Penny for your thoughts...

[+StarBrand]

I'm probably not going to do anything about this but I wanted to get others' thoughts....

 

I directly observed 5 out of town cachers visit 2 of my caches. I stayed back and just watched because it looked odd. Well there were 5 of them in the car anyway. One would hop out and walk over to the cache area. Look around for a bit - Open it up, fiddle with it - replace the lid and literally drop it and head back to the car and they would drive off. I figured it was just one cacher in the group or just one that needed that find. Nope - the next day I got 6 "find" logs on those 2 and a few other caches. Yup 6. Five guys in the car - only one got out but I got logs from 6 different accounts. I have no way of knowing which account actually belonged to the guy that was actually making the "find". The physical logbooks only had a sticker that said XXXXX crew. Sigh...........

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I'm probably not going to do anything about this but I wanted to get others' thoughts....

 

I directly observed 5 out of town cachers visit 2 of my caches. I stayed back and just watched because it looked odd. Well there were 5 of them in the car anyway. One would hop out and walk over to the cache area. Look around for a bit - Open it up, fiddle with it - replace the lid and literally drop it and head back to the car and they would drive off. I figured it was just one cacher in the group or just one that needed that find. Nope - the next day I got 6 "find" logs on those 2 and a few other caches. Yup 6. Five guys in the car - only one got out but I got logs from 6 different accounts. I have no way of knowing which account actually belonged to the guy that was actually making the "find". The physical logbooks only had a sticker that said XXXXX crew. Sigh...........

I would delete ALL the logs in a nanosecond, and I would post a log note on the cache listing page for each cache, explaining EXACTLY WHY I deleted the logs, and stating that I would not, under any circumstances, consider resinstating those logs (unless and until each cacher signs the lobgook individually. Period.

 

And, just because I am me, and because I am such a lovable soul, I would then go the extra mile, and I would contact one of those "psychic voodoo black magic witches" who advertise in the classified ads on Craigslist and in weekly tabloid newspapers that they will curse anyone (that is, put a hex on them) for a fee, and I would forthwith hire her/him to place a curse on each of those idiots. It would be worth the one or two hundred bucks, just to know that they were suffering or dying of some horrid pestilence!

Edited April 2, 2009 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+Castle Mischief]

Ask yourself this- if you hadn't actually seen them make the find would you have known about it?

 

Does your cache description state that you do not allow "team finds"?

 

I can see how that might bother you, but I can also see how others might not care one way or another. I really don't have a strong opinion on the practice, but I might whisper about you at an event if I knew you did it.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm probably not going to do anything about this but I wanted to get others' thoughts....

 

I directly observed 5 out of town cachers visit 2 of my caches. I stayed back and just watched because it looked odd. Well there were 5 of them in the car anyway. One would hop out and walk over to the cache area. Look around for a bit - Open it up, fiddle with it - replace the lid and literally drop it and head back to the car and they would drive off. I figured it was just one cacher in the group or just one that needed that find. Nope - the next day I got 6 "find" logs on those 2 and a few other caches. Yup 6. Five guys in the car - only one got out but I got logs from 6 different accounts. I have no way of knowing which account actually belonged to the guy that was actually making the "find". The physical logbooks only had a sticker that said XXXXX crew. Sigh...........

 

This wouldn't really bother me to much, and I'd let the logs stand. Then again, I just got RickRolled in front of the whole forum, what do I know?

[+StarBrand]

Ask yourself this- if you hadn't actually seen them make the find would you have known about it?

No but --- Point is - I do know. And that changes the situation.

Does your cache description state that you do not allow "team finds"?

No - because that would be stupid - I don't mind team logs in the physical logbook - but don't you think the "team" should actually be there - at least those that log it online under individual accounts?

 

Again - I'll probably just let it go so as to not create undo friction in the area but......... it does bug me.

[+Ambrosia]

How far from the car were the caches? Was it a couple feet, across a park, could the other cachers see the cacher who found the caches, etc.? Just curious.

[+Sioneva]

5 people, 6 logs... something's not adding up here... Must be the new math.

