Here's a thought - how about a running list of "bad letterboxers"
somewhere on file? I went to check on my series of 8 boxes (two of
which have recently gone missing) this morning, and found yet
another one missing that had been reported found over the weekend.
I only had time before work to check on one other, and it was not
hidden properly. So I'm pretty sure I know who is to blame.
I'm planning to contact the placers (via AQ) of the other boxes whom
this person has visited recently (a noob visiting from the Chicago
area - only a few finds to his/her credit) to warn them to check on
their plants, unless they are listed as having been found after the
noob's visit.
Anyone have an opinion on this? I've already taken the "kid-
friendly" icon off, and the "drive-by" one, and plan to re-write the
clues to make them a little harder. But seriously - planters get to
know who is causing problems with their boxes; shouldn't we be able
to share this info, so if we get a "I found your boxes" email we can
say "uh-oh, better check on those".
rozebud
P.S. I know, I know - I'm just irked. The one that disappeared
most recently was my favorite! Plus, I'd rather work on my new
series than on re-doing this one...
Bad boxer repository?
40 messages in this thread |
Started on 2006-10-31
Bad boxer repository?
From: rozebud.rm (rozebud@rocketmail.com) |
Date: 2006-10-31 22:51:04 UTC
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: baliddle (baliddle@sbcglobal.net) |
Date: 2006-10-31 18:14:06 UTC-05:00
At 05:51 PM 10/31/2006, you wrote:
>I'm planning to contact the placers (via AQ) of the other boxes whom
>this person has visited recently (a noob visiting from the Chicago
>area - only a few finds to his/her credit) to warn them to check on
>their plants, unless they are listed as having been found after the
>noob's visit.
It may not be a bad idea if you are SURE that someone did something
bad. I'm just concerned that people will get blamed for somethings
that weren't they're fault.
How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
Beth
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>I'm planning to contact the placers (via AQ) of the other boxes whom
>this person has visited recently (a noob visiting from the Chicago
>area - only a few finds to his/her credit) to warn them to check on
>their plants, unless they are listed as having been found after the
>noob's visit.
It may not be a bad idea if you are SURE that someone did something
bad. I'm just concerned that people will get blamed for somethings
that weren't they're fault.
How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
Beth
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: Roze (rozebud@rocketmail.com) |
Date: 2006-10-31 15:56:24 UTC-08:00
On AtlasQuest, you can click the little logbook icon to look at a
person's AQ log. I'm not sure if there is an option like that on
letterboxing.org.
The "offending party" I wrote about has a few finds logged where they
are listed as the last finder, and then the box was reported missing.
Yeah, I know - it's circumstantial at best. But our logs and people
recording finds/reporting problems on AQ and LB.org is all we have to
go on.
rozebud
--- baliddle wrote:
> How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
>
> Beth
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
____________________________________________________________________________________
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
person's AQ log. I'm not sure if there is an option like that on
letterboxing.org.
The "offending party" I wrote about has a few finds logged where they
are listed as the last finder, and then the box was reported missing.
Yeah, I know - it's circumstantial at best. But our logs and people
recording finds/reporting problems on AQ and LB.org is all we have to
go on.
rozebud
--- baliddle
> How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
>
> Beth
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
____________________________________________________________________________________
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
RE: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: Tammy Burge (tammy_1967@charter.net) |
Date: 2006-10-31 19:40:21 UTC-05:00
I don't know if you can depend on the "last found" on the sites because I
know some who never mark their finds. I also know some who never contact
the placer. The last reported find may not be the last find. Recently we
went back to our first find to place a hitchhiker and found it really messed
up. It was definitely not as we had placed it when we found it. It was our
first find but we had researched for a few months before starting so we knew
the unwritten rules of the game. We were probably as heartbroken as the
placer since this had been our first find back when we started. We couldn't
tell who had stamped in after us because the pages after ours just had
smudged colors on it like stamps that had started washing away. Recently we
also found out that a family had found it but didn't have stamps so they
didn't stamp in. I don't know if that was before or after us. My point is
unless you check on the box the same day or maybe the next day there is no
way to know absolutely certain who was there last.
Tammy
RHM
-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of rozebud.rm
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 5:51 PM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
Here's a thought - how about a running list of "bad letterboxers"
somewhere on file? I went to check on my series of 8 boxes (two of which
have recently gone missing) this morning, and found yet another one missing
that had been reported found over the weekend.
I only had time before work to check on one other, and it was not hidden
properly. So I'm pretty sure I know who is to blame.
I'm planning to contact the placers (via AQ) of the other boxes whom this
person has visited recently (a noob visiting from the Chicago area - only a
few finds to his/her credit) to warn them to check on their plants, unless
they are listed as having been found after the noob's visit.
Anyone have an opinion on this? I've already taken the "kid- friendly" icon
off, and the "drive-by" one, and plan to re-write the clues to make them a
little harder. But seriously - planters get to know who is causing problems
with their boxes; shouldn't we be able to share this info, so if we get a "I
found your boxes" email we can say "uh-oh, better check on those".
rozebud
P.S. I know, I know - I'm just irked. The one that disappeared most
recently was my favorite! Plus, I'd rather work on my new series than on
re-doing this one...
Yahoo! Groups Links
know some who never mark their finds. I also know some who never contact
the placer. The last reported find may not be the last find. Recently we
went back to our first find to place a hitchhiker and found it really messed
up. It was definitely not as we had placed it when we found it. It was our
first find but we had researched for a few months before starting so we knew
the unwritten rules of the game. We were probably as heartbroken as the
placer since this had been our first find back when we started. We couldn't
tell who had stamped in after us because the pages after ours just had
smudged colors on it like stamps that had started washing away. Recently we
also found out that a family had found it but didn't have stamps so they
didn't stamp in. I don't know if that was before or after us. My point is
unless you check on the box the same day or maybe the next day there is no
way to know absolutely certain who was there last.
Tammy
RHM
-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of rozebud.rm
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 5:51 PM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
Here's a thought - how about a running list of "bad letterboxers"
somewhere on file? I went to check on my series of 8 boxes (two of which
have recently gone missing) this morning, and found yet another one missing
that had been reported found over the weekend.
I only had time before work to check on one other, and it was not hidden
properly. So I'm pretty sure I know who is to blame.
I'm planning to contact the placers (via AQ) of the other boxes whom this
person has visited recently (a noob visiting from the Chicago area - only a
few finds to his/her credit) to warn them to check on their plants, unless
they are listed as having been found after the noob's visit.
Anyone have an opinion on this? I've already taken the "kid- friendly" icon
off, and the "drive-by" one, and plan to re-write the clues to make them a
little harder. But seriously - planters get to know who is causing problems
with their boxes; shouldn't we be able to share this info, so if we get a "I
found your boxes" email we can say "uh-oh, better check on those".
rozebud
P.S. I know, I know - I'm just irked. The one that disappeared most
recently was my favorite! Plus, I'd rather work on my new series than on
re-doing this one...
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: John Chapman (john@johnsblog.com) |
Date: 2006-10-31 19:46:54 UTC-05:00
LbNA doesn't have a way for you to inspect a member recorded finds and we don't expect to add one. The main purpose of the ability for member to mark finds is to allow them to highlight or remove them from clue lists.
Choi
one of the LbNA webmasters
----- Original Message -----
From: Roze
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 18:56
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
On AtlasQuest, you can click the little logbook icon to look at a
person's AQ log. I'm not sure if there is an option like that on
letterboxing.org.
The "offending party" I wrote about has a few finds logged where they
are listed as the last finder, and then the box was reported missing.
Yeah, I know - it's circumstantial at best. But our logs and people
recording finds/reporting problems on AQ and LB.org is all we have to
go on.
rozebud
--- baliddle wrote:
> How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
>
> Beth
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________________
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Choi
one of the LbNA webmasters
----- Original Message -----
From: Roze
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 18:56
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
On AtlasQuest, you can click the little logbook icon to look at a
person's AQ log. I'm not sure if there is an option like that on
letterboxing.org.
The "offending party" I wrote about has a few finds logged where they
are listed as the last finder, and then the box was reported missing.
Yeah, I know - it's circumstantial at best. But our logs and people
recording finds/reporting problems on AQ and LB.org is all we have to
go on.
rozebud
--- baliddle
> How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
>
> Beth
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________________
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: Kathy N. (kathy.norris@gmail.com) |
Date: 2006-10-31 20:21:20 UTC-08:00
if you're using atlasquest and you don't want new boxers finding your boxes
you can up the number of finds they must have before they can look at your
clues - or only spread your clues by word of mouth to boxers you feel are
experienced enough. Otherwise, a list of bad boxers seems to me, at
best, an impractical idea and at worst, a hurtful idea.
Kathy
Team Tysonosaurus
On 10/31/06, Roze wrote:
>
> On AtlasQuest, you can click the little logbook icon to look at a
> person's AQ log. I'm not sure if there is an option like that on
> letterboxing.org.
>
> The "offending party" I wrote about has a few finds logged where they
> are listed as the last finder, and then the box was reported missing.
>
> Yeah, I know - it's circumstantial at best. But our logs and people
> recording finds/reporting problems on AQ and LB.org is all we have to
> go on.
>
> rozebud
>
> --- baliddle> wrote:
> > How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
> >
> > Beth
>
> "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But
> I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call
> rates
> (http://voice.yahoo.com)
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
you can up the number of finds they must have before they can look at your
clues - or only spread your clues by word of mouth to boxers you feel are
experienced enough. Otherwise, a list of bad boxers seems to me, at
best, an impractical idea and at worst, a hurtful idea.
Kathy
Team Tysonosaurus
On 10/31/06, Roze
>
> On AtlasQuest, you can click the little logbook icon to look at a
> person's AQ log. I'm not sure if there is an option like that on
> letterboxing.org.
>
> The "offending party" I wrote about has a few finds logged where they
> are listed as the last finder, and then the box was reported missing.
>
> Yeah, I know - it's circumstantial at best. But our logs and people
> recording finds/reporting problems on AQ and LB.org is all we have to
> go on.
>
> rozebud
>
> --- baliddle
> > How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
> >
> > Beth
>
> "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But
> I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call
> rates
> (http://voice.yahoo.com)
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: david baril (gingerbreadjunk@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2006-10-31 20:25:26 UTC-08:00
if i could just throw in a few cents. as i continue to box, i do tend to not log in my finds on either AQ or LBNA becasue it does take some time. the only time i do anything is to let the placer know if there is something wrong with the box. this could be a small nitch that keeps some from finding out who a possible bad boxer is.
lets not forget about chip and dale. they may look cute, but they're as much to blame.
david (team new hampshire)
http://teamnewhampshire.blogspot.com
Roze wrote:
On AtlasQuest, you can click the little logbook icon to look at a
person's AQ log. I'm not sure if there is an option like that on
letterboxing.org.
The "offending party" I wrote about has a few finds logged where they
are listed as the last finder, and then the box was reported missing.
Yeah, I know - it's circumstantial at best. But our logs and people
recording finds/reporting problems on AQ and LB.org is all we have to
go on.
rozebud
--- baliddle wrote:
> How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
>
> Beth
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________________
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
---------------------------------
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new Yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
lets not forget about chip and dale. they may look cute, but they're as much to blame.
david (team new hampshire)
http://teamnewhampshire.blogspot.com
Roze
On AtlasQuest, you can click the little logbook icon to look at a
person's AQ log. I'm not sure if there is an option like that on
letterboxing.org.
The "offending party" I wrote about has a few finds logged where they
are listed as the last finder, and then the box was reported missing.
