Jump to content

do the rules of geocaching change daily?


georapper
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

GC.com is not the only place you can list your coordinates. You can create your own home page and list every friken thing you want, tennis ball, sneaker, film container with a code. You can even see if the other web site will take your cache page submission.

 

If you want to list your coordinates on THIS data base (and no one says you must) then there has been a determination that there is minimum that must be reached to be considered a traditional cache.

 

I have no problem with that minimum. And I have placed caches that have no log book in them. But I didn't list them as traditional caches. When I originally submitted the cache page the admin emailed me about the issue and I just changed the cache to an unknown type. The cache could not have held a log book at all so it wasn't an option to just place a paper in the container. End of story.

 

If the cache can hold a log it should, just as it should contain a geonote explaining what the cache is. If it can hold a note, it can hold a log.

 

A pen is a non issue. It's just nit picking. Only one of the two referenced items mentioned a pen, both mentioned a log.

 

george

 

39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:

If you want to list your coordinates on THIS data base (and no one says you must) then there has been a determination that there is minimum that must be reached to be considered a traditional cache.


 

Geocaching and GC.com are two different entities. The larger discussion, for me, is that players need to be able to voice disapproval at the influence that GC.com has over the game.

 

Part 1

I agree with you. Back a page or two I said as much. What follows, however, is that determinations are made for what is best for the game as a whole, not for what is required to post at GC.com. For me, that is dangerous.

 

The more that GC.com=geocaching, the less say players have in the development of the game. GC.com can set any regulation it wants for its site. But, that is not necessarily in the best interest of the game.

 

One of the premises for this thread points this out clearly: the lack of a logbook caused a cache to be disapproved. Obviously, there are plenty who feel a logbook is not needed for a cache.

 

It's easy to say to post the cache at another site. That, however, does not solve the problem for the game.

 

If I do not like the rules for playing golf at one club, I can go to the other. If I have a problem/issue with how golf is played, I need a governing body to appeal to (this example only holds for a bit . . . I do not want to take Casey Martin's appeal to the US courts in this).

 

Part 2

Another issue with just stating that posting coordinates to another db will rectify the issue is again, it helps brand GC.com. Obviously, GC.com is the largest and most wide-known site for geocaching.

 

Without questioning the standards it sets for the game, new-comers are left with the impression that this is how it is to be. Reading these fora is evidence enough of that.

 

It is not too far of a leap for GC.com to change how it does business. I can easily see GC.com beginning to restrict access to the db. Geocaching is free it will state, but access to the the coordinates will cost you.

 

It could go something like this . . .

You need to register to access the site.

Part of the registration requires you to list a hometown and/or coordinates.

You will then be restricted to a 10-mile radius search of those coordinates.

To gain access to other coordinates, you will have to off-set the bandwidth GC.com entails. That will materialize as a membership fee.

 

Yes, I can lump it and head over to another db, but that doesn't solve the problem for the game.

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

I like this suggestion. How do you feel, though, about a plastic sealed tube containing chocolate sprinkles that is placed in a generic location, and being required to email the hider as to how many sprinkles are in the tube in order to log the find? How about the next step, in which it is a plastic tube containing _nothing_, with the same logging requirements? Do you feel that these are acceptable caches?


 

Nope, of course not.

 

My proposed 'container rule' wasn't intended to be the sole rule for seperating cache from trash - merely a ground rule. Other rules would have to be applied on top of it. (first sentence of my closing paragrah, emphasis added: "I think this would be a good baseline rule to start seperating cache from trash.").

 

Starting off by defining the container types allowed seemed a good place to me icon_smile.gif

 

Personally, I think logbooks/sheets should be required, but I'm not prepared to argue in favor of that particular viewpoint. Seemed more constructive to tackle the most basic issue first and work up, since this thread seems to be turning into a rules discussion icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

...players need to be able to voice disapproval at the influence that GC.com has over the game.


 

Really? Seems to me GC.com is the game.

 

We've been told multiple times in this and other threads that if you don't like how this site is run, then start your own. TPTB have every right to run this site however they please. If you want to change the game, create another entity and steer it from there.

 

From the beginning, I've gotten the impression TPTB have always wanted to present a positive image to the public while keeping the game fun and challenging. That involves rules. It involves standards.

 

This site has it's standards.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but if I was to register the domain stitchesonquilts.com, and put up my own quilting-related game, and set up guidelines, I would be completely uninterested in having someone tell me how I should run the site. My answer to their complaints would be "Please feel free to set up your own site." I find it incredible that people are willing to bust geocaching.com in the chops. Hey, don't like it, there is nothing stopping you from creating your own site. I seem to recall that there is another site starting with an N out there, right? So, create your own!

 

I also can't believe that people are defending someone who got rude when the approver asked a simple question. What happened to the famous Geocaching civility?

 

It also amazes me that people who are going out and finding these caches, and viewing the web pages, haven't figured out that there is more to this than just computer programs: it's a real art form. There is artistry in the best caches. Mike Brill is a true artist. Check out his "Fellowship of the Ring" cache. It's wonderfully done. Or kablooey's "Ransom Note".

 

Artistry can't be programmed. You can't set up an algorithm for it. This is why there are human admins, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Each admin will behold the cache differently. Different admins will vote differently on different caches.

 

But in the end, geocaching pays for the website, including the domain name and the servers. Sure, I am a charter member, and have paid my $30, but that does not give me the right to dictate how geocaching.com does business. I have emailed suggestions to Jeremy, and will continue to do so, but they are SUGGESTIONS. If I really want it done differently, I'll get my own domain and not just hang out on the forums and ***** about those who are doing all of the hard work. icon_frown.gif

 

Shannah

Link to comment

You remember what that is, don't you? I found five, including one tough one that I missed on the last trip icon_smile.gif, and I missed one more. It has no real description and a cryptic hint. Maybe he should be banished from the site. Maybe I should go burn his house down... JUST KIDDING! icon_wink.gif

 

I see that several of you did not take my advise from earlier in the day. Well here goes my take on all of this once again.

 

Frolickin said: “It will also become a debate over semantics.” Congratulations... it has.

 

Bassonpilot said: “I think my suggestion of approvals by "regional managers" who are out in-the-field caching in their area of responsibility would certainly help address such issues; probably in a more positive manner.” As Moun10Bike stated, we have had that in place for some time. I am lucky. I travel a lot. I have traveled extensively as an on-the-road salesman from Virginia to Mississippi and all the way down to Key West. I was born in Louisiana. I have already found caches in 19 states and in DC. My job deals with geography and demographics and employment/workplace/residential density. I have to know much of this country in great detail, and that helps me in approving caches throughout the US. My region is the SE, but I assist nationwide when needed. Being a geography nut, I also assist worldwide.

 

Frolickin said: “GC.com is positioning itself to be the governing body of a game. It is doing so without a mandate from the players.” That is your opinion. It seems to me that GC.com is just positioning itself as the governing body of this web site. I have never seen them attempt to mandate how caches are place on the other sites... never.

 

Frolickin said: “As such, who is GC.com to determine what makes the game better overall? This all brings to light the problem with annoiting GC.com as geocaching as is constantly stated in the fora. Too much influence on the game is controlled by GC.com. Some time ago it was suggested that an independent body be formed to handle issues with the game. That would leave GC.com/Groundspeak to do what it does best--host a web site.” It seems that you are "anointing" the site. GC.com has high quality caches, and maybe the other sites strive to be as good. GC.com is striving to make this site better overall. If geocaching as a whole follows the site, then that is just the way it is. I think the “N” site has one cache in GA (last time I checked, some time ago). You’re free to post a cache at whichever site you want. Maybe the other sites need to do a better job with their site? This site can draft rules if it likes, and since this is America you can go elsewhere if you like. I will cover the "independent body" concept next.

 

Dboggney said: “Then there should be created a second "line" of quality control. lets call them geocaching police.” Hmmmm... Geocaching police. Independent body. OK, what if you, the disgruntled cache placer, don't agree with them? I guess we would add another layer of arbitration? They would all still have to comply with the guidelines set forth by this site, right? This has been covered in another topic already. I only see a few people complaining here, and I am sure you would eventually find fault with the independent body or the Geocaching Police.

 

Criminal said: “If any new player has questions about a cache they want to hide, just drop an email to an old-head cacher in your area.” I like the idea of posting your questionable ideas here in the forums. You would get the opinion of several people to help you work out your ideas. You could also email one of the experienced cachers and ask them to look at the topic to help with a regional concern, but a wider range of opinion would most likely be best.

 

Capt skully said: “I have already been stomped for suggesting caches only accessible by boat.” OH NO!!! You should absolutely place caches only accessible by boat. A term has been coined for them -- hydrocaches! I just got a small inflatable kayak so I can finally get a few of them that have been placed in our area. There are several in your area already.

 

Bassonpilot said: “An open mind, flexibility, and a dose of common sense.” But in the next breath you say we need exacting rules... make up your mind. Do you want flexibility or rigidity?

 

Frolickin said: “This is unfortunate and why GC.com and geocaching need to be separated. The branding of this site as the game I have spoken of previously is evident here.” GC.com and geocaching are separated already. Maybe you are not aware that there are other sites? The other sites don't have to adhere to the GC.com guidelines and vice versa. DUH!

 

I say form your utopian committee of whatever you want to call it. Just as in the country club analogy, if this site wants to adhere to some of those rules then it can. Your committee will have no authority. Maybe you will come up with some good ideas. Who knows? Haven’t seen too many so far, but you have come up with a few.

 

I would love to see you post some caches to your personal web site. I do not think they will be visited as much if you do not promote them somehow on this site or the other geocaching related sites. Prove me wrong.

 

I just looked at the other site. First of all, they have not fixed the zip code change in my area that happened three years ago. If I search by my current home zip code there are no caches found. Very nice... on the cutting edge –- keeping up with the changes in the global environment -- NOT! I put in my work zip code and I got 3 caches in GA. GC.com has 585 in GA. I clicked on one of the caches, and there is one find on the other site page. The same cache has 22 logs on the GC.com site, including the person who logged it on the other site. What does that tell you?

 

Time for me to log the caches I found today... icon_biggrin.gif

 

GO FIND SOME CACHES!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

I would love to see you post some caches to your personal web site. I do not think they will be visited as much if you do not promote them somehow on this site or the other geocaching related sites. Prove me wrong.


You know, just to expand on this even more... people have already said that if the monument is not a virtual cache they generally will not stop to look at it. The same thing will happen to a cache that you create on your personal site. People will not visit it because they cannot get a icon_smile.gifFound It!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

_Frolickin said: “GC.com is positioning itself to be the governing body of a game. It is doing so without a mandate from the players.”_ That is your opinion. It seems to me that GC.com is just positioning itself as the governing body of this web site. I have never seen them attempt to mandate how caches are place on the other sites... never.


 

I'll try to make this clearer

 

GC.com can do whatever it wants. I stated elsewhere that Groundspeak is doing a masterful job.

 

The issue, as I see it, is that Groundspeak's wonderful job is not necessarily in the best interests of geocaching.

 

For me, geocaching has to be beyond GC.com. I provided an example of what I foresee happening:

GC.com requires registration

Registration requires one to enter coordinates

A radius limit is placed on those coordinates unless one forks over a membership fee

 

I believe this would be a horrible blow to the game.

 

A lot of folks have suggested I take my ball and go play elsewhere.

 

That, however, is simplistic and misses the point. Passing off this discussion further imbeds GC.com as the game geocaching. Just last evening in a different thread one posted:

quote:
But the more I thought about it, it's definitely worth the expense of becoming a CM simply to help keep the sport alive. What would happen if Jeremy started losing so much money on this site, and had to take it down before it took him and his comrades down?

 

So, someone else sees that if Groundspeak were to pull out (financial difficulty or business model change, does not matter), the game is jeopardized. My solution is not for everyone to toss money at Groundspeak; my desire is to ensure the game can exist without Groundspeak. That is fundamentally different.

 

Yes, Groundspeak can and will do whatever it chooses. My hope is that the players of the game will see beyond the commercialization and take control of the game so it perseveres as an open and free game.

 

I have had some side discussions as people have written to discuss points of what I have been saying. One of the things that has come up is that I believe Groundspeak can position itself to be quite profitable while at the same time relinquishing control of the game. If it takes a leadership role of establishing something independent to be the caretaker of the game, it can concentrate on what it does best: web content and merchandise. For that, there is a market!

 

If nothing else, let's at least debate the issue here. Dismissing it and saying go start your own site doesn't address the fact that if Groundspeak packs it in today or decides to charge to get data that the game is significantly affected for all players everywhere. Dismissing it as a non-issue saying that couldn't happen does not make it so. How does geocaching exist outside GC.com? N-cache and personal sites don't cut it--that has been made perfectly clear. So, it is all GC.com unless something is done about it.

 

What do you propose?

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Link to comment

quote:

 

I would love to see you post some caches to your personal web site. I do not think they will be visited as much if you do not promote them somehow on this site or the other geocaching related sites. Prove me wrong.


 

OK MM, you got it. i will no longer post any of my caches to this site. nor will i log any of my finds on this site, i will keep my own personal record of geocaching myself. further, i will not participate in this particular part of the community. i will take my ball and go home. I am doing a TV news program on Saturday about urban geocaching. what should i tell them about the sport, the people involved and geocaching.com?

 

EDIT: after several emails from local friends i will recant this statement for the time being.

SR and dboggny.

9372_2600.jpg

 

[This message was edited by SR & dboggny on February 28, 2003 at 12:17 PM.]

 

[This message was edited by SR & dboggny on February 28, 2003 at 12:18 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

The best I have to offer presently is that a requirement of a logbook (and writing instrument) does nothing to guarantee a quality cache. Because of that, neither should be required to post a cache.


Can any one thing really guarantee a quality cache?

quote:
My opinion is that no one can guarantee a quality cache other than the hider. Common sense will have to play into the approval process to keep the sneaker cache and tennis ball from hitting the air. But what is the worst thing that happens if they were approved? A few folks find them and report about the lack of quality. It is reviewed and discussed and the community decides to archive it or not.

Geocachers weed out the bad caches. That's why there is a 'should be archived' option when logging. I think someone else brought up the subject of cache police. Each of us takes on that responsibility when we find a bad cache.

quote:
There is no rule or set of rules that will guarantee quality. Other than safety measures (no hiding on railroad tracks, military bases, etc.) or environmental concerns (no food that would attract animals, etc.) or lawful issues, there should be no rules.

Exactly! Nothing can guarantee a quality cache. A logbook is one of the three basic principles (take something, leave something, write about it in the logbook).

 

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

This signature line intentionally left blank

Link to comment

quote:
Frolickin wrote: "I have had some side discussions as people have written to discuss points of what I have been saying. One of the things that has come up is that I believe Groundspeak can position itself to be quite profitable while at the same time relinquishing control of the game. If it takes a leadership role of establishing something independent to be the caretaker of the game, it can concentrate on what it does best: web content and merchandise. For that, there is a market!

 

"If nothing else, let's at least debate the issue here. Dismissing it and saying go start your own site doesn't address the fact that if Groundspeak packs it in today or decides to charge to get data that the game is significantly affected for all players everywhere."


 

Frolickin is absolutely dead on. A governing body, seperate from this site, is a wonderful idea if this 'sport' is going to last. Indulge me for a minute in an analogy.

 

Let's look for a moment to the game of golf. Golf (argubly) developed in Scotland, and for centuries it was played at various locations, each with its own set of rules, and these were subject to change at any time. The earliest known written rules came about in 1744. From here on, there were nearly a dozen different bodies in Great Britain that issued their own rules of the game, sometimes borrowing from previous rules, sometimes not. It wasn't until 1897 that there were universally accepted Rules of Golf (developed by the Royal and Ancient Rules of Golf Committee), when a group in the US formed

their own governing body (the USGA), and rather than lose control of the game, these bodies came together to develop the game and further establish rules. (actually, it wasn't until 1952 that each body had identical rules) Now, granted, the Royal and Ancient Rules of Golf is directly affiliated with St. Andrews golf course, BUT St. Andrews is not the game of golf, in and of itself, nor does the Rules Committee run the golf course, per se. The same rules of golf are used on every course (notwithstanding the 'creative' interpretation of the rules by weekend hackers all over the world).

