Pocket Caches are Back?

[+Snoogans]

However, since Jeremy has made it very clear that he doesn't intend to make the change...then this debate doesn't really serve any purpost other than for entertainment value...

 

 

I never thought same 'ol same 'ol could be so entertaining. Notice most of my posts have in them.

 

 

I have to admit, the only reason I would like to see TPTB step in and stop the practice would be to hear the collective gasp of horror when folks log in to the site one day and see their find counts have dropped significantly!

 

 

That could be verrrry entertaining. TPTB would most likely grandfather the practice to avoid the backlash if the change were to be made.

[+TrailGators]

I have to admit, the only reason I would like to see TPTB step in and stop the practice would be to hear the collective gasp of horror when folks log in to the site one day and see their find counts have dropped significantly!

That could be verrrry entertaining.

It would also be fun and ironic! Remember their credo: "As long as it's fun and it doesn't hurt anybody it's OK!" Edited January 24, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Criminal]

I have no need do define for others how they find enjoyment here, nor do I wish to judge folks for playing differently than me...

I've said no such thing and you know it.

How about right there?

 

Either they 'find enjoyment' in searching for the temp/pocket caches or they 'find enjoyment' logging them (or both).

 

I have not uttered one word about them finding those caches, in fact, I'm all for it. I am adamantly against them lying about the number of times they 'attended' a single event for the purpose of puffing up their numbers. You, and several others, seem to be telling me, “Shut up, let them have their fun!” So you are in effect saying that if they didn’t log them as ‘attended” several times, they would walk away from the event with less enjoyment. Poppycock!

 

Is this all too intellectual for you (collective you, not just Snoog)? Guess what? I have no influence over Groundspeak policy, I have only my opinions. This IS the proper venue for my opinions. A lot of time has passed since the last time we all debated this, and even after all that time, the supporters of this type of logging cannot come up with even ONE reasonable argument.

[+briansnat]

This IS the proper venue for my opinions. A lot of time has passed since the last time we all debated this, and even after all that time, the supporters of this type of logging cannot come up with even ONE reasonable argument.

 

Not quite true. There were several.

 

Logging many attendeds is fun.

The website allows you to do it.

Global warming is a bigger issue.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

That was my point earlier. Where do we draw the line?

Seems to me if they simply made caches one stat per listing regardless of how many times you log it, people wouldn't waste their time logging temp caches.

Why do you think they're wasting their time. Don't you mean that if the site changed to the way YOU want it then YOU'D be happier?

 

I'm pretty sure no fun/enjoyment would be lost.

For YOU. I'm 100% sure that a lot of people that currently enjoy logging event caches multiple times would lose fun/enjoyment.

Actually, I don't know anyone who I believe would care if we couldn't log Pocket Caches!

 

We can, so we do, sometimes.

 

Frankly I thought they were forbidden after GW4 and was amazed to see them at an event in MI.

 

I asked and found that I was mistaken - the traveling caches and logging of archived caches had been forbidden, not Pocket Caches.

 

Since then I have logged some, and not logged others.

 

Just like I log some caches I find and not others... depends on my mood.

 

All this hysteria about numbers and cheaters is really about a very small percentage of cachers.

 

I think I have personally met two cachers who tried to outright cheat to inflate their numbers, both of whom have been booted from these forums.

 

One log per event would be fine with me, and with most cachers I think - but that's not the rules as they exist today, and until they change I am free to log Pocket Caches as I see fit.

 

Frankly, I am all in favor of making each cacher's numbers invisible to anyone but the owner... solves the whole numbers thing.

[+BlueDeuce]

That was my point earlier. Where do we draw the line?

Seems to me if they simply made caches one stat per listing regardless of how many times you log it, people wouldn't waste their time logging temp caches.

Why do you think they're wasting their time. Don't you mean that if the site changed to the way YOU want it then YOU'D be happier?

 

I'm pretty sure no fun/enjoyment would be lost.

For YOU. I'm 100% sure that a lot of people that currently enjoy logging event caches multiple times would lose fun/enjoyment.

 

 

Why do you think they're wasting their time.

 

I said they wouldn't waste their time. But hey, if they want to share the experience via a note I won't complain.

 

Don't you mean that if the site changed to the way YOU want it then YOU'D be happier?

 

For the most part? Okay sure, why not?. I figure it's okay to have an opinion about the situation, like everybody else.

 

I'm pretty sure no fun/enjoyment would be lost.

For YOU. I'm 100% sure that a lot of people that currently enjoy logging event caches multiple times would lose fun/enjoyment.

 

Ah yes, my click the button and increase the number RASH. I have got to get that site up and running!

[+TrailGators]

Frankly, I am all in favor of making each cacher's numbers invisible to anyone but the owner... solves the whole numbers thing.

I'd actually like to see that too! Numbers mania seems to be at the root of almost every problem that people fight about in these threads.

[+BlueDeuce]

Frankly, I am all in favor of making each cacher's numbers invisible to anyone but the owner... solves the whole numbers thing.

I'd actually like to see that too! Numbers mania seems to be at the root of almost every problem that people fight about in these threads.

 

Serious question here. What if they simply made caches one stat regardless of the numbers of logs. I like stats so I don't necessarily want them to go away, but would there be any serious impact if you couldn't log a cache more than once?

