Your Opinion Please

[+Hemlock]

I know a geocacher that lives a few miles from me. He's been caching for over a year and has a couple of hundred finds, but doesn't log them online. He has about 7 or 8 hides. I know him and therefore have no hesitation approving his caches, assuming all other checks are ok. But what about when I'm away for a few days, and another reviewer steps in? You're saying that this other reviewer should then insult the guy because he has no finds, by questioning his hide? Ok, well they would see his hides, but what if he had no previous hides either? That should in itself not make someone suspect.

 

This entire game is based on trust. Finders are trusted to log their finds properly and legitimately. Hiders are trusted to maintain their hides with diligence. Sure there are a few checks and balances to prevent outright abuse, but I don't believe its the huge problem you, Woody, make it out to be.

 

So-called "vacation" caches are approved all the time, when the hider advises their reviewer that someone local is able to maintain the cache as needed.

 

If some people choose to lie and create a sock puppet account so they won't have to reveal that they themself won't be maintaining the cache, then in the bigger scheme of things, so what? I really believe that it doesn't happen that often. And hopefully when it does happen, that hider will work a little harder to find a way to maintain it. Otherwise eventually the cache will fall into disrepair and get archived or adopted. Sure we do what we can to avoid this situation, but there's only so much we can do, or have the time to do.

[+Sparky-Watts]

It was also mentioned that approvers would use a system of where they would look at your find history and use that in determing an allowance of a cache placement. Basically if you have cached there before, then it would be ok.

Does this mean you actually have to have found a cache there, or just hunted some there? It's pretty easy to post DNF's on any and I'd guess all cache logs, which would show that you have at least hunted caches in that area. Yet another flaw to that logic.

 

I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I placed my one and only cache without ever going and looking for one, and without reading the guidelines for placing one. Just got lucky, I guess.....but by most standards, it's a pretty lame park and grab cache, that has gotten several good comments from the finders.

 

And that's all I got to say about that!

[+woof n lulu]

My proposition is to make it where a person has to find a certain amount before they can hide one.

I can remember when you were a fresh faced newbie, and got your lace in a wad because someone dared suggest you did not have enough posts to warrent being paid serious attention to....Now you are proposing this ?

 

This is up to the approvers to handle...when they find a newbie having trouble placing their first cache, that is where they come in...demanding they have X amount of finds in order to make their first hide would be very discouraging to someone new.

 

Sheeeeeeesh...

[Captain Chaoss]

So why even worry about vacation caches? Let them run their course, if they become problems, then restrict the people who place them.

Vacation caches have ALREADY been problems. That is why they have so many restrictions to them. You already stated that you've not been in this that long. Its time then to start listening to what everyones trying to patiently tell you. You are beating a dead horse here. You probably know to pick and choose your battles.

 

Listen up, YOU'VE PICKED THE WRONG BATTLE !

 

Vacation caches have been placed in unauthorized places, have been left unmaintained, and other problems a Mod could relate I'm sure. The procedure in place for "vacation cache approval" is for a reason. To AVOID problems in the first place with land owners, and to insure that we, the cachers, have decent caches to find. Its the "ounce of prevention, pound of cure" theory.

 

End of story.

[bmcilvoy]

Quote from Woody,

 

"My proposition is to make it where a person has to find a certain amount before they can hide one. It definitely would not hurt the sport any."

 

I disagree with this proposition.

 

I placed two caches before I logged a find.

 

Railroad Spike Cache (California) placed 8/15/01

Rising sun over Chicken Coop (California) placed 8/19/01

 

Most geocachers in my area (Riverside) consider these to be classics. They both have finds logged in the past 30 days and have withstood the test of time so far.

 

My first logged find was 9/3/01.

 

Bmcilvoy

[+woodsters]

Hemlock...I agree with you somewhat. But why have the hoops to go through anyway if it's not an issue? You mentioned your friend. It would be obvious that the approver would at least see that his sign up date was not the same day or somewhere there closely. Also your friend could wait for you to return if there was a problem. I agree in the whole scheme of things about placing caches. It makes no difference to me who places a cache or how many finds they have. All I care is that it's a decent cache. My problem is those hoops others have to go through for something that apparently not so many people care about it in the first place.

 

Sparky, I believe it falls under the finds and not the "hunt for" category. But it's been discussed and many owners do not check the online logs with the written logs. So there would be no way to tell exactly if a finder online was actually there in person or not.

[+Renegade Knight]

Woodsters points out a simple way to circumvent the vacation cache rules. It would work and potentially down the road cause a problem that other procedures that have not been fully worked out (in the forums anyway) would resolve.

