Jump to content

Who's Been Driven Over The Edge.


Recommended Posts

We just lost a prolific local due to GC.com issues getting caches listed. Their that I had done caches weren't any better or worse than everything else out there other than the puzzles they were fond of for some of them. From what I've seen they were as listable as anything I've done. Of course this is only based on what got listed that I could hunt. Still they are gone and archived their aches on the way out.

 

Who knows someone local who quit because listing was becoming too much of a problem? Who has heard grumblings on the street (and not in the forums) even if they haven't quit yet?

Link to comment

Growth pains maybe? Has geocaching.com become a victim of its popularity? Your not detailing why he is leaving. Is it just because he can't get his caches approved in a timely manner? Is their a problem in his area with those that approve caches?

 

Did this person leave caching entirely or just take his caches to another listing sight? If he is happier quitting than he is playing then perhaps it is time for him to move on.

 

There is way to much time and energy wasted here with argueing about stats and complaining about poor trades or lame micros. If people expended half the energy to make the game better as they do in complaining about it they could really make a difference.

 

I am a newbie and I hate to see the experience and knowledge lost that some of these experienced cachers will take with them when they go but perhaps its their time. I don't think geocaching popularity has peaked out yet and I think your going to see a massive influx of newbies this year as the weather gets warmer. I predict geocaching is going to be this years fad. This is both good and bad for the sport. For those that are set in their ways that don't like change I think its going to be hard for them.

Link to comment

If cache listing problems were the worst of their problems, then so be it. Personally, I think it's their business if they want to leave, although it sounds rather petty and childish. Take your ball and go home? Ok....did that act destroy geocaching as we know it? Nope.....much less than a molecule in a drop in a great big bucket. All I can say is, "Buh-bye...hope you find a life that is more fair than this one." :o

Link to comment

As the reviewer of the 'prolific local' in question, perhaps I could provide another viewpoint.

 

Roughly one quarter of the submissions he has made during my time covering Idaho were rejected because they were hidden much too close to existing caches, primarily yours interestingly enough. Are you ready to archive your caches so his can be approved?

 

While I did not read all of the archive notes he posted today, several of the ones I did took potshots at Southeastern Idaho cachers, not the reviewers. If what you have said is true, his attacks seem misplaced to say the least. One of the ones archived today has apparently had a missing step since last fall, but was not checked on until a couple weeks ago, when he finally disabled it. Despite this, a found log was posted by his sock puppet account the next day. This was one of the caches he deemed 'to hard' (sic) for the locals. I'd likely find a multicache with missing steps too hard myself.

 

Another of today's archived caches had had the original description wiped out and another one inserted. That cache deserved to be archived since it is no longer the submission that was originally approved. The cache write-up that was inserted? It was one that he had submitted for approval, but when asked for details regarding its location he repeatedly avoided answering my questions.

 

The times when he did respond to my queries, his e-mails were combative and insulting and rarely helpful in determining the appropriateness of his submissions. Repeatedly he chose to fight the submission process and me as the reviewer rather than work with me to find ways to make his caches work for listing with geocaching.com.

 

So perhaps you are correct and 'listing was becoming too much of a problem'. It seems odd however that he is the only one in Idaho who has been having this difficulty. If what you say is true, I wonder why there have been so many other caches approved during the time period in question.

 

I wish him well with his search for a place for 'OTHER, BETTER CACHES' (as he calls them in his geocaching.com profile) on the other listing sites. Hopefully they are more tolerant of being abused than I am.

Link to comment
Who knows someone local who quit because listing was becoming too much of a problem? Who has heard grumblings on the street (and not in the forums) even if they haven't quit yet?

 

Nope. Personally, I have listed 70+ caches and have yet to have one rejected. I'm not sending the local admin any cash, so I can only think the reason that I've yet to encounter a problem is because I'm following the well established guidelines. It's not a problem at all. I submit my cache and it gets approved as long as it complies with the website's standards (which by the way I agree to because I check a box that says I read them before I submit the cache). Its a very simple process.

 

I'm not going to waste my time hiding and attempting to have caches listed that are in clear violation of the guidelines and if the time comes that I cross the line and have a cache rejected, it will be my fault. I'm not going to run off in a huff, take my toys and go home. How freakin' juvenile!

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

On topic:

 

Well, I hope the guidelines/rules at the 'other' listing sites are sufficient to keep geocaching fom getting a black-eye with muggle public/private land-owners. If teh listings did not comply, then what is GC to do? Deny, that's what.

 

Off topic:

 

Personally, I have listed 70+ caches

 

:o Are those 70 concurrent? How are yuo able to maintain all those? Also. it's pretty sad that your HIDES alone are 7 times more prolific than my finds... *sigh*

 

I hope your region is grateful to you briansnat...

 

(and to MT Fellwalker - thank you for serving!)

Link to comment
As the reviewer of the 'prolific local' in question, perhaps I could provide another viewpoint.

 

Roughly one quarter of the submissions he has made during my time covering Idaho were rejected because they were hidden much too close to existing caches, primarily yours interestingly enough. Are you ready to archive your caches so his can be approved?

 

While I did not read all of the archive notes he posted today, several of the ones I did took potshots at Southeastern Idaho cachers, not the reviewers. If what you have said is true, his attacks seem misplaced to say the least. One of the ones archived today has apparently had a missing step since last fall, but was not checked on until a couple weeks ago, when he finally disabled it. Despite this, a found log was posted by his sock puppet account the next day. This was one of the caches he deemed 'to hard' (sic) for the locals. I'd likely find a multicache with missing steps too hard myself.

 

Another of today's archived caches had had the original description wiped out and another one inserted. That cache deserved to be archived since it is no longer the submission that was originally approved. The cache write-up that was inserted? It was one that he had submitted for approval, but when asked for details regarding its location he repeatedly avoided answering my questions.

 

The times when he did respond to my queries, his e-mails were combative and insulting and rarely helpful in determining the appropriateness of his submissions. Repeatedly he chose to fight the submission process and me as the reviewer rather than work with me to find ways to make his caches work for listing with geocaching.com.

 

So perhaps you are correct and 'listing was becoming too much of a problem'. It seems odd however that he is the only one in Idaho who has been having this difficulty. If what you say is true, I wonder why there have been so many other caches approved during the time period in question.

 

I wish him well with his search for a place for 'OTHER, BETTER CACHES' (as he calls them in his geocaching.com profile) on the other listing sites. Hopefully they are more tolerant of being abused than I am.

hmm that helps to bring some info from the table,

 

and BTW I respect the approvers and dont see the point in fighting over a cache placment not being approved, thanks for making this game work

Link to comment
"As the reviewer of the  'prolific local' in question, perhaps I could provide another viewpoint...  ..."

It is always very interesting to me to hear both sides of a problem. Thank you MTFellwalker for posting your specific comments.

And as often the case, once the other side of the story is told, the evil empire doesn't seem so evil..................

Link to comment

I know of one cacher who quit because of placement problems. Another quit because they felt the reviewer was insulting. Another quit because they got insulted on the forums. Several I know have been tempted to quit.

 

When I started we could pretty much place anything anywhere. Of course that isn't the case these days.

 

But life goes on. One day I won't be caching any longer. Life has plenty of activities to keep ya busy :o

Link to comment
I think it's their business if they want to leave, although it sounds rather petty and childish. Take your ball and go home? Ok....did that act destroy geocaching as we know it? Nope.....much less than a molecule in a drop in a great big bucket. All I can say is, "Buh-bye...hope you find a life that is more fair than this one."

 

Yup. Doesn't sound like such a big loss.

 

If he was placing caches that were too close to others, what's he getting pissed off about?

 

The rules aren't rediculous for the most part, and they are easy to follow. If you don't do what they want, don't expect them to do what you want...

Link to comment
Growth pains maybe? Has geocaching.com become a victim of its popularity? Your not detailing why he is leaving. Is it just because he can't get his caches approved in a timely manner? Is their a problem in his area with those that approve caches?

 

Did this person leave caching entirely or just take his caches to another listing sight? If he is happier quitting than he is playing then perhaps it is time for him to move on.

 

There is way to much time and energy wasted here with argueing about stats and complaining about poor trades or lame micros. If people expended half the energy to make the game better as they do in complaining about it they could really make a difference.

 

Arguing about rules and their implementation isn't wasted time. Its really the only way rules can get set and be seen as organic to the game rather than just imposed by TPTB.

 

1. GC has a group of approvers who seem to enforce rules they like and not so much on other things. The outcome of this is that some caches get approved with hardly a peep and others will get approved sometime after Tonya Harding teaches Lucifer how to do a double sow cow (sp?). This has a lot of us scratching our heads trying to figure out why.

 

2. We have regional differences that are being exaggerated by the rules that seem to work nicely if you are in the Puget sound area. We have serious problems with these rules in the midwest and can't get modfications even discussed (and I am the president of our local caching group!) We would like to see the cache distance rules modified to consider the additional space we have compared to the coasts (0.5 - 1 mile instead of 0.1 miles), and we would like to see a relaxation of the 75 mile rule so we can get the cache density more evenly spread across our state rather than clustering near the larger population centers (like on the coasts).

 

Its always frustrating to work hard on a cache and then have it get refused. It would be better if you could get cache concepts approved, then cache areas approved, then the over all cache approved.

 

Here is how I would like to see it:

 

Cacher submits concept to GC. GC evaluates it by originality (10%), frequencyof that cache type in the area of the cacher (home zip code) (20%), number of caches of the general type in the larger area (say 50 mile circle) (50%), the cache found to cache placed ratio of greater than 5 to 1 (20%).

 

Concept gets approved. Location (general idea, say XYZ park) gets sent to LOCAL cache group. If locals think cache would work there, it goes back to GC for final approval of implementation by the cacher. If not, the group can feed this back to the cacher and local discussion/walking the ground can occur.

 

This would give definable variables to cachers hiding caches. This would involve local groups who are more familiar with parks in the area. (For example, two parks near my home have geocaches. The park to the west could hold a second by the current rules, but the space would result in a crappy hide. The park to the east could hold 2 more easily, yet GC would approve only 1 in each park). The cacher would still get feed back from the approver about implementation and selection of cache locations. The process would be more transparent and would slow down the rate of drive by cache placements.

Edited by bigredmed
Link to comment

the last time i considered committing cg.com suicide, it was because of headaches from OTHER PLAYERS. then i realized the happy solution that i'm free to ignore them.

 

i have had caches disapproved. some of them deserved to be disapproved, like the brilliant idea i had while i had a fever of over 104. i'm embarrassed to tell you what it was. granted, the approver was kind of terse with me when he explained it, but mine probably wasn't the fisrst stupid idea he'd seen all day.

 

and, well, if i was hell-bent on getting a SPECIFIC cache listed regardless of approval here, i would probably list it elsewhere. why the heck not? but i don't think i'd archive all of mine on the way out. i think they get the best exposure here.

 

i like the services provided here. and i've said this before: if i could play cards and get my email here too, i'd quit going to yahoo.

Link to comment

2. We have regional differences that are being exaggerated by the rules that seem to work nicely if you are in the Puget sound area. We have serious problems with these rules in the midwest and can't get modfications even discussed (and I am the president of our local caching group!) We would like to see the cache distance rules modified to consider the additional space we have compared to the coasts (0.5 - 1 mile instead of 0.1 miles), and we would like to see a relaxation of the 75 mile rule so we can get the cache density more evenly spread across our state rather than clustering near the larger population centers (like on the coasts).

What 75 mile rule is that? I just re-read the guidelines and I don't see anything about 75 miles. I DO see (bold is mine for emphasis):

 

Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable and these caches may not be approved. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, and caches placed on vacation require someone else to maintain them for you. It is not uncommon for areas to be cleared, trails to be blocked or closed, objects used for virtual or multi-caches to be moved or removed, etc.  You must be able to react to negative cache logs and investigate the location quickly.  Please be responsible. This guideline applies to all types of caches including virtual caches.

 

Don't see 75 miles there anywhere.

Personally, there are locations 100 miles away I visit almost weekly, and have caches there. There are also places 20 miles away from me (Long Island) that I've never found a cache. I would not be able to maintain a cache if I hid it there.

Link to comment
Arguing about rules and their implementation isn't wasted time.  Its really the only way rules can get set and be seen as organic to the game rather than just imposed by TPTB.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Please take this post as constructive discussion. I am posting in my capacity as a volunteer cache reviewer and not as a forum moderator.

 

1. GC has a group of approvers who seem to enforce rules they like and not so much on other things. The outcome of this is that some caches get approved with hardly a peep and others will get approved sometime after Tonya Harding teaches Lucifer how to do a double sow cow (sp?). This has a lot of us scratching our heads trying to figure out why. 

 

I strongly disagree. I have to enforce ALL of the rules, even the ones with which I disagree. Moreover, the volunteers communicate constantly, in our own separate forum and by e-mail, about how to apply the guidelines consistently. We aren't perfect, but when you say that I only enforce the rules I like, you're painting with a pretty broad brush.

 

2.  We have regional differences that are being exaggerated by the rules that seem to work nicely if you are in the Puget sound area.    We have serious problems with these rules in the midwest and can't get modfications even discussed (and I am the president of our local caching group!)  We would like to see the cache distance rules modified to consider the additional space we have compared to the coasts (0.5 - 1 mile instead of 0.1 miles), and we would like to see a relaxation of the 75 mile rule so we can get the cache density more evenly spread across our state rather than clustering near the larger population centers (like on the coasts).

 

It is hard enough enforcing the .1 mile standard. If it's relaxed in the wide open spaces of the midwest, that's the beginning of a slippery slope.

 

I am unaware of a "75 mile rule." The guidelines on this point state that one person's "maintainable distance" may very well be different than another person's. I've approved caches placed more than 100 miles from the hider's home coordinates, because their pattern of caching activity shows that they visit the area frequently enough so that they can attend to any required cache maintenance.

 

Its always frustrating to work hard on a cache and then have it get refused.  It would be better if you could get cache concepts approved, then cache areas approved, then the over all cache approved.

 

Here is how I would like to see it:

 

Cacher submits concept to GC.  GC evaluates it by originality (10%), frequencyof that cache type in the area of the cacher (home zip code) (20%), number of caches of the general type in the larger area (say 50 mile circle) (50%), the cache found to cache placed ratio of greater than 5 to 1 (20%).

 

Concept gets approved.  Location (general idea, say XYZ park) gets sent to LOCAL cache group.  If locals think cache would work there, it goes back to GC for final approval of implementation by the cacher.  If not, the group can feed this back to the cacher and local discussion/walking the ground can occur.

 

This would give definable variables to cachers hiding caches.  This would involve local groups who are more familiar with parks in the area.  (For example,  two parks near my home have geocaches.  The park to the west could hold a second by the current rules, but the space would result in a crappy hide.  The park to the east could hold 2 more easily, yet GC would approve only 1 in each park).  The cacher would still get feed back from the approver about implementation and selection of cache locations.  The process would be more transparent and would slow down the rate of drive by cache placements.

 

This multi-step process hardly strikes me as "transparent." The majority of the cache submissions that I review take me an average of ten minutes. Look at the review page, check for guideline compliance, check the maps, press the approve button. When there is a guidelines issue I am happy to work with the hider. I am also happy to work with local groups and local managers to address any concerns about cache placements in a particular area.

Link to comment
75 mile rule so we can get the cache density more evenly spread across our state rather than clustering near the larger population centers (like on the coasts).

 

What is the 75 mile rule? Never heard of it and I've been around for a while.

 

Its always frustrating to work hard on a cache and then have it get refused. It would be better if you could get cache concepts approved, then cache areas approved, then the over all cache approved.

 

I wouldn't know. Never happend. If I thought a cache I was planning was remotely close to the line, I'd run it by my local approver.

 

Cacher submits concept to GC. GC evaluates it by originality (10%), frequencyof that cache type in the area of the cacher (home zip code) (20%), number of caches of the general type in the larger area (say 50 mile circle) (50%), the cache found to cache placed ratio of greater than 5 to 1 (20%).

 

Concept gets approved. Location (general idea, say XYZ park) gets sent to LOCAL cache group. If locals think cache would work there, it goes back to GC for final approval of implementation by the cacher. If not, the group can feed this back to the cacher and local discussion/walking the ground can occur.

 

Oh, that will go over real well. Ya think people have a problem with the current approval process, just try something like this. Some of those local groups are of full of petty, internecine political wars. I don't want my caches submitted to someone who may have an axe to grind, have a personal dislike for me, or might even have an eye on that spot for their own cache. Besides, people complain when approvals take two days. Throw this into the mix and you're probably talking a week or more for approvals to come through.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Its always frustrating to work hard on a cache and then have it get refused.  It would be better if you could get cache concepts approved, then cache areas approved, then the over all cache approved.

 

Here is how I would like to see it:

 

Cacher submits concept to GC.  GC evaluates it by originality (10%), frequency of that cache type in the area of the cacher (home zip code) (20%), number of caches of the general type in the larger area (say 50 mile circle) (50%), the cache found to cache placed ratio of greater than 5 to 1 (20%).

 

Concept gets approved.  Location (general idea, say CZ park) gets sent to LOCAL cache group.  If locals think cache would work there, it goes back to GC for final approval of implementation by the cacher.  If not, the group can feed this back to the cacher and local discussion/walking the ground can occur.

 

This would give definable variables to catchers hiding caches.  This would involve local groups who are more familiar with parks in the area.  (For example,  two parks near my home have Geocacher.  The park to the west could hold a second by the current rules, but the space would result in a crappy hide.  The park to the east could hold 2 more easily, yet GC would approve only 1 in each park).  The cacher would still get feed back from the approver about implementation and selection of cache locations.  The process would be more transparent and would slow down the rate of drive by cache placements.

 

Let me see if I understand this correctly.

 

Local cacher "L" sends idea for cache to Geocaching.com. Geocaching.com send info to regional approver "Co Admin". CO Admin looks idea over and forwards it to local caching group "C.A.C.H.E.". C.A.C.H.E. Meets once a month, they go over the idea and decided that there is a problem with the hide. Info gets sent back to originator for clarification, copy to CO Admin to keep him in the loop. Cacher objects with C.A.C.H.E. response and schedules meeting with C.A.C.H.E. to walk the site and prove is point. C.A.C.H.E.s 3 man Board finds a way to get together with cacher and site is walked. C.A.C.H.E. stand by original view that cache is a bad hide. Originator now sends letter to CO Admin requesting an administrative override of C.A.C.H.E.s decision. CO Admin meets with C.A.C.H.E. to hear their side of the story and understand their reasons C.A.C.H.E. says its a bad hide. CO Admin make ruling and sends results to GSP, Originator of cache idea and C.A.C.H.E.

 

Is that what you have in mind?

 

Couple of questions.

 

If there is more than on local group who gets to decide on the caches?

 

The above process would take at least a month on a cache that gets approved. Possibly 3 months for one the gets disputed. how is that going to help things?

 

"the cache found to cache placed ratio of greater than 5 to 1 (20%)." what does this mean. a person has to find a certain number of caches in order to earn the right to place a cache? For every 5 finds I get to place 1 cache? Why?

 

If you feel that the local approvers are applying the guidelines unfairly what makes you think that the local groups would not do the same thing. Are the local groups a better class of people then the local or regional approver?

 

If the local groups would in effect be watching the local/regional approver to insure that the local/regional approver fairly applies the guidelines who is going to watch the watcher?

 

What 75 mile rule are you referring to?

 

I have more, but these are a good start

Edited by CO Admin
Link to comment
If you feel that the local approvers are applying the guidelines unfairly what makes you think that the local groups would not do the same thing. Are the local groups a better class of people then the local or regional approver?

 

At least the GC.COM admins answer to the owners of this website. If they are found to be applying standards unfairly, showing favoritism, etc... they can be canned. How does one go about firing an entire local geocaching association?

 

Oh, and what about areas that don't have geocaching associations, or areas where associations overlap?

Link to comment
Cacher submits concept to GC. GC evaluates it by originality (10%), frequencyof that cache type in the area of the cacher (home zip code) (20%), number of caches of the general type in the larger area (say 50 mile circle) (50%), the cache found to cache placed ratio of greater than 5 to 1 (20%).

 

Concept gets approved. Location (general idea, say XYZ park) gets sent to LOCAL cache group. If locals think cache would work there, it goes back to GC for final approval of implementation by the cacher. If not, the group can feed this back to the cacher and local discussion/walking the ground can occur.

 

This would give definable variables to cachers hiding caches. This would involve local groups who are more familiar with parks in the area. (For example, two parks near my home have geocaches. The park to the west could hold a second by the current rules, but the space would result in a crappy hide. The park to the east could hold 2 more easily, yet GC would approve only 1 in each park). The cacher would still get feed back from the approver about implementation and selection of cache locations. The process would be more transparent and would slow down the rate of drive by cache placements.

Trying to follow that makes my head hurt.

 

We don't need more rules...

 

Would you place another cache in the first park just because the rules would allow it even though it would be lame? Have you tried getting more caches approved in the park that you think would hold multiples? Hypothetical arguements are a waste of time.

Link to comment

Oh, sh**! He seems to be blaming me among others - like, I am the smarta** out-of-stater against whom the locals can't stack up (in archive log for this cache). It is shame really, I live less than 3 hours away. In the same Intermountain West backwater as every local around. And I was just thinking about driving to Poci to bag this pretty cool cache, now that the winter is over. Arrgh! Of course I was telling him that if he wanted to have his puzzles cracked sooner, he should have placed them in a place like Silicon Valley, where there a tremendous amount of collective brainpower and willpower is poured into puzzle-solving. But to leap from this into archiving the whole thing is ... sad.

It's the second local to quit in disgust on my short gc.memory. The other cacher had a heated dispute over a cache placed in Alaska.

Of course we are all familiar with the roots of the phenomenon. The most creative cachers need the most flexibility with the formal rules, and they think that they are the cream of the sport and deserve this flexibility. And approvers do bend the rules most of the time, but ... often not for us. And indeed, gc.com as organization doesn't put any value in creativity. Which is only natural given its lame business model. Activities like skiing or climbing get sponsored by gear makers through competitions and expeditions, thereby converting the extreme and the unusual into the commercial value. But gc.com is stuck with peddling its own merchandize to the one-star enthusiasts, instead.

I'm sure I will quit some time too. I just don't see a simple geocide as something honorable. A geocide by cop, maybe?

Link to comment

What I am trying to figure out is who does this person really think that he is hurting. GC.COM? I'm sure nobody there lost any sleep over it. There will be 10 new cachers sign up today to take his place. Local cachers? Maybe because there will be less caches to hunt for in the area. But from the sounds of it I wonder If I were a local would I bother looking for his caches after some of the pot shots that he has taken against them.

As far as Bigred's idea's, the day that I have to hope that some self appointed local group has the power to decide if my potential new cache is worthy is the day that I will commit geocide. I have no grand illusions that I would be missed other than a few local cachers that I have had the pleasure to meet. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
What I am trying to figure out is who does this person really think that he is hurting. GC.COM?

The simple act of quitting is not going to hurt gc.com, but suppose the cacher does want to hurt the sport? It's pretty easy to do, with no recourse.

 

Take for example the cacher who was just banned in my area. He's got over 1000 finds which means he knows the location of just about every local cache. He could easily, and legally, remove them all.

 

Remember, these are boxes or jars of paper and sometimes crap, abandoned mostly on public land. He could 'clean them up' and be considered (by some) to be doing the parks a favor by removing trash that someone else left there.

Link to comment
I have no grand illusions that I would be missed other than a few local cachers that I have had the pleasure to meet. :rolleyes:

Hah, our local cachers don't even respond to my e-mails. Wonder why I never joined any of the 6.5 local cache groups we have in SW Ohio?

Come to think of it my local Approver doesn't even approve my caches, its always been Keystone leaning over the state line. Thats IT! I quit! :ph34r:

 

 

 

The above comment is a joke. I mean no offence and have never had a problem with an apporver or admin. (Except that one wild weekend, CO Admin why don't you ever call me?) In reality the only time that I have a problem is when I spend too much time in the forums and not enough OUTSIDE.

Link to comment
What I am trying to figure out is who does this person really think that he is hurting.  GC.COM?

The simple act of quitting is not going to hurt gc.com, but suppose the cacher does want to hurt the sport? It's pretty easy to do, with no recourse.

 

Take for example the cacher who was just banned in my area. He's got over 1000 finds which means he knows the location of just about every local cache. He could easily, and legally, remove them all.

 

Sure every single geocacher that decides for one reason or that someone did them some injustice could turn into a potential pirate. But simply saying if I can't make my own rules so I am taking my ball ang going home isn't really going to bother too many people. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
We would like to see the cache distance rules modified to consider the additional space we have compared to the coasts (0.5 - 1 mile instead of 0.1 miles), and we would like to see a relaxation of the 75 mile rule so we can get the cache density more evenly spread across our state rather than clustering near the larger population centers (like on the coasts).

 

I don't want to see the .1 mile rule changed. I think it is an appropriate distance, and out here in Nebraska there is plenty of space anyway! As has been pointed out, there is no 75 mile rule. I think it would not be all that difficult to get a rural cache, say 150 miles away, approved here if you often travel to that area. I would like to put one about 80 miles away in a favorite fishing spot. I haven't been concerned about approaval on it. It is no big deal for me to drive there at any given time and I will tell the approver that.

 

Part of the lack of outstate caches here is a lack of cachers in the area. It is simply population numbers. Fortunately there are some new cachers showing up in the central Nebraska area. For its size, Kearney is becoming fairly cache dense.

Link to comment

I've read several times that the 'creative cachers' may need to bend the rules slightly because their caches are so 'creative'. If the rules are not bent for them they quit. Not very creative. In fact, it shows a complete lack of creativity.

 

I had an idea for some caches that didn't fit into the form that TPTB want for caches to be listed here. Rather than throw a hissy fit I decided to get creative. I created my first web site to host the caches.

 

I had a great time doing it. Finders seemed to have a good time finding the caches.

 

Was I driven over the edge? Nope. Do I know any cachers driven over the edge? Nope.

 

Now before you say "But not everyone can build a web site", let me re-emphasize that I had absolutely NO experience creating a web site. While it is no Webby winner, it worked well for the caches.

 

If you're interested you can check it out here.

 

I guess my question is "Why would not being allowed to list your cache here drive you over the edge?"

Link to comment
I've read several times that the 'creative cachers' may need to bend the rules slightly because their caches are so 'creative'...

I guess my question is "Why would not being allowed to list your cache here drive you over the edge?"

Two explanations I think.

a ) Elitism and seniority are in the human nature. People with impressive find and hide records tend to think that their voice matters. To make matters worse, geocaching is a loner-oriented, internet-based sport, which reduces social interactions and increases potential for grave misunderstanding.

b ) Rules and guidenes are not literally and impartially followed anyway, so every time a particular rule is selectively enforced, the restricted party tends to take it personally

We can just shrug it off, but my point is that too harsh crackdown on eccentric and even perhaps spoiled top sportsmen may not be healthy for the sport.

Edited by MOCKBA
Link to comment
a ) Elitism and seniority are in the human nature. People with impressive find and hide records tend to think that their voice matters. To make matters worse, geocaching is a loner-oriented, internet-based sport, which reduces social interactions and increases potential for grave misunderstanding.

This statement might be a little too general. Are we creating a new stereotype for expierenced cachers?

 

Everyone should think their voice matters regardless of number of cache finds.

 

Field geocaching experience does count for something though. 50 finds represents a substantial amount of mucking about. 200 finds is major achievement and that cacher does have something additional to add because of that experience.

 

I have followed the adventures of the 7 people with over 1000 finds (some over 3000) and have had some direct contact with them. I don't find any of them to be elitist or spoiled or feel that their voice matters anymore than someone with 20 finds.

 

I believe the topic being discussed here (a broader problem than the individual mentioned) has little to do with number of finds and more to do with personality traits.

Link to comment
the last time i considered committing cg.com suicide, it was because of headaches from OTHER PLAYERS. then i realized the happy solution that i'm free to ignore them.

 

Yup. I have wanted to drag myself away from these forums because people argue over the stupidest things, and whine about everything.

 

But then, I remember that I like arguing with all the morons, and listening to all the whining. I guess I'm not going anywhere...

Link to comment
Oh, sh**! He seems to be blaming me among others - like, I am the smarta** out-of-stater against whom the locals can't stack up (in archive log for this cache). It is shame really, I live less than 3 hours away. In the same Intermountain West backwater as every local around. And I was just thinking about driving to Poci to bag this pretty cool cache, now that the winter is over. Arrgh! Of course I was telling him that if he wanted to have his puzzles cracked sooner, he should have placed them in a place like Silicon Valley, where there a tremendous amount of collective brainpower and willpower is poured into puzzle-solving. But to leap from this into archiving the whole thing is ... sad.

It's the second local to quit in disgust on my short gc.memory. The other cacher had a heated dispute over a cache placed in Alaska.

Of course we are all familiar with the roots of the phenomenon. The most creative cachers need the most flexibility with the formal rules, and they think that they are the cream of the sport and deserve this flexibility. And approvers do bend the rules most of the time, but ... often not for us. And indeed, gc.com as organization doesn't put any value in creativity. Which is only natural given its lame business model. Activities like skiing or climbing get sponsored by gear makers through competitions and expeditions, thereby converting the extreme and the unusual into the commercial value. But gc.com is stuck with peddling its own merchandize to the one-star enthusiasts, instead.

I'm sure I will quit some time too. I just don't see a simple geocide as something honorable. A geocide by cop, maybe?

After reading that cache page, he sounds like he's pretty full of himself and tries to look down his nose at everyone.....no great loss to this community. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
no great loss to this community

Give me a break. Of course nice sociable community organizers are a great asset for a community. But so are people who challenge others to do unusual and interesting things.

It would be great if everybody was a nice friendly pal ... but if somebody feels down and irritable by the end of winter, and looses one's cool, you shouldn't be all shouting "We are better off without you!". That's totally uncool too.

I mean, say this guy co-localized some of his puzzle caches in a single container - thus violating the letter, but certainly not the spirit, of the cache density rule. I'd give him a permission to go on with this. Such a big deal. Why snub a creative but not terribly sociable cacher over small stuff like this?

Link to comment
no great loss to this community

Give me a break. Of course nice sociable community organizers are a great asset for a community. But so are people who challenge others to do unusual and interesting things.

It would be great if everybody was a nice friendly pal ... but if somebody feels down and irritable by the end of winter, and looses one's cool, you shouldn't be all shouting "We are better off without you!". That's totally uncool too.

I mean, say this guy co-localized some of his puzzle caches in a single container - thus violating the letter, but certainly not the spirit, of the cache density rule. I'd give him a permission to go on with this. Such a big deal. Why snub a creative but not terribly sociable cacher over small stuff like this?

Again, I stick by both my posts in this thread......

Link to comment

I am unaware of a "75 mile rule."  The guidelines on this point state that one person's "maintainable distance" may very well be different than another person's.  I've approved caches placed more than 100 miles from the hider's home coordinates, because their pattern of caching activity shows that they visit the area frequently enough so that they can attend to any required cache maintenance.

 

If there *were* a 75 mile rule, I would argue against it. In this area (San Francisco Bay Area) there are people who commute into the metro area from well outside of it. I know people who commute to San Francisco from Stockton or Los Banos.

Link to comment
b ) Rules and guidenes are not literally and impartially followed anyway, so every time a particular rule is selectively enforced, the restricted party tends to take it personally

We can just shrug it off, but my point is that too harsh crackdown on eccentric and even perhaps spoiled top sportsmen may not be healthy for the sport.

 

I keep hearing about this "selective enforcement" of rules.

