Could Geocaching survive

[Clan Riffster]

Many claim that the first geocache was a container, with swag, at a set of posted coordinates, hidden by Dave Ulmer. Since that day, geocaching has had many evolutions, to include traveling caches, virtual caches, multi caches, puzzle caches and caches without any swag at all. Assume for this debate that Jeremy decided to return to the "roots" of geocaching, and arbitrarily archived all caches that were not at the posted coordinates, and did not contain swag.

 

Would geocaching survive? If so, why? If not, why?

[+Retcon]

Yes, it would survive.

 

Likely at a different website.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Retcon

[Tahosa and Sons]

WOW

[Dinoprophet]

Yes, it would survive.

 

Likely at a different website.

Exactly. If non-traditional caches vanished into history, the first person to register with the site after that would think, "Hey, what about a two part cache?", and if the variations weren't allowed, another site would take up the slack and soon dominate.

[+Too Tall John]

As traveling caches are frowned upon and virtual caches are no more, we're on the way already and the organization seems to be going strong. Geocaching would survive. Geocaching.com might actully make it, too. It's got some great features that aren't available on other sites.

 

Personally, if multi & puzzle caches were all archived, I'd probably leave for another site. When I think of geocaching, I think of treasure hunting. When I think of treasure hunting I think of all those books and movies (Treasure Island, Indiana Jones type stuff) where the hero has to solve a puzzle, or think their way through to the final goal. Thus, my favorite caches are multis and puzzles. (yes, it's fun to play the hero)

 

As far as caches without swag, I assume you're referring to micros. I would be saddened to see some of these go. I've seen some really cleverly hidden, well thought out micros. I've also seen film canisters dumped into the end of a guardrail on a busy street. I think these caches have a place in geocaching, but I can see where others are coming from when they say "But it isn't a cache, there's nothing in it!"

 

Basically, I think geocaching would survive, but maybe not Geocaching.com. I'd probably go elsewhere myself if multi and puzzle caches were archived.

 

A thought provoking question!

[+River_Cat16]

I think a bigger threat to geocaching is uncontrolled growth. Like say the CB radio fad of the late 70's.

[+Snoogans]

I think a bigger threat to geocaching is uncontrolled growth. Like say the CB radio fad of the late 70's.

 

 

How do you suggest it be controlled? Until more caches are archived than there are listed on a daily basis we march CLOSER to the mainstream event horizon just as CB radio did.

[+The Leprechauns]

So you're saying that all caches would have to be park and grabs hidden so close to the side of the road that they're eventually destroyed by highway department mowing and trimming crews? That your cache could only be published if it was hidden on private property without permission? That all caches would have to include a can of beans or other food item?

 

Yuck. No thanks. I'd find another listing site!

[+River_Cat16]

Runaway growth may of been better terminology than uncontrolled. For there are no controls available.

 

At first I skimmed over a bit of the old thread and was going to reply. However I thought better of that and went back and read the entire thread. Good thing too because on top of what I had already written, as well as anything I might of added, was certainly covered there. I have worried a little about the CB radio syndrome since I started caching. Having been in that hobby prior to the events mentioned in the other thread I had a front row seat for its destruction. Locally as far as I can tell it never has recovered to what it once was. Hopefully geocaching will just stay on the nice gentle growth curve it is experiencing now.

Edited March 4, 2007 by River_Cat16

[CoyoteRed]

Well, I don't know about going that far back. I'd be pleased with simply every cache you find had trinkets in it, even the micros. The smallest cache was a APS film can yet it still had trinkets. "Going for numbers" meant you didn't have to hike to every cache, just most of the them. You could simply load your GPS and PDA with unfiltered caches and the junk was such a low percentage you didn't mind a less-than-satisfying hunt every so often. There was plenty of variation to keep you interested.

 

Roll back to 2000? Naw. I wouldn't mind 2002 or 2003, though.

 

Would I have done things differently knowing what we know now? Absolutely.

[CoyoteRed]

I think a bigger threat to geocaching is uncontrolled growth. Like say the CB radio fad of the late 70's.

While I do think the massive popularity of CB radios did bring about its downfall, but only the downfall of the fad and not its usefulness. I don't think it would have lasted anyway.

 

Think about the number of people who walk around with a cellphone glued to their ear every day. CB radios had part of that social engagement thing going for it, but it was too open and too limited. It got too crowded way too quick. I think part of the fad was trying to force that medium to do something it couldn't handle.

