Jump to content

I thought you couldn't do this anymore?


5¢

Recommended Posts

Seems fishy to me :rolleyes:<_<

 

Is there something I don't know about how events work?

 

No, you should know everything by now......events are caches just like traditionals, multis, and puzzles. They are meant to be logged once. Their are some who place "temporary" caches at events and because those type of caches can't be published because they aren't permanent, people log their temp cache finds on the event page resulting in you finding the event 25 times......which, in my opinion, is messed up! Now I can't look at someone's stats and see that they have found 1,500 caches until I look at their rundown of event logs and see that they have attended 57 events! I click on the event icon and only 3 of them pop up :unsure::angry:

 

-----End rant------I'm better now.

Link to comment

I thought this was pretty much limited to Wisconson, Michigan and Fla. Looks like the practice is expanding to other states now.

 

Goes to show you that for a lot of people it is all about the numbers. I wonder how they can have the gall to think its OK to use this website's services and servers to store logs for caches that are not listed here.

 

:rolleyes:

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Multiple event logs can have different levels of silliness associated with it and they range from extreme to not at all. I've been to events where you were encouraged to log it again if you heard the host pass gas (well, OK, perhaps not quite that silly but not far from it) and I've been to events where the multiple logs were associated with signing multiple ammo boxes that were located a mile or more from the main event in some serious terrain, but in a park that didn't officially allow geocaches, so they had to be retrieved that weekend and thus exempt from the guidelines of listing "permanent" caches.

 

By my current geocaching/moral barometer - that I choose not to impose upon others - the first is a case of silliness and the second is a case of logging an actual find of a container by coordinates whicch seems to be the definition of geocaching, but in a park that doesn't allow ammo boxes but in a manner consistent with the guidelines of the times, the latter is OK with multiple finds and the former is not.

 

It's just one more reason that summarizing a finders experience into a single number has hazards.

 

Lossy compression is exactly that.

 

An event that makes an event out of finding stuff doesn't trouble me. An event that makes 20 logs out of passing 20 logbooks down the table does. I won't beat up a cacher that partakes in either.

Link to comment

Now I can't look at someone's stats and see that they have found 1,500 caches until I look at their rundown of event logs and see that they have attended 57 events! I click on the event icon and only 3 of them pop up :unsure:<_<

 

You're not kidding! I clicked the profile for one of the multi-loggers of the referenced event cache. Says they've attended 76 events, but when you click on their events icon - only 2 events are listed. So that's, what, 38 'finds' per event? And his profile says he's a mentor for new cachers - great, teaching newcomers this sort of thing is acceptable. :rolleyes:

 

I'm beginning to see why the numbers for us Northwestern cachers are low relative to many areas of the country - that kind of stuff is verboten here. Heck, the #1 cacher in Washington state is Moun10Bike, with 4516 caches.

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

Now I can't look at someone's stats and see that they have found 1,500 caches until I look at their rundown of event logs and see that they have attended 57 events! I click on the event icon and only 3 of them pop up :unsure:<_<

 

You're not kidding! I clicked the profile for one of the multi-loggers of the referenced event cache. Says they've attended 76 events, but when you click on their events icon - only 2 events are listed. So that's, what, 38 'finds' per event? And his profile says he's a mentor for new cachers - great, teaching newcomers this sort of thing is acceptable. :rolleyes:

 

I'm beginning to see why the numbers for us Northwestern cachers are low relative to many areas of the country - that kind of stuff is verboten here. Heck, the #1 cacher in Washington state is Moun10Bike, with 4516 caches.

 

That's what happens when you live/play at GCGZ. It seems the further away people are from Seattle, the more they can get away with.

 

We do get away with a double-log at events here, but ONLY if you get permission from the reviewers prior to submitting your event.

Link to comment

...By my current geocaching/moral barometer - that I choose not to impose upon others - the first is a case of silliness and the second is a case of logging an actual find of a container by coordinates whicch seems to be the definition of geocaching, but in a park that doesn't allow ammo boxes but in a manner consistent with the guidelines of the times, the latter is OK with multiple finds and the former is not....

 

So, if you violate the "rules" in a park and violate the guidelines of this site it is okay to log the same cache multiple times?

 

I doubt the park in question prohibits listing the cache on geocaching.com--the ban is more likely on placing a cache in the park. An unfortunate rule, but one that should be followed. Especially when an organized event is put together to willfully violate such rules, it looks bad on all of us.

 

I don't care if you log every event cache as many times as you want!

I don"t care if you log your own hides as many times as you want!

I don't care if you count coup on every lamppost, fence post, and guardrail you see!

 

I really don't care what your number is, and I don't care how much you pad it.

 

I do care if a bunch of irresponsible individuals do whatever they want, including deliberately hiding temporary caches where they are not wanted or welcome. This kind of irresponsible behavior gives property managers the wrong idea about geocaching (or maybe an accurate one) and makes it harder to keep spaces open to properly placed caches.

 

How can you consider this in any way "in a manner consistent with the guidelines of the times" if it obviously violate the guidelines on this site and the park?

 

Here is an idea--if a park doesn't allow geocaches, don't put any there!

 

Then you won't have to cheat on your logging to get "credit" for finding caches that aren't listed, and you don't risk your behavior reflecting badly on the rest of us!

 

Dave_W6DPS

Link to comment

That's what happens when you live/play at GCGZ. It seems the further away people are from Seattle, the more they can get away with.

 

We do get away with a double-log at events here, but ONLY if you get permission from the reviewers prior to submitting your event.

 

 

Its not done on the east coast either. At least not at the events I've attended in NY and NJ.

Link to comment

I guess when i started I goofed a little. I took a bunch of kids out to caches that I had found so they could find them and then I logged them as found too - 5 of them - I then noticed that my count went up by 5. I was annoyed as I just wanted to say I had been there... I now see that I could have written a note and will end up going back and trying to find those doubles and edit them to make them notes. If its about numbers, when you pad, you only cheat yourself out of the real find. I have never been to an event but when I am tempted to cheat on a find - you just feel dumb as you think about who really cares but you! You miss out, your 1000 is really not even 1000. Who is lying to who and who else of really cares. Is there some huge prize for finds and discoveries? No. Only you, the Big man and probably your kids will know. Cool.

Link to comment

 

That's what happens when you live/play at GCGZ. It seems the further away people are from Seattle, the more they can get away with.

 

We do get away with a double-log at events here, but ONLY if you get permission from the reviewers prior to submitting your event.

Reviewers have very little say over how logging takes place at an event. We review the event itself, to make sure it meets the guidelines for events. Was it submitted at least two weeks in advance? Is it organized by geocachers for geocachers? -- questions like that. Whether the event allows multiple logs for temporary caches is none of the reviewers' business. You seem to suggest that you need to get permission from your reviewer for double logging. There is no such requirement. It is the event owner who makes that decision.

 

I can assure you that the same standards for publishing event caches hold forth in Washington State and here in my territory, Western Pennsylvania, where the event took place that has triggered this thread.

Link to comment

I thought this was pretty much limited to Wisconson, Michigan and Fla. Looks like the practice is expanding to other states now.

 

Goes to show you that for a lot of people it is all about the numbers. I wonder how they can have the gall to think its OK to use this website's services and servers to store logs for caches that are not listed here.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Just for the record, since I grew up in Wisconsin and now live in Florida, I only log events once, and if I put caches out for an event, they are real permanent caches. I've seen this practice and just don't get it. For that reason alone I spent a lot of time finding a way to get 3 new caches placed for a local event recently. Last I checked everyone logged the event only once. Progress. <_<

Link to comment
We do get away with a double-log at events here, but ONLY if you get permission from the reviewers prior to submitting your event.

[rant]And this is somehow morally superior to logging an event "find" a hundred times? You attended once, not twice. Maybe that's a Left Coast thing.[/rant]

OK, Rant's over. I feel much better now! :rolleyes:

 

On a more serious note: The site allows it, so I'm not gonna get worked up over it. Obviously you can't cheat in a game without rules. Whilst most, (myself included), might think it's a cheesy way to artificially inflate your numbers, it happens to be legal. I think the best course of action is to educate the newer cachers in the, (naive), hope that this practice will someday die a painful death.

Link to comment

I thought this was pretty much limited to Wisconson, Michigan and Fla. Looks like the practice is expanding to other states now.

 

Goes to show you that for a lot of people it is all about the numbers. I wonder how they can have the gall to think its OK to use this website's services and servers to store logs for caches that are not listed here.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Welcome to NWPA!

Link to comment

I don't understand the issue here, it must be a geographical/cultural difference. If I go to an event and find 3 caches, why shouldn't I claim 3 finds? You can yell "numbers cacher!" and/or "count padder!" but if a cacher finds a cache, sings a logbook, and rehides... it's a find. Where's the cheating in that?

 

 

Just FYI, I didn't attend this event, although it's reasonably close to where I live. I did attend a CITO event this summer and logged one attended and two cache finds. So, maybe my count is padded by 2, I think it's accurate.

Link to comment

I don't understand the issue here, it must be a geographical/cultural difference. If I go to an event and find 3 caches, why shouldn't I claim 3 finds? You can yell "numbers cacher!" and/or "count padder!" but if a cacher finds a cache, sings a logbook, and rehides... it's a find. Where's the cheating in that?

 

 

Just FYI, I didn't attend this event, although it's reasonably close to where I live. I did attend a CITO event this summer and logged one attended and two cache finds. So, maybe my count is padded by 2, I think it's accurate.

 

So claim your three finds, you can post a "note" instead of an "attended" to do that, can't you? I mean you really only "attended" one event right?

 

The only purpose to claiming them under an "attended" is to pad the numbers and nothing else. Its tacky and just another reason why playing the game for numbers is stupid, it just makes them worthless.

Edited by D@nim@l
Link to comment
I don't understand the issue here, it must be a geographical/cultural difference. If I go to an event and find 3 caches, why shouldn't I claim 3 finds? You can yell "numbers cacher!" and/or "count padder!" but if a cacher finds a cache, sings a logbook, and rehides... it's a find. Where's the cheating in that?

 

1. Because its one event and you are logging an "attended" for that event. How many times can you "attend" one event? The point of attended logs is to show that you attend an event - period. Otherwise they would be called "Found an Event Cache" log.

 

2. Because the caches are not listed on this website. Would you log here for caches you found that were listed on Terracaching? Navicaching? Of course not (well at least I hope not) so why should you abuse this website's server space so you can log ANY caches that aren't listed here?

 

3. Its circumnventing the system in place. Temporary caches are not permitted under this website's guidelines and its a way to get around that.

 

4. Its a really cheesy thing to do.

Link to comment

I noticed recently the total records for a "ul" list is different than the "official" tally.

 

Our total records list versus the official tally. The difference being 4 locationless caches and a webcam.

 

Maybe they should do the same with events?

 

Maybe they should not count them in the official tally, too?

 

EDIT: fixed a something... besides not having finished my first cup of coffee, that is.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
The only purpose to claiming them under an "attended" is to pad the numbers and nothing else. Its tacky and just another reason why playing the game for numbers is stupid, it just makes them worthless.
Then why do you and many others get so worked up about it and pull out the well worn torches and pitchforks every time this subject comes up in the forums? <_<

I don't give a flying fig about your stats, and don't really care what you think about mine. Go out to hide and find some caches, meet some folks at an event, post about it on the website, and HAVE FUN. :unsure:

What else really matters? :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I get why relative newbies to the forum are getting upset about this issue, but why are the veterans getting bent? Haven't we seen this thread 100 times? Beyond the knowledge that it happens and it being one more reason to take a cacher's find count with a bucket of salt, what's the point?

Link to comment
The only purpose to claiming them under an "attended" is to pad the numbers and nothing else. Its tacky and just another reason why playing the game for numbers is stupid, it just makes them worthless.
Then why do you and many others get so worked up about it and pull out the well worn torches and pitchforks every time this subject comes up in the forums? <_<

I don't give a flying fig about your stats, and don't really care what you think about mine. Go out to hide and find some caches, meet some folks at an event, post about it on the website, and HAVE FUN. :unsure:

What else really matters? :rolleyes:

 

Yes, this does come up quite often. There are people like wimseyguy who don't think it should bother anyone (because after all, numbers don't really matter) and then there are other people who think it's pretty stupid to allow this (I fall into the latter category).

