Jump to content

I appreciate the challenge, but.....


Malemotives

Recommended Posts

No, that is ONE rational option. Another is to lobby for higher standards. Groundspeak has a seemingly endless list of rules, some of which serve to diminish quality either because of the rule itself or the way it is enforced (probably more the latter). It is certainly possible to reduce the load of crap caches with better rules and/or practices.

 

 

First, you must establish what constitutes a "crap" cache, which brings us back to the beginning of the argument.

Most of us know it when we smell it. There's quite a bit of agreement about what constitutes crap.

Link to comment

No, that is ONE rational option. Another is to lobby for higher standards. Groundspeak has a seemingly endless list of rules, some of which serve to diminish quality either because of the rule itself or the way it is enforced (probably more the latter). It is certainly possible to reduce the load of crap caches with better rules and/or practices.

 

 

First, you must establish what constitutes a "crap" cache, which brings us back to the beginning of the argument.

Most of us know it when we smell it. There's quite a bit of agreement about what constitutes crap.

 

Yes, we all know what sort of geocaches we like and don't like. It differs. That's the material point.

Link to comment

No, that is ONE rational option. Another is to lobby for higher standards. Groundspeak has a seemingly endless list of rules, some of which serve to diminish quality either because of the rule itself or the way it is enforced (probably more the latter). It is certainly possible to reduce the load of crap caches with better rules and/or practices.

 

 

First, you must establish what constitutes a "crap" cache, which brings us back to the beginning of the argument.

Most of us know it when we smell it. There's quite a bit of agreement about what constitutes crap.

 

Yes, we all know what sort of geocaches we like and don't like. It differs. That's the material point.

It doesn't differ all THAT much. That's the material point, IMO.

Link to comment
It doesn't differ all THAT much. That's the material point, IMO.
Some people consider the puzzle caches that I love to be crap caches. I consider fungible film canisters placed every 528ft along a rural highway to be crap caches, but others love them. Yeah, there seem to be significant differences of opinion about what is or is not a crap cache.

 

Admittedly, there are some caches that most people would consider crap caches, except perhaps the few who love every cache, no matter how leaky, fetid, and inappropriate it is. But other than those extreme examples, there's a lot of disagreement.

Edited by niraD
Link to comment
It doesn't differ all THAT much. That's the material point, IMO.
Some people consider the puzzle caches that I love to be crap caches. I consider fungible film canisters placed every 528ft along a rural highway to be crap caches, but others love them. Yeah, there seem to be significant differences of opinion about what is or is not a crap cache.

 

Admittedly, there are some caches that most people would consider crap caches, except perhaps the few who love every cache, no matter how leaky, fetid, and inappropriate it is. But other than those extreme examples, there's a lot of disagreement.

 

Sure, there are differences. I didn't say there weren't. But I do think that the intersection is pretty large. Our very language depends on people agreeing on the general meaning of a term, even though we may all have some disagreement as to the exact meaning. When I say "garbage", you picture something very similar to what I was thinking when I said it. You don't picture the exception. That is how we communicate. In a conversation, I might say that I think that such-and-such a cache is crap, and you may disagree, but odds are, you would probably say, "yeah, it sure is!".

 

Exceptions exist. But we don't base our lives on them.

Link to comment

Despite how lousy it may be, there always is someone who may enjoy it. The problem is the percentage of these types of caches greatly outnumber the percentage of geocachers that like them. This is evident when discovering that the majority of people that join the site, drop out. Some find a few, others hide a few, many may stick around for years, but the constant is that the majority simply aren't interested in staying. There simply are no filters for broken glass, condoms, and garbage. It's one thing for someone to go there themself, but to invite strangers to these types of places is actually pretty bizarre. It's a combination of apathy, ignorance, and ego. We have a rating system that awards positive points and no negative. This is also often reflected in the logs with TFTC and other words which don't say much of anything. They hated it? Or are they a lazy logger? If someone doesn't like these type of hides, they should feel free to say so, whether it's on the cache page or in the forums.

Link to comment
The problem is the percentage of these types of caches greatly outnumber the percentage of geocachers that like them. This is evident when discovering that the majority of people that join the site, drop out.
I'm not sure that that follows. The majority of people who try anything, drop out. That applies to gym memberships, photography, square dancing, fishing, playing a musical instrument, sports, woodworking, and even geocaching.
Link to comment

It doesn't differ all THAT much. That's the material point, IMO.

 

Sure it does. And if there's a cache in a place you don't want to visit, what does it matter? Don't visit it. You don't have to find every single one.

 

I will never do any of those hideous desert power trails because I think they are irredeemably horrific garbage and the entire concept of them is ghastly. I struggle to understand how anyone could like anything so awful.

 

But after giving the issue some thought, I really don't think they should disappear. They aren't getting in the way of me finding caches I do like. I can stay quite busy finding caches I do like without trying to eradicate caches I don't.

Link to comment

What if Groundspeak did something similar to "Needs Maintenance" or "Needs Archive," but with warnings? It would appear differently on the cache page (with a little icon next to it instead of as a generic cache note) and would appear as an attribute just like "Needs Maintenance" does. I think a potential visitor would notice an attribute/special symbol more than a generic cache note, especially those who don't want to read the logs because they want the cache to be a complete surprise. They could then read the warning and decide for themselves if it's worth taking into consideration. For example, if someone left a warning note saying the area was covered in garbage, condoms, needles, etc., they could state that on a warning note and I would definitely not go. If someone posted a warning note saying there were a lot of muggles in the area all of the time, I'd still consider the cache. They are both fair warnings, but people can interpret them differently and therefore have different opinions on the cache's value. This way issues can be reported, get noticed, but ultimately get left with the cacher themselves to personally decide what they want to do.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...