Jump to content

Pocket Caches are Back?


Criminal

Recommended Posts

Show us where the fun lies in this practice.

First let me say that Pocket Caches are a choice - no event host has to allow them, no attendee has to hunt them, completely up to you whether you log them or don't.

 

I can only tell you where the fun is for me - it's the same as logging any other cache.

 

Pocket Caches are much maligned and rarely represented honestly, and rarely defended in these forums as the folks that log them don't want to take the heat from the few who object so vocally here. Sad that so many won't post here because they don't want to be jumped on, but that's another thread.

 

In fact Pocket Caches are more popular than folks here would have you believe - despite my friend Drat19's statements earlier in this thread, for example, that they are not done in MS, I have found them at three events in MS, and in fact have found them at almost every event I have attended (30+) in every state where I have attended events (~10) from Massachusetts south to Louisiana and Florida west to Texas.

 

Most Pocket Caches are caches like any other - they just are not listed on geocaching.com.

 

Saying that a Pocket Cache is not a 'real' cache is like saying that those caches listed on other sites aren't 'real'.

 

Pocket Caches are actual containers with logs, hidden at events; attendees are given the coordinates (except for the socialization-intended Pocket Caches which are indeed in someone's pocket), they find (or don't find) the cache, just like any other.

 

If 10 Pocket Caches are hidden at an event and you find eight, you log eight, just like any other cache.

 

Pocket Caches are used for a variety of reasons; they started out and are still commonly used as socialization techniques, ice-breakers to get folks at events to interact and get each other to meet and talk.

 

These are usually something like a bison tube or film can with a log, given at random to attendees to put in their pocket. Attendees approach each other and ask "Is that a cache in your pocket or are you happy to see me", an old Mae West line. If the person asked indeed has the cache he reveals it covertly, the finder signs the log and puts the cache in his own pocket, this to be repeated when he is asked for the cache. In this manner every attendee who chooses to gets to meet and talk to every other attendee. Good stuff!

 

So, a real cache container with a log, you hunt it and sign it, like any other cache. The difference is you can't log it, since it's not listed.

 

Ergo, you log the event once for attending and once for every Pocket Cache you found.

 

One found cache, one log... and almost always more fun than finding a micro in a lamp-post!

 

Folks extended that basic idea to caches hidden just for the event. Groundspeak does not list temporary event caches, so if you want to have an event in restaurant or an area with few caches, Pocket Caches allow you to place them in and about the area just for that event.

 

In all aspects they are 'real' caches, just not listed. The host either allows them or not at his discretion.

 

I use them frequently as a teaching tool. When I give a 'What is Geocaching' presentation I hide caches nearby, teach folks what GPS is, how to enter coords, and how to find a cache. They find it, sign the log, just like any other cache - but it's not listed, so they can't log it. So, log the event.

 

I like to give away stocked ammo box caches, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that's what I like to find. So I give away anywhere from 2 to 10 caches at events. I think door-prize drawings have been done to death, so I hide them and give the attendees the coords. They race or play a game to find them and get to keep the cache to hide themselves. I love it and attendees love it... the proverbial win-win.

 

They found the cache, they should get to log it. It's not listed, so log the event!

 

I like games and prizes at events, and attendees apparently do too, judging by their acceptance and popularity. Folks come from multiple states to attend my events, not because I am worth traveling for but because my events are!

 

One of my favorite alternatives to door-prize drawings (did I mention they're boring and have been done to death? :rolleyes: ) is a Poker run. When having an event in a park hide seven caches with playing cards in opaque envelopes. Give out the coords for these and send attendees off to hunt them. Finders take a card from each cache and return to the event at a time certain. If they found all seven caches they now have seven cards. Open them at once and make the best poker hand you can out of five cards. Prizes are awarded based on the strength of hands. Again, I use ammo box hides and have the last persn on the run collect them, then give them away as the prizes.

 

So, attendees set out with coords, found caches - that's geocaching! Why shouldn't they be allowed to log them, it's a legitimate find.

 

These are just a few of the ways and reasons that Pocket Caches are fun and valuable.

 

EDIT to add: BTW, I have never cached in WI, so attacking them over this is completely unfair - it's a wide-spread popular practice. No reason to point fingers.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

In fact Pocket Caches are more popular than folks here would have you believe - despite my friend Drat19's statements earlier in this thread, for example, that they are not done in MS, I have found them at three events in MS, and in fact have found them at almost every event I have attended (30+) in every state where I have attended events (~10) from Massachusetts south to Louisiana and Florida west to Texas.

I'll stand corrected, then...I haven't attended a MS event in some time due to the fact that I've been spending most of my time in MN for the last year. I'm sad to hear that MS events have joined the ranks of this practice, on which I stand by my opinion that it is a contributing factor to the de-valuation of Stats, for those of us who once used to value them for various reasons (and now can no longer do so!). Edited by drat19
Link to comment
... we can have any kind of cache at an event we want to have - there are no rules for UNLISTED caches - Groundspeak runs a listing service, not the game of geocaching. ...
If we follow your argument to it's conclusion, it would be perfectly OK to go after these temporary caches. However, the finds should not be recorded on GC.com. In the same vein, it is perfectly OK to go after caches listed to NC.com or TC.com, but those finds should not be recorded on GC.com. Why is it OK to log finds on caches not listed on GC.com to GC.com servers? If people want to record their finds for these temporary caches, they should record them to TemporaryCaches.com.

It's okay because after review TPTB chose to allow it. Despite Jeremy's appellation of "Pocket Lint", a personal view, the corporate view has been to leave it alone.

 

What's not outside the rules is within them!

Link to comment

OK, I thought I'd report back. I just logged multiple attends on an event that I had attended. I'm not 100 % sure, but I don't think my fun level increased noticeably. I did have a hint of a smile on my face while I typed the logs, but it was hard to tell if that was because of the increased fun level of that event, or because I thought of a joke my step-daugther told at dinner.

 

I only logged 8 attends. Perhaps that wasn't enough? Is there a minimum number of smileys I need to have fun?

Brian, numerous research articles published in esteemed peer-reviewed social psychology, sociology and anthropology journals shows that the fun factor does not start to kick in until you log at least 164 finds on one event (or on one cache.) :rolleyes:

 

That also explains why I log 999 finds for every event which I attend. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Most Pocket Caches are caches like any other - they just are not listed on geocaching.com.

Then why should anybody log them here? Create a pocketcache.com and log them over there.

Yep, just like the hard extreme way-out-in-the-boonies caches should be listed on a site for folks who like that sort of thing... call it, oh, I don't know, terracaching or something! :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I guess morality and ethics are relative... I will log a pocket cache but I won't smear my peers if they don't do things my way.

Funny, you just did.

 

Funny how You can call his post a smear. . . . . . (Pot, Kettle)

. . . but I’m not going to chuckle and pretend they aren’t a fat pack of liars.

 

Wisconsin style geocaching. Is that the term for playing it dishonestly?

 

He's logged 810 finds on a couple of dozen event caches, get it right.

 

Yup! The REALLY funny ones are where you see the same single event on 4-5 pages.

 

And thats just this thread on this day.

 

Tell me again how the grade school kids logging finds of temp caches at events is hurting your excellence in geocaching?

Were you trying to be thick or are you seriously not getting it?

 

I have already explained how their stats are lies; they do not represent the number of geocaches they’ve found. The use of the term liar is not a smear or an insult, it’s an observation. If you saw me running from the scene of a crime and described me as white, is that racism? Of course not, it was a factual observation because it’s true. If you claim to have done something you haven’t, or claim to have not done something you have, you are a liar. If someone were to find that term insulting they might need to reconsider their logging practices.

 

You’re calling it a smear because you have absolutely nothing to support your position, so you instead try to muddy the water with superfluous presumed insult.

 

Sleazy logging practices do affect us, and they affect the new cachers even more. When first starting out, many geocachers hold great pride in their find count. It can be disappointing for a new player to see dishonest logging, which devalues their efforts, and will eventually force them to choose between one of the two philosophies. Often they will simply choose to find something else to do with their time. This site wouldn’t exist today if not for the Charter and Premium Members opening their wallets and allowing Seattle to build and maintain a website that can handle the tremendous demand placed on it. We need new members, not disillusioned former ones.

 

Seattle has already spoken on the issue of pocket caches. They have also stated that if multiple logging was being abused they would step in. Hopefully they will in this case.

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

First let me say that Pocket Caches are a choice - no event host has to allow them, no attendee has to hunt them, completely up to you whether you log them or don't...

Not true. I have attended many events where self-styled "posses" consisting of armed flack-jacketed "Pocket Cache Find Enforcers" -- but better known as "Geo Death Squads" -- wearing jack boots, helmets and body armor, and carrying automatic weapons and electric stun guns, made the rounds of the event and forced every attendee, at gunpoint, to sign the logbooks of a multitude of event caches and pocket caches. The thugs in those are hooligans! Scoundrels! These enforcement actions were truly terrible each time I witnessed them! I have also seen these roaming geo death squads execute geocachers, including children, in cold blood, for refusing to log pocket caches and event caches, citing "preventing incipient moral decay of society" as their justification!

 

 

 

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

:lol::blink::blink:

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment
... we can have any kind of cache at an event we want to have - there are no rules for UNLISTED caches - Groundspeak runs a listing service, not the game of geocaching. ...
If we follow your argument to it's conclusion, it would be perfectly OK to go after these temporary caches. However, the finds should not be recorded on GC.com. In the same vein, it is perfectly OK to go after caches listed to NC.com or TC.com, but those finds should not be recorded on GC.com. Why is it OK to log finds on caches not listed on GC.com to GC.com servers? If people want to record their finds for these temporary caches, they should record them to TemporaryCaches.com.

It's okay because after review TPTB chose to allow it. Despite Jeremy's appellation of "Pocket Lint", a personal view, the corporate view has been to leave it alone.

 

What's not outside the rules is within them!

Please don't confuse pocket apples with pocket oranges. Pocket apples -- logging extra finds on event cache pages -- are something that the site doesn't choose to regulate one way or the other. The cache owner owns the cache page and is left alone so long as the cache doesn't break the guidelines. The event cache in this thread meets the guidelines for event caches.

 

Pocket oranges are what Jeremy called pocket lint. Pocket oranges are locked down when discovered. This brand of pocket cache takes an existing cache with a reviewed physical location, a cache with a history where people have found it out in the woods, and alters that history by transforming the cache page into a mobile smiley repository for pocket cache logs. You owned one of these so I am sure you understand the difference, and why they are treated differently by the website.

 

I would not characterize the actions taken against orange pocket caches as a "review" of apple pocket caches, or a decision to "allow" apple pocket caches. I do agree with your statement that "the corporate view has been to leave it alone" -- but only when applied to apple pocket caches.

 

I have no double logs on event caches, even though I've been to events with temporary caches that others chose to multi-log on the event page. I had fun and they had fun. I have no pocket cache logs on archived pocket lint. Awhile back I cleaned up a little bit of lint that had accumulated on my profile. It felt good to have an accurate count of real caches found in their hiding spots.

Link to comment

I play how I want to, but my stats which were aquired honestly, don't carry their true weight when comparing them to other cachers on pages like the "grand high pobah, or zinnware." I really like www.itsnotaboutthenumbers.com because he processes the data to include how many "unique caches" that you have found.

The problem is that you want the numbers on these sites to be comparable. Even if everyone was "honest" and only counted physical cache where they signed the logs, virtual caches they actually visited, and events they actually attended but only one time for each event - how could you compare all the difficult hiking caches you say you like to do with the person whose finds include parking lot lampposts. One person's finds are not comparable with anyone else except for amusement or for creating a personal goal. If you want to get together with a group of friends and agree to a set of rules among yourselves for a friendly competition - go for it. There is just no way that they will be agreement in geocaching.com as to what should be counted as a find.

 

I can't speak for the motivation of the Wisconsin cachers who log multiple attended at events for the temporary caches they find. To me, if you wanted to keep track of the temporary caches at an event you could write down which ones you found as part of your single attended the event log. I suspect that someone started the pratice of allowing multiple finds at their event because they though it would be a fun way to promote the event and get people to do the temporary caches at the event. I'll admit that some people may get a little enjoyment seeing their find count go up by one. While I don't condone this practice, I won't let it bother me because it has absolutely no effect on why I cache.

Link to comment

Were you trying to be thick or are you seriously not getting it?

 

I have already explained how their stats are lies; they do not represent the number of geocaches they’ve found.

Did you maybe not read my post above? Caches are hidden, caches are found, caches are logged - that they are not listed makes them no less a cache or find.

 

The use of the term liar is not a smear or an insult, it’s an observation.

An 'observation' when it's known to be incorrect and set out as a statement of fact is a lie.

 

Seattle has already spoken on the issue of pocket caches.

Yes, they have spoken - they decided to allow it to continue.

 

They have also stated that if multiple logging was being abused they would step in.

Yet they haven't; until they do it's legitimate. And, they would step in if anything is abused... not a very logical argument here.

Link to comment

The fact that I later found out that they were using steroids didn't affect my enjoyment of those games one bit. But I'm still within my rights to call them cheaters and say what they did was wrong and not good for the game.

 

And their actions affected everyone in the game. Thanks to them, you wonder about everyone who was playing at the time. That guy who had a great year, was it legit or was he "juiced"? You can't look at ANY player without wondering in the back of your mind whether or not he was on steroids when he accomplished something. And that is totally unfair to the guys who played clean.

 

Does that mean that all those micro's I found while on the 'roids shouldn't count? :rolleyes: My trainer told me it was arthritis cream! :rolleyes:

 

Sorry.... couldn't resist.

 

I think the idea of having an event and placing some "event only" caches sounds like fun! But finding a clever way to post logs to geocaching.com for caches that are not listed on geocaching.com is cheating at its very essence. This little hobby/sport, because of its nature is basicly "self-policed". The community has certain expectations of those who participate... you actually find the cache, you sign the log, you put the cache back where it belongs for the pleasure of the next cacher, and you don't intentionally give away the location of said cache to non-cachers so that the cache has a good chance of living a long and healthy life. Following this theory, I'd expect that when you find a cache you log it... once. Sure, there's nothing to stop you from logging it ten times and if I logged every cache I found ten times I'd be the center of a massive flame campaign here in the forums, and many of the cache owners would reject my finds. What if I logged a find on your cache, and then logged a second find as well because I found something nearby that seemed like a cache but wasn't posted a geocaching.com? It would get deleted!

 

Caches are hidden, caches are found, caches are logged - that they are not listed makes them no less a cache or find.

By this theory, I'm going to begin logging caches from "that other geocaching website" here on geocaching.com. It's not listed here, but it's still a find and It will really help my stats! Sure it doesn't have an actual page to log it on (because it doesn't exist here) but I've found a way around that so I can get the smiley. No one's ever said it's specificly against the rules... that means it's O.K.!

 

Logging an event is a way to show the community that you were present at said event. Logging ten cache finds under an event, while possible to do, is not what this system was designed to do and it also doesn't jibe with what the community at large expects of it's members. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

 

Much like the baseball analogy above, whether you see this as a competition or not, the stats are the score... the way we compare our feats to the feats of others. Cheating renders the stats completely valueless for any purpose and degrades the game as a whole.

 

Should the community hold it's members to a standard... absolutely. Will it ruin the fun I have finding my next cache this afternoon? Absolutely not! :rolleyes:

Edited by Driver Carries Cache
Link to comment

I play how I want to, but my stats which were aquired honestly, don't carry their true weight when comparing them to other cachers on pages like the "grand high pobah, or zinnware." I really like www.itsnotaboutthenumbers.com because he processes the data to include how many "unique caches" that you have found.

The problem is that you want the numbers on these sites to be comparable. Even if everyone was "honest" and only counted physical cache where they signed the logs, virtual caches they actually visited, and events they actually attended but only one time for each event - how could you compare all the difficult hiking caches you say you like to do with the person whose finds include parking lot lampposts. One person's finds are not comparable with anyone else except for amusement or for creating a personal goal.

Mr. T has eloquently described what I have termed "The Great Equalizer Smiley." A smiley on a guardrail is worth one, and so is a smiley on a climb up a mountain. It truly keeps the game from being about the numbers, because the numbers don't matter, except that my own accurate numbers matter to me. If I wanted extra credit for finding harder caches, I would join Terracaching.

 

Someone mentioned how the Itsnotaboutthenumbers.com site is another great equalizer. I agree. Here is an amusing and useless statistic: Kit Fox is on the record as preferring hiking caches while eschewing park and grabs. Me, I will find any cache if I am having fun. I have many hundreds of park and grab finds. Yet the INATN site tells me that my average terrain rating for physical caches I've found is 1.74, while Kit Fox's average terrain is 1.61. Go figure. I guess I must climb some mountains in between guardrails.

Edited by The Leprechauns
Link to comment

I don't think anyone has answered this question:

 

How has an individual logging an event mutliple times detract from anyone else's enjoyment from caching?

 

Let me use a baseball analogy. I enjoy watching baseball. I've watched games that Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa played in.

 

It was later revealed that they were likely using steroids. Though steroid use was not against the rules of baseball at the time, Bonds, McGuire and Sosa are now widely considered cheaters and the records they set, suspect. The stigma was enough to keep McGuire out of the Hall of Fame during the recent vote.

 

The fact that I later found out that they were using steroids didn't affect my enjoyment of those games one bit. But I'm still within my rights to call them cheaters and say what they did was wrong and not good for the game.

 

And their actions affected everyone in the game. Thanks to them, you wonder about everyone who was playing at the time. That guy who had a great year, was it legit or was he "juiced"? You can't look at ANY player without wondering in the back of your mind whether or not he was on steroids when he accomplished something. And that is totally unfair to the guys who played clean.

Baseball players are paid millions. They get to enter the Hall Of Fame if they play a lot better than other players in ways that are considered "honest". They can win or lose games based on how well they play.

 

It DOES make a difference if a baseball player cheats, or takes an unfair advantage over other players even though it's not against the rules.

 

Geocachers are not paid to cache (sneaking off to cache during work hours doesn't count). There is no Geocaching Hall Of Fame that we can get into if we find a lot more caches than everyone else. We can't win or lose caching by changing how we play.

 

It DOESN'T make a difference if a geocacher "cheats", or claims extra finds on an event, even though it's not against the rules... unless you let it bother you.

Link to comment

Someone mentioned how the Itsnotaboutthenumbers.com site is another great equalizer. I agree. Here is an amusing and useless statistic: Kit Fox is on the record as preferring hiking caches while eschewing park and grabs. Me, I will find any cache if I am having fun. I have many hundreds of park and grab finds. Yet the INATN site tells me that my average terrain rating for physical caches I've found is 1.74, while Kit Fox's average terrain is 1.61. Go figure. I guess I must climb some mountains in between guardrails.

My limited experience (only 6 caches in Pennsylvania) is that similar terrain gets a higher rating there than in the deserts and mountains of So. California. I suspect that if the terrain ratings were adjusted for regional difference, Kit Fox's average terrain would be higher than The Leprechauns. Just one more example of why you can't compare numbers :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Were you trying to be thick or are you seriously not getting it?

 

I have already explained how their stats are lies; they do not represent the number of geocaches they’ve found.

Did you maybe not read my post above? Caches are hidden, caches are found, caches are logged - that they are not listed makes them no less a cache or find.

So if you find your car keys before the event, is that another 'attended'? The stats are for geocaches listed by Groundspeak. There is no selection in the drop down box for claiming a 'find' on caches listed elsewhere or not listed at all.

 

The use of the term liar is not a smear or an insult, it’s an observation.

An 'observation' when it's known to be incorrect and set out as a statement of fact is a lie.

Again, "If you claim to have done something you haven’t, or claim to have not done something you have, you are a liar."

 

Seattle has already spoken on the issue of pocket caches.

Yes, they have spoken - they decided to allow it to continue.

Really? I recall several caches being locked and a reviewer being fired.
Link to comment

Maybe its time for a one-find-per-cache program modification. Then no one would get worked up over this issue.

Nobody... except for those that want to. But you wouldn't care about them.

 

"Yay, this is fun, I'm enjoying logging these finds"

"Well, I don't want you to do that, no matter how much fun you have"

"But it's not against the policy of the site"

"I think it's time we made a policy change, that way everyone would be happy"

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Link to comment

... Pocket oranges are what Jeremy called pocket lint. Pocket oranges are locked down when discovered. This brand of pocket cache takes an existing cache with a reviewed physical location, a cache with a history where people have found it out in the woods, and alters that history by transforming the cache page into a mobile smiley repository for pocket cache logs. You owned one of these so I am sure you understand the difference, and why they are treated differently by the website....

I don't think I ever called my 'Evil Cache' a Pocket Cache... I don't recall doing so at least.

 

I described my understanding and experience with Pocket Caches above.

 

Quite unlike Pocket Caches, my Evil Cache was a cache that was listed from the get-go to travel with me, to be logged by anyone who met me. I often hid it at events, though sometimes it was in my pocket and folks asked for it. However, it had its own listing page and folks didn't list the event again to log it.

 

Not a huge detail, but since you mentioned it I thought it should be explained, since this is an example of how the definition and understanding of Pocket Caches may get twisted into something thet are not.

 

It was shut down in the furor after GW4 when Criminal scoured my logs looking for sins and reported it not as a pocket cache but as an illegal traveling cache, which it was, since it was created after traveling caches were no longer listed.

 

Still, it was a reviewed (not by me!) and listed cache, using my home coords and stating that it would be my personal traveling cache, a fact known to at least six Reviewers for what it was, who saw it at many events and chose to ignore it until the Frog Palace came down on it.

 

As a matter of fact I believe that you saw it at GW3, along with another Reviewer working with you, when we were talking at the table where you were handing out Jeeps.

 

There was never any attempt to pass it off as anything other than it was.

 

I have seen other listed caches show up at events, but they had listings to log and were not listed on the event page as pocket caches.

 

A bit of a stretch then, at least for those like this that I am aware of, to be tied in with the Pocket Cache discussion.

Link to comment

Has any one thought about what potential postives came from this event.

1. It potentially intiated a group of new people to the sport and taught them the basics.

2. It created a fun familly enviroment that was kid friendly and potentially launched kids and famillies into an actiive lifestyle, that keeps the doors of communication between parents and kids open.

3. It had the cooperation of the municapalities it was in.

4. It incoorperarted Geocaching into the Recreational matrix of the communitee along with baseball, basket ball or any other communitee sponsered event or activitie.

5. I have never been to a cache event and cannot say how i would deal with it.

Link to comment

Personally, I agree 100% with Criminal's logging methods. Locate a cache/open cache/sign log = 1 find. I tried the pocket cache thing once at an event, logging 5 or 6 of them as finds, and it just felt empty to me. I changed my finds to notes, and all is right with my world again.

 

Where we disagree is when he slips on his pompous zealot costume and hurls his particular brand of vitriol at those who have different logging methods. He uses insults such as "Liar" and "Cheater", then defends himself by claiming he's only making an observation. What a pant load. If a cacher believes something to be true, and posts accordingly, they may be incorrect, but they are certainly not liars. If they are not violating any rules, or even any guidelines, they cannot be cheaters.

 

The crux of this issue is, "What is a find?"

 

Seems like the vast majority, (Criminal & I included), believe that a find is when you locate a cache and sign the log. It also seems like the vast majority, (Criminal & I included), feel that this is something you can only do once. Does that mean the minority who believe otherwise are lying or cheating? Nope. It just means they view the caching world through a different perspective.

 

So, who gets to define what a "Find" is? My guess would be Jeremy & Groundspeak, since it is their website. Have they done so? Nope. They've opted to leave this up to the cache owner and/or event host. Many's the time when I have posted DNF's on missing caches, only to have the owner PM me, confirming the cache was indeed missing, granting me permission to log a find as a reward for my efforts. I haven't chosen to do so, but under the current rules, if I did, I would not be lying or cheating. If Groundspeak ever decides to post rules, or even guidelines, defining what a find is, then I will happily don my inquisitors white robe, grab my pitchfork & torch, and join Criminal in his self appointed witch hunt. Till then, I'll have to pass.

Link to comment

It was shut down in the furor after GW4 when Criminal scoured my logs looking for sins and reported it not as a pocket cache but as an illegal traveling cache, which it was, since it was created after traveling caches were no longer listed.

 

This is untrue, I never so much as clicked on your profile much less scoured your logs. :rolleyes:

 

Please get your facts straight.

Link to comment

It was shut down in the furor after GW4 when Criminal scoured my logs looking for sins and reported it not as a pocket cache but as an illegal traveling cache, which it was, since it was created after traveling caches were no longer listed.

 

This is untrue, I never so much as clicked on your profile much less scoured your logs. :rolleyes:

 

Please get your facts straight.

Then I apologize publicly and profusely - I was told that it was you. I am sorry.

Link to comment

Cache Permanence

"When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there."

 

1) The guidelines acknowledge the existance of temporary caches for events.

2) The guidelines state that temporary caches for events will "most likely" not be listed on GC.com.

 

I'm not going to burst a blood vessel in my head over this, but the guidelines seem like an easy thing to follow. The idea is that if another cacher visits Wisconsin a few months after some event, then all caches should be there for them to find! That seems like a very thoughtful concept! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Most Pocket Caches are caches like any other - they just are not listed on geocaching.com.

Then why should anybody log them here? Create a pocketcache.com and log them over there.

Yep, just like the hard extreme way-out-in-the-boonies caches should be listed on a site for folks who like that sort of thing... call it, oh, I don't know, terracaching or something! :rolleyes:

 

That is the most ridiculious thing you ever wrote. If the cache is listed here, log it here. If it ain't, don't. Pretty simple.

Link to comment

It was shut down in the furor after GW4 when Criminal scoured my logs looking for sins and reported it not as a pocket cache but as an illegal traveling cache, which it was, since it was created after traveling caches were no longer listed.

 

This is untrue, I never so much as clicked on your profile much less scoured your logs. :rolleyes:

 

Please get your facts straight.

Then I apologize publicly and profusely - I was told that it was you. I am sorry.

The correct history: I started a thread in here asking what a pocket cache was. When I found out, I was appalled and requested several of the pocket caches be archived, which they were. I did not look to see who owned them, it simply wasn’t important. I never scoured anyone’s hides, I merely read the logs from GW4 and found them there.

 

So you can continue to despise me for my part in getting your cache archived if you wish. :rolleyes:

 

What everyone is ignoring is that this type of practice is a deterioration of the game as it was started. Evolution is good, deterioration is bad. You can defend these dishonest practices all you like, the question becomes, where do you draw the line?

 

We’ve seen ‘attended’ logs for caches not listed by geocaching.

We’ve even seen ‘attended’ logs from people who were not even at an event!

 

What’s next? Where will we end up?

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

Just be careful about generalization here. I attended this event, but you'll notice I only have ONE log. Others do too.

 

In Wisconsin we just worry about ourselves and how much fun we are having individually as geocachers. Who cares how others decide to play the game. Fair? Unfair? Not for me to judge.

 

Bec

Link to comment

Cache Permanence

"When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there."

 

1) The guidelines acknowledge the existance of temporary caches for events.

2) The guidelines state that temporary caches for events will "most likely" not be listed on GC.com.

 

I'm not going to burst a blood vessel in my head over this, but the guidelines seem like an easy thing to follow. The idea is that if another cacher visits Wisconsin a few months after some event, then all caches should be there for them to find! That seems like a very thoughtful concept! :huh:

 

No one said traveling caches were legal, I acknowledged in my post that mine was illegal, everyone involved with it knew it was illegal, and it got shut down.

 

My cache was mentioned as a Pocket Cache and I explained the distinction between it and the topic herein being discussed - Pocket Caches, which my cache was not.

Link to comment

Just be careful about generalization here. I attended this event, but you'll notice I only have ONE log. Others do too.

 

In Wisconsin we just worry about ourselves and how much fun we are having individually as geocachers. Who cares how others decide to play the game. Fair? Unfair? Not for me to judge.

 

Bec

Re worrying just about yourselves and how much fun you're having individually as cachers: Sounds good! Seriously.

 

BUT: The MOMENT anyone there chooses to use their stats as a basis for ANY sort of comparison with other cachers, well, there's your issue. Apples, oranges, onions.

 

While it's true what others on this thread (and countless others) have said about how you can't "really" compare Micro Spew caching to mountain/hiking caching, you CAN compare the stats in one regard: 1 cache listing, 1 cache found, 1 logsheet signed, per cache listing...the intended use (I think) of stats on GC.COM. Can't do that with multi-event-cache logging.

Link to comment
Cache Permanence

"When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there."

 

1) The guidelines acknowledge the existance of temporary caches for events.

2) The guidelines state that temporary caches for events will "most likely" not be listed on GC.com.

 

I'm not going to burst a blood vessel in my head over this, but the guidelines seem like an easy thing to follow. The idea is that if another cacher visits Wisconsin a few months after some event, then all caches should be there for them to find! That seems like a very thoughtful concept! :huh:

No one said traveling caches were legal, I acknowledged in my post that mine was illegal, everyone involved with it knew it was illegal, and it got shut down.

 

My cache was mentioned as a Pocket Cache and I explained the distinction between it and the topic herein being discussed - Pocket Caches, which my cache was not.

Trailgators post covers not just your traveling cache (that you knew was verboten when you created it and throughout it's entire 'life') but also the temporary caches that are the topic of this thread.

 

Don't even get me started on the temporary virtual caches. Ugh.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Personally, I agree 100% with Criminal's logging methods. Locate a cache/open cache/sign log = 1 find...

 

...Seems like the vast majority, (Criminal & I included), believe that a find is when you locate a cache and sign the log. It also seems like the vast majority, (Criminal & I included), feel that this is something you can only do once. Does that mean the minority who believe otherwise are lying or cheating? Nope. It just means they view the caching world through a different perspective.

 

So, who gets to define what a "Find" is? My guess would be Jeremy & Groundspeak, since it is their website. Have they done so? Nope. They've opted to leave this up to the cache owner and/or event host. Many's the time when I have posted DNF's on missing caches, only to have the owner PM me, confirming the cache was indeed missing, granting me permission to log a find as a reward for my efforts. I haven't chosen to do so, but under the current rules, if I did, I would not be lying or cheating. If Groundspeak ever decides to post rules, or even guidelines, defining what a find is, then I will happily don my inquisitors white robe, grab my pitchfork & torch, and join Criminal in his self appointed witch hunt. Till then, I'll have to pass.

I agree muchly with the parts of C-R's post which I have reproduced above. And I log the same way: one event, wherein I found a cache, opened it and signed the log, equals one find. Period. And, while I do reserve the right to laugh at, and be amazed at, the funny (to me) phenomena of logging event caches and pocket caches on this site, I do not have any need to judge the people doing so nor to call them liars or cheats.

Link to comment
What everyone is ignoring is that this type of practice is a deterioration of the game as it was started. Evolution is good, deterioration is bad. You can defend these dishonest practices all you like, the question becomes, where do you draw the line?

 

 

Your definitive statement of opinion does not match everyones. It has not yet been backed up by changes to logging criteria by the Mayor of Geocaching Town which leaves you preaching most loudly only to those who wish to buy into your sermon. :huh:

 

 

 

What's next? Where will we end up?

 

 

For those chewing on their fingernails for the bottom to drop out of the geocaching stock market..... I guess it's small comfort to know that the Geocaching Creationism vs. Geocaching Evolution debate will never make it into our public schools. :huh::huh::huh:

Link to comment

I was on a jury once where the Judge in his instructions told us something like:

If you don't believe a part of the testimony to be true, you can discount all of the testimony.

 

So if you buy into this ” POCKET CACHE” game where you log caches that are not listed, don’t be surprised if all of your smileys become suspect.

Since GC.Com chooses not to address this at this time maybe peer pressure is all we have.

Link to comment

So you can continue to despise me for my part in getting your cache archived if you wish. :huh:

As I said here publicly and in my PM apology to you, it was a misunderstanding that has colored my opinion of you ever since, and for that I apologize.

 

What everyone is ignoring is that this type of practice is a deterioration of the game as it was started. Evolution is good, deterioration is bad. You can defend these dishonest practices all you like, the question becomes, where do you draw the line?

 

We’ve seen ‘attended’ logs for caches not listed by geocaching.

We’ve even seen ‘attended’ logs from people who were not even at an event!

 

What’s next? Where will we end up?

I think folks can clearly see that logging an event they did not attend or a cache they did not find is clearly dishonest.

 

Trying to equate that dastardly deed with the allowed and above-board logging of events for Pocket Caches found is hardly the same.

Link to comment

I think its interesting that:

1) no one from Wisconsin has posted here

2) there's no discussion about this issue on the Wisconsin forums

 

Its the same folks here that like to dig up this topic periodically, and no one outside of the forum regulars really cares it seems.

Edited by 9Key
Link to comment

Someone mentioned how the Itsnotaboutthenumbers.com site is another great equalizer. I agree. Here is an amusing and useless statistic: Kit Fox is on the record as preferring hiking caches while eschewing park and grabs. Me, I will find any cache if I am having fun. I have many hundreds of park and grab finds. Yet the INATN site tells me that my average terrain rating for physical caches I've found is 1.74, while Kit Fox's average terrain is 1.61. Go figure. I guess I must climb some mountains in between guardrails.

 

 

The problem with your comparison Lep is that I live in a relatively "flat desert" (Mojave Desert) to be exact.

The majority of my finds were in flat desert terrain hence the lower overall terrain rating. The owners have a tendency to simply place boxes under bushes, so these caches also have low difficulty levels.

 

The one key difference that www.itsnotaboutthenumbers.com can't show is that most of my cache finds are not in parking lots. Putting it in a different way, I like to find caches were I have to leave pavement, and not have watch for muggles. Most of the trails that have high terrain ratings, and caches I like to find, are 30 to 150 miles away. With two days off each weekend, I have to balance family life, home choirs, and geocaching all at once.

 

On the 20th of Jan, I drove 342 miles R/T, found 13 caches, including a 5 star terrain cache for number 1000. I had big plans on finding many more 3 to 4.5 terrain caches, but I was only gone for 17 hours that day. #1000 took me over 5 hours. Almost all of the higher terrain caches in my area, belong to me.

Link to comment

I think its interesting that:

1) no one from Wisconsin has posted here

2) there's no discussion about this issue on the Wisconsin forums

 

Its the same folks here that like to dig up this topic periodically, and no one outside of the forum regulars really cares it seems.

Scroll up to post #128...a WI cacher *has* checked in.

Link to comment

 

BUT: The MOMENT anyone there chooses to use their stats as a basis for ANY sort of comparison with other cachers, well, there's your issue. Apples, oranges, onions.

 

 

I understand everything that people are saying. I too have an opnion on logging temporary caches, but it's my personal opinion and really doesn't have any impact on anyone but myself. Maybe I'm against it -- maybe not. But I understand what is being said and everyone has a right to their opinion.

 

But, you are right -- the moment anyone chooses to use their stats as a basis for any sort of comparison with other cachers there is an issue. You are making a comparison against something with lots of different variable that may affect stats. For instance, maybe you use are garmin and are comparing scores against someone using a magellan, or maybe you cache solo and are comparing your stats against a family with 3 children under the age of 5, or maybe your comparing your stats to someone who only caches at night......you can't know who or what your variables are, and therefore it's really hard to make any sort of determinations.

 

And what do the stats tell you? That you are better than someone? Worse? That you hate virtuals and love multis? It's all an individualized thing.

 

But anyway -- just food for thought. I have no desire to get into a debate with anyone (although I enjoy it, I'm just not into it at the moment). Have your opinions. Maybe it'll make cachers change their ways. Maybe not. Just remember that the only behaviors that you have any control over are your own.

 

Bec

 

(one last thing -- and I'll shut up. Someone posted that events in Wisconsin are sanctioned by the Wisconsin Geocaching Association. Nope. I'm on the board, and we don't sanction anything. Caches are approved by Cache Reviewers.)

Link to comment

I think its interesting that:

1) no one from Wisconsin has posted here

greyhounder did, though it's easy to miss one in all this clutter!

2) there's no discussion about this issue on the Wisconsin forums

Or anywhere else that I have seen.

 

Its the same folks here that like to dig up this topic periodically, and no one outside of the forum regulars really cares it seems.

What's that phrase? "9Key is da man!" :huh:

 

I do have to wonder, though, how many of the outraged shouting "liar" and "cheat" and worrying about integrity, ethics and honesty are sitting in an office, on an employer's PC, being paid to work, not play in the forums.

 

Maybe we're all retired, like I am, and can play when we want to... or maybe employers have become more lax about what they expect on company time.... but I doubt it!

 

If that's the case, it kinda "cheapens" the post when I suspect it's being made using stolen money.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

While it's true what others on this thread (and countless others) have said about how you can't "really" compare Micro Spew caching to mountain/hiking caching, you CAN compare the stats in one regard: 1 cache listing, 1 cache found, 1 logsheet signed, per cache listing...the intended use (I think) of stats on GC.COM. Can't do that with multi-event-cache logging.

I don't think the intended use of stats on GC.COM is to compare anything. This is why GC.COM doesn't have a leader board. These have been left to other sites. The find count is for individuals to use to keep track of the caches they've found. It is abused by people who want to count caches they didn't find or caches that they've found that aren't "official" GC.COM caches. But since the intended use is not to compare cacher A's count with cacher B's count, TPTB don't police the logs to prevent this abuse. Some people think that peer pressure in the forums will stop the abuse of find logs. I doubt that will happen, most people don't read the forums or visit here one time and get turned off by people who making a big deal over something that doesn't matter too much.

 

If you are really concerned with comparing your smiley count with everyone else's there is a much bigger problem than people who log events multiple times. There are many times more people who find caches and don't log them on line. Some, like TAR, will log a few of the cache they find but not every cache. You have no idea who has found more caches than you. You have no idea who the real leader is. The liars and cheaters who refuse to log all their finds online have contributed far more to the deterioration of geocaching than those that log multi attended logs at an event.

Link to comment

I think its interesting that:

1) no one from Wisconsin has posted here

2) there's no discussion about this issue on the Wisconsin forums

 

Its the same folks here that like to dig up this topic periodically, and no one outside of the forum regulars really cares it seems.

Scroll up to post #128...a WI cacher *has* checked in.

It's not just Wisconsin doing this. We have "a few" folks in California doing this too. :huh: I and other Californians got majorly flamed for posting notes on the event page questioning this.... Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I do have to wonder, though, how many of the outraged shouting "liar" and "cheat" and worrying about integrity, ethics and honesty are sitting in an office, on an employer's PC, being paid to work, not play in the forums.

 

Maybe we're all retired, like I am, and can play when we want to... or maybe employers have become more lax about what they expect on company time.... but I doubt it!

 

If that's the case, it kinda "cheapens" the post when I suspect it's being made using stolen money.

 

 

Dang, that's poor campaign politics. I know you're not attacking me but still.... I've gotta throw a flag at that.

 

 

Right now, I'm at home ignoring unpaid housework and dog walking duty. Not that it's anyone's business, but from 2pm-10pm I will be getting paid an insane amount of money for what's actually expected of me by my most generous employers of nearly 20 years. Every click I make on our computers is recorded somewhere and even though as middle management my OC3 inhanced internet is unlimited, I took the time to have my frequented geocaching sites approved by my superiors through our 7 Habits facilitator as a Sharpen the Saw at work exercise. My performance has never waivered and has in fact improved since I started geocaching and participating in geocaching forums. :huh:

Link to comment

Dang, that's poor campaign politics. I know you're not attacking me but still.... I've gotta throw a flag at that.

Never doubted you for a moment! :huh:

 

Didn't point at anyone, just pondered the question!

 

I think it's legitimate when these words and accusations are being thrown about to wonder if the thrower isn't doing much worse than he accuses others of doing... glass houses and all that.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

It's a disservice to call these pocket snot rags "pocket caches." I don't care about "the numbers" but I do care about folks who circumvent the features of the site

in order to log someone's pocket lint.

 

If these converted listings are reported they will be archived and locked. If after a warning folks continue to make them they will be banned.

 

My goodness. The activity used to be about the journey to discover new locations.

 

--------------------

 

Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location ™

 

I wonder if Jeremy has anything new to add

Link to comment

While it's true what others on this thread (and countless others) have said about how you can't "really" compare Micro Spew caching to mountain/hiking caching, you CAN compare the stats in one regard: 1 cache listing, 1 cache found, 1 logsheet signed, per cache listing...the intended use (I think) of stats on GC.COM. Can't do that with multi-event-cache logging.

I don't think the intended use of stats on GC.COM is to compare anything...

Fair counterpoint. I think what I was getting at was, "If you were gonna compare...".

 

Of course, one aspect of my sledge hammer rant has always been the fact that before '04, I think it was fair to say that one COULD compare with a reasonable degree of apples/apples, at least within a given geographic area (hence our friendly, no-prizes-awarded-but-it-was-still-much-fun-and-encouraged-more-caching-of-all-types competition in MS back then). Can't do it anymore...too many ways that the apples compare to oranges now.

Link to comment

Bottom line, posting bogus finds on regular caches and events can and does affect others if they choose to let it affect them. :huh::huh:

 

:huh:

 

I don't think anyone has answered this question:

How has an individual logging an event mutliple times detract from anyone else's enjoyment from caching?

Let me use a baseball analogy. I enjoy watching baseball. I've watched games that Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa played in.

 

First, using cheating on a husband/wife - Now a steriod analogy. . . .Sheesh- talk about apples to coconuts....

 

In fact Pocket Caches are more popular than folks here would have you believe - despite my friend Drat19's statements earlier in this thread, for example, that they are not done in MS, I have found them at three events in MS, and in fact have found them at almost every event I have attended (30+) in every state where I have attended events (~10) from Massachusetts south to Louisiana and Florida west to Texas.

I'll stand corrected, then...I haven't attended a MS event in some time due to the fact that I've been spendingmost of my time in MN for the last year. I'm sad to hear that MS events have joined the ranks of this practice, on which I stand by my opinion that it is a contributing factor to the de-valuation of Stats, for those of us who once used to value them for various reasons (and now can no longer do so!).

 

Oh oh Drat. . . . . you better get after those people in MN. . . .

Oh the horry spreads to MN

 

:huh:

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