Temp caches

[+TrailGators]

These are some of the problems that lead to bickering, which is what the OP was trying to stop.

Guess he wasn't successful

He could still be....

[+cache_test_dummies]

I would like to see it, where if a logged find is made then if someone goes to log a find a second time it gives them a screen that says you have already logged a find. I would like to see Groundspeak close the loop hole for logging caches more than once.

Why?

 

Earlier in this thread I asked a question you may have missed, so I'll ask it again.

 

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

 

If the event holder doesn't want them logged and won't allow them then people are just finding a near by cache or putting out a cache just to log them. The logs on the temps are a joke. found temp#1, found temp #2. Nobody can seem to put more though into their logs. Which I see as dissapointing. I try to give a good log every cache. If someone is taking the time to place and mantain a cache then I at least owe them a good log.

Are these 'nearby caches for logging temporary caches' real, or hypothetical? If real, can someone provide a link or two? Depending on how it was set up, it would seem to me that such a cache would look an awful lot like a cache with an agenda. And agenda caches typically don't get listed.

[+sbell111]

I don't know about you but Mushtang thinks that people should be allow anything including how many times someone bounced a basketball:

If you log every bounce of your basketball on a cache are you really hurting anyone? Knock yourself out.

Ummm, didn't you toss out the silly basketball scenario? Just because he bit at your straw man doesn't mean that the rest of us are going to buy your follow-up on it.

What he doesn't realize is that the spam this creates does adversely impact people.

What spam? Spam is unsolicited email. If a person holds an event that allows temporary cache logging, he is requesting the emails. If a person watches that event page, he is also requesting the email. There is no spam.

So do cluttered up event pages.

How do cluttered event pages affect anyone? They don't.

So could caches that are never reviewed.

That is quite unlikely. Given their temporary nature, they create no more issue than any activities taken by any events put on by any group.

 

Just so there is no confusion, I don't believe that the current system is 'broken'. Therefore, I don't believe that a 'solution', is in order.

Edited October 16, 2007 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

I don't know about you but Mushtang thinks that people should be allow anything including how many times someone bounced a basketball:

If you log every bounce of your basketball on a cache are you really hurting anyone? Knock yourself out.

What he doesn't realize is that the spam this creates does adversely impact people. So do cluttered up event pages. So could caches that are never reviewed. These are some of the problems that lead to bickering, which is what the OP was trying to stop.

Why don't you quote the entire section of what I said instead of deleting words?

 

Until then you're just a Troll, and I'm not going to reply the way you're hoping. Sorry to disappoint.

[+TrailGators]

I admit that I left out the "rat's butt" part because I didn't think it was relevant....

 

I, for one, wouldn't give a rats butt because your numbers truly don't matter to me.

By the way, the topic is about discussing ideas to reduce bickering with temp caches. Do you have an idea?

Edited October 16, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

I don't know about you but Mushtang thinks that people should be allow anything including how many times someone bounced a basketball:

If you log every bounce of your basketball on a cache are you really hurting anyone? Knock yourself out.

Ummm, didn't you toss out the silly basketball scenario? Just because he bit at your straw man doesn't mean that the rest of us are going to buy your follow-up on it.

What he doesn't realize is that the spam this creates does adversely impact people.

What spam? Spam is unsolicited email. If a person holds an event that allows temporary cache logging, he is requesting the emails. If a person watches that event page, he is also requesting the email. There is no spam.

So do cluttered up event pages.

How do cluttered event pages affect anyone? They don't.

So could caches that are never reviewed.

That is quite unlikely. Given their temporary nature, they create no more issue than any activities taken by any events put on by any group.

 

Just so there is no confusion, I don't believe that the current system is 'broken'. Therefore, I don't believe that a 'solution', is in order.

 

1) It wasn't my basketball scenario. It was a reductio ad absurdum that CR brought up that I laughed at. Then Mushtang topped it off by admitting that it would be OK with him. You have to admit that is pretty funny!

 

2) 15,000 emails getting send out to everyone on the watchlist of one event is spam. It also could cause ISPs to block mail from Groundspeak. People in those areas must now remove events from their watchlists.

 

3) As far as event page clutter this was the most obvious adverse effect. Try reading through the logs/photos of any event with thousands of temp logs. Instead of reading a nice journal of everyone's fun at the event, you get to muddle through thousands of temp logs. I would hate to live in those areas. A lot of people enjoy reading the event pages and you just created a mess. Why not let them just fill in a box as to how many temp caches they allegedly found? That is a good solution.

[+sbell111]

1) It wasn't my basketball scenario. It was a reductio ad absurdum that CR brought up that I laughed at. Then Mushtang topped it off by admitting that it would be OK with him. You have to admit that is pretty funny!

It wasn't funny. It was an off topic argument intended to be shot down instead of Mushtang's actual position. It was unnecessary, unfounded, and probably contrary to forum guidelines. I apologize for saying the you launched it, instead of CR.

 

BTW, reducto ad absurdum arguments use a 'correct' reduction. CR's error was that his reduction did not tie into the game, where temporary event caches clearly do (as exampled in the other thread). Since it was not use an appropriate reduction, it was clearly a straw man. CR deliberately overstated Mushtang's position. Mushtang basically said 'who cares'. You then attributed CR's argument to Mushtang and then attacked him for CR's illogical position

2) 15,000 emails getting send out to everyone on the watchlist of one event is spam. It also could cause ISPs to block mail from Groundspeak. People in those areas must now remove events from their watchlists.

Please link to the event that you are referring to. I have never seen an event with enough temporary caches to result in 15,000 ancillary emails.

3) As far as event page clutter this was the most obvious adverse effect. Try reading through the logs/photos of any event with thousands of temp logs. Instead of reading a nice journal of everyone's fun at the event, you get to muddle through thousands of temp logs. I would hate to live in those areas. A lot of people enjoy reading the event pages and you just created a mess. Why not let them just fill in a box as to how many temp caches they allegedly found? That is a good solution.

Why not just stop reading the logs for events that you wouldn't enjoy? Edited October 16, 2007 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

1) It wasn't my basketball scenario. It was a reductio ad absurdum that CR brought up that I laughed at. Then Mushtang topped it off by admitting that it would be OK with him. You have to admit that is pretty funny!

CR makes the claim that he'll log basketball bounces, and you don't jump on him for that.

 

But I mention that if he did it then it wouldn't bother me because his numbers aren't important to me. At this point you jump on my comment (which you edited before quoting) and try to make it sound like I'm FOR people logging basketball bounces.

 

So, who's the one being absurdum?

 

Edited October 16, 2007 by Mushtang

[+TrailGators]

1) It wasn't my basketball scenario. It was a reductio ad absurdum that CR brought up that I laughed at. Then Mushtang topped it off by admitting that it would be OK with him. You have to admit that is pretty funny!

CR makes the claim that he'll log basketball bounces, and you don't jump on him for that.

CR was joking. You didn't get the joke....

 

Anyhow, just drop it and back on topic.

Edited October 16, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

1) It wasn't my basketball scenario. It was a reductio ad absurdum that CR brought up that I laughed at. Then Mushtang topped it off by admitting that it would be OK with him. You have to admit that is pretty funny!

CR makes the claim that he'll log basketball bounces, and you don't jump on him for that.

CR was joking. You didn't get the joke....

 

Anyhow, just drop it and back on topic.

If CR was joking (which I seriously doubt) and you recognized it as a joke, why did you jump on Mushtang?

 

Perhaps you and CR should stick to topic.

[+Michael]

Once again we are back to those that cant communicate without bickering running the thread. Get it back on topic or the mods can take care of that part. Take all the bickering to PMs or emails. Please.

[Mushtang]

So as I was saying... if someone wants to hold an event, and they want to allow multiple logs and this bothers you, why do you think you need to get the site to change the rules so they can't have their fun anymore? It's similar to me saying that I don't like caches that are hidden underwater because I don't scuba dive and therefore I want the site to refuse to list caches that are underwater.

 

Should it matter that a LOT of people have a LOT of fun going after the scuba caches? It bothers ME so therefore they shouldn't be allowed on this site.

 

Instead, why not embrace the fact that different people like different things, and be happy with the caches you enjoy and let others enjoy the ones that they like?

Edited October 16, 2007 by Mushtang

[+Mudfrog]

So as I was saying... if someone wants to hold an event, and they want to allow multiple logs and this bothers you, why do you think you need to get the site to change the rules so they can't have their fun anymore? It's similar to me saying that I don't like caches that are hidden underwater because I don't scuba dive and therefore I want the site to refuse to list caches that are underwater.

 

Should it matter that a LOT of people have a LOT of fun going after the scuba caches? It bothers ME so therefore they shouldn't be allowed on this site.

 

Instead, why not embrace the fact that different people like different things, and be happy with the caches you enjoy and let others enjoy the ones that they like?

That scuba cache was reviewed and approved for use on this website. It is therefore, a perfectly legitmate cache to log a find on. Temporary caches do NOT meet GC.com guidelines and they do NOT get listed on the website. It's beyond me why it's so hard for some to figure out why they shouldn't be logged here.

 

The simple solution would be to have a 1 find per GC# (except for granfathered moving, etc, caches). Smilie fanatics might turn their smile upside down at first but they would certainly get over it. There's no doubt in my mind that this would soon be forgotten and that this aspect of geocaching would be more angst free..

 

BTW, please don't come back with the lame "how does it affect you", "it's not hurting anybody" reply. This being done in Wisconsin or Iowa may not hurt or affect me personally, but it still doesn't make it right!

[+sbell111]

So as I was saying... if someone wants to hold an event, and they want to allow multiple logs and this bothers you, why do you think you need to get the site to change the rules so they can't have their fun anymore? It's similar to me saying that I don't like caches that are hidden underwater because I don't scuba dive and therefore I want the site to refuse to list caches that are underwater.

 

Should it matter that a LOT of people have a LOT of fun going after the scuba caches? It bothers ME so therefore they shouldn't be allowed on this site.

 

Instead, why not embrace the fact that different people like different things, and be happy with the caches you enjoy and let others enjoy the ones that they like?

That scuba cache was reviewed and approved for use on this website. It is therefore, a perfectly legitmate cache to log a find on. Temporary caches do NOT meet GC.com guidelines and they do NOT get listed on the website. It's beyond me why it's so hard for some to figure out why they shouldn't be logged here.

You might be forgetting that logging the temporary caches to the event page was also recommended and supported by TPTB.

The simple solution would be to have a 1 find per GC# (except for granfathered moving, etc, caches). Smilie fanatics might turn their smile upside down at first but they would certainly get over it. There's no doubt in my mind that this would soon be forgotten and that this aspect of geocaching would be more angst free..

Again, the solution given to event owners when the site decided not to list temporary caches allows for more than one find per cache for these, also. I don't see why these shouldn't be included in your list of exceptions.

BTW, please don't come back with the lame "how does it affect you", "it's not hurting anybody" reply. This being done in Wisconsin or Iowa may not hurt or affect me personally, but it still doesn't make it right!

It doesn't make it wrong, either.

[+the pooks]

It's human nature - people group together and the they start laying down rules to make things more predictable and work more smoothly. This multi logging at events has been going around for a long time (which indicates that it is a hotly contested issue). My gut feel is that the topic is scouting around the fringes of what is considered acceptable - which is fine, but it still remains on the fringe. No problem with fringe, except trying to make it mainstream will be an uphill battle.

 

There is something frustrating and satisfying being part of the human race - the frustrating part is that that other people can have a say about what is acceptable, the satisfying part is that you can belong...

[Mushtang]

So as I was saying... if someone wants to hold an event, and they want to allow multiple logs and this bothers you, why do you think you need to get the site to change the rules so they can't have their fun anymore? It's similar to me saying that I don't like caches that are hidden underwater because I don't scuba dive and therefore I want the site to refuse to list caches that are underwater.

 

Should it matter that a LOT of people have a LOT of fun going after the scuba caches? It bothers ME so therefore they shouldn't be allowed on this site.

 

Instead, why not embrace the fact that different people like different things, and be happy with the caches you enjoy and let others enjoy the ones that they like?

That scuba cache was reviewed and approved for use on this website. It is therefore, a perfectly legitmate cache to log a find on. Temporary caches do NOT meet GC.com guidelines and they do NOT get listed on the website. It's beyond me why it's so hard for some to figure out why they shouldn't be logged here.

 

The simple solution would be to have a 1 find per GC# (except for granfathered moving, etc, caches). Smilie fanatics might turn their smile upside down at first but they would certainly get over it. There's no doubt in my mind that this would soon be forgotten and that this aspect of geocaching would be more angst free..

 

BTW, please don't come back with the lame "how does it affect you", "it's not hurting anybody" reply. This being done in Wisconsin or Iowa may not hurt or affect me personally, but it still doesn't make it right!

Okay, if you're going to be so literal and pick about the example instead of focusing on the point, I'll try again with an example of something that might be closer. But when you read this one, don't think of reasons why this example could never happen and end up missing the point I'm trying to make.

 

What about the FTF race? I think a huge number of people love to be FTF and go around boasting about how many FTFs they have. There are sometimes heated arguments about what is really the FTF and what is cheating to get it. There are threads in here about it almost as much as there are threads about multilogging.

 

The gc.com guidelines do not say anything about how to define one. The web site does not endorse FTFs, competitions for FTFs, etc. It's beyond me why someone would want to keep up with FTFs on caches they find here.

 

The simple solution would be to remove all references to FTFs from cache pages, not allow people to keep up with FTFs on their profiles, and they should do all this because I don't like FTFs. It doesn't matter that other people really enjoy them.

 

Of course I'm not serious about that, I'm only trying to make a point. That's pretty much what I'm hearing when people talk about eliminating the possibility of multilogging event caches where the owner approves and the attendees enjoy doing it.

[+TrailGators]

It's human nature - people group together and the they start laying down rules to make things more predictable and work more smoothly. This multi logging at events has been going around for a long time (which indicates that it is a hotly contested issue). My gut feel is that the topic is scouting around the fringes of what is considered acceptable - which is fine, but it still remains on the fringe. No problem with fringe, except trying to make it mainstream will be an uphill battle.

 

There is something frustrating and satisfying being part of the human race - the frustrating part is that that other people can have a say about what is acceptable, the satisfying part is that you can belong...

This is very true. The multi-logging thing has been around a long. However, today people are not just logging a "couple." They are logging hundreds. It has progressed to the point that the purpose of these events seems to be logging temp caches. In a previous thread, one of these people had scheduled to attend 36 events which would give them another 1800 temp caches. So the fence is being pushed out. The adverse effects which I have brought up already, are that if this starts to happen at your local events, you will not be able to read through everyone's event logs without having to page past hundreds of temp log entries. This is needless clutter to me. The temp cache "world record" was posted on another thread was 80+ people each logging 160 temp caches. This generated ~15,000 emails and pushed the temp cache fence to a new limit. Anyone that had that event on their watchlist would have received 15,000 unwanted emails (spam). So now these people in those areas can no longer watch their events because of the spam. It seems clear that people are going to keep pushing the fence out. That is why having a box to fill in the number of temp caches solves the spam and the clutter issues. People can fill in 15 million temp caches for all I care. Just don't mess up good cache pages or send us spam in the quest for their numbers!

[+Prime Suspect]

Temp caches, A idea to end all the bickering.

[+tozainamboku]

Okay, if you're going to be so literal and pick about the example instead of focusing on the point, I'll try again with an example of something that might be closer. But when you read this one, don't think of reasons why this example could never happen and end up missing the point I'm trying to make.

Boy everyone is missing the point by using bad analogies. Basketball, Scuba caches, FTF. What do any of these have to do with logging extra attended events to count temporary caches?

 

Guess what? I started an Ice Cream website. People are invited to list there favorite ice cream flavor. Anyone can post a log "I liked this flavor" or "I didn't like this flavor". If you didn't taste the flavor you could write a note instead of posting a Liked or Didn't Like log.

 

Someone decided to list their favorite flavor as rainbow sherbet. This won't do. It's my site and I decided it's an ice cream site not a frozen dessert site. No sherbet here. I have reviewers that will review your listing to make sure only ice cream flavors are listed.

 

The ice cream lovers decided to have ice cream socials where people could come and taste different ice creams. I decided that they could list ice cream socials on the site and people could log the flavors of ice cream they tasted at the social. Some people would serve sherbet or frozen yogurt at the social. That's fine with me; I'm not going to make rules about what you can serve at the social besides ice cream. Some people who attended these socials would log whether or not they liked the flavors of sherbet or frozen yogurt they tasted at the event. They even logged whether or not they liked the cake or the sandwiches that were served. I was outraged. This is and ice cream site, if you want to log sherbet or frozen yogurt or cake or sandwiches, start your own site. Try as I might I couldn't come up with a way to allow people to log ice cream they liked at a social and keep them from logging other things. Of course someone suggested that you shouldn't log ice cream at all on the social page. Instead you should find the page for each flavor and log it there. I didn't pay much attention to that because I just tasted some delicious raspberry sherbet that I really liked and was looking for someplace to tell people about it.

[+TrailGators]

Guess what? I started an Ice Cream website. People are invited to list there favorite ice cream flavor. Anyone can post a log "I liked this flavor" or "I didn't like this flavor". If you didn't taste the flavor you could write a note instead of posting a Liked or Didn't Like log.

 

Someone decided to list their favorite flavor as rainbow sherbet. This won't do. It's my site and I decided it's an ice cream site not a frozen dessert site. No sherbet here. I have reviewers that will review your listing to make sure only ice cream flavors are listed.

