Jump to content

Bookmark lists, attributes, PQs, and pain...


ClayJar
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

This is a really difficult dilemma. On the one hand, people are misusing the SCUBA required attribute on cache that don't need SCUBA gear. People who really want to find SCUBA caches have to weed through a lot of listings to find the ones that really require SCUBA gear. On the other hand, people are using the bookmark list to mark the caches that are misusing the SCUBA gear attribute. Since many of these are so-called liar's caches, this amounts to a spoiler list of liar's caches. I suspect that someone who objects to liar's caches has a bookmark list of liar's caches. They could use Clayjar's list to add some caches to theirs.

 

My guess is that the misuse of the SCUBA attribute, while annoying, is not quite so bad. First of all a true SCUBA cache would have to be terrain 5. While many of the liars caches might also claim to be terrain 5, if you did see the SCUBA attribute on something less than terrain 5 you would know something is amiss. Secondly, for tradtional caches at least, you can click on the Google map link an see whether there is a body of water there that you could go SCUBA diving in. I would think there would be a bigger problem with SCUBA caches that don't use the attribute. These may be terrain 5 caches where the cache owner was unaware of attributes and expects you to read the cache page to know that it is a SCUBA cache. Or it may be a terrain 4 cache that could perhaps be reached by snorkeling but may still be an area where someone could use SCUBA to get to. Perhaps ClayJar would provide a better service by listing caches which are true SCUBA caches whether or not they have attribute set.

 

On the other hand I took a look at the attributes and there are plenty that you could lie about to make your liar's cache look cool without using SCUBA required, climbing equipement required, or boat required. It occured to me that these are the only attributes where someone might lay out significant expense to rent or buy the equipment only to find out later that it was a lie. Personally, I have more of a problem with caches that have the Restroom Nearby attribute only to find that there is no restroom nearby. However, I wouldn't mind if TPTB provided a way to challenge misuse of some attributes that could cause financial loss if someone were careless in checking them out.

Link to comment
As you stated. In practice, it would matter not one bit to me. If someone wanted to know what caches were on my bookmark list, he/she could easily access that list from my profile.
i think the only thing that concerns me here is that it smells a bit like this:

 

it doesn't affect me at all whether you get robbed, so i'm just dandy with it.

 

i think it's important for us to be able to discuss things that are important to members of the community without trivializing their requests. it could very well be that standard practice goes to using attributes in what some people believe is a wrong way. there can and should be thougthful discussion, but while half of the discussion is taken up by reasons why people who feel strongly shouldn't (see about discussion by non-divers about why divers shouldn't mind the extra work), it's not anything like a blanaced conversation.

First, you exaggerate this issues importance by comparing it to getting robbed. Second, I suspect that the resistance to the OP's request has to do with the OP's snarkiness.

 

Edited to fix yet another typo.

 

an extension of a line of thinking to an exaggerated situation is a time-honored rhetorical device and shouldn't be too much of a stretch for your imagination.

Link to comment

*edited for brevity*

 

... you can click on the Google map link an see whether there is a body of water there that you could go SCUBA diving in.

Not entirely true. There are retired missile silos that are water filled for scuba diving. You'll be challenged to note that on any map. There are also mountain lakes you can scuba dive in. Non scuba divers wouldn't know that and that's where the frustration comes in. The cache owners think they're being cute, but it does cause a lot more work in trying to figure out if it's worth the effort to lug the appropriate equipment to the location.

Link to comment

I really could care less about the attributes. I don't think I have ever decided to do or not do a cache because of an attribute. I don't think I ever will. I think a huge majority of geocachers have never used an attribute as their defining reason for finding a geocache.

Link to comment
I really could care less about the attributes. I don't think I have ever decided to do or not do a cache because of an attribute. I don't think I ever will.
Ah, but you are not a scubacacher.

 

I think a huge majority of geocachers have never used an attribute as their defining reason for finding a geocache.
Ah, but the vast majority of cachers are not scubacachers. Might I also add that the vast majority of caches are not scubacaches? That's entirely the point -- the whole concept here is to allow the tiny minority of cachers who are scubacachers to find the tiny minority of caches which are scubacaches.

 

Would I be remiss to say that it logically follows that if you, as a non-scubacacher, are representative of non-scubacachers, then by your own words it should be no big deal for non-scubacaching hiders to refrain from using one irrelevant attribute?

Link to comment

Due to the rampant abuse of the "Requires Scuba Gear" attribute, I maintain a public bookmark list which alerts my fellow scubacachers when they are viewing a cache which appears to be among the abusers.

Great...another useless bookmark to clutter the cache pages. FTF lists, quadrangle challenge, and my caches lists aren't enough?

 

Where is the option to ignore useless bookmark lists? :rolleyes:

 

Seriously, why should we be forced to look at bookmark lists on a cache page? Seems like if a geocacher has the ability to share a bookmark list and announce it to the world, we should have the ability to ignore them or at least hide the lists. You know, like a pulldown box you click on to show the bookmark lists if you want to view them but they stay hidden normally.

 

Think about it, of the last several cache pages you've seen with bookmark lists shown, how many were actually useful to somebody other then the bookmark owner?

 

I hope I don't get banned from the forums for voicing my opinion like Mr & Mrs Wisearse did. :rolleyes:

 

That just shows a very narrow point of view. I have Hike of the Month bookmarks that has generated interest with the local community. I generated those boomarks at the suggestion of another player because of the similar names of locations in different states and it would help to do a quick check to see if this is something they can join in on.

 

Just because it doesn't interest you doesn't mean it doesn't have a following of players that can appreciate it.

