Jump to content

Temp Caches at events in your state


sweetlife

Recommended Posts

... Since the NC state parks don't allow caches at this time (except with a costly permit) we don't plan any events there. We'll support the venues that support us. I don't understand why a group would support a venue that didn't allow them to cache all year round. :lol:
I think that the theory is that if TPTB can be shown that cachers are good folk and the activity is benign, that they might open up the areas to more permanent caches.

Exactly....show them we are good people who mostly want to use the land responsibly...and that they can gain from having caches in their parks, they'll come around sooner or later!!

 

Leaving a clean picnic area isn't going to suddenly cause a park manager to think, "boy, those geocachers are great folks". The only way to forge relationships with local land and park managers is with work. Attend public meetings of the groups responsible for managing public land and represent responsible geocaching. Volunteer for work maintaining the local parks... picking up trash, trail maintenance, repair of picnic facilities, playground facilities etc. That's how you change minds and opinions. Folks have done it in our area... and it works!

DCC

Edited by Driver Carries Cache
Link to comment
Sure do seem to be a LOT of people here saying they either don't multilog or think it's "cheating" (not my word, so please don't start a flamefest here)....more than some might have thought??

 

I too wonder why you don't just hide "GC APPROVED" caches here (and so no one tries to say they are "approved" by GC, just not listed there) caches which are approved and published by GC.com AD? (sheesh, I hate to have to make my wording so OBVIOUS so it won't start a riot, but we all know how some people fixate on statements).

GC.com doesn't approve caches. They just provide a listing database. :lol:
Really? The reviewers DON'T approve a cache before listing it? hmmmmm.

 

So I don't go through more trouble on this , WHOEVER approves them and then lists them on GC.com (must be GS if GC doesn't)

They're Reviewers. They review.
Geee....I wonder if I made my point (the one that was about the FIXATION on a statement). We all knew what was meant, but there's always someone who'll want to pick apart something....too much time on their hands or just cranky and want to stir the pot? I'm surprised someone didn't break out the wikipedia to analyze the def! :lol:

 

You are right Toz, they are reviewers...but if your cache doesn't meet the requirements, they are also the ones who DENY the listing of the cache. So, tomato....tomatoe, it's all the same in my book! :D

Go back to my first referenced post. Do you notice the laughing smiley? My post existed solely to pull your leg because you worked so hard to avoid people 'fixating on your statements'.
What would you call a reviewer who denies your cache placement??
A poopy head.

 

edited to mention that I posted before reading MM's post. Sorry for the wanderage. It was my fault.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Sure do seem to be a LOT of people here saying they either don't multilog or think it's "cheating" (not my word, so please don't start a flamefest here)....more than some might have thought??

 

I too wonder why you don't just hide "GC APPROVED" caches here (and so no one tries to say they are "approved" by GC, just not listed there) caches which are approved and published by GC.com AD? (sheesh, I hate to have to make my wording so OBVIOUS so it won't start a riot, but we all know how some people fixate on statements).

GC.com doesn't approve caches. They just provide a listing database. :lol:
Really? The reviewers DON'T approve a cache before listing it? hmmmmm.

 

So I don't go through more trouble on this , WHOEVER approves them and then lists them on GC.com (must be GS if GC doesn't)

They're Reviewers. They review.
Geee....I wonder if I made my point (the one that was about the FIXATION on a statement). We all knew what was meant, but there's always someone who'll want to pick apart something....too much time on their hands or just cranky and want to stir the pot? I'm surprised someone didn't break out the wikipedia to analyze the def! :lol:

 

You are right Toz, they are reviewers...but if your cache doesn't meet the requirements, they are also the ones who DENY the listing of the cache. So, tomato....tomatoe, it's all the same in my book! :D

Go back to my first referenced post. Do you notice the laughing smiley? My post existed solely to pull your leg because you worked so hard to avoid people 'fixating on your statements'.
What would you call a reviewer who denies your cache placement??A poopy head.

 

I know sbell....just giving you a hard time! (I saw the chance...gotta take 'em when you can) I'd call the reviewer someone doing their job, personally though!

 

OT, as stated, it's not overly common around Michigan, but I have heard it happen before (never practiced it myself though). Sweetlife, what is the reasoning behind the multilogging? Not asking to be a jerk....just asking to understand!

 

not sure what happened to the quotes here....sorry!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment

I do not understand where 'state' come into play. There is no regional authority that permits or denies geocaching activities. I even doubt that any regional geocaching group could deny the use of its logo to a member who chooses to permit such activities.

On the other hand, I've never understood why anyone would deliberately want to lie, and claim to have attended an event more than once. 'Attended' twenty or forty-one times?!? As many point out, it is no skin off my nose. Hey. I've found temporary event caches. They can be fun! Especially with prizes for the best poker hand! But they are not published geocaches! And, as such, they are not loggable. Pretty soon, these 'imaginative' loggers will be logging 'attended event' for 'Met Harry Dolphin at event'. (As if anyone would actually admit that they had.)

It does, however, tell me a lot about a geocacher's moral fibre and veracity.

Link to comment

I didn't mean to imply anything AD. I was just being matter of fact. The one thing I still don't understand is why you guys just don't hide/find real caches at your events? Wouldn't that be easier? :D

 

Hey,

 

I know you didn't mean anything by it...we had a great conversation in a previous thread and I appreciated all the questions and points a view you and others provided. Though some in this thread may have read that thread as well...I just wanted to make things clear for those that may not have been involved in or read that thread. Always look forward to talking with you more about caching and such :D

 

Sure do seem to be a LOT of people here saying they either don't multilog or think it's "cheating" (not my word, so please don't start a flamefest here)....more than some might have thought??

 

I too wonder why you don't just hide "GC APPROVED" caches here (and so no one tries to say they are "approved" by GC, just not listed there) caches which are approved and published by GC.com AD? (sheesh, I hate to have to make my wording so OBVIOUS so it won't start a riot, but we all know how some people fixate on statements).

 

I will not even go after the "fixate on statements"...seems others have covered that already :D If we didn't fixate on things like this, what kind of cachers would be be??? :D Ok, enough of my "smart" remarks...

 

I will try to answer both questions at once (since they are very similar)...

We (the group of cachers I "hang" with) do both!!! Hide/Find both permanent ("real" implies "fake" and there are plenty of fake real (or real fake) caches out there...refered to as liar caches...but that is another topic for another thread) and temporary. We enjoy the hunt...some enjoy the smilely more than others

 

I enjoy the hunt and honestly couldn't care less about the smiley...

