Don't use my cache for your challenge!

[+KBI]

You seem to be focusing on the sport without striving to actually be good at it. Your skill is picking key items to obfuscate the larger debate. However your understanding is either lacking, or you fully understand and choose to use your style which would make you something of a troll ....

Nope. I simply disagree. I have a viewpoint that is inconsistent with yours. That’s all. There is no need to insult me.

 

I’d prefer you address one or more of the points I’ve made instead of attacking me personally. That would be much more productive.

[+KBI]

The bottom line is, any CO bothered by a challenge log or their cache being on a bookmark is just plain too hung up on themselves. Get over it.

Bottom line. If any finder can't be botherd to honor an owners request. They should give it up, go home, and quit participating.

In that case, how about a little experiment to see whether you truly believe that?

 

I am in fact a cache owner, and this is my request: I hereby request that you, Renegade Knight, find only MY caches from now on, and nobody else’s. I only want you to enjoy mine, period. If you really must seek non-KBI caches, if my caches aren’t good enough for you, and if you truly feel you can't be bothered to honor my request, then you should give it up, go home, and quit participating.

 

Fair enough?

Nice. Now get it published. Alas your authority is on your caches only. When you make rule that impact others peoples caches you have exceeded your authority.

Exactly!!!!

 

Finally we agree!

 

Finally, we agree that the demand described by the OP is unreasonable.

Edited June 22, 2009 by KBI

[savant9]

You cache to eat??? I am so clearly doing this wrong. On our cache hikes there is a complete dearth of food (other than a few emergency Clif bars). Is there a gourmet set of caches somewhere? I am so onboard with that idea!!! Cache to eat, it definitely has possibilities in the Carolyn playbook (though probably not the Steve playbook, alas).

 

Carolyn

 

Around here, this time of year, you never leave a trail hungry...... Salmon berries, Black berries, Thimble Berries, Huckle berries, Saskatoon berries.......

 

Muddy feet, stain on your shirt, full belly and a smile on your face.

[CoyoteRed]

And if I were you, I'd go out of my way to make sure you log the find on said caches indicating which challenge the find belongs to.

Wow, advocating someone to be a jerk. Yeah, that's productive.

 

Lest we all forget that this hobby relies on the generosity of others. Our only security is obscurity. By butting heads directly against another cacher you risk the creation of a maggot. Said cacher might just throw up hands in frustration and archive all his caches. Then he might archive yours and all your friends' caches, too.

 

I'd be careful going head to head with anyone as you suggest. It's all too easy to lose.

Edited June 23, 2009 by CoyoteRed

[+sbell111]

The bottom line is, any CO bothered by a challenge log or their cache being on a bookmark is just plain too hung up on themselves. Get over it.

Bottom line. If any finder can't be botherd to honor an owners request. They should give it up, go home, and quit participating.

In that case, how about a little experiment to see whether you truly believe that?

 

I am in fact a cache owner, and this is my request: I hereby request that you, Renegade Knight, find only MY caches from now on, and nobody else’s. I only want you to enjoy mine, period. If you really must seek non-KBI caches, if my caches aren’t good enough for you, and if you truly feel you can't be bothered to honor my request, then you should give it up, go home, and quit participating.

 

Fair enough?

Nice. Now get it published. Alas your authority is on your caches only. When you make rule that impact others peoples caches you have exceeded your authority. You could make that. "RK if you hunt one of my caches you have to hunt them all to log any of them." That's within your authority as an owner.

 

You could even go as far as. "RK special rule: If you find a cache, you can only log them in sequence with no non KBI caches found inbetween your finds of KBI caches."

Finally, we have found our middle ground.

 

We both agree that a cache owner should have no expectation that anyone will follow a request regarding logging a cache not owned by that individual. In that case, I have to wonder why you are in support of the request outlined by the OP. The individual in question is restricting the logging of third-party caches. This clearly isn't within his authority as outlined in your post.

[+jeanne123]

Isn't this horse dead yet?

[+BrrrMo]

Isn't this horse dead yet?

 

Yea! They are just beating it now.

Edited June 24, 2009 by BrrrMo

[+sbell111]

Isn't this horse dead yet?

 

Yea! They are just beating it now.

When you guys keep posting your 'why is this thread still here' posts a dozen hours after the prior post, it makes it difficult for the thread to fall off the page.

