The 8 Habits of Highly Effective Geocaching & Forum Posting

[+Snoogans]

... There are caches that are 100% not fun because of the hider ...

 

This reminds me of two kids in a barn full of crap and nothing but shovels.

 

One kid sits down and cries.

 

The other starts digging like crazy with a big grin on his face. When asked why he's so happy standing in a barn full of crap the kid says. "With all this manure around there has to be a horse around here somewhere".

 

You get out of caching what you bring to it. The hider has the ability to influence things, but they can't make or break the finder. Some cache seekers are looking for horses and some are wallowing in crap.

 

When hider's flat out ignore the guidelines, it can lead to situations that are close to 100% not fun for the seeker(s). We covered this earlier.

 

 

I haven't found any caches where the hider flat out ignored the guidelines. I suppose a few get through, but I don't see this as a major cause of angst in geocaching. How bad is your local reviewer team if this is an issue in your local geocaching continuum?

[+Miragee]

When you stand back and look at this thread it becomes apparent that the truth is somewhere in the middle. There are caches that are 100% not fun because of the hider and there are caches that are 100% not fun because of the seeker. Then there is most everything in between. I could come up with examples of all types. So I think the original 7 habits idea could be applied to the hider and/or the seeker depending on the cache in question.....

This is not true. I have caches that would be 100% not fun for some people, those who don't like hikes, potential encounters with rattlesnakes, etc.

Miragee, you keep bringing this up. You can easily filter caches by difficulty, terrain, cache type and container type with a PQ. The site makes it very easy to do that. Let's talk about the caches after the seekers have done at least that much. I don't think anybody is that stupid where they would do a 10 mile hike unless they enjoyed doing that type of thing.

But, but, but . . . I can do the same thing for urban caches. I just filter them out, or I don't even turn on the GPSr when I go into town by myself. That works for me.

[+Miragee]

When hider's flat out ignore the guidelines, it can lead to situations that are close to 100% not fun for the seeker(s). We covered this earlier.

I haven't found any caches where the hider flat out ignored the guidelines. I suppose a few get through, but I don't see this as a major cause of angst in geocaching. How bad is your local reviewer team if this is an issue in your local geocaching continuum?

I haven't either. Our local Reviewer is great, and to hear him tell it, he has to reject a lot of caches because people don't read the guidelines and submit caches that fail on many levels . . .

[+TrailGators]

When you stand back and look at this thread it becomes apparent that the truth is somewhere in the middle. There are caches that are 100% not fun because of the hider and there are caches that are 100% not fun because of the seeker. Then there is most everything in between. I could come up with examples of all types. So I think the original 7 habits idea could be applied to the hider and/or the seeker depending on the cache in question.....

This is not true. I have caches that would be 100% not fun for some people, those who don't like hikes, potential encounters with rattlesnakes, etc.

Miragee, you keep bringing this up. You can easily filter caches by difficulty, terrain, cache type and container type with a PQ. The site makes it very easy to do that. Let's talk about the caches after the seekers have done at least that much. I don't think anybody is that stupid where they would do a 10 mile hike unless they enjoyed doing that type of thing.

But, but, but . . . I can do the same thing for urban caches. I just filter them out, or I don't even turn on the GPSr when I go into town by myself. That works for me.

You'd miss these awesome caches by doing that. If there was a way to highlight the consensus must-dos/favorites, it would really help make urban caching more fun.

[+TrailGators]

When hider's flat out ignore the guidelines, it can lead to situations that are close to 100% not fun for the seeker(s). We covered this earlier.

I haven't found any caches where the hider flat out ignored the guidelines. I suppose a few get through, but I don't see this as a major cause of angst in geocaching. How bad is your local reviewer team if this is an issue in your local geocaching continuum?

It's not a big issue because caches that are 100% not fun because of the hider are rare. The same goes for caches that are not 100% fun because of the seeker. Those are just as rare. Like I said in that post that you pulled that quote from, most caches lie in the middle. The hider and the seeker both contribute to how fun a cache is...

[+sbell111]

I disagree with practically everything in that paragraph. Let's just leave it at that.

You use that "out" a lot in conversations in these forums.

Since the paragraph is easy to parse and easy to understand perhaps you can explain to everyone why you disagree. Do you think broken items are good swag items? Perhaps you can explain how geocachers can "play their own game in there own way" while they are limited to hunting caches hidden by other geocachers?

 

Simple cogent paragraphs can be disagreeable, it doesn't change the fact that they are factual. Here is the paragraph which you disagree with again, it doesn't look fact filled and it isn't, I only make a few points about aphorisms and the fact that they are genertally incorrect and useless but I gather that you are defending these other useless aphorisms as well?

Are you kidding? Typically, I parse the heck out of posts and reply to each morsel. If you insist on me dealing with each little bit of your post, I will, but I don't see your point.

 

Ready? Here we go.

Do not go and hide behind an aphorism and take all the blame, there is no need to do that. Geocaching has become saddled with aphorisms,

Some definitions of 'aphorism' are 'Short pithy statement of a general truth' and 'a wise saying that bears repetition'. 'Maxim' is a synonym. Generally, aphorisms are aphorisms for a reason; because they are true. You have yet to tell us what aphorism you have been railing about for the last few pages, so we are left to wonder what your tickle spot is.

there are people who will tell you that "one man's trash is another man's treasure" and actually suggest it is OK to leave broken items in caches, they say it is fine because someone might enjoy those items.

I can't remember anyone ever posting this. Perhaps you could provide a link.

There are people who would have you believe that you can "play your own game your own way" and the truth is you can't seek your own caches, you have to play the game the way another person intends.

The guidelines are pretty standard. Are you referring to ALRs?

Insisting that seekers are personally responsible for having fun is just another aphorism with no meaning, it bears no relationship to the real world and offers no useful instructions for those who are negatively impacted by a cache hiders decisions or shortcomings.

I believe that arguments brought forth in the last few pages prove this wrong and, therefore, there is no nead for me to address it, yet again.

 

I hope this has helped.

[+sbell111]

Now sbell111 and Vinny are saying that criticism has a place in geocaching, maybe you can explain why they would offer criticism if they were out having fun all the time as the aphorism says?

