Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Totem Clan

How can both be right?

Recommended Posts

Honesty. Integrity. Morality.

To me, logging a cache means that you have found the cache and signed the log (or a reasonable fascimile thereof.) This is called honesty. You attended the same event one hundred fifty times?!? You logged a cache that you never found? Then you are a dishonest person! I do not want you for my doctor, lawyer, or accountant. You are not to be trusted!

That's it. Pure and simple.

 

I saw a log left by a local cacher who went to the cache site and apparently they didn't have a pencil, the log they left was a simple statement of fact, "I found this cache but didn't have pencil."

Your contention appears to be that they are dishonest or that others should view them as dishonest, this is a standard you adhere to and to me it doesn't make as much sense as reading the log this way - They went to the site, found the cache and didn't have a pencil.

 

In my opinion imputing that they are a liar or suggesting that they cannot be trusted is a very low standard of conduct. If you are going to expound "Honesty Integrity Morality" as an ethic then you might want to review the parameters which apply in your decision making process.

If they didn't find the cache but said they did. They are in fact a liar. They can not in fact be trusted. I would not in fact want them representing me or working for me and I would hate for someone who knew the state of their honesty and intregrety to leave me in the dark.

 

As for your example. If they found the cache and didn't have a pencil to sign the cache log and they logged online as such. That's honest.

 

Your example is different than what HD was speaking of.

Share this post


Link to post

I still don't see how someone is being dishonest if they say in their log that its a log on a temporary event cache or a find on a missing cache. ...

 

You are getting into nuances.

 

Did they attend the even 100 times because they got stuck in a revolving door? No. The 99 extra logs are to reflect temporary caches that are not even approvable on this site. Thus a find long for that which could never be logged. They justify it by saying "they found it" and trying to keep their numbers accurate. The nuance is that this site did offer a "found a temporary cache at an event" log they would use it and that would be legit.

 

While I don't think such logs are good practice I would not slide that person into the dishonest catagory any more than I would slide someone who logs a co-owned cache into the dishonest catagory. Both are trying to keep things balanced in their own world view.

 

Someone who attends an event 100 times because who didn't actually find 99 event only caches...LSS. (Lying Sack of ...)

Share this post


Link to post

I still don't see how someone is being dishonest if they say in their log that its a log on a temporary event cache or a find on a missing cache. ...

 

You are getting into nuances.

 

Did they attend the even 100 times because they got stuck in a revolving door? No. The 99 extra logs are to reflect temporary caches that are not even approvable on this site.

Many of the cache could be approved. I'm not sure it's fair to say they are not approvable.

 

I'm not sure how folks have done these caches at events you've been to or heard about--but around here the caches are typically placed within 5 miles of the event and they are usually darn good caches. Some do end up being regular caches about town.

 

Sometimes they aren't made into regular caches because they are on park property--and while the park manager would like to allow them to stay there permanently, they cannot because of regulations beyod their control. They are happy to allow them to be placed for a few days to a week to allow event attendees to enjoy caching in their park.

 

Sometimes they aren't made into regular caches because although the are great caches, something about the container wouldn't hold up over the long term. I've seen delicate containers, or overly elaborate ones that cachers would ruin in a couple of weeks just through ordinary wear.

 

Sometimes the area just doesn't reallly need all the extra caches, although they are great fun for the weekend event, and help to draw cachers who have already found all the regular caches in an area. I expect that someone will come along and snarl about people who only want to cache to "run up their numbers" but the truth is, we are cachers, and caching is what we do. We want to find caches. Given the choice between going out to find 10 new caches for the day or going to the event to watch people from outside our area find ten new caches for the day a lot of people will pass on the event, so they can enjoy caching. Event caches let them enjoy both the social aspects of the day and get a few new caches.

 

I keep reading about people logging 50 times at an event, or once for each beer they pick up, etc. I have to tell you, I have never seen anything even remotely like that at our local events. Event caches usually number fewer than ten, and they always involve using a gps to find a physical geocache, and signing a log. At least half the time they are more challenging to find that most of the geocaches in the state. I personally think it would be a great thing if event caches could be allowed to be an official part of the geocaching experience--but even failing that, I can certainly say that I've seen event caches in my area that I am proud to have found, and I don't see one single solitary thing wrong with event sponsors allowing multiple logs on caches of that quality.

 

I get the nuances. So did everyone else. Anyone can look at another person's profile now to see if they found 100 caches at 10 events, or went to 110 events. And *almost anyone can subtract 100 from the total number of caches found by a person to see how many non-event caches they have found. (*Some of my remedial math skills class students excluded).

Share this post


Link to post

I still don't see how someone is being dishonest if they say in their log that its a log on a temporary event cache or a find on a missing cache. ...

 

You are getting into nuances.

 

Did they attend the even 100 times because they got stuck in a revolving door? No. The 99 extra logs are to reflect temporary caches that are not even approvable on this site.

Many of the cache could be approved. I'm not sure it's fair to say they are not approvable.

 

I'm not sure how folks have done these caches at events you've been to or heard about--but around here the caches are typically placed within 5 miles of the event and they are usually darn good caches. Some do end up being regular caches about town.

 

....I personally think it would be a great thing if event caches could be allowed to be an official part of the geocaching experience... don't see one single solitary thing wrong with event sponsors allowing multiple logs on caches of that quality. ...

 

Temporary caches are not allowed to be listed on this site. Thus all temporary event caches are not approvable. Some could be approved and I think they should be apporved. Let event goes have first shot, then list it and everbody logs the actual cache.

 

I don't have an issue with an event cache log. It would let people log the approproate cache type. Howver as stands, event only caches are not approved and the practice does encourage the placment of event only caches that may very well be placed in a way that is not approproate. As such event cache logging as it stands now isn't wrong for intent, but encourages the wrong thing.

 

Bottom line for me. Logs for caches on this site should reflect caches approved on this site.

Share this post


Link to post

Bottom line for me. Logs for caches on this site should reflect caches approved on this site.

Exactly!!

Whether a cache could be approved or should be approved or is "better" than many that are approved is irrelevant. It wasn't approved. So it shouldn't be logged HERE.

 

This is not to say that you cannot log it. Log it wherever you want. On a piece of paper. In your mind. On a spreadsheet. Wherever.

Share this post


Link to post

Brother, you can't honestly be comparing someone playing a game that has no rules, in a method unlike you play, to someone committing a criminal act. This is a joke, right? I wasn't sure, since I didn't see any smileys after such a nonsensical post. Just in case this sentence was serious, (and I can't imagine it was), I'll spell out the difference: There are rules against defrauding an insurance company.

 

At one time there were no rules about defrauding insurance companies. They had to be enacted because more and more people took advantage of the fact there were no rules.

 

Geocaching should not have to have half the rules it does, yet they keep coming. Look over the few years Geocaching has existed and how many rules have been added, often to the point of removal of entire cache types (like virtuals). I think Groundspeak does a half decent job keeping rules to a minimum, but when people take every loophole they can find, they have no option but to make rules which should be common sense.

 

It takes more than rules to keep the world in line. Just because there is not a rule against something does not make it right.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Actually, from a moral perspective, that's exactly what makes it right. The owner and the seeker are the ones who determine the legitimacy of a "find".

 

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.

Brother, you can't honestly be comparing someone playing a game that has no rules, in a method unlike you play, to someone committing a criminal act. This is a joke, right? I wasn't sure, since I didn't see any smileys after such a nonsensical post. Just in case this sentence was serious, (and I can't imagine it was), I'll spell out the difference: There are rules against defrauding an insurance company.

 

you either have to excuse the practice on its merits or at the very least on the absence of drawbacks.

I don't have to excuse the practice at all. There are no rules, or guidelines, or even hints from on high suggesting that the practice is verboten.

 

you cannot correctly reason that a thing must be right because someone invited you to do it.

In this case, (double logging a find), I most certainly can.

 

you also can't say a thing must be fine because jeremy hasn't banned it.

Actually, that would be my litmus test to determine if I wanted to condemn someone for a particular activity conducted within the framework of this, (Jeremy's), website. Is the practice allowed? If the answer is "Yes", then I am unwilling to don my white robes, arm myself with a pitchfork, fire up a torch and string up the "offender". If the answer is "No", then I have no qualms about holding the violator accountable for their actions.

