Jump to content


Photo

Streaks


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

Poll: Streaks: How strict is one-a-day? (36 member(s) have cast votes)

Geocaching Streaks of x number of consecutive days means...

  1. One physical find, cache in hand, log is signed, each day period. No exceptions (30 votes [83.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 83.33%

  2. One physical find and logged each day, but some exceptions are excusable, ok fudge a little (2 votes [5.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.56%

  3. Find several caches when you can, then just log one each day. No Biggie. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. I got no time for stupid streaks. I just wanna cache! (4 votes [11.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 HoustonControl

HoustonControl

    Charter Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,850 posts
  • LocationBaytown

Posted 15 July 2013 - 04:02 PM

I think OHLHockeyGuy used to find one before midnight and then one after midnight thus requiring one rip for two days. O0

Gosh, where have I read that before?  How long is that 12' kayak anyway?  Why does my post say 'ringbone?'


img.aspx?txt=What+in+the+Hell?&uid=1dd8c

#42 KeyResults

KeyResults

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,283 posts
  • LocationTomball

Posted 15 July 2013 - 04:32 PM

I heard somewhere that OHL worked one on either side of midnight during his streak ;)
Why am I all sweatty and late? Umm...

#43 TexasWriter

TexasWriter

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 15 July 2013 - 04:51 PM

I heard somewhere that OHL worked one on either side of midnight during his streak ;)

 

That's nothing....I heard he did it on either side of 12:00 too! :coolsmiley:


Deep Woods Off....my most commonly used cologne...

 

img.aspx?txt=View+my+profile&uid=90f8013


#44 heftydude

heftydude

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 700 posts
  • LocationHouston

Posted 15 July 2013 - 06:05 PM

the GC newsletter had a strategy listed where one would find a cache at say 11:30 in the evening. And then find another just after midnight. I thought I'd share that here.
  • TexasWriter likes this
Posted Image

#45 cachestacker

cachestacker

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,959 posts
  • LocationClear Lake

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:09 PM

the GC newsletter had a strategy listed where one would find a cache at say 11:30 in the evening. And then find another just after midnight. I thought I'd share that here.


I know someone who did that!
  • TexasWriter likes this
Posted Image

#46 Muddy Buddies

Muddy Buddies

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,379 posts
  • LocationAlief

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:24 PM

the GC newsletter had a strategy listed where one would find a cache at say 11:30 in the evening. And then find another just after midnight. I thought I'd share that here.

And then what happens if you can't find it by midnight?  


  • KeyResults likes this
Posted Image

#47 TexasWriter

TexasWriter

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:56 PM

I feel better now that someone else got "the treatment"


Deep Woods Off....my most commonly used cologne...

 

img.aspx?txt=View+my+profile&uid=90f8013


#48 chefkimmo

chefkimmo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 152 posts
  • LocationHouston (Cy-Fair area)

Posted 15 July 2013 - 09:43 PM

Just wait until PR gets back from his sabatical and clears out the cache queue.  I think their will be quite a flood of new ones.  Either that or all the other cachers in this area are on vacay because there has been nothing new in days!  (Yes, I have at least one in the queue that has been there almost a week!)

Do you think he will ever get off his sabbatical?  I have 12 that have been in the queue for 2 weeks plus others that will be waiting 2 weeks as each day this week goes by.  He has published others that I submitted after those.... crazy... just crazy...

 

Anyway, when these publish it could help several people on the NW side get their one a day... too bad they won't help me



#49 HoustonControl

HoustonControl

    Charter Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,850 posts
  • LocationBaytown

Posted 15 July 2013 - 09:54 PM

Sabbatical?  What sabbatical?  My cache on our new property was published the same day I marked it as ready... on Friday evening.  Of course, I hid the cache and created the cache page a couple of weeks ago and was just waiting for us to close to have it "go live".


img.aspx?txt=What+in+the+Hell?&uid=1dd8c

#50 TexasWriter

TexasWriter

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 15 July 2013 - 10:54 PM

Mine that published last night had been in for a week


Deep Woods Off....my most commonly used cologne...

 

img.aspx?txt=View+my+profile&uid=90f8013


#51 Eagles1181

Eagles1181

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 884 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 09:17 AM

I voted no exceptions.  However, with that said I don't dwell on the "physical find" part.  Events count.  So do all other cache types even if they don't have a physical log to sign.

