Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
WalruZ

New Feature Request - Single Log Per Cache.

Recommended Posts

 

It makes the count bogus, and it put suspicion on others that don't log finds on caches that are not gc.com caches.

 

It makes the count bogus for puritans :). I'm not sure how, someone else logging multiple finds puts suspicion on people that don't log finds on caches that are not gc.com caches. If you feel your numbers are suspect because of what someone else claimed as a find, you could alway add a Truth In Numbers section to your profile where you can state publicly which questionable logging practices you have or have not engaged in.

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.

 

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.

 

Ok if you can get them listed fine then log them, if not then don'tlog them.

Events were meant to meet other cachers, it isn't about the smileys, or is it?

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.

Thanks Jeremy. Hope the pressing matters are soon taken care of.

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.

 

Hooray!

 

This sounds great! If the event host wants to avoid multiple finds then he is the one that gets to make that decision, and it's not made for him by others that don't like it.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you Jeremy for adding some light on this issue. I appreciate it, especially since it seems to be such a big bone of contention around here.

 

Edited to add: Vegabond - yep, I do like my smilies too :)

Edited by lonesumdove

Share this post


Link to post

 

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.

 

Cool. Retroactive so it can be set to be disallowed on exiting caches if the owner so chooses?

Share this post


Link to post

 

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.

 

Cool. Retroactive so it can be set to be disallowed on exiting caches if the owner so chooses?

 

Sure. There'd be no reason why it can't be retroactive. It would just be an extra check when the user posts a find.

 

Heck. When logging a cache we could even just hide the option entirely.

Edited by Jeremy

Share this post


Link to post

 

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.

 

Cool. Retroactive so it can be set to be disallowed on exiting caches if the owner so chooses?

 

Sure. There'd be no reason why it can't be retroactive. It would just be an extra check when the user posts a find.

 

Heck. When logging a cache we could even just hide the option entirely.

 

I guess you figured out I meant "existing" vs. "exiting". :)

 

Hiding the found it log option would avoid a good bit of confusion and backend checking.

 

I like it, but I just have to ask. How much harder could it be to, instead of a check box and checking for on/off to, make it a number defaulting to null values (meaning no limit) or 1 and then checking at logging time if the user has already reached that numeric ceiling (if one was specified by the owner)? From a basic programming aspect there is a slight difference in checking for any find occurance vs. counting total find occurances for the user, but once you have that it is still a basic value compare, is it not?

 

Yeah, I'm an IT guy. Done lotsa programming over the years. Sorry. :ph34r:

Edited by Semper Questio

Share this post


Link to post

Events were meant to meet other cachers, it isn't about the smileys, or is it?

It is for some people. And BTW, you still haven't answered my question.

 

I have a new question for you, based on the future feature that Jeremy mentioned maybe might get maybe added someday maybe, but I'm going to wait until you answer my past question(s).

Share this post


Link to post

It can't be that hard to limit each user to one 'found' or 'attended' log per cache, and it's hardly unreasonable. That should not be "up to the cache owner".

That would kind of suck for this cache series... :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Doesn't matter to me one way or the other just so long as the total found count is not affected. :laughing::anicute::rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

Doesn't matter to me one way or the other just so long as the total found count is not affected. :laughing::anicute::rolleyes:

EXACTLY!

Edited by brunettes

Share this post


Link to post

Doesn't matter to me one way or the other just so long as the total found count is not affected. :rolleyes::laughing::anicute:

EXACTLY!

Who's total find count? Yours, or the person that logs events more than once?

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.

 

Imagine that, allowing cache OWNERS to manage their caches instead of a heavy-handed blanket policy. Kudos not only for the decision, but also for it's placement in the priority chain.

 

One minor nit to pick - I'm assuming the red text above should read "one FOUND IT log" and does not apply to notes and DNFs.

