> Hey Steve could you explain why this is a big deal to you?  I 
> don't have a 
> problem with locationless caches or benchmarks but for some 
> reason I see you 
> post quite often that you want to seperate them.
> 
> Michael

Well, I'll try...

First of all, I don't have a problem with locationless, either. In fact
we like them; we've found something like 22 of them and plan on finding
more. I like benchmarks, too, but neither benchmarks nor locationless
are geocaches. They are fun variants of geocaching.

Benchmarks don't count in a player's find count, nor should they. I've
only logged one, but I don't think benchmark finds are counted anywhere,
at least not on geocaching.com. I simply believe the same or similar
approach should be applied to locationless as well. As long as
geocaching.com is going to post find counts, people are going to pay
attention to them and compare themselves to other cachers. Segregating
locationless caches would permit cachers to compare apples to apples.

Why not then segregate counts for virtuals, web-cams, etc., as well?
Because all of the other cache types share one thing in common with the
"traditional" cache: You have to use your GPS to lead you to some
previously specified location. Locationless is the one category where
that fundamental characteristic does not apply. That is why there are
many posters to the forums who call for the elimination of locationless
caches altogether.

I don't agree with that stance. If people want to post interesting
locationless caches, and others want to go find them, take pictures of
them, and post those in response, they should have the opportunity to do
so, and geocaching.com is an ideal place for that to be done. But
excluding their find counts from the overall find count would solve a
lot of problems associated with the category. What happened with
Cache-meifucan's "History" cache over the last couple of days is just
one more example of a problem that count segregation would solve.

Steve
Team Tierra Buena