Jump to content

New 24 Hour Record For Finding Most Caches (312) Has Been Set


Recommended Posts

The .5 mile means that a team could find 3 or 4 at once and not all would be present at the one cache site. Several parks have many caches within .5 miles and to truely find XXX in 24 hours I don't think that the team should be able to find in parallel. (IMO)

In that case, it is not a record. It would be a way to put together a geocoin to sell to cachers for $20.00 so that they could say they have the world record coin.

 

But most cachers to not read the forums so they will not know it is a bogus record.

Link to comment

Sorry, those were the draft rules. The final rule, according to the so-called record holders themselves is:

3. ) During the run, no new members can join the team. Team members may quit the record run (e.g. feeling sick, after injuries etc.), they may join later. For a count, the cache does not have to be found / signed by 'every' Team member. One member of the team finds a cache and writes the team sig in the logbook or on the container if the logbook can't be retrieved - you have a count. The Team may even split up at some time of the run as long as they use only ONE vehicle for the whole team (e.g. in a park etc.).

No .5 mile rule. As long as they all used the same car to move from cache cluster to cluster, it's ok if all 8 team members fanned out in out different directions and found 8 different caches.

In light of this, and the fact from the other linked thread that they did not even sign many of the logbooks; is this even worth considering a record?

Link to comment

Sorry, those were the draft rules. The final rule, according to the so-called record holders themselves is:

3. ) During the run, no new members can join the team. Team members may quit the record run (e.g. feeling sick, after injuries etc.), they may join later. For a count, the cache does not have to be found / signed by 'every' Team member. One member of the team finds a cache and writes the team sig in the logbook or on the container if the logbook can't be retrieved - you have a count. The Team may even split up at some time of the run as long as they use only ONE vehicle for the whole team (e.g. in a park etc.).

No .5 mile rule. As long as they all used the same car to move from cache cluster to cluster, it's ok if all 8 team members fanned out in out different directions and found 8 different caches.

In light of this, and the fact from the other linked thread that they did not even sign many of the logbooks; is this even worth considering a record?

 

No, it's not. Unless you're counting number of cache containers vandalized by a single group of cachers in a 24 hour period.......then, it's very well a record.

Link to comment

Minor correction to team names,

 

The group of cachers:

Ed, The AlabamaRambler (AKA NatureFish)

Max, 'Poppy' of Nonnypoppy

Mike from Cache&Keri

Mike, 'Golf' from GolfNutz

Roland, darth_maul_3

Tammo, Spuchtfink

Michael, MZielinski

Carsten, geoPirat

 

All caches were signed DRR (Dallas Record Run) for the team.

 

Many thanks to all who helped put this together, and especially to my team-mates!

 

Four Germans, four Americans, a big van and lots of geocaches to find - now that's a recipe for a great weekend!

 

24 Hours (9 a.m. Saturday to 9 a.m. Sunday, we broke the old record in the 18th hour!)

312 Caches, (yes, we found every one - not one was logged without signing)

44 DNFs

312 Miles

More laughs than I can count

Lots of wonderful memories

= Priceless

 

Thanks,

Ed

 

Hold on, hold on...did all 8 cachers get in and out of a van at every stop so they can all sign the logbook? Or did just one person jump out and scribble 'DRR'?? I can't seem to find any cacher with the name DRR in the group...

 

If they didn't all sign their names in the logbooks, then what do those numbers REALLY mean?

Let's ask the expert...

 

ac2bfbff-6f76-4317-8dee-e5c05421f51e.jpg

 

In my mind, if only one person 'jumped out', the record is even MORE impressive. :ph34r::(:(

 

In light of recent events and revelations, I retract that comment.

Link to comment
I agree with the above poster. WHAT, other than your lack of respect for a cache owner, and your own egos in "setting a record" prevented you from retrieving the log book?

 

obviously the fact they are planning on making and selling a geocoin out of this

 

wrrdallastexascoinback.jpg
Link to comment
I agree with the above poster. WHAT, other than your lack of respect for a cache owner, and your own egos in "setting a record" prevented you from retrieving the log book?

