Attention Jeremy and Geocaching.com

August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by nincehelser:

quote:
Originally posted by solohiker:
I would like to see this hobby run more like a business instead of being a business run like a hobby.

Agreed. At this point, I don't intend on renewing my "premium" membership, or spending any more money on geocaching.com items.

Thankfully there are alternatives.

George

Better watch what you say. I hear that some people said some things and then got locked out of the forums. Not me I think Jeremy is the greatest thing ever. He is so smart I am in awe of him. Keep up the great work Jeremy. Mopar can you make sure Jeremy see's my post .

Thanks

T man

2.1k · August 13, 2003

Am I seeing things? Thadeus Jones, just made a post and he still shows "0" for his post count.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

9.4k · August 13, 2003

That's the prize for being the first one to Brown-nose Jeremy on page 3 of a given thread.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

2.1k · August 13, 2003

heck if it would help to remove one of my digits....

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.6k · August 13, 2003

Would that be an index finger or middle finger you would like removed?

August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
That's the prize for being the first one to Brown-nose Jeremy on page 3 of a given thread.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ihazeltine/bandbass.gif

Lmao!!

2.1k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Would that be an index finger or middle finger you would like removed?

Whichever is showing...

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.4k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:
Such an optimist. We'd then just continue arguing about other aspects of the game...

Who's the optimist now?

Anyway, I'll add support to Team Misguided's comments. I've been approving for Michigan for a bit now and virtuals are the biggest hassle in the whole derned world. For everyone. Why bother? Just split them out.

If you guys want to argue amongst yourselves, that's fine by me My advice to everyone for the time being is to get to know your approver a bit via email or whatever to find out what their POV on the subject is (if you're not sure who your approver is... place a traditional first and see who approves it) and THEN try to be sensitive to the fact that the plaque you hold so dearly may be terribly disinteresting to the rest of the world.

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Saving geocaches - one golf ball at a time.

1.3k · August 14, 2003

I personally don't see a problem with virtuals that follow the guidelines. I placed one, and another cacher told me he had planned to use the site as part of a multi. I told him I would archive it if he wished to use the site as one of his stages, but never heard back from him. Anyway, the reason (from what I gather) that virts might not be approved is because they might block a more prefferable physical cache from being placed at the area. I have a simple solution that will open up a whole new aspect of the sport, and allow virtuals to be placed anywhere. Remove the guidelines against virts completely. Let them be placed no matter how lame, even if there is ample room for a physical cache, with one stipulation. If another cacher places a physical within .01 mile, the virt is automatically archived. Automatically, without ever being viewed by an approver. This takes the approvers out of the equation, and frees them from criticism, as they have nothing to do with the archival. And that new aspect of the game? VirtBusting. The practice of usurping virt locations by cleverly placing a physical where a virt was previously placed. Virt owners will have no problem with this, because if they really wanted to keep the location for themselves, they would have placed a physical there to begin with. There, problem solved.

"Chock full of essential vitamins and waypoints"

1.6k · August 14, 2003

Now that is worthy of it's own forum thread, and about 3000 hits, in let's say... 48 hours...

1.3k · August 14, 2003

Consider it done.

"Chock full of essential vitamins and waypoints"

August 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:
I have a simple solution that will open up a whole new aspect of the sport, and allow virtuals to be placed anywhere. Remove the guidelines against virts completely. Let them be placed no matter how lame, even if there is ample room for a physical cache, with one stipulation. If another cacher places a physical within .01 mile, the virt is automatically archived. Automatically, without ever being viewed by an approver. This takes the approvers out of the equation, and frees them from criticism, as they have nothing to do with the archival. And that new aspect of the game? VirtBusting. The practice of usurping virt locations by cleverly placing a physical where a virt was previously placed.

And you don't predict any repercussions or retribution from this? Or is that what you are hoping for; to open up yet another 'new aspect' of the sport?

2.1k · August 14, 2003

How about if virts are going to be allowed and moved to their own section like benchmarking as mentioned numerous times before, then let them fall under their own rule of spacing. Once again, have completely different approvers for virtuals as well. Put a cap also on how many virtuals a person can place, or Limit it to premium members. Maybe some people who aren't premium members that like virts will become premium members. That way, Geocaching can remain that definitive sport of hunting a cache (container). Then you could have offsets for the premium members with all the other types, like virts, locationless, benchmarking and etc. Another way to offer more for the premium members and support a lot of what is already being done at no charge.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

2.3k · August 14, 2003

The choir is singing, but is anyone listening??

---------------------------------------------------

Free your mind and the rest will follow

1.3k · August 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox:
And you don't predict any repercussions or retribution from this? Or is that what you are hoping for; to open up yet another 'new aspect' of the sport?

Nah. What retribution? If you have no business placing a virt when there is room for a physical, you have no reason to be upset.

"Chock full of essential vitamins and waypoints"

1.6k · August 14, 2003

Well at least the people of The United States can and do get there Virtuals approved. It seems that it is impossible to get one approved in Canada . Even when the "approver" has been told that to place a traditional , or multi , or micro in the area would lead to the possible arrest of the placers and or the cacher that tries to visit such a place. We have tried to explain our virtual submission many times and keep being turned down . If one does a find nearest caches of this type of the one we are trying to have approved you will see they are all in Michigan . With only one within 100 miles actually in Canada. Feel free to log in and see what our Approver is saying about our many attempts to place a cache.

Training Day

Oh BTW .. We have also been first finders on a Virtual that was just approved in the State of Indiana in the U.S. It was approved , no problem.

that one is located here if you would like to check it out as well.

Is there Anybody Out There ?

We personally enjoy a good virtual cache. We like

to hunt and find all types of caches. We do understand the need for certain rules and criterias for placing Virtuals as they can become out of hand but when one conforms to the basic ones.. like interest.. historical Value ... and can a physical cache be SAFELY placed on the spot, Approvers should approve them . Not make it impossible for seasoned Cachers to Place such a Cache.

Thanks to anyone who cares enough to read this rant , and check out the links to which I refer.

Team Tigger International

1.2k · August 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:

quote:
Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox:
And you don't predict any repercussions or retribution from this? Or is that what you are hoping for; to open up yet another 'new aspect' of the sport?

Nah. What retribution? If you have no business placing a virt when there is room for a physical, you have no reason to be upset.

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/96920_1100.jpg

"Chock full of essential vitamins and waypoints"

Lots of people get upset that have no reason to get upset, trust me! LOL.

I can forsee a backlash of traditional caches that bump virtuals suddenly coming up missing, some people are just like that. If the circumstances were reversed it would be the same thing, if ammo cans were banned, it would cause controversy, if these pitiful tupperware containers were banned from the sport, same thing. It just seems everyone thinks their little opinion should be the one everyone should go by, especially if they can get one or two others to agree with them.

It's all Geocaching to me.

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

August 14, 2003

I can see this scenario erupting . . .

A virt is bumped by a newly placed traditional nearby. Then the traditional is archived. The placer of the virt is going to scream for the virt to re-instituted.

Because the approver is removed from the process, there will be no one to monitor a situation where someone would "place" traditionals just to archive the virts, then archive the traditional.

Fro.

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

1.2k · August 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:
I can see this scenario erupting . . .

A virt is bumped by a newly placed traditional nearby. Then the traditional is archived. The placer of the virt is going to scream for the virt to re-instituted.

Because the approver is removed from the process, there will be no one to monitor a situation where someone would "place" traditionals just to archive the virts, then archive the traditional.

Fro.

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Another aspect I did not think of....

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

August 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Breaktrack:
I can forsee a backlash of traditional caches that bump virtuals suddenly coming up missing, some people are just like that.

Placing a traditional cache with the intent of causing the existing virtual cache to be archived is an act of antagonism. It is not unreasonable to predict that those who act in such a manner will 'reap what they sow'.

August 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
I can see Bubba Caches viewpoint about inconsistency. Even though I've only been around for a couple months at this and only, what, 35 finds, I have seen a couple of virtuals listed which I would say do not fit in the guidelines. One being a virtual of a cell phone antenna that looks like a tree. To me, that's not unusual. I've seen several of them before.

Just to clarify, that is not a virtual cache; that one is a "Locationless Cache". They are currently not being approved.

A locationless cache is basically: "Hey, if you see something that looks like this, log it as a find....".

Virtual caches are specific single items at a fixed location.

Virtuals, like traditional caches, do range from the very good to the very poor. I have found some that I thought were excellent, others that were not only lame, they don't meet the current requirements. Just like traditional caches.

I haven't seen a locationless cache that I thought was worth the time.

Dave_W6DPS

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

2.7k · August 14, 2003

Yea the POWERS have won. They have scared the GEO'S PTBinto believing that virtuals will be the only way of Caching. So lets get rid of the virtuals so we can fill the world full of McD toys. What a way to end the overcrowing of landfills, spread the junk all over the place.

If one of my virtuals get busted, despite their local popularity, I won't quit the game but will go on a collection binge of old ammo cans. And put all the junk in the landfill!!

Tahosa - Dweller of Mountain Tops.

August 14, 2003

I also believe the approvers are very inconsistent in the approval process.

I had a virtual denied because it would prevent a physical from being placed near the site. I would have “locked” a .1 mile radius in the area by placing the 20th cache in 7850 square miles! RIDICULOUS!

If that wasn’t insulting enough, the same approver allows two lousy virtuals in my hometown. One is in a public park (I guess the area is locked to traditionals now) and one that you can’t get to because access is physically PADLOCKED CLOSED!

Nice work.

I haven’t had these problems since I started hunting Benchmarks.

2.1k · August 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Dave_W6DPS:

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
I can see Bubba Caches viewpoint about inconsistency. Even though I've only been around for a couple months at this and only, what, 35 finds, I have seen a couple of virtuals listed which I would say do not fit in the guidelines. One being a virtual of a cell phone antenna that looks like a tree. To me, that's not unusual. I've seen several of them before.

Just to clarify, that is not a virtual cache; that one is a "Locationless Cache". They are currently not being approved.

A locationless cache is basically: "Hey, if you see something that looks like this, log it as a find....".

Virtual caches are specific single items at a fixed location.

Virtuals, like traditional caches, do range from the very good to the very poor. I have found some that I thought were excellent, others that were not only lame, they don't meet the current requirements. Just like traditional caches.

I haven't seen a locationless cache that I thought was worth the time.

Dave_W6DPS

_My two cents worth, refunds available on request._ (US funds only)

No it was a virtual cache....there were coordinates you had to go to and report the "unusual item that doesn't fit in" as well as a sign that was there...none the less, it was approved in the last couple months....

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

38.2k · August 14, 2003

quote:
No it was a virtual cache....there were coordinates you had to go to and report the "unusual item that doesn't fit in" as well as a sign that was there...none the less, it was approved in the last couple months....

Yep, this was a virtual and probably should't have been approved. It is pretty lame. We had a similar one in NJ, placed before the crackdown. The owner eventually archived it because he eventually decided that it was lame, and not worthy of a cache.

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

1.2k · August 14, 2003

Wait a minute...... Brian, and Brian????????

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

38.2k · August 14, 2003

quote:
Wait a minute...... Brian, and Brian

You got me. Woodster Outdoors is really my sock pupper account!

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

1.2k · August 14, 2003

Wow, I had no idea any one person could actually operate so many sock puppet accounts so well!!!! LOL.

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

August 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Breaktrack:
Wow, I had no idea any one person could actually operate so many sock puppet accounts so well!!!! LOL.

Looks like some folks have to use sock puppets. They have been banned from the site otherwise. I love the way the site is run. If someone points out an inconsistency in the site policy instead of addressing it we'll just ban the user.

quote:
Originally posted by Grajek:
If only there was a way to let all GeoCachers know how GC.com felt about Virtuals. Some type of medium that would reach all GeoCachers and convey that virtuals would most likely be dis-approved. Any help on this? I am drawing a blank. Oh well maybe it can't be done. Guess people will have to continue to read the fictious guidelines and waste thier time. Find out the hard way. That is probably better. Silly me, what was I thinking.

There's the offensive remark. How scandalous, let's ban him.

Way to go, Jeremy...One more paying customer(me) is closing his account.

--

Not Necessarily Interesting News

[This message was edited by Team Bohica on August 14, 2003 at 11:39 AM.]

2.1k · August 14, 2003

Can't be a sock puppet as I can't even pronounce BrianSnat's last name...lol

I wouldn't regard the cache as lame. It was different and to many it might be really unusual. The cache placer is a great person and has wonderful other caches in the area. My statement was on the inconsistency, whether it's one approver or more. What one will let go, another might not. Should it of been approved? Probably not along with the talk that has been going on about virts, Jeremy's statement(s), as well as ones from some of the approvers. I knew the answer to the cache when it was first placed, but I did not bother to do it till I was down that way, which is only about 5 miles or so from my house. I just never went down that way or had my camera or GPS with me to complete it.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

9.4k · August 15, 2003

I thought I was Brian's sock puppet account!

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

2.1k · August 15, 2003

You maybe, but I'm his sock "pupper" account...lol

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

3.5k · August 16, 2003

Grajek was not banned.

Please see this thread.

September 15, 2003

Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
I have seen a couple of virtuals listed which I would say do not fit in the guidelines. One being a virtual of a cell phone antenna that looks like a tree. To me, that's not unusual. I've seen several of them before.

GC8785 That tree looks so fake!!

1.4k · September 15, 2003

I agree that there is inconsistency in the approval process. Caches are approved by people, and people are inconsistent. It's part of our nature.

Like many others, I'd like to see virtuals and locationless caches brought back, not as they were, but as a different game.

As much as I like virtuals, they're not really caches. I'd like to see the currently listed virtuals and locationless caches extracted from the current database and used to seed two new databases. There would still need to be guidelines for the new games, but they could be relaxed a bit due to the fact that they would not be considered the same game any longer.

Geocaching purists would get what they want - true "caches," and find counts that reflect only true "caches." Virtual and locationless fans would get what they want also. Groundspeak would be able to attract and keep more users, rather than driving them off to N@vic@che or other sites. Everyone would win.

Just my 2 cents.

2.5k · September 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
I just don't need to see every statue on the planet as a virtual cache. I did some in Austin where I just walked away scratching my head wondering why I was brought there by a cacher.

I can honestly say that I have found more traditional caches where I felt this way than virtual caches where I felt this way.

1.6k · September 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
I just don't need to see every statue on the planet as a virtual cache. I did some in Austin where I just walked away scratching my head wondering why I was brought there by a cacher.

I can honestly say that I have found more traditional caches where I felt this way than virtual caches where I felt this way.

Don't think I can agree with that.

I have a humble suggestion that we allow (or even enourage the use of Virts, where they are the only legal alternative) and dump them where they are not.

My problem with a lot of virts is that they seem pretty arbitrary (go to statue X and email me the last word on line 3 of the inscription).

I would rather just have someone post coordinates and descriptions for cool statues, etc in the area they live in so that when I go to their town, I can find these (my own private tour of the city). Leave the silly requirements for some other game.

_____________

"Half this game is ninety percent mental." Danny Ozark

September 18, 2003

lets see I have had a 15 foot tall memorial

in the center of a group of memorials for all war vetrans. It was turned down. 2 Firefighter memorials were turned down . BUT They did ok a piece of the cable from the Golden Gate bridge

so I guess 1 out of 4 wasn't bad. My favorite was a big rock with a persons name spraypainted

on it saying George loves nancy . Now that was a GREAT virtual.

1.2k · September 19, 2003

Is that sarcasm I hear dripping???? LOL.

"Afghanistan was a battle. Iraq was a battle. The war goes on."

August 22, 2004

Firstly, I don't see why virts can't be listed seperately as are benchmarks. I believe this would solve alot of the problems mentioned, though being new here I can't say for certain. As for locationless caches I can see these being a real benefit in research purposes with all sorts of possibilities the search for geological oddities and such.

As for the approval process I don't see why there can't be some sort of working arrangement where an approver could ask for another cacher who lives in the area to check whether or not a cache is suitable. I'm in the middle of doing this for another cacher at present. The approver wasn't satisfied with the cache, the cache owner whom I had met a week or so before sent me an email and asked me if I lived in the area of his cache and asked if I would look at the cache and present a for or against to the cache approver. Admitedly I'll not get the FTF award but who cares, there's another cache in my area and for me that's a good thing(I [expletive deleted] hate making Martha comments). I'd also agree with cache ratings by the finder to help reduce the number of what-a-waste-of-time caches.

Having other cachers who live within the area of a cache helping to determine the suitability of a cache in my opinion has to be a benefit, that way caches in question are dealt with seemingly fairly, I'll also admit that after thinking about it there are going to be people who wont like this arrangement either.

2.1k · August 22, 2004

A thread with this exact same discussion on virtuals comes up about once every week or two weeks. Your comments would be completely in context whether they were posted to this thread or any other on the same exact topic.

So, just out of curiosity, why go a year into the old topics to dig this particular one up and reply to it?

1.8k · August 22, 2004

ho...hum...

August 22, 2004

I appologise for upseting you delicate sense of right or wrong in this forum but I came across this thread and the topic on page three and it seemed relevant to currant issues. I didn't bother to check the date as page three on any other forum I generally post to wouldn't be that over a year old. I don't read every posted thread as most seem to be filled with mundane chatter and as this one which as I stated was only on page three I didn't see the harm in replying however I will check more carefully in future sorry if I have offended any one...

Remember that there is nothing stable in human affairs; therefore avoid undue elation in prosperity, or undue depression in adversity. -Socrates

3.9k · August 22, 2004

A thread with this exact same discussion on virtuals comes up about once every week or two weeks. Your comments would be completely in context whether they were posted to this thread or any other on the same exact topic.

So, just out of curiosity, why go a year into the old topics to dig this particular one up and reply to it?

He did exactly what he should have done. He did a search on the topic, which returned this thread, and then he posted to it.

Had he had started a new thread, people would have been all over him for not doing a search. :blink:

Apparently some aren't going to be happy no matter what. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. :blink:

El Diablo

9.4k · August 23, 2004

A thread with this exact same discussion on virtuals comes up about once every week or two weeks. Your comments would be completely in context whether they were posted to this thread or any other on the same exact topic.

So, just out of curiosity, why go a year into the old topics to dig this particular one up and reply to it?

He did exactly what he should have done. He did a search on the topic, which returned this thread, and then he posted to it.

Had he had started a new thread, people would have been all over him for not doing a search.

Apparently some aren't going to be happy no matter what. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

El Diablo

That's right, I'm not happy. You're defending virts again :lol: :wub: :blink:

Edited August 23, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

3.9k · August 23, 2004

A thread with this exact same discussion on virtuals comes up about once every week or two weeks. Your comments would be completely in context whether they were posted to this thread or any other on the same exact topic.

So, just out of curiosity, why go a year into the old topics to dig this particular one up and reply to it?

He did exactly what he should have done. He did a search on the topic, which returned this thread, and then he posted to it.

Had he had started a new thread, people would have been all over him for not doing a search.

Apparently some aren't going to be happy no matter what. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

El Diablo

That's right, I'm not happy. You're defending virts again

I'm not defending them you blow hard...LOL.

I've never hunted one...though there is one that interest me that I'll do someday.

Virts are like beer....some like, some don't. some can take it or leave it. Neither is wrong. Just a matter of taste.

El Diablo

2.1k · August 23, 2004

I'm not sure why anyone thinks I'm upset, annoyed, or even abstractly depressed at the return of this thread.

I was only mildly confused and curious. A search on this subject, Diablo, would have brought up a few dozen threads on this subject and any one of the more recent ones would have been more appropriate. To find a topic title that doesn't explain its content is odd to respond to. So I doubted that he searched for it, specifically.

In the meantime, your explanation just doesn't make sense, Gawn. By default, page three contains topics like the very recent "Avatar Contest" thread; not topics from 2003. In fact, unless you change it, you don't even see topics older than 30 days old. So not only am I not upset that this thread was dredged up, I'm even more curious how it bubbled into your forum browser.

That's about it.

August 23, 2004

On virtual caches we are fairly consistent.

I have to disagree with this statement.

-WJ

Edited August 23, 2004 by Wily Javelina

2.5k · August 23, 2004

I have found that most approvers can be beat into submission

But only if they like getting spanked to begin with. :blink:

Seriously, though, I agree... The issue isn't even what will and won't get approved (at least to me)... we need more consistancy in the approvals.

August 23, 2004

ju66l3r: As to your wanting an explanation in regard to how I came about the thread what does it matter, page three or whatever to me when reading it the topic seemed current and relevant, so who cares. Your desire to pass comment on the fact that an old thread had been revived rather than let it just die only demonstrates that you must have some sort of problem with it. If you had just let the thread die again naturally what would it have mattered? Or is it that as the board Mod you felt it was necessary to warn me about such activity, Ok I'm so warned feel better. :blink:

Attention Jeremy and Geocaching.com

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