New feature on profiles

[+DutchBoy]

I just noticed a new feature on the profiles. Under the found/hidden area there is a new listing for traditional. I think this is to keep track of traditional caches found, not locationless. Anyone else notice this.

[+cliffy]

Excellent!! I'm glad to see that added as some of the locationless caches are getting ridiculous!.....

 

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

 

 

"Whad'ya mean you didn't save the location of the truck?..EEEK!!!..."

[+cliffy]

Excellent!! I'm glad to see that added as some of the locationless caches are getting ridiculous!.....

 

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

 

 

"Whad'ya mean you didn't save the location of the truck?..EEEK!!!..."

[+Bush Babies]

Apparently "traditional", doesn't include multi-caches.

[+worldtraveler]

Maybe the title should be relabeled to "single step caches with a box".

 

I don't think they hit what they were aiming at; or maybe it's just a work in progress?

 

Worldtraveler

"Time's fun when you're having flies." - Kermit the frog

[+unclerojelio]

I'm guesing that eventually there will be a number for each cache type, e.g. Traditional, Virtual, Multi, ...

 

... Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took the one less traveled by, ...

 

unclerojelio

[+Markwell]

Any non traditional cache is excluded. Virtuals, Locationless, mutlistage, event (even if it actually had a cache at it), and the "other" kind (with question mark). Anyone willing to check out whether a webcam cache counts?

 

I counted all my finds and the non-regular ones were 14, subtracting from my 76 finds and making 62.

 

Markwell

My Geocaching Page

[+WaldenRun]

While I am sure I was one of many to ask for this, here is some email I sent to geocaching.com last week:

 

"... So, because I take things seriously, I feel

strongly about the ever increasing percentage of

'finds' that do not require a log book to be signed. Note, I have NO problem with ANY type of cache being logged. I only have one request;

 

Please break down the 'hidden' and 'found' count by cache type when a profile is viewed.

That's it. The purists (like me) will be happy. The people who do not care what counts as a find will be happy. We will know what kind of a cacher a person is by looking at their profile. Is that not what it is for?"

 

=WR

 

"Why worry when you can obsess?"

[+Hawk-eye]

Seems kind of weak ... if multi-stage are not accounted for ... I mean most are traditional caches ... with extra steps ... but interesting.

 

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

Co-founder of the "NC/VA GEO-HOG ASSOCIATION"

... when you absolutely have to find it first!

[+BruceS]

Traditional caches do not include multi, letter box hybrid, event, virtual, unknown or surprise, webcam, and locationless. If there is going to be a break down then all types should be reflected not just traditional. I find there is usually little difference between letter box hybrids and traditional except that there is a letter box stamp in the box (and most have been micros). Most multi's are traditional with multiple steps. Often the unknown or surprise are traditional caches with maybe a twist to make them interesting. If only one type is going to be shown then show how many locationless have been found as that number seems to be a concern to some.

 

Bruce

[+Hawk-eye]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BruceS:

.... If there is going to be a break down then all types should be reflected not just traditional. ...

---

 

Good point ... just too complicated ... since I personally don't care about someone's breakdown ... it can be left as it is ... IMHO ...

 

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

Co-founder of the "NC/VA GEO-HOG ASSOCIATION"

... when you absolutely have to find it first!

[+alchemist2000]

This particular division of cache types on the profile doesn't make sense. I really hope it gets changed. I never cared one way or the other, but I agree that it is the locationless caches that should be split out...if anything.

 

I am wondering what other implications this will have if left in this way. For example, I finally got permission today to place a multi that I had been planning for some time. (It is a traditional cache, but there are two virtual cache steps at the front end to figure out the coordinates for the final physical cache.) Weather permitting, it should go out tomorrow night. However, I am wondering if I should list it as a traditional cache (as I have seen some other people around here do with multis) rather than list it as a multi-cache. I can see people having less interest in these if it "doesn't count" toward this new total.

