Jump to content

The New Numbers Game


drat19
Followers 13

Recommended Posts

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.

Not only that, but specify to sign the log with your geocaching handle, rather than your team name or real name.

 

Wow. I'm agreeing with TAR. :)

Edited by sbell111
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

 

'Bama, I don't think that will solve the issue, as I don't think he applies this policy evenly. I suspect he's selective about who he trusts and who he doesn't, just as I suspect that the deleted find in Eagletrek's case had more to do with who was involved than how they signed the log.

Edited by CheshireFrog
Link to comment
Seems like that would take the angst out of the issue. Ed

If people would lighten up that would take the angst out the issue! :) Anyhow, I personally use the honor system on my caches. I never do audits or delete logs. That seems a little anal retentive to me.... Either you have honor or you don't. That is your choice! :rolleyes:

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
'Bama, I don't think that will solve the issue, as I don't think he applies this policy evenly. I suspect he's selective about who he trusts and who he doesn't, just as I suspect that the deleted find in Eagletrek's case had more to do with who was involved than how they signed the log.

Agreed. :rolleyes:

If people would lighten up that would take the angst out the issue! :rolleyes: Anyhow, I personally use the honor system on my caches. I never do audits or delete logs. That seems a little anal retentive to me.... Either you have honor or you don't. That is your choice! :)

Bingo. <_<

Link to comment

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.

 

You don't need a walking through. You're looking for nits to pick. I mean you're the one that gave me the difference between the two, I'd have thought you would have seen the difference.

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

 

I thought we weren't speaking to each other?

 

But, considering you brought it up I suppose you would expect "If you're going to trade please trade evenly. Please put the cache back where you found it. Don't let muggles see you. Protect the cache if it's pouring down rain. Etc. Etc. Etc." I mean, after all, that is a middle ground, right?

 

Then again, you've done it thousands of times that automatically makes it okay. Maybe, it's the way I've done it and that makes it okay part that is the problem.

Link to comment

Clearly, you see the flaw in your logic so are unwilling to delve deeper into the issue. I understand your dilemna and will not push you further on this subject.

 

~Sigh~ Fine.

 

Your first scenario involves someone who has not yet established their own online history. They may cache with others, but don't or haven't logged online. There's little reason to ensure their name is in the logbook as there is no reason for the cache owner to verify the find.

 

You're second scenario involves an established cacher who has their own online history. By them themselves signing the log they've established they were there. It's easier if or when the cache owner ever audits the log. There is no need for any later angst when I'm asking why your name is not in the logbook though I see that you've logged online.

 

Makes sense?

 

As for the notion to not auditing logbooks, that's your prerogative. Me, I'm going to keep mine straight. Otherwise, if anyone can log online whether or not they actually found the cache, then what's the point of keeping track at all?

 

As for applying the policy evenly, who I can trust and who I can't is taken out completely by no one signing under impromptu team names. They all are treated the same.

Link to comment
Seems like that would take the angst out of the issue. Ed

If people would lighten up that would take the angst out the issue! :rolleyes: Anyhow, I personally use the honor system on my caches. I never do audits or delete logs. That seems a little anal retentive to me.... Either you have honor or you don't. That is your choice! :)

Well, owners shouldn't make a special trip just to audit cache logs, but maintenance visits (and reading the log book) are cache owner's responsibility. There are visitors who still write interesting stuff just on the log book, and I'd hate to insult them by completely ignoring them just because I'm too anal retentive about being anal retentive. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
I thought we weren't speaking to each other?

 

But, considering you brought it up I suppose you would expect "If you're going to trade please trade evenly. Please put the cache back where you found it. Don't let muggles see you. Protect the cache if it's pouring down rain. Etc. Etc. Etc." I mean, after all, that is a middle ground, right?

 

Then again, you've done it thousands of times that automatically makes it okay. Maybe, it's the way I've done it and that makes it okay part that is the problem.

Perhaps you could try to stay on-topic. It would make it easier for those who are trying to read the thread.

