Jump to content

The New Numbers Game


drat19
Followers 13

Recommended Posts

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? ;) 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

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.

We sign the logbook to PROVE that we found the cache!!! :ph34r: If you want to write a bunch of stuff in the logbook, it's a free country, but don't be condescending to anyone that chooses to write their appreciation on the website instead! ;)

Edited by TrailGators
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? ;) 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

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.

We sign the logbook to PROVE that we found the cache!!! :ph34r: If you want to write a bunch of stuff in the logbook, it's a free country, but don't condescend on me if I write my appreciation on the website instead! ;)

I think you missed my point and maybe we agree somewhat. I could careless how much or little you write in a log book, but surely you agree that at a bare minimum writing your name is needed. The problem is people who don't write their name and allow someone to write some nonGC id team name. This proves someone was there but not who was there. There's no record of Cacher X or Cacher Z if it says Team PoopCar. Apparently some people believe this practice of having someone else write some fake team name is perfectly fine, while making it a nightmare for the cache owner to audit his cache if he so ever chooses.

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? :unsure: 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:

My hand is up, I have checked the logs in some of my caches.

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. 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. ...
I really wanted to agree with you on this issue, but I just can't. The reason I can't is related to my feelings on the 'record run rules' thread. You see, geocaching is really an individual game that some people like to do in a group. Since it is an individual game, people track all their finds through their individual account. This allows them to go to one place to find all their cache finds. It also serves to keep some caches off their 'left to find' lists.

 

We all know that 'team HCT' found your cache. They logged their find in the book. You should be satisfied with an online log that explains who was part of the team. I personally feel that you are challenging these finds not out of your need to adhere to standards, but as a statement related to the recent 'troubles'.

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. ...
First of all, you are being disingenuous. You may have only heard about the thread yesterday, but you were aware of the controversy because you created it.

 

Regarding Lynn challenging your deletion, why should she grovel for you? Would you allow these players to log their finds if they satisfied your ego?

 

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.
Of course, if they logged online who the members of the group were, you would know. In fact, you would have just as much proof as you would have if you found their names in the logbook because one cacher could certainly have written multiple names (or stuck stickers, stamped the log, etc.)
... 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. ...
Nothing pisses me off more than someone hiding behind their military service as an excuse to be boorish.

 

Here's some advice that I wise man gave me as I embarked into the real world. 'Stow the edge.' Nobody wants to hear about how disciplined you are and how that discipline means that you can make everyone else's life miserable.

 

There's your lousy chips.

Link to comment

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?

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.

 

It's just that you keep mentioning it as if some email plea from them to let their find(s) stand might give you some added validation of your opinion of them.

 

You seem to need to say NO more than once. At least, that's how it appears. I mean, would you allow their find if they asked nicely? From what you have said so far it doesn't seem so. Your profile is pretty to the point, so why should they email you? Are you vexed at being denied a more personal denial of their find than just hitting the delete button? I think so...... :rolleyes:

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. 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. ...
I really wanted to agree with you on this issue, but I just can't. The reason I can't is related to my feelings on the 'record run rules' thread. You see, geocaching is really an individual game that some people like to do in a group. Since it is an individual game, people track all their finds through their individual account. This allows them to go to one place to find all their cache finds. It also serves to keep some caches off their 'left to find' lists.

 

We all know that 'team HCT' found your cache. They logged their find in the book. You should be satisfied with an online log that explains who was part of the team. I personally feel that you are challenging these finds not out of your need to adhere to standards, but as a statement related to the recent 'troubles'.

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. ...
First of all, you are being disingenuous. You may have only heard about the thread yesterday, but you were aware of the controversy because you created it.

 

Regarding Lynn challenging your deletion, why should she grovel for you? Would you allow these players to log their finds if they satisfied your ego?

 

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.
Of course, if they logged online who the members of the group were, you would know. In fact, you would have just as much proof as you would have if you found their names in the logbook because one cacher could certainly have written multiple names (or stuck stickers, stamped the log, etc.)
... 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. ...
Nothing pisses me off more than someone hiding behind their military service as an excuse to be boorish.

 

Here's some advice that I wise man gave me as I embarked into the real world. 'Stow the edge.' Nobody wants to hear about how disciplined you are and how that discipline means that you can make everyone else's life miserable.

 

There's your lousy chips.

 

Greetings sbell111,

 

Point 1: I didn't start this controversy. CCC actions in reaction to my log deletion got this whole this rolling. I think what she did really torqued some folks off. I did know about what she did in reaction to my log deletion until I got an email from a guy in St. Pete, FL. By the way I'm glad I got that email. Don't tell me I'm disingenuous. I don't know you and you haven't met me. All the info you have on the "issue" is all second or third hand.

 

Point 2: I've never asked anyone to grovel. These forums remind me of the kids game "Telephone." You put one message in one end and you never know what's going to come out the other. I believe Mr. Snoogans inserted the grovel word into the discussion.

 

Point 3: If the players want to log their finds, my position hasn't changed. They should establish a team identity and log the joint find that way.

 

Point 4: I never hide behind my military service. In fact I'm very proud of it. Since my retirement, I continue to serve as a Department of the Army civilian. The values and ethics taught to me by my parents, teachers, and in scouting have served me well in life and I don't intend to compromise them now.

 

Point 5: A wise man once told me "Never compromise your standards."

 

Point 6: I can't believe that this is making anyone's life miserable as you stated unless you want it to.

 

I see no need for further discussion on this topic.

 

Have a Great Day!

 

Eagletrek

Link to comment

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?

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.

 

It's just that you keep mentioning it as if some email plea from them to let their find(s) stand might give you some added validation of your opinion of them.

 

You seem to need to say NO more than once. At least, that's how it appears. I mean, would you allow their find if they asked nicely? From what you have said so far it doesn't seem so. Your profile is pretty to the point, so why should they email you? Are you vexed at being denied a more personal denial of their find than just hitting the delete button? I think so...... :rolleyes:

 

Greetings Snoogans,

 

It appears we have a failure to communicate. I see no need for further discussion on this topic.

 

Have a Great Day!

 

Eagletrek

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.

In my part of the country, we often cache in groups--and we usually have one person sign for the entire team with a moniker that we make up just for that day ("the Breakfast Club" for example). I also cache with respected people, by the way. I've even been known to hang out with respectable people while I cache!

 

I have logs in some of my caches from groups that came from TN, OH, NY, IL, WI, GA, that I can think of off the top of my head. They also used a group moniker.

 

One the first big group trip I went out on, we spent 25 minutes logging the first cache, because everyone signed it (17 people). After that, we adopted the group nickname, and with trades and whatnot, we cut our time at each cache down to about 10 minutes a cache. Of course, anyone reaching a milestone or coming back to a favorite cache still signed the log "just because" --but it's a good thing we did it the way we did, as the trip was an all day one-way path trip with 12 caches or so along the way . We were running out of time as it was by the end of the trip. It was getting dark and we weren't supposed to be there after dark. It was also a fairly dangerous place to be after dark--hilly and lots of steep cliffs. If we have logged each person at each cache, it would have been a couple of hours after dark when we got to the last one.

 

Other times it hasn't been as critical that we make good time, but when we have events around here, it isn't unusual for 100 people or more to go out caching in groups after the event --a lot of the area caches get some real traffic those days. I know that as one of the local cache owners, I would rather spend my day hanging out with some new cachers and finding caches that have been placed recently than going around to my caches to make sure the logbooks aren't full.

 

I think a reasonable person would be fine with a group signature in most instances.

Edited by Team Neos
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.

In my part of the country, we often cache in groups--and we usually have one person sign for the entire team with a moniker that we make up just for that day ("the Breakfast Club" for example). I also cache with respected people, by the way. I've even been known to hang out with respectable people while I cache!

 

I have logs in some of my caches from groups that came from TN, OH, NY, IL, WI, GA, that I can think of off the top of my head. They also used a group moniker.

 

One the first big group trip I went out on, we spent 25 minutes logging the first cache, because everyone signed it (17 people). After that, we adopted the group nickname, and with trades and whatnot, we cut our time at each cache down to about 10 minutes a cache. Of course, anyone reaching a milestone or coming back to a favorite cache still signed the log "just because" --but it's a good thing we did it the way we did, as the trip was an all day one-way path trip with 12 caches or so along the way . We were running out of time as it was by the end of the trip. It was getting dark and we weren't supposed to be there after dark. It was also a fairly dangerous place to be after dark--hilly and lots of steep cliffs. If we have logged each person at each cache, it would have been a couple of hours after dark when we got to the last one.

