Jump to content

The New Numbers Game


drat19
Followers 13

Recommended Posts

She logged her own cache ten times.

 

I don't blame her - at the time she made the finds the caches were there and legal, her log and others were deleted after TPTB killed the caches - she still found them and desrrves the smilie. GeoPolitics should not deprive anyone of an earned find.

 

Sorry dude, I gotta step in and raise the BS flag on you.

 

She doesn’t ‘deserve’ a smiley because it’s not a reward, it merely an indicator that you successfully found a geocache. To apply a smiley to a cache you didn’t find, or one you own, is untruthful.

 

Geopolitics, whatever that is, didn’t deprive her of anything. The cache owner who agreed to the guidelines when he\she checked the two boxes at the bottom of the cache submission page and then violated those guidelines did.

 

Your continued attempts at mudslinging and trying to create discourse on this issue are getting pathetic.

Link to comment
I don't know what they were, but even if they were Pocket Caches, PCs were a common and accepted practice until AFTER GW4 - any PC logged there before the ban should have stood, anything after, not.

 

To use an analogy made earlier, how would you like to get a speeding ticket in the mail with an explanation that the law changed today, so you are being ticketed because you exceeded it yesterday?

 

PCs may never have been 'legal' but thousands were logged over the years, making them a reasonable and customary expectation at events.

 

Maybe they were common and accepted practice in YOUR area. I never saw one at an event and I never even heard of them until they were brought up in a forum discussion a month or two ago. I bet many others were similarly unaware of these things.

Link to comment
I don't know what they were, but even if they were Pocket Caches, PCs were a common and accepted practice until AFTER GW4 - any PC logged there before the ban should have stood, anything after, not.

 

To use an analogy made earlier, how would you like to get a speeding ticket in the mail with an explanation that the law changed today, so you are being ticketed because you exceeded it yesterday?

 

PCs may never have been 'legal' but thousands were logged over the years, making them a reasonable and customary expectation at events.

 

Maybe they were common and accepted practice in YOUR area. I never saw one at an event and I never even heard of them until they were brought up in a forum discussion a month or two ago. I bet many others were similarly unaware of these things.

I've only been to a handful of events in the PNW and have only ever seen one temp. cache at an event. You got the coords when you signed in then had to find it in the dark, in the woods, and you were told you could log the event twice, which I chose not to do cuz it seem wrong at the time, before I ever knew a temp cache wasn't allowed. I have yet to see a pocket cache up here and hope to never see one. Whether it is allowed or not.

Link to comment

Maybe they were common and accepted practice in YOUR area. I never saw one at an event and I never even heard of them until they were brought up in a forum discussion a month or two ago. I bet many others were similarly unaware of these things.

 

Well, I can only speak about my experience in my area, so that's true.

 

However, a review of events held in the last two-plus years in Alabama, Arkansas, Misissippi, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Massachussets where I have attended events will show that they were at every one of them!

 

Kind of hard to consider them a dirty little secret when they were logged by hundreds at public events in that many states!

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment
If she logged the original caches in their original locations, I have no problem with her logging them online as she did. If they were found as converted pocket caches or temporary event caches, they shouldn't be logged on gc.com, in my opinion.
I don't know what they were, but even if they were Pocket Caches, PCs were a common and accepted practice until AFTER GW4 - any PC logged there before the ban should have stood, anything after, not.

 

To use an analogy made earlier, how would you like to get a speeding ticket in the mail with an explanation that the law changed today, so you are being ticketed because you exceeded it yesterday?

 

PCs may never have been 'legal' but thousands were logged over the years, making them a reasonable and customary expectation at events.

 

Again, perfectly right to ban them if they want, tacky as all get out to delete the logs in hindsight.

By your own admission, they were against the guidelines. Therefore, your analogy that you are punished for something that was 'legal' at the time is off base.
Link to comment
Care to point out any mudslinging?

slung

 

I suppose you refer to this paragraph:

"Pocket caches were introduced by a well-known Reviewer, were originally logged as cache pages at one time; when Jeremy put a stop to them having cache pages that same Reviewer found a work-around using archived cache pages, when that was nixed this same Reviewer came up with the multiple-attended log scheme, yet this Reviewer was never mentioned in the recent GW4 blow-up - but everyone else involved got fried!"

 

That's a statement of fact and history, if that's mudslinging we gotta get rid of all the history books! A statement of how something came to be is in no way mudslinging.

Link to comment

Here is a prime example of "#1" subverting the rules to garner smilies.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...42-aca01180c1bc

 

She logged her own cache ten times.

 

Ooh. This is very sad. I guess that's one way to get to 15500 finds! Logging your own cache, ten times, because you could not log ten other caches. Very sad.

 

Wow. I guess people don't believe in karma. There is one fix to this. Change the software so you can only have one "Found It' per cache.

Link to comment

Here is a prime example of "#1" subverting the rules to garner smilies.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...42-aca01180c1bc

 

She logged her own cache ten times.

 

Ooh. This is very sad. I guess that's one way to get to 15500 finds! Logging your own cache, ten times, because you could not log ten other caches. Very sad.

 

Don't worry, if that's the only questionable logging that you find while perusing her 15,000+ finds, then consider yourself lucky (and crazy for reading through 15,000+ logs looking for abnormalities).

 

But seriously, putting a cache log in your back pocket (or logging your own cache to claim a waypoint that's no longer valid because the logbook is not at that location or any one of the other BS garbage finds that have been pointed out in this thread) is about the lamest trend to hit geocaching in some time.

 

I'm all for variations that create new and interesting ways to go geocaching. I liked the idea of "cache pirates" forcing offset caching (while leaving the original cache intact except for the "booty"). But anything that destroys a cache (removing it from its location to bring to an event, for example) is not good for anything. Imagine if some of these "pocket caches" weren't actually owned by the owners. Hell, why do anything but area events where everyone goes out, finds a cache, and then they all bring them to the table before the end of the event so we can all pass the log books around! It'll be like a big ol' screwed-up quilting circle geocache orgy! Man, but you could bag 50 caches easy at a small event!

 

The ends don't justify the means here. Why not just "hide" a "cache" consisting solely of a sheet of paper on a bulletin board that says "nothing here but this sheet of paper. feel free to get your smilie and then be sure to mass mail all of your caching buddies and tell them they don't even need to see this paper to get a smilie on the website!! I just want to see more people have more smilies! Yippee!!".

 

I mean, really, if we think hard enough (and I'm sure some of the "smilie hunters" have done so already), we can surely find a way to log smilies on new waypoints that don't involve anything but passing around the waypoint IDs for the rest of us to log! Hmm, maybe we could setup a script to log a find on every cache in the system and the ones that aren't deleted mean more smilies for you! Woohoo!

Link to comment

FTF on that bulletin board thingy. :)

 

Ok, I see above that someone added some questionable finds as replacements for the ones she lost recently. I also noticed that her "new" finds didn't change mine at all.

 

I went out this morning and changed my find count. I walked up a mountain on a glorious morning. I watched the birds (did you ever see a 4-way hummingbird fight over a female?), the snakes, the rabbits and ground squirrels, and hundreds of lizards. I added another cache (FTF) and enjoyed some fabulous views. I scouted out some places for new caches (and one of them will be a micro, gasp!). You know, I had fun and I really don't care what someone else did with their numbers. I went caching and logged a find. It don't get any better than that.

Link to comment

Ok, I see above that someone added some questionable finds as replacements for the ones she lost recently. I also noticed that her "new" finds didn't change mine at all.

 

I went out this morning and changed my find count. I walked up a mountain on a glorious morning. I watched the birds (did you ever see a 4-way hummingbird fight over a female?), the snakes, the rabbits and ground squirrels, and hundreds of lizards. I added another cache (FTF) and enjoyed some fabulous views.

 

...didn't change mine at all. (this time)

 

Imagine if you would that you walked up a mountain, glorious morning, birds, snakes, lizards...went to add another cache, BUT the cache wasn't there because it was in the owner's car trunk heading for the day's event cache.

 

I guess it's all okay until it actually does affect your ability to go geocaching. There are many ways to go geocaching. Signing the logbook out of someone's back pocket isn't one of them.

Link to comment

ju66l3r, that's another subject. I was referring to the fact that logs were posted on a cachers own hides. I didn't say I agreed with it, or that I would do it. I am also not saying that it is OK to lift your cache and move it. We are talking numbers here. Her additional numbers, no matter how they were counted, don't affect mine. I look at folks with lots of numbers and I think, "OK, whatever floats your boat!" Then I go climb a hill and talk to the birds.

 

Luckless, yes you can log more than once. But who would want too? And why?

Link to comment

I just figured out how we can all up our precious smillie count and still have our names in the log book, and not move the cache. We can start a group on line and when we go to a cache we sign the log with everyones name. Than we just email everyone what cache it was so they can log it. Saddly enough I may have just given a few people some ideas. For some reason I keep coming back here it's kind of like a car crash, ya just have to look.

Link to comment

I wouldn't want my stats to be listed, if I had the option, but there a number of cachers who do want to be able to compare themselves to others. I don't understand it, or agree with it, but that doesn't mean we should ignore it.

 

 

Reminds me of Chevy Chase's line in Caddy Shack When asked by the judge what he had shot on the golf course that day, he replied: "Oh, I never keep score" To which the judge asked, "Then how do you measure yourself against other men?" His reply--"By height". Being 6'5, I guess that gives me the right to think I am better than the next man. Makes about as much sense as keeping cache stats . . .

Link to comment
Translation: TPTB made a short sighted error and are playing catch-up. :)

Just for fun, what do you see as their short-sighted error?

What I see as their short sighted error was the way these previously acceptable practices were summarily archived without warning, etc. I've heard all the arguments for this action and understand them BUT they had been winked at by TPTB for a loooong time so a better way to solve the problem would've been to send out a proclamation with a timetable attached. THAT would've been the way to settle this issue rather than it deteriorating into a witch hunt complete with name calling, accusations, gnashing of teeth, and MUCH bad feelings on both sides. Again, I agree that pocket caches got out of hand and went beyond their designed purpose. I am not arguing FOR them, just taking exception with the way the whole issue was handled - especially here in the forums.

It seems like it all goes back to that old post by Jeremy that stated that he didn't wish to take action but would if things got out of hand. It did and he did.

 

I guess that i was caching on that day and not paying attention to FORUMS. I guess I will now spend a bit of time here trying to get a better handle on which "cachers?" that Jeremy is listening to and what is in the works. :D

Link to comment

Here is a prime example of "#1" subverting the rules to garner smilies.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...42-aca01180c1bc

 

She logged her own cache ten times.

 

Ooh. This is very sad. I guess that's one way to get to 15500 finds! Logging your own cache, ten times, because you could not log ten other caches. Very sad.

 

Wow. I guess people don't believe in karma. There is one fix to this. Change the software so you can only have one "Found It' per cache.

 

:D Hmmmmmm :)

Link to comment

Maybe I can shed some light on this issue as I'm the owner of two of the caches in question; GCMHM5

(Leon River Crossing) and GCMHMF (Bridge Over The Un-River). CCCooperAgency and other members of the Hanseatic Cache Team (HCT) to include geoPirat, darth maul 3, and m. zielinski claimed individual finds for these two caches on 30 May 2006. Instead of each individually signing the log to prove they were there, the initials HCT were hastily scrawled on the log pages (personally checked the log sheets). Now I know they must have been in a great rush as that team logged 108 caches that day, to include my two, over a vast stretch of Central Texas ranging from Waco to San Antonio; a neat feat for a team, near impossible for a single individual considering the physics of time and distance and oh by the way the caches. It appears that having each individual sign the log was going to eat too much into their caching time.