Yeah, I know - it's circumstantial at best. But our logs and people
recording finds/reporting problems on AQ and LB.org is all we have to
go on.
rozebud
--- baliddle
> How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
>
> Beth
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________________
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
---------------------------------
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new Yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: david baril (gingerbreadjunk@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2006-10-31 20:47:09 UTC-08:00
wait, you can do that? ummmm, i dont think that is fair for those who dont post their finds like myself. i do concider myself a good boxer.
hiding in the corner now.
david (team new hampshire)
http://teamnewhampshire.blogspot.com
"Kathy N." wrote:
if you're using atlasquest and you don't want new boxers finding your boxes
you can up the number of finds they must have before they can look at your
clues - or only spread your clues by word of mouth to boxers you feel are
experienced enough. Otherwise, a list of bad boxers seems to me, at
best, an impractical idea and at worst, a hurtful idea.
Kathy
Team Tysonosaurus
On 10/31/06, Roze wrote:
>
> On AtlasQuest, you can click the little logbook icon to look at a
> person's AQ log. I'm not sure if there is an option like that on
> letterboxing.org.
>
> The "offending party" I wrote about has a few finds logged where they
> are listed as the last finder, and then the box was reported missing.
>
> Yeah, I know - it's circumstantial at best. But our logs and people
> recording finds/reporting problems on AQ and LB.org is all we have to
> go on.
>
> rozebud
>
> --- baliddle> wrote:
> > How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
> >
> > Beth
>
> "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But
> I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call
> rates
> (http://voice.yahoo.com)
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
hiding in the corner now.
david (team new hampshire)
http://teamnewhampshire.blogspot.com
"Kathy N."
if you're using atlasquest and you don't want new boxers finding your boxes
you can up the number of finds they must have before they can look at your
clues - or only spread your clues by word of mouth to boxers you feel are
experienced enough. Otherwise, a list of bad boxers seems to me, at
best, an impractical idea and at worst, a hurtful idea.
Kathy
Team Tysonosaurus
On 10/31/06, Roze
>
> On AtlasQuest, you can click the little logbook icon to look at a
> person's AQ log. I'm not sure if there is an option like that on
> letterboxing.org.
>
> The "offending party" I wrote about has a few finds logged where they
> are listed as the last finder, and then the box was reported missing.
>
> Yeah, I know - it's circumstantial at best. But our logs and people
> recording finds/reporting problems on AQ and LB.org is all we have to
> go on.
>
> rozebud
>
> --- baliddle
> > How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
> >
> > Beth
>
> "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But
> I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call
> rates
> (http://voice.yahoo.com)
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: Pungent Bob (PungentBob@HotPOP.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 05:09:38 UTC
I wish you would reconsider this practice. Dropping a thank you note
to a planter takes much less time than the planter took to create the
letterbox that you presumably got some enjoyment out of finding.
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, david baril
wrote:
>the only time i do anything is to let the placer know if there is
something wrong with the box.
to a planter takes much less time than the planter took to create the
letterbox that you presumably got some enjoyment out of finding.
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, david baril
>the only time i do anything is to let the placer know if there is
something wrong with the box.
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: david baril (gingerbreadjunk@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2006-10-31 21:19:53 UTC-08:00
with the busy life i now seem to lead, somwhere i barely find time to letterbox. what you ask me to concider is worth thinking about. i mean, some post to me about finding my boxes. i guess it would only be fair to return the favor. i meant no harm. to my credit, the last series of boxes we searched for, did come with a messgae to the placers.
waving the white flag
david (team new hampshire)
http://teamnewhampshire.blogspot.com
Pungent Bob wrote:
I wish you would reconsider this practice. Dropping a thank you note
to a planter takes much less time than the planter took to create the
letterbox that you presumably got some enjoyment out of finding.
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, david baril
wrote:
>the only time i do anything is to let the placer know if there is
something wrong with the box.
---------------------------------
Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
waving the white flag
david (team new hampshire)
http://teamnewhampshire.blogspot.com
Pungent Bob
I wish you would reconsider this practice. Dropping a thank you note
to a planter takes much less time than the planter took to create the
letterbox that you presumably got some enjoyment out of finding.
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, david baril
>the only time i do anything is to let the placer know if there is
something wrong with the box.
---------------------------------
Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: Hikers & Hounds (hikers_n_hounds@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 04:54:21 UTC-08:00
Tammy makes an excellent point here. Many boxers don't log their finds on AQ, or are even members of the National or regional talk lists. I see so many stamps in my boxes from boxers that aren't found online anywhere.
Yes, there are knuckleheads out there and I get as pissed off as the next person when a box goes missing, but we use word of mouth in my area, and only if we are absolutely sure about it. I read someones post yesterday that they had just replaced a box or stamp for the 3rd time or something like that and if it goes missing again they were going to pull it and find another spot. I think that's probably the lesson to be learned there. It took me awhile to admit I had planted a box too close to a geocache and simply had to move it as I was tired of the problems.
Tammy Burge wrote:
I don't know if you can depend on the "last found" on the sites because I
know some who never mark their finds. I also know some who never contact
the placer. The last reported find may not be the last find.
Recent Activity
13
New Members
Visit Your Group
Y! GeoCities
Share Interests
Connect with
others on the web.
Your Story
Opened in the 2020
The Yahoo! Time
Capsule Project
Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.
.
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yes, there are knuckleheads out there and I get as pissed off as the next person when a box goes missing, but we use word of mouth in my area, and only if we are absolutely sure about it. I read someones post yesterday that they had just replaced a box or stamp for the 3rd time or something like that and if it goes missing again they were going to pull it and find another spot. I think that's probably the lesson to be learned there. It took me awhile to admit I had planted a box too close to a geocache and simply had to move it as I was tired of the problems.
Tammy Burge
I don't know if you can depend on the "last found" on the sites because I
know some who never mark their finds. I also know some who never contact
the placer. The last reported find may not be the last find.
Recent Activity
13
New Members
Visit Your Group
Y! GeoCities
Share Interests
Connect with
others on the web.
Your Story
Opened in the 2020
The Yahoo! Time
Capsule Project
Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.
.
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: Kathy N. (kathy.norris@gmail.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 05:14:25 UTC-08:00
To clarify, I'm not necessarily encouraging this, but think it's a better
alternative to a bad boxer list. And, if you use AQ clues, how hard is it
to log your finds when you go back to get more clues?
On 10/31/06, david baril wrote:
>
> wait, you can do that? ummmm, i dont think that is fair for those who
> dont post their finds like myself. i do concider myself a good boxer.
>
> hiding in the corner now.
> david (team new hampshire)
> http://teamnewhampshire.blogspot.com
>
>
> "Kathy N."> wrote:
> if you're using atlasquest and you don't want new boxers finding your
> boxes
> you can up the number of finds they must have before they can look at your
> clues - or only spread your clues by word of mouth to boxers you feel are
> experienced enough. Otherwise, a list of bad boxers seems to me, at
> best, an impractical idea and at worst, a hurtful idea.
>
> Kathy
> Team Tysonosaurus
>
> On 10/31/06, Roze>
> wrote:
> >
> > On AtlasQuest, you can click the little logbook icon to look at a
> > person's AQ log. I'm not sure if there is an option like that on
> > letterboxing.org.
> >
> > The "offending party" I wrote about has a few finds logged where they
> > are listed as the last finder, and then the box was reported missing.
> >
> > Yeah, I know - it's circumstantial at best. But our logs and people
> > recording finds/reporting problems on AQ and LB.org is all we have to
> > go on.
> >
> > rozebud
> >
> > --- baliddle
> al.net>> wrote:
> > > How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
> > >
> > > Beth
> >
> > "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress.
> But
> > I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call
> > rates
> > (http://voice.yahoo.com)
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ---------------------------------
> We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo!
> Groups.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
alternative to a bad boxer list. And, if you use AQ clues, how hard is it
to log your finds when you go back to get more clues?
On 10/31/06, david baril
>
> wait, you can do that? ummmm, i dont think that is fair for those who
> dont post their finds like myself. i do concider myself a good boxer.
>
> hiding in the corner now.
> david (team new hampshire)
> http://teamnewhampshire.blogspot.com
>
>
> "Kathy N."
> if you're using atlasquest and you don't want new boxers finding your
> boxes
> you can up the number of finds they must have before they can look at your
> clues - or only spread your clues by word of mouth to boxers you feel are
> experienced enough. Otherwise, a list of bad boxers seems to me, at
> best, an impractical idea and at worst, a hurtful idea.
>
> Kathy
> Team Tysonosaurus
>
> On 10/31/06, Roze
> wrote:
> >
> > On AtlasQuest, you can click the little logbook icon to look at a
> > person's AQ log. I'm not sure if there is an option like that on
> > letterboxing.org.
> >
> > The "offending party" I wrote about has a few finds logged where they
> > are listed as the last finder, and then the box was reported missing.
> >
> > Yeah, I know - it's circumstantial at best. But our logs and people
> > recording finds/reporting problems on AQ and LB.org is all we have to
> > go on.
> >
> > rozebud
> >
> > --- baliddle
> > > How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
> > >
> > > Beth
> >
> > "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress.
> But
> > I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call
> > rates
> > (http://voice.yahoo.com)
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ---------------------------------
> We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo!
> Groups.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: xxxxxxxx (BrighidFarm@comcast.net) |
Date: 2006-11-01 07:28:30 UTC-06:00
For me, it sort of depends on the box placer.
When I first started finding boxes, I *always* contacted the placer
afterwards to let them know I'd enjoyed finding their box, I always found
positive things to say about the search and the find. (I've never yet
contacted a placer asking for additional clues or anything.)
But after I began placing boxes, I noticed that many of the people finding
my boxes were the same people who I had contacted in the past about *their*
boxes. Had they contacted me at all after finding my boxes?
Nooooooooooooooooo. Only maybe one or two.
So now I'm a little more selective about how I spend my time. If it's a new
placer whose box I find, I contact them, in hopes that it will encourage
them in boxing and encourage them to contact placers themselves for boxes
they've found (if they're not already doing so). For more seasoned placers
out there, if they've never contacted me, then I contact them *if* I have
spare time on my hands that day. Otherwise, I frankly don't see why I
should feel obligated if they don't feel obligated. Why isn't my time as
valuable as theirs? That's the way I see it.
~~ Mosey ~~
http://freewebs.com/moseyingalong
-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Pungent Bob
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 11:10 PM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
I wish you would reconsider this practice. Dropping a thank you note
to a planter takes much less time than the planter took to create the
letterbox that you presumably got some enjoyment out of finding.
When I first started finding boxes, I *always* contacted the placer
afterwards to let them know I'd enjoyed finding their box, I always found
positive things to say about the search and the find. (I've never yet
contacted a placer asking for additional clues or anything.)
But after I began placing boxes, I noticed that many of the people finding
my boxes were the same people who I had contacted in the past about *their*
boxes. Had they contacted me at all after finding my boxes?
Nooooooooooooooooo. Only maybe one or two.
So now I'm a little more selective about how I spend my time. If it's a new
placer whose box I find, I contact them, in hopes that it will encourage
them in boxing and encourage them to contact placers themselves for boxes
they've found (if they're not already doing so). For more seasoned placers
out there, if they've never contacted me, then I contact them *if* I have
spare time on my hands that day. Otherwise, I frankly don't see why I
should feel obligated if they don't feel obligated. Why isn't my time as
valuable as theirs? That's the way I see it.
~~ Mosey ~~
http://freewebs.com/moseyingalong
-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Pungent Bob
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 11:10 PM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
I wish you would reconsider this practice. Dropping a thank you note
to a planter takes much less time than the planter took to create the
letterbox that you presumably got some enjoyment out of finding.
RE: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: xxxxxxxx (BrighidFarm@comcast.net) |
Date: 2006-11-01 08:14:12 UTC-06:00
For me, any amount of time spent "logging finds" online is too much time.
:-) Plus, I just don't believe in the whole idea of logging finds. On the
other hand, if placers want to use that type of method for selectivity,
that's their choice. Those are just boxes I won't be finding then. Really
not a big deal.