 

obviously the fact they are planning on making and selling a geocoin out of this

 

Uh-oh, the coin is bound to make a bad situation worse. I have a feeling they may not find many buyers outside of GW4, but maybe others won't ever know about the container signing saga. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Copied from geoPirat’s Homepage – A description of Geocaching

 

Look for (and sometimes find) hiding places with the help of handheld GPS receivers and the internet. The hiding place is usually a waterproof container (tupper or similar) filled with funny bits and pieces, a logbook and a pen. This is then hidden in a forest or someplace else outdoors and the coordinates are published on geoCaching.com. From then on everybody can go out and look for it. After you have found it, rule of thumb is to write an entry into the logbook (and maybe the web site where you found the coordinates). If you took something from the Cache, put something else inside in return - usually this works out pretty well.

Link to comment

Here's hoping someone who doesn't like your crappy caches removes them as well.

 

Well it's not a problem then because ed doesn't have ANY crappy caches.

 

Well now, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it? Just like his "opinion" on 1/1 micros...

 

I've done a numbe of Ed's caches and his cache are all well thought out and not a Wal-Mart micro amongst them. So lets try to keep this thread on topic.

 

Congratulations on setting a new record

Link to comment

Ok well i'm a judge, and i say this record does not count, so there you all go, you have a official court ruling, I have a jurry of 12 of there peers ( well i couldn't find any cheeters or lies in my house so i used my fish )

 

The jurry has found this record does not stand, and that the people in question are loosers and should be ashamed of themselves for vandalizing peoples caches, cheeping the game, and being asses.

 

Personaly i'm nto a viloent person but after reading all this junk in all these posts about it i'd like to meet some of there guys so i could try out my new can of bear mace, and maybe my new knife too

 

if you were part of this "record" you should be embarresed and should have had enought sence to know what you were doing wasn't right and be ashamed of yourselves for coming here to brag about it

 

your LOOSRES

Link to comment

well, I was thinking they could just change their design, it would more accurately reflect the numbers for sure like this

 

wrrdallastexascoinback.jpg

 

I'll pre-order a dozen of those! BTW, are these trackable?

definitely yes.

track them on: www.smart-aleck.net

happy hunting.

Link to comment

I'm just glad that I wasn't around before november 2004. I've only experienced post spew caching. I understand that caching was more challenging before the spew but we can't go back. It just seems that by your standards I will ALWAYS be substandard to you because all of my finds are post spew, My numbers will ALWAYS be in question because you happened to learn about this wonderful sport before I did. I like you drat but everytime you talk about the spew and how numbers don't matter after that I hear my grandpa and the uphill in snow both ways talk. Anyway. I'd still love to go caching with you to hear your "war stories" :(

 

edited to correct speling

No, YOU'RE not substandard to me. (Heck, if my DNF rate is any indication, I'm substandard to almost anyone! :laughing: ) However, to me, your stats ARE. Steroid Era analogy applies. Doesn't mean I claim any "superiority" to anyone, it just means the game has fundamentally changed, and ANY nod to stats, whether a 24-hour record, a congrats to a 15000 Find Log cacher, someone bragging about how many icons they have, or what have you, is de-valued, in my opinion.

 

Here's an example of how, while I take this subject seriously, I don't take MYSELF that seriously: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...1entry2236411 :)

Link to comment

Steroid Era analogy applies.

 

Drat, I'm going to have to completly dissagree with you on this point. You know I agree with you in a lot of ways on the "micro spew" subject, but to compare it to the "steroid" era implies that you basically think everyone is cheating with numbers post-04...

 

Instead, I would say that, as with baseball/basketball, teams from let's say 70s/80s were better than teams from the ealier eras of the game not because of steriods or other forms of cheating, but instead because of the vast number of people who grew up watching these sports and practicing. The 70s/80s era teams had MORE people to choose from, and from that could pick better players to make better teams. What we've got in geocaching in your post-04 era is MORE geocaches total, so numbers are easier to come by...but it still means that people who've been caching since the beginning still have more numbers than the rest of us newbies because of the time put in.

 

To me, the "steroids" era of caching has come into effect with people logging pocket caches, multi-logs, and signing outside of cache containers instead of logs...not because of the volume of caches now available. Slight diffence, but one is playing the game we have (post-04) per standard rules, and the other is bending the rules into celtic knotwork so the rules don't seem to matter. Make sense?

 

Celticwulf

Link to comment

tsmoloa, cardinal red, mopar

 

I am going to squat down to your level and do the wrong thing. Go ahead and grab a pen and paper and start making notes now.

 

By emphasing and focusing on someone's mistake or bad decision, and publicly ridiculing another human being in a public forum, you have embarrassed the entire geocaching community and I am surprised the moderator allowed this trash on the board. Rather that openly and frankly discussing a disagreement, you choose to do the equivalent of writing insults on a bathroom wall and it closely resembles the lack of class and maturity that is found on those same walls. I suspect you lack the ability to accept responsibility for things in your personal and professional lives and those around you consider you abusive and un-likeable.

 

I will not post any further reponses so take comfort in the fact that your response will enjoy a lack of rebuttal and get a life.

Link to comment
Anyway, back OT. How exactly was this record accomplished? I personally think it would be fun to try it, but I can't get my mind around the logistics. At 4.6 minutes per cache, it doesn't seem possible to visit that many caches and maintain that average. Were all of these caches new, and placed at the minimum distance?

 

The only way I can figure it working is having the van drop some members off to search, and then continuing on dropping off other members. Then, they would circle back around and start picking them up again, whether or not the cache was found.

 

As I understand it, when these records are set its by a geocacher or group of geocachers going together from cache to cache. They don't split up.

 

There was a pretty good article in Today's Cacher written by the record holders the last time the record was set. It takes weeks of preparation with the help of locals and they do have a driver who knows the area and is in on the planning. Its a major undertaking that involves extensive cache selection (weeding out high difficulty caches and those with recent DNFs) and route planning (taking into consideration local traffic patterns).

 

I can't speak for this record setting team, but I know all the previous record setting attempts were totally legit and I have no reason to doubt this group.

 

After learning that the team did indeed split up, I guess I have a little egg on my face with the above statement.

Link to comment

Steroid Era analogy applies.

 

Drat, I'm going to have to completly dissagree with you on this point. You know I agree with you in a lot of ways on the "micro spew" subject, but to compare it to the "steroid" era implies that you basically think everyone is cheating with numbers post-04...

 

Instead, I would say that, as with baseball/basketball, teams from let's say 70s/80s were better than teams from the ealier eras of the game not because of steriods or other forms of cheating, but instead because of the vast number of people who grew up watching these sports and practicing. The 70s/80s era teams had MORE people to choose from, and from that could pick better players to make better teams. What we've got in geocaching in your post-04 era is MORE geocaches total, so numbers are easier to come by...but it still means that people who've been caching since the beginning still have more numbers than the rest of us newbies because of the time put in.

 

To me, the "steroids" era of caching has come into effect with people logging pocket caches, multi-logs, and signing outside of cache containers instead of logs...not because of the volume of caches now available. Slight diffence, but one is playing the game we have (post-04) per standard rules, and the other is bending the rules into celtic knotwork so the rules don't seem to matter. Make sense?

 

Celticwulf

Your counterpoint is well taken, my friend (readers: I cache regularly with CW while on business in his region). Maybe it's not a prefect analogy. My point is that stats are easier to come by in post-'04 Geocaching; doesn't make it "cheating", you're right. The analogy, in my strange brain, is applicable when you compare baseball stats '95-'04 (roughly the Steroid Era in baseball) to those compiled at other times.

 

Now, returning this reply to the thread topic (so that I don't get accused of derailing yet another thread onto the track that is My Personal Agenda) ;) , a 312-find day, legit or not, wouldn't even be possible if not for the Spew Factor that has occurred since mid-'04.

 

(edit: content)

Edited by drat19
Link to comment

tsmoloa, cardinal red, mopar

 

I am going to squat down to your level and do the wrong thing. Go ahead and grab a pen and paper and start making notes now.

 

By emphasing and focusing on someone's mistake or bad decision, and publicly ridiculing another human being in a public forum, you have embarrassed the entire geocaching community and I am surprised the moderator allowed this trash on the board. Rather that openly and frankly discussing a disagreement, you choose to do the equivalent of writing insults on a bathroom wall and it closely resembles the lack of class and maturity that is found on those same walls. I suspect you lack the ability to accept responsibility for things in your personal and professional lives and those around you consider you abusive and un-likeable.

 

I will not post any further reponses so take comfort in the fact that your response will enjoy a lack of rebuttal and get a life.

 

Ahh, come on back. I just HAVE to know why you think discussing how someone may be cheating on a score and trying to rationalize it isn't relates to my not accepting responsibility for my actions. Then maybe you can explain to me how this thread isn't openly and frankly discussing a disagreement.

Frankly, your entire post is contradictory and makes little sense. It's also probably the only abusive post in this thread.

Let me guess, you work for a public school, don't you? That might explain your apparent views on cheating.

Link to comment

tsmoloa, cardinal red, mopar

 

I am going to squat down to your level and do the wrong thing. Go ahead and grab a pen and paper and start making notes now.

 

By emphasing and focusing on someone's mistake or bad decision, and publicly ridiculing another human being in a public forum, you have embarrassed the entire geocaching community and I am surprised the moderator allowed this trash on the board. Rather that openly and frankly discussing a disagreement, you choose to do the equivalent of writing insults on a bathroom wall and it closely resembles the lack of class and maturity that is found on those same walls. I suspect you lack the ability to accept responsibility for things in your personal and professional lives and those around you consider you abusive and un-likeable.

 

I will not post any further reponses so take comfort in the fact that your response will enjoy a lack of rebuttal and get a life.

 

You have as much right to express an opinion here as I do.

We don't have to agree with each others opinions.

But Thank You for noticing I have a very strong opinion about this "Record".

Link to comment
By emphasing and focusing on someone's mistake or bad decision,

A mistake is something that is done on a math test, What was done at GWIV was and intnentional deception to claim a bogus record. Calling it a bad decision is like calling Al Capone slighty confused.

Link to comment
Anyway, back OT. How exactly was this record accomplished? I personally think it would be fun to try it, but I can't get my mind around the logistics. At 4.6 minutes per cache, it doesn't seem possible to visit that many caches and maintain that average. Were all of these caches new, and placed at the minimum distance?

 

The only way I can figure it working is having the van drop some members off to search, and then continuing on dropping off other members. Then, they would circle back around and start picking them up again, whether or not the cache was found.

 

As I understand it, when these records are set its by a geocacher or group of geocachers going together from cache to cache. They don't split up.

 

There was a pretty good article in Today's Cacher written by the record holders the last time the record was set. It takes weeks of preparation with the help of locals and they do have a driver who knows the area and is in on the planning. Its a major undertaking that involves extensive cache selection (weeding out high difficulty caches and those with recent DNFs) and route planning (taking into consideration local traffic patterns).

 

I can't speak for this record setting team, but I know all the previous record setting attempts were totally legit and I have no reason to doubt this group.

 

After learning that the team did indeed split up, I guess I have a little egg on my face with the above statement.

What a sham! I can't believe what I'm reading now! I'll have to retract my previous congrats.
Link to comment

Lets put it mildly, I don't believe it.

 

for the total of 356 caches searched for including the 44 DNF. An average time of 4.04 minutes would be needed. Now factor in the fact they said they traveled 312 Miles. Even if they were on a highway traveling an average speed of 60 mph (10-15 mph less than the speed limit on an interstate hiway) that would eliminate 5.2 hours (5 hours and 12 minutes) from the day. Now figure that an average speed was probably closer to 30 miles an hour and that time doubles. But lets work with the 60 mph number.

 

Subtract the 5 hours and 12 minutes from 24 hours (1440-312) that leaves 1128 minutes for caching.

 

With the 312 claimed as found and adding the 40 claimed DNF for 356 total searched. They spent according to their claims an average of 3.16 minutes per cache searching. I have not factored in restroom breaks and we know there had to be some even if someone made a stop in the bushes while the others searched it would have slowed things down. How much time was spent at red lights? How close could they have possibly parked to all of the caches. Add in searching for caches after dark Even if you have a 500,000 candle power light the shadows make it even more difficult to search.

 

Basically I am throwing the bullcrap flag on this one. Unless these folks are Santa Claus it could not be done in a 24 hour period, regardless of preplanning.

 

Come clean, you will feel better if you do.

 

Dan

Link to comment

 

Basically I am throwing the bullcrap flag on this one. Unless these folks are Santa Claus it could not be done in a 24 hour period, regardless of preplanning.

 

Come clean, you will feel better if you do.

 

Dan

 

But you're leaving out the fact that they split up. It's easier to "find" a bunch of caches if you're 2 or 3 groups, looking for 2 or 3 caches at the same time, and all claiming a 'find' on all of the caches each of the groups "found".

 

Basically, the caches were vandalized, but the "record" they're claiming is bogus.

Link to comment

As commitee chair of GW4, I was aware of the record run but not involved in the planning outside of giving some recommendations on cache areas to concentrate on.