[+StarBrand]

How far from the car were the caches? Was it a couple feet, across a park, could the other cachers see the cacher who found the caches, etc.? Just curious.

One was about 150 feet the other about 200 feet from parking. Yes the finder could be seen from the car by the others. Both along a semi-rural road near a river.

[+sbell111]

I would roll my eyes and move on with my life, taking no other action regarding these logs.

[+BlueDeuce]

Did you notice if they had any snacks in the car?

[+StarBrand]

Did you notice if they had any snacks in the car?

Ahhhh - finally one good thought - might explain it....hmmmmmmmm

 

[+GroveBird]

First thing that pops into my head is that maaaaybe the other folks were handicapped and couldn't go to the cache....

But 6 logs for 5 people is shady. I might email them and ask what was up. But not delete the logs right away.

[+Castle Mischief]

Ask yourself this- if you hadn't actually seen them make the find would you have known about it?

No but --- Point is - I do know. And that changes the situation.

Does your cache description state that you do not allow "team finds"?

No - because that would be stupid - I don't mind team logs in the physical logbook - but don't you think the "team" should actually be there - at least those that log it online under individual accounts?

 

Again - I'll probably just let it go so as to not create undo friction in the area but......... it does bug me.

 

If I had caught them, it would bother me too. Probably best to let it go. Clearly they are in for the numbers and would probably defend those numbers to the death and stir up more drama that it's worth.

 

When they dropped the container, did they damage or otherwise mess up the placement? Now that I might take issue with.

[CoyoteRed]

I directly observed 5 out of town cachers visit 2 of my caches. I stayed back and just watched because it looked odd. Well there were 5 of them in the car anyway. One would hop out and walk over to the cache area. Look around for a bit - Open it up, fiddle with it - replace the lid and literally drop it and head back to the car and they would drive off. I figured it was just one cacher in the group or just one that needed that find. Nope - the next day I got 6 "find" logs on those 2 and a few other caches. Yup 6. Five guys in the car - only one got out but I got logs from 6 different accounts. I have no way of knowing which account actually belonged to the guy that was actually making the "find". The physical logbooks only had a sticker that said XXXXX crew. Sigh...........

5 guys in a car? I would have figured it to be a van or something. If there were 6 logs, maybe one was sleeping?

 

Anyway, about the team finds. I think it perfectly fine for a team signature and team logging online. I don't care for team signatures and individual logging. I've mentioned in our profile we don't allow that. It makes it more difficult to reconcile logbooks otherwise. The crew that made me come to this conclusion was the very same crew that completely ignored cache restrictions by going around a closed gate. Are the two actions related? I feel fairly certain it is.

 

The way I see it is folks are doing the very bare minimum their conscience allows in order to increment their find count. Most agree that signing the logbook is required in order to log online. Some feel putting any old mark is enough of a signature to qualify. This includes scrawling nothing more than "Team XYZ" or slapping on a sticker. The online logs never mention anything of the surrounding area or of the adventure seeking the cache. If the only reason they were there was to put their names, or "mark," in the logbook, then why bother? Oh, wait, I think I already answered that question.

[+StarBrand]

.... The online logs never mention anything of the surrounding area or of the adventure seeking the cache. If the only reason they were there was to put their names, or "mark," in the logbook, then why bother? Oh, wait, I think I already answered that question.

Wow - how did you know ALL of thier online logs were cookie cutter types??

 

(out caching with the xxxxx crew)

[4wheelin_fool]

I'm probably not going to do anything about this but I wanted to get others' thoughts....

 

I directly observed 5 out of town cachers visit 2 of my caches. I stayed back and just watched because it looked odd. Well there were 5 of them in the car anyway. One would hop out and walk over to the cache area. Look around for a bit - Open it up, fiddle with it - replace the lid and literally drop it and head back to the car and they would drive off. I figured it was just one cacher in the group or just one that needed that find. Nope - the next day I got 6 "find" logs on those 2 and a few other caches. Yup 6. Five guys in the car - only one got out but I got logs from 6 different accounts. I have no way of knowing which account actually belonged to the guy that was actually making the "find". The physical logbooks only had a sticker that said XXXXX crew. Sigh...........

