Team hunting & logging!

[+GRANPA ALEX]

This topic is NOT about NUMBERS and it will, obviously, not change anything at gc.com. That being said . . .

 

I know, many will say it is NOT about the numbers and that is fine for THEM. Others will say with equal predudice and passion, if it is NOT about the numbers, why keep score?

 

This topic has to do more with the fairness/integrity of team members logging finds on the same from very diverse and distant locations. For example, logging finds in Washigton DC and Los Angeles on the same day . . . different team members all contributing to the TEAM count when it is obvious that all members were not present at each find.

 

All that is fine but should we NOT have a 'team category' so as not to be competing with individuals who see/sign every cache that they log . . . it just seems reasonble to me and a much more honest way to track progress.

[+Too Tall John]

Who is competing?

 

What do I do to win?

 

What do I win?

 

Can someone get me a copy of the rules?

 

[Mushtang]

I keep score because my numbers DO matter to me.

 

I don't mind that some people log differently than I do because I don't care about their numbers.

 

If a team profile gets finds from all over the world on the same day, it doesn't keep me from having fun.

 

If a person never logs any of her finds online, it doesn't keep me from having fun.

 

Team categories might help the teams, but it's not something that would help this non-team member.

[+TrailGators]

This topic is NOT about NUMBERS and it will, obviously, not change anything at gc.com. That being said . . .

 

I know, many will say it is NOT about the numbers and that is fine for THEM. Others will say with equal predudice and passion, if it is NOT about the numbers, why keep score?

 

This topic has to do more with the fairness/integrity of team members logging finds on the same from very diverse and distant locations. For example, logging finds in Washigton DC and Los Angeles on the same day . . . different team members all contributing to the TEAM count when it is obvious that all members were not present at each find.

 

All that is fine but should we NOT have a 'team category' so as not to be competing with individuals who see/sign every cache that they log . . . it just seems reasonble to me and a much more honest way to track progress.

The day you can say "Frankly Scarlett, I could give a ____," (and mean it) is the day you will feel much better.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

(All that is fine but should we NOT have a 'team category' so as not to be competing with individuals who see/sign every cache that they log . . . it just seems reasonble to me and a much more honest way to track progress.)

 

So, using the word COMPETE when another, perhaps 'compare' might have not drawn the wrong conclusions and resultant tangents . . . the OP was addressing a better way to track individual progress vs team progress - they ARE different and that is the focus of the OP. It is reasonable to have a better plan.

Edited November 10, 2007 by GRANPA ALEX

[+TrailGators]

(All that is fine but should we NOT have a 'team category' so as not to be competing with individuals who see/sign every cache that they log . . . it just seems reasonble to me and a much more honest way to track progress.)

 

So, using the word COMPETE when another, perhaps 'compare' might have not drawn the wrong conclusions and resultant tangents . . . the OP was addressing a better way to track individual progress vs team progress - they ARE different and that is the focus of the OP. It is reasonable to have a better plan.

How do you compare stats of people that mainly do urban quickies with others that do a higher percentage of more challenging or higher terrain caches? Edited November 10, 2007 by TrailGators

[+cache_test_dummies]

(All that is fine but should we NOT have a 'team category' so as not to be competing with individuals who see/sign every cache that they log . . . it just seems reasonble to me and a much more honest way to track progress.)

 

So, using the word COMPETE when another, perhaps 'compare' might have not drawn the wrong conclusions and resultant tangents . . . the OP was addressing a better way to track individual progress vs team progress - they ARE different and that is the focus of the OP. It is reasonable to have a better plan.

If this topic is a suggestion for a new site feature, then you may want to ask the moderators to move this over to the GC.com Website forum. If, on the other hand, you want people to debate the ethics of team logging and what that means with respect to being able to compare stats, you're in the right place.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

Responding to TrailGators:

 

Personally, I simply do not make the distinction or comparison. I was only looking at reasonable and equitable ways to measure/compare number of finds between teams and individuals.

