Multiple finds on same cache

[+tozainamboku]

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?

Of course many use their find count as part of the reason they play. They may be setting personal goals of how many cache they can find in a certain time or have friendly competition with friends as to who has more. Some may even enjoy looking at where they stand on one of the leader boards. Of course if they do, they must realize that not everyone may count the same things as finds. Some people don't log a single attended at events because an event is not finding a cache. Some people will log a find when they didn't sign the log because they feel they have good excuse for not signing or because the cache owner told them it was OK to sign anyhow. Some people don't log every cache they find online. Some wish that the find count was an accurate count of the number of caches a person has found. Others view found it logs and smileys as a way to keep track of their geocaching experiences. If they see that a cache owner is offering a bonus experience they may accept that offer and record that experience. Some may feel that doing the Chicken Dance is not a geocaching activity while others will feel that it adds to the fun, at least by making the logs for this cache fun to watch. It is up to each cacher and the cache owner to determine if the bonus found it log is legitimate.

 

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?

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.

I asked but the forums over there don't get many responses.

[+sbell111]

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?

Of course many use their find count as part of the reason they play. They may be setting personal goals of how many cache they can find in a certain time or have friendly competition with friends as to who has more. Some may even enjoy looking at where they stand on one of the leader boards. Of course if they do, they must realize that not everyone may count the same things as finds. Some people don't log a single attended at events because an event is not finding a cache. Some people will log a find when they didn't sign the log because they feel they have good excuse for not signing or because the cache owner told them it was OK to sign anyhow. Some people don't log every cache they find online. Some wish that the find count was an accurate count of the number of caches a person has found. Others view found it logs and smileys as a way to keep track of their geocaching experiences. If they see that a cache owner is offering a bonus experience they may accept that offer and record that experience. Some may feel that doing the Chicken Dance is not a geocaching activity while others will feel that it adds to the fun, at least by making the logs for this cache fun to watch. It is up to each cacher and the cache owner to determine if the bonus found it log is legitimate.

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?

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.

I asked but the forums over there don't get many responses.

I'm going with 'Error that hasn't been fixed yet'. Edited May 8, 2008 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

One thing for sure is that some geocachers struggle with the English language. How to you "find" a cache more than once? How to you "attend" one event more than once? How does the word "double" mean more than two? It seems like if everyone followed the intended meaning of these words, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[+sbell111]

One thing for sure is that some geocachers struggle with the English language. How to you "find" a cache more than once? How to you "attend" one event more than once? How does the word "double" mean more than two? It seems like if everyone followed the intended meaning of these words, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That is kind of a fall back position for people who are disatisfied with the fact that some people do things differently than they do. It doesn't really make your case that these activities should be banned, however.

[Mushtang]

One thing for sure is that some geocachers struggle with the English language. How to you "find" a cache more than once? How to you "attend" one event more than once? How does the word "double" mean more than two? It seems like if everyone followed the intended meaning of these words, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That is kind of a fall back position for people who are disatisfied with the fact that some people do things differently than they do. It doesn't really make your case that these activities should be banned, however.

It's also a cop out. There's nothing that says the terms used in this game have to be taken literally in order to play it. Would a "micro" cache literally need to be as small as a micrometer? Would a team that is caching together only allow one "find" for the person that actually found it - afterall, how do you "find" a cache that someone else has already found and handed to you? It seems like if everyone followed the intended reason for playing the game, to have fun, and avoid keeping someone else from having their fun, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[+TrailGators]

Would a "micro" cache literally need to be as small as a micrometer?

Let's use the English language and see what "micro" really means...

[+sbell111]

Sometimes, when people aren't able to support their positions, they get all sarcastic or pick at tiny, inconsequential things rather than either admit that their positions are illogical or bow out of the discussion.

Edited May 8, 2008 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

I just rebutted a false statement. I was pointing out that there are words on this site that clearly communicate the intentions of the people that used those words, but you guys want to ignore those words and rationalize everything...

 

"What we have here is a failure to communicate" - Famous quote from Cool Hand Luke

Edited May 8, 2008 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

I just rebutted a false statement. I was pointing out that there are words on this site that clearly communicate the intentions of the people that used those words, but you guys want to ignore those words and rationalize everything...

