The No Cheating Game

[+Mudfrog]

.....Maybe something's changed, but I thought you could log archived caches anyway?

 

Which in itself is one of the stupidest features that I know of on GC. Can someone give me a reasonable explination why you should be able to post a found it log on an archived cache?

 

Not positive but i'm thinking one of the reasons it is set up this way is to accomodate cachers who get behind in their logging. If this is the only reason, then maybe there oughta be an automatic cutoff date???

[+ReadyOrNot]

Miragee, the picture makes your post. I can't imagine a better way to have fun caching than going in a group. 99% of my finds are with others.

So you're saying that 99% of your "finds" you didn't actually find? Someone else found the cache and showed you were it was? And yet you still called logged it as a find?

I'd say about 90-95% of my finds were found while caching alone.

Before you start to get defensive, I don't have a problem with everyone in the group logging the find. But there are some who would call this cheating because you didn't find the cache.

 

I've never heard that. If you are in a group and everyone signs the log, then it isn't really cheating. If you are in a big group and only one person signs the log, then only that person should get credit. If you picked up a writing utensil and wrote your name in the log, then you found it. If you did not write your name in the log, then you didn't.. If someone else wrote your name in the log, then you shouldn't get credit. What is so difficult about this to understand?

[+Criminal]

Miragee, the picture makes your post. I can't imagine a better way to have fun caching than going in a group. 99% of my finds are with others.

So you're saying that 99% of your "finds" you didn't actually find? Someone else found the cache and showed you were it was? And yet you still called logged it as a find?

I'd say about 90-95% of my finds were found while caching alone.

Before you start to get defensive, I don't have a problem with everyone in the group logging the find. But there are some who would call this cheating because you didn't find the cache.

I've not been keeping up with that hokum, but if you're caching in a group and you sign the log, it's a find for you. If the group finds the cache while you're off somewhere else looking for a different cache, it's not a find for you. JMHO

[+hikergps]

That's not it at all. It's some people trying to turn "anything goes" into geocaching.com

 

Or better yet, trying to keep geocaching.com from becoming "anything goes.com"!

 

I'm sure I'll get some flak for saying this, but it is of no one's fault but GC's own for turning a blind eye to the issues described in the 1st post of this thread. I realize that Criminal's original intent for the post was a rant. However, he isn't raising any issues that have not reared their ugly head that have the potential to cause bigger problems.

[+Miragee]

.....Maybe something's changed, but I thought you could log archived caches anyway?

Which in itself is one of the stupidest features that I know of on GC. Can someone give me a reasonable explination why you should be able to post a found it log on an archived cache?

Well, one reason I can understand is what I hope happens tomorrow. A cache was muggled and only the log remains, in a ziplock bag another cacher left around it, when they found the remains of the cache. Because of the distant location, the owner Archived the cache after learning what happened.

 

If we can find it, and sign the log, and CITO it for the owner, shouldn't we be able to log it?

[+RichardMoore]

.....Maybe something's changed, but I thought you could log archived caches anyway?

 

Which in itself is one of the stupidest features that I know of on GC. Can someone give me a reasonable explination why you should be able to post a found it log on an archived cache?

Reasonable #1:

When I first started caching I knew almost nothing about computers or the internet. I went to my local library and had the librarian show me how to get online and find GC.com.

I didn't have a computer, so I didn't have an e-mail address, and wasn't comfortable enough using the libraries computers to get one of the "free" ones, even if I knew about them.

So for my first nine months of geocaching I wasn't on-line, nor did I have a GC.com account. But I found 68 caches.

When I got a computer I went back and logged my finds, only to discover that some of the caches had been archived. Following the advice of another cacher, I went through his list of finds to find the those caches and logged them.

 

Reasonable #2:

A young cacher who had been caching with his family now has his own account and wants to log all of the caches that he found with them on his own account.

 

Reasonable #3:

Now that name changes are locked out, some cachers are re-logging their finds with their new names.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

.....Maybe something's changed, but I thought you could log archived caches anyway?

 

Which in itself is one of the stupidest features that I know of on GC. Can someone give me a reasonable explination why you should be able to post a found it log on an archived cache?

Archived mean that it is no longer listed on the site. It doesn't mean that the cache is not there, only that you can't do a search for it on the site.

 

Also, suppose you're on a trip and find a cache. Before you're able to make it home to log your finds, the cache is archived. Shouldn't you be allowed to claim your find since you found it, especially before it was archived?

[+KKTH3]

Finds aren't "earned:" they're a statement of fact.

 

That sounds like a good sig line to me.

 

.....Maybe something's changed, but I thought you could log archived caches anyway?

 

Which in itself is one of the stupidest features that I know of on GC. Can someone give me a reasonable explination why you should be able to post a found it log on an archived cache?

 

Reasonable explanation: Recently we had the first stage of one of our more difficult caches stolen. It was a special multi-cache and rather than go to the effort and trouble to replace the first stage at a comprimised position, we decided to just archive the cache and hide a new cache of similar challenge but different style instead.

 

Upon inspecting the final for the original cache we found that it had been found 3 times, rather than the 2 times posted online. One person had not logged the cache online yet. I'm guessing now that they are one of many people we have seen that never log finds online (despite possibly having thousands of finds) but if for whatever reason they decide to log online that they found a challenging cache - they certainly should be allowed to post their quite legitimate achievment.

 

Is that reasonable enough?

[+RichardMoore]

Miragee, the picture makes your post. I can't imagine a better way to have fun caching than going in a group. 99% of my finds are with others.

So you're saying that 99% of your "finds" you didn't actually find? Someone else found the cache and showed you were it was? And yet you still called logged it as a find?

I'd say about 90-95% of my finds were found while caching alone.

Before you start to get defensive, I don't have a problem with everyone in the group logging the find. But there are some who would call this cheating because you didn't find the cache.

I've not been keeping up with that hokum, but if you're caching in a group and you sign the log, it's a find for you. If the group finds the cache while you're off somewhere else looking for a different cache, it's not a find for you. JMHO

I agree with it being a legitimate find for everyone in the group that is there.

But I was once caching with someone that, on a previous group hunt, was berated by the other members in the group when she announced that she found the cache. They were upset because now no one else in the group could log it as a find.

Everyone has different ways of playing the game.

And no matter how you play it, someone can say that you're cheating.

[+Renegade Knight]

.....Maybe something's changed, but I thought you could log archived caches anyway?

 

Which in itself is one of the stupidest features that I know of on GC. Can someone give me a reasonable explination why you should be able to post a found it log on an archived cache?

 

Because you found it.

 

...as part of a team before you split off your account.

...before you realized you hate your caching screen name and changed it.

...because you had old information found the cache and it was actually still there.

...because you forgot to log it when you found it.

...because you are 200 logs behind but working hard to catch up.

 

and so on.

[+coast2coast2coast]

It sounds like it’s a very personal thing. I myself, have tried to keep my finds to the spirit of the Geo-Law (the way I see it anyway) I would never ever think of logging a find for being “close”. By that I mean finding a piece of plastic bag or some other item nearby that might be on the ground …If I can’t sign a log book (or something in the cache) I won’t give myself a smiley.

I even have a hard time logging a cache that my daughter hides... And don’t ask me what I realllllllllllllly think about locationless caches. I have never claimed one of them and more then likely never will. All my finds are of the physical kind.

What would be cool is if we could keep track of the mileage we put in to get the similes instead of all the similes themselves. I think that is the real testament to a Geocachers dedication to the sport.

[+RichardMoore]

Finds aren't "earned:" they're a statement of fact.

 

That sounds like a good sig line to me.

 

 

Did you happen to see my sig line?

 

[+coast2coast2coast]

Miragee, the picture makes your post. I can't imagine a better way to have fun caching than going in a group. 99% of my finds are with others.

So you're saying that 99% of your "finds" you didn't actually find? Someone else found the cache and showed you were it was? And yet you still called logged it as a find?

