would it be tacky if . . . .?

January 15, 2002

I'm not trying to make them feel bad about EVERY cache they set. Some of the caches are very good. Some are quite the opposite. They are down right awful. That's my whole point with this thread.

January 15, 2002

YOU may think that finding a pair of smelly old sneakers at the end of a cache hunt is fine, but it does degrade the sport as a whole, not to mention that these folks are posting very little if any information about the items in the cache (if any) or the areas in which they place these caches and from this lack someone could get hurt.

Another point brought up and (I believe) significant is this: If this was your first cache hunt/find, would you continue to hunt? Some might not. I enjoy the hunt, but if I showed up with my kids thinking there was treasure to trade and only found stinky sneakers, I would be very put-off... not to mention lynched by my kids... Some folks DO go out for the treasure, and if treasure wasn't a basic aspect of geocaching there wouldn't be a need to put anything out other than a logbook. People placing caches should be considerate of this fact.

Go to the hiders' zip code and look at some of their caches. Maybe you will understand if you read the obvious disrespect and sarcasm used in what they post.

The hunt is good, yes.

Poor cache-placing consideration is BAD.

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

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

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

January 15, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by TheJulians:

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.

Obviously you missed the original point made: These caches are not only poorly thought out, poorly placed and for the most part silly (how tall is the tree at the coordinates???) but in some cases are dangerous.

YOU may think that finding a pair of smelly old sneakers at the end of a cache hunt is fine, but it does degrade the sport as a whole, not to mention that these folks are posting very little if any information about the items in the cache (if any) or the areas in which they place these caches and from this lack someone could get hurt.

Another point brought up and (I believe) significant is this: If this was your first cache hunt/find, would you continue to hunt? Some might not. I enjoy the hunt, but if I showed up with my kids thinking there was treasure to trade and only found stinky sneakers, I would be very put-off... not to mention lynched by my kids... Some folks DO go out for the treasure, and if treasure wasn't a basic aspect of geocaching there wouldn't be a need to put anything out other than a logbook. People placing caches should be considerate of this fact.

Go to the hiders' zip code and look at some of their caches. Maybe you will understand if you read the obvious disrespect and sarcasm used in what they post.

The hunt is good, yes.

Poor cache-placing consideration is BAD.

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

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

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

January 15, 2002

Oh my God, I thought some of the caches around me were bad. After seeing all the talk, I finally looked at 84660. Pitiful!! There has to be some standard for approving these caches. I'm glad to see Jeremy at the helm on this.

rdw

January 15, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by glenn95630:
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 ...)

Thanks Glenn. You repartee hit the spot!

Alan2

January 15, 2002

se 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 ...)

Thanks Glenn. You repartee hit the spot!

Alan2

January 16, 2002

I've been staying away from discussions like these for a while now, but the comment that a washer was attached to a stop sign as a 'cache' just made me ill. I have 3 caches within a 7 mile line (any farther and you'd end up swimming), but I put thought into the location. None are hard, but placed so people can check out a cool area for a while after finding the cache. I live in a vacation area, and wanted visitors to go to sites away from the usual places like the beach or tourist traps. The satisfaction I have is the comment "I've been staying in Yarmouth for 10 years, and never knew about this place" Had some very nice pix e-mailed to me as well. I've seen some un-impressive caches, but sounds like you got swamped by a Utah Lovelock... I guess the odds of a big community finally caught up with you guys.

January 18, 2002

madphatboy2

Geocacher

Posts: 84

From: American Fork, UT, U.S.A.

Registered: Nov 2001

posted 14 January 2002 03:48 PM

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

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?

IP: Logged

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

Well I have an idea.

How about you e-mail them and tell them, but in a polite manner. Also you might want to give them ideas of how to make, and place a great cache. You could give them advice like if people don't like your caches they will stop looking for yours even if they are good, because the ones of yours that they have found arn't as good as they should be. That's just my two dollars though you can decide to do whatever you want.

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

Badgerboy

January 18, 2002

I probably didn't state things in the best way. I'm glad that badgerboy and thehamradiogeocacher have more "tact" than I do. If they ever come back to this thread I would like to leave them a public apology. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way. As far as emailing goes, your right, I should have done that. I have actually tried to email one or both of you a couple of times for different reasons and recieved no reponse. Because of that, I was trying to come up with another way to get a hold of you.

