Jump to content

How can both be right?


Recommended Posts

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.

I know more than one person that would rather find them then log them.They will go on caching trips or just a local find,and find the cache,write in the log book,and never log them online.I'm sure many folks know other folks like this.These folks, in my opinion, are the only people who don't truly care about numbers. If this has already been mentioned,sorry,I didn't read the entire thread.

 

As for Brian's post,well said.

 

That's all I have on this thread.Continue.

 

;)

Link to comment
I know more than one person that would rather find them then log them.They will go on caching trips or just a local find,and find the cache,write in the log book,and never log them online.I'm sure many folks know other folks like this.These folks, in my opinion, are the only people who don't truly care about numbers.

 

Because they don't log line doesn't mean they don't care about numbers. For all you know they have a wall chart of their numbers hanging over their bed.

 

I have two reasons for logging online The most important is for me to let the cache owners know I found the cache and to thank them. Second is so that when I run PQs I don't get caches I already found. Neither has anything to do with numbers.

Link to comment
I know more than one person that would rather find them then log them.They will go on caching trips or just a local find,and find the cache,write in the log book,and never log them online.I'm sure many folks know other folks like this.These folks, in my opinion, are the only people who don't truly care about numbers.

 

Because they don't log line doesn't mean they don't care about numbers. For all you know they have a wall chart of their numbers hanging over their bed.

 

I have two reasons for logging online The most important is for me to let the cache owners know I found the cache and to thank them. Second is so that when I run PQs I don't get caches I already found. Neither has anything to do with numbers.

I wasn't trying to saying you or anyone else was about or not about the numbers,just simply saying that if you don't log your finds online you could hardly be accused of being about numbers.

 

And no,they don't have charts.In fact my buddy gets mad at them because they don't log them online. ;);) To each his own I spose.

Link to comment
...I am still not convinced that you have shown any potential for harm in the practice of writing multiple logs for an event cache.....

 

In Boise we had a local cacher use multi cache to break the rules on a ban by a Wild Life Refuge (one reason GC now checks all legs of a multi).

 

The act of logging normally would not cause a problem. But if you take that multi cache and I logged about my trip to the refuge and what fun I had and that log was read by a refuge manager. Other logs about caches that were they should not be can cause the same thing.

 

That all said my main bone of contention is simple. Logs on this site should reflect caches on this site. "An Event Only Cache Log" type would allow both sides of this debate to feel better about life.

 

Any cache yet not yet approved, event or real (A real example is Rainbow Bridge which was never submitted for listing) can cause an issue that the approval process would pick up. So in that light you are right and so is Neos2.

 

I need to think about the event cache only log type. I'd hate to give up event caches. Events centered around caches (poker runs and easter egg hunts) have been some of the most fun I've ever had caching). We may have to decide to accept certain risks and get on with life and just settle on the Event Cache Log as the solution.

Link to comment

...I know more than one person that would rather find them then log them.They will go on caching trips or just a local find,and find the cache,write in the log book,and never log them online.I'm sure many folks know other folks like this.These folks, in my opinion, are the only people who don't truly care about numbers....

 

If they track their caches at all, that's numbers. If they avoid certain areas because they can't keep track of their caches and don't want to repead, that's numbers.

 

Numbers have a lot of ways they can be spun.

 

As for caring that others care too much for their numbers...That's also numbers. At the least they are putting a negative value on that persons numbers. It also implies an entire philosopy about numbers. That there is such a thing as too many and it's harmful, and it follows that there is also some numbers that are acceptable, and thus have no negativity associated with them.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

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.

A while back I tried to understand this by considering that there are at least two meanings for "caring about the numbers".

  1. Your care about own numbers. You could either care that your numbers accurately reflect the count of GC.com listed geocaches that you found or you could care if your numbers accurately accounted for posting a found it log each time the cache owner allowed you post a found it log even if it was for something that wasn't a find.
  2. You care about other people's numbers. You care that other people are accurately logging finds according to your definition. I contend that if this is true you should also care about people who don't log online because they won't have a accurate count of their finds. I've take a lot of flak for this. Apparently, some people don't care if someone doesn't log all their finds but they do care if some logs extra finds. If you are already going to accept that someone else's find count isn't accurate according to your definition you shouldn't care if their number is too high or too low.

briansnat is making an argument that logging multiple attended logs for an event or changing a DNF to find with the owners permission is "changing the game for the worse". I have seen his contention that in the case of logging a find for a DNF he might waste gas looking for a cache that is not there. Whether the last log on cache is a find or a DNF doesn't tell me whether I should look for it or not. I think picking which caches to look for based on the last few logs is changing the game for the worse. People will only go to look for easy caches hidden in lampposts that are seldom not found and stop looking for a cache hidden in the woods and cammo'd so well that some people miss it ;) My suspicion is that some of the questionable logging practice are done because the people who do them feel that they change the game for the better. They encourage people to look for the temporary caches at events which some may see as more fun then sitting around eating pizza and drinking beer while writing down numbers so you can discover all the coins in somebody's collection. They reward people who help a cacher maintain his caches by notifying when a cache is missing. Sure you can cache without these practices and you may feel they distract from the purity of the sport, but I suspect that there are many who see creative use of the found it log as a good thing.

Link to comment
In Boise we had a local cacher use multi cache to break the rules on a ban by a Wild Life Refuge (one reason GC now checks all legs of a multi).

 

The act of logging normally would not cause a problem. But if you take that multi cache and I logged about my trip to the refuge and what fun I had and that log was read by a refuge manager. Other logs about caches that were they should not be can cause the same thing.

I'm not sure I follow. A multi that illegally penetrated a WLR is undoubtedly a bad thing, but I would think a single "Found it" log describing the detour into the WLR would cause just as much grief as one log out of 3, (or 4, or 5, etc) describing the detour. If the refuge manager was scanning nearby cache logs looking for something to cite, one log is as good as twenty.

Link to comment
In Boise we had a local cacher use multi cache to break the rules on a ban by a Wild Life Refuge (one reason GC now checks all legs of a multi).

 

The act of logging normally would not cause a problem. But if you take that multi cache and I logged about my trip to the refuge and what fun I had and that log was read by a refuge manager. Other logs about caches that were they should not be can cause the same thing.

I'm not sure I follow. A multi that illegally penetrated a WLR is undoubtedly a bad thing, but I would think a single "Found it" log describing the detour into the WLR would cause just as much grief as one log out of 3, (or 4, or 5, etc) describing the detour. If the refuge manager was scanning nearby cache logs looking for something to cite, one log is as good as twenty.

 

You are right. It only takes one log to cause the problem. More logs just increases the likleyhood that the "one log" comes along.

Link to comment
briansnat is making an argument that logging multiple attended logs for an event or changing a DNF to find with the owners permission is "changing the game for the worse".

 

No I am not. Those are just symptoms of what I view as a problem. Its not one practice (e.g. multiple attended logs) that is degrading the sport, it's the overall focus on numbers.

Link to comment

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.

Thank you.

 

I hold myself to a high standard when logging my finds. That's the way I will always be. I do wish that others would do the same so I could understand what their numbers mean, however I don't see how I can judging them for do it the way they do. The day TPTB make a rule/guideline about it, I'll start saying something about. But until then I have no ground upon which to stand and hurl stones, save that ground I have erected merely for myself.

Link to comment

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.

Thank you.

 

I hold myself to a high standard when logging my finds. That's the way I will always be. I do wish that others would do the same so I could understand what their numbers mean, however I don't see how I can judging them for do it the way they do. The day TPTB make a rule/guideline about it, I'll start saying something about. But until then I have no ground upon which to stand and hurl stones, save that ground I have erected merely for myself.

 

If the owner allows bogus logs that doesn't make it right. Intead it calls into question what owners should be allowing for logs. That should line up fairly well with what finders think they should be logging.

 

Thanks to the longstanding forum debate over what counts as a find I've changed at least one practice. It used to be if I found the exact spot that the cache was in but there was no cache and the owner would let me log I would. Now even though I found the nothing there was to find, the owner confirms it and says "log it." I don't. I didn't find the cache.

Link to comment

When I couldn't find a cache on a trip to Colorado because the coordinates put me behind a different building . . . icon_smile_blush.gif, the cache owner offered to let me log a find since I was back home.

 

Apparently in that local cache community that is "accepted." That is not the accepted way of doing things here, and the "offer" surprised me. :blink: I did not log the find, and explained in my email to the cache owner I could not log a find if I didn't sign the log.

 

On a subsequent trip, I did eventually find that cache. icon_smile_big.gif

Link to comment

 

Now even though I found the nothing there was to find, the owner confirms it and says "log it." I don't. I didn't find the cache.

I have never done that, and never plan to start. I will never, matter how many times it's explained to me, understand why anyone would log a cache in any of the "questionable" ways that have been discussed here.

 

Before I started this thread, I was wondering if I should question others as to why they do so. After reading the comments that have been made so far, I realise that I can't criticize any one for logging them. Don't get me wrong, I don't think they are anymore right than I did to begin with. If someone were to ask me directly I'll tell them I think it's wrong. Going beyond that to start belittling them or attacking them out of hand, is not my place, and I won't do it.

 

If TPTB ever change their stance, and move toward ending it, I will act to stop it at every chance.

 

Until then I'll uphold my standards for myself, wonder why others do what they do, but do it silently.

Link to comment

It used to be if I found the exact spot that the cache was in but there was no cache and the owner would let me log I would. Now even though I found the nothing there was to find, the owner confirms it and says "log it." I don't. I didn't find the cache.

I don't think I've ever done this. But I have done the following:

  1. Found a container that matched the description of the cache and had markings indicating it was a geocache but was empty. Left a new log or signed a slip of paper and claimed a find.
  2. Found the remnants of container with swag scattered aroung and no log or log unwritable. In some cases, there wasn't even a container. I used to log a find and indicate the condition I found the cache in. In some cases I've left a replacement cache (in one case I came back the following week - a difficult cross country trek up a mountain - with an ammo can to replace a disintegrating tupperware container). Nowdays, I'm more likely to log a DNF or just a Need Maintenance. Thats what I did the time I just found the log book and a couple of trading cards. I took the log and other swag I found. I figured the owner would replace the cache and I would put the orignal log back - but the owner archived the cache instead.
  3. Found the top part of a TicTac container. This is the only case where I changed a DNF to a find when the owner confirmed that the cache was a TicTac container. The owner also changed this to a virtual (you used to be able to change the cache type after it was approved) and the picture I posted met the virtual logging requirements. The cache was archived by a reviewer a few days later - even though you could change the type of your cache to a virtual this would usually get your cache archived.

There's also the several times I've found two or more containers. This happens where the cache was reported missing and some one - often the cache owner - left a replacement containter. Yet the original cache was still there. I have thought about logging two or more finds - one for each container I've found - but so far haven't done this.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...