Power Trails and Swiss Cheese

[Clan Riffster]

I don't know a lot about how things go here. But I have read over and over people saying that this is just a listing service and that there are other listing services available.

 

If this is true, then why would one listing service get to define what geocaching is?

It's a matter of semantics. Capitol G vs lower case g.

For instance, if you are talking about the general activity, (hide something, mark the coords, give them to others, let them find it with a GPSr), the term geocaching is pretty generic. If I went wandering through the woods, marking coords on all the cool trees I found, then gave them to my friends so they could share my journey, I could call what I'm doing geocaching, and at one of the other listing sites, it would certainly qualify. However, when you discuss this website, Geocaching gets a capitol G, and is defined internally, based on the vision of its CEO.

 

As a generic term, only you can define what geocaching is.

 

As a proper noun, Jeremy gets to define it.

[Skippermark]

Not sure who's responding here & over on GetSat, so I figured I'd post my thoughts from there over to here.

 

A lot of people are posting comments about the positives of a rule change like this, so I was thinking of what some of the negatives could be.

 

* If a new cacher starts up, he will most likely get the itch and want to hide some caches around his town. Most town parks are small (the biggest one in my town is less than a mile from end to end), so it's unlikely that he'll be able to place more than one in any park in town.

 

If the town has 5 parks, and the cacher was able to place a cache in all of them, but he still wants to place a couple more. Because his 3 months aren't up, anywhere within a mile of the park is off limits, so he may just look around for anywhere to place a cache and end up placing them in really dumpy areas.

 

Personally, I think it would be better to allow two quality caches closer together like in the parks rather than having to place two junky caches a mile apart. Would putting one at parking and one 1/2 mile into the park be considered a power trial?

 

* Also, if a cacher placed a cache in a park a month ago but the town installs a new historic monument 3/4 of a mile away, the cacher won't be able to place a cache at the marker because of the proximity to the cache in the park. Some possibilities are that he can either wait, archive the cache in the park, which could create a problem with people archiving good caches just to place a new one, or get one of his buddies to place a cache there.

 

* If someone's having an event and wants to place a few caches for it in case people want to do some caching while there, it's likely that they'll only be able to place 1 or 2 unless the park is really big. If it's not a real big park, the event holder will have to ask friends to place caches, and you may end up with caches placed that the additional owners don't really want to maintain, but they agreed to place them as a favor for their friend.

 

* I went kayaking this weekend and placed 3 caches at a beautiful park, not yet submitted. They're all on opposite ends of a lake, and every container is different. They are 3 different sizes (micro, small, regular) and all hidden differently.

 

One is a kayak-only cache. The second is a kayak-only cache unless you want to do a long hike and then swim/wade to it, and the third is a standard hiking cache. Unfortunately, they are all less than a mile apart, and with the proposed guideline changes, I could only place one of them. I certainly wouldn't call them a power trail. Yes, it could be hidden as a multi, but many cachers won't do multis. Personally, I would rather do 3 individual caches than one, but I like the numbers.

 

Also, what about if a cache is 1/2 mile away, yet it's on opposite sides of a lake and to get from one to another you have to walk 1.75 miles around the lake?

[jholly]

So one thing that has not been brought up yet, say some one goes and gets 6 or 8 gmail accounts, creates 6 or 8 sock puppet accounts and starts placing caches. All can pass the Swiss rule of a mile apart, but there is a "power trail" built. Then slowly start adopting the caches to yourself from yourself. Wonder how the reviewers are going to guard against that, especially if the submissions are over a week or so? I see so many ways to circumvent the rule it is ridiculous to put it into place.

[+DragonsWest]

So one thing that has not been brought up yet, say some one goes and gets 6 or 8 gmail accounts, creates 6 or 8 sock puppet accounts and starts placing caches. All can pass the Swiss rule of a mile apart, but there is a "power trail" built. Then slowly start adopting the caches to yourself from yourself. Wonder how the reviewers are going to guard against that, especially if the submissions are over a week or so? I see so many ways to circumvent the rule it is ridiculous to put it into place.

Better run those socks from different internet cafes, lest they track the IP addresses and shut them down.

