would it be tacky if . . . .?

[Guest madphatboy2]

In the thread that bunkerdave started, I was wondering if there is a tactful way of telling some people that they may be overdoing it on setting the caches. The number of caches they have set vs. the number of found are about even. Alot of them are not done very well at all. On one his mom suggested that he leave his shoes sitting somewhere out there. Alot of them are ridiculous like this. Some have a view when you get there, but that would be the exception to the caching rule in this case. I thought of posting on the cache page that maybe people aren't that interested in this many "lame" caches. Any ideas?

[Guest JAMCC47]

QUALITY - QUALITY over quantity is what I think is more relvant. I would rather bust my brain and rump just to find one good cache than drive all over hell just to make a log. There are some real tacky ones out there that just relate to the ones who have bragging rights, but they haven't done anymore than using a different form of remote control.

 

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

JoseCanUSea

[Guest glenn95630]

I think you encourage him to set more caches to see where he would draw the line...

 

Read the yellow coordinates in the snow to find my underwear...

 

But seriously, politely ask him to slow down so that other cachers in the area can catch up to him in the 'Hidden' category.

 

... Took the shoelaces, left an insole.

[Guest Moun10Bike]

I think that this is a task that should be left to the Big Man.

 

Or maybe I'm off in left field on this and these caches are OK should be left as is. What is the consensus?

 

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

Jon (Moun10Bike)

N 47° 36.649', W 122° 3.616'

www.switchbacks.com/geocaching.html

[Guest Moun10Bike]

I think these sorts of caches do a real disservice to the game. What if someone new to geocaching chose a cache close to their home and it turned out to be one of these? Would they ever cache again? Would those hiding these caches ever have any interest in hunting caches like these?

 

I believe that this is a case where (provided there is strong enough support from the geocaching community) we petition Jeremy to archive the caches. When doing so, he could explain why they are below the bar so that the hiders will know how to improve for the future. I know that others (including myself) have limited admin rights on the site that would allow them to do the archiving, but I think that this is a task that should be left to the Big Man.

 

Or maybe I'm off in left field on this and these caches are OK should be left as is. What is the consensus?

 

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

Jon (Moun10Bike)

N 47° 36.649', W 122° 3.616'

www.switchbacks.com/geocaching.html

[Guest madphatboy2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by glenn95630:

I think you encourage him to set more caches to see where he would draw the line...

 

Read the yellow coordinates in the snow to find my underwear...

 

But seriously, politely ask him to slow down so that other cachers in the area can catch up to him in the 'Hidden' category.

 

... Took the shoelaces, left an insole.

 

---

This gave me a real good laugh. Thanks glenn. And as for mou10bike, that is one route that i like. I have not visited these caches personally. I was going to until i had heard from some of the locals that they aren't quite up to par. Maybe it would be a good idea if i visited them to get a firm idea of how bad they really are. I'm all for planting more caches, but alot of them seem to be in the same general area. I would still like to see more opinions.

 

[This message has been edited by madphatboy2 (edited 14 January 2002).]

[Guest rusty]

When I first started caching all I saw on here was hide, hide, hide. When the initial cache pantry needed stocked that was ok, but it is possible to overstock. I did not place a cache until I had found about 10-12 and have kept that ratio. Low by some standards but every one of my caches means something to me and was placed with a purpose. The old mantra no longer has a place in many areas of the U.S., quality, not quantity should be the keyword.

 

In another thread I was reading about why so many newbies sound all upbeat and are never heard from again after 1 or 2 finds. Well it might be cool to use a sattelite to locate some old tennis shoes but it will hardly sustain the hobby.

 

The way I read this persons caches he is mocking the entire geocache community. He wants to see just how stupid he can be and still have the lemmings show up to find his trash. I vote for Jeremy to contact him for his side of the story and removing at least some of his caches as inappropriate. The motto is cache-in, trash-out, how do an old pair of tennis shoes fit into that picture?

 

Rusty...

 

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

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

[Guest rusty]

ll upbeat and are never heard from again after 1 or 2 finds. Well it might be cool to use a sattelite to locate some old tennis shoes but it will hardly sustain the hobby.

 

The way I read this persons caches he is mocking the entire geocache community. He wants to see just how stupid he can be and still have the lemmings show up to find his trash. I vote for Jeremy to contact him for his side of the story and removing at least some of his caches as inappropriate. The motto is cache-in, trash-out, how do an old pair of tennis shoes fit into that picture?

 

Rusty...

 

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

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

[Guest madphatboy2]

Rusty,

I completly agree with your views. Thank you for more insite that I hadn't thought of. I think that I will get what information I can from these caches and contact jeremy.

[Guest glenn95630]

Maybe he peforming research in addiction. I hear there are some people who can't ignore a posted cache. Is there anyone in Utah like that?

 

Based on the previous posts, I am still unclear on what the problem is. We need to clearly define the problem before we can solve a problem. Here are some potential problems:

 

1. Cache hider says cache is going to be great, but it turns out to be a pair of used shoes.

Not the Problem. Cache description was clear.

 

2. Cache hider is mocking our hobby.

 

3. Cache hider is leaving litter in the woods.

To discuss this one further, everyone must agree on definition of 'litter'.

 

4. Cache hider is hiding too many caches in a region (Salt Lake City) that already has a lot and not giving other a chance to hid.

 

5. Caches are below minimum standards (lame caches).

There currently are no minimum standards. Minimum standards have been discussed before, this gets messy quick.

 

6. Poor quality caches will turn-off newcomers to geocaching.

One solution would be to add a paragraph to the main page about the idea to not judge this hobby based on one cache.

 

I do have one question. If you did a top-notch cache and placed it 600 feet from the shoes, would it diminish your top-notch cache?

 

The thought that keeps going through my head is that the Shoe Cache was clearly described in the cache description. Geocachers have freewill and can decide for themselves whether to invest their time to search for the shoes. I don't see a problem if this example cache is the worst and there is only a small percentage of lame caches in SLC.

 

Glenn

[Guest madphatboy2]

As usual glenn your words are most wise. However, if you do some homework on the type of caches that these 2 people have set you will see that they have an abundance of lame caches which migh not get peoples interest and use up space on the geocaching servers. I'm still in the process of the homework on thse myself. But 4 of them consist of going to the coords and then you need to email them of what tree you found or what hill you find. Besides looking on the map from mapblast which by the way is on the website showing the name of the hill, you wouldn't really know. My point is is that these type of caches should have a little more thought put into them before being placed. From what I have seen they walk around the woods with there GPS until they find a tree, rock, or squirrel and make that a cache. No thought, and no creativity. How is that appealling?

[Guest glenn95630]

A squirrel cache does sound too creative but a kangaroo or oppossom cache - now that is creative.

 

But seriously. I agree that I haven't researched the caches in question. There are 434 caches within 100 miles of SLC. Let's assume that 10 are lame. That leaves 424 non-lame caches.

 

Most geocachers in the world would gladly trade places.

 

If the overall 'lameness' of caches is on the increase, then there might be a problem. If it is a problem now, it seems like a small problem.

 

Again, I vote for the "Ignore" button for caches I have no interest in.

[Guest arffer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by glenn95630:

The thought that keeps going through my head is that the Shoe Cache was clearly described in the cache description. Geocachers have freewill and can decide for themselves whether to invest their time to search for the shoes

---

 

First and formost, I do not want to slight or cast anything but appreciation towards the cache reviewers/approvers for what they do... but...

 

Rather than getting Jeremy involved in archiving 'lame' caches, can't some standard or at least common sense be used during the approval process?

 

Why would the shoe cache get approved in the first place? It clearly falls into the litter category by anyones standards.

 

A basic set of minimum standards shouldn't be that hard for the power(s) that be to apply. Standards defining container, location, and density (number within certain radius or within the same park/village/city etc.)

 

 

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

Team CacheCows of Wisconsin

[Guest web-ling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by madphatboy2:

I was wondering if there is a tactful way of telling some people that they may be overdoing it on setting the caches...Any ideas?

---

 

1. It's probably not entirely fair to criticize a cache you haven't visited. Either visit the cache, or at least talk with someone who has.

 

2. Email the cache setter and express your concerns. Be polite and tactful, but honest. Make positive suggestions.

 

3. If this doesn't produce some positive results, post your concerns on the cache page. Be polite and tactful, but honest.

