Multiple "attended" Logs For An Event

[+pwcorg]

I am not sure if this is the proper place for this post or not, but I'm sure that if it is not someone will point me in the right direction. I was Looking at an individual profile in GC.com today and noticed the cacher had a BUNCH of event caches logged. When I clicked on the event icon WAY fewer events showed up. Being naturally curious I checked out a few of the events and found out that numerous cachers had logged each event as "attended" as many as 10 times each? I assume this is to "correct" cache stats for "temporary" caches found within an event. Question is "Is this normal, accepted, legal, etc. ?"

[+cache_test_dummies]

I assume this is to "correct" cache stats for "temporary" caches found within an event. Question is "Is this normal, accepted, legal, etc. ?"

I don't know about 'normal', but I've seen it done, and as you are probably about to find out, it is a controversial practice.

 

I don't know if 'legal' is the right word, but the site does allow multiple attended logs just as it allows multiple finds on the same cache.

[+Turtle3863]

I assume this is to "correct" cache stats for "temporary" caches found within an event. Question is "Is this normal, accepted, legal, etc. ?"

 

YES, This currently is the only way to log event caches. In my area we have tried to limit event caches to something around 5 or less and trust me on a lot of these event caches we earned them.

Edited February 5, 2006 by Turtle3863

[+pwcorg]

I assume this is to "correct" cache stats for "temporary" caches found within an event. Question is "Is this normal, accepted, legal, etc. ?"

I don't know about 'normal', but I've seen it done, and as you are probably about to find out, it is a controversial practice.

 

I don't know if 'legal' is the right word, but the site does allow multiple attended logs just as it allows multiple finds on the same cache.

 

I don't really care either way. I play my gave and pretty much give others the latitude to play theirs. I just had never noticed it before and being fairly new (less than 2 yrs) I wanted to ask the community. Thanks.

[+sbell111]

The problem with this practice is that there is no way of knowing whether the 'caches' in question met the guidelines. We're all aware of times that people have brought an archived cache to an event for everyone to log or that you were supposed to find so-and-so and ask them for the log. I'd just as soon they fixed to only allow one find log per event. Even better, make the event log something other than a find. They could make an 'attended' log and not include the numbers in teh find totals.

[+ChileHead]

When I first started, I had logged an event multiple times for the event caches. Then I realized it was just stupid, so I went back and deleted the extras.

[+JDandDD]

The event is what you are getting the smiley for not the individual caches at the event. The individual caches aren't approved so really aren't part of the game. They certainly don't meet the guidelines since the are temporary.

 

Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

That's from the guidelines so I'd say you shouldn't claim them by claiming multiple attendances of an event.

 

JDandDD

[+Kit Fox]

Here is the original thread Rediculious Event: Number Game????, Is this an abuse or valid

 

Apparently the new fad is to log temporary caches as finds in order to "pad" your find count. The whole issue whiffs of cheating IMO.

[+fizzymagic]

Even better, make the event log something other than a find. They could make an 'attended' log and not include the numbers in the find totals.

 

I concur. In fact, I recently went back and changed all my "attended" logs to notes, with the exception of one event that I actually did find. I would prefer it if "attended" logs didn't count toward your find total; I think it would have the beneficial side-effect of reducing the number of events that get rejected and cause such angst in the forums.

[+pwcorg]

Thanks one and all. I guess the answer to my question is: Legal, technically Normal, yes, Accepted, depends on who you ask. I personally do not agree with the practice, but to each their own. Thanks again.

[+Touchstone]

I attended one Event that was set up this way. The GBES Rally in Nevada had a 4x4 course set up over a days worth of time trials and "caching". The time trials involved matching the pace car time between checkpoints, and at each checkpoint was a Virtual cache to find in a specified time (usually a stick in the ground with a word printed on it). Participants were allowed to log each of the Virtuals under the Event page (I think there were eight or so). It is kind of numbers padding IMO, and I probably wouldn't bother the next time, but that's what went on with that Event. I've heard of similar Events set up this way too.

[+The Blue Quasar]

One "Attended" Log per Event listing on Geocaching.com is the way we do it around here.

 

If an event ran for two days and had several contests.... anyone that attended knows what everyone that was there went through to earn the Smilie.

 

People don't get to log 4 four finds for doing a 4 stage multi-cache, why should this differ?