[+roziecakes]

Here's the thing... if the cache saturation guideline is 528 feet, riddle me this:

 

What is the difference between these two scenarios:

 

1) Cacher A puts out 1000 caches, each 528 feet apart. He gives them all a similar theme and calls them a power trail.

 

2) Cacher B puts out 1000 caches, each 528 feet apart. He gives each one of them a different cache page, cache name, and a different theme. He doesn't call them a power trail.

 

Would not both scenarios have the same impact?

[+tozainamboku]

Why should Jeremy get to dictate the intent of geocaching?

Because it's his sandbox. He's ultimately the one who gets to decide what is acceptable and what is not. Customer feedback will play a small role, but someone has to be in charge. With just a few mouse clicks and some text entry, Jeremy could replace the entire guidelines with the following: "You guys do whatever you want". In the Feedback thread, there are many who imply that this would be a good thing. Personally, I hope that never happens. If we accept, as a given, that this activity must be governed to a certain degree, then logic dictates that we also accept that someone must establish what form, and to what extent, this governing will take, even to the point of defining what is geocaching.

 

As it stands, many of our guidelines appear to have come from Jeremy's vision regarding what is, and what is not, geocaching. A perfect example of this is the pocket cache issue from days of old. Pocket caches did not fit Jeremy's vision, so they were squashed. Some random roadside object also did not fit his vision, so virtual caches eventually stopped being published. A street sign which bears my first name did not fit his vision, so locationless caches went away. A video camera pointed at a specific geographic location did not fit his vision, so webcam caches stopped being published. A stamped disk did not fit his vision, so benchmarks do not count toward your total cache finds. My flying a 747 over Kalifornia doesn't fit his vision regarding searching for caches, so me logging finds on all your caches simply because I did have a visual on all your ground zeros wouldn't pass muster. I could go on for hours, but I think you get my point.

 

Jeremy gets to decide what is acceptable because he owns the site. He has developed this site to match his personal vision of what geocaching is. While many folks feel strongly that mindless repetition is a legitimate aspect of this game, Jeremy apparently does not. That's his call. If this were my site, I could customize it to fit my vision. If this was your site, you could do the same. But it's not. As players, we can suggest, cajole, and whine about what should be allowed here, but we cannot decide.

Of course Jeremy can make up what ever rules he pleases for Geoaching.com. My question was more rhetorical. However it makes no business sense for him to tell users that what motivates them to geocache isn't keeping with the intent somehow. He can if he likes have silly rules obstensibly to encourage caches to be placed in new areas, but that could have the opposite effect. He would no doubt respond that if this is the case the rules can be changed again. In the meantime more people find they don't like being jerked around like this and either will go to other sites or stop geocaching altogether. It makes more sense to have a open definition of geocaching that welcomes more players.

 

Of course there need to be limits somewhere. I don't agree with all the limits that have been imposed in the past. But in general Jeremy was able to make a convincing argument on the trade-offs. There are no more ALRs not because ALRs were bad, but because a few geocachers were abusing them. The reviewers didn't want to have a "Wow" requirement where they were asked to judge which ALRs were Ok and which weren't. So all ALRs (except for challenge caches - which Jeremy must really like) were banned. There are no new virtuals - not because Jeremy didn't think virtuals were not geocaches, but because despite repeated attempts to define a virtual cache, people kept submitting places that weren't all that interesting, where there was no particular target that could be found with GPS, and that were in places where a physical cache could be hidden nearby. The reviewers got tired of enforcing subjective guidelines, and Waymarking was developed to handle these so they could go away from Geocaching.com. Pocket caches were never something envisioned in guidelines. At first it was understood that Geocaching meant using a GPS to go somewhere and find something; not walking up to a geocacher and asking if that was a cache in their pocket. This was just some silliness that people came up with to use as a mixer at events. I think they could've have been tolerated. But when people were logging caches in Iraq because someone showed up with a log book at the event, it offended Jeremy - himself a veteran - so he did something about it.

[+tozainamboku]

Here's the thing... if the cache saturation guideline is 528 feet, riddle me this:

 

What is the difference between these two scenarios:

 

1) Cacher A puts out 1000 caches, each 528 feet apart. He gives them all a similar theme and calls them a power trail.