I've actually had placers get upset with me for *not* logging finds into
LbNA. I've had requests from placers after I contact them to tell them
that I found the box and if it was in good condition or not, and quite a few
of them will email me back and ask me to please remember to go log in my
find. And I email back saying thanks, but no, I'm really not interested in
doing that stuff. Some placers have absolutely no problem accepting that,
other placers actually get upset with the fact that I won't do it for them.
I'm not quite sure I understand. Is there some sort of "contest" going on
as to what placer can get the most finders for their boxes or something?
:-) If a placer wants to merely have the date available for other boxers to
see the last date a box was found, all they need to do is put a note as to
last date found at the very top of their clues and keep it updated. If a
finder contacts me or if I go out to check a box, I just write something
like: "This box was last found to be alive and well on such-&-such a date."
Or if there's been no first-finder yet that I know of, I'll say at the
beginning of the clues and give the date. Seems easy enough to me.
~~ Mosey ~~
-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Kathy N.
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:14 AM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
To clarify, I'm not necessarily encouraging this, but think it's a better
alternative to a bad boxer list. And, if you use AQ clues, how hard is it
to log your finds when you go back to get more clues?
:-) Plus, I just don't believe in the whole idea of logging finds. On the
other hand, if placers want to use that type of method for selectivity,
that's their choice. Those are just boxes I won't be finding then. Really
not a big deal.
I've actually had placers get upset with me for *not* logging finds into
LbNA. I've had requests from placers after I contact them to tell them
that I found the box and if it was in good condition or not, and quite a few
of them will email me back and ask me to please remember to go log in my
find. And I email back saying thanks, but no, I'm really not interested in
doing that stuff. Some placers have absolutely no problem accepting that,
other placers actually get upset with the fact that I won't do it for them.
I'm not quite sure I understand. Is there some sort of "contest" going on
as to what placer can get the most finders for their boxes or something?
:-) If a placer wants to merely have the date available for other boxers to
see the last date a box was found, all they need to do is put a note as to
last date found at the very top of their clues and keep it updated. If a
finder contacts me or if I go out to check a box, I just write something
like: "This box was last found to be alive and well on such-&-such a date."
Or if there's been no first-finder yet that I know of, I'll say at the
beginning of the clues and give the date. Seems easy enough to me.
~~ Mosey ~~
-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Kathy N.
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:14 AM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
To clarify, I'm not necessarily encouraging this, but think it's a better
alternative to a bad boxer list. And, if you use AQ clues, how hard is it
to log your finds when you go back to get more clues?
Re: Bad boxer repository?
From: trekkiegal1701d (kjnohr@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 15:14:31 UTC
It takes you longer to write back to them telling them you are not
going to log in your find than it would to actually log in your
find. And as a placer, I appreciate it when people log in their
finds. And as a finder, I log them in so that I have an accurate
list of the boxes I have found. That way, in a couple of years, I
don't have to try to remember "did I find that one?" I can just go
look at my list and there it is.
TG
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "xxxxxxxx"
wrote:
>
> For me, any amount of time spent "logging finds" online is too much
time.
> :-) Plus, I just don't believe in the whole idea of logging
finds. On the
> other hand, if placers want to use that type of method for
selectivity,
> that's their choice. Those are just boxes I won't be finding
then. Really
> not a big deal.
>
> I've actually had placers get upset with me for *not* logging finds
into
> LbNA. I've had requests from placers after I contact them to tell
them
> that I found the box and if it was in good condition or not, and
quite a few
> of them will email me back and ask me to please remember to go log
in my
> find. And I email back saying thanks, but no, I'm really not
interested in
> doing that stuff. Some placers have absolutely no problem
accepting that,
> other placers actually get upset with the fact that I won't do it
for them.
>
> I'm not quite sure I understand. Is there some sort of "contest"
going on
> as to what placer can get the most finders for their boxes or
something?
> :-) If a placer wants to merely have the date available for other
boxers to
> see the last date a box was found, all they need to do is put a
note as to
> last date found at the very top of their clues and keep it
updated. If a
> finder contacts me or if I go out to check a box, I just write
something
> like: "This box was last found to be alive and well on such-&-such
a date."
> Or if there's been no first-finder yet that I know of, I'll say at
the
> beginning of the clues and give the date. Seems easy enough to me.
>
> ~~ Mosey ~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Kathy N.
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:14 AM
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
>
>
> To clarify, I'm not necessarily encouraging this, but think it's a
better
> alternative to a bad boxer list. And, if you use AQ clues, how
hard is it
> to log your finds when you go back to get more clues?
>
going to log in your find than it would to actually log in your
find. And as a placer, I appreciate it when people log in their
finds. And as a finder, I log them in so that I have an accurate
list of the boxes I have found. That way, in a couple of years, I
don't have to try to remember "did I find that one?" I can just go
look at my list and there it is.
TG
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "xxxxxxxx"
wrote:
>
> For me, any amount of time spent "logging finds" online is too much
time.
> :-) Plus, I just don't believe in the whole idea of logging
finds. On the
> other hand, if placers want to use that type of method for
selectivity,
> that's their choice. Those are just boxes I won't be finding
then. Really
> not a big deal.
>
> I've actually had placers get upset with me for *not* logging finds
into
> LbNA. I've had requests from placers after I contact them to tell
them
> that I found the box and if it was in good condition or not, and
quite a few
> of them will email me back and ask me to please remember to go log
in my
> find. And I email back saying thanks, but no, I'm really not
interested in
> doing that stuff. Some placers have absolutely no problem
accepting that,
> other placers actually get upset with the fact that I won't do it
for them.
>
> I'm not quite sure I understand. Is there some sort of "contest"
going on
> as to what placer can get the most finders for their boxes or
something?
> :-) If a placer wants to merely have the date available for other
boxers to
> see the last date a box was found, all they need to do is put a
note as to
> last date found at the very top of their clues and keep it
updated. If a
> finder contacts me or if I go out to check a box, I just write
something
> like: "This box was last found to be alive and well on such-&-such
a date."
> Or if there's been no first-finder yet that I know of, I'll say at
the
> beginning of the clues and give the date. Seems easy enough to me.
>
> ~~ Mosey ~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Kathy N.
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:14 AM
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
>
>
> To clarify, I'm not necessarily encouraging this, but think it's a
better
> alternative to a bad boxer list. And, if you use AQ clues, how
hard is it
> to log your finds when you go back to get more clues?
>
RE: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: (diana@kjsl.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 10:25:00 UTC-05:00
>
> I'm not quite sure I understand. Is there some sort of "contest" going on
> as to what placer can get the most finders for their boxes or something?
> :-) If a placer wants to merely have the date available for other boxers
> to
> see the last date a box was found, all they need to do is put a note as to
> last date found at the very top of their clues and keep it updated. If a
> finder contacts me or if I go out to check a box, I just write something
> like: "This box was last found to be alive and well on such-&-such a
> date."
> Or if there's been no first-finder yet that I know of, I'll say at the
> beginning of the clues and give the date. Seems easy enough to me.
>
> ~~ Mosey ~~
>
Some people, when looking for clues use the evidence that the box is still
active. If you are searching for a box, and no one has logged it for a
year, then some people take it as evidence that it may not be there. And
then won't go look for it. I am not saying it's a correct assumption, butI
am glad when people log, even though I appreciate a note more. And
honestly, unless you find 10 boxes a day, it really takes no time at all
to do it.
Dale End Farm
> I'm not quite sure I understand. Is there some sort of "contest" going on
> as to what placer can get the most finders for their boxes or something?
> :-) If a placer wants to merely have the date available for other boxers
> to
> see the last date a box was found, all they need to do is put a note as to
> last date found at the very top of their clues and keep it updated. If a
> finder contacts me or if I go out to check a box, I just write something
> like: "This box was last found to be alive and well on such-&-such a
> date."
> Or if there's been no first-finder yet that I know of, I'll say at the
> beginning of the clues and give the date. Seems easy enough to me.
>
> ~~ Mosey ~~
>
Some people, when looking for clues use the evidence that the box is still
active. If you are searching for a box, and no one has logged it for a
year, then some people take it as evidence that it may not be there. And
then won't go look for it. I am not saying it's a correct assumption, butI
am glad when people log, even though I appreciate a note more. And
honestly, unless you find 10 boxes a day, it really takes no time at all
to do it.
Dale End Farm
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: EllBee (leronis@att.net) |
Date: 2006-11-01 10:42:58 UTC-05:00
If I get notification that someone has found one of my boxes, and they
don't log it - happens sometimes - I can, and usually do, go in and mark
it 'OK' as of that date. Much easier and less stressful than trying to
get people who prefer not to log finds to do so.
Everyone who takes part in this hobby has the right to play it any way
they want to. I prefer to have the record of finds or attempts available
so boxers can decide if they want to try for the box. Others prefer to
not even have that feature activiated. I like to send a note along with
logging the box. Others never log the box or contact the placers. It's
all good.
EllBee
diana@kjsl.com wrote:
>
> Some people, when looking for clues use the evidence that the box is still
> active. If you are searching for a box, and no one has logged it for a
> year, then some people take it as evidence that it may not be there. And
> then won't go look for it. I am not saying it's a correct assumption, butI
> am glad when people log, even though I appreciate a note more. And
> honestly, unless you find 10 boxes a day, it really takes no time at all
> to do it.
>
> Dale End Farm
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
don't log it - happens sometimes - I can, and usually do, go in and mark
it 'OK' as of that date. Much easier and less stressful than trying to
get people who prefer not to log finds to do so.
Everyone who takes part in this hobby has the right to play it any way
they want to. I prefer to have the record of finds or attempts available
so boxers can decide if they want to try for the box. Others prefer to
not even have that feature activiated. I like to send a note along with
logging the box. Others never log the box or contact the placers. It's
all good.
EllBee
diana@kjsl.com wrote:
>
> Some people, when looking for clues use the evidence that the box is still
> active. If you are searching for a box, and no one has logged it for a
> year, then some people take it as evidence that it may not be there. And
> then won't go look for it. I am not saying it's a correct assumption, butI
> am glad when people log, even though I appreciate a note more. And
> honestly, unless you find 10 boxes a day, it really takes no time at all
> to do it.
>
> Dale End Farm
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: funhog1 (funhog@pacifier.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 15:50:03 UTC
There are those of us who don't care to keep a public record of our
finds. I've always thought keeping track of my finds was for me alone.
I don't care to spend my time doing data entry and haven't even
counted my finds in over a year. I find the public logging feature to
be too much like the geocaching site, was sorry it was added to the
letterboxing sites and have never much cared for it.
I do like receiving notification that my boxes have been found.
However, I MUCH prefer a personal note from the finder rather than the
form notifications from the websites. I used to get far more emails
from other letterboxers about their adventures than I do now. In the
past I used to receive photos, fun tales and even movies a couple of
times. I do miss that personal contact. I always try to let folks know
when I've found their boxes via email but sometimes have too much on
my plate and don't get to it. Life happens... Funhog
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, diana@... wrote:
> honestly, unless you find 10 boxes a day, it really takes no time at
>all to do it.
>
> Dale End Farm
>
finds. I've always thought keeping track of my finds was for me alone.
I don't care to spend my time doing data entry and haven't even
counted my finds in over a year. I find the public logging feature to
be too much like the geocaching site, was sorry it was added to the
letterboxing sites and have never much cared for it.
I do like receiving notification that my boxes have been found.
However, I MUCH prefer a personal note from the finder rather than the
form notifications from the websites. I used to get far more emails
from other letterboxers about their adventures than I do now. In the
past I used to receive photos, fun tales and even movies a couple of
times. I do miss that personal contact. I always try to let folks know
when I've found their boxes via email but sometimes have too much on
my plate and don't get to it. Life happens... Funhog
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, diana@... wrote:
> honestly, unless you find 10 boxes a day, it really takes no time at
>all to do it.