 

Other times it hasn't been as critical that we make good time, but when we have events around here, it isn't unusual for 100 people or more to go out caching in groups after the event --a lot of the area caches get some real traffic those days. I know that as one of the local cache owners, I would rather spend my day hanging out with some new cachers and finding caches that have been placed recently than going around to my caches to make sure the logbooks aren't full.

 

I think a reasonable person would be fine with a group signature in most instances.

That is exactly what we do and why we do it! Glad to here that we are not alone! It's hilarious at times to try to get that many people back in their vehicles to go to the next cache. I think some of them would stand around and chat for two hours if they didn't see the other vehicles taking off! :rolleyes: Anyhow it is a lot of fun! We actually started a local thread to post weekly group caching events. Anyone that wants to come can join us! I have met so many nice people doing that! :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?! :rolleyes: The only time I go out to my own caches is to replace them because they've been muggled. :anicute:

 

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? :unsure: 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 go out to maintin my caches, I read the logs on Gc.com :o

Edited by grey_wolf & momcat
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.

 

 

I want to apologize to eagletrek and the forum. the above statement had nothing to do with the subject. Sorry

Link to comment
Point 1: I didn't start this controversy. CCC actions in reaction to my log deletion got this whole this rolling. I think what she did really torqued some folks off. I did know about what she did in reaction to my log deletion until I got an email from a guy in St. Pete, FL. By the way I'm glad I got that email. Don't tell me I'm disingenuous. I don't know you and you haven't met me. All the info you have on the "issue" is all second or third hand.
Of course you started the controversy. Lynn's logging to her own page was in reaction to your deleting her logs. I've done the same, in the past.
Point 2: I've never asked anyone to grovel. ...
You were surprised that she didn't email you when clearly you were not going to change your position. Therefore, I can only think that you wanted them to grovel.
Point 3: If the players want to log their finds, my position hasn't changed. They should establish a team identity and log the joint find that way.
Respectfully, that position is a stupid one.
Point 4: I never hide behind my military service. In fact I'm very proud of it. Since my retirement, I continue to serve as a Department of the Army civilian. The values and ethics taught to me by my parents, teachers, and in scouting have served me well in life and I don't intend to compromise them now.
You're using your service as a reason to act poorly. In my book, that's hiding behind it.
Point 5: A wise man once told me "Never compromise your standards."
This is not an issue of standards. It's an issue of fairness. You are the one who is being unfair.
Point 6: I can't believe that this is making anyone's life miserable as you stated unless you want it to.
With your attitude, you likely are making all those around you miserable.
I see no need for further discussion on this topic.
Oops! :rolleyes:
Link to comment
I want to apologize to eagletrek and the forum. the above statement had nothing to do with the subject. Sorry

It's not his service that's the problem. Its his inability to understand that he cannot control the actions of others as he once did.

 

Don't you know you've been dismissed BOY? :anibad:

 

That's the word from Austin to Dallas. Self important control freak person. I grew up in the house of a retired Air Force Colonel. I know the mind set well.

 

In response to your other comment. He doesn't make anyone miserable. He just makes them tired.

 

I'd still like to meet him out of curiosity. I'd bet he's a helluva nice guy in person.

 

Hey eagle dude,

 

Big event in Huntsville on Oct. 7. Come on down. We'd be glad to have ya. :)

Link to comment
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.

 

Well, I suppose I'm going to have to make a policy change on our caches.

 

It has come to my attention some circumstances where the veracity of a group "find" was called into question. I don't have enough details to delete any logs, but do have enough to know some logs are false. I irks me to know I have some false logs on our caches and I'm going to have to let them stand. Of course, the loggers could do the honorable thing and clean up their logs.

 

I've seen the failure of group signing under a single name and logging online individually. I'm no longer going to allow it on our caches. Signatures must align one-to-one with the online logs with few exceptions.

 

How this came about? I don't really know, but I suspect one cause might be that one person of the "team" was keeping track of the finds and the others simply logged each cache the record keeper logged--even if they were on a restroom break or continued to search on a previous DNF. In other words, they split up and it resulted in some members logging caches when they weren't with the group when it was found.

Link to comment

Could somebody do me a favor and scribble my nom de plume on the next several of eagletrek's and CR's caches that you find.

 

Thanks in advance. :laughing:

 

Not so fast, I think they're on to something. They've converted me, anyway. From now on, whenever a group finds my cache I will delete their finds, even if they sign the logbook individually. I mean, obviously one of them found the cache while the others were looking elsewhere. It's completely dishonest for them all to claim a find, and since I can't tell which one did, they all lose their smilies.