 

Now, to take a quote from the R&A rules site, when considering rules changes:

 

quote:
The abiding principle is always "are they for the good of the game ?"


 

The same analogy can be made with pretty much any widespread sport - some sort of governing body has been established, and the governing body does not control the only playing field.

 

Now obviously, the people here at GC.com have a financial interest in this website being successful. The question is though, do we want a gazillion organizations out there with a gazillion and one different rules (including possibly some groups with rules that hurt the others by causing many places to being declared off-limits to all sorts of geocaching)? Or do we want a uniform set of standards world-wide that advance the sport?

 

GC.com can set all the rules it wants, but unless those rules are adopted by EVERYBODY, we are (possibly) going to see chaos. Just like the Royal and Ancient Club, GC.com can assume a leading role in developing this game, being a recognized leader in the sport, but if the sport is going to survive, we need to realize there has to be more than one place to play.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

For me, geocaching has to be beyond GC.com. I provided an example of what I foresee happening:

 

GC.com requires registration

Registration requires one to enter coordinates

A radius limit is placed on those coordinates unless one forks over a membership fee

 

I believe this would be a horrible blow to the game.


 

Yes, it would be a blow to the game. The majority of the caches are listed here. But, what you fail to realize, it will not be the end of the game. Each individual cache owner owns their own cache. If GC.com tanks then they will post it somewhere else. There will be mailing lists created. People will host other people's cache on their own sites. There will be web rings, on and on. How has letterboxing survived for so long? Certainly not because any one website.

 

Another thing you seem to fail to realize, geocaching wouldn't be nearly as big as it is if it wasn't for GC.com. They've pretty much taken it from a fringe activity to probably one of the fastest growing individual and family oriented outdoor hobbies in the world. If it folded, it most certainly would be a blow to the game, that unquestionable. But, what kind of blow would it be to take control of the game from GC.com--how would it affect the game? Major? You bet.

 

quote:
I have had some side discussions as people have written to discuss points of what I have been saying. One of the things that has come up is that I believe Groundspeak can position itself to be quite profitable while at the same time relinquishing control of the game. If it takes a leadership role of establishing something independent to be the caretaker of the game, it can concentrate on what it does best: web content and merchandise. For that, there is a market!

 

There is a concept called "content." GC.com most certainly has the right to control what it will and will not accept as content. Also, content is what drives people to a site so advertisements can be shown. IF GC.com were to give up control of the game, they potentially give up control of what they put on their website. Then they will lose content, then visitors, and then the ability to effectively market their merchandise.

 

Your concept of GC.com giving up control of what they will and will not accept on their site, while keeping quality AND revenue is seriously flawed.

 

quote:
If nothing else, let's at least debate the issue here. Dismissing it and saying go start your own site doesn't address the fact that if Groundspeak packs it in today or decides to charge to get data that the game is significantly affected for all players everywhere. Dismissing it as a non-issue saying that couldn't happen does not make it so. How does geocaching exist outside GC.com? N-cache and personal sites don't cut it--that has been made perfectly clear. So, it is all GC.com unless something is done about it.

 

What do you propose?


 

I must be a little dense as I still fail to understand just what the heck you are trying to say. You want a seperate controlling body of what geocaching is? Unless it has the blessing of TPTB it will fail. GC.com, by the rules theyimplement, by default controls the game. Why? Because they have practically all of the caches listed. But you say creating other sites or self hosting won't work.

 

Say you start up The GeoCaching Steering Committee. TGSC decides it wants to implement a change that GC.com doesn't agree with. What are you going to do? Pout, b!tch, raise cane, and that's about as effective as you're going to be. GC.com controls what is posted on their site, most caches are posted on their site, by default they control what is geocaching.

 

You want to set me straight on exactly you want? Because it really sounds like you don't know yourself.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by CloneZone:

The same analogy can be made with pretty much any widespread sport - some sort of governing body has been established, and the governing body does not control the only playing field.


 

Um, where's The International Commitee of Football Rules and Regulations. I'm not even a football fan and know that each league is governed by their own rules.

 

Besides, your analogy is flawed. If one person or company owned 98% of all of the golf courses, they could very well ignore any other entity that tried to control the sport.

 

quote:

Now obviously, the people here at GC.com have a financial interest in this website being successful. The question is though, do we want a gazillion organizations out there with a gazillion and one different rules (including possibly some groups with rules that hurt the others by causing many places to being declared off-limits to all sorts of geocaching)? Or do we want a uniform set of standards world-wide that advance the sport?

 

GC.com can set all the rules it wants, but unless those rules are adopted by EVERYBODY, we are (possibly) going to see chaos. Just like the Royal and Ancient Club, GC.com can assume a leading role in developing this game, being a recognized leader in the sport, but if the sport is going to survive, we need to realize there has to be more than one place to play.


 

So, what makes you think anyone is going to abide by the rules in the first place? If a group lets people place illegal and/or unsafe caches, what makes you think they'd follow a set of standards? They won't. No governing body will have the authority to control what people do with their own site. Period. In fact, it wouldn't even have to authority to say what is and isn't a geocache.

 

You analysis of the situtation actually enforces a concept that GC.com should be the governing body AND the sole warehouse of caches. Therefore, we had better make sure it is a success. That's kind of scary, but is certainly working so far.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

I have had some side discussions as people have written to discuss points of what I have been saying. One of the things that has come up is that I believe Groundspeak can position itself to be quite profitable while at the same time relinquishing control of the game. If it takes a leadership role of establishing something independent to be the caretaker of the game, it can concentrate on what it does best: web content and merchandise. For that, there is a market!

 

If nothing else, let's at least debate the issue here. Dismissing it and saying go start your own site doesn't address the fact that if Groundspeak packs it in today or decides to charge to get data that the game is significantly affected for all players everywhere. Dismissing it as a non-issue saying that couldn't happen does not make it so. How does geocaching exist outside GC.com? N-cache and personal sites don't cut it--that has been made perfectly clear. So, it is all GC.com unless something is done about it.

 

What do you propose?

 

Fro.


I told you what I propose. Why don't YOU go out and pay for a domain name and pay for some web hosting space and organize individuals to develop this independent group that you keep on talking about. I don't think the current system is broken, so I don't propose changing it. You and a select few propose changing things so why don't you start this group your talking about. I would be interested in you suggestions I would imagine that the owners of the site would too.

 

You really need to be talking to the "N" site since there are pretty much no guidelines on that site. There is no mention there that caches are NOT allowed in NPS areas or near rail lines. Are you complaining to TPTB on that site?

 

dboggny, I did not mean you should never post another cache on this site or log any more of the caches you find here. Please don't take me to the extreme. We know each other and you know I did not mean that. By all means you can voice your opinions. I am saying that you, or anyone for that matter, should post a cache to your personal web site and see how many people log the visit with you. As others here have said, they don't seem to want to visit these locations unless they get a smiley. As far as an interview goes, I guess you can tell them what you want since it is a free country. When I have been interviewed or taught classes about how GPSRs are used to find caches I do not make it all about GC.com. I speak about this fun game and GC.com is a side note showing people where they can learn about the game.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SR & dboggny:

 

OK MM, you got it. i will no longer post any of my caches to this site. nor will i log any of my finds on this site, i will keep my own personal record of geocaching myself. further, i will not participate in this particular part of the community. i will take my ball and go home. I am doing a TV news program on Saturday about urban geocaching. what should i tell them about the sport, the people involved and geocaching.com?

 

SR and dboggny.


 

And MY comment was immature?

 

Will cache for food.migo_sig_logo.jpg

Link to comment

how is it that a simple microcache, now an unknown/secret cache can turn into an 16 legged creature and become a menace to geocaching.

 

for my first cache, i wanted something simple, i didn't see the point of a log book so i wanted some other form of verification. log book was required, so i put in a log book after a general consensus was that a log book should be required. the found out that email verification can't be required with a log book, so after some discussion, i deleted email verification. general consensus on the discussion board was do what the admin requires, so i did. now i will clear a new type of cache idea to this area with the admin before posting. it seems pretty straight forward.

lets' clear this thread, it's way to long.

Link to comment

this is an internet barfight. there are some really ruthless comments on this topic. i did not ever mean for it to get out of hand this bad. i know i'm not responsible for this ruthless behavior but i think we all need to take a step back, take a deep breath, step away from our terminals, and clear our heads. this is way outta hand. just chill.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

Um, where's The International Commitee of Football Rules and Regulations. I'm not even a football fan and know that each league is governed by their own rules.

 


 

There, football's a great example. It's not even the same game in different parts of the world. What is football to some is soccer to others....

 

I agree, if you don't like the rules in gc.com's "League" of geocaching, take your ball and play in someone else's. I'll freely admit I don't always 100% agree with ALL the 'rules' here, but I still FOLLOW them. If at some point the rules get to the point that I can't follow them any longer, or don't want to, I'll take my ball and play in someone else's league, or form my own and be able to play by MY rules....

 

I'm lost. I've gone to find myself. If I should happen to get back before I return, please ask me to wait.

Link to comment

I soooo agree:

 

quote:
Originally posted by cmachler:

Why do people take everything on message boards and on the internet in general so seriously? Not every disagreement or rebuttal is a personal attack. Everybody just needs to learn to chill. 95% of these "discussions" could be avoided if people didn't over-react and actually made an attempt to clear up misunderstandings.

 

-Cody


 

I've been posting things online from the earliest BBS days almost 20 years ago now (there were no women, and 90% angry teen geeks). Flame wars were the norm rather than the exception, and I discovered a few important rules.

 

1. Be extra polite. A plaful rudeness between buddies tends to read as a bitter slight when it cannot float away in the air, but instead can be read over and over and over.

2. Misunderstandings are inevitable, always check your swing and soften your reply.

3. Flamers often crave attention. Starve them.

4. Avoid sarcasm, it rarely plays as humor online.

 

Nesdon

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger."

Sam Clemens

Link to comment

First off,, Yes, this thread has gotten completely out of hand.!!!

 

Posted by Team StitchesOnQuilts:

quote:
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but if I was to register the domain stitchesonquilts.com, and put up my own quilting-related game, and set up guidelines, I would be completely uninterested in having someone tell me how I should run the site. My answer to their complaints would be "Please feel free to set up your own site." I find it incredible that people are willing to bust geocaching.com in the chops. Hey, don't like it, there is nothing stopping you from creating your own site. I seem to recall that there is another site starting with an N out there, right? So, create your own!

