Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
doingitoldschool

Multiple finds on same cache

Recommended Posts

You have to be willing to discuss all reasons the multilogging is embraced and what the affects of these logs are. You have been unwilling to do this. Instead, you only have been willing to discuss one tiny example of the practice.
If we can't agree on "one" why should we move on to discussing many?

Simply to avoid trying to wrap them all up in one minor issue.

 

If you are trying to have them banned, as the original post suggested, you cannot make the assumption that the one specific cache that you are grinding your axe against is representative of all caches that allow multiple logging.

Now I am trying to get them banned? Can you do me a favor and let me speak for myself. I don't need people like you putting words in my mouth... :P
You've misread my post. Why don't you have another go at it.
The example I gave is relevant. I am not grinding any axe, I am trying to understand it. I think that cache has some issues as Toz and I already pointed out.
While I believe that the cache in question meets the guidelines and follows practices long since advised by some of the most devout puritans in the forums, the cache is not well representative of all multi-log caches.

 

It should also be noted that the act of understanding is a two way street. You have insisted on hammering your points, but for some reason you refuse to answer questions that would allow your positions to be probed. If you chose to communicate in good faith, I believe that these discussions would go much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Holy carp, this is the same show I was watching last night.

 

Yes, it's impossible to make any progress with these folks. Their mission is to disrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
It should also be noted that the act of understanding is a two way street. You have insisted on hammering your points, but for some reason you refuse to answer questions that would allow your positions to be probed. If you chose to communicate in good faith, I believe that these discussions would go much easier.
NOw I'm hammering? The hyperbole never stops. I have no idea what you are talking about. So let's focus on discussing actual caches that exist and not on the people discussing them for a change.... :P

Share this post


Link to post

Are you ever going to answer anyone else's questions? It is not appropriate to expect everyone to answer your points while you fail to respond to the questions of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Are you ever going to answer anyone else's questions?
Yes! There I answered that one! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Are you ever going to answer anyone else's questions?
Yes! There I answered that one! :P

Why should we take you seriously if you fail to communicate in good faith? I find that to be very disrespectful.

Share this post


Link to post
Are you ever going to answer anyone else's questions?
Yes! There I answered that one! :P

Why should we take you seriously if you fail to communicate in good faith? I find that to be very disrespectful.

You really need to get a sense of humor. Things don't always have to be so heavy. :P Anyhow, if you ask a question I might answer it, but I'm not going to answer questions like, "Why do you care?"

Share this post


Link to post

Can you do me a favor and let me speak for myself. I don't need people like you putting words in my mouth... :P

 

The example I gave is relevant. I am not grinding any axe, I am trying to understand it. I think that cache has some issues as Toz and I already pointed out.

Actually, I simply pointed out that Miragee may simply be using this technique to get around the fact that she can't submit the sites in ABDSP as virtuals on Geocaching.com. I make no statement as to whether multi-logging should be allowed or not. However this is a great example of how people can rationalize it. In the ABDSP thread, Miragee responds to Snake & Rooster

While I like your idea of a "virtual tour", I can't say that I care for allowing a smiley for each stop. How is that any different from logging waypoints of a multi, or logging an event multiple times for temporary caches? Sniff, sniff, do I smell Wisconsin cheese?

Well . . . people can just post "Notes" for each of the cache locations they visit if they want to. This is a bit different from logging multiple "Attendeds" for finding temporary caches, however. Each extra log, whether it is a "Note" or a "Found it," will include a photo of the person at the location, and a picture of their GPS unit displaying the coordinates.

 

So . . . for each finder, there should be 12 separate logs, either "Notes" or "Found its," depending on how you want to log it. :P I'll leave that up to the individual cacher. :P

I suspect that everyone who allows multiple logging thinks they are justified in doing so, whether it be a tribute to caches that were archived when a park changed its geocaching poligy, a new cache type that may have multiple targets that can be logged, temporary event caches that are "real" caches, or asking people to post funny pictures of themselves because its fun to see the pictures in the logs. Rather than deciding which multiple logs are justified, TPTB decided to let the cache owner decide. My guess is that if they were to ban it in some cases and not others you'd have reviewers saying that caches with bonus logs have to be approved by Groundspeak and forums full of people complaining that their bonus log cache didn't get approved while someone else's doing the same thing got published.

