Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
TrailGators

A win-win idea to impede logging abuse

Recommended Posts

There have been many threads discussing multiple logging of caches/events. A variety of opinions have already been expressed, and both sides have some merit. However, the one thing that concerns many, including TPTB, is logging abuse. So I have thought of a potential win-win solution to stop abuse and still allow multiple logging of caches/events for legitimate reasons. Therefore, one thing TPTB could do is only allow people to log a find/attended on the same cache once every 24 hours. That would still allow caches like grandfathered traveling caches to be logged more than once, but it would impede logging abuse by making people wait a reasonable amount of time before they can log the same cache/event again.

 

* Please make an effort to keep this thread angst free. Please do not discuss whether or not multiple logging should or should not be allowed, we already have dozens of threads discussing that. Please just give your opinion on the merit of this idea. Would it impede logging abuse? Should the time between logs be longer or shorter than the proposed 7 days? Thanks.

 

Edit: Revised from 7 days to 24 hours.

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

Seems fair enough to me. Although I'd like to provide an example for some insight -_-

 

I am/was a member of another site where members would enter codes from soda caps to earn points for prizes. Members were permitted to enter 10 codes per 24 hour period. There were many times where I had far more than 10 codes to enter but the system would not allow any further entries.

 

Now I can tell you for sure I did not drink that many sodas but I sure had the code numbers - was I cheating by not drinking/buying the sodas but still entering the codes for a prize? I had a chance to earn a nice prize but I was one code short and I had already entered 10 codes for the day. I missed my chance for that sweet prize by one code. Was I mad, you bet but I got over it.

 

I would not have a problem with limiting the number of logs per waypoint, there would be several problems such as editing logs, dropping bugs/coins that could count against you - I honestly think it would be far too much work to make it worthwhile as an effective tool.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that has some merit.

 

I still like the idea of event "hosts" setting the max number of temp caches at the event when submitting it.

 

Then when you log attended - you can specify the number of temps you located. Might even work with the extra waypoints option - you could place a check mark next to all the temps you found.

 

You still get to log the event - but only once. In addition - there is a new stat that shows the number of temps found.

 

No bogus logs saying you attended multiple times and an accurate record of temps for those that care.

 

Win- Win.

Share this post


Link to post

Good ideas.

 

If we're considering modifying the event features ... here's another suggestion.

 

Why not allow the event coordinators to list the temp caches available similar to the additional waypoints. When a person logs the event add a feature by which an attendee could check off any temps they have found as well as marking their attendance at the event. The number of temps they check increases their count and they only log the event one time. This would allow each person to log it as they see fit, minimize the amount of log traffic on the servers, and everyone has a good time.

 

This could be coupled with a feature to allow a person to log an event as attended only once, all subsequent posts by a person who already indicated their attendance would have to be notes.

 

Win-Win.

 

 

edit: added a word and I had my reply open while StarBrand was posting a reply. Looks like we have similar ideas.

Edited by ScoutingWV

Share this post


Link to post

A delay doesn't seem to address the underlying issue.

 

Edit: Staying on topic.

Edited by BlueDeuce

Share this post


Link to post
I think that has some merit.

 

I still like the idea of event "hosts" setting the max number of temp caches at the event when submitting it.

 

Then when you log attended - you can specify the number of temps you located. Might even work with the extra waypoints option - you could place a check mark next to all the temps you found.

 

You still get to log the event - but only once. In addition - there is a new stat that shows the number of temps found.

 

No bogus logs saying you attended multiple times and an accurate record of temps for those that care.

 

Win- Win.

Good point but when people don't want temp caches logged at their event, people are circumventing the event owner by allowing people to log all the temp caches on one of their caches. This would impede that abuse. The way I look at it there is no easy way to circumvent this idea. -_- Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

* Please make an effort to keep this thread angst free. Please do not discuss whether or not multiple logging should or should not be allowed, we already have dozens of threads discussing that. Please just give your opinion on the merit of this idea. Would it impede logging abuse? Should the time between logs be longer or shorter than the proposed 7 days? Thanks.

Can we discuss whether Geocaching.com should even expend the effort to have code to prevent the rampant abuse of the found it and attended logs? -_-

Share this post


Link to post

* Please make an effort to keep this thread angst free. Please do not discuss whether or not multiple logging should or should not be allowed, we already have dozens of threads discussing that. Please just give your opinion on the merit of this idea. Would it impede logging abuse? Should the time between logs be longer or shorter than the proposed 7 days? Thanks.

Can we discuss whether Geocaching.com should even expend the effort to have code to prevent the rampant abuse of the found it and attended logs? -_-

That's up to them. I'd rather stick to discussing the pros and cons of the idea. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

Limiting the logs to once every 7 days would not, by itself, protect traveling caches. We have one here thast moves so much at times that you could score 5 or more different finds on it in a day!

 

I still think that the main answer here is to let the cache owner select, as part of the cache reporting form, the max number of caches allowed on his or her cache. Let the owner control it (or not) as THEY see fit. It's their cache, it's really their responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Limiting the logs to once every 7 days would not, by itself, protect traveling caches. We have one here thast moves so much at times that you could score 5 or more different finds on it in a day!

 

I still think that the main answer here is to let the cache owner select, as part of the cache reporting form, the max number of caches allowed on his or her cache. Let the owner control it (or not) as THEY see fit. It's their cache, it's really their responsibility.

How could it possibly be found 5 times in a day by the same person? It takes the owner some time to post the new coords and you can't find your own hide...

Share this post


Link to post
Limiting the logs to once every 7 days would not, by itself, protect traveling caches. We have one here thast moves so much at times that you could score 5 or more different finds on it in a day!

 

I still think that the main answer here is to let the cache owner select, as part of the cache reporting form, the max number of caches allowed on his or her cache. Let the owner control it (or not) as THEY see fit. It's their cache, it's really their responsibility.

How could it possibly be found 5 times in a day by the same person? It takes the owner some time to post the new coords and you can't find your own hide...

 

A lot of folks here log caches from on-site with treo and other like devices so the logs and updated coords can come pretty quickly. But it's funny. Sometimes that cache will sit still for days on end, then all of a sudden there's a flurry of activity. I've found it as many as 3 times in 1 day. Others have had similar experiences over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Limiting the logs to once every 7 days would not, by itself, protect traveling caches. We have one here thast moves so much at times that you could score 5 or more different finds on it in a day!

 

I still think that the main answer here is to let the cache owner select, as part of the cache reporting form, the max number of caches allowed on his or her cache. Let the owner control it (or not) as THEY see fit. It's their cache, it's really their responsibility.

How could it possibly be found 5 times in a day by the same person? It takes the owner some time to post the new coords and you can't find your own hide...

 

Five in a day might be a little high, but I've seen it found 3 times in a day more than once...granted, usually by different people, but there are dozens of times that it's found by the same person 2-3 times in 7 days.

 

It's a very active traveler and with insta-notification of move logs, everyone can pop right out and get it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Limiting the logs to once every 7 days would not, by itself, protect traveling caches. We have one here thast moves so much at times that you could score 5 or more different finds on it in a day!

 

I still think that the main answer here is to let the cache owner select, as part of the cache reporting form, the max number of caches allowed on his or her cache. Let the owner control it (or not) as THEY see fit. It's their cache, it's really their responsibility.

How could it possibly be found 5 times in a day by the same person? It takes the owner some time to post the new coords and you can't find your own hide...

 

A lot of folks here log caches from on-site with treo and other like devices so the logs and updated coords can come pretty quickly. But it's funny. Sometimes that cache will sit still for days on end, then all of a sudden there's a flurry of activity. I've found it as many as 3 times in 1 day. Others have had similar experiences over the years.

 

Ok, so SQ is faster in his reply and with more justification than me! -_-

 

Personally, I wouldn't want to see this 7 day waiting period on logging caches....if there are legitimate reasons for multiple logs, then don't restrict when people can make them.

Share this post


Link to post
Limiting the logs to once every 7 days would not, by itself, protect traveling caches. We have one here thast moves so much at times that you could score 5 or more different finds on it in a day!

 

I still think that the main answer here is to let the cache owner select, as part of the cache reporting form, the max number of caches allowed on his or her cache. Let the owner control it (or not) as THEY see fit. It's their cache, it's really their responsibility.

How could it possibly be found 5 times in a day by the same person? It takes the owner some time to post the new coords and you can't find your own hide...

 

Five in a day might be a little high, but I've seen it found 3 times in a day more than once...granted, usually by different people, but there are dozens of times that it's found by the same person 2-3 times in 7 days.

 

It's a very active traveler and with insta-notification of move logs, everyone can pop right out and get it again.

I guess around here when those come around people that have already found them let others have a shot at them. Anyhow, I guess that means that you guys would rather have a smaller time like 24 hours?

Share this post


Link to post

I really can't see how a time constraint as this would stop multiple logging, but will keep quiet!

 

I also can't imagine finding the same cache more than once in a week (well, ever really). Aren't "traveling" caches supposed to travel? I'm glad we don't have those around here.

Share this post


Link to post
I really can't see how a time constraint as this would stop multiple logging, but will keep quiet!