 

Eagle


Posted Image

#52 Kyrenx

Kyrenx

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • LocationWebster

Posted 16 July 2013 - 11:51 AM

Going out hunting and finding at least some form of cache every day is what I consider a streak. I was only able to muster a 45 day streak before I ultimately got burned out and lost the streak. (The ugly weather that happened to show up on what would have been day 46 didn't help either).


img.aspx?txt=I'm+not+lost!+I'm+Geocachin


#53 TravelingGeek

TravelingGeek

    TravelingGeek

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,451 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:22 PM

Several hot topics...
 
What is a "find" for a streak:
Cache in hand or attended or a virtual or a CITO or Earthcache.  But in all cases you have to physically be there on that day.  Period.
On my first streak of 48 days I did sandbag a virtual.... and I have another in mind if I need it for my current streak, but 
I personally would not fudge anything but a virtual... or maybe an earth cache.
I will add... its all about location, location, location.    
 
I'm in a hard spot to streak.  It takes me 15 minutes to get to the main drag and I've had that cleared for years.  Bare minimum for a streak find now is 90 minutes. Fortunately I travel a bit and can find target rich environments when I travel which is why my second and current streak is in the high 50s.
 
Souvenirs
On July 17th 2013, I have 58 souvenirs.   Today, I suspect that is significantly higher than most people, mostly because I have 41 state souvenirs.  This has taken me many, many, years and some significant effort and even some serious $$ (such as the $100 cab fare during a flight delay at newark to find a cache in NJ) and creative logistics (such as hosting a WWFM event in Pennsylvania because there were none within 100 miles of where I was going to be that day.)  I feel that at the end of August, there will be many many more people in the same souvenir count range, but with a lot less effort.  It's frustrating. 
 
I will streak in August, if for no other reason than to maintain my lead on souvenirs... which is crazy since I didn't really care about them until now.
 
Predictions
I suspect there will be a lot of caches archived and new ones put out to fill the void so we all have something to find.  I suspect this is in part what is motivating GroundSpeak to do this... Sort of like spring cleaning.  The other reason is my second prediction... I'm sure there will be some new sort of advertising that we all see as we log or archive or submit new caches.  What a great way to guarantee a higher than usual ad impressions than by challenging the entire user base to log into the system in exchange for a simple gif badge.  Brilliant.
 
Its a game and I'll play as long as I'm having fun and I think August will be fun.
 
Prime Reviewer
The dude is a volunteer... regardless of what you think his territory *should* be, he has a huge amount of work to do in his current territory, which will no doubt spike like crazy for the above reasons.  I'm sure he has some way to filter things so all the low hanging fruit gets published first and fastest.  The rest get queued up for more effort review.  If that is behind a dozen or so people all trying to publish 31 cache serieses with requests for specific publication dates in august, then its a huge second job for the next 45 days or so.  I'm a strong believer in "many hands make light the work" and have even name a company in that vein (Many Lawns) so I hope he has (and accepts) some help to get this all done.

Edited by TravelingGeek, 17 July 2013 - 10:23 PM.

Posted Image

#54 TexasWriter

TexasWriter

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:07 AM

 

Prime Reviewer
The dude is a volunteer... regardless of what you think his territory *should* be, he has a huge amount of work to do in his current territory, which will no doubt spike like crazy for the above reasons. 

 

 

TG, interesting predictions. Bummer about your souvies getting watered down....

 

Regarding PR, no doubt he has a lot to cover, and all the more reason why there should likely be some further division of territory. My concerns with him are more about the inconsistencies he displays. Perfect example recently when he wouldn't publish one of mine because the title was "too close to the name of a restaurant" although it had nothing to do with a restaurant, any place of business, food, eating, or any kind of agenda of any kind. It was simply a play on words and I put that in the reviewer note to head off any guff from him. Still, he wouldn't publish it. Three days later he turns around and publishes a cache called "Cullvers Frozen Custard Cache." Hello....that's the exact name of the business (well, except for the slight misspelling....should be Culver) and the cache is placed on their property. I've seen the same inconsistencies and contradictions in several other things he chooses to make an issue one day (or with one cacher) and not another. I've been both the dog and the fire hydrant with him, so I don't think he was singling me out. He was just showing his a$$. At the end of the day, he should be consistently reviewing against established and published guidelines and not cherry-picking or exercising selective/inconsistent interpretation of said guidelines. Having served in a number of volunteer capacities myself, I know that they can often be thankless jobs, but if we can't properly serve and consistently peform in the role, it's time to hand it off to the next person. Just my .02....


Deep Woods Off....my most commonly used cologne...

 

img.aspx?txt=View+my+profile&uid=90f8013


#55 TravelingGeek

TravelingGeek

    TravelingGeek

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,451 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:57 AM

 

 

Prime Reviewer
The dude is a volunteer... regardless of what you think his territory *should* be, he has a huge amount of work to do in his current territory, which will no doubt spike like crazy for the above reasons. 

