As some may have noticed, I had temporarily taken down the ILC site
(letterboxing.com) again because I did not previously see a great
deal of interest expressed in my offer to setup a database of
letterboxes to compliment the resources available on the Letterboxing
NA site and others. Recently I noticed a fair amount of discussion
about the problem of keeping up to date on which letterboxes appear
to have gone missing or been otherwise moved. It would be fairly easy
for me to setup a catalog that simply lists all the known letterboxes
with links to where the clues reside (be it on the Letterboxing NA
site or on personal sites). Now this alone is not of great use, but I
can also set it up so that anyone can post comments attached to each
letterbox listing in the catalog. It would then be much easier for
someone to find out information about any box- such as if it is
suspected to be missing, has been confirmed by a find, or anything
else that someone wanted to make known about a box. While one might
be able to find such info in the talk list, it is difficult due to
the volume of postings. If there is an interest I would be willing to
do bring up the ILC site again to do this.

I also have one other resource that I can make available if there is
an interest. I have setup on my machine a cutting edge technology
called a Jabber server. Jabber is like AOL instant messenger on
steroids. It allows for buddy lists and person to person instant
messages, but further allows the dynamic creation of realtime
chatrooms where people can have live group meetings. The client
programs (what you would use for this service) are completely free
and available for Windows, Mac, and Unix. It doesn't matter what ISP
you use to connect to the net. I am setting this up for a couple
other sites and all I would have to do to make a Letterboxing
specific version would take me about 10 seconds to complete. This
does not replace any email discussion list, because all conversations
are live and not saved like email. It is more like having meeting
place where you can talk individually with anyone else (assuming they
want to talk to you) or create a group for many people to chat. If
there is an interest I will setup a demo for people to try out. Let
me know about these things if anyone is interested.
--
Regards,

Eric Mings Ph.D.

I don't particularly like the idea anyone posting comments
about other people's boxes in a database. Not only could it ruin
any possible mystique of the hunt, the potential for abuse (or error)
is high.

For example, people posting spoilers in the database, people posting
boxes going missing when in fact they could not figure out the clues
(which would discourage other hunters), etc.

While these abuses are possible on the talk list, the community nature
of the talk list makes it less likely that they will occur. Moreover,
it is easy for the sponsor of a box to correct such errors and abuses
on a talk list rather than needing to monitor postings in a database.

If such a system were implemented, the sponsor MUST have the ability
to approve all content about their boxes before it goes into the DB.

Cheers,
--
randy "the mapsurfer" (P27F102)
Hogeita hirugarren kutxak kolonia zaharean da.

>
>If such a system were implemented, the sponsor MUST have the ability
>to approve all content about their boxes before it goes into the DB.

Randy,

I understand your concerns and I hadn't really focused on the issue
of abuse of the idea. I suppose that the easiest way of dealing with
that would be to only allow the sponsor to post the status or notes
about the box. That would be very easy to do. Alternatively they
could approve as you suggest. Perhaps there is a better way
altogether of dealing with the issue of knowing current status of
boxes. I just know it is going to be an increasing burden on the LBNA
site maintainers to maintain the current info on all the boxes. There
are hundreds now, but thousands may not be that far off. Some may not
feel that it is important for searchers to know whether a box may be
thought missing, but I know that many, like myself, are only within
potential reach of boxes on a short vacation and hunting a box may
take an entire day away from other possible activities. I wouldn't
mind not finding one, but I would certainly rather not go after one
that is thought to be missing. Perhaps posting something as simple as
the last date found, or verified by the owner, would go a long ways
towards addressing this issue. I was just floating an idea I thought
might help.
--
Regards,

Eric Mings Ph.D.

Eric-

IMHO, I think your idea of a database has real merit. A "central"
database to update the status of boxes would be helpful. This would
eliminate or reduce the frustration that occurs when someone wants to
share useful info about a box, but then has to decide where to post that
info (LbNA site, personal site, etc.)