 

That being said, I support the idea of a reader's option to hide the bookmarks. It doesn't bother me one bit you might miss something you might enjoy.

My comment was very narrow because my scope was narrow. Bookmarks are very helpful, when used properly. A bookmark like a FTF list or Quadrangle challenge is only really useful to the bookmark owner, yet they share them with the world. Why? Just having them public is enough. Too many people click the "share my bookmark list" option when its just not necessary.

 

Clayjar's list for example just gained 32 characters in length as an additional cry for attention from the cache owners on his list. This just clutters the cache page the same way those FTF lists and quadrangle challenge bookmark lists do, but even more so give the amount of words in Clayjar's description. You will notice that ClayJar only has a bookmark list for caches misusing the scuba attribute, not a bookmark of actual scuba caches (whether using the attribute or not).

 

What I was suggesting in my original post was a feature to combat this issue. I was requesting that on the cache pages to have the bookmark lists normally hidden, and by clicking a link, the available bookmarks would appear. I would think a little Javascript could do this nicely. That way, even the most longwinded bookmark titles don't scroll all the way down the side of the cache page

Link to comment

I really could care less about the attributes. I don't think I have ever decided to do or not do a cache because of an attribute. I don't think I ever will. I think a huge majority of geocachers have never used an attribute as their defining reason for finding a geocache.

Attributes are still a new beasty to be used for filtering. As long as people use them incorrectly they will remain useless as a filtering resource which goes against the spirit of the requests to have these attributes in the first place. Even though CJ is complaining about scubadiving attributes the complaint is valid across all of the attributes. For all the trouble the misuse causes (which some folks seem to be defending) they may as well be taken away if they can't be trusted to convey accurate information for filtering the PQs with.

 

I've tried using it myself to filter for specific caches and ended up with a lot of fluff that I had to work through.

Link to comment

 

Think about it, of the last several cache pages you've seen with bookmark lists shown, how many were actually useful to somebody other then the bookmark owner?

 

My comment was very narrow because my scope was narrow.

 

Even though you included some examples at the start of your post, the bolded statment is anything but narrowly scoped out. It was a broadbrush statement. Nor did I take it out of context to your post when I isolated it. It was a statement left hanging by itself and fully unsupported.

Link to comment

I've kind of been following the thread and went both ways on this until someone mentioned what it takes to get things ready to scuba. I have dived and know it isn't just a matter of walking out the door.

 

That said, I enjoy a good liar's cache, however mis-using the attributes I have not seen before. Grant it, I think the attributes are for the most part useless (IMHO) I can see someone using them for scuba and they become useful. Most do i through the description and ratings.

 

Anyone can set up any bookmark they want. While Clayjar still would have had to drive a long distance to get to the nearest one and, yes, he could go through the maps to find out if water was even near-by, why should he have to go to all that trouble? Doing it once or twice may have been funny, but, come on, get a little more creative with the humor. :rolleyes:

 

Of course, it takes about 30 seconds to read the cache page, check the map for water at the cache site, AND email the owner to double check the attribute. If I was going to plan a whole day and journey around a cache or two, I would CERTAINLY confirm the attributes, scuba or any other. Common Sense should prevail, not attribute nazis

Link to comment

 

Think about it, of the last several cache pages you've seen with bookmark lists shown, how many were actually useful to somebody other then the bookmark owner?

 

My comment was very narrow because my scope was narrow.

 

Even though you included some examples at the start of your post, the bolded statment is anything but narrowly scoped out. It was a broadbrush statement. Nor did I take it out of context to your post when I isolated it. It was a statement left hanging by itself and fully unsupported.

It was meant to highlight the fact that many bookmark lists are shared when they have no reason to be shared. I think part of the problem stems from the poor wording on the bookmark edit page...(now I think its time to start a new thread)

 

Taken from the Bookmark edit page:

  • I want to share this list with others
  • Make this list public (show on bookmarked listings)

This is confusing at best and probably part of the reason people misuse the feature. The use of the words 'share' and 'public' add to the confusion and should be changed.

  • Allow others to view this list (uncheck to keep private)
  • Include bookmark listing on each cache page

Link to comment

I've kind of been following the thread and went both ways on this until someone mentioned what it takes to get things ready to scuba. I have dived and know it isn't just a matter of walking out the door.

 

That said, I enjoy a good liar's cache, however mis-using the attributes I have not seen before. Grant it, I think the attributes are for the most part useless (IMHO) I can see someone using them for scuba and they become useful. Most do i through the description and ratings.

 

Anyone can set up any bookmark they want. While Clayjar still would have had to drive a long distance to get to the nearest one and, yes, he could go through the maps to find out if water was even near-by, why should he have to go to all that trouble? Doing it once or twice may have been funny, but, come on, get a little more creative with the humor. :rolleyes:

 

Of course, it takes about 30 seconds to read the cache page, check the map for water at the cache site, AND email the owner to double check the attribute. If I was going to plan a whole day and journey around a cache or two, I would CERTAINLY confirm the attributes, scuba or any other. Common Sense should prevail, not attribute nazis

 

huh. amazing that godwin's law took so long to kick in.

 

let's see...

 

people who want the attributes to be listed correctly; the people who brought you death camps. yeah, those seem roughly equivalent. good job on that one. nice piece of reasoning.

Link to comment

I've kind of been following the thread and went both ways on this until someone mentioned what it takes to get things ready to scuba. I have dived and know it isn't just a matter of walking out the door.

 

That said, I enjoy a good liar's cache, however mis-using the attributes I have not seen before. Grant it, I think the attributes are for the most part useless (IMHO) I can see someone using them for scuba and they become useful. Most do i through the description and ratings.

