Jump to content

What’s Going On Here? 2


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

This is what I found on the GC.com website. I did not specifically find any rule that states that temporary caches cannot be logged as finds. If you know where it is, can you please post it here?

 

Cache Permanence

 

"When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. 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. "

 

There is no where in this paragraph that states you cannot log caches found at events or that temporary caches are not allowed, simply that they may not be listed on the GC.com site (I would guess this is due to the large number of caches that are made available at events, the close proximity of them, the pages would have to all be archived after the event, etc...) If anyone knows where this "rule" is, I would like to read it. I am not arguing it is or is not there, I just could not find it.

Edited by lonesumdove
Link to comment

There is no where in this paragraph that states you cannot log caches found at events or that temporary caches are not allowed, simply that they may not be listed on the GC.com site (I would guess this is due to the large number of caches that are made available at events, the close proximity of them, the pages would have to all be archived after the event, etc...) If anyone knows where this "rule" is, I would like to read it. I am not arguing it is or is not there, I just could not find it.

There is no rule, it’s simple logic! If you find a geocache, go to the cache page and log it as found. If it doesn’t have a page, how can you log it?

Link to comment

This is what I found on the GC.com website. I did not specifically find any rule that states that temporary caches cannot be logged as finds. If you know where it is, can you please post it here?

 

Cache Permanence

 

"When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. 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. "

 

There is no where in this paragraph that states you cannot log caches found at events or that temporary caches are not allowed, simply that they may not be listed on the GC.com site (I would guess this is due to the large number of caches that are made available at events, the close proximity of them, the pages would have to all be archived after the event, etc...) If anyone knows where this "rule" is, I would like to read it. I am not arguing it is or is not there, I just could not find it.

Try running those 55 caches you planning on doing this weekend thru your local reviewer and see what they say

Also heres a neat little program from Fizzy Magic

Link to comment

If one creates more than 10 lame micros in a year, that activity probably falls within the description of a MicroSpewery and the appropriate license should be prominently displayed in a public place. Fewer than that probably meets the criteria for private consumption. ;)

Link to comment

At this point, what's really being discussed is the "ethics" behind caching in general. Basically, as someone stated earlier in the thread...would you log a "find" for every stage of a multi-cache on the cache page? If not, why would you do it for temp caches that were placed to make the logable event more fun?

 

I'd actually already seen this situation in the first month I was caching. I went to an event where multiple temporary caches were placed in the park to make the event more fun...including some inside the shelter where we had lunch. The event coords stated you could log the event multiple times for the temps you found. I ran out and found a bunch of them (including one placed by car that I ended up walking too) and had a lot of fun, but when it came to logging them, I just stated it all in one "Attended" log because it just felt better to me. I did attend the event, I did find caches as part of the event, so to me the ONE "attended" log makes me happy.

 

More recently, I participated in a "Poker Run" event, where seven temp caches were placed around the metro area with sealed envelopes with playing cards inside. The goal of the event was to collect 5-7 sealed envelopes to make a poker hand. The caches were placed far enough apart that it took a few hours to find them all, but all were also placed close to existing permanent caches for people who wanted to find those as well. There was never any question about "multi" logging that event, and everyone had a great time participating. I got my one smiley, and ended up with one of the best prizes of the event because I was the least lucky one there (last prize of the night went to the limited number of people who hadn't won yet).

 

To me, logging "Pocket caches" and logging events multiple times because of temps falls into the same moral ground as logging finds on your own caches. Yes, the system lets you do it, but why would you?

 

And just to get at least one rip at Drat19 since I've been putting up with his rants live for the past few months, and not saying I dissagree with what he says since I know him well enough now he's trying, in his own way, to make Geocaching better: Why is it I keep putting his micro spew posts in the same part of my brain that holds the "back in my day..." conversations with my older relatives? ;)

 

Just more of my thoughts...

Celticwulf

Link to comment

I did not specifically find any rule that states that temporary caches cannot be logged as finds.

 

This is less of a posted guideline and more of a matter of personal preference. There has been discussion on this site (and others) as to whether it is legitimate to log an event cache multiple times to correspond with the number of temporary event caches. Some people feel they should get credit for every pocket cache, film can, and tupperware that was made available during the event. Others feel that a single log for the entire event encompasses the whole enchilada. Choose your preference and judge not the preference of others - unless it's your event, in which case you should be allowed to make the choice for everyone in attendance.

Link to comment

So by logging it, the only "rule" I am breaking is the ones set by the tally counters here? I am not violating of any geocaching.com regulations correct? If you wanna play by the rules, fine, but then give me the rule so I can follow it. If it is not allowed, I won't do it.

 

How do you log it? Just like it has been, by logging it on the events page. If there is a rule to not do that, I want to read it for myself. So far, no one can produce that so I am keeping my 21 finds. Thanks for the discussion.

Edited by lonesumdove
Link to comment

 

Question though. This weekend the Wisconsin Geocaching Association is holding an event in Peninsula State Park and is placing 55 temporary caches throughout the park. Do you have a suggestion on how to better log these?

 

Log them by signing the logbook in the cache; if you have any fun stories about finding the indvidual caches include them in your "attended" log & post pictures. If some of the caches are later listed on gc.com then post your find logs using the appropriate GC waypoint. It is my opinion (& some others in this thread) that they should not (for the many reasons already posted) be logged as 55 separate finds (either by 55 "attended logs" or by using archived caches).

 

An aside, we often have "temporary" or "local" caches here. They have had some of the best "swag" we've ever retrieved from a cache. One cacher placed Christmas cache which was filled with handmade ornaments. Recently there was an open house at the Astronomy dept. of the University, a cache there had "Star Bucks" prizes. We found the caches, we enjoyed the hunts, we posted on our local forums & thanked the hiders, but we have never thought about trying to make them "count" on this website. As someone already said "gc.com" is just part of our caching experience.

jrr

Link to comment

 

Choose your preference and judge not the preference of others

 

So true!!

 

But then all the forum junkies would actually have to work.

The country's GNP would soar, our trade deficit would decline,

alternate fuel sources would be used, reducing out dependence of foreign oil,

and finally peace on earth may break out!

 

.... or we can continue this thread ...

Link to comment

And just to get at least one rip at Drat19 since I've been putting up with his rants live for the past few months, and not saying I dissagree with what he says since I know him well enough now he's trying, in his own way, to make Geocaching better: Why is it I keep putting his micro spew posts in the same part of my brain that holds the "back in my day..." conversations with my older relatives? ;)

That's pretty funny... :D

 

I'm WAY more fun live and in person than I am here on the Forums. Ask anyone in the Twin Cities (my workweek temp home recently) who's seen me get skunked on a cache that everyone else in the group found with ease! (But, I DO still b*tch about Micro Spew and the pre-mid-'04 days all the time!)

Edited by drat19
Link to comment

So, just to make sure I'm reading this correctly...

 

If I go to an event and find multiple caches, I cannot log more than one find?

 

I'm confused. Isn't it one log per cache?

 

We're having a baby in a couple of months. Eventually that baby is going to evolve into a child and will come caching with us. After a large event, part of the fun of caching is logging each find. How do I explain to my child that people online think we're cheating?

Link to comment

So, just to make sure I'm reading this correctly...

 

If I go to an event and find multiple caches, I cannot log more than one find?

 

I'm confused. Isn't it one log per cache?

 

This is what the discussion is currently about. In mine (and from what I've seen in forums and other cachers I cache with) and others opinions, it is one log per GC registered cache. That means if you attend an event with multiple "temp caches", you get one attended log and in that log can note which temps you've found.

 

It seems that others are logging differently, and either bringing an archived "pocket cache" or logging events multiple times. I'll admit that if that was the way the game was explained to me, I'd be confused myself by this current discussion

 

In my mind, attending the event and doing the caches are one and the same...the same way I don't get multiple logs for each stage of a multi, I don't get extra logs for temp caches...just one log for the whole experience. To me, doing it this way seems to be a more accurate account of what I've done geocaching using the Geocaching.com system.

 

Yes, you CAN log the event multiple times, the same way you CAN log a multi multple times and you CAN log a find on a cache that you've hidden...but SHOULD you?

 

Celticwulf

Link to comment

How do I explain to my child that people online think we're cheating?

 

"Son (or Daughter) - you see there are these people called the white robed cachers...."

 

How exactly is this a valid point of disscussion? ;)

 

I'm perfectly open to listening to valid disscussion points, and I've had disscusions with cachers at events over this subject, and I do understand some of thier points in favor of this practice, but I still haven't heard a valid reason for me to rethink my opinion on the subject...I'm still waiting...

 

and just because I'm annoying enough IRL to use "because" and "why not" as a valid argument points does not mean they actually are valid arguments :D

 

Celticwulf

Link to comment

A bit over a year ago, I participated in an event that was associated with a conference held here in town. This was not a listed event cache. Three of us met at the area and set out six temporary caches that would be used during the conference to show others what geocaching is about. By the standards of some of the responses in this thread, I should have been able to not only log the event cache, but either finds or hides for the six temporary caches. Did I even think of that? No, of course not. While the event might have qualified for listing on gc.com, none of the others would have. Did I have fun doing this? Yes. Do I miss not logging them? Not in the least.

 

Do I have more posts than hides? Sure and I would bet that most of those posting in these forums do as well. I have no idea why that is relevant to having an opinion on the matter. As far as I am concerned I don't log event caches any more. I did, but stopped over a year ago. I can also state that I do not have any multiple logs on any cache even the one I found with a bonus cache. I did see one person log that one as a find twice to get "credit" for the bonus cache. I just looked on that as another chance to play in the woods. I didn't need a smilie to tell me I had the fun.

Link to comment

How do I explain to my child that people online think we're cheating?

 

"Son (or Daughter) - you see there are these people called the white robed cachers...."

 

How exactly is this a valid point of disscussion? ;)

 

 

Simply answering the man's question...

 

I don't recall trying to push my opinion on the subject or validate anyone else's opinion for that matter.

Link to comment

Maybe we should all stop putting the blame on the folks who are "Logging" these archived cache's and move it over to the "Approver's" who are fully aware of what is going on yet they choose to do not do nothing about it..

 

NOW, before the public flogging starts.. We know for a FACT (at least here in Florida) the approver's have the power to not only delete the find, they also have the power to kill the cache!!

Edited by Lehigh Mafia
Link to comment

Maybe we should all stop putting the blame on the folks who are "Logging" these archived cache's and move it over to the "Approver's" who are fully aware of what is going on yet the choose to do not do nothing about it..

 

NOW, before the public flogging starts.. We know for a FACT (at least here in Florida) the approver's have the power to not only delete the find, they also have the power to kill the cache!!

 

Or kill the event, and all the finds that every person that logged the event claimed! ;)

 

Say it ain't so! That could never happen! This is America!! :D

Link to comment

Do we really want to have TPTB get involved in policing peoples finds on this site?

 

This comes down to ethics.

 

Temporary caches at event caches are considered part of the event itself, not seperate caches that you can log finds on, unless these caches are actually listed on gc.com. In the same way that the first stage or stages of a multi cache is considered part of the same multicache and not considered seperate caches.

 

This behavior is important because I feel it is watering down the quality of geocaching.

 

(This user does not log multiple event cache finds or pocket cache finds on archived caches.)

Link to comment

Maybe we should all stop putting the blame on the folks who are "Logging" these archived cache's and move it over to the "Approver's" who are fully aware of what is going on yet they choose to do not do nothing about it..

 

NOW, before the public flogging starts.. We know for a FACT (at least here in Florida) the approver's have the power to not only delete the find, they also have the power to kill the cache!!

 

The "reviewers" are probably watching this thread and seeing whether or not the community can come to a reasonable conclusion about this activity.

 

As I've stated, I'm perfectly open to valid disscussion about this subject...if someone can come up with a good reason why these cache's SHOULD be logged the way they are, I'm perfectly happy to change my opinion...but until then I still think the whole "Pocket Cache" and "multiple attended logs" being valid is a silly idea. I'm proud of the finds I've got, including the event caches that have helped me meet great cachers in this area and make new friends. I don't need the extra smileys just because of the work I did at any event...the work I did and the memories I have are good enough. The one log saying "hey, I was here and hung out with all these other great geocachers" is enough for me.

 

Again, just my thoughts...

Celticwulf

Link to comment

Maybe we should all stop putting the blame on the folks who are "Logging" these archived cache's and move it over to the "Approver's" who are fully aware of what is going on yet they choose to do not do nothing about it..

 

NOW, before the public flogging starts.. We know for a FACT (at least here in Florida) the approver's have the power to not only delete the find, they also have the power to kill the cache!!

 

The "reviewers" are probably watching this thread and seeing whether or not the community can come to a reasonable conclusion about this activity.

 

Then the Reviewer should know exactly what we are talking about then.. Shouldnt they...

Link to comment

Maybe we should all stop putting the blame on the folks who are "Logging" these archived cache's and move it over to the "Approver's" who are fully aware of what is going on yet the choose to do not do nothing about it..

 

NOW, before the public flogging starts.. We know for a FACT (at least here in Florida) the approver's have the power to not only delete the find, they also have the power to kill the cache!!

 

Or kill the event, and all the finds that every person that logged the event claimed! ;)

 

Say it ain't so! That could never happen! This is America!! B)

 

Not that, that would ever happen, huh?? :D

Link to comment

Posted multiple finds on a single event.

 

Posted finds from other sites on archived caches on GC.com.

 

Claimed his post mid-2004 finds were as valid as pre mid-2004 finds.

 

It's just not worth it. :D

<Images associated with above quote/post intentioanlly omitted for this reply.>

 

Now THAT was funny. ;)B)

Link to comment

When there is no guideline or rule about logging event cache finds, why should they be deleted? Just because some people don't agree with it? As of this point, they are legal except in the minds of those here who disagree with it as far as I can tell.

Link to comment

There is no rule, it’s simple logic! If you find a geocache, go to the cache page and log it as found. If it doesn’t have a page, how can you log it?

 

I am a "number ho" from way back, and this makes absolute sense to me. One smilie per page/event. No page, not a real cache. I only log caches I sign, and coins I see.

 

just my opinion, your results way vary.

Link to comment
I'm confused. Isn't it one log per cache?

 

You are correct. Its one log per cache listing. If you attend an event, that's one "event cache", so you log one "attended" log for that event. If the sponsors hide 50 temporary, private caches for the attendees, they are a part of that event, so one "attended" log covers everything that goes on at the event, including finding temporary, private caches hidden for that event.

Link to comment

Maybe we should all stop putting the blame on the folks who are "Logging" these archived cache's and move it over to the "Approver's" who are fully aware of what is going on yet they choose to do not do nothing about it..

 

NOW, before the public flogging starts.. We know for a FACT (at least here in Florida) the approver's have the power to not only delete the find, they also have the power to kill the cache!!

The blame is misplaced.

 

1. It's reviewers, not approvers.

2. We review cache submissions. We are not the log police. There are very narrow circumstances in which a site volunteer can delete a find.

3. The reviewers have discussed the use of archived caches for "unconventional" logging practices at length. The reviewers have also discussed the practice of logging multiple finds on event caches. Groundspeak has provided guidance to us; namely, that individual instances of excessive abuse can be identified to Groundspeak and dealt with on a case by case basis.

 

In summary, once a cache is published because it meets the listing guidelines, it is up to the owner to set the standards for logging the cache, and it is up to the community to discuss what standards are "generally acceptable," as is occurring in this thread.

Link to comment

When there is no guideline or rule about logging event cache finds, why should they be deleted? Just because some people don't agree with it? As of this point, they are legal except in the minds of those here who disagree with it as far as I can tell.

 

I also am not able to currently find a "rule" about doing a "found it" log for every stage of a multi-cache, or logging a find on a cache you own. Does this mean that because there's no obvious rule about it that it's the right thing to do?

 

Basically, I'm saying just because you CAN do something, does that mean you SHOULD do it?

 

But in reality, no...your numbers do not affect me in any way right now. The only numbers that matter to me are my own, and the numbers of the two guys I've got a friendly competition going with...and I know both from caching with them and checking their profile that they're playing the "game" the same way I am...one log per GC listing. And yes, you're perfectly allowed to log these however you wish currently...the same way I'm allowed to check your profile and say you've only found 209 listed caches.