 

"What we have here is a failure to communicate" - Famous quote from Cool Hand Luke

Your 'rebuttal' did nothing to refute Mushtang's point, nor did it do anything to make your argument that these caches should be banned.

[+TrailGators]

I just rebutted a false statement. I was pointing out that there are words on this site that clearly communicate the intentions of the people that used those words, but you guys want to ignore those words and rationalize everything...

 

"What we have here is a failure to communicate" - Famous quote from Cool Hand Luke

Your 'rebuttal' did nothing to refute Mushtang's point, nor did it do anything to make your argument that these caches should be banned.

Reread my first post. You guys can't follow simple words. Either you get it or you don't.

 

When did I say they should be banned? Are you making things up again?

[+sbell111]

I just rebutted a false statement. I was pointing out that there are words on this site that clearly communicate the intentions of the people that used those words, but you guys want to ignore those words and rationalize everything...

 

"What we have here is a failure to communicate" - Famous quote from Cool Hand Luke

Your 'rebuttal' did nothing to refute Mushtang's point, nor did it do anything to make your argument that these caches should be banned.

Reread my first post. You guys can't follow simple words. Either you get it or you don't.

 

When did I say they should be banned? Are you making things up again.

Wow. I'm blown away at how rude you are being. Still, I'll play your game.

 

First, let's remember that the 'first post' in the thread , and the thread title, "Multiple finds on same cache, Can this be programmed out?", is clearly asking for cache owners to not be able allow multilogs on their caches. This would be a ban on those caches.

 

Now that we've defined the topic of the thread, here's your 'first post' to it. You will note that the post is clearly supporting the OP's position:

Innovative use of the found it might make the game more enjoyable to some people. Others who don't need to have an innovated use of the found it log are never forced to log a find more often than once per cache.

So if multi-logging caches cause discontent in an area then that's OK? I think there are infinite ways to be innovative without resorting to multi-logging a cache. To me that isn't innovative at all. I still think it is bribery to get people to find your cache or come to your event. Why else would someone add extra smileys to there cache/event? If they didn't do it what would be the effect? Is the cache or event less enjoyable?

So there you have it. I've reread your 'first post'. As it turns out, I can follow simple words. While I certainly believe that I 'get it', I must admit that I don't 'get' while you are so intense about this issue. Edited May 9, 2008 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

I'm done talking with you. You twist everything I say to mean something completely different than I intended. It's the same thing you do with simple words like "find," "double" and "attend." Nothing means anything when you twist the meanings all around and communication is completely lost. So there is no point in communicating with you.

Edited May 9, 2008 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

I'm done talking with you. You twist everything I say to mean something completely different than I intended. It's the same thing you do with simple words like "find," "double" and "attend."

Twist??? You pointed me at your 'first post' and I quoted it in it's entirety. I neither sliced it, diced it, nor tried to 'define' it. If it now says something different than you intended, perhaps you could let us know what your real position is.

[+BlueDeuce]

Completely a PM issue.

[+sbell111]

... Nothing means anything when you twist all the meanings all around and communication is completely lost.

It should be noted that you have been the one trying to define everything. The rest of us have simply been discussing whether or not the site should allow multilogs.

[+TrailGators]

Completely a PM issue.

 

I agree.

 

Just to close this. I first posted this comment:

 

One thing for sure is that some geocachers struggle with the English language. How to you "find" a cache more than once? How to you "attend" one event more than once? How does the word "double" mean more than two? It seems like if everyone followed the intended meaning of these words, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

Then it got all twisted around. We can't even agree on the meanings of the simplest words in the English language. I'm honestly not sure how you can have a discussion with anybody when the simple words you are using don't mean the same thing. Do we really need to pull out the dictionary to see what the word "double" means?

[+sbell111]

Completely a PM issue.

I agree.

 

Just to close this. I first posted this comment:

One thing for sure is that some geocachers struggle with the English language. How to you "find" a cache more than once? How to you "attend" one event more than once? How does the word "double" mean more than two? It seems like if everyone followed the intended meaning of these words, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Then it got all twisted around. We can't even agree on the meanings of the simplest words in the English language. I'm honestly not sure how you can have a discussion with anybody when the simple words you are using don't mean the same thing. Do we really need to pull out the dictionary to see what the word "double" means?

Ask Jeremy. It was his post. Edited May 9, 2008 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

That's the point. I don't have to ask because we both know what "double" means.