 

It doesnt bother me a bit if someone does that, or finds a puzzle that someone else has solved, if they mention it in their logs. If they dont mention it, and I find out about it afterwards, it is a little irritating because it appears that they are trying to hide their behaviour, and put on a show to unneccesarily impress others of their find count numbers. However, there are many new cachers who believe that this is the way everyone else does it, and it is accepted practice. Everyone has different motivations to go caching. And I know for a fact that there are more than a few cachers with very high find counts that dont really care about thier numbers. You cant force people to be different, you can only try to inspire them to be different, and to be content anyway if it doesnt work.

 

Plus they may have known that you were watching them, and they just wanted to see how you reacted...

Edited April 2, 2009 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Rev Mike]

I would roll my eyes and move on with my life, taking no other action regarding these logs.

 

Agreed.

[CoyoteRed]

.... The online logs never mention anything of the surrounding area or of the adventure seeking the cache. If the only reason they were there was to put their names, or "mark," in the logbook, then why bother? Oh, wait, I think I already answered that question.

Wow - how did you know ALL of thier online logs were cookie cutter types??

Maybe I shouldn't say "all" or "never." How about "rarely" or "describe only generalities?" I can only go by what I see. What I see is mostly cut-n-paste with maybe a word or a sentence with generalities. It's log after log like this.

 

You're the one who brought this up. I provided my opinion. That opinion is a sub-set of cachers that don't really care about the caching more than the smilie collecting. Me, if I don't like the cache I don't log it. Smilie collectors don't seem to care if they like the cache or not as long as they get to log it online. They will do the very minimum in order to feel they can claim the find and that includes, apparently, simply being in the general vicinity when it was found and they can get the "real" finder to allow them to piggyback the find. Who was that 6th person? Were they even actually there?

 

What I think you feel is the same thing I've felt. "Finders" care nothing about your cache other than the smilie they take from it.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

I think your offer of a penny is far too generous for cachers like these. As long as they rehide the cache as they found it I wouldn't give it a second thought.

[+Stargazer22]

I would roll my eyes and move on with my life, taking no other action regarding these logs.

 

Agreed.

 

Yeah, I'd go with this one, too. Not worth wasting your time over.

 

But I understand your feelings. Hope they at least left the money on the nightstand.

[+Renegade Knight]

... The physical logbooks only had a sticker that said XXXXX crew. Sigh...........

That's perhaps the extreme end of the three mustakeers method. All for one and one for all. For all you (actually you do...) know that at the next cache the next guy got out and did the search and group log while the rest stayed in the rig yucking it up.

 

I've been known not to risk injury to put my name on a log but been more than happy to let the person willing do it for me on a day of caching.

 

The part that bothers me the most is if they actually dropped the cache rather than replace it. I've no use for that. For that I might (or might not, depends on the malise and thoughlessness observed on your part) delete the logs.

[+wimseyguy]

I would roll my eyes and move on with my life, taking no other action regarding these logs.

 

Agreed.

Me three. On the few times a year I go on a serious powercaching run with the crew, the driver almost never gets out unless the seekers need help after 2-3 minutes of searching. The navigator also doesn't get out immediately as he's setting the driver up for the next target.

 

We've found that a minivan is best for these runs since it has the sliding rear doors. Sometimes the driver can even place the seekers in the rear close enough to simply grab the cache without even exiting the vehicle.

 

Other times we like to go for long hikes, or find complicated multis. But this can be a lot of fun with the right crew.

[+StumpWater]

Seppuka. For you. Your caches are not worthy of their combined attention. You have failed.

[+Mudfrog]

... The physical logbooks only had a sticker that said XXXXX crew. Sigh...........

That's perhaps the extreme end of the three mustakeers method. All for one and one for all. For all you (actually you do...) know that at the next cache the next guy got out and did the search and group log while the rest stayed in the rig yucking it up.

 

I've been known not to risk injury to put my name on a log but been more than happy to let the person willing do it for me on a day of caching.

