Multiple Finds on one Cache

[+Kit Fox]

Each of my found it logs = one cache actually found. Each of my attended logs = an event attended. Is that better? That's for others to judge. It is more accurate though.

There...what he said.

Bret

 

You are supposed to take it personally!

I cited the same three examples I used in this thread in that other thread but you didn't answer my question over there so it is good that you showed up over here.

I used exactly the same examples but added a Wisconsonian (Wisconsinite?) for good measure.

 

Here is what I said over there:

 

There are caches that are designed to be found multiple times, these caches are within the guidelines.

People have fun finding them and they are not doing anything wrong.

Their Finds are entirely legitimate and each is a unique experience, a unique Find.

They are not claiming a Find when a cache is missing in action.

In fact they can say the same thing that you said, is this not obvious?

 

It is nice to hear you admit that seeking a correspondence between unique GC numbers and the Find count is simply being "anal" and that you don't consider the GC number sacrosanct. On the other hand Kit Fox is implying that the correspondence between the two numbers represents "integrity" which is clearly very wrong, at least that is obvious to me, is it obvious to you?

 

My integrity is doing the right thing, when nobody lese is looking. Caching with integrity means finding geocaches, and signing the logbooks, or correctly logging Virtuals, and Earthcaches. When I referred to GC#s, my point is that, temporary caches found during events, and logged as "multiple attended logs, are not real geocaches. They don't have there own cache page, nor are they permanent (which is a requirement for a an approved GC.com geocache.

 

If you read the examples I have cited you will see that each represents a case where every Find is unique.

You are implying that a GC number is the only thing that represents a unique Find or a unique geocaching experience and this is incorrect.

 

This is what we are discussing, how incorrect assumptions lead people to think they have good smilies or that others have tainted smilies.

 

Tainted or not, they may be incorrect in your view, but they are not real finds, in my book. I hide and find the type of caches that I like to find, and I wont be telling you how to play your game.

[Mushtang]

bogus finds.

 

Your assumptions are showing.

I'm going out on a limb here claiming that you took my words out of context.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Mushtang

[vagabond]

In over 6 years of caching and over 2800 finds I have 3 that I have logged twice, all 3 from the early days of caching when caches could be moved.

2 of the 3 were moved about a half a mile from the original cache spot the 3rd was moved over 5 miles from the original spot, so although they have the same gc # I look at them as different finds and logged them twice.

There have been maybe 4 or 5 that have slipped through and have come back as not found when I went for those caches and realized that I had already found them at that spot I just posted a note.

[n0wae]

After reading this thread and going over my own recorded finds I came up with two recorded double finds on a single cache. It appears that cache owners can throw us curve balls on this subject. On Cache #1 it appears that instead of archiving his cache and creating a new one the cache owner re-cycled his cache page by changing the cache name to BTP II with a new cache in a new location with the same GC#. The cache somehow showed up on my radar screen and I remember being quite surprised and confused when I discovered that my name was already in the logbook.

 

Cache #2 has a cache owner creating a 3 stage multi in town with a logbook at stage 3 and an optional cache at step 4 with a logbook. The optional cache is a killer hike in the mountains far removed from the first logbook. I wish the cache owner had given the optional cache its own GC# but he didn't. Most cachers that do this cache only do the first part because " If you find Home Plate you are really a dedicated Cacher and deserve the Grand Slam".

 

I think a lot of problems would be solved if we could only log one find per GC# and caches like the two above were never approved. That being said are these examples valid 'exceptions' or should I change my second found it to a note?

[+wavector]

 

If you truely play the game your way and don't care about how other people play, why are you posting so much to this thread?

 

Isn't it obvious?

 

I started the thread, that is why I am posting to it, you can call me the OP if you like.

I asked a simple question, it really isn't hard to answer.

You can take a shot at it yourself if you want.

My answer is ready even if you're not.

 

Here is the question in it's simplest form:

Do you think people who are logging multiple finds on caches designed to be logged multiple times are doing something wrong.

[+wavector]

I'm going out on a limb here claiming that you took my words out of context.

 

I asked a simple question. It relates to "Finds", not to "bogus Finds". I am sorry if I wasn't clear about the question. Feel free to answer the question. Here it is in it's simplest form.

 

Do you think people who are logging multiple finds on caches designed to be logged multiple times are doing something wrong?

 

(wow, I'm explaining that again)

[Mushtang]

simple question

Your assumptions are showing

[+ReadyOrNot]

Do you think people who are logging multiple finds on caches designed to be logged multiple times are doing something wrong. [/i]

 

Yes.. In most cases they are lying to get more finds. You've used examples which are not the norm to try to prop up your argument, but the fact remains that there are dishonest people in this world. Are you one of them? Do you lie to get ahead? Do you return the $5 bill to the cashier when they accidently give you too much change back? Do you pick up the $1 and put it in your pocket, or return it to the person who dropped it? Do you put a higher amount on your donation to Goodwill to boost the tax deduction? Do you and your wife pretend to not know each other to take advantage of the great deal offered to "One per household"?