 

That said, I denied the members of the HCT their "individual" finds as there was no direct evidence that each and every member had physically found/touched the cache. Remember, the only thing found on the log sheet was "HCT 5/30/06." Not finding individual signatures and only having their word that they were there, I was faced with a dilemma. Without their individual signatures I was not about to grant them an individual find. However, I offered the members of the HCT the opportunity to create an identity for the HCT and claim the finds as a joint find. Here's the note I left them on both cache pages: "May 31 by eagletrek (1452 found) To the members of the HCT (Hanseatic Cache Team). Your individual logs have been deleted. As your original individual logs state, you logged as part of the HCT. Therefore your "finds" should be claimed as part of that team and not as an individual find. If you'd like to create a page for the Hanseatic Cache Team and claim your joint find please free to do so. Eagletrek"

 

As you can see, I never denied HCT (as a whole) from claiming a find, as "HCT" was the only thing that was signed on the cache logs. To date, an identity for HCT has not been created.

 

I only learned of this controversy concerning CCCooperAgency and the "10 caches" tonight. I find it interesting that CCCooperAgency chose not to contact me personally about my deletion of the "individual finds" but decided to claim the cache finds on one of her own cache pages. That is both truly strange and interesting. I'd like to hear the rationale for that. CCCooperAgency has also mentioned that there are photos to prove the HCT was at the caches in question. As of today, I still have not seen any of the photos but I do look forward to seeing them someday.

 

While I personally don't condone geo-herding, those who have done it in the past, with my caches, have at least signed their own handle or at least had one other party in the group sign for them. Without individual signatures, I can't confirm who's really been there.

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I'll let the chips fall where they may.

 

v/r

 

Eagletrek

Link to comment
...That said, I denied the members of the HCT their "individual" finds as there was no direct evidence that each and every member had physically found/touched the cache....

 

[rant ]

 

Sad. Sad that folks have to be so suspicious they trust no one.

 

Sad that they have to see everyone as out to cheat them.

 

I cache in groups all the time, I mean a lot, with some of the most respected cachers in the area. We always have one person sign a team name.

 

It saves time and it prevents filling logs. Each of us that were there then logs the cache.

 

It's your cache, man, but getting that worked up over having everyone in a group sign it is sad.

 

And, your insinuations that they didn't do the caches they say they did is even sadder - do you have reason to question what they say? Any real reason to dispute that they found 100+ in a day?

 

Is this game about finding the cache or signing the log? Count on it, if I as part of a group saw the cache at the cache site, even in someone else's hands, I would log it (if I logged caches anymore).

 

I know the arguments, no sig no log, but I just don't buy it in cases like this.

 

You have to believe everyone is a cheat and a liar and must have proof of their claims, and man I do NOT want to live in that world, where we all have to PROVE every action or be publicly accussed of being crooked.

 

I live by 'Screw me once, shame on you, screw me twice, shame on ME!" and give most everyone the benefit of my trust. It makes for a nice, happy world.

 

Once I KNOW someone lied about a log, that's different - but I seriously doubt you can prove CCC ever has.

 

I have only spent two days with GeoPirat and his friends from Germany, but believe hthem to be honest men.

 

I have cached with everyone mentioned and know them to be honorable people - they may not cache by your rules, but they won't lie to you about it.

 

Your cache, your log, require what you want.

 

If Lynn (CCC) says she found it and logs her own cache to make up for your having deleted her ligitimate log, I can't blame her!

 

/rant

Ed

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

Maybe I can shed some light on this issue as I'm the owner of two of the caches in question; GCMHM5

(Leon River Crossing) and GCMHMF (Bridge Over The Un-River). CCCooperAgency and other members of the Hanseatic Cache Team (HCT) to include geoPirat, darth maul 3, and m. zielinski claimed individual finds for these two caches on 30 May 2006. Instead of each individually signing the log to prove they were there, the initials HCT were hastily scrawled on the log pages (personally checked the log sheets). Now I know they must have been in a great rush as that team logged 108 caches that day, to include my two, over a vast stretch of Central Texas ranging from Waco to San Antonio; a neat feat for a team, near impossible for a single individual considering the physics of time and distance and oh by the way the caches. It appears that having each individual sign the log was going to eat too much into their caching time.

 

That said, I denied the members of the HCT their "individual" finds as there was no direct evidence that each and every member had physically found/touched the cache. Remember, the only thing found on the log sheet was "HCT 5/30/06." Not finding individual signatures and only having their word that they were there, I was faced with a dilemma. Without their individual signatures I was not about to grant them an individual find. However, I offered the members of the HCT the opportunity to create an identity for the HCT and claim the finds as a joint find. Here's the note I left them on both cache pages: "May 31 by eagletrek (1452 found) To the members of the HCT (Hanseatic Cache Team). Your individual logs have been deleted. As your original individual logs state, you logged as part of the HCT. Therefore your "finds" should be claimed as part of that team and not as an individual find. If you'd like to create a page for the Hanseatic Cache Team and claim your joint find please free to do so. Eagletrek"

 

As you can see, I never denied HCT (as a whole) from claiming a find, as "HCT" was the only thing that was signed on the cache logs. To date, an identity for HCT has not been created.

 

I only learned of this controversy concerning CCCooperAgency and the "10 caches" tonight. I find it interesting that CCCooperAgency chose not to contact me personally about my deletion of the "individual finds" but decided to claim the cache finds on one of her own cache pages. That is both truly strange and interesting. I'd like to hear the rationale for that. CCCooperAgency has also mentioned that there are photos to prove the HCT was at the caches in question. As of today, I still have not seen any of the photos but I do look forward to seeing them someday.

 

While I personally don't condone geo-herding, those who have done it in the past, with my caches, have at least signed their own handle or at least had one other party in the group sign for them. Without individual signatures, I can't confirm who's really been there.

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I'll let the chips fall where they may.

 

v/r

 

Eagletrek

 

:lol: What you have done and are stating is one of the most "off the Wall" things i have heard of in caching. When there are group caching runs, it is not abnormal for logs to be signed as a group. You do what you want with your caches, but the people that you did this too all were there if they said they were.

;)

Link to comment
...That said, I denied the members of the HCT their "individual" finds as there was no direct evidence that each and every member had physically found/touched the cache....