[Chudley Cannons]

Originally posted by WaldenRun:

"We will know what kind of a cacher a person is by looking at their profile. Is that not what it is for?"

 

=WR

 

It's really none of your business what kind of cacher I am.

 

Everyone should have the option as to whether their profile is public or not. What ever became of privacy and the right of the individual to privacy?

 

s.

[+Hawk-eye]

quote:

---

Originally posted by alchemist2000:

... I can see people having less interest in these if it "doesn't count" toward this new total.

---

 

This might be the case with some folks ... but I really think that a good quality cache with some creativity in it .... will win out over the "traditional drive and drop cache" ... personally they get a little boring to me after awhile. Some are in interesting places and are creative in the way their hidden .... but there seems to be quite a few that are just quickly stuck some place ... that's always a little disappointing. With that said ... there are a variety of folks playing this game ... and some are out for the count and like the quick easy to find caches ...

 

Bottom line I wouldn't worry about multi's ... I think the well thought out ones will be popular even if they're not counted on the new breakdown ... and if you're not into the numbers ... who cares. I just hope it doesn't result in a decline in multi's for the reason you stated ...

 

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

Co-founder of the "NC/VA GEO-HOG ASSOCIATION"

... when you absolutely have to find it first!

[+Hawk-eye]

quote:

---

Originally posted by alchemist2000:

... I can see people having less interest in these if it "doesn't count" toward this new total.

---

 

This might be the case with some folks ... but I really think that a good quality cache with some creativity in it .... will win out over the "traditional drive and drop cache" ... personally they get a little boring to me after awhile. Some are in interesting places and are creative in the way their hidden .... but there seems to be quite a few that are just quickly stuck some place ... that's always a little disappointing. With that said ... there are a variety of folks playing this game ... and some are out for the count and like the quick easy to find caches ...

 

Bottom line I wouldn't worry about multi's ... I think the well thought out ones will be popular even if they're not counted on the new breakdown ... and if you're not into the numbers ... who cares. I just hope it doesn't result in a decline in multi's for the reason you stated ...

 

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

Co-founder of the "NC/VA GEO-HOG ASSOCIATION"

... when you absolutely have to find it first!

[+SkyTrek]

I just changed my Multi-Cache types to Traditional so any future finds will be counted correctly. I also added a comment to the description that says -- For technical reasons this cache is not listed as a Multi-Cache.

I agree with most of the replys above. All traditional caches (we need a clear definition) should be counted together and all virtual or locationless caches should be separated out of the count.

Personally, I'd like to see a list of cache categories to choose from when you first place the cache and have an Icon for each type appear in the listing (hike, bike, wheel chair, canoe, mtn. climb, drive by, metro, etc.). However, for the cachers profile I would only show counts for traditional or locationless.

 

SkyTrek

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SkyTrek:

 

I just changed my Multi-Cache types to Traditional so any future finds will be counted correctly.

---

"Correctly"? If it's a multi, and you changed the type away from multi, how is that correct? Rather than do that, I'd recommend e-mailing Jeremy, and asking him to change it back, or to split out ALL the types.

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

[Team Dragon]

quote:

---

Everyone should have the option as to whether their profile is public or not. What ever became of privacy and the right of the individual to privacy?

---

 

Just link the profile to listing the number of finds. If either is shown, both are. Privacy is satisfied.

[+pizzachef]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SkyTrek:

I just changed my Multi-Cache types to Traditional so any future finds will be counted correctly. I also added a comment to the description that says -- For technical reasons this cache is not listed as a Multi-Cache.

---

 

You know, I'm sure JI was aware that his new count ONLY counted traditionals, and he's probably got something coming out to compensate for the rest that did't get counted. So you changing cache types might, in the end, mess up someone's total count. I say, just leave everything alone and everything will work out.

 

I personally don't see the big deal..it's a new feature right? If you're not happy with it, chances are there will be improvements to it and radically new features coming along after that! I'm just going to sit back and watch how this web site evolves.