 

I also can't imagine finding the same cache more than once in a week (well, ever really). Aren't "traveling" caches supposed to travel? I'm glad we don't have those around here.

Roddy, it isn't supposed to stop it, it is supposed to 'impede' it. So if someone wanted to log unlisted caches it would not be worth the effort. But it wouldn't impede most traveling cache loggers. I'm not sure about the ones in Texas now.... :laughing: Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
Please just give your opinion on the merit of this idea.

I think you've found a bad solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

I don't believe that there is actually any "abuse" taking place. I DO believe that a very vocal minority believes that logging practices are being abused, but it doesn't seem like TPTB (who you've spoken for) have said anything to indicate they can't accept these practices you're trying to prevent.

 

The solution you've come up with is more of a win-lose-lose instead of a win-win. Cachers that seem to be obsessed with other people's numbers may "win" with this because they get to force others into caching more like they do, and therefore feel they can compare numbers with higher accuracy. The cachers that would want to log more than once within whatever time frame you want to allow them to will lose, they'll lose a part of the game that they apparently enjoy (otherwise they wouldn't do it so much). The rest of us would also lose, having TPTB pulled off of whatever else they're working on to change the code so the Numbers Obsessed people can feel better about other cacher's numbers, and therefore have to wait longer for future improvements or features.

 

So no, I don't think this idea has merit.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think the idea has merit either. The bottom line is that TPTB have empowered cache owners to regulate how their caches are logged. Some allow 1 log per cacher. Others allow multiple logs. Still others are no longer active but still have caches out there, so obviously don't monitor at all.

 

And how many times have you seen an archived cache logged? Or one in another area where the logger couldn't possibly have been? For those who want high find counts simply for the sake of having high found counts, they're going to find ways to get them.

 

Instead of comparing yourself to them, you need to find others who have similar viewpoints as you and compare yourself to that group.

 

This whole thing used to bother me, but I've let it go. I get my injoyment in my way just as others should get their enjoyment in whatever way they see fit.

Edited by *TnT*

Share this post


Link to post
Would it impede logging abuse?

There are other players out there enjoying an activity that apparently bothers you even though their behavior does not affect the way you personally choose to Geocache.

 

Would your proposed change impede the behavior you describe? Maybe. For every clever electronic measure there is always a clever electronic countermeasure. Someone will probably find a way to automate the logging process and work around your waiting period.

 

Your question, however, contains a debatable premise – to which you all but admit: Can the behavior you describe be correctly characterized as "abuse?" That is strictly a matter of opinion, and it would appear that there are many players who clearly do not share your opinion or who agree with your definition.

 

Could your own oppressive attempt at behavior correction therefore also be characterized as "abuse?" Another matter of opinion, but I'll wager there are many who would agree.

 

Please do not discuss whether or not multiple logging should or should not be allowed, we already have dozens of threads discussing that.

Before we discuss the merits of your specific fix maybe we should first determine whether anything is actually broken. I would recommend postponing the present discussion until a consensus is reached, if ever, in those other threads you mention. Do otherwise and you risk making it sound as if you want to force others to change the way they play simply to help you feel better about yourself or to satisfy some irrational personal grudge.

Share this post


Link to post
Instead of compaing yourself to them, you need to find others who have similar viewpoints as you and compare yourself to that group.

That's an excellent suggestion, *TnT*.

 

TrailGators: Instead of using your find count to compete against those who seem to meet your definition of cheating, why not simply ignore those people and compete strictly against the people who play by your version of the unwritten rules of this, um, pastime-that-is-not-supposed-to-be-a-competition?

Edited by KBI

Share this post


Link to post

A delay doesn't seem to address the underlying issue.

I agree. (sure wanted to add to this but figured i'd better not.) :laughing:

 

Also as Semper Questio pointed out, moving caches do sometimes get found more than once by a person in a week's time. This is a legitimate cache for multiple logging and it's not really fair that a person would have to go through a waiting period to log it.

Share this post


Link to post

A delay doesn't seem to address the underlying issue.

I agree. (sure wanted to add to this but figured i'd better not.) :laughing:

 

Also as Semper Questio pointed out, moving caches do sometimes get found more than once by a person in a week's time. This is a legitimate cache for multiple logging and it's not really fair that a person would have to go through a waiting period to log it.

What if the waiting period were only 24 hours? Would that make a difference?

 

Also the underlying issue will never be resolved any other way than making it more difficult for abuse to take place without penalizing non-abuse.

Share this post


Link to post

Also the underlying issue will never be resolved any other way than making it more difficult for abuse to take place without penalizing non-abuse.

 

I still agree that your premise is faulty....some people think it's an abuse, but not everyone. Any time limit is just stretching out what may or may not be a problem.

 

And the traveling cache that SQ brought up is meant to only travel in our immediate area, so that's why it bounces around to so many of the same local cachers.

Share this post


Link to post

Also the underlying issue will never be resolved any other way than making it more difficult for abuse to take place without penalizing non-abuse.

I still agree that your premise is faulty....some people think it's an abuse, but not everyone. Any time limit is just stretching out what may or may not be a problem.

It is only stretching it out for the people that are abusing the priviledge. So if someone wanted to log 100+ temp caches, they would find out that it's easier to log caches listed on the site. This would also give time for people to enjoy reading the event page before it got all cluttered up with hundreds of temp logs.

 

I also agreed that maybe 24 hours would be better. I didn't realize that you guys in Texas were logging some traveling cache 3 times/week.

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

Enjoy it while you can KoosKoos. After we get this practice banned we might go after the traveling caches and insist that they all be archived. I mean, they're already forbidden from being created, so the site must realize they're bad for the sport right? And since TPTB obviously want to get rid of them (regardless of the fact that they haven't) then we MUST take up the cause and get TPTB to archive all existing moving caches!!!

 

It won't matter that a lot of people enjoy logging them. We've got to stop them from having fun because WE don't like it.

Share this post


Link to post

Also the underlying issue will never be resolved any other way than making it more difficult for abuse to take place without penalizing non-abuse.

 

I still agree that your premise is faulty....some people think it's an abuse, but not everyone. Any time limit is just stretching out what may or may not be a problem.

 

And the traveling cache that SQ brought up is meant to only travel in our immediate area, so that's why it bounces around to so many of the same local cachers.

 

So it's a "friends" cache? What would happen if someone came along and moved it to another state?

 

For all the sarcasm in your post Mushtang, you MUST realize that TPTB DO see these moving caches as an abuse or they'd have left them active (just like the virts). I can see the reason too...distance problems would be the major one! Again...glad these aren't around here, might as well be a lint picker cache (oh, I mean pocket cache...sorry).

 

Anyway, I see that this might slow the logging of multiple attendeds (gee, that MUST be sooo fun), but some number hungry (or is it fun loving) loggers will undoubtedly set their machine up as a cut & paste factory, set an alarm so they don't miss their time slot (wouldn't want to wait longer tomorrow would we...) and just log away anyways. I mean, it's soooo fun after all!

 

(I thought I'd throw some sarcasm back in case anyone is running low...lol)

 

Mushtang....millions of people like speeding too, should we just let them have at it since it's fun for them? My point being...just because some like this, it doesn't make it right and it surely doesn't give reason to allow it!

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

For all the sarcasm in your post Mushtang, you MUST realize that TPTB DO see these moving caches as an abuse or they'd have left them active (just like the virts). I can see the reason too...distance problems would be the major one! Again...glad these aren't around here, might as well be a lint picker cache (oh, I mean pocket cache...sorry).

I do agree with you, 100%. TPTB saw them as a bad thing because they were a detriment to the game, and stopped approving them. My point behind the sarcasm is that the old ones still exist, and someday someone is going to get it in their head that they have to improve the game over and above what TPTB want to do and call for all of them to be archived.

 

Anyway, I see that this might slow the logging of multiple attendeds (gee, that MUST be sooo fun), but some number hungry (or is it fun loving) loggers will undoubtedly set their machine up as a cut & paste factory, set an alarm so they don't miss their time slot (wouldn't want to wait longer tomorrow would we...) and just log away anyways. I mean, it's soooo fun after all!
Even though you don't enjoy it, and you want your find count to match a certain rule, you've got to admit that a tremendous number of other people do enjoy it, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Your sarcasm won't convince me that the practice isn't enjoyed by those that do it, only that you think it's not for you. But is that a good enough reason to keep them from enjoying it?

 

Mushtang....millions of people like speeding too, should we just let them have at it since it's fun for them?
No, because speeding can result in someone else being harmed. This multilogging practice cannot be a detriment to the cachers that don't want to participate in it, and certainly not to the ones that live 1,300 miles away.

 

My point being...just because some like this, it doesn't make it right and it surely doesn't give reason to allow it!
So far nobody has given a good reason to remove the fun that someone else is having. "Because I think it's wrong and therefore they shouldn't be allowed" is hardly a good reason.

 

I still think the idea set in the OP does not have merit, and shouldn't be set up.

Share this post


Link to post

No one will give a reason to keep this practice save the old "people are having fun" argument either...so none of this will ever convince me that it should continue. In actuality, I've seen several REAL reasons why this is abuse...

 

As I pointed out, the idea has flaws, but might slow the abuse a bit!

 

Sorry, not meaning to derail this topic...I'll bow out and leave this to others!!

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not so certain the idea is the best solution.

 

I've mentioned before about a scheme that owners can designate any of their caches as single log only caches. It would be a simple switch. The system when tallying the number of finds would either only count caches with any number of appropriate logs as one or it would count the number of appropriate logs.

 

I see this as a cache owner tool. I don't have any caches that are meant to be logged as a find more than once. I could turn this switch on on each of my caches and not worry about folks returning to log the cache again with an inappropriate log-type. Some newbies still get a bit confused.

 

Fleshing out the idea, the only real reason to have the switch off is for certain events and grandfathered caches. If the feature was implemented, the switch would automatically turned on. Only the reviewers could turn it off; either by request on older grandfathered caches or as part of the review process on new caches.

 

Additionally, this switch could affect the way finds are calculated for owned caches.

 

...or...

 

Instead of changing finds retroactively, the system can be set to not allow multiple found it/attended logs. Leave the way the finds are calculated. Change the check to when a cache is logged. If the system sees a found it/attended log already exists on a cache that has the switch turned on alert the logger and convert the log-type to a note. This will also go for owners trying to log their own cache. Optionally there can be owner logging exceptions for events while disallowing multiple attended logs.

 

Either of these two versions will allow for the flexibility of allowing multiple logging when appropriate and still allow the system help the owner to police his cache. It will give guidance to the new hobbyists. It will eliminate one avenue of angst. (343 more to go.)

 

That's a win-win in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Limiting the logs to once every 7 days would not, by itself, protect traveling caches. We have one here thast moves so much at times that you could score 5 or more different finds on it in a day!

 

I still think that the main answer here is to let the cache owner select, as part of the cache reporting form, the max number of caches allowed on his or her cache. Let the owner control it (or not) as THEY see fit. It's their cache, it's really their responsibility.

How could it possibly be found 5 times in a day by the same person? It takes the owner some time to post the new coords and you can't find your own hide...

 

Five in a day might be a little high, but I've seen it found 3 times in a day more than once...granted, usually by different people, but there are dozens of times that it's found by the same person 2-3 times in 7 days.

 

It's a very active traveler and with insta-notification of move logs, everyone can pop right out and get it again.

I guess around here when those come around people that have already found them let others have a shot at them. Anyhow, I guess that means that you guys would rather have a smaller time like 24 hours?

 

This traveling cache is limited to stay within a 20 mile radius and part of the local fun of this cache is beating others to the grab. That being said, I'll sometimes let it go for weeks without chasing it down. Then there is the friendly competition of the "north-siders" and "south-siders" keeping it away from each other. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

 

So it's a "friends" cache? What would happen if someone came along and moved it to another state?

 

For all the sarcasm in your post Mushtang, you MUST realize that TPTB DO see these moving caches as an abuse or they'd have left them active (just like the virts). I can see the reason too...distance problems would be the major one! Again...glad these aren't around here, might as well be a lint picker cache (oh, I mean pocket cache...sorry).

 

No,it's a locally traveling cache. Anyone that can find it can grab it. It has nothing to do with only selected "friends".

 

what if it got moved? Dunno. That'd be up to the cache owner.

 

If I recall correctly, the primary reason traveling caches were dropped was because of the owner maintainability problem if the cache gets moved too far away from the owner, not because it is some sort of geocache heresy. It's odd to me to compare traveling caches to pocket caches or virtuals. Those are on the no-no list because they don't have a container, log, permanence, or some combination of the three. THIS traveling cache has all 3 and it has been maintained quite well over the years. Where's the problem?

 

To get back on topic, I just don't see a major issue here or TPTB would have taken steps to correct it by now. There have sure been enough suggestions on methods for them to run with. It always amazes me how someone half a continent away will get on here and fuss about how folks half a continent away play the game when TPTB don't seem to mind how folks are playing in their sandbox. Also, let's not forget that there is supposed to be a major new website rollout in the works. It may be getting addressed there. Perhaps we should all just relax a little and see what that brings. After all, it doesn't seem likely the multilogging "issue" is gong to change in the current scheme.

 

OK, that's it for me. I REALLY need to get some work done. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I believe I said "distance problems"? Not at all was this compared to a virt (my statement was meant to say the travel cache was dropped...like the virt...because it IS an abuse...sorry if it was confusing).

 

I see that cache as a "friends" cache simply because it "stays close to friends"...I believe it was said the same person could easily find it a few times in a day (or was it week...either way). Sounds more like to me, a bunch of you have this on your watch and as soon as it's dropped again, off after another number!! YIPPEE!! Again, glad this isn't around here.

 

I don't care if you're half a continent away or half a block...doing it right is universal.

 

Sorry, I'd rather not keep disrupting this topic, had to respond to the comment involving me.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't care if you're half a continent away or half a block...doing it right is universal.

 

The question is, who it defining what "doing it right" means? While I haven't hunted this cache in quite some time, it's on my watchlist so that when I get the urge to go grab it again, I can. For me, I only log my subsequent finds as notes because I don't want to keep incrementing my smiley count on this single cache.

 

That being said, the owner allows for multiple "found it" logs because they consider each hide unique and a new find. TPTB allow for multiple logging on these caches as well as any other cache with the owner's permission.

 

Seems to me, TPTB and the cache owner have decided what is right....so we don't need a timing mechanism to stop owners from allowing multiple logs.

 

edit - for some small typos

Edited by KoosKoos

Share this post


Link to post

I can totally get behind an owner selected option to either allow or not allow multiple Finds (or Attends).

 

If an event owner in Southern California doesn't want multiple attends on his event, but someone in Ohio thinks it should be allowed, too bad.

And if someone in Ohio wants to allow multiple Attends, but someone in Southern California thinks it's wrong, too bad.

 

The cache owner gets to decide how his cache should be managed. I remember reading a post a long time ago where Jeremy suggested if he ever did make a change to the site to manage multiple log, this is what he would do.

Share this post


Link to post

Re-read the CR proposal...it would be up to the REVIEWERS. The setting would default on not allowing multiple logs, the reviewers would be the ones determining if the cache requires having the multilog feature activateI'd like to see where Jeremy said that too...got a link?

 

I've said before, if there was a definitive answer one way or another, I'd stop complaining about this today...still waiting.

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

Re-read the CR proposal...it would be up to the REVIEWERS. The setting would default on not allowing multiple logs, the reviewers would be the ones determining if the cache requires having the multilog feature activated.

 

That's really a separate topic, but since we've derailed this one so many times, I'll chime in there too. I have no problem with the default being to "No multilogs", but the reviewers don't need the extra task of determining whether or not a cache should qualify for a multilogging option. Let the owners maintain that control if they want to allow it on their cache or not.

 

I'd also fully support the idea that's been thrown out there about giving a finder the choice to enter "x additional" logs to cover the temporaries at events, etc. and not tie up a cache page with 50 extra logs.

 

Whatever changes come about, I still follow the idea of giving the owner as much control as possible.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the proposal is over complex, why not simply have a "+" button on each users profile, next to their score, which they can use to increase the number to any value they desire. This will be completely rational to anybody who has lost all connection betwen their score and the concept of actually going out and finding something. I would suggest a "-" button too but it would be completely superfluous.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the proposal is over complex, why not simply have a "+" button on each users profile, next to their score, which they can use to increase the number to any value they desire. This will be completely rational to anybody who has lost all connection betwen their score and the concept of actually going out and finding something. I would suggest a "-" button too but it would be completely superfluous.

:D:laughing::D:D:D:D

Share this post


Link to post

Re-read the CR proposal...it would be up to the REVIEWERS. The setting would default on not allowing multiple logs, the reviewers would be the ones determining if the cache requires having the multilog feature activateI'd like to see where Jeremy said that too...got a link?

 

I've said before, if there was a definitive answer one way or another, I'd stop complaining about this today...still waiting.

I did read him suggesting that it be the REVIEWERS. So? I said I'd get behind an OWNER selected setting.

 

I'll see if I can find the thread I mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
I think the proposal is over complex, why not simply have a "+" button on each users profile, next to their score, which they can use to increase the number to any value they desire. This will be completely rational to anybody who has lost all connection betwen their score and the concept of actually going out and finding something. I would suggest a "-" button too but it would be completely superfluous.
I like this idea too! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Re-read the CR proposal...it would be up to the REVIEWERS. The setting would default on not allowing multiple logs, the reviewers would be the ones determining if the cache requires having the multilog feature activated.

 

That's really a separate topic, but since we've derailed this one so many times, I'll chime in there too. I have no problem with the default being to "No multilogs", but the reviewers don't need the extra task of determining whether or not a cache should qualify for a multilogging option. Let the owners maintain that control if they want to allow it on their cache or not.

 

I'd also fully support the idea that's been thrown out there about giving a finder the choice to enter "x additional" logs to cover the temporaries at events, etc. and not tie up a cache page with 50 extra logs.

 

Whatever changes come about, I still follow the idea of giving the owner as much control as possible.

 

How is this off-topic? The OP is looking for a "win-win" proposal...this is commenting on a proposal.

 

I see no reason this would put more strain on a reviewer, there shouldn't be many caches needing multilogging on them anyway. What, a change of one button every couple months will swamp those great volunteers (I think they are MORE than capable of handling that)?

 

Leaving it up to the owner puts you right back to the beginning...

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not so certain the idea is the best solution.

 

I've mentioned before about a scheme that owners can designate any of their caches as single log only caches. It would be a simple switch. The system when tallying the number of finds would either only count caches with any number of appropriate logs as one or it would count the number of appropriate logs.

 

I see this as a cache owner tool. I don't have any caches that are meant to be logged as a find more than once. I could turn this switch on on each of my caches and not worry about folks returning to log the cache again with an inappropriate log-type. Some newbies still get a bit confused.

 

Fleshing out the idea, the only real reason to have the switch off is for certain events and grandfathered caches. If the feature was implemented, the switch would automatically turned on. Only the reviewers could turn it off; either by request on older grandfathered caches or as part of the review process on new caches.

 

Additionally, this switch could affect the way finds are calculated for owned caches.

 

...or...

 

Instead of changing finds retroactively, the system can be set to not allow multiple found it/attended logs. Leave the way the finds are calculated. Change the check to when a cache is logged. If the system sees a found it/attended log already exists on a cache that has the switch turned on alert the logger and convert the log-type to a note. This will also go for owners trying to log their own cache. Optionally there can be owner logging exceptions for events while disallowing multiple attended logs.

 

Either of these two versions will allow for the flexibility of allowing multiple logging when appropriate and still allow the system help the owner to police his cache. It will give guidance to the new hobbyists. It will eliminate one avenue of angst. (343 more to go.)

 

That's a win-win in my book.

CR I like the suggestion but it's easily defeated. There was another thread where an event owner said that no temp caches are allowed. So the temp people just setup a regular cache and logged that instead. So the time delay would effect all caches so there would be no way to cheat the system.

 

Edit: Several Typos. Something has gone wacky with my keyboard.....

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
I see that cache as a "friends" cache simply because it "stays close to friends"...I believe it was said the same person could easily find it a few times in a day (or was it week...either way). Sounds more like to me, a bunch of you have this on your watch and as soon as it's dropped again, off after another number!! YIPPEE!! Again, glad this isn't around here.

Just curious: Why does this cache bother you? Why would it bother you more if it were nearby?

Share this post


Link to post

Having a button so you can add as many finds as you want to....that'll help? What would happen then? They get X amount of smileys and get to skip the work? Seems a lazy way out.

 

I suppose saying I found X amount of caches on the attened log would be bad? Oh, wait...then they wouldn't get the almighty smiley....

 

There has to be a way to stop the abuse without rewarding those who want to log non-existent caches (or non-publishable...if you'd rather). I think CR's covers it best!

Share this post


Link to post

I can totally get behind an owner selected option to either allow or not allow multiple Finds (or Attends).

 

If an event owner in Southern California doesn't want multiple attends on his event, but someone in Ohio thinks it should be allowed, too bad.

And if someone in Ohio wants to allow multiple Attends, but someone in Southern California thinks it's wrong, too bad.

 

The cache owner gets to decide how his cache should be managed. I remember reading a post a long time ago where Jeremy suggested if he ever did make a change to the site to manage multiple log, this is what he would do.

I also agree that the owner-controlled single-log switch is a much better idea than the OP’s proposal, but: Don't we already have this? What's to prevent any cache owner right now from deleting any log he deems inappropriate? The switch would merely automate the process, and I would not be opposed to it, but I think it would be a minor adjustment to what already exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Having a button so you can add as many finds as you want to....that'll help? What would happen then? They get X amount of smileys and get to skip the work? Seems a lazy way out.

 

I suppose saying I found X amount of caches on the attened log would be bad? Oh, wait...then they wouldn't get the almighty smiley....

 

There has to be a way to stop the abuse without rewarding those who want to log non-existent caches (or non-publishable...if you'd rather). I think CR's covers it best!

Roddy, it is easily bypassed. Read post #43 explaining how. That's why I proposed an idea that is not easily bypassed. Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

I can totally get behind an owner selected option to either allow or not allow multiple Finds (or Attends).

 

If an event owner in Southern California doesn't want multiple attends on his event, but someone in Ohio thinks it should be allowed, too bad.

And if someone in Ohio wants to allow multiple Attends, but someone in Southern California thinks it's wrong, too bad.

 

The cache owner gets to decide how his cache should be managed. I remember reading a post a long time ago where Jeremy suggested if he ever did make a change to the site to manage multiple log, this is what he would do.

I also agree that the owner-controlled single-log switch is a much better idea than the OP’s proposal, but: Don't we already have this? What's to prevent any cache owner right now from deleting any log he deems inappropriate? The switch would merely automate the process, and I would not be opposed to it, but I think it would be a minor adjustment to what already exists.

 

I'd probably put out event caches to be used as a game (at an event of course), but I'd be afraid someone would want to log them and might make for terse moments if I were to deny them (seeings some feel they should be entitled). For this reason I won't place them. If there was a way to not allow them (multilogs) at all without the hassle of complaining cachers, I'd use them! I'd hate to make bad blood because someone wanted to log multis on my event...and I'll be dogged if I'd allow it!

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post
CR I like the suggestion but it's easily defeated. There was another thread where an event owner said that there would would no temp caches logged. So the temp people just setup a regular cache and logged that instead. So the time delay would effect all caches so there would be no way to cheat the system.

I'm less concerned with folks cheating than folks "cheating" on my caches. I'm tasked with certain duties and what I described would help me with my tasks.

 

Folks will be able to find ways around nearly any scheme.

 

A way to get around the 24 hour limitation, just thinking off the top of my head, is create a bookmark list of caches I need to go back to re-log. Do that once a day and you'd have the same end result. Harder, yes.

 

The point of my scheme is I can control my caches. I don't have much control over what other folks do with their caches.

 

The scheme of creating a separate cache and allowing folks to multi-log is the reason I mentioned teh default setting only the reviewers be able to change it. It would be much more trivial to make a guideline concerning multi-logging than a host of other criteria, IMHO. "Is there a reason to multi-log this cache?"

 

Doesn't really matter one way or the other as we'll likely never see any variant of a feature to impede multi-logging.

Share this post


Link to post

For all the sarcasm in your post Mushtang, you MUST realize that TPTB DO see these moving caches as an abuse or they'd have left them active (just like the virts). I can see the reason too...distance problems would be the major one! Again...glad these aren't around here, might as well be a lint picker cache (oh, I mean pocket cache...sorry).

I do agree with you, 100%. TPTB saw them as a bad thing because they were a detriment to the game, and stopped approving them. My point behind the sarcasm is that the old ones still exist, and someday someone is going to get it in their head that they have to improve the game over and above what TPTB want to do and call for all of them to be archived.

Traveling caches, by their nature, bypass the most important elements of the review process. They also cause previous hiding spots to get torn up by vigorous searchers when a new hider is slow to update location information. It is my understanding that new traveling caches were disallowed for these and other very obvious practical reasons, NOT because any individual was logging them more than once.

 

They weren’t (and aren’t) being "abused" any more than event caches are being being "abused." For abuse to exist there must be an abuser AND a victim.

 

When someone finds and logs a moving cache for the second or third time, where is the victim?

 

When someone logs an event cache multiple times to record an activity associated with the event, where is the victim?

 

We keep hearing that this is not a competition. If I’m playing Solitaire, why should I care if some guy at another card table – or in another state – is cheating at his own Solitaire game?

 

Why is it that the few people who most loudly belittle all the numbers hounds are the very same people who are most concerned about how their own numbers look when compared to these so-called "abusers?"

 

I personally have yet to be convinced that there is anything wrong with the behavior that this proposal seeks to control. The strongest argument I’ve heard is that the large number of multiple logs somehow creates a cruel hardship for those who have to slog through them in order to read the "real" event logs. I mean really, a few extra mouse clicks while scrolling down a page causes true suffering? Is it that hard to pick out the substantially meaningful logs from the "Found Its" as they scroll up your screen? Do you feel actual pain? That hardly ranks as an inconvenience, much less anything worthy of an effort to clamp down on a victimless activity that others happen to enjoy.

 

I suspect that large numbers of logs on a page isn't really the problem at all. If it were, then the same folks who use this argument would be calling just as loudly for limits on how many times ANY cache could be logged by ANYBODY.

 

Pride in one’s own find count is not a sin. It’s just a game, and there will be no "winner" at the "end." There is no ultimate prize other than one’s own personal sense of enjoyment and satisfaction. Everyone finds their sense of enjoyment and satisfaction in their own way, of course, but: no one ever increased his own find count while rolling his eyes at an event page.

 

If anything, "Attended" logs for events should maybe be changed so as not to be included in one’s find count total, similar to post-a-notes, DNFs, benchmarks and Waymarks. Virtuals and locationless caches were phased out because they weren’t really geocaches; couldn’t a similar argument be made for social events?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×
×
  • Create New...