Jump to content

Power Trail


AtwellFamily
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

What do other cachers think of adding a "rate the cache" feature? If, when writing a log online, there were a feature that allowed finders to "rate the cache" sayon a scale of 1-10, and show the AVERAGE cache rating on the home page, other cachers could sort out low rated caches (most likely skirt lifts, bridge magnets, power trails, exc) while cachers who enjoyed these type of caches could still go after them. Just an idea....not a point of controversy!

It's been suggested about once a month. OpioNate has said that Groundspeak is considering it. I would love a 'rating system'. The hard part is getting people to agree on what a good rating system is.

I totally disagree.... I think it's been suggested about once a week :D But I totally agree that a user rating system would be great. Have it be part of the found it log page and show the average or just show it in the log listings. Could even expand it to include :

 

- Overall rating

- Accuracy of listing

- Creativity

- Kid Friendly <--- I think this is kind of an important one.

- Location

 

It would be great because I think people in an area for a short visit might be more likely to visit a high user rated cache then a low one. And people can make a listing "look" great even for a lame hide. And some people put out great hides but aren't good at creating an appealing listing. And I doubt someone wants to open every listing and read the logs to see what people think. Would be nice to PQ the 50 best user rated hides near some location. Still subjective but the whole realm of GC is, would be just another tool to decide what you want to seek.

 

Cut and paste this once a week until we get our user rating system. :)

 

I have only been doing this for 2 years, but I don't think I want a rating system. Part of Geocaching is finding, and if you have to look thru found logs to decide which Caches you want to find/look for, then so be it, that is part of the finding equation.

 

Looking through the logs is fine when caching locally. It's when I go to a big city that I don't visit often or perhaps never visited before. There are soooooo many caches it's hard to read through even 4 logs per cache to get a feel for which ones cachers enjoyed. Could essentially take many days and hours of reading per day to prepare for a trip. For those who feel all caches are good caches then there's no problem, just hunt the caches closest to your hotel. But for those of us who don't want to miss out on the really good caches in the area, how do we do that?

 

If a rating system is implemented, those that don't care for ratings could ignore them and cache as they currently do.

Link to comment
It seems some just want to be all worked up over sweaty things.

At almost 200 posts in this thread, I have yet to see anyone getting worked up. :)

Except, possibly, some guy with a green lizard avatar. :D

There's a guy here with a green lizard avater? Weird, I ususally notice these things.

Sort of like ammo cans in hard to get to areas. They don't get much attention so people don't hide as many. Micros in parking lots get a lot of attention which is why they seem to breed faster than hamsters.

 

I disagree. My theory as to why there are a lot more micros in parking lots than ammo cans in hard to get areas is due to the increasing number of hiders that are essentially lazy. It take a lot more effort to hike several miles up steep trails than it does to drive from one spot to another and slap a magnetic key holder on a guard rail. I suspect if you asked 100 cache owners that have placed caches that require long hikes very few of them could state that they're concerned about them not getting a huge number of finds. More likely they're looking at providing a high quality experience and would prefer a handful of well written logs then dozens of "Nice Hide. TFTC" logs.

Link to comment

:)

Looks like some people like going to small independent ice cream shops instead of to some chain store. They believe the the ice cream in the small mom and pop is better. They are certain that the chains are cutting corners and serving cheap ice cream. Then one day the chain store opens 600 new stores. They are up in arms because the the chains are going to put the better mom and pop stores out of business. Only in this case the the chains don't put the mom and pop out of business. The mom and pop store is still there and is getting just as much business as before. Maybe even more as the people who prefer to get their ice cream from a chain store all come to see the 600 stores, and on the way they stop at the mom and pop store and say something like "This was our favorite ice cream of the day".

 

There is a perception among some that power trail caches are inferior to a single cache placed in the same area. There has been no proof of the this. There could be a cache that was placed out in the desert by someone passing through on vacation. After a year the container is cracked the log has deteriorated so you can't write on it any more. The owner is no where to be found. Nearby there is a power trail placed by a local geocaching group. That group responds immediately to needs maintenance and keeps all the caches in order. Why condemn the power trail before we see if the NGA will be maintaining it. Why are people concerned that someone else enjoys power trails. What difference does it make the reason they want to find these caches? Who cares if it is just to get their find count up? If you are the type that doesn't care for power trails it seems that you should also be the type that doesn't care about the number of caches somebody else says they found.

