Jump to content

Richard & Judy


Recommended Posts

I've yet to be accused of littering by anyone - and that includes all the "business people" that I work with.

 

We've had very little trouble with caches getting trashed since we started placing caches in Sept 01 (a total of 43 so far). I won't tempt fate by explaining our proximity to Mod Ant Central (Avebury) and previous media coverage, but these have not impacted our caches.

 

We could pretend that we don't exist and stay quiet, but the fact that there is already unprompted media interest shows that media articles will appear anyway.

 

Do you want the UK spokesman to be someone you don't trust (no-one particular in mind here icon_wink.gif)?

Don't you want the opportunity to guide this inevitable publicity?

Why not turn this into an opportunity to show how "respectable" we can be and how we can therefore be trusted with blanket land approvals?

 

The doubters are right that this will cause growth and that we may suffer "growing pains". In this scenario we have the opportunity to address the growing pains and turn them to our advantage: we can show our rate of growth, that this is a new and exciting sport which sponsors, land managers and the public should support.

 

Dave

Link to comment

My personal view is in agreement with the moderators here. If the Television company will produce a segment reguarding caching with or without one of us being involved it is almost certainly better that we are. I like the idea of new blood in this game, New faces are a good thing in my opinion but I am very understanding of the other arguments here too and agree advertising should be done in the correct manner. I am certain that if T&J, R&B & Moss T continue to handle matters here everything will turn out nice again, thankyou guys.

 

Its just a hunt for a lunch box, why be so serious!?! badgerslayer.gif

 

Dan Wilson - www.Buckscaching.co.uk

Link to comment

...some of them to my initial response, I have had a bit of a think as a result of them and have come to the following conclusions:

 

- I still think it is a Bad Idea to get involved too much in mass publicity, and my original post was only meant to convey that much and no more. Bad Idea but not a complete no-no. In order to do the job properly we need media-savvy people who can handle the sort of prats that the media are going to throw at us. The scottish radio episode is oh-so-fresh in my mind. We probably only have one or two such media-savvy people in our ranks and as far as I am aware they have not offered themselves up for slaughter sorry I mean interview.

 

- Tim and June do have a very valid point and I want to place on record my recognition of that fact. IF Channel Four are going to do a spot about geocaching anyway, then I suppose reluctantly I have to agree with them that we do the best we can with the opportunity, rather than tell them no and have them do it anyway. The old saying comes to mind about it being better to have them inside the tent peeing out than outside the tent peeing in. And believe me ladies and gents, the media are going to pee all over something, it is their job. icon_biggrin.gif

 

- To those who say we need new blood, I agree, but my contention is that this is not a good way to get it. I have been steadily introducing new people to caching over the last few months, by taking them out and showing them in an afternoon, what the experience is really like and what it is all about. You can NOT give this delivery in 5 minutes of TV airtime, any more than you can give someone a haircut over the phone! In order to grow the sport, each one of us needs to introduce new people, carefully and by personal contact. Don't say to me that the growth won't be fast enough that way, because it won't wash. If each one of us intoduces another person to the sport in the next month we will have doubled our size.

I need hardly remind you that at that growth rate, we would have exhausted the population of the planet long before 3 years were up. So no, the argument about needing media coverage to grow the sport I feel has little or no validity.

 

- To those who say these forums are too *****y or whatever the word is at the moment, I will be posting my feelings elsewhere and they will not be dealt with further on this post.

 

So now we come to answer Tim and June's question about what to do...

 

First we need to find out if there is anyone in this forum who is professionally competent to stand up to a possible grilling by two of the slickest professionals in the business. (Yes I mean R&J. Whatever you may think about them as personalities, there is not doubt they are aggressively good at their job, which is prising good media copy out of unwitting participants). Never ever ever make the mistake of thinking that the interviewer is on your side. They are not. They are on the side of their employer. They are on the side of the audience, who are slavering and baying for new blood every show. I know this because I am one of them. We (the interviewers) really don't give a toss about you, the interviewee. We do give a toss about getting the facts sometimes, but only in so far as it will enhance our reputation as an honest journalist who gets results. But even here, it is the employer and the viewers who are the people we do it for, and if people get hurt in the process, then so be it.

 

I watch the TV and time after time I see hapless victims who are totally unprepared for the professional onslaught that is ranged against them. I don't want it to happen to us. We *must* get the best advocates we can and they must be trained or at least well briefed to handle the media. If we don't, then we will end up regretting it.

 

Now, does anybody wanna step up to the plate?

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Link to comment

Those asterisks in my post above seem to be some sort of automated censorship system, since I did not put them in. I don't understand the problem with the word I used, being a perfectly respectable word when used in this context. I admit it is quite nasty when used in other contexts but this is a stupid idea, having a blind system that rules regardless of context.

 

The word I wished to convey was the one commonly used quite reasonably to describe certain types of argument. It was the one related to a female dog, which to my knowledge is quite harmless when used to describe this sort of thing. It is not the sort of thing you would call a lady, and such use would be quite rightly frowned upon. However I wasn't using it in any sort of controversial way.

 

Another example of such hitlerite censorship came to my notice about three months ago whereby the word p r i c k was blanked out in another forum. dadgum stupid really as the person who used it was mentioning something they had done to their finger!

 

In my opinion the people who set up these arbitrary non-contextual filters without regard to those of us who pride ourselves on the elegant use of the English language, are doing a great disservice to us all.

 

I also think they are as dangerous to the cause of free speech as those who like to quell open debate.

 

I also think they are afraid of something. I also think they are control freaks.

 

These are all my honestly held opinions, and I dare anyone to say I don't have the right to express them.

 

Can you tell I am annoyed yet?

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Link to comment

...does anyone know what other perfectly harmless words are also banned from here? Anyone discovered any?

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by MCL:

...does anyone know what other perfectly harmless words are also banned from here? Anyone discovered any?


 

swear words and words which could be taken as offence. Maybe slightly unfortunate in certain cases but with no doubt done for good reasons and best interests at heart...

 

Anyway, Back to the subject... icon_smile.gif

 

I'm sure a person who can take a good ribbing and still come up with a smile at the end of it would do a great job for us. Although I'm certain your right about what you say, I have never seen Richard & Judy 'Pick' on people. From what I remember of the show it is light hearted and would be good fun for whoever was involved.

 

Its just a hunt for a lunch box, why be so serious!?! badgerslayer.gif

 

Dan Wilson - www.Buckscaching.co.uk

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by MCL:

It was the one related to a female dog


 

Beause this is an international forum we have to consider the effect on what is said on an international scale.

 

In the USA the word used is certainly frowned upon, to say the least.

 

If GC.com is to remain available to all we maust ensure that we do not get banned by the family filters like "Net Nanny". There is nothing more sinister than that and do agree that the word you used, even when used in the worst of contexts is seen as not too harmfull in the UK.

 

Understand your feelings but hope that's helped to cool your frustration MCL. icon_wink.gif

 

Guess we should get back on topic now.

 

Tim & June (Winchester)

 

See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong ! icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by TreeBeard (Pid):

Couldnt agree more guys....Although the more bad people know about us the more inevitible it will be that caches get trashed, been proved time and time again.


HAS IT? Where is the evidence to support this statement?

 

99.99% of caches that get trashed are found by non-geocachers because they aren't hidden well enough.

 

Alex.

 

[This message was edited by Slytherin on March 26, 2003 at 12:26 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Slytherin:

99.99% of caches get trashed because they aren't hidden well enough.

Alex.


 

If this is true, then the 1436 that remain (GeocacheUK stats) must be the well hidden 0.01%

That means there must have been 14,358,564 trashed caches. That's an aweful lot of tupperware to go missing icon_biggrin.gif

 

John

 

Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

 

[This message was edited by Pharisee on March 26, 2003 at 12:56 AM.]

