Your observation results is typical. Most do not log their finds online but my box 'Ace of aces' gets a very high ratio of recored finds aproaching 90%. Another observation is that most people in central Ohio use LBNA to post their clues while those outside the central circle begin to use Atlas Quest more.

My LBNA recorded finds was equal to my actual finds until I began to move outward from my area. Then I found the records started to lag from my actual counts as folks relied on AQ to post the clues. I post all boxes on both sites equally for the convience of all in regards to recording finds.

The usage of either site depends on which was mentioned in any local articles that have turned up. LBNA was the site mentioned in my source magazine and it was at about two months after starting this hobby before I registered onto AQ.

-----Original Message-----
From: maliabarth@yahoo.com
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 2:49 PM
Subject: [LbNA] Log online vs stamps

What is a typical ratio between the numbers of people finding and
stamping the letterbox, vs actually logging online? We just found our
first 2 letterboxes today (the official way), and found many stamps
from all over the nation, but only 3 other people had logged them
online. (This was maybe a 20% number.) Is this pretty typical?

As a veteran geocacher, the ratio I have seen in geocaching is much
higher (in our area, anyway) in that most people that find the cache do
log it online, also. There are always people that don't log online,
but still, probably 70-80% of the cachers do log online.

I am just curious... and it was a lot of fun to go through and see all
of the stamps, and where the people are from. I'm looking forward to
doing more letterboxing when we travel (unfortunately, that isn't
often...) We are also in the process of planning our own letterboxes!

Malia


________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Logging finds online is a relatively new twist for the hobby of
letterboxing. I believe that geocaching included this practice from
its beginning. There are many, many letterboxers who began collecting
stamps long before the logging feature ever appeared on LbNA and long
before Atlas Quest was ever unveiled.

There is also a sizeable number of independent types who don't want to
share their personal logbook stats with the world at large. As a
result, the numbers of folks who actually log their finds on one or
both of the major websites is not an accurate representation of how
many times a box has actually been found.

Personally, I do not choose to keep a public record of my finds. This
is actually the basis of one of my personal pet peeves. Now that AQ
allows folks to place a number of finds as one of the optional
requirements for acquiring a clue, I am excluded from viewing some
clues. I do have enough finds to qualify but since I don't have an
electronic logbook I cannot access some clues in areas that I do
visit, especially NYC. Bummer... Funhog

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "maliabarth" wrote:
>
> What is a typical ratio between the numbers of people finding and
> stamping the letterbox, vs actually logging online?

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "funhog1" wrote:

> Personally, I do not choose to keep a public record of my finds. This
> is actually the basis of one of my personal pet peeves. Now that AQ
> allows folks to place a number of finds as one of the optional
> requirements for acquiring a clue, I am excluded from viewing some
> clues. I do have enough finds to qualify but since I don't have an
> electronic logbook I cannot access some clues in areas that I do
> visit, especially NYC. Bummer... Funhog

The F-1 was created to protect clues from search engine listings.
Here's a quote from Green Tortuga Message #19990:
"No search engine that I'm aware of will automatically create an
account on AQ and record at least one find to start caching clues
restricted to the F-1 club."

I bet some of those folks with low F count requirements (and maybe
those with higher F-count requirements) would email you the clues if
you explained your situation. It's kind of like a WOM. :)

Lone R

This is much like WOM clues that most never hear about. Just another
example of the many ways to play. :-)

Scarab of the Doubtful Guests

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "funhog1" wrote:
>
> Logging finds online is a relatively new twist for the hobby of
> letterboxing. > Personally, I do not choose to keep a public
record of my finds. This
> is actually the basis of one of my personal pet peeves. Now that AQ
> allows folks to place a number of finds as one of the optional
> requirements for acquiring a clue, I am excluded from viewing some
> clues. I do have enough finds to qualify but since I don't have an
> electronic logbook I cannot access some clues in areas that I do
> visit, especially NYC. Bummer... Funhog
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "maliabarth"
wrote:
> >
> > What is a typical ratio between the numbers of people finding
and
> > stamping the letterbox, vs actually logging online?
>

That would be all well and good if the boxes would even show up on my
searches. Since I don't "qualify" they never appear. I only know of
the ones in NYC because another boxer told me of them. I have no other
way of knowing who to contact to ask for clues.

I heeded the Green Tortuga's message regarding search engines and
entered my first find on AQ so that I would have a find count of one.
However, the boxes I know that exclude me and others who don't have
online logbooks have an F100 requirement...

Incidentally, I have met several wonderful letterboxers who have
discovered the hobby because of search engines turning up a letterbox
clue. When researching something else, a letterbox clue has appeared
in the list, directing them to this quirky pastime. As a result, I'm
not totally convinced that hiding clues from search engines is the
least bit necessary unless a letterbox is hidden in a questionable
location.

