Jump to content

GeoEVOLUTION Vs. GeoCREATIONISM


Snoogans
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Okay, in my thread exploring the causes of angst in days gone bye, we identified that one of the branches for our Tree of Angst visualization was the Theory of Geocaching Evolution. Another branch, it seems, is that of the GeoCreationists.

 

 

In this thread I'd like to define exactly what these two ideals are and what they might mean to you, because it keeps croping up in discussions and I would like to understand it more.

 

 

On one side we have a subset of geocachers who see a logical progression of geocaching growing and diversifying.

 

 

On the other we have a subset of geocachers who see geocaching straying from an intended path. (Think intelligent design from on high.) Not all of this subset are calling for rule changes to level the playing field, but it is getting mentioned more often.

 

 

Which side of the fence are you on? Are you ON the fence?

 

 

What do these issues mean to you?

 

 

I'm a bit of a fence sitter here, but I can firmly place a toe on either side of the fence when it makes sense to me to do so. :P

 

 

This is a very broad topic. Have fun with it and tryyy not to let it get ugly. <_<

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

One one side we have a subset of geocachers who see a logical progression of geocaching growing and diversifying.

That is me.

 

I'm all for some good creativity, and will flex the rules to enhance the sport. After all there are few hiders where I hide my caches and I just don't believe in the saturation guide lines for the area that I hide them in.

 

Some will say I'm hogging the mountain, well I'll say get off the couch, quit your whining and go hide some.

Link to comment

I'm firmly on the side of the fence where it is believed that Geocaching has strayed from the original (intended?) path. I had much more fun playing between '02-'04 than I have had since.

 

My various reasons/agendae are well-documented throughout these Forums, so I won't re-state them in great detail here. Suffice it to say, they are all related to changes in the game that have occurred as a result of The New Numbers Game, whose growth directly coincides with the timing of the beginning of my decrease in enjoyment.

Link to comment

GeoNatural Selection would be the best way to describe how Geocaching should grow and change.

 

Not all mutations are for the best. No one would disagree that there are things being done by cachers and to caches that hurt the sport as a whole. Also caching has changed from the days of the first GPS stash. Change is good IF it brings about something that improves whatever it is changing, otherwise it is destructive.

 

We as a group need to learn to see the things that will help the sport/game, and stay the course with them. If we will be willing to look at the sport/game as more than just *my* hobby, and see that we are dependent on others for *our* hobby, we will progress as we should. If a change in the sport makes the game as a whole grow, then, even if you don't like it personally, it is for my good too.

 

Having said that, it doesn't mean that everything that comes along, or the many "local rules" should be allowed blindly. In fact the opposite is true. If a change hurts game in any way, that change should be modified or eliminated. Even if you like to play *your* game your way, if it hurts the sport in any way, it hurts your game too.

 

The bottom line is the game/sport has to change as players, technology, gear and interests change. But to modify the sport for your own whim, well that is a mutation that hurts the whole. In other words a cancer, and must be eliminated. But if we don't change in positive ways the game will die as well. We, as a whole, must be willing to adapt or die. And we as individuals must be willing to sacrifice our personal bias for the sport as whole without losing the reason we started doing it in the first place. FUN

Link to comment
Is it possible for a person to be on both sides of the fence?
Not totally, but if anyone could do it my money would be on you in that horse race. <_<:unsure::P
On one side we have a subset of geocachers who see a logical progression of geocaching growing and diversifying.

 

On the other we have a subset of geocachers who see geocaching straying from an intended path. (Think intelligent design from on high.) Not all of this subset are calling for rule changes to level the playing field, but it is getting mentioned more often.

Certainly, we've seen a logical progression of geocaching's growth and diversification. This has led to many great kinds of caches. We see huge caches and tiny caches. We even had moving caches, virtual caches, and locationless caches, for a while. We've a few people send items across the country to their friends. This spawned travel bugs. A few people started creating personalized coins and leaving them in caches. This spawned geocoins. Puzzle caches, multis, and events all evolved from a soggy bucket buried just off the road and filled with junk. Go figure.