 

4. If people still want to hunt the cache after reading your post, that's their problem.

 

5. If the post is deleted by the cache owner, repost.

 

6. If the cache owner deletes the post again, contact Jeremy.

 

My 2 cents (or in the case of tennis shoes, 2 scents)

 

Web-ling

[Guest blscearce]

quote:

---

Originally posted by arffer:

Standards defining container, location, and density (number within certain radius or within the same park/village/city etc.)

---

 

I would hate to see density limitations applied, because that would mean that crappy caches could prevent the placement of good ones.

 

And I don't really like the idea of a priori limitations of container or location. It would help prevent crap, but it might also prevent some creativity.

 

I think that cache placers have to police themselves. Word gets around about caches that aren't worth visiting.

[Guest ClayJar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by glenn95630:

Again, I vote for the "Ignore" button for caches I have no interest in.

---

I would welcome a "non-watch" list myself. I still haven't finished Louisiana, but there are several here that I really am not going to look for until I run completely out of options (not yours, Buck8Point; I'm talking about the new 1/1... or below... caches).

 

I hate to say it, but any caches less than */3, I'm going to start having to do left-handed... It's the only way I can be satisfied. If I use my right, it's over too quickly. (Sorry, had to. )

[Guest ClayJar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by glenn95630:

Again, I vote for the "Ignore" button for caches I have no interest in.

---

I would welcome a "non-watch" list myself. I still haven't finished Louisiana, but there are several here that I really am not going to look for until I run completely out of options (not yours, Buck8Point; I'm talking about the new 1/1... or below... caches).

 

I hate to say it, but any caches less than */3, I'm going to start having to do left-handed... It's the only way I can be satisfied. If I use my right, it's over too quickly. (Sorry, had to. )

[Guest arffer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blscearce:

I would hate to see density limitations applied, because that would mean that crappy caches could prevent the placement of good ones.

---

 

Not if done on a per cacher basis. For example, a given cacher is not allowed to hide more than say 2 caches within a 10 mile radius. The 2 cache and 10 mile are purely examples. Also, using minimum quality standards would prevent caches such as the shoe cache from displacing decent caches.

 

Common sense would also prevent a single cacher from placeing a dozen film canister caches in the same area.

 

quote:

---

I think that cache placers have to police themselves. Word gets around about caches that aren't worth visiting.

---

 

Take the earlier example of a new cacher going after a local cache that turns out to be the sneaker cache. Or a film canister cache, followed by another film canister cache, and then another just because there are so many of them. This newbie hasn't been around long enough for word to have spread to them regarding 'lame' caches.

[Guest arffer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by glenn95630:

Again, I vote for the "Ignore" button for caches I have no interest in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClayJar:

I would welcome a "non-watch" list myself

---

 

Hey! Wait a minute! What about this idea that would be a form of self policing...

 

You know how a cache's details page shows how many people are 'watching' a cache? How about if a cache's details page also showed how many were 'ignoring' a cache. That would reflect the overall opinion of a cache by the local cachers. That way anyone considering hunting a cache would get an idea of what other thought of it.

 

 

[This message has been edited by arffer (edited 14 January 2002).]

[Guest Alan2]

Last thing we need is a "Cache Squad" telling people that what's good for them has got to be good for you. Slippery slope!

 

Alan2

[Guest arffer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan2:

Last thing we need is a "Cache Squad" telling people that what's good for them has got to be good for you. Slippery slope!

 

Alan2

---

 

Why is this the last thing we need?

[Guest bunkerdave]

I have found more of this "cacher's" (to denigrate the term) caches than anyone, I believe. I must allow that I have found a few that were up to par, and one that I would have been pleased to have placed myself. He knows what a cache is SUPPOSED to be.

 

When the crap first started popping up, I thought I would send him an e-mail and ask him to take more thought. Then it occurred to me that I have a half dozen caches within easy raiding distance if I were to offend him and start a war. Instead, I contacted him and asked him if he would like to go with me to place a cache. We had some ideas, but the co-cache never materialized.

 

And the crap continued to pile up.

 

I knew that most of these were film containers, but I thought that some of them might be in interesting places. One was in a crack in an embankment placed just deep enough that even I, who am 6'9", had to stretch for all I was worth to reach it. Creative, I thought, and I didn't mind that. Most of the rest, however, were not nearly as creative.