 

Anyone can set up any bookmark they want. While Clayjar still would have had to drive a long distance to get to the nearest one and, yes, he could go through the maps to find out if water was even near-by, why should he have to go to all that trouble? Doing it once or twice may have been funny, but, come on, get a little more creative with the humor. :rolleyes:

 

Of course, it takes about 30 seconds to read the cache page, check the map for water at the cache site, AND email the owner to double check the attribute. If I was going to plan a whole day and journey around a cache or two, I would CERTAINLY confirm the attributes, scuba or any other. Common Sense should prevail, not attribute nazis

 

huh. amazing that godwin's law took so long to kick in.

 

let's see...

 

people who want the attributes to be listed correctly; the people who brought you death camps. yeah, those seem roughly equivalent. good job on that one. nice piece of reasoning.

Not to mention he completly missed the point over the misuse.

Link to comment

I've kind of been following the thread and went both ways on this until someone mentioned what it takes to get things ready to scuba. I have dived and know it isn't just a matter of walking out the door.

 

That said, I enjoy a good liar's cache, however mis-using the attributes I have not seen before. Grant it, I think the attributes are for the most part useless (IMHO) I can see someone using them for scuba and they become useful. Most do i through the description and ratings.

 

Anyone can set up any bookmark they want. While Clayjar still would have had to drive a long distance to get to the nearest one and, yes, he could go through the maps to find out if water was even near-by, why should he have to go to all that trouble? Doing it once or twice may have been funny, but, come on, get a little more creative with the humor. :rolleyes:

 

Of course, it takes about 30 seconds to read the cache page, check the map for water at the cache site, AND email the owner to double check the attribute. If I was going to plan a whole day and journey around a cache or two, I would CERTAINLY confirm the attributes, scuba or any other. Common Sense should prevail, not attribute nazis

 

huh. amazing that godwin's law took so long to kick in.

 

let's see...

 

people who want the attributes to be listed correctly; the people who brought you death camps. yeah, those seem roughly equivalent. good job on that one. nice piece of reasoning.

 

First of all I sure most people know what someone means when they say ----nazi. They're not talking about WWII Germans.

Secondly, Jerrytcher is right in that with google earth and other programs, it's not too hard to doublecheck the validity of some attributes.

" If I was going to plan a whole day and journey around a cache or two, I would CERTAINLY confirm the attributes, scuba or any other. Common Sense should prevail"

I agree. Do your homework.

Remember, Proper prior planning prevents poor performance.

Link to comment
Of course, it takes about 30 seconds to read the cache page, check the map for water at the cache site, AND email the owner to double check the attribute. If I was going to plan a whole day and journey around a cache or two, I would CERTAINLY confirm the attributes, scuba or any other. Common Sense should prevail, not attribute nazis
Okay, let's say it does take 30 seconds for a scubacacher to do all you say. So, that's 30 seconds and one email per cache per scubacacher. Now, multiply that 30 seconds and one email by the number of non-scubacaches the scubacacher will have to look at while trying to find a scubacache. Are you starting to see the point you've completely missed here?

 

It's not a case of "I'm going to look for this cache, but do I need my scuba gear?" It's a case of, "Bloody heck! Aren't *ANY* of these blasted things *really* scubacaches?!?" (That's a paraphrase of what I myself was thinking when I spent an entire evening on my slow link trying to find a single real scubacache to find.)

 

Scubacaching isn't something you do just because a nearby cache requires scuba gear. Scubacaching is something you do because you want to use your scuba gear to go caching! (I didn't think this was a very difficult concept, but the fact I am repeating myself like a broken record seems to indicate that I was apparently very wrong somehow.)

Link to comment

 

Would I be remiss to say that it logically follows that if you, as a non-scubacacher, are representative of non-scubacachers, then by your own words it should be no big deal for non-scubacaching hiders to refrain from using one irrelevant attribute?

 

Yes, you would be remiss using your analogy and thinking it would be logical.

 

 

... but the fact I am repeating myself like a broken record seems to indicate that I was apparently very wrong somehow.

 

That is the first logical statement you have made.

Link to comment

The point (that seems to mainly be getting missed) is the attributes were added to the cache pages to allow us to more easily find and plan out caches we want or dont want to do. They were not developed as a form of amusement or joke, or as a way to harass other cachers. If we need to read each page and email the owner of every cache to make sure the attributes are correct, then we might as well speed up the webservers and do away with them.

 

By intentionally using misleading attributes, you dilute the usefulness of the entire system for everyone. It's not just the scuba attribute. It's all of them.

Link to comment

Wow, this thread is like a final exam question for training new forum moderators.

 

I'm going to use my "boot people out of the thread" technique. The following posters may post elsewhere but not in this thread anymore:

 

jerrytcher - Godwin's Law violation

MrFRjr - apologist for Godwin's Law violation

FishPOET - personal attack / respect violation

ShowStop - off topic violation

 

Those remaining in the thread are welcome to discuss the use and misuse of the scuba attribute in a respectful manner.

Link to comment

Wow, this thread is like a final exam question for training new forum moderators.

 

I'm going to use my "boot people out of the thread" technique. The following posters may post elsewhere but not in this thread anymore:

 

jerrytcher - Godwin's Law violation

MrFRjr - apologist for Godwin's Law violation

FishPOET - personal attack / respect violation

ShowStop - off topic violation

 

Those remaining in the thread are welcome to discuss the use and misuse of the scuba attribute in a respectful manner.