Tigersan and I found this one after a brief battle with the flying monsters. The log is a bit damp, you might want to check it out. TNLN.

 

Thanks for the fun!!!

I hope this helped.

It didn't help at all.

 

Are you suggesting that reporting the facts is criticism?

Do you imagine that complaining that the log was wet and then telling the owner what they should do is criticism?

Redefining words isn't required and doesn't help you make your point.

 

Criticism isn't telling people what to do, criticism isn't a bare recital of facts, criticism entails judging.

If you don't make judgements you are not offering criticism. Criticism is essential if cache hiders are to receive feedback to help them hide better caches.

 

If you had said, "in this location this container is not able to protect the log and that is why the log is wet" you would be offering criticism.

If you said "in this location this container is not able to protect the log yet a better container might work fine here" then you would be offering constructive criticism.

 

I hope this helps.

Since you asked I went and looked and the actual word of the day on dictionary.com is gallimaufry!

I guess if you say that my example wasn't criticism, then I don't criticize. Interestingly, my non-criticizing log gave the same message as your critical log and more.

 

Do you think you might want to give us a hint as to what your point is?

[+sbell111]

it is the seeker's value system that determines if the outcome was a success.

I don't have to redefine words to reach my conclusions. I don't have to redefine geocaching either. Geocaching is more than having fun, eating pie is having fun yet there is no corollary between the two actions, geocaching does consist of doing something more than having fun.

Success is reaching a favoured outcome, you are suggesting that geocachers who favour finding caches are doing something wrong? Do you tell new geocachers that geocaching is going out and wandering around a bit? The smiley is dispensed by the cache owner and has nothing to do with this conversation at all, why do you and sbell111 keep referring to smilies? I haven't mentioned smilies once except in response to those who insist that they matter like you and sbell111, they don't play any part in this conversation.

 

Deeming success as "finding a geocache when hunting for one" is not that big a stretch for most people. It may surprise you that many geocachers actually set out to "find a geocache" when they go geocaching.

 

Conversely the seekers value system plays no part in "finding a geocache", you and sbell111 are free to plumb that path, perhaps everyone will accept that "finding a geocache" should not be part of geocaching at all and geocaching is really a value system adopted by the seeker, but I seriously doubt if anyone will believe you guys.

 

The facts are penetrating, at least you acknowledge that the cache hider is in control of their cache.

I haven't redefined anything. Apparently, however, my goals in geocaching are different from yours. I am merely out to have a little fun. If I have fun, it's been a success. Finding the caches and earning the smilies are secondary.

 

Here's a real-world example:

 

One of the things that I'm currently responsible for is a call center. The purpose of the call center is to call parents and tell them how important it is for their kids to get check-ups. The call center operators also help these parents make appointments for the check-ups.

 

It would be easy to get sidetracked and think that making appointments is the primary goal of the call center, but it isn't. The primary goal is the outreach. Appointments made are secondary.

[+flask]

this is great. i love this.

 

this is the best possible way this thread could run, if you ask me.

 

call me eris if you like.

 

the rest of you can look it up later.

[+TrailGators]

this is great. i love this.

 

this is the best possible way this thread could run, if you ask me.

 

call me eris if you like.

 

the rest of you can look it up later.

In case everyone else is wondering.....

ERIS was the goddess or spirit (daimon) of strife, discord, contention and rivalry. She was often represented specifically as the daimon of the strife of war, who haunted the battlefield and delighted in human bloodshed.

Edited July 18, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Theseus]

Snoogans, have you snarfed while reading this yet? As in inadvertently snorted liquid?

 

On topic: um, well, hard as I try I can't even begin to insert myself into this exchange.

 

But I can't

 

stop

 

reading...

 

Carry on.

[+flask]

is everybody having an effective day?

[+Renegade Knight]

...When hider's flat out ignore the guidelines, it can lead to situations that are close to 100% not fun for the seeker(s). We covered this earlier.

 

Only if the finder is so unaware of the world around them that they follow all caches blindly. In which case it doesn't matter what cache was placed they can have zero fun and it's still not the hiders fault.

 

I once set out to make a bad cache by combining every element I dislike in a cache. I failed. The locals liked the unique challenge. Go Figure.

[+Snoogans]

Snoogans, have you snarfed while reading this yet? As in inadvertently snorted liquid?

 

On topic: um, well, hard as I try I can't even begin to insert myself into this exchange.

 

But I can't

 

stop

 

reading...

 

Carry on.

 

Yes. Yes, I have. I must admit that at first I was just agape at the reaction, but then I settled in to enjoy the ride.

 

The scene that keeps running through my mind is when the parents of South Park used themselves as live ammunition to catapult against the walls of a TV station in protest of something or other. I couldn't find a picture of it to post, so I posted that other one.

 

Notice that I haven't really been defending the 7 Habits much? They defend themselves by their own positve nature. I like the 7 Habits and I tryyyy to follow them. I certainly don't feel dimwitted or duped by them.

 

Perhaps when all the fun is over I'll repost the OP for a third time and the folks who are fans will help translate them into the geocaching context as I mentioned in the OP.

 

Until then....

Edited July 18, 2007 by Snoogans

[+TrailGators]

I once set out to make a bad cache by combining every element I dislike in a cache. I failed. The locals liked the unique challenge. Go Figure.

I once posted the wrong parking coords for one of my caches. I cut and pasted the cache page from another cache I had at the southern end of the park and forgot to change the parking coords to reflect the parking at the northern end of the park. I rated the cache a 2 terrain but it became a 3.5 terrain from the other parking coords. When I hid the cache I also forgot to put in a pencil. So when the FTFer showed up, she ended up having to go eight miles and do a lot of vertical and then she had no way to sign the logbook. So she contacted me and then I told her the right place to park and she still got the FTF. I felt terrible because this was clearly my fault.

[+Snoogans]

I once set out to make a bad cache by combining every element I dislike in a cache. I failed. The locals liked the unique challenge. Go Figure.