[This message has been edited by madphatboy2 (edited 18 January 2002).]

January 18, 2002

I probably didn't state things in the best way. I'm glad that badgerboy and thehamradiogeocacher have more "tact" than I do. If they ever come back to this thread I would like to leave them a public apology. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way. As far as emailing goes, your right, I should have done that. I have actually tried to email one or both of you a couple of times for different reasons and recieved no reponse. Because of that, I was trying to come up with another way to get a hold of you.

[This message has been edited by madphatboy2 (edited 18 January 2002).]

January 18, 2002

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

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

January 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by madphatboy2:
I probably didn't state things in the best way. I'm glad that badgerboy and thehamradiogeocacher have more "tact" than I do. If they ever come back to this thread I would like to leave them a public apology

Apology? Was it them that we've been discussing all of this time? I don't recall anyone ever mentioning names... I guess Miss Cleo told them?

And if you DID try and contact an offending cacher, and received no response... hey, that is an attempt. I read that in the beginning of this thread. Hope this opens up some communication between cachers in your area, madphatboy. It seems as though it is needed. Maybe time for a Greater Salt Lake Geocachers Get-together?

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

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

January 18, 2002

That is certainly in the works. I've been discussing with tenami on how to put together an event for this area.

January 18, 2002

Hey madphatboy2, why not start a new thread - how to make, and place a great cache. I'm too new to geocaching and too shy to start one but I sure would like to know specifics about what people think a great cache would be.

quote:
Originally posted by madphatboy2:
That is certainly in the works. I've been discussing with tenami on how to put together an event for this area.

January 19, 2002

Hmmm... All these posts about feedback on caches. Would it create too many problems to have users "rate" the cache? Just like for the difficulty level, how about a star system (1 being bad 5 being good, with 3 being a nice enjoyable find). If it is technically possible, I think it would be a good thing. Personally, I wouldn't mind a 1/1 difficulty cache if it had a user rating of 3 stars!

January 19, 2002

make it impossible for the owner of a cache to delete posts on their pages? That way, when someone goes to their cache page, they'll see a long string of posts saying basically "Don't waste your time on this garbage." I think most people (even newbies like me) at least skim the posts to see if the cache is still there and if it's in a good condition.

If the hider gets a flame on his page that he doesn't think he deserves, he can contact the webmaster and ask that it be removed.

Granted, this method doesn't prevent people from getting tricked into going to brand new caches, but I think it would prevent lots of people from chasing down crap.

January 19, 2002

Couldn't you just make it impossible for the owner of a cache to delete posts on their pages? That way, when someone goes to their cache page, they'll see a long string of posts saying basically "Don't waste your time on this garbage." I think most people (even newbies like me) at least skim the posts to see if the cache is still there and if it's in a good condition.

If the hider gets a flame on his page that he doesn't think he deserves, he can contact the webmaster and ask that it be removed.

Granted, this method doesn't prevent people from getting tricked into going to brand new caches, but I think it would prevent lots of people from chasing down crap.

January 27, 2002

The way to prove or disprove quality of a cache is to include a picture of the cache contents in the online log. Photographic evidence of the quality of a cache is a desirable spoiler. It also helps if the cache is adjacent to another to let someone know if they found the wrong one. We just need to provide enough information to make the problem self correcting but not enough to detract from the experience.

January 27, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by 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.

Amen. Yes..A cache you have to work for to find is no comparision to one that you drive -up to. The ones well thought out are well worth the effort put into them.

January 27, 2002

I don't think we really want to go down the path of rating caches and giving negative feedback. It just creates too much potential for animosity, and that can only lead to someone getting their feelings hurt, feeling alienated, joining "the dark side" and becoming a "cache pirate." This is about the worst case I can imagine, but I am pretty sure there are those who would do it.

I think the best approach is still an anonymous "ignore" option. There are only very few caches that I will never go to, just because I know what the owner has placed in the past, and I suspect that any caches this person hides will be an abysmal waste of free time. Other than that, when I visit a cache that is quite poor, I let my buddies know about it with an e-mail, and they do the same for me. This way, no one gets their feelings hurt, but me and my fellow cachers don't waste too much time hunting them. The usefulness of an ignore option would be that it would provide feedback to a cache owner that SOMEONE thought their cache was sub-par, without revealing the finder's identity.