Link to comment

Sarah from Team Tate said:-

 

"As to attracting troublemakers - I do believe that following the broadcasts that we have had, we don't appear to have had any MAJOR trouble with trashed caches. (I know there have been some but maybe not due to the TV) and those who want to cause trouble for people don't appear to want to spend the time doing it to us!"

 

That's good to know! Probably best for someone who has a good responsible caching history to do it then. It would make a better interview for them, and hopefully a better "advert" for Geocaching.

 

Sarah

--

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Pharisee:

quote:
Originally posted by Slytherin:

99.99% of caches get trashed because they aren't hidden well enough.

Alex.


 

If this is true, then the 1436 that remain (GeocacheUK stats) must be the well hidden 0.01%

That means there must have been 14,358,564 trashed caches. That's an aweful lot of tupperware to go missing


 

'fraid you've misquoted Slytherin - he said that 99.99% of the caches THAT get trashed not 99.99% of caches get trashed!!! Sorry just couldn't let that one go!!!! icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Liz Codd:

'fraid you've misquoted Slytherin - he said that 99.99% of the caches THAT get trashed not 99.99% of caches get trashed!!! Sorry just couldn't let that one go!!!! icon_wink.gif


 

[This message was edited by Slytherin on March 26, 2003 at 12:26 AM.]

 

Ohhhh - what a give away! icon_biggrin.gif

 

Bear rescues a speciality!

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Chris n Maria:

quote:
Originally posted by Liz Codd:

'fraid you've misquoted Slytherin - he said that 99.99% of the caches THAT get trashed not 99.99% of caches get trashed!!! Sorry just couldn't let that one go!!!! icon_wink.gif


 

_[This message was edited by Slytherin on March 26, 2003 at 12:26 AM.] _

 

Ohhhh - what a give away! icon_biggrin.gif

 

Bear rescues a speciality!

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

 

Just in case some of our newer cachers don't know, you can change the 'posted time and date' to display correct UK time and UK date format if you so desire.

Go to the bottom of the forum page and 'click' on MyPop. Select the 'Preferences' tab, make the necessary changes and 'click' SUBMIT. Easy, peasy

 

John

 

Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

Link to comment

As you all know I said yes to appearing on telly.

The reason for this is. If it hadn’t been televised on the inside out program I would never had heard of GeoC and I'm so glad I did.

Lets make the most out of going onto this show as the program is going ahead any way weather we like it or not (which is often the way in telly)

I also we should have a experienced geocacher/s or even a family to chat about the sport as this will give a broad overview of our sport.

The Richard & Judy show is seen by people with families this I think is gr8, as it will help get families into the country side and away from the telly.

Lets get those weekend telly rating down. icon_wink.gif

 

To the moderators I think your doing a gr8 job thnx.

icon_biggrin.gif

 

Kids Caches and Mayhem what a day in the celtic tribal city.

Link to comment

One thing I like about GeoC is it’s friendly feeling.

Whist I understand this can get heated we still need to be civil to each other.

Swearing is derogatory to and does not make people feel good about themselves, so lets keep it clean after all GeoC does run a Cache in Trash out policy.

icon_wink.gif

 

Kids Caches and Mayhem what a day in the celtic tribal city.

Link to comment

I think too many people are assuming those of us saying "no" to R&J are saying "no" to new blood. That simply isn't true.

 

* I do want new people to start geocaching

but

* I don't think we're ready, structured or able to cope with a huge influx of numbers

 

Given that Cactus are going ahead with the feature, though, then it is absolutely essential we are represented with our most knowledgeable people, and preferably someone with a bit of media/journalistic sense, too. We've seen good publicity (Inside Out). We've seen bad publicity (that radio interview on, I think, BBC Scotland). In my mind I have a very clear opinion of how the interview could procede, but given that some people round here are far too scared of libel then I'll keep that one to myself! (I don't want to get into another *****ing session. Did that get starred out, too? Pathetic.)

 

IF you are going for mass publicity THEN you must be ready to accept an influx of new people. Clear guidelines on behaving responsibly. Clear guidelines on finding caches. VERY VERY clear guidelines on hiding caches.

 

I don't think having a large number of new cache finders is much of a problem (providing they respect the area, rehide the cache properly etc etc) - all's fine. What worries me more is having inexperienced people setting caches. Am I the only person round here who often feels worried, wary, conspicious about some cache locations? It worries me that I must be...

 

Geocaching is a great hobby and new blood is vital, but under the current ad-hoc arrangements it simply can't afford to grow exponentially.

 

Just be careful...

 

--

Seek and ye shall find (tupperware, ammo boxes, bears, free ISP CDs...)

Link to comment

Well, this has been a fascinating discussion. We started caching soon after the Inside Out programme, and have enjoyed every minute of it. But, I think this hobby/sport only appeals to the type of people who are likely to want to trudge through mud, rain, and have a real sense of adventure.

 

I am sure all you seasoned cachers know about the commitment involved (which I am only beginning to understand), which is a level much higher than most people are prepared to reach. I reckon if there is not too much publicity, you will get another batch of folks who are committed and considerate.

 

The ones who aren’t? They are likely to get bored, and will try and sell their GPS on eBay six months on. I hope I am not wrong on this.

 

Thank you to all of you for contributing to my new hobby!

 

A&S

Link to comment

I wish to vote for the TV coverage - after all it was "Inside Out" that alerted me to Geocaching. I thought about it long and hard before parting with my money for a GPS, decided it was for me and have never looked back. Without the TV program I, along with countless others, would have not known about it.

 

Having read the postings, it would appear that several wish this to be a "closed shop" with only invited friends and guest becoming involved. That will be the death of the "sport", over time it will become stale and uninteresting - it needs new blood, new life and above all new caches.

 

John & Gill

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Wronskian:

* I don't think we're ready, structured or able to cope with a huge influx of numbers


To give an idea of the kind of numbers we're talking about, I've done a quick back-of-an-envelope calculation.

 

I reckon about 100,000 people must have seen the Inside Out documentary (can anyone confirm this?), which resulted in about 100 new recruits. Richard and Judy get 2 million viewers, which suggests a resulting influx of 2,000 new cachers. Given that there are currently about 400 active cachers in the UK, this means our numbers would increase sixfold overnight. Which would be fine, if these were 2,000 intelligent people oozing with common sense. But we're talking about Richard and Judy viewers here, people! 'Nuff said.

 

SimonG.org - now with added blog!

Link to comment

quote:
- To those who say we need new blood, I agree, but my contention is that this is not a good way to get it.

 

Just thought I would describe how we found out about geocaching....

 

I had been reading a piece on the BBC news website, about "book-crossing" (www.bookcrossing.com), and found a link on there to gc.com........

 

Having looked at caches in the area, I located one nearby, read the notes, decoded the clue.

 

Without GPS, I dropped in one day, spending about 10 or 15 minutes looking for the cache. Sadly, I was looking in the wrong place, there were TWO of the item described in the clue, and I was looking near the wrong one!

 

I managed to borrow a GPS, and with a 10 minute window available (had to get home) my 2 kids & I looked. Of course, the GPS ws setup wrong (OSGB, not WGS84) so we still had problems

 

So I emailed Tim & June, and ended up having a nice chat on the phone. The upshot was that we arranged to meet on site, where they gave us a few tips, and we finally found our first cache!

 

So, we were not introduced by another "member", but happened to find it via the net.

 

Of course, the number of people you will attract like that is quite small, compared to the number you will attract via a TV piece... and in the latter case, they will happen suddenly.

 

So the important thing is that we need to be READY for the influx.... be welcoming, help them understand what is expected of them (ie the correct ettiquette), encourage them to find a load of caches before hiding one (explaining why...) etc

 

After the last bit of TV exposure, several newcomers felt a bit "alienated".... maybe we need to have a "welcome to newcomers" thread running BEFORE they arrive?

 

Paul

 

 

Noone in their right mind would place a cache THERE....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Zaxx:

The ones who aren’t? They are likely to get bored, and will try and sell their GPS on eBay six months on. I hope I am not wrong on this.


