Opinions wanted... Is a reserved FTF cheesy or not?

November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:
I think you have the answer to that now. But realize that the majority of the guidelines we have now were created as a response to complaints. If we start getting huge numbers of reserved caches, I can imagine there will be enough complaints to create another guideline. Heck, just look at the number of complaints to just ONE reserved cache...

Then I guess I better get busy and list the cache so it can be grandfathered before the practise is outlawed by GC.

BTW - does that mean that if enough people complained about the current guidelines for virtuals that they would be changed?

____________

Gorak

I love frogs. They taste like chicken. Yum.

"Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been passionate, rebellious, and immature." --Tom Robbins

[This message was edited by Gorak on November 04, 2003 at 03:28 PM.]

November 4, 2003

I would get no pleasure out of claiming "FTF" if others were being held back from trying. If you want to place a cache in somebody's honor, cool, but an honorary FTF isn't the real thing.

November 4, 2003

It comes down to each cache is considered on it's own merit. We have a set of guidelines, but they are just that guidelines. Exceptions can and will be made. This cache was an exception.

Reminder from the guidelines, there is no precedent for placing caches. If you feel a cache does not meet the guidelines you may report it and in many cases, as in this one, the cache may be reviewed and edited.

If you are considering placing a cache that pushes the limits, feel free to run it by the cache reviewers as WanderLost did. You too may find that the cache reviewers are wonderful to work with, and with a little honey they will go the extra mile to assist you with your next cache.

That being said congrats to TravisL on finding the cache placed in his honor. I always enjoy reading TravisL logs and being a local to this caching area, I enjoyed watching this caching too.

hydee

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

1.4k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Diablo wrote:
J5, as usual, you take everything to the extreme. The cache in question as well as my caches were eventually opened to the public. It wasn't like they were made private for any signifigant amount of time. I see no harm in a cacher placing a cache for a special cacher to find and then opening it to the public. If you do...then get a life.

Seems that you've misunderstood what I was asking. I didn't suggest that the cache never be made available to others, only that a FTF not be picked up by specific cachers.

And by the way, your comment about getting a life seems a bit out of line just because you think that someone doesn't agree with you. This comment seems like a personal attack to me.

*****

1.4k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Hydee wrote:
...and with a little honey they will go the extra mile to assist you with your next cache.

What exactly does this mean?

*****

November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:
It comes down to each cache is considered on it's own merit. We have a set of guidelines, but they are just that guidelines. Exceptions can and will be made. This cache was an exception

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:
There is nothing in the current guidelines that prohibits reserving FTF, so yes we would approve it.

So which is it? It it acceptable based on the current guidelines or is it an exception to the guidelines?

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:
If you are considering placing a cache that pushes the limits, feel free to run it by the cache reviewers as WanderLost did. You too may find that the cache reviewers are wonderful to work with, and with a little honey they will go the extra mile to assist you with your next cache.

Rather than beat around the bush about hypothetical situations, let me be perfectly blunt. Based on the problems perceived in our area, I want to list a cache where FTF is reserved for anyone who is not a local cache approver. Since the person who has to approve the cache is the approver in question, why would I expect him to approve the cache unless he had no choice based on the guidelines?

BTW - if the approvers are approving caches based on a defined set of guidelines, why would anyone need to butter up an approver with 'a little honey' to facilitate an approval?

If 'a little honey' is required, do you know if he prefers a blonde, brunette or redhead?

____________

Gorak

I love frogs. They taste like chicken. Yum.

"Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been passionate, rebellious, and immature." --Tom Robbins

November 4, 2003

I had fun doing the cache in question (and I am a FTF slut), even saw the FTFer at the cache site.

I had a real good shot at FTF on that cache, had it not been reserved, as I decoded the puzzle within an hour of it being approved, and live less than 1.5 miles from the site. (I happened to be checking the state "new cache" list more often than every hour).

In fact, I went to the cache area that night, to place a martmann magnet where the FTFer could see it, just to taunt him.

Had a lot of fun, even without the FTF.

___________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by C&S Huffers:
This happened in MI a few weeks ago. I won't put the cache down but it's a good example of what gets your goat. A new cache came out and before any one had a chance to find it some one logged it, thing was the coordinated were wrong. no one else could find it. The owner changed the coordinates and every one else could find it. question is how did the FTF find it with the wrong coordinates? Interesting question.

Treat every CACHE you find..... .like it's Yours !!!

