Jump to content

Yellow Jeep Fever Archived!!!


dino_hunters
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

:D I know the reason it was archived. I finally put it on my watch list today at lunch and made plans to start carrying my camera and GPS when I go out to lunch. I saw a yellow jeep today, just after putting the cache on my watchlist. I won't tell you the other 9 locationless caches I've added for near term finding. Hopefully, the powers to be won't archive all of them too.
Link to comment

When I went to pick up my new (to me) Jeep today, there were no less than 10 Yellow Wranglers in a row on the dealer's lot! I saw them the other day when I was out car hunting, and was going to snap a pic of all 10 in a row for the LC, but just before I left home, I looked at the cache page and saw it had been archived! :D

Link to comment
I was going to use that as my 200th find, too. :D

It could've been my 23rd find! :D Oh, well, I was reading a local cacher's page today (after seeing that they had logged a grain elevator in Kansas on the Canadian grain elevator LC page), and figured if I took the time and cared about numbers, there's probably at least 50 I could legitmately do from home! One example is the one about the radio show, where you read the transcript and copy information from the dialogue. Another fine example is the Watertower LC....I could get that one from my front porch! Hmmm, now that I think about it, I can lean back just a few inches in my chair here at the computer and actually see the upper half of the water tower! BORING!!!!

Link to comment
Sparky,

 

That's crazy! YJF is definitely a classic and I'm sad to see it go. Maybe someone should offer to adopt it! :D I would but I've got a pretty full plate over here. Maybe YOU should do it! You'd be a hero.

Hmmmm....are you being sincere, or just looking for a way to get me too tied up to post in the forums? :D:D:D

 

Well, I'd have time to do it now, but in a few months, I should be pretty busy again around here. Guess someone should email the owner and ask what their plans are......

 

.....which brings up another question: Given the current moratorium on LC's, is it possible to adopt one? I don't know, so can anyone answer that question?

Link to comment
I just bought a new Jeep this week to replace my white one, and its Yellow.  Was going to take a pic tomorrow if weather was nice for the cache................

 

Darn

Propably not to late to try to find a Green FJ40.

Just a suggestion, but I heard there was going to be a locationless approved for a GREEN FJ40 91132_400.jpg as soon as the moritorium was lifted. :D:D

Link to comment

Luckily, this was my first locationless cache a while ago. But, no so lucky for my friend Sl33py------he really wanted to do this cache and just saw a bunck of yellow jeeps!!!!! What can you do. That's life. I know that the grandma toy was stretching the limit, but did they have to archive the cache?

 

Environmental Explorer

 

Make a difference - save the environment - recycle :D

Link to comment

I don't really see how this cache could be considered "negative". As far as site constraints, does that mean all older caches will be eventually pushed off the site to accommodate newer caches? If this happens to one cache, does this mean that any cache listing a large number of finds will be archived for the same reason? :D

Link to comment
As far as site constraints, does that mean all older caches will be eventually pushed off the site to accommodate newer caches? If this happens to one cache, does this mean that any cache listing a large number of finds will be archived for the same reason?

 

Probably, but I don't think its an issue with real caches. Its highly unlikely that any real cache will reach over 1,000 logs. Could be an issue though with some of the more popular locationless caches. So unless they make the programming changes to accomodate all those logs I'm sure we'll see others archived fairly soon.

 

In this case I'd think it would be nice to waive the moratorium on locationless caches and allow the owner to create a duplicate.

Link to comment
As far as site constraints, does that mean all older caches will be eventually pushed off the site to accommodate newer caches? If this happens to one cache, does this mean that any cache listing a large number of finds will be archived for the same reason?

 

Probably, but I don't think its an issue with real caches. Its highly unlikely that any real cache will reach over 1,000 logs. Could be an issue though with some of the more popular locationless caches. So unless they make the programming changes to accomodate all those logs I'm sure we'll see others archived fairly soon.

 

In this case I'd think it would be nice to waive the moratorium on locationless caches and allow the owner to create a duplicate.

Yep let him put this baby back up, it'd be great

Link to comment

briansnat wrote:

...In this case I'd think it would be nice to waive the moratorium on locationless caches and allow the owner to create a duplicate...

I have to agree. After all, more than 1000 geocachers can't be wrong!

 

I logged this cache 41 days ago. I'm astonished to find 163 additional finds logged since then! I can see where lengthy logs may become cumbersome, but a cache with this popularity should be allowed to live. :D:blink:

Link to comment
Pssst – You can still log the cache while it is in the archived status.

Sure, the site allows you to, but should you?

Part of maintaining a virtual or locationless cache is deleting improper logs. So any logged after it's archived should be deleted by the cache owner.

Considering it was archived because it was causing problems for everyone who uses the website, is it really wise to KEEP logging more finds on it? Seems to me that doing so is just reenforcing TPTB's reason for not accepting any new LC caches. It proves the website in it's current form isn't set up to properly handle LC caches. It would prove that there is a much bigger problem with people logging finds on an archived LC or virt then on physical caches. Seems to me that this line of thought would only make things worse for LC lovers, and all the rest. If 1200 logs is a problem now, maybe they will have to delete everyone's finds when it reaches 1300 to keep the rest of the site up?

Geesh, compared to almost any other game or sport, this one has very few rules or regulations, I can't see why it's so hard to follow the few that we have.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
Pssst – You can still log the cache while it is in the archived status.

Sure, the site allows you to, but should you?

Part of maintaining a virtual or locationless cache is deleting improper logs. So any logged after it's archived should be deleted by the cache owner.

Considering it was archived because it was causing problems for everyone who uses the website, is it really wise to KEEP logging more finds on it? Seems to me that doing so is just reenforcing TPTB's reason for not accepting any new LC caches. It proves the website in it's current form isn't set up to properly handle LC caches. It would prove that there is a much bigger problem with people logging finds on an archived LC or virt then on physical caches. Seems to me that this line of thought would only make things worse for LC lovers, and all the rest. If 1200 logs is a problem now, maybe they will have to delete everyone's finds when it reaches 1300 to keep the rest of the site up?

Geesh, compared to almost any other game or sport, this one has very few rules or regulations, I can't see why it's so hard to follow the few that we have.

Good points Mopar. I actually agree with you. I really was hinting to all those folks that said things like I just located a yellow jeep last week and now I can't log it. I wasn't proposing that people keep logging indefinitely. The fact that it is archived will prevent that from happening since it no longer shows up in searches. Also, I got the impression from reading the thread that one of the big problems with the cache was relative to searches and PQ's. The fact that it is archived should eliminate that problem even if a few more people log the cache.

 

RM

 

Edit: One more point. I believe that the reason that people are allowed to log archived caches is so that if someone "finds" the cache but does not have a chance to log it before it gets archived, they can still do so.

Edited by Rocket Man
Link to comment

Edit: One more point. I believe that the reason that people are allowed to log archived caches is so that if someone "finds" the cache but does not have a chance to log it before it gets archived, they can still do so.

I think you're right, and, mainly since I'm 20 or more caches behind in logging my finds, I would hate to see logging archived caches become such a problem that the ability to do it is removed.

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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...