Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
txoilgas

Multiple Attending of Events

Recommended Posts

I was interested to see that about 30 people attended the event GC10F47 WGA Geo-Campout 2007 over 1700 times.

 

GC has been very hard on those that promote or ingage in virtual logging. Is not the attending an event 20 time the same thing?

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post

I was interested to see that about 30 people attended the event GC10F47 WGA Geo-Campout 2007 over 1700 times.

 

GC has been very hard on those that promote or ingage in virtual logging. Is not the attending an event 20 time the same thing?

 

:(

 

Boy, you just opened up a can of worms.. What you are going to see is a bunch of people saying "Play the game how you want to play".... Enjoy!! :)

Share this post


Link to post

I was interested to see that about 30 people attended the event GC10F47 WGA Geo-Campout 2007 over 1700 times.

 

GC has been very hard on those that promote or ingage in virtual logging. Is not the attending an event 20 time the same thing?

 

:)

 

One is logging a coin or travel bug that you have never seen, touched or moved on.

 

The other is logging the event multiple times to account for finding caches that were not, nor will not ever be listed on this site.

 

Two distintly different things.

Share this post


Link to post
I was interested to see that about 30 people attended the event GC10F47 WGA Geo-Campout 2007 over 1700 times.

 

GC has been very hard on those that promote or ingage in virtual logging. Is not the attending an event 20 time the same thing?

 

:(

1700/30 = 56. The way these events are being logged we should have a new number one cacher in the very near future. I'm glad that I only log them once. It sure seems like a lot of work logging an event 56 times... :)

Share this post


Link to post
I was interested to see that about 30 people attended the event GC10F47 WGA Geo-Campout 2007 over 1700 times.

 

GC has been very hard on those that promote or ingage in virtual logging. Is not the attending an event 20 time the same thing?

 

:(

1700/30 = 56. The way these events are being logged we should have a new number one cacher in the very near future. I'm glad that I only log them once. It sure seems like a lot of work logging an event 56 times... :)

I forgot to post once for each cache I found this weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
I was interested to see that about 30 people attended the event GC10F47 WGA Geo-Campout 2007 over 1700 times.

 

GC has been very hard on those that promote or ingage in virtual logging. Is not the attending an event 20 time the same thing?

 

:(

1700/30 = 56. The way these events are being logged we should have a new number one cacher in the very near future. I'm glad that I only log them once. It sure seems like a lot of work logging an event 56 times... :)

I forgot to post once for each cache I found this weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
I was interested to see that about 30 people attended the event GC10F47 WGA Geo-Campout 2007 over 1700 times.

 

GC has been very hard on those that promote or ingage in virtual logging. Is not the attending an event 20 time the same thing?

 

:(

1700/30 = 56. The way these events are being logged we should have a new number one cacher in the very near future. I'm glad that I only log them once. It sure seems like a lot of work logging an event 56 times... :)

I forgot to post once for each cache I found this weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
I was interested to see that about 30 people attended the event GC10F47 WGA Geo-Campout 2007 over 1700 times.

 

GC has been very hard on those that promote or ingage in virtual logging. Is not the attending an event 20 time the same thing?

 

:(

1700/30 = 56. The way these events are being logged we should have a new number one cacher in the very near future. I'm glad that I only log them once. It sure seems like a lot of work logging an event 56 times... :)

I forgot to post once for each cache I found this weekend.

 

Well that kicked in the flood control filter. But it did give me an idea. They could turn on flood control for logs. Then when you log an event 56 times it takes you 56 days.

Share this post


Link to post
I was interested to see that about 30 people attended the event GC10F47 WGA Geo-Campout 2007 over 1700 times.

 

GC has been very hard on those that promote or ingage in virtual logging. Is not the attending an event 20 time the same thing?

 

:)

1700/30 = 56. The way these events are being logged we should have a new number one cacher in the very near future. I'm glad that I only log them once. It sure seems like a lot of work logging an event 56 times... :(

I forgot to post once for each cache I found this weekend.

 

Well that kicked in the flood control filter. But it did give me an idea. They could turn on flood control for logs. Then when you log an event 56 times it takes you 56 days.

:) ...and they would still do it! :)

Share this post


Link to post

To answer the OP's question, NOPE!

 

It's true that they are both silly, goofy, non-kosher, makes ya wonder why practices,,,, but they arent't quite the same! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

The other is logging the event multiple times to account for finding caches that were not, nor will not ever be listed on this site.

I have noticed what the OP mentioned also. Not only does it seem silly but it seems dishonest.

 

Can we log multi-caches multiple times under the same philosophy?

Share this post


Link to post

They're two different things.

 

I attended an event cache over the weekend that was hosted by the County Parks Department. They set up four temporary multicaches, each of which had an "Amazing Race" style roadblock test to complete at stage one in order to get the coordinates for an ammo can full of goodies. Great fun, and perfect for a one-day cache, since you can't have a horseshoe pit and judges sitting in place 24/7. And on another day, the park rangers may have arrested me if they had caught me nekkid like I was on Saturday.

 

I logged the event once with an "attended" log, because there is only one of me and I only signed the registration sheet one time. In my log I described all the fun I had with the temporary caches. Others chose to log each of the temporary caches as a separate "attended," with the blessing of the land manager/event organizer.

 

As far as I could tell, I had just as much fun for one smiley as the others had for five smileys. Their multiple logging in no way diminished the value of my one smiley, and nobody laughed at me for having such a low find count that day. Since I am not competing with anyone, the logging choices made by others in this particular set of circumstances don't concern me.

Share this post


Link to post

I attended an event cache over the weekend that was hosted by the County Parks Department.

Yeah- sorry we missed you Lep. I had a TB going to Oregon. :blink: We had planned on going but it didnt work out.

Share this post


Link to post

Fake logs on one of my coins or bugs would affect me.

Fake "found it" logs on caches that I then choose to seek, thinking they aren't missing, would affect me.

But temporary event caches don't affect me. It's Monday and they are gone now.

Share this post


Link to post

What ever happened to "right" and "wrong" and the difference between the two?

 

DCC

I guess what kinda bugs me about it is the fact that when look at a profile, it shows lots of events. They may have attended 25 events, but their profile shows 168. Its just not accurate and i enjoy accurate records.

Share this post


Link to post

Fake logs on one of my coins or bugs would affect me.

Fake "found it" logs on caches that I then choose to seek, thinking they aren't missing, would affect me.

But temporary event caches don't affect me. It's Monday and they are gone now.

So FAKE is only bad when it affects you.... what about that it affects the GC community? That is ok in your book?

 

A FAKE is a FAKE !! or do we have a situation of situational ethics?

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Fake logs on one of my coins or bugs would affect me.

Fake "found it" logs on caches that I then choose to seek, thinking they aren't missing, would affect me.

But temporary event caches don't affect me. It's Monday and they are gone now.

So FAKE is only bad when it affects you.... what about that it affects the GC community? That is ok in your book?

 

A FAKE is a FAKE !! or do we have a situation of situational ethics?

:blink:

 

Not taking any sides here... I'm still not sure I even care... but what makes it a Fake? What definition are you using?

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't understand the percieved complexity of it.Log an 'attended' once,anything else is a note!

Share this post


Link to post

I forgot to post once for each cache I found this weekend.

 

Well you get the idea. :D:blink:

Share this post


Link to post

It's just the difrence between finding caches and colleting numbers, two different games being played on the

one website.

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't understand the percieved complexity of it.Log an 'attended' once,anything else is a note!

 

Sounds easy enough... but where is that written. If you use the site to track the number of caches you've found... and you found 5 caches while at the event (and the caches were set up only for the event), then who's to say that you didn't find those caches. If you've found 250 regular caches, and 5 temp caches (while at an event) then have you found 250 caches? Or have you found 255 caches?

 

While I personally wouldn't do it... I can certainly understand the logic behind it for those who want to keep track of the actual number of caches they've found.

Share this post


Link to post

It's just the difrence between finding caches and colleting numbers, two different games being played on the

one website.

 

I agree completely... but I think the both sides can make that same argument. Someone who logs multiple attends based on the number of temp caches they've found at an event may simply be trying to keep track of the actual number of caches they've found and don't really care what anyone else thinks about their numbers.

Share this post


Link to post

you log you attended the event once, if you log that you attended the event more than one time those additioan logs are fake fake finds (out and out lies in my book)

I have not seen a lot of these fake finds in my area of the country (N. Cal) But I have seen a large number if illegal cache hides hides.

 

cachers need to leave the shovles, drills and bolts at home when hidding a cache

Share this post


Link to post

I wholeheartedly support the idea of adding a website block only allowing one attended log per event.

 

The topic of logging event caches multiple times to has been debated on the General Forums topic many times. In my opinion, it is akin to a number paading scheme.

 

If a cache is not approved on GC.com for everyone to find, then cachers should not get a smiley for it.

 

Thanks for your time!

Share this post


Link to post

The event host bears some responsibility when it comes to multiple logging of events. As owner of the listing, they can and should delete the extra logs. The event host also bears the responsibility of not encouraging the practice in the first place. Some actually invite attendees to multiple log!

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't understand the percieved complexity of it.Log an 'attended' once,anything else is a note!

 

Sounds easy enough... but where is that written. If you use the site to track the number of caches you've found... and you found 5 caches while at the event (and the caches were set up only for the event), then who's to say that you didn't find those caches. If you've found 250 regular caches, and 5 temp caches (while at an event) then have you found 250 caches? Or have you found 255 caches?

 

While I personally wouldn't do it... I can certainly understand the logic behind it for those who want to keep track of the actual number of caches they've found.

Since temp caches are not legal or loggable per GC then how can they be a find? I believe this is the same as pulling up a cache page on the computer and logging it as a find since you "found it" on the computer. A lie is a lie and a fake is a fake. Multiple attends at an event is a lie and a fake.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post

I log events that I attend as attended...once.

 

I don't have a problem with people logging my events multiple times if they want to, in the case of temporary caches that I put out...

 

I do have a problem with people logging my events multiple times just to boost their numbers..."attended" breakfast, "attended" lunch, "attended" coin swap, etc.

 

jamie - nfa

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't understand the percieved complexity of it.Log an 'attended' once,anything else is a note!

 

Sounds easy enough... but where is that written. If you use the site to track the number of caches you've found... and you found 5 caches while at the event (and the caches were set up only for the event), then who's to say that you didn't find those caches. If you've found 250 regular caches, and 5 temp caches (while at an event) then have you found 250 caches? Or have you found 255 caches?

 

While I personally wouldn't do it... I can certainly understand the logic behind it for those who want to keep track of the actual number of caches they've found.

As far as I know it's not written,but I guess I can't understand the logic.I didn't double log a cache I found here on my FOB when I was getting a buddy into caching by setting up fake caches,and having him hide caches for me to find.How is an event any different?Because the cool kids are there and it has a GC #?And they set up fake caches?Nope,don't see why someone would do it.

Share this post


Link to post

I log events that I attend as attended...once.

 

I don't have a problem with people logging my events multiple times if they want to, in the case of temporary caches that I put out...

 

I do have a problem with people logging my events multiple times just to boost their numbers..."attended" breakfast, "attended" lunch, "attended" coin swap, etc.

 

jamie - nfa

 

This is how I see it as well... to me the practices of others in their attempts to log the number of caches found (permanent or temp) is fine. Padding the numbers for the sake of higher numbers... not so much.

 

But... the crux of it for me is that regardless of the number of times someone logs an attend on an event has no impact on me whatsoever.

 

Then again... I think any event that people log multiple attends on should (after a certain grace period) be archived. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't understand the percieved complexity of it.Log an 'attended' once,anything else is a note!

 

Sounds easy enough... but where is that written. If you use the site to track the number of caches you've found... and you found 5 caches while at the event (and the caches were set up only for the event), then who's to say that you didn't find those caches. If you've found 250 regular caches, and 5 temp caches (while at an event) then have you found 250 caches? Or have you found 255 caches?

 

While I personally wouldn't do it... I can certainly understand the logic behind it for those who want to keep track of the actual number of caches they've found.

Since temp caches are not legal or loggable per GC then how can they be a find? I believe this is the same as pulling up a cache page on the computer and logging it as a find since you "found it" on the computer. A lie is a lie and a fake is a fake. Multiple attends at an event is a lie and a fake.

:blink:

 

We have laws? Interesting!!

Share this post


Link to post

Some people wont even log as event as attended to receive a smiley because events arent a typical "cache". They are events, not caches.

 

Is it ok to log multi-caches multiple times on the ones where you actually find several "caches"? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

you log you attended the event once, if you log that you attended the event more than one time those additioan logs are fake fake finds (out and out lies in my book)

I have not seen a lot of these fake finds in my area of the country (N. Cal) But I have seen a large number if illegal cache hides hides.

 

cachers need to leave the shovles, drills and bolts at home when hidding a cache

 

But not in everyone's book apparently. And your book may not matter too much to them.

Share this post


Link to post

Some people wont even log as event as attended to receive a smiley because events arent a typical "cache". They are events, not caches.

 

Is it ok to log multi-caches multiple times on the ones where you actually find several "caches"? :blink:

 

Ummm... I vote No, cause a multi-cache is a single cache with multiple stages... not multiple caches.

Share this post


Link to post

My point being, really- what is the difference between being ok to log multiple caches at an event and not multiple caches for a multi. (What does multi stand for?)

 

If each stage is a cache (be it micro or whatever) it is still a cache.

 

Its interesting to think about.

Share this post


Link to post

Its just not accurate and i enjoy accurate records.

It is accurate. It is an accurate count of the number of 'found it' logs and 'attended' logs a person has written. There are some good reasons to argue that in most case you shoud only log one 'found it' per cache and one 'attended' log per event. However, there are some people who believe that a cache owner can allow extra logs for completing various tasks. TPTB basically allow this since no one is forced to log the extra logs if they think it would make there own count 'inaccurate'. You can only make your own count accurate. You can't make somebody else's count accurate. Even if the site only allowed one 'found it' per cache, you'd have the problem of people who don't log every cache they find. Until there is a way to force people to log every cache they find online, the number will not be an accurate count of a person's finds.

Share this post


Link to post

Its just not accurate and i enjoy accurate records.

It is accurate. It is an accurate count of the number of 'found it' logs and 'attended' logs a person has written.

Let me rephrase. If a person attends only 1 event and logs 1 event 5 times then under their "geocaches found" it says that they have 5 under event caches. If you cant find the same cache more than once, how can you find the same event more than once?

Share this post


Link to post

My point being, really- what is the difference between being ok to log multiple caches at an event and not multiple caches for a multi. (What does multi stand for?)

 

If each stage is a cache (be it micro or whatever) it is still a cache.

 

Its interesting to think about.

 

Well... I would say that multi means multiple stages of a single cache. Not multiple caches within a cache. In a multi-cache, there is only one log book located in the final stage. However... if the cache owner puts a log book in each stage and allows people to log each stage as a find, then so be it... that's between the cache owner and the cache finder.

 

However, if that were the case, I think the reviewers would not allow it based on the fact that it then becomes multiple traditional (and/or ?) caches.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Is it ok to log multi-caches multiple times on the ones where you actually find several "caches"? :blink:

No, a multi is one cache, not several caches, you should log each leg of a multi.

Share this post


Link to post
However... if the cache owner puts a log book in each stage and allows people to log each stage as a find, then so be it...

Well those are still phony finds, I would like to see groudspeak block the abilty to log a cache more than one time. Then we could this dead horse to rest. of course some of the ultra high number cachers might not like that idea :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
However... if the cache owner puts a log book in each stage and allows people to log each stage as a find, then so be it...

Well those are still phony finds, I would like to see groudspeak block the abilty to log a cache more than one time. Then we could this dead horse to rest. of course some of the ultra high number cachers might not like that idea :blink:

 

Well... if TPTB do block the ability to log a cache more than one time, then they are in a sense providing the definition that so many people are lacking. However, since TPTB have declared their desire to stay out of the competitive side of the activity, I don't imagine they will institute such a policy.

 

As for the ultra high number cachers, well... I don't personally know them, but I kinda get the feeling that they wouldn't really care one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post

Shoot. I don't even log events as attended unless I found 1 or more temp caches at the event and then I only log 1 attended regardless of how many temp caches were found. That's why I only have 1 event showing in my profile. It is the only one I've been to that had temp caches to be found. BTW - all other events get a "write note" log.

Share this post


Link to post

The other is logging the event multiple times to account for finding caches that were not, nor will not ever be listed on this site.

I have noticed what the OP mentioned also. Not only does it seem silly but it seems dishonest.

 

Can we log multi-caches multiple times under the same philosophy?

Some people do. Some cache owners allow it.

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't understand the percieved complexity of it.Log an 'attended' once,anything else is a note!

 

Sounds easy enough... but where is that written. If you use the site to track the number of caches you've found... and you found 5 caches while at the event (and the caches were set up only for the event), then who's to say that you didn't find those caches. If you've found 250 regular caches, and 5 temp caches (while at an event) then have you found 250 caches? Or have you found 255 caches?

 

While I personally wouldn't do it... I can certainly understand the logic behind it for those who want to keep track of the actual number of caches they've found.

 

I don't. This site tracks the caches that are listed on this site, that you have found (or DNF, etc.) - it seems silly to track "temp caches, Terracaches, Navicaches, etc. on THIS site.

 

If a cache is not approved on GC.com for everyone to find, then cachers should not get a smiley for it.

Right!

 

The event host bears some responsibility when it comes to multiple logging of events. As owner of the listing, they can and should delete the extra logs. The event host also bears the responsibility of not encouraging the practice in the first place. Some actually invite attendees to multiple log!

 

Yep (sigh). There's an upcoming event in my area that is a camp-out, CITO event. Recently, there have been more "events" approved for this same gathering so there is now a "S'mores event", a "campfie event", a "Setting up your tent event"..... (ok, the last two are fake, but the first isn't).

 

I just don't get why one smiley for the weekend isn't enough...... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't understand the percieved complexity of it.Log an 'attended' once,anything else is a note!

 

Sounds easy enough... but where is that written. If you use the site to track the number of caches you've found... and you found 5 caches while at the event (and the caches were set up only for the event), then who's to say that you didn't find those caches. If you've found 250 regular caches, and 5 temp caches (while at an event) then have you found 250 caches? Or have you found 255 caches?

 

While I personally wouldn't do it... I can certainly understand the logic behind it for those who want to keep track of the actual number of caches they've found.

 

I don't. This site tracks the caches that are listed on this site, that you have found (or DNF, etc.) - it seems silly to track "temp caches, Terracaches, Navicaches, etc. on THIS site.

 

I agree... but, that doesn't preclude others from using the site to track the number of caches they've actually found. Until it does, then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post

Some people wont even log as event as attended to receive a smiley because events arent a typical "cache". They are events, not caches.

 

Is it ok to log multi-caches multiple times on the ones where you actually find several "caches"? :P

 

Ummm... I vote No, cause a multi-cache is a single cache with multiple stages... not multiple caches.

 

Maybe i'm reading this wrong or something. :blink:

 

A multicache is a single cache that should be logged one time. Gotcha and i agree! So isn't an event cache a one time deal as well??? You certainly can't attend it more than once! :D

Share this post


Link to post

I think what most people fail to realize is that gc.com is nothing more than a listing service with tools to help people find what they list, caches. Logging temp caches as extra attended logs at events is nothing more than finding a way (that TPTB just happen to not frown upon) to log caches that are not listed on gc.com. An analogy is someone logging any cache(or event) twice b/c they found a Navicache or a terracache or a LBNA box.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...