Jump to content

Event Caches


Killerb
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

The problem here is that people are recording their scores on this site and they aren't playing the same game that the site was designed for. Go make your own site and record whatever score you wish, just don't interfere with our game here.

Interesting argument. Suppose I wanted to hide a geocache in or near a public golf course. It would be placed where it wouldn't interfere with the golfers. The golf course managers might just say "The problem is you are using the golf course to play a game that it wasn't designed for. You can't place the cache here". I suspect that many geocachers may accept that from the golf course manager. But what about a baseball field in a public park, or a frisbee golf course, or a hiking trail.

 

Yes it is true that Jeremy created a site for listing geocaches and set it up so that you could log when you found (or did not find) a geocache that was listed on the site. I have no doubt that intended it to be used only for that purpose. But he found out quickly that it was out of his control. People started "finding" caches that were missing but took credit anyhow when the owner confirmed the cache was missing. I don't know whether Jeremy lost sleep over this or not. But he determined that the site had no way to prevent this so he simply decided that it would be up to the cache owner to determine if a found it log was legitimate.

 

People asked for a way to list geocaching events on the site. I don't know if was Jeremy or somebody who just went ahead and submitted the first event cache - but by simply treating an event as a cache the site had a built in ability to list the coordinates for the event, and put addition information including the date and time in the description. People could post a note that they planned to attend and log 'found it' when they actually attended the event. The purist were up in arms. How could you find an event. Jeremy on the other hand probably felt pretty good that he could provide events by simply adding a new cache type. Eventually, the site was changed so that instead of finding events you attended them. This was a partial bow to the purist. However, TPTB decide that attended logs would still be counted in your find count. Many people had already accepted that attending an event was something they wanted to count.

 

The custom of hiding new caches that cachers could look for at events was popular early on. In some areas, it was prefered to hide these caches for the day of the event only. TPTB decided to invoke a new guideline that they would no longer list caches for just one day. In some areas people still submit new caches and then disable or archive them at the end of the day. Many will leave the cache in place for others to find and archive it as soon as it goes missing or needs maintenance. In other places, the cachers don't want to "lie" and "defraud" the reviewer so they simply hide temporary event caches and don't submit these to Geocaching.com for approval. Back in 2002 when the permanence guideline was added for traditional caches, it was discussed how temporary event caches could be handled. At that time, some people suggested logging multiple finds for each temporary cache a the event. Other people argued for the one find per cache listed on GC.com. In the discussion, Jeremy basically said that he didn't care if someone want to log the event multiple time. He didn't view the find count as a competition so it really didn't matter if someone wanted use it this way.

 

If anyone is arguing to use the site in a way it wasn't designed for it's the people who are arguing that multiple finds be disallowed or who believe that the find count should be used as a (fair) competition to see who has found the most caches. The truth is the site was not designed for this.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
But aren't those people playing the game 'as it is intended to be played'? They certainly would appear to be in line with how TPTB have sounded off on this issue in the past.
Turning a blind eye to the practice is not the same as endorsing it.
Jeremy went a little farther than turning a blind eye, in my opinion.
Link to comment
But aren't those people playing the game 'as it is intended to be played'? They certainly would appear to be in line with how TPTB have sounded off on this issue in the past.
Turning a blind eye to the practice is not the same as endorsing it.
Jeremy went a little farther than turning a blind eye, in my opinion.

He did say "twice". Some people have perverted this to mean that they can log an event a hundred times. Looks like they need to delete a whole bunch of finds either way :sad:

Link to comment
But aren't those people playing the game 'as it is intended to be played'? They certainly would appear to be in line with how TPTB have sounded off on this issue in the past.
Turning a blind eye to the practice is not the same as endorsing it.
Jeremy went a little farther than turning a blind eye, in my opinion.

He did say "twice". Some people have perverted this to mean that they can log an event a hundred times. Looks like they need to delete a whole bunch of finds either way :sad:

I don't think anybody needs to delete any finds. If you own the event caches, delete away. Until GC changes it's "up to the owner" guideline, let it go.

 

Why is this so hard for some people to not worry about??!?!?

Link to comment
But aren't those people playing the game 'as it is intended to be played'? They certainly would appear to be in line with how TPTB have sounded off on this issue in the past.
Turning a blind eye to the practice is not the same as endorsing it.
Jeremy went a little farther than turning a blind eye, in my opinion.

He did say "twice". Some people have perverted this to mean that they can log an event a hundred times. Looks like they need to delete a whole bunch of finds either way :sad:

He said he didn't give two hoots if someone logged the event twice. My guess it that he wouldn't give 1,706 hoot iif someone were to log the the event 1,706 time. I'm pretty sure that 1 smiley = 1 hoot.