 

To me, it's kinda the same thing as golfing and telling everyone you made par when you actually made it 3 times due to how many times ya hit the ball, but it's still making par right? ;)

 

Celticwulf

Link to comment

When there is no guideline or rule about logging event cache finds, why should they be deleted? Just because some people don't agree with it? As of this point, they are legal except in the minds of those here who disagree with it as far as I can tell.

yes, but they (i.e., the people posting against this practice) think that their opinion is the dominant opinion, because more of them surf the forums and post in the forums. They forget that the vast majority of geocachers rarely (if ever) read the forums, and so are not going to post their opinions here. The reviewers and gc.com have to keep in mind the opinions of ALL geocachers, not just the forum posters - and I think they realize that the majority of cachers aren't posting here (and that *gasp* it's possible that other cachers have other opinions that haven't been presented here).

 

What's the majority opinion on this? Heck - there's not even consensus within the posters on the forums, so I feel very confident saying that some cachers feel it's a horrible practice, some think it's how they were taught to geocache, and some have no opinion whatsoever because they've never been to an event and they've never surfed the forums and they just really don't care about anyone's numbers but their own - so why WOULD they care?? Finally, I think there's a very large group of us out here who have a variety of opinions on this -- we could care less how many logs you post at an event, since it doesn't impact us (we don't care about #'s or if we do, our concept of the numbers is simply different from the other posters in this thread). BUT, we do care when you post a find on an archived cache (unless you actually found that cache, and the owner just didn't pick up the cache after archiving it/moved it to another site without moving the physical location/etc) or when you didn't find it - since that might trick me into thinking it's there and driving however far to try to find a cache that's missing. (and yes, if you read through my logs, you'll find multiple event logs for the same event - I'm not at all ashamed of them; you'll find a few logs where I did not find the cache, but the owner said to log it when they were either replacing the cache or archiving it; and you'll find a scattering of locationless/webcam/earthcache/virtuals/all the other bad ones. yup - the puritans/traditionalists probably hate me; oh well, if they want to waste their time/energy railing against a person who's never met them and likely never will? go ahead.).

 

Lonesumdove, for your own sake, I'd give up the argument. You'll only end up frustrating yourself as you try to point out that the rules they play by aren't the actual written rules - for a reason. That flexibility was intentionally left into the game/sport so that the game/sport could adapt and change over time to remain a vital entity. Things change. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes for the worse, but they change. There are some cachers who are adamantly opposed to any changes - these are the people you are trying to reason with. It's futile, as what you are proposing involves, to them, a change.

Link to comment

There are some cachers who are adamantly opposed to any changes - these are the people you are trying to reason with. It's futile, as what you are proposing involves, to them, a change.

 

I have to 100% dissagree with you on this comment. As I've stated, if you give me a valid argument why either Pocket Cache's or Multiple event logs makes sense, I'm willing to change my opinion.

 

To me, one log per GC number is common sense. Too bad common sense is so scarce nowadays...

 

Celticwulf

Link to comment

How do I explain to my child that people online think we're cheating?

 

"Son (or Daughter) - you see there are these people called the white robed cachers...."

Dad, how come we have 22 attended logs for the same cache? We only went once.

Well kiddo, since Groundspeak doesn’t allow us to hide temporary caches we had to find a way around the rules.

But isn’t that a lie?

Sometimes it’s OK for grownups to lie. We don’t like the rule about temporary caches, so we have to sneak around it.

Can I have a margarita?

Link to comment

How do I explain to my child that people online think we're cheating?

 

"Son (or Daughter) - you see there are these people called the white robed cachers...."

 

That is a disgusting allusion and a sad attempt to marginalize those who might have an opinion that differs from yours. I think that is beneath you.

Link to comment

How do I explain to my child that people online think we're cheating?

 

"Son (or Daughter) - you see there are these people called the white robed cachers...."

Dad, how come we have 22 attended logs for the same cache? We only went once.

Well kiddo, since Groundspeak doesn’t allow us to hide temporary caches we had to find a way around the rules.

But isn’t that a lie?

Sometimes it’s OK for grownups to lie. We don’t like the rule about temporary caches, so we have to sneak around it.

Can I have a margarita?

 

LOL -

 

Well... I guess to each their own. I could care less about other cacher's numbers. However, I'll take the well-hidden (and quite clever) temp caches at some of the events that I've been to, over some of the lousy micros stuck on guardrails 5 feet from a roadway.

 

Since there doesn't seem to be an actual policy on this, I'll just continue to act logically. A cache "page" is arbitrary. An actual "cache" is a "cache." Whatever I find, I log. I would like an accurate record of how many physical caches I've actually located. That's what makes this hobby fun. For those of you who disagree, c'est la vie.

 

See you out on the trails! ;)

 

Paddler

Link to comment

I also am not able to currently find a "rule" about doing a "found it" log for every stage of a multi-cache, or logging a find on a cache you own. Does this mean that because there's no obvious rule about it that it's the right thing to do?<snip>

 

Just to interject one point here, playing devils advocate a bit. . .

 

Celticwulf - you participate in the weeknight caching Crew and/or the weekbike crew caching trips correct? (Yes)

When 5-10 people all search out a cache- Even with using the "waiting tree method" or whatever you like to call it- Isn’t being 1 of 10 to find a cache in 1 location, within a few minutes a bit dis-ingenious - calling it a "find" ?

I mean, any one of the 5-10 people actually makes "find" - and no matter how sneaky they are- im 99% sure at least a couple of the other cachers see that - walk over and go "find it" too, then sign the log-

 

I know for instance- a few of my caches were hit during a long ago weeknight crew adventure, and a few caches were hit after a breakfast buddies event - so group searches. Mine are mostly hidden in areas where once you near GZ, there simply isn’t enough space for 5-10 people to search. Take my Sundial cache.

So, if 3-4-10 people are Out Here Do you honestly believe anyone could "be discreet" on a 10ft wide peninsula?

 

Isn’t that kind of like "One Find, All Find" ? How is that not "Cheating" ?

 

Remember.- just playing a little devils advocate, since you seem to be taking a higher and higher approach

Link to comment

I agree, this is useless and everyone has their own opinion and you can't change mine, I can't change yours - stalemate. As for me, I am going to go right now with my new 76CSX that I just bought tonight and get away from this computer. I made my points and you are right beffums, I have better things to do. Peace...

Link to comment

I also am not able to currently find a "rule" about doing a "found it" log for every stage of a multi-cache, or logging a find on a cache you own. Does this mean that because there's no obvious rule about it that it's the right thing to do?<snip>

 

Just to interject one point here, playing devils advocate a bit. . .

 

Celticwulf - you participate in the weeknight caching Crew and/or the weekbike crew caching trips correct? (Yes)

When 5-10 people all search out a cache- Even with using the "waiting tree method" or whatever you like to call it- Isn’t being 1 of 10 to find a cache in 1 location, within a few minutes a bit dis-ingenious - calling it a "find" ?

I mean, any one of the 5-10 people actually makes "find" - and no matter how sneaky they are- im 99% sure at least a couple of the other cachers see that - walk over and go "find it" too, then sign the log-

 

I know for instance- a few of my caches were hit during a long ago weeknight crew adventure, and a few caches were hit after a breakfast buddies event - so group searches. Mine are mostly hidden in areas where once you near GZ, there simply isn’t enough space for 5-10 people to search. Take my Sundial cache.

So, if 3-4-10 people are Out Here Do you honestly believe anyone could "be discreet" on a 10ft wide peninsula?

 

Isn’t that kind of like "One Find, All Find" ? How is that not "Cheating" ?

 

Remember.- just playing a little devils advocate, since you seem to be taking a higher and higher approach

 

All that is irrelevant. We’re discussing the ethics of telling a lie to boost your numbers. What does it matter if 20 people ‘find’ a geocache, at least it’s a real cache, not a figment of someone’s imagination (pocket caches) or backdoor sneak around the rules (multiple event attended logs). Please stay on topic.

Link to comment

I agree, this is useless and everyone has their own opinion and you can't change mine, I can't change yours - stalemate. As for me, I am going to go right now with my new 76CSX that I just bought tonight and get away from this computer. I made my points and you are right beffums, I have better things to do. Peace...

Who's trying to change your position? I want to hear how you can justify telling a lie to boost your numbers. You did not attend that event more than once, to log it such is a lie.

Link to comment

This is what I found on the GC.com website. I did not specifically find any rule that states that temporary caches cannot be logged as finds. If you know where it is, can you please post it here?

 

Cache Permanence

 

"When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. 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. "

 

There is no where in this paragraph that states you cannot log caches found at events or that temporary caches are not allowed, simply that they may not be listed on the GC.com site (I would guess this is due to the large number of caches that are made available at events, the close proximity of them, the pages would have to all be archived after the event, etc...) If anyone knows where this "rule" is, I would like to read it. I am not arguing it is or is not there, I just could not find it.

This begs the question "Why does TPTB allow multiple logs of an event cache?" It would have to be an easy fix. One possible reason would be to allow for events like LonesomDove's.

 

I still say lighten up. Less rules are better. Worry about your own integrity, not others. I've never logged an event cache, let alone multiple times, but I don't give a flip when people do. Comparing multiple logs to illegal activities is baloney--the cheating at solitaire analogy is better.

Link to comment

There are some cachers who are adamantly opposed to any changes - these are the people you are trying to reason with. It's futile, as what you are proposing involves, to them, a change.

 

I have to 100% dissagree with you on this comment. As I've stated, if you give me a valid argument why either Pocket Cache's or Multiple event logs makes sense, I'm willing to change my opinion.

 

To me, one log per GC number is common sense. Too bad common sense is so scarce nowadays...

 

Celticwulf

I agree with you on the pocket caches - they shouldn't be logged on archived caches. So, I can't give you an argument for why it's logical to log archived caches that you didn't find. However, I would be fine with them as an temp cache at an event (if the person was placed at X coords, or if there was a puzzle to be solved to find them, or if it somehow met the rules of placing caches, but simply was a temporary placement), and am fine with multiple event logs/caches. Essentially, it comes down to a discrepancy between where some cachers draw the line and where others do.

 

Some think it is ONE LOG PER (PHYSICAL) CACHE

 

Others think it is ONE LOG PER GC#

 

If it is per physical cache, then events have multiple logs. If it is per gc#, then they don't. Thing is, the rules don't specify, so people choose based either on how they were taught to play the game/sport or on personal decisions.

 

The thing is, from reading the forums, I'll admit - I'm not even going to try to argue this one. Like I suggested to Lonesumdove - it's just more frustration than it's worth. You (celticwulf) are possibly the one cacher who argues the opposing perspective who manages to do so non-offensively, which is why I'm writing back (and thank you btw). Over all, one reason why there's a strong bias in the forums towards your perspective is that the others just get offended and stop arguing the opposing viewpoint (I personally know of several cachers who've reached that point, and a few of whom will likely scold me later tonight for bothering with this thread).

 

But, since you asked, to me, it's per physical cache. And, for me, that's one per physical cache with a log that you sign - so no multiple logs for a multi (hmm, I've never found one where it had multiple logs along the way... do those exist?? that would be weird). I also allow for exceptions to this - if you find a virt or a locationless (when they were on this site) or an earthcache (some of the best caches I've found to date) or ... it counts to me, even though there's no physical logbook.

 

Would I care if gc.com decided to split the attended logs to separate from the founds? nope. Do I care if you look at my profile and say "she didn't find 370 caches, she's only found 350-ish caches"? nope. Have I checked how many caches you've found? nope. But, when I have to decide what to log for myself, I use two rules: 1) what does the cache owner have to say and 2) what do I feel comfortable with. (and, of course, GC.com rules, but as noted above - they aren't clear on this) For me, that's one per physical cache, even if that means multiple event logs.

Link to comment

This is what I found on the GC.com website. I did not specifically find any rule that states that temporary caches cannot be logged as finds. If you know where it is, can you please post it here?

 

Cache Permanence

 

"When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. 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. "

 

There is no where in this paragraph that states you cannot log caches found at events or that temporary caches are not allowed, simply that they may not be listed on the GC.com site (I would guess this is due to the large number of caches that are made available at events, the close proximity of them, the pages would have to all be archived after the event, etc...) If anyone knows where this "rule" is, I would like to read it. I am not arguing it is or is not there, I just could not find it.

 

I found this in a previous thread

 

From Jeremy on Jun 6 2005, 12:00 PM

 

Temp caches aren't allowed on the site. And as I indicated in countless threads in the past, I think logging attended twice for an event is stupid, and posting additional logs to "match" whatever "count" you determined your numbers should be is equally stupid. However I have no plans to be the point police and create complicated rules for determining what counts as a find. That is up to the cache listing owner to decide.

 

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

But as I also said before, I don't lose sleep over it. I stand by my stance that there are no "points" for geocaching and no score to be kept. The site does not keep score but simply offers a history of your finds.

