I suggest you ...

Allow box restrictions

As at AQ - allow sensitive boxes to be restricted to number of plants or finds recorded, in such a way that the very existence of the box cannot be seen unless the criteria are met. I have some large series restricted on AQ that are not listed on LbNA for that reason. ~Trailhead Tessie

9 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Teresa Gallagher shared this idea  ·   ·  Admin →

    8 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • Alafair commented  · 

        I've never recorded anything since I began in 2002. I like the LBNA site just the way it is though a basket function has merit as a convenience yet doesn't detract from the functional simplicity of the site. I'm still an aficionado of stealth, secrecy and more than a little mystery in the game so therefore eschew the realm of AQ in its entirety.

      • Christine B commented  · 

        Perhaps there is a compromise. I don't like the idea of black lists, but I believe some restrictions are a good thing. What if LBNA has experience levels...lets say you have to record some number of boxes to demonstrate that you are an experienced boxer and then you have access to a class of restricted boxes. Or you could do it by membership date - 1 year after you join the site you can see the restricted boxes.

        Wisconsin Hiker - I realize many people don't log finds online. The benefit is that it helps other boxers have a feel for the box's status. The reality is that the majority of boxes out there (at least in my area) are not maintained and updated by the owner. People start boxing and leave after a few years. The older boxes especially really benefit from finders logging finds and attempts. I do know that on AQ you can hide your find list so they are not public.

        - Open Space

      • AdminJohn Chapman (Product Owner, LbNA) commented  · 

        Thanks Nairon. I guess I never felt that AQ had an exclusive club feel. There are certainly members that are more active on the boards, so they have a larger voice in the community, but it doesn't strike me as a us vs them situation. As it stand today, some clues aren't listed on LbNA because it doesn't allow any restriction on clues, but I guess a casual user wouldn't be able to notice that.

      • Nairon commented  · 

        For what it's worth, I'm kind of torn on this one. One of the things I like best about LbNA is its all-inclusive, welcoming, clear-cut quality, whereas AQ has a more exclusive club feel for the letterboxing elite, complete with many bells and whistles. While I recognize the sentiment that certain folks feel the need to protect some boxes with restrictions, whitelists, and the like, I fear that a preponderance of such requests would trend in the direction of creating a pseudo-AQ site. Since many individuals have the initial experience with letterboxing on LbNA, my hope would be for this experience to be as straightforward and all-inclusive as possible.

      • AdminJohn Chapman (Product Owner, LbNA) commented  · 

        I 100% support your right to letterbox discreetly by not recording any of your finds. There is also a long tradition of planters being discreet about who get's their clues; originally this was by making them Word of Mouth clues.

      • Wisconsin Hiker commented  · 

        This assumes that all letterboxers record their finds electronically. I am not a "newbie" letterboxer (over 7,000 finds and over 300 plants) and choose to keep my own private record of finds, not post them as a public record. I contact planters via email, but do not post my finds/attempts on a website. Why do you think it is important that recording finds on a public web site is important? Letterboxing originally was a more discreet hobby.

      • AdminJohn Chapman (Product Owner, LbNA) commented  · 

        I think that members are expressing a reasonable need to hide clues from newbie letterboxers that might not take as much care with them as more experienced letterboxers. Recording finds is something that we want to encourage on LbNA and if members learn that there may be "rewards" of new clues available as they record more finds, then they may be more likely to record those finds.

      • Wisconsin Hiker commented  · 

        I would hate to see divisive membership levels and things such as "black lists" and "white lists" creeping into letterboxing.org. Those letterboxers that want that type of exclusiveness can use AQ.

        I also think that boxes that are "Restricted" to only those people that electronically log their finds on the commercial AQ site should not have clues listed on letterboxing.org, since they only lead to a page that says you can't see the clue and a message stating "The FBI has been contacted".

      Feedback and Knowledge Base