I once posted the wrong parking coords for one of my caches. I cut and pasted the cache page from another cache I had at the southern end of the park and forgot to change the parking coords to reflect the parking at the northern end of the park. I rated the cache a 2 terrain but it became a 3.5 terrain from the other parking coords. When I hid the cache I also forgot to put in a pencil. So when the FTFer showed up, she ended up having to go eight miles and do a lot of vertical and then she had no way to sign the logbook. So she contacted me and then I told her the right place to park and she still got the FTF. I felt terrible because this was clearly my fault.

 

 

Okay, you made a mistake. Whoopsie and that's it.

 

 

SHE could have taken a moment to prepare and seen that there was an easier way. It was her CHOICE to follow blindly.

 

 

There was a really popular cache in Waco I wanted to try for, but when I got to the posted parking coords, I didn't have time for a total 6 mile hike to the cache and back. Using a map and my GPS, I found a shortcut to the cache that was 1.6 miles total for the hike from this sign:

 

 

[+TrailGators]

I once set out to make a bad cache by combining every element I dislike in a cache. I failed. The locals liked the unique challenge. Go Figure.

I once posted the wrong parking coords for one of my caches. I cut and pasted the cache page from another cache I had at the southern end of the park and forgot to change the parking coords to reflect the parking at the northern end of the park. I rated the cache a 2 terrain but it became a 3.5 terrain from the other parking coords. When I hid the cache I also forgot to put in a pencil. So when the FTFer showed up, she ended up having to go eight miles and do a lot of vertical and then she had no way to sign the logbook. So she contacted me and then I told her the right place to park and she still got the FTF. I felt terrible because this was clearly my fault.

Okay, you made a mistake. Whoopsie and that's it. SHE could have taken a moment to prepare and seen that there was an easier way. It was her CHOICE to follow blindly.

I bought her a beer at the next event. She was a really good sport about it.

[+wavector]

Things within the Seekers control.

 

The path they take to the cache.

Attitude about the hunt.

Whether or not to read the cache page.

Breaking laws that are inconvenient.

Treading lightly or tearing up the area.

Replacing the cache.

Moving the cache.

Logging the physical log (or not)

Logging online (or not)

Meeting ALR’s.

Ignoring the cache once found.

Being safe.

Posting Needs Maintance Logs

Posting SBA’s

Having an opinion on the SBA.

Following good land access ethics. (or not)

Trading.

Closing the container.

 

The cache owner controls none of these things.

 

Your list refers to seekers who don't log caches either physically or online. They may well be geocaching but when I use the word "geocaching" I am referring to finding caches hidden by other geocachers and logging those caches online. I am not doing that to create a defensible argument as much as I am asserting that it is what happens on this listing service.

Your list nicely illustrates that the seeker has no obligations that can be enforced by the cache owner. A cache owner cannot make seekers do anything, the cache owner is only in control of the cache page and the cache owner's control extends to deciding when the cache is "found" by the seeker.

I accept that seekers are in charge of their attitude, I disgree with the suggestion that seekers should accept every bit of responsibility for every negative incident in the search. According to the aphorism if a seeker gets arrested and fined for for trespassing it is their own fault and with a little attitude shift they could have made that arrest an enjoyable experience because "the failure to have fun while geocaching is the fault of the seeker."

It probably isn't necesaary to rehash basics but as an example I have yet to see a cacher who can tread lightly on asphalt or tear it up for that matter. The vulnerability of the hiding spot to traffic is a decision made by the hider, the seeker has no control over that decision. Most aspects of the cache hunt are susceptible to a similar analysis, the cache owner makes the decision and the cache seeker is bound by that decision if they wish to attain a favourable outcome.

This is actually right where I started, seekers should realize that they are powerless to create a favourable outcome when they go geocaching, the cache hider is in complete control.

[+Snoogans]

I once set out to make a bad cache by combining every element I dislike in a cache. I failed. The locals liked the unique challenge. Go Figure.

I once posted the wrong parking coords for one of my caches. I cut and pasted the cache page from another cache I had at the southern end of the park and forgot to change the parking coords to reflect the parking at the northern end of the park. I rated the cache a 2 terrain but it became a 3.5 terrain from the other parking coords. When I hid the cache I also forgot to put in a pencil. So when the FTFer showed up, she ended up having to go eight miles and do a lot of vertical and then she had no way to sign the logbook. So she contacted me and then I told her the right place to park and she still got the FTF. I felt terrible because this was clearly my fault.

Okay, you made a mistake. Whoopsie and that's it. SHE could have taken a moment to prepare and seen that there was an easier way. It was her CHOICE to follow blindly.

I bought her a beer at the next event. She was a really good sport about it.

 

I would have done the same. It seems she had fun in spite, or because of, your mistake and her own lack of preparation. These types of situations tend to turn into learning experiences. You learned to double check your cut and paste work and hopefully she learned to check the satellite location of the cache in relation to parking. Most failure eventually leads to success.

 

 

At my first event, I watched a group of cachers on my team go crashing through the brush in a beeline for one of our goals as I and another cacher chose the trail. We arrived less winded at the goal at the same time, but with far fewer cuts, scrapes, hanging spider webs, and rips in our clothing.

 

 

I explained to my team that 9Key must have hidden our goals from the same trail I used to get there and you could see the lightbulbs turning on.

[+TrailGators]

I once set out to make a bad cache by combining every element I dislike in a cache. I failed. The locals liked the unique challenge. Go Figure.

I once posted the wrong parking coords for one of my caches. I cut and pasted the cache page from another cache I had at the southern end of the park and forgot to change the parking coords to reflect the parking at the northern end of the park. I rated the cache a 2 terrain but it became a 3.5 terrain from the other parking coords. When I hid the cache I also forgot to put in a pencil. So when the FTFer showed up, she ended up having to go eight miles and do a lot of vertical and then she had no way to sign the logbook. So she contacted me and then I told her the right place to park and she still got the FTF. I felt terrible because this was clearly my fault.

Okay, you made a mistake. Whoopsie and that's it. SHE could have taken a moment to prepare and seen that there was an easier way. It was her CHOICE to follow blindly.

I bought her a beer at the next event. She was a really good sport about it.

I would have done the same. It seems she had fun in spite, or because of, your mistake and her own lack of preparation. These types of situations tend to turn into learning experiences. You learned to double check your cut and paste work and hopefully she learned to check the satellite location of the cache in relation to parking. Most failure eventually leads to success.

