Jump to content

What’s Going On Here? 2


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

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.

Get in line Mo, everybody is looking for 7.62x39. ;)

Link to comment

From Criminal:

That's the very same logic racists use to justify their behavior. I'm just going to a rally, it doesn't hurt anyone.

 

That's the very same logic pedophiles use to justify their behavior. It's just pictures; I'm not hurting anyone.

 

If your version of playing the game makes it necessary to tell a lie, I think it would be better for the health of the game if you played it that way on another site.

 

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.

 

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

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

 

A discussion? Who are you to tell people what to discuss? First you compare me to a racist and a pedophile, then you tell me I "lie" - numerous times, and YOU want to have an intelligent conversation? You are not trying to have a conversation, you are trying to be a bully, plain and simple. If it is not your way, you refuse to even consider thinking or listening to points other people offer. I did not lie about anything. I never stated that I attended the event 21 times, it is clear - if you go to the web page, that people posted finding caches. I listened to your side and all I asked for was proof or some sort of rule that was set by the geocaching.com web site that this is not allowed. You or anybody else can't provide that - because it IS allowed, tolerated, whatever you want to call it, whether you think it is right or not. Here is a number for you, add one more to your "win" column because I am done "trying" to discuss anything with you. You win. Feel better now? Good...

Edited by lonesumdove
Link to comment

 

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.

 

[insert "You've Been Served" emoticon here]

 

Actually, I have not presented my opinion on this topic at all. Both sides have made reasonable statements.

But the fact is that there are two extremes to the geocaching spectrum - the white robed cachers and the wild.

Neither one is completely right or wrong - the balance is somewhere between those extremes.

Link to comment

A discussion? Who are you to tell people what to discuss? First you compare me to a racist and a pedophile, then you tell me I "lie" - numerous times, and YOU want to have an intelligent conversation?

I did no such thing. I compared the faulty logic you were using to the faulty logic used by those groups of people. Two VERY different things.

 

There is nothing I would like more than some sort of reaslistic discussion. You have 22 (I think) attended logs for an event you only attended once. That is 21 more times than you actually attended. What is so hard to understand about that?

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/

 

sorry if addressing this here is "off topic"...but i have held my tongue long enough. I have little to add to the discussion of Pocket caches and multiple attended logs that hasn't been said before.

However, this little tangent that group hunts should only count as a find for the "one" person who finds the cache is utterly absurd to me. In other words, any find when you are with another person should not count, in case you "saw" the other person find the cache, and intuited the location. Jeez-Louise...I thought I had heard it all.

Link to comment

A little off topic but if falls right in with the subgtopic of ethics.

 

We hava a caching family. me, wife, 5yo son, and 1yo daughter. We each have a unique gc id. My wife usually finds the cache before me. My son and daughter go with me on some finds. when we get there I tell my son where the general location of the cache and I let him look for it. sometimes he gets it, sometimes I get it. When my daughter is old enough she will do the same if she wants to. everyone in the caching party logs a find. Does that stand up to the smell test? ;)

Link to comment

I listened to your side and all I asked for was proof or some sort of rule that was set by the geocaching.com web site that this is not allowed. You or anybody else can't provide that - because it IS allowed, tolerated, whatever you want to call it, whether you think it is right or not. Here is a number for you, add one more to your "win" column because I am done "trying" to discuss anything with you. You win. Feel better now? Good...

 

There isn't a rule against belching in church. There isn't a law against flipping a police officer the bird as you pass by. Just cause it isn't written in stone and handed down to Moses doesn't mean it's right.

Take virtual travel bugs for an example. There was no "rule" against them, because that wasn't what they were intended for. I'm guessing 6yrs ago when there were only a few hundred caches worldwide, TPTB never imagined people would log finds on a cache for finding something other then that cache. There is no rule against it because it's not what the cache page was meant to be used for. When the virtual TB thing started to get outta hand, they stepped in an locked them down. I'll bet ya anything if people keep abusing the intended purpose of the cache logging feature for pocket caches and temp caches and such, you will see them locked down and deleted as well.

Link to comment
There is nothing I would like more than some sort of reaslistic discussion. You have 22 (I think) attended logs for an event you only attended once.

In lonesumdove's defense, I went and looked at a few of those logs. She actually wrote real logs for each temporary cache, unlike many others who attended the same event and just copied-and-pasted a generic log n times to get all their smileys. So the data supports her position that logging those caches was a part of the fun of the event.

 

And I think it is too bad that there was no legitimate method for getting "credit" for those finds. While I don't think they should be equivalent to cache finds, at the same time they deserve to be logged someplace. So she (and all the other cachers at the event) made the reasonable, if perhaps questionable, decision to log the event multiple times. If I were to place blame anywhere, it would be with the event organizers, who provided a bunch of temporary caches and no way to log them legitimately, leaving the attendees in an awkward position.

 

I don't think this issue is entirely black and white, and I am not particularly interesting in micro-managing how other people live their lives. But the impact of the devaluation of the smiley affects us all, and I think that, as a community, we need to discuss these issues and come to some consensus about what is acceptable and what is not.

 

For example, the community already generally agrees that entirely ficititious logs are not acceptable. We also agree that logging finds on your own caches is bad form.

 

But beyond that, there is a gray area. Next in line comes logging a cache as a find because you couldn't find it but you tried hard. Then comes logging a find on an archived cache on this site because you found a cache listed on another site. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if the owner says it is OK. Then comes logging additional finds on a cache if the owner gives you a "bonus" find for something else. Then comes logging pocket caches. Then comes logging multiple finds at an event. Then comes logging multiple finds on a cache that has moved. Finally comes logging a cache found by a group as a find for each member of the group.

 

We started at something clearly unacceptable, and we ended up at something most everyone accepts as permissible. Everybody draws the line someplace in that gray area; I know exactly where I have drawn mine. It's a spot where I can feel comfortable living with myself.