>
> Dale End Farm
>
RE: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: Roze (rozebud@rocketmail.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 07:52:24 UTC-08:00
Of course, if you have a series it's a little easier to figure out the
last visitor - just check the rest of the series (which you'll want to
do anyway, because if one is messed up, others may well be.
Follow-up: I went last night, in the dark, and check on the rest of the
boxes. They were fine, but guess what? One other boxer had come along
the next day...I plan to contact this person to find out if the one was
missing when he/she got there or not.
--- Tammy Burge wrote:
> I don't know if you can depend on the "last found" on the sites
> because I
> know some who never mark their finds. I also know some who never
> contact
> the placer. The last reported find may not be the last find.
> Recently we
> went back to our first find to place a hitchhiker and found it really
> messed
> up. It was definitely not as we had placed it when we found it. It
> was our
> first find but we had researched for a few months before starting so
> we knew
> the unwritten rules of the game. We were probably as heartbroken as
> the
> placer since this had been our first find back when we started. We
> couldn't
> tell who had stamped in after us because the pages after ours just
> had
> smudged colors on it like stamps that had started washing away.
> Recently we
> also found out that a family had found it but didn't have stamps so
> they
> didn't stamp in. I don't know if that was before or after us. My
> point is
> unless you check on the box the same day or maybe the next day there
> is no
> way to know absolutely certain who was there last.
>
> Tammy
> RHM
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of rozebud.rm
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 5:51 PM
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
>
> Here's a thought - how about a running list of "bad letterboxers"
> somewhere on file? I went to check on my series of 8 boxes (two of
> which
> have recently gone missing) this morning, and found yet another one
> missing
> that had been reported found over the weekend.
> I only had time before work to check on one other, and it was not
> hidden
> properly. So I'm pretty sure I know who is to blame.
>
> I'm planning to contact the placers (via AQ) of the other boxes whom
> this
> person has visited recently (a noob visiting from the Chicago area -
> only a
> few finds to his/her credit) to warn them to check on their plants,
> unless
> they are listed as having been found after the noob's visit.
>
> Anyone have an opinion on this? I've already taken the "kid-
> friendly" icon
> off, and the "drive-by" one, and plan to re-write the clues to make
> them a
> little harder. But seriously - planters get to know who is causing
> problems
> with their boxes; shouldn't we be able to share this info, so if we
> get a "I
> found your boxes" email we can say "uh-oh, better check on those".
>
> rozebud
>
> P.S. I know, I know - I'm just irked. The one that disappeared most
> recently was my favorite! Plus, I'd rather work on my new series
> than on
> re-doing this one...
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
____________________________________________________________________________________
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
last visitor - just check the rest of the series (which you'll want to
do anyway, because if one is messed up, others may well be.
Follow-up: I went last night, in the dark, and check on the rest of the
boxes. They were fine, but guess what? One other boxer had come along
the next day...I plan to contact this person to find out if the one was
missing when he/she got there or not.
--- Tammy Burge
> I don't know if you can depend on the "last found" on the sites
> because I
> know some who never mark their finds. I also know some who never
> contact
> the placer. The last reported find may not be the last find.
> Recently we
> went back to our first find to place a hitchhiker and found it really
> messed
> up. It was definitely not as we had placed it when we found it. It
> was our
> first find but we had researched for a few months before starting so
> we knew
> the unwritten rules of the game. We were probably as heartbroken as
> the
> placer since this had been our first find back when we started. We
> couldn't
> tell who had stamped in after us because the pages after ours just
> had
> smudged colors on it like stamps that had started washing away.
> Recently we
> also found out that a family had found it but didn't have stamps so
> they
> didn't stamp in. I don't know if that was before or after us. My
> point is
> unless you check on the box the same day or maybe the next day there
> is no
> way to know absolutely certain who was there last.
>
> Tammy
> RHM
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of rozebud.rm
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 5:51 PM
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
>
> Here's a thought - how about a running list of "bad letterboxers"
> somewhere on file? I went to check on my series of 8 boxes (two of
> which
> have recently gone missing) this morning, and found yet another one
> missing
> that had been reported found over the weekend.
> I only had time before work to check on one other, and it was not
> hidden
> properly. So I'm pretty sure I know who is to blame.
>
> I'm planning to contact the placers (via AQ) of the other boxes whom
> this
> person has visited recently (a noob visiting from the Chicago area -
> only a
> few finds to his/her credit) to warn them to check on their plants,
> unless
> they are listed as having been found after the noob's visit.
>
> Anyone have an opinion on this? I've already taken the "kid-
> friendly" icon
> off, and the "drive-by" one, and plan to re-write the clues to make
> them a
> little harder. But seriously - planters get to know who is causing
> problems
> with their boxes; shouldn't we be able to share this info, so if we
> get a "I
> found your boxes" email we can say "uh-oh, better check on those".
>
> rozebud
>
> P.S. I know, I know - I'm just irked. The one that disappeared most
> recently was my favorite! Plus, I'd rather work on my new series
> than on
> re-doing this one...
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
____________________________________________________________________________________
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: Roze (rozebud@rocketmail.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 07:57:10 UTC-08:00
I apologize if it came off as "hurtful" - not at all my intention.
I have been known to be impractical...just seems like if I know of some
boxer who is probably causing problems, I'd like to share that info
other placers know, so they can keep an eye on their plants.
--- "Kathy N." wrote:
> if you're using atlasquest and you don't want new boxers finding your
> boxes
> you can up the number of finds they must have before they can look at
> your
> clues - or only spread your clues by word of mouth to boxers you feel
> are
> experienced enough. Otherwise, a list of bad boxers seems to me, at
> best, an impractical idea and at worst, a hurtful idea.
>
> Kathy
> Team Tysonosaurus
>
>
> On 10/31/06, Roze wrote:
> >
> > On AtlasQuest, you can click the little logbook icon to look at a
> > person's AQ log. I'm not sure if there is an option like that on
> > letterboxing.org.
> >
> > The "offending party" I wrote about has a few finds logged where
> they
> > are listed as the last finder, and then the box was reported
> missing.
> >
> > Yeah, I know - it's circumstantial at best. But our logs and people
> > recording finds/reporting problems on AQ and LB.org is all we have
> to
> > go on.
> >
> > rozebud
> >
> > --- baliddle>
> wrote:
> > > How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
> > >
> > > Beth
> >
> > "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
> Congress. But
> > I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone
> call
> > rates
> > (http://voice.yahoo.com)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
____________________________________________________________________________________
We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups
(http://groups.yahoo.com)
I have been known to be impractical...just seems like if I know of some
boxer who is probably causing problems, I'd like to share that info
other placers know, so they can keep an eye on their plants.
--- "Kathy N."
> if you're using atlasquest and you don't want new boxers finding your
> boxes
> you can up the number of finds they must have before they can look at
> your
> clues - or only spread your clues by word of mouth to boxers you feel
> are
> experienced enough. Otherwise, a list of bad boxers seems to me, at
> best, an impractical idea and at worst, a hurtful idea.
>
> Kathy
> Team Tysonosaurus
>
>
> On 10/31/06, Roze
> >
> > On AtlasQuest, you can click the little logbook icon to look at a
> > person's AQ log. I'm not sure if there is an option like that on
> > letterboxing.org.
> >
> > The "offending party" I wrote about has a few finds logged where
> they
> > are listed as the last finder, and then the box was reported
> missing.
> >
> > Yeah, I know - it's circumstantial at best. But our logs and people
> > recording finds/reporting problems on AQ and LB.org is all we have
> to
> > go on.
> >
> > rozebud
> >
> > --- baliddle
> wrote:
> > > How do you search what boxes someone else found recently?
> > >
> > > Beth
> >
> > "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
> Congress. But
> > I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone
> call
> > rates
> > (http://voice.yahoo.com)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
____________________________________________________________________________________
We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups
(http://groups.yahoo.com)
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: Roze (rozebud@rocketmail.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 07:58:40 UTC-08:00
--- david baril wrote:
> if i could just throw in a few cents. as i continue to box, i do tend
> to not log in my finds on either AQ or LBNA becasue it does take some
> time.
But - how do you get clues for the super-secret 100-F-Count-only boxes?
;-)
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business
(http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com)
> if i could just throw in a few cents. as i continue to box, i do tend
> to not log in my finds on either AQ or LBNA becasue it does take some
> time.
But - how do you get clues for the super-secret 100-F-Count-only boxes?
;-)
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business
(http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com)
RE: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: xxxxxxxx (BrighidFarm@comcast.net) |
Date: 2006-11-01 10:06:23 UTC-06:00
1. I would say in that case that the placer should just put a note at the
top of the clues and keep it updated as to when the box was last found.
That's IF it's important to the placer that folks not reject looking for the
box because it hasn't been found lately. And there's not just ONE site to
"log" into -- there's both LbNA and atlasquest. Or do they combine efforts
in that department so that what's logged in on one site automatically gets
logged in on the other site if the box is listed both places?
2. If there are folks that won't go looking for a box because they assume
it's not there since it hasn't been "logged in" recently, then then that's
THEIR loss. I guess, as a placer, I'm just not out to please that sort of
finder. I actually keep the note at the top of my clues updated, if I
remember to do it, for ME, so that I know when I might need to go out and
check to see if any maintenance is needed.
Just because somebody "logged in" to my box really would tell me little tho.
A note actually saying the box was found alive & well would mean something
to me. Trouble is, just because a person "logs in" doesn't mean the person
actually did find the box. There are more than a few folks out there who
cheat. :-) Back when I WAS listing my boxes on LbNA, a lot of folks
"logged in" that had either never stamped into the box's logbook (unless
somebody around here is stealing stamp pages out of logbooks) or that had
actually found the box long ago but were just logging in recently. And just
because someone "logs in" for a box also wouldn't tell me that they might
have left the box in bad enough shape that it'll end up missing at some
point in the very next hour. :-) So if some potential finder is making the
assumption that because the box was recently found that it's still there and
in good shape that seems a pretty dumb assumption in my opinion.
3. "It really takes no time at all to do it" IF that's what ya wanna do
with your time. :-)
For example, I spend a lot of time logging books onto librarything.com
because the poverty level folks in my area who live in an unincorporated
section of the county will then be able to go online to see what they might
be able to come over and borrow from me. They can't afford the $400 a year
charge for a library card that our town charges non-residents, so they'll go
to the library and use the library's computers to see if I have the book
they might want to read, then come over to my house. Or, if their children
have online access at school, the children will use the school computer to
check my site. So in MY mind, it really takes no time at all to log in a
new book on the site because that's what I WANT to do. So even tho, to me
it takes no time at all to enter a book, I've had friends who absolutely
cannot understand why I'd spend the time to do that. THEY'D probably rather
go to LbNA and atlasquest and log in finds. :-) To each his/her own.
~~ Mosey ~~
http://freewebs.com/moseyingalong
-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of diana@kjsl.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:25 AM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
Some people, when looking for clues use the evidence that the box is still
active. If you are searching for a box, and no one has logged it for a
year, then some people take it as evidence that it may not be there. And
then won't go look for it. I am not saying it's a correct assumption, butI
am glad when people log, even though I appreciate a note more. And
honestly, unless you find 10 boxes a day, it really takes no time at all
to do it.
Dale End Farm
top of the clues and keep it updated as to when the box was last found.
That's IF it's important to the placer that folks not reject looking for the
box because it hasn't been found lately. And there's not just ONE site to
"log" into -- there's both LbNA and atlasquest. Or do they combine efforts
in that department so that what's logged in on one site automatically gets
logged in on the other site if the box is listed both places?
2. If there are folks that won't go looking for a box because they assume
it's not there since it hasn't been "logged in" recently, then then that's
THEIR loss. I guess, as a placer, I'm just not out to please that sort of
finder. I actually keep the note at the top of my clues updated, if I
remember to do it, for ME, so that I know when I might need to go out and
check to see if any maintenance is needed.