I can tell you how that can happen, read my FTF log on this cache. Granted it was just under 250 feet off from the listed coordinates, and I don't know about the cache you're referring to, But, by far, I'm not the only one to do it.

I think the reserved FTF cache was all in fun, and really don't see the big deal. TravisL does have a lot of fun with his DNFs.

___________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Gorak:
So which is it? It it acceptable based on the current guidelines or is it an exception to the guidelines?

Logs on cache pages are cache maintenance and therefore the responsibility of the cache owner. Cache Owners set the guidelines for how their cache is logged and they are responsible to verify that cachers meet the guidelines for the logs that are on posted on their cache pages.

Groundspeak has some guidelines for having a cache listed, things like your traditional cache has a log book in the cache container. Those guidelines are stated in the cache listing requirements.

Groundspeak encourages community and we do not list caches that exclude a person or group. This cache was open to all. It happened to be a cache that was placed in honor of someone, the cache owner removed the text about deleting logs when it was brought to her attention. With the large number of local cachers that know TravisL, the cache owners did not foresee that anyone local would find it offensive that they had reserved the FTF for him.

quote:
Rather than beat around the bush about hypothetical situations, let me be perfectly blunt. Based on the problems perceived in our area, I want to list a cache where FTF is reserved for anyone who is not a local cache approver. Since the person who has to approve the cache is the approver in question, why would I expect him to approve the cache unless he had no choice based on the guidelines?

The perceived problems for your area have been reported to the site, and to this point all allegations against the reviewer are unfounded. Reviewers post and archive caches based on the guidelines. If you cache is not accepted based on the guidelines then please report it to Groundspeak.

quote:
BTW - if the approvers are approving caches based on a defined set of guidelines, why would anyone need to butter up an approver with 'a little honey' to facilitate an approval?

Whoa....can we say spin on what I said....I said nothing about buttering anyone up so your cache will be listed, I did mention caches that push the limits (in other words caches that may be an exception to the posted guidelines).

If you are considering placing a cache that pushes the limits, feel free to run it by the cache reviewers as WanderLost did. You too may find that the cache reviewers are wonderful to work with, and with a little honey they will go the extra mile to assist you with your next cache.

As for the add a little honey, lets call it friendly advice that I learned from my great-grandmother a long time ago. They were honey bee farmers, honey goes with everything in my family. You can take the friendly advice or leave it, it is really up to you.

hydee

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

November 4, 2003

I certainly understand the concept of 'a little honey goes a long way'. I just don't think it should be relevant to a cache approval.

So based on the guidelines, in your opinion Hydee, would such a cache be approved?

____________

Gorak

I love frogs. They taste like chicken. Yum.

"Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been passionate, rebellious, and immature." --Tom Robbins

3.9k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
Diablo wrote:
J5, as usual, you take everything to the extreme. The cache in question as well as my caches were eventually opened to the public. It wasn't like they were made private for any signifigant amount of time. I see no harm in a cacher placing a cache for a special cacher to find and then opening it to the public. If you do...then get a life.

Seems that you've misunderstood what I was asking. I didn't suggest that the cache never be made available to others, only that a FTF not be picked up by specific cachers.

And by the way, your comment about getting a life seems a bit out of line just because you think that someone doesn't agree with you. This comment seems like a personal attack to me.

*****

J5 your right, it was a personal attack and uncalled for. I apologize. I've edited the original comment and removed the remark and made apologies there also.

These discussions should be made to better GC and not used as a platform to attack people or their ideas. Once again I apologize.

El Diablo

Everything you do in life...will impact someone,for better or for worse.

http://www.geo-hikingstick.com

November 4, 2003

El Diablo, that was cool.

___________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

2.1k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:
Logs on cache pages are cache maintenance and therefore the responsibility of the cache owner. Cache Owners set the guidelines for how their cache is logged and they are responsible to verify that cachers meet the guidelines for the logs that are on posted on their cache pages.

...Except when the Cache Owner's guidelines are against those of Groundspeak (e.g., exclusion of part of the community), right? And when the Cache Owner is a volunteer of Groundspeak..well, let me elucidate below.

quote:
Groundspeak encourages community and we do not list caches that exclude a person or group. This cache was open to all. It happened to be a cache that was placed in honor of someone, the cache owner removed the text about deleting logs when it was brought to her attention.