 

Prior to the attaempt, the run organizers emailed the owners of the caches that were to be included on their route (including me) and we were apprised of what they were doing regarding the stickers. I agreed like most others as this was to be a onetime, special case. Normally I would not permit such a thing, as I regularily delete cut-n-paste logs from my caches.

 

We're having a similar discussion in the Texas forums, and the sentimate in the same as this thread.

Link to comment

As commitee chair of GW4, I was aware of the record run but not involved in the planning outside of giving some recommendations on cache areas to concentrate on.

 

Prior to the attempt, the run organizers emailed the owners of the caches that were to be included on their route (including me) and we were apprised of what they were doing regarding the stickers. I agreed like most others as this was to be a onetime, special case. Normally I would not permit such a thing, as I regularily delete cut-n-paste logs from my caches.

 

We're having a similar discussion in the Texas forums, and the sentimate in the same as this thread.

 

I sincerely hope everyone had a fantastic time attending GW4, where the numbers weren't just about finds, but about meeting others, sharing ideas, etc.

 

Unfortunately, the "record run" has tainted the event. E-mailing owners about signing or adhering stickers to the outside of cache containers does not equal permission from the owners, though I'm hopeful some consented in advance.

 

Please know that your hard work on GW4 is still appreciated in spite of the problem.

Link to comment

tsmoloa, cardinal red, mopar

 

I am going to squat down to your level and do the wrong thing. Go ahead and grab a pen and paper and start making notes now.

 

By emphasing and focusing on someone's mistake or bad decision, and publicly ridiculing another human being in a public forum, you have embarrassed the entire geocaching community and I am surprised the moderator allowed this trash on the board. Rather that openly and frankly discussing a disagreement, you choose to do the equivalent of writing insults on a bathroom wall and it closely resembles the lack of class and maturity that is found on those same walls. I suspect you lack the ability to accept responsibility for things in your personal and professional lives and those around you consider you abusive and un-likeable.

 

I will not post any further reponses so take comfort in the fact that your response will enjoy a lack of rebuttal and get a life.

 

You spelled my name wrong, that's where I stopped reading your post, come back when you get it right :rolleyes:

Link to comment

As commitee chair of GW4, I was aware of the record run but not involved in the planning outside of giving some recommendations on cache areas to concentrate on.

 

Prior to the attaempt, the run organizers emailed the owners of the caches that were to be included on their route (including me) and we were apprised of what they were doing regarding the stickers. I agreed like most others as this was to be a onetime, special case. Normally I would not permit such a thing, as I regularily delete cut-n-paste logs from my caches.

 

We're having a similar discussion in the Texas forums, and the sentimate in the same as this thread.

 

It sounds like no one thought of this from a new geocachers point of view. If they find one cache container signed the may think it is unusual. After seeing five, ten, thirty cache containers signed they will think that that is the way it is done. How can they think otherwise.

Link to comment

tsmoloa, cardinal red, mopar

 

I am going to squat down to your level and do the wrong thing. Go ahead and grab a pen and paper and start making notes now.

 

By emphasing and focusing on someone's mistake or bad decision, and publicly ridiculing another human being in a public forum, you have embarrassed the entire geocaching community and I am surprised the moderator allowed this trash on the board. Rather that openly and frankly discussing a disagreement, you choose to do the equivalent of writing insults on a bathroom wall and it closely resembles the lack of class and maturity that is found on those same walls. I suspect you lack the ability to accept responsibility for things in your personal and professional lives and those around you consider you abusive and un-likeable.

 

I will not post any further reponses so take comfort in the fact that your response will enjoy a lack of rebuttal and get a life.

 

Ahh, come on back. I just HAVE to know why you think discussing how someone may be cheating on a score and trying to rationalize it isn't relates to my not accepting responsibility for my actions. Then maybe you can explain to me how this thread isn't openly and frankly discussing a disagreement.

Frankly, your entire post is contradictory and makes little sense. It's also probably the only abusive post in this thread.

Let me guess, you work for a public school, don't you? That might explain your apparent views on cheating.

 

Hey Mopar, I work for a public school and I don't condone cheating, nor does anyone I work with or for. But, your using that does confirm what all these threads are leading to -- tarring the whole community for the misdeeds of a few. It doesn't matter, if a few within the community, whether it be teachers and administrators in a public school, our elected leaders, whatever your profession is, or geocachers -- we are all assessed by the actions of the worst of us.