Edited June 24, 2009 by sbell111

[+bflentje]

And if I were you, I'd go out of my way to make sure you log the find on said caches indicating which challenge the find belongs to.

Wow, advocating someone to be a jerk. Yeah, that's productive.

 

Lest we all forget that this hobby relies on the generosity of others. Our only security is obscurity. By butting heads directly against another cacher you risk the creation of a maggot. Said cacher might just throw up hands in frustration and archive all his caches. Then he might archive yours and all your friends' caches, too.

 

I'd be careful going head to head with anyone as you suggest. It's all too easy to lose.

 

No, I am advocating that finders be very thorough and complete in their logging of finds. If you have a senstivity to that then I guess it sounds like a personal problem you'll have to work out on your own.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Ignoring Coyote Red's incredibly egotistical and elitist snootiness, let me simply add my "yes" vote to the motion "Does a cache finder have the rights to his/her log entry?".

 

I tend to log caches on gc.com mostly as my personal record of visiting the cache. In addition, I see it as a contribution to the caching game, in that it records that someone visited the cache (think how anaemic cache listings would look without any visible logs).

 

So, if I only visited "Xmas cache" because the name begins with "X", then that's entirely my problem (if it had been called "Santa's stash" then there would simply be no log at all as I wouldn't have had the motivation to visit that particular cache, all else being equal, and no doubt the cache owner would then moan that his cache is being ignored).

If I note in the log that the cache was found as part of an alphabet challenge, then I feel some slight sympathy for the owner's reaction of "so it was only a stepping-stone, was it?". But I'd also feel that a visit of any type is better than having the cache ignored, and would be suspicious of his real motive if he thought it warranted log deletion (I'd suspect it was more to do with Control than Fun!).

 

As it happens, I try to write something unique for each cache, even if it's only a sentence or two. If it was logged as part of a challenge I'd still write the log in the same fashion; why would it make a difference?

[+TripCyclone]

From the logs you read on the challenge pages, maybe. On the caches they used as a stepping stone, not so much.

 

The logs I don't care for are the "number 14 of 34 for the day," "found for page 48 of the Delorme challenge," "found for the County Challenge fulfillment," etc. etc. Yep, good to know the only reason someone found our cache is because they're only interested in "bigger and better things."

 

If someone enjoyed my cache if they had otherwise not hunted, then fine, I'd like to hear it. If it's just an excuse to further some other goal, I'd prefer if you just skipped it.

 

I have to agree that logs like this are a bit frustrating. I love challenge caches. I love doing numbers runs. I have also don the "Number * of *..." logs too. However, those entries are just the first line. I always at least try to say more than just that (though sometimes, a hide doesn't stand out to me and it gets a simple log). I'm guilty of posting quick logs too. I think everyone does it in some form or fashion because after a while as certain types of hides because "regular" to us (for example...LPC's). Trying to write lengthier logs does mean that logging a list of finds takes longer, but at least I'm trying to make the log more interesting. I try to do this because of the frequency of posting quick simple logs like you described.

 

I have personally completed a Delorme and County challenge for Nebraska. My friends and I did power runs on some three day weekends to complete them. We may brush through 60 or 100 finds that weekend over a very large area. And while they are stepping stones as you described, many of the caches took us places we would have never visited without the challenge. Cemeteries with interest history, landmarks that I hadn't visited, countless locations with amazing views. Did I mention every one of them in my logs...I tried but I know I missed some. Did I enjoy every cache...you betcha! Even the quick P & G's. I saw many varieties of hides by cache owners I have never hunted for before. Over time, you start to learn something about how those cachers' hiding styles.

 

Yes, I got a smiley in the end from completing the challenge. But I also walked away with some great non-geocaching related thoughts. I can now walk around and say that I've visited all 93 counties in Nebraska. I have a map of towns I've visited that is cluttered with pins from all over Nebraska. I'm not working on Missouri and have already seen some great hides and some simple hides. I'm about to hit 1800 finds and while some people get tired of taking the time to log their finds, I still enjoy it. It helps me remember things about where I visited that I might have forgotten if I had just done a quick "Find # _ of _ used for _ Challenge. TFTC"

 

Now, on the side of a Challenge Cache owner. I recently placed a challenge cache that requires the person to find a certain number of different types of caches in one day. I personally waited until I had completed the challenge myself so that I could say it is possible. I found 10 icons in one day. So, I created two versions within the challenge. The simple one is to find 6 different caches types in one day (and if you have completed it in the past, you can still go after the final cache). But as an added challenge, there is a Super Iconic Day version that requires someone to match what I did...find ten cache icons in one day. Some may think stepping stones for the hides they use to complete the challenge. I think it's a way to get people to experience a variety of different cache types that some might not have tried before.

