I thought you couldn't do this anymore?

[+D@nim@l]

 

Tacky and stupid refers to the behavior, but if you take then it meant you, then that's your problem.

 

I really don't see why you would need to lower your arguments to a kindergarten level.

 

 

So people can understand them.

[+Pegasi]

I agree with the positions that I read earlier on in thread that multiple logs at a single event are rather silly. On the other hand - as far as I know there is no prize for finding caches other than the enjoyment of the hunt and the possibility of seeing something new and different.

 

I can see how this would be considered as "padding" one's numbers - on the other hand - if the cachers used a GPS, or some other means of locating and logging a geocache - whether posted on the website, reviewed, or approved - they did, in fact find a geocahe. If some one is concerned with how many caches they have found and use the website as their means for keeping track of them I see no problem with it.

[Guyute1210]

...

...on the other hand - if the cachers used a GPS, or some other means of locating and logging a geocache - whether posted on the website, reviewed, or approved - they did, in fact find a geocahe.

So by this context gc.com being a listing service, me finding a terracache (which is really just another name for a geocache) during a gc event, than I could log it in the event, since it's not listed on gc.com, but I found it during an event.

 

If some one is concerned with how many caches they have found and use the website as their means for keeping track of them I see no problem with it.

I keep my own log book at home for other finds and temp caches.

[+sbell111]

...on the other hand - if the cachers used a GPS, or some other means of locating and logging a geocache - whether posted on the website, reviewed, or approved - they did, in fact find a geocahe.

So by this context gc.com being a listing service, me finding a terracache (which is really just another name for a geocache) during a gc event, than I could log it in the event, since it's not listed on gc.com, but I found it during an event.

You are making the assumption that the event cache owner would allow you to take this action.

[+briansnat]

...on the other hand - if the cachers used a GPS, or some other means of locating and logging a geocache - whether posted on the website, reviewed, or approved - they did, in fact find a geocahe.

So by this context gc.com being a listing service, me finding a terracache (which is really just another name for a geocache) during a gc event, than I could log it in the event, since it's not listed on gc.com, but I found it during an event.

You are making the assumption that the event cache owner would allow you to take this action.

 

And if it was fine with the owner does that make it OK to use this website's resources to keep track of caches listed elsewhere?

[Guyute1210]

...on the other hand - if the cachers used a GPS, or some other means of locating and logging a geocache - whether posted on the website, reviewed, or approved - they did, in fact find a geocahe.

So by this context gc.com being a listing service, me finding a terracache (which is really just another name for a geocache) during a gc event, than I could log it in the event, since it's not listed on gc.com, but I found it during an event.

You are making the assumption that the event cache owner would allow you to take this action.

 

And if it was fine with the owner does that make it OK to use this website's resources to keep track of caches listed elsewhere?

I would like to add to the last question above by briansnat:

 

Or not listed all?

[+Shop99er]

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!

The stipulation is that there is a second logbook, in a cache hidden for the event.

 

As a reply to Keystone...no, we don't need explicit permission, and my apologies for writing it that way. We have however, found that it is a good idea to let them know about the second cache/log. It's easier on us and them.

[+Pegasi]

...on the other hand - if the cachers used a GPS, or some other means of locating and logging a geocache - whether posted on the website, reviewed, or approved - they did, in fact find a geocahe.

So by this context gc.com being a listing service, me finding a terracache (which is really just another name for a geocache) during a gc event, than I could log it in the event, since it's not listed on gc.com, but I found it during an event.

 

If That floats your boat do it. I do not use any other listing service outside of GC.COM to find caches but if I did I would use my own GSAK database to track my numbers.

 

If some one is concerned with how many caches they have found and use the website as their means for keeping track of them I see no problem with it.

I keep my own log book at home for other finds and temp caches.

 

For me, same as above - paid for and use GSAK to track.

[+Criminal]

I’d like to say they’re only cheating themselves, but they’re cheating everyone who caches with integrity. In the end, you have to ask yourself, what does geocaching mean to you?

 

This?

 

Or this?

[+Pegasi]

...on the other hand - if the cachers used a GPS, or some other means of locating and logging a geocache - whether posted on the website, reviewed, or approved - they did, in fact find a geocahe.

So by this context gc.com being a listing service, me finding a terracache (which is really just another name for a geocache) during a gc event, than I could log it in the event, since it's not listed on gc.com, but I found it during an event.

You are making the assumption that the event cache owner would allow you to take this action.

 

And if it was fine with the owner does that make it OK to use this website's resources to keep track of caches listed elsewhere?

I would like to add to the last question above by briansnat:

 

Or not listed all?

 

Every single reply to every post on these forums that asks or answers the same questions over and over uses the website's resources - I, myself, enjoy the sharing of ideas ,the discussions, the arguments and the opinions about these issues - it is one reason I pay to be a member of the site. If the membership fee was $300 per year or if I had to pay for every logged find, cache listing or forum post I wouldn't bother with the game at all.

 

I would also totally agree that the multi logging at an event cache should only be done with the permission of the event owner. For all I know he uses the logs to count how many people showed up so he knows how many hamburger buns to buy next year - I would also say that I don't feel that an event owner should be forced to, or imposed upon, to clean up extra logs if the owner asks that their event only be logged once.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Pegasi

[+BlueDeuce]

Or this

 

 

But certainly not 10 times at one event.

 

If it ain't listed here, I don't log it here.

[+D@nim@l]

I’d like to say they’re only cheating themselves, but they’re cheating everyone who caches with integrity. In the end, you have to ask yourself, what does geocaching mean to you?

 

This?

(meaningless numbers image removed)

 

Or this?

 

(absolutely stunning and breath taking photos removed, out deference to the thread)

 

 

Exactly! I would move there if I wasn't so Type A, among other things...

Edited October 24, 2006 by D@nim@l

[+The Cheeseheads]

I’d like to say they’re only cheating themselves, but they’re cheating everyone who caches with integrity. In the end, you have to ask yourself, what does geocaching mean to you?

 

This?

 

Or this?

 

/me tries to think of where to find places to cache like that in SE Wisconsin...

 

Nope, I'm empty. If I lived where you did, I'd be searching for caches in land like that every weekend. Looks like those of us in other areas of the country will have to find other meanings for why we like geocaching.

 

Edit: The 1000+ event finds is pushing it, however...

Edited October 24, 2006 by The Cheeseheads

[+sbell111]

...on the other hand - if the cachers used a GPS, or some other means of locating and logging a geocache - whether posted on the website, reviewed, or approved - they did, in fact find a geocahe.

So by this context gc.com being a listing service, me finding a terracache (which is really just another name for a geocache) during a gc event, than I could log it in the event, since it's not listed on gc.com, but I found it during an event.

You are making the assumption that the event cache owner would allow you to take this action.

And if it was fine with the owner does that make it OK to use this website's resources to keep track of caches listed elsewhere?

In my opinion, no.

 

However, without the previously mentioned statement from Jeremy, I'm not going to get all cheesed by the temporary event cache issue. This is partly due to the fact that I also kind of remember that at one time this was a viable option endorsed by various approvers to avoid listing temporary caches. As I recall, the decision not to list temporary caches was based on the approver man-hours required to list these temporary caches. (I know that they are 'reviewers' now.)

[+ThePropers]

I’d like to say they’re only cheating themselves, but they’re cheating everyone who caches with integrity. In the end, you have to ask yourself, what does geocaching mean to you?

 

This?

 

Or this?

 

 

This?

 

hmmm...your pictures are slightly better.

Edited October 24, 2006 by ThePropers

[+sbell111]

I’d like to say they’re only cheating themselves, but they’re cheating everyone who caches with integrity. ...

Unlike Brian's famous fake finds argument, I fail to see how JoGPS logging finds for temporary event caches cheats me.

[+sbell111]

... I would also say that I don't feel that an event owner should be forced to, or imposed upon, to clean up extra logs if the owner asks that their event only be logged once.

Policing the logs is required of the cache owner per the guidelines.

[+BlueDeuce]

/me tries to think of where to find places to cache like that in SE Wisconsin...

 

Start with Lake Geneva, work your way North.

[+The Cheeseheads]

I’d like to say they’re only cheating themselves, but they’re cheating everyone who caches with integrity. In the end, you have to ask yourself, what does geocaching mean to you?

 

This?

 

Or this?

 

 

This?

 

hmmm...your pictures are slightly better.

Lots of this...

 

[+mtn-man]

 

Tacky and stupid refers to the behavior, but if you take then it meant you, then that's your problem.

 

I really don't see why you would need to lower your arguments to a kindergarten level.

 

 

So people can understand them.

 

Missed this one somehow. If more comments come out like this one, I will be happy to help people understand the forum guidelines and the warning system this forum and its moderators use.

[+Pegasi]

... I would also say that I don't feel that an event owner should be forced to, or imposed upon, to clean up extra logs if the owner asks that their event only be logged once.

