Jump to content

Poll For Practices


5¢
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do?

 

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit?

 

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules?

Link to comment

Do you feel logging event caches and/or

 

For the event only and just one time per event.

 

pocket caches is a correct thing to do?

 

No

 

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit?

 

No

 

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules?

 

No

Link to comment

Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do? No

 

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit? No

 

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules? No

 

However, unless TPTB limit cache pages ot single find logs (perhaps using another tab/icon for temporary event and pocket caches), I don't see the situation changing. Perhaps they don't see temporary event caches as a problem and wish to leave it up to individual cachers. Jeremy's already stated his disapproval concerning pocket caches.

Link to comment

temporary event caches - no

 

pocket caches - no (it just sounds dirty:) )

 

record at GWIV - no

 

record for 24 hours caching setting their own rules? no, but I don't know whos rules they should follw as all record attempts followed their own code of caching right?

 

bwmick

Link to comment
Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do?

Logging, Temp Event Only Caches? No.

Pocket Caches. No.

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit?

As a new record breaking the old? No. See Below.

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules?

Yes, actually. the thing is then you are the record holder of a specific thing. Thus GW4 did set a record for people who cache exactly like they did, but they didn't break the prior record because it was defined differently.

Link to comment

Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do? No!

 

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit? No!

 

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules? No!

Link to comment

1. Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do?

 

As I understand the current guidelines, no but I don't make that decision.

 

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit?

 

I don't know

 

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules?

 

Did the first record holder set the rules?

Link to comment

(I'll assume you mean logging a single event cache multiple times)

Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do? No!

 

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit? No!

 

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules? No!

Link to comment

This poll serves what purpose? 1% of all cachedrs are going to make decisions for the entire caching community?

 

How many different angles can we come up with to attack? The threads lately remind me of a shark feeding frenzy.

 

I've got a good mind to quit these fourms altogether because you people are making me sick. I cannot believe that people I've come to respect over the years are acting like this. You are attacking fellow cachers over something that doesn't make a dadgum in the real world or the caching world. It's just an excuse to be idiots.

 

Now if you want to pile on me...jump on.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

This poll serves what purpose? 1% of all cachedrs are going to make decisions for the entire caching community?

 

How many different angles can we come up with to attack? The threads lately remind me of a shark feeding frenzy.

 

I've got a good mind to quit these fourms altogether because you people are making me sick. I cannot believe that people I've come to respect over the years are acting like this. You are attacking fellow cachers over something that doesn't make a dadgum in the real world or the caching world. It's just an excuse to be idiots.

 

Now if you want to pile on me...jump on.

 

El Diablo

 

Wow, you respected me?

Link to comment

Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do?

 

Yes. The event host went to the trouble of "hiding" caches for me to "find" and I "signed" the log book. Difinately I log it. Not only as a reminder of my memories but as a thank you to the host who went to the trouble of placing them, even temporarily.

The only caches I've signed and logged that were just sitting on a table were the ones being presented to other cachers in honor of their 1000 find. I signed it and logged it as a tribute to them. Kind of like the cachers in TX trying to honor our soldiers in Iraq. I would never log a permanent cache that someone brought to me though.

I also log pocket caches. My son has one and he loves when people ask if they can sign his cache at events. He also gets a big kick out of reading the online logs.

Nobodys finds are hidden. If you question how great of a cacher someone is just check their finds. If you're not impressed afterwards try to pick up the pieces of your shattered life and move on. :)

 

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit?

 

Yes. It is their record set their way. Anyone who wants to play their way and try to beat them can. But I think this is one record that will never be broke. :D

 

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules?

 

Yes. If you want to set a record for most cache finds in 24 hours wearing pink flip flops and tied to three other people you should go for it. And if someone wants to beat your record they have to wear pink flip flops tied to three other people. But the only record I would ever take seriously is the Guiness WWs. I know they would set "rules" not "guidelines" that would be monitored. Other then that I just want to hear everyones experience and be impressed with how many finds they made.

Link to comment

Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do?

Personally, signing the logbook on temporary event caches is enough, but if TPTB created a mechanism for logging them on the event page that would be cool, too. Pocket caches, as I understand them, aren't caches at all.

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit?

There was no record set at GW4. Not unless someone wants to go back through and count logbooks signed, and that number exceeds the previous count.

