Double logging and geo-ethics

[+mamid]

if you find cache A with people 1,2,3&4, then going back a few months later and finding it all on your lonesome is fine.

or finding and refinding a travelling cache is also fine.

 

or if you catch a dnf on a cache you have done and you go back and find it to prove its there, that's fine.

 

at least, that I believe.

[Pto]

 

Marriage isn't a competition.

 

Behavior matters.

 

Yes, and as Ive told my wife a dozen times - Youve made your point. More than once. Please give it a rest and Quit yer Bit. . . . well you know the rest.

 

Its glaringly obvious how some people view other peoples behavior. Everyone who bothers to read here knows that. Geo-ethics would dictate that the other 4-5 states that host multpiple log events would all get thier own bashing thread, not just WI. Nope. Whats fair for one is fair for all right? Nope.

 

Maybe its the puritans that need to break away from all the regular people, or "chaff" as they like to call it.

Start thier own, highly regulated, highly rule oriented, strictly enforced caching site.

To get a smiley, each and every find has to be pre approved by the hider, and the board of governors of this new kingdom of righteousness.

 

I dont double log as a practice, but dont fault anyone for doing it. I dont cache to get to involved in other peoples business. If I never read a single one of these posts, Id be all the more happier as a person, and a cacher.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Pto

[+fizzymagic]

Sorry, I can't see your point. Please point out some losers. Since obviously people are cheating to win something. There'd hafta be some losers..... Right?

Snoogs, ya know I love ya, but I think you're at sea on this one.

 

I am one of those losers, at least in some minds. I've had several people email me in triumph as they passed me in numbers. They clearly considered that they "beat" me. Didn't bother me at all, since I am not competing, but it did reduce my respect for them!

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

In short, the minute someone else's questionable find erases one of my legit finds I'll gather up all the angst I can muster to throw at them. Until then, live and let live.

 

So you agree that there's "questionable" finds, only that it doesn't cause you angst? Well shoot, I agree with you. Doesn't cause me angst either. It wouldn't cause me angst even if their "questionable" find erased one of mine.

 

Doesn't make "questionable" finds any less "questionable."

 

I usually call them "laughable", not "questionable."

[+Snoogans]

Sorry, I can't see your point. Please point out some losers. Since obviously people are cheating to win something. There'd hafta be some losers..... Right?

Snoogs, ya know I love ya, but I think you're at sea on this one.

 

I am one of those losers, at least in some minds. I've had several people email me in triumph as they passed me in numbers. They clearly considered that they "beat" me. Didn't bother me at all, since I am not competing, but it did reduce my respect for them!

 

 

It's just our viewpoint.....

 

 

What you see as competition, I see as aspiration.

 

 

When I started geocaching in early 2003, bthomas was the tip top TB mover. I could care less that he was one of the top cachers; it was his tb stats that I aspired to. He was my benchmark. I will never pass up Warren & Maxine (MaxB) on LaRobley's TB stats page nor do I care to, but the day I passed Ben Thomas' TB stats was a great day in my geocaching career. I never shared that with him, but I did thank LaRobley for that feeling from the one leaderboard I have opted in on. I didn't opt in to compete and I never expected that rush as I passed bthomas. I certainly couldn't think less of him for it. All I wanted to see by opting in was what company I was keeping by concentrating on moving TBs over finding caches. I'm in some pretty durn good company.

 

 

It's too bad you feel less toward those who would consider you their benchmark. I would have considered it an honor rather than resenting them for passing me.

[+NaJoBe]

Here is a question for you. A little off topic maybe but anyway. If you find a cache that has been muggled and then replaced, haven't found it previously, can you better yet should you log it as a FTF. Just curious what others have to say.

[+ncfinn]

What if you are the FTF after the second full moon in August?

[+Stargazer22]

To me, it all seems very logical and clear. I play the game for myself and my own enjoyment.

 

When I go out to look for a cache, one of two things happen.

 

1) I find it. I log a find, since I found it. If I visit the same cache again, I already know where it is, so I don't have to find it again. That warrants a note but not another find.

 

2) I didn't find it. I log a DNF, since I didn't find it. If I return and manage to find it, it goes back to 1) and I log the find.

 

Simple, logical. I log what I do.

 

If I don't get a chance to search, I may log a note about the woodpecker I saw in the tree in the area or the deer I saw nearby, but no found or DNF since there was no search.

 

It doesn't bother me how other people play the game. My numbers only matter to me as a personal reminder of where I've been and what I've done. I don't have a lot of finds, so mostly they have been ones I specifically wanted to visit because of where they are or other amusing logs I read on the caches and think it might be fun to go there.

 

I say as long as you're having fun at the game and feel good about how you play, it's all good.

[+fishingfools]

If I am impressed with the amount of finds someone has, I will look at there stats or profile. If i see the same cache found 20 times, I am no longer impressed. I have a couple of double logs, all with a good resaon, ie moving cache back in the day, or a cache that has been rehid in a new spot. I did the "its not about the numbers" stats on my own, and found a couple that I had accidently logged twice at GW3, so I deleted the finds. Makes me wonder which two I missed.

Edited June 15, 2007 by fishingfools

[Clan Riffster]

I say as long as you're having fun at the game and feel good about how you play, it's all good.

StarGazer, that's no way to earn your halo & white robe. Don't make us send the Nuns after you!

[+wavector]

If i see the same cache found 20 times, I am no longer impressed.

 

So people who actually Find moving caches (they still exist, we have several of them here) are doing something which changes your opinion of their stated record?

I am never impressed by any number, a Found count is simply a reflection of where you live and how often you geocache and spew has slanted the Hide number until it is essentially meaningless. We have one cache which offers 350+ unique targets, each one is separate, each hunt is unique and it is very popular but every time you find one of the targets it is logged as a Find on the same cache page. We have several moving caches as well and cachers compete to see who can log the most finds. We also have monthly events which simply recycle the cache page, each month there is a new Event at a new location with different attendees and the same cache page gets used over and over. There are people who cannot wrap their heads around these simple realities. There are many areas where people log caches more than once and those who cling to cut and dried rules are simply inexperienced, unaware or unwilling to admit that the rule they cherish means nothing.

 

Real problems occur when geocachers start thinking the rule they adopted has some basis in fact. Your comment is an example, you look at a profile and change your opinion of a geocachers stated record because they don't follow a rule you have adopted, even though your rule makes no sense in the real world. The adoption of some nonsense rule is deeply ingrained in the mind of many geocachers, I have seen experienced geocachers suggest that logging moving caches with a note is correct. That makes no sense at all, in fact in my opinion it is actually deliberately stupid. My sig line contains a comment from another experienced geocacher who cannot grasp that the rule that he has adopted is a rule which makes no sense.

 

In most cases people are not cheating when they log double finds, it has already been pointed out that most double logs are simply mistakes, I agree with this and have seen numerous examples of exactly that. The situations I have outlined above are also clearly not cheating, those who think that they are examples of cheating have no sense.

There may be a small group who are actively trying to increase their Find count by logging caches more than once but they have subscribed to the idea that a Find count means something, others who subscribe to that same belief might be warranted in calling them cheaters.

The widespread and completely acceptable practice of logging temporary event caches is probably the largest bone of contention for those who want the numbers to mean something but the numbers never will mean anything because a find isn't defined by any rule, it is always a transaction between the cache hider and the cache seeker and that is all it is, it isn't equal to some action, it isn't rooted in a nonsense rule.

 

The people who really think "numbers" mean something throw the word cheating out there quite often, this thread is just another example of a geocacher thinking they have cornered the word "find" and hence they can apply the word "cheat" to others, adopting the word geo-ethics to refer to geo-warts is slim cover for nonsense. Most people who log caches more than once are not attempting to deceive anyone, they are not practicing any trickery, they are simply logging a cache more than once and doing so quite openly.

 

Geo-ethics might exist but they certainly don't center around the practices of "seekers". Seekers can give gc.com an email address and away they go geocaching. Cache owners on the other hand have to agree to a comprehensive set of rules that define exactly what is and isn't allowed. Those rules say "The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page." That is what a find is, the cache owner is responsible for defining the word "find" and if they allow double logs then the person logging twice isn't cheating. It is pretty hard to apply the word cheater to a cache owner who is following the rules but it doesn't stop people from trying over and over, the word "cheater" just creates acrimony and it only comes into play when people really think that their "numbers" mean something and want to infect others with their geo-wart.

[+Green Bay Paddlers]

1. It's not a game. It's a hobby.

 

2. Logging caches is simple record keeping for the cacher. It makes to difference how many times a cache is logged by a cacher.

 

3. If the website allows multiple logs per cache, then obviously it is an accepted practice.

[+Miragee]

1. It's not a game. It's a hobby.

 

2. Logging caches is simple record keeping for the cacher. It makes to difference how many times a cache is logged by a cacher.

 

3. If the website allows multiple logs per cache, then obviously it is an accepted practice.

I disagree with the latter statement. That would not be an "accepted practice" for any of my caches. If someone logged a second "Found it" on one of my caches when they meant to post a "Note," I would send a friendly email and ask them to change the "Found it" to a "Note."

[Clan Riffster]

3. If the website allows multiple logs per cache, then obviously it is an accepted practice.

Yes, it's accepted by TPTB. However, many cache owners do not accept the practice. Since the cache owner is the ultimate authority on what constitutes a legitimate find, the fact that TPTB accepts the practice can become irrelevant. For instance, I own a multi with 26 stages, leading to a final. I've seen folks who would log 27 total finds on that cache. TPTB are OK with that, however, I am not. 26 of those 27 finds would probably get deleted, hopefully by the person who logged them, after receiving a polite E-mail from me.

[+Renegade Knight]

...3. If the website allows multiple logs per cache, then obviously it is an accepted practice.

 

If Wal Mart doesn't prosecute petty shop lifters, then obviously...

 

Some things just don't follow from others.

[Pto]

...3. If the website allows multiple logs per cache, then obviously it is an accepted practice.

 

If Wal Mart doesn't prosecute petty shop lifters, then obviously...

 

Some things just don't follow from others.

 

Yeah, like a game and a crime. . .

[+Renegade Knight]

What if you are the FTF after the second full moon in August?

That changes the trump.

[+Renegade Knight]

...3. If the website allows multiple logs per cache, then obviously it is an accepted practice.

 

If Wal Mart doesn't prosecute petty shop lifters, then obviously...

 

Some things just don't follow from others.

 

Yeah, like a game and a crime. . .

Fair point. Another version.

 

If the website allows multiple notes per cache, then obviously it's an accepted practice to to run a heated forum debate over the cache on the cache page.

 

Just because you can doesn't make it right.

[Pto]

Fair point. Another version.

 

If the website allows multiple notes per cache, then obviously it's an accepted practice to to run a heated forum debate over the cache on the cache page.

 

Just because you can doesn't make it right.

 

Well, then you can get down to the definition of what "right" is, and to what extent it can be applied to the

logic of playing a game by yourself. . . and what others think of your activities.

 

Am I caching Right? Thats rhetorical, since I am really the only one capable of answering that question.

 

Late Friday, and Im slipping out- Enjoy the weekend caching

Edited June 15, 2007 by Pto

[+Renegade Knight]

...Well, then you can get down to the definition of what "right" is, ...Late Friday, and Im slipping out- Enjoy the weekend caching

 

That's the entire debate in a nutshell. What's right, wrong, and should it even be an issue?

 

Have a good weekend.

 

I'm getting a puppy on the way home. Maybe I'll take him caching on a short hike I've got planned.

[+tozainamboku]

1. It's not a game. It's a hobby.

 

2. Logging caches is simple record keeping for the cacher. It makes to difference how many times a cache is logged by a cacher.

 

3. If the website allows multiple logs per cache, then obviously it is an accepted practice.

 

1. I'm not sure that a game implies a competition with winners and losers and that claiming it's not a game is trying to indicate you can't cheat. However, people can still make deceptive statements about a hobby. For example, a coin collector may claim to own a rare coin that he really doesn't own.

 

2. Perhaps a cacher should be allowed to use the logs on geocaching.com for any reason they see fit. Some people wish to believe that a 'found it' log means you have found a cache and an 'attended log' means you have attended an event (once). So long as this is the case, these people will care about someone logging a cache multiple times. The cacher may have a reason for each log; the puritan will think the cacher is lying about that rare coin.

 

3. The website allows multiple logs per cache because there are some good reasons for logging multiple times. For example, there are grandfathered moving caches, and sometimes a cache owner reuses an old GC number (though the puritans wish they didn't). Jeremy has stated that he feel that most reasons given for multiple finds are silly but that he won't change the behavior of the site because there are some reasons that he finds acceptable. Most important, since he doesn't see geocaching as competitive he has no reason to police the logs.

[+flask]

...3. If the website allows multiple logs per cache, then obviously it is an accepted practice.

 

If Wal Mart doesn't prosecute petty shop lifters, then obviously...

 

Some things just don't follow from others.

 

Yeah, like a game and a crime. . .

 

is it really necessary to keep the exact structures for the purposes of an analogy? the analogy, for those skilled in higher reasoning skills, might make a point using a comparison in which the similarity is not necessarily in the same category.

 

one might very reasonably compare unethical practices in a game with a petty crime. the idea is not to place one on the same level of seriousness with the other, but certainly in this context it makes sense.

[+hide_from_the_kids]

I have definately made the mistake of dropping a tb off after the log and logging again. I noticed that my counter was off and went back in and adjusted things . . . certainly a newbie error which is easily fixed once you realize what you did (my husband did it the other day and it took him a bit to figure out what he did/how to edit/etc.).

 

I did not realize it was such a numbers game for some and it never occured to us to cheat.

 

We do log dnfs as dnfs . . . I always find it helpful when looking at a cache to read the dnfs and wish more people were honest.

[zezima10196]

Okay. Could someone please explain to me what the prize is for logging a zillion caches that you've never even heard of, let alone found? I used to play an online game that you had to train up your levels to be able to do something, so in that levels actually had a point, so a lot of people were using macros to raise their levels to a zillion in less than a minute. So even tough it was not a good thing to do on the game, it had a purpose. But if you sit around all day logging caches that you've never found, do you win $1,000,000 or something for getting your levels to 500? NO!!!!! Okay, I grant you, you can show off to all your friends that you've "found" a billion caches. Big deal. I am still confused why you would go to all that trouble to lie to your friends.

Edited June 15, 2007 by zezima10196

[+Miragee]

<snip> I am still confused why you would go to all that trouble to lie to your friends.

So are most of us . . .

 

Welcome to the Forums!

[+Metaphor]

1) No, I don't.

 

2) No, my ethics are the same. (1st dnf-3/3/2002)

[Clan Riffster]

one might very reasonably compare unethical practices in a game with a petty crime.

But first, one must violently twist logic so that JoeSchmoe, logging 8 "Attended" logs for finding various carp at an event is unethical. So long as you are willing to brutalize logic, any comparison can be stretched to fit. The litmus test for unethical behavior is a person's willingness to deceive. The difference is subtle, but for those with higher reasoning skills, it should still be discernible.

 

Consider these two scenarios:

1 ) JoeSchmoe logs his 8th "Attended", stating, "I found the pink painted pop bottle! Whoo Hoo"

I would find it silly to log this as another "Attended", but that log has no intent to deceive. Ergo, it cannot be distorted to fit the definition of unethical.

 

2 ) JoeSchmoe sits in his LazyBoy in Podunk Nebraska, and he has never left the state. He logs a "Find" on an old, archived cache with an inactive owner.

That act shows an intent to deceive, and certainly qualifies as unethical.

 

Another instance where I would be willing to jump on the ethics bandwagon, are intentional rules violations. For something to be labeled as "Right" or "Wrong", requires, at a minimum, a specific code, rule, law or guideline that is being violated. Pretending that something is unethical simply because you don't like it stinks of the kind of religious fervor that has resulted in unspeakable acts throughout history.

[+JohnnyVegas]

If that is the way that you like to play, then go for it and have fun doing it

!

barff.

If some one log more than one find on one of my caches I delete the bogus finds.

I even had some one post that they could not find my cache so they replaced it with one they had with them.

This was done by a very well known cacher-I deleted his log and he called me at home to tell me I was screwing with his numbers count, I just told him didn't find MY CACHE

Boy was he mad!!!!

[+Renegade Knight]

... I am still confused why you would go to all that trouble to lie to your friends. [/color]

 

Same reason everone knows someone who did something faster, bigger, with more style, or bought it cheaper. The same reason there is always a kid at the playground who says they have swung that swing all the way over the top of the swingset.

 

To earn respect, adoration, recognition and the like. All by lying which is so much less effort than actually doing the work.

[+Renegade Knight]

one might very reasonably compare unethical practices in a game with a petty crime.

But first, one must violently twist logic so that JoeSchmoe, logging 8 "Attended" logs for finding various carp at an event is unethical. So long as you are willing to brutalize logic, any comparison can be stretched to fit. The litmus test for unethical behavior is a person's willingness to deceive. The difference is subtle, but for those with higher reasoning skills, it should still be discernible....

 

The catch is that the anology wasn't about crime. It was about how Just because you can doesn't logically make it right.

 

It just happens I had read an article on how Wal Mart's "Shrinkage" is rising dramaticly and that it coincides with their decision to stop prosecuting petty shoplifting. If I had read about someones Unocked wi-fi and someone stopping on the street to check ther cache page...I may have used a differnet anology.

[+MountainMudbug]

It just happens I had read an article on how Wal Mart's "Shrinkage" is rising dramaticly and that it coincides with their decision to stop prosecuting petty shoplifting.

 

This could make caching cheaper. Now I can jam a few cheap items inside a couple Lock-n-Locks, shove them down the back of my jeans whilst shopping, and confidently stroll out the door without fear of consequences!

If you see me in the parking lot with a big square butt, do NOT ask me if you can log my pocket cache

[+flask]

one might very reasonably compare unethical practices in a game with a petty crime.

But first, one must violently twist logic so that JoeSchmoe, logging 8 "Attended" logs for finding various carp at an event is unethical. So long as you are willing to brutalize logic, any comparison can be stretched to fit. The litmus test for unethical behavior is a person's willingness to deceive. The difference is subtle, but for those with higher reasoning skills, it should still be discernible....

 

The catch is that the anology wasn't about crime. It was about how Just because you can doesn't logically make it right.

 

It just happens I had read an article on how Wal Mart's "Shrinkage" is rising dramaticly and that it coincides with their decision to stop prosecuting petty shoplifting. If I had read about someones Unocked wi-fi and someone stopping on the street to check ther cache page...I may have used a differnet anology.

 

some of us out here got your point. agree or not (i happen to), i think it's kind of important for people to understand simple rhetorical devices.

 

thank you, oh thank you thank you thank you for rubbing two thoughts together in a cogent manner. if i had a nickel for every time some rube either genuinely or deliberately fails to understand a simple analogy, i could buy myself a nice cup of coffee. the good kind.

[+Green Bay Paddlers]

I agree that cache owners should police the finds on their cache in the fashion they desire.

 

However, my follow-up question is: Why do so many on here get upset if event caches are logged more than once? If an event has 20 fantastic temporary caches, why shouldn't someone log each of those finds? That's the part I don't get.

 

It's a simple hobby. You download some coordinates, you find an object, you sign a logbook, and you log a find on the computer when you get home. Seems pretty simple to me? If there is no competition, why can it be considered cheating? There is no benefit for those who log multiple caches. Some log multiple event caches because... there are multiple caches at the event. Seems logical?

 

As soon as you stop stressing out about what the next guy is doing, the more fun you're going to have with the hobby. It's about getting out, getting a little exercise, infusing technology into a hobby, and having fun. I'm not sure how much fun some of you are having.

 

Just my two cents worth. Feel free to flame away.

Edited June 16, 2007 by Green Bay Paddlers

[Pto]

...3. If the website allows multiple logs per cache, then obviously it is an accepted practice.

If Wal Mart doesn't prosecute petty shop lifters, then obviously...

Some things just don't follow from others.

Yeah, like a game and a crime. . .

 

is it really necessary to keep the exact structures for the purposes of an analogy? the analogy, for those skilled in higher reasoning skills, might make a point using a comparison in which the similarity is not necessarily in the same category.

 

That is sometimes called a stretch of "logic".......

 

one might very reasonably compare unethical practices in a game with a petty crime. the idea is not to place one on the same level of seriousness with the other, but certainly in this context it makes sense.

 

Only if you can accept the rational of the seriousness of the issue. "Unethical" for instance......

 

To make a good analogy, it has to pass at least a few sniff tests of reason so that most people get it, and the others dont call it apples to oranges.

 

 

But first, one must violently twist logic so that JoeSchmoe, logging 8 "Attended" logs for finding various carp at an event is unethical <snip>. .. The litmus test for unethical behavior is a person's willingness to deceive. The difference is subtle, but for those with higher reasoning skills, it should still be discernible.

 

Well said. I'll bet close to 95% of people doing any of this "unethical behavior" have no idea some people who come to the forums regularly are getting so worked up about it, or care so much about Thier activities.

 

Consider these two scenarios:

1 ) JoeSchmoe logs his 8th "Attended", stating, "I found the pink painted pop bottle! Whoo Hoo"

I would find it silly to log this as another "Attended", but that log has no intent to deceive. Ergo, it cannot be distorted to fit the definition of unethical.

 

2 ) JoeSchmoe sits in his LazyBoy in Podunk Nebraska, and he has never left the state. He logs a "Find" on an old, archived cache with an inactive owner.

That act shows an intent to deceive, and certainly qualifies as unethical.

 

Another instance where I would be willing to jump on the ethics bandwagon, are intentional rules violations. For something to be labeled as "Right" or "Wrong", requires, at a minimum, a specific code, rule, law or guideline that is being violated. Pretending that something is unethical simply because you don't like it stinks of the kind of religious fervor that has resulted in unspeakable acts throughout history.

 

Bingo. "shes a witch.......burn her!"

 

To earn respect, adoration, recognition and the like. All by lying which is so much less effort than actually doing the work.

 

If people are looking for those things from people on the internet they have never met, and most likely wont- using nothing more than stats then they have larger issues than logging practices.

 

 

some of us out here got your point. agree or not (i happen to), i think it's kind of important for people to understand simple rhetorical devices.

 

thank you, oh thank you thank you thank you for rubbing two thoughts together in a cogent manner. if i had a nickel for every time some rube either genuinely or deliberately fails to understand a simple analogy, i could buy myself a nice cup of coffee. the good kind.

 

"simple rhetorical devices" such as mine presented above:

Am I caching Right?

 

Ooops. I guess thats saarcastic, but I dont owe anybody an answer anyway.

Did yourube either genuinely or deliberately fail to understand that simple analogy?

 

better save your money for that coffee.

[+Snoogans]

I agree that cache owners should police the finds on their cache in the fashion they desire.

 

However, my follow-up question is: Why do so many on here get upset if event caches are logged more than once? If an event has 20 fantastic temporary caches, why shouldn't someone log each of those finds? That's the part I don't get.

 

It's a simple hobby. You download some coordinates, you find an object, you sign a logbook, and you log a find on the computer when you get home. Seems pretty simple to me? If there is no competition, why can it be considered cheating? There is no benefit for those who log multiple caches. Some log multiple event caches because... there are multiple caches at the event. Seems logical?

 

As soon as you stop stressing out about what the next guy is doing, the more fun you're going to have with the hobby. It's about getting out, getting a little exercise, infusing technology into a hobby, and having fun. I'm not sure how much fun some of you are having.

 

Just my two cents worth. Feel free to flame away.

 

 

Some folks like to argue and test the fabric of their fellow cachers. I'm cool with that. I can argue and test with the best of 'em. It's all entertainment.

 

 

Then again, some folks have a valid point as Johnny Vegas did in his post. I heard that story right from the horse's mouth and there were many present to nod in agreement.

 

 

While I refuse to judge others by my own standards there are certain practices that I find just plain odd. The one JV mentions is one of them. That one's odd and I believe every word of it, cuz a half dozen others had similar stories. Do I think less of the person who did it? Nope. I happen to like the guy, but what he did was odd to me.

 

I even had some one post that they could not find my cache so they replaced it with one they had with them.

This was done by a very well known cacher-I deleted his log and he called me at home to tell me I was screwing with his numbers count, I just told him didn't find MY CACHE

Boy was he mad!!!!

 

I don't make a practice of deleting logs, but in that case I may have also deleted it. That is to say, afffffter I checked to see if my cache was gone and IF the replacement cache was not near where my cache disappeared from.

 

 

Just hunting for a cache for a couple minutes and throwing down one of your own is not a find in my book. However, even though you probably still shouldn't get a find for leaving a cache of your own, I wouldn't delete a find if the effort was to honestly help me out to keep my listing alive. One hand washes the other.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Well said. I'll bet close to 95% of people doing any of this "unethical behavior" have no idea some people who come to the forums regularly are getting so worked up about it, or care so much about Thier activities.

 

Bingo. "shes a witch.......burn her!"

 

Why is it when someone has a personal opinion that extraneous logging practices are unkosher it is assumed that they are "getting worked up" or "care so much"?

 

Just because I think it's inappropriate doesn't mean I'm getting worked up. I couldn't care less. I probably wouldn't even formulate an opinion about it if I wasn't responding in a forum about all things geocaching.

 

If I stopped into a painting forum and they were discussing favorite colors, I'd respond, "huh, I guess green." Doesn't mean I'm thinking of colors all day long.

 

But this is the way the conversation always twists. Some how I'm the one "burning witches" because I care so much about numbers, while the multi-loggers sit in front of their 'puter logging 20 temp caches they found at an event.

 

Who's overly concerned about numbers?

Edited June 16, 2007 by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

[+LaTuFu]

This could make caching cheaper. Now I can jam a few cheap items inside a couple Lock-n-Locks, shove them down the back of my jeans whilst shopping, and confidently stroll out the door without fear of consequences!

If you see me in the parking lot with a big square butt, do NOT ask me if you can log my pocket cache

 

Is that a moving micro spew double logged in an archived location in your pocket or are you just happy to be standing near the cache?

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Some folks like to argue and test the fabric of their fellow cachers. I'm cool with that. I can argue and test with the best of 'em. It's all entertainment.

 

Someone pass that man a beer!

[+msrubble]

If an event has 20 fantastic temporary caches, why shouldn't someone log each of those finds? That's the part I don't get.

 

Because then someone is logging finds of caches that are not listed on geocaching.com.

 

The event may be listed. If the cacher was there, he or she can log "attended."

[Pto]

 

Who's overly concerned about numbers?

Sorry, my comments were not directed at you, or anyone in particular. Check my numbers, it surely isnt me.

 

Some folks like to argue and test the fabric of their fellow cachers. I'm cool with that. I can argue and test with the best of 'em. It's all entertainment.

Someone pass that man a beer!

 

I'll second that!

 

If an event has 20 fantastic temporary caches, why shouldn't someone log each of those finds? That's the part I don't get.

 

Because then someone is logging finds of caches that are not listed on geocaching.com.

 

The event may be listed. If the cacher was there, he or she can log "attended."

 

OK, so here is the thing. People are getting upset about other cachers logging multiple ATTEND logs to signify the temp caches. There is a difference, even the little icon will tell you so. Find, and Attend are not the same thing. People arent logging multiple finds for temp caches at events. Then,it gets into the numbers thing, and the whos who in the pews.

[Clan Riffster]

Why do so many on here get upset if event caches are logged more than once?

In the absence of rules, folks tend to invent their own. Those personalities obsessed with imposing their values on others, will often ridicule those who don't accept their invented rules.

 

Just hunting for a cache for a couple minutes and throwing down one of your own is not a find in my book.

Yeah, that does strike me as peculiar. I've only replaced a few caches, and only after getting a nod from the owner. None of the ones I replaced were missing though, just damaged.

 

Just because I think it's inappropriate doesn't mean I'm getting worked up.

I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. It seems that those getting the "Witch Hunter" labels are the ones who not only think double logging is inappropriate, (like me), but also feel obligated to hurl vitriol at anyone else who doesn't follow their invented rules of the game.

 

Someone pass that man a beer!

Better make it a Guinness. I hear Snoog is a cacher of refined taste.

[wicked77]

I know of someone who does this occasionally... it's just sad, really! It's more understandable when people make the mistake of logging a cache twice when they're dropping a TB etc. without noticing what they've done. Will geocaching.com ever make it so that a person CAN'T log a find more than once? And as for events, maybe there should be a sign in sheet at the event and the event listers can delete any logs that don't match up with the sign in sheet.

[+3 Hawks]

Is it cheating to log a find on a cache you stumble across by accident? I've found at least 5 caches through the application of dumb luck. I wasn't looking for the caches and I did not even know the caches existed. I just took some detours after the little voice in my head would say "Hey, go look over there. That looks like a great place to hide a cache."

 

Is it cheating to log a find for locating the final stage of a multi without finding one or even any of the WP's? I've had to resort to pure luck on a few multi's because of missing WP's. I did not use PAF and I applied deductive reasoning, common sense, and pure luck to find the caches.

 

Is it cheating to log a find on a puzzle cache even though you did not solve the puzzle? I've had to resort to blind searches on a few puzzle caches that I couldn't solve. I had a good idea of where to look for one and I just had a "feeling" on another. The location of the cache's were nowhere near the puzzle's posted coords and I had to use some wicked "voodoo luck" on them.

 

Is it cheating to log a find on a cache that has not yet been posted? Once again, I stumbled across two caches that had not yet been approved or posted. Dumb luck rules again. I did not claim FTF's but I did log them as finds after the official FTF's were posted.

 

Is it cheating to log a find after discovering an M&M that had been run over my a lawn mower? I found one in hundreds of little orange pieces. I also found the log sheet on the ground a few feet away. I picked up as much as I could find, signed the log, and placed the remains in a Ziploc baggie. I re-hid the remains at the site and e-mailed the owner. Normally, I'd just CITO the remains, but I was 300 miles from home and the cachers in that community might not have believed me if I logged a find with a note that I had CITO'd the remains and the log after I had signed it. Additionally, the owner had performed maintenance on this cache on multiple occasions in the past and had just upgraded to the M&M container. I knew he would follow-up on my post and I knew he would get a replacement container in play soon. Furthermore, the log was still in relatively good shape. I found the cache, I signed the log, and I replaced the cache. Sounds like a find to me.

 

Is it cheating to log a find on a cache that had been archived over two years ago after stumbling across it while bushwacking through a swamp? I found an ammo box. I was not looking for it but I found it none the less. The coords and name of the cache were written on the lid. I loaded up the coords and sloshed 450 feet to where my GPS'r said was GZ. A duck hunter's blind was 15 feet away and I knew this had to be an old archived cache, so I just CITO'd the cache. I e-mailed the owner and I still have the ammo box in my garage as proof. I logged it as a find. If I had not made the 450-foot trek to GZ, would it have been cheating?

 

I think these fall under the "hole in one rule." If your tee shot hits a tree, bounces off of a rock, smacks into another ball already on the green, rolls to a stop within a hair of falling into the hole, gets nailed by seagull poop, and falls into the hole; it's a hole in one. Your intent was to hit the ball into the hole and that is where it ended up.

 

I head into the woods to find caches. If I find a cache, it's a find. There is a fine line between skill and luck.

 

Is a find based on the cache or the log? If you find a cache where the log is missing, is it still a find if you write your name on any old piece of paper and add it to the cache?

 

Earlier today, a local cache was archived after being muggled. I was the last person to post a DNF because it was not there. The cache's owner e-mailed me and said I could log my visit as a find. I declined after thanking them for the gesture. I know some would think it cheating if I had logged it as a find. Some would say "Go ahead and log it since the owner offered."

 

It's not always easy to stay on one side of a line when the line is not visible and you do your best not to across that line. Furthermore, the line seems to move slightly one way and the other from time to time.

 

Cheating implies intent to seek an advantage or gain. Intent must be proved before any conviction on the count can be rendered. In the absence of any defined and/or real advantage or gain, any lapses in judgment must be discounted unless you can obtain an admission of guilt.

 

Why do we insist on overcomplicating that which is intended to be pure and simple by bringing absolute judgment into the equation?

[Clan Riffster]

Will geocaching.com ever make it so that a person CAN'T log a find more than once?

I'd love to see that happen, but I won't hold my breath.

[+TrailGators]

Is it cheating to log a find on a cache you stumble across by accident? I've found at least 5 caches through the application of dumb luck. I wasn't looking for the caches and I did not even know the caches existed. I just took some detours after the little voice in my head would say "Hey, go look over there. That looks like a great place to hide a cache."

 

Is it cheating to log a find for locating the final stage of a multi without finding one or even any of the WP's? I've had to resort to pure luck on a few multi's because of missing WP's. I did not use PAF and I applied deductive reasoning, common sense, and pure luck to find the caches.

 

Is it cheating to log a find on a puzzle cache even though you did not solve the puzzle? I've had to resort to blind searches on a few puzzle caches that I couldn't solve. I had a good idea of where to look for one and I just had a "feeling" on another. The location of the cache's were nowhere near the puzzle's posted coords and I had to use some wicked "voodoo luck" on them.

 

Is it cheating to log a find on a cache that has not yet been posted? Once again, I stumbled across two caches that had not yet been approved or posted. Dumb luck rules again. I did not claim FTF's but I did log them as finds after the official FTF's were posted.

 

Is it cheating to log a find after discovering an M&M that had been run over my a lawn mower? I found one in hundreds of little orange pieces. I also found the log sheet on the ground a few feet away. I picked up as much as I could find, signed the log, and placed the remains in a Ziploc baggie. I re-hid the remains at the site and e-mailed the owner. Normally, I'd just CITO the remains, but I was 300 miles from home and the cachers in that community might not have believed me if I logged a find with a note that I had CITO'd the remains and the log after I had signed it. Additionally, the owner had performed maintenance on this cache on multiple occasions in the past and had just upgraded to the M&M container. I knew he would follow-up on my post and I knew he would get a replacement container in play soon. Furthermore, the log was still in relatively good shape. I found the cache, I signed the log, and I replaced the cache. Sounds like a find to me.

 

Is it cheating to log a find on a cache that had been archived over two years ago after stumbling across it while bushwacking through a swamp? I found an ammo box. I was not looking for it but I found it none the less. The coords and name of the cache were written on the lid. I loaded up the coords and sloshed 450 feet to where my GPS'r said was GZ. A duck hunter's blind was 15 feet away and I knew this had to be an old archived cache, so I just CITO'd the cache. I e-mailed the owner and I still have the ammo box in my garage as proof. I logged it as a find. If I had not made the 450-foot trek to GZ, would it have been cheating?

 

I think these fall under the "hole in one rule." If your tee shot hits a tree, bounces off of a rock, smacks into another ball already on the green, rolls to a stop within a hair of falling into the hole, gets nailed by seagull poop, and falls into the hole; it's a hole in one. Your intent was to hit the ball into the hole and that is where it ended up.

 

I head into the woods to find caches. If I find a cache, it's a find. There is a fine line between skill and luck.

 

Is a find based on the cache or the log? If you find a cache where the log is missing, is it still a find if you write your name on any old piece of paper and add it to the cache?

 

Earlier today, a local cache was archived after being muggled. I was the last person to post a DNF because it was not there. The cache's owner e-mailed me and said I could log my visit as a find. I declined after thanking them for the gesture. I know some would think it cheating if I had logged it as a find. Some would say "Go ahead and log it since the owner offered."

 

It's not always easy to stay on one side of a line when the line is not visible and you do your best not to across that line. Furthermore, the line seems to move slightly one way and the other from time to time.

 

Cheating implies intent to seek an advantage or gain. Intent must be proved before any conviction on the count can be rendered. In the absence of any defined and/or real advantage or gain, any lapses in judgment must be discounted unless you can obtain an admission of guilt.

 

Why do we insist on overcomplicating that which is intended to be pure and simple by bringing absolute judgment into the equation?

I think there are people that cheat. There are also people that appear to be cheating but are not cheating. There are also people that won't do anything that would make it appear like there were cheating.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

It's not always easy to stay on one side of a line when the line is not visible and you do your best not to across that line. Furthermore, the line seems to move slightly one way and the other from time to time.

 

It's very easy when your philosophy is one signed log on a GC-listed cache/event is one online "Found It/Attended" log on the GC-website. The line is incredibly clear to me.

 

Why do we insist on overcomplicating that which is intended to be pure and simple by bringing absolute judgment into the equation?

 

Some of us enjoy caching very simplistically. I enjoy finding the cache. Period. I'm cool with no numbers at all. I have just as much fun finding an unlisted never-to-be-logged temp cache at an event as I do any listed cache that has a smiley attached. I love letterboxing, and it's certainly not a numbers activity. The cache is the thing.

 

I don't feel it's overcomplicated at all. To not log is incredibly uncomplicated. Do nothing.

To log a cache/event multiple times- that's adding some steps.

Edited June 16, 2007 by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

[+Snoogans]

 

Someone pass that man a beer!

Better make it a Guinness. I hear Snoog is a cacher of refined taste.

 

 

Actually, it's in my profile that I don't drink beer. Just the smell of it makes me wanna hurl.

 

 

When it comes to alcohol, I like mine highly refined. A shot of Tres Generationas or Patron Silver will do.

 

 

 

Oh, I guess I aughta post something ON topic too....

 

 

Just hunting for a cache for a couple minutes and throwing down one of your own is not a find in my book.

Yeah, that does strike me as peculiar. I've only replaced a few caches, and only after getting a nod from the owner. None of the ones I replaced were missing though, just damaged.

 

 

Well, in the case I mentioned it was used to call into question that cacher's total number of finds. We ARE talkin' about a mega-cacher just so you know the context.

 

 

If I wanted to do that personally and sayyy I researched this person's history discounting all their questionable finds by my own criteria and made it my benchmark goal....... It would still take me close to 70 YEARS to catch up at the present rate I cache which is roughly 500+ finds in just over 4 years. I'd be 110 years old when I reach that mark.

 

 

Now, if I'm using the argument of questionable finds to drag someone down to be discounted before the community because numbers are my main concern, I'm already a loser. I can never measure up to the next mega-cacher that has unquestionable finds at the rate I cache...... So why bother? Saying someone's ways are odd is about the worst censure I can give here.

 

 

On the other hand, when people find ME odd, I usually take it as a compliment.

[+benh57]

However, my follow-up question is: Why do so many on here get upset if event caches are logged more than once? If an event has 20 fantastic temporary caches, why shouldn't someone log each of those finds? That's the part I don't get.

 

Temporary caches are illegal on geocaching.com. You aren't logging geocaches. A 'find' has a specific meaning, that is, you found a geocache listed on geocaching.com.

 

You can't claim finds on geocaching.com for finding caches listed on 'that other caching site'. This is no different.

 

-- ah, someone posted this reply already. Thats what i get for leaving the computer for a couple hours with the thread open... heh

Edited June 16, 2007 by benh57

[+3 Hawks]

It's not always easy to stay on one side of a line when the line is not visible and you do your best not to across that line. Furthermore, the line seems to move slightly one way and the other from time to time.

 

It's very easy when your philosophy is one signed log on a GC-listed cache/event is one online "Found It/Attended" log on the GC-website. The line is incredibly clear to me.

 

Why do we insist on overcomplicating that which is intended to be pure and simple by bringing absolute judgment into the equation?

 

Some of us enjoy caching very simplistically. I enjoy finding the cache. Period. I'm cool with no numbers at all. I have just as much fun finding an unlisted never-to-be-logged temp cache at an event as I do any listed cache that has a smiley attached. I love letterboxing, and it's certainly not a numbers activity. The cache is the thing.

 

I don't feel it's overcomplicated at all. To not log is incredibly uncomplicated. Do nothing.

To log a cache/event multiple times- that's adding some steps.

 

...and to spend our time respectfully discussing this issue over and over and over and over..........is not overcomplicating the overall geocaching experience?

 

I geocache alone most of the time and I do it for any number of personal reasons. I don't need posted numbers to validate my activities. I own a low end GPS'r. I don't own a 4X4. I don't have a PDA. I don't carry a cell phone. I don't have any maps loaded onto my GPS'r. I load up coords and go where the magic arrow points. I find a cache. I sign a log. I log a find. If I don't find the cache, I post a DNF. Now that's simplicity! I don't think about work. I don't think bad thoughts about anyone while on the trail. I'm just enjoying life. Getting all worked up over something as insignificant as this overcomplicates geocaching at so many levels.

 

I would just like someone to tell me how this recurrent topic adds anything positve to geocaching or to the quality of any of our lives.

 

That is my point. Nice and simple.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

I would just like someone to tell me how this recurrent topic adds anything positve to geocaching or to the quality of any of our lives.

 

I consider caching and discussing caching on a forum as two totally different activities. I won't think of this or any other thread at all the next time I'm out caching.

 

As for what it adds to my life- these forums add value for me through entertaining and informative discussions with creative, mostly friendly people. Some threads are more entertaining and informative than others, (and some people friendlier than others) but on the whole it's pretty positive for me.