 

When I use to deliver pizzas, I'd tell the customer that if they called the main office and complained that the pizza was late, they would get 50% off the pizza. So they'd call, get 50% off and most of the time would double my tip because of the money I helped save them. I basically gave them permission to do something that was wrong. We both benefited from the situation and were in agreement. Does the fact that we were in agreement make it right? NO. In your situation, just because the cache owner ALLOWS multiple finds on the cache, doesn't make it right and doesn't make it any less dishonest.

 

IMO

[+Totem Clan]

 

Do you think people who are logging multiple finds on caches designed to be logged multiple times are doing something wrong?

 

I'll state where I stand on this again.

 

You, the OP, are talking about a cache like this one. Winter is CITO Season Is that correct?

 

I have logged that one. I will only log it once as an attend. The rest of the times that I meet the requirement for it, I will log a note. That is the way I do it to keep track of my unique "finds".

 

If another cacher wishes to log it multiple times, I'm OK with that. That cache is within the GC guidelines/rules and is meant to be logged multiple times if you wish. If another cachers wants to do that, it's fine with me.

[+baloo&bd]

Do you think people who are logging multiple finds on caches designed to be logged multiple times are doing something wrong?

 

Can you point out a cache type that per the CURRENT guidelines (meaning: Not Grandfathered in) is designed for being found multiple times?

[+baloo&bd]

 

You, the OP, are talking about a cache like this one. Winter is CITO Season Is that correct?

 

I have logged that one. I will only log it once as an attend. The rest of the times that I meet the requirement for it, I will log a note. That is the way I do it to keep track of my unique "finds".

 

If another cacher wishes to log it multiple times, I'm OK with that. That cache is within the GC guidelines/rules and is meant to be logged multiple times if you wish. If another cachers wants to do that, it's fine with me.

 

Note from that cache listing:

 

"** This cache is a locationless cache that was approved in 2002 by special permission of Groundspeak. Caches like this are no longer being approved. The reason this cache is still alive and active is because it is grandfathered under the old guidelines."

[+Totem Clan]

 

You, the OP, are talking about a cache like this one. Winter is CITO Season Is that correct?

 

I have logged that one. I will only log it once as an attend. The rest of the times that I meet the requirement for it, I will log a note. That is the way I do it to keep track of my unique "finds".

 

If another cacher wishes to log it multiple times, I'm OK with that. That cache is within the GC guidelines/rules and is meant to be logged multiple times if you wish. If another cachers wants to do that, it's fine with me.

 

Note from that cache listing:

 

"** This cache is a locationless cache that was approved in 2002 by special permission of Groundspeak. Caches like this are no longer being approved. The reason this cache is still alive and active is because it is grandfathered under the old guidelines."

You're right, but I think that's what the OP is talking about. I'm not sure. Just trying to get a clear picture of what he is asking about.

 

Edit to say: You won't find any under the "new" guidelines, but there are some still out there like this one.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Totem Clan

[+wavector]

My integrity is doing the right thing, when nobody lese is looking. Caching with integrity means finding geocaches, and signing the logbooks, or correctly logging Virtuals, and Earthcaches.

... but they are not real finds, in my book.

 

Apparently "your integrity" doesn't include simple respect for others.

People logging multiple "Finds" on a cache designed to be found multiple times are not doing anything incorrect or wrong, they are logging correctly. They are doing as the cache placer instructs, the caches are within the guidelines, this listing service allows them to do that.

Where on earth do you get off suggesting that they are doing something incorrect or wrong, that is the very height of arrogance?

 

You can't redefine a simple word like integrity, integrity already has a definition. Caching with integrity means caching with honesty and virtue, it has nothing to do with some stupid made-up rule.

Applying a simplistic kindergarten-level metric like GC#'s/Finds to your own journey through the geoworld is your right. Suggesting that my finds are not real finds because I don't adhere to your kindergarten-level metrics is nothing more than arrogance manifesting itself as rudeness.

[+wavector]

Do you think people who are logging multiple finds on caches designed to be logged multiple times are doing something wrong. [/i]

 

Yes.. In most cases they are lying...

 

 

OK, your smilies are better than everyone elses smilies. Have fun out there buddy.

[+wavector]

Can you point out a cache type that per the CURRENT guidelines (meaning: Not Grandfathered in) is designed for being found multiple times?