Fortunately, I know that a very small percentage of letterboxers
choose to use the F count restriction on their AQ clues. Thankfully,
the number of letterboxes that exclude me is very small, leaving many
more open for me to find. Funhog

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "ontario_cacher"
wrote:

> I bet some of those folks with low F count requirements (and maybe
> those with higher F-count requirements) would email you the clues if
> you explained your situation. It's kind of like a WOM. :)

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "funhog1" wrote:
>
> Incidentally, I have met several wonderful letterboxers who have
> discovered the hobby because of search engines turning up a
letterbox
> clue. When researching something else, a letterbox clue has
appeared
> in the list, directing them to this quirky pastime. As a result,
I'm
> not totally convinced that hiding clues from search engines is the
> least bit necessary unless a letterbox is hidden in a questionable
> location.
>
> Fortunately, I know that a very small percentage of letterboxers
> choose to use the F count restriction on their AQ clues.
Thankfully,
> the number of letterboxes that exclude me is very small, leaving
many
> more open for me to find. Funhog

We have had several non boxers become letterboxers due to their
googling our clue sheets as well.

While setting clues at F1 or F100 are other ways to play, I wonder
how many letterboxers would complain if most of the folks with large
Plant counts set their clue sheets at P100? That too would be
another way to play.

I just do not understand the exclusionary idea behind F1 or F10000.
The arguments put forth in past discussions just don't seem to fit
the concept of letterboxing. Isn't part of the idea to plant a
letterbox at some really cool spot so you can share that spot? If
your letterbox is so restrictive then why put it in the public arena
in the first place? Just keep it WOM.

Don

I love when boxers do not keep a public record on-line. While It is nice to get updates letting me know that my box is there and accounted for, it is even funner to check on the box myself and see who has been there and to see their wonderful stamps and comments. My first box planted still has no finders according to the LB websites but when I checked on it people had visited from all over. For me that's what has made planting the most fun!

Nature Posse

ontario_cacher wrote:
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "funhog1" wrote:

> Personally, I do not choose to keep a public record of my finds. This
> is actually the basis of one of my personal pet peeves. Now that AQ
> allows folks to place a number of finds as one of the optional
> requirements for acquiring a clue, I am excluded from viewing some
> clues. I do have enough finds to qualify but since I don't have an
> electronic logbook I cannot access some clues in areas that I do
> visit, especially NYC. Bummer... Funhog




Recent Activity

36
New Members

Visit Your Group
SPONSORED LINKS

Academy sports and outdoors

Y! GeoCities
Share More
Create a blog, web
site, and more.

Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.



.





---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I believe that if you are viewing the logged finds via LBNA, you can
only see the three most recent entries. There may be many more that
only the box lister can see. If you are looking at Atlas Quest, you
can only see the most recent listing and your own find if it isn't the
most recent one.

It is very different from the geocaching site where everyone seems to
log every detail of every search, thus often giving a lot of the
little secrets away. I know when I do a cache, I make sure to read
all of the messages because I know that I will get more information
than I will normally need through them. Letterbox logging keeps the
clues pretty pure - you only get what the author wants you to get.

Jan of Team Little Dog

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "maliabarth" wrote:
>
> What is a typical ratio between the numbers of people finding and
> stamping the letterbox, vs actually logging online? We just found our
> first 2 letterboxes today (the official way), and found many stamps
> from all over the nation, but only 3 other people had logged them
> online. (This was maybe a 20% number.) Is this pretty typical?
>
> As a veteran geocacher, the ratio I have seen in geocaching is much
> higher (in our area, anyway) in that most people that find the cache do
> log it online, also. There are always people that don't log online,
> but still, probably 70-80% of the cachers do log online.
>
> I am just curious... and it was a lot of fun to go through and see all
> of the stamps, and where the people are from. I'm looking forward to
> doing more letterboxing when we travel (unfortunately, that isn't
> often...) We are also in the process of planning our own letterboxes!
>
> Malia
>

I haven't created one of these F-1 restricted boxes, but I can see
the placers' point of view, especially in more sensitive areas.

If someone who doesn't log online at all wanted to do one of those restricted boxes, couldn't they contact the placer, tell them that they've found X number of boxes but don't log on line, and ask for the clues?

the B's wrote:
I haven't created one of these F-1 restricted boxes, but I can see
the placers' point of view, especially in more sensitive areas.

Sure...but that doesn't mean that the placer will believe them or be willing to give them the clues. But it never hurts to ask.

TG

Suzanne Coe wrote:
If someone who doesn't log online at all wanted to do one of those restricted boxes, couldn't they contact the placer, tell them that they've found X number of boxes but don't log on line, and ask for the clues?

the B's wrote:
I haven't created one of these F-1 restricted boxes, but I can see
the placers' point of view, especially in more sensitive areas.

OK, you covered that, n'mind.... It does seem kind of weird though that they never even APPEAR. You'd think the name of the box would come up & then it would say "clue available only after 100 finds" or something.

Suzanne Coe wrote: If someone who doesn't log online at all wanted to do one of those restricted boxes, couldn't they contact the placer, tell them that they've found X number of boxes but don't log on line, and ask for the clues?


Recent Activity

35
New Members

Visit Your Group
Y! GeoCities
Share More
Create a blog, web
site, and more.

Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.



.