January 30, 2002

Check out the Is this Kosher thread. Seems the hamradiogeocacher is also a thief. The recent cache he posted which I helped get removed contained a puzzle stolen from someone else. The saga continues in Utah County!

RogerB

February 2, 2002

I don't mean to dredge up old topics, but I will instead of starting a new one... the problem is very similar.

What if you had a rash of virtual caches in your area. Now, VC's aren't bad, as a rule. But everyone of those VC's are drive-up/drive-off caches - there is no hunt, no mytique, no adventure. If they took people to some place they've never been, know nothing about and had more to them than copying what is written on a historical marker plaque, would that work for you? It may be interesting for tourists, but what about locals? Seems like it would take the fun out of the find for them.

It also floods the available placement areas. Steak and I have five to seven geocaches in the works for the next month and for spring. What if all the cool places to place caches are turned into VC's? Is it cool to place a physical cache close to a VC? We put a lot of thought into our caches. VC's just don't seem very provacative (sp?) to me.

Am I being biatschy? Probably...

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

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

February 2, 2002

nto VC's? Is it cool to place a physical cache close to a VC? We put a lot of thought into our caches. VC's just don't seem very provacative (sp?) to me.

Am I being biatschy? Probably...

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

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

February 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by bunkerdave:
I think the best approach is still an anonymous "ignore" option. There are only very few caches that I will never go to, just because I know what the owner has placed in the past, and I suspect that any caches this person hides will be an abysmal waste of free time. Other than that, when I visit a cache that is quite poor, I let my buddies know about it with an e-mail, and they do the same for me. This way, no one gets their feelings hurt, but me and my fellow cachers don't waste too much time hunting them. The usefulness of an ignore option would be that it would provide feedback to a cache owner that SOMEONE thought their cache was sub-par, without revealing the finder's identity.

Dave, if you placed a cache you thought was terrific, and you received one, or several anonymous 'ignore' notices pertaining to that cache, how much consideration would you give those notices? I have no problem with the concept of an 'ignore' button, but if you want the cache owner to be notified the cache is being ignored, you should be willing to have your name attached to it. Perhaps that would lead to some meaningful dialogue . . .

On a different note, and not directed at any specific individual, there has been quite a lot of arrogance on display from several people who consider themselves 'expert cachers' throughout this thread. I find it just as sickening as you folk find the caches you're complaining about.

[This message has been edited by BassoonPilot (edited 03 February 2002).]

February 3, 2002

I don't care for virtual caches either. They're no fun to hide. (If you can claim to 'hide' something that was already there). It's like when I was a kid and my older brothers would play hide and seek with me and it was always fun. But occasionally they would dupe me into a game of just seek. It was never as fun. Perhaps funny though....

February 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by jaw2925:
I don't care for virtual caches either. They're no fun to hide. (If you can claim to 'hide' something that was already there)....

One of the themes running through this thread has been the quality of a cache. I've visited a few fascinating virtual caches at places not too far from home I would not otherwise have known about. Several of these virtual caches turned out to be in cemeteries, or were graves in unusual locations. Just this morning I visited a virtual cache in an old cemetery, and I ended up spending about an hour there gleaning the history of a couple of the areas earliest families from the gravestones. For me, that cache had value and quality.

I've also placed a short 'virtual multi-cache' (it's called Inclement Weather Cache?) that brings visitors to three spots pertinent to different periods in the city's history, and ends up near a museum. They can claim the quick-and-easy find, or if the sites they visited piqued their curiosity, they can spend time in the museum learning more about the area. And if they don't have time to visit the museum at that moment, they know where to find it in the future. Fits my definition of a quality cache.

February 3, 2002

What is the purpose of this sport? Is it to find tacky trinkets to throw away or place in some other cache? Or is it the thrill of using technology to reach a goal and to get outside and see new places? I would like to think it's the latter. That being said, here's my two cents worth...

1. Cache density -- this is a concern, especially if, as has already been mentioned, the intent is just to place caches everywhere, making fun of the sport. It's also a concern if the area in which the cache is being placed is environmentally sensative.

2. Virtual caches -- I enjoy finding a physical item, but virtual caches certainly have their place. A good virtual cache should highlight an area that deserves attention -- an area where a physical cache might not be appropriate. A good virtual cache can be just as rewarding to place and find as a physical one.

