Jump to content

Locationless Caches....your Opinion


BeDoggy

Recommended Posts

I don't have much of an opinion on this, but Benchmark hunters aren't "padders" cause it doesn't actually effect your normal cache find rating as far as I understand at least.

 

I don't look down on benchmark hunters, it's just I, along with probably a zillion other people, don't see much fun in trudging thruogh the wilderness to find a little disk that might not even be there. (Oh wait, that sounds like normal geocaching) but it's not, cause there's no real reward other than getting to log it...

Link to comment

If someone had done some LC'S and truly thought that they were "padding" their numbers and that they didn't feel right, wouldn't it make them feel better if they deleted those finds? I know if I truly felt that way, I would try to make myself feel better at what I was doing in my hobby. Most people say that total finds don't matter and that they do it for the enjoyment. I enjoy LC's, so as long as they are part of the game, I will continue to enjoy them. If one day they are gone, I won't be shedding any tears.

Link to comment

Well, After reading through this entire thread, a couple times in fact, I think I will go out and start hunting LC's as I find them.

 

I was thinking along the line of a seperate section like benchmarks but after reading a post about possible making two "class's" of cachers by doing so, I will back off that idea. That comment struck a nerve and I do not want to see "our" gang break up into factions. That would be a bad thing. Very bad in fact.

 

I have started to look at it along the line that we will always be getting some new LC's to play with. But the data base for Benchmarks, for the most part, is static. There will be very few added to the list. But there will always be some crazy cacher out there who will come up with a whole new way of looking at the world or parts of it.

 

I will leave that "cheating" to the other topic.

 

So, now where do I get a good list of all those LC's at?

 

logscaler.

Link to comment
I don't have much of an opinion on this, but Benchmark hunters aren't "padders" cause it doesn't actually effect your normal cache find rating as far as I understand at least.

 

I don't look down on benchmark hunters, it's just I, along with probably a zillion other people, don't see much fun in trudging thruogh the wilderness to find a little disk that might not even be there. (Oh wait, that sounds like normal geocaching) but it's not, cause there's no real reward other than getting to log it...

Was this said "tongue-in-cheek"? Because, I would guess for the most part, people hunt benchmarks for the same "reward" that people hunt caches....for the hunt itsself. At least, that's why I do it. And, yeah, I've logged a few benchmarks already in my area, and have found half a dozen or so that aren't in the BM section at gc.com, but I'm too lazy to do all the stuff to try to get them listed somewhere.

 

Bottom line: Whether it's BM hunting, caching, trainspotting, whatever, most people do it for the fun of the hunt.

Link to comment

Sparky-Watts I didn't really mean anything offensive. I do it for the fun that I have getting to the places, but really, I mean, there are perks to doing a normal geocache, that there really don't seem to be for bm hunting. I'm sorry if I offended you, it's just, I don't see the fun in benchmark hunting, I mean mostly because there's no guarentee that you'll even find it, (if it's even there.) I mean with geocaches there's logs and you can make a fairly good guess of wether it's there and wether you'll find it, but I mean it's just guessing with benchmark.

 

I'm sorry if I offended you Sparky, or anyone else, but I have opinions, just like everyone else at this board does. I don't look down on bechmark hunters, but I don't look up to them. But I don't wanna get into a flame war, so I'll just leave my opinion at that...

Link to comment
Sparky-Watts I didn't really mean anything offensive. I do it for the fun that I have getting to the places, but really, I mean, there are perks to doing a normal geocache, that there really don't seem to be for bm hunting. I'm sorry if I offended you, it's just, I don't see the fun in benchmark hunting, I mean mostly because there's no guarentee that you'll even find it, (if it's even there.) I mean with geocaches there's logs and you can make a fairly good guess of wether it's there and wether you'll find it, but I mean it's just guessing with benchmark.

 

I'm sorry if I offended you Sparky, or anyone else, but I have opinions, just like everyone else at this board does. I don't look down on bechmark hunters, but I don't look up to them. But I don't wanna get into a flame war, so I'll just leave my opinion at that...

Like Sparky could be offended!! LOL!!

He's moving so fast he wouldn't notice if he had an arrow sticking out of his rear...