 

As far as easier...it would be easier (and I freely admit this :lol: ) if I just logged one "Attend" for events/CITOs and kept track of the temps personally...but as stated before, I just am too lazy to do that at this moment. Maybe with some freetime over the winter up north here, I may actually sit down and update my profile and my stats...All I can say now, when I first started, I didn't really know of another "method" :D ...it made sense at the time and my reasoning for why I do what I do with temps at events just developed over time (when I first started caching....I was a big numbers hound...) now, I enjoy the hunt, sharing my adventure online and meeting new friends.

 

Hope that helps...look forward to reading more on this thread...

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

 

PS...A fairly civil thread is nice for a change regarding this topic :lol::D:P

Link to comment

Ah, temp caches for events? Puh-leese! the event we just had didn't have one temporary cache. What it did have were 85 new caches published on the day of the event, and all within about 10 mile s of the event. Now, were they all quality caches in special locations? The answer to that should be obvious. But anyone who wanted to participate had some long cache runs and some group hunts to join in. As far as I know, no one did any multi-logging on the event itself. Who needs temp caches where there's 85 PUBLISHED caches to run after (and that doesn't include the many others nearby that already existed).

 

As for me, I found 9 caches in about 5 hours. I still had fun, even without the 85 additional smileys.

Link to comment

Western Montana- haven't seen it done here.

And most of the events I have attended did not offer that option. I did encounter one event outside of MT allowing it but didn't bother playing that way- it wasn't the way we play. I also have encountered caches where you could log each step of a multi and not bothered playing that way either. Moving caches have been my only multi-logs and that was long before the event multi-logging issue came to my awareness.

-J

Link to comment

You know, I think that I'm gonna weigh in on this matter after all. I've only done it once (so far), my first event that had temp caches, and I was told that I could log them by logging the event multiple times. I had no idea that there was any controversy here surrounding it.

 

But that said... why not? The caches were all hidden as well as any cache. Did anyone post DNF's? OK... no. But goshdarn it, they were hidden, and we found them. Let me repeat: they were hidden, and we found them. We found them using a GPS and our own brains. Just like a geocache. So what is the problem?

 

The ONLY problem that I have with my own experience with this is that the caches that I found were found by a group (albiet a small group) using the "Three Musketeers" approach (one finds, we all find). That's not my preferred caching method. But that has nothing neccessarily to do with the fact that they were temp event caches, does it?

 

PS: This was in Minnesota. It seems to be an acceptable thing here.

Link to comment

You know, I think that I'm gonna weigh in on this matter after all. I've only done it once (so far), my first event that had temp caches, and I was told that I could log them by logging the event multiple times. I had no idea that there was any controversy here surrounding it.

 

But that said... why not? The caches were all hidden as well as any cache. Did anyone post DNF's? OK... no. But goshdarn it, they were hidden, and we found them. Let me repeat: they were hidden, and we found them. We found them using a GPS and our own brains. Just like a geocache. So what is the problem?

 

The ONLY problem that I have with my own experience with this is that the caches that I found were found by a group (albiet a small group) using the "Three Musketeers" approach (one finds, we all find). That's not my preferred caching method. But that has nothing neccessarily to do with the fact that they were temp event caches, does it?

 

PS: This was in Minnesota. It seems to be an acceptable thing here.

 

They ARE "just like a geocache" but they aren't published geocaches. To me, that's the difference!

 

And I agree Archer...fun to "discuss" this friendly-like!!

Link to comment

You know, I think that I'm gonna weigh in on this matter after all. I've only done it once (so far), my first event that had temp caches, and I was told that I could log them by logging the event multiple times. I had no idea that there was any controversy here surrounding it.

 

But that said... why not? The caches were all hidden as well as any cache. Did anyone post DNF's? OK... no. But goshdarn it, they were hidden, and we found them. Let me repeat: they were hidden, and we found them. We found them using a GPS and our own brains. Just like a geocache. So what is the problem?

 

The ONLY problem that I have with my own experience with this is that the caches that I found were found by a group (albiet a small group) using the "Three Musketeers" approach (one finds, we all find). That's not my preferred caching method. But that has nothing neccessarily to do with the fact that they were temp event caches, does it?

 

PS: This was in Minnesota. It seems to be an acceptable thing here.

 

They ARE "just like a geocache" but they aren't published geocaches. To me, that's the difference!

 

And I agree Archer...fun to "discuss" this friendly-like!!

 

This is shockingly friendly-like! I think the confusion about "States" is that the OP is from Wisconsin, and the WGA apparently "endorses" the practice. Where as no other State or local organization has ever felt the need to comment or have a "policy" on the practice. In Western N.Y., where I hail from, it's about 50/50 whether the event will have logable temporary caches. And then, it will be a handful, nothing too zany. In Southern Ontario, which I also frequent, the practice is totally unheard of. I attended an event there once where I walked about 4 miles round trip for a poker run, and I believe two other temporary caches. To me, these were just activities at a picnic, not unlike entering a three-legged race, or playing a game of horseshoe's. :)

Link to comment

"but there's a long running topic in our forums about the practice and its not positive towards the practice."

 

WOW!!!!!! That's interesting as some of the top cachers in Texas are guilty of the practice!!!!!!!! So much for practicing what you preach!!!!!!!!

 

WOW. So much punctuation.

 

You andI don't usually see eye to eye, but I'd love to see your input on THIS THREAD. :)

Link to comment

"but there's a long running topic in our forums about the practice and its not positive towards the practice."

 

WOW!!!!!! That's interesting as some of the top cachers in Texas are guilty of the practice!!!!!!!! So much for practicing what you preach!!!!!!!!

 

WOW. So much punctuation.

 

You andI don't usually see eye to eye, but I'd love to see your input on THIS THREAD. :)

 

Sorry, I have a stuttering index finger! :)<_<:anibad:

 

Wow, I found your philosophy to be interesting. I wouldn't have the time or patience to spell it out for others to read, but thanks for your effort.

 

I found the topic by the original OP to be interesting as well as 9 Key's post. It interests me that some of Texas' top cachers don't seem to agree with what 9 Key stated in his post. That's all, just my observation. :huh:

Link to comment
But that said... why not? The caches were all hidden as well as any cache. Did anyone post DNF's? OK... no. But goshdarn it, they were hidden, and we found them. Let me repeat: they were hidden, and we found them. We found them using a GPS and our own brains. Just like a geocache. So what is the problem?

 

I think the difference is that they are not listed here. If you found a few caches listed on Terracaching or Navicaching while at the event would you log them here too?

Link to comment
But that said... why not? The caches were all hidden as well as any cache. Did anyone post DNF's? OK... no. But goshdarn it, they were hidden, and we found them. Let me repeat: they were hidden, and we found them. We found them using a GPS and our own brains. Just like a geocache. So what is the problem?
I think the difference is that they are not listed here. If you found a few caches listed on Terracaching or Navicaching while at the event would you log them here too?
Perhaps. If the event cache owner wanted me to.
Link to comment

"but there's a long running topic in our forums about the practice and its not positive towards the practice."