 

Ditto for stickers, anyone could have put the sticker in the logbook.

 

While we're on this subject, I can't tell one cacher's signature for another, so from now on I'm only allowing finds from cachers who have a signature on file with me prior to the find. And a photo. And before they claim a find they must send me a picture of themselves holding the cache in one hand and the front page of today's Gazette in the other.

 

On second thought, I'm not allowing any finds. I don't want these cheaters touching my cache at all.

Link to comment
I mean, obviously one of them found the cache while the others were looking elsewhere. It's completely dishonest for them all to claim a find, and since I can't tell which one did, they all lose their smilies.

 

I know you're being facetious, but most of the times I've hunted with a group, each individual did find the cache. We will often walk away when we spot the cache, then announce that we're done looking and sit back and watch everyone else search. It becomes great fun when you're one of the 7 or 8 people who have already spotted the cache, harrassing the one or two left searching (and not as much fun when you're the only one out of the group who can't find the darn thing).

Link to comment
It becomes great fun when you're one of the 7 or 8 people who have already spotted the cache, harrassing the one or two left searching.
I love it when this happens! :tired:
(and not as much fun when you're the only one out of the group who can't find the darn thing).
I hate it when this happens! I always blame it on not eating my wheaties that day! :laughing:

 

Another perk of group caching is that you seldom get DNFs (unless a cache is either really not there or the coords are way off)! :lol:

Link to comment

During group caching, if the group is small, I'll sometimes spot the container first and stand back to let others search. In a bigger group, it's usually a race for first to spot.

 

I will sometimes let someone else write my name in the log book for me, but usually, each person in the group signs his or her own name. That's the way it was on my group caching trip last week. There was no rush to scribble a on-the-spot-made-up team name on the log book to scramble to the next cache to save precious time, since none of us were getting paid to do this, and there were no performance bonus involved for quickness as far as I know. :laughing:

 

There's a family of cachers in my area who made up a Team name so they didn't have to sign three names in the log book each time. They shared with the local community what they planned to do, and we said OK, but they still sign all three names in the log book. They'll even revisit the cache another member has already found and sign and log on the correct date! Yet they still were able to get about 2500 finds in a year.

 

Kinda makes me :tired: when people get caught doing shortcuts, since it's still possible to do it right and go for the numbers.

Link to comment
During group caching, if the group is small, I'll sometimes spot the container first and stand back to let others search. In a bigger group, it's usually a race for first to spot.

 

I will sometimes let someone else write my name in the log book for me, but usually, each person in the group signs his or her own name. That's the way it was on my group caching trip last week. There was no rush to scribble a on-the-spot-made-up team name on the log book to scramble to the next cache to save precious time, since none of us were getting paid to do this, and there were no performance bonus involved for quickness as far as I know. :lol:

 

There's a family of cachers in my area who made up a Team name so they didn't have to sign three names in the log book each time. They shared with the local community what they planned to do, and we said OK, but they still sign all three names in the log book. They'll even revisit the cache another member has already found and sign and log on the correct date! Yet they still were able to get about 2500 finds in a year.

 

Kinda makes me :laughing: when people get caught doing shortcuts, since it's still possible to do it right and go for the numbers.

I guess if people are going for some "official award" for numbers then I guess there needs to be some "official rules." I have never seen any award nor any "official" rules for many of things things that people bicker about. But to be honest, I could care less about "the numbers" and would still go caching without them. This whole "numbers" thing is pretty silly when you take a step back and look at it objectively. :tired:

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Wow - I started reading this thread, read a few pages, and then read page 16 (when there was only one entry on page 17) and now 17 is almost full - hot topic today, I guess.

 

This has definitely brought up some stuff I never thought about before, being just under 400 finds and 15 of my own hides. I never thought about a lot of these issues. I guess the game is played differently in different areas. Here's a few things I know:

 

In my area, there is a team that is pretty consistent. They always sign individually, as well as with the name of the team. The "team" has an account on here also, so the finds are logged by the individuals, and by the team. I like the idea of making different accounts - teams vs individuals. This would allow those of us who compare our numbers to know which we are comparing to.

 

There is a cache in this area which is rather difficult to get to. The owner specified that any player who chooses to log it MUST sign the log individually, indicating they got to the final location themselves - they can't sign as a member of a team for everyone there. Seems like a reasonable request to me. If the owner isn't specific, I guess without any general guidelines, either groups or individuals should be ok. But if you're going to be picky about that, you should be clear about it in the cache listing or in the cache itself.

