Jump to content

Feature Change Request


ReadyOrNot

Recommended Posts

I thought This was just a Game to have fun with who cares whos cheating or not who cares about numbers or not who cares oh hes got more caches than me who cares!!! it s just a game play it the way you want to play it, cheat or dont cheat Who Cares.

Link to post

I thought This was just a Game to have fun with who cares whos cheating or not who cares about numbers or not who cares oh hes got more caches than me who cares!!! it s just a game play it the way you want to play it, cheat or dont cheat Who Cares.

 

Does that go for all aspects of the game? Who cares? Geocaching will be destroyed if geocaching becomes what you just described. Geocaching will lower itself to the likes of TerraCaching. I'm convinced that the sides are too far apart on this issue to come together.

Link to post

If the owner hadn't removed the cahce then why did the owner archive it?

 

Simple not allow FOUND IT logs AFTER the archive date.

 

eh?

 

Like the reason to be able to place caches closer than .1 miles

or the reason to make it a virtual cache

or the reason to make it a moving cache

 

To answer your questions.

 

Why archive the cache? So people quit seeking it or because I'm tired of it, or I don't like it, or I realize seekers don't like it. I can pick it up next time I swing through the area. Simple enough.

 

Asf or allowing finds before the archive date, that would work for individuals that backlog their finds, but it doesn't cover people who find the cache after it's archived and before I pick it up.

 

The eh? is for any valid cache that is archived. The classic example was the Yellow Jeep Locationless. The cache was archived because it had so many logs that it caused the site problems. Groundspeak archived it to solve the problems but the owner allowed logs since they wished the cache remain active. At least for awhile. Ultimatly that cache was locked.

 

Other valid reasons are to cover everthing that I can't think of. I don't recall if I had an example or not. But your reasons are not what I was thinking of. They would be examples of what I consider abuse.

Link to post

If you are looking for a real solution, then you need to go right to the root cause:

 

FIND COUNTS

 

Bingo.

 

Dang! I was on with G52. Seriously though, liars and cheaters will lie and cheat just for the sake of lying and cheating. I'm not sure I agree that the problem is find counts. I think the problem is probably the liars and cheaters. Why do we as a society always put the blame everywhere except where it belongs? If we removed the find counts, people would find other ways to take advantage, lie, and cheat. Just human nature I guess.

Link to post
Unfortunately, the problem is the cache owners allowing people to use their archived caches to increase their found count. Therefore, another solution is necessary to put a stop to the abuse of this loophole.

 

It's cheating. It's cheating. It's cheating. Maybe it's just that one form of cheating is acceptable and another is not? Please help me understand the difference.

 

If the cache owner allows a find on a cache, how is that either cheating or an abuse? You seem to think that a game is being played by certain set of rules and that those rules should be enforced by the site. But Geocaching.com is not a gaming site. It's a cache listing site. The OWNER makes the rules for her cache. If the OWNER rules that you can log a smiley for uncovering some esoteric information about the founding of the Boy Scouts (an actual example) or by meeting and greeting the owner on the caching trail or at an event, then those are the owner's rules for their cache.

 

I feel that the number of pocket caches at events in Florida has gone to an extreme. I've gone personally from finding them fun and a good mixer to finding them mildly annoying. At the Lakeland event I tried to keep up with the pocket caches present, and logged notes on many of them. People are offering a gift, it seems like you might want to acknowledge that. At the Brevard event I just passed, I'd rather actually meet and greet (and eat) than fool with signing logs at the pavilion. And I explained to a couple of cachers that if I logged a find on their pocket cache, I'd never hunt it in the field as it wouldn't show up in a query. An idea that hadn't occurred to them (and the reason people use archived caches for this).

 

It's only cheating if you think find count = score and you've got somebody you're trying to beat.

 

I've stopped logging them because looking back at those logs isn't much fun, unlike looking back at the log of nearly any field find. Though they were at first. But I don't have (or need to have) an opinion about what others may do - either logging or carrying them. And I don't see any need to try to control the behavior of others. I'm not competing with them. I'm just out finding and hiding.

Link to post

<snip>

The eh? is for any valid cache that is archived. The classic example was the Yellow Jeep Locationless. The cache was archived because it had so many logs that it caused the site problems. Groundspeak archived it to solve the problems but the owner allowed logs since they wished the cache remain active. At least for awhile. Ultimatly that cache was locked.

<snip>

Oh, I see now. I didn't know there was some time between the YJL cache listing getting archived and no new logs being allowed. I had thought that happened at the same time. I really wasn't in to reverse caches. I think I found a couple before I lost interest.

Link to post

If the cache owner allows a find on a cache, how is that either cheating or an abuse? You seem to think that a game is being played by certain set of rules and that those rules should be enforced by the site. But Geocaching.com is not a gaming site. It's a cache listing site. The OWNER makes the rules for her cache. If the OWNER rules that you can log a smiley for uncovering some esoteric information about the founding of the Boy Scouts (an actual example) or by meeting and greeting the owner on the caching trail or at an event, then those are the owner's rules for their cache.

 

Then you must agree that cache owners should be given the proper tools to manage their cahce listings as they see fit. As a cache owner I want to be able to toggle found it logs for my archived caches. Why should some cache owners have to go back after the fact and delete found it log entries from their archived cache listings just because other cache owners want to allow found it logs on their archived cache listings?