 

WOW!!!!!! That's interesting as some of the top cachers in Texas are guilty of the practice!!!!!!!! So much for practicing what you preach!!!!!!!!

 

WOW. So much punctuation.

 

You andI don't usually see eye to eye, but I'd love to see your input on THIS THREAD. :)

 

Sorry, I have a stuttering index finger! :)<_<:anibad:

 

Wow, I found your philosophy to be interesting. I wouldn't have the time or patience to spell it out for others to read, but thanks for your effort.

 

I found the topic by the original OP to be interesting as well as 9 Key's post. It interests me that some of Texas' top cachers don't seem to agree with what 9 Key stated in his post. That's all, just my observation. :huh:

9key pointed out the facts in his post. He did NOT try to say that it doesn't happen in Texas, only that many frown on the practice and that we don't see it too often. I live here and i can say that i've never seen it occur (i could have missed something of course) at any of the 60+ events that i've attended. There's no doubt that some cachers in Texas (i figure in every state) do it, but i would bet that they are a small percentage compared to those who don't.

Link to comment

While it's possible that a cacher who lives in Rhode Island may know whether the practice exists in his state, I suspect that most states are big enough that any cacher or small group of cachers would have no idea whether the practice exists in another part of the state.

 

That being said, this thread suggests that the practice is somewhat rare. Given this, what?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
While it's possible that a cacher who lives in Rhode Island may know whether the practice exists in his state, I suspect that most states are big enough that any cacher or small group of cachers would have no idea whether the practice exists in another part of the state.

 

That being said, this thread suggests that the practice is somewhat rare. Given this, what?

Some cachers attend events throughout their state or even in other states. It is very obvoius when someone logs an event multiple times because you will instantly see multiple logs when you go to log/view the event. So people would notice if it was happening. So getting some sample data from several people in a state should be a good indicator if the practice exists and to what extent it might exist in that state.
Link to comment

"but there's a long running topic in our forums about the practice and its not positive towards the practice."

 

WOW!!!!!! That's interesting as some of the top cachers in Texas are guilty of the practice!!!!!!!! So much for practicing what you preach!!!!!!!!

 

WOW. So much punctuation.

 

You andI don't usually see eye to eye, but I'd love to see your input on THIS THREAD. :)

 

Sorry, I have a stuttering index finger! :)<_<:anibad:

 

Wow, I found your philosophy to be interesting. I wouldn't have the time or patience to spell it out for others to read, but thanks for your effort.

 

I found the topic by the original OP to be interesting as well as 9 Key's post. It interests me that some of Texas' top cachers don't seem to agree with what 9 Key stated in his post. That's all, just my observation. :huh:

9key pointed out the facts in his post. He did NOT try to say that it doesn't happen in Texas, only that many frown on the practice and that we don't see it too often. I live here and i can say that i've never seen it occur (i could have missed something of course) at any of the 60+ events that i've attended. There's no doubt that some cachers in Texas (i figure in every state) do it, but i would bet that they are a small percentage compared to those who don't.

 

And I didn't say it happened all over the state, or by many of the Texas cachers. What surprized me, is that it is a practice among some of the state's top cachers. I find it interesting that since it has been frowned upon that the top cachers in the state find it an acceptable practice. If you'd like me to provide you with more facts, I can provide you with the event and the cachers in question.

 

Just because you don't see it happening, doesn't mean it's not being done! An easy way to find the "culprits" is to check an individual's finds for event caches. Note the number of finds listed and compare that to the list of individual events attended. If the numbers don't jive, you've found an individual who more than likely has indulged in this practice.

Link to comment
While it's possible that a cacher who lives in Rhode Island may know whether the practice exists in his state, I suspect that most states are big enough that any cacher or small group of cachers would have no idea whether the practice exists in another part of the state.

 

That being said, this thread suggests that the practice is somewhat rare. Given this, what?

Some cachers attend events throughout their state or even in other states. It is very obvoius when someone logs an event multiple times because you will instantly see multiple logs when you go to log/view the event. So people would notice if it was happening. So getting some sample data from several people in a state should be a good indicator if the practice exists and to what extent it might exist in that state.

There was more...

Link to comment
While it's possible that a cacher who lives in Rhode Island may know whether the practice exists in his state, I suspect that most states are big enough that any cacher or small group of cachers would have no idea whether the practice exists in another part of the state.

 

That being said, this thread suggests that the practice is somewhat rare. Given this, what?

Some cachers attend events throughout their state or even in other states. It is very obvoius when someone logs an event multiple times because you will instantly see multiple logs when you go to log/view the event. So people would notice if it was happening. So getting some sample data from several people in a state should be a good indicator if the practice exists and to what extent it might exist in that state.

There was more...

I think the OP was basically just polling the country to find out where how widespread this practice is. It is kind of interesting to hear this.
Link to comment

"but there's a long running topic in our forums about the practice and its not positive towards the practice."

 

WOW!!!!!! That's interesting as some of the top cachers in Texas are guilty of the practice!!!!!!!! So much for practicing what you preach!!!!!!!!

 

WOW. So much punctuation.

 

You andI don't usually see eye to eye, but I'd love to see your input on THIS THREAD. :)

 

Sorry, I have a stuttering index finger! :)<_<:anibad:

 

Wow, I found your philosophy to be interesting. I wouldn't have the time or patience to spell it out for others to read, but thanks for your effort.

 

I found the topic by the original OP to be interesting as well as 9 Key's post. It interests me that some of Texas' top cachers don't seem to agree with what 9 Key stated in his post. That's all, just my observation. :huh:

9key pointed out the facts in his post. He did NOT try to say that it doesn't happen in Texas, only that many frown on the practice and that we don't see it too often. I live here and i can say that i've never seen it occur (i could have missed something of course) at any of the 60+ events that i've attended. There's no doubt that some cachers in Texas (i figure in every state) do it, but i would bet that they are a small percentage compared to those who don't.

 

And I didn't say it happened all over the state, or by many of the Texas cachers. What surprized me, is that it is a practice among some of the state's top cachers. I find it interesting that since it has been frowned upon that the top cachers in the state find it an acceptable practice. If you'd like me to provide you with more facts, I can provide you with the event and the cachers in question.

 

Just because you don't see it happening, doesn't mean it's not being done! An easy way to find the "culprits" is to check an individual's finds for event caches. Note the number of finds listed and compare that to the list of individual events attended. If the numbers don't jive, you've found an individual who more than likely has indulged in this practice.

Not sure what you are trying to argue here. I think i can speak for 9key and say that we both agree with you in that logging temps does happen in Texas. I would guess that this occurs or has occurred in every state for that matter. The OP is looking for a general consensus and that's what most who are replying in this thread are trying to give.

 

In my opinion, bringing up "top cachers" who do it really has nothing to do with anything. They don't represent the bulk of cachers in Texas and their logging habits certainly don't speak for everyone else here. I'm simply stating what i've seen in my travels, nothing more. As i hinted in my post above, i may have missed some things since i don't scrutinize other cacher's logging practices. My statement above indicated a simple fact,,, that the practice is frowned upon by many and that i have NOT personally seen it happen here in Texas.

Link to comment

"but there's a long running topic in our forums about the practice and its not positive towards the practice."

 

WOW!!!!!! That's interesting as some of the top cachers in Texas are guilty of the practice!!!!!!!! So much for practicing what you preach!!!!!!!!

 

WOW. So much punctuation.

 

You andI don't usually see eye to eye, but I'd love to see your input on THIS THREAD. :huh:

 

Sorry, I have a stuttering index finger! <_<:anibad::)

 

Wow, I found your philosophy to be interesting. I wouldn't have the time or patience to spell it out for others to read, but thanks for your effort.

 

I found the topic by the original OP to be interesting as well as 9 Key's post. It interests me that some of Texas' top cachers don't seem to agree with what 9 Key stated in his post. That's all, just my observation. :)

9key pointed out the facts in his post. He did NOT try to say that it doesn't happen in Texas, only that many frown on the practice and that we don't see it too often. I live here and i can say that i've never seen it occur (i could have missed something of course) at any of the 60+ events that i've attended. There's no doubt that some cachers in Texas (i figure in every state) do it, but i would bet that they are a small percentage compared to those who don't.

 

And I didn't say it happened all over the state, or by many of the Texas cachers. What surprized me, is that it is a practice among some of the state's top cachers. I find it interesting that since it has been frowned upon that the top cachers in the state find it an acceptable practice. If you'd like me to provide you with more facts, I can provide you with the event and the cachers in question.

 

Just because you don't see it happening, doesn't mean it's not being done! An easy way to find the "culprits" is to check an individual's finds for event caches. Note the number of finds listed and compare that to the list of individual events attended. If the numbers don't jive, you've found an individual who more than likely has indulged in this practice.

Not sure what you are trying to argue here. I think i can speak for 9key and say that we both agree with you in that logging temps does happen in Texas. I would guess that this occurs or has occurred in every state for that matter. The OP is looking for a general consensus and that's what most who are replying in this thread are trying to give.

 

In my opinion, bringing up "top cachers" who do it really has nothing to do with anything. They don't represent the bulk of cachers in Texas and their logging habits certainly don't speak for everyone else here. I'm simply stating what i've seen in my travels, nothing more. As i hinted in my post above, i may have missed some things since i don't scrutinize other cacher's logging practices. My statement above indicated a simple fact,,, that the practice is frowned upon by many and that i have NOT personally seen it happen here in Texas.

 

I'm not arguing anything here! It seems that you may want to. I'm glad you have NOT seen it. To say "it is frowned upon by many" is not a fact unless it can be backed up by hard evidence. Have you conducted any polls lately??? :huh::):(

Link to comment

"but there's a long running topic in our forums about the practice and its not positive towards the practice."

 

WOW!!!!!! That's interesting as some of the top cachers in Texas are guilty of the practice!!!!!!!! So much for practicing what you preach!!!!!!!!

 

WOW. So much punctuation.

 

You andI don't usually see eye to eye, but I'd love to see your input on THIS THREAD. :wub:

 

Sorry, I have a stuttering index finger! :santa::santa::santa:

 

Wow, I found your philosophy to be interesting. I wouldn't have the time or patience to spell it out for others to read, but thanks for your effort.

 

I found the topic by the original OP to be interesting as well as 9 Key's post. It interests me that some of Texas' top cachers don't seem to agree with what 9 Key stated in his post. That's all, just my observation. :)

9key pointed out the facts in his post. He did NOT try to say that it doesn't happen in Texas, only that many frown on the practice and that we don't see it too often. I live here and i can say that i've never seen it occur (i could have missed something of course) at any of the 60+ events that i've attended. There's no doubt that some cachers in Texas (i figure in every state) do it, but i would bet that they are a small percentage compared to those who don't.

 

And I didn't say it happened all over the state, or by many of the Texas cachers. What surprized me, is that it is a practice among some of the state's top cachers. I find it interesting that since it has been frowned upon that the top cachers in the state find it an acceptable practice. If you'd like me to provide you with more facts, I can provide you with the event and the cachers in question.

 

Just because you don't see it happening, doesn't mean it's not being done! An easy way to find the "culprits" is to check an individual's finds for event caches. Note the number of finds listed and compare that to the list of individual events attended. If the numbers don't jive, you've found an individual who more than likely has indulged in this practice.

Not sure what you are trying to argue here. I think i can speak for 9key and say that we both agree with you in that logging temps does happen in Texas. I would guess that this occurs or has occurred in every state for that matter. The OP is looking for a general consensus and that's what most who are replying in this thread are trying to give.

 

In my opinion, bringing up "top cachers" who do it really has nothing to do with anything. They don't represent the bulk of cachers in Texas and their logging habits certainly don't speak for everyone else here. I'm simply stating what i've seen in my travels, nothing more. As i hinted in my post above, i may have missed some things since i don't scrutinize other cacher's logging practices. My statement above indicated a simple fact,,, that the practice is frowned upon by many and that i have NOT personally seen it happen here in Texas.

 

I'm not arguing anything here! It seems that you may want to. I'm glad you have NOT seen it. To say "it is frowned upon by many" is not a fact unless it can be backed up by hard evidence. Have you conducted any polls lately??? :santa::):)

You're related to Sbell,, aren't ya? :santa::D:santa:

Link to comment
Just because you don't see it happening, doesn't mean it's not being done! An easy way to find the "culprits" is to check an individual's finds for event caches. Note the number of finds listed and compare that to the list of individual events attended. If the numbers don't jive, you've found an individual who more than likely has indulged in this practice.

 

You just have to look at the number of events attended. I you see like 400 events attended it's either JoeGPS or someone who multi logs events. :wub:

Link to comment

Ah, temp caches for events? Puh-leese! the event we just had didn't have one temporary cache. What it did have were 85 new caches published on the day of the event, and all within about 10 mile s of the event. Now, were they all quality caches in special locations? The answer to that should be obvious. But anyone who wanted to participate had some long cache runs and some group hunts to join in. As far as I know, no one did any multi-logging on the event itself. Who needs temp caches where there's 85 PUBLISHED caches to run after (and that doesn't include the many others nearby that already existed).

 

As for me, I found 9 caches in about 5 hours. I still had fun, even without the 85 additional smileys.

Holey smokes 85??? Glad I was not the reviewer in that state to approve all those. Talk about overburdening the system. :):wub:

Link to comment

Ah, temp caches for events? Puh-leese! the event we just had didn't have one temporary cache. What it did have were 85 new caches published on the day of the event, and all within about 10 mile s of the event. Now, were they all quality caches in special locations? The answer to that should be obvious. But anyone who wanted to participate had some long cache runs and some group hunts to join in. As far as I know, no one did any multi-logging on the event itself. Who needs temp caches where there's 85 PUBLISHED caches to run after (and that doesn't include the many others nearby that already existed).

 

As for me, I found 9 caches in about 5 hours. I still had fun, even without the 85 additional smileys.

Holey smokes 85??? Glad I was not the reviewer in that state to approve all those. Talk about overburdening the system. :):wub:

85 isn't that bad. The reviewers will let you know if it's too much and to give them plenty of time. We are adding 2000 caches/year just in the San Diego area.
Link to comment

I think the difference is that they are not listed here. If you found a few caches listed on Terracaching or Navicaching while at the event would you log them here too?

Gee, I don't think that is an option here. If it was, I'd guess we'd all be doing it. Or at any rate, we'd have a whole new bunch of angst threads!

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

In my case the statement that we would ALL log Terracaches or Navicaches here at GC if we could, is not true. My preference would have been some form of the word "many" instead.

 

I was at the event where 85 new caches were published. I was there ALL day, but I didn't want to overburden the system, so I only logged 5 of them.

Link to comment

I just can't stand it any more. My version of the game is that a temp cache is just that. It may or may not be a fun diversion at an event but it certainly is not a loggable find in my opinion.

 

But it is only my opinion and I really don't care what any other cacher decides to log as a find on his or her account.

Link to comment
I'm not arguing anything here! It seems that you may want to. I'm glad you have NOT seen it. To say "it is frowned upon by many" is not a fact unless it can be backed up by hard evidence. Have you conducted any polls lately??? :):D:santa:
You're related to Sbell,, aren't ya? :wub::santa::santa:
:):):santa:

 

That's funny because I almost replied to eagletrek's post to remind him that there are a number of threads (including this one) in which many cachers 'frowned upon' the practice. Therefore, there is 'hard evidence' to support your position.

Link to comment

My point to this issue (and this thread) is 'so what?'.

 

What these threads have proven is that there are a number of people who enjoy this practice and a number of people who 'frown upon' it.

 

Online logging of the temporary caches takes place in many areas, but certainly not by all cachers int these areas.

 

Given this, what can we take away from these threads?

 

I would likely keep the position that this practice doesn't affect me, so why do I care if it is or isn't practiced at an event in my area?

 

A cacher like TrailBlazers would likely take the position that he is affected because he might choose to 'watch' all events and therefore get too many emails. He might also explain that this practice causes him to have to scroll too much when reading the affected event pages.

 

Is there anything else that we can get from these threads, or is it time to move on to another angsty issue?

Link to comment

My point to this issue (and this thread) is 'so what?'.

 

What these threads have proven is that there are a number of people who enjoy this practice and a number of people who 'frown upon' it.

 

Online logging of the temporary caches takes place in many areas, but certainly not by all cachers int these areas.

 

Given this, what can we take away from these threads?

 

I would likely keep the position that this practice doesn't affect me, so why do I care if it is or isn't practiced at an event in my area?

 

A cacher like TrailBlazers would likely take the position that he is affected because he might choose to 'watch' all events and therefore get too many emails. He might also explain that this practice causes him to have to scroll too much when reading the affected event pages.

 

Is there anything else that we can get from these threads, or is it time to move on to another angsty issue?

Some people are into statistics. One statistic may be know exactly how widely the practice of temporary cache logging at events is. Another statistic may show whether there are regional or national differences in first statistic. Some (who are interested in such things) may want to hypothesize on reasons for these differences. Perhaps some would hope that by understanding the differences we can be less angsty about what other people are doing.

 

Whether or not the forums are the place to do social science experiments is debatable itself. However many find the discussions entertaining and sometimes someone offers an explanation of why they either do or don't engage in this practice that does help understanding. Very rarely, one even sees people change their minds on the issue. More interesting than the fact that some people do log extra attended logs to count temporary caches are the responses from those who say they don't do this. They fall into a whole spectrum from "it has no effect on me, so why would I care" to "I'm getting too many emails from the event I'm watching" to "this is another sign of the decline of society that some people would lie just to increase their find count" Maybe for the next thread we can have the topic: "Why don't you log temporary event caches?" instead of "Why other people shouldn't log temporary event caches"

Link to comment

My point to this issue (and this thread) is 'so what?'.

 

What these threads have proven is that there are a number of people who enjoy this practice and a number of people who 'frown upon' it.

 

Online logging of the temporary caches takes place in many areas, but certainly not by all cachers int these areas.

 

Given this, what can we take away from these threads?

 

I would likely keep the position that this practice doesn't affect me, so why do I care if it is or isn't practiced at an event in my area?

 

A cacher like TrailBlazers would likely take the position that he is affected because he might choose to 'watch' all events and therefore get too many emails. He might also explain that this practice causes him to have to scroll too much when reading the affected event pages.

 

Is there anything else that we can get from these threads, or is it time to move on to another angsty issue?

Some people are into statistics. One statistic may be know exactly how widely the practice of temporary cache logging at events is. Another statistic may show whether there are regional or national differences in first statistic. Some (who are interested in such things) may want to hypothesize on reasons for these differences. Perhaps some would hope that by understanding the differences we can be less angsty about what other people are doing.

 

Whether or not the forums are the place to do social science experiments is debatable itself. However many find the discussions entertaining and sometimes someone offers an explanation of why they either do or don't engage in this practice that does help understanding. Very rarely, one even sees people change their minds on the issue. More interesting than the fact that some people do log extra attended logs to count temporary caches are the responses from those who say they don't do this. They fall into a whole spectrum from "it has no effect on me, so why would I care" to "I'm getting too many emails from the event I'm watching" to "this is another sign of the decline of society that some people would lie just to increase their find count" Maybe for the next thread we can have the topic: "Why don't you log temporary event caches?" instead of "Why other people shouldn't log temporary event caches"

This thread was just a small poll to find out how widespread this really is. It is kind of interesting to see that is for the most part localized to a few states in the midwest. Sbelly keeps calling me Trailblazers even though I asked him to knock it off. Anyhow, he says "so what?' The answer is that people were curious. If you are not interested then don't read the thread. :santa:
Link to comment

My point to this issue (and this thread) is 'so what?'.