 

Today, you can't walk into a truck stop or a Radio Shack and not be able to buy a CB radio. They are still all over the place. They have their place, but it is more of a niche. It was just a few years ago, okay maybe a decade ago, folks around here were still playing a form of fox-n-hounds on the CB. It's still a good tool to talk to folks on the road and you don't need to know their phone number.

 

Personally, I like the CB interests the way they are. There are enough jokers on the air on any even afternoon when the truckers get punchy as it is.

[+Mopar]

Many claim that the first geocache was a container, with swag, at a set of posted coordinates, hidden by Dave Ulmer. Since that day, geocaching has had many evolutions, to include traveling caches, virtual caches, multi caches, puzzle caches and caches without any swag at all. Assume for this debate that Jeremy decided to return to the "roots" of geocaching, and arbitrarily archived all caches that were not at the posted coordinates, and did not contain swag.

 

Would geocaching survive? If so, why? If not, why?

 

Yes, it would survive.

 

Likely at a different website.

 

Virtuals, webcams, and moving caches are no longer being added to the site. Eventually all will be gone through attrition. Locationless caches have been removed from the site completely. Retcon, you've never even been given the opportunity to hide most of those types, since they were pretty much gone when you joined the site. Yet you're still here.

Several other cache listing sites exist that have cache types that are no longer allowed to be submitted here. Many more have come and closed up from lack of use.

How popular are they?

GC.com even started another site of their own to list virtuals, webcams, and locationless.

How popular is that site?

 

Last I looked, traditional style caches were by far the most common listed in most areas. Same with regular sized caches. While in some areas micros seem the norm, overall the most common cache out there is a regular-sized traditional hide. Since people usually hide what they like to find, it shows that overall, the majority of cachers like those the best.

 

No, geocaching on this site would continue just fine. A percentage of the vocal minority that makes up the forums would grumble, but most cachers would just keep on finding the caches they like. And most of them would continue to do it using geocaching.com.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Mopar

[Clan Riffster]

So you're saying that all caches would have to be park and grabs hidden so close to the side of the road that they're eventually destroyed by highway department mowing and trimming crews? That your cache could only be published if it was hidden on private property without permission? That all caches would have to include a can of beans or other food item?

 

Yuck. No thanks. I'd find another listing site!

No, what I think I said was "Assume that Jeremy decided to return to the "roots" of geocaching, and arbitrarily archived all caches that were not at the posted coordinates, and did not contain swag."

(or words to that effect)

No mention of hiking distance, permission or stale food items. I didn't even include archiving all caches not hidden by someone named "Dave".

Edited March 4, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[+Mopar]

Many claim that the first geocache was a container, with swag, at a set of posted coordinates, hidden by Dave Ulmer. Since that day, geocaching has had many evolutions, to include traveling caches, virtual caches, multi caches, puzzle caches and caches without any swag at all. Assume for this debate that Jeremy decided to return to the "roots" of geocaching, and arbitrarily archived all caches that were not at the posted coordinates, and did not contain swag.

 

Would geocaching survive? If so, why? If not, why?

 

So you're saying that all caches would have to be park and grabs hidden so close to the side of the road that they're eventually destroyed by highway department mowing and trimming crews? That your cache could only be published if it was hidden on private property without permission? That all caches would have to include a can of beans or other food item?

 

Yuck. No thanks. I'd find another listing site!

No, what I think I said was "Assume that Jeremy decided to return to the "roots" of geocaching, and arbitrarily archived all caches that were not at the posted coordinates, and did not contain swag."

(or words to that effect)

Right, but you also invoked the very first geocache in doing so. What Lep is getting at is that very first cache hidden was not just a traditional cache at the coords. It was also a buried on the side of the road park and grab, on private property without permission, and contained food items. Not exactly the roots anyone wants to get back to.

[Clan Riffster]

Some could argue that this allegedly first geocache is our roots. We can get as detailed in our analysis of this particular cache as we want, but I was trying for something simpler. The Ulmer cache was a regular, hidden at the posted coordinates, and contained swag. I purposely left out Jeremy archiving anything not hidden in a bucket, as well, or any not hidden at the original coordinates.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[Mushtang]

From all the posts saying that they'd move to another site it's clear that variation is the key. Most people enjoy different options on caches. Having more choices gives more options for people to chose from and more people can enjoy the game.