 

[rant ]

 

Sad. Sad that folks have to be so suspicious they trust no one.

 

Sad that they have to see everyone as out to cheat them.

 

First, I'm not going to even touch the subject of Lynn.

 

Second, yes, people cheat.

 

Third, I personally don't mind groups log with a group name, but if they are going to log individually online then one of the group had better log who was in the group. That person is putting his reputation on the line and if it is found out later he lied then it calls all of those finds into question. It also helps prevent some joker coming back later and claiming to be part of the group when he wasn't.

 

Fourth, when we are caching with a group we always make an individual log. Can still say that for every find we've claimed our stamp, name, or initials was in it. In fact, I can't think of the first group find where it was not automatic that everyone just passed the log around. There's never even been discussion of creating a group. Ever. I guess the groups we've been in are never in that big of a hurry that we have to employ some sort of time saving technique.

Link to comment

OK, I just TNNGRR here.

 

Why is this a big deal?

 

On another note, I'm approaching my 1000 find. Should I take the executive pen set or Swiss army knife from the milestone catalog?

 

BTW, Barry Bonds now has 717 HR's Whoo-hoo!

Link to comment

BTW, Barry Bonds now has 717 HR's Whoo-hoo!

 

Cheater :)

 

Perhaps this is where the suggestion for group online logs comes in. Suppose geocaching.com had the capability to form temporary groups or teams and to allow the team to post one log online as a team. Each team member gets a find but only one online log needs to be be written. Now if a team logged online as HCT, what would this cache owner do?

Link to comment

As the cache owner, it sounds like a great idea. If geocaching.com had a way of doing it, I'd have no problem with allowing individual finds. It would also be nice if Big Green could establish two find categories, individual and group.

 

I knew I'd probably draw some heat over this "issue" but I'm no stranger to drawing heat. I guess my 20+ years of comissioned service in the Army has conditioned me to set and adhere to standards; you, as the American people, expected that out of me. It seems that if I expect the same out of some of my fellow geocachers all I get is a bunch of lip.

 

The bottom line is that I accused no one of cheating. All I wanted the individuals of the HCT to do was to create an identity and log as members of that team, since they only signed as HCT.

 

If you don't agree with that, so be it. Freedom of speech; ain't it a beautiful thing!

 

v/r

 

Eagletrek

 

PS Thanks to those who've sent me email concerning this issue. I knew there were folks with standards out there.

Link to comment
I don't know what they were, but even if they were Pocket Caches, PCs were a common and accepted practice until AFTER GW4 - any PC logged there before the ban should have stood, anything after, not.

 

To use an analogy made earlier, how would you like to get a speeding ticket in the mail with an explanation that the law changed today, so you are being ticketed because you exceeded it yesterday?

 

PCs may never have been 'legal' but thousands were logged over the years, making them a reasonable and customary expectation at events.

 

Maybe they were common and accepted practice in YOUR area. I never saw one at an event and I never even heard of them until they were brought up in a forum discussion a month or two ago. I bet many others were similarly unaware of these things.

I also never heared of a pocket cache utill GW4. I have been to many events and have never seen one. Maybe in some areas cheating is a normal practice.

Link to comment

Here is a prime example of "#1" subverting the rules to garner smilies.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...42-aca01180c1bc

 

She logged her own cache ten times.

 

Ooh. This is very sad. I guess that's one way to get to 15500 finds! Logging your own cache, ten times, because you could not log ten other caches. Very sad.

 

Wow. I guess people don't believe in karma. There is one fix to this. Change the software so you can only have one "Found It' per cache.

I think that is a great idea, for two reasons

1-It will make hard for the cheaters to cheat

2-On a few occasions I have logged the same cache twice by accident late at night when logging a days worth of finding caches. This would save me the trouble of going back to delete the logs, which I do as soon as I realize I made a mistake.

Link to comment
What you have done and are stating is one of the most "off the Wall" things i have heard of in caching. When there are group caching runs, it is not abnormal for logs to be signed as a group. You do what you want with your caches, but the people that you did this too all were there if they said they were.

 

It would be abnormal for me and most people I know. On group hunts we pass the logbook around and everyone signs. Only takes a few minutes. I've been with groups as large as 30 people where this was done.

 

I think the combination of the long distance covered and kinds of cache finds claimed set off alarm bells in Eagletrek's head. Toss in the lack of individual logs and the fact that one of the group has a rep as a big time cheater, I don't think think he was all that off base in questioning the logs.

 

I doubt I would have done the same, but he is certainly within his rights.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Maybe I can shed some light on this issue as I'm the owner of two of the caches in question; GCMHM5

(Leon River Crossing) and GCMHMF (Bridge Over The Un-River). CCCooperAgency and other members of the Hanseatic Cache Team (HCT) to include geoPirat, darth maul 3, and m. zielinski claimed individual finds for these two caches on 30 May 2006. Instead of each individually signing the log to prove they were there, the initials HCT were hastily scrawled on the log pages (personally checked the log sheets). Now I know they must have been in a great rush as that team logged 108 caches that day, to include my two, over a vast stretch of Central Texas ranging from Waco to San Antonio; a neat feat for a team, near impossible for a single individual considering the physics of time and distance and oh by the way the caches. It appears that having each individual sign the log was going to eat too much into their caching time.

 

That said, I denied the members of the HCT their "individual" finds as there was no direct evidence that each and every member had physically found/touched the cache. Remember, the only thing found on the log sheet was "HCT 5/30/06." Not finding individual signatures and only having their word that they were there, I was faced with a dilemma. Without their individual signatures I was not about to grant them an individual find. However, I offered the members of the HCT the opportunity to create an identity for the HCT and claim the finds as a joint find. Here's the note I left them on both cache pages: "May 31 by eagletrek (1452 found) To the members of the HCT (Hanseatic Cache Team). Your individual logs have been deleted. As your original individual logs state, you logged as part of the HCT. Therefore your "finds" should be claimed as part of that team and not as an individual find. If you'd like to create a page for the Hanseatic Cache Team and claim your joint find please free to do so. Eagletrek"

 

As you can see, I never denied HCT (as a whole) from claiming a find, as "HCT" was the only thing that was signed on the cache logs. To date, an identity for HCT has not been created.

 

I only learned of this controversy concerning CCCooperAgency and the "10 caches" tonight. I find it interesting that CCCooperAgency chose not to contact me personally about my deletion of the "individual finds" but decided to claim the cache finds on one of her own cache pages. That is both truly strange and interesting. I'd like to hear the rationale for that. CCCooperAgency has also mentioned that there are photos to prove the HCT was at the caches in question. As of today, I still have not seen any of the photos but I do look forward to seeing them someday.

 

While I personally don't condone geo-herding, those who have done it in the past, with my caches, have at least signed their own handle or at least had one other party in the group sign for them. Without individual signatures, I can't confirm who's really been there.

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I'll let the chips fall where they may.

 

v/r

 

Eagletrek

 

Here's a chip....

 

As others have said, play it your way. :)

 

That said, it appears that I have been to 3 of the 7 events you have attended. I'm sure I've met you if you were there as you say you were, but it's funny I don't remember you. :D I try to make a point of meeting as many new faces as I can. Maybe you didn't impress me much, or mayyyybe I had been drinking a little, or maybe we just never met. I've heard lots about YOU though, but I like to make up my own mind about people I KNOW, so I file stuff away for later. Your post proves to me again that there's truth to evey myth. :D

 

The people you ran down DID and DO impress me. I KNOW them. We are friends. We don't play the game the same way, but I refuse to judge them as WRONG because I guess I'm just not self important enough about that aspect of the game to care. They're just simply some of the best people I've met through geocaching and THAT'S what I care about.

 

For those of you that just don't get it, geocaching is MORE about the people who do it than the caches and logbooks and smilies that are the meat of the game. Is that ALL we talk about at events? If it were so, I wouldn't have attended so many.....

 

This entire thread reads like nothing but a pack of dogs squabbling over table scraps while the PEOPLE are sitting at the table. :)

 

I'd like to hear the rationale for that.

 

I'm afraid that scrap may never fall your way. Lynn is sitting firmly at the table and I doubt she'd ever get on the floor to scrap with the hounds. What you, or I, or anyone else thinks about how she finds happiness with her game matters not . You GO girl. :D

Link to comment

It's all personal perspective. I think defacing your own cache log in order to get a few petty smilies rather than maintain the integrity of the online record is about as far from the "table" and as "scrappy" as you can get since it's a definitive "Mine!" statement about those precious smilies/counts. It's not like her logs take those caches off her PQs or anything. When you false "find" your own cache, it truly is *just* about a number.

 

Of course, she's your honored acquaintance so I'm sure she can do no wrong. In my mind, not knowing *any* of the parties, I tend to give eagletrek far more credit than anyone else in the situation. That's not to say that if someone "group-logged" a cache of mine I would necessarily delete it, but he is sticking up to his end of the bargain by reading his cache's logbook and double-checking it off of the online log. The two didn't match to his determination.

 

I've seen both more strict (your *name* was in the book, but you weren't the one who *wrote* it!..eventhoughyou'repicturedtherestandingnexttothecache) and more loose (heyyy maaan, whatever, peace love 'n' geocaching little dude..if you think about it...you prolly signed it in another universe, maaaan) decisions by cache placers in my time.

Link to comment

Speaking of group finds, I have always wondered why individual and group finds are combined. I have been involved in another well established hobby with well defined rules, and your "count" means your individual count. You can do that hobby/activity with others but it does not help your individual count, which is the one that "Matters" since your individual count in that hobby is the one that truly shows your "skill/energy expended/dedication."

 

I believe that our counts were set up this loose/undefined way so that we can concentrate on having fun, since finds are so loosely defined (group, event, logging your own, etc) that they really have little meaning.

Link to comment
I cache in groups all the time, I mean a lot, with some of the most respected cachers in the area. We always have one person sign a team name.

 

I cache in groups as well, with plenty of respected cachers. The group logging you mention isn't accepted in our part of the country. Judging by these forums, it isn't accepted in other parts of the country as well - except for yours. You might consider that before you go calling the rest of us 'sad', since that's actually how we feel about you.

Link to comment

OK, I just TNNGRR here.

 

Why is this a big deal?

 

On another note, I'm approaching my 1000 find. Should I take the executive pen set or Swiss army knife from the milestone catalog?

 

BTW, Barry Bonds now has 717 HR's Whoo-hoo!

Gotta give credit where it's due. Barry Bonds is the best double cheater alive in baseball. He had a stadium built for him (a la Babe Ruth) and he juiced himself (a la Mark McGwire). Or are those analogies senseless because we are supposed to have short memories? :)

 

TheAlamabaRambler mentioned something about sadness from lack of trust in the game these days. I agree. I admire your apologizing for your DRR actions and vowing not to ever do that again. :) That's how you prevent the downward spiral of mistrust. It would be nice if more people did that, not repeat actions that are root of angst and politics.

Link to comment

As the cache owner, it sounds like a great idea. If geocaching.com had a way of doing it, I'd have no problem with allowing individual finds. It would also be nice if Big Green could establish two find categories, individual and group.

 

I knew I'd probably draw some heat over this "issue" but I'm no stranger to drawing heat. I guess my 20+ years of comissioned service in the Army has conditioned me to set and adhere to standards; you, as the American people, expected that out of me. It seems that if I expect the same out of some of my fellow geocachers all I get is a bunch of lip.

 

The bottom line is that I accused no one of cheating. All I wanted the individuals of the HCT to do was to create an identity and log as members of that team, since they only signed as HCT.

 

If you don't agree with that, so be it. Freedom of speech; ain't it a beautiful thing!

 

v/r

 

Eagletrek

 

PS Thanks to those who've sent me email concerning this issue. I knew there were folks with standards out there.

 

Your 20+ years of "commissioned service" may be the problem not the reason. This is from a 2 service NCO, so don't go there this is not the military.