[+sbell111]

That's the point. I don't have to ask because we both know what "double" means.

If that helps you sleep at night...

[+BlueDeuce]

That's it. I'm calling mom.

 

[+Miragee]

@ BlueDeuce

 

Your sig line seems particularly apt for some of the "discussion" in this thread.

[+BlueDeuce]

@ BlueDeuce

 

Your sig line seems particularly apt for some of the "discussion" in this thread.

 

I took that one out about five months ago.

 

Just yesterday a completely non-geocaching related conversation with a fellow cacher prompted me to put it back in. Tried and true I guess.

[+TrailGators]

That's it. I'm calling mom.

 

Nooo! Don't get Mom! Say do you want to play Hide n' Seek? I'll even let you open and shut the closet door five times so you can find me five times instead of once!

[Mushtang]

That's it. I'm calling mom.

 

Nooo! Don't get Mom! Say do you want to play Hide n' Seek? I'll even let you open and shut the closet door five times so you can find me five times instead of once!

TG, come out of the closet.

 

We're here trying to discuss multilogging, not hide and seek.

[+TrailGators]

That's it. I'm calling mom.

 

Nooo! Don't get Mom! Say do you want to play Hide n' Seek? I'll even let you open and shut the closet door five times so you can find me five times instead of once!

TG, come out of the closet.

 

We're here trying to discuss multilogging, not hide and seek.

Hardy Har Har. Nowadays even the word "closet" means something else.... Edited May 9, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Parabola]

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.

 

Some very good questions. It wouldn't bother me if a picture was required to log a find but that's me but I do see your point. But here's my argument. You have three cachers. And I'll even use my cache as the example. I don't want a second "find" log. I delete them as I see them. I've e-mailed the logger and told them to post a note. Well I get a e-mail back saying well cacher number 3 lets me log their finds if I go and do there caches again so why can I on yours. So I told them well cacher 3 may let you do that but on my cache I don't allow it. So I'm the jerk that doesn't allow a second or third "find" log. So it puts me in a position I don't want to be in which could very well be the responalblity of being a cache owner. Should I have to put on every one of my cache pages this may only be logged as a find once. I don't think I should have to because this is how the game was taught to me. You go and find a cache and you sign the log book and move on. Log your "find" on line as a thanks to the owner for placing and mantaining the cache and for bring me to this area or giving me a challange. If I redo the cache another time for whatever reason I just post a note that I was there. But your right this is how I play.

 

I just don't want to be the "jerk" because I won't allow a second or third "find" log. Again I just wish there was a way get everyone on the same page. To me the logical step to that would be to limit via programming to one "find" log per cache.

 

Also I can see this coming around and a person not want to put out a cache or archive one because of this.

 

Also thanks for keeping this conversation civil.

[+Lucy & Roo]

I have multiple finds on a cache. It was a puzzle/multi. GZ was muggled, and a new GZ was established several miles away at a totally different location - but the puzzle/stages stayed the same, just the maths used to calculate GZ were different. Different GZ = another find in my book (and owner agreed!)

[+TrailGators]

I have multiple finds on a cache. It was a puzzle/multi. GZ was muggled, and a new GZ was established several miles away at a totally different location - but the puzzle/stages stayed the same, just the maths used to calculate GZ were different. Different GZ = another find in my book (and owner agreed!)

They should have made a new cache if they moved it that far...

[+tozainamboku]

I have multiple finds on a cache. It was a puzzle/multi. GZ was muggled, and a new GZ was established several miles away at a totally different location - but the puzzle/stages stayed the same, just the maths used to calculate GZ were different. Different GZ = another find in my book (and owner agreed!)

They should have made a new cache if they moved it that far...

They should've. But some cache owners didn't get the memo. The limit on how far you can correct coordinates catches a lot of these. But this was a puzzle and it was easy to change the final by simply changing the calculation of the final. So the cache owner invited people who found the original cache to find the new final.

 

I just don't see any reason for 1 find per GC#. Its an artificial rule. Sometimes it may make sense to allow multiple logs. The general consensus is you can find a grandfathered moving cache multiple times, so long as someone else moved it in between. There may be a few other special cases. For example a puzzle that has multiple solutions with a cache hidden in each location. Many people feel you need to find an approved GC cache before you use a "found it" log. So the idea of "bonus smileys" for doing the chicken dance or a yoga pose or finding an unapproved temporary cache at an event bothers some people. The current system works well because these people are never forced to log an extra smiley they don't think they deserve. If they worry about the perception some may have that it is silly to log extra smileys they can always point to the Truth In Numbers section of their profile page to show that they have never done this.

