Is it just me?

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
User avatar
noikmeister
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1200
Joined: 10 July 09 12:29 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Is it just me?

Post by noikmeister » 10 January 13 1:22 pm

Pesky! wrote:this is a responce to the thread in general....

it sounds like this suggestion is to standardize and take the creativity out of this sport, even more than it already has.
why not just go back to using GCnnnn and GAnnnn codes in your cache names. do not allow anyone to call their hide anything other than the generated code.
that way no one gets confused,and the game die out from blandness.
Actually my objection to it is from the standpoint of lack of originality. i.e. more and more caches called "So and so's something or other". If I did that with all my cache names then it would constrain what I would call them.
Last edited by noikmeister on 10 January 13 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Big Matt and Shell
6500 or more caches found
6500 or more caches found
Posts: 1905
Joined: 11 February 07 9:53 pm
Twitter: BigMattandShell
Contact:

Re: Is it just me?

Post by Big Matt and Shell » 10 January 13 3:33 pm

gmj3191 wrote:Similarly, I think obvious spelling errors in listings, especially titles, doesn't reflect well on anybody involved in caching, and would it be so bad to ask the cacher if he wants to correct it?
We are getting OT but, I started to when I first started reviewing but I can't hold up publication because of poor spelling, plus understand that everyone comes from very different backgrounds and has different levels of education. Most of the early caches I posted a reviewer note on before publication were not changed. I'm not going to waste my time if people are not interested in having correct spelling on their cache listing.
covert wrote:Yep bugs the pants of me to. It is the shame the only solution is 3rd party tools that have to massage the data. Still no solution of Live data based caching.
A cache listing is the owners (in line with the guidelines) but if you choose to massage their data then yes, you need a third party tool. I'm not sure how you would manage this, no matter what you call your cache someone isn't going to be happy.

Would you prefer that we didn't have names just GC codes? Then I suppose the description would annoy someone and we would have to manage that.

covert
150 or more caches found
150 or more caches found
Posts: 476
Joined: 30 July 08 11:47 am
Location: VIC

Re: Is it just me?

Post by covert » 10 January 13 3:57 pm

Big Matt and Shell wrote:Would you prefer that we didn't have names just GC codes? Then I suppose the description would annoy someone and we would have to manage that.

No just GC codes would be a silly idea. However having names that when truncated to 10 characters can be easy told apart from other nearby caches would be clever.

User avatar
CraigRat
850 or more found!!!
850 or more found!!!
Posts: 6978
Joined: 23 August 04 3:17 pm
Twitter: CraigRat
Facebook: http://facebook.com/CraigRat
Location: Launceston, TAS
Contact:

Re: Is it just me?

Post by CraigRat » 10 January 13 4:43 pm

HOw about the old one that were just called 'Geocache' ??? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

User avatar
gmj3191
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1314
Joined: 22 April 03 12:37 am
Location: Sandringham, Vic Garmin Oregon 650

Re: Is it just me?

Post by gmj3191 » 11 January 13 11:13 am

Pesky! wrote:this is a responce to the thread in general....

it sounds like this suggestion is to standardize and take the creativity out of this sport, even more than it already has.
why not just go back to using GCnnnn and GAnnnn codes in your cache names. do not allow anyone to call their hide anything other than the generated code.
that way no one gets confused,and the game die out from blandness.
Not at all, just a suggestion to express cache names in a more convenient form. It might take even more creativity to do this for some :-"

User avatar
Agent Basil
2500 or more caches found
2500 or more caches found
Posts: 673
Joined: 31 July 08 8:26 pm
Location: Deakin, ACT

Re: Is it just me?

Post by Agent Basil » 17 January 13 9:12 pm


User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16237
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Is it just me?

Post by caughtatwork » 17 January 13 9:48 pm

Your can't leave this note and not tell us what is going on.
This cache has all physical Waypoints - they are not Question to answer. Are you saying you won't publish this until I change the other cache (GC30QDJ)?

User avatar
noikmeister
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1200
Joined: 10 July 09 12:29 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Is it just me?

Post by noikmeister » 17 January 13 9:49 pm

caughtatwork wrote:Your can't leave this note and not tell us what is going on.
This cache has all physical Waypoints - they are not Question to answer. Are you saying you won't publish this until I change the other cache (GC30QDJ)?
It's a long story...

User avatar
Agent Basil
2500 or more caches found
2500 or more caches found
Posts: 673
Joined: 31 July 08 8:26 pm
Location: Deakin, ACT

Re: Is it just me?

