Naming Conventions for Locationless Caches

[Jeremy]

Yes, we're getting up there with Locationless Caches (for those that care). As a result, I have some concerns about the naming conventions being used.

 

If you're going to have a crop circle locationless cache, why call it "Ring around the Rosey?" (This isn't one. Just an example). Why not call it "Crop Circles" - Easy, recognizable, and just plain straightforward. That way people can look at the list and realize what you're looking for.

 

Maybe this should be a rule. Thoughts? There are an awful lot of caches which by reading their title have no idea what the heck they're looking for.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[+briansnat]

I kind of like the imaginative names. Maybe you can recommend that the name be descriptive, but I don't like the idea of a rigid naming convention. Besides, would you have everyone retroactively rename their locationless caches? If not it wouldn't make sense to have some caches that adhere to a convention and others that don't.

 

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

[+erik88l-r]

Last week I had to archive an LC named "Nascar" which I'd posted. I thought the theme looked familiar but a search of the 200+ existing caches came up empty.

 

Someone brought to my attention that that there was already one like that but with an non-descriptive name. This caused needless work for the cache creator, the approver, the person who raised the issue, and so on. Luckily it was caught before people started logging it.

 

~erik~

[k2dave]

I think all caches should have some descriptive name and have named my own caches to reflect that.

 

A walk in the (Oakwood) park.

Suffolk Near Sag.

Sunken Meadow Greenbelt

Loop Parkway Cache (S. Nassau)

Plattekill Upper Mountain Stash

L.I. Greenbelt N. - Nassau/Suffolk trail Multi

 

It maked it easier on the hunter to find your cache 'paperwork' when at the trailhead out of all the other caches he has.

 

----(sig line)---> Did you ever do any trail maintainence? - if so you will know that all but the most worn trails need continuous maintenance to prevent mother nature from reclaiming it. herd paths are quickly reclaimed - k2dave

[+Centaur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by k2dave:

I think all caches should have some descriptive name and have named my own caches to reflect that.

---

 

But these are not Locationless caches. Your caches location are specified in the Lat/Lon, named to the area or no.

For real caches, I think the name should be what the hider wishes them to be, after all, here you are naming the cache, not its location. Such as in my Centaur Series:

Centaur of Industry

Right, Centaur, and Rear

In the Centaur of No Where; 2 for 1 Sale

Centaur of the Bridge

 

Now as for Locationless caches, its much harder to check validity (what other caches are in the area, is it a dup, and what ever else the admins do to approve the cache) without spending a ton of time wading through all the other locationless caches. Without adding an extra fill-in field for naming EXACTLY what it is in a locationless cache it is you are looking for I think it is not unreasonable to ask that be included in the title of the cache.

 

quote:

---

It maked it easier on the hunter to find your cache 'paperwork' when at the trailhead out of all the other caches he has.

---

 

Here, perhaps Jeremy can alter the printer friendly page a little to print out the waypoint number bolder - perhaps right after the name of the cache and in the same type size, as that is what you are going to be looking at on your GPS (assuming you are using the waypoint download features anywho.)

 

ymmv

 

-Centaur

 

[This message was edited by Centaur on October 07, 2002 at 07:16 AM.]

 

[This message was edited by Centaur on October 07, 2002 at 07:17 AM.]

[+Centaur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by k2dave:

I think all caches should have some descriptive name and have named my own caches to reflect that.

---

 

But these are not Locationless caches. Your caches location are specified in the Lat/Lon, named to the area or no.

For real caches, I think the name should be what the hider wishes them to be, after all, here you are naming the cache, not its location. Such as in my Centaur Series:

Centaur of Industry

Right, Centaur, and Rear

In the Centaur of No Where; 2 for 1 Sale

Centaur of the Bridge

 

Now as for Locationless caches, its much harder to check validity (what other caches are in the area, is it a dup, and what ever else the admins do to approve the cache) without spending a ton of time wading through all the other locationless caches. Without adding an extra fill-in field for naming EXACTLY what it is in a locationless cache it is you are looking for I think it is not unreasonable to ask that be included in the title of the cache.