Just because somebody "logged in" to my box really would tell me little tho.
A note actually saying the box was found alive & well would mean something
to me. Trouble is, just because a person "logs in" doesn't mean the person
actually did find the box. There are more than a few folks out there who
cheat. :-) Back when I WAS listing my boxes on LbNA, a lot of folks
"logged in" that had either never stamped into the box's logbook (unless
somebody around here is stealing stamp pages out of logbooks) or that had
actually found the box long ago but were just logging in recently. And just
because someone "logs in" for a box also wouldn't tell me that they might
have left the box in bad enough shape that it'll end up missing at some
point in the very next hour. :-) So if some potential finder is making the
assumption that because the box was recently found that it's still there and
in good shape that seems a pretty dumb assumption in my opinion.
3. "It really takes no time at all to do it" IF that's what ya wanna do
with your time. :-)
For example, I spend a lot of time logging books onto librarything.com
because the poverty level folks in my area who live in an unincorporated
section of the county will then be able to go online to see what they might
be able to come over and borrow from me. They can't afford the $400 a year
charge for a library card that our town charges non-residents, so they'll go
to the library and use the library's computers to see if I have the book
they might want to read, then come over to my house. Or, if their children
have online access at school, the children will use the school computer to
check my site. So in MY mind, it really takes no time at all to log in a
new book on the site because that's what I WANT to do. So even tho, to me
it takes no time at all to enter a book, I've had friends who absolutely
cannot understand why I'd spend the time to do that. THEY'D probably rather
go to LbNA and atlasquest and log in finds. :-) To each his/her own.
~~ Mosey ~~
http://freewebs.com/moseyingalong
-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of diana@kjsl.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:25 AM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
Some people, when looking for clues use the evidence that the box is still
active. If you are searching for a box, and no one has logged it for a
year, then some people take it as evidence that it may not be there. And
then won't go look for it. I am not saying it's a correct assumption, butI
am glad when people log, even though I appreciate a note more. And
honestly, unless you find 10 boxes a day, it really takes no time at all
to do it.
Dale End Farm
RE: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: xxxxxxxx (BrighidFarm@comcast.net) |
Date: 2006-11-01 10:10:39 UTC-06:00
Do you know anyone who might possibly know that particular boxer so that you
could either communicate with them directly or have the boxer who knows them
communicate with them? Sometimes it's merely a matter of education and
making the person better aware of the problems they might be causing.
~~ Mosey ~~
-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Roze
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:57 AM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
I apologize if it came off as "hurtful" - not at all my intention.
I have been known to be impractical...just seems like if I know of some
boxer who is probably causing problems, I'd like to share that info
other placers know, so they can keep an eye on their plants.
could either communicate with them directly or have the boxer who knows them
communicate with them? Sometimes it's merely a matter of education and
making the person better aware of the problems they might be causing.
~~ Mosey ~~
-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Roze
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:57 AM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
I apologize if it came off as "hurtful" - not at all my intention.
I have been known to be impractical...just seems like if I know of some
boxer who is probably causing problems, I'd like to share that info
other placers know, so they can keep an eye on their plants.
Re: Bad boxer repository?
From: ontario_cacher (ontario_cacher@yahoo.ca) |
Date: 2006-11-01 16:14:49 UTC
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, diana@... wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm not quite sure I understand. Is there some sort of "contest"
going on
> > as to what placer can get the most finders for their boxes or
something?
> > :-) If a placer wants to merely have the date available for other
boxers
> > to
> > see the last date a box was found, all they need to do is put a
note as to
> > last date found at the very top of their clues and keep it
updated. If a
> > finder contacts me or if I go out to check a box, I just write
something
> > like: "This box was last found to be alive and well on such-&-such a
> > date."
> > Or if there's been no first-finder yet that I know of, I'll say at the
> > beginning of the clues and give the date. Seems easy enough to me.
> >
> > ~~ Mosey ~~
> >
>
> Some people, when looking for clues use the evidence that the box is
still
> active. If you are searching for a box, and no one has logged it for a
> year, then some people take it as evidence that it may not be there. And
> then won't go look for it. I am not saying it's a correct
assumption, butI
> am glad when people log, even though I appreciate a note more. And
> honestly, unless you find 10 boxes a day, it really takes no time at all
> to do it.
>
> Dale End Farm
>
I'm in the same camp as DEF.
As a hider I really appreciate a log, it lets me know there was a
visit, and it let's others know it's still there and findable.
Logbooks go missing and get damaged by the environment. When this
happens it's nice to have an online log of visits to the box. And
online logs are an incentive - when I see there was a visit I often
head out to the box to get a look at the new stamp. Which in turn
is a good thing because I also do some maintenance while I'm there (if
it's needed).
I especially appreciate a note from a finder, it inspires me to keep
hiding. If I never received online feedback I would take it as a sign
that my boxes don't inspire finders to contact me and say thanks for a
nice experience. When I don't get a note and then check the paper
logbook and see a stamp but no comment I wonder if it means the finder
thought the box was ho-hum, not worthy of a thank you or note.
Lone R
>
> >
> > I'm not quite sure I understand. Is there some sort of "contest"
going on
> > as to what placer can get the most finders for their boxes or
something?
> > :-) If a placer wants to merely have the date available for other
boxers
> > to
> > see the last date a box was found, all they need to do is put a
note as to
> > last date found at the very top of their clues and keep it
updated. If a
> > finder contacts me or if I go out to check a box, I just write
something
> > like: "This box was last found to be alive and well on such-&-such a
> > date."
> > Or if there's been no first-finder yet that I know of, I'll say at the
> > beginning of the clues and give the date. Seems easy enough to me.
> >
> > ~~ Mosey ~~
> >
>
> Some people, when looking for clues use the evidence that the box is
still
> active. If you are searching for a box, and no one has logged it for a
> year, then some people take it as evidence that it may not be there. And
> then won't go look for it. I am not saying it's a correct
assumption, butI
> am glad when people log, even though I appreciate a note more. And
> honestly, unless you find 10 boxes a day, it really takes no time at all
> to do it.
>
> Dale End Farm
>
I'm in the same camp as DEF.
As a hider I really appreciate a log, it lets me know there was a
visit, and it let's others know it's still there and findable.
Logbooks go missing and get damaged by the environment. When this
happens it's nice to have an online log of visits to the box. And
online logs are an incentive - when I see there was a visit I often
head out to the box to get a look at the new stamp. Which in turn
is a good thing because I also do some maintenance while I'm there (if
it's needed).
I especially appreciate a note from a finder, it inspires me to keep
hiding. If I never received online feedback I would take it as a sign
that my boxes don't inspire finders to contact me and say thanks for a
nice experience. When I don't get a note and then check the paper
logbook and see a stamp but no comment I wonder if it means the finder
thought the box was ho-hum, not worthy of a thank you or note.
Lone R
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: gwendontoo (foxsecurity@earthlink.net) |
Date: 2006-11-01 16:18:13 UTC
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "xxxxxxxx"
wrote:
>
> 1. I would say in that case that the placer should just put a
note at the
> top of the clues and keep it updated as to when the box was last
found.
We do that if there are some "attempted" listings and if the box is
in place. Thus the "attempted" listing is more of a reflection of
the letterboxers acumen than the viability of the letterbox.
We have some letterboxes that have not been found in two years, so
if letterboxers are using the logging function to try to figure out
if the box is still there.......they really don't have a clue.
Don
wrote:
>
> 1. I would say in that case that the placer should just put a
note at the
> top of the clues and keep it updated as to when the box was last
found.
We do that if there are some "attempted" listings and if the box is
in place. Thus the "attempted" listing is more of a reflection of
the letterboxers acumen than the viability of the letterbox.
We have some letterboxes that have not been found in two years, so
if letterboxers are using the logging function to try to figure out
if the box is still there.......they really don't have a clue.
Don
Re: Bad boxer repository?
From: ontario_cacher (ontario_cacher@yahoo.ca) |
Date: 2006-11-01 16:32:05 UTC
>
> 3. "It really takes no time at all to do it" IF that's what ya wanna do
> with your time. :-)
>
> For example, I spend a lot of time logging books onto librarything.com
> because the poverty level folks in my area who live in an unincorporated
> section of the county will then be able to go online to see what
they might
> be able to come over and borrow from me. They can't afford the $400
a year
> charge for a library card that our town charges non-residents, so
they'll go
> to the library and use the library's computers to see if I have the book
> they might want to read, then come over to my house. Or, if their
children
> have online access at school, the children will use the school
computer to
> check my site. So in MY mind, it really takes no time at all to log
in a
> new book on the site because that's what I WANT to do. So even tho,
to me
> it takes no time at all to enter a book, I've had friends who absolutely
> cannot understand why I'd spend the time to do that. THEY'D
probably rather
> go to LbNA and atlasquest and log in finds. :-) To each his/her own.
>
> ~~ Mosey ~~
> http://freewebs.com/moseyingalong
But would you keep offering books for loan if the people who show up
to borrow the books never said thank you and never had a short chit
chat with you when they returned it about how they enjoyed the book
and appreciated the loan? I know I would need to feel that what I was
doing was worthwhile or I wouldn't continue doing it. That includes
hiding letterboxes.
Lone R
> 3. "It really takes no time at all to do it" IF that's what ya wanna do
> with your time. :-)
>
> For example, I spend a lot of time logging books onto librarything.com
> because the poverty level folks in my area who live in an unincorporated
> section of the county will then be able to go online to see what
they might
> be able to come over and borrow from me. They can't afford the $400
a year
> charge for a library card that our town charges non-residents, so
they'll go
> to the library and use the library's computers to see if I have the book
> they might want to read, then come over to my house. Or, if their
children
> have online access at school, the children will use the school
computer to
> check my site. So in MY mind, it really takes no time at all to log
in a
> new book on the site because that's what I WANT to do. So even tho,
to me
> it takes no time at all to enter a book, I've had friends who absolutely
> cannot understand why I'd spend the time to do that. THEY'D
probably rather
> go to LbNA and atlasquest and log in finds. :-) To each his/her own.
>
> ~~ Mosey ~~
> http://freewebs.com/moseyingalong
But would you keep offering books for loan if the people who show up
to borrow the books never said thank you and never had a short chit
chat with you when they returned it about how they enjoyed the book
and appreciated the loan? I know I would need to feel that what I was
doing was worthwhile or I wouldn't continue doing it. That includes
hiding letterboxes.
Lone R
RE: [LbNA] Re: Bad boxer repository?
From: Gretchen Caldwell (boston.rott@verizon.net) |
Date: 2006-11-01 12:18:11 UTC-05:00
Ok, I just went and "caught up" my finds on AQ. Turns out one of the boxes
I logged my finds for, hadn't had any logged finds since 2003!! Hope that
didn't deter people from the nice series. In any case, it's now updated.
:)
Boston Rott
I logged my finds for, hadn't had any logged finds since 2003!! Hope that
didn't deter people from the nice series. In any case, it's now updated.
:)
Boston Rott
RE: [LbNA] Re: Bad boxer repository?
From: xxxxxxxx (BrighidFarm@comcast.net) |
Date: 2006-11-01 11:19:39 UTC-06:00
-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of ontario_cacher
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 10:32 AM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Re: Bad boxer repository?
But would you keep offering books for loan if the people who show up
to borrow the books never said thank you and never had a short chit
chat with you when they returned it about how they enjoyed the book
and appreciated the loan? I know I would need to feel that what I was
doing was worthwhile or I wouldn't continue doing it. That includes
hiding letterboxes.
Lone R
################################
Oh yes, of course I would! That's not the point for me to either
letterboxing OR offering the library.