 

Personally, I think it's a great way to get people to go out and find other caches. Almost every person I know who has completed a challenge usually ends up remembering the caches they used for the challenge more than those they didn't. Especially with challenges such as the Well-Rounded Cacher and Well-Rounded Day challenges. You have to search out specific hides and as a result, you remember them more.

 

If you don't like challenges, I respect your decision to ignore them. Not everyone enjoys the extra work. It's part of the same reason some ignore Unknown caches (which can generate an entirely separate conversation all on it's own). But even if someone uses your cache as a stepping stone, many times those "lame logs" entries aren't so much because they didn't enjoy the cache as you intended, but because they just don't like to take the extra time to write about each individual find. Especially if they have a list of 50 or 60 caches to log from a trip. Have faith that many of those people enjoyed the hide in some fashion and it wasn't only a stepping stone for them.

 

TripCyclone

[CoyoteRed]

...Coyote Red's incredibly egotistical and elitist snootiness...

But I'd also feel that a visit of any type is better than having the cache ignored.

Hmm... Considering my view is I'd rather you not find my cache if the focus is for something else, I guess you first statement quoted is somewhat accurate. I don't know about the egotistical part as I don't think every cache we put out is "God's Gifts to Geocaching." When we put out a cache we want it to be able to stand on its own merits. We've not ever put out a cache simply to provide a smilie or so such-n-such challenge can be logged. So, if you're not into challenges and you're not into chasing smilies, then you'll still get something out of the find--hopefully, anyway.

 

If you're only looking for that smilie or simply to complete a challenge, I'd rather you somewhere else.

 

Snooty? Elitist? Maybe.

 

What? I can't play the game the way I want to play it?

[CoyoteRed]

But even if someone uses your cache as a stepping stone, many times those "lame logs" entries aren't so much because they didn't enjoy the cache as you intended, but because they just don't like to take the extra time to write about each individual find. Especially if they have a list of 50 or 60 caches to log from a trip. Have faith that many of those people enjoyed the hide in some fashion and it wasn't only a stepping stone for them.

I'm confused by the above statements. Did they use the cache as a stepping stone or did they find the cache that just so happened to fulfill certain challenge criteria? Did they enjoy the cache as I intended; or did they enjoy the cache, as I intended?

 

Just like I don't care how you complete a puzzle or multi, just that you did, I don't care how you enjoyed one of our caches, just that you did. Finding a cache simply for the smilie or challenge isn't enjoying the cache, but that the cache provides the excuse to log it. Then it becomes the logging of the cache that's important, not the hunt.

[+TripCyclone]

But even if someone uses your cache as a stepping stone, many times those "lame logs" entries aren't so much because they didn't enjoy the cache as you intended, but because they just don't like to take the extra time to write about each individual find. Especially if they have a list of 50 or 60 caches to log from a trip. Have faith that many of those people enjoyed the hide in some fashion and it wasn't only a stepping stone for them.

I'm confused by the above statements. Did they use the cache as a stepping stone or did they find the cache that just so happened to fulfill certain challenge criteria? Did they enjoy the cache as I intended; or did they enjoy the cache, as I intended?

 

Just like I don't care how you complete a puzzle or multi, just that you did, I don't care how you enjoyed one of our caches, just that you did. Finding a cache simply for the smilie or challenge isn't enjoying the cache, but that the cache provides the excuse to log it. Then it becomes the logging of the cache that's important, not the hunt.

 

Sorry, my bad in portraying my thought on that one. Let me try to restate that a bit:

 

"But even if someone goes after that cache to complete a challenge, many times those "lame logs" entries aren't so much because they didn't enjoy the cache as you intended, but because they just don't like to take the extra time to write about each individual find. Not everyone enjoys writing logs, especially if they have a list of 50 or 60 caches to log from a trip. Have faith that many (I can't say ALL) of those people enjoyed the hide in some fashion and it wasn't only a stepping stone for them, even if their log doesn't express it.