---------------------------------
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "the B's" wrote:
>
> I haven't created one of these F-1 restricted boxes, but I can see
> the placers' point of view, especially in more sensitive areas.

But the case for mystery boxes from a
> recent discussion seems to back it up -- those boxes take more
> effort, but as a result are visited less frequently and usually
only
> by somewhat seasoned boxers looking for a different challenge.

Hi QB

I think you answered the "restriction" point of view very nicely. If
you want to restrict the access do it with some class and
creativity. Just make the clues a little more obscure or create a
mystery letterbox. It is just too easy to place an F1, F100 or F1000
and where is the ingenuity in that.



(How would I know that Funhog visits NYC
> from time to time, for example? And what a treat it would be to
> discover his stamp in one of our boxes.)

She travels far and wide and has "salted" many areas that had no
letterboxes before her visit.

Don

--- funhog1 wrote:

>.... Now that AQ
> allows folks to place a number of finds as one of the optional
requirements for acquiring a clue, I am excluded from viewing some clues.
I do have enough finds to qualify but since I don't have an electronic
logbook I cannot access some clues in areas that I do visit, especially
NYC. Bummer... Funhog

You could always ask for some help from your Friends.

Today was the first day of nice, crisp weather in the Hoosier State. I
even found "The Beloved Pig" in the Farm.

speedsquare

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I am actually grateful for the F-count
restriction...mainly because I live in an area that is
void of letterboxes. As these articles come out in
magazines....more newbies will surface and join in the
game. However, not all boxes are perfect for a
newbie...namely those that are easily exposed if the
finder is not discreet and thus the F-count
restriction is perfect for urban boxes and such.

That's my 2cents.

Ruann L. Wood
Smoky Mountain Terp
"Whistlin Dixie in the heart of the Smoky Mountains!"


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

A high F count is no guarantee that a letterbox finder is a good
letterbox hider. A newbie may "get it" right out of the gate and some
experienced boxers never will. Restricting clues in an area with few
letterboxes would guarantee slower growth of the hobby in your area.
If there seem to be no boxes to find, folks won't participate. This
may or may not be a good thing, depending on your goals.

I also believe that letterboxes go missing because they are poorly
hidden in the first place, confiscated by authorities or removed by
animals. I have personally lost boxes to all three but I honestly
doubt that any have been vandalized using a clue. It has happened to
some boxes that I know of but to so few that it is probably not
significant. Funhog

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Ruann wrote:

> However, not all boxes are perfect for a
> newbie...namely those that are easily exposed if the
> finder is not discreet and thus the F-count
> restriction is perfect for urban boxes and such.

> It does seem kind of weird though that they never even APPEAR.
> You'd think the name of the box would come up & then it would say
> "clue available only after 100 finds" or something.

It used to do that, but then I'd get loads of hate mail saying how
unfair it was, what a terrible thing it was to restrict clues, blah,
blah, blah.

Restricted clues have been around since the very begining--AQ just
created an automated way of restricting them. The fact that there are
restricted clues never seemed to bother anyone--it's knowing there's a
clue that they can't access that really gets under people's skin. As
they say, ignorance is bliss. =)

Thus, I changed the setup towards the ignorance approach. Nobody
complains to me when they can't access clues they don't know about in
the first place.

I used to restrict it so clues could only be available to premium
members, but then I got mail from people saying that it's morally
wrong to charge for clues. (To which I thought, "Well, then, don't
list them that way!") Then people would deliberately pester other
premium members hoping one of them would get the clue for them for free.

So I switched to a different form of restricting clues to get away
from the stigma of "paying for clues"--and decided on the Dartmoor
model of restricting clues since it's more "historically correct."

I think the whole complaint about restricting clues is pretty darned
silly myself. Even if I didn't provide that option on Atlas Quest,
there would STILL be restricted clues. As it is, less than 2% of the
clues listed on Atlas Quest are restricted in any way, so you really
aren't missing much.

-- Ryan

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "funhog1" wrote:
>
> That would be all well and good if the boxes would even show up on my
> searches. Since I don't "qualify" they never appear. I only know of
> the ones in NYC because another boxer told me of them. I have no
other
> way of knowing who to contact to ask for clues.
>
> I heeded the Green Tortuga's message regarding search engines and
> entered my first find on AQ so that I would have a find count of one.
> However, the boxes I know that exclude me and others who don't have
> online logbooks have an F100 requirement...
>

Wow-I didn't even know there were "F100" boxes. I only just started
logging stuff in online-I'm too lazy to go back and log my pre-Atlas
Quest finds. DH suggested doing 10 or so a day (I do have all the
dates found recorded) but...sounds like too much work. *I* know how
many boxes I've found, which is all that matters to me.

I *have* emailed some placers for F1 or F10 clues before I logged any
boxes on Atlas Queat, for example last year before we went to Florida
I found a box at AT that was my oldest daughter's name. It was only
for F10 people though. The placer kindly responded to my email, and
sent me the clues when I explained that I had more than 10 boxes but
no online logs.

Maybe I'll log enough on AT to get the F100 boxes to show up!