 

The deal is that I could personally go around scooping up crappy caches all over the state, and we would have nothing but "good" caches, but that is not what I'm about. Part of the fun is not knowing what you are going to find. Also, I have caches that I want to have stay in their places, and I suspect that if I started removing those I thought were crap, it would not be long before mine were gone, too. Except for my BunkerDave's cache. I only know 2 people crazy enough to bag that one, and they already did.

 

Anyway, that's another epistle from me. Bring your salt. Lots of it.

 

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

BunkerDave

N 40° 7.081, W 111° 38.851

[Guest glenn95630]

I assume that the end of the story from BunkerDave's last post is...

 

... so I've decided to ignore these caches.

[Guest glenn95630]

quote:

---

Originally posted by arffer:

Why is this the last thing we need?

 

---

 

Because every cache is either too hard, or too easy, or too flat, or too steep, or too much math, or too buried, or too small of a container, or too camoflauged, or not camoflauged enough, or etc.

 

The slippery slope ends in a four volume set of 'guidelines' with an appendix on cacher dress code and facial hair suggestions. (Rule 640: No cachers over 6' 8" tall may use right hand when ...)

[Guest dan_edwards_1966]

I like the idea of a non-watch/ignore list. It uses two concepts that I really love.

 

It allows me to still place caches that I might like but few others would, without the threat of a cache police coming down on me. It also provides me with feedback about how others feel about my cache, and being a computer geek, you can never have to much information

 

I think it might be nice if that count was only available to the cache owner though.

[Guest RogerB]

I apologize for the long post. Here's what I have posted on a few of my caches and sent to the smelly shoe crew:

 

I have been emailed by a fellow GeoCacher to ask my why I keep posting my three recent caches to the top of the list. I am doing this to help keep this sport going even through the thick of winter. When people post Garbage caches, like ?find my shoes?, or tell me the elevation of a mountain top (and none of the three answers listed as possible answers are correct according to two different nationally acclaimed mapping software packages) or tell me the height of a certain tree?ridiculous?.anyway, you get the picture, it diminishes our sport. It also pushes valid caches (not just mine) down the New Cache page. Let?s see what you think? Would a new GeoCacher like to go to a findable real cache that has some stuff in it and also presents an interest to their family if they?re along, or an old pair of shoes? I don?t mean to offend anyone, but these couple of GeoCachers have put out a HUGE number of what amounts to being Garbage Caches. Understand something else; I am also getting a large amount of email echoing my sentiments. Also, I am not talking about spending large dollar amounts to put out caches. I put out my last cache including the container for under $15. I doubt they can buy a pair of smelly shoes for that little money. Someone needs to figure out that it?s not the huge amount of garbage caches that you put out that make you a great GeoCacher, rather what you do to help develop and continue the sport. I am not even claiming to be a good GeoCacher; much less a great one, but I do put time, thought and effort into my caches. That?s what counts. Differing reasonable views are always welcome at rogerbee@earthlink.net, or you can call me and we can talk about in on the radio on Sunday afternoons from 2-4 pm on KALL 910 AM radio. What have you done to further the GeoCaching sport lately?

RogerB

Outdoor Utah Today

KALL 910

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by madphatboy2:

In the thread that bunkerdave started, I was wondering if there is a tactful way of telling some people that they may be overdoing it on setting the caches. The number of caches they have set vs. the number of found are about even. Alot of them are not done very well at all. On one his mom suggested that he leave his shoes sitting somewhere out there. Alot of them are ridiculous like this. Some have a view when you get there, but that would be the exception to the caching rule in this case. I thought of posting on the cache page that maybe people aren't that interested in this many "lame" caches. Any ideas?

---

[Guest bunkerdave]

quote:

---

Originally posted by glenn95630:

I assume that the end of the story from BunkerDave's last post is...

 

... so I've decided to ignore these caches.

---

 

That would be accurate.

 

"Always leave them wanting more."

 

Thing is, if you do a ZIP code search on 84660, the first two pages of cache listings are pretty much just these caches. So what do I do? I could take an hour and go bag them all, as I tried once before, but that is not really how I would like to spend my time, and I have no interest in encouraging this person's methods. Or I could just log them as found, and put a note in there saying I did not find them, but just wanted them OFF my list, but then I always have to adjust my total.

 

Essentially, it is just clutter. And I would like it thrown OUT.

 

Jeremy: HELP! Give me a KILL switch.