Policing the logs is required of the cache owner per the guidelines.

 

That was kind of my point, if I create any type of cache I am required to maintain the cache and the logs. If I create a cache and specifically say that every other word in the online log must start with an R and all entries in the logbook must include the phrase "Pegasi is God" it is my responsibility to make sure that the logs all meet the requirements.

 

Likewise, if I state that my event can only be logged once it is up to me to make sure this happens. At this point, and IMHO, only at this point, do I have the right to complain about ignorant people logging my event multiple times simply because it is only me who is affected. I have to go through the logs and delete all of the offending ones. If I was hammered by hundreds of duplicate listings I would delete every log by all of the duplicate posters and archive the cache.

[+chuckwagon101]

Maybe they want to get together ....just for friendship!

 

Maybe it's just "innocent don't really care about finds and such", fun!

 

 

I think it shows the opposite, that they care deeply about find counts and its more about the numbers than the friendship. If it was just about the friendship they wouldn't need to use events to pad their numbers.

 

Chuckwagon here, with 15 whole caches and gonna get another before Christmas....maybe!

 

Hey, go to an event in NWPA and you can triple that in one afternoon .

 

 

Dayyyyy-Yummmmm! I am never writing a "tongue in cheek" post again!

 

Even with smiles and rolling eyes in my post.......people think I am serious!

 

I should go into politics!.....yeah!

 

Lol! Chuckwagon....just spoofing along the highway!

[+sbell111]

... Likewise, if I state that my event can only be logged once it is up to me to make sure this happens. At this point, and IMHO, only at this point, do I have the right to complain about ignorant people logging my event multiple times simply because it is only me who is affected. I have to go through the logs and delete all of the offending ones. If I was hammered by hundreds of duplicate listings I would delete every log by all of the duplicate posters and archive the cache.

I suspect that you would solve this problem by not hiding any temporary event caches.

 

People post to this thread as if it is the logger who causes this issue when in fact it is the event cache owner who hides the temporary caches and invites people to log them on the event page.

Edited October 24, 2006 by sbell111

[+mantis7]

I consider myself a member of the silent majority......I don't read or post very often....

 

I agree with some of the points on both sides. I agree with the original poster to some degree, multi logging to pad your numbers is .....hmmm......hard to find the right words......well...I guess to me it just seems a little strange. I don't understand why people feel the need to do that, but hey, maybe it makes them feel better about themselves.

 

I definitely don't want / feel the need to tell someone else how to play the game, so as far as making a 'rule' or policing people...well..I will leave that for others..

 

I guess the bottom line is wherever you have a really popular game that has stats you will always find (among other types also):

 

1) People who abuse the system or exploit loopholes to pad their stats

 

2) People who complain about #1

 

3) People who take the 'fanboy' position and always defend the status quo

 

I guess in this case, if there are people who feel the need to pad their numbers soooooo badly.....maybe their self esteem is bad, or their ego needs a boost, or their life is incomplete somehow...if it makes them feel good about themselves to do this, they should feel free to go ahead and do so.

[+sbell111]

...

1) People who abuse the system or exploit loopholes to pad their stats

 

2) People who complain about #1

 

3) People who take the 'fanboy' position and always defend the status quo

4) People who believe that there is nothing wrong in logging temporary caches, and do so

 

5) People who believe that there is nothing wrong in logging temporary caches, and do not

 

6) People who believe that this is such a minor issue that it is not worth the drama

 

7) People who have a problem with some ways that people use their logs, but not this one.

[+Snoogans]

I’d like to say they’re only cheating themselves, but they’re cheating everyone who caches with integrity. ...

Unlike Brian's famous fake finds argument, I fail to see how JoGPS logging finds for temporary event caches cheats me.

 

When someone else's finds start erasing my own finds I'll care. Until then..... Yawwwwwn.

[+BlueDeuce]

... Likewise, if I state that my event can only be logged once it is up to me to make sure this happens. At this point, and IMHO, only at this point, do I have the right to complain about ignorant people logging my event multiple times simply because it is only me who is affected. I have to go through the logs and delete all of the offending ones. If I was hammered by hundreds of duplicate listings I would delete every log by all of the duplicate posters and archive the cache.

I suspect that you would solve this problem by not hiding any temporary event caches.

 

People post to this thread as if it is the logger who causes this issue when in fact it is the event cache owner who hides the temporary caches and invites people to log them on the event page.

 

True, I know of cache owners who allow their geocache to be logged as found for temp caches, so that people can have caches finds (not event attends).

 

But even if the owner allows it, it's still a community effort.

[+briansnat]

...

1) People who abuse the system or exploit loopholes to pad their stats

 

2) People who complain about #1

 

3) People who take the 'fanboy' position and always defend the status quo

4) People who believe that there is nothing wrong in logging temporary caches, and do so

 

5) People who believe that there is nothing wrong in logging temporary caches, and do not

 

6) People who believe that this is such a minor issue that it is not worth the drama

 

7) People who have a problem with some ways that people use their logs, but not this one.

 

8) People who don't have a problem with head lice.

[+sbell111]

8) People who don't have a problem with head lice.

9. People who make snarky, off-topic comments rather than discuss the issues.

[+BlueDeuce]

I’d like to say they’re only cheating themselves, but they’re cheating everyone who caches with integrity. ...

Unlike Brian's famous fake finds argument, I fail to see how JoGPS logging finds for temporary event caches cheats me.

 

Thanks for this thread.

[+BlueDeuce]

I’d like to say they’re only cheating themselves, but they’re cheating everyone who caches with integrity. ...

Unlike Brian's famous fake finds argument, I fail to see how JoGPS logging finds for temporary event caches cheats me.

 

Thanks for this thread.

[+mtn-man]

...

1) People who abuse the system or exploit loopholes to pad their stats

 

2) People who complain about #1

 

3) People who take the 'fanboy' position and always defend the status quo

4) People who believe that there is nothing wrong in logging temporary caches, and do so

 

5) People who believe that there is nothing wrong in logging temporary caches, and do not

 

6) People who believe that this is such a minor issue that it is not worth the drama

 

7) People who have a problem with some ways that people use their logs, but not this one.

 

8) People who don't have a problem with head lice.

9) People that don't read the forums and are blissfully unaware of this topic and might actually be geocaching as we speak.

 

I found a cache and traded a geocoin for a travel bug today. How about y'all?

[+sbell111]

I found a cache and traded a geocoin for a travel bug today. How about y'all?

Stuck in the office, still.

[+mtn-man]

I found a cache and traded a geocoin for a travel bug today. How about y'all?

Stuck in the office, still.

Go eat lunch man! That's when I found mine.

[+sbell111]

I found a cache and traded a geocoin for a travel bug today. How about y'all?

Stuck in the office, still.

Go eat lunch man! That's when I found mine.

Now that it's cool, I need to start getting after some during lunch. Perhaps, next week...

[+Snoogans]

I found a cache and traded a geocoin for a travel bug today. How about y'all?

Stuck in the office, still.

 

I just got to work and it's going to be a very slow day. I'd be happy to help derail this trainwreck further.

[+BlueDeuce]

I found a cache and traded a geocoin for a travel bug today. How about y'all?

Stuck in the office, still.

Go eat lunch man! That's when I found mine.

Now that it's cool, I need to start getting after some during lunch. Perhaps, next week...

 

I hear ya. I'll even do multies one stage-a-lunchtime just to...better enjoy getting out.

[Guyute1210]

I found a cache and traded a geocoin for a travel bug today. How about y'all?

Stuck in the office, still.

Go eat lunch man! That's when I found mine.

That's what I usually do, but I've cleared out most of what's around me, even the lame LPM's just b/c I was out of the office, and they were there...

[+El Diablo]

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.

What else really matters?

 

I can't help it...I have a pitchfork. I don't got no burning torch though. Now back on topic.

 

I see why some people get upset over this practice. They take pride in their find count and they tend to judge others by theirs. This attitude may be fair or unfair. You are either for them, or against them. Play the game your way. Until it starts interferring with how I play, I don't care.

 

El Diablo

[+briansnat]

I found a cache and traded a geocoin for a travel bug today. How about y'all?

Stuck in the office, still.

Go eat lunch man! That's when I found mine.

 

I can't do that. All the caches for 5 miles in each direction are mine.

 

I guess I can go log my own caches .

[+BlueDeuce]

I see why some people get upset over this practice. They take pride in their find count and they tend to judge others by theirs. This attitude may be fair or unfair. You are either for them, or against them. Play the game your way. Until it starts interferring with how I play, I don't care.

 

El Diablo

 

(I caught the humor at the end of your post )

 

I don't get upset, but I disagree with the practice. I want my stats to mean something and don’t tell me stats don’t mean anything to people who log caches not listed on this site. As for judging people? I might question their motives, and I might even question their ethics, but I don’t judge people. Fine line, but still there.

 

Here’s the test. Take away getting a stat for logging a cache/event more than once. Then people would only be looking for temp caches because they enjoy the search. Like they say they do. Personally I’m not interested in searching for temp caches because if I’m out looking for caches I want credit here for them, and I don’t log caches that aren’t listed here.

 

If people think that it's not hurting anybody, then there shouldn't be any disagreement to removing the option. Unless of course there's some sort of 'right' to logging caches not listed on this site, temp or otherwise.

Edited October 24, 2006 by BlueDeuce

[+Windrose]

Of course then there's multi caches. When you find a 7 stage multi, you actually found 7 caches (yes I know 6 of them didn't have a log book -- but neither do virtuals). So should you log the multi 7 times?

 

Windrose

[+Renegade Knight]

I found a cache and traded a geocoin for a travel bug today. How about y'all?

Stuck in the office, still.

Go eat lunch man! That's when I found mine.

At lunch I helped the nice deputy learn about a bug in their electronic signature system when I had to sign my name 200 times before the computer didn't turn it into a scribble for me. In the end we settled on the least messed up signature as close enough.

 

Tomorrows lunch will be just as exciting.

[+D@nim@l]

Yes, take the numbers away and a lot of silly behavior in the forums, in the hiding, in the finding and in the attending ceases. Until then, the threads of lame micros and the people that hide them and/or log them repeatedly will continue DAILY. The only problem is the numbers crowd will move to a different listing service where it is tolerated and that means the loss of revue for gc.com. If that happens they might have to let the volunteers go.

Edited October 24, 2006 by D@nim@l

[+BlueDeuce]

Of course then there's multi caches. When you find a 7 stage multi, you actually found 7 caches (yes I know 6 of them didn't have a log book -- but neither do virtuals). So should you log the multi 7 times?

 

Windrose

 

Heck, those are more permanent than event caches, aren't they?

[+BlueDeuce]

Yes, take the numbers away and a lot of silly behavior in the forums, in the hiding, in the finding and in the attending ceases. Until then, the threads of lame micros and the people that hide them and/or log them repeatedly will continue DAILY. The only problem is the numbers crowd will move to a different listing service where it is tolerated and that means the loss of revue for gc.com. If that happens they might have to let the volunteers go.

 

I am completely offended by that. Get rid of silly behaviour? How dare you!

 

[+Renegade Knight]

Of course then there's multi caches. When you find a 7 stage multi, you actually found 7 caches (yes I know 6 of them didn't have a log book -- but neither do virtuals). So should you log the multi 7 times?

 

Windrose

 

Heck, those are more permanent than event caches, aren't they?

They are. Now I need to go update a couple of event logs... BRB.

[+D@nim@l]

Yes, take the numbers away and a lot of silly behavior in the forums, in the hiding, in the finding and in the attending ceases. Until then, the threads of lame micros and the people that hide them and/or log them repeatedly will continue DAILY. The only problem is the numbers crowd will move to a different listing service where it is tolerated and that means the loss of revue for gc.com. If that happens they might have to let the volunteers go.

 

I am completely offended by that. Get rid of silly behaviour? How dare you!

 

 

Well, I am already on the "brick" list, so I might as well keep being a motar forker.

[+sbell111]

I’d like to say they’re only cheating themselves, but they’re cheating everyone who caches with integrity. ...

Unlike Brian's famous fake finds argument, I fail to see how JoGPS logging finds for temporary event caches cheats me.

As a clarification, while Joe is on record supporting the practice of logging temporary caches on the event page, it is not believed that he has, in fact, logged any in this manner.

[+CraigInCT]

And then there is this event that meets every third Tuesday.

 

Oddly enough, I took a quick look at the logs and notice that no one has logged it as attended more than once.

 

YAY CONNECTICUT!!!

We police our cachers, before the forums can discover our trespasses

 

I alway thought that logging a find each month at this and the previous monthly event wouldn't have been a big problem. But no one does it.

 

 

And to go way back to the topic, the people are following the cache rules. Not to get lost in symantics, they are not logging the number of times they walked through the entrance, they are logging found hidden containers. Maybe they have found a way to get around park hides rule or (heaven forbid) they are getting around GC guidelines. In either (or another) case, if it was a gross error TPTB would get involved. Remember those virtual coins???

 

If you are concerned with other's gameplay, and I was in the past, then you need to think about how you want to play your game. Unless you start devoting ALL your time to finding smilies, you'll never 'beat' the current leaders.

 

Maybe if we were competing for a yearly World Championship, this discussion would matter.

Edited October 24, 2006 by CraigInCT