-pizzachef

[+sbell111]

Looks like one more reason for me to hate micros.

[+BruceS]

sbell111 this really does not have anything to do with whether or not caches are micros; micros can be listed as traditionals. I realize in your area most micros are listed as letter box hybrids and not as tradition caches.

 

Bruce

[+sbell111]

This issue actually has something to do with any cache that is not listed as 'traditional'. You are right that this rules out letterbox micros (which only differ from regular micros because of the inclusion of a tiny stamp.

 

Since I dislike most micros (and any lame cache), I choose to use this as a place to toss my rant out.

 

I don't see the point of extracting 'traditional' from the totals. I personally don't care what anyone's counts are or what type of caches they go after. What are we going to do next, calculate an average difficult for each player's finds and post that? What does this information tell us? In my opinion, it merely tells us what types of caches are available in the area a person lives.

 

Like most players, I tend to go after whatever is put out in my area (with the exception of the one that is clearly on railroad property and could get me arrested). If its 'traditionals', that is what will show up on my totals. The same holds for multis, letterboxes, virtuals (including locationless), events, webcam, & 'unknowns'.

[+SkyTrek]

Well Mr. (or Ms.) Zuckerruebensyrup, under the current rules people that find your three multi-cache sites will not have them counted as traditional caches. I said "correctly" because that's the way it is. I would rather tell people in the description that it's a multi-cache and have it counted as "traditional" than to have it become one of questionable (locationless) type.

We all know Jeremy reads threads like this to stay in touch with what people are thinking. I would say he's getting the message that some of us think locationless caches are fine for people that like them but for the rest of us that enjoy the physical hunt and discovery, we would rather not see them totaled up as equals. In my opinion, they require different skill sets and should be totaled up separately.

[+sbell111]

SkyTrek-

 

Why do you get to make the decision as to what's 'correct' or 'questionable'?

 

I'm a little tired of people who think there way is the only reasonable way. There are people who like each type of cache. Some people likely like all of them. The fact is virtuals, webcam, 'locationless', et al are part of the game.

 

Why are you so interested in how many caches (and of what type) were found by anyone else?

 

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of meeting BruceS. He told me how many caches he had found. Needless to say, I was blown away. I was even a little jealous. I wasn't jealous of his find count. I was jealous of his ability to get away from the other demands on his life to do as much caching as he does. I am not driven by jealousy. I have no interest in disecting his cache totals (or the totals of anyone else).

 

People who are fixated on totals surprise me. This is because, in my opinion, geocaching is an activity that is about individual success. I feel good when I find a difficult cache. Whether or not you find it has no bearing on my life. It further surprises me because other threads and polls in the forums have shared this sentiment and reinforced that players in general are not about the totals.

[Slytherin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sbell111:

 

What are we going to do next, calculate an average difficult for each player's finds and post that? What does this information tell us? In my opinion, it merely tells us what types of caches are available in the area a person lives.

---

And how about profiles showing the number of caches within 100 miles of the cachers home location. If people are going to get so competitive that they want to split the cache totals into different types, then it's only fair to know how many available caches they have nearby. It stands to reason that someone living in Utah is going to have more chance to find caches than someone who lives in Nevada.

 

Has anyone stopped to consider that some people do locationless caches because they have all but run out of traditional caches to do?

 

This is all getting out of hand, a cache is a cache is a cache. If you don't like a particular type, then leave them alone. Your choice.

 

Alex.

[+Salvelinus]

Seems as if the new feature has been archieved already. Its not on the profiles anymore.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

Give it back and you can delete the travel bugs owned/found part instead!

 

Smoochnme

 

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

[+Salvelinus]

Seems as if the new feature has been archieved already. Its not on the profiles anymore.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

Give it back and you can delete the travel bugs owned/found part instead!

 

Smoochnme

 

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

[+snake1411]

Sounds to me like a lot of people need to get out, go caching, and stop worrying about stuff like this. Or do people have nothing better to do with their time?

Who cares about the cache totals? If you do, go out and get more. There's only two cache totals that I care about: mine and my father's. Geocaching lets us bond when I get to make it back home and good competition to keep up with each other while we're away.

I like the locationless caches for the simple reason that I don't have any "traditional" (of any and all types) caches left to hunt within 60-70 miles of me. Locationless caches provide me with something to do with my free time without driving two hours for a cache.

Locationless caches also give others opportunities to participate in this sport that we all love that otherwise they might not get. For instance, there's the Band of Brothers & Nacoochee's Revenge caches here in GA. I imagine there's some kids, disabled or elderly people that just wouldn't be able to complete the caches - maybe they could. But for those that aren't able to complete the physical caches could complete the locationless caches.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

cache

NOUN: 1a. A hiding place used especially for storing provisions. b. A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables. c. A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies.

2. Computer Science A fast storage buffer in the central processing unit of a computer. Also called cache memory.

TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: cached, cach-ing, cach-es

To hide or store in a cache.

 

 

Therefore, virtual/locationless caches are not really caches at all.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

cache

NOUN: 1a. A hiding place used especially for storing provisions. b. A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables. c. A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies.

2. Computer Science A fast storage buffer in the central processing unit of a computer. Also called cache memory.

TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: cached, cach-ing, cach-es

To hide or store in a cache.

 

 

Therefore, virtual/locationless caches are not really caches at all.

[+sbell111]

Thanks for the quick english lesson. The fact is, they are caches as defined by the 'cache types' page.

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SkyTrek:

 

Well Mr. (or Ms.) Zuckerruebensyrup, under the current rules people that find your three multi-cache sites will not have them counted as traditional caches.

---

 

I don't place caches so that people can increase their find totals. I place them so that they can go out and experience some enjoyable natural (or historical) places that they might not have otherwise visited. I enjoy reading about their impressions and the adventures of their search.

 

If the only reason someone was planning to search for a cache of mine was merely to add one more find to their total, then they are completely missing the point of what I was hoping they'd get out of it...so if they choose not to search for the cache because of this new change, that's ok with me.

 

If I was out to increase people's totals, I might as well have placed a half-dozen 1/1's in the local K-Mart parking lot...then, not only would they be quick easy finds, but nobody would have to worry about getting their feet dirty while looking for them.

 

quote:

---

I would say he [Jeremy] is getting the message that some of us think locationless caches are fine for people that like them but for the rest of us that enjoy the physical hunt and discovery, we would rather not see them totaled up as equals. In my opinion, they require different skill sets and should be totaled up separately.

---

 

Many caches require different skills. I'm curious that I haven't been hearing people complain that a 5/5 cache gets the same amount of credit as a 1/1 cache. Perhaps it's because the people who go after the 5/5 caches (or even the 3.5/3.5's) are doing it for the personal challenge and/or to see the really cool place that takes such work to get there, rather than being so worried about that little number next to their name on the website.

 

If people want to take Locationless out of the regualr count totals, I'm ok with that. But if we're going to start separating everything out in the name of reflecting the 'real picture' of the find totals, we might as well break them out by difficulty levels, as well. Perhaps my six leg multi-cache should count as six finds?

 

Personally, I really don't care how Jemery does the totals. Just as the real treasure to this sport isn't the McToy at the end of the hunt, neither should it be the checkmark in the box when you log the find (IMHO, at least). For me, it's the whole experience...from the time I jump into my truck to drive to the location, the walk along the way, the challenge of finding the cache, the fun of seeing what trinket I want to trade for, the browsing through the previous log entries...and of course the sites, the views, the fresh air, and the chance of seeing some wildlife (or at least hearing some birds singing). I get to see what kinds of places other people enjoy, and to share with them some of the places I do. That's what geocaching is all about in my book.