 

There is also a perception that power trails are bad for geocaching. I think this is do to misunderstanding the saturation guidelines, since at one time in the past, the guidelines mentioned power trails as and example of placing caches on trail every 600 ft just because you can. I believe that even then power trails were allowed, it was just that a reviewer could decide that a number of caches was excessive as far as meeting the goal of getting people to new areas. When conditions warrant it, the reviewers can still limit the number and density of caches on a power trail. They have now been given a clearer explaination of goal of the saturation guideline and that means that more power trails can be hidden. I suggest re-reading the guidelines and seeing what the goals of the saturation guidelines are. If you really can think of a good argument for limitations on power trails fell free to present it. (Hint: The perceived quality of caches in a power trail is not a good argument)

Link to comment
There is a perception among some that power trail caches are inferior to a single cache placed in the same area. There has been no proof of the this.

Of course there's proof. It's been demonstrated time and again. Burying your ice cream cone in the sand and pretending otherwise is not a very effective debate tactic, even if you follow through with heaps of text. The key to your illogical skewing of this issue are the words "Perception" and "Inferior". If I perceive that something sucks, then, (to me), it sucks. Ergo, power trails that incorporate an utter void of imagination in their placements and write ups, suck... to me. If I think rotten catfish ice cream sucks, then, to me, it sucks. If someone is attracted to 600+ copy/paste caches, spewed out in 529' intervals, than to them, they are great. In the matter of inferior vs superior, perception is reality. Further proof of this would be redundant.

 

(Hint: The perceived quality of caches in a power trail is not a good argument to me, and might result in more pointless and excessively verbose ice cream analogies)

Fixed it for ya! :)

Link to comment

I just hope that when some yahoo creates a power trail around here, and one will, that they give me a heads up first. I'd like to reroute all those notices before they hit my email box. I feel sorry for the reviewers who get stuck with the task of checking each one of the dadgum things for guideline conflicts. Do ya all help each other out with these? They are a bit above and beyond what I would suspect is your normal cache load.

 

This is my only complaint too. Almost 700 emails and gmail doesn't have a mark as read button, that was an interesting morning... Other then that, this power trail is only 40 miles from my house, and it doesn't show up on any of my pocket queries. There's probably more then 1000 caches between here and there. I've got a while before it becomes a problem.

 

I've been thinking about the possibility of going out there and adding a 100 stage multi right at the end of the existing trail. I'm pretty sure nobody would hunt for it though. A lot of work for one smiley :rolleyes:

 

We're actually going after one of the two shorter trails tomorrow. I'm curious to see what exactly is out there, but with only about 180 finds so far, I don't want to overload the count.

 

M24

Link to comment
Even if the caches were unavoidable in his PQ, it is no reason for anyone else to take any action.
The powertrails in the middle of nowhere are not the issue. It's the ones in populated areas (or the potential) that is the source of the PQ pollution angst. :rolleyes:
Even if the PQ was right outside your front door, it still doesn't demand action by anyone except for you.

 

The bottom line is this: Each cache in a power trail is just like any other cache. If it looks to be a cache that you want to search for, go for it. Otherwise, ignore it. The fact that other caches are nearby doesn't change this fact one bit.

 

Some people might like the caches, but not the idea of going after a bunch of them at a time. Those people can choose to look for only the number of caches that brings them joy and either save the rest for another day or ignore them.

 

It is true that choosing to ignore all of the caches in a huge power trail will take up some of the "ignorer's" time. So what? The end result is that they are no longer 'subjected' to these caches while allowing anyone who wants to go find the caches to do so.

 

Personally, I would love to see the guidelines posted in a Wiki style, where anyone could do delta comparisons between any versions (eg: the History tab in Wikipedia). At the very least, give them a version number, and make it very visible.
Tracking the changes to the guidelines is easily done using the wayback machine.

Fixed it for you (as you often do). Yes, you can do it that way, but it is a pain. Have you ever looked at the deltas on the history tabs of Wikipedia? That's the right tool for the job.
Link to comment

Most likely explication for the allowance of powertrails.

Profits.

The allowance of powertrails encourage prolific hiding.

Prolific hiding = larger cache numbers for a region.

Larger cache numbers for a region = Better advertising spheal.

Better advertising spheal = increased sales.

 

Would a 600+ power trail of 5/5s, mysteries, or multies flown?

Nope they don't get on a Geomate Jr.

