Dame Deco

Yeah, and with over 2 million caches world wide, folks can indeed play 2 entirely different games, can't they?

Another point--the one who actually contacted GS was someone who had a log deleted from 3 months ago. I try to keep careful track of my 11 EarthCaches, but I would not delete a log that old if I let it slide by through my own carelessness. The oldest log I've ever deleted is a month old, and that's only when the person doesn't respond to emails.

+2--it is their business. And I think they are taking cache type and difficulty into account. Do have proof they aren't? Did you get a raft of emails or something?

+1 Completely agree here. I'm tired of abandoned caches taking up spaces, too. Folks resist change--but a hobby like Geocaching HAS to change over the years. As caches age, as more people join, as the numbers of caches grow, it's completely natural that the number of abandoned and unmaintained caches will grow. Shedding off dead cells is part of growing.

I guess to answer your questions to me specifically more clearly: if you delete some but not others, you are acting in an arbitrary manner. You seem to think it's important that those logging your cache follow the rules, but you don't follow them yourself. If you don't know why I think that's important, I don't think I can really explain it.

Funny, 6.5 years later and I feel exactly the same. And I was deleting logs that didn't meet the requirement back then. I am sorry if I missed removing some that didn't meet the requirement over the past 11 years. I find it very bizarre that you are hung up on that, as that really doesn't have anything to do with anything. And yes, I specifically allowed for people to log camera finds at this webcam cache for when it was down. Again, the important part to me was getting people to the beach at sunrise, not the mechanism of taking the photo to prove their visit. I think people who were at the right place at the right time should be allowed to log the cache even if the camera was having technical difficulties. You disagree, and that's fine. But I don't see what any of this has to do with anything? It has to do with this: 1) You don't always follow your own rules. 2) Since you've allowed pics not taken by the webcam, your cache has NEVER actually followed the GC rules. If you and your cache don't follow the rules--why should folks logging your cache think it's important to follow the rules on your cache? To me, the whole point of a webcam cache is the webcam itself. If someone gets there, and it doesn't work, they log a dnf and enjoy a gorgeous sunrise. If the sunrise is the point--why should the smilie matter if the webcam is out? A sunrise is more than folks get out of most DNFs.

Still going through the logs, and you "took pity" on a lot of cachers over the years (to use their words). You haven't ever really been all that strict about enforcing the rules. I was in that area a couple years ago and skipped your cache because I was there in the late morning. It would be a shame to archive it--so few webcams even work anymore. I like the idea of those calling for an honor roll for those at dawn. And also--a lot of folks will do it as a intended even without a requirement if you ask them to, as someone else upthread said. Most cachers try to caches as intended.

A couple people doing it improperly in the past with logs you let stand: 2/7/2007--"webcam snafu," claimed find without a webcam pic 1/14/2008--find claimed with family photo taken with camera, no webcam pic I'll just stop there, I'm sure there would be others. You seem to care most that they went at sunrise. I care most that they actually use the webcam. One of my pet peeves is people who claim them that did't actually use the webcam. If you weren't deleting logs back then, why delete them now? On 1/27/2009, you answered someone saying they didn't like the requirements with this: "No thanks. Most of my caches are not cut out for everyone, and this obviously includes you. Only 19 people have found this cache in the more than 4.5 years it has been active. Those people had what it takes to log this Find, so if I changed the requirements, that would cheapen what they did to earn their Finds. I see it as the same as moving my "CLIMB" Cache from 35 feet up in a tree to the first branch, 6 feet up. And that's just not gonna happen." 2 of the 19 finds were bogus--

It's really your fault for letting some slip through the cracks. You should have either applied the rule to all or none. You didn't properly maintain your own cache.

Might not help--I literally found a dozen names just by checking on caches within 50 miles of a recent find. This looks to be a lot bigger than a few fake accounts.

Wow--I just clicked on a cache I found a week ago in Colorado, hit "find nearby caches," then "last found," and there are a dozen totally different accounts logging this same thing with the link today.

Wow--I just clicked on a cache I found a week ago in Colorado, hit "find nearby caches," then "last found," and there are a dozen totally different accounts logging this same thing with the link today.

Yep--I saw that, too. Didn't download anything, needless to say.

I tried a link to it just to see--I put in a GC code, the it said "download one of these free apps and get access"--needless to say, I didn't download anything! Still--the names are all similar on the logs--a name followed by a 4 digit number with 99 or 100 finds. That makes me think it isn't real cachers doing the logging. Seems more like something to get people to click on the link. The finds seem very random--not all lonely caches or 5/5s, etc. Some of the finds are on easy caches found recently.

I have some multis, hard puzzles, and remote EarthCaches that haven't been found in a few months--no emails on any of them. So I think that however they are doing it, that's being taken into account, too.

and Sims3717 http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=64b3149d-e81b-4394-98f0-03a8cdb6f92f

It is confusing. I thought that a picture could be required if it related directly to a task and not as proof you were there. We need an official geoaware to weigh in--

Yeah--I felt exactly the same way about the 7 year old, never found, 5/5 cache that was replaced by a GS lackey instead of just being archived like another cache might have been. Marketing, marketing, marketing!

Here's the guy's log: Eh--I'd just let it go. If he'd have put FTF experience (add a word), perhaps it would have been better, but he was basically honest. p.s.--and you've been declared such on the owner's banner for the page. Just let it go--you were to FTF, that's clear.

Hmmm…didn't realize I was imposing anything on anyone. Did someone die and make me King? All I'm doing is expressing an opinion in a discussion on an online forum. I thought some might be interested in my opinion, for I am interested in theirs.

This is a very specific case: 7 years old. Never found. Never seen since the day it was placed by anybody. Comparing it to caches that have been found from time to time, or maintained in any way, is like comparing apples and oranges. It should have just been archived, and a new cache page put in its place. It could be owned by either the adoptee owner or by Derek. That would be a more accurate representation of the history of the cache.

You're not required to find any cache or report any statistic that doesn't meet your personal geocaching accuracy standards. I know, and for the most part--I don't.

J Grouchy, thanks for the comments, I think you're right. Cezanne--I think you responded fairly, and I understand what you are saying. But now maybe you see that there could be an explanation other than competitiveness. I've found Mingo, mostly because it was on my route one day, and I thought--why not? But it wasn't very exciting--talk about a butchered cache history. Arikaree on the other hand--I went hundreds of miles out of my way for that one. I found it before the original logbook was lost, and I just got chills visiting that gorgeous place and seeing the original log book from over a decade before. If all I cared about was the oldest date--I should have given a favorite point to Mingo, but my favorite point went to Arikaree. It's younger (not the OLDEST cache), but it was a more exciting visit for me personally.

You often imply that people who cache differently from you are in it for competition--you've implied it in a number of posts in this thread while having a discussion with me. Cezanne = proper values, others who disagree = competitive. I value accuracy. Of course some dates, etc., can't be known--but to be inaccurate on purpose bothers me. That's why this whole situation bothers me. When a GS lackey replaces a cache that nobody has seen for 7 years--not the original owner or the adopter--and has never been found, then has the next cachers come along and log the replacement as the first people to find the oldest unfound cache in Washington State, that sets up a problematical situation. The record for this cache, and the history of caches in Washington State, is now inaccurate.

It has nothing at all to do with "competing." You do like label anyone who is interested in facts and keeping track of things properly as "competitive," don't you? Why do you choose that word? I study history, I teach history--I just like to have the facts straight, it has nothing to do with competing at anything.