Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
sweetlife

Multiple logging of events

Recommended Posts

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.

What can the mods do?

 

They can have an opinion, but that is it. I don't think they can change anything.

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? <_<

 

Say you found 50 temp. caches at the event, don't you want credit for it? If not, don't find them, right?

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.

Do you really want Groundspeak to start policing logs? <_<

 

I'm pretty sure Jeremy is on record as saying that the logs are up to the individual cache owners.

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? <_<

 

Say you found 50 temp. caches at the event, don't you want credit for it? If not, don't find them, right?

I dont find caches for credit. That is silly to me. I find the caches for the good times with my family.

 

But my big issue is that when you log 1 event 50 times then your profile shows 50 events attended. Does that seem right to you?

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? <_<

 

Say you found 50 temp. caches at the event, don't you want credit for it? If not, don't find them, right?

When I've found temp caches I just mention them in my attended log. Why would I want credit anyhow? Can I cash in 20000 finds for a free roundtrip flight somewhere? :o It's actually amazing how relaxing and fun caching can be when you kick back, savor it and enjoy it at a nice easy pace. :o

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? <_<

 

Say you found 50 temp. caches at the event, don't you want credit for it? If not, don't find them, right?

 

Well, when I walked about 5 miles round trip for a 5 cache poker run and 2 or 3 more temporary caches at an event in a region where logging extra attended logs for temporary caches is unheard of, I didn't expect any credit. It was just a fun recreational activity at a picnic, as if I played horseshoes, or entered a three-legged race. I'm sure you'll hear from many here that they don't cache for "credit". :o

 

As far as the OP bumping the thread, you'll not be hearing anything different than in the past from any moderators. TPTB have stated the practice is up the the event owner, and quite recently stated they didn't think 60+ logs per person for a whole weekend camping event in Wisconsin crossed the abuse threshold.

 

They did however, put the kabash on "pocket caches", or bringing a cache from Iraq to an event to log, so don't lose hope. :o

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.

Agreed.

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.

Agreed.

Plus when you go back to read everyone's logs you would have to wade through those 400 logs. I'm really glad that doesn't happen out here. It's normally fun to go back read through everyone's logs. Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

Say you found 50 temp. caches at the event, don't you want credit for it? If not, don't find them, right?

 

The definition of a cache is what is in question here, not even the 1 log per 1 cache rule. For a cache to be listed on GC.com, it needs to follow certain criteria to be published, and subsequently, logged online.

 

These event caches more often then not, especially not too far to the north of us, are less than 500 feet from each other, don't follow the permanency guidelines, are only available to those that attend the event and most certainly are placed without permission, although I think the majority of caches are, but thats another thread. These are just a few of the reasons they are no GC.com caches.

 

Since they are not following guidelines, they could also be on railroad tracks, hidden in a "off limits" area, and contain dangerous or otherwise inappropriate material. They're designed to artificially bolster cachers find counts, nothing more.

 

People want to be able to hide without following the guidelines, great, start your own site. Here, a cache is one that has at least been reviewed by a volunteer prior to publishing to assure it meets the very minimal guidelines listed.

Share this post


Link to post

Say you found 50 temp. caches at the event, don't you want credit for it? If not, don't find them, right?

 

The definition of a cache is what is in question here, not even the 1 log per 1 cache rule. For a cache to be listed on GC.com, it needs to follow certain criteria to be published, and subsequently, logged online.

 

These event caches more often then not, especially not too far to the north of us, are less than 500 feet from each other, don't follow the permanency guidelines, are only available to those that attend the event and most certainly are placed without permission, although I think the majority of caches are, but thats another thread. These are just a few of the reasons they are no GC.com caches.

 

Since they are not following guidelines, they could also be on railroad tracks, hidden in a "off limits" area, and contain dangerous or otherwise inappropriate material. They're designed to artificially bolster cachers find counts, nothing more.

 

People want to be able to hide without following the guidelines, great, start your own site. Here, a cache is one that has at least been reviewed by a volunteer prior to publishing to assure it meets the very minimal guidelines listed.

This is my number one issue with them as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Say you found 50 temp. caches at the event, don't you want credit for it? If not, don't find them, right?

 

The definition of a cache is what is in question here, not even the 1 log per 1 cache rule. For a cache to be listed on GC.com, it needs to follow certain criteria to be published, and subsequently, logged online.

 

These event caches more often then not, especially not too far to the north of us, are less than 500 feet from each other, don't follow the permanency guidelines, are only available to those that attend the event and most certainly are placed without permission, although I think the majority of caches are, but thats another thread. These are just a few of the reasons they are no GC.com caches.

 

Since they are not following guidelines, they could also be on railroad tracks, hidden in a "off limits" area, and contain dangerous or otherwise inappropriate material. They're designed to artificially bolster cachers find counts, nothing more.

 

People want to be able to hide without following the guidelines, great, start your own site. Here, a cache is one that has at least been reviewed by a volunteer prior to publishing to assure it meets the very minimal guidelines listed.

 

The worst example of this I've seen was last summer. There was an event cache (I won't say where, but it was in a State whose name begins with "W", and is famous for cheese production :() that listed it's 20 or so temporary caches that were going to be available "up front" on the cache listing a week or so before the event happened. At least 6, maybe 8 of these temporary caches were Virtuals! What's up with that? New Virtuals are no longer published on this website, and obviously don't meet the guidelines!!!

Share this post


Link to post

The worst example of this I've seen was last summer. There was an event cache (I won't say where, but it was in a State whose name begins with "W", and is famous for cheese production :() that listed it's 20 or so temporary caches that were going to be available "up front" on the cache listing a week or so before the event happened. At least 6, maybe 8 of these temporary caches were Virtuals! What's up with that? New Virtuals are no longer published on this website, and obviously don't meet the guidelines!!!

 

Still going with this?

Guess what - Life has gone on just the same for everyone hasnt it?

Dont you feel better tho for picking on WI again.

beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

The worst example of this I've seen was last summer. There was an event cache (I won't say where, but it was in a State whose name begins with "W", and is famous for cheese production :() that listed it's 20 or so temporary caches that were going to be available "up front" on the cache listing a week or so before the event happened. At least 6, maybe 8 of these temporary caches were Virtuals! What's up with that? New Virtuals are no longer published on this website, and obviously don't meet the guidelines!!!

 

Still going with this?

Guess what - Life has gone on just the same for everyone hasnt it?

 

Correct. Cheaters are still cheating, and I still am not.

 

Dont you feel better tho for picking on WI again.

 

No, but I'm ecstatic that I have the quoted post that would get someone so worked up that they'd post a dead horse picture on an internet message board. You really need some new schtick there.

Share this post


Link to post

Still going with this?

Guess what - Life has gone on just the same for everyone hasnt it?

Dont you feel better tho for picking on WI again.

 

I guess I can only speak for myself. If I painted the "WI event issue" with a very wide brush. I apologize.

 

It does seem to be centralized and, from they way it appears, it is a small group that puts on the events and those that take advantage are not exclusively from behind the cheese curtain. :(

 

This small group has given the reputation. You may feel like we're hammerin' you, however they gave us the nails.

 

While I too believe that there should be one cache=one log, I would prefer to stay self-policing since these appear to be more or less isolated. It would be nice to have it noted in the guidelines however.

 

(Note: The OP is a Wisconsinite.)

Edited by baloo&bd

Share this post


Link to post

No, but I'm ecstatic that I have the quoted post that would get someone so worked up that they'd post a dead horse picture on an internet message board. You really need some new schtick there.

 

Im not worked up in the least bit. People like you actually make me laugh, for going on and on and on and on about something irrelevant. Havent you already posted this same post, or many like it saying the same thing? Do you know what "beating a dead horse means?"

 

Still going with this?

Guess what - Life has gone on just the same for everyone hasnt it?

Dont you feel better tho for picking on WI again.

 

I guess I can only speak for myself. If I painted the "WI event issue" with a very wide brush. I apologize.

It does seem to be centralized and, from they way it appears, it is a small group that puts on the events and those that take advantage are not exclusively from behind the cheese curtain. :(

 

This small group has given the reputation. You may feel like we're hammerin' you, however they gave us the nails.

 

While I too believe that there should be one cache=one log, I would prefer to stay self-policing since these appear to be more or less isolated. It would be nice to have it noted in the guidelines however.

 

(Note: The OP is a Wisconsinite.)

 

I understand what you mean, and that the OP is from WI... but Yet another topic on this?

Everything here has been said, by mostly the same people - that was my point.

In the old days everyone would just Markwell you back to the older posts, and even not allowed duplicate repeat threads.

 

This is old news, isnt it>?

Edited by Pto

Share this post


Link to post

No, but I'm ecstatic that I have the quoted post that would get someone so worked up that they'd post a dead horse picture on an internet message board. You really need some new schtick there.

 

Im not worked up in the least bit. People like you actually make me laugh, for going on and on and on and on about something irrelevant. Havent you already posted this same post, or many like it saying the same thing? Do you know what "beating a dead horse means?"

 

As if I'm sure you haven't gone on and on and on and on saying the same thing over on the issue. Does "how does it effect you" ring a bell? Hello pot? This is kettle. You're black. And of course I'm sure you didn't notice (before Baloo pointed it out) that the OP was a Wisconsite. Just took the ball and ran with the dead horse pic afer the last post in the thread, eh? :(

Share this post


Link to post

Say you found 50 temp. caches at the event, don't you want credit for it? If not, don't find them, right?

 

The definition of a cache is what is in question here, not even the 1 log per 1 cache rule. For a cache to be listed on GC.com, it needs to follow certain criteria to be published, and subsequently, logged online.

 

These event caches more often then not, especially not too far to the north of us, are less than 500 feet from each other, don't follow the permanency guidelines, are only available to those that attend the event and most certainly are placed without permission, although I think the majority of caches are, but thats another thread. These are just a few of the reasons they are no GC.com caches.

 

Since they are not following guidelines, they could also be on railroad tracks, hidden in a "off limits" area, and contain dangerous or otherwise inappropriate material. They're designed to artificially bolster cachers find counts, nothing more.

 

People want to be able to hide without following the guidelines, great, start your own site. Here, a cache is one that has at least been reviewed by a volunteer prior to publishing to assure it meets the very minimal guidelines listed.

The issue is not logging of temporary event caches on geocaching.com. Instead the issue is whether a cache owner can award bonus finds on a cache. For example, a moving cache (now against the guidelines but previously allowed) could contain a statement that once someone else has found and moved the cache you can find it again; or someone could have a cache that has several targets and the cache owner could decide that you could log a find for each target. It is a bit more of a stretch to have a cache where you can log a find for finding the cache and then log a find for doing some bonus activity. Of course this last example would cause a puritan a great deal of consternation as to how one could log 'found it' for something other than finding the cache, but there is no rule preventing this. In anycase, the puritan is not being force to log these 'extra' finds. In a similar manner, an event host is allowing extra attended logs for participating in some activity at the event. It just happens that this is most often used for the activity of finding a temporary cache hidden for the event.

One can debate whether the guidelines need to be changed to disallow cache owners from awarding bonus finds. If the puritans can convince Jeremy that such a guideline is needed, then they can start to look at ways for the website to enforce this new guideline. I think the OP's request is jumping the gun.

Share this post


Link to post

I understand what you mean, and that the OP is from WI... but Yet another topic on this?

Everything here has been said, by mostly the same people - that was my point.

In the old days everyone would just Markwell you back to the older posts, and even not allowed duplicate repeat threads.

 

This is old news, isnt it>?

 

True, however there are new people every day. A new person may find this practice acceptable, and for some of the very reasons I mentioned along with the fact that it is not a common practice, it appears the majority does not feel it should be.

 

From my perspective, it is a real issue due to the fact that if it gets too out of hand, GC will decide to put an end to it in the manner such as they did with virtuals. There are some cases where multiples sort of make sense (i.e. re-using event pages each month or year, lazy but done) and, while I would not encourage it on one of our caches, I also do not want the option to totally disappear.

 

If the thread gets out of hand, the moderators will close it. Discussing it now and then shouldn't really hurt and will let newbies know the how the cachers at large feel about certain practices and they can make decisions accordingly.

Edited by baloo&bd

Share this post


Link to post

one could log 'found it' for something other than finding the cache, but there is no rule preventing this. In any case, the puritan is not being force to log these 'extra' finds. In a similar manner, an event host is allowing extra attended logs for participating in some activity at the event. It just happens that this is most often used for the activity of finding a temporary cache hidden for the event.

One can debate whether the guidelines need to be changed to disallow cache owners from awarding bonus finds. If the puritans can convince Jeremy that such a guideline is needed, then they can start to look at ways for the website to enforce this new guideline. I think the OP's request is jumping the gun.

 

This has nothing to do with being a puritan and if you do not have the issue in your area, it would be difficult to possibly understand. Multiple logging of an approved cache is not a valid comparison.

 

In this case, and in the geographical areas of which I speak, it is being used to circumvent the guidelines and place caches that would otherwise not be approved, in particular the ones regarding saturation. When an event is held in a small park that is say a 1/2 mile by a 3/4 of a mile, and there are 17 caches that can be found and logged, it is an issue.

 

If it is going to continue, then IMHO GC will either dis-allow it by making a 1 cache=1 log rule or they should consider doing away with the approval process since circumventing is much easier then following it. I wouldn't like either of these, however if it is not discussed so users can get a good feel for what is and isn't acceptable, then what other alternatives are there. The live and let live philosophy is essentially saying no guidelines.

 

Multiple loggin of a approved cache is not a good caomparison.

Edited by baloo&bd

Share this post


Link to post

As if I'm sure you haven't gone on and on and on and on saying the same thing over on the issue. Does "how does it effect you" ring a bell? Hello pot? This is kettle. You're black. And of course I'm sure you didn't notice (before Baloo pointed it out) that the OP was a Wisconsite. Just took the ball and ran with the dead horse pic afer the last post in the thread, eh? :blink:

 

Im black now huh? :( I did 2 searches 1 on each of us for "multiple logging"

We both had about the same amount of threads returned, but I didnt go thread by thread to compare actualy numbers. Funny how I can be pot/kettled - but you didnt acknowledge the point.

 

True, however there are new people everyday. A new person may find this practice acceptable, and for some of the very reasons I mentioned along with the fact that it is not a common practice, it appears the majority does not feel it should be.

 

From my perspective, it is a real issue due to the fact that if it gets too out of hand, GC will decide to put an end to it in the manner such as they did with virtuals. There are some cases where multiples sort of make sense (i.e. re-using event pages each month or year, lazy but done) and, while I would not encourage it on one of our caches, I also do not want the option to totally disappear.

 

If the thread gets out of hand, the moderators will close it. Discussing it now and then shouldn't really hurt and will let newbies know the how the cachers at large feel about certain practices and they can make decisions accordingly.

 

Fair enough. We dont need any new guidelines to "handle" this though.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...