 

Off my soapbox.

Link to comment

I just noticed another version of how to sign logs with a group. Cache Machine.

 

Looks to me like the folks up that way get together once in a while to do some caching and a meal. Sounds like they have fun and have figured out how to avoid some problems with cache owners, too. They've developed a log system that apparently works for them, anyway.

 

According to the cache page:

If it's a micro cache, one "Everett Cache Machine" log entry should suffice for the group. We tend to fill up log books too quickly, and our stickers tend to make micro log books hard to re-stash. For normal-sized caches, or even large micros, everyone should sign in.

Link to comment
But if you're going to be picky about that, you should be clear about it in the cache listing or in the cache itself.

 

I'm not so sure.

 

While it is common practice* in some areas to log with impromptu team names, it's not everywhere. There shouldn't be a need to have to have a long list of common practices the cache owner expects folks to follow on the cache page. I think the onus is on the individual or group to make sure their out-of-the-box thinking is acceptable to the cache owner.

 

I wonder how many cache owners in these areas don't appreciate some of these "common practices" but have been cowed into accepting them.

Link to comment

As I reread this thread, I can't help but think about 'the old days'. It wasn't abnormal to read a log book and find several people signing their real names instead of their pseudonym. A number of people posting in this thread would apparently delete these 'finds' because the person didn't create a geocaching account with their real name.

 

Does anyone else think this over-policing of the log book is silly? If I can take JumboJim's word that he is really James T. Smith, can't I trust a team to tell me who was on it?

Link to comment

I'm also reminded of those people who either find a cache as a muggle and sign the log or find one with a family member or friend prior to creating their online handle.

 

Should these people have to return to your cache at a later date to make the find 'official', or do you think one trip to that pile of sticks is enough?

Link to comment

I'm also reminded of those people who either find a cache as a muggle and sign the log or find one with a family member or friend prior to creating their online handle.

 

Should these people have to return to your cache at a later date to make the find 'official', or do you think one trip to that pile of sticks is enough?

I actually wondered about this, since I found a few caches with my sister in law before creating an account, and my father-in-law found 50-100 caches with her before creating his own account. I wasn't sure what to do, so I have only logged the ones I had a chance to go back to. I think jaspop has simply done the same, so it looks like he has almost no finds, when I think he's been to as many caches as I have. (he's also fairly bad about remembering to log his caches online)

 

Personally, I know of 2 muggles who've found one of my caches (separately, on two different caches), logged it with their name, then set up geocaching accounts and logged it online that way. I would never have thought to question whether or not they found it, just because the name changed. The basic content of the logs (online and in the book) stayed the same.

 

edit for clarity

Edited by Beffums
Link to comment

I actually wondered about this, since I found a few caches with my sister in law before creating an account, and my father-in-law found 50-100 caches with her before creating his own account. I wasn't sure what to do, so I have only logged the ones I had a chance to go back to. I think jaspop has simply done the same, so it looks like he has almost no finds, when I think he's been to as many caches as I have. (he's also fairly bad about remembering to log his caches online)

 

Personally, I know of 2 muggles who've found one of my caches (separately, on two different caches), logged it with their name, then set up geocaching accounts and logged it online that way. I would never have thought to question whether or not they found it, just because the name changed. The basic content of the logs (online and in the book) stayed the same.

It is generally accepted to go back and log those that you found prior to becoming a member.

 

If you follow their logic to its conclusion, cache owners would delete all your finds if you changed your profile name.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
If you follow their logic to its conclusion, cache owners would delete all your finds if you changed your profile name.

 

I'm starting to think I need to un-ignore you simply to keep up with your logic--or actually, lack thereof.

 

Of the few posts I've looked at you certainly have a habit of extending what folks say beyond what they mean. Case in point, I suppose you conveniently skipped over the "with few exceptions" part of my post.

 

As for can I trust who is on a team? Well, apparently not as I have found out and admitted to by one of the team members.

 

Yes, a cache owner can certainly differentiate between smilie hounds splitting up to find caches and a muggle-turned-cacher or teams that logged together and then splitting up--heck even if someone changes their name.

Link to comment
...Yes, a cache owner can certainly differentiate between smilie hounds splitting up to find caches and a muggle-turned-cacher or teams that logged together and then splitting up--heck even if someone changes their name.

