How can both be right?

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

And again, I don't care. It's just another humorous little white lie to laugh at.

What's humorous to me is all the people that are on their high horse, looking down at the "cheaters", and making comments that are designed to show how good and pure and free of anything slightly dishonest they are. Give me a break.

 

Don't any of you people ever play a game with slightly different rules?

How many of you people ever play Monopoly where you get extra money for landing on Free Parking?

How many folks ever play poker and throw in a wild card rule on occasion?

When you're playing Putt Putt on a date and she wants a putt not to count because she didn't mean to hit it that hard, do you roll your eyes? Do you even remember it an hour later?

 

Then there are real life, non game, "cheaters"...

Do none of you EVER exceed the speed limit while you're driving?

I'm sure each one of you fills out their tax forms each year, and checks them 3 or 4 times to make sure there's not something you're missing paying a tax on.

You'd better get down to the grocery store and make sure nobody is in the 10 items or less line with 12 items. You're missing an opportunity to laugh at their "cheating".

 

Folks that log events multiple times are just having fun playing the game their way. Maybe acting superior to them in the forums is how you play? I guess that would be fair, and nobody should question you either.

 

You've just given many examples of other little white lies that I might laugh at. (except for the Express lane thing. That can really bug me...)

 

Sorry if it bugs you that I find it funny that people would do this. I won't lose any sleep over it. You probably won't. So no big deal.

[+TrailGators]

And again, I don't care. It's just another humorous little white lie to laugh at.

What's humorous to me is all the people that are on their high horse, looking down at the "cheaters", and making comments that are designed to show how good and pure and free of anything slightly dishonest they are. Give me a break.

 

Don't any of you people ever play a game with slightly different rules?

How many of you people ever play Monopoly where you get extra money for landing on Free Parking?

How many folks ever play poker and throw in a wild card rule on occasion?

When you're playing Putt Putt on a date and she wants a putt not to count because she didn't mean to hit it that hard, do you roll your eyes? Do you even remember it an hour later?

 

Then there are real life, non game, "cheaters"...

Do none of you EVER exceed the speed limit while you're driving?

I'm sure each one of you fills out their tax forms each year, and checks them 3 or 4 times to make sure there's not something you're missing paying a tax on.

You'd better get down to the grocery store and make sure nobody is in the 10 items or less line with 12 items. You're missing an opportunity to laugh at their "cheating".

 

Folks that log events multiple times are just having fun playing the game their way. Maybe acting superior to them in the forums is how you play? I guess that would be fair, and nobody should question you either.

I guess that's also why some people have aces up their sleeves at a poker game, because that's the way "they" play the "game."

[Clan Riffster]

I also don't think the people who do this are necessarily dishonest or of low moral character. They are choosing along with the cache owner to do what my doctor and his golfing buddies do all the time.

Remember the ol' Kris Kristopherson song? Something about "Everybody's gotta have somebody to look down on"? It's a predictable, holier than thou attitude amongst folks who treat geocaching as the next great religion.

[+Miragee]

And again, I don't care. It's just another humorous little white lie to laugh at.

What's humorous to me is all the people that are on their high horse, looking down at the "cheaters", and making comments that are designed to show how good and pure and free of anything slightly dishonest they are. Give me a break.

 

Don't any of you people ever play a game with slightly different rules?

How many of you people ever play Monopoly where you get extra money for landing on Free Parking?

How many folks ever play poker and throw in a wild card rule on occasion?

When you're playing Putt Putt on a date and she wants a putt not to count because she didn't mean to hit it that hard, do you roll your eyes? Do you even remember it an hour later?

 

Then there are real life, non game, "cheaters"...

Do none of you EVER exceed the speed limit while you're driving?

I'm sure each one of you fills out their tax forms each year, and checks them 3 or 4 times to make sure there's not something you're missing paying a tax on.

You'd better get down to the grocery store and make sure nobody is in the 10 items or less line with 12 items. You're missing an opportunity to laugh at their "cheating".

 

Folks that log events multiple times are just having fun playing the game their way. Maybe acting superior to them in the forums is how you play? I guess that would be fair, and nobody should question you either.

The difference with the games you have listed is that those are private. This is a worldwide game. If there were no numbers, none of the double-logging, or logging Events as "Attended" multiple times, or logging "Virtual" finds on caches that are missing, would matter.

 

But since there are numbers, it would be nice if they meant the same thing across the entire game, not just the game played in someone's livingroom or den or local city park.

[+TrailGators]

I also don't think the people who do this are necessarily dishonest or of low moral character. They are choosing along with the cache owner to do what my doctor and his golfing buddies do all the time.

Remember the ol' Kris Kristopherson song? Something about "Everybody's gotta have somebody to look down on"? It's a predictable, holier than thou attitude amongst folks who treat geocaching as the next great religion.

Just to set the record straight. First of all, I don't look down on people. Second of all. I was simply stating the fact that these people are being dishonest in this case. I am dishonest sometimes, but at least I admit it...."....but really, I wasn't speeding officer..." Edited May 24, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

And again, I don't care. It's just another humorous little white lie to laugh at.

What's humorous to me is all the people that are on their high horse, looking down at the "cheaters", and making comments that are designed to show how good and pure and free of anything slightly dishonest they are. Give me a break.

 

Don't any of you people ever play a game with slightly different rules?

How many of you people ever play Monopoly where you get extra money for landing on Free Parking?