 

Did that help explain my thought a bit better? My main point is that short logs that might indicate it was merely a checkmark on a list doesn't necessarily mean it is. I'll give an example. A good friend of mind used to have a very hard time keep up with logging finds. He enjoyed finding them, but not the time it took to log them. Finally, a friend and I started helping him out. He finally found some ways to help keep him going with it, including logging the finds on the road with a laptop and internet connection. I recently introduced him to the Geocaching WAP site as another avenue for quick logging of finds on the road. Recently, while traveling with him, I helped him log by doing the logs while he drove. I asked what he wanted me to say and he told me he usually just writes a TFTC because he doesn't like logging. So, while I logged them, I tried to at least turn them into full sentences. So instead of just the TFTC, I would add things like "Found with ___ and ___. TFTC" so that the owner could see he was with us and could look at our logs to read more. Or, I put on one "A nice view. TFTC". On a few, he would comment "Yeah, that sounds good" or "Nice log" as I did this. I can personally vouch that he enjoyed many of the hides, even if his logs didn't express it. He just isn't as good with expressing himself sometimes. But, I think I at least showed him that an extra few words doesn't take much effort, and I found him doing it himself when he took over logging himself. Do his short logs mean he found them merely to complete a checkmarked list? Not at all. Yes, some of the hides were the final finds he needed to complete the Delorme Challenge.

 

Overall, the entire debate over how to log a cache is one that will never produce a definite answer. There will always be people on both sides of the line. I personally have a cache where I can tell who read the description or not. The cache allows anyone to log a FTF as long as they can find a unique way to make it an FTF: GC1K1RB Check it out and you can easily see who read the description and who didn't as some write those simple logs and some take the time to figure out how to make their find an FTF. I think these caches are a great way to demonstration exactly that aspect...the value of reading the description. Not that every one of those "non-FTF" logs didn't read the description. I'm sure a few of them just choose the attitude of "don't care".

 

With regards to regulating whether someone can use a cache towards completion of a challenge, which is what the OP was talking about, I fall on the line of "why does it matter?" Yes, it is very easy to just comply with that CO's request. My first question is what drove them to that point? We are guessing it's because they don't like the logs about their cache being used for a challenge cache. But we can't be 100% sure of that intention. It could be something entirely different. However, I question whether that person would be able to successfully get away with deleting logs in the fashion described. I'm not saying they couldn't do it, but I think if they did actually do that, they would generate a lot of backlash from other geocachers in that area...ESPECIALLY if he want back and deleted prior logs dating back to the original publishing of the cache. That might just generate enough backlash that TPTB might step in and reinstate the find logs and give the CO a slap on the wrist for it. Of course...who knows. Personally, when I went through and created a bookmark of caches for logging the Nebraska Challenges, I hand picked which ones I wanted to use if there were more than one possible cache to use. I used caches that I found interesting for any number of reasons, so that others who looked at the list might wonder why I went there and choose to go after it themselves. (Hopefully that made sense).

[+Renegade Knight]

Ignoring Coyote Red's incredibly egotistical and elitist snootiness, let me simply add my "yes" vote to the motion "Does a cache finder have the rights to his/her log entry?". ...

 

Don't confuse honesty about why someone places a cache for any of those traits you have applied. That said you bring up an interesting angle. I do think a finder has rights to their log. They wrote it. That's not actually the issue here. It's the "right to the hunt" that finders don't automaticly have. This is the key concept. Owners for a lot of reasons set up caches they way they do. I've set them up to avoid issues with hibernation, operating hours, and tresspassing in addition to my own intended experience. Finders are in a position to where they can ignore all that, but they have no fundamental right to avoid the consequenes of doing so.

 

Since the owners only tool to enforce compliance with the rules of the hunt is the log, you have a problem in that some logs need to be zapped. No way would I ever let a "I woke up the hibernating animal" log stand. I can't delete that log from your own personal journal. The log is actually archived and not 'erased'. It just doesn't get to stand as a public record on my cache page. It does get to stand as a record on your log page (I think....). Even if I'm wrong if you know the URL you can read it.

 

It would be nice if owners could somehow limit caches to those who would honor the experience intended. It would eliminate so many problems. The log question would never come up.

