Step up on Tony’s Soap box.

[Geoffnsara]

Here is what I think.
We have done some caches that were not that great, and we have done awesome caches. But no matter what we find it is time that I got to spend with my schnibbles.
Geoff

[This message has been edited by Geoffnsara (edited 05-22-2004).]

[waukesha wizards]

I know I have been only caching for about a year and have found some ok caches and some great caches. I think that like every sport you will have winners and losers. It is how you approach them. We look at this as quality family time. My sons are 5 and 7 and we talk, snack, and play while caching. Every cache is a treasure, as long as you approach it with the right people.

[Miata]

I think I was the “person” in one of those storys. The “mistake” made will not happen again.

End of my confession.

[Team Kilroy]

Hi
I dont often log here as I live in Iowa, but grew-up in Wisc and still call it home.
I also have cached with many of you at the 2002 & 2003 Camp-outs and the 2003 picnic. I must say those are some of my top Geocaching memories, and I was sad to not be able to attend this years camp-out.
To get on topic, I totally agree with alot of what is being said here, and disagree with alot of the rest. I have found a way that works for me to make the [so called Lame] Caches more interesting. I go to Buxley’s Maps, Click on a cache in the center of an area I plan to cache in, then scroll down to the find near-by caches link. I then choose all the Traditional Caches that I have not found, and download the Coords only [Never look at the cache page] and set out looking for the caches. Then if they are truly lame they will have had an extra element of difficulty added to them. I usually find about 90% this way and the others are saved for another day of usually much more difficult caches, that I then take the cache info with me. This method seems to keep the anxiety level up a bit, which makes for a more exciting day, and no cache is ever lame.

[The Lil Otter]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miata:
I think I was the “person” in one of those storys. The “mistake” made will not happen again.

End of my confession.

---

Miata.. I too.. felt as you do.. that my cache placements were under attack.. I know that I’ve been privately attacked/labeled by a few and called the “Cemetery Queen” “Virtual Queen” etc.. it hurt like heck.. but I realized that the person(s) that thought such about me.. really didn’t understand my reasons behind it.. Thank goodness that most logs done on my caches have been ‘kind’ for the most part..

I’d hate to see what would happen with “HONEST LOGS” as suggested above.. how that could really tear apart the geo-community as a whole.. And I know why some had/have created “sock puppets” to post a ‘nasty’ log because they’d really show their true colors if posting under their own handles.. I’d rather have a way (a better way than just reading hundreds of logs) to actually sort/download better suited caches to what “I” enjoy.. and others able to sort what suits them.

I am not into caches that have no reason for me being there except to just hunt down the cache container..(some containers do just ‘seed’ an area for counts) these have sprung up in Urban areas because of the lack of ‘traditional’ hiding areas/locations.. others do enjoy those types of hides..

It would make so much sense for geocaching.com to actually have a few ‘history/special interest’ ‘park/hike/scenic etc buttons to click when creating a cache page. This would give more options on tayloring .gpx downloads that actually would meet the needs of those that wish to cache in certain areas.

~The Lil Otter

[Cathunter]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lil Otter:
It would make so much sense for geocaching.com to actually have a few ‘history/special interest’ ‘park/hike/scenic etc buttons to click when creating a cache page. This would give more options on tayloring .gpx downloads that actually would meet the needs of those that wish to cache in certain areas.

~The Lil Otter

---

I totally agree with this idea. Pocket queries should be able to filter in ways such as these.

To clarify my previous statement, I would never condone cache bashing. I’m too nice of a guy for that. There are plenty of nice ways to tell someone that I didn’t think much of hunting a cache the middle of the wal-mart parking lot.

I liked 99% of the caches that I have hunted thus far. I simply hope to steer newer cachers so that in the future, new hides will continue to provide either an enjoyable hike, or an enjoyable hide, and not just another find.

[GrouseTales]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lil Otter:
I’d hate to see what would happen with “HONEST LOGS” as suggested above..

---

OK, I’ve finally been sucked into this thread. I’m not attacking Lorrie here, but I think her statement illustrates the difficulty in sorting out caches. Life isn’t always sunshine and puppy dogs. If you really didnt like a cache, or even saw something “illegal” about it, why print a bunch of B.S. about how great it was? If you loved the cache say so. If you didn’t like it, don’t say you did.

I know people don’t want to offend the cache owner, but they aren’t helping the next cachers either. If there is a cache you didn’t like for some reason, why make up a big story how great it was? For the sake of discussion, lets use the magnetic cache on a light pole in Walmart parking lot. Now if everyone makes up bs logs how great it is, when if fact they didn’t like it, the cache owner may think they are on to something here, and place more similar caches.

Would you buy they ugliest car on the dealer lot because you felt sorry for the person that designed it? Supply and demand. If the car sucks, they will stop making it because the reviews are bad or no one buys it.

Likewise, when leaving a cache log, why print a bunch of sunshine in the cache log if you didn’t like it? You don’t need to leave a rude note, but just say you “found it”

I get great reward when people leave a long cache log on how much they enjoyed my cache. I enjoy reading about their pleasurable trip to my cache. When I see these logs I assume my cache is good.

On the other hand, if all the cache entries were limited to “found the cache” type logs, I would know it is nothing special. I would tend to avoid these caches when selecting one to hunt for.

I don’t think people should make sock puppet accounts to bash caches. I know you don’t want to offend the cache owner, especially with your true name. But rather then printing a bunch of lies about how much you enjoyed it, leave a simple short log “found it”. It documents your find, and isn’t negative. It’s not positive either. Subsequent cachers would get the hint that there may not be anything special about the particular cache.

From all my dealings with cachers as an admin and a board member, I think there are two general groups of cachers. Group A likes any and all caches. Group B feels caches should meet a certain quality level. One group probably won’t change the minds of the other group, and there is no use in trying to change them. We just need to agree that we disagree.

We are all entitled to our opinions on the caches we like and don’t like. We all like different things about geocaching and we will never all agree.

I love our WGA website forums and am glad we can discuss these things. I never read the main forums because they get out of control with the bashing. I enjoy these healty, friendly conversations.

---

“There are two kinds of hunting: ordinary hunting and grouse hunting.”
-Aldo Leopold, A sand county Almanac

Brian
WGA President
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by GrouseTales (edited 05-23-2004).]

[The Lil Otter]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GrouseTales:
OK, I’ve finally been sucked into this thread. I’m not attacking Lorrie here, but I think her statement illustrates the difficulty in sorting out caches. Life isn’t always sunshine and puppy dogs. If you really didnt like a cache, or even saw something “illegal” about it, why print a bunch of B.S. about how great it was? If you loved the cache say so. If you didn’t like it, don’t say you did.

---

I am so glad you understood my plight.. I have never been a one to duplicate my logs with just cut/paste words like TFTH, SL, LNTN, Found cache etc.. but having this last out of state geo-vacation ‘wake’ me up .. taught me that reading the cache page/logs just doesn’t work as to really being able to understand where the cacher is taking you.

I used to hunt as Team Kilroy does.. except I’d only ignore locationless caches in an area.. travel blind to the spot and enjoy the ‘discovery’ of where they wished to show off/take me to. I’d naturally first check if its been found recently/what type of container/cache page etc.. but didn’t wish to read logs because many would say “too” much and give secrets/surprises away.. I resorted to the logs etc if/when I hit a problem on discovering the cache hide spot.

I really don’t know the answers.. I don’t frost over my logs..or make sock puppets..etc.. I just got woke up to what geocaching is morphing into in some areas (that it’s not the ‘location’ highlighted.. but the only reason a cache is placed there is to hunt it down) and I had a heck of a time logging my finds .. but I did learn that ‘short’ logs do work and had to resort to cut/paste.. but I’d have rather had the option of not even having those types within my .gpx .loc files and just traveling through like a ‘tourist’ to see all the goofy stuff / statues /cool buildings / memorials / historicals etc within a new city while still enjoying their parks/bike paths etc. Virtuals used to highlight these locations.. now they are all mixed up into the micro mall/parking lot etc type hides..

That’s the only frustration I am having.. Did you know that there’s a record of a few cachers getting over 150-200 caches done in one day in a city setting? Sounds like a bunch of cool places until you realize that it’s just parking lots/malls/mailboxes/guardrails etc.. I’d rather find the “guts” of the city and enjoy its flavor.. I’m not against them.. just I don’t want to do them.. just as I am not against locationless.. but I NOW have a way to not download them. I have no way of really sorting out the others.. except to try/attempt to read into what is on the cache sheet or what others put in their logs..

I think geocaching.com or each state should be figuring out a way to highlight ‘cool’ spots to show off for the general traveler..

A lot of talk going around about the loggers being able to rate a cache.. but what if they had a few buttons that just said “cool spot” “historical” “Must do” etc that the loggers could click on.. that would then be allowed in basic search/downloads?? These then would allow a way to point to caches in a positive light instead of relying upon negative or simple logs to weed out the ones that only offer the thrill of the hunt regardless of the location.

Don’t get me wrong.. I thought Walmart’s horse hide was adorable.. but after it was mimiced then morphed into any commercial parking lot up for grabs under every light post/sign/guardrail etc.. with hundreds of such hides to wade through.. all I could take back with me for my memories was.. “wow” I hope it doesn’t happen in my state.. or how can I work around those types when it happens?

~The Lil Otter

[kbraband]

I believe the WGA already has a system in place to highlight exceptional caches — our “Cache of the Month” and “Cache of the Year” awards. Granted, you can’t find these listed at geocaching.com; you have to go to the WGA site to find the list. And also granted, there are not many COTM winners them around, but that’s what makes them exceptional. The COTM system is a good positive way to highlight outstanding caches and lift them up as examples to others of what voters think is a good geocache.

[Folk Trakers]

I agree with using COTM as a guide (although it only gives you a handful). Unfortunately, when events win, that doesn’t help in this particular plight as the event is over and done with. As events are always awesome and well attended, and no one person is responsible for its success, maybe ‘event caches’ shouldn’t qualify for COTM???

[This message has been edited by Folk Trakers (edited 05-24-2004).]

[greyhounder]

quote:

---

Would you buy they ugliest car on the dealer lot because you felt sorry for the person that designed it?
[/B]

---

Unfortunately, yes, I would.

Bec

[arffer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lil Otter:
Miata.. I too.. felt as you do.. that my cache placements were under attack..
I’d hate to see what would happen with “HONEST LOGS” as suggested above.. how that could really tear apart the geo-community as a whole..

---

That’s why above I said while not being purposfully mean

And I know why some had/have created “sock puppets” to post a ‘nasty’ log because they’d really show their true colors if posting under their own handles..

Seems to me that if someone goes to the extent of hiding their identity, then they plan on being purposfully mean. By not hiding one’s identity when logging, one is much more likely to be civil and polite, while still being honest. Least I think so.

Hiding one’s identity when logging is uncalled for.

[Author]

Posts