 

What these threads have proven is that there are a number of people who enjoy this practice and a number of people who 'frown upon' it.

 

Online logging of the temporary caches takes place in many areas, but certainly not by all cachers int these areas.

 

Given this, what can we take away from these threads?

 

I would likely keep the position that this practice doesn't affect me, so why do I care if it is or isn't practiced at an event in my area?

 

A cacher like TrailBlazers would likely take the position that he is affected because he might choose to 'watch' all events and therefore get too many emails. He might also explain that this practice causes him to have to scroll too much when reading the affected event pages.

 

Is there anything else that we can get from these threads, or is it time to move on to another angsty issue?

You are right in that it doesn't affect you. You and many, ooops i used that word again, others have chosen to geocache the way you do and this has worked out great for you. The thing is, not everyone has chosen to play this same way. Actually, i shouldn't have used the word chosen. For me, this is a right vs wrong issue and since i see it as being wrong, i really have no choice to make.

 

This does affect others in different ways. Some do not want to see the multiple "found temp" logs inundate a cache page. Some, like me, have fun with numbers and with the fun competition that sometimes comes along with them. Our area enjoys friendly competition and the celebrating of milestones. I really don't see how either of these could be accomplished if everyone counted differently. It would bug me if there was a big milestone celebration and i knew that the number of finds that person had was not accurate. On fun competition, it would certainly take away from that if i found out that numbers were gained in ways that i think are questionable. I know it's only a game, a minor thing in our lives, but these are aspects of geocaching that i enjoy and since i do see it as being wrong, it would affect me if it were happening around me.

Link to comment
This thread was just a small poll to find out how widespread this really is. It is kind of interesting to see that is for the most part localized to a few states in the midwest. Sbelly keeps calling me Trailblazers even though I asked him to knock it off. Anyhow, he says "so what?' The answer is that people were curious. If you are not interested then don't read the thread. :santa:
A couple of things:

 

I'm sorry about the typo in your name. My wife had to take the TrailBlazer in to the dealer this morning to get the OnStar upgraded, so it was on my mind. I'm not sure what you hope to prove with the silly 'sbelly' spelling. It seems kind of childish, to me, and potentially contrary to the guidelines.

 

Also, as I explained in my previous post, my 'so what?' was a request to see what other people are getting out of this thread. If you don't wish to share your conclusions, that's fine, but don't attack me for asking what other people's conclusions are.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
My point to this issue (and this thread) is 'so what?'.

 

What these threads have proven is that there are a number of people who enjoy this practice and a number of people who 'frown upon' it.

 

Online logging of the temporary caches takes place in many areas, but certainly not by all cachers int these areas.

 

Given this, what can we take away from these threads?

 

I would likely keep the position that this practice doesn't affect me, so why do I care if it is or isn't practiced at an event in my area?

 

A cacher like TrailBlazers would likely take the position that he is affected because he might choose to 'watch' all events and therefore get too many emails. He might also explain that this practice causes him to have to scroll too much when reading the affected event pages.

 

Is there anything else that we can get from these threads, or is it time to move on to another angsty issue?

You are right in that it doesn't affect you. You and many, ooops i used that word again, others have chosen to geocache the way you do and this has worked out great for you. The thing is, not everyone has chosen to play this same way. Actually, i shouldn't have used the word chosen. For me, this is a right vs wrong issue and since i see it as being wrong, i really have no choice to make. ...
I actually cache the same way that you do, as far as the logging of temporary event caches is concerned.

 

By the way, what conclusions have you drawn from this thread?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
This thread was just a small poll to find out how widespread this really is. It is kind of interesting to see that is for the most part localized to a few states in the midwest. Sbelly keeps calling me Trailblazers even though I asked him to knock it off. Anyhow, he says "so what?' The answer is that people were curious. If you are not interested then don't read the thread. :santa:
A couple of things:

 

I'm sorry about the typo in your name. My wife had to take the TrailBlazer in to the dealer this morning to get the OnStar upgraded, so it was on my mind. I'm not sure what you hope to prove with the silly 'sbelly' spelling. It seams kind of childish, to me, and potentially contrary to the guidelines.

 

Also, as I explained in my previous post, my 'so what?' was a request to see what other people are getting out of this thread. If you don't wish to share your conclusions, that's fine, but don't attack me for asking what other people's conclusions are.

I'm sorry about the typo in your name. My wife is trying to get me to go on a diet so I was thinking about my "belly," so it was on my mind....

 

I shared my current conclusion (it could change as the thread continues and more people report in. It is mainly a midwest thing....

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

My point to this issue (and this thread) is 'so what?'.

 

What these threads have proven is that there are a number of people who enjoy this practice and a number of people who 'frown upon' it.

 

Online logging of the temporary caches takes place in many areas, but certainly not by all cachers int these areas.

 

Given this, what can we take away from these threads?

 

I would likely keep the position that this practice doesn't affect me, so why do I care if it is or isn't practiced at an event in my area?

 

A cacher like TrailBlazers would likely take the position that he is affected because he might choose to 'watch' all events and therefore get too many emails. He might also explain that this practice causes him to have to scroll too much when reading the affected event pages.

 

Is there anything else that we can get from these threads, or is it time to move on to another angsty issue?

You are right in that it doesn't affect you. You and many, ooops i used that word again, others have chosen to geocache the way you do and this has worked out great for you. The thing is, not everyone has chosen to play this same way. Actually, i shouldn't have used the word chosen. For me, this is a right vs wrong issue and since i see it as being wrong, i really have no choice to make.

 

This does affect others in different ways. Some do not want to see the multiple "found temp" logs inundate a cache page. Some, like me, have fun with numbers and with the fun competition that sometimes comes along with them. Our area enjoys friendly competition and the celebrating of milestones. I really don't see how either of these could be accomplished if everyone counted differently. It would bug me if there was a big milestone celebration and i knew that the number of finds that person had was not accurate. On fun competition, it would certainly take away from that if i found out that numbers were gained in ways that i think are questionable. I know it's only a game, a minor thing in our lives, but these are aspects of geocaching that i enjoy and since i do see it as being wrong, it would affect me if it were happening around me.

 

Well if this is the case, I wouldn't plan on attending any more celebrations for "caching milestones" for Texas' top cacher as that individual has "counted differently" and that's a "fact" as I have the evidence to prove it!!!!