3. Cache quality -- I think this should be the first thought anyone takes into account when placing the cache, whether virtual or physical. While I do like adding to my log, the real joy has been the number of wonderful places I've discovered in this activity.

February 3, 2002

Yikes guys! Honestly, I wasn't looking to reopen this debate. Just expressing my preferences on virtual caches. By and large I agree with what you wrote (Ttaylor181 and BassoonPilot)anyway. But VC's just don't spin my propeller as much. Part of this too, is the density of historical or socially important places/monuments in Oregon isn't very high whereas the places to hide a physical cache are abundant. A VC at a Revolutionary War battlefield (or similar) would certainly get me out of the house.

February 3, 2002

I think everyone has there own Idea of a good cache..some like to hike some drive...some want to trade items some dont...some are inexpensive...some not

Maybe we need to further identify caches...Educational,historical,mental,physical blah blah blah

February 3, 2002

ds worst geocache.

As much as it sounds like a police state kind of thing, I would rather that a person placing a really bad cache would get a warning or two or three (lets say theoretically within a 1 year period), then just dont accept any more caches by that user for X amount of time. Kind of like post banning. I wouldnt mind having something like EBAY's rating system for the placer, rather than the individual cache. Most people would go the extra mile to protect their reputation. The ones who cant play nice would get banned.

That judgement to ban could be made by Jeremy or his delegates after receiving emails by x number of different people. Its his website and he has final say in approving / archiving, so in reality it is just formally stating what is already done.

If a person gets banned from submitting caches, they could appeal their case by either sending a photo or written description of: the contents, surroundings, and theme to Jeremy's delegate(s). Perhaps these delegates could actually be elected from active cachers by the entire caching community.

Given enough time I think I could actually make a pretty decent mult-cache out of several old shoes of different sizes. I am just afraid I would find used golf balls in all of them when I went back to check up on them....

I know my suggestions wont sit well with several people who have posted in this thread, I am not trying to start a flame war with anyone, but I would rather see a little judicious regulation than anarchy if this kind of situation becomes too common.

[This message has been edited by Gliderguy (edited 03 February 2002).]

February 3, 2002

The one can of worms that might be opened by an "ignore this cache" feature would be for the stat seeker determined to have the worlds worst geocache.

As much as it sounds like a police state kind of thing, I would rather that a person placing a really bad cache would get a warning or two or three (lets say theoretically within a 1 year period), then just dont accept any more caches by that user for X amount of time. Kind of like post banning. I wouldnt mind having something like EBAY's rating system for the placer, rather than the individual cache. Most people would go the extra mile to protect their reputation. The ones who cant play nice would get banned.

That judgement to ban could be made by Jeremy or his delegates after receiving emails by x number of different people. Its his website and he has final say in approving / archiving, so in reality it is just formally stating what is already done.

If a person gets banned from submitting caches, they could appeal their case by either sending a photo or written description of: the contents, surroundings, and theme to Jeremy's delegate(s). Perhaps these delegates could actually be elected from active cachers by the entire caching community.

Given enough time I think I could actually make a pretty decent mult-cache out of several old shoes of different sizes. I am just afraid I would find used golf balls in all of them when I went back to check up on them....

I know my suggestions wont sit well with several people who have posted in this thread, I am not trying to start a flame war with anyone, but I would rather see a little judicious regulation than anarchy if this kind of situation becomes too common.

[This message has been edited by Gliderguy (edited 03 February 2002).]

February 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
On a different note, and not directed at any specific individual, there has been quite a lot of arrogance on display from several people who consider themselves 'expert cachers' throughout this thread. I find it just as sickening as you folk find the caches you're complaining about.

Have you ever found a pair of old sneakers as a geocache?

Many of us are concerned about the flippancy with which some of these caches seem to have been placed. We do not take this so seriously as to not be able to allow others to "have fun" with it, but there is a certain amount of "dignity" that I would like to see Geocaching retain, in spite of the fact that it is, after all, a game.

Hiding shoes and stupid little film containers in completely uninteresting, thoughtless locations is beneath that dignity, in my opinion. Frankly, when I think of some of the caches that have been placed in my area over the months, it makes me a little embarrassed for the game. I have not tried to introduce anyone to the game in some time, partly because of this, and partly because the growth is happening anyway.

