Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
TrailGators

A win-win idea to impede logging abuse

Recommended Posts

PLEASE TPTB STATE YOUR CURRENT POSITION ON MULTI-LOGGING.

 

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

 

What's a ARL??

Share this post


Link to post

1) So you want to limit the way that members are allowed to log caches

2) You want to limit the way that members are allowed to post on the forums. The thread is about limiting

 

Let me address each.

 

1) YES. There are already many limitations on the way that caches are logged. Go try to put some HTML in your log and see what happens. There's nothing wrong with imposing limitations, even though it may upset YOU

 

2) Again, there are MANY limitations on what you can post on the forums. I'd say your riding the line of purposely trying to derail this thread. In my opinion, you should be stopped from doing that. You know your intentions as well as everyone else that is reading this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

PLEASE TPTB STATE YOUR CURRENT POSITION ON MULTI-LOGGING.

 

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

 

What's a ARL??

 

ALR - Additional Logging Requirement

 

Refers to a cache that requires you do something to get credit for the find besides simply signing the log. aka (to me) AITC - Automatically Ignore This Cache

Share this post


Link to post

1) So you want to limit the way that members are allowed to log caches

2) You want to limit the way that members are allowed to post on the forums. The thread is about limiting

 

Let me address each.

 

1) YES. There are already many limitations on the way that caches are logged. Go try to put some HTML in your log and see what happens. There's nothing wrong with imposing limitations, even though it may upset YOU

 

2) Again, there are MANY limitations on what you can post on the forums. I'd say your riding the line of purposely trying to derail this thread. In my opinion, you should be stopped from doing that. You know your intentions as well as everyone else that is reading this thread.

Then allow me to retort.

 

1) The HTML limitation was established for good reason, to keep abuse out of the logs. I wasn't in on the meeting when it was decided to remove the ability so I can only guess why, but it seems like if HTML were allowed someone could cause problems for others such as re-directing them to a different site and other malicious code. I totally agree that there are limitations in life that should most definitely be put in place. Speeding was mentioned before, and speeding can harm other people. Without limitations we'd have anarchy, and I don't think anyone wants that.

 

But limiting something that a] isn't harming anyone, and b] has aspects which annoy some folks here but can already be easily avoided with current tools on the site, it doesn't seem like a good idea. I don't think the suggestion of limiting logs has merit.

 

2) Yes, there are limitations in the forums, such as posting off topic, getting personal, rude language, etc. As soon as you can point out a post where I've posted off topic in this thread (except for the posts where I'm saying that I'm not posting off topic in reply to someone else) then your accusations are valid. If not, then you're the one that's off topic. The topic of this thread is limiting the number of times a person can log a find/attended on a cache. Please stay on topic. My intentions are to provide counter points to posts that are contrary to my opinions. I'm only intending to discuss the topic and it's pros and cons. Why should I be stopped?

 

It seems to me that this is the same mindset that those who want to eliminate multilogging have. "It's something that I don't like, therefore it must be stopped. Never mind the fact that other people may benefit from it in some way."

 

I'm still willing to stick to the topic and offer my opinions. But if someone wants to point out where I've been off topic, give me a link, and I'll apologize and try not to do it again. So far I don't think I have.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll make this fairly brief so there is no confusion on Groundspeak's logging philosophy:

 

The find count is not a competition; It's there to help you keep track of your own finds. Cache owners police the logs on their cache pages and decide for themselves how many finds a visitor can log.* Groundspeak has no interest in designing complicated workarounds for what we believe to be a non-issue.

 

Play your own game and have fun. :unsure:

 

 

*Within reason (i.e. not 1000 finds or something ridiculous)

Share this post


Link to post

PLEASE TPTB STATE YOUR CURRENT POSITION ON MULTI-LOGGING.

 

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

 

What's a ARL??

Examples of an Additional Logging Requirement cache would be one where you have to log your find using a poem or rhyme in your online log, or a cache that you can only log a find on if you take a picture of yourself at the cache location and post it, or a cache that you can only log a find on if you've found more than 1,000 caches. People have gotten really upset at these because some cache owners would delete the online log if the ALR wasn't met, and there was no easy way to filter them since they would be listed as regular caches.

 

Much like this thread, the issue was debated hotly for a long time, several folks going so far as to recommend that those caches be banned. They didn't like them, so they wanted them removed from the listing site so nobody would be able to enjoy them. Eventually the guidelines were updated to suggest that ALR caches be listed in the unknown type and there hasn't been a thread about banning them since (that I'm aware of).