 

quote:

---

It maked it easier on the hunter to find your cache 'paperwork' when at the trailhead out of all the other caches he has.

---

 

Here, perhaps Jeremy can alter the printer friendly page a little to print out the waypoint number bolder - perhaps right after the name of the cache and in the same type size, as that is what you are going to be looking at on your GPS (assuming you are using the waypoint download features anywho.)

 

ymmv

 

-Centaur

 

[This message was edited by Centaur on October 07, 2002 at 07:16 AM.]

 

[This message was edited by Centaur on October 07, 2002 at 07:17 AM.]

[+gobucks]

I don't see the difference between locationless and traditional caches in this respect for those searching the cache list. I enjoy creative cache names. However, if the purpose of the proposed change is to make the process less complicated for those approving the caches, I would support it.

[+Markwell]

OT: Is that a corgi??

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

[Jeremy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centaur:

Here, perhaps Jeremy can alter the printer friendly page a little to print out the waypoint number bolder

---

 

I could. However, when you print out a cache page doesn't the title of the web page come up at the top? If so, the title of the document has the GCXXX name.

 

Yes, imaginitive is fun but can't you do that in the descriptions? If your goal is to get people to log these items in the world, don't you want to make it easy for the seekers? 200 locationless caches is a lot to sift through.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[+gobucks]

Have to agree with K2Dave on this one. I really don't see the difference between traditional and locationless caches in this regard. With all the complaints regularly posted in the forums, I haven't seen this one among them. Most traditional cache titles tell me nothing about location, container type, or difficulty. Should locationless caches be held to a higher standard or should traditional caches be required to have a descriptive name as well?

Btw, yes that is a Corgi. Either that, or someone attached satellite dishes to my dog's head!

 

GoBucks

[+gobucks]

Have to agree with K2Dave on this one. I really don't see the difference between traditional and locationless caches in this regard. With all the complaints regularly posted in the forums, I haven't seen this one among them. Most traditional cache titles tell me nothing about location, container type, or difficulty. Should locationless caches be held to a higher standard or should traditional caches be required to have a descriptive name as well?

Btw, yes that is a Corgi. Either that, or someone attached satellite dishes to my dog's head!

 

GoBucks

[Jeremy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gobucks:

Have to agree with K2Dave on this one. I really don't see the difference between traditional and locationless caches in this regard.

---

 

You should. If I see a cache container icon and it is a traditional cache, I would assume that there is a container, and it is hidden at the coordinates listed. The name of the cache itself is irrelevant. If I want to find out more, I click on the cache and look at it.

 

A locationless cache is asking folks to find a specific object. That object can be anything, from a civil war soldier tombstone to a *gasp* yellow jeep. You're telling me that there is no difference between this variation of a game and a traditional cache?

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[+gobucks]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

You're telling me that there is no difference between this variation of a game and a traditional cache?

 

---

 

Sorry, I should have been more specific. My comments were with respect to searching the cache lists only. The overall difference between traditional and locationless caches is clear. From your comments, it occurs to me that I may be assuming something that is not necessarily true. That is, that most people look for new traditional caches by using the state lists on the main page, as I do. In this case, the coordinates aren't shown until the cache page is opened, and the description is visible. In any case, as I wrote earlier, if the proposed change is to make the approval process less complicated, I'm all for it.

 

GoBucks

[+Centaur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centaur:

Here, perhaps Jeremy can alter the printer friendly page a little to print out the waypoint number bolder

---

 

I could. However, when you print out a cache page doesn't the title of the web page come up at the top? If so, the title of the document has the GCXXX name.

---

 

Aye, it does. I was just tossing out ideas to address k2dave's concern. Also, some folks have their browesrs set to not print headers or different headers (not many, but I did). I was just thinking along the lines: since the obvious reason to print the cache page would to be take it along with you on the hunt, and also assuming folks are using the waypoint numbers in their GPS's, printing the waypoint in big type next to the name might make it easier for some as they are fliping through folders. (<=- Is that a run on sentence? Was just a thought.