 

Others, however, seem to think that fewer options are better. Some enjoy fewer kinds of caches than others. Some enjoy fewer kinds of containers than others. Some enjoy fewer hide methods than others. Who should be the ones that decide what to eliminate when clearly so many people enjoy the way the game is running? I think no matter what gets eliminated some will be upset at whatever is missing because they enjoyed playing the game that way, and they'll look for alternate sites that offer whatever it was.

 

I'd be pleased with simply every cache you find had trinkets in it, even the micros. The smallest cache was a APS film can yet it still had trinkets.

Hmm, if only we could get word out to the people that sell micro containers that these are not to be used for geocaching. Maybe you could tell them?

[Clan Riffster]

My thoughts on this are that geocaching would not only survive, it would continue to prosper. Let's face it, this activity is a lot of fun. According to what I've read in these forums, back in the early days, (way before my time), geocaching was a lot of fun. As each evolution entered the game, it continued to be fun. As various evolutions were weeded out of the game by The Powers That Be, the game continued to be fun. I don't know who handles marketing for Groundspeak, but I gotta say they've done an amazing job of presenting this game to the general public as a great, family oriented activity, and I believe it will continue to lead the way in cache listing sites, regardless of any changes they might make.

[CoyoteRed]

I'd be pleased with simply every cache you find had trinkets in it, even the micros. The smallest cache was a APS film can yet it still had trinkets.

Hmm, if only we could get word out to the people that sell micro containers that these are not to be used for geocaching. Maybe you could tell them?

Hey, if it's going to be a log-only cache, a Bison capsule is better than a film can any day. I'm providing a service to the community by providing Bison capsules at the lowest prices around. If it's got to be a log-only micro then it might as well be one with a quality container thus increasing the likelihood there was some thought put into the hide making it more enjoyable to a wider group of folks. It wouldn't hurt me in the least if trinket-less caches were archived and banned. After all, we also sell a convenient stencil to properly mark your full-sized caches, too.

 

BTW, thanks for the plug.

Edited March 4, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+TexasGringo]

***I think a bigger threat to geocaching is uncontrolled growth. Like say the CB radio fad of the late 70's.***

 

That fad made me get my Ham Radio License. In the 60's, I had a Johnson Messenger II (Tube set) and some of us even did morse code through a speaker to learn it.

[Clan Riffster]

we also sell a convenient stencil to properly mark your full-sized caches, too.

Just purchased one of those stencils. (should show up as "Clutter Busters") Very kewl!

[Mushtang]

BTW, thanks for the plug.

No problem. It's a nice online store and I hope you continue to do well with it. (No sarcasm, I promise)

 

I'll be happy to plug it whenever I get the chance.

 

"There is only thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."

Edited March 4, 2007 by Mushtang

[+CO Admin]

Maybe I'm missing something but whats with all the "Many claim" and "Allegedly the first cache" Is there some reason to doubt that this was the first Geocache?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

What are geocachings "roots"?

 

Was there ever a description of a geocache shared by the community?

 

I am a relative n00b, but all I have seen in 3.5 years is evolution, change, and growth!

 

Geocaches embrace the vast variety of theit hiders personalities and creativity.

 

Looking back to romantacised mythical "roots" of a six-year-old free-form game is a like nailing jelly to a tree!

 

As far as CB (Citizens Band Radio), popularity didn't kill it, anonymity did.

 

Americans took their first opportunity to communicate one-to-many anonymously and used that opportunity to let the uglines and hatred usually hidden inside and out of society's view out to do every crude and idiotic thing that came to mind.

 

Kind of like the internet.

 

No, exactly like the internet!

 

73 de W4AGA

[+PJPeters]

Well, let's face it... Even if the cache is a 'traditional,' and exactly at the posted coordinates, it's not as easy as walking up and picking the can/lock&lock/film can/pillbottle/etc... I've stepped on one or two cache hiding places, without realizing it.

I think we'd grumble a bit in the forums (imagine that! ), but we'd adapt, conform, and continue doing what we like best: wandering around the woods, trying to find that dang ammo can.

[+wimseyguy]

I always thought it was the really bad movies that spelled the end of CB Radios.

 

I think a greater threat to the future of geocaching as we know it is technology. Sooner or later, affordable handheld recreational units will provide accuracy in inches, not feet. How much fun will it really be when your GPS unit leads you right to it every single time and your search lasts seconds? Yes, there will still be the special destination, but will you need a GPS and hidden cache to draw you there?

[+Ambrosia]

I always thought it was the really bad movies that spelled the end of CB Radios.

 

I think a greater threat to the future of geocaching as we know it is technology. Sooner or later, affordable handheld recreational units will provide accuracy in inches, not feet. How much fun will it really be when your GPS unit leads you right to it every single time and your search lasts seconds? Yes, there will still be the special destination, but will you need a GPS and hidden cache to draw you there?

Oh, I don't know. Hard searches are what I like least about caching (and that includes puzzles before I get to the cache site). I'd probably cache more in your scenario.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Ambrosia

[Clan Riffster]

Maybe I'm missing something but whats with all the "Many claim" and "Allegedly the first cache" Is there some reason to doubt that this was the first Geocache?

Strictly rumors. I wasn't around back then, so I have no opinion to offer other than the Company Line. In a KLR650 forum I used to participate in, one of the other posters was griping about geocaching. I called him on it, and he said he first learned about it 10 years ago. I copy/pasted a link pointing out that Dave Ulmer hid the first geocache on May 03, 2000, and he was adamant that this was not the case, claiming that folks were hunting geocaches long before selective availability was disabled. He even claimed that they were referred to as geocaches, not some other name. Was he lying? I have no idea.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I always thought it was the really bad movies that spelled the end of CB Radios.

 

I think a greater threat to the future of geocaching as we know it is technology. Sooner or later, affordable handheld recreational units will provide accuracy in inches, not feet. How much fun will it really be when your GPS unit leads you right to it every single time and your search lasts seconds? Yes, there will still be the special destination, but will you need a GPS and hidden cache to draw you there?

Oh, I don't know. Hard searches are what I like least about caching (and that includes puzzles before I get to the cache site). I'd probably cache more in your scenario.

What she said!

 

It's the trip, the people, the experience and places that I love - I don't much enjoy the search and can't stand (read figure out!) puzzles.

 

Take me to an interesting place with a few friends along and the cache can be painted orange on a steel post.

[+Retcon]

Virtuals, webcams, and moving caches are no longer being added to the site. Eventually all will be gone through attrition. Locationless caches have been removed from the site completely. Retcon, you've never even been given the opportunity to hide most of those types, since they were pretty much gone when you joined the site. Yet you're still here.

They were not removed because they weren't "pure", they were removed (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong. As you say I'm new here) because they were problematic. And mabye a little lame.

Several other cache listing sites exist that have cache types that are no longer allowed to be submitted here. Many more have come and closed up from lack of use.

How popular are they?

Again, feature lame caches, nobody will use your site. Fail to feature great caches (Which, in my opinion, a lot of multis are) and you just may lose to someone else.

GC.com even started another site of their own to list virtuals, webcams, and locationless.

How popular is that site?

Again, I don't know, because I didn't know it existed.

Last I looked, traditional style caches were by far the most common listed in most areas. Same with regular sized caches. While in some areas micros seem the norm, overall the most common cache out there is a regular-sized traditional hide. Since people usually hide what they like to find, it shows that overall, the majority of cachers like those the best.

No arguement there. I have no problem hunting traditional caches. Even traditional micros with no swag so long as they're a good hike.

No, geocaching on this site would continue just fine. A percentage of the vocal minority that makes up the forums would grumble, but most cachers would just keep on finding the caches they like. And most of them would continue to do it using geocaching.com.

As would I, but I'd try my hardest to find and use a site that also listed more creative caches.

 

As an aside, why is this being brought up? Is there serious discussion about it or (heaven forbid) is *this* the serious discussion?

[Clan Riffster]

As an aside, why is this being brought up?

Just to satisfy my sick & twisted curiosity. I've been trying to teach myself the evolution of geocaching, and comparing that with the evolution of terracaching & navicaching. GC has been on fire for the two years I've been playing, whilst the others have only shown lackluster growth. I was wondering why that was. All 3 offer essentially the same thing; a website that lists caches. Yet This site stands head & shoulders above the other two. I'm thinking it must be some seriously effective marketing.

 

Many people loved locationless, yet when they went away, the site prospered. Many people loved virtuals, yet when Groundspeak disallowed any further listing of them, the site prospered. Many people loved traveling caches, yet when Groundspeak disallowed any further listing of them, the site prospered. I love multis, puzzles and cleverly hidden micros. Yet, I believe, if they went away, this site would continue to prosper. Undoubtedly, many would stomp their collective feet, pouting about the loss, (I know I would), but the site would continue to dominate the market.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Could geocaching, the game, survive? Certainly.