Link to post

The OWNER makes the rules for her cache. If the OWNER rules that you can log a smiley for uncovering some esoteric information about the founding of the Boy Scouts (an actual example) or by meeting and greeting the owner on the caching trail or at an event, then those are the owner's rules for their cache.

 

This keeps getting repeated over and over and it's just not true. The OWNER makes the rules within the guidelines of geocaching.com. I just watched an owner's cache get nixed because there was no logbook. The owner didn't think there needed to be one, but GEOCACHING.COM required a logbook. In addition, the examples you cited above are no longer allowed. They have been moved to Waymarking.com.

 

Just because you repeat something inaccurate over and over doesn't make it accurate.

 

EDIT: If you don't believe me, go create a pocket cache, virtual cache, reverse cache or any other kind of wacky cache and see what the reviewer does with it.... And then come back here and tell me the owner has complete control over a cache.

Edited by ReadyOrNot
Link to post

If you are looking for a real solution, then you need to go right to the root cause:

 

FIND COUNTS

 

Bingo.

 

Dang! I was on with G52. Seriously though, liars and cheaters will lie and cheat just for the sake of lying and cheating. I'm not sure I agree that the problem is find counts. I think the problem is probably the liars and cheaters. Why do we as a society always put the blame everywhere except where it belongs? If we removed the find counts, people would find other ways to take advantage, lie, and cheat. Just human nature I guess.

 

I'm waiting to see if TPTB has the nerve to remove find counts from public viewing. They are always to test my theory. :lol:

 

Well, of course the problem is with liars and cheaters, and it's not restricted to just Geocaching. Ask yourself WHY they are trying to lie and cheat. It's not that complicated! :lol:

 

If you don't have the guts to say it, I will. You want TPTB to crack down on individuals, right?

Link to post

If you are looking for a real solution, then you need to go right to the root cause:

 

FIND COUNTS

 

Bingo.

 

Dang! I was on with G52. Seriously though, liars and cheaters will lie and cheat just for the sake of lying and cheating. I'm not sure I agree that the problem is find counts. I think the problem is probably the liars and cheaters. Why do we as a society always put the blame everywhere except where it belongs? If we removed the find counts, people would find other ways to take advantage, lie, and cheat. Just human nature I guess.

 

I'm waiting to see if TPTB has the nerve to remove find counts from public viewing. They are always to test my theory. :lol:

 

Well, of course the problem is with liars and cheaters, and it's not restricted to just Geocaching. Ask yourself WHY they are trying to lie and cheat. It's not that complicated! :lol:

 

If you don't have the guts to say it, I will. You want TPTB to crack down on individuals, right?

 

The question: Why they are trying to lie and cheat.

The answer: Because they are liars and cheaters.

 

If you took away the find counts, they would find some other way to cheat. They probably cheat in every aspect of their lives. AND YES! Crack down on the individuals. I don't mind saying it. Didn't know I was trying not to say it.. so here goes.

 

CRACK DOWN ON THE CHEATS AND LIARS

Link to post

The question: Why they are trying to lie and cheat.

The answer: Because they are liars and cheaters.

 

If you took away the find counts, they would find some other way to cheat. They probably cheat in every aspect of their lives. AND YES! Crack down on the individuals. I don't mind saying it. Didn't know I was trying not to say it.. so here goes.

 

CRACK DOWN ON THE CHEATS AND LIARS

 

O ye! O ye! o ye!

Let it hereby be proclaimed that those who loggeth false claims of finding ye cache are liars and cheaters and shall be condemned to death by being burned at the stake. Verily, it is Satan ( :( ) that maketh us into sinners. Repent now and be saved!

Link to post

O ye! O ye! o ye!

Let it hereby be proclaimed that those who loggeth false claims of finding ye cache are liars and cheaters and shall be condemned to death by being burned at the stake. Verily, it is Satan ( :( ) that maketh us into sinners. Repent now and be saved!

 

Let's break down your quite witty response:

 

"Let it hereby be proclaimed that those who loggeth false claims of finding ye cache are liarts and cheaters"

--> So those that say they did something they didn't are liars. Oh dear!

 

"Condemned to death by being burned at the stake"

--> You are just too witty for me

 

"Repend now and be saved"

--> If I didn't know any better, I would say you are attacking my faith

 

Not surprising, considering you're just a typical flaming liberal from Southern California.

 

Cache On!

 

EDIT: Closing thread

Edited by ReadyOrNot
Link to post

Finds should not be allowed on an archived cache. If TPTB disallow Virtual Caches, then Non-Existent caches should be disallowed. I cannot think of a situation that conforms to the rules of geocaching.com where a person would log a find on an archived cache....

 

Although I agree with the motivation behind this post, the new rules would hamper those who have gone along on a geo-hunt with others and did not have an account at the time (which happens very frequently).

 

If you try to put a stop to it they still will find another way around. For example: a 48 hr limit on logging would only encourage caches to be archived just before an event, and have the name changed to "pocket cache"...

The best approach is to give them another clearer and well defined path to follow. Another icon with a numerical tally of temp and pocket caches on the profile page would do that. The people who are logging multiple finds on events, and archived caches are going down the wrong path. But they are doing it only because the original bushwacked trail has widened to the point of a mad cow stampede. You can post all the NO TRESPASSING and WRONG WAY signs that you like, but they will see them as not valid and go anyway. :(

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...