 

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules?

The rules should be the same as any other cache run, if not held to an even higher level.

Link to comment

Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do?

 

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit?

 

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules?

I've personally never claimed finds for either, but I think logging of events is something between the event owner/organizer and the event attendees. (Assuming nothings violationing website usage/guildlines, the website will get involveds.) If those two parties agree logging the event page a million times is ok, then so be it. Pocket caches are again between the owner of whatever cache its being logged on and person logging it.

 

I haven't really read all the 'new world record' stuff, nor do I plan to. Its not that important to me. What I've read in tib bits on these forums is that the group split up and that they were not signing the logbooks. For 'caching as a team, but not together, and not signing the logbooks, all in a limited specific amount of time', then its legit, and it is the record till someone says they've found more doing it that way.

 

Well first, geocaching isn't suppose to be a competion so should there be rules for in a 24 hour period? :)

Second, if some person, or group wants to claim they have found more caches in 24 hours then anyone else they should do it by the accepted means. Otherwise its like racing two different cars on different tracks with different start/end points and then claiming one of them won and the other did not. To me it seems like they weren't really racing, just each out for a different joy ride.

I tend to think thats the reason for a lot of the anger in the forums the last week. There are unwritten, or at least vauge 'gentlemen's' rules for caching here. And we don't all agree what these rules are, nor when people are breaking these agreement(s). For example some people say always always sign the logbook or its not a find, others say always always sign the logbook unless you found the cache damaged then its still ok to claim a find, still others say always always sign the logbook Unless you found the cache damaged Or you looked for a really long time and owner says you can, and yet another group says....

And it continues, eventally you get every if/and/or/but, however its a lot of divergence even though we're all cachers.

cls10252dh.jpg

Link to comment

does it affect my enjoyment....no

 

does it stop me from caching ...no

 

do i therefore care? no

 

let them do what they want. i never could understand record attempts anyway. caches are often at lovely locations. i'd rather do three in a day and get some great photos and have a picnic than drive like a lunatic all round the country spending 3 mins at each cache....

 

let them have their fun, keeps the number junkies quiet! :)

Link to comment
Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do?

No. If GC.com put in place a way to do so, I think it would then be OK.

 

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit?

No. For these reasons: all logs were not marked (signed, stamped or stickered), team split up (AKA 'divide and conquer').

 

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules?

No. There should be some generally accepted set of rules to standardize any attempts.

Link to comment

Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do?

 

This is two different questions (or maybe three). Logging event caches once for attending the event? Yes. Logging multiple times for finding temporary or non-published caches? Nope!

 

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit? No.

 

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules? Depends on what those rules are. Members of a team logging finds for caches they did not physically visit? No. Signing outsides of containers? No.

Link to comment

Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do?

 

No.

 

One event = 1 found log. Temporary caches are just part of the event, as multi caches have multiple stages and only one found log credited.

 

Pocket caches may be fun, but they are not allowable on this site. Therefor logging them isnt the right thing to do.

 

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit?

 

No.

 

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules?

 

No.

 

Ive been quite vocal on the forums over this. I dont think anyone has any doubt where I stand on this issue.

Link to comment

Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do?

Event caches once per event; pocket caches no.

 

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit?

If, as stated previously, they split up? Hell no! That's two different groups finding caches and then totaling them.

 

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules?

No way.

 

Was there this much controversy surrounding the last Geowoodstock? If it's causing so much ruckus, maybe they should be reconsidered...

Link to comment

You know, I'd be happy if the result of this was that the whole idea of record runs became discredited. With all due deference to prior record run holders who didn't do anything wrong, I really don't see how the record can be broken more than a few times before it's impossible to practice good caching and make a record.

 

Seriously, these guys gave themselves 90 seconds at each cache. How many times has it taken you more than ninety seconds to rehide properly? Or to wait out muggles? Or to retrieve the thing without seriously disturbing the area around the cache? We're not even talking how you go about finding one.

 

I'm sure record runs must lean heavily on 1/1s that don't have a lot of, like, wilderness issues...but I still believe it'll soon be impossible to challenge the record and still practice good caching.

 

I once would've trusted dedicated cachers not to make a bad judgement call. But, then, I once would've believed it impossible that cachers would write on a cache container...and think so little of it that they'd mention it casually in the forums. And then be shocked at the reaction they got.

