Skirt Lifters - Luv'em or Hate'em

[+TrailGators]

4. They're this sport for numbers and they would log a dog turd if it would add to their smiley count.

This is very true. What is sad is that many would defend that dog turd.

I simply extended the bottom limit from an LPC to something that is absurd. The point was clear. Is there any cache that you guys won't defend? I'm just trying to find if we have any common ground....

Man ... when KBI has to go to work and leave the thread for a couple days, things really go highbrow in a hurry.

 

I'll bite. I think it's a fun question. Why not?

 

Would *I* do a cache if it were hidden inside a pile of dog squeeze? No.

 

Would I object to it being listed? No. Nobody's forcing me to hunt the cache. If the cache description indicated that finding the cache required putting my hands on doggie doo, I'd simply ignore the cache listing. If not -- if it were intended to be a surprise, and I found myself at the coords with Garmin in hand looking at a big brown steaming heap of former kibbles wondering if that's where the cache was hidden, I'd pass. I repeat: Nobody's forcing me to hunt the cache. Nobody's forcing anybody to hunt any cache.

 

Do I think a reviewer would approve such a hide? Not sure. It might be interesting to hear a reviewer's opinion on this.

 

Do I think anybody is ever likely to submit such a hide? No.

 

Do I think this hypothetical question is relevant to a debate on the worthiness of actual and existing caches such as skirt lifter hides? No. Skirt lifter hides are not physically repulsive in and of themselves; neither do they post a heath hazard.

 

Is dog poop fun to talk about anyway? Heck yeah.

 

 

April 13 by WiddleSnuggumWuggums (7 found)

This one was pretty satisfying ... if you know what I mean. I've been looking forward to enjoying this log for three days (too much cheese).

Took: a dump

Left: in a hurry

 

Spoiler photo of me with the cache:

WiddleSnuggumWuggums.... I have a Cairn terror (note the spelling) that we call Lickie Loo (cause all she does is lick people).

[Mushtang]

I'll bite. I think it's a fun question. Why not?

 

Would *I* do a cache if it were hidden inside a pile of dog squeeze? No.

 

Would I object to it being listed? No. Nobody's forcing me to hunt the cache.

I'll submit this reply since I know it's coming anyway, and I can save someone the time.

 

Oh my god! Someone actually did defend a cache placed in dog poop. I guess that shows that these people have absolutely no limits as to what they'll defend.

 

[+sbell111]

I realize that this post is off the subject of poop, but yesterday afternoon, I had to run an errand and I found myself within striking distance of an LPC in a grocery store parking lot. I went ahead and made the find. Leter, after logging my find, I took a look at some of the other online logs.

 

This one made me smile:

on a great day to cache--keep up the good work--i love this type of hide --do more like this

Please don't try to tell me that cachers don't like LPCs.

[CoyoteRed]

Please don't try to tell me that cachers don't like LPCs.

 

We back to trying to valid a type of hide simply because someone likes it? Shall I bring out the list of cache types that folks liked yet were deemed so bad they are no longer being listed on this site?

[+KBI]

I'll bite. I think it's a fun question. Why not?

 

Would *I* do a cache if it were hidden inside a pile of dog squeeze? No.

 

Would I object to it being listed? No. Nobody's forcing me to hunt the cache.

I'll submit this reply since I know it's coming anyway, and I can save someone the time.

 

Oh my god! Someone actually did defend a cache placed in dog poop. I guess that shows that these people have absolutely no limits as to what they'll defend.

No limits? Sure, I have limits as to what I'll defend. Can I imagine a cache so lame I’d refuse to defend it? Sure! Can I imagine a cache so lame it could reasonably be described as "bad for the hobby?" Sure! I may not know it when I see it, but one can’t argue with reactions like this, for example:

 

 

January 7 by Jeremy (197 found)

This was absolutely horrible. Consider it archived.

 

In fact ... come to think of it, I’m so disgusted with this particular cache’s complete lack of imagination that I’ve decided to shut down the entire geocaching.com website, effective midnight tonight.

 

January 7 by GWBush (13 found)

What Jeremy said. Also, I've just signed an Emergency Executive Order authorizing the immediate de-activation and dismantling of the entire Global Positioning System, just to make absolutely sure this kind of lameness never rears its ugly head again.

 

 

Can't hardly defend that one, can I?

[+KBI]

Please don't try to tell me that cachers don't like LPCs.

We back to trying to valid a type of hide simply because someone likes it? Shall I bring out the list of cache types that folks liked yet were deemed so bad they are no longer being listed on this site?

Does that mean you've abandoned your claim that cachers don't like LPCs?

 

You're back to claiming that people are not enjoyng those skirt lifter hides?

Good lord! How many folks in this very thread have said they don't like LPCs? I don't have to claim it. Folks are saying it. Sheesh.

[+KBI]

We back to trying to valid a type of hide simply because someone likes it?

That's all the reason I need. What else do you need?

 

I think the burden is on you at this point to list logical reasons to invalidate this type of hide -- reasons other than "because CoyoteRed doesn't like it."

[+TrailGators]

We back to trying to valid a type of hide simply because someone likes it?

That's all the reason I need. What else do you need?

 

I think the burden is on you at this point to list logical reasons to invalidate this type of hide -- reasons other than "because CoyoteRed doesn't like it."

Let's be honest. There are a ton of people that don't like these hides. There are also a ton of people that "tolerate" these hides. It's not going to happen but IF they were to ask people to quit hiding them nobody would lose any sleep over it.

[+KBI]

Shall I bring out the list of cache types that folks liked yet were deemed so bad they are no longer being listed on this site?

Please bring out the list, if you think it will help support your position. I'd like to see it.