Nice spin...but it was removed after its purpose was served not because its exclusionary tones were brought to her attention...in fact, she brought it to *your* attention when she asked if the cache would be okay for approval.

quote:
With the large number of local cachers that know TravisL, the cache owners did not foresee that anyone local would find it offensive that they had reserved the FTF for him.

And for those that don't know him, this just looked like a lot of approver hanky-panky and exclusionary games on the part of the central body of cache listing.

quote:
_If you are considering placing a cache that pushes the limits, feel free to run it by the cache reviewers_ as WanderLost did. You too may find that the cache reviewers are wonderful to work with, and with a little honey they will go the extra mile to assist you with your next cache.

In other words, as long as you keep Groundspeak happy, then you can get anything you want approved. Why even have any guidelines if they stretch more than Oprah's sweatpants?

I don't understand why a set of rules can't be established and followed. If it makes no sense to draw a line in the sand at exactly 528 feet because sometimes 501 feet is acceptable, then don't make the rule and choose a better wording that accurately describes what will be acceptable. If it's a matter of cache saturation, then maybe the rule should be a combination of difficulty and distance that more accurately portrays what is acceptable (no 1/1's 200 ft from each other on a dirt road...but 2 5/5's at the top and middle of a 300 foot vertical climb are acceptable).

That's just one example, but instead we have fluid guidelines that stretch, pull, and annoy those trying to understand how to get something passed when their neighbor coddles a really questionable cache through the queue...

--

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than

the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

-George Bernard Shaw

2.1k · November 4, 2003

I just wanted to add that some areas are concerned from time to time that their caches are not being approved fast enough as it is. Approvers frequently point out all of the time they put into their volunteering and how it detracts from time they could spend going out geocaching. There is a considerable amount of that time working with submitted caches that are on the edge of acceptability. Could you imagine how long the whole thing would take if every *idea* for a cache came with a week long e-mail correspondence to the approver(s) to discuss how best to "honey" its way through the queue before it were even created/submitted?

This has somewhat left the realm of "reserved FTF"...so I won't be following up here. If a new "guidelines" thread is necessary, anyone can feel free to start it or I will based on the level of discussion that continues here.

--

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than

the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

-George Bernard Shaw

November 4, 2003

No, there is not a guideline that says be nice to the reviewers or your cache will not be listed. I can say that there would be a lot fewer caches if that were the case.

A little honey is relevant in cache approval as it is in everyday life. They are volunteers that do a job that receives a lot more grief than it does thanks. But most of them do it because they care about the sport and the community, they want to see it thrive. So if a little honey will make their day, I'd say give them all a case of honey!

Now on to Gorak's question. Would a cache that openly excludes one user be posted, I doubt it. I see excluding one user or a group of users as mean-spirited and very different that reserving the FTF to honor one member.

hydee

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

1.3k · November 4, 2003

MOC's are exclusive by design, and have been used by many to give members an opportunity to be FTF.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

2.3k · November 4, 2003

One problem I could see is if someone travelling just downloaded the waypoint and did not look closely at the cache page. They would have been off on a wild goose chase to say the least.

Remember, wherever you go- there you are!

November 4, 2003

I think its hilarious that threads like this one creates so much rage and ridicule. The man had a good reason to reserve his FTF to produce a candid funny log.

What happend to everyone today. Did your bosses make you work late??

24.7k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:...I see excluding one user or a group of users as mean-spirited and very different that reserving the FTF to honor one member...

The only thing that made this cache ok was the local angle. Without the inside scoop as it were, this cache meets your definition of mean spirited.

There is no difference between:

"This cache is reserved for people whos geo name starts with G"

and

"This cache excludes everyone whos geo name doesn't start with G".

While it's the local angle that made this cache an exception to a reasonable guideline. It also proves the rule.

4.5k · November 4, 2003

Cheesy is an understatement to my notion. Ive done caches here where the cache owner put in a special token for a certain person and i dont have a problem with that. Now if they would have said that i couldnt find the cache until so n so did it, then it would be a different story. If it gets posted on the GeoCaching site then it is fair game for all. I like being first finder and have gone through alot to be that at times. Its not the end of the world but out of respect for everyone, this shouldnt have ever occurred!

3.9k · November 4, 2003

I think RK hit it dead on. It's really a local issue. If they aren't complaining...why are we?

El Diablo

Everything you do in life...will impact someone,for better or for worse.

http://www.geo-hikingstick.com

November 4, 2003

It's CHEESEY!!!!

2.1k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by El Diablo:
I think RK hit it dead on. It's really a local issue. If they aren't complaining...why are we?