 

I'd much rather have my gravestone say, "Zuck loved the outdoors, and spent as much time as she could there. She was a good steward of the land, and left this earth better than she found it." than "Zuck found 130 geocaches in less than three months...and by the way, NONE of those were 'locationless'."

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SkyTrek:

 

Well Mr. (or Ms.) Zuckerruebensyrup, under the current rules people that find your three multi-cache sites will not have them counted as traditional caches.

---

 

I don't place caches so that people can increase their find totals. I place them so that they can go out and experience some enjoyable natural (or historical) places that they might not have otherwise visited. I enjoy reading about their impressions and the adventures of their search.

 

If the only reason someone was planning to search for a cache of mine was merely to add one more find to their total, then they are completely missing the point of what I was hoping they'd get out of it...so if they choose not to search for the cache because of this new change, that's ok with me.

 

If I was out to increase people's totals, I might as well have placed a half-dozen 1/1's in the local K-Mart parking lot...then, not only would they be quick easy finds, but nobody would have to worry about getting their feet dirty while looking for them.

 

quote:

---

I would say he [Jeremy] is getting the message that some of us think locationless caches are fine for people that like them but for the rest of us that enjoy the physical hunt and discovery, we would rather not see them totaled up as equals. In my opinion, they require different skill sets and should be totaled up separately.

---

 

Many caches require different skills. I'm curious that I haven't been hearing people complain that a 5/5 cache gets the same amount of credit as a 1/1 cache. Perhaps it's because the people who go after the 5/5 caches (or even the 3.5/3.5's) are doing it for the personal challenge and/or to see the really cool place that takes such work to get there, rather than being so worried about that little number next to their name on the website.

 

If people want to take Locationless out of the regualr count totals, I'm ok with that. But if we're going to start separating everything out in the name of reflecting the 'real picture' of the find totals, we might as well break them out by difficulty levels, as well. Perhaps my six leg multi-cache should count as six finds?

 

Personally, I really don't care how Jemery does the totals. Just as the real treasure to this sport isn't the McToy at the end of the hunt, neither should it be the checkmark in the box when you log the find (IMHO, at least). For me, it's the whole experience...from the time I jump into my truck to drive to the location, the walk along the way, the challenge of finding the cache, the fun of seeing what trinket I want to trade for, the browsing through the previous log entries...and of course the sites, the views, the fresh air, and the chance of seeing some wildlife (or at least hearing some birds singing). I get to see what kinds of places other people enjoy, and to share with them some of the places I do. That's what geocaching is all about in my book.

 

I'd much rather have my gravestone say, "Zuck loved the outdoors, and spent as much time as she could there. She was a good steward of the land, and left this earth better than she found it." than "Zuck found 130 geocaches in less than three months...and by the way, NONE of those were 'locationless'."

[+Salvelinus]

quote:

---

Personally, I really don't care how Jemery does the totals. Just as the real treasure to this sport isn't the McToy at the end of the hunt, neither should it be the checkmark in the box when you log the find (IMHO, at least). For me, it's the _whole_ experience...from the time I jump into my truck to drive to the location, the walk along the way, the challenge of finding the cache, the fun of seeing what trinket I want to trade for, the browsing through the previous log entries...and of course the sites, the views, the fresh air, and the chance of seeing some wildlife (or at least hearing some birds singing). I get to see what kinds of places other people enjoy, and to share with them some of the places I do. __That's__ what geocaching is all about in my book.

---

 

Well said Zuck!

 

Smoochnme

 

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

[+The GeoGadgets Team]

Some folks here seem to think that those who go out and use their imaginations and search capabilities in order to log locationless caches are sub-cachers, regardless of the number of other caches they have logged, of ANY type.

 

How is it that a multi-cache is less of a cache than a traditional cache? Last year we hunted a multi that required puzzle-solving skills, math skills and a twisted imagination. It had six physical stages. How can it be LESS than a traditional drive-up, log it, drive-off geocache?

 

A micro, or offset cache shouldn't be separated because a few folks don't like and chose not to do them. The micro that is rated a 4/4 for difficulty that I log should make it cooler than that 1/1 traditional that you logged.

 

For that matter, if you want to separate all the caches out, why not give extra credit for extra difficult caches? fractal's Contact Cache was a 5 for difficulty because of the puzzle. Should I get more points for completing it WITHOUT THE CHEAT than the person who finished it using fractal's hints? Should the 4-rated terrain cache we completed the other day be worth more in points than that weak-assed micro that someone else logged?

 

The answer to all of this is: HELL NO! WTF are you people thinking when you try to dictate to others what constitutes a cache worth getting credit for? The day you chose for me what is an acceptible cache for me to log, brother you'd better be on the acceptance committee when these caches are submitted for approval. Otherwise, STFU! Only those who feel that their precious cache counts are threatened by those doing "lesser" caches are truly worried about this. Those of us who are having more fun just getting out there and geocaching could give a rat's *** less.

----------

Lori aka: RedwoodRed

KF6VFI

"I don't get lost, I investigate alternative destinations."

GeoGadgets Team Website

Comics, Video Games and Movie Fansite

[+Salvelinus]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The GeoGadgets Team:

Some folks here seem to think that those who go out and use their imaginations and search capabilities in order to log locationless caches are sub-cachers, regardless of the number of other caches they have logged, of ANY type...

---

 

I'm not sure why your so upset that some geocachers are against locationless caches? If you don't believe that there are cachers out there who are doing these things just to increase their count totals, I think you are being naive. I really don't have a problem with increasing your numbers if that's somebody's "thing". But, I have yet to see anyone on any of these related threads say "I like locationless caches because they are an easy way to get my numbers up"

 

As some evidence, I offer this short list of locationless caches which require very little imagination or search capability to log.

 

Find and post a picture of:

A Yellow Jeep

A Limo

A Diner

A Water Tower

An American Flag

A Zoo

An Airport

A live Wild Animal

A State Capital building

A Caboose

A State Border

A Speeding Ticket

A Hometown Welcome sign

A Roller Coaster

A Church

A Covered Bridge

A town that begins with "Z"

A Barber pole

A "non-square" building

A photo of a fish you caught at a favorite lake

A turtle crossing the road

Ect...

 

What really makes me scratch my head is that all of these finds require a picture with your GPS unit which really wasn't needed to find the item in the first place. If not, then aren't these something else?

 

Obviously, I did not include all of the locationless caches because there are some that ARE very legit, unique and worthy. But the increasing number of the above type of "caches" do warrent criticsm. Especially when a GPS and/or coordinates are not even needed to find the cache!

 

I just would hate to see this activity move toward scavenger hunting and lose that sense of wonder and adventure you get when you're never quite sure what you are going to find at the end of the hunt. Sometimes I've even been disappointed. That's what a "set" cache location offers and is exactly what hooked me on this activity.

 

I do realize others geocache for other reasons, so I surly won't be starting a campaign to get rid of all caches that don't suit my style. I'll tolerate them, just not do them. But you can bet I'll offer my opinions when given the opportunity, and cheer really loud if many of the locationless caches someday, somehow get deleted!

 

Regards,

Smoochnme

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

 

[This message was edited by smoochnme on May 14, 2002 at 11:29 AM.]

[+Salvelinus]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The GeoGadgets Team:

Some folks here seem to think that those who go out and use their imaginations and search capabilities in order to log locationless caches are sub-cachers, regardless of the number of other caches they have logged, of ANY type...

---

 

I'm not sure why your so upset that some geocachers are against locationless caches? If you don't believe that there are cachers out there who are doing these things just to increase their count totals, I think you are being naive. I really don't have a problem with increasing your numbers if that's somebody's "thing". But, I have yet to see anyone on any of these related threads say "I like locationless caches because they are an easy way to get my numbers up"

 

As some evidence, I offer this short list of locationless caches which require very little imagination or search capability to log.