I would think I was more in agreement with Jerr than an apologist ;)
Link to comment

Whatever happened to MrWisearse? ;)

I don't see anymore input from him in this thread? ;)

 

Anyways.... I personally went back and verified my geocache hides.

NONE of them have scubacache attributes.

However, I am still confused over the use of each attribute (that's why some of my caches have NO attributes).

 

Perhaps we need an additional attribute button....

 

Regular

 

My caches are just kinda regular.

No special skills required.

Just watch out for muggles. ;)

Link to comment
Of course, it takes about 30 seconds to read the cache page, check the map for water at the cache site, AND email the owner to double check the attribute. If I was going to plan a whole day and journey around a cache or two, I would CERTAINLY confirm the attributes, scuba or any other. Common Sense should prevail, not attribute nazis
Okay, let's say it does take 30 seconds for a scubacacher to do all you say. So, that's 30 seconds and one email per cache per scubacacher. Now, multiply that 30 seconds and one email by the number of non-scubacaches the scubacacher will have to look at while trying to find a scubacache. Are you starting to see the point you've completely missed here?

 

It's not a case of "I'm going to look for this cache, but do I need my scuba gear?" It's a case of, "Bloody heck! Aren't *ANY* of these blasted things *really* scubacaches?!?" (That's a paraphrase of what I myself was thinking when I spent an entire evening on my slow link trying to find a single real scubacache to find.)

 

Scubacaching isn't something you do just because a nearby cache requires scuba gear. Scubacaching is something you do because you want to use your scuba gear to go caching! (I didn't think this was a very difficult concept, but the fact I am repeating myself like a broken record seems to indicate that I was apparently very wrong somehow.)

 

Instead of a bookmark list of NON Scuba caches, why not make a USEFUL bookmark list like "Confirmed SCUBA Caches" for those "real scubacaches" you mentioned? Would make the homework that ALL cachers should do easier for the scuba cachers.

 

DSL or even Fios will take care of that slow link problem ... ;)

Link to comment

I think there is a bit of jealousy here -

Why does scuba-yes.gif mean SCUBA gear required, but jeeps-yes.gif means off-road vehicle allowed? If there was an attribute that meant this is a 4x4 cache and people started to use it on caches in parking lots or on hiking only trails - the members of SoCal 4x4 Geocachers would be in the same situation as ClayJar in that the attribute for their favorite cache type would no longer have any value. Would it be OK to put jeeps-no.gif on caches that were on a good 4x4 trail just to keep FishPOET, ShowStop, jerrytcher, and MrFRjr from looking for the caches? Would this not be a misuse of the attribute?

I think the issue here may be ClayJar's approach of using a bookmark list instead of just asking nicely first. I guess some people would still refuse to change the attribute - but at least if the bookmark list was used only as a last resort it wouldn't seem so snarky.

Link to comment

If there was an attribute that meant this is a 4x4 cache and people started to use it on caches in parking lots or on hiking only trails - the members of SoCal 4x4 Geocachers would be in the same situation as ClayJar in that the attribute for their favorite cache type would no longer have any value.

 

Marty,

 

I guess you missed this earlier post??????????

 

I really could care less about the attributes. I don't think I have ever decided to do or not do a cache because of an attribute. I don't think I ever will. I think a huge majority of geocachers have never used an attribute as their defining reason for finding a geocache.

 

I'll say it again....I could really care less who uses the 4x4 recommended or 4x4 not allowed attribute. In the thousand or so 4x4 caches that the So Cal 4x4 Geocachers have looked for I have never looked for a single cache because it had the 4x4 allowed attribute. I take the time to read the cache pages and logs, I create topo maps of the area, I check with BLM or USFS or National Parks or whatever agency manages the land that we will be on, and then decide from that information whether or not it is a cache that the So Cal 4x4 Geocachers want to hunt for. Any less effort would be irresponsible to the group. We have members that have invested tens of thousands of dollars in specialized equipment and they deserve more effort than me simply deciding to attempt a cache by checking an attribute.

Link to comment

Wow, this thread is like a final exam question for training new forum moderators.

 

I'm going to use my "boot people out of the thread" technique. The following posters may post elsewhere but not in this thread anymore:

 

jerrytcher - Godwin's Law violation

MrFRjr - apologist for Godwin's Law violation

FishPOET - personal attack / respect violation

ShowStop - off topic violation

 

Those remaining in the thread are welcome to discuss the use and misuse of the scuba attribute in a respectful manner.

 

i see this is working well...

Link to comment

Since I seem to be the only one left posting to this thread....

 

....All other opposing views have been BANNED..... B);););)B)

 

Does that mean I have the correct opinion?... or did I win?....

 

I do have a question though.... Doesn't that jeep looking attribute mean that offroad vehicles are allowed?

I mean... it certainly doesn't mean Jeeps are allowed....does it?

I just started looking at those little attribute squares... and I think the swimming guy means you can swim there or better bring a boat or something.

I also don't think it actually means bring tanks. I've done a few of those caches along the coast, and we just waited for low tide and walked to them. B)

Link to comment

Wow, this thread is like a final exam question for training new forum moderators.

 

I'm going to use my "boot people out of the thread" technique. The following posters may post elsewhere but not in this thread anymore:

 

jerrytcher - Godwin's Law violation

MrFRjr - apologist for Godwin's Law violation

FishPOET - personal attack / respect violation

ShowStop - off topic violation

 

Those remaining in the thread are welcome to discuss the use and misuse of the scuba attribute in a respectful manner.

 

i see this is working well...

 

OH :( .... I actually thought he was just giving a thoughtful analysis of the previous posts.

 

I never realized he was an ALL POWERFUL ADMIN <_< , and was posting an ultimatum. :blink:

 

Silly me. :huh:

Link to comment
The point (that seems to mainly be getting missed) is the attributes were added to the cache pages to allow us to more easily find and plan out caches we want or dont want to do. They were not developed as a form of amusement or joke, or as a way to harass other cachers. If we need to read each page and email the owner of every cache to make sure the attributes are correct, then we might as well speed up the webservers and do away with them.

 

By intentionally using misleading attributes, you dilute the usefulness of the entire system for everyone. It's not just the scuba attribute. It's all of them.

I agree, but it seems like getting the masses to use attributes correctly is like herding cats. I like the idea of having categories for caches but attributes are not working. Since attributes are unreliable then why not have a system like the one that Waymarking is using. If you had some kind of peer review for these categories then I think it would improve dramatically. ClayJar could then have his Scuba category and others could have a valid 4x4 category. There a lots of categories that would interest people. You would have to break the categories into regions but it could work. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

It is working very well. The moderators are keeping quite busy with this thread. It really ought not be so difficult to discuss a feature.

I feel terribly guilty. I called out the group that was on probation by trying to describe ClayJar's position in terms they would understand. Only now do I find out that if they respond to me here they will get a 3 day suspension. Its looks like I baited FishPOET into getting suspended. I found his response insightful and certainly not a personal attack or lack of respect. He clearly indicated that when he is planning a 4x4 geocaching trip he doesn't use the attributes to decide which caches to do. Instead he does his homework, using maps with known 4x4 trails and information he gets from land managers and then looks to see what caches are there. Similarly, ClayJar could use maps with known dive sites and information from land managers and Scuba sites and then see what caches are there. And like FishPOET does, he can hide a cache if there isn't already one there and caches are allowed. I suspect that FishPOET and the others do not believe that attributes should be widely abused. They are arguing that occasionally, they can be used humorously for liars caches. Real SCUBA cachers and 4x4 cachers will check out the cache page and the site of the cache before going on an outing. As I may have implied in a previous post, I find it hard to support either side here. Here are a bunch of cachers on both sides of the issue whom I normally respect. Yet here they choose to act like little brats who refuse to acknowledge the concerns of the other side. It really ought not be so difficult to discuss a feature.

Link to comment

I'm new to this thread but here's my thoughts:

 

Cache owners should not intentionally post incorrect attributes. When these "mistakes" are pointed out, they should fix them.

 

I don't know that I've ever used an attribute in my searching, but that is primarily because they aren't (yet?) in the GPX files. Once they are, I will start using them and will be annoyed if any nearby cache owners intentionally misuse them.

Link to comment

I just had to ask myself...How much of a problem is this REALLY?

 

So, just out of curiosity, I pulled up a list of all of the "SCUBA gear" caches within 500 miles of me. Since I assume that anything requiring SCUBA gear would get a terrain rating of 5 stars because special equipment is required, I had a list of nine 5-star terrain caches with the SCUBA icon within 500 miles.

 

I was able to verify that 7 of them were legitimate, one was clearly a "liar's" cache, and one was actually a cache in the middle of the desert I had found a couple years ago and which is definitely NOT a 5-star or SCUBA cache.

 

All in all, I was out about 90 seconds from start to finish. That's certainly less time than it took me to type up this post.

 

So, I still have to ask...how is this such a pervasive problem?

Link to comment

The point (that seems to mainly be getting missed) is the attributes were added to the cache pages to allow us to more easily find and plan out caches we want or dont want to do. They were not developed as a form of amusement or joke, or as a way to harass other cachers. If we need to read each page and email the owner of every cache to make sure the attributes are correct, then we might as well speed up the webservers and do away with them.

 

By intentionally using misleading attributes, you dilute the usefulness of the entire system for everyone. It's not just the scuba attribute. It's all of them.

 

I wonder why this concept is so hard for people to grasp. Or is this just representative of the Me Generation? "I'll do whatever I want to amuse myself and I don't give a cow's patootie how it affects others".

 

I really could care less about the attributes. I don't think I have ever decided to do or not do a cache because of an attribute. I don't think I ever will

 

Yeah, we heard you. Since you so obviously, deeply don't care about attributes, why don't you just leave the discussion to those who do?

Link to comment

I can fully understand why mislabeled caches would be annoying. However, regardless of how trivial some find the "Drinking water nearby" and others find the "SCUBA" attributes, if there is to be ANY effort to regulate the use of one attribute... the effort MUST be equally applied to ALL attributes. Think about all the legal trouble one could get in by going after a cache with the "24/7" attribute but was infact not available after dark! Jail time trumps renting climbing ropes or lugging air tanks.

Link to comment

It is working very well. The moderators are keeping quite busy with this thread. It really ought not be so difficult to discuss a feature.

I feel terribly guilty. I called out the group that was on probation by trying to describe ClayJar's position in terms they would understand. Only now do I find out that if they respond to me here they will get a 3 day suspension. Its looks like I baited FishPOET into getting suspended. I found his response insightful and certainly not a personal attack or lack of respect. He clearly indicated that when he is planning a 4x4 geocaching trip he doesn't use the attributes to decide which caches to do. Instead he does his homework, using maps with known 4x4 trails and information he gets from land managers and then looks to see what caches are there. Similarly, ClayJar could use maps with known dive sites and information from land managers and Scuba sites and then see what caches are there. And like FishPOET does, he can hide a cache if there isn't already one there and caches are allowed. I suspect that FishPOET and the others do not believe that attributes should be widely abused. They are arguing that occasionally, they can be used humorously for liars caches. Real SCUBA cachers and 4x4 cachers will check out the cache page and the site of the cache before going on an outing. As I may have implied in a previous post, I find it hard to support either side here. Here are a bunch of cachers on both sides of the issue whom I normally respect. Yet here they choose to act like little brats who refuse to acknowledge the concerns of the other side. It really ought not be so difficult to discuss a feature.

 

don't feel guilty. i think the thread went bad somewhere around post #3 when the bitter sarcasm kicked in.

it was that attack that moved me to defend the OP.

 

perks, i hope that you and others understand that a problem need not be pervasive in order for something to be done about it. this problem probably does not warrant an administrative solution, but i think people should be aware of it and mark attributes correctly out of courtesy.

Link to comment

As somebody who has carried SCUBA gear on his back over 3 miles of trails to get to a dive sight that I could have snorkled or done with a pony bottle, I can say that if I packed out all of my gear, my wife's gear, and my daughters gear because we thought that we were doing a scubacache, only to find out that the cache is actually a micro on a guard rail next to the lake, I would be livid(by the way, this is the worst run on sentence that I have ever seen, much less typed).

 

Also, there is a bit of planning that goes along with doing a dive SAFELY, so that has to be taken into account.

 

I understand that it would be very easy to check google maps, or any other map program, but think about the scenario that I used above. The cache owner places it next to the lake instead of in it.

 

In the long run, I don't like any nanny state, so I say be responsible for yourself. Check everything that you can before you go out. Email the cache owner to verify, then if you get there and it's a lie, make a big stink out of it. Post a log that reflects what happened and then post a thread here about the cache owners dishonesty. Eventually, cache owners and cachers alike will learn to govern themselves.

 

Or maybe not.

 

How is that for straddling the fence?? I should be a politician!!

Link to comment

Wow, this thread is like a final exam question for training new forum moderators.

 

I'm going to use my "boot people out of the thread" technique. The following posters may post elsewhere but not in this thread anymore:

 

jerrytcher - Godwin's Law violation

MrFRjr - apologist for Godwin's Law violation

FishPOET - personal attack / respect violation

ShowStop - off topic violation

 

Those remaining in the thread are welcome to discuss the use and misuse of the scuba attribute in a respectful manner.

My guess is one of these individuals still don't get it. I believe this bookmark to be more inappropriate by it's nature, but you'll have to look at the ratings for what I'm indicating.This bookmark merely encourages the attack of a player.

Link to comment

Man, this is getting pretty heated. :P

 

If people want to use attributes for a joke then why not just add an option next to each attribute that says "Just kidding!" so those attributes aren't used for PQs?

:P:P:D:cry:

A common sense approach.

All this bannination occurred because some people felt that using bookmark list to shame people into not using an attribute inappropriately was itself inappropriate. A common sense approach would be to have a bookmark list of caches that were really SCUBA caches. In fact, some SCUBA cachers might find it useful to have a list of caches where SCUBA is optional, something they couldn't get from "proper" use of the SCUBA required attribute.

The entire attribute concept as implemented on Geocaching.com seems to be of limited usefulness. It used to be you used a third party site to generate a graphic of attributes associated with your cache. Some people found the third party attributes more useful and flexible and you didn't get the nag box on your cache page if you hadn't set up attributes. The idea of having attributes on Geocaching.com was to make them searchable. Currently the attributes are searchable only using Pocket Queries. If you want to exclude attributes in your search, that function STILL doesn't work right. The attributes are not returned in the GPX file, so we don't even have the option of using third party software that might be able to do a sensible search. And the attributes are optional and their use is left up to the cache owner. So any search is going to either miss or include caches because of missing attributes or attributes that are used wrongly. Someone pointed out to me that on some of the caches on ClayJar's bookmark list people have used the SCUBA attribute to indicate the availability of SCUBA nearby the cache. While technically an improper use of the attribute, the cache owner was obviously using it in a way he thought was useful. While I won't apologize for the tone some people used in making their point about this issue, I feel that the use of forum bannishment here has silenced a side with a reasonable argument against the use of bookmark list in the manner that ClayJar has chosen.

Link to comment

 

The entire attribute concept as implemented on Geocaching.com seems to be of limited usefulness.

 

Currently the attributes are searchable only using Pocket Queries. If you want to exclude attributes in your search, that function STILL doesn't work right. The attributes are not returned in the GPX file, so we don't even have the option of using third party software that might be able to do a sensible search.

 

But once the attributes are included in GPX files (which I believe has been promised at some point), they will be much more useful.

 

I agree a "scuba required" list would have been much better. If I have miscoded an attribute on a cache, I will fix it faster if I get an e-mail, rather than relying on me to see an added bookmark list. Both of the current lists are antagonizing more than they are helping.

 

(I checked the "nearby" caches on the lists and neither are liar caches...just miscodings by cache owners who might respond to a friendly e-mail.)

Link to comment

So what about people who never use attributes on their caches, yet require special equiment? I thought using the attributes were an option.

 

If you care about the safety and your equiment you should check out where you are going to dive and learn something about the area before you go. Just because someone says that something is a special way doesn't always mean that it is that way.

 

If I look at a cache and it is in the water, I would know that I need something other then walking to it. I would go check out the area. If the area was 500 miles away, I would contact a cacher who has located the cache or the owner to see what was up. I really don't think the attributes are that useful.

 

Somethings are just common sense. I have seen attributes both overused and misused. Perhaps someone should waste there time and placing a bookmark on all the caches that don't have attributes on them.