 

In order for your list of previously banned cache types to support your argument, of course, they will have to be cache types that were banned purely due to issues of poor creativity and inadequate entertainment. If you list cache types that were instead banned due to other, more practical reasons, you’ll need to show how your list is relevant by further listing all the practical reasons why skirt-lifter hides are bad for the game.

[+KBI]

Let's be honest. There are a ton of people that don't like these hides. There are also a ton of people that "tolerate" these hides.

While we're being honest: There are also a ton of people that enjoy these hides very much, and seek them out. They like them a lot, and they say so -- with their words, and with their actions. Don't you read the logs? Oh, that's right -- we've established that you don't do that. Well, maybe if you did you'd see the evidence.

[+Miragee]

I just went back to look at some more of the logs on my one LPC.

I was a guest of the S.O.C. Puzzle Crew today, an what a day it turned out to be! Lots of Fun an Laughter,an a tiny bit of stress too, that seem to go away in a heart beat, with the next cache find YAHOooOOOOoO!! What a Awesome Day spent with Friends

Thanks for the Hide!

1217 hours - Very cleaver hide. Only one possible and still checked others. Even found the place but missed the cache the first time. This is a favorite. SL

Howdy from TRAKD

We were headed on our way to Imperial County to snatch a cache (so I can get all 58 counties) when we had a minor crisis. While we waited around for the Dentist I looked to see if any caches were nearby. BINGO! Off we went in search of a cache or two to kill the time. “D” pulled into the parking lot and started to go the wrong way so I just hopped out of the uber-cache-mobile and chased the GPSr. This little gem was a hiding right where I figured. Oh how I love these caches. I signed the log and we headed off to the next. Thanks for the cache Cheers

Awesome hiding spot. Took us awhile to figure it out but greatly enjoyed the find. We were there during high muggle time, but no one seemed to really care about what we were doing. Thanks for the hide.

Many of the logs for this cache are more unique than the disappointing "Cut and Paste" logs I often get for my caches people have to hike to . . .

 

If we are going to "ban" things, I think we should ban "Cut and Paste" logs . . .

[+TrailGators]

Let's be honest. There are a ton of people that don't like these hides. There are also a ton of people that "tolerate" these hides.

While we're being honest: There are also a ton of people that enjoy these hides very much, and seek them out. They like them a lot, and they say so -- with their words, and with their actions. Don't you read the logs? Oh, that's right -- we've established that you don't do that. Well, maybe if you did you'd see the evidence.

There are tons of people that like freaking Rosey O'Donnell. What's that prove? If enough people gripe about Rosey will they finally take her off the air?

[Clan Riffster]

One can only hope.

[+KBI]

Let's be honest. There are a ton of people that don't like these hides. There are also a ton of people that "tolerate" these hides.

While we're being honest: There are also a ton of people that enjoy these hides very much, and seek them out. They like them a lot, and they say so -- with their words, and with their actions. Don't you read the logs? Oh, that's right -- we've established that you don't do that. Well, maybe if you did you'd see the evidence.

There are tons of people that like freaking Rosey O'Donnell. What's that prove? If enough people gripe about Rosey will they finally take her off the air?

You watch Rosie O'Donnell? Ugh. Are the channel up/down buttons on your TV remote broken? If so, are you aware that most TVs still come with channel tuning buttons right on the front of the unit? If that doesn't work, I'd unplug my TV and go get it repaired, if I were you. Nobody is forced to watch Rosie (thank goodness). Nobody is forced to do skirt-lifter caches either. Your point?

 

Yes, there ARE tons of people that like freaking Rosie O'Donnell. Who can explain it, but that's why she's on the air.

 

What's that prove? It proves that different people have different entertainment preferences. You might reasonably question the entertainment preference of someone who would actually enjoy watching her show. Those people, on the other hand, might reasonably question the entertainment preference of someone like you or me who would actually enjoy tromping around in the woods, on a mountain, in the dark, under a bridge, or in a parking lot looking for a sometimes-very-difficult-to-spot container, just to sign a piece of paper. That's not how you and I see it, but of course try explaining geocaching to some people.

 

If some confirmed muggle out there thinks ALL geocaching is lame, not just the skirt lifters, is his opinion any less valid than yours? If enough people gripe about the pointlessness of this hobby, should we all give it up and cease all geocaching immediately just to make them happy?

 

It proves that censorship of the type you're suggesting as a solution to the fact that you and I can't stand Rosie O'Donnell is wrong.

 

Besides, TV is a business. Those shows exist only to make money. You're back to equating cache hides with consumer goods and services again, and we've already established that that argument is unsound.

Edited April 18, 2007 by KBI

[+TrailGators]

Let's be honest. There are a ton of people that don't like these hides. There are also a ton of people that "tolerate" these hides.

While we're being honest: There are also a ton of people that enjoy these hides very much, and seek them out. They like them a lot, and they say so -- with their words, and with their actions. Don't you read the logs? Oh, that's right -- we've established that you don't do that. Well, maybe if you did you'd see the evidence.

There are tons of people that like freaking Rosey O'Donnell. What's that prove? If enough people gripe about Rosey will they finally take her off the air?

You watch Rosie O'Donnell?

Why? Is hell frozen over yet?

[+TrailGators]

Besides, TV is a business. Those shows exist only to make money. You're back to equating cache hides with consumer goods and services again, and we've already established that that argument is unsound.

We never proved that at all. You ignored my premise. I said that all cachers are customers. They invest their time and gas to get pleasure from each cache. The profit to the hider is the amount of enjoyment that his cache brings to each finder. In that sense, some caches have very high profits and some have an overall zero profit or even negative profit. So if we could see the overall profit of each kind of cache we would see that certain kinds are much better than others.

[+Miragee]

If that is your premise, then I have gotten more pleasure out of some of the logs for my LPC than I have for some of the caches I placed in scenic locations at the end of a nice hike . . .

 

Maybe the people who have done the hikes have been too tired to write anything interesting . . .

[+TrailGators]

If that is your premise, then I have gotten more pleasure out of some of the logs for my LPC than I have for some of the caches I placed in scenic locations at the end of a nice hike . . .

 

Maybe the people who have done the hikes have been too tired to write anything interesting . . .

Some LPCs are in better locations. Is your LPC behind a Taco Bell near a garbage dumpster? Plus newbies always seem to enjoy LPCs. I did at one time. Also my observation when it comes to your hiking caches is that they all have nice views. So maybe to get a longer log on a hiking cache it needs to be much better than the average hiking cache. So it's all relative. At any rate, I don't think you can totally derive how much pleasure people get just by reading their logs. Many people don't typically write that much including me and I've enjoyed yuor hiking caches a lot. Sometimes you can learn more just by talking to people. Have you ever had the experience of going to an event an hearing everyone rave about an LPC? Edited April 18, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

Besides, TV is a business. Those shows exist only to make money. You're back to equating cache hides with consumer goods and services again, and we've already established that that argument is unsound.

We never proved that at all. You ignored my premise.

No, I disproved your premise. And I assumed you were satisfied with my arguments when you stopped responding to them.

 

I said that all cachers are customers. They invest their time and gas to get pleasure from each cache.

That investment generates returns for the finder, not the hider. Whether the hider perceives a benefit may be related, or it may have absolutely nothing to do with how many people find his cache, or how much effort is required of them.

 

I asked once before: Some caches have never been logged as found. Some of them have never even been attempted. Are those caches therefore less than worthy of existence? Where is the benefit to the hider? If no benefit, do you have a problem with the existence of such a cache? Nobody has tackled that question yet.

 

The profit to the hider is the amount of enjoyment that his cache brings to each finder.

That's not profit received from the finder. That's satisfaction that comes from within the hider. There is no direct causal relationship as there is between a customer paying for a good or service and a business receiving the money as income.

 

(I called my bank just now. Told them I'm a geocache owner, explained that I have received 'amounts of enjoyment' that my caches have brought me as a result of their being enjoyed by others, and said I'd like to come in a make a deposit of 'amounts of enjoyment' to my savings. She first put me on hold, then said to please remain where I am, that some nice people would be over to my place shortly to take care of me. What great service! Maybe you're right! (Hang on ... something's going on outside ... I think I hear sirens ...))

 

Besides, based on your argument, skirt-lifter hides would tend to be far more "profitable" than most other caches, and therefore more worthy, would they not?

 

In that sense, some caches have very high profits and some have an overall zero profit or even negative profit. So if we could see the overall profit of each kind of cache we would see that certain kinds are much better than others.

Even if this “customer” argument held water, it would have already been shown to be irrelevant: LOTS of people enjoy skirt lifter hides. If geocaching worked in a businesslike way anywhere near what you’re claiming, the skirt lifter cache owners would be the wealthiest cache owners!

 

You’ll have to come up with something else, TG.

 

I also noticed that you chose to ignore this query:

If some confirmed muggle out there thinks ALL geocaching is lame, not just the skirt lifters, is his opinion any less valid than yours? If enough people gripe about the pointlessness of this hobby, should we all give it up and cease all geocaching immediately just to make them happy?

You don’t like skirt lifter caches. You think they’re tedious, lame and pointless, and would be much happier if every single one of them were to go away, never to come back.

 

There are MANY folks out there who have the same view about ALL geocaching. They see it as tedious, lame and pointless, and wonder why anybody would waste their time when there are much better (in their opinion) things to do. They criticize those who blow their resources in such a nerdy and meaningless way when those folks (in their opinion) should be doing other things more worthwhile. They would actually be much happier if every single geocache were to go away, never to come back.

 

If we Defenders are to succumb to your wishes on skirt lifters, wouldn’t it logically follow that you should then turn around and show the same courtesy to the cache-hater muggles, and demand that the entire game of Geocaching be immediately shut down?

[+KBI]

You watch Rosie O'Donnell?

Why? Is hell frozen over yet?

My point exactly. Ignoring Rosie is just as easy as ignoring caches you don't care for. As to those who enjoy either of those things, does it make you happy, or help you feel superior, to belittle them?

[+KBI]

At any rate, I don't think you can totally derive how much pleasure people get just by reading their logs. Many people don't typically write that much including me and I've enjoyed yuor hiking caches a lot.

This 'profit' argument is becoming less and less sound.

[+KBI]

Have you ever had the experience of going to an event an hearing everyone rave about an LPC?

Irrelevant. Lack of raving is not an indicator of the unworthiness of a cache to exist.

 

Would you be happy if the website started archiving ALL caches for which the owner failed to produce evidence of breathlessly excited endorsement at event meetings?

[+Miragee]

The other day I found myself looking for a cache in a little park . . . near a fence that said "Beware of Dog" . . . with a dog on the other side of the fence that was barking . . . near a house with a window that looked olut onto the cache hiding spot . . .

 

At that point, I would have rather been looking for an LPC . . .

 

[+tozainamboku]

Have you ever had the experience of going to an event an hearing everyone rave about an LPC?

Irrelevant. Lack of raving is not an indicator of the unworthiness of a cache to exist.

 

Would you be happy if the website started archiving ALL caches for which the owner failed to produce evidence of breathlessly excited endorsement at event meetings?

