Temp caches

[+sbell111]

I'm sure this has been suggested before, but it might be interesting to show both sets of stats in a profile:

 

Traditional ............. 212 (209)

Multicache .............. 19

Event ..................... 121 (4)

Total .................... 352 (242)

 

So this user logged finds on 212 caches, of which 209 were unique. The logged 121 finds on 4 unique caches.

I can see many liking this idea but it doesn't unclutter the event page or stop the spam. Those were my main beefs if this practice spread to my region.

Similarly, a easy cache that receives tons of finds or a large event would generate lots of emails and have loads of logs that one would have to wade through if they chose to manually search for a particular log. Given this, we each have the option as to whether we want to 'watch' a cache page for a cache that we don't own or manually search the logs. At some point, each of us must decide if the 'reward' of watching the page is worth the 'risk' of getting too many emails.

 

The presence of the logs or the potential of receiving emails is not an indication that the system is broken.

Edited October 18, 2007 by sbell111

[+Parabola]

Don't worry Mudfrog, some will just counter that we have made that choice and some multilogger has more rights than you and I (like they didn't choose to make bogus logs??). Some will also say that since we can change our ways to make viewing those pics easier (never mind the fact that we like to read REAL logs too), we should stop "crying" and just conform. Hey, some will even say that we have the problem even though we are doing what was meant to be done (although Jeremy "said" (in dispair) to let them log the fake finds on the event page, I'm pretty certain THIS isn't what he had in mind...which is backed up by his further comments which seem to get left out oh so much).

 

Some who argue against honest logging don't even practice multilogging...they just protect the multilogger's right to "have fun" making bogus finds.

 

It's a vicious circle with no end in sight! Maybe Jeremy will jump in and set us all straight?? Let's just hope!

 

Can you tell me where to find these comments made by Jeremy. I would like to read them.

[+Parabola]

I'm sure this has been suggested before, but it might be interesting to show both sets of stats in a profile:

 

Traditional ............. 212 (209)

Multicache .............. 19

Event ..................... 121 (4)

Total .................... 352 (242)

 

So this user logged finds on 212 caches, of which 209 were unique. The logged 121 finds on 4 unique caches.

 

I like this idea too. But the event pages are still cluttered with temp logs.

[+Mudfrog]

Some will also say that since we can change our ways to make viewing those pics easier (never mind the fact that we like to read REAL logs too), we should stop "crying" and just conform.

Suggestions were given to help you avoid unhappiness. If you choose to continue to make choices that make you unhappy, that unhappiness is caused by your decisions, not those decisions made by cachers who choose to log temporary event caches

That's just it,,, you're saying that now i need to choose differently. In this case, it's very obvious that the decision by others to log non GC.com approved temporary caches can have an effect on my choices.

 

We could go round and round on this and never come to any kind of agreement. It boils down to the crutch of the situation, what's right and what's wrong. It's very obvious to me that the right thing is the logging of only caches that meet GC.com guidelines and that have been approved on this website. There would be no issue if we were all doing the right thing!

 

And yes, i know that Jeremy has said to log temp caches on an event page as a workaround for now. But i also know he thinks it is a silly (i think he may have used the other s word) practice and that something may be done if it gets abusive, which it appears is starting to happen.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm sure this has been suggested before, but it might be interesting to show both sets of stats in a profile:

 

Traditional ............. 212 (209)

Multicache .............. 19

Event ..................... 121 (4)

Total .................... 352 (242)

 

So this user logged finds on 212 caches, of which 209 were unique. The logged 121 finds on 4 unique caches.

 

I like this idea too. But the event pages are still cluttered with temp logs.

Event caches could be sub listings off of event pages. You read the logs on the sub listing. Not the event cache. No emails as a result. You would have to 'watch' the Event cache. Not that event caches need a full blown cache page (else you could just list them as regulare caches and log them normally).

 

Then your summary looks like above.

The event cache pages looks normal but has a link to "Event Caches" from there you can read logs.

[+TrailGators]

Some will also say that since we can change our ways to make viewing those pics easier (never mind the fact that we like to read REAL logs too), we should stop "crying" and just conform.

Suggestions were given to help you avoid unhappiness. If you choose to continue to make choices that make you unhappy, that unhappiness is caused by your decisions, not those decisions made by cachers who choose to log temporary event caches

That's just it,,, you're saying that now i need to choose differently. In this case, it's very obvious that the decision by others to log non GC.com approved temporary caches can have an effect on my choices.

 

We could go round and round on this and never come to any kind of agreement. It boils down to the crutch of the situation, what's right and what's wrong. It's very obvious to me that the right thing is the logging of only caches that meet GC.com guidelines and that have been approved on this website. There would be no issue if we were all doing the right thing!

 

And yes, i know that Jeremy has said to log temp caches on an event page as a workaround for now. But i also know he thinks it is a silly (i think he may have used the other s word) practice and that something may be done if it gets abusive, which it appears is starting to happen.

 

 

This is my understanding as well. Jeremy basically said "whatever floats your boat" because he has bigger fish to fry. I agree that this odd practice does impact others that play the game the traditional way. I also believe the majority of geocachers play the game the traditional way. So what will most likely happen is that these people will continue to push out the fence until the fish gets big enough to fry.

[+Parabola]

Can anyone tell me where to find Jeremy's comments on this subject?? Please. Maybe I can log my terracache finds too on GC.com??

[+sbell111]

Can anyone tell me where to find Jeremy's comments on this subject?? Please. Maybe I can log my terracache finds too on GC.com??

You can either do a search or look at where they were identified in the other thread.

Edited October 18, 2007 by sbell111

[+cache_test_dummies]

Can anyone tell me where to find Jeremy's comments on this subject??

Some of Jeremy's comments on this subject can be found in this thread.

[+Mudfrog]

Can anyone tell me where to find Jeremy's comments on this subject?? Please. Maybe I can log my terracache finds too on GC.com??

Did a quick search and found these replies that Jeremy had previously made in the forums...

 

Forum reply 1

 

Forum reply 2 Where he used the "s" word!

 

Forum reply 3

[+Renegade Knight]

Can anyone tell me where to find Jeremy's comments on this subject?? Please. Maybe I can log my terracache finds too on GC.com??

Did a quick search and found these replies that Jeremy had previously made in the forums...

 

Forum reply 1

 

Forum reply 2 Where he used the "s" word!

 

Forum reply 3

 

Sounds like the only option that could come of it is the one find per cache if things reach the point of abuse.

[+TrailGators]

Can anyone tell me where to find Jeremy's comments on this subject?? Please. Maybe I can log my terracache finds too on GC.com??

Did a quick search and found these replies that Jeremy had previously made in the forums...

 

Forum reply 1

 

Forum reply 2 Where he used the "s" word!

 

Forum reply 3

 

Sounds like the only option that could come of it is the one find per cache if things reach the point of abuse.

I think a lot of us traditionalists would agree with Jeremy on this point:

 

My reasoning (not argument) is that a cache listing is meant to be hidden for a certain timeframe that is far longer than the weekend or day of an event. The whole objective to listing caches on a web site is for others to go out and find them. Creating a small window of opportunity for a listing is counter to the entire intent of the web site.

 

Wanting to throw up a bunch of temporary caches so you can log them as a "find" is the height of selfishness, IMO. You are well aware that the "cache" is just a part of the event, like a three legged race.

I couldn't have said it better.

[Mushtang]

I can imagine what my have gone on at the Groundspeak headquarters morning meeting today.

 

Jeremy: ... so that's what we'll be doing about the new maps. Anything else going on?

Lackey: Well, there's a 4 page thread about multilogging caches in the web site forum you might want to comment in.

Jeremy: (rolls his eyes) Pass. Is there anything else important going on?

Lackey: The prototype for the new antennae balls came in and....

 

[+StarBrand]

......

My reasoning (not argument) is that a cache listing is meant to be hidden for a certain timeframe that is far longer than the weekend or day of an event. The whole objective to listing caches on a web site is for others to go out and find them. Creating a small window of opportunity for a listing is counter to the entire intent of the web site.

 

Wanting to throw up a bunch of temporary caches so you can log them as a "find" is the height of selfishness, IMO. You are well aware that the "cache" is just a part of the event, like a three legged race.

I couldn't have said it better.

Wow - well put. Thanks for the clarification jeremy.

[+sbell111]

......