 

2) Cacher B puts out 1000 caches, each 528 feet apart. He gives each one of them a different cache page, cache name, and a different theme. He doesn't call them a power trail.

 

Would not both scenarios have the same impact?

Gosh if cacher B can hide 1000 cacges, each 528 feet apart and come up with a unique name, a unique container, different hiding styles, and a write up on the cache page that makes you feel each of those is a unique place to visit then by all means this is not a power trail

 

Of course this is what makes defining a power trail so difficult. Suppose I put out 20 caches, each 528 ft apart. If they are all nearly identical hides with cache pages that are essentially clones of each other and with names like Cache #1, Cache #2,... how is this different than a series of 20 caches, each around 528 ft apart, each at a location that shows off something special about my town, with a cache page chock full of interesting information about that place, and perhaps using as different hiding technique for each one? The Swiss rule is meant to give an objective rule. With it's broad brush it makes no distiction. The claim is made that a cacher could complete his series by placing a few caches at a time over a period of several months. The problem is that the person placing Cache #1, Cache #2, ... would have an easier time. The person doing the other series would find that other cachers have take the places that were were planning on using. Or that person may lose interest and the series may never get completed. Its a trade-off and TPTB have to make the case as to why they are willing to lose good caches and a tool for expanding geocaching into new areas, in order to stop caches which may or may not be having a negative impact on the game.

[Clan Riffster]

There are no more ALRs not because ALRs were bad, but because a few geocachers were abusing them.

Cachers? Abusing something? Whodathunkit?

 

There are no new virtuals - not because Jeremy didn't think virtuals were not geocaches, but because...

Imagine a scenario where Jeremy decided he loved virtuals. Would they still be here, despite the problems they caused?

I believe they would, hence, my earlier statement. Just my opinion.

The initial downfall of virts came from cachers abusing the system, submitting virts for a deer carcass, an old sneaker, etc.

The final downfall came about as folks continued to abuse the system, submitting crappy locations, causing the Reviewers to face their wrath when they were rejected.

 

Pocket caches were never something envisioned in guidelines.

They were also something not specifically prohibited by the guidelines.

Had there been one or two cases of pocket cache logging across the country every year, Jeremy probably wouldn't have wasted his time with them.

But once folks started abusing the system, Jeremy got fed up with the silliness.

 

What's the common thread here? Folks pushing the envelope simply because they can.

Of the few power trails across the country prior to the prohibition, which one had the most caches?

Locally, the longest powertrail was 36 caches. This one was credited with causing Groundspeak to decide enough is enough.

Not sure how true that is, but the locals swear by it.

The things that seemed to define power trails at the time were crappy containers, uninspired locations, boring hide techniques and copy/paste write ups.

Now, shortly after the restriction was lifted, we've got folks creating a string of over 1000 caches. Sadly, they seem to be following the same format.

It looks like Jeremy has said enough is enough, again.

 

Kudos for him.

[+humboldt flier]

What is to prevent a caching community of 20 folks dividing up a chunk of real estate each person will publish every twentieth cache ad nauseum until the real estate has been consumed.

 

Rule circumvented.

[Clan Riffster]

Rule circumvented.

Uh... Lemme see if I got this straight. Your argument is that any guideline which can be circumvented should be removed?

Looks like your version of Nirvana would result in no guidelines whatsoever.

If you enjoy this game, and you'de like to see it prosper in the future, that might be a bad plan.

[+humboldt flier]

Rule circumvented.

Uh... Lemme see if I got this straight. Your argument is that any guideline which can be circumvented should be removed?

Looks like your version of Nirvana would result in no guidelines whatsoever.

If you enjoy this game, and you'de like to see it prosper in the future, that might be a bad plan.

 

It was merely an observation, based upon what had been bandied about in previous posts.

 

Not, in fact how I play the game.

 

I am a rather straight shooter and do not bend rules. I am just a tad miffed over the inference.

[Clan Riffster]

It was merely an observation, based upon what had been bandied about in previous posts.