Perhaps TrailGators believes that all caches have to be as good as the caches that appear on his San Diego's Consensus Favorites list. If every cache made the list then he wouldn't need to maintain a list

I've heard LPCs discussed at many events. Sure, mostly they're talked about disparagingly. But some people have great stories to tell. As I posted above, LPCs are often memorable and sometimes lots of fun based on what happened on that particular day. They may never make a list of most recommended caches but that doesn't mean they don't have a place.

[+TrailGators]

The profit to the hider is the amount of enjoyment that his cache brings to each finder.

That's not profit received from the finder. That's satisfaction that comes from within the hider. There is no direct causal relationship as there is between a customer paying for a good or service and a business receiving the money as income.

You obviously don't understand the other accepted meaning of profit which is to derive a benefit. So the hider does profit from placing better caches. Satisfaction from knowing that many people rave about his cache or recommend his cache is a benefit. There are others but hopefully you get the point this time....

 

Besides, based on your argument, skirt-lifter hides would tend to be far more "profitable" than most other caches, and therefore more worthy, would they not?

If many people are "tolerating" them then I would see very little if any profit gained from those people. If some people have displeasure cannot filter out the cache by reading the cache, it subtracts from the overall profit of that cache. I know of urban caches that everyone raves about. There are many that almost everyone enjoys. I bet you that LPCs are close to the bottom of the enjoyment list for urbans. Can you think of a lower one?

If we Defenders are to succumb to your wishes on skirt lifters, wouldn't it logically follow that you should then turn around and show the same courtesy to the cache-hater muggles, and demand that the entire game of Geocaching be immediately shut down?

You are chasing windmills again. Nobody in this thread has said that LPCs should be banned. If I had the cache in the parking lot attribute or if I could ignore all hides from certain cachers I'd be a happy camper.

[+TrailGators]

Perhaps TrailGators believes that all caches have to be as good as the caches that appear on his San Diego's Consensus Favorites list. If every cache made the list then he wouldn't need to maintain a list

That's ridiculous. That's just another Ad hominem argument.

[+TrailGators]

The other day I found myself looking for a cache in a little park . . . near a fence that said "Beware of Dog" . . . with a dog on the other side of the fence that was barking . . . near a house with a window that looked olut onto the cache hiding spot . . .

 

At that point, I would have rather been looking for an LPC . . .

 

Some caches can even make an LPC look good. What's that tell you!

[+KBI]

The profit to the hider is the amount of enjoyment that his cache brings to each finder.

That's not profit received from the finder. That's satisfaction that comes from within the hider. There is no direct causal relationship as there is between a customer paying for a good or service and a business receiving the money as income.

You obviously don't understand the other accepted meaning of profit which is to derive a benefit.

What I understand is that it doesn’t cost me, the cache owner, anything if someone decides to avoid my cache because they think they won’t like it. If they decide to go to another cache instead, it’s not like my “competitor” (the other cache owner) is gaining anything over me, as would happen if your business analogy truly applied. What do I care if someone doesn’t like my cache? What do I care if a majority of cachers don’t like my cache? What do I care if 90% of them turn their nose up at it and go for the other (competing?) one instead? I placed the cache for my own reasons. Who are you to tell me what those reasons should be, or that it shouldn’t be enjoyed by other finders simply because you don’t like it?

 

Besides, based on your argument, skirt-lifter hides would tend to be far more "profitable" than most other caches, and therefore more worthy, would they not?

If many people are "tolerating" them then I would see very little if any profit gained from those people.

You’re still not listening. LOTS of people LIKE skirt lifters. They enjoy them VERY MUCH. It's like you're disagreeing with 2+2=4. LOTS of people LIKE skirt lifters. It's not my opinion. It's a FACT. Which part of that simple and proven concept do you still disagree with?

 

If some people have displeasure cannot filter out the cache by reading the cache, it subtracts from the overall profit of that cache.

If it causes you consternation because you can’t figure out ahead of time, or as you turn into the parking lot, that my cache is in a parking lot, then you have my sympathy – but I’m not about to archive the cache on the outside chance that someone unskilled in such avoidance will be inconsolably upset over the existence of my hide. Get over it.

 

If it causes you consternation because I drive a red truck and you don’t like trucks (or red), then you have my sympathy – but I’m not about to sell my truck on the outside chance that someone unskilled in the emotional coping required of everyday life will be inconsolably upset over the existence of my red truck. Get over it.

 

I know of urban caches that everyone raves about. There are many that almost everyone enjoys. I bet you that LPCs are close to the bottom of the enjoyment list for urbans. Can you think of a lower one?

I can’t speak for others, but yes, there are caches that entertain me, KBI, FAR less than skirt lifters. Caches I’ll never do and have no interest in attempting. Underwater hides, for example – you’ll never hear me rave about them. I live near a large lake, and there are quite a few of them on my ‘nearest’ list. Should I follow you example and rant on and on in the forums about how underwater caches are bad for the hobby? That they shouldn’t exist? That those who hide them show poor judgment? That any effort by me to try to avoid them is a hardship I shouldn’t be forced to suffer? That I’m entitled to a software patch, designed just for me, to insulate me from them?

 

If I had the cache in the parking lot attribute or if I could ignore all hides from certain cachers I'd be a happy camper.

Maybe. You’ve been handed a variety of methods to do those things already. You don’t seem to be a happy camper yet. I’m not convinced it’s possible.

 

If we Defenders are to succumb to your wishes on skirt lifters, wouldn't it logically follow that you should then turn around and show the same courtesy to the cache-hater muggles, and demand that the entire game of Geocaching be immediately shut down?

You are chasing windmills again. Nobody in this thread has said that LPCs should be banned.

I didn’t say the cache-hater muggles want all caches to be banned, either. I described their semi-fictitious opinions using the very same language you use to describe your contempt for skirt lifters. Read it again.