 

You are right, but you also have to know that you should pay attention to what paying customers have to say also. If you run your site strictly the way you want, and its not the way the majority of customers think, then you will lose these customers and maybe even your business. This is just one of the many things Jeremy and GeoCaching.com has going for them now! They do care, they do listen, and sometimes they wisely make changes for their customers.

 

The biggest problem I see now is that we dont have some of the needed basic rules to follow and that the few rules we do have arent administered by all the approvers all the time! If the rule is that all traditional caches must have logbooks, then make sure that only those that do are allowed!!! Im talking basic rules here, we sure dont want to get carried away by adding too many rules either icon_eek.gif.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

What we are trying to prevent is a trend toward caches like, for example, the one in which the hider throws a cut tennis ball into the woods and requires finders to tell him what random piece of garbage he jammed into it. This was an actual cache submission that was rejected. It is not the only one we have received of this nature.


 

Maybe we need a geocaching hall of shame. Since these caches stay in the system, even if never approved, how about posting them to a Hall Of Shame page? You could blank out the actual coordinates, since they really don't matter anyway. This way people can see all the stupid crap the admins have to deal with. Caches like the infamous sneaker cache, the PA candle cache, the tennis ball, and that horrid Cache Cache locationless.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by max2extreme:

You know what, i could really care less if I have to sign a logbook, send an email, sign in red pen, call the owner, whatever. Im doin it to find the cache. If I read the details and it says "you must sign in red pen", Ill bring a red pen.


 

I've seen a number of small caches lately that ask that you do a certain thing in your online log; begin the third word with the same letter as the day of the week, or include a word that rhymes with "orange," or whatnot. Sometimes it's in addition to the logbook, sometimes it's instead of it. A lot of people seem to forget or not notice such instructions, though. Doesn't really matter to me, though sometimes it makes the log sound a bit stilted icon_smile.gif.

 

The idea of a cache being a clear tube with certain items inside which you have to describe to log the find sounds kind of nifty to me, actually. This is probably because I've never seen one before, so this kind of cache isn't exactly overrunning my area. A little of this sort of variety in the local caches wouldn't hurt a thing... at least, not in my area, and not if done thoughtfully... but it does technically violate the 'sign the log' rule. It reminds me of that series of picture books where there are various items on the page you have to try to find... I forget what they're called. Not where's waldo, the one that's done with photos... I'm just blanking on the series name. At any rate, I can see how it could be done well and with thought, and I'm so tired of seeing dirty golfballs and mctoys that I'd really be quite pleased with finding a sealed tube of things that are presumably interesting to look at. (Obviously, if there's random junk or trash, it's not going to be so interesting.)

 

I am suddenly filled with the desire to go hunt one of these things.. and there aren't any around here! Bah. icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

 

Do I understand that no traditional cache will be approved unless a logbook is present?


 

That's what we've been enforcing, but we're not mindless automatons. If the community as a whole is against that measure, we'll certainly remove it.


 

By "traditional" cache, do you mean "not virtual or locationless"? Because I'm really grooving on the idea of clear-tube caches, which is new to me. I am getting the impression that they've become problematic in other areas, hence the concern, but it seems to me like perhaps a cache of this sort would fit under the "unknown/mystery" "?" icon.

 

I can certainly see that if there junky contents, no notebook, no indication it's a cache... it's falling on the far side of the somewhat thin line between cache and trash. What if it's labeled "Geocache" and has contact info visible? I don't really know what could be done to guarantee quality -- in any cache -- but this sort of cache design seems to have at least the potential for some really neat and creative things, and I'd hate to see it stifled for the purely selfish reason that I really want to find one after reading about them.

 

I do see the need, frankly, for more detailed rules, and more of them, both to assure some sort of standardization to the approval process (the more approvers have to go by, the more consistent approval or denial will probably be) and because there are now a whole heck of a lot of caches out there, and quality *is* becoming more and more of an issue, from what I've seen out there. If the cache remains sealed, at least the things inside can't be traded for dirty golf balls, y'know? icon_smile.gif. Nobody seems to like the "I know it when I see it" definition of a decent cache, though I think at some level, we can't do much better without introducing a lot of rules that will inevitably either require exceptions, or stifle creativity.

 

There's always going to be some element of judgment and subjectivity to a process like this, because our approvers are blessed with real live brains. I would hope that a well-written justification and detailed description of a cache, even a non-standard one, would have at least some persuasive potential, rather than a rubber-stamping YES/NO based on a flowchart of criteria. From reading a cache owner's description, I can have some clue of the quality of the cache, but it's purely subjective. That doesn't mean it's totally meaningless, though it is not necessarily reliable. Some cachers are people of few words (and misspelled ones), but put out good and thoughtful caches. But I've never seen a really well-written cache description that led to a piece of junk. People who care that much about their caches generally place them intelligently and care for them, too. If you try to estimate a cache's quality by how well-crafted the description is, you'll have some false-negatives from the more taciturn cachers, but a false positive would be rare.

 

On a completely different note, I once found a "virtual" cache that consisted of a magnetic business card (placed by cachers). Unusual use of "virtual," obviously. But I think there may be a place in the world for take-nothing-leave-nothing-no-logbook-alternative-verification caches. They certainly *could* be done at least as well as most of the ammo box caches I've seen, and they'd add some welcome variety to our hunting regimen. Do I know a way to quantify all of this? Nope. I don't know art, I just know what I like.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

Bassonpilot said: “I think my suggestion of approvals by "regional managers" who are out in-the-field caching in their area of responsibility would certainly help address such issues; probably in a more positive manner.” As Moun10Bike stated, we have had that in place for some time.