At least we both have a good story to tell and that is really what it's all about. Good stories seldom involve everything going the right way.

[+Snoogans]

You never acknowledged a single aspect of the role the cache seeker plays in geocaching yet we are supposed to entertain your comments as relevant.

 

How about that.

 

You are not Vinny, at least he tried to offer a list of things the cache seeker controlled.

I didn't make my suggestion that you should read the thread lightly, you really should. The counter point to the cache hider list was -

 

The cache seeker gets to go out and try to find the cache.

 

How about that.

 

 

I think I'm starting to understand why this thread has gone the way it has:

 

Edited July 18, 2007 by Snoogans

[+Snoogans]

I'm definitely beginning to see a pattern to every thread started by Snoogans.

 

 

You must only read my threads in this particular forum, but YES, I too have noticed a pattern.

 

 

I've wondered during the course of this thread if it wasn't so much the message as it is the messenger. SB111 linked to a much better received thread on the 7 Habits from 2003 that I wasn't able to dig up before posting this thread.....

 

 

I was accused of seeking drama in a thread recently. I don't feel the need to post in every drama thread, but drama seems to follow me in every thread I start in the geocaching topics forum lately. Sometimes I expect it as I did in my Aesthetics Rumble and O.D.S. threads. Other times it comes right out of the blue as it did with this thread. I'm certain that I'm doing something wrong to attract drama/entertainment. Probably another perception issue. Maybe I need to do some more work on my tone.

 

 

I seem to attract the same group/school/pack of counterpointers in this forum. Go back a few threads and you'll see the pattern. They make it interesting and I'm not complaining. Some are worthy adversaries and I enjoy a good debate. This thread however, was never intended as a debate, but whatever, I can't say that it hasn't been entertaining and I'll probably move foreword on my own if no one wishes to cross the picket line and help me. I honestly could care less to work alone on this, but I would do so just to keep the perception from being that the project could be argued down by such a vocal minority. As I stated earlier, the habits defend themselves by their own very positive nature. I don't need to defend them.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Snoogans

[Clan Riffster]

What if I changed the first three waypoints to something you would do and then you ended up at the same final.

Well, to make it more relevant, (since I kinda like smelly places), let's assume the multi was three breath taking locations, ending in a lamp post film canister at Wally World. I would enjoy the first three stages, then double check my coords for the final. If I discern that a Wally World lamp post kilt is what the hider wanted me to find at the end, I'd leave, mumbling naughty things about the hider. It would be at that moment that my fun meter would drop to zero. Up until I found myself in a sweltering, exhaust laden 500 acre stretch of blacktop, dodging soccer moms in SUV's, I'd be having a blast. When I stopped having fun, I'd leave. The cache hider can't make me not have fun. The only power they have is to make a cache that I may not think is fun.

[Clan Riffster]

you are suggesting that geocachers who favour finding caches are doing something wrong?

Odd. I don't recall saying that. Can you provide a link? No? I didn't think so.

 

Do you tell new geocachers that geocaching is going out and wandering around a bit?

How is what I tell new cachers relevant to this conversation?

 

It may surprise you that many geocachers actually set out to "find a geocache" when they go geocaching.

It may surprise you to learn that many geocachers actually enjoy themselves even when they DNF. I would call that trip a success. If your value system causes you to measure success in a different manner, I'd say the problem is in your entitlements.

 

Conversely the seekers value system plays no part in "finding a geocache"

I don't recall saying that, either. Got a link? No? Figures.

 

perhaps everyone will accept that "finding a geocache" should not be part of geocaching at all

Wow. 3 times in one post, you've twisted my words to fill the needs of your ever dwindling logic trail.

 

The facts are penetrating

Apparently, they're not penetrating deep enough.

[Clan Riffster]

Your list refers to seekers who don't log caches either physically or online.

Really? Maybe we're not seeing the same list? I see things like closing the container, choosing a trail, trading, land ethics, obeying the law(s), being safe, ignoring the cache, Attitude, meeting ALR's, reading the cache page, treading lightly, moving the cache, and replacing the cache. Are these things that are only done by folks who don't log their finds?

 

Your list nicely illustrates that the seeker has no obligations that can be enforced by the cache owner.

Kewl! The hider has very little control. Got it.

 

I accept that seekers are in charge of their attitude

Whoo Hoo!! A breakthru at last!

 

According to the aphorism if a seeker gets arrested and fined for for trespassing it is their own fault and with a little attitude shift they could have made that arrest an enjoyable experience because "the failure to have fun while geocaching is the fault of the seeker."

Uh, about that "breakthru" comment.... disregard. I see wavector is back to desperately twisting everything to fit his need to argue.

 

The vulnerability of the hiding spot to traffic is a decision made by the hider, the seeker has no control over that decision.

But in a sensitive area, the seeker has the ultimate control over how they will impact an area.

 

the cache owner makes the decision and the cache seeker is bound by that decision if they wish to attain a favourable outcome.

That depends on your definition of "favorable outcome". If you define success as a find, perhaps you are right. I'm not shallow enough to limit myself that way.

 

This is actually right where I started,

Yup. Right back to your erroneous claims.

 

seekers should realize that they are powerless to create a favourable outcome when they go geocachingbreakthrough,

Darn those pesky seekers! Out having fun without my consent! Brother, you may in fact be powerless. I am not.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[+Snoogans]

What if I changed the first three waypoints to something you would do and then you ended up at the same final.

Well, to make it more relevant, (since I kinda like smelly places), let's assume the multi was three breath taking locations, ending in a lamp post film canister at Wally World. I would enjoy the first three stages, then double check my coords for the final. If I discern that a Wally World lamp post kilt is what the hider wanted me to find at the end, I'd leave, mumbling naughty things about the hider. It would be at that moment that my fun meter would drop to zero. Up until I found myself in a sweltering, exhaust laden 500 acre stretch of blacktop, dodging soccer moms in SUV's, I'd be having a blast. When I stopped having fun, I'd leave. The cache hider can't make me not have fun. The only power they have is to make a cache that I may not think is fun.

 

 

So the journey would be ruined by the final for you because of a prejudice against wally world caches? What of the other 3 breath taking locations? Chopped liver?