Share this post


Link to post

Can you do me a favor and let me speak for myself. I don't need people like you putting words in my mouth... :P The example I gave is relevant. I am not grinding any axe, I am trying to understand it. I think that cache has some issues as Toz and I already pointed out.

Actually, I simply pointed out that Miragee may simply be using this technique to get around the fact that she can't submit the sites in ABDSP as virtuals on Geocaching.com. I make no statement as to whether multi-logging should be allowed or not. However this is a great example of how people can rationalize it. In the ABDSP thread, Miragee responds to Snake & Rooster

While I like your idea of a "virtual tour", I can't say that I care for allowing a smiley for each stop. How is that any different from logging waypoints of a multi, or logging an event multiple times for temporary caches? Sniff, sniff, do I smell Wisconsin cheese?

Well . . . people can just post "Notes" for each of the cache locations they visit if they want to. This is a bit different from logging multiple "Attendeds" for finding temporary caches, however. Each extra log, whether it is a "Note" or a "Found it," will include a photo of the person at the location, and a picture of their GPS unit displaying the coordinates.

 

So . . . for each finder, there should be 12 separate logs, either "Notes" or "Found its," depending on how you want to log it. :P I'll leave that up to the individual cacher. :P

I agreed with you that she is using this technique to get logging of virtuals back on GC.com. I also agree with Snake & Rooster's post. Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
Are you ever going to answer anyone else's questions?
Yes! There I answered that one! :P

Why should we take you seriously if you fail to communicate in good faith? I find that to be very disrespectful.
You really need to get a sense of humor. Things don't always have to be so heavy. :P Anyhow, if you ask a question I might answer it, but I'm not going to answer questions like, "Why do you care?"
Well, that question attempts to allow the rest of us to understand your angst. It's as on-topic as the rest of this blah.

 

Anyway, you've failed to answer many other questions than just that one.

 

Perhaps, you will help me with these:

 

I don't multi-log caches. Why should I be concerned if someone else does? How does the practice affect me? You see, unless there is some harm in multilogging caches, I simply can't support doing away with the practice programmatically. (That's the topic of this thread, in case anyone has forgotten.)

Share this post


Link to post

Multiple posts on same issue, Can this be programmed out? :P

Edited by 4wheelin_fool

Share this post


Link to post
Are you ever going to answer anyone else's questions?
Yes! There I answered that one! :P

Why should we take you seriously if you fail to communicate in good faith? I find that to be very disrespectful.
You really need to get a sense of humor. Things don't always have to be so heavy. :P Anyhow, if you ask a question I might answer it, but I'm not going to answer questions like, "Why do you care?"
Well, that question attempts to allow the rest of us to understand your angst. It's as on-topic as the rest of this blah.

 

Anyway, you've failed to answer many other questions than just that one.

 

Perhaps, you will help me with these:

 

I don't multi-log caches. Why should I be concerned if someone else does? How does the practice affect me? You see, unless there is some harm in multilogging caches, I simply can't support doing away with the practice programmatically. (That's the topic of this thread, in case anyone has forgotten.)

There was no harm in Pocket caches either by your definition but those were terminated by TPTB. So there are other factors that TPTB consider when programming things out. So it's really up to TPTB. Isn't it? :P

Share this post


Link to post

There was no harm in Pocket caches either by your definition but those were terminated by TPTB. So there are other factors that TPTB consider when programming things out. So it's really up to TPTB. Isn't it? :P

There was certainly no harm in visiting a waymark multiple times. In fact, in the early days of Waymarking, TPTB specifically pointed out that they used the term visit instead of found because they expected people to visit some waymarks multiple times. Somewhere along the way, someone made a decision to change the programming on Waymarking.com so you could only log one visit per waymark. Funny thing is that in Waymarking the same location can be listed in multiple categories. So you can get multiple visits on a single visit to a waymark - one for each category that location is listed in. This is proof that TPTB can decide to do whatever they want even when it makes no sense. You may yet see multiple logging programmed out. Perhaps in version 2 where Geocaches will become a Waymarking category.

