Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
WalruZ

New Feature Request - Single Log Per Cache.

Recommended Posts

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.

 

This is part of the reason I don't understand this... if they really were 'worthy' caches.. and I believe you that they were. Why weren't they made permanent caches for many, many other cachers to enjoy over the years?

My guess is, most likely cache saturation. If that's the case... to me it wouldn't be much fun to find 30 caches in a 1 square block area.

 

Thankfully it seems that the trend around the Chicago area is that when we have an event, we place at least a couple new caches for that event but they have pretty much all been permanent caches. Fun to hunt and fully legitimate to log on GC.com. And, something that I can hunt at a later date if I don't make it to the event, or as you've so accurately pointed out... I wanted to come to the event and actually SOCIALIZE with other cachers and not merely spend the whole time out hunting temp caches.

Edited by Audion

Share this post


Link to post

. . . <snip>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. . . .<snip>

That is really sad. :lol: The Events around here are very well-attended. Temporary caches, if there have been any at the Event, have never been logged as extra smilies.

 

I guess in that area it really is all about the numbers instead of about meeting people and having fun socializing at Events . . . :lol: Isn't that the purpose of an Event? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Geocache logging has always been on a semi-honors system. I say semi-honors because the cache owner can delete logs that are bogus or don't meet other requirements. Because of this, people (both finders and and cache owners) have found many ways to "abuse" the logs. I put "abuse" in quotes because, aside from a few who log totally bogus finds to simply up their find count, most of these abusers believe that they are contributing to the fun of the game in some way. Whether it be extra logging requirements, bonus finds, allowing extra logs for temporary event caches, or pocket caches, the motivation is to have some fun. However, there are some people who believe that the find count is something other than count of found and attended logs. They believe that the find count is a count of active Geocaching.com-listed caches that you have found. While they can't agree exactly what a find is, they are certain that bonus finds, temporary event caches, pocket caches, and finds on cache that you hid are not finds and should not be counted. By changing the website to restrict you from being able to log multiple finds on a cache or from logging a find on cache you own, they believe the find count will be "purer" than it is now and therefore more meaningful. I guess that if I believed that the find count was not simply a count of the number of found and attended logs you have, I would have no problem with changing the website to restrict some subset of the logging the puritans find objectionable. However, since I believe the find count will never be "pure" - or that a definition of a "pure" find that everyone agrees on is even possible - I would prefer that the semi-honors system be left as it is and that TPTB spend the effort on making other improvements to the site that are more useful.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I am sure that Jeremy has a lot of balls up in the air these days, but I hope he'll consider this request once more. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I don't think that multiple logs on events are the real problem here. My guess is, if you average it out, the real problem is newbies who log finds on their own caches when they mean to log notes/maintenance notes/travel bug drops and people who accidentally log a cache twice when they only meant to log it once (I've seen a few of these on my watch list lately). People get confused and building this functionality in would save a lot of hassle.

 

For that reason alone, I would be in favor of one "found it/attended" per cacher per cache/event.

 

Bret

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. I think a warning message, like that suggested in this post (and similar to what happens now when you go to post a "Needs Maintenance" log) would be a good idea.

 

<snip> . . .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 kind of 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)"

If the person wants to continue and log a second "Found It" log (and maybe there is a valid reason, like the cache has been moved a considerable distance from its previous location), they can still do it . . . but at least they are given a warning before they are allowed to log the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

This is part of the reason I don't understand this... if they really were 'worthy' caches.. and I believe you that they were. Why weren't they made permanent caches for many, many other cachers to enjoy over the years?

My guess is, most likely cache saturation.

In my area, we often meet in parks or on private property.

 

Sometimes is is a question of "saturation"- but by park rules, not our guideline-- sometimes what a park considers 'close enough' is ten times larger than the proximity GC allows. While the manager is agreeable to allow temporary caches that are closer, they really aren't able to offer a permanent spot.

 

One of the parks we meet at every summer is near an elementary school. None of us feel we should have a permanent cache near where young children play, even if it were allowed. But we see no harm in a the two or three temporary caches that will be out for the event.

 

I know of at least one private property that houses a huge yearly gathering. While the lady who owns the 200 acres or so property is fine with people coming in for the weekend once a year, she really doesn't want people coming in on a daily basis.

Share this post


Link to post

I found a cache in 2004, with a couple of my students. We had a blast looking for it.

 

Early this year, the owner asked me if I would like to take over that cache. I adopted it. Now I maintain it, replace the logbook when it fills up, etc.

 

Explain to me exactly why I shouldn't have credit for finding it and for being the owner of it?

 

I'm in exactly the same boat. I adopted the very first cache I ever found, about a year after finding it. So I own it and I have a find for it. Perfectly kosher to my way of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post

I also have two "Found It" logs on one cache because it was moved more than a mile from its original location. That is very, very different from the logs on this cache. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I found a cache in 2004, with a couple of my students. We had a blast looking for it.

 

Early this year, the owner asked me if I would like to take over that cache. I adopted it. Now I maintain it, replace the logbook when it fills up, etc.

 

Explain to me exactly why I shouldn't have credit for finding it and for being the owner of it?

 

I'm in exactly the same boat. I adopted the very first cache I ever found, about a year after finding it. So I own it and I have a find for it. Perfectly kosher to my way of thinking.

 

Well, I'm in the same boat, but I wouldn't care one whit if my count dropped by the number of caches I've adopted. (Which is 4, BTW.)

Share this post


Link to post

OK, I'm going to chime in here once, then leave.

 

I go to events to have fun with other geocachers. I go whether there are temps or not. When there are temps, I usually go hunt some of them because they are often very creative and fun hides. Could they become permanent GC-listed hides? Not usually. Often they involve props that wouldn't hold up to the elements. An example would be a cache inside a giant spider hanging in the trees I saw at a Halloween event. Lots of them are like that. Plus the whole cache-saturation issue which wouldn't be allowed in the state parks we often use.

 

So when I find a temp cache, do I log it? Yes - because I like to have a record of my adventures when I geocache. However, do I care if the temp caches show up in my find count? No. (Does that surprise some of you?) So here is my proposal:

 

Allow multiple finds (attendeds) on a GC number, but only put one in the final tally. Those temp finds would only show up on the profile page and here is what it would look like:

 

Traditionals 50

Multis 20

Virtuals 15

Events 3

(additional event logs) 12

etc

 

Total finds 88

(Total with additional logs) 100

 

It's fine with me if 88 is the find number everyone sees on the cache pages, stats bars, etc. But those additional 12 event finds are important to me and I don't want to lose them.

 

No, I'm not naive enough to think that the true number hounds feel the same way I do. I personally know people who would be very unhappy with this. But I would like to see some sort of compromise come out of this. That is if TPTB are even considering doing anything at all.

Edited by Team LightningBugs

Share this post


Link to post

I am aware of multiple logging is the cache is moved to a new location, but i never heard of logging into an event more than once. I don't like adding rules to anything in life, but this is a little strange and i can't see how you could really justify it. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Am I the only one confused by the "the website allows it" statement?

 

The reason I say this is, take the OP link. CLICK on the persons event's listing (not just look at the total). Now, when you click that link for "geocaches", it shows 20 listings per page. So if you check the OP link, you see only 2. How can this be...oh yeah, multiple "attended" logs.

 

To me, that indicates that the website does NOT support multiple logs on a cache...but I guess I must be the only one that feels that way. Really, if you can't see them separated, how does the multiple logging help anything BUT the total find count????

 

But since I basically proposed the same thing on a different thread a few days ago, I guess I've been solidly in the single log camp for a bit :laughing:

 

Celticwulf

Share this post


Link to post

Am I the only one confused by the "the website allows it" statement?

 

I'm not confused by it. I just accept it as flawed reasoning. It isn't any more valid than saying that a house with an unlocked front door means it is ok to move in there.

Share this post


Link to post

Am I the only one confused by the "the website allows it" statement?

 

I'm not confused by it. I just accept it as flawed reasoning. It isn't any more valid than saying that a house with an unlocked front door means it is ok to move in there.

 

Okay, I'll no longer use "the website allows it" as an argument. The way I see it, Jeremy is the webiste, and if he doesn't think something is correct to do, then that means that the website doesn't think it's the correct thing to do (for geocaching only, I don't care what Jeremy thinks about how high my grass gets, how I dress, what kind of gas I put in my car, etc. I had to add that part for those that don't like Jeremy and/or the way he runs the site).

 

However, I disagree with your analogy. If someone moved into my house because the door was unlocked, I'd call the cops and they'd do something about it because that clearly isn't allowed. They wouldn't care if someone drove down the street in front of my house though, because that is allowed. If I called the cops and complained about people driving past my house they'd ignore my complaint.

 

Some of us thought that since you knew about a situation (multiple logs for example) and didn't do anything to stop it, then you had decided to allow it. At least that's why I've said in the past that "the website allows it".

 

But i understand your point, and will continue my crusade to debate those that want to change the way everyone else caches because they think they do it better and enjoy it more. I'll just do it without one of my arguments.

Share this post


Link to post

In caching as in life, some things are a matter of honor and honesty and some people have neither. These people look at it as a lawyer would; if it has not been ruled against it is legal.

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.

Commendable.

 

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).

How sad is that? :anibad:

 

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.

These typically would be the cachers that look you in the eye and say "It's not about the numbers."

 

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!

This is a refreshing comment, one that more cachers should consider.

 

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).I understand that this post contains your words/opinions, and that you have every right to speak them.

I'm glad you took the time to write this post being a WI geocacher. As I have read through this debated string of posts over the last couple days, I feel WI Geocaching is slowly developing a "black eye" so to speak, for some of their events, as are a few of their local cachers. Funny thing is that numbers really don't matter in the overall scheme of things and even if they did, these individuals would have a big asterisks next to their profile anyway. I do however think that GC should develop simple code that would prevent anyone from logging more than one find per cache. For those people that want to see a bigger numbers next to their name so they can feel better, download this little app - http://www.rb59.com/geoc/index.html, and track all your duplicaches. Edited by Team Henzlik

Share this post


Link to post

In caching as in life, some things are a matter of honor and honesty and some people have neither. These people look at it as a lawyer would; if it has not been ruled against it is legal.