 

The part that bothers me the most is if they actually dropped the cache rather than replace it. I've no use for that. For that I might (or might not, depends on the malise and thoughlessness observed on your part) delete the logs.

 

I sometimes print up stickers with all of our names and the date of our find when our group of 5 cachers go out to a cache rich area. While it's not one of my favorite practices, it does save time and a bunch of writing. Of course, we are all there when we make a find and we all log our finds seperately online so it's not a "team" thing per se.

 

I agree with others that i wouldn't worry too much about this. Yes, it does look fishy and it makes me want to roll my eyes as well, but i have to realize that things aren't always as they seem and there might actually be a good reason why the one person does the legwork while the other members of the team wait in the car. As far as the 6 online logs, are you sure that they all came from the same team? Is it possible that another person made the find before or after them?

 

Also agree that the even greater issue for me is when they just "dropped" the container. It being breakable is one thing but it doesn't sound like they rehid the cache back like they found and that would be more of a concern for me.

[+Kealia]

Shame on you for putting out a cache that is reached so easily. Hmph.

 

It would bother me too but I likely wouldn't do anything about it. It sounds like a numbers run and that's the way that most work - although on the ones I've seen organized around here it appears that every person signs each log personally.

 

In the end, I likely wouldn't do anything except send them a note about the "dropping" of the cache.

[+Too Tall John]

And, just because I am me, and because I am such a lovable soul, I would then go the extra mile, and I would contact one of those "psychic voodoo black magic witches" who advertise in the classified ads on Craigslist and in weekly tabloid newspapers that they will curse anyone (that is, put a hex on them) for a fee, and I would forthwith hire her/him to place a curse on each of those idiots. It would be worth the one or two hundred bucks, just to know that they were suffering or dying of some horrid pestilence!

I know you hate to ask her, but I bet Sioneva would do it for free....

[+Chrysalides]

And, just because I am me, and because I am such a lovable soul, I would then go the extra mile, and I would contact one of those "psychic voodoo black magic witches" who advertise in the classified ads on Craigslist and in weekly tabloid newspapers that they will curse anyone (that is, put a hex on them) for a fee, and I would forthwith hire her/him to place a curse on each of those idiots. It would be worth the one or two hundred bucks, just to know that they were suffering or dying of some horrid pestilence!

I know you hate to ask her, but I bet Sioneva would do it for free....

Especially if the target is Vinny...

[+flask]

First thing that pops into my head is that maaaaybe the other folks were handicapped and couldn't go to the cache....

 

 

of course they're handicapped.

 

someone should tell them, however, that being morally handicapped doesn't entitle them to good parking places.

[Clan Riffster]

I would roll my eyes and move on with my life, taking no other action regarding these logs.

Me four. (Minus the eye roll)

[+nekom]

My policy is that I don't care how other people do whatever they do. I've never deleted a log, and never would unless it were vulgar, or otherwise violated the TOS of the site. Personally, I haven't logged a single find where I didn't sign a logbook, or in the case of virtuals or earthcaches fulfill the logging requirements. But honestly, I really don't care what other people do, not even a little. You don't win anything at this, if you `cheat', you only cheat yourself out of an experience.

[AZcachemeister]

Definitely negative respect point for those involved.

Not calling for log deletions since they were 'there' , but jeeze! Get you lazy keesters out of the car!

[+JanniCash]

So there are people who find it important to have a high "found it" number. I find the location most important, find or DNF is secondary. This is like eating on a trip. There are people who really enjoy McD to go from a highway rest area and eat while driving, I'd rather add another hour to the trip and find something odd. But I can't see myself trying to "save" those people. Yes, I am sorry for them and would they ever ask me, I'd be glad to show them how much a nice lunch in a diner can improve your overall trip experience. But those people never ask. So what?

 

Let them have their numbers, feel sorry for them, forget about it.