 

 

TG, interesting predictions. Bummer about your souvies getting watered down....

 

Regarding PR... Just my .02....

 

 

I totally get it.  Frustrating as hell.    From the Geowoodstock open discussion with the reviewers (PR wasn't there) it's clear that constancy is a huge new focus for all of them.   I wonder if attempting to reach that higher bar is what is slowing down approvals in Texas right now.

 

Lets try an experiment...  Why don't you submit essentially the same cache as what was just rejected, but without a reviewer note.  I bet it will be approved in short order.  I think reviewer notes are slowing the process down because he has to read each one and think about it.  If I put myself in his shoes, the first thing I would do is write a filter (GSAK or SQL since presumably he can get access to the back end data) that will then do a Google API lookup of nearby entities which could be store names, railroads, schools, or whatever.  Maybe even run a fuzzy search of the cache name against all the results of the entities.  If there are any hits on this filter, then he has to look at the submission.  In all cases, he has to look at anything that has a reviewer note.  Anything the that the filter doesn't catch  could get an automatic approval.   At least that is how I would do it.

 

To be honest, where I get most annoyed is why he isn't taking action on caches that have multiple needs archive logs on them.  To me, those are no brainers.  I know of several that have lots of DNFs and Needs Maintenance and even Need Archive logs and they are still active.  And then there is Larry's list of longest since last find.  Sure some are just not found, but a lot have logs documenting them as gone... he should get those off the playing field so the rest of us can play the game.

 

Good thing this is just a game and we are all having fun.  Right?


Posted Image

#56 TexasWriter

TexasWriter

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:15 AM

 

 

 

Prime Reviewer
The dude is a volunteer... regardless of what you think his territory *should* be, he has a huge amount of work to do in his current territory, which will no doubt spike like crazy for the above reasons. 

 

 

TG, interesting predictions. Bummer about your souvies getting watered down....

 

Regarding PR... Just my .02....

 

 

Lets try an experiment...  Why don't you submit essentially the same cache as what was just rejected, but without a reviewer note.  I bet it will be approved in short order.  I think reviewer notes are slowing the process down because he has to read each one and think about it.  Actually, the part I left out was that I submitted it first with no note and he nitpicked about it being .13 away from a school. I pointed out in return the .13 distance from the school front (.18 to the back playground area), the 8 foot cyclone fence, duck pond, and big brick building between the cache and the school, and he just let it sit for days. Didn't disable it or anything. So, I moved it an additional 160 feet to the same little structure across the street. I posted the reviewer note to let him know I moved it even further, and it was in that note I mentioned the hide name, the cache obviously not having anything to do with a place of business, etc. So, he had already flagged it without a reviewer note.

 

To be honest, where I get most annoyed is why he isn't taking action on caches that have multiple needs archive logs on them.  To me, those are no brainers.  I know of several that have lots of DNFs and Needs Maintenance and even Need Archive logs and they are still active.  And then there is Larry's list of longest since last find.  Sure some are just not found, but a lot have logs documenting them as gone... he should get those off the playing field so the rest of us can play the game. Yes, that drives me nuts, too. However, I have had success in emailing him about specific ones (never tried more than one because it didn't seem others were having much success with that) and getting them archived. I haven't tried it again in a few months.

 

Good thing this is just a game and we are all having fun.  Right? You damn skippy we are. :laugh:

 


Deep Woods Off....my most commonly used cologne...

 

img.aspx?txt=View+my+profile&uid=90f8013


#57 Baytown Bert

Baytown Bert

    Short fat dude with good hygiene

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,206 posts
  • LocationBaytown, Texas

Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:52 AM

"Souvenirs
On July 17th 2013, I have 58 souvenirs. Today, I suspect that is significantly higher than most people, mostly because I have 41 state souvenirs. This has taken me many, many, years and some significant effort and even some serious $$ (such as the $100 cab fare during a flight delay at newark to find a cache in NJ) and creative logistics (such as hosting a WWFM event in Pennsylvania because there were none within 100 miles of where I was going to be that day.) I feel that at the end of August, there will be many many more people in the same souvenir count range, but with a lot less effort. It's frustrating."

This is my original complaint also, except I only have a few souvey's and I'm also proud of them. I am not interested in covering my wall with a simple find a day souvenir as I think it dilutes the whole accomplishment status. I will get some of these badges in August, but it will be for finding a group of caches on any given day, just like always. I am going to make no special effort to have a 31 day streak. Heck, that would cost me about $1500 too, as my 30 mile killzone is pretty much barren.