 

 

~~~ got quoted before my edit so it aint necessary to explain myself.~~~

Edited by Vater_Araignee
Link to comment

Most likely explication for the allowance of powertrails.

Profits.

The allowance of powertrails encourage prolific hiding.

Prolific hiding = larger cache numbers for a region.

Larger cache numbers for a reagon = Better advertising spheal.

Better advertising spheal = increased sales.

 

Would a 600+ power trail of 5/5s, mysteries, or multies flown?

Nope they don't get on a Geomate Jr.

 

That is just you cynical point of view. My cynical pov is that it was just too much of a hassle for the reviewers to be making the determination on what violated the power trail rules and what didn't.

Link to comment

Most likely explication for the allowance of powertrails.

Profits.

The allowance of powertrails encourage prolific hiding.

Prolific hiding = larger cache numbers for a region.

Larger cache numbers for a region = Better advertising spheal.

Better advertising spheal = increased sales.

 

Would a 600+ power trail of 5/5s, mysteries, or multies flown?

Nope they don't get on a Geomate Jr.

 

That is just you cynical point of view. My cynical pov is that it was just too much of a hassle for the reviewers to be making the determination on what violated the power trail rules and what didn't.

That works too.

It could be that some reviewers after deciding it was too much hassle, got together and pointed out the monetary benefits. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Most likely explication for the allowance of powertrails.

Profits.

The allowance of powertrails encourage prolific hiding.

Prolific hiding = larger cache numbers for a region.

Larger cache numbers for a region = Better advertising spheal.

Better advertising spheal = increased sales.

 

Would a 600+ power trail of 5/5s, mysteries, or multies flown?

Nope they don't get on a Geomate Jr.

 

That is just you cynical point of view. My cynical pov is that it was just too much of a hassle for the reviewers to be making the determination on what violated the power trail rules and what didn't.

That works too.

It could be that some reviewers after deciding it was too much hassle, got together and pointed out the monetary benefits. :rolleyes:

 

I don't buy the monetary benefits. I will buy that the definition of a power trail is about as elusive as hen's teeth or hair on the back of a frog. That has to be it, hair on the back of a frog.

Link to comment

Most likely explication for the allowance of powertrails.

Profits.

The allowance of powertrails encourage prolific hiding.

Prolific hiding = larger cache numbers for a region.

Larger cache numbers for a reagon = Better advertising spheal.

Better advertising spheal = increased sales.

 

Would a 600+ power trail of 5/5s, mysteries, or multies flown?

Nope they don't get on a Geomate Jr.

 

That is just you cynical point of view. My cynical pov is that it was just too much of a hassle for the reviewers to be making the determination on what violated the power trail rules and what didn't.

I don't think it's cynical to understand that GS's income is largely or partly based on having MORE Caches and MORE Cachers, regardless of quality. I've said the same many times. I just hope we don't see it get into the realm of growth just for the sake of growth.

Link to comment
It seems some just want to be all worked up over sweaty things.

At almost 200 posts in this thread, I have yet to see anyone getting worked up. :rolleyes:

Except, possibly, some guy with a green lizard avatar. ;)

 

I don't get worked up. Too many people get banninated that way.

Let's see, out of 600 caches I counted 8 large containers that seemed as though they would

be big enough to actually hold a TB, one mystery cache and 9 small containers which if they are small like those around here might hold small TBs. There may be more but my eyes started getting blurry when the counting reached around the 481 micros.

So how many miles would I have to walk , and how many caches would I have to pass before I found one that would hold a TB? One in sixty or one in thirty if small? Maybe I'm the only one but it would frustrate me to have so many caches and not have room for a TB.

Link to comment

 

I don't get worked up. Too many people get banninated that way.

Let's see, out of 600 caches I counted 8 large containers that seemed as though they would

be big enough to actually hold a TB, one mystery cache and 9 small containers which if they are small like those around here might hold small TBs. There may be more but my eyes started getting blurry when the counting reached around the 481 micros.

So how many miles would I have to walk , and how many caches would I have to pass before I found one that would hold a TB? One in sixty or one in thirty if small? Maybe I'm the only one but it would frustrate me to have so many caches and not have room for a TB.

Just give it a little time. There will doubtless be many other Caches showing up just 528 feet north or south of the line.

Link to comment

 

I don't get worked up. Too many people get banninated that way.

Let's see, out of 600 caches I counted 8 large containers that seemed as though they would

be big enough to actually hold a TB, one mystery cache and 9 small containers which if they are small like those around here might hold small TBs. There may be more but my eyes started getting blurry when the counting reached around the 481 micros.

So how many miles would I have to walk , and how many caches would I have to pass before I found one that would hold a TB? One in sixty or one in thirty if small? Maybe I'm the only one but it would frustrate me to have so many caches and not have room for a TB.

