Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
@labrat_wr wrote:
Actually, the Jeep TBs are all “owned” by Jeep corporation.
I am sure there are those out there that are being “watched” by the person that released them but they don’t really “own” them.Perhaps that is why they are not treated the same way other TBs are 😕
This is true, but Jeep owners did intentionally put their names in the lottery for one and probably feel some degree of ownership, and would like to see them move along on their missions just like every other Trackables out there with a moving or final destination mission. I don’t think anyone besides a cache owner wants to see them sitting in a lonely cache or have a couple dozen housed in a single cache for no other reason that to collect them and make the listing look nice. I could be wrong.
November just doesn’t seem to be doing the trick for JimandLinda! Talk about an exciting last couple of days in the season… Jim saw a flash of white, took a shot and saw the nubbin go down. But when he followed the bloodline, he discovered a gut pile and another hunting pair huffin’ and puffin’ their way down the trail with a 524-pointer…
@AstroD-Team wrote:
@marc_54140 wrote:
@AstroD-Team wrote:
Seriously…what’s the point to this?? I think its absolutely stupid.
Did you not just go hunting around Milwaukee for 100 caches in a 10 x 10 grid? 😯
Completely different than what you are proposing..and what Mutherson has done. At least the battleship series were spread out, in parks or along trails for the most part and have something worthwhile in the end.
Outlining counties using culverts, telephone poles, utility boxes…yup still stupid.
Ditto
Nice to see these when they do show up rarely. I think more of them end up in personal collections than stay moving around actively, which is a shame.
I am also sympathetic to Jeeps that end up in difficult caches as “enticement” since many of them end up sitting there for months on end which kind of defeats the purpose. They a re “TRAVEL” bugs after all.
Now, I know it’s nice to see a little line of Jeep icons on your cache listing, but what does that say about the cache owner, except that they like to go out of their way to make their cache look special. This is all well and good for them, but not for the Jeep owners who want to see them move. On the other hand, if a cache owner is swapping them out and keeping them moving, that’s another story and very commendable.
In summary, don’t horde them and keep them moving!
There is that loophole. And last year a few players were eyed with some cynicism for double-dipping when in all likelihood, the points and multiple searches were legit. I had been the target of some suspicion in the past and while playing by the rules, certainly sandbagged points a few times near month’s end to keep other players in the dark.
The nice thing about pulling back on the competition is that I no longer feel the desire to score every possible point. I have actually made a point this year to not log any DNF’s and log REVISITS only when I think I might have had something to do with that cache going missing. Because of this, no one doubts the legitimacy of my score and that is a nice change from the first year I played.
It is just a game within the game but, like many other aspects of the sport, these incidentals can and do get blown out of proportion. My recommendation is to play any way you feel comfortable with. I would say it isn’t worth the reviewer’s time to modify (remove) every DNF report when a subsequent FOUND report is submitted, so just go with it like the rest of us and have fun!
I do use it, but because I don’t really cache anymore and never pull PQ’s it doesn’t really matter. In fact, I don’t have any alerts set up for new caches and the only automated function I use, and just recently turned on to, is the archive alert.
I do have one of my all time favorite caches in there though. A cache I have been to 5 times and have yet to log, and probably never will. I sure do like visiting it though 😉
The Dells in Midwinter can be fun. Lots of indoor waterparks to take advantage of and the traffic is far more tolerable. Either location suites me fine. Since you’ve stepped up to the challenge of hosting the event, I think the best bet would be to pick a date at the end of January and then submit a Poll using, say, 5 centrally located cities to see where most of the people are willing to travel or prefer to go. Keep in mind that last year, weather was a factor in some not showing, but geocachers as a whole are hard to dissuade and many more showed up than I anticipated, given the poor weather. Expect a pretty good turnout. Judging from this month’s competition, lots of people are getting into it!
bump
We’ve been here before. If I felt like it was worth it, I’d sit here and shuffle through all of mine to update my muggle list from June of 08 twice the length, but I don’t B&M anymore, I just take it all in stride. Even when a custom light switch with a key that’s gonna cost me $20 to repair/replace, argghhhh!
Bumping that thread from last year to the top. “Venting”
The best part is going back add re-living some of the many crazy detours he had on the way there!
@BakRdz wrote:
The Old Man Gets Strung Out Cache looks like an amazing adventure, but since the container doesn’t look big enough to drop the coin I’m going to earmark it for the future.
My bad. The final is an ammo can. Had to update the listing (which proves these threads have some value 🙂
@-cheeto- wrote:
Oh and I am starting to like the additional set of puzzle attributes option better than my difficulty + category idea.
To add the flashlight attribute I believe they had to pull one. And I have read countless threads about attributes being added on their forums with nothing coming of them. Yes it’s actually an uphill battle to add attributes based on what I’ve read.
A separate set of puzzle attributes sounds like an awesome idea now that I think about it.
Seems like a smaller hill to climb than pursuing the rating thing, although I think I’d prefer a multi-facited puzzle rater. I see the addition of a set of well thought out Puzzle Attributes to be the easiest to implement, Plus, it’s all in the hands of the puzzle creator to select the attributes they want. My perception is that most cache placers select some attributes for their caches and it wouldn’t be like starting from scratch and having to implement a whole new interface with the public. That’s the main issue with a rater. One, you can’t grandfather in any factors from existing puzzles if you suddenly implemented a rating system and suddenly all cache listings had a rating system. For the vast majority of caches who’ve had their peak visitation, you’re not going get people to go back and rate them. You’d be relying only on visits after the rating system was added. Seems like it would only be truly effective for new caches.
Leaving it in the hands of the owners to add some attributes to their puzzles not only takes some of the cache “solving” and “finding” subjectivness out of the equation, it also leaves the onus on the owner to define aspects of the puzzle and moreover, doesn’t require them to “pick a difficulty” level which is the basis much of the anti-rating system argument.
If I have a puzzle with the following icons; Brain (head time), Notepad (field solve), G / monitor (google / desk time) and House (local knowledge) I could certainly make some assumptions about what is going to be involved in solving the puzzle and finding the cache, without ever reading the description. It might not tell me “how much” of any one aspect I am in for be at the very least I understand, up front, what I am getting into. Then I can decide whether to ignore it or not. If I hate desktop puzzles but love field solve puzzles, I can simply pull pocket queries with the kinds of puzzles I like and ignore the kinds I don’t.
My last post as well as the air is getting thick in here.
Zuma, as the VP of the WGA, you are a primary mouthpiece of the WGA body and your opinions do shape opinions of others. Agreed? I can see that you were trying to argue that a puzzle doesn’t means quality, and I can see that I wasn’t as clear about the connections I was trying to make between a good historical and education puzzle being better that a tree-hanger. I’ll give you that. But your comments, coming from the VP of WGA, seemed to be far more judgmental about a particular cachers hides that I would expect from a board member posting in these forums, one of the primary responsibilities of board members, if I remember correctly.
In much the same way that Marc’s opinions matter when he hosts events or takes people on puzzle tours by vocalizing his dislike of S|S puzzles, if only because he’s the oldest hound on the block, he does me a disservice because he, like you, caches with a ton of other Wisconsin cachers. Have you looked at your “I cached with…” list? Can you not see how I might get a little skittish if you’ve come to the conclusion that many S|S puzzles have no “quality” when you interact with that many cachers statewide? Now, maybe, unlike Marc, you’re not as vocal about your personal caching preferences and I actually think you aren’t, but put my shoes on for a minute, man, and see how they fit.
Of course you have personal opinions about the kind of caches you enjoy and the ones you don’t. We all do. Perhaps the thread would not have gone down this road if you had stated “In my personal opinion…S|S caches are not unique because they have no historical, location or architectural qualities”. Which, despite your subsequent explanations otherwise, is pretty much how your initial comment read. It is absolutely false. The depth of historical and educational caches that my puzzles cover on the history of the Fox Valley rivals the scope of your Yellowstone trail series.
If you re-read you initial statements and imagine yourself in my position, do you think that you would not be offended? I have thick skin and I can take it, if you’re expressing personal distaste for my caches. It’s harder to take opinion-shaping comments that falsely portray the quality and reward of many good puzzle caches. And I thank you for clarifying, that you do enjoy some of my puzzles, albiet a little late in the thread.
@-cheeto- wrote:
If an attribute is what you want there already is an attribute that can be used. Takes less than an hour/Does not take less than an hour.
FYI – adding attributes is just as much of an uphill battle as adding an additional difficulty star rating or a category field.
However, without a system puzzle cache creators will not take it upon themselves to tell you how difficult their puzzle may be.
Perhaps in addition to my original idea, another item could be worked in somehow. “Requires subject-matter knowledge” or something. This could be worked into a “clayjar rating system” of sorts on the difficulty. So if a particular puzzle requires you to know what an ER nurse does or how to play a guitar or fly a plane than you would factor that into the difficulty rating. Some of these subject-matter things are tough to just research using google.
Another item that could go into a rating system is whether all of the information is available on the page or not.
I would love to be able to rate my puzzles on a difficulty scale.
Like s|s says in the “other thread”, whether something is done about this by TPTB at groundspeak or not, I think we (the WGA puzzle creators and hunters) should create our own system and work on a way to include it on our descriptions. By the way, this is how attributes got implemented initially if I follow the history correct.
All great points, although I concur with Lostby about the “Less than an hour” icon not being sufficient to quantify the various stages of difficulty involved in solving puzzles. There can be many stages in getting to a solve.
Here’s an example: Real Gone | Bonus, a puzzle cache. Stage one: To find it you must first finish the series. In solving the series you will have to solve the 15th cache: Real Gone | How’s It Gonna End, the last cache and a tough puzzle, the final of which contains instructions on how to solve Bonus.
Sounds like a 5 already. But the puzzle for Bonus itself is only a 2, if that. So how do you rate the D of the puzzle itself, what people are wanting to know, when the difficulty of just getting there is major factor? That’s an extreme example and one that incorporates that strange creature, the “challenge” cache, but you can see where a “Less than an hour” set to strikeout isn’t usable as an attribute, when the solve and find for Bonus might take all of 15-20 minutes, but getting through the hoops to get there could take many hours.
Is adding an attribute an uphill battle? What did it take to get the “flashlight” icon added for night caches? Couldn’t we develop a set of attributes specifically for puzzle caches that include all of the above mentioned useful puzzle characteristices.
I think this ranking discussion has more to do with CACHE OWNERS ranking their puzzles than it does with cache players which is why I like the less involved to implement ATTRIBUTE option. If only because somewhere along the way new attribute options DO get added and ranking systems that have been suggested now for 4-5 years, do not.
VERY OFF TOPIC, but it will come around at the end…
You know, what is truly frustrating to me is that I read some of these forum threads which flush out some SUPERB ideas about improving the quality of the game, knowing full well that the people we elected to gather up and distill these ideas into actionable items are often content to argue for the status quo and even side against them.
We had an OUTSTANDING post about the value Geocaching held for children that many suggested should be culled and re-published, perhaps in naturalist and outdoor enthusiast publications throughout the country, because is was that good. Did anything happen with it?
We’ve have numerous discussions about creating some type of caching Ethics page, or forum, or newbie “getting started” guidelines. Did anything happen with that?
We’ve seen many posts about the merits of a cache ranking system with some responses saying it was on the way, years ago, has anything happened with that?
I don’t understand what the responsibilities of the BOD are beyond being the sounding board for the Wisconsin Geocaching Community as a whole. You ask us to support all of your events by attending and paying for various services, by donating our time to man stations, by placing temporary caches, and by placing your logo on our caches. What are we getting in return?
Sorry, feeling frustrated tonight in particular, as you can imagine. Would someone, with a BOD status, please bring this idea up at the next BOD meeting at the very least, to see if there’s any merit to approaching GC.com as a statewide entity requesting this additional tool to make caching a little easier on those who have an interest in puzzle caches, but don’t want to find a nano in a garbage can on a city street with bad cords after spending hours on a computer looking up useless trivial information.
-
AuthorPosts