Link to comment

 

Unfortunately, the "record run" has tainted the event.

 

Oh, it wasn't JUST the record run that tainted the event. The numbers whoring at any cost in general is what tainted the event. If there even is one, you couldn't pay me to go to GW5.

I just want to say that while I tend to be rather conservative in how I log finds, and I am probably the least-numbers oriented person on Earth, I have had a lot of fun following the escalating drama as more and more revelations kept emerging about the numbers games being played by folks at GW4 in Texas -- and, gosh, some of the games even involved Maryland caches! Personally, though, I would have preferred that most of these phenomena had never occurred in the first place. However, since these strange behaviors did occur, I can hardly blame Tsmola, Mopar and the other folks for discussing these bizarre behaviors (and discussing them in a very reasonable manner, for the most part), and in fact, it would have been EXTREMELY bizarre if folks in our community had not discussed these behaviors openly.

 

Again, as I have said before, for me, the bottom line is this:

We are all human, and we all make mistakes, and we all have undesired things happen to us at times. Ultimately, I feel that what is most important is the grace with which we respond to our mistakes, to those of others, and the grace we can bring to the undesirable events that do happen in our lives. So, while I personally feel that some of the behaviors which we witnessed over the last week were biazrre and hilarious, and while I would certainly not recommend or condone those behaviors, I do not condemn any of the individuals involved, nor do I judge them, and if I ever meet any of them at an event or elswehere, I will still be happy to shake their hand and accept them as a human being. And I am sure that I would find that even though I did not see eye-to-eye with them on how to handle finds (or how to conduct record runs), there would be may other things on which we did agree, and we could still share our war stories. I guess that what I am saying here is that I do not need to condone or approve of all of the geocaching behaviors of a person in order to able to accept them as a person, and in order to have a friendly relationship with them. And, in no cases do I need to hurl bricks at them.

Link to comment

Some other points, they stated they used one van how would they be able to coordinate dropping some people off here and there and picking them back up and moving them to new locations. I have run that up the flag pole and it don't wave.

 

Additionally, who witnessed this record? Were there observers, people who can verify that the claimed caches were actually found by the people claiming to find them? How many of these caches were actually trash near the location but had a DRR signed them and a quick claim of a cache found? Unless it marked on the exterior and many caches are not how do you know it was actually the cache if you did not open it?

 

Again the Flag comes out. There appears to be no official method for sanctioning or recognizing a number of found caches in a single 24 hour period. You made up your own rules, I can do that. I think that I will have a record attempt of my own, It will be the most caches found in 15 seconds.............I will have not witnesses, no official rules nothing to validate my record. The planning will be extensive it will take at least 2 times as long as the hunt. I will station myself a self respecting 15 feet from the location of the first cache I hope to find and then start the timer when and only when I have the cache in sight.

 

If you are really planning on selling a coin to commemorate this dubious claim, good luck. It is one I will not buy. If you really want a record for something than it needs to be documented and witnessed by reliable persons to establish the validity and from what I have read there is no proof that all 312 were found and signed in the time frame mentioned.

Link to comment

-they vandalized the caches

-team members were not present at all the finds (they were looking for other caches)

 

and now I find that a member of the same team has their own ACTIVE (unarchived) moving pocket cache.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...&log=y&decrypt=

 

Why does this not surprise me?

 

Or the fact that the active, moving, pocket microcache has it's own white jeep, in which only one person has been allowed to log?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?id=192016

 

Let me add that the cache was archived shortly after this was posted

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

and now I find that a member of the same team has their own ACTIVE (unarchived) moving pocket cache.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...&log=y&decrypt=

Moving caches are against the guidelines set by GC. I thought I read elsewhere that this person is a reviewer. If that is true then maybe he should step down or GC should remove him. I don't know him personally but if he is a reviewer and is using his power to create caches against the guidelines for his own personal use then thats abuse of authority and has no place here. I am sure he wouldn't approve a cache for someone else in his area that was moving and would cite the rules against this. As I said before, I don't know this person but have read he is an approver. If this is not correct please state it here and I will retract this, but if it is true...

Link to comment

and now I find that a member of the same team has their own ACTIVE (unarchived) moving pocket cache.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...&log=y&decrypt=

 

Why does this not surprise me?