How many folks ever play poker and throw in a wild card rule on occasion?

When you're playing Putt Putt on a date and she wants a putt not to count because she didn't mean to hit it that hard, do you roll your eyes? Do you even remember it an hour later?

 

Then there are real life, non game, "cheaters"...

Do none of you EVER exceed the speed limit while you're driving?

I'm sure each one of you fills out their tax forms each year, and checks them 3 or 4 times to make sure there's not something you're missing paying a tax on.

You'd better get down to the grocery store and make sure nobody is in the 10 items or less line with 12 items. You're missing an opportunity to laugh at their "cheating".

 

Folks that log events multiple times are just having fun playing the game their way. Maybe acting superior to them in the forums is how you play? I guess that would be fair, and nobody should question you either.

I guess that's also why some people have aces up their sleeves at a poker game, because that's the way "they" play the "game."

Do you really see the two as the same?

 

Explain how cheating at poker to take someone else's money is the same as logging extra "attends" at events to falsely increase a find count.

 

I'll start, and explain how they're totally different.

The "ace up the sleeve" thing is something done without anyone else knowing, to try and take money that you wouldn't otherwise have. Logging extra finds is something done in the open, folks who do it aren't trying to hide it, and doesn't take anything away from anyone.

 

I'm sure you feel superior to each of them just the same.

[+Markwell]

Back on Jun 6 2005, Jeremy said:

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

But this is a very pertinent post

It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

 

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Markwell

[Mushtang]

And again, I don't care. It's just another humorous little white lie to laugh at.

What's humorous to me is all the people that are on their high horse, looking down at the "cheaters", and making comments that are designed to show how good and pure and free of anything slightly dishonest they are. Give me a break.

 

Don't any of you people ever play a game with slightly different rules?

How many of you people ever play Monopoly where you get extra money for landing on Free Parking?

How many folks ever play poker and throw in a wild card rule on occasion?

When you're playing Putt Putt on a date and she wants a putt not to count because she didn't mean to hit it that hard, do you roll your eyes? Do you even remember it an hour later?

 

Then there are real life, non game, "cheaters"...

Do none of you EVER exceed the speed limit while you're driving?

I'm sure each one of you fills out their tax forms each year, and checks them 3 or 4 times to make sure there's not something you're missing paying a tax on.

You'd better get down to the grocery store and make sure nobody is in the 10 items or less line with 12 items. You're missing an opportunity to laugh at their "cheating".

 

Folks that log events multiple times are just having fun playing the game their way. Maybe acting superior to them in the forums is how you play? I guess that would be fair, and nobody should question you either.

The difference with the games you have listed is that those are private. This is a worldwide game. If there were no numbers, none of the double-logging, or logging Events as "Attended" multiple times, or logging "Virtual" finds on caches that are missing, would matter.

 

But since there are numbers, it would be nice if they meant the same thing across the entire game, not just the game played in someone's livingroom or den or local city park.

And the point of my post wasn't to say that these are the same, my point was to wonder why the folks that feel superior to geocachers that "cheat" when they themselves often play games differently in order to have more fun.

 

Those without sin throw the first stone, and all that.

[+TrailGators]

And again, I don't care. It's just another humorous little white lie to laugh at.

What's humorous to me is all the people that are on their high horse, looking down at the "cheaters", and making comments that are designed to show how good and pure and free of anything slightly dishonest they are. Give me a break.

 

Don't any of you people ever play a game with slightly different rules?

How many of you people ever play Monopoly where you get extra money for landing on Free Parking?

How many folks ever play poker and throw in a wild card rule on occasion?

When you're playing Putt Putt on a date and she wants a putt not to count because she didn't mean to hit it that hard, do you roll your eyes? Do you even remember it an hour later?

 

Then there are real life, non game, "cheaters"...

Do none of you EVER exceed the speed limit while you're driving?

I'm sure each one of you fills out their tax forms each year, and checks them 3 or 4 times to make sure there's not something you're missing paying a tax on.

You'd better get down to the grocery store and make sure nobody is in the 10 items or less line with 12 items. You're missing an opportunity to laugh at their "cheating".

 

Folks that log events multiple times are just having fun playing the game their way. Maybe acting superior to them in the forums is how you play? I guess that would be fair, and nobody should question you either.

I guess that's also why some people have aces up their sleeves at a poker game, because that's the way "they" play the "game."

Do you really see the two as the same?

 

Explain how cheating at poker to take someone else's money is the same as logging extra "attends" at events to falsely increase a find count.

 

I'll start, and explain how they're totally different.

The "ace up the sleeve" thing is something done without anyone else knowing, to try and take money that you wouldn't otherwise have. Logging extra finds is something done in the open, folks who do it aren't trying to hide it, and doesn't take anything away from anyone.

 

I'm sure you feel superior to each of them just the same.

 

So it would be OK if you weren't playing for money?

[+TrailGators]

Back on Jun 6 2005, Jeremy said:

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

But this is a very pertinent post

It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

I would agree with what Jeremy said in bold above, but IMHO it's progressed way beyond the occasional double log....

[Mushtang]

And again, I don't care. It's just another humorous little white lie to laugh at.

What's humorous to me is all the people that are on their high horse, looking down at the "cheaters", and making comments that are designed to show how good and pure and free of anything slightly dishonest they are. Give me a break.

 

Don't any of you people ever play a game with slightly different rules?

How many of you people ever play Monopoly where you get extra money for landing on Free Parking?

How many folks ever play poker and throw in a wild card rule on occasion?

When you're playing Putt Putt on a date and she wants a putt not to count because she didn't mean to hit it that hard, do you roll your eyes? Do you even remember it an hour later?

 

Then there are real life, non game, "cheaters"...

Do none of you EVER exceed the speed limit while you're driving?

I'm sure each one of you fills out their tax forms each year, and checks them 3 or 4 times to make sure there's not something you're missing paying a tax on.

You'd better get down to the grocery store and make sure nobody is in the 10 items or less line with 12 items. You're missing an opportunity to laugh at their "cheating".

 

Folks that log events multiple times are just having fun playing the game their way. Maybe acting superior to them in the forums is how you play? I guess that would be fair, and nobody should question you either.

I guess that's also why some people have aces up their sleeves at a poker game, because that's the way "they" play the "game."

Do you really see the two as the same?

 

Explain how cheating at poker to take someone else's money is the same as logging extra "attends" at events to falsely increase a find count.

 

I'll start, and explain how they're totally different.

The "ace up the sleeve" thing is something done without anyone else knowing, to try and take money that you wouldn't otherwise have. Logging extra finds is something done in the open, folks who do it aren't trying to hide it, and doesn't take anything away from anyone.

 

I'm sure you feel superior to each of them just the same.

 

So it would be OK if you weren't playing for money?

Would it be okay if you read the entire reply?

 

Cheating at poker in order to win is hardly the same as "cheating" at geocaching in order to have more fun in your own game.

 

Besides, the point of the post is to ask how folks that act superior in the forums justify the other things they do in their own lives where they change, or break, rules in order to enjoy life more.

[Mushtang]

Back on Jun 6 2005, Jeremy said:

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

But this is a very pertinent post

It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

I would agree with what Jeremy said in bold above, but IMHO it's progressed way beyond the occasional double log....

So you don't actually object to extra logs, it's only the number of extra logs that is the problem? One is okay, 400 is too many. How many would you allow if it were up to you?

[+sbell111]

What's humorous to me is all the people that are on their high horse, looking down at the "cheaters", and making comments that are designed to show how good and pure and free of anything slightly dishonest they are. Give me a break.

 

Don't any of you people ever play a game with slightly different rules?

How many of you people ever play Monopoly where you get extra money for landing on Free Parking?

How many folks ever play poker and throw in a wild card rule on occasion?

When you're playing Putt Putt on a date and she wants a putt not to count because she didn't mean to hit it that hard, do you roll your eyes? Do you even remember it an hour later?

 

Then there are real life, non game, "cheaters"...

Do none of you EVER exceed the speed limit while you're driving?

I'm sure each one of you fills out their tax forms each year, and checks them 3 or 4 times to make sure there's not something you're missing paying a tax on.

You'd better get down to the grocery store and make sure nobody is in the 10 items or less line with 12 items. You're missing an opportunity to laugh at their "cheating".

 

Folks that log events multiple times are just having fun playing the game their way. Maybe acting superior to them in the forums is how you play? I guess that would be fair, and nobody should question you either.

I guess that's also why some people have aces up their sleeves at a poker game, because that's the way "they" play the "game."

In order for that scenario to be on point, the dealer would have to agree that it is OK.

 

People quickly forget that the practice that they are railing about is the agreement between the cache owner and the logger that the cache can be logged as a found.

The difference with the games you have listed is that those are private. This is a worldwide game. If there were no numbers, none of the double-logging, or logging Events as "Attended" multiple times, or logging "Virtual" finds on caches that are missing, would matter.

 

But since there are numbers, it would be nice if they meant the same thing across the entire game, not just the game played in someone's livingroom or den or local city park.

Even if these double logging practices were stopped, the numbers still wouldn't mean the same thing. There is WAY too much variance from cache to cache and from cacher to cacher to ever make a meaningful heads-up comparison. Edited May 24, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Back on Jun 6 2005, Jeremy said:

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

But this is a very pertinent post

It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

I would agree with what Jeremy said in bold above, but IMHO it's progressed way beyond the occasional double log....

So you don't actually object to extra logs, it's only the number of extra logs that is the problem? One is okay, 400 is too many. How many would you allow if it were up to you?

Please don't distort what Jeremy said and I agreed with. If there were only "occassional double logs" then we wouldn't be talking now. Would we? Also remember that this is my honest opinion.....

[Clan Riffster]

The bottom line is that it is a "misrepresentation."

If we are talking about the same thing, then I disagree with your premise. The only people who can determine if a log type is appropriate/accurate are the owner and the seeker. Using the simpleton definition of "Found" in a game as complex and diverse as geocaching is every bit as silly as two nations slugging it out over which one has the better invisible friend. If TPTB ever declare the simpleton version of "found" to be the technically accurate one, I'm gonna claim a find on Vinny & Sue's PUC # 13, since I've technically located it through the magic of the Internet.

 

If I hold an event, and I advise the attendees that they can log an "Attended" for each beer can they pick up, then those who take me up on the offer are not misrepresenting anything. If someone "locates" one of my caches, discovering that it is embedded in 20' of solid ice, and post a "Found It" log reflecting that fact, they have not misrepresented anything. If someone hunting one of my caches locates a cracked Gladware lid and a scattering of soggy McToys, and posts a "Found It" log reflecting that fact, they have not misrepresented anything. If someone hunting one of my caches finds an ammo box shaped depression in the sand, then changes their DNF to a "Found It" after I invite them to do so, is not misrepresenting anything. If someone who has never left the state of Idaho logs a "Found It" on one of my hides just to pump up their numbers, then they are misrepresenting something.