TXGA SETX Representative


#58 rozowski5

rozowski5

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 07:18 AM

Prime Reviewer
The dude is a volunteer... regardless of what you think his territory *should* be, he has a huge amount of work to do in his current territory, which will no doubt spike like crazy for the above reasons.

 
TG, interesting predictions. Bummer about your souvies getting watered down....
 
Regarding PR, no doubt he has a lot to cover, and all the more reason why there should likely be some further division of territory. My concerns with him are more about the inconsistencies he displays. Perfect example recently when he wouldn't publish one of mine because the title was "too close to the name of a restaurant" although it had nothing to do with a restaurant, any place of business, food, eating, or any kind of agenda of any kind. It was simply a play on words and I put that in the reviewer note to head off any guff from him. Still, he wouldn't publish it. Three days later he turns around and publishes a cache called "Cullvers Frozen Custard Cache." Hello....that's the exact name of the business (well, except for the slight misspelling....should be Culver) and the cache is placed on their property. I've seen the same inconsistencies and contradictions in several other things he chooses to make an issue one day (or with one cacher) and not another. I've been both the dog and the fire hydrant with him, so I don't think he was singling me out. He was just showing his a$$. At the end of the day, he should be consistently reviewing against established and published guidelines and not cherry-picking or exercising selective/inconsistent interpretation of said guidelines. Having served in a number of volunteer capacities myself, I know that they can often be thankless jobs, but if we can't properly serve and consistently peform in the role, it's time to hand it off to the next person. Just my .02....

Hans should have made the title Cull-vers. We were joking it was the perfect place for a magicull , fantasticull cache because we both live in Cull cache land. But u are right, it is weird that got through. My steamy smooch cache had a line in the text about being close to a recently closed bar and PR said no because I was promoting a business. I said they were closed. He came back with a houston business journal article stating they were slated to reopen in a few months. So I pulled the references and it published.

#59 TexasWriter

TexasWriter

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:33 AM

 

 

Prime Reviewer
The dude is a volunteer... regardless of what you think his territory *should* be, he has a huge amount of work to do in his current territory, which will no doubt spike like crazy for the above reasons.

 
TG, interesting predictions. Bummer about your souvies getting watered down....
 
Regarding PR, no doubt he has a lot to cover, and all the more reason why there should likely be some further division of territory. My concerns with him are more about the inconsistencies he displays. Perfect example recently when he wouldn't publish one of mine because the title was "too close to the name of a restaurant" although it had nothing to do with a restaurant, any place of business, food, eating, or any kind of agenda of any kind. It was simply a play on words and I put that in the reviewer note to head off any guff from him. Still, he wouldn't publish it. Three days later he turns around and publishes a cache called "Cullvers Frozen Custard Cache." Hello....that's the exact name of the business (well, except for the slight misspelling....should be Culver) and the cache is placed on their property. I've seen the same inconsistencies and contradictions in several other things he chooses to make an issue one day (or with one cacher) and not another. I've been both the dog and the fire hydrant with him, so I don't think he was singling me out. He was just showing his a$$. At the end of the day, he should be consistently reviewing against established and published guidelines and not cherry-picking or exercising selective/inconsistent interpretation of said guidelines. Having served in a number of volunteer capacities myself, I know that they can often be thankless jobs, but if we can't properly serve and consistently peform in the role, it's time to hand it off to the next person. Just my .02....

Hans should have made the title Cull-vers. We were joking it was the perfect place for a magicull , fantasticull cache because we both live in Cull cache land. But u are right, it is weird that got through. My steamy smooch cache had a line in the text about being close to a recently closed bar and PR said no because I was promoting a business. I said they were closed. He came back with a houston business journal article stating they were slated to reopen in a few months. So I pulled the references and it published.

 

 

Well, R5, hopefully you know my point wasn't to poke at anyone's spelling of anything. I was instead poking at PR's inconsistency. Another identical example a few months ago was that someone in our area placed a cache near a Mexican restaurant and just mentioned it was near a Mexican restaurant (they didn't commercialize) and PR not surprisingly said no. Less than a week later he published "Rancho Grande Bar & Grill" cache (GC4AGJX), which said, 

 

"Rancho Grande Bar & Grill was originated in 1991 by the Carrillo Brothers who came from Guadalajara, the land where most of the tequila is cultivated and the mariachi music lives in your blood. With original recipes like the Chile Relleno and new dishes like the Chicken Diablo... or just grab the cache & have a Margarita!."