 

We also see geocaching straying from the path, from time-to-time. Moving caches were declared verboten. Virtuals and LCs evolved into Waymarking.com. People tried to sign the outside of caches and were slapped down. Pocket lint was declared wrong and caches were locked due to it. We continue to discuss whether pocket caches and temporary caches (even temporary virts!) should be logged at all on GC.com.

 

So yes, I personally feel that the options given in this thread are not mutually exclusive.

Link to comment

In theology, Creation refers to the concept that all humanity, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole was created by a deity (often referred to as God).

 

In biology, Evolution is the process in which some of a population's inherited traits become more common, at the expense of others, from generation to generation.

 

What we have here is both processes at work.

 

Some things evolved - the game itself. Some things were created - this listing service.

 

However, this service is not what it was when it was created - it is evolving.

 

The game is not now what it was - it is evolving.

 

Creation then can be seen as an event at a point in history, while evolution is the natural progression of change over time.

 

Can't have one without the other... but creation, one might say, stops with a software release, while evolution (the next release) continues forever.

 

Want to really frustrate yourself? Try stopping evolution!

Link to comment
On one side we have a subset of geocachers who see a logical progression of geocaching growing and diversifying.

 

That's me! I enjoy the diversity. When I started geocaching, it was simply using a GPS to find a box (always regular sized) in the woods. Now its expanded to urban and suburban areas and micros and uniquely camoflaged containers have been added to the mix. Additionally, challenging puzzles and other interesting twists used to obtain coordinates have brought some spice to the sport. I also like seeing the sport evolve from where most of the participants were solitary males, to including many females and families.

 

On the other we have a subset of geocachers who see geocaching straying from an intended path.

 

That's me! I've witnessed the sport straying much from too far from it's basic point, which is using a GPS to find things. Most of this is fuled by what Drat19 calls "the new numbers game", which is the pursuit of the almighty smiley at any cost. This has spawned pocket caches, armchair virtual caching, retirement cards and other practices which have nothing to do with finding things with a GPS. These practices might be fun, they might be educational, but they ain't geocaching.

Link to comment
On one side we have a subset of geocachers who see a logical progression of geocaching growing and diversifying.

 

That's me! I enjoy the diversity. When I started geocaching, it was simply using a GPS to find a box (always regular sized) in the woods. Now its expanded to urban and suburban areas and micros and uniquely camoflaged containers have been added to the mix. Additionally, challenging puzzles and other interesting twists used to obtain coordinates have brought some spice to the sport. I also like seeing the sport evolve from where most of the participants were solitary males, to including many females and families.

 

On the other we have a subset of geocachers who see geocaching straying from an intended path.

 

That's me! I've witnessed the sport straying much from too far from it's basic point, which is using a GPS to find things. Most of this is fuled by what Drat19 calls "the new numbers game", which is the pursuit of the almighty smiley at any cost. This has spawned pocket caches, armchair virtual caching, retirement cards and other practices which have nothing to do with finding things with a GPS. These practices might be fun, they might be educational, but they ain't geocaching.

 

Yep, what he said.

Link to comment

In the beginning there was the word.... :P

 

Geocaching, like many other growing hobbies/sports, is changing according to the variables it comes in contact with:

 

Laws (state/local/federal) change - so some places we used to cache we can't anymore.

Incidents occur - 9-11 (changed the way people view what we do~more suspicion)

More people - the more people you have the more opinions on right/wrong, correct/incorrect you will have

 

Heck, even this site is like a government. You can start off with a basic bill of rights (rules) and constitution (charter), but over time it grows and grows and changes occur. Of course this is actually a dictatorship (not in a bad way) with a helping of democracy thrown in. I bet Jeremy could weigh in on how much has changed for him (like it or not) since the beginning.

 

Geocaching is simple in design and concept and hasn't changed. What has changed is this site and the guidelines that govern it and our use of it.

It had to change to keep in accordance the changes in laws and to try and keep the game alive and viable.

 

I wouldn't say that geocaching is deviating from a grand design - the grand design was realized when the 1st cache was found (it had no choice but to grow and change from there).

 

People cannot participate without changing it... people cause change.

 

There are already different churches (websites) and people will drift off to whatever one keeps most inline with their beliefs and ideas. You can stay in your current church and deal with the changes and lobby for your view to be the dominant one, or you can go to a church that matches your beliefs better.

 

That being said... people will find that all things change, no matter how simple you want it to be. The more people you add, the greater the change (in direction and concept).

Link to comment
On the other we have a subset of geocachers who see geocaching straying from an intended path.

 

That's me! I've witnessed the sport straying much from too far from it's basic point, which is using a GPS to find things. Most of this is fuled by what Drat19 calls "the new numbers game", which is the pursuit of the almighty smiley at any cost. This has spawned pocket caches, armchair virtual caching, retirement cards and other practices which have nothing to do with finding things with a GPS. These practices might be fun, they might be educational, but they ain't geocaching.

The New Numbers Game also includes the Micro Spew explosion. In this case (and in contrast to BS's examples above), it IS Geocaching, and the find counts are honest (caches found, log sheets signed, 1 per cache listing), but the explosion and decrease in overall quality is still all about Worshipping at the Altar of the Church of the Almighty Stat.

 

Yep, it's part of the evolution...Darwin may be weeding me out on that one.

Edited by drat19
Link to comment

... These practices might be fun, they might be educational, but they ain't geocaching.

Herein lies the problem! Rigid adherence to 'what once was' denies or inhibits, or worse... ignores, evolution.

 

Is arena football still football? Sure, just an evolved form with slightly different rules.

 

The neat thing about evolution, to loosely paraphrase Darwin's work, is that bad ideas die, good ideas survive, and only time will distinguish between them.

 

If you have some measure of control, as Groundspeak does over this listing service, you can dictate certain things... but you still can't stop it from evolving in ways you simply can't control.

Link to comment

... These practices might be fun, they might be educational, but they ain't geocaching.

Herein lies the problem! Rigid adherence to 'what once was' denies or inhibits, or worse... ignores, evolution.

 

Is arena football still football? Sure, just an evolved form with slightly different rules.

 

The neat thing about evolution, to loosely paraphrase Darwin's work, is that bad ideas die, good ideas survive, and only time will distinguish between them.

 

If you have some measure of control, as Groundspeak does over this listing service, you can dictate certain things... but you still can't stop it from evolving in ways you simply can't control.

 

Arena football is still football. The basic point is the same, one team tries to get that ball over the goal line and the other team tries to stop them. If participants were to set up basketball nets at each end and try to score by putting the ball through the hoop, it may be fun, but it ain't football.

 

Legend has it that American football got its start when someone who was playing soccer picked up the ball and ran with it. It was lots of fun. People really enjoyed it, but it was no longer soccer. It became something else.

Link to comment

Legend has it that American football got its start when someone who was playing soccer picked up the ball and ran with it. It was lots of fun. People really enjoyed it, but it was no longer soccer. It became something else.

 

 

Actually, I believe it stayed Football where it originated. <_<

 

 

We had to rename Football to soccer to make it work for us.

 

 

Hmmmm, to continue the analogy maybe one day folks will think of Terracaching first and forget that it evolved from Geocaching. :P

 

 

Never say NEVER. I hear God listens for that word when he wants to make a joke. :unsure::ph34r:

Link to comment

I see both sides effecting the progression.

 

The first geocachers were techno-geeks if you will. The people that had GPSr's paid a lot of money for something that was only accurate to a football field. These were the folks that had a GPS the day that SA was turned off. Dave Ulmer placed a 5 gallon bucket on the side of the road. No hike required, irt was about the technology, not the scenery or the hike.

 

The next people were the hikers and backpackers. The cost of the GPS's dropped and the hikers used them to track thier hikes and adventures. And they started geocaching.

 

Then the suburbanites started getting GPS's for $100. It was a cool toy and they could find 35mm canisters under lamp posts.

 

Now we have people that are trying to control this growth. Some plant more micros. Others complain about them. Some hide ammo cans on top of hills, others complain about the long walk.

Link to comment

This is just one definition, and I know there's many:

 

Evolution- A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form

 

In nature, evolution normally comes about in response to the environment and results in a better form. Critters near water develop webbed feet. Fish living around coral develop natural camouflage for protection.

 

So, new containers, better camo, different games at events, varied hide techniques, these are all part of the evolution of geocaching- creating a more complex and better form.

 

Unfortunately, alternate logging practices (multi logging, pocket caches, etc) do nothing to create a more complex and better form. (IMHO) No one has proven any redeeming value to these practices, other than we can, and to increase smiley counts.

 

I mention this only because I think that's one area the OP is talking about in the first place when discussing Creationism vs. Evolution.

 

I suppose then, for us fence riders, the question is does the "new" act result in a more complex or better form? If not, it's not evolution, it's regression.

Link to comment

Serouse answer.

 

Geocaching should be free to try out a lot of things.

But somehow we have to be able to pick out what's a dead end.

 

Take Virtuals. Those were caches. Take waypoint.org. That wasn't.

Benchmarking. Not caches, but a great viable branch on the tree of geocaching.

 

GeoHusbandry -- intentional manipulation of GeoEvolution.

Link to comment

In a game that has no score, no real points, and no winners or losers, the question becomes what is an evolution? Is it evolution or devolution?

 

It should be remembered that the game, in the beginning, had a lot of opportunities for growth and change. We saw a lot of creativity with the advent of the virtual caches, locationless, moving caches, (and even micros). These were branches off the main trunk, and like real branches, when they threatened to grow so large as to kill the tree, they were pruned away.

 

If you see an opportunity to evolve the game, I see no problem with changes. But as I like to point out, it’s a game based on the honor system. Seattle believes in community policing, they don’t want to get involved in monitoring the logs. They give a lot of leeway to the cache owner, and rightly so. If you want change, do it. However, if you have to sneak around the current guidelines, rules, and the truth, then you are approaching it from the wrong direction. In other words, if you have to promote deceit (what you say you did in your selection of either Found It or Attended not at all being the truth), then it’s a devolution and will, at some point, destroy the game.

 

You see, once you begin to necessate untruthfulness (and by the same, teach it to new players) the line needs to be moved farther and farther away from the norm. The game, as it was created, handed you a set of coordinates that you used to search for a container. Virtuals eliminated the container, and locationless eliminated the coordinates. Fast forward to today, some have eliminated the container from the hide in traditional caches by ‘awarding’ a find when the container is missing. Others eliminate the entire geocache; page, coordinates, container, everything, by awarding themselves or others ‘finds’ on pocket caches and event caches.

 

What is the future? Does geocaching evolve into something new and exciting, or does it devolve into some slob sitting on his or her recliner logging finds on caches they never even attempted? It’s the line, you see? Geocaching is either about using coordinates to find places or containers, or it’s about collecting as many smileys as you can.

 

If you have seen a demonstration of the new game variation Seattle is creating, it still involves coordinates and locations. Fanny Fatbutt won’t be able to sit on her couch eating bon-bons and play the new game variation. That, to me, says the evolution of the game is going in a very different direction than some defenders of the loose logging rules might want it to.

 

EDIT: Added

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

Ahhh, a topic that I can get behind.

 

Let me enlighten you my loyal Pastafarians:

 

In the beginning, there was matter, anti-matter and carbohydrates.

In my infinite wisdon I created the Earth and everything on it as you now know it.

 

My original disciples were pirates of course. To amuse them I banded together a few extra elements to create Tupperware and placed the first caches in the world for them to find. They did and everybody rejoiced and praised me - as they should have.

 

Later, Dr Atkins was conceived and brought forth his blasphomy upon us. He discovered these caches and made them widely know - and incited a witch-hunt for my followers resulting in a massacre of the pirates and replacement of my caches with lame micros. (As a side effect of killing so many pirates, the global temptertre has risen - see chart below for proof)

 

piratesarecool4.jpg

 

In summary, I created caching and the original cachers and I should have final say in how it elvolves.

If you are confused about what to do or how geocaching should evolve, just ask yourself: WWFSMD?

 

Can I get a RAmen?

 

- Spaghedeity

 

(*No pirates were harmed in the creation of this post)

Link to comment

In a game that has no score, no real points, and no winners or losers, the question becomes what is an evolution? Is it evolution or devolution?

 

It should be remembered that the game, in the beginning, had a lot of opportunities for growth and change. We saw a lot of creativity with the advent of the virtual caches, locationless, (and even micros). These were branches off the main trunk, and like real branches, when they threatened to grow so large as to kill the tree, they were pruned away.

snip - very good analogy

 

Ahhh, a topic that I can get behind.

