Doh! doh! and double DOH!

Mind Socket · Post by **Mind Socket** » 06 October 04 3:04 pm

SNIFTER wrote:When caching started the idea behind all of it was to USE a GPS to find a cache.Great fun for all ages.

Nothing has changed, there is just more choice.

Name one traditional cache (that's what you like, right?) where you need to use a palm pilot or a mobile phone. If you think of one, let me know and I'll lend you mine.

3. someones website.

I agree that it is reasonable to expect all the necessary details on the cache page for a traditional cache. Some of the more innovative/experimental caches require facilities that gc.com can't provide. Since you don't do these caches, I'm not sure why this is an issue?

4. calculator.
5. a university degree in math
6. a compass

Not to mention a vehicle, a GPSr and a computer!!! How inane!

Just my thoughts on the subject without some of the more 'in your face things that I would really like to say'

Say 'em. Quit filling people's posts with gibberish about puzzle caches and tell us what, in your humble opinion, the problem is with geocaching today.

Seriously, there are loads of 2/2 caches out there amongst the others. Why is it suddenly so difficult to ignore the rest?

Sorry for ruining your thread, Effrem.

- Rog

Effrem · Post by **Effrem** » 06 October 04 8:55 pm

SNIFTER wrote:The Ecoteam asked 'why the decline'.
Just my perspective but I would say that

When caching started the idea behind all of it was to USE a GPS to find a cache.Great fun for all ages.
Nowadays it seems that you have to USE
1. palm pilot.
2. mobile phone.
3. someones website.
4. calculator.
5. a university degree in math
6. a compass
This is to name but a few of the weapons needed.

It was also a very personal hobby. Far from that now.

Just my thoughts on the subject without some of the more 'in your face things that I would really like to say'

A palm pilot?????
which cache requires that?

Same goes for mobiles
If anything mobile can make a long trip worthwhile(RBTB has a helpline if you get stuck on a wp, which has been used)

What is this I am looking at???
OH! its a web site............... whats that?.... you want me to click on a link..... dunno if I can do that ...................

Calculator???
most mobiles contain those nowadays

A uni degree in maths ?????
Oh refering to a puzzle cache I suppose...

A compass???

Doesnt your GPS contain a electronic compass?
Mine does.

A very personal hobby????

What does that mean?

Geocaching is a hobby I can do alone,with friends or even in a group.
It allows me to combine technology and exercise.
Which no other electronic entertanment can do.

I though I ask you to stop complaining in my threads?

Effrem · Post by **Effrem** » 06 October 04 8:58 pm

Mind Socket wrote: Sorry for ruining your thread, Effrem.

- Rog

Its ok, it was needed

Eff

Biggles Bear · Post by **Biggles Bear** » 07 October 04 7:59 am

Effrem wrote: A very personal hobby????

What does that mean?

I think it means that you keeps your likes and dislikes to yourself. Whoops looks like someones just broken their own rule

Hounddog · Post by **Hounddog** » 07 October 04 12:41 pm

Hi everyone sorry about the following very wordy opinion. But hey this is a discussion group after all, so lets discuss.

When I first discovered Geocaching (now nearly 4 years ago) the best thing about the hobby was it's simplicity. I already had a GPS gathering dust on the shelf so I grabbed the thing, took it into the bush, and found my first geocache. A great feeling indeed. It didn't require me to do anything like decipher puzzles or act like a goose. Just go out there into the wild wilderness and track the thing down. For a long time geocaching pretty much stuck to this format and everyone was having fun. The pioneer players such as Geomonkeys, Ecoteam, Pilatus, Tangles etc will remember how simple and fun it was. Slowly however, as new players arrived on the scene, people seem to want to change things. At one stage, I even remember people claiming, typical "hidden in a tree stump" type caches were boring.

A few months back I tried to introduce some friends to the sport, They visited the web site and came back to me stating that the whole thing just looked too hard and that they really weren't into brain draining challenges. I had to sift through pages of puzzle caches to find a standard cache for them to do but by then they had just lost interest mainly because of the mishmash.

My point to all this is, that in the fray of all these different ideas, the true attraction for new players has been lost. Go onto the Geocaching web site as a new player and what are your greeted with? An absolute dogs breakfast of caching ideas and formats. No wonder new players are just not happening. Perhaps it's time to break it all up and find a new name for the categories because truly, many are not anything like Geocaching in the true sense.