Share this post


Link to post

There was no harm in Pocket caches either by your definition but those were terminated by TPTB. So there are other factors that TPTB consider when programming things out. So it's really up to TPTB. Isn't it? :o

There was certainly no harm in visiting a waymark multiple times. In fact, in the early days of Waymarking, TPTB specifically pointed out that they used the term visit instead of found because they expected people to visit some waymarks multiple times. Somewhere along the way, someone made a decision to change the programming on Waymarking.com so you could only log one visit per waymark. Funny thing is that in Waymarking the same location can be listed in multiple categories. So you can get multiple visits on a single visit to a waymark - one for each category that location is listed in. This is proof that TPTB can decide to do whatever they want even when it makes no sense. You may yet see multiple logging programmed out. Perhaps in version 2 where Geocaches will become a Waymarking category.

That is interesting. It does seem like it's backwards. I didn't know that geocaching would be a standalone category. That doesn't seem well-defined enough either. I would think that geocaches would have fit within existing Waymarking categories better. Anyhow, it's not my site... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Are you ever going to answer anyone else's questions?
Yes! There I answered that one! :o

Why should we take you seriously if you fail to communicate in good faith? I find that to be very disrespectful.
You really need to get a sense of humor. Things don't always have to be so heavy. ;) Anyhow, if you ask a question I might answer it, but I'm not going to answer questions like, "Why do you care?"
Well, that question attempts to allow the rest of us to understand your angst. It's as on-topic as the rest of this blah.

 

Anyway, you've failed to answer many other questions than just that one.

 

Perhaps, you will help me with these:

 

I don't multi-log caches. Why should I be concerned if someone else does? How does the practice affect me? You see, unless there is some harm in multilogging caches, I simply can't support doing away with the practice programmatically. (That's the topic of this thread, in case anyone has forgotten.)

There was no harm in Pocket caches either by your definition but those were terminated by TPTB. So there are other factors that TPTB consider when programming things out. So it's really up to TPTB. Isn't it? :D

You realize that TPTB are already on record regarding this issue, right? (Pssst. They didn't come down on your side of the issue.)

Share this post


Link to post
Are you ever going to answer anyone else's questions?
Yes! There I answered that one! :o

Why should we take you seriously if you fail to communicate in good faith? I find that to be very disrespectful.
You really need to get a sense of humor. Things don't always have to be so heavy. ;) Anyhow, if you ask a question I might answer it, but I'm not going to answer questions like, "Why do you care?"
Well, that question attempts to allow the rest of us to understand your angst. It's as on-topic as the rest of this blah.

 

Anyway, you've failed to answer many other questions than just that one.

 

Perhaps, you will help me with these:

 

I don't multi-log caches. Why should I be concerned if someone else does? How does the practice affect me? You see, unless there is some harm in multilogging caches, I simply can't support doing away with the practice programmatically. (That's the topic of this thread, in case anyone has forgotten.)

There was no harm in Pocket caches either by your definition but those were terminated by TPTB. So there are other factors that TPTB consider when programming things out. So it's really up to TPTB. Isn't it? :D

You realize that TPTB are already on record regarding this issue, right? (Pssst. They didn't come down on your side of the issue.)
That comment was really obnoxious. They didn't do anything about Pocket caches at first either. My point was that's it's up to them to decide when things are going differently than they intended. Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps, you will help me with these:

 

I don't multi-log caches. Why should I be concerned if someone else does? How does the practice affect me? You see, unless there is some harm in multilogging caches, I simply can't support doing away with the practice programmatically. (That's the topic of this thread, in case anyone has forgotten.)