 

snip

In summary, I created caching and the original cachers and I should have final say in how it elvolves.

If you are confused about what to do or how geocaching should evolve, just ask yourself: WWFSMD?

 

Can I get a RAmen?

 

- Spaghedeity

 

(*No pirates were harmed in the creation of this post)

 

I'll take some red sauce please :P

 

ok, now I'm really confused <_< - I love pasta and I love wandering around in the woods.

Link to comment

Serouse answer.

 

Geocaching should be free to try out a lot of things.

But somehow we have to be able to pick out what's a dead end.

 

Take Virtuals. Those were caches. Take waypoint.org. That wasn't.

Benchmarking. Not caches, but a great viable branch on the tree of geocaching.

Given time, evolution decrees that bad ideas die.

 

If micros are a bad idea, folks will stop looking for them. If Pocket Caches are a bad idea, folks will stop logging them.

 

The virtuals transition to Waymarks is a good example of the control issue I mentioned earlier - TPTB decided they were a bad idea without much regard for what geocachers thought. If that was a good idea Waymarking.com will grow, if not, virtuals will again be listed, here or somewhere else.

 

Folks can rant and rave and try to control things all they want, but evolution will happen despite their best efforts.

 

I know of several cachers with many finds that do not own a GPS. They use maps and compasses; they are geocachers, geocaching! With today's Google Earth I can find caches quite easily without a GPS - if I do, I am still geocaching. Saying then that this game requires a GPS is false.

Link to comment

It's funny that FSM brings up pirates. Old timers will recall a time when some cachers were moving caches and/or their contents to new locations under the guise of "pirates", arguing that it was a "new twist on the game", i.e. an evolution. As it was a mutation that most people wanted nothing to do with, it was culled form the herd.

Link to comment

... No one has proven any redeeming value to these practices, other than we can, and to increase smiley counts....

Exerpt from my post in another thread:

Most Pocket Caches are caches like any other - they just are not listed on geocaching.com.

 

Saying that a Pocket Cache is not a 'real' cache is like saying that those caches listed on other sites aren't 'real'.

 

Pocket Caches are actual containers with logs, hidden at events; attendees are given the coordinates (except for the socialization-intended Pocket Caches which are indeed in someone's pocket), they find (or don't find) the cache, just like any other.

 

If 10 Pocket Caches are hidden at an event and you find eight, you log eight, just like any other cache.

 

Pocket Caches are used for a variety of reasons; they started out and are still commonly used as socialization techniques, ice-breakers to get folks at events to interact and get each other to meet and talk.

 

These are usually something like a bison tube or film can with a log, given at random to attendees to put in their pocket. Attendees approach each other and ask "Is that a cache in your pocket or are you happy to see me", an old Mae West line. If the person asked indeed has the cache he reveals it covertly, the finder signs the log and puts the cache in his own pocket, this to be repeated when he is asked for the cache. In this manner every attendee who chooses to gets to meet and talk to every other attendee. Good stuff!

 

So, a real cache container with a log, you hunt it and sign it, like any other cache. The difference is you can't log it, since it's not listed.

 

Ergo, you log the event once for attending and once for every Pocket Cache you found.

 

One found cache, one log... and almost always more fun than finding a micro in a lamp-post!

 

Folks extended that basic idea to caches hidden just for the event. Groundspeak does not list temporary event caches, so if you want to have an event in restaurant or an area with few caches, Pocket Caches allow you to place them in and about the area just for that event.

 

In all aspects they are 'real' caches, just not listed. The host either allows them or not at his discretion.

 

I use them frequently as a teaching tool. When I give a 'What is Geocaching' presentation I hide caches nearby, teach folks what GPS is, how to enter coords, and how to find a cache. They find it, sign the log, just like any other cache - but it's not listed, so they can't log it. So, log the event.

 

I like to give away stocked ammo box caches, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that's what I like to find. So I give away anywhere from 2 to 10 caches at events. I think door-prize drawings have been done to death, so I hide them and give the attendees the coords. They race or play a game to find them and get to keep the cache to hide themselves. I love it and attendees love it... the proverbial win-win.