Share this post


Link to post

I like it, but I just have to ask. How much harder could it be to, instead of a check box and checking for on/off to, make it a number defaulting to null values (meaning no limit) or 1 and then checking at logging time if the user has already reached that numeric ceiling (if one was specified by the owner)? From a basic programming aspect there is a slight difference in checking for any find occurance vs. counting total find occurances for the user, but once you have that it is still a basic value compare, is it not?

 

Yeah, I'm an IT guy. Done lotsa programming over the years. Sorry. :laughing:

 

What would be the point of that, however? With a boolean (check box) you could enable or disable mutiple found logs. With a numeric, you could enable (NULL) unlimited logs or limit logs to 1 or some other arbitrary number. Procedurally, why would you want to, say, allow someone to log 5 "found it" logs, but only 5 and no more, versus "enabling multiple logs"?

Share this post


Link to post

I like it, but I just have to ask. How much harder could it be to, instead of a check box and checking for on/off to, make it a number defaulting to null values (meaning no limit) or 1 and then checking at logging time if the user has already reached that numeric ceiling (if one was specified by the owner)? From a basic programming aspect there is a slight difference in checking for any find occurance vs. counting total find occurances for the user, but once you have that it is still a basic value compare, is it not?

 

Yeah, I'm an IT guy. Done lotsa programming over the years. Sorry. :laughing:

 

What would be the point of that, however? With a boolean (check box) you could enable or disable mutiple found logs. With a numeric, you could enable (NULL) unlimited logs or limit logs to 1 or some other arbitrary number. Procedurally, why would you want to, say, allow someone to log 5 "found it" logs, but only 5 and no more, versus "enabling multiple logs"?

 

For an example there is a cache in our area that I am working on now that requires you to find things at 6 locations in town to collect information to get the coords for the final. The owner is allowing a find on each of those 6 locations plus the final. With a numeric value the owner could put a 7 on there to set a ceiling vs. a 1 or unlimited choice. That is just 1 example. There are many caches (around here at least) that awards mutliple finds in a single cache for various reasons.

 

If you allow a ceiling setting you are keeping the multiple find logs option open but the owner can limit it to prevent his/her cache from being used for an unlimited number of bogus finds for pocket caches, temp caches, or whatver else gets thought up.

Share this post


Link to post

For an example there is a cache in our area that I am working on now that requires you to find things at 6 locations in town to collect information to get the coords for the final. The owner is allowing a find on each of those 6 locations plus the final. With a numeric value the owner could put a 7 on there to set a ceiling vs. a 1 or unlimited choice. That is just 1 example. There are many caches (around here at least) that awards mutliple finds in a single cache for various reasons.

 

If you allow a ceiling setting you are keeping the multiple find logs option open but the owner can limit it to prevent his/her cache from being used for an unlimited number of bogus finds for pocket caches, temp caches, or whatver else gets thought up.

 

Are you stating that a "smiley" is being taken for each leg of a multi? HMMMMMMM

Share this post


Link to post

Quote from SEMPER___-

 

For an example there is a cache in our area that I am working on now that requires you to find things at 6 locations in town to collect information to get the coords for the final. The owner is allowing a find on each of those 6 locations plus the final. With a numeric value the owner could put a 7 on there to set a ceiling vs. a 1 or unlimited choice. That is just 1 example. There are many caches (around here at least) that awards mutliple finds in a single cache for various reasons.

 

If you allow a ceiling setting you are keeping the multiple find logs option open but the owner can limit it to prevent his/her cache from being used for an unlimited number of bogus finds for pocket caches, temp caches, or whatver else gets thought up.

 

Are you stating that a "smiley" is being taken for each leg of a multi? HMMMMMMM

Share this post


Link to post

 

I like it, but I just have to ask. How much harder could it be to, instead of a check box and checking for on/off to, make it a number defaulting to null values (meaning no limit) or 1 and then checking at logging time if the user has already reached that numeric ceiling (if one was specified by the owner)?

 

Mostly because the official stance is that you can really only find a cache once. To implement social change by allowing some arbitrary number of logs for a cache tends to encourage this behavior. This is not a technical reason for doing an all or nothing proposition but a social one.

Share this post


Link to post

Doesn't matter to me one way or the other just so long as the total found count is not affected. :):P:P

EXACTLY!

Who's total find count? Yours, or the person that logs events more than once?

I don't log my finds, log them with my family under their team name. I do think that find counts should be better categorized so that you could log different types of finds like the ones at events, this new when you meet people idea, or the more traditional ones now found. I thought you were referring to the total find count on "traditional" caches.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I like it, but I just have to ask. How much harder could it be to, instead of a check box and checking for on/off to, make it a number defaulting to null values (meaning no limit) or 1 and then checking at logging time if the user has already reached that numeric ceiling (if one was specified by the owner)?

 

Mostly because the official stance is that you can really only find a cache once. To implement social change by allowing some arbitrary number of logs for a cache tends to encourage this behavior. This is not a technical reason for doing an all or nothing proposition but a social one.

 

If the intent, then, is to encourage the "official stance" then I'd say forget the checkbox, code a blanket rule of 1 find/attended per cache, grandfathering out any active caches created before the date of implementation, then let attrition take care of the grandfathered caches.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Are you stating that a "smiley" is being taken for each leg of a multi? HMMMMMMM

 

In THIS case it's getting credit for finding the pieces of a puzzle. I have seen caches where smileys are awarded for the legs of a multi. I've also seen credit being given for posing for pictures and other activites that had nothing to do with finding anything, much less the cache or any portion of it.

 

Back to playing the game according to your conscience, I'll take a "find" when "finding" something related to the cache or caching is involved and the cache owner explicity states it is permitted, but I won't take the extra smileys for taking my picture, standing on my head (like I even could), or other such stuff. By the same token, I won't make an attended log for an event unless I found a cache of some type there. That's why my profile shows I've only attended 1 event. It is the only one at which I've found hidden temp caches.

 

Shoot, if I took every smiley I've seen offered on caches I'd probably be at or over 1000 by now. And THAT brings us back to what the numbers mean to the individual I suppose.

Edited by Semper Questio

Share this post


Link to post
To implement social change by allowing some arbitrary number of logs for a cache tends to encourage this behavior. This is not a technical reason for doing an all or nothing proposition but a social one.

Well put. I am not sure about whether or not the site should enforce a single find per GC number, but I am quite certain that building an option to allow the hider to specify a maximum of more than one find will have seriously negative consequences. It normalizes behavior that, up to now, is seen by many in the community as dicey (at the least).

 

Technical solutions, while very attractive to us geeks, are not always the best answers to social problems. I think it's very cool that Jeremy understands that.

Share this post


Link to post
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.
Sounds great!

 

I think this feature would be helpful to prevent accidents - sometimes I just select Found It instead of Owner Maintenence or Note or whatever. I already have a Greasemonky script that blanks out [sUBMIT] until I select a log type, but this sort of thing (checking found status) can't be done on the user side.

Share this post


Link to post

I like the idea of owner controlled finds. GC.COM is a listing agent. I don't think they should be the ones to hard set all the rules in detail through software control. I don't like the idea of somebody logging 100 finds for one cache but it took two to tango because the Owner allowed it! I also don't like micros in "lame" locations. I don't like nano caches hidden in the woods. I don't like dangerous caches. I don't like caches located on roads where you either have to bike or you must park on the roadway to retrieve the cache - and that fact isn't listed.

 

There are a lot of caches I don't like. But I believe it's up to the owners to set the standards for their caches and it's up to me as a cacher to choose which cache I'd like to find and log. I do know how I control my own caches and their finds.

 

It seems to me that those most upset about the numbers game are those playing it themselves. Why be upset unless you're looking for bragging rights for your own numbers?

 

Oh yes, just because I don't like a certain cache or a certain method of logging finds doesn't mean that other cachers DO enjoy them and use them. Let them have their fun. I'm having mine.

Share this post


Link to post

I will refrain from getting into the debate over numbers and how the cache placement guidelines can be interpreted... those are no-win situations for everybody becasue there is not one right answer.

 

The part I will cover is about one find/attended log per cache/event and no find log for the owner. I'm all for it.

 

There have been several reasons given for the *need* for multiple logs per cache but I don't think they are all that common and/or valid. <- simply my opinion to be viewed as such... ;)

 

One reason is caches where you have to find multiple things to get to the final and you can log each step of the way. Never mind that this sounds more like a multi-cache... if you truly have a series of things to find and want them to all be loggable, then make it a series of caches that all must be found in order to get to the final... people do that a lot already. Problem solved.

 

Another reason is if the cache hide has changed so much that it really is a new find.... well, while there is no rule that you can't change a cache, if it truly changes that much to make it a new find... then just make it a new cache and archive the old one. This aproach is even better because: 1) it doesn't allow you to get around the aproval process for new caches; 2) it freezes the old listing as it was when every one found it the first time and opens the new listing for the next round; 3) it brings it back into the "new" list.... that sounds like much better record keeping. Problem solved.

 

Another reason is where the cache was moved a great distance with the same GC number thus is a new find on the same cache. This may have been an issue in the past, but you can no longer move a cache very far before you have to just create a new cache. This is no longer an issue. Plus there are the same benefits as with the last reason. Problem solved.

 

Another one is the logging multiple "Attended" logs to one event to account for finding the temp caches. While we could probably debate the guidelines to death about what they can and cannot do at a event or if the temp caches are allowed yada... yada... yada... but the simple, and undisputable, fact is that the log you enter to an event is "Attended"... so I don't see how any one could reasonably think that it was ok to claim you attended the event more than once. If you feel you should be able to log those temp caches then you really need to apeal to TPTB (privately or openly like this thread) to build in some mechanism to do this. Problem solved.

 

Another was locationless... mute point now.

 

Another is a few grandfathered traveling caches. While not a popular view, I would say those edge cases may suffer a bit... but their rarity should not be a show stopper. And concidering TPTB had no problem 86ing virts, etc... I see no good reason they couldn't just nix these too... since they are no longer in line with the current guidelines.

 

As for the "no find for owner"... about the only reason given why this is a problem is that people some times addopt a cache they have once found. OK, fine... but you've already found and logged it so it really isn't a problem... unless for some strange reason you physicaly found it but then adopted it before you had a chance to log it... but if that's the case then I doubt you are smart enough to find your front door to get outside and actually look for a cache. :huh:

 

I would imagine, like a lot of changes to the site, that a change like this would not be retroactive. Retroactive change would mean digging through years of database entries and trying to figure out what should be there or not. A "from now on" change simply means changing the logic of the logging page to not allow you to enter a "found/attended" log for caches/events you have already found/attended or currently own. There is one tiny exeption... but one that kind of makes sense. The person who creates (owns) an event cache really should be able to "attend" it as well. :blink:

 

And that's about all I have to say about that. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

... Problem solved.

 

... Problem solved.

 

... Problem solved.

 

And that's about all I have to say about that. Thanks.

My, you sure have a lot of solutions to a non-problem.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, here is a situation where I logged an event more than once:

 

Local cachers throw an event at their house every 3 or 4 months. Instead of archiving it, they disable it until next time. So although I have 2 finds on one event, I attended the event in October then again in April. To me, it is two separate events, but it only has one cache page.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, here is a situation where I logged an event more than once:

 

Local cachers throw an event at their house every 3 or 4 months. Instead of archiving it, they disable it until next time. So although I have 2 finds on one event, I attended the event in October then again in April. To me, it is two separate events, but it only has one cache page.

Some would tell you you should log it as Attended only once, and then as a Note the rest of the times. But don't listen to what anyone else says about how you SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do it. You're definitely doing it the way that is fun for you. Nobody is better at having fun than anyone else, and the way you log your events doesn't hurt anybody.

 

You're not going to keep anyone else from winning no matter how you do it.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, here is a situation where I logged an event more than once:

 

Local cachers throw an event at their house every 3 or 4 months. Instead of archiving it, they disable it until next time. So although I have 2 finds on one event, I attended the event in October then again in April. To me, it is two separate events, but it only has one cache page.

Some would tell you you should log it as Attended only once, and then as a Note the rest of the times. But don't listen to what anyone else says about how you SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do it. You're definitely doing it the way that is fun for you. Nobody is better at having fun than anyone else, and the way you log your events doesn't hurt anybody.

 

You're not going to keep anyone else from winning no matter how you do it.

 

Thanks, I wish they would do a separate cache page, but they are separate events. I don't feel guilty or like a numbers geek. I had attended 2 of the 4 times they've posted it! LOL

Share this post


Link to post

As a second example of when an owner might legitimately claim a "found" log on their cache, I have had one experience where I felt that it was reasonable to do so.

 

When I placed one of my caches, I had placed it in a particular location (obviously). Some time later, it was found by the local children who used that park, and left sitting out in the open, along with a log in the logbook indicating that they had known all along where it was. A well-meaning cacher moved the cache to another location in the park for me and provided me(via email) the new coordinates of the cache, as well as some instructions on how to get there. As I wouldwith any other cache, I attempted to use the coords to find the cache. Only when I failed to do so due to the heavy tree cover did I resort to the instructions. I personally feel that since I had to find my own cache, that cache is reasonable to claim as a find.

 

Incidentally, on the topic of moving caches, I would suggest that if someone placed a moving cache (back when they were legal) and said cache is still "alive", and they find it's hidden(by someone else) nearby, I think they should be able to log a find on it if they choose to do so.

I haven't had time to read the whole thread so forgive me if I am repeating views already stated BUT this example is not a valid one.

 

Point one: The second cache hide is not a legitimate one. Would you have still claimed a find if he'd taken it back home and sent you the address to go and collect it? I don't think so.

 

Point two: It's your cache and the "additional" co-ords are/were not available to other cachers.

 

I could go on but I'm sure you get my line of thought.

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?

 

Fine, wanna play the game???

 

I am in direct competition with you and every other cacher out there. I want to have to most finds. You logging bogus unlisted caches is ruining my chances of being the top cacher. There's your answer.

 

Just go away.

Edited by Audion

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?

Fine, wanna play the game???

Yes, I wanna play the game. The game of geocaching? It's one of my favorite games to play.

 

I am in direct competition with you and every other cacher out there. I want to have to most finds.

Competition for what? If you have the most finds you still don't "win" anything.

 

You logging bogus unlisted caches is ruining my chances of being the top cacher. There's your answer.

If I find more caches than you and it hurts your chances of being the top cacher, then maybe you should go cache more often instead of trying to force others to cache the same way you do. But I'm way behind the top cacher so my few additional logs isn't going to keep you from being top cacher at all.

 

Or are you really saying that the ONLY reason this thread exists, and the ONLY reason that people are upset over people logging extra finds at events, is competition for top cacher?

 

Just go away.

What are you, 8 years old?

 

You ran out of logical arguments and now you're telling me to leave the thread. It sounds more to me like you're saying, "Stop bothering us with facts and logical reasoning so we can continue to force our way of caching on others".

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, here is a situation where I logged an event more than once:

 

Local cachers throw an event at their house every 3 or 4 months. Instead of archiving it, they disable it until next time. So although I have 2 finds on one event, I attended the event in October then again in April. To me, it is two separate events, but it only has one cache page.