 

Could Groundspeak, the geocache listing service, survive? Almost a certainty!

 

The other sites you mention have severe disadvantages which I believe doom them to triviality.

 

Aside from being in the right place at the right time, what became Groundspeak apparantly had astute and flexible management, solid financial backing, and, the thing that I believe has been and continues to be its miracle weapon, an educated, dedicated corps of volunteers. Creating that body of Volunteer Reviewers and Moderators and who knows what all volunteers did and do was a stroke of business genius.

 

I think the game goes on regardless, and think Groundspeak will go on right up until a monster appears - when Google decides to list caches, for example. Starting a business is tough, but with deep enough pockets buying or stealing one is a piece of cake.

 

I can see Google or Yahoo with a staff of ten paid full-time Reviewers taking over the market quickly if they ever get the idea that it would be profitable, now that Groundspeak has laid the groundwork.

[Dinoprophet]

Many people loved locationless, yet when they went away, the site prospered. Many people loved virtuals, yet when Groundspeak disallowed any further listing of them, the site prospered. Many people loved traveling caches, yet when Groundspeak disallowed any further listing of them, the site prospered. I love multis, puzzles and cleverly hidden micros. Yet, I believe, if they went away, this site would continue to prosper. Undoubtedly, many would stomp their collective feet, pouting about the loss, (I know I would), but the site would continue to dominate the market.

 

But no competition arose to fill the gap. There's Waymarking.com for virtuals and locationless, but it's not one-stop-shopping (not to mention I don't like the search interface). If Groundspeak listed regular caches there as well as the others, it would be considerably more popular than it is. And there's still an unending variety of ways to implement caches with the types that remain here. If gc.com went further and disallowed any deviation at all from "ammo can or bigger at these coordinates", someone would be savvy enough to fill the gap.

[Mr.Yuck]

Maybe I'm missing something but whats with all the "Many claim" and "Allegedly the first cache" Is there some reason to doubt that this was the first Geocache?

Strictly rumors. I wasn't around back then, so I have no opinion to offer other than the Company Line. In a KLR650 forum I used to participate in, one of the other posters was griping about geocaching. I called him on it, and he said he first learned about it 10 years ago. I copy/pasted a link pointing out that Dave Ulmer hid the first geocache on May 03, 2000, and he was adamant that this was not the case, claiming that folks were hunting geocaches long before selective availability was disabled. He even claimed that they were referred to as geocaches, not some other name. Was he lying? I have no idea.

 

I'd say he's lying. Maybe he was thinking of letterboxing?

 

The invention of geocaching on usenet, the day after President Clinton turned off Selective Availibilty, is well documented. Here are some "history" links:

 

According to geocaching.com

 

According to some guy named Kimbo

 

According to Scout, owner of gpsgames.org

Disclaimer: this one is very critical of geocaching.com But it also documents the coining of the phrase "geocaching" (as opposed to gps stash hunt), by Matt Sturm on May 30, 2000, in a post to an egroups mailing list. Egroups has since been taken over by Yahoo!, and is currently the Yahoo! groups which many are familiar with.

[+Mule Ears]

There's no enforced back-to-basics movement in Geocaching, but there's a strong voluntary one. We no longer bother with urban micros, tricky hides in public places, or drive-up caches. If it's not an interesting hike to a remote and/or scenic spot, we're not all that interested. There have been discussions here in which others have said the same thing. It's a healthy evolution, and it happened spontaneously.

[+Too Tall John]

As an aside, why is this being brought up? Is there serious discussion about it or (heaven forbid) is *this* the serious discussion?

Clan Riffster is secretly working for GC.com's marketing & development. They are looking at starting yet another site, and are going to call it "Geocaching Classic" (much like Coca-Cola did years ago). The new site will feature "Travel Beans" (a-la OCB) and have one size of cache: 5 gallons. The site will be designed to feel like a usenet page, and shortly into it's run, the word "cache" will be substituted with the word "stash" as the spelling of cache confuses most muggles anyways. Anyone willing to work on this project can contact the development team here.

 

 

 

 

Would you believe that just.kidding.net is a real address?

[+Renegade Knight]

Would it survive as a viable RASH? Yes.

 

I have more fun at traditional caches with swag than other kinds in general.

[+gh patriot]

I always thought it was the really bad movies that spelled the end of CB Radios.