Is there any guideline that can't be circumvented, given sufficient motivation?

I would hardly think that the fact that a person could potentially thwart a rule would be a valid argument against creating the rule.

Glad to hear you're a straight shooter. I suspected as much.

[+humboldt flier]

I will take my ham sandwich with Munster and a chorus of " for He's a Jolly Good Fellow ".

 

Keep it real and be safe out there.

[+tozainamboku]

Rule circumvented.

Uh... Lemme see if I got this straight. Your argument is that any guideline which can be circumvented should be removed?

Looks like your version of Nirvana would result in no guidelines whatsoever.

If you enjoy this game, and you'de like to see it prosper in the future, that might be a bad plan.

So your argument is that since it's Jeremy's playground he can make up any rules he wants no matter how ineffective it might be? People are pointing out the weaknesses of the Swiss Rule. It can be circumvented relatively easily so we will still get lots of power trails, and it makes it harder for hiders who want to do a small series to encourage cachers to visit a new area, precisely the reason given for having the rule in the first place.

 

It may be that Jeremy is just doing the time honored throw it against the wall as see what sticks. He knows there is some problem with unlimited power trails, but he hasn't an idea what to do about it. So here's an idea that the Swiss reviewers thought up, why not try it. If it doesn't work he can reverse his position again. It seems reasonable for cachers to to point this out and perhaps to come up with a better idea. It is also just as reasonable for the geocachers who like series or power trails to continue to point out that out, and to challenge those who don't like them to come up with a real reason for limiting them. (I think there are actually some reasons that have been given, but "Because people can find as many caches in a day as I've found in 3 and a half years" is not one of them).

[+t4e]

So one thing that has not been brought up yet, say some one goes and gets 6 or 8 gmail accounts, creates 6 or 8 sock puppet accounts and starts placing caches. All can pass the Swiss rule of a mile apart, but there is a "power trail" built. Then slowly start adopting the caches to yourself from yourself. Wonder how the reviewers are going to guard against that, especially if the submissions are over a week or so? I see so many ways to circumvent the rule it is ridiculous to put it into place.

 

yes, i did bring it up in post#22

 

the proposed guideline will not stop powertrails by any means, what is going to happen is that a group of 4-5 people will get together and start a powertrail, each of them placing a cache within the proposed 1 mile distance

 

or you will have a surge of "sock puppet" accounts that will start placing caches

so what do you do in that case, make a rule that precludes someone from hiding caches before they have a certain number of finds?

 

 

 

So one thing that has not been brought up yet, say some one goes and gets 6 or 8 gmail accounts, creates 6 or 8 sock puppet accounts and starts placing caches. All can pass the Swiss rule of a mile apart, but there is a "power trail" built. Then slowly start adopting the caches to yourself from yourself. Wonder how the reviewers are going to guard against that, especially if the submissions are over a week or so? I see so many ways to circumvent the rule it is ridiculous to put it into place.

Better run those socks from different internet cafes, lest they track the IP addresses and shut them down.

nah, while the rules say that sock puppet accounts are not permitted, a thread about someone asking if its OK to create one was allowed to go on for zillion pages instead of being shut down and the rule be pointed out by the moderators

meanwhile in the very same thread i get a warning because of the stupid "stay on topic" rule and i was told that i will be banned if i post anymore in that thread

so obviously GS doesn't give a rats a** about sock puppet accounts

Edited August 31, 2010 by t4e

[jholly]

So one thing that has not been brought up yet, say some one goes and gets 6 or 8 gmail accounts, creates 6 or 8 sock puppet accounts and starts placing caches. All can pass the Swiss rule of a mile apart, but there is a "power trail" built. Then slowly start adopting the caches to yourself from yourself. Wonder how the reviewers are going to guard against that, especially if the submissions are over a week or so? I see so many ways to circumvent the rule it is ridiculous to put it into place.

 

yes, i did bring it up in post#22

 

the proposed guideline will not stop powertrails by any means, what is going to happen is that a group of 4-5 people will get together and start a powertrail, each of them placing a cache within the proposed 1 mile distance

 

or you will have a surge of "sock puppet" accounts that will start placing caches

so what do you do in that case, make a rule that precludes someone from hiding caches before they have a certain number of finds?

