Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
WalruZ

New Feature Request - Single Log Per Cache.

Recommended Posts

Numbers, numbers, numbers. Obviously certain people are only concerned with building huge number of 'finds', not enjoying caching. And certain other people are letting 'those' people get their goat. Play however you like.

 

The only numbers that count to me are mine, I know how they were obtained and I'm comfortable with them, it's more for my own accounting than anything else. Anyone elses numbers.... I couldn't care less! If you decide that you want to claim 1000 finds on an event it affects me not one iota, although it will affect my respect for you, at least in a geocaching aspect.

 

People who claim multiple finds for various reasons are essentially playing two different games and I'm certainly not in 'competition' with them. The only competitors I have in this game are Myself and the cache I'm trying to find at any particular moment.

 

I respect what you are saying.

 

I am not in Geocaching for the numbers. Yes I do have almost 1200 finds of which 63 I believe is Events. Now that is attending the event and any event caches that was offered. Most of these event cache logs was during the early time of my caching. Average of 5 event caches at each event. Logged as finds because that is what the event owners said to do.

I do enjoy Geocaching, But there is things that do bug me, Number Hungry cachers is one of them. I could be out right know caching but my find count for today is 0, and it is almost 5pm. Yesterday I did 12. So I don't consider myself as a numbers person.

I have been out with some NUMBERS cachers before. It is fun to get a bunch of caches in one day, but I couldn't tell you a hole lot about them. I prefer the woods caches myself.

But as I said there is things that bug me. These urban micros placed in parking lots and such. Most of these places ARE "Private Property" with public access. This does not mean that this is our PLAYGROUNDS.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with you Kayak-Cowboy.

 

One way to alleviate alot of this problem is to NOT place temporary event caches. We've tended to do that in the northern Illinois area. If there are caches placed for an event we try to make them permanent caches, each with their own cache page. So, yes you can attend an event, and find the caches places for that event but they are all permanent caches and therefore legitimate caches in everyones eyes.

 

I also agree about people pushing the 'grey area' of public/private property. It can only end up giving geocaching a bad name to the general public in the long run. We have to remember that just because there is some little piece of empty wooded land along the road, that doesn't make it public space... somebody owns that land and I know if it was me, I'd be rather angry that someone trespassed and placed a cache there. It's a hard thing to define when it comes to commercial parking lots etc... personally I'd rather error on the conservative side, but that's my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

The only numbers that count to me are mine, I know how they were obtained and I'm comfortable with them, it's more for my own accounting than anything else. Anyone elses numbers.... I couldn't care less! If you decide that you want to claim 1000 finds on an event it affects me not one iota, although it will affect my respect for you, at least in a geocaching aspect.

I agree with you, Audion. After looking at the event cache I linked earlier and the event linked by CoD, it has become pretty obvious that the number of finds listed for many cachers is simply BS. I know that all the finds listed for me are 100% legit, and I have a good idea of which local cachers have legit stats. As time goes by, I'm putting less credence in the find count for high-numbers cachers because it looks like a lot of them have taken shortcuts. Some people would say they cheated. It all depends on what rules you play by.

 

The only thing the find count is useful for anymore is figuring out if a DNF means the cache isn't there. A DNF by a cacher with 4 finds probably means the cache is still there, they just didn't know how to find it. A DNF by several cachers in a row with 500+ finds probably means there's a problem with the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

This is copied from the Geocaching Guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

So if you take the last line of this statement, It seems that Geocaching is OK with event caches being hidden. Now saying that, there has to be a way of Logging these So Called Event caches. The only way to log an Event cache is on the Event cache page as multiple Attend logs. Therefore if Geocaching is OK with event caches, then this should be an acceptible practice.

 

I'm afraid you've completely misconstrued the statement If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there. That means that if you've set up perminant caches (with their own cache page on gc.com), but want the event members to have first crack at them, you should print off the cache page to distribute among the event members. The reviewer will hold off publishing the caches until after the event.

Really? I thought it meant that if you want to hide temporary caches for an event you should put the information on a flyer and hand them out at the event. That way you aren't wasting geocaching.com resources on cache pages that won't be published because they are only temporary. If the caches are to be permanent and posted on geocaching.com, everyone can bring their own printouts or PDAs loaded with the cache pages.

Depends on how you interpret "caches for an event". Sometimes they're just for the life of the event (which can't be listed), and sometimes they're meant to live on after the event (which can be listed). Either way, the result's the same. The guideline is not an endorsement of temporary caches being listed.

Edited by Prime Suspect

Share this post


Link to post

This is copied from the Geocaching Guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

So if you take the last line of this statement, It seems that Geocaching is OK with event caches being hidden. Now saying that, there has to be a way of Logging these So Called Event caches. The only way to log an Event cache is on the Event cache page as multiple Attend logs. Therefore if Geocaching is OK with event caches, then this should be an acceptable practice.

 

I'm afraid you've completely misconstrued the statement If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there. That means that if you've set up permanent caches (with their own cache page on gc.com), but want the event members to have first crack at them, you should print off the cache page to distribute among the event members. The reviewer will hold off publishing the caches until after the event.

Really? I thought it meant that if you want to hide temporary caches for an event you should put the information on a flyer and hand them out at the event. That way you aren't wasting geocaching.com resources on cache pages that won't be published because they are only temporary. If the caches are to be permanent and posted on geocaching.com, everyone can bring their own printouts or PDAs loaded with the cache pages.

 

Well, As a reviewer I will say that sax has the correct meaning. The subject of the line about printouts of caches is "Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. " So if you have a temp cache hidden for your event, since you can not list them on the GC.com website because they do not qualify as a recognized cache, it is suggested that you provide the information about these temp caches in another manner, i.e. a printout.

 

The rest of this is personal opinion..... It does not address the logging of these temp caches because there is no reason to. Why would you log something that isn't recognized as a legit cache on the site?

The event is a "legit cache", as recognized by the site. The cache was placed as part of the recognized event. Therefore, it is a legitimate find of a recognized cache.