 

Please stop side-stepping, and please do me the courtesy of answering what I believe is a very reasonable question: If there are muggles (and I know there are such people) who despise ALL caches the way you despise skirt lifters, is it not reasonable of them to expect you to voluntarily abandon geocaching the way you are attempting to convince hiders and finders of skirt lifters to voluntarily abandon skirt lifters?

Edited April 18, 2007 by KBI

[+sbell111]

Besides, TV is a business. Those shows exist only to make money. You're back to equating cache hides with consumer goods and services again, and we've already established that that argument is unsound.

We never proved that at all. You ignored my premise. I said that all cachers are customers. They invest their time and gas to get pleasure from each cache. The profit to the hider is the amount of enjoyment that his cache brings to each finder. In that sense, some caches have very high profits and some have an overall zero profit or even negative profit. So if we could see the overall profit of each kind of cache we would see that certain kinds are much better than others.

I'm confused. You appear to be making the point that a cache's purpose is to please peaople and if a particular cache doesn't please people that it should not be placed. This flies in the face of your stand just a few posts up that it should have nothing to do with whether people like a particular cache.

 

Are you really saying that all caches should please you?

[Clan Riffster]

Nobody is forced to watch Rosie (thank goodness). Nobody is forced to do skirt-lifter caches either. Your point?

Just a guess here, but I'd say his point is they are both carpy.

 

What's that prove? It proves that different people have different entertainment preferences.

It proves that television has sunk to the lowest common denominator. Kinda like LPC's to geocaching. They are, for the most part, lame beyond belief. Most folks recognize that they are lame. Many log them anyway, just to clear out their "zone", which certainly isn't a valid indicator of their quality. Many ammo cans covered in piles of sticks have won "Cache of the Year/Month/Etc", which is an indication of the mindset of many cachers toward this type of hide. So far, I haven't seen a single LPC nominated for "Cache of the Whatever", which for me, is an indication of the mindset of many cachers.

 

Some folks like Rosie. Some folks like LPC's. Coincidence?

 

If some confirmed muggle out there thinks ALL geocaching is lame, not just the skirt lifters, is his opinion any less valid than yours?

Yes.

 

It proves that censorship of the type you're suggesting as a solution to the fact that you and I can't stand Rosie O'Donnell is wrong.

Perhaps I missed it. Where was the call for censorship in this thread?

 

You're back to equating cache hides with consumer goods and services again, and we've already established that that argument is unsound.

Not quite. Both TG and I made reasonably sound arguments regarding the comparison of geocaching to a free market economy. You made a reasonably sound argument refuting ours. I feel my argument is correct, TG feels his argument is correct, and you feel your argument is correct. Just because KBI disagrees with a particular principle, doesn't mean the principle is unsound.

[Clan Riffster]

Some caches have never been logged as found. Are those caches therefore less than worthy of existence?

Huh?

Where is the benefit to the hider?

The hider benefits from the process of hiding the cache, and waiting for folks to find it.

If no benefit, do you have a problem with the existence of such a cache?

Am I the only one out in left field here?

Nobody has tackled that question yet.

Perhaps no one tackled it because it is irrelevant?

 

There is no direct causal relationship as there is between a customer paying for a good or service and a business receiving the money as income.

Of course there is. Your inability to grasp a concept doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist. I am absolutely unable to grasp Euclidean physics, yet every time I drop a hammer on my foot I know the principle exists.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[+TrailGators]

If I had the cache in the parking lot attribute or if I could ignore all hides from certain cachers I'd be a happy camper.

Maybe. You've been handed a variety of methods to do those things already. You don't seem to be a happy camper yet. I'm not convinced it's possible.

You won't even try a test of easy method on the 92027 zipcode. I understand. It takes too much effort. I wouldn't want to do it either.

[+TrailGators]

Besides, TV is a business. Those shows exist only to make money. You're back to equating cache hides with consumer goods and services again, and we've already established that that argument is unsound.

We never proved that at all. You ignored my premise. I said that all cachers are customers. They invest their time and gas to get pleasure from each cache. The profit to the hider is the amount of enjoyment that his cache brings to each finder. In that sense, some caches have very high profits and some have an overall zero profit or even negative profit. So if we could see the overall profit of each kind of cache we would see that certain kinds are much better than others.

I'm confused. You appear to be making the point that a cache's purpose is to please peaople and if a particular cache doesn't please people that it should not be placed. This flies in the face of your stand just a few posts up that it should have nothing to do with whether people like a particular cache.

 

Are you really saying that all caches should please you?

Let's explain this with a simple math problem. Let's say every cacher out there has an ideal cache (10) and a least favorite cache (1) and there are only 2 urban caches in the world and only 10 cachers. Each of the 10 cachers visits these 2 caches and has some enjoyment (1-10), which we measure with a survey of all the cachers. Here are the results:

Cache A: 5, 6, 3, 7, 8, 6, 7, 9, 2, 5

Cache B: 1, 1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2

Now there are two new cachers in town that each want to hide a cache:

Sbell and KBI: Hide 10 more caches like Cache B because one person liked it.

TrailGators and CR: Each hide another cache like Cache A because far more people really seem to enjoy that kind.

Now you do the math....

Edited April 18, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Sportsfrau]

May I ask a silly(?) question?

 

Could somebody please explain me this whole lamp skirt thing? Did I understand this correctly, U.S. lamp posts have parts that can be lifted? By anybody. The so called skirt? What is underneath? Except for a micro?

 

Thanks

 

Sportsfrau (from Old Europe)

[Clan Riffster]

Besides, based on your argument, skirt-lifter hides would tend to be far more profitable than most other caches, and therefore more worthy, would they not?

If I understand TG's argument, than the opposite is true. In the cache vs consumer goods theory, the profit to the hider is the pleasure derived from reading the logs. If that's the case, then longer logs provide more profit than TNLNSL. I can't speak for Georgia, but around here, a lame cache typically gets shorter logs than an exceptional cache. This principle has evolved to the point that the length of a log is often used as an indicator of the quality of the hide. (Naturally there are exceptions, and I bet if you searched long and hard, you could find a Wally World LPC with a 4,000 character log.)

 

There are MANY folks out there who view ALL geocaching as tedious, lame and pointless, and would actually be much happier if every single geocache were to go away.

Facts not in evidence, Your Honor.

 

If we Defenders are to succumb to your wishes on skirt lifters, wouldn’t it logically follow that you should then turn around and show the same courtesy to the cache-hater muggles, and demand that the entire game of Geocaching be immediately shut down?

Nope. Once again you are twisting the debate to fit your particular argument, rather than changing your argument to fit the debate. TG is not asking that all the pathetically lame skirt lifter caches be banned. What he's asking for is an easy way to weed out the wheat from the chaff, without adversely affecting those who like chaff.

 

What I understand is that it doesn’t cost me, the cache owner, anything if someone decides to avoid my cache because they think they won’t like it. If they decide to go to another cache instead, it’s not like my “competitor” (the other cache owner) is gaining anything over me

Of course the competition is gaining. In your analogy, they are getting logs, whilst you are not.

 

What do I care if a majority of cachers don’t like my cache?

Perhaps you don't. You wouldn't be the first to hide caches without any regard for your fellow cachers. I see this little game as being multifaceted, a combined interaction between hiders and seekers. The caches I place are created to bring pleasure to my fellow players. If one of my caches fails at this goal, I correct it or archive it. If I only placed caches for me, I wouldn't bother to list them on a website viewed by gazillions of other players.

 

LOTS of people LIKE skirt lifters. They enjoy them VERY MUCH. It's not my opinion. It's a FACT.

Again, facts not in evidence, Your Honor. Define "Lots".

 

Get over it.

Excellent advice. Many LPC's are lame. Many cachers acknowledge that they are lame, and express their opinions about these carpy caches. Get over it.

[+Moose Mob]

May I ask a silly(?) question?

 

Could somebody please explain me this whole lamp skirt thing? Did I understand this correctly, U.S. lamp posts have parts that can be lifted? By anybody. The so called skirt? What is underneath? Except for a micro?

 

Thanks

 

Sportsfrau (from Old Europe)

yes, the "skirt" is a cosmetic cover over base of the light pole. Under this are the bolts that hold the light pole in place.

[+TrailGators]

May I ask a silly(?) question?

 

Could somebody please explain me this whole lamp skirt thing? Did I understand this correctly, U.S. lamp posts have parts that can be lifted? By anybody. The so called skirt? What is underneath? Except for a micro?

 

Thanks

 

Sportsfrau (from Old Europe)

That is correct. If you are driving through any US city and you drive by a Wal-Mart pull into the parking lot; pull out your GPS and then spot the lamp post that your GPS is pointing to. Then drive over to that lamp post and lift up the bottom cover and pull out the micro. After finding several of these around town, you may start to think that Americans are boring. Trust me, it's not all of us!

[+Miragee]

Besides, TV is a business. Those shows exist only to make money. You're back to equating cache hides with consumer goods and services again, and we've already established that that argument is unsound.

We never proved that at all. You ignored my premise. I said that all cachers are customers. They invest their time and gas to get pleasure from each cache. The profit to the hider is the amount of enjoyment that his cache brings to each finder. In that sense, some caches have very high profits and some have an overall zero profit or even negative profit. So if we could see the overall profit of each kind of cache we would see that certain kinds are much better than others.

I'm confused. You appear to be making the point that a cache's purpose is to please peaople and if a particular cache doesn't please people that it should not be placed. This flies in the face of your stand just a few posts up that it should have nothing to do with whether people like a particular cache.

 

Are you really saying that all caches should please you?

Let's explain this with a simple math problem. Let's say every cacher out there has an ideal cache (10) and a least favorite cache (1) and there are only 2 urban caches in the world and only 10 cachers. Each of the 10 cachers visits these 2 caches and has some enjoyment (1-10), which we measure with a survey of all the cachers. Here are the results:

Cache A: 5, 6, 3, 7, 8, 6, 7, 9, 2, 5

Cache B: 1, 1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2

Now there are two new cachers in town that each want to hide a cache:

Sbell and KBI: Hide 10 more caches like Cache B because one person liked it.

TrailGators and CR: Each hide another cache like Cache A because far more people really seem to enjoy that kind.

Now you do the math....

Wouldn't it be great if everyone was creative enough to place caches like these or like this one.

 

Ain't gonna happen . . . The best each of us can do is place the best caches, in the best locations we find and just drive by caches that are in areas or places we don't like.

 

I still think a restrictive question on the "Tool for reporting and editing cache listings" form would be helpful for weeding out the truly carpy caches before they even get Approved. This would not be like the boxes people can check without actually reading the "guidelines for listing a cache" and the "terms of use agreement," but would be like the ones for some Waymarking Categories (National Registry of Historic Places, for instance) where the submission will not go through unless the question is answered.

 

I just don't know what the question, or questions, would be How about if it was?

"Is this cache hidden in a lamp post skirt next to a dumpster?"

and the person answered "Yes," the form would return an

"Error!!!"

[+KBI]

Nobody is forced to watch Rosie (thank goodness). Nobody is forced to do skirt-lifter caches either. Your point?

Just a guess here, but I'd say his point is they are both carpy.

No argument from me. Your point?