 

The key issue for me in determining if I need to break out my white robes, pitchforks and torches is the intent of the person doing the logging. If their intent was to deceive, then, in my opinion, they have committed a dishonest, immoral act. If they are not intending to deceive, then they have not.

 

Edit to add: If you look at my finds, you'll see 586 finds on 586 unique caches. My standard is one cache/event = one log, and each "Found It" represents my locating a cache and signing the log. My ego is not so great that I'm willing to employ my standard upon others, until TPTB declare at least a minimum set of rules to play by. So long as this game has no rules, then there can be no cheating.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[+TrailGators]

But since there are numbers, it would be nice if they meant the same thing across the entire game, not just the game played in someone's livingroom or den or local city park.

Even if these double logging practices were stopped, the numbers still wouldn't mean the same thing. There is WAY too much variance from cache to cache and from cacher to cacher to ever make real a heads-up comparison.

This is true but it doesn't justify what some folks out there are doing.... Edited May 24, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

Back on Jun 6 2005, Jeremy said:

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

But this is a very pertinent post

It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

I would agree with what Jeremy said in bold above, but IMHO it's progressed way beyond the occasional double log....

So you don't actually object to extra logs, it's only the number of extra logs that is the problem? One is okay, 400 is too many. How many would you allow if it were up to you?

Please don't distort what Jeremy said and I agreed with. If there were only "occassional double logs" then we wouldn't be talking now. Would we? Also remember that this is my honest opinion.....

I'm not distorting it. I'm quoting it and leaving it bold so it's easier to see what i'm referring to.

 

He said that an occasional double log is there, he doesn't see harm. You made a point to agree with this. It's clear you're okay with one extra, and clear from other posts that you're against hundreds of extra logs.

 

So my non-distorted question is, how many extra logs would you allow if it were up to you?

[+Totem Clan]

 

But since there are numbers, it would be nice if they meant the same thing across the entire game, not just the game played in someone's livingroom or den or local city park.

Maybe that's it!

 

It's not the practice itself that bothers me. Maybe it's just that we are all not playing the same game with the same system.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

The difference with the games you have listed is that those are private. This is a worldwide game. If there were no numbers, none of the double-logging, or logging Events as "Attended" multiple times, or logging "Virtual" finds on caches that are missing, would matter.

 

But since there are numbers, it would be nice if they meant the same thing across the entire game, not just the game played in someone's livingroom or den or local city park.

And the point of my post wasn't to say that these are the same, my point was to wonder why the folks that feel superior to geocachers that "cheat" when they themselves often play games differently in order to have more fun.

 

Those without sin throw the first stone, and all that.

I do not "feel superior" to Geocachers that "cheat." That's just silly.

 

I do not care about the numbers, personally. However, it would be good for the integrity of Geocaching if my numbers, and someone's numbers who is from Germany, or Australia, or the UK, and someone's numbers who is from Wisconsin, sort of meant the same thing. Don't you think that is a reasonable expectation for something that is played around the world?

 

Pocket caches were disallowed on this site, as was the logging of "Retired" caches. Maybe someday TPTB will see that the "Attended" log is being abused when it is logged many, many, many times. I mean, how many times can someone Attend an Event.?

 

Logging Events as "Attended" multiple times sure seems like an

. . . abuse on this web site . . .

 

I don't see how finding 100 caches hidden nearby in a park, caches that are not listed on this site, vs. finding 100 caches someone has to drive to, walk to, or hike to that are listed on this site, can be considered equal.

[+TrailGators]

The bottom line is that it is a "misrepresentation."

If we are talking about the same thing, then I disagree with your premise. The only people who can determine if a log type is appropriate/accurate are the owner and the seeker. Using the simpleton definition of "Found" in a game as complex and diverse as geocaching is every bit as silly as two nations slugging it out over which one has the better invisible friend. If TPTB ever declare the simpleton version of "found" to be the technically accurate one, I'm gonna claim a find on Vinny & Sue's PUC # 13, since I've technically located it through the magic of the Internet.

 

If I hold an event, and I advise the attendees that they can log an "Attended" for each beer can they pick up, then those who take me up on the offer are not misrepresenting anything. If someone "locates" one of my caches, discovering that it is embedded in 20' of solid ice, and post a "Found It" log reflecting that fact, they have not misrepresented anything. If someone hunting one of my caches locates a cracked Gladware lid and a scattering of soggy McToys, and posts a "Found It" log reflecting that fact, they have not misrepresented anything. If someone hunting one of my caches finds an ammo box shaped depression in the sand, then changes their DNF to a "Found It" after I invite them to do so, is not misrepresenting anything. If someone who has never left the state of Idaho logs a "Found It" on one of my hides just to pump up their numbers, then they are misrepresenting something.

 

The key issue for me in determining if I need to break out my white robes, pitchforks and torches is the intent of the person doing the logging. If their intent was to deceive, then, in my opinion, they have committed a dishonest, immoral act. If they are not intending to deceive, then they have not.