There was no harm in Pocket caches either by your definition but those were terminated by TPTB. So there are other factors that TPTB consider when programming things out. So it's really up to TPTB. Isn't it? :o
You realize that TPTB are already on record regarding this issue, right? (Pssst. They didn't come down on your side of the issue.)
That comment was really obnoxious. They didn't do anything about Pocket caches at first either. My point was that's it's up to them to decide when things are going differently than they intended.
I don't know why I respond to your posts when you can't answer a few simple questions, but here's a post for you to read. In it, Jeremy discusses when multilogging will be considered abusive; basically if the cache is changed to alter the history of those who came before. He also explains that whether a cache is multiloggable is completely up to the cache owner and that future functionality will make this clearer and allow cache owners who do not want to allow multilogging to set the cache page to forbid it. A nice solution, if you ask me.
It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

 

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
Here's one where Jeremy discusses when multilogging will be considered abusive; basically if the cache is changed to alter the history of those who came before. He also explains that whether a cache is multiloggable is completely up to the cache owner and that future functionality will make this clearer and allow cache owners who do not want to allow multilogging to set the cache page to forbid it. A nice solution, if you ask me.
It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

 

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

He mentioned the 'occassional double log.' I'm not sure his quote applies here because that solution won't change anything we have been discussing. It would help stop accidental logging of a cache twice so it is a nice solution for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Here's one where Jeremy discusses when multilogging will be considered abusive; basically if the cache is changed to alter the history of those who came before. He also explains that whether a cache is multiloggable is completely up to the cache owner and that future functionality will make this clearer and allow cache owners who do not want to allow multilogging to set the cache page to forbid it. A nice solution, if you ask me.
It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

 

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

He mentioned the 'occassional double log.' I'm not sure his quote applies here because that solution won't change anything we have been discussing. It would help stop accidental logging of a cache twice so it is a nice solution for that.

Take another read of his post. His solution, to have the cache owner check whether he/she wants to allow double logs, speaks to the very topic of this thread.

 

The OP requested that programming changes be made which forbids double logging. Jeremy's solution would allow a cache owner to specifically enable or disable his/her cache from accepting multilogs. This would help cache owners who do not want double logs to not have to worry about scouring them out. It also supports his position that this is an issue that is within the control of the cache owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Here's one where Jeremy discusses when multilogging will be considered abusive; basically if the cache is changed to alter the history of those who came before. He also explains that whether a cache is multiloggable is completely up to the cache owner and that future functionality will make this clearer and allow cache owners who do not want to allow multilogging to set the cache page to forbid it. A nice solution, if you ask me.
It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

 

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

He mentioned the 'occassional double log.' I'm not sure his quote applies here because that solution won't change anything we have been discussing. It would help stop accidental logging of a cache twice so it is a nice solution for that.

Take another read of his post. His solution, to have the cache owner check whether he/she wants to allow double logs, speaks to the very topic of this thread.

 

The OP requested that programming changes be made which forbids double logging. Jeremy's solution would allow a cache owner to specifically enable or disable his/her cache from accepting multilogs. This would help cache owners who do not want double logs to not have to worry about scouring them out. It also supports his position that this is an issue that is within the control of the cache owner.

So do you consider logging 13 finds on a cache with one logbook "double logging?" How about 25 times? 50 times? Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

I just noticed that you can post multiple finds on the same cache, and that your find count goes up when you do! I had seen that a cacher logged three finds (actaully smiley face finds, not just notes) on a local cache. He is doing it every time he dropped a new TB into the cache. So I did a quick experiment, posting a second find on a local cache (my find note said "experimental find - will delete soon") , and my find count went up!

Can the site be reprogrammed so that when you post multiple finds on the same cache, for whatever reason, your find count stays the same?

yes it can be done but it is considered bad.

 

P.s I am logging this from my iPod

Share this post


Link to post
Here's one where Jeremy discusses when multilogging will be considered abusive; basically if the cache is changed to alter the history of those who came before. He also explains that whether a cache is multiloggable is completely up to the cache owner and that future functionality will make this clearer and allow cache owners who do not want to allow multilogging to set the cache page to forbid it. A nice solution, if you ask me.
It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

 

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

He mentioned the 'occassional double log.' I'm not sure his quote applies here because that solution won't change anything we have been discussing. It would help stop accidental logging of a cache twice so it is a nice solution for that.

Take another read of his post. His solution, to have the cache owner check whether he/she wants to allow double logs, speaks to the very topic of this thread.

 

The OP requested that programming changes be made which forbids double logging. Jeremy's solution would allow a cache owner to specifically enable or disable his/her cache from accepting multilogs. This would help cache owners who do not want double logs to not have to worry about scouring them out. It also supports his position that this is an issue that is within the control of the cache owner.

