grey_wolf & momcat

What you have done and are stating is one of the most "off the Wall" things i have heard of in caching. When there are group caching runs, it is not abnormal for logs to be signed as a group. You do what you want with your caches, but the people that you did this too all were there if they said they were.

Ooh. This is very sad. I guess that's one way to get to 15500 finds! Logging your own cache, ten times, because you could not log ten other caches. Very sad. Wow. I guess people don't believe in karma. There is one fix to this. Change the software so you can only have one "Found It' per cache. Hmmmmmm

Just for fun, what do you see as their short-sighted error? What I see as their short sighted error was the way these previously acceptable practices were summarily archived without warning, etc. I've heard all the arguments for this action and understand them BUT they had been winked at by TPTB for a loooong time so a better way to solve the problem would've been to send out a proclamation with a timetable attached. THAT would've been the way to settle this issue rather than it deteriorating into a witch hunt complete with name calling, accusations, gnashing of teeth, and MUCH bad feelings on both sides. Again, I agree that pocket caches got out of hand and went beyond their designed purpose. I am not arguing FOR them, just taking exception with the way the whole issue was handled - especially here in the forums. It seems like it all goes back to that old post by Jeremy that stated that he didn't wish to take action but would if things got out of hand. It did and he did. I guess that i was caching on that day and not paying attention to FORUMS. I guess I will now spend a bit of time here trying to get a better handle on which "cachers?" that Jeremy is listening to and what is in the works.

Um. It depends on what you think the logging function is for. I see it as a way to provide feedback to the cache owner. Using the proper log-type is also essential to provide the proper feed-back. Sure, I suppose I could email the cache owner, but then that email wouldn't be part of the cache history online. Then that is what YOU use it for. I don't DNF until I am sure it is not there. AND I don't call the cache owners or anyone else for hints to help find caches.

I agree, they should just remove the number showing in the LOG. You could still click on a profile and see how many finds they have, but in the plain log it should not show.. Then all the cheaters, would really be only doing it for their own viewing. And only people really interested in another user would be looking at the numbers. My 2 cents. You folks delete your own numbers and just leave mine alone I didn't personally appoint you a "god" or my overseer. If something really bothers you don't log any caches, you can find them without logging them.

Or, just log a bunch of bogus finds for unlisted caches as is the norm for some folks. Whatever you can live with, I have my standards and I expect most others have theirs.

Well said, thanks

It makes the count bogus for puritans . I'm not sure how, someone else logging multiple finds puts suspicion on people that don't log finds on caches that are not gc.com caches. If you feel your numbers are suspect because of what someone else claimed as a find, you could alway add a Truth In Numbers section to your profile where you can state publicly which questionable logging practices you have or have not engaged in. I realize that i am a little late on responding to this post, but I am wondering if it is not just as incorrect to NOT log a cache as it is to log one incorrectly? Either way throws off the whole balance of the logged caches for everyone. Hmmm, this is really something to ponder.

Which is why I think that fake stats are not 'harmless'. They erode the ties that bind the geocaching community together. If you know that your numbers are good and someone elses are not: you can have a smug inner feeling about it. Thats what it is all about, how we personally feel about our numbers isn't it.

No, I didn't. You might want to go back read it again and read it in context. That's some pretty weak backpedaling, CR. I read the linked post when it first went up, and I interpreted it the same way ParrotRob did. It was pretty clear to me that you were not-too-subtly referring to his find stats. Not only did you pointlessly drag PR's find count into the discussion, you completely missed the point of his "homework" comment. He was responding to sbell111's post about paperless caching, and whether skipping such 'homework' (reading the cache descriptions in advance) might help one avoid some of the 'undesirable' (lame) caches. What does blathering about his stats have to do with any of that? Why so defensive about the homework/preparation comment, CR? By any chance have you caused yourself any embarrassments by failing to be slow and methodical lately? I don't recall anyone saying or implying that you have to do your homework, CR. You're free to proceed as responsibly (or irresponsibly) as you like. The point is that when you choose not to read cache descriptions, you also choose whatever problems you bring upon yourself as a result. HERE we go into the fire. It seems that the folks that don't cache "much or any" seem to be the most offended when numbers are brought up. I truly believe that most cachers use the smileys on gc to keep track of their numbers. There are some I know that don't log any caches. But they are very few. If you haven't done certain types of caches, it is real hard to feel that you are an expert on them. Shields Up

We must refer back to the Geocaching.com licensing manual before statements like this can be made. Quoting from the manual: Novice Cacher: 1 to 19 finds (no license yet) "A" License: (Beginner) 20 finds "B" License: (Intermediate) 50 finds "C" License: (Advanced) 100 finds "D" License: (Expert) 200 finds The manual specifically states that "License ratings shall not expire due to the passage of time. Experience, once gained, shall not be diminished in any manner during a period of inactivity no matter how long that period might be." So there you have it. Cute

Sad I have to come out of lurking for a post like this: I'm going to be a bit blunt. Because, quite frankly I'm very tired of seeing caches around here dropping like flies because of all of the invalid logs. Did you physically visit these caches you intended to log? Did you sign the little piece of paper in the cache's container? If so, it's a find. If not, Its not a find no matter how you sugarcoat it. "Pocket Caches" to be completely honest was a bad idea. Personally, I'm very happy you didn't get to log them. You didn't visit the cache, so how could you even think about counting it as a log? Do you know why they were archived? People like you. A very heartfelt thanks for the lost opportunity to find certain caches. I suppose I should have jumped out there earlier before GW4 and found them. You are from Plano, Tx and weren't at GWIV. You missed a good time. As for the pocket caches, etc. we didn't log them (but don't care that others did), but running around seeing everyone each year and each event that you can get to is a real HOOT! And 12 or so caches one way or another is not a big thing to most that were there. Don't worry about those pocket caches, just go caching for the ones that you like. There are 3000 or so near you!!