[+RonnieGeo]

[+sbell111]

Moving??? This thread was dead and buried. Someone dug it up and tried to reanimate it like some sort of bizarre thread zombie.

[+TripCyclone]

Moving??? This thread was dead and buried. Someone dug it up and tried to reanimate it like some sort of bizarre thread zombie.

 

That's my fault. I was reading the thread and it was still high on the list of threads. I was about two pages in when I decided to add a comment and it wasn't until later that I realized the thread had ended about a week ago. My bad.

[+Renegade Knight]

The bottom line is, any CO bothered by a challenge log or their cache being on a bookmark is just plain too hung up on themselves. Get over it.

Bottom line. If any finder can't be botherd to honor an owners request. They should give it up, go home, and quit participating.

In that case, how about a little experiment to see whether you truly believe that?

 

I am in fact a cache owner, and this is my request: I hereby request that you, Renegade Knight, find only MY caches from now on, and nobody else’s. I only want you to enjoy mine, period. If you really must seek non-KBI caches, if my caches aren’t good enough for you, and if you truly feel you can't be bothered to honor my request, then you should give it up, go home, and quit participating.

 

Fair enough?

Nice. Now get it published. Alas your authority is on your caches only. When you make rule that impact others peoples caches you have exceeded your authority.

Exactly!!!!

 

Finally we agree!

 

Finally, we agree that the demand described by the OP is unreasonable.

 

No we don't.

Same reason a TB hotel owner can't force TB's to play by his rules.

Is the same reason a challenge cache onwer can't force another cache to participate in their challenge.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

No we don't.

Same reason a TB hotel owner can't force TB's to play by his rules.

Is the same reason a challenge cache onwer can't force another cache to participate in their challenge.

 

If that's participation, it's a pretty low impact, low maintenance, low involvement version.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[CoyoteRed]

My main point is that short logs that might indicate it was merely a checkmark on a list doesn't necessarily mean it is.

As someone who doesn't write very long logs, I understand that. It's not really the length of log that bothers me, but the reason written therein for which it was sought to begin with.

[+sbell111]

The bottom line is, any CO bothered by a challenge log or their cache being on a bookmark is just plain too hung up on themselves. Get over it.

Bottom line. If any finder can't be botherd to honor an owners request. They should give it up, go home, and quit participating.

In that case, how about a little experiment to see whether you truly believe that?

 

I am in fact a cache owner, and this is my request: I hereby request that you, Renegade Knight, find only MY caches from now on, and nobody else’s. I only want you to enjoy mine, period. If you really must seek non-KBI caches, if my caches aren’t good enough for you, and if you truly feel you can't be bothered to honor my request, then you should give it up, go home, and quit participating.

 

Fair enough?

Nice. Now get it published. Alas your authority is on your caches only. When you make rule that impact others peoples caches you have exceeded your authority.

Exactly!!!!

 

Finally we agree!

 

Finally, we agree that the demand described by the OP is unreasonable.

 

No we don't.

Same reason a TB hotel owner can't force TB's to play by his rules.

Is the same reason a challenge cache onwer can't force another cache to participate in their challenge.

Seems like you are giving a pretty good argument for a cache owner not being able to tell someone how they can log a third-party's challenge cache.

[+TripCyclone]

As someone who doesn't write very long logs, I understand that. It's not really the length of log that bothers me, but the reason written therein for which it was sought to begin with.

 

I think part of the reason why some have fixated on short logs (and why I honed in on it in my post) is that there have been numerous references to a desire for logs to explain the value the person got out of finding the cache as opposed to just basic comments about completing a challenge or how many numbers they got that day. For example, you mentioned:

 

The logs I don't care for are the "number 14 of 34 for the day," "found for page 48 of the Delorme challenge," "found for the County Challenge fulfillment," etc. etc. Yep, good to know the only reason someone found our cache is because they're only interested in "bigger and better things."

 

It may not have been intended by you or some of the other posts, but somehow the message came out that short logs (with or without acronyms, references to numbers, references to challenges, etc.) = didn't care about the cache other than to meet a goal. At least, across the thread I got that impression from several different posts, including one of yours (though I did read it more from other people than yours...the comment I quoted above is the only occasion where I saw you mention something that is commonly associated with short, impersonal logs). Like I said, it may not have been intended that way. But like logs, sometimes the true message isn't always how people interpret the message.