 

I broke out of my morally superior phase when I was about 10 years old, which, from a practical standpoint, means I'm unwilling to condemn someone for being different, so long as their activities don't unnecessarily harm someone else. One of my favorite mottoes is, "An it harm none, do as thy wilst". I cannot accept the logic that an activity which harms no one, and is not prohibited in any way, could possibly be immoral. Your mileage may vary.

 

you understand about analogies, right?

 

and i don't think you have broken out of your morally superior mode. i was attempting to make the point (subtle, so it may have been missed) that a departure from generally accepted practice does not become right simply because an opportunity is offered. i was not attempting to delineate what the accepted practice is or should be.

 

and it's "an it harm none, do as thou wilt".

 

"thy" is a posessive.

 

there are people who have made and will continue to make the case that multiple logging does harm them or at least the play of the game.

 

not me. although i don't think it concerns me in the least, i still think there's a lack of integrity present. since this is a thread about how people can hold both opinions at once, i thought maybe my thoughts on the matter might be appropriate to share.

 

i wouldn't dream of going after people who do those things.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow - I don't think my position has changed in a year other than what things are in a certain order in the spectrum of light-to-dark.

 

From May of 2006

 

For example, the community already generally agrees that entirely ficititious logs are not acceptable. We also agree that logging finds on your own caches is bad form.

 

But beyond that, there is a gray area. Next in line comes logging a cache as a find because you couldn't find it but you tried hard. Then comes logging a find on an archived cache on this site because you found a cache listed on another site. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if the owner says it is OK. Then comes logging additional finds on a cache if the owner gives you a "bonus" find for something else. Then comes logging pocket caches. Then comes logging multiple finds at an event. Then comes logging multiple finds on a cache that has moved. Finally comes logging a cache found by a group as a find for each member of the group.

Wow. That was such a cool post, I thought it deserved its own graphic.

2b8e4859-fc41-40a7-a6d1-bfa1c3dca3df.jpg

 

...and my respect for people who do it is diminished considerably.

...but if other people do so it doesn't affect my respect for them.

Not to detract from this great post, but my respect for a person, even in the Geocaching world, is not dependent on their find count or the list of caches they've found or not found. When I see a find count, I go, "Hmmm. Isn't that interesting," and then move on. If it's a log on a cache the ONLY bearing the person's find count would mean to me is how reliable their DNF is. If a person has found 5,107 caches and they log a DNF on a cache that is a difficulty 1, I would think that cache is missing. In the forums, a person's find count usually doesn't enter into how I respond. Most of the people I have conversations with, I couldn't tell you their find count.

 

I posted in the other forum, and from the quotes above, some of this might be repeats from this lengthy thread, but I'll say my couple of quips here:

How can you cheat when nobody wins? Did I miss the prize?
...everyone should do what they think is right and STOP worrying about what the other guy is doing.
I would also add that cachers should probably stop worrying about how others feel regarding what they are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
you understand about analogies, right?

I think so. Two situations, similar in nature, resulting in a common outcome? I prefer my analogies to have at least somewhat limited comparative value. Comparing one person who plays a game without rules, differently from how you choose to play, to another person committing a crime has no comparative value. It's like comparing apples to engine blocks.

 

and i don't think you have broken out of your morally superior mode.

That's OK. I'm used to being judged by the judgmental.

 

i was attempting to make the point that a departure from generally accepted practice does not become right simply because an opportunity is offered.

Perhaps that's where we differ? At what point does a particular method of playing a game without rules become "generally accepted practice"? Just because you & I, as well as a few folks in this forum, play by the "One cache/one find" rule, does that mean it automatically becomes the "generally accepted practice"? How many regions would you need to exclude before the phrase "generally accepted" became accurate?

 

i was not attempting to delineate what the accepted practice is or should be.

When you apply negative connotations to someone else's method of playing, pretending that there are moral values in play, you are dictating what is "right" and what is "wrong", attempting to impose your values on others. I believe that is how Gandhi defined violence.

 

and it's "an it harm none, do as thou wilt".

Can't I have my own motto? :P

 

there are people who have made and will continue to make the case that multiple logging does harm them or at least the play of the game.

Very true. There are also people who have made, and will continue to make, the case that multiple logging does no harm. Including the owner of this website. Should he ever change his mind, I will follow. In fact, in other threads, I've even expressed support for changing the site software so only one "Found It/Attended" log could be posted per cache page. Groundspeak has elected to allow the practice of multiple logging, and since they are the only ones who can decide what the rules are here, they are the ones who determine what is "right". As it stands, logging the same cache twice is "right", according to TPTB.

 

i still think there's a lack of integrity present.

You are fully within your rights to feel as morally superior to those who are different from you as you need. God bless you.

Share this post


Link to post
At one time there were no rules about defrauding insurance companies.

Come again? It's called "Theft". Stealing has been illegal long before the first insurance company was created.

Share this post


Link to post

Bottom line for me. Logs for caches on this site should reflect caches approved on this site.

Exactly!!

Whether a cache could be approved or should be approved or is "better" than many that are approved is irrelevant. It wasn't approved. So it shouldn't be logged HERE.

 

This is not to say that you cannot log it. Log it wherever you want. On a piece of paper. In your mind. On a spreadsheet. Wherever.

And if I can log it any of those places, why not log it to my account? It is, after all, my accounting of what I have done. I like a record of the caches I have found and I like that recorded all in one place. I found caches at events.

 

If you chose to keep track of your record some other way, that's OK with me. If you choose to allow some kinds of finds for yourself and not others, that's OK with me too. It's even OK with me if you hold an event and don't allow event caches to be logged. If I come, I will only log the event.

 

I can agree that some kinds of 'found it' logs may inconvinence someone else--such as the "found the cache spot but the cache was missing" type logs (although if you read the cache logs before you go look even that one shouldn't be a huge problem).

 

It's not like you have to go find that event cache just because I found it. It's not like someone else will try to go find that cache because I found an event cache--It's pretty obvious that the event cache was only there during the event, and after all, it isn't showing up in the list of caches in the area. I've seen people say that event caches "aren't fair" because they aren't permanent and won't be there to log the next week. That doesn't really sway me much---any cache could be gone by next week. They can be stolen, or washed away by a storm, or even just shut down because they owner thinks they've been there long enough.

 

Since I can't log an event cache into my regular list of found caches and because they do show up under the event category, please tell me why does it matter to you if I log event caches that the event host allows? It's not hidden, it's not hard to discover, it's not going to change your count one whit. Really, why does it matter? I'm trying to understand your position here, but I don't get it.

Edited by Neos2

Share this post


Link to post

... why does it matter to you if I log event caches that the event host allows? It's not hidden, it's not hard to discover, it's not going to change your count one whit. Really, why does it matter? I'm trying to understand your position here, but I don't get it.

 

Because the host did not get those caches approved. The rest of us cachers have no idea if they broke any of several good rules in place for good reasons. You finders don't even know that unless you have some caches under your belt and know all the land managers and their situation.

 

This is valid wiht public or private logs.

 

For what it's worth if onine logs were allowed to be kept private and I could not read them as a cache owner I'd opt out of my caches being loggable by "private loggers". As a finder caches would lose ome of thier flavor and the community would be less than it is now because a lot of my community spirit comes from reading logs.

Share this post


Link to post

For what it's worth if onine logs were allowed to be kept private and I could not read them as a cache owner I'd opt out of my caches being loggable by "private loggers". As a finder caches would lose ome of thier flavor and the community would be less than it is now because a lot of my community spirit comes from reading logs.

On-line cache logs (including DNFs and Notes) have a special value that goes beyond their obvious purpose as record keepers. In an activity that, at its core, attempts to create a random momentary connection between two arbitrary people (seeker and hider), the log is the specific public point of contact. And of all the log types, the 'Found it' and 'Attended' logs carry a little bit of extra weight, perhaps because they are the log types that kind of complete the transaction that was intended when the hider placed the cache (or set up the event).

 

Maybe it's that extra value that drives some of the emotion surrounding questionable logging practices.

Share this post


Link to post

... why does it matter to you if I log event caches that the event host allows? It's not hidden, it's not hard to discover, it's not going to change your count one whit. Really, why does it matter? I'm trying to understand your position here, but I don't get it.

Because the host did not get those caches approved. The rest of us cachers have no idea if they broke any of several good rules in place for good reasons.

Is that it, really? Because someone *might* get away with a guideline infraction? Well, that's a reason, but it's not strong enough to sway me.

