Pocket Caches are Back?

[+Mudfrog]

As things stand now, i would whole heartedly agree with you since most of the logging abuse is with event caches. But, my thinking is that these cachers would begin logging other caches multiple times if event counts were taken away. Barney Fife has it right, let's just make this easy and "nip it in the bud".

Are there any moving caches still around that this would effect?

 

I'm not sure what you are asking about here.

 

The way i see it, if only attend count was taken away then cachers who wanted to log temp or pocket caches would simply log another cache more than once. These people will simply find an archived cache, a cache with an owner who doesn't care, or their own cache to log the finds on. Nothing is being remedied by only taking away event cache count.

[Mushtang]

1.) Do you participate in extra/alternative/unlisted logging practices like pocket caches, temp caches, multiple event logging, etc?

 

2.) If so, why?

 

3.) If not, why not?

1) No, but I used to.

 

2) At the very first Event I attended, our local approver announced that as a way to get to know each other he's given 3 film cannisters to people that have them in their pocket, and if we asked one of them if they had it they'd let us sign the log. For each log signed we could log an extra Find on the event page. At a different Event there were some temp caches that everyone was finding and the event owner said it would be okay to log them. At least two local approvers were there, finding the temp caches, and I never thought that it was anything fishy.

 

3) The reason I don't anymore is because of threads like this in the forums. I eventually realized that these caches weren't the same as listed caches, and I decided to only log listed caches from then on. I haven't done it in years. I'd never dream of suggesting that anyone else that hasn't made the same decision is doing something "wrong" however. They're just playing different.

 

The idea of suggesting to TPTB that they change the site so that people are forced to play the way I do, is WAY more revolting to me than someone logging multiple times on a cache.

[+The Leprechauns]

Since it is a boring and rainy day today I thought I would sit and read 6 pages of the same arguments again about the logging practices of others.

 

<snipped for space>

 

GC.Com continues as a listing service and the game is defined at the local level thereby meeting what each of us needs to be an active supportive member of the game.

How about folks that move from area to area? Are we expected to learn and apply a new standard in each area?

Who is going to keep track of these 'local' rules? Do I need to apply for a rulebook when I visit a new region? If so maybe we all need to register with the local 'authorties' so they will know that we will be "playing the game 'their' way."

 

No, the answer is: One game/sport. One set of guidelines.

Or, better yet, if I visit that area for even two days, then by definition I have accepted and endorsed their local standards. I am pretty sick of that faulty line of reasoning. I accept and endorse the finds logged on my account.

[+drat19]

Since it is a boring and rainy day today I thought I would sit and read 6 pages of the same arguments again about the logging practices of others.

 

<snipped for space>

 

GC.Com continues as a listing service and the game is defined at the local level thereby meeting what each of us needs to be an active supportive member of the game.

How about folks that move from area to area? Are we expected to learn and apply a new standard in each area?

Who is going to keep track of these 'local' rules? Do I need to apply for a rulebook when I visit a new region? If so maybe we all need to register with the local 'authorties' so they will know that we will be "playing the game 'their' way."

 

No, the answer is: One game/sport. One set of guidelines.

As someone who currently splits time between 2 regions, and as a "traveling cacher" to many regions in general, I wholeheartedly agree with Totem Clan: One game/sport/set of guidelines.

[+Mudfrog]

Are there any moving caches still around that this would effect?

 

Oh shoot, i see what you are asking now. Moving caches, and there may be others, which allow multiple "legitmate finds" would not fall under the one find per cache guideline. These would need to be left as they are.

 

Thanks for bringing this out, there's more to it than immediately meets the eye...

[+Snoogans]

I think this would work alright but it still would not alleviate the false logging of caches. I'm agree with Criminal on this in saying that i hate to see more rules but, it looks to me like programming the system to only accept one "find log" per cache or event would be the better way to go. Numbers hungry cachers would still find another way to get those false numbers but this would definitely slow the practice down by a bunch!

My thinking is that people would be somewhat unlikely to log these fake caches to event pages if it did not change their find counts.

 

As things stand now, i would whole heartedly agree with you since most of the logging abuse is with event caches. But, my thinking is that these cachers would begin logging other caches multiple times if event counts were taken away. Barney Fife has it right, let's just make this easy and "nip it in the bud".

 

 

I have a great deal of respect for Mudfrog in our local community and even though we're not always on the same side of the fence, I sort of agree here. I think that if a majority of cachers felt that a leveling of the playing field were needed and Groundspeak, wishing to please a majority of its customers, chose to rewrite the logging code, I could live with it just fine. Besides, Terracaching already employs this method and it works well over there. All the Groundspeak code-monkeys need to do is give 'em a call.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Snoogans

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Don’t see any need for a change in the way events are logged, folks are having fun muli-logging them and folks are having fun complaining about it.

 

As I have said before, as long as it is allowed and accepted as normal in my caching community I may choose to log them, if it's ever prohibited I am not out anything!

 

Fun multi logging events? For some of us, comments like this just make no sense. (again, for me this is just discussion. I assure you I truly don't care about your extra logs) Isn't the fun part the actual finding of the pocket cache, or temp cache? Isn't the fun getting together with fellow cachers? Playing goofy games? Eating hot dogs? Maybe camping out? How is it fun multi logging events? The absolute only answer I've seen was the one above:

 

as long as it is allowed and accepted as normal in my caching community I may choose to log them

 

Now I don't mean any disrespect, but the because I can reason is just about the weakest I can think of. The reason, of course, is to increase find count, plain and simple. And when folks in favor of the multi logging say it's not about the numbers, and my numbers are none of your business, it begs the question: if that's so why are you doing it?