 

Do we? In some areas that may be true; certainly it is true near the domiciles of the approvers and in the areas where approvals have been delegated to geocaching organizations; it definitely is not a truism. The names of the approvers on my cache pages are familiar only from these forums ...

 

I presume my use of the word "regional" equates to your definition of "local." No problem; I'll restate my suggestion: I believe caches should be approved by people (meaning an individual, individuals or small committee of cachers) who actively cache the particular area and experience the quality of the cache placements personally and on a regular basis.

 

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

Bassonpilot said: “An open mind, flexibility, and a dose of common sense.” But in the next breath you say we need exacting rules... make up your mind. Do you want flexibility or rigidity?


 

My mind is made up. The answer, as alluded to in the subject line of this post, is clearly "both."

 

Do we all agree that "guidelines" are intended to be applied subjectively while "rules" are intended to be applied objectively?

 

I suggested that during the process in which an admin. considers a cache for approval that the admin. must exercise the Guidelines for Approval using those three qualities. "An open mind, flexibility, and a dose of common sense." I believe the guidelines should be heavily weighted towards approval. (As no doubt they are.)

 

Personally, I would rather visit one creative cache that fell "outside of the nominal" than 10 non-descript "cookie-cutter" caches that won quick-and-easy approval simply because they "raised no red flags." While the former is no "guarantee of quality," neither is the latter.

 

I think the process for rejecting a cache should not be flexible; caches should be rejected only when they clearly violate a stated and official rule of the website.

 

I also don't think an individual admin. should be empowered to (you could just as well read that as "be subjected to/obligated to") reject proposed caches ... I think questionable caches should be sent "upstairs" past the volunteer level of management (or perhaps to a committee of the most senior admins.) for final determination. Inconsistency and decisions that appear to be arbitrary must be avoided.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 01, 2003 at 08:20 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I also don't think an individual admin. should be empowered to (you could just as well read that as "be subjected to/obligated to") reject proposed caches ... I think questionable caches should be sent "upstairs" past the volunteer level of management (or perhaps to a committee of the most senior admins.) for final determination. Inconsistency and decisions that appear to be arbitrary must be avoided.


That is done, and has been done for some time.

 

As I have said previously and demonstrated to dboggny, I know many areas of the country pretty well including yours. I think some other admins travel a good bit and know the country pretty well too. One thing I do know...

"You can't please all the people all of the time."

"The quickest way to failure is to try to please everyone."

 

If you have a local admin in every city, then there would be thousands of admins and there would be no way all of them could ever be on the same page. The complaints raised in this topic would multiply exponentially. And so on and so on... just like this topic which will not seem to go away.

Link to comment

There are lots of good ideas here for a set of guidelines. I don't see why that would be so hard to make.

 

Obviously, from the reactions here, there are alot of people who love this sport and take how its handled very seriously.

 

While we may not agree on everything surely we could agree on a basic set of cache guidelines.

 

The great question...which I have not been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is "What does a woman want?" --Freud

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by nesdon:

I soooo agree:

 

I've been posting things online from the earliest BBS days almost 20 years ago now (there were no women, and 90% angry teen geeks)...


Hey! I was one of those! (Got my Commodore 64 in 1985 with a 300 baud VicModem). I'll stick with my cable modem icon_smile.gif

 

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

This signature line intentionally left blank

Link to comment

It's not very often that I come visit the forums and find out that a cache I've hunted this afternoon has generated a four-page thread. In fact, I can say this is a first.

 

But having hunted this cache -- after finding seven others today -- I feel reasonably qualified to offer my point of view.

 

This cache is in a undeveloped field next to a housing tract. From what I can deduce, there was an original cache filled with film canisters, and the point was to remove a film canister and hide it someplace else as a new cache. The only requirement was that it include the original cache's name as part of the new cache's designation.

 

Hence, why some folks are concerned that empty film canisters are being scattered across the planet and called caches.

 

It turns out when I got home to the computer, I learned (from a spoiler in another log) that Billybob's cache is a film canister, although his cache description lists it as a regular cache. It's also listed as a mystery cache, which I've never hunted before. But walking around a field of sagebrush looking for, well, I didn't know what, and then not finding it ... or maybe I did -- maybe the point of the cache called 'Assimilation' was that all those houses in that tract look exactly the same ... maybe the cache was supposed to be a social reflection ...

 

Well, since I didn't know if I'd found it or not, I didn't even feel like I'd been skunked.

 

Renegade Night successfully logged this cache, and he is a player whose talents and associates I respect. I think if Billybob is under his tutelage, so to speak, he'll enjoy the game and we'll enjoy hunting for his caches. But this particular cache wasn't a great way to start, and I'm glad that the cache approvers made the effort to see that he had some dialogue on how to place a successful cache. Maybe caches should have logs, and maybe not all can, but IMHO a cache ought to be somthing besides an empty film canister in an nondescript field with only a funky name to its credit. It would be a great way to practice using your GPS for the first time, but it didn't feel much like a cache.

Link to comment

This is a long thread, so I'll summarize what I'm seeing in this discussion. Hopefully I can respond to most of the observations, suggestions, and issues that have come up here.