Regardless, I am at the point where I no longer care what is done about this, if anything. I am beginning to understand the perspective of those who have given up caching altogether. It really is all about communication; connecting with others. What happens when some of those with whom you connect turn out to be...well, people you would just as soon NOT connect with?

In any case, there are plenty of great hikes, with or without caches, that I plan on making in my lifetime. I am not about to let something like this dampen my spirits.

February 3, 2002

aced. We do not take this so seriously as to not be able to allow others to "have fun" with it, but there is a certain amount of "dignity" that I would like to see Geocaching retain, in spite of the fact that it is, after all, a game.

Hiding shoes and stupid little film containers in completely uninteresting, thoughtless locations is beneath that dignity, in my opinion. Frankly, when I think of some of the caches that have been placed in my area over the months, it makes me a little embarrassed for the game. I have not tried to introduce anyone to the game in some time, partly because of this, and partly because the growth is happening anyway.

Regardless, I am at the point where I no longer care what is done about this, if anything. I am beginning to understand the perspective of those who have given up caching altogether. It really is all about communication; connecting with others. What happens when some of those with whom you connect turn out to be...well, people you would just as soon NOT connect with?

In any case, there are plenty of great hikes, with or without caches, that I plan on making in my lifetime. I am not about to let something like this dampen my spirits.

February 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by bunkerdave:
Have you ever found a pair of old sneakers as a geocache?

...

Regardless, I am at the point where I no longer care what is done about this, if anything. I am beginning to understand the perspective of those who have given up caching altogether. It really is all about communication; connecting with others. What happens when some of those with whom you connect turn out to be...well, people you would just as soon NOT connect with?

No, I haven't found an old pair of sneakers. Yes, I've found several film canisters placed without much thought. And, in fact, the list of caches within 15 miles of my home is overrun with at least a dozen caches that went missing long ago, (in many instances, over six months), but were never archived. And I agree it would be lovely to have a feature available that would make these disappear from our personal lists. But that's a different issue.

To address your second snippet quoted above, then I guess one should take full advantage of that ignore button, when/if implemented. But I do find it interesting how limited, or selective, communication on these boards can be. I notice a tendency for people to ignore substantive questions yet respond to those bits that . . . push their button, if you will.

[This message has been edited by BassoonPilot (edited 03 February 2002).]

February 4, 2002

Posted by Redwood Red...Is it cool to place a physical cache close to a VC?

My opinion...Yes. I think it should be encouraged. In fact I confused on why someone would think it is uncool.

Posted by Redwood Red...But everyone of those VC's are drive-up/drive-off caches - there is no hunt, no mytique, no adventure. It may be interesting for tourists, but what about locals? Seems like it would take the fun out of the find for them.

My opinion... It seems like the concerns that you have stated would also apply to physical caches. There doesn't sound like there would be a lot of difference if there was a tupperware behind a tree near the historical monument. It would still be a "drive-up/drive-off cache" with "no mytique, no adventure" and only minor hunting.

February 4, 2002

der (steal) others' caches. Since it is likely that by the end of this spring I will have fewer caches out than I do now, (there are so many, I doubt it will make a difference) I am not too worried about mine being stolen. I would prefer to take them myself rather than have someone else take them, though.

As I said before, though, I doubt it will be implemented, and it is probably just as well. These forums have been useful for many reasons, but perhaps there has been enough of the "policy-making." I have been only too involved in this myself, and I guess it is time to let nature take its course. If Geocaching is going to be a long-term, viable form of recreation, it will have to weather a lot of this kind of thing. I think the sport has what it takes to survive indefinitely, as long as Jeremy or someone like him has the reins.

February 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
Dave, if you placed a cache you thought was terrific, and you received one, or several anonymous 'ignore' notices pertaining to that cache, how much consideration would you give those notices? I have no problem with the concept of an 'ignore' button, but if you want the cache owner to be notified the cache is being ignored, you should be willing to have your name attached to it. Perhaps that would lead to some meaningful dialogue . . .

I guess I don't have a problem with this feature not being anonymous. Since it has not been implemented at this point, however, I doubt it ever will. I simply figured that it would be similar to the "Watch this Cache" option, which is anonymous.