 

I happen to think the maintainable goal is a good one. A solution to Woodsters dilemma is to require a minimum number of finds before this site will accept a cache. Faking the finds is something that can’t be prevented though. You could require the cache owners to verify the finds before they count as a persons minimum pre cache placement find total. That would take the rules to a high level of absurdity.

 

In the end it’s better to leave the dilemma as a flaw in the rules. The solution being retrieving or adopting out the cache should it ever prove to be abandoned.

 

Edited. Removed sword cutting both ways comment.

Edited December 26, 2003 by Renegade Knight

[BassoonPilot]

Bassoon, this has nothing to do with my family or even back home for all that matters. Back in June/July when the issue was brought up ...

Woodsters, in a recent (unrelated) thread, you stated that you like to put examples in your posts. Because you presented your personal situation as an example in one of the previous incarnations on this topic, I used it in my response as an example of how cachers in similar situations might solve the problem while complying with current site policy.

[+woodsters]

woof*lulu: Actually that was about posting, opinions, and ideas. This has to do with keeping the people real.

 

captian chaoss: it's not a battle...matter of fact it's an opinion as initially stated. I know and understand the story behind vacation caches and the reasons for not wanting them. I agree that the "problems" should be dealt with. So if there is a problem with them or some of them, then why let an easy route around it happen? Making up a fake account is a way that a person who wants to hide a vacation cache, can. You just stated that vacation caches construed to problems ("placed in unauthorized places, have been left unmaintained, and other problems"). Why not put a little hamper on it. Not all vacation caches will be like that and even those problems you mentioned are done by even the veteran cachers. You also just stated "Its the "ounce of prevention, pound of cure" theory." Isn't that what i'm stating?

 

bmcilvoy: Yes those were placed a while back too. Not saying that they weren't good caches or that anyone who places a cache first, don't have good caches. It's all based on what is stated to be a problem (vacation caches). True and honest cachers have to go through hoops and others who go around and cheat don't have to. Are things better that way? No. Real cachers are restricted while fake ones aren't.

[+Hemlock]

Woody, you're twisting my comments. I didn't say that vacation caches aren't a big deal. I've personally picked up and thrown away the remains of several vacation caches so I do know they are a problem. I'm saying that a few dishonest people who choose to use sock-puppet accounts to hide their vacation caches, are not going to cause the downfall of civilization.

 

Its your suggestion that every newbie should be treated with suspicion that bothers me. What exactly should we do when someone hides a cache on the same day the account was created? Ask to see the envelope of their recent utility bill to verify residence? How insulting! Require they find a few first? Also insulting! Trace their IP address? How do we know they're at home? Its just not feasibly possible.

[+Hemlock]

True and honest cachers have to go through hoops and others who go around and cheat don't have to.

How is stating who is going to maintain the cache going "through hoops"? It only takes a few moments to type who is going to maintain it, and out of probably a hundred or so that I've dealt with, only 1 person had a problem with it. I suspect that was only because that person didn't really know anyone that could/would maintain it.

[Captain Chaoss]

OK, heres what we have so far for WOODSTER CONCERNS

 

those that place caches with no records of finds.

 

a sock puppet account or perhaps a "vacation cache" trying to circumvent the guidelines

 

require a certain amount of finds before submitting a hide.

 

The forums have gotten real boring lately

 

I don't think you have any authority to tell me what to do...

 

way to tell exactly if a finder online was actually there in person or not

 

and what are NOT WOODSTER CONCERNS:

 

what i didn't get for christmas, what I got for christmas, what i'm praying for, and etc....and my topic is ON topic! hehehe...

 

ok so everyone has their pet peeves..mine happens to be this issue....

 

You’re entitled to your issues. Personally, I enjoyed those other subjects more.

[+Sparky-Watts]

 

Sparky, I believe it falls under the finds and not the "hunt for" category. But it's been discussed and many owners do not check the online logs with the written logs. So there would be no way to tell exactly if a finder online was actually there in person or not.

OK, wasn't sure about that. Thanks.

[+woodsters]

Renegade: That is true! I used the idea of having a certain amount of finds first, because then someone would have to take the chance of getting caught faking them. They may just so happen to fake ones where the person checked. And then if they are doing it in an area they are not familiar with, then they run a higher risk of it. Mopar mentioned about someone faking finds and getting caught. It can happen.

