+erik88l-r Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 All I would personally want is what a reviewer would give me anyway. 1. Clear 2. Not Clear Max it out at 1 or 2 attempts for a given radius eliminating triangulation. This method would not give out the location, but would give me the go or no go for my hide. As a reviewer, if I'm asked I'll generally say "clear" if it is, but if it isn't I'll tell people which way and how far to move their proposed cache location in very general terms. There should be no reason for someone to have to ask a second time, and there should not be enough info in my anwer to reverse it and find someone else's cache. I guess it's possible, but so far no one has been silly enough to submit multiple caches in my area around where they think someone's mystery cache might be, and use the rejections to triangulate to that cache. [The cache reviewers could also have a "watch list", and it's not necessarily caches that they'd be watching. ] ~erik~ Quote Link to comment
+XopherN71 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Ok, some of you are obviously going to argue this for no reason even if a valid one is presented. If something benefits the submitter as well as the reviewer, why would you be against it? I don't understand. If you have an argument, present it... otherwise just saying 'it works now' isn't helping. Quote Link to comment
+Totem Clan Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Ok, some of you are obviously going to argue this for no reason even if a valid one is presented. If something benefits the submitter as well as the reviewer, why would you be against it? I don't understand. If you have an argument, present it... otherwise just saying 'it works now' isn't helping. You're automated system will work but is not viable because it is too exploitable. That is the same answer. I have given you multiple times and you keep choosing to ignore it. Quote Link to comment
+XopherN71 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) I am not ignoring it, I just don't see where you are pulling that from. Tell me, how is it more exploitable than asking a reviewer? If there is a cache in the area: Current process: Submit new cache, reviewer says no (in a nutshell). Proposed process: Submit new cache, system says this may not get approved do you wish to submit anyway? This is your one shot at this location using the automated system. If you say 'no' then you must find a new location farther than '(to be determined)' feet in order to use the automated system again. If you answer 'yes, continue' it goes to the reviewer flagged. If there is not a cache in the area: Current process: Submit new cache, reviewer says yes (in a nutshell). Proposed process: Submit new cache, no warning. This is your one shot at this location using the automated system for this area. Request goes to the reviewer unflagged. Either way it goes to the reviewer for final say, but as an added benefit the reviewer will have at a glance a heads up if the request is flagged or not before even looking at it. If the reviewer wants they can go through the unflagged ones first since they are most likely ok for placement and then review the flagged ones when they have more time. Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71 Quote Link to comment
+Totem Clan Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 I am not ignoring it, I just don't see where you are pulling that from. Tell me, how is it more exploitable than asking a reviewer? Because if I set and ask the reviewer over and over, "Is this coord good, Is this coord," trying to draw my arcs they will not allow it. They will instead interact with you and solve the problem quickly. For a reviewers point of view, look at the first post on this page. Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) Ok, some of you are obviously going to argue this for no reason even if a valid one is presented. If something benefits the submitter as well as the reviewer, why would you be against it? I don't understand. If you have an argument, present it... otherwise just saying 'it works now' isn't helping. You're automated system will work but is not viable because it is too exploitable. That is the same answer. I have given you multiple times and you keep choosing to ignore it. I disagree. His system won't work because it really doesn't address his problem. The issue is that a cacher wants to hide a cache. He looks at the cache maps and finds a spot .1 miles from existing caches. He goes there and hides a cache and submits it. It then gets rejected by the reviewer because there is a mystery cache or stage of a multi nearby. XopherN71's suggestion would just run a check and automatically reject his cache. (OK, his modified suggestion doesn't automatically reject and lets him submit anyhow) Probably he'd be better off letting the reviewer see his cache since there is a chance that his cache is 500 feet from the existing cache and reviewer can see on the map that they are opposite sides of a river. The problem is finding a empty area to place your cache before you actually go out to place it. The idea of a map that showed areas where there were no cache might work if the areas shown were 528 + some random distance from the existing cache. Then you wouldn't be able to compute the exact position of the existing cache (unless you took a lot of samples to average out the randomness). I would suspect that you would find the open areas are either too hard to get to or don't allow caches so it would only be limited help. It would be easier to look for and area on the existing map where you want to place a cache. If there are any mystery or multi caches within 2 or 3 miles of your area, ask the reviewer if this is a good place for a cache. Edited April 25, 2008 by tozainamboku Quote Link to comment