Link to comment
Well, owners shouldn't make a special trip just to audit cache logs, but maintenance visits (and reading the log book) are cache owner's responsibility. There are visitors who still write interesting stuff just on the log book, and I'd hate to insult them by completely ignoring them just because I'm too anal retentive about being anal retentive. :)
I totally support a cache owners responsibility to maintain the logs. I just disagree with the establishment of hoops for people to leap through that is being embraced by CR.

 

If you post in the online log that CR and VegasCacheHounds were with you when you made the find and that you signed the logbook as Team BCV, that's good enough for me. If I later learn that you fibbed, I'll delete your log.

 

This is no different than if I read check the log book and find three names, but later find out that one person signed for two others, who were not present.

 

At some point, we have to be able to trust what others tell us. If we find out later that somebody was untruthful, we can take action at that time.

 

Life is too short for this kind of drama to be added to a simple game.

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.

 

Yes, but if a cache page doesn't have a bunch of disclaimers about how stringent a hider might feel, then it gives an implicit approval for the opposite to be true....and then people start signing the outside of the container.

 

Do hiders need to put a "do not sign our container" disclaimer on all of their pages to help keep the angst down? I believe common sense and a bit of community trust has gotten us this far without the wheels falling off and I'm sure it'll do us fine down the road. If people want to delete a log, maybe they should contact the log writer first. If they don't get a sense of trust from the point of contact (or any response at all), then they should delete the log. If they delete a finder's log, then the opposite is also true. The finder should contact the hider and ask for clarification and if it's final that they can't log it, then move on and find one of the other billion caches out there.

Link to comment
I wholeheartedly agree. I wonder, though, why folks would support practices that open the door to such angst that would make less fun in the long run.

Perhaps this is the central point on which we disagree. In thread after thread, you want to tweak the game to avoid any possible future problem, where I prefer to handle real problems.

Link to comment
... I believe common sense and a bit of community trust has gotten us this far without the wheels falling off and I'm sure it'll do us fine down the road. If people want to delete a log, maybe they should contact the log writer first. If they don't get a sense of trust from the point of contact (or any response at all), then they should delete the log. If they delete a finder's log, then the opposite is also true. The finder should contact the hider and ask for clarification and if it's final that they can't log it, then move on and find one of the other billion caches out there.

I completely agree with you. If I audit the paper log and I find that it doesn't match up, all I have to do is shoot an email to the cachers in question to find out what happened.

  • If they tell me that they found it with ju66l3r before creating their own persona, its all good.
  • If they signed the paper log with their real name instead of their geocaching handle, whether or not they had already created their player account, its all good.
  • If they originally found the cache and logged using a team account and now want to break their individual finds out, its all good.
  • If they tell me that they changed their handle since finding it and the old handle is documented on the log, its all good.
  • If I get an email back stating that the missing signature is the dog's (or baby's) account, its all good.
  • If the online log states that CacherA, CacherB, and SuperCacher signed the log as Team XYZ, its all good.
  • If the response feels bogus, delete the log.
  • If the cacher doesn't respond, delete the log.

Edited by sbell111
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

 

I thought we weren't speaking to each other?

 

But, considering you brought it up I suppose you would expect "If you're going to trade please trade evenly. Please put the cache back where you found it. Don't let muggles see you. Protect the cache if it's pouring down rain. Etc. Etc. Etc." I mean, after all, that is a middle ground, right?

 

Then again, you've done it thousands of times that automatically makes it okay. Maybe, it's the way I've done it and that makes it okay part that is the problem.

 

I suppose not speaking to one another is a bit silly, and Jeremy did choose to fire me, and now he's closed a thread I had hoped would spark some change, so the message to me is 'you gotta go along to get along'.

 

Since I choose to communicate here I figured I'd give that a try.

 

The point I was trying to make is that cache logging requirements are not evently agreed upon.

 

Unfortunately, neither are the other things you mention, as caches do wander from their original location, very few adhere to 'trade up or trade even' (to the point where I am surprised to ever see it happen), caches are left exposed, are opened and signed in the rain, are reavealed to muggles and so forth.

 

I believe that not doing or allowing those things to happen is basic courtesty and cache-owner respect that all of us should follow.

 

Enforcing the rules to a T on logging caches is a bit different issue. Yes, the game basics, the 'rules' of geocaching if you will, say find the cache, sign the log.

 

Selective enforcement of that throughout the history of the game however has created personal and regional differences that leave the issue open to interpretation.

 

I can say that because I have seen thousands of caches, and been with people who collectively have found many thousands more, and know of no one, not one, who has had an online log deleted for logging it wrong... about one third of my finds were with others where I didn't personally sign the log, and the same is true for dozens I have cached with.

 

This sets a precedence and reasonable expectation, much like 'the police will allow you 5mph over the limit on the Interstate' is still a violation of law but a nationally recognized precedent. I have gotten a ticket for two miles over, but have passed hundreds of cops at five over, so it is my reasonable expectation that I will be allowed that.

 

In my experience team names, group names, dog's names, kids names... whoever was there at the time, can be logged and trust of the owner in geocachers as a whole is sufficient proof of honesty.

 

Sure, there are folks who will cheat, just as there are criminals in society. Almost without question there is a liar and/or a thief living in your immediate neighborhood - maybe even your house! Do you watch all the folks around you, assume they are bad and treat them as such? I bet not, so why do it here?

 

All that said, I still think a cache description note warning cachers of your desires will work better than trying to change the way many others already play the game

Link to comment
Seems like that would take the angst out of the issue. Ed

If people would lighten up that would take the angst out the issue! :) Anyhow, I personally use the honor system on my caches. I never do audits or delete logs. That seems a little anal retentive to me.... Either you have honor or you don't. That is your choice! :rolleyes:

Well, owners shouldn't make a special trip just to audit cache logs, but maintenance visits (and reading the log book) are cache owner's responsibility.

 

I agree, but apparently owners will make special trips to check the log if there are particular cachers they want to disallow finds to.

Link to comment
Well, owners shouldn't make a special trip just to audit cache logs, but maintenance visits (and reading the log book) are cache owner's responsibility. There are visitors who still write interesting stuff just on the log book, and I'd hate to insult them by completely ignoring them just because I'm too anal retentive about being anal retentive. :)
I totally support a cache owners responsibility to maintain the logs. I just disagree with the establishment of hoops for people to leap through that is being embraced by CR.

 

If you post in the online log that CR and VegasCacheHounds were with you when you made the find and that you signed the logbook as Team BCV, that's good enough for me. If I later learn that you fibbed, I'll delete your log.

 

This is no different than if I read check the log book and find three names, but later find out that one person signed for two others, who were not present.

 

At some point, we have to be able to trust what others tell us. If we find out later that somebody was untruthful, we can take action at that time.

 

Life is too short for this kind of drama to be added to a simple game.

 

Woohoo! I'm part of a team! Time to get a Sharpie! :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I wholeheartedly agree. I wonder, though, why folks would support practices that open the door to such angst that would make less fun in the long run.

 

I personally dont look for problems where none exist- or ponder what bad bad thing might be just around each and every turn. I'd go nuts if I were to do that. To me, the Angst is created by assuming the worst in every situation and of every person.

 

I Could blow a tire on my way home, so I better just walk. Someone might run that green light I have, so I just better Stop at Every intersection, regardless of the color of the light(regardless of what it will do to traffic). I could be struck by lightening, so if there is even 1 cloud in the sky, Im staying indoors.

Cachers Might be dishonest, so I better run out and check each and every log to be sure it matches my online record. Dont want records not matching

And so on.

Link to comment

I personally dont look for problems where none exist...

 

But apparently it does. This is what prompted my policy change.

 

Listen, should I just let it slide? "Oh, it's okay that you didn't find the cache. You go ahead and I'll let you keep the log." We don't allow it for folks who didn't sign the log, why should we give these folks a pass? Wasn't there a big brouhaha about teams splitting up recently at GW4? This is the same thing.

