Jump to content

The New Numbers Game


drat19
Followers 13

Recommended Posts

Just out of curiosity, why is it such an ordeal to sign a log book? I find that putting my pen (or pencil) to the paper is a big part of the sport. Its the beer after a softball game, the high five after a touchdown, the dessert after the meal, the ***inappropriate sexual reference deleted*** on your wedding night. Signing the log is the capstone of the hunt. Why is doing so such a problem for some people?

 

Sure, "play your own game". I guess we can dance the juba upon spotting the cache, or just tap it with a stick, then log it online, but I just don't see the point. What's so freakin' hard about signing a logbook?

Link to comment

Just out of curiosity, why is it such an ordeal to sign a log book? I find that putting my pen (or pencil) to the paper is a big part of the sport. Its the beer after a softball game, the high five after a touchdown, the dessert after the meal, the ***inappropriate sexual reference deleted*** on your wedding night. Signing the log is the capstone of the hunt. Why is doing so such a problem for some people?

 

Sure, "play your own game". I guess we can dance the juba upon spotting the cache, or just tap it with a stick, then log it online, but I just don't see the point. What's so freakin' hard about signing a logbook?

 

Hey! I like the juba idea! :D

Link to comment

We are thinking of letting people log each slice of pizza they eat at the next event. :anicute:

A beer would be good for two smileys! :anicute::anicute:

Go for it. It wouldn't bother me if you did. Other folks around here might have issue with it though.

 

Or is that your counter point? I say that it doesn't bother me, you say yes it does, I say no it doesn't, and you say that you're going to do it to try and prove a point? Okay, I'll play along. Well, if I attended, I wouldn't log a find for each slice or for the beer. I'd just log once. But I wouldn't think badly of those that did log the extra times. In fact, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Link to comment

I didn't say it was okay. I only said it was okay with me. I agree that it's something that isn't okay with other people (you for example) but nobody should try and tell me that I shouldn't think it's okay just because of whatever.

 

In this case,, it's not "because of whatever".

I know what you are saying and i agree that the majority of this game can and should be played however each individual wants. Certainly not trying to tell you or anyone else my opinions on how to play, i'm just stating the black and white.

 

A person either finds the cache or they don't. There is no inbetween. In your example above, the person obviously didn't find the cache. Just curious, why would you allow the find claim?

Because if they want to inflate their numbers it doesn't bother me at all. If someone had 1,000 legitimate finds more than me, 1,000 fake finds more than me, or 10 finds less than me, it doesn't make a difference to ME at all. The fakers might be doing it to try and look like better cachers, but I have a feeling they're doing it mostly because it's how the game is fun for them. So go for it. Have fun.

 

Your other example, an Event cache logged as "attended" more than once. This may not bother you at all and thats all fine and dandy however, it still comes down to false logging. The person attended the event,,, one time! This is not my opinion, it's a fact that can't be argued any other way.

Fair enough. But I wasn't trying to argue that point. Never once did I say, "But they did attend 100 times". What I said was, it wouldn't bother me. And that's definitely my opinion... AND a fact that can't be argued any other way.

Link to comment
Just out of curiosity, why is it such an ordeal to sign a log book? I find that putting my pen (or pencil) to the paper is a big part of the sport. Its the beer after a softball game, the high five after a touchdown, the dessert after the meal, the ***inappropriate sexual reference deleted*** on your wedding night. Signing the log is the capstone of the hunt. Why is doing so such a problem for some people?

 

Sure, "play your own game". I guess we can dance the juba upon spotting the cache, or just tap it with a stick, then log it online, but I just don't see the point. What's so freakin' hard about signing a logbook?

Right on target, BrianSnat! Sort of. There are few issues here.

 

The first is 'What constitutes 'signing the log'. A number of people who cache in groups have stated that it is normal for them to sign a group name in the book. One even posted that they had been asked to do this, on occasion. If the logbook contains the group sig, is it wrong to take the word of the cachers as to who was in the group? I don't think so because, I believe, that it is important to retain an amount of trust in my fellow cachers. If I later learn that I was lied to, I'll delete logs and feel really good about myself.

 

The second is whether any individual cacher can create a rule that only individual sigs are acceptable. Of course they can, in my opinion. However, they should include the requirement in the cache description and they should clarify the grey areas that I brought up a page or two back in this thread.

Link to comment
I don't know about ET, but CR has a long history of telling people that they should cache the way that he does because he does it better, or knows better.

I am not familiar with his holier than thou history, so I will have to trust you that he can get out of hand on occasion.

You are not familiar with the history because it does not exist. Mr. Mushtang is, unfortunately, being mendacious here. While I often disagree with CR, he does not spend a lot of time trying to force his values on others.

 

My advice? Stay out of this thread. It's not worth the effort.

Now it's Mr. Fizzy that's prevaricating here. The history most certainly does exist. Several folks on the forums will agree, so it's not just me. In fact, I can give you quotes of his to back up my claim. I'm not trying to say CR does it with every post, just that he has a pattern. As you stated Hokers, it's just something that gets out of hand on occasion.

 

As long as we're giving advice I'd say stay in this thread and have fun. You'll soon get a feeling for who thinks they know better than others and who is having fun. Right Fizzy?

Link to comment
Just out of curiosity, why is it such an ordeal to sign a log book? I find that putting my pen (or pencil) to the paper is a big part of the sport. Its the beer after a softball game, the high five after a touchdown, the dessert after the meal, the ***inappropriate sexual reference deleted*** on your wedding night. Signing the log is the capstone of the hunt. Why is doing so such a problem for some people?

 

Sure, "play your own game". I guess we can dance the juba upon spotting the cache, or just tap it with a stick, then log it online, but I just don't see the point. What's so freakin' hard about signing a logbook?

Right on target, BrianSnat! Sort of. There are few issues here.

 

The first is 'What constitutes 'signing the log'. A number of people who cache in groups have stated that it is normal for them to sign a group name in the book. One even posted that they had been asked to do this, on occasion. If the logbook contains the group sig, is it wrong to take the word of the cachers as to who was in the group? I don't think so because, I believe, that it is important to retain an amount of trust in my fellow cachers. If I later learn that I was lied to, I'll delete logs and feel really good about myself.

 

The second is whether any individual cacher can create a rule that only individual sigs are acceptable. Of course they can, in my opinion. However, they should include the requirement in the cache description and they should clarify the grey areas that I brought up a page or two back in this thread.

 

These points become moot when you have an event like GWIII or GWIV or any other time, when you have 500 signers in a week. The log sheets get full,get torn up, get replaced because they are full, etc.... You cannot possibly verify for sure all of the cachers. I trust that cachers have signed the log unless i see that they logged my cache the same day they logged one in Seattle or Portland, or etc. Have some faith folks and get off of this "power" trip some seem to be on.

 

Grey_wolf (Mike) :anicute:

Edited by grey_wolf & momcat
Link to comment
Just out of curiosity, why is it such an ordeal to sign a log book? I find that putting my pen (or pencil) to the paper is a big part of the sport. Its the beer after a softball game, the high five after a touchdown, the dessert after the meal, the ***inappropriate sexual reference deleted*** on your wedding night. Signing the log is the capstone of the hunt. Why is doing so such a problem for some people?

 

Sure, "play your own game". I guess we can dance the juba upon spotting the cache, or just tap it with a stick, then log it online, but I just don't see the point. What's so freakin' hard about signing a logbook?

Right on target, BrianSnat! Sort of. There are few issues here.

 

The first is 'What constitutes 'signing the log'. A number of people who cache in groups have stated that it is normal for them to sign a group name in the book. One even posted that they had been asked to do this, on occasion. If the logbook contains the group sig, is it wrong to take the word of the cachers as to who was in the group? I don't think so because, I believe, that it is important to retain an amount of trust in my fellow cachers. If I later learn that I was lied to, I'll delete logs and feel really good about myself.

 

The second is whether any individual cacher can create a rule that only individual sigs are acceptable. Of course they can, in my opinion. However, they should include the requirement in the cache description and they should clarify the grey areas that I brought up a page or two back in this thread.

 

These points become moot when you have an event like GWIII or GWIV or any other time, when you have 500 signers in a week. The log sheets get full,get torn up, get replaced because they are full, etc.... You cannot possibly verify for sure all of the cachers. I trust that cachers have signed the log unless i see that they logged my cache the same day they logged one in Seattle or Portland, or etc. Have some faith folks and get off of this "power" trip some seem to be on.

 

Grey_wolf (Mike) :anicute:

 

That's the entertaining part. Let 'em get on their soapbox and talk until they're blue in the face. :anicute:

 

REMEMBER though, that any power they have or think they have is bestowed upon them by US. Why do you think CCC went ahead a logged her own caches when her finds were deleted? Why was eagletrek so mystified that he couldn't add insult to injury when CCC and the Crazy Germans didn't beg to keep their finds?

 

Honestly, what real power do you wield with a delete button? Do you get a rush or sumthin' when you push it? Until I lose a find for every questionable find of someone else's, I won't me moved to care about it.

 

This is better than any soap opera for me because I actually know quite a few of the folks in it. :anicute:

Link to comment
Have some faith folks and get off of this "power" trip some seem to be on.

 

You say "power trip." I say "obligation."

 

Then call me a slacker. I've deleted 2 logs in 3 1/2 years and I really regret one of them. The other was a wrongfully logged SBA from someone who had NEVER visited my cache.

