all I have to say is why?

10.2k · September 9, 2009

Why would someone do this Why? no describition why? no hint Why?

Did anybody notice the cache was found yesterday?

The FTF didn't sound upset one bit.

In all seriousness, the FTF log talks about it being close to a school. I was just going crack a "being outraged" joke about it. But further examination shows this cache is quite possibly on school property. And a private school at that (Catholic High School).

Hey, I'm just sayin'. :lol:

Edited September 9, 2009 by TheWhiteUrkel

22k · September 9, 2009

Why would someone do this Why? no describition why? no hint Why?

Did anybody notice the cache was found yesterday?

The FTF didn't sound upset one bit.

Sounds like it's too close to a school to me. Where's the outrage?

Won't someone think of the children?!

20.7k · September 9, 2009

Why would someone do this Why? no describition why? no hint Why?

Did anybody notice the cache was found yesterday?

The FTF didn't sound upset one bit.

Sounds like it's too close to a school to me. Where's the outrage?

'A few hundred meters' put the cache at least 656 feet away.

10.2k · September 9, 2009

Why would someone do this Why? no describition why? no hint Why?

Did anybody notice the cache was found yesterday?

The FTF didn't sound upset one bit.

Sounds like it's too close to a school to me. Where's the outrage?

'A few hundred meters' put the cache at least 656 feet away.

I've actually edited my post since you guys quoted it. Just trying to create more outrage.

September 9, 2009

Look at the map people, it looks far away from the school to me on a path that goes into the surrounding neighborhoods. Wow I can't believe at what people will complain about these days.

7.7k · September 9, 2009

Look at the map people, it looks far away from the school to me on a path that goes into the surrounding neighborhoods. Wow I can't believe at what people will complain about these days.

So, are you complaining about what other people complaining about?

9.3k · September 9, 2009

Wow I can't believe at what people will complain about these days.

Can we add this to the official "Mushtang's Tree of Forum Outrage"?

5.7k · September 9, 2009

Wow I can't believe at what people will complain about these days.

Can we add this to the official "Mushtang's Tree of Forum Outrage"?

No, perhaps next time. :lol:

10.2k · September 9, 2009

Look at the map people, it looks far away from the school to me on a path that goes into the surrounding neighborhoods. Wow I can't believe at what people will complain about these days.

That wasn't a complaint. It was an outrage. :lol:

September 9, 2009

Wow I can't believe at what people will complain about these days.

Can we add this to the official "Mushtang's Tree of Forum Outrage"?

No, perhaps next time.

I'm kind of offended by that response.. and the smiley is just disrespectful..

10.2k · September 10, 2009

Wow I can't believe at what people will complain about these days.

Can we add this to the official "Mushtang's Tree of Forum Outrage"?

No, perhaps next time.

I'm kind of offended by that response.. and the smiley is just disrespectful..

I'm offended that I might have to see girls in Catholic high school uniforms if I went looking for that cache. Which I'd already be outraged by in the first place because it has no cache description.

September 10, 2009

All of this has made me feel numb to the whole issue and forget what we were talking about.

22k · September 10, 2009

I think the question was - Why.

20.7k · September 10, 2009

I believe that the answer was 'because'.

4k · September 10, 2009

Because, why?

4.2k · September 10, 2009

Because, why?

Because we're here. Roll the bones.

3.9k · September 10, 2009

Because, why?
Because we're here. Roll the bones.

You better run, homeboy

A fact's a fact

From Nome to Rome, boy

6.5k · September 11, 2009

?

September 11, 2009

Roll Credits, bring up the house lights.

September 11, 2009

At first I couldn't believe there was 117 posts for this question. Then I read how it had turned into a debate. I don't know but it seems the CO placed the cache and filled out the cache page in a way that most closely fit his or her needs, wants and desires. Isn't that what all cache hiders do? I can understand someone asking why they did what they did, I don't understand why anyone would say they shouldn't fill or not fill the cache page to suit themselves. Different strokes for different folks in this case.

