Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
TrailGators

A win-win idea to impede logging abuse

Recommended Posts

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?

That's not true. In my post number 96 above I was asking if the idea suggested in the OP was now intended to keep his friends from posting the way he doesn't want to, and asked if he'd discussed it with them. It was absolutely on topic about the suggested limitation on logging.

 

Every one of my posts in this thread have been about the idea of restricting logging, all on topic. I haven't debated whether or not multiple logging is good or bad, only if restricting it (as suggested in the OP) had merit or not.

 

I've stayed much closer to the topic than the original poster has. Out of curiosity, what topic did you think I was discussing that I need to start a new thread about?

Share this post


Link to post

How about a 7 day waiting period for starting new threads concerning the same topic as ones which were previously closed? The system could identify certain words such as "multilogging" and disallow it. I see this as a win-win idea to impede thread abuse. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
How about a 7 day waiting period for starting new threads concerning the same topic as ones which were previously closed? The system could identify certain words such as "multilogging" and disallow it. I see this as a win-win idea to impede thread abuse. :ph34r:
Very funny! :blink: I did actually check with a mod and he advised that I wait a couple of days after the last one got closed to start this one. This one came from an idea that came up in that other thread. Anyhow, it could be a different thread if the two brothers would quit hijacking it and let some others chime in. I would really prefer it if they didn't post in it anymore because we got their point a long ago. Enough already! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Logging temporary caches is a lame practice and one I hope doesn't infect our area in the future. I see no reason why Events shouldn't be limited to one "Attended" log. The only reason I don't like the 24 hour idea is because of a local grandfathered cache that can be easily be logged several times in one day. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
The only reason I don't like the 24 hour idea is because of a local grandfathered cache that can be easily be logged several times in one day. :blink:
What do you mean? If you had to wait at least 24 hours it would be impossible to log it more than once a day....

Share this post


Link to post

I just saw this thread and am jumping in a bit late. I'm not sure what the waiting period would do to help the situation.

 

The fact is some events are not being attended by some people just because someone is not putting out temps or not letting them be logged.

 

So has what I consider abuse to the site has just become the normal. Really I would love to hear TPTB consider "abuse". The way I read there previous comments muli logs on events is frown upon. But at that point it hadn't reached their point of "abuse". So they don't like it but it continues to grow when does it hit the abuse point.

 

So with that part out of the way. I don't think a waiting period would do anything to "clean up" event cache pages. It just would drag out the process of 40 logs to 40 days. At least right now it's done in a few days after the event.

 

I would like to see some change to the policy though.

 

Now where's that basketball. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Logging temporary caches is a lame practice and one I hope doesn't infect our area in the future. I see no reason why Events shouldn't be limited to one "Attended" log. The only reason I don't like the 24 hour idea is because of a local grandfathered cache that can be easily be logged several times in one day. :blink:

 

This is where leadership from TPTB comes into play. Someone at Groundspeak needs to say, "We know that doing <fill in the blank> is the right thing to do, but up until now we've been frightened to do it because we're worried that a bunch of people will be mad at us and go use <some other listing service> or stop paying their membership fees. But we realize now that if we continue allowing anarchy to rule, that ultimately it will result in even MORE people leaving and not paying their fees. Therefore we are going to stop the madness with version 2.0."

 

Seriously, I have a feeling that version 2.0 will fix a lot of these problems. I think we are going to see a 1 log per cache rule enforced through the site (and everyone, except a small minority, rejoiced!!!) I think that because they got it right on Waymarking after seeing the disaster that ensued by leaving the gaping hole on geocaching.com...

 

Then again, I could be completely wrong, but what's wrong with wishing and hoping?

Share this post


Link to post
How about a 7 day waiting period for starting new threads concerning the same topic as ones which were previously closed? The system could identify certain words such as "multilogging" and disallow it. I see this as a win-win idea to impede thread abuse. :ph34r:
Very funny! :blink: I did actually check with a mod and he advised that I wait a couple of days after the last one got closed to start this one. This one came from an idea that came up in that other thread. Anyhow, it could be a different thread if the two brothers would quit hijacking it and let some others chime in. I would really prefer it if they didn't post in it anymore because we got their point a long ago. Enough already! :blink:

Show me one post in this thread where I've hijacked it onto a subject other than a method of limiting finds on a cache (with the exception of defending myself against that accusation). If you don't like my points there's no reason to suggest I'm off topic, just ignore the posts. I've asked you a couple of questions about your topic that you've ignored, so I know you can do it.

 

Posting that you like an off topic idea about having a + and - by your find count was off topic.

 

Making comments about Invasion Of The Body Snatchers is off topic.

 

I'll even make sure this post is on topic by saying that limiting logging of a cache to once a day doesn't have any merit, since it hasn't been shown that logging more than once on an event cache is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post

Logging temporary caches is a lame practice and one I hope doesn't infect our area in the future. I see no reason why Events shouldn't be limited to one "Attended" log. The only reason I don't like the 24 hour idea is because of a local grandfathered cache that can be easily be logged several times in one day. :blink:

 

This is where leadership from TPTB comes into play. Someone at Groundspeak needs to say, "We know that doing <fill in the blank> is the right thing to do, but up until now we've been frightened to do it because we're worried that a bunch of people will be mad at us and go use <some other listing service> or stop paying their membership fees. But we realize now that if we continue allowing anarchy to rule, that ultimately it will result in even MORE people leaving and not paying their fees. Therefore we are going to stop the madness with version 2.0."

 

Seriously, I have a feeling that version 2.0 will fix a lot of these problems. I think we are going to see a 1 log per cache rule enforced through the site (and everyone, except a small minority, rejoiced!!!) I think that because they got it right on Waymarking after seeing the disaster that ensued by leaving the gaping hole on geocaching.com...

 

Then again, I could be completely wrong, but what's wrong with wishing and hoping?

The reason they have not done it is because there are also traveling caches that were grandfathered that would be impacted if they did that. If there is one thing I've learned is that people take the path of least resistance. The 24 hour delay between logs makes logging temps the path of higher resistance. I seriously doubt that most people would persist to log 100 caches over 100 days. Therefore the abuse would fade away without impacting other valid caches.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think a waiting period would do anything to "clean up" event cache pages. It just would drag out the process of 40 logs to 40 days. At least right now it's done in a few days after the event.
Most people read the event logs when the log their own attended log within a few days of attending the event. So the bulk of the temp logs would not show up until after they have read the real attended logs with a delay. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
The reason they have not done it is because there are also traveling caches that were grandfathered that would be impacted if they did that.

 

I've never had the impression from gc.com that multi logging traveling caches was a main concern from not implementing a 1:1 restriction. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
The reason they have not done it is because there are also traveling caches that were grandfathered that would be impacted if they did that.

I've never had the impression from gc.com that multi logging traveling caches was a main concern from not implementing a 1:1 restriction. :blink:
To be honest it's the only concern I could think of. What other ones would there be?

Share this post


Link to post

Logging temporary caches is a lame practice and one I hope doesn't infect our area in the future. I see no reason why Events shouldn't be limited to one "Attended" log. The only reason I don't like the 24 hour idea is because of a local grandfathered cache that can be easily be logged several times in one day. :blink:

 

This is where leadership from TPTB comes into play. Someone at Groundspeak needs to say, "We know that doing <fill in the blank> is the right thing to do, but up until now we've been frightened to do it because we're worried that a bunch of people will be mad at us and go use <some other listing service> or stop paying their membership fees. But we realize now that if we continue allowing anarchy to rule, that ultimately it will result in even MORE people leaving and not paying their fees. Therefore we are going to stop the madness with version 2.0."

 

Seriously, I have a feeling that version 2.0 will fix a lot of these problems. I think we are going to see a 1 log per cache rule enforced through the site (and everyone, except a small minority, rejoiced!!!) I think that because they got it right on Waymarking after seeing the disaster that ensued by leaving the gaping hole on geocaching.com...

 

Then again, I could be completely wrong, but what's wrong with wishing and hoping?

The reason they have not done it is because there are also traveling caches that were grandfathered that would be impacted if they did that. If there is one thing I've learned is that people take the path of least resistance. The 24 hour delay between logs makes logging temps the path of higher resistance. I seriously doubt that most people would persist to log 100 caches over 100 days. Therefore the abuse would fade away without impacting other valid caches.

 

I would be very easy for Groundspeak to have a flag that is set to allow/disallow multiple logging on a cache by cache basis. They already know which caches are grandfathered moving caches because these have a flag that allows the cache owner to update the coordinates by more than .1 mile. Other caches that are deemed OK (caches with multiple targets, events that are recycled, or whatever TPTB decide is not abuse) could petition to have there caches flagged to allow multiple logs. Or you could allow the cache owner to decide to allow multiple logs or not. Having a flood mechanism to force users to space out multiple logs would have the effect of punishing legitimate multiple logs along with the abusers.

 

ReadyOrNot says that Waymarking got it right when they changed so you couldn't post a visited log twice on the same waymark. I think that was the stupidest thing that Groundspeak ever did. The are many reasons why you might want to revisit a waymark and log it on the web site. By allowing only one visit, TPTB have essentially taken a concept where they originally went to great lengths to avoid the controversies that cause clutter in the Geocaching forums and turned it into a competition for logging the most visits to unique waymarks. If they wanted to have a statistic call "unique waymarks visited" they could have done that without limiting the number of visited logs. It's pretty stupid, considering that some waymarkers say that you shouldn't even have visit requirements to log a waymark. I could find a category where I don't have take a picture or answer any questions and just log visits to all the waymarks. This change has turned me off to the idea of logging visits to waymarks now. But Groundspeak has shown by what they did with Waymarking, that they are capable of implementing stupid needless restrictions - so there is a chance they will implement TrailGator's suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post

Logging temporary caches is a lame practice and one I hope doesn't infect our area in the future. I see no reason why Events shouldn't be limited to one "Attended" log. The only reason I don't like the 24 hour idea is because of a local grandfathered cache that can be easily be logged several times in one day. :blink:

 

This is where leadership from TPTB comes into play. Someone at Groundspeak needs to say, "We know that doing <fill in the blank> is the right thing to do, but up until now we've been frightened to do it because we're worried that a bunch of people will be mad at us and go use <some other listing service> or stop paying their membership fees. But we realize now that if we continue allowing anarchy to rule, that ultimately it will result in even MORE people leaving and not paying their fees. Therefore we are going to stop the madness with version 2.0."

 

Seriously, I have a feeling that version 2.0 will fix a lot of these problems. I think we are going to see a 1 log per cache rule enforced through the site (and everyone, except a small minority, rejoiced!!!) I think that because they got it right on Waymarking after seeing the disaster that ensued by leaving the gaping hole on geocaching.com...

 

Then again, I could be completely wrong, but what's wrong with wishing and hoping?

The reason they have not done it is because there are also traveling caches that were grandfathered that would be impacted if they did that. If there is one thing I've learned is that people take the path of least resistance. The 24 hour delay between logs makes logging temps the path of higher resistance. I seriously doubt that most people would persist to log 100 caches over 100 days. Therefore the abuse would fade away without impacting other valid caches.

 

I would be very easy for Groundspeak to have a flag that is set to allow/disallow multiple logging on a cache by cache basis. They already know which caches are grandfathered moving caches because these have a flag that allows the cache owner to update the coordinates by more than .1 mile. Other caches that are deemed OK (caches with multiple targets, events that are recycled, or whatever TPTB decide is not abuse) could petition to have there caches flagged to allow multiple logs. Or you could allow the cache owner to decide to allow multiple logs or not. Having a flood mechanism to force users to space out multiple logs would have the effect of punishing legitimate multiple logs along with the abusers.

 

ReadyOrNot says that Waymarking got it right when they changed so you couldn't post a visited log twice on the same waymark. I think that was the stupidest thing that Groundspeak ever did. The are many reasons why you might want to revisit a waymark and log it on the web site. By allowing only one visit, TPTB have essentially taken a concept where they originally went to great lengths to avoid the controversies that cause clutter in the Geocaching forums and turned it into a competition for logging the most visits to unique waymarks. If they wanted to have a statistic call "unique waymarks visited" they could have done that without limiting the number of visited logs. It's pretty stupid, considering that some waymarkers say that you shouldn't even have visit requirements to log a waymark. I could find a category where I don't have take a picture or answer any questions and just log visits to all the waymarks. This change has turned me off to the idea of logging visits to waymarks now. But Groundspeak has shown by what they did with Waymarking, that they are capable of implementing stupid needless restrictions - so there is a chance they will implement TrailGator's suggestion.

Take a chill pill dude. I doubt Groundspeak will let the admins get bombarded with hate mail because they won't allow certain caches to get tons of fake logs. So that will never work. The 24 hour delay doesn't really impact anyone except the temp loggers. Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think a waiting period would do anything to "clean up" event cache pages. It just would drag out the process of 40 logs to 40 days. At least right now it's done in a few days after the event.
Most people read the event logs when the log their own attended log within a few days of attending the event. So the bulk of the temp logs would not show up until after they have read the real attended logs with a delay. :blink:

 

You make a very good point there. Then people like me who forget to take the event off my watchlist untill the logs start rolling in and get a chance to pull it off my watchlist befor the temp logs roll in. I hadn't thought about that.

 

A bit off the topic (sorry) is I really liked the idea of having the event owner set a max number of temps and the loggers fills in how many temps found. Then when you look at the attented logs in the corner it would show how many temps they found as well.

 

But I am starting to understand where you're going with the time frame of the extra logs. Might make it so that first attended log show up near the top of the logs and the 2 to whatever number of temps get thrown near the bottom. So then a person wouldn't have to look threw all the temp logs to see the first attended log, that usually talks more about the event side of it.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think a waiting period would do anything to "clean up" event cache pages. It just would drag out the process of 40 logs to 40 days. At least right now it's done in a few days after the event.
Most people read the event logs when the log their own attended log within a few days of attending the event. So the bulk of the temp logs would not show up until after they have read the real attended logs with a delay. :blink:

 

You make a very good point there. Then people like me who forget to take the event off my watchlist untill the logs start rolling in and get a chance to pull it off my watchlist befor the temp logs roll in. I hadn't thought about that.

 

A bit off the topic (sorry) is I really liked the idea of having the event owner set a max number of temps and the loggers fills in how many temps found. Then when you look at the attented logs in the corner it would show how many temps they found as well.

 

But I am starting to understand where you're going with the time frame of the extra logs. Might make it so that first attended log show up near the top of the logs and the 2 to whatever number of temps get thrown near the bottom. So then a person wouldn't have to look threw all the temp logs to see the first attended log, that usually talks more about the event side of it.

Exactly! There was one event in SoCal that I went to where they did it and the event page was really annoying to read with all those temp logs. At least this way they's be clumped together so they would be easier to skip over to read the real logs and look at the photos.

 

If you left an temp event on your watchlist you would get spammed with temp log emails. This helps that too!

Edited by TrailGators

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.
This post makes the assumption that many people log finds on temporary event caches to the event pages for events put on by individuals who do not wish to have multiple 'finds' logged to the page.

 

I find it hard to believe that this practice is going on or that it is anything but an incredible rarity. Do you, perhaps, have some links to cache pages that support your thesis?

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.
I think that you are incorrect. I'm pretty sure that 'attended' logs to mega events increment the total. Edited by sbell111

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.

Wouldn't establishing an arbitrary delay for the sole reason of slowing down people from doing something that you've decided that you don't like which only affects you if you try to be affected (by watching a cache page that allows multiple logs) be the pinnacle of arbitrariness?
If TPTB agree/disagree with it then sobeit. Jeremy already told RK it was a good idea. So what's that tell you?
Neither of us know exactly what Jeremy was thinking when he made that post, but having read his posts over the years, I suspect that you are reading too much into it.
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.
You are making the argument that that the website should become more restrictive unless someone can show that it is bad for the game? I would argue that greater restriction is inherently bad for the game. Further, I would argue that before any such restriction is put in place, the action that the restriction is trying to curb should be proven to be bad for the game. You have not proven that. You have merely shown that you don't like the idea and that you are unwilling to take the simple step to avoid being bothered by these actions. Edited by sbell111

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.
The problem with your position is that the slippery slope has been shown not to be very slippery. These temporary caches have been being logged to the event pages for the last six years, or so. They are not taking over the world. The sky is not falling. The owners of events still get to decide whether to have these caches, or not, and attendees still get to decide whether to look for them and log them to the event pages that allow them. Further, this practice has not crept in teh darkness. It has been practiced in the light of day with the full knowledge and acceptance of TPTB.

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:

I've been to a number of events. Yet, no one has ever forced me to listen to any conversation that I wasn't interested in. If you don't want to hear people talk about caches that they have found, wander over to someone else and talk to them. Your posts make it appear that you not only want to control the fun of others, but also what they talk about. Surely, this is not true.

 

In the current scheme, no one forces anyone else to make any log or accept any log that they don't want to. There is no boogie man.

Share this post


Link to post
Logging temporary caches is a lame practice and one I hope doesn't infect our area in the future. I see no reason why Events shouldn't be limited to one "Attended" log. The only reason I don't like the 24 hour idea is because of a local grandfathered cache that can be easily be logged several times in one day. :blink:
This is where leadership from TPTB comes into play. Someone at Groundspeak needs to say, "We know that doing <fill in the blank> is the right thing to do, but up until now we've been frightened to do it because we're worried that a bunch of people will be mad at us and go use <some other listing service> or stop paying their membership fees. But we realize now that if we continue allowing anarchy to rule, that ultimately it will result in even MORE people leaving and not paying their fees. Therefore we are going to stop the madness with version 2.0."

 

Seriously, I have a feeling that version 2.0 will fix a lot of these problems. I think we are going to see a 1 log per cache rule enforced through the site (and everyone, except a small minority, rejoiced!!!) I think that because they got it right on Waymarking after seeing the disaster that ensued by leaving the gaping hole on geocaching.com...

 

Then again, I could be completely wrong, but what's wrong with wishing and hoping?

You are making a few assumptions in your post. The first is that TPTB actually find this practice to be abusive. The second is that TPTB believe that any action they would take to curb this behavior would please more people than it would displease. Edited by sbell111

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.
This post makes the assumption that many people log finds on temporary event caches to the event pages for events put on by individuals who do not wish to have multiple 'finds' logged to the page.

 

I find it hard to believe that this practice is going on or that it is anything but an incredible rarity. Do you, perhaps, have some links to cache pages that support your thesis?

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.
I think that you are incorrect. I'm pretty sure that 'attended' logs to mega events increment the total.

 

I agree, the attended logs of a MEGA DO count toward the stat total.

 

I think the problem is more for those who watch the event (to me at least). Another problem (as I said a few times) is the fact that some might use event caches if they didn't have to worry about upsetting anyone when they disallow multilogging (if the default were NO, then the owner isn't a "scrooge" in the eyes of thoe who desire the extra smiley or 20)...I'm in this camp as well as the "extra emails" and "clean event page" camps!

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:

I've been to a number of events. Yet, no one has ever forced me to listen to any conversation that I wasn't interested in. If you don't want to hear people talk about caches that they have found, wander over to someone else and talk to them. Your posts make it appear that you not only want to control the fun of others, but also what they talk about. Surely, this is not true.

 

In the current scheme, no one forces anyone else to make any log or accept any log that they don't want to. There is no boogie man.

I think we all understand exactly what was being said here....well, most of us at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Logging temporary caches is a lame practice and one I hope doesn't infect our area in the future. I see no reason why Events shouldn't be limited to one "Attended" log. The only reason I don't like the 24 hour idea is because of a local grandfathered cache that can be easily be logged several times in one day. :blink:
This is where leadership from TPTB comes into play. Someone at Groundspeak needs to say, "We know that doing <fill in the blank> is the right thing to do, but up until now we've been frightened to do it because we're worried that a bunch of people will be mad at us and go use <some other listing service> or stop paying their membership fees. But we realize now that if we continue allowing anarchy to rule, that ultimately it will result in even MORE people leaving and not paying their fees. Therefore we are going to stop the madness with version 2.0."

 

Seriously, I have a feeling that version 2.0 will fix a lot of these problems. I think we are going to see a 1 log per cache rule enforced through the site (and everyone, except a small minority, rejoiced!!!) I think that because they got it right on Waymarking after seeing the disaster that ensued by leaving the gaping hole on geocaching.com...

 

Then again, I could be completely wrong, but what's wrong with wishing and hoping?

You are making a few assumptions in your post. The first is that TPTB actually find this practice to be abusive. The second is that TPTB believe that any action they would take to curb this behavior would please more people than it would displease.

Just as you're assuming the opposite? :blink:

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:

I've been to a number of events. Yet, no one has ever forced me to listen to any conversation that I wasn't interested in. If you don't want to hear people talk about caches that they have found, wander over to someone else and talk to them. Your posts make it appear that you not only want to control the fun of others, but also what they talk about. Surely, this is not true.

 

In the current scheme, no one forces anyone else to make any log or accept any log that they don't want to. There is no boogie man.

I think we all understand exactly what was being said here....well, most of us at least.
Could you explain it to the rest of us?

 

It appeared to 'say' that the poster doesn't want to be subjected to offending conversation and, therefore, wishes to not allow others to decide what they like or not for fear that they may talk about their enjoyment within earshot of the poster.

Share this post


Link to post
Logging temporary caches is a lame practice and one I hope doesn't infect our area in the future. I see no reason why Events shouldn't be limited to one "Attended" log. The only reason I don't like the 24 hour idea is because of a local grandfathered cache that can be easily be logged several times in one day. :blink:
This is where leadership from TPTB comes into play. Someone at Groundspeak needs to say, "We know that doing <fill in the blank> is the right thing to do, but up until now we've been frightened to do it because we're worried that a bunch of people will be mad at us and go use <some other listing service> or stop paying their membership fees. But we realize now that if we continue allowing anarchy to rule, that ultimately it will result in even MORE people leaving and not paying their fees. Therefore we are going to stop the madness with version 2.0."

 

Seriously, I have a feeling that version 2.0 will fix a lot of these problems. I think we are going to see a 1 log per cache rule enforced through the site (and everyone, except a small minority, rejoiced!!!) I think that because they got it right on Waymarking after seeing the disaster that ensued by leaving the gaping hole on geocaching.com...

 

Then again, I could be completely wrong, but what's wrong with wishing and hoping?

You are making a few assumptions in your post. The first is that TPTB actually find this practice to be abusive. The second is that TPTB believe that any action they would take to curb this behavior would please more people than it would displease.
Just as you're assuming the opposite? :blink:
Actually, I'm making no presumptions about what TPTB are thinking beyond what they have posted. Further, I am not trying to impede anyone's enjoyment of the game based on my personal biases.

Share this post


Link to post
Logging temporary caches is a lame practice and one I hope doesn't infect our area in the future. I see no reason why Events shouldn't be limited to one "Attended" log. The only reason I don't like the 24 hour idea is because of a local grandfathered cache that can be easily be logged several times in one day. :blink:
This is where leadership from TPTB comes into play. Someone at Groundspeak needs to say, "We know that doing <fill in the blank> is the right thing to do, but up until now we've been frightened to do it because we're worried that a bunch of people will be mad at us and go use <some other listing service> or stop paying their membership fees. But we realize now that if we continue allowing anarchy to rule, that ultimately it will result in even MORE people leaving and not paying their fees. Therefore we are going to stop the madness with version 2.0."

 

Seriously, I have a feeling that version 2.0 will fix a lot of these problems. I think we are going to see a 1 log per cache rule enforced through the site (and everyone, except a small minority, rejoiced!!!) I think that because they got it right on Waymarking after seeing the disaster that ensued by leaving the gaping hole on geocaching.com...

 

Then again, I could be completely wrong, but what's wrong with wishing and hoping?

You are making a few assumptions in your post. The first is that TPTB actually find this practice to be abusive. The second is that TPTB believe that any action they would take to curb this behavior would please more people than it would displease.
Just as you're assuming the opposite? :blink:
Actually, I'm making no presumptions about what TPTB are thinking beyond what they have posted. Further, I am not trying to impede anyone's enjoyment of the game based on my personal biases.

You might not be, but the multilogging (which you seem to be for) is. It ruins the fun for me as I've already outlined several times, I'm certain it isn't just me it bothers.

 

If you need it explained: He (like myself) would rather not have his friends tell him how high a count find they have IF they ever do decide to take up this multilogging craze. He (like I) respects his friends, but would hate to lose respect for them if they decide padding their numbers through multilogging is "as fun" as others who are doing this do (which would also show the "spread" of the problem). I think I got that right for TG, it's how I see it (and how I see the post)...I'm sure TG can and will fill in any "foggy areas" and add anything I missed.

Share this post


Link to post
You are making a few assumptions in your post. The first is that TPTB actually find this practice to be abusive. The second is that TPTB believe that any action they would take to curb this behavior would please more people than it would displease.
Just as you're assuming the opposite? :blink:
Actually, I'm making no presumptions about what TPTB are thinking beyond what they have posted. Further, I am not trying to impede anyone's enjoyment of the game based on my personal biases.

You might not be, but the multilogging (which you seem to be for) is. It ruins the fun for me as I've already outlined several times, I'm certain it isn't just me it bothers.

Truthfully, I don't know why you feel that this practice ruins your fun. Is it for any of these 'reasons'?

  • It causes me to receive too many emails if I choose to watch the event page. Solution: Don't watch the event pages of events that allow this practice.
  • It clutters up the event page. Solution: Scroll past the short logs and read the longer, more interesting ones (just like for every other cache).
  • It makes it difficult to compare my stats with other people's stats. Solution: Either only compare your stats with people who cache like you do or stop including 'events' in the comparison.
  • Life is a slippery slope. These actions that I disagree with will continue to spread until they take over geocaching. Solution: First, there has been nothing to show that these actions, which have been an accepted practice for years, are spreading in any appreciable way. Also, they only affect a cacher if he chooses to be affected. No one will ever require you to go to an event, find a temporary cache, log the temporary cache to the website, talk about something you don't want to, or accept 'bogus' logs on your cache.
  • My friends might take up the practice and start caching differently than I prefer to cache. Solution: Stop trying to make decisions for your friends.
  • When someone makes a bogus log on my cache, I'm going to have to take action. Solution: Don't hide caches or put on an event because policing 'bogus' logs would then become your responsibility. Personally, I don't believe that this will ever become an issue. In my experience, people generally don't enter a ton of unwelcome logs to caches that don't allow temporary event cache logging.

Share this post


Link to post
You are making a few assumptions in your post. The first is that TPTB actually find this practice to be abusive. The second is that TPTB believe that any action they would take to curb this behavior would please more people than it would displease.
Just as you're assuming the opposite? :blink:
Actually, I'm making no presumptions about what TPTB are thinking beyond what they have posted. Further, I am not trying to impede anyone's enjoyment of the game based on my personal biases.

You might not be, but the multilogging (which you seem to be for) is. It ruins the fun for me as I've already outlined several times, I'm certain it isn't just me it bothers.

Truthfully, I don't know why you feel that this practice ruins your fun. Is it for any of these 'reasons'?
  • It causes me to receive too many emails if I choose to watch the event page. Solution: Don't watch the event pages of events that allow this practice.Right...so I have to change how I do things to accomodate THEIR actions...sounds about fair!
  • It clutters up the event page. Solution: Scroll past the short logs and read the longer, more interesting ones (just like for every other cache). Right...so I have to change....
  • It makes it difficult to compare my stats with other people's stats. Solution: Either only compare your stats with people who cache like you do or stop including 'events' in the comparison.When someone comes up to me and brags of their find count and I know their find count is padded, that causes problems...I don't actively compare myself to others though
  • Life is a slippery slope. These actions that I disagree with will continue to spread until they take over geocaching. Solution: First, there has been nothing to show that these actions, which have been an accepted practice for years, are spreading in any appreciable way. Also, they only affect a cacher if he chooses to be affected. No one will ever require you to go to an event, find a temporary cache, log the temporary cache to the website, talk about something you don't want to, or accept 'bogus' logs on your cache.certainly your opinion...others have differing views of this. But thanks for dismissing my view.
  • My friends might take up the practice and start caching differently than I prefer to cache. Solution: Stop trying to make decisions for your friends.Again, when my friends come up and have padded numbers because they fell victim to this abuse, I will be forced to view them differently
  • When someone makes a bogus log on my cache, I'm going to have to take action. Solution: Don't hide caches or put on an event because policing 'bogus' logs would then become your responsibility. Personally, I don't believe that this will ever become an issue. In my experience, people generally don't enter a ton of unwelcome logs to caches that don't allow temporary event cache logging.RIGHT...so now I have to change my way of playing because others want to do something I'd rather not allow them to do. I guess you've never had someone mad at you for stopping them from doing something they felt they desrved to do?? I'd rather NOT have a problem in the first place which means NO event caches at my events until something is done (either to say YES, these are allowed, or NO, these are abuse...and lack of action certainly DOES NOT constitute that TPTB approve of this action).

 

I always screw up those color things...sorry. Hope you can follow along.

 

ALSO...sorry, I've fallen into the "derail this thread" conversation again...

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post
If you need it explained: He (like myself) would rather not have his friends tell him how high a count find they have IF they ever do decide to take up this multilogging craze. He (like I) respects his friends, but would hate to lose respect for them if they decide padding their numbers through multilogging is "as fun" as others who are doing this do (which would also show the "spread" of the problem). I think I got that right for TG, it's how I see it (and how I see the post)...I'm sure TG can and will fill in any "foggy areas" and add anything I missed.

This is absolutely the silliest reason that has yet been given for trying to force a change to the practice of multilogging.

 

What I'm hearing you say is that your friends cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. You think that if they become aware of something that you don't like, that they might like it and start doing it, and therefore you don't even want them to have that choice. Rather than possibly losing respect for someone because they want to do something you choose not to do, you want to save them from their own bad decisions by removing their choice all together.

 

I hope I don't have any "friends" that are doing me these kinds of "favors".

Share this post


Link to post

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!

 

Let me say this in a way that maybe YOU can understand (or give you another chance to call me silly).

 

IF my friends ever do decide to multilog and then come bragging about their stats, I"M going to call them on it and that'll make for bad blood. I'd hope this doesn't happen, but if it does, it will be because some people boo hooed when a meaningful fix could have stopped the spread of this action.

 

I won't make choices for my friends, I WILL make judgement of those who try to pass of their inflated (ego) numbers though! A few of you have acknowledged this is an abuse, just not big enough for TPTB to act upon, so I'm guessing some of you understand even if you'd like to ACT all hurt that someone wants to "take away the fun"...boo hoo. When my fun stops being impeded by their abuse, I'll stop asking for the change...when TPTB make clear (and no, no action doesn't make it clear) this practice is acceptible, I'll let it drop as well.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
If you need it explained: He (like myself) would rather not have his friends tell him how high a count find they have IF they ever do decide to take up this multilogging craze. He (like I) respects his friends, but would hate to lose respect for them if they decide padding their numbers through multilogging is "as fun" as others who are doing this do (which would also show the "spread" of the problem). I think I got that right for TG, it's how I see it (and how I see the post)...I'm sure TG can and will fill in any "foggy areas" and add anything I missed.

This is absolutely the silliest reason that has yet been given for trying to force a change to the practice of multilogging.

 

What I'm hearing you say is that your friends cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. You think that if they become aware of something that you don't like, that they might like it and start doing it, and therefore you don't even want them to have that choice. Rather than possibly losing respect for someone because they want to do something you choose not to do, you want to save them from their own bad decisions by removing their choice all together.

 

I hope I don't have any "friends" that are doing me these kinds of "favors".

 

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. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
You are making a few assumptions in your post. The first is that TPTB actually find this practice to be abusive. The second is that TPTB believe that any action they would take to curb this behavior would please more people than it would displease.
Just as you're assuming the opposite? :unsure:
Actually, I'm making no presumptions about what TPTB are thinking beyond what they have posted. Further, I am not trying to impede anyone's enjoyment of the game based on my personal biases.

You might not be, but the multilogging (which you seem to be for) is. It ruins the fun for me as I've already outlined several times, I'm certain it isn't just me it bothers.

Truthfully, I don't know why you feel that this practice ruins your fun. Is it for any of these 'reasons'?
  • It causes me to receive too many emails if I choose to watch the event page. Solution: Don't watch the event pages of events that allow this practice.
  • It clutters up the event page. Solution: Scroll past the short logs and read the longer, more interesting ones (just like for every other cache).
  • It makes it difficult to compare my stats with other people's stats. Solution: Either only compare your stats with people who cache like you do or stop including 'events' in the comparison.
  • Life is a slippery slope. These actions that I disagree with will continue to spread until they take over geocaching. Solution: First, there has been nothing to show that these actions, which have been an accepted practice for years, are spreading in any appreciable way. Also, they only affect a cacher if he chooses to be affected. No one will ever require you to go to an event, find a temporary cache, log the temporary cache to the website, talk about something you don't want to, or accept 'bogus' logs on your cache.
  • My friends might take up the practice and start caching differently than I prefer to cache. Solution: Stop trying to make decisions for your friends.
  • When someone makes a bogus log on my cache, I'm going to have to take action. Solution: Don't hide caches or put on an event because policing 'bogus' logs would then become your responsibility. Personally, I don't believe that this will ever become an issue. In my experience, people generally don't enter a ton of unwelcome logs to caches that don't allow temporary event cache logging.

Sbell, I think you missed reading an important part of the original 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.

It is up to TPTB to decide if there is abuse. We will never agree. But if TPTB do decide that there is abuse this was a suggestion as to how to curtail it. So please tailor your comments to what this thread is supposed to discuss. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
If you need it explained: He (like myself) would rather not have his friends tell him how high a count find they have IF they ever do decide to take up this multilogging craze. He (like I) respects his friends, but would hate to lose respect for them if they decide padding their numbers through multilogging is "as fun" as others who are doing this do (which would also show the "spread" of the problem). I think I got that right for TG, it's how I see it (and how I see the post)...I'm sure TG can and will fill in any "foggy areas" and add anything I missed.

This is absolutely the silliest reason that has yet been given for trying to force a change to the practice of multilogging.

 

What I'm hearing you say is that your friends cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. You think that if they become aware of something that you don't like, that they might like it and start doing it, and therefore you don't even want them to have that choice. Rather than possibly losing respect for someone because they want to do something you choose not to do, you want to save them from their own bad decisions by removing their choice all together.

 

I hope I don't have any "friends" that are doing me these kinds of "favors".

 

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. :unsure:

 

THANKS TG...I seem to keep falling into the traps...maybe this can keep on track this time?

Share this post


Link to post

Sbell, I think you missed reading an important part of the original 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.

It is up to TPTB to decide if there is abuse. We will never agree. But if TPTB do decide that there is abuse this was a suggestion as to how to curtail it. So please tailor your comments to what this thread is supposed to discuss. Thanks.

 

I think when you start a topic labeled "idea to impede logging abuse", you have to assume that some of the topic will involve whether or not there IS abuse. As you've stated, it's up to TPTB to decide whether it's abuse or not and so far they've come down on the side that it either isn't an abuse at all or isn't a great enough abuse that a fix needs to be made.

 

Part of the merits of your original idea is how it impacts the players on both sides and I see it as on-topic to discuss what the motivations for a change are.

 

In what I've seen of the thread, people who believe this is a serious abuse are in favor of a timed logging ability, but people who don't see it as a serious abuse either aren't in favor of any change or could get behind other ideas that have cropped up during the thread.

 

I'm not sure what else could be added to this thread at this point beyond further posts of what constitutes logging abuse and whether TPTB should be concerned about changing the ability to multilog caches.

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.
This post makes the assumption that many people log finds on temporary event caches to the event pages for events put on by individuals who do not wish to have multiple 'finds' logged to the page.

 

I find it hard to believe that this practice is going on or that it is anything but an incredible rarity. Do you, perhaps, have some links to cache pages that support your thesis?

No links to support it, just logic. A few people have posted (this thread, but I don't have time to search for the posts right now) that they would hide temp caches at their events, except they knew people would multi-log for every "find" and they would have to either 1) hack people off for demanding they not do so or 2) go to a lot of trouble and hack people off more by deleting GC.com logs for caches not approved and listed on GC.com. I also remember a post in a separate (but similar) thread where people were bragging about 30ish people logging an event 80+ times each because they where trying to spam the one person they knew was watching the cache. My suggestion (which I originally got from CoyoteRed), is to give the cache owner an extra tool to enforce the owner's absolute control over logs on his cache - NOT to limit or eliminate people padding scores by logging caches that aren't approved or listed.

 

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.
I think that you are incorrect. I'm pretty sure that 'attended' logs to mega events increment the total.
I was wrong, and I apologize for spreading false information... I based this statement on the fact that the total Mega Event Caches on everyone's profile does NOT include a "*" after it. I understood the "*" to indicate cache types that count toward Total Caches Found; for example, there is no "*" after Benchmarks. But, adding all the numbers up reveals that MEC's do in fact count. See Rockin Roddy's profile; he happens to be the first person I clicked on with a MEC in his profile. Edited by J-Way

Share this post


Link to post

Truthfully, I don't know why you feel that this practice ruins your fun. Is it for any of these 'reasons'?

  • It causes me to receive too many emails if I choose to watch the event page. Solution: Don't watch the event pages of events that allow this practice.
  • It clutters up the event page. Solution: Scroll past the short logs and read the longer, more interesting ones (just like for every other cache).
  • It makes it difficult to compare my stats with other people's stats. Solution: Either only compare your stats with people who cache like you do or stop including 'events' in the comparison.
  • Life is a slippery slope. These actions that I disagree with will continue to spread until they take over geocaching. Solution: First, there has been nothing to show that these actions, which have been an accepted practice for years, are spreading in any appreciable way. Also, they only affect a cacher if he chooses to be affected. No one will ever require you to go to an event, find a temporary cache, log the temporary cache to the website, talk about something you don't want to, or accept 'bogus' logs on your cache.
  • My friends might take up the practice and start caching differently than I prefer to cache. Solution: Stop trying to make decisions for your friends.
  • When someone makes a bogus log on my cache, I'm going to have to take action. Solution: Don't hide caches or put on an event because policing 'bogus' logs would then become your responsibility. Personally, I don't believe that this will ever become an issue. In my experience, people generally don't enter a ton of unwelcome logs to caches that don't allow temporary event cache logging.

I think the one reason that people have strong feelings about logging temporary event caches is that it just seems like a stupid thing to do and some people want to help other people stop doing stupid things. The only benefit a person gets from logging a separate attended log for each temporary cache found is that your find count goes up. The person who found the same temporary caches at an event and wrote about in their one attended log had just as much fun finding the caches and probably more fun logging once than logging umpteen times, but has a lower find count. If you believe the find count is meaningless or that geocaching is not competitive then logging multiple times is silly (or stupid). Some people are very concerned that other people do silly or stupid things - even if they are unaffected by this. So they make up reasons that the silliness or stupid does affect them - anything from it causes too much junk email to society is going to collapse because of all the stupid things people are doing. The reasons given are poor excuses to justify changing the way the website works. Instead I see a website that functions as it should. People can log the caches they actually found and keep an accurate record of their founds. There is nothing to get in the way of doing that. If they find grandfathered moving caches or caches with multiple/bonus targets that they feel comfortable logging multiple times they can enter all their Found It logs. And no one is forced to log something they don't feel is a legitimate find or to fill in extra fields to indicate what they did at an event if they don't want to. Sure the current system lets people do stupid things. The best thing is use the site as intended and don't do stupid things. Let your friends know that you think what they are doing is stupid. And stop trying to change things that don't need to be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Sbell, I think you missed reading an important part of the original 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.
It is up to TPTB to decide if there is abuse. We will never agree. But if TPTB do decide that there is abuse this was a suggestion as to how to curtail it. So please tailor your comments to what this thread is supposed to discuss. Thanks.
OK, I'll give it another shot.

 

You asked what others think of your proposal. In order to determine whether a proposal should be implemented, two things need to be determined. First, is there a problem that requires action. Second, is the suggested action the most appropriate solution. Obviously, the thread suggesting implementation is the appropriate place to discuss all facets regarding whether the implementation is appropriate.

 

You will note that the first step in the process has two parts; identify the problem and determine if that problem requires action. In this thread and others, symptoms of the problem have been given. As I under stand them, they are as follows:

  1. It causes a person who is watching the event page to receive too many emails.
  2. It clutters up the event page with find logs.
  3. It makes it difficult to compare the stats of two or more unrelated geocachers.
  4. The practice of allowing temporary event caches to be logged to the event page will continue to spread until they damage geocaching.
  5. A person's friends might take up the practice and start caching differently than the person prefers to cache.
  6. This practice may spread and become topic of conversation at events.
  7. People who put on events but don't allow the logging of temporary event caches will be forced to delete those logs.

Since we have now identified the symptoms of the problem, we can look at each one to determine whether they are important enough to make a sitewide change or if the angst would be better managed by each affected cacher.

  1. Too many emails. It is my belief that few cachers are affected by this. After all, why would you watch an event that features temporary event caches if you did not want to receive emails documenting the logging of same?
  2. It clutters up the event page. There are numerous threads which complain about short, non-interesting logs. It would appear that these event logs would also fall into either two categories; logs that are interesting and logs that are terse. Certainly, it isn't that hard to ignore the short, uninteresting logs.
  3. It makes it difficult to compare stats. The truth is, stats aren't really appropriate to compare, anyway. Anyone making judgements of their fellow cachers based on this raw data is setting themselves up for heartbreak, whether these temporary event caches are counted or not.
  4. The spread of this practice will destroy the game. The practice has gone on in the open for several years. It has not been shown to be destroying anything.
  5. A person's friends may take up the practice; feelings may be hurt if they are challenged. Perhaps it might help all with this concern to think about being more diplomatic so you aren't apt to lose your friends, regardless of the conversation's topic.
  6. This practice may spread and become topic of conversation at events. No one is forced to partake in any specific conversation at events.
  7. Event holders who do not allow this practice will be forced to delete finds. I am not aware that this has become a real problem, but given that it is the cache owner's responsibility to manage the found logs, it would appear appropriate for this to be handled by the event holder.

It would appear that each one of the given symptoms could be (or should be) managed by the affected cacher, rather than requiring action by TPTB. Given that many people do not even believe that a problem exists and the symptoms of the problem that have been given can be easily managed by the person experiencing the angst, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for TPTB to implement the requested fix.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

I think the one reason that people have strong feelings about logging temporary event caches is that it just seems like a stupid thing to do and some people want to help other people stop doing stupid things. The only benefit a person gets from logging a separate attended log for each temporary cache found is that your find count goes up. The person who found the same temporary caches at an event and wrote about in their one attended log had just as much fun finding the caches and probably more fun logging once than logging umpteen times, but has a lower find count. If you believe the find count is meaningless or that geocaching is not competitive then logging multiple times is silly (or stupid). Some people are very concerned that other people do silly or stupid things - even if they are unaffected by this. So they make up reasons that the silliness or stupid does affect them - anything from it causes too much junk email to society is going to collapse because of all the stupid things people are doing. The reasons given are poor excuses to justify changing the way the website works. Instead I see a website that functions as it should. People can log the caches they actually found and keep an accurate record of their founds. There is nothing to get in the way of doing that. If they find grandfathered moving caches or caches with multiple/bonus targets that they feel comfortable logging multiple times they can enter all their Found It logs. And no one is forced to log something they don't feel is a legitimate find or to fill in extra fields to indicate what they did at an event if they don't want to. Sure the current system lets people do stupid things. The best thing is use the site as intended and don't do stupid things. Let your friends know that you think what they are doing is stupid. And stop trying to change things that don't need to be changed.

 

 

Well stated!

Share this post


Link to post

Sbell, I think you missed reading an important part of the original 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.

It is up to TPTB to decide if there is abuse. We will never agree. But if TPTB do decide that there is abuse this was a suggestion as to how to curtail it. So please tailor your comments to what this thread is supposed to discuss. Thanks.

I think when you start a topic labeled "idea to impede logging abuse", you have to assume that some of the topic will involve whether or not there IS abuse. As you've stated, it's up to TPTB to decide whether it's abuse or not and so far they've come down on the side that it either isn't an abuse at all or isn't a great enough abuse that a fix needs to be made.

 

Part of the merits of your original idea is how it impacts the players on both sides and I see it as on-topic to discuss what the motivations for a change are.

 

In what I've seen of the thread, people who believe this is a serious abuse are in favor of a timed logging ability, but people who don't see it as a serious abuse either aren't in favor of any change or could get behind other ideas that have cropped up during the thread.

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. 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 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.

Share this post


Link to post

Putting time limits on how often you can log does not make much sense to me, unless you are just trying to impede the game and be a nuisance. If logging events multiple times due to temporary event caches is such a problem, why not create a new temporary event cache type so we can have unique cache ids for these caches. I definitely think they should be allowed to be logged. Many of them I have found have been quite challenging and much better than some of the permanent caches, such as caches placed in lightpoles or on guard rails. If the concern is that they clutter up the cache page lists, then require the owner to enter an expiration date when the cache will no longer be available and it could just automatically archive itself at that time.

Share this post


Link to post

 

<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.

Share this post


Link to post

 

<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.

Share this post


Link to post
Putting time limits on how often you can log does not make much sense to me, unless you are just trying to impede the game and be a nuisance. If logging events multiple times due to temporary event caches is such a problem, why not create a new temporary event cache type so we can have unique cache ids for these caches. I definitely think they should be allowed to be logged. Many of them I have found have been quite challenging and much better than some of the permanent caches, such as caches placed in lightpoles or on guard rails. If the concern is that they clutter up the cache page lists, then require the owner to enter an expiration date when the cache will no longer be available and it could just automatically archive itself at that time.
It is a nuisance only to people logging tons of unapproved caches, which is also a nuisance for reasons already given. That is the point. By the way, has the practice of logging tons of temps spread to Ohio too?

Share this post


Link to post

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).

 

I accept the fact that find counts are a worthless way to compare the experience between two cachers.

- Some cachers claim drive-by finds; "I saw an obvious hiding place as I was driving by, but I was in a hurry so I didn't stop but I'm claiming a find anyway because I was there."

- Some only cache in teams; hit a park, split up, and every person find 1-2 caches but the "team" gets credit for a dozen.

- Some employ the "couch caching" method to pad scores; search for virtuals with no logging requirements or for caches owned by people who aren't active and either won't see or won't get bogus find log emails.

- And the latest fad, hiding tons of "temp caches" at events which rarely meet Groundspeak listing requirements, then logging repeated Attended logs to "claim" these finds.

- Next fad?? Finding a way to log "finds" on Geocaching.com for caches found on other sites, like Terracaching, Navicache, Atlasquest, etc. (I found a cache, I should get credit, right?).

- Next fad?? Finding a way to log "finds" on Geocaching.com for waymarks listed on Waymarking.com (they're just like Virtual caches, right?).

 

But just because I accept the fact that the numbers are workless, I still can't help but feeling a little "hurt" every time someone finds a new way to dimish the game a little more. I also realize that I can never change other people's actions, and other people have the right to enjoy the game in their own way. I like to beat video games on my own; others like to punch in the cheat codes first. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to tell the difference between people log only legitimate finds and those who pad.

Share this post


Link to post
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).

 

I accept the fact that find counts are a worthless way to compare the experience between two cachers.

- Some cachers claim drive-by finds; "I saw an obvious hiding place as I was driving by, but I was in a hurry so I didn't stop but I'm claiming a find anyway because I was there."

- Some only cache in teams; hit a park, split up, and every person find 1-2 caches but the "team" gets credit for a dozen.

- Some employ the "couch caching" method to pad scores; search for virtuals with no logging requirements or for caches owned by people who aren't active and either won't see or won't get bogus find log emails.

- And the latest fad, hiding tons of "temp caches" at events which rarely meet Groundspeak listing requirements, then logging repeated Attended logs to "claim" these finds.

- Next fad?? Finding a way to log "finds" on Geocaching.com for caches found on other sites, like Terracaching, Navicache, Atlasquest, etc. (I found a cache, I should get credit, right?).

- Next fad?? Finding a way to log "finds" on Geocaching.com for waymarks listed on Waymarking.com (they're just like Virtual caches, right?).

 

But just because I accept the fact that the numbers are workless, I still can't help but feeling a little "hurt" every time someone finds a new way to dimish the game a little more. I also realize that I can never change other people's actions, and other people have the right to enjoy the game in their own way. I like to beat video games on my own; others like to punch in the cheat codes first. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to tell the difference between people log only legitimate finds and those who pad.

J-Way there have been many reasons discussed in previous threads why this practice is a nuisance and an annoyance to many people. There is no point arguing with those that are not bothered by it. The point is that it bothers us and therefore we are free to make suggestions as to what could be done. It's up to TPTB to decide. The point of this thread was to discuss one possible idea that could act as a deterrant. Will it help? If not, why not?

Share this post


Link to post

Will it help? If not, why not?

 

No, it won't help because people who are logging caches multiple times believe it's an acceptable practice.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.... Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
J-Way there have been many reasons discussed in previous threads why this practice is a nuisance and an annoyance to many people. There is no point arguing with those that are not bothered by it. The point is that it bothers us and therefore we are free to make suggestions as to what could be done. It's up to TPTB to decide. The point of this thread was to discuss one possible idea that could act as a deterrant. Will it help? If not, why not?

You misunderstand, I agree with you. It bothers me too. I'd love to see the practice disappear for the reasons I listed in my post. The main points I was trying to make are that: 1) the practice DOES hurt other people and 2) I was equating this practice to other (IMHO) equally heinous number-padding methods. I felt these arguments were necessary because, in spite of what you say, lots of people do NOT think the practice is a nuisance and do NOT think it needs to be controlled in any way.

 

[back on Topic]

As I stated earlier, I agree in principle but disagree in methodology. I think a 1-week or 1-day delay would reek of imposed control by TPTB, and would be screamed down by the people who enjoy the practice you're trying to limit. A 10-minute delay, however, would be almost as effective and would be much more palatable; it could be legitimately be called "flood control", which is a common method to eliminate spam.

 

But until someone comes up with a way to legitimately keep track of "finds" so that comparing is reasonable, I'll just use my GC.com "finds" count solely to keep track of myself and ignore everyone else.

 

Incidentally, Terracaching.com, while it has its problems, DOES have ways to compare numbers between different cachers.

Edited by J-Way

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...