[Challenge cache FTF question]

18 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

So I'm curious now, what happens if the first to sign never qualifies?

 

It has happened with other physical cache types that FTF finder never logs online. There are some exceptional players who signs the logbook only. In this case the STF finder may only comment about the FTF find they found from the logboook. Challenge checker are not able to tell reliably whether the FTF finder qualifies or not, because the data may not be updated.

[Improvement proposal: digital logging of geocaches instead of on paper]

44 minutes ago, BlueRajah said:

but I don't see the return on investment for HQ

 

It's pure money they got as return by selling these codes or tokens as I suggested. What kind of company choose not to gain revenue?

 

[Challenge cache FTF question]

26 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

Ahhh, but that's really not what I am doing, I'm just claiming the find when I fulfill the challenge.

 

I know that many players do this. I used the real date when I found the cache until I noticed that it makes me harder situation that others who selected the date arbitrarely depending on they needs. Many challenge checkers do not tell you the date you completed the challenge. Now you may say that "today I found that I have completed the challenge" .

[Challenge cache FTF question]

42 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

So, I don't consider logging a challenge as a find, separate from my write note, as "cheating".

 

Here in Finland, everybody knows that it is cheating, and almost everyone does it without hesitation. This way to adjust find dates freely is spreading also to other cache types. I am planning to write a note to some traditional cache telling that I may have visited the cache today but I will log it found later when I am sure that I visited the cache. This date adjustusting is just a joke here. This happened after some new challenges that required more cheating than usually.

 

Many years ago Jeremy Irish visited MEGA Finland 2012 and I was there listening when he was on stage. One question the audience asked him was what date a challenge cache should be logged found. Jeremy was surprised by the question and seemed to find the question somewhat strange. In his opinion, it was quite simple. The date when cache has been visited is recorded in the logbook, and it can be logged online when the challenge is fullfilled. He did not bring up the idea that the cache could be logged as found on a day other than the day it was found.

 

The guidelines do not mention dates at all. There is no need to write a date in the logbook when you sign the cache, and there is no date that you should use when logging the find online. Only events are forced to the first date of the event.

 

[Challenge cache FTF question]

11 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

I do NOT go back and change that log later - I log a separate Find log on the date I actually qualify, or figure out that I qualify as I review caches that I have signed before fulfilling the challenge.

 

We do this kind of cheating a lot in Finland. This kind of cheating is common with virtuals and earth caches too. It lets the finder to use practically any date to log the find. I have sometimes notified in my note to a challenge cache visit that I will check if the challenge is fulfilled later, just to delay the find to adjust it according to my own needs.

 

 

[Confusing find count]

6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

An owner can't do this on their own physical geocache.

 

I have done this so your statement must be false. A player sent me coordinates where he put my cache due to some reasons at the GZ. I went looking for it and found it. Then I logged "Found", because I legimately found it. This happened a long time ago when it was possible. Afterwards I removed this "Found" to avoid upsetting people with my single "stats abuse".

[Improvement proposal: digital logging of geocaches instead of on paper]

Just now, FDor said:

 

If you really have that kind of friends, it is in the current system even much, much easier to cheat. Simply click on the cache on the website and click on the “found” button.

 

Here is one local player here who signs some caches and skips some but logs them all on-line. Cache owners are now aware of this habit and delete logs. However, the real effect of being caught is that he is considered a cheater and that stigma cannot be removed.

[Confusing find count]

3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

But if a "Found It" log implies the act of discovery and success

 

As referred earlier, some players were used to log "Found" when they found the cache on their cache maintenance tour. I am sure that they comply with this "act of discovery and success" stipulation. Almost every day I am looking for things I have put somewhere and  I may find them with act of discovery and success. I am not buying this explanation. I prefer the "stats abuse" explanation. Don't you think that the primary reason to discourage finds to own caches is "stats abuse"? (Regardless of what "stats abuse" means.)

[Confusing find count]

16 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I've noticed an increase in recent years of people finding their own caches via sock puppet hides.

 

Indeed. In Finland we have a local guideline for them. (Google translation follows)

 

Quote

Collective nicknames must state the names of the nicknames belonging to the group upon publication. If the caches of the name brand/common name brands have unmaintained caches, the inspector does not need to publish a cache trail.

 

[Confusing find count]

2 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Depends how narrowly you define "find."

 

 

No, it is not depending at all. The guideline is clear: "You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook." There is nothing about finding at all. It is not obligatory part of the experience by the book.

 

There are some unspoken reasons why "Found" logs are considered disgraceful and prevented to log by the cache owner. I would like to hear these reasons one by one and then figure whether they apply to event caches.

[Improvement proposal: digital logging of geocaches instead of on paper]

4 hours ago, FDor said:

I don't exactly have the impression that the CO ensures that the online logging corresponds to the physical logging in the cache.

 

You are absolutely right, but it still happens occasionally by the CO and frequently by other players that are visiting the cache. Experienced players may add extra log sheet to the cache if the logbook is full or damaged to ensure that the visit is recorded correctly, at least temporarily.

 

I have found one cache that works as you suggested. The cache originally had a logbook but the cache was muggled so many times that the CO replaced the cache with a TB. The TB was used as a virtual logbook to sign the logbook before the found was finally logged in the cache page.

[Confusing find count]

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

To log an event as Attended, you just need to Attend the event; as a host of the event you also attend the event.