 

 

What if that was just another stage (but you didn't know how many stages) to test your patience and the final was really the most breath taking location of all?

 

 

I could just picture the logs.....

 

 

#1 Booo the ending sucked so DNF

 

 

#2 Yeah FTF

 

 

#3 DNF Boo I left.

 

 

#4 Yeah STF

 

 

#5 BOO DNF

 

 

#6 Boo DNF

 

 

#7 Yeah + wordy spoiler about the final

 

 

#8,9, & 10 See the DNFrs from logs 1, 5, & 6 completing the cache.

 

 

Look for a multi that takes you to the Von's parking lot in Mammoth before I share another of my favorite spots in the Sierras.

[+sbell111]

this is great. i love this.

 

this is the best possible way this thread could run, if you ask me.

 

call me eris if you like.

 

the rest of you can look it up later.

In case everyone else is wondering.....

ERIS was the goddess or spirit (daimon) of strife, discord, contention and rivalry. She was often represented specifically as the daimon of the strife of war, who haunted the battlefield and delighted in human bloodshed.

Thanks. I was considering looking it up. Now, I don't have to.

[+Snoogans]

this is great. i love this.

 

this is the best possible way this thread could run, if you ask me.

 

call me eris if you like.

 

the rest of you can look it up later.

In case everyone else is wondering.....

ERIS was the goddess or spirit (daimon) of strife, discord, contention and rivalry. She was often represented specifically as the daimon of the strife of war, who haunted the battlefield and delighted in human bloodshed.

Thanks. I was considering looking it up. Now, I don't have to.

 

 

Too bad there's not a test on that site so we can all figure out which spirits/demigods/daimons we all are. That would be kewl.

 

 

Maybe I watch too much Star Trek but when I read daimon, I picture:

 

[+sbell111]

Things within the Seekers control.

 

The path they take to the cache.

...

Logging the physical log (or not)

Logging online (or not)

Meeting ALR’s.

...

Closing the container.

 

The cache owner controls none of these things.

Your list refers to seekers who don't log caches either physically or online. They may well be geocaching but when I use the word "geocaching" I am referring to finding caches hidden by other geocachers and logging those caches online. I am not doing that to create a defensible argument as much as I am asserting that it is what happens on this listing service.

Are you sure? It looks like RK covered logging practices pretty well.

Your list nicely illustrates that the seeker has no obligations that can be enforced by the cache owner. A cache owner cannot make seekers do anything, the cache owner is only in control of the cache page and the cache owner's control extends to deciding when the cache is "found" by the seeker.

RK's list covered this as well.

I accept that seekers are in charge of their attitude, I disgree with the suggestion that seekers should accept every bit of responsibility for every negative incident in the search. According to the aphorism if a seeker gets arrested and fined for for trespassing it is their own fault and with a little attitude shift they could have made that arrest an enjoyable experience because "the failure to have fun while geocaching is the fault of the seeker."

If a seeker breaks the law and gets arrested, it IS his fault. As such, his inability to have fun because he is in the hoosegow is totally on him. Certainly, if he made different decisions, he would have had more fun.

It probably isn't necesaary to rehash basics but as an example I have yet to see a cacher who can tread lightly on asphalt or tear it up for that matter. The vulnerability of the hiding spot to traffic is a decision made by the hider, the seeker has no control over that decision. Most aspects of the cache hunt are susceptible to a similar analysis, the cache owner makes the decision and the cache seeker is bound by that decision if they wish to attain a favourable outcome.

Certainly, you would agree the seekers could do damage to an urban environment. As well, you have to look at the opposite of your example. A cache seeker could certainly do damage looking for a arborally-hidden cache even though the cache hider did not intend him to do so. You see, cache owners are not in control of cache seekers.

This is actually right where I started, seekers should realize that they are powerless to create a favourable outcome when they go geocaching, the cache hider is in complete control.

It is right back where you started and it continues to be the basic point that we disagree on.

[+Always & Forever 5]

I think I'm starting to understand why this thread has gone the way it has:

 

So am I. You created a thread on some touchy-feely group hug methodology to apply to geocaching, then you created a straw man argument about who is in complete control of a geocaching experience, whereas you state the hider is in FULL control and the seeker plays no part whatsoever.

 

And, you haven't understood why it's gone this route until now???

 

I'm definitely beginning to see a pattern to every thread started by Snoogans.

 

So am I. Ambiguous, nonsensical arguments, diverted at every opportunity into a NEW ambiguous, nonsensical different argument.

 

Surprise, surprise.

[+sbell111]

I think I'm starting to understand why this thread has gone the way it has:

So am I. You created a thread on some touchy-feely group hug methodology to apply to geocaching, then you created a straw man argument about who is in complete control of a geocaching experience, whereas you state the hider is in FULL control and the seeker plays no part whatsoever.

And, you haven't understood why it's gone this route until now???

I'm pretty sure that Snoogans never claimed that the hider has full control. In fact, he has made several statements that go against this argument.

[+Always & Forever 5]

I'm pretty sure that Snoogans never claimed that the hider has full control. In fact, he has made several statements that go against this argument.

 

I stand corrected. That would be Wavevector that built the straw man. My apologies.

[+sbell111]

I'm pretty sure that Snoogans never claimed that the hider has full control. In fact, he has made several statements that go against this argument.

I stand corrected. That would be Wavevector that built the straw man. My apologies.

The touchy-feeliness was all Snoogs. Edited July 18, 2007 by sbell111

[+Mudfrog]

QUOTE(wavector @ Jul 17 2007, 11:42 PM)

This is actually right where I started, seekers should realize that they are powerless to create a favourable outcome when they go geocaching, the cache hider is in complete control.

 

This statement makes no sense. A cache hider has very little control over how someone finds his cache or how much fun he or she has finding it. You could put your cache on the inside of a dumpster which would cause 98% of it's seekers to frown or you could set up stringent step by step requirements for a seeker to perform in order to claim a find on your cache. Other than that, about the only thing you control is where you hide the cache thereby taking the seeker.