Edited September 11, 2009 by traildad

7.7k · September 11, 2009

Because, why?
Because we're here. Roll the bones.
You better run, homeboy
A fact's a fact

From Nome to Rome, boy

Why am I not surprised it came from you? :anibad:

7.7k · September 11, 2009

At first I couldn't believe there was 117 posts for this question. Then I read how it had turned into a debate.

And we still have not heard from a reviewer about whether they would approve such a cache, and if it violates a guideline, which one did it violate.

5.6k · September 11, 2009

I believe that the answer was 'because'.

No, a better answer: "why not?"

9.3k · September 11, 2009

"why not?"

Because... :anibad:

3.3k · September 11, 2009

At first I couldn't believe there was 117 posts for this question. Then I read how it had turned into a debate.

And we still have not heard from a reviewer about whether they would approve such a cache, and if it violates a guideline, which one did it violate.

Likely because it doesn't violate any guidlines and the posts so far have managed to remain civil. Not on topic, whatever the topic is, but civil. Start some name calling and other good stuff and at least a moderator might step in. :anibad:

9.3k · September 11, 2009

Can we start bashing micros now? Invoke Godwin's Law? Throw a real good geocide?

Something needs to be done to add some more drama to this thread. :anibad:

1.3k · September 11, 2009

Can we start bashing micros now? Invoke Godwin's Law? Throw a real good geocide?

Something needs to be done to add some more drama to this thread.

ROTFLMAO

6.5k · September 11, 2009

7.2k · September 11, 2009

I am truly shocked that anyone here is defending zero information in the cache description as a good practice.

It's the cache owner's prerogative. Nothing wrong with it. If the owner wants to only provide coordinates and nothing else descriptive, then that is perfectly okay.

19k · September 11, 2009

I don't see what the big deal is. Happens all the time around here, particularily with our most prolific hider:

GC1VPTQ Easiest

GC1VHTF Dakota Wokiksuye Makoce

GC1REBM Woodtick Central

There are plenty more where those came from. I can't believe a reviewer can or would reject a cache because of lack of text in the cache page.

4.2k · September 11, 2009

At first I couldn't believe there was 117 posts for this question. Then I read how it had turned into a debate.

And we still have not heard from a reviewer about whether they would approve such a cache, and if it violates a guideline, which one did it violate.

Clearly they would approve such a cache, because they have.

24.7k · September 11, 2009

I am truly shocked that anyone here is defending zero information in the cache description as a good practice.

It's the cache owner's prerogative. Nothing wrong with it. If the owner wants to only provide coordinates and nothing else descriptive, then that is perfectly okay.

True. It's ok. Ok may or may not be different than good practice. It's going to depend on the cache and a general concencus among the usual suspects.

9.3k · September 11, 2009

I can't believe a reviewer can or would reject a cache because of lack of text in the cache page.

I'm not a reviewer, so all I can do is guess. I don't have access to that holiest of holys, The Secret Book of Reviewer Stuff. The fact that caches have been published with no description would certainly indicate that the procedure is not a violation of either the written or the unpublished guidelines. The most I could even possibly conceive of, (and it's an admitted stretch), is a reviewer might send a note to a noob, asking if it was their intention to create a cache with no description. Maybe? :anibad:

September 11, 2009

Can we start bashing micros now? Invoke Godwin's Law? Throw a real good geocide?

Something needs to be done to add some more drama to this thread.

Why does my post say Ringbone?

:anibad:

September 11, 2009

Do you want to read a story about . . . what happened when they took their Grandma to a strip mall?

That depends. If all she did was buy some pasties and a g-string, I wouldn't care. But if she put on a show, that might be interesting.

2.5k · September 11, 2009

So, now that the Cache Nazis have had their say, can we all go home?

I think it's ironic that a cache with absolutely no words in the description or hint has generated so many words here... :anibad:

Oh, darn...

I contributed to it....

Again......

1.3k · September 12, 2009

So, now that the Cache Nazis have had their say, can we all go home?

I think it's ironic that a cache with absolutely no words in the description or hint has generated so many words here...

Oh, darn...

I contributed to it....

Again......

I guess that is it then. Let's go caching.

September 12, 2009

I can't believe a reviewer can or would reject a cache because of lack of text in the cache page.