 

 

 

So one thing that has not been brought up yet, say some one goes and gets 6 or 8 gmail accounts, creates 6 or 8 sock puppet accounts and starts placing caches. All can pass the Swiss rule of a mile apart, but there is a "power trail" built. Then slowly start adopting the caches to yourself from yourself. Wonder how the reviewers are going to guard against that, especially if the submissions are over a week or so? I see so many ways to circumvent the rule it is ridiculous to put it into place.

Better run those socks from different internet cafes, lest they track the IP addresses and shut them down.

nah, while the rules say that sock puppet accounts are not permitted, a thread about someone asking if its OK to create one was allowed to go on for zillion pages instead of being shut down and the rule be pointed out by the moderators

meanwhile in the very same thread i get a warning because of the stupid "stay on topic" rule and i was told that i will be banned if i post anymore in that thread

so obviously GS doesn't give a rats a** about sock puppet accounts

 

Okay, I stand corrected.

 

Sock puppet accounts - The *forum* guidelines say that sock puppet accounts should not be used to post anonymously, but there is at least one well known sock posting on here and he has not been taken out behind the wood shed yet. Maybe because he not really anonymous. But the question is can you use a sock puppet account to publish caches? I say the answer to that one is yes. Or if you get a group of cachers together whats going to stop the power trail? I suppose we will then get into the arguments of what is the wow factor. But I like what Toz has been saying, define a power trail. I think that is going to be hard. The only way I see they can really put the lid on is to be really restrictive on the number of caches that can be published and increasing the proximity rules. So if you can only publish four caches a year and the proximity rule is increased to one mile I think they might get a lid on the likes of the ET highway. But then the number of hides will probably take a hit.

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

So one thing that has not been brought up yet, say some one goes and gets 6 or 8 gmail accounts, creates 6 or 8 sock puppet accounts and starts placing caches. All can pass the Swiss rule of a mile apart, but there is a "power trail" built. Then slowly start adopting the caches to yourself from yourself. Wonder how the reviewers are going to guard against that, especially if the submissions are over a week or so? I see so many ways to circumvent the rule it is ridiculous to put it into place.

 

yes, i did bring it up in post#22

 

the proposed guideline will not stop powertrails by any means, what is going to happen is that a group of 4-5 people will get together and start a powertrail, each of them placing a cache within the proposed 1 mile distance

 

or you will have a surge of "sock puppet" accounts that will start placing caches

so what do you do in that case, make a rule that precludes someone from hiding caches before they have a certain number of finds?

 

 

 

So one thing that has not been brought up yet, say some one goes and gets 6 or 8 gmail accounts, creates 6 or 8 sock puppet accounts and starts placing caches. All can pass the Swiss rule of a mile apart, but there is a "power trail" built. Then slowly start adopting the caches to yourself from yourself. Wonder how the reviewers are going to guard against that, especially if the submissions are over a week or so? I see so many ways to circumvent the rule it is ridiculous to put it into place.

Better run those socks from different internet cafes, lest they track the IP addresses and shut them down.

nah, while the rules say that sock puppet accounts are not permitted, a thread about someone asking if its OK to create one was allowed to go on for zillion pages instead of being shut down and the rule be pointed out by the moderators

meanwhile in the very same thread i get a warning because of the stupid "stay on topic" rule and i was told that i will be banned if i post anymore in that thread

so obviously GS doesn't give a rats a** about sock puppet accounts

 

Okay, I stand corrected.

 

Sock puppet accounts - The *forum* guidelines say that sock puppet accounts should not be used to post anonymously, but there is at least one well known sock posting on here and he has not been taken out behind the wood shed yet. Maybe because he not really anonymous. But the question is can you use a sock puppet account to publish caches? I say the answer to that one is yes. Or if you get a group of cachers together whats going to stop the power trail? I suppose we will then get into the arguments of what is the wow factor. But I like what Toz has been saying, define a power trail. I think that is going to be hard. The only way I see they can really put the lid on is to be really restrictive on the number of caches that can be published and increasing the proximity rules. So if you can only publish four caches a year and the proximity rule is increased to one mile I think they might get a lid on the likes of the ET highway. But then the number of hides will probably take a hit.