 

Edit to add: If you look at my finds, you'll see 586 finds on 586 unique caches. My standard is one cache/event = one log, and each "Found It" represents my locating a cache and signing the log. My ego is not so great that I'm willing to employ my standard upon others, until TPTB declare at least a minimum set of rules to play by. So long as this game has no rules, then there can be no cheating.

 

They aren't misrepresenting the number of events they've attended? OK then, how many events has this person attended?

 

 

P.S. Let's see who can beat that number!

Edited May 24, 2007 by TrailGators

[+briansnat]

Back on Jun 6 2005, Jeremy said:

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

But this is a very pertinent post

It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

I would agree with what Jeremy said in bold above, but IMHO it's progressed way beyond the occasional double log....

So you don't actually object to extra logs, it's only the number of extra logs that is the problem? One is okay, 400 is too many. How many would you allow if it were up to you?

 

I would hope you could see the difference between an ocassional double long and rampant abuse. Dozens of people logging dozens of finds on a single cache certainly seems to be rampant abuse to me. Where you draw the line? To paraphrase SCJ Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it.

 

What I don't understand is why some people think its perfectly OK to use this website's resources to store logs for caches that aren't listed here. They call that gall where I come from.

[+sbell111]

But since there are numbers, it would be nice if they meant the same thing across the entire game, not just the game played in someone's livingroom or den or local city park.

Even if these double logging practices were stopped, the numbers still wouldn't mean the same thing. There is WAY too much variance from cache to cache and from cacher to cacher to ever make real a heads-up comparison.

This is true but it doesn't justify what some folks out there are doing....

I didn't try to justify anything in that part of my post.

 

The justification was in the part of my post that you didn't quote. Here it is:

 

The cache owner determines what a 'find' is, not the cache logger.

[+TrailGators]

Back on Jun 6 2005, Jeremy said:

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

But this is a very pertinent post

It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

I would agree with what Jeremy said in bold above, but IMHO it's progressed way beyond the occasional double log....

So you don't actually object to extra logs, it's only the number of extra logs that is the problem? One is okay, 400 is too many. How many would you allow if it were up to you?

Please don't distort what Jeremy said and I agreed with. If there were only "occassional double logs" then we wouldn't be talking now. Would we? Also remember that this is my honest opinion.....

I'm not distorting it. I'm quoting it and leaving it bold so it's easier to see what i'm referring to.

 

He said that an occasional double log is there, he doesn't see harm. You made a point to agree with this. It's clear you're okay with one extra, and clear from other posts that you're against hundreds of extra logs.

 

So my non-distorted question is, how many extra logs would you allow if it were up to you?

Like the man said....the "occassional double log."

[+sbell111]

... However, it would be good for the integrity of Geocaching if my numbers, and someone's numbers who is from Germany, or Australia, or the UK, and someone's numbers who is from Wisconsin, sort of meant the same thing. Don't you think that is a reasonable expectation for something that is played around the world? ...

The thing is, the numbers already do 'sort of mean the same thing'. They will never mean exactly the same thing.

[+Totem Clan]

And the point of my post wasn't to say that these are the same, my point was to wonder why the folks that feel superior to geocachers that "cheat" when they themselves often play games differently in order to have more fun.

 

Those without sin throw the first stone, and all that.

And there in lies my dilemma. I want everyone to play the same game so that I can understand what's going on. However is it my place to tell them what they can or can't do if their actions are not effecting another cacher's play?

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Interesting reading. Well, here's my take on the numbers-

 

I personally dont care about anyone's number, not even my own as long as those numbers

 

DO NOT IMPACT MY PLAYING OF THE GAME

 

Now, some example of where the numbers can impact my playing of the game:

 

1) A cache with several DNFs has a more recent found log. I will think this cache is where it is supposed to be. I may take a trip out there and use vauable time and resources. If it turns out this was a false find placed so that someone can boost their numbers, this has impacted my game. This is unacceptable.

 

2) A cacher found a cache 6 moths ago. He decided to boost his numbers by logging the find again. This may result is issue #1 above.

 

3) The possibility has been brought up in other threads that the increased percentage of "uninspired", "non-scenic" micro caches could be the result of people wanting to boost their hidden numbers and to allow others to increase their find numbers. As I prefer the more scenic, inspired, larger caches, this might mean that numbers have impacted the game.

[+CheshireFrog]

I don't usually follow the multiple log threads, they tend to be the same thing over and over and over and...well, you get the idea.

 

Anyway, it may have been suggested before, but has the idea of not awarding smilies for events at all been suggested?

[+Miragee]

They aren't misrepresenting the number of events they've attended? OK then, how many events has this person attended?

 

 

P.S. Let's see who can beat that number!

... However, it would be good for the integrity of Geocaching if my numbers, and someone's numbers who is from Germany, or Australia, or the UK, and someone's numbers who is from Wisconsin, sort of meant the same thing. Don't you think that is a reasonable expectation for something that is played around the world? ...

The thing is, the numbers already do 'sort of mean the same thing'. They will never mean exactly the same thing.

The number of Events "Attended" shown in TrailGators' post does not tell me how many Events that person has actually attended. That number certainly doesn't mean the same thing compared to the number you will see in my Profile when you look at how many Events I have attended.

 

That other person may have actually "Attended" fewer Events than I have. I have no way of knowing, no one does.

[+sbell111]

3) The possibility has been brought up in other threads that the increased percentage of "uninspired", "non-scenic" micro caches could be the result of people wanting to boost their hidden numbers and to allow others to increase their find numbers. As I prefer the more scenic, inspired, larger caches, this might mean that numbers have impacted the game.