 

Jan

[+Knight2000]

image removed

Edited April 3, 2009 by CYBret

[+Sioneva]

And, just because I am me, and because I am such a lovable soul, I would then go the extra mile, and I would contact one of those "psychic voodoo black magic witches" who advertise in the classified ads on Craigslist and in weekly tabloid newspapers that they will curse anyone (that is, put a hex on them) for a fee, and I would forthwith hire her/him to place a curse on each of those idiots. It would be worth the one or two hundred bucks, just to know that they were suffering or dying of some horrid pestilence!

I know you hate to ask her, but I bet Sioneva would do it for free....

Especially if the target is Vinny...

 

Now wait a moment... I could use the money.

[Andronicus]

Not sure I would do anything, but it would piss me off. What is the point of going Geocaching if you are not going to get out of the car? Why not just stay home with your friends entering Found logs? It would save gas money.

 

As for the 6 vs 5 issue, it could be that someone else also found it/them.

[+Chrysalides]

Out of curiosity I tried to find the incident. Looks like you've been stewing on this for a while - unless I'm not looking at the right cache? I found two caches with the pattern you mentioned (I did not try to find them all), and I only counted 5 log entries.

 

As for one person searching and everyone else claiming the find, one wonders why they even bother. Why not just have one person out there while the rest watch TV, and stay in contact with him through the phone? I mean, if you want to be so remarkably lazy, at least do it in style!

 

I'd guess the guy with the most finds is the guy who was actually out there, since he mentioned the log is full in one of the caches.

[+StarBrand]

Out of curiosity I tried to find the incident. Looks like you've been stewing on this for a while - unless I'm not looking at the right cache? I found two caches with the pattern you mentioned (I did not try to find them all), and I only counted 5 log entries.

 

As for one person searching and everyone else claiming the find, one wonders why they even bother. Why not just have one person out there while the rest watch TV, and stay in contact with him through the phone? I mean, if you want to be so remarkably lazy, at least do it in style!

 

I'd guess the guy with the most finds is the guy who was actually out there, since he mentioned the log is full in one of the caches.

Yes - I have sat on this for a little while just to make a bit tougher to id them. Not trying to "out" them or anything - just wanted some opinions. And your right - interestingly there are only 5 logs now - 1 of them has been deleted at some point - I checked my email and have 6 notifications - so would seem the one has retracted. Thats something.....

[+KBI]

I would roll my eyes and move on with my life, taking no other action regarding these logs.

Agreed.

Me three.

Me four. (Minus the eye roll)

Me five. Where's the harm?

[+KBI]

The way I see it is folks are doing the very bare minimum their conscience allows in order to increment their find count.

The way I see it, these folks are simply having harmless fun.

 

They are not hurting anyone (assuming the container was replaced properly, which is ambiguous at this point); they are not in competition with the rest of us (unless we individually and foolishly agree to compete with them voluntarily under inherently unenforceable rules) ... and any form of "morality" relative to the use of the word "conscience," therefore, doesn’t enter into it.

 

Most agree that signing the logbook is required in order to log online. Some feel putting any old mark is enough of a signature to qualify. This includes scrawling nothing more than "Team XYZ" or slapping on a sticker.

Sorry, but I don’t share your outrage here.

 

If Bob puts his mark in my logbook and logs my cache online, and if Jane does NOT write in the log but logs online with an explanation that she was there at the cache with Bob, then that’s good enough for me. With only that to go on I am happy to assume the truthfulness of their statements. To suspect dishonesty at that point, with no specific reason other than a universal and general distrust of my fellow man, would in my opinion be an insult – to Bob and Jane.

 

In my opinion it is up to Jane, and only Jane, to decide what qualifies as being "at the cache with Bob." Within shouting distance of Bob? Within sight of Bob? Touching the cache? Touching Bob while Bob is touching the cache? (Ooh, maybe they ARE having fun!)

 

I have my own logging standards, of course, but it never occurred to me to seek to impose my personal rules on others.

 

No harm, no foul. I would let the online logs stand.

 

The online logs never mention anything of the surrounding area or of the adventure seeking the cache.

If you require your finders to describe "the surrounding area or of the adventure seeking" your cache when logging your cache online ... then you, my friend, have an ALR cache. Enforce away happily as you see fit; just please make sure you’ve got your ALR cache listed correctly upfront.