 

Many suggestiions have been made on how to alleviate this, but they all have drawbacks and it seems to me that there doesn't seem to be much interest in changing the current system or adding new functionality like this. Here are a few suggestions that I remember being brought up though:

  1. Disallow multiple finds on a cache. But what if the cache has been moved to a new location?
  2. Add another statistic for "unique" finds to compliment the current "total finds" (ex. it would say "56 event attended logs/3 unique events attended)
  3. Only allow one "event attended" log and add a new log type for "Found temporary event cache" on the log page (similar to the travel bug "discovered" log type).

I can't remember what the drawbacks were for each, but for every person who supports it, you'll find someone else who doesn't. IMO, the people who are against implementing anything like this are the people who insist numbers don't matter, so I'm not sure why they care one way or another, honestly. Personally I find myself not caring that much about it anymore, since that battle has been fought and lost quite a few times.

Edited by ThePropers
Link to comment
... IMO, the people who are against implementing anything like this are the people who insist numbers don't matter, so I'm not sure why they care one way or another, honestly. ...

It's about prioritizing finite resources. Why bother 'fixing' this issue when there is so much more to do?

Link to comment
... IMO, the people who are against implementing anything like this are the people who insist numbers don't matter, so I'm not sure why they care one way or another, honestly. ...

It's about prioritizing finite resources. Why bother 'fixing' this issue when there is so much more to do?

 

I think that's the point though. To you this is a low priority, but others think it should rank a bit higher on the priority list. Of course in the real world, I don't even think this is on the radar for TPTB, so in reality it's kindof a non-issue/non-priority in every sense that actually matters.

Link to comment
Then why do you and many others get so worked up about it and pull out the well worn torches and pitchforks every time this subject comes up in the forums?

 

And why do you and so many others have to toss around the hyperbole every time this comes up? Since when is calmly discussing an issue "getting so worked up" and opining that a practice is absurd "getting out the torches and pitchforks"?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
... I do care if a bunch of irresponsible individuals do whatever they want, including deliberately hiding temporary caches where they are not wanted or welcome. This kind of irresponsible behavior gives property managers the wrong idea about geocaching (or maybe an accurate one) and makes it harder to keep spaces open to properly placed caches. ...

I'll ignore most of your post to concentrate on the meat of it...

 

How are temporary event caches against park rules? If I have a picnic in a park and set down my frisbee while I eat a piece of chicken, am I violating the same rule?

Link to comment
Then why do you and many others get so worked up about it and pull out the well worn torches and pitchforks every time this subject comes up in the forums?

 

And why do you and so many others have to toss around the hyperbole every time this comes up? Since when is calmly discussing an issue "getting so worked up" and opining that a practice is absurd "getting out the torches and pitchforks"?

I think you will agree that people on both sides of this issue get pretty worked up every time this thread comes along.

Link to comment
The only purpose to claiming them under an "attended" is to pad the numbers and nothing else. Its tacky and just another reason why playing the game for numbers is stupid, it just makes them worthless.
Then why do you and many others get so worked up about it and pull out the well worn torches and pitchforks every time this subject comes up in the forums? <_<

I don't give a flying fig about your stats, and don't really care what you think about mine. Go out to hide and find some caches, meet some folks at an event, post about it on the website, and HAVE FUN. :unsure:

What else really matters? :angry:

 

It is a hobby that does have guidelines and where there are no guidelines, we need to use common sense. We know why people log events more than once, so that they can log temporary event caches that they find. These people have two things going against them at this point.

 

1. First off, temporary caches are not recoginzed by GC.com as they don't meet GC.com guidelines. In other words, they are not legitimate. So why would you even think to log a cache on GC.com that isn't even listed on the site?