+XopherN71 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) If you are hiding a cache you can submit it without actually placing it (submit as disabled). This would be part of the hide. For myself and others, instant gratification would be nice... for you, it might not matter and won't effect the way you do things. The OP hid his cache because he thought he was clear... this system still fixes that problem while not sacrificing anything. You view the Google map of caches, find a spot you like, submit it and find out in seconds if you're golden or not. If not, then there are no more automations for 'x' area and you have the choice to work with the reviewer or find a new location outside of a set perimeter. Totem, you're set against it regardless of what I type... if you'd read my posts you'd see I've said over and over again there would be a limit to automated replies, even down to 1 would be sufficient for my needs, with the ability to submit anyway to get help from the reviewer. Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71 Quote Link to comment
+Totem Clan Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 If you are hiding a cache you can submit it without actually placing it (submit as disabled). This would be part of the hide. For myself and others, instant gratification would be nice... for you, it might not matter and won't effect the way you do things. The OP hid his cache because he thought he was clear... this system still fixes that problem while not sacrificing anything. Then I'm wrong. Your system won't work at all. It can help you find where to place the cache, which is what the OP wanted. Your purposal would still not get your cache approved any quicker than it is now Totem, you're set against it regardless of what I type... if you'd read my posts you'd see I've said over and over again there would be a limit to automated replies, even down to 1 would be sufficient. I'm sorry that you feel that way but nothing could be further from the truth. Was trying to help solve a problem for a fellow cacher. Quote Link to comment
+OpenTrackRacer Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 I ran into this on my very first cache hide. I found the spot, got good coordinates, got the container ready and then made the listing. Opps! There's a puzzle cache within .10 miles. Talk about a bummer! Still, it wasn't the end of the world. I solved the puzzle and found the cache (which was fun) and determined that there was no way my original idea would work. So, I came up with something new and moved on. On the second try, I sent my (very helpful) reviewer the coordinates first and he cleared them before I did any other work. It's not that bad. Just run the coordinates by your reviewer before you made the hide. If you have a multi you could still get nailed after doing a bunch of scouting but I don't think there is any good way around that. Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) All I would personally want is what a reviewer would give me anyway. 1. Clear 2. Not Clear Max it out at 1 or 2 attempts for a given radius eliminating triangulation. This method would not give out the location, but would give me the go or no go for my hide. As a reviewer, if I'm asked I'll generally say "clear" if it is, but if it isn't I'll tell people which way and how far to move their proposed cache location in very general terms. There should be no reason for someone to have to ask a second time, and there should not be enough info in my anwer to reverse it and find someone else's cache. I guess it's possible, but so far no one has been silly enough to submit multiple caches in my area around where they think someone's mystery cache might be, and use the rejections to triangulate to that cache. I follow the same basic procedure as Erik, and thus far, the volume of requests I receive is less than one per week. This is true despite the fact that I review caches in two of the top ten US states, measured by either cache density or absolute number of caches. Unlike Erik, I *HAVE* encountered the situation where a group of geocachers attempted to discern the location of a tough puzzle cache by playing a game of "battleship" -- hiding caches in the available spots within 2 miles of the posted puzzle coordinates. I beat them at their own game, listing all the caches including one that was a mere 300 something feet from the puzzle location. I post this example every time that this topic arises for discussion. The geocachers who played "Battleship" are honorable cachers and we had fun laughing about how the game was played. They did not think they were cheating. Similarly, if the site made a coordinate checking tool available, these same geocachers would likely regard it as taking advantage of the tools offered, rather than cheating. The person harmed by the cheating is the puzzle cache owner, who has an expectation that their puzzle secrets will remain secure. For the above reasons, I would only be in favor of a checking tool if the website developers were able to engineer security features sufficient to prevent its abuse for discerning puzzle and multicache locations. Edited April 25, 2008 by Keystone Quote Link to comment
+XopherN71 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) Then I'm wrong. Your system won't work at all. It can help you find where to place the cache, which is what the OP wanted. Your purposal would still not get your cache approved any quicker than it is now Won't work at all, why? It will help find a valid location... the whole point. Nobody said anything about getting it actually approved faster, although this process could certainly do that. I should have stuck with what I said in my first reply I won't get into it here since it's been debated to death and nothing is going to change apparently. Although I feel pretty good about finding a solution that indeed, would work... I see no need in arguing over it any further. I have more important things to do, like find a location for my next cache Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71 Quote Link to comment