 

quote:

---

 

Yes, imaginitive is fun but can't you do that in the descriptions? If your goal is to get people to log these items in the world, don't you want to make it easy for the seekers? 200 locationless caches is a lot to sift through.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

---

 

Me? I agree with you. Locationless should be descriptive in the title. Real caches I think should still allow for imaginitive or funny names. Since im searching for real caches by proximity to a real location. Of course one cant do that for locationless.

-Chris

[+Centaur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centaur:

Here, perhaps Jeremy can alter the printer friendly page a little to print out the waypoint number bolder

---

 

I could. However, when you print out a cache page doesn't the title of the web page come up at the top? If so, the title of the document has the GCXXX name.

---

 

Aye, it does. I was just tossing out ideas to address k2dave's concern. Also, some folks have their browesrs set to not print headers or different headers (not many, but I did). I was just thinking along the lines: since the obvious reason to print the cache page would to be take it along with you on the hunt, and also assuming folks are using the waypoint numbers in their GPS's, printing the waypoint in big type next to the name might make it easier for some as they are fliping through folders. (<=- Is that a run on sentence? Was just a thought.

 

quote:

---

 

Yes, imaginitive is fun but can't you do that in the descriptions? If your goal is to get people to log these items in the world, don't you want to make it easy for the seekers? 200 locationless caches is a lot to sift through.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

---

 

Me? I agree with you. Locationless should be descriptive in the title. Real caches I think should still allow for imaginitive or funny names. Since im searching for real caches by proximity to a real location. Of course one cant do that for locationless.

-Chris

[+GeoManhattan]

The only reason we ever go after the locationless cache is convenience. Typically we have every cache knocked out within 50 miles so a locationless keeps us busy. Going through the 225 locationless caches has become quite chore due to the lack of a naming standard.

 

I find myself using Buxley's page to solve this problem. I similar list would be nice on the GeoCaching.com site with my "founds" removed.

 

Buxley's Page

 

GeoManhattan.com

[+Web-ling]

I don't think descriptive names should be required, but I think they should be strongly suggested. They would make searching for a particular cache on the website much easier.

 

[Moun10Bike]

How about using a creative title, but adding a descriptive tag to it to make it clear what the subject is? For example:

 

"Ring Around the Rosie (Crop Circles)"

 

[+Mudfrog]

I did the "yellow jeepy" locationless only because the "jeep" sought after was parked in my garage , however im not a big fan of these types of caches. There are alot turning up these days and if you go to look one up for finding, it would be nice to have an idea what it is you're looking at without having to open the page and read the entire description.

 

Any other type of cache is at specific coordinates and i would think that most people look for these by location, (eg: how far from their home, where they are taking vacation, etc,,,). Title doesnt matter as much because we can tell right away whether its a regular, multi, or micro cache.

[+Mudfrog]

I did the "yellow jeepy" locationless only because the "jeep" sought after was parked in my garage , however im not a big fan of these types of caches. There are alot turning up these days and if you go to look one up for finding, it would be nice to have an idea what it is you're looking at without having to open the page and read the entire description.

 

Any other type of cache is at specific coordinates and i would think that most people look for these by location, (eg: how far from their home, where they are taking vacation, etc,,,). Title doesnt matter as much because we can tell right away whether its a regular, multi, or micro cache.

[k2dave]

Ok after rereading it and never have gone after a locationless cache (oximorion?) I have to see the point that a descriptive title is more important in such a cache. I would like to see a discriptive title on all caches but for locationless it should 'almost' be required and be strongly suggested for regular caches.

 

I really like the idea of having a name and location discription instead of just one name.

 

----(sig line)---> Did you ever do any trail maintainence? - if so you will know that all but the most worn trails need continuous maintenance to prevent mother nature from reclaiming it. herd paths are quickly reclaimed - k2dave

[+Clan Ferguson]

Why not just change the waypoint from CGxxxx to LCxxxx for locationless. in much the same way as has been done for benchmarks.

 

just a thought.

 

Cache On!!

 

James

"Big Dog"

-Clan Ferguson

[+Mopar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clan Ferguson:

Why not just change the waypoint from CGxxxx to LCxxxx for locationless. in much the same way as has been done for benchmarks.

---

GREAT idea!

But it really doesn't help with searching to see if there is already a certain kind of locationless cache.

Say I want to make a locationless cache where you have to find a tree and log the co-ordinates. A search for "tree" currently won't turn up the "Leave Me Alone" locationless cache already out there

 

Illegitimus non carborundum!

[BassoonPilot]

And I noticed that since the "blank" location was added to the Leaderboard, the top 10 finders have averaged 49 locationless "finds" each.

 

And yet Benchmarks don't count? Makes no sense to me.

[robertlipe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

the top 10 finders have averaged 49 locationless "finds" each.

---

Does it really seem that odd that the people that'll drive 200 miles to find a pill bottle in the woods have passed a Rock City barn in the process or noticed a faded sign in some rural city they drove through while caching?

 

I'll be the top 10 finders (three of which I know personally) also have opened more moldy gladware than the rest of us us, too. It's just an artifact of doing it a lot...

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robertlipe:

Does it really seem that odd that the people that'll drive 200 miles to find a pill bottle in the woods have passed a Rock City barn in the process or noticed a faded sign in some rural city they drove through while caching?

---

 

Actually, yes, it does seem odd, since most locationless caches seem to be logged for items found close to home.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by robertlipe:

I'll be the top 10 finders (three of which I know personally) also have opened more moldy gladware than the rest of us us, too. It's just an artifact of doing it a lot...

---

 

Speak for yourself. But the thing that is really disturbing is when someone logs a find on a virtual cache, and then logs that same item as a locationless find.

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robertlipe:

Does it really seem that odd that the people that'll drive 200 miles to find a pill bottle in the woods have passed a Rock City barn in the process or noticed a faded sign in some rural city they drove through while caching?

---

 

Actually, yes, it does seem odd, since most locationless caches seem to be logged for items found close to home.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by robertlipe:

I'll be the top 10 finders (three of which I know personally) also have opened more moldy gladware than the rest of us us, too. It's just an artifact of doing it a lot...

---

 

Speak for yourself. But the thing that is really disturbing is when someone logs a find on a virtual cache, and then logs that same item as a locationless find.

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

 

If you're going to have a crop circle locationless cache, why call it "Ring around the Rosey?" (This isn't one. Just an example). Why not call it "Crop Circles" - Easy, recognizable, and just plain straightforward. That way people can look at the list and realize what you're looking for.

 

Maybe this should be a rule. Thoughts? There are an awful lot of caches which by reading their title have no idea what the heck they're looking for.

---

 

Personally, I enjoy seeing the creative names that people come up with.

 

I wonder how difficult it would be to add a 'key words' field, for searching purposes? Then people could use creative and cryptic titles if they so choose, but it would still be simple to search on 'crop circles'.

 

-------

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

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

I noticed that since the "blank" location was added to the Leaderboard, the top 10 finders have averaged 49 locationless "finds" each.

---

 

Why does everything have to come down to comparing who's done how many of what kind? Can't we just Geocache for the sake of personal enjoyment (and do the ones we personally like, and ignore the ones we don't), and stop worrying so much about everyone else?

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

I noticed that since the "blank" location was added to the Leaderboard, the top 10 finders have averaged 49 locationless "finds" each.

---

 

Why does everything have to come down to comparing who's done how many of what kind? Can't we just Geocache for the sake of personal enjoyment (and do the ones we personally like, and ignore the ones we don't), and stop worrying so much about everyone else?

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

Why does everything have to come down to comparing who's done how many of what kind? Can't we just Geocache for the sake of personal enjoyment (and do the ones we personally like, and ignore the ones we don't), and stop worrying so much about everyone else?

---

 

The purpose of statistics is to compare and contrast them. Some of us like to discuss statistics. If you don't enjoy such discussions, that's fine; please feel free to ignore such discussions without haranguing those of us who do enjoy them.

 

I apologize for going off-topic. I agree that if we are going to have locationless caches, the names of the caches should clearly identify the item to be found. Like others, I like many of the creative names people have dreamed up for their physical/virtual caches.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on October 08, 2002 at 09:25 PM.]

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

Why does everything have to come down to comparing who's done how many of what kind? Can't we just Geocache for the sake of personal enjoyment (and do the ones we personally like, and ignore the ones we don't), and stop worrying so much about everyone else?

---

 

The purpose of statistics is to compare and contrast them. Some of us like to discuss statistics. If you don't enjoy such discussions, that's fine; please feel free to ignore such discussions without haranguing those of us who do enjoy them.

 

I apologize for going off-topic. I agree that if we are going to have locationless caches, the names of the caches should clearly identify the item to be found. Like others, I like many of the creative names people have dreamed up for their physical/virtual caches.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on October 08, 2002 at 09:25 PM.]

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

The purpose of statistics is to compare and contrast them. Some of us like to discuss statistics. If you don't enjoy such discussions, that's fine; please feel free to ignore such discussions without haranguing those of us who do enjoy them.

---

 

I would hardly consider my question to be 'haranguing'. It seems to me that, since every cache is unique and completely different from every other cache (not to mention each individual cache seeker's route, weather conditions, etc., to that very same cache), it is a futile exercise to try to 'compare' various users' find counts in any kind of meaningful way.

 

My apologies for asking the question, but it just gets tiring to see people (and usually the same ones) continually bring the subject up, no matter what the topic at hand is.

 

(And, by the way, if I should feel free to ignore your ongoing off-topic dead-horse-beatings...you, likewise, should feel free to ignore my responses to them. )

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

The purpose of statistics is to compare and contrast them. Some of us like to discuss statistics. If you don't enjoy such discussions, that's fine; please feel free to ignore such discussions without haranguing those of us who do enjoy them.

---

 

I would hardly consider my question to be 'haranguing'. It seems to me that, since every cache is unique and completely different from every other cache (not to mention each individual cache seeker's route, weather conditions, etc., to that very same cache), it is a futile exercise to try to 'compare' various users' find counts in any kind of meaningful way.

 

My apologies for asking the question, but it just gets tiring to see people (and usually the same ones) continually bring the subject up, no matter what the topic at hand is.

 

(And, by the way, if I should feel free to ignore your ongoing off-topic dead-horse-beatings...you, likewise, should feel free to ignore my responses to them. )

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

---

(edited for relevant content. There was none; it was just Zuck's typical haranguing. But hang around; she'll be back in a minute or two with another "last word.")

 

 

zzzzzz

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on October 08, 2002 at 09:48 PM.]

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

---

(edited for relevant content. There was none; it was just Zuck's typical haranguing. But hang around; she'll be back in a minute or two with another "last word.")

 

 

zzzzzz

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on October 08, 2002 at 09:48 PM.]

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

'edited for relevant content. There was none; it was just Zuck's typical haranguing.'

---

And now YOU are the relevancy judge? (As if your original post which prompted my reply was in any way relevant to this topic thread. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't you say?) LOL

 

quote:

---

But hang around; she'll be back in a minute or two with another "last word."

---

 

Why did you put "last word" in quotes? And what do you mean by another last word?

 

You really can't stand it when anyone comments on ANYthing you post, can you? I've noticed that whenever someone counters any of your points (or stands up to your attempts at belittlement), you invariably end with 'graciously' letting them have the last word. I guess that's a way of saving face when you run out of rebuttals, huh? (Next will be your announcement that you're off to do something more important with your time, like going out to go geocaching.) It's rather humorous how consistently predictable you are.