 

Now I know that there can be reasons for logging a cache more than once, valid reasons, but would someone lose much by only getting one stat?

[+Criminal]

Numbers invisible?

 

Enforced one-log-to-one-find?

 

This is exactly what I was talking about. The unethical play by some geocachers has resulted in the call for more rules. That is harmful to everyone! We don’t need more rules, we just need the community to play by the honor system, you know, with honor.

[+TrailGators]

Actually what I really meant above was that I wish we had the "option" to make our numbers invisible. That way those of us that are not in this for competition could hide our numbers so we could just enjoy the game without the quantity crap. I just want to find and hide quality caches so I can have quality memories!

Edited January 24, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

I said they wouldn't waste their time. But hey, if they want to share the experience via a note I won't complain.

I misunderstood what you meant about wasting time, re-reading it I got it.

 

Don't you mean that if the site changed to the way YOU want it then YOU'D be happier?

 

For the most part? Okay sure, why not?. I figure it's okay to have an opinion about the situation, like everybody else.

It's definitely okay to have an opinion, I don't think anyone is suggesting that anyone else stop posting their opinions. We're debating what those opinions are, and what they're worth.

 

There are a few people in the forums that call for a change to the site whenever someone else is doing something they don't like. You appear to be one of them.

 

I'm pretty sure no fun/enjoyment would be lost.

For YOU. I'm 100% sure that a lot of people that currently enjoy logging event caches multiple times would lose fun/enjoyment.

 

Ah yes, my click the button and increase the number RASH. I have got to get that site up and running!

Just because you don't enjoy logging "finds" for additional caches at events doesn't mean that others don't enjoy it, and won't miss it if you (and others) succeed in getting the site changed to disallow it.

[Neos2]

This IS the proper venue for my opinions. A lot of time has passed since the last time we all debated this, and even after all that time, the supporters of this type of logging cannot come up with even ONE reasonable argument.

 

Not quite true. There were several.

 

Logging many attendeds is fun.

The website allows you to do it.

Global warming is a bigger issue.

Actually, there were some legitimate ones...Mine was that I like to keep track of ALL the caches I find in one account.

[+TrailGators]

Actually, there were some legitimate ones...Mine was that I like to keep track of ALL the caches I find in one account.

 

I may have missed this but why don't you note all those finds in your main "attended" event log?

[+Snoogans]

To suggest that the ability to log temporary caches or pocket caches as 'found' (as opposed to a note or no log at all) makes the game 'more fun' is absolutely asinine. I'm all for everyone having fun at events, I have fun at events myself. The fun and the logging are totally separate issues. You are saying that if they found the temp or pocket caches and logged them as notes, they wouldn't have as much fun? Pfft.

 

I have no need do define for others how they find enjoyment here, nor do I wish to judge folks for playing differently than me...

I've said no such thing and you know it.

How about right there?

 

Either they 'find enjoyment' in searching for the temp/pocket caches or they 'find enjoyment' logging them (or both).

 

 

Criminal, one doesn't equate the other. Because I openly disagree with you doesn't mean I personally approve what other people do. I just fail to see why I should care what they do. I've said that time and again in at least two threads now. Failing to care does not equal tacit approval. The value is NULL.

 

 

Your argument fails to move me to care. Your tactics twice over have yet to make me understand why I should stand with you in calling a group of cachers who see things differently than you and those who share your opinion as liars and cheats.

 

 

Outline for me how their logging practices will degrade MY personal geocaching experience. MOVE ME, make me care, or ignore me. I'll probably stop posting if you stop entertaining me.

 

 

Is this all too intellectual for you (collective you, not just Snoog)?

 

 

I get you loud and clear. Speaking just for myself, is it TOO conceptual for you that your constant arguing and name calling against those who don't share your lofty standards in their geocache logging rituals fails to move me to care? That it's not black and white?

 

 

There are more proactive ways to bring about change than branding people who don't share our ideals liars and cheats. You've missed the boat twice now, but try try again.

 

 

A lot of time has passed since the last time we all debated this, and even after all that time, the supporters of this type of logging cannot come up with even ONE reasonable argument.

 

 

How is branding a subset of geocachers cheaters and liars reasonable? There is a great book called Games People Play that illustrates a parental attitude always awakens a child reaction and from both come conflict. Only Adult to Adult interaction resolves conflict. Perhaps a different approach is in order.

[ParentsofSAM]

First let me breakdown what a true pocket cache is not

 

(1) not a cache that has or ever will have a GC#

(2) not a moving cache, there are some grand fathered in from before March 2003

(3) not a temporarily cache that will later become a regular cache later.

(4) not an extra log book someone brought to the event just for the smiley

(5) not a cache that is archive, or one never used

(6) not a cache someone temporarily disabled and brought to the event

(7) not a cache someone brought to the event just so folks could get an extra smiley

(8) not to be logged on anyone’s cache just for the smiley

(8.5)not to be allowed to be logged at next months Temecula Valley Caching event...

(9) am sure I left a few off, read and understand the guidelines

(10) if any of the above are done the cache listing will be archive and locked

 

An event pocket cache is a temporarily cache hidden just for the event, or in someone’s pocket for the meet & greet for an ice breaker. They can be logged multiple times “ONLY” on the event page not anywhere else. There is no guideline against it.

 

Show Me The Cache came up with the idea and name at the first Geo-Woodstock in Louisville KY as a way to break the ice and walk up and meet new folks and the new catch phrase was created “”Is that a cache in your pocket or are you just happy to see me “”

 

Added point 8.5 to Joe's list...

 

 

So I need to log all my pocket caches on the Geocoin Fest page then.....right???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J/K

[+Criminal]

To suggest that the ability to log temporary caches or pocket caches as 'found' (as opposed to a note or no log at all) makes the game 'more fun' is absolutely asinine. I'm all for everyone having fun at events, I have fun at events myself. The fun and the logging are totally separate issues. You are saying that if they found the temp or pocket caches and logged them as notes, they wouldn't have as much fun? Pfft.

 

I have no need do define for others how they find enjoyment here, nor do I wish to judge folks for playing differently than me...

I've said no such thing and you know it.

How about right there?

 

Either they 'find enjoyment' in searching for the temp/pocket caches or they 'find enjoyment' logging them (or both).

 

 

Criminal, one doesn't equate the other. Because I openly disagree with you doesn't mean I personally approve what other people do. I just fail to see why I should care what they do. I've said that time and again in at least two threads now. Failing to care does not equal tacit approval. The value is NULL.

 

 

Your argument fails to move me to care. Your tactics twice over have yet to make me understand why I should stand with you in calling a group of cachers who see things differently than you and those who share your opinion as liars and cheats.

 

 

Outline for me how their logging practices will degrade MY personal geocaching experience. MOVE ME, make me care, or ignore me. I'll probably stop posting if you stop entertaining me.

 

 

Is this all too intellectual for you (collective you, not just Snoog)?

 

 

I get you loud and clear. Speaking just for myself, is it TOO conceptual for you that your constant arguing and name calling against those who don't share your lofty standards in their geocache logging rituals fails to move me to care? That it's not black and white?

 

 

There are more proactive ways to bring about change than branding people who don't share our ideals liars and cheats. You've missed the boat twice now, but try try again.

 

 

A lot of time has passed since the last time we all debated this, and even after all that time, the supporters of this type of logging cannot come up with even ONE reasonable argument.

 

 

How is branding a subset of geocachers cheaters and liars reasonable? There is a great book called Games People Play that illustrates a parental attitude always awakens a child reaction and from both come conflict. Only Adult to Adult interaction resolves conflict. Perhaps a different approach is in order.

 

Again, it's not name calling. If you lie, you're a liar. I never used the word cheat or cheater.

[+briansnat]

This IS the proper venue for my opinions. A lot of time has passed since the last time we all debated this, and even after all that time, the supporters of this type of logging cannot come up with even ONE reasonable argument.

 

Not quite true. There were several.

 

Logging many attendeds is fun.

The website allows you to do it.

Global warming is a bigger issue.

Actually, there were some legitimate ones...Mine was that I like to keep track of ALL the caches I find in one account.

 

So I guess if you find Terracaches and Navicaches you will also log them on GC.COM?

[+olbluesguy]

I have one Question.....For all of you who don't care

About What others think..

About How the game is played..

About the numbers..

What are you doing here posting in the forums, if you don't care?

If I don't care about something, I pretty much ignore it.

Seems like a lot of paragraphs written here by people who don't care about something or other.

I don't get it. If I get into an argument with someone who says "I don't care,I walk away...What's the point of arguing with someone who doesn't care.

[+BlueDeuce]

There are a few people in the forums that call for a change to the site whenever someone else is doing something they don't like. You appear to be one of them.

 

Well, the 'whenever' part might be a bit of an exaggeration/generalization, but if you are asking if I would like gc.com to make caches one stat only the answer would be yes.

 

Just like I would like them to remove the Discover option from Travel Bugs, (but not coins).

 

Do I think it’s going to happen? Not really, but I have seen them do things I never thought they would. So hey, maybe if enough people say logging caches not listed on this site should be blocked, maybe they will block them.

[Mushtang]

There are a few people in the forums that call for a change to the site whenever someone else is doing something they don't like. You appear to be one of them.

 

Well, the 'whenever' part might be a bit of an exaggeration/generalization, but if you are asking if I would like gc.com to make caches one stat only the answer would be yes.

 

Just like I would like them to remove the Discover option from Travel Bugs, (but not coins).

 

Do I think it’s going to happen? Not really, but I have seen them do things I never thought they would. So hey, maybe if enough people say logging caches not listed on this site should be blocked, maybe they will block them.

But what if a few of us decided that we didn't like Travel Bugs and kept suggesting that they be removed from the site? I see that you're a big fan of TBs, and you enjoy them a lot. Well, I don't care, because I don't like them.

 

They weren't in the game originally, and with the site slowdowns I think that removing the TBs would help speed up the site. Everyone could log caches faster, and everyone would be happy. I don't like all the arguments that are held in the forums about if you should trade trinkets for TBs or not and removing TBs from the site would solve that problem. If you really like trading TBs you can go create TB.com.

 

I don't really feel that way, but how would you honestly feel if a small group of people on the forums kept making this suggestion? I'm guessing you'd make a few posts saying that TBs don't hurt the way that I cache if I would just ignore them. You might say that I didn't have to move TBs and I could just leave them for those that want to.

[Clan Riffster]

Again, it's not name calling. If you lie, you're a liar. I never used the word cheat or cheater.

Unless of course, the person is not lying. If they are not lying, your constant, repetitive bashing is nothing more than hurling insults.

If you ask me how many caches I own, I would tell you 38. Yet, a check of my profile would show you 37. Am I lying? No. One of mine has not been submitted for approval yet. I honestly believe I have 38 caches, and I can take you out to all of them. Someone else would say that I only have 37, since no one can log the one under construction. Neither is a lie, it's just a matter of definition.

 

Groundspeak refuses to define what a "Find" is. They have decided to leave that definition up to the owner. I won't claim that this is a good thing, but it is the reality of the game as it stands now. For a statement to be a lie, there must be knowledge that it is untrue. If the person making the statement believes what he says, he is not lying, regardless of what the reality turns out to be. Without the intent to deceive, there can be no lie. The folks who are logging multiple finds and/or multiple attended's, are apparently doing so with the consent of the owner, who is the only one that can define what constitutes a find.

 

One of my hides is an ammo can up a tree. It's a rather harrowing climb, to say the least. Just about anybody can make it to a point where they can physically see the ammo can, but only the stout of heart can go those last 10' or so to actually open it. If JoeyBagOfDonuts climbs the tree, locates the ammo can, but chickens out before signing the log, did he "Find" my cache? Logic would seem to indicate he did, yet I personally wouldn't call it a find unless I signed the log. If Joey logs a find, is he lying? Not if he believes a find constitutes locating the cache. Again, so long as there is no deliberate intent to deceive, Joey did not lie. Calling him a liar because you happen to not share his opinion of what constitutes a find, is not making an observation, it's just being insulting.

 

I have one Question.....For all of you who don't care

About What others think..

About How the game is played..

About the numbers..

What are you doing here posting in the forums, if you don't care?

Perhaps there are things outside the scope of your statement which others do care about? Perhaps they see the deliberate and inaccurate insulting of others as being detrimental to the game? Perhaps they just don't like bullies? Maybe?

 

I would like them to remove the Discover option from Travel Bugs, (but not coins).

Blue, just curious... Why bugs & not coins?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Frankly, I am all in favor of making each cacher's numbers invisible to anyone but the owner... solves the whole numbers thing.

I'd actually like to see that too! Numbers mania seems to be at the root of almost every problem that people fight about in these threads.

 

Serious question here. What if they simply made caches one stat regardless of the numbers of logs. I like stats so I don't necessarily want them to go away, but would there be any serious impact if you couldn't log a cache more than once?

 

Now I know that there can be reasons for logging a cache more than once, valid reasons, but would someone lose much by only getting one stat?

I would be fine with that.

[+fizzymagic]

Groundspeak refuses to define what a "Find" is. They have decided to leave that definition up to the owner.

I am sorry, but that is not correct. Groundspeak has defined what a find is quite clearly; the issue here is that Groundspeak is not willing to enforce that definition.

 

And why should they? Groundspeak is a listing service, not the log police. Groundspeak is only going to get involved when there is a signficant abuse of their resources.

 

It's up to the caching community to set norms of behavior. Sadly, IMO, a significant subset of the community has decided that whatever is not explicitly forbidden is approved, and chooses to misrepresent some activities as "finds" when they quite obviously are not.

 

Since this is going to be my only post in this thread, I suppose I should also point out that the people who keep claiming that there is no reward for pumping up numbers are either delusional or mendacious. Examples abound of such rewards: the multitude of "congratulations" threads for people reaching numerical milestones, the special awards that many geocaching organizations give for reaching certain numbers of finds, the special clubs of cachers who have achieved numerical milestones, etc. etc. etc. Clearly, there are very significant incentives for people to boost their find count as high as they can. Claiming those incentives don't exist is either ignorant or dishonest.

[+ReadyOrNot]

But what if a few of us decided that we didn't like Travel Bugs and kept suggesting that they be removed from the site?

 

Do you really not see the difference? A TB doesn't get you a smiley when you log it and a coin doesn't get you a smiley when you log it. If they did, I'd have a problem with it.

 

FOUND TEMP CACHE 1

FOUND TEMP CACHE 2

FOUND TEMP CACHE 3

FOUND TEMP CACHE 4 (Fun level is increasing)

FOUND TEMP CACHE 5

FOUND TEMP CACHE 6

FOUND TEMP CACHE 7

FOUND TEMP CACHE 8 (Can you feel the tickle yet?)

FOUND TEMP CACHE 9

FOUND TEMP CACHE 10

FOUND TEMP CACHE 11

FOUND TEMP CACHE 12

FOUND TEMP CACHE 13 (Oh boy! Any more fun and I may explode!)

FOUND TEMP CACHE 14

FOUND TEMP CACHE 15

FOUND TEMP CACHE 16

FOUND TEMP CACHE 17

FOUND TEMP CACHE 18 (Call the fun police!!!)

FOUND TEMP CACHE 19

FOUND TEMP CACHE 20 (Fun has been achieved!)

 

Anyone else feel it? And why aren't there any "DNF"'s on these temporary caches?

Edited January 24, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[Neos2]

This IS the proper venue for my opinions. A lot of time has passed since the last time we all debated this, and even after all that time, the supporters of this type of logging cannot come up with even ONE reasonable argument.

Not quite true. There were several.

 

Logging many attendeds is fun.

The website allows you to do it.

Global warming is a bigger issue.

Actually, there were some legitimate ones...Mine was that I like to keep track of ALL the caches I find in one account.

So I guess if you find Terracaches and Navicaches you will also log them on GC.COM?

Actually, I don't go find Terracaches or Navicaches because I want all my caches on one account.

[+BlueDeuce]

But what if a few of us decided that we didn't like Travel Bugs and kept suggesting that they be removed from the site? I see that you're a big fan of TBs, and you enjoy them a lot. Well, I don't care, because I don't like them.

 

They weren't in the game originally, and with the site slowdowns I think that removing the TBs would help speed up the site. Everyone could log caches faster, and everyone would be happy. I don't like all the arguments that are held in the forums about if you should trade trinkets for TBs or not and removing TBs from the site would solve that problem. If you really like trading TBs you can go create TB.com.

 

I don't really feel that way, but how would you honestly feel if a small group of people on the forums kept making this suggestion? I'm guessing you'd make a few posts saying that TBs don't hurt the way that I cache if I would just ignore them. You might say that I didn't have to move TBs and I could just leave them for those that want to.

 

=================

 

But what if a few of us decided that we didn't like (Fill In The Blank) and kept suggesting that they be removed from the site?

 

...how would you honestly feel if a small group of people on the forums kept making this suggestion? I'm guessing you'd make a few posts saying that (Fill In The Blank) doesn't hurt the way that I cache if I would just ignore them.

 

I’d say it’s just another day in the forums.

 

I could also say that their postings don't hurt your enjoyment of the forums and you should just ignore them. But I won't.

 

Blue, just curious... Why bugs & not coins?

 

Not to get too far off topic, it wasn’t until coins came on the scene that (a few) people requested the ability to Discover them and that’s fine. Coins are collectables, in many ways. Bugs however are strictly travelers; they don’t need the Discover option. Not even to let the owner know their bug is still sitting a cache. That’s it in a nutshell. A more detailed explanation would have to happen in a different thread.

[+drat19]

Since this is going to be my only post in this thread, I suppose I should also point out that the people who keep claiming that there is no reward for pumping up numbers are either delusional or mendacious. Examples abound of such rewards: the multitude of "congratulations" threads for people reaching numerical milestones, the special awards that many geocaching organizations give for reaching certain numbers of finds, the special clubs of cachers who have achieved numerical milestones, etc. etc. etc. Clearly, there are very significant incentives for people to boost their find count as high as they can. Claiming those incentives don't exist is either ignorant or dishonest.

THANK YOU! Totally agree.

[+Rockin Roddy]

That FizzyMagic is one smart fella!!! Obviously stats counts matter or there wouldn't be fake finds!! It may not matter to EVERYONE, but I would bet that it surely does matter to the majority.

[+drat19]

That FizzyMagic is one smart fella!!! Obviously stats counts matter or there wouldn't be fake finds!! It may not matter to EVERYONE, but I would bet that it surely does matter to the majority.

I'm not sure about "the majority", but certainly to a fair number of folks, that's for sure.

[+sbell111]

Geocache = a cache listed on Geocaching.com that is located at the coodinates that were submitted to and approved by an official Groundspeak reviewer.

It seems like you forgot to include that definition with your list.

So if it's listed elsewhere it's not a geocache?

 

The man hisself gave you the definition of a Pocket Cache as an accepted form of geocache ; personally, I think his soft rarely-spoken word carries more weight than anyone else outside the Frog Palace.

I'm not seeing that in any of the quotes attributed to Jeremy. Can you point it out to me?

[+sbell111]

<snipped because someone beat me to the punch>

Edited January 24, 2007 by sbell111

[Luckless]

I was told pocket caches were used to help people get to know one another at events. Sounds like a great idea to me.

I tend to agree with those here only wanting one smilie per approved cache. It just doesn't make sense to me to keep logging it over and over again, but for now TPTB seem to allow multiple logs.--(They haven't made it so you can only log once.)

As for events I'd have to go with the old saying, what happens at an event stays at an event.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Luckless

[+Criminal]

Again, it's not name calling. If you lie, you're a liar. I never used the word cheat or cheater.

Unless of course, the person is not lying. If they are not lying, your constant, repetitive bashing is nothing more than hurling insults.

 

For a statement to be a lie, there must be knowledge that it is untrue. If the person making the statement believes what he says, he is not lying, regardless of what the reality turns out to be. Without the intent to deceive, there can be no lie.

That’s your argument? You cannot possibly be serious! So you are suggesting that all those people believe they attended one event several times? Was it a geocache event or a multiple personality disorder luncheon?

 

I’ll give them much more credit than you do.

They all knew they only attended the event once.

They also wanted a smiley for each of the temporary/pocket caches there.

Geocaching, however, does not allow you to log caches that they haven’t approved.

They really wanted a smiley for each of the temporary/pocket caches there.

What to do…what to do….

They have to find a way around the Groundspeak policy.

So they log the event as ‘attended’ numerous times.

They had knowledge that they attended only once

They logged it as attended many times.

Their second and subsequent ‘attended’ logs are lies.

 

You can’t blow smoke and call it anything else. No, it’s not pretty and it’s not nice, but it is still a lie.

 

You wrote:

For a statement to be a lie, there must be knowledge that it is untrue.

So we agree on that point, therefore, we agree they did lie.

[+Sagefox]

These other caches and incidents he mentions are not Pocket Caches and should not be painted with the same brush.

 

Well... are they not also unlisted caches?

 

You may see a distinction between the types of unlisted caches but to many of us there is no difference. You are still using a separate, gc.com listed cache to log finds for unlisted caches. That has the appearance of abuse of the website. I have not yet found anything rational in people's arguements as to why this activity is should be considered appropriate.

[+briansnat]

These other caches and incidents he mentions are not Pocket Caches and should not be painted with the same brush.

 

Well... are they not also unlisted caches?

 

You may see a distinction between the types of unlisted caches but to many of us there is no difference. You are still using a separate, gc.com listed cache to log finds for unlisted caches. That has the appearance of abuse of the website. I have not yet found anything rational in people's arguements as to why this activity is should be considered appropriate.

 

Each log takes server space. Granted it's very, very little. Still, why should anybody expect this site to devote even one byte of space to host logs for caches that are not listed here? Getting away from the padding of numbers issue, they are stealing server space.

 

I'm sure TPTB have ignored it because the space used is of little consenquence, but I bet as more people start abusing this site's features that could change.

Edited January 24, 2007 by briansnat

[+tozainamboku]

Each log takes server space. Granted it's very, very little. Still, why should anybody expect this site to devote even one byte of space to host logs for caches that are not listed here? Getting away from the padding of numbers issue, they are stealing server space.

 

I'm sure TPTB have ignored it because the space used is of little consenquence, but I bet as more people start abusing this site's features that could change.

Several people have suggested that a note could be logged for each temporary event cache found. Wouldn't that take the same amount of server space as an attended log? Even if a person was to to write just one attended log and include a list of temporary event cache he found in that log, it would only save a little server space. The stealing sever space argument isn't a very convincing one for banning the practice.

 

I don't think anyone will convince the other side of their stand on the issue of logging temporary event caches. One side feels it is immoral to log a find on anything except a GC listed cache. They expect the find count to be "accurate". The other side feels that since it is not explicity forbidden by the website, the find count can be used to "reward" attendees to an event with bonus smileys for finding temporary caches. I'm on the third side. I can't control the "accuracy" of someone else's find count and I don't see the point of "rewarding" myself a smiley beyond the one I got for attending the event. I have included a Truth in Numbers section in my profile so you can adjust my numbers to meet your definition of "accuracy".

Edited January 24, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Anyone else feel it? And why aren't there any "DNF"'s on these temporary caches?

Because you can't DNF events anymore?

[+Celticwulf]

I have to admit, the only reason I would like to see TPTB step in and stop the practice would be to hear the collective gasp of horror when folks log in to the site one day and see their find counts have dropped significantly!

 

However, since Jeremy has made it very clear that he doesn't intend to make the change...then this debate doesn't really serve any purpost other than for entertainment value...

 

Oh, I'm so on Cornerstone4's side on this one...just to see the havoc in the forums caused by one little programming change could be WAY too entertaining

 

Oh, and I don't think Jeremy has ever stated he will "never" make this change. Every post I've seen of his states that he does reserve that right to make that change.

 

So that is a question for everyone who thinks these logs are valid: what happens when/if Jeremy ever does get fed up with this monthly argument and just makes the change to one log counts per GC number?

 

Celticwulf

[Pto]

So that is a question for everyone who thinks these logs are valid: what happens when/if Jeremy ever does get fed up with this monthly argument and just makes the change to one log counts per GC number?

Celticwulf

 

Probably the same thing that happened when he corrected the travel bug counts fiasco a ways back....

It will rock the boat to be sure-

[+sbell111]

So that is a question for everyone who thinks these logs are valid: what happens when/if Jeremy ever does get fed up with this monthly argument and just makes the change to one log counts per GC number?

Celticwulf

Probably the same thing that happened when he corrected the travel bug counts fiasco a ways back....

It will rock the boat to be sure-

Or the hubbub that ensued when the find counts were made static on the cache pages.

[+drat19]

I have to admit, the only reason I would like to see TPTB step in and stop the practice would be to hear the collective gasp of horror when folks log in to the site one day and see their find counts have dropped significantly!

 

However, since Jeremy has made it very clear that he doesn't intend to make the change...then this debate doesn't really serve any purpost other than for entertainment value...

 

Oh, I'm so on Cornerstone4's side on this one...just to see the havoc in the forums caused by one little programming change could be WAY too entertaining

 

Oh, and I don't think Jeremy has ever stated he will "never" make this change. Every post I've seen of his states that he does reserve that right to make that change.

 

So that is a question for everyone who thinks these logs are valid: what happens when/if Jeremy ever does get fed up with this monthly argument and just makes the change to one log counts per GC number?

 

Celticwulf

I'm definitely also on board with my MN geo-buddy CW, as well as CS4 who originated the line of thought of course. "Honest" loggers would see no effect; the hubbub would only be among those who have engaged in the "questionable" practice.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I readily admit there are a couple hundred Pocket Cache logs in my stats, I don't know anyone that logs them and then denies it, so there is no dishonesty involved.

 

I saw the many hundreds of pocket cache logs, but what are all those double "Found it" entries that you have on tons of regular caches?

 

I looked at one of the caches and you posted a "FOUND IT" which looked legitimate, then later on you posted a "FOUND IT" for another geocacher??? I'm extremely confused. To top it off, this geocacher has a GC.com account. So not only are you logging your finds under your account, but finds for other geocachers?

 

Just looking for clarification because I is confuseded.

 

*EDIT* (Just because a person openly admits to their dishonesty doesn't make the dishonesty honest)

Edited January 24, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+Snoogans]

So that is a question for everyone who thinks these logs are valid: what happens when/if Jeremy ever does get fed up with this monthly argument and just makes the change to one log counts per GC number?

Celticwulf

 

Probably the same thing that happened when he corrected the travel bug counts fiasco a ways back....

It will rock the boat to be sure-

 

 

 

Actually, I believe that was a change in the code with an unexpected side effect of stripping the notes from people's TB find count if I remember correctly. To place a note on a TB used to need the TB code and it would up your TB finds by 1 for each TB you placed note on. It was the original discovery loophole.

 

 

I believe I lost about a dozen TBs from my find count on that one. Centris and others lost hundreds.

 

 

Anyhoo, they replaced that loophole after awhile with the Discovery option.

[Clan Riffster]

Groundspeak refuses to define what a "Find" is. They have decided to leave that definition up to the owner.

I am sorry, but that is not correct. Groundspeak has defined what a find is quite clearly; the issue here is that Groundspeak is not willing to enforce that definition.

 

Can you direct me to that definition? I found the Guide to Locating a Geocache, in which Groundspeak specifically contradicts your claim, saying:

Step 4 – The Find

Huzzah! You found the cache! Congratulations! Now what?

 

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

Seems somewhat ambiguous to me.

 

Since this is going to be my only post in this thread, I suppose I should also point out that the people who keep claiming that there is no reward for pumping up numbers are either delusional or mendacious.

I reckon it would be more accurate to say there is no significant reward for pumped up numbers. Some day, in the distant future, I will probably reach 1000 finds. When that happens, I have little doubt that those folks for whom numbers are critically important will give me kudos. In that vein, I guess a pat on the back could be seen as a reward. I could even buy myself a "1000 finds" geocoin. Would that be a reward? Heck, maybe I should buy a "500 Finds" coin now? Gimme my reward, even if I gotta pay for it myself!

 

One side feels it is immoral to log a find on anything except a GC listed cache. They expect the find count to be "accurate". The other side feels that since it is not explicity forbidden by the website, the find count can be used to "reward" attendees to an event with bonus smileys for finding temporary caches.

A brilliant summation.

 

I'm on the third side. I can't control the "accuracy" of someone else's find count and I don't see the point of "rewarding" myself a smiley beyond the one I got for attending the event.

Sign me up as a Third Sider as well.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I readily admit there are a couple hundred Pocket Cache logs in my stats, I don't know anyone that logs them and then denies it, so there is no dishonesty involved.

 

I saw the many hundreds of pocket cache logs, but what are all those double "Found it" entries that you have on tons of regular caches?

 

I looked at one of the caches and you posted a "FOUND IT" which looked legitimate, then later on you posted a "FOUND IT" for another geocacher??? I'm extremely confused. To top it off, this geocacher has a GC.com account. So not only are you logging your finds under your account, but finds for other geocachers?

 

Just looking for clarification because I is confuseded.

 

*EDIT* (Just because a person openly admits to their dishonesty doesn't make the dishonesty honest)

~90 of them are where I took my wife GeoRose back to find them. She has her own account but doesn't like to use it.

 

She also doesn't care much for geocaching, and only likes to go to caches that I have already done so the hunt time is minimal for her - if she can't find it in a few minutes she wants me to help!

 

There are a few with 3 logs, maybe 5 or 6 caches, from where I took one of my grown sons, who only cache with me.

 

The rest are Pocket caches - note one event where I logged 103 - it was a joke on the 'World Record' for Pocket Caches and I still think it was funny.

 

Still, if you do your best math and spend hours trying to discover my 'true' numbers you never will - anyone that caches with me will tell you that I don't log about as many finds as I do! It is in fact NOT about the numbers!

 

If you're going to spend that much time scouring my stats (which you are welcome to do, I am not ashamed of them!) then also read the event pages and note how many Pocket Caches I chose NOT to log - far far more than I did!

 

My argument in this thread is not that I want to 'pump up my numbers' but that it's permissible and allowed if I choose to log them.

 

The question was asked above, if the door was closed to Pocket Caches would there be a furor? No, I don't think so, and don't know anyone that would much care.

Edited January 24, 2007 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+sbell111]

One side feels it is immoral to log a find on anything except a GC listed cache. They expect the find count to be "accurate". The other side feels that since it is not explicity forbidden by the website, the find count can be used to "reward" attendees to an event with bonus smileys for finding temporary caches.

A brilliant summation.

I'm on the third side. I can't control the "accuracy" of someone else's find count and I don't see the point of "rewarding" myself a smiley beyond the one I got for attending the event.

Sign me up as a Third Sider as well.

I don't know. I think that there are only two sides. You either think that the practice is fine or you think that it's wrong. Whether you get worked up by the debate is a totally different issue.

[+Snoogans]

I don't think anyone will convince the other side of their stand on the issue of logging temporary event caches. One side feels it is immoral to log a find on anything except a GC listed cache. They expect the find count to be "accurate". The other side feels that since it is not explicity forbidden by the website, the find count can be used to "reward" attendees to an event with bonus smileys for finding temporary caches. I'm on the third side. I can't control the "accuracy" of someone else's find count and I don't see the point of "rewarding" myself a smiley beyond the one I got for attending the event. I have included a Truth in Numbers section in my profile so you can adjust my numbers to meet your definition of "accuracy".

 

 

I'm stepping off the fence just slightly to place a few toes on the 3rd side. I have never multi logged an event cache. I wouldn't and I couldn't. I'm my own harshest critic.

 

 

If multiple logging were stripped from the code I would lose exactly one find. I posted a thread about it some time ago, so I won't rehash it here. Suffice it to say that if certain special circumstances arise within MY game peramiters, I have no problem justifying a smiley for myself. That's my perspective and that's my rub for this thread. I'm not a cheater. I'm not a liar. I have nothing to prove to anyone but me. If the website were to change then so be it. I'll have one less find. Until then I'll hold no one to the ruler I measure up to and if anyone tries to hold theirs up to me, I'll likely break it a jab 'em with the pointy ends.

 

 

I refuse to waste my time thinking ill of anyone for how they justify their stats to themselves regardless of the vocal minority view. Now, if they're padding their stats for some real and actual reward.... To me that's wrong, but thank goodness the only reward I'm looking for from geocaching is for folks to really and truly enjoy my caches and to make a few more friends at the next event.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

*EDIT* (Just because a person openly admits to their dishonesty doesn't make the dishonesty honest)

Well, see, I went and answered your question and you add that little zinger!

 

So I am in a can't win delimma with you, eh? You've decide what the truth is and anyone that disagrees is lying?

 

Sheesh. I can't debate a demagogue.

[+ReadyOrNot]

*EDIT* (Just because a person openly admits to their dishonesty doesn't make the dishonesty honest)

Well, see, I went and answered your question and you add that little zinger!

 

So I am in a can't win delimma with you, eh? You've decide what the truth is and anyone that disagrees is lying?

 

Sheesh. I can't debate a demagogue.

 

I made the edit prior to you making your post. But here are my comments to your post:

 

Why don't you just post a note on the cache page? You insist on posting the smiley's even though you didn't find the cache. You've expanded the definition of a "FIND" to include other people that cache with you. You are welcome to take advantage of the site. As long as Jeremy doesn't close the loophole, people are going to take advantage.

 

I'm going to be blunt. Claiming a find and then claiming another find for other people that were with you is just plain dishonest. If you can't see that, then we are going to just have to agree to disagree.

 

*EDIT* My post edit was 12:43, your post was 12:51. Please do a little research before making assumptions

Edited January 24, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+Markwell]

Since this is going to be my only post in this thread, I suppose I should also point out that the people who keep claiming that there is no reward for pumping up numbers are either delusional or mendacious. Examples abound of such rewards: the multitude of "congratulations" threads for people reaching numerical milestones, the special awards that many geocaching organizations give for reaching certain numbers of finds, the special clubs of cachers who have achieved numerical milestones, etc. etc. etc. Clearly, there are very significant incentives for people to boost their find count as high as they can. Claiming those incentives don't exist is either ignorant or dishonest.

I guess how much something is a "reward" goes to how much value an individual places on the positive reinforcement given.

 

Example: My dog will do just about anything for a potato chip. She will roll-over, play dead, and (if it were in her power) recite the Gettysburg Address. Me - I would say please, but if someone held it just out of my reach, I would probably walk away. On the other hand, if someone offered me $1 Million Dollars, I would probably roll-over, play dead and recite the Gettysburg Address. If my dog were offered $1 Million Dollars, she would probably go find the nearest tennis ball.

 

The kudos given for a high find count have never been my incentive for caching. As a result, I don't put effort forth in finding lots and lots and lots of caches. In my cache-rich area, I could do about 5 or 6 straight days of numbers runs and double the number of caches I've found by logging one-cache-per-logbook. I could also list an event and log a "find" on that same event for meeting every person that attended.

 

But numbers are not why I cache. My endorphine rush comes from a great hike in a wilderness area and finding a well-thought-out cache, but that's just me. And, if someone else wants to get their endorphine rush off of clicking the "found it" icon fourteen times on someone else's cache, I'm not going to get my knickers in a knot. I would not allow it on one of my caches, but I'm not all that concerned about other people's.

 

Me - I don't stock my self-worth on the number of caches I've found. Likewise, I don't stock my value of other cachers on the number of caches they've found either. Since the number has become so meaningless, I rarely even look at it on a cacher anymore. If I want to get impressed by someone's online GC.com profile, I'm much more likely to look at the date that they've joined and see if they've been around a long time.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Markwell