As far as the library goes, I love books and I truly feel the future of this
country rests in education. They might never say thank you until they're 90
years old and realize what a good education meant to them during their life,
and then I won't be around for them to say it to anyway. Or they may never
ever say thank you. I'm totally fine with that. There are a lot of times
when I'm not even home when people drop by to get a certain book. They'll
call me, I'll leave the book on my enclosed backporch, and when they're
finished, they'll leave the book back on the backporch with maybe a note of
what they'd like to read next. It's worthwhile to ME to offer the service.
I don't need somebody else to validate it for me.
With letterboxing, I place because the box I'm placing means something to me
or the site I'm placing it at means something to me or both or there was a
particular occasion or circumstance that meant something to me, or it means
something to somebody else that I'm close to (for example the idea behind my
"Reverence" box means a lot to the family I planted it for plus I thought
the windmill on the property and the history behind it was really cool) or
ALL of the above. :-) Now how's that for a run-on sentence? Sure feedback
is nice. Would it stop me from planting boxes if I didn't get feeback?
Not. at. all.
My Judge Judy boxes are waiting to get planted out at N.I.U. until I have a
chance to get out to DeKalb and search for a couple of superduper sites.
It's not going to be easy -- I want the boxes to be on campus because of the
way I want to write the clues. There will be a trick to the clues. I
made the boxes because I love Judge Judy, because I got my undergrad degree
at N.I.U., because N.I.U. now has a law school, because I loved N.I.U.'s
library, and because DeKalb is home to my favorite kid, Gus, that I babysit
whose parents have a serious connection to N.I.U.'s library, and because I'm
going to have a lot of fun writing the clues. Once I plant the boxes, if
nobody comes to find them or people find them but give me no feedback, I
planted them for MY reasons for planting them. Feedback is kind of like
icing on the cake. It's nice but it's extra calories that won't kill me if
I don't get them.
~~ Mosey ~~
http://freewebs.com/moseyingalong
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: StarSaels (steves_1701@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 17:23:40 UTC
It actually takes about 30 seconds to log a find on AQ, with no note
attached.
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Pungent Bob"
wrote:
>
> I wish you would reconsider this practice. Dropping a thank you note
> to a planter takes much less time than the planter took to create the
> letterbox that you presumably got some enjoyment out of finding.
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, david baril
> wrote:
> >the only time i do anything is to let the placer know if there is
> something wrong with the box.
>
attached.
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Pungent Bob"
wrote:
>
> I wish you would reconsider this practice. Dropping a thank you note
> to a planter takes much less time than the planter took to create the
> letterbox that you presumably got some enjoyment out of finding.
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, david baril
>
> >the only time i do anything is to let the placer know if there is
> something wrong with the box.
>
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: StarSaels (steves_1701@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 17:36:11 UTC
$400 a year for a flippin' library card? That's insane! I've gotten
library cards for all the different library networks in the metro
Atlanta area, including a university library, and I've never been
charged anything.
That's insane. I'd relocate just based on that insidious treachery.
SS
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "xxxxxxxx" wrote:
>
> For example, I spend a lot of time logging books onto librarything.com
> because the poverty level folks in my area who live in an unincorporated
> section of the county will then be able to go online to see what
they might
> be able to come over and borrow from me. They can't afford the $400
a year
> charge for a library card that our town charges non-residents,
library cards for all the different library networks in the metro
Atlanta area, including a university library, and I've never been
charged anything.
That's insane. I'd relocate just based on that insidious treachery.
SS
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "xxxxxxxx"
>
> For example, I spend a lot of time logging books onto librarything.com
> because the poverty level folks in my area who live in an unincorporated
> section of the county will then be able to go online to see what
they might
> be able to come over and borrow from me. They can't afford the $400
a year
> charge for a library card that our town charges non-residents,
RE: [LbNA] Re: Bad boxer repository?
From: xxxxxxxx (BrighidFarm@comcast.net) |
Date: 2006-11-01 11:40:14 UTC-06:00
I respond back to a placer as a courtesy. I could say, I guess, that if
they didn't waste my time by emailing to request it that I wouldn't have to
waste my time replying to their request. :-) I could say, I guess, that if I
didn't log in then it wouldn't be hard for a placer to figure that I'm not
interested in logging in. I don't consider myself under any obligation to
reply. But yes, it might not be a bad idea for placers to know that not
everybody shares their love of that particular aspect of LbNA or atlasquest.
So I reply as a courtesy.
So basically you're saying that it's OK for a placer to badger (no offense
to any badgers out there) a finder to log in because it'll take the finder
less time to log in than to reply back to them, meaning there's a chance the
finder will say OK! OK! If you leave me alone I'll go log in the find?
Guess maybe I shouldn't bother taking the time to EITHER log in OR explain
myself to placers. Yeah, that's not a bad idea......just ignore the
placer's email completely. :-)
I keep a record of boxes I've found also, but I keep a verrry simple list
right on my own computer. Mine isn't for counting -- it's so that I know
what page of my scrapbooks my notes are on for that box in case I need to go
back and refer to them -- but it just as easily could be for counting if I
was into counting. There would still be absolutely no reason for me to feel
a need to do it online.
Or maybe my memory just isn't as bad as yours? I've never had a problem
remembering how many boxes I've found. But then I'm not a big-time finder
either. I'd say I have a little less than 300 finds right now. I'm sure my
memory will be able to hold at least a few more than whatever number of
boxes I find. :-) I'm 54, and to some folks' way of thinkin', that's
ollllld, but to me, I'm just gettin' warmed up! My memory isn't shot YET.
This kind of goes back to that ol' question: If a person finds a box twice
but doesn't remember the first find, can they count it as two finds? :-) I
guess when I'm 55, I'll say yes yes yes!
~~ Mosey ~~
-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of trekkiegal1701d
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:15 AM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Re: Bad boxer repository?
It takes you longer to write back to them telling them you are not
going to log in your find than it would to actually log in your
find. And as a placer, I appreciate it when people log in their
finds. And as a finder, I log them in so that I have an accurate
list of the boxes I have found. That way, in a couple of years, I
don't have to try to remember "did I find that one?" I can just go
look at my list and there it is.
TG
they didn't waste my time by emailing to request it that I wouldn't have to
waste my time replying to their request. :-) I could say, I guess, that if I
didn't log in then it wouldn't be hard for a placer to figure that I'm not
interested in logging in. I don't consider myself under any obligation to
reply. But yes, it might not be a bad idea for placers to know that not
everybody shares their love of that particular aspect of LbNA or atlasquest.
So I reply as a courtesy.
So basically you're saying that it's OK for a placer to badger (no offense
to any badgers out there) a finder to log in because it'll take the finder
less time to log in than to reply back to them, meaning there's a chance the
finder will say OK! OK! If you leave me alone I'll go log in the find?
Guess maybe I shouldn't bother taking the time to EITHER log in OR explain
myself to placers. Yeah, that's not a bad idea......just ignore the
placer's email completely. :-)
I keep a record of boxes I've found also, but I keep a verrry simple list
right on my own computer. Mine isn't for counting -- it's so that I know
what page of my scrapbooks my notes are on for that box in case I need to go
back and refer to them -- but it just as easily could be for counting if I
was into counting. There would still be absolutely no reason for me to feel
a need to do it online.
Or maybe my memory just isn't as bad as yours? I've never had a problem
remembering how many boxes I've found. But then I'm not a big-time finder
either. I'd say I have a little less than 300 finds right now. I'm sure my
memory will be able to hold at least a few more than whatever number of
boxes I find. :-) I'm 54, and to some folks' way of thinkin', that's
ollllld, but to me, I'm just gettin' warmed up! My memory isn't shot YET.
This kind of goes back to that ol' question: If a person finds a box twice
but doesn't remember the first find, can they count it as two finds? :-) I
guess when I'm 55, I'll say yes yes yes!
~~ Mosey ~~
-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of trekkiegal1701d
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:15 AM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Re: Bad boxer repository?
It takes you longer to write back to them telling them you are not
going to log in your find than it would to actually log in your
find. And as a placer, I appreciate it when people log in their
finds. And as a finder, I log them in so that I have an accurate
list of the boxes I have found. That way, in a couple of years, I
don't have to try to remember "did I find that one?" I can just go
look at my list and there it is.
TG
RE: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: Roze (rozebud@rocketmail.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 09:49:23 UTC-08:00
I don't - judging from their logged finds on AQ, this person lives
about 4 hours north of here. I did contact him/her via AQ yesterday
morning, but have not yet received a response.
rozebud
--- xxxxxxxx wrote:
> Do you know anyone who might possibly know that particular boxer so
> that you
> could either communicate with them directly or have the boxer who
> knows them
> communicate with them? Sometimes it's merely a matter of education
> and
> making the person better aware of the problems they might be causing.
>
> ~~ Mosey ~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Roze
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:57 AM
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
>
>
> I apologize if it came off as "hurtful" - not at all my intention.
>
> I have been known to be impractical...just seems like if I know of
> some
> boxer who is probably causing problems, I'd like to share that info
> other placers know, so they can keep an eye on their plants.
>
>
>
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
____________________________________________________________________________________
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
about 4 hours north of here. I did contact him/her via AQ yesterday
morning, but have not yet received a response.
rozebud
--- xxxxxxxx
> Do you know anyone who might possibly know that particular boxer so
> that you
> could either communicate with them directly or have the boxer who
> knows them
> communicate with them? Sometimes it's merely a matter of education
> and
> making the person better aware of the problems they might be causing.
>
> ~~ Mosey ~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Roze
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:57 AM
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
>
>
> I apologize if it came off as "hurtful" - not at all my intention.
>
> I have been known to be impractical...just seems like if I know of
> some
> boxer who is probably causing problems, I'd like to share that info
> other placers know, so they can keep an eye on their plants.
>
>
>
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
____________________________________________________________________________________
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
Re: [LbNA] Re: Bad boxer repository?
From: The Gimbels (thegimbels@nycap.rr.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 13:52:00 UTC-05:00
Hi All
I am getting kind of confused here I think. Is there another place to find the clues besides on LBNA or on AQ ?
So we all have a log in name and then look up the clues and then search out the boxes but people do not want to log in and mark the box as found? Isn't that part of it all? Isn't that why placers put those boxes in online forums also. Isn't it just being polite to thank someone correctly for giving you the opportunity to have this hobby?
If some one could let me know why the LBNA or AQ numbers are not a good thing?
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: xxxxxxxx
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: [LbNA] Re: Bad boxer repository?
I respond back to a placer as a courtesy. I could say, I guess, that if
they didn't waste my time by emailing to request it that I wouldn't have to
waste my time replying to their request. :-) I could say, I guess, that if I
didn't log in then it wouldn't be hard for a placer to figure that I'm not
interested in logging in. I don't consider myself under any obligation to
reply. But yes, it might not be a bad idea for placers to know that not
everybody shares their love of that particular aspect of LbNA or atlasquest.
So I reply as a courtesy.
So basically you're saying that it's OK for a placer to badger (no offense
to any badgers out there) a finder to log in because it'll take the finder
less time to log in than to reply back to them, meaning there's a chance the
finder will say OK! OK! If you leave me alone I'll go log in the find?
Guess maybe I shouldn't bother taking the time to EITHER log in OR explain
myself to placers. Yeah, that's not a bad idea......just ignore the
placer's email completely. :-)
I keep a record of boxes I've found also, but I keep a verrry simple list
right on my own computer. Mine isn't for counting -- it's so that I know
what page of my scrapbooks my notes are on for that box in case I need to go
back and refer to them -- but it just as easily could be for counting if I
was into counting. There would still be absolutely no reason for me to feel
a need to do it online.
Or maybe my memory just isn't as bad as yours? I've never had a problem
remembering how many boxes I've found. But then I'm not a big-time finder
either. I'd say I have a little less than 300 finds right now. I'm sure my
memory will be able to hold at least a few more than whatever number of
boxes I find. :-) I'm 54, and to some folks' way of thinkin', that's
ollllld, but to me, I'm just gettin' warmed up! My memory isn't shot YET.
