Jump to content

Event Caches


Killerb
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I've known those who won't even log an event because they don't want it counting on their total find count. I also know those who won't do virtuals for the same reason. To each his/her own.

 

I think we've all realized that when it comes to numbers we don't all play the same game. Personally, I'd like to see the account set up include a series of radio buttons to click which types of caches you want to count towards your total and which ones you don't.

 

If something like this had been available I probably would have done a few locationless caches.

 

At the same time, when viewing someone else's stats you'd only see the total that you've chosen for yourself. That way everyone is equal....in his or her own special way.

Radio buttons might be a good way to go, especially if there were "temporary" and "pocket" cache buttons. I would think that this would be satisfactory to most everyone! B)

 

I think at the very least there could be a button that said, "Only count one find per GC#."

 

If not here on GC.com, then maybe INATN.com could work something up like that.

Link to comment

It truly doesn't matter.

 

That is and always has been my take on it, I have never had to experience your personal frustration to reach that conclusion. I think all the complaints about the "numbers claimed by other geocachers" are a total waste of time. I understand that people are proud of their find count but I don't accept that pride in their accomplishment requires an attack on others.

When I see people make comments with the express intent of belittling others over a "find count" I can tell you most certainly that I know who has the problem, it is perfectly clear to me.

I have seen comments telling geocachers to leave this site, comments ridiculing the activities of other cachers, comments belittling cache owners and cache seekers, comments demanding that others conform, there seems to be no end to the small and narrow minded approach to geocaching.

In my opinion any additional coding done to satisfy those who feel the need to compete is just a waste of resources and time, de-emphasizing the find count is a better solution. Putting the "find count" back into the profile would fix many problems and it would leave the find count alone for those who think it has some utility. It would be a small step and those who complained initially would soon get used to it.

Link to comment

The biggest one is that this allows cache owners to make up any silly thing they want for their cache.

 

Since it is their cache and their cache has nothing to do with you I don't see any problem, perhaps you can explain the relationship?

Would you tell a stranger who was wearing socks and sandal at the same time that they don't dress right and you consider them silly? B)

So please explain how a cache log made by a cacher on a cache that you don't own affects you?

But if that sock and sandal wearing person wants to be listed on my fashion website, I have every right to tell him his attire does not meet my guidelines.

 

No one is telling you you can't create a cache with whatever you want as the rules - you just aren't allowed to list it on this site without following this site's guidelines.

Link to comment
The biggest one is that this allows cache owners to make up any silly thing they want for their cache.
Since it is their cache and their cache has nothing to do with you I don't see any problem, perhaps you can explain the relationship?

Would you tell a stranger who was wearing socks and sandal at the same time that they don't dress right and you consider them silly? B)

So please explain how a cache log made by a cacher on a cache that you don't own affects you?

But if that sock and sandal wearing person wants to be listed on my fashion website, I have every right to tell him his attire does not meet my guidelines.

 

No one is telling you you can't create a cache with whatever you want as the rules - you just aren't allowed to list it on this site without following this site's guidelines.

Interesting analogy.

 

Socks and sandals are to a fashion magazine what temporary event caches are to GC.com.

 

Wait a minute, I just noticed a problem. Socks and snadals would be perfectly fine in many magazines, they just wouldn't be acceptable in a high-class fashion magazine. Personally, I find geocaching to be a game for the common man. There should be no 'snooty' factor. Therefore, I disagree completely with the analogy.

Link to comment

In my opinion any additional coding done to satisfy those who feel the need to compete is just a waste of resources and time, de-emphasizing the find count is a better solution. Putting the "find count" back into the profile would fix many problems and it would leave the find count alone for those who think it has some utility. It would be a small step and those who complained initially would soon get used to it.

We can't know what Groundspeak might or might not ever do with respect to find counts and stats in general on the Geocaching site. But I think it is interesting that over on the Waymarking site, they've taken an approach that by all accounts encourages stat-based competition, while confining it to user profiles.

 

For example, you won't see references to a user's 'posted' count (number of waymarks created) nor their 'visited' count (number of waymarks visited) on any of the general Waymarking pages. But on the user's profile, the 'posted' and 'visited' counts are presented in the form of award-like medals, like this:

 

waymarking_awards.gif

Link to comment

you just aren't allowed to list it on this site without following this site's guidelines.

 

I am not sure where you think you are going but apparently you have missed the entire gist of the conversation which is pretty remarkable given that we are up to six pages. People are making multiple logs on event caches which have been approved and listed on this site. Disregarding the reasons that they are doing this it is still very obviously a cache listed on this site.

The event caches and the logs that are made on them are listed on this website, they do meet the guidelines of this site, were you thinking of some other site?

You seem to be suggesting that the cache owners are doing something wrong and that on your geocaching website you wouldn't allow them to have the freedom to accept logs that you had not personally approved, I can live with that. B)

Edited by wavector
Link to comment

In my opinion any additional coding done to satisfy those who feel the need to compete is just a waste of resources and time, de-emphasizing the find count is a better solution. Putting the "find count" back into the profile would fix many problems and it would leave the find count alone for those who think it has some utility. It would be a small step and those who complained initially would soon get used to it.

We can't know what Groundspeak might or might not ever do with respect to find counts and stats in general on the Geocaching site. But I think it is interesting that over on the Waymarking site, they've taken an approach that by all accounts encourages stat-based competition, while confining it to user profiles.

 

For example, you won't see references to a user's 'posted' count (number of waymarks created) nor their 'visited' count (number of waymarks visited) on any of the general Waymarking pages. But on the user's profile, the 'posted' and 'visited' counts are presented in the form of award-like medals, like this:

 

waymarking_awards.gif

 

That is an excellent idea, everyone is happy and the "find counts" are de-emphasized. Now I have to go into your closet and pick out clothes to complain about them, oops, that really is none of my business!

 

Nice sandals. B)

Link to comment

I'm a little concerned about the personal ethics of those that would condemn these players for this benign activity, however.

 

What's up pussycat?

 

I read about 90% of this thread (and am quite shocked at some POVs) and wanted to yank this part of your post and quote it. Here is my reasoning:

 

Personal ethics are used to condemn those who would consider themselves players. Though to be considered a player you are guided by structured "rules". If you choose to not follow the rules outlined for the game, are you really a player? Are you playing if you do not play?

 

This roaming gnome says no.

 

If it were truly benign, then it would not occur.

Edited by Fogtripper
Link to comment

Since there is a count, i do believe there should be a standard. There are some out there who could care less about these numbers but there's no doubt in my mind that the majority of those who geocache, do like them and wouldn't want to see them go away.

 

It's not often that i even notice another person's find count but if i'm told, most likely by the cacher himself, then i think the number he spits out ought to be close to what he has actually found. Since we are using this site to record these numbers, i think it's logical that approved GC.com caches be the only ones used in this tally. It makes sense to me, that this is a good place to draw the line as far as what constitutes a find log on this site. It would be a guideline which would help make the numbers that are in place now, mean something to everyone that was interested in them. B)

 

Yes, THANK YOU Mudfrog! A find ON THIS SITE!!!

 

That is and always has been my take on it, I have never had to experience your personal frustration to reach that conclusion. I think all the complaints about the "numbers claimed by other geocachers" are a total waste of time.

 

For one who thinks this a total waste of time, I sure do see a lot of posts from you! If this really doesn't matter (to you) why so much defending?

Link to comment
Wait a minute, I just noticed a problem. Socks and sandals would be perfectly fine in many magazines, they just wouldn't be acceptable in a high-class fashion magazine. Personally, I find geocaching to be a game for the common man.

 

Wearing socks and sandals is not very common in most areas, and in some places it is banned. B)

 

495421035_cb74f6648f.jpg

Link to comment

I'm a little concerned about the personal ethics of those that would condemn these players for this benign activity, however.

 

What's up pussycat?

 

I read about 90% of this thread (and am quite shocked at some POVs) and wanted to yank this part of your post and quote it. Here is my reasoning:

 

Personal ethics are used to condemn those who would consider themselves players. Though to be considered a player you are guided by structured "rules". If you choose to not follow the rules outlined for the game, are you really a player? Are you playing if you do not play?

 

This roaming gnome says no.

 

If it were truly benign, then it would not occur.

 

Give me a break sbell111! Are you implying our ethics are askew because we disagree with the "cheesy" practice of attending an event 100 times?

 

 

That is and always has been my take on it, I have never had to experience your personal frustration to reach that conclusion. I think all the complaints about the "numbers claimed by other geocachers" are a total waste of time. I understand that people are proud of their find count but I don't accept that pride in their accomplishment requires an attack on others.

When I see people make comments with the express intent of belittling others over a "find count" I can tell you most certainly that I know who has the problem, it is perfectly clear to me.

I have seen comments telling geocachers to leave this site, comments ridiculing the activities of other cachers, comments belittling cache owners and cache seekers, comments demanding that others conform, there seems to be no end to the small and narrow minded approach to geocaching.

In my opinion any additional coding done to satisfy those who feel the need to compete is just a waste of resources and time, de-emphasizing the find count is a better solution. Putting the "find count" back into the profile would fix many problems and it would leave the find count alone for those who think it has some utility. It would be a small step and those who complained initially would soon get used to it.

 

Wavector,

 

Have to ever stopped to consider that the world doesn't revolve around you, and your opinion on this matter? Nearly everyone of your post on this subject are "all about you" and how your opinion is clearly the correct one. It's seems that you are being the most narrow minded of all.

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment
I'm a little concerned about the personal ethics of those that would condemn these players for this benign activity, however.
What's up pussycat?

 

I read about 90% of this thread (and am quite shocked at some POVs) and wanted to yank this part of your post and quote it. Here is my reasoning:

 

Personal ethics are used to condemn those who would consider themselves players. Though to be considered a player you are guided by structured "rules". If you choose to not follow the rules outlined for the game, are you really a player? Are you playing if you do not play?

 

This roaming gnome says no.

Huh?

 

1) Geocaching is an activity that is not bound by firm rules. It is managed by a set of flexible guidelines.

2) TPTB recommended that temporary event caches be logged to the event pages. Many people log these in this manner and it is perfectly acceptable within their circles to do so.

3) If my sister and I play Monopoly, but choose to keep $500 and all fees in Free Parking (which is clearly against the rules), are we not still playing the game?

If it were truly benign, then it would not occur.
Really? The bulk of this game is completely benign, yet it exists.

 

The logging of temporary event caches to the event page was recommended by TPTB. This logging does not affect any other cachers. It is, therefore, benign.

Link to comment

Huh?

 

1) Geocaching is an activity that is not bound by firm rules. It is managed by a set of flexible guidelines.

2) TPTB recommended that temporary event caches be logged to the event pages. Many people log these in this manner and it is perfectly acceptable within their circles to do so.

3) If my sister and I play Monopoly, but choose to keep $500 and all fees in Free Parking (which is clearly against the rules), are we not still playing the game?

If it were truly benign, then it would not occur.
Really? The bulk of this game is completely benign, yet it exists.

 

The logging of temporary event caches to the event page was recommended by TPTB. This logging does not affect any other cachers. It is, therefore, benign.

 

You are missing the point.

You used the term "player". (It is even used in the post of yours which I quoted)

What do you consider a "player", if not someone who agrees to follow the outlined "rules"?

 

Now take note of the part of your post I Italicized/Bolded/Underlined.

I have no issue whatsoever with it being accepted within circles. What I am pointing out, is that when those stats are used outside of those circles in the context of a public "game", then the integrity of the game is cheapened.

Link to comment
I'm a little concerned about the personal ethics of those that would condemn these players for this benign activity, however.
Give me a break sbell111! Are you implying are ethics are askew because we disagree with the "cheesy" practice of attending an event 100 times?
Actually, I was implying that those people who make personal attacks against those cachers who don't agreee with them may, indeed, be ethically challenged.

 

BTW, has anyone shown an example of a cacher finding and logging 100 temporary event caches?

Wavector,

 

Have to ever stopped to consider that the world doesn't revolve around you, and your opinion on this matter? Nearly everyone of your post on this subject are "all about you" and how your opinion is clearly the correct one. It's seems that you are being the most narrow minded of all.

It appears to me that those that condemn others for this practice and request rules (or technical changes) to forbid the practice may be making the issue all about themselves. This is particularly strange since the practice doesn't affect them, at all. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Huh?

 

1) Geocaching is an activity that is not bound by firm rules. It is managed by a set of flexible guidelines.

2) TPTB recommended that temporary event caches be logged to the event pages. Many people log these in this manner and it is perfectly acceptable within their circles to do so.

3) If my sister and I play Monopoly, but choose to keep $500 and all fees in Free Parking (which is clearly against the rules), are we not still playing the game?

If it were truly benign, then it would not occur.
Really? The bulk of this game is completely benign, yet it exists.

 

The logging of temporary event caches to the event page was recommended by TPTB. This logging does not affect any other cachers. It is, therefore, benign.

You are missing the point.

You used the term "player". (It is even used in the post of yours which I quoted)

What do you consider a "player", if not someone who agrees to follow the outlined "rules"?

The 'rules' of whether a cache can be logged as a find are solely determined by the owner of the cache. No 'rules' have been broken.

 

Now take note of the part of your post I Italicized/Bolded/Underlined.

I have no issue whatsoever with it being accepted within circles. What I am pointing out, is that when those stats are used outside of those circles in the context of a public "game", then the integrity of the game is cheapened.

The problem is, you are trying to make the stats of different cachers to be comparable. This can never happen. Even if you and I found the exact number of equally rated caches, our stats would still not be comparable. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

The problem is, you are trying to make the stats of different cachers to be comparable. This can never happen. Even if you and I found the exact number of equally rated caches, our stats would still not be comparable.

 

Perhaps I am simply missing the whole point of having stats to begin with.

Link to comment
The problem is, you are trying to make the stats of different cachers to be comparable. This can never happen. Even if you and I found the exact number of equally rated caches, our stats would still not be comparable.
Perhaps I am simply missing the whole point of having stats to begin with.
You should take a look at some of Jeremy's posts regarding 'stats' or 'competition'.
Link to comment
The problem is, you are trying to make the stats of different cachers to be comparable. This can never happen. Even if you and I found the exact number of equally rated caches, our stats would still not be comparable.
Perhaps I am simply missing the whole point of having stats to begin with.
You should take a look at some of Jeremy's posts regarding 'stats' or 'competition'.

 

Again, admittedly I am new to the site. That said, I'll assume that this Jeremy is the fellow who set up the site.

I signed up, and assumed (yet again) that when stats are used to display accomplishments, those stats would be held to "rules" enforced by an honor system.

 

I can only guess that the posts you mention of Jeremy's show that his opinion on the use of stats and competition differ from the norm?

Have you examples to link to?

Link to comment
The problem is, you are trying to make the stats of different cachers to be comparable. This can never happen. Even if you and I found the exact number of equally rated caches, our stats would still not be comparable.
Perhaps I am simply missing the whole point of having stats to begin with.
You should take a look at some of Jeremy's posts regarding 'stats' or 'competition'.
Again, admittedly I am new to the site. That said, I'll assume that this Jeremy is the fellow who set up the site.

I signed up, and assumed (yet again) that when stats are used to display accomplishments, those stats would be held to "rules" enforced by an honor system.

 

I can only guess that the posts you mention of Jeremy's show that his opinion on the use of stats and competition differ from the norm?

Have you examples to link to?

It depends on what you believe the 'norm' is.

 

Edited to add this fun quote, based on Fogtripper's request:

Geocaching etiquette would say that logging a find twice for the same cache is not ok. However there are enough reasons why it is ok that there is no programming logic to restrict it. There are, however, ways for the cache owner to delete finds when he or she feels that it is wrong. In most situations it is the cache owner's responsibility to enforce a double-logging situation.

 

So does it increase the statistics for a listing? Yes. Is it bad form? Yes, except in some situations. Do I care? Only when I consider it abuse of the site, like when someone logs an archived cache they never found just to boost their find count. That's just outright rude.

 

briansnat, although I do care about the cheats in all the examples you offer, you are using examples from competitive activities. If you are in competition with geocachers over your find "score" then I assume you would validate whether that person is "playing" fair. However I continue to maintain that geocaching as the geocaching.com site is concerned is a noncompetitive activity, so someone's find count shouldn't harm you.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Geocaching etiquette would say that logging a find twice for the same cache is not ok. However there are enough reasons why it is ok that there is no programming logic to restrict it. There are, however, ways for the cache owner to delete finds when he or she feels that it is wrong. In most situations it is the cache owner's responsibility to enforce a double-logging situation.

 

So does it increase the statistics for a listing? Yes. Is it bad form? Yes, except in some situations.

 

Seems to say pretty much what some of us have been saying all along.

 

briansnat, although I do care about the cheats in all the examples you offer, you are using examples from competitive activities. If you are in competition with geocachers over your find "score" then I assume you would validate whether that person is "playing" fair.

 

Oh, I see. Jeremy says we should police ourselves as to this issue. So, when asking that others be truthful, we aren't actually condemning but assuring we are all playing "fair"? Sounds about right to me! Also sounds like Jeremy is playing both sides of the fence so as not to irk those who have "differing logging practices". You do have to be diplomatic in a business after all!

 

Now, you'll likely say that not all are playing the same game as us...well, when you publicly accept your numbers as being truthful, you ARE playing...just not fairly.

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment
Oh, I see. Jeremy says we should police ourselves as to this issue. So, when asking that others be truthful, we aren't actually condemning but assuring we are all playing "fair"? Sounds about right to me! Also sounds like Jeremy is playing both sides of the fence so as not to irk those who have "differing logging practices". You do have to be diplomatic in a business after all!

 

Now, you'll likely say that not all are playing the same game as us...well, when you publicly accept your numbers as being truthful, you ARE playing...just not fairly.

Take another read of Jeremy's quoted posts.
  1. He suggested that temporary event caches be logged to the event page.
  2. He makes it clear that the cache owner is responsible for policing the logs to determine whether a log is allowed.
  3. Logging temporary event caches is not listed as what he would call 'abuse of the site', even though the activity was typical at the time of his late-2005 post.
  4. The site is not meant to support a competition and that if people want to compete with each other, they should work out the rules of the competition between themselves.

Link to comment
Huh?

 

1) Geocaching is an activity that is not bound by firm rules. It is managed by a set of flexible guidelines.

2) TPTB recommended that temporary event caches be logged to the event pages. Many people log these in this manner and it is perfectly acceptable within their circles to do so.

3) If my sister and I play Monopoly, but choose to keep $500 and all fees in Free Parking (which is clearly against the rules), are we not still playing the game?

If it were truly benign, then it would not occur.
Really? The bulk of this game is completely benign, yet it exists.

 

The logging of temporary event caches to the event page was recommended by TPTB. This logging does not affect any other cachers. It is, therefore, benign.

You are missing the point.

You used the term "player". (It is even used in the post of yours which I quoted)

What do you consider a "player", if not someone who agrees to follow the outlined "rules"?

The 'rules' of whether a cache can be logged as a find are solely determined by the owner of the cache. No 'rules' have been broken.

 

Now take note of the part of your post I Italicized/Bolded/Underlined.

I have no issue whatsoever with it being accepted within circles. What I am pointing out, is that when those stats are used outside of those circles in the context of a public "game", then the integrity of the game is cheapened.

The problem is, you are trying to make the stats of different cachers to be comparable. This can never happen. Even if you and I found the exact number of equally rated caches, our stats would still not be comparable.

I see no reason at all why these numbers can't be comparable. Sure, cache difficulty levels, time available to cache, the area we live in, etc,,, can have a bearing on find count and there's no doubt that it would be very hard to take in all those factors and try to make any comparison. But i'm guessing that the majority of cachers wouldn't want it to be that involved anyway when they looked at stats. Most would simply want to see a number, a number that showed a cacher's actual find count. In this way of looking at it, why not just use the common sense approach and make it one find per GC#, (yes, grandfathered moving and other caches that allowed multiple finds and that were initially approved on GC.com would be the exceptions).

Link to comment
... Now, you'll likely say that not all are playing the same game as us...well, when you publicly accept your numbers as being truthful, you ARE playing...just not fairly.
I publicly present my numbers as truthful. Please show me where this is not a truthful statement or apologize in your next post. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Huh?

 

1) Geocaching is an activity that is not bound by firm rules. It is managed by a set of flexible guidelines.

2) TPTB recommended that temporary event caches be logged to the event pages. Many people log these in this manner and it is perfectly acceptable within their circles to do so.

3) If my sister and I play Monopoly, but choose to keep $500 and all fees in Free Parking (which is clearly against the rules), are we not still playing the game?

If it were truly benign, then it would not occur.
Really? The bulk of this game is completely benign, yet it exists.

 

The logging of temporary event caches to the event page was recommended by TPTB. This logging does not affect any other cachers. It is, therefore, benign.

You are missing the point.

You used the term "player". (It is even used in the post of yours which I quoted)

What do you consider a "player", if not someone who agrees to follow the outlined "rules"?

The 'rules' of whether a cache can be logged as a find are solely determined by the owner of the cache. No 'rules' have been broken.
Now take note of the part of your post I Italicized/Bolded/Underlined.

I have no issue whatsoever with it being accepted within circles. What I am pointing out, is that when those stats are used outside of those circles in the context of a public "game", then the integrity of the game is cheapened.

The problem is, you are trying to make the stats of different cachers to be comparable. This can never happen. Even if you and I found the exact number of equally rated caches, our stats would still not be comparable.
I see no reason at all why these numbers can't be comparable. Sure, cache difficulty levels, time available to cache, the area we live in, etc,,, can have a bearing on find count and there's no doubt that it would be very hard to take in all those factors and try to make any comparison. But i'm guessing that the majority of cachers wouldn't want it to be that involved anyway when they looked at stats. Most would simply want to see a number, a number that showed a cacher's actual find count. In this way of looking at it, why not just use the common sense approach and make it one find per GC#, (yes, grandfathered moving and other caches that allowed multiple finds and that were initially approved on GC.com would be the exceptions).
The problem is, your common sense approach is not the same as the common sense approach used by others. The players who log temporary event caches already use a common sense approach that they, and their peers, are comfortable with. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

...Most would simply want to see a number, a number that showed a cacher's actual find count. In this way of looking at it, why not just use the common sense approach and make it one find per GC#, ...

 

I'm not positive that most people want to see a number, but probably so. The problem is, there's a fundamental flaw in what many people consider the "actual find count" you mention above. For a lot of people, it's one GC#, one find. For others, it's every "cache" they find (temporaries, owner said I could log the missing, etc., etc., etc.)

 

Both sides believe what they are using is their "actual find count", so there's no way to compare stats.

 

I can't believe we've gone through 6 pages (again) to discuss the idea that a lot of people frown on logging temporary caches, but TPTB are aware of the practice and are not stopping it. As has come out in the Jeremy quote so many times, if it was considered an abuse of the system, it would be stopped.

 

Everyone is arguing in circles at this point. If you frown on the practice, fine. If you want to tell people that you frown on what they're doing, that's fine too. If you want to run up your find count by logging all 1000 temporary caches at 2 events, fine (according to geocaching.com).

 

It's quite obvious the site is not going to change the practice based on people complaining about it in the forums or calling it "cheating".

 

Why are we spewing more forum bandwidth on all of this?

Edited by KoosKoos
Link to comment
... Now, you'll likely say that not all are playing the same game as us...well, when you publicly accept your numbers as being truthful, you ARE playing...just not fairly.
I publicly present my numbers as truthful. Please show me where this is not a truthful statement or apologize in your next post.

 

Since that wasn't aimed at YOU sbell (seems you are taking this aweful persoal today, everything OK??), I'll NOT apologize! "YOU" in this statement refers to anyone who DOES misrepresent their find count (got a guilty conscience?). You seem off your game today sbell, I truly hope all is well with you. Either that, or you should slow down and READ what is said instead of taking it all out of context as is so much the popular thing in these forums!

 

oh, and maybe YOU should read Jeremy's words again...seems pretty clear to me!

Link to comment
Also sounds like Jeremy is playing both sides of the fence so as not to irk those who have "differing logging practices". You do have to be diplomatic in a business after all!

Yep!

 

In my opinion. We all know how Jeremy feels about the practice so i believe that, if it was up to him, he would have set up the site a long time ago to only accept one find per GC#. I'm not saying that it isn't up to him, since he can do pretty much what he wants with the site. But since this is his business, he knows that he does have to try to make paying customers happy and so therefore has chosen to let this go,,, at least for now. Again, this IMO.

Link to comment

Again, admittedly I am new to the site. That said, I'll assume that this Jeremy is the fellow who set up the site.

I signed up, and assumed (yet again) that when stats are used to display accomplishments, those stats would be held to "rules" enforced by an honor system.

There are rules and guidelines for listing caches on geocacaching.com. There are very few rule that defined what constitutes a find;

Traditional Caches

Caches that require the geocacher to do something beyond finding the container and signing the logbook generally do not qualify as traditional caches.

Mystery Caches

Caches with mandatory requirements in addition to signing the logbook should be listed as mystery caches.

Earthcaches

Logging an Earthcache find requires compliance with the requirements stated by the owner and the Earthcache Website, including answering the required questions by e-mail to the owner, providing original photos if so requested, etc.

Cache Maintenance

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

Virtual Cache and Webcam Cache Maintenance Guidelines

The owner will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged “finds” for the cache, and will agree to delete any “find” logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

Virtual Cache Logging Guidelines

Logging a virtual cache find requires compliance with the requirements stated by the owner, including answering the required questions by e-mail to the owner, providing original photos if so requested, etc. Answers to questions, hints or clues should not be placed in the logs, even if encrypted.

Webcam Cache Logging Guidelines

Logging a webcam cache find requires compliance with the requirements stated by the owner, including providing the required photo as the owner has requested or following the example provided on the cache page.

Doesn't seem to be anything there about one find per cache or one attended per event. There are no rules regarding whether a cache owner can award a bonus smiley for accomplishing a task like finding a temporary cache.

 

Sometimes the following "rules" from the Geocaching FAQ are quoted

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

  1. Take something from the cache
  2. Leave something in the cache
  3. Write about it in the logbook

Where you place a cache is up to you.

There is nothing in these rules about logging online. In fact if this rule really constituted the requirements for logging a find online not only would a trade be required but you could log a find everytime you visited a cache to make a trade and signed the log.

 

A careful reading of the guidelines on the site would indicate that it is up to the cache owner to determine if a found it or attended log is legitimate and that, at least for the time being, a cache owner may allowed multiple found it or attended logs. There does seem to be a requirement that for traditional caches if a cacher has found the cache and signed the log their log is legitimate and cannot generally be deleted. However even in this case, a cache owner may delete a log with inappropriate language or a spoiler.

 

Why does the site keep a find count for each cacher? Jeremy has stated many times that geocaching is not a competition to find the most caches, including in a number of posts that have already been linked to in this thread. He does allow some third party sites to provide geocacher rankings and related statistics, but has blocked access from these sites which used a methodology to collect this information that put an undo load on geocaching.com or otherwise violate the TOU. These sites are best used for entertainment purposes only (like professional wrestling or the newspaper horoscope). The find counts are useful to some people as an estimate of a geocacher's experience. When someone posts a DNF on a cache, some owners will use the find count to determine if it is more likely the cache is missing than that the person simply couldn't find it. If the count is being used for this purpose, logging temporary event caches may actually give a more accurate estimate of experience. Certainly, people can compare their find count with other cachers and use find counts for setting personal goals. Using of the numbers for this purpose doesn't actually require a strict definition that everyone agrees to. If my goal is to find more than cacher X then even if cacher X is logging temporary event caches an I don't, it just adds to the challenge.

 

There are certainly good reasons for a person to only log caches that they actually found and perhaps to only log attended once per event no matter how many temporary caches they found. It is clear that if there is no competition there is nothing gained by collecting bonus smileys. One can go to an event and find temporary caches and write about it online in a single attended log. One can revisit a cache to trade items and even resign the physical log book and then use a Note to report this online instead of a find. One can use a DNF to report a hunt for a cache that was missing even if the cache owner emails you to change it to a find. In all these case, you can have the same amount of fun as someone who did the same thing but bumped up their find count because the cache owner let them. Nobody is being forced to log a find that they don't feel they deserve to log.

Link to comment
I see no reason at all why these numbers can't be comparable. Sure, cache difficulty levels, time available to cache, the area we live in, etc,,, can have a bearing on find count and there's no doubt that it would be very hard to take in all those factors and try to make any comparison. But i'm guessing that the majority of cachers wouldn't want it to be that involved anyway when they looked at stats. Most would simply want to see a number, a number that showed a cacher's actual find count. In this way of looking at it, why not just use the common sense approach and make it one find per GC#, (yes, grandfathered moving and other caches that allowed multiple finds and that were initially approved on GC.com would be the exceptions).

 

Excellent! Some would think the numbers MUST be for the same D/T, and that all cachers have the same amount of hides available...bull pucky!

 

ONE GC#=ONE FIND!! All GC#s are equal in that they are ONE CACHE! Doesn't seem all that difficult to me!

Link to comment
Both sides believe what they are using is their "actual find count", so there's no way to compare stats.

You are absolutely right! That's why there are many who would like to see some kind of standard implemented. It's not a "straightjacket" type of standard that some people are trying to imply. Just a simple common sense approach which will help to keep numbers more meaningful for anyone that is interested in them!

Link to comment
Also sounds like Jeremy is playing both sides of the fence so as not to irk those who have "differing logging practices". You do have to be diplomatic in a business after all!

Yep!

 

In my opinion. We all know how Jeremy feels about the practice so i believe that, if it was up to him, he would have set up the site a long time ago to only accept one find per GC#. I'm not saying that it isn't up to him, since he can do pretty much what he wants with the site. But since this is his business, he knows that he does have to try to make paying customers happy and so therefore has chosen to let this go,,, at least for now. Again, this IMO.

 

Considering he used words like "not OK" and "bad form", I'd say that's about right! He isn't happy that there are those that would use "bad form" to get their numbers, but he's not going to alienate those who do. Business is business!

Link to comment
... Now, you'll likely say that not all are playing the same game as us...well, when you publicly accept your numbers as being truthful, you ARE playing...just not fairly.
I publicly present my numbers as truthful. Please show me where this is not a truthful statement or apologize in your next post.

 

Since that wasn't aimed at YOU sbell (seems you are taking this aweful persoal today, everything OK??), I'll NOT apologize! "YOU" in this statement refers to anyone who DOES misrepresent their find count (got a guilty conscience?). You seem off your game today sbell, I truly hope all is well with you. Either that, or you should slow down and READ what is said instead of taking it all out of context as is so much the popular thing in these forums!

 

oh, and maybe YOU should read Jeremy's words again...seems pretty clear to me!

When you quote someone's post and use the pronoun 'you', it is generally believed that you are responding to the person who made the post. Either way, you (actually YOU) made a personal attack that is unfounded.

Link to comment

Ok, sure sbell...whatever YOU say. Maybe others see it a bit differently though. Take a deep breath and slooow down big guy, not all the world is against YOU!

 

personal attack...good one! You will know when I'm attacking YOU, I'll be sure YOU can understand it is an attack!

 

CAN YOU SAY "CHESSY"?

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment

 

Considering he used words like "not OK" and "bad form", I'd say that's about right! He isn't happy that there are those that would use "bad form" to get their numbers, but he's not going to alienate those who do. Business is business!

 

I disagree with your assessment of Jeremy here. If you search his posts in many threads, there have been several complaints of his snarkiness and unfavorable treatment of customers. (Of course, only from the ones that didn't find the humor in those comments!) :laughing:

 

In other words, if he felt multiple logging was truly affecting the game, he wouldn't hesitate to make the change, even if he really alienates one faction.

 

I remember him saying on more than one occasion that he doesn't care about multiple logging...as long as you don't abuse the system. (i.e. don't go "virtually" log his wife's TB, or you will quickly find out what abusing the system means!) :laughing:

Link to comment

you just aren't allowed to list it on this site without following this site's guidelines.

 

I am not sure where you think you are going but apparently you have missed the entire gist of the conversation which is pretty remarkable given that we are up to six pages. People are making multiple logs on event caches which have been approved and listed on this site. Disregarding the reasons that they are doing this it is still very obviously a cache listed on this site.

The event caches and the logs that are made on them are listed on this website, they do meet the guidelines of this site, were you thinking of some other site?

You seem to be suggesting that the cache owners are doing something wrong and that on your geocaching website you wouldn't allow them to have the freedom to accept logs that you had not personally approved, I can live with that. :laughing:

You are obviously the one missing the point here. No one is saying that the events are not listed here or that they are not loggable. People are going beyond the event listing and logging things on it that aren't the event (i.e. temporary caches). Nice try, but do not pass GO, do not collect 200 smilies.

Link to comment

you just aren't allowed to list it on this site without following this site's guidelines.

 

I am not sure where you think you are going but apparently you have missed the entire gist of the conversation which is pretty remarkable given that we are up to six pages. People are making multiple logs on event caches which have been approved and listed on this site. Disregarding the reasons that they are doing this it is still very obviously a cache listed on this site.

The event caches and the logs that are made on them are listed on this website, they do meet the guidelines of this site, were you thinking of some other site?

You seem to be suggesting that the cache owners are doing something wrong and that on your geocaching website you wouldn't allow them to have the freedom to accept logs that you had not personally approved, I can live with that. :laughing:

You are obviously the one missing the point here. No one is saying that the events are not listed here or that they are not loggable. People are going beyond the event listing and logging things on it that aren't the event (i.e. temporary caches). Nice try, but do not pass GO, do not collect 200 smilies.

There is no guideline saying that one cannot log a cache (or an event) more than once. What is happening is not that people are using the attended log to log a cache which is not listed on geocaching.com but that people are logging multiple attended logs because the event host has said "you may log an attended for each temporary cache you found in addition to your log for attending the event." It is easy to understand that some people may prefer to use the attended log solely to indicate they attended the event and similarly may prefer to use the found it log on a cache solely to indicate the first time they found the cache and signed the log. Nobody is being force to accept bonus smileys.

Jeremy may have indicated that logging bonus smileys is silly or even bad form. But so far he has not seen the need to change guidelines. It may be that Jeremy doesn't want to add guidelines which are unenforceable (such as requiring that you sign the log before you can log a find), but this case (allowing only one attended log per event) would easy to enforce by simply changing the website to disallow multiple attended logs. The fact that this hasn't been done might indicate that Jeremy isn't interesting in regulating silliness or bad form.

Link to comment

There is no guideline saying that one cannot log a cache (or an event) more than once.

 

Nor do I see a guideline saying one cannot bean a seeker over the head with a cod piece as they get near a cache's hiding place. I also do not see a guideline preventing the instalation of a tripwire that would cause a bucket of feces to drop onto someone picking up a logbook at a cache.

 

Yeah, I am being silly. But to make a point that the absence of a guideline does not mean a guideline is not implied or expected from thinking adults. From the quotes I've been shown of Jeremy's today, I can surmise and agree that some things are simply "bad form".

Link to comment

Also, just because Jeremy won't step in and stop the "silly or bad form" practices doesn't neccesarily mean he accepts them, it could be that he's got other more important things on hs mind. His wordings seem to indicate (to me) just how he feels.

 

As I said before, the comment where he says "let them....for all I care" sounds like he's just tired and saying "do whatever you want, we're just not going to waste our reviewer time and bandwidth on a temporary cache, log the stupid thing on the event page if you must". Not exactly endorsing the idea IMHO, but others see it differently.

 

I mean, if people keep nagging me about something I'm tired of discussing, I sometimes give out a remark like "jump in a creek for all I care"....or something a bit stronger worded! lol

Link to comment

you just aren't allowed to list it on this site without following this site's guidelines.

 

I am not sure where you think you are going but apparently you have missed the entire gist of the conversation which is pretty remarkable given that we are up to six pages. People are making multiple logs on event caches which have been approved and listed on this site. Disregarding the reasons that they are doing this it is still very obviously a cache listed on this site.

The event caches and the logs that are made on them are listed on this website, they do meet the guidelines of this site, were you thinking of some other site?

You seem to be suggesting that the cache owners are doing something wrong and that on your geocaching website you wouldn't allow them to have the freedom to accept logs that you had not personally approved, I can live with that. :laughing:

You are obviously the one missing the point here. No one is saying that the events are not listed here or that they are not loggable. People are going beyond the event listing and logging things on it that aren't the event (i.e. temporary caches). Nice try, but do not pass GO, do not collect 200 smilies.

There is no guideline saying that one cannot log a cache (or an event) more than once. What is happening is not that people are using the attended log to log a cache which is not listed on geocaching.com but that people are logging multiple attended logs because the event host has said "you may log an attended for each temporary cache you found in addition to your log for attending the event." It is easy to understand that some people may prefer to use the attended log solely to indicate they attended the event and similarly may prefer to use the found it log on a cache solely to indicate the first time they found the cache and signed the log. Nobody is being force to accept bonus smileys.

Jeremy may have indicated that logging bonus smileys is silly or even bad form. But so far he has not seen the need to change guidelines. It may be that Jeremy doesn't want to add guidelines which are unenforceable (such as requiring that you sign the log before you can log a find), but this case (allowing only one attended log per event) would easy to enforce by simply changing the website to disallow multiple attended logs. The fact that this hasn't been done might indicate that Jeremy isn't interesting in regulating silliness or bad form.

You just made a statement above that is obvious to many of us. This is where i think alot of us who see this as being a bad practice, silly, and/or just plain wrong, are coming from. It's not only easy to understand, but is also the obvious and right way of looking at it to us.

Link to comment

In my opinion any additional coding done to satisfy those who feel the need to compete is just a waste of resources and time, de-emphasizing the find count is a better solution. Putting the "find count" back into the profile would fix many problems and it would leave the find count alone for those who think it has some utility. It would be a small step and those who complained initially would soon get used to it.

We can't know what Groundspeak might or might not ever do with respect to find counts and stats in general on the Geocaching site. But I think it is interesting that over on the Waymarking site, they've taken an approach that by all accounts encourages stat-based competition, while confining it to user profiles.

 

For example, you won't see references to a user's 'posted' count (number of waymarks created) nor their 'visited' count (number of waymarks visited) on any of the general Waymarking pages. But on the user's profile, the 'posted' and 'visited' counts are presented in the form of award-like medals, like this:

 

waymarking_awards.gif

It sounds like Waymarking is "medaling" in your affairs.... :laughing:
Link to comment
Ok, sure sbell...whatever YOU say. Maybe others see it a bit differently though. Take a deep breath and slooow down big guy, not all the world is against YOU!

 

personal attack...good one! You will know when I'm attacking YOU, I'll be sure YOU can understand it is an attack!

 

CAN YOU SAY "CHESSY"?

OK, time to back it down. Not sure what the game of chess has to do with things either.

 

(And I know what you meant to say. It shows that even you might be typing a bit too fast today. Slow down, think about your posts and try not to be reactionary folks. Spoken from one who has been there.)

Link to comment

It sounds like Waymarking is "medaling" in your affairs.... :laughing:

Ugh. :laughing:

 

In any case, those aren't my medals. I posted someone else's awards because I haven't logged nearly that many visits yet. :laughing::(

 

On topic: I hope the practice of logging temporary event caches doesn't become popular in my area. Among other things, it would make reading the logs from the event (something I like to do) much less appealing. I also like being able to look at the 'Logged Visits' totals to get a feel for how many attended the event, and the multiple logging practice would make the Attended number meaningless.

Link to comment
I hope the practice of logging temporary event caches doesn't become popular in my area. Among other things, it would make reading the logs from the event (something I like to do) much less appealing. I also like being able to look at the 'Logged Visits' totals to get a feel for how many attended the event, and the multiple logging practice would make the Attended number meaningless.
I agree that it would be a pain to read through the event logs if there were thousands of temp cache logs. That one event had 15000 and that is absurd. So I think Groundspeak should either stop counting events in the find count OR they should put in a box in the find log where these people can fill in up to 26 digits on how many temp caches they found. Then these people could have their 50 bazillion finds and walk on red carpet the rest of their lives, and all of us could all just get back to having fun. :laughing:
Link to comment

So I think Groundspeak should either stop counting events in the find count OR they should put in a box in the find log where these people can fill in up to 26 digits on how many temp caches they found. Then these people could have their 50 bazillion finds and walk on red carpet the rest of their lives, and all of us could all just get back to having fun. :laughing:

 

Actually, not a bad suggestion, since it seems the practice will be allowed to continue.

 

Maybe what they could do is have an option when the event is being submitted for approval. If the owner of the listing plans on allowing temp caches to be logged, they can check a box or something, and it will allow a drop down in the event logs for how many smilies you "earned". That way, those that want all the credit get the appropriate number of happy yellow faces.

 

Those of us that don't want to see multiple logs won't have to...it should cut down on server traffic considerablly as well...

 

Edited to add: Those event holders that do not want to allow multiple logging will leave the box unchecked to avoid the practice at their events.

Edited by Cornerstone4
Link to comment

Wavector,

Have to ever stopped to consider that the world doesn't revolve around you, and your opinion on this matter? Nearly everyone of your post on this subject are "all about you" and how your opinion is clearly the correct one. It's seems that you are being the most narrow minded of all.

 

If that has anything to do with multiple logging of events I must have missed it. :anitongue:

 

I am guessing you are getting frosted because my viewpoint is diametrically opposed to your viewpoint, my viewpoint is consistent with the way the site actually works today and my viewpoint isn't about changing the system so that others are more tightly controlled, I can see why you think I am narrow minded.

 

If my refusal to join in your march seems narrow minded to you then I hesitate to ask what you think of the current site owners, apparently they haven't received your "manifesto" either and they are willing to let each geocacher be free to enjoy this activity in the fashion they choose.

 

You just might have to accept that your vision of everyone "geocaching in lockstep" is not a big seller. :D

Link to comment

Nice try, but do not pass GO, do not collect 200 smilies.

 

Monopoly, why didn't you tell me we were playing Monopoly? I want to be the Hat. :D

 

I am not missing the point at all, you seem to have a problem with people making multiple logs on an Event cache. Clearly there are entire states where people don't see the problem you see because the geocachers are doing it and the geocache owners are allowing the logs to stand. Since it isn't an issue for those who do it I don't grasp how it affects you, I don't see that it does but I am open to your explanation.

 

How do the additional logs on Event caches create a problem for you?

 

Keep in mind that if this problem was one that affected Groundspeak they would act, they have demonstrated this in the past.

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