 

Also, why would anyone log a find on the Event for doing a traditional cache during it? You don't log a two finds when you do a virtual stage during a puzzle cache even if a photo submissions is required for the puzzle.

 

To me, it's simple... one listing... one logging.

 

 

The Blue Quasar

[+KoosKoos]

People don't get to log 4 four finds for doing a 4 stage multi-cache, why should this differ?

 

The Blue Quasar

 

But in some places, this is accepted practice too....I agree with the 1 log, 1 find philosophy, but others don't, which at the end of the day, doesn't really affect me.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

When I first started, I had logged an event multiple times for the event caches. Then I realized it was just stupid, so I went back and deleted the extras.

"stupid" What an appropriate word for this practice.

 

On this website, I only log finds on caches that are listed here. Temporary caches are not listed here (and specifically prohibited in the guidelines) so they should never get a find on this site.

[+4BROWNSQUIRRELS]

I wont go so far as to call it stupid, nor cheating, how do you cheat when you get to make up your own rules? But it is what I would call cheesy and sad. I mean do numbers really matter to some so mutch that they log every stage of a multi? That never occurd to me, but to each his own I guess.

[+budd-rdc]

Maybe we can create an "Attendables" tab, like how we have "Trackables" now.

 

Seriously, Groundspeak should consider promoting the social aspect of the sport separately from caching, like how TBs and Geocoins get their own stats. For example, regular events (two weeks notice), another for non-events (less than a week notice), and an "event smiley" for event-specific temporary caches can be tracked separately! This can all tie-in with the future "Friends" feature, so you can predict which of your friends are anti-social and which aren't.

[+The Blue Quasar]

Great idea!

 

I love the idea of "ATTENDABLES"

 

Events and CITO's aren't caches anymore than Virtuals, Locationless, WebCams and EarthCaches are.

 

So you could have GEOCACHES / ATTENDABLES / TRACKABLES.... now if only there was a name for non physical items....

 

Wait... I know....

 

WAYMARKS

 

They could transfer VIRTUALS, LOCATIONLESS, WEB CAMS and EARTHCACHES as well as WAYMARKS into their own list.

 

So there could be tabs for GEOCACHES / WAYMARKS / ATTENDABLES / TRACKABLES

 

Geocaches would have - Traditional, Multicache, Puzzle Cache, Letterbox and Project Ape

Waymarks would have - Virtual, Locationless, Web Cam, Earth Cache, Benchmarks and the new Waymarks

Attendables would have - Events and CITO

Trackables would have - Travel Bugs, Geocoins

 

This is starting to sound familiar....

 

The Blue Quasar

 

Edit: I am not being sarcastic

Edited February 6, 2006 by The Blue Quasar

[vagabond]

I was looking at a profile today, they have been a member since 02/03 with 568 event caches.

He must be a very gregarious cacher

[+5¢]

I wonder why no one does anything about this practice since it seems most people don't like it. It would seem to me that if even just an email was sent to someone automatically if they multi logged an event, warning them that it is an abuse of the system, this practice would soon die.

[+dougsmiley]

Seems like everybody does this around here..

 

Think I should delete mine/not log them?

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I don't do it even tho I've had the chance a few times. I just want my stats to be accurate. I didn't attend 300 events, so why should my stats show that I did? There was 1 event that I logged twice. It was because they had a morning event and one in the evening- at two different locations too, 1 in a park and the other at a restaurant a few miles away. For some reason they could only list one and said it was OK to log each one. That was a little different than temporary caches tho. I do know of 1 event cache that has over 3600 logs on it. There were 100 or so temp caches that could be logged on it.

[+NotThePainter]

We "solved" this problem at Bread and Roses by having permanent caches!

 

7 went live that night, one more the next morning. Obviously not all events can do this, but it was fun. I left the restaurant at 9pm and it somehow took me 3 hours to drive the 1 mile home...

 

Paul

[+Glenn]

The problem with this practice is that there is no way of knowing whether the 'caches' in question met the guidelines. We're all aware of times that people have brought an archived cache to an event for everyone to log or that you were supposed to find so-and-so and ask them for the log. I'd just as soon they fixed to only allow one find log per event. Even better, make the event log something other than a find. They could make an 'attended' log and not include the numbers in teh find totals.

 

Your being nice, there is no question as to if they meet the guidelines to not. Obviously, the caches don't meet the guidelines or those putting on the event would have had them listed.

[+The Blue Quasar]

Glenn Posted Yesterday, 10:32 PM

 

Your being nice, there is no question as to if they meet the guidelines to not. Obviously, the caches don't meet the guidelines or those putting on the event would have had them listed.

 

Bull's Eye!

 

You nailed that one perfectly, IMHO.

 

There would probably be a lot of coding involved to block multiple FOUND or ATTENDED logs, since people can post as many NOTES as they like. And of course, TPTB would have to decide if multiple logs were allowed or not first. I don't know if there is a policy or guideline on it.

 

I don't do it for other Events, and I don't allow it at mine. That's all I know.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+adambro]

I don't really like the idea of having loads of tabs for different stats, geocaches, tbs etc, all it does it make it more difficult to get a quick overview of someones caching background.

[+5¢]

Glenn Posted Yesterday, 10:32 PM

 

Your being nice, there is no question as to if they meet the guidelines to not. Obviously, the caches don't meet the guidelines or those putting on the event would have had them listed.

 

Bull's Eye!

 

You nailed that one perfectly, IMHO.

 

There would probably be a lot of coding involved to block multiple FOUND or ATTENDED logs, since people can post as many NOTES as they like. And of course, TPTB would have to decide if multiple logs were allowed or not first. I don't know if there is a policy or guideline on it.

 

I don't do it for other Events, and I don't allow it at mine. That's all I know.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

Notes don't add to stats though.

[+Renegade Knight]

... Question is "Is this normal, accepted, legal, etc. ?"

 

Yes and no. Some peole do this to log event only caches that are not approvable on this site. Those people tend to think that this keeps the balance of their finds correct. Others think it's a crock. I'm the latter.

 

If a cache is not approvable on this site, it should not be logged on this site in any way. If a cache is so worthy that it should be logged then it should be listed, then logged normally. I don't have any issue with event attendees having first crack at a cache that will be opened up later to everone.

 

My 2 cents.

[+maleki]

One GC.com cache ID = One Log

 

Never logged a cache twice.

[+Team Neos]

If there were a category for "event caches" I would log them that way, but there isn't, so we use the work around of logging the event. As someone else said, in my area, that usually means that we work to find them! There is a tendency to pull out some of the most unusual containers, to create some of the trickiest hides, and to locate them in places most worth viewing. I have learned quite a few new tricks from these "evil" hides, I can assure you, and the whole thing is a long cry from "padding one's stats" as far as I am concerned. The only reason these aren't permanent caches is that the event is held in state parks or on private property that isn't open to geocaching all the time, but permission has been obtained to place them for the duration of the event --or if we are lucky, the event weekend, so the folks who come in early or late can still get the event caches too. I don't really understand the resentment.

[+JoGPS]

The OP main question was, “”I checked out a few of the events and found out that numerous cachers had logged each event as "attended" as many as 10 times each? I assume this is to "correct" cache stats for "temporary" caches found within an event. Question is "Is this normal, accepted, legal, etc. ?"“

 

Lets do a little history here for the new folks

 

(1) Temporary caches use to be OK for events even if for only one day

(2) These were all legally placed caches, nothing to get around the guidelines, but only there for one day

(3) The guideline changed to a minimum of 90 days

(4) Folks kelp hiding temporary caches just for events and gave out mock caches pages for those that want to hunt them, and let them log the event page multiple times

(5) Jeremy made a statement that he did not care how many times an event page was logged

(6) Its been done this way ever since

(7) old thread almost three years old, the two before it cannot pull up

 

old thread

 

My own personal views, was I used to log everything in sight at an event that was allowed by the event organizer, back then caches were few and far between, and had a blast doing it. It took me three months and five states of hard caching every weekend to find my first 100 caches. Now I can find 160 plus caches in one day.

 

My views changed when someone asked me how many actual events I had attended, and I did not know because of all the temporary caches I had logged over the years. I tried to go back and figure it out, so when the next person asked I would know. To make a long story shorter, I just deleted all of my extra caches at events not because it was wrong but because I wanted it to reflect the actual number of events attended. Nothing more nothing less.

 

I think this practice of logging temporary caches at events multiple times is normal, accepted, legal, and the reviewers have said as much, and remember play the game the way you want to not the way everyone else thinks you should.

 

The most important thing to remember is to have fun

 

JOE

[+5¢]

As someone else said, in my area, that usually means that we work to find them! There is a tendency to pull out some of the most unusual containers, to create some of the trickiest hides, and to locate them in places most worth viewing. I have learned quite a few new tricks from these "evil" hides, I can assure you, and the whole thing is a long cry from "padding one's stats" as far as I am concerned. (snip) I don't really understand the resentment.

 

Not really resentment here, more of a reality check. There is no difference in logging event caches than logging terracaches or navicaches on a gc.com page. They aren't really geocaching.com caches. So you worked hard to find 10 caches that day. The main point of the event, was the event ........wasn't it? Am I supposed to feel bad that you chose to spend your day at an event instead of scoring the 10 caches you could have if you didn't go to the event? An event is like a really long multi cache. The only thing that is different is that you don't have to find the middle legs (extra caches) to log it.

[+StarBrand]

If they have no GCxxxx number and only existed for a day or two - they were for fun not stats. Silly to try and claim them in such a bizarre fashion.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

If there were a category for "event caches" I would log them that way, but there isn't, so we use the work around of logging the event. As someone else said, in my area, that usually means that we work to find them! There is a tendency to pull out some of the most unusual containers, to create some of the trickiest hides, and to locate them in places most worth viewing. I have learned quite a few new tricks from these "evil" hides, I can assure you, and the whole thing is a long cry from "padding one's stats" as far as I am concerned. The only reason these aren't permanent caches is that the event is held in state parks or on private property that isn't open to geocaching all the time, but permission has been obtained to place them for the duration of the event --or if we are lucky, the event weekend, so the folks who come in early or late can still get the event caches too. I don't really understand the resentment.

In order for a cache to be listed on this site, it has to abide by the guidelines. One of those guidelines is "Cache permenance" where the cache needs to be around for 3 months. A "just for the weekend" cache does not meet this test, so it wouldn't be published, and therefore shouldn't be logged.

 

Compare that to a Terracache. The rules on that site say the cache can't be listed anywhere else. Since it isn't listed here, would you claim a find for it on this site? Of course not. Well, temporary caches aren't listed here either, but somehow it's ok to log them on this site? How about some consistency? If it's listed on this site, log it. Not listed on this site? Don't log it. Pretty simple.

 

Oh, and before you say "The event is listed, so I should be able to log anything from the event..." think about what the event cache really is. You're logging that you found/attended the event, not that you went searching for a bunch of caches. If searching for a bunch of cache is what makes an event, then someone needs to check the guidelines. That's actually excluded from the list of valid reasons to have an event.

[+The Cheeseheads]

I wont go so far as to call it stupid, nor cheating, how do you cheat when you get to make up your own rules? But it is what I would call cheesy and sad. I mean do numbers really matter to some so mutch that they log every stage of a multi? That never occurd to me, but to each his own I guess.

 

 

Since there's no way to "win" at geocaching, I'd hardly call it cheating. I have a multicache that I allow a find for each stage, because each stage is essentially a separate caching trip to a completely different location that the stage before with a stop at home in between.

 

I agree that the temp cache thing at events is kind of out-of-hand. Back when I was new, I did it because everyone else did, so I thought it was okay. Once they changed the event logs from "found" to "attended", the light went on and I haven't logged multiple events since.

 

Personally, I don't get my undies in a bunch over what other people do. I know that people log finds on their own caches. I know that people log finds for caches they didn't actually find saying, "I was in the area, but the cache is probably missing because I would have found it if it wasn't." I know that people disagree with the fact that I log an "attended" at my own events.

 

I don't care. It doesn't affect me one iota that I feel the need to complain about it. Enjoy the game and don't worry that other people play it differently than you.

[+The Blue Quasar]

5¢ Posted Today, 02:07 PM

 

Notes don't add to stats though.

 

Exactly my point.

 

And when someone can explain how finding a physical container with a logbook is classified as an Event then I will change my mind.

 

While we're at it, if I cannot find the same item that you found a month before at an Event, then it is not a valid find.

 

Good luck... you'd have more luck convincing TPTB that a Virtual is really a Geocache.

 

Call me a Purist, but the only thing on my Events is "Attended", but I do allow "Found"... that's it. Under the extreme case that someone cannot express everything they felt they wanted to say then a supplementary NOTE is allowed. But a Note for no reason... deleted without exception... even Will Attend... after the Event they have no business being there.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+5¢]

5¢ Posted Today, 02:07 PM

 

Notes don't add to stats though.

 

Exactly my point.

 

And when someone can explain how finding a physical container with a logbook is classified as an Event then I will change my mind.

 

While we're at it, if I cannot find the same item that you found a month before at an Event, then it is not a valid find.

 

Good luck... you'd have more luck convincing TPTB that a Virtual is really a Geocache.

 

Call me a Purist, but the only thing on my Events is "Attended", but I do allow "Found"... that's it. Under the extreme case that someone cannot express everything they felt they wanted to say then a supplementary NOTE is allowed. But a Note for no reason... deleted without exception... even Will Attend... after the Event they have no business being there.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

I think we are on the same page. I think we misunderstood each other.

[+Team Neos]

 

While we're at it, if I cannot find the same item that you found a month before at an Event, then it is not a valid find.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

You found this cache in the past, and it is archived now, so it really isn't a valid find because I can't go find it now. So you should delete it from your stats. Or at least that is the reasoning that you have just given me.

[+greyhounder]

I guess my suggestion would be to go to the event that has the temporary cache and base your opinion on that particular event. But every event is different, so I guess you should go to several. If you then find that the temporaries are problematic, bring it up with the event holder.

 

Of course, every event holder can do whatever he or she wants, and every event attendee may do whatever he or she wants.

 

Coming from a state that has event with temporaries, our organization has established that we can log temporaries if we choose. Some do, some don't. I used to, but decided in the past year to stop doing it. However, at all the events I have attended with temporaries, each on still has to meet the guidelines for cache placement.

 

One unfortunate thing for these temporaries is that you can't log a DNF -- in the past I used notes when I couldn't find a temporary.

 

I don't have any deep reason as to why I don't log temporaries anymore (maybe just too lazy to log them all!) I've only encountered quality temporaries at this point, and I still enjoy seeking them. I just give myself one smiley now. I've thought about deleting all of my extra ones, but again, too lazy to make the change. Maybe eventually.

 

Until there is official word that this is not allowed, it will continue. Doesn't affect my life in any significant way, so I don't worry about it.

 

Bec

[+Glenn]

If there were a category for "event caches" I would log them that way, but there isn't, so we use the work around of logging the event. As someone else said, in my area, that usually means that we work to find them! There is a tendency to pull out some of the most unusual containers, to create some of the trickiest hides, and to locate them in places most worth viewing. I have learned quite a few new tricks from these "evil" hides, I can assure you, and the whole thing is a long cry from "padding one's stats" as far as I am concerned. The only reason these aren't permanent caches is that the event is held in state parks or on private property that isn't open to geocaching all the time, but permission has been obtained to place them for the duration of the event --or if we are lucky, the event weekend, so the folks who come in early or late can still get the event caches too. I don't really understand the resentment.

 

Team Neos I know you don't do this and you keep seperate user account for your cache finds. But, it wouldn't be a far stretch to say that because you have two members in your team that you should log each cache found twice using your team account. Would it?

[+The Blue Quasar]

Team Neos Posted Yesterday, 06:27 PM

 

(The Blue Quasar @ Feb 8 2006, 08:17 PM) *

 

While we're at it, if I cannot find the same item that you found a month before at an Event, then it is not a valid find.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

You found this cache in the past, and it is archived now, so it really isn't a valid find because I can't go find it now. So you should delete it from your stats. Or at least that is the reasoning that you have just given me.

 

I didn't log my find as an "Attended Event". I did however find an officially listed Multi-Cache and logged it as such.

 

Your arguement doesn't explain why you feel you should be able to log a "available for one day physical cache" as an Event.

 

There is a reason, however, why you cannot log such a thing as a Traditional Find... it doesn't meet guidelines.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Team Neos]

Team Neos I know you don't do this and you keep seperate user account for your cache finds. But, it wouldn't be a far stretch to say that because you have two members in your team that you should log each cache found twice using your team account. Would it?

 

I am not sure what point you are making. You are right, we don't use the team account to log our finds, period, we use our individual accounts.