A compilation of ALL known boxes and their updated status would be
INVALUABLE. And links to the sites where their clues reside - great!

As far as a "live" discussion group: I've never been big on chatrooms,
but this has my interest piqued. Are you thinking of maybe a weekly
scheduled time slot for a live group meeting? This too sounds worth a
try. May take a while to build up participation, but if it's as easy to
get up and running as you say, then go for it. I'm in!

Hopefully, I can handle the "client program" you mentioned...computer
techno-literate I am not.

-Valerie Gilson
Gales Ferry, CT
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

> I understand your concerns and I hadn't really focused on the issue
> of abuse of the idea. I suppose that the easiest way of dealing with
> that would be to only allow the sponsor to post the status or notes
> about the box. That would be very easy to do. Alternatively they
> could approve as you suggest. Perhaps there is a better way
> altogether of dealing with the issue of knowing current status of
> boxes.

I like the Dartmoor model. A read only database. Has a central
catalog of boxes, yet preserves the mystique and guards against the
abuses I described. Some technically inclined folk may see technology
as a "solution", yet I don't see the "problem" :-) (and I work in
internet technology myself for a living, so I'm not exactly a
Luddite). I guess I feel if not done carefully, technology has the
potential to compromise some of the charm. Does it? Is there charm?

> Some may not feel that it is important for searchers to know whether
> a box may be thought missing, but I know that many, like myself, are
> only within potential reach of boxes on a short vacation and hunting
> a box may take an entire day away from other possible activities.

I think I see what is going on here. Some people view letterboxing
as a treasure hunt, where the easily disappointed need not apply.
Others see it as something else (I'm not exactly sure what since I'm
in the former category, but whatever it is, they expect to find something
at the end, or else they would not care about these data being available).
Since we are diverse and take all comers, somehow I think we need to be
open to all types, and not ruin it for either. I'm not sure of the best
way to do that. Perhaps a new hobby called "treasureboxing" could be
spun off :-)

Cheers,
--
randy "the mapsurfer" (P27F102)
Hogeita hirugarren kutxak kolonia zaharean da.

Eric Mings wrote:
>
> It would be fairly easy
> for me to setup a catalog that simply lists all the known letterboxes

We have discussed this in the past. While there is merit in this idea,
it might infringe on some of the clues and secrecy involved in "good old
letterboxing." I think what would be more useful would be a fairly
rigid "degree of difficulty" clause submitted with clues. We haven't
talked about how we would standardize it, but it could certainly be a
topic of conversation. It wouldn't alleviate the lost box, but if you
knew going in that it was an easy box & could not find it, that it was
more likely to be missing than a reflection of your lack of
letterboxability (an adjective is born!).

>
> It is more like having meeting
> place where you can talk individually with anyone else (assuming they
> want to talk to you) or create a group for many people to chat. If
> there is an interest I will setup a demo for people to try out. Let
> me know about these things if anyone is interested.

I think a weekly chat opportunity would be great!


--
Thom Cheney
tcgrafx... among other things

>
>> Some may not feel that it is important for searchers to know whether
>> a box may be thought missing, but I know that many, like myself, are
>> only within potential reach of boxes on a short vacation and hunting
> > a box may take an entire day away from other possible activities.

Randy,

You cut off the most important sentence when you quoted me :-)
It was " I wouldn't mind not finding one, but I would certainly
rather not go after one that is thought to be missing." The point is
not to _guarantee_ anyone a find, but rather to have current status
info available so that people can:
1. Avoid a wild goose chase for one that is _known_ missing (such as
my squirrelfish box)
2. Make a decision whether they want to pursue a particular box that
might be missing or hasn't been verified in a long time.


