[GeoStL] Re: December 31st, 2010,terracaching will shut down

  • From: "Jim Bensman" <junkmailno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:14:17 -0600

-
Caching was much more fun back in the early days when the cache placers
would take the time to find an interesting location or hide a cache in a
creative or sneaky way.  My preference would be for cache places to return
to this way of hiding caches instead of the if you can throw a cache
somewhere, it is OK or thinking of easier and lamer ways to get numbers
(like the video I posted the link to).  In those days, we would describe
caching as looking for tupperware in the woods.  Now it is lifting lamppost
covers to put a sticker on a log in a film canister.  

I agree few cachers would label their caches "lame" and what constitutes a
quality cache is in the eye of the beholder.  But when you talk about a lame
cache most experienced cachers know the kind of caches you are talking
about.  "Caches that do not take you to an interesting location or are not
hidden in a creative or challenging way" is objective criteria and is a
reasonable way to describe lame caches. If these kinds of caches are
allowed, there should be a way to filter them.

It would be interesting to conduct a survey, but I bet while there are some
cachers who think numbers are everything, I bet the vast majority of cachers
would rather find an easy cache at scenic/historic spot than pick up a
lampskirt in a Walmart parking lot or pull a key holder off a guardrail by a
busy highway.  While that video I posted the link to shows some people enjoy
relaying cache containers from one highway marker to the next, my bet is
they are in the minority.  Instead of having quantity caches overwhelm
quality caches, why not set up numbers courses where the numbers hounds can
go in circles finding the same caches over and over again.  Its just as easy
to find the same cache over and over again as finding a cache on these
number runs.     

Jim Bensman
"Nature Bats Last" 

PS Puzzle caches cannot be filtered by ? - other types of caches are also ?.
But unlike the overwhelming numbers of numbers caches, you can generally
deal with them.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:geocaching-
> bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Senger
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:50 PM
> To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [GeoStL] Re: December 31st, 2010,terracaching will shut down
> 
> -
> I think you fail to see Mike's point, which is that Jim's idea of a
> good cache isn't necessarily my idea (or your idea, or Mike's idea) of
> a good cache. The point of the filters is to find caches that meet a
> certain criteria that anyone would agree is a good description of the
> cache. To add a "lame" criteria would be impossible to judge
> objectively.
> 
> As someone else mentioned, a rating system would be the best idea.
> However, rating systems are flawed, too.
> 
> Andrew Senger
> asenger@xxxxxxxxx
> http://www.yawetag.net
> "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. He's also
> postmaster and probably traffic cop, too. All the jobs for sports
> referees are probably filled, though." --Lemel Hebert-Williams
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Mike Lusicic <lusicic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > -
> > It may be that he does grasp your point. Perhaps he agrees that he
> will only
> > do the kind that he likes, but the problem is that there is no
> facility
> > provided by GC.COM to differentiate the kind he likes from those that
> he
> > doesn't. For example, there is a puzzle type, and he can successfully
> > identify those. There is no "lame" tag that he can use to filter out
> the
> > ones that are what he considers lame. A difficulty of 1 could apply
> to a
> > good cache in the woods as well as a lamp post cache, so it isn't a
> very
> > good indicator.
> >
> > I do see that finding a category that doesn't seem demeaning to the
> numbers
> > people might be difficult. But then again, it may be easier for them
> if they
> > can identify the easy numbers oriented caches.
> >
> > Anyway, I don't mean to speak for you Jim, but am I correct in my
> > assessment. Sometimes just saying it differently might help things
> along.
> 
> 
>  ****************************************
> For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes to your account, including
> unsubscribing from this
>  list, click -----> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> 
>  Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived  http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
>  Missouri Geocaching land policies --> http://tinyurl.com/lgyy84
>  Missouri Geocachers Forums -->  http://mogeo.ipbhost.com/index.php
>  Missouri Geocachers Calendar --->
> http://mogeo.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=calendar


 

 ****************************************
For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes to your account, including unsubscribing 
from this   
 list, click -----> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
 
 Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived  http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
 Missouri Geocaching land policies --> http://tinyurl.com/lgyy84
 Missouri Geocachers Forums -->  http://mogeo.ipbhost.com/index.php
 Missouri Geocachers Calendar --->  
http://mogeo.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=calendar

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. geocaching
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2010