Post by Agent Basil » 17 January 13 9:52 pm

:D
Let me just say.......diplomatically of course because we don't put the boot into GC here, there have been a few probs of late with the ACT reviewer, bless his cotton socks !
](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

User avatar
riblit
It's the journey.
It's the journey.
Posts: 3444
Joined: 04 April 03 6:30 pm
Location: Land Grant of John Campbell

Re: Is it just me?

Post by riblit » 18 January 13 12:57 pm

I can fill you in about the note c@w, its there because the CO posted notes instead of reviewer notes during the review process. Notes don't get automatically deleted when the listing is published. Some cachers drop trackables into caches pre publication and want to the notes to stay. The automatic log deletion on publication only works on notes to reviewer.

The reason for the note concerns a nearby multi cache where the CO hadn't overwritten the default waypoint type for the published coords. New cache was too close to existing waypoint if anything placed by the CO was there and there was nothing in its description about the provenance of the information at the published coords.

User avatar
Agent Basil
2500 or more caches found
2500 or more caches found
Posts: 673
Joined: 31 July 08 8:26 pm
Location: Deakin, ACT

Re: Is it just me?

Post by Agent Basil » 18 January 13 1:00 pm

Which was easily ......... no, I really couldn't be bothered !

User avatar
mtbikeroz
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 823
Joined: 28 November 03 10:49 am
Location: Canberra, ACT

Re: Is it just me?

Post by mtbikeroz » 21 January 13 7:43 pm

Psssttt, don't tell Noiky about the new ones in the ACT, une, deux, trois, quatre, cinq, sept, .....

Be berry berry quiet, he's hunting wapidly wild wabbits......

User avatar
noikmeister
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1200
Joined: 10 July 09 12:29 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Is it just me?

Post by noikmeister » 21 January 13 7:45 pm

mtbikeroz wrote:Psssttt, don't tell Noiky about the new ones in the ACT, une, deux, trois, quatre, cinq, sept, .....

Be berry berry quiet, he's hunting wapidly wild wabbits......
There were LOTS of rabbits where I was the other day. And I think that means not much 1080, despite what the sign said. It also meant that there were lots of birds of prey. It almost got published today. Just a small clarification required. Needless to say, the title doesn't being like "Noikmeister's ..."

Rapidlywild
3000 or more caches found
3000 or more caches found
Posts: 51
Joined: 24 November 12 10:24 pm
Location: Ngunnawal ACT

Re: Is it just me?

Post by Rapidlywild » 01 February 13 10:24 pm

Wow, I didnt realise this was frowned upon so much.

If this is such an issue I am happy to remove all my hides and I will leave it at that.

Would have been nice to recieve an email personally advising that my naming conventions were not liked personally rather than in a forum which ive only recently learnt about.

As I mentioned, I am more than happy to remove the caches, and apologies this has caused such a controversy.

User avatar
noikmeister
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1200
Joined: 10 July 09 12:29 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Is it just me?

Post by noikmeister » 01 February 13 11:20 pm

Rapidlywild wrote:Wow, I didnt realise this was frowned upon so much.

If this is such an issue I am happy to remove all my hides and I will leave it at that.

Would have been nice to recieve an email personally advising that my naming conventions were not liked personally rather than in a forum which ive only recently learnt about.

As I mentioned, I am more than happy to remove the caches, and apologies this has caused such a controversy.
I was originally going to ignore this post, but since I made this mess I feel obliged too respond.

Firstly I'll refer you back to my previous response to Basil. And add the following:
If you think that is an appropriate responses and you choose to do so then that is your choice. There will always be people in geocaching who don't like your hides and people whose hides you don't like. This doesn't always reflect on the hider or the finder as a human being, it just reflects the fact that we live in a society where people's tastes differ and one where people are free to express their opinions and others are free to respond.

Why would I send a complete stranger an email saying "I don't like what you are doing"? As I stated in my opening post, it is none of my business what you name your caches.

I got stick for my original geocaching name. I didn't take my ball and go home. For a while my attitude was "bugger you and your opinion", which is a totally valid position to take and one I encourage you to adopt in relation to me. In the end I could see the other viewpoint and I changed it. That was my choice to make and I made it.

So perhaps I should say it this way. Hi my name is Jeremy and the way you name your caches irritates me for no rational reason. Please don't take it personally. I am sure you are a lovely person and I'd be happy to discuss it with you in person over coffee. I'll shout.

Post Reply