 

Find and post a picture of:

A Yellow Jeep

A Limo

A Diner

A Water Tower

An American Flag

A Zoo

An Airport

A live Wild Animal

A State Capital building

A Caboose

A State Border

A Speeding Ticket

A Hometown Welcome sign

A Roller Coaster

A Church

A Covered Bridge

A town that begins with "Z"

A Barber pole

A "non-square" building

A photo of a fish you caught at a favorite lake

A turtle crossing the road

Ect...

 

What really makes me scratch my head is that all of these finds require a picture with your GPS unit which really wasn't needed to find the item in the first place. If not, then aren't these something else?

 

Obviously, I did not include all of the locationless caches because there are some that ARE very legit, unique and worthy. But the increasing number of the above type of "caches" do warrent criticsm. Especially when a GPS and/or coordinates are not even needed to find the cache!

 

I just would hate to see this activity move toward scavenger hunting and lose that sense of wonder and adventure you get when you're never quite sure what you are going to find at the end of the hunt. Sometimes I've even been disappointed. That's what a "set" cache location offers and is exactly what hooked me on this activity.

 

I do realize others geocache for other reasons, so I surly won't be starting a campaign to get rid of all caches that don't suit my style. I'll tolerate them, just not do them. But you can bet I'll offer my opinions when given the opportunity, and cheer really loud if many of the locationless caches someday, somehow get deleted!

 

Regards,

Smoochnme

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

 

[This message was edited by smoochnme on May 14, 2002 at 11:29 AM.]

[+georgeandmary]

quote:

---

Originally posted by smoochnme:

Originally posted by The GeoGadgets Team:

 

As some evidence, I offer this short list of locationless caches which require very little imagination or search capability to log.

 

Find and post a picture of:

A Yellow Jeep

A Limo

A Diner

A Water Tower

An American Flag

A Zoo

An Airport

A live Wild Animal

A State Capital building

A Caboose

A State Border

A Speeding Ticket

A Hometown Welcome sign

A Roller Coaster

A Church

A Covered Bridge

A town that begins with "Z"

A Barber pole

A "non-square" building

A photo of a fish you caught at a favorite lake

A turtle crossing the road

Ect...

 

Regards,

Smoochnme

http://www.contrabandent.com/cwm/s/otn/animals/goldfish.gif

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

---

 

Hey, finding a caboose is NOT that easy, I've yet to see one that was in operation. Then again, I haven't been searching rail yards for one. I'm sure when I see the next one, I won't have my camera or GPS.

 

I have to agree with much of that list though. But I'm sure someone would include my Arches and Lovers Leaps on their list of easy/unimaginative caches.

 

george

[+The GeoGadgets Team]

quote:

---

Originally posted by smoochnme:

I'm not sure why your so upset that some geocachers are against locationless caches? If you don't believe that there are cachers out there who are doing these things just to increase their count totals, I think you are being naive. I really don't have a problem with increasing your numbers if that's somebody's "thing". But, I have yet to see anyone on any of these related threads say "I like locationless caches because they are an easy way to get my numbers up"

---

 

I'm NOT upset that others don't consider locationless caches legitimate, but that they constantly bring it up in these forums. What I found MOST irritating were comments in this thread made by others who stated that only straight-on "traditional" geocaches should be considered in anyone's found count.

 

You are right in that a majority of the locationless are lame. I won't deny it. What is even worse is that some folks can't even go by the rules of the lame ones. For example: if the cache requires the finder to take pictures of a hippy VW bus, and the images are for just some junked VW bus in a scrap yard. That proves that the finder is desperate to get their count up, to the point of *gasp!* cheating, IMO. Or when someone does 20 murals. In that instance the owner of the cache doesn't specify only one find per cacher, but come on! Save some for others to find, since it DOES specify each mural can only be "found" once.

 

I think it is important for the administration to place guidelines on virtuals and locationless caches, but, as has been REPEATEDLY debated in these forums, folks will cheat. Folks will pad their find counts. Those folks are only hurting themselves. But, to be told that the multicaches completed do not count, or have a lesser "value" than the standard traditional caches, well, the folks that think that they can place a value on what caches I've done can think again.

 

If anyone is really that worried about the count of another, it is easy to look at what caches they have logged as finds and make a determination on your own. If anyone thinks that I am any less a hardcore, find-it-or-die geocacher because of the three locationless caches I've done, then it is nobodies problem but theirs. If someone wants to log one of the last drive-in movie theaters on the west coast as a cache, and drives 100 miles to accomplish that, so be it. It is not for anyone but the cache owner to judge their level of completion. If they have a nice mix of traditional, multi-, micro-, virtual and locationless caches on their "found" list, then maybe they should be accorded a bit of respect. My family/team and I have 66 finds and I DARE someone to tell me that those 66 have any less "value" based on who placed them, where I live, how many years I've been doing this, whatever. I'm sure they wouldn't have the nads to tell me to my face, so that I could show them the scars or the chiropractor bills... HAH!

 

NOTE: I DO think it is foolish for folks to log their own caches as finds, virtual, locationless or otherwise.

 

As for taking pictures of the GPS for locationless? In some cases the cache owners require it, and the finder needs to post the coordinates to consider it a find. I personally think it is a nice touch, though I have seen folks log them and "neglect" or make excuses for that part... pretty weak.

 

Again I say, Those who stress out over the "value" of the find counts of others need to mind their own business, get a life and go out and find a few caches. For some this is a competition - it is human nature, it can't be helped - but when someone else's cache found numbers are something that others find threatening? THAT is a problem that they need to look to themselves for, maybe get professional help. This is a friendly game/sport and it shouldn't be something that people feel the need to put down others over.

[+Gudlyf]

If you're a paying member, you probably saw the new section for Benchmarking. I'm sure the categories will be Traditional & Benchmarks.

[+leatherman]

I'm looking at my cache page and my profile as others see you. I don't see what every one is refereing to.

I see found/hidden. It referes to the total count that I've found and hidden. When I click on them it gives me a list of all the caches I've found. I don't see anything catagorizing them.

What am I missing?

 

Preperation, the first law to survival.

[+gnbrotz]

It was visible for a short time and then gone again. We speculate that it was being "tested".

 

Greg

N 39° 54.705'

W 77° 33.137'

[+sbell111]

There. I've said it.

 

I also log traditional caches, multis, micros (although I hate them), virtuals, letterboxes, offsets, et al. I log 1/1's 5/5's and all between.

 

I enjoy caches of all types (except micros).

 

Am I less of a cacher than anyone else because of the locationless caches? If I research on the internet to find a unlogged castle and then drive 80 miles to find it and snap a shot is that less worthy than another cacher who drives 1 mile to find a 'cache-n-go' 1/1? I don't think so.

 

The find just took a different skill set. I am working on a multi cache that will require the seeker to actually pick a lock at the end. The only cachers that will be able to log it will be those who are willing to learn how to pick the lock. It will take a different skill set to be able to log as a find. I'm betting that a number of people will accept the challenge and go after it.

 

We all have found lame caches. It is not a 'locationless' thing. It is an imagination thing.

[+WaldenRun]

In case you didn't see Jeremy's comments from YESTERDAY:

 

'For those keeping score, locationless caches will be removed from the "find" count on the site and in its own category, as all the counts will be separated out. I just need to sort out the most efficient way of doing this without affecting the database too much.

 

Jeremy'

 

AND

 

'Locationless caches (and virtuals) will continue to be separated from Geocaching in its purist form. We're working on a framework to make this happen, but will take some time. Once we get more concrete plans we'll let you folks know.

 

Jeremy'

 

"Why worry when you can obsess?"