 

The ice cream lovers decided to have ice cream socials where people could come and taste different ice creams. I decided that they could list ice cream socials on the site and people could log the flavors of ice cream they tasted at the social. Some people would serve sherbet or frozen yogurt at the social. That's fine with me; I'm not going to make rules about what you can serve at the social besides ice cream. Some people who attended these socials would log whether or not they liked the flavors of sherbet or frozen yogurt they tasted at the event. They even logged whether or not they liked the cake or the sandwiches that were served. I was outraged. This is and ice cream site, if you want to log sherbet or frozen yogurt or cake or sandwiches, start your own site. Try as I might I couldn't come up with a way to allow people to log ice cream they liked at a social and keep them from logging other things. Of course someone suggested that you shouldn't log ice cream at all on the social page. Instead you should find the page for each flavor and log it there. I didn't pay much attention to that because I just tasted some delicious raspberry sherbet that I really liked and was looking for someplace to tell people about it.

Hey Toz, I just got over 15,000 spam emails from a bunch of people that just ate over 5000 gallons of ice milk at your ice cream social!

[+Renegade Knight]

...That scuba cache was reviewed and approved for use on this website. It is therefore, a perfectly legitmate cache to log a find on. Temporary caches do NOT meet GC.com guidelines and they do NOT get listed on the website. It's beyond me why it's so hard for some to figure out why they shouldn't be logged here.

 

The simple solution would be to have a 1 find per GC# (except for granfathered moving, etc, caches). Smilie fanatics might turn their smile upside down at first but they would certainly get over it. There's no doubt in my mind that this would soon be forgotten and that this aspect of geocaching would be more angst free..

 

BTW, please don't come back with the lame "how does it affect you", "it's not hurting anybody" reply. This being done in Wisconsin or Iowa may not hurt or affect me personally, but it still doesn't make it right!

 

Nice post. One more how it hurts folks for the pile, All those logs on cache that are not GC.com caches help suck up the limited bandwidth this site has and gives me errors when I actually try to log a cache actually listed on this site. Before some say "I'd hardly notice the bandwidth.." hardly does not mean ZERO impact. When the bandwidth is all roses on this site the point can be dropped and we can get back to the simple fact that Mudfrong pointed out. Those are not caches listed on this site. Log them on the site they are listed on. One find per cache works for me.

[+StarBrand]

..............

If they want to "record" temp caches - have the host set the total number available on the listing page and when folks log an attended log - they can select a little spin contol to indicate the number of temps they found out of the possible number. Still just one smilie and one log generated.

 

Might add the cute little icon from above to the stats but the total count should not include them.

 

 

Just thought I would throw out the actual proposal here to see it would work for both sides.......

 

[4wheelin_fool]

..............

If they want to "record" temp caches - have the host set the total number available on the listing page and when folks log an attended log - they can select a little spin contol to indicate the number of temps they found out of the possible number. Still just one smilie and one log generated.

 

Might add the cute little icon from above to the stats but the total count should not include them.

 

 

Just thought I would throw out the actual proposal here to see it would work for both sides.......

 

 

Just add:

 

 

Traditional Caches * 734

Multi-Cache * 69

Virtual Caches * 11

Event Caches * 15

Webcam Caches * 1

Locationless (Reverse) Caches * 4

NGS Benchmarks 18

Temporary Caches * 490

 

- and you have a good solution!

 

or you could just consider the issue as:

 

[+StarBrand]

......- and you have a good solution!

 

......

works for me!

[+Parabola]

I would like to see it, where if a logged find is made then if someone goes to log a find a second time it gives them a screen that says you have already logged a find. I would like to see Groundspeak close the loop hole for logging caches more than once.

Why?

 

Earlier in this thread I asked a question you may have missed, so I'll ask it again.

 

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

 

If the event holder doesn't want them logged and won't allow them then people are just finding a near by cache or putting out a cache just to log them. The logs on the temps are a joke. found temp#1, found temp #2. Nobody can seem to put more though into their logs. Which I see as dissapointing. I try to give a good log every cache. If someone is taking the time to place and mantain a cache then I at least owe them a good log.

Are these 'nearby caches for logging temporary caches' real, or hypothetical? If real, can someone provide a link or two? Depending on how it was set up, it would seem to me that such a cache would look an awful lot like a cache with an agenda. And agenda caches typically don't get listed.

 

These caches are real. Once again, I'm not attacking anyone that has logged these.

 

Event GC13DCC

Cache GC1626K (The cache is even called the H&S Logger)

 

Event GC14VKP

Cache GC1687Z (This was a cache put out as a temp and then got submitted and then published and people starting logging there temps here)

 

These are two of the examples of people putting out caches so the temps can be logged.

 

I liked the idea of have a number on the log of the cache page to show how many temps you have found. Personally I don't care if they count as a find or not. I think the logs are a complete joke. Found #1 of 19, found #9 of 19.

 

But if a temp is put out shouldn't it follow the same guidlines as a normal published cache. I think it should.

 

Also, why can't the loophole be fixed so someone can't log the same cache twice. Awhile back I log one a second time instead of logging the one near it and I didn't notice it for a month. I went back through my logs and fiqured out where I made the mistake and deleted the second log. I do agree 1 GC# = 1 find.

 

I'll have to do some looking but I know of another event that all the temps were logged on the event and trying to find a log that tells about the event is a nightmare. I couldn't make it but wanted to see how the event went and I gave up after seeing 300 or so temp logs.

 

Now let me have it.

[+Parabola]

Once again we are back to those that cant communicate without bickering running the thread. Get it back on topic or the mods can take care of that part. Take all the bickering to PMs or emails. Please.

 

Thank you

[+TrailGators]

I would like to see it, where if a logged find is made then if someone goes to log a find a second time it gives them a screen that says you have already logged a find. I would like to see Groundspeak close the loop hole for logging caches more than once.

Why?

 

Earlier in this thread I asked a question you may have missed, so I'll ask it again.

 

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

 

If the event holder doesn't want them logged and won't allow them then people are just finding a near by cache or putting out a cache just to log them. The logs on the temps are a joke. found temp#1, found temp #2. Nobody can seem to put more though into their logs. Which I see as dissapointing. I try to give a good log every cache. If someone is taking the time to place and mantain a cache then I at least owe them a good log.

Are these 'nearby caches for logging temporary caches' real, or hypothetical? If real, can someone provide a link or two? Depending on how it was set up, it would seem to me that such a cache would look an awful lot like a cache with an agenda. And agenda caches typically don't get listed.

 

These caches are real. Once again, I'm not attacking anyone that has logged these.

 

Event GC13DCC

Cache GC1626K (The cache is even called the H&S Logger)

 

Event GC14VKP

Cache GC1687Z (This was a cache put out as a temp and then got submitted and then published and people starting logging there temps here)

 

These are two of the examples of people putting out caches so the temps can be logged.

 

I liked the idea of have a number on the log of the cache page to show how many temps you have found. Personally I don't care if they count as a find or not. I think the logs are a complete joke. Found #1 of 19, found #9 of 19.

 

But if a temp is put out shouldn't it follow the same guidlines as a normal published cache. I think it should.

 

Also, why can't the loophole be fixed so someone can't log the same cache twice. Awhile back I log one a second time instead of logging the one near it and I didn't notice it for a month. I went back through my logs and fiqured out where I made the mistake and deleted the second log. I do agree 1 GC# = 1 find.

 

I'll have to do some looking but I know of another event that all the temps were logged on the event and trying to find a log that tells about the event is a nightmare. I couldn't make it but wanted to see how the event went and I gave up after seeing 300 or so temp logs.

 

Now let me have it.

So the event owner said "No temp logs!" and so some people logged the temps anyhow by logging a normal cache multiple times? So much for the event owner deciding as many have stated. That is pathetic.... Edited October 17, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

So the event owner said "No temp logs!" and so some people logged the temps anyhow by logging a normal cache multiple times? So much for the event owner deciding as many have stated. That is pathetic....

The folks logged the event owners cache after he said no temp logs on it? Or some other persons cache was logged?

 

Why should the event owner care that the temp caches were logged on a different cache? That's not pathetic, that's being nice to the event cache owner and doing as he requested.

 

Edit to add, I went and looked at the events and didn't see where the owner said "No temp logs!". Where did you see this? It looks more to me like the extra caches were hidden by the same folks as a place to log the temps to make sure the event page stays clean, much like the OP has suggested he'd like to see. That doesn't seem pathetic either, it seems like a good way to do it.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Mushtang

[+Mudfrog]

..............

If they want to "record" temp caches - have the host set the total number available on the listing page and when folks log an attended log - they can select a little spin contol to indicate the number of temps they found out of the possible number. Still just one smilie and one log generated.

 

Might add the cute little icon from above to the stats but the total count should not include them.

 

 

Just thought I would throw out the actual proposal here to see it would work for both sides.......

 

A nice proposal! It would make stats easier to sort, not only for the owner, but for anyone else who might happen to take notice of them.

 

Of course i'm still curious as to why people want to log the things in the first place. Oh wait, i keep forgetting that it's most likely just a simple case of CSA (compulsive smilie addiction)!

[+TrailGators]

So the event owner said "No temp logs!" and so some people logged the temps anyhow by logging a normal cache multiple times? So much for the event owner deciding as many have stated. That is pathetic....

The folks logged the event owners cache after he said no temp logs on it? Or some other persons cache was logged?

 

Why should the event owner care that the temp caches were logged on a different cache? That's not pathetic, that's being nice to the event cache owner and doing as he requested.

 

Edit to add, I went and looked at the events and didn't see where the owner said "No temp logs!". Where did you see this? It looks more to me like the extra caches were hidden by the same folks as a place to log the temps to make sure the event page stays clean, much like the OP has suggested he'd like to see. That doesn't seem pathetic either, it seems like a good way to do it.

I asked a question. Notice the question mark up there? Anyhow, you have made it crystal clear that everything is OK with you. What you are not hearing is that it is not OK with many of us.

[+TrailGators]

Of course i'm still curious as to why people want to log the things in the first place. Oh wait, i keep forgetting that it's most likely just a simple case of CSA (compulsive smilie addiction)!

That's funny!

[+Parabola]

..............

If they want to "record" temp caches - have the host set the total number available on the listing page and when folks log an attended log - they can select a little spin contol to indicate the number of temps they found out of the possible number. Still just one smilie and one log generated.

 

Might add the cute little icon from above to the stats but the total count should not include them.

 

 

Just thought I would throw out the actual proposal here to see it would work for both sides.......

 

 

Now where can this be sent to someone from Groundspeak. I think this is a great why to handle this.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Parabola

[Mushtang]

So the event owner said "No temp logs!" and so some people logged the temps anyhow by logging a normal cache multiple times? So much for the event owner deciding as many have stated. That is pathetic....

The folks logged the event owners cache after he said no temp logs on it? Or some other persons cache was logged?

 

Why should the event owner care that the temp caches were logged on a different cache? That's not pathetic, that's being nice to the event cache owner and doing as he requested.

 

Edit to add, I went and looked at the events and didn't see where the owner said "No temp logs!". Where did you see this? It looks more to me like the extra caches were hidden by the same folks as a place to log the temps to make sure the event page stays clean, much like the OP has suggested he'd like to see. That doesn't seem pathetic either, it seems like a good way to do it.

I asked a question. Notice the question mark up there? Anyhow, you have made it crystal clear that everything is OK with you. What you are not hearing is that it is not OK with many of us.

Calm down.

 

My post also contained question marks. I too was trying to determine what you meant, which is why I asked. Typical, something you say or do is acceptable, but when someone else says or does it you have to slam them for it.

 

And yes, I've also understood that some things are not acceptable to you. What you're not hearing is that I'm trying to figure out why it's so important that this be changed.

 

It seems like you're willing to remove the entertainment from a very large number of people, just so

1) you don't get a ton of emails from watching an event that you're not required to watch and probably don't watch anyway

2) you don't have to scroll through a bunch of logs on an event to read about how people enjoyed the event

(which is really baffling because you don't claim, that I've seen, to live in an area where this occurs a lot)

3) people aren't allowed to add fake finds to their count and have a larger find count than you - even though you seem to act like the numbers don't matter.

 

And I guess also, just because you don't think they should. Did I miss anything?

[+sbell111]

So the event owner said "No temp logs!" and so some people logged the temps anyhow by logging a normal cache multiple times? So much for the event owner deciding as many have stated. That is pathetic....

The folks logged the event owners cache after he said no temp logs on it? Or some other persons cache was logged?

 

Why should the event owner care that the temp caches were logged on a different cache? That's not pathetic, that's being nice to the event cache owner and doing as he requested.

 

Edit to add, I went and looked at the events and didn't see where the owner said "No temp logs!". Where did you see this? It looks more to me like the extra caches were hidden by the same folks as a place to log the temps to make sure the event page stays clean, much like the OP has suggested he'd like to see. That doesn't seem pathetic either, it seems like a good way to do it.

I asked a question. Notice the question mark up there? Anyhow, you have made it crystal clear that everything is OK with you. What you are not hearing is that it is not OK with many of us.

I don't see why this issue would have to be OK with everyone.

 

I've been to events that allowed individual logging for temporary event caches, but I decided that I didn't care to log those individually to the event page, so I didn't. I'm completely unaffected by anyone who went to the same events and logged the temporary event caches. I'm also unaffected by people who went to other events and logged the temporary event caches.

 

I've read many cache pages and logs. If I am not amused by the logs, I can stop reading them. People logging the temporary event caches don't change my life by adding logs to a cache page.

 

TPTB supported the cncept of logging temporary event caches to the cache page. As such, it is not my responsibility to protect their bandwidth from these logs. They are aware of the issue and can manage their bandwidth as they see fit.

 

I don't really understand why anyone would choose to 'watch' an event cache. Right off the bat, you would know that you are going to get tons of emails in a short period of time. If a person chooses to watch an event where temporary caches are being set up to log to the event page, it's his own fault if he gets even more emails. If a person doesn't want a ton of emails (like I do not) he should be more selective as to what caches he watches.

 

The fact is, this entire issue only really involves three parties: The person or group holding the event, the individual cachers who attended the event and would like to log the temporary event cache finds to the event page, and TPTB. The rest of us do not have a dog in this fight, as Michael Vick would say.

Edited October 17, 2007 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

So the event owner said "No temp logs!" and so some people logged the temps anyhow by logging a normal cache multiple times? So much for the event owner deciding as many have stated. That is pathetic....

The folks logged the event owners cache after he said no temp logs on it? Or some other persons cache was logged?

 

Why should the event owner care that the temp caches were logged on a different cache? That's not pathetic, that's being nice to the event cache owner and doing as he requested.

 

Edit to add, I went and looked at the events and didn't see where the owner said "No temp logs!". Where did you see this? It looks more to me like the extra caches were hidden by the same folks as a place to log the temps to make sure the event page stays clean, much like the OP has suggested he'd like to see. That doesn't seem pathetic either, it seems like a good way to do it.

I asked a question. Notice the question mark up there? Anyhow, you have made it crystal clear that everything is OK with you. What you are not hearing is that it is not OK with many of us.

Calm down.

 

My post also contained question marks. I too was trying to determine what you meant, which is why I asked. Typical, something you say or do is acceptable, but when someone else says or does it you have to slam them for it.

 

And yes, I've also understood that some things are not acceptable to you. What you're not hearing is that I'm trying to figure out why it's so important that this be changed.

 

It seems like you're willing to remove the entertainment from a very large number of people, just so

1) you don't get a ton of emails from watching an event that you're not required to watch and probably don't watch anyway

2) you don't have to scroll through a bunch of logs on an event to read about how people enjoyed the event

(which is really baffling because you don't claim, that I've seen, to live in an area where this occurs a lot)

3) people aren't allowed to add fake finds to their count and have a larger find count than you - even though you seem to act like the numbers don't matter.

 

And I guess also, just because you don't think they should. Did I miss anything?

 

You keep saying this is something people enjoy doing? Are you also saying it isn't about the numbers?

 

I find very little fun sitting in front of my computer typing logs for caches, it's probably the least fun thing of my caching experience. I usually do it a day or two after the real fun! It's a little like signing the logbook, I don't think I MUST sign it, but others feel it doesn't count unless I do, so I do. I usually type out a nice log, one that says THANKS for taking the time to place the cache (in so many words), one that describes the area and the fun I had.

 

Are you suggesting that those that take the time to say something like "found temp #1" are doing this because it's fun? If it were so fun for them, why the short log? And really, even if they do write a long story, does it still mean they are having fun or are they really doing this merely so the find counts? My thought is, type out a long attended which describes the fun for each temp and lists all their fun activities (as the attended is intended to do) and forget the extra smiley.

 

If this is the true reason most log temp caches, then it's an abuse of the system and a misrepresentation of their find count! The find count might not matter to some, but it does to MANY others including myself!

 

ONE GC#=ONE FIND (IMHO).

 

Also, if it doesn't affect you, that doesn't mean it doesn't affect others!

[+Rockin Roddy]

I've read many cache pages and logs. If I am not amused by the logs, I can stop reading them. People logging the temporary event caches don't change my life by adding logs to a cache page.

 

Right...unless I'm searching through hundreds of multilogs while looking for a friend's log. Worse yet, I might get tired of all those worthless multilogs and miss the log I'm looking for (eyes start getting watery, I lose interest briefly or am just overly bored by the "found temp #2", "found temp #3" etc. Now I've got to go back though and endure the whole thing again?

 

eta: I know, you'll say that's my choice. Well, you say it doesn't affect others, looks like it does to me!

Edited October 17, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[Mushtang]

You keep saying this is something people enjoy doing? Are you also saying it isn't about the numbers?

 

I find very little fun sitting in front of my computer typing logs for caches, it's probably the least fun thing of my caching experience. I usually do it a day or two after the real fun! It's a little like signing the logbook, I don't think I MUST sign it, but others feel it doesn't count unless I do, so I do. I usually type out a nice log, one that says THANKS for taking the time to place the cache (in so many words), one that describes the area and the fun I had.

 

Are you suggesting that those that take the time to say something like "found temp #1" are doing this because it's fun? If it were so fun for them, why the short log? And really, even if they do write a long story, does it still mean they are having fun or are they really doing this merely so the find counts? My thought is, type out a long attended which describes the fun for each temp and lists all their fun activities (as the attended is intended to do) and forget the extra smiley.

Yes, I'm saying that for a LOT of people adding the logs for the temp caches, and watching their find count go up, is fun. They enjoy finding the temp caches, they enjoy getting credit for the temp caches. They get a thrill from watching their find count increase. They enjoy the fact that they found 130 caches at an event knowing that they can log them all and have a much higher find count. For these people the numbers are a significant portion of the fun they get from geocaching.

 

You and I (and others) don't want to cache this way. You and I (and others) prefer to just take one Find per GC number. Early in my caching days I found and logged a few temp caches, but reading these forums changed my mind about what I wanted my find count to represent, so I didn't do it any longer.

 

You (and others) appear to dislike this practice not only for yourself, but for others as well. So much so that you'd like to see the website changed to force these people to give up the behavior that entertains them so much. You'd like to force them to stop doing something that you've decided you don't want to do, and therefore they shouldn't do.

 

I can't buy beer on Sundays here in this suburb of Atlanta because of people that think similarly to you. They don't want to drink on Sundays, therefore nobody should be able to drink on Sundays.

 

If this is the true reason most log temp caches, then it's an abuse of the system and a misrepresentation of their find count! The find count might not matter to some, but it does to MANY others including myself!

Which makes me wonder, why does their find count matter so much to you?

 

ONE GC#=ONE FIND (IMHO).

That's a good way for you to play. It also happens to be the way I play.

 

Also, if it doesn't affect you, that doesn't mean it doesn't affect others!

I guess if I went out of my way to make it affect me then it might. But really, what's the point? There are a lot of things I could get upset about if I really put my mind to it.

[Mushtang]

I've read many cache pages and logs. If I am not amused by the logs, I can stop reading them. People logging the temporary event caches don't change my life by adding logs to a cache page.

 

Right...unless I'm searching through hundreds of multilogs while looking for a friend's log. Worse yet, I might get tired of all those worthless multilogs and miss the log I'm looking for (eyes start getting watery, I lose interest briefly or am just overly bored by the "found temp #2", "found temp #3" etc. Now I've got to go back though and endure the whole thing again?

 

eta: I know, you'll say that's my choice. Well, you say it doesn't affect others, looks like it does to me!

That's an easy one to get around! Just show all logs and then do a CTRL-F search for your friends name. You'll find it quicker than if you scrolled down a non-multilogged event!

 

Surely this isn't the biggest reason you'd like to remove the entertainment from all the people that enjoy logging temp caches. Is it?

[+TrailGators]

I've read many cache pages and logs. If I am not amused by the logs, I can stop reading them. People logging the temporary event caches don't change my life by adding logs to a cache page.

 

Right...unless I'm searching through hundreds of multilogs while looking for a friend's log. Worse yet, I might get tired of all those worthless multilogs and miss the log I'm looking for (eyes start getting watery, I lose interest briefly or am just overly bored by the "found temp #2", "found temp #3" etc. Now I've got to go back though and endure the whole thing again?

 

eta: I know, you'll say that's my choice. Well, you say it doesn't affect others, looks like it does to me!

That's an easy one to get around! Just show all logs and then do a CTRL-F search for your friends name. You'll find it quicker than if you scrolled down a non-multilogged event!

 

Surely this isn't the biggest reason you'd like to remove the entertainment from all the people that enjoy logging temp caches. Is it?

Having a box where they fill in the number of temp caches proposed above is a way better solution than Ctrl+F. I enjoy reading logs and viewing photos from everyone. That is fun for me and a lot of people. You can't even admit what a annoyance it would be to do this if there were a hundreds or thousands of temp cache logs....

[+TrailGators]

I don't really understand why anyone would choose to 'watch' an event cache. Right off the bat, you would know that you are going to get tons of emails in a short period of time. If a person chooses to watch an event where temporary caches are being set up to log to the event page, it's his own fault if he gets even more emails. If a person doesn't want a ton of emails (like I do not) he should be more selective as to what caches he watches.

1) People watch them because it is fun for them to do that. That's why the site has the feature.

 

2) If you watch most events around here you'll get maybe 50-100 emails. We have a huge desert event coming up and there have only been 76 logs spread out over the past month. People have fun fun reading everyone comments. After the event there will be ~150 emails. So if 150 is "tons" to you imagine getting thousands. If this practive spread to your area you would have no choice but to never watch events every again. That was my point. Thanks for taking away other's fun so that people could pad their numbers.

 

3) How are people supposed to know when people will suddenly start logging temp caches? We have them and nobody logs them. But who knows if this will spread....

[+GeoBlank]

I so totally do not understand this thread...

[+sbell111]

Having a box where they fill in the number of temp caches proposed above is a way better solution than Ctrl+F. I enjoy reading logs and viewing photos from everyone. That is fun for me and a lot of people. You can't even admit what a annoyance it would be to do this if there were a hundreds or thousands of temp cache logs....

A number of people were not in favor of that idea for a number of reasons. These reasons include legitimizing the practice and restricting loggers from giving their stories of finding the individual caches.

 

Of course, you still get to read logs on these event caches. If you don't enjoy these logs, you can always stop reading, just like any logs on any cache page.

[+Mudfrog]

I've read many cache pages and logs. If I am not amused by the logs, I can stop reading them. People logging the temporary event caches don't change my life by adding logs to a cache page.

 

Right...unless I'm searching through hundreds of multilogs while looking for a friend's log. Worse yet, I might get tired of all those worthless multilogs and miss the log I'm looking for (eyes start getting watery, I lose interest briefly or am just overly bored by the "found temp #2", "found temp #3" etc. Now I've got to go back though and endure the whole thing again?

 

eta: I know, you'll say that's my choice. Well, you say it doesn't affect others, looks like it does to me!

That's an easy one to get around! Just show all logs and then do a CTRL-F search for your friends name. You'll find it quicker than if you scrolled down a non-multilogged event!

 

Surely this isn't the biggest reason you'd like to remove the entertainment from all the people that enjoy logging temp caches. Is it?

Having a box where they fill in the number of temp caches proposed above is a way better solution than Ctrl+F. I enjoy reading logs and viewing photos from everyone. That is fun for me and a lot of people. You can't even admit what a annoyance it would be to do this if there were a hundreds or thousands of temp cache logs....

I sometimes put a watch on event caches because i like to read the logs that come in. These come in through my email, so seeing multi "found temp #1, found temp #2" type logs would be annoying to say the least. I also like going to the event page to look over the logs (like to look at pictures if they are posted) so i certainly wouldn't find it amusing to have to scroll over a multitude of temp logs to get to legitimate "attended" logs.

[+sbell111]

I don't really understand why anyone would choose to 'watch' an event cache. Right off the bat, you would know that you are going to get tons of emails in a short period of time. If a person chooses to watch an event where temporary caches are being set up to log to the event page, it's his own fault if he gets even more emails. If a person doesn't want a ton of emails (like I do not) he should be more selective as to what caches he watches.

1) People watch them because it is fun for them to do that. That's why the site has the feature.

Like all things related to the site, you can stop watching event caches which feature temporary caches if it ceases to be fun for you.

2) If you watch most events around here you'll get maybe 50-100 emails. We have a huge desert event coming up and there have only been 76 logs spread out over the past month. People have fun fun reading everyone comments. After the event there will be ~150 emails. So if 150 is "tons" to you imagine getting thousands. If this practive spread to your area you would have no choice but to never watch events every again. That was my point. Thanks for taking away other's fun so that people could pad their numbers.

The practice is in my area. I do have a choice whether I will participate in it just like I have a choice as to whether i watch those caches. If my choice makes me unhappy, I can choose differently next time.

3) How are people supposed to know when people will suddenly start logging temp caches? We have them and nobody logs them. But who knows if this will spread....

It's completely up to the individuals who hold the event. Like all caches, an online log represents an agreement between the cache owner and the cache seeker. If someone in your area holds an event and allows online logging of associated temporary caches, you can choose not to log any temporary caches that you find and not to watch their event page.

[+sbell111]

I sometimes put a watch on event caches because i like to read the logs that come in. These come in through my email, so seeing multi "found temp #1, found temp #2" type logs would be annoying to say the least. I also like going to the event page to look over the logs (like to look at pictures if they are posted) so i certainly wouldn't find it amusing to have to scroll over a multitude of temp logs to get to legitimate "attended" logs.

Watching event pages and scrolling through the logs are choices that you make. If you are disatisfied with those choices, you are free to choose differently, next time.

 

Regarding pics, it is easier to just view the gallery to see them, rather than pull them up individually from the logs. Either way, it's totally your choice.

[Mushtang]

If this practive spread to your area you would have no choice but to never watch events every again. That was my point. Thanks for taking away other's fun so that people could pad their numbers.

Who are you thanking here? What was taken away by someone reading this thread?

 

Did Mushtang or SBell111 convince TPTB to make a change to the site so that someone's fun gets taken away? I don't recall trying to do so.

 

At least I'm glad to see you acknowledge that making a change to remove something that people have been enjoying is not good.

[+TrailGators]

I sometimes put a watch on event caches because i like to read the logs that come in. These come in through my email, so seeing multi "found temp #1, found temp #2" type logs would be annoying to say the least. I also like going to the event page to look over the logs (like to look at pictures if they are posted) so i certainly wouldn't find it amusing to have to scroll over a multitude of temp logs to get to legitimate "attended" logs.

Well said Mudfrog. I guess our fun is less important than the fun of people that are logging thousands of caches that are not even listed on the site....

[+Rockin Roddy]

So what you're saying sbell is that those that want to do this "approved" (as some call it) logging, have more rights than we who like to watch the logs, read the real attends (not the multilogs) and view the pics? We have to be inconvenienced by tons of bogus emails because some want an extra smiley (IMHO that's the MAIN reason this practice exists)? We have to stop watching the event page because others want to clutter them up with a log that could just as easily be made through ONE attended log?

 

Seems fair to me????

 

BUT, it doesn't stop there. IF the owner of the event says NO MULTILOGS, these people will just log them on another cache page? Doesn't seem right to me.

 

To me, it sounds like event caches are the problem...maybe we should champion against them altogether? Really, if no extra smiley's to be logged, end of problem...right? That would certainly put an end to this problem. Lets just take away the event cache altogether.

 

This abuse of multilogs is the exact reason I won't put out temp caches (well, that and the fact that I'd rather my caches be available to anyone any time...per rules of course). I also don't want to have to fight with a multilogger who could cause further angst and possible negative actions on my caches (imagine someone getting so upset I won't allow them to multilog, they steal my caches).

[+sbell111]

So what you're saying sbell is that those that want to do this "approved" (as some call it) logging, have more rights than we who like to watch the logs, read the real attends (not the multilogs) and view the pics? We have to be inconvenienced by tons of bogus emails because some want an extra smiley (IMHO that's the MAIN reason this practice exists)? We have to stop watching the event page because others want to clutter them up with a log that could just as easily be made through ONE attended log?

If I did not like scuba caches and I resented having to read the logs for scuba caches that I had on my watch list, would it be more reasonable to outlaw scuba caches or for me to stop watching them?

BUT, it doesn't stop there. IF the owner of the event says NO MULTILOGS, these people will just log them on another cache page? Doesn't seem right to me.

I believe this to be a red herring. I've seen no evidence of what you are claiming.

To me, it sounds like event caches are the problem...maybe we should champion against them altogether? Really, if no extra smiley's to be logged, end of problem...right? That would certainly put an end to this problem. Lets just take away the event cache altogether.

Please see my scuba analogy.

This abuse of multilogs is the exact reason I won't put out temp caches (well, that and the fact that I'd rather my caches be available to anyone any time...per rules of course). I also don't want to have to fight with a multilogger who could cause further angst and possible negative actions on my caches (imagine someone getting so upset I won't allow them to multilog, they steal my caches).

Each of us gets to choose which caches we hide and how to organize an event that we put on.

[Mushtang]

To me, it sounds like event caches are the problem...maybe we should champion against them altogether? Really, if no extra smiley's to be logged, end of problem...right? That would certainly put an end to this problem. Lets just take away the event cache altogether.

So now you're suggesting banning all event caches, and not just banning the ability to multilog???

 

I'm glad you're not in charge.