[+TrailGators]

I have multiple finds on a cache. It was a puzzle/multi. GZ was muggled, and a new GZ was established several miles away at a totally different location - but the puzzle/stages stayed the same, just the maths used to calculate GZ were different. Different GZ = another find in my book (and owner agreed!)

They should have made a new cache if they moved it that far...

They should've. But some cache owners didn't get the memo. The limit on how far you can correct coordinates catches a lot of these. But this was a puzzle and it was easy to change the final by simply changing the calculation of the final. So the cache owner invited people who found the original cache to find the new final.

 

I just don't see any reason for 1 find per GC#. Its an artificial rule. Sometimes it may make sense to allow multiple logs. The general consensus is you can find a grandfathered moving cache multiple times, so long as someone else moved it in between. There may be a few other special cases. For example a puzzle that has multiple solutions with a cache hidden in each location. Many people feel you need to find an approved GC cache before you use a "found it" log. So the idea of "bonus smileys" for doing the chicken dance or a yoga pose or finding an unapproved temporary cache at an event bothers some people. The current system works well because these people are never forced to log an extra smiley they don't think they deserve. If they worry about the perception some may have that it is silly to log extra smileys they can always point to the Truth In Numbers section of their profile page to show that they have never done this.

The only reason I pointed that out is because there was a logical way to handle that cache. It is being multi-logged only because the owner decided to alter the history of the cache and move it several miles. Moving caches are dinosaurs that will soon be extinct. The need for cache permanence killed them. The chicken dance was a funny example of letting people earn extra smileys but that cache would be just as fun without the extra smileys. So I've still l yet to hear a reason for a strong need for extra smileys. Edited May 9, 2008 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

I've still not heard a reason as to why I should care that someone else logged extra smileys.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I've still not heard a reason as to why I should care that someone else logged extra smileys.

 

If you log extra smileys then you:

 

1) Hate the chilndren

2) Hate the country

3) Hate the military

 

and most importantly

 

4) Hate apple pie

 

What more reason do you need?

[+TrailGators]

I've still not heard a reason as to why I should care that someone else logged extra smileys.

Caring or not is irrelevant. What is a good reason? I just don't see the fun factor meter moving one bit with or without them. Many of them are there as a bandaid for some other issue.

[+XopherN71]

My day isn't going to change one way or the other regardless if someone logs it once or 50 times. If my life ever becomes that dependent on monitoring caches it's time for me to sit down and have a one on one with the head shrinker.

[+TrailGators]

My day isn't going to change one way or the other regardless if someone logs it once or 50 times. If my life ever becomes that dependent on monitoring caches it's time for me to sit down and have a one on one with the head shrinker.

My day isn't either. It's just interesting to look at human behavior when it comes to this game.

[+ReadyOrNot]

My day isn't going to change one way or the other regardless if someone logs it once or 50 times. If my life ever becomes that dependent on monitoring caches it's time for me to sit down and have a one on one with the head shrinker.

My day isn't either. It's just interesting to look at human behavior when it comes to this game.

 

I've found that people generally do things when there is some kind of benefit to them (perceived or real). The benefit of logging multiple smileys is obvious... Higher find count. Some might do it to "Be cool" and look like a better cacher than they are when they go to events.

 

I've never met a cacher who does it. I find it fascinating that anyone would do it. The problem with these threads is that those who make the argument "Play how you want" appear to be justifying the behavior (which I don't think they mean to do).

 

I think everyone generally agrees its a waste of time and does not benefit geocaching and it should not be done. Where we differ is what should be done about it. I think TPTB should limit finds to 1 per cache. Others feel that everyone has their own sandbox and what happens in one sandbox does not affect another, which has been shown time and time again to be false.

[+sbell111]

My day isn't going to change one way or the other regardless if someone logs it once or 50 times. If my life ever becomes that dependent on monitoring caches it's time for me to sit down and have a one on one with the head shrinker.

My day isn't either. It's just interesting to look at human behavior when it comes to this game.

If you aren't affected by the activity, why do you want it to stop?