I'm not a reviewer, so all I can do is guess. I don't have access to that holiest of holys, The Secret Book of Reviewer Stuff. The fact that caches have been published with no description would certainly indicate that the procedure is not a violation of either the written or the unpublished guidelines. The most I could even possibly conceive of, (and it's an admitted stretch), is a reviewer might send a note to a noob, asking if it was their intention to create a cache with no description. Maybe?

Sorry to bring this up to the top but this post helps me convey my thought on the subject. All who have posted caches know all the extras that can be put down that don't get published with the cache that the reviewer sees. Whose to say, without seeing what the CO wrote, that the description to the reviewer wasn't three pages long and that what was actually published is the way the cache was intended to be published? And to yet again bring up the "original" geocache. That was just coordinates on a bulletin board much like this one. It said here it is, go find it. It's pretty much the same as this published page.

Tim

7.2k · September 13, 2009

I am truly shocked that anyone here is defending zero information in the cache description as a good practice.
It's the cache owner's prerogative. Nothing wrong with it. If the owner wants to only provide coordinates and nothing else descriptive, then that is perfectly okay.
True. It's ok. Ok may or may not be different than good practice. It's going to depend on the cache and a general concencus among the usual suspects.

Is "good practice" the same as "common practice?"

I do think there are times to add certain things to the description, but if there is nothing that adds to the hunt, why put it in? I'm not saying to not put it in, but should there have to be useless chatter?

I say bring on "Commando Caching" where all you get is the coords and maybe the size, type and D/T.

Edited September 13, 2009 by CoyoteRed

5.7k · September 13, 2009

So, now that the Cache Nazis have had their say, can we all go home?

I think it's ironic that a cache with absolutely no words in the description or hint has generated so many words here...

Oh, darn...

I contributed to it....

Again......

I guess that is it then. Let's go caching.

It's not ironic at all, it is the expected.

September 14, 2009

I am outraged by the outrage in this thread.

... and Who's on first...

7.7k · September 14, 2009

... and Who's on first...

What's on Second

22k · September 14, 2009

Why would someone do this Why? no describition why? no hint Why?

I figured it out - because people go out, look for it and log the results.

Go figure. (edit - oh wait, you did)

Edited September 14, 2009 by BlueDeuce

4k · September 14, 2009

The point of geocaching is to come and find it. No description is necessary to do this.

1.3k · September 15, 2009

How about this for a cache description.

TWU's Parking lot micro

10.2k · September 15, 2009

How about this for a cache description.

TWU's Parking lot micro

Hey, I resemble that remark.

6.7k · September 15, 2009

... and Who's on first...

What's on Second

I'll bet that one has driven a cacher or two to go paperless.

6.1k · December 11, 2009

Because, why?
Because we're here. Roll the bones.
You better run, homeboy
A fact's a fact

From Nome to Rome, boy

What's the deal? Spin the wheel.

If the dice are hot -- take a shot.

Play your cards. Show us what you got

What you're holding.

If the cards are cold,

Don't go folding.

Lady Luck is golden;

She favours the bold. That's cold

Stop throwing stones

The night has a thousand saxophones. So get out there and rock...

Why does it happen?

Because it happens..

1.7k · December 11, 2009

I am truly shocked that anyone here is defending zero information in the cache description as a good practice.

I know this is a few months old, but it ties into the thread about writing long logs and trading swag in a cache. Many folks now download waypoints into their gps and go off hunting without any description. It seems like some folks may not bother filling out cache pages no one will read perhaps? I know some logs were posted on my caches when its clear the folks have not read the cache pages.

4.2k · December 11, 2009

Because, why?
Because we're here. Roll the bones.
You better run, homeboy
A fact's a fact

From Nome to Rome, boy

What's the deal? Spin the wheel.

If the dice are hot -- take a shot.

Play your cards. Show us what you got

What you're holding.

If the cards are cold,

Don't go folding.

Lady Luck is golden;

She favours the bold. That's cold

Stop throwing stones

The night has a thousand saxophones. So get out there and rock...

Why does it happen?

Because it happens..

HA! Let me introduce you to my Travel Bug. Sadly, missing in action.

all I have to say is why?

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation