Armchair Geocacher?

[+Rose Red]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

[+CanadianRockies]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

Were they along a power trail? If so, then ***yawn***.

 

ETA: It looks like they did the "Oh I wish I was in Dixie" power trail, which has nearly 1,000 caches and is near several other big power trails. It's not unusual to find 500+ caches in a single day if the power trail is set up to accommodate that kind of caching.

Edited July 18, 2016 by CanadianRockies

[+Manville Possum]

That is very interesting.

[+Sagefox]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

RP is no armchair cacher. He has been a very active cacher for over a decade. We've found many of his caches.

 

521 in a day can be and has been done by many cachers using "power trails" or other high-density cache areas.

[+T.D.M.22]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

 

I found, and double checked the co-ords of 100 caches in 2 hours on a powertrail. So 521 caches could be done in under 10 hours. A larger powertrail could be 1000 caches in 24 hours.

 

Also I'd like to point out, that you don't know that person found all those caches on that day. You know that person logged then on the same day. Some people (like myself) don't care about stats, so if I spend 2 or 3 days caching I probably won't bother to change the dates, and just leave it as the default day (the day I'm logging them.)

[ohgood]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

 

I found, and double checked the co-ords of 100 caches in 2 hours on a powertrail. So 521 caches could be done in under 10 hours. A larger powertrail could be 1000 caches in 24 hours.

 

Also I'd like to point out, that you don't know that person found all those caches on that day. You know that person logged then on the same day. Some people (like myself) don't care about stats, so if I spend 2 or 3 days caching I probably won't bother to change the dates, and just leave it as the default day (the day I'm logging them.)

 

add us to the list of people that rarely update our found lists. we keep all our waypoints (ok ok, "geocaches") offline, and sync them between our devices and cloud storage, but the stats on Groundspeak aren't something we're hoping to wear as a gold star. i'm not being negative, it's just a much bigger priority to hike, explore, and have fun, instead of make a spreadsheet of waypoints.

[+Ed_S]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

 

Does this, in any way, affect you and how you geocache? No? Then why do you care?

 

The geocaching community knows who cheats, who does nothing but lamppost skirt caches, who's in it for the numbers and who's in it for another reason (the challenge, the hike/scenery, the socialization, etc.) Worry about your own reputation - don't get caught up in someone else playing the game in a way you don't like. Now if someone's damaging or stealing caches, that's another matter.

[+narcissa]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

 

Perhaps you could elucidate your concerns with more detail.

[+wmpastor]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

 

Perhaps you could elucidate your concerns with more detail.

 

I agree - this calls for some elucidation.

[+wimseyguy]

I suspect that most people who found those same caches did so all on the same day. It's what one typically does on a power trail in that part of the country.

 

Here's a link to the map, I'm too lazy to bother with a screen shot.

[+Touchstone]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

 

Perhaps you could elucidate your concerns with more detail.

 

I agree - this calls for some elucidation.

My guess is that he's just getting caught up on some logging from a road trip of some sort. Definitely agree with Team SB. Longtime Northern California cacher with hundreds/thousands of Hides to his credit and monthly Events in his area. If anyone embodies the spirit of Geocaching in our area, he would be it.

 

Kind of sad when people jump to conclusions like this, without doing a bit of research first.

[Pup Patrol]

Here's a link to the map, I'm too lazy to bother with a screen shot.

 

Holy Micro, Batman!!!!!!!!!!

 

One would feel completely inadequate to find less than 100/day in that area!

 

To the OP: please check out the profile of the person you are accusing. The name says a lot: retired prof...lots of time for finding and hiding caches.

 

And perhaps post an apology.

 

B.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Pup Patrol

[Pup Patrol]

I wonder how many caches in one day can result from participating in these "cache machine" things?

 

Gig Harbor Cache Machine II January 3, 2015

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=328135

 

Hermiston Cache Machine March 22, 2014

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=319731

 

North Kitsap Cache Machine December 28, 2013

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=317295

 

Bend Cache Machine September 21, 2013

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=314156

 

B.

[+NanCycle]

OP has been around long enough, both in geocaching and in the forums, to know better. And created another thread with the same title in February.

 

This looks personal.

 

Edited - should proofread before posting, not after.

Edited July 18, 2016 by NanCycle

[+NYPaddleCacher]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

 

Does this, in any way, affect you and how you geocache? No? Then why do you care?

 

If you're going to ask a question about how someone geocaches, perhaps you might let them answer it themselves.

 

The fact that someone found 521 caches in a day might not directly affect someone else but the fact that a power trail which allows someone to log 521 caches in a day exists can impact other cacher in many ways.

 

 

 

The geocaching community knows who cheats, who does nothing but lamppost skirt caches, who's in it for the numbers and who's in it for another reason (the challenge, the hike/scenery, the socialization, etc.) Worry about your own reputation - don't get caught up in someone else playing the game in a way you don't like.

 

It the past few years it seems that many (most in some areas) geocachers want to turn every aspect of geocaching into a competition. Despite the fact we are told "you can play the game any way you want", the power caching mentality that is fostered by large power trails like this often leads other power trails and small "cache series". For those that don't want to play the numbers game, even if we don't play that game we get:

 

- hundreds of email notification of new caches we have no intention of finding.

- extra work to filter out hundreds of caches we have no intention of finding

- fewer places to go geocaching for the type of caching we want to do because a trail or park is completely saturated with fungible, inexpensive containers that are placed solely to increase the find counts for others

- and many other impacts

 

It's easy for someone that is indiscriminate about the quality of caches they find to tell others "we can all the game how we want" because a small number of caches placed with the intention of bringing someone to an interesting spot or showing a unique hide style has little impact on the numbers cacher. It's just another notch on their bedpost. The inverse is not true.

 

 

[+narcissa]

OP has been around, both in geocaching and in the forums, to know better. And created another thread with the same title in February.

 

This looks personal.

 

There have been a lot of these inflammatory drive-by posts lately.

[+deuceice]

Annnnnnd?

[+wmpastor]

Annnnnnd?

And I'll stand aside and not stir the pot!

 

To the OP, you could have asked a general question without mentioning a cacher's name. Second, 500+ caches in a day is do-able. One other possible explanation is where husband and wife cached together on one account and now they want two separate accounts. The new account may show previous finds on a single day.

[+Sagefox]

I wonder how many caches in one day can result from participating in these "cache machine" things?

 

Gig Harbor Cache Machine II January 3, 2015

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=328135

 

Hermiston Cache Machine March 22, 2014

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=319731

 

North Kitsap Cache Machine December 28, 2013

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=317295

 

Bend Cache Machine September 21, 2013

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=314156

 

B.

Depending on time of year and other conditions about 50 to 90 for most folks and the fast movers maybe 100 to 120. We attended three of those four and were in the 50 to 80 range. CMs are more of a social day of power caching rather than personal one-day record setting events although that also happens for some people including me.

 

(Edit: Pesky pronoun.)

Edited July 18, 2016 by Team Sagefox

[+Mudfrog]

There was once a time when i would have bet BIG money that it was impossible for someone to find 100 caches in a day. That was some 10+ years ago. But these days, with all the power trails and the silly finding/logging techniques used, i'm not surprised by any number people post.

 

In the case of the original post, 521 isn't that hard to do when a person sets their mind to it and is in a low difficulty cache rich area.

[+wmpastor]

OP has been around, both in geocaching and in the forums, to know better. And created another thread with the same title in February.

 

This looks personal.

 

There have been a lot of these inflammatory drive-by posts lately.

Rose Red hasn't reappeared lately, so we don't know if we've answered the questions or not....

[+wimseyguy]

There was once a time when i would have bet BIG money that it was impossible for someone to find 100 caches in a day. That was some 10+ years ago. But these days, with all the power trails and the silly finding/logging techniques used, i'm not surprised by any number people post.

