"found" Logs Not Allowed Pt Deux

[+as77]

Where did you see that "conditional" part?

From the original thread, when WH posted his log to the reviewer and the reply.

It is an interesting concept, and I would like to see how it is

received by

the local geocaching community

 

Sounds conditional to me.

It's interesting and he would like to see how it is received -- there is nothing conditional in this sentence.

[+DiskDevil]

 

 

 

You should be big enough to acknowledge that you concocted a loophole in the current find/list system that antagonized the local number hounds. There is *nothing* more wrong about their approach to the game than your's and by intentionally creating a cache that would always come up at the top of their filtered finds...you had the equivalent of a sharp stick poking in their eye when they would log in or PQ. You knew it and you did it anyways.

 

But the situation is resolved. Maybe you should save your idea for when people can selectively remove caches from searches or as a private cache offered in the logbook of a regular cache (no smilie...caching for caching's sake).

I think this states it all...It is not about the numbers or anything else!! It is just plain MEAN!! Why would you do this? Are you at outs with your fellow cachers? You have posted roughly four times on this subject, so why don't you explain it? I don't think this idea will work until you can IGNORE CACHES on your pocket query.

Stop saying that this has given you a new perspective of the community when it was designed to antagonise them in the first place.

[+flask]

I don't like it, probably wouldn't go find it (since I like an accurate representation of my own finds), but I accept that it should be listed. If WH is willing to take lumps for his controversial listing, so be it.

yay! there it is, then.

 

i hate the cache concept. i acknowledge its right to exist. (now, if you'll excuse me, i'm off to bring peace to the middle east.)

 

i can see where the reviewer might reconsider his position in the face of such overwhelming demand. if i had approved such an unpopular cache that had everybody screaming for archival, i'd darn tootin' BETTER make a careful re-examination.

 

i might even toss the decision over to a higher court.

 

if the cache owner WISHES to make a statement like that, i think he should be able to do so. whether or not it's a good idea is another question. if i were the cache owner, i might archive it just as a gesture of "not really wanting to make an awful lot of the locals all angry and everything", or he might want to leave it in place and rename it "the most grossly unpopular cache in MA"

 

i'm going to use this as an opportunity to suggest that everyone scoot on over to the "gc.com" forum and place more requests for that "ignore" button. then EVERYBODY would be happy.

 

and we could all skip off into the sunset, holding hands and strewing rose petals. (soft focus dissolve to black)

[WH]

I had earlier mentioned that this was an experimental concept and it has obviously gone terribly wrong. If I was out to be vindictive or anything of the sort I could argue this statement by Jeremy that the cache could stay:

 

I don't like it, probably wouldn't go find it (since I like an accurate representation of my own finds), but I accept that it should be listed. If WH is willing to take lumps for his controversial listing, so be it.

 

I have already said that the cache will be archived by Thursday or, at the very least, reworded so that notes only logs would be encouraged but not mandated.

[+DiskDevil]

I have already said that the cache will be archived by Thursday or, at the very least, reworded so that notes only logs would be encouraged but not mandated.

I think it has a right to exist, I think if you asked to log as a note but not mandate, it might work. It would allow smileys to get the cache off the pocket query, stat hounds could get their smiley, and the don't care about the stats people could post their note. Even then I bet you would get mostly smileys because people (including myself) like to find and log caches. Good Luck in your decision.....I would hope it to be the right one.

[+gpsfun]

Contrary to your statement, when the cache owner proposed the idea to me, I did not recognize the potential agenda issue, which is probably minor in comparison, or the impact that the logging requirement for no "finds" would have on usage of the site's tools by others.  These points were identified in mostly polite and objective forum posts.

 

Once you decided that the cache is OK to go you should stick to that decision because it is utterly unfair to the hider that you suddenly change your mind and withdraw your approval to a previously approved cache. BTW I don't think the "agenda issue" is real, it seems a made-up excuse to me. There is no fundamental reason why this cache should not be allowed. Jeremy also said it should be listed. You still have the right to reject it but you should have thought of the issues you are mentioning before approving the cache, not thereafter.

I claim neither perfection nor clarivoyance, and am proud to say that I am still capable of being educated. While there are some who will stick with a decision in spite of new information, I am not among that group.

[+mtn-man]

Contrary to your statement, when the cache owner proposed the idea to me, I did not recognize the potential agenda issue, which is probably minor in comparison, or the impact that the logging requirement for no "finds" would have on usage of the site's tools by others.  These points were identified in mostly polite and objective forum posts.

 

Once you decided that the cache is OK to go you should stick to that decision because it is utterly unfair to the hider that you suddenly change your mind and withdraw your approval to a previously approved cache. BTW I don't think the "agenda issue" is real, it seems a made-up excuse to me. There is no fundamental reason why this cache should not be allowed. Jeremy also said it should be listed. You still have the right to reject it but you should have thought of the issues you are mentioning before approving the cache, not thereafter.

I guess we are not all as perfect as you are. Sometimes issues may come up that a reviewer may not have though of or recogonized immediately. Since you obviously did not read the link that Saxman (GPSaxaphone) put to a post of mine I guess I will have to quote it here for you.

Reviewers can make mistakes. If I accidentally approve a cache located in a US National Park without permission then I would hope that it would get archived by TPTB if it was brought to their attention.

 

As gpsfun says, I too am willing to have an open mind and learn from my mistakes or to change my mind if I am give additional information regarding a cache. Please pardon us for not being as perfect and seemingly omnipotent as you are.

[+as77]

As gpsfun says, I too am willing to have an open mind and learn from my mistakes or to change my mind if I am give additional information regarding a cache. Please pardon us for not being as perfect and seemingly omnipotent as you are.

I support a decision to archive a cache if it actually violates the listing guidelines, rules, etc. However, this is not the case here. It just that an approver has changed his opinion. That's not enough reason to withdraw an approval that had been given earlier. And as I suggested earlier, it is very unfair to the cache hider. Approvers should be consistent and not give the runaround to cache owners (like: today I approve it, tomorrow I archive it, then maybe the day after tomorrow I approve it again, depending on what I eat for breakfast that morning, etc.).

 

Yes, an approver might realize he had made a bad decision by approving a cache. So what? He can live with the consequences. It's still better for him to live with the consequences than to cause hard feelings to the affected cache hider. ("Oh sorry, on second thought, I'm archiving your cache.")

[+mtn-man]

As has been pointed out, the reviewer reserved the right to change their opinion. I am sorry that you cannot accept the fact that people can change their minds. I consider that a plus rather than a minus. The Pig Farm Cache in Canada is a prime example. Though the cache was totally approvable, in hindsight I do wish I had written the cache hider to ask them to reconsider before I listed the cache. By your logic (or lack there of), I should not reconsider my decision when reviewing similar caches if for some reason one is placed in the future. I obviously have much more of an open mind than you do.

[WH]

I have nothing but respect and admiration for all the GC.com approvers. Gpsfun and myself have discussed the issue of my cache and we have come to a meeting of the minds.

 

Rather than just archiving the cache in question, he is letting it stand for 5 days, giving me the opportunity re-tool it as I have stated above.

 

Thank you gpsfun and good job.

 

edited for typos

Edited January 9, 2005 by WH

[+as77]

As has been pointed out, the reviewer reserved the right to change their opinion.

 

I don't see that. As has been pointed out, the fact that he expressed interest in how the cache is received does not mean that he reserved the right to withdraw the approval.

 

By your logic (or lack there of), I should not reconsider my decision when reviewing similar caches if for some reason one is placed in the future.

 

That's correct, you should not. Think BEFORE you approve a cache. This is what is expected from you, it is your responsibility.

 

I obviously have much more of an open mind than you do.

 

I strongly doubt that. What you don't seem to have, however, is the respect for the cache hiders who suffer from your inconsistent behavior when you go back and forth on a cache, approving it on one day and archiving it on the next, just because you happened to change your personal opinion.

[+Clan X-Man]

So first the approver says this:

 

In my opinion, a cache with logging requirements as you have stated can be posted to the web site. As the owner, you may state whatever logging parameters you choose.

 

and approves the cache. Then the next day he says this:

 

the premise of the cache is to promote an agenda (not a fan of cache statistics) which is not an accepted use of the web site.

 

and schedules archiving the cache. Consistency rules! It is accepted on Friday and rejected on Saturday. Do the website's rules depend on the day of the week?

 

WH, I think you should not accept gpsfun's decision. Appeal. Your cache has been approved. Now it should be left alone.

I don't like the idea of the cache, BUT, I don't like the idea of conditional approval either.

 

WAY TO RIDE THAT FENCE!

 

I think WH should appeal. There are rules to several caches out there.

 

Certain caches require a photo to be taken for proof you were there, locationless/reverse. What if you don't have a camera to upload the photo to the site?

Same difference.

[+mtn-man]

What you don't seem to have, however, is the respect for the cache hiders who suffer from your inconsistent behavior when you go back and forth on a cache, approving it on one day and archiving it on the next, just because you happened to change your personal opinion.

as77, you are free to have that opinion, but it is a baseless one. They may not agree with my decisions, but I have always shown cache hiders nothing but respect. I know gpsfun personally and I have the highest respect for him.

 

Clan X-Man, it has already been said by Jeremy in this topic that the cache could stand as is. You would need to go back and read the entire topic. WH is going to think about what he wants to do about the cache.

 

To get this topic off of bashing the reviewers and back to the topic of the cache... WH, I am glad that you and gpsfun have been discussing the cache. I hope the views expressed by the community regarding the cache will help you formulate what your ultimate decision will be regarding the cache.

 

FYI... I have always thought this cache was an interesting cache. If you have time, read the description and some of the logs.

[+IV_Warrior]

Certain caches require a photo to be taken for proof you were there, locationless/reverse. What if you don't have a camera to upload the photo to the site?

Same difference.

You go to Wal-Mart and buy a cheap digital for $20 and log the cache? Borrow one from a family member or fellow cacher? Seems pretty simple, and doesn't interfere with others using the functionality of this site, the way the cache in question does. (Functionality that the cache hider uses, but wants to deny to seekers of his cache)

 

Definately NOT the same. Apples to Oranges.

[+southdeltan]

I don't like it, probably wouldn't go find it (since I like an accurate representation of my own finds), but I accept that it should be listed. If WH is willing to take lumps for his controversial listing, so be it.

Not only do I like an accurate representation of my finds (As the hider said himself - "My finds are for me". Well, mine are for me too) but I also depend heavily on the "Nearest unfound cache" page.

 

I think it's unfair that players can force people to play the game they want to play. I use the nearest unfound cache page (Please don't suggest 3rd party software - I hear time and time again "Play the game the way you like" and I like to play my game using the nearest unfound cache page). While I don't live near this particular cache, since thiere is precendent I guess it's only a matter of time before I have one near me. It's one thing to not be able to log a cache because you can't find it - it's another to not be able to log it because of some assanine "logging rule".

 

Do you plan on adding an 'ignore cache' feature?

 

Aside from that, I suppose I would just log the find every time it was deleted.

 

I guess I still stand by my original post in the now locked thread, found over here.

 

southdeltan

[+Clan X-Man]

Clan X-Man, it has already been said by Jeremy in this topic that the cache could stand as is.  You would need to go back and read the entire topic.  WH is going to think about what he wants to do about the cache.

 

I don't like it, probably wouldn't go find it (since I like an accurate representation of my own finds), but I accept that it should be listed. If WH is willing to take lumps for his controversial listing, so be it.

 

I believe this is what Jeremy said. He [/i]accepts that it should be listed.

I do read the topic before I make a statement.

Not a personal attack. Just stated my opinion and as usual someone has to jump 'ya.

 

 

Just adding my $30 worth.

 

mtn-man are you an approver? just wondering....

Edited January 9, 2005 by Clan X-Man

[WH]

mtn-man are you an approver? just wondering....

Yes he is.

[+mtn-man]

WAY TO RIDE THAT FENCE!

 

I think WH should appeal.

I believe this is what Jeremy said. He [/i]accepts that it should be listed.

I do read the topic before I make a statement.

Not a personal attack. Just stated my opinion and as usual someone has to jump 'ya.

The "ride the fence" post looks like a personal attack to me.

Are you saying the WH should appeal Jeremy saying that the cache could be listed as is?

 

My signature line does say that I am a volunteer cache reviewer.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

It was not a mistake, and it's not "the admins" that want to archived it. It's the same guy who approves a cache on Friday and archives it on Saturday, on a whim. This is unacceptable.

What, you think the cache reviewers didn't discuss it once the uproar started?

 

Same thing happened with the Tsumani caches. They were approved, because the reviewer thought they were ok. Someone complained, so the reviewers likely discussed it in private until a decision was made to archive them.

[+Clan X-Man]

WAY TO RIDE THAT FENCE!

 

I think WH should appeal.

I believe this is what Jeremy said. He [/i]accepts that it should be listed.

I do read the topic before I make a statement.

Not a personal attack. Just stated my opinion and as usual someone has to jump 'ya.

The "ride the fence" post looks like a personal attack to me.

Are you saying the WH should appeal Jeremy saying that the cache could be listed as is?

 

My signature line does say that I am a volunteer cache reviewer.

If you will read what I wrote instead of trying to read "into" it, you'll realize that I was talking about myself. I was merely stating that what you said J said was not so. He said he accepts that it should stand as is not that it could stand as is. Jeremy sems to have a pretty good stand on letting reviewers and approvers do their job. Maybe we should too and stop trying to PICK A FIGHT!

 

 

 

I think the cache should be left as is. There are way to many rules and ............

 

You know what........@#$% it! This is a freaking waste of my time.

 

I pay for my sub to GC.com and I'm sick and tire of all the fighting in here.

 

So sorry for anybodys hurt feelings. I'll pack up my bag and go home now. Don't attack and I won't come back.

 

GO FIND A FREAKIN CACHE!

 

X

Edited January 9, 2005 by Clan X-Man

[+GeoRoo]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about either. You can find dozens of examples of wasted space here on the geocaching website. Saying that the cache is a waste of resources and not towards the intent of geocaching is a bit of a stretch. Looking at the cache it's apparent that some are finding it and ejoying the cache, so I say leave it alone. I don't live in the area, but we all have a choice to either find it or not. If you don't like it, then shut the heck up and don't do it! Who really cares!.....

[+mtn-man]

Sorry Clan X-Man. I apologize. Since your comment came after you said "I don't like the idea of conditional approval either" it was my impression that you were saying that the reviewer was riding the fence. Maybe if you would have said "WAY TO RIDE THAT FENCE X-MAN!" it would have been more clear. Thank you for the clarification. Again, I apologize.

[+Clan X-Man]

Accepted! And thank you.

[+mtn-man]

Accepted! And thank you.

No, thank you. I do have great respect for anyone who has a found it log on Tube Torcher.

[+as77]

It was not a mistake, and it's not "the admins" that want to archived it. It's the same guy who approves a cache on Friday and archives it on Saturday, on a whim. This is unacceptable.

What, you think the cache reviewers didn't discuss it once the uproar started?

 

Same thing happened with the Tsumani caches. They were approved, because the reviewer thought they were ok. Someone complained, so the reviewers likely discussed it in private until a decision was made to archive them.

How should I know if they discussed it or not? OK, so they discussed it. Why? Just because a few bobbleheads (© Jeremy) raised some objections in the forum doesn't mean the cache has to be reconsidered. Once it is approved, leave it alone for at least a month and then look at the cache logs to see what the reaction of the community is.

 

What I'm saying is that I would appreciate reliable approver decisions that can be trusted. If an approval is never sure because it could be withdrawn the next day then we have an absurd situation where nothing is certain. When is a yes really a yes, when can a hider know for sure that his cache was indeed approved and it can stay? Never?

 

You mentioned the Tsunami caches, so I will comment on that, too. Apparently several approvers were involved both from the UK/Australia and the US, extensively discussing those caches and in the end they decided that they would make an exception, bend the rules and approve these caches as special cases. It was a process that took several days and the outcome was an OK to these caches. The placers sat back in satisfaction that their fight finally succeeded. And then the next day a Groundspeak employee unexpectedly archives the caches. What is this? Then the whole earlier discussion and approval process was completely pointless? No decision can be trusted for even a day? That's not an environment that cachers wish for. What a cache owner wants is: say yes or say no to my cache but then stand by your decision and don't go back and forth on it on a daily basis.

 

We have a similar situation in WH's case: he contacted an approver before placing his cache to find out if it would be approved. The answer was sure, go ahead, no problem, so he placed it and it was indeed approved, everything seemed fine until the next day when the decision is suddenly reversed. No wonder WH felt frustrated.

[RockyMtnReviewer]

How should I know if they discussed it or not? OK, so they discussed it. Why? Just because a few bobbleheads (© Jeremy) raised some objections in the forum doesn't mean the cache has to be reconsidered. Once it is approved, leave it alone for at least a month and then look at the cache logs to see what the reaction of the community is.

I'm sorry you feel that the users of this site should not have a voice. How about the cache reviewers? I was the one that brought up the agenda in the Reviewer's private forum.

This cache seems to fit the agenda clause in the guidelines pretty well. The hider is opposed to cache stats, and this cache pushes his agenda at removing them, or at least making them inaccurate.

After I made this comment, it was discussed by the other reviewers and TPTB.

[briancm]

What's the big deal with the cache? Honestly, I view geocaching as a game, and that's it. Would I go to WH's cache? Yes! I don't have an obsessive-compulsive viewpoint about caching. I don't care about the numbers, I don't care about the toys. I care that someone cares that I visited their cache, and that's really it. (Oh, and it being one of the motivations for me to exercize on my bike.)

 

The following caches near me require access by boat: Peanut Butter SAND-wich, Peanut Butter & Jetty, Return To Jetty Island, Jetty walk, and Union Four requires you to paddle the boat yourself (rent, borrow, or own one). I accept that since I don't own a boat, I'm not going to find these any time soon. Is that so bad?? Given a 20-mile radius from my house, there are about 400 other caches I can visit.

 

The only time I get compulsive-obsessive is with a DNF. Then, if its convenient, I'll go back and go back and go back until I've found it. (Downside? To more excersize and putting the noggin in gear? Nah!) Otherwise I let it go.

 

Come on, guys, think: If a cache requires SCUBA gear and you don't dive, does that upset you? If the cache requires you to scale a 7,000ft peak, do you lay awake at nights over it? If the cache requires anything other than wandering up to it does that upset you??

 

But if the cache doesn't allow finds to be logged, people go nuts! Even if they are nowhere near the cache, and if they were, would have no intention of visiting it anyways.

 

Geocaching is about having fun, not about having a cow! Relax! Go forth and find something! Or just go for a nice walk.

[+as77]

I'm sorry you feel that the users of this site should not have a voice. How about the cache reviewers? I was the one that brought up the agenda in the Reviewer's private forum.

If you want to know how the community receives the cache, give it a month and look at the cache logs. What the forum users write in one day is inconclusive and irrelevant.

 

I think each reviewer has a responsibility for his own decisions and I don't think it's a good idea if a group of reviewers can modify that decision the next day unless there is an obvious and clear violation of the guidelines/rules.

 

You didn't tell us whether there was a consensus on the agenda issue. I for one disagree; not liking stats is no more an agenda than the existing caches mentioned by Mopar. I mean, it's a geocaching-related opinion. It's not that he campaigns for gay marriage.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

What's the big deal with the cache? Honestly, I view geocaching as a game, and that's it. Would I go to WH's cache? Yes! I don't have an obsessive-compulsive viewpoint about caching. I don't care about the numbers, I don't care about the toys. I care that someone cares that I visited their cache, and that's really it. (Oh, and it being one of the motivations for me to exercize on my bike.)

 

The following caches near me require access by boat: Peanut Butter SAND-wich, Peanut Butter & Jetty, Return To Jetty Island, Jetty walk, and Union Four requires you to paddle the boat yourself (rent, borrow, or own one). I accept that since I don't own a boat, I'm not going to find these any time soon. Is that so bad?? Given a 20-mile radius from my house, there are about 400 other caches I can visit.

 

The only time I get compulsive-obsessive is with a DNF. Then, if its convenient, I'll go back and go back and go back until I've found it. (Downside? To more excersize and putting the noggin in gear? Nah!) Otherwise I let it go.

 

Come on, guys, think: If a cache requires SCUBA gear and you don't dive, does that upset you? If the cache requires you to scale a 7,000ft peak, do you lay awake at nights over it? If the cache requires anything other than wandering up to it does that upset you??

 

But if the cache doesn't allow finds to be logged, people go nuts! Even if they are nowhere near the cache, and if they were, would have no intention of visiting it anyways.

 

Geocaching is about having fun, not about having a cow! Relax! Go forth and find something! Or just go for a nice walk.

All of the other examples can be logged if someone is willing to put in the time and effort to acquire the skills or equipment to do them. The cache in question can not be logged as a find no matter how much time or effort you put into it. That's the difference.

[WH]

Look, Jeremy himself said the cache could stay, I am going to voluntarily either edit or archive the cache. Like Ive said twice before, this was purely experimental. I wasn't sure how the GC community would react....now I do. The cache will remain exactly how it is for the next couple days while I incorporate the necessary changes.

 

There is no need to bash gpsfun, mtn-man or any other approvers over this matter. I hold no ill will against any of them or any of the people who have expressed their opinions on this matter.

 

The cache, as it stands, is a dismal failure. I acknowledge that. I have heard what the GC community has to say and I will rectify this.

[Jeremy]

BTW, WH, don't take my opinion personally. There are a lot of caches I would rather not do for various reasons. The likelyhood of me going after any cache with a terrain below 4 is pretty rare (and usually diversionary and unplanned). However my original opinion stands that in cases like these it is possible that a cache can fit within the guidelines and continue to be controversial. Sometimes the court of public opinion is stronger than any dictating from above.

 

There is a direct reason for every guideline on the site. In this situation it is open to opinion whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. But it did certainly liven up a Saturday. Hopefully you guys went out for a while today. I did.

[+as77]

Look, Jeremy himself said the cache could stay, I am going to voluntarily either edit or archive the cache. Like Ive said twice before, this was purely experimental. I wasn't sure how the GC community would react....now I do. The cache will remain exactly how it is for the next couple days while I incorporate the necessary changes.

 

There is no need to bash gpsfun, mtn-man or any other approvers over this matter. I hold no ill will against any of them or any of the people who have expressed their opinions on this matter.

 

The cache, as it stands, is a dismal failure. I acknowledge that. I have heard what the GC community has to say and I will rectify this.

Well, I really appreciate the way you are handling the issue, and it's your cache and your decision, but I think you have become defensive and accepted compromises too soon. I don't think your sampling of the geocaching community is big enough and representative. No, I don't think your cache is a dismal failure. It's different. And that's good. Diversity is good. Your cache is like a piece of performing art, it's a way of self-expression. Don't feel bad about it. There are people who can appreciate it, even if you now feel it was a mistake. Even if it will not stay as it stands, it was worth it.

[briancm]

The cache in question can not be logged as a find no matter how much time or effort you put into it.

But the find is logged, both in the little notebook in the cache, and on the cache page, as either a DNF or a "note." The great bone of contention here is the increment of the "found" number.

 

Let's say for a moment that there wasn't a web site which tracked "finds." Does that lessen the enjoyment of a walk in the woods? Does that lessen the discovery of the cache? Does that lessen any part of the activity at all? What if cache information were sent out by post? What if there was no public recognition that you'd found the cache?? Would you still geocache?

 

I think that's what this whole "discussion" is all about: some people are junkies for recognition. The people who truly do this for the fun of it have gone out, found the cache, and logged the find. They had fun. Others sat and cried crocodile tears.

 

Take a look at Letter Boxing and note the vast difference between their info and ours. The basic goal is the same: find something hidden, leave a mark. They have just as much fun as we do, and without a GPS, or a whole lot of recognition!

 

For a moment I will make a straw-man rebutal to your argument and create an extreme case. Let's say I hide three caches: one on the space station, one on the moon, and one on Mars, and you have found every last cache on Earth. People have been in orbit (tourists, no less!) and on the moon, so its possible by your argument to go and log a find on those caches. Its also possible to privately build and send a robot to Mars to find the third cache. But: are you going to do it? Those caches are gonna be staring you in the face every time you visit your page!

 

In this case, one little counter isn't incremented, people go nuts.

 

IMO, then geocaching is no longer a game.

 

For me it is a game, and its going to stay a game. No matter how many miles I put on my bike, no matter how many cuts, scrapes, and bruises I suffer.

 

Geocaching is a game. And that's all! There are many other games to play, too. Go have fun!

[+Renegade Knight]

...Once it is approved, leave it alone for at least a month and then look at the cache logs to see what the reaction of the community is.

 

What I'm saying is that I would appreciate reliable approver decisions that can be trusted. If an approval is never sure because it could be withdrawn the next day then we have an absurd situation where nothing is certain. When is a yes really a yes, when can a hider know for sure that his cache was indeed approved and it can stay? Never?...

Actually I agree. We had our say on the cache in the fourms. But in the end it's an approved cache. It met the guidelines. It ends there. Or at least it should of.

 

Too often this site reverses a decsion and causes more harm in the process and I'm not sure where they are going with their approvals, policy, and guidelines. I am actually afraid this site will archive some of my existing caches after a "Review".

 

I don't have to like WH's cache, but then some people don't like long hikes and other people don't like parking lot micros. This hobby isn't about what we don't like. It's about geocaching.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The cache, as it stands, is a dismal failure. I acknowledge that. I have heard what the GC community has to say and I will rectify this.

If you are willing to try new things then some will be winners and some...

 

I do the same thing and get the same results. My opinion on one cache doesn't mean I don't like seeing your avitar when I scan a topic and stop and read what you had to say.

[+Mopar]

All of the other examples can be logged if someone is willing to put in the time and effort to acquire the skills or equipment to do them. The cache in question can not be logged as a find no matter how much time or effort you put into it. That's the difference.

Not true.

Anyone who's found 100+ caches will never be able to log the 99 finds or less cache. And for many people like Jeremy and Briansnat a 1000 finds or more cache may not be unobtainable, but will be just as annoying to them as WH's cache for the next 10 or 15 years.

And again, SO WHAT? Nobody is EVER gonna find ALL the caches. You might clear the nearest 20 miles, or even the nearest 100 miles in some areas, but there will still be ones further, And new ones. And as the game grows it will get impossible. The first time I logged onto GC.com the nearest cache was 500 miles away. A year later there were 400 caches within 100 miles of me. Now there's close to 4000 caches within 100 miles of me. Heck, looking at the map, WH's cache might even be inside my 100 mile radius. No biggie.

 

For all the whining, that cache is a lot like the very first cache. There were no online logs. No smileys. Just a set of coords and a logbook. Write in the logbook and maybe shoot DU off an email to let him know you found it. And yet people still went and found it, and hundreds of caches after that, without smileys. Without stats. Go figure.

[+Mopar]

Let's say for a moment that there wasn't a web site which tracked "finds." Does that lessen the enjoyment of a walk in the woods? Does that lessen the discovery of the cache? Does that lessen any part of the activity at all? What if cache information were sent out by post? What if there was no public recognition that you'd found the cache?? Would you still geocache?

Like I said, that's EXACTLY the way it was once upon a time, and enough people still did it to warrant making a little website about it, which feature-creeped into what you see now.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The cache in question can not be logged as a find no matter how much time or effort you put into it.

But the find is logged, both in the little notebook in the cache, and on the cache page, as either a DNF or a "note."

No, the "find" is not logged. A note or DNF is. A DNF is used when you don't find the cache. A note is used when you have information about the cache, but not a Find or DNF. The only way a "find" is logged is if you select "found it" from the menu.

The great bone of contention here is the increment of the "found" number.

No, it affects caches showing up on search pages, pocket queries, and stats. That's more than just an increment of a "found" number.

Let's say for a moment that there wasn't a web site which tracked "finds."  Does that lessen the enjoyment of a walk in the woods?  Does that lessen the discovery of the cache?  Does that lessen any part of the activity at all?  What if cache information were sent out by post?  What if there was no public recognition that you'd found the cache??  Would you still geocache?

But it is successful website. This site exists not only because people enjoy getting out and seeing the countryside, but because they can also come here to talk about it! If you don't like numbers being tracked on your finds, then don't log them. Why interfere with anyone else's enjoyment of tracking their own numbers?

I think that's what this whole "discussion" is all about: some people are junkies for recognition.  The people who truly do this for the fun of it have gone out, found the cache, and logged the find.  They had fun.  Others sat and cried crocodile tears.

So why should the way 99% of the cachers play be taken away by the 1% that don't like stats? Just because I like having an accurate record of my cache experiences doesn't mean that's the only reason I play.

Take a look at Letter Boxing and note the vast difference between their info and ours.  The basic goal is the same: find something hidden, leave a mark.  They have just as much fun as we do, and without a GPS, or a whole lot of recognition!

Letterboxing is a different game. If I wanted to go letterboxing, I'd go to the letterboxing site. This is geocaching, so I play by the geocaching rules.

For a moment I will make a straw-man rebutal to your argument and create an extreme case. Let's say I hide three caches: one on the space station, one on the moon, and one on Mars, and you have found every last cache on Earth.  People have been in orbit (tourists, no less!) and on the moon, so its possible by your argument to go and log a find on those caches.  Its also possible to privately build and send a robot to Mars to find the third cache.  But: are you going to do it?  Those caches are gonna be staring you in the face every time you visit your page! 

Sorry, but the Global positioning System only works on Earth. However, for arguement's sake, the first two caches are attainable with the proper skills and experience (and money, of course). For the one on Mars, you'd bet I'd want some recognition if I found one there!

In this case, one little counter isn't incremented, people go nuts.

Again, it's more than just the number. If you took the number away, but still allowed the functionality to remove the cache from searches, there would be much less complaining. I'd rather the site keep the stats the way they are. Every caching site has stats. I keep track of my own, as well as log them here.

IMO, then geocaching is no longer a game.

Every game has a system of scoring. In geocaching, there is no end to it, or ultimate winner, because it isn't a contest. If you enjoy the game, then you win. I enjoy the game, in part, because i can easily keep track of my caching history. I "win" when I find a cache. I want to be able to record that find in my history.

For me it is a game, and its going to stay a game.  No matter how many miles I put on my bike, no matter how many cuts, scrapes, and bruises I suffer.

Great! Glad you're "winning" at the game. Don't spoil the fun for everyone else. They want to win too.

Geocaching is a game.  And that's all!  There are many other games to play, too.  Go have fun!

That's right, but on this site it's the game we're playing. If you want to play "control freak" by dictating how others play, then you should go find a site that plays that game

Edited January 9, 2005 by Team GPSaxophone

[+southdeltan]

Editted to remove dribble.

 

The Sax man said it far better than I did.

 

I agree with him totally.

 

southdeltan

Edited January 9, 2005 by southdeltan

[WH]

Hopefully you guys went out for a while today. I did.

Its snowed and rained here all day. I had plenty of time to sit, read and respond to this thread all day.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Editted to remove dribble.

 

The Sax man said it far better than I did.

 

I agree with him totally.

 

southdeltan

Thanks, Southdeltan I was about to agree with your post

[WH]

Here is my current thought on changing this cache so that all, including myself can hopefully be happy. Rather than just implementing the change and taking a chance of kicking over another hornet's nest, Ive decided to post here to give others an opportunity to critique the impending cache edit.

 

The cache will work like any other. You find it, trade items, sign the log and post your find on the cache page. For those who wish to voluntarily keep with the notes only theme they would get a custom button complete with their GC name on it. To receive their button, they can do one of several things.

 

1. Tell me a couple days in advance that they intend on doing a notes only find on the cache. I would then make their custom button and place in the cache so its there waiting for them.

 

2. If its more of a spontaneous find, they would have the option of either returning to the cache to pick up their button or having me mail it to them.

[CoyoteRed]

I'm not a fan of logging requirements. Period. If you found it, log a find. If you didn't find it, log a DNF. If it needs to go away, SBA. Otherwise, it's a note.

 

Logging requirements just flat out sucks and adds nothing to the game.

 

People call me a control freak, but I've got to wonder about people who require something other than an honest, straight forward log.

Edited January 9, 2005 by CoyoteRed

[+DiskDevil]

Here is my current thought on changing this cache so that all, including myself can hopefully be happy. Rather than just implementing the change and taking a chance of kicking over another hornet's nest, Ive decided to post here to give others an opportunity to critique the impending cache edit.

 

The cache will work like any other. You find it, trade items, sign the log and post your find on the cache page. For those who wish to voluntarily keep with the notes only theme they would get a custom button complete with their GC name on it. To receive their button, they can do one of several things.

 

1. Tell me a couple days in advance that they intend on doing a notes only find on the cache. I would then make their custom button and place in the cache so its there waiting for them.

 

2. If its more of a spontaneous find, they would have the option of either returning to the cache to pick up their button or having me mail it to them.

I honestly think that this is by far the best idea you have had for this cache. It would seem to loosen all the restrictions brought about from the beginning. It gives everyone a choice, which is all we wanted in the first place. Good decision.

[+Volwrath]

All of the other examples can be logged if someone is willing to put in the time and effort to acquire the skills or equipment to do them. The cache in question can not be logged as a find no matter how much time or effort you put into it. That's the difference.

So you would be happy with this cache if the requirements were that anyone with over 100,000 finds could log this cache, otherwise they would have to log it as a note, and wait for the 100,000 finds?

 

After all 100,000 technically is obtainable......

Edited January 9, 2005 by Volwrath

[+mtn-man]

WH, I would also suggest trying to be somewhat funny on the cache page.

 

Here is one suggestion I can think of for an example (yeah, I'm a Trekkie):

 

"Can you resist the urge to post a smiley if you find the cache? Have you been assimilated by the smiley collective? Resisting the urge to to post a smiley is futile! Or is it? This cache page will test you to see if you have been assimilated by the smiley collective!!!"

 

Since we all want geocaching to be a fun game, this gives people a challenge on the cache page but it is painted in a fun light and the option to log the find is still there. I would bet you would get some very funny found it logs, just as on the "Rules" cache page I linked earlier.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

All of the other examples can be logged if someone is willing to put in the time and effort to acquire the skills or equipment to do them. The cache in question can not be logged as a find no matter how much time or effort you put into it. That's the difference.

So you would be happy with this cache if the requirements were that anyone with over 100,000 finds could log this cache, otherwise they would have to log it as a note, and wait for the 100,000 finds?

 

After all 100,000 technically is obtainable......

I suppose CCCooperAgency is the only one that would log it anytime soon, but yes, it gives everyone the opportunity to eventually log a find on the cache. I wouldn't be happy about it, because the premise is ridiculous, but if it fits within the guidelines then so be it.

[WH]

<snip> but if it fits within the guidelines then so be it.

My notes only cache fit within the guidlelines too. Jeremy himself said that.

[+Clan X-Man]

Accepted! And thank you.

No, thank you. I do have great respect for anyone who has a found it log on Tube Torcher.

You've been to through the Tube Torcher as well?

 

Sorry to go off topic for a moment....

[+mtn-man]

<snip> but if it fits within the guidelines then so be it.

My notes only cache fit within the guidlelines too. Jeremy himself said that.

Yeah, you now know it would be an unpopular idea in its original format, but it has been given an OK. I will be interested to see what you do with the description.

 

I have not done Tube Torcher, but it is a well known cache down here in our parts of course.