 

You are right. We don't care about your numbers. Surely that's a good enough reason to not multi log, since increasing your public count is the only reason to do it.

 

Now is there any other reason? I honestly would like someone to explain to us, and not keep giving the mind your own business, doesn't affect me, cache your own way, blah blah, blah. Help us understand. We've seen numerous explanations about why it's not an acceptable practice. Someone on the other side of aisle should help us see the benefits of multi logging. (not the benefit of doing the pocket/temp cache, but the logging of them.

 

If it were not this topic it would be something else.

 

Well, yeah, of course. These are forums, where topics are debated and discussed. How boring would it be if we all just agreed about everything? No need for anyone to get upset about a discussion.

[+Celticwulf]

Ya know, after reading through all the discussion here, I've come to one conclusion. My conclusion is that eventually, TPTB will implement the "one gc number/one smiley" rule. And it comes down to the simple fact that at some point, someone will push the issue to the extreme and the easiest way to deal with it will be to eliminate the practice altogether. The only way to do this will be to implement that change, and although some will be angered, overall the "stats" will be more accurate.

 

Why do I come to this conclusion? Easy, just looking at past history and the stupidity of humans in large numbers. Stupidity of humans in large numbers is easy to find, so I don't think I need to give an example, but the past history is easily seen with last years GW4 crackdown. Two major things happened there that caused some major changes to the game, and caused many caches to be archived (I'm refering to the "moved" cache controversy). Basically, in the past these things happened, and since it was on a minor scale and the owner was involved, most of the time the false logging was just overlooked in what I saw as not an "approval" of the practice, but in a "oh crap, I hope this just goes away" state of mind. Then suddenly the poo hit the fan when someone got so caught up in the practice that a physical cache that is located in Iraq was logged as "found" by people at GW4. When this was shown, most people saw this as something we couldn't comprehend, but to the people doing it...it's the way they learned how to log things, and so they never thought about it. That kinda does show both things, because I'll bet if any of the people who logged "found" on this cache ever did actually think about it, they would realize that what they were doing was innappropriate. So with this, history tends to show that although a practice is not banned at the moment, at some point somebody will push it to the extreme limit and cause a major change. It won't be these small discussions in the forum that will cause the change...it will be some event that will go overboard and suddenly the choice will have to be made. Nobody can really say when it will happen, but seeing as how "standard" this practice has become recently, I'd expect the trigger will happen sooner than anyone will like.

 

And the thing is, when that change happens, I actually will feel sorry for some people. There are a large group of these people who see absolutly nothing wrong with this multi-logging events practice even though they know it's basically gaming the system for a find count. These types of people I have no real sympathy for, because they know what they are doing is not "approved" but only something that TPTB is allowing to happen for now but have stated they can change whenever they wish. The ones I'm going to feel sorry for are the newer cachers...the ones who start caching in an area that this is a prevalent occurance and are told at thier first event that this IS approved and IS standard practice. The one's I'm talking about are the smaller number cachers, but ones who try to remember all of them. These are the ones that are truely going to be affected by this, because they've been told (falsely I would say) that this is something that "everybody" is doing. And I just wonder if some of the people that are doing this as standard practice and telling new cachers it's OK are going to feel sorry for what they've done at that point?

 

In some ways, just because of those newer cachers, I hope that I'm wrong...perhaps something like having itsnotaboutthenumbers.com become more used and stats generated based on the "one gc, one find" rule will keep this from occuring. But I don't see it happening...I just see that there will be someone who does go to the extreme with an event and has a table covered in 35mm containers that says "go ahead and log the event 500 times, I've got that many in the pyramid of film containers here". Or something else...I just can't see it not happening soon because of the stance that some have taken.

 

We'll see where things go from here...

 

Celticwulf

[Pto]

I think I finally understand your point. It’s OK to lie; it’s just not OK to expose it.

Glad we cleared that up.

Yes, it's so silly it's downright funny.

 

No, you missed my point altogether- then made an inccorrect assumption.

 

If you want to believe that "Everything Goes", then good luck with that. There's not much more to say.

 

Was not my point at all. Hows this "There is no use crying over spilled milk"

 

But what is your opinion? Let's take it for granted that it doesn't affect you. If we were just discussing the issue itself, what is your answers to these questions:

1.) Do you participate in extra/alternative/unlisted logging practices like pocket caches, temp caches, multiple event logging, etc?

2.) If so, why?

3.) If not, why not?

 

1) No to all types listed

2)xx

3)Not my cup of tea. Only made 1 event, didnt look for, or find any temps

[+Team Rat Pack (led by Miss Bi)]

Just an observation, but IMHO the people who are screaming the loudest about the denigration of Geocaching and the rise of the numbers game VS the beautiful location ammo can, are the most concerned as to who is in the "lead."

 

[+Driver Carries Cache]

Since it is a boring and rainy day today I thought I would sit and read 6 pages of the same arguments again about the logging practices of others. Now first off I would like to state that I agree with Criminal and others that logging an event multiple times is wrong. Secondly I would like to state that I agree with the other side that how people log their caches should be up to them. What I think we miss through all of this argument because we get caught up in the whole numbers aspect or the liars aspect is who sets the standards by which we play the game.