Just give it a little time. There will doubtless be many other Caches showing up just 528 feet north or south of the line.

hahahaha

I wonder how many of the containers are 6° seeds.

Link to comment
I just cannot see how adding a PT attribute could possibly hurt anyone. Of course it's use would have to be voluntary, but really...what can it hurt.

 

People who want to use it to ignore the trail can do just that.

People who want to use it to seek PTs can do just that.

People who want to attract PT seekers can do just that

What if people don't choose to use the attribute. How many in this thread will fully support thier being bullied into adding it?
Link to comment

I agree with Clan Riffster:

 

I guess it's a matter of personal caching aesthetics.

What for many would be a grand adventure, looks to me, like a blight on the landscape.

To each their own, I reckon. :)

 

I can't speak for others, but for me it's mostly a matter of aesthetics and preferences. I see something like those 600+ caches the way some folks view a strip mining operation. It just looks ugly to me. Because I prefer beauty to ugliness, I will continue to preach my preferences, hoping that I may touch the muse of someone, somewhere, who is planning on spewing out several hundred caches in a small area. I also thoroughly enjoy reading cache pages, and to see 600+ of them that say essentially the same thing is kinda sad.

 

So, that's why power trails are an issue to me, and why I tend to avoid them, and speak ill of them when the subject comes up.

 

For those that love them, I say "More Power To Ya!". :blink:

Link to comment
... I can't find a definition of what constitutes a power trail.
The guidelines themselves are not firm and fixed. The entire hobby has room for give and take, with very few exceptions. Why could this not be any different?
It seems to me that because most of the guidelines are not firm and fixed that a lot of the "give and take" is often the creation of a cache or many caches which, depending how one interprets the language in the guidelines manages to fit within the guidelines. I don't recall who it was off hand but there was an earlier post that argued that 600 caches, placed just over .1 of a mile apart did not meet a definition of "saturation". What seems to be forgotten is the spirit in which the guideline was written.
The reviewers cannot be expected to list caches based on 'spirits'. That didn't work with 'wow' and it doesn't work here.
Link to comment

Looking through the logs is fine when caching locally. It's when I go to a big city that I don't visit often or perhaps never visited before. There are soooooo many caches it's hard to read through even 4 logs per cache to get a feel for which ones cachers enjoyed. Could essentially take many days and hours of reading per day to prepare for a trip. For those who feel all caches are good caches then there's no problem, just hunt the caches closest to your hotel. But for those of us who don't want to miss out on the really good caches in the area, how do we do that?

 

If a rating system is implemented, those that don't care for ratings could ignore them and cache as they currently do.

Reading the logs is only part of the solution. It is better to first build your PQs so that you are only looking for the kinds of caches that you enjoy the most while traveling. After that, I look at the logs, but I don't look at the logs for all of them before I start hunting for caches. I merely take a quick look at the next cache page and logs before I hit <goto>. If it doesn't look like a winner, I skip it and look at the next one.
Link to comment
I disagree. My theory as to why there are a lot more micros in parking lots than ammo cans in hard to get areas is due to the increasing number of hiders that are essentially lazy. It take a lot more effort to hike several miles up steep trails than it does to drive from one spot to another and slap a magnetic key holder on a guard rail. I suspect if you asked 100 cache owners that have placed caches that require long hikes very few of them could state that they're concerned about them not getting a huge number of finds. More likely they're looking at providing a high quality experience and would prefer a handful of well written logs then dozens of "Nice Hide. TFTC" logs.

My theory is because there are plenty of people who like to find these easy caches. I suspect that if you asked 100 of these easy cache owners if they like to find these easy caches that they would state that they do.
Link to comment
I just cannot see how adding a PT attribute could possibly hurt anyone. Of course it's use would have to be voluntary, but really...what can it hurt.

 

People who want to use it to ignore the trail can do just that.

People who want to use it to seek PTs can do just that.

People who want to attract PT seekers can do just that

What if people don't choose to use the attribute. How many in this thread will fully support thier being bullied into adding it?

 

Is anybody being bullied into using the correct size? The correct difficulty/terrain rating?

Link to comment

Looking through the logs is fine when caching locally. It's when I go to a big city that I don't visit often or perhaps never visited before. There are soooooo many caches it's hard to read through even 4 logs per cache to get a feel for which ones cachers enjoyed. Could essentially take many days and hours of reading per day to prepare for a trip. For those who feel all caches are good caches then there's no problem, just hunt the caches closest to your hotel. But for those of us who don't want to miss out on the really good caches in the area, how do we do that?

 

