Agenda Literature Placed in Caches by Finders

June 16, 2015

LaughterOnWater: Of the caches you have found, how many contained agenda literature?

15.3k · June 16, 2015

Define "rampant."

From earlier in the thread...

But it's hard to ignore when I'm knee deep in it.
Wow. Knee deep? That's a LOT of paper...

Of course, there are a lot of people who would love to have so many large-size caches around that they could be knee deep in cache contents of any kind.

OK, I will admit this comment is the height of nitpickiness, but I prefer to be called a "cacher" instead of "gamer".

Yeah, I'm a gamer, and a cacher/geocacher, but the two are not the same.

3.6k · June 16, 2015

Of course it's ok to disagree but what i see in these cases are the same few people coming in and trashing the OP.

Disagreeing isn't "trashing."

Stop defending yourself. I rarely see you agreeing with someone.

June 16, 2015

Of course it's ok to disagree but what i see in these cases are the same few people coming in and trashing the OP.

Disagreeing isn't "trashing."

Stop defending yourself. I rarely see you agreeing with someone.

I agree with people a very frequently. I don't feel a need to post a "me too" every time.

7.4k · June 16, 2015

Of course it's ok to disagree but what i see in these cases are the same few people coming in and trashing the OP.

Disagreeing isn't "trashing."

Stop defending yourself. I rarely see you agreeing with someone.

When people are correct there is rarely need to comment.

7.4k · June 16, 2015

Of course it's ok to disagree but what i see in these cases are the same few people coming in and trashing the OP.

Disagreeing isn't "trashing."

Stop defending yourself. I rarely see you agreeing with someone.

I agree with people a very frequently. I don't feel a need to post a "me too" every time.

What's really cute about this forum is that you can post a comment in agreement with someone and they will manage to interpret it as disagreement anyway.

19k · June 16, 2015

Of course it's ok to disagree but what i see in these cases are the same few people coming in and trashing the OP.

Disagreeing isn't "trashing."

Stop defending yourself. I rarely see you agreeing with someone.

When people are correct there is rarely need to comment.

That is so true.

1.5k · June 16, 2015

Of course it's ok to disagree but what i see in these cases are the same few people coming in and trashing the OP.

Disagreeing isn't "trashing."

Stop defending yourself. I rarely see you agreeing with someone.

When people are correct there is rarely need to comment.

That is so true.

In my past life I learned that commenting on someone being correct, (or behaving well) really goes a long ways, and should be done regularly.

19k · June 16, 2015

Of course it's ok to disagree but what i see in these cases are the same few people coming in and trashing the OP.

Disagreeing isn't "trashing."

Stop defending yourself. I rarely see you agreeing with someone.

When people are correct there is rarely need to comment.

That is so true.

In my past life I learned that commenting on someone being correct, (or behaving well) really goes a long ways, and should be done regularly.

No comment.

2.9k · June 16, 2015

Of course it's ok to disagree but what i see in these cases are the same few people coming in and trashing the OP.

Disagreeing isn't "trashing."

Stop defending yourself. I rarely see you agreeing with someone.

When people are correct there is rarely need to comment.

That is so true.

In my past life I learned that commenting on someone being correct, (or behaving well) really goes a long ways, and should be done regularly.

No comment.

[insert comment]

June 16, 2015

Of course it's ok to disagree but what i see in these cases are the same few people coming in and trashing the OP.

Disagreeing isn't "trashing."

Stop defending yourself. I rarely see you agreeing with someone.

When people are correct there is rarely need to comment.

That is so true.

In my past life I learned that commenting on someone being correct, (or behaving well) really goes a long ways, and should be done regularly.

No comment.

TFTC!

Edited June 16, 2015 by AustinMN

June 16, 2015

When people are correct there is rarely need to comment.

I think that it would be unwise to assume that the lack of comment confers a consensus of agreement that a statement is correct.

2.3k · June 16, 2015

When people are correct there is rarely need to comment.

I think that it would be unwise to assume that the lack of comment confers a consensus of agreement that a statement is correct.

^ ^ ^

This.

