Forum: Using The Website
Topic: NEW CACHES
started by: 4genatxn
Posted by 4genatxn on Mar. 15 2003,6:48 pmI added a new cache on the "big" web site and was "archived" immediately! How can something be archived when it has never seen the light of day? The cracker from Georgia said, "It needs to be something that looks good in a "coffee table " book. There are thousands of plaques and monuments".
It was a plaque, but one I felt would be of interest to the local geocaching community. Here's the URL: < A Tragic Train Tale > It was listed here in a couple of hours.
Posted by Quinn on Mar. 15 2003,6:57 pmI was the one that approved that listing of yours. I don't see anything wrong with it. Things happen out there...
If this is one persons draw that what harm could it do?
It's a virtual listing in my eyes. I guess it could also be a form of history lesson also
Posted by 4genatxn on Mar. 15 2003,7:18 pmHey, thanks a lot! I didn't either. History isn't always pretty.
Posted by Gimpy on Mar. 15 2003,9:11 pmGreetings, 4genatxn. Always great to see a new member.
Posted by Quinn on Mar. 16 2003,8:54 amI didn't catch the "Cracker" comment before, so lets be nice here... after all, the only "Cracker" here is Gimpy
Posted by South Cache on Mar. 22 2003,12:02 pmI had the same problem. My Virtual was refused because the information could be easily found doing searches on the web. If people want to cheat they will. I don't think it is gc's job to monitor everyone's conscience.
Cheating on a virtual, what would be the gain? Any way my cache was quickly approved here. I think my virtual was an interesting place and worthwhile for people to visit. If they wish to cheat then they are only cheating themselves.
Quinn, keep up the good work!
Posted by Scout on Mar. 22 2003,1:15 pm
Good point. I've hidden several virtuals that I don't even require proof of visit for someone to log. Skully, you even hunted one of mine yourself.
I usually publish a photograph of a small, inconspicuous object at the coordinates that the finder has to find. That preserves some feeling of the hunt that traditional geocaches have, but doesn't require placing a physical object, which is impractical at some places you want to lead people to. If people spot the object, they can log a find. If they want to cheat, well, that's their problem. I'm not about to make it mine.
You can get away with cheating on traditional caches almost as easily, if you really want to. Most cache hiders don't match up signatures in the physical log with online logs. Caches get plundered. Physical logs get soaked and illegible. Logging a phony find online is easy. If a cheater doesn't overdo it, the chances of being caught are slim. So, why the obsession with trying to prevent cheating on virtuals? Curious.
Posted by Morseman on Mar. 23 2003,2:07 pm
But I get the impression that, over in the other place, they are trying to become the referee of the 'sport' of geocaching.
The problems that they face, in the UK, are manyfold. Already some landowners have said 'No' to a set of rules that were proposed. All because a thread on GC in the UK area suggested that people might not necessarily agree with restrictions proposed.
Now, I admire the people who are trying to get blanket aproval from various landowners, but I do think the efforts are doomed to failure in some cases.
Also, this insistance on a 'demonstratable' visit fails when you can so easily fake it. Why you would want to fake a find is beyond me. I mean, what on earth do you gain?!
Posted by Scout on Mar. 23 2003,7:44 pm
Why don't geocachers ask for help from the Antiquarians? ;-)
Posted by infosponge on June 08 2003,7:30 amWe've had such a problem with GC.com's approvals here in the Tampa Bay area that a number of us have started using Navicache a lot more. It sure is nice to have alternatives!
Posted by Quinn on June 08 2003,7:34 amWe are happy to be that Alternative.
Welcome! and thanks again for spreading the word down south way... try sending some of that sun up here for us Northern folk
Posted by Cracker7M on June 08 2003,1:23 pm
Hey!! Wait a minute!...I resemble that remark!...
Posted by Scout on June 08 2003,3:57 pm
It sure is, infosponge. And welcome. Aren't you involved in some value-added geocaching services for the community? My memory tells me that you were offering to help dan out with geocaching statistics. Anything come of that? Anything else going on?
Posted by infosponge on June 08 2003,5:11 pm
I was going to take over the stats page hosting from Dan a while back, but I think he changed his mind for some reason.
For a while I was providing some web programming to help people get geocache data stored on their palm pilots, but I got spanked by Groundspeak. (This was before pocket queries and other for-pay member services).
Posted by PC Medic on June 08 2003,8:52 pmPay Foreplay ...that's illegal in most states!
Posted by Scout on June 09 2003,7:53 am
The geocaching community was the loser. You would think that a site that was founded to promote geocaching would thank you, not spank you, for offering value-added services to the geocaching community. Go figure.
Posted by infosponge on June 14 2003,8:24 am
I was the loser too, since I (temporarily) lost the ability to load caches into my palm pilot because I had my computer blocked.
Even though the Pocket Queries were months away, I guess they didn't want anyone muscling in on a future profit potential.
I sent a note to Jeremy ahead of time letting him know I was going to do this and explaining how I was caching the data and retrieving it slowly so that it doesn't impact his server as much as 10 people doing it on thier own, etc., but I never got an answer. Well, I guess getting blocked was my answer.
Posted by lowracer on Aug. 17 2003,8:13 pmI am not a big fan of most virtual caches but glad to see there's a place where they can be posted. I've posted a few myself and had 'em turned down. How can a dude somewhere in Georgia know whether a cache in Austin is worth putting in a coffee table book?
Posted by Scout on Aug. 17 2003,8:37 pm
More important, in my mind, is why a dude in Georgia should care. Or even a dude in Austin, for that matter. List the cache and let the players decide whether it's deserving of treatment in a coffee table book. How many physical caches can meet that standard, anyway?
Posted by lowracer on Aug. 17 2003,8:42 pmHear Hear! I agree. I have long championed the deployment of a "lame-o-meter" for each cache listing. On your electronic log, you get for example a 0-5 scale on a pulldown to rate the cache. 0=lame, 5=awesome. Enough people visiting the cache and you won't even need to worry about whether it should have been approved. Ideally the site would allow you to filter out anything below say, 3. :0 Local approvers are still required because someone local has to check to make sure the cache isn't placed in the nesting grounds of the "deep throated warbler." We have many such preserves here in Austin and ain't no way a guy from Georgia is going to know what the boundaries are. The right person from Austin will.
Posted by PC Medic on Aug. 17 2003,8:43 pmPower Trip!