Link to comment

Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do?

 

Event caches: No - one found/attended log per event; one find per waypoint/GC#/cache.

Pocket caches: These aren't caches so, no, they shouldn't be logged.

 

I still don't get why people think that because they signed a log on a cache not listed on this site they have to post an on-line "found." If the cache isn't listed on this site, it shouldn't be logged on this site.

 

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit?

 

As far as I am concerned, the recent attempt in Dallas did not succeed in setting a record for all the reasons that have been discussed in other threads: not signing the log; splitting up; etc.

 

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules?

 

A finder can set their own rules for setting their own, personal records. However, if a cacher or group of cachers wishes to set a record that will be accepted by the caching community then those attempting the record needs to abide by the accepting caching practices set forth by said community.

Link to comment

An 'event' is not a cache. A cache is a container with a logbook hidden in a manner as described in the guidelines. Those same guidelines allow people to make a log entry on the site which adds to their 'found' count. They have 'found' nothing. I don't think as many people would attend events unless they could log them to their 'found' count. Therefore this is a good thing. :):D:D

Link to comment

This poll serves what purpose? 1% of all cachedrs are going to make decisions for the entire caching community?

 

How many different angles can we come up with to attack? The threads lately remind me of a shark feeding frenzy.

 

I've got a good mind to quit these fourms altogether because you people are making me sick. I cannot believe that people I've come to respect over the years are acting like this. You are attacking fellow cachers over something that doesn't make a dadgum in the real world or the caching world. It's just an excuse to be idiots.

 

Now if you want to pile on me...jump on.

 

El Diablo

 

Thank you for expressing my opinion! Unfortunately the prevailing forum attitude is why I am here. I feel it is important that I at least try to speak reason on some of these threads if for no other reason than to show that the majority opinion in here does not represent the prevailing opinion in the real (non-forum) geocaching community.

 

If they dogpile you Diablo, they will have to dogpile me too.

Edited by paintfiction
Link to comment
Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do?

No. Online logs should only be made to cache pages for that specific cache hidden at its listed location.

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit?

No, because the log books weren't signed. Since they weren't signed, they weren't finds. Therefore (as far as I know), this team had no finds. That's no record. (If it is, I tied it on Saturday. :) )

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules?

No. Any individual going after the record should play by the same rules that any cacher would be expected to follow.

Link to comment
This poll serves what purpose? 1% of all cachedrs are going to make decisions for the entire caching community?

 

How many different angles can we come up with to attack? The threads lately remind me of a shark feeding frenzy.

It's not about decisions being made for all cachers. It is about validating that the majority of cachers do not agree with the actions that have come to light recently. The volume of posts disagreeing with these activities is due to the fact that many of the transgressors are known to us. This makes it even more shocking.

I've got a good mind to quit these fourms altogether because you people are making me sick. I cannot believe that people I've come to respect over the years are acting like this. You are attacking fellow cachers over something that doesn't make a dadgum in the real world or the caching world. It's just an excuse to be idiots.

Do what you have to do. :)

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Hi - Two questions:

 

1. What is a Pocket Cache?

2. What is meant by signing the outside of a container?

 

Thanks,

GeoJono

It varies, but generally a pocket cache is a small container (that could fit in a pocket) that travels with a person as they move around an event. Then others go around introducing themselves and asking if the person has a pocket cache, if they do they show it to the other person. It seems at some events the pocket cache changes hands to the person that found it, while at other events it doesn't. The other variation is the online logging of the pocket caches, some aren't logged online, some are logs on the event page as a temp cache, some are logged on other permanent caches, even sometimes on archived caches in locations far from event.

 

Signing the outside of the container? Um.... just what it sounds like. Instead of opening the cache and getting out the logbook and signing a blank page in the logbook, they just wrote on the container itself.

Link to comment

This poll serves what purpose? 1% of all cachedrs are going to make decisions for the entire caching community?

 

How many different angles can we come up with to attack? The threads lately remind me of a shark feeding frenzy.

 

I've got a good mind to quit these fourms altogether because you people are making me sick. I cannot believe that people I've come to respect over the years are acting like this. You are attacking fellow cachers over something that doesn't make a dadgum in the real world or the caching world. It's just an excuse to be idiots.

 

Now if you want to pile on me...jump on.

 

El Diablo

 

Thank you for expressing my opinion! Unfortunately the prevailing forum attitude is why I am here. I feel it is important that I at least try to speak reason on some of these threads if for no other reason than to show that the majority opinion in here does not represent the prevailing opinion in the real (non-forum) geocaching community.

 

If they dogpile you Diablo, they will have to dogpile me too.

 

Paint, have you thought that maybe where you live is one of a few places that accept these practices? I started this thread because TAR said in another thread this

Ultimately geocachers collectively own and set the rules of the game. Groundspeak has to satisfy geocachers needs to stay on top, and does a great job of moitoring the will of the community.

 

Unfortunately, one of the indicators of what geocachers want is these forums. The Reviewers have an outsized voice here, as do a few (as a percentage of all cachers) regular posters.

 

So, what you are seeing more and more is that Reviewers and vocal posters to this forum run the game, and directly or indirectly advise or affect Groundspeak's guidelines.

 

If there are, say, 100 Reviewers and 100 vocal posters, you have 200 people making the rules for the millions who play it!

 

If you want change or to make a difference in the game, then, you have to become one or the other. The important point is that you CAN make a difference - you don't have to accept the game as dictated.

 

You may not become a Reviewer, but if you make your voice heard here in a consistant and logical manner, and encourage your friends to do the same, you will form a concerted voice that helps run the site, and thereby the game.

 

Groundspeak will listen to the majority or somebody like Google or whoever has adequate resources will take their business away, and I expect Jeremy is well aware of that!

 

This IS your game, take ownership! The Groundspeak servers exist to serve you - if you don't like the game change it! You may hear posters saying play it our way or leave, but I bet you won't hear Groundspeak say it...their worst nightmare is that we just might!

 

Ed

 

Going by what he said, I started a poll just to see where everyone stood without the argueing aspect of why these things are or aren't the right thing to do. Just a plain and simple yes or no on the issues that have come up in the last few weeks. I think the majority has spoken and showed that at least in these forums, the majority doesn't like this crap.

 

I said earlier in the post that maybe these things are common place in your caching area. Here in southern Illinois, they happen very rarely. The locals make a lot of fun of the folks with BS numbers. The newbies who had a lot of respect for some of the high number cachers lost that respect when they were told how a lot of the smilies were found. There are a few people around here who practice logging anything under the sun. The problem is now everyone doesn't care to respect them anymore.

 

The leaders in this geocaching community ought to be teaching new cachers respect and the right things to do. Not how to walk in the grey area of the guidelines.

 

I have seen a lot of people say that the guidelines don't specifically say a word about some of the topics........Well, that almost reminds me of Clinton asking for the definition of the word IS.

Link to comment

Hi - Two questions:

 

1. What is a Pocket Cache?

2. What is meant by signing the outside of a container?

 

Thanks,

GeoJono

It varies, but generally a pocket cache is a small container (that could fit in a pocket) that travels with a person as they move around an event. Then others go around introducing themselves and asking if the person has a pocket cache, if they do they show it to the other person. It seems at some events the pocket cache changes hands to the person that found it, while at other events it doesn't. The other variation is the online logging of the pocket caches, some aren't logged online, some are logs on the event page as a temp cache, some are logged on other permanent caches, even sometimes on archived caches in locations far from event.

 

Signing the outside of the container? Um.... just what it sounds like. Instead of opening the cache and getting out the logbook and signing a blank page in the logbook, they just wrote on the container itself.

Just wanted to add that neither practice is widely-accepted. The Pocket Caches are a regional, but apparently-spreading, idea . . . :lol:

 

Here in the San Diego area, we don't have such a thing as Pocket Caches, and logging an Event more than once, even if there were some temporary Event caches, would be frowned on.

 

Signing the outside of the container was an idea the group who wanted to set a new 24-hour record for finding caches came up with. Most cache owners only consider you have found a cache, and can therefore log it online legitimately, if you have signed the logbook.

Edited by Miragee
Link to comment

Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do?

By the currently written guidelines, they should not be counted. But I would like to see an evolution in the guidelines and numbers tracked at geocaching.com that do allow for event games/caches/etc. to exist and count for something.

 

Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit? Nope, standard geocaching practices were not met, so they should not count as finds.