 

Why should it matter when it was approved?

What does that have to do with anything?

The stupid GC/Finds rule doesn't fly and it can't be made to fly.

 

New geocachers go out geocaching, they are going out to have fun. They find a Moving cache, they read the instructions, they log the "Find". They go out another day, they Find the cache again, they log the Find. They are complying with the guidelines, they are complying with the cache placer's instructions. The listing says it is OK, this listing service allows them to do what they are instructed to do.

Anyone who questions their integrity is "pompous, self righteous, arrogant and fanatical".

 

Is this not obvious?

Edited March 15, 2007 by wavector

[+wavector]

If another cacher wishes to log it multiple times, I'm OK with that. That cache is within the GC guidelines/rules and is meant to be logged multiple times if you wish. If another cachers wants to do that, it's fine with me.

 

Our smilies must be the same kind of smilies.

I know you have fun out there.

[+Criminal]

I have 13 active caches. If anyone can find all of them in one 48 hour period (without using a helicopter), I’ll allow them to claim two smileys for each and give them $500.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

It is nice to hear you admit that seeking a correspondence between unique GC numbers and the Find count is simply being "anal" and that you don't consider the GC number sacrosanct. On the other hand Kit Fox is implying that the correspondence between the two numbers represents "integrity" which is clearly very wrong, at least that is obvious to me, is it obvious to you?

 

I have learned that integrity is what it is to each individual. If I'm living out my integrity I shouldn't have to defend or explain it. If Kit Fox sees cache logging as a matter of integrity, should I talk him out of that? And if I can talk him out of that, what does that say about his personal integrity anyway?

 

For me, I log each cache I find once and only once (wow, I'm explaining that again). I want my stats to stand for unique caches. I have many friends who don't play that way and I celebrate their milestones with them. As I've said many times, it's not a competition.

 

And you know what? For me--for my game--it is a matter of personal integrity. Because if I break the rules I've chosen to play with then I've sacrificed a little bit of my integrity. As someone once said, "Faithful in the small things...."

 

Bret

 

It seems folks just don't want to admit that the word "integrity" should be used in a silly game that everyone plays their own way. I believe that Bret said it well with this quote:

 

And integrity is far too valuable to have it called into question over something as insignificant as a silly little game.

 

If I take an extra $20 out of the Monopoly box when you're not looking, that's poor integrity. It doesn't have to be $100 out of a cash register at your local convenience store.

 

I also agree with what you say above, about everyone finding their own personal standard of integrity when it comes to caching.

 

They are doing as the cache placer instructs, the caches are within the guidelines, this listing service allows them to do that.

 

See, this is a very poor reason to move my personal integrity bar over. Just because the site or even a cache owner allows me multiple "Found It" logs does not mean that's a good reason to do it.

 

When a cache is designed to be found multiple times it is fine to do so and people who do that aren't doing anything wrong.

 

I assume when you talk about "designed" you're talking about moving caches only, which are like the rarest type of cache you can find. Traditional, mulit, and virtual caches are not "designed" to be found multiple times. Event caches Temp. caches are not "designed" to be found multiple times. Temp. caches are not "designed" to be logged multiple times. (or at all) Pocket caches are not "designed" to be logged multiple times. (or at all)

 

So are you just talking about moving caches?

 

The GC number is just a number, it needs to be shot down, the ridiculous assumption that each GC number should represent one Find and no more is in a word "ridiculous" and subscribers to that theory are simply looking for something that doesn't exist, unconditional respect for their smilies.

 

Why is it "ridiculous" for people to assume you can "Found It" on each cache only once and that according to their own integrity to do so would be bogus? (excluding the 3 moving caches still out there) I really am not affected nor do I care much if you take an extra $20 out of the Monopoly box, but I won't, and reserve the right to be amused if you do it.

 

Accepting that the numbers aren't important is simply admitting that you expect nothing for finding tupperware in the woods, no great loss.

 

WE KNOW! That's why we find it so funny when people log multiple times for all their myriad reasons! It's the "puritans" that care less about the numbers. The multi-loggers have to care more about numbers, or else they wouldn't go to such extremes to rack up so many smilies in so many extraneous ways!

Edited March 15, 2007 by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

[+wavector]

Your assumptions are showing

 

What part of the question requires more complexity?

Here it is framed as a scenario, it might make it easier for you to fall on one side of the fence or the other.

 

Experienced geocachers go out geocaching, they are going out to have fun. They find a Moving cache, they read the instructions, they log the "Find". They go out another day, they Find the cache in a completely different location where it was hidden by a different geocacher, they log another Find. Do you think that they are logging "Finds" or do you think they are they doing something incorrect or wrong?

 

Perhaps you could also decide that they are "for the most part lying"...