 

How does ClayJar know that there aren't caches out there that require diving gear and aren't on his list if they don't have attributes with the little guy who has a tank on. Has he bookmarked those caches? Personally if I saw a cache in the middle of the desert with a driver attribute on it, I won't bring my diving gear, because I would know better. :P

Link to comment

Could someone explain what this means....

 

3d061599-29b8-432d-93e6-6994713ac0c0.jpg

 

Is "Special Equipment" called "Scuba gear" "Required?" :P

Perhaps we need a bookmark list of all caches that say "Access or Parking Fee" required, when if you were willing to walk a little further you could find the cache without having to pay. Is SCUBA really required? Could I retrieve the cache with my remote-controlled submersible? Perhaps you shouldn't insist on too literal of an interpretation, the use of the attribute may never be correct.

Link to comment
Personally if I saw a cache in the middle of the desert with a driver attribute on it, I won't bring my diving gear, because I would know better. :P

Really? What if you saw a diving cache located here: topo / google

 

It's in the middle of the desert. There is no water showing on any map. Should you bring your gear?

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

Could someone explain what this means....

 

3d061599-29b8-432d-93e6-6994713ac0c0.jpg

 

Is "Special Equipment" called "Scuba gear" "Required?" :laughing:

Perhaps we need a bookmark list of all caches that say "Access or Parking Fee" required, when if you were willing to walk a little further you could find the cache without having to pay. Is SCUBA really required? Could I retrieve the cache with my remote-controlled submersible? Perhaps you shouldn't insist on too literal of an interpretation, the use of the attribute may never be correct.

I thought "Scuba gear required" was fairly obvious. Anyhow, it is obvious it is not obvious. A bookmark list of scuba caches would work better. But bookmark lists are not easy to find and they must be owned/maintained by one cacher. So they are often incomplete. So it would be great if there was a way to make a bookmark list that was easily found by everyone and easy for everyone to submit caches to. Of course the cache submittals would have to be reviewed by a group of peers that own the bookmark. They would make sure the new caches are what they claim they are before adding them to the bookmark. This would make a very useful and universal bookmark list for stuff like scuba diving, off-roading, etc. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
How does ClayJar know that there aren't caches out there that require diving gear and aren't on his list if they don't have attributes with the little guy who has a tank on. Has he bookmarked those caches?
Actually, there are currently 14 caches I know about through scubacacher word of mouth, keyword searches, and searching by the coordinates of dive sites with which I'm familiar. They are indeed on a separate list, and they are listed amongst the true scubacaches on my scubacaching page.

 

Scubacaches which do not have the attribute are harder to find, but that is completely irrelevant to the concept of caches misapplying the attribute. Obviously, the fact that a hider doesn't apply the attribute has no bearing on other hiders misapplying it. Are some people so twisted to think that one person not dropping money in the Salvation Army kettle around Christmas is justification to throw their trash into it? (Actually, if it were online, I bet there'd be jerks who *would* think that way, and that certainly doesn't brighten my day.)

 

 

(By the way, if, someday, the attributes are listed in the PQs, as I had been led to believe was supposed to have been the case way back when, I'll be very happy.)

Link to comment

(By the way, if, someday, the attributes are listed in the PQs, as I had been led to believe was supposed to have been the case way back when, I'll be very happy.)

 

As mentioned before, you can pseudo-do this now... you just have to run a *LOT* of PQs... one per attribute you're interested in... Then use a decent DB system that lets you compare two PQs and set internal attributes based on the contents of one. (my first example of using geoqo did just this: it imported a PQ of just scuba caches and you can set an internal "scuba" attribute so you can do intelligent things with it).

 

Now, don't read this wrong: it'd be far better to have them in the PQs themselves. But Groundspeak seems to be concentrating on other things at the moment instead (server performance (yay), Waymarking, Wherigo, etc).

Link to comment
Personally if I saw a cache in the middle of the desert with a driver attribute on it, I won't bring my diving gear, because I would know better. :laughing:

Really? What if you saw a diving cache located here: topo / google

 

It's in the middle of the desert. There is no water showing on any map. Should you bring your gear?

 

In reply to your question, there is water near by, but there isn't a cache there and diving isn't required on any of the nearby caches. I would ask a cacher who has found the cache, as I stated before. I wouldn't travel 1000 miles and fly my diving stuff to Abilene, Texas without some idea of what I was doing first. I would gather information first. Once again, my personal safety is important to me. Now I do know of people who do cave diving and Texas is known for some nice cave and some with water in them, but I'm not sure if I've heard of any caves with water in them that has caches. I have other sources that I could find out for that information. I hope that answers your question.

Link to comment

Very interesting thread... both sides seem to have legitimate points, although one side has seemingly been temporarily squelched. What I don't get is... I thought the cache description page was a description of the cache's location according to the one person that knows the most about the cache's location? All of the info on the page is either history, fluff, filler, hints (whether in the hint 'section' or not), DIVERSION, entertainment, etc. The entire point of the cache page is to reveal a certain amount of unknown information to the cache-seeker. The amount of information revealed is the discretion of the cache-hider, NOT any particular cache-type seeker. If the cache-hider decides that a certain attribute will add to whatever scheme he had in mind for revealing, informing, or even confusing the cache-seeker, what right does another cache-seeker have for spoiling the original intent? Why not just have a designated person (the cache reviewer :laughing: ) visit every cache and leave a detailed log of where every cache can be found, despite what the cache-hider may have intended in his cache description page? What... an attribute might get the attention of a cache-seeker that looks for a particular type of cache and then finds that even HE may have been deceived by a portion of the cache location page (the attribute area) that he deemed as gospel... no deception allowed there? I may have missed the 'no b.s. here' warning in the attribute description area. Don't like the way a cache-hider operates... use the ignore feature. Not every cache-seeker is gonna want to have every part of the cache page sanitized... not even the scuba guys... some cachers enjoy the aspects of the game that are not so visible. Let them decide.