 

They found the cache, they should get to log it. It's not listed, so log the event!

 

I like games and prizes at events, and attendees apparently do too, judging by their acceptance and popularity. Folks come from multiple states to attend my events, not because I am worth traveling for but because my events are!

 

One of my favorite alternatives to door-prize drawings (did I mention they're boring and have been done to death? ohmy.gif ) is a Poker run. When having an event in a park hide seven caches with playing cards in opaque envelopes. Give out the coords for these and send attendees off to hunt them. Finders take a card from each cache and return to the event at a time certain. If they found all seven caches they now have seven cards. Open them at once and make the best poker hand you can out of five cards. Prizes are awarded based on the strength of hands. Again, I use ammo box hides and have the last persn on the run collect them, then give them away as the prizes.

 

So, attendees set out with coords, found caches - that's geocaching! Why shouldn't they be allowed to log them, it's a legitimate find.

 

These are just a few of the ways and reasons that Pocket Caches are fun and valuable.

Those are some of the redeeming values, in my book.

Link to comment

On the other we have a subset of geocachers who see geocaching straying from an intended path.

 

The concept of this thread is an interesting one and a different way of looking at the issue. Geocaching was "Created" (who would be the God? Jeremy or Dave Ulmer?) and has been changing. I don't disagree with change at all, as long as the change is confined to the species (ie: Geocaching). We have seen many spinoff species, such as Waymarking, virtuals, etc. The GEO purists see moving them to a different site as maintaining the purity of the sport. The other side would probably rather see them stay at GC.com.

 

Like BrianSnat said, it started as finding a regular size box in the woods. The box sizes have changed, the way of getting to them has changed, but they are still hidden receptacles that contain at least a logbook. Evolution at that scale is fine, but when things evolve to the point that signing someone's forehead is considered a geocache, we've evolved too far. I'm one that believes events should be moved over to Waymarking, because events just don't fit the definition of a geocache. It is, afterall, events that have caused a large part of these problems. People go to the events and see their number of finds as some kind of badge of honor that they wear when meeting other geocachers. There's a reason a large part of this argument revolves around things that occur at events (although most people at most events don't participate in these activities).

 

Bottom Line: Small changes are okay. Changes that alter the original definition of geocaching are not. Person uses listing service to obtain coordinates to a container at a legal location. Person locates the container and signs the logbook. Person logs the find ***ONCE*** online. If a change alters this simple definition, then it just ain't geocaching anymore.

Link to comment

Take Virtuals. Those were caches.

 

Virtuals were naturally selected out because they were in fact NOT geocaches. Thank goodness geoGod is on my side on this one. GeoGod just has a little too much patience and instead needs to pick up his iron sceptre and end this once and for all. The problem will continue to grow and spread like a cancer until something is done from the top to stop it.

Link to comment

However, if you have to sneak around the current guidelines, rules, and the truth, then you are approaching it from the wrong direction.

On that point we agree - but since we are doing Pocket Caches as an event activity, giving out the coords to all who attend, letting anyone hunt them that chooses to, posting them online in a public forum and having them show in our stats if we use tools like itsnotaboutthenumbers, how are we decieving anyone? It's right out in the open! <_<

 

Sneaking around the guidelines? Bullhonkery! The Reviewers that monitor this game for compliance are there, even participating, in Pocket Caches and it has been explained several time that there is no guideline prohibiting the multiple event logging of Pocket caches! :P

 

The constant attempt to call us liars and cheats because we do something you don't like negates the value of the rest of your arguments that might contain some sense.

Link to comment

Take Virtuals. Those were caches.

 

Virtuals were naturally selected out because they were in fact NOT geocaches. Thank goodness geoGod is on my side on this one. GeoGod just has a little too much patience and instead needs to pick up his iron sceptre and end this once and for all. The problem will continue to grow and spread like a cancer until something is done from the top to stop it.

I submit that this is incorrect.

 

It is my belief that Jeremy and a few powerful Reviewers killed them because they did not like them.

 

That is in no way natural selection.