 

Let's not hide behind a guideline suggestion as an excuse for being a (you supply the adjective.) :anicute:

Link to comment

REMEMBER though, that any power they have or think they have is bestowed upon them by US. Why do you think CCC went ahead a logged her own caches when her finds were deleted? Why was eagletrek so mystified that he couldn't add insult to injury when CCC and the Crazy Germans didn't beg to keep their finds?

 

Honestly, what real power do you wield with a delete button? Do you get a rush or sumthin' when you push it? Until I lose a find for every questionable find of someone else's, I won't me moved to care about it.

 

Well, speaking for myself only, I feel I have an obligation that if someone is going to claim to have found one of our caches then they had better have found one of our caches. If they make a bogus claim, we delete the log, and then they go off and claim it elsewhere, it's really no skin off my nose. Really.

 

Why? Because far too many cache owners don't police their logs and folks make bogus claims all the time. Fortunately it is a tiny percentage, but it still happens. For me, I take care of the our caches and in doing so we take care of all of the legitimate finders.

 

Regardless, of what some folks think many of us do feel cheated when someone makes a bogus claim. There are bragging rights involved. You've done Tube Torcher? Cool beans. You lied about TT? Not so cool. Personally, I'd feel slightly resentful on completing a harder cache and the owner allows bogus claims to stand.

 

See, for us, it's not about the numbers, it's about the caches. We couldn't care less how many we've done, but we're quite proud of some of the caches we've completed.

 

So, you see, we audit the logs not for those of you who don't care, we audit the logs for those who do.

Link to comment
Have some faith folks and get off of this "power" trip some seem to be on.

 

You say "power trip." I say "obligation."

 

Then call me a slacker. I've deleted 2 logs in 3 1/2 years and I really regret one of them. The other was a wrongfully logged SBA from someone who had NEVER visited my cache.

 

Let's not hide behind a guideline suggestion as an excuse for being a (you supply the adjective.) :anicute:

 

Well, you got me beat. I can only recall one log I've actually deleted and it was a note.

 

All of the other ones the logger corrected it themselves after a short email. Speaking of which, I think I could count the number of emails on one hand. By in large, this is not a problem, but because of resent news I'm taking steps for this to not be a problem.

Link to comment

Honestly, what real power do you wield with a delete button? Do you get a rush or sumthin' when you push it? Until I lose a find for every questionable find of someone else's, I won't me moved to care about it.

I look at it this way: I can't stop a little white dog from being a little white dog, but I can surely stop it humping my leg.

 

Though with a walloping two hides, it's not a situation I've had to face.

Link to comment
Have some faith folks and get off of this "power" trip some seem to be on.

 

You say "power trip." I say "obligation."

 

Then call me a slacker. I've deleted 2 logs in 3 1/2 years and I really regret one of them. The other was a wrongfully logged SBA from someone who had NEVER visited my cache.

 

Let's not hide behind a guideline suggestion as an excuse for being a (you supply the adjective.) :anicute:

 

While I generally side with Snoogans in this thread, I have to (partially) support CR in this case. I do agree that it is the cache owner's responsibility to police the logs on his/her caches.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

It is this guideline that is fundamentally the cause of a lot of these threads. Since the responsibility of controlling logs is left to cache owners, there is a lot of room for abuse. An event owner can decide to allow multiple attend logs on a event for finding temporary cache. A cache owner can award bonus smilies for tasks completed in addition to finding the cache. A cache owner can delete logs if the finder doesn't submit proof that an additional requirement beyond signing the log is not met. A cache owner can even decide to let you log a find if you log a DNF or send a note that you didn't find the cache but the owner feels you deserve a smiley anyhow. The cache owner also gets to decide what is bogus. Generally, owners will trust most cachers and don't go checking physical logs. There are problems with physical logs as well - caches go missing after being found, a person may use a different name in signing the log than when logging online, the is no accepted standard for signing logs for group finds, the physical log not signable and no room in the cache to add an additional slip of paper, etc. CR is within his rights as a cache owner to decide that he will only accept finds if the same name is in the physical log when he checks it. A lot of people will get upset when their log is deleted. But CR has as much right to do this as KBI has to require a poem.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Honestly, what real power do you wield with a delete button? Do you get a rush or sumthin' when you push it? Until I lose a find for every questionable find of someone else's, I won't me moved to care about it.

 

Yeah, the only way my reaction would have been different would be I wouldn't bother to log them anywhere else, either. I'm just not that chuffed about numbers.