 

Most events that I've seen listed will state on the cache page that temporary caches have been placed for the event. If these "event temps" are a violation of the guidelines, why do the reviewers accept them for listing on the site? If they aren't violations, then they are recognized as being a legitimate cache, albeit part of the event.

Show me an example of an "event temp" cache that is posted on the site.

The event is published, not the temporary cache(s).

Share this post


Link to post

 

Show me an example of an "event temp" cache that is posted on the site.

The event is published, not the temporary cache(s).

 

exactly. and an event shoule only be attended once.

what goes on at the event is irrelevant. if the caches are not listed on the site, they can't be logged on the site.

Share this post


Link to post

I used to feel claiming multiple finds on events for temporary event caches was acceptable, but since the logs have been changed to "attended" I no longer think it appropriate.

 

Again we see CoyoteRed proclaiming that since he doesn't think it's right, then the site should be changed so everyone else will cache his way. (I'm guessing he'll say he never said that)

 

Why is it that the people who always say that the numbers don't matter are the same ones that are always complaining about other peoples numbers? If someone wants to log an event 100 times, please tell me how it has any effect on you.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Show me an example of an "event temp" cache that is posted on the site.

The event is published, not the temporary cache(s).

Here is one.

Notice that temporary caches are placed for the event.

The event was reviewed and approved for listing on GC.com.

If temporary caches are wrong, why was the event listed?

If you list a knife and shotgun shells as being in your traditional cache, it wouldn't be listed on the site, would it? No. Because it's against the site's guidelines.

But the temporary caches in the event were allowed. Therefore, an exception is made for the placement of temporary caches when they are part of an event. The fact that the site has not, as yet, come up with a way to log these temporary caches is irrelevant. Look how long it took to come up with the "Discover" log for travel bugs. Those who choose to search for the temporary event caches have had to come up with a way to log them until the site decides how to handle it.

Share this post


Link to post

If someone wants to log an event 100 times, please tell me how it has any effect on you.

Each log uses electricity.

Electricity is power.

People are trying to take power over the world by logging extra finds.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely."

We must stop them or life as we know it is doomed! B)

 

 

 

:rolleyes::):rolleyes:B)B)

Share this post


Link to post

 

Show me an example of an "event temp" cache that is posted on the site.

The event is published, not the temporary cache(s).

Here is one.

Notice that temporary caches are placed for the event.

The event was reviewed and approved for listing on GC.com.

If temporary caches are wrong, why was the event listed?

If you list a knife and shotgun shells as being in your traditional cache, it wouldn't be listed on the site, would it? No. Because it's against the site's guidelines.

But the temporary caches in the event were allowed. Therefore, an exception is made for the placement of temporary caches when they are part of an event. The fact that the site has not, as yet, come up with a way to log these temporary caches is irrelevant. Look how long it took to come up with the "Discover" log for travel bugs. Those who choose to search for the temporary event caches have had to come up with a way to log them until the site decides how to handle it.

Really? Where are the cache pages for these temporary caches? Could you post them?

Share this post


Link to post
Why is it that the people who always say that the numbers don't matter are the same ones that are always complaining about other peoples numbers? If someone wants to log an event 100 times, please tell me how it has any effect on you.

 

You've got that one backwards. The people who say that numbers DON'T matter are the ones who also log caches and events multiple times. Then they say that they have high numbers (see my example in the OP - that person is very proud of her 'numbers').

 

The people who recognize that numbers DO matter are the ones who want them kept somewhat honest, or at least to have this reasonable limit enforced by the site - find a cache once, attend an event once.

 

People who log an event multiple times and then misrepresent themselves hurt both themselves and the game itself, because they're cheating and lying, which is a bad thing. I'm very suprised at the number of people addressing this topic in the forums who don't seem to understand that.

Share this post


Link to post

wow...all these rules and regs and politics !! and here i thought cache hunting was supposed to be FUN.

 

anybody know what FUN is anymore??

 

<_<

Share this post


Link to post

 

Now this is where the problem lies. If Geocaching is OK with Event caches, then there needs to be a way of logging these event caches.

 

Yes, post your attended log. You don't post multiple found it notes for multi caches, right? Temp event caches are just part of the event. You can't attend an event multiple times.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Now this is where the problem lies. If Geocaching is OK with Event caches, then there needs to be a way of logging these event caches.

 

Yes, post your attended log. You don't post multiple found it notes for multi caches, right? Temp event caches are just part of the event. You can't attend an event multiple times.

I never did understand the logic of comparing event caches with multi-caches.

In order to have a "find" on a multi-cache you, for all intents and purposes, need to find all of the stages. If you don't find all of the stages, you don't get a find on the cache.

In order to log an "attend" on an event, you just have to show up. If there are temporary caches placed for the event you can search for them or not, it's your choice. Let's say you and I go to an event. I walk in, chat with some folks, get something to eat and leave. You walk in, chat with some folks, go out and find the six caches that were placed for the event, get something to eat and leave. But we each just get one "smilie". Sounds to me a lot like you deserve more, since you spent more time and effort.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I never did understand the logic of comparing event caches with multi-caches.

In order to have a "find" on a multi-cache you, for all intents and purposes, need to find all of the stages. If you don't find all of the stages, you don't get a find on the cache.

In order to log an "attend" on an event, you just have to show up. If there are temporary caches placed for the event you can search for them or not, it's your choice. Let's say you and I go to an event. I walk in, chat with some folks, get something to eat and leave. You walk in, chat with some folks, go out and find the six caches that were placed for the event, get something to eat and leave. But we each just get one "smilie". Sounds to me a lot like you deserve more, since you spent more time and effort.

 

By your 'time and effort' logic... if there is a 16 stage multi and I spend hours finding 15 of the 16 stages but never do find the final... I should get to log 15 finds... afterall, I put alot of 'time and effort' into finding those 15 stages, I should get some kind of reward.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I never did understand the logic of comparing event caches with multi-caches.

