Jump to content

What’s Going On Here? 2


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

The only upside I see is at least a pocket cache means actually finding something... unlike a 'retirement card/event' :laughing: .

 

I meant to comment on this earlier. The find count in your stats does not reflect 'somethings' that you have found, it reflects geocaches that you've found. These people didn't find the caches, they found someone walking around at an event.

Link to comment

The only upside I see is at least a pocket cache means actually finding something... unlike a 'retirement card/event' :laughing: .

 

I meant to comment on this earlier. The find count in your stats does not reflect 'somethings' that you have found, it reflects geocaches that you've found. These people didn't find the caches, they found someone walking around at an event.

 

It definately seems that I don't have the majority opinion, but I have signed a few pocket caches, its not a big deal, I found and physically signed the logbook, I also found the cache that was hidden in the meeting area as well and signed it, I also signed a few caches that were not approved yet but were placed for the event. It was fun, I met a ton of geocachers in my part of the state, and now I've got some new people to go caching with.

 

For me, its not about the numbers, its about having fun. I won't log a find on a cache that I have not signed, if its a pocket cache, or a travel bug that is on a living creature, so be it. (Hi Bruno)

 

Do we really need so many rules lawyers in a game thats supposed to be fun?

Link to comment

The only upside I see is at least a pocket cache means actually finding something... unlike a 'retirement card/event' :wacko: .

 

I meant to comment on this earlier. The find count in your stats does not reflect 'somethings' that you have found, it reflects geocaches that you've found. These people didn't find the caches, they found someone walking around at an event.

:laughing: I tend to think it reflects the things you've logged as found, be they geocaches, events, even benchmarks all have numbers in the stats.

But I understand your meaning, even though the ones I've seen were bison tubes with a log (or sometimes a codeword), they wouldn't have qualified as geocaches here since they have no permanent location. (and were never submitted, wouldn't have been in place for 3 months, and the codeword ones wouldn't have made it anyway)

Link to comment

We do not believe in Pocket Cache's.. We do not think it's right to walk up to another person and ask "If that's a cache in your pocket or are you just happy to see me".. If we are going to do any walking we want it to be to a hidden container of some sort that we find hidden, not just being passed around the table.. Thats just us.. But as for the Event in question..

 

We do feel violated for one of the PC's that was at the event was a "Joint" hide with another geocacher.. Our name still show's on this cache page along with the owners.. We never thought that the archived cache that we shared would be used as a PC.. It wasn't until we started getting all the e-mails of everyone who claims to have found it.. This is pretty sad, for the enjoyment of getting those e-mails was back when the cache was active and people would comment on the container the cache was hidden in.. Anyways.. We do not want to be know as cacher's who pratice PC'ing..

 

As for the locking of Archived Cache's.. We are all for it..

 

LM

Edited by Lehigh Mafia
Link to comment

My first post in any forum, and my own personal thought on this....

 

Geocaching, to me, is a very individualistic activity. I probably won't ever go to any of the geocaching events, because the point of it, to me and my better half, is that we get to spend time wandering around the states, and finding random objects.

 

Now, we have gotten her mother and sister involved, and that is about the only team activity that we get involved in.

 

And, in the same instance, that is the ONLY way to us these 'find' numbers even matter. I could care less what Joe Schmo from Tucson's total number of finds is.

 

I only care that we have more finds than her mother. :laughing:

 

If someone gets their jollies by logging on to a website and saying "Oooh, I have 200 more finds than anyone else in the state", than so be it. Who cares? Someone said it best a few posts back..It didn't decrease their fun in their latest caching adventure in the least.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

K bye.

Link to comment

Here's the crux. The puritans are correct:

[*]You only find a cache if you found it and signed the log

[*]Caches either meet certain guidelines and are listed on GC.com or they are not listed on GC.com

[*]Logging multiple finds on a cache online, or logging a find on an archived cache you didn't actually find, so that your GC.com find count includes caches you found but are not listed on GC.com is cheesy.

 

The problem is that the smiley count says "Caches found". It would be more honest if it said "Number of Found logs logged online". I also agree with CR that the importance some people place on their smiley count as opposed to the importance they give to going and actually finding a cache has lead to some pretty cheesy things being done. However, I think the most important thing is to be having fun. If some people have fun pumping up their numbers or logging geocoins at events to get an icon, I will let them. I personally have fun reading the forums to see how upset people get when other people do cheesy things in order to have fun.

1. Doesn't this put several logged finds into dispute? All the people that didn't bring a pencil, found the log soaked, found a cache muggled/damaged/missing a logbook, claim a found for locating the spot where it was but it was 'missing' (even with the owners permission) seem to fall in here.

2. This seems to out about every event cache that isn't listed as permanent.

2. It is cheesy, but if the cache owner isn't deleting these finds (aren't there many threads about how its up to the owner to leave or delete a find, and they make the final decision?), they must be accepting them as valid, right? And if people are post these logs they must think it acceptable too.

 

Don't get me wrong, I won't debate the merits of each of those cases since I think many of them are just silly if not downright stupid. I also agree some people put way too much importance on their stats. However, it (sign the log, find it on gc.com) doesn't seem to be so straight forward for lots of people, they've found all sorts of exceptions and reasons for themselves to log whatever as a find.

Link to comment
1. Doesn't this put several logged finds into dispute? All the people that didn't bring a pencil, found the log soaked, found a cache muggled/damaged/missing a logbook, claim a found for locating the spot where it was but it was 'missing' (even with the owners permission) seem to fall in here.

 

2. This seems to out about every event cache that isn't listed as permanent.

 

Yes and you bet.

Link to comment

I was an active and avid player of the "stats game" my first 2 years of caching (mid '02 to mid '04) until it became clear that the game had de-volved and that it was no longer possible for me to compete in the "stats game" by what had become the "new rules": Micro Spew and other methods of increasing cache density to prevent having to actually (gasp!) DRIVE FURTHER to satisfy your fix, multiple event cache logging, and now pocket caches.

 

My new way of "validating" another cacher's stats, if that's part of the discussion: "Did you run those numbers up PRE mid-'04, or SINCE mid-'04?" If the answer is the latter, then I consider the stats to be irrelevant. Is that always the case? Of course not. But it IS (to me) enough of the de-volution of our once-great game.

Link to comment

Geocaching.com is here for people to "play a game" and "have tons of fun" doing so.

 

There used to be (and still are) some events where people "held" Travel Bugs in their hands or at least touched them to be able to log them and then leave them there in the event cache. Now, they seem to be doing the same thing with Geocoins? BUT, it is a whole lot of people "playing a game" and "Having tons of fun" doing so.

 

....Not quite my thing, but who am I to say their style of playing is wrong? I could imagine that some "Greenies (Environmentalists)" would call our "game" of hiding boxes of "trinkets" for others to find as unsightly/unwholesome/damaging to the land, cities, country/etc.

 

I do not consider this many people to be "cheaters" (I hate that word and have seen it used many times as a way to shame people). They have simply found another way to "play a game" and "have tons of fun".

 

Consider this fact that you may be set in your way of thinking what "Fun" means to you or what the way of "playing the game" means to you. Actually, this is really not hurting anyone, but letting lots of people have Fun, what the site was started for.

 

If they are not pirates and stealing caches - I say live and let live, Go have some FUN!

 

Shirley~

 

Oh, I forgot to say..please do NOT lock the archived caches...that is where we upload our pictures to our own archived caches that we post into the interesting threads (in the benchmarking forums and the Off Topic forums).

Link to comment

1. Doesn't this put several logged finds into dispute? All the people that didn't bring a pencil, found the log soaked, found a cache muggled/damaged/missing a logbook, claim a found for locating the spot where it was but it was 'missing' (even with the owners permission) seem to fall in here.

My point is that the puritans' definition of a find is as good as any other definition. If it's good enough for BrianSnat and Coyote Red, it's good enough for me. Whether or not you found the cache, you may still be able to personally justify logging it as a find on-line. (It won't satisfy the puritans)

 

2. This seems to out about every event cache that isn't listed as permanent.

Once you've accepted what it means to find a cache, you need a definition of what is a cache. Even some of the puritans agree that caches listed on terracaching and perhaps some bonus and temporary caches that aren't listed on geocaching.com are caches. I assume that to find these you must find them and sign the log (or meet some other verification requirement). In any case, this thread seems to be about whether you can get a smiley on geocaching.com for these by logging multiple finds on a cache or logging a find on some archived cache.

 

2. It is cheesy, but if the cache owner isn't deleting these finds (aren't there many threads about how its up to the owner to leave or delete a find, and they make the final decision?), they must be accepting them as valid, right? And if people are post these logs they must think it acceptable too.

 

Don't get me wrong, I won't debate the merits of each of those cases since I think many of them are just silly if not downright stupid. I also agree some people put way too much importance on their stats. However, it (sign the log, find it on gc.com) doesn't seem to be so straight forward for lots of people, they've found all sorts of exceptions and reasons for themselves to log whatever as a find.

 

Realizing that the smiley count on geocaching.com is simply a count of how many found it logs you have and not some indication of how many caches you found (either only caches listed on GC.com or any other caches you'd like to count) would go a long way to ending the need for threads like this one :laughing:

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Realizing that the smiley count on geocaching.com is simply a count of how many found it logs you have and not some indication of how many caches you found (either only caches listed on GC.com or any other caches you'd like to count) would go a long way to ending the need for threads like this one :laughing:

Totally agree :wacko: .

Link to comment

Hmmmmm…. Maybe I should explain why I started this thread. I often like to look at the recent photos near the bottom of the main page. One day I started looking at the recent logs, specifically the ones with the strikethrough (archived) to see for what reasons people were archiving their caches. I was surprised to see people claiming ‘finds’ for being in the right place even though they didn’t find anything, much less the cache. I was further surprised to see how common it was for owners to ‘allow’ DNFers to change their log to Found It. I started this thread to show how stupid that practice is, and added several pages to JamieZ’s Found it = Didn’t Find It thread.

 

The game relies on the honor system, I didn’t know that the concept of honor was such a peculiar thing now. I am really shocked at how many people will lie just to jack up their stats.

Link to comment

I have a particular way I like to play the game, it goes something like this:

 

1. I go to a cache site and search for a cache.

2. I find the cache.

3. I sign the log.

4. I trade items, or not, depending on my fancy.

5. I return home and log the cache on-line.

6. Repeat as necessary.

 

I also have a variation on the game that's not much played any more:

 

1. I go to a cache site and search for a cache.

2. I fail to find the cache.

3. I return home and log a DNF on-line.

4. At some point in the future I start over at number 1.

 

I really don't care how anyone else plays. I don't brag about my stats; look at them, you'll see why. When I get together with fellow cachers at work we talk about the quality of the hide, or the swag, or how tough the hike was, or what we saw on the way, or at the cache site, almost anything but numbers.

 

I like the cheating at solitaire analogy, but it's missing this: Logging archived caches is like cheating at solitaire and then advertising on the Internet what a solitaire stud you are.

Link to comment

I attended the event in question and did, in fact, ask a few people if that was a cache in their pocket (it gets easier after the first few times). I thought it was a wonderful way to meet people that I had only known through log entries before. I still do.

 

I signed only a few log sheets and didn't log any of the finds on line. That's not the way I operate, but that's strictly my take on it. Others' find statistics are only mildly interesting to me. I don't care enough to search their profiles to find some 'tainted' smilies. (BTW, I've got a few virts on my list).

 

If those cachers are happy in the way they play the game, great! I'm glad they're having fun. I know I enjoy it my way and I don't need validation from anyone else. And whatever way others do it, as long as they're not being destructive, I don't think it diminishes my fun one bit.

 

So play your game, let other's play theirs, and cache 'til you drop.

Link to comment

The game relies on the honor system, I didn’t know that the concept of honor was such a peculiar thing now. I am really shocked at how many people will lie just to jack up their stats.

The irony of this accurate fact you've stated is that this very phenomenon defeats the purpose of why these folks are trying to pump up their stats in the first place: The ego grat and perceived "credibility" that being a higher number cacher would provide. The de-volution of our game since mid-'04 (my unofficial date for the widespread occurrence of Micro Spew ) has also served to de-value stats.

Link to comment
My point is that the puritans' definition of a find is as good as any other definition. If it's good enough for BrianSnat and Coyote Red, it's good enough for me. Whether or not you found the cache, you may still be able to personally justify logging it as a find on-line. (It won't satisfy the puritans)

 

I prefer the term traditionalist. Call us traditionalists kookie, but we always thought the point of this sport was to find geocaches and the point of the logs were to record the result of our search. We are so out of touch.

 

I attended the event in question and did, in fact, ask a few people if that was a cache in their pocket (it gets easier after the first few times). I thought it was a wonderful way to meet people that I had only known through log entries before. I still do.

 

Is it really necessary to log phony found its in order to meet poeple? Where I come from, we meet other geocachers by walking up to them and holding out our hands while saying "Hi, my name is (your name here).".

Link to comment
Is it really necessary to log phony found its in order to meet poeple? Where I come from, we meet other geocachers by walking up to them and holding out our hands while saying "Hi, my name is (your name here).".

 

No, it's not. That's why I didn't log my "finds". It's just another fun way to introduce yourself.

 

My point was that what anyone else did regarding their own stats doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the game. If I'm not going to have fun, why bother. There are a lot of other things to do outdoors and I have lots of opportunities available.

 

If someone else enjoys it in a different way, that impacts only themselves, then I'm not offended.

 

 

(Jeez. That's two serious posts in a row. The strain is getting too much....)

Link to comment

Is it really necessary to log phony found its in order to meet poeple? Where I come from, we meet other geocachers by walking up to them and holding out our hands while saying "Hi, my name is (your name here).".

 

We are with brainsnat here on this one..

 

LM

Link to comment

Locking archived caches would be problematic. Many people begin to geocache as part of a team (the children of cachers, the spouses, the significant others, the neighbors, etc) and only later decide that they want to keep their own permanent record of the caches.

 

If they want that record to be accurate, they will need to be able to log some caches that are archived.

 

Saying that the owner could unarchive the cache temporarily for them to log it assumes that every cache owner will remain active and keep the same email address. (They won't). Saying that "someone among TPTB could also have the ability to temporarily open the cache" just creates one more responsibility for already overworked volunteers.

Link to comment
My point is that the puritans' definition of a find is as good as any other definition. If it's good enough for BrianSnat and Coyote Red, it's good enough for me. Whether or not you found the cache, you may still be able to personally justify logging it as a find on-line. (It won't satisfy the puritans)

 

I prefer the term traditionalist. Call us traditionalists kookie, but we always thought the point of this sport was to find geocaches and the point of the logs were to record the result of our search. We are so out of touch.

I'm with Brian on this, although I prefer the term, "geocacher". Since when is refusing to publicly lie either puritan or tradional?

Link to comment
Is it really necessary to log phony found its in order to meet poeple? Where I come from, we meet other geocachers by walking up to them and holding out our hands while saying "Hi, my name is (your name here).".

 

Some of us that have been around here for a while know that this isn't entirely true, the rest of you reading this can use the handy search function. :D:D (try geocacher's greeting)

 

I've logged the occasional pocket or (even better) earring cache at an event or two, but do not make it a habit. It was my understanding that they were either older and thus grandfathered moving caches that just happened to move to the event, or were about to become permanent caches in the park hosting the event. None of them were archived at the time I logged them. I don't think I would do that just to run my numbers up; I've got some scruples. :) It is not a common practice around here, and I do hope that it doesn't become one. As I've said in more than one thread though-don't judge me by my numbers, and I don't really give a rat's rear about your either. I've found lots of caches, and I've DNF'd lots of them too. When the rules are chiseled in stone and they start handing out prizes I'll start treating the numbers more seriously. So am I a purital-hardly :D , am I a public liar-I don't think so :) , but you can bet your arse I'm a geocacher having lots of FUN :D . And fun can come in as many flavors as they offer at the best gelato shops in Rome. :)

Link to comment

"NO MORE RULES!!!"

 

Uh, okay...

 

Anyone ever thing why and how a rule comes into effect? Anyone think this issue might be the catalyst of a new rule? "Just having fun" and pretty soon there is a new rule.

 

No? Moving caches. Virtual caches. Ghost logging travel bugs. Proximity restrictions. Bogus-coordinates distance restrictions. The list goes on and on.

 

Think we all cache in a vacuum? Think again. Think about how and why some of the rules have come into existence and how they affect you.

 

You fun seekers are really your own worse enemy. You bring the rules down upon yourselves, but that affects all of us.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

Cachers scoring PCs is no worse than having owners delete my legitimate finds because they believe I haven't jumped through their hoops properly, even though I've signed the logbook. To disapprove of one and not the other is a bit disingenuous. Cache owners have been given discretion over their e-logs. Should that discretion be modified? I think not.

Link to comment

I'm not sure that I understand this discussion. People walk around at events with archived caches in their pockets? Have they stolen the caches? This is bizarre! The grandfathered moving caches can move to a new location, within the rules. I can think of a few rules that might be violated here: cache proximity, theft.

I don't really care how many smileys anyone has. I earned mine. The fundamentalists may frown at my locationless, virtual, webcam and event caches. Those are/were within the guidelines, whether you like them or not. I found them fair and square by the guidelines. The traditional caches, webcams, events and virtuals were at the location listed. I found them. These pocket caches are not. They are not within the guidelines.

There are a few archived caches that I know of that are 'geolitter', or still at their listed coordinates. Follow the cache page, find the cache, sign the log. Seems to fit the guidelines.

As to travelbugs and geocoins, as of yet, the guidelines are 'find it, log it'. There is not yet a requirement to move it to a new cache before claiming it. Though there are some who would like to see that. But this was not part of OP's question. Some seem to throw this in (to confuse the issue?)

OP asked whether it is proper to bring an archived cache to an event, and have people log it. I find this to be a bizarre and deliberate violation of the guidelines. If I want to meet people at events, I wear a name tag, and say "Hi. I'm Harry Dolphin. Nice to meet you."

Link to comment

 

I attended the event in question and did, in fact, ask a few people if that was a cache in their pocket (it gets easier after the first few times). I thought it was a wonderful way to meet people that I had only known through log entries before. I still do.

 

Is it really necessary to log phony found its in order to meet poeple? Where I come from, we meet other geocachers by walking up to them and holding out our hands while saying "Hi, my name is (your name here).".

 

I was wondering about this too. Guess i can see it as an "ice breaker" but why not just go up with hand out and introduce yourself properly? Ok, either is fine i suppose. The question is still, how can a person legitimately log a "find" on a cache they've never found? :laughing:

Link to comment

No one has offered up thier pocket cache for me to experience "finding" an archived cache. I don't understand why someone would log an archived cache as found. Why archive the cache at all?

 

I'm sure these first pocket caches are unique and special in the same way that the first locationless, virtual, web cams, etc. all were. These started out as traditional caches and branched from there. The first web cam cache I "placed" was listed as a traditional cache because there was no web cam cache type at the time, or a rule that caches must have a log book. You could count the number of web cam caches on one hand, literally. Once the idea took off and web cams became their own official cache type.

 

If pocket cachers feel they have invented a new cache type then they should post a request in the Geocaching.com Web Site forum to have it created.

Link to comment
If someone else enjoys it in a different way, that impacts only themselves, then I'm not offended.

The point here is that it doesn't impact "only themselves." Briansnat posted one example of how these can affect other people; let me add another.

 

This whole "smiley inflation" phenomenon, in which people are treating smileys like some kind of currency as a reward for whatever, has devalued smileys for those of us who use them as intended, to signify a cache found. As an example, I used to be glad to have a pretty high finds count. Now, often as not, I am embarrassed by it. That's because new cachers pretty quickly learn that high-numbers cachers tend to cheat, so my (moderately) high find count automatically makes me suspect.

 

In recent threads about Waymarking, I have been accused of only caring about smileys. I can only guess that those partly come because of my find count. Once again, the actions of the cheaters have indirectly cast suspicion on me.

 

In reality, I only have a relatively high count because I live in a phenomenally cache-dense area and I've been caching for a long time. Nevertheless, my integrity is incredibly important to me, and I have felt so uncomfortable with any association with cheaters that I have gone out of my way to get rid of any "finds" that might be considered questionable in any way. I have no multiple finds, though I had one once on a cache that moved several miles. I've deleted all my event cache finds (with one exception) because people abuse event caches with multiple logs. And so on...

 

So don't tell me that the actions of cheaters impact "only themselves." Like it or not, geocaching is a social activity, and actions have consequences.

 

Oh, and yes, in case anyone was wondering: I do consider logging "pocket caches" cheating.

Link to comment

Previously a few people have logged finds on archived caches to make their caches found on other sites (terracaching) "count". This practice has progressed to logging finds on archived caches to make temporary caches at events "count". Now there isnt even temporary caches to "find", as all you have to do is meet someone at an event to get a smiley. :laughing:

 

Is it hurting anyone? What is happening, is it is cheapening the value of a "find". If this practice continues to evolve, then the find count will eventually have not much meaning at all. If only a few people did this, then it wouldnt matter. But after a "few" people become "many" and the practice starts to spread to other areas, then it will be almost impossible to stop.

 

The event page that the OP has linked to shows that it is already considered a "tradition" to do such things. Since archived caches are not locked to prevent new finds, and the event was approved with the "pocket caches" printed on the webpage, then it appears by default that it is OK.

 

No, we dont need new rules, but to prevent new ones we need to stop bending and twisting the old ones.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

...Multiple points about the cheapening and devaluation of a "Find" stat...

I couldn't agree more! As I stated in an earlier post on this thread, if I'm going to "judge" anyone on their stat counts, I do so by asking/checking to see if they ran up their stats BEFORE mid-'04, or SINCE mid-'04. I consider mid-'04 to be roughly the point where Micro Spew got out of control in more than just a few areas, which in turn marked the beginning of the cheapening/devaluation of Find stats. Logging of archived caches, pocket caches, multiple event caches, etc etc etc, has furthered that. Same story on the RIDICULOUS practice of Chasing Trackable Icons by logging the numbers in binders full of coins folks bring to Events...boy, you worked really hard to achieve those stats, folks!

 

Don't brag to me about your stats if you ran 'em up since mid-'04. The game fundamentally changed at that point.

 

My opinion, respectfully submitted.

Edited by drat19
Link to comment

...If pocket cachers feel they have invented a new cache type then they should post a request in the Geocaching.com Web Site forum to have it created.

While I certainly agree with the bulk of your post, it should be noted that this type of 'cache' would never be added to GC.com because it already violates at least two guidelines and likely a third (moving, permanance, proximity).

 

I couldn't agree more! As I stated in an earlier post on this thread, if I'm going to "judge" anyone on their stat counts, I do so by asking/checking to see if they ran up their stats BEFORE mid-'04, or SINCE mid-'04. I consider mid-'04 to be roughly the point where Micro Spew got out of control in more than just a few areas, which in turn marked the beginning of the cheapening/devaluation of Find stats. ...

 

Don't brag to me about your stats if you ran 'em up since mid-'04. The game fundamentally changed at that point.

This is not the first time that I've noticed you mention mid-'04 like it was a big turning point in the game. From caching in several states prior to '04, I can assure you that micros were very popular far earlier. Therefore, I assert that micros have (virtually) been always a part of the game and, therefore, didn't 'devalue' anything.

 

Out of curiousity, I just checked my own stats. I found my first micro in late 2001. By early '02, there were many micros to be found.

 

We now return to the thread, already in progress.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
...same story on the RIDICULOUS practice of Chasing Trackable Icons by logging the numbers in binders full of coins folks bring to Events...boy, you worked really hard to achieve those stats, folks!

 

While I never really got that practice, at least they saw the coins. I've seen sheets of tracking numbers being passed around at events so people could log coins. They don't even freakin' see the coin :laughing: . What is the point? What does it prove? That you can read a number? That I really don't get.

Link to comment

What is happening, is it is cheapening the value of a "find". If this practice continues to evolve, then the find count will eventually have not much meaning at all. If only a few people did this, then it wouldnt matter. But after a "few" people become "many" and the practice starts to spread to other areas, then it will be almost impossible to stop.

 

What is the value of a "find"? I have 2165 (or less if you you consider the times I've "cheated" - they're all listed in my Truth In Numbers section) so I'm really interested in what they're worth. Perhaps I could fill up my gas tank :laughing:

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

What is happening, is it is cheapening the value of a "find". If this practice continues to evolve, then the find count will eventually have not much meaning at all. If only a few people did this, then it wouldnt matter. But after a "few" people become "many" and the practice starts to spread to other areas, then it will be almost impossible to stop.

 

What is the value of a "find"? I have 2165 (or less if you you consider the times I've "cheated" - they're all listed in my Truth In Numbers section) so I'm really interested in what they're worth. Perhaps I could fill up my gas tank :laughing:

Maybe it’s not about value, maybe it’s about ethics. Child porn or racism don’t affect me, that doesn’t make them any less detestable.

 

Lying and cheating is wrong just because it’s wrong (and not family friendly).

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment
While I never really got that practice, at least they saw the coins. I've seen sheets of tracking numbers being passed around at events so people could log coins. They don't even freakin' see the coin . What is the point? What does it prove? That you can read a number? That I really don't get.

 

I havn't gotten into the coin craze but i have seen some pretty nice ones come to meetings and so forth. No i did not go out and find these but i do log some of them. If i had the coin in hand it's therefore loggable to me. The list idea is nice for some of those harder to read coins but i feel that you should at least have seen the coin before you think about logging it.

 

This is more of a gray area type issue where people can make up their own minds what's right for them but the logging of pocket caches thing is pretty much black and white. It's easy to figure out how and why it's not kosher!

Link to comment

I couldn't agree more! As I stated in an earlier post on this thread, if I'm going to "judge" anyone on their stat counts, I do so by asking/checking to see if they ran up their stats BEFORE mid-'04, or SINCE mid-'04. I consider mid-'04 to be roughly the point where Micro Spew got out of control in more than just a few areas, which in turn marked the beginning of the cheapening/devaluation of Find stats. ...

 

Don't brag to me about your stats if you ran 'em up since mid-'04. The game fundamentally changed at that point.

This is not the first time that I've noticed you mention mid-'04 like it was a big turning point in the game. From caching in several states prior to '04, I can assure you that micros were very popular far earlier. Therefore, I assert that micros have (virtually) been always a part of the game and, therefore, didn't 'devalue' anything.

 

Out of curiousity, I just checked my own stats. I found my first micro in late 2001. By early '02, there were many micros to be found.

sbell, as ever, we respectfully disagree on this point...and I'm fine with that.

 

It is MY OPINION, whether right or wrong, that it was roughly mid-'04 when Micro Spew extended beyond just selected metro areas (including yours - where the situation grew far earlier, as you know) into "almost everywhere". I invite you to check my Find stats/logs to see just how many areas throughout the country I cached (I travel extensively both for a living and also for personal pleasure) which led me to make this conclusion.

 

Thus, it is MY OPINION, whether right or wrong, that our game fundamentally changed around that time, such that Find stats became de-valued, because starting roughly then any cacher could crank a lot more stats with a lot less effort/mileage than used to be the case.

 

And so it goes, now, with multi-event logs, Geocoin number swapping, pocket caches, etc etc etc.

 

MY OPINIONS. Your mileage may vary.

Link to comment

Maybe it's not about value, maybe it's about ethics. Child porn or racism don't affect me, that doesn't make them any less detestable.

 

Lying and cheating is wrong just because it's wrong (and not family friendly).

Well put.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Additionally, isn't an archived "pocket cache" that is still in play against the rules? Would a pocket cache itself be against the rules?

 

Specifically, the rule violated would be the one that prohibits caches where you must do something extra that is not listed on the cache page. I'm not sure of the specifics, but the gist is to prevent folks from having to email the owner for further details. Sounds kinda like the same if you have to ask the owner for the cache.

 

The examples provided in an above post are listed as traditionals. It's obvious they are not. They travel and they are not at the listed coordinates.

 

Shouldn't these be locked down?

 

It certainly appears to be a way to get around the guidelines regarding temporary (and possibly moving) caches. I guarantee if they were submitted for review they would not be published. Hey, that could be a new way to beat the system.

First let me state for the record that you'll find no pocket caches or event caches for that matter in my list of finds, but I do occasionally cheat at solitaire...

 

But really, who cares if people pull this crap. We all know they're only cheating themselves. The only thing it does is pad their stats, and who cares about that anyway. I mean, if it's about the hunt, not the smiley, who cares about cheating number Hos. If there were some perks for making the 1K club, then it'd be another story.

 

It's a dilution of the effort of legitimate finds. This isn't so much about being a purist. It's about getting around the spirit of the game by padding your numbers on an archived cache. PC's on an archived cache are nothing more than a defacto virtual cache.

Link to comment
Oh, I forgot to say..please do NOT lock the archived caches...that is where we upload our pictures to our own archived caches that we post into the interesting threads (in the benchmarking forums and the Off Topic forums).

I just keep an unsubmitted cache around and upload to that...

 

Paul

Link to comment

This discussion has been an eye-opener for me. I followed the link to one of the events and saw multiple found logs by one cacher. Opened their profile and found 2000+ finds, of which 450 were events. Uh huh.

 

That said, I don't believe the cachers in our extended community (around Tucson, AZ) would let such behavior pass without thoroughly mocking the individual who engaged in it.

Link to comment

This discussion has been an eye-opener for me. I followed the link to one of the events and saw multiple found logs by one cacher. Opened their profile and found 2000+ finds, of which 450 were events. Uh huh. ...

That does not even count the bogus caches that may have been logged on archived pages.

Link to comment

I think the new rule should split the difference between the two points of view: Pocket Caches are allowed, but only for regular-sized caches (i.e., no micros). Anybody who is willing to walk around at an event with an ammo can stuffed down their pants deserves to get the extra smilies on their cache.

 

[:rolleyes:]

 

Actually, sign me up for the POV that PCs are cheating. "You can claim a find for this cache if you found it last week cleverly disguised in a log in the middle of the forest, or this week if you happen to show up at the pub where it will be available for viewing." Um, no.

Link to comment

From one of the archived caches, note the number of 'finds':

 

:rolleyes: May 6 by BULLSH (4831 found)

As a previous co-FTF on this cache hide, I can tell you that it was just a bit easier to log as a P/C. Thanks!

[view this log on a separate page]

Link to comment

What is happening, is it is cheapening the value of a "find". If this practice continues to evolve, then the find count will eventually have not much meaning at all. If only a few people did this, then it wouldnt matter. But after a "few" people become "many" and the practice starts to spread to other areas, then it will be almost impossible to stop.

 

What is the value of a "find"? I have 2165 (or less if you you consider the times I've "cheated" - they're all listed in my Truth In Numbers section) so I'm really interested in what they're worth. Perhaps I could fill up my gas tank :rolleyes:

 

It is about value, not monetary of course, but meaning. The term "family values" is not a reference to how much money a group of related individuals have in the bank. <_<

Link to comment

This event was all about multiple attendances. Must be a severe case of schizophrenia to say you occupied the same space and time a dozen or more times.

 

Look at all those high numbers! Wow, I'm impressed.

 

Wow...

 

That honestly was a real let down to see...

 

While the numbers aren't everything, I do have fun trying to keep my area cleared of caches, and competing with friends for finds. I also check the top rankings site to see where I stand. No, you don't win any prizes, but it is fun. Just yesterday I was going through the list of the top 150 cachers, and clicking the link to see their current standings. I was amazed at how many of the top cachers were logging 50-100 finds over the weekend. Now, I see how some of them keep up that pace.

 

That's a bit dis-heartening...

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...