If a rating system is implemented, those that don't care for ratings could ignore them and cache as they currently do.

Reading the logs is only part of the solution. It is better to first build your PQs so that you are only looking for the kinds of caches that you enjoy the most while traveling. After that, I look at the logs, but I don't look at the logs for all of them before I start hunting for caches. I merely take a quick look at the next cache page and logs before I hit <goto>. If it doesn't look like a winner, I skip it and look at the next one.

 

Explain to me how a hypothetical person that is okay hunting micros, but not okay with a power trail would easy-peasy their way into a PQ that include one but not the other.

Link to comment
It seems some just want to be all worked up over sweaty things.

At almost 200 posts in this thread, I have yet to see anyone getting worked up. :)

Except, possibly, some guy with a green lizard avatar. :blink:

 

I don't get worked up. Too many people get banninated that way.

Let's see, out of 600 caches I counted 8 large containers that seemed as though they would

be big enough to actually hold a TB, one mystery cache and 9 small containers which if they are small like those around here might hold small TBs. There may be more but my eyes started getting blurry when the counting reached around the 481 micros.

So how many miles would I have to walk , and how many caches would I have to pass before I found one that would hold a TB? One in sixty or one in thirty if small? Maybe I'm the only one but it would frustrate me to have so many caches and not have room for a TB.

You would have to walk maybe 20-50 feet. It matters not how many caches that you pass on your way to the cache that you are looking for. In fact, if you properly use your PQs, you wouldn't know that you are passing those caches that don't interest you.

Link to comment
I just cannot see how adding a PT attribute could possibly hurt anyone. Of course it's use would have to be voluntary, but really...what can it hurt.

 

People who want to use it to ignore the trail can do just that.

People who want to use it to seek PTs can do just that.

People who want to attract PT seekers can do just that

What if people don't choose to use the attribute. How many in this thread will fully support thier being bullied into adding it?

 

Is anybody being bullied into using the correct size? The correct difficulty/terrain rating?

Well, the answer to your question is 'yes', but I don't think that your question is on-point. Write Shop Robert suggested that the attribute be purely voluntary. This differs from your analogy (leaving 'other' out of the conversation, for now). If the attribute is truly voluntary, no one should get their diapers in a twist if it isn't used, right?

Link to comment

Looking through the logs is fine when caching locally. It's when I go to a big city that I don't visit often or perhaps never visited before. There are soooooo many caches it's hard to read through even 4 logs per cache to get a feel for which ones cachers enjoyed. Could essentially take many days and hours of reading per day to prepare for a trip. For those who feel all caches are good caches then there's no problem, just hunt the caches closest to your hotel. But for those of us who don't want to miss out on the really good caches in the area, how do we do that?

 

If a rating system is implemented, those that don't care for ratings could ignore them and cache as they currently do.

Reading the logs is only part of the solution. It is better to first build your PQs so that you are only looking for the kinds of caches that you enjoy the most while traveling. After that, I look at the logs, but I don't look at the logs for all of them before I start hunting for caches. I merely take a quick look at the next cache page and logs before I hit <goto>. If it doesn't look like a winner, I skip it and look at the next one.

 

Explain to me how a hypothetical person that is okay hunting micros, but not okay with a power trail would easy-peasy their way into a PQ that include one but not the other.

Again, that's only part of the solution.

 

By the second (maybe third) cache in the power trail, the cacher would know that they are following a power trail. At that point, the power trail hater can merely stop following the trail and go in a different direction. At that point, they haven't done a 'power trail'. They've merely found a few nearby caches. In fact, the power trail hater could simply find any number of caches along the trail spaced out any distance that pleases them and they still haven't done a 'power trail'.

 

A local power trail hater who likes that area could find as few caches along the trail as pleases him and come back whenever it pleases him to find more. Even if he eventually finds all 600 caches, he still hasn't done a 'power trail'. He's merely found a bunch of caches over time.

Link to comment
It seems some just want to be all worked up over sweaty things.

At almost 200 posts in this thread, I have yet to see anyone getting worked up. :blink:

Except, possibly, some guy with a green lizard avatar. :)

 

I don't get worked up. Too many people get banninated that way.

Let's see, out of 600 caches I counted 8 large containers that seemed as though they would

be big enough to actually hold a TB, one mystery cache and 9 small containers which if they are small like those around here might hold small TBs. There may be more but my eyes started getting blurry when the counting reached around the 481 micros.

So how many miles would I have to walk , and how many caches would I have to pass before I found one that would hold a TB? One in sixty or one in thirty if small? Maybe I'm the only one but it would frustrate me to have so many caches and not have room for a TB.

 

Just wondering how many of your 250 finds have involved your holding a TB that needed to be dropped somewhere? I don't think one is sixty is a bad ratio at all. But perhaps that's just me, and I'm a bit jaded with the whole trackable scene and it is a big part of your caching adventures?

 

I tell you what though- if they figure out a way to fulfill Riffster's desire for the area to be nipple deep in gator infested waters, I am on the next flight out there. I don't care what it costs. :)

Link to comment

I tell you what though- if they figure out a way to fulfill Riffster's desire for the area to be nipple deep in gator infested waters, I am on the next flight out there. I don't care what it costs. :)

 

Dude. I'll save you some airfare- just get a ticket to Huntsville and we can drive down together. I'll even let you control the radio.

Link to comment
I wonder if there were any of those "Peanut Butter" containers hidden on the power trail? I heard some folks are allergic to them.
People are allergic to plastic? Weird.

 

Trace amounts of peanuts, even from empty containers, have been known to trigger serious allergies. That's why everything in the store these days is labeled "may contain peanuts" or "may have touched something that touched something that touched a peanut once".

Link to comment
I wonder if there were any of those "Peanut Butter" containers hidden on the power trail? I heard some folks are allergic to them.
People are allergic to plastic? Weird.
Trace amounts of peanuts, even from empty containers, have been known to trigger serious allergies. That's why everything in the store these days is labeled "may contain peanuts" or "may have touched something that touched something that touched a peanut once".
That's perfect fodder for another topic, in which I would try to carefully explain to you why a properly prepared PB container could not trigger anyone's peanut allergy.

 

It should also be noted that if a container contained 'trace amounts' of anything, it wasn't empty.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Looking through the logs is fine when caching locally. It's when I go to a big city that I don't visit often or perhaps never visited before. There are soooooo many caches it's hard to read through even 4 logs per cache to get a feel for which ones cachers enjoyed. Could essentially take many days and hours of reading per day to prepare for a trip. For those who feel all caches are good caches then there's no problem, just hunt the caches closest to your hotel. But for those of us who don't want to miss out on the really good caches in the area, how do we do that?

 

If a rating system is implemented, those that don't care for ratings could ignore them and cache as they currently do.

Reading the logs is only part of the solution. It is better to first build your PQs so that you are only looking for the kinds of caches that you enjoy the most while traveling. After that, I look at the logs, but I don't look at the logs for all of them before I start hunting for caches.

 

How do you use PQs to filter out for caches that get good comments? Size shouldn't matter. I've found a few micros that made me laugh, or were clever in some way. Seems that looking at logs is currently the only way to make this determination.

Link to comment
I just cannot see how adding a PT attribute could possibly hurt anyone. Of course it's use would have to be voluntary, but really...what can it hurt.

 

People who want to use it to ignore the trail can do just that.

People who want to use it to seek PTs can do just that.

People who want to attract PT seekers can do just that

What if people don't choose to use the attribute. How many in this thread will fully support thier being bullied into adding it?

 

I like choice rather than force.

 

I haven't seen anyone forcing anyone to use the other attributes.

Link to comment

If the attribute is truly voluntary, no one should get their diapers in a twist if it isn't used, right?

 

How does people getting their diapers in a twist keep anything from being voluntary?

 

People are completely free to use whatever cache size they choose, but still we have threads about micros. That doesn't make the use of micros any less voluntary.

 

I've seen threads about people misusing the scuba attribute, but as far as I know, it's still voluntary.

Link to comment
I just cannot see how adding a PT attribute could possibly hurt anyone. Of course it's use would have to be voluntary, but really...what can it hurt.

 

People who want to use it to ignore the trail can do just that.

People who want to use it to seek PTs can do just that.

People who want to attract PT seekers can do just that

What if people don't choose to use the attribute. How many in this thread will fully support their being bullied into adding it?

 

Is anybody being bullied into using the correct size? The correct difficulty/terrain rating?

Well, the answer to your question is 'yes', but I don't think that your question is on-point. Write Shop Robert suggested that the attribute be purely voluntary. This differs from your analogy (leaving 'other' out of the conversation, for now). If the attribute is truly voluntary, no one should get their diapers in a twist if it isn't used, right?

 

Evidence? Links? Proof? Show me where people are being made to do something they don't want to in their cache listings. Strawman much?

 

