Letterboxing USA - Yahoo Groups Archive

F1, F100, etc

5 messages in this thread | Started on 2006-09-04

Re: [LbNA] Re: F1, F100, etc

From: Pamela Smith (smith_pamela@verizon.net) | Date: 2006-09-04 09:28:24 UTC-04:00
I can see using the F1 in order to keep a box out of general googles,
but not really as a restrictive thing. If it's widely known that if
you log one find, you get access, I don't see that as a big deal.
Heck, we could even create a "Log this fake box to get F1 access" box
listing to cover it. That would hopefully keep boxes in sensitive
areas from being googled, but will keep them available to LBers. I'd
guess that fewer vandals would be willing to sign up on the site to
access clues to boxes to mess with than they would be to simply
vandalize a box google handed them the clues to. I'm not sure I'd use
this or if it'll accomplish what it's supposed to, but I don't see it
as anything to be concerned about.

The F100 or F1000 or whatever is a whole different animal. It's a
restriction. Not an elegant one, but a restriction. I don't see
myself using this method, but I guess that it'll fit for some, though
perhaps not for most. I'm not sure I'd bet a dollar that there isn't
already a WOM clue or two that you can only get when you reach a
certain F-count and the planter finds out about it. I won't use it
and won't concern myself with attaining the 'right' number to be
allowed access to something, but as long as the practice isn't
prevalent, I'm not going to worry about it if someone else wants to
restrict their box and miss out on my stamp. :-)

pezpam


On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:31 PM, gwendontoo wrote:

> --- 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.


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


[LbNA] Re: F1, F100, etc

From: gramatrick (dewberrylb@gmail.com) | Date: 2006-09-04 13:57:35 UTC
A couple of things about this discussion. Just my opinions. . .

1. the F1 restriction is no longer automatically in place on AQ to
prevent search engines. You can click the "prevent search engine"
check box, but it no longer puts an automatic F1 restriction on the
letterbox. You do have the option to manually put a F1, F10, F25,
F50, F100, F250, F500 or F1000 on the clue yourself.

2. In some ways, I think it's kind of fun to have clues suddenly
become available. It's like finding a bonus box, a non-LBNA or AQ
website with clues or having a WOM clue suddenly appear in your inbox.

3. If you get to know the boxers in your area, chances are higher
that more clues may come your way.

4. I wish there would be P25, P50, P100 restrictions available on AQ,
because I would use those. In general, I respect a high P count, if
only because of the painful learning curve you have to go through. .
.I do have one box that requires a P25 to get the clue. I use the
honor system, I don't go checking up on people.

5. I love different methods of clue distribution. I think you should
always check for hidden messages, secret webpages and more. Adds to
the cloak-and-dagger fun.

6. The great majority of our clues are available to all, if you can
figure them out. A few have certain restrictions. If I want to plant
a box available only to pink-haired Albanians who tapdance while
wearing rainbow-colored tutus, I assume that's my perogative, but in
doing so I have to know that the number of potential finders is quite low.

Dewberry

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Pamela Smith
wrote:
>
> I can see using the F1 in order to keep a box out of general googles,
> but not really as a restrictive thing. If it's widely known that if
> you log one find, you get access, I don't see that as a big deal.
> Heck, we could even create a "Log this fake box to get F1 access" box
> listing to cover it. That would hopefully keep boxes in sensitive
> areas from being googled, but will keep them available to LBers. I'd
> guess that fewer vandals would be willing to sign up on the site to
> access clues to boxes to mess with than they would be to simply
> vandalize a box google handed them the clues to. I'm not sure I'd use
> this or if it'll accomplish what it's supposed to, but I don't see it
> as anything to be concerned about.
>
> The F100 or F1000 or whatever is a whole different animal. It's a
> restriction. Not an elegant one, but a restriction. I don't see
> myself using this method, but I guess that it'll fit for some, though
> perhaps not for most. I'm not sure I'd bet a dollar that there isn't
> already a WOM clue or two that you can only get when you reach a
> certain F-count and the planter finds out about it. I won't use it
> and won't concern myself with attaining the 'right' number to be
> allowed access to something, but as long as the practice isn't
> prevalent, I'm not going to worry about it if someone else wants to
> restrict their box and miss out on my stamp. :-)
>
> pezpam
>





[LbNA] Re: F1, F100, etc

From: maliabarth (maliabarth@yahoo.com) | Date: 2006-09-04 22:11:41 UTC
With having some boxes with restricted access, do you get boxes
unknowingly placed close to an existing box? As a planter, I
wouldn't hide a box in close proximity of another box if I knew it
was there. However, with the restrictions, there is probably no way
of me knowing where the restricted boxes are. Any input on that
aspect? We just placed 2 boxes, and have plans for 3 more.