 

I'd love some examples because I personally have not seen that.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment

When I see a provacative question like "how many of you have thought about leaving..." and similar variations, I usually think completely in the opposite direction. How many people out there are having the time of their lives, getting out into woods you never knew existed, and meeting a great bunch of people you might not otherwise cross paths with? How many of you get a warm fuzzy lugging a trash bag out of a great spot? Who's been so addicted to geocaching that they've been WAY late to work trying to get an FTF? My hand is raised to all of the above which tells me that depsite the dark side of the force, something here must be pretty good!

 

This is the most fun I've had in years, and I'm happy to say I haven't felt opressed at any point. I'm all for healthy debate to keep the rules organic, and I both appreciate and enjoy the well thought out arguments... But man, I just can't comprehend the frustration out there eclipsing the buzz and making me think about geocide.

Link to comment
Give me a break. Of course nice sociable community organizers are a great asset for a community. But so are people who challenge others to do unusual and interesting things.

It would be great if everybody was a nice friendly pal ... but if somebody feels down and irritable by the end of winter, and looses one's cool, you shouldn't be all shouting "We are better off without you!". That's totally uncool too.

I mean, say this guy co-localized some of his puzzle caches in a single container - thus violating the letter, but certainly not the spirit, of the cache density rule. I'd give him a permission to go on with this. Such a big deal. Why snub a creative but not terribly sociable cacher over small stuff like this?

 

I'm all for "creative" cachers and caches -- there is much to geocaching that seldom gets explored. Please feel free to work on new ideas, but there is no need to be belligerent with the approvers, the folks in the forum, or other local cachers. In the archive note that this cacher made on a cache referenced above he said:

 

this cache is way to hard for anyone in southeast idaho. a 4-

D cache is out of the question. it took someone from out of state to solve this cache. of course, i expect nothing less from a bunch of hillbillies

 

There is no place in geocaching -- indeed no place in ANY endeavor -- for that kind of attitude.

Link to comment
b ) Rules and guidenes are not literally and impartially followed anyway, so every time a particular rule is selectively enforced, the restricted party tends to take it personally

We can just shrug it off, but my point is that too harsh crackdown on eccentric and even perhaps spoiled top sportsmen may not be healthy for the sport.

 

I keep hearing about this "selective enforcement" of rules.

 

I'd love some examples because I personally have not seen that.

 

southdeltan

They may mean something like this:

 

1. Home Town

 

2. Boot Hill

 

3. Unknown Origin

 

4. Shoe Corner

 

Now where is the 'WOW' factor in #1? It is a tour around a town, can all towns qualify for a virtual then? There have been other virtuals not approved that have been just as 'WOW' as this.

 

2, 3 & 4. Where to begin? 2 was recently approved, 3 was approved in March, 2003 and 4 was approved in December, 2002. Anyone notice anything similar? How 'WOW' is that? If there was only one it would certainly be more outstanding, but 3? And those are just the ones I know of, there may be more. As a matter of fact, they may make a better single locationless than multiple virtuals.

 

Now don't get me wrong, and no offence to the placers or approvers of the above caches, I like virtuals and have even done 'Unknown Origin' and would do the others if possible. I just want to point out that the rules are NOT enforced the same way everywhere, and are therefore selectively enforced .

Link to comment

I keep hearing about this "selective enforcement" of rules.

 

I'd love some examples because I personally have not seen that.

 

southdeltan

They may mean something like this:

 

1. Home Town

 

2. Boot Hill

 

3. Unknown Origin

 

4. Shoe Corner

 

Now where is the 'WOW' factor in #1? It is a tour around a town, can all towns qualify for a virtual then? There have been other virtuals not approved that have been just as 'WOW' as this.

 

2, 3 & 4. Where to begin? 2 was recently approved, 3 was approved in March, 2003 and 4 was approved in December, 2002. Anyone notice anything similar? How 'WOW' is that? If there was only one it would certainly be more outstanding, but 3? And those are just the ones I know of, there may be more. As a matter of fact, they may make a better single locationless than multiple virtuals.

 

Now don't get me wrong, and no offence to the placers or approvers of the above caches, I like virtuals and have even done 'Unknown Origin' and would do the others if possible. I just want to point out that the rules are NOT enforced the same way everywhere, and are therefore selectively enforced .

Those are interesting.

 

Perhaps the approvers involved - or other approvers - could explain the wow factor on some of these virtuals?

 

I do have to say that the phrase 'selectively enforced' doesn't mean the same to me. Guidelines being enforced differently is not the same as not at all.

 

When I see "selectively enforced" it means (to me) that the rule is not enforced at all. I suppose you could argue that here.... but part of the problem is an objectivity/subjectivy issue...

 

I also felt that some of the posts are impying favortism - which I don't see - maybe I'm blind.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment

southdeltan: I can see your point of view regarding what 'selective enforcement' means, I think we can agree to disagree on that.

 

I too, think the problem (as far as virtuals are concerned) is an ojectivity/subjectivy issue.

 

I haven't seen any blatant favoritism, or any other type for that matter- altho that is not to say that some things may have been perceived that way by others.

Link to comment
it sounds rather petty and childish

My sentiments exactly. They are only hurting themselves and their fellow cachers. Pretty selfish if you ask me.

I wouldn't say it's all that simple. I think people just reach the point where the hassles outweigh the benefits. One shouldn't feel "locked in" to a hobby out of fear of "hurting" others. It's not fair to put that pressure on people.