This kind of goes back to that ol' question: If a person finds a box twice
but doesn't remember the first find, can they count it as two finds? :-) I
guess when I'm 55, I'll say yes yes yes!
~~ Mosey ~~
-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of trekkiegal1701d
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:15 AM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Re: Bad boxer repository?
It takes you longer to write back to them telling them you are not
going to log in your find than it would to actually log in your
find. And as a placer, I appreciate it when people log in their
finds. And as a finder, I log them in so that I have an accurate
list of the boxes I have found. That way, in a couple of years, I
don't have to try to remember "did I find that one?" I can just go
look at my list and there it is.
TG
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I am getting kind of confused here I think. Is there another place to find the clues besides on LBNA or on AQ ?
So we all have a log in name and then look up the clues and then search out the boxes but people do not want to log in and mark the box as found? Isn't that part of it all? Isn't that why placers put those boxes in online forums also. Isn't it just being polite to thank someone correctly for giving you the opportunity to have this hobby?
If some one could let me know why the LBNA or AQ numbers are not a good thing?
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: xxxxxxxx
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: [LbNA] Re: Bad boxer repository?
I respond back to a placer as a courtesy. I could say, I guess, that if
they didn't waste my time by emailing to request it that I wouldn't have to
waste my time replying to their request. :-) I could say, I guess, that if I
didn't log in then it wouldn't be hard for a placer to figure that I'm not
interested in logging in. I don't consider myself under any obligation to
reply. But yes, it might not be a bad idea for placers to know that not
everybody shares their love of that particular aspect of LbNA or atlasquest.
So I reply as a courtesy.
So basically you're saying that it's OK for a placer to badger (no offense
to any badgers out there) a finder to log in because it'll take the finder
less time to log in than to reply back to them, meaning there's a chance the
finder will say OK! OK! If you leave me alone I'll go log in the find?
Guess maybe I shouldn't bother taking the time to EITHER log in OR explain
myself to placers. Yeah, that's not a bad idea......just ignore the
placer's email completely. :-)
I keep a record of boxes I've found also, but I keep a verrry simple list
right on my own computer. Mine isn't for counting -- it's so that I know
what page of my scrapbooks my notes are on for that box in case I need to go
back and refer to them -- but it just as easily could be for counting if I
was into counting. There would still be absolutely no reason for me to feel
a need to do it online.
Or maybe my memory just isn't as bad as yours? I've never had a problem
remembering how many boxes I've found. But then I'm not a big-time finder
either. I'd say I have a little less than 300 finds right now. I'm sure my
memory will be able to hold at least a few more than whatever number of
boxes I find. :-) I'm 54, and to some folks' way of thinkin', that's
ollllld, but to me, I'm just gettin' warmed up! My memory isn't shot YET.
This kind of goes back to that ol' question: If a person finds a box twice
but doesn't remember the first find, can they count it as two finds? :-) I
guess when I'm 55, I'll say yes yes yes!
~~ Mosey ~~
-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of trekkiegal1701d
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:15 AM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Re: Bad boxer repository?
It takes you longer to write back to them telling them you are not
going to log in your find than it would to actually log in your
find. And as a placer, I appreciate it when people log in their
finds. And as a finder, I log them in so that I have an accurate
list of the boxes I have found. That way, in a couple of years, I
don't have to try to remember "did I find that one?" I can just go
look at my list and there it is.
TG
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: Bad boxer repository?
From: trekkiegal1701d (kjnohr@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 19:58:12 UTC
I'm not saying anyone should badger a finder about logging their
finds. I am just totally baffled by the fact that people don't do
it. I have heard all the reasons - no need to rehash them - I just
don't comprehend.
And as for my memory, I am 30 and it is just fine, thank you very
much. I don't have that many finds as of yet, but I can see if I had
several hundred it might an issue. I have that issue with library
books and have had to start keeping a list of books I have read so I
don't have to stand their in the aisle for 15 minutes trying to
figure out "did I read that?" If the library offered a way for me to
log the books I read online with only a couple of clicks, you can bet
I would use that service.
TG
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "xxxxxxxx"
wrote:
>
> I respond back to a placer as a courtesy. I could say, I guess,
that if
> they didn't waste my time by emailing to request it that I wouldn't
have to
> waste my time replying to their request. :-) I could say, I guess,
that if I
> didn't log in then it wouldn't be hard for a placer to figure that
I'm not
> interested in logging in. I don't consider myself under any
obligation to
> reply. But yes, it might not be a bad idea for placers to know
that not
> everybody shares their love of that particular aspect of LbNA or
atlasquest.
> So I reply as a courtesy.
>
> So basically you're saying that it's OK for a placer to badger (no
offense
> to any badgers out there) a finder to log in because it'll take the
finder
> less time to log in than to reply back to them, meaning there's a
chance the
> finder will say OK! OK! If you leave me alone I'll go log in the
find?
> Guess maybe I shouldn't bother taking the time to EITHER log in OR
explain
> myself to placers. Yeah, that's not a bad idea......just ignore the
> placer's email completely. :-)
>
> I keep a record of boxes I've found also, but I keep a verrry
simple list
> right on my own computer. Mine isn't for counting -- it's so that
I know
> what page of my scrapbooks my notes are on for that box in case I
need to go
> back and refer to them -- but it just as easily could be for
counting if I
> was into counting. There would still be absolutely no reason for
me to feel
> a need to do it online.
>
> Or maybe my memory just isn't as bad as yours? I've never had a
problem
> remembering how many boxes I've found. But then I'm not a big-time
finder
> either. I'd say I have a little less than 300 finds right now.
I'm sure my
> memory will be able to hold at least a few more than whatever
number of
> boxes I find. :-) I'm 54, and to some folks' way of thinkin',
that's
> ollllld, but to me, I'm just gettin' warmed up! My memory isn't
shot YET.
>
> This kind of goes back to that ol' question: If a person finds a
box twice
> but doesn't remember the first find, can they count it as two
finds? :-) I
> guess when I'm 55, I'll say yes yes yes!
>
> ~~ Mosey ~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of trekkiegal1701d
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:15 AM
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [LbNA] Re: Bad boxer repository?
>
>
> It takes you longer to write back to them telling them you are not
> going to log in your find than it would to actually log in your
> find. And as a placer, I appreciate it when people log in their
> finds. And as a finder, I log them in so that I have an accurate
> list of the boxes I have found. That way, in a couple of years, I
> don't have to try to remember "did I find that one?" I can just go
> look at my list and there it is.
>
> TG
>
finds. I am just totally baffled by the fact that people don't do
it. I have heard all the reasons - no need to rehash them - I just
don't comprehend.
And as for my memory, I am 30 and it is just fine, thank you very
much. I don't have that many finds as of yet, but I can see if I had
several hundred it might an issue. I have that issue with library
books and have had to start keeping a list of books I have read so I
don't have to stand their in the aisle for 15 minutes trying to
figure out "did I read that?" If the library offered a way for me to
log the books I read online with only a couple of clicks, you can bet
I would use that service.
TG
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "xxxxxxxx"
wrote:
>
> I respond back to a placer as a courtesy. I could say, I guess,
that if
> they didn't waste my time by emailing to request it that I wouldn't
have to
> waste my time replying to their request. :-) I could say, I guess,
that if I
> didn't log in then it wouldn't be hard for a placer to figure that
I'm not
> interested in logging in. I don't consider myself under any
obligation to
> reply. But yes, it might not be a bad idea for placers to know
that not
> everybody shares their love of that particular aspect of LbNA or
atlasquest.
> So I reply as a courtesy.
>
> So basically you're saying that it's OK for a placer to badger (no
offense
> to any badgers out there) a finder to log in because it'll take the
finder
> less time to log in than to reply back to them, meaning there's a
chance the
> finder will say OK! OK! If you leave me alone I'll go log in the
find?
> Guess maybe I shouldn't bother taking the time to EITHER log in OR
explain
> myself to placers. Yeah, that's not a bad idea......just ignore the
> placer's email completely. :-)
>
> I keep a record of boxes I've found also, but I keep a verrry
simple list
> right on my own computer. Mine isn't for counting -- it's so that
I know
> what page of my scrapbooks my notes are on for that box in case I
need to go
> back and refer to them -- but it just as easily could be for
counting if I
> was into counting. There would still be absolutely no reason for
me to feel
> a need to do it online.
>
> Or maybe my memory just isn't as bad as yours? I've never had a
problem
> remembering how many boxes I've found. But then I'm not a big-time
finder
> either. I'd say I have a little less than 300 finds right now.
I'm sure my
> memory will be able to hold at least a few more than whatever
number of
> boxes I find. :-) I'm 54, and to some folks' way of thinkin',
that's
> ollllld, but to me, I'm just gettin' warmed up! My memory isn't
shot YET.
>
> This kind of goes back to that ol' question: If a person finds a
box twice
> but doesn't remember the first find, can they count it as two
finds? :-) I
> guess when I'm 55, I'll say yes yes yes!
>
> ~~ Mosey ~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of trekkiegal1701d
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:15 AM
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [LbNA] Re: Bad boxer repository?
>
>
> It takes you longer to write back to them telling them you are not
> going to log in your find than it would to actually log in your
> find. And as a placer, I appreciate it when people log in their
> finds. And as a finder, I log them in so that I have an accurate
> list of the boxes I have found. That way, in a couple of years, I
> don't have to try to remember "did I find that one?" I can just go
> look at my list and there it is.
>
> TG
>
Re: Bad boxer repository?
From: tworstaggering (tworstaggering@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 20:26:51 UTC
I personally think contacting the placer and getting a short email
response has been one of the highlights of the activity, but I
understand busy people/people who are doing a LOT more boxing than I
am able to at present may find it burdensome.
Never having met a 3-dimensional boxer, just having that little bit of
feedback helps me feel connected to the community.
As for the bad boxer repository [my 11 year old's vocabulary word
yesterday, lol], I've always thought that the sentiment of "There
ougtta be a law!" usually inspires overly-restrictive laws that end up
targeting responsible people and don't really solve the problem that
is causing the initial [valid] frustration.
MaryE.
response has been one of the highlights of the activity, but I
understand busy people/people who are doing a LOT more boxing than I
am able to at present may find it burdensome.
Never having met a 3-dimensional boxer, just having that little bit of
feedback helps me feel connected to the community.
As for the bad boxer repository [my 11 year old's vocabulary word
yesterday, lol], I've always thought that the sentiment of "There
ougtta be a law!" usually inspires overly-restrictive laws that end up
targeting responsible people and don't really solve the problem that
is causing the initial [valid] frustration.
MaryE.
Re: [LbNA] Re: Bad boxer repository?
From: SpringChick (letterbox@comcast.net) |
Date: 2006-11-01 19:24:53 UTC-05:00
> So we all have a log in name and then look up the clues and
> then search out the boxes but people do not want to log in and
> mark the box as found? Isn't that part of it all? Isn't that why
> placers put those boxes in online forums also. Isn't it just being
> polite to thank someone correctly for giving you the opportunity
> to have this hobby?
I think the reason most people put their boxes on online sites is so that other letterboxers can access the clues to find them. While it is true that some are also looking for feedback, that is not a fair assumption to make across the board.
And no -- logging the box is not necessarily a part of it -- it can be, but for some people it isn't and that is their choice to make. Although I don't feel there is any obligation whatsoever on the part of a finder to contact the placer or record a status when they find a box, I do agree that it is courtesy to thank the placer when you find their box. I very much appreciate this and I think most people are in that camp, but logging the find is only one way to do that. Personally I liked it much better before LbNA had the ability for people to log their finds because I received many, many personal e-mails from people telling me of their adventure. I loved reading their comments about the way they interpretted the clues, the condition of the box or how they enjoyed the location, etc. This is the kind of feedback I prefer, so this is the type of feedback I choose to give. I try to contact the placer and write a short note with every box I find rather than just enter some impersonal, non-informative status into LbNA. What they choose to do with the information after that is up to them -- use it to manually keep a status on their clues or enter a status log update themself, etc.