The reason I suggested it be anonymous is that there are those who would take offense to having their cache(s) "ignored" and might possibly go out and plunder (steal) others' caches. Since it is likely that by the end of this spring I will have fewer caches out than I do now, (there are so many, I doubt it will make a difference) I am not too worried about mine being stolen. I would prefer to take them myself rather than have someone else take them, though.

As I said before, though, I doubt it will be implemented, and it is probably just as well. These forums have been useful for many reasons, but perhaps there has been enough of the "policy-making." I have been only too involved in this myself, and I guess it is time to let nature take its course. If Geocaching is going to be a long-term, viable form of recreation, it will have to weather a lot of this kind of thing. I think the sport has what it takes to survive indefinitely, as long as Jeremy or someone like him has the reins.

February 4, 2002

bution?

February 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by bunkerdave:
... The reason I suggested it be anonymous is that there are those who would take offense to having their cache(s) "ignored" and might possibly go out and plunder (steal) others' caches. ... I would prefer to take them myself rather than have someone else take them, though.

I take your point, but certainly the act of "ignoring" a cache would not be tantamount to removing that cache, or wishing any harm upon it or its owner. I think the owner of an ignored cache would have to be a pretty sick individual to seek retribution by plundering someone else's cache. That's truly reprehensible.

But by the same token, if the ignore feature was anonymous, and (an) active local geocacher(s) never attempted certain ignored caches, wouldn't it be pretty easy for the problematic cache owner to deduce, perhaps incorrectly, who had availed himself of "the button" and seek his retribution upon a third party?

As you state, the feature will probably never be implemented; but it would be nice to make listings disappear from our personal lists without anyone having to be notified. (Except,perhaps, for Jeremy and the folks behind the scenes running the site.) If there are no hurt feelings or resentment, then there would be no fear of retribution?

February 4, 2002

Getting back to the original topic from which sprang this topic -

The PURPOSE of an "ignore button" was that as caching grows, we are all bound to see some caches pop up that we have no interest in seeking. They may be too difficult for us (level 5s) too far away, (although these would not be a problem, since they would not be high enough on out local list to be a bother)or they may suck. (In our own opinion, of course)

For whatever reason, I would simply like to have as many options to customize my personal cache "shopping list" as possible.

Other possible options:

search by difficulty or terrain rating

search by number of times found (high or low)

search by type of cache

search by age of cache

search by time since LAST visit

See what I am getting at?

This makes it a lot easier to tailor one's cache hunting to their own preference.

Perhaps it is time for another new thread.

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

BunkerDave

N 40° 7.081, W 111° 38.851

February 4, 2002

I think that a very simple solution would be for the finders to rate their experience using a voting script or something like what amazon.com and all the downloading sites use.

"How do you rate this find (1-10)?" but ONLY if you actually found the cache.

It would be very simple to add, and it would complement the logs. You could add a "thumbs up" logo near the top if the average was above a 5 and a thumbs down if below. If exactly 5, then two thumbs.

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

VentureForth out to the wild, wet forest...

February 4, 2002

I think that a very simple solution would be for the finders to rate their experience using a voting script or something like what amazon.com and all the downloading sites use.

"How do you rate this find (1-10)?" but ONLY if you actually found the cache.

It would be very simple to add, and it would complement the logs. You could add a "thumbs up" logo near the top if the average was above a 5 and a thumbs down if below. If exactly 5, then two thumbs.

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

VentureForth out to the wild, wet forest...

February 5, 2002

An experience I had with a cache last evening ties in perfectly with the original message from this thread and other related threads. Take a look at this cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=14251

I didn't put the following "spoiler" information into my log:

Central Ave., where the nail salon is supposedly located, is nowhere near the intended virtual cache, AND there are no nail salons on at least the first mile of Central Ave. I assume the cache owner really wanted people to provide the name of the nail salon on Passaic St., which is very close to the site. But why even bother?

February 5, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
Take a look at this cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=14251

Are you sure you want to leave a log like that? It seemed a bit agressive. The other logs gave me impression that it isn't all that bad. Perhaps your concerns would be better shared in an email directly to the owner. I'd hate to start seeing such logs anytime one person didn't enjoy a specific geocache (especially a virtual one). The log page is not intended to be used as a forum. Try to keep them seperate.

February 5, 2002

That looks like a commercial cache to me. How do we know he doesn't own the diner? Or the nail salon?

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

VentureForth out to the wild, wet forest...