Link to comment

The New Numbers Game also includes the Micro Spew explosion. In this case (and in contrast to BS's examples above), it IS Geocaching, and the find counts are honest (caches found, log sheets signed, 1 per cache listing), but the explosion and decrease in overall quality is still all about Worshipping at the Altar of the Church of the Almighty Stat.

 

I hunt micros along with many different cache types. It's not as enjoyable as poking around in the woods or even better, poking around the woods at night, but it is a cache nonetheless. I bet you'd find that the "Caching Machines" are comprised mostly of those that attend events (I may be wrong on this, but I'll take a leap). I've never been on one, but they live for microspew because it's all about inflating their numbers so they can look cool when they go to events. I don't think it's the micros that are the cause of the problem, but those that feed on them to boost their numbers. Getting rid of micros is not the answer, but pruning back the activities that incite people to take advantage of them is the answer.

Link to comment
<snip>

Like BrianSnat said, it started as finding a regular size box in the woods.

<snip>

I beg to differ. It started as a bucket buried along side the road. The box in the woods was the next stage of evolution.

 

When the bucket was hidden, it was not "Geocaching". It was someone playing around with their GPS. Was there a logbook in the bucket? If I remember correctly, people emailed him when they found it. Geocaching was created with the advent of the website listing service and the guidelines contained therein.

Link to comment

Take Virtuals. Those were caches.

 

Virtuals were naturally selected out because they were in fact NOT geocaches. Thank goodness geoGod is on my side on this one. GeoGod just has a little too much patience and instead needs to pick up his iron sceptre and end this once and for all. The problem will continue to grow and spread like a cancer until something is done from the top to stop it.

I'm not sure I agree completely here. Virtuals were pulled out so they could be included in Waymarking, as were locationless caches.

 

I would state the arguement that geocaching is more a nutural geoEvolution and Waymarking is more geoCreationism.

Link to comment

I submit that this is incorrect.

 

It is my belief that Jeremy and a few powerful Reviewers killed them because they did not like them.

 

That is in no way natural selection.

 

You do realize that the whole Evolution versus Creation thing is just an analogy right? In the analogy, God=Jeremy/Groundspeak. You stated that Jeremy and a few reviewers (what would they be? Angels? -- okay, a bit thick) killed them. Let's ponder for a moment why geoGod wouldn't like the virtuals....

 

*EDIT* Not that Jeremy didn't like the virtuals, he didn't like them on the geocaching website

Edited by ReadyOrNot
Link to comment
<snip>

Like BrianSnat said, it started as finding a regular size box in the woods.

<snip>

I beg to differ. It started as a bucket buried along side the road. The box in the woods was the next stage of evolution.

 

When the bucket was hidden, it was not "Geocaching". It was someone playing around with their GPS. Was there a logbook in the bucket? If I remember correctly, people emailed him when they found it. Geocaching was created with the advent of the website listing service and the guidelines contained therein.

Yes, it had a log book. The game rules were "take something, leave something, sign the log book". I realize that it's a tough pill to swallow, but the roots of geocaching is not an ammo can in the woods.

 

edit: speelin

Edited by Moose Mob
Link to comment
Those are some of the redeeming values, in my book.

 

And like the other thread, I replied that those are the redeeming values of DOING pocket caches, which I agree with. You've still shown NO value to LOGGING them.

 

Geo bingo has value.

Temp caches have value.

Pocket caches have value.

Their value- Fun times to be had by all.

 

Logging any of them has only one value- bogusly increasing find counts.

 

And I guess because we can, if you find that to be a redeeming value.

Link to comment
<snip>

Like BrianSnat said, it started as finding a regular size box in the woods.

<snip>

I beg to differ. It started as a bucket buried along side the road. The box in the woods was the next stage of evolution.

 

When the bucket was hidden, it was not "Geocaching". It was someone playing around with their GPS. Was there a logbook in the bucket? If I remember correctly, people emailed him when they found it. Geocaching was created with the advent of the website listing service and the guidelines contained therein.

Yes, it had a log book. The game rules were "take something, leave something, sign the log book". I realize that it's a tough pill to swallow, but the roots of geocaching is not an ammo can in the woods.