If the attribute is truly voluntary, no one should get their diapers in a twist if it isn't used, right?

 

Will people never complain or voice an opinion in favor of using correct attributes? No, probably not.

 

Could you have avoided calling an opposing position something a little more mature than "getting diapers in a twist"? Historically speaking, no probably not.

Link to comment
I just cannot see how adding a PT attribute could possibly hurt anyone. Of course it's use would have to be voluntary, but really...what can it hurt.

 

People who want to use it to ignore the trail can do just that.

People who want to use it to seek PTs can do just that.

People who want to attract PT seekers can do just that

What if people don't choose to use the attribute. How many in this thread will fully support thier being bullied into adding it?
I like choice rather than force.

 

I haven't seen anyone forcing anyone to use the other attributes.

There have been many threads where people have demanded such a thing.
It is better to first build your PQs so that you are only looking for the kinds of caches that you enjoy the most while traveling.
Isn't that precisely what several have been asking for and you have been arguing against?
I have never argued against the proper use of PQs. Please post a link.
If the attribute is truly voluntary, no one should get their diapers in a twist if it isn't used, right?
How does people getting their diapers in a twist keep anything from being voluntary?
Because if you demand that people act in a certain way, you are not agreeing to allow them the choice.
Link to comment
I just cannot see how adding a PT attribute could possibly hurt anyone. Of course it's use would have to be voluntary, but really...what can it hurt.

 

People who want to use it to ignore the trail can do just that.

People who want to use it to seek PTs can do just that.

People who want to attract PT seekers can do just that

What if people don't choose to use the attribute. How many in this thread will fully support thier being bullied into adding it?
I like choice rather than force.

 

I haven't seen anyone forcing anyone to use the other attributes.

There have been many threads where people have demanded such a thing.

 

Demanding is one thing. People demand things all the time. Show me a link where people are being forced to use attributes. Show me where TBTP and/or reviewers are enforcing attributes.

Link to comment
I just cannot see how adding a PT attribute could possibly hurt anyone. Of course it's use would have to be voluntary, but really...what can it hurt.

 

People who want to use it to ignore the trail can do just that.

People who want to use it to seek PTs can do just that.

People who want to attract PT seekers can do just that

What if people don't choose to use the attribute. How many in this thread will fully support thier being bullied into adding it?
I like choice rather than force.

 

I haven't seen anyone forcing anyone to use the other attributes.

There have been many threads where people have demanded such a thing.

 

Demanding is one thing. People demand things all the time. Show me a link where people are being forced to use attributes. Show me where TBTP and/or reviewers are enforcing attributes.

Right up to that response, I was completely in support of a voluntary attribute for power trails.
Link to comment

Because if you demand that people act in a certain way, you are not agreeing to allow them the choice.

 

People can debate anything they want in here. Until TPTB actually make in forced instead of voluntary, it's still voluntary. Much like I can request an attribute until I am blue in the face but until they actually implement it, it's does not exist.

 

It doesn't matter as much what we say in here as much as it matters what TPTB do in the lily pad.

Link to comment
I just cannot see how adding a PT attribute could possibly hurt anyone. Of course it's use would have to be voluntary, but really...what can it hurt.

 

People who want to use it to ignore the trail can do just that.

People who want to use it to seek PTs can do just that.

People who want to attract PT seekers can do just that

What if people don't choose to use the attribute. How many in this thread will fully support thier being bullied into adding it?
I like choice rather than force.

 

I haven't seen anyone forcing anyone to use the other attributes.

There have been many threads where people have demanded such a thing.

 

Demanding is one thing. People demand things all the time. Show me a link where people are being forced to use attributes. Show me where TBTP and/or reviewers are enforcing attributes.

Right up to that response, I was completely in support of a voluntary attribute for power trails.

 

Could you please elaborate?

Link to comment

Because if you demand that people act in a certain way, you are not agreeing to allow them the choice.

 

People can debate anything they want in here. Until TPTB actually make in forced instead of voluntary, it's still voluntary. Much like I can request an attribute until I am blue in the face but until they actually implement it, it's does not exist.

 

It doesn't matter as much what we say in here as much as it matters what TPTB do in the lily pad.

Does that somehow invalidate my post? If anything, it validates it.

 

Also, your argument hinges on the theory that the peer pressure exerted in here has no effect, which has been shown to be incorrect time after time.

Link to comment
I just cannot see how adding a PT attribute could possibly hurt anyone. Of course it's use would have to be voluntary, but really...what can it hurt.

 