 

It seems to me that the value in this discussion in in clarifying what each spot in that gray area means. For example: I disagree with Criminal that logging multiple finds on an event is lying, but I am sufficiently uncomfortable that I won't do it for myself, and my respect for people who do it is diminished considerably. As another example: I won't log the same cache twice, even if it has moved substantially, but if other people do so it doesn't affect my respect for them.

Link to comment

This is a very cool thread and it reminds me that this is a GAME nothing to win at end just a GAME and a very cool one at that.

 

Every time the nay sayers post about what is right and what is wrong as they are here in this thread got to laugh about it and hope I’m and sucking some of the fun out of the GAME for them Heee Heee

 

Play the GAME the way you want to, I am playing the GAME the way I want to, NOT your way and as for me, well feeling just ducky swimming around in the big pond of life having a blast laughing at ya’ll

 

JOE

Link to comment
There is nothing I would like more than some sort of reaslistic discussion. You have 22 (I think) attended logs for an event you only attended once.

In lonesumdove's defense, I went and looked at a few of those logs. She actually wrote real logs for each temporary cache, unlike many others who attended the same event and just copied-and-pasted a generic log n times to get all their smileys. So the data supports her position that logging those caches was a part of the fun of the event.

 

And I think it is too bad that there was no legitimate method for getting "credit" for those finds. While I don't think they should be equivalent to cache finds, at the same time they deserve to be logged someplace. So she (and all the other cachers at the event) made the reasonable, if perhaps questionable, decision to log the event multiple times. If I were to place blame anywhere, it would be with the event organizers, who provided a bunch of temporary caches and no way to log them legitimately, leaving the attendees in an awkward position.

 

I don't think this issue is entirely black and white, and I am not particularly interesting in micro-managing how other people live their lives. But the impact of the devaluation of the smiley affects us all, and I think that, as a community, we need to discuss these issues and come to some consensus about what is acceptable and what is not.

 

For example, the community already generally agrees that entirely ficititious logs are not acceptable. We also agree that logging finds on your own caches is bad form.

 

But beyond that, there is a gray area. Next in line comes logging a cache as a find because you couldn't find it but you tried hard. Then comes logging a find on an archived cache on this site because you found a cache listed on another site. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if the owner says it is OK. Then comes logging additional finds on a cache if the owner gives you a "bonus" find for something else. Then comes logging pocket caches. Then comes logging multiple finds at an event. Then comes logging multiple finds on a cache that has moved. Finally comes logging a cache found by a group as a find for each member of the group.

 

We started at something clearly unacceptable, and we ended up at something most everyone accepts as permissible. Everybody draws the line someplace in that gray area; I know exactly where I have drawn mine. It's a spot where I can feel comfortable living with myself.

 

It seems to me that the value in this discussion in in clarifying what each spot in that gray area means. For example: I disagree with Criminal that logging multiple finds on an event is lying, but I am sufficiently uncomfortable that I won't do it for myself, and my respect for people who do it is diminished considerably. As another example: I won't log the same cache twice, even if it has moved substantially, but if other people do so it doesn't affect my respect for them.

Ah the voice of reason. This is a very well stated post; Thank you. I agree.

Link to comment
There is nothing I would like more than some sort of reaslistic discussion. You have 22 (I think) attended logs for an event you only attended once.

In lonesumdove's defense, I went and looked at a few of those logs. She actually wrote real logs for each temporary cache, unlike many others who attended the same event and just copied-and-pasted a generic log n times to get all their smileys. So the data supports her position that logging those caches was a part of the fun of the event.

 

And I think it is too bad that there was no legitimate method for getting "credit" for those finds. While I don't think they should be equivalent to cache finds, at the same time they deserve to be logged someplace. So she (and all the other cachers at the event) made the reasonable, if perhaps questionable, decision to log the event multiple times. If I were to place blame anywhere, it would be with the event organizers, who provided a bunch of temporary caches and no way to log them legitimately, leaving the attendees in an awkward position.

 

I don't think this issue is entirely black and white, and I am not particularly interesting in micro-managing how other people live their lives. But the impact of the devaluation of the smiley affects us all, and I think that, as a community, we need to discuss these issues and come to some consensus about what is acceptable and what is not.

 

For example, the community already generally agrees that entirely ficititious logs are not acceptable. We also agree that logging finds on your own caches is bad form.

 

But beyond that, there is a gray area. Next in line comes logging a cache as a find because you couldn't find it but you tried hard. Then comes logging a find on an archived cache on this site because you found a cache listed on another site. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if the owner says it is OK. Then comes logging additional finds on a cache if the owner gives you a "bonus" find for something else. Then comes logging pocket caches. Then comes logging multiple finds at an event. Then comes logging multiple finds on a cache that has moved. Finally comes logging a cache found by a group as a find for each member of the group.

 

We started at something clearly unacceptable, and we ended up at something most everyone accepts as permissible. Everybody draws the line someplace in that gray area; I know exactly where I have drawn mine. It's a spot where I can feel comfortable living with myself.

 

It seems to me that the value in this discussion in in clarifying what each spot in that gray area means. For example: I disagree with Criminal that logging multiple finds on an event is lying, but I am sufficiently uncomfortable that I won't do it for myself, and my respect for people who do it is diminished considerably. As another example: I won't log the same cache twice, even if it has moved substantially, but if other people do so it doesn't affect my respect for them.

Ah the voice of reason. This is a very well stated post; Thank you. I agree.

I agree - a VERY well stated post.

Link to comment
If I were to place blame anywhere, it would be with the event organizers, who provided a bunch of temporary caches and no way to log them legitimately, leaving the attendees in an awkward position.

 

Why blame them? For years, other people have attended events with temporary caches as part of that event and managed to live without logging finds elsewhere. Suddenly it is a problem? Why? And a person can log multiple notes on an event cache if they wish to log a story about each temporary cache they have found without having to claim a found it smiley face to add to their cache numbers. If they want an accurate count of how many caches they have done, legitimate gc.com caches, pocket caches, temporary caches, caches listed at other sites, then they should have their own website for those tallies.

Link to comment

Label me "Guilty as charged". I've committed the great and terrible sin of logging a pocket cache. How many Hail Mary's will it take for me to receive absolution from the Church of Geocaching's Holy Ministers?

 

Crim, I haven't read all six pages of this thread so forgive me if you've already addressed this elsewhere;

What I call a find and what you call a find, might not be the same critter. Does that automatically make you wrong because your definition does not match mine? Nope. Does it make me wrong? Nope. It just means we see things differently. If I go to an event and search 115 people, and during that process I discover a physical container with a log sheet inside, did I not "find" it? Webster's defines a find as "To come upon or discover by searching or making an effort". Obviously a certain amount of effort was utilized, and there was certainly something discovered, (specifically, a physical cache containing a log sheet), so how exactly is that not a find? I reckon I should delete my Wally World lamp post finds, since there d*mn sure wasn't any effort involved in "finding" those. Would that appease your Puritan heart?

 

I take exception to you and others implying that I'm a liar and a cheater because I've logged pocket caches, because I don't feel that I'm either. To call me a liar is, (duh!), to state that I have lied. A lie is a knowledgeable misrepresentation of the truth. By my definition of "find", I most certainly did not lie. I searched, (by asking repeated questions), I found, I signed. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. But your current pleasure level and personal concurrence are not a necessary ingredient to determining a particular truth. There is no lie here. When you and others imply that I'm a cheater, you imply that I've violated a rule. Perhaps some guidelines were stretched. I'll leave that up to the geocourts to decide. Since no rules were broken, cheating could not, by definition, have occurred. Just because you and I don't define something in exactly the same way does not make me a liar or a cheat.

 

One of the things I enjoy the most about this game is that I'm not in competition with anybody. If the GC server were to suddenly malfunction, and my meager find count were to revert to zero, I honestly wouldn't lose a minutes sleep over it. I could care less about what my total find count is, and I care even less what some other player's total find count is, nor do I give a rat's backside for how said player acquired his/her numbers. Having "X" number of finds does not indicate a person's worth. Obviously numbers are important to you, and if that's how you play this game, there is nothing wrong with that, but it would be incorrect to assume that those folks who log pocket caches are in it for the numbers. For some of us, the numbers are an irrelevant byproduct to the game.

 

Peace Brother!

Link to comment

I am definitely late coming into this thread!

 

It looks like this argument has evolved over the years. Several years ago I took part in a debate over logging temp event caches on event pages. At the time, I advocated that it was OK because the person found something, signed a log, and it is nice to keep track of those. That was before the logs for events were changed to "attended" and I also later rethought my position and decided I personally wasn't comfortable with it, so I changed my two such finds to notes. I didn't care what others did there, and still really don't. From my experience a good majority of forum posters hate the practice, while a good majority of event attendees think it is fine.

 

With pocket caches, I first saw a variation of those at GW3. But they were a bit different. They were micros with a log that people had to find and also had a preapproved cache page where they were also hidden after the event and kept active for finds. I honestly don't remember if I logged any. I wasn't trying to find them, but think I signed the physical log book on one. I also logged the grandfathered moving caches that were brought to the event. Legit finds I think, although made darn easy. I remember feeling a bit funny about it, but all were active caches with log books etc. and moved to the event location.

 

A local event here once did pocket caches as an ice breaker/meet people type game, but I don't think those were logged online anywhere and were just treated like normal temporary event caches. I didn't log them online anywhere anyway.

 

The logging on an archived page for another cache is new to me. That seems odd to me since that particular cache was not found. Maybe "something" was found, but it wasn't the archived cache, and I wonder about the confusion that could cause to people who had it watch listed and suddenly thought it must still be there. I assume/hope that the owner at least gave permission for that!

 

In the end, I figure if people want to log something that has its own legitimate published page, I am fine with that. Or if people want to multiple log the event for caches found and a log book signed, and the organizer allows it, I won't do it, but also don't care. Neither will cause confusion and the actions are apparent, at least in terms of multiple event logs. When it comes to that stuff, I don't see it as "lying," Although I do see it as using the system in an unintended way to keep track of log books signed. This is especially true now that events are logged as attended instead of found. I don't think the logging an archived page for an entirely different cache is good though. That cache simply was not found.

 

For people who want to keep track of logs signed, regardless of how/where, COD mentioned keenpeople. Using that can keep track, while not cluttering up event pages and such, plus avoid the concerns raised in this thread.

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment
There is nothing I would like more than some sort of reaslistic discussion. You have 22 (I think) attended logs for an event you only attended once.

In lonesumdove's defense, I went and looked at a few of those logs. She actually wrote real logs for each temporary cache, unlike many others who attended the same event and just copied-and-pasted a generic log n times to get all their smileys. So the data supports her position that logging those caches was a part of the fun of the event.

 

And I think it is too bad that there was no legitimate method for getting "credit" for those finds. While I don't think they should be equivalent to cache finds, at the same time they deserve to be logged someplace. So she (and all the other cachers at the event) made the reasonable, if perhaps questionable, decision to log the event multiple times. If I were to place blame anywhere, it would be with the event organizers, who provided a bunch of temporary caches and no way to log them legitimately, leaving the attendees in an awkward position.

 

I don't think this issue is entirely black and white, and I am not particularly interesting in micro-managing how other people live their lives. But the impact of the devaluation of the smiley affects us all, and I think that, as a community, we need to discuss these issues and come to some consensus about what is acceptable and what is not.

 

For example, the community already generally agrees that entirely ficititious logs are not acceptable. We also agree that logging finds on your own caches is bad form.

 

But beyond that, there is a gray area. Next in line comes logging a cache as a find because you couldn't find it but you tried hard. Then comes logging a find on an archived cache on this site because you found a cache listed on another site. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if the owner says it is OK. Then comes logging additional finds on a cache if the owner gives you a "bonus" find for something else. Then comes logging pocket caches. Then comes logging multiple finds at an event. Then comes logging multiple finds on a cache that has moved. Finally comes logging a cache found by a group as a find for each member of the group.

 

We started at something clearly unacceptable, and we ended up at something most everyone accepts as permissible. Everybody draws the line someplace in that gray area; I know exactly where I have drawn mine. It's a spot where I can feel comfortable living with myself.

 

It seems to me that the value in this discussion in in clarifying what each spot in that gray area means. For example: I disagree with Criminal that logging multiple finds on an event is lying, but I am sufficiently uncomfortable that I won't do it for myself, and my respect for people who do it is diminished considerably. As another example: I won't log the same cache twice, even if it has moved substantially, but if other people do so it doesn't affect my respect for them.

Ah the voice of reason. This is a very well stated post; Thank you. I agree.

I agree - a VERY well stated post.

 

ohhh sorry. But I can't see it as gray.

 

Again I'm sorry to draw this line in the sand. You can't hold an event to go caching.

 

I cannot post an event to go caching.

 

(Personally I'm ok with that. I'd like to meet cachers and then go find listed gc.com caches. I don't need to log them into an event cache)

Link to comment
(snip)........Obviously numbers are important to you, and if that's how you play this game, there is nothing wrong with that, but it would be incorrect to assume that those folks who log pocket caches are in it for the numbers. For some of us, the numbers are an irrelevant byproduct to the game....... (snip)

This is what confuses me. If the numbers/the find count is not important, then why is the effort made to log a 'temp event/pocket' cache on a GC.com geocache page? Isn't doing that by default a blatant action done to keep track of the find count, any and all finds possible anywhere? Doesn't that make it about the numbers??? :huh:

 

I don't deny AT ALL that what they found was *in and of itself an actual cache*, in the strictest sense of the term, ie: they found A cache, a container of some sort, with a log paper of some sort (presumably by using a GPS, or perhaps by grabbing somebody's pants pocket :blink: ).

 

But what they did NOT find was a GC.com geocache. These are specific items and they are listed on GC.com. They are reviewed by volunteers and published for all members around the world to see. Any cacher anywhere on the planet can get on a computer and look at the description of each GC.com cache, its coordinates, look at a map of the area, nearby caches and benchmarks, etc. That is what makes it a GC.com geocache.

 

So, what is the reason to log these two different creatures as though they are the "same", when they are clearly not?

Numbers is the only explanation I can see behind this. I don't mean that in a negative way, I merely think that is the root reason behind the logging. In reading this thread I haven't yet been convinced otherwise, but my mind is open.....

 

Just trying to understand the logic behind this. It has no effect on me personally, aside from the fact that it gives me a slight cramp in my eyeballs from this: :anibad::lol:

Link to comment

 

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

 

In case this got missed earlier. Yes I just quoted myself. While Jeremy has said that he will take no action at that time to police, it is his sandbox and he don't like it.

Edited by 5¢
Link to comment

Label me "Guilty as charged". I've committed the great and terrible sin of logging a pocket cache. How many Hail Mary's will it take for me to receive absolution from the Church of Geocaching's Holy Ministers?

 

Crim, I haven't read all six pages of this thread so forgive me if you've already addressed this elsewhere;

What I call a find and what you call a find, might not be the same critter. Does that automatically make you wrong because your definition does not match mine? Nope. Does it make me wrong? Nope. It just means we see things differently. If I go to an event and search 115 people, and during that process I discover a physical container with a log sheet inside, did I not "find" it? Webster's defines a find as "To come upon or discover by searching or making an effort". Obviously a certain amount of effort was utilized, and there was certainly something discovered, (specifically, a physical cache containing a log sheet), so how exactly is that not a find? I reckon I should delete my Wally World lamp post finds, since there d*mn sure wasn't any effort involved in "finding" those. Would that appease your Puritan heart?

 

I take exception to you and others implying that I'm a liar and a cheater because I've logged pocket caches, because I don't feel that I'm either. To call me a liar is, (duh!), to state that I have lied. A lie is a knowledgeable misrepresentation of the truth. By my definition of "find", I most certainly did not lie. I searched, (by asking repeated questions), I found, I signed. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. But your current pleasure level and personal concurrence are not a necessary ingredient to determining a particular truth. There is no lie here. When you and others imply that I'm a cheater, you imply that I've violated a rule. Perhaps some guidelines were stretched. I'll leave that up to the geocourts to decide. Since no rules were broken, cheating could not, by definition, have occurred. Just because you and I don't define something in exactly the same way does not make me a liar or a cheat.

 

One of the things I enjoy the most about this game is that I'm not in competition with anybody. If the GC server were to suddenly malfunction, and my meager find count were to revert to zero, I honestly wouldn't lose a minutes sleep over it. I could care less about what my total find count is, and I care even less what some other player's total find count is, nor do I give a rat's backside for how said player acquired his/her numbers. Having "X" number of finds does not indicate a person's worth. Obviously numbers are important to you, and if that's how you play this game, there is nothing wrong with that, but it would be incorrect to assume that those folks who log pocket caches are in it for the numbers. For some of us, the numbers are an irrelevant byproduct to the game.

 

Peace Brother!

Finally, someone has offered up some intelligent discussion. Congratulations on your ability to articulate your position, after all the nonsensical debate, it is at the least refreshing.

 

I had intended to look at your finds to get an example of one of the pocket caches you were claiming a find on to use as an example, but couldn’t find any. So for the sake of discussion, lets say you logged a find on a pocket cache called BigNumbers. This hypothetical cache, like many of the pocket caches, is archived. While at the Whickam Park event, you ran into a hypothetical cacher named BellyButtonLint and he showed you his pocket cache. By your definition of ‘found’ you felt justified in logging it as such by going to the cache page and selecting Found It from the drop-down box. Do we agree that this is an accurate representation of how these are logged?

 

Here are my questions;

Did you go to the coordinates at the top of the cache page? No.

Did you search the area and find the container? No.

Is there even a cache at that location? No.

Did the cache hider request that the cache be un-archived and submit to the approval process like the rest of us must do? No.

 

You did, however, select Found It from the drop-down box even though you didn’t find it, which is untruthful. I agree that you found something but it wasn’t a geocache, and certainly not the geocache you are claiming to have found.

 

Peace right back to you.

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

<snip>

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.

<snip>

 

Excessive is a very subjective term. Judging by this thread, what is considered excessive unconventional logging practices varies widely depending on who you ask. So at what level is unconventional logging considered excessive and at level is it considered abuse?

Link to comment
I take exception to you and others implying that I'm a liar and a cheater because I've logged pocket caches, because I don't feel that I'm either. To call me a liar is, (duh!), to state that I have lied. A lie is a knowledgeable misrepresentation of the truth. By my definition of "find", I most certainly did not lie.

 

In a strict sense you might not be lying, but you are circumventing the system to log your finds. The log for an event cache gives you the option to say "attended". You can't "attend" an event 5, 10 or 50 times, so logging multiple "attended" logs is a way to get around the system.

 

You can't tell me that when you intentionally do something to beat the system that you are totally comfortable with that. If you are, there is a word for it - its called cheating.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

If pocket caches are an acceptiable reason to log a find on an archived cache. What is unacceptiable?

 

If archived caches are going to be continued to be logged why archive them? Why not just change the pages write up.

Link to comment

If pocket caches are an acceptiable reason to log a find on an archived cache. What is unacceptiable?

 

If archived caches are going to be continued to be logged why archive them? Why not just change the pages write up.

 

Probably because these temporary, private caches would not be approved.

 

Why not log your finds from Terracaching.com and Navicache.com on archived caches here? If the point of this abuse is to have an "accurate" count of every cache you found, whether or not it is listed here, then that is a defensible argument.

Link to comment
Here are my questions;

Did you go to the coordinates at the top of the cache page?

No, but I did go to the coordinates listed on a cache page.

Did you search the area and find the container?

Yes, in fact, we found 5.

Is there even a cache at that location?

At the time of the event, there were several.

Did the cache hider request that the cache be un-archived and submit to the approval process like the rest of us must do?

This is not a requirement that I'm aware of. When I logged a "find" at Reflections Cache, it had been disabled for 9 months, archived for 4. Yet the cache was still there. The owner was not required to resubmit it's listing for my find to be counted.

 

You did, however, select Found It from the drop-down box even though you didn’t find it, which is untruthful. I agree that you found something but it wasn’t a geocache, and certainly not the geocache you are claiming to have found.

 

It appears that this is a battle of semantics. The debate as I see it seems to be focused on what is a "geocache". Several criteria come to mind, both in my personal observations/opinions, and in the guidelines. If I meet up with BellyButtonLint at an event, and after questioning, (which could conceivably qualify as a search by the Florida Supreme Court's standards), he pulls out a magnetic hide-a-key from his pocket which is his previously archived micro cache "BigNumbers", and I sign the log, I might consider that a find.

 

Consider this possible scenario;

At some point in the past, the cache "BigNumbers" was reviewed and given a green light. It has it's own cache page and GC number. Folks from all around are logging finds, DNF's, whatever. Kinda hard not to call it a geocache at this point. At some other point in the past, BellyButtonLint archives "BigNumbers", and recovers his hide-a-key, keeping the container and log for posterity. Then he brings "BigNumbers" with him to an event, to be logged by those good folks who "find" it. I see this as meeting most of the guidelines. The biggest problem would be that the specific cache being logged had been moved by the owner. Not a problem in my book, for folks who want to claim it as a find.

 

I had intended to look at your finds to get an example of one of the pocket caches you were claiming a find on to use as an example, but couldn’t find any.

 

Look at my history for May 6th. Counting downward from "The Have A Nice Day Cache", you'll see a total of 6 pocket caches. I had originally posted these as "finds", but after reading your thoughts on the matter, changed those 6 to "Write Note"s. I did this because you had changed my perception somewhat on what is, and what is not, a "find", in my eyes. I no longer felt that these 6 qualified as finds by my standards, however, I have no problem accepting that others may feel differently, and as such, may want to keep their logs as finds. Confusing, huh? What I'm trying, (poorly), to say is, I play this game by my own set of standards, and I don't expect others to play the same way I do. If you were to go to one of my caches and log 1000 finds, my only angst would be that I now had 1000 E-mails to sort through. I wouldn't question your finds, nor would I delete them. You play your way, I'll play mine. It just happened that your argument caused me to change my way of playing just a bit. Maybe next week I'll change my perceptions again. Who knows?

 

It's really not worth losing sleep over. How does the old adage go? "Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference". I think this may be a perfect example of one of the "cannot change" variety.

 

Just $0.02 from the cheap seats.

Link to comment
The log for an event cache gives you the option to say "attended". You can't "attend" an event 5, 10 or 50 times, so logging multiple "attended" logs is a way to get around the system.

Sorry Brian, you lost me. Maybe it's buried in one of the 4 pages I didn't read, but I was debating the inherent honesty of pocket caches, not multiple event logs. In the example originally cited by Criminal, the issue was folks logging long archived caches, which their owners had brought to the event. Each cache was a separate entity, and would therefor rate a separate log of some kind, be it a "Find" or a "Write Note". Your example indicates a completely different pattern of behavior, and I would have to agree with you. You certainly cannot attend an event more than once.

 

The only similarity between the two examples is that they could both be perceived as dishonest logging practices, and might cause some geopuritans to lose sleep.

Link to comment
There is nothing I would like more than some sort of reaslistic discussion. You have 22 (I think) attended logs for an event you only attended once.

In lonesumdove's defense, I went and looked at a few of those logs. She actually wrote real logs for each temporary cache, unlike many others who attended the same event and just copied-and-pasted a generic log n times to get all their smileys. So the data supports her position that logging those caches was a part of the fun of the event.

 

And I think it is too bad that there was no legitimate method for getting "credit" for those finds. While I don't think they should be equivalent to cache finds, at the same time they deserve to be logged someplace. So she (and all the other cachers at the event) made the reasonable, if perhaps questionable, decision to log the event multiple times. If I were to place blame anywhere, it would be with the event organizers, who provided a bunch of temporary caches and no way to log them legitimately, leaving the attendees in an awkward position....

 

I agree very much wiht this. Especially the bold part. The event organizes placed a cache but then didn't follow through and list it so that the attendees could log it as an actual cache.

Link to comment

... I was debating the inherent honesty of pocket caches, not multiple event logs. In the example originally cited by Criminal, the issue was folks logging long archived caches, which their owners had brought to the event. ...

 

When it comes to pocket caches they would have to use archived caches. To list one now it would be called a moving cache and is not approvable on this site. The only use I'd ever have for a pocket cache would be as an ice breaker to to meet single cachers in the event I was ever single. Even then it would be easier just to ask them on a caching date.

Link to comment
Perhaps some guidelines were stretched.
I see this as meeting most of the guidelines.

By using this language, it's clear rules/guidelines are not being followed. It reminds me of a story a friend (a driver licence examiner) told about a man who didn't get his licence because he ran a stop sign during the exam. His response? "I obeyed all the others..."

 

Did you go to the coordinates at the top of the cache page?

 

No, but I did go to the coordinates listed on a cache page.

So it's OK to go to a cache location and claim another cache as a find? And that's not cheating? :anibad:

 

Redefining terms, obeying most of the rules, and such doesn't fly in other games or in "real" life (try that with the judge!), so why should it be OK here? "It doesn't affect anyone else" - wrong, see previous examples in this thread. "Why are telling me how to play the game. Can't I play by my rules?" - then it's not the same game. Try that with the reviewers with your next cache placement. The owner of the sandbox has stated his opinion - against it - but is nice enough not to enforce it, does that make it right? Speeding up to 5 over the limit may not give you a ticket, but is it any less wrong because of that?

Link to comment

What folks are doing here is not the best example we can offer the younger cachers in the family.

And in todays society the younger generation needs all the leadership they can get in morals, values & honor.

JMHO...JW

 

 

Here Here!

 

How do you teach morals, values and ethics to young people when adults think cheating is ok?

Edited by callalily54
Link to comment

ENOUGH!

 

I know some people are saying dam it, we need some more rules.

 

I would like to say that it is easier to change the direction of a river than putting up a dam. :anibad:

 

Fizzymagic said it best:

.......And I think it is too bad that there was no legitimate method for getting "credit" for those finds. While I don't think they should be equivalent to cache finds, at the same time they deserve to be logged someplace....

 

When you find a benchmark the icon appears in your profile under caches, but it does not change your find count for caches. Why cant another icon be added for event or temporary caches????? When you log a event as "attended" there could be another option for posting a number of temp caches found at the event. If you wanted to include a description of each find, they would be posted in the single "attended" log. The number would appear, but it would not affect your find count - similar to the benchmark icon.

 

As for pocket caches - they appear to be a good icebreaker, but not something legitimate. I suggest this: put a link on each person's profile that says "Have you met me?". When you click it you could record a "find" for the cacher you have met - either at a event, or have known previously. Another icon would appear as "cachers I have met" in your profile and there would be another number next to it which wouldnt affect your find count. If you clicked it there could be a list of all the cachers you have met.

Therefore you could attend a event and have a good excuse for going up to everyone in the event, and saying hello, even if it was only to increase your "cacher find count". I think it would be a good thing.

 

How about it? :blink:

Link to comment
Thank you again TFTC , was not aware of this at all , perhaps sometime in the future someone will change their mind :anibad: !

 

Star

Here's one more - Markwell's "two hoots" reference post.

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

And yet, on numerous times people have volunteered to assist in the process, and the calls have gone unanswered.

 

I believe we have a large enough list of manageable approvers at the moment. Here are the combined issues as to why temporary caches should not be created:

 

1. Temporary caches are exactly that: Temporary. I didn't think it was necessary to apply the "semi-permanent" to "permanent" rule to geocache listings as we do to virtual caches, since in almost all cases they are meant to be there tomorrow.

 

2. An "event" as defined can contain "caches," much like multicaches. If you want to post coordinates to pre-event caches on the event cache page, feel free. The fact that these caches are part of a specific event does not warrant their own cache page.

 

3. Use existing caches if you want to, say, provide pieces of coordinates in caches to find a final cache. I'd say the exception would be if the caches are farther than 10+ miles away from each other. Having 5 separate caches listed in the same park doesn't make much sense to me.

 

I couldn't give two hoots if someone wants to log an event cache twice. It's their find count and there is no competition here. So if you find a cache at an event, knock yourself out.

 

I gues my question is, what's the point? People at the event seek these things out, so what's wrong with using the event cache page?

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

It's clear this discussion has been going on for years! At least it's not going to slow us down from finding caches! :blink:

Here's an interesting quote from our fearless leader from the thread referenced by COD above.

Link to comment

One post from Jeremy dated Oct 16th 2002, another one dated Jun 6 2005.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

And yet, on numerous times people have volunteered to assist in the process, and the calls have gone unanswered.

 

I believe we have a large enough list of manageable approvers at the moment. Here are the combined issues as to why temporary caches should not be created:

 

1. Temporary caches are exactly that: Temporary. I didn't think it was necessary to apply the "semi-permanent" to "permanent" rule to geocache listings as we do to virtual caches, since in almost all cases they are meant to be there tomorrow.

 

2. An "event" as defined can contain "caches," much like multicaches. If you want to post coordinates to pre-event caches on the event cache page, feel free. The fact that these caches are part of a specific event does not warrant their own cache page.

 

3. Use existing caches if you want to, say, provide pieces of coordinates in caches to find a final cache. I'd say the exception would be if the caches are farther than 10+ miles away from each other. Having 5 separate caches listed in the same park doesn't make much sense to me.

 

I couldn't give two hoots if someone wants to log an event cache twice. It's their find count and there is no competition here. So if you find a cache at an event, knock yourself out.

 

I gues my question is, what's the point? People at the event seek these things out, so what's wrong with using the event cache page?

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

 

 

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

Link to comment
One post from Jeremy dated Oct 16th 2002, another one dated Jun 6 2005.
Here's a later one dated June 6, 2005 from that thread:
I know what I was suggesting was adding an option when logging on an event page in the drop down list like "Event Cache Found" or something similar. When it shows in our stats it could have a different icon for caches found at events.

No. No temporary caches. No special log type. No "count" find for caches found during an event. I don't know how much clearer I need to be.

Link to comment
The log for an event cache gives you the option to say "attended". You can't "attend" an event 5, 10 or 50 times, so logging multiple "attended" logs is a way to get around the system.

Sorry Brian, you lost me. Maybe it's buried in one of the 4 pages I didn't read, but I was debating the inherent honesty of pocket caches, not multiple event logs. In the example originally cited by Criminal, the issue was folks logging long archived caches, which their owners had brought to the event. Each cache was a separate entity, and would therefor rate a separate log of some kind, be it a "Find" or a "Write Note". Your example indicates a completely different pattern of behavior, and I would have to agree with you. You certainly cannot attend an event more than once.

 

The only similarity between the two examples is that they could both be perceived as dishonest logging practices, and might cause some geopuritans to lose sleep.

 

Well whether you are logging event caches through multiple "attendeds", or logging archived caches for pocket cache "finds" you are trying to beat the system. I would think that when you are deliberately trying to circumvent the system there must be something in the back of your head that tells you that what you are doing isn't quite kosher.

Link to comment

ENOUGH!

 

I know some people are saying dam it, we need some more rules.

 

I would like to say that it is easier to change the direction of a river than putting up a dam. :anibad:

 

Fizzymagic said it best:

.......And I think it is too bad that there was no legitimate method for getting "credit" for those finds. While I don't think they should be equivalent to cache finds, at the same time they deserve to be logged someplace....

 

When you find a benchmark the icon appears in your profile under caches, but it does not change your find count for caches. Why cant another icon be added for event or temporary caches????? When you log a event as "attended" there could be another option for posting a number of temp caches found at the event. If you wanted to include a description of each find, they would be posted in the single "attended" log. The number would appear, but it would not affect your find count - similar to the benchmark icon.

 

As for pocket caches - they appear to be a good icebreaker, but not something legitimate. I suggest this: put a link on each person's profile that says "Have you met me?". When you click it you could record a "find" for the cacher you have met - either at a event, or have known previously. Another icon would appear as "cachers I have met" in your profile and there would be another number next to it which wouldnt affect your find count. If you clicked it there could be a list of all the cachers you have met.

Therefore you could attend a event and have a good excuse for going up to everyone in the event, and saying hello, even if it was only to increase your "cacher find count". I think it would be a good thing.

 

How about it? :blink:

I agree this is the best path to take. Credit should be given (it doesn’t need to be equal credit). Score an event cache like a benchmark. It need not be scored as a regular cache find, but deserves to be counted in some matter for ones own historical benefit.

Edited by Lostby7
Link to comment

ENOUGH!

 

I know some people are saying dam it, we need some more rules.

 

I would like to say that it is easier to change the direction of a river than putting up a dam. :lol:

 

Fizzymagic said it best:

.......And I think it is too bad that there was no legitimate method for getting "credit" for those finds. While I don't think they should be equivalent to cache finds, at the same time they deserve to be logged someplace....

 

When you find a benchmark the icon appears in your profile under caches, but it does not change your find count for caches. Why cant another icon be added for event or temporary caches????? When you log a event as "attended" there could be another option for posting a number of temp caches found at the event. If you wanted to include a description of each find, they would be posted in the single "attended" log. The number would appear, but it would not affect your find count - similar to the benchmark icon.

 

As for pocket caches - they appear to be a good icebreaker, but not something legitimate. I suggest this: put a link on each person's profile that says "Have you met me?". When you click it you could record a "find" for the cacher you have met - either at a event, or have known previously. Another icon would appear as "cachers I have met" in your profile and there would be another number next to it which wouldnt affect your find count. If you clicked it there could be a list of all the cachers you have met.

Therefore you could attend a event and have a good excuse for going up to everyone in the event, and saying hello, even if it was only to increase your "cacher find count". I think it would be a good thing.

 

How about it? :anibad:

I agree this is the best path to take. Credit should be given (it doesn’t need to be equal credit). Score an event cache like a benchmark. It need not be scored as a regular cache find, but deserves to be counted in some matter for ones own historical benefit.

I agree! (seriously) A new icon is a reasonable compromise on this, I think.

 

(But not so seriously...) And this would also give the Icon Ho's (new faux-trademarked term of mockery coined by yours truly on this very post!) another icon to add to their profiles! Whoopity doo! Gee, you worked really hard to sit writing down numbers from that binder of another cacher's coins at your last event, didn'tcha Mr/Ms Icon Ho? Good work there, I'm really impressed when you come up to me and say, "I have 15 icons on my profile, how many do YOU have?" REALLY impressed. Good job of 'caching' there. :blink:

Link to comment

<snip>

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.

<snip>

 

Excessive is a very subjective term. Judging by this thread, what is considered excessive unconventional logging practices varies widely depending on who you ask. So at what level is unconventional logging considered excessive and at level is it considered abuse?

When Groundspeak says so. See Jeremy's post as quoted above. It is not the cache reviewer's job to police logging practices, but we do sometimes pass along reports of unconventional practices. There are a few examples where Groundspeak has taken action in response to such reports.

Link to comment

Pocket caches don't bother me in the least. They are used at events to 'break the ice' and to get to know your fellow geocachers better. One event I attended, the pocket caches would secretly change owners so it was not easy to log the 4 or 5 pocket caches at the event. I was only able to find 4 of the 5 pocket caches. It was not easy ...

Link to comment

Pocket caches don't bother me in the least. They are used at events to 'break the ice' and to get to know your fellow geocachers better. One event I attended, the pocket caches would secretly change owners so it was not easy to log the 4 or 5 pocket caches at the event. I was only able to find 4 of the 5 pocket caches. It was not easy ...

 

You say that Pocket Caches are used at events to Break the Ice.. Here is my question.. Why, do you need to have a pocket cache to break the ice?.. We have Co-Hosted 1 event and hosted another event.. We did not have Pocket Cache's at neither event.. And you know what.. We had a kick butt time.. At our 1st Co-Hosted event we met many folks, developed some good friendships and they are still going strong.. At our 2nd event we had cacher's calling us from other states checking in and participating in the day's activities, and you know what.. Not 1 of them claimed the event as a find..

 

So What is wrong with just walking up to someone the old fashion way and saying..

 

Hi, I am (insert name here).. My Geocaching name is (insert caching name here).. And take the conversation from there.

 

When you meet someone on a business trip or at your child's school function do you go feeling them up or asking them if that's a cache in their pocket or are they just happy to see you??

 

Come on folks.. This is just plain simple command sense.. If it has a Red Line Drawn through it, then it's not meant to be logged any longer..

Link to comment

 

If looking for, and finding out about, how people cheat at this game we play upsets you...don't go looking...

 

Jamie - NFA

 

Yeah, I guess you can say that about Barry Bonds, Milli Vanilli, Rosie Ruiz, Jayson Blair, et. al. Why should anybody care?

<_< Thank you.

Link to comment

You were doing so well in your first post, what happened? I’m going to ignore most of your argument since you pretty much make my point for me with the weak justifications you used. “No, but I did go to the coordinates listed on a cache page.” Please.

Consider this possible scenario;

At some point in the past, the cache "BigNumbers" was reviewed and given a green light. It has it's own cache page and GC number. Folks from all around are logging finds, DNF's, whatever. Kinda hard not to call it a geocache at this point. At some other point in the past, BellyButtonLint archives "BigNumbers", and recovers his hide-a-key, keeping the container and log for posterity. Then he brings "BigNumbers" with him to an event, to be logged by those good folks who "find" it. I see this as meeting most of the guidelines. The biggest problem would be that the specific cache being logged had been moved by the owner. Not a problem in my book, for folks who want to claim it as a find.

This is nonsensical. Even if I drive up to Seattle right now, walk into Groundspeak with an ammo can in each hand, and use them to slap the living snot out of Jeremy, he still will not approve a moving cache for me. So the only way around that rule is through deceit. If you claim a find on that cache knowing it’s not where the cache owner originally placed it, you are also being dishonest. The cache includes all the elements, the container, the logbook, and the location. When someone deliberately changes any of those aspects, it is no longer the cache approved by the volunteer reviewer, it is not a geocache. You seem to be saying it’s ok to log these since you found something and I agree that you did find something. I found my pants this morning but I’m not going to log it on my geocaching account.

 

Look, I’m not pushing for more rules or additional icons. This is a game based on the honor system. I started this thread to discuss the ethics of these pocket caches. That’s what a forum is for, to discuss and debate. So far, despite the angry rhetoric and off-topic distractions, no one has intelligently defended the practice of logging pocket caches.

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

Pocket caches don't bother me in the least. They are used at events to 'break the ice' and to get to know your fellow geocachers better. One event I attended, the pocket caches would secretly change owners so it was not easy to log the 4 or 5 pocket caches at the event. I was only able to find 4 of the 5 pocket caches. It was not easy ...

 

I don't think I totally understand the point your trying to make when say that the pocket caches were not easy. Please clarify because it seem like to me that you are insinuating that just because something is difficult it is a good reason to circumvent. Getting up in the moring for work is sometimes hard for me to do. But I'd never use that as an excuse to increase my find count. On the flip side of that should park 'n' grab caches not count as finds because they are easy? If really feel that GC.com should recognise pocket caches you should get TPTB to work on adding the functionality to the website.

Link to comment

We've covered pocket caches and multi logging events. So what does everyone think of "retirement cards"?? <_<

um, not 100% sure I know what they are, but I've gotten the impression that they are similar to pocket caches -- logging finds on archived caches. If so, I say the same for them as I do for pocket caches - no. To me, logging on an archived cache that is no longer at it's listed location (so, I'm not talking you go out, not knowing it was archived, and find the cache where the cache page said it would be), shouldn't occur. It can create confusion as to whether or not the cache is still there (at the listed coords), and can thereby affect other cachers. I see this as quite different from multiple logs on events, but know that others do not - that gray area that Fizzy Magic mentioned.

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