 

It's not as if event hosts are lurking in the darkest shadows waiting for the oportunity to break every guideline. We are talking about caches that will be put out for a few hours- perhaps a day or three at the most. No one "knows" if caches that are reviewed and published really meet all the rules until the first few finders have test-driven the caches. Event caches are usually gone before anyone even notices they were there except the happy finders.

 

Most event hosts have some experience hiding caches (or they are too intimidated to put out event caches anyway). They follow the same guidelines they ordinarily would. Even in the worst-case scenario, an event cache would do no more harm than any other cache is reviewed and published even though it unwittingly breaks a guideline or creates some other controversy.

Share this post


Link to post

For what it's worth if onine logs were allowed to be kept private and I could not read them as a cache owner I'd opt out of my caches being loggable by "private loggers". As a finder caches would lose ome of thier flavor and the community would be less than it is now because a lot of my community spirit comes from reading logs.

I'm not sure why you talk about private logging? If it's because I said the logs are public, what I meant was that you can look at my stats and see if I've logged event caches as multiple attended logs or not.

 

I agree with you about logs---I love reading the logs, and I would probably stop caching if the logs ever became private.

 

I'm not sure that I agree with cache_test_dummies that 'Found it' and 'Attended' logs carry a little bit of extra weight --I suppose that some people feel they have to keep looking for a cache until they get the found it log--but I've left plenty of DNF logs in distant places I know I'll never return to, and I don't feel like I left something undone because of it. I looked, I didn't find it, I recorded my action. Seems to hold as much weight to me as any other type of log. It's just another tick in the record-keeping column. I'll say again that I'd prefer there was a catgory for event caches--I'd cheerfully log my event caches there instead of as multiple attendeds (sort of like benchmarks). Then all the event cache snobs could say "but those weren't real caches" and we'd all be happy.

Edited by Neos2

Share this post


Link to post

... why does it matter to you if I log event caches that the event host allows? It's not hidden, it's not hard to discover, it's not going to change your count one whit. Really, why does it matter? I'm trying to understand your position here, but I don't get it.

Because the host did not get those caches approved. The rest of us cachers have no idea if they broke any of several good rules in place for good reasons.

Is that it, really? Because someone *might* get away with a guideline infraction? Well, that's a reason, but it's not strong enough to sway me.

 

It's not as if event hosts are lurking in the darkest shadows waiting for the oportunity to break every guideline. We are talking about caches that will be put out for a few hours- perhaps a day or three at the most. No one "knows" if caches that are reviewed and published really meet all the rules until the first few finders have test-driven the caches. Event caches are usually gone before anyone even notices they were there except the happy finders.

 

Most event hosts have some experience hiding caches (or they are too intimidated to put out event caches anyway). They follow the same guidelines they ordinarily would. Even in the worst-case scenario, an event cache would do no more harm than any other cache is reviewed and published even though it unwittingly breaks a guideline or creates some other controversy.

 

Every time interesting logging practices get brought up, folks give reasons why it's frowned upon. (one of which stated by RK above) and the universal response is, "why do you care?" and "why does it matter to you?"

 

Just once I'd love for anyone to give a good reason to log temp caches as attended logs other than to increase their find count. Is there even one other reason?

 

Many reasons not to do it, but only reason to do it.

 

Now who's overly concerned with numbers?

Edited by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

Share this post


Link to post

... why does it matter to you if I log event caches that the event host allows? It's not hidden, it's not hard to discover, it's not going to change your count one whit. Really, why does it matter? I'm trying to understand your position here, but I don't get it.

Because the host did not get those caches approved. The rest of us cachers have no idea if they broke any of several good rules in place for good reasons.

Is that it, really? Because someone *might* get away with a guideline infraction? Well, that's a reason, but it's not strong enough to sway me. ...

 

That's one reason. The other was as I said. The caches are not approvable on this site. Logs should reflect caches that are approved on this site.

 

In my view there is more legitimacy in logging your GC.com caches extra to make sure that your overall find count matches your GC, TC, NV Caches, and Letterboxes. At least those are caches listed somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post

In my view there is more legitimacy in logging your GC.com caches extra to make sure that your overall find count matches your GC, TC, NV Caches, and Letterboxes. At least those are caches listed somewhere.

Interesting point of view. I feel exactly the opposite, and fairly vehemently. I'll have to think about it a while to figure out why, exactly.

 

Of course, I don't "do" caches from most of those places, so perhaps that colors my thinking (Well, I have done a couple of letterboxes, but that doesn't seem like the same thing at all to me). I think perhaps I'm just a loyal gc user. Perhaps an illigitmate one, but I've been there before too (My father had his marriage to my mother annulled so he could spend eternity with his second wife) :P

Share this post


Link to post

Just once I'd love for anyone to give a good reason to log temp caches as attended logs other than to increase their find count. Is there even one other reason?

To keep track of the caches I've found. I've already said that I'd prefer a more accurate way to do it.

 

Do you really log the caches you find "just to increase your find count by one"?

 

I log mine for lots of reasons--

Share this post


Link to post

... why does it matter to you if I log event caches that the event host allows? It's not hidden, it's not hard to discover, it's not going to change your count one whit. Really, why does it matter?

 

You're right. It doesn't matter to anyone but you.

 

If most of your neighbors all painted their houses pink with green pinstripes it wouldn't matter either. It's their house and whatever color it is should not matter to anyone but them. If you don't like it, dont look at it.

If it became common practice for them to decorate their trees and shrubs with their undergarments, or to erect a giant 80 foot pyramid in their backyards out of Milwaukee's Best Light cans it's not going to change your house one whit. Really, why does it matter? :P

Share this post


Link to post

...To keep track of the caches I've found. ...

 

Rather than debate the act of logging lets look at the cache itself.

 

What makes a cache a cache?

 

That leads to what makes an unlisted cache a cache? (such that it's worth logging).

 

My question on logging.

 

If I didn't attend the event but found the temp caches would it be fair to log the event once for each cache, but not log the event itself since I didn't go?

Share this post


Link to post

... why does it matter to you if I log event caches that the event host allows? It's not hidden, it's not hard to discover, it's not going to change your count one whit. Really, why does it matter?

 

You're right. It doesn't matter to anyone but you.

 

If most of your neighbors all painted their houses pink with green pinstripes it wouldn't matter either. It's their house and whatever color it is should not matter to anyone but them. If you don't like it, dont look at it.

If it became common practice for them to decorate their trees and shrubs with their undergarments, or to erect a giant 80 foot pyramid in their backyards out of Milwaukee's Best Light cans it's not going to change your house one whit. Really, why does it matter? :P

I don't care if people paint their caches pink with green pinstirpes and I've seen undergarments as trade items. However your anology doesn't stand. While I'm a big fan of people homes being their castle and being able to keep a 67 Camaro up on blocks as long as it takes it does impact their neighbors. If on Tuesday afternoon all your neighbors slapped some junkers up on blocks, quit watering their lawns, started running around in ratty tank tops with a beer perched on their beer bellies and otherwise trashed out the neighborood. Your house would drop 20% in value or more from the work of your neghbors.

Share this post


Link to post
Really, why does it matter? :rolleyes:

 

Many reasons have been given in this very thread. I'll highlight a few:

 

I guess as long as GC.com posts the numbers next to a person's user name in their online logs and in their Stat bar, I would appreciate some level of consistency.

 

Their number of logs pushes the other important logs off the last 5 in my PQ. Bonehead logger hogs my limited space with their "Found it" prattle and I can't see that another cacher bumped into a rattlesnake nearby.

 

s with most every game/hobby/sport these numbers help to provide structure to our activity

 

Certain logging practices can and do affect others. I wasted my time and gas going after a cache that had recent found it logs only to learn that those logs were phony and the cache was missing. Had I known that I would have chosen a different cache to search for. I know one geocacher who was lured into a fruitless 100 mile RT after someone logged a fake find on a cache long thought missing.

 

That kind of logging makes no difference to anyone else . . . unless the person wants genuine congratulations when they reach 100 Finds, 500 Finds, 1000 Finds, etc.

 

Honesty. Integrity. Morality.

To me, logging a cache means that you have found the cache and signed the log (or a reasonable fascimile thereof.) This is called honesty. You attended the same event one hundred fifty times?!? You logged a cache that you never found? Then you are a dishonest person! I do not want you for my doctor, lawyer, or accountant.

 

The bottom line is that it is a "misrepresentation." They did not "attend" 850 events. The key word is "attend." Look it up in the dictionary....The obvious reason people say they "attended" an event many times is to make their numbers higher. If there were no numbers then they wouldn't waste their time doing it. By the way, your logic would permit people to find the same tranditional caches every week. The rationalization would be that they were not in the exact same spots.

 

his 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.

 

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?

 

In my opinion the two most important reasons are as follows:

 

The caches are not approvable on this site. Logs should reflect caches that are approved on this site.

 

In my view there is more legitimacy in logging your GC.com caches extra to make sure that your overall find count matches your GC, TC, NV Caches, and Letterboxes. At least those are caches listed somewhere.

 

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.

 

There's more reasons to not double log, but I got tired of quoting. All these reasons not to do it, and only one reason to do it: an extra smiley. My personal favorite reason is below:

 

Call me crazy - but the idea of logging a cache more then once simply seems pointless and silly.

Edited by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

Share this post


Link to post

Many reasons have been given in this very thread. I'll highlight a few:

 

I guess as long as GC.com posts the numbers next to a person's user name in their online logs and in their Stat bar, I would appreciate some level of consistency.

What consistency? Can't tell if some found a 5/5 or a 1/1 or whether they found the cache themselves or as part of a group or if they use a phone friend or didn't use the hint. There is no consistency between find counts anyhow so this isn't a reason

 

Their number of logs pushes the other important logs off the last 5 in my PQ. Bonehead logger hogs my limited space with their "Found it" prattle and I can't see that another cacher bumped into a rattlesnake nearby.

How is this the case for multiple logs on an event. Are you using the last 5 logs in your PQ to find an event that already happened? Even for the find where they really didn't find, this person's log would tell you that the cache is not there - so what are you missing? Of course if you don't read the logs you might think the cache is there. But that would be a different reason.

 

s with most every game/hobby/sport these numbers help to provide structure to our activity

Scores in a friendly golf game also provide structure. Yet some players routinely take mulligans or gimme shots. Of course they agree to do this with the players they are competing against. I guess if there is a competition for finds we need to agree what a find is so we all do this the same way. It's a nice wish but it's not going to happen.

 

Certain logging practices can and do affect others. I wasted my time and gas going after a cache that had recent found it logs only to learn that those logs were phony and the cache was missing. Had I known that I would have chosen a different cache to search for. I know one geocacher who was lured into a fruitless 100 mile RT after someone logged a fake find on a cache long thought missing.

brainsnat's friend sure has wasted a lot of gas. I suppose this may happen if you don't read the log that says the find was for a missing cache with permission of the owner. I do agree that an out and out false log could effect another cacher. We're talking about a practice where the person says in the log why he claims a find when the cache wasn't there.

 

That kind of logging makes no difference to anyone else . . . unless the person wants genuine congratulations when they reach 100 Finds, 500 Finds, 1000 Finds, etc.

Congratulating a cacher for a milestone is really just an excuse for beer. People who occasionally claim a find on a missing cache or who log temporary event logs in a region where that is commonly done are not really upsetting the balance of nature because the get congratulated a bit early

 

Honesty. Integrity. Morality.

To me, logging a cache means that you have found the cache and signed the log (or a reasonable fascimile thereof.) This is called honesty. You attended the same event one hundred fifty times?!? You logged a cache that you never found? Then you are a dishonest person! I do not want you for my doctor, lawyer, or accountant.

I guess I responded already that my doctor takes mulligans playing golf. Silly little scoring changes when playing a game that doesn't matter is not going to make me worry that he's going to lie to me about my illness. Of course, I can't convince a puritan that anyone who makes their own rules for a silly game isn't in the same category as thieves and murderers.

 

The bottom line is that it is a "misrepresentation." They did not "attend" 850 events. The key word is "attend." Look it up in the dictionary....The obvious reason people say they "attended" an event many times is to make their numbers higher. If there were no numbers then they wouldn't waste their time doing it. By the way, your logic would permit people to find the same tranditional caches every week. The rationalization would be that they were not in the exact same spots.

It is a misrepresentation. I don't follow that the logic that some who does this would log anything as a find. It very well may be that the reason they misrepresent their finds is to boost their counts. People like to see their numbers go up and may be trying to reach a personal goal faster. I suspect they claim a find because they feel comfortable doing so. Perhaps they have seen others do it so they think it is OK. I doubt many people would be comfortable claiming a find on GC for just driving past a cache. Some puritans are uncomfortable it they forget a pen and couldn't sign the log. Others would claim this as a find. The logic does not permit them to claim a find for something that by their definition is not a find (or worthy of counting as find).

 

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.

I responded above that there is no consistency in number. Here's another reason - Where I live I can go find 50 caches in one day easily. In some parts of the world there may be fewer than 50 caches total. How can you compare my number to someone living in Indonesia?

 

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?

Ditto. You've posted this reason three times and it still doesn't make sense.

 

In my opinion the two most important reasons are as follows:

 

The caches are not approvable on this site. Logs should reflect caches that are approved on this site.

 

In my view there is more legitimacy in logging your GC.com caches extra to make sure that your overall find count matches your GC, TC, NV Caches, and Letterboxes. At least those are caches listed somewhere.

To me this is partly a good reason. Better to put it this way. The site provides various types of logs - Found It, Did Not Find It, Attended, Note, Needs Archive, etc. Why so many? So that you can select the right one to use. Using the log for a different purpose than what is was intended for is likely to piss off people who don't do that. These people are probably right in noting that if your find count didn't increment for each find or attended log people would probably not use the Find and Attend logs for other than what they are meant for.

 

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.

They're not exactly stealing resources from the site but they are using it in a different way than intended.

 

There's more reasons to not double log, but I got tired of quoting. All these reasons not to do it, and only one reason to do it: an extra smiley. My personal favorite reason is below:

 

Call me crazy - but the idea of logging a cache more then once simply seems pointless and silly.

Isn't this what Jeremy said?

 

You see I tend to agree that the questionable practices we are discussing are silly and not the intended use of the found or attended log. But I don't see how this really effects anyone and I certainly don't see it as meaning the people who do it are immoral and untrustworthy.

Share this post


Link to post

i believe in integrity both in geocaching and the world at large. if that's too idealistic for you, tough.

 

This attitude is really at the heart of the argument.

You are attempting to define integrity in geocaching according to a standard that you have adopted and integrity has nothing to do with your standards. Numbers may be very important to you but others might not care at all.

 

People who say they found a cache and didn't have a pencil to sign the log are not lacking in integrity. People who log a cache in the fashion that the owner asks and intends do not lack integrity, they are not defrauding anyone and they are not immoral or dishonest. Imputing that others lack integrity because they do not adopt the standards that you have adopted is not even acceptable let alone ideal.

 

Numbers really do not matter at all, not yours, not mine, not anyones, that may not be your notion of an ideal world but it is mine, if you cannot accept that, tough.

Share this post


Link to post

 

If they didn't find the cache but said they did. They are in fact a liar. They can not in fact be trusted. I would not in fact want them representing me or working for me and I would hate for someone who knew the state of their honesty and intregrety to leave me in the dark.

 

As for your example. If they found the cache and didn't have a pencil to sign the cache log and they logged online as such. That's honest.

 

Your example is different than what HD was speaking of.

 

I agree that people who claim a Find on a cache when they did not find it are either mistaken or lying, I have had people log my caches by mistake. I also think that lying is harmful to everyone who is geocaching, briansnat has delineated just such a situation and I think most people would agree that fake finds do a disservice to all.

 

However I chose my example carefully, the geocacher clearly did not meet the standard set out by Harry.

 

I allow that every log I see has been written by an honest person because I feel that the numbers are valueless so I see no advantage to be gained by lying. People who care about numbers ensure that the finds they claim meet the standards they have adopted. Problems arise when people think the standards they have adopted should be applied to the activity of geocaching in general and other geocachers specifically, this is nowhere more evident than in discussions regarding multiple logs on Event caches.

 

If people choose to record the temporary event caches associated with an event and the cache owner intends that the event and associated temporary caches should be logged this way then no harm is done to any other geocacher, this is my opinion. I don't even conclude that those writing multiple logs are misrepresenting anything, they simply state they are logging a find on a temporary event cache. Suggesting that those who choose to log caches this way lack integrity, morality or honesty is a practice that I don't agree with.

 

When I read Harry's post I get the impression that he thinks people who do log the temporary event caches found at an event are lacking in honesty, integrity or morality.