 

In the case of the original post, 521 isn't that hard to do when a person sets their mind to it and is in a low difficulty cache rich area.

 

The first time I became aware that cachers would try to, and could, find more than 100 in a day was after Geowoodstock 2 in 2004. JoGPS drove Leprechauns and CarleenP all over Nashville the following day. They managed to find 240 in 24 hours, and the race was on. It was still pretty hard to get more than 100/day for quite a few more years in most parts of the country. Not so much anymore. Now 100 in a day is feasible in many places for those who have FUN caching that way. Even 1000 in a day if you want that too.

[+Shop99er]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

 

Since I didn't see these questiosn being asked, I'll ask them:

 

1) Why do you care?

 

2) How does his caching and logging affect you?

 

3) Who elected you the logging watchdog?

 

Edit to add:

I logged 2350 in one day. Wanna accuse me of Armchair caching?

Edited July 19, 2016 by Shop99er

[+Manville Possum]

I don't see anything wrong with Armchair caching as long as you sign the physical log. I'm sitting here now in front of my PC spoofing my coordinates to narrow down PMO listings with my basic account. It makes me feel like an Geocaching Outlaw or something.

[+Shop99er]

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I don't see anything wrong with Armchair caching as long as you sign the physical log. I'm sitting here now in front of my PC spoofing my coordinates to narrow down PMO listings with my basic account. It makes me feel like an Geocaching Outlaw or something.

 

If sign the physical log it's not armchair caching. I supposed someone could bring a cache to where you're sitting but if the cache is in place then it's a legitimate find.

 

 

[+wmpastor]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

 

Since I didn't see these questiosn being asked, I'll ask them:

 

1) Why do you care?

 

2) How does his caching and logging affect you?

 

3) Who elected you the logging watchdog?

 

Edit to add:

I logged 2350 in one day. Wanna accuse me of Armchair caching?

 

A prior post suggests that maybe Rose Red is pulling our chain, in which case some deep breaths and yoga are in order.

 

OP has been around, both in geocaching and in the forums, to know better. And created another thread with the same title in February.

 

This looks personal.

 

There have been a lot of these inflammatory drive-by posts lately.

 

I suggest we drop it. If the question was serious, we've explained power trails.

 

In normal conversation, this is where I'd ask about your PT experience, but I guess that would be off topic. (But on the other hand maybe it would help answer the original question, for the OP or others.)

[+Manville Possum]

I don't see anything wrong with Armchair caching as long as you sign the physical log. I'm sitting here now in front of my PC spoofing my coordinates to narrow down PMO listings with my basic account. It makes me feel like an Geocaching Outlaw or something.

 

If sign the physical log it's not armchair caching. I supposed someone could bring a cache to where you're sitting but if the cache is in place then it's a legitimate find.

 

Yes, I'm only an Armchair spoofer because I actually go out and find the cache. Now I'm looking at my Generation release schedule app to see when the best time will be when the River is lowest today so I can walk to the cache and not have to use my kayak.

 

It still feels like I'm cheating a T5 PMO cache with a basic account, but I have kinda got bored with geocaching lately.

[+SwineFlew]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

 

Sigh... Is there something more important than this?

[+SwineFlew]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

 

Since I didn't see these questiosn being asked, I'll ask them:

 

1) Why do you care?

 

2) How does his caching and logging affect you?

 

3) Who elected you the logging watchdog?

 

Edit to add:

I logged 2350 in one day. Wanna accuse me of Armchair caching?

 

Yep...this! To the OP, seriously, this kind of behavior is a negative effect to our hobby.

[+dprovan]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

Hey, thanks for letting us know. That's pretty impressive. Make sure to congratulate him for me.

[+wmpastor]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

Hey, thanks for letting us know. That's pretty impressive. Make sure to congratulate him for me.

 

Hmmm...maybe retiredprof is a better cacher than Rose Red.

 

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I don't see anything wrong with Armchair caching as long as you sign the physical log.