 

Just because some folks don't trade kindly, don't put the cache back properly, etc, doesn't mean that it is condoned. Same with this.

 

It's not that hard for everyone in the group to sign the log. If you know a cache owner will allow it, fine, but don't assume everyone will allow it.

Link to comment
If you know a cache owner will allow it, fine, but don't assume everyone will allow it.

If there's an obvious flagrant foul then OK, but if you are deleting logs of people that actually "found" your cache then that's BS. "It is better to let nine guilty men free than to convict one innocent man."

Link to comment
If you know a cache owner will allow it, fine, but don't assume everyone will allow it.

If there's an obvious flagrant foul then OK, but if you are deleting logs of people that actually "found" your cache then that's BS. "It is better to let nine guilty men free than to convict one innocent man."

 

AMEN!

Link to comment

When you think about it, this has really has been a pretty remarkable discussion. Almost 900 posts (about half as many as the immortal two-year-old Avatar Creation Requests thread) by more than 100 people, covering a very wide range of highly emotional and contentious topics.

 

The thread has wandered, but hasn't melted down. Most importantly, I think I've actually learned a few things from this one.

Link to comment

....

The thread has wandered, but hasn't melted down. Most importantly, I think I've actually learned a few things from this one.

 

Yeah, like bad things happen to people that take things toooo seriously.

 

Life is short and the journey long- enjoy!

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.

 

Yes, but if a cache page doesn't have a bunch of disclaimers about how stringent a hider might feel, then it gives an implicit approval for the opposite to be true....and then people start signing the outside of the container.

 

Do hiders need to put a "do not sign our container" disclaimer on all of their pages to help keep the angst down? I believe common sense and a bit of community trust has gotten us this far without the wheels falling off and I'm sure it'll do us fine down the road. If people want to delete a log, maybe they should contact the log writer first. If they don't get a sense of trust from the point of contact (or any response at all), then they should delete the log. If they delete a finder's log, then the opposite is also true. The finder should contact the hider and ask for clarification and if it's final that they can't log it, then move on and find one of the other billion caches out there.

 

When you place some caches, you might try keepin track of each log that is posted. If it doesn't sound bogus, i just maintain my caches.

Link to comment
If you know a cache owner will allow it, fine, but don't assume everyone will allow it.

If there's an obvious flagrant foul then OK, but if you are deleting logs of people that actually "found" your cache then that's BS. "It is better to let nine guilty men free than to convict one innocent man."

 

This is very true. Regardless of the attempts of others trying to turn me into "The Jack-booted Cache Police" I'm actually fairly laid back. How many logs do you suppose I've deleted? All I'm saying is each party in the group sign the log. I mean you'd have to sign the log if you were by yourself, right? From a cache owner's point of view what's the difference in 15 people finding it and signing the log at once versus 15 people finding it and signing the log at different times of the same day?

Link to comment
If you know a cache owner will allow it, fine, but don't assume everyone will allow it.

If there's an obvious flagrant foul then OK, but if you are deleting logs of people that actually "found" your cache then that's BS. "It is better to let nine guilty men free than to convict one innocent man."

 

This is very true. Regardless of the attempts of others trying to turn me into "The Jack-booted Cache Police" I'm actually fairly laid back. How many logs do you suppose I've deleted? All I'm saying is each party in the group sign the log. I mean you'd have to sign the log if you were by yourself, right? From a cache owner's point of view what's the difference in 15 people finding it and signing the log at once versus 15 people finding it and signing the log at different times of the same day?

There you go sidestepping the point again. TrailGators point, I believe, was that if they sign the log as a group and they tell you clearly who was in the group, there is no point in deleting the logs of people who clearly found your cache.

 

It will only set you (and your caches) up for some seriously bad karma.

Link to comment

There you go sidestepping the point again. TrailGators point, I believe, was that if they sign the log as a group and they tell you clearly who was in the group, there is no point in deleting the logs of people who clearly found your cache.