Yes, we are new letterboxers, but have a lot of experience with
geocaching which has similar aspects (respect the vegetation,
placement, etc.. etc...). Geocaching does have the cache saturation
guidelines and it also has the reviewers (sometimes a major pain)
that make sure it isn't violating some of the guidelines or is placed
too close to another cache (like a puzzle cache where the coordinates
aren't published). Not trying to stir up a hornet's nest, just
wanting to know how to handle proximity. Yesterday we found 3
letterboxes on the same trail probably within a 150 foot section.
That doesn't bother me, but it might bother some people.

Malia

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "gramatrick"
wrote:
>
> A couple of things about this discussion. Just my opinions. . .
>
> 1. the F1 restriction is no longer automatically in place on AQ to
> prevent search engines. You can click the "prevent search engine"
> check box, but it no longer puts an automatic F1 restriction on the
> letterbox. You do have the option to manually put a F1, F10, F25,
> F50, F100, F250, F500 or F1000 on the clue yourself.
>
> 2. In some ways, I think it's kind of fun to have clues suddenly
> become available. It's like finding a bonus box, a non-LBNA or AQ
> website with clues or having a WOM clue suddenly appear in your
inbox.
>
> 3. If you get to know the boxers in your area, chances are higher
> that more clues may come your way.
>
> 4. I wish there would be P25, P50, P100 restrictions available on
AQ,
> because I would use those. In general, I respect a high P count, if
> only because of the painful learning curve you have to go through. .
> .I do have one box that requires a P25 to get the clue. I use the
> honor system, I don't go checking up on people.
>
> 5. I love different methods of clue distribution. I think you
should
> always check for hidden messages, secret webpages and more. Adds to
> the cloak-and-dagger fun.
>
> 6. The great majority of our clues are available to all, if you can
> figure them out. A few have certain restrictions. If I want to
plant
> a box available only to pink-haired Albanians who tapdance while
> wearing rainbow-colored tutus, I assume that's my perogative, but in
> doing so I have to know that the number of potential finders is
quite low.
>
> Dewberry
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Pamela Smith
> wrote:
> >
> > I can see using the F1 in order to keep a box out of general
googles,
> > but not really as a restrictive thing. If it's widely known that
if
> > you log one find, you get access, I don't see that as a big
deal.
> > Heck, we could even create a "Log this fake box to get F1 access"
box
> > listing to cover it. That would hopefully keep boxes in
sensitive
> > areas from being googled, but will keep them available to LBers.
I'd
> > guess that fewer vandals would be willing to sign up on the site
to
> > access clues to boxes to mess with than they would be to simply
> > vandalize a box google handed them the clues to. I'm not sure I'd
use
> > this or if it'll accomplish what it's supposed to, but I don't
see it
> > as anything to be concerned about.
> >
> > The F100 or F1000 or whatever is a whole different animal. It's
a
> > restriction. Not an elegant one, but a restriction. I don't see
> > myself using this method, but I guess that it'll fit for some,
though
> > perhaps not for most. I'm not sure I'd bet a dollar that there
isn't
> > already a WOM clue or two that you can only get when you reach a
> > certain F-count and the planter finds out about it. I won't use
it
> > and won't concern myself with attaining the 'right' number to be
> > allowed access to something, but as long as the practice isn't
> > prevalent, I'm not going to worry about it if someone else wants
to
> > restrict their box and miss out on my stamp. :-)
> >
> > pezpam
> >
>





Re: [LbNA] Re: F1, F100, etc

From: R (ontario_cacher@yahoo.ca) | Date: 2006-09-04 20:20:05 UTC-04:00
Interesting question. I've read about geocaches that are planted too close or on top of a letterbox but I don't recall reading anything in the forums about letterboxes that are too close to other letterboxes.

As you said there are restricted types of letterboxes: WOM, f-count, bonus boxes. By their nature, you wouldn't know where they are if you don't have the clues.

Lone R

maliabarth wrote: With having some boxes with restricted access, do you get boxes
unknowingly placed close to an existing box? As a planter, I
wouldn't hide a box in close proximity of another box if I knew it
was there. However, with the restrictions, there is probably no way
of me knowing where the restricted boxes are. Any input on that
aspect? We just placed 2 boxes, and have plans for 3 more.