 

I think a greater threat to the future of geocaching as we know it is technology. Sooner or later, affordable handheld recreational units will provide accuracy in inches, not feet. How much fun will it really be when your GPS unit leads you right to it every single time and your search lasts seconds? Yes, there will still be the special destination, but will you need a GPS and hidden cache to draw you there?

Oh, I don't know. Hard searches are what I like least about caching (and that includes puzzles before I get to the cache site). I'd probably cache more in your scenario.

What she said!

 

It's the trip, the people, the experience and places that I love - I don't much enjoy the search and can't stand (read figure out!) puzzles.

 

Take me to an interesting place with a few friends along and the cache can be painted orange on a steel post.

 

I agree with alabama rambler. An orange steel post in a cool place is fine. I do understand that some LOVE to be chalenged to the extreme though.

[+wimseyguy]

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the social aspect very much. But if all it we had were park n grabs and obvious piles of sticks to look for, I'd be gone. I like the clever creative hide in the appropriate place. Especially when it's ahrd to get away from the city for a quick hunt or two. Oddly I'm not a big fan of puzzles though. Go figure.

Edited March 5, 2007 by wimseyguy

[+Retcon]

Many people loved locationless, yet when they went away, the site prospered. Many people loved virtuals, yet when Groundspeak disallowed any further listing of them, the site prospered. Many people loved traveling caches, yet when Groundspeak disallowed any further listing of them, the site prospered. I love multis, puzzles and cleverly hidden micros. Yet, I believe, if they went away, this site would continue to prosper. Undoubtedly, many would stomp their collective feet, pouting about the loss, (I know I would), but the site would continue to dominate the market.

 

If many people loved locationless, virtuals, and traveling caches, yet the site prospered when they were removed, perhaps it prospered despite their removal, and not because of it.

 

I am changing my mind though, I do think that Groundspeak would continue to see prosperity. However, I strongly think that slashing out everything but Traditional/Regular would greatly increase the chances of them being beaten by an upstart.

[Clan Riffster]

If many people loved locationless, virtuals, and traveling caches, yet the site prospered when they were removed, perhaps it prospered despite their removal, and not because of it.

That's my thought. Groundspeak has so much good karma directed toward them that they could probably institute a policy requiring cachers to rub blue mud in their navels prior to each hunt and still be leading the way in cache listing sites.

[+mikeslomka]

That's my thought. Groundspeak has so much good karma directed toward them that they could probably institute a policy requiring cachers to rub blue mud in their navels prior to each hunt and still be leading the way in cache listing sites.

 

I certainly wouldn't go that far. That's like saying that Microsoft has good karma. Microsoft cornered the market early on and made some very wise(if not ethical) business decisions. The fact is that geocaching.com is really the only major game(no pun intended) in town right now. However, if they continue to alienate the subcultures(locationless, virtuals, etc..) then eventually somebody else will find that market very viable.

 

That being said though, it's their site and they can run it however they want. If I want to go out and do virtuals, I'll go looking elsewhere. If another site comes along and is willing to provide EVERYTHING that I want, I'll stop using gc.com.

 

I don't think that there is a serious danger of that happening in the next few years though.

[+DrAwKwArD]

Clan Riffster is secretly working for GC.com's marketing & development. They are looking at starting yet another site, and are going to call it "Geocaching Classic" (much like Coca-Cola did years ago). The new site will feature "Travel Beans" (a-la OCB) and have one size of cache: 5 gallons. The site will be designed to feel like a usenet page, and shortly into it's run, the word "cache" will be substituted with the word "stash" as the spelling of cache confuses most muggles anyways. Anyone willing to work on this project can contact the development team here.

Will Riffster also sell the original patented formula for big $$$?

 

Hey, didn't I hear your voice on podcacher tonight?

[+Too Tall John]

Clan Riffster is secretly working for GC.com's marketing & development. They are looking at starting yet another site, and are going to call it "Geocaching Classic" (much like Coca-Cola did years ago). The new site will feature "Travel Beans" (a-la OCB) and have one size of cache: 5 gallons. The site will be designed to feel like a usenet page, and shortly into it's run, the word "cache" will be substituted with the word "stash" as the spelling of cache confuses most muggles anyways. Anyone willing to work on this project can contact the development team here.

Will Riffster also sell the original patented formula for big $$$?

I'm betting he'll hold out & exchange it for a Platinum Membership.

Hey, didn't I hear your voice on podcacher tonight?

Yeah, that was me. Thanks for pointing it out, I forgot I'd called in & hadn't listened yet.