(That's why he's in pain all the time, he hasn't slowed down to pull it out)

 

Shhh... don't tell him.... We're having a blast watching him! ;)

Link to comment

Okay, my two yen now that I've read through the thread...

 

At one point I went through the entire list of locationless caches and sorted out the ones I thought sounded interesting. But I ended up never logging any of them. Instead, I decided to start finding the ones in my area that held some interest to me and hiding caches nearby.

 

That way others will still visit the cool place instead of passing it by because it had already been logged, and I avoided the whole 'Are locationless caches real caches?' debate.

 

It's a solution that works for me.

Link to comment
I'd do Jagermeister shooters myself.

Wouldn't you know it. That's whats in my fridge. I can't afford Tequila anymore. Cactus must be getting scarce, or is it the worm?

Hadn't you heard ? The worms formed a union and went on strike 6 months ago... ;)

 

Alright...I know...not on topic....

 

How bout them virtuals....gonna try to start one this weekend...

Link to comment
I'd do Jagermeister shooters myself.

Wouldn't you know it. That's whats in my fridge. I can't afford Tequila anymore. Cactus must be getting scarce, or is it the worm?

Hadn't you heard ? The worms formed a union and went on strike 6 months ago... ;)

 

Alright...I know...not on topic....

 

How bout them virtuals....gonna try to start one this weekend...

Make it easy so I can "pad" my numbers some more. Better yet - make it something I can download a pic from the net for.

Link to comment
Sparky-Watts I didn't really mean anything offensive.  I do it for the fun that I have getting to the places, but really, I mean, there are perks to doing a normal geocache, that there really don't seem to be for bm hunting. I'm sorry if I offended you, it's just, I don't see the fun in benchmark hunting, I mean mostly because there's no guarentee that you'll even find it, (if it's even there.)  I mean with geocaches there's logs and you can make a fairly good guess of wether it's there and wether you'll find it, but I mean it's just guessing with benchmark.

 

I'm sorry if I offended you Sparky, or anyone else, but I have opinions, just like everyone else at this board does.  I don't look down on bechmark hunters, but I don't look up to them.  But I don't wanna get into a flame war, so I'll just leave my opinion at that...

I wasn't offended, but some people may have been. I think they see the hunt as exciting for BM's as we see the hunt for caches being part of the fun. I just wasn't sure if you were serious or not. No sweat! :blink:

 

 

Hey.....what's this thing sticking out of my rear? ;)

Edited by Sparky-Watts
Link to comment
[

I wasn't offended, but some people may have been. I think they see the hunt as exciting for BM's as we see the hunt for caches being part of the fun. I just wasn't sure if you were serious or not. No sweat! :mad:

 

 

Hey.....what's this thing sticking out of my rear? :blink:

Gosh Sparky...can we please call it something other then hunting for BM's...???

 

and not going near rear end sentence.... ;)

Link to comment
[

I wasn't offended, but some people may have been.  I think they see the hunt as exciting for BM's as we see the hunt for caches being part of the fun.  I just wasn't sure if you were serious or not.  No sweat! :(

 

 

Hey.....what's this thing sticking out of my rear? :blink:

Gosh Sparky...can we please call it something other then hunting for BM's...???

 

and not going near rear end sentence.... ;)

At least I didn't say "logging a BM" like I did in another thread! :mad:

Link to comment
Benchmarks don't yet seem to have clear types but they could.  I don't benchmark so I'm in the dark here.

There are some ways BM's could be divided also. Disks, architecural (church steeples, water towers, radio/TV antennas and such) and archaic (nails, bolts, stones bottles(yes they have been used) etc, basically old time ones). Those are a few right off the top of my head, there could be more. I like doing ALL kinds of caches and BM's. I think your post brings up some good ideas.

Link to comment
If someone had done some LC'S and truly thought that they were "padding" their numbers and that they didn't feel right, wouldn't it make them feel better if they deleted those finds?

No takers?

Should there be? No one breaks any rules by logging locationless caches. You seem to be taking this pretty seriously for someone who "doesn't give a rat's a** about what anyone else thinks." My original post was about how when I did a few locationless caches it "felt" like padding numbers and that they seemed to feel less "legitimate" But nowhere did I say they WERE padding or DID lack legitimacy.

I as merely asking if anyone else had experienced this sensation when doing locationless caches for the first time. No accusations were made or aspersions cast in the original post.

 

As for me, I don't "feel bad" about doing some locationless caches.I simply said they weren't to my taste, that's all.

Link to comment
What I do, I do for personal reasons and I don't give a rat's a** what somebody else does or does not do, let alone their "COUNT".

Correct me if I'm wrong,but I don't recall ever saying that I don't care what anybody else thinks.

You're right - I'm taking it way to serious. I'm going to follow my own advice and and do what makes ME happy.LC's and all other offerings on this site make me happy. If people don't agree with caches on GC.COM then thats their perogative.

Link to comment
What I do, I do for personal reasons and I don't give a rat's a** what somebody else does or does not do, let alone their "COUNT".

Correct me if I'm wrong,but I don't recall ever saying that I don't care what anybody else thinks.

You're right - I'm taking it way to serious. I'm going to follow my own advice and and do what makes ME happy.LC's and all other offerings on this site make me happy. If people don't agree with caches on GC.COM then thats their perogative.

 

 

I apologize for misquoting.

Edited by BeDoggy
Link to comment
Without reading any of this, in my opinion locationless caches are so removed from the original concept of geocaching they need to have a separate section. Ever notice the way they are described? Locationless (reverse) caches. To me, that says it all.

Maybe you ought to read through the thread before making your final decision...

Link to comment
Without reading any of this, in my opinion locationless caches are so removed from the original concept of geocaching they need to have a separate section. Ever notice the way they are described? Locationless (reverse) caches. To me, that says it all.

Maybe you ought to read through the thread before making your final decision...

Nah, I don't need to. I already know what locationless caches are.

 

After looking at your profile, I see that moving locationless caches to a different section would significantly reduce your find count. I guess you cache for the competition.

Edited by Bloencustoms
Link to comment
Locationless caches consitute a missed opportunity for a pastime that could be as popular as Geocaching itself. Most of the problems with LCs stem from them being a bad fit with Geocaching, which is the sport of finding hidden items or specific locations via GPS navigation (although other skills often come into play). . .

For many of the LC caches the GPS coords are helpful because others that have an interest in that subject can find the object themselves, at least as long as it isn't a Yellow Jeep <_<

 

I think one standard that might be used to rate the quality of a LC is how many people are watching the cache. A LC that has many watchers obvisously has a valuable purpose, and Geocaching.com is serving that purpose well.

 

I have an idea that I would love to turn into a LC and I believe that many other people would find it very enjoyable and would check back often to see the new finds. I am hoping that LCs will one day be made available again.

 

Can someone please explain what is meant by "giving LCs their own section?"

 

Don't they already have that?

 

What else would be needed for them to "have their own section" besides guidelines for posting new caches?

Link to comment
Can someone please explain what is meant by "giving LCs their own section?"

 

Don't they already have that?

 

What else would be needed for them to "have their own section" besides guidelines for posting new caches?

What they are talking about it a section like the Benchmarks are in and for the find count of LCs to not count in determining what your overall count is.

 

Some people don't want to see LC's and obviously have difficulty with simple subtraction.

Link to comment

Ok, so I decided to skim the thread. The thing is, locationless caches are different. I'm not against them, I just think they deserve their own section. There have been many points raised that point out reasons why they should have their own section.

 

bons said:

Does anyone consider benchmarks the "Bad" side now? Does anyone consider someone a "cheat" or "padder" or "illegitimate" and "not real cacher" because they do benchmarks?
I believe no one considers benchmark hunters cheaters because their finds aren't lumped with traditional caches. This makes a lot of sense, and is the first time I've agreed with bons.

 

As long as they are lumped in with trads there will be people complaining about their use as a way to "pad" a find count. If they really are that much fun, then moving them to a different section is a good thing. It will allow people to place them once more. Is the only complaint the loss of locationless stats from the proponents' find counts?

 

Another reason they need their own section is that they differ from trads in that many locationless caches have a finite number of possible logs. In theory, a well manintained cache could exist forever, giving everyone a chance to find it. Locationless caches can't offer that, so "finds" ought not to be lumped in with physical caches.