 

edit: speelin

 

You are missing the whole point of my post. My definition was the point of the post. They did not have "Geocaching.com" as a listing service in the beginning. It wasn't Geocaching in the beginning, although noone can argue that his actions were certainly the basis for Jeremy creating the website. Does anyone know the first geocache listed on geocaching.com? (If it was Dave Ulmer's cache, then I stand corrected)

Link to comment

I submit that this is incorrect.

 

It is my belief that Jeremy and a few powerful Reviewers killed them because they did not like them.

 

That is in no way natural selection.

 

You do realize that the whole Evolution versus Creation thing is just an analogy right? In the analogy, God=Jeremy/Groundspeak. You stated that Jeremy and a few reviewers (what would they be? Angels? -- okay, a bit thick) killed them. Let's ponder for a moment why geoGod wouldn't like the virtuals....

Let's don't let the theological comparison's get too thick in this analogy!

 

Groundspeak can take such measures just because they own the listing service.

 

Doesn't much matter why they didn't like them, they didn't, and they had the power to kill them.

 

Again, that's not evolution. Creationism perhaps, but more of a control issue.

Link to comment

Whewwwww Whatta can of worms this one is. :P

 

I may well get BBQ'd for this but here is my pathetic 2 cents.

 

The numbers game is primarily a guy thing. Yep I said it. Women are just (generally, not always) hardwired for a cooperative game VS a competitive one.

 

Women (in general again) are more receptive to, and comfortable with change and diversity.

 

Our caching team is made up of Me, DH and our two Schnauzers. I think that brings a different spin on things for us. We log our finds as a team, not individually. Only one find was an individual one and that was made by me. We cache for the joy of spending the day together. The numbers mean very little to us. You have 2000 finds? Great, nice to meet you. Three finds? Hi, welcome to our obsession. We made our first hide in June 2002 when we only had 32 finds. No one thought to complain that we didn't have enough experience to hide a cache, since frankly few cachers in our area had many more finds than we did. That cache is still active in Texas under a new name so I guess it was not too bad.

 

Everything changes, and humans find change hard. Now, "Who Moved My Cheese?" <_<

Link to comment

...Virtuals were naturally selected out because they were in fact NOT geocaches. ...

 

Virtuals were naturally selected out because they were in fact NOT geocaches. ...

 

That branch of the tree was doing fine here when this site decided to prune all new growth. I assume that since they did grandfather existing caches those caches are doing just fine.

 

If successful evolution means people are finding them. Virtuals, Benchmarks, Waymark Catagories are all successes. I don't have much use for benchmarks, excpet in my job. Others enjoy them. They are a success. If we added a new benchmarking catagory called "Chiseled Squares" maybe that would be a success or maybe not...

Link to comment

The constant attempt to call us liars and cheats because we do something you don't like negates the value of the rest of your arguments that might contain some sense.

So it is your contention that someone who claims to have attended one event several times is being honest and accurate? A body of mass can be in the same place at the same period many times? AlabamaRambler has altered the bedrock of physics? I’m stunned!

 

It is a truism that someone who really wants to do something they know is dishonest will go to bizarre measures to justify their actions.

 

I don’t care one iota how many pocket lint caches you find or own. It is my opinion, however, that when you select Attended from the drop down box on the event cache page the second time, that you are being dishonest.

 

To select Attended the second time and subsequent times, you have to lie.

If you lie, you ARE a liar.

 

And to correct your own frothy mouthed nonsense, I never once in this or the other thread used the words cheat or cheater. Get your facts together.

Link to comment

Doesn't much matter why they didn't like them, they didn't, and they had the power to kill them.

 

Why they didn't like virtuals on the site is KEY to this debate. I'm just glad I am on the side of those that have access to the source code. :P Eventually our way will win the day. [bATTLECRY]

Link to comment

Take Virtuals. Those were caches.

 

Virtuals were naturally selected out because they were in fact NOT geocaches. Thank goodness geoGod is on my side on this one. GeoGod just has a little too much patience and instead needs to pick up his iron sceptre and end this once and for all. The problem will continue to grow and spread like a cancer until something is done from the top to stop it.

I submit that this is incorrect.

 

It is my belief that Jeremy and a few powerful Reviewers killed them because they did not like them.

 

That is in no way natural selection.

I don't know how you can see anything accurately with such a big chip on your shoulder... :P

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...