 

Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules?

No. The rules should be simply finding standard geocaching practices; sign the log, stay together as a team.

 

Pile on all you want-these are merely my opinions on the three questions asked.

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment
This IS your game, take ownership! The Groundspeak servers exist to serve you - if you don't like the game change it! You may hear posters saying play it our way or leave, but I bet you won't hear Groundspeak say it...their worst nightmare is that we just might!

 

Oh, man....whew, thanks for the laugh... :lol:

Link to comment

At the events I have attended (Annual spring and fall picnics in Indiana) most of the "event" caches have been very well done, and more difficult to find than the typical urban WalMart parking lot cache.

So.... for that type of event cache logging, I have to say YES

 

Pocket Caches (they are not a real cache type anyways) NO

 

Daily records are meaningless unless you know what type of caches .....So for the last 2 questions

NO or who gives a Sh*t

Link to comment

how long is this dead horse gonna be beaten? The point has been made. I was there, I saw it, I was not impressed. It has be hashed and re-hashed a gazillion times. Time to let it go. Take a deep breath, back slowly out of the forums, and take nice walk in the woods to a cache. Trust me, you will feel better almost instantly. :lol:

Link to comment

how long is this dead horse gonna be beaten? The point has been made. I was there, I saw it, I was not impressed. It has be hashed and re-hashed a gazillion times. Time to let it go. Take a deep breath, back slowly out of the forums, and take nice walk in the woods to a cache. Trust me, you will feel better almost instantly. :lol:

 

If that's such great advice, why don't you take it?

 

The point clearly hasn't been made, because them they didn't get it still haven't got it. Perhaps they're lost causes, but never mind. You know why you beat a dead horse? So all the other horses think, "whoa! I don't think I want me any of that, if I can help it."

Link to comment

Take a deep breath, back slowly out of the forums, and take nice walk in the woods to a cache. Trust me, you will feel better almost instantly. :lol:

 

I live in the desert, current temp only 100° (wow much cooler than yesterdays 112). I wont feel better with a walk in the desert. I will feel hot and half dead lol.

 

But that isnt why Im so vocal in the forums over this issue. I feel quite strongly about the whole padding numbers thing, the signing caches instead of logs, multiple logs for an event, signing logs on an archived cache at an event miles away from the original coordinates, logging smilies on caches from Iraq that show up as a twin in Dallas. This bugs me. It clearly bothers other cachers who feel, like I do, that this cheapens our sport, that it violates ethics, that its just plain wrong. It clearly bothers other cachers who feel like I do that it is just a matter of time before this spreads like a plague to our area of caching and is accepted as a normal way of caching.

Link to comment

Take a deep breath, back slowly out of the forums, and take nice walk in the woods to a cache. Trust me, you will feel better almost instantly. :lol:

 

I live in the desert, current temp only 100° (wow much cooler than yesterdays 112). I wont feel better with a walk in the desert. I will feel hot and half dead lol.

 

But that isnt why Im so vocal in the forums over this issue. I feel quite strongly about the whole padding numbers thing, the signing caches instead of logs, multiple logs for an event, signing logs on an archived cache at an event miles away from the original coordinates, logging smilies on caches from Iraq that show up as a twin in Dallas. This bugs me. It clearly bothers other cachers who feel, like I do, that this cheapens our sport, that it violates ethics, that its just plain wrong. It clearly bothers other cachers who feel like I do that it is just a matter of time before this spreads like a plague to our area of caching and is accepted as a normal way of caching.

Ditto . . . It is too hot here to go for a hike, so the Forums provide a diversion while I also map all the WiFi spots in San Diego County. :lol:

 

And, I so completely agree that I want to repeat this part:

I feel quite strongly about the whole padding numbers thing, the signing caches instead of logs, multiple logs for an event, signing logs on an archived cache at an event miles away from the original coordinates, logging smilies on caches from Iraq that show up as a twin in Dallas. This bugs me. It clearly bothers other cachers who feel, like I do, that this cheapens our sport, that it violates ethics, that its just plain wrong. It clearly bothers other cachers who feel like I do that it is just a matter of time before this spreads like a plague to our area of caching and is accepted as a normal way of caching.

I just can't understand why others don't see a problem with these practices . . . :lol:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...