Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
sweetlife

Multiple logging of events

Recommended Posts

will the programming code ever be changed so that a event can only be logged as attended only once, just like travel bugs or geocoins, if you move or discover them more than once, it doesnt add to your find count, We still see teams multiple logging of events to mark all the temporary finds, this to me seems it would/could overload the servers where there could only be one log but a team logs upwards of 20 times the same cache, now if 20 teams are at the event this 400 unneaded logs.

 

 

just my thought.

Share this post


Link to post

This would be nice. When people do that it makes me not want to attend an event.

 

But this issue could/will go round and round.

Share this post


Link to post

will the programming code ever be changed so that a event can only be logged as attended only once, just like travel bugs or geocoins, if you move or discover them more than once, it doesnt add to your find count, We still see teams multiple logging of events to mark all the temporary finds, this to me seems it would/could overload the servers where there could only be one log but a team logs upwards of 20 times the same cache, now if 20 teams are at the event this 400 unneaded logs.

 

 

just my thought.

 

You mentioned this before logging event caches, Should only be able to log attended event once

 

I agree with you on this 100% I think it is a cheesy number padding scheme.

 

Two great threads trying to hash this out.

 

Multiple "attended" Logs For An Event

 

Rediculious Event: Number Game????, Is this an abuse or valid

Share this post


Link to post

It's been many years and many changes have been make to the website. For example, when pocket caches (caches where the owner carries the log book of an archived cache in his pocket and encourages other geocaches to log his now archived cache) started to gain in acceptance and popularity. Groundspeak would disable the ability to log archived caches that were being used as pocket caches.

 

I wouldn't say that multiple logging of events in encouraged but it is obvious that multiple logging of events isn't discouraged either. Jeremy has said that it is a issue left up to the individual event owner. You can either ignore it or join in. List your own 'For the Numbers' event and allow attendees to log as many attended logs as they need to make themselves an experienced geocacher. :D

Share this post


Link to post

will the programming code ever be changed so that a event can only be logged as attended only once, just like travel bugs or geocoins, if you move or discover them more than once, it doesnt add to your find count, We still see teams multiple logging of events to mark all the temporary finds, this to me seems it would/could overload the servers where there could only be one log but a team logs upwards of 20 times the same cache, now if 20 teams are at the event this 400 unneaded logs.

 

 

just my thought.

 

This has been brought up in the forums on several occasions but nothing has ever come of it. It seems common sense would be what's needed here but there are some out there who somehow look at this from another view.

 

I figure there would be a few cachers that would be upset if the site instigated a "1 attended per 1 event" policy but there's no doubt in my mind that they would soon get over it. This change would certainly make this aspect of geocaching more angst free in the long run since everyone would then be on the same page.

Share this post


Link to post

This is a volunteer environment; we are our own police. Cache owners (event organizers) are the police on this issue and the rules are flexible as to what needs to be policed. In my opinion, no extra tools are needed.

 

The game is played by a flexible set of rules which lets a large number of diverse individuals play the same game the way they like to play it. This maximizes the fun for everyone. Imposing the suggestion would only take something away from someone, not add anything that really benefits anyone or improves the game in general.

Share this post


Link to post
This change would certainly make this aspect of geocaching more angst free in the long run since everyone would then be on the same page.
The way I read this, you want everyone to be on your page. No thanks. I'm not interested in playing a tightly regimented game.

Share this post


Link to post

will the programming code ever be changed so that a event can only be logged as attended only once, just like travel bugs or geocoins, if you move or discover them more than once, it doesnt add to your find count, We still see teams multiple logging of events to mark all the temporary finds, this to me seems it would/could overload the servers where there could only be one log but a team logs upwards of 20 times the same cache, now if 20 teams are at the event this 400 unneaded logs.

 

 

just my thought.

 

You mentioned this before logging event caches, Should only be able to log attended event once

 

I agree with you on this 100% I think it is a cheesy number padding scheme.

 

 

One could really read into the use of the word "cheesy" in this case, you know. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Logging a ton of extra caches is a chore to me. All I have to do is log a cache once to get it off my radar. Why would I want to log it 50 times? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
This change would certainly make this aspect of geocaching more angst free in the long run since everyone would then be on the same page.
The way I read this, you want everyone to be on your page. No thanks. I'm not interested in playing a tightly regimented game.

 

Not my page, but the right page. I'm not going to get into a debate but i will ask one question. I've seen this asked many times before and have never seen an honest answer come back, but here goes anyway. This is for anybody,

 

Is it possible to attend a single event on a certain date more than one time?

 

If you can somehow come up with a legitimate yes answer, then by all means, log all you want. If the answer is no, then logging attended more than one time is false logging.

Share this post


Link to post

will the programming code ever be changed so that a event can only be logged as attended only once, just like travel bugs or geocoins, if you move or discover them more than once, it doesnt add to your find count, We still see teams multiple logging of events to mark all the temporary finds, this to me seems it would/could overload the servers where there could only be one log but a team logs upwards of 20 times the same cache, now if 20 teams are at the event this 400 unneaded logs.

 

 

just my thought.

 

You mentioned this before logging event caches, Should only be able to log attended event once

 

I agree with you on this 100% I think it is a cheesy number padding scheme.

 

 

One could really read into the use of the word "cheesy" in this case, you know. :blink:

 

Since Wisconsin appears to be the birthplace of this number padding scheme, the "cheasy" pun is most appropriate. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

schla01.gif

 

Wake me when something new to this topic has been said...

Share this post


Link to post

will the programming code ever be changed so that a event can only be logged as attended only once, just like travel bugs or geocoins, if you move or discover them more than once, it doesnt add to your find count, We still see teams multiple logging of events to mark all the temporary finds, this to me seems it would/could overload the servers where there could only be one log but a team logs upwards of 20 times the same cache, now if 20 teams are at the event this 400 unneaded logs.

 

 

just my thought.

 

You mentioned this before logging event caches, Should only be able to log attended event once

 

I agree with you on this 100% I think it is a cheesy number padding scheme.

 

 

One could really read into the use of the word "cheesy" in this case, you know. :laughing:

 

Since Wisconsin appears to be the birthplace of this number padding scheme, the "cheasy" pun is most appropriate. :blink:

 

I'm not so sure they invented it, as well known as they are for it. :blink:

 

Did you ever find this one KF? Probably the oldest "multiple logging of events" thread

 

Post #3 and #20 are by reviewers (or approvers, as known at the time). It seems to me (I could be wrong), temporary caches were accepted by many reviewers at the time to take some of the load off of them, back when there were much fewer of them, and they were extremely overworked. Not that they aren't still, of course. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

This change would certainly make this aspect of geocaching more angst free in the long run since everyone would then be on the same page.

Why must we all be on the same page? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
This change would certainly make this aspect of geocaching more angst free in the long run since everyone would then be on the same page.
The way I read this, you want everyone to be on your page. No thanks. I'm not interested in playing a tightly regimented game.

 

How is requiring that something can only be found once tightly regimented? It sounds like common sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
This change would certainly make this aspect of geocaching more angst free in the long run since everyone would then be on the same page.
The way I read this, you want everyone to be on your page. No thanks. I'm not interested in playing a tightly regimented game.

 

How is requiring that something can only be found once tightly regimented? It sounds like common sense to me.

What were we discussing again? Oh yes, logging a event multiple times to account for each individual temporary event cache found. NOT LOGGING SOMETHING THAT CAN ONLY BE FOUND ONCE. You could make an argument that you can only attend an event once and can't "attend" a temporary cache. That would at least be on topic. Of course, I always have believed that if the event owner wants to award a bonus smiley for finding temporary caches at least the people who take him up on that are getting their find count increased by finding caches. Personally I'm not even bothered by people claiming mutilple finds on traditional caches. It really doesn't make much difference because I don't believe that a higher find count makes you a better cacher, let alone a better person. The count simply indicate the number of "found it" and attended logs a person has entered. If they are simply entering logs for no reason at all, I agree that they are silly in thinking that anyone would think more of them for achieving a high find count this way. As long as they, and the cache owners, feel that they have accompished something worthy of another found it log then I'll accept their found count. I also have no problem with people who choose to log at most one 'found it' log per GC number because they personally feel that is how the game should be played. I would not object to GC.com providing a count of unique caches found for people who want to use this as their score. (A score generally makes sense only in some tightly regimented game.)

Share this post


Link to post

:blink:

 

Actually I think that you should only be able to log one 'found/attended' log for all caches, but TPTB don't seam to have any intention of stopping this abuse.

Share this post


Link to post

Since Wisconsin appears to be the birthplace of this number padding scheme, the "cheasy" pun is most appropriate. :blink:

It may have started in Wisconsin but but it has migrated. It seems to be the norm in NE Ohio. In fact, i have seen seasoned cachers encourage newbies to do it. I don't get it. confused2hw.gifsick3qx.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Since Wisconsin appears to be the birthplace of this number padding scheme, the "cheasy" pun is most appropriate. :blink:

It may have started in Wisconsin but but it has migrated. It seems to be the norm in NE Ohio. In fact, i have seen seasoned cachers encourage newbies to do it. I don't get it. confused2hw.gifsick3qx.gif

It's not the norm in San Diego. I can't remember it ever happening in San Diego. In fact, I attended my 19th event yesterday. They had a ~dozen temporary kid's caches and nobody logged those....

Share this post


Link to post

Since Wisconsin appears to be the birthplace of this number padding scheme, the "cheasy" pun is most appropriate. :blink:

It may have started in Wisconsin but but it has migrated. It seems to be the norm in NE Ohio. In fact, i have seen seasoned cachers encourage newbies to do it. I don't get it. confused2hw.gifsick3qx.gif

It's not the norm in San Diego. I can't remember it ever happening in San Diego. In fact, I attended my 19th event yesterday. They had a ~dozen temporary kid's caches and nobody logged those....

 

Every event I have attended had new caches placed nearby before the event. The big difference compared to the practioners of "chease," is that the caches placed before the events, were actual caches approved on GC.com, with their own GC numbers. I personally hid ten GC approved caches before a local event that occured almost two years ago. All of my ten caches are still active. :laughing:

Edited by Kit Fox

Share this post


Link to post

Since Wisconsin appears to be the birthplace of this number padding scheme, the "cheasy" pun is most appropriate. :blink:

It may have started in Wisconsin but but it has migrated. It seems to be the norm in NE Ohio. In fact, i have seen seasoned cachers encourage newbies to do it. I don't get it. confused2hw.gifsick3qx.gif

 

Hey, didn't I post right after KF a link to one of the oldest multi-logging forum threads that shows it wasn't "invented" in Wisconsin? :blink: It is definately regional though, just like many things geocaching. It doesn't matter though, TPTB commented on a very recent one (a whole weekend event) where people had 60+ logs each, and did not consider it at the "abuse" threshold. (I suppose someone is going to ask for that link, huh?) So I suppose things will stay the same, and probably never change. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Since Wisconsin appears to be the birthplace of this number padding scheme, the "cheasy" pun is most appropriate. :blink:

It may have started in Wisconsin but but it has migrated. It seems to be the norm in NE Ohio. In fact, i have seen seasoned cachers encourage newbies to do it. I don't get it. confused2hw.gifsick3qx.gif

It's not the norm in San Diego. I can't remember it ever happening in San Diego. In fact, I attended my 19th event yesterday. They had a ~dozen temporary kid's caches and nobody logged those....

 

Every event I have attended had new caches placed nearby before the event. The big difference compared to the practioners of "chease," is that the caches placed before the events, were actual caches approved on GC.com, with their own GC numbers. I personally hid ten GC approved caches before a local event that occured almost two years ago. All of my ten caches are still active. :laughing:

The desert events always spawn new caches. :blink: We always have a poker run but nobody ever logs those temp caches...

Share this post


Link to post

Since Wisconsin appears to be the birthplace of this number padding scheme, the "cheasy" pun is most appropriate. :blink:

It may have started in Wisconsin but but it has migrated. It seems to be the norm in NE Ohio. In fact, i have seen seasoned cachers encourage newbies to do it. I don't get it. confused2hw.gifsick3qx.gif

It's not the norm in San Diego. I can't remember it ever happening in San Diego. In fact, I attended my 19th event yesterday. They had a ~dozen temporary kid's caches and nobody logged those....

 

Every event I have attended had new caches placed nearby before the event. The big difference compared to the practioners of "chease," is that the caches placed before the events, were actual caches approved on GC.com, with their own GC numbers. I personally hid ten GC approved caches before a local event that occured almost two years ago. All of my ten caches are still active. :blink:

 

I'll agree with that. I've only been to three events here in Northern California, but I've never even seen a "temporary cache". Every event I go to includes somewhere between 10 and 20 honest-to-goodness, reviewer approved and Groundspeak legal geocaches! And the really cool thing is if you get too tied up visitng with fellow cachers during the event, you can come back and find the caches tomorrow, or next week, or even next year. They're here for everyone to enjoy. That's the way to do it.

 

Temp cache = so lousy it couldn' t get approved. :laughing:

 

BTW... I'm all for a cap. 1 find* = 1 smiley

 

*and before someone says..."well I found the temporary caches at my last event"... unless it's listed on this site, don't log it here.

 

DCC

Edited by Driver Carries Cache

Share this post


Link to post

I went to two Events yesterday. The second one was billed as being for the "kids." I overheard a conversation between two of the children as they discussed the temporary caches placed in the large park for the kids to find.

 

"Let's go find the caches."

 

"Okay, but you know you can't log them."

 

Out of the mouths of children, wisdom. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

:anitongue:

 

Actually I think that you should only be able to log one 'found/attended' log for all caches, but TPTB don't seam to have any intention of stopping this abuse.

 

Well, that's not true. On the Waymarking site, they only permit one "Find" per waymark. Maybe they realized the error of their ways.???

Share this post


Link to post

Is that still the case? A while back, Jeremy said he was going to fix that because you can "Visit" a place more than once . . . you just cannot "Find" it more than once.

 

I own several Waymarks and would be thrilled to have someone "Visit" them more than one time. However, they would have to be visited once first. :anitongue:

Share this post


Link to post

Is that still the case? A while back, Jeremy said he was going to fix that because you can "Visit" a place more than once . . . you just cannot "Find" it more than once.

 

I own several Waymarks and would be thrilled to have someone "Visit" them more than one time. However, they would have to be visited once first. :anitongue:

 

Hi!

 

Just checked and yes, it still only allows a single visit to a waymark. Once you visit the waymark, the VISIT option is no longer available in the dropdown.. Only a note is available after the initial visit. IMO, exactly how it should be.. If only TPTB could apply that same beautifully thought out logic to the GC.com site....

Share this post


Link to post

But, but, but . . . each Visit to a Waymark can be a unique experience. And, I really believed Jeremy when he posted that he was going to change that . . .

 

. . . off to try to find that post . . . :anitongue:

 

I do agree that "Found its" and "Attendeds" should be only logged once, however (except for the rare, Grandfathered Moving caches and odd Virtuals with more than one location.)

Share this post


Link to post

But, but, but . . . each Visit to a Waymark can be a unique experience. And, I really believed Jeremy when he posted that he was going to change that . . .

 

. . . off to try to find that post . . . :anitongue:

 

I do agree that "Found its" and "Attendeds" should be only logged once, however (except for the rare, Grandfathered Moving caches and odd Virtuals with more than one location.)

 

They can visit the waymark twice... Nothing is stopping them.

Share this post


Link to post

Is that still the case? A while back, Jeremy said he was going to fix that because you can "Visit" a place more than once . . . you just cannot "Find" it more than once.

 

I own several Waymarks and would be thrilled to have someone "Visit" them more than one time. However, they would have to be visited once first. :anitongue:

 

Hi!

 

Just checked and yes, it still only allows a single visit to a waymark. Once you visit the waymark, the VISIT option is no longer available in the dropdown.. Only a note is available after the initial visit. IMO, exactly how it should be.. If only TPTB could apply that same beautifully thought out logic to the GC.com site....

 

Interesting. One visit per waymark, and a peer review system seem to be two of the "dream features" many people have coveted on this website. Of course no one (in any substantial numbers) actually visits waymarks, it's only a placers game. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Is that still the case? A while back, Jeremy said he was going to fix that because you can "Visit" a place more than once . . . you just cannot "Find" it more than once.

 

I own several Waymarks and would be thrilled to have someone "Visit" them more than one time. However, they would have to be visited once first. :anitongue:

 

Hi!

 

Just checked and yes, it still only allows a single visit to a waymark. Once you visit the waymark, the VISIT option is no longer available in the dropdown.. Only a note is available after the initial visit. IMO, exactly how it should be.. If only TPTB could apply that same beautifully thought out logic to the GC.com site....

 

Interesting. One visit per waymark, and a peer review system seem to be two of the "dream features" many people have coveted on this website. Of course no one (in any substantial numbers) actually visits waymarks, it's only a placers game. :lol:

 

Well, what they need to do is place an ammo box at the coordinates of the waymark and then it would probably be a bit more popular :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
But, but, but . . . each Visit to a Waymark can be a unique experience. And, I really believed Jeremy when he posted that he was going to change that . . .

 

. . . off to try to find that post . . . :anitongue:

 

I do agree that "Found its" and "Attendeds" should be only logged once, however (except for the rare, Grandfathered Moving caches and odd Virtuals with more than one location.)

I remember him saying it too. It makes sense because you can "visit" places many times but you can't "find" something when you already know where it is. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

But, but, but . . . each Visit to a Waymark can be a unique experience. And, I really believed Jeremy when he posted that he was going to change that . . .

 

. . . off to try to find that post . . . :lol:

 

I do agree that "Found its" and "Attendeds" should be only logged once, however (except for the rare, Grandfathered Moving caches and odd Virtuals with more than one location.)

 

They can visit the waymark twice... Nothing is stopping them.

I realize that, but each Visit can be a unique experience. What if one time someone visits a place by themselves, but six months later returns with their family? Or, in the case of my Thirft Stores category, I would encourage people to log each Visit stating what cool stuff they found, if anything, on each of the separate Visits. What is wrong with getting "Waymarking credit" for each unique Visit when each Visit generates a new story?

 

Here is the post where Jeremy made it sound as if he was going to change that.

Visit = Find. A rose by another name, implemented correctly on Waymarking I'd say.

 

How finding a statue and a micro are the same is beyond me, but whatever floats your boat.

 

I have to agree that a visit should be duplicated. I'll see if we can make that happen.

I would like for people to Visit my Waymarks multiple times and tell me the story of each Visit. :lol:

 

But, as I already said, I would like someone to just Visit them . . . :anitongue:

Share this post


Link to post

I would like for people to Visit my Waymarks multiple times and tell me the story of each Visit. :lol:

 

But, as I already said, I would like someone to just Visit them . . . :anitongue:

 

I honestly don't know a whole lot about Waymarking.. i was just using it to further my argument at the time. It makes logical sense for Waymarking to allow multiple visits I suppose.. I think the original point back then was someone stated that TPTB would *NEVER* put those kind of restrictions on the site.

 

Just a note: Jeremy did say "try", so we shouldn't give him too hard a time about it. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, I'm not giving him a "hard time" about it, and I'm glad you "tested" the Waymarking Site for me. Now I know I don't need to bother logging the past couple of Visits to my favorite Thrift Stores to record the "treasures" I found . . . :anitongue:

Share this post


Link to post

But, but, but . . . each Visit to a Waymark can be a unique experience. And, I really believed Jeremy when he posted that he was going to change that . . .

 

. . . off to try to find that post . . . :lol:

 

I do agree that "Found its" and "Attendeds" should be only logged once, however (except for the rare, Grandfathered Moving caches and odd Virtuals with more than one location.)

 

They can visit the waymark twice... Nothing is stopping them.

I realize that, but each Visit can be a unique experience. What if one time someone visits a place by themselves, but six months later returns with their family? Or, in the case of my Thirft Stores category, I would encourage people to log each Visit stating what cool stuff they found, if anything, on each of the separate Visits. What is wrong with getting "Waymarking credit" for each unique Visit when each Visit generates a new story?

 

Here is the post where Jeremy made it sound as if he was going to change that.

Visit = Find. A rose by another name, implemented correctly on Waymarking I'd say.

 

How finding a statue and a micro are the same is beyond me, but whatever floats your boat.

 

I have to agree that a visit should be duplicated. I'll see if we can make that happen.

I would like for people to Visit my Waymarks multiple times and tell me the story of each Visit. :huh:

 

But, as I already said, I would like someone to just Visit them . . . :anitongue:

I think Waymarking is more about creating waymarks like finding Locationless caches used to be. Anyhow, back in topic....I think we've agreed that logging a waymark multiple times is different than "finding" a cache multiple times or "attending" the same event multtiple times.... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

ReadyOrNot seems to make a big deal out of the fact that the Waymarking site was updated at some time to prevent entering a second visited log to a waymark. As if this some how indicates that it makes sense. I've seen both Waymarking and geocaching do things with the website that don't make sense to me. From the thread where Jeremy says he would try to change it back to allow multiple visits I posted what I think is the reason it was changed in the first place

I think I understand what happened. The Waymarking community was looking for a way to score their game. I would have prefered that there was no score in Waymarking but there is. You get a point for each waymark you create (I think the current term d' jour is establish) and you get one point for each waymark you visit. They decided you should only get a point for each unique waymark you visit - I have no problem with this - but they implemented this score by allowing only one visited log per waymark.

 

BTW, the waymark establisher can visit his/her own waymark and in fact is often encouraged to do so.

 

The waymarkers have also established a bingo game. In your Waymarking profile there is a grid of all Waymarking categories and it gets filled in for each category you either establish or find a waymark in. So now there are compititions to fill in a row or column of the grid.

 

Another issue is that you can find a location that fits several different Waymarking categories and you can cross post this to each of the categories. So it is possible to go to one location and establish 10 different waymarks. What's more is you can visit this location and get 10 visited logs for visiting one location - one in each category. The whole thing doesn't make sense as a game that you score and perhaps neither does geocaching.

Sure, Geocaching could be changed to allow only one found it log per geocache or to display a count of unique caches found instead of the count of 'found it' logs. This would make the ReadyOrNot's and Mudfrog's of the world happy because then everyone would be "on the same page". I guess this means that you would then be able to compare two cachers find counts and know that you are comparing apples to apples. But wait, one cacher has found only 1/1 urban micros, while another has found many caches with high difficulty or high terrain. How do you compare them? Perhaps one cache is a scrupulous follower of rules and will only log when they have signed the log, while another will take a find if they forgot their pen or if the log was too soaked to find. How do you modify the website to enforce logging a find only if you signed the physical log? It is ridiculous to expect that changing the ability to log multiple finds is going to end angst in the forums over find counts. In any case, there will always be the few moving caches or caches that have multiple targets that can be logged so that some people would complain that code that prevents logging multiple finds is artificially limiting the game. I tend to look at the most often so-called "abuses" of multiple logs as simple variations of the game. Event caches that allow multiple attends as a reward for finding temporary caches are pretty benign - considering that find count still reflects actually finding caches. If you live in an area where this isn't practiced - as I do - you may at first think it is unfair. But in reality, am I competing with anyone in Wisconsin? I think not. I compete by setting my own goals and follow my own judgment in logging a find and I don't care what other people do. Nor do I think it reflects on their ethics so long and they and the cache owner feel that a 'found it' log is warranted.

Share this post


Link to post

ReadyOrNot seems to make a big deal out of the fact that the Waymarking site was updated at some time to prevent entering a second visited log to a waymark.

 

I don't feel like teaching you about how situational ethics is wrong. You subscribe to situational ethics and I do not. Nothing more to say.

Share this post


Link to post

ReadyOrNot seems to make a big deal out of the fact that the Waymarking site was updated at some time to prevent entering a second visited log to a waymark.

 

I don't feel like teaching you about how situational ethics is wrong. You subscribe to situational ethics and I do not. Nothing more to say.

Any that's why is was about the stupidest thing Groundspeak ever did. Because now you have proof that Groundspeak has receive divine revelation and it will be only a matter of time before they make the change you are asking for. I agree that simply logging a found it with without any reason is wrong. My point is that since the enforcement of logs is up to the cache owner, there are variations of the game that allow multiple logging. The beauty is that if you believe in one find per GC number, no one is forcing you to claim additional finds.

 

The situational ethics debate is between conservative Christians and some liberal Christians who first espoused this theory as meaning the God's commandment to love your neighbor trumps other commandments. Since I'm not a Christian, I don't have any part in this debate. Nor do I see its relevance to geocaching. I am simply presenting what I see as the facts. Geocaching allows multiple finds. Jeremy has indicated that he has no plans to change the code on the website to enforce a single found it per geocache. Cache owners are given the responsibility to police the logs on their caches.

Share this post


Link to post

My gut feel - one log per cache. Compare apples with apples. An event cache by definition implies that there might be multiple caches, much like a type of a multi-stage.

Share this post


Link to post

...Compare apples with apples. An event cache by definition implies that there might be multiple caches, much like a type of a multi-stage.

 

I don't see any implication about multiple caches at an event, much less like a multi-stage cache, can you please point that out to me... :(

 

from: http://www.geocaching.com/about/cache_types.aspx

 

Event Cache

Occasionally, local geocachers and geocaching organizations designate a time and location to meet and discuss geocaching. After the event the caches are archived.

Share this post


Link to post

...Compare apples with apples. An event cache by definition implies that there might be multiple caches, much like a type of a multi-stage.

 

I don't see any implication about multiple caches at an event, much less like a multi-stage cache, can you please point that out to me... :(

I think what they were saying is just as you dont log the different stages of a multi, you wouldn't log the different temp caches at an event.

Share this post


Link to post

...Compare apples with apples. An event cache by definition implies that there might be multiple caches, much like a type of a multi-stage.

 

I don't see any implication about multiple caches at an event, much less like a multi-stage cache, can you please point that out to me... :blink:

I think what they were saying is just as you dont log the different stages of a multi, you wouldn't log the different temp caches at an event.

 

Sorry - Knight2000 explained myself better than I did. I was just adding my vote to "1 log per event cache" so that so that different cachers' number of finds mean the same thing. A multi is logged as 1 find and an event cache should be logged as 1 find. Some posters feel that the event caches were much more difficult than many other single stage caches, but that does count when logging a "find" as "finds" do not take into account difficulty rating. Detail of difficulty and number of caches found in an event cache can always be added in a comment to the "found it" log.

 

I did not add much to the thread - just added my vote.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's something I don't quite get. It's said that the cache owner has final say on cache logging (whether you can and how many times you can). But you can have an event and let people log willy nilly and it's OK. You have a regular cache that you let people log if they meet you at the same event and sign a log in your pocket but it's not OK. :blink:

 

Seems to be just a bit of inconsistency there...

 

For the record I'm in the 1 log/listing column.

Edited by Corp Of Discovery

Share this post


Link to post

I will never understand how finding temporary caches qualifies as attending an event more than once?!? (Fortunately this does not seem to occur around here.)

Hey! There won't be any temporary caches at the next event that I will attend. :blink: Can I log all the other attendees?

Attended Event: Met Cacher A

Attended Event: Met Cacher B.

Attended Event: Met strange person in the rest room.

Maybe NewSpeak has arrived, but, as far as my command of the English language goes, To Attend an Event means to Attend an Event. It has nothing to do with finding caches.

But, then again, if it makes you happy to lie, who am I to object?

I object!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

Bumping this one back to the top, any of the moderators have any thing to say about this???? Any lackeys watching this???? Raine where are you.

Share this post


Link to post

Nevermind, too much paraphrasing on my part.

Edited by BlueDeuce

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...