 

I may be twisting words if I say that the host is hosting the event and attendees are attending the event. In most cases, the host is indeed present at the event, actively managing and overseeing the proceedings. They may not be able to fully participate as a guest, as their primary role is to ensure the smooth running of the event and attend to the needs of the guests.

[Confusing find count]

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

To log a geocache as 'Found', you need to find the geocache.

 

Do you have any reference for this requirement? It is new to me. Many players sign caches they definitely haven't found but they meet the requirements to log a find. In many cases, this happens when a group on geocachers are searching a cache at the same time and only one of them actually finds the cache.

[Confusing find count]

2 hours ago, Goat62 said:

I have often wondered if logging a "found it" on a cache that you hid is considered cheating/ethical? I have noticed most Co's don't do this. On the other hand, I seen one co doing maintenance on their caches, but logging each one as a "found it" (looked like falsification of their real find numbers on their profile)

 

It is as cheating/ethical as attending your own event to earn a find.

 

It has been said that the organizer of the event also participates in the event. But it is even more certain that the owner of the cache has visited the cache coordinates. There is no difference between these cache types whether the player visited coordinates or not.

 

Currently system allows this "unethical cheating" only with events. You can not log a find if you are the cache owner. The result in Finland is that there are more events than caches published this year.

[High resolution Attribute Icons - Can I use SVG?]

Is there any reason why you can not use these scalable SVG images?

 

There are higher resolution png images. For example https://www.geocaching.com/images/attributes/dogs-yes.png

 

 

[Could stickers count as stamps for Letterbox Hybrid?]

I remember a case where stickers were used on a cache and the reviewer insisted that it is not allowed and disabled the cache. The reason was that only stamp was mentioned in the guidelines.

[MOB Caches - a new tool]

3 hours ago, Keystone said:

Here is another way of saying "question a link" to a site like the OP's new Mobcache functionality.

 

I don't understand what this is about. Here is an example:  https://coord.info/GC644N5

According to current reviewer guidance,  does this kind of cache "question a link" to a site?

It was published without permission from HQ. I know this for sure, because the reviewer asked a permission from the HQ later, long time after the cache was published.

[MOB Caches - a new tool]

15 minutes ago, kranfagel said:

What do you mean by "question links to websites"? After your message I understand that the HQ approval is not required for the cache to published. It just makes the publishing easier for both owner and reviewer. The regulations you linked clearly state that online free resources are permitted. 

 

I am also confused. The Help Center is totally limited to Apps that needs to be downloaded. I have one cache which is using location services functionality, but it is not an App and does not require downloading. It is just a web page you open from the link.

[MOB Caches - a new tool]

3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

That's how I interpret the guidance.

 

Do you have access to the guidance?

[MOB Caches - a new tool]

39 minutes ago, Keystone said:

We are instructed NOT to allow links from cache pages to unapproved third party functionality.

 

As the author of many third-party functional caches, I'm quite surprised that I hadn't received this information. It would be quite frustrating to see a lot of effort put into making something like this and then be surprised afterwards that the project requires some kind of unspecified review. If this guidance is not a trade secret, I would be more than welcome to see details of the guidance and when it is supposed to follow. Perhaps it only applies to functions performed by others than the owner of the tool himself?

[Are GPS's more accurate than phones?]

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

There is still the battery problem. The GPS's battery lasts longer and spare batteries can be carried.

 

My phone (Samsung Xcover 5) battery last whole day and it has option to change the battery on field. Sometimes I may use a power bank on longer trips, instead of changing the battery, because I do not have a spare battery (yet). I have chosen my phone these features in my mind. Many phones are not as practical, I know. Dedicated GPS receiver with simple AA batteries are very easy to keep running if you have one.

[Are GPS's more accurate than phones?]

4 hours ago, lee737 said:

no face ID to unlock, then choose the app, then wait for the GPS to settle

 

My phone has none of these killer anti-features. It is immediately on the spot when I take it out from my pocket, because I have chosen this way to operate it. I think that you have chosen to have these anti features or you are using the default setup. Anyway, I am sure that the dedicated GPS receiver is the best for you (because you have one). I only criticize the difficult way you have chosen to operate the phone

[Are GPS's more accurate than phones?]

2 hours ago, lee737 said:

Absolutely. Refreshing the screen is a huge pain.

 

Why not to adjust it longer or get totally rid of it? The App I am using, allows keeping the screen on while I am using navigation.

[Improvement proposal: digital logging of geocaches instead of on paper]

2 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

As long as there is a log as well, as I'm sure pens are cheaper than the reader. However, you still need to have a pen to write down the number, so as to log when you get home. Some of us want to write good logs, and the phone doesn't lend itself to good logs. Besides, I don't want to waste time in the field logging. That's for the evening.

 

I think you should reconsider what you just wrote. There seems to be some misunderstanding about the technology and how to use it. For example, field logging has nothing to do with the token. Also,  a reader do not match how it works neither a phone. Good logs are the essential part of the technology. You record a find with a token by using a camera or a notepad with a pen.

[Improvement proposal: digital logging of geocaches instead of on paper]

I know one way how this could be arranged properly.

 

 

Disconnected tokens. You put the token device in the cache and the finder must record the code to be able to log it on-line. Every player needs different code - so it is not possible to share this code at all. Tokens are sold by Groudspeak so they can get huge pile of money by selling them to lazy cache owners.