A win-win idea to impede logging abuse

[+KoosKoos]

Will it help? If not, why not?

If there was a time-delay to logging a particular cache, they'd work out another method for logging the caches they're tracking: logging to archived caches, other events, personal caches, etc.

There would be a time delay on those too, so that wouldn't help them to bypass the system at all....

 

Previously the example was given that people wouldn't spend 40 days to log 40 temporary caches. They might spend 4 days to log 40 temporary caches across 10 other archived caches, however.

 

I just think this is a lot of coding to keep trying to close out loopholes. I'd prefer a solution where the cache owner flips a switch - either multiple logs are allowed or they aren't - instead of trying to code extra solutions for possible exceptions.

[Mushtang]

I don't mind you calling me silly, have at it. If you read that from my post, you might want to read it again!

I never called you silly, I called the idea silly. Big difference.

Your turn...oh, could we get backON TOPIC...you sure do have a problem with that!

I was completely ON TOPIC. My post questioned the reason for making the change as described in the original post. The idea of saving your friends from making the wrong decision, or from avoiding losing respect for your friends by limiting their ability to do something (the topic) they're not even doing is silly.

[+TrailGators]

Will it help? If not, why not?

If there was a time-delay to logging a particular cache, they'd work out another method for logging the caches they're tracking: logging to archived caches, other events, personal caches, etc.

There would be a time delay on those too, so that wouldn't help them to bypass the system at all....

 

Previously the example was given that people wouldn't spend 40 days to log 40 temporary caches. They might spend 4 days to log 40 temporary caches across 10 other archived caches, however.

 

I just think this is a lot of coding to keep trying to close out loopholes. I'd prefer a solution where the cache owner flips a switch - either multiple logs are allowed or they aren't - instead of trying to code extra solutions for possible exceptions.

 

That solution does nothing to help with the nuisances previously mentioned created by hundreds of temp logs on an event page. It is the same as doing nothing because owners can delete logs now. That is why I was trying to find a solution that helps people still enjoy reading the event page or still enjoy putting events on their watchlist. Actually logging archived caches accomplishes this too. So the delay tactic could usher these folks into a better solution that annoys a lot less people.

[Mushtang]

Would you please leave this thread? I have asked nicely already. I'm sick of your constant exaggerations of my position. Nobody is "forcing" anything here. It was a suggestion and that was all. I am also tired of your incessant efforts to bully people and derail every thread that you disagree with. You have stated your position so move on.

No, this is a forum that I'm a member of, and the thread discusses something that I have an opinion on. I'd rather not sit back and let only one side of the debate be heard. Giving an opposing position will give TPTB and anyone else reading this thread something to consider. So I'll continue to post on topic posts, discussing the merits of the suggested change and the results of the change, even if you don't want these points to be heard.

 

I could just as easily say that you've made your point, and move on, but I don't want to. The only real off topic posts in the thread are the ones that are saying I'm off topic, and my replies showing that I'm not. So if we could all stay on topic we'd have a much healthier debate. Thanks.

[+tomturtle]

This whole thread is somewhat invalid. To impede logging abuse means you have to have logging abuse, but logging event caches is clearly not logging abuse. While temporary in nature, they are real caches that people find. People logging caches that they didn't find would be logging abuse, but I don't hear that being talked about here. This appears to be an attempt to cause problems for others on the site by a few people making a big deal about a non-problem.

[+sbell111]

We have discussed whether there is abuse ad nauseum in other threads. The point of this thread was to discuss a potential solution that should only affect those that are abusing the system.

The fact that you insist on calling these activities 'abuse' suggests that it is appropriate to discuss whether the activities are, in fact, abusive. It is pointless to discuss changes without first proving that a problem exists that mandates the change. The fact that you clearly want to terminate activities that are enjoyed by others also make the issue appropriate for debate.

I even changed the 7 days to 24 hours to accomodate you guys in Texas with your local traveling cache. Is there anyone else logging approved caches that would be affected by this?

The fact that you have changed a time limit that would affect other's enjoyment that clearly has very limited, if any, affect on you does not strengthen your case for this change.

The fact that the majority of the cachers are not doing this also lends creedence to the fact that they do not believe this is the right thing to do.

The majority of cachers don't go after scuba caches. I guess scuba caches must be declared verboten.

Many people that don't believe in it want stronger measures than what this idea is proposing.

Just because some people want drastic action doesn't mean that any action is appropriate. Further, it doesn't lend credence to the change that you have proposed.

Finally, you can't assume that TPTB have decided to do nothing. For all we know they may be doing something with V2.0 of the website.

Who is assuming that? You are the one that is assuming that TPTB are reversing their previous posts related to this issue to be in favor of taking the requested action. Edited November 13, 2007 by sbell111

[Ferreter5]

Here's a slant-wise angle on the topic of multi-logging events for all of the temporary caches found while attending.

 

According to the cache listing guidelines, "...an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches."

 

An event cache that has temporary caches for people to find and multi-log against the event listing seems to be very close to violating this guideline, encouraging it almost. The saving grace for it is the use of the word "sole" in the guideline. But let's face it, almost no event cache is for the "sole" purpose of finding other caches even though that's what lots of event attendees spend their time doing at events -- afterall, finding geocaches is the primary activity of our geocaching hobby!

 

So, how is the activity of multi-logging against an event listing reconciled with the listing guidelines?

 

P.S. On a personal note, I only log my cache finds online so the database can do the job of remembering for me which caches I've already found so I don't have to do so. I don't care what my find-count number is.

[+TrailGators]

Sbell and tomturtle, you guys are still arguing whether logging tons of unlisted caches is abusive or not. I'm not sure how I can communicate any clearer than this: GO READ THE OTHER MULTI-LOGGING THREADS. This thread is to discuss an idea that "could be" implemented when/if TPTB deemed that logging tons of unlisted caches is abusive. Please discuss the idea and do not rehash old threads in this thread. If you continue to do it, then it will be clear that your sole purpose is to derail this thread.

Edited November 13, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

Here's a slant-wise angle on the topic of multi-logging events for all of the temporary caches found while attending.

 

According to the cache listing guidelines, "...an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches."

 

An event cache that has temporary caches for people to find and multi-log against the event listing seems to be very close to violating this guideline, encouraging it almost. The saving grace for it is the use of the word "sole" in the guideline. But let's face it, almost no event cache is for the "sole" purpose of finding other caches even though that's what lots of event attendees spend their time doing at events -- afterall, finding geocaches is the primary activity of our geocaching hobby!

 

So, how is the activity of multi-logging against an event listing reconciled with the listing guidelines?

 

P.S. On a personal note, I only log my cache finds online so the database can do the job of remembering for me which caches I've already found so I don't have to do so. I don't care what my find-count number is.

I'm not aware of this point ever being brought up. Not following the guidelines is abuse. It would take most of the day to find 40+ temp caches. However, I have to be fair to the others and ask that this not be discussed in this thread. This thread is to discuss one possible idea and the ramifications of that idea IF TPTB thought there was abuse going on. Would it really bother anyone that was following the current guidelines?

[+sbell111]

Here's a slant-wise angle on the topic of multi-logging events for all of the temporary caches found while attending.

 

According to the cache listing guidelines, "...an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches."

 

An event cache that has temporary caches for people to find and multi-log against the event listing seems to be very close to violating this guideline, encouraging it almost. The saving grace for it is the use of the word "sole" in the guideline. But let's face it, almost no event cache is for the "sole" purpose of finding other caches even though that's what lots of event attendees spend their time doing at events -- afterall, finding geocaches is the primary activity of our geocaching hobby!

 

So, how is the activity of multi-logging against an event listing reconciled with the listing guidelines?

 

P.S. On a personal note, I only log my cache finds online so the database can do the job of remembering for me which caches I've already found so I don't have to do so. I don't care what my find-count number is.

You are correct. If the sole purpose of the event were to find temporary event caches, it might be deamed to be a violation of the guidelines. That being said, the events that I've attended that had temporary event caches also had other activities. Also, Jeremy's old post that allowed for the logging of temporary event caches called them an activity just like any other appropriate event activity (or something along those lines), so the guideline may be interpreted as a way to forbid cache events that merely are a meet-up for cachers to go out and find a bunch of listed caches, rather than find caches that are placed solely to be an event activity.

[+sbell111]

... This thread is to discuss one possible idea and the ramifications of that idea IF TPTB thought there was abuse going on. Would it really bother anyone that was following the current guidelines?

The actions of those who hold these events and those who log temporary event caches have not been shown to be against the guidelines. Therefore, I believe that your proposed change would certainly bother many people who follow the guidelines. Edited November 13, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

... This thread is to discuss one possible idea and the ramifications of that idea IF TPTB thought there was abuse going on. Would it really bother anyone that was following the current guidelines?

The actions of those who hold these events and those who log temporary event caches have not been shown to be against the guidelines. Therefore, I believe that it would certainly bother many people who follow the guidelines.

In your opinion. It is all a matter of the interpretation by TPTB.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I've been a bit responsible for derailing also, for that I apologize. Here's my on-topic post:

 

I like your idea, because it's at least a solution to the problem. I agree with other posters that they will find loopholes and ways to get their smileys, at whatever cost. So I just think it doesn't quite go far enough. I've already well established what I think the solution should be, so I won't go into that

[+Semper Questio]

 

<snip>

 

Is there anyone else logging approved caches that would be affected by this?

 

The fact that the majority of the cachers are not doing this also lends creedence to the fact that they do not believe this is the right thing to do. Many people that don't believe in it want stronger measures than what this idea is proposing. Finally, you can't assume that TPTB have decided to do nothing. For all we know they may be doing something with V2.0 of the website.

 

Everyone who logs an approved cache multiple times with the owner's permission would be affected by this change.

So there are lots of people logging the same exact cache more than once a day? I was not aware of this.

 

And therein lies part of the problem. No one can be cognizant of all possible scenarios without also being cognizant of all the varieties of caches out there. Yes, there are MANY caches that allow multiple logs per person. For instance, caches that specifically state in the description to log a second smiley if you pick up a bag of trash or post a pic of you doing something silly at the cache. There are others where the owner allows several additional find logs for various reasons. As long as these types of caches are approved, the multilogging of THESE (not speaking of temps at multi's) can be deemed as acceptable to TPTB and their finders would be adversely affected by your time limitations.

 

Again, it seems a better solution to let the cache owner decide if, and how many, additional smilies can be claimed on the cache and then provide a streamlined way to log those additional finds without producing all the excess emails, etc. Perhaps we need a 'Bonus finds' log type with a number of finds field, the entry of which could not exceed the max set for the cache by the owner. Alternatively, if TPTB are going to condone temp caches at events, then perhaps they should go ahead and add a non-email generating 'event temp cache found' log type to events.

[+TrailGators]

I've been a bit responsible for derailing also, for that I apologize. Here's my on-topic post:

 

I like your idea, because it's at least a solution to the problem. I agree with other posters that they will find loopholes and ways to get their smileys, at whatever cost. So I just think it doesn't quite go far enough. I've already well established what I think the solution should be, so I won't go into that

It's easy to drift because some people feel so passionately about this, but that passion always ends in a fight. So I don't want that. I agree with you. However, I've realized that too large a step will never happen. So a small step like this has a better chance of happening. Plus it still gives the freedom to the game to fun new variations that the TPTB hoped for. TPTB can squelch the variations that they don't want and encourage the ones that they do want. It's their game.

[+Mudfrog]

Maybe a little off topic but only for a minute...

 

This is a simple thing in my mind. Caches that have been approved on GC.com are the only caches that should be logged on GC.com. Original grandfathered moving caches were set up to be multilogged and they were approved on this website. No problem with these, but temporary and pocket caches are not approvable on this site and should not be logged here.

 

I didn't say it in so many words in my post above but i don't think that TG's original idea is the solution. While i do believe it would help curb the practice, it still gives the impression that multilogging like this is ok. My opinion is that it is wrong. Doesn't matter if "its fun for a person" or "a person feels that it doesn't hurt anyone",, it is still wrong.

 

A person can only find a cache (unless it's a moving type) in it's original locaction ONE time. A person can only physically attend an event ONE time. These being the case, it seems that a 1 find per 1 gc.com approved cache guideline would be approriate 99.9% of the time. Unfortunately, common sense doesn't always prevail in the general caching population so this is a guideline that TPTB would have to enforce on the website themselves...

[+ReadyOrNot]

I didn't say it in so many words in my post above but i don't think that TG's original idea is the solution. While i do believe it would help curb the practice, it still gives the impression that multilogging like this is ok. My opinion is that it is wrong. Doesn't matter if "its fun for a person" or "a person feels that it doesn't hurt anyone",, it is still wrong.

 

Well said. It reminds me of a certain law in Portland. It's illegal to grow pot, illegal to sell pot, illegal to buy pot, but it's legal to have less than an OZ. How do you get it if it's illegal to buy, sell, and grow? The point: We can't say it's wrong and then allow them to log once a day.. If it's really wrong, then they shouldn't be able to do it at all.

 

I agree with TG though. It is a small step in the right direction. Better a small step than no step.

Edited November 13, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+TrailGators]

Maybe a little off topic but only for a minute...

 

This is a simple thing in my mind. Caches that have been approved on GC.com are the only caches that should be logged on GC.com. Original grandfathered moving caches were set up to be multilogged and they were approved on this website. No problem with these, but temporary and pocket caches are not approvable on this site and should not be logged here.

 

I didn't say it in so many words in my post above but i don't think that TG's original idea is the solution. While i do believe it would help curb the practice, it still gives the impression that multilogging like this is ok. My opinion is that it is wrong. Doesn't matter if "its fun for a person" or "a person feels that it doesn't hurt anyone",, it is still wrong.

 

A person can only find a cache (unless it's a moving type) in it's original locaction ONE time. A person can only physically attend an event ONE time. These being the case, it seems that a 1 find per 1 gc.com approved cache guideline would be approriate 99.9% of the time. Unfortunately, common sense doesn't always prevail in the general caching population so this is a guideline that TPTB would have to enforce on the website themselves...

I agree with you. That is a another solution which I would support as well. So the question is if they had a choice would the traveling cache/CITO credit cache people rather wait a day or do 1:1 solution?

[+KoosKoos]

Maybe a little off topic but only for a minute...

 

This is a simple thing in my mind. Caches that have been approved on GC.com are the only caches that should be logged on GC.com. Original grandfathered moving caches were set up to be multilogged and they were approved on this website. No problem with these, but temporary and pocket caches are not approvable on this site and should not be logged here.

 

I didn't say it in so many words in my post above but i don't think that TG's original idea is the solution. While i do believe it would help curb the practice, it still gives the impression that multilogging like this is ok. My opinion is that it is wrong. Doesn't matter if "its fun for a person" or "a person feels that it doesn't hurt anyone",, it is still wrong.

 

A person can only find a cache (unless it's a moving type) in it's original locaction ONE time. A person can only physically attend an event ONE time. These being the case, it seems that a 1 find per 1 gc.com approved cache guideline would be approriate 99.9% of the time. Unfortunately, common sense doesn't always prevail in the general caching population so this is a guideline that TPTB would have to enforce on the website themselves...

I agree with you. That is a another solution which I would support as well. So the question is if they had a choice would the traveling cache/CITO credit cache people rather wait a day or do 1:1 solution?

 

If it's declared as "wrong", then go to a 1:1 solution. TPTB are aware of the multilogging over the years...if they viewed it as "wrong", it could have been stopped long ago. So far, they haven't decided that it's "wrong", so I see no reason to create a heavy-handed enforcement of timed logs.

[+ReadyOrNot]

so I see no reason to create a heavy-handed enforcement of timed logs.

 

Not sure that I agree that it's heavy handed enforcement. A 1:1 could be argued to be heavy handed, but not time delayed log entries. I can't think of a single person I know that caches or have ever known that would even be aware if this was implemented. That's not heavy handed.

[+baloo&bd]

... This thread is to discuss one possible idea and the ramifications of that idea IF TPTB thought there was abuse going on. Would it really bother anyone that was following the current guidelines?

The actions of those who hold these events and those who log temporary event caches have not been shown to be against the guidelines. Therefore, I believe that your proposed change would certainly bother many people who follow the guidelines.

 

Why bother getting caches approved. Set-up an event every couple months then you can ignore the guidelines, put out as many caches as you want 100 feet apart, near railroad tracks, on private property, etc and not bother having to submit them.

 

Yes, a delayed logging MAY help. 1:1 would be a more viable solution.

Edited November 13, 2007 by baloo&bd

[+TrailGators]

Maybe a little off topic but only for a minute...

 

This is a simple thing in my mind. Caches that have been approved on GC.com are the only caches that should be logged on GC.com. Original grandfathered moving caches were set up to be multilogged and they were approved on this website. No problem with these, but temporary and pocket caches are not approvable on this site and should not be logged here.

 

I didn't say it in so many words in my post above but i don't think that TG's original idea is the solution. While i do believe it would help curb the practice, it still gives the impression that multilogging like this is ok. My opinion is that it is wrong. Doesn't matter if "its fun for a person" or "a person feels that it doesn't hurt anyone",, it is still wrong.

 

A person can only find a cache (unless it's a moving type) in it's original locaction ONE time. A person can only physically attend an event ONE time. These being the case, it seems that a 1 find per 1 gc.com approved cache guideline would be approriate 99.9% of the time. Unfortunately, common sense doesn't always prevail in the general caching population so this is a guideline that TPTB would have to enforce on the website themselves...

I agree with you. That is a another solution which I would support as well. So the question is if they had a choice would the traveling cache/CITO credit cache people rather wait a day or do 1:1 solution?

 

If it's declared as "wrong", then go to a 1:1 solution. TPTB are aware of the multilogging over the years...if they viewed it as "wrong", it could have been stopped long ago. So far, they haven't decided that it's "wrong", so I see no reason to create a heavy-handed enforcement of timed logs.

I actually like that one better too; I just don't think they will do it for reasons previously mentioned. I'm a little surprised at your answer because I thought the 1:1 solution was more "heavy-handed." Go figure.

[+Semper Questio]

Maybe a little off topic but only for a minute...

 

This is a simple thing in my mind. Caches that have been approved on GC.com are the only caches that should be logged on GC.com. Original grandfathered moving caches were set up to be multilogged and they were approved on this website. No problem with these, but temporary and pocket caches are not approvable on this site and should not be logged here.

 

I didn't say it in so many words in my post above but i don't think that TG's original idea is the solution. While i do believe it would help curb the practice, it still gives the impression that multilogging like this is ok. My opinion is that it is wrong. Doesn't matter if "its fun for a person" or "a person feels that it doesn't hurt anyone",, it is still wrong.

 

A person can only find a cache (unless it's a moving type) in it's original locaction ONE time. A person can only physically attend an event ONE time. These being the case, it seems that a 1 find per 1 gc.com approved cache guideline would be approriate 99.9% of the time. Unfortunately, common sense doesn't always prevail in the general caching population so this is a guideline that TPTB would have to enforce on the website themselves...

I agree with you. That is a another solution which I would support as well. So the question is if they had a choice would the traveling cache/CITO credit cache people rather wait a day or do 1:1 solution?

 

I understand pride of authorship, and I'm REALLY not trying to be personal here, but why does the solution have to be A or B? Many options have been presented and perhaps the best solution would be a combination of these.

 

How about this setup:

• 1 attended log per event per ID.
  
• No temp or pocket cache (ie: not geocaching.com reviewed) logs allowed.
  
• Archived logs get locked after a period of time (to prevent them from being used to log temps or pocket caches).
  
• Let cache owners set a limit on extra finds on their non-event caches with the default limit being 1.
  

Of course, that's assuming TPTB believe their system is being abused.

[+KoosKoos]

Maybe a little off topic but only for a minute...

 

This is a simple thing in my mind. Caches that have been approved on GC.com are the only caches that should be logged on GC.com. Original grandfathered moving caches were set up to be multilogged and they were approved on this website. No problem with these, but temporary and pocket caches are not approvable on this site and should not be logged here.

 

I didn't say it in so many words in my post above but i don't think that TG's original idea is the solution. While i do believe it would help curb the practice, it still gives the impression that multilogging like this is ok. My opinion is that it is wrong. Doesn't matter if "its fun for a person" or "a person feels that it doesn't hurt anyone",, it is still wrong.

 

A person can only find a cache (unless it's a moving type) in it's original locaction ONE time. A person can only physically attend an event ONE time. These being the case, it seems that a 1 find per 1 gc.com approved cache guideline would be approriate 99.9% of the time. Unfortunately, common sense doesn't always prevail in the general caching population so this is a guideline that TPTB would have to enforce on the website themselves...

I agree with you. That is a another solution which I would support as well. So the question is if they had a choice would the traveling cache/CITO credit cache people rather wait a day or do 1:1 solution?

 

If it's declared as "wrong", then go to a 1:1 solution. TPTB are aware of the multilogging over the years...if they viewed it as "wrong", it could have been stopped long ago. So far, they haven't decided that it's "wrong", so I see no reason to create a heavy-handed enforcement of timed logs.

I actually like that one better too; I just don't think they will do it for reasons previously mentioned. I'm a little surprised at your answer because I thought the 1:1 solution was more "heavy-handed." Go figure.

 

Good point...maybe I should have edited that to say "...So far, they haven't decided that it's "wrong", so I see no reason to create a heavy-handed enforcement of timed logs since it's not "wrong" or an abuse".

[+ReadyOrNot]

How about this setup:

• 1 attended log per event per ID.
  
• No temp or pocket cache (ie: not geocaching.com reviewed) logs allowed.
  
• Archived logs get locked after a period of time (to prevent them from being used to log temps or pocket caches).
  
• Let cache owners set a limit on extra finds on their non-event caches with the default limit being 1.
  

 

I fixed it for you (Since your first bullet point and 4th are mutually exclusive)

Edited November 13, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+Semper Questio]

How about this setup:

• 1 attended log per event per ID.
  
• No temp or pocket cache (ie: not geocaching.com reviewed) logs allowed.
  
• Archived logs get locked after a period of time (to prevent them from being used to log temps or pocket caches).
  
• Let cache owners set a limit on extra finds on their non-event caches with the default limit being 1.
  

 

I fixed it for you (Since your first bullet point and 4th are mutually exclusive)

 

I see the smile, but no, they're not mutually exclusive, depending on how TPTB feel about this topic. I am admittedly proceeding on the assumption that we are only trying to 'fix' the temp cache logging issue addressed by the OP.

 

It all boils down to how TPTB (ie: Jeremy) feels about multilogging for events (temp and pocket caches) and/or non-event cache 'bonus' finds. It would be nice to hear a definitive stand on this from them.

 

To get right down to it, I don't have a problem with multiple logs for events for temp caches other than the caches themselves are, by their very nature, a violation of the site guidelines and should, therefore, not be permitted as the guidelines currently stand. Anything that allows multiple logging that has gone through the review process is fine by me if whether I choose to claim the bonus finds or not. We just need a decision from the Great Frog to put this whole issue to rest once and for all so we can get back to arguing about lame micros and too-short logs!

[+sbell111]

How about this setup:

• 1 attended log per event per ID.
  
• No temp or pocket cache (ie: not geocaching.com reviewed) logs allowed.
  
• Archived logs get locked after a period of time (to prevent them from being used to log temps or pocket caches).
  
• Let cache owners set a limit on extra finds on their non-event caches with the default limit being 1.
  

 

I fixed it for you (Since your first bullet point and 4th are mutually exclusive)

You really should include the following alternatives:

• No action required, since the behavior has not been determined to be abusive, against the guidelines, or worthy of a change
  
• Allow the cache owner to set a flag that allows multiple logs. If the flag is not set, multiple logs would not be allowed by the system. If the flag is set, those that are troubled by these logs would know not to watch the cache or peruse the logs.
  

[+Mudfrog]

Maybe a little off topic but only for a minute...

 

This is a simple thing in my mind. Caches that have been approved on GC.com are the only caches that should be logged on GC.com. Original grandfathered moving caches were set up to be multilogged and they were approved on this website. No problem with these, but temporary and pocket caches are not approvable on this site and should not be logged here.

 

I didn't say it in so many words in my post above but i don't think that TG's original idea is the solution. While i do believe it would help curb the practice, it still gives the impression that multilogging like this is ok. My opinion is that it is wrong. Doesn't matter if "its fun for a person" or "a person feels that it doesn't hurt anyone",, it is still wrong.

 

A person can only find a cache (unless it's a moving type) in it's original locaction ONE time. A person can only physically attend an event ONE time. These being the case, it seems that a 1 find per 1 gc.com approved cache guideline would be approriate 99.9% of the time. Unfortunately, common sense doesn't always prevail in the general caching population so this is a guideline that TPTB would have to enforce on the website themselves...

I agree with you. That is a another solution which I would support as well. So the question is if they had a choice would the traveling cache/CITO credit cache people rather wait a day or do 1:1 solution?

 

I understand pride of authorship, and I'm REALLY not trying to be personal here, but why does the solution have to be A or B? Many options have been presented and perhaps the best solution would be a combination of these.

 

How about this setup:

• 1 attended log per event per ID.
  
• No temp or pocket cache (ie: not geocaching.com reviewed) logs allowed.
  
• Archived logs get locked after a period of time (to prevent them from being used to log temps or pocket caches).
  
• Let cache owners set a limit on extra finds on their non-event caches with the default limit being 1.
  

Of course, that's assuming TPTB believe their system is being abused.

There wouldn't be any angst and we wouldn't be having this disucssion if number 1 above had already been implemented!

 

This might be something to consider if TPTB didn't want to go with 1, 2, or 3 above.

• Separate the event smilie count from all other cache count.
  

[+sbell111]

... To get right down to it, I don't have a problem with multiple logs for events for temp caches other than the caches themselves are, by their very nature, a violation of the site guidelines and should, therefore, not be permitted as the guidelines currently stand. Anything that allows multiple logging that has gone through the review process is fine by me if whether I choose to claim the bonus finds or not. We just need a decision from the Great Frog to put this whole issue to rest once and for all so we can get back to arguing about lame micros and too-short logs!

He's already given his opinion on the issue of temporary event caches. Edited November 13, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Maybe a little off topic but only for a minute...

 

This is a simple thing in my mind. Caches that have been approved on GC.com are the only caches that should be logged on GC.com. Original grandfathered moving caches were set up to be multilogged and they were approved on this website. No problem with these, but temporary and pocket caches are not approvable on this site and should not be logged here.

 

I didn't say it in so many words in my post above but i don't think that TG's original idea is the solution. While i do believe it would help curb the practice, it still gives the impression that multilogging like this is ok. My opinion is that it is wrong. Doesn't matter if "its fun for a person" or "a person feels that it doesn't hurt anyone",, it is still wrong.

 

A person can only find a cache (unless it's a moving type) in it's original locaction ONE time. A person can only physically attend an event ONE time. These being the case, it seems that a 1 find per 1 gc.com approved cache guideline would be approriate 99.9% of the time. Unfortunately, common sense doesn't always prevail in the general caching population so this is a guideline that TPTB would have to enforce on the website themselves...

I agree with you. That is a another solution which I would support as well. So the question is if they had a choice would the traveling cache/CITO credit cache people rather wait a day or do 1:1 solution?

I understand pride of authorship, and I'm REALLY not trying to be personal here, but why does the solution have to be A or B? Many options have been presented and perhaps the best solution would be a combination of these.

 

How about this setup:

• 1 attended log per event per ID.
  
• No temp or pocket cache (ie: not geocaching.com reviewed) logs allowed.
  
• Archived logs get locked after a period of time (to prevent them from being used to log temps or pocket caches).
  
• Let cache owners set a limit on extra finds on their non-event caches with the default limit being 1.
  

Of course, that's assuming TPTB believe their system is being abused.

There wouldn't be any angst and we wouldn't be having this disucssion if number 1 above had already been implemented!

I suspect that those cachers who enjoy temporary event caches, moving caches, et al and wish to continue logging same would disagree with you.

[+tozainamboku]

Let's face facts... YES, NUMBERS DO MATTER FOR MOST PEOPLE! No, they're not the purpose of the game, but they do matter. Think back on the last time you met another cacher for the first time... did either of you ask how many finds the other person had? Sometimes this question doesn't come up, but usually it does. In spite of what lots of people say, a higher "find" count typically implies a higher level of proficiency or experience in the sport, which lends itself to more respect.

 

This relates to the earlier question of "Who does it hurt?". The answer: people whose find count consists of only actual caches (approved and listed on GC.com) they have personally found, signed the physical log, and fulfilled all other logging requirements (pictures, emailed info, etc.) How does it hurt them? It removes an aspect of the game that many people enjoy. Lots of people like to see how they "rank" against other cachers... this is impossible and worthless because of all the bogus finds (and for other reasons).

 

Well this is totally off topic but I have to say quite amusing. I thought that people who "enjoy" getting an extra smiley so much that they would sit all evening logging temporary events that they found at an event were silly. But I can't understand how someone who doesn't do this could feel hurt by the practice. Does your name get dragged through the forums because of your bogus finds? Do people ridicule and call you stupid because you attended the same event 15 times? If you are logging just the caches you believe you are entitled to log, I would bet you don't have these problems. If someone looks at your finds and sees J-Way only has 251 finds in 9 months of caching someone else will point out "yes, but he never logged a temporary cache or took credit for a cache he didn't find". Or maybe you get introduced like I do around here "This is tozainamboku, the puritan, who wouldn't log the replacement cache we left when we couldn't find one". The is really no way to compare two cachers. Every cache is different. Some find only easy 1/1 caches while others only look for high difficulty or high terrain. Some of us have families and jobs and can't go geocaching everyday while others are retired and have lots of time to find caches. If you really want to compare your ranking to others - go ahead. But if this if for any reason other than entertainment, this is silly.

[+Mudfrog]

How about this setup:

• 1 attended log per event per ID.
  
• No temp or pocket cache (ie: not geocaching.com reviewed) logs allowed.
  
• Archived logs get locked after a period of time (to prevent them from being used to log temps or pocket caches).
  
• Let cache owners set a limit on extra finds on their non-event caches with the default limit being 1.
  

 

I fixed it for you (Since your first bullet point and 4th are mutually exclusive)

You really should include the following alternatives:

• No action required, since the behavior has not been determined to be abusive, against the guidelines, or worthy of a change
  
• Allow the cache owner to set a flag that allows multiple logs. If the flag is not set, multiple logs would not be allowed by the system. If the flag is set, those that are troubled by these logs would know not to watch the cache or peruse the logs.
  

As it stands now, a smilie pretty much signifies a logged find. Physically, it's not possible for a person to find a regular cache or attend an event cache more than one time. For this reason, i don't think it's appropriate for cache owners to even have the ability to try and dictate how many smilies they can give out.

[+Semper Questio]

... To get right down to it, I don't have a problem with multiple logs for events for temp caches other than the caches themselves are, by their very nature, a violation of the site guidelines and should, therefore, not be permitted as the guidelines currently stand. Anything that allows multiple logging that has gone through the review process is fine by me if whether I choose to claim the bonus finds or not. We just need a decision from the Great Frog to put this whole issue to rest once and for all so we can get back to arguing about lame micros and too-short logs!

He's already given his opinion on the issue of temporary event caches.

 

True to a point. Perhaps I should have said TPTB should codify their opinion in the guidelines and encode it in how the site works.

 

On the one hand, they say permanence is required and caches must meet specific guidelines. They almost go ballistic over pocket caches. But then they look the other way when temps are created and logged.

 

I really don't care about the temp cache issue since we don't have many of them around here (and I've never seen a pocket cache) and I would not log them if I did them (I found several at the Texas Challenge but only logged 1 attended as most, if not all, folks did), but I think TPTB should really demonstrate some consistency and act accordingly. If temps are OK, say so in the guidelines and set up a logging mechanism. If they aren't, take steps to curb the practice.

[+tomturtle]

Sbell and tomturtle, you guys are still arguing whether logging tons of unlisted caches is abusive or not. I'm not sure how I can communicate any clearer than this: GO READ THE OTHER MULTI-LOGGING THREADS. This thread is to discuss an idea that "could be" implemented when/if TPTB deemed that logging tons of unlisted caches is abusive. Please discuss the idea and do not rehash old threads in this thread. If you continue to do it, then it will be clear that your sole purpose is to derail this thread.

 

This thread is invalid because it seeks to find solutions to something that isn't a problem, so if you consider it derailed, that is fine with me.

[+Mudfrog]

Maybe a little off topic but only for a minute...

 

This is a simple thing in my mind. Caches that have been approved on GC.com are the only caches that should be logged on GC.com. Original grandfathered moving caches were set up to be multilogged and they were approved on this website. No problem with these, but temporary and pocket caches are not approvable on this site and should not be logged here.

 

I didn't say it in so many words in my post above but i don't think that TG's original idea is the solution. While i do believe it would help curb the practice, it still gives the impression that multilogging like this is ok. My opinion is that it is wrong. Doesn't matter if "its fun for a person" or "a person feels that it doesn't hurt anyone",, it is still wrong.

 

A person can only find a cache (unless it's a moving type) in it's original locaction ONE time. A person can only physically attend an event ONE time. These being the case, it seems that a 1 find per 1 gc.com approved cache guideline would be approriate 99.9% of the time. Unfortunately, common sense doesn't always prevail in the general caching population so this is a guideline that TPTB would have to enforce on the website themselves...

I agree with you. That is a another solution which I would support as well. So the question is if they had a choice would the traveling cache/CITO credit cache people rather wait a day or do 1:1 solution?

I understand pride of authorship, and I'm REALLY not trying to be personal here, but why does the solution have to be A or B? Many options have been presented and perhaps the best solution would be a combination of these.

 

How about this setup:

• 1 attended log per event per ID.
  
• No temp or pocket cache (ie: not geocaching.com reviewed) logs allowed.
  
• Archived logs get locked after a period of time (to prevent them from being used to log temps or pocket caches).
  
• Let cache owners set a limit on extra finds on their non-event caches with the default limit being 1.
  

Of course, that's assuming TPTB believe their system is being abused.

There wouldn't be any angst and we wouldn't be having this disucssion if number 1 above had already been implemented!

I suspect that those cachers who enjoy temporary event caches, moving caches, et al and wish to continue logging same would disagree with you.

Nope, i figure that the angst would subside fairly quickly, especially if it came from the Frog!

 

By the way, i guess you didn't see it in my other post but i have no problem at all with GC.com approved grandfathered moving caches. Any caches that are approved on this site are good to go as far as i'm concerned. Temporary caches are NOT and that is where i have issue.

[+Mudfrog]

I think TPTB should really demonstrate some consistency and act accordingly. If temps are OK, say so in the guidelines and set up a logging mechanism. If they aren't, take steps to curb the practice.

Here here!

[+ReadyOrNot]

Sbell and tomturtle, you guys are still arguing whether logging tons of unlisted caches is abusive or not. I'm not sure how I can communicate any clearer than this: GO READ THE OTHER MULTI-LOGGING THREADS. This thread is to discuss an idea that "could be" implemented when/if TPTB deemed that logging tons of unlisted caches is abusive. Please discuss the idea and do not rehash old threads in this thread. If you continue to do it, then it will be clear that your sole purpose is to derail this thread.

 

This thread is invalid because it seeks to find solutions to something that isn't a problem, so if you consider it derailed, that is fine with me.

 

Can we move forward on the assumption that it is considered "Abusive"... then maybe you folks will go away.. Can we do that TG?

[+tomturtle]

Sbell and tomturtle, you guys are still arguing whether logging tons of unlisted caches is abusive or not. I'm not sure how I can communicate any clearer than this: GO READ THE OTHER MULTI-LOGGING THREADS. This thread is to discuss an idea that "could be" implemented when/if TPTB deemed that logging tons of unlisted caches is abusive. Please discuss the idea and do not rehash old threads in this thread. If you continue to do it, then it will be clear that your sole purpose is to derail this thread.

 

This thread is invalid because it seeks to find solutions to something that isn't a problem, so if you consider it derailed, that is fine with me.

 

Can we move forward on the assumption that it is considered "Abusive"... then maybe you folks will go away.. Can we do that TG?

 

You seek to gain validity for your point of view by trying to exclude people who have a different view. So no that is not a valid assumption. There is nothing to move forward on.

[Mushtang]

As it stands now, a smilie pretty much signifies a logged find. Physically, it's not possible for a person to find a regular cache or attend an event cache more than one time. For this reason, i don't think it's appropriate for cache owners to even have the ability to try and dictate how many smilies they can give out.

You're forgetting that this site is a listing service, and doesn't own the cache. I suspect this is why the only limit on multilogging we'll ever see is an owner set limit of the number of finds/attends a person can log to each cache. It's a tool the site might let the owner have to help make his cache logging meet whatever guidelines the owner wants to set for himself.

 

To say the owner shouldn't have the ability to give out smileys (or to allow multiple logs) is much closer to saying that he shouldn't hide caches using nano containers than he shouldn't hide Virtuals, Locationless, or any other kind of cache that's been removed from the site. Nano containers are just hard to find, and annoy some people (probably more than multilogging does). This listing site wouldn't want to tell an owner what size container to use because some people don't have fun hunting them.

[Mushtang]

Can we move forward on the assumption that it is considered "Abusive"... then maybe you folks will go away.. Can we do that TG?

So you want to limit the way that members are allowed to log caches, AND you want to limit the way that members are allowed to post on the forums. The thread is about limiting the logs and if that idea has merit, these folks are telling you they don't think it's a good idea and discussing why. If you'd prefer only to hear from people that agree with you, perhaps you'd have more luck starting a blog somewhere and only telling folks in agreement with you the location so only they can post.

 

The only angst I see in this thread are people not wanting to hear reasons why the OP has no merit.

 

I happen to agree that part of the reason it has no merit is the assumption that the practice is not abusive. Suggesting the site forcibly stop folks from doing something that isn't abusive sounds like a bad idea to me.

[+TrailGators]

... To get right down to it, I don't have a problem with multiple logs for events for temp caches other than the caches themselves are, by their very nature, a violation of the site guidelines and should, therefore, not be permitted as the guidelines currently stand. Anything that allows multiple logging that has gone through the review process is fine by me if whether I choose to claim the bonus finds or not. We just need a decision from the Great Frog to put this whole issue to rest once and for all so we can get back to arguing about lame micros and too-short logs!

He's already given his opinion on the issue of temporary event caches.

 

True to a point. Perhaps I should have said TPTB should codify their opinion in the guidelines and encode it in how the site works.

 

On the one hand, they say permanence is required and caches must meet specific guidelines. They almost go ballistic over pocket caches. But then they look the other way when temps are created and logged.

 

I really don't care about the temp cache issue since we don't have many of them around here (and I've never seen a pocket cache) and I would not log them if I did them (I found several at the Texas Challenge but only logged 1 attended as most, if not all, folks did), but I think TPTB should really demonstrate some consistency and act accordingly. If temps are OK, say so in the guidelines and set up a logging mechanism. If they aren't, take steps to curb the practice.

Thoughtful post. I basically agree with you. However, I am concerned about the continued spread of this problem. It is impacting the guideline abiding cachers for reasons already mentioned. I'm a firm believer that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That's why I think the solution I came up with would slow the spread. I really don't think people would bother doing it if it was a hassle to do. The 24 hour delay is a minor inconvenience for those that are logging approved grandfathered caches more then once a day, but they can still do it.

[Mushtang]

I really don't think people would bother doing it if it was a hassle to do.

You might be surprised. I wouldn't have thought that someone would care about multilogging if it was a hassle to care about it (watchlist events 1300 miles away, worry about something that might happen someday maybe in their area, etc.) but people do.

 

There's even a thread about trying to limit it in the forum.

[+TrailGators]

I really don't think people would bother doing it if it was a hassle to do.

You might be surprised. I wouldn't have thought that someone would care about multilogging if it was a hassle to care about it (watchlist events 1300 miles away, worry about something that might happen someday maybe in their area, etc.) but people do.

 

There's even a thread about trying to limit it in the forum.

You never quit do you? I already told you that it happened here in SoCal at an event I attended. So it is spreading. But rather than remember that fact you have to twist things because your position is so weak. Is the thread hurting anybody? No and the thread runs without angst whenever you are gone.

[+tozainamboku]

To say the owner shouldn't have the ability to give out smileys (or to allow multiple logs) is much closer to saying that he shouldn't hide caches using nano containers than he shouldn't hide Virtuals, Locationless, or any other kind of cache that's been removed from the site.

I'm not so sure about this. At one time cache owners could say "To log this cache email me the number in the lid" or "visit this place and email the answer to this question". Codeword and virtual caches are no longer allowed on the site. Caches must have a physical log to sign. The owner can have additional logging requirements beyond signing the physical log but now must list these as unknown type caches. TPTB have already made several guidelines changes to restrict the owners control of the log. A 1 log per cache rule would not be out of line with other changes that have been made.

 

I have no doubt that Jeremy intended the 'Found It' log to be used for recording that you found that cache and the 'Attended' log be used to record that you attended that event. Using the logs to give out bonus smileys is silly for a game where the score doesn't matter. On the other hand, what constitutes abuse hasn't been well defined. It may be that TPTB don't care how many bonus smileys are given out so long as the cachers who want to use the logs as intended for their own finds are able to do so. I suspect that if I listed an event with an additional logging requirement that stated "In order to log this event, you must also log attended for at least one temporary cache you found at the event" it would not be approved (even if I could figure out how to list an event as an unknown cache).

 

I am concerned about the continued spread of this problem. It is impacting the guideline abiding cachers for reasons already mentioned.

First of all, what is a guideline abiding cacher in this case? There is no guideline saying that a cache owner can't give out bonus smileys although I'm sure that wasn't the intent of giving the cache owner the responsibility to police their own caches. If the cache owner says, you can log an attended for each temporary cache you found and for each hot dog you ate, someone will take him up on it. Arguing that because the temporary caches aren't reviewed and aren't separately listed misses the point. Finding temporary caches and eating hot dogs are both legitimate activities for a geocaching event. Giving out bonuses for these activities is silly and not what TPTB intended, but so far this is not against any guidelines.

Second, I still don't see where you are impacted outside of a minor inconvenience of getting extra email because you had the event on your watch list. Perhaps you got Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in your mouse wheel finger from having to scroll past those "Found temporary cache #y" logs.

[+TrailGators]

Sbell and tomturtle, you guys are still arguing whether logging tons of unlisted caches is abusive or not. I'm not sure how I can communicate any clearer than this: GO READ THE OTHER MULTI-LOGGING THREADS. This thread is to discuss an idea that "could be" implemented when/if TPTB deemed that logging tons of unlisted caches is abusive. Please discuss the idea and do not rehash old threads in this thread. If you continue to do it, then it will be clear that your sole purpose is to derail this thread.

This thread is invalid because it seeks to find solutions to something that isn't a problem, so if you consider it derailed, that is fine with me.

Can we move forward on the assumption that it is considered "Abusive"... then maybe you folks will go away.. Can we do that TG?

You are right on ReadyOrNot, I have repeatedly asked to quit arguing about whether it is abusive or not. That is up to TPTB to decide. We don't need to rehash that again. Let's please get back to discussing what I asked for in the OP.

[Mushtang]

I really don't think people would bother doing it if it was a hassle to do.

You might be surprised. I wouldn't have thought that someone would care about multilogging if it was a hassle to care about it (watchlist events 1300 miles away, worry about something that might happen someday maybe in their area, etc.) but people do.

 

There's even a thread about trying to limit it in the forum.

You never quit do you? I already told you that it happened here in SoCal at an event I attended. So it is spreading. But rather than remember that fact you have to twist things because your position is so weak.

That's not what I remember you saying, so I apologize if I misunderstood. What I thought I remembered you saying just five days ago -

 

Here, where you said:

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?

And here, where you said:

These multi-logging threads all seem involve those states. If it was more widespread then we aren't hearing about it. I'm just glad that the "fun"gus hasn't spread to San Diego.

Are you changing your story to support your "abuse" claim? Either way, I still don't think the idea has merit whether or not it's happening in So Cal. It's still limiting an activity that people enjoy that hasn't been shown to hurt anybody. At least two solutions have been given that would remove the things you claim are the reasons for limiting logs (additional emails, crowded event page) and would still allow people to log event caches, so I wonder who it is that is really causing angst here.

 

Is the thread hurting anybody?

It doesn't seem to be hurting anyone. I have an idea, let's put limits on it!

 

No and the thread runs without angst whenever you are gone.

That must be why you've tried tossing out a couple of other people that also disagreed with you, because of the angst I bring.

 

I promise, if you would stop trying to limit my opinions on the subject the angst you feel from my posts would drop to nothing. I'm not posting with any ill will or anything other than a desire to voice a counter point to the points I think are not valid. That's what this discussion board is for.

[Mushtang]

I have no doubt that Jeremy intended the 'Found It' log to be used for recording that you found that cache and the 'Attended' log be used to record that you attended that event.

True, but the site's faq suggests that new cache ideas are welcome. Some new ideas I've heard about were dangerous, illegal, etc., and were not approved. Other new ideas were embraced and kept (puzzle caches, ALR, etc.). Pocket caches were tossed off the site pretty quick, but temporary event caches have been allowed to remain.

 

I agree with everyone that's suggested that if the site either limits multilogs, or adds them to the guidelines as acceptable, that will put the final nail in the discussion. In the mean time it's up for debate as to whether or not limits should be placed on the practice.

 

ALRs were hotly debated until they were added to the guidelines. Several people (probably a few in this thread) didn't like the idea and many many threads came and went debating if they should be banned or not. Multilogging seems to be a similar hot topic.

 

I still think that there's a good possibility we'll see something in V2.0 that will either allow cache owners to control the number of additional found/attended logs, or there will be something that will eliminate the ability completely. It will surprise me if the issue isn't addressed at all.

[+TrailGators]

I really don't think people would bother doing it if it was a hassle to do.

You might be surprised. I wouldn't have thought that someone would care about multilogging if it was a hassle to care about it (watchlist events 1300 miles away, worry about something that might happen someday maybe in their area, etc.) but people do.

 

There's even a thread about trying to limit it in the forum.

You never quit do you? I already told you that it happened here in SoCal at an event I attended. So it is spreading. But rather than remember that fact you have to twist things because your position is so weak.

That's not what I remember you saying, so I apologize if I misunderstood.

Thanks for the apology. Maybe we can raise this to a higher level after all. Anyhow, it has not spread to San Diego. It happened at an event I attended 120 miles away from San Diego, which I mentioned later in that thread. That is too close for comfort! Edited November 13, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

I am concerned about the continued spread of this problem. It is impacting the guideline abiding cachers for reasons already mentioned.

First of all, what is a guideline abiding cacher in this case?

The guidelines that would apply here are some that have been brought up:

1) Cache permanance. Clearly logging temps violates this guideline.

2) "An event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches." I'm not sure how you can find 40+ temp caches at an event without violating the intention of this guideline.

3) Other guidelines such as cache separation, etc.

 

Actually temps don't have to meet any guidelines because they are not listed on this site. So the proposed idea slows down this mutant practice.

[+Parabola]

PLEASE TPTB STATE YOUR CURRENT POSITION ON MULTI-LOGGING.

 

It may seem a bit off topic but I think it is relavent to it.

 

What's a ARL??