 

I log all of my caches from my armchair. I find them by using my hands, feet and eyes. I am confused on how to feel. Should I be proud of being a 50% cacher who actually goes out and finds caches or ashamed of the 50% cheater who logs from the comfort of my chair? The answer, of course, is 42.

[+Mn-treker]

Well did you notice. He started a topic and vanished. He most likely wanted to start something and succeeded. Crank that motor, crank that motor, and it's off and running.

[+wmpastor]

Well did you notice. He started a topic and vanished. He most likely wanted to start something and succeeded. Crank that motor, crank that motor, and it's off and running.

 

However, that Cacher has logged onto the site yesterday and today! Call me a keen observer.

 

To this I say, "Lurkers, introduce yourselves"!

[+Mol Ecule]

Well, I'll introduce myself.

 

The only time the armchair caching thing has bothered me is once when I drove to a little town where some caches I had posted DNF's on were suddenly found - impossibly so, it turns out, as in one case the tree where the cache was hidden had been removed from a cemetary, and the cache not replaced or marked unavailable by the CO - all of the caches were missing in the end, but I made a trip to the area based on a cacher who falsified the finds.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Mol Ecule

[+cerberus1]

The only time the armchair caching thing has bothered me is once when I drove to a little town where some caches I had posted DNF's on were suddenly found - impossibly so, it turns out, as in one case the tree where the cache was hidden had been removed from a cemetary, and the cache not replaced or marked unavailable by the CO - all of the caches were missing in the end, but I made a trip to the area based on a cacher who falsified the finds.

+1

We had that happen in another State (and weren't too happy afterwards).

One of the many reasons "how others play doesn't affect you..." is hogwash.

[+Mol Ecule]

Agreed - I don't care much one way or another - if someone wants to collect light pole caches all day, so be it - I enjoy those too. But the issue is claiming to find caches that you did not - what's the point of the DNF if cache owners don't bother to check? I've replaced joke caches and logs and never a peep from the absent CO. As a player, I can't want to find more than a CO wants to hide.....

[+Mol Ecule]

Joke = whole

[+Mn-treker]

A while back there was a worm from Europe

That was logging finds. It would place a link if clicked on would infect your computer. So watch out for that. But I do think that problem was resolved. But still there may be some of those out there with the link removed. They look legit and the CO may be off line and not know of the bogus logs.

[+wmpastor]

I don't see anything wrong with Armchair caching as long as you sign the physical log.

 

I log all of my caches from my armchair. I find them by using my hands, feet and eyes. I am confused on how to feel. Should I be proud of being a 50% cacher who actually goes out and finds caches or ashamed of the 50% cheater who logs from the comfort of my chair? The answer, of course, is 42.

 

Since it's clear that levity is acceptable in this thread, I'll add this comment. I'm against armchair logging. Why? Because cachers should be logging in the field, not later back home in the armchair. Prompt logging in the field is de rigueur -- most especially when there are FTF hounds within 100 miles!

[+niraD]

Prompt logging in the field is de rigueur -- most especially when there are FTF hounds within 100 miles!

And if you don't have cell reception at the cache site, then you can't leave until new cell towers are built, allowing you to log from the cache site.

 

Be sure to have the Ten Essentials with you at all times.

[+Ed_S]

retiredprof found 521 caches in one day on 05/29/2016.

 

Does this, in any way, affect you and how you geocache? No? Then why do you care?

 

If you're going to ask a question about how someone geocaches, perhaps you might let them answer it themselves.

 

The fact that someone found 521 caches in a day might not directly affect someone else but the fact that a power trail which allows someone to log 521 caches in a day exists can impact other cacher in many ways.

 

Until such time as someone forces me to find and log a power trail, the existence of the power trail does not, in any way, affect me. You even admitted it - it does not directly affect anyone else. The fact that a power trail does or does not exist affects cachers only as much as they allow it to affect them.

 

 

 

The geocaching community knows who cheats, who does nothing but lamppost skirt caches, who's in it for the numbers and who's in it for another reason (the challenge, the hike/scenery, the socialization, etc.) Worry about your own reputation - don't get caught up in someone else playing the game in a way you don't like.

 

It the past few years it seems that many (most in some areas) geocachers want to turn every aspect of geocaching into a competition. Despite the fact we are told "you can play the game any way you want", the power caching mentality that is fostered by large power trails like this often leads other power trails and small "cache series". For those that don't want to play the numbers game, even if we don't play that game we get:

 

- hundreds of email notification of new caches we have no intention of finding.

 

I'm not bothered by those. I don't get them. I have over a hundred FTFs, most of them from back before we had all this instant notification. Is there another reason for instant notification of new caches, other than the FTF hunt? I don't see any. Turn it off.

 

- extra work to filter out hundreds of caches we have no intention of finding

- fewer places to go geocaching for the type of caching we want to do because a trail or park is completely saturated with fungible, inexpensive containers that are placed solely to increase the find counts for others

- and many other impacts

 

You have that situation in any heavily cached area - PT or not. If you don't want too many caches, you can pick and choose them in small pocket queries - there's no need to download 1000 caches when you only intend to find a dozen or two. This works for me. If it doesn't work for you, figure out a way that does. Use filters.

 

I will say I'm with you regarding the clogging of quality locations with zero-quality, zero-thought (insert favorite cusswords) micros in the woods. When I started caching, the approvers would ask you why you were putting a micro in an area where one could hide a larger cache. I have my thoughts as to why that changed, but I won't air them publicly.

 

We're getting off the subject. As we apparently agree, it's possible to have an area congested with lousy caches whether they form a PT or not.

 

It's easy for someone that is indiscriminate about the quality of caches they find to tell others "we can all the game how we want" because a small number of caches placed with the intention of bringing someone to an interesting spot or showing a unique hide style has little impact on the numbers cacher. It's just another notch on their bedpost. The inverse is not true.

 

If you look at my numbers, versus the years I've been caching, you'll realize I go for quality over quantity. Yes, I go on caching trips with friends, and I do the easy ones they want, too. But that doesn't make me indiscriminate. And I still say, as was my original point, that if you (the Royal "you" - not you personally) decide to cheat and/or pad your numbers, that in no way affects how I geocache. Creating power trails, loading up prime areas with crap caches, and so on, are a tangent to the original comments. But if I still want to be so choosy that I want to find only Regular, Difficulty 3 and Terrain 2.5 caches, I can.

[+niraD]

Is there another reason for instant notification of new caches, other than the FTF hunt?

I've heard of people using notifications as a way to manually filter caches. Essentially, when they see a notification for a cache they might be interested in, they add that listing to a bookmark list. That way, they review each potential cache only once (when they receive the notification), and they don't even need to bother ignoring or filtering caches. If it's on the bookmark list, then they though it was interesting when they first saw it. If not, then they never see the listing again.

 

It isn't the way I play (I've never used notifications), but it is a way that some play. And it has nothing to do with the FTF hunt.

 

When I started caching, the approvers would ask you why you were putting a micro in an area where one could hide a larger cache. I have my thoughts as to why that changed, but I won't air them publicly.

I don't think it's any more complicated than the "ugly baby" issue. No one wants to hear that their baby is ugly. And the volunteer reviewers certainly don't want to be in the business of telling people that their babies are ugly.

[+Ed_S]

Is there another reason for instant notification of new caches, other than the FTF hunt?

I've heard of people using notifications as a way to manually filter caches. Essentially, when they see a notification for a cache they might be interested in, they add that listing to a bookmark list. That way, they review each potential cache only once (when they receive the notification), and they don't even need to bother ignoring or filtering caches. If it's on the bookmark list, then they though it was interesting when they first saw it. If not, then they never see the listing again.

 

It isn't the way I play (I've never used notifications), but it is a way that some play. And it has nothing to do with the FTF hunt.

 

Okay. I've never heard of anyone doing it that way, but I'll accept that some people might. But I'd have to observe that if being inundated with a thousand new cache posts is objectionable to those players, perhaps the reasonable solution for everyone is that those individuals who filter at the email level modify their way of doing things, and leave the other 99% alone.

 

When I started caching, the approvers would ask you why you were putting a micro in an area where one could hide a larger cache. I have my thoughts as to why that changed, but I won't air them publicly.

I don't think it's any more complicated than the "ugly baby" issue. No one wants to hear that their baby is ugly. And the volunteer reviewers certainly don't want to be in the business of telling people that their babies are ugly.

 

Back when caching was new, and there weren't caches every 528 feet, all across the country, the rules were different than they are today. You used to not be allowed to create a power trail. I know cachers who were denied permission to place caches because the approver was concerned that they were creating a PT. You used to not be allowed to place caches under ANY bridge that had vehicle traffic on it. Approvers back in the day were called Reviewers, and, in the very early days, they actually did review caches they were approving. To be fair, their workload was a lot less than it is today. But if the rules said No Micros In The Woods, and that rule had stayed intact into present times, there'd be a whole lot less complaining about junk caches taking spaces that a better cache could occupy. If the rule that said No Power Trails had stayed intact, there'd be a whole lot less complaining about junk caches clogging notifications, pocket queries, etc.

 

I will say that if telling someone their baby is ugly is part of the job, and someone doesn't want to do that part, or any other part of the job, they shouldn't have taken the job. Approvers have no problem denying permission when someone wants to place a cache too near another cache. Or in any other way that violates the current rules. We have one approver locally to whom physical barriers that make it impossible to go from one cache directly to the next are not a good enough reason to give a 50' variance on the 528' rule for a cache. If the rules still said No Micros In The Woods, they'd be enforced.

 

And to all those who think difficult hides of tiny caches in the woods are somehow clever, I say any moron can hide a nano in the woods that's all but impossible to find. I've found nanos wired to pine tree branches. Want to impress someone? Hide an ammo can they can't find. THAT takes skill and talent. But it also takes effort.

[Pup Patrol]

Is there another reason for instant notification of new caches, other than the FTF hunt?

I've heard of people using notifications as a way to manually filter caches. Essentially, when they see a notification for a cache they might be interested in, they add that listing to a bookmark list. That way, they review each potential cache only once (when they receive the notification), and they don't even need to bother ignoring or filtering caches. If it's on the bookmark list, then they though it was interesting when they first saw it. If not, then they never see the listing again.

 

It isn't the way I play (I've never used notifications), but it is a way that some play. And it has nothing to do with the FTF hunt.

 

Okay. I've never heard of anyone doing it that way, but I'll accept that some people might. But I'd have to observe that if being inundated with a thousand new cache posts is objectionable to those players, perhaps the reasonable solution for everyone is that those individuals who filter at the email level modify their way of doing things, and leave the other 99% alone.

 

When I started caching, the approvers would ask you why you were putting a micro in an area where one could hide a larger cache. I have my thoughts as to why that changed, but I won't air them publicly.

I don't think it's any more complicated than the "ugly baby" issue. No one wants to hear that their baby is ugly. And the volunteer reviewers certainly don't want to be in the business of telling people that their babies are ugly.

 

Back when caching was new, and there weren't caches every 528 feet, all across the country, the rules were different than they are today. You used to not be allowed to create a power trail. I know cachers who were denied permission to place caches because the approver was concerned that they were creating a PT. You used to not be allowed to place caches under ANY bridge that had vehicle traffic on it. Approvers back in the day were called Reviewers, and, in the very early days, they actually did review caches they were approving. To be fair, their workload was a lot less than it is today. But if the rules said No Micros In The Woods, and that rule had stayed intact into present times, there'd be a whole lot less complaining about junk caches taking spaces that a better cache could occupy. If the rule that said No Power Trails had stayed intact, there'd be a whole lot less complaining about junk caches clogging notifications, pocket queries, etc.

 

I will say that if telling someone their baby is ugly is part of the job, and someone doesn't want to do that part, or any other part of the job, they shouldn't have taken the job. Approvers have no problem denying permission when someone wants to place a cache too near another cache. Or in any other way that violates the current rules. We have one approver locally to whom physical barriers that make it impossible to go from one cache directly to the next are not a good enough reason to give a 50' variance on the 528' rule for a cache. If the rules still said No Micros In The Woods, they'd be enforced.

 

And to all those who think difficult hides of tiny caches in the woods are somehow clever, I say any moron can hide a nano in the woods that's all but impossible to find. I've found nanos wired to pine tree branches. Want to impress someone? Hide an ammo can they can't find. THAT takes skill and talent. But it also takes effort.

 

Yes, things have changed a lot. The Guidelines are constantly updated. Numbers of finders and hiders has increased dramatically. Trackables used to travel, not "disappear". More people use apps on their phones than gps's.

 

But they are not called "approvers". They are Reviewers.

 

Why are we wandering so far off-topic in this thread?

B.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Pup Patrol

[+cerberus1]

Is there another reason for instant notification of new caches, other than the FTF hunt?

I've heard of people using notifications as a way to manually filter caches. Essentially, when they see a notification for a cache they might be interested in, they add that listing to a bookmark list. That way, they review each potential cache only once (when they receive the notification), and they don't even need to bother ignoring or filtering caches. If it's on the bookmark list, then they though it was interesting when they first saw it. If not, then they never see the listing again.

 

It isn't the way I play (I've never used notifications), but it is a way that some play. And it has nothing to do with the FTF hunt.

 

Okay. I've never heard of anyone doing it that way, but I'll accept that some people might. But I'd have to observe that if being inundated with a thousand new cache posts is objectionable to those players, perhaps the reasonable solution for everyone is that those individuals who filter at the email level modify their way of doing things, and leave the other 99% alone.

 

When I started caching, the approvers would ask you why you were putting a micro in an area where one could hide a larger cache. I have my thoughts as to why that changed, but I won't air them publicly.

I don't think it's any more complicated than the "ugly baby" issue. No one wants to hear that their baby is ugly. And the volunteer reviewers certainly don't want to be in the business of telling people that their babies are ugly.

 

Back when caching was new, and there weren't caches every 528 feet, all across the country, the rules were different than they are today. You used to not be allowed to create a power trail. I know cachers who were denied permission to place caches because the approver was concerned that they were creating a PT. You used to not be allowed to place caches under ANY bridge that had vehicle traffic on it. Approvers back in the day were called Reviewers, and, in the very early days, they actually did review caches they were approving. To be fair, their workload was a lot less than it is today. But if the rules said No Micros In The Woods, and that rule had stayed intact into present times, there'd be a whole lot less complaining about junk caches taking spaces that a better cache could occupy. If the rule that said No Power Trails had stayed intact, there'd be a whole lot less complaining about junk caches clogging notifications, pocket queries, etc.

 

I will say that if telling someone their baby is ugly is part of the job, and someone doesn't want to do that part, or any other part of the job, they shouldn't have taken the job. Approvers have no problem denying permission when someone wants to place a cache too near another cache. Or in any other way that violates the current rules. We have one approver locally to whom physical barriers that make it impossible to go from one cache directly to the next are not a good enough reason to give a 50' variance on the 528' rule for a cache. If the rules still said No Micros In The Woods, they'd be enforced.

 

And to all those who think difficult hides of tiny caches in the woods are somehow clever, I say any moron can hide a nano in the woods that's all but impossible to find. I've found nanos wired to pine tree branches. Want to impress someone? Hide an ammo can they can't find. THAT takes skill and talent. But it also takes effort.

 

Yes, things have changed a lot. The Guidelines are constantly updated. Numbers of finders and hiders has increased dramatically. Trackables used to travel, not "disappear". More people use apps on their phones than gps's.

 

But they are not called "approvers". They are Reviewers.

 

Why are we wandering so far off-topic in this thread?

B.

Yep, I agree.

Also, from when we first started, we were told (by a Reviewer) that they review and publish caches, not approve them.

[+narcissa]

Is there another reason for instant notification of new caches, other than the FTF hunt?

I've heard of people using notifications as a way to manually filter caches. Essentially, when they see a notification for a cache they might be interested in, they add that listing to a bookmark list. That way, they review each potential cache only once (when they receive the notification), and they don't even need to bother ignoring or filtering caches. If it's on the bookmark list, then they though it was interesting when they first saw it. If not, then they never see the listing again.

 

It isn't the way I play (I've never used notifications), but it is a way that some play. And it has nothing to do with the FTF hunt.

 

Okay. I've never heard of anyone doing it that way, but I'll accept that some people might. But I'd have to observe that if being inundated with a thousand new cache posts is objectionable to those players, perhaps the reasonable solution for everyone is that those individuals who filter at the email level modify their way of doing things, and leave the other 99% alone.

 

When I started caching, the approvers would ask you why you were putting a micro in an area where one could hide a larger cache. I have my thoughts as to why that changed, but I won't air them publicly.

I don't think it's any more complicated than the "ugly baby" issue. No one wants to hear that their baby is ugly. And the volunteer reviewers certainly don't want to be in the business of telling people that their babies are ugly.

 

Back when caching was new, and there weren't caches every 528 feet, all across the country, the rules were different than they are today. You used to not be allowed to create a power trail. I know cachers who were denied permission to place caches because the approver was concerned that they were creating a PT. You used to not be allowed to place caches under ANY bridge that had vehicle traffic on it. Approvers back in the day were called Reviewers, and, in the very early days, they actually did review caches they were approving. To be fair, their workload was a lot less than it is today. But if the rules said No Micros In The Woods, and that rule had stayed intact into present times, there'd be a whole lot less complaining about junk caches taking spaces that a better cache could occupy. If the rule that said No Power Trails had stayed intact, there'd be a whole lot less complaining about junk caches clogging notifications, pocket queries, etc.

 

I will say that if telling someone their baby is ugly is part of the job, and someone doesn't want to do that part, or any other part of the job, they shouldn't have taken the job. Approvers have no problem denying permission when someone wants to place a cache too near another cache. Or in any other way that violates the current rules. We have one approver locally to whom physical barriers that make it impossible to go from one cache directly to the next are not a good enough reason to give a 50' variance on the 528' rule for a cache. If the rules still said No Micros In The Woods, they'd be enforced.

 

And to all those who think difficult hides of tiny caches in the woods are somehow clever, I say any moron can hide a nano in the woods that's all but impossible to find. I've found nanos wired to pine tree branches. Want to impress someone? Hide an ammo can they can't find. THAT takes skill and talent. But it also takes effort.

 

Yes, things have changed a lot. The Guidelines are constantly updated. Numbers of finders and hiders has increased dramatically. Trackables used to travel, not "disappear". More people use apps on their phones than gps's.

 

But they are not called "approvers". They are Reviewers.

 

Why are we wandering so far off-topic in this thread?

B.

Yep, I agree.

Also, from when we first started, we were told (by a Reviewer) that they review and publish caches, not approve them.

 

It doesn't really matter what anyone thinks of power trails etc. We should be united in condemning accusatory, inflammatory drive-by posts that are written for no reason other than to stir the pot and hurt other geocachers. There is no need for posts like this. It should have been locked down immediately.

[+wmpastor]

 

...

But they are not called "approvers". They are Reviewers.

...

[/Quote]

 

But apparently they once were. If you go to the first pinned thread in the Off Topic forum, in the column "started by" it says "Keystone Approver."

[+dprovan]

Is there another reason for instant notification of new caches, other than the FTF hunt?

I have instant notifications enabled to see what new caches are published. I have no intention of running out to find them first.

 

Having said that, I accept that I'm the one responsible for what I get from the instant notifications, so I have only myself to blame if I get a lot of notifications I'm not really interested in.