 

PR wouldn't publish a letterbox that I put out because I included (in addition to the coordinates of a couple reference points) the letterbox style navigation (e.g. "Walk 60 feet south") instructions to accompany them for people who like to use letterbox clues. Over the next few weeks he published a handful of letterboxes that only listed the final waypoints of the caches and letterbox clues on how to get to them. Almost identical to mine except that CO didn't list the corresponding reference point GPS coordinates.

 

PR is very inconsistent is my main point and takes issue with things in a willy nilly fashion. I'm kind of surprised he took the time to research the bar closing and send you the article.


Deep Woods Off....my most commonly used cologne...

 

img.aspx?txt=View+my+profile&uid=90f8013


#60 rozowski5

rozowski5

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:11 PM

 

 

 

Prime Reviewer
The dude is a volunteer... regardless of what you think his territory *should* be, he has a huge amount of work to do in his current territory, which will no doubt spike like crazy for the above reasons.

 
TG, interesting predictions. Bummer about your souvies getting watered down....
 
Regarding PR, no doubt he has a lot to cover, and all the more reason why there should likely be some further division of territory. My concerns with him are more about the inconsistencies he displays. Perfect example recently when he wouldn't publish one of mine because the title was "too close to the name of a restaurant" although it had nothing to do with a restaurant, any place of business, food, eating, or any kind of agenda of any kind. It was simply a play on words and I put that in the reviewer note to head off any guff from him. Still, he wouldn't publish it. Three days later he turns around and publishes a cache called "Cullvers Frozen Custard Cache." Hello....that's the exact name of the business (well, except for the slight misspelling....should be Culver) and the cache is placed on their property. I've seen the same inconsistencies and contradictions in several other things he chooses to make an issue one day (or with one cacher) and not another. I've been both the dog and the fire hydrant with him, so I don't think he was singling me out. He was just showing his a$$. At the end of the day, he should be consistently reviewing against established and published guidelines and not cherry-picking or exercising selective/inconsistent interpretation of said guidelines. Having served in a number of volunteer capacities myself, I know that they can often be thankless jobs, but if we can't properly serve and consistently peform in the role, it's time to hand it off to the next person. Just my .02....

Hans should have made the title Cull-vers. We were joking it was the perfect place for a magicull , fantasticull cache because we both live in Cull cache land. But u are right, it is weird that got through. My steamy smooch cache had a line in the text about being close to a recently closed bar and PR said no because I was promoting a business. I said they were closed. He came back with a houston business journal article stating they were slated to reopen in a few months. So I pulled the references and it published.

 

 

Well, R5, hopefully you know my point wasn't to poke at anyone's spelling of anything. I was instead poking at PR's inconsistency. Another identical example a few months ago was that someone in our area placed a cache near a Mexican restaurant and just mentioned it was near a Mexican restaurant (they didn't commercialize) and PR not surprisingly said no. Less than a week later he published "Rancho Grande Bar & Grill" cache (GC4AGJX), which said, 

 

"Rancho Grande Bar & Grill was originated in 1991 by the Carrillo Brothers who came from Guadalajara, the land where most of the tequila is cultivated and the mariachi music lives in your blood. With original recipes like the Chile Relleno and new dishes like the Chicken Diablo... or just grab the cache & have a Margarita!."

 

PR wouldn't publish a letterbox that I put out because I included (in addition to the coordinates of a couple reference points) the letterbox style navigation (e.g. "Walk 60 feet south") instructions to accompany them for people who like to use letterbox clues. Over the next few weeks he published a handful of letterboxes that only listed the final waypoints of the caches and letterbox clues on how to get to them. Almost identical to mine except that CO didn't list the corresponding reference point GPS coordinates.

 

PR is very inconsistent is my main point and takes issue with things in a willy nilly fashion. I'm kind of surprised he took the time to research the bar closing and send you the article.

 

first of all I love letterbox style navigation.  I think it is awesome and I love doing those with my kids who really get a kick out of it.  I was told (by Hans) that is how letterboxes are supposed to be.  I haven't done many but I always appreciate parking coords and other waypoints along the route.  It is just helpful. 

 

I decided PR is a closet hipster and in the know about underground Houston bars.  I like trying to figure him out! 

 

Lastly, Cull has NOT yet recognized that we are paying homage to him and that makes it less fun.  I sent him a note telling him we were helping him add to his Cullpire of caches but he didn't seem to care.  :(   I guess I am just jealous my name doesn't lend itself to such fun puns.  Magicski?  not such a cute ring as Magicull.  boo.


  • Dhaulaghiri likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users