Edited May 9, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

My day isn't going to change one way or the other regardless if someone logs it once or 50 times. If my life ever becomes that dependent on monitoring caches it's time for me to sit down and have a one on one with the head shrinker.

My day isn't either. It's just interesting to look at human behavior when it comes to this game.

I've found that people generally do things when there is some kind of benefit to them (perceived or real). The benefit of logging multiple smileys is obvious... Higher find count. Some might do it to "Be cool" and look like a better cacher than they are when they go to events. ...

I don't know about that.

 

Let's look at the hypothetical 'dance a jig, get a smiley' cache. I see that as more of a friendly dare. If you completely the dare, you've earned the smiley. The dare was the fun, the smiley is recordkeeping and bragging rights.

 

Either way, it's not important why logging extra smileys makes people happy to note that it does. Given that it does and that it doesn't harm anyone else, it shouldn't be taken away without a reason.

[+TrailGators]

If you aren't affected by the activity, why do you want it to stop?

Again you are making things up that I never said. Please knock it off.

[+TrailGators]

Either way, it's not important why logging extra smileys makes people happy to note that it does.

It's not important but you are doing your best to dodge the possible reasons. I wonder why? Is the light too bright for you?

[+tozainamboku]

Either way, it's not important why logging extra smileys makes people happy to note that it does. Given that it does and that it doesn't harm anyone else, it shouldn't be taken away without a reason.

It is important to the literalist/purist/puritans why people log extra smileys. They are convinced that find count should be an accurate count of the number of approved geocaches with unique GC numbers a person has found. When they look at the find count they want it to mean the same thing for everybody. Now is means one thing to the people who only log 1 find per GC# and another for people who sometimes log more than one find on a given cache. It means yet a third thing to the people who don't log every cache that they find online. If someone can provide a way to ensure that people log every cache they find online, I'd be more willing to accept a change to prevent multiple logging. Only then could we be sure that everyone's find count meant the same thing - the number of approved geocaches with unique GC numbers a person has found. Until then, a person's find count may mean something else.

[+sbell111]

My day isn't going to change one way or the other regardless if someone logs it once or 50 times. If my life ever becomes that dependent on monitoring caches it's time for me to sit down and have a one on one with the head shrinker.

My day isn't either. It's just interesting to look at human behavior when it comes to this game.

If you aren't affected by the activity, why do you want it to stop?

Again you are making things up that I never said. Please knock it off.

You just agreed that 'your day isn't going to change one way or the other regardless if someone logs it once or 50 times.'

 

Please explain how I made something up. When you cannot, how about an apology?

Let's look at the hypothetical 'dance a jig, get a smiley' cache. I see that as more of a friendly dare. If you completely the dare, you've earned the smiley. The dare was the fun, the smiley is recordkeeping and bragging rights.

 

Either way, it's not important why logging extra smileys makes people happy to note that it does.

It's not important but you are doing your best to dodge the possible reasons. I wonder why? Is the light too bright for you?

What are you talking about? In the very post you quoted, I gave a possible reason that people enjoy multilogging.

 

Conveniently, you left that part of my post out when you quoted me. Perhaps you are the one who is misrepresenting the postions of others.

[+TrailGators]

Either way, it's not important why logging extra smileys makes people happy to note that it does. Given that it does and that it doesn't harm anyone else, it shouldn't be taken away without a reason.

It is important to the literalist/purist/puritans why people log extra smileys. They are convinced that find count should be an accurate count of the number of approved geocaches with unique GC numbers a person has found. When they look at the find count they want it to mean the same thing for everybody. Now is means one thing to the people who only log 1 find per GC# and another for people who sometimes log more than one find on a given cache. It means yet a third thing to the people who don't log every cache that they find online. If someone can provide a way to ensure that people log every cache they find online, I'd be more willing to accept a change to prevent multiple logging. Only then could we be sure that everyone's find count meant the same thing - the number of approved geocaches with unique GC numbers a person has found. Until then, a person's find count may mean something else.

I guess I'm not a Puritan because I don't care about find counts. I'm in it for fun. So I'm always interesting in finding fun new cache ideas. So when I just see new variations, I'll stop to look at them to figure out what is fun about them. If sitting at your PC logging 12, 20 or whatever extra logs is the only difference between these caches and other caches then I'm not getting it. This is why I've been asking what else is fun about these. Am I missing something?