In order to have a "find" on a multi-cache you, for all intents and purposes, need to find all of the stages. If you don't find all of the stages, you don't get a find on the cache.

 

Not quite. You really only have to find the final. If you make no mention of it in your log, nobody but you knows if you found all the stages, or had a hunch and just found the final. (I've never done it, but have heard of cachers who have.) Find the final, sign the logbook, it's a find. Show up at an event, it's an attended log. Doesn't matter if you walked in, quickly said hello to someone and left, or spent the whole day there, talked to everyone, and found 100 "temporary caches".

 

I don't understand why people feel the need to log a "found it" on this site, for caches not listed on this site. Can I start logging finds on event (or other) cache pages for caches listed at terracaching or navicache?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Show me an example of an "event temp" cache that is posted on the site.

The event is published, not the temporary cache(s).

Here is one.

Notice that temporary caches are placed for the event.

The event was reviewed and approved for listing on GC.com.

If temporary caches are wrong, why was the event listed?

If you list a knife and shotgun shells as being in your traditional cache, it wouldn't be listed on the site, would it? No. Because it's against the site's guidelines.

But the temporary caches in the event were allowed. Therefore, an exception is made for the placement of temporary caches when they are part of an event. The fact that the site has not, as yet, come up with a way to log these temporary caches is irrelevant. Look how long it took to come up with the "Discover" log for travel bugs. Those who choose to search for the temporary event caches have had to come up with a way to log them until the site decides how to handle it.

Really? Where are the cache pages for these temporary caches? Could you post them?

And here is what it all comes down to:

I don't care if there are cache pages or not.

I don't care if the cache is officially recognized by GC.com, or you, or anyone.

I am not in a competition.

I log caches the way I want to log them for my own purposes, and I really don't care if you think I'm wrong or I'm cheating or whatever.

You, however, are trying to impose your rules on me.

If multi-logging events to account for the temporary caches is contrary to the site's guidelines, why hasn't the site already made it impossible to do?

Never mind. Don't answer that. You'll only give your interpretation, which we've already determined is different than mine.

I'd like to hear from someone from the head office of GC.com on this.

Oh, wait, we have heard from them... Their lack of action indicates that they don't consider it to be the problem that you do.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I never did understand the logic of comparing event caches with multi-caches.

In order to have a "find" on a multi-cache you, for all intents and purposes, need to find all of the stages. If you don't find all of the stages, you don't get a find on the cache.

In order to log an "attend" on an event, you just have to show up. If there are temporary caches placed for the event you can search for them or not, it's your choice. Let's say you and I go to an event. I walk in, chat with some folks, get something to eat and leave. You walk in, chat with some folks, go out and find the six caches that were placed for the event, get something to eat and leave. But we each just get one "smilie". Sounds to me a lot like you deserve more, since you spent more time and effort.

 

By your 'time and effort' logic... if there is a 16 stage multi and I spend hours finding 15 of the 16 stages but never do find the final... I should get to log 15 finds... afterall, I put alot of 'time and effort' into finding those 15 stages, I should get some kind of reward.

Read it again.

The time and effort are for the event, not a multi.

For the multi, everyone has to put forth the same effort.

Not so for the event. You can find all of the caches, or none of them.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I never did understand the logic of comparing event caches with multi-caches.

In order to have a "find" on a multi-cache you, for all intents and purposes, need to find all of the stages. If you don't find all of the stages, you don't get a find on the cache.

 

Not quite. You really only have to find the final. If you make no mention of it in your log, nobody but you knows if you found all the stages, or had a hunch and just found the final.

Knowing someone would bring that up, I put the "for all intents and purposes" in there.

Missed that, did you?

Share this post


Link to post

Can I start logging finds on event (or other) cache pages for caches listed at terracaching or navicache?

Sure. As long as the cache owner doesn't have a problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Now this is where the problem lies. If Geocaching is OK with Event caches, then there needs to be a way of logging these event caches.

 

Yes, post your attended log. You don't post multiple found it notes for multi caches, right? Temp event caches are just part of the event. You can't attend an event multiple times.

I never did understand the logic of comparing event caches with multi-caches.

In order to have a "find" on a multi-cache you, for all intents and purposes, need to find all of the stages. If you don't find all of the stages, you don't get a find on the cache.

In order to log an "attend" on an event, you just have to show up. If there are temporary caches placed for the event you can search for them or not, it's your choice. Let's say you and I go to an event. I walk in, chat with some folks, get something to eat and leave. You walk in, chat with some folks, go out and find the six caches that were placed for the event, get something to eat and leave. But we each just get one "smilie". Sounds to me a lot like you deserve more, since you spent more time and effort.

I spend a lot of time and effort talking to as many cachers as I can at events. Don't I get extra credit for that? <_<

Share this post


Link to post

 

Now this is where the problem lies. If Geocaching is OK with Event caches, then there needs to be a way of logging these event caches.

 

Yes, post your attended log. You don't post multiple found it notes for multi caches, right? Temp event caches are just part of the event. You can't attend an event multiple times.

...In order to log an "attend" on an event, you just have to show up. If there are temporary caches placed for the event you can search for them or not, it's your choice. Let's say you and I go to an event. I walk in, chat with some folks, get something to eat and leave. You walk in, chat with some folks, go out and find the six caches that were placed for the event, get something to eat and leave. But we each just get one "smilie". Sounds to me a lot like you deserve more, since you spent more time and effort.

 

I've only attended a few events, but hope to attend more, maybe even the Midwest Geobash this July. At two events, temp caches were placed. In my first year of caching, I logged those as finds on the event page because that seemed to be what everyone did. However, I always felt weird about it, knowing that they were just placed there for the event. Yes, I stayed longer than others and the caches required some hiking at one event, but they didn't become permanent.

 

After reading more about temp/pocket caches on the site and forums, I've gone back to edit those logs to notes instead of finds. It wasn't a thrill to see my number of finds drop, but those are just for fun and I felt like changing them to notes was more in keeping with the guidelines of cache placement. I'm only expressing my personal thoughts, not telling others they should do likewise. <_<

 

As this relates to the topic, I would support the "single log per cache" feature. The exceptions for adopted caches could be covered by changing the waypoint code and making those new caches if moved. It would certainly address the debate over temp/pocket caches and hopefully make it a non-issue. Everybody logs an event once. If permanent caches are nearby, hunt, find, and log them as usual. If it's just temps, you can still smile while you're hunting even without the smiley online.

 

Edited: to directly respond to OP

Edited by Teach2Learn

Share this post


Link to post

In order to log an "attend" on an event, you just have to show up. If there are temporary caches placed for the event you can search for them or not, it's your choice. Let's say you and I go to an event. I walk in, chat with some folks, get something to eat and leave. You walk in, chat with some folks, go out and find the six caches that were placed for the event, get something to eat and leave. But we each just get one "smilie". Sounds to me a lot like you deserve more, since you spent more time and effort.

 

Ok Richard, howabout this:

 

We both go to an event, a CITO. You show up, sign the logbook and leave. I show up, sign the logbook, pick up 5 bags of trash, stay after to clean up the event itself and then leave. We both get one smiley, right? Yet I've done so much more. Should I get more smileys just for picking up garbage which is the intent of the event? How about for cleaning up after the event? Fair?

 

Here's another: Same as above except you stick around and find 5 temporary caches before leaving and do nothing else. You log the event 6 times while I get only 1. Fair?

 

Last one, real life this time: A regular event. People show up mingle for a few minutes and leave. I show up mingle, take care of some local organization business, help a few cachers figure out paperless caching and end up being one of the last to leave even tho I've got an hour drive ahead of me and it's past 10pm. Do I get more smileys because I've spent more time and effort? Fair?

 

I don't think any of those 'earn' you an extra smiley. The purpose of the event IS the event, not anything else going on AT the event. That's fair.

Share this post


Link to post

In order to log an "attend" on an event, you just have to show up. If there are temporary caches placed for the event you can search for them or not, it's your choice. Let's say you and I go to an event. I walk in, chat with some folks, get something to eat and leave. You walk in, chat with some folks, go out and find the six caches that were placed for the event, get something to eat and leave. But we each just get one "smilie". Sounds to me a lot like you deserve more, since you spent more time and effort.

 

Ok Richard, howabout this:

 

We both go to an event, a CITO. You show up, sign the logbook and leave. I show up, sign the logbook, pick up 5 bags of trash, stay after to clean up the event itself and then leave. We both get one smiley, right? Yet I've done so much more. Should I get more smileys just for picking up garbage which is the intent of the event? How about for cleaning up after the event? Fair?

 

Here's another: Same as above except you stick around and find 5 temporary caches before leaving and do nothing else. You log the event 6 times while I get only 1. Fair?

 

Last one, real life this time: A regular event. People show up mingle for a few minutes and leave. I show up mingle, take care of some local organization business, help a few cachers figure out paperless caching and end up being one of the last to leave even tho I've got an hour drive ahead of me and it's past 10pm. Do I get more smileys because I've spent more time and effort? Fair?

 

I don't think any of those 'earn' you an extra smiley. The purpose of the event IS the event, not anything else going on AT the event. That's fair.

The CITO Event:

If you don't CITO, you didn't attend the event. You can't just sign the logbook and call it a find.

And I've never seen a temporary cache at CITO event. Granted, I've only been to one official CITO, but that's because the times that other ones were being held I was doing other volunteer work.

The Regular Event:

But did you find a container and sign a log while you were doing the other things? Isn't that the basis of geocaching?

 

But once again, you log the way you want, I'll log the way I want. If TPTB don't like it they can eliminate the ability to multi-log.

As many times as this has come up in the past, they have yet to do it. Doesn't that tell you something?

Share this post


Link to post

In order to log an "attend" on an event, you just have to show up. If there are temporary caches placed for the event you can search for them or not, it's your choice. Let's say you and I go to an event. I walk in, chat with some folks, get something to eat and leave. You walk in, chat with some folks, go out and find the six caches that were placed for the event, get something to eat and leave. But we each just get one "smilie". Sounds to me a lot like you deserve more, since you spent more time and effort.

 

Ok Richard, howabout this:

 

We both go to an event, a CITO. You show up, sign the logbook and leave. I show up, sign the logbook, pick up 5 bags of trash, stay after to clean up the event itself and then leave. We both get one smiley, right? Yet I've done so much more. Should I get more smileys just for picking up garbage which is the intent of the event? How about for cleaning up after the event? Fair?

 

Here's another: Same as above except you stick around and find 5 temporary caches before leaving and do nothing else. You log the event 6 times while I get only 1. Fair?

 

Last one, real life this time: A regular event. People show up mingle for a few minutes and leave. I show up mingle, take care of some local organization business, help a few cachers figure out paperless caching and end up being one of the last to leave even tho I've got an hour drive ahead of me and it's past 10pm. Do I get more smileys because I've spent more time and effort? Fair?

 

I don't think any of those 'earn' you an extra smiley. The purpose of the event IS the event, not anything else going on AT the event. That's fair.

The CITO Event:

If you don't CITO, you didn't attend the event. You can't just sign the logbook and call it a find.

And I've never seen a temporary cache at CITO event. Granted, I've only been to one official CITO, but that's because the times that other ones were being held I was doing other volunteer work.

The Regular Event:

But did you find a container and sign a log while you were doing the other things? Isn't that the basis of geocaching?

 

But once again, you log the way you want, I'll log the way I want. If TPTB don't like it they can eliminate the ability to multi-log.

As many times as this has come up in the past, they have yet to do it. Doesn't that tell you something?