 

Wrong.

 

I've clearly stated why I will no longer allow that practice and why. I was told who was in the group and they lied. What part of that don't you get?

 

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

 

Isn't that how it goes? Hey, don't blame me for not being able to trust folks who log this way. I'm not the one who lied.

Link to comment
Wrong.

 

I've clearly stated why I will no longer allow that practice and why. I was told who was in the group and they lied. What part of that don't you get?

 

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

 

Isn't that how it goes? Hey, don't blame me for not being able to trust folks who log this way. I'm not the one who lied.

So you don't see that you're throwing the baby out with the bath water?

 

You will be deleting logs of people who never 'fooled you once'. People who, in fact, were completely honest with you.

Link to comment
It will only set you (and your caches) up for some seriously bad karma.

 

Oh, and "bad karma" goes both ways.

 

Hmmmm,

 

Someone, in Houston, is messing with my caches to the point where I am pretty sure that I'm done hiding caches here and there is a new local user called "sn00gans" (lower case using 0's) that the big dogs are watching.

 

With the help of friends on local websites, I'm pretty sure that I know who it is although I don't get their malfunction. I feel completely smug in finding them pathetic and sad. They can destroy all the caches they want. It won't harm me one bit and I'll still be nice as can be to them at events.

 

I would never even consider dropping to their level and WHAT IF I'm wrong? Until someone is caught red handed enforcing bad Karma or bragging about it, it could really be anyone.

 

I refuse to tax one brain cell being worried about it or to ever lift a finger to do anything in return.

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.

 

Let's see. You ignore him and then you just end up reading (and replying to!) his posts anyway?

 

And you have the stones to talk about lack of logic. :huh:

Link to comment
The famous Found It = Didn't Find It thread is only 15 pages - which goes to show that there are more opinions about bogus logs than there are actual examples of bogus logs

 

I'm sure that is just a small sample.

 

"Briansnat is right on!" :huh: Get with the program, people and post those examples of Found It = Didn't Find It over here

Link to comment

There you go sidestepping the point again. TrailGators point, I believe, was that if they sign the log as a group and they tell you clearly who was in the group, there is no point in deleting the logs of people who clearly found your cache.

 

Wrong.

 

I've clearly stated why I will no longer allow that practice and why. I was told who was in the group and they lied. What part of that don't you get?

 

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

 

Isn't that how it goes? Hey, don't blame me for not being able to trust folks who log this way. I'm not the one who lied.

If people (like you) are going to insist on doing this then it's only fair to warn the innocent by putting a clear note on your cache page that says logging as a group will result in deletion of the individual's log. Keep in mind that 99% of those people (that sometimes sign as a group) are honest fun loving people that would never even think of trying to get a free smiley. :P How much is one of those worth by the way? :huh:

Link to comment

Let's see. You ignore him and then you just end up reading (and replying to!) his posts anyway?

 

And you have the stones to talk about lack of logic. :huh:

 

Yeah, well, here's the thing. I post and then a few minutes later he posts. Was he replying to my post? I don't know until I click on the link to show his post. Guess what, he was. I got to thinking about that and went to look at a few other instances of the same. There were others. So, I figure I'll keep him from having a one-sided argument.

 

Same thing with some others. They're just ankle biters, but still...

Link to comment
Let's see. You ignore him and then you just end up reading (and replying to!) his posts anyway?

 

And you have the stones to talk about lack of logic. :huh:

 

Yeah, well, here's the thing. I post and then a few minutes later he posts. Was he replying to my post? I don't know until I click on the link to show his post. Guess what, he was. I got to thinking about that and went to look at a few other instances of the same. There were others. So, I figure I'll keep him from having a one-sided argument.

 

Same thing with some others. They're just ankle biters, but still...

Based on that post, and others, I can only assume that CR is the type of person who latches on to an idea and refuses to let it go, even when it is so completely illogical. The sad part is that we all try so hard to reason with him and he just refuses to admit that he's off base.

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