People who want to use it to ignore the trail can do just that.

People who want to use it to seek PTs can do just that.

People who want to attract PT seekers can do just that

What if people don't choose to use the attribute. How many in this thread will fully support thier being bullied into adding it?
I like choice rather than force.

 

I haven't seen anyone forcing anyone to use the other attributes.

There have been many threads where people have demanded such a thing.

 

Demanding is one thing. People demand things all the time. Show me a link where people are being forced to use attributes. Show me where TBTP and/or reviewers are enforcing attributes.

Right up to that response, I was completely in support of a voluntary attribute for power trails.

 

Could you please elaborate?

It outlined the incungruity between supporting voluntary attributes while also demanding that people use same. Beyond the simple fact that the stated position is hypocritical, it doesn't move towrd the stated goal of peaceful coexistence.
Link to comment

I looked at some of the logs on these caches and saw that the finders were having a great time with this. It's not the type of caching that appeals to me, but I can't see the harm of having something like this in an area so barren and uninhabited. (It sure wouldn't work here in the Virginia suburbs, where we are already approaching cache saturation!)

Link to comment
I just cannot see how adding a PT attribute could possibly hurt anyone. Of course it's use would have to be voluntary, but really...what can it hurt.

 

People who want to use it to ignore the trail can do just that.

People who want to use it to seek PTs can do just that.

People who want to attract PT seekers can do just that

What if people don't choose to use the attribute. How many in this thread will fully support thier being bullied into adding it?
I like choice rather than force.

 

I haven't seen anyone forcing anyone to use the other attributes.

There have been many threads where people have demanded such a thing.

 

Demanding is one thing. People demand things all the time. Show me a link where people are being forced to use attributes. Show me where TBTP and/or reviewers are enforcing attributes.

Right up to that response, I was completely in support of a voluntary attribute for power trails.

 

Could you please elaborate?

It outlined the incungruity between supporting voluntary attributes while also demanding that people use same. Beyond the simple fact that the stated position is hypocritical, it doesn't move towrd the stated goal of peaceful coexistence.

 

He didn't demand anything. He stated that people do demand things all the time and that it is not the same thing as being forced.

 

In another thread you appear to feel that the OP demanded responses to emails. It appears as though you disagree with his perceived demands. Have you found yourself suddenly being forced to respond to all your emails?

 

While he has the right to demand anything he wants, it doesn't mean he possesses the ability to enforce it.

 

The same thing applies here.

 

If you feel that the use of attributes is being enforced, please point to the proof. I've been around a while. I've seen quite a few "demands", but I cannot recall any enforcement.

 

In fact, the closest thing I've seen is the use of the handicap attribute and terrain 1. I've heard of reviewers strongly recommending that hiders change non-handicap accessible caches to a 1.5 terrain, but I don't believe I have ever read of it ever being enforced.

 

If it's not enforced, then it remains voluntary, regardless of any "demands" made in the forums.

 

If it's voluntary, then what is the downside of adding the attribute? And if you can't come up with a downside that doesn't pertain to all the other attributes, then please explain why we shouldn't do away with them as well if this "demand" thing is so hard to get around.

Link to comment
I just cannot see how adding a PT attribute could possibly hurt anyone. Of course it's use would have to be voluntary, but really...what can it hurt.

 

People who want to use it to ignore the trail can do just that.

People who want to use it to seek PTs can do just that.

People who want to attract PT seekers can do just that

What if people don't choose to use the attribute. How many in this thread will fully support thier being bullied into adding it?
I like choice rather than force.

 

I haven't seen anyone forcing anyone to use the other attributes.

There have been many threads where people have demanded such a thing.

 

Demanding is one thing. People demand things all the time. Show me a link where people are being forced to use attributes. Show me where TBTP and/or reviewers are enforcing attributes.

Right up to that response, I was completely in support of a voluntary attribute for power trails.

 

Could you please elaborate?

It outlined the incungruity between supporting voluntary attributes while also demanding that people use same. Beyond the simple fact that the stated position is hypocritical, it doesn't move towrd the stated goal of peaceful coexistence.

 

Nice evasion. Let's take this one small step at a time, shall we?

 

1- Show me where anybody, with any real ability to enforce anything, is forcing anybody to use any attribute.

 

When you can show me this instead of re-directing and avoiding the question then I'll know that you're really trying to have a discussion. Otherwise, you're just doing some really fancy-pants trolling.

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...