[+tozainamboku]

I guess I'm not a Puritan because I don't care about find counts. I'm in it for fun. So I'm always interesting in finding fun new cache ideas. So when I just see new variations, I'll stop to look at them to figure out what is fun about them. If sitting at your PC logging 12, 20 or whatever extra logs is the only difference between these caches and other caches then I'm not getting it. This is why I've been asking what else is fun about these. Am I missing something?

Why are you so bothered that someone else might enjoy the getting an extra smiley? Cache owners have discovered that some people will do things for a smiley. So they give out smileys for doing things. People have been conditioned to accept any kind of praise as a reward. A meaningless icon or number will get them to do stuff. You are so bothered by this fact that you say you will ignore any cache in your area that offers a bonus smiley. This makes no sense. It would make more sense to just do the cache and claim the single find. Maybe even post the pictures (whether of locations where there use to be a cache or of you doing the chicken dance). That's what I did on this cache. I think this makes more of a statement than ignoring the cache. I am using the found it log to keep track of my finds and if the cache owner asks me to do something extra that might be fun, I'll do it for fun and not for meaningless icons and numbers. Other people can do what ever they like to do. I don't need to analyze what motivates other people but I guess that if that's what you're interested in, you can keep asking.

[+TrailGators]

I guess I'm not a Puritan because I don't care about find counts. I'm in it for fun. So I'm always interesting in finding fun new cache ideas. So when I just see new variations, I'll stop to look at them to figure out what is fun about them. If sitting at your PC logging 12, 20 or whatever extra logs is the only difference between these caches and other caches then I'm not getting it. This is why I've been asking what else is fun about these. Am I missing something?

Why are you so bothered that someone else might enjoy the getting an extra smiley? Cache owners have discovered that some people will do things for a smiley. So they give out smileys for doing things. People have been conditioned to accept any kind of praise as a reward. A meaningless icon or number will get them to do stuff. You are so bothered by this fact that you say you will ignore any cache in your area that offers a bonus smiley. This makes no sense. It would make more sense to just do the cache and claim the single find. Maybe even post the pictures (whether of locations where there use to be a cache or of you doing the chicken dance). That's what I did on this cache. I think this makes more of a statement than ignoring the cache. I am using the found it log to keep track of my finds and if the cache owner asks me to do something extra that might be fun, I'll do it for fun and not for meaningless icons and numbers. Other people can do what ever they like to do. I don't need to analyze what motivates other people but I guess that if that's what you're interested in, you can keep asking.

I'm not so bothered. I'm just taking an objective look at things. I'm not sure why you guys have to keep having to say that I'm banning things or I'm bothered.

[+XopherN71]

I'm bothered that people are bothered, that's bothering me.

 

Whew, glad I got that out there... feels good to let it out.

Edited May 9, 2008 by XopherN71

[+TrailGators]

It would be nice if we could quit dwelling on whether or not people are bothered and just discuss the issue. If you don't want to talk about it then nobody is forcing you to talk about it.

Edited May 9, 2008 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

You are so bothered by this fact that you say you will ignore any cache in your area that offers a bonus smiley. This makes no sense. It would make more sense to just do the cache and claim the single find.

I don't condone the practice so I want any part of it. There are literally thousands of other caches out there so blowing one off is no big deal. The other reason that I'm blowing it off is because I think it would be depressing to go find spots where traditional caches used to be. It's like peeling a scab back on a wound that's not healed yet. I (and maybe others) can create waymarks for new beautiful spots in the desert to shed a new positive light on what can be done out there. Edited May 9, 2008 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

It would be nice if we could quit dwell ing on whether or not people are bothered and just discuss the issue. If you don't want to talk about it then nobody is forcing you to talk about it.

Ummm, the threads topic or 'issue' is whether TPTB should program out the ability to multilog. Therefore, determining whether those who don't multilog are affected by the practice is the very issue.

[+TrailGators]

It would be nice if we could quit dwelling on whether or not people are bothered and just discuss the issue. If you don't want to talk about it then nobody is forcing you to talk about it.

Ummm, the threads topic or 'issue' is whether TPTB should program out the ability to multilog. Therefore, determining whether those who don't multilog are affected by the practice is the very issue.

The flip side is how would people be effected "if" they couldn't do it. There are two sides to every coin.