 

But you miss the point. In YOUR words "Sounds to me a lot like you deserve more, since you spent more time and effort.". What difference is it if the time and effort is finding a temporary cache or picking up garbage? BTW: my examples for CITO events DO happen. I've seen temp caches at them (or at least the cache page said they'd be there and people did log them- here is an example), and I've seen logs for them that said basically "Just stopped by, didn't have time to help but I did sign the log.". Again, the event itself IS the cache, not the activities AT the event.

 

Edited to add link.

Edited by Corp Of Discovery

Share this post


Link to post

 

But you miss the point. In YOUR words "Sounds to me a lot like you deserve more, since you spent more time and effort.". What difference is it if the time and effort is finding a temporary cache or picking up garbage? BTW: my examples for CITO events DO happen. I've seen temp caches at them (or at least the cache page said they'd be there and people did log them- here is an example), and I've seen logs for them that said basically "Just stopped by, didn't have time to help but I did sign the log.". Again, the event itself IS the cache, not the activities AT the event.

 

Edited to add link.

If someone goes to a CITO event and doesn't CITO, then they didn't attend the event and the organizer should delete their find. Even if they found the temporary caches at the event. They didn't CITO = they didn't attend = they couldn't have found the caches.

Now, forget about your CITO event.

A regular event must be about geocaching. That's according to the guidelines.

Geocaching is about finding a container and signing a log.

If you go to an event, and find a temporary cache at the event (which is permitted by the guidelines), you should be able to log the find.

And I will continue to log any that I find.

Do you really think you're going to change my mind?

I know I'm not going to change your's.

Share this post


Link to post

But you miss the point. In YOUR words "Sounds to me a lot like you deserve more, since you spent more time and effort.". What difference is it if the time and effort is finding a temporary cache or picking up garbage? BTW: my examples for CITO events DO happen. I've seen temp caches at them (or at least the cache page said they'd be there and people did log them- here is an example), and I've seen logs for them that said basically "Just stopped by, didn't have time to help but I did sign the log.". Again, the event itself IS the cache, not the activities AT the event.

 

Edited to add link.

Hmm, interesting...

I clicked on the link that you provided and I noticed two things right away.

First, one of the organizers of the CITO logged multiple finds on the temporary caches, apparently as she was picking them up after the event.

Secondly, the drop-down for logging the event lists both "Attended" and "Found". That would indicate that TPTB at GC.com don't have a problem with logging temporary caches at an event.

Share this post


Link to post

 

But you miss the point. In YOUR words "Sounds to me a lot like you deserve more, since you spent more time and effort.". What difference is it if the time and effort is finding a temporary cache or picking up garbage? BTW: my examples for CITO events DO happen. I've seen temp caches at them (or at least the cache page said they'd be there and people did log them- here is an example), and I've seen logs for them that said basically "Just stopped by, didn't have time to help but I did sign the log.". Again, the event itself IS the cache, not the activities AT the event.

 

Edited to add link.

If someone goes to a CITO event and doesn't CITO, then they didn't attend the event and the organizer should delete their find. Even if they found the temporary caches at the event. They didn't CITO = they didn't attend = they couldn't have found the caches.

Now, forget about your CITO event.

A regular event must be about geocaching. That's according to the guidelines.

Geocaching is about finding a container and signing a log.

If you go to an event, and find a temporary cache at the event (which is permitted by the guidelines), you should be able to log the find.

And I will continue to log any that I find.

Do you really think you're going to change my mind?

I know I'm not going to change your's.

 

I don't know if you can change my mind. I try and keep an open one tho. Who knows? In a civil discussion many things are possible.

Share this post


Link to post

But you miss the point. In YOUR words "Sounds to me a lot like you deserve more, since you spent more time and effort.". What difference is it if the time and effort is finding a temporary cache or picking up garbage? BTW: my examples for CITO events DO happen. I've seen temp caches at them (or at least the cache page said they'd be there and people did log them- here is an example), and I've seen logs for them that said basically "Just stopped by, didn't have time to help but I did sign the log.". Again, the event itself IS the cache, not the activities AT the event.

 

Edited to add link.

Hmm, interesting...

I clicked on the link that you provided and I noticed two things right away.

First, one of the organizers of the CITO logged multiple finds on the temporary caches, apparently as she was picking them up after the event.

Secondly, the drop-down for logging the event lists both "Attended" and "Found". That would indicate that TPTB at GC.com don't have a problem with logging temporary caches at an event.

 

So you see, temp caches at CITO event do happen. If the primary reason of a CITO event is to CITO, why not get an extra smiley for doing more CITO instead of just finding those temp caches? As far as 'found' logs on event caches- they don't exist anymore on regular events, only CITO events. It's an oversight more likely than implicit approval of temp caches.

Share this post


Link to post

If you go to an event, and find a temporary cache at the event (which is permitted by the guidelines), you should be able to log the find.

 

From the guidelines applying to all cache types for placing caches...

"Caches placed in connection with an event must be placed with the intention of leaving them in place after the event, temporary caches are not accepted."

 

If they can't be listed as caches, I don't see how they can be found as caches in the traditional sense. I have to concur with C of D--if they are just temporary event caches, they aren't regular finds on this site, but they can still be fun. That's why I support the OP's proposal.

 

Would this or something similar serve as a compromise? It would still allow you to log temp/event caches as a different kind of find.

Share this post


Link to post

So you see, temp caches at CITO event do happen. If the primary reason of a CITO event is to CITO, why not get an extra smiley for doing more CITO instead of just finding those temp caches? As far as 'found' logs on event caches- they don't exist anymore on regular events, only CITO events. It's an oversight more likely than implicit approval of temp caches.

Or, it's not an oversight on the CITO caches, but on the event caches. The same choices of "attended" and "found" should be on both.

And you're saying that you should be able to get an extra smilie on a cache?

 

If you go to an event, and find a temporary cache at the event (which is permitted by the guidelines), you should be able to log the find.

 

From the guidelines applying to all cache types for placing caches...

"Caches placed in connection with an event must be placed with the intention of leaving them in place after the event, temporary caches are not accepted."

 

If they can't be listed as caches, I don't see how they can be found as caches in the traditional sense. I have to concur with C of D--if they are just temporary event caches, they aren't regular finds on this site, but they can still be fun. That's why I support the OP's proposal.

 

Would this or something similar serve as a compromise? It would still allow you to log temp/event caches as a different kind of find.

From a little further down in the guidelines:

"If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there."

I take that to mean that the site doesn't want to go through the hassle of reviewing caches that will just be there for a few hours.

Once again, if temporary caches at an event are not allowed, why is an event cache that states that they will be there allowed?

And if the cache is allowed, why can't it be logged?

 

Stubborn cuss, aren't I? <_<

Share this post


Link to post

People who log an event multiple times and then misrepresent themselves hurt both themselves and the game itself, because they're cheating and lying, which is a bad thing. I'm very suprised at the number of people addressing this topic in the forums who don't seem to understand that.

 

How are they hurting themselves and the game exactly? They're cheating and lying according to you (and a few others that also play this game) but according to the site they're doing something that is allowed. I agree that it's stupid, and that they're definitely not playing the game the way that I choose to play, but please tell me how it effects you or the way that you play.

 

So they "cheat" and have more finds showing than you do. So what? Does that mean you're less likely to "win" geocaching?

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like a good idea to me, I would think this would not be such an issue if the cache owner keeps an eye on things and deletes any double entries.

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like a good idea to me, I would think this would not be such an issue if the cache owner keeps an eye on things and deletes any double entries.

 

This issue still would remain, for two reasons.

 

Some cache owners have no problem with people logging their caches multiple times. They think it's perfectly ok, in fact they encourage it. So now you'll have some caches that it's 'ok' to muli-log, others that it's not 'ok'.

 

Then if a cache owner who does not think it's ok starts deleting multi-logs you are going to hear all kinds of whining about 'How come you deleted my log?". Simple answer to that, in my book, is 'Cause I'm the cache owner and it's within my rights to do so. <_<

 

Either way, the issue remains unless some clearly defines rules are in place, and consistently enforced. I'd personally be all for a membership vote on the subject, majority wins... and I'd be willing to live with the outcome whichever way it went. But this isn't a democracy (and I'm perfectly OK with that)... it's a business, owned and operated by Groundspeak and they are within their rights to have the final say on how they want the site to operate. We have the right to abide those rules and stay here, use another site, and hell even create our own site.

Edited by Audion

Share this post


Link to post

This is copied from the Geocaching Guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

So if you take the last line of this statement, It seems that Geocaching is OK with event caches being hidden. Now saying that, there has to be a way of Logging these So Called Event caches. The only way to log an Event cache is on the Event cache page as multiple Attend logs. Therefore if Geocaching is OK with event caches, then this should be an acceptible practice.

 

I'm afraid you've completely misconstrued the statement If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there. That means that if you've set up perminant caches (with their own cache page on gc.com), but want the event members to have first crack at them, you should print off the cache page to distribute among the event members. The reviewer will hold off publishing the caches until after the event.

Really? I thought it meant that if you want to hide temporary caches for an event you should put the information on a flyer and hand them out at the event. That way you aren't wasting geocaching.com resources on cache pages that won't be published because they are only temporary. If the caches are to be permanent and posted on geocaching.com, everyone can bring their own printouts or PDAs loaded with the cache pages.

 

Well, As a reviewer I will say that sax has the correct meaning. The subject of the line about printouts of caches is "Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. " So if you have a temp cache hidden for your event, since you can not list them on the GC.com website because they do not qualify as a recognized cache, it is suggested that you provide the information about these temp caches in another manner, i.e. a printout.

 

The rest of this is personal opinion..... It does not address the logging of these temp caches because there is no reason to. Why would you log something that isn't recognized as a legit cache on the site?

 

Now this is where the problem lies. If Geocaching is OK with Event caches, then there needs to be a way of logging these event caches. Yes they are not listed on the web site but they are LEGIT finds.

Now I'm not talking about these POCKET CACHES but when you have to go out hunting for Ammo boxes or Decon containers as an Event cache, then I would consider this as a find.

As I said earlier there is ABUSE going on though and there should be some type of LIMIT to the amount of finds that you can log. Whether there is a special log for event caches or whatever.

This is all personal opinion, as stated above.

Ultimately the responsibilty needs to be in the Cachers running the event to self moderate the number of Event caches hidden, and to DELETE excess logging.

I can find no where in the guidelines that this is not an accepted practice as far as GC is concerned.

Caches without a GC number are not geocaching.com caches

Why not try logging them on Navicache or Terracachers.

Share this post


Link to post

So you see, temp caches at CITO event do happen. If the primary reason of a CITO event is to CITO, why not get an extra smiley for doing more CITO instead of just finding those temp caches? As far as 'found' logs on event caches- they don't exist anymore on regular events, only CITO events. It's an oversight more likely than implicit approval of temp caches.

Or, it's not an oversight on the CITO caches, but on the event caches. The same choices of "attended" and "found" should be on both.

 

No, it's definately an oversight on the CITO page because it used to be an option for regular events but was removed.

 

And you're saying that you should be able to get an extra smilie on a cache?

 

No- you said before, in support of logging temp caches, "Sounds to me a lot like you deserve more, since you spent more time and effort.". If that is true, which I think it's NOT, why would only finding a temp cache allow you to log an extra smiley rather than ANY activity at the event? It's just silly to do it for either.

 

If you go to an event, and find a temporary cache at the event (which is permitted by the guidelines), you should be able to log the find.

 

From the guidelines applying to all cache types for placing caches...

"Caches placed in connection with an event must be placed with the intention of leaving them in place after the event, temporary caches are not accepted."

 

If they can't be listed as caches, I don't see how they can be found as caches in the traditional sense. I have to concur with C of D--if they are just temporary event caches, they aren't regular finds on this site, but they can still be fun. That's why I support the OP's proposal.

 

Would this or something similar serve as a compromise? It would still allow you to log temp/event caches as a different kind of find.

From a little further down in the guidelines:

"If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there."

I take that to mean that the site doesn't want to go through the hassle of reviewing caches that will just be there for a few hours.

Once again, if temporary caches at an event are not allowed, why is an event cache that states that they will be there allowed?

And if the cache is allowed, why can't it be logged?

 

No one has said you can't have temp caches, just that the event page isn't the place to log them. Go ahead and log them on that particular caches page, might have a hard time locating it tho as it does not exist.

 

Stubborn cuss, aren't I? :ph34r:

 

You say stubborn, I say obtuse- let's call the whole thing off. :anitongue:

 

Edited for freaking typos.

Edited by Corp Of Discovery

Share this post


Link to post

Can I start logging finds on event (or other) cache pages for caches listed at terracaching or navicache?

Sure. As long as the cache owner doesn't have a problem with it.

 

The cache WEBSITE owner does have a problem with it:

 

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

Share this post


Link to post

Can I start logging finds on event (or other) cache pages for caches listed at terracaching or navicache?

Sure. As long as the cache owner doesn't have a problem with it.

 

The cache WEBSITE owner does have a problem with it:

 

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

But he still hasn't said that he's against multi-logging temporary event caches.

Share this post


Link to post
Stubborn cuss, aren't I? :ph34r:

 

You say stubborn, I say obtuse- let's call the whole thing off. :anitongue:

 

Edited for freaking typos.

Bordering on personal abuse there, CoD.

Share this post


Link to post

As a newbie, I enjoy these debates and felt like I would throw in my 2 cents.

 

I tend to side with the more "pure" logging where you can only log a find one time per GC #. I have been to a few events and they have all been different, although none have had any temporary caches, but if they did it seems that is just an activity offered at the event. Since each event is different, there are different things that I can do during the event, but it doesn't seem like there should be a different value (i.e # of smilies) for how I chose to attend - with the exception of a CITO where I agree you shouldn't take the smilie unless you CITO'd. We just had an event where we did have new caches for the event, but they are to be permanent, so I got to log "GC" finds for those which is within the spirit of the "rules of the game". That said, in most cases it appears that the # of smilies is between the event owner and the event attendee, if the attendee wants to take more than one smilie and the event owner wants to give it, then that is their perogative. I will only ask for one smilie, but then I want to have a pure count of how many events I have attended.

 

If the rule was made where you could only log an attended on an event once, then attendees would know that these temporary caches do not earn smilies then it is up to them to decide if they want to find the cache for the sheer pleasure of finding the cache (which is what this should be about anyway along with seeing whatever the cache hider wanted you to experience/see), or if not, then don't look for it and only find caches that get you a smilie. What I think is cool about GC.com is the different icons to help keep track of my activities, I for one wouldn't want a whole bunch of counts on one event. But again, I'll play my way you play yours.

Share this post


Link to post
And here is what it all comes down to:

I don't care if there are cache pages or not.

I don't care if the cache is officially recognized by GC.com, or you, or anyone.

I am not in a competition.

I log caches the way I want to log them for my own purposes, and I really don't care if you think I'm wrong or I'm cheating or whatever.

 

Except, of course, that your 'find' count represents the total number of actual listed geocaches that you've found, and by logging events the way you do, you are misrepresenting yourself. Perhaps that doesn't matter to you, and you say you don't think it's wrong, but I still do.

 

You, however, are trying to impose your rules on me.

 

Yes. Of course, you are currently imposing your own rules on me, which is that it is Ok for people to misrepresent their 'find' counts as much as they like, Ie, cheat.

 

If multi-logging events to account for the temporary caches is contrary to the site's guidelines, why hasn't the site already made it impossible to do?

Never mind. Don't answer that. You'll only give your interpretation, which we've a[quotelready determined is different than mine.

I'd like to hear from someone from the head office of GC.com on this.

Oh, wait, we have heard from them... Their lack of action indicates that they don't consider it to be the problem that you do.

 

I'll answer if I like, thanks.

 

They've never addressed this problem because they consider it a slippery slope. There are loads of ways people can misrepresent their find counts, and Groundspeak does not want to be the 'find count police', because it's an impossible job. They would be constantly fielding specific objections about other geocachers from adults who should have better things to do with their time, far worse that what they're getting now. They would, in effect, become geocaching 'umpires', and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

 

However, I'm not asking for the formation of a 'find count police' squad. I'm not going to object to any existing find counts and ask that they be changed, the example in the OP aside. All I'm asking for is a programming change that would prevent multiple 'found' or 'attended' logs on a cache. I don't think it's too much to ask, and I hope that Jeremy will give it his due consideration. I hope he sees that this change does not start him down that slippery slope.

 

Doing so mich disappoint some people, cramp some styles, pee them off. TPTB have seen fit to do that before (locationless, virtual, vacation), I see no reason why they can't go ahead and do it again.

Share this post


Link to post

It is up to the cache owner to decide what is acceptable or not acceptable on a cache they are responsible to maintain.

 

For the most part your local community will dictate what is acceptable and what is not. In some areas it is acceptable to log multiple finds on a multi or an event cache. In others it is highly frowned upon. As for a community standard that is embraced by the majority of cachers, I don't believe there is one.

 

I have my opinions on this but I will keep them to myself :anitongue:

Wouldn't this indicate that TPTB have spoken?

Share this post


Link to post
Stubborn cuss, aren't I? :anitongue:

 

You say stubborn, I say obtuse- let's call the whole thing off. :ph34r:

 

Edited for freaking typos.

Bordering on personal abuse there, CoD.

 

Nothing personal meant. Sorry if you took it that way. I even put in a smiley.

 

I also believe it is on topic. You said you were being stubborn, I think you are being obtuse in regards to what I was saying. One of the meanings of obtuse: difficult to comprehend, lacking quickness of perception. In other words I don't think you 'get' what I am saying. Of course it could always be me being obtuse with my examples. :D The paraphrasing of that particular song (Let's Call The Whole Thing Off) was also part and parcel of what I said. It is a song about 2 people who can't agree; but rather than part they end up agreeing to disagree. Which I also now believe is the case here. :(

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, this is the last time that I'm going to post to this thread.