 

It may be another discussion or tracking mechanism that will and perhaps, should, address your question . . . a fair and worthy consideration, as well.

[+TrailGators]

Responding to TrailGators:

 

Personally, I simply do not make the distinction or comparison. I was only looking at reasonable and equitable ways to measure/compare number of finds between teams and individuals.

 

It may be another discussion or tracking mechanism that will and perhaps, should, address your question . . . a fair and worthy consideration, as well.

My point is that there is no way to compare. Just like you can't have a food eating contest between some people eating popcorn and others eating watermelons. I agree that making a team eating popcorn against one guy eating watermelons makes it even more of a ridiculous contest. However a team eating watermelons competing against someone eating popcorn makes it a lot more of an even contest. Now if we only knew who was eating what.... Edited November 11, 2007 by TrailGators

[+GRANPA ALEX]

If this topic is a suggestion for a new site feature, then you may want to ask the moderators to move this over to the GC.com Website forum. If, on the other hand, you want people to debate the ethics of team logging and what that means with respect to being able to compare stats, you're in the right place.

 

The OP opened commenting that there is no expectation of a gc.com change consideration, so it is a topic in the right place. It is simply for exchange of ideas from which an idea might develop . . . then, maybe, who knows?

 

You know, it might work to have a means (fill in box) that one uses on the initial cache page setup that indicates "distance to cache from parking". This coupled with difficulty will differentiate park & grabs from longer hikes/higher difficulty . . . kind of a quality measure.

Edited November 11, 2007 by GRANPA ALEX

[Scuzball]

I think that the numbers are important. I don't however, think they're a competition. They're like a way of gaining respect from other people. There's always going to be people who have found more, but the cachers you actually know will realize that having 5K finds is a big deal, even if you aren't in the top 1,000 rankings. So, if your caching friends know you have actually only found 1K but have logged 5K, then they're not going to respect you as they would had you actually found 5K.

 

SO: it doesn't matter what you have on paper because anyone who matters to you will know how many you've actually found

[+GreenMountainTreasureHunters]

Once you start getting into special "team" rules, there is a question as to what is a team. My family (2 adults, 3 kids) shares one account. Are we a team? I expect we'll do the vast majority of our caching together, but if one of us were on a trip somewhere without the others, we might pick up a couple there...

 

I think it's best not to worry about competing/comparing with others and just have fun.

[+BlessedBees]

I would like to see a team addition - so that I can track my personal finds - BOTH when I am out myself AND when I am with the family. Seems like the should be a way to form a team and then when the team logs the find then I personally get the find also. I just don't see a point in polluting the logs with a 'team' (family) find and then duplicating one for myself.

 

The team (family) doesn't really want to count my finds when I am on business travel.

 

A team / group function would makes this really slick!

[+GreenMountainTreasureHunters]

I saw someone suggest a group/team/family function where you would have checkboxes for each team member, and you would check off which members were present when the cache was found. That way each individual would have an accurate record of their finds, without a group having to make several separate logs at each cache. I'd hate for the 5 of us to always make 5 separate logs when we find caches together! It would fill the whole front page with only one real find.

[+BlessedBees]

... and you would check off which members were present when the cache was found....

 

PERFECT!

[+tozainamboku]

Since there is no competition than was does it matter that a husband and wife share an account on geocaching? What do you care that the husband was caching in Pittsburgh while his wife was in Chicago? And why do care that when the wife comes home from her business trip, she logs a second find on a cache that the husband found when he was away? This doesn't affect in any way your own numbers. If you want to COMPARE you numbers with some team, knock yourself out, but don't fool yourself into thinking this is meaningful.

 

THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN COMPARE ONE CACHER'S NUMBER WITH ANOTHER'S AND IMO THERE SHOULD NOT BE. There is enough ansgt in the forums over just what a find is and when a individual should log a 'Found it' or a 'note' without adding the angst of how to compare individuals vs. teams, individuals who cache alone vs. individuals who sometime go caching with friends, individuals how prefer high terrain caches to those who like urban caches, etc.