 

I like the idea of having a feedback to cache owners to tell them when their cache is being ignored. It seems to me that would be the most tactful way of telling folks that others think their caches are, for whatever reason, inappropriate. They would not have to know WHO was ignoring them, but I think that having 20-30 IGNORE THIS CACHE messages come through the cacher's e-mail would speak volumes. I know that if I were to get those kinds of messages, I would be re-thinking what I had done with that cache.

[Guest bunkerdave]

quote:

---

Originally posted by glenn95630:

I assume that the end of the story from BunkerDave's last post is...

 

... so I've decided to ignore these caches.

---

 

That would be accurate.

 

"Always leave them wanting more."

 

Thing is, if you do a ZIP code search on 84660, the first two pages of cache listings are pretty much just these caches. So what do I do? I could take an hour and go bag them all, as I tried once before, but that is not really how I would like to spend my time, and I have no interest in encouraging this person's methods. Or I could just log them as found, and put a note in there saying I did not find them, but just wanted them OFF my list, but then I always have to adjust my total.

 

Essentially, it is just clutter. And I would like it thrown OUT.

 

Jeremy: HELP! Give me a KILL switch.

 

I like the idea of having a feedback to cache owners to tell them when their cache is being ignored. It seems to me that would be the most tactful way of telling folks that others think their caches are, for whatever reason, inappropriate. They would not have to know WHO was ignoring them, but I think that having 20-30 IGNORE THIS CACHE messages come through the cacher's e-mail would speak volumes. I know that if I were to get those kinds of messages, I would be re-thinking what I had done with that cache.

[Guest scooterj]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkerdave:

I like the idea of having a feedback to cache owners to tell them when their cache is being ignored. It seems to me that would be the most tactful way of telling folks that others think their caches are, for whatever reason, inappropriate. They would not have to know WHO was ignoring them, but I think that having 20-30 IGNORE THIS CACHE messages come through the cacher's e-mail would speak volumes. I know that if I were to get those kinds of messages, I would be re-thinking what I had done with that cache.

---

 

Won't work. Having an ignore list won't end up just being used to ignore specific caches, it'll get used to blanket ignore all caches by a particular person. This includes any good ones the ignored person may end up placing after rethinking their methods and figuring out what people really want. The ignored person might end up placing a fantastic cache right in your own neighborhood and you'd never know it.

 

If you add the feedback feature to the mix,the result will be that either the hider will get discouraged because no matter what he does to improve his caches they are still ignored because everyone ignores anything they see by him, or it'll encourage him to create a new account and start posting caches under a new name to get around the system.

[Guest scooterj]

.

---

 

Won't work. Having an ignore list won't end up just being used to ignore specific caches, it'll get used to blanket ignore all caches by a particular person. This includes any good ones the ignored person may end up placing after rethinking their methods and figuring out what people really want. The ignored person might end up placing a fantastic cache right in your own neighborhood and you'd never know it.

 

If you add the feedback feature to the mix,the result will be that either the hider will get discouraged because no matter what he does to improve his caches they are still ignored because everyone ignores anything they see by him, or it'll encourage him to create a new account and start posting caches under a new name to get around the system.

[Guest madphatboy2]

rogerb,

Thank you for adding what other types of cache this person has placed. I was going to mention that. As far as arffer comments on the ignore so that other cachers (and owner) can see that to see if others thing it is a lame cache or not. that is a good idea. Instead of getting them archived i would rather see that so that the caches that that person does have that are worth it like BD said i can go after and know that i would like it. BD, i did notice that some of his caches are pretty decent, i'm not dicontenting those ones at all. Thanks for everybodies comments and suggestions. Now if we can get Jeremy to pick up on this thread. *hint hint*

[Guest Huaso]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkerdave:

I like the idea of having a feedback to cache owners to tell them when their cache is being ignored. It seems to me that would be the most tactful way of telling folks that others think their caches are, for whatever reason, inappropriate. They would not have to know WHO was ignoring them, but I think that having 20-30 IGNORE THIS CACHE messages come through the cacher's e-mail would speak volumes. I know that if I were to get those kinds of messages, I would be re-thinking what I had done with that cache.

---

 

I'm not so sure this would send the right message. For example, there are many worthy caches located in both urban and remote parts of the state that some folks either can't or just won't take the time to visit. They would likely add these to their "ignore list". The result isn't an indication of cache quality at all. The BunkerDave cache could easily end up in that situation.