Link to comment
...Why? Because far too many cache owners don't police their logs and folks make bogus claims all the time. ...
I think you might have that perception because you hang out in the forums, but I think it is false. I believe that it is a very rare occurence that logs are falsified. In my opinion, it is even rarer that a group would claim that someone was part of it, when in fact he/she was not. That is why I believe that your actions go too far.
... CR is within his rights as a cache owner to decide that he will only accept finds if the same name is in the physical log when he checks it. A lot of people will get upset when their log is deleted. But CR has as much right to do this as KBI has to require a poem.
I think most of us agree with this statement. He certainly has the power and authority to make this decision, even though many of us believes that it goes to far to solve a problem that would almost never present itself. However, if he is going to implement this policy, he should leave a note in the cache descriptions so people would know in advance and log in a manner that he approves of. Otherwise, he is going to anger people unnecessarily. This can only lead to grief, theirs and his.
Link to comment

Here is a real-life scenerio. You are with a group of 15 people. You are doing an 8 mile hike and there are 20 caches along the way......

 

You reach the first cache and you all search for it and find it. Then....

Cacher A signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher B

Cacher B signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher C

Cacher C signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher D

Cacher D signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher E

Cacher E signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher F

Cacher F signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher G

Cacher G signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher H

Cacher H signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher I

Cacher I signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher J

Cacher J signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher K

Cacher K signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher L

Cacher L signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher M

Cacher M signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher N

Cacher N signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher O

Cacher O signs the logbook

Then Cacher O puts the log back and you all move on to the next cache.

 

You reach the second cache and you all search for it and find it. Then....

Cacher A signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher B

Cacher B signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher C

Cacher C signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher D

Cacher D signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher E

Cacher E signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher F

Cacher F signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher G

Cacher G signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher H

Cacher H signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher I

Cacher I signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher J

Cacher J signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher K

Cacher K signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher L

Cacher L signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher M

Cacher M signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher N

Cacher N signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher O

Cacher O signs the logbook

Then Cacher O puts the log back and you all move on to the next cache.

 

You reach the third cache and you all search for it and find it. Then....

Cacher A signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher B

Cacher B signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher C

Cacher C signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher D

Cacher D signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher E

Cacher E signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher F

Cacher F signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher G

Cacher G signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher H

Cacher H signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher I

Cacher I signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher J

Cacher J signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher K

Cacher K signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher L

Cacher L signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher M

Cacher M signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher N

Cacher N signs the logbook and passes it to Cacher O

Cacher O signs the logbook

Then Cacher O puts the log back and you all move on to the next cache.

 

The group repeats this process for the next 14 caches and then a smart person says"The logging is really slowing us down so why don't we log this as a group and then log individually on the website? We can say who was with the group in our logs to confirm and we will take a group shot of us!" They all think this is a great idea! :anicute:

 

You reach the eighteenth cache and you all search for it and find it. Then....

Cacher A signs the logbook for the group.

You reach the nineteenth cache and you all search for it and find it. Then....

Cacher B signs the logbook for the group.

You reach the last cache and you all search for it and find it. Then....

Cacher C signs the logbook for the group and they finish the hike.

 

Everyone gets home and logs each cache along with a great stories and photos!! :anicute:

 

Two days later CR deletes all their logs..... :anicute:

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

We are thinking of letting people log each slice of pizza they eat at the next event. :anicute:

A beer would be good for two smileys! :anicute::anicute:

Go for it. It wouldn't bother me if you did. Other folks around here might have issue with it though.

 

Or is that your counter point? I say that it doesn't bother me, you say yes it does, I say no it doesn't, and you say that you're going to do it to try and prove a point? Okay, I'll play along. Well, if I attended, I wouldn't log a find for each slice or for the beer. I'd just log once. But I wouldn't think badly of those that did log the extra times. In fact, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

 

That was a reductio ad absurdum.... :anicute: Evidentally it wasn't absurd enough..... :anicute:

Link to comment

We are thinking of letting people log each slice of pizza they eat at the next event. :lol:

A beer would be good for two smileys! :P:huh:

Go for it. It wouldn't bother me if you did. Other folks around here might have issue with it though.

 

Or is that your counter point? I say that it doesn't bother me, you say yes it does, I say no it doesn't, and you say that you're going to do it to try and prove a point? Okay, I'll play along. Well, if I attended, I wouldn't log a find for each slice or for the beer. I'd just log once. But I wouldn't think badly of those that did log the extra times. In fact, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

 

That was a reductio ad absurdum.... :P Evidentally it wasn't absurd enough..... :lol:

Not true, you're being plenty absurd enough. You were giving the example as something over the top that would show me how absurd it was to log a find multiple times. But as I said, it wouldn't bother me at all. I wouldn't log the extra finds, but I wouldn't tell others not to either.

Link to comment
Have some faith folks and get off of this "power" trip some seem to be on.

 

You say "power trip." I say "obligation."

