Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
txoilgas

Multiple Attending of Events

Recommended Posts

Lets look at the instructions for events.

 

They have an "I attended log". They don't have a "I found an event only cache Log". They don't have an "Attended multiple times log".

So if you log "Attended" 20 times. How is that following the instructions that you have to work with? Or is your attended defined different than my attended?

 

How is what people in WI are doing at events relevant to you, way over in Idaho, or wherever you are? Its Not.... And dont come to WI, becuase Im guessing you wouldnt be to welcome there....

 

I think you just proved my point. Apparently logging practices matter. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

You and everyone else would be welcome to visit Iowa.

 

Are we about done yet?

Share this post


Link to post

You and everyone else would be welcome to visit Iowa.

 

Are we about done yet?

I've had enough. Anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post

Lets look at the instructions for events.

 

They have an "I attended log". They don't have a "I found an event only cache Log". They don't have an "Attended multiple times log".

So if you log "Attended" 20 times. How is that following the instructions that you have to work with? Or is your attended defined different than my attended?

 

How is what people in WI are doing at events relevant to you, way over in Idaho, or wherever you are? Its Not.... And dont come to WI, becuase Im guessing you wouldnt be to welcome there....

 

I think you just proved my point. Apparently logging practices matter. :lol:

 

Since Wisconsin is the birth place of such a "cheazy practice" like logging finds on caches that aren't approved on GC.com, I don't blame anyone for not wanting to visit. California cows make far better cheese, and we hide real caches, with GC numbers before events.

 

As for wandering why the practice matters, here it is in a nutshell: Many of us would take the game more seriously than you do, are find numbers are an accurate reflection of how we play the game. It is really hard to compare your stats to other cachers, when the "other cachers" fudge their finds.

 

For me, I wish that geocaching was more black and white, and less gray. If the cache isn't approved, or permanent, why should cachers get a smilely for it?

Share this post


Link to post

Lets look at the instructions for events.

 

They have an "I attended log". They don't have a "I found an event only cache Log". They don't have an "Attended multiple times log".

So if you log "Attended" 20 times. How is that following the instructions that you have to work with? Or is your attended defined different than my attended?

 

How is what people in WI are doing at events relevant to you, way over in Idaho, or wherever you are? Its Not.... And dont come to WI, becuase Im guessing you wouldnt be to welcome there....

 

I think you just proved my point. Apparently logging practices matter. :lol:

 

Since Wisconsin is the birth place of such a "cheazy practice" like logging finds on caches that aren't approved on GC.com, I don't blame anyone for not wanting to visit. California cows make far better cheese, and we hide real caches, with GC numbers before events.

 

As for wandering why the practice matters, here it is in a nutshell: Many of us would take the game more seriously than you do, are find numbers are an accurate reflection of how we play the game. It is really hard to compare your stats to other cachers, when the "other cachers" fudge their finds.

 

For me, I wish that geocaching was more black and white, and less gray. If the cache isn't approved, or permanent, why should cachers get a smilely for it?

 

How are your finds any more accurate than anyone else's when there are no rules or definitions as to what counts as a find? How can any fudge numbers when to them it is an accurate count? and why in the world are you trying to compare stats to other cachers in the first place?

 

If you have a cacher with 5,000 - 1/1's and a cacher with 50 - 5/5's, how can you compare those numbers? Who's ahead of who? When you have cachers that climb mountains and ride down them on bikes, and you have cachers with one leg, how can you compare their numbers? When you have cachers who are in their 20s and you have cachers that are in their 80s how can you compare their stats? What about those of us with jobs vs. those retirees? What about the wealthy cachers who can travel the world vs. the not so wealthy who don't regularly cache more than 20 or 30 miles out of their home area?

 

GC.com and TPTB consistently take the stance that this is not a competitive hobby... so why are you insisting that the people who don't log the same as you are fudging their numbers, or logging fake finds, etc...

 

Call me stupid... but I just don't get it!!

Share this post


Link to post

As for wandering why the practice matters, here it is in a nutshell: Many of us would take the game more seriously than you do, are find numbers are an accurate reflection of how we play the game. It is really hard to compare your stats to other cachers, when the "other cachers" fudge their finds.

I am very concerned that Kit Fox now wants to compare his finds to other cachers. He should not be doing this. He likes to find particularly tough caches - especially tough puzzles and difficult cross-country hikes. He will never have as high a count as someone who finds parking lot micros and easy urban hides. He should not care if people in Wisconsin choose to abuse the meaning of 'Attended' or 'Found It' because he cannot compare his number with anyone else's number. Even if he accepts that an LPC is "worth" the same smiley as the hike up the 10000 ft. mountain, he doesn't know where on the sliding chart the other person stands. Does he log cache he found with a group? Would he log a cache that was moved and rehidden differently but has the same GC number? Would he claim a find for finding the remnants of destroyed cache with no log book in it?

 

I believe that he has a right to look with disdain on others who log what he thinks is wrong. But the reason should be that he thinks it wrong, not that he thinks the others are doing this to gain an unfair advantage in some non-existent competition. The competition is there only if you want it. I don't know if the people who log temporary event caches are doing it to inflate there numbers; it doesn't matter to me if they are because I am not competing with them.

 

One other thing, I don't decide that people who log temporary events or claim a find on a missing cache with the owner's permission are morally defective pathological liars. If they are honestly telling me that is how they are using the logs then I figure that they must get some pleasure out of doing it. Since I'm not competing with them, they didn't get an advantage. If their friends buy them a beer when they reach a milestone, I'm assuming their friends know what their logging practices are and deciding that for the purpose of celebrating a milestone it's good enough. Perhaps if part of my premium member dues were used to send out certificates to people that have found some number of caches, I would complain about someone claiming finds I didn't think they deserved. Since this is not the case, I just scratch my head wondering why they do it and then move on.

Share this post


Link to post

As for wandering why the practice matters, here it is in a nutshell: Many of us would take the game more seriously than you do, are find numbers are an accurate reflection of how we play the game. It is really hard to compare your stats to other cachers, when the "other cachers" fudge their finds.

And, why is it again that you need to compare your stats to anyone else's? Is there some big coveted "King McToy" award, given out to the cacher with the most finds, that I don't know about? Is it so you can gloat and feel superior over cachers with fewer finds than you? Is it just a way to boost your own ego?

 

For the life of me, I can't figure out why you need to "compare" your stats with anyone. I like numbers, but I just like them...I don't obsess over them.

 

Sad, really...

Share this post


Link to post

As for wandering why the practice matters, here it is in a nutshell: Many of us would take the game more seriously than you do, are find numbers are an accurate reflection of how we play the game. It is really hard to compare your stats to other cachers, when the "other cachers" fudge their finds.

I am very concerned that Kit Fox now wants to compare his finds to other cachers. He should not be doing this. He likes to find particularly tough caches - especially tough puzzles and difficult cross-country hikes. He will never have as high a count as someone who finds parking lot micros and easy urban hides. He should not care if people in Wisconsin choose to abuse the meaning of 'Attended' or 'Found It' because he cannot compare his number with anyone else's number. Even if he accepts that an LPC is "worth" the same smiley as the hike up the 10000 ft. mountain, he doesn't know where on the sliding chart the other person stands. Does he log cache he found with a group? Would he log a cache that was moved and rehidden differently but has the same GC number? Would he claim a find for finding the remnants of destroyed cache with no log book in it?

 

I believe that he has a right to look with disdain on others who log what he thinks is wrong. But the reason should be that he thinks it wrong, not that he thinks the others are doing this to gain an unfair advantage in some non-existent competition. The competition is there only if you want it. I don't know if the people who log temporary event caches are doing it to inflate there numbers; it doesn't matter to me if they are because I am not competing with them.

 

One other thing, I don't decide that people who log temporary events or claim a find on a missing cache with the owner's permission are morally defective pathological liars. If they are honestly telling me that is how they are using the logs then I figure that they must get some pleasure out of doing it. Since I'm not competing with them, they didn't get an advantage. If their friends buy them a beer when they reach a milestone, I'm assuming their friends know what their logging practices are and deciding that for the purpose of celebrating a milestone it's good enough. Perhaps if part of my premium member dues were used to send out certificates to people that have found some number of caches, I would complain about someone claiming finds I didn't think they deserved. Since this is not the case, I just scratch my head wondering why they do it and then move on.

Very nicely put. You win the thread.

Share this post


Link to post

As for wandering why the practice matters, here it is in a nutshell: Many of us would take the game more seriously than you do, are find numbers are an accurate reflection of how we play the game. It is really hard to compare your stats to other cachers, when the "other cachers" fudge their finds.

And it is statements like this that lead me to post in Post 28, Post 32, Post 90 on the thread about not showing numbers. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

And it is statements like this that lead me to post in Post 28, Post 32, Post 90 on the thread about not showing numbers. :lol:

But, it would be HIM who would choose to hide numbers, and he'd still see everyone else's that aren't hidden. How does that help his "problem" with "bogus" numbers that he still is able to see???

Share this post


Link to post
How are your finds any more accurate than anyone else's when there are no rules or definitions as to what counts as a find? How can any fudge numbers when to them it is an accurate count? and why in the world are you trying to compare stats to other cachers in the first place?

 

All of my finds are for geocaches that i've either signed the log, met the requirement to log (Earthcaches, locationless caches, and Virtuals) or events i've attended. The main difference between my stats and those of cachers who log finds for non/gc caches is that every single one of my finds has it's own GC waypoint.

 

If you have a cacher with 5,000 - 1/1's and a cacher with 50 - 5/5's, how can you compare those numbers? Who's ahead of who?

 

Thats easy, I have far more respect and admiration for the cacher with 50 5/5 finds versus the parking lot cacher who drives from parking lot to parking lot all day.

 

When you have cachers that climb mountains and ride down them on bikes, and you have cachers with one leg, how can you compare their numbers? When you have cachers who are in their 20s and you have cachers that are in their 80s how can you compare their stats?

 

Easy, use a great program like itsnotaboutthenumbers. Age is no excuse, i've hiked with cachers in their 60s and their 70s, and both of these cachers were in far better shape then me, and i'm in my 30s.

 

What about those of us with jobs vs. those retirees? What about the wealthy cachers who can travel the world vs. the not so wealthy who don't regularly cache more than 20 or 30 miles out of their home area?
I can't cache nearly as much as I like, so I make the best of my caching time, by hiding great caches, and finding caches that interest me. I don't lose any sleep because cachers have more time, or more money to cache than I do. I am a bit jealous of those cachers that have rappelling gear, which is not in budget right now. :lol:

 

GC.com and TPTB consistently take the stance that this is not a competitive hobby... so why are you insisting that the people who don't log the same as you are fudging their numbers, or logging fake finds, etc...

 

Call me stupid... but I just don't get it!!

 

Then why do they allow tens of thousands of attended logs for caches that don't exist on their website?

 

I am very concerned that Kit Fox now wants to compare his finds to other cachers. He should not be doing this. He likes to find particularly tough caches - especially tough puzzles and difficult cross-country hikes. He will never have as high a count as someone who finds parking lot micros and easy urban hides. He should not care if people in Wisconsin choose to abuse the meaning of 'Attended' or 'Found It' because he cannot compare his number with anyone else's number. Even if he accepts that an LPC is "worth" the same smiley as the hike up the 10000 ft. mountain, he doesn't know where on the sliding chart the other person stands. Does he log cache he found with a group? Would he log a cache that was moved and rehidden differently but has the same GC number? Would he claim a find for finding the remnants of destroyed cache with no log book in it?

 

I'll log a find on a cache found with a group if I was present andsigned the logbook. One scenario in which I wouldn't sign a logbook is a cache where one person climbs to the top of a tree, or rappells down to a cache, then hands it to all the bystanders.

 

I only logged finds for caches once, even if they have been re-located, or replaced.

 

I found one cache that was destroyed, but the logbook was still their. I gathered all the material and bagged it up the best I could. If there was no logbook, I would have logged a DNF instead of a find.

Share this post


Link to post

As for wandering why the practice matters, here it is in a nutshell: Many of us would take the game more seriously than you do, are find numbers are an accurate reflection of how we play the game. It is really hard to compare your stats to other cachers, when the "other cachers" fudge their finds.

And, why is it again that you need to compare your stats to anyone else's? Is there some big coveted "King McToy" award, given out to the cacher with the most finds, that I don't know about? Is it so you can gloat and feel superior over cachers with fewer finds than you? Is it just a way to boost your own ego?

 

For the life of me, I can't figure out why you need to "compare" your stats with anyone. I like numbers, but I just like them...I don't obsess over them.

 

Sad, really...

 

 

I stopped comparing my stats to other cachers about a year and a half ago. That is when I realized that this hobby has turned into the "new numbers game" where lame caches are defended as being a gift to the sport, and openminded cachers are so quick to defend shady practices as being "another way to play the game. " It is sad that geocaching has been infected with the cancer of liberalism and openmindedness.

 

I know that I'm not the only geocacher that wished there were hard and fast rules about what constitues a find.

Edited by Kit Fox

Share this post


Link to post

I stopped comparing my stats to other cachers about a year and a half ago.

Then why, a mere 1hr 20min ago, did you claim that it's so hard to compare numbers with all the "bogus" finds?

 

Thats easy, I have far more respect and admiration for the cacher with 50 5/5 finds versus the parking lot cacher who drives from parking lot to parking lot all day.

I'm glad I don't base my respect of persons on such trivial matters...

 

It is sad that geocaching has been infected with the cancer of liberalism and openmindedness.

Yeah, much better to be narrow minded and stuffy regarding game playing...

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post

...this hobby has turned into the "new numbers game" where lame caches are defended as being a gift to the sport, and openminded cachers are so quick to defend shady practices as being "another way to play the game. " It is sad that geocaching has been infected with the cancer of liberalism and openmindedness.

 

I know that I'm not the only geocacher that wished there were hard and fast rules about what constitues a find.

 

Count that as one nail struck squarely on the head (unless you wish to count it twice :) )

 

And no, you're not the only one. :lol:

 

DCC

Share this post


Link to post

As for wandering why the practice matters, here it is in a nutshell: Many of us would take the game more seriously than you do, are find numbers are an accurate reflection of how we play the game. It is really hard to compare your stats to other cachers, when the "other cachers" fudge their finds.

 

For me, I wish that geocaching was more black and white, and less gray. If the cache isn't approved, or permanent, why should cachers get a smilely for it?

 

You have no idea how seriously I take the game, unless you are simply judging by these posts. My find numbers are accurate, 100%. Thing is, I have no desire to compare myself to you, or anyone else in any other state for that matter. I dont cache, to compare myself to others. Yeah, I bet its hard to compare yourself to others stats if you are unsure how they log caches- but in reality- WHY do you need to compare yourself to anyone? Are you one of Those kind of people? Do you need the validation that you are in some way better than someone else?

 

Unless someone is saying "Look how many of XXX's Ive found- IM better than everyone! " Than I dont know why you would bother researching thier stats, then applying a judgement towards their character based on those stats-

 

As for your last question- I seem to have identified your problem. People are NOT extra getting smilies for logging events multiple times- they are getting multiple attend logs. (see title of thread)

If you cant distinguish between someones smilies (found caches) and thier "attended" logs for events in their profile, then you have other issues altogether such as vision, etc.

 

An Attend is Not a Smilie.

 

And again, why do you care how many times someone logs an event? Unless its Your cache, its not your problem.

Share this post


Link to post

...How are your finds any more accurate than anyone else's when there are no rules or definitions as to what counts as a find? ....Call me stupid... but I just don't get it!!

 

Over time a general concencus has developed on what a find is and what isn't a find. We are all caching. It stands to reason that we should all have things in common on what caching is else someone would log a find for every inch they knit on a sweater.

Share this post


Link to post

.... Yeah, I bet its hard to compare yourself to others stats if you are unsure how they log caches- but in reality- WHY do you need to compare yourself to anyone? ...

 

So, this dude named Evil PTO Twin blows through town and logs a DNF on one of my caches. He says, "Your cache sucks, it's missing, I found a wet piece of paper floating in the river and logged that then stuck that to the bridge, it's a find, and go fix your stupid cache ya moron. You really should know better than to place caches like this." Wondering if this Evil twin has any frigging clue what he may be talking about I look up his profile.

 

Case A: "Hmmm...1000 total finds...the guy may have a clue on this hide style based on the sheer number of finds" I know this because I have 1000 finds and know what caches I've found and the various styles. There was a comparison.

 

Case B: "Ha! 2 Finds and the guy is trying to pull rank. Unless he's one of those non loggers (in which case they would not have logged my cache...) the guy doesn't have the experience to find the cache because I know it's a difficult hide. Again there is that comparison, someone with 2 finds just won't have the roots to know this style outside of sheer blind luck.

 

This actually happned to me on one of my hides. It was 500 finds, though. They thought 500 finds mean they should have found it. The real truth was it was hard hide unless you found one other cache that I've ever seen that would clue you in. They were not from that area. The cache was still there in spite of their browbeating.

Share this post


Link to post
I am very concerned that Kit Fox now wants to compare his finds to other cachers. He should not be doing this. He likes to find particularly tough caches - especially tough puzzles and difficult cross-country hikes. He will never have as high a count as someone who finds parking lot micros and easy urban hides. He should not care if people in Wisconsin choose to abuse the meaning of 'Attended' or 'Found It' because he cannot compare his number with anyone else's number. Even if he accepts that an LPC is "worth" the same smiley as the hike up the 10000 ft. mountain, he doesn't know where on the sliding chart the other person stands. Does he log cache he found with a group? Would he log a cache that was moved and rehidden differently but has the same GC number? Would he claim a find for finding the remnants of destroyed cache with no log book in it?

 

I'll log a find on a cache found with a group if I was present andsigned the logbook. One scenario in which I wouldn't sign a logbook is a cache where one person climbs to the top of a tree, or rappells down to a cache, then hands it to all the bystanders.

 

I only logged finds for caches once, even if they have been re-located, or replaced.

 

I found one cache that was destroyed, but the logbook was still their. I gathered all the material and bagged it up the best I could. If there was no logbook, I would have logged a DNF instead of a find.

I guess I ran out of pronouns in English. I know that Kit Fox knows how he would log those hypothetical gray areas, I want to know how he would know how some other cacher would log these if he is going to be able to compare his finds to the other cacher's.

 

I stopped comparing my stats to other cachers about a year and a half ago. That is when I realized that this hobby has turned into the "new numbers game" where lame caches are defended as being a gift to the sport, and openminded cachers are so quick to defend shady practices as being "another way to play the game. " It is sad that geocaching has been infected with the cancer of liberalism and openmindedness.

 

I know that I'm not the only geocacher that wished there were hard and fast rules about what constitues a find.

All the evils of geocaching are due to the liberal, openminded, democrat, numbers driven cachers. If people just stopped caring about their find count we wouldn't have micro spew, pocket caches, founds claimed on missing caches, extra attended logs on events, illegal immigration, welfare mothers, and evolution being taught in schools. :lol: The world would be just the way Kit Fox likes it.

Share this post


Link to post

It is abusing the openness of the rules for cachers to log multiple times on events. These cachers are taking advantage of a grey area to expand their find numbers. It seems to be regional as I have never seen these issues at events I attended in MT, ID, DE, AL, WA or LA.

 

Why does it matter? I like to think of it as evening the playing field. Unless you attend those events, you will never see the caches the attendees are claiming finds on via the event page. So when out-of-towners visit the area after the event, they will not have a chance to find most of those same caches. Since Temp caches are not allowed, using events to log them should be frowned upon by the same people who disallowed Temp caches in the first place.

 

I like the numbers. They are useful for evaluating the seriousness of non-finds and odd logs. I believe Events should be counted separately and not a part of the "smiley" counts.

 

My opinion, yours will differ in some way based on how you play the game. :lol:

-J

Share this post


Link to post

 

All the evils of geocaching are due to the liberal, openminded, democrat, numbers driven cachers. If people just stopped caring about their find count we wouldn't have micro spew, pocket caches, founds claimed on missing caches, extra attended logs on events, illegal immigration, welfare mothers, and evolution being taught in schools. :) The world would be just the way Kit Fox likes it.

 

Sarcasm at its finest :lol: .

 

Liberalism affects all political parties this isn't a blue or red issue. For the record, I can't stand either political party. You hang out at Socalgeocachers, you've seen all the congratulatory threads for "milestones." You've seen cachers proudly where name tags showing their rank. Welfare mothers have nothing to do with caching, unless they are complaining about not being able to log PMOC because "elitest cachers" like me hide them. What other purpose do "log only" micros hidden in parking lots have other than to increase your find count?

 

How do illegal aliens affect cachers who log caches not approved on GC.com?

Share this post


Link to post

...How are your finds any more accurate than anyone else's when there are no rules or definitions as to what counts as a find? ....Call me stupid... but I just don't get it!!

 

Over time a general concencus has developed on what a find is and what isn't a find. We are all caching. It stands to reason that we should all have things in common on what caching is else someone would log a find for every inch they knit on a sweater.

 

I'm not sure I agree with you. I've been following along in these discussions since I started almost two years ago... and while there are many people who do agree on what constitutes a log, I don't think you can say there is a concensus within the caching community. There may be a concensus among many of the people who visit these particular forums... but then there are many who disagree as well.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Thats easy, I have far more respect and admiration for the cacher with 50 5/5 finds versus the parking lot cacher who drives from parking lot to parking lot all day.

 

This comment really sets the tone for me... and it really makes up my mind about how I want to cache.

 

1) I cache with a one year old kid in a stroller

2) I don't have the experience to do the climbs, caves, dives, etc... that many of the best 5/5's require

3) Most of the time I prefer a nice leisurely stroll along well defined trail than sweating it out over 12 mile 10,000ft ascent

4) I usually have dogs in tow

5) I cache alone the majority of the time

 

I have more resect for the person who does 1000 LPCs and has a great time doing it, than I do for a person who does 10,000 5/5's and hates every minute of it.

 

I have a lot of respect for the people who get out there and have fun, if they have fun doing 500 temp caches at an event and want to record their fun and the experience they had so they can look back on it smile? Well... great... I have more respect for them then the person who logs only 1 attend at an event and can't remember anything about it or looked down on the people who logged multiple finds.

 

Kit Fox,

 

I've read many, many of your posts over the past couple of years and you really seem like a great person. One that I think I'd enjoy finding your caches, or even caching with you. Maybe one day we'll meet at an event... when we do, I hope you don't look down on me because my most difficult cache is a 3 / 4 and my average is 1.53 / 1.75.

 

For everyone else so set in your ways about what is acceptable and what's not? I hope we can agree to disagree and not lose respect for one another because of it.

 

Best Regards,

 

BRTango

Share this post


Link to post

For everyone else so set in your ways about what is acceptable and what's not? I hope we can agree to disagree and not lose respect for one another because of it.

I thought that you didn't even agree with the multiple event logging. Weren't you just playing devils advocate?

 

I love your stance though. You are trying very hard to be nice. Thats really cool. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
I think that most of you are missing that most of these event finds are just that: actual and real finds. The only thing that makes them different is the fact that after the weekend is up they are picked back up.
I'm not sure who you are referring to but I was serious. I will get a chair and sit at some coordinates and put an ammo box under my chair with a logbook. Then you can find my cache. However to log the cache there is one additional logging requirement that you must bring me a cold beer. Call it a beer cache! B) I win because I get a beer and you win because you get to log another smiley! :) This whole deal could work! :D

I think under the new rules this would have to be classified as a puzzle cache but that aside, getting someone in Wisconsin to part with a beer even if it was for a smily may be one heck of a hard sell. :huh:

 

A cold beer would qualify as "Special Equipment", right? That makes the Beer Chair Cache a 5 terrain!

I'm in. What are the coordinates? Don't be putting that chair in terrain that really is a 5, now...

Share this post


Link to post

For everyone else so set in your ways about what is acceptable and what's not? I hope we can agree to disagree and not lose respect for one another because of it.

I thought that you didn't even agree with the multiple event logging. Weren't you just playing devils advocate?

 

I love your stance though. You are trying very hard to be nice. Thats really cool. :lol:

 

I was mostly playing devils advocate, honestly I don't care if people do or it not, and it's not so much that I don't agree with multiple event logging as it is that I wouldn't do it personally. And here's why.

 

1) Aesthetics: When I review my caches found list (the one in my profile), I like to look through it in pages of 20 (or whatever they are), when you log multiple times, it really screws that up. You'll have one page that shows 2 logs, the next will show 5 logs, etc...

 

2) It doesn't add the numbers in the right places... if the temp caches were traditionals, I wouldn't be able to go through my logs and see all the traditionals etc... you get what I mean?

 

3) If there were a way of logging temp caches, that didn't screw all that up, I'd probably do it. Whether or not the numbers counted toward the overall find count... I don't really care. But if there were a sub category for temp caches... I'd probably do it.

 

So in short... for me, logging multiple times wouldn't enhance my experience any, so I wouldn't do it.

 

As for other people who do? I don't care... As long as they have fun doing it... that's all that really matters. If at some point they begin to agree with others here and see it as the wrong thing, and feel a bit guilty about it... then by all means they should go back and delete their finds! But, if they don't... then so be it?

 

While I enjoy my stats... and I enjoy looking at other peoples stats that they post in their profiles, or on www.itsnotaboutthenumbers.com... I am not going to compare mine with theirs... there is simply no way of doing it that makes sense. I'm certainly not going to lose respect for them.

 

Now if they are intentionally logging in order to be harmful (ie. logging finds on caches that aren't there with the intent to decieve) then I'd likely lose some respect for them. Otherwise? Let them play in a way that makes them happy.

 

If the TPTB decide someday to restrict finds/attends to one log per cache/event... then so be it, a rule has been set and we should abide by it. Until then? It's fine either way.

 

I've said it before... I'll say it again. I respect the people who get out and enjoy themselves regardless of how they log... and I only lose respect for the ones that continue to cache even when they hate what their doing. I don't think you'll find too many of them... so just about everyone has my respect regardless of how many caches, how many logs, or how difficult they were.

Edited by BRTango

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to thank everyone for this discussion. I logged into the forums to see if you could log a cache twice because someone posted on one of my caches asking that since it had been moved could it be logged again. I got the answer on COULD it be done and a lot of input on whether or not I SHOULD allow it.

 

I did find the whole Wisconsin event thing pretty unbelievable. Three or four temp caches, no big deal (though right or wrong can still be debated). Fifty temp caches at one event? Must make for a very long/busy event, if these caches are hidden anything like real caches. It is interesting to see that these types of events seem to be the norm there. Just looking at a couple of cacher profiles from there and seeing that there are many of these events that are logged 20-50+ times. It shows that what people see when they start caching tends to be what they take as normal and that is what gets repeated in that area.

 

well that is my 2cents, now to decide if I will allow people to relog my cache that I changed the size, type and camo of container on though I only moved it two feet.

Share this post


Link to post

well that is my 2cents, now to decide if I will allow people to relog my cache that I changed the size, type and camo of container on though I only moved it two feet.

I wonder if you let one person if that would open the floodgates?

Share this post


Link to post

well that is my 2cents, now to decide if I will allow people to relog my cache that I changed the size, type and camo of container on though I only moved it two feet.

I wonder if you let one person if that would open the floodgates?

 

OH I realize that, I would have to put it on the cache page that anyone who found it before was welcome to refind it,...as long as they really refound and signed the new log.

Share this post


Link to post

well that is my 2cents, now to decide if I will allow people to relog my cache that I changed the size, type and camo of container on though I only moved it two feet.

I wonder if you let one person if that would open the floodgates?

 

OH I realize that, I would have to put it on the cache page that anyone who found it before was welcome to refind it,...as long as they really refound and signed the new log.

 

Personally I would love to see a sharp increase of caches being advertised as being able to be re-logged whenever the container changed, as long as they re-signed the logbook of course.

Share this post


Link to post

...How are your finds any more accurate than anyone else's when there are no rules or definitions as to what counts as a find? ....Call me stupid... but I just don't get it!!

 

Over time a general concencus has developed on what a find is and what isn't a find. We are all caching. It stands to reason that we should all have things in common on what caching is else someone would log a find for every inch they knit on a sweater.

 

I'm not sure I agree with you. I've been following along in these discussions since I started almost two years ago... and while there are many people who do agree on what constitutes a log, I don't think you can say there is a concensus within the caching community. There may be a concensus among many of the people who visit these particular forums... but then there are many who disagree as well.

 

In the time I've watched the forums I have seen a concencus develop. There is always the fringe where things don't fit the general rule. Take the current debate. Most event only caches have logs. People found a cache. Almost everone in the thread would agree that far. The breakdown is how best to log a cache online that isn't approved on this site. That's the fringe. The find itself isn't so much in dispute. They did find a cache.

 

Anyway, 95% of logs are agreed on. We spend a 95% of our forum discussions debating the other 5%. I made those numbers up but the point being we don't debate on what we agree on.

Share this post


Link to post

well that is my 2cents, now to decide if I will allow people to relog my cache that I changed the size, type and camo of container on though I only moved it two feet.

I wonder if you let one person if that would open the floodgates?

 

OH I realize that, I would have to put it on the cache page that anyone who found it before was welcome to refind it,...as long as they really refound and signed the new log.

I've got one of those finds. They moved it more than a few feet. It should have been listed as a new cache. Now with so many new caches, I'd probably skip out on something like that. Why find an old thing when new awaits?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Thats easy, I have far more respect and admiration for the cacher with 50 5/5 finds versus the parking lot cacher who drives from parking lot to parking lot all day.

 

This comment really sets the tone for me... and it really makes up my mind about how I want to cache.

 

1) I cache with a one year old kid in a stroller

2) I don't have the experience to do the climbs, caves, dives, etc... that many of the best 5/5's require

3) Most of the time I prefer a nice leisurely stroll along well defined trail than sweating it out over 12 mile 10,000ft ascent

4) I usually have dogs in tow

5) I cache alone the majority of the time

 

I have more resect for the person who does 1000 LPCs and has a great time doing it, than I do for a person who does 10,000 5/5's and hates every minute of it.

 

I have a lot of respect for the people who get out there and have fun, if they have fun doing 500 temp caches at an event and want to record their fun and the experience they had so they can look back on it smile? Well... great... I have more respect for them then the person who logs only 1 attend at an event and can't remember anything about it or looked down on the people who logged multiple finds.

 

Kit Fox,

 

I've read many, many of your posts over the past couple of years and you really seem like a great person. One that I think I'd enjoy finding your caches, or even caching with you. Maybe one day we'll meet at an event... when we do, I hope you don't look down on me because my most difficult cache is a 3 / 4 and my average is 1.53 / 1.75.

 

For everyone else so set in your ways about what is acceptable and what's not? I hope we can agree to disagree and not lose respect for one another because of it.

 

Best Regards,

 

BRTango

 

I have a two and a five year old, and i've climbed many steep hills carrying my daughter with me. Now that I have two, most of my adventure hikes are by myself. I can't find many people who are willing to endure pain, heat, and exhaustion to find my caches though. :lol:

 

I don't "get" the enjoyment of going from on parking lot to another in search of easy smilies. I also don't get number padding schemes.

 

I was being facetious about the 50 5/5s versus 5000 1/1s :) I'm an outdoorsman at heart, so i will honestly admit that cachers who hike to caches get more admiration from me, than cachers that drive to the majority of their cache finds. I don't begrudge anyone who caches with kids, or who is disabled and can't find high terrain caches. I simply relate more to hikers than "park and grabbers." I don't get the prestige that "big number" cachers get at events. The only thing I want to be known for is hiding nice caches.

 

I'll PM you and will talk about our common interests more.

 

My main issue with this topic is simple, why should cachers log finds on caches that can't or aren't GC approved?

 

Here are my stats:

 

1044 unique caches visited.

Avg. difficulty / terrain: 1.62 / 1.60

 

2004 302 1.330 108 / every 2.1 days

2005 423 1.159 122 / every 3.0 days

2006 244 0.668 104 / every 3.5 days

2007 75 0.478 27 / every 5.8 days

 

I don't have time to find the type of caches that I like most. I'd rather skip caching than find caches that aren't fun. I have enough finds to be picky.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I don't think multiple found/attended logs for the same cache should be allowed and that existing multple logs should be converted to notes.

 

And if the owner of a cache things the conditions have changed enough to warrent allowing cachers to post multiple find logs its changed enough to archive the old cache and publish a new one.

 

But I think we are beating a dead horse.

Share this post


Link to post

<Snip for space saving>

My main issue with this topic is simple, why should cachers log finds on caches that can't or aren't GC approved?

I agree with the part I removed, but thier reasoning has been presented, (Im not sure if it is here in this thread?) The temp caches may not be listed here for various reasons, but in the spirit of this game, are indeed "caches". Hidden boxes of goodies, with coords to be found. "Here are some coords, go find what I hid"- Thats Caching isnt it, as it originated? The guidelines. . . . Yeah, its true they dont comform to the guidelines exactly, but Ive read Jeremys posts and see that it isnt the tidal wave of a problem that some make it to be. "what if....." arguments aside- cache page owners, hosts of the event have the discretion.

 

Remember, all those temp caches are scouted, placed, coords are marked and checked and a list put together, copied, distributed - then all picked up afterwards. In the spirit of "the game" these people are working alot harder to host these events than the people typing their outrage/disgust against it.

 

Yes, others do it differently. So, in that case- remember that multiple attends probably means multiple temp caches found(that were scouted, hidden, found and removed in the same day, usually more)- All in the spirit of game and to bring other cachers together for a good time. They know what thier own stats represent. Isnt that good enough for the rest of you who disagree?

Share this post


Link to post

The temp caches may not be listed here for various reasons, but in the spirit of this game, are indeed "caches". Hidden boxes of goodies, with coords to be found. "Here are some coords, go find what I hid"- Thats Caching isnt it, as it originated? The guidelines. . . . Yeah, its true they dont comform to the guidelines exactly...

If they conformed to the guidelines... they'd be actual published caches, wouldn't they?

 

Remember, all those temp caches are scouted, placed, coords are marked and checked and a list put together, copied, distributed - then all picked up afterwards. In the spirit of "the game" these people are working alot harder to host these events than the people typing their outrage/disgust against it.

 

I see hiding temp caches as the easy way out. And shouldn't the "spirit of the game" involve conformint to the guidelines (to which you said these do not). I don't care if people want to hide/hunt temp caches, my understanding is that if they don't conform to the rules enough to be approved here, then they have no business being posted as "found" here. I've only been to three events (each logged once). And the folks who hosted the events worked very hard and put in great effort to scout and place, not temporary caches... but real, anyone can find them, listed and approved caches! In one case (this awesome event) I drove 240 miles, found three caches and gathered about 30 items for a "Cachevenger Hunt" (which took nearly 8 hours) and still only found the need to log it once. It had to be some of the most fun I've had Caching and I met many (we overflowed an entire restaurant which shut down for the evening to host our dinner) awesome folks. BTW... that event included over 20 brand new published and approved caches that all went live 2 hours prior to start of event.

 

Yes, others do it differently. So, in that case- remember that multiple attends probably means multiple temp caches found(that were scouted, hidden, found and removed in the same day, usually more)- All in the spirit of game and to bring other cachers together for a good time. They know what thier own stats represent. Isnt that good enough for the rest of you who disagree?

I have no problem with bringing folks together and have said repeatedly that events have been the most important enhancement to my enjoyment of Geocaching, not for temp caches or the numbers they provide, but for the chance to meet those names in the logs, share some stories and maybe hunt a few hides with them.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with the part I removed, but thier reasoning has been presented, (Im not sure if it is here in this thread?) The temp caches may not be listed here for various reasons, but in the spirit of this game, are indeed "caches". Hidden boxes of goodies, with coords to be found. "Here are some coords, go find what I hid"- Thats Caching isnt it, as it originated? The guidelines. . . . Yeah, its true they dont comform to the guidelines exactly, but Ive read Jeremys posts and see that it isnt the tidal wave of a problem that some make it to be. "what if....." arguments aside- cache page owners, hosts of the event have the discretion.

The caches my kids put in the yard are found by me also, but i dont get credit for those.

Share this post


Link to post

<Snip for space saving>

My main issue with this topic is simple, why should cachers log finds on caches that can't or aren't GC approved?

... "Here are some coords, go find what I hid"- Thats Caching isnt it, as it originated? The guidelines. . . . Yeah, its true they dont comform to the guidelines exactly,...

 

They dont conform at all. They are not listed here, do not quality to be listed here, if they did and were listed they could be logged normally (creating no issue). The only tie to this site is that the event is listed here.

 

Other than that, yes they are caches, but so are navicaches, terracaches, letterboxes, and easter eggs. It's not good enough that "it's a cache" for logging here. You need something more.

 

Either caches to be logged on this site are published on this site is a good idea. Or it's a bad idea. If it's a bad idea then lets fix the problem.

Share this post


Link to post

I like the point made that when the events are logged the log is for "attended". You can only attend once.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that while temp caches at an event are fun things to do, unless they follow all the rules (including the 0.1 mile rule) and are approved and published they should not count and should not be logged. Just as if you find a letter box (not a hybrid) or a cache listed on another site you can't just log another cache again just to get credit.

Share this post


Link to post
I think that while temp caches at an event are fun things to do, unless they follow all the rules (including the 0.1 mile rule) and are approved and published they should not count and should not be logged.
The easiest solution that everyone is dancing around is that "attended" logs for events would not not count in a profile's total number of caches found. An "event" is even less of a cache than the grandfathered virtuals, webcams and locationless caches are. If y'all want to go to the extreme of saying that you should only get a "find" on a "cache" listed on GC.com, then let's grandfather the existing "Attended" logs to count (since GC.com likes to grandfather rules) and from today forward attending an event does not increase your find count.

 

Just as if you find ... a cache listed on another site you can't just log another cache again just to get credit.
But there are those that do JUST that. Navicache listings and Terracache listings are being found by people obsessed with having "correct" numbers, and they are using old archived caches they own to log their find, and thus increase their find count the appropriate number. I know that this is frowned upon by the head office, but it DOES happen.

 

If the "attended" logs would quit counting toward your find count, then this practice would most assuredly increase.

Edited by Markwell

Share this post


Link to post

I think that while temp caches at an event are fun things to do, unless they follow all the rules (including the 0.1 mile rule) and are approved and published they should not count and should not be logged. Just as if you find a letter box (not a hybrid) or a cache listed on another site you can't just log another cache again just to get credit.

 

I'd like to see an event cache log. However I think that event caches should not be formally approved any more than an easter egg hunt has each egg approved. The event itself is what needs approved. Most parks have a permit process for events that should take care of it.

 

Maybe event caches could count 10 for 1. 10 event caches = one find in your total...Or maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post

The easiest solution that everyone is dancing around is that "attended" logs for events would not not count in a profile's total number of caches found. An "event" is even less of a cache than the grandfathered virtuals, webcams and locationless caches are. If y'all want to go to the extreme of saying that you should only get a "find" on a "cache" listed on GC.com, then let's grandfather the existing "Attended" logs to count (since GC.com likes to grandfather rules) and from today forward attending an event does not increase your find count.

I like that. Maintain separate counts for caches, benchmarks, events, and trackables. (And an additional column for "other" so people can "keep their numbers accurate": temp caches, N*v*caches, beers that you got someone to fetch for you, etc?)

 

dave

Share this post


Link to post

The easiest solution that everyone is dancing around is that "attended" logs for events would not not count in a profile's total number of caches found. An "event" is even less of a cache than the grandfathered virtuals, webcams and locationless caches are. If y'all want to go to the extreme of saying that you should only get a "find" on a "cache" listed on GC.com, then let's grandfather the existing "Attended" logs to count (since GC.com likes to grandfather rules) and from today forward attending an event does not increase your find count.

I'm sure there are those that would create a regular listed cache, near the event, for logging all the event caches into. The event itself might not have multiple logs, but the micro that is 0.1 miles away will have dozens of finds per person that enjoys multi-logging events.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm sure there are those that would create a regular listed cache, near the event, for logging all the event caches into. The event itself might not have multiple logs, but the micro that is 0.1 miles away will have dozens of finds per person that enjoys multi-logging events.

I think I addressed that in the second part of my original post:
...Navicache listings and Terracache listings are being found by people obsessed with having "correct" numbers, and they are using old archived caches they own to log their find, and thus increase their find count the appropriate number. I know that this is frowned upon by the head office, but it DOES happen.

 

If the "attended" logs would quit counting toward your find count, then this practice would most assuredly increase.

Edited by Markwell

Share this post


Link to post

This "problem" doesn't seem to have a solution. But then again, is it really a problem?

 

Other than fun debate material on the forums, it doesn't really have an effect on the geo-community either way It's not like fake Found logs on missing caches that can fool someone into looking for something that's not there.

 

Logging multiple times on an event can't spoil anyone else's fun in any way that I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm sure there are those that would create a regular listed cache, near the event, for logging all the event caches into. The event itself might not have multiple logs, but the micro that is 0.1 miles away will have dozens of finds per person that enjoys multi-logging events.

I think I addressed that in the second part of my original post:
...Navicache listings and Terracache listings are being found by people obsessed with having "correct" numbers, and they are using old archived caches they own to log their find, and thus increase their find count the appropriate number. I know that this is frowned upon by the head office, but it DOES happen.

 

If the "attended" logs would quit counting toward your find count, then this practice would most assuredly increase.

You did. I was just pointing out that a cache set up specifically for each event would get published. It's the same thing as using an old archived cache, but much less sneaky.

Share this post


Link to post

i fully support the right of lame people to make bogus logs of every film cannister, gum wrapper, and bottlecap they find while looking for, finding, or thinking about finding any geocache.

 

these integrity-challenged giants of the numberboard can and must be allowed to post these "finds" on any convenient cache or event, provided the owner/organizer allows it.

 

in exchange, the rest of us will retain the right to laugh overtly or covertly in a derisive manner. some people have a very low threshhold for self-respect and and dance happily from foot to foot, logging a find every time they strike the ground, giddy with self-approbation.

 

if those of us who enjoy both freedom AND integrity are to survive, we have to tolerate these bozos.

 

smile.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...