 

2. Second, and this one is very easy to figure out. How can you attend an event more that once?

 

Geocaching is a minor thing in our lives and we shouldn't get too worked up about issues that pop up here. It's not life threatening or anything but, as with any other game, hobby, or sport, there are numbers that most of us play for or by. It's part of my fun to watch my numbers and see how friends and others are doing with theirs. Doing silly things with them (making them blatently inaccurate) does take away from that fun.

 

But you know what, whether i or anyone else care about numbers or not is actually irrelevant anyway. The bottom line is that logging that you attended an event more than once is wrong and just plain goofy! :rolleyes:

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

No, you can log any cache (events included) any number of times, and it counts as a "find".

 

So for instance, I have been to events where people (not me) log the same event 45+ times. So you could be a cacher with 0 finds, attend one event, and leave it with 25, 50, 100, 200, 500, 100000 finds.

Link to comment

Personally don’t have a problem with multi-logs on an event cache page

 

It just folks having fun, an this is what the sport / game is all about having fun.

 

If you get bend out of shape by this type of logging don’t do it, it you like it go for it

 

Don’t let anyone in the forums suck the fun out of the sport / game for you, play it the way you want to they are NOT represented by the silent majority only the vocal minority

 

Have fun, if you are not, go do something else

 

Joe

Link to comment

How do the people in question make the time to write all these logs?

Surly it is not such a huge software change to allow only one type of log per cache?

One of the cachers in question found 120 caches in one day! Where I come from that will be impossible to do. I think most places in the world that will be about impossible!

At the end of the day, you are only fooling yourself when "enhancing" your cache count in this manner.

Link to comment

One of the cachers in question found 120 caches in one day!

 

That is impressive. Perhaps someday the 24 hour record will be broken this way, at which point everyone will whine and complain about this being allowed, despite that numbers don't matter and this type of behavior is perfectly legitimate and acceptable.

Link to comment
... Surly it is not such a huge software change to allow only one type of log per cache? ...

There are some situations that most would agree that multiple 'finds' would be perfectly appropriate.

 

Could you name one legitimate one as it pertains to the topic of event caches, of course?

Link to comment

Could you name one legitimate one as it pertains to the topic of event caches, of course?

 

How about if I left to run an errand and came back? Huh, about that, Mr. Smartypants? Huh?

 

Seriously, I agree. There doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason to be able to attend an event more than one time.

Link to comment

Could you name one legitimate one as it pertains to the topic of event caches, of course?

 

How about if I left to run an errand and came back? Huh, about that, Mr. Smartypants? Huh?

 

Seriously, I agree. There doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason to be able to attend an event more than one time.

 

Got me there! Then just looking at the cache page should count as one find then correct?

(Check the outcome here)

Edited by D@nim@l
Link to comment
I thought this was pretty much limited to Wisconson, Michigan and Fla.

 

As much as it pains me to disagree with Briansnat (who is, by definition, Always Right) - multi logging of events never caught on in Florida. Pocket caches, yep. Multi events, nope.

 

Funny how whenever somebody sees some practice they dislike, they assume "you couldn't do this anymore"?

 

There are a number of things ya usta could do on GC.com that you can't do now. Own or log a locationless, submit a virtual, moving cache, earthcache or webcam. Move the coords on a webcam. Place a cache inside a for profit entry fee location.....carry a pocket cache.

 

It's the carry a pocket cache thing that seems to confuse people. The sense that one practice was stopped, so everything in the general numbers running line was stopped with it. Pocket caches got the axe because they were ALREADY a violation of the listing guidelines - ie, they were caches listed on GC.com and then carried (usually just the logs in pockets) to events. They were moving caches, but had been listed as traditionals.

 

While the guidelines specify that the owner is to "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." That's it on logs. No limit. If an event owner says you can log 100 finds, you can. If a cache owner says you can log 100 finds, you can (it's "within the stated requirements"). And all that additional logging requirement stuff is okay too - owner can delete your find if it isn't in hiaku or written as a question or with posed picture in purple t-shirt.....The owner owns the listing and makes the rules. The owner can tell you can log a find on a cache that isn't there as well. Of course, the owner telling you to say you "found" a missing cache is just silly. But it's not against any rules. (Even sillier would be you, agreeing that you found a missing cache :rolleyes: ).

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...