 

I have a better idea. Someone, maybe even Grounspeak, could start www.competitiivegeocaching.com. At competitivegeocaching.com, member would pay an annual fee of $100 (or what ever is detemined a fair price to run this site). For that they will receive there individual electronic device that will be set to recognize their individual retinal pattern. Every cache listed on comepetitivegeocaching.com would contain a barcode genrated by the site when the cache is approve. The finder of the cache must activate their electronic device by scaning their retina then scan the bar code in the caches. At home they must upload the proof the found the cache from their device. At www.competitivegeocaching, you could register either in the team category or the individual category but not both. Anyone found getting help in finding a cache from anyone not one their own team will be immediately disqualified and forfeit the $100 fee. There will also be random testing for steroids and other banned substances. Then if the OP wants to compete he can join competitivecaching.com.

[+BlessedBees]

...and there are some that will choose not to use the function.

[+RussellM]

But that is the problem (to some), there is competition. I don't know about everyone else, but i like competition and therefore enjoy keeping score of the number of caches i have found. At only 58 found, i'm not breaking any records, but it's still fun to see how many i've done.

At the same time, the scores mean different things for different cachers. I could go to the nearest city (watertown) and find 30 microcaches in one day. Sure it would raise my number, but what fun would that be. Numbers can be misleading if one person attacks hard caches while another reaps the LPC.

When it comes to a team competition, why not. I will be very proud of my finds regardless of how many another team racks up. While the final decision is left up to the GC moderators, i say why not? Won't make the game any less fun for me.

[+BlessedBees]

for me it isn't 'competition' just that the wife would like to keep better track of hers versus ours versus mine.

[+GreenMountainTreasureHunters]

for me it isn't 'competition' just that the wife would like to keep better track of hers versus ours versus mine.

 

Yes, that's where I'm coming from as well. We'd love to have a more accurate record of who found what (more easily accessible than re-reading all our logs, where we say who was along) without having to have multiple accounts and put multiple logs for each find.

[+Mudfrog]

This one's a toughie depending on how you look at it. I don't really see it as being too big a problem for the most part and i can actually understand why it might happen at times as well. Now, there are a few things that a team might do that i wouldn't find kosher though. For example,,, that team publicly bragging about how many finds they have, the team entering their stats on a numbers listing site for the purpose of getting their name towards the top of a leaderboard (in this case, most finds in a day), or submitting their numbers in some kind of organized geocaching contest (unless the rules of that contest stated that it was ok for team members to split up)..

[+briansnat]

Who is competing?

 

Apparently a lot of people.

What do I do to win?

Rack up those finds

 

 

What do I win?

 

 

Awards (under awards)

 

Coins

 

Parties

 

Attaboys

 

Acclaim

[+GRANPA ALEX]

In summary . . . the marking of a simple checkbox seems the easiest and quickest way to resolve the concern of those who believe the consideration is valid. It would only involve an added step in logging IF some individuals on the team were absent on a find being logged - smooth solution!

 

It would allow participating members of a team to EACH have their individual smilies record, accurately, AND let others, who care, understand how to compare progress toward goals. Great answer!

Edited November 11, 2007 by GRANPA ALEX

[+Rockin Roddy]

This topic is NOT about NUMBERS and it will,

 

That's funny, it sure seems to be about the numbers...

[+TrailGators]

The best solution is to also create separate accounts if individuals in the family want to log their finds separately. I have had a family account since I started. When I started my kids used to cache with me. That ended when they became teenagers. Anyhow, none of them have ever logged a cache without me. So I maintain the family/my account.

[+Too Tall John]

Who is competing?

Apparently a lot of people.

What do I do to win?

Rack up those finds

What do I win?

Awards(under awards)

Coins

Parties

Attaboys

Acclaim

Seems like only one of those are related to competition, and that only moderately so.

[Mushtang]

Who is competing?

Apparently a lot of people.

What do I do to win?

Rack up those finds

What do I win?

Awards(under awards)

Coins

Parties

Attaboys

Acclaim

Seems like only one of those are related to competition, and that only moderately so.

Also, none of those seem to be exclusive of folks that achieve status later. As in, if someone gets to 1000 Finds before you do, and you think they cheated, you'll still get the award/coin/party/Attaboy/Acclaim that they got when you get your 1000th.

[+TrailGators]

Who is competing?

Apparently a lot of people.

What do I do to win?

Rack up those finds

What do I win?

Awards(under awards)

Coins

Parties

Attaboys

Acclaim

Seems like only one of those are related to competition, and that only moderately so.

Also, none of those seem to be exclusive of folks that achieve status later. As in, if someone gets to 1000 Finds before you do, and you think they cheated, you'll still get the award/coin/party/Attaboy/Acclaim that they got when you get your 1000th.

 

More importantly, you'll get it from the people that are not part of the delusion!

[Mushtang]

Who is competing?

Apparently a lot of people.

What do I do to win?

Rack up those finds

What do I win?

Awards(under awards)

Coins

Parties

Attaboys

Acclaim

Seems like only one of those are related to competition, and that only moderately so.

Also, none of those seem to be exclusive of folks that achieve status later. As in, if someone gets to 1000 Finds before you do, and you think they cheated, you'll still get the award/coin/party/Attaboy/Acclaim that they got when you get your 1000th.

 

More importantly, you'll get it from the people that are not part of the delusion!

Right. And you'll get it from TPTB wanna-be players too.

 

When you get to 1,000 finds (or whatever milestone) you'll have someone that will think you did a good job and you'll get all the "rewards" you listed. Having teams that log finds differently than you won't change this.

[+tozainamboku]

The best solution is to also create separate accounts if individuals in the family want to log their finds separately. I have had a family account since I started. When I started my kids used to cache with me. That ended when they became teenagers. Anyhow, none of them have ever logged a cache without me. So I maintain the family/my account.

There are issues with premium accounts. Of course the non-premium members could use the loophole to log premium members only caches but still it is extra work.

 

I suspect there are somethings that could be done make families who sometimes cache as a team and sometimes cache individually keep track of team finds and individual finds. I still don't see why someone else should worry that the team number may include multiple finds or may be "inflated" because it includes some "individual" finds counted along with some team finds. Just like I don't see why it matters that some accounts might count caches were they were with the hider when the cache was hidden, caches that were missing but they replaced for the owner, caches where they forgot to bring a pencil, caches that were missing but the owner said to go ahead and log a find anyway, and that worst of all abuses of the website - multiple attended on events for each temporary cache they found. Some people will count things as finds that I will never count as a find. I stopped letting it bother me.

[+TrailGators]

The best solution is to also create separate accounts if individuals in the family want to log their finds separately. I have had a family account since I started. When I started my kids used to cache with me. That ended when they became teenagers. Anyhow, none of them have ever logged a cache without me. So I maintain the family/my account.

There are issues with premium accounts. Of course the non-premium members could use the loophole to log premium members only caches but still it is extra work.

 

I suspect there are somethings that could be done make families who sometimes cache as a team and sometimes cache individually keep track of team finds and individual finds. I still don't see why someone else should worry that the team number may include multiple finds or may be "inflated" because it includes some "individual" finds counted along with some team finds. Just like I don't see why it matters that some accounts might count caches were they were with the hider when the cache was hidden, caches that were missing but they replaced for the owner, caches where they forgot to bring a pencil, caches that were missing but the owner said to go ahead and log a find anyway, and that worst of all abuses of the website - multiple attended on events for each temporary cache they found. Some people will count things as finds that I will never count as a find. I stopped letting it bother me.

It is only extra work for 2-3% of the caches that are PMO caches. Not enough to worry about.

 

I wouldn't want certain caches wiped out of my PQs because someone in my family found it when I wasn't around. So if they are going to cache without me then they can create another account. Since nobody in my family likes to log this has never been an issue for me. The numbers reason never entered my mind because I could give a rat's patootie about the numbers.

Edited November 12, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Sagefox]

The best solution is to also create separate accounts if individuals in the family want to log their finds separately. I have had a family account since I started. When I started my kids used to cache with me. That ended when they became teenagers. Anyhow, none of them have ever logged a cache without me. So I maintain the family/my account.

 

This is what we do. I set up an account for Spark's finds (Spark 1) should she ever find caches on her own or, now that we live in an area that has more than one cacher, should she cache with others. It also was a good place to park her finds of our team caches when she had not been in on the hide.

[+Sagefox]

The word Team doesn't always mean there are multiple members caching individually but posting to the team account.

 

I have been to every one of our cache finds and plan to keep it that way. The team members are others in the family, most commonly Spark (about 700 finds) and Big Dog, our 9 year granddaugher (about 25 finds).

 

There may be many other "teams" that also log this way.

[CoyoteRed]

(500 word smart aleck-y post deleted in favor of the following.)

 

This thread gives rise to yet another reason I'd like to hide my find count and the option to remove the ability of our caches to increment a finder's count.

 

Complaining about logging via a team account versus an individual account is flat out ridiculous IMHO. It's obvious that some folks take the whole chase for numbers just a bit too far.

[+briansnat]

Who is competing?

Apparently a lot of people.

What do I do to win?

Rack up those finds

What do I win?

Awards(under awards)

Coins

Parties

Attaboys

Acclaim

Seems like only one of those are related to competition, and that only moderately so.

Also, none of those seem to be exclusive of folks that achieve status later. As in, if someone gets to 1000 Finds before you do, and you think they cheated, you'll still get the award/coin/party/Attaboy/Acclaim that they got when you get your 1000th.

 

More importantly, you'll get it from the people that are not part of the delusion!

Right. And you'll get it from TPTB wanna-be players too.

 

When you get to 1,000 finds (or whatever milestone) you'll have someone that will think you did a good job and you'll get all the "rewards" you listed. Having teams that log finds differently than you won't change this.

 

Talk about missing the point.

[+TrailGators]

(500 word smart aleck-y post deleted in favor of the following.)

 

This thread gives rise to yet another reason I'd like to hide my find count and the option to remove the ability of our caches to increment a finder's count.

 

Complaining about logging via a team account versus an individual account is flat out ridiculous IMHO. It's obvious that some folks take the whole chase for numbers just a bit too far.

I am with you 100% CR. Edited November 12, 2007 by TrailGators

[+StarBrand]

Wow......

 

I guess we could all form the "Forums" team - all start logging any cache found by any one of us?

 

Wow........

[+BlessedBees]

(500 word smart aleck-y post deleted in favor of the following.)

 

This thread gives rise to yet another reason I'd like to hide my find count and the option to remove the ability of our caches to increment a finder's count.

 

Complaining about logging via a team account versus an individual account is flat out ridiculous IMHO. It's obvious that some folks take the whole chase for numbers just a bit too far.

I am with you 100% CR.

Some may be concerned about number (let them - it doesn't matter). But it also about accounting for each of the ones I found separate from the ones someone else in my team found. Being able to log as a group (selecting who was present) would keep the logs clean - without having a log for me and one "I was caching with him" and another "I was caching with him too". Each team member could still run a PQ that would only eliminate th ones THEY found or the ones the team found when they were present.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

To address the CR comment, no one has or is complaining about numbers in this OP and it was not part of the OP. Please, there is no reason to re-direct the conversation to some negative point-of-view.

 

The OP was not about numbers but about tracking numbers accurately between teams & individuals. The thought was to accomplish a means to do this, well . . . I think is has been accomplished via logging with check boxes.

 

I/we do not expect gc.com to do anything with this and, even if they did, it would still depend upon loggers to be accurate in their logging . . . they can do that now, if they wanted to.

 

There are simply some people who DO care about accurate tracking of their progress (numbers) and that have targets or personal goals that they seek to achieve that may include honest ranking . . . this TOO is one way to enjoy the game that is as valid as any other way to play.

 

I have never seen these ones, ones who care about numbers, make negative, aggravating or contrary remarks about others who do not share their goals. They simply hunt caches, hide caches - playing the game . . . they usually have very low numbers in the forum posts as the game is played outside.

[+TrailGators]

The OP was not about numbers but about tracking numbers accurately between teams & individuals. The thought was to accomplish a means to do this, well . . . I think is has been accomplished via logging with check boxes.

What is the problem with having separate accounts for each family member that want to log caches on their own? Edited November 12, 2007 by TrailGators

[+GreenMountainTreasureHunters]

What is the problem with having separate accounts for each family member that want to log caches on their own?

 

The problem with that, IMO, is that when you have a family of 5, who almost always do all their caching together, it would really clog the cache logs to always have 5 separate logs for each find or DNF. Especially considering that some software makes it more difficult to look past the 5 most recent logs, having them all relate to the same instance of seeking the cache seems a bit "rude". I find it mildly annoying to read the logs where even 2 people log their own separate logs for each find, especially if one of the logs is a minimal "caching with so-and-so" who also just logged the find.

 

And, yet, if on occasion, one of us does not come along for a particular hunt, it would be nice to be able to accurately record that without having to clog every cache page with 5 (or 4 or however many) nearly identical cache logs.

[+Coach Steve]

I keep score because my numbers DO matter to me.

 

I don't mind that some people log differently than I do because I don't care about their numbers.

 

If a team profile gets finds from all over the world on the same day, it doesn't keep me from having fun.

 

If a person never logs any of her finds online, it doesn't keep me from having fun.

 

Team categories might help the teams, but it's not something that would help this non-team member.

 

I agree 100%! I compare myself to other cachers the same way Chevy Chase did in "Caddy Shack". Judge Smails asked him what he shot on the course that day, to which Chevy replied: "Ah, Judge, I don't keep score" Then the Judge asked him: "But how do you compare yourself to other golfers?" Chevy makes the great reply "By height" So that's how I compare myself--by height. Any other way just doesn't matter much.

[+TrailGators]

What is the problem with having separate accounts for each family member that want to log caches on their own?

The problem with that, IMO, is that when you have a family of 5, who almost always do all their caching together, it would really clog the cache logs to always have 5 separate logs for each find or DNF. Especially considering that some software makes it more difficult to look past the 5 most recent logs, having them all relate to the same instance of seeking the cache seems a bit "rude". I find it mildly annoying to read the logs where even 2 people log their own separate logs for each find, especially if one of the logs is a minimal "caching with so-and-so" who also just logged the find.

 

And, yet, if on occasion, one of us does not come along for a particular hunt, it would be nice to be able to accurately record that without having to clog every cache page with 5 (or 4 or however many) nearly identical cache logs.

It's no different than if you went caching with 5 friends that all had separate accounts. Owners love getting more logs, so I wouldn't worry one bit about 'clogging cache logs.'

[+BlueDeuce]

This topic is NOT about NUMBERS <snip>

 

This topic has to do more with the fairness/integrity of team members logging finds on the same from very diverse and distant locations.

 

I don't think you can separate the cause and effect. You'll just end up with a thread debating whether people care about numbers.

 

Personally as long as teams aren't each logging the same cache, I don't have an issue with two people logging different caches under the same account. I wouldn't do it, but as long as they are honest and open about what they are doing then no one can accuse them of trying to do something...dishonest.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Responding to TrailGators:

 

Personally, I simply do not make the distinction or comparison. I was only looking at reasonable and equitable ways to measure/compare number of finds between teams and individuals.

 

It may be another discussion or tracking mechanism that will and perhaps, should, address your question . . . a fair and worthy consideration, as well.

 

It's funny how an unacceptable practice slowly becomes acceptable if folks keep doing it!

 

Grandpa Alex was on my team at, I think, the first GeoQuest in TN. We went out in one car, everyone hunted the cache, whoever found it signed one time with a team name, everyone back in the car and move on to the next. When we got home everyone that was in the car under that team name logged them. That's my understanding of team logging, and I think it is perfectly acceptable. I think we had 5 on our team (in the car) and obviously only one actually found each cache, the others stood around while that person signed for the team, so purists might argue that it wasn't a find for 4 of the 5 of us. Fortunately most folks aren't that pure!

 

Now, team logging where a team splits up and all members don't go to each cache, well, that was beaten into my head as a no-no by the forum-furor over our GW5 record run, where we found 321 in 24 hours BUT the team split up into 2 groups for 18 of them. The vast majority consensus was that we were lower than a snake's belly for logging team finds when we weren't all together at the cache, and many disputed, nay, dismissed, our 'record' because of it. Due to the angst over that and over our signing the cache container instead of the log none of us logged those 321 finds, at least I didn't, and I don't think they did.

 

Are you saying that it has in some way become acceptable for people to log caches they never went to because they were on a 'team'?

 

We don't need a mechanism to allow it, we need to maintain the position that if you weren't there you didn't find it! Team or no team!

[CoyoteRed]

To address the CR comment, no one has or is complaining about numbers in this OP and it was not part of the OP. Please, there is no reason to re-direct the conversation to some negative point-of-view.

"Re-direct"ing?

 

This topic has to do more with the fairness/integrity of team members logging finds on the same from very diverse and distant locations.

 

...should we NOT have a 'team category' so as not to be competing with individuals who see/sign every cache that they log . . . it just seems reasonble to me and a much more honest way to track progress.

 

You're making comments about the fairness of teams versus individuals. You're suggesting teams shouldn't "compete" against individuals. You suggesting it is less than fully honest. You seem to be saying you see it as a problem. That certainly sounds like "expressing feeling of dissatisfaction" to me.

[+fishingfools]

yo rambler, I think you meant GW4.

[+Mudfrog]

We don't need a mechanism to allow it, we need to maintain the position that if you weren't there you didn't find it! Team or no team!

That sums it up pretty well!

 

As i stated above, i don't see this as being a real problem except in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, that still doesn't mean it's a good practice. It's a tough call for teams since it can happen even though they usually cache together.

 

IMO, There are a few variables to be considered but to me a typical situation might be like this. The team consists of a family, with say, 5 members ranging from baby to adult. There's most likely going to be days when all of the family won't be caching together. In this case, i think the person who set up the account needs to be there when a cache is found, that is if the team wants to log it as a find.

 

A checkbox type setup would be nice but i have a feeling that we probably won't see anything like that implemented.

[+BlessedBees]

A checkbox type setup would be nice but i have a feeling that we probably won't see anything like that implemented.

This check box would be nice to have. My 'feeling' is the same as yours - doubtful.

[+TrailGators]

We don't need a mechanism to allow it, we need to maintain the position that if you weren't there you didn't find it! Team or no team!

That sums it up pretty well!

 

As i stated above, i don't see this as being a real problem except in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, that still doesn't mean it's a good practice. It's a tough call for teams since it can happen even though they usually cache together.

 

IMO, There are a few variables to be considered but to me a typical situation might be like this. The team consists of a family, with say, 5 members ranging from baby to adult. There's most likely going to be days when all of the family won't be caching together. In this case, i think the person who set up the account needs to be there when a cache is found, that is if the team wants to log it as a find.

This is exactly what my family of 5 does. Though my baby is now 16.