 

So it's similar to the topic of this thread. Some people don't like the fact that others are multilogging event caches, even though they're not effected in any way. Other people don't like the practice because they say that events on their watchlists generate too much email, and logs on the event pages are too difficult to read. Some of us, however, are happy that some people get to multilog caches if they want to, and can easily avoid the things that happen as a result. We seem to be much more willing to tolerate people doing things that we might not want to do because we see that the practice is enjoyed by so many, and doesn't actually hurt anyone. There's a vast spectrum here.

 

It's likely that TPTB will eventually settle the matter in a similar way that they settled the ALR issue, by either updating the site to include the practice in the guidelines, or to change the cache pages so it won't be possible. When that happens I'm of the opinion that something else that a lot of cachers are doing will upset someone, and there will be a call to ban, or put limitations on, that activity in these forums and we'll debate it over and over and over.

 

****

 

While previewing my post I see that OpinioNate has actually settled the matter now. They're not going to limit logging on multicaches. Thanks for the post Nate!

Share this post


Link to post

I'll make this fairly brief so there is no confusion on Groundspeak's logging philosophy:

 

The find count is not a competition; It's there to help you keep track of your own finds. Cache owners police the logs on their cache pages and decide for themselves how many finds a visitor can log.* Groundspeak has no interest in designing complicated workarounds for what we believe to be a non-issue.

 

Play your own game and have fun. :unsure:

 

<snip>

 

I like it. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I'll make this fairly brief so there is no confusion on Groundspeak's logging philosophy:

 

The find count is not a competition; It's there to help you keep track of your own finds. Cache owners police the logs on their cache pages and decide for themselves how many finds a visitor can log.* Groundspeak has no interest in designing complicated workarounds for what we believe to be a non-issue.

 

Play your own game and have fun. :ph34r:

 

 

*Within reason (i.e. not 1000 finds or something ridiculous)

 

Sweeeeeeeeeet, so on my puzzle cache, that's sitting here while I find just the right spot for it, I'm going to award every finder 999 finds!!!!! :unsure:

 

Just kidding...I think it's silly to give out lots of extra smilies...I just don't care if others do it.

 

Thanks to OpinioNate for clarifying the GS position.

Share this post


Link to post

Note that there are only 999 easter egg temp caches in this photo.... :unsure:

eggsc.jpg

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

I'll make this fairly brief so there is no confusion on Groundspeak's logging philosophy:

 

The find count is not a competition; It's there to help you keep track of your own finds. Cache owners police the logs on their cache pages and decide for themselves how many finds a visitor can log.* Groundspeak has no interest in designing complicated workarounds for what we believe to be a non-issue.

 

Play your own game and have fun. :unsure:

 

 

*Within reason (i.e. not 1000 finds or something ridiculous)

 

Please define something ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post

Main Entry:

ri·dic·u·lous Listen to the pronunciation of ridiculous

Pronunciation:

\rə-ˈdi-kyə-ləs\

Function:

adjective

Etymology:

Latin ridiculosus (from ridiculum jest, from neuter of ridiculus) or ridiculus, literally, laughable, from ridēre to laugh

Date:

1550

 

: arousing or deserving ridicule : absurd, preposterous

Share this post


Link to post

Main Entry:

ri·dic·u·lous Listen to the pronunciation of ridiculous

Pronunciation:

\rə-ˈdi-kyə-ləs\

Function:

adjective

Etymology:

Latin ridiculosus (from ridiculum jest, from neuter of ridiculus) or ridiculus, literally, laughable, from ridēre to laugh

Date:

1550

 

: arousing or deserving ridicule : absurd, preposterous

 

:unsure: That's not quite what I ment but funny.

Edited by Parabola

Share this post


Link to post

Main Entry:

ri·dic·u·lous Listen to the pronunciation of ridiculous

Pronunciation:

\rə-ˈdi-kyə-ləs\

Function:

adjective

Etymology:

Latin ridiculosus (from ridiculum jest, from neuter of ridiculus) or ridiculus, literally, laughable, from ridēre to laugh

Date:

1550

 

: arousing or deserving ridicule : absurd, preposterous

 

:unsure: That's not quite what I ment but funny.

Nate said >1000. Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

I'll make this fairly brief so there is no confusion on Groundspeak's logging philosophy:

 

The find count is not a competition; It's there to help you keep track of your own finds. Cache owners police the logs on their cache pages and decide for themselves how many finds a visitor can log.* Groundspeak has no interest in designing complicated workarounds for what we believe to be a non-issue.