 

If you respond to my post, do not quote pieces of it and respond to it. Put together a concise response and summarize with your own words.

 

1. Restricting users to a locality / charging for membership / modifying the sport somehow.

 

Ain't gonna happen. This comes up once in a while and I will always point back to the vow that the Geocaching sport will never be "pay for play" on Geocaching.com - The nay sayers have responded that member only caches go against this philosophy but it is an empty argument.

 

You will always be able to search by radius and get all the caches in that area. New features will allow more precise searching.

 

It does cost money to run a site that gets 12 million pageviews a month so we look at alternative methods to fund the site. No we're not about to go under either. If we were, however, we would work on a transition plan to ensure that the sport continues.

 

As an aside, when someone creates a hypothetical argument like shutting down accounts where you can only search within xx radius from your home coordinates, that doesn't mean it is going to happen. Sometimes hypothetical situations grow horns and end up charging the china store.

 

2. Geocaching.com != Geocaching

 

This is a fun debate. Is Geocaching.com geocaching, or is it a database of geocaches only? "Having a sport managed under one man will be the death of us all!" is the cry from the masses.

 

If this was a dictatorship, do you really think the site would be successful? Heck, dissent on Geocaching.com even goes in the forums hosted by Geocaching.com.

 

A while back the early group of geocachers made the issue that Geocaching.com does not own geocaching. I cede that argument. However that means that since there is no ownership of geocaching by geocaching.com, we have the right to create guidelines for geocaches listed on our own web site. We also have the right to determine "quality" within our own limitations that we cannot physically visit each cache and ensure that it meets a checklist.

 

The admins have a hard job to weed out the signal to noise ratio. You would be horribly naive to think, however, that opening up geocaching to allow whatever listings people want on the site would be beneficial to the sport. At this point we'd have about a gazillion store caches, tennis ball caches, golf ball caches, "lets watch this carcass rot over time" caches, metal detector caches, buried caches, porn caches, ad nauseum.

 

The continuing movement of the web site is to have regional approvers from geocaching organizations around the world. This is a new sport, however, and both technology needs to be modified and organizations need to be formed to police their own areas. The ultimate goal is for each region to have a "committee" to decide on the rules of geocaching in their areas.

 

Again, I want to stress that this is a new activity and perhaps the first outdoor activity that has an online component. As a result there will be obvious growing pains. Hopefully folks will retain a level head about it all.

 

3. The original discussion about a microcache with no logbook.

 

This discussion/thread was absolutely insane. An admin has a discussion with a geocacher to verify some information about a cache, and make some recommendations. Not just an admin either, but Moun10bike, a guy who has been playing the sport just as long as I have been running the site. Then everyone jumps on and offers their own advice without the understanding of the entire situation.

 

How about instead of having a pity party you just try to work it out with Moun10bike, and give him the respect he deserves? The fact that there would be so much venom and time wasted over the placement of a film canister really blows perspective out of the water.

 

Understand that if you do disagree with the decision of a cache, you can always post your dissent in the forums. However, in this case there wasn't an outright permanent archival of a cache. All I'm asking is to have a little patience and benefit of the doubt for Moun10bike and the rest of the admins who are working in the best interests of the sport.

 

4. Rules and Guidelines

 

We call them guidelines because they aren't rules. They are guidelines. Geocaching.com is not a courtroom. The reason why they are guidelines is because the sport is very fluid and organic.

 

Guidelines also make it harder to make decisions, and in most cases the different admins with different backgrounds make a judgement call on the approval or disapproval of a cache. For this ireason there is a way for someone to "appeal" a "ruling" if they so choose, which would have happened here if the cache was actually disapproved.

 

Obviously red tape would suck. For example, make a designated approver go out and physically find the cache and rate it before approval. Logistically it is impossible. So we do the next best thing.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

>snip< The fact that there would be so much venom and time wasted over the placement of a film canister really blows perspective out of the water. >snip<

 

Jeremy Irish


 

The whole post was great - but this one line hit the nail on the head. It was like watching an episode of "I'm a celebrity - get me out of here" (you know it's not worth your time, yet you can't stop watching!). icon_eek.gif

 

The site's great - the game's fun, and it's a great excuse to get outside. Thanks Jeremy (along with the rest of TPTB.).

Link to comment

I'd suggest deletion of this thread. Completely and immediately. If there are any valid points, update the faqs, descriptions and instructions accordingly. The thread has a very horribly broad and flame inviting title. Many of the original follow ups would have done better to post into a new thread themselves. If there are any further concerns, let them now be posted under a more focused less inflammatory title.

 

SA / PP-ASEL-I

Link to comment

I'm working on a series of microcaches that will be found by only those willing to put in long miles of hiking, or backpacking to log. All of the caches will contain only an e-mail password for verification and a VERY SMALL geocaching info sheet.

 

Information on the series can be found here.

 

I'd like some input. Thanks.

 

Adversity is certain, misery is optional.

texasgeocaching_sm.gif

Link to comment

quote:
A cache can come in many forms but the first item should always be the logbook. In its simplest form a cache can be just a logbook and nothing else. The logbook contains information from the founder of the cache and notes from the cache's visitors. The logbook can contain much valuable, rewarding, and entertaining information. A logbook might contain information about nearby attractions, coordinates to other unpublished caches, and even jokes written by visitors. If you get some information from a logbook you should give some back. At the very least you can leave the date and time you visited the cache.

 

(From the FAQs)

 

erik - geocaching.com admin

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...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...