Yes, we are new letterboxers, but have a lot of experience with
geocaching which has similar aspects (respect the vegetation,
placement, etc.. etc...). Geocaching does have the cache saturation
guidelines and it also has the reviewers (sometimes a major pain)
that make sure it isn't violating some of the guidelines or is placed
too close to another cache (like a puzzle cache where the coordinates
aren't published). Not trying to stir up a hornet's nest, just
wanting to know how to handle proximity. Yesterday we found 3
letterboxes on the same trail probably within a 150 foot section.
That doesn't bother me, but it might bother some people.

Malia

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "gramatrick"
wrote:
>
> A couple of things about this discussion. Just my opinions. . .
>
> 1. the F1 restriction is no longer automatically in place on AQ to
> prevent search engines. You can click the "prevent search engine"
> check box, but it no longer puts an automatic F1 restriction on the
> letterbox. You do have the option to manually put a F1, F10, F25,
> F50, F100, F250, F500 or F1000 on the clue yourself.
>
> 2. In some ways, I think it's kind of fun to have clues suddenly
> become available. It's like finding a bonus box, a non-LBNA or AQ
> website with clues or having a WOM clue suddenly appear in your
inbox.
>
> 3. If you get to know the boxers in your area, chances are higher
> that more clues may come your way.
>
> 4. I wish there would be P25, P50, P100 restrictions available on
AQ,
> because I would use those. In general, I respect a high P count, if
> only because of the painful learning curve you have to go through. .
> .I do have one box that requires a P25 to get the clue. I use the
> honor system, I don't go checking up on people.
>
> 5. I love different methods of clue distribution. I think you
should
> always check for hidden messages, secret webpages and more. Adds to
> the cloak-and-dagger fun.
>
> 6. The great majority of our clues are available to all, if you can
> figure them out. A few have certain restrictions. If I want to
plant
> a box available only to pink-haired Albanians who tapdance while
> wearing rainbow-colored tutus, I assume that's my perogative, but in
> doing so I have to know that the number of potential finders is
quite low.
>
> Dewberry
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Pamela Smith
> wrote:
> >
> > I can see using the F1 in order to keep a box out of general
googles,
> > but not really as a restrictive thing. If it's widely known that
if
> > you log one find, you get access, I don't see that as a big
deal.
> > Heck, we could even create a "Log this fake box to get F1 access"
box
> > listing to cover it. That would hopefully keep boxes in
sensitive
> > areas from being googled, but will keep them available to LBers.
I'd
> > guess that fewer vandals would be willing to sign up on the site
to
> > access clues to boxes to mess with than they would be to simply
> > vandalize a box google handed them the clues to. I'm not sure I'd
use
> > this or if it'll accomplish what it's supposed to, but I don't
see it
> > as anything to be concerned about.
> >
> > The F100 or F1000 or whatever is a whole different animal. It's
a
> > restriction. Not an elegant one, but a restriction. I don't see
> > myself using this method, but I guess that it'll fit for some,
though
> > perhaps not for most. I'm not sure I'd bet a dollar that there
isn't
> > already a WOM clue or two that you can only get when you reach a
> > certain F-count and the planter finds out about it. I won't use
it
> > and won't concern myself with attaining the 'right' number to be
> > allowed access to something, but as long as the practice isn't
> > prevalent, I'm not going to worry about it if someone else wants
to
> > restrict their box and miss out on my stamp. :-)
> >
> > pezpam
> >
>






---------------------------------
Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger with Voice

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


Re: [LbNA] Re: F1, F100, etc

From: Barefoot Lucy (barefootlucy@gmail.com) | Date: 2006-09-04 22:02:29 UTC-05:00
Actually, that exact thing happened to me a few months ago. At our annual
gathering, which was in my area, I had planted a box but had not posted it
right away - laziness and unwinding from the gathering. A new boxer came
along and planted a box within feet - literally - of the one I planted. So
yes, it can and does happen. Because I was slow in listing my clues
AND because I didn't want to get stinky and wind up discouraging a newbie, I
rehid the box (actually went to rehide it, but it was gone, although it was
later rediscovered by the planter of the other box, who I had warned about
the situation so they would know what the deal was if the box did
resurface). It would get a little stickier if it were a bona fide WOM and I
had distributed clues!
--
Barefoot Lucy
"It's not about footwear, it's about philosophy"


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