 

If you all would indulge me for a minute here I would like to make my observation on this. I believe there are 2 conflicting chains of thought at work. Criminal's and other's view I believe is that there is a Global Community Standard of how the game should be played. In that view everyone should follow the same standard as established by the Geocaching community as a whole. Finds should be 1 event 1 log, 1 cache 1 log ect. In this view things are quite cut and dried. ( Criminal if that is not your opinion I apologize.) On the other hand this is my opinion there is a Local Community Standard evolving in the sport. The sport is becoming a decentralized community. In this Standard each local community establishes the standards by which they play the game, for example pocket caches maybe acceptable here but not in other places, logging events multiple times maybe acceptable there but not here. The essence of this system is that when people compare themselves to others they understand the values and norms of that community and can judge accordingly. Under this Standard we still follow the basic tenets of caching but the periphery of how the game is played is varied to meet the needs of the local community.

 

I think at one time the Global Community Standard was the norm of Geocaching and was wholly acceptable as a standard but with the evolution of the game it is simply not feasible for the Caching community to try and hold to that standard any longer. As each community takes on it's own unique styles of caches and preferences the game will morph to that paticular communities standards and needs. I don't believe that we can judge others and how they play the game using a Global Standard any longer because the game has evolved beyond that point. When we try to continue using that standard many cachers will come up short simply because we don't see that standard as being relevant any longer. As each community has grown to meet the needs of their local community by hiding the types of caches that community prefers so should the other standards of game be based upon the desires of the local community. I think if we all could move to this decentralized view of the game we don't lessen the game itself we merely come to understand that each community sets it own norms. GC.Com continues as a listing service and the game is defined at the local level thereby meeting what each of us needs to be an active supportive member of the game.

 

Very well thought out, but I think you're missing one other point that some of us hold... I do believe in the "Global Community Standard" for caching, but also agree that things can, and will change. Pocket caches sound like a cool and fun thing to do at a meet and greet event, but they are not recognized as caches on geocaching.com and therefore should not be logged on geocaching.com.

 

Maybe I feel (and my community feels) that we want to see more caches filled with knives and ammunition. Geocaching.com won't approve them, but my community has spoken! And it's none of geocaching.com's business what we put in our caches anyway. Sure, we'll have find some "creative" way to log them... or start our own site for logging such caches.

 

(If anyone has a creative name for that knives and ammo site, please feel free to run with that )

 

**Above example was done purely for educational purposes. Please insert tounge-in-cheek.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Since it is a boring and rainy day today I thought I would sit and read 6 pages of the same arguments again about the logging practices of others.

 

<snipped for space>

 

GC.Com continues as a listing service and the game is defined at the local level thereby meeting what each of us needs to be an active supportive member of the game.

How about folks that move from area to area? Are we expected to learn and apply a new standard in each area?

Who is going to keep track of these 'local' rules? Do I need to apply for a rulebook when I visit a new region? If so maybe we all need to register with the local 'authorties' so they will know that we will be "playing the game 'their' way."

 

No, the answer is: One game/sport. One set of guidelines.

Or, better yet, if I visit that area for even two days, then by definition I have accepted and endorsed their local standards. I am pretty sick of that faulty line of reasoning. I accept and endorse the finds logged on my account.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do is pretty good advice.

 

I accept and endorse the finds logged on my account.

[+Celticwulf]

Just an observation, but IMHO the people who are screaming the loudest about the denigration of Geocaching and the rise of the numbers game VS the beautiful location ammo can, are the most concerned as to who is in the "lead."

 

Actually, I'd have to dissagree with you on this...I'd say it would be more accurate to state "are most concerned by accuracy of peoples find counts"...but then again, that's just my gut feel.

 

Really, for me it comes down to how I feel about numbers in general. When I started, the first event I attended I was told that it's allowed to multi-log the event to state what caches you found. However, at the time I had a plan for what cache I wanted to be my 50th find, and the temps would have screwed up this plan...so I had one "attended" log where I wrote in every temp I found. I had fun finding the temps, and had a blast talking with other cachers, and I got one fun "find" out of the event. Going back and thinking about it, even then I thought it seemed a bit fishy, but since "everyone" was doing it, I figured it was just me wanting my count to be accurate.

 

However, at this point, if you review Jeremy's past comments on the issue (see Criminal's post on page 4 of this thread I think), you'll realize that he finds the practice stupid and although has stated he wouldn't do anything at the time, he reserves the right to change how these are logged in the future. To me, if that isn't a clear enough signal that if things get out of hand the practice will be eliminated, I don't know what is.

 

So for now, I'd personally say that anyone that is knowingly increasing their find count by multi-logging events is risking their find count dropping drastically at some point in the future. And anyone telling new cachers "it's OK" is risking them being hurt in the process. It really comes down to the fact that everyone who's find count is highly influnced (meaning in my mind 50+ multi-logs, but can be as few as 2+) by this multi-log process is saying that they are OK with thier find count dropping because of the stupidity of one other cacher in the future. I dunno, I'm thinking I'm happy that I wouldn't be affected by that change in the future

 

Sorry, just chatty and philosophical today.

Celticwulf

[+ReadyOrNot]

Just an observation, but IMHO the people who are screaming the loudest about the denigration of Geocaching and the rise of the numbers game VS the beautiful location ammo can, are the most concerned as to who is in the "lead."

 

 

That's just inaccurate. I am only concerned that my number reflects truthfully how many caches I have found, not that it has to be a high number. The ones arguing that you should play how you want are the ones padding their numbers.

 

How did you come to this observation?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Just an observation, but IMHO the people who are screaming the loudest about the denigration of Geocaching and the rise of the numbers game VS the beautiful location ammo can, are the most concerned as to who is in the "lead."

 

 

That's just inaccurate. I am only concerned that my number reflects truthfully how many caches I have found, not that it has to be a high number. The ones arguing that you should play how you want are the ones padding their numbers.

 

How did you come to this observation?

Gotta go with ReadyorNot on this one... I don't see any of the high-numbers cachers involved here.

 

My numbers are inaccurate in a number of ways - but if you subtract the Pocket Caches and multiple logs for my wife you still come up with less than I have actually found, so it matters not to me!

 

If my numbers matter in some way to anyone else that's their problem.

 

I argue the case of Pocket Caches because I believe them to be of value and hate to see all this name-calling and spite directed at people who are playing a perfectly legitimate game.

[+Loch Cache]

Shocked and dismayed that cachers would log an event (or any cache) more than once. If it is the way they want to play would they log a traditional as a find every time they went back to it to drop a travel bug? Would they find a five-stage multi and log it 5 times ? I will never look at a cacher from Wisconsin again without wondering if their numbers are inflated.

 

I don't know the definition of a Mega Event, but only 77 cachers attended the event in Wisconsin. To me it is more of a mega farce.

 

Loch Cache

[+Celticwulf]

I argue the case of Pocket Caches because I believe them to be of value and hate to see all this name-calling and spite directed at people who are playing a perfectly legitimate game.

 

Actually, in all reality I do agree with you on your stance on "pocket caches" as you have described. They seem like a fun/harmless thing to do at events, and may help shy cachers meet others.

 

I think the problem most people (myself included) get hung up on is the people who "have" to log a "find" on this type of cache online.

 

To me, if the event has some temps for a purpose of meeting people (pocket cache) or having fun to win prizes (poker run), that's all part of the 1 event. One of the best event's I've been too in MN here was the Poker Run that one of our local cachers put on. Seven temp caches, all hidden well in different containers. The group I was with had tons of fun finding them, and the food and meeting people after was great. I got one smiley for that event. I did get other smiley's that day because he placed some of the temps near permanent caches in the area, so our group found some of those...but I had no valid reason for getting a "find" on the seven temps...they were temps, and they gave me a chance to win prizes at the resturant later. Somehow I ended up with good seats to a Twins game, but that just added to the fun

 

make sense (decides to maybe stop babbling now)

Celticwulf

[+ReadyOrNot]

Gotta go with ReadyorNot on this one...

 

No, no, no, no, no! Don't do that! Now I'm gonna lose my buzz!

[+Team Rat Pack (led by Miss Bi)]

Just an observation, but IMHO the people who are screaming the loudest about the denigration of Geocaching and the rise of the numbers game VS the beautiful location ammo can, are the most concerned as to who is in the "lead."

 

 

That's just inaccurate. I am only concerned that my number reflects truthfully how many caches I have found, not that it has to be a high number. The ones arguing that you should play how you want are the ones padding their numbers.

 

How did you come to this observation?

 

There is only one number the accuracy of which I am concerned, and that is the number of Pack members climbing back into the car after a cache hunt. I enjoy our little caching milestones only because they are memories of our days spent out caching together. How many finds we have, accurate or not, should not matter one bit to anyone else. I just cannot and will not vest my concern and emotions into the find numbers of other cachers. Why does ANYONE care how many finds or not another cacher has? Or if, or not, the find is legitimate or accurate or however you wish to term it. We have 9 active caches around here. We don't check the log book to assure that every cacher who says they have found it has. We just take their word. It does not effect my game! Or yours. Can't each of us just play our own game?

 

Join hands boys and girls and lets sing......cum ba ya.......

[+ReadyOrNot]

We don't check the log book to assure that every cacher who says they have found it has. We just take their word.

 

Just because you are noble and trusting of other people doesn't make their behavior any less dishonest. If they log your cache online and you don't call them on it, it just means they got away with lying, that's all. Lying affects everyone, whether you choose to make yourself aware of it or not is your choice.

[+Team Rat Pack (led by Miss Bi)]

We don't check the log book to assure that every cacher who says they have found it has. We just take their word.

 

Just because you are noble and trusting of other people doesn't make their behavior any less dishonest. If they log your cache online and you don't call them on it, it just means they got away with lying, that's all. Lying affects everyone, whether you choose to make yourself aware of it or not is your choice.

 

Nobility has not one wit to do with it. The only one harmed by this lie is the one who lies to himself about the find. How could it possibly hurt me or you or our troops or some kid in a hut in a third world country? It is harmless to everyone but the one making the claim.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Why does ANYONE care how many finds or not another cacher has?

 

Most of us don't care. We're having a discussion.

 

Do I have to truly care about rare earth magnets to discuss that? I don't care all that much about ANY topic in a forum about a game!

 

That being said, what's your opinion about logging pocket caches?

