Angst Filled Flame Fest!

[CoyoteRed]

If everyone would stop worrying about other peoples smilies and just worry about their own we would all be having more fun.

 

I agree. Let's get rid of all smilies.

 

Anyway, you're assertion implies we all cache in a vacuum. We do not.

[+Sagefox]

 

[...Folks who believe in one smilie, one cache would feel that couldn't effective enforce that on their own caches. I'm doing my part in not supporting multiple finds and highlighting how a smilie doesn't have the meaning to some that it should have--which is, BTW, that they found a cache.

 

I mostly agree with this. We hold a tight line too. There are very only few multiple finds posted on our caches out of somewhere near 5000 total finds. The usual condition is that someone new accidentally posted twice or someone posted a Found when they intended a Note. A short note usually takes care of that.

 

In the earlier years I moved a couple of caches more than 100' and kept the same gc number. A few people logged a second find and I saw (and still see) no problem with that. Bravo for the enterprising - they hunted down and logged a new container in a new location (still one cache/one find). Later on I archived one other cache intending to move it but then decided that it was in the best place after all so I hid a new container almost a year later but posted it as a new cache. A handful of people who had found the original cache posted new finds knowing it was in exactly the same spot. A bonus for them but it was a new page and new container.

 

Today I wouldn't make either of those moves and would handle it like others have outlined above. This is a free flowing game and some things just "happen". But the incidence of multiple finds has got to be something less than 1% of total finds even with the allowed and event multis.

[+Snoogans]

I have no problem living with the fact that comparing two cachers by the number of smilies they have is meaningless. As for those that say logging smilies that they don't think should be counted "cheapens" the value of smilie - I ask "How much can I get for selling my smilies on e-bay?" If everyone would stop worrying about other peoples smilies and just worry about their own we would all be having more fun.

 

*Snoogans puts his finger on his nose and winks.*

 

I respect the views of the cachers on both sides of the fence, or I wouldn't have posted this thread.

 

I couldn't have posted my thoughts on this matter better than tozainamboku just did.

[+Snoogans]

If everyone would stop worrying about other peoples smilies and just worry about their own we would all be having more fun.

 

I agree. Let's get rid of all smilies.

 

Anyway, you're assertion implies we all cache in a vacuum. We do not.

 

Could you please explain this analogy.... Uh, 'cuz I don't get it....

[CoyoteRed]

Could you please explain this analogy.... Uh, 'cuz I don't get it....

 

I explained this in a post in a different thread: here.

 

The pertinent parts detail the relationship between the quest for smilies and the affect it has on some cache placements, i.e. some placements are simply to be a "gift" of a smilie. We all have to contend with these. Not only that, but by their very nature these have to be ever expanding to keep up with "demand."

[+Roland_oso]

I have logged one cache listing 11 times, and at some point plan on logging it about 30 more times!

 

SR2 – Prime GCE408

 

The Prime cache is located at the Gate to the Scout Ranch and is available to anyone to find. However on the grounds of the camp are 40 additional caches which the coords can only be gotten from the camp ranger/director. I spent an afternoon caching while my Scout Troop was participating in an Orienteering Meet. I allotted my self the same time limit as the “O” meet and found 10 out of 13 that I searched for.

 

It was funny to log those caches that day, as when I was done and looked at my details page it looked some thing like this:

 

10/15/2005 You Found SR2 – Prime

10/15/2005 You Found SR2 - Prime

10/15/2005 You Found SR2 - Prime

10/15/2005 You Couldn’t Find SR2 - Prime

10/15/2005 You Found SR2 - Prime

10/15/2005 You Found SR2 - Prime

10/15/2005 You Found SR2 - Prime

10/15/2005 You Found SR2 - Prime

10/15/2005 You Couldn’t Find SR2 - Prime

10/15/2005 You Found SR2 – Prime

10/15/2005 You Found SR2 - Prime

10/15/2005 You Found SR2 - Prime

10/15/2005 You Couldn’t Find SR2 – Prime

 

Well, did I or did I not find it! LOL

 

Quite cheesy. You gonna log finds for Navicache and Terracaches on this site too?

 

Why whould I do an assinine thing like that?

 

I did use a find on GC.com to help me log Snoogans "Nude Cacher"

 

It is not so cheesy, as this is how the cache page is set up. I can tell you that the caches I found at SR2 were far more challenging than a lot of caches that I've found.

[+budd-rdc]

I actually read CR's linked post in its entirety. Interesting stuff.

 

I have been approached by a few cachers who have said they read my logs, which is a compliment, especially since they chose to say so in person. (quite amazing this still happens in the paranoid Information Age) They've inevitably looked at my profile, too, and seen my find count.

 

I try not to worry about other people's find counts, but the problem is, if they are viewable by the public (or at least by people with accounts), they inevitably will be judged. As a newbie, I often relied on looking at find counts to determine a cacher's experience.

 

All of the high find count cachers I've met are aware of the attention they get, so they act responsibly in public, avoiding anything blatant that might look like cheating. I think this is fair, since whether they like it or not, their actions represent the sport, like how star athletes represent theirs. I think this is an important thing to remember, unless Groundspeak changes the software so one can only view his or her own find count.

 

I have no problems with what Snoogans did, even if I would have done it differently (I might even have logged a find as a newbie). He took the time to explain his action both in the logs and here in the forums, which means he wasn't worrying about logging 50 finds as quickly as possible. It's obvious to me it wasn't about padding the numbers.

[+briansnat]

It is not so cheesy, as this is how the cache page is set up. I can tell you that the caches I found at SR2 were far more challenging than a lot of caches that I've found.

 

I'm sure they were, but they weren't listed on geocaching.com, so why would you consider logging them on this site?

Edited February 24, 2006 by briansnat

[+Logscaler and Red]

Myself, I would not have logged a second find unless the cache page changes with a new GC number.

 

That is now. In the past, I think I have logged one along this same line.

 

There is a moving cache here in Central Oregon. It has been "Grandfathered" in. I have logged it a couple times as it moves all over 32 sections of land. Not a new GC number but that is the "Spirit" of this cache and the way it was ment to be used and logged.

 

Does it bother me that snoogans has logged this cache twice? No. Should it? Some people fish with Flies, some with bait, some with dynamite, some with a net and some with bare hands. To each his own I guess.

 

This game is in flux and so am I.

 

I am setting tighter standards for MYSELF, not you or anyone else.

 

Old timer purist? Maybe. You set your level of ethics for yourself and I will set mine for me.

 

 

However I did log a cache twice once. It had been moved about 60 feet. I was passing by with family about a year after my first find, and I generally remembered a cache hidden at a rest area we stopped at. I had no info with me, but my granddaughter and I went to see if we could find it. It wasn't where I remembered it, but we expanded the search and found it 15 minutes later. I worked for that 2nd find so I logged it again.

 

'Lil Devil, a simple question.

 

If you had not found it a second time, would you have logged a DNF? Missing? Needs archived?

 

Logscaler.

Edited February 24, 2006 by logscaler & Red

[+Red Eye Rebels]

So I am just wondering, if GC made it so users only saw their own find counts, would it really change anything? Would I run into other cachers at events who asked how many caches I've found, and would I say "I prefer to keep it to myself". I think the point is being missed. If GC took it off the autolist, as it is, wouldn't some folks decide to list their find count in their profile, and we'd be back here once more.....folks saying those who list it in their profile are wrong. My count is just that, my count, and it's only importance is to me. If others don't like it or do like it, I don't care. If others log my cache and just leave a short post, I don't care. There are so many ways to be involved in this sport, which is one of the major reasons it's growing so fast, lets not limit the options. It doesn't neccesarily mean we're going down the wrong road. I have found the best way to get enjoyment from geocaching, is to geocache my way....and not worry about how others are geocaching. "There's too many fish in the sea".

[+Tharagleb]

I have always held the opinion that if the cache has moved significantly then logging it a second time was okay. At the risk of agreeing with Criminal, (another thread) I am beginning to waffle on this issue. The big question is this: How pure do you want your find count to be? I have been thinking about going back and changing my locationless and "arm-chair" finds to notes.

 

How about an icon for your profile page: 100% pure find count!

 

You would agree to:

• No locationless finds
  
• No multiple finds on same GC#
  
• No finds/attended on events.
  
• No finds without actually signing the log.
  
• No "arm-chair" finds
  

We could probably add virts and shorted multis to the list.

 

This would not be GC.com thing, just a group of people who use an icon that links to a web page describing the rules for using it.

 

My find count would take a big hit... but I would sign up for it.

 

/just a suggestion

//flame away!

[+Criminal]

I have always held the opinion that if the cache has moved significantly then logging it a second time was okay. At the risk of agreeing with Criminal, (another thread) I am beginning to waffle on this issue. The big question is this: How pure do you want your find count to be? I have been thinking about going back and changing my locationless and "arm-chair" finds to notes.

 

How about an icon for your profile page: 100% pure find count!

 

You would agree to:

• No locationless finds
  
• No multiple finds on same GC#
  
• No finds/attended on events.
  
• No finds without actually signing the log.
  
• No "arm-chair" finds
  

We could probably add virts and shorted multis to the list.

 

This would not be GC.com thing, just a group of people who use an icon that links to a web page describing the rules for using it.

 

My find count would take a big hit... but I would sign up for it.

 

/just a suggestion

//flame away!

 

I'm in agreement here. You forgot the 'webcam' caches though. EDIT: ...and virtuals.

Edited February 24, 2006 by Criminal

[+Red Eye Rebels]

I think it sounds like a win/win to me, as far as the actuality of it is concerned, would this be like a Trackable Icon, or something which would require gc's direct involvement. And would they be in to something like that?

[+Roland_oso]

It is not so cheesy, as this is how the cache page is set up. I can tell you that the caches I found at SR2 were far more challenging than a lot of caches that I've found.

 

I'm sure they were, but they weren't listed on geocaching.com, so why would you consider logging them on this site?

 

Sure they are!

The cache page was set up that way so the camp ranger knows who is on the grounds. It's a fail safe to ensure somebody does not go out looking for the caches and ends up in trouble and no one knows that they are out there.

 

A lot of things have changed over the years. I'm sure this type of cache page would not be listed these days.

 

One of the things I really liked about Geocaching when I first started was the it was a game for all peoples and the game varied from person to person somewhat. It was neat to see the different way people played the game.

 

It appears that there is a movement to take what seemed to be an "Open Source" attitude and fit it in to a neat little definition of what caching should be.

 

Really a micocosim of our country at large.

 

America/Geocaching should be the land of oppertunity and freedom

 

However there is always the jackbooted types that like to dictate what or how some one should think/play, when in the end the way I think/play harms no one including the country/sport.

 

Bottom line for me, Geocaching is a means to an end, that being getting off my butt and exploring the world around me. Be it boxes in the woods or Virts or whatever.

[+Sagefox]

However there is always the jackbooted types that like to dictate what or how some one should think/play, when in the end the way I think/play harms no one including the country/sport.

 

Bottom line for me, Geocaching is a means to an end, that being getting off my butt and exploring the world around me. Be it boxes in the woods or Virts or whatever.

 

This has nothing to do with boots or Nazi behavior or people trying to dictate to or ride roughshod over anyone else. It is simply a bad idea for a cache. The game is experimental and some parts of the experiment proved to be inappropriate and are no longer allowed.

 

There will always be a cloud of doubt surrounding this cache and cache owner is setting up finders to have their actions questioned. Why maintain a negative experience?

 

From a distance it would appear that this cache should be archived, preserving (grandfathering) all existing multiple finds. Those who posted multiple finds can hold their heads high, secure in the knowledge that they, in fact, found several caches and post appropriate logs for those finds because the cache was approved and listed. They also can fully ignore comments made here and elsewhere that suggest that they cheated or their behavior is "cheesy". A cache concept approved and listed is a real cache. Unless... the cache was altered after approval to allow the multiple finds. If that happened then those with the multiple finds have to take the heat and will always have the cloud of "questionable" hanging over those finds.

 

Each of the individual caches within the park should be listed separately. I can't imagine any safety or park issue that would make the single listing/multiple find cache necessary. If these or other issues exist than maybe the site is not appropriate for geocaching or for that density of cache. Why not put it to rest and eliminate the conflict?

[+Tharagleb]

I think it sounds like a win/win to me, as far as the actuality of it is concerned, would this be like a Trackable Icon, or something which would require gc's direct involvement. And would they be in to something like that?

 

No, no GC.com involvement. Just a pretty icon that you display on your profile page, not trackable. Just a graphic. Like web sites that have "Somebodys top pick" icons.

 

Criminal: I forgot about web cams, that's because I don't have any finds on them.

[+Tharagleb]

 

[snip]

 

You would agree to:

• No locationless finds
  
• No multiple finds on same GC#
  
• No finds/attended on events.
  
• No finds without actually signing the log.
  
• No "arm-chair" finds
  

We could probably add virts and shorted multis to the list.

 

[snip]

 

 

I'm in agreement here. You forgot the 'webcam' caches though. EDIT: ...and virtuals.

 

I didn't forget virts.

 

FWIW: My find count would go from 355 to 312 (minus a handful of "arm-chairs") if I removed virts, locationless, events etc.

Edited February 24, 2006 by Tharagleb

[+nfa]

The big question is this: How pure do you want your find count to be? I have been thinking about going back and changing my locationless and "arm-chair" finds to notes.

 

How about an icon for your profile page: 100% pure find count!

 

You would agree to:

• No locationless finds
  
• No multiple finds on same GC#
  
• No finds/attended on events.
  
• No finds without actually signing the log.
  
• No "arm-chair" finds
  

We could probably add virts and shorted multis to the list.

 

This would not be GC.com thing, just a group of people who use an icon that links to a web page describing the rules for using it.

 

My find count would take a big hit... but I would sign up for it.

 

/just a suggestion

//flame away!

 

So...you attach the Ivory Snow Icon to your profile page, with a link carrying interested people to a site celebrating/explaining purity in geocaching and earnestly working to convert misguided geocachers to see the light and cache "The Right Way"...isn't that a little heavy for a game?

 

I'm glad that you and your wife logged my recent event as attended...because you did attend it...

 

I don't log LCs but understand why some people do/did...

 

I have no interest in telling people how to play the game, or in implying that the way I play is better than the way they play it (if you guys are "Pure", than what are people who log events..."Unclean"...and where is the icon for that?)

 

 

This post is made somewhat tongue in cheek (as I assume Thergleb's post was), but I sometimes feel that some geocachers spend a lot of time peering over the fence to see (and/or worry about) what the neighbors are doing.

 

I have no intention of posting either a "pure" or "unclean" icon and link onto my profile page...anybody who chooses to look at my stats and/or goes caching with me knows everything they need to know about how (and what) I log and geocache; everyone on this site has, as they have always had, the right to judge me by how I geocache...have fun!

 

Jamie

Edited February 24, 2006 by NFA

[+Lil Devil]

However I did log a cache twice once. It had been moved about 60 feet. I was passing by with family about a year after my first find, and I generally remembered a cache hidden at a rest area we stopped at. I had no info with me, but my granddaughter and I went to see if we could find it. It wasn't where I remembered it, but we expanded the search and found it 15 minutes later. I worked for that 2nd find so I logged it again.

 

'Lil Devil, a simple question.

 

If you had not found it a second time, would you have logged a DNF? Missing? Needs archived?

 

I forgot to mention that when I found it I thought maybe it was a different cache, since it was a different container. It wasn't until I got home and checked the web site that I realized it was the same cache.

 

Had I DNF'd it, I would have still checked the website, and finding it active, I would have read the description and/or logs to see if it had been moved. Seeing that it had moved, then I would have figured I just didn't look in the right place, and not log anything. If it didn't appear to have been moved, yes I would have logged a DNF, specifying that I found it before, to let the owner know there might be a problem.

[+budd-rdc]

 

This post is made somewhat tongue in cheek (as I assume Thergleb's post was), but I sometimes feel that some geocachers spend a lot of time peering over the fence to see (and/or worry about) what the neighbors are doing.

 

I have no intention of posting either a "pure" or "unclean" icon and link onto my profile page...anybody who chooses to look at my stats and/or goes caching with me knows everything they need to know about how (and what) I log and geocache; everyone on this site has, as they have always had, the right to judge me by how I geocache...have fun!

 

Jamie

 

(I snipped some of the reply to make it easier to read - by the way, pigs aren't necessarily "unclean" )

 

Tharagleb's proposal makes a lot of sense for "Find Count Leaderboard" type sites, where people are meant to peer over neighbors' fences. I also like his idea, because people who WANT TO compete can participate, while those who don't can ignore it. (I know at least one cacher who've successfully asked many of the leaderboard sites to remove his name ) If the community (starting with the forum moderators) endorse this find count as the only one that matters, it might even succeed in discouraging the alleged "cheating."

 

The continuing angst over this issue won't stop, of course.

[+Tharagleb]

NFA: So...you attach the Ivory Snow Icon to your profile page, with a link carrying interested people to a site celebrating/explaining purity in geocaching and earnestly working to convert misguided geocachers to see the light and cache "The Right Way"...isn't that a little heavy for a game?

 

No, no coersion, I don't care about other people's find counts, just my own.

Edited February 24, 2006 by Tharagleb

[+briansnat]

One of the things I really liked about Geocaching when I first started was the it was a game for all peoples and the game varied from person to person somewhat. It was neat to see the different way people played the game.

 

Hmmmm, when I first started the sport was about finding boxes in the woods. If you found a cache you logged a found it and if you didn't you logged a DNF. It was quite simple back then. I've seen quite the opposite trend. I've watched the sport evolved (or devolved in some people's eyes) to where there is a tremendous variety of caches and where logging finds no longer necessarily involves finding caches. The sport is quite different from what it was in the beginning. Some feel that is great and some are disturbed by it.

 

However there is always the jackbooted types that like to dictate what or how some one should think/play, when in the end the way I think/play harms no one including the country/sport.

 

It really doesn't reflect well on you to call those who disagree with you "jackbooted types". That is a load

of baloney.

[koz]

i just replaced a muggled cache not too far away from the original spot; a local cacher who found the original asked if they could log the new one; since it was in a differnt location, i replied "of course!"

[+Tharagleb]

It really doesn't reflect well on you to call those who disagree with you "jackbooted types". That is a load

of baloney.

 

Not only that, but I think it invokes Godwin's Law and you automtically lose the thread.

[+Lil Devil]

In the earlier years I moved a couple of caches more than 100' and kept the same gc number. A few people logged a second find and I saw (and still see) no problem with that.

Good thing, as I just searched for the cache I referred to earlier, and realized it's one of yours

My logs are July 7, 2003 and November 10, 2002.

 

But the incidence of multiple finds has got to be something less than 1% of total finds even with the allowed and event multis.

In my case 2 finds out of 3,462 is about 1/17th of 1 percent

[+Sagefox]

....Good thing, as I just searched for the cache I referred to earlier, and realized it's one of yours

My logs are July 7, 2003 and November 10, 2002.

 

Now that is a nice coincidence. LD "spins" through our territory now & then.

 

Well, I had forgotten that I moved this one also. It was moved only about 40' but was a completely different. The first one was small and in a tree (dumb) and the second was average sized regular in a very shallow serpentinite rock outcrop and covered with some non-native tree bark we brought along. We were honored to have a few return visitors to that cache. Thanks for reminding me of one of our "themed" caches in one of my favorite terrains.

Edited February 25, 2006 by Team Sagefox

[+Roland_oso]

It really doesn't reflect well on you to call those who disagree with you "jackbooted types". That is a load

of baloney.

 

Not only that, but I think it invokes Godwin's Law and you automtically lose the thread.

 

In order to loose, I must have at first been trying to win something. Which I was not.