 

If the only reason they were there was to put their names, or "mark," in the logbook, then why bother? Oh, wait, I think I already answered that question.

I have no such concerns over the motivations of those who seek my caches. I don’t see it as my job to approve or disapprove other peoples' reasons for caching. I don’t see it as my job to sit in judgment regarding how – or why – other people get their fun.

 

As long as they had fun, I am happy. Even if they don’t have any actual "fun" finding my cache, I am still untroubled as long as they cause no meaningful harm. Another cacher’s failure to meet my own personal logging standard does NOT qualify as "harm."

 

On the other hand, I think watching another cacher "literally drop" my cache container (as described in the OP) instead of replacing it the way he found it would downright enrage me. I might not delete his online log, but he would get an email from me, and depending on his response I would certainly consider reporting my observations to Groundspeak.

 

(I hope the OP was merely exaggerating.)

 

My opinion:

• Loose logging standards: Harmless
  
• Cache vandalism: Harmful, and totally unacceptable.
  

[+StarBrand]

...

Where's the harm?

<soapbox>

- <preachy>

- <attitude>

My world isn't so grey. Isn't it time that we set some minimal standards?? Time to stand up for something?? Anything? Have some basic principles? I see way too much of this attitude both here and in everyday life. Folks becoming complacent and willing to tolerate anything and everything for the sake of tolerance. Trying to excuse it all by stating it has no effect on them. I don't want to punish anybody. Call a rose a rose. Call it bogus when it is bogus. Thats all.

- </attitude>

- </preachy>

</soapbox>

 

Ok - got that out of my system for the year - return to your regularly scheduled geocaching.

[+KBI]

...

Where's the harm?

<soapbox>

- <preachy>

- <attitude>

My world isn't so grey. Isn't it time that we set some minimal standards?? Time to stand up for something?? Anything? Have some basic principles? I see way too much of this attitude both here and in everyday life. Folks becoming complacent and willing to tolerate anything and everything for the sake of tolerance. Trying to excuse it all by stating it has no effect on them. I don't want to punish anybody. Call a rose a rose. Call it bogus when it is bogus. Thats all.

- </attitude>

- </preachy>

</soapbox>

 

Ok - got that out of my system for the year - return to your regularly scheduled geocaching.

There is nothing in this post to compel me to reconsider my "me five" vote.

 

I prefer to pick my battles. Behaviors that violate nobody’s rights – behaviors which are neither illegal, immoral nor fattening – don’t even make my battles list. I've got better things to worry about.

 

I don't want to punish anybody.

So you won’t be deleting any logs, then?

 

But wait – doesn’t the act of publicly ridiculing these harmless, carefree, happy-go-lucky folks count as punishment? If someone started an outrage thread intended to disparage something specific you did, how would it make you feel?

 

Also, it occurs to me to wonder: Where, exactly, do you draw the line? The fact that you mention their car in your complaint implies that it had something to do with your being upset. Would you have been just as perturbed if they had gotten out of the car and stood next to the signer as he stickered the log? What of they all got out, but stayed next to the car? What if only some of them got out? What if the car were parked closer? Where, exactly, is the line?

 

You have directly requested that I lose my "gray area" tolerance and instead "stand up for something." I therefore must insist that you remove the gray area from your complaint by posting a precise and detailed description of the specific logging standards you require of your finders, in order that we may better attempt to share your outrage over their crime.

 

I’d also like my penny, please.

[+Star*Hopper]

 

Ok - got that out of my system for the year - return to your regularly scheduled geocaching.

Nooo...wait.....wait!! *hand up, waving* first I gotta question.

 

Sometimes while I'm cachin' with my cachin' knave, she's down there all on her knees & stuff....smeared liberally if not mostly covered in mud & blood & brambles & leaf detritus & stuff....& she's signin' the log, I'll let her go ahead & sign my name too. I'm standin' right there, of course but no need for me to touch that nasty thing!!!1 Is that okay?

 

I did hand her my pen, if that helps count.

~*

 

PS: Seppuka? Would that be, "sepulcher"?

PPS: CoyoRed: "What I think you feel is the same thing I've felt. "Finders" care nothing about your cache other than the smilie they take from it."

 

That.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

On the other hand, I think watching another cacher "literally drop" my cache container (as described in the OP) instead of replacing it the way he found it would downright enrage me. I might not delete his online log, but he would get an email from me, and depending on his response I would certainly consider reporting my observations to Groundspeak.

 

(I hope the OP was merely exaggerating.)

 

 

I was kind of hoping the OP would come back to this point. So, StarBrand, did they just toss is back to the weeds or what?

[+StarBrand]

...

I was kind of hoping the OP would come back to this point. So, StarBrand, did they just toss is back to the weeds or what?

Yes - I thought that point was suffciently clear. Sure it fell within a foot or 2 of the the hide spot and was a natural como container but the rather obvious natural camo he pulled it out of was now under the cache instead of over it.

[+Kit Fox]

<soapbox>

- <preachy>

- <attitude>

My world isn't so grey. Isn't it time that we set some minimal standards?? Time to stand up for something?? Anything? Have some basic principles? I see way too much of this attitude both here and in everyday life. Folks becoming complacent and willing to tolerate anything and everything for the sake of tolerance. Trying to excuse it all by stating it has no effect on them. I don't want to punish anybody. Call a rose a rose. Call it bogus when it is bogus. Thats all.

- </attitude>

- </preachy>

</soapbox>

 

Ok - got that out of my system for the year - return to your regularly scheduled geocaching.

 

My solution and advice for you is to refrain from hiding caches that appeal to this type of geocacher. It appears that they are "all about the numbers," so hide caches that require more effort than they are willing to put forth.

 

Hide more multis (most certainly weeded out by power cachers), hide more higher terrain caches (most certainly weeded out by power cachers.)

[+BlueDeuce]

 

My solution and advice for you is to refrain from hiding caches that appeal to this type of geocacher. It appears that they are "all about the numbers," so hide caches that require more effort than they are willing to put forth.

 

It doesn't work. Here a recent find on my cache that's a good 15 minute walk.

 

OK, I'll log it. My idea was to save it for another day, my stomach said it was time to get to the ABC for dinner. "B" and "M" went without me. Of course I couldn't eat until they were ready to go. They never listen to me. SL TFTC

[+Star*Hopper]

 

It doesn't work. Here a recent find on my cache that's a good 15 minute walk.

 

OK, I'll log it. My idea was to save it for another day, my stomach said it was time to get to the ABC for dinner. "B" and "M" went without me. Of course I couldn't eat until they were ready to go. They never listen to me. SL TFTC

 

Yep - that's a deletin'.

~*

[+sbell111]

 

It doesn't work. Here a recent find on my cache that's a good 15 minute walk.

 

OK, I'll log it. My idea was to save it for another day, my stomach said it was time to get to the ABC for dinner. "B" and "M" went without me. Of course I couldn't eat until they were ready to go. They never listen to me. SL TFTC

 

Yep - that's a deletin'.

~*

They stated that they signed the log. Why would you delete their 'found it'? If I cared about challenging them, I'd trudge out to my cache and see if their name was on the log. If it wasn't, I'd send them a "What's up?" email.

[+sbell111]

PS: Seppuka? Would that be, "sepulcher"?

I'm pretty sure that 'seppuka' was what he meant.

[+KBI]

My solution and advice for you is to refrain from hiding caches that appeal to this type of geocacher. It appears that they are "all about the numbers ..."

Absolutely. Someone needs to put an immediate stop to all these wrong kinds of illicit fun. Only certain acceptable types of fun-critic approved enjoyment should be tolerated.

 

Enjoying one's numbers is not only unauthorized by those who know best how everyone else's leisure time should be spent, but it's also disgusting ... and downright dangerous, obviously. Innocent people could be hurt.

 

It’s simply not good enough that fellow geocachers are out there having fun finding our caches in large numbers. Their specific motivations must be carefully scrutinized, and the evil rabble among them turned away, lest civilization crumble.