So do you consider logging 13 finds on a cache with one logbook "double logging?"
Given the thread in which he made that comment? I absolutely do. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
Here's one where Jeremy discusses when multilogging will be considered abusive; basically if the cache is changed to alter the history of those who came before. He also explains that whether a cache is multiloggable is completely up to the cache owner and that future functionality will make this clearer and allow cache owners who do not want to allow multilogging to set the cache page to forbid it. A nice solution, if you ask me.
It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

 

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

He mentioned the 'occassional double log.' I'm not sure his quote applies here because that solution won't change anything we have been discussing. It would help stop accidental logging of a cache twice so it is a nice solution for that.

Take another read of his post. His solution, to have the cache owner check whether he/she wants to allow double logs, speaks to the very topic of this thread.

 

The OP requested that programming changes be made which forbids double logging. Jeremy's solution would allow a cache owner to specifically enable or disable his/her cache from accepting multilogs. This would help cache owners who do not want double logs to not have to worry about scouring them out. It also supports his position that this is an issue that is within the control of the cache owner.

So do you consider logging 13 finds on a cache with one logbook "double logging?"
Given the thread in which he made that comment? I absolutely do.

 

This is ridiculous, now he is arguing about what the word "double" means.

 

This is a double: :D:o

 

Now where is that TV guide? ;)

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

What the...?

 

(Checks the TV guide)

 

Check out "Animal Planet" I hear they have that one show on with the rams on it. You know the one. These two rams are smashing there heads together.

Share this post


Link to post

Just a thought, maybe it's time for TPTB to come out and write a rule, yes I said rule about what is considered a "find". Since there's as half million players and everyone of those people could have a different people could have a different diffention of what a "find" is. Cause I just deleted someone's second find log on MY cache and now they are mad at me for doing so. It was clearly put to me that well so and so lets me do it on their caches so why can't I do it on yours. I don't feel I should have to EXPLAIN on my cache page that you can only log this as a find once and then from there on out you may log notes if you choose. Why do I have to change cause this is an up and coming fad.

 

So I probably just got put on someone's ignore list because I feel differently than someone else because of what I condsider a "find".

 

Just a thought, I would like to hear other thoughts on that. Thanks.

 

Also the cache that was brought up eariler, I would go and find it to quote it but I'm lazy, A twelve stage like that sound like it would make a great Wherigo cache. IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post

What the...?

 

(Checks the TV guide)

 

Check out "Animal Planet" I hear they have that one show on with the rams on it. You know the one. These two rams are smashing there heads together.

That's where I've seen this before.

 

The rams from 'Brother Bear'

 

[arguing with his echo]

Ram: Hey, shut up!

Echo: Hey, shut up!

Ram: No, you shut up!

Echo: No, you shut up!

[later]

Ram: [tired] No... YOU shut up!

Echo: No... YOU shut up!

:D:D;)

Share this post


Link to post

Just a thought, maybe it's time for TPTB to come out and write a rule, yes I said rule about what is considered a "find". Since there's as half million players and everyone of those people could have a different people could have a different diffention of what a "find" is. Cause I just deleted someone's second find log on MY cache and now they are mad at me for doing so. It was clearly put to me that well so and so lets me do it on their caches so why can't I do it on yours. I don't feel I should have to EXPLAIN on my cache page that you can only log this as a find once and then from there on out you may log notes if you choose. Why do I have to change cause this is an up and coming fad.

 

So I probably just got put on someone's ignore list because I feel differently than someone else because of what I condsider a "find".

 

Just a thought, I would like to hear other thoughts on that. Thanks.

 

Also the cache that was brought up eariler, I would go and find it to quote it but I'm lazy, A twelve stage like that sound like it would make a great Wherigo cache. IMHO.

I disagree. We don't need more rules and restrictions. If you didn't want to allow a second find then you did the right thing. That's what the delete button is for. If someone else wants to allow multiple finds then they should be allowed to do so.

 

If we had a new rule created for every situation where someone gets upset at the way someone else is playing, we'd soon have so many rules there would be no variety in the game.

Share this post


Link to post

The following is a quote from myself in another similar thread:

 

Not to argue the side points of "cheating at solitaire," (my standards are straight and clear) but I understand the problem that some may have. For ex. I have a cache that will allow up to four extra "found-it" logs, provided adequate pictures are taken at the cache site (if a cacher wishes to do so).

 

What about the possibility of a box on the cache submission page giving the cache owner the abilitiy to either allow or disallow extra "found-it" logs...

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a thought... half the argument on this topic is always "it's up to the cache owner to decide"...

 

Well, how about when you publish the cache you have the option (as the cache owner) to lock out multiple logs. You check the "one log only" checkbox and voila... no multiple logs!

 

It's your cache, right?

 

DCC

Share this post


Link to post
... What about the possibility of a box on the cache submission page giving the cache owner the abilitiy to either allow or disallow extra "found-it" logs...
... Well, how about when you publish the cache you have the option (as the cache owner) to lock out multiple logs. You check the "one log only" checkbox and voila... no multiple logs!
They're workin' on it.
... I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Here's one where Jeremy discusses when multilogging will be considered abusive; basically if the cache is changed to alter the history of those who came before. He also explains that whether a cache is multiloggable is completely up to the cache owner and that future functionality will make this clearer and allow cache owners who do not want to allow multilogging to set the cache page to forbid it. A nice solution, if you ask me.
It only really hurts the accuracy of the geocaching.com experience as it is logged online. Abuse of the site is seriously frowned upon when it comes to taking over existing caches and converting them into places where you can make it something else since it ruins the historical accuracy of finds for that cache. But if the occasional double log is in there I don't see any real harm.

 

I'm generally a libertarian (small L) when it comes to things that don't hurt anyone else, but the changing of caches to suit other functions does create collateral damage - and that we should avoid.

 

Because there are far more good reasons why multiple logs are allowed for each cache than good reasons to restrict it, it remains as it is. And it is ultimately up to the cache owner that manages the listing to enforce it.

 

I will say, however, that I filed a feature a request to allow the cache owner to decide whether to allow or deny more than one log for their listing. It will default to allowing it but let them uncheck that option from the page if they so desire. This is, however, a low priority feature that will be implemented when there are no pressing matters.

He mentioned the 'occassional double log.' I'm not sure his quote applies here because that solution won't change anything we have been discussing. It would help stop accidental logging of a cache twice so it is a nice solution for that.
Take another read of his post. His solution, to have the cache owner check whether he/she wants to allow double logs, speaks to the very topic of this thread.

 

The OP requested that programming changes be made which forbids double logging. Jeremy's solution would allow a cache owner to specifically enable or disable his/her cache from accepting multilogs. This would help cache owners who do not want double logs to not have to worry about scouring them out. It also supports his position that this is an issue that is within the control of the cache owner.

So do you consider logging 13 finds on a cache with one logbook "double logging?"
Given the thread in which he made that comment? I absolutely do.
This is ridiculous, now he is arguing about what the word "double" means.

 

This is a double: :D;) ...

Now your being ruder than normal. You asked me my opinion about a post made in another thread and I gave you an answer based on that thread. Had you read the referenced thread, you would have noted that it was regarding multilogs. In the thread, temporary event caches were discussed, including one such event that included 100 temporary caches. Based on the issues discussed in that thread, I think it is clear that Jeremy was defining 'double logging' as entering more than one 'find' log. Of course, I suspect that you understand all this and were just being argumentative.

 

BTW, the thread is worth a read. In that one, I disagreed with both Miragee and Mushtang. In this thread, I agreed with both of them. Interestingly, we have each been completely consistent in our positions.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a thought... half the argument on this topic is always "it's up to the cache owner to decide"...

 

Well, how about when you publish the cache you have the option (as the cache owner) to lock out multiple logs. You check the "one log only" checkbox and voila... no multiple logs!

 

It's your cache, right?

 

DCC

 

I think that's a heck of an idea. The by checking that box I don't have to worry about it at all. (Where's the smiley with clapping hands of appluse when you need one?) I really like that idea though.

Share this post


Link to post

I donno, giving owners the option on their caches to allow or disallow multiple logging formalizes the position that it's okay to allow it.

 

Do you really think gc.com is going to do that? If they are going to give it the stamp of approval they wouldn't need to do it by updating the code.