Link to comment

Locationless caches should not have their on section. They are a challenge set by another geocacher just as any other cache. Are some very easy? Yes. So are a lot of traditional caches. Many Locationless caches are very hard depending on where you live. We've been looking for some for months. As has been said over and over, if you don't like them, don't do them. Having found most of the other types of caches, relatively close to our home, Locationless caches are a great way to keep geocaching without having to drive an hour or more. We have learned so much about our town from doing Locationless. I like the fact that Benchmarks are separated from other cache types, because they are not made up by players of this game.

 

Team Ferret

Link to comment
You would think the whining about locationless caches would have ended when they were no longer approved.

 

If you don't like them leave them alone? Good grief.

Well it seems to be a topic on many cachers minds, judging by the number of posts

to this thread in just a couple of days.

 

All the same, thanks for stopping by to whine about our whining about locationless caches. Your input is appreciated. <_<

Link to comment

 

All the same, thanks for stopping by to whine about our whining about locationless caches. Your input is appreciated. <_<

Just know that I am willing to fight to the death for your right to whine.

 

I honestly don't understand the fixation about others cache totals and how they came to get them. I have no idea how many caches most people here on the forums have and I don't even care.

 

If those numbers are so important maybe bowling would be a good sport for number people?

Link to comment

 

All the same, thanks for stopping by to whine about our whining about locationless caches. Your input is appreciated. :lol:

Just know that I am willing to fight to the death for your right to whine.

 

I honestly don't understand the fixation about others cache totals and how they came to get them. I have no idea how many caches most people here on the forums have and I don't even care.

 

If those numbers are so important maybe bowling would be a good sport for number people?

To" BeDoggy

 

AMEN!!!

 

It seems I have heard something to this effect coming out of my own keyboard on numerous occasions. It never seems to be heeded but best of luck on your efforts to bring some sanity back to the arguement.

 

To General Population:

 

It's a GAME for crying out loud. We are NOT in competition with each other. There is NO PRIZE at the end for whoever has the most "finds". It's a family oriented activity designed to get people out from in front of their computers and out into the REAL WORLD.

 

It does not matter what kind of "caches" you find, or how many of each. What matters is how you conducted yourself before, during and after the search. Thus we have a great website to help us and a very good policy of Cache In, Trash Out.

 

In case anyone hasn't noticed, although I'm sure several people look to see, I only log my event caches anymore, I have quit logging my physical finds. I DO NOT CARE HOW MANY CACHE FINDS I HAVE, YOU HAVE, OR ANYONE ELSE HAS. I only log a cache now if there is a problem with it and the owner has to know, and then only a note. I log the event caches because I was there, people saw me there, and it makes sense to do so, and besides, it's my choice to do so. They are few and far between anyway so it doesn't run up my count. Next you'll tell me they should have their own area as well.

 

Having been a supporter of a stats page in the past I now see the error of my ways. If people are so competitive they don't want OTHER Geocachers find counts to be polluted with "locationless" and "virtual" caches, then heaven help us if there was a stats page so they could keep even tighter tabs on all of us.

 

I don't have a problem with the "Cache Police", it seems I have a problem with the "Cache Find Police".

 

Sheesh.......

 

<_<:D:D:D:wacko:

Link to comment

 

All the same, thanks for stopping by to whine about our whining about locationless caches. Your input is appreciated. :wacko:

Just know that I am willing to fight to the death for your right to whine.

 

I honestly don't understand the fixation about others cache totals and how they came to get them. I have no idea how many caches most people here on the forums have and I don't even care.

 

If those numbers are so important maybe bowling would be a good sport for number people?

That's a good point. Numbers are numbers. Some people obsess over them, others (like myself) don't give a hoot about them. Probably because I only have about 12 or 13 finds.

 

As for bowling, well, I think my current find count is almost as high as any bowling score I've ever gotten, so that doesn't work for me! <_<

Link to comment

 

All the same, thanks for stopping by to whine about our whining about locationless caches. Your input is appreciated. :D

Just know that I am willing to fight to the death for your right to whine.

 

I honestly don't understand the fixation about others cache totals and how they came to get them. I have no idea how many caches most people here on the forums have and I don't even care.

 

If those numbers are so important maybe bowling would be a good sport for number people?

That's a good point. Numbers are numbers. Some people obsess over them, others (like myself) don't give a hoot about them. Probably because I only have about 12 or 13 finds.

 

As for bowling, well, I think my current find count is almost as high as any bowling score I've ever gotten, so that doesn't work for me! :unsure:

Against doctors orders but oh well! 5 or 10 pin Sparky. And to stay on topic - I still love LC's and haven't felt illegitimate since I found my parents marriage certificate.

Link to comment

Locationless caches? Hmmmm . . .

 

Well, I won't go out of my way to seek one out; however, if I happen to see something that I know is a locationless cache and I happen to have my GPS & digital camera with me then I'll log it. Otherwise . . . whatever, I don't care one way or another.

 

Oh! Would anyone like some cheese with their whine??

 

Happy caching and stuff!

Link to comment
:unsure: This is a very interesting topic. We are fairly new to the geocaching community, so it is hard to say what is right or wrong. I think that the appropriate response would be that if you like doing it and it fits within the rules of the game than do it. If you don’t like doing it, then don’t, and why worry about what others are doing. People that want to pad their finds will find a way regardless what anyone does. We have done most of the different types of caches available. We have done extremely tough and difficult traditional cache’s. And we have done extremely easy and simply traditional cache’s. By the same token we have done tough and easy LC’s. I believe that if you do it properly and you are meeting the requirements of the cache than there shouldn’t be a problem. LC’s make you take a look at things around you or historical places that you normally overlook. But if you find them and make a proper entry than it enhances the experience for all involved. Different they are as are all of us. Do what you like and don’t worry about everyone else. IT IS A GAME. For the enjoyment of all.
Link to comment

I've read a lot of these posts and everyone seems to have a good point. I enjoy locationless and traditional, but I wish that locationless did not show in the total count (like benchmarks). That would negate the "padding" concern that some people have. I don't think they should be reflected in the "real" numbers, but I also like them showing up in the stats. As far as being easy, some locationless searches can be quite demanding on the patience. Try finding a real barber pole in your area sometime and you'll understand! But what I like most about reverse caching is it makes you very aware of your surroundings. I've always been a fan of "Americana" - old motor courts, garish neon signs, diners, etc... and there are reverse caches centered around this type of stuff. We have a couple of good ideas for some new ones, but apparently there is a moratorium on Locationless at the moment - server probably needs beefing up, I would think. Oh - and another thing on my wish list is a better way to search for locationless caches. So if the IT staff reads any of this, go ahead and whip up some code!

Link to comment

What a hotly debated topic! There's some :huh: some :huh: some :D some :D some :o

 

My vew of LCs- I like them. I seriously enjoy finding objects and places that have something in common with what other people around the world are finding. I'd like to see the new LC moratorium removed. There probably should be a couple changes though. For example, there should not be a "home" location for a LC. I have a cache find in California - I've never been to California. So, my list of found caches is not accurate. It should show where I found the LC, not the home of the hider. A different section? Whatever, just make them easy to find on the website.

 

As for how they affect the counts - That doesn't concern me at all. I'm not caching to compete with people. I'm caching because it's fun! The user stats page clearly distinguishes between the various cache types that have been found, so if you really care that much, just look at the stats. I notice it doesn't list failed attempts that have been logged. Hmmm. Do LCs pad the totals? Sure, some are easier than others. It's the same for trad caches. Is it padding if you find easy caches only? Does the one up a mountain get you more points than the one in the park down the block? Nope. So why should we look down on LCs?

 

I've been craving a cache hunt...But.... Today it's -25 C outside - I'm not gonna bother tromping through the bush getting frostbite to find a @##$@ tupperware container!!!! Even if I did find one, I wouldn't be able to write in the log book with my frozen fingers. My only options... stay home or do a virtual or locationless cache. I picked a locationless today. And STILL FROZE DOING IT!!!!!!! Do I get bonus points for the trouble? no. Would I get more points if I found the ice block tupperware? No.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...