Jump to content

"other" Finds


TeamRJMK

Recommended Posts

How about a web site update to provide a different category of finds? Call it "other" (or something more creative).

 

This category could be used to allow people to "count" finds like

* temporary caches found at events

* finds deleted by cache owners

* individual waypoints of a multi-cache

* finds from those "other" sites

* anything the person wants to count as a "find"

* virtuals visited but logging criteria not met, etc.

 

A way to optionally tie these logs/finds back to specific geocaches would be nice.

 

This would provide a mechanism for geocaching.com to reflect the individual's perception of their "true" overall find count. (Rather than having to maintain the information elsewhere.)

 

Finds in this category would be reported separately from the others rather than lumped with the rest of the geocache finds. This would allow for people to choose whether they wanted to include them with their "total find count" or not.

 

Just an idea.

Link to comment

I didn't find the cache, but I think it was missing, so I'll count it as a find.

 

The owner of the 10 point mult won't let me log 10 finds, so I'll find them here.

 

I found my lost puppy. I found my lost marbles.

 

Seems a bit odd ... go ahead and put a link in your profile to your other stats. Having an open ended system seems odd since nobody is gonna count the same.

 

Its not about the numbers you know!

Link to comment

If you want to track all of your "finds", why burden gc.com and the rest of us with your extra definitions? Go use a site that allows you to pull together all of that information:

 

keenpeople

 

They even have stats banners:

 

"Did you know we have stat banners? In fact KeenPeople.com had them long before Geocaching.com. KeenPeople.com stat banners are independent of any cache site so you can use it to track ALL your stats!! "

 

I'm ok with geocaching.com tracking my FINDS on what they define as caches, so I'm not active on keenpeople, but options are out there for folks who want to track these extra items.

 

In the end though, there's no prize for having the most smileys, so if others want to pad their gc.com counts with whatever they feel is a "find", then really, it's no biggie to me.

Link to comment

OK, I got the message ..... the current system is much, much better.....

You forgot to come up with a fee structure for your "other" finds proposal.

 

For example, $1 per "other" find. I'm sure people who are dedicated and competitive will fork over that amount to help Groundspeak run the site.

Link to comment

If you want to track all of your "finds", why burden gc.com and the rest of us with your extra definitions? Go use a site that allows you to pull together all of that information:

 

 

Most recently support was added for a free toolbar, so you dont have to go to the site to log caches either.

 

http://www.keenpeople.com/index.php?option...tid=44&Itemid=3

Edited by SpongeRob
Link to comment

How about a web site update to provide a different category of finds? Call it "other" (or something more creative).

 

This category could be used to allow people to "count" finds like

* temporary caches found at events

* finds deleted by cache owners

* individual waypoints of a multi-cache

* finds from those "other" sites

* anything the person wants to count as a "find"

* virtuals visited but logging criteria not met, etc.

 

A way to optionally tie these logs/finds back to specific geocaches would be nice.

 

This would provide a mechanism for geocaching.com to reflect the individual's perception of their "true" overall find count. (Rather than having to maintain the information elsewhere.)

 

Finds in this category would be reported separately from the others rather than lumped with the rest of the geocache finds. This would allow for people to choose whether they wanted to include them with their "total find count" or not.

 

Just an idea.

If you want to "find" something that isn't listed on this website, you can keep track of your stats at keenpeople.com

 

Granted, they don't have a field for "car keys", "contacts", or "beer" yet, but they do allow you to log a find for whatever fits your definition of a cache. The only things you should be logging here are caches that are actually listed. "Temporary" caches (like those set up for an event) do not meet the listing guidelines, so there is absolutely no valid reason to claim a find for them on this site.

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment

I'd rather see a one find per cache limit set in stone. Then maybe people would take the time to list the event caches and everybody could enjoy them.

 

YES

 

You two ARE kidding, right?

You really think people hide temp caches at events because they don't want to take time to list them at GC.com?

Laughing_RoflSmileyLJ.gif

It's actually more work for the hiders and event organizers to place a temp cache then it is to just list one on the site. They have to create the cache page from scratch, and then print up copies for everyone at the event. Some event organizers even manually create a PQ style gpx file so all the paperless cachers can load the info into their PDAs. They create loc files so people can load the data into their gps. After the event is over, in addition to cleaning up the event; they have to hike out and collect all those caches.

If they just entered a few lines of info into a web form; they wouldn't have to do any of that other stuff.

No, people don't hide temp caches because they are too lazy to list them.

 

Some legit reasons to hide temp event caches:

  • The event organizers don't feel they are capable of responsibly maintaining a cache at the event location.
  • The land managers at the event location have restrictions on geocache placement. I know of one state that requires a permit for each cache, and limits the number of caches in a park to something like 5 caches. There may be plenty of room to hide more permanent caches, but the park rules wont allow it.
  • There are some fun and creative ideas for a one day cache that just don't work, or won't get approved as a permanent cache. I did one at an event that was a chinese takeout container full of fortune cookies. Maybe some are only 400ft apart.
  • Many of my local events have special caches hidden for young children. They are super easy to find, and contain nice toys for the children to take without trading. In the real world these caches wouldn't last a week before getting muggled.

I'm sure there are other reasons, those are just some I've run across at events.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

I'd rather see a one find per cache limit set in stone. Then maybe people would take the time to list the event caches and everybody could enjoy them.

 

YES

 

You two ARE kidding, right?

You really think people hide temp caches at events because they don't want to take time to list them at GC.com?

Laughing_RoflSmileyLJ.gif

It's actually more work for the hiders and event organizers to place a temp cache then it is to just list one on the site. They have to create the cache page from scratch, and then print up copies for everyone at the event. Some event organizers even manually create a PQ style gpx file so all the paperless cachers can load the info into their PDAs. They create loc files so people can load the data into their gps. After the event is over, in addition to cleaning up the event; they have to hike out and collect all those caches.

If they just entered a few lines of info into a web form; they wouldn't have to do any of that other stuff.

No, people don't hide temp caches because they are too lazy to list them.

 

Some legit reasons to hide temp event caches:

  • The event organizers don't feel they are capable of responsibly maintaining a cache at the event location.
  • The land managers at the event location have restrictions on geocache placement. I know of one state that requires a permit for each cache, and limits the number of caches in a park to something like 5 caches. There may be plenty of room to hide more permanent caches, but the park rules wont allow it.
  • There are some fun and creative ideas for a one day cache that just don't work, or won't get approved as a permanent cache. I did one at an event that was a chinese takeout container full of fortune cookies. Maybe some are only 400ft apart.
  • Many of my local events have special caches hidden for young children. They are super easy to find, and contain nice toys for the children to take without trading. In the real world these caches wouldn't last a week before getting muggled.

I'm sure there are other reasons, those are just some I've run across at events.

 

I don't think anyone is saying there is anything wrong with temporary event caches. Logging them when they are not 'real' caches (having their own cache page) is the problem. For the record I don't think restricting the ability to log multiple finds is the way to go either (well, that actually might be OK in the case of events) as there are legitimate reasons for logging a find on a cache more than once. I think we'd see the return of LCs and virts before we see an 'other finds' category tho. ;)

Link to comment

I'd rather see a one find per cache limit set in stone. Then maybe people would take the time to list the event caches and everybody could enjoy them.

 

YES

 

You two ARE kidding, right?...

 

Nope, not kidding at all. If the site was built to where you could log one find per cache that would have caused things to evolve differently. The only reason they have gone the way that have is because you can log more than one find on a cache. Events, Bonus finds, Temporary caches would all still be around they would just be handled differently.

 

Your list of reasons are all valid points that serve to illistrate that our real difference is on how to log them. Not that they cant or shouldn't exist. I'd rather see all cache that are logged on this site be reviewed by this site. Call it a precautionary measure. That way the reviewer can say "Hey, you have 23 temporary caches in this park but they only allow 5, have you spoken with the park about this to see if the don't mind the temporary influx? One find per cache would solve other problems, but in this case it would move event only caches closer to something reviewable.

Link to comment
I'd rather see all cache that are logged on this site be reviewed by this site. Call it a precautionary measure. That way the reviewer can say "Hey, you have 23 temporary caches in this park but they only allow 5, have you spoken with the park about this to see if the don't mind the temporary influx? One find per cache would solve other problems, but in this case it would move event only caches closer to something reviewable.

 

I don't see a need to log temporary caches, and therefore reviewers shouldn't have to get involved. The temporary event caches are usually (in my experience) meant to be a bit different, a bit more fun, and generally things you couldn't ever post on this site. They are just part of the event, nothing more. No reason to ask anybody at the park permission to put something in the woods that is only going to be there a few hours (do you ask the park permission to set up a bocce game, or volleyball game?)

 

I've seen event caches that are hidden under a orange traffic cone, or on somebody's body, or in a fake tombstone in a graveyard ... none of those would have been approved (and shouldn't have been.) My favorite was an event cache "That's just wrong" that was in the woods, 100 feet from another cache, with a table and chair set up, the cache was a paper bag on the table, had a beer and food in it, a knife ... the only thing missing was the porn. Obviously this would have never been approved, but it was wrong in so many ways everybody had fun with it!

Link to comment

...I don't see a need to log temporary caches, and therefore reviewers shouldn't have to get involved. ...

 

I agree, if you are not logging them on this site, it doesn't matter that the caches are temporary. The event was fun, you atteneded. If people do feel the need to log them on this site that's when I think things change. Call it a level playing field and what that level playing field is, is where the dissagrement creeps in.

Link to comment

I'd rather see a one find per cache limit set in stone. Then maybe people would take the time to list the event caches and everybody could enjoy them.

 

YES

 

You two ARE kidding, right?...

 

Nope, not kidding at all. If the site was built to where you could log one find per cache that would have caused things to evolve differently. The only reason they have gone the way that have is because you can log more than one find on a cache. Events, Bonus finds, Temporary caches would all still be around they would just be handled differently.

 

Your list of reasons are all valid points that serve to illistrate that our real difference is on how to log them. Not that they cant or shouldn't exist. I'd rather see all cache that are logged on this site be reviewed by this site. Call it a precautionary measure. That way the reviewer can say "Hey, you have 23 temporary caches in this park but they only allow 5, have you spoken with the park about this to see if the don't mind the temporary influx? One find per cache would solve other problems, but in this case it would move event only caches closer to something reviewable.

Your original post implied that the only reason people don't post temp event caches to GC.com is because they are lazy and allowing multiple event logging instead is an easy way out.

 

For the record, I feel that if it isn't a cache listed on GC.com, it doesn't get a GC.com smiley. So, no smileys for bonus caches. No smileys for each stage of a multi. No smileys for temp event caches.

 

In my neck of the woods it is not common practice to do any of that "other logging" stuff, and it's not a problem. The 23 temp caches for the event are not listed on GC.com, so they don't get a GC smiley. There is no "problem" on how to log them on GC.com, because they aren't meant to be logged on GC.com. We do them for fun during the event. It's part of the event activities, so it's part of the event smiley. You don't expect a smiley for each burger you ate, do you? A smiley for bringing the cheese dip? A smiley for competing in the 3 legged race?

I'm off to visit the Maritime Center and take in an IMAX movie, should I get to log a smiley for that too?

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

 

For the record, I feel that if it isn't a cache listed on GC.com, it doesn't get a GC.com smiley. So, no smileys for bonus caches. No smileys for each stage of a multi. No smileys for temp event caches.

 

In my neck of the woods it is not common practice to do any of that "other logging" stuff, and it's not a problem. The 23 temp caches for the event are not listed on GC.com, so they don't get a GC smiley. There is no "problem" on how to log them on GC.com, because they aren't meant to be logged on GC.com. We do them for fun during the event. It's part of the event activities, so it's part of the event smiley. You don't expect a smiley for each burger you ate, do you? A smiley for bringing the cheese dip? A smiley for competing in the 3 legged race?

I'm off to visit the Maritime Center and take in an IMAX movie, should I get to log a smiley for that too?

 

Maybe I should clarify my position ,I think one find per cache should be all your allowed.

What torqued me off was a cacher with 568 events logged, but when you sort the events out they have only been to 20 some odd event caches, thats a hell of a lot of temp caches that they have logged onto the event caches pages that are not available to cachers that were not able to be at the event. Caches that should be there for anyone to find not a select few.

Link to comment

...Your original post implied that the only reason people don't post temp event caches to GC.com is because they are lazy and allowing multiple event logging instead is an easy way out. ...

I'm off to visit the Maritime Center and take in an IMAX movie, should I get to log a smiley for that too?

 

The lazy intrepretation wasn't my intent. I was trying to say something closer to "only GC.com listed smilies for GC.com listed caches" which seems to be in line with what you have just said. The one log per cache rule was just a way to stop the logging of events for the non gc.com listed caches.

 

As for your last question, you may not get a cache smilie but is there a waymark?

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...