 

In my opinion, the entire cache page (except the coordinates and map - and sometimes even those) is part of the game. I'm sure you've noticed that even the 'by line' under the cache title can be manipulated. The only reason for the cache description page is to make up for the error we get from our GPS receivers.

 

Unfortunately, some see the attributes as hard and fast 'facts' on the cache page... I don't. I've been to hundreds of caches that have the 'snake' attribute... but I've never seen one while caching. If I'm a snake freak (no offense intended) should I be upset if I didn't see one, even if I was prepared for it? Should I start a 'Not really any snakes here' bookmark? I've seen many caches with the '24 hour' attribute, never thought about actually verifying it though. My favorite types of caches are the ones hidden in the SoCal desert where an off road vehicle is required. I wouldn't even consider attempting these caches on foot. Just because a cache might have the 'off road' attribute (which gets my attention), I certainly would not pack up the quads and attempt to find it. There are many areas in the SoCal deserts where I can be tooling along a wash, looking for a cache, and BLAM, I get a sign telling me that my quad is no longer welcome in this wash, I need a street legal vehicle to continue. Huh... in this sandy, then rocky, then narrow wash? It would be nice if the cache description warned me about the street legal thing, and some do, but I never thought about making a bookmark and adding it to SOMEONE ELSE'S cache page to 'fix' his cache description. To avoid this I have to do my homework and identify where I'm going to be able to go. I've never even thought about lobbying for a 'green sticker vehicle' attribute and then policing its use.

 

To the OP, don't get me wrong, I understand your point, but I think a little due diligence is all that's needed, not a bookmark that is gonna screw-up the formating on MY (I do understand the limitations of MY in regards to ownership on someone else's website) cache page that I may have spent hours on only to have it thrown out of whack because of some extra bookmark 'info' that I never anticipated. This goes for the entire bookmark system, the FTF bookmarks included (which I find EXTREMELY annoying). I'd be all for a cache-owners option to display the bookmarks or not.

 

Like others stated before me, I have NEVER searched for a particular attribute before caching, but I can see why someone would. My only caveat would be that the cache-seeker keep in mind that this is primarily a game of deception... the caches are called 'hides', usually 'camoed', for a reason. To me the deception starts at the top of the cache page and often times includes the logs, when the cache-finders play along. We're all in on it.

Link to comment

I'm waiting for comment in some other involved forums, but for this thread's information, I'm cross-posting this here (slightly edited to make sense outside that other thread).

How about this:
  • *Every* cache with the scuba gear required attribute is included in a bookmark list titled "Scubacachers: Read This First!"
  • All "verified" scubacaches are also listed in a bookmark list of divable scubacaches.
  • The main bookmark list includes a description that explains that not all caches with the attribute are scubacaches, but that there is another list which just includes the "verified" ones, along with a link to the "verified" list.
  • The "verified" list includes a description that also includes instructions on how to use the list to make a scubacaching pocket query.

This would leave a few outstanding issues.

  1. I would have to maintain it manually.
  2. Liars' caches would be in the main list but not the true list.
  3. It wouldn't work allow PQ users the flexibility of using all the features of "normal" PQ searches, as those options are not available for bookmark list PQs.

Obviously, if I'm really as benevolent as I claim, this is easier than what I've been doing, so issue 1 is basically a moot point.

 

I don't really see any way around issue 2, but if it's considered a problem, I'm open to brainstorming some potential solutions.

 

As for issue 3, we're scubacachers! We're used to having to go out of our way to combine our two hobbies. While it may be less than ideal to have to do all the fun PQ stuff client-side, it's hardly too much to ask us to contribute to a solution, so I can accept it.

 

So, what do you think? Would it be an acceptable solution to have a generic "readme" for scubacachers on all scuba gear required caches (and even the 14 without the attribute), with an additional bookmark list *only* on the "verified" scubacaches? Feel free to reply with your version of this concept if you think we might be on the right track, and I'd be more than happy to work out the details. Once we reach a mutually acceptable solution, I can redo the bookmark list(s).

 

For the bookmark list to include all scubacaches and caches with the attribute, how about the following:

Scubacachers: Read This First!

 

Welcome scubacachers and friends.

 

Obviously, you're interested in scubacaching. Geocaching.com has a scuba attribute that you have probably seen, but it can be used in many different ways. Sometimes a cache floods and the hider temporarily assigns it. Other times, it may be used as part of a creative cache description such as a joke or "liar's" cache. And then there are caches which were designed to be done in scuba. Of all the varied uses of the attribute, chances are that as a scubacacher, you're looking for that last group.

 

Well, you're in luck! To help you in your scubacaching quest, we have a _bookmark_list_ for you that includes only caches that we've checked and verified (as best we can) to be caches actually intended to be done with scuba. Just _click_here_to_go_to_that_list._

So, what do the people around here think about it?
Link to comment

To help you in your scubacaching quest, we have a _bookmark_list_ for you that includes only caches that we've checked and verified (as best we can) to be caches actually intended to be done with scuba. Just _click_here_to_go_to_that_list._

 

So, what do the people around here think about it?

 

You have written too much information. I think all you need to add if you must add a bookmark is what is above. That is my thought. This way it doesn't say anything more. Short and sweet is the best policy.

Edited by HappyFrog (& gang)
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...