Temp Caches Being "Listed" on GC.com

[+TrailGators]

Could you provide a link to the thread where he states the practice of logging temps is silly and abusive. I keep finding the same thread and he doesn't say anything about the practice being silly nor abusive...is there another thread I just can't find. No quotes please...I want to read the thread to get the whole picture within its context.

 

I am not "calling anyone out" nor am I "pointing fingers"...i just want to find more information.

 

Thanks,

ArcherDragoon

Here is one quote I found from Link 2 above:

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.

[+sbell111]

those additional waypoints weren't even available at the time Jeremy made his posts (I don't think so at least), so how could he possibly see it as acceptible?

 

Jeremy stated very clearly that he thought this practice was "silly and abusive" (and I believe there was another "S" word used). I doubt seriously that the additional waypoint feature was designed to be used like this (and seems like an abuse IMHO).

 

What I find funny about the whole "I should change" argument is that those who are saying it should be the way it was are the ones being condemned while those saying change is good are saying we should stop trying to change the game to OUR standards. Seems the changes are being made so those in the latter catagory can enjoy this "sport" THEIR way (to their standards) and forget how it was played in the beginning.

The game has always embraced change. That has given us many variations on the basic 'traditional' cache. Temporary event caches is one such change that TPTB have clearly accepted as being non-abusive (as shown in the citations in this thread and the linked threads). I see nothing wrong with teh coordinates for these event caches to be given as additional waypoints on the event pages. That would seem to be inline with the reason that teh additional waypoint feature was created.

[+sbell111]

Could you provide a link to the thread where he states the practice of logging temps is silly and abusive. I keep finding the same thread and he doesn't say anything about the practice being silly nor abusive...is there another thread I just can't find. No quotes please...I want to read the thread to get the whole picture within its context.

 

I am not "calling anyone out" nor am I "pointing fingers"...i just want to find more information.

 

Thanks,

ArcherDragoon

Here is one quote I found from Link 2 above:

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.

As I understand that quote, he was arguing against creating a separate cache page for temporary event caches and for having them logged to the event page.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Could you provide a link to the thread where he states the practice of logging temps is silly and abusive. I keep finding the same thread and he doesn't say anything about the practice being silly nor abusive...is there another thread I just can't find. No quotes please...I want to read the thread to get the whole picture within its context.

 

I am not "calling anyone out" nor am I "pointing fingers"...i just want to find more information.

 

Thanks,

ArcherDragoon

Here is one quote I found from Link 2 above:

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.

As I understand that quote, he was arguing against creating a separate cache page for temporary event caches and for having them logged to the event page.

No, his comment implies that you should not log an additional "find" (or attended) for taking part in activities at the event.

 

 

"Hey, I went to the Renaissance Faire five times yesterday."

"Why did you go five times in one day?"

"Well, I only went once, but I saw 5 different shows while I was there. Same difference.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Could you provide a link to the thread where he states the practice of logging temps is silly and abusive. I keep finding the same thread and he doesn't say anything about the practice being silly nor abusive...is there another thread I just can't find. No quotes please...I want to read the thread to get the whole picture within its context.

 

I am not "calling anyone out" nor am I "pointing fingers"...i just want to find more information.

 

Thanks,

ArcherDragoon

Here is one quote I found from Link 2 above:

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.

As I understand that quote, he was arguing against creating a separate cache page for temporary event caches and for having them logged to the event page.

So, kind-off off topic...but I read it the same as sbell111...so I guess I will wait for a clarification from the powers that be and continue on my merry way. As stated before...

1. If it was viewed as abusive...steps would have been taken to stop the pratice

2. If it is viewed as abusive...step will be taken to stop the practice

 

I answered the question stated in this thread and now I will just wait for the next guidelines update. Until then, I will enjoy my adventure.

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

 

PS...Thanks TrailGators...that actually did help with what I was looking for....thanks.

Edited November 8, 2007 by ArcherDragoon

[+sbell111]

Could you provide a link to the thread where he states the practice of logging temps is silly and abusive. I keep finding the same thread and he doesn't say anything about the practice being silly nor abusive...is there another thread I just can't find. No quotes please...I want to read the thread to get the whole picture within its context.

 

I am not "calling anyone out" nor am I "pointing fingers"...i just want to find more information.

 

Thanks,

ArcherDragoon

Here is one quote I found from Link 2 above:

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.

As I understand that quote, he was arguing against creating a separate cache page for temporary event caches and for having them logged to the event page.

No, his comment implies that you should not log an additional "find" (or attended) for taking part in activities at the event.

 

"Hey, I went to the Renaissance Faire five times yesterday."

"Why did you go five times in one day?"

"Well, I only went once, but I saw 5 different shows while I was there. Same difference.

I believe that you are mistaken. Take a look at his entire post and the thread in which it is made. Edited November 8, 2007 by sbell111

[+ArcherDragoon]

So, that is why I wanted the entire thread...a quote/post is great but you lose the context. Again, thanks TrailGators for helping out with direction...the search option just doesn't work when you need it... it may have been a quote, but it helped me find the post and the threads.