Link to comment
This thread was just a small poll to find out how widespread this really is. It is kind of interesting to see that is for the most part localized to a few states in the midwest. Sbelly keeps calling me Trailblazers even though I asked him to knock it off. Anyhow, he says "so what?' The answer is that people were curious. If you are not interested then don't read the thread. :santa:
A couple of things:

 

I'm sorry about the typo in your name. My wife had to take the TrailBlazer in to the dealer this morning to get the OnStar upgraded, so it was on my mind. I'm not sure what you hope to prove with the silly 'sbelly' spelling. It seams kind of childish, to me, and potentially contrary to the guidelines.

 

Also, as I explained in my previous post, my 'so what?' was a request to see what other people are getting out of this thread. If you don't wish to share your conclusions, that's fine, but don't attack me for asking what other people's conclusions are.

I'm sorry about the typo in your name. My wife is trying to get me to go on a diet so I was thinking about my "belly," so it was on my mind....
I'm not going to call you a liar, but I have a very large suspician that you are not telling the truth and that you have other motivations. Therefore, I cannot accept your apology. For this, I am sorry. You clearly did not believe taht we had to take the TrailBlazer into the shop. Here's a link that explains that this upgrade must be done prior to 1/1/08. We tried to get it done last month, but they had to order the gizmo.

 

As for the practice being mainly localized to a few states in the midwest, I don't think that this thread has shown that to be true. It actually appears that the practice is actually taking place in locations all over the country. I suspect that the belief that it is localized to areas of the midwest comes from the fact that these areas have become the whipping boy for the issue, here in the forums.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Maybe for the next thread we can have the topic: "Why don't you log temporary event caches?" instead of "Why other people shouldn't log temporary event caches"

I was just thinking of something simular,,, maybe a thread to list the pros and cons of logging temp caches.

 

Of course it would be nice to limit it to legitimate reasons from both sides and not the usual "how does it affect you", don't worry how i play" arguments that we routinely see. :santa:

 

Reasons for logging temps:

 

1. They are caches and therefore deserve to be logged as finds.

2. To build up smilie count in any way possible.

3. ?

 

Reasons for NOT logging temps:

1. They don't meet GC.com guidelines and shouldn't be logged on the site.

2. They are not GC.com approved and shouldn't be logged on the site.

3. Multiple logging of these as attended messes up stats. (shows higher number than actually attended)

4. Multiple logs clutter up an event page with irrelevant to the event and usually repetitive boring "found temp # so and so" logs

5. ?

 

I know, off topic but it could be interesting in it's own thread...

Link to comment
Maybe for the next thread we can have the topic: "Why don't you log temporary event caches?" instead of "Why other people shouldn't log temporary event caches"

I was just thinking of something simular,,, maybe a thread to list the pros and cons of logging temp caches.

 

Of course it would be nice to limit it to legitimate reasons from both sides and not the usual "how does it affect you", don't worry how i play" arguments that we routinely see. :santa:

 

Reasons for logging temps:

 

1. They are caches and therefore deserve to be logged as finds.

2. To build up smilie count in any way possible.

3. ?

 

Reasons for NOT logging temps:

1. They don't meet GC.com guidelines and shouldn't be logged on the site.

2. They are not GC.com approved and shouldn't be logged on the site.

3. Multiple logging of these as attended messes up stats. (shows higher number than actually attended)

4. Multiple logs clutter up an event page with irrelevant to the event and usually repetitive boring "found temp # so and so" logs

5. ?

 

I know, off topic but it could be interesting in it's own thread...

For:

  • It's how the cache finder prefers to do it.
  • It's welcomed by the event 'owner'
  • It's endorsed by TPTB.

Link to comment
This thread was just a small poll to find out how widespread this really is. It is kind of interesting to see that is for the most part localized to a few states in the midwest. Sbelly keeps calling me Trailblazers even though I asked him to knock it off. Anyhow, he says "so what?' The answer is that people were curious. If you are not interested then don't read the thread. :santa:
A couple of things:

 

I'm sorry about the typo in your name. My wife had to take the TrailBlazer in to the dealer this morning to get the OnStar upgraded, so it was on my mind. I'm not sure what you hope to prove with the silly 'sbelly' spelling. It seams kind of childish, to me, and potentially contrary to the guidelines.

 

Also, as I explained in my previous post, my 'so what?' was a request to see what other people are getting out of this thread. If you don't wish to share your conclusions, that's fine, but don't attack me for asking what other people's conclusions are.

I'm sorry about the typo in your name. My wife is trying to get me to go on a diet so I was thinking about my "belly," so it was on my mind....
I'm not going to call you a liar, but I have a very large suspician that you are not telling the truth and that you have other motivations. Therefore, I cannot accept your apology. For this, I am sorry. You clearly did not believe taht we had to take the TrailBlazer into the shop. Here's a link that explains that this upgrade must be done prior to 1/1/08. We tried to get it done last month, but they had to order the gizmo.

 

As for the practice being mainly localized to a few states in the midwest, I don't think that this thread has shown that to be true. It actually appears that the practice is actually taking place in locations all over the country. I suspect that the belief that it is localized to areas of the midwest comes from the fact that these areas have become the whipping boy for the issue, here in the forums.

You must be thinking about your car all the time. Because you have called me that name many times on several other threads. For someone that is so exact about everything this seems odd to me. Hmmm....

 

Anyhow, go back and read the thread again. It is rare in most other states is what I read. It would be cool if someone could run a PQ for the most attended (non-mega) events and graph the answer to the OPs question.

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
Maybe for the next thread we can have the topic: "Why don't you log temporary event caches?" instead of "Why other people shouldn't log temporary event caches"

I was just thinking of something simular,,, maybe a thread to list the pros and cons of logging temp caches.

 

Of course it would be nice to limit it to legitimate reasons from both sides and not the usual "how does it affect you", don't worry how i play" arguments that we routinely see. :santa:

 

Reasons for logging temps:

 

1. They are caches and therefore deserve to be logged as finds.

2. To build up smilie count in any way possible.

3. ?

 

Reasons for NOT logging temps:

1. They don't meet GC.com guidelines and shouldn't be logged on the site.

2. They are not GC.com approved and shouldn't be logged on the site.

3. Multiple logging of these as attended messes up stats. (shows higher number than actually attended)

4. Multiple logs clutter up an event page with irrelevant to the event and usually repetitive boring "found temp # so and so" logs

5. ?

 

I know, off topic but it could be interesting in it's own thread...

Reasons for logging temps:

 

1. They are caches and therefore deserve to be logged as finds.

2. To build up smilie count in any way possible.

3. AD does it because he wants to track his temp finds. If there was another way to track them then he said that he wouldn't do it.

Link to comment

Reasons for logging temps:

 

1. They are caches and therefore deserve to be logged as finds.

 

This would be true if they went through the same checks and balances as a real GC.com cache. Since they did not, log them on a personal database or the site where they are listed.