 

Maybe these guys are just approaching caching from a different perspective. If they are just trying to muck-up the system, they will probably soon tire of it. Either way, they have certainly had their 15 minutes of fame here.

[Guest Choberiba]

bunkerdave: the first two pages of cache listings are pretty much just these caches.

 

Here you go Bunky Baby.

 

Season to taste.

[Guest ALacy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Choberiba:

bunkerdave: Hereyou go Bunky Baby.

 

Season to taste.

 

---

The only problem with this is if someone puts out a new cache closer to him than these that he would want to go to your technique would skip it.

[Guest Utahbill]

h.

 

I like option four the best. Any of the other options has the potential to spark a cache "war". A vandal in our area could do a lot of damage.

 

Just my 2 cents

Utahbill

[Guest Utahbill]

I to have noticed these caches with more than a little disgust. It appears to me that this "cacher" is deliberately baiting the local Geocaching Community. I see several options here.

 

1. Ignore them and hopefully they will go away.

 

2. Have Jeremey remove their caches.

 

3. All of us start rolling our caches up to the top as RogerB has done and keep the bad caches buried. How ever this negatively impacts legitimate new caches.

 

4. Implement the ignore button or switch.

 

I like option four the best. Any of the other options has the potential to spark a cache "war". A vandal in our area could do a lot of damage.

 

Just my 2 cents

Utahbill

[Guest bunkerdave]

Nice Idea, weeding out the first two pages.

 

It would be better if I could eliminate all the caches within about 6 miles of my home. I have either found all these, placed them myself (only 3 "actual" caches, mind you.) or really don't care to visit them.

 

Another real bummer is that with all the caches that have been placed, there is no way anyone - including myself - is going to place anymore in my area. It's a shame, too, because there are lots of places that would be great.

 

I did a "Poker Run" cache, essentially a series of virtuals, and now that it has run it's course, I think I will archive all those. Lead by example, you know.

 

I am also considering pulling the two caches I have that are near the home(s) of the Sneaker Bunch and relocating them to a more secluded (cache-wise) location in the spring. It's a shame, because I was the first one to do ANY caches in that area, but it is pretty much ruined now. Call me arrogant, but I kind of liked my caches being THE REASON folks went to that canyon, at least those who had never been there before. Now it's just one more cache in the pot.

 

Re: Alacy

 

Good point. However, as I said above, it is unlikely that anyone will put any more caches that close to me. First, it is inundated with caches now, and second, they would be afraid I might pop out of the bushes with my camera.

[Guest bunkerdave]

Nice Idea, weeding out the first two pages.

 

It would be better if I could eliminate all the caches within about 6 miles of my home. I have either found all these, placed them myself (only 3 "actual" caches, mind you.) or really don't care to visit them.

 

Another real bummer is that with all the caches that have been placed, there is no way anyone - including myself - is going to place anymore in my area. It's a shame, too, because there are lots of places that would be great.

 

I did a "Poker Run" cache, essentially a series of virtuals, and now that it has run it's course, I think I will archive all those. Lead by example, you know.

 

I am also considering pulling the two caches I have that are near the home(s) of the Sneaker Bunch and relocating them to a more secluded (cache-wise) location in the spring. It's a shame, because I was the first one to do ANY caches in that area, but it is pretty much ruined now. Call me arrogant, but I kind of liked my caches being THE REASON folks went to that canyon, at least those who had never been there before. Now it's just one more cache in the pot.

 

Re: Alacy

 

Good point. However, as I said above, it is unlikely that anyone will put any more caches that close to me. First, it is inundated with caches now, and second, they would be afraid I might pop out of the bushes with my camera.

[Guest jeremy]

Sorry I haven't piped up on this. It's been hard to keep above the wave, so to speak, so I've been ignoring my duties in the forums.

 

Unfortunately I don't have time to personally review caches now, so I have folks that help me, and they sometimes don't have the same rules for approval, so a few slipped through. If you see a questionable cache, please let me know. Just send email to contact geocaching.com so I know about it. In the past I have noticed that this guy has been placing some pretty, well, stupid caches. I've notified everyone who helps approve them not to approve these and let me take them. Hopefully that will stem the flood of filth.