I actually have the LbNA status feature turned off on my boxes because I think knowing the history of who was at the box and when detracts from the intrigue of finding the box and encourages people who are just out collecting stamps as quickly as possible. Likewise I seldom look at the status log of a box before I seek it. Why would I want to know if the last 3 people to look for the box were not able to find it? Does this mean the box is missing? Not necessarily. Does this mean I will not enjoy the journey to the box and the time spent deciphering the clues? Definitely not.
I do provide a status date on all of my clues, which I manually maintain based on seeker reports and my own visits. If having the status logs turned off on my boxes deters people from looking for them, as Mosey said, it doesn't really bother me and they probably weren't the types of folks I want looking for my boxes in the first place.
To each his own...
SpringChick
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> then search out the boxes but people do not want to log in and
> mark the box as found? Isn't that part of it all? Isn't that why
> placers put those boxes in online forums also. Isn't it just being
> polite to thank someone correctly for giving you the opportunity
> to have this hobby?
I think the reason most people put their boxes on online sites is so that other letterboxers can access the clues to find them. While it is true that some are also looking for feedback, that is not a fair assumption to make across the board.
And no -- logging the box is not necessarily a part of it -- it can be, but for some people it isn't and that is their choice to make. Although I don't feel there is any obligation whatsoever on the part of a finder to contact the placer or record a status when they find a box, I do agree that it is courtesy to thank the placer when you find their box. I very much appreciate this and I think most people are in that camp, but logging the find is only one way to do that. Personally I liked it much better before LbNA had the ability for people to log their finds because I received many, many personal e-mails from people telling me of their adventure. I loved reading their comments about the way they interpretted the clues, the condition of the box or how they enjoyed the location, etc. This is the kind of feedback I prefer, so this is the type of feedback I choose to give. I try to contact the placer and write a short note with every box I find rather than just enter some impersonal, non-informative status into LbNA. What they choose to do with the information after that is up to them -- use it to manually keep a status on their clues or enter a status log update themself, etc.
I actually have the LbNA status feature turned off on my boxes because I think knowing the history of who was at the box and when detracts from the intrigue of finding the box and encourages people who are just out collecting stamps as quickly as possible. Likewise I seldom look at the status log of a box before I seek it. Why would I want to know if the last 3 people to look for the box were not able to find it? Does this mean the box is missing? Not necessarily. Does this mean I will not enjoy the journey to the box and the time spent deciphering the clues? Definitely not.
I do provide a status date on all of my clues, which I manually maintain based on seeker reports and my own visits. If having the status logs turned off on my boxes deters people from looking for them, as Mosey said, it doesn't really bother me and they probably weren't the types of folks I want looking for my boxes in the first place.
To each his own...
SpringChick
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: david baril (gingerbreadjunk@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2006-11-01 19:16:29 UTC-08:00
not all the boxes i have ever found are located on both sites. then what? my F-count wont add up for either site. so i get left out of those super-duper F100 count boxes. i know where my F-count stands. some people dont even count thier finds anymore.
if someone finds a box and the next person to search for that same box cant find it, then you go to look for it and cant find it yourself, does that person who last found it get to go onto your naughty list? it seems that the naughty list you talk about is flawed.
dont forget about chip and dale! they maybe cute but they are suspect too!
david (team new hampshire)
http://teamnewhampshire.blogspot.com
Roze wrote:
--- david baril wrote:
> if i could just throw in a few cents. as i continue to box, i do tend
> to not log in my finds on either AQ or LBNA becasue it does take some
> time.
But - how do you get clues for the super-secret 100-F-Count-only boxes?
;-)
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business
(http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com)
---------------------------------
We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
if someone finds a box and the next person to search for that same box cant find it, then you go to look for it and cant find it yourself, does that person who last found it get to go onto your naughty list? it seems that the naughty list you talk about is flawed.
dont forget about chip and dale! they maybe cute but they are suspect too!
david (team new hampshire)
http://teamnewhampshire.blogspot.com
Roze
--- david baril
> if i could just throw in a few cents. as i continue to box, i do tend
> to not log in my finds on either AQ or LBNA becasue it does take some
> time.
But - how do you get clues for the super-secret 100-F-Count-only boxes?
;-)
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business
(http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com)
---------------------------------
We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: Bad boxer repository?
From: mizscarlet731 (mizscarlet731@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2006-11-02 10:57:25 UTC
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "The Gimbels" wrote:
>
>There are other places to find clues, personal web sites, WOM and some times clues are
posted here hidden in corespondence, just to name a few. As you get more involved in the
game you might find some of these.
This logging thing is new. I like the personal touch of an actual note. I don't count my
finds anymore, but that's just me. Everyone plays a little differently, we are a very diverse
bunch and getting us all to play the same way is like herding cats. If you ever go to a
gather you will see a crowd of people who under normal circumstances would never have
gotten together. Getting them all to agree on something? PZ cut or the pink stuff, markers
or ink pads, drive bys or long hikes, tastes great or less filling?
Hi All
> I am getting kind of confused here I think. Is there another place to find the clues
besides on LBNA or on AQ ?
>
> So we all have a log in name and then look up the clues and then search out the boxes
but people do not want to log in and mark the box as found? Isn't that part of it all? Isn't
that why placers put those boxes in online forums also. Isn't it just being polite to thank
someone correctly for giving you the opportunity to have this hobby?
>
> If some one could let me know why the LBNA or AQ numbers are not a good thing?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>There are other places to find clues, personal web sites, WOM and some times clues are
posted here hidden in corespondence, just to name a few. As you get more involved in the
game you might find some of these.
This logging thing is new. I like the personal touch of an actual note. I don't count my
finds anymore, but that's just me. Everyone plays a little differently, we are a very diverse
bunch and getting us all to play the same way is like herding cats. If you ever go to a
gather you will see a crowd of people who under normal circumstances would never have
gotten together. Getting them all to agree on something? PZ cut or the pink stuff, markers
or ink pads, drive bys or long hikes, tastes great or less filling?
Hi All
> I am getting kind of confused here I think. Is there another place to find the clues
besides on LBNA or on AQ ?
>
> So we all have a log in name and then look up the clues and then search out the boxes
but people do not want to log in and mark the box as found? Isn't that part of it all? Isn't
that why placers put those boxes in online forums also. Isn't it just being polite to thank
someone correctly for giving you the opportunity to have this hobby?
>
> If some one could let me know why the LBNA or AQ numbers are not a good thing?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: Roze (rozebud@rocketmail.com) |
Date: 2006-11-02 06:45:08 UTC-08:00
--- david baril wrote:
> not all the boxes i have ever found are located on both sites. then
> what? my F-count wont add up for either site. so i get left out of
> those super-duper F100 count boxes.
I know - I was just being facetious. On the other hand, a long-time
boxer like yourself probably would get a total of 100 on both sites
after a while. I don't think letterboxing.org has a way of restricting
clues by F-count, does it?
> if someone finds a box and the next person to search for that same
> box cant find it, then you go to look for it and cant find it
> yourself, does that person who last found it get to go onto your
> naughty list? it seems that the naughty list you talk about is
> flawed.
That seems to be the general consensus. Still, based on checking the
rest of the logbooks in this series, I have a strong suspicion as to
the 'culprit' in this particular case. If it was a stand-alone box,
well then, not so much, because there would be nothing to check
against! For me personally, if this person comes back to get the rest
of the boxes (once I replace the two that were ALREADY missing) or any
of the new series I'll be putting out soon, I will RUN to the park to
check on them upon notification of their find.
> dont forget about chip and dale! they maybe cute but they are
> suspect too!
LOL! But they're so CUTE!!!
Hey - any word about Gingerbread Jim?
rozebud
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
> not all the boxes i have ever found are located on both sites. then
> what? my F-count wont add up for either site. so i get left out of
> those super-duper F100 count boxes.
I know - I was just being facetious. On the other hand, a long-time
boxer like yourself probably would get a total of 100 on both sites
after a while. I don't think letterboxing.org has a way of restricting
clues by F-count, does it?
> if someone finds a box and the next person to search for that same
> box cant find it, then you go to look for it and cant find it
> yourself, does that person who last found it get to go onto your
> naughty list? it seems that the naughty list you talk about is
> flawed.
That seems to be the general consensus. Still, based on checking the
rest of the logbooks in this series, I have a strong suspicion as to
the 'culprit' in this particular case. If it was a stand-alone box,
well then, not so much, because there would be nothing to check
against! For me personally, if this person comes back to get the rest
of the boxes (once I replace the two that were ALREADY missing) or any
of the new series I'll be putting out soon, I will RUN to the park to
check on them upon notification of their find.
> dont forget about chip and dale! they maybe cute but they are
> suspect too!
LOL! But they're so CUTE!!!
Hey - any word about Gingerbread Jim?
rozebud
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
Re: [LbNA] Bad boxer repository?
From: david baril (gingerbreadjunk@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2006-11-02 16:50:48 UTC-08:00
Dectective PO hasn't gotten back to me yet about Gingerbread Jim yet. He is very busy and with the holiday season coming up, he will be even busier, so i hope that he finds him soon.
thanks for asking. we miss him so.
david (team new hampshire)
http://teamnewhampshire.blogspot.com
Roze wrote:
--- david baril wrote:
> not all the boxes i have ever found are located on both sites. then
> what? my F-count wont add up for either site. so i get left out of
> those super-duper F100 count boxes.
I know - I was just being facetious. On the other hand, a long-time
boxer like yourself probably would get a total of 100 on both sites
after a while. I don't think letterboxing.org has a way of restricting
clues by F-count, does it?
> if someone finds a box and the next person to search for that same
> box cant find it, then you go to look for it and cant find it
> yourself, does that person who last found it get to go onto your
> naughty list? it seems that the naughty list you talk about is
> flawed.
That seems to be the general consensus. Still, based on checking the
rest of the logbooks in this series, I have a strong suspicion as to
the 'culprit' in this particular case. If it was a stand-alone box,
well then, not so much, because there would be nothing to check
against! For me personally, if this person comes back to get the rest
of the boxes (once I replace the two that were ALREADY missing) or any
of the new series I'll be putting out soon, I will RUN to the park to
check on them upon notification of their find.
> dont forget about chip and dale! they maybe cute but they are
> suspect too!
LOL! But they're so CUTE!!!
Hey - any word about Gingerbread Jim?
rozebud
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________________
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
---------------------------------
We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
thanks for asking. we miss him so.
david (team new hampshire)
http://teamnewhampshire.blogspot.com
Roze
--- david baril
> not all the boxes i have ever found are located on both sites. then
> what? my F-count wont add up for either site. so i get left out of
> those super-duper F100 count boxes.
I know - I was just being facetious. On the other hand, a long-time
boxer like yourself probably would get a total of 100 on both sites
after a while. I don't think letterboxing.org has a way of restricting
clues by F-count, does it?
> if someone finds a box and the next person to search for that same
> box cant find it, then you go to look for it and cant find it
> yourself, does that person who last found it get to go onto your
> naughty list? it seems that the naughty list you talk about is
> flawed.
That seems to be the general consensus. Still, based on checking the
rest of the logbooks in this series, I have a strong suspicion as to
the 'culprit' in this particular case. If it was a stand-alone box,
well then, not so much, because there would be nothing to check
against! For me personally, if this person comes back to get the rest
of the boxes (once I replace the two that were ALREADY missing) or any
of the new series I'll be putting out soon, I will RUN to the park to
check on them upon notification of their find.
> dont forget about chip and dale! they maybe cute but they are
> suspect too!
LOL! But they're so CUTE!!!
Hey - any word about Gingerbread Jim?
rozebud
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________________
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
---------------------------------
We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]