 

Or the fact that the active, moving, pocket microcache has it's own white jeep, in which only one person has been allowed to log?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?id=192016

 

You have to be kidding me.....he should know better he is a reviewer for his area. That is just wrong. Why would people want to log caches found at an event?? I still do not get it!! :rolleyes::):P

Link to comment

That is just wrong. Why would people want to log caches found at an event?? I still do not get it!! :rolleyes::):P

To some people it is all about the numbers.

As an example, around here it is considered by most to be acceptable to log temporary caches at an event. The organizer of one event, who had decided not to place temporary caches, told me that some people contacted them and said that if they couldn't get multiple smilies they weren't going to the event. They didn't want to spend an entire Sunday afternoon and just add one to their find count.

Just as an aside, I will log the temporary caches if I find them. But I usually don't even look for them. I'd rather socialize.

Link to comment

There are still some legitimate traveling caches out there, that were approved as such back in 2002, or early 2003. I've seen about 6 of them. However, the cache that Alabama Rambler was carrying around was from 2005, long after travelling caches were banned. The fact that such a cache got approved, and the fact that there's been a white jeep logged to the cache for about a year really make me question the person's integrity. I've met AR, and he is a very nice fellow. However, if he is truly a Groundspeak volunteer reviewer (and I don't know for certain whether he is or not), then I'm extremely disappointed. The Jeep TBs were sponsored by Jeep, and were meant to be passed around, not kept in a person's personal (illegitimate) pocket cache. I know a number of reviewers, either in person or through interaction on here, and they're all above board and play this game as it was meant to be played - by the rules. They don't make up their own rules then expect the rest of us to accept their version as "correct".

Edited by DocDiTTo
Link to comment

As an example, around here it is considered by most to be acceptable to log temporary caches at an event. The organizer of one event, who had decided not to place temporary caches, told me that some people contacted them and said that if they couldn't get multiple smilies they weren't going to the event. They didn't want to spend an entire Sunday afternoon and just add one to their find count.

Just as an aside, I will log the temporary caches if I find them. But I usually don't even look for them. I'd rather socialize.

 

Actually, around here, it's still a subject of much debate on "logging" a temp cache. I've been to events where it was allowed, and I've been to events where it isn't. Guess what, I logged the event once because, to me, any temps I found were just that...temp fun for that ONE event. If there were live caches nearby, I did those, and if in the future some of the temps became live caches, I would go back and find them and log them at that time.

 

I feel bad for the organizer that had people actually tell them they "expected" extra smilies...I go to events to meet people and have fun...caching is just part of the fun, but the event smily is enough for me. It's how I feel, and I feel good about my stats because of it. I don't feel really bad about people who log temps with extra smilies, I just know they're geocaching style is different from mine.

 

Let's put it this way...we know they didn't do this, but what if the team that "set" the record had people place 500 temps in one small park near GW4. So they log the "caches" on the GW4 event...and guess what, now caches that were placed 20 feet apart are part of the "record". That's kinda my feeling on Temps...they're temp for a reason, some valid (state parks), some because they violate standard gc rules. How would we as other geocachers feel about people bragging about that "record"?

 

Celticwulf

Link to comment

I know a number of reviewers, either in person or through interaction on here, and they're all above board and play this game as it was meant to be played - by the rules. They don't make up their own rules then expect the rest of us to accept their version as "correct". I'd be very disappointed if AR was actually a reviewer. Groundspeak, you can do better than that. You already have.

DocDiTTo, thanks for saying this! I agree! I have dealt with several reviewers in several roles, and it is my impression, like yours, that the vast majority act with high integrity and play the game by the rules. In fact, the AR case is the very first involving a reviewer in which I have kinda cringed, and said "uh oh....". While I am sure that AR is a fine person in many ways, I would suggest that he is not likely fit to be a reviewer at this time. I am sure that Groundspeak can do better than that.

Link to comment

If you have a problem with a reviewer, or believe a reviewer has acted incorrectly please do not discuss it here. Please send your complaint to reviewers@geocaching.com This is an email address devoted only to dealing with problems with reviewers and is handled in the strictest of confidentiality. The forums are not the place to handle this.

Edited by CO Admin
Link to comment

tsmoloa, cardinal red, mopar

 

I am going to squat down to your level and do the wrong thing. Go ahead and grab a pen and paper and start making notes now.