 

Of the ones that still exist, let me know if you find them and they aren't close to par. We're at the point where there are plenty of caches to seek out, so we can have more stringent standards as to what a real cache is. Granted, we can't get heavy on rules but there is a certain amount of common sense we can apply to caches.

 

Jeremy

[Guest jeremy]

ontact geocaching.com so I know about it. In the past I have noticed that this guy has been placing some pretty, well, stupid caches. I've notified everyone who helps approve them not to approve these and let me take them. Hopefully that will stem the flood of filth.

 

Of the ones that still exist, let me know if you find them and they aren't close to par. We're at the point where there are plenty of caches to seek out, so we can have more stringent standards as to what a real cache is. Granted, we can't get heavy on rules but there is a certain amount of common sense we can apply to caches.

 

Jeremy

[Guest bunkerdave]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huaso:

I'm not so sure this would send the right message. For example, there are many worthy caches located in both urban and remote parts of the state that some folks either can't or just won't take the time to visit. They would likely add these to their "ignore list". The result isn't an indication of cache quality at all. The BunkerDave cache could easily end up in that situation.

 

Maybe these guys are just approaching caching from a different perspective. If they are just trying to muck-up the system, they will probably soon tire of it. Either way, they have certainly had their 15 minutes of fame here.

 

---

 

I understand that anyone's cache might be unattractive to any other person for any number of reasons. The big thing is that if you go to the trouble to do a cache like mine or any of the other thousands of quality caches in the world, you would know, if it were ignored, whether it was because it was "too hard" or because it was considered "trash." In all honesty, there has never been a cache that I was simply unwilling to hunt. My motto has always been, "if you hide it I will come", but these have just pushed it to the limit. It is ridiculous. I actually visited a couple the other night that this person placed, because nothing was on TV and I had "inversion fever" and needed to get out. They were not junk, (one was actually a washer, which I don't have a problem with, but it was attached to a stop sign and was essentially meaningless and uninteresting.) and the other was a water bottle with a few trinkets. This, too, was in an uninteresting place - looked like private property to me - but at least it wasn't SHOES. I had to remind myself that the game is really all about the hunt, even if there is nothing there worth hunting for. About the only good thing about finding some of these caches is that I get them off my "not found" queue.

[Guest Choberiba]

jeremy: I have folks that help me, and they sometimes don't have the same rules for approval

 

You can put my name down on the [second opinions] contact list, for use when one of your assistants is uncertain.

 

ALacy: The only problem with this is if someone puts out a new cache closer to him than these that he would want to go to your technique would skip it.

 

That's the beauty in this though.

 

The only way this might happen is if the individual in question were to archive one of theirs. Any additions would stand out since the "individual's" caches would be bumped onto the good list.

[Guest arffer]

is. Each cache you want to ignore would have to be brought up so you could click on 'Ignor this cache'. Your point of blanket ignores against a cacher and not even seeing an improved cache is only valid if people didn't read the cache details page before they clicked on 'Ignore'. And that's their problem if they are that dense.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huaso:

I'm not so sure this would send the right message. For example, there are many worthy caches located in both urban and remote parts of the state that some folks either can't or just won't take the time to visit. They would likely add these to their "ignore list". The result isn't an indication of cache quality at all.

---

 

Okay, here is where common sense should be applied. If a cacher sees many ignores on a cache they own, then that might imply others think its lame. But not if they see just a few ignores. Still not sure, then look at the logs on your cache: are cachers saying its bad? or are they raving about it?

 

Why is it so hard for common sense to triumph over extremism?

 

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

Team CacheCows of Wisconsin

 

[This message has been edited by arffer (edited 15 January 2002).]

[Guest arffer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeremy:

We're at the point where there are plenty of caches to seek out, so we can have more stringent standards as to what a real cache is. Granted, we can't get heavy on rules but there is a certain amount of common sense we can apply to caches.

---

 

Thanks Jeremy, that's exactly what I was advocating. Not a four volumn set of guidelines as someone said my idea would turn into, just some common sense that recognizes a geotrash cache.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooterj:

Won't work. Having an ignore list won't end up just being used to ignore specific caches, it'll get used to blanket ignore all caches by a particular person. This includes any good ones the ignored person may end up placing after rethinking their methods and figuring out what people really want. The ignored person might end up placing a fantastic cache right in your own neighborhood and you'd never know it.