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

 

Edit: Used correct terms!!!

Edited November 8, 2007 by ArcherDragoon

[+ArcherDragoon]

Isn't it great when both sides of the discussion can use the same quote/post/thread for their opinion...just like being able to use the bible for and against the death penalty...but that another thread for another time.

 

Not scheduled for another couple weeks according to the calendar

 

Nothing I can do now but wait for the next guidelines update...But, I am going to agree with sbell111, reading the whole thread does add a different context to the post...let along the quote. As for everyone (either for or against), I still respect your opinion.

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

[+TheManInStripes]

It amazes me how many people are posting in this thread with posts that clearly ignore the fact that this very issue was debated in two spirited threads just a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps someone could just link those very recent threads. That way we won't have to go round and round. The con-side won't have to argue that logging these event caches is 'against the rules' and the pro-side won't have to counter with 'Jeremy said it was OK'.

 

How can people keep getting wound up about issues that were just debated??? Everybody gets your position. You don't like the practice and you think that everyone should follow your lead. Message received (but not agreed with).

Wow. This thread has BLOWN UP since I last looked at it yesterday. I've still got one whole page to read before I see where it's going now. And I guess part of the reason I missed the first two threads of which you speak is because a comment I made in the cake thread was deemed offensive. Thankfully, Michael at Groundspeak ended my 30 day suspension early.

[+tozainamboku]

None of this has anything to do with using the additional waypoint feature to list temporary caches. Jeremy has said that you can have temporary caches as part of an event and that the event owner may use the event page to list these caches. I still don't understand why the OP (and some others) are so upset that the additional waypoint feature was used to list the coordinates of temporary caches to. This seems an appropriate use of the additional waypoint feature.

 

Wouldn't it be a legitimate use of additional waypoints if you have a puzzle cache where you use the the additional waypoints to list coordinates that have to be visited to get the answer to questions? I suppose you could start a controversy by saying that you could log a find for each waypoint you visited in addition to the final cache. If you listed 5 traditional caches to find, and in each had part of the coordinates for an additional unknown cache, no one would complain that they could log each traditional and then also log the unknown cache. Someone may wish to do the same if the "traditionals" were listed as additional waypoints instead of individual caches. To a purist the difference would be that the traditionals each have their own GC number and have been reviewed. A non-purist might not make this distinction. Just because a cache owner might allow bonus logs for finding additional waypoints, doesn't mean the website should disallow additional waypoints. Neither does it mean that Jeremy approves of the practice of bonus logs.

 

I guess I need to post a link to my gospel according to Jeremy post. This is a quote from Jeremy where he calls additional logging of events "stupid". He also says he reserves the right to stop what he sees as abuse.

 

edit: corrected link

Edited November 8, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+Driver Carries Cache]

I participate in another sport now and then where there is a section in the rules about the "spirit of the game" (some of you will know right off what sport this is). The "spirit of the game" is in place to keep people from finding ways to "circumvent" the rules or guidelines of the game. Even if it's not specifically forbidden in the rules, if it's not in "the spirit of the game" it's not allowed.

 

TPTB have not provided a function for posting finds on "temporary caches". In fact, they have forbidden the publishing of temporary caches on the site. They obviously understood that some might find temp-caches entertaining as they have allowed folks to add the coords for temp caches to their event pages. Fair enough... have fun.

 

As temp-caches have no page in and of themselves, there is no proper place to log temp-caches. In order to find a way around this, some have begun the practice of posting multiple "attended" logs to the event page itself.

 

From this I would surmise:

 

>> If TPTB wanted temp-caches logged on the site, they would provide a way to do so.

 

My opinion, using the features of GC.com for a use other than the intended is abuse of the system.

 

The question here is, the use of the "additional waypoints" feature. When you use the additional waypoints feature, there is a pull-down to select the type of waypoint you are making. If you were to peruse the selections, you'll notice that there is not a selection for "temporary caches"... why? Because that's not what the feature was intended for.

 

From this I would surmise:

 

>> If TPTB wanted this feature used for temp caches, they would have provided that as a selection.

 

My opinion, using the features of GC.com for a use other than the intended is abuse of the system.

 

One of the common responses to this is "the rules don't specifically state that we can't do this, and TPTB have not made any moves to stop it"... this is true. Now some have seen the lack of action from TPTB as tacit approval given. That is just flawed logic. TPTB have stated that this action is not a concern to them, until the abuse becomes egregious.

 

You would all be correct in your assertions that those of us who disagree can't tell you how to play. And I would maintain that just because you can do something (post temp-caches to the event page), doesn't mean you should.

 

Folks who disagree sometimes say "why are you worried about it... it's just a game". I would say that what makes a game, a game is the common set of rules that the participants play by.

 

If tomorrow TPTB decided that temp event caches were OK to log and provided a way to do so, I'd never give it another thought. But in its current state, it seems like this is all being done by working around the intent of the guidelines, the site, and the game.