 

By emphasing and focusing on someone's mistake or bad decision, and publicly ridiculing another human being in a public forum, you have embarrassed the entire geocaching community and I am surprised the moderator allowed this trash on the board. Rather that openly and frankly discussing a disagreement, you choose to do the equivalent of writing insults on a bathroom wall and it closely resembles the lack of class and maturity that is found on those same walls. I suspect you lack the ability to accept responsibility for things in your personal and professional lives and those around you consider you abusive and un-likeable.

 

I will not post any further reponses so take comfort in the fact that your response will enjoy a lack of rebuttal and get a life.

 

Ahh, come on back. I just HAVE to know why you think discussing how someone may be cheating on a score and trying to rationalize it isn't relates to my not accepting responsibility for my actions. Then maybe you can explain to me how this thread isn't openly and frankly discussing a disagreement.

Frankly, your entire post is contradictory and makes little sense. It's also probably the only abusive post in this thread.

Let me guess, you work for a public school, don't you? That might explain your apparent views on cheating.

 

Hey Mopar, I work for a public school and I don't condone cheating, nor does anyone I work with or for. But, your using that does confirm what all these threads are leading to -- tarring the whole community for the misdeeds of a few. It doesn't matter, if a few within the community, whether it be teachers and administrators in a public school, our elected leaders, whatever your profession is, or geocachers -- we are all assessed by the actions of the worst of us.

You know what? You're right.

I was wrong for adding that last line. I was trying to troll the troll since I already knew his profession from his profile. I apologize to the many fine, underpaid educators out there.

 

For what it's worth, according to his emails, his beef with me is because I offered to purchase the fake geocoin. Nothing to do with the cheating, vandalism, or ethics being discussed in this thread. Amazing.

wrrdallastexascoinback.jpg

 

All that bile over a fake geocoin.

Link to comment

Again, as I have said before, for me, the bottom line is this:

We are all human, and we all make mistakes, and we all have undesired things happen to us at times. Ultimately, I feel that what is most important is the grace with which we respond to our mistakes, to those of others, and the grace we can bring to the undesirable events that do happen in our lives. So, while I personally feel that some of the behaviors which we witnessed over the last week were biazrre and hilarious, and while I would certainly not recommend or condone those behaviors, I do not condemn any of the individuals involved, nor do I judge them, and if I ever meet any of them at an event or elswehere, I will still be happy to shake their hand and accept them as a human being. And I am sure that I would find that even though I did not see eye-to-eye with them on how to handle finds (or how to conduct record runs), there would be may other things on which we did agree, and we could still share our war stories. I guess that what I am saying here is that I do not need to condone or approve of all of the geocaching behaviors of a person in order to able to accept them as a person, and in order to have a friendly relationship with them. And, in no cases do I need to hurl bricks at them.

I've stayed out of this discussion thus far, and of course everyone around here lately knows the somewhat-related agendae I'm advancing regarding stats and their effect on the overall quality of our game in many precincts (overall cache quality, record keeping, cache logging ethics, etc.). This post goes directly to Vinny's quote above:

 

As a somewhat-frequent Event attendee based in the state immediately neighboring TheAlabamaRambler, I have had occasion to meet and visit with him quite a few times. I must admit we didn't spend "extended" time together, but I've talked with him both at Events and on-line enough to at least have a sense for his character.

 

In my interactions with him, I've found TAR to be one of the finest ambassadors our game has. He has boundless enthusiasm for the game, is willing to help ANYONE play the game, and trust me if you met him, you'd realize that his discovery of our game has truly been "life changing" (for the better) to him, as it has been for so many others of us.

 

Now, he and I have never gotten into any discussions about "caching ethics" or "cache logging ethics", so I can't speak to whether this situation is him and his team just getting caught up in the "moment" and knowingly "doing the wrong thing", or what. I do know that he has participated in other Numbers Runs in Nashville and elsewhere, with locals from those areas, so he knows "how it works". So, in that regard, and based on the other contexts in which I know him, I'm willing to take him at his word from his posts on this matter that he now realizes "the errors of his ways" and wants to work to move forward and restore his reputation.

 

This doesn't mean I condone or excuse any of his or his team's actions in claiming to set the record - I believe the community has spoken on that, and I stand with the community. But it does mean that like Vinny, I'll be willing to extend him a hearty handshake the next time we visit, and give him the benefit of the doubt that he's learned what the caching community is willing to accept in terms of "cacher ethics", and what it is not willing to accept. He's EARNED that from me based on my previous personal interactions with him.

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