February 5, 2002

aching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=14251" TARGET=_blank>http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=14251

There HAS been a bunch of progressively lamer virtuals in our area lately, huh? I played along with the virtual placed by someone with zero finds at the same location as one of the oldest and most popular caches in central NJ. I played along with the one that you HAVE to drive by at 65mph. After that I just gave up. That ignore button idea is sounding better and better.

No, I haven't found sneakers yet, but I see someone FINALLY broke down and went and found the salt shaker that I think most of us had just been ignoring for the last 3 months. With 513 caches within 100 miles of me, it's inevitable to come across some that some I just have no interest in doing. Would be a nice feature to be able to get them off my list.

February 5, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
An experience I had with a cache last evening ties in perfectly with the original message from this thread and other related threads. Take a look at this cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=14251

There HAS been a bunch of progressively lamer virtuals in our area lately, huh? I played along with the virtual placed by someone with zero finds at the same location as one of the oldest and most popular caches in central NJ. I played along with the one that you HAVE to drive by at 65mph. After that I just gave up. That ignore button idea is sounding better and better.

No, I haven't found sneakers yet, but I see someone FINALLY broke down and went and found the salt shaker that I think most of us had just been ignoring for the last 3 months. With 513 caches within 100 miles of me, it's inevitable to come across some that some I just have no interest in doing. Would be a nice feature to be able to get them off my list.

February 5, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
An experience I had with a cache last evening ties in perfectly with the original message from this thread and other related threads. Take a look at this cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=14251

I didn't put the following "spoiler" information into my log:

Central Ave., where the nail salon is supposedly located, is nowhere near the intended virtual cache, AND there are no nail salons on at least the first mile of Central Ave. I assume the cache owner really wanted people to provide the name of the nail salon on Passaic St., which is very close to the site. But why even bother?

I asume Bassoonpilot was asking why did the cache hider bother to post this cache. The bigger question is why did Bassoonpilot even bother to go drive by the cache location. The cache description seemed clear to me (except for the nail shop street). It seems like searchers get what was 'advertised'. Would you have liked it better if it asked what was the price of a cheeseburger? I'm not saying it is a great cache, but since it is accurately described then people have the option investing their time elsewhere.

[This message has been edited by glenn95630 (edited 05 February 2002).]

February 5, 2002

he, but since it is accurately described then people have the option investing their time elsewhere.

[This message has been edited by glenn95630 (edited 05 February 2002).]

February 5, 2002

It seems that Gwho has placed several similar caches in addition to some multi-caches in the area. In fact, BassoonPilot has logged most of them, thanking Gwho for the adventure etc. In this case, give him the benefit of the doubt. He's very clear in his descriptions. If you don't like virtual caches, why bother going to them?

would it be tacky if . . . .?

Recommended Posts

Guest madphatboy2

Link to comment

Guest RedwoodRed

Link to comment

Guest RedwoodRed

Link to comment

Guest rdwatson78

Link to comment

Guest Alan2

Link to comment

Guest Alan2

Link to comment

Guest Cape Cod Cache

Link to comment

Guest Badgerboy

Link to comment

Guest madphatboy2

Link to comment

Guest madphatboy2

Link to comment

Guest RedwoodRed

Link to comment

Guest RedwoodRed

Link to comment

Guest madphatboy2

Link to comment

Guest Ontario Cacher

Link to comment

Guest RoanokeTVGuy

Link to comment

Guest yogibear

Link to comment

Guest yogibear

Link to comment

Guest DARC

Link to comment

Guest welwell

Link to comment

Guest bunkerdave

Link to comment

Guest RogerB

Link to comment

Guest RedwoodRed

Link to comment

Guest RedwoodRed

Link to comment

Guest BassoonPilot

Link to comment

Guest jaw2925

Link to comment

Guest BassoonPilot

Link to comment

Guest ttaylor181

Link to comment

Guest jaw2925

Link to comment

Guest lemur

Link to comment

Guest Gliderguy

Link to comment

Guest Gliderguy

Link to comment

Guest bunkerdave

Link to comment

Guest bunkerdave

Link to comment

Guest BassoonPilot

Link to comment

Guest glenn95630

Link to comment

Guest bunkerdave

Link to comment

Guest bunkerdave

Link to comment

Guest BassoonPilot

Link to comment

Guest BassoonPilot

Link to comment