Another poll for your consideration.

Question:
Do you think new geocachers should have to find "X" amount of geocaches before placing their first geocache?

I you vote yes, how many should "X" represent?

Choices:
Yes
No

Question:
If a geocacher has a "needs maintenance" log posted on one of their geocaches, should they be allowed to submit a new geocache for publication before the issue(s) are resolved?

Choices:
Yes
No

Question:
If a geocacher has a "needs Archived" log posted on one of their geocaches, should they be allowed to submit a new geocache for publication before the issue(s) are resolved?

Choices:
Yes
No

Question:
Should lame micro's be banned?

Choices:
Yes
No

 

Just my opinion but I think that new cachers should have at least 25 finds (not just parking lot micros) before they can hide a cache.

quote:

Just my opinion but I think that new cachers should have at least 25 finds (not just parking lot micros) before they can hide a cache.

So you think the size of the container along with X should be a requirement? Feel free to cast your vote.

Boy ... You know I have an opinion on all of this.

Firstly - Ban Lame micros: Yes... I really hate them, but banned isn't the answer, because a lot of people do like them. I always felt that GC.com missed the mark on these. They should have moved these to waymarking (along with locationless) or created an "Urban" caching website - or at least subcategory of Geocaching. It would have taken most of the antagonism out of it.

And yes... Size and location of a cache should play equal parts in it's designation.

hey I've found lame regular size caches as well. But the saving grace to them is they are REGULAR SIZE caches. It does take a whole lot more skill to hide an ammo can than it does a nano.


Personally - as for the Needs Archived Button - I think only Charter members should be allowed to push it.

I am sick to death of people pushing that button because they can't find the cache, it's cluttering up their nearest to home radius, they want to annoy another cacher, they want to put a cache in an already taken spot... or they are just trying to boost their own self importance.

It is such an anonymous type of feature. Because it's much easier to push that button then actually communicate with a cache owner and offer help. What a load. We used to help each other keep caches going - Replace a container, check on it for the owner, heck even offer to adopt it.

We have lost some really great and creative caches because any yay-hoo can push the button.

Charter members at least remember what it was like. And yes I am one - and yes I do.

I wonder how many "Charter" members there actually are and how many of them are still active cachers?

I am a Charter Member and I am still active

quote:

Originally posted by Trez:
I am a Charter Member and I am still active

me toooo

quote:

Originally posted by johnnie:

quote:

Originally posted by Trez:
I am a Charter Member and I am still active

me toooo

I am a Charter member, although my status is listed as Premium. There were a few months when I was between jobs that I couldn't afford the luxury of renewal. I appealed to the powers that be when I did renew, but it fell on deaf ears. I almost canceled in anger, but I found my Happy Place. And I am active.
It's just a title.

quote:

Originally posted by phat.bak:
I am a Charter member, although my status is listed as Premium. There were a few monthsyears when I was between jobs that I couldn't afford the luxury of renewal...
It's just a title.

Me too.

Phat... You are definitely a charter member... And I am certain you totally get where I'm coming from.

I just felt from a programming stand point it would be easier to assign permissions. No dissrespect intended.

Annie, I love your opinions...don't always agree, but I love discussing these things with you....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Slayerette:
Firstly - Ban Lame micros: Yes... I really hate them, but banned isn't the answer, because a lot of people do like them. [QUOTE]
I am one of those folks who likes micros. True, I am bored with skirt lifters, but I get a kick out of a creatively hidden micro. You never know which you are going to get so I approach each micro with hope and enthusiasm.
What I really hate is a boring micro in a perfect spot for a regular size cache. That frustrates more than almost anything in caching (purposely posting wrong coords is my number one pet peeve).


[QUOTE]I always felt that GC.com missed the mark on these. They should have moved these to waymarking (along with locationless) or created an "Urban" caching website - or at least subcategory of Geocaching. It would have taken most of the antagonism out of it.[QUOTE]
Disagree on the waymarking or Urban site point, since I like micros.
You already filter out micros, so whats the difference?
Can't we just all get along.....


[QUOTE]
hey I've found lame regular size caches as well. But the saving grace to them is they are REGULAR SIZE caches. It does take a whole lot more skill to hide an ammo can than it does a nano.[QUOTE]
Agreed!!! Show me a well hidden micro, not such a big deal. Show me a well or creatively hidden regular, you got something there!!!