 

You don't control how the seeker gets to your cache. There may be an obvious route to it that you want them to take but there is no doubt other ways that they could come in to find it. On a multicache, you may want the seeker to find all the stages in a certain order. A puzzle, you want them to solve. But in actuality, that seeker may figure out some shortcuts or even stumble across the final unexpectantly. Heck, the seeker can skip all of that and call someone to get the coordinates then go straight for the final.

 

Yes, you can set up a cache that takes seekers to a certain spot. You can set up a cache that most everyone enjoys finding. You can set up silly must do requirements in order to claim a find on your cache. Even so and try as you might, you will never have complete control over the seeker!

[+sbell111]

It should also be noted that a seeker only has control of the location of the cache and method of hide at the time the cache was hidden. Caches wander about and locations get junkier or get cleaned.

Edited July 18, 2007 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

Personally, I find it absolutely amazing folks are still arguing one side or the other has complete control over the seeker's experience and fun.

 

Neither do.

 

The hider sets up the framework and the seeker operates within that framework. It's really a pretty simple concept.

 

Can folks have fun on an absolutely crappy cache? Sure they can. In fact, I've been with a group where the entertainment was the crappiness of the caches. Sometimes it can be fun to point and laugh. Does the fact I can point and laugh at a crappy cache make it not crappy? Of course not. Do I think pointing and laughing at crappy caches is the purpose of geocaching? Not in the least. Do I think folks should place caches for the crappiness of it? Again, no.

 

Conversely, can someone have a bad experience on a cache where every other person raved about it? Sure they can. Myriad of things can cause one to not enjoy themselves no matter the environment or situation.

 

But it sure seems folks want to argue absolutes as if it proves their points.

[+Always & Forever 5]

But it sure seems folks want to argue absolutes as if it proves their points.

 

Actually, there are only a few posters in this thread that are arguing absolutes. Most of us are trying to point out what you said...that the "fun factor" is a shared responsibility of both the hider and seeker.

[+sbell111]

But it sure seems folks want to argue absolutes as if it proves their points.

 

Actually, there are only a few posters in this thread that are arguing absolutes. Most of us are trying to point out what you said...that the "fun factor" is a shared responsibility of both the hider and seeker.

Don't bother. He doesn't read the threads, he just pops in to argue.

[+TrailGators]

But it sure seems folks want to argue absolutes as if it proves their points.

Actually, there are only a few posters in this thread that are arguing absolutes. Most of us are trying to point out what you said...that the "fun factor" is a shared responsibility of both the hider and seeker.

It's both. Just like when you played Hide-n-Seek when you were little; the game became less fun if you yelled out "Olly-olly-oxen-free!" only to find your little sister had hidden in the front hall closet again and again. The game would have been more fun for you (and for little sister) if she had found different and even clever places to hide each time. But like straws on the camel's back, the game ended with the last straw of opening the hall closet door to reveal giggling little sister hunched in the corner of the closet for the umpteenth time. I think geocaching at times can be very similar to that.

[+sbell111]

But it sure seems folks want to argue absolutes as if it proves their points.

Actually, there are only a few posters in this thread that are arguing absolutes. Most of us are trying to point out what you said...that the "fun factor" is a shared responsibility of both the hider and seeker.

It's both. Just like when you played Hide-n-Seek when you were little; the game became less fun if you yelled out "Olly-olly-oxen-free!" only to find your little sister had hidden in the front hall closet again and again. The game would have been more fun for you (and for little sister) if she had found different and even clever places to hide each time. But like straws on the camel's back, the game ended with the last straw of opening the hall closet door to reveal giggling little sister hunched in the corner of the closet for the umpteenth time. I think geocaching at times can be very similar to that.

Interesting.

 

I grew up with several siblings and we played such silly games. If one of us insisted in continually hiding in the same place, she either would have simply been tagged first or we would have stopped looking in the closet. Both solutions would serve to increase our amusement.

Edited July 18, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

But it sure seems folks want to argue absolutes as if it proves their points.

Actually, there are only a few posters in this thread that are arguing absolutes. Most of us are trying to point out what you said...that the "fun factor" is a shared responsibility of both the hider and seeker.

It's both. Just like when you played Hide-n-Seek when you were little; the game became less fun if you yelled out "Olly-olly-oxen-free!" only to find your little sister had hidden in the front hall closet again and again. The game would have been more fun for you (and for little sister) if she had found different and even clever places to hide each time. But like straws on the camel's back, the game ended with the last straw of opening the hall closet door to reveal giggling little sister hunched in the corner of the closet for the umpteenth time. I think geocaching at times can be very similar to that.

Interesting.

 

I grew up with several siblings and we played such silly games. If one of us insisted in continually hiding in the same place, she either would have simply been tagged first or we would have stopped looking in the closet. Both solutions would serve to increase our amusement.

I only had one sister. She got a lot better at hiding in clever places as she got older and learned the game. Anyhow, the tricky part about geocaching is trying to figure out which caches are like my little sister (in my analogy) and which ones are like more cleverly hidden. It is even trickier to figure this out with newer caches and also with caches with non-descript logs. Non-descript logs seem to be the norm these days. So the best way I know how to do this is to pay attention to who hid the cache. Of course, this doesn't work when you are visiting an area that you've never been to....

[+Renegade Knight]

...Your list refers to seekers who don't log caches either physically or online. They may well be geocaching but when I use the word "geocaching" I am referring to finding caches hidden by other geocachers and logging those caches online. ....

 

Since you are only using a subset of all actual finders instead of all actual finders we are not on the same page for a discussion. On a remote cache where most folks had to hike in, I checked and found roughly 40% of the logs at the cache were not logged online. That's too sizeable of a number, especially given this was not a park and grab, to ignore.

 

Regardless, you assume the hider has more control than they do. I've learned to hide keeping in mind that there are morons who will tear the area up if I hide the cache too hard. That they tear the area up is beyond my control. If I did have control I'd merely ban them from looking for my cache and get back to hiding a greater variety. But since I don't have that control and since I'm the responsible one I'm the one who adapted to a few moronic finders.

 

As for finders being 100% responsible for their actions and the trouble they get in. Yes they are. I can place a cache that gives them more opportunity to get them in trouble, but I can't actually make the decision for them that gets them in trouble. They have to choose tresspass. They have to choose to vandalize. They had a choice and they made it. They make these same choice when I place a cache that everone on this forum would agree is a perfect cache. A few morons would still find a way to make the wrong choices.

 

In a lot of cases where you think the hider has the power, they only have the ability to skew the odds one direction or another. What they do not directly control they have no real power over. They only have variing degrees of influence.

[Clan Riffster]

So the journey would be ruined by the final for you because of a prejudice against wally world caches?

Ruined? Ain't that a bit of a stretch? I said I'd quit when my fun meter went to zero. A Wally World LPC isn't fun for me. Because I would quit the hypothetical hunt prior to reaching a point where I was absolutely disgusted, my "journey" wouldn't be "ruined". Maybe rebooted is a better term? I'd be down the road seeking a cache that was fun for me. Seems like an "effective" solution, eh?

[+wavector]

Since you are only using a subset of all actual finders instead of all actual finders we are not on the same page for a discussion.

As for finders being 100% responsible for their actions and the trouble they get in. Yes they are. They have to choose tresspass.

 

Coyote Red probably phrased it the way I should have said but you are hitting the same note, the cache hider sets up the framework and the cache seeker has to operate within that framework, the point I was making when I talked about 100% control is that the framework is not subject to influence by seekers except through their logs and that happens after the fact. I don't check with seekers prior to setting up my caches but I do read the logs and respond to valid criticisms.

 

I am glad to see that most people on this thread are coming around to the view that the cache hider and the cache seeker share the responsibility for having fun, blaming cache seekers 100% of the time is wrong.

 

I never suggested that cache seekers are automatons and I completely disagree that the seeker is 100% reponsible for their actions. Suggesting that the seeker is 100% responsible for their actions doesn't acknowledge any of the responsibilities of the cache hider. Cache hiders are the responsible party in every case. Cache hiders are the ones who sign off on an agreement with this listing servce, seekers need only provide an email address and do not have to agree to anything. If there is a problem the cache owner has to deal with it, not the cache seeker. The cache seeker operates within the framework set up by the hider.

 

I chose the trespass example because it is a very common occurence and very clear cut, the cache seeker may have no way of knowing that they are trespassing, they rely on the cache placer. If you do not know you are trespassing you have not chosen to trespass yet you are still tresapassing. I believe the railroad guideline was the result of a trespass and and some seekers getting apprehended and detained. A famous east coast cacher was detained on private property by a security guard. I have seen logs where seekers have been accosted by local residents who point out that the local park where the cache is hidden is private property. I have seen several cases where cachers have set a cache only to have seekers run into irate landowners who then complain to this listing service that the cache is on private property and the cache gets archived. The seeker depends upon the cache hider, even this listing service depends upon the hider when it comes to obtaining permission for private property. There are borderline cases where the seeker chooses to trespass but most seekers do not seek permission to hunt caches whereas hiders should ensure that seekers can retrieve the cache without trespassing. I do not expect that people seeking my caches will knock on doors down at city hall to make sure they can go off the trail over there on public land.

 

I do agree that a lot of geocachers do not log online, I have seen similar numbers on my remote hides. When I check I find that most finders not logging online are not members of this listing service, I cannot even send them an email asking them to log the cache. People who obtain coordinates from this listing service almost always log caches they find, even remote caches but our experiences may differ. Even those with no account are connecting when they find the cache, the log they write is never for their own edification.

 

Discussing interactions between hiders and seekers is fairly pointless when discussing people who hunt caches but have no intention of logging them online, those people cannot log DNFs, Notes, or any other type of log, the only thing they can add to the record is an onsite log and that will only last as long as the onsite logbook, they are ephemeral, they add nothing to the online record. Geocaching involves the online record if the cache hider "lists" the cache online, the record is online, the connection between the seeker and the hider is the online record. I have had logbooks stolen from several caches. I replace the logbook and the cache carries on. Every person who signed the lost logbook but didn't sign online becomes a non-entity, they do not exist for me or for any other seekers. In some cases there may have been finders who names are gone along with the logbook, there is no way to tell. This is probably a subject for another thread but I dismiss ephemerals, they do not matter to me and I do not hide caches for them though soem people might.

[+TrailGators]

I chose the trespass example because it is a very common occurrence and very clear cut, the cache seeker may have no way of knowing that they are trespassing, they rely on the cache placer. If you do not know you are trespassing you have not chosen to trespass yet you are still trespassing.

I have been stopped a couple of times by security guards while hunting for caches. It was annoying because I assumed that the hider had obtained permission when they had not. It was a newbie mistake I haven't made for a long time. I don't assume anymore and I ignore any cache that looks suspicious at all. So I have adapted, but that doesn't relieve the hider of any responsibility for hiding those kinds of caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Coyote Red probably phrased it the way I should have said but you are hitting the same note, the cache hider sets up the framework and the cache seeker has to operate within that framework, the point I was making when I talked about 100% control is that the framework is not subject to influence by seekers except through their logs and that happens after the fact. I don't check with seekers prior to setting up my caches but I do read the logs and respond to valid criticisms....

 

CR is right that the hider sets up the framework. He's wrong when he says finders work within it it. They are merely influenced by it, most, but not all, of the time. Some choose to work within it, some don't. Some don't even notice it.

 

When I am looking for a cache I'm having fun. When I stop having fun...I quit, drop the search, and move on. If I stay when I've stopped having fun, how is that the fault of the cache hider? I'm the idiot who's doing something I don't like to do now.

 

As for hiders and seekers. They are all 100% responsible for their actions. This is simple reality. I am 100% responsible for my cache placment and the parts about it that I control. The finder is 100% responsible for their finding efforts. Split responsiblity is when control was shared by both parties. In caching there is seldom joint control though it can happen.

 

You use trespassing. If I place a cache and don't know I'm trespassing, and the finder finds the cache and has no way to know they are trespassing. The reality is they probably are not trespassing. (Hunter Safety Class does a goob job of explaining when to ask permission to enter property). Trespassing is a good example but not in the way you may think. If the land wasn't posted and was open to the public on tuesday and therefore being there was no trespassing to set the cache, but Wednesday it's posted...and the finder goes anyway. Their fault. 100%. The situation changed, the owner had no way to know, the finder did and should have known.

 

Lastly:

 

You keep dismissing folks as non-entities. I too lose log books due to our local cache maggot. The logbook only foks do impact geocaching. You can't stop them from finding your cache, enjoying it or vandalizing it as they see fit. They may be a non entity to you...and maybe that just proves what I'm saying. Finders are beyond your control as an owner and as such, (even if they are non entities) They are responsible, for their own actions an their own fun. Even when you don't know about it.

 

PS. some of what we are saying is nothing more than the opposite side of the same coin.

[+wavector]

Odd. I don't recall saying that. Can you provide a link? No? I didn't think so.

 

If you have to depend upon me to provide links to the things you said then we are going to waste a lot of bandwidth.

 

Here is what you said - My success doesn't rely on a smiley. Would you like a link?

When you said that I asked you if geocachers who equate "success" with finding a cache are wrong?

 

If a new geocacher asks you what geocaching is do you tell them that success in geocaching doesn't involve finding caches?

sbell111 says "finding caches is secondary", do you agree that "finding caches is secondary" when people go geocaching?

Do you know any "successful" geocachers who have never found a cache?

Would you tell new geocachers that a geocache Find is a function of their value system or do you explain that they can log whatever they wish but the cache owner decides if they have found the cache by allowing their log to enter the record?

 

What matters is that you have crossed over to the other side with this admissoin.

While it's true that the choices made by the hider can affect how much fun I could potentially have

This is clearly contrary to the maxim "the failure to have fun is always the fault of the seeker".

 

I can provide a link to that last line if you like.

[+Snoogans]

PS. some of what we are saying is nothing more than the opposite side of the same coin.

 

 

 

 

That's why I posted this:

 

[+wavector]

I am 100% responsible for my cache placment and the parts about it that I control. The finder is 100% responsible for their finding efforts.

 

100% is absolute. I like absolutes.

 

A geocache hunt starts with a hider placing a geocache and it ends when the cache placer allows that the cache has been found, the seeker need only provide a log that the cache placer will pass judgement on. The seeker has no influence on this process and plays no part in this process, it is all the bailiwick of the cache placer. Finders should always be aware of the absolute nature of the cache owners control. If they think they have found a geocache they may be wrong, they do not have ability to decide. The cache seeker has no obligations at all, on this website they need only give an email and off they go. The cache hider has many obligations, they need to agree to a comprehensive set of guidelines before placing the cache.

 

I have not dismissed any folks as non-entities, when I said non-entities I meant non-entities in the literal sense of the word. As a cache placer I have no way of knowing they even visited if the onsite logbook is stolen, no way at all, they literally do not exist, they are not in the record. I do not place caches for ephemerals, I place caches for people who will sign the online log, it is why I list my caches on a listing service. I know that my caches are found by people who do not log online and I enjoy seeing their logs in the logbook but they are not logging the cache in a fashion that adds to the record.

 

Trespassing, private property, irate landowners, they all play a part in the geocaching process. Rather than split hairs I will provide some actual logs for a cache that was eventually archived by a Groundspeak employee.

 

March, 2006 by Cachers 1 and 2 (nn found)

We were visited by the same person as OtherCacher. She's pretty upset about Geocachers coming into her neighborhood and being disruptive in the middle of the night. She ran us off before we got a chance to find the cache, even though we were there in the middle of the day. She said we were on private property and that she is going to continue to call the Sheriff.

 

March, 2006 by Cache Owner (nnn found)

Cache has been moved. Still in the same neighborhood park, but only 20 feet from Street B. Upgraded to a 1/1 Quick Grab Cache. Good Luck!

 

April, 2006 by Cacher 3 (nnn found)

One of thirty two quick and easy caches we did today. Our nephew is on Spring Break and wanted to help us set our record for the day, and we did it. Thanks, hiders! By the way, we met not only the pleasant lady, but also her profanity laced husband as well. Of course, it may have been partially our own fault. I know we were supposed to be discrete, but our 8-year old nephew tripped in the street and slammed his knee into the curb, sending him into a hysterical screaming and crying fit. Of course, the happy couple just happened to be in their front yard doing some gardening (or maybe just waiting for their geocaching arch-enemies!?). After finding the cache, with as much discretion as I had left, we pulled away. Wished him a good day at which point he told me to F&*% Off. Nice sentiment. I had to turn around to know how to get out of the neighborhood (and also to give him another chance to yell at me) and as we went back by, he asked us if we lived in the neighborhood. I told him no, we were down from Other State and he said he would see about that and yelled my license plate number to his wife who was on the phone (with the police I imagine). I am sure they are tired of calls about people doing terrible things (like using a park at 3:00 in the afternoon on a sunny day). Oh well, I only wish I lived closer, so I could visit more often.

 

Cacher 3 is the cacher who actually had their 8 year old exposed to the profanity, perhaps having fun at that point only required an attitude adjustment but I have a 9 year old and I know I wouldn't be having fun if an adult started to seriously curse in front of him.

In this case the cache owner got a copy of the log that stated the cachers were told the cache was on private property. The owner moved the cache to a different hiding spot on the same property and did not seek permission for the placement. Cacher 3 is blameless, reading the cache page wouldn't have helped. The cache owner caused the problem when he ignored the information provided and left the cache on private property. The landowners eventually contacted Groundspeak directly and the cache was archived by an employee.

[+wavector]

QUOTE(wavector @ Jul 17 2007, 11:42 PM)

This is actually right where I started, seekers should realize that they are powerless to create a favourable outcome when they go geocaching, the cache hider is in complete control.

 

This statement makes no sense. A cache hider has very little control over how someone finds his cache

 

A cache owner decides when his cache is "found", no one else has any control over that, it is an absolute. There is no appeal and no recourse. The only time a cache is "found" is when the cache owner allows that it is found. The only thing a seeker needs to do is submit a log, the cache owners decides if that is a "find" on his cache.

 

I am reminded of a very well known cacher who placed a "thrown down" and claimed a find. The cache owner deleted the "find" and got a telephone call from the well known cacher. The well known cacher accused the cache owner of messing with his find count. The well known cacher has found a lot of caches and apparently this was the first time that he was actually confronted with the absolute nature of the cache owner's control. A seeker has no control in the same situation, it is up to the cache owner.