I've lost count of how many times I've vehemently disagreed with something on these forums, started to type a response, and then decided it would be better to just keep my mouth shut.

And I have posted that I agree with somebody's comment, many times. There are ways to do that without simply adding "+1", which doesn't add a whole lot to the discussion.

--Larry

June 17, 2015

When people are correct there is rarely need to comment.

I think that it would be unwise to assume that the lack of comment confers a consensus of agreement that a statement is correct.

^ ^ ^

This.

I've lost count of how many times I've vehemently disagreed with something on these forums, started to type a response, and then decided it would be better to just keep my mouth shut.

And I have posted that I agree with somebody's comment, many times. There are ways to do that without simply adding "+1", which doesn't add a whole lot to the discussion.

--Larry

+1

2.3k · June 17, 2015

When people are correct there is rarely need to comment.

I think that it would be unwise to assume that the lack of comment confers a consensus of agreement that a statement is correct.

^ ^ ^

This.

I've lost count of how many times I've vehemently disagreed with something on these forums, started to type a response, and then decided it would be better to just keep my mouth shut.

And I have posted that I agree with somebody's comment, many times. There are ways to do that without simply adding "+1", which doesn't add a whole lot to the discussion.

--Larry

+1

:rolleyes:

2.9k · June 17, 2015

When people are correct there is rarely need to comment.

I think that it would be unwise to assume that the lack of comment confers a consensus of agreement that a statement is correct.

^ ^ ^

This.

I've lost count of how many times I've vehemently disagreed with something on these forums, started to type a response, and then decided it would be better to just keep my mouth shut.

And I have posted that I agree with somebody's comment, many times. There are ways to do that without simply adding "+1", which doesn't add a whole lot to the discussion.

--Larry

+1

+2

7.4k · June 17, 2015

When people are correct there is rarely need to comment.

I think that it would be unwise to assume that the lack of comment confers a consensus of agreement that a statement is correct.

^ ^ ^

This.

I've lost count of how many times I've vehemently disagreed with something on these forums, started to type a response, and then decided it would be better to just keep my mouth shut.

And I have posted that I agree with somebody's comment, many times. There are ways to do that without simply adding "+1", which doesn't add a whole lot to the discussion.

--Larry

Anything other than +1 gets interpreted as disagreement. If there's too much agreement, people start fussing about the thread being a pile-on.

15.3k · June 17, 2015

And I have posted that I agree with somebody's comment, many times. There are ways to do that without simply adding "+1", which doesn't add a whole lot to the discussion.

So if I agree that agenda literature doesn't belong in a cache, and I find an anti-agenda agenda card in a cache, should I indicate my agreement by leaving another anti-agenda agenda card?

June 17, 2015

And I have posted that I agree with somebody's comment, many times. There are ways to do that without simply adding "+1", which doesn't add a whole lot to the discussion.
So if I agree that agenda literature doesn't belong in a cache, and I find an anti-agenda agenda card in a cache, should I indicate my agreement by leaving another anti-agenda agenda card?

Ugh... Now I have to create a Counter-Counter Agenda Card... :lol:

Edited June 17, 2015 by LaughterOnWater

4.5k · June 17, 2015

And I have posted that I agree with somebody's comment, many times. There are ways to do that without simply adding "+1", which doesn't add a whole lot to the discussion.
So if I agree that agenda literature doesn't belong in a cache, and I find an anti-agenda agenda card in a cache, should I indicate my agreement by leaving another anti-agenda agenda card?

Ugh... Now I have to create a Counter-Counter Agenda Card...

Just like a crack pipe, a counter counter agenda card that i find in a cache is gonna be chucked into the woods as far as i can throw it. Oh wait, i meant

4.6k · June 17, 2015

Yes, focus on problems of greater importance.. like feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless.

Maybe Groundspeak should set up forum auto-responders to issue complete non-sequiturs like the one above as the second post in any new thread, thereby rendering just about any geocaching related 'argument' moot end drawing every thread to an neat and nearly instant conclusion.

Get the auto-responder to lock the thread at the same time and posters will soon get the message and realise that posting just about anything here is doomed to failure and ridicule and... go and focus on problems of greater importance.

[tumbleweed]

3.8k · June 17, 2015

Yes, focus on problems of greater importance.. like feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless.

Maybe Groundspeak should set up forum auto-responders to issue complete non-sequiturs like the one above as the second post in any new thread, thereby rendering just about any geocaching related 'argument' moot end drawing every thread to an neat and nearly instant conclusion.

Get the auto-responder to lock the thread at the same time and posters will soon get the message and realise that posting just about anything here is doomed to failure and ridicule and... go and focus on problems of greater importance.

[tumbleweed]

Yep, non-sequitur for sure when the context is trimmed from your reply.

4.6k · June 17, 2015

Yes, focus on problems of greater importance.. like feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless.

Maybe Groundspeak should set up forum auto-responders to issue complete non-sequiturs like the one above as the second post in any new thread, thereby rendering just about any geocaching related 'argument' moot end drawing every thread to an neat and nearly instant conclusion.

Get the auto-responder to lock the thread at the same time and posters will soon get the message and realise that posting just about anything here is doomed to failure and ridicule and... go and focus on problems of greater importance.

[tumbleweed]

Yep, non-sequitur for sure when the context is trimmed from your reply.

Okay - let's take the whole post, free of trimming of any kind:

Maybe I should back off a bit.

Yes, focus on problems of greater importance.. like feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless.

Yep - still a non-sequitur.

A discussion about geocaching is taking place in the Geocaching Topics section of a geocaching forum on a geocaching website.

The obvious context therefore is geocaching - not feeding the poor or sheltering the homeless.

Although we could, as I pointed out earlier, all save ourselves a lot of time by configuring an automated mechanism to respond to every post with a non-sequitur like the one you used, close down every thread any single individual doesn't consider inportant in the given context or, better still, just automatically assume that there's no discussion to be had on the subject that is important or worthwhile in any way, and then just shut the forum down completely as clearly it has no place in a world where there are people in need of food and shelter - probably along with geocaching itself <_<

3.8k · June 17, 2015

Yes, focus on problems of greater importance.. like feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless.

Maybe Groundspeak should set up forum auto-responders to issue complete non-sequiturs like the one above as the second post in any new thread, thereby rendering just about any geocaching related 'argument' moot end drawing every thread to an neat and nearly instant conclusion.

Get the auto-responder to lock the thread at the same time and posters will soon get the message and realise that posting just about anything here is doomed to failure and ridicule and... go and focus on problems of greater importance.

[tumbleweed]

Yep, non-sequitur for sure when the context is trimmed from your reply.

Okay - let's take the whole post, free of trimming of any kind:

Maybe I should back off a bit.

Yes, focus on problems of greater importance.. like feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless.

Yep - still a non-sequitur.

A discussion about geocaching is taking place in the Geocaching Topics section of a geocaching forum on a geocaching website.

The obvious context therefore is geocaching - not feeding the poor or sheltering the homeless.

Although we could, as I pointed out earlier, all save ourselves a lot of time by configuring an automated mechanism to respond to every post with a non-sequitur like the one you used, close down every thread any single individual doesn't consider inportant in the given context or, better still, just automatically assume that there's no discussion to be had on the subject that is important or worthwhile in any way, and then just shut the forum down completely as clearly it has no place in a world where there are people in need of food and shelter - probably along with geocaching itself

Get over yourself.

3.6k · June 17, 2015

Yes, focus on problems of greater importance.. like feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless.

Maybe Groundspeak should set up forum auto-responders to issue complete non-sequiturs like the one above as the second post in any new thread, thereby rendering just about any geocaching related 'argument' moot end drawing every thread to an neat and nearly instant conclusion.

Get the auto-responder to lock the thread at the same time and posters will soon get the message and realise that posting just about anything here is doomed to failure and ridicule and... go and focus on problems of greater importance.

[tumbleweed]

Yep, non-sequitur for sure when the context is trimmed from your reply.

Okay - let's take the whole post, free of trimming of any kind:

Maybe I should back off a bit.

Yes, focus on problems of greater importance.. like feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless.

Yep - still a non-sequitur.

A discussion about geocaching is taking place in the Geocaching Topics section of a geocaching forum on a geocaching website.

The obvious context therefore is geocaching - not feeding the poor or sheltering the homeless.

Although we could, as I pointed out earlier, all save ourselves a lot of time by configuring an automated mechanism to respond to every post with a non-sequitur like the one you used, close down every thread any single individual doesn't consider inportant in the given context or, better still, just automatically assume that there's no discussion to be had on the subject that is important or worthwhile in any way, and then just shut the forum down completely as clearly it has no place in a world where there are people in need of food and shelter - probably along with geocaching itself

Get over yourself.

Dont like when someone prove you wrong?

1.2k · June 17, 2015

Knock it off you two, or I swear I'll turn this car around.

3.6k · June 17, 2015

Knock it off you two, or I swear I'll turn this car around.

Please do...it needs to get back on topic. :laughing:

4.6k · June 17, 2015

Get over yourself.

That's your best response? :blink:

Give me a few minutes while I get my breath back :laughing:

June 18, 2015

LaughterOnWater: Of the caches you have found, how many contained agenda literature?

I haven't exactly kept count. Good idea. I think I'm going to start counting. Please stand by. It may take a while before I have valid data.

C

7.4k · June 18, 2015

LaughterOnWater: Of the caches you have found, how many contained agenda literature?

I haven't exactly kept count. Good idea. I think I'm going to start counting. Please stand by. It may take a while before I have valid data.

C

Have you worked out a methodology to ensure that your sample is actually representative of your area?

June 18, 2015

LaughterOnWater: Of the caches you have found, how many contained agenda literature?

I haven't exactly kept count. Good idea. I think I'm going to start counting. Please stand by. It may take a while before I have valid data.

C

Have you worked out a methodology to ensure that your sample is actually representative of your area?

I'm open to suggestions. Right now, I'm trying to come up with a way to measure the size of each cache container. I'm thinking a light-weight tray with a 1-inch grid painted on it. All finds and cache container itself would be documented photographically against the tray for scale. All finds would be categorized and numbered. I'm thinking about a small tray because there's almost never a decent flat spot to lay stuff out.

I'm curious if anyone else has done this before. If you know of a study, I'd be grateful for a link.

Chris

7.4k · June 18, 2015

LaughterOnWater: Of the caches you have found, how many contained agenda literature?

I haven't exactly kept count. Good idea. I think I'm going to start counting. Please stand by. It may take a while before I have valid data.

C

Have you worked out a methodology to ensure that your sample is actually representative of your area?

I'm open to suggestions. Right now, I'm trying to come up with a way to measure the size of each cache container. I'm thinking a light-weight tray with a 1-inch grid painted on it. All finds and cache container itself would be documented photographically against the tray for scale. All finds would be categorized and numbered. I'm thinking about a small tray because there's almost never a decent flat spot to lay stuff out.

I'm curious if anyone else has done this before. If you know of a study, I'd be grateful for a link.

Chris

Well, you'll need to set some parameters first.

Clearly define "agenda literature."

Outline a time period and a geographic zone.

How many caches are in that zone? What is an appropriate sample size based on that?

Randomly sample the caches, but do small batches over the outlined time period, so you capture old and new caches as they are placed. If your defined area has 10,000 active caches, a sample of 750 caches will give you an acceptable margin of error as long as you make sure the sample is truly random and representative. You'll want to check things like the average terrain and difficult rating, average age, etc. to make sure the sample is in line with the full population of caches.

You should probably visit caches more than once. Caches are ephemeral, and the contents change quickly.

Recruit other geocachers to help you. This will mitigate some of the potential for bias. For example, you might be visiting clusters of caches close together, immediately after someone has done a literature drop in the same area. Someone else visiting those caches two months later could have a totally different experience.

You should count and categorize all the contents of each cache, so the true proportion of agenda literature can be calculated. When you do find agenda literature, you should categorize it too. Is it religious? Political? Commercial?

It's a big undertaking. Some might decide that it's easier to just trade out objectionable items, but I have faith in you. Always happy to discuss methodology in more detail.

June 18, 2015

If your defined area has 10,000 active caches, a sample of 750 caches...

Funniest post of the week, expecting LoW to find that many.

7.4k · June 18, 2015

If your defined area has 10,000 active caches, a sample of 750 caches...

Funniest post of the week, expecting LoW to find that many.

2.9k · June 18, 2015

If your defined area has 10,000 active caches, a sample of 750 caches...

Funniest post of the week, expecting LoW to find that many.

Well, at his current rate of 1.09 caches per day (38 caches over 35 days), should take 688 days to do it.

June 18, 2015

LaughterOnWater: Of the caches you have found, how many contained agenda literature?

I haven't exactly kept count. Good idea. I think I'm going to start counting. Please stand by. It may take a while before I have valid data.

C

Was there agenda literature in any of the caches for which you uploaded photos of the cache contents?

June 18, 2015

Was there agenda literature in any of the caches for which you uploaded photos of the cache contents?

Yes.

2.9k · June 18, 2015

Was there agenda literature in any of the caches for which you uploaded photos of the cache contents?

Yes.

How many total?

19k · June 18, 2015

Was there agenda literature in any of the caches for which you uploaded photos of the cache contents?

Yes.

How many total?

DON"T BITE! THERE IS A HOOK IN THAT WORM!!

2.9k · June 18, 2015

Was there agenda literature in any of the caches for which you uploaded photos of the cache contents?

Yes.

How many total?

DON"T BITE! THERE IS A HOOK IN THAT WORM!!

Could you please stop trolling everything I post for once? I really want to know. Jeez...

19k · June 18, 2015

Was there agenda literature in any of the caches for which you uploaded photos of the cache contents?

Yes.

How many total?

DON"T BITE! THERE IS A HOOK IN THAT WORM!!

Could you please stop trolling everything I post for once? I really want to know. Jeez...

Oh, come on! Like that wasn't a troll of your own!

2.9k · June 18, 2015

Was there agenda literature in any of the caches for which you uploaded photos of the cache contents?

Yes.

How many total?

DON"T BITE! THERE IS A HOOK IN THAT WORM!!

Could you please stop trolling everything I post for once? I really want to know. Jeez...

Oh, come on! Like that wasn't a troll of your own!

No, it wasn't I am trying to have a civil conversation, so please find something else to do. I am done dealing with you. Good day.

2.9k · June 18, 2015

Let's try this again...

LaughterOnWater, how many of the ones you have found would you say have the material?

June 18, 2015

People love giving gifts to caches. Much more than they love receiving gifts from caches. It is better to give than to receive, huh? Seems most cachers actually agree with this. The result is that most popular caches are overwhelmed with gifts, stuffed to the brim and more, to the point that new visitors have trouble finding the log book, have trouble reclosing the cache, and most important have trouble leaving their own gifts, which they wish to bestow as fervently as past finders wanted to bestow their gifts.

So on occasion I do what most cachers apparently don't: relieve an over-loved cache of some of its gifts. In doing so, I try to take the past gifts which I think are least likely to be of interest to future finders -- they probably just want to leave their own gifts anyway, so part of what I do is to try to make room for these future gifts. Of course I feel totally free to do this for caches I own, but I also find believe I'm being helpful when I leave space in any cache for the use of future finder/donors.

As for literature, agenda-based or otherwise? Most is of little interest to most cachers, yet most takes up little space. (Books are another matter in terms of space, but are rare in caches.) So when making space, I have to make a judgement call as to whether to take it or leave it. I can't really say what I've done, as I have not encountered enough to make a lot of difference.

Of course, past gifts that are in poor condition are top candidates for regifting to myself, whether they are wet paper gifts, dirty golf ball gifts, or other kinds of broken gifts. I suspect that few disagree.

By the time I've taken care of all this, I'm left with little energy to worry about the agenda issue.

Edward

7.3k · June 18, 2015

People love giving gifts to caches. Much more than they love receiving gifts from caches. It is better to give than to receive, huh? Seems most cachers actually agree with this. The result is that most popular caches are overwhelmed with gifts, stuffed to the brim and more, to the point that new visitors have trouble finding the log book, have trouble reclosing the cache, and most important have trouble leaving their own gifts, which they wish to bestow as fervently as past finders wanted to bestow their gifts.

So on occasion I do what most cachers apparently don't: relieve an over-loved cache of some of its gifts. In doing so, I try to take the past gifts which I think are least likely to be of interest to future finders -- they probably just want to leave their own gifts anyway, so part of what I do is to try to make room for these future gifts. Of course I feel totally free to do this for caches I own, but I also find believe I'm being helpful when I leave space in any cache for the use of future finder/donors.

As for literature, agenda-based or otherwise? Most is of little interest to most cachers, yet most takes up little space. (Books are another matter in terms of space, but are rare in caches.) So when making space, I have to make a judgement call as to whether to take it or leave it. I can't really say what I've done, as I have not encountered enough to make a lot of difference.

Of course, past gifts that are in poor condition are top candidates for regifting to myself, whether they are wet paper gifts, dirty golf ball gifts, or other kinds of broken gifts. I suspect that few disagree.

By the time I've taken care of all this, I'm left with little energy to worry about the agenda issue.

Edward

I don't do this often...

+1

B.

3.8k · June 18, 2015

Yes, focus on problems of greater importance.. like feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless.

Maybe Groundspeak should set up forum auto-responders to issue complete non-sequiturs like the one above as the second post in any new thread, thereby rendering just about any geocaching related 'argument' moot end drawing every thread to an neat and nearly instant conclusion.

Get the auto-responder to lock the thread at the same time and posters will soon get the message and realise that posting just about anything here is doomed to failure and ridicule and... go and focus on problems of greater importance.

[tumbleweed]

Yep, non-sequitur for sure when the context is trimmed from your reply.

Okay - let's take the whole post, free of trimming of any kind:

Maybe I should back off a bit.

Yes, focus on problems of greater importance.. like feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless.

Yep - still a non-sequitur.

A discussion about geocaching is taking place in the Geocaching Topics section of a geocaching forum on a geocaching website.

The obvious context therefore is geocaching - not feeding the poor or sheltering the homeless.

Although we could, as I pointed out earlier, all save ourselves a lot of time by configuring an automated mechanism to respond to every post with a non-sequitur like the one you used, close down every thread any single individual doesn't consider inportant in the given context or, better still, just automatically assume that there's no discussion to be had on the subject that is important or worthwhile in any way, and then just shut the forum down completely as clearly it has no place in a world where there are people in need of food and shelter - probably along with geocaching itself

Get over yourself.

Dont like when someone prove you wrong?

Wrong about what? Was neither an admission or a denial. Here's what I said..

Yep, non-sequitur for sure when the context is trimmed from your reply.

But far worse than a non-sequitur (or not) is railroading this topic even further off course.

1.9k · June 18, 2015

So in the photos that were posted, I don't see anything that looks like agenda literature -- unless it was left out of the photo. Or, we have different definitions of agenda literature, which could be a bad premise for this whole discussion.

As for the percentage study ... long live the nano, as it is not big enough to hold an agenda. Limit your searches to those, and you won't ever encounter any.

9.1k · June 18, 2015

... long live the nano, as it is not big enough to hold an agenda.

Thank you for the terrific signature item idea!

June 18, 2015

... long live the nano, as it is not big enough to hold an agenda.

Thank you for the terrific signature item idea!

Ha ha ha! Oh, Leprechauns... You're very creative. Thanks for making my day.

June 18, 2015

So in the photos that were posted, I don't see anything that looks like agenda literature -- unless it was left out of the photo. Or, we have different definitions of agenda literature, which could be a bad premise for this whole discussion.

As for the percentage study ... long live the nano, as it is not big enough to hold an agenda. Limit your searches to those, and you won't ever encounter any.

I didn't take photos of all the finds. I'm going to start now. For the photos you see in my finds, if you see anything business-card sized, it's often a map to a church on one side with agenda lit on the other. The more I think about it, the more I suspect it's probably the work of two or three people alone in my area.

Agenda Literature Placed in Caches by Finders

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment