Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: FTF Hounds and the Use of Munzees

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Little Rock/Ferndale area
    Posts
    372
    I don't care for munzees either, but cardsfan55 statement of "Last year our local reviewer (*cough, cough* LOL) tried one of his publishing tricks on a new PnG series" twicks a response. The blame doesn't need to go on the reviewer, several times I've personally held up caches in series and also had the reviewer hold them up just to pass the FTF's around. That seems perfectly fair and resonable to me.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Crow Mountain, Russellville Area
    Posts
    284
    Fair, reasonable, indeed. But CF55 beat the system. Congrats.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Russellville
    Posts
    944
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincooder View Post
    One thing I am still confused about is when you say the FTF on the cache is very dishonest. I take that you believe one should only sign a log sheet after it is published? This is an old controversial topic as well, and I stand firmly entrenched without regret on one side. I bet you can guess which side, since I think the most glorious FTF is the unpublished one, the one you really have to use your puzzle-solving skills to find. Heck, that even gives me an idea for a new cache.
    Please don't take what I said in a posting out of context and make it into something I did not say. Again, what I feel is dishonest is the use of the munzee system to claim a first to find of a cache before it has been published. If you are out looking around and just happen to stumble upon a cache that has not been published, I do not consider that dishonest if you had no prior knowledge that the cache was even there. I would say that you are just lucky! And I've heard of it happening more than once. But I also believe the proper thing to do in such a case is to notify the CO, explain what happened, and ask permission for claiming the FTF. But that's just me and I am sure others play the game differently.

    On a separate note, it is interesting to me how the "local reviewer" has taken a few jabs during this thread. I am sure that he would be willing to discuss any issues you have with his review work in private, as he does not feel the ArkGeo Forums is the appropriate place to have such discussions. He is open to feedback and constructive criticism, but he also wants you to know that things are not always what they seem, which is the point I think that Ron White was making.

    "Wildness is a necessity." -- John Muir

    "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." briansnat

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Crow Mountain, Russellville Area
    Posts
    284
    Gotcha. I would even agree with that, should it be done intentionally. Unless, maybe the CO announced it publicly that he was going to do so. Even the FTF hound was humble enough to give credit to luck instead of bragging about his cunning. From now on, I'll just do what you suggested and return to the cache after it has been discovered to deploy the munzee.

    And tell your lizard buddy I ain't got no beef with him. I think he's a swell reptile.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by pshelto View Post
    It would be so much easier to log geocaches if we could just scan a QRC, type in a few words and move on.
    Find logs are the only payment a CO receives. Being able to "scan a QRC, type in a few words and move on" would be a HORRIBLE idea.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Jacksonville, AR
    Posts
    343
    I have to agree with dcwalker on this one. I love reading logs. And posting them. And as a Hider of Caches I would not be happy with the idea of the QRC scan to log a Cache.
    Profile for thefab5willisclan

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Arlington, TX, across from Six Flags!
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by thefab5willisclan View Post
    And as a Hider of Caches I would not be happy with the idea of the QRC scan to log a Cache.
    Sorry but I, respectfully, disagree. Anything I can do to make logging a find easier for my cachers, the better. As a matter of fact, I think making it possible for someone to scan it on the spot and be at the point they can log it immediately might actually improve the quality of logs I would get. I have been tossing around the idea of placing QRCs on my TBs and maybe some pathtags (if I ever get some). Placing them in a cache for someone to scan and go straight to logging the cache would be a great (as long as they have data).

    However, I do agree that I reading logs is a real joy with hiding caches. However, I mostly hide them just because I would want to find a cache at the places I put them. I have gotten to where I really don't expect much when it comes to logs but I sure do notice when someone finds several of mine and posts unique stuff for each (*cough* rkmbl *cough*)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •