Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
TrailGators

A win-win idea to impede logging abuse

Recommended Posts

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.

The extensive time it takes to simply go through and delete each and every excess log from every user. Until we get bulk delete feature, this is just too time consuming.

 

I've never been involved with multiple event logs personally, but I heartily agree that a single log/multiple log switch is a GOOD thing, and not just for event caches. It would help prevent accidental double-logs on regular caches, and multi logs on multi caches.

Edited by J-Way

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Think about it CR. It would be a pain to have to do that for 100+ days. :laughing: I really think most people would give up and use that energy to go out and find approved caches.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

The extensive time it takes to simply go through and delete each and every excess log from every user. Until we get bulk delete feature, this is just too time consuming.

 

I've never been involved with multiple event logs personally, but I heartily agree that a single log/multiple log switch is a GOOD thing, and not just for event caches. It would help prevent accidental double-logs on regular caches, and multi logs on multi caches.

 

Not to mention (or maybe TO mention) the emails the owner and any watcher would get from all those deleted multilogs.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Think about it CR. It would be a pain to have to do that for 100+ days. :laughing: I really think most people would give up and use that energy to go out and find approved caches.

 

Really? If the multilogger wanted to sit in front of their computer for hours to make the logs already, would it matter to them if they had to take a few minutes to cut & paste a "found temp #1" (or #2, or #3....).

 

If they get the reward of the smiley, what would they care?

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!

So let me see if I understand: You want TPTB to impose an arbitrary and universal restriction, one that you're not even willing to do on a small scale at your own event? What's wrong with putting a one-log-per-person rule into your event cache description? Why would that bother anyone any more than hiding ammocan coords inside a puzzle or creating multiple stages? If they don’t like it they’re free to avoid it. If you were to politely state such a rule, and someone flaunted it anyway, then who is the bad guy, you or the boor? I say the boor, but if you think otherwise, then don't you see what it is you're asking Jeremy and Co to do for you – and to tens of thousands of people, not just your own guests?

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?

 

I guess what bothers me is the multilogging. It would bother me to see the stupid thing pop up on my notification every 20 minutes (or hour or even day)

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!

So let me see if I understand: You want TPTB to impose an arbitrary and universal restriction, one that you're not even willing to do on a small scale at your own event? What's wrong with putting a one-log-per-person rule into your event cache description? Why would that bother anyone any more than hiding ammocan coords inside a puzzle or creating multiple stages? If they don’t like it they’re free to avoid it. If you were to politely state such a rule, and someone flaunted it anyway, then who is the bad guy, you or the boor? I say the boor, but if you think otherwise, then don't you see what it is you're asking Jeremy and Co to do for you – and to tens of thousands of people, not just your own guests?

Did you read my post? I said I'd USE them if only I didn't have to worry about someone complaining and possibly becoming upset (I like to get along as much as possible). Said person could then start stealing my caches or what not simply because I said NO multilogging (it could and likely has happened).

 

If Jeremy made the rule, no one will be mad at me and all would be good. I'd also then USE the temps for event games...

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 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.

In the past you've said that you were against the practice of multilogging because you liked other people's event pages to be kept clean so you could read the logs. Having a separate cache for the additional logs removes the clutter, and removes emails from people watching the event.

 

Yet you're still not satisfied and you still want to force your values on all cachers.

 

Interesting.

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?

 

Quite a long statement...too bad I never mentioned multilogging as a reason they were done away with....you do read the posts before answering...right?

 

Also, I don't like multilogging on ANY cache, so I would think this "fix" would apply to all caches...as you covered in that looong rant

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

hiccup, must have been so good, I wanted you to read it twice...

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Think about it CR. It would be a pain to have to do that for 100+ days. :laughing: I really think most people would give up and use that energy to go out and find approved caches.

Really? If the multilogger wanted to sit in front of their computer for hours to make the logs already, would it matter to them if they had to take a few minutes to cut & paste a "found temp #1" (or #2, or #3....).

 

If they get the reward of the smiley, what would they care?

You could cut and paste "found temp" logs 100 times in ~30 minutes. But having to wait 24 hours to paste one and then 24 more hours to paste another and so on is definitely much tougher....

Share this post


Link to post

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

The owner, and any watchers, who receive a bazillion emails. This is why, the more I think on it, the more I think a "Only allow one Attended log per person" switch should be available to the owner. If the event owner, or multi-cache owner, wants to allow multiple logs then great! If they don't, then they should have the ability to control it beyond having to spend hours deleting bogus logs.

 

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?"

...

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.

This is why I never compare my find total to others. If I did, I'd gladly compare my 250 GC finds and 70+ TC finds against any numbers hound with double or triple that amount.

 

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?
I agree completely... Mega Events are NOT included in the total, why are Events? But that's a whole other extra wriggly can-o-worms. Edited by J-Way

Share this post


Link to post

Same old argument...we're having fun, why can't we? Do you have a REAL reason other than "fun" for multilogging?? Oh, other than padding your numbers too...

 

ETA...sorry TG, I don't think this will ever get back to topic, some would rather argue the old argument again (and again and...)

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

I'm looking for the thread that Jeremy said he'd like to see a switch so owners could allow multilogging or not, and haven't found it yet. But... I did run across a couple of interesting post.

 

In this post from Jeremy it seems like he's suggesting that the practice is not abuse of the site, which is probably why nothing has been done to prohibit it yet.

1700 logs by 30 users is a bit of an overkill, however. It would be hard to argue that this kind of logging crosses the line for abuse.

 

And in this post in the same thread he said:

Markwell also put it well that I generally don't make judgements on the shades of grey. I only step in when the activity becomes carcenogenic (or epidemic).

 

I'm of the opinion that anything below the "marks multiple finds for moving caches" is a no no. But my opinion has no bearing on the way the site should function in this area. Ultimately the cache owner decides. within reason, the parameters of the "find."

 

But the most surprising thing I saw in that thread was when Renegade Knight suggested the exact thing that TrailGators suggesting in this thread, Jeremy said it was a good idea, but since it hasn't been changed yet I'd have to wonder if it ever will be. This is the post:

I was interested to see that about 30 people attended the event GC10F47 WGA Geo-Campout 2007 over 1700 times.

 

GC has been very hard on those that promote or ingage in virtual logging. Is not the attending an event 20 time the same thing?

 

:laughing:

1700/30 = 56. The way these events are being logged we should have a new number one cacher in the very near future. I'm glad that I only log them once. It sure seems like a lot of work logging an event 56 times... :D

I forgot to post once for each cache I found this weekend.

 

Well that kicked in the flood control filter. But it did give me an idea. They could turn on flood control for logs. Then when you log an event 56 times it takes you 56 days.

That's a good idea (repeat x 56)

 

Perhaps in the upcoming V2.0 of the website we'll see some differences.

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.

 

A reminder for a couple of you....

Share this post


Link to post

Oops... back to the original topic.

 

I see nothing wrong with a flood-control filter. But a 1-week delay is not a flood-control filter, it's a clear attempt to stop multiple logs. Even a 1-day delay could be seen as such.

 

I'd agree with a 10 minute (or so) delay. A single log would take no more time than it does now. Twenty logs for the same event would take about two hours or more, counting server delays. This would cut down on local events with 1000+ "attendees", but would still allow a reasonable amount of multi-logging for those who want to pad their numbers for whatever reason.

Share this post


Link to post

Oops... back to the original topic.

 

I see nothing wrong with a flood-control filter. But a 1-week delay is not a flood-control filter, it's a clear attempt to stop multiple logs. Even a 1-day delay could be seen as such.

 

I'd agree with a 10 minute (or so) delay. A single log would take no more time than it does now. Twenty logs for the same event would take about two hours or more, counting server delays. This would cut down on local events with 1000+ "attendees", but would still allow a reasonable amount of multi-logging for those who want to pad their numbers for whatever reason.

 

This does nothing to stop the multilogging (and subsequent multi emails)...it might slow it, but I doubt someone wanting multiple smilies will care if they have to wait a few minutes or even a day...some people will do this still and it'll still cause problems.

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post
Quite a long statement...too bad I never mentioned multilogging as a reason they were done away with....you do read the posts before answering...right?

Yes, I do. What about my post caused you to assume that it was addressed to you at all?

Share this post


Link to post
But the most surprising thing I saw in that thread was when Renegade Knight suggested the exact thing that TrailGators suggesting in this thread, Jeremy said it was a good idea, but since it hasn't been changed yet I'd have to wonder if it ever will be. This is the post:
I was interested to see that about 30 people attended the event GC10F47 WGA Geo-Campout 2007 over 1700 times.

 

GC has been very hard on those that promote or ingage in virtual logging. Is not the attending an event 20 time the same thing?

 

:D

1700/30 = 56. The way these events are being logged we should have a new number one cacher in the very near future. I'm glad that I only log them once. It sure seems like a lot of work logging an event 56 times... :laughing:

I forgot to post once for each cache I found this weekend.

 

Well that kicked in the flood control filter. But it did give me an idea. They could turn on flood control for logs. Then when you log an event 56 times it takes you 56 days.

That's a good idea (repeat x 56)

 

Perhaps in the upcoming V2.0 of the website we'll see some differences.

Thanks for finding that post Mustang. RK deserves a pat on the back for suggesting it first! Jeremy's response is pretty funny as well! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Quite a long statement...too bad I never mentioned multilogging as a reason they were done away with....you do read the posts before answering...right?

Yes, I do. What about my post caused you to assume that it was addressed to you at all?

Sorry, you were quoting me AND Mushtang (since Mushtang is on the same side of the fence as you, I figured you were aiming the comment at me)

Just like the other post, you quoted me yet didn't even come close to what I said....I figured you weren't reading through the posts...

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.

 

A reminder for a couple of you....

You are proposing a restriction which is arguably unnecessary; you are soliciting opinions whether it should be 24 hours or seven days, while simultaneously attempting to hide from any debate whether your implied premise is sound.

 

That’s a bit like saying: "Hey Bob, which would you prefer? That I smack you in the head with this big hammer, or with this bigger hammer? Never mind why – I’d rather not hear any discussion from you on that point."

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.

 

A reminder for a couple of you....

You are proposing a restriction which is arguably unnecessary; you are soliciting opinions whether it should be 24 hours or seven days, while simultaneously attempting to hide from any debate whether your implied premise is sound.

 

That’s a bit like saying: "Hey Bob, which would you prefer? That I smack you in the head with this big hammer, or with this bigger hammer? Never mind why – I’d rather not hear any discussion from you on that point."

I think we all know this has been discussed to death and it ultimately ends with angst...something I believe TG is trying to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Quite a long statement...too bad I never mentioned multilogging as a reason they were done away with....you do read the posts before answering...right?

Yes, I do. What about my post caused you to assume that it was addressed to you at all?

Sorry, you were quoting me AND Mushtang (since Mushtang is on the same side of the fence as you, I figured you were aiming the comment at me)

Just like the other post, you quoted me yet didn't even come close to what I said....I figured you weren't reading through the posts...

You're not the only person I'm responding to in this threrad, Roddy. It's a public discussion with many participants. Sorry for any confusion I might have caused. You've made some good points. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I see nothing wrong with a flood-control filter. But a 1-week delay is not a flood-control filter, it's a clear attempt to stop multiple logs. Even a 1-day delay could be seen as such.

I'd agree with a 10 minute (or so) delay. A single log would take no more time than it does now. Twenty logs for the same event would take about two hours or more, counting server delays. This would cut down on local events with 1000+ "attendees", but would still allow a reasonable amount of multi-logging for those who want to pad their numbers for whatever reason.

This does nothing to stop the multilogging (and subsequent multi emails)...it might slow it, but I doubt someone wanting multiple smilies will care if they have to wait a few minutes or even a day...some people will do this still and it'll still cause problems.

The OP requested opinions on the idea of a log-delay. I was trying to get back on topic. I personally believe that 1 cache = 1 find, no more. But other people can play the game however they want, as long as it doesn't affect me. That's why GC.com doesn't have a top-ten cachers list anymore - the numbers don't mean much if you can theoretically log 30,000 attended logs for the same event (or archived cache) over a span of a few weeks.

 

I still think the BEST idea is to provide a switch where the cache owner can set whether multiple logs are allowed or not. Or, for those who want to pad numbers, they could add a drop box so the owner can set the max number of times someone can log. Anywhere between 1 to... say... 10. Every official and unofficial decision from TPTB appears to indicate that the cache-owner has complete authority for logging requirements. This switch (or drop box) just makes it easier for the owner to enforce that authority. This would work for ANY cache, not just Events.

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.

 

A reminder for a couple of you....

You are proposing a restriction which is arguably unnecessary; you are soliciting opinions whether it should be 24 hours or seven days, while simultaneously attempting to hide from any debate whether your implied premise is sound.

 

That’s a bit like saying: "Hey Bob, which would you prefer? That I smack you in the head with this big hammer, or with this bigger hammer? Never mind why – I’d rather not hear any discussion from you on that point."

I think we all know this has been discussed to death and it ultimately ends with angst...something I believe TG is trying to avoid.

By imposing his arbitrary version of the game on others? That avoids bad feelings?

Share this post


Link to post
Quite a long statement...too bad I never mentioned multilogging as a reason they were done away with....you do read the posts before answering...right?

Yes, I do. What about my post caused you to assume that it was addressed to you at all?

Sorry, you were quoting me AND Mushtang (since Mushtang is on the same side of the fence as you, I figured you were aiming the comment at me)

Just like the other post, you quoted me yet didn't even come close to what I said....I figured you weren't reading through the posts...

You're not the only person I'm responding to in this threrad, Roddy. It's a public discussion with many participants. Sorry for any confusion I might have caused. You've made some good points. :laughing:

As have you...I'll apologize for any angstful posts, too much on my mind these days...

Share this post


Link to post
I think we all know this has been discussed to death and it ultimately ends with angst...something I believe TG is trying to avoid.

By imposing his arbitrary version of the game on others? That avoids bad feelings?
Thanks Roddy. I am trying.

 

As far as arbitrary, it seems ironic that proposing a 24 hour time waiting period for logging a cache that is not even listed or approved on this site is arbitrary. I think you have it backwards as to what is arbitrary. Anyhow, I simply am expressing my opinion. If TPTB agree/disagree with it then sobeit. Jeremy already told RK it was a good idea. So what's that tell you? So unless you have some other valid reason why making people go through a waiting period to log caches that are not listed on this site is bad for the game, then express it otherwise let someone else comment. If you do comment, please direct your comments towards the idea and not at me. By the way, posting an idea is not imposing. TPTB are the only ones that can impose something around here.

Share this post


Link to post

A delay in logging would work for grandfathered traveling caches, and is a good idea.

 

As to the event, an easier solution would be to just make them a single attended log. This would solve the abuses while not affecting the travelers. There would also need to be an exemption for note type caches.

 

Now having said all this, the problem seems to be more or less localized to a couple geographic areas (I am near one), so if the fix would be to time consuming I would not want to see too much effort spent on it either.

Edited by baloo&bd

Share this post


Link to post
Jeremy already told RK it was a good idea. So what's that tell you?

Considering how long ago Jeremy said that, and considering that nothing has been done to implement the idea since then... it tells me he's not interested in making it policy.

 

What does it tell you?

Share this post


Link to post
Jeremy already told RK it was a good idea. So what's that tell you?
Considering how long ago Jeremy said that, and considering that nothing has been done to implement the idea since then... it tells me he's not interested in making it policy.

What does it tell you?

It tells me nothing absolutely. Maybe the post was an off-hand remark with no intent to follow through. And maybe there WILL be a future change, but there are other more pressing issues taking his (and his staff's) valuable time... things like the recent map changes and work on GC 2.0. It's only been 5 months. I'm personally appreciative of the fact that they've been working on improving the Google map interface instead of implementing flood-control on event logs. Edited by J-Way

Share this post


Link to post
Jeremy already told RK it was a good idea. So what's that tell you?

Considering how long ago Jeremy said that, and considering that nothing has been done to implement the idea since then... it tells me he's not interested in making it policy.

 

What does it tell you?

 

Nothing because he just said it in June, but I'll answer your question with your own previous post regarding that: :laughing:

Perhaps in the upcoming V2.0 of the website we'll see some differences.

Share this post


Link to post
I think we all know this has been discussed to death and it ultimately ends with angst...something I believe TG is trying to avoid.

By imposing his arbitrary version of the game on others? That avoids bad feelings?
Thanks Roddy. I am trying.

 

As far as arbitrary, it seems ironic that proposing a 24 hour time waiting period for logging a cache that is not even listed or approved on this site is arbitrary. I think you have it backwards as to what is arbitrary. Anyhow, I simply am expressing my opinion. If TPTB agree/disagree with it then sobeit. Jeremy already told RK it was a good idea. So what's that tell you? So unless you have some other valid reason why making people go through a waiting period to log caches that are not listed on this site is bad for the game, then express it otherwise let someone else comment. If you do comment, please direct your comments towards the idea and not at me. By the way, posting an idea is not imposing. TPTB are the only ones that can impose something around here.

I'm trying to understand which abuse you are trying to curb. In the prior thread you seemed to make the point that what is abusive about logging multiple attended logs is that 1) it generates a lot of extra emails especially if many people are watching the event page and 2) it clutters up the event page with lots of "Found temporary cache #x of y" logs making it hard to find the "interesting" logs that may have posted pictures from the event. If your goal is to remove clutter and avoid extra emails then perhaps making the logging of multiple attended logs a hassle would reduce the number of people who engage in the practice. Essentially you're asking is how much hassle is a smilie worth? It won't stop the debate in forum since people may wonder if TPTB allow multiple logs, why do they have to control the rate at which they are made?

 

I prefer CRs suggestion of allowing the cache owner to specify if multiple logs are allowed on their caches. Sure if an event owner didn't want to allow multiple attended logs someone could offer another cache for cachers who want to take "credit" for finding the temporaries. Unless they do this on a really cool cache that gets lots of "interesting" logs, you're probably not going to be watching this cache so the extra emails and clutter won't be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Jeremy already told RK it was a good idea. So what's that tell you?

Considering how long ago Jeremy said that, and considering that nothing has been done to implement the idea since then... it tells me he's not interested in making it policy.

 

What does it tell you?

 

Nothing because he just said it in June, but I'll answer your question with your own previous post regarding that: :laughing:

Perhaps in the upcoming V2.0 of the website we'll see some differences.

In that case, I wonder, if V2.0 doesn't limit multilogging will you (and others) still complain about it and claim that TPTB really want it to stop?

Share this post


Link to post
I think we all know this has been discussed to death and it ultimately ends with angst...something I believe TG is trying to avoid.

By imposing his arbitrary version of the game on others? That avoids bad feelings?
Thanks Roddy. I am trying.

 

As far as arbitrary, it seems ironic that proposing a 24 hour time waiting period for logging a cache that is not even listed or approved on this site is arbitrary. I think you have it backwards as to what is arbitrary. Anyhow, I simply am expressing my opinion. If TPTB agree/disagree with it then sobeit. Jeremy already told RK it was a good idea. So what's that tell you? So unless you have some other valid reason why making people go through a waiting period to log caches that are not listed on this site is bad for the game, then express it otherwise let someone else comment. If you do comment, please direct your comments towards the idea and not at me. By the way, posting an idea is not imposing. TPTB are the only ones that can impose something around here.

I'm trying to understand which abuse you are trying to curb. In the prior thread you seemed to make the point that what is abusive about logging multiple attended logs is that 1) it generates a lot of extra emails especially if many people are watching the event page and 2) it clutters up the event page with lots of "Found temporary cache #x of y" logs making it hard to find the "interesting" logs that may have posted pictures from the event. If your goal is to remove clutter and avoid extra emails then perhaps making the logging of multiple attended logs a hassle would reduce the number of people who engage in the practice. Essentially you're asking is how much hassle is a smilie worth? It won't stop the debate in forum since people may wonder if TPTB allow multiple logs, why do they have to control the rate at which they are made?

 

I prefer CRs suggestion of allowing the cache owner to specify if multiple logs are allowed on their caches. Sure if an event owner didn't want to allow multiple attended logs someone could offer another cache for cachers who want to take "credit" for finding the temporaries. Unless they do this on a really cool cache that gets lots of "interesting" logs, you're probably not going to be watching this cache so the extra emails and clutter won't be an issue.

Toz we already have CRs suggestion. It just isn't hard coded but it is up to the cache owner now and it is not effective because people bypass it. What I am really concerned with is the spread of this temp logging mania. I don't want to attend events where people are frantically running around finding tons unapproved caches just so they can log them. This generates spam and clutter and turns the game into something that I want no part of. It will be impossible to stop once it hits my area because I have a lot of friends that would make it very uncomfortable to stand up against it. Luckily all my friends feel the same way now but who knows if the temp mania will spread and get them. It's like invasion of the body snatchers.

 

Edit: spelling

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

What I am really concerned with is the spread of this temp logging mania.

 

I think you've hit on the most important aspect of the conversation. The problem is not what is happening to the game right now, it's what will eventually happen to the game in the future. When the folks on our side of the argument can say, "See, we told you it was going to ruin the game", it will be too late to fix the problem. So, what's wrong with trying to fix the problem before it's too late? TPTB don't think they need to do anything and that the problem will resolve itself through some sort of psuedo-democratic process. I wish they would understand what the game needs is strong leadership from those that define the bubble that geocaching lives in.

Share this post


Link to post

What I am really concerned with is the spread of this temp logging mania.

 

I think you've hit on the most important aspect of the conversation. The problem is not what is happening to the game right now, it's what will eventually happen to the game in the future. When the folks on our side of the argument can say, "See, we told you it was going to ruin the game", it will be too late to fix the problem. So, what's wrong with trying to fix the problem before it's too late? TPTB don't think they need to do anything and that the problem will resolve itself through some sort of psuedo-democratic process. I wish they would understand what the game needs is strong leadership from those that define the bubble that geocaching lives in.

 

Why do we need strong leadership?

 

If people are running around grabbing temporary caches at events, why does that affect your fun? If you don't want to go to those events, don't. If you want to sit around the campsite and talk with like-minded folks, great, do that.

 

We've heard from people who have temporary caches at events where people AREN'T logging them. how is that ruining the game?

 

As it's been pointed out, people will work around any time limit imposed if they REALLY want to log finds that they see as legitimate and the means exist on the site to do it, so I don't see this as a viable idea.

 

edit - typo

Edited by KoosKoos

Share this post


Link to post
We've heard from people who have temporary caches at events where people AREN'T logging them. How is that ruining the game?
That isn't at all. I think you are confusing the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
We've heard from people who have temporary caches at events where people AREN'T logging them. How is that ruining the game?
That isn't at all. I think you are confusing the issue.

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear...I was going back to your quote:

"I don't want to attend events where people are frantically running around finding tons unapproved caches just so they can log them."

 

Why is it ruining things if they're finding tons of unapproved caches just so they can log them, but it's not ruining it if they're finding tons of unapproved caches just so they can?

Share this post


Link to post
We've heard from people who have temporary caches at events where people AREN'T logging them. How is that ruining the game?
That isn't at all. I think you are confusing the issue.

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear...I was going back to your quote:

"I don't want to attend events where people are frantically running around finding tons unapproved caches just so they can log them."

 

Why is it ruining things if they're finding tons of unapproved caches just so they can log them, but it's not ruining it if they're finding tons of unapproved caches just so they can?

Read Toz's post. He covered some of the reasons. My invasion of the body snatchers post covers another.

Share this post


Link to post

What I am really concerned with is the spread of this temp logging mania. I don't want to attend events where people are frantically running around finding tons unapproved caches just so they can log them. This generates spam and clutter and turns the game into something that I want no part of. It will be impossible to stop once it hits my area because I have a lot of friends that would make it very uncomfortable to stand up against it. Luckily all my friends feel the same way now but who knows if the temp mania will spread and get them. It's like invasion of the body snatchers.

I'd love to attend an event where people are frantically running around finding tons of caches (either approved or unapproved). It sounds like a lot of fun. Whether or not someone wants to log these cache online doesn't matter much to me. Sure if these are approved caches each has their own page where the finders can log it while the unapproved caches don't so people will get creative and log multiple attended logs or post their "finds" on another cache page. I can understand that these extra logs effect you by cluttering up a cache page or sending you extra emails that are not particularly interesting (e.g. "Found temp cache #37"). I doubt we will see the practice spread to So. California - but so what if it does. I'll still have fun attending events and finding temporary caches or participating in whatever special games the event holder plans. I won't log the extra logs because this doesn't do anything for me. If someone else thinks that the extra smilie is worth it, then that's their decision. I would probably find a way to view the event page to see the logs I'm interested in reading and avoid the extra logs that are there just to increment the find count.

 

We don't have temporary caches here but I have seen the practice of putting out caches for an event and getting them approved after the event so that people can log them. I suspect that if a cache is not approved, the cache owner will just move it to where it does get approve with the same GC number so that people who found what is essentially a different cache at the event can still log it. This doesn't make any more sense to me than logging temporary cache that are never submitted for review, but others seem to think this is OK.

Share this post


Link to post

What I am really concerned with is the spread of this temp logging mania. I don't want to attend events where people are frantically running around finding tons unapproved caches just so they can log them. This generates spam and clutter and turns the game into something that I want no part of. It will be impossible to stop once it hits my area because I have a lot of friends that would make it very uncomfortable to stand up against it. Luckily all my friends feel the same way now but who knows if the temp mania will spread and get them. It's like invasion of the body snatchers.

I'd love to attend an event where people are frantically running around finding tons of caches (either approved or unapproved). It sounds like a lot of fun. Whether or not someone wants to log these cache online doesn't matter much to me. Sure if these are approved caches each has their own page where the finders can log it while the unapproved caches don't so people will get creative and log multiple attended logs or post their "finds" on another cache page. I can understand that these extra logs effect you by cluttering up a cache page or sending you extra emails that are not particularly interesting (e.g. "Found temp cache #37"). I doubt we will see the practice spread to So. California - but so what if it does. I'll still have fun attending events and finding temporary caches or participating in whatever special games the event holder plans. I won't log the extra logs because this doesn't do anything for me. If someone else thinks that the extra smilie is worth it, then that's their decision. I would probably find a way to view the event page to see the logs I'm interested in reading and avoid the extra logs that are there just to increment the find count.

 

We don't have temporary caches here but I have seen the practice of putting out caches for an event and getting them approved after the event so that people can log them. I suspect that if a cache is not approved, the cache owner will just move it to where it does get approve with the same GC number so that people who found what is essentially a different cache at the event can still log it. This doesn't make any more sense to me than logging temporary cache that are never submitted for review, but others seem to think this is OK.

I enjoy poker runs just as much as the next guy. :D Anyhow, besides the spam an clutter after the event, I don't want to hear a bunch of people sit around and brag about how many finds they have when I know that they log tons of unlisted caches to pump up their numbers. It would be even worse if some of my friends starting doing it. I have a lot of respect for my friends. I would hate to lose it. If the people doing this had to think about each temp log for 24 more hours then maybe they would eventually come to their senses. :D

 

P.S. You are right that SoCal has not yet fallen to the invasion of the body snatchers. :laughing:

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

I enjoy poker runs just as much as the next guy. :D Anyhow, besides the spam an clutter after the event, I don't want to hear a bunch of people sit around and brag about how many finds they have when I know that they log tons of unlisted caches to pump up their numbers. It would be even worse if some of my friends starting doing it. I have a lot of respect for my friends. I would hate to lose it. If the people doing this had to think about each temp log for 24 more hours then maybe they would eventually come to their senses. :D

 

P.S. You are right that SoCal has not yet fallen to the invasion of the body snatchers. :laughing:

So you're not only making the suggestion to avoid the logs and emails (which you've shot down a good method to avoid), you're also trying to save your friends from themselves. Have you asked your friends what they think about the practice?

Share this post


Link to post

I enjoy poker runs just as much as the next guy. :ph34r: Anyhow, besides the spam an clutter after the event, I don't want to hear a bunch of people sit around and brag about how many finds they have when I know that they log tons of unlisted caches to pump up their numbers. It would be even worse if some of my friends starting doing it. I have a lot of respect for my friends. I would hate to lose it. If the people doing this had to think about each temp log for 24 more hours then maybe they would eventually come to their senses. :blink:

 

P.S. You are right that SoCal has not yet fallen to the invasion of the body snatchers. :blink:

So you're not only making the suggestion to avoid the logs and emails (which you've shot down a good method to avoid), you're also trying to save your friends from themselves. Have you asked your friends what they think about the practice?

I think you missed this post:

So unless you have some other valid reason why making people go through a waiting period to log caches that are not listed on this site is bad for the game, then express it, otherwise let someone else comment. If you do comment, please direct your comments towards the idea and not at me.

Share this post


Link to post
Why not just disallow duplicate "Found-its" altogether?
Because there are grandfathered traveling caches out there can can be logged more than once. So a 24 hour waiting period wouldn't bother those folks but it would slow down someone trying to log the same an unapproved temp cache 100+ times. Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

I enjoy poker runs just as much as the next guy. :P Anyhow, besides the spam an clutter after the event, I don't want to hear a bunch of people sit around and brag about how many finds they have when I know that they log tons of unlisted caches to pump up their numbers. It would be even worse if some of my friends starting doing it. I have a lot of respect for my friends. I would hate to lose it. If the people doing this had to think about each temp log for 24 more hours then maybe they would eventually come to their senses. :ph34r:

 

P.S. You are right that SoCal has not yet fallen to the invasion of the body snatchers. :blink:

So you're not only making the suggestion to avoid the logs and emails (which you've shot down a good method to avoid), you're also trying to save your friends from themselves. Have you asked your friends what they think about the practice?

I think you missed this post:

So unless you have some other valid reason why making people go through a waiting period to log caches that are not listed on this site is bad for the game, then express it, otherwise let someone else comment. If you do comment, please direct your comments towards the idea and not at me.

I'm sorry if the questions are too tough for you.

 

This is a discussion forum, and I'm discussing the topic of this thread. If you don't like the things I'm saying about the topic, then you can either retort or not. But I'm not going to stay out of a thread simply because you'd rather not hear from someone with an opinion other than yours.

 

By the way, are comments about "body snatchers" more directed towards the idea than my questions? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Mushtang, you continually pull this topic off-track. Since the subject you wish to talk about isn't what the OP wants, maybe you should open another topic?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...