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

'edited for relevant content. There was none; it was just Zuck's typical haranguing.'

---

And now YOU are the relevancy judge? (As if your original post which prompted my reply was in any way relevant to this topic thread. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't you say?) LOL

 

quote:

---

But hang around; she'll be back in a minute or two with another "last word."

---

 

Why did you put "last word" in quotes? And what do you mean by another last word?

 

You really can't stand it when anyone comments on ANYthing you post, can you? I've noticed that whenever someone counters any of your points (or stands up to your attempts at belittlement), you invariably end with 'graciously' letting them have the last word. I guess that's a way of saving face when you run out of rebuttals, huh? (Next will be your announcement that you're off to do something more important with your time, like going out to go geocaching.) It's rather humorous how consistently predictable you are.

[+fractal]

I would hate to limit people's creativity in naming their caches. Each cache is like a work of art to me... But, I understand the need to have an easy way to tell what exactly you need to do for these types of caches.

 

I suggest that people be strongly encouraged to make their cache title somewhat descriptive.

 

And...

 

In the long run, I would like to see another text field that would allow a short description of the cache, and have it displayed below the cache title.

Example:

 

Title--------> Sunshine on Wheels!

Description--> The hunt for yellow Jeeps

 

I'm not sure how much extra work it would require to add another field to cache pages, but I know it would make things easier to find, and it wouldn't put any sort of limitations on people's creativity.

It would also be great to have it on normal caches as well

Example:

 

Title--------> The Contact Cache

Description--> A mindbending puzzle based on the movie.

 

Yes, you can get the details of the cache on it's page, but I think it would be great to see a little description for each one when I see them listed.

 

-fractal

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

N 45 30.ish

W 122 58.ish

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

---

(edited for relevant content. There was none; it was just more of Zuck's typical haranguing. But hang around; she'll be back in a minute or two with another "last word.")

 

Told you so. Well, zuck admits up front to being slow, so it took a bit longer. Obviously, you have no intention of participating in this thread. Slugs/snails are known hermaphrodites, so I suggest you just go and SHPX yourself.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on October 10, 2002 at 04:33 AM.]

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

---

(edited for relevant content. There was none; it was just more of Zuck's typical haranguing. But hang around; she'll be back in a minute or two with another "last word.")

 

Told you so. Well, zuck admits up front to being slow, so it took a bit longer. Obviously, you have no intention of participating in this thread. Slugs/snails are known hermaphrodites, so I suggest you just go and SHPX yourself.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on October 10, 2002 at 04:33 AM.]

[+sbell111]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

And I noticed that since the "blank" location was added to the Leaderboard, the top 10 finders have averaged 49 locationless "finds" each.

 

And yet Benchmarks don't count? Makes no sense to me.

---

 

I guess I ignored this thread too long. Apparently, it is interesting after all. How do you get finds broken out by cache type on the leaderboard?

 

Back to the topic of the thread, I think its a great idea to make the names of locationless caches the item being searched for. I started a thread regarding this issue last month. http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=1490939335 I posted it to the 'General' forum. In retrospect, I probably should have posted it to the 'Geocaching.com discussion' forum.

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sbell111:

How do you get finds broken out by cache type on the leaderboard?

---

 

The Leaderboard doesn't specifically break down the caches by type. The way the locationless cache pages are now structured, (without coordinates or a designation of location) locationless finds are picked up and displayed in a separate row with blanks appearing in the "state" and "country" columns. (One can view the listing of their finds separated by location by clicking on their username at the leaderboard site.)

 

I don't know when the new format for locationless caches was implemented; I assume that locationless finds logged prior to the switchover remain credited to the state/country of the coordinates that appeared on the locationless page at the time the find was logged.

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

Slugs/snails are known hermaphrodites, so I suggest you just go and SHPX yourself.

---

 

Thank you for the suggestion. I'll take it into consideration.

 

-------

"I may be slow (or I may not be)...but, in either case, it sure beats being a Buffoon!"