 

I guess you are talking about me. Yes, I am being allowed to post with a "sock puppet" account. Never ever been questioned on it. As I see it there is no secret about what my "normal" account is so I am not posting any more anonymously than anyone else.

[Clan Riffster]

So your argument is that since it's Jeremy's playground he can make up any rules he wants no matter how ineffective it might be?

Well, that's not quite my argument.

But to answer your implied question; Yes, technically, Jeremy could create any rule he wanted.

There is no litmus test that requires a rule to be effective, in order to be enacted.

Naturally, your principle is not quite legitimate, as the proposed rule would be just as effective as all the rest.

Those who feel rules should be followed will follow it.

Those who fear the consequences of violating the rule will follow it.

Those who don't, won't.

 

It can be circumvented relatively easily...

And yet, earlier, you claimed that creating repetition trails would not be easy?

[+tozainamboku]

It can be circumvented relatively easily...

And yet, earlier, you claimed that creating repetition trails would not be easy?

That's the reason for the word relatively here. Given the effort to plan and place 500 or 1000 caches, it doesn't take much additional effort to get together a group of individuals to each place some of the caches and thereby keep within the guideline.

[Clan Riffster]

That's the reason for the word relatively here.

Given the scope of such a task, one which you refer to as "relatively easy", I would have to surmise that you & I have different definitions of the term.

Could it be done, if enough people wanted to thwart the spirit of the proposed guideline? Of course it could.

But then, the same could be said for any existing guideline. That doesn't mean those guidelines are bad.

 

I guess if I wanted to put a team together to build such a monstrosity as 1000 film cans plopped along a roadway, it could be done. The first step would be to determine how many miles out from my geocaching center the Reviewers would let me hide stuff. Given that I've shown a propensity for travel, I think I could push my outer limit to around 50 miles. Farther than that and my ability to maintain them might come into question. If I found 9 more people who could also hide caches over the same 50 mile stretch, and who were willing to assist in thwarting the spirit of the guidelines, that would give me the team needed to create 500 repetition trail caches. All I would need at that point is another team of 10 like minded people to start from a point 100 miles away from my start point, repeating my efforts, headed toward me.

 

That doesn't sound very "easy" to me, even when measured against a "relative" standard.

 

But it's possible.

[Clan Riffster]

Yes, I am being allowed to post with a "sock puppet" account.

I think, any account whose originator is known, could not be viewed as a sock puppet.

In your case, I would call it an additional account, not a sock puppet account.

[+sbell111]

It can be circumvented relatively easily...

And yet, earlier, you claimed that creating repetition trails would not be easy?

That's the reason for the word relatively here. Given the effort to plan and place 500 or 1000 caches, it doesn't take much additional effort to get together a group of individuals to each place some of the caches and thereby keep within the guideline.

This is the amusing thing about the rule. Small geotrails which most people would generally not have a problem with would be blocked by the swiss rule while huge powertrails would generally not be blocked because they are most often hidden by a large team of geocachers.

[GOF and Bacall]

Yes, I am being allowed to post with a "sock puppet" account.

I think, any account whose originator is known, could not be viewed as a sock puppet.

In your case, I would call it an additional account, not a sock puppet account.

 

Yes, that's it. But I think the post I was relying to was aimed at the name of my alternate account.

[+ShowStop]

It can be circumvented relatively easily...

And yet, earlier, you claimed that creating repetition trails would not be easy?

That's the reason for the word relatively here. Given the effort to plan and place 500 or 1000 caches, it doesn't take much additional effort to get together a group of individuals to each place some of the caches and thereby keep within the guideline.

This is the amusing thing about the rule. Small geotrails which most people would generally not have a problem with would be blocked by the swiss rule while huge powertrails would generally not be blocked because they are most often hidden by a large team of geocachers.

Yup, all you need is enough people to bypass the Swiss distance guideline. So if the guideline says new caches on your account must be 1mi apart to avoid questioning, you only need 10 people to place caches every 0.1mi apart and still be 1.0mi from each of their own caches.