 

In life, as in caching, there are some people that like to treat everyone that doesn't agree with them as though they're dishonest and without honor.

 

Obviously you think that if someone enjoys logging event caches more than once then they're doing it wrong. Why? Just because you don't cache that way?

 

If you don't like to eat Chinese food, do you also think that those that do are wrong? Maybe we should try to have all Chinese restaurants shut down because you don't want to eat there.

 

People that enjoy bonus caches don't hurt you. People that eat at Chinese restaurants don't hurt those that do.

 

Or did I misunderstand what you were trying to say?

Share this post


Link to post

:blink: my statement was an imperical one. It had nothing to do with logging caches or events, or anything else in particular. BUT, I always assume that the ones that react the most had to most to react for. :P

 

:P I expected that the concept would be over the heads of some readers. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Such a simple fix, yet TPTB or anyone else won't fix it. Jeremy can you please address for me? Thanx.

 

Change the way that these are logged on the page to:

 

EVENT CACHE FOUND. Would not add to your "regular stats" and would allow you to keep a journal of ALL of your finds. If ya are really into stats, then just add them together if you want. :blink:

 

I know, temp caches aren't allowed right? Wrong, they are not specifically forbidden by the site (if they are I STILL want to read the specific rule), it just says they won't be PUBLISHED. All temps are removed after the event anyways, WI does not permit permanent caches in state parks (unless previously archived). Everybody wants to see and enjoy these parks and they are where many events are held. This gives cachers the opportunity to:

enjoy the parks while caching

help CITO from an event

meet other cachers

learn new hiding techniques

allow disabled participants some caches that are more handicap friendly

allows the caches to removed after the event and not trash up the park

 

I hope they consider an EVENT CACHE icon - hey if that happens, we will all have to find something else to fight about! :ph34r::P

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.

 

 

Huh?!??? :blink:

 

You're the one telling him how he should log caches. He's not talling you how YOU should log caches, just how he would prefer to do it himself. It's not like he's telling you that you should be required to log event caches multiple times.

 

YOU are the one telling HIM he should be forced to log them just once.

Share this post


Link to post

Am I the only one confused by the "the website allows it" statement?

 

I'm not confused by it. I just accept it as flawed reasoning. It isn't any more valid than saying that a house with an unlocked front door means it is ok to move in there.

 

At least with this "functionality" they don't have to jump through hoops and backdoor their way in, like, say, logging members only caches when you're not one - a practice that the website "allows" and you have publicly commented on.

 

As far as multiple logs go, there isn't even a hint that the practice is "frowned upon". In fact, newbies or even people who have been caching a while that never read the forums might have no idea that it IS frowned upon. Maybe they think it's perfectly normal to revisit a cache every week and post a "Found It" log every week. There's really no guidance on the issue one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post

:P my statement was an imperical one. It had nothing to do with logging caches or events, or anything else in particular.

It didn't have anything to do with logging caches? Let's take a peek at part of your quote....

 

In caching as in life...

 

The second word is what threw me off I suppose. :blink:

 

BUT, I always assume that the ones that react the most had to most to react for. :P

 

:ph34r: I expected that the concept would be over the heads of some readers. :P

 

Well, your post IS in the thread about logging events multiple times, right? Why is it surprising that someone thought you were talking about logging caches or events?

 

Backpeddling is a concept that is not over the heads of some readers, and you've shown us a great example of it.

Share this post


Link to post

Am I the only one confused by the "the website allows it" statement?

 

I'm not confused by it. I just accept it as flawed reasoning. It isn't any more valid than saying that a house with an unlocked front door means it is ok to move in there.

 

At least with this "functionality" they don't have to jump through hoops and backdoor their way in, like, say, logging members only caches when you're not one - a practice that the website "allows" and you have publicly commented on.

 

As far as multiple logs go, there isn't even a hint that the practice is "frowned upon". In fact, newbies or even people who have been caching a while that never read the forums might have no idea that it IS frowned upon. Maybe they think it's perfectly normal to revisit a cache every week and post a "Found It" log every week. There's really no guidance on the issue one way or the other.

This was very much my scenerio. Having never been to an event or these forums, had no idea it was such a problem. I simply got there, got out my GPS, loaded the coordinates, found the caches, went home and because there was no EVENT CACHE but only attended and not attended listed, logged under attended - there was no other way to do it. We spent 10 hours in the rain and cold by the way finding these and they were creative and well thought out, better than some I have been to. I think they should be considered as legitimate in some way in the future if gc.com can come up with a way, it would please most everybody on both sides - at least I think it would.... i hope...

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting topic, I've gone through and read most of the posts about it, and see there's good arguements on both sides.

 

Personally, yes, I have logged temp event caches, and one or two caches where the cache owner explicitly stated that you could log the cache more than once for completing some extra task or something they deemed worthy of a find. Perhaps that makes me the enemy, I don't know. All I know is the finds I've logged meant something to me, every one of em. I didn't go log an event multiple times to make my find count go up. At the time, I didn't realize how much of an issue temp caches have been, but I know I did just as much work to find those temps (sometimes more, granted they might've been placed at the event and the placer didn't take time to get a good set of coordinates), hence why I logged them.

 

Since then, I've come to a conclusion that I didn't want to log event temp caches anymore. Seems to me the event is more of a social gathering, why go out and find a bunch more caches that day than be able to chat with some local cachers? And I would like my stats to look a little more formal. However, at this point it would be a nightmare for me to go back and change those logs, which would mess up what I consider to be my milestone finds.

 

The best solution I've come up with is to just move forward, log events once, etc. If people care to judge me for past actions, let them, I'm not competing numberswise anyways, and I never was. Like some people have put it, my numbers only mean something to me. That is proven by the fact that I don't get some big congrats or awards or certificates or othersuch incentives for reaching a milestone find (I realize that local caching organizations have different ways of recognizing personal achievments, but we don't have that here in my state).

 

I would olny ask if such a plan to allow only one log per cache is implemented, please let the old stuff get grandfathered in, if only to save what sanity I have left from having to go back and fix the mess I managed to make.

 

When I got started caching, my roommate let me in on a good point. What really counts as a find? Why should a horrendous multi, a super devious micro, and an ammo can in a stump all count as 1 find? 1 cache took you a minute to do, another cache took you 3 months, why are they equal? Same rule applies, it's not about numbers, and it never should be. I have never looked down on another cacher because they don't have as many "finds" as I do, nor for the same reason do I look up to someone because they have more "finds" than myself.

 

(P.S. If numbers truely mattered, I wouldn't think events should really count as a find the same as a traditional geocache is).

Share this post


Link to post

:P my statement was an imperical one. It had nothing to do with logging caches or events, or anything else in particular.

It didn't have anything to do with logging caches? Let's take a peek at part of your quote....

 

In caching as in life...

 

The second word is what threw me off I suppose. :P

 

BUT, I always assume that the ones that react the most had to most to react for. :ph34r:

 

:P I expected that the concept would be over the heads of some readers. :P

 

Well, your post IS in the thread about logging events multiple times, right? Why is it surprising that someone thought you were talking about logging caches or events?

 

Backpeddling is a concept that is not over the heads of some readers, and you've shown us a great example of it.

 

Because I do not do something and you do, does not automatically make it right or wrong. BUT, I am always interested in all of the ways that words can be twisted and restated for purposes that are still unknown or to get some kind of effect for some personal gain. I am sure the purposes will be revealed in time and in future posts. :blink::P

Share this post


Link to post

Because I do not do something and you do, does not automatically make it right or wrong. BUT, I am always interested in all of the ways that words can be twisted and restated for purposes that are still unknown or to get some kind of effect for some personal gain. I am sure the purposes will be revealed in time and in future posts. :ph34r::P

 

This old "you're twisting my words" reply is very close to the "I never said that" reply that some people use when they're out of logical replies. :blink:

 

I'm sorry if I twisted any of your words. Please elaborate.

Share this post


Link to post

From the cache listing guidelines on event caches...

 

In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches. Such group hunts are best organized using the forums or an email distribution list.

Just wondering... ...if this is explicitly the case, they why would it be okay to hold an event and provide a slew of temporary caches for people to find and log against the event listing?

 

Not taking sides, just wondering how the guideline on events and the practice of logging temporary event caches jibe.

 

Please don't focus on the guideline wording "...another cache or caches." It's the spirit of the guideline I'm wondering about, not mincing the words. That phrase could be argued back and forth endlessly as to whether the temporary caches are indeed "another cache or caches."

 

Hoping for some insight.

Share this post


Link to post

From the cache listing guidelines on event caches...

 

In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches. Such group hunts are best organized using the forums or an email distribution list.

Just wondering... ...if this is explicitly the case, they why would it be okay to hold an event and provide a slew of temporary caches for people to find and log against the event listing?

 

Not taking sides, just wondering how the guideline on events and the practice of logging temporary event caches jibe.

 

Please don't focus on the guideline wording "...another cache or caches." It's the spirit of the guideline I'm wondering about, not mincing the words. That phrase could be argued back and forth endlessly as to whether the temporary caches are indeed "another cache or caches."

 

Hoping for some insight.

I'll try from my perspective. It would not be "against the event listing", but rather a way to keep track of caches that you found that day. One event cache smiley, x-number of Event Cache Hides icons. I think event planners put the temporary caches there cause, well, that's what we do and what we are interested in! It is great to socialize and grill a few brats, but even more fun to go off and do what we do best - hunt for well hidden plastic tupperware boxes in the woods. I would rather find temp caches than say - play poker at a geocacher event, know what I mean? If I went to an event for Harleys I would not pull up on my kids 3 wheeler trike. These temp caches also are not just thrown out there without any thought. Many are really creative and give other cachers ideas on how to apply them where they live, they are not just put out with no thought put into them. I guess the bottom line to me is, if this was made separate category, you could log them apart from your other stats, they are removed from the park when the event is over (this would be after GC.com says that they would provide the means to do this), what's the problem???? :blink:

Edited by lonesumdove

Share this post


Link to post

As a follow-up question... If folks are getting "credit" for finding temporary caches, should the hider of temporary caches get "credit" for hiding them?

 

Just trying to look at this subject from some new angles.

Share this post


Link to post

As a follow-up question... If folks are getting "credit" for finding temporary caches, should the hider of temporary caches get "credit" for hiding them?

 

Just trying to look at this subject from some new angles.

:blink: Again, what is the SPECIFIC problem you would have with a cache hidden at an event and then logged in a SEPARATE category aside from your regular stats?

 

Edited to ask: How do I get one of your geocoins that you have listed?

Edited by lonesumdove

Share this post


Link to post

I'm really new to all of this so perhaps my comments won't seem as relevent as others, however I thought a new persons perspective on the subject might be worth a moment or two.

 

Before I started hunting around to find out more about this hobby/sport/past-time/educational opportunity I didn't have a clue that there were those that had issue with this. From what I have read prior, I have come to the conclusion that not only is it an issue, but for some it is a serious issue (for whatever reason).

 

From a new persons perspective, I assumed that you logged a cache once and drove on to the next, even if you had reason to go back (what reason I have no idea, but there must be).

 

I also assumed (and yes I understand that perhaps I should not have made these assumptions) that policing these logs was the responsibility of the cache owner. If they have no problem with multiple log entries, that is there cash and the decision is theirs.

 

I suppose that these assumptions came from the standpoint of the hunt being the draw, not the number, not the something that you find or leave, not the rush to be the first, but the hunt. (I'm still working on the code for one and it is more of a challenge and enjoyable than the others that I have found, and there have been few as my own personal gps hasn't arrived yet).

 

The only thing that I can add to this, hoping that this has added something to the discussion, is that it is just as important to carry a bag to pick-up garbage on your travels as it is to build up numbers in a log. And as usual, this is just my humble opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, each was find was logged once, by those who logged them as attended (only way right now to log these finds). (I did not log them due to my recent discussions here and hoping to find a more "correct" way to keep track of them). This particular event had about 100 temp finds, in a state park, where they allowed the event ONLY because they knew that all caches would be removed at the end of the weekend. Not only did I not see ONE gumwrapper lying around, but the cachers that we saw were especially respectful of the park and sensitive areas. The naturalist that runs the park even talked to the group about it along with some interesting history. All participants, old, young, handicapped and avid and more adventurous cachers had a great time. I just want to keep a log someplace to journal what I have done during this experience. Keep the numbers separate, I don't care. If I want, I can add the two columns together - big deal.

Edited by lonesumdove

Share this post


Link to post

Preventing multiple find logs on a cache has been on my wish list for some time, but I can see some value in allowing them for multiple attends if there are event caches or if an existing cache has changed enough so that the cache owner wants to allow multiple finds.

 

I think a good compromise is to add a maximum finds control that the cache owner can set, defaulted to one, this way the cache owner is still in control but does not have to monitor it so closely.

 

I would even go as far that after this feature goes public allow the cache owner a couple months to set this value on there existing and archived caches and then convert all find (or equivalent) logs over the limit to notes.

 

Sorry if this has been suggested before as I am coming to this conversation late.

Share this post


Link to post

As a follow-up question... If folks are getting "credit" for finding temporary caches, should the hider of temporary caches get "credit" for hiding them?

 

Just trying to look at this subject from some new angles.

:D Again, what is the SPECIFIC problem you would have with a cache hidden at an event and then logged in a SEPARATE category aside from your regular stats?

 

I'll answer this question from my point of view if you'll answer one of mine. I know you didn't ask me specifically, but I want to answer it anyway.

 

The SPECIFIC problem I have is that some people are telling me that I should change the way I enjoy caching, when (as far as I can tell) the way I cache doesn't have any effect at all on these busybodies. Not only are they suggesting that I should change, but they're calling for a change in the web site to FORCE me to change.

 

If I decide to log events more than once, it won't have any effect on your stats. It's not keeping you from finding any caches. It's not keeping you from winning the game. It's not weighing down your cache pages with additional finds. The only possible way that I can see that you'd care is that I'd have more finds than I would if I'd done it your way, and the numbers are important to you.

 

So that's my answer. Now, someone answer me this... what is the SPECIFIC way that me logging more than one find on a cache hurts you?

 

Someone tried to use the argument that it hurts the integrity of the game, but that's only how it may look to you, not how it may look to everyone else. Everyone will still be able to have just as much fun going geocaching no matter how valid my logs may or may not be.

Share this post


Link to post

As a follow-up question... If folks are getting "credit" for finding temporary caches, should the hider of temporary caches get "credit" for hiding them?

 

Just trying to look at this subject from some new angles.

:ninja: Again, what is the SPECIFIC problem you would have with a cache hidden at an event and then logged in a SEPARATE category aside from your regular stats?

 

I'll answer this question from my point of view if you'll answer one of mine. I know you didn't ask me specifically, but I want to answer it anyway.

 

The SPECIFIC problem I have is that some people are telling me that I should change the way I enjoy caching, when (as far as I can tell) the way I cache doesn't have any effect at all on these busybodies. Not only are they suggesting that I should change, but they're calling for a change in the web site to FORCE me to change.

 

If I decide to log events more than once, it won't have any effect on your stats. It's not keeping you from finding any caches. It's not keeping you from winning the game. It's not weighing down your cache pages with additional finds. The only possible way that I can see that you'd care is that I'd have more finds than I would if I'd done it your way, and the numbers are important to you.

 

So that's my answer. Now, someone answer me this... what is the SPECIFIC way that me logging more than one find on a cache hurts you?

 

Someone tried to use the argument that it hurts the integrity of the game, but that's only how it may look to you, not how it may look to everyone else. Everyone will still be able to have just as much fun going geocaching no matter how valid my logs may or may not be.

 

Ok then if the numbers are not important to you, then why not log the temps with a note? or is it because then you wouldn't get the smiley :D

Share this post


Link to post

While I personally think it's a bit silly, I can't say as I have a problem with the practice of logging an event multiple times to represent finds for any of the temporary event caches.

 

What I do have a problem with is trying to reconcile the event listing guideline frowning on gathering geocachers to hunt caches yet the site allowing users to log finds for temporary event caches. The two don't match up.

Edited by Ferreter5

Share this post


Link to post

As a follow-up question... If folks are getting "credit" for finding temporary caches, should the hider of temporary caches get "credit" for hiding them?

 

Just trying to look at this subject from some new angles.

:ninja: Again, what is the SPECIFIC problem you would have with a cache hidden at an event and then logged in a SEPARATE category aside from your regular stats?

 

I'll answer this question from my point of view if you'll answer one of mine. I know you didn't ask me specifically, but I want to answer it anyway.

 

The SPECIFIC problem I have is that some people are telling me that I should change the way I enjoy caching, when (as far as I can tell) the way I cache doesn't have any effect at all on these busybodies. Not only are they suggesting that I should change, but they're calling for a change in the web site to FORCE me to change.

 

If I decide to log events more than once, it won't have any effect on your stats. It's not keeping you from finding any caches. It's not keeping you from winning the game. It's not weighing down your cache pages with additional finds. The only possible way that I can see that you'd care is that I'd have more finds than I would if I'd done it your way, and the numbers are important to you.

 

So that's my answer. Now, someone answer me this... what is the SPECIFIC way that me logging more than one find on a cache hurts you?

 

Someone tried to use the argument that it hurts the integrity of the game, but that's only how it may look to you, not how it may look to everyone else. Everyone will still be able to have just as much fun going geocaching no matter how valid my logs may or may not be.

 

Ok then if the numbers are not important to you, then why not log the temps with a note? or is it because then you wouldn't get the smiley :D

 

Way to not pay attention. :D

 

I never said numbers weren't important to me. I've often said just the opposite. I love the numbers, I love to compare the number of finds I have to the number of finds that my brother has. I like to congratulate my friends when they pass a milestone number such as 1,000 finds. I have a cache dedicated to those that are on a Century find (multiple of 100). The numbers are great.

 

I love the numbers.

 

Now, answer the question above if you can. :D

Share this post


Link to post

Well why not log a smiley when you tie your shoes, or go to work or just about anything else you can think of. What the heck it's all about the numbers right. The only thing is your logging things that are NOT listed on gc.com so they are bogus finds.Irregardless of how you bend the rules to suit your self they are not GC.Com finds and should not be logged on GC.Com

Edited by vagabond

Share this post


Link to post

Mustang,

 

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

Let the tallywackers have their fun and count my stats. I don't care. sheesh.

 

Ferreter - I agree it is "silly", unfortunately there is no other way to do it. Can you suggest a way? I did, but nobody seems to want to do that - and I can't understand why. How do I get some of those coins listed on your page by the way?

 

Edited to add: Vagabond - could you please refer me to the exact rule that states that? The guidelines read that the temporary caches may not be listed, not that they are not ALLOWED.

Edited by lonesumdove

Share this post


Link to post

We are getting too many things going on in this thread at once for me!

I need a summary... Let's see:

 

OP wanted/wants a blanket policy for no ability to log a cache multiple times.

 

Others chime in to say that there are reasons to log a cache that has been previously logged:

 

1) moving caches that are grandfathered in the system

 

2) caches that have been previously found and then adopted

 

3) caches where the owners offers a bonus smiley for doing some task

 

4) caches where the owner says they are so different that if you had previously logged it, you can log it again

 

While a couple of those reasons might be debatable, to some folks at least, they certainly do point out the need for the ability to log a cache more than once. It's already been said, but I'm going to repeat it anyway: Blanket policies seldom work.

 

I'll respond to the OP original intent in another post.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not ignoring the OP's original purpose for not allowing multiple logs.

The reason for the original post --as I understood it--was the OP didn't think that events should have multiple "attended" logs.

 

Note that he wasn't talking about logging archived caches in lieu of caches at the event, or even necessarily about "pocket caches" (aka "pocket lint"). He was talking about the "show up at an event, go off to hunt some caches, log multiple 'attended' logs on the cache page" logging that has happend at some events.

 

I'm not starting a square one with the support/objections summary. The objections to them are many; the support for them is vehement.

The main objections to them seems to be that they aren't real caches because they don't have gc numbers, and in some places there are too many given out for frivolous reasons.

The main supportors for them claim they are fun to do at events and help to share ideas for new caches.

 

Some compromise might be possible. Some suggestions, taken from a variety of people suggest that one compromise might include allowing event caches but limiting the number and having them tally up separately from other types of 'caches'

 

1) allow event caches, perhaps as a subcategory under the event

the event is EV101, the event caches are additional waypoints EV101a, EV101b, etc

 

2) limit the number to something mutally agreeable as reasonable

I have never been to an event with more than 10 event caches, and cannot imagine the need for 100 event caches

Limiting the number would encourage people to include only quality event caches, and allow plenty of time for other activities

Perhaps Mega events could have more event cache than regular events

 

3) have the find tally separately from other types.

we already have separate counts for virtuals, locationless, multis etc,

 

the new way would look something like:

 

Traditional Caches* xxx

 

Multi-caches* x

 

Virtual Caches* xx

 

Events* xx

 

Event Caches* xx

 

Unknown (Mystery) Caches* x

 

Locationless (Reverse) Caches* x

 

Earthcaches* x

 

NGS Benchmarks xx

 

*Total Caches Found xxx

 

As far as number 3 goes above, I personally would prefer that my event caches counted as finds in my total--as I said, the ones that I have done in the past have been of great quality. I worked hard for some of them--much harder than for some of the regular finds I have. I think many other would also feel that way if the event caches were legal and of good quality. It also wouldn't hurt my feelings if they didn't count in the overall total. I can do the math.

 

Anyone who still didn't feel event caches are worthwhile wouldn't have to do event caches, or wouldn't have to log them--and they could easily subtract them from the total number of caches in another person's profile if that is what floats their boat. Goodness knows there are plenty of people who look at someone else's profile and subtract the virtual and earthcaches and locationless caches from the total before they consider the person's total count.

Share this post


Link to post
Ferreter ... How do I get some of those coins listed on your page by the way?

lonesumdove,

 

I just sent you a private message via the forums.

Share this post


Link to post

Well why not log a smiley when you tie your shoes, or go to work or just about anything else you can think of. What the heck it's all about the numbers right. The only thing is your logging things that are NOT listed on gc.com so they are bogus finds.Irregardless of how you bend the rules to suit your self they are not GC.Com finds and should not be logged on GC.Com

 

I agree that all those things should not be logged online. They're bogus. No problem. It's also bogus that people stop by their cache to do a maintenence check and instead of leaving a note on their cache page they do it as a find (by accident or on purpose I can't tell you, but I've seen it done and can show you examples). Can you also agree that if someone does this, or logs a shoe tie, or logs going to work, or whatever, that it doesn't hurt you at all????

 

You're walking all around the question I asked by asking other questions of your own. I'll ask it again here to make it easy: What is the SPECIFIC way that me logging more than one find on a cache hurts you?

Share this post


Link to post

Another perspective: if one were to have a personal policy of logging any event caches found at an event as additional logs, would you also log additional finds for a multi (one for each stage)?

 

My general perception on multis is that you only claim the find if you find the final stage, which sometimes does happen without finding all stages. Following that logic, if the goal is finding the event, then any "temporary" caches are simply part of that event and you could say the event is the final stage - i.e. the thing you must find to get credit, so any other things found are just a part of finding the event cache and you can count the event cache whether you find any of the temporary caches or not, and even if you find the temporary caches, you still have only one find.

 

That being said, I like the idea of sub-caches 101a, 101b that would have a different icon and count, whether or not it is in the total I could go either way. I like to use my GC account to track my activity, so I think it would be neat to track my temporary caches, but I do not want to show I attended a bunch of events that were actually just temp cache finds at one event.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'll answer this question from my point of view if you'll answer one of mine. I know you didn't ask me specifically, but I want to answer it anyway.

 

The SPECIFIC problem I have is that some people are telling me that I should change the way I enjoy caching, when (as far as I can tell) the way I cache doesn't have any effect at all on these busybodies. Not only are they suggesting that I should change, but they're calling for a change in the web site to FORCE me to change.

 

If I decide to log events more than once, it won't have any effect on your stats. It's not keeping you from finding any caches. It's not keeping you from winning the game. It's not weighing down your cache pages with additional finds. The only possible way that I can see that you'd care is that I'd have more finds than I would if I'd done it your way, and the numbers are important to you.

 

So that's my answer. Now, someone answer me this... what is the SPECIFIC way that me logging more than one find on a cache hurts you?

 

Someone tried to use the argument that it hurts the integrity of the game, but that's only how it may look to you, not how it may look to everyone else. Everyone will still be able to have just as much fun going geocaching no matter how valid my logs may or may not be.

 

Ok then if the numbers are not important to you, then why not log the temps with a note? or is it because then you wouldn't get the smiley :)

 

He didn't say the numbers weren't important to him. He said your numbers aren't important to him so why should his numbers be important to you. We are talking here about people who log multiple attended logs on an event because they FOUND temporary caches at the event, or multiple finds on a cache because the FOUND a bonus cache or they FOUND the cache after it had been moved from where they found it before. Of course, a puritan would say these are not finds because they believe there is ONLY ONE FIND per GC code. But if you are not a puritan you might believe there are other FINDS. Mushtang is correct, it appears that some people want to force their religious beliefs on the rest.

Share this post


Link to post

Well why not log a smiley when you tie your shoes, or go to work or just about anything else you can think of. What the heck it's all about the numbers right. The only thing is your logging things that are NOT listed on gc.com so they are bogus finds.Irregardless of how you bend the rules to suit your self they are not GC.Com finds and should not be logged on GC.Com

 

I agree that all those things should not be logged online. They're bogus. No problem. It's also bogus that people stop by their cache to do a maintenence check and instead of leaving a note on their cache page they do it as a find (by accident or on purpose I can't tell you, but I've seen it done and can show you examples). Can you also agree that if someone does this, or logs a shoe tie, or logs going to work, or whatever, that it doesn't hurt you at all????

 

You're walking all around the question I asked by asking other questions of your own. I'll ask it again here to make it easy: What is the SPECIFIC way that me logging more than one find on a cache hurts you?

It makes the count bogus, and it put suspicion on others that don't log finds on caches that are not gc.com caches.One cache/event, one find. And yes I agree with you about the owners logging their own caches, or a cacher that revisits a cache if they happen to drop off a tb or goes with another cacher and then logs another find on it. :) So I guess we can agree on some things after all. And after all doesn't it all boil down to one thing?

 

edited to add

Numbers

Edited by vagabond

Share this post


Link to post
I think a good compromise is to add a maximum finds control that the cache owner can set, defaulted to one, this way the cache owner is still in control but does not have to monitor it so closely.

 

Of all the suggestions so far, I think this one is probably the best one to date.

 

I was also thinking along the lines of another poster who suggested "event caches" except using the idea quoted above, the event host could set the max finds to the number of temp caches that are to be placed at his/her event. Then an attendee could make an attended log and then an "Event cache found" log for each of the event's temp caches found.

 

(On a side note, I personally don't think event attendance should count as a "find", especially in light of the current stand on what constitutes a cache and finding that cache. My event attendances are logged as notes unless I found at least 1 temp cache there so it appears I've only "attended" 1 event. It is the only one I've attended where any non-listed cache hunting was involved.)

 

So should these temporary event caches count? I think so and here's why. The event is listed on GC.com and temp caches are allowed at events, although they are not individually listed. To me, that should make them loggable caches by association. In any event, counted towards the total or not, those event finds would show up on the stats list as a separate count of finds like virts, APE's, etc.

 

As to a blanket rule of 1 per cache? I just can't get on board with it (except, maybe, for 1 attended log per event if the above were done) mainly for the reasons others have stated and there is no point in rehashing those.

Share this post


Link to post

Well why not log a smiley when you tie your shoes, or go to work or just about anything else you can think of. What the heck it's all about the numbers right. The only thing is your logging things that are NOT listed on gc.com so they are bogus finds.Irregardless of how you bend the rules to suit your self they are not GC.Com finds and should not be logged on GC.Com

 

I agree that all those things should not be logged online. They're bogus. No problem. It's also bogus that people stop by their cache to do a maintenence check and instead of leaving a note on their cache page they do it as a find (by accident or on purpose I can't tell you, but I've seen it done and can show you examples). Can you also agree that if someone does this, or logs a shoe tie, or logs going to work, or whatever, that it doesn't hurt you at all????

 

You're walking all around the question I asked by asking other questions of your own. I'll ask it again here to make it easy: What is the SPECIFIC way that me logging more than one find on a cache hurts you?

It makes the count bogus,

So if I log a find on a cache when I tie my shoe, and it makes my count bogus, how does that hurt YOU?

 

and it put suspicion on others that don't log finds on caches that are not gc.com caches.

What does it make them suspects of? If you log only one find per gc.com cache and I log two, how does it put suspicion on you exactly?

 

One cache/event, one find. And yes I agree with you about the owners logging their own caches, or a cacher that revisits a cache if they happen to drop of a tb or goes with another cacher and then logs another find on it. :) So I guess we can agree on some things after all. And after all doesn't it all boil down to one thing?

Yes, we agree. One cache, one event, one find. That's how a lot of people play. It doesn't hurt me if they play that way.

 

One cache, one event, several finds. Others play that way too. It doesn't hurt me if they play that way.

 

How does someone else playing either way hurt or help you?

Share this post


Link to post

It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

 

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

Edited by Jeremy

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...