Really, how?

 

'splain to me how are the following two scenarios different from a cache maintenance standpoint.

 

1) I sign the logbook 'sbell111' and log online 'found with my friend, Jim', who later logs his find online as 'JumboJim.

2) We sign the logbook 'Team sbell111' and log online 'JumboJim and I found this one as Team sbell111'.

 

The argument for deleting finds is that each individual cacher must sign the logbook with their geocaching handle. In my examples, in this post and the others, you cannot match the log sigs to the online ones. Using the advice of the posters to this thread, all of these online logs should be deleted.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
...Yes, a cache owner can certainly differentiate between smilie hounds splitting up to find caches and a muggle-turned-cacher or teams that logged together and then splitting up--heck even if someone changes their name.

Really, how?

 

'splain to me how are the following two scenarios different from a cache maintenance standpoint.

 

1) I sign the logbook 'sbell111' and log online 'found with my friend, Jim', who later logs his find online as 'JumboJim.

2) We sign the logbook 'Team sbell111' and log online 'JumboJim and I found this one as Team sbell111'.

 

The argument for deleting finds is that each individual cacher must sign the logbook with their geocaching handle. In my examples, in this post and the others, you cannot match the log sigs to the online ones. Using the advice of the posters to this thread, all of these online logs should be deleted.

 

You didn't provide enough information to give an accurate scenario. Did your friend Jim have an account when he was with you? How long had he been caching? Has he logged online under his own account before? You know, stuff like what actually comes up in the real world. Putting a little thought into it really helps.

Link to comment
You didn't provide enough information to give an accurate scenario. Did your friend Jim have an account when he was with you? How long had he been caching? Has he logged online under his own account before? You know, stuff like what actually comes up in the real world. Putting a little thought into it really helps.
In the first scenario, he did not have his own account. In the second, he did. (Not that it should matter, nor should your pathetic insults.)
Link to comment

I actually wondered about this, since I found a few caches with my sister in law before creating an account, and my father-in-law found 50-100 caches with her before creating his own account. I wasn't sure what to do, so I have only logged the ones I had a chance to go back to. I think jaspop has simply done the same, so it looks like he has almost no finds, when I think he's been to as many caches as I have. (he's also fairly bad about remembering to log his caches online)

 

Personally, I know of 2 muggles who've found one of my caches (separately, on two different caches), logged it with their name, then set up geocaching accounts and logged it online that way. I would never have thought to question whether or not they found it, just because the name changed. The basic content of the logs (online and in the book) stayed the same.

It is generally accepted to go back and log those that you found prior to becoming a member.

 

If you follow their logic to its conclusion, cache owners would delete all your finds if you changed your profile name.

 

This sounds reasonable - several people have gone out caching with me, and have not had accounts yet - Why create an account if you don't know if you're going to like this game or not.. and yes, I know people will respond with "How could you not like it?" - haha - you never know.

Link to comment

Ugh :blink: here we go again...

 

Haha - no - I'm just saying that I would consider it reasonable to log finds when they do create the account, even if they went before they had one. That seems like common sense. Now, obviously, someone who decides they like it should probably create the account after the first or second trip with someone else - longer than that, it seems a little wierd (unless they don't have internet access or something).

Link to comment
Haha - no - I'm just saying that I would consider it reasonable to log finds when they do create the account, even if they went before they had one. That seems like common sense. Now, obviously, someone who decides they like it should probably create the account after the first or second trip with someone else - longer than that, it seems a little wierd (unless they don't have internet access or something).
My wife found her first one with me over 5 years ago. She's joined me on several hunts since, but hasn't created an account because she thinks the game is stupid. One day, she might decide to cache more with me (as a relationship-building exercise, if nothing else). At that time, she may create an account and log her old finds. I would expect the cache owners to allow this.

 

On a slightly different, but related topic, do cache owners delete finds made by these cachers?

Link to comment
Haha - no - I'm just saying that I would consider it reasonable to log finds when they do create the account, even if they went before they had one. That seems like common sense. Now, obviously, someone who decides they like it should probably create the account after the first or second trip with someone else - longer than that, it seems a little wierd (unless they don't have internet access or something).
My wife found her first one with me over 5 years ago. She's joined me on several hunts since, but hasn't created an account because she thinks the game is stupid. One day, she might decide to cache more with me (as a relationship-building exercise, if nothing else). At that time, she may create an account and log her old finds. I would expect the cache owners to allow this.