 

Ok,,i still don't know how to do the clapping hands smiley but that's what i would put right here if i knew how. :P

 

Hhmmmmm, the GC.com guidelines. They aren't really all that strict but here again, they pretty much spell out the basics and are certainly easy to understand. At least for most of us! So i ask, why is it so hard for some people to follow these simple guidelines? And, if you're still dead set against following them, then why don't you just have your cache published on another cache listing site? :lol:

Link to comment

We are thinking of letting people log each slice of pizza they eat at the next event. :lol:

A beer would be good for two smileys! :P:huh:

Go for it. It wouldn't bother me if you did. Other folks around here might have issue with it though.

 

Or is that your counter point? I say that it doesn't bother me, you say yes it does, I say no it doesn't, and you say that you're going to do it to try and prove a point? Okay, I'll play along. Well, if I attended, I wouldn't log a find for each slice or for the beer. I'd just log once. But I wouldn't think badly of those that did log the extra times. In fact, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

 

That was a reductio ad absurdum.... :P Evidentally it wasn't absurd enough..... :lol:

Not true, you're being plenty absurd enough. You were giving the example as something over the top that would show me how absurd it was to log a find multiple times. But as I said, it wouldn't bother me at all. I wouldn't log the extra finds, but I wouldn't tell others not to either.

 

The exception isn't the rule. There is a bell curve. You will always have individuals at the extremes and obviously you are one of them if logging pizza slices doesn't bother you. But if you look at how most people feel, I think you will see that most do not appreciate when people log a cache more than once.

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

We are thinking of letting people log each slice of pizza they eat at the next event. :lol:

A beer would be good for two smileys! :P:huh:

Go for it. It wouldn't bother me if you did. Other folks around here might have issue with it though.

 

Or is that your counter point? I say that it doesn't bother me, you say yes it does, I say no it doesn't, and you say that you're going to do it to try and prove a point? Okay, I'll play along. Well, if I attended, I wouldn't log a find for each slice or for the beer. I'd just log once. But I wouldn't think badly of those that did log the extra times. In fact, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

 

That was a reductio ad absurdum.... :P Evidentally it wasn't absurd enough..... :lol:

Not true, you're being plenty absurd enough. You were giving the example as something over the top that would show me how absurd it was to log a find multiple times. But as I said, it wouldn't bother me at all. I wouldn't log the extra finds, but I wouldn't tell others not to either.

 

The exception isn't the rule. There is a bell curve. You will always have individuals at the extremes and obviously you are one of them. But if you look at how most people feel, I think you will see that most do not appreciate when people log a cache more than once. Most also say nothing about it.

 

So? The fact that other people don't like it isn't enough of a reason to make me not like it.

 

This dialog between you and I started when I posted that the only thing I think is absurd is when people tell me how I should cache, or how I should think about how other people cache. Go read it again. For some reason you keep trying to convice me that I should care if people log events multiple times. I don't care if they do, and I don't care if they don't. It doesn't make a difference to my numbers, or how much I enjoy the game, at all.

Link to comment

 

Everyone gets home and logs each cache along with a great stories and photos!! :P

 

Two days later CR deletes all their logs..... :lol:

 

From what I remember about the original incident, no photos were posted, you are twisting the logic now.

Link to comment

 

Everyone gets home and logs each cache along with a great stories and photos!! :P

 

Two days later CR deletes all their logs..... :lol:

 

From what I remember about the original incident, no photos were posted, you are twisting the logic now.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Our group always posts some photos....

Link to comment
Have some faith folks and get off of this "power" trip some seem to be on.

 

You say "power trip." I say "obligation."

 

Ok,,i still don't know how to do the clapping hands smiley but that's what i would put right here if i knew how. :P

 

Hhmmmmm, the GC.com guidelines. They aren't really all that strict but here again, they pretty much spell out the basics and are certainly easy to understand. At least for most of us! So i ask, why is it so hard for some people to follow these simple guidelines? And, if you're still dead set against following them, then why don't you just have your cache published on another cache listing site? :lol:

 

I do agree that it is the cache owner's responsibility to police the logs on his/her caches.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

It is this guideline that is fundamentally the cause of a lot of these threads. Since the responsibility of controlling logs is left to cache owners, there is a lot of room for abuse. An event owner can decide to allow multiple attend logs on a event for finding temporary cache. A cache owner can award bonus smilies for tasks completed in addition to finding the cache. A cache owner can delete logs if the finder doesn't submit proof that an additional requirement beyond signing the log is not met. A cache owner can even decide to let you log a find if you log a DNF or send a note that you didn't find the cache but the owner feels you deserve a smiley anyhow. The cache owner also gets to decide what is bogus. Generally, owners will trust most cachers and don't go checking physical logs. There are problems with physical logs as well - caches go missing after being found, a person may use a different name in signing the log than when logging online, the is no accepted standard for signing logs for group finds, the physical log not signable and no room in the cache to add an additional slip of paper, etc. CR is within his rights as a cache owner to decide that he will only accept finds if the same name is in the physical log when he checks it. A lot of people will get upset when their log is deleted. But CR has as much right to do this as KBI has to require a poem.