 

I've had many hobbies over the years. I'm involved for a while in one, then take up another. Sometimes I go back to a hobby after a while and like it more than ever. But in all of that it just doesn't make sense to me to put up with a lot of nonsense for the sake of a hobby that should be a diversion from weightier matters in life.

 

I very nearly quit geocaching last week. The local caching scene here is in some ways quite simply horrendous. Political fights. Groups of cache thieves. Interpersonal grudges. Gossip and trouble making by a small but very loud group of local cachers....It's maddening and embarrassing. Why should I put up with all that when I have so many other great things I can do?

 

Having said that, I still haven't quit. I got a lot of emails from fellow cachers who expressed their dissapointment at my decision to go. Not one ragged on me as though I had "hurt" them. They made me feel welcome and appreciated, so I decided to stick with it.

 

But I don't look down on people who quit. I just wish them well and hope they will return one day.

Link to comment

As for me, I really have alot of respect for the volunteers...

(Oh yes, did anyone note... They are VOLUNTEERS !)

Anyone who does what they do and puts up with the abuses they do deserves alot of credit.

As for me, I will simply abide by the rules, and hope others do the same.

Rules are necessary for society to work together.

Some people believe that rules should not apply to them.

For those people, I suggest going out and hiding a cache and then mailing the coordinates to themselves via post office, and finding them.

They will be much happier.

=)

Seriously though, thank you to all of the approvers who volunteer their time to put up with this unruly crowd. You are underpaid and under appreciated.

But we love you just the same !

:bad:

Link to comment
Now where is the 'WOW' factor in #1? It is a tour around a town, can all towns qualify for a virtual then? There have been other virtuals not approved that have been just as 'WOW' as this.

 

2, 3 & 4. Where to begin? 2 was recently approved, 3 was approved in March, 2003 and 4 was approved in December, 2002. Anyone notice anything similar? How 'WOW' is that? If there was only one it would certainly be more outstanding, but 3? And those are just the ones I know of, there may be more. As a matter of fact, they may make a better single locationless than multiple virtuals.

 

Now don't get me wrong, and no offence to the placers or approvers of the above caches, I like virtuals and have even done 'Unknown Origin' and would do the others if possible. I just want to point out that the rules are NOT enforced the same way everywhere, and are therefore selectively enforced .

 

Do you know what the objects are in #1? Perhaps they do have a wow factor. You can't tell until you've been there, but I'm pretty certain that for a virt to get through, it isn't a boardwalk plank. Of the other 3, 2 were placed before the crackdown on virts. As far as the 3rd, it seems pretty mundane, but I haven't been there.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Now where is the 'WOW' factor in #1? It is a tour around a town, can all towns qualify for a virtual then? There have been other virtuals not approved that have been just as 'WOW' as this.

 

2, 3 & 4. Where to begin? 2 was recently approved, 3 was approved in March, 2003 and 4 was approved in December, 2002. Anyone notice anything similar? How 'WOW' is that? If there was only one it would certainly be more outstanding, but 3? And those are just the ones I know of, there may be more. As a matter of fact, they may make a better single locationless than multiple virtuals.

 

Now don't get me wrong, and no offence to the placers or approvers of the above caches, I like virtuals and have even done 'Unknown Origin' and would do the others if possible. I just want to point out that the rules are NOT enforced the same way everywhere, and are therefore selectively enforced .

 

Do you know what the objects are in #1? Perhaps they do have a wow factor. You can't tell until you've been there, but I'm pretty certain that for a virt to get through, it isn't a boardwalk plank. Of the other 3, 2 were placed before the crackdown on virts. As far as the 3rd, it seems pretty mundane, but I haven't been there.

No, I do not know what is at any of the locations in #1. Do you? But that is not the point. I am sure just about ANY town can claim something as being special. Does that mean EVERY town should get a virtual then? Perhaps. The main complaint of virtuals is that a traditional cache should be placed whereever possible, this is a whole freaking town- surely there is someplace to put one!

 

2,3 & 4 are all virtually (groan, I know) the same. Seen one, seen 'em all. Thus my point that those kinds of things would make a good locationless. But that is a whole different can of worms. One of the other complaints against virtuals is that every landmark etc. shouldn't be used as one. They should be somewhat 'unique'.

That the third on was approved after there were already two very similar ones listed doesn't make it very singular.

 

Now- imagine if the boardwalk plank was approved and I used that as my example. Would you have defended that also? The reason you (semi) defended this one is because MAYBE there is a 'wow' at the location. By who's standard should that be judged tho? That is the question. The decision of whether a virtual is 'WOW' enough to be approved is subject to the whim of the approver, it is therefore impossible for all virtuals to be judged by the same criteria as different approvers have wildly varying opinions of 'WOW' themselves. I prefer to be the judge of what 'wows' me, and to let others do the same. I think it may have been VERY 'wow' to see that boardwalk plank cache- think of the possibilty of cachers occasionaly adding planks over the years, what a tribute to this thing we do that would have been. Seeing names of cachers you've met or talked to or debated on line. But that will not happen now, all because it wasn't 'wow' enough in one persons opinion.

 

Yes, I DO think there needs to be some controls placed on virtuals, no dead animals etc. But maybe the rules right now are just too tight or too subjective or just plain too confusing.

 

I just want to also restate: I do not think any of the caches I've used are bad or there was anything wrong with them having been approved. I am just using them as examples for this discussion.

 

Sorry for sort of derailing this thread also.

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...