I'd say about 90-95% of my finds were found while caching alone.

Before you start to get defensive, I don't have a problem with everyone in the group logging the find. But there are some who would call this cheating because you didn't find the cache.

I've not been keeping up with that hokum, but if you're caching in a group and you sign the log, it's a find for you. If the group finds the cache while you're off somewhere else looking for a different cache, it's not a find for you. JMHO

I agree with it being a legitimate find for everyone in the group that is there.

But I was once caching with someone that, on a previous group hunt, was berated by the other members in the group when she announced that she found the cache. They were upset because now no one else in the group could log it as a find.

Everyone has different ways of playing the game.

And no matter how you play it, someone can say that you're cheating.

 

When we cache in a group with a possibe FTF, The person who actually finds the cache gets the FTF but as long as everyone signs the book everyone can claim their smiley.

[+NotNutts]

If Found It actually meant you walked out to the posted coordinates, found the cache, and signed the log, would there be fewer people playing?

 

Would people quit if they had to be truthful?

 

Would there be a mass exodus of geocachers to another listing site if they couldn’t claim a find on some Velcro remnants or a piece of string?

 

Would there be fewer geocachers if the cache owner didn’t ‘grant’ a find because someone tried so very hard?

 

Would geocaching be less fun if players couldn’t tell their young daughters to ask some other gegeocacherIs that a cache in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?”

 

Would geocaching go under if there was no slothful way to rack up thousands of smileys by logging your own caches, having caches brought to you, or being ‘granted’ extra smileys by some equally lazy cache owner?

 

What would it be like?

Let me add a few more questions to the rant...

 

Would Geocaching actually get better with more rules?

 

What rules would we use to keep people from cheating themselves?

 

Whose standards would we apply to the GC group as a whole?

 

At what point would we stop adding rules?

 

I cache in a way that appears to be generally acceptable, but I really don't give a flip about the cheating. I find it a bit silly, but mostly harmless (with a few exceptions noted ad nauseum in the forums).

[outta here]

 

If you picked up a writing utensil and wrote your name in the log, then you found it. If you did not write your name in the log, then you didn't..

 

See. This is why some of us were so confused. I thought that if you signed the log, then you signed the log, but that if you found it, then you found it.

 

Now I see that if you signed the log, that means you found it. But, does that mean if you find it, that means you signed the log?

 

I guess I'm still confused.

 

OTOH, maybe we could acknowledge that the details of logging in a group are neither spelled out at the geocaching site, nor are they as self evident as some here seem to be insisting. Lets see what new cachers are told:

 

from http://www.geocaching.com/articles/finding.asp:

 

Usually you take an item and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.

 

Well gosh. I don't see ANYTHING about "you must sign the log to report a find." It even uses that weasel-word "usually."

 

I agree that logging a find when you wern't physically present at the cache location when the cache was opened or the log was signed is cheating.*

 

However, inventing rules in the forum and calling anyone who doesn't adhere to the invented rule a cheater seems out of line.

 

* OK Here is a hypothetical. You are on a group cache. The last 10 yards involves a significant climb up some rocks that one or more of the team can't do. Is it cheating for the whole team to log the find? Is it cheating to pass the logbook down to the team members that can't get up the rocks?

 

Just so no one misunderstands. I would not call that cheating even though there was some aspect of the cache that some of the team have not completed. I would tend to write off the different to "this is a game folks."

[+hikergps]

.....Maybe something's changed, but I thought you could log archived caches anyway?

 

Which in itself is one of the stupidest features that I know of on GC. Can someone give me a reasonable explination why you should be able to post a found it log on an archived cache?

 

Most of the points well taken.

 

One of them that I don't agree with is creating a new account because you don't like your sceen name, then relogging all of your finds. Doesn't this add a found it to the cache that you've already logged once, creating inaccurate found stats for the cache itself?

[+Miragee]

I think most people would bring up the old log so they can check the date. Then they can "copy" the text, Delete the log, and create a new log, pasting in the previous text, and perhaps adding some more details.]

 

At least that is what I would do.

[+CheshireFrog]

OK, so if somebody takes their GC.com listed cache to an event, and other people see that cache at the event and log it, even though the cache was not at the listed coordinates, that's cheating, right?

 

I'm not questioning this, I'm just restating it for clarification. I've heard people in multiple threads characterize this as not finding the cache, but rather having someone bring it to you.

 

So how is that substantially different from group caching? One person finds the cache and then passes it around to everyone else to sign the log. You didn't find the cache, someone handed it to you.

[+Lostby7]

Wow I cannot believe this topic is still going.....

[+RichardMoore]

OK, so if somebody takes their GC.com listed cache to an event, and other people see that cache at the event and log it, even though the cache was not at the listed coordinates, that's cheating, right?

 

I'm not questioning this, I'm just restating it for clarification. I've heard people in multiple threads characterize this as not finding the cache, but rather having someone bring it to you.

 

So how is that substantially different from group caching? One person finds the cache and then passes it around to everyone else to sign the log. You didn't find the cache, someone handed it to you.

If you want a "rule of thumb" you could say that when you're with a group you are still within a reasonable distance from the cache's listed coordinates, as determined by normal GPS accuracy.

[+hikergps]

OK, so if somebody takes their GC.com listed cache to an event, and other people see that cache at the event and log it, even though the cache was not at the listed coordinates, that's cheating, right?

 

I'm not questioning this, I'm just restating it for clarification. I've heard people in multiple threads characterize this as not finding the cache, but rather having someone bring it to you.

 

So how is that substantially different from group caching? One person finds the cache and then passes it around to everyone else to sign the log. You didn't find the cache, someone handed it to you.

 

Does one person go to the listed coordinates, then bring the cache home, then have everyone sign the log and take it back? OR Is the WHOLE group at the listed coordinates? That is the difference.

 

edit: reworded so it didn't sound stupid

Edited June 23, 2006 by hikergps

[+ReadyOrNot]

 

Usually you take an item and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.

 

Well gosh. I don't see ANYTHING about "you must sign the log to report a find." It even uses that weasel-word "usually."

 

Wow, talk about taking things out of context. Usually you take an item and leave an item. The 'usually' is associated with taking and leaving items -- AND enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book -- as opposed to entering their experience. It's an accomplishment enough to locate the cache -- is referring to the fact that you don't have to take and leave anything....

 

NOWHERE in there does it say that logging is optional. You should be a politician...

[+CheshireFrog]

Does one person go to the listed coordinates, then bring the cache home, then have everyone sign the log and take it back? OR Is the WHOLE group at the listed coordinates? That is the difference.

 

OK, well much has been made of the guidelines in these threads. For instance, as regards group caching, the guidelines say find the cache, sign the log. A case has been made that when a group signs the log with a group name the second condition was not met, so nobody gets to log the find online. I would submit that when group caching the first condition has not been met for all but one of the group. One found the cache, the others did not.

 

You can't push following the guidelines strictly in one instance and not the other.

[outta here]

 

Usually you take an item and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.

 

Well gosh. I don't see ANYTHING about "you must sign the log to report a find." It even uses that weasel-word "usually."

 

Wow, talk about taking things out of context. Usually you take an item and leave an item. The 'usually' is associated with taking and leaving items -- AND enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book -- as opposed to entering their experience. It's an accomplishment enough to locate the cache -- is referring to the fact that you don't have to take and leave anything....

 

NOWHERE in there does it say that logging is optional. You should be a politician...

 

From cache police to grammar police. OK.

 

If you want to group the "usually" exclusively with the take and leave part, then the sign the log part is missing a "you" (either that or the words "Usually you" are in the wrong order) Reading the sentence the way you want to is CHEATING. CHEATING CHEATING CHEATING!!!!

 

Ummm...

 

Maybe I'm making too much of that. Maybe I should admit that there are multiple readings of that sentence that will not result in the destruction of western civilization.

 

Yes. I can agree to that without losing face or destroying geocaching,

 

Sorry Ready.