Link to comment
But aren't those people playing the game 'as it is intended to be played'? They certainly would appear to be in line with how TPTB have sounded off on this issue in the past.
Turning a blind eye to the practice is not the same as endorsing it.
Jeremy went a little farther than turning a blind eye, in my opinion.

He did say "twice". Some people have perverted this to mean that they can log an event a hundred times. Looks like they need to delete a whole bunch of finds either way :sad:

I don't think anybody needs to delete any finds. If you own the event caches, delete away. Until GC changes it's "up to the owner" guideline, let it go.

 

Why is this so hard for some people to not worry about??!?!?

Why is it so hard for people to realize that just because the ability exists it doesn't make it right?

Link to comment
But aren't those people playing the game 'as it is intended to be played'? They certainly would appear to be in line with how TPTB have sounded off on this issue in the past.
Turning a blind eye to the practice is not the same as endorsing it.
Jeremy went a little farther than turning a blind eye, in my opinion.

He did say "twice". Some people have perverted this to mean that they can log an event a hundred times. Looks like they need to delete a whole bunch of finds either way :sad:

I don't think anybody needs to delete any finds. If you own the event caches, delete away. Until GC changes it's "up to the owner" guideline, let it go.

 

Why is this so hard for some people to not worry about??!?!?

Why is it so hard for people to realize that just because the ability exists it doesn't make it right?

 

I do. I also realize it doesn't make it wrong.

Link to comment
He did say "twice". Some people have perverted this to mean that they can log an event a hundred times. Looks like they need to delete a whole bunch of finds either way :sad:
I'm with you on this because I do think it's being abused. However, I would let people keep their event logs and instead just eliminate events from the find total. They aren't caches anyhow. ;) Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
But aren't those people playing the game 'as it is intended to be played'? They certainly would appear to be in line with how TPTB have sounded off on this issue in the past.
Turning a blind eye to the practice is not the same as endorsing it.
Jeremy went a little farther than turning a blind eye, in my opinion.

He did say "twice". Some people have perverted this to mean that they can log an event a hundred times. Looks like they need to delete a whole bunch of finds either way :sad:

He said he didn't give two hoots if someone logged the event twice. My guess it that he wouldn't give 1,706 hoot iif someone were to log the the event 1,706 time. I'm pretty sure that 1 smiley = 1 hoot.

 

Uh,, not sure if this is gonna link to Jeremy's post or not so i'll put in quotes what he has stated in a past thread.

 

1700 logs by 30 users is a bit of an overkill, however. It would be hard to argue that this kind of logging crosses the line for abuse.

 

Here's the thread: Multiple logging

 

Not sure where but i also believe i read one of his posts a while back where he stated that if multiple logging was abused, that GC.com might decide to do something about it.

Link to comment

So how does one verify that a geocacher actually found all of these temporary caches that they logged as "attended?" I can verify finds on my caches by looking over the logbook. Do cachers who place temp caches actual do this?

 

The only "one" who should worry about verifying if the geocacher actually found all of those temporary caches is the event owner, which is usually the one who places the temp caches.

 

Why would anyone else care?

 

The temp caches I have found at events (eleven total caches, whoopee) had log books, so they could have been verified at the time. I agree they can't be verified now, but neither can anyone verify permanent cache finds where the cache has since been archived and removed either, can they?

Edited by Always & Forever 5
Link to comment

Both sides are right here in my opinion, it's wrong but allowed to log events multiple times.

I watched Popeye last night (Robin Williams), for the first time ever, and I'll quote him from the scene were Whimpy and Olive were rationalizing their less than legit plans:

"Wrong is wrong even if it helps you".

Geocaching.com was set up to log geocaches, if it isn't listed on this site it's not a geocache.

It maybe a Terracache or a temporary cache but it's not a geocache until it's listed here, so posts your temp cache finds on Myspace and lets keep this site for real geocaches.

Link to comment

If a hide wasn't even good enough to merit listing on GC.com (for whatever reason) is it really worth a smiley? And yes, TPTB decided that temporary caches did not merit listing.

 

Don't you really get weary of the same four or five people (you know who you are) defending the lame act of multiple event logging every time this topic comes up. They cry that some of us are trying to force them to play in a strict way that they don't want to. Yet if you look at this thread, who's trying to force their opinion on every one else... ;)

 

I'm soooooo tired of the "there's no rules man", "play how you wanna play", "at least I'm having fun" crowd trying to lower the standards of everything in the world, so they can feel better about themselves. Are these the same people that think kids shouldn't keep score when they play sports cause someone's feelings might get hurt? :sad:

 

Ugh...

 

DCC

Link to comment

If a hide wasn't even good enough to merit listing on GC.com (for whatever reason) is it really worth a smiley? And yes, TPTB decided that temporary caches did not merit listing.

 

Don't you really get weary of the same four or five people (you know who you are) defending the lame act of multiple event logging every time this topic comes up. They cry that some of us are trying to force them to play in a strict way that they don't want to. Yet if you look at this thread, who's trying to force their opinion on every one else... :D

 

I'm soooooo tired of the "there's no rules man", "play how you wanna play", "at least I'm having fun" crowd trying to lower the standards of everything in the world, so they can feel better about themselves. Are these the same people that think kids shouldn't keep score when they play sports cause someone's feelings might get hurt? :sad:

 

Ugh...

 

DCC

 

Ditto!

 

Those that "preach" tolerance are so quick to silence anyone who disagrees with them. "Feelings" and self-esteem are more important than integrity, and being honest. There is a great line that is appropriate for those that defend the cheesy practice.

 

"It is your lie, tell it how you want!" ;)

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment
I love pointing to the geogospel according to Jeremy.

 

My favorite one to paraphrase is: Abuse it - lose it.

 

It's just that hardly anyone believes it. They should.

Yes, they should. I think pocket caches were the last victim.

 

Now if I could only figure out how to bring down the wrath on other issues without being a crossfire causality myself. :sad:

Link to comment
I love pointing to the geogospel according to Jeremy.

 

My favorite one to paraphrase is: Abuse it - lose it.

 

It's just that hardly anyone believes it. They should.

Yes, they should. I think pocket caches were the last victim.

 

Now if I could only figure out how to bring down the wrath on other issues without being a crossfire causality myself. ;)

It's just a matter of time. They will ruin it for themselves. :sad: Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
I love pointing to the geogospel according to Jeremy.

 

My favorite one to paraphrase is: Abuse it - lose it.

 

It's just that hardly anyone believes it. They should.

Yes, they should. I think pocket caches were the last victim.

 

Now if I could only figure out how to bring down the wrath on other issues without being a crossfire causality myself. ;)

It's just a matter of time. They will ruin it for themselves. :sad:

 

ah, it reminds me of the joke that ends with the punch line: Give me a minute.

Link to comment

If a hide wasn't even good enough to merit listing on GC.com (for whatever reason) is it really worth a smiley? And yes, TPTB decided that temporary caches did not merit listing.

 

Don't you really get weary of the same four or five people (you know who you are) defending the lame act of multiple event logging every time this topic comes up. They cry that some of us are trying to force them to play in a strict way that they don't want to. Yet if you look at this thread, who's trying to force their opinion on every one else... ;)

 

I'm soooooo tired of the "there's no rules man", "play how you wanna play", "at least I'm having fun" crowd trying to lower the standards of everything in the world, so they can feel better about themselves. Are these the same people that think kids shouldn't keep score when they play sports cause someone's feelings might get hurt? :sad:

 

Ugh...

 

DCC

 

It not so much that the hide was not good enough. Back in the old days :D we were requested not to use pages for temporary caches but to log them on the event page. This worked great when there were only a couple of temporary event caches at an event but now it is being abused.

 

Team Sand Dollar

Link to comment

 

I'm soooooo tired of the "there's no rules man", "play how you wanna play", "at least I'm having fun" crowd trying to lower the standards of everything in the world, so they can feel better about themselves. Are these the same people that think kids shouldn't keep score when they play sports cause someone's feelings might get hurt? :sad:

 

Ugh...

 

DCC

 

Oh, c'mon. Of course not. They're the people who missed being hippies in the 60's driving around in a VW bus. Live and let live, man.

 

Just kidding. ;) I'm all for turning off the scoreboard in the first half when my kid's soccer team goes down 6-0.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

What puzzles me (not having attended an event yet) is that it seems as though logging attendance at an event counts as a find?

 

That seems mad - you could just be there to say hi and have a pint?!?!

Surely if you do caches whilst at the event you'd log those on the individual cache page and leave it at that.

I don't think I'd want attendance there to count as a find - it doesn't make sense.

 

Am I barking up totally the wrong tree here?

 

TheWife

HoweFamily

Link to comment

The log type is called "attended", so it's pretty self evident that the point of it is to log your attendance at an event. If it was meant to log these temp caches it would be called "Found Temp" or something along those lines.

 

So anyone using an "attended" log to log temp caches is circumventing the intent of the system. When you do that, you have to know that what you are doing isn't quite kosher.

 

Now if you are comfortable with that, fine. It's your right to do it. I personally think it's cheesy and I have as much a right to voice that opinion as you have to do it.

 

What gets me is "I think it's fine and how dare anybody offer a contrary opinion" attitude of the people who do this. Very defensive. Makes ya wonder.

 

What puzzles me (not having attended an event yet) is that it seems as though logging attendance at an event counts as a find?

 

That seems mad - you could just be there to say hi and have a pint?!?!

Surely if you do caches whilst at the event you'd log those on the individual cache page and leave it at that.

I don't think I'd want attendance there to count as a find - it doesn't make sense.

 

Am I barking up totally the wrong tree here?

 

TheWife

HoweFamily

 

It's an argument that some have made over the years. Events are posted using coordinates and I guess the idea is to use your GPS to navigate to those coordinates. Only instead of a container it would be a bunch of people at the coordinates.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

What puzzles me (not having attended an event yet) is that it seems as though logging attendance at an event counts as a find?

 

That seems mad - you could just be there to say hi and have a pint?!?!

Surely if you do caches whilst at the event you'd log those on the individual cache page and leave it at that.

I don't think I'd want attendance there to count as a find - it doesn't make sense.

 

Am I barking up totally the wrong tree here?

 

No, you're not. Many others feel the same way. If you want to record you experience at an Event and not have it count towards your Find total, you can simply write your log as a Note.

 

Personally, I count an Event as a Find just like any of the other "special" caches such as Virtuals, CITOs or WebCams. They often involve more of a time commitment than the typical urban cache, the are often more fun and I am still there to "find" something, it just happens to be other cachers instead of a container. :D

Link to comment

This has been beaten pretty hard but I need to get this off my chest :D

 

What I have a hard time understanding is why folks that host an event feel the need to hide temporary event caches. It's not like there arent enough out there already. I went to the event to sit around and talk and meet folks, if I want to run around and find a cache I can leave and come back, I do not need someone to hold my hand and set up some event hide.

 

I've been to a few events where temps were set up and some were VERY pathetic and were clearly set up just to pad your find count - there's the bucket on the table, did you sign the log "for what" - it's an event cache you log it on the event page - really? ok thanks, not.

Link to comment

The log type is called "attended", so it's pretty self evident that the point of it is to log your attendance at an event. If it was meant to log these temp caches it would be called "Found Temp" or something along those lines.

 

So anyone using an "attended" log to log temp caches is circumventing the intent of the system. When you do that, you have to know that what you are doing isn't quite kosher.

 

Now if you are comfortable with that, fine. It's your right to do it. I personally think it's cheesy and I have as much a right to voice that opinion as you have to do it.

 

It's sometimes instructive looking at how some traditions started. Given the way things are today, somethings make no sense. But there may make more sense if you look at the history.

 

Originally the site was for listing geocaches. It provide online logging capability to record the if you found or did not find the cache. Later people wanted to have events where cachers could meet one another. A new cache type was created but it followed the same pattern and you logged that you either found the event or did not find the event. It didn't make much senses but it allowed events to be added to the site very easily. Many people object to "finding" events and having this count in their find count while others soon became use to this custom. When the change was made to log attended for events much later, it was decided to count the attended logs like find logs because most people had already gotten use to events being counted. TPTB also decided that it would not be a good idea to remove finds for past events from people's count so there was a fairness problem if they counted old events but not new ones.

 

In many regions it became a tradition to hide new caches that would be published on the day of the event. In some areas these caches would be removed after the event and archived. TPTB decided that they would no longer publish caches that were placed for one day. The changed the guidelines to require cache permanence. In many place, that was met by leaving the caches out after the event - and archiving them as soon as they were reported missing or in need of maintenance. In other areas you couldn't play this trick. Events were held in a park that had a no geocaching policy or strict limits on the number of geocaches in the park, but the park would allow temporary caches that were removed at the end of the day. With Geocaching.com's new guideline, those that lived in an area where the solution of placing permanent want a solution to allow cachers to log the temporary just as they did when these caches were allowed. Jeremy suggested that the temporary caches could be listed on the event page and even said he didn't care if people logged the event multiple times to get credit for find the caches.

 

The 'literalist' interpretation without understanding the origins of the custom make these customs seem strange at best and downright cheating at worse. The literalists even look at Jeremy's post saying he didn't care if the event was logged 'twice' to interpret it to mean twice is OK but more than twice isn't. I think that is a pretty silly interpretation. However, it is clear that over time we are seeing event holders trying to outdo one another with more and more temporary event caches. And in some instance these are being placed solely for the purpose of people getting a lot of quick finds. In some cases the temporary event caches are being placed closer together than the guideline would allow. In any case, if the reviewers were to review these caches they would likely invoke the saturation guideline and not approve some of these or require them to be made into a multi cache. I think the abuse that Jeremy sees is more the abuse of a geocaching event as a way to get numbers up instead of a place for geocachers to meet. The guidelines for events state

In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches. Such group hunts are best organized using the forums or an email distribution list.

 

What gets me is "I think it's fine and how dare anybody offer a contrary opinion" attitude of the people who do this. Very defensive. Makes ya wonder.

I have to address this statement. While many who object to the multiple logging of events are like briansnat and simple indicate why a literalist interpretation of the log type would indicate that you can't attend a temporary cache that you found, and that may indicate a disdain for the person including finding something other than a GC approved cache in their find count, some people go father and indicate that this practice is due to a moral defect in those that do it. They accuse those that log multiple finds of lacking integrity and of committing fraud on the rest of the geocaching community who might congratulate them on a milestone they haven't really achieved. If briansnat is detecting an attitude of "how dare you object to someone logging multiple finds", I think it may be due to taking a defensive position of people who accuse them of cheating when they feel they are doing something perfectly reasonable and that seems to be allowed.
Link to comment

 

What gets me is "I think it's fine and how dare anybody offer a contrary opinion" attitude of the people who do this. Very defensive. Makes ya wonder.

I have to address this statement. While many who object to the multiple logging of events are like briansnat and simple indicate why a literalist interpretation of the log type would indicate that you can't attend a temporary cache that you found, and that may indicate a disdain for the person including finding something other than a GC approved cache in their find count, some people go father and indicate that this practice is due to a moral defect in those that do it. They accuse those that log multiple finds of lacking integrity and of committing fraud on the rest of the geocaching community who might congratulate them on a milestone they haven't really achieved. If briansnat is detecting an attitude of "how dare you object to someone logging multiple finds", I think it may be due to taking a defensive position of people who accuse them of cheating when they feel they are doing something perfectly reasonable and that seems to be allowed.

 

I really didn't care one way or the other until certain posters in this thread started getting defensive and nasty, that convinced me real quick they know it's wrong. So I'd say you have it backwards, their defensive attitude provoked at least my responses against the practice.

Link to comment
What puzzles me (not having attended an event yet) is that it seems as though logging attendance at an event counts as a find? That seems mad - you could just be there to say hi and have a pint?!?! Surely if you do caches whilst at the event you'd log those on the individual cache page and leave it at that. I don't think I'd want attendance there to count as a find - it doesn't make sense.

Am I barking up totally the wrong tree here? TheWife HoweFamily

It's an argument that some have made over the years. Events are posted using coordinates and I guess the idea is to use your GPS to navigate to those coordinates. Only instead of a container it would be a bunch of people at the coordinates.
The lack of a container is what killed virtuals. IMHO, events should obviously exist, but they should not count toward the find total. :D

 

Anyhow, someone pointed out that one of these temp cache loggers had 36 upcoming events scheduled. That's an enormous amount. So doesn't it seem obvious that the purpose of those events is to go and bag a ton of temp caches? It's nutty, if you ask me. :D

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

We talk about logging of multiple event caches for the same event. A question was proposed to me at the last event I attended. Granted I've only been to a few and all that I've been to I'm always the first one there. I was asked why I've never posted on the attended log FTF. My thought was there's nothing to find it's just an event. I know this is off topic of the OP but, since everyone is already on the bandwagon what's everyone's take on this?

Link to comment

How cool is this!! I stop checking the GC forums for MONTHS (h*ll, I stopped CACHING for months and returned for an event this past week and found almost all the surrounding caches that I searched for in the area of said event to be micros...go figure!), and wander back in here today and find one of my more famous threads resurrected over a year later.

 

Should I be honored or ashamed? :D:D:D:):D:)

Link to comment

How cool is this!! I stop checking the GC forums for MONTHS (h*ll, I stopped CACHING for months and returned for an event this past week and found almost all the surrounding caches that I searched for in the area of said event to be micros...go figure!), and wander back in here today and find one of my more famous threads resurrected over a year later.

 

Should I be honored or ashamed? :D:D:D:D:D:)

Hey drat19, I bet if you come back in another year or so, we will still be talking about it. By then some people will have "attended" in excess of 3000 events. :)
Link to comment

How cool is this!! I stop checking the GC forums for MONTHS (h*ll, I stopped CACHING for months and returned for an event this past week and found almost all the surrounding caches that I searched for in the area of said event to be micros...go figure!), and wander back in here today and find one of my more famous threads resurrected over a year later.

 

Should I be honored or ashamed? :D:D:D:D:D:)

Hey drat19, I bet if you come back in another year or so, we will still be talking about it. By then some people will have "attended" in excess of 3000 events. :)

Heh, no doubt!

Link to comment

 

Thankfully,

 

Where I cache, people place geocaching.com caches that are available before, during, and months after an event has occured. I attended one event where the local cachers placed over 100 unique caches (before an event) all with their own GC #s. :)

 

And that has what to do with you being thankful for some junk stat that doesn't mean anything? What possible value could be provided by that junk stat you said you were thankful for?

Link to comment

You would get tossed from any league I've been in too for doing that. What you do outside the league is different. So if you played practice rounds and hit mulligans then that's OK

 

Clearly we are near the same viewpoint since there is no "geocaching league" , there never has been a geocaching league and people who brag about their find count are very rare, thankfully.

Link to comment

Hey Wave...OBVIOUSLY you can have your opinion and OBVIOUSLY others will disagree. But the cheesy comment is uncalled for and OBVIOUSLY shows how you conduct yourself.

Obviously you are not following the many threads on this subject. I said that there are good reasons that a cacher might log a cache of their own, I even pointed out the example you just gave, I was told unequivocally by another cacher that it was "cheesy", those reading all the threads likely caught the reference. You didn't but decided that it was good enough reason to launch a personal attack. I guess that reflects on you for those who do read.

My point was you cannot win when you are sticking your nose into someone elses Find Count. As a cache owner you have the ability to do anything you wish to your own caches, manage them in any fashion you see fit, including using them to make sure your Find count is the number you choose to claim and no the number that certain busybodies decide you should have.

Since you agree it is clear that we are likely on the same side of the fence when it comes to the rights of cache owners.

The rights of a cache owner are absolute, this is not an opinion. You are echoing StarBrand and his "vague and opinionated" stance when you tell me that it is my opinion cause it isn't, it is the way it works today and it isn't boken, it works just fine. The word ALL is absolute, only those who want to limit others in some fashion think that there is something wrong with the system, do you want everyone to have log caches in the same fashion as you?

 

Now you need to go read and figure out who actually thinks you are being cheesy when you log your own caches, cause I don't care. The only thing I do care about is the fact that certain people are pushing for the adoption of rules that would eliminate my ability to manage my caches in the fashion I see fit, I care about that.

Link to comment

 

recycle an event page,

 

log multiple target caches,

 

 

Hey Dave,

 

I don't understand either of those terms...what do they mean?

 

(You guys have funny rules up there eh?) :)

 

Dave

 

Hi Dave

We have a cache that is called the Brass Cap Cache. Using that one listing you can log up to 360 unique individual targets. Each target is a Brass Cap and Alberta cachers really have alot of fun with this cache. Over 200 Alberta cachers have multiple logs on this cache and almost every new cacher who comes to events or goes out caching with old hands has no issues logging multiple targets on the Brass Cap Cache. The Brass Caps are on the tops of mountains, they are in downtown city sidewalks and they are out in the country, the Brass Caps are physically similar to Benchmarks. We also use recycled Event pages, the event page is updated with new locations each month and it is a unique event with new faces, new caches placed and often a new venue, the cache page is ismply re-used, it is quick easy and convenient.

 

We aren't doing anything wrong and people who push for the 1GC# = 1 Find are directly attacking our caching culture. We have moving caches and people actually have a friendly competition that is ongoing to see who can log these moving caches the most times. Each hide is clearly unique, it is a new hider and a new location.

I get frustrated when people just keep pushing for the adoption of a straightjacket without acknowledging that they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I do not log Events multiple times but I do realize that the rules as they exist todsay do allow that to happen and I support the rules as they exist today so I am often in the fray in these conversations.

Thanks for asking Dave.

Link to comment

If you saw one of us kicking the ball back onto the fairway and decided we lacked integrity, the issue is on your side of the fence, you would have the problem, not the ball kicker.

You may be on the fairway and you may be kicking a ball back and forth. It may even be a golf ball, but you aren't playing golf. You may even be recording whatever score you wish, but it is meaningless to someone actually playing golf.

 

The problem here is that people are recording their scores on this site and they aren't playing the same game that the site was designed for. Go make your own site and record whatever score you wish, just don't interfere with our game here.

 

Yah, golf is only a league game and when we go out hitting golf balls around on a golf course we couldn't qualify for your league. So now you think this site is a "geocaching league"? When did that happen? :)

Do you not realize how ironic it is when you are campaigining against people using the site in a way that is allowed by the design. The cache owner assumes ALL responsibility for the listing, that is the way the site was designed, imagine that.

This site works fine but let me guess, you want to fix it as well and think everyone should adopt your imporved straightjacket design. Look up the definition of the word golf and point out where it says you are not allowed to kick the ball.

 

Our game here???

 

How about "your game there". :P

 

My daughter just told me her rules for geocaching, she said:

I like geocaching as long as I don't have to go uphill.

And no walks longer than a kilometer.

Link to comment
We have a cache that is called the Brass Cap Cache. Using that one listing you can log up to 360 unique individual targets. Each target is a Brass Cap and Alberta cachers really have alot of fun with this cache. Over 200 Alberta cachers have multiple logs on this cache and almost every new cacher who comes to events or goes out caching with old hands has no issues logging multiple targets on the Brass Cap Cache. The Brass Caps are on the tops of mountains, they are in downtown city sidewalks and they are out in the country, the Brass Caps are physically similar to Benchmarks. We also use recycled Event pages, the event page is updated with new locations each month and it is a unique event with new faces, new caches placed and often a new venue, the cache page is ismply re-used, it is quick easy and convenient.

 

We aren't doing anything wrong and people who push for the 1GC# = 1 Find are directly attacking our caching culture. We have moving caches and people actually have a friendly competition that is ongoing to see who can log these moving caches the most times. Each hide is clearly unique, it is a new hider and a new location.

I get frustrated when people just keep pushing for the adoption of a straightjacket without acknowledging that they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I do not log Events multiple times but I do realize that the rules as they exist todsay do allow that to happen and I support the rules as they exist today so I am often in the fray in these conversations.

Thanks for asking Dave.

IF (big IF) they ever did only allow one find log per cache, then why couldn't you just make a separate cache near each brass cap? That cache sounds like a rotating virtual cache. So it could also be made into multiple waymarks under a "brass cap" category.
Link to comment

You would get tossed from any league I've been in too for doing that. What you do outside the league is different. So if you played practice rounds and hit mulligans then that's OK

 

Clearly we are near the same viewpoint since there is no "geocaching league" , there never has been a geocaching league and people who brag about their find count are very rare, thankfully.

If there is no geocaching competition then why would someone spend 17+ hours in from of their PC logging 1700+ "attended" logs? Whenever I played a practice round of golf, I always tossed my scorecard in the trash at the end of the round. I never went online and recorded that score. :) Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

[

 

Hi Dave

We have a cache that is called the Brass Cap Cache. Using that one listing you can log up to 360 unique individual targets. Each target is a Brass Cap and Alberta cachers really have alot of fun with this cache. Over 200 Alberta cachers have multiple logs on this cache and almost every new cacher who comes to events or goes out caching with old hands has no issues logging multiple targets on the Brass Cap Cache. The Brass Caps are on the tops of mountains, they are in downtown city sidewalks and they are out in the country, the Brass Caps are physically similar to Benchmarks. We also use recycled Event pages, the event page is updated with new locations each month and it is a unique event with new faces, new caches placed and often a new venue, the cache page is ismply re-used, it is quick easy and convenient.

 

 

What a unique and great idea, a way to log benchmarks

Link to comment

Does it affect me? Probably not. I won't lose any sleep over it, but when I look at your profile and see 2000 finds I'll just have to assume it's really 200 finds and treat you accordingly.

 

Aha! Now we come to the heart of the problem!

 

You treat cachers differently based on their stats?

 

Even though you know those stats to be inaccurate no matter how a cacher caches?

 

I seriously doubt that anyone's stats are a perfect reflection of them, or even a good one.

 

I hope folks treat me based on their experience with me, or on their online experience of me if we haven't met.

 

My stats are all over the place - I have been on competitive teams, found 312 in 24 hours and didn't log a one of them, been on many 100+ a day cache runs with friends, won First Place Team and Highest Team Day in CacheLeague competitions, cached alone, in big group wagon trains with 25+ carloads of cachers, logged multiple attend logs for a couple hundred pocket and event caches, and signed perhaps two thousand logbooks in caches that I never logged online in 26 states so far.

 

This year I mostly just log events attended, and sometimes forget to do even that.

 

The friends I cache with pretty much know what I have found and call me for a phone-a-friend tip if they need one even if I haven't logged the cache because they know that I have likely been there!

 

So, if you should care enough to look at my stats, how would you treat me based on them? No matter what the answer to that question, it would be wrong. My stats give no impression of how you should treat me. Treat me for who and what I am, not by some silly arbitrary and inaccurate number!

 

To me a cacher with 10 finds is every bit the cacher as one with 10,000 and I don't treat them any differently... I treat them as people and treat them as I would any other person, mostly I don't know their stats and so don't know (or care) if they are a newbie or invented the game.

 

Perhaps this whole thread would be (even more) irrelevant if we quit judging folks by statistics. :P

 

NOTE: "You" in the corporate "geocachers" sense, not as "you" directed at Blackbeard! :)

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

Does it affect me? Probably not. I won't lose any sleep over it, but when I look at your profile and see 2000 finds I'll just have to assume it's really 200 finds and treat you accordingly.

 

Aha! Now we come to the heart of the problem!

 

You treat cachers differently based on their stats?

 

Even though you know those stats to be inaccurate no matter how a cacher caches?

 

I seriously doubt that anyone's stats are a perfect reflection of them, or even a good one.

 

I hope folks treat me based on their experience with me, or on their online experience of me if we haven't met.

 

My stats are all over the place - I have been on competitive teams, found 312 in 24 hours and didn't log a one of them, been on many 100+ a day cache runs with friends, won First Place Team and Highest Team Day in CacheLeague competitions, cached alone, in big group wagon trains with 25+ carloads of cachers, logged multiple attend logs for a couple hundred pocket and event caches, and signed perhaps two thousand logbooks in caches that I never logged online in 26 states so far.

 

This year I mostly just log events attended, and sometimes forget to do even that.

 

The friends I cache with pretty much know what I have found and call me for a phone-a-friend tip if they need one even if I haven't logged the cache because they know that I have likely been there!

 

So, if you should care enough to look at my stats, how would you treat me based on them? No matter what the answer to that question, it would be wrong. My stats give no impression of how you should treat me. Treat me for who and what I am, not by some silly arbitrary and inaccurate number!

 

To me a cacher with 10 finds is every bit the cacher as one with 10,000 and I don't treat them any differently... I treat them as people and treat them as I would any other person, mostly I don't know their stats and so don't know (or care) if they are a newbie or invented the game.

 

Perhaps this whole thread would be (even more) irrelevant if we quit judging folks by statistics. :P

 

NOTE: "You" in the corporate "geocachers" sense, not as "you" directed at Blackbeard! :)

 

That's not what the Cpt is saying. Having 1 or 10,000 finds has nothing to do with how he treats someone.

 

For me, it was easy to see what he was getting at but if you don't understand, then you might go back and read his follow up post,,, #66 i believe.

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment
The lack of a container is what killed virtuals. IMHO, events should obviously exist, but they should not count toward the find total.

 

If they did that then event attendance would suffer, especially in those areas where the point of an event is to pad numbers rather than to socialize.

 

What numbers hound in his right mind would spend an afternoon of idle chatter with other geocachers without the opportunity to increment his find count?

Link to comment
The lack of a container is what killed virtuals. IMHO, events should obviously exist, but they should not count toward the find total.

 

If they did that then event attendance would suffer, especially in those areas where the point of an event is to pad numbers rather than to socialize.

 

What numbers hound in his right mind would spend an afternoon of idle chatter with other geocachers without the opportunity to increment his find count?

 

:)
Link to comment
The lack of a container is what killed virtuals. IMHO, events should obviously exist, but they should not count toward the find total.

 

If they did that then event attendance would suffer, especially in those areas where the point of an event is to pad numbers rather than to socialize.

 

What numbers hound in his right mind would spend an afternoon of idle chatter with other geocachers without the opportunity to increment his find count?

Ain't that the truth! :)

Link to comment
The lack of a container is what killed virtuals. IMHO, events should obviously exist, but they should not count toward the find total.

 

If they did that then event attendance would suffer, especially in those areas where the point of an event is to pad numbers rather than to socialize.

 

What numbers hound in his right mind would spend an afternoon of idle chatter with other geocachers without the opportunity to increment his find count?

Ain't that the truth! :)

 

I'm surprised they even bother going to the event, just think how many more times they could log it if they stayed home in front of the computer that day. WOOHOO!!! We're having fun now!! :P

Link to comment
The lack of a container is what killed virtuals. IMHO, events should obviously exist, but they should not count toward the find total.

 

If they did that then event attendance would suffer, especially in those areas where the point of an event is to pad numbers rather than to socialize.

 

What numbers hound in his right mind would spend an afternoon of idle chatter with other geocachers without the opportunity to increment his find count?

Ain't that the truth! :)

 

I'm surprised they even bother going to the event, just think how many more times they could log it if they stayed home in front of the computer that day. WOOHOO!!! We're having fun now!! :P

What we're multi-logging are things we used a GPS to find while at events, not the event itself. There's a major difference. Logging things we find using a GPS is called, uh, I will think of it in a minute, oh yeah - geocaching!

Link to comment

What we're multi-logging are things we used a GPS to find while at events, not the event itself. There's a major difference. Logging things we find using a GPS is called, uh, I will think of it in a minute, oh yeah - geocaching!

 

Absolutely correct, but remember the game isn't called geocaching.com.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...