Link to comment

Maybe I can shed some light on this issue as I'm the owner of two of the caches in question; GCMHM5

(Leon River Crossing) and GCMHMF (Bridge Over The Un-River). CCCooperAgency and other members of the Hanseatic Cache Team (HCT) to include geoPirat, darth maul 3, and m. zielinski claimed individual finds for these two caches on 30 May 2006. Instead of each individually signing the log to prove they were there, the initials HCT were hastily scrawled on the log pages (personally checked the log sheets). Now I know they must have been in a great rush as that team logged 108 caches that day, to include my two, over a vast stretch of Central Texas ranging from Waco to San Antonio; a neat feat for a team, near impossible for a single individual considering the physics of time and distance and oh by the way the caches. It appears that having each individual sign the log was going to eat too much into their caching time.

 

That said, I denied the members of the HCT their "individual" finds as there was no direct evidence that each and every member had physically found/touched the cache. Remember, the only thing found on the log sheet was "HCT 5/30/06." Not finding individual signatures and only having their word that they were there, I was faced with a dilemma. Without their individual signatures I was not about to grant them an individual find. However, I offered the members of the HCT the opportunity to create an identity for the HCT and claim the finds as a joint find. Here's the note I left them on both cache pages: "May 31 by eagletrek (1452 found) To the members of the HCT (Hanseatic Cache Team). Your individual logs have been deleted. As your original individual logs state, you logged as part of the HCT. Therefore your "finds" should be claimed as part of that team and not as an individual find. If you'd like to create a page for the Hanseatic Cache Team and claim your joint find please free to do so. Eagletrek"

 

As you can see, I never denied HCT (as a whole) from claiming a find, as "HCT" was the only thing that was signed on the cache logs. To date, an identity for HCT has not been created.

 

I only learned of this controversy concerning CCCooperAgency and the "10 caches" tonight. I find it interesting that CCCooperAgency chose not to contact me personally about my deletion of the "individual finds" but decided to claim the cache finds on one of her own cache pages. That is both truly strange and interesting. I'd like to hear the rationale for that. CCCooperAgency has also mentioned that there are photos to prove the HCT was at the caches in question. As of today, I still have not seen any of the photos but I do look forward to seeing them someday.

 

While I personally don't condone geo-herding, those who have done it in the past, with my caches, have at least signed their own handle or at least had one other party in the group sign for them. Without individual signatures, I can't confirm who's really been there.

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I'll let the chips fall where they may.

 

v/r

 

Eagletrek

 

Here's a chip....

 

As others have said, play it your way. :)

 

That said, it appears that I have been to 3 of the 7 events you have attended. I'm sure I've met you if you were there as you say you were, but it's funny I don't remember you. :D I try to make a point of meeting as many new faces as I can. Maybe you didn't impress me much, or mayyyybe I had been drinking a little, or maybe we just never met. I've heard lots about YOU though, but I like to make up my own mind about people I KNOW, so I file stuff away for later. Your post proves to me again that there's truth to evey myth. :)

 

The people you ran down DID and DO impress me. I KNOW them. We are friends. We don't play the game the same way, but I refuse to judge them as WRONG because I guess I'm just not self important enough about that aspect of the game to care. They're just simply some of the best people I've met through geocaching and THAT'S what I care about.

 

For those of you that just don't get it, geocaching is MORE about the people who do it than the caches and logbooks and smilies that are the meat of the game. Is that ALL we talk about at events? If it were so, I wouldn't have attended so many.....

 

This entire thread reads like nothing but a pack of dogs squabbling over table scraps while the PEOPLE are sitting at the table. :D

 

I'd like to hear the rationale for that.

 

I'm afraid that scrap may never fall your way. Lynn is sitting firmly at the table and I doubt she'd ever get on the floor to scrap with the hounds. What you, or I, or anyone else thinks about how she finds happiness with her game matters not . You GO girl. :D

 

Greetings Snoogans,

 

It's true, I've never met you. As you have correctly observed, I've attended only 7 events in almost 2 years of caching. Frankly it was those events, that turned me off to attending future events. Texas Challenge 05 and one other event really were the turning point. After surveying the crowd, I determined that most of those folks at those events and I did not have alot in common except for seeking caches. I entered the game/sport because of two things, the challenge and the exercise, not to meet people. If that offends you, too bad. I guess I just don't "get it", according to you. That said, I have met some nice folks along the trails.

 

I'm glad you're impressed with the folks I supposedly "ran down." If you read and understood my original post, you'll see that I've never accussed the HCT folks of cheating. All I asked them to do was create a "team identity" and claim the find that way. Frankly, I don't find anything wrong with that. If you differ in opinion, so be it.

 

I'm sure you've heard of me within the Texas geocaching circles. Let's see: Is it because I've called people out for using pre-signed logs, or was it because I've called people out for using ATHLN (Assisted The Hider Logging Now) to claim cache finds on a quid pro quo basis, or maybe because I don't pull punches in cache logs when I see something wrong, maybe it's my dislike like of geo-herding, phone-a-friends, geo-guides, etc., etc., etc.. Last time I've checked, I'm still allowed to voice my opinion.

 

I still find it interesting that I haven't received an email from any of the four cachers directly involved with the issue. (NOTE: darth maul 3 has tried to re-log a find, but that will be going by the wayside again.)

 

Have a Great Day! (Who knows, maybe I'll see you on the trails!)

 

Eagletrek

Edited by eagletrek
Link to comment

As the cache owner, it sounds like a great idea. If geocaching.com had a way of doing it, I'd have no problem with allowing individual finds. It would also be nice if Big Green could establish two find categories, individual and group.

 

I knew I'd probably draw some heat over this "issue" but I'm no stranger to drawing heat. I guess my 20+ years of comissioned service in the Army has conditioned me to set and adhere to standards; you, as the American people, expected that out of me. It seems that if I expect the same out of some of my fellow geocachers all I get is a bunch of lip.

 

The bottom line is that I accused no one of cheating. All I wanted the individuals of the HCT to do was to create an identity and log as members of that team, since they only signed as HCT.