Even if we were to agree that people are spreading caches that you don't like just to up their hide counts, I don't see how this affects the numbers of caches being hidden that you do like.

 

...or how this has anything to do with this thread.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Back on Jun 6 2005, Jeremy said:

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

But this is a very pertinent post

It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

I would agree with what Jeremy said in bold above, but IMHO it's progressed way beyond the occasional double log....

So you don't actually object to extra logs, it's only the number of extra logs that is the problem? One is okay, 400 is too many. How many would you allow if it were up to you?

Please don't distort what Jeremy said and I agreed with. If there were only "occassional double logs" then we wouldn't be talking now. Would we? Also remember that this is my honest opinion.....

I'm not distorting it. I'm quoting it and leaving it bold so it's easier to see what i'm referring to.

 

He said that an occasional double log is there, he doesn't see harm. You made a point to agree with this. It's clear you're okay with one extra, and clear from other posts that you're against hundreds of extra logs.

 

So my non-distorted question is, how many extra logs would you allow if it were up to you?

 

I read Jeremy's post to be addressing abuse on the website, not the integrity of the game or legitimacy of the smiley which seems to be the main theme here. So I am not sure the context he said this in is really applicable to this thread. It is interesting that he seems to want to put the decision to allow multiple find logs on the cache owner which is fine. I wish he would have elaborated more on the situations that he feels it is okay to log multiple finds on the same cache.

 

In the absence of a box to check to not allow it (I would check this every time myself), I would answer the above question this way. A double log I can live with if there is some sort of explanation for it, but every log thereafter bothers me just a little bit more than the last one.

[Mushtang]

Back on Jun 6 2005, Jeremy said:

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

But this is a very pertinent post

It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

I would agree with what Jeremy said in bold above, but IMHO it's progressed way beyond the occasional double log....

So you don't actually object to extra logs, it's only the number of extra logs that is the problem? One is okay, 400 is too many. How many would you allow if it were up to you?

 

I would hope you could see the difference between an ocassional double long and rampant abuse. Dozens of people logging dozens of finds on a single cache certainly seems to be rampant abuse to me. Where you draw the line?

That's exactly what I asked Trailgators twice, and he's so far refused to answer.

 

To paraphrase SCJ Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it.

And I know arrogqance and condescending when I see it. Folks are crossing that line all over this thread. My original point was that they also change (or break) rules to enjoy something more in other areas of their lives, but feel okay talking down to people in here that do it.

 

What I don't understand is why some people think its perfectly OK to use this website's resources to store logs for caches that aren't listed here. They call that gall where I come from.

I'm not arguing that I think it's okay either. I'm just saying it's not necessary for people to act so smug about their "pure" numbers, and to be so snooty about it.

[+The Leprechauns]

I'm always amazed that some of the folks who claim that numbers don't mean much are the same folks who have all sorts of charts and graphs posted on their "profile pages" proclaiming their caching prowess. BTJMO

... and that some that say that numbers don't matter want to remove the numbers from view. If they don't matter, why bother?

 

There's a difference between a found count and how your finds break down statistically. I don't care what my found count is, I have no need to artificially inflate it. It is an accurate record of my individual caches found. However, I do use sites like INATN to see how my finds break down statistically. How many truly hard caches have I done? how many micros versus regular caches have I found? What counties/states have I cached in?

 

Not caring about the size of your find count isn't the same as not caring about the statistics.

 

Yes, they're all numbers, but they're different numbers with different meanings. I can not give a rip about my find count but still be interested in the statistical breakdown of whatever that count is.

That is how I play the game as well. I'm one of "those people" with a profile page chock full of maps and charts. I am having a blast challenging myself with goals like finding 300 caches that are rated terrain 3 or higher, finding 100 caches in a particular county or state, etc. -- all thanks to the "It's Not About the Numbers" website which makes it so easy to track these things. I've been thinking of starting a separate thread about that.

 

What does not matter to me at all is anyone else's find count, or saying anything about my own find count other than it is what it is, and that it breaks down in interesting ways. I like it that the INATN site does not allow for cheating -- you have to upload your zipped, unaltered "All Finds" pocket query or the site laughs at you. Then it discloses any caches which you have double logged. I have one, because the cache was relocated and used a different container, and I'm good with that double log. You can also see from that site that I've found 252 caches that are terrain 3 or higher, and that I've found about that many caches in a single day record run. The smiley is the unknowing great equalizer -- you can find a lamp post cache during a record run and you can find a terrain 4 hike that's 12 miles up and down a mountain, and they each count for one smiley. That is why the numbers don't matter for me, only the integrity of those numbers when judged against my own personal standards.

 

As an example, DocDiTTo and I are both trying to complete the Pennsylvania DeLorme Challenge and the Pennsylvania All Counties Challenge. We can view each other's progress by looking at bookmark lists and the INATN site. I really enjoy looking at his roadtrips and I know he noticed at least one of mine. Recently he qualified to search for the final DeLorme Challenge cache -- a great accomplishment. He finished before I did, and I am happy to see him having fun. Prior to writing this post, not for one minute did I stop to think that I have more than twice as many finds as he does. And I'll bet that he doesn't think I'm a better cacher because of my find count being higher. I only hope he thinks that I am an ethical cacher who is trying to have fun, and who enjoys analyzing numbers and maps as part of that fun.

[+sbell111]

They aren't misrepresenting the number of events they've attended? OK then, how many events has this person attended?

 

 

P.S. Let's see who can beat that number!

... However, it would be good for the integrity of Geocaching if my numbers, and someone's numbers who is from Germany, or Australia, or the UK, and someone's numbers who is from Wisconsin, sort of meant the same thing. Don't you think that is a reasonable expectation for something that is played around the world? ...

The thing is, the numbers already do 'sort of mean the same thing'. They will never mean exactly the same thing.

The number of Events "Attended" shown in TrailGators' post does not tell me how many Events that person has actually attended. That number certainly doesn't mean the same thing compared to the number you will see in my Profile when you look at how many Events I have attended.

 

That other person may have actually "Attended" fewer Events than I have. I have no way of knowing, no one does.

Does it matter?

 

If I looked at your number, would I know how many were weekly beer events or mega-events or flash events or overnight events or events that you traveled hundreds (or thousands) of miles to attend. Simply knowing the number of events that anyone attended does not, in and of itself, make that number comparable to anyone else's event count.

[+Team GeoBlast]

But since there are numbers, it would be nice if they meant the same thing across the entire game, not just the game played in someone's livingroom or den or local city park.

Even if these double logging practices were stopped, the numbers still wouldn't mean the same thing. There is WAY too much variance from cache to cache and from cacher to cacher to ever make real a heads-up comparison.

This is true but it doesn't justify what some folks out there are doing....

I didn't try to justify anything in that part of my post.

 

The justification was in the part of my post that you didn't quote. Here it is:

 

The cache owner determines what a 'find' is, not the cache logger.

 

I'll buy this. There's really two integrity issues at play here. It's the cacher that logs the multiple finds and the cache owner that turned a blind eye to it that are responsible for the multiple log.

[+TrailGators]

Here's an interesting thought. Why don't these folks setup 500 temp caches at one of their events and shatter the most caches found in one day record! They wouldn't be misrepresenting anything according to many of you. Plus the site would show that they logged them, and it is "up to the cache owner."

[Clan Riffster]

OK then, how many events has this person attended?

According to my observations, I'd say 822. I guess it depends on how the owner of the event(s) and the attendee define "Attended".

 

is it my place to tell them what they can or can't do if their actions are not effecting another cacher's play?

My answer would be "No". The only person who'se place it is to dictate what can, and cannot occur is Jeremy, and he has opted to allow the practice of multiple logs. If he ever declares that practice to be a violation of the rules, my attitude will change.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

I read Jeremy's post to be addressing abuse on the website, not the integrity of the game or legitimacy of the smiley which seems to be the main theme here. So I am not sure the context he said this in is really applicable to this thread. It is interesting that he seems to want to put the decision to allow multiple find logs on the cache owner which is fine. I wish he would have elaborated more on the situations that he feels it is okay to log multiple finds on the same cache.

 

In the absence of a box to check to not allow it (I would check this every time myself), I would answer the above question this way. A double log I can live with if there is some sort of explanation for it, but every log thereafter bothers me just a little bit more than the last one.

The key word in your post for some of the most recent part of this discussion is "find." I don't know how it ever got started that someone could log "Attended" more than once . . .

[+TrailGators]

Back on Jun 6 2005, Jeremy said:

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

But this is a very pertinent post

It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

I would agree with what Jeremy said in bold above, but IMHO it's progressed way beyond the occasional double log....

So you don't actually object to extra logs, it's only the number of extra logs that is the problem? One is okay, 400 is too many. How many would you allow if it were up to you?

 

I would hope you could see the difference between an ocassional double long and rampant abuse. Dozens of people logging dozens of finds on a single cache certainly seems to be rampant abuse to me. Where you draw the line?

That's exactly what I asked Trailgators twice, and he's so far refused to answer.

I did? Ummm, I answer that 15 minutes ago....

 

Like the man said....the "occassional double log."

[+sbell111]

But since there are numbers, it would be nice if they meant the same thing across the entire game, not just the game played in someone's livingroom or den or local city park.

Even if these double logging practices were stopped, the numbers still wouldn't mean the same thing. There is WAY too much variance from cache to cache and from cacher to cacher to ever make real a heads-up comparison.

This is true but it doesn't justify what some folks out there are doing....

I didn't try to justify anything in that part of my post.

 

The justification was in the part of my post that you didn't quote. Here it is:

 

The cache owner determines what a 'find' is, not the cache logger.

I'll buy this. There's really two integrity issues at play here. It's the cacher that logs the multiple finds and the cache owner that turned a blind eye to it that are responsible for the multiple log.

In many cases, the cache owner has suggested the double logging. Certainly, in the case of temporary event cases, this is true. It is also often true of many of the DNF 'finds' and other double logging. Edited May 24, 2007 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

Here's an interesting thought. Why don't these folks setup 500 temp caches at one of their events and shatter the most caches found in one day record! They wouldn't be misrepresenting anything according to many of you. Plus the site would show that they logged them, and it is "up to the cache owner."

Sounds good. That'll also result in a thread where many of you can talk bad about it, and feel superior to those people that actually logged multiple Attended logs.

 

Be sure to move your upper lip down as far from your nose as you can get it as you say, "I say, I do believe the cretins are at it again. It seems these ninnys are attempting to have fun without our approval."

[+sbell111]

Here's an interesting thought. Why don't these folks setup 500 temp caches at one of their events and shatter the most caches found in one day record! They wouldn't be misrepresenting anything according to many of you. Plus the site would show that they logged them, and it is "up to the cache owner."

Sounds good. That'll also result in a thread where many of you can talk bad about it, and feel superior to those people that actually logged multiple Attended logs.

 

Be sure to move your upper lip down as far from your nose as you can get it as you say, "I say, I do believe the cretins are at it again. It seems these ninnys are attempting to have fun without our approval."

Good one, old chap.

[+TrailGators]

Here's an interesting thought. Why don't these folks setup 500 temp caches at one of their events and shatter the most caches found in one day record! They wouldn't be misrepresenting anything according to many of you. Plus the site would show that they logged them, and it is "up to the cache owner."

Sounds good. That'll also result in a thread where many of you can talk bad about it, and feel superior to those people that actually logged multiple Attended logs.

 

Be sure to move your upper lip down as far from your nose as you can get it as you say, "I say, I do believe the cretins are at it again. It seems these ninnys are attempting to have fun without our approval."

So let me get this straight. That would be perfectly OK with you? Also knock off the personal comments....

[+TrailGators]

Here's an interesting thought. Why don't these folks setup 500 temp caches at one of their events and shatter the most caches found in one day record! They wouldn't be misrepresenting anything according to many of you. Plus the site would show that they logged them, and it is "up to the cache owner."

Sounds good. That'll also result in a thread where many of you can talk bad about it, and feel superior to those people that actually logged multiple Attended logs.

 

Be sure to move your upper lip down as far from your nose as you can get it as you say, "I say, I do believe the cretins are at it again. It seems these ninnys are attempting to have fun without our approval."

Good one, old chap.

Are you at it again too? Edited May 24, 2007 by TrailGators

[+wavector]

The topic is.....

 

How can the same person says that numbers don't matter but also say the multiple logs on one cache are wrong?

 

 

You have made an excellent observation, many of the people who say that the "numbers do not matter" cannot fully encompass that fact and all it implies.

 

I am firmly in the "numbers don't matter" camp. I also think that people attending events and logging every cache they find at the event is a practice that has no effect on me and if the cache owner intends that seekers do it that way there is no issue that I can see for anyone, it is an act without consequence for others. I have seen casual cachers who log a Find every time they make another visit to a cache. In my opinion they are not diminished in the least by that practice and it doesn't bother me when they do it because the numbers don't matter.

 

Personally I don't think the numbers matter at all but my youngest son might disagree because the most important number to him is "one more cache please". He loves to trade items in and out of caches, he loves the fact that we are all out doing something together and he loves being the guy who "Finds" the cache.

[Mushtang]

I did? Ummm, I answer that 15 minutes ago....

And I write that 13 minutes ago while you answer, I just no post before you answer it. I took time and construct post of my own while you move on to other answer.

 

Not that your reply actually answered the question, but I really didn't expect you to.

[+flask]

that a cache owner suggests a double log does not make it right.

 

a person might suggest you defraud their insurance company; the fact that you were invited to do so will not make you blameless in the sight of the law.

 

you either have to excuse the practice on its merits or at the very least on the absence of drawbacks. you cannot correctly reason that a thing must be right because someone invited you to do it.

 

you also can't say a thing must be fine because jeremy hasn't banned it. i can think of a great many things that jeremy hasn't outright banned and they are still poor ideas.

[+TrailGators]

I did? Ummm, I answer that 15 minutes ago....

And I write that 13 minutes ago while you answer, I just no post before you answer it. I took time and construct post of my own while you move on to other answer.

 

Not that your reply actually answered the question, but I really didn't expect you to.

I clearly answered your question.

[+sbell111]

Here's an interesting thought. Why don't these folks setup 500 temp caches at one of their events and shatter the most caches found in one day record! They wouldn't be misrepresenting anything according to many of you. Plus the site would show that they logged them, and it is "up to the cache owner."

Sounds good. That'll also result in a thread where many of you can talk bad about it, and feel superior to those people that actually logged multiple Attended logs.

 

Be sure to move your upper lip down as far from your nose as you can get it as you say, "I say, I do believe the cretins are at it again. It seems these ninnys are attempting to have fun without our approval."

Good one, old chap.

Are you at it again too?

[Mushtang]

Here's an interesting thought. Why don't these folks setup 500 temp caches at one of their events and shatter the most caches found in one day record! They wouldn't be misrepresenting anything according to many of you. Plus the site would show that they logged them, and it is "up to the cache owner."

Sounds good. That'll also result in a thread where many of you can talk bad about it, and feel superior to those people that actually logged multiple Attended logs.

 

Be sure to move your upper lip down as far from your nose as you can get it as you say, "I say, I do believe the cretins are at it again. It seems these ninnys are attempting to have fun without our approval."

So let me get this straight. That would be perfectly OK with you?

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

 

Also knock off the personal comments....

Something else that is okay for you to do but not for others? Hmmm...

[Mushtang]

I did? Ummm, I answer that 15 minutes ago....

And I write that 13 minutes ago while you answer, I just no post before you answer it. I took time and construct post of my own while you move on to other answer.

 

Not that your reply actually answered the question, but I really didn't expect you to.

I clearly answered your question.

Clearly. There's no doubt now exactly how many you'd approve, and how many you'd disapprove of. My bad.