 

2. To build up smilie count in any way possible.

 

The only true reason for logging. Still not right, but the reason.

 

3. AD does it because he wants to track his temp finds. If there was another way to track them then he said that he wouldn't do it.

 

GSAK, Excel, personal website, etc. Lots of other ways.

 

Back to the OP. In most states, it is not an accepted practice (actually in all). The problem seems to be limited to one or two states of which one has a small group that seem to like to draw outside the lines in other aspects as well.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

<<snip>>

As for the practice being mainly localized to a few states in the midwest, I don't think that this thread has shown that to be true. It actually appears that the practice is actually taking place in locations all over the country. I suspect that the belief that it is localized to areas of the midwest comes from the fact that these areas have become the whipping boy for the issue, here in the forums.

<<snip>>

Anyhow, go back and read the thread again. It is rare in most other states is what I read. It would be cool if someone could run a PQ for the most attended (non-mega) events and graph the answer to the OPs question.

I have to agree with sbell on this. I thought this was primarily isolated to a few midwestern states but in this thread we have seen examples from many other states and even disagreement in some larger states over whether this happens there, indicating that it may be more localized then you thought. Just as there are some very blue districts in the most red states (or visa versa), it appears that one cannot generalize on what logging practices a cacher will accept based on where they live.

Link to comment

<<snip>>

As for the practice being mainly localized to a few states in the midwest, I don't think that this thread has shown that to be true. It actually appears that the practice is actually taking place in locations all over the country. I suspect that the belief that it is localized to areas of the midwest comes from the fact that these areas have become the whipping boy for the issue, here in the forums.

<<snip>>

Anyhow, go back and read the thread again. It is rare in most other states is what I read. It would be cool if someone could run a PQ for the most attended (non-mega) events and graph the answer to the OPs question.

I have to agree with sbell on this. I thought this was primarily isolated to a few midwestern states but in this thread we have seen examples from many other states and even disagreement in some larger states over whether this happens there, indicating that it may be more localized then you thought. Just as there are some very blue districts in the most red states (or visa versa), it appears that one cannot generalize on what logging practices a cacher will accept based on where they live.

I wasn't saying what states accept the practice. I was saying is that is very common practice in certain states and not in others. I have yet to see any state in the entire west that has this practice "commonly" occurring at events. In fact, it sounds like many people have never heard of it. I guess that is my impression. It would be better to get some data showing the most attended non-mega events. I better you would see that certain states have by far the highest turnouts at their events so some reason......
Link to comment
You must be thinking about your car all the time. Because you have called me that name many times on several other threads. For someone that is so exact about everything this seems odd to me. Hmmm....
I think that the tidbit that you are missing is that I make a honking lot of typos. You might notice that I often edit my posts. This is because I try to clean up these mistakes. Everything is not about you. You just happen to use an accout name that is similar to a word that I often use. If your player name was Coohie, I would no doubt type it as Cookie.
Anyhow, go back and read the thread again. It is rare in most other states is what I read. It would be cool if someone could run a PQ for the most attended (non-mega) events and graph the answer to the OPs question.
What I read is that it is certainly not unheard of in many, many states. You might notice the back-and-forth regarding the Great State of Texas.
Back to the OP. In most states, it is not an accepted practice (actually in all).
With the possible exception of the beautiful state of South Carolina, states neither accept nor not accept temporary caches.
The problem seems to be limited to one or two states of which one has a small group that seem to like to draw outside the lines in other aspects as well.
Actually, I believe that this thread shows that the practice happens all over the country, to some extent. Also, it should be noted that many people do not believe this practice to be 'drawing outside the lines'. Rather, they believe that it is completely acceptable, permitted by the guidelines and endorsed by TPTB.

 

People disagree. Shocking.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Maybe for the next thread we can have the topic: "Why don't you log temporary event caches?" instead of "Why other people shouldn't log temporary event caches"

I was just thinking of something simular,,, maybe a thread to list the pros and cons of logging temp caches.

 

Of course it would be nice to limit it to legitimate reasons from both sides and not the usual "how does it affect you", don't worry how i play" arguments that we routinely see. :santa:

 

Reasons for logging temps:

 

1. They are caches and therefore deserve to be logged as finds.

2. To build up smilie count in any way possible.

3. ?

 

Reasons for NOT logging temps:

1. They don't meet GC.com guidelines and shouldn't be logged on the site.

2. They are not GC.com approved and shouldn't be logged on the site.

3. Multiple logging of these as attended messes up stats. (shows higher number than actually attended)

4. Multiple logs clutter up an event page with irrelevant to the event and usually repetitive boring "found temp # so and so" logs

5. ?

 

I know, off topic but it could be interesting in it's own thread...

 

I guess I am going to play the "Devil's Advocate" here for a bit...and respond to a couple things stated above...

 

Reasons for NOT logging temps:

1. They don't meet GC.com guidelines and shouldn't be logged on the site.

-Most of the ones I have found and logged only "violate" the Permanence Guideline and TPTB only have the position that temps will not be published on GC.com...

Can they be found...sure can...can we all agree to that...not sure anymore

Can they be logged...sure can...(the rest of the statement I will leave open for interpretation)

 

2. They are not GC.com approved and shouldn't be logged on the site.

-As stated before..."Published does not equal Approved"...my response here has nothing to do with why or why not something should be logged on the site, but I do think we need to clean up our use of terms...

 

PS...Let's not use the argument about Terracaching and Navicaching caches either regarding logging temps on GC.com...common sense people...a temp hidden for the purpose of a GC.com listed event and logging it on that event's page is much more different then logging a cache listed on another site for a "smilely" count on gc.com...If I can't use a "specific argument" then neither can the other side... :lol:

 

PPS...More common sense...meeting another cacher at an event and logging that moment as a find/attend will also not be used as an argument about how my choice for logging temps is wrong... :D

 

3. Multiple logging of these as attended messes up stats. (shows higher number than actually attended)

-Yep, it does show a higher number than attened...

-Mess up Stats...Yes and No...

I have admited several times I do not like how my pratice of logging temps skews my stats...at the same time, I don't think it causes me a mess...I use it to help me track what I have done...review my post and see why I do it...I think it offers a "legitimate" way/reason to use the practice of logging temps...especially for me and my lazy behaviour :santa:

 

4. Multiple logs clutter up an event page with irrelevant to the event and usually repetitive boring "found temp # so and so" logs

-Yep...but that is no different then reading "TFTC" on owned caches :D (we better require a minimum log length to stop that from happening...ok, ok, sorry, went off there for a moment...same type of argument...my apologizes, not meant to be taken personal but I had to say it).

 

With that said...

Edited by ArcherDragoon
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...