My reasoning (not argument) is that a cache listing is meant to be hidden for a certain timeframe that is far longer than the weekend or day of an event. The whole objective to listing caches on a web site is for others to go out and find them. Creating a small window of opportunity for a listing is counter to the entire intent of the web site.

 

Wanting to throw up a bunch of temporary caches so you can log them as a "find" is the height of selfishness, IMO. You are well aware that the "cache" is just a part of the event, like a three legged race.

I couldn't have said it better.

Wow - well put. Thanks for the clarification jeremy.

Jeremy doesn't like P&G's, either.

[+TrailGators]

I can imagine what my have gone on at the Groundspeak headquarters morning meeting today.

 

Jeremy: ... so that's what we'll be doing about the new maps. Anything else going on?

Lackey: Well, there's a 4 page thread about multilogging caches in the web site forum you might want to comment in.

Jeremy: (rolls his eyes) Pass. Is there anything else important going on?

Lackey: The prototype for the new antennae balls came in and....

 

Well I guess Jeremy must have broken away from one of his meetings that day to write that. YA THINK?!

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I'm sure this has been suggested before, but it might be interesting to show both sets of stats in a profile:

 

Traditional ............. 212 (209)

Multicache .............. 19

Event ..................... 121 (4)

Total .................... 352 (242)

 

So this user logged finds on 212 caches, of which 209 were unique. The logged 121 finds on 4 unique caches.

 

I like this system too. Maybe to prevent spam, it can be combined with the earlier post which showed a picture of logging an event cache, that allowed you to check off how many temp caches you found at the event.

[Mushtang]

I can imagine what my have gone on at the Groundspeak headquarters morning meeting today.

 

Jeremy: ... so that's what we'll be doing about the new maps. Anything else going on?

Lackey: Well, there's a 4 page thread about multilogging caches in the web site forum you might want to comment in.

Jeremy: (rolls his eyes) Pass. Is there anything else important going on?

Lackey: The prototype for the new antennae balls came in and....

 

Well I guess Jeremy must have broken away from one of his meetings that day to write that. YA THINK?!

No. I actually wrote that as a joke. Did you see the laughing smiley below it?

[+TrailGators]

I'm sure this has been suggested before, but it might be interesting to show both sets of stats in a profile:

Traditional ............. 212 (209)

Multicache .............. 19

Event ..................... 121 (4)

Total .................... 352 (242)

So this user logged finds on 212 caches, of which 209 were unique. The logged 121 finds on 4 unique caches.

I like this system too. Maybe to prevent spam, it can be combined with the earlier post which showed a picture of logging an event cache, that allowed you to check off how many temp caches you found at the event.

This post by Jeremy makes it clear that he has no intentions of supporting this practice:

 

Temp caches aren't allowed on the site. And as I indicated in countless threads in the past, I think logging attended twice for an event is stupid, and posting additional logs to "match" whatever "count" you determined your numbers should be is equally stupid. However I have no plans to be the point police and create complicated rules for determining what counts as a find. That is up to the cache listing owner to decide.

 

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

But as I also said before, I don't lose sleep over it. I stand by my stance that there are no "points" for geocaching and no score to be kept. The site does not keep score but simply offers a history of your finds.

[+tozainamboku]

Isn't it great how each side can quote the gospel of Jeremy to prove their opinion is correct.

 

Lets look at this passage with commentary:

 

Temp caches aren't allowed on the site. And as I indicated in countless threads in the past, I think logging attended twice for an event is stupid, and posting additional logs to "match" whatever "count" you determined your numbers should be is equally stupid. However I have no plans to be the point police and create complicated rules for determining what counts as a find. That is up to the cache listing owner to decide.

 

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

But as I also said before, I don't lose sleep over it. I stand by my stance that there are no "points" for geocaching and no score to be kept. The site does not keep score but simply offers a history of your finds.

Jeremy 1:1 Temp caches aren't allowed on this site.

TPTB [The almighty's name is holy and should not be pronounced, hence the use of the Tetragrammaton] have decided that caches listed on Geocaching.com must meet the guideline of cache permanence.

 

Jeremy 1:2 And as I indicated in countless threads in the past, I think logging attended twice for an event is stupid, and posting additional logs to "match" whatever "count" you determined your numbers should be is equally stupid.

The almighty has expressed his disdain for those how use the attended log to make their find count match some number.

 

Jeremy 1:3 However I have no plans to be the point police and create complicated rules for determining what counts as a find.

The almighty does not wish to police how people behave. They can act stupidly if they desire. The almighty perhaps in his omniscience realized that he has little control over what people do. While TPTB could make changes to Geocaching.com to prevent multiple logs, the almighty feels this is not a good use of his time.

 

Jeremy 1:4 That is up to the cache listing owner to decide.

The almighty has given free will to the owners of cache listings. Perhaps he had hoped that owners would in their wisdom punish the stupid. But although he now knows that listing owners will allow stupid acts, he still allows free will.

 

Jeremy 1:5 However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites.

The almighty says that some practices might anger him to the point that he himself will punish the transgressors. He gives examples of fake logs to count finds of caches listed on the infidel sites. The almighty does not reveal the punishment. Fear ye that abuse this site.

 

Jeremy 1:6 Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

The almighty again states that he does not wish to be the point police. But he implies that being omnipotent he has the power to punish those who continue to abuse the site.

 

Jeremy 1:7 But as I also said before, I don't lose sleep over it.

TPTB never sleeps. Or more likely, the almighty does not feel this is as important an issue as some in the forums do.

 

Jeremy 1:8 I stand by my stance that there are no "points" for geocaching and no score to be kept.

The almighty rejects the idea that there is a points in geocaching. Those who add to their find count by logging temporary caches do not affect the find counts of others nor can they defeat those who log their finds honestly.

 

Jeremy 1:9 The site does not keep score but simply offers a history of your finds.

The almighty has given us a site where we may log what we find. The purpose is to keep our history of what we have found that is listed on this site. To use it for counting other things is not what the almighty intended. If you do use it as intended you will have an accurate history of your finds and those who abuse it will not have an accurate history.

 

Amen.

[+TrailGators]

Isn't it great how each side can quote the gospel of Jeremy to prove their opinion is correct.

First of all, your post mocks many people's religions that participate in these threads. So I'm sure that many wouldn't appreciate that. So please have some respect. Secondly, nobody was using Jeremy's quotes to prove anything. It is what it is. They are important to share because his opinion is what dictates what happens on his listing site. He thinks numbers padding is stupid and so do a lot of us. I'm sure he wishes it would go away and so do a lot of us. He said he will step in if it gets ridiculous and I'm glad to hear that he will. Edited October 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Parabola]

After reading the links put down, which thank you all that made them. I got to read and think about how he's looking at it. I would consider that logging temps would be abusing the site.

 

Now I think the thing to do is just have a little warning pop up when someone tries to log a found a second time, that read's YOU HAVE ALREADY FOUND THIS CACHE, WRITE NOTE INSTEAD.

 

 

I went and did a cache again today that I had done about a year ago. Why, just because I wanted to. Will I log a second find, No. I will post a note that I did this cache again, and thank the owner again.

 

I think this is how the site was intended to be used.

 

Unlike some I have lost sleep over this and this is my opnion and I guess I just don't give a rat's toe anymore.

 

I'm personally done with this thread as no good can come out of it, as I see now. No suggestions will be considered.

[+TrailGators]

After reading the links put down, which thank you all that made them. I got to read and think about how he's looking at it. I would consider that logging temps would be abusing the site.

 

Now I think the thing to do is just have a little warning pop up when someone tries to log a found a second time, that read's YOU HAVE ALREADY FOUND THIS CACHE, WRITE NOTE INSTEAD.

 

 

I went and did a cache again today that I had done about a year ago. Why, just because I wanted to. Will I log a second find, No. I will post a note that I did this cache again, and thank the owner again.

 

I think this is how the site was intended to be used.

 

Unlike some I have lost sleep over this and this is my opnion and I guess I just don't give a rat's toe anymore.

 

I'm personally done with this thread as no good can come out of it, as I see now. No suggestions will be considered.

 

Don't take it so hard. There are literally hundreds of ideas brought up in these threads that never get considered or so it seems. I thought a couple of good ones came up in this thread, so who knows.... Edited October 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

Isn't it great how each side can quote the gospel of Jeremy to prove their opinion is correct.

First of all, your post mocks many people's religions that participate in these threads. So I'm sure that many wouldn't appreciate that. So please have some respect.

Yeah, the only people allowed to mock things that other people enjoy are the anti LPC crowd, the anti multilogging crowd, and the anti-ALR crowd. Everyone else here shows respect (except maybe those that post Star Wars pictures instead of logical replies, but those don't really count because those people are just joking. Unlike Mr T.) Shame on Mr. T.

 

Secondly, nobody was using Jeremy's quotes to prove anything.

Sure they were. I'll give you three recent examples:

 

It is what it is. They are important to share because his opinion is what dictates what happens on his listing site. He thinks numbers padding is stupid and so do a lot of us. I'm sure he wishes it would go away and so do a lot of us. He said he will step in if it gets ridiculous and I'm glad to hear that he will.

The person that wrote this was using Jeremy's words to back up their point of view, were they not?

 

Classic!

[+TrailGators]

Isn't it great how each side can quote the gospel of Jeremy to prove their opinion is correct.

First of all, your post mocks many people's religions that participate in these threads. So I'm sure that many wouldn't appreciate that. So please have some respect.

Yeah, the only people allowed to mock things that other people enjoy are the anti LPC crowd, the anti multilogging crowd, and the anti-ALR crowd.

Mocking someone's religion is slightly different than joking around about tupperware. Anyhow, I'm sure that Toz didn't mean anything by it, so let's move on....

 

Back on topic: Do you have anything to say regards to TPTB's comments?

Edited October 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

... I'm personally done with this thread as no good can come out of it, as I see now. No suggestions will be considered.

Can this thread be put out of it's misery?

• The OP has officially abandoned it.
  
• It has wandered far from topic.
  
• Mudfrog was kind enough to link to a quote from Jeremy which specifically denies the idea that the OP suggested.
  

[Mushtang]

Mocking someone's religion is slightly different than joking around about tupperware.

Only for those that are religious.

 

Anyhow, I'm sure that Toz didn't mean anything by it, so let's move on....

As sure as you were when you were chastising him for saying it a couple of posts back? Oh wait, you can comment on what he says, but when someone comments on what you say then it's "let's move on". I see. Well, then lets move on.

 

Back on topic: Do you have anything to say regards to TPTB's comments?

Yup. It sounds like he's not interested in forcing people to play the game and be the point police. Jeremy has clearly left it up to the event owners to decide how they want their own caches handled. Those quotes are two years old and every time this debate comes up they get quoted again, and he apparently hasn't changed his mind.

[+Team Cotati]

The people logging events 100 times are having fun and not hurting anyone, so why take that fun away from them?

 

I have fun bouncing a basketball. From now on I think I'll log every bounce on GC.com

Just think, the possibilities are endless. I can pass CCCA in no time. And because it's fun and I'm not hurting anyone, it can't be wrong.

 

Beautiful.

[+sbell111]

<snip>

Edited October 19, 2007 by sbell111

[+Parabola]

One last thought, I wonder what the powers offical deftition of "abuse" is. I looked up the event that all the quotes are coming from, and I can't even tell how many attented it. There is over 2000 attented logs. It kind of hard to see how the event went, if people enjoyed it, if anything silly happened. I for one like to read logs. I like to see if something funny happened or just plain old see if they enjoyed the cache or the events.

 

Quit editing posts. It's getting very annoying and that's the reason this thread is so hard to follow. Just because I have given up on this subject doesn't mean other have to. THis tread should remain open so people can throw out ideas on how temps could be handled.

 

I don't understand why someone just can't be happy with typing out a log that say I was able to find 30 out of 32 of the fun temps placed for this event. Then event's would be so much easier to look at and see how it went. Then they wouldn't have to keep doing find logs over and over and over........

 

I thought the first couple of ideas were great. A little box where someone could enter the number of temps they found. Make them count as a number or don't, I don't care. This would clean up the pages.

 

Also as far as archived events. Some of us look them up to see if someone had a fun idea for something to do. Things that went over really well, or things that didn't.

 

Now where did that basket ball go...

[+TrailGators]

One last thought, I wonder what the powers offical deftition of "abuse" is. I looked up the event that all the quotes are coming from, and I can't even tell how many attented it. There is over 2000 attented logs. It kind of hard to see how the event went, if people enjoyed it, if anything silly happened. I for one like to read logs. I like to see if something funny happened or just plain old see if they enjoyed the cache or the events

I couldn't agree. IMHO 2000 attended logs is abuse.

 

This tread should remain open so people can throw out ideas on how temps could be handled.

It's your decision since you are the OP. I think all we can do right now is to boycott the practice and to report the abuses to make TPTB aware of them.

 

I don't understand why someone just can't be happy with typing out a log that say I was able to find 30 out of 32 of the fun temps placed for this event. Then event's would be so much easier to look at and see how it went. Then they wouldn't have to keep doing find logs over and over and over........

I don't understand it either. Edited October 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

One last thought, I wonder what the powers offical deftition of "abuse" is. I looked up the event that all the quotes are coming from, and I can't even tell how many attented it. There is over 2000 attented logs. It kind of hard to see how the event went, if people enjoyed it, if anything silly happened. I for one like to read logs. I like to see if something funny happened or just plain old see if they enjoyed the cache or the events. ...

... I think all we can do right now is to boycott the practice and to report the abuses to make TPTB aware of them.

The referenced event happened two and a half years ago. If TPTB didn't find the practice abusive then, why would they find it abusive now? Edited October 19, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

One last thought, I wonder what the powers offical deftition of "abuse" is. I looked up the event that all the quotes are coming from, and I can't even tell how many attented it. There is over 2000 attented logs. It kind of hard to see how the event went, if people enjoyed it, if anything silly happened. I for one like to read logs. I like to see if something funny happened or just plain old see if they enjoyed the cache or the events. ...

... I think all we can do right now is to boycott the practice and to report the abuses to make TPTB aware of them.

The referenced event happened two and a half years ago. If TPTB didn't find the practice abusive then, why would they find it abusive now?

Because the quanitity of temp caches been logged at these temp cache events has continued to increase....

[+sbell111]

One last thought, I wonder what the powers offical deftition of "abuse" is. I looked up the event that all the quotes are coming from, and I can't even tell how many attented it. There is over 2000 attented logs. It kind of hard to see how the event went, if people enjoyed it, if anything silly happened. I for one like to read logs. I like to see if something funny happened or just plain old see if they enjoyed the cache or the events. ...

... I think all we can do right now is to boycott the practice and to report the abuses to make TPTB aware of them.

The referenced event happened two and a half years ago. If TPTB didn't find the practice abusive then, why would they find it abusive now?

Because the quanitity of temp caches been logged at these temp cache events has continued to increase....

I haven't seen any evidence that this is true, on average.

[+TrailGators]

One last thought, I wonder what the powers offical deftition of "abuse" is. I looked up the event that all the quotes are coming from, and I can't even tell how many attented it. There is over 2000 attented logs. It kind of hard to see how the event went, if people enjoyed it, if anything silly happened. I for one like to read logs. I like to see if something funny happened or just plain old see if they enjoyed the cache or the events. ...

... I think all we can do right now is to boycott the practice and to report the abuses to make TPTB aware of them.

The referenced event happened two and a half years ago. If TPTB didn't find the practice abusive then, why would they find it abusive now?

Because the quanitity of temp caches been logged at these temp cache events has continued to increase....

I haven't seen any evidence that this is true, on average.

Then maybe some people post could post the GC numbers of some non-mega events that have huge amounts of attended logs due to temp cache logging. Edited October 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

One last thought, I wonder what the powers offical deftition of "abuse" is. I looked up the event that all the quotes are coming from, and I can't even tell how many attented it. There is over 2000 attented logs. It kind of hard to see how the event went, if people enjoyed it, if anything silly happened. I for one like to read logs. I like to see if something funny happened or just plain old see if they enjoyed the cache or the events. ...

... I think all we can do right now is to boycott the practice and to report the abuses to make TPTB aware of them.

The referenced event happened two and a half years ago. If TPTB didn't find the practice abusive then, why would they find it abusive now?

Because the quanitity of temp caches been logged at these temp cache events has continued to increase....

I haven't seen any evidence that this is true, on average.

Then maybe some people post could post the GC numbers of some non-mega events that have huge amounts of attended logs due to temp cache logging.

... and someone else could post examples of events with few temporary event caches or few attendees.

 

Citing a few events does nothing to support your position.

[+TrailGators]

One last thought, I wonder what the powers offical deftition of "abuse" is. I looked up the event that all the quotes are coming from, and I can't even tell how many attented it. There is over 2000 attented logs. It kind of hard to see how the event went, if people enjoyed it, if anything silly happened. I for one like to read logs. I like to see if something funny happened or just plain old see if they enjoyed the cache or the events. ...

... I think all we can do right now is to boycott the practice and to report the abuses to make TPTB aware of them.

The referenced event happened two and a half years ago. If TPTB didn't find the practice abusive then, why would they find it abusive now?

Because the quanitity of temp caches been logged at these temp cache events has continued to increase....

I haven't seen any evidence that this is true, on average.

Then maybe some people post could post the GC numbers of some non-mega events that have huge amounts of attended logs due to temp cache logging.

... and someone else could post examples of events with few temporary event caches or few attendees.

 

Citing a few events does nothing to support your position.

Rather than going back-and-forth 10 times....What would you think would support my position that temp caches are being abused in some areas? My thought was that posting examples of these events where temp caches are being abused would be the best approach. If I remember correctly, it only took a few abusive events to kill pocket caches.... Edited October 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

One last thought, I wonder what the powers offical deftition of "abuse" is. I looked up the event that all the quotes are coming from, and I can't even tell how many attented it. There is over 2000 attented logs. It kind of hard to see how the event went, if people enjoyed it, if anything silly happened. I for one like to read logs. I like to see if something funny happened or just plain old see if they enjoyed the cache or the events. ...

... I think all we can do right now is to boycott the practice and to report the abuses to make TPTB aware of them.

The referenced event happened two and a half years ago. If TPTB didn't find the practice abusive then, why would they find it abusive now?

Because the quanitity of temp caches been logged at these temp cache events has continued to increase....

I haven't seen any evidence that this is true, on average.

Then maybe some people post could post the GC numbers of some non-mega events that have huge amounts of attended logs due to temp cache logging.

... and someone else could post examples of events with few temporary event caches or few attendees.

 

Citing a few events does nothing to support your position.

Rather than going back-and-forth 10 times....What would you think would support my position that temp caches are being abused in some areas? My thought was that posting examples of these events where temp caches are being abused would be the best approach. If I remember correctly, it only took a few abusive events to kill pocket caches....

No, actually at first you were saying that the abuse was increasing, and therefore you asked folks to post links to events. Then you changed your position to get out from under Sbell's point. Your defense against Sbell's claim is to change your position.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that there are a lot of events where people multilog their Attended logs to account for the additional temp caches they found. Sbell's point was that this has been going on as far back as the quotes from Jeremy, and nothing has been done to put a stop to it yet, and that he has seen nothing to indicate that the practice is increasing on average. There may actually be a way to show this, but linking some event caches that have been multilogged a lot isn't going to show your original position to be true.

[+TrailGators]

One last thought, I wonder what the powers offical deftition of "abuse" is. I looked up the event that all the quotes are coming from, and I can't even tell how many attented it. There is over 2000 attented logs. It kind of hard to see how the event went, if people enjoyed it, if anything silly happened. I for one like to read logs. I like to see if something funny happened or just plain old see if they enjoyed the cache or the events. ...

... I think all we can do right now is to boycott the practice and to report the abuses to make TPTB aware of them.

The referenced event happened two and a half years ago. If TPTB didn't find the practice abusive then, why would they find it abusive now?

Because the quanitity of temp caches been logged at these temp cache events has continued to increase....

I haven't seen any evidence that this is true, on average.

Then maybe some people post could post the GC numbers of some non-mega events that have huge amounts of attended logs due to temp cache logging.

... and someone else could post examples of events with few temporary event caches or few attendees.

 

Citing a few events does nothing to support your position.

Rather than going back-and-forth 10 times....What would you think would support my position that temp caches are being abused in some areas? My thought was that posting examples of these events where temp caches are being abused would be the best approach. If I remember correctly, it only took a few abusive events to kill pocket caches....

No, actually at first you were saying that the abuse was increasing, and therefore you asked folks to post links to events. Then you changed your position to get out from under Sbell's point. Your defense against Sbell's claim is to change your position.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that there are a lot of events where people multilog their Attended logs to account for the additional temp caches they found. Sbell's point was that this has been going on as far back as the quotes from Jeremy, and nothing has been done to put a stop to it yet, and that he has seen nothing to indicate that the practice is increasing on average. There may actually be a way to show this, but linking some event caches that have been multilogged a lot isn't going to show your original position to be true.

First of all please no more bickering. I am tired of it. Secondly, I have the right to change my opinion based on new thoughts or inputs. It's called having an open mind. At any rate, I haven't really changed my feeling that this issue is growing. But it would make sense to back up my hunch with more data. So an easy way to prove/disprove this would be to look at which (non-mega) events have the records for the most logs, but I'm not sure how to get this data. If you could see that data you could look at the event dates to see how many were more recent. Edited October 20, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Driver Carries Cache]

I would also like to suggest a Found log it once and only once on all caches. Can it be made that if someone has logged a find they can't be able to log it again. When I was first starting out I double logged 5 caches, and never relized it until 700 caches later. I went all the way through all my finds and found out which ones and deleted the second found log. Can it be made so that if someone goes to log a find on a cache they have found it give them a block and say you have already found this cache.

 

It would be neat if a member could select an option to block themselves from logging multiple times, which would help folks that don't want to multilog from making a mistake. I don't, however, think you should make it so nobody could ever log a cache more than once.

 

The people logging events 100 times are having fun and not hurting anyone, so why take that fun away from them?

 

It's fun to blow things up too... doesn't make it OK. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

 

DCC

[4wheelin_fool]

Multilogging has been going on for awhile

I doubt that they can change things (like limiting find counts) at this point with so many people doing it purposely at events. Just let it go.

[+Parabola]

Please close this. Thanks for all the info. I did get one great thing from this. I learned how to naviagate throught the forums. Thanks for sharing your opnions.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Multilogging has been going on for awhile

I doubt that they can change things (like limiting find counts) at this point with so many people doing it purposely at events. Just let it go.

 

Yep, and as soon as they realized their mistake, they asked for a change in their stats. It just shows that, even way back then, they wanted to have a true find count.

[Mushtang]

The people logging events 100 times are having fun and not hurting anyone, so why take that fun away from them?

It's fun to blow things up too... doesn't make it OK. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

 

DCC

Yeah, nobody has EVER gotten hurt, or hurt someone else, by blowing things up.

 

I love all these comeback arguments to the statement that I made above and on several other occasions. "If it's okay to do that just because it's not hurting anyone then it should also be okay to (log basketballs, blow stuff up, etc.)"

 

If I'm advocating one thing that people enjoy as being okay, doesn't mean that I think everything else that people enjoy is okay too. The logic doesn't work that way.

 

Multilogging event caches may or may not be okay with TPTB, but they appear to be allowing it.

Multilogging event caches may or may not be something you want to participate in.

Multilogging event caches is definitely something that a LOT of other cacher DO enjoy. Apparently they enjoy it a lot.

 

How is it hurting you in any way?

How will your experience as a cacher be improved so much, that you're willing to remove the enjoyment of all those other people, by campaigning to have this removed from the web site?

[Mushtang]

Multilogging has been going on for awhile

I doubt that they can change things (like limiting find counts) at this point with so many people doing it purposely at events. Just let it go.

 

Yep, and as soon as they realized their mistake, they asked for a change in their stats. It just shows that, even way back then, they wanted to have a true find count.

True, and all those people logged one extra find on accident. The point of this topic is people who log multiple times (2, 20, 50, 100, etc) on purpose, for temp caches found at events.

 

Big difference there don't you think?

[+Rockin Roddy]

No big difference to me, they saw they were doing something percieved wrong and wanted to have it fixed right away. The point of my reply was that even then, people realized their true count was important. Those that would log multiple times seem to feel "hey, it's my count who cares"? Well, apparently MANY care.

 

Multilogging event caches is definitely something that a LOT of other cacher DO enjoy. Apparently they enjoy it a lot.

 

Yep ALOT! That's the problem! I believe the key is what is abuse. ALOT seems like abuse to me. Just because people enjoy it doesn't make it right, so that argument isn't carrying much weight in my book.

 

Again, several real reasons that multilogging does affect others have been given, but the only real reason given to defend this practice seems to be "because they enjoy it"...and??

[Moun10Bike]

Closing topic at OP's request.