 

Here is a link to the above post http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...dpost&p=1524015

Edited by 5¢
Link to comment

To the Forum junkies putting out "Forum Spew":

I'll say it again

LIGHTEN UP FRANCIS

Get off the computer, get out there and find caches, no matter what size they may be!

Uh, we’re having a discussion here. If you have nothing intelligent to add, it would be beneficial if you’d simply say nothing.

Link to comment

Just to interject one point here, playing devils advocate a bit. . .

<snip>

 

All that is irrelevant. We’re discussing the ethics of telling a lie to boost your numbers.

What does it matter if 20 people ‘find’ a geocache, at least it’s a real cache, not a figment of someone’s imagination (pocket caches) or backdoor sneak around the rules (multiple event attended logs). Please stay on topic.

 

Since "ethics" and "lying" are On Topic, I believe questioning the "ethics" of group caching somewhat On Topic. How ethical is it to claim on find on a cache YOU didnt Find?

 

Who's trying to change your position? I want to hear how you can justify telling a lie to boost your numbers. ....<snip>

 

Since 9 of 10 people in a group (sometimes) Dont "Find" the cache - but maybe just 1 Other Does - Then I'd like to hear how this "lie" is also justified. Ethics are ethics arent they?

 

a) It seems to be "ethical" to group hunt, when a cacher personally might not "find" anything - but rather just sign the log as its passed around the circle -

b)Event attendees ARE actually Finding the cache, personally.

 

I just see a flaw in logic in this thinking. I know - not ALL group hunts are one sign all sign - but Some are- And - it seems OK around here/

Link to comment
Where can these sort of practices lead? How about this? I can hide a whiskey, ammunition, and knives cache that requires you only trade those sorts of items. It won’t get listed on the GC site so inside the cache I’ll just put the info for one of my archived caches giving permission for people to log that one so their find count is accurate.

 

Could ya be a pal and post the coords the this cache already?

I'm running low on 7.62x39 FMJ. Hopefully by the time I get there, Lep will have traded up and taken the whiskey and left a bottle of tequilia.

Link to comment

Just to interject one point here, playing devils advocate a bit. . .

<snip>

 

All that is irrelevant. We’re discussing the ethics of telling a lie to boost your numbers.

What does it matter if 20 people ‘find’ a geocache, at least it’s a real cache, not a figment of someone’s imagination (pocket caches) or backdoor sneak around the rules (multiple event attended logs). Please stay on topic.

 

Since "ethics" and "lying" are On Topic, I believe questioning the "ethics" of group caching somewhat On Topic. How ethical is it to claim on find on a cache YOU didnt Find?

 

Who's trying to change your position? I want to hear how you can justify telling a lie to boost your numbers. ....<snip>

 

Since 9 of 10 people in a group (sometimes) Dont "Find" the cache - but maybe just 1 Other Does - Then I'd like to hear how this "lie" is also justified. Ethics are ethics arent they?

 

a) It seems to be "ethical" to group hunt, when a cacher personally might not "find" anything - but rather just sign the log as its passed around the circle -

b)Event attendees ARE actually Finding the cache, personally.

 

I just see a flaw in logic in this thinking. I know - not ALL group hunts are one sign all sign - but Some are- And - it seems OK around here/

We’re not discussing that issue, and that sort of feeble argument is only to attempt to derail the topic. The line isn’t blurry, it’s quite well defined. You cannot attend one event 22 times, the laws of physics doesn’t allow that.

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

 

2. We review cache submissions. We are not the log police. There are very narrow circumstances in which a site volunteer can delete a find.

 

Correction.. Our Approver/Reviewer was a "Log Police".. And since our "Log" was not to their liking, not only was "EVERYONE'S" log deleted, the entire "CACHE" was deleted.. There was no reason for any of the activity that was taken out on our cache to be done.. We played by the rules, but was told we were trying to pull something over on the Approver/Reviewer.. What could that be?? We had 2 log's for 1 cache.. Now how is this any dadgum different that what all those who are playing the Pocket Cache game?? I know for a fact a couple of those Pocket Cache's where orginally destroyed either by Muggle or Mother Nature..

 

So dont go telling us that some of the Approver's/Reviewer's dont go "Stalking" certain cacher's caches..

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