Edited by BlueDeuce

Share this post


Link to post
I donno, giving owners the option on their caches to allow or disallow multiple logging formalizes the position that it's okay to allow it.

 

Do you really think gc.com is going to do that? If they are going to give it the stamp of approval they wouldn't need to do it by updating the code.

 

That's a good point BD. The TPTB have made it clear that they think multiple logging is silly but they have bigger fish to fry. If anything they may opt to allow one find log the same way they made Waymarking as Toz previously stated. What's funny about this whole debate is nobody's ever answered what's the big deal with logging each cache once? Why would it be a such a burden? I've yet to hear any fun creative cache idea that needs multiple logging.

Share this post


Link to post

My cache: GC13TWP was created to give those who care more about a number a chance to earn them....and give the rest of us a chuckle at the same time!

Share this post


Link to post
My cache: GC13TWP was created to give those who care more about a number a chance to earn them....and give the rest of us a chuckle at the same time!
We "had" a multi out here that made you shoot three different photos of yourself in compromising positions. It was a great cache! :D I honestly don't think it would have been any better if she had let people log extra smileys. Your cache wouldn't suffer one bit if you only got to log one smiley. At least your cache lets everyone laugh at people that admit that care more about the numbers. By the way, I would log the cache and do the chicken dance for one smiley! :D We all did it at my wedding too! :D I can now say that I've now heard of one fun creative idea. Are there two? :D Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

I donno, giving owners the option on their caches to allow or disallow multiple logging formalizes the position that it's okay to allow it.

 

Do you really think gc.com is going to do that? If they are going to give it the stamp of approval they wouldn't need to do it by updating the code.

 

Another very good point on the subject BD. I just wish a find could be defined and everyone adbide by that. So everyone is on the same page when it comes to logging on the site. Find cache, sign log book, log find on site. Find it a second time, post a note that you visited the cache again. To me that's my ideas on a "find". IMHO

Share this post


Link to post

I donno, giving owners the option on their caches to allow or disallow multiple logging formalizes the position that it's okay to allow it.

 

Do you really think gc.com is going to do that? If they are going to give it the stamp of approval they wouldn't need to do it by updating the code.

 

Another very good point on the subject BD. I just wish a find could be defined and everyone adbide by that. So everyone is on the same page when it comes to logging on the site.

Why? What is it that makes it necessary for everyone to play the same way?

 

There are some aspects of the game that I would agree with it being necessary for everyone to do the same, like putting the log book back in the cache after you sign it, or making sure you re-hide the cache. But the wish to force everyone to only log one find per cache, when so many people enjoy logging multiple times for many reasons, and the multiple logs aren't causing any harm to the way anyone else plays, then why force a change?

 

Find cache, sign log book, log find on site. Find it a second time, post a note that you visited the cache again. To me that's my ideas on a "find". IMHO
It's a good opinion. And it's a good way for you to play. Not everyone plays that way, so would you be okay if someone were advocating for a code change that required a photo be attached to every find? I would hate that, since I don't take pictures while caching most of the time. A lot of people attach pictures, and that's what they think makes for a good Find.

 

I just don't see the need for a code change to the site on the multi-logging issue since it's never been shown that logging multiple times - especially when the cache owner doesn't care - has a negative effect on anyone that doesn't want to multi-log.

Share this post


Link to post
... What's funny about this whole debate is nobody's ever answered what's the big deal with logging each cache once? Why would it be a such a burden?
What's really funny about this whole debate is that you have been avoiding answering the corresponding questions:
As a cacher who doesn't mulitlog, how am I negatively affected by those who do? Why should this issue be important to me?
I've yet to hear any fun creative cache idea that needs multiple logging.
My wife has yet to hear any fun creative cache idea that needs implementation, at all. Strangely, lots of us still go geocaching and fully believe that we are having fun. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
... What's funny about this whole debate is nobody's ever answered what's the big deal with logging each cache once? Why would it be a such a burden?
What's really funny about this whole debate is that you have been avoiding answering the corresponding questions:
As a cacher who doesn't mulitlog, how am I negatively affected by those who do? Why should this issue be important to me?
It's an assocation issue. When outsiders talk about geocaching they'll start saying, "isn't it that game where everyone gets to find the same cache many times so they can brag about how many smileys they have?" People are saying that about cachers in Wisconsin even though it's not true of many cachers up there. Does it "harm" those other cachers? Is being mislabeled and embarrassed considered "harm?" I think harm is a too strong word but you could certainly argue that it is annoying to them. One solution would be to make totally separate caching geocaching divisions like "numbers mania" or "traditional caching" then then you could associate yourself with the geocaching division that truly refects the way you play the game and you could completely divorce yourself from the other group.