You're right, CoD, in that we should agree to disagree. I think we're all able to disagree without losing respect for each other. And should the occasion come up, I'd be glad to hunt Tupperware with you again. Or meet and cache with any of my other "opponents" here.

However, and you knew there had to be a "however" coming up:

The problem is one of interpretation. I'm interpreting the guidelines one way (although I'm the only one discussing it here, judging by the logs on event caches I'm not the only one with that interpretation), you are interpreting them another. I'm fine with that. But the OP wants the site changed so that everyone is forced to abide by his interpretation. That's were I have a problem.

Jeremy doesn't seem to think multi-logging events is a problem or I think he would have done something to prevent it from happening. Since he is a moderator for this part of the forum, perhaps he will read this thread tomorrow and decide to make the change that the OP is requesting. Or not. Until such a time as he does, I'm going to continue logging finds as I see fit.

 

Good night, everyone.

I'm going to go have a root beer float

Share this post


Link to post

Jeremy has said before that he's not going to do anything about it unless it becomes a problem. Go read it for yourself.

 

If he does decide to change his site, then we'll all have a new rule to our beloved game. Until he does, it's legal and it doesn't hurt anything.

Share this post


Link to post

Jeremy has said before that he's not going to do anything about it unless it becomes a problem. Go read it for yourself.

 

If he does decide to change his site, then we'll all have a new rule to our beloved game. Until he does, it's legal and it doesn't hurt anything.

It also doesn't hurt anything to discuss the topic.

Share this post


Link to post

Jeremy has said before that he's not going to do anything about it unless it becomes a problem. Go read it for yourself.

 

If he does decide to change his site, then we'll all have a new rule to our beloved game. Until he does, it's legal and it doesn't hurt anything.

 

Okay, I read Jeremy's previous linked reply. Yes, he said he's not going to do anything about it,

 

However, he also stated...

 

"I don't think that it is the "right thing to do™" but as long as the functionality of the site is not overly abused I'm not going to play nanny to a group of adults."

 

Yep, the bold emphasis is mine, but saying it's "not the right thing to do" doesn't sound like approval at all. Of course, I can see why he wouldn't want to play nanny. I choose not to worry about it too much when there are thousands of listed caches for me to find with logs to sign and great cachers to meet, including RichardMoore and others (and hopefully you too, Mushtang) who disagree with me. :anitongue:

 

Edited for typo

Edited by Teach2Learn

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, the age old argument....glad to see it was about 2 hours before it resurfaced again. I wonder when this will become an "issue"....I mean, I've seen events logged up to 60 or 70 times....I wonder if/when people start logging 100+ if it will be an issue, or if there's some magic number, like 75, where it will be deemed a problem.

 

I'd of course be all up for implementing the 1 GC#=1 Log rule.

 

I also had suggested in this forum a week or so ago to add a new "unique caches" found stat (in addition to the current count that's already there) but was kindof shot down. Hell, even a "warning" message when attempting to log a cache more than once would be an improvement....something like:

 

You have already logged this cache once. Although allowed, logging caches more than once (for pocket or temporary caches at an event) is generally frowned upon. Are you sure you want to continue (Y/N)"

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have several other dead horses that need to be beaten.

Edited by ThePropers

Share this post


Link to post
If he does decide to change his site, then we'll all have a new rule to our beloved game. Until he does, it's legal and it doesn't hurt anything.

First, let me say that I'm not a supporter of coding a 1-log limit into the site because there are a few instances that (I believe) multiple logs are OK. I've discussed this in this thread and others.

 

However, your post bothers me. You appear to be arguing that as long as you are able to do it, then it is OK. This logic is seriously flawed.

Share this post


Link to post

Seeing as how several WI events have been linked, I will offer my take on this multiple event logging. Events are hosted, lots of planning goes into hiding temp caches for the event , and then the day of the event, people sign in, get the cache coords loaded into their GPSrs and away they go. After so many hours, a potluck dinner is put on and some fun socializing happens.

 

I have been to many events (even the ones linked) and have logged all the temp caches. My thinking was that, the effort was put into hiding the caches, they were certainly worthy of being caches, I hunted for them, signed a logbook - okay used the designated stamper in each cache, therefore I should get credit with a smiley.

 

Awhile ago, I began thinking, if events were to bring people together to meet and share stories etc, why was everyone scattered about many acres focused on finding all the temp caches? So focused they are, that many will skip the potluck dinners, group meetings, group photos etc., because it will take precious time from finding all the caches. (I know, I've done this in the past myself).

 

I held a weekend event this past winter. I actually had a few teams not attend because we did not provide enough temp caches to make it worth their time. I've seen this trend. If there are no or very little temp caches at events, it is poorly attended. Make an event with at least 30 caches, you will have lots of people there.

 

My experiences with events proved to me that people want to go for the easiest way to inflate thier numbers (yes, I was in that group). Events are certainly the way to do it. As far as event attendees saying they are there to socialize, not find temp caches...Well, I got about three paragraphs worth of words from one team I ran into at a recent event cache. They found it and hightailed it to the next one leaving me and some new cachers we spent the day with in the dust. This was a team I have known for several years and shared many caching times with. Don't tell me its not about the numbers for some........

 

When I realized it was about the numbers (and IT IS) and that I was not having any fun geocaching because of it, I changed my ways. I am happy to say that as of late fall 2005, I no longer partake in multiple logging of events. Thank God!

 

I am beginning to agree with others- one GC number equals one smiley. Period. Do I agree that GC should enforce this? No. It should be a decision left up to each cache owner and cacher whether to allow multiple logs. As it was pointed out in the original post link - a cacher with several hundred or thousand attended events looks stupid to me. (I can say that, cause my own stats show my own previous stupidity with events).

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...