Since I have met you in many discussions on these forums I suspect that that option is not really appealing, it guarantees the lowest reader returns though.

 

Moving caches are very popular on this listing service. In almost every case they have double digit watcher numbers and many have a sub-page where local communities keep track of the "Finds". CyBret did say he wasn't familiar with Multi-target caches, I found this surprising given that he is the principle in the Geocacher University and he has been geocaching for awhile.

 

The geocachers I described above are doing nothing wrong even though some want to claim that they are "not real Finds". Those claiming they are not real finds do so because they believe in some stupid metric about numbers. The geocachers making the finds are geocaching, foisting a stupid made-up metric onto the activity isn't required. People who think that the simple metrics they adopt are "rules" are obssessed. In fact most are so obssessed that the real common sense practical description that I gave above is reduced to "they are most likely liars" or "they are not real finds".

 

GC#'s=Finds is a stupid, kindergarten-level made-up rule that has no basis being used as a metric. It is misleading, invalid and the assumptions that stem from it's adoption are rude and disrespectful.

[+wavector]

I have 13 active caches. If anyone can find all of them in one 48 hour period (without using a helicopter), I’ll allow them to claim two smileys for each and give them $500.

 

This website does not allow two Found logs on a cache.

[+frivlas]

I have 13 active caches. If anyone can find all of them in one 48 hour period (without using a helicopter), I’ll allow them to claim two smileys for each and give them $500.

 

This website does not allow two Found logs on a cache.

 

The website does...it's just the forum population that doesn't. Unless that has changed in the last 2 weeks or so.

[+wavector]

 

Why is it "ridiculous" for people to assume you can "Found It" on each cache only once...

 

It is ridiculous to make any assumptions about the numbers claimed by other people.

Go ahead and adopt any metric you like, just don't tout it as a standard when it clearly isn't.

I might think that anyone who has logged a Moving cache is not really geocaching and no harm is done. If I want to believe that the second Find isn't a real Find then I am just flying in the face of common sense, it is clear that they have recorded a Find and this listing service has acknowledged the claim that they made, but again, no harm is done by my beliefs. When I suggest that those same people lack integrity because they have logged a Moving cache twice or I insist that the claim that they Found the cache is "bogus" then I am doing nothing more than being "pompous, self righteous, arrogant and fanatical".

[+CYBret]

CyBret did say he wasn't familiar with Multi-target caches, I found this surprising given that he is the principle in the Geocacher University and he has been geocaching for awhile.

 

Actually, CYBret said:

Found a moving cache - logged it as a note

 

Never attended a moving meeting - if I did I'd log it once

 

Never found a virtual like the one you described, but I've found plenty of virtuals...and logged most of them.

Emphasis mine...because....well...it's mine.

 

Bret

[+wavector]

The website does...it's just the forum population that doesn't. Unless that has changed in the last 2 weeks or so.

 

It may come as a surprise to you to find that these forums are full of other people and that you have no official standing as a spokesperson, feel free to speak your own mind though!!!

 

The only person who has directly said that other geocachers fail to meet some made-up standard is Kit Fox. The standard that he is claiming others must meet is simplistic, it is peurile, it is stupid and it is a standard that has been conclusively and completely rejected in the community in which I live.

We are geocaching within the guidelines and our finds are not bogus.

 

Here is a simple excercise which should give you some worthwhile insights into the dynamics of a public forum. This will further the cause that you apparently subscribe to as well.

You go tell this person or this person that their finds are bogus because you believe in some silly metric, tell them that they lack integrity because the forum population says they have to adopt the stupid standard that you believe in...when you are done trouncing them for their audacity in correctly logging caches come back and tell us how easy it was.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

The only person who has directly said that other geocachers fail to meet some made-up standard is Kit Fox. The standard that he is claiming others must meet is simplistic, it is peurile, it is stupid and it is a standard that has been conclusively and completely rejected in the community in which I live.

 

See, that's what I'd call a personal attack.

 

t is ridiculous to make any assumptions about the numbers claimed by other people.

Go ahead and adopt any metric you like, just don't tout it as a standard when it clearly isn't.

I might think that anyone who has logged a Moving cache is not really geocaching and no harm is done. If I want to believe that the second Find isn't a real Find then I am just flying in the face of common sense, it is clear that they have recorded a Find and this listing service has acknowledged the claim that they made, but again, no harm is done by my beliefs. When I suggest that those same people lack integrity because they have logged a Moving cache twice or I insist that the claim that they Found the cache is "bogus" then I am doing nothing more than being "pompous, self righteous, arrogant and fanatical".

 

You're basing your whole argument on moving caches? Not only are they very rare, they aren't even allowed to be published anymore!

 

Gimme some good reasoning why the real caches that we see everyday should be logged twice. Moving caches are almost so archaic newbies probably don't even know what you're talking about.

 

Many, many, many of us have already told you we don't give a flip about numbers claimed by other people. Many of us do feel, however, that multi-logging of the same cache is something we don't believe in, and for many of us, that reason is integrity. That's mine and several others' reason, and that may not even factor into yours or the multi-loggers' thinking.

 

Seems the word integrity gets under some folk's skin for some reason. Don't know why. As Cybret already stated, we all set our own bar. Does it bug you that the word, integrity is cited as our reason to not log caches more than once? (okay, okay, okay- except for all those moving caches)

Edited March 15, 2007 by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

[+frivlas]

The website does...it's just the forum population that doesn't. Unless that has changed in the last 2 weeks or so.

 

It may come as a surprise to you to find that these forums are full of other people and that you have no official standing as a spokesperson, feel free to speak your own mind though!!!

 

The only person who has directly said that other geocachers fail to meet some made-up standard is Kit Fox. The standard that he is claiming others must meet is simplistic, it is peurile, it is stupid and it is a standard that has been conclusively and completely rejected in the community in which I live.

We are geocaching within the guidelines and our finds are not bogus.

 

Here is a simple excercise which should give you some worthwhile insights into the dynamics of a public forum. This will further the cause that you apparently subscribe to as well.

You go tell this person or this person that their finds are bogus because you believe in some silly metric, tell them that they lack integrity because the forum population says they have to adopt the stupid standard that you believe in...when you are done trouncing them for their audacity in correctly logging caches come back and tell us how easy it was.

 

Who pee'd in your pool?! I responded to your incorrect statement that "This website does not allow two Found logs on a cache." As I mentioned, unless it has changed in the last 2 weeks which is the last time I received two found it logs from the same person on the same cache, then the website most certainly DOES allow two found it logs on the same cache. As the threads in this forum indicate pretty clearly, a large percentage of the population is against the practice. So, As you said..." It may come as a surprise to you to find that these forums are full of other people and that you have no official standing as a spokesperson" that being said, I fail to see how my post warranted the absolute rudeness that was your reply.

Edited March 15, 2007 by frivlas

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

The website does...it's just the forum population that doesn't. Unless that has changed in the last 2 weeks or so.

 

It may come as a surprise to you to find that these forums are full of other people and that you have no official standing as a spokesperson, feel free to speak your own mind though!!!

 

The only person who has directly said that other geocachers fail to meet some made-up standard is Kit Fox. The standard that he is claiming others must meet is simplistic, it is peurile, it is stupid and it is a standard that has been conclusively and completely rejected in the community in which I live.

We are geocaching within the guidelines and our finds are not bogus.

 

Here is a simple excercise which should give you some worthwhile insights into the dynamics of a public forum. This will further the cause that you apparently subscribe to as well.

You go tell this person or this person that their finds are bogus because you believe in some silly metric, tell them that they lack integrity because the forum population says they have to adopt the stupid standard that you believe in...when you are done trouncing them for their audacity in correctly logging caches come back and tell us how easy it was.

 

Who pee'd in your pool?! I responded to your incorrect statement that "This website does not allow two Found logs on a cache." As I mentioned, unless it has changed in the last 2 weeks which is the last time I received two found it logs from the same person on the same cache, then the website most certainly DOES allow two found it logs on the same cache. As the threads in this forum indicate pretty clearly, a large percentage of the population is against the practice. So, As you said..." It may come as a surprise to you to find that these forums are full of other people and that you have no official standing as a spokesperson" that being said, I fail to see how my post warranted the absolute rudeness that was your reply.

 

You were correct on ALL accounts, frivlas.

[+frivlas]

Furthermore, Mr. Wavevector, since you apparently know my exact stand on this matter and have attempted to tell me off for my alleged views, please....do tell me my feeling on loggin multiple finds on one cache....am I in favor of it or against it?

[+BlueDeuce]

I think a lot of problems would be solved if we could only log one find per GC#

 

I don't know how many problems it would solve but it definately throw a bunch of justifications out the window. Including mine. I'm all for it.

[+Kit Fox]

My integrity is doing the right thing, when nobody lese is looking. Caching with integrity means finding geocaches, and signing the logbooks, or correctly logging Virtuals, and Earthcaches.

... but they are not real finds, in my book.

 

Apparently "your integrity" doesn't include simple respect for others.

People logging multiple "Finds" on a cache designed to be found multiple times are not doing anything incorrect or wrong, they are logging correctly. They are doing as the cache placer instructs, the caches are within the guidelines, this listing service allows them to do that.