 

It's interesting to note that even people regarded as seasoned cachers drop out of the community from time to time. Looking down some of the stats in relation to first and most recent caching trip is quite interesting. As has been said the commitment in terms of time is quite high, so we have had a big gap in our cache finding because our other commitments have needed more time. However I do tend to pop out on lunch breaks and do one or two. (Anyone who wants to place a few caches within 10-15 minutes of Havant would be much appreciated. icon_biggrin.gif )

 

There is also some fluidity between Geocaching and other related pastimes like the Degree Confluence project, Minute War and Geodashing, so people start out with Geocaching, and then find they enjoy one of the related games more and spend time doing that.

 

Regards,

 

Richard

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Wronskian:

I think too many people are assuming those of us saying "no" to R&J are saying "no" to new blood. That simply isn't true.

 

 

...Am I the only person round here who often feels worried, wary, conspicious about some cache locations? It worries me that I must be...

 

Geocaching is a great hobby and new blood is vital, but under the current ad-hoc arrangements it simply can't afford to grow exponentially.

 

Just be careful...

 


 

Sorry to post a "me too" but I couldn't have put it more eloquently than Wronskian. So, for the record, I'm applying for citizenship of the land of Wronsky - if they'll let me in icon_wink.gif

 

=====

There's no such thing as a free lunchbox!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Slytherin:

 

99.99% of caches that get trashed are found by non-geocachers because they aren't hidden well enough.


 

I'm always amazed that Major Oak survives as well as it does, given that other caches that, IMO, were better hidden and further off a very well beaten track seem to go missing.

 

I suppose that could be tempting fate, but Major Oak has existed for quite a while, very close to a very well used footpath and often in plain view of the path!

 

Of the caches that I've placed, one went when a clearance team went through (being a nature resurve, the clearance was more on the context of a hatchet job, IMO) one got bulldozed under when a new path was put through, one has been taken twice (despite my care at making sure no one saw me place the second cache and hiding it away from the original site - the second replacement survived two weeks of not advertising it's replacement - We'll see if it survives the weekend!) and my latest effort was apparently found by kids scrambling round the rocks, but I can't find the one called "A Walk to Visit Carl" even though I've seen all the picture clues and searched high and low amongst the rocks where it's supposed to be. frog.gif (Hey - anyone notice the new Graemlin?)

 

--... ...--

Morseman

Link to comment

We’ve been here at least three times since I started reading and contributing to this forum in the latter part of last year. When I spoke out against publicity then I was in a minority of two or three. Now it seems that the needle has swung the other way. Probably because of all the negativity we’ve had in the last few weeks, the majority of you appear to be against actively publicising our pastime.

 

No one has said that we should discourage ‘new blood’; just that we should let them ‘find their own way in’ and welcome them with open arms when they arrive (as I was welcomed and as others have been since). This just has to be the way to go. A large influx of inexperienced and uncontrollable ‘enthusiasm’ will not be good, for us, as established geocachers of for the newcomers themselves. It’s natural that having found a cache or two you want to place a few yourself and we do not need a lot new caches being planted that are, through inexperience, ill conceived or badly placed. We’ve already discussed ‘premature’ cache setting in other threads so I’m going no further on that subject here.

 

Is it set in stone that Richard & Judy WILL discuss geocaching or is it still uncertain?

 

If it is certain that they will be ‘doing a piece’ then I’m with those of you that believe that we MUST be represented and that representation must also be of the highest standard. We cannot afford another piece of negative publicity. IMHO we need a mature and responsible ‘couple’, well-behaved and enthusiastic children would be desirable but not essential (dog… optional). Above all they must be experienced geocachers who are articulate, ‘unflappable’ and can ‘think on their feet’ fast enough to stay ahead of R & J. Fortunately, being able to spell would not be a requirement or that would sideline just about everybody who contributes to this forum icon_wink.gif.

Of course, they must be willing to share the stage with R & J.

 

That’s a VERY tall order. Do we have anyone that fits the bill??