>I think I see what is going on here. Some people view letterboxing
>as a treasure hunt, where the easily disappointed need not apply.
>Others see it as something else (I'm not exactly sure what since I'm
>in the former category, but whatever it is, they expect to find something
>at the end, or else they would not care about these data being available).
>Since we are diverse and take all comers, somehow I think we need to be
>open to all types, and not ruin it for either. I'm not sure of the best
>way to do that. Perhaps a new hobby called "treasureboxing" could be
>spun off :-)

I really think spinoff is overkill. I just think that status info
would be helpful to those who care. If someone still wanted to hunt
for my squirrelfish box, knowing it was vandalized and I haven't
replaced it, then I would hope they enjoyed the scenery ;-)

This is one of those times where a chatroom as I offered would be a
great way to discuss such things for those who care without boring
the others.
--
Regards,

Eric Mings Ph.D.

> You cut off the most important sentence when you quoted me :-)

I'm sorry :-)

> It was " I wouldn't mind not finding one, but I would certainly
> rather not go after one that is thought to be missing." The point is
> not to _guarantee_ anyone a find, but rather to have current status
> info available so that people can:
> 1. Avoid a wild goose chase for one that is _known_ missing (such as
> my squirrelfish box)

If it is known missing (confirmed by the author), it should not be
listed on any web site (unless for some perverse reason the author wishes
it to remain (and there _are_ reasons for this, if you can believe it;
I did so with one of my boxes until I replaced it, because even though
it was missing, the clues were necessary (but we digress :-))

> 2. Make a decision whether they want to pursue a particular box that
> might be missing or hasn't been verified in a long time.

I think this verification thing runs the risk of moving the logbook
out of the field and into the computer. I think it could (unfairly)
stigmatize (or mystify) boxes that don't have cyberverification (for
whatever reasons). It just doesn't sound as fun this way (although
I sense I'm in the minority in opinion here, amongst a bunch of
internet users :-))

Keep in mind that I don't object to the _author_ doing this for their
own box; my argument pertains to opening it up to everyone.

For example, I had someone e-mail me that my VF#2 box was missing.
I went out to the park the next day, and there it was. What if this
person logged this to a database instead. I'd never know, and there
is no way I would ever check.

> I really think spinoff is overkill.

Its not a matter of overkill, but the matter of different hobby for
different interests. Like geocaching/letterboxing. Not exactly
a spinoff, but I think serving different interests. The same thing
could happen for letterboxing/treasureboxing. For example, I don't
particularly care about stamp art. To me, the clues and the hunt
are the crux of it. Perhaps those who really want some degree of
confidence that the box they are looking for is there care to have
a stamp added to their book. I'm not sure. In any case, I see the
natural lines of a spinoff possible. I don't think that is a bad
thing. (And I think I'm in such a minority about how I feel about
these issues that such would not ever go anywhere ... I certainly
don't have the time and will to make it happen -- I'd just put my
stuff on a web site for all who found it, take it or leave it :-)).

> I just think that status info would be helpful to those who care.

I think it would too. I think it would be harmful to those who don't
care :-) (If not handled properly, as I've said, the primary thing
being author control).

> This is one of those times where a chatroom as I offered would be a
> great way to discuss such things for those who care without boring
> the others.

I'll chat, but I don't feel like downloading another client when
e-groups, yahoo, and others already have chat set up.

Cheers,
--
randy "the mapsurfer" (P27F102)
Hogeita hirugarren kutxak kolonia zaharean da.

Hi Folks!

I don't know much about databases, but I think it would be nice to
know what letterboxes are really out there. It's kind of
disappointing to scurry around with the sole purpose of finding a
letterbox only to find out someone has pilfered it or the box is
incognito for whatever reason. Whatever way you all feel is the best
way to handle it I'll go with the flow. I'm not one for analysis
paralysis. Someone else who loves bureaucracy can deal with the fine
details.

Best regards,

Amanda Briles
aka The Paisley Orca

If I may offer my 2 cents:

Let's face it: some clues are painfully straightforward. Other clues are
frustratingly cryptic. I don't need a "degree of difficulty clause" to
tell me the clues are going to be a real bear. I can tell that just by
reading them. And yes, I can get easily frustrated, PARTICULARLY
depending on the time of the month.