Where on earth do you get off suggesting that they are doing something incorrect or wrong, that is the very height of arrogance?

 

Get the wax out of your ears, or the buggers out of your eyes. I made no judgement about grandfathered moving caches. I replaced a moving cache once, but did not log it as a find, because I did not find it. Did you bother reading any of the three example threads that I posted on my first post to this thread? The main theme in those three threads were cachers logging finds on temporary caches, hidden for an event only, or pocket caches.

 

You can't redefine a simple word like integrity, integrity already has a definition. Caching with integrity means caching with honesty and virtue, it has nothing to do with some stupid made-up rule.

Applying a simplistic kindergarten-level metric like GC#'s/Finds to your own journey through the geoworld is your right. Suggesting that my finds are not real finds because I don't adhere to your kindergarten-level metrics is nothing more than arrogance manifesting itself as rudeness.

 

Pot calls kettle black? Your the poster that is coming off like a pompous, arrogant you know what, whenever anyone disagrees with your "version" of geocaching.

 

Can you point out a cache type that per the CURRENT guidelines (meaning: Not Grandfathered in) is designed for being found multiple times?

 

Why should it matter when it was approved?

What does that have to do with anything?

The stupid GC/Finds rule doesn't fly and it can't be made to fly.

 

New geocachers go out geocaching, they are going out to have fun. They find a Moving cache, they read the instructions, they log the "Find". They go out another day, they Find the cache again, they log the Find. They are complying with the guidelines, they are complying with the cache placer's instructions. The listing says it is OK, this listing service allows them to do what they are instructed to do.

Anyone who questions their integrity is "pompous, self righteous, arrogant and fanatical".

 

Is this not obvious?

This is yet another example of you throwing your weight around, trying to tell others how to geocache. You keep bringing up Moving caches, but you refuse to acknowledge the examples of "non-grandfathered" caches that get multiple logs (like events used to pad stats, with temporary caches.)

 

The website does...it's just the forum population that doesn't. Unless that has changed in the last 2 weeks or so.

 

It may come as a surprise to you to find that these forums are full of other people and that you have no official standing as a spokesperson, feel free to speak your own mind though!!!

 

The problem is that you won't let anyone "speak our own mind," without acting like a three year old.

 

The only person who has directly said that other geocachers fail to meet some made-up standard is Kit Fox. The standard that he is claiming others must meet is simplistic, it is peurile, it is stupid and it is a standard that has been conclusively and completely rejected in the community in which I live.

We are geocaching within the guidelines and our finds are not bogus.

 

I'm raising the BS flag on your comment. I never once said that others play without integrity, when they log grandfathered, moving caches. Differentiate between multiple logs on moving caches, and on event cache pages. I explained the way I cache, I did not judge your method of geocaching.

 

Here is a simple excercise which should give you some worthwhile insights into the dynamics of a public forum. This will further the cause that you apparently subscribe to as well.

You go tell this person or this person that their finds are bogus because you believe in some silly metric, tell them that they lack integrity because the forum population says they have to adopt the stupid standard that you believe in...when you are done trouncing them for their audacity in correctly logging caches come back and tell us how easy it was.

 

Once again you're bloviating.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+wavector]

I'm very passionate about caching with integrity. I only log finds on caches with their own GC #s.

 

...but they are not real finds, in my book.

 

I never once said that others play without integrity

 

Perhaps you could explain what you meant then?

The question I framed in the opening post is very simple.

 

Are those logging finds on caches designed to be found multiple times doing something wrong?

 

The simple answer is "No, they are not."

If geocachers choose to log a cache multiple times and the cache is designed to be logged multiple times then they aren't doing anything wrong.

 

But feel free to explain why "they are not real finds."

[+wavector]

Who pee'd in your pool?!

 

You did.

 

The question in the opening post is very simple and you have a chance to answer it like everyone else in this public forum;

 

Are those logging finds on caches designed to be found multiple times doing something wrong?

 

I don't need you to tell me how the forum public feels. I didn't ask you for your opinion on the majority views, I asked a simple question.

As an FYI the "forum population" has no control over the logging practices of geocachers. Each person writes their own logs and they don't even need to read the forums before doing so.

[+frivlas]

Who pee'd in your pool?!

 

You did.

 

The question in the opening post is very simple and you have a chance to answer it like everyone else in this public forum;

 

Are those logging finds on caches designed to be found multiple times doing something wrong?

 

I don't need you to tell me how the forum public feels. I didn't ask you for your opinion on the majority views, I asked a simple question.

As an FYI the "forum population" has no control over the logging practices of geocachers. Each person writes their own logs and they don't even need to read the forums before doing so.

 

Have you read anything I have written? I was writing to point out an error in fact about the site. I have not stated my opinion either way although you apparently have already determined my opinion. I fail to see why you continue to in a rude manner when what you should be doing is apologizing. Just because you are the OP doesn't mean that you "own" the thread and have the right to bash whomever you please. You want my answer to your original question.....give me a sincere apology for the rude responses you have made to me here, and I will give you my honest answer.

[+wavector]

Does it bug you that the word, integrity is cited as our reason to not log caches more than once? (okay, okay, okay- except for all those moving caches)

 

You can cache the way you want to .

You can adhere to any standards that you wish.

 

I asked a simple question;

Are those logging finds on caches designed to be found multiple times doing something wrong?

 

The "GC#'s=Finds" standard is peurile, simplistic and stupid. It is a kindergarten-level metric that is nothing more than a childish attempt to foist a number metric onto the activity of geocaching. This is an attack on that standard, feel free to adhere to that standard and feel free to defend it. Don't suggest that my attack on that standard is a personal attack because it clearly isn't.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

The "GC#'s=Finds" standard is peurile, simplistic and stupid. It is a kindergarten-level metric that is nothing more than a childish attempt to foist a number metric onto the activity of geocaching.

 

I find this comment (and others you've made like it in this thread) to be dripping with irony.

[+wavector]

Have you read anything I have written? I was writing to point out an error in fact about the site.

 

I am sincerely sorry that you feel attacked because my intention was not to try and make you feel bad. It is very clear when you read this thread that I am aware of the fact that this site lets geoachers make multiple found logs and though I appreciate your pointing it out it really wasn't required.

I made that statement to Criminal because he made the offer that he did, double Find logs on caches not designed to be found more than once is a simple red herring and I am not sure why he threw it out. Double found logs are not permitted by cache placers but they are permitted by this listing service and multiple finds on caches designed to be found multiple times are not even remotely similar. I hope it is apparent that the owner of a moving cache would never delete multiple found logs but many other owners would.

 

I really do think the GC#s=Finds metric needs to be thrown out and had no intention of throwing you out at the same time, I am sorry if I have offended you.

 

And yes, I hope you know I really would be interested in your answer to my question.

[+wavector]

The "GC#'s=Finds" standard is peurile, simplistic and stupid. It is a kindergarten-level metric that is nothing more than a childish attempt to foist a number metric onto the activity of geocaching.

 

I find this comment (and others you've made like it in this thread) to be dripping with irony.

 

You are completely free to defend or tout that standard.

You are also free to answer my simple question.

Are those logging finds on caches designed to be found multiple times doing something wrong?

The irony is not completely free though, I had to earn it.

 

I live in a geocaching community that has moving caches, multiple-target caches and cache pages recycled for monthly events. The GC#s=Finds standard that others tout has been completely and conclusively rejected. I am free to attack that simplistic standard because it is rubbish.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

We don't care if you log a cache more than once, and we don't expect you to care that we think our "smilies are better than yours".

[+frivlas]

Have you read anything I have written? I was writing to point out an error in fact about the site.

 

I am sincerely sorry that you feel attacked because my intention was not to try and make you feel bad. It is very clear when you read this thread that I am aware of the fact that this site lets geoachers make multiple found logs and though I appreciate your pointing it out it really wasn't required.

I made that statement to Criminal because he made the offer that he did, double Find logs on caches not designed to be found more than once is a simple red herring and I am not sure why he threw it out. Double found logs are not permitted by cache placers but they are permitted by this listing service and multiple finds on caches designed to be found multiple times are not even remotely similar. I hope it is apparent that the owner of a moving cache would never delete multiple found logs but many other owners would.

 

I really do think the GC#s=Finds metric needs to be thrown out and had no intention of throwing you out at the same time, I am sorry if I have offended you.

 

And yes, I hope you know I really would be interested in your answer to my question.

 

Thank you. About your question....

 

"Are those logging finds on caches designed to be found multiple times doing something wrong?"

 

Simple answer in my opinion is No. When you talk about multi-target, if I recall you are talking about the Brass Cap cache....I havent' seen anything like that, but if that is how it is designed to work, kind of like the old locationless then I see nothing wrong with it. I've been to an event that recycled the GC number per official request and don't see a problem with logging it more than once....its frequently at a different place, I use the coords to get there, I sign the log when I get there, I don't see a problem with logging it each time. Moving caches....I have logged 3 of them now. One one time, one twice, and one 3 times. Each time I have found them, they have been in a different place and even looked different. I have even...GASP....logged the same cache twice when the container and location changed and the hider invited people to find it and log it again. The second hide was far superior to the first....why not log it again and give him the feedback he deserved.

[+wavector]

We don't care if you log a cache more than once, and we don't expect you to care that we think our "smilies are better than yours".

 

You are free to have superior smilies just don't try to use them to bludgeon me.

 

But what I was really asking wasn't if you cared or not, I asked :

Are those logging finds on caches designed to be found multiple times doing something wrong?

 

My intent in asking this question is simple, I am attacking a standard that I see touted by a small group of geocachers. The purpose of the standard is unclear, I suppose it might have some secondary value to some people somehere but I haven't seen any strong defenders of the standard and haven't seen anyone offer any valid reasons why it should be adopted, I have seen a lot of sour grapes.

The standard asserts that GC#s=Finds.

I live in a community that has moving caches, multiple-target caches and and uses recycled cache pages to list monthly events, the community has conclusively and completely rejected the standard as silly.

 

I am free to reject your response as silly also.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

You are also free to answer my simple question.

Are those logging finds on caches designed to be found multiple times doing something wrong?

 

I've already answered the question, but I'll say it in fewer words.

 

By my standard, yes they are.

 

When I click on the options to log, and it says, "Found It", I believe I can only "Found It" on a hidden item one time. After that I know where it is. Moving caches are the only ones that even apply, and there hasn't been one of those in my area as long as I've been caching. If I were to find a Moving cache multiple times, I'd log it the first time and write a note on the rest.

 

But other folks have their own standard. I've told you feel that integrity is my personal reason for not logging cache multiple times. I've asked for and never received in other threads a valid reason for people to log multiple times. The obvious reason is because they want the smiley count to increase.

 

Don't you see the irony in the fact that multi-loggers say "puritans" are overly worried about numbers when the ONLY reason that they log the same cache multiple times is because they want more numbers?!?

 

If numbers really didn't, and shouldn't, matter to the multi-loggers, why log more times than other folks? Why not skip every other log, or not log at all?

 

You are right about one thing. "GC#'s=Finds" doesn't exist. But the theory behind isn't "peurile, simplistic and stupid. " It's very logical, but all the folks logging twenty events, temp caches, pocket caches and the rest have made it pretty inaccurate.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

We don't care if you log a cache more than once, and we don't expect you to care that we think our "smilies are better than yours".

 

You are free to have superior smilies just don't try to use them to bludgeon me.

 

But what I was really asking wasn't if you cared or not, I asked :

Are those logging finds on caches designed to be found multiple times doing something wrong?

 

My intent in asking this question is simple, I am attacking a standard that I see touted by a small group of geocachers. The purpose of the standard is unclear, I suppose it might have some secondary value to some people somehere but I haven't seen any strong defenders of the standard and haven't seen anyone offer any valid reasons why it should be adopted, I have seen a lot of sour grapes.

The standard asserts that GC#s=Finds.

I live in a community that has moving caches, multiple-target caches and and uses recycled cache pages to list monthly events, the community has conclusively and completely rejected the standard as silly.

 

I am free to reject your response as silly also.

On a more serious note, in general I disagree with logging a cache more than once. I have never found a cache where I believed it was OK to log it more than once.

 

However, I can undertsand that there might exist some caches where logging more than once is acceptable. I don't fully undertsand these exception caches and why they exist, BUT if such caches involved completely independant searches/events, then I'd be less likely to disagree with logging them more than once.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

Edit: deleted duplicate post

Edited March 16, 2007 by Cedar Grove Seekers

[+wavector]

Thank you. About your question....

 

"Are those logging finds on caches designed to be found multiple times doing something wrong?"

 

Simple answer in my opinion is No.

 

Thanks for your answer Laurie. I really am sorry about the misunderstanding, I think you know I am not just paying lip service with my apology. I really never intend to offend anyone but expect those who are trying to cling to the GC#s=Finds standard will end up being offended.

 

There are many good reasons why the standard doesn't work and your answer definitely highlights some of the ones that many geocachers will encounter when they go geocaching. The problems crop up when people actually come to the conclusion that other people are doing something wrong because they don't adhere to some specious made-up standard.

[+wavector]

 

You are also free to answer my simple question.

Are those logging finds on caches designed to be found multiple times doing something wrong?

 

I've already answered the question, but I'll say it in fewer words.

By my standard, yes they are.

 

Thanks for clarifying your position for everyone.

[+wavector]

Are those logging finds on caches designed to be found multiple times doing something wrong?

 

However, I can undertsand that there might exist some caches where logging more than once is acceptable.

 

Thanks for clarifying your position.

[Keystone]

Closing thread for violations of the forum guidelines regarding respect for the opinions of others.

 

We need to spend more time reading others' opinions, and deciding whether to agree or respectfully disagree with them, and less time twisting words, selectively quoting, badgering, and trying to get others to change their opinions.