Because it was brought for discussion on a national forum and its policy for log deletion at the time was against Groundspeak's general guidelines of community inclusion as stated by hydee, but still the cache was not only approved by the hider, but approved of by a vocal majority of approvers (from other locales). It would not be as seemingly local a thing after all and worthy of reexamination to prevent future exclusionary ideas.

--

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than

the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

-George Bernard Shaw

1.4k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Hydee wrote:
I see excluding one user or a group of users as mean-spirited and very different that reserving the FTF to honor one member.

Fundamentally, it is the same -- the only difference with this scenario is that you are discriminating against the entire community instead of one person.

If it's not OK for me to place a cache and say "so and so" can't log a first find, it shouldn't be OK for me to say no one can log a cache until a "so and so" has. If it is indeed done to 'honor' a cacher, perhaps it should be set up as an event cache.

Regarding the honey comment -- I've heard time and time again about how tough the approvers have it -- has it even occurred to you that the problems that they endure are created by the lack of succinct rules regarding cache placement? Perhaps if everyone didn't have to go through hoops and be confused about what is acceptable and what is not, the approvers job would be much, much easier. No offense to the approvers, but I don't think anyone should have to suck up to get preferential treatment.

*****

1.4k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Hydee wrote:
The perceived problems for your area have been reported to the site, and to this point all allegations against the reviewer are unfounded.

Since you brought it up (here instead of replying privately to my complaint) -- I can't say I'm surprised.

Lift carpet. Move broom.

*****

November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:

quote:
Originally posted by Gorak:
You misunderstand. I was in no way suggesting that we needed a new rule. I was asking because the whole concept of Reserved Caches gave me some interesting ideas and I wanted to ensure that they would be approved before I went any further. In fact, a similar concept crossed my mind not too long ago but I dismissed the idea assuming that the cache would not be approved.

I think you have the answer to that now. But realize that the majority of the guidelines we have now were created as a response to complaints. If we start getting huge numbers of reserved caches, I can imagine there will be enough complaints to create another guideline. Heck, just look at the number of complaints to just ONE reserved cache...

It is really amazing to me that most of the complaints that are posted to the General Forum lately seem to come from the same 3 or 4 "community" mermbers.

quote:
Originally posted by ju66l3r:

I'd like to hear about a situation where an approver wanted to do something slightly controversial and the other approvers told them "no way in hell".

Cache reviewers/approvers tend to be a lot harder on themselves about placing caches. They have the bennefit of being able to confer with other reviewers/approvers before posting a cache.

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:

If you are considering placing a cache that pushes the limits, feel free to run it by the cache reviewers as WanderLost did. You too may find that the cache reviewers are wonderful to work with, and with a little honey they will go the extra mile to assist you with your next cache.

Hydee's comment here just means that if you have a questionable cache idea, try dicussing it *politely* with your local approver before you post it. Instead of *bashing* them over the head with it when it gets declined.

These are just MY observations, not to be taken any other way.

1.4k · November 4, 2003

El Diablo,

No problem. Thanks.

*****

2.1k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Misguided One:
It is really amazing to me that most of the complaints that are posted to the General Forum lately seem to come from the same 3 or 4 "community" mermbers.

Read my sig. It's really amazing to me that most people in the General Forum resort to logical fallacies instead of addressing the issues in a way which may make the rules of the system more coherent and advance the game in new directions. No, wait, that actually doesn't amaze me at all.

quote:
Cache reviewers/approvers tend to be a lot harder on themselves about placing caches. They have the bennefit of being able to confer with other reviewers/approvers before posting a cache.

Except for hemlock who thought to post a virtual in this day and age and your "Misguided" teammate who setup an exclusive cache for Travis with the threat of log deletion...oh, and that is when they have time to even look at placing a cache. That is not to single the two of them out at all but to point out that they (and those that would confer with them) are as fallable as the next cacher and yet there is no check on them except to have them run out in public as the topic starter did.

If you want to focus on something unfair against the approvers, how about a set of weak guidelines to follow that forces them to decide who's been naughty and who's been nice when it comes to rule-bending and no overseers which means public crucification when it comes to accountability (e.g., the call for Approver Account Naming earlier in these forums). That's what is unfair to approvers and what leads to more animosity when someone is denied what they obviously felt was an appropriate cache (or they wouldn't have submitted it unless they are ignorant or naive).

--

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than

the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

-George Bernard Shaw

November 4, 2003

Well, I do have some good news...

I actually got my first real true actual FTF

November 4, 2003

I've never reserved one of my caches for a specific first time finder, no reason to.

However,

In my state you must have permission to place a cache. Since I own the cache, I maintain it, and its my name signed on the permit, I'll decide if I want a specific first finder.

"The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator."

- Louis Pasteur

November 4, 2003

Reserved FTF for cache available on gc (or any other listing service) is poor form in my book and "just not cricket". But then again, I don't pay any attention to FTF because I'm after the experience and not the stats/FTF prize (should there be one).

Ciao

RooBoy

November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:
Now on to Gorak's question. Would a cache that openly excludes one user be posted, I doubt it. I see excluding one user or a group of users as mean-spirited and very different that reserving the FTF to honor one member.

I'm not sure how reserving the FTF to honor one member is that much different than reserving the FTF for someone who is not an approver. A reserved FTF is a reserved FTF whether it excludes everybody but one person or only a very small group of people. However, its your sandbox so I guess I'll just view it as one of those approver perks and another case of "tough nuts".

____________

Gorak

I love frogs. They taste like chicken. Yum.

"Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been passionate, rebellious, and immature." --Tom Robbins

November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Corp Of Discovery:
One problem I could see is if someone travelling just downloaded the waypoint and did not look closely at the cache page. They would have been off on a wild goose chase to say the least.

It's like that with ALL puzzle caches, and (at least) around here, puzzle caches are pretty common. So if you don't look closely at the cache page (like at least the at the top left corner), you'll be doing a lot of goose chasing.

Hey, Congratulations on your FTF Mark 42!

___________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

November 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Gorak:
I'm not sure how reserving the FTF to honor one member is that much different than reserving the FTF for someone who is not an approver.

It's easier to see the difference if you try look at geocaching about being a fun outdoors activity more about "the spirit of the thing", rather than obsessing over the details of the rules and approval process.

From that perspective I find it very easy to see a big difference between these two things and the spirit in which they are done.

As for the original question... sure it's cheesey. But there is nothing wrong with a little cheese now and then. Probably not something I'd ever do, but not really something I'm going to get my panties in a bunch about if someone else does it as a one-off for a good reason.

________________________

What is caches precious?

November 5, 2003

The upseting part to me was the threat of log deletion. Caching time for some of us is only available in limited quantity, so if we see a new cache in our area, and go to it, why should we be penalized for trying to have fun?

I know the above is a hypothectical situation, and this particular cache was planned out so that the reserved party was right on it, but it still offensive. I still believe if you want a private cache, or a certain someone to find it first, do it on your own time.

I agree with J5, this is no differnet then if I set up a cache that the FTF would be a person of a certain race or religion, and that I'd delete logs for anyone not of the particular race or religion until I had the correct FTF.

November 5, 2003

I think worrying about rules and regs in this case is irrelevant. I suspect that if most people who took offense (my self included) are honest with themselves, it was the blunt wording (deleting logs) as opposed to the concept that was/is the source of the irritation. Suppose the wording went something like this:

‘I would like to honor my friend so and so with a first to find on a milestone cache, so please give him the opportunity log this one first. It sometimes takes him a few tries so give him a few days! Thanks!’

This wouldn’t irritate me, and I suspect that if somebody disregarded the request and logged first, that person would be getting flamed instead of the cache owner. It’s all about the delivery. I think that is the lesson learned.

I also think it’s a bad idea to allow a covert FTF (give him the coords before approval, disable the cache until he finds it, etc.) This is also offensive and will likely upset the second finder who may have took extra effort to be the first finder.

If you want to do something like this, explain the situation, be curtious, and don’t threaten retribution.

November 5, 2003

quote:
‘I would like to honor my friend so and so with a first to find on a milestone cache, so please give him the opportunity log this one first. It sometimes takes him a few tries so give him a few days! Thanks!’

If you want to do something like this, explain the situation, be curtious, and don’t threaten retribution.

BINGO!

November 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TMAN264:
The upsetting part to me was the threat of log deletion. Caching time for some of us is only available in limited quantity, so if we see a new cache in our area, and go to it, why should we be penalized for trying to have fun?

I know the above is a hypothectical situation....

It's not all that hypothetical.

I emailed my wife to let her know a new cache had come up, and that my 6 yr old would be extremely excited about a bionicle theme.

I told her it'd be a chance for a FTF, and could very well have sent her on quite a trip to go find it.

Then, I later read it again and saw that I'd missed the "No FTF allowed" clause. I had to call my wife and tell her so that she would know that there was no rush to go to it, and she could wait until she comes to this area (near my work) to do a FABULOUS cache that I had recently placed (She deliberately does not do any of mine as FTF, even though she is given little or no inside info).

November 5, 2003

I stand corrected. I am sorry this happened to you Mark, it really stinks.

November 5, 2003

Just to get my two cents in...

Recently I designed and placed a 100th cache in honor of another team of cachers doing their 100th cache. All of the items in the cache are intended for the team, not anyone else. So I am having them hunt the cache now, before it is approved and posted, to assure that they are first finders. But you all wouldn't know that if I didn't tell you.

FTF is not important to me as the challenge of the hunt. BUT I understand when it is important to others.

November 5, 2003

You could always disable the cache with a note saying something like "Please don't submit online log entries until so&so has gotten his unofficial FTF so that we can see how many DNFs it takes him. Once the disable has been removed, have at it."

That way people could still go out and find the physical cache and sign the paper log, but so&so would not know if he will be the real FTF.

Otherwise... make a mock up of the cache page and email it to the intended finder.

BTW, there is an endorsed exclusionary policy on Groundspeak... you can make a cache accesible only to premium members.

I have no problem with that, but would not mind seeing all caches available to everyone.

I have a premium membership, but my wife doesn't, so I don't know what would happen if she tried to log a find to one of the limited access caches.

Getting my first FTF was a fun goal, but I probably won't go out of my way for another one anytime soon.

"I'm not Responsible... just ask my wife, She'll confirm it"

November 5, 2003

Maybe he needs a new GPS...

Pan

Outside of dogs, reading is man's best friend.

Inside of dogs... it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

November 5, 2003

Did Travis have problems at Easter when he was a kid?

Maybe we should do a series of bright yellow 5 gallon buckets with huge geocache logos on them... placed in the open in clearings in forests and such.

I bet a decent metal detector could find an ammo box!

November 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Pantalaimon:
Maybe he needs a new GPS...

Nope, I've hunted his cache hides, the coordinates are always right on.

___________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

2.1k · November 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
Many of us feared Travis would commit suicide by clamping his head in an ammo can.

I don't think there is anything to fear. He'd have to find the ammo can first, wouldn't he? N'est pas?

--

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than

the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

-George Bernard Shaw

November 5, 2003

Has Travis found this message thread yet?

I sure hope he has a strange sense of humor!

1.6k · November 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:

(responding to Gorak)

The perceived problems for your area have been reported to the site, and to this point all allegations against the reviewer are unfounded.

Thank you for posting this and taking the extra time to look into the allegations that a small minority of local cachers brought up.

As for the original question of this thread... there doesn't appear to have been any mean-spirited intent. Is it cheezy? Having previously read logs by TravisL myself, and knowing about his FTF (or FTNF) dilemma, I think it was probably funny. And on a regional or local level, probably understood for what it was, by *most* folks.

1.4k · November 7, 2003

For what it's worth, I vote for Cheesy. I also owned a pair of platform shoes in the 70's, so I know cheese when I see it.

"Me transmitte sursum, Caledoni!"

5.9k · November 8, 2003

PREVIOUSLY DELETED:

Poor Travis, he just gets no respect.

A bit of history is in order.

Somebody, I don't know who, noticed that he was having trouble finding

any cache, much less getting a FTF. This person teased him relentlessly

in the forums as well as in cache logs. Others in the local community

felt sorry for Travis and tried to help him out, but couldn't resist

getting a dig in when he'd log another NF. He soon had a reputation as

the area's premiere not-founder. It was looking as though Travis

couldn't find his way out of a paper bag. Travis launched an offensive

against this well earned reputation by creating the biggest mass cache

hunts geocaching has ever seen. With the help of the cache machine,

(read; 30+ other geocachers) Travis was able to find caches again. This

boosted his found count up close to "legend" status, but his efforts to

repair his damaged character were less than a success. More and more new

geocachers were claiming finds on caches where Travis failed. It became

even more defeating to him when Martman began to FTF caches right in

Federal Way, where Travis works and often NFs caches at lunch. Many of

us feared Travis would commit suicide by clamping his head in an ammo

can.

I think this cache was merely to boost his obliterated geocaching self

esteem.

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

Opinions wanted... Is a reserved FTF cheesy or not?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment