Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
txoilgas

Multiple Attending of Events

Recommended Posts

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!

 

I don't like the ideal of blocking more than one attended log per event, solely because sometimes events are recurring. We started a monthly event in December of 2006, and I've attended 6 (of 7) times. I've logged all 6 times as attended, because it's been a different event each month (different people, different TB/coins, different conversations, etc). So, if you blocked it to one attended log per event, I'd have to recreate the event every month. That doesn't make much sense when I can just change the event date to the next month, and keep everything in once place.

 

I guess there COULD be the option to set an event as recurring (plus it might allow us cache owners who forget to update the date once in a while), and then you could log once for each cycle. I'd be ok with that.

 

In my case it isn't about the count, because I actually know how many unique caches I've found in addition to the number on my profile, but I want my logs to be accurate. Others who have attended multiple times post a note after the first time, and that's cool too.

 

As far as "bogus" logs for temp caches, I'm totally not down for that, but as someone said very early on in this thread, why not let people play the game how they want to play the game.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Although few may try to fake logs for numbers, i would guess the majority do not.

 

i have made at least one fake log for a number:

 

i have claimed not to have been at an event for which i was present, and i have claimed not to have found a few caches that i have most definately found. in the logbook of at least one i have claimed nto to have been there, just try to prove that i was.

Share this post


Link to post

Not bad, but it's still not honest. It should be

 

May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(0 faked)

or

May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(2260 faked)

Pretty funny, but i wouldn't go that far.

 

Although few may try to fake logs for numbers, i would guess the majority do not.

It does show the difference between a puritan and a purist.

 

The geocaching purist would tell you that an attended log is meant to record that you attended the event not that you found a temporary cache at the event. The proper way to log an event is

icon_attended.gifJune 8 by HonestCacher (11840 found)

Thanks for the great event. I had fun and found 73 out of the 73 temporary caches hidden for the event. The temporary caches were really well thought out and a lot of fun. More fun than I would have had spending the day running from parking lot to parking lot to find 73 LPCs. :rolleyes:

 

The puritan believes that if you logged the temporary event caches some other way, you are morally deficient. You are cheating in order to get your numbers up and you can't be trusted to do the right thing in any endeavor. I just can't understand how one can make the leap that because someone has decided that they are comfortable viewing the temporary caches as being loggable that they are evil. They may be wrong or mistaken, but I haven't seen any evil intent.

 

It is clear that in order to provide some incentive to find temporary caches hidden at a event, some event hosts have told attendees to log an extra attended for each the temporary caches they find. Until TPTB change the way events are logged, it is up to the event host to determine which logs are legitimate. If the host allows multiple logs, they are defacto legitimate for that event. Since the puritan or purist is still allowed to log the event with only one attended log - or post just a note if they don't believe that attending an event should count in their find count - they can continue to have an "honest" count of their own finds. I have no objection to someone stating in the forum what they believe is the proper use of the attended log. However, to believe that the only reason someone might want to use the log in another way is because they are cheaters who will take any excuse to inflate their numbers has no basis. Even the "slippery slope" argument, that if you were to allow this you would have to allow logging for each time you find the TV remote is not valid. This is a specific case of event hosts allowing an extra log for finding an actual (albeit temporary) cache and no one is suggesting that an event host should invite people to log extra attended logs for any arbitrary reason.

Share this post


Link to post

 

The puritan believes that if you logged the temporary event caches some other way, you are morally deficient. You are cheating in order to get your numbers up and you can't be trusted to do the right thing in any endeavor. I just can't understand how one can make the leap that because someone has decided that they are comfortable viewing the temporary caches as being loggable that they are evil. They may be wrong or mistaken, but I haven't seen any evil intent.

 

It is clear that in order to provide some incentive to find temporary caches hidden at a event, some event hosts have told attendees to log an extra attended for each the temporary caches they find. Until TPTB change the way events are logged, it is up to the event host to determine which logs are legitimate. If the host allows multiple logs, they are defacto legitimate for that event. Since the puritan or purist is still allowed to log the event with only one attended log - or post just a note if they don't believe that attending an event should count in their find count - they can continue to have an "honest" count of their own finds. I have no objection to someone stating in the forum what they believe is the proper use of the attended log. However, to believe that the only reason someone might want to use the log in another way is because they are cheaters who will take any excuse to inflate their numbers has no basis. Even the "slippery slope" argument, that if you were to allow this you would have to allow logging for each time you find the TV remote is not valid. This is a specific case of event hosts allowing an extra log for finding an actual (albeit temporary) cache and no one is suggesting that an event host should invite people to log extra attended logs for any arbitrary reason.

 

no, the puritan is part of a 17th century religious movement.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe he meant Purist?

From Wikipedis:

"A purist is one who desires that a particular item remain true to its essence and free from adulterating or diluting influences."

 

:rolleyes:

 

Events are for logging attends on. Cache pages are for logging finds on. Caches without cache pages are only for fun, not for "points".

 

Recurrent events should be listed as new events each time- to keep the history on separate pages and keep from causing confusion when new people look at an event and see folks have already logged it but it happens in a few weeks.

 

My opinions, yours will differ.

:blink:

-J

Edited by Jennifer&Dean

Share this post


Link to post

no, the puritan is part of a 17th century religious movement.

The Puritan is a member of a 17th century religious movement. I always type puritan with a small p when refering to geocaching puritans. But since you only use small letters, it may be hard for you to tell the difference :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe he meant Purist?

From Wikipedis:

"A purist is one who desires that a particular item remain true to its essence and free from adulterating or diluting influences."

 

:rolleyes:

 

Events are for logging attends on. Cache pages are for logging finds on. Caches without cache pages are only for fun, not for "points".

 

Recurrent events should be listed as new events each time- to keep the history on separate pages and keep from causing confusion when new people look at an event and see folks have already logged it but it happens in a few weeks.

 

My opinions, yours will differ.

:blink:

-J

 

Since when did we start getting "points"?

 

I only have some numbers indicating what I want them to indicate... where do I look to see how many "points" I have? Can I trade them in for a weekend vacation when I get enough?

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

I just can't understand how one can make the leap that because someone has decided that they are comfortable viewing the temporary caches as being loggable that they are evil. They may be wrong or mistaken, but I haven't seen any evil intent.

<snip>

Neither have I. Not to say that there isn't any evil intent, but I haven't seen it.

 

The part about this whole discussion that confuses me is this: How do my numbers, real or fake, affect anyone else's game playing?

 

That's what nobody has sufficiently answered.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

I just can't understand how one can make the leap that because someone has decided that they are comfortable viewing the temporary caches as being loggable that they are evil. They may be wrong or mistaken, but I haven't seen any evil intent.

<snip>

Neither have I. Not to say that there isn't any evil intent, but I haven't seen it.

 

The part about this whole discussion that confuses me is this: How do my numbers, real or fake, affect anyone else's game playing?

 

That's what nobody has sufficiently answered.

 

Apparently there are "points"... I'm not sure where they are or what you can use them for... but someone mentioned that they get points for this. So maybe if you log multiple attends and get more points, you can trade it in for that rare, ruby colored, decoder ring and deprive someone else of getting it.

 

Other than that? I can't figure it out. Heck... I can't even find my points... I know where to go to find my numbers... but not my points.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently there are "points"... I'm not sure where they are or what you can use them for... but someone mentioned that they get points for this. So maybe if you log multiple attends and get more points, you can trade it in for that rare, ruby colored, decoder ring and deprive someone else of getting it.

 

Other than that? I can't figure it out. Heck... I can't even find my points... I know where to go to find my numbers... but not my points.

Oh! Oh! Oh! I know those rings! They're behind the counter at Chuck E. Cheese! I saw them just the other day!

 

Wow! Now, my life is complete! I know what to do with my 414 er, 23,568 finds now!

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

I just can't understand how one can make the leap that because someone has decided that they are comfortable viewing the temporary caches as being loggable that they are evil. They may be wrong or mistaken, but I haven't seen any evil intent.

<snip>

Neither have I. Not to say that there isn't any evil intent, but I haven't seen it.

 

The part about this whole discussion that confuses me is this: How do my numbers, real or fake, affect anyone else's game playing?

 

That's what nobody has sufficiently answered.

 

It doesn't

 

How does posting the #'s in the way I proposed affect anyone else's game playing?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't like the ideal of blocking more than one attended log per event, solely because sometimes events are recurring. We started a monthly event in December of 2006, and I've attended 6 (of 7) times. I've logged all 6 times as attended, because it's been a different event each month (different people, different TB/coins, different conversations, etc). So, if you blocked it to one attended log per event, I'd have to recreate the event every month. That doesn't make much sense when I can just change the event date to the next month, and keep everything in once place.

 

I've seen this mentioned several times in the 1 cache = 1 log arguments and I don't really get it. How much trouble is it to copy your text from one page into a new event submission?

 

I liken it to "updated" caches...if you moved the cache to make a new experience, why not archive and create a new ID. The same with the events. If they're different each month, why not make it a new event so people can see WHICH monthly events they've attended in their profile?

 

It's a bit off-topic for this thread, I know...but the way this thing is drifting for 7 pages now, I figure what's one more fork in the path.

Share this post


Link to post

The part about this whole discussion that confuses me is this: How do my numbers, real or fake, affect anyone else's game playing?

 

That's what nobody has sufficiently answered.

 

It's more of a question of whether you should be logging caches not listed on this site.

 

gc.com is going to consider if you are using the system in the way that it was intended. They get to decide whether it continues or not.

 

I suggest rallying your locals (and mine) into having a temp cache logging frenzy event. Make a stand.

 

Only way to settle it.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with KoosKoos, if you have an event the first saturday of each month then submit a new event each month, it will take you less than a minute. It may be at the same location but its on a different day so its a different event. If this were happening in my area I would be complaining as the event would not show up on the cache listings I use since it had been found (attended).

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe he meant Purist?

From Wikipedis:

"A purist is one who desires that a particular item remain true to its essence and free from adulterating or diluting influences."

 

:blink:

 

Events are for logging attends on. Cache pages are for logging finds on. Caches without cache pages are only for fun, not for "points".

 

Recurrent events should be listed as new events each time- to keep the history on separate pages and keep from causing confusion when new people look at an event and see folks have already logged it but it happens in a few weeks.

 

My opinions, yours will differ.

:D

-J

 

Since when did we start getting "points"?

 

I only have some numbers indicating what I want them to indicate... where do I look to see how many "points" I have? Can I trade them in for a weekend vacation when I get enough?

Points, numbers, smilies, finds, attends... name them what you will. Some people will use them to evaluate other people and make decisions based on them.

 

Yes, you can redeem them- I used mine to get 3 t-shirts and a lanyard. But it cost us almost 15,000. It is gonna take forever to reach the 35,000 it takes to get Jeremy's autograph and an original Moun10bike coin. :rolleyes:

 

It would be nice if the numbers were optional and people could choose to show theirs or not. If it was optional to show them, and people who have inflated their numbers through multi-logging of Events chose not to show their numbers, that might tell us what they think is important.

 

I still like the numbers and will continue to "collect" them the way I play the game. My opinion, your opinion will vary.

 

-J

Share this post


Link to post

gc.com is going to consider if you are using the system in the way that it was intended. They get to decide whether it continues or not.

My guess is that they don't care enough one way or the other to get involved, or else they would have by now. Nobody is getting hurt. People are having fun. I don't see a problem. Too bad others do.

Edited by Always & Forever 5

Share this post


Link to post

....

I guess there COULD be the option to set an event as recurring (plus it might allow us cache owners who forget to update the date once in a while), and then you could log once for each cycle. I'd be ok with that....

 

There is a monthly event in Boise but each time it's hosted by a different person and listed as a new event. That seems to work well and does the same thing without multiple logs. Even if it's the same person hosting if it's a new event, it should be listed as a new event.

 

My bucktwoeighty.

Share this post


Link to post

gc.com is going to consider if you are using the system in the way that it was intended. They get to decide whether it continues or not.

My guess is that they don't care enough one way or the other to get involved, or else they would have by now. Nobody is getting hurt. People are having fun. I don't see a problem. Too bad others do.

 

Well sure, but from reading recent postings it's certainly not off the radar.

 

It appears to me that if it's just a "few" people are making it a practice to log events and established caches multiple times they are probably going to ignore it, (for their own reasons)

 

If it becomes a social norm, an accepted and taught practice, then they will probably move to endorse or restrict it. Hard to say if they would. (Seriously)

Share this post


Link to post

I agree and disagree. I have seen many cachers log multiple times for an event. Yes they are only temp caches but they still only attended the event only once. The caches logged should only be ones that have a waypoint. What it I drop TBs in caches I have already found, can I log those caches as found multiple times? Or what about those cachers that log in caches that they didn't even try because the gates to a park are close or only walked by it but didn't sign them? So if they can well let us all just do it and who cares about the numbers. Because that is all they are doing it for. I know some cachers who find them and don't bother logging them at all. They do it for the fun of it. Okay I admit I have also did some fudging myself. But at least I went to a physical cache and the owner okay'd the finds. But to do it for the numbers those cachers, remember they just have to live with what they are doing, and many of us who are not doing it, well we believe it is morally wrong though there seems to be loopholes with the rules to allow them to do it.

So all I can say now is Happy Caching :rolleyes:

Edited by jellis50

Share this post


Link to post

The puritan believes that if you logged the temporary event caches some other way, you are morally deficient. You are cheating in order to get your numbers up and you can't be trusted to do the right thing in any endeavor. I just can't understand how one can make the leap that because someone has decided that they are comfortable viewing the temporary caches as being loggable that they are evil. They may be wrong or mistaken, but I haven't seen any evil intent.

 

Hmm... I thought it was the realist who said that you can only attend an event once.

And, I never said that they were evil. I said that they lacked integrity, and, therefore, were untrustworthy.

 

Find a cache (published on gc.com), sign the log (or a facsimile thereof), get a smiley. Cache not listed on gc.com, it cannot not be logged on gc.com. It's fairly simple, or so I thought. I never, for a moment, considered logging the letterboxes that I found on the nearby caches that I also found. They're lot listed here. They're not loggable here! If an even owner said that I could log multiple 'attended event' log for every temporary cache, or his shoelaces, or the number of hamburgers grilled during the picnic, I would say "No, thank you. I am (generally) not a liar."

Share this post


Link to post

Find a cache (published on gc.com), sign the log (or a facsimile thereof), get a smiley. Cache not listed on gc.com, it cannot not be logged on gc.com. It's fairly simple, or so I thought. I never, for a moment, considered logging the letterboxes that I found on the nearby caches that I also found. They're lot listed here. They're not loggable here! If an even owner said that I could log multiple 'attended event' log for every temporary cache, or his shoelaces, or the number of hamburgers grilled during the picnic, I would say "No, thank you. I am (generally) not a liar."

I couldn't agree with that statement more. Well stated.

Share this post


Link to post

Not bad, but it's still not honest. It should be

 

May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(0 faked)

or

May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(2260 faked)

Pretty funny, but i wouldn't go that far.

 

Although few may try to fake logs for numbers, i would guess the majority do not.

It does show the difference between a puritan and a purist.

 

The geocaching purist would tell you that an attended log is meant to record that you attended the event not that you found a temporary cache at the event. The proper way to log an event is

icon_attended.gifJune 8 by HonestCacher (11840 found)

Thanks for the great event. I had fun and found 73 out of the 73 temporary caches hidden for the event. The temporary caches were really well thought out and a lot of fun. More fun than I would have had spending the day running from parking lot to parking lot to find 73 LPCs. :rolleyes:

 

The puritan believes that if you logged the temporary event caches some other way, you are morally deficient. You are cheating in order to get your numbers up and you can't be trusted to do the right thing in any endeavor. I just can't understand how one can make the leap that because someone has decided that they are comfortable viewing the temporary caches as being loggable that they are evil. They may be wrong or mistaken, but I haven't seen any evil intent.

 

It is clear that in order to provide some incentive to find temporary caches hidden at a event, some event hosts have told attendees to log an extra attended for each the temporary caches they find. Until TPTB change the way events are logged, it is up to the event host to determine which logs are legitimate. If the host allows multiple logs, they are defacto legitimate for that event. Since the puritan or purist is still allowed to log the event with only one attended log - or post just a note if they don't believe that attending an event should count in their find count - they can continue to have an "honest" count of their own finds. I have no objection to someone stating in the forum what they believe is the proper use of the attended log. However, to believe that the only reason someone might want to use the log in another way is because they are cheaters who will take any excuse to inflate their numbers has no basis. Even the "slippery slope" argument, that if you were to allow this you would have to allow logging for each time you find the TV remote is not valid. This is a specific case of event hosts allowing an extra log for finding an actual (albeit temporary) cache and no one is suggesting that an event host should invite people to log extra attended logs for any arbitrary reason.

 

I suppose fake could be a bit harsh, but you can't let the cacher with an inflated find count label his totals as found, either. Perhaps...

 

May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(88 claimed)

or

May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(2260 claimed)

 

I guess you could also use "discovered", but that would create confusion with TBs. Perhaps there's another fair word.

 

Actually, maybe if there was "Searched for" log, a few people who log finds on caches they didn't really find could have their own set of numbers.

 

May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(88 claimed)(92 Searched for)

or

May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(2260 claimed)(2298 Searched for)

 

Let Premium members hide any or all of these numbers and everyone gets their own set of numbers and gets to compete or not compete as they wish!

Edited by brdad

Share this post


Link to post

 

May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(88 unique) :blink:

or

May 19 by TeamBarstool (2348 found)(88 unique) :D

 

Would this work for everyone? :rolleyes:

 

I suppose fake could be a bit harsh, but you can't let the cacher with an inflated find count label his totals as found, either. Perhaps...

 

May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(88 claimed)

or

May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(2260 claimed)

 

I guess you could also use "discovered", but that would create confusion with TBs. Perhaps there's another fair word.

 

Actually, maybe if there was "Searched for" log, a few people who log finds on caches they didn't really find could have their own set of numbers.

 

May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(88 claimed)(92 Searched for)

or

May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(2260 claimed)(2298 Searched for)

 

Let Premium members hide any or all of these numbers and everyone gets their own set of numbers and gets to compete or not compete as they wish!

 

 

But they do have these finds the way they play the game. They also only have X number of unique GCXXXXX finds. A person that plays the game their way should not care that there is a difference in the #'s. Or that their #'s are the same. Everyone still can play any way they want. It just makes it easy to see who is playing which game

 

 

edit for clarity. like thats possible

Edited by TeamBarstool

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

I just can't understand how one can make the leap that because someone has decided that they are comfortable viewing the temporary caches as being loggable that they are evil. They may be wrong or mistaken, but I haven't seen any evil intent.

<snip>

Neither have I. Not to say that there isn't any evil intent, but I haven't seen it.

 

The part about this whole discussion that confuses me is this: How do my numbers, real or fake, affect anyone else's game playing?

 

That's what nobody has sufficiently answered.

 

It doesn't

 

Oddly enough, post after post showing how it does impact things has been made and nobody has actually refuted them. On top of that nobody has shown that they don't impact other cachers either. There have been a truckload of assertions with nothing to back them up about how it hurts nothing.

 

Examples vs. Assertions.

 

I'm going with, Logging practices matter and so do the numbes and I'm going to wait for someone to post why it's ok and give me an example of something wonderful that I haven't thought of yet on why it's ok and even good. "Because ti's fun" isn't enough. That's why we cache.

Share this post


Link to post

People are still doing stuff like this?

 

If you feel the need to log 100 times for all the temp caches you found at an event you are missing the point of this sport completely in my opinion.

 

Whatever, have fun looking for cache #whatevernumber and I'll have fun finding and exploring new places I've never been to before.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, everybody in my area (WNY) knows my opinion on this subject. I personally think it is lame to log an event more than once because let's face it, you can't physically attend more than one event at a time. :rolleyes: I do like the idea of adding an option to add a log for an event cache or something like that.. it would get rid of some of the excessive "attended" logs that a lot of people participate in.

Edited by HuckleBuckle

Share this post


Link to post

One approved waypoint=one 'found it' log, assuming you signed the logbook/logsheet.

Multiple logs on one waypoint=you do not exist in my world.

 

I have been invited to re-find caches that have been substantially changed by a re-hide, and respectfully declined.

If you have posted multiple finds on an event, to reflect the temporary caches that were set up for the event and not properly approved:

I AM BETTER THAN YOU!

 

My numbers are beyond reproach.

 

Of course, since I am not caching just for the numbers, WHO REALLY CARES?

Let the poor fools do as they will, it does not affect me in the least.

Share this post


Link to post

One approved waypoint=one 'found it' log, assuming you signed the logbook/logsheet.

Multiple logs on one waypoint=you do not exist in my world.

 

I have been invited to re-find caches that have been substantially changed by a re-hide, and respectfully declined.

If you have posted multiple finds on an event, to reflect the temporary caches that were set up for the event and not properly approved:

I AM BETTER THAN YOU!

 

My numbers are beyond reproach.

 

Of course, since I am not caching just for the numbers, WHO REALLY CARES?

Let the poor fools do as they will, it does not affect me in the least.

 

You rock.....

Share this post


Link to post

Neither have I. Not to say that there isn't any evil intent, but I haven't seen it.

 

The part about this whole discussion that confuses me is this: How do my numbers, real or fake, affect anyone else's game playing?

 

That's what nobody has sufficiently answered.

When i view someones profile. The main way it affects me is i would like to know if they have attended:

 

313 events

 

or

 

54 events with multiple logs at most events.

 

That is how it affects me. Now, i see the numbers and i wonder how they add up.

 

If you couldn't log an event or any cache more than once, then i would have no reason to wonder.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't like the ideal of blocking more than one attended log per event, solely because sometimes events are recurring. We started a monthly event in December of 2006, and I've attended 6 (of 7) times. I've logged all 6 times as attended, because it's been a different event each month (different people, different TB/coins, different conversations, etc). So, if you blocked it to one attended log per event, I'd have to recreate the event every month. That doesn't make much sense when I can just change the event date to the next month, and keep everything in once place.

If you visit a regular cache more than once for whatever reason do you log it more than once? You probably write a note.

 

However long an event is you can really only attend it once. Where is the point in which it is no longer acceptable? If you are absent 7 days? Leave for a few hours? Go get ice at the convenient store? Drop a few friends off at the pool?Go to the bathroom? Retrieve something from your car?

 

Why not attend once and write a note for the rest of your logs? Other than not changing your numbers, it would at least keep your event count more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't

 

How does posting the #'s in the way I proposed affect anyone else's game playing?

It does, Just look up.

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't

 

How does posting the #'s in the way I proposed affect anyone else's game playing?

It does, Just look up.

 

no... it doesn't.

none of this affects my game playing. It really doesn't affect anyones game playing. it affects logging.

as much as i think that multiple logging is stupid,It does not affect me finding a cache.

 

 

edit... affect...effect. I don't care. get the point or not

Edited by TeamBarstool

Share this post


Link to post

I did not notice the game playing part.

 

Sorry- i guess though- it is possible. You may decide not to attend events due to the activities that occur there.

Share this post


Link to post

lmao..... go to any event you want. log it 1 time. log it 30 times. I still find the cache i look for in my area.

I don't care how people log.And they shouldn't care if the stats show found/unique. let it show that they log stuff that is not a GCXXXXX . If they can live with that, so can I

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 this idea a lot. Not surprising, given the source.

 

As an aside, wouldn't it be interesting if this was put into effect and event attendance went down? About the numbers indeed.

Edited by Theseus

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 this idea a lot. Not surprising, given the source.

 

As an aside, wouldn't be interesting if this was put into effect and event attendance went down? About the numbers indeed.

I also like that. I didn't notice the post before though. I am one of those people that feel an event is not a cache. If i go to one i had always planned to log with a note. But then my stats will not reflect the correct number of events attended.

 

I guess i cant win.

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 this idea a lot. Not surprising, given the source.

 

As an aside, wouldn't be interesting if this was put into effect and event attendance went down? About the numbers indeed.

 

yeah.... but Markwell ( i think it was Markwell) also mentioned that logging on achived caches would increase. I tend to agree. I still think that (found)(unique) is the way to go. Am i wrong somehow?

 

And I would attendthis event even if i couldn't log it again

Share this post


Link to post

yeah.... but Markwell ( i think it was Markwell) also mentioned that logging on achived caches would increase. I tend to agree. I still think that (found)(unique) is the way to go. Am i wrong somehow?

Logging an archived is still wrong though. But at least it doesn't skew the event cache numbers.

Share this post


Link to post

When i view someones profile. The main way it affects me is i would like to know if they have attended:

 

313 events

 

or

 

54 events with multiple logs at most events.

 

That is how it affects me. Now, i see the numbers and i wonder how they add up.

 

If you couldn't log an event or any cache more than once, then i would have no reason to wonder.

Okay, I'll buy that...but why does it matter to you whether they have attended 54 or 313 events? When I see someone's find count, whether it be regular caches or events, I don't wonder if that's really how many they've found or attended. I just take them at face value. Why does it matter to you?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't like the ideal of blocking more than one attended log per event, solely because sometimes events are recurring. We started a monthly event in December of 2006, and I've attended 6 (of 7) times. I've logged all 6 times as attended, because it's been a different event each month (different people, different TB/coins, different conversations, etc). So, if you blocked it to one attended log per event, I'd have to recreate the event every month. That doesn't make much sense when I can just change the event date to the next month, and keep everything in once place.

If you visit a regular cache more than once for whatever reason do you log it more than once? You probably write a note.

 

However long an event is you can really only attend it once. Where is the point in which it is no longer acceptable? If you are absent 7 days? Leave for a few hours? Go get ice at the convenient store? Drop a few friends off at the pool?Go to the bathroom? Retrieve something from your car?

 

Why not attend once and write a note for the rest of your logs? Other than not changing your numbers, it would at least keep your event count more accurate.

 

But my event count is accurate. I've attended 6 different events that happen to use the same cache page. Just because it uses one cache page doesn't mean that it's a continuation of the same event. It's just easier to keep everything together if it's all on one page.

Share this post


Link to post

Neither have I. Not to say that there isn't any evil intent, but I haven't seen it.

 

The part about this whole discussion that confuses me is this: How do my numbers, real or fake, affect anyone else's game playing?

 

That's what nobody has sufficiently answered.

When i view someones profile. The main way it affects me is i would like to know if they have attended:

 

313 events

 

or

 

54 events with multiple logs at most events.

 

That is how it affects me. Now, i see the numbers and i wonder how they add up.

 

If you couldn't log an event or any cache more than once, then i would have no reason to wonder.

Then why don't you complain about the people who don't log attended at all on events because they don't want the event to be counted in the find count. Suppose they log a note, or don't even log the even on line. How can you tell if they have attended 100 event or 0 events. At least with the person who is logging multiple attended logs you can look at there profile and see that they have attended fewer events then they have attended logs for. With a little work you could find out how many events they have actually attended and how may logs they had at each event. For the person who doesn't log at all you have no way to tell how many events they attended. If this is important for the way you are playing the game, you should be complaining much more about none loggers. As long as the purist/puritans/literalists/idealists or what ever name you chose, complain about people logging extra time and don't complain about people who don't log, I figure that the truth is that what really bothers them is that their number is less than some who might be "cheating". Perhaps they perceive there is some advantage in having a higher number.

 

There have been several posts that people with higher numbers are "looked up to" at events, that they get more respect from fellow cachers, and that when people reach a milestone they get praise and congratulations from others. This may be the response to Always & Forever 5's question. Someone's inflated numbers are being used (perhaps not the intention of the person logging temporary caches) to gain praise or respect from cachers that they do not deserve. Some who doesn't use these logging practices, may have to work harder to achieve the same praise or respect.

 

Both sides need to accept that the numbers do matter. The puritans/purists must acknowledge that they want to get the praise and respect of higher number counts and the people who log temporary caches must admit that they gain an advantage in moving up in the ranks and achieving a milestone sooner by logging temporary caches. I don't expect that either side is ready to admit this. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, I'll buy that...but why does it matter to you whether they have attended 54 or 313 events? When I see someone's find count, whether it be regular caches or events, I don't wonder if that's really how many they've found or attended. I just take them at face value. Why does it matter to you?

It is a small thing. You are correct. I guess it is one of those pet peeves. Little things matter to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Then why don't you complain about the people who don't log attended at all on events because they don't want the event to be counted in the find count. Suppose they log a note, or don't even log the even on line. How can you tell if they have attended 100 event or 0 events. At least with the person who is logging multiple attended logs you can look at there profile and see that they have attended fewer events then they have attended logs for. With a little work you could find out how many events they have actually attended and how may logs they had at each event. For the person who doesn't log at all you have no way to tell how many events they attended. If this is important for the way you are playing the game, you should be complaining much more about none loggers. As long as the purist/puritans/literalists/idealists or what ever name you chose, complain about people logging extra time and don't complain about people who don't log, I figure that the truth is that what really bothers them is that their number is less than some who might be "cheating". Perhaps they perceive there is some advantage in having a higher number.

 

There have been several posts that people with higher numbers are "looked up to" at events, that they get more respect from fellow cachers, and that when people reach a milestone they get praise and congratulations from others. This may be the response to Always & Forever 5's question. Someone's inflated numbers are being used (perhaps not the intention of the person logging temporary caches) to gain praise or respect from cachers that they do not deserve. Some who doesn't use these logging practices, may have to work harder to achieve the same praise or respect.

 

Both sides need to accept that the numbers do matter. The puritans/purists must acknowledge that they want to get the praise and respect of higher number counts and the people who log temporary caches must admit that they gain an advantage in moving up in the ranks and achieving a milestone sooner by logging temporary caches. I don't expect that either side is ready to admit this. :blink:

 

Excellent points. I kind of touched on this in post 336. Im at a loss as to what to do.

Share this post


Link to post

Both sides need to accept that the numbers do matter. The puritans/purists must acknowledge that they want to get the praise and respect of higher number counts and the people who log temporary caches must admit that they gain an advantage in moving up in the ranks and achieving a milestone sooner by logging temporary caches. I don't expect that either side is ready to admit this. :blink:

There is that third side to which the numbers truly don't matter and don't see why this is such a big deal. I would be fine if all the numbers disappeared. I'd be fine if the caches didn't allow multiple logs. I'd be fine if events didn't count in the find numbers. I'd be fine if nothing changed from the present system.

Share this post


Link to post

Both sides need to accept that the numbers do matter. The puritans/purists must acknowledge that they want to get the praise and respect of higher number counts and the people who log temporary caches must admit that they gain an advantage in moving up in the ranks and achieving a milestone sooner by logging temporary caches. I don't expect that either side is ready to admit this. :blink:

There is that third side to which the numbers truly don't matter and don't see why this is such a big deal. I would be fine if all the numbers disappeared. I'd be fine if the caches didn't allow multiple logs. I'd be fine if events didn't count in the find numbers. I'd be fine if nothing changed from the present system.

I would think the third side doesn't have much to say in these ongoing debates. The most they could bring to the topic is like Markwell indicate that the whole thing is not a big deal and whatever TPTB decide is alright with them. As long as you are having fun geocaching, the numbers truly don't matter.

Share this post


Link to post

edit: sorry, I have a busy upcoming week and I really don't have the time.

Edited by BlueDeuce

Share this post


Link to post

Numbers. It's happened before. Things just evolve a lot faster these days.

Initially there are just players. Eventually there is some Organization. Next the numbers-crunchers come in and sully the "purity" of the sport. Next some people who are really good at it want to get paid. All of a sudden there are bubble-gum cards, night games, some upstart group wants to use a designated hitter and all stats are permanently skewed.

 

Geocaching is past the Organization stage, mired in The Numbers and *this* close to corporate sponsorship for certain (teams of) Cachers. Might even be happening already. Bubble-gum cards would be pretty sweet, but I'll just let ya'll know now: Don't bother saving my rookie card. My "numbers" wont be anything special and I only get "points" when something bites me. :D

 

If you find you are getting annoyed at people who don't appear to be playing the game right, just ask yourself: Did I celebrate my last milestone find? If you answered yes, then you cat at least understand why the "other cachers" are playing with their numbers. Just enjoy the hikes, the finds & the new friends and when a "new" cacher wearing a Jeep/Garmin/Off/Clif-bar t-shirt asks you if you keep track of your weekend/weekday DNF ratio splits, just smile and say "No".

 

Looking on the eventual bright side, corporate cachers will probably trade pretty nice swag. The downside is that some parks/mountains/parking lots will periodically get closed for events where only National Cache League players can participate. Of course, that wont be ANYTHING compared to when the guys with the cyborg optics & receivers take the "field".

 

I still wont care though... at least until the first time that something half man / half machine flies down out of the sky and beats me to a FTF. Then it's personal! :D

 

-Ericles

"Feeding hungry ticks since 1/18/2007"

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...