 

So this Swiss guideline is just another useless addition to an already overcrowded and over burdening set of guidelines.

[+rob3k]

Just noticed that the feedback thread has been changed from "Planned" to the less forceful "Under Consideration"

[+Castle Mischief]

"First they took our Locationless... then they took our ALRs... NOW THEY'VE COME FOR OUR POWER TRAILS!"

 

[CoyoteRed]

... then what does it matter if someone outcaches you...

This is an interesting phrase. Are you saying that someone who finds more caches than another person is, in fact, "out caching" the other person?

 

I think this statement goes to the heart of the discussion in that the hobby is moving further towards a social, "I can out do you" sort of thing than a adventure or treasure hunt. Is maximizing the number of signatures in a box over a period of time really what this hobby is about? It very much seems to be turning that way.

 

We're just about to drop completely out of the hobby. As it is, we only use it to find cool places to go. The last caches we found weren't what I'd call an "official" find in that we didn't we touch the box. We saw were it was and simply enjoyed where it took us. No, it was not logged as a find. Why bother?

 

Geocachers, it seems, have become their own worse enemy. Power trails? Really? I might as well count telephone poles on a Sunday drive and log them. Yeah, that's the ticket. Then we'll see out can "out count" the other person.

 

[+t4e]

 

I think this statement goes to the heart of the discussion in that the hobby is moving further towards a social, "I can out do you" sort of thing than a adventure or treasure hunt. Is maximizing the number of signatures in a box over a period of time really what this hobby is about? It very much seems to be turning that way.

 

that is solely your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it, but to me that doesn't hold true

 

a few do it for the numbers and most do it for the adventure

 

We're just about to drop completely out of the hobby. As it is, we only use it to find cool places to go. The last caches we found weren't what I'd call an "official" find in that we didn't we touch the box. We saw were it was and simply enjoyed where it took us. No, it was not logged as a find. Why bother?

 

that's your personal choice

you can certainly find cool places without the help of a cache placement, but personally i can say that about 75% of the cool places i found and had no idea existed was due to caches being there

 

Geocachers, it seems, have become their own worse enemy. Power trails? Really? I might as well count telephone poles on a Sunday drive and log them. Yeah, that's the ticket. Then we'll see out can "out count" the other person.

 

 

don't generalize, the majority do not like powertrails and those are just a few compared to good quality hides

[+dfx]

Yes, I am being allowed to post with a "sock puppet" account.

I think, any account whose originator is known, could not be viewed as a sock puppet.

known to who?

[Clan Riffster]

Yes, I am being allowed to post with a "sock puppet" account.

I think, any account whose originator is known, could not be viewed as a sock puppet.

known to who?

Known to you. Known to me. Known to Groundspeak.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

I think this statement goes to the heart of the discussion in that the hobby is moving further towards a social, "I can out do you" sort of thing than a adventure or treasure hunt. Is maximizing the number of signatures in a box over a period of time really what this hobby is about? It very much seems to be turning that way.

 

that is solely your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it, but to me that doesn't hold true

 

a few do it for the numbers and most do it for the adventure

 

The adventure of getting a ton of numbers!

 

ADVENTURE, HO!

[+sbell111]

 

I think this statement goes to the heart of the discussion in that the hobby is moving further towards a social, "I can out do you" sort of thing than a adventure or treasure hunt. Is maximizing the number of signatures in a box over a period of time really what this hobby is about? It very much seems to be turning that way.

 

that is solely your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it, but to me that doesn't hold true

 

a few do it for the numbers and most do it for the adventure

 

The adventure of getting a ton of numbers!

 

ADVENTURE, HO!

Who cares why other people enjoy finding caches? I know that I neither find them 'for the numbers' or for 'adventure'.

[+Castle Mischief]

The adventure of getting a ton of numbers!

 

ADVENTURE, HO!

Who cares why other people enjoy finding caches? I know that I neither find them 'for the numbers' or for 'adventure'.

 

APATHY, HO!

 

EDIT: PS- Happy Friday!

Edited September 3, 2010 by Castle Mischief