---

The Ignore feature being suggested is on a cache by cache basis, not on a cacher by cacher basis. Each cache you want to ignore would have to be brought up so you could click on 'Ignor this cache'. Your point of blanket ignores against a cacher and not even seeing an improved cache is only valid if people didn't read the cache details page before they clicked on 'Ignore'. And that's their problem if they are that dense.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huaso:

I'm not so sure this would send the right message. For example, there are many worthy caches located in both urban and remote parts of the state that some folks either can't or just won't take the time to visit. They would likely add these to their "ignore list". The result isn't an indication of cache quality at all.

---

 

Okay, here is where common sense should be applied. If a cacher sees many ignores on a cache they own, then that might imply others think its lame. But not if they see just a few ignores. Still not sure, then look at the logs on your cache: are cachers saying its bad? or are they raving about it?

 

Why is it so hard for common sense to triumph over extremism?

 

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

Team CacheCows of Wisconsin

 

[This message has been edited by arffer (edited 15 January 2002).]

[Guest RedwoodRed]

k record would make me think twice about visiting one of their caches.

 

These are the types of folks that will give geocaching a bad name. I can easily imagine newspaper headlines in the main Salt Lake newspaper: "Child Falls To Death from Cliff While Geocaching - Parents didn't realize the area was hazardous until too late."

 

Sounds harsh, but think about it. My .02 (in U.S. Dollars),

 

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

Lori aka: RedwoodRed

KF6VFI

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

http://www.geogadgets.com

http://www.beautywithattitude.com

http://www.w6hy.org

[Guest RedwoodRed]

Back to the main topic, which is the flooding of supposedly-placed caches by people who are obviously endowed with nothing but time, an obnoxious imagination (or none) and an overwhelmingly bulletproof self-image (read: no common sense)...

 

Considering that these people are in their late teens, and we know that madphat and maybe bunkerdave have tried to take them under-wing, has anyone really sat down and discussed with them the obvious folly of their actions?

 

After reading quite a few of their geocaches, these guys seem to be daring people to take chances with their lives, especially since they tend to post difficulty levels below what a seasoned geocacher would rate them at. This is going to lead to a serious injury or worse.

 

Over and above their comment on one post about "big-boned people", just reading the extremely brief cache descriptions and knowing their track record would make me think twice about visiting one of their caches.

 

These are the types of folks that will give geocaching a bad name. I can easily imagine newspaper headlines in the main Salt Lake newspaper: "Child Falls To Death from Cliff While Geocaching - Parents didn't realize the area was hazardous until too late."

 

Sounds harsh, but think about it. My .02 (in U.S. Dollars),

 

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

Lori aka: RedwoodRed

KF6VFI

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

http://www.geogadgets.com

http://www.beautywithattitude.com

http://www.w6hy.org

[Guest pater47]

I was trying to explain geocaching to someone today and showed him the page on the sneaker cache as a good bad example. Also explained virtual and multiple caches and travel bugs. Evidently he learned quite well because later we were going down the road and saw a tennis shoe on the side of the road. He said, "Hey look! Half that sneaker cache is a travel bug now!"

[Guest madphatboy2]

I posted the links to this thread and the one BD started on their page a couple days ago hoping that they would read them. I've noticed that they have not placed a cache since. However they may be thinking of how to place a good cache (good for them) or they may have got the hint. Time will tell.

[Guest TheJulians]

quote:

---

Originally posted by madphatboy2:

I posted the links to this thread and the one BD started on their page a couple days ago hoping that they would read them. I've noticed that they have not placed a cache since. However they may be thinking of how to place a good cache (good for them) or they may have got the hint. Time will tell.

---

 

Or they got their feelings hurt and decided that this entire community is too rapped up in categorizing what's good and bad, so have given up the game.

 

I enjoy the hunt. I don't really care if there's dirty tennis shoes, or gold bullion (though, I suppose I would kinda prioritize the bullion if I thought I could keep it). If someone wants to make caches that you don't like, why not just not visit those caches? I feel that making a person feel bad about doing something they enjoy is petty and selfish.

[Guest glenn95630]

I wish my kids would stop leaving their caches in the middle of the living room. Don't they realize they are suppose to be outside ...in a bush ...in Utah.