 

What's that prove? It proves that different people have different entertainment preferences.

It proves that television has sunk to the lowest common denominator. Kinda like LPC's to geocaching. They are, for the most part, lame beyond belief. Most folks recognize that they are lame.

And I would agree with you on both counts. And you and I each own a clever little wireless device that allows us to change the channel. And lame caches are easily avoided, and their existence need not cause distress. Avoiding what you think is lame is an easy thing to do.

 

Many log them anyway, just to clear out their "zone", which certainly isn't a valid indicator of their quality.

Then how do you explain the thousands of happy-sounding logs written by finders of skirt lifter caches?

 

Many ammo cans covered in piles of sticks have won "Cache of the Year/Month/Etc", which is an indication of the mindset of many cachers toward this type of hide. So far, I haven't seen a single LPC nominated for "Cache of the Whatever", which for me, is an indication of the mindset of many cachers.

Does it make you feel superior to talk about them like that? Caching enjoyment comes in many forms, but if belittling the people who enjoy skirt lifters is what brings you your geo-happiness, you have my sympathy.

[+KBI]

If some confirmed muggle out there thinks ALL geocaching is lame, not just the skirt lifters, is his opinion any less valid than yours?

Yes.

Why?

 

You're not really suggesting that someone else's opinion counts for less than yours, are you?

You're not suggesting "dissent must be silenced" are you?

TG is upset because skirt lifters exist.

The muggle is upset because all caches exist.

Does the poor muggle deserve any less consideration that TG?

 

It proves that censorship of the type you're suggesting as a solution to the fact that you and I can't stand Rosie O'Donnell is wrong.

Perhaps I missed it. Where was the call for censorship in this thread?

Read it again. You quoted it: "censorship of the type TG is suggesting." If you say the word censorship was too strong for me to use there, I'll agree. I said many other better-worded things which should have made my point clear.

 

You're back to equating cache hides with consumer goods and services again, and we've already established that that argument is unsound.

Not quite. Both TG and I made reasonably sound arguments regarding the comparison of geocaching to a free market economy. You made a reasonably sound argument refuting ours. I feel my argument is correct, TG feels his argument is correct, and you feel your argument is correct. Just because KBI disagrees with a particular principle, doesn't mean the principle is unsound.

Whatever you gotta tell yourself.

[+TrailGators]

Besides, TV is a business. Those shows exist only to make money. You're back to equating cache hides with consumer goods and services again, and we've already established that that argument is unsound.

We never proved that at all. You ignored my premise. I said that all cachers are customers. They invest their time and gas to get pleasure from each cache. The profit to the hider is the amount of enjoyment that his cache brings to each finder. In that sense, some caches have very high profits and some have an overall zero profit or even negative profit. So if we could see the overall profit of each kind of cache we would see that certain kinds are much better than others.

I'm confused. You appear to be making the point that a cache's purpose is to please peaople and if a particular cache doesn't please people that it should not be placed. This flies in the face of your stand just a few posts up that it should have nothing to do with whether people like a particular cache.

 

Are you really saying that all caches should please you?

Let's explain this with a simple math problem. Let's say every cacher out there has an ideal cache (10) and a least favorite cache (1) and there are only 2 urban caches in the world and only 10 cachers. Each of the 10 cachers visits these 2 caches and has some enjoyment (1-10), which we measure with a survey of all the cachers. Here are the results:

Cache A: 5, 6, 3, 7, 8, 6, 7, 9, 2, 5

Cache B: 1, 1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2

Now there are two new cachers in town that each want to hide a cache:

Sbell and KBI: Hide 10 more caches like Cache B because one person liked it.

TrailGators and CR: Each hide another cache like Cache A because far more people really seem to enjoy that kind.

Now you do the math....

Wouldn't it be great if everyone was creative enough to place caches like these or like this one.

 

Ain't gonna happen . . . The best each of us can do is place the best caches, in the best locations we find and just drive by caches that are in areas or places we don't like.

 

I still think a restrictive question on the "Tool for reporting and editing cache listings" form would be helpful for weeding out the truly carpy caches before they even get Approved. This would not be like the boxes people can check without actually reading the "guidelines for listing a cache" and the "terms of use agreement," but would be like the ones for some Waymarking Categories (National Registry of Historic Places, for instance) where the submission will not go through unless the question is answered.

 

I just don't know what the question, or questions, would be How about if it was?

"Is this cache hidden in a lamp post skirt next to a dumpster?"

and the person answered "Yes," the form would return an

"Error!!!"

These guys will fight you tooth and nail on that one. I like the suggestion.

[+KBI]

Some caches have never been logged as found. Are those caches therefore less than worthy of existence?

Huh?

(See below)

 

Where is the benefit to the hider?

The hider benefits from the process of hiding the cache, and waiting for folks to find it.

This is certainly the case with skirt lifters. They get found LOTS. Your point?

 

If no benefit, do you have a problem with the existence of such a cache?

Am I the only one out in left field here?

I don’t know, are you?

 

TG’s "customer" premise is that low customer interest is an indicator of less-than-worthiness in a cache. I asked him a simple for-instance: Whether zero response – zero find attempts by cachers – for a given cache automatically meant that a cache is worthless, and shouldn't exist.

 

There is no direct causal relationship as there is between a customer paying for a good or service and a business receiving the money as income.

Of course there is. Your inability to grasp a concept doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist. I am absolutely unable to grasp Euclidean physics, yet every time I drop a hammer on my foot I know the principle exists.

Oh, so it’s the results I’m supposed to be seeing?

 

Then where are my profits? Why haven’t my own two or three very-low-traffic caches evaporated due to "business failure?"