My point is...if someone writes lousy clues, I don't go after their silly
letterbox. I go to the site just for a beaultiful walk. If we start
thinking in terms of "standardization of clues", and "rigid clauses",
we're gonna go down a slippery slope.

Let us leave letterboxing (still in it's North American infancy) alone
and let it be the magical thing that it is. Sport for some, play for
others.

In all out good intentions, we're starting to sound like a bunch of
lawyers.

-Valerie



________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

a1b@exchange.gasco.com writes ("[LbNA] Some ideas for thought."):
>Hi Folks!
>
>I don't know much about databases, but I think it would be nice to
>know what letterboxes are really out there. It's kind of
>disappointing to scurry around with the sole purpose of finding a
>letterbox only to find out someone has pilfered it or the box is
>incognito for whatever reason.

Myself, I don't exactly live in a region of the country[1] where
letterboxing is common (Minnesota has, at the moment, only a single
letterbox), and many of those aren't maintained. My overall success
rate for letterboxing in this part of the country is exactly 50%--for
every letterbox I find, there's another that I went to find and it's
gone. And it's not a matter of interpreting the clues and searching,
I *know* in the cases that I've found no box I'm dead on (for example,
the Pike Island, MN boxes have *trivial* clues and there really isn't
any way (minux a shovel) to hide boxes there---the boxes, and the
person that placed them, are long gone). It gets frustrating, but not
all that bad because at least you still get to hunt around.

Missing boxes are part of the fun, really. But there are *many* boxes
out there that are truly MIA or dead, and if, say, 3 different people
aside from the author report a box as missing, we should treat it as
such.

Don't get me wrong, I'm *not* bitter. In fact, today was 2 for 2 with
the Arizona[2] letterboxes (both we easy to find, but required a good
amount of beautiful hiking to do it).


[1] With the exception of Door Country , WI, which has a good number
of letterboxes.

[2] Obviously letterboxing isn't a big thing here, both spots had
relatively few stamps in them.

--
Richard W Kaszeta Engineer and Sysadmin
bofh@me.umn.edu University of MN, ME Dept
http://www.menet.umn.edu/~kaszeta

--- In letterbox-usa@egroups.com, Richard Kaszeta
wrote:
> a1b@e... writes ("[LbNA] Some ideas for thought."):
> >Hi Folks!
> >
> >I don't know much about databases, but I think it would be nice to
> >know what letterboxes are really out there. It's kind of
> >disappointing to scurry around with the sole purpose of finding a
> >letterbox only to find out someone has pilfered it or the box is
> >incognito for whatever reason.
>
> Myself, I don't exactly live in a region of the country[1] where
> letterboxing is common (Minnesota has, at the moment, only a single
> letterbox), and many of those aren't maintained. My overall success
> rate for letterboxing in this part of the country is exactly 50%--
for
> every letterbox I find, there's another that I went to find and it's
> gone. And it's not a matter of interpreting the clues and
searching,
> I *know* in the cases that I've found no box I'm dead on (for
example,
> the Pike Island, MN boxes have *trivial* clues and there really
isn't
> any way (minux a shovel) to hide boxes there---the boxes, and the
> person that placed them, are long gone). It gets frustrating, but
not
> all that bad because at least you still get to hunt around.
>
> Missing boxes are part of the fun, really. But there are *many*
boxes
> out there that are truly MIA or dead, and if, say, 3 different
people
> aside from the author report a box as missing, we should treat it as
> such.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm *not* bitter. In fact, today was 2 for 2
with
> the Arizona[2] letterboxes (both we easy to find, but required a
good
> amount of beautiful hiking to do it).
>
>
> [1] With the exception of Door Country , WI, which has a good number
> of letterboxes.
>
> [2] Obviously letterboxing isn't a big thing here, both spots had
> relatively few stamps in them.
>
> --
> Richard W Kaszeta Engineer and Sysadmin
> bofh@m... University of MN, ME Dept
> http://www.menet.umn.edu/~kaszeta