But, lets say for argument's sake that we DID use the team account to log all of our finds and so we DID log them "double" (though why we would bother to do that, I have no idea---that seems to be the point of having separate logs, for me at least). Anyone can (in theory) log anything they want that way (Events, event caches, regular caches, virtuals, etc). What would it hurt anyone else? Would Joe Smith have fewer finds because that team account had more? Is there a prize somewhere that I am unaware of for 'most' caches?

 

It would drive some poor cache owner crazy, I suppose (the ones who search through logbooks and online logs for any suspicion of "cheaters" would have to decide if that was cheating or not) and it would mean extra trouble for team cachers who went on a caching spree and had to try to keep track of which caches they had logged the appropriate number of times, and which they had not yet logged. Other than that, it would just be two logs under one name instead of two logs under two names. Am I missing part of your question?

 

I mean, really, anyone can go look at my stats and cache page history and see that I have logged events multiple times. It really doesn't take very complicated math to see that not all of the "things" that I have credit for are simply regular caches.

 

I can't figure out why it bugs people. I see all the arguments in the forums from people who hate virtuals and think they shouldn't be counted, and people who hate events (in general) and think that they shouldn't be counted, and people who despise multi-caches because they don't count one-for-one find and think they ought to count for more than one, and people who wouldn't do locationless caches and think those numbers don't belong there, etc, etc. There are even people who don't want any of their stats to show because they seem to think that somehow "forces" them to compete with others.

 

I personally don't really care how my stats stack up against someone else's..I am having fun, and I hope that you folks are also. If it matters to you to know for some reason exactly how many caches I have *really* done, go look at my profile, decide which ones you think really ought to count, get out a calculator and add them up.

Without events and event caches, I show 304 caches found --but that includes virts, locationless, unknown and earthcaches, so you might count it differently. I don't think that anyone else ought to do it the way I have, or that I ought to do it the way someone else does. I pick the caches I want to do and I log the ones I want to log. If I want to NOT log some find, for some reason, I don't, and I don't come to the forums to tell everyone else that I didn't log it. I guess you also don't really know if I actually have more finds than I show credit for...but I can't see where that would affect anything about someone else's stats either.

 

Traditional Caches* 282

 

Multi-caches* 5

 

Virtual Caches* 9

 

Event Caches* 68

 

Unknown (Mystery) Caches* 3

 

Locationless (Reverse) Caches* 1

 

Earthcaches* 4

 

NGS Benchmarks 6

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

*Total Caches Found 372 (maybe)

 

Help me out here. What difference does it make, really? Will anyone care ten years from now how many caches I have today?

[+dougsmiley]

PWAAPSLTITFSBOGI

 

People Who Argue About Pointless Stuff Like This In The Forums Should Be Out Geocaching Instead.

 

I'm in complete agreement with team neos. It's just for fun. Who really cares what someone else logs? As long as the event owner says "ok". Around here, it pretty much goes without saying. Apparently, it varies by region.

[+Glenn]

Team Neos I know you don't do this and you keep seperate user account for your cache finds. But, it wouldn't be a far stretch to say that because you have two members in your team that you should log each cache found twice using your team account. Would it?

 

I am not sure what point you are making. You are right, we don't use the team account to log our finds, period, we use our individual accounts.

But, lets say for argument's sake that we DID use the team account to log all of our finds and so we DID log them "double" (though why we would bother to do that, I have no idea---that seems to be the point of having separate logs, for me at least). Anyone can (in theory) log anything they want that way (Events, event caches, regular caches, virtuals, etc). What would it hurt anyone else? Would Joe Smith have fewer finds because that team account had more? Is there a prize somewhere that I am unaware of for 'most' caches?

 

It would drive some poor cache owner crazy, I suppose (the ones who search through logbooks and online logs for any suspicion of "cheaters" would have to decide if that was cheating or not) and it would mean extra trouble for team cachers who went on a caching spree and had to try to keep track of which caches they had logged the appropriate number of times, and which they had not yet logged. Other than that, it would just be two logs under one name instead of two logs under two names. Am I missing part of your question?

<snip>

 

You right. My question isn't about comparing numbers. What I am trying to understand is why someone would log multiple attends when they only attened an event once. My question would have been better asked this way. Is there any difference between logging an event cache for each "cache" at an event or logging a cache each time for every member in a team? BTW, I am asking because I will (hopefully) be attending my first even cache in a few months and will have to choose how many times to log, if at all.

Edited February 10, 2006 by Glenn

[+Criminal]

The best way to handle the situation is to log any event you attended as a note. Then the number of the bottom of the column represents only tangible caches that you have ‘found’ and for which you’ve signed the logbook.

 

Ways to cheat at geocaching:

Log a cache as found that you saw but didn’t, wouldn’t, or couldn’t retrieve.

Log a cache as found when all you found was the place where you’re sure it used to be.

Log a cache as found when you made a darn good attempt.

Log a cache as found when you clearly didn’t, but were given permission to do so by the cache owner.

Log an event (or any cache for that matter) multiple times.

Log a cache as found that you hid, or helped hide.

 

There are a couple big geocachers here in the PNW that I’ve cached with that have high find counts. They have enough integrity to only log finds on caches that they’ve found. What a novel concept!

 

If there is even one cache in your numbers that is a bogus find, someone will find out, and you’ll have lost the respect of anyone who feels strongly about the integrity of their own stats.

 

But play the game any way you like.

[+5¢]

The best way to handle the situation is to log any event you attended as a note. Then the number of the bottom of the column represents only tangible caches that you have ‘found’ and for which you’ve signed the logbook.

 

Ways to cheat at geocaching:

Log a cache as found that you saw but didn’t, wouldn’t, or couldn’t retrieve.

Log a cache as found when all you found was the place where you’re sure it used to be.

Log a cache as found when you made a darn good attempt.

Log a cache as found when you clearly didn’t, but were given permission to do so by the cache owner.

Log an event (or any cache for that matter) multiple times.

Log a cache as found that you hid, or helped hide.

 

There are a couple big geocachers here in the PNW that I’ve cached with that have high find counts. They have enough integrity to only log finds on caches that they’ve found. What a novel concept!

 

If there is even one cache in your numbers that is a bogus find, someone will find out, and you’ll have lost the respect of anyone who feels strongly about the integrity of their own stats.

 

But play the game any way you like.

 

Wow, I found something I agree with Criminal on. Is today Friday the 13th? Nope, the 10th, all is well.

Edited February 11, 2006 by 5¢

[+The Blue Quasar]

Great post Criminal!

 

Covered everything with clarity and brevity.

 

The "Note" option is a great idea.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

It's not about the numbers, but the purity of them.

[+pwcorg]

Wow! I see there are as many answers to the OP as there are cahcers to answer it. I disagree with the practice, but was curious as many of the cachers I saw doing it were 1K plus cachers and a new cacher that I introduced was following suit based on their example. I guess that's just how it's done in that area. Thanks again for the honest responses.

[+Hynr]

Cheating means some rule has been violated. Surely everyone here knows that the “rule” about logging is in the hands of the cache owner. The owner decides what is allowed at her/his cache in terms of logging and no one else. The owner can force and enforce any issue related to logging, including deleting them. If the owner says you can write one log about having attended the event and another ifor some other reason, then THAT is the rule for that event cache. Cheating would be if you violated those instructions. While the most common practice is one log per cache, I have run into a number of circumstances where several logs were appropriate as deemed by the cache owner. I have never set up any of my events or caches with this type of rule, but I respect other owners’ rights to set theirs up that way. And I may set up something like that in the future if I think it is appropriate and will contribute to enjoyment of others.

[+Criminal]

The owner can force and enforce any issue related to logging, including deleting them.

 

Not true. Deleting is the only power they have. The cache owner cannot post a find for me if I put in a good effort to find their cache and log the appropriate DNF.

 

There is no plausible reason to log more than one find on any cache. Yes, the cache owner ‘owns’ the cache, but you alone own your stats, and your integrity is reflected therein.

[vagabond]

Great post Criminal!

 

Covered everything with clarity and brevity.

 

The "Note" option is a great idea.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

It's not about the numbers, but the purity of them.

 

Very well said

 

There is one cache that I can remember logging twice, it was originally in a flood plain when I first logged it. After a heavy rain it had been flooded the owner disabled it for about three months and then moved it up on the top of the canyon. Since it had moved over a 1/2 mile I located it again and re logged it. This happened back in the early days of caching. If anyone wants to look at it it was my very first cache

Edited February 14, 2006 by vagabond