 

Maybe I'm on someone's ignore list. I agree with CR that the guidelines do make it the cache owner's responsibilty to police the logs on their cache as I posted above. It is this guideline that leads to these long threads over what should or shouldn't be allowed in the log. People who don't check the physical logs are not violating the guidelines. They determine the acceptability of a log by other means - such as trusting other cachers. The physical log check is not fool proof - several examples are given.

Link to comment
People who don't check the physical logs are not violating the guidelines. They determine the acceptability of a log by other means - such as trusting other cachers. The physical log check is not fool proof - several examples are given.
I totally agree. When in doubt we should always trust people. I think if you act that way you'll be right on the money 99% of the time. :P As far as cache maintenance, we have a great group of cachers out here. Everyone takes care of of each other. If a logbook or even a cache is missing we help each other out if we are in the area. I have gone out to replace my own caches many times too. They always seem to disappear long before the logbook is full. :lol: Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Let me see, some logs a find on a cache in which they did not sign the log book. Don't cut it, not signed log book no find.

 

Someone side the cache container and defaces the cache, Nope, not a find, just vandelism

 

A group goes out and not every one signs the cache because they use a team name, Nope not a real log.

 

Some log finds on their own cache, that is just not right.

 

I di not care how anyone wants to sugar coat, the above examples are just ways to cheat. ANd those that do the above do not have my respect as geocachers.

Link to comment

So, then, we're all agreed?

1) The guidelines on geocaching should be met. Sign the log, get a smiley (certain exceptions exist).

sub 1) Signing the container does not meet this guideline, if a log exists.

sub 2) All members of the team must be present when the log is signed.

sub 3) Special signing requirements are acceptable, and must be met.

sub 4) If the cache owner deletes your log because you did not meet this guideline, you grin and bear it.

2) Policing of the above requirement is the responsibility of the cache owner.

sub 1) Dead and missing cache owners should still try to meet the above requirement.

sub 2) Just because a dead or missing cache owner does not delete your log, this should not be taken as a precedent for all other caches.

sub 2-1) Just because some cache owners permit certain bendings of the rules, this shall not be a precedent for all caches.

sub 2-1A) "We do it this way where I come from" does not mean that all cache owners should be required to accept that precedent.

 

Yes. I attempt to police the logs on my caches, following the guidelines. Yes, I have deleted a few logged finds. "I found the cache, but put it back without signing the log" will get you an e-mail requesting a change from 'Found' to 'Note', and a deletion if you do not comply. Sign the log, get the smiley. Frankly, I do not understand the chutzpah needed to make such a log.

Link to comment
A group goes out and not every one signs the cache because they use a team name, Nope not a real log. I di not care how anyone wants to sugar coat, the above examples are just ways to cheat.

You're wrong. It's not cheating. Are you saying that we didn't find the cache? Whenever you log a cache online it says "Found it!" We all found the cache just like everyone else did. We simply logged the cache a different way. There are lot of different and acceptable ways to log a cache. It is common for cachers to take turns signing in everyone that was present for the find. I have seen hundreds of cachers do this and never has it been questioned because we all witnessed each other get the "find." But after hearing some of the comments in this thread it wouldn't surprise me if there were some out there that would do a handwriting analysis to see who's handwriting was really on the log...... :lol:

Link to comment

I say keep the stat bar. I like it and it helps on caches I think. I have learned that I find it kinda cool to see the logs of all people. i like to think that if I place a cache and I get a nice comment from someone with over 1000 finds, then I have done my job as a fellow cacher. It also helps to let you know if you should check the cache. A DNF from someone who has only found 20 holds less sway than if someone who has found 500 can't find it. A 500 not finding it may mean its missing, or you have done an excellent job.

 

I think the best idea I have heard is a cache rating system. The finder, to log the cache on the site, must answer a few questions and this will give the cache a total star rating. This way, if you want quality, go after caches rated 3 stars and above. You want numbers? Hit em all.

I think this would help you 1000+ finder guys to better pick and choose the caches you hunt.

It's just like collecting baseball cards. At first you want em all, no matter who is on the card. Then as you get more experienced, you only want the good ones. With a star rating system cachers could tell the difference between a Cal Ripken rookie card and a Barry ( I eat steriods like tic tacs) Bonds middle career card.

Link to comment

When caching with a group, if one person finds the cache, and the others are ten or twenty feet away, did any of those others actually find the cache?

 

Not trying to stir anything up, just a curiosity question to see how others feel and to see how it applies to this discussion.

Link to comment
When caching with a group, if one person finds the cache, and the others are ten or twenty feet away, did any of those others actually find the cache?

 

Not trying to stir anything up, just a curiosity question to see how others feel and to see how it applies to this discussion.

What if they passed the log to the other people to sign that were standing 30 feet away from the cache? :D

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

When caching with a group, if one person finds the cache, and the others are ten or twenty feet away, did any of those others actually find the cache?

 

Not trying to stir anything up, just a curiosity question to see how others feel and to see how it applies to this discussion.

 

What if they're a family that always cache together and always sign the log with their team name. Team accounts shouldn't be allowed because they're all cheaters. The have two or three or four people looking for the cache when I have only one. Maybe their stats should be separate. :D

Link to comment

When caching with a group, if one person finds the cache, and the others are ten or twenty feet away, did any of those others actually find the cache?

 

Not trying to stir anything up, just a curiosity question to see how others feel and to see how it applies to this discussion.

 

What if they're a family that always cache together and always sign the log with their team name. Team accounts shouldn't be allowed because they're all cheaters. The have two or three or four people looking for the cache when I have only one. Maybe their stats should be separate. :D

Yes! :D And only the family member that actually "finds" the cache should get the smiley! :D

Link to comment

 

Everyone gets home and logs each cache along with a great stories and photos!! :D

 

Two days later CR deletes all their logs..... :D

 

From what I remember about the original incident, no photos were posted, you are twisting the logic now.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Our group always posts some photos....

 

I am refering to the CCC incident, which is just about the only real world example of a log being deleted in this thread.

 

From the cache owner's post:

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.

 

I suppose it is possible that there is no connection between the real world example and your theoretical one, but thats where it lead me.

Link to comment

 

Everyone gets home and logs each cache along with a great stories and photos!! :D

 

Two days later CR deletes all their logs..... :D

 

From what I remember about the original incident, no photos were posted, you are twisting the logic now.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Our group always posts some photos....

 

I am refering to the CCC incident, which is just about the only real world example of a log being deleted in this thread.

 

From the cache owner's post:

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.

 

I suppose it is possible that there is no connection between the real world example and your theoretical one, but thats where it lead me.

 

I had no idea about that incident....

I thought my example would allow some to understand what a day in the life with our group was like and why we have adapted to do what we do....

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

When caching with a group, if one person finds the cache, and the others are ten or twenty feet away, did any of those others actually find the cache?

 

Not trying to stir anything up, just a curiosity question to see how others feel and to see how it applies to this discussion.

 

What if they're a family that always cache together and always sign the log with their team name. Team accounts shouldn't be allowed because they're all cheaters. The have two or three or four people looking for the cache when I have only one. Maybe their stats should be separate. :D

Yes! :D And only the family member that actually "finds" the cache should get the smiley! :D

 

How could that be? They signed the log with the team name. If only one in the family claimed the find, how could the owner verify they were really there? :D

Link to comment

 

Everyone gets home and logs each cache along with a great stories and photos!! :D

 

Two days later CR deletes all their logs..... :D

 

From what I remember about the original incident, no photos were posted, you are twisting the logic now.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Our group always posts some photos....

 

I am refering to the CCC incident, which is just about the only real world example of a log being deleted in this thread.

 

From the cache owner's post:

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.

 

I suppose it is possible that there is no connection between the real world example and your theoretical one, but thats where it lead me.

 

This may get a real attack from the rest of the forum, but before you judge CCCooperAgency and the others, like some of the others are, you really need to do a few more event caches and do some (fun) group caching. :D

Link to comment

When caching with a group, if one person finds the cache, and the others are ten or twenty feet away, did any of those others actually find the cache?

 

Not trying to stir anything up, just a curiosity question to see how others feel and to see how it applies to this discussion.

 

What if they're a family that always cache together and always sign the log with their team name. Team accounts shouldn't be allowed because they're all cheaters. The have two or three or four people looking for the cache when I have only one. Maybe their stats should be separate. :D

 

This brings up some interesting thoughts.

 

A team that caches together, signs the log as a team, and logs online as a team will have two or more pairs of eyes and roughly the same multiple of experience as an individual. However, they aren't claiming otherwise.

 

Person A: "Team X found Cache Y."

Person B: "Yes, but they didn't do it solo. Each team member, in general, helps other team members."

Person A: "Yes, true. It's harder to do that cache solo."

 

They cache as a team and log as a team. They are up front with not doing it solo. There is little chance of looking at any particular log and not knowing otherwise. One could look at a list caches the team completed and know they were completed as a team.

 

Should they only get one smilie for every cache equal to the number members? ( One smilie for every three caches for a three member team. )

 

However, caching in a group has all of the benefits of caching as a team, but when you log as an individual are you giving a false sense of accomplishment? One could look at a list of caches and think that person did all of those cache solo when that is not the fact.

 

Should there be asterisks along side every cache logged as an individual but found as a group? Should the asterisks be there if the group plays the end-game of making every individual find it on their own? Should they only get a fractional smilie as well?

 

[/tongue firmly planted in cheek]

Link to comment

When caching with a group, if one person finds the cache, and the others are ten or twenty feet away, did any of those others actually find the cache?