 

John

 

Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

Link to comment

Forgive me if this has been covered before (there is only so much archive reading one can do... icon_smile.gif)

 

One argument seems to be that inexperienced people may plant a lot of 'lower quality' caches, could you not use the user-stats to 'allow' new caches, e.g. got to find x number first?

 

Which sort of leads me to another question, what stops people logging finds even if they didn't go anywhere near it? Maybe I have just answered my first question icon_frown.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by DeeTeeDee:

Forgive me if this has been covered before (there is only so much archive reading one can do... icon_smile.gif)

 

One argument seems to be that inexperienced people may plant a lot of 'lower quality' caches, could you not use the user-stats to 'allow' new caches, e.g. got to find x number first?


This has been discussed. I'll give you a link once I can find it.

 

quote:
Which sort of leads me to another question, what stops people logging finds even if they didn't go anywhere near it?

It's been known to happen. It only really matters if a cache has gone missing and the false find suggests otherwise. Fortunately, there aren't many people about so utterly inadequate that they feel the need to do that sort of thing.

 

SimonG.org - now with added blog!

Link to comment

As the instigator of the whole Inside Out feature by getting in contact with the BBC, perhaps it is only fitting that I give a few reasons why I am in favour of publicity. These have already been summed up by others, but I think I should also mention them here, even if it seems repetitious, as it clarifies my position.

 

The "fad" debate - this activity will not be killed by it becoming a fad. If it sees a huge rise in popularity, followed by a big dip, I see no lasting harm. An influx of temporary cachers may seem overwhelming, but remember that those who do not find the pastime suits them will leave just as quickly. We will be left with those who are truly interested in caching.

 

Why should geocaching become a sort of pseudo-private club, where only those "in the know" should be able to experience it? Are we really at the point where we can consider ourselves superior to others to the extent hat we can dicate what they will, and won't be able to take a constructive part in?

 

The "trash" debate - I have seen no indicator of caches being trashed because of geocaching being shown on TV. I have, however, seen a lot of people join and enjoy the activity because of it... some of whom I have spoken to. Sure, we've had a few trolls, but then, every forum has them, and frankly we should deal with it and move on.

 

At this point, I should ask everyone to think *which* cache would be most likely to be trashed? My money would be on the Inside Out cache, which is directly linked to from the BBC page... where most people would have followed the feature to. Yet that cache has not had such detrimental activity.

 

People *will* say negative things about the pastime - I know I've joked about the geekiness aspect of it. I'm sure many of you have with your friends. Doesn't mean nowt, IMHO, as I still find it enjoyable, however trainspottery it may seem to others.

 

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

soapbox.gif

Link to comment

I decided to take a few weeks off from caching and GC.com after both my caches were trashed.(Niether to do with publicity, just one of those things)

 

I come back on to read the forum and how things have changed.

 

I geocache for very personal reasons. I do it as a solitary hobby, rarely taking anyone with me.

 

I personally welcome anyone who wants to have a go,and welcome the imput that they give to these forums.

 

I have a great deal of respect for the mods on here, doing a job that I would not have the patience or time to do properly.

 

The R&J thing is not the huge issue that people are trying to make it out to be. My mother watches R&J, she is 84. My ex watches R&J she is 40something! My son and daughter would not watch it if you paid them, they are 22 and 25.

 

I would guess that the target audience is probably mostly female and between 30 and 80+.

 

Are these the type of people who are going to go out and buy a GPS and rush round trashing caches, or are these the type of people who may think that this is a nice excuse to go for a walk in the fresh air with a reward at the end?

 

Bertie Bloggs the cache trasher is not in my opinion the R&J target audience.

 

I just asked my night security man if he ever watched the show and he said "Yes but it is a bit of a womans thing"

 

What thug is going to be sat watching channel 4 at 5pm?

 

Sorry if this offends Cactus TV but it does sound like a lightweight magazine show and not hard hitting journalism.

 

JMHO

 

The Merman

 

I woke this morning and my boat was not rocking...for one horrid moment I thought I lived in a house!

Link to comment

Wronsky has the view I would most agree with here.

 

It can be dangerous to court the media and it can be worse to ignore it.

 

If I were going to media with geocaching I wouldn't start with prime time TV - I don't believe it is appropriate. Dare I say - "ideas above our station"

 

But, we are where we are and lets go from here - find a good ambassador and discuss the idea with Cactus.

 

Lance

It's dark and we're wearing sunglasses.

Link to comment

Here a question that I do not think anyone has raised.

With the most caches hidden being last July, 135 with 230 active cachers. Lets say at July this year there are 2300 active cachers then that’s 1350 new caches that would be placed.

 

Ok it’s just a possible scenario, but who approves the caches in the UK and could they cope properly.

Would they be prepared to do it. It would be a huge job and has to be done fast.

Would we need more approvers.?

Who would they be?

 

Before it gets on National TV these Questions HAVE to be addressed.

 

Keith( The Spokes)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The Spokes:

Here a question that I do not think anyone has raised.

With the most caches hidden being last July, 135 with 230 active cachers. Lets say at July this year there are 2300 active cachers then that’s 1350 new caches that would be placed.


I wouldn't worry too much. There aren't that many GPSr in the country to sell to 2300 people.

 

Would take a month or so to get the stock in to supply that many people.

 

-

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Wronskian:

What worries me more is having inexperienced people setting caches. Am I the only person round here who often feels worried, wary, conspicious about some cache locations? It worries me that I must be...


 

No you are not the only one. So don't be worried that you might be..

 

quote:

Geocaching is a great hobby and new blood is vital, but under the current ad-hoc arrangements it simply can't afford to grow exponentially.

 


 

Yes indeed. The new blood can easily come from personal introductions, and it should. In fact I love introducing new people to the sport. It is, to me, part *of* the sport.

 

Someone mentioned about geocaching becoming a secretive club. I've got news for them... It already *was*. When it started, with only the one original person, thats exactly what it was. The question becomes, therefore, how far away from this original state should it be allowed to drift.

 

Now, I think that the way it was about 6 months ago, with a global website, but relatively low profile, with people mainly being introduced by friends already in it, was a maintainable equilibrium. There were plenty of caches to do. (lets face it, the highest cachers here have not done them all yet!) There were new people being brought in by those who knew they would probably take to it and be responsible and respectful. There are people that I know who I would *not* introduce to caching because, frankly I don't trust them. Maybe someone else will, but at least I won't have them on my conscience.

 

Further, there were new caches being placed, by new people coming in (I was one of those myself).

I was taught by the person who introduced me what was the right and wrong way to set caches and what was acceptable and not acceptable in terms of contents/locations etc etc. Being taught by a friend is much more likely to result in a cacher who follows the rules than being directed by a TV programme to a set of guidelines on a website.

 

Please don't think I am saying that the new people who came in via other means are going to be untrustworthy, unreliable, rulebreaking vagrants, because if you think that, then you are missing my point. My point is that those avenues run the *risk* of attracting such people, whereas the personal introduction method virtually eliminates that risk. I tend to side with the idea of minimal risk.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Now, Geocaching in this country is headed for a stormy time. By this I mean in terms of land access, and attack from other groups who don't like what we do. And I don't at the moment see a clear way out. Trust me, folks, the past episodes of the Mod Ants etc are going to come back to haunt us. Thats a promise.

 

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Don't say I didn't warn you.

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Link to comment

...I have posted one such solution in the other thread (about their resignation). I suppose in hindsight I should have posted it here, but it seemed relevant to both threads.

 

Another solution is to explain to the TV company that since we are so young and unformed here in the UK, that we need to put certain infrastructure in place before we can handle a Richard-and-Judy spot. So maybe if we asked them to give us six months to get something sorted out, they would understand and put us on ice. The prospect of getting a better deal in six months would probably swing it with them.

 

In the meantime we have a chance to find our feet a bit more and develop some ways of dealing with the outcome of such a publicity event.

 

Yet another solution would be to say we can't provide anyone to do live, but would be able to do something prerecorded (like the Inside Out thing was) From the record so far, it seems prerecorded = Things go pretty much OK but live = things may not go so well.

 

Hows that for a couple of sensible suggestions?

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Link to comment

I would go along with what MCL has stated above .....

 

I can't help feeling if this had been a poll with a simple Yes/No/Don't Care answer the T&J thread probably wouldn't have appeared which is a shame but perhaps a lesson for the future.....

 

Somedays you are a pigeon and others you are a statue !

Link to comment

We think that publicity on National TV is a VERY bad idea.

 

However, IF they are going to do it anyway, we want to be at our most 'responsible'.

 

For us this means ‘Tim and June’

 

We are sure there are others just as good as T&J its just that we have met T&J face to face several times, so T&J please re-consider.

 

Tech-no notice

Link to comment

I've been scratching my head (and other places) for some time, trying to decide what the answer is: to publicise or not.

 

I'm STILL not sure what the answer is...

 

My main worry is that, as the sport grows, more and more people would like to place caches. But the big question is going to be WHERE?

 

I am always trying to think of places to place a cache:

- it needs to be a place that others might like to visit (otherwise the cache "value" is low")

- it needs to have some "privacy", so that not only won't it be found by casual passers by, but also the finders have somewhere to go

- it needs to be "ok"... in other words in a legit location (FC woods are out... )

 

...and to meet all the above, there are not a HUGE number of locations....

 

It's very easy to say "yes, we need more & more caches".... but where are they going to go, whilst still being worthwhile?

 

2 weekends ago, Michael & I placed a new cache: initially, we followed the adjacent (public) path over the motorway, and along for a bit. It's actually a lovely walk, with plenty of potential for hiding a cache, but for one minor detail: the path goes though the estate of a private house. We both agreed it was a lovely location, but also agreed "no way would we THINK about planting a cache there".

 

I am also aware that at least one other cache of ours is in a similar predicament: the land on which it placed, whilst adjacent to a public path, is actually deemed to be "private property".... but my judgement call on that one said it would be "ok". Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong.

 

But I could easily imagine someone with less understanding placing a cache where one should definitely not be placed.

 

Which means that, sooner or later someone (probably an innocent "newbie") *will* place a cache in a stupid place, the press will find out about it (after a kid has injured themselves on a knife they found in the cache, or a landowner finds one and goes OTT because inexperienced visitors have damaged the area....), the whole thing will be blown out of all proportion..... and we ALL end up as losers.

 

I think THAT is MY main worry....

 

Paul

 

 

Noone in their right mind would place a cache THERE....

 

[This message was edited by Team Blitz on March 27, 2003 at 08:13 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Nia:

However, IF they are going to do it anyway, we want to be at our most 'responsible'.


 

(assuming people actually consider me to be "responsible....)

 

Just before anyone suggests it: I *have* considered offering to go on TV to "put our case", but decided not to, simply because I know that it is something that I would NOT do well.

 

I'll just have to find fame some other way!

 

Paul

 

 

Noone in their right mind would place a cache THERE....

 

[This message was edited by Team Blitz on March 27, 2003 at 08:25 AM.]

Link to comment

i am very new to geocaching, i have only found four caches and i have introduced one person to the sport.

i feel that as a 'newbie' i should at least say a few words with regard to the future of my new found pastime. whilst i agree that the moderators do a brilliant job (T&J were very welcoming amongst others when i made my first posts on the forum ) and i have to say that MCL makes a lot of sense in what he says , sorry but thats how i feel. we need to be very careful how we portray ourselves and i think that the R+J show is the wrong vehicle for this. i do not consider this to be a 'serious' programme,if we have to use the power of television to inform the general public about the sport, would we not get better mileage from a programme such as COUNTRYFILE which is a well produced programme which champions less mainstream pursuits with a great deal of professionalism (IMHO)

the comments i have made are just my opinion and nothing else but i felt i had to say something and make my feelings known because i would hate to see this great sport end up being maligned

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...