things that do not meet the guidelines of GC.com.

Link to comment

 

OKAY cache police tell me if I'm a cheater.......

 

I've NOT logged online roughly 1 in every 5 caches that I have found at this point. Currently showing fewer than 400 finds when in fact I'm pushin' 500 if not over. Prolly never will catch up, nor do I care to, but I would have logged THAT pocket cache.

 

It's certanly not to pump my numbers as my NEFGA pals will attest since about 70 or more of those unlogged caches happened at GW3...... 36 of which were in the company of over 30 others...........

 

Cheater or no? I'm just beggin' to be judged. Give me your best shot. Let's pretend that cache wasn't archived and locked.... <_<

 

Snoogans you are a man after my own heart.... I don't have you beat in your "un-posted finds" ratio but I have upped you in the numbers.... I have around 300 caches I have yet to log going back about 3 or 4 months. I definitely WILL log them because it allows me to re-live my caching times. For those who will check.... not every one of my logs is unique. I have been known to cut and paste when my feeble brain fails to recall anything outstanding about a cache. On the other hand, I am a very slow writer hence the backlog. Does that make me a cheater too? On several occasions, a cacher has gotten angry with me because of my slowness to post.... does the fact that someone doesn't like that aspect of my caching experience make me a cheater or a liar too?

 

just checking.....

Edited by paintfiction
Link to comment

Having read through this and other threads about the problems caused by GW4, I do not recall anybody saying that pocket caches should be banned per se. What is objectionable is the logging on GC.com of "finds" of things that do not meet the guidelines of GC.com. Nor do many object to you playing the game your way. What is objectionable is trying to get credit for things that do not meet the guidelines of GC.com.

 

May 30 by CO Admin (4 found)

These caches are archived by order of Groundspeak.

 

Yes, they were banned regardless of what you have read. The finds in many cases were on approved caches that were active and were done in a way that was previously acceptable to Groundspeak if not explicitly then at the very least by not playing cache cops. Some were even told to log finds in that manner by Groundspeak e.g. WGA temporary event caches. (I won't argue the merits of individual caches or finds. Some were obvious skirts of the guidelines, others were legitimate caches that were AND STILL ARE within the guidelines - they were all treated the same - poorly)

 

Some interpret the guidelines very narrowly, some with more freedom for the players - both hiders and finders. What I see as the big issue here is that those with the narrow view are treating the other end of the spectrum with hate and derision by calling them liars and cheats when the reality is nothing like that except in the rare, odd instance. I have always been taught by those far wiser than I that a proper and respectful argument never degenerates into name calling. Which is why you will not see me sink to that level.

 

Just because someone says that a find or hide "do(es) not meet the guidelines" neither tells the whole story nor mean it is true.

Edited by paintfiction
Link to comment

 

Having read through this and other threads about the problems caused by GW4, I do not recall anybody saying that pocket caches should be banned per se. What is objectionable is the logging on GC.com of "finds" of things that do not meet the guidelines of GC.com. Nor do many object to you playing the game your way. What is objectionable is trying to get credit for things that do not meet the guidelines of GC.com.

 

Guidlines? More like Gestopic rules. And that is my point. Let this sport evolve. There will always be caches that require a hike to a location that is memorable as well as those that are not as memorable. Just let people play and enjoy. If you listen to the whiners and to those that perceive their opinion comes from a higher order, then everyone loses.

Link to comment

 

Having read through this and other threads about the problems caused by GW4, I do not recall anybody saying that pocket caches should be banned per se. What is objectionable is the logging on GC.com of "finds" of things that do not meet the guidelines of GC.com. Nor do many object to you playing the game your way. What is objectionable is trying to get credit for things that do not meet the guidelines of GC.com.

 

Guidlines? More like Gestopic rules. And that is my point. Let this sport evolve. There will always be caches that require a hike to a location that is memorable as well as those that are not as memorable. Just let people play and enjoy. If you listen to the whiners and to those that perceive their opinion comes from a higher order, then everyone loses.

 

For those wanting to see the sport evolve (as in more cache types, etc.) you may not be looking at the right publishing site to see that happen as present trends have indicated. Not bashing Groundspeak here as they offer more services, bells and whistles included than any other site presently and all at a very reasonable (almost free) sum. But it seems that, among other reasons they feel the need to protect themselves from any forseeable liability and they certainly they have the right to do so.

 

There is a huge fuss right now over pocket caches at GW4 as you may be aware. Fine, they are clearly moveable caches and therefore disallowed. What to do? Get Groundspeak to change the rules (guidelines)? Probably not going to happen as I said before. Many of us want to see virtuals, locationless caches and maybe even webcams brought back. Probably not going to happen. So, we can now just content ourselves to the cache types that are presently allowed or use another site that allows them.

 

Let this sport evolve.

 

Some folks think this "evolution" is really "deterioration."

 

Evolution tangents have come and gone. If some of these tangents had been left unchecked the hobby would have evolved into nothing like it was originally.

 

Originally? The first cache was a half buried bucket with food and a weapon. Clearly some evolution was in order. There are many of us who want to do caches that don't strictly comply with the purist definition that I have been seeing a lot of lately. Come on, this sport isn't that old that we should look at it it like some venerated artifact whose tennants were set down by our forefathers and are inscribed in stone. I am just saying that clealy some people want to do other cache types and as demonstrated by GW4.

Edited by Bill & Tammy
Link to comment
Originally? The first cache was a half buried bucket with food and a weapon. Clearly some evolution was in order.

 

Ah, yes. The standard retort.

 

I'm not talking The Original Stash. I'm talking the feel of the caches in the early days. You know, when they actually had trade items and were at well thought-out places. Like the majority of the low numbered caches. You know, the examples are still here to be reviewed.

 

When we entered into the hobby the majority of caches placed were regulars in interesting places. In fact, we found quite a few micros which had trade items--something nearly unheard of today. It was rare for us to go blindly from cache to cache and not find something interesting. Today, some metro areas are so saturated with second rate caches it's pathetic.

Link to comment

Having read through this and other threads about the problems caused by GW4, I do not recall anybody saying that pocket caches should be banned per se. What is objectionable is the logging on GC.com of "finds" of things that do not meet the guidelines of GC.com. Nor do many object to you playing the game your way. What is objectionable is trying to get credit for things that do not meet the guidelines of GC.com.

 

May 30 by CO Admin (4 found)

These caches are archived by order of Groundspeak.

 

Yes, they were banned regardless of what you have read. The finds in many cases were on approved caches that were active and were done in a way that was previously acceptable to Groundspeak if not explicitly then at the very least by not playing cache cops. Some were even told to log finds in that manner by Groundspeak e.g. WGA temporary event caches. (I won't argue the merits of individual caches or finds. Some were obvious skirts of the guidelines, others were legitimate caches that were AND STILL ARE within the guidelines - they were all treated the same - poorly)

 

Some interpret the guidelines very narrowly, some with more freedom for the players - both hiders and finders. What I see as the big issue here is that those with the narrow view are treating the other end of the spectrum with hate and derision by calling them liars and cheats when the reality is nothing like that except in the rare, odd instance. I have always been taught by those far wiser than I that a proper and respectful argument never degenerates into name calling. Which is why you will not see me sink to that level.

 

Just because someone says that a find or hide "do(es) not meet the guidelines" neither tells the whole story nor mean it is true.

 

I don't much care what people say about anything. Folks will gripe about anything no matter what it is. That's out of way. We had a blast with the temporary caches at GW4 You actually had to go from person to person to find them. If you saw something a little out of the ordinary you asked them if that was a cache. You got to meet folks that you may not have if you hadn't been a little brave and gone to talk to them. On a couple of the temps we got in long conversations about caches we had found of theirs and just generally had a good time. We didn't get to log them because they were already archived by the time we got home. Lighten up folks and just enjoy geocaching for what it is... a game to enjoy. I was inspired by Paint's post and surely not by most of the others in this thread.

Link to comment

... Lighten up folks and just enjoy geocaching for what it is... a game to enjoy. ...

horsegeeks, you are right, it is a game to enjoy. :anitongue:

 

But as with all other games involving more than one player, there are rules to follow. If you don't want to follow the rules, then don't expect to get credit for "finds" that are not within the rules/guidelines. Just enjoy the experience of "finding" them. I've enjoyed the experience of visiting a cache more than once, but I only log one "find" per cache. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Originally? The first cache was a half buried bucket with food and a weapon. Clearly some evolution was in order.

 

Ah, yes. The standard retort.

 

I'm not talking The Original Stash. I'm talking the feel of the caches in the early days. You know, when they actually had trade items and were at well thought-out places. Like the majority of the low numbered caches. You know, the examples are still here to be reviewed.

 

When we entered into the hobby the majority of caches placed were regulars in interesting places. In fact, we found quite a few micros which had trade items--something nearly unheard of today. It was rare for us to go blindly from cache to cache and not find something interesting. Today, some metro areas are so saturated with second rate caches it's pathetic.

 

Not to go terribly OT but that is/was certainly not the case in my neck of the woods, most of the caches here that are still around or have been archived circa 2000-2001 are mostly drive and drops in throw-away sandwich savers (one was even in a cardbord shoebox) I can say with some confidence the quality of caches and locations have vastly improved since "the early days". Change and evolution is inevitable, some good, some less so but I still feel that blanket restrictions that overly inhibit the creativity of those who particpate should be questioned. Said much before, but I will say it again: if you don't like micros, virtiuals, etc., etc. don't place or hunt them as with other cache types.

Link to comment

<snip>

Many of us want to see virtuals, locationless caches and maybe even webcams brought back. Probably not going to happen. So, we can now just content ourselves to the cache types that are presently allowed or use another site that allows them.

<snip>

Virtual, locationless and webcam caches are alive and well at Waymarking.com. Just don't expect a find at WM.com to increase your find count at GC.com.

Link to comment
Said much before, but I will say it again: if you don't like micros, virtiuals, etc., etc. don't place or hunt them as with other cache types.

 

Saying it again and again doesn't matter--you're still missing the point. It has nothing to do with type or size. It's about quality.

Link to comment
There are many of us who want to do caches that don't strictly comply with the purist definition that I have been seeing a lot of lately.

 

Forgive us purists for thinking that this sport is about using a GPS to find things.

 

OK... forcing me to take this OT again... so I don't know, I did quite well in my early geocaching days without one (a GPSr), and with GoogleEarth it is a fairly simple with to locate the postion of a traditional hide now anyway.

 

Of course I believe you are referring to pocket caches which seem to be a new variation on the now archived moving cache. One thing that keeps reoccurring to me in this is that fact that Groundspeak is a company and not a sanctioning body for this sport. Sometimes because of the influence of Groundspeak and its' widespread domination of the sport/hobby we somehow believe that it is indeed a sanctioning body.

 

Again, it is clear that some people who enjoy geocaching want pocket caches it seems, are their desires to be silenced? Will narrow definitions of geocaching held by some be allowed to dictate to everyone how they should engage in the activity? I suppose it remains to be seen. Just to illuminate how I stand on "pocket caches" anyway... no, I think at the present they are technically moving caches and should not be logged on this site. But, perhaps someday we will see a sanctioning body look into these things and take the game outside of the interests of one particular company or entity.

Link to comment

 

Of course I believe you are referring to pocket caches which seem to be a new variation on the now archived moving cache. One thing that keeps reoccurring to me in this is that fact that Groundspeak is a company and not a sanctioning body for this sport. Sometimes because of the influence of Groundspeak and its' widespread domination of the sport/hobby we somehow believe that it is indeed a sanctioning body.

 

 

Maybe it should be a sanctioning body. I'de pay dues to it if they could keep the fire storms, like the one we saw this past week, from happening.

Link to comment

 

Having read through this and other threads about the problems caused by GW4, I do not recall anybody saying that pocket caches should be banned per se. What is objectionable is the logging on GC.com of "finds" of things that do not meet the guidelines of GC.com. Nor do many object to you playing the game your way. What is objectionable is trying to get credit for things that do not meet the guidelines of GC.com.

 

Guidlines? More like Gestopic rules. And that is my point. Let this sport evolve. There will always be caches that require a hike to a location that is memorable as well as those that are not as memorable. Just let people play and enjoy. If you listen to the whiners and to those that perceive their opinion comes from a higher order, then everyone loses.

Well, why don't you just associate all those who have helped shape the GC.com guidelines over the years to Nazi terrorists. Oh wait, you just did. Nevermind.

 

The game and this website has evolved, is evolving and I have no doubt that it will continue to evolve. Pocket caches were a good experiment in the evolution of the game. But the experiment has apparently has gone on for far too long and can no longer hide in the shadows. Now is the time that pocket cahces need to be accepted by GC.com and added to the website as a valid cache type, find a home somewhere else on the internet, or die. Those who think that pocket caches can continue to skirt the rules by hidding in the shadows are disillusioned and will only bring about the demise of pocket cahces that much sooner.

Link to comment

<snip>

Again, it is clear that some people who enjoy geocaching want pocket caches it seems, are their desires to be silenced? Will narrow definitions of geocaching held by some be allowed to dictate to everyone how they should engage in the activity? I suppose it remains to be seen. Just to illuminate how I stand on "pocket caches" anyway... no, I think at the present they are technically moving caches and should not be logged on this site. But, perhaps someday we will see a sanctioning body look into these things and take the game outside of the interests of one particular company or entity.

 

The correct way to go about things is to come up with an idea of how pocket caches can work with the website and then propose the change to TPTB. The current way and wrong way is to insist to all that pocket cache be recognised as they are now and to allow them to remain that way.

Link to comment

I don't think I've seen this mentioned before: did you ever wonder why you never see DNFs for temporary caches? I mean if they are just the same as a regular cache, just temporary- wouldn't you think that some of them have been DNFd somewhere, at some time? I know you can't even log a DNF on an event or CITO event now, but you used to be able to and you could still log a note for it. Furthermore, sometimes they use an active or archived regular cache to log finds, but I don't ever recall seeing one that said ' :D Nope, couldn't find xxx temp cache'. Has anyone ever DNFd a pocket cache either? How about a retirement cache? Just something to ponder. :)

Link to comment
There are many of us who want to do caches that don't strictly comply with the purist definition that I have been seeing a lot of lately.

 

Forgive us purists for thinking that this sport is about using a GPS to find things.

 

Amen

Link to comment

In an e-mail correspondence with drat19, he replied in part with:

......Anyway, if you'd like, go ahead and post a reply on that Numbers Game thread and indicate that "I corresponded 1:1 with drat19 and he told me he's sticking to his word that he's staying off the forums for a while, and would one of the moderators please close this thread, because I think it has served its purpose for discussion and now it's a dead horse", or whatever such variation of that that you wish.

 

Thanks for checking in, and again, if I hadn't announced my intention publicly I would have been glad to do it myself, promise.

 

-Dave R. ('drat19')

 

 

Mods?

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Threads can be closed by the topic originator at any time, by clicking on the Moderation Options box at the lower left of the thread display screen, then selecting "Close Topic," and then clicking on the "Go" button. No post is required in order to do this.

Link to comment

Threads can be closed by the topic originator at any time, by clicking on the Moderation Options box at the lower left of the thread display screen, then selecting "Close Topic," and then clicking on the "Go" button. No post is required in order to do this.

He posted another thread that indicated his intentions to take a break, and not go in here for awhile. He doesnt want to go back on his word. You can send him a e-mail to verify, if you wish. Its bad enough that I tempted him to come back in here. :)

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

These heated discussions about "numbers" have convinced me that I must be missing out on something. Could it be that:

 

Jeremy is paying bonuses to cachers with high numbers ... $5000, $10,000 or more?

 

Male cachers with high numbers are relentlessly stalked by beautiful young Geo-groupies, eager to make ... aquaintance?

 

Hilton Hotels and Delta AL have joined to give free Hawaii vacations to the 10 Geocachers with the highest numbers?

 

Garmin and Magellan are bidding over $1,000,000 for an endorsement contract to the high number Geocacher?

 

OK, which is it? ... or are they all true?

Edited by CharlieP
Link to comment

I don't think I've seen this mentioned before: did you ever wonder why you never see DNFs for temporary caches? I mean if they are just the same as a regular cache, just temporary- wouldn't you think that some of them have been DNFd somewhere, at some time? I know you can't even log a DNF on an event or CITO event now, but you used to be able to and you could still log a note for it. Furthermore, sometimes they use an active or archived regular cache to log finds, but I don't ever recall seeing one that said ' :D Nope, couldn't find xxx temp cache'. Has anyone ever DNFd a pocket cache either? How about a retirement cache? Just something to ponder. :)

 

Our intentions were to attend this Event and we knew exactly where it was being held since we had been to this place before. Ended up that my work got in the way and we didn't get to make it. Hmmmm, im thinking i might be the only one that has ever logged a DNF for an Event. :D

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

These heated discussions about "numbers" have convinced me that I must be missing out on something. Could it be that:

 

Jeremy is paying bonuses to cachers with high numbers ... $5000, $10,000 or more?

 

Male cachers with high numbers are relentlessly stalked by beautiful young Geo-groupies, eager to make ... aquaintance?

 

Hilton Hotels and Delta AL have joined to give free Hawaii vacations to the 10 Geocachers with the highest numbers?

 

Garmin and Magellan are bidding over $1,000,000 for an endorsement contract to the high number Geocacher?

 

OK, which is it? ... or are they all true?

 

I'm crying foul!!!. Those of us who play by the rules don't stand a chance to win any of these fabulous prizes! :):antenna::D:D

Link to comment

Hello, I don't spend a lot of time on forums and a dozen smileys don't make a cacher. But, after reading the recently closed topics and a lot of profiles, I see that there are a lot of fine cachers here and some that need to go out and find a few more caches and write fewer posts on the forums. I was at GWIII and GWIV. (this is my opinion) :)

Link to comment
Originally? The first cache was a half buried bucket with food and a weapon. Clearly some evolution was in order.

 

Ah, yes. The standard retort.

 

I'm not talking The Original Stash. I'm talking the feel of the caches in the early days. You know, when they actually had trade items and were at well thought-out places. Like the majority of the low numbered caches. You know, the examples are still here to be reviewed.

 

 

Oh man... talk about revisionist history.

 

My first find was a 3x5 card box on the side of a clear cut mountain with a Sunny Delight drink in it. My second find had a roll of toilet paper in it and half chewed gum about 100ft from a campsite. Spare me your romanticizing of the activity "back then."

 

When I was your age sonny...

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