+Totem Clan Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Won't work at all, why? It will help find a valid location... the whole point. Nobody said anything about getting it actually approved faster, although this process could certainly do that. This issue has been discussed and answered by several other cachers and by me. Also two reviewers have posted trying to show you the answer to your question. For some reason you won't listen to that answer. Christopher I have seen your posts to many other topics here and I respect your opinions on just about everything even when I don't agree with it. I have to say you seem like a good person and a cacher that I would love to spend time in the field with. However I will not debate with someone who, whether they realize it or not, is acting like a troll. I will talk to you about anything else you want to, but I am done talking to you about this topic. I will respond to others if directly asked to, but otherwise, I think I have sufficiently explain myself and my views on this matter. Happy Caching. Quote Link to comment
+XopherN71 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) You had to drag me back off my comfy spot didn't you For what it's worth, I feel the exact same way about everything you just said, only swap the names lol. I must be blind... would someone please show me where ANYONE said WHY my latest proposal will not work? PLEASE. I'm very confident all issues have been addressed, unfortunately everyone keeps quoting my original black and white post that is NOT the actual proposal I'm defending. If there is a cache in the area: Current process: Submit new cache, reviewer says no (in a nutshell). Proposed process: Submit new cache, system says this may not get approved do you wish to submit anyway? This is your one shot at this location using the automated system. If you say 'no' then you must find a new location farther than '(to be determined)' feet in order to use the automated system again. If you answer 'yes, continue' it goes to the reviewer flagged. If there is not a cache in the area: Current process: Submit new cache, reviewer says yes (in a nutshell). Proposed process: Submit new cache, no warning. This is your one shot at this location using the automated system for this area. Request goes to the reviewer unflagged. Either way it goes to the reviewer for final say, but as an added benefit the reviewer will have at a glance a heads up if the request is flagged or not before even looking at it. If the reviewer wants they can go through the unflagged ones first since they are most likely ok for placement and then review the flagged ones when they have more time. Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71 Quote Link to comment
Rhialto Posted April 25, 2008 Author Share Posted April 25, 2008 I'm back from my ride! Good news is I found another spot for 1st stage of my multi which I know will be accepted now because it is at 5 meters near the same spot from a previous cache I disabled yesterday. Another hour spent into searching and modifying it physically and adjusting online description too. Thanks to XopherN71 for defending the subject. You must not be at work having that much time to be present here! I don't work myslef every friday! :-) I liked the idea of having at least an alert of an occupied zone.. it would make me check with a reviewer before going furthur in the elaboration of a cache. Quote Link to comment
Rhialto Posted April 25, 2008 Author Share Posted April 25, 2008 ALSO, I'm glad this is getting discussed A LOT. Number of Geocachers all around the world is increasing every single day! Number of Geocaches all around the world is increasing every single day! In dense area it will become a real challenge to find a free spot where to hide a cache so obviously a tool would help future geocachers who enjoy the new hobby to find such a free spot. Ok,when an area will be full will be another story, no more place so no more problem I know but until then... Quote Link to comment
+XopherN71 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 I'm exhausted I did my best, whether or not it makes a difference is another story. No offense meant to anyone, if I failed to answer questions it was not intentional. If I appeared to be a troll it's because I didn't shave today - no other reason was intended. Regardless of what we disagree on in this thread, I still value everyones input and with any luck will be fortunate enough to do some Geocaching with some of you. All the best. Quote Link to comment
+baloo&bd Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Certainly, these people should still be able to hide a cache if they want to. Absolutly and in our region, someone created a macro for local geocachers and there is a guy with 32 hidden but 0 found and another person with 171 hidden and 48 found. You make it sound like these are bad things. How does this relate to the thread? Quote Link to comment