Share this post


Link to post
... What's funny about this whole debate is nobody's ever answered what's the big deal with logging each cache once? Why would it be a such a burden?
What's really funny about this whole debate is that you have been avoiding answering the corresponding questions:
As a cacher who doesn't mulitlog, how am I negatively affected by those who do? Why should this issue be important to me?
It's an assocation issue. When outsiders talk about geocaching they'll start saying, "isn't it that game where everyone gets to find the same cache many times so they can brag about how many smileys they have?" ...
I've been playing this silly little game for seven years, now. During that time, there has always been caches that allowed multilogging, yet I have never had a conversation like your hypothetical one. If I had, I would have been sure to explain that, while some caches do allow for mulitple logs, most do not.

 

Therefore, based on your reply, I must conclude that I am not negatively affected by multilogging and I cannot see a reason to change the system to forbid cache owners from allowing multilogging on their caches.

 

I'm thinking that if a person was concerned that others might believe that his hobby was silly, then geocaching might not be for him. Half of the people that we explain the game to look at us like we're 'touched'.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

I'm thinking that if a person was concerned that others might believe that his hobby was silly, then geocaching might not be for him. Half of the people that we explain the game to look at us like we're 'touched'.

Good point. I'd wager that more people would think it makes sense to get credit for finding the answer to a virtual cache verification question on the Internet than would think it makes sense to visit a historic location and then have to answer a question whose answer could be found with a Google search in order to log that you "found it". It's a pretty silly game we play and it would be even sillier if people thought that the reason we did it was to get a higher find count than everybody else.

Share this post


Link to post
I must conclude that I am not negatively affected by multilogging and I cannot see a reason to change the system to forbid cache owners from allowing multilogging on their caches.
Why did they not allow multi-logging for Waymarking? Did they call you and ask if that affected you? :D

Share this post


Link to post
It's a pretty silly game we play and it would be even sillier if people thought that the reason we did it was to get a higher find count than everybody else.
That is the reason many play. Why else would they need more than one smiley on a cache? Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
I must conclude that I am not negatively affected by multilogging and I cannot see a reason to change the system to forbid cache owners from allowing multilogging on their caches.
Why did they not allow multi-logging for Waymarking? Did they call you and ask if that affected you? :D

I don't know. You should pop over to the Waymarking forums and ask them.

 

Of course, this is geocaching and Waymarking is a totally different game. Therefore, I'm not sure the answer would make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
It's a pretty silly game we play and it would be even sillier if people thought that the reason we did it was to get a higher find count than everybody else.
That is the reason many play. Why else would they need more than one smiley on a cache?
Objection. Facts not in evidence. :D (Also, your logic doesn't follow.) Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
I must conclude that I am not negatively affected by multilogging and I cannot see a reason to change the system to forbid cache owners from allowing multilogging on their caches.
Why did they not allow multi-logging for Waymarking? Did they call you and ask if that affected you? ;)
In my initial reply to this post, I discounted the bold sentence thinking that it was just one of your tyipical snarky throwout lines. While I still believe it to be unduly snide, I must accept that you might have been trying to make a point with it.

 

It's true that TPTB do not consult me before making business decisions. However, the point of this thread is that an activity that is allowed by TPTB and actively enjoyed by many should be declared verboten and programmatically disallowed. For this type of severe action to be taken, I think that it is appropriate to look at the affects of the actions in question to see if forbidding them is necessary. In my opinion, to make the case that an enjoyed activity should be taken away, it should be shown that that activity is causing harm. Coincidently, that is also the standard that Jeremy has stated that he uses. Since you have not shown that this multilogging is causing any actual harm, I don't see how it can be argued that the site should forbid the practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...