[+tozainamboku]

Just an observation, but IMHO the people who are screaming the loudest about the denigration of Geocaching and the rise of the numbers game VS the beautiful location ammo can, are the most concerned as to who is in the "lead."

 

 

That's just inaccurate. I am only concerned that my number reflects truthfully how many caches I have found, not that it has to be a high number. The ones arguing that you should play how you want are the ones padding their numbers.

 

How did you come to this observation?

Gotta go with ReadyorNot on this one... I don't see any of the high-numbers cachers involved here.

 

 

I agree that the people who object to logging pocket caches are not worried that someone may be ahead of them because of these logs. There may be some who do believe that a bigger find count is worth more than a smaller find count as I implied back on page 2 2676830[/snapback]. These people are concerned with having a accurate find count. But there are cleary others who aren't even expressing this concern. They are arguing that using the "found" or "attended" log for a purpose other than what it was intended for is dishonest. People who argue in favor of the practice (or more properly - that it isn't really a problem that needs to be fixed) are not padding their numbers in order to get an unfair advantage. First they argue that comparing cachers based on their find count is wrong - but that individuals do use their find counts to mark milestones or set personal goals. Surely, one may get a paper certificate or maybe even get something of value like a friend buying them a beer for making a goal. But is it really that bad that I had to find 20 extra caches to earn my beer because I didn't log the pocket caches. The fact that Jeremy has indicated that intended purpose of the "found" log is to record when you find a cache is also seen as not that important because Jeremy has also left it up to the cache owner to police the logs and ipso facto define the meaning of found.

[Clan Riffster]

No, the answer is: One game/sport. One set of guidelines.

The existing guidelines allow the behaviors which are being vilified here.

 

The ones arguing that you should play how you want are the ones padding their numbers.

I'm arguing that folks should play this game how they want, so long as the guidelines allow it. The way I want to play is 1 cache = 1 find, 1 event = 1 attended. Can you show me which numbers I've been padding? I'd like to keep my numbers as accurate as possible, for my own reasons, and I'd sure like to fix the padding that you're accusing me of.

[+Team Rat Pack (led by Miss Bi)]

Why does ANYONE care how many finds or not another cacher has?

 

Most of us don't care. We're having a discussion.

 

Do I have to truly care about rare earth magnets to discuss that? I don't care all that much about ANY topic in a forum about a game!

 

That being said, what's your opinion about logging pocket caches?

 

OK so if you don't care about another cachers numbers....what is the point of discussing pocket cache logs? It is the fact that the cacher logging pocket cache finds is getting "credit" for "illegitimate" finds that seems to bother some posters. You want my opinion? I don't care one way or the other. I have never personally been involved in a pocket cahce hunt, but it sounds like fun. Would I log them? I don't honestly know. Should my decision to log or not matter to you? No, because it does not effect YOUR game one way or the other. Unless the numbers game DOES matter to you....

[Mushtang]

Why does ANYONE care how many finds or not another cacher has?

 

Most of us don't care. We're having a discussion.

 

Do I have to truly care about rare earth magnets to discuss that? I don't care all that much about ANY topic in a forum about a game!

 

That being said, what's your opinion about logging pocket caches?

If you have an opinion on something, then you care. It's sort of the definition. So if you say that multi-logging is lame, then you care, and it's completely valid for someone to discuss with you why you care.

 

If someone were to ask me if I had a problem with a cacher multi-logging, I'd reply that I don't care, and wouldn't call it lame.

[+Team Rat Pack (led by Miss Bi)]

sorry I double posted.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Team Rat Pack (led by Miss Bi)

[+ReadyOrNot]

Nobility has not one wit to do with it. The only one harmed by this lie is the one who lies to himself about the find. How could it possibly hurt me or you or our troops or some kid in a hut in a third world country? It is harmless to everyone but the one making the claim.

 

Hmmmm.. Maybe it was just the way I was raised. Mommy and Daddy always taught me that lying is wrong, regarless of whether it is a white lie or not. White lies do not necessarily hurt anyone, but the problem here (and we all know it's true), once you allow the white lie, bigger lies will almost always follow. The problem is not that logging pocket caches is hurting me, but that down the road, it will eventually affect everyone.

 

It's called seeing the big picture.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Why does ANYONE care how many finds or not another cacher has?

 

Most of us don't care. We're having a discussion.

 

Do I have to truly care about rare earth magnets to discuss that? I don't care all that much about ANY topic in a forum about a game!

 

That being said, what's your opinion about logging pocket caches?

 

OK so if you don't care about another cachers numbers....what is the point of discussing pocket cache logs? It is the fact that the cacher logging pocket cache finds is getting "credit" for "illegitimate" finds that seems to bother some posters. You want my opinion? I don't care one way or the other. I have never personally been involved in a pocket cahce hunt, but it sounds like fun. Would I log them? I don't honestly know. Should my decision to log or not matter to you? No, because it does not effect YOUR game one way or the other. Unless the numbers game DOES matter to you....

 

I'm, like, 12 cache logs behind right now, so obviously I don't care about my numbers or yours.

 

You don't have to care to have an opinion! Do you have to feel something to your very soul to have an opinion on it? These are forums, and they are for discussing stuff.

 

I've never said pocket caches aren't fun It's logging them that is silly.

 

It is incredibly ironic that folks that log extra caches for the express purpose of raising their numbers ALWAYS turn it around and say the other folks are too concerned about the numbers. We think it's funny that pocket cachers think so much about their numbers that they'd log them!

[+The Cheeseheads]

It must be the cheese factor.

 

Who cut the chesse?

 

BTW I like cheese

 

I guess Wisconsin is the capital of the "cheasy geo-cheaters."

 

Don't be so quick to paint the whole state with your broad brushes. There's only a small minority of cachers in the state who are "cheasy geo-cheaters." And it's not as if other states haven't seen this before.

 

Either way, what's the point of starting a new thread every time you want to point out something like this? All it seems to do is start the same arguments with the same people. Since the folks multi-logging the event probably don't read the forums anyway, all the vitriol is lost...

[Pto]

Nobility has not one wit to do with it. The only one harmed by this lie is the one who lies to himself about the find. How could it possibly hurt me or you or our troops or some kid in a hut in a third world country? It is harmless to everyone but the one making the claim.

 

Hmmmm.. Maybe it was just the way I was raised. Mommy and Daddy always taught me that lying is wrong, regarless of whether it is a white lie or not. White lies do not necessarily hurt anyone, but the problem here (and we all know it's true), once you allow the white lie, bigger lies will almost always follow. The problem is not that logging pocket caches is hurting me, but that down the road, it will eventually affect everyone.

 

It's called seeing the big picture.

 

For the sake of discussion, Tell me who exactly is a cacher "lying to" by logging a mutliple find? Its THEIR find count. (so, it would seem they are lying to themselves)

 

Unless (as Drat19 pointed out earlier) that person tries to use thier stats as some kind of comparison to others, than again- Who is being "lied to" ?

[+ReadyOrNot]

Since the folks multi-logging the event probably don't read the forums anyway, all the vitriol is lost...

 

That's why TPTB should roll back all those multi-finds. All the multi-finder folks will come screaming to the forums and we'll get a chance to meet them. What a great opportunity!

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

If you have an opinion on something, then you care. It's sort of the definition. So if you say that multi-logging is lame, then you care, and it's completely valid for someone to discuss with you why you care.

 

I have to respectfully disagree with you. You could walk up to me on the street and ask me, "Quick, eggplant or squash?" I then would think about it, and tell you squash.

 

But honestly, I don't care one way or the other.

 

I save my caring for things like global warming, Iraq, and American Idol.

[+The Cheeseheads]

1.) Do you participate in extra/alternative/unlisted logging practices like pocket caches, temp caches, multiple event logging, etc?

 

2.) If so, why?

 

3.) If not, why not?

1: I used to, but I don't anymore.

2: I was new. Everyone else did it that way, so I thought it was the norm.

3: I don't do it anymore because it doesn't feel right to me. Also, I might be called a "cheasy geo-cheater."

[+Team Rat Pack (led by Miss Bi)]

Nobility has not one wit to do with it. The only one harmed by this lie is the one who lies to himself about the find. How could it possibly hurt me or you or our troops or some kid in a hut in a third world country? It is harmless to everyone but the one making the claim.

 

Hmmmm.. Maybe it was just the way I was raised. Mommy and Daddy always taught me that lying is wrong, regarless of whether it is a white lie or not. White lies do not necessarily hurt anyone, but the problem here (and we all know it's true), once you allow the white lie, bigger lies will almost always follow. The problem is not that logging pocket caches is hurting me, but that down the road, it will eventually affect everyone.

 

It's called seeing the big picture.

 

Oh yeah? And the last time your lovely lady asked you "does this make my butt look big?" you said????

We all tell tiny white lies all the time. "Oh sure honey, I LOVE your meat loaf" or "Yes, sweetie, that is the best picture of a rabbit I have ever seen!" Its the big national and international lies that get us into trouble not the cacher that fibs.

And no, I have never logged a cache I did not find and yes, I post ALL my DNF's even the ones that make me blush later when I go back and find that the cache was really easy and we were collectively blind.

[+The Cheeseheads]

Since the folks multi-logging the event probably don't read the forums anyway, all the vitriol is lost...

 

That's why TPTB should roll back all those multi-finds. All the multi-finder folks will come screaming to the forums and we'll get a chance to meet them. What a great opportunity!

Yeah! And since virtuals and locationless caches aren't part of the site anymore, all those counts should be removed as well and transferred over to Waymarking!

[+ReadyOrNot]

For the sake of discussion, Tell me who exactly is a cacher "lying to" by logging a mutliple find?

 

When I walk into the department of motor vehicles to get my drivers license, they ask me my weight. I tell them the weight I'd "Like to be", which is about 50 pounds under my current weight. I'm not hurting the lady behind the counter. It's a simple white lie. Noone gets hurt. The question was, "Who am I lying to".. the answer is: Everyone that looks at your drivers license. Are you honestly arguing that making a misrepresentation is not lying or are you arguing that lying is okay as long as it doesn't "appear" to hurt anyone but yourself? I'm having a hard time following your reasoning here.

 

The bigger question is why they ask me my weight? Will misrepresenting my weight possibly cause confusion at some future time or cause a delay in identifying my body in the event of a terrible accident. What if I get kidnapped and the police use the incorrect information and it delays them making proper identification. Just because it appears to be an innocent lie doesn't mean it won't affect others at some point. A lie is a lie and we aren't suppose to do it for a reason. Because it's wrong.

[Neos2]

Shocked and dismayed that cachers would log an event (or any cache) more than once. If it is the way they want to play would they log a traditional as a find every time they went back to it to drop a travel bug? Would they find a five-stage multi and log it 5 times ? I will never look at a cacher from Wisconsin again without wondering if their numbers are inflated.

 

I don't know the definition of a Mega Event, but only 77 cachers attended the event in Wisconsin. To me it is more of a mega farce.

 

Loch Cache

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't care how people log what they find.

 

Some couples have a joint account and each make a log for every cache they find. If they happen to both find the same cache, it gets logged twice. Once for Mr. Couple and once for Mrs. Couple. If one of them is in Cleveland and the other one is in Nashville for the day, there can be logs from both places on one account. That wouldn't suit me, because I want an easier way to see if I found a cache that my every-lovin-honey has found or not, but hey, whatever works for them is OK by me.

 

Some people log every cache they find, even if they have to make a note or a found it on an event page, and that suits me, too. Me, I'd rather have a special category called "event caches" that I could log, so I can keep my caches separate from my events. But, hey, if that is the only way to do it right now, then so be it.

 

Some people log every cache they go to as "found" just to show they are done looking for that cache (whether they find it or not). Other people never log any cache they find. Some people refuse to write a note or a DNF on a cache they didn't find unless they think it is missing, others will only make a DNF when they won't be back to look again. Me, I perfer to only log the ones I actually find as found, the ones I don't find as not found, and the ones I found by couldn't sign for some reason as a note, but if it makes them happy, then so be it.

 

And so on and so forth...of course, the owner of the log has a lot to say about whether they will allow those sorts of logs on their cache/event.

 

One thing I think some folks are missing is that as far as I know, the people who are logging multiple attends on an event page are logging the extra attends to count instead of the event caches found. They are NOT just saying "Oh, I think I'll log this event 10 times to inflate my numbers" they are saying "Oh, I'll log this event 9 extra times to symbolize the 9 caches I found at the event" That is different than just making up numbers for the heck of it. On the other hand, if you really really really care to know if they did that or not, you can always go look at their profile and compare the number of event attended logs to the numbers of events that show up in their logs. Subtract the difference and you'll know how many event caches they claim to have found. Of course, you still won't have a clue if they really found that number of caches or not, because they may not have logged some they found and they may have logged some they did not find.

 

So why does it matter, again? Really, why does it matter? I have no idea how many caches you are claiming. Your caches have nothing to do with my caches. I hope you enjoyed yours even half as much as I enjoyed mine.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Neos2

[+ReadyOrNot]

Oh yeah? And the last time your lovely lady asked you "does this make my butt look big?" you said????

 

Yes, we are all liars. BUT, when I lie, I recognize that it's wrong and try not to do it anymore. Some people justify their lies and try to make it OK. There is a big difference between the two.

 

When my wife asks if she looks fat in her jeans, it's a signal to get out of the room as soon as humanly possible. If you can't escape, try saying, "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that whatever answer I give will result in a possible loss of one or both of my ....[fill in the blank]."

 

Just because we can lie doesn't mean we should.

[+The Cheeseheads]

Is Wisconsin the Focal Point of Untruthfulness?

Here's a question, and I mean this in the nicest possible way...

 

How did you come across this event? Did someone email the link to you saying "Hey Crim, look at this!"? Did you accidentally enter the wrong GC number into a search? Or do you make a habit of checking out every event that happens in Wisconsin just to see if people multi-log it or not?

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

So why does it matter, again? Really, why does it matter?

 

It doesn't. Did you post this in the suduko thread, too? None of this matters. It's a game.

 

This is a discussion, and people are discussing.

[+Criminal]

2: I was new. Everyone else did it that way, so I thought it was the norm.

That is one of the biggest issues I see with those logging practices.

 

In the OP I sort of tongue-in-cheek asked if Wisconsin were to focal point of untruthfulness. By focal point I wasn’t saying that all Wisconsin cachers were untruthful, only that it seems to be centered there, and has spread outward from there. I know they are the minority, the cacher I quoted here is someone I have much respect for. Just because we don’t always agree 100% on things means only that we don’t always agree 100% on things.

 

In the time between GW4 and now, little has changed. If anyone (me especially) exposes those shady logging practices, we are met with hostility. It’s much like when someone is caught red-handed doing something they know in their heart is wrong and they attack you for discovering it. I seem to be hearing some say, “If you buff up a turd until it shines, it’s not a turd anymore.” It does not seem that we can have an intelligent debate about the issue whatsoever.

 

I think it’s time to close this one up, we aren’t getting anywhere and there are already two other threads that are similar.

[+Team Rat Pack (led by Miss Bi)]

Oh yeah? And the last time your lovely lady asked you "does this make my butt look big?" you said????

 

Yes, we are all liars. BUT, when I lie, I recognize that it's wrong and try not to do it anymore. Some people justify their lies and try to make it OK. There is a big difference between the two.

 

When my wife asks if she looks fat in her jeans, it's a signal to get out of the room as soon as humanly possible. If you can't escape, try saying, "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that whatever answer I give will result in a possible loss of one or both of my ....[fill in the blank]."

 

Just because we can lie doesn't mean we should.

 

Oooooh OK so as long as I RECOGNIZE it and TRY not to do it anymore its ok?

[+ReadyOrNot]

Oh yeah? And the last time your lovely lady asked you "does this make my butt look big?" you said????

 

Yes, we are all liars. BUT, when I lie, I recognize that it's wrong and try not to do it anymore. Some people justify their lies and try to make it OK. There is a big difference between the two.

 

When my wife asks if she looks fat in her jeans, it's a signal to get out of the room as soon as humanly possible. If you can't escape, try saying, "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that whatever answer I give will result in a possible loss of one or both of my ....[fill in the blank]."

 

Just because we can lie doesn't mean we should.

 

Oooooh OK so as long as I RECOGNIZE it and TRY not to do it anymore its ok?

 

Screwing up is OKAY. Lying is not OKAY. Do you see the difference? Unless you are perfect, you are going to screw up. I'm again at a loss trying to figure out what you are arguing for and against here. Are you arguing that lying is okay?

[+Criminal]

Is Wisconsin the Focal Point of Untruthfulness?

Here's a question, and I mean this in the nicest possible way...

 

How did you come across this event? Did someone email the link to you saying "Hey Crim, look at this!"? Did you accidentally enter the wrong GC number into a search? Or do you make a habit of checking out every event that happens in Wisconsin just to see if people multi-log it or not?

An often asked question!

 

No, sometimes I find it interesting to see why people have archived their caches, so I look at the Recent Logs list. Sometimes caches are archived within days of approval, and often without any finders. Other times caches are archived simply because they don’t generate many emails to the owner anymore. Some are stolen, some are lost, and a lot are archived because the owner has gone AWOL. Nevertheless, I find that interesting.

 

So anyway, I was scanning down the list and began to see dozens of Attended logs for the same event, and after looking closer, noticed they were all by the same geocacher. Huh. So then I looked at the event and was pretty shocked.

 

I considered pushing the SBA button but posted in the forums instead. Bad choice?

[+wimseyguy]

IBTL, and just wanted to update the numbers for this discussion.

As of 5:30 PM EST there have been 344 posts and 5486 views of this thread.

So only 6% of the views have found it necessary to add to the discussion.

Furthermore the top 10 posters now represent 174 of those posts, or 50.8%.

Seems like very little has changed except for a few post counts have gone up.

 

PS I didn't track it, but I don't think anyone new has cracked the top 10 in the past 24 hours either.

Edited January 25, 2007 by wimseyguy

[Pto]

For the sake of discussion, Tell me who exactly is a cacher "lying to" by logging a mutliple find?

 

When I walk into the department of motor vehicles to get my drivers license, they ask me my weight. I tell them the weight I'd "Like to be", which is about 50 pounds under my current weight. I'm not hurting the lady behind the counter. It's a simple white lie. Noone gets hurt. The question was, "Who am I lying to".. the answer is: Everyone that looks at your drivers license. Are you honestly arguing that making a misrepresentation is not lying or are you arguing that lying is okay as long as it doesn't "appear" to hurt anyone but yourself? I'm having a hard time following your reasoning here.

 

First, you didnt even come close to answering MY question, but instead made some far out comparison to the DMV & DL's. being kidnapped etc-

A Drivers License is your legal identification- This is a Game- See the difference?

 

As for the underlined sentence above- I wasnt aruging Anything- I was Simply asking a direct question, seeking a direct answer to THAT question.

Tell me who exactly is a cacher "lying to" by logging a mutliple find?

 

Give that a try, without going off on tangents to make "your point"

[Luckless]

Why does ANYONE care how many finds or not another cacher has? Or if, or not, the find is legitimate or accurate or however you wish to term it. We have 9 active caches around here. We don't check the log book to assure that every cacher who says they have found it has. We just take their word. It does not effect my game! Or yours. Can't each of us just play our own game?

 

Join hands boys and girls and lets sing......cum ba ya....... [/quote

 

Like it or not, unless you plan to stand over someone and monitor their every move people are going to play the game the way they want to play it and log the way they want to log.

Pocket caches are a little confusing because logging them has been an acceptable practice, but the guidelines don't seem to approve of moving or temporary caches. Only allowing one smilie per cache might make logging adhere closer to the guidelines but it isn't going to stop inaccuracy.

You can't always compare stats. You can't compare parking lot caches to three mile hike caches. If you are a cache owner you can delete bogus finds, (or at least the ones you think are bogus), but you can't stop people from logging them or owners from deleting them, so arguing about these things seems pointless.

If someone reaches a milestone, Hooray. If someone finds a personal best in one day, Hooray. If someone logs thirty bogus caches in Iceland (are there caches in Iceland?), well okay if that's what makes them happy. If someone deletes the logs to all of his caches, well they're allowed to do that so let it go, wasn't the hunt fun? Isn't the point to have fun?

Cum ba ya my lord cum ba ya....

[+Harry Dolphin]

One thing I think some folks are missing is that as far as I know, the people who are logging multiple attends on an event page are logging the extra attends to count instead of the event caches found. They are NOT just saying "Oh, I think I'll log this event 10 times to inflate my numbers" they are saying "Oh, I'll log this event 9 extra times to symbolize the 9 caches I found at the event" That is different than just making up numbers for the heck of it.

 

There's a difference? They're logging that they attended the event ten times.

[+Lostby7]

Hey great topic, love the show. Can't wait for the next thread that says exactly the same thing over and over and over. You folks should just copy your remarks and save them so that they are ready for the next thread, it could be a real time saver.