 

I've never understood why temp caches were even necessary. If these "temp-caches" are so great, why not make them "real" caches (according to GC.com guidelines)?

 

The last event I attended here in California had 10 brand new GC.com approved caches launched the morning of the event, all within easy walking distance of our picnic area. The event before that had over 16 brand new caches placed by any number of cachers to coincide with the event.

 

Unfortunately, we don't have the "spirit of the game" in geocaching. Though I would imagine that there are a good number of folks who believe in it, even those that had never heard it described that way. It's sad that some feel the need to circumvent the intent of the guidelines, the site, and the game. All the rest of us are asking for is a standard that we all play by. Until TPTB fall to one side of the fence or the other, these arguments will continue.

 

DCC

[+ODragon]

I wanted to know if this site allowed this event to be published in it's current form, or if they were slipped in post publication. Many have accused TPTB of straddling the fence on the Temp Cache issue. If they allowed this Event to be published in it's current form, that tells ME something.

 

I don't know but I can say that I've never been told not to publish one like that. I think it's two different things people are merging. Additional waypoints are there for the user to use for whatever reason, related to the cache of course. If the person wants to put points for temp caches, I don't see a difference.

 

One of the locals here loves to play geogames at the events. At the first time, he didn't use additional waypoints and everyone had to plug in 100 sets of coords to play when they got there. We're in an area where people only log events once (unless they're reoccurring but that's a different topic). If at this next event, he wants to save everyone time and put them all in as additional waypoints, I know we'd be happy. Just because they're in as additional waypoints doesn't mean we're going to change how we log.

 

Event caches being published with temp caches as additional waypoints shouldn't tell you anything. Personally, I think the more additional waypoints the better for everything. If people want to put their temp caches in there, great, it makes it easier for those who wants to participate. Whether they get an additional smiley for it is really up to the owner. I know it's hard for people to separate the two but that is how it I see it working (IMHO).

[+briansnat]

Event caches being published with temp caches as additional waypoints shouldn't tell you anything. Personally, I think the more additional waypoints the better for everything. If people want to put their temp caches in there, great, it makes it easier for those who wants to participate. Whether they get an additional smiley for it is really up to the owner. I know it's hard for people to separate the two but that is how it I see it working (IMHO).

 

I think listing temp caches as additional waypoints is a great idea. I've been to events that had temp caches and being able to download the temp caches before hand would be a convenience and I'd certainly take advantage of it..

[+paulandstacey]

I've been to a few events with temp caches and certainly would have loved for them to have been on the page for me to download as opposed to manually inputting them on site. In this case I see them as reference points - similar to an interesting monument or natural phenomenon along a trail, etc. Still not another find, but useful.

[+TheManInStripes]

In short, there are many of us that would like Geocaching.com to have more black and white guidelines, to follow.

 

Kit--

 

Let me begin by saying that I don't intend this to be a personal attack against you. I am simply trying to understand your line of thinking. You are a very active person on these forums, and often advocate for changes as you believe they should be, and that is why I take this example from your post to ask my question. I would gladly welcome an answer from anyone to this question, not just you.

 

I can't help but wonder what it is about people such as yourself that makes you insist on defining what's right for everyone else. People participate in geocaching in different ways for different reasons. What may seem right to you may not seem right to someone else, and vice-versa.

 

Just like the idea of what is fun and what is not fun. What some people think is a fun aspect of this game, others want no part of. The bottom line is, these forums would be much more pleasant if people could accept that just because people disagree with them doesn't make that person wron, inferior, or any less of a participant in the game then they are.

 

I'm not advocating a hardline stance, I simply wish TPTB would make a real decision (not a fencesitter response) whether they are for or against logging event caches, by logging multiple attended logs. There has a been a zillion references to Jeremy's past posts regarding the issue. Both sides use his past posts to bolster there argument.

 

If he would simply say officially, "temp caches are approved by TPTB," or "there will be no more logging of temp caches on my website." I would be happy with his answer. This would end this silly debate for the most part.

 

Most of the debates on these forums have more to do with the "mixing pot" of ideologies that also love geocaching. Rather than debating "conservative versus liberal," or "religious versus athiest," we debate merits of the game.

I think that Jeremy's silence on the issue speaks loud and clear. I find it hard to believe that TPTB are NOT aware of what is going on. If they felt strongly that there was a problem with it, they would step in and make the change. The fact that they have not said anything seems to indicate that they don't have a problem with it.

[+TheManInStripes]

I guess I need to post a link to my gospel according to Jeremy post. This is a quote from Jeremy where he calls additional logging of events "stupid". He also says he reserves the right to stop what he sees as abuse.

If that was an attempt to post said link, you posted the wrong link. That link is to some bookmark link.

 

On a side note, I like Jeremy's post where he states:

 

I couldn't give two hoots if someone wants to log an event cache twice. It's their find count and there is no competition here. So if you find a cache at an event, knock yourself out.

 

I think the power that IS has spoken.

[+TrailGators]

I guess I need to post a link to my gospel according to Jeremy post. This is a quote from Jeremy where he calls additional logging of events "stupid". He also says he reserves the right to stop what he sees as abuse.

If that was an attempt to post said link, you posted the wrong link. That link is to some bookmark link.

 

On a side note, I like Jeremy's post where he states:

 

I couldn't give two hoots if someone wants to log an event cache twice. It's their find count and there is no competition here. So if you find a cache at an event, knock yourself out.

 

I think the power that IS has spoken.

 

The power has also said this:

 

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.

[+tozainamboku]

The question here is, the use of the "additional waypoints" feature. When you use the additional waypoints feature, there is a pull-down to select the type of waypoint you are making. If you were to peruse the selections, you'll notice that there is not a selection for "temporary caches"... why? Because that's not what the feature was intended for.

 

From this I would surmise:

 

>> If TPTB wanted this feature used for temp caches, they would have provided that as a selection.

 

My opinion, using the features of GC.com for a use other than the intended is abuse of the system.

Jeremy has stated

An "event" as defined can contain "caches," much like multicaches.

Perhaps you are objecting to the use of Reference point or Question to be answered for listing the temporary caches. Maybe they should be stages to a multicache. Would that make more sense to you? It seems that the angst over the practice in some places of logging multiple attended logs for temporary event caches has resulted in a totally irrational objection to temporary event caches. Quite frankly, when additional waypoints were discussed, they were there to have a way to list any coordinates that cache owner thought might be useful to people hunting the caches or to the reviewer in reviewing the cache (final for an unknown or muticache stages). The types were debated and refined but I don't think that the fact that I have a waypoint I want to share with cachers means there has to be a category for it. This isn't Waymarking.

 

If there were a "spirit of the game" it would be that Geocaching is a non-competitive sport. The find count is not the score. It is simply a way to keep track of your finds on the website. Inflating your find count would be against the spirit of the game. This is what Jeremy calls abuse. Deciding on your own or in conjunction with a cache owner what the definition of find is is not necessarily abuse unless the intent is simply count things to inflate your numbers.

[+tozainamboku]

I guess I need to post a link to my gospel according to Jeremy post. This is a quote from Jeremy where he calls additional logging of events "stupid". He also says he reserves the right to stop what he sees as abuse.

If that was an attempt to post said link, you posted the wrong link. That link is to some bookmark link.

Here is the correct link

[+TheManInStripes]

I guess I need to post a link to my gospel according to Jeremy post. This is a quote from Jeremy where he calls additional logging of events "stupid". He also says he reserves the right to stop what he sees as abuse.

If that was an attempt to post said link, you posted the wrong link. That link is to some bookmark link.

 

On a side note, I like Jeremy's post where he states:

 

I couldn't give two hoots if someone wants to log an event cache twice. It's their find count and there is no competition here. So if you find a cache at an event, knock yourself out.

 

I think the power that IS has spoken.

 

The power has also said this:

 

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.

But nowhere does he say that it is not allowed. Like it or not, some people have found a way to increase their find counts within the guidelines. So why not let them play in peace?

[+TheManInStripes]

I guess I need to post a link to my gospel according to Jeremy post. This is a quote from Jeremy where he calls additional logging of events "stupid". He also says he reserves the right to stop what he sees as abuse.

If that was an attempt to post said link, you posted the wrong link. That link is to some bookmark link.

Here is the correct link

 

WOW. That post is too good not to post here in it's entirety. So here it is:

 

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:

 

QUOTE(Jeremy @ Jun 6 2005, 10:00 AM)

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.

 

And I would also like to add an AMEN BROTHA!!!! to what God, I mean Jeremy said.

[Mushtang]

And I would also like to add an AMEN BROTHA!!!! to what God, I mean Jeremy said.

There are some of us that don't believe in a Jeremy.

[+Monkeybrad]

I believe firmly in the concept of a Jeremy, but am still unsure as to my relationship with a personal Jeremy.

[+Mudfrog]

I enjoy finding temporary caches at events and it's easy to see that having them listed as additional waypoints on the page would be nice for those interested in getting them downloaded into their GPSr. I don't see this as being an abuse to the GC.com site at all.

 

Not going to comment on the off topic portion of this thread,,,

Edited November 8, 2007 by Mudfrog

[+TrailGators]

I guess I need to post a link to my gospel according to Jeremy post. This is a quote from Jeremy where he calls additional logging of events "stupid". He also says he reserves the right to stop what he sees as abuse.

If that was an attempt to post said link, you posted the wrong link. That link is to some bookmark link.

 

On a side note, I like Jeremy's post where he states:

 

I couldn't give two hoots if someone wants to log an event cache twice. It's their find count and there is no competition here. So if you find a cache at an event, knock yourself out.

 

I think the power that IS has spoken.

 

The power has also said this:

 

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.

But nowhere does he say that it is not allowed. Like it or not, some people have found a way to increase their find counts within the guidelines. So why not let them play in peace?

This is true. People are free to act in the 'height of selfishnessness.' That doesn't mean that others have to condone the selfishness. That is really what this boils down too. Edited November 8, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TheManInStripes]

I guess I need to post a link to my gospel according to Jeremy post. This is a quote from Jeremy where he calls additional logging of events "stupid". He also says he reserves the right to stop what he sees as abuse.

If that was an attempt to post said link, you posted the wrong link. That link is to some bookmark link.

 

On a side note, I like Jeremy's post where he states:

 

I couldn't give two hoots if someone wants to log an event cache twice. It's their find count and there is no competition here. So if you find a cache at an event, knock yourself out.

 

I think the power that IS has spoken.

 

The power has also said this:

 

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.

But nowhere does he say that it is not allowed. Like it or not, some people have found a way to increase their find counts within the guidelines. So why not let them play in peace?

This is true. People are free to act in the 'height of selfishnessness.' That doesn't mean that others have to condone the selfishness. That is really what this boils down too.

No one definitively stated that this is ths height of selfishness. Jeremy just stated that in his opinion, it was.

[Mushtang]

I guess I need to post a link to my gospel according to Jeremy post. This is a quote from Jeremy where he calls additional logging of events "stupid". He also says he reserves the right to stop what he sees as abuse.

If that was an attempt to post said link, you posted the wrong link. That link is to some bookmark link.

 

On a side note, I like Jeremy's post where he states:

 

I couldn't give two hoots if someone wants to log an event cache twice. It's their find count and there is no competition here. So if you find a cache at an event, knock yourself out.

 

I think the power that IS has spoken.

 

The power has also said this:

 

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.

But nowhere does he say that it is not allowed. Like it or not, some people have found a way to increase their find counts within the guidelines. So why not let them play in peace?

This is true. People are free to act in the 'height of selfishnessness.' That doesn't mean that others have to condone the selfishness. That is really what this boils down too.

No one definitively stated that this is ths height of selfishness. Jeremy just stated that in his opinion, it was.

Exactly.

 

To me, the height of selfishness is to want to remove someone else's fun simply because you don't care to play the same way. "If I'm not going to do it, nobody else should either".

 

Instead, why not embrace differences and be more tolerant of other people's idea of what they enjoy?

[+Ambrosia]

Here's a couple of links to the threads from just a few weeks ago. Please read them and enjoy the angst.

 

link 1

 

link 2

 

I checked the links you provided. I did not find anything relevant to this topic. Did I miss something? Can you provide a link where there has ever been mention on this Forum of Temporary Caches being listed as additional Waypoints? Can you provide a link where TPTB have ever commented on Temp Caches being listed as additional Waypoints?

 

I wanted to know if this site allowed this event to be published in it's current form, or if they were slipped in post publication. Many have accused TPTB of straddling the fence on the Temp Cache issue. If they allowed this Event to be published in it's current form, that tells ME something.

 

ArcherDragoon is the ONLY person posting to this thread who has actually commented on THIS topic. Thank You AD for at least reading what I wrote. EVERY other response to this thread has been off topic.

Hm....it seems to me that you set up a thread that was pretty impossible for anyone to stay on topic, and then got on their case when they couldn't.

 

It looks like the main basis for this thread was to see if these additional waypoints were set up before the reviewer published the cache, or after, therefore showing whether or not Groundspeak allows using addtional waypoints to post the coords to temporary caches at an event.

 

The only person that could answer this question is the reviewer. Everyone else's posts would just be endless speculations that wouldn't answer that question for you.

 

The best thing for you to do to answer your question would be to either email the reviewer or email groundpeak.

 

The reviewer could have just thought on his own that it was ok to use the additional waypoints without asking anyone, so that doesn't competely answer the question of whether or not Groundspeak offically approves of this. The only one who could 100% answer that question is Jeremy, I suppose.

 

And I do believe that there were quite a few people who tried to stay on topic, as did I (in discussing whether I believed hypothetically if Groundspeak would be fine with using the additional waypoint feature in this way). I guess the only other way people could have helped is if there was some announcement somewhere that you had missed.

[+TrailGators]

I guess I need to post a link to my gospel according to Jeremy post. This is a quote from Jeremy where he calls additional logging of events "stupid". He also says he reserves the right to stop what he sees as abuse.

If that was an attempt to post said link, you posted the wrong link. That link is to some bookmark link.

 

On a side note, I like Jeremy's post where he states:

 

I couldn't give two hoots if someone wants to log an event cache twice. It's their find count and there is no competition here. So if you find a cache at an event, knock yourself out.

 

I think the power that IS has spoken.

 

The power has also said this:

 

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.

But nowhere does he say that it is not allowed. Like it or not, some people have found a way to increase their find counts within the guidelines. So why not let them play in peace?

This is true. People are free to act in the 'height of selfishnessness.' That doesn't mean that others have to condone the selfishness. That is really what this boils down too.

No one definitively stated that this is ths height of selfishness. Jeremy just stated that in his opinion, it was.

Of course it's his opinion. It's also my opinion. I think it's selfish to log caches that are not permanent and available to everyone. I think it's selfish to clutter up event pages with hundreds of logs that say "temp cache." I wish you guys could crank up your find counts without screwing up event cache pages. It is very enjoyable to read through everyone's "attended" logs and the look at the photos they took. I hope it doesn't spread out here. If it does I'll quit attending events. I've already had to all but quit urban caching because of this obssession with numbers.

 

Edit: typo

Edited November 8, 2007 by TrailGators

[+ReadyOrNot]

The argument that "The site allows it, so it's not an abuse" drives me absolutely bonkers!!!! If that's the case, then if I slip an unacceptable cache in under the reviewers radar and it gets listed, then it immediately becomes acceptable because the site listed it?

 

Taking advantage of a loophole and using the loophole to bypass something that was not intended is an abuse.

[+sbell111]

... >> If TPTB wanted temp-caches logged on the site, they would provide a way to do so.

 

My opinion, using the features of GC.com for a use other than the intended is abuse of the system. ...

I hope that I didn't leave too much of your post on teh cutting room floor, but you know what it said.

 

I believe that you may be forgetting the history of logging temporary event caches.

1. Temporary event caches used to get their own cache pages.
   
2. The 'permanance rule' was established to relieve reviewer workload
   
3. People complained about the loss of these temporary event cache pages and Jeremy stated that he felt that these pages are 'the height of selfishness
   
4. Jeremy stes that he doesn't 'give two hoots' if people log temporary event caches to the event page.
   

On a side note, I like Jeremy's post where he states:

 

I couldn't give two hoots if someone wants to log an event cache twice. It's their find count and there is no competition here. So if you find a cache at an event, knock yourself out.

 

I think the power that IS has spoken.

The power has also said this:

 

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.

Again, I'm nearly positive that you are misconstruing his post. If you take a look at the entire post and thread that it was in, it is clear that he is talking about the listing of individual cache pages for temporary caches. Edited November 8, 2007 by sbell111

[+ReadyOrNot]

I wish you guys could crank up your find counts without screwing up event cache pages.

 

When you submit a log, the site could ask how many different times you found the cache. And while they're at it, instead of requiring a specific payment for membership to the site, you could just ask them how much they want to pay. AND Groundspeak should help pay for its members gas to and from caches. And how about Groundspeak provided FREE healthcare and childcare for my children while I cache.

 

GIMME! GIMME! GIMME! GIMME!

 

It's my game and I want to play it how I CHOOSE. MOMMY!!!!

[+CanadianMonkeys]

For the love of Caching why does anyone even care what everyone else is doing?????? This is a GAME not a competition. We are not running against each other for some big "prize". The only thing you get out of caching is a personal satisfaction. The passion and thrill is all a personal thing. Why do you care who other people are doing??? Maybe they need big numbers to feel an accomplishment. Why should you care? Do you question the guy in the lane next to you as to how he managed to get a better car then you? Do you attack the lady in front of you in the market because her cart if fuller than yours? Do you get up set at the guy down the street because he has a bigger house? NO, you don't because you have civil decency. That should apply here as well. It doesn't matter how people got the numbers the have, it only matters that they are enjoying them selves. You have no right to judge anyone as to the rules, guidelines and ethics of this game because there are only guidelines that are put out for your safety. The rest is left for interpretation. Stop being a bunch of ninnys and keep to your own interpretation of the game. REMEMBER IT IS A GAME!

[+Ambrosia]

From what I can see from reading threads over time, is that Groundspeak feels that there are a few legitimate reasons to log a smilie to a cache more than one time. This has been discussed in threads many times. Because of that, they do not want to lock caches down to allow only one find per person. But, there is no way that Groundspeak has the time or need to be log police and deal with everyone who logs too many finds to one cache/event. The cache is a listing on the website, and it's up to the cache owner to take care of it. The problem is that if they won't lock the allowable finds, and can't spend all their time monitoring it, then it's pretty useless and frustrating to make official statements and rules regarding this practice. People just need to use common sense.

[+sbell111]

... I think it's selfish to clutter up event pages with hundreds of logs that say "temp cache." I wish you guys could crank up your find counts without screwing up event cache pages. It is very enjoyable to read through everyone's "attended" logs and the look at the photos they took. I hope it doesn't spread out here. If it does I'll quit attending events. I've already had to all but quit urban caching because of this obssession with numbers.

At the end of the day, the person who gets to decide whether a, event page is 'cluttered up' is the person putting on the event. You have control over your cache pages. They have control over theirs.

Taking advantage of a loophole and using the loophole to bypass something that was not intended is an abuse.

You are correct, right up to the point where the person in charge acknowledges the 'loophole' and states that he doesn't care about it.

 

A perfect example is non-premium members being able to log an MOC. People complained about it, Jeremy acknowledged it and stated that he has no inclination to close the hole. At that point, it became impossible to convince me that any non-PM logging a MOC was doing anything wrong.

Edited November 8, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

I wish you guys could crank up your find counts without screwing up event cache pages.

 

When you submit a log, the site could ask how many different times you found the cache. And while they're at it, instead of requiring a specific payment for membership to the site, you could just ask them how much they want to pay. AND Groundspeak should help pay for its members gas to and from caches. And how about Groundspeak provided FREE healthcare and childcare for my children while I cache.

 

GIMME! GIMME! GIMME! GIMME!

 

It's my game and I want to play it how I CHOOSE. MOMMY!!!!

If TPTB were willing to pay for my gas I would let them and not believe that I was abusing the system.

[+TrailGators]

... I think it's selfish to clutter up event pages with hundreds of logs that say "temp cache." I wish you guys could crank up your find counts without screwing up event cache pages. It is very enjoyable to read through everyone's "attended" logs and the look at the photos they took. I hope it doesn't spread out here. If it does I'll quit attending events. I've already had to all but quit urban caching because of this obssession with numbers.

At the end of the day, the person who gets to decide whether a, event page is 'cluttered up' is the person putting on the event. You have control over your cache pages. They have control over theirs.

That is why I concluded by saying that I will not attend numbers pumping temp cache events. Edited November 8, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

... I think it's selfish to clutter up event pages with hundreds of logs that say "temp cache." I wish you guys could crank up your find counts without screwing up event cache pages. It is very enjoyable to read through everyone's "attended" logs and the look at the photos they took. I hope it doesn't spread out here. If it does I'll quit attending events. I've already had to all but quit urban caching because of this obssession with numbers.

At the end of the day, the person who gets to decide whether a, event page is 'cluttered up' is the person putting on the event. You have control over your cache pages. They have control over theirs.

That is why I concluded by saying that I will not attend numbers pumping temp cache events.

I take a different tack. I enjoy what I want from an event and don't participate in the rest.

 

In this situation, I would use the additional waypoints to find the temporary event caches, but I likely wouldn't log them individually as finds.

[+ReadyOrNot]

A perfect example is non-premium members being able to log an MOC. People complained about it, Jeremy acknowledged it and stated that he has no inclination to close the hole. At that point, it became impossible to convince me that any non-PM logging a MOC was doing anything wrong.

 

Why didn't Jeremy just allow non-premium members to log MOC caches then? Basically he's saying, "It's not allowed unless you're able to figure out the work-around".. It's still not something that is allowed. It's like the police department having a no-pursuit policy. Just because they choose to not pursue fleeing criminals doesn't mean that they aren't criminals.

 

** FOR CLARIFICATION, I AM NOT IMPLYING THAT ANYONE IS A CRIMINAL *** <-- Added for the inevitable abuse complaints

Edited November 8, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+sbell111]

A perfect example is non-premium members being able to log an MOC. People complained about it, Jeremy acknowledged it and stated that he has no inclination to close the hole. At that point, it became impossible to convince me that any non-PM logging a MOC was doing anything wrong.

Why didn't Jeremy just allow non-premium members to log MOC caches then? Basically he's saying, "It's not allowed unless you're able to figure out the work-around".. It's still not something that is allowed. It's like the police department having a no-pursuit policy. Just because they choose to not pursue fleeing criminals doesn't mean that they aren't criminals.

Why does there have to be a button specifically to do anything that can be done? Jeremy has stated very clearly that it is acceptable and the method is widely documented.

** FOR CLARIFICATION, I AM NOT IMPLYING THAT ANYONE IS A CRIMINAL *** <-- Added for the inevitable abuse complaints

I know of at least one cacher who's a Criminal.

[Mushtang]

I wish you guys could crank up your find counts without screwing up event cache pages.

 

When you submit a log, the site could ask how many different times you found the cache. And while they're at it, instead of requiring a specific payment for membership to the site, you could just ask them how much they want to pay. AND Groundspeak should help pay for its members gas to and from caches. And how about Groundspeak provided FREE healthcare and childcare for my children while I cache.

 

GIMME! GIMME! GIMME! GIMME!

 

It's my game and I want to play it how I CHOOSE. MOMMY!!!!

That's funny. From my point of view I see it more like, "Waaaah! Teacher, Sally isn't playing hopscotch during recess, she's jumping rope. Waaaaah. We all like to play hopscotch, which is the only thing we all played at the beginning of the school year, but someone brought that jump rope and now she's having fun using it. Waaaaah! Make her stop having fun, we'd rather play hopscotch."

Then teacher says, 'Why do you want her to play hopscotch instead of jumping rope?"

And you reply, "I never said I wanted her to play hopscotch, I just don't want her jumping rope because we don't want to jump rope".

 

Waaaaah.

[+TrailGators]

I wish you guys could crank up your find counts without screwing up event cache pages.

 

When you submit a log, the site could ask how many different times you found the cache. And while they're at it, instead of requiring a specific payment for membership to the site, you could just ask them how much they want to pay. AND Groundspeak should help pay for its members gas to and from caches. And how about Groundspeak provided FREE healthcare and childcare for my children while I cache.

 

GIMME! GIMME! GIMME! GIMME!

 

It's my game and I want to play it how I CHOOSE. MOMMY!!!!

That's funny. From my point of view I see it more like, "Waaaah! Teacher, Sally isn't playing hopscotch during recess, she's jumping rope. Waaaaah. We all like to play hopscotch, which is the only thing we all played at the beginning of the school year, but someone brought that jump rope and now she's having fun using it. Waaaaah! Make her stop having fun, we'd rather play hopscotch."

Then teacher says, 'Why do you want her to play hopscotch instead of jumping rope?"

And you reply, "I never said I wanted her to play hopscotch, I just don't want her jumping rope because we don't want to jump rope".

 

Waaaaah.

You played hopscotch and jumped rope during lunch? You would have found me over on the basketball court playing some hoops. Anyhow, I shouldn't laugh, you are free to do whatever you want during your lunch. Playing hopscotch certainly doesn't hurt anyone. Edited November 8, 2007 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

From my point of view I see it more like, "Waaaah! Teacher, Sally isn't playing hopscotch during recess, she's jumping rope. Waaaaah. We all like to play hopscotch, which is the only thing we all played at the beginning of the school year, but someone brought that jump rope and now she's having fun using it. Waaaaah! Make her stop having fun, we'd rather play hopscotch."

Then teacher says, 'Why do you want her to play hopscotch instead of jumping rope?"

And you reply, "I never said I wanted her to play hopscotch, I just don't want her jumping rope because we don't want to jump rope".

 

Waaaaah.

But what if Sally is jumping rope on the hopscotch court? How can the other children play hopscotch if Sally is in the way?

 

I think is more like Sally wants to add a rule to hopscotch that says she can count temporary squares she lands in during normal play. The other children complain that they don't count the temporary squares; in fact there are no such things as temporary squares. The teacher says "I think Sally's rules are silly, but I'm not going to be the hopscotch police. If you children can't work it out then one group should only count the permanent squares and ignore the group that is using Sally's rules, since it doesn't affect the way you are playing."

[+TrailGators]

... I think it's selfish to clutter up event pages with hundreds of logs that say "temp cache." I wish you guys could crank up your find counts without screwing up event cache pages. It is very enjoyable to read through everyone's "attended" logs and the look at the photos they took. I hope it doesn't spread out here. If it does I'll quit attending events. I've already had to all but quit urban caching because of this obssession with numbers.

At the end of the day, the person who gets to decide whether a, event page is 'cluttered up' is the person putting on the event. You have control over your cache pages. They have control over theirs.

That is why I concluded by saying that I will not attend numbers pumping temp cache events.

I take a different tack. I enjoy what I want from an event and don't participate in the rest.

 

In this situation, I would use the additional waypoints to find the temporary event caches, but I likely wouldn't log them individually as finds.

Luckily it has not spread out here. As far as I can tell, it's spread from from Wisconson to Illiniois, Iowa, and Minnesota. Any other places I've missed?

[+BlueDeuce]

Have we reached the analogy fight part of the thread? Sweet!

 

Personally I think analogies are like climbing to the top of a ladder and taking one more step. It does take you somewhere, just not quite in the direction you meant to go.

 

 

 

[+Stunod]

As far as I can tell, it's spread from from Wisconson to Illiniois, Iowa, and Minnesota. Any other places I've missed?

 

I don't think I've seen a multi-logging event in Illinois (at least near Chicago) in 4 or 5 years...

[+KoosKoos]

Have we reached the analogy fight part of the thread? Sweet!

 

Personally I think analogies are like climbing to the top of a ladder and taking one more step. It does take you somewhere, just not quite in the direction you meant to go.

 

 

You are WAAAY off...analogies are more like maps. They might show you ways to go, but don't point out the correct path.

 

[+TrailGators]

As far as I can tell, it's spread from from Wisconsin to Illiniois, Iowa, and Minnesota. Any other places I've missed?

 

I don't think I've seen a multi-logging event in Illinois (at least near Chicago) in 4 or 5 years...

Hooray for the FIBs! (I can say that because I used to live in Illinois) So that leaves only Wisconsin Iowa, and Minnesota.

[+BlueDeuce]

You know, I really don't have the time to check the events of the other 46 states. But I'm pretty sure it isn't just a upper-midwest thing

[+tozainamboku]

You know, I really don't have the time to check the events of the other 46 states. But I'm pretty sure it isn't just a upper-midwest thing

There may be a problem with these states. It appears that where Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa come together Google maps has rotated the satellite image 180°. I believe this is proof that multiple logging of events does have consequences for the rest of us.

 

edit: on closer inspection it appears that what happened in the tile just southeast of of the one in the picture is shifted northwest to be duplicated in this spot. In which case, TrailGators will be happy to know that we don't need to log events multiple time in California because we have the San Andreas fault and in a few hundred thousand years I expect to see all of his caches much closer to where I live.

Edited November 8, 2007 by tozainamboku