From the outset, Jeremy Irish welcomed new ideas and concepts for the sport but I think even he would admit that it's got out of hand and that many of the variations really never should have been allowed. I solid case for this is the Virtual cache. He admits regret or the day he allowed those.

If It were up to me I would break it up and call puzzlers, puzzlecaching, role player, roleplaycaching, etc. Geocaching is going out with a GPS and finding a hidden box of interesting goodies, swapping an item and writing an interesting log. (BTW "found the cache TNLN" is of no interest to anyone, nothing insults me more then finding a log such as this).

Just a couple of other things I'd like to say.

I think that forcing people to visit your website for details of a cache is unethical and I won't do it. You may have noticed that even though I have placed more caches than anyone in the country, I have never left instructions on any site but Geocaching.com. I do this out of courtesy to Jeremy and his wonderful team who maintain the best Website on the planet.

In summary I am saying that Puzzles have there place, I am sure there are lots of people that like them, but I just think they should be on another site called Puzzlecache.com and not thrown in with Geocaches. This is perhaps why there has always been conflict and argument about them.

Enough said.

I'm going to do something much much better than discussing now.... I'm going Geocaching

Hounddog.

Mind Socket · Post by **Mind Socket** » 07 October 04 2:46 pm

All interesting points Hounddog, and I appreciate that you've taken the time and effort to explain your point of view.

It is harder to get a straight list of traditional caches, but does filtering on cache type and difficulty not help narrow that down? How does one define a "puzzle" cache? There will always be a blurry line, and each person will draw it in a different place in the sand. Is a basic add/subtract offset cache a puzzle cache? What about a multicache with an ever so slight twist? These are mostly hypothetical questions, BTW.

Are you sure you don't like puzzle caches at all? Some of them really aren't difficult, and I think would be fun for anyone.

You guys still get to go caching, though, and I can't believe that there is such a proliferation of puzzle caches (in Sydney at least) to scare away newbies (caching is growing faster now than ever before). I bagged 3 traditionals within 3kms of my house in a couple of hours on Monday.

I had trouble finding Melbourne caches that weren't unnecessarily complicated or gave overly specific directions (they all seemed too hard or too easy), but I managed to sift through and find some of interest to me.

Geocaching.com hasn't evolved in line with geocaching itself to cater for additional metadata or filtering more intelligently, and this is something that I've had to find 3rd party solutions to (GSAK, gc.com.au etc).

Blah, I'll stop jabbering on now.

Cheers,
- Rog

ideology · Post by **ideology** » 07 October 04 5:31 pm

hounddog,
based on your idea, we've created a new query to list nearby standard caches.
to use it, go to any cache page on geocaching australia, eg frog hollow and click on "nearby standard caches." you should get a screen which shows you nearby traditional caches with a difficulty and terrain of 3 or lower.

here's an example: standard caches around frog hollow

is this a useful definition of standard? if not, we're happy to change it to whatever you want.

Effrem · Post by **Effrem** » 07 October 04 9:05 pm

Ok, its time to get to meat of the matter.

There are hundreds of caches I wont do based simply on location.
Should all those be canned because I wont do them?
I dont think so.

Geocaching is not about Snifter or Hounddog or Mindsocket or Embi or Even Jeremy Irish.

Different strokes for different folks.

After all wasnt Snifter extolling the virtues of something called letterboxing(or similar) not that long ago?
That was not geocaching in my opinion, but I realised that some people require a different angle to get more enjoyment out of their sport.

If you dont like something , dont do it.
No-one is forcing you to do so.
Unwarranted complaints upset people(Me for instance).

Thats what got my goat.

People dont like other making unwelcome comments about something they spend alot of time doing.

Please keep your comments to yourself in future in regards any "non-standard" caches I may plan or place.

Damian

Hounddog · Post by **Hounddog** » 07 October 04 9:59 pm

ideology wrote:hounddog,
based on your idea, we've created a new query to list nearby standard caches.
here's an example: standard caches around frog hollow

Woo Hoo!!

Hey guys you have really excelled yourselves there. The idea is great. Very spiffy looking too.

Perhaps it's just what the doctor ordered under the circumstances. A solution to all the clutter. I will certainly use the option next time I am planning my days caching. Thankyou very much for the Great Work.

Hounddog