My approach is different, I assume they live in an area where that practice is acceptable and they are doing as the cache owner instructs, they are doing nothing wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Just once I'd love for anyone to give a good reason to log temp caches as attended logs other than to increase their find count.

Most folks I talk to that multilog events state that it adds a different dimension of fun to their game. I'm OK with that. Is that fun numbers oriented? Probably.

 

If most of your neighbors all painted their houses pink with green pinstripes it wouldn't matter either.

Off topic, I know, but that's almost verbatim what I threatened my neighbors with when they were making noises about forming a homeowners association. :rolleyes:

 

The thing that strikes me the funniest about this whole thread is that I have what are arguably the highest possible logging standards, I.e; Locate cache, open cache, sign log, replace cache = Found It. Nothing else qualifies in my book as a find. Each of my finds and attendeds are for a single cache or event. No double logging anywhere. This seems to be close to the standard that my antagonists take as well. Yet, we've been arguing for days, just because I am unwilling to judge others as harshly as I judge myself. :P:P

 

It's a crazy world... :(

Share this post


Link to post

...I allow that every log I see has been written by an honest person because I feel that the numbers are valueless so I see no advantage to be gained by lying. People who care about numbers ensure that the finds they claim meet the standards they have adopted. Problems arise when people think the standards they have adopted should be applied to the activity of geocaching in general and other geocachers specifically, this is nowhere more evident than in discussions regarding multiple logs on Event caches.

 

If people choose to record the temporary event caches associated with an event and the cache owner intends that the event and associated temporary caches should be logged this way then no harm is done to any other geocacher, this is my opinion. I don't even conclude that those writing multiple logs are misrepresenting anything, they simply state they are logging a find on a temporary event cache. Suggesting that those who choose to log caches this way lack integrity, morality or honesty is a practice that I don't agree with....

 

You have two different points you are making here.

 

On event caches: I agree that those who log them are generally not lacking in integrety, morality and such. There goal is to have their find count line up with what they feel are legitimate finds. I have shown the potential for harm that is encouraged by the practice. Neos2 pointed out the odds are low for actual harm and I agree with that. My opinion is that the find count for caches on this site should reflect caches actually listed on this site. That brings me to your second point.

 

First I need to remove the numbers out of your comments about logging because it doesn't apply to what I'm goign to build on. "People ensure that the finds they claim meet the standards they have adopted". This is true. "Problems arise when people think the standards they have adopted should be applied to the activity of geocaching in general" This is also true. Not because it's wrong but because as a community we need common ground. We generally agree on what a perfect find is. "Find the cache, sign the log". We as a community start getting fuzzy when you can't quite nail the perfect find. That's where the debate comes in. We need that debate to define our common standards. I could care less about a log in a cache. However every cache I place has a log, and ever cache I find, I sign the log. That's becuase I've adopted the community standard. This wasn't always the case.

 

Having said that. Some people don't log based on the general community standard with a slight variation for events and wet log. They flat out lie. This actually is not about the numbers either. When we were kids we all knew that kid who swore on a stack of bibles 10' tall that he did a full 360 on the swing. It was pure bunk but if they pulled off the lie they got respect, adoration and looked up too. In geocaching instead of lying about the swing they lie about numbers. That's their chosen tool. The reasons are the same. Get rid of numbers and nothing changes. Now they will lie about having done the short list of must do caches including that one that takes Scuba gear, the rock climbing one and so on.

 

If community standards matter, we need to be able to discuss the fringes, and we need to be able to call out a rat when we see one. If they don't matter then nothing about any part of this activity matters.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

Many reasons have been given in this very thread. I'll highlight a few:

 

I guess as long as GC.com posts the numbers next to a person's user name in their online logs and in their Stat bar, I would appreciate some level of consistency.

What consistency? Can't tell if some found a 5/5 or a 1/1 or whether they found the cache themselves or as part of a group or if they use a phone friend or didn't use the hint. There is no consistency between find counts anyhow so this isn't a reason

 

Their number of logs pushes the other important logs off the last 5 in my PQ. Bonehead logger hogs my limited space with their "Found it" prattle and I can't see that another cacher bumped into a rattlesnake nearby.

How is this the case for multiple logs on an event. Are you using the last 5 logs in your PQ to find an event that already happened? Even for the find where they really didn't find, this person's log would tell you that the cache is not there - so what are you missing? Of course if you don't read the logs you might think the cache is there. But that would be a different reason.

 

s with most every game/hobby/sport these numbers help to provide structure to our activity

Scores in a friendly golf game also provide structure. Yet some players routinely take mulligans or gimme shots. Of course they agree to do this with the players they are competing against. I guess if there is a competition for finds we need to agree what a find is so we all do this the same way. It's a nice wish but it's not going to happen.

 

Certain logging practices can and do affect others. I wasted my time and gas going after a cache that had recent found it logs only to learn that those logs were phony and the cache was missing. Had I known that I would have chosen a different cache to search for. I know one geocacher who was lured into a fruitless 100 mile RT after someone logged a fake find on a cache long thought missing.

brainsnat's friend sure has wasted a lot of gas. I suppose this may happen if you don't read the log that says the find was for a missing cache with permission of the owner. I do agree that an out and out false log could effect another cacher. We're talking about a practice where the person says in the log why he claims a find when the cache wasn't there.

 

That kind of logging makes no difference to anyone else . . . unless the person wants genuine congratulations when they reach 100 Finds, 500 Finds, 1000 Finds, etc.

Congratulating a cacher for a milestone is really just an excuse for beer. People who occasionally claim a find on a missing cache or who log temporary event logs in a region where that is commonly done are not really upsetting the balance of nature because the get congratulated a bit early

 

Honesty. Integrity. Morality.

To me, logging a cache means that you have found the cache and signed the log (or a reasonable fascimile thereof.) This is called honesty. You attended the same event one hundred fifty times?!? You logged a cache that you never found? Then you are a dishonest person! I do not want you for my doctor, lawyer, or accountant.

I guess I responded already that my doctor takes mulligans playing golf. Silly little scoring changes when playing a game that doesn't matter is not going to make me worry that he's going to lie to me about my illness. Of course, I can't convince a puritan that anyone who makes their own rules for a silly game isn't in the same category as thieves and murderers.

 

The bottom line is that it is a "misrepresentation." They did not "attend" 850 events. The key word is "attend." Look it up in the dictionary....The obvious reason people say they "attended" an event many times is to make their numbers higher. If there were no numbers then they wouldn't waste their time doing it. By the way, your logic would permit people to find the same tranditional caches every week. The rationalization would be that they were not in the exact same spots.

It is a misrepresentation. I don't follow that the logic that some who does this would log anything as a find. It very well may be that the reason they misrepresent their finds is to boost their counts. People like to see their numbers go up and may be trying to reach a personal goal faster. I suspect they claim a find because they feel comfortable doing so. Perhaps they have seen others do it so they think it is OK. I doubt many people would be comfortable claiming a find on GC for just driving past a cache. Some puritans are uncomfortable it they forget a pen and couldn't sign the log. Others would claim this as a find. The logic does not permit them to claim a find for something that by their definition is not a find (or worthy of counting as find).

 

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.

I responded above that there is no consistency in number. Here's another reason - Where I live I can go find 50 caches in one day easily. In some parts of the world there may be fewer than 50 caches total. How can you compare my number to someone living in Indonesia?

 

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?

Ditto. You've posted this reason three times and it still doesn't make sense.

 

In my opinion the two most important reasons are as follows:

 

The caches are not approvable on this site. Logs should reflect caches that are approved on this site.

 

In my view there is more legitimacy in logging your GC.com caches extra to make sure that your overall find count matches your GC, TC, NV Caches, and Letterboxes. At least those are caches listed somewhere.

To me this is partly a good reason. Better to put it this way. The site provides various types of logs - Found It, Did Not Find It, Attended, Note, Needs Archive, etc. Why so many? So that you can select the right one to use. Using the log for a different purpose than what is was intended for is likely to piss off people who don't do that. These people are probably right in noting that if your find count didn't increment for each find or attended log people would probably not use the Find and Attend logs for other than what they are meant for.

 

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.

They're not exactly stealing resources from the site but they are using it in a different way than intended.

 

There's more reasons to not double log, but I got tired of quoting. All these reasons not to do it, and only one reason to do it: an extra smiley. My personal favorite reason is below:

 

Call me crazy - but the idea of logging a cache more then once simply seems pointless and silly.

Isn't this what Jeremy said?

 

You see I tend to agree that the questionable practices we are discussing are silly and not the intended use of the found or attended log. But I don't see how this really effects anyone and I certainly don't see it as meaning the people who do it are immoral and untrustworthy.

 

uh, pardon me, but i belong to the "numbers don't matter" camp. i do not know why you keep bringing up these people without pencils. judging from the general drift around here, this is not in issue. i see no reason why they shouldn't log, and apparently nobody else cares, either. they found the cache, right? are they attempting to log it twice? or log it if they didn't find it? if the hider takes their word for it, that's good enough for me.

 

because this is a new game with few guidelines and fewer rules, people will play the game in a way that pleases them. i consider many of the multiple logging practices to be questionable if not dishonest. i wouldn't put them in league with identity theft or defense-contractor bribes. it isn't even up there with shoplifting, and yet i do feel it represents a breakdown of integrity and that many poeple who do it do so on the basis that some other person said it was ok.

 

once i see you do these things, it's not really your cache resume that i question; it's you. i look at you as someone not to be trusted. i won't mention it to you unless you ask, but it will be there all the same. it's kind of like this: there was a cacher with a very impressive find count. someone produced evidence that at least six of the finds were bogus. even if HALF of the finds had been bogus it would have been an impressive total, but suddenly neither i nor any of my friends had any respect for that count or that cacher. that cacher became to us not "persona non grata", but "non persona".

 

it doesn't effect my game exactly, but part of my game is in the interactions between players, sometimes ony manifest in the invisible web we weave with common destinations and moving objects. i like to feel that those around me are playing straight.

 

by the way, there are tons of little practices that i do not care for and will not support, but people seem to like them and they do not artificially boost anybody's count. they drive me nuts and yet i endure them cheefully. why? they're honest.

 

and don't try to tell me that double -dippers are honest when they announce to the world that they're double-dipping. a thief is no less a thief when she tells you she stole some stuff. it's not the declaration; it's the action.

Share this post


Link to post
Just once I'd love for anyone to give a good reason to log temp caches as attended logs other than to increase their find count.
Most folks I talk to that multilog events state that it adds a different dimension of fun to their game. I'm OK with that. Is that fun numbers oriented? Probably.

 

Of course they multilog for fun. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. They have fun increasing their find count.

 

That to me is the point of this thread and the point I want to make. I'm not one of the folks that really get upset about these practices. I could care less. I'm only annoyed when it's construed that folks that don't do extra logging are somehow overly concerned about numbers.

 

It's the folks that really get their fun specifically by increasing their find count that seem a LOT more concerned about numbers.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

it's construed that folks that don't do extra logging are somehow overly concerned about numbers.

It's the folks that really get their fun specifically by increasing their find count that seem a LOT more concerned about numbers.

Some that don't do it are overly concerned about those who do.

In addition, I would submit that those who do log events multiple times may be concerned about numbers, just not yours. :rolleyes:

Edited by Trinity's Crew

Share this post


Link to post
Having said that. Some people don't log based on the general community standard with a slight variation for events and wet log. They flat out lie. This actually is not about the numbers either. When we were kids we all knew that kid who swore on a stack of bibles 10' tall that he did a full 360 on the swing. It was pure bunk but if they pulled off the lie they got respect, adoration and looked up too. In geocaching instead of lying about the swing they lie about numbers. That's their chosen tool. The reasons are the same. Get rid of numbers and nothing changes. Now they will lie about having done the short list of must do caches including that one that takes Scuba gear, the rock climbing one and so on.

 

If community standards matter, we need to be able to discuss the fringes, and we need to be able to call out a rat when we see one. If they don't matter then nothing about any part of this activity matters.

Very well put. These are the false log types I am willing to get worked up over. They are inherently dishonest both in content and intent, and can cause problems for other cachers.

 

by the way, there are tons of little practices that i do not care for and will not support, but people seem to like them and they do not artificially boost anybody's count. they drive me nuts and yet i endure them cheefully. why? they're honest.

You mean like logging a second attended stating "I found the purple Coke bottle at the event"? I'm failing to find the dishonesty there. Honesty to me means being truthful. Since they were truthful, would you be willing to forgive them? :rolleyes:

 

and don't try to tell me that double -dippers are honest when they announce to the world that they're double-dipping. a thief is no less a thief when she tells you she stole some stuff. it's not the declaration; it's the action.

Apples to engine blocks, once again. A thief, by definition, is a person who broke the rules, not some imaginary standard that the self righteous attempt to push down the throats of those who play a game differently then they do. If, after committing their criminal act of theft, the thief admits to their actions, they will still face community sanctions for violating the rules. Someone claiming a second Attended is not breaking any rules.

The difference is subtle, I know. :P

Share this post


Link to post

 

Apples to engine blocks, once again. A thief, by definition, is a person who broke the rules, not some imaginary standard that the self righteous attempt to push down the throats of those who play a game differently then they do. If, after committing their criminal act of theft, the thief admits to their actions, they will still face community sanctions for violating the rules. Someone claiming a second Attended is not breaking any rules.

The difference is subtle, I know. :rolleyes:

 

it's the taking of something to which one is not entitled. fundamentally, it is at least related to theft.

 

and i think it is unfair to categorize all those who believe this is a dishonest practice as self-righteous or judgemental. having judgement about what one considers to be fair practice in life or sport regardless of an adopted code is simply exercising some kind of moral code.

 

i am very wary of all those who denounce as self-righteous all those who express ideas about what constitutes fair play. never mind that they are themselves making self-righteous judgements (just try to get through a whole day without making one), but each of us form ideas about what we consider to be fair play. when we find ourselves on the short end of it, we tend to exclaim very loudly that everyone else is doing it, or that the cache owner said it was OK, or that it's nobody's business anyway because everyone plays the game their own way.

 

which is true, of course. everybody does play the game their own way. those who play it similarly will tend to gravitate toward one another. perhaps you play in a way for which i have no respect. when you meet me on the trail, you will find me friendly and polite. i wouldn't have mentioned any of this, except i think the thread was about it.

 

and i wasn't going to bring up that motto again, but i got cranking and i think i missed either luchtime or nap.

 

why sure, you can say it however you want, except it's a very well-known motto and it is one of the primary points or the wiccan rede. you are, however, free to take any existing text and substitute nonsense words for some of it.

Share this post


Link to post
it's the taking of something to which one is not entitled. fundamentally, it is at least related to theft.

But in this case, (double logging an event when invited), the person is entitled. The guidelines, combined with the host's permission, entitled them. Ergo, it isn't even close to theft. Pretending that it is "related" to a criminal act simply so you can affix negative connotations on a particular practice that you don't approve of, leaves you looking pompous and self righteous. If that's the image you are working to convey, good job.

 

you are, however, free to take any existing text and substitute nonsense words for some of it.

Whoo Hoo!! :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post
Short and sweet, if numbers don’t matter then what difference does it make how a cacher does or doesn’t log?

 

I'm not seeing how the veracity of the claim one found a cache has anything to do with the number of those claims. It's two separate issues, I would think. One is the accuracy of the cache history. The other is used by some as a measure of "worth."

 

If you're talking about judging a DNF based on claimed number of finds, then I'd point to instances where a team of high number cachers flubbed when cachers with fewer finds found it with little trouble or complaint. Too many folks equal "worth" with the number of caches logged. That's like saying I'm older so I'm more worthy.

 

What is "worth?" I suppose it could be a measure of how much someone knows about the hobby, how they share their experience and knowledge, how much they help others, how they contribute, and so on.

 

I suppose I'd say numbers don't count because it really isn't an accurate representation of cacher "worth." There is a lot more that goes into it. The find count is simply an abstract number.

 

The reason for accurate logging as been mentioned already. However, my personal opinion is the system could stand an upgrade.

 

Re-visits aren't tracked. Folks re-visit a cache for various reasons, moving hikers being just one. These could be just as telling a Found It log which in turn is frowned upon for those re-visiting. A re-visit would give a later date than the "Last Found" and let folks, at a glance, the cache is still there.

 

For 99.99% or better of all caches there is no reason to log a second Found It log, yet the functionality is still in place. For most, a re-visit while still just as valid has to be logged with a note and this can be confusing to some new players. A bit of programming could easily switch the "Found It" log-type in the selection box with "Re-visit" for both owners and previous finders. It's just a bit of programming and social engineering, yet it would go a long way in preventing angst.

 

Additionally, an "Event Cache log" would be useful for logging those temporary event caches, too.

 

"Why lose functionality for those who need it?" You would need to. A simple switch approved and turned on by a reviewer could convert the functionality back for those caches that need it. Plus, my opinion that while a cache can be moved freely within its 528' wiggle room, it the cache it a different enough hunt to warrant a new find then it warrants a new cache page.

 

Eh, enough rambling. It's two different issues that are only tenuously connected at best.

Share this post


Link to post

Sad to say, this conversation will always come back.

 

Which is better? Ford or Chevy?

 

People will do what they want to do. Yes it is a game. Yes each person can play as they wish.

 

When a cacher in Arizona started to log many fake logs a group of cachers got together and started taking pictures of log books to prove if someone came to the cache or not.

 

I no longer care about FTF for example, but many do. So logging fake FTF logs gets people upset.

When you hiked 14 miles with over a mile of elevation profile to find a cache that others claimed was here only to find out they live 2 states away and have never been to the cache, it seems to upset people as they now lose some bragging rights if 'just anyone' can log it without even going.

 

I get real frustrated when I do a cache that pushes me to the limit to see later a 'found log' reading "I had no desire to make that climb, it was too much for me. Thanks for the cache".

 

Should it matter? Well it does when I try to teach my kids that cheating in any game, sport or hobby is never going to make you a better person. Then we get to hear the 'But they did it, why can't I?' at events.. Thats always a fun one.

 

So is your topic about fake logs and number inflation through cheat? Or are you asking should it be bad to get 100+ caches in a day? I see these as unrelated. If someone wants to go bag 100+ lamp pole caches in one day, more power to them. I would lose my mind after a few and have to go for a hike to get real air.

 

If your asking about fake logs? Well, that just smacks of cheaters and I have no need for them in the family hobby we enjoy called geocaching. If they will lie about a cache find, what stops them from stealing coins and lieing about that? If they lie about a hike, will they not also lie about other things? Yep, lost respect is hard to gain back.

 

I'm new so maybe this has been thought of before, but for the problem of people logging a find when they really did not find it, why don't we simply assign a serial number to a cache when you register it, and that number would be printed on the cache. You have to enter the serial number when logging it to get credit / prove the find.

Share this post


Link to post

Can we be real here for a moment? Can we stop beating around the bush? Can we stop trying to be oh-so-politically correct? Can we just STOP worrying about possibly offending anyone, and instead, can we just tell the truth, the truth which EVERYONE who has posted in this thread has so far been avoiding like the plague? Yes? Well, then, here goes, and allow me to remind you before I start that what I am about to tell you is something that each and every one of you already knows to be true deep in your heart, but you have been afraid to say it in this thread, out of fear of offending someone! Here goes:

 

The pure and simple reality is that:

  • pursuing high numbers is wrong
  • logging more than one find on a cache (barring special circumstances) is wrong
  • logging finds on archived caches is wrong
  • logging event finds/"attendeds" to claim finds on pocket caches is wrong
  • logging finds on event caches is wrong
  • logging fake finds (i.e., a find on a cache which you did not find) is wrong
  • allowing proliferation of lame urban micros in order to inflate find count is wrong
  • lame urban micros are wrong

There! I have FINALLY said what all of you have been trying so hard to avoid having to say! How do I know that the above activites are wrong? Simple! Because I KNOW that they are wrong, and because the Bible and the major holy books of EVERY major religion in the world -- including Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Jain, Shinto and Judaism -- say that it is wrong! In fact, I can go further, and I can state with confidence and without reservation that ANYONE who engages in any of the above-listed behaviors will be condemmned to Hell when they die, where they will burn in the hellfires of eternal damnation for millions of years while being tortured by demons and being forced to watch reruns of Jerry Springer and Rosie! Again, I know this is true -- as do you in your heart of hearts -- because the Bible and the holy books of every major world religion tell me that this is true, and because God said that it is true!

 

 

 

 

:unsure:

 

 

:anibad:

 

:anicute:

 

 

:anicute:

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team

Share this post


Link to post

I'm new so maybe this has been thought of before, but for the problem of people logging a find when they really did not find it, why don't we simply assign a serial number to a cache when you register it, and that number would be printed on the cache. You have to enter the serial number when logging it to get credit / prove the find.

On Terracaching, many of the very challenging caches do have a code word inside the logbook and in order to log the cache, and prove you were FTF when you were, you have to know the code. However, I have forgotten to make note of that code a couple of times . . . :unsure: and have had to email the cache owner . . . :anicute:

 

To have such a code on this site would be completely unworkable . . . and then you would have people who would "share" the code, so the problem of logging caches you really had not found sitll wouldn't be solved.

 

I doubt this ever happens on Terracaching because it is a much, much smaller community of cachers. If someone hiked for eight hours to get to the top of a desert peak to find one cache, and get back down safely, they aren't going to "willingly" give up the Confirmation Code. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

If community standards matter, we need to be able to discuss the fringes, and we need to be able to call out a rat when we see one. If they don't matter then nothing about any part of this activity matters.

 

I am still not convinced that you have shown any potential for harm in the practice of writing multiple logs for an event cache. You mentioned losing access to possibly pertinent information in a PQ but that simply doesn't apply to an Event - multiple logs are not made until after the Event is over.

 

I live in an area that has more than one moving cache and those who log moving caches multiple times are doing as instructed by the cache owner, by the cache listing page and most importantly, by the local community, they are meeting the highest possible standards for a cache find in every respect, those who suggest otherwise are expressing a personal preference that has no basis in fact.

When I observe cachers logging multiple finds on an event page I assume they are adhering to the highest possible standard for a cache find even though that standard may be different than the one applied by event organizers in my area.

When I see a geocacher log an Event that they organized using the Attended log type I do not think they are adhering to some practice that is sub-standard, they are accurately recording the experiences they had while geocaching and I can acknowledge that they could well be adhering to the highest possible standard for a cache find.

 

Groups of people reach different conclusions about the importance of various practices.

As a community member I acknowledge that those logging fake finds are doing a disservice to all but that is where I stop. I certainly do not accept some of the simplistic metrics adopted by others.

 

The point made by the OP was that some people cannot parse the "numbers don't matter" statement consistently. If the numbers don't matter then it is perfectly logical to accept that those logging caches differently than I might log them are not nefarious at all, they are simply recording their geocaching experiences and often they are simply adhering to the standard expressed by the community in which they live. I can see that those who feel the numbers matter might react differently.

Edited by wavector

Share this post


Link to post

Sad to say, this conversation will always come back.

 

Which is better? Ford or Chevy?

 

People will do what they want to do. Yes it is a game. Yes each person can play as they wish.

 

When a cacher in Arizona started to log many fake logs a group of cachers got together and started taking pictures of log books to prove if someone came to the cache or not.

 

I no longer care about FTF for example, but many do. So logging fake FTF logs gets people upset.

When you hiked 14 miles with over a mile of elevation profile to find a cache that others claimed was here only to find out they live 2 states away and have never been to the cache, it seems to upset people as they now lose some bragging rights if 'just anyone' can log it without even going.

 

I get real frustrated when I do a cache that pushes me to the limit to see later a 'found log' reading "I had no desire to make that climb, it was too much for me. Thanks for the cache".

 

Why are so many people, so concerned about what the other guys are doing?????

 

For the life of me, I can't understand why apparently quite a few people (at least posters) are not content to just enjoy the sport for its own sake.

 

I don't believe we are competing against each other, so why worry about what someone else logs?

 

Should it matter? Well it does when I try to teach my kids that cheating in any game, sport or hobby is never going to make you a better person. Then we get to hear the 'But they did it, why can't I?' at events.. Thats always a fun one.

 

So is your topic about fake logs and number inflation through cheat? Or are you asking should it be bad to get 100+ caches in a day? I see these as unrelated. If someone wants to go bag 100+ lamp pole caches in one day, more power to them. I would lose my mind after a few and have to go for a hike to get real air.

 

If your asking about fake logs? Well, that just smacks of cheaters and I have no need for them in the family hobby we enjoy called geocaching. If they will lie about a cache find, what stops them from stealing coins and lieing about that? If they lie about a hike, will they not also lie about other things? Yep, lost respect is hard to gain back.

 

I'm new so maybe this has been thought of before, but for the problem of people logging a find when they really did not find it, why don't we simply assign a serial number to a cache when you register it, and that number would be printed on the cache. You have to enter the serial number when logging it to get credit / prove the find.

Share this post


Link to post

Sad to say, this conversation will always come back.

 

Which is better? Ford or Chevy?

 

People will do what they want to do. Yes it is a game. Yes each person can play as they wish.

 

When a cacher in Arizona started to log many fake logs a group of cachers got together and started taking pictures of log books to prove if someone came to the cache or not.

 

I no longer care about FTF for example, but many do. So logging fake FTF logs gets people upset.

When you hiked 14 miles with over a mile of elevation profile to find a cache that others claimed was here only to find out they live 2 states away and have never been to the cache, it seems to upset people as they now lose some bragging rights if 'just anyone' can log it without even going.

 

I get real frustrated when I do a cache that pushes me to the limit to see later a 'found log' reading "I had no desire to make that climb, it was too much for me. Thanks for the cache".

 

 

Should it matter? Well it does when I try to teach my kids that cheating in any game, sport or hobby is never going to make you a better person. Then we get to hear the 'But they did it, why can't I?' at events.. Thats always a fun one.

 

So is your topic about fake logs and number inflation through cheat? Or are you asking should it be bad to get 100+ caches in a day? I see these as unrelated. If someone wants to go bag 100+ lamp pole caches in one day, more power to them. I would lose my mind after a few and have to go for a hike to get real air.

 

If your asking about fake logs? Well, that just smacks of cheaters and I have no need for them in the family hobby we enjoy called geocaching. If they will lie about a cache find, what stops them from stealing coins and lieing about that? If they lie about a hike, will they not also lie about other things? Yep, lost respect is hard to gain back.

 

I'm new so maybe this has been thought of before, but for the problem of people logging a find when they really did not find it, why don't we simply assign a serial number to a cache when you register it, and that number would be printed on the cache. You have to enter the serial number when logging it to get credit / prove the find.

Why are so many people, so concerned about what the other guys are doing?????

 

For the life of me, I can't understand why apparently quite a few people (at least posters) are not content to just enjoy the sport for its own sake.

 

I don't believe we are competing against each other, so why worry about what someone else logs?

Share this post


Link to post

Why are so many people, so concerned about what the other guys are doing?????

 

For the life of me, I can't understand why apparently quite a few people (at least posters) are not content to just enjoy the sport for its own sake.

 

I don't believe we are competing against each other, so why worry about what someone else logs?

But some people do compete, and others who don't would just like the number behind each person's name to relate to the finding of one cache, listed on this website, and signing the logbook for that cache (with reasonable exceptions).

 

Some questionable logging practices did get shut down because of discussions like this. That's probably why you won't find "Pocket Caches" at Events anymore. Maybe someday a person won't have to log "Attended" 131 times to account for their "Attendance" at an event, and then finding 130 temporary Event caches.

Share this post


Link to post

A person goes to an event. This person has a great time, enjoys the comaraderie and also the finding of a few temporary caches. This person later goes home to log the event. He goes to the event page, clicks on "log your visit", then clicks on the "type of log" button which then displays a dropdown window. One of the options is "attended", so this person clicks on that. He then types in his experience, maybe something like, "Had alot of fun, enjoyed socializing with everyone, great event, Thanks!". Then he or she clicks the submit button.

 

Ok, so far, so good, but,,,,

 

This same person decides he wants to log those temporary caches as well. Hmmmmm, problem here since they aren't listed on GC.com. Of course this stands to reason as they don't meet the guidelines for use on the website and therefore aren't legitimate GC.com caches. What to do, what to do??? Since he did find them at the event, he decides to go back to the event page and see if theres anyway to log them there. Makes it back to the "type of log" window but there's nothing there about these temporary caches. Again, what to do, what to do??? Down to a couple of options now. He can either falsely log them onto a GC.com approved cache or do like many of us and just simply put in his one "attended" log that he had a blast doing them and go on with his life. :sunsure:

Share this post


Link to post
On event caches: I agree that those who log them are generally not lacking in integrety, morality and such. There goal is to have their find count line up with what they feel are legitimate finds.

 

I've heard this argument before. I find it ironic that these people say they are multi logging events in the name of "accuracy", yet they don't mind their profile showing that they attended hundreds of events when in reality they only attend a fraction of that amount.

Share this post


Link to post
On event caches: I agree that those who log them are generally not lacking in integrety, morality and such. There goal is to have their find count line up with what they feel are legitimate finds.

 

I've heard this argument before. I find it ironic that these people say they are multi logging events in the name of "accuracy", yet they don't mind their profile showing that they attended hundreds of events when in reality they only attend a fraction of that amount.

 

It may be as straightforward as accepting that those logging really don't care what the specific "numbers" in the profile say yet they may still be interested in keeping an accurate total of all the caches they have found as RK suggested.

Another possibility to consider is that the facility to record the adventure in the manner they wish is missing so they are using a workaround to record the actual adventures they had, they are doing this in lieu of simply saying "I had fun".

If it really doesn't matter to those recording their adventures then why should it matter to anyone else?

 

I can honestly tell you that I have never considered it ironic because I have never worried about the accuracy or completeness of another geocachers profile, not once. It has never mattered to me and I can see no valid reason why anyone would worry about it. When I see someone who has attended hundreds of events I suspect they are from a community where the multiple logging of event caches is acceptable, I don't assume they lack integrity, honesty or morality.

 

Are you suggesting that my assumption is wrong?

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe someday a person won't have to log "Attended" 131 times to account for their "Attendance" at an event, and then finding 130 temporary Event caches.

Where is anyone doing 130 temporary caches at one event? ot 100? I keep seeing numbers like that tossed out. Are there really places where they work that hard?

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder why we are still debating who cares more about the numbers (or who cares less about the numbers) - the puritans or those that look for any excuse to claim another find. The real issue is whether you can use the found it log for situations other than when you have found a cache - and has little to do with numbers.

 

The purist/literalist/idealist believes that a found it log is only proper when you found a GC.com listed geocache. Generally, you can only find a geocache one time (with perhaps an exception for a moving cache). An attended log should only be used when you attended an event. It is not meant to be used to log each temporary event cache.

 

The realist/permissivist says that way GC.com is set up the cache owner is the one who decides which logs are valid. Cache owners can put additional requirements on a cache for using a found it log. A cache owner can also decided to allow a found it log (or attended log) for performance of a task other than finding the cache or attending the event. So a cache owner may a allow a found it log for someone who replaced a missing cache for them, or may allow a found it log for looking for a cache that was missing or an extra attended log for each temporary cache found at an event.

 

I find it interesting that a purist is not required to log a found it just because a cache owner says it is OK to do so.

 

If you are a purists you are in your rights to express your opinions about cache owners that allow found it logs for other than a find. Questioning the integrity of someone who takes advantage of the opportunity to claim a find that an owner permits seems going a little to far.

Share this post


Link to post

Another rather brilliant post by Toz. Thank you, Sir, for your words of wisdom. I'm still trying to figure out what catagory I fit in.

 

For my own logging practices, I'm an absolute purist, in that I'll only log a find once, (even on a moving cache), I'll only log an attended once, and I'll log either DNF's or notes on any cache that doesn't bear my signature. None of this, "I couldn't reach the cache, but I located it, so I'm claiming a find" stuff for this here Riffster.

 

However, I have an almost completely opposite view of other's logging practices. So long as it's allowed on the site, I will not judge someone else's honestly written log. A "Found It" log describing an ammo box shaped depression where the cache used to be? No problem. An "Attended" log for each purple painted pop bottle found at an event? No problem.

 

BillyBobNosePicker logging a find on a cache he's never been to? Yeah, I got a problem with that.

 

So, with that in mind, where do I fit? Very strict hippy freak? :sunsure::D

Share this post


Link to post
I wonder why we are still debating who cares more about the numbers (or who cares less about the numbers) - the puritans or those that look for any excuse to claim another find

 

I think the short of it is that those of use who don't give a clam's patootie about numbers feel that the pursuit of the almighty smiley is changing the game for the worse. It's why we are critical of practices that encourage the numbers game.

 

It's not that we care about anybody's numbers. We care that they care so much about theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
I think the short of it is that those of use who don't give a clam's patootie about numbers feel that the pursuit of the almighty smiley is changing the game for the worse. It's why we are critical of practices that encourage the numbers game.

 

It's not that we care about anybody's numbers. We care that they care so much about theirs.

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...