[QUOTE]
Personally - as for the Needs Archived Button - I think only Charter members should be allowed to push it.[QUOTE]
Good point, but a little stringent I think. Perhaps only allow archive after two or three needs maintenance logs...

Got tired of typing so I snipped the rest....thanks.

Same situation as Phat, still hunting tupperware in the woods when I can. HATE nanos in the woods. Why waste a perfectly good spot...

Hey that's why this particular forum is called a discussion forum. I love this part of any website and it gets to the core of so many peoples opinions whether we agree or disagree. It's nice to see how everyone thinks about a particular subject no matter how mundane or unimportant it may seem to one person, it always will strike a cord with another person. For myself, I hate the lame micro cache as well but love a well thought out micro,(did I say love)? Not really..... Why put a micro in the woods when there is plenty of space for a regular sized cache. Oh and one other point, Did I mention that I hate puzzle caches,I just plain suck at solving those so I just tend to dismiss most of those in my hunts and prefer a great regular cache with a hike thrown in for good measure.

Sorry, but to ban a cache type/size just because YOU don't like them is wrong. There are numerous ways to play this game. Not all those ways are for every single one of us. I feel as long as the general caching guidelines are followed, then all of the existing cache types and sizes should be allowed.

I hate puzzle/mystery caches. I'm a geocacher, not a mathematician. So should they be banned? It's simple, just don't include the cache types you personally don't like in your PQs. Out of sight, out of mind. And your blood pressure will be much lower as a result.

For questions 2 and 3, it depends on if they have, at the very least, temporarily disabled the cache. IMO, there's no excuse not to do that much. It doesn't require leaving your home.

I just pushed the archive button on two caches in NC this past Monday. Know why? Cause one had a string of DNFs since July and no response from the CO. The other, much of the same except it included two needs maintenance logs as well. No excuse for that type of negligence from a CO.

Okay, time to throw my opinion around.

"Do you think new geocachers should have to find "X" amount of geocaches before placing their first geocache?"

I have placed one geocache and I have to say I learned a TON from it. I waited until I found 50 caches, but that was my choice. It took me a while to get it right - we used my coworker's cell phone to get the coordinates which were WAY off. Turns out I was sending people to the middle of a busy road for a while. I also learned how genuinely nice and helpful other cachers can be. One cacher tried to rip me a new one for messing up pretty badly, and another three offered to meet me to help me go through the best ways to place and log a cache. I don't want only "experienced cachers" to place the caches. If there is something wrong about a new listing, we can all help to get it fixed and after a day or two we will have a new hunt for everyone else. Mistakes happen - it is the best way to learn.


"If a geocacher has a "needs maintenance" log posted on one of their geocaches, should they be allowed to submit a new geocache for publication before the issue(s) are resolved?"

This one I actually agree with. What I find most irritating is caches that are marked as NEED MAINTENANCE, but are really fine.


"If a geocacher has a "needs Archived" log posted on one of their geocaches, should they be allowed to submit a new geocache for publication before the issue(s) are resolved?"

Same answer as before. If the CO can't maintain the existing caches (or archive them as needed), then they need to stop placing new ones for a bit.


"Should lame micro's be banned?"

"Lame" is a term based on opinion. Who is to determine what qualifies as lame? I HATE, HATE, HATE micros but my kiddo can spot the dang things at 50 feet. She loves finding them, especially since I can't. We can't ban something based on our dislike of them when others might appreciate the added challenge.

At one time, didn't a need maintenance log disable the listing?

Not sure what happened before, I have only been doing this about a year and a half, but there are a lot that show the little red box with the white cross inside - for example, GC1TV8R - UC Loves to Garden.

The "needs maintenance" was posted on 9.17.2011, there was a DNF on 9.18.2011, and it was found on 9.24.2011.

quote:

Originally posted by LZ33:
At one time, didn't a need maintenance log disable the listing?

Not that I can remember. But I've only been caching since "03"

quote:

Originally posted by LZ33:
At one time, didn't a need maintenance log disable the listing?

Not that I've ever seen. Disabling a cache is a CO or reviewer option only.