 

Play your own game and have fun. :unsure:

 

 

*Within reason (i.e. not 1000 finds or something ridiculous)

 

Thanks Nate. Now we know and the entire discussion is rendered moot. Not only is the practice not considered abuse, it is not even considered an issue. Now, about those pesky lame WM micros! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
... I think TPTB should really demonstrate some consistency and act accordingly. If temps are OK, say so in the guidelines and set up a logging mechanism. If they aren't, take steps to curb the practice.
TPTB have been clear that this is an issue that should be managed by cache owners. As such, a logging mechanism is in place and it works just fine.

Share this post


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

 

First, it takes suggests that it has been determined that the logging of temporary caches to event pages is against the guidelines. I can find no guideline that addresses this logging practice. In fact, it was presented by TPTB as a perfectly acceptable way of handling these caches.

 

Second, it makes the argument that this practice is spreading quickly and will eventually be everywhere. I have two thoughts regarding that. First, the practice has been going on in the light of day for the last six years or so. If anything, it's spreading like molasses in January. Second, who cares if it spreads? No one is forcing anyone to take part in the practice and it's easy enough to ignore. (I suspect that is why there are more people rallying against the practice who are posting from locations where the practice isn't common.)

Share this post


Link to post

When will I learn to read all the posts before replying?

 

Thanks for weighing in, OpinioNate.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll make this fairly brief so there is no confusion on Groundspeak's logging philosophy:

 

The find count is not a competition; It's there to help you keep track of your own finds. Cache owners police the logs on their cache pages and decide for themselves how many finds a visitor can log.* Groundspeak has no interest in designing complicated workarounds for what we believe to be a non-issue.

Play your own game and have fun. :)

 

*Within reason (i.e. not 1000 finds or something ridiculous)

Thank You for settling this matter! While I would not partake in multilogging, I am glad that a statement from Groundspeak will finally put it to rest!

 

Sweeeeeeeeeet, so on my puzzle cache, that's sitting here while I find just the right spot for it, I'm going to award every finder 999 finds!!!!! :)

 

Just kidding...I think it's silly to give out lots of extra smilies...I just don't care if others do it.

 

Thanks to OpinioNate for clarifying the GS position.

 

I think you misunderstood him. I dont believe he meant a thousand. Groundspeak is made up of computer whizzes. He gave an answer that was in ones and zeros so he clearly meant binary!

 

1000 is the computer code for eight. :)

 

Note that there are only 999 easter egg temp caches in this photo.... :)

eggsc.jpg

 

I only counted 247 (including the partial ones on the edges). You need to count fairly.. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

THANKS for weighing in OpinioNate...I guess I'll just never hide a temp and hope this doesn't get too out of control!!

 

Now...what other topic can we start where we're assured certain people can't stay on topic? I'm sure some will be bored with no threads to try to derail... :lol:

 

Me? I'm just too darned happy today! Unemployment came through, my insurance is buying me a new GPS...it's like hitting the jackpot after the dismal last few weeks!

Share this post


Link to post
I think you misunderstood him. I dont believe he meant a thousand. Groundspeak is made up of computer whizzes. He gave an answer that was in ones and zeros so he clearly meant binary!

 

1000 is the computer code for eight. :)

 

Note that there are only 999 easter egg temp caches in this photo.... :)

eggsc.jpg

 

I only counted 247 (including the partial ones on the edges). You need to count fairly.. :)

:) Ya that's it! It was binary! :D By the way, the eggs are piled up 6 inches deep.... :lol:

Share this post


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

 

First, it takes suggests that it has been determined that the logging of temporary caches to event pages is against the guidelines. I can find no guideline that addresses this logging practice. In fact, it was presented by TPTB as a perfectly acceptable way of handling these caches.

 

Second, it makes the argument that this practice is spreading quickly and will eventually be everywhere. I have two thoughts regarding that. First, the practice has been going on in the light of day for the last six years or so. If anything, it's spreading like molasses in January. Second, who cares if it spreads? No one is forcing anyone to take part in the practice and it's easy enough to ignore. (I suspect that is why there are more people rallying against the practice who are posting from locations where the practice isn't common.)

Logging temps does violate the cache permanence guideline, but is there any point in arguing? Nate has spoken. :lol:

Share this post


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

 

First, it takes suggests that it has been determined that the logging of temporary caches to event pages is against the guidelines. I can find no guideline that addresses this logging practice. In fact, it was presented by TPTB as a perfectly acceptable way of handling these caches.

 

Second, it makes the argument that this practice is spreading quickly and will eventually be everywhere. I have two thoughts regarding that. First, the practice has been going on in the light of day for the last six years or so. If anything, it's spreading like molasses in January. Second, who cares if it spreads? No one is forcing anyone to take part in the practice and it's easy enough to ignore. (I suspect that is why there are more people rallying against the practice who are posting from locations where the practice isn't common.)

Logging temps does violate the cache permanence guideline, but is there any point in arguing? Nate has spoken. :lol:

 

All we can do is wait and hope it doesn't become a bigger issue. I haven't had a good Micro Spew discussion lately, what do you say?

Share this post


Link to post

... Therefore, one thing TPTB could do is only allow people to log a find/attended on the same cache once every 24 hours. That would still allow caches like grandfathered traveling caches to be logged more than once, but it would impede logging abuse by making people wait a reasonable amount of time before they can log the same cache/event again.

...

 

This really changes nothing in that you can still abuse the system (assuming multiple find logs are abuse). The abuse would just be at a slower rate and with more programming to slow it down.

 

If multiple find logs are truly a problem. Once Cache One Find would probably be simpler to implement.

Share this post


Link to post
Logging temps does violate the cache permanence guideline, but is there any point in arguing? Nate has spoken. :lol:
The guidelines are for listing caches on teh site, not logging caches. It has long been the policy of TPTB that (with the exception of gross violations such as pocket caches), the arbiter of what constitutes an acceptable find is the cache owner.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll make this fairly brief so there is no confusion on Groundspeak's logging philosophy:

 

The find count is not a competition; It's there to help you keep track of your own finds. Cache owners police the logs on their cache pages and decide for themselves how many finds a visitor can log.* Groundspeak has no interest in designing complicated workarounds for what we believe to be a non-issue.

 

Play your own game and have fun. :lol:

 

 

*Within reason (i.e. not 1000 finds or something ridiculous)

 

Does Groundspeak have an interest in implementing "Simple" workarounds?

Share this post


Link to post

I'll make this fairly brief so there is no confusion on Groundspeak's logging philosophy:

 

The find count is not a competition; It's there to help you keep track of your own finds. Cache owners police the logs on their cache pages and decide for themselves how many finds a visitor can log.* Groundspeak has no interest in designing complicated workarounds for what we believe to be a non-issue.

Play your own game and have fun. :)

 

*Within reason (i.e. not 1000 finds or something ridiculous)

Thank You for settling this matter! While I would not partake in multilogging, I am glad that a statement from Groundspeak will finally put it to rest!

 

Sweeeeeeeeeet, so on my puzzle cache, that's sitting here while I find just the right spot for it, I'm going to award every finder 999 finds!!!!! :)

 

Just kidding...I think it's silly to give out lots of extra smilies...I just don't care if others do it.

 

Thanks to OpinioNate for clarifying the GS position.

 

I think you misunderstood him. I dont believe he meant a thousand. Groundspeak is made up of computer whizzes. He gave an answer that was in ones and zeros so he clearly meant binary!

 

1000 is the computer code for eight. :)

 

Note that there are only 999 easter egg temp caches in this photo.... :lol:

eggsc.jpg

 

I only counted 247 (including the partial ones on the edges). You need to count fairly.. :)

I would never had expected TG to inflate his count :D

Share this post


Link to post

I'll make this fairly brief so there is no confusion on Groundspeak's logging philosophy:

 

The find count is not a competition; It's there to help you keep track of your own finds. Cache owners police the logs on their cache pages and decide for themselves how many finds a visitor can log.* Groundspeak has no interest in designing complicated workarounds for what we believe to be a non-issue.

Play your own game and have fun. :)

 

*Within reason (i.e. not 1000 finds or something ridiculous)

Thank You for settling this matter! While I would not partake in multilogging, I am glad that a statement from Groundspeak will finally put it to rest!

 

Sweeeeeeeeeet, so on my puzzle cache, that's sitting here while I find just the right spot for it, I'm going to award every finder 999 finds!!!!! :D

 

Just kidding...I think it's silly to give out lots of extra smilies...I just don't care if others do it.

 

Thanks to OpinioNate for clarifying the GS position.

 

I think you misunderstood him. I dont believe he meant a thousand. Groundspeak is made up of computer whizzes. He gave an answer that was in ones and zeros so he clearly meant binary!

 

1000 is the computer code for eight. :lol:

 

Note that there are only 999 easter egg temp caches in this photo.... :)

eggsc.jpg

 

I only counted 247 (including the partial ones on the edges). You need to count fairly.. :)

I would never had expected TG to inflate his count :D

What count? Oh yeah, that thing on my profile page that I never look at.... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Let me say this in a way that maybe YOU can understand.

 

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.

You, the OP and several others are advocating a strict control on ALL multilogging in order to satisfy the sensibilities of those of you who happen to frown upon multilogging.

 

Consider this: There are actually people out there who feel that ANY form of geocaching is a lame and pointless waste of time. I've met some of these people. They are not hypothetical; they do exist. These misguided folks are truly bothered by the fact that we cachers actually enjoy our pastime. They don't understand caching. They don't "get it." Our fun offends them, but of course they are welcome to their opinion.

 

It may have even occurred to some of them to attempt to put a stop to it. These cranks may well be saying to each other: "IF my friends ever do decide to [geocache] 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."

 

To those of you who support the OP's proposal, I pose this question: If merely disliking another person's behavior is a good enough reason to impose new rules to restrict the offending behavior, then would any of you be willing to accept a ban on ALL geocaching if the intent of the ban were to protect the sensibilities of those who dislike ALL geocaching?

 

Is a total ban too much? Then how about a rule that allows each of us to log only one cache per week? Or maybe only one cache per 24 hours?

 

I personally don't "get" what is fun about logging an event cache 50 or 100 times, but ... the practice simply doesn't offend me. Even if it DID offend me, I still don't understand the line of reasoning that is supposed to lead me from there to the point where I'm supposed to want to restrict the behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Let me say this in a way that maybe YOU can understand.

 

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.

You, the OP and several others are advocating a strict control on ALL multilogging in order to satisfy the sensibilities of those of you who happen to frown upon multilogging.

 

Consider this: There are actually people out there who feel that ANY form of geocaching is a lame and pointless waste of time. I've met some of these people. They are not hypothetical; they do exist. These misguided folks are truly bothered by the fact that we cachers actually enjoy our pastime. They don't understand caching. They don't "get it." Our fun offends them, but of course they are welcome to their opinion.

 

It may have even occurred to some of them to attempt to put a stop to it. These cranks may well be saying to each other: "IF my friends ever do decide to [geocache] 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."

 

To those of you who support the OP's proposal, I pose this question: If merely disliking another person's behavior is a good enough reason to impose new rules to restrict the offending behavior, then would any of you be willing to accept a ban on ALL geocaching if the intent of the ban were to protect the sensibilities of those who dislike ALL geocaching?

 

Is a total ban too much? Then how about a rule that allows each of us to log only one cache per week? Or maybe only one cache per 24 hours?

 

I personally don't "get" what is fun about logging an event cache 50 or 100 times, but ... the practice simply doesn't offend me. Even if it DID offend me, I still don't understand the line of reasoning that is supposed to lead me from there to the point where I'm supposed to want to restrict the behavior.

 

Nate has already spoken. This is pointless.

 

Please close this thread Mr./Mrs/ Mod.

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.

Find counts only matter if you let them.

 

Every cache is different. The easiest cache and the hardest cache each count as exactly one smiley. Your find count is not a score unless you want it to be; any importance you attach to your count as it compares to the count of another player is strictly up to you, and it has no meaning beyond that.

 

In other words:

The find count is not a competition; It's there to help you keep track of your own finds. ... Play your own game and have fun. :lol:

If another cacher's artificially or suspiciously high find count bothers you, it’s only because you choose to let it bother you. Nobody is padding their numbers for the purpose of making you feel bad. Even if that WAS their purpose, it is completely up to you whether to be troubled. One can choose to be troubled about anything; your voluntarily chosing to be troubled by a thing does not in itself make the thing "wrong." You are only a victim by choice. If there is no real victim, then by definition there is no crime. The mere fact that you happen to disapprove of someone else’s behavior is not a good enough reason to attempt to restrict that behavior.

Share this post


Link to post

.... Nate has already spoken. This is pointless.

 

Please close this thread Mr./Mrs/ Mod.

yup, please

Share this post


Link to post
Nate has already spoken. This is pointless.

 

Please close this thread Mr./Mrs/ Mod.

I agree. It would appear that the issue has been officially decided.

 

 

 

If this thread isn't closed soon it might begin to wander completely off topic ... like this:

 

Now, about those pesky lame WM micros! :lol:
:)

Share this post


Link to post

Consider this: There are actually people out there who feel that ANY form of geocaching is a lame and pointless waste of time. I've met some of these people. They are not hypothetical; they do exist. These misguided folks are truly bothered by the fact that we cachers actually enjoy our pastime. They don't understand caching. They don't "get it." Our fun offends them, but of course they are welcome to their opinion.

Much worse. There are people who think it might be fun to find geocaches but why log them online and keep track of how many you found. I am concerned because I can't compare my find count with theirs.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...