 

Not trying to stir anything up, just a curiosity question to see how others feel and to see how it applies to this discussion.

 

What if they're a family that always cache together and always sign the log with their team name. Team accounts shouldn't be allowed because they're all cheaters. The have two or three or four people looking for the cache when I have only one. Maybe their stats should be separate. :D

 

This brings up some interesting thoughts.

 

A team that caches together, signs the log as a team, and logs online as a team will have two or more pairs of eyes and roughly the same multiple of experience as an individual. However, they aren't claiming otherwise.

 

Person A: "Team X found Cache Y."

Person B: "Yes, but they didn't do it solo. Each team member, in general, helps other team members."

Person A: "Yes, true. It's harder to do that cache solo."

 

They cache as a team and log as a team. They are up front with not doing it solo. There is little chance of looking at any particular log and not knowing otherwise. One could look at a list caches the team completed and know they were completed as a team.

 

Should they only get one smilie for every cache equal to the number members? ( One smilie for every three caches for a three member team. )

 

However, caching in a group has all of the benefits of caching as a team, but when you log as an individual are you giving a false sense of accomplishment? One could look at a list of caches and think that person did all of those cache solo when that is not the fact.

 

Should there be asterisks along side every cache logged as an individual but found as a group? Should the asterisks be there if the group plays the end-game of making every individual find it on their own? Should they only get a fractional smilie as well?

 

[/tongue firmly planted in cheek]

Maybe if you found a cache in a group you should only get the "eye of the smiley!"

 

Risin' up, straight to the top

Have the guts, got the glory

Went the distance, now I'm not gonna stop

Just a man and his will to survive

 

chorus

 

The eye of the smiley!

Link to comment

3) Swapping geocoin numbers at events: I enjoy seeing other people's coins, and will occasionally log a "discover" of a particular coin if I find it unique or had a nice conversation with the owner about it. Beyond that, I can't be bothered to take the time to enter in all those numbers to get an icon (I admit it, I just don't "get" the geocoin obsession). However, in the current list of practices to consider I'd say it's the least important issue to worry about.

 

I am very new to geocaching and find these discussions interesting.

 

I will address this one point first: I just read a thread about someone that carries a coin with them and if they meet other geocachers on the trail, they let them log it. That way, they can keep track of everyone they have met! I think that's a neat idea and plan to do it. Me keeping track of the fellow geocachers I come in contact with is different than people just trying to log icons on their profile.

 

As for the rest of the points you guys bring up, I totally agree on most points.

 

I have no problem making the stats private instead of public.

 

I like being able to see a map of states I have finds in. It's not a numbers thing for me to compete with others, just a personal goal.

 

I also am going to log every DNF. I think it helps the cache owner know when to go check their cache if there are several DNFs in a row.

 

I don't mind the micros unless they were to ALL be micros. I like the variation and sometimes, location dictates what size the cache can be.

 

That about sums up my opinions at this point in the game.

 

Keep up the good conversations! You all are helping me to become a better cacher by seeing what is acceptable within the geocaching community!

Link to comment

3) Swapping geocoin numbers at events: I enjoy seeing other people's coins, and will occasionally log a "discover" of a particular coin if I find it unique or had a nice conversation with the owner about it. Beyond that, I can't be bothered to take the time to enter in all those numbers to get an icon (I admit it, I just don't "get" the geocoin obsession). However, in the current list of practices to consider I'd say it's the least important issue to worry about.

 

I am very new to geocaching and find these discussions interesting.

 

I will address this one point first: I just read a thread about someone that carries a coin with them and if they meet other geocachers on the trail, they let them log it. That way, they can keep track of everyone they have met! I think that's a neat idea and plan to do it. Me keeping track of the fellow geocachers I come in contact with is different than people just trying to log icons on their profile.

 

As for the rest of the points you guys bring up, I totally agree on most points.

 

I have no problem making the stats private instead of public.

 

I like being able to see a map of states I have finds in. It's not a numbers thing for me to compete with others, just a personal goal.

 

I also am going to log every DNF. I think it helps the cache owner know when to go check their cache if there are several DNFs in a row.

 

I don't mind the micros unless they were to ALL be micros. I like the variation and sometimes, location dictates what size the cache can be.

 

That about sums up my opinions at this point in the game.

 

Keep up the good conversations! You all are helping me to become a better cacher by seeing what is acceptable within the geocaching community!

 

You are going to have a great time with a very addicting hobby. There are a lot of great people out there finding and placing a lot of good caches. Hope to see you on the cache trail or at an event someday. :D

Link to comment

I really just use the numbers for my own record. I could really care less about other folks stats. I enjoy the game for the exercise, getting to see new locations and just plain ol' fun. I do like the numbers in that it allows me to keep track easier of what I have done. I have no problem with keeping them.

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