 

If you don't agree with that, so be it. Freedom of speech; ain't it a beautiful thing!

 

v/r

 

Eagletrek

 

PS Thanks to those who've sent me email concerning this issue. I knew there were folks with standards out there.

 

Your 20+ years of "commissioned service" may be the problem not the reason. This is from a 2 service NCO, so don't go there this is not the military.

 

Wow! Two services!! I wasn't that good. Thanks for your strong interest in National Defense.

 

Eagletrek

 

LTC®, AR

US Army

Link to comment

Ju66l3r said

In my mind, not knowing *any* of the parties,

 

I think we met at the Great Quabbin Reservoir (or something like that) event in MA.

 

I had my Evil Cache there (traveling pocket cache), and we hunted in groups and signed the logs as a team.

 

The composition of teams changed over the weekend, so whoever was with the team at that cache logged it.

 

This wasn't a controversy then, though. :)

 

Ed

Link to comment
I cache in groups all the time, I mean a lot, with some of the most respected cachers in the area. We always have one person sign a team name.

 

I cache in groups as well, with plenty of respected cachers. The group logging you mention isn't accepted in our part of the country. Judging by these forums, it isn't accepted in other parts of the country as well - except for yours. You might consider that before you go calling the rest of us 'sad', since that's actually how we feel about you.

 

Did you ever notice that when you log your cache online it says "Found It?" :) We cache in groups all the time down here. Most of us are pretty laid back and enjoy chatting and caching together. After we all "find" the cache we will let everyone do what they want to do. People are free to check out the swag, enjoy the view and read the past logs...whatever. We typically take turns signing the log for everyone to keep the hike moving along. Sometimes we sign with a group name because we know that we will all be going online to individually log our adventures. However, if I was caching with a group people that got upset if I suggested logging it as a group, then I would say "whatever" and sign the log and pass it to the next guy. :) Then as we walked to the next cache I'd ask these people if they were feeling a lot of stress lately. I know that work can stress people out so much that sometimes they bring that baggage with them caching. So leave it all behind and have fun! As long as everybody "finds" the cache and has fun who cares! :D

Link to comment

Ju66l3r said

In my mind, not knowing *any* of the parties,

 

I think we met at the Great Quabbin Reservoir (or something like that) event in MA.

 

I had my Evil Cache there (traveling pocket cache), and we hunted in groups and signed the logs as a team.

 

The composition of teams changed over the weekend, so whoever was with the team at that cache logged it.

 

This wasn't a controversy then, though. :)

 

Ed

 

Yes, we met there. I said that I don't know you. I think I shook your hand. I wrote down a german coincode and your personal TB #...and then didn't even log them later (no offense meant, just never got around to it). In the end, I don't believe that I know you...in fact, your forum participation probably gives me more to go on than having seen you at the Quabbin event.

 

As for team signing at the Quabbin event, I remember each of my team's members putting our individual names in the caches as well as the team's name (and at the time, even if it had been only a team name, there was no knowledge of which event caches were going to become GC.com pages...other than 2-3 that were already established before the event but owner-allowed to be included in the event).

Link to comment
I cache in groups all the time, I mean a lot, with some of the most respected cachers in the area. We always have one person sign a team name.

 

I cache in groups as well, with plenty of respected cachers. The group logging you mention isn't accepted in our part of the country. Judging by these forums, it isn't accepted in other parts of the country as well - except for yours. You might consider that before you go calling the rest of us 'sad', since that's actually how we feel about you.

I don't understand the thoughts of people having only one person sign for a team that changes all the time. I cache with several guys regularly, but we all log ourselves. It only takes a moment for us to pass the log book around and take the time to actually write something ourselves. That's the least i can do for the owner is give him my personal feedback since he took the time to place the cache. Unless you are caching with a group of people who share one mind, then woudln't your logs be different? I agree with Walruz about siging for yourself. Are people that lazy that they can't take the time to write their own name or initals? Is this really becoming the fastfood of sports? Should we just term this McSigning?

Link to comment

Is this really becoming the fastfood of sports? Should we just term this McSigning?

 

McSigning, yeah, let's call it that! McDonald's is one of the most famous names and most successful businesses on the planet, I will be associated with that kind of success anytime! I might change my name to McCacher if it helps me be a fraction of the success that organization is!

 

Show me the McMoney, I love my McMansion, bring on the McCaches, I will McSign them! <_<:unsure::rolleyes:

 

And, this ain't no sport, it's only a game. :anicute:

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

I'm sure you've heard of me within the Texas geocaching circles. Let's see: Is it because I've called people out for using pre-signed logs, or was it because I've called people out for using ATHLN (Assisted The Hider Logging Now) to claim cache finds on a quid pro quo basis, or maybe because I don't pull punches in cache logs when I see something wrong, maybe it's my dislike like of geo-herding, phone-a-friends, geo-guides, etc., etc., etc.. Last time I've checked, I'm still allowed to voice my opinion.

 

I still find it interesting that I haven't received an email from any of the four cachers directly involved with the issue. (NOTE: darth maul 3 has tried to re-log a find, but that will be going by the wayside again.)

 

Have a Great Day! (Who knows, maybe I'll see you on the trails!)

 

Eagletrek

 

Actually no. Most if not all of the folks I've heard about you from care little of those issues. It's your self important view that others should experience the game as YOU do and the measures you take to ensure it that precedes you. Your viewpoint is shared all over these forums so you should feel at home here, but it's uncommon enough in Texas for word of you to spread.

 

I'm sure if we met in person we would get along just fine..... The forums and the real world are two entirely different animals.

 

I still find it interesting that I haven't received an email from any of the four cachers directly involved with the issue. (NOTE: darth maul 3 has tried to re-log a find, but that will be going by the wayside again.)

 

Does it insult you that they aren't groveling at your feet for a smiley that you control? What more do you need from them to make yourself feel better than they are for not adhering to the straight and narrow path you walk?