 

Bassoon: I meant that I use those examples from that previous discussion back in the summer. I used the examples of back home then, because I could see where the person was coming from. I have moved around a lot in my life (Turkey>TX>SC>GA>TX>Korea>CA>GA>SC>MA). I had just moved from SC(Augusta Georgia area) to MA. I was getting ready to go home for a visit after living here for about 6 months. Before going home, I checked out caches back home and there were very few. I knew of many places that caches could go. After reading the online logs, I noticed that many of the cachers were not even familiar with the area and didn't know things about the places as mentioned. Perhaps a lot to do with the military there. The person I was relating to was living in CA and their home was in PA. They had placed a cache in PA and were looking for someone to maintain the cache and that started the whole thing. They didn't place the cache in an unknowing area. They placed it in an area they knew well, but knew they needed to do the right thing and ensure it was maintained properly. First of all, the cache was approved. So there really is no way around things like that happening. I could relate with them in the fact of being somewhere different and returning home. I used it as an example. I also stated then that I could keep one maintained. I ahve plenty of family and friends there to do it for me. In reaction to that thread, Jeremy stated it was ok as long as there was someone to maintain it. And we also know about others who have caches listed under their names that others maintain.

[Captain Chaoss]

The person I was relating to was living in CA and their home was in PA. They had placed a cache in PA and were looking for someone to maintain the cache and that started the whole thing. They didn't place the cache in an unknowing area. They placed it in an area they knew well, but knew they needed to do the right thing and ensure it was maintained properly. First of all, the cache was approved. So there really is no way around things like that happening. I could relate with them in the fact of being somewhere different and returning home. I used it as an example. I also stated then that I could keep one maintained. I ahve plenty of family and friends there to do it for me. In reaction to that thread, Jeremy stated it was ok as long as there was someone to maintain it. And we also know about others who have caches listed under their names that others maintain.

Woodster, this all sounds to me like the policies in place are working. It doesn't sound as if there is a problem.

[+woodsters]

Hemlock I didn't suggest those things. I suggested a certain number of finds first. Also I can tell you Joe Smith is going to maintain it for me. Are you going to ask for his phone number? If so, are you actually going to call him? I don't think that you would because it would be extra work. People can give fake stuff on that as well. So why even restrict it or make people feel they need to make a sock puppet account to do so?

 

Captain Chaoss: I really don't care about any of it as far as vacation caches. I've never placed one or tried. My concern is that there is a concern with vacation caches, but the only thing being done (as stated by hemlock now) is to request a name from the person of who is maintaining it. But that is only for people who use their real names. People can avoid that, suspicion and speculation by using a sock puppet account. The odds are that those who feel the need to place a vacation cache using a sock puppet name are the ones most likely to abandon a cache.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

For all of the arguing back and forth among forum participants, I'm shocked that something like more rules would be proposed to prevent something like vacation caches.

 

I understand that sock puppets can/do exist, and that cachers places hides on one account, then find them on another, or are used to circumvent rules forbidding vacation caches. We have at least one team around here that places caches under a sock puppet and finds them using another.. To each his/her own, I suppose, but I personally would have a problem with it, as there is nothing being done except to cheat oneself to pad an ego in that case.

 

As far as vacation caches go, I have a few. In the cache page, I noted that I wasn't local and who would be maintaining the cache. As long as the cache is/can be maintained by someone, I wouldn't see it a problem. Circumventing the rules just to get a cache where someone else could place one, is a problem.

 

On the note of cachers needing x finds before placing hides, I recall a cache team in Canada who places some of the most intriguing and difficult caches with a significant reward at the end, yet their find count rests at 0. I realize this is not your everyday cacher, as many of us probably don't have the financial resources available that they do, but that's beside the point. Some cachers need some finds to learn some hide methods, some don't. The last thing we need are more rules to define that limit.

Edited December 27, 2003 by Brian - Team A.I.

[+bons]

Personally, I'm a LOT more worried about the number of quotes attributed to me that aren't mine in that past two pages than I'm worried that someone will create a sockpuppet account for the purposes of avoiding "jumping through hoops" so that they can create a virtual that will never be attributed to them.

 

In order to fix this "problem" I propose that all posters must diagram the above sentance and moderators need to approve all answers before people can post.

[+Sparky-Watts]

Personally, I'm a LOT more worried about the number of quotes attributed to me that aren't mine in that past two pages than I'm worried that someone will create a sockpuppet account for the purposes of avoiding "jumping through hoops" so that they can create a virtual that will never be attributed to them.

 

In order to fix this "problem" I propose that all posters must diagram the above sentance and moderators need to approve all answers before people can post.

ROFLMAO!!!!!! And you think the moderators/approvers could actually do that? Just for kicks, I started to do it, but found too many grammatical errors to continue.

[bmcilvoy]

Quote from Woody,

 

"bmcilvoy: Yes those were placed a while back too. Not saying that they weren't good caches or that anyone who places a cache first, don't have good caches. It's all based on what is stated to be a problem (vacation caches). True and honest cachers have to go through hoops and others who go around and cheat don't have to. Are things better that way? No. Real cachers are restricted while fake ones aren't."

 

Woody, in a way I agree some (maybe very few) vacation caches should be approve. Here's an approved vacation cache I did almost two years ago. Mods, I hope I grandfathered in on this one, as it is a classic and I would hate for it to be removed.

 

Batman Cache

by Troycorr, Bmcilvoy, Jeremy, and The Joker

Hidden: 1/27/2002

Use waypoint: GC3641

Logged Visits (13 total).

 

This is probably the most remote place in all of California - nobody lives for many mile around. Any cache out here is a vacation cache.

 

The geocachers that has found this cache has praised it highly.

 

There should be some room (not much at all) for a vacation cache.

 

Bmcilvoy

[+woodsters]

I actually don't like the term vacation cache. The meaning is not true. The main problem with these type of caches are the facts posted above. They are placed in areas not allowed, they aren't maintained and etc. But the truth is, not all caches deemed "vacation caches" are like that. Many regular caches are like that as well. There are many caches considered vacation caches that have been in existence for a good while from the discussions I have seen before. Why target caches that people place x amount of miles from their house. First of all, their house location is not really known. Secondly, because they cached in France today, doesn't mean that they can upkeep a cache there. Or just because I live here now and place a cache today, doens't mean I will live here tomorrow.

 

There are rules everywhere put in place. Contrary to belief, I don't see the need in a lot of rules. Many of them are stupid. There's no reason for them to be there becuase they are really not effective. My thoughts I posted and the idea I proposed was not to add more rules, rules, rules. But to work on the reason that other rules are in place. I think that some current rules that are in place may need to be looked at and see if the hassle of them being there are worth it or not. Of course there are some that are very much worth it. But this whole debate is a good example. I stated an issue, which 99% stated was not an issue and really didn't care about it. So why is there even an issue at all. Some will say it's not an issue, but it all comes from other "issues".

 

To everyone that posted here: I asked for your opinions and I thank you for them. Even the beligerent ones.

[+The Cache Couple]

Let me say that I think the rules that are currently in place regarding vacation caches are good. Sure, there are ways around the issue if one chooses to skirt them, but why? Yes, they have been done before and will surely be done again, but why create more rules if the ones that are in place are working for 99.9% of the people involved?

Woodsters, I would like to make a suggestion to you. When you go back home to visit in Georgia please use your spare time that you have to get new people involved in the sport. Then maybe you will not have to worry about not having many caches back home. It sounds as though you have this GREAT place to hide a cache back there but can't without bending or breaking a rule. Introduce someone to the sport, suggest that special place to hide a cache and when you visit your parents again, BINGO, a find!!!

Why re-invent the wheel when the current one is not broken? Why bring up old topics and get almost no support from the others that are replying? Rules are a lot like laws, not everyone goes by them, right? But why is this being brought up again? Is it in the hopes that someone will agree and the rules will change? As far as I can read on this post it doesn't look as much has changed in opinions as the last time you posted regarding this topic.

Merry Christmas Woody and hopefully you will get what you wanted. I just hope that changing the rules regarding vacation caches isn't on your wish list any time soon. Happy cachin'!

[+woodsters]

Cache Couple, this has nothing to do with placing a cache back home. Back home was an example. My concern was merely for the reasoning. Plain and simple, I think that the current rules on all this are stupid and uneffective. As most have said here, people can and do go around them. So why even have it where they can do it? Especially whne in the long run, it's all not that big of a deal? Get rid of the rules on the whole thing. Don't put any restrictions on caches that are placed a distance away or in places that caches would be considered vacation caches. Deal with each cache individually. Like others stated as well, if there is a problem then other cachers will fix it or take care of it. It's the same thing with "vacation caches" (ugh hate that name). They will get weeded out. Of course people will place caches in areas where they shouldn't. But that happens in caches that aren't considered vacation caches.

[+Hemlock]

Many people ignore the speed laws. Does this mean all speed laws should be repealed and the cops should not patrol our highways and roads?

 

No. We do what we reasonably can to enforce the rules. That's all we can do.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

It cracks me up when drunks on traffic stops complain about how there are people who are really drunk out there and committing worse crimes on the road, so we should be chasing them instead. Then they blow a .24.