+Driver Carries Cache Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 There is a way to make this better, that is all some others and myself are trying to accomplish. We're not trying to change the game, only enhance it. But obviously, there is a "pro" and a "con" to your solution. The "pro" makes things easier for you (a good thing ) and the "con" compromises the puzzles that people put time into by providing potential "hints" that the hiders don't want made available (not so good ). While I agree it would be useful to have some kind of easily verifiable system in place, your response when folks brought up the "negative" effects of this idea was "oh well... it doesn't affect me". DCC Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Number of Geocachers all around the world is increasing every single day!...How can that be? In another thread, it was argued that people keep quitting and the sport will die unless their idea do jour got implemented. Either way, as explained previously, this is not a big problem. For three reasons, XN71's suggested solution wouldn't stop people from minesweeping cache locations even if it is set up to only allow a few guesses. Each day, the person could enter a few new guesses. The person and each of his eleventeen friends could all submit guesses. The person could use socks. Also, it should be noted that a person wanting to check the coordinates for multiple caches would be negatively affected by the 'two guess' rule. Quote Link to comment
Rhialto Posted April 25, 2008 Author Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) Certainly, these people should still be able to hide a cache if they want to.Absolutly and in our region, someone created a macro for local geocachers and there is a guy with 32 hidden but 0 found and another person with 171 hidden and 48 found. You make it sound like these are bad things. How does this relate to the thread? Read again! Some prefer to hide, some prefer to find and I simply gave 2 exemples of geocachers who prefer to hide (looking at their stats, that is). They should appreciate a tool to let them know if a spot is already occupied or not. Edited April 25, 2008 by Rhialto Quote Link to comment
Rhialto Posted April 25, 2008 Author Share Posted April 25, 2008 and the "con" compromises the puzzles that people put time into by providing potential "hints" that the hiders don't want made available Considered cheating or not (that is not the question), how many would look and compute numbers to acheive this? Would you? I know I would not. It would be a very few group of people and in some regions maybe. It would not ruin what Geocaching is. On the other side, the tool would help hundreds, thousands of geocachers in finding free spot to hide. Quote Link to comment
+XopherN71 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) your response when folks brought up the "negative" effects of this idea was "oh well... it doesn't affect me" Had you kept reading you'd see that not only is that not the case but I worked harder to find a solution that catered to everyone. For three reasons, XN71's suggested solution wouldn't stop people from minesweeping cache locations even if it is set up to only allow a few guesses. * Each day, the person could enter a few new guesses. * The person and each of his eleventeen friends could all submit guesses. * The person could use socks. Also, it should be noted that a person wanting to check the coordinates for multiple caches would be negatively affected by the 'two guess' rule. Thank you for pointing out some possible flaws, I appreciate it. Now let me address them: * Each day, the person could enter a few new guesses. Nope, as it states... one try per location unless reset by a reviewer I suppose (if a cache is archived for example). * The person and each of his eleventeen friends could all submit guesses. This could happen without this system in place as well so I don't understand how it would make it more exploitable. Even then, if 7 of the 'eleventeen' get the green light the reviewer will see 7 requests for a location since they will be submitted. Remember, this is on the new hide submission form. Heck, you could go so far as to say 3 strikes and you're out to deter this kind of thing. (Meaning 3 successful submissions with no hides.) To prevent argument on this, set this to whatever you want * The person could use socks. Or shoes... either way I don't think the hider would mind. To me, this was helpful... not only stating "I see holes", but also "where you saw holes". I'm sure it's not perfect, but with this kind of input I see no reason it couldn't be. Also, I don't have the answers, only suggestions and so far I feel like the only one on this side of the suggestion box. If anyone else has better methods feel free to speak up and provide your input. Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71 Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 and the "con" compromises the puzzles that people put time into by providing potential "hints" that the hiders don't want made available Considered cheating or not (that is not the question), how many would look and compute numbers to acheive this? Would you? I know I would not. It would be a very few group of people and in some regions maybe. It would not ruin what Geocaching is. On the other side, the tool would help hundreds, thousands of geocachers in finding free spot to hide. It would be cheating, It would be an option and it would short circut some owners caches. That's a problem. You are agreeing by making the case "it's not a big problem". For you it's a question of magnitude. That and you don't like the present solution which helps a majority of cachers where the reviewer gives hints that can be used to locate a cache. Quote Link to comment
+XopherN71 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 This has been remedied, no sense arguing over spilled milk that's been cleaned up Quote Link to comment
+Big Bear TC Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 and the "con" compromises the puzzles that people put time into by providing potential "hints" that the hiders don't want made available Considered cheating or not (that is not the question), how many would look and compute numbers to acheive this? Would you? I know I would not. It would be a very few group of people and in some regions maybe. It would not ruin what Geocaching is. On the other side, the tool would help hundreds, thousands of geocachers in finding free spot to hide. [Rant] Okay Bigfoot get all of the wax out of your ears and cut the hair away from your eyes. Your question has been answered how many times? Now rewording it is not going to get the answer you want. You put too much faith in man kind. Yes there would be a lot of cachers that would cheat the system to find a cache. Now for Xopher you need to grow up to and understand this will never work and Groundspeak won't approve it. If you want to put out a cache do your research. Now you know that a cache or a mutli is in an area you want to put something. just make sure you are far enough away. My nine year old can figure that out. She wants to put a cache out so she asks for us to help in places she wants to place it. If she can't put it there she understands. Then finds another place. You two need to quit throwing fits and get over yourselves. If a 1st grader, 3rd grader, and a 5th grader can figure this out I think you can too. Or are you telling me your not as smart as a 1st grader? Also don't get me angry. You don't want to see me angry! [End Rant] Quote Link to comment
+XopherN71 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Your post is WAY out of line, we're having a rather civil discussion here - if you choose not to participate in a better fashion feel free to take your accusations elsewhere. Quote Link to comment
+Driver Carries Cache Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 and the "con" compromises the puzzles that people put time into by providing potential "hints" that the hiders don't want made available Considered cheating or not (that is not the question), how many would look and compute numbers to acheive this? Would you? I know I would not. It would be a very few group of people and in some regions maybe. It would not ruin what Geocaching is. On the other side, the tool would help hundreds, thousands of geocachers in finding free spot to hide. True, I wouldn't take the time to "game" the system, but there are plenty who would. And as far as what would "ruin" Geocaching... what a system like this would do is discourage me from ever taking the time to create a clever and challenging puzzle when all of that work could be nullified by this "tool". Ruined?... your mileage may vary. All I was pointing out is that while the positive side of the idea is definitely positive... there's a negative that's being ignored. If there was a way to avoid the "negative" effect of this tool, I'd be all for it... but just saying "hey I wouldn't use it for evil (hey... where'd they put my "evil" smiley!) just doesn't cut it. DCC Quote Link to comment
+XopherN71 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) Have you read the whole 3rd page of this thread (mainly the middle area)? I fail to see how you still think your prized multi or puzzle would be compromised. Please explain, I'm all ears if you can just point out specifics... blanket statements I can't decipher apparently. Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71 Quote Link to comment
+Driver Carries Cache Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Have you read the whole 3rd page of this thread (mainly the middle area)? I fail to see how you still think your prized multi or puzzle would be compromised. Please explain, I'm all ears if you can just point out specifics... blanket statements I can't decipher apparently. Didn't you just chastise someone over their "netiquite"... then I get snide comments about "prized" multis... Thanks, Discussion is obviously over. Done with this thread. DCC Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) Have you read the whole 3rd page of this thread (mainly the middle area)? I fail to see how you still think your prized multi or puzzle would be compromised. Please explain, I'm all ears if you can just point out specifics... blanket statements I can't decipher apparently. It has been explained many, many times how the cache could be compromised. While you have chosen to blow off every post that disagrees with you, they still exist. Edited April 25, 2008 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
+XopherN71 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) No, it has not been explained many, many times... feel free to quote one that has not been addressed! Did you mean this: "Also, it should be noted that a person wanting to check the coordinates for multiple caches would be negatively affected by the 'two guess' rule." Because it wouldn't have any effect on them since (as I stated already) there would be a radius limit. If the cache was outside the set limit you could in fact submit that cache as well. Even so, you still have the option to submit after the warning. And the prized multis was not a rip... it takes a lot more time to put one of those together than a traditional cache, I can appreciate that, hence why I said 'prized'. Good grief, anything else you guys want to dissect and argue about today? I started off with an open mind and tried my best to work through this, but it's become painfully obvious that a select few like nothing more than to argue. To me it's the schoolyard bully effect... new guy comes on and brings up an old issue and a select few gang up on them until they give in and go away. It's very clear some of you have your opinions set in stone and will not alter those opinions regardless if something actually makes sense and could work better. Since this is now officially off the discussion path and into the personal attacks path, I will definitely cease my participation before I really say I how feel about some of you and your comments. Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71 Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 No, it has not been explained many, many times... feel free to quote one that has not been addressed! Did you mean this: "Also, it should be noted that a person wanting to check the coordinates for multiple caches would be negatively affected by the 'two guess' rule." Take another look at my post. You glossed over my points without really addressing anything. Heck, you joked away my third point without addressing it, at all.I started off with an open mind and tried my best to work through this, but it's become painfully obvious that a select few like nothing more than to argue. Since this is now officially off the discussion path and into the personal attacks path, I will definitely cease my participation before I really say I how feel about some of you and your comments.Where in the world is that pot/kettle graphic? I can't find it anywhere. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) ...I started off with an open mind and tried my best to work through this, but it's become painfully obvious that a select few like nothing more than to argue. To me it's the schoolyard bully effect... new guy comes on and brings up an old issue and a select few gang up on them until they give in and go away. It's very clear some of you have your opinions set in stone and will not alter those opinions regardless if something actually makes sense and could work better. ...Don't you think that its at least possible that the people that have been around for a little while have a clue what they are talking about? Edited April 25, 2008 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
+XopherN71 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) Those same people that have been here so long yet still don't know they can edit their previous post to add another quote instead of post padding their account? Those people? The same people that back you into a corner and offer nothing of value to a thread? Those people? Or the ones that insist nothing changes because they don't want it to? I don't have all the answers, if any... never once claimed to. What I can and did offer are suggestions... I would have expected more from seasoned members in return, but all I got was put down and accused of many things. Edited to relieve more steam. Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71 Quote Link to comment
Skippermark Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Triangulation will pinpoint the cache. There's a puzzle cache in our area called "Triangulation." To find it, you had to find 3 other caches. Inside each was simply the distance to the "Triangulated" cache. We found it after finding just 2 of the 3 caches needed. I guess my point is that it shouldn't be too hard to locate the cache in question. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) Those same people that have been here so long yet still don't know they can edit their previous post to add another quote instead of post padding their account? Those people? Whatever. My first post was made prior to your changing your post. After I noticed that you changed your post, I decided to make a new post, rather than edit my old one, because I was responding to a new post (under the same, old wrapper). Edited April 25, 2008 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Those same people that have been here so long yet still don't know they can edit their previous post to add another quote instead of post padding their account? Those people? The same people that back you into a corner and offer nothing of value to a thread? Those people? Or the ones that insist nothing changes because they don't want it to? I don't have all the answers, if any... never once claimed to. What I can and did offer are suggestions... I would have expected more from seasoned members in return, but all I got was put down and accused of many things. Edited to relieve more steam. Do you feel better now? Quote Link to comment
+XopherN71 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Yes, thanks for asking. Quote Link to comment
Rhialto Posted April 25, 2008 Author Share Posted April 25, 2008 In 2001 it wasn't a problem to find a spot and at that time not sure the puzzle and mystery were available. Today it is problematic, everyone agree my OP explain what many experienced and what more people will get into. Yet, the solution I keep is to ask a reviewer as soon as I have a project. Feel free to add new ideas. Quote Link to comment
+KoosKoos Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 I'm not sure I fully follow the latest here. If I'm checking spots, I create a new cache submission, but mark it as not in place since I haven't placed the container yet (I'm still scouting, right?). This allows me to check the distance and if it's not ok, I'm asked if I want to submit it anyway or find a new spot? So what's to keep me from creating 15 cache submissions within a mile of a puzzle cache and narrowing down which ones are "ok" and thus closer to the final? Since it hasn't gone to the reviewer yet, it wouldn't hurt anything to keep making these bogus caches. I'm not over your 1 submission per location rule and yet I'm triangulating a location. Quote Link to comment
+KoosKoos Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 In 2001 it wasn't a problem to find a spot and at that time not sure the puzzle and mystery were available. Today it is problematic, everyone agree my OP explain what many experienced and what more people will get into. Yet, the solution I keep is to ask a reviewer as soon as I have a project. Feel free to add new ideas. I don't really agree that it's all that problematic. Yes, it may happen once in a while, but I don't see it as a widespread problem. Quote Link to comment
+PhxChem Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Yet, the solution I keep is to ask a reviewer as soon as I have a project. Agreed....and the reviewer can help you find an open spot without repeated attempts. Which, under the plan that is being floated, might lock you out (since if it didn't, it would be even easier to brute force a puzzle cache.). A reviewer can help you in ONE step. And the greatest thing, that system is in place now! Just because something is "new" (or someone thinks their idea is), that doesn't make it better. Those people? I'm not sure random insults will help your case. Unless it's a part of your new automated system.... Quote Link to comment
Rhialto Posted April 25, 2008 Author Share Posted April 25, 2008 Yet, the solution I keep is to ask a reviewer as soon as I have a project. Agreed....and the reviewer can help you find an open spot without repeated attempts. Which, under the plan that is being floated, might lock you out (since if it didn't, it would be even easier to brute force a puzzle cache.). A reviewer can help you in ONE step. And the greatest thing, that system is in place now! Just because something is "new" (or someone thinks their idea is), that doesn't make it better. Those people? I'm not sure random insults will help your case. Unless it's a part of your new automated system.... Bad quoting : 1st quote is from me but not the second. Quote Link to comment
+XopherN71 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) Edited by self. Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71 Quote Link to comment
+PhxChem Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Bad quoting : 1st quote is from me but not the second. You are correct....not sure how it relates to the topic at hand...but I will try harder in the future. Edited by self. What the heck is going on around here? Who knows what was said.....hopefully not random (or even proerly directed) insults. Are you trying to win us over with tough loved? I think I did the bad quote thing again. I've acutally never done it correctly with the person's name listed. Ignore this detour, my previous post stands. Quote Link to comment
+XopherN71 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) No, nothing like that... I just don't have the energy to back up this idea anymore, and since I couldn't delete my post that's all you get. Any future attempts to lure me back into this black hole I got myself into will be greeted with nothing but kindness. Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71 Quote Link to comment
Rhialto Posted April 25, 2008 Author Share Posted April 25, 2008 This my my town. There are still many places to hide but 2 scenarios: Scenario 1: Someone look at the map and find spot 1 is a good place so he setup a container, create the webpage so he get a GC code but does not yet submit for review because he need to work out the container a little more and then he go to place it. Then he checkmark the "Yes, this listing is active" checkbox so it will go public once reviewed but surprise, the final of a mystery is already in that area. He's not verry happy because he spent 4-5 hours setting up the cache, container, writing cache description, creating 3 cool certificates for FTF with cache name and difficulty levels written on it. A bit frustrated by this (1st time that happen to him) he go out and walk and find spot 2 which is also interesting, this time ask the reviewer just to be sure it is safe and THEN ONLY will move the container and adjust cache description and recreate new FTF certificate. Phew! Scenario 1: Found spot 1 interesting, create the webpage to get a GC code but when he enter the coordinates, he get a popup letting him know he cannot use that area for some reason. Good, walk and find spot 2, input coords and get same message. That's no luck! Another walk, input spot 3 coords and no warning, GOOD! He may now proceed into designing the cache. He's happy because he will now spend 4-5 hours of fun setting up the cache, container, writing cache description, creating 3 cool FTF certificates with cache name and difficulty levels written on it. Most people understood the problem already, just thought a picture could better explain the problem. P.S. No need to tell me such a warning message will be used by cheaters. Quote Link to comment
+joranda Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 It has happened to many people. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 ...Most people understood the problem already, just thought a picture could better explain the problem.... Spend 5 hours with method A spend 5 hours with method B. Like I said earlier. You have to pick your problem. You are going to live with one of them. Quote Link to comment
+PhxChem Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Then he checkmark the "Yes, this listing is active" checkbox so it will go public once reviewed but surprise, the final of a mystery is already in that area. If he asked the reviewer first, this would have been avoided. The reviewer then tells him a nearby spot that will work. P.S. No need to tell me such a warning message will be used by cheaters. But that's the whole sticking point. Really, that's pretty much it. If you ignore that, I'm not sure the idea will fly. Just trying to be honest and upfront. That's really the only problem with the idea. Everything else is a plus.... Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.