People who want to hike in the woods (with snakes and animals and mud) will hide caches out in the woods. If they like to find ammo cans with lot of trade items, they will hide an ammo can with lots of trade items. People who want to find caches by driving their car to Wal*Mart will hide caches in Wal*Mart parking lots. I wouldn't call these people lazy or cheap or uncreative. They prefer a different type of caching experience. Perhaps they like getting a high find count or perhaps they feel that a hike in the woods is too difficult for them. Some people will search for any cache that is out there. They like geocaching. Many of them will prefer the experience of a hike in the woods but the Wal*Mart hide is also an enjoyable experience at a different level for them. They tend to hide a mixture of urban micros and both micro and full sized non-urban caches. My suggestion: Look for the kinds of caches you like to find. Ignore the caches that you don't like to find. Hide the kinds of caches you like to find. Have fun. If you're not having fun, find another hobby. We must agree with this statement. We consider ourselves middle of the road as numbers go. We like hiking caches, but we love Geocaching period and will take them on as they pop up in the queries and on the GPSr. AND, we have not yet met a Cacher in person that we didn't like.

I thought that I would post this statement that I posted on another forum here. Lazy is an opinion I think. ""I think that a "Statement" needs to be made. IF you cache a lot you get HIGH numbers. You can sign logs and log only one time on an event or any other cache and you still get Higher numbers. If some don't like people with higher numbers, CACHE MORE.""

I think that a "Statement" needs to be made. IF you cache a lot you get HIGH numbers. You can sign logs and log only one time on an event or any other cache and you still get Higher numbers. If some don't like people with higher numbers, CACHE MORE.

I guess two posts are better than none -- sorry

Quote from SEMPER___- For an example there is a cache in our area that I am working on now that requires you to find things at 6 locations in town to collect information to get the coords for the final. The owner is allowing a find on each of those 6 locations plus the final. With a numeric value the owner could put a 7 on there to set a ceiling vs. a 1 or unlimited choice. That is just 1 example. There are many caches (around here at least) that awards mutliple finds in a single cache for various reasons. If you allow a ceiling setting you are keeping the multiple find logs option open but the owner can limit it to prevent his/her cache from being used for an unlimited number of bogus finds for pocket caches, temp caches, or whatver else gets thought up. Are you stating that a "smiley" is being taken for each leg of a multi? HMMMMMMM

For an example there is a cache in our area that I am working on now that requires you to find things at 6 locations in town to collect information to get the coords for the final. The owner is allowing a find on each of those 6 locations plus the final. With a numeric value the owner could put a 7 on there to set a ceiling vs. a 1 or unlimited choice. That is just 1 example. There are many caches (around here at least) that awards mutliple finds in a single cache for various reasons. If you allow a ceiling setting you are keeping the multiple find logs option open but the owner can limit it to prevent his/her cache from being used for an unlimited number of bogus finds for pocket caches, temp caches, or whatver else gets thought up. Are you stating that a "smiley" is being taken for each leg of a multi? HMMMMMMM

Ah, the 'Creed'. I know, I follow #1 and #2 much more carefully than #3, but I try. Seems like i have the same thing going on #3, but I do try to keep a balance.

"Micro" is a size. "Traditional" is a type. Two different things. Like "small" and "American." Only on a certain level. There are different reasons for watching one's numbers. The folks that are only keeping track out of curiosity aren't the one's harming the hobby. It's the one's that are activity trying to artificially raise their numbers that are harming the hobby. While I feel those are in the minority they are having a disproportionally larger negative influence on the hobby. While there are a lot of micros out there, i don't know how much a negative influence that they have on the hobby. I have a tendency to not do caches by certain cachers instead of types of caches. There are some very good micros out there.

Micro's are classed as traditional caches. Some folks prefer urban micros over going into the Woods, marsh, bush, etc and visa versa. I think the problem comes when the folks that go for the urban caches end up with a higher "smiley" count than the folks that only do large caches. (there are just more of the small caches) And with most (but not all) cachers, numbers do count. The statement about "quality caches" comes up often, but IMHO the level of quality is in the eyes of the beholder. I sometimes bypass caches, but not because of their size or location (this is probably my personal "quality filter" coming into play) Shields are up

OK, you asked for it: BOO!!! Thanks, that took care of my aerobics for today.

And some don't. The quality of my GC finds went up astronomically, in my opinion, when I started excluding micros on my pocket queries for unfound caches. I fixed it for you. Unfix it, please. That is not what I said, that is not what I meant. It was a straightforward statement of fact; please don't change my posts like that. Because it bothers you so much, I will. My point is, your statement was true about your experience. It was your opinion of that experience. When placing or seeking geocaches, I will: 1) Use my brain. 2) Try to make the game fun for others 3) Try not to be too full of myself cool statements huh.

Either way you're trying not to be noticed. no doubt.

It didn't have anything to do with logging caches? Let's take a peek at part of your quote.... The second word is what threw me off I suppose. Well, your post IS in the thread about logging events multiple times, right? Why is it surprising that someone thought you were talking about logging caches or events? Backpeddling is a concept that is not over the heads of some readers, and you've shown us a great example of it. Because I do not do something and you do, does not automatically make it right or wrong. BUT, I am always interested in all of the ways that words can be twisted and restated for purposes that are still unknown or to get some kind of effect for some personal gain. I am sure the purposes will be revealed in time and in future posts.