Link to comment
It only takes a moment for us to pass the log book around and take the time to actually write something ourselves. That's the least i can do for the owner is give him my personal feedback since he took the time to place the cache.

How often do you hike out to your own caches just to read the logs to see what people have written down? Can we have a show of hands for people that actually do this?! <_< The only time I go out to my own caches is to replace them because they've been muggled. :rolleyes:

 

But maybe you're right! What am I thinking? :anicute: Why write my log and show my appreciation on the website where the owner can easily read and enjoy it? :ph34r: So in the future I'll write my log in the logbook and when I log the cache on the website I'll write: "Go to your cache to read what I wrote in the logbook!" :unsure:

Link to comment
It only takes a moment for us to pass the log book around and take the time to actually write something ourselves. That's the least i can do for the owner is give him my personal feedback since he took the time to place the cache.

How often do you hike out to your own caches just to read the logs to see what people have written down? Can we have a show of hands for people that actually do this?! :unsure: The only time I go out to my own caches is to replace them because they've been muggled. :rolleyes:

 

But maybe you're right! What am I thinking? <_< Why write my log and show my appreciation on the website where the owner can easily read and enjoy it? ;) So in the future I'll write my log in the logbook and when I log the cache on the website I'll write: "Go to your cache to read what I wrote in the logbook!" :o

 

Consider my hand raised. :ph34r:

 

Finders that do things wrong are only 1/2 the battle. Owners need to be more responsible also. :anicute:

Link to comment
It only takes a moment for us to pass the log book around and take the time to actually write something ourselves. That's the least i can do for the owner is give him my personal feedback since he took the time to place the cache.

How often do you hike out to your own caches just to read the logs to see what people have written down? Can we have a show of hands for people that actually do this?! :unsure: The only time I go out to my own caches is to replace them because they've been muggled. :rolleyes:

 

But maybe you're right! What am I thinking? :anicute: Why write my log and show my appreciation on the website where the owner can easily read and enjoy it? :o So in the future I'll write my log in the logbook and when I log the cache on the website I'll write: "Go to your cache to read what I wrote in the logbook!" :ph34r:

I may not go out to my own caches to read the log books, but I certainly read others logs in caches I find. I never thought writing your name in a log book was soemthing that could be debated. I always thought it was a rather simple and easy thing to do. I didn't know people were in so much a hurry to get to the next cache that they didn't have the few moments to actually write their name. In fact this might have just been a big evil plot by Jeremy to slow us all down. But what do I know? Maybe you are right. We should just eliminate the log book altogether since it is nothing more than a useless waste of scrap paper that noone reads anyhow. in fact why don't we eliminate the cache itsself since it is common in some areas to not even open it. Oh wait that's right, THEY ELIMINATED VIRTUALS!!! <_<

 

edit: I will and have gone out several times to not only my cache, but other caches as well to verify a signature. For one it was a case of several SBA being posted and then a log by an out of stater who said he found it. There was no sig on this mega mile round tripper. The find was deleted and the SBA stood. Looked kind of confusing to the reviewer that a SBA was placed on a non funtioning cache when someone found it.

Edited by pghlooking
Link to comment

I'm sure you've heard of me within the Texas geocaching circles. Let's see: Is it because I've called people out for using pre-signed logs, or was it because I've called people out for using ATHLN (Assisted The Hider Logging Now) to claim cache finds on a quid pro quo basis, or maybe because I don't pull punches in cache logs when I see something wrong, maybe it's my dislike like of geo-herding, phone-a-friends, geo-guides, etc., etc., etc.. Last time I've checked, I'm still allowed to voice my opinion.

 

I still find it interesting that I haven't received an email from any of the four cachers directly involved with the issue. (NOTE: darth maul 3 has tried to re-log a find, but that will be going by the wayside again.)

 

Have a Great Day! (Who knows, maybe I'll see you on the trails!)

 

Eagletrek

 

Actually no. Most if not all of the folks I've heard about you from care little of those issues. It's your self important view that others should experience the game as YOU do and the measures you take to ensure it that precedes you. Your viewpoint is shared all over these forums so you should feel at home here, but it's uncommon enough in Texas for word of you to spread.

 

I'm sure if we met in person we would get along just fine..... The forums and the real world are two entirely different animals.

 

I still find it interesting that I haven't received an email from any of the four cachers directly involved with the issue. (NOTE: darth maul 3 has tried to re-log a find, but that will be going by the wayside again.)

 

Does it insult you that they aren't groveling at your feet for a smiley that you control? What more do you need from them to make yourself feel better than they are for not adhering to the straight and narrow path you walk?

 

Greetings Snoogans,

 

I didn't know I was so well known as you say. I'm surprised that you say that my ideas are shared all over the forums. I thought most folks just ignored me. I probably would if I were you. Frankly, the only reason why I actually got on the forum was that I was notified about the issue by an out-of-state cacher. Prior to my recent series of posts, I believe I visited this site three times with the equal number of posts. Why so few visits you ask? Because this forum really doesn't interest me.

 

If you still haven't figured it out by reading all the message strings in the series, I was actually clarifying part of the "issue" centering on CCC. Prior to my first post, folks were claiming that she was cheating by claiming finds on her own cache. When I was made aware of the situation, I checked out her site, saw what she did, and then posted a note to clarify the issues I had with the HCT logging my two caches. If you can't discern that from my post that's not my problem.

 

As far as trying to get folks to cache "my way," I think you give me too much credit. Frankly I wouldn't even try to convert anyone but I do like to voice my opinion, observations, and facts as I see or encounter them. If everyone is okay "caching their way" this shouldn't effect anyone. From the number of replies I've gotten I'm starting to wonder???

 

As for your last point, I don't expect anyone to grovel. I just thought they, the members of the HCT, would speak up for themselves. I would do so and have done so when I thought I was wronged.

 

I may just have to make a special trip to your part of the state to check out your caches. If you're into hiking a few miles you may want to come to my neck of the woods and check out mine.

 

Have a Great Day!

 

Eagletrek

Edited by eagletrek
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 13
×
×
  • Create New...