 

The cachers should archive the event and post a new one for a new meeting. The 'guidelines' actually cover that- "After the event has passed, the event cache should be archived by the organizer within four weeks." and "Event caches should be submitted no less than two weeks prior to the date of the event, so that potential attendees will have sufficient notice to make their plans. Events are generally listed no more than three months prior to the date of the event, to avoid having the listing appear for a prolonged period of time on the nearest caches page and in the weekly e-mail notification of new caches."

 

Keeping an event unarchived and used in the manner you describe would appear to be a violation of the 'guidelines'.

Share this post


Link to post
You ran out of logical arguments and now you're telling me to leave the thread.

Sounds to me that he, like many, many others, got tired of trying to discuss issues with somebody who only wants to argue.

 

I'd put your arguments in this thread at about a sixth-grade level. That you think they are brilliant is quite revealing.

 

And I don't even disagree with your side in this argument!

Share this post


Link to post
Keeping an event unarchived and used in the manner you describe would appear to be a violation of the 'guidelines'.

 

I asked specifically about this very issue, a perpetual listing vs a new one each time. The response was either.

 

I went with a new listing each time as my reviewer pointed out that a perpetual event cache page could get very unwieldy very quickly. Something that was important to me was a new listing would remind even previous attendees that a new event was coming up.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that a "Statement" needs to be made. IF you cache a lot you get HIGH numbers. You can sign logs and log only one time on an event or any other cache and you still get Higher numbers. If some don't like people with higher numbers, CACHE MORE.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, here is a situation where I logged an event more than once:Local cachers throw an event at their house every 3 or 4 months. Instead of archiving it, they disable it until next time. So although I have 2 finds on one event, I attended the event in October then again in April. To me, it is two separate events, but it only has one cache page.

I never understood why an event was ever allowed to be counted as a find in the first place. Heck you didn't find anything except maybe new geocaching friends. That shouldn't count anyway. If you need a smiley in order to host or attend an event, don't bother. You were going for the wrong reasons anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
You ran out of logical arguments and now you're telling me to leave the thread.

Sounds to me that he, like many, many others, got tired of trying to discuss issues with somebody who only wants to argue.

I'm not posting just because I "want to argue". I'm posting because I don't like it when people decide the way they cache is better than the way others do it, and try to get the site changed to force their viewpoint on everyone.

 

Why is it that you see me as wanting to argue, but others as discussing the topic?

 

I'd put your arguments in this thread at about a sixth-grade level. That you think they are brilliant is quite revealing.

Oh no, you've insulted me. Whatever shall I do?

 

This whole thread is about a sixth-grade level.

 

"Teacher, Fizzy is cheating! Make him stop."

"CR, if Fizzy wants to fake some of his finds it's not cheating, and it doesn't hurt you. Leave him alone."

"But I don't WANT him to. Tell him to quit."

 

And I don't even disagree with your side in this argument!

Great. When it moves up to the seventh grade level you can jump in since you're so superior to me.

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.

What I don't understand is this:

 

Not Allowed

I submit an event listing where the description says we're going to go look for the 25 caches in Park X. People log each of the 25 individual caches.

 

Allowed

I submit an event listing where the description says we'll be hiding 25 caches for the event in Park X. People log 1 "attended" for the event and 25 "attended" for the temporary caches.

 

What's the difference? Why is one allowed and the other not allowed? :(

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.

What I don't understand is this:

 

Not Allowed

I submit an event listing where the description says we're going to go look for the 25 caches in Park X. People log each of the 25 individual caches.

 

Allowed

I submit an event listing where the description says we'll be hiding 25 caches for the event in Park X. People log 1 "attended" for the event and 25 "attended" for the temporary caches.

 

What's the difference? Why is one allowed and the other not allowed? :(

I suspect that neither would be listed under the current guidelines. What we do see listed is a cache page that has a description that says 'Come meet us in Park X'. At the event, you send them after the temporary caches and tell them to log on the event page.

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.

What I don't understand is this:

 

Not Allowed

I submit an event listing where the description says we're going to go look for the 25 caches in Park X. People log each of the 25 individual caches.

 

Allowed

I submit an event listing where the description says we'll be hiding 25 caches for the event in Park X. People log 1 "attended" for the event and 25 "attended" for the temporary caches.

 

What's the difference? Why is one allowed and the other not allowed? :drama:

I suspect that neither would be listed under the current guidelines. What we do see listed is a cache page that has a description that says 'Come meet us in Park X'. At the event, you send them after the temporary caches and tell them to log on the event page.

 

Not necessarily. :ninja:

Share this post


Link to post

 

It makes the count bogus, and it put suspicion on others that don't log finds on caches that are not gc.com caches.

 

It makes the count bogus for puritans :unsure:. I'm not sure how, someone else logging multiple finds puts suspicion on people that don't log finds on caches that are not gc.com caches. If you feel your numbers are suspect because of what someone else claimed as a find, you could alway add a Truth In Numbers section to your profile where you can state publicly which questionable logging practices you have or have not engaged in.

 

I realize that i am a little late on responding to this post, but I am wondering if it is not just as incorrect to NOT log a cache as it is to log one incorrectly? Either way throws off the whole balance of the logged caches for everyone. Hmmm, this is really something to ponder. :huh:

Edited by grey_wolf & momcat

Share this post


Link to post

 

It makes the count bogus, and it put suspicion on others that don't log finds on caches that are not gc.com caches.

 

It makes the count bogus for puritans :P. I'm not sure how, someone else logging multiple finds puts suspicion on people that don't log finds on caches that are not gc.com caches. If you feel your numbers are suspect because of what someone else claimed as a find, you could alway add a Truth In Numbers section to your profile where you can state publicly which questionable logging practices you have or have not engaged in.

 

I realize that i am a little late on responding to this post, but I am wondering if it is not just as incorrect to NOT log a cache as it is to log one incorrectly? Either way throws off the whole balance of the logged caches for everyone. Hmmm, this is really something to ponder. :rolleyes:

That's a good point. It seems to me that not logging a find is EXACTLY the same amount of incorrectness as logging a find twice.

 

And that amount would be zero. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I think that a "Statement" needs to be made. IF you cache a lot you get HIGH numbers. You can sign logs and log only one time on an event or any other cache and you still get Higher numbers. If some don't like people with higher numbers, CACHE MORE.

 

Or, just log a bunch of bogus finds for unlisted caches as is the norm for some folks.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that a "Statement" needs to be made. IF you cache a lot you get HIGH numbers. You can sign logs and log only one time on an event or any other cache and you still get Higher numbers. If some don't like people with higher numbers, CACHE MORE.

 

Or, just log a bunch of bogus finds for unlisted caches as is the norm for some folks.

 

Whatever you can live with, I have my standards and I expect most others have theirs. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

...

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".

Backpeddling is a concept that is not over the heads of some readers
:laughing:

 

{insert dramatic pause for those that just didn't get that these two sets of quotes had nothing to do with each other}

 

Mostly because the official stance is that you can really only find a cache once.
It seems to me that not logging a find is EXACTLY the same amount of incorrectness as logging a find twice.

 

And that amount would be zero. :laughing:

:laughing: Edited by mini cacher

Share this post


Link to post
It seems to me that not logging a find is EXACTLY the same amount of incorrectness as logging a find twice.

 

And that amount would be zero. :mad:

:laughing:

 

Nice try. But I didn't contradict myself anywhere in there even though I can tell you think I did. Read more carefully. I didn't say "The website allows it so it's okay", or even, "The website allows it so it's not incorrect."

 

I said, "It seems to me..". :laughing:

 

No matter what the official website stance will be, even if they change the pages to allow only one log, it will always seem to me that it wouldn't hurt anyone.

 

Want to try again? :laughing::unsure:

Edited by Mushtang

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...