 

On a slightly different, but related topic, do cache owners delete finds made by these cachers?

Like I said before as long as you can "prove" you found the cache with a log that is the point. I know plenty of people that have signed with their names and later come up with a handle. That's OK because that individual did find that cache! Also as someone stated before, if you find a micro with 15 people it is perfectly OK to sign as a group to save the logbook and then to say who was in the group when you log online. You have 14 witnesses that can "prove" that you found it in that case.

Link to comment
You didn't provide enough information to give an accurate scenario. Did your friend Jim have an account when he was with you? How long had he been caching? Has he logged online under his own account before? You know, stuff like what actually comes up in the real world. Putting a little thought into it really helps.
In the first scenario, he did not have his own account. In the second, he did. (Not that it should matter, nor should your pathetic insults.)

 

First, you take it as an insult where none was intended, pathetic or otherwise, unless you call me stating the obvious an insult. But, that's neither here nor there.

 

Second, it does really matter and you've pretty much nailed the difference.

Link to comment
You didn't provide enough information to give an accurate scenario. Did your friend Jim have an account when he was with you? How long had he been caching? Has he logged online under his own account before? You know, stuff like what actually comes up in the real world. Putting a little thought into it really helps.
In the first scenario, he did not have his own account. In the second, he did. (Not that it should matter, nor should your pathetic insults.)
First, you take it as an insult where none was intended, pathetic or otherwise, unless you call me stating the obvious an insult. But, that's neither here nor there.

 

Second, it does really matter and you've pretty much nailed the difference.

In that case, you've put your normal amount of thought into side-stepping the issue.

 

Bravo.

Link to comment
Also as someone stated before, if you find a micro with 15 people it is perfectly OK * to sign as a group to save the logbook and then to say who was in the group when you log online. You have 14 witnesses that can "prove" that you found it in that case.

 

* "...with some cache owners..." You forgot something. I've already mentioned elsewhere I don't mind changing out a log a little earlier than normal in order to get everyone to sign.

 

Also, I've run across group finds where the "team" all claimed the find, but one team member admitted to me they weren't all there. Oops! So much for vouching for each other.

Link to comment
In that case, you've put your normal amount of thought into side-stepping the issue.

 

Side-stepping what? You gave two examples, I asked for some clarification, you provided, and I answered that your clarification was the difference. Do I have to spell it out for you? Oh, wait. I suppose I do so you can pick at nits.

Link to comment
... Also, I've run across group finds where the "team" all claimed the find, but one team member admitted to me they weren't all there. Oops! So much for vouching for each other.
Each of us have to decide how much we trust the other. Do we trust that a cacher will not scribble the name of someone else in the log? Do we trust a cacher when he logs online that he found it with Jim Smith? Do we trust you when you claim that 'somebody' told you that they didn't find the cache?

 

These are all questions that we must answer for ourselves to play the game. (For me, the answers are yes, yes, no.)

Link to comment
Each of us have to decide how much we trust the other.

 

This is very well true. If you want to accept impromptu team names, then fine, but don't expect or demand that I, or everyone else, do the same.

 

But therein is the rub. Knowing that some folks will not accept a impromptu team name and some do, the onus is on said team to determine which is which. Just like cache machines will only machine those caches that allow it and leave the others alone. So, what's a group to do? Right now, with our cachers, if established cachers sign under an group name and log online individually those logs will be deleted.

Link to comment

.. . .. Right now, with our cachers, if established cachers sign under an group name and log online individually those logs will be deleted.

 

Because of Your Preferences on how logging Should be Done (it is, afterall Your Cache)

 

yawn.

I'm still waiting for you to walk me through the logic of your decision and differentiate it from the other examples given, but I guess it will never happen.

 

:blink:

Link to comment

Perhaps, if you have logging restrictions or are particularly legalistic about who can, who must and how you want it signed you would be so kind as to post such on the cache page.

 

That's not trying to shift responsibility to the owner, but is a middle-ground. My personal experience is that most owners don't care how their cache is logged, so we assume that will be true when we set out for a cache run.

 

In the absence of such a note those who play in groups and have one person sign will assume it's acceptable, as have been the thousands of others we've done that way.

 

A note that says "Everyone must sign the paper log or don't log it online" gives us a heads-up as to your desires.

 

We can then either skip your caches or sign 'em the way you want.

 

Seems like that would take the angst out of the issue.

 

Ed

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