 

Why aren’t any of those happy skirt-lifter owners responding to this big honkin’ movement of a worldwide boycott you guys have generated?

 

Sorry, but the “customer is always right” thing just doesn’t seem to be happening.

 

 

(BTW, Newton was physics. Euclid was math. Glad to help. )

[+KBI]

If I had the cache in the parking lot attribute or if I could ignore all hides from certain cachers I'd be a happy camper.

Maybe. You've been handed a variety of methods to do those things already. You don't seem to be a happy camper yet. I'm not convinced it's possible.

You won't even try a test of easy method on the 92027 zipcode. I understand. It takes too much effort. I wouldn't want to do it either.

You told me you'd rather not bother reading cache pages, which is kinda crucial, so what's the point?

[+Sportsfrau]

yes, the "skirt" is a cosmetic cover over base of the light pole. Under this are the bolts that hold the light pole in place.

 

Thanks MM und TG. I start wondering, if and how those screws/bolts are hidden here. Might depend on the type of lamp. I will look for this the next time I get close to a lamp on a post!

 

Concerning the discussion of hiding caches under those skirts: Imho for somebody who never knew these covers exist and can be lifted, the first find will be spectacular and the cache including its owner will be perceived as ingenious.

 

Discovering that there are lots and lots of the same type might change that.

[+TrailGators]

If I had the cache in the parking lot attribute or if I could ignore all hides from certain cachers I'd be a happy camper.

Maybe. You've been handed a variety of methods to do those things already. You don't seem to be a happy camper yet. I'm not convinced it's possible.

You won't even try a test of easy method on the 92027 zipcode. I understand. It takes too much effort. I wouldn't want to do it either.

You told me you'd rather not bother reading cache pages, which is kinda crucial, so what's the point?

If you can tell me which ones are lame and which ones are LPCs and you can do it quickly I am all ears.... I'm from Missouri...Show me!

[+KBI]

May I ask a silly(?) question?

 

Could somebody please explain me this whole lamp skirt thing? Did I understand this correctly, U.S. lamp posts have parts that can be lifted? By anybody. The so called skirt? What is underneath? Except for a micro?

 

Thanks

 

Sportsfrau (from Old Europe)

It's a cosmetic cover, made of metal or plastic, the purpose of which is to cover the bolts which attach the light pole to the concrete base.

 

They usually slide right up the post, and they generally look like this:

 

[+TrailGators]

yes, the "skirt" is a cosmetic cover over base of the light pole. Under this are the bolts that hold the light pole in place.

 

Thanks MM und TG. I start wondering, if and how those screws/bolts are hidden here. Might depend on the type of lamp. I will look for this the next time I get close to a lamp on a post!

 

Concerning the discussion of hiding caches under those skirts: Imho for somebody who never knew these covers exist and can be lifted, the first find will be spectacular and the cache including its owner will be perceived as ingenious.

 

Discovering that there are lots and lots of the same type might change that.

You are very perceptive. That is exactly what happens. Edited April 18, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Miragee]

Reading all these angst-ridden posts got me thinking about some of my least favorite caches and, you know what, none of them are LPCs. For the most part, the LPCs I have found were forgettable. They gave me another smilie, sometimes at the end of a long day when I wanted to find just one more cache.

 

The caches that stand out in my memory as being bad and which I did not enjoy the hunt were not in parking lots at all -- one was in difficult-to-find, dead-end suburban alley where I got a flat tire , another was in a person's front yard , and another was hidden on a nice little hiking trail, but where a dog at a nearby house could see you so it barked, and barked, and barked the entire time I was looking for the cache. Oh, and that one was named, "Don't Wake the Old People." I was not amused . . .

[+TrailGators]

It's a cosmetic cover, made of metal or plastic, the purpose of which is to cover the bolts which attach the light pole to the concrete base.

 

They usually slide right up the post, and they generally look like this: <cut>

 

No they look like this:

[+KBI]

Besides, based on your argument, skirt-lifter hides would tend to be far more profitable than most other caches, and therefore more worthy, would they not?

If I understand TG's argument, than the opposite is true. In the cache vs consumer goods theory, the profit to the hider is the pleasure derived from reading the logs. If that's the case, then longer logs provide more profit than TNLNSL. I can't speak for Georgia, but around here, a lame cache typically gets shorter logs than an exceptional cache. This principle has evolved to the point that the length of a log is often used as an indicator of the quality of the hide. (Naturally there are exceptions, and I bet if you searched long and hard, you could find a Wally World LPC with a 4,000 character log.)

That hasn’t been my experience at all. Maybe you’re exaggerating, or maybe Floridians tend to be grumpier and less patient, but we’ve already seen evidence presented in this thread – much more direct evidence than what you are describing – to support the “some people LIKE skirt lifters” premise. I accept it as fact.

 

There are MANY folks out there who view ALL geocaching as tedious, lame and pointless, and would actually be much happier if every single geocache were to go away.

Facts not in evidence, Your Honor.

I’m quoting people I’ve talked to personally, Counselor. Isn’t that the same standard of evidence you just used yourself? I’ll produce signed statements if you will.

 

If we Defenders are to succumb to your wishes on skirt lifters, wouldn’t it logically follow that you should then turn around and show the same courtesy to the cache-hater muggles, and demand that the entire game of Geocaching be immediately shut down?

Nope. Once again you are twisting the debate to fit your particular argument, rather than changing your argument to fit the debate. TG is not asking that all the pathetically lame skirt lifter caches be banned. What he's asking for is an easy way to weed out the wheat from the chaff, without adversely affecting those who like chaff.

That’s not all he’s saying. Not at all. If it were, there would be no reason for him to have attempted the whole Rosie O’Donnell analogy, would there?

 

You’re just skimming, aren’t you?