 

Which is why I mentioned how the issue of logs can be such a dividing line for some. Without someone clearly stating that they didn't care for the cache and it was only found to meet a goal in their log, it will always be subjective whether the logger used the cache as a "stepping stone", so to speak, for a challenge. Short, seemingly impersonal logs tend to give off that perception. That is why I feel that in the end, the act of judging a person's intentions merely on the log entry isn't necessarily fair. My friend's method of handling logs is an example of how this misreading of logs isn't accurate. So despite the intentions, you're reading "the reason written therein" when people visit your caches and getting upset when that perceived reason doesn't match your what your desired goals for that cache placement are is...well...flat rude. Or at least, it comes off as rude to many others, especially when you combine that message you portray with the original topic this thread was started about, the topic of a cache owner threatening to delete logs if people find his cache to complete a challenge.

 

Of course, if the person left a log that said, "This cache s***s and I only went after it to complete a challenge." then yeah...I'd probably be annoyed myself. I know at least one cacher (who will remain nameless) who FREQUENTLY pisses people off with his logs, and it appears that he is fully aware of how he is perceived AND enjoys it.

[+tozainamboku]

I do think a finder has rights to their log. They wrote it. That's not actually the issue here. It's the "right to the hunt" that finders don't automaticly have. This is the key concept.

Of course finders have the right to find the cache. Once the coordinates are published on geocaching.com anyone can go and find the cache for any reason they want. They might be trying to find all the caches in an area, or to find a cache they need to complete a challenge. Or the might have selected your cache because they think they might enjoy it. Of course the cache owner can make reasonable requests of those that hunt their caches. The question is "how can a cache owner enforce that those requests are met?" Short of posting a guard at the cache you can't stop some fool who ignores your request to obey park hours or avoid the cache in certain seasons.

 

Once upon a time, the common wisdom was that cache owners could delete logs for any reason. So the idea of deleting a log if someone didn't follow your request was born. I don't know how effective this method is for making people comply with your requests. It may simply force them to write online logs that avoid mention of anything that would indicate they didn't follow your request. Some people might even lie to keep their smiley.

 

As of April 4, 2009 the guidelines state that "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed." There were some weasel words from TPTB and from some of the reviewers that this applied only to so called ALR caches that were asking you to do some silly extra task to claim a find online. However, it seems to me that the statement only opens a can of worms. People whose log is deleted because the cache was found outside of the hours when the park was opened or that they took a short cut to cache by bushwhacking through an environmentally sensitive area, will complain to Groundspeak. It may be that Groundspeak will support the cache owners right to delete logs as way of "enforcing" their requests. Groundspeak will have to draw a line between an "enforceable" request and one that must truly be optional or risk being seen as arbitrary and capricious. My guess is that a request to not hunt/log a cache unless your reason is one acceptable to cache owner will not be seen as enforceable.

[CoyoteRed]

So despite the intentions, you're reading "the reason written therein" when people visit your caches and getting upset when that perceived reason doesn't match your what your desired goals for that cache placement are is...well...flat rude.

That's interesting. My feeling a certain way is rude? Especially when my feeling that certain way is never voiced until a thread brings up the subject. ...and I'm rude? I wonder if you even know the meaning of the word considering the subject matter at hand.

 

What's more rude? Me not liking that my caches are used only as an excuse to log for something else. Or the people who only find my caches for the smilie and tell me as much to my face?

 

I think part of the reason why some have fixated on short logs (and why I honed in on it in my post) is that there have been numerous references to a desire for logs to explain the value the person got out of finding the cache as opposed to just basic comments about completing a challenge or how many numbers they got that day.

I guess you're not getting the whole quality over quantity thing.

[+TripCyclone]

So despite the intentions, you're reading "the reason written therein" when people visit your caches and getting upset when that perceived reason doesn't match your what your desired goals for that cache placement are is...well...flat rude.

That's interesting. My feeling a certain way is rude? Especially when my feeling that certain way is never voiced until a thread brings up the subject. ...and I'm rude? I wonder if you even know the meaning of the word considering the subject matter at hand.

 

What's more rude? Me not liking that my caches are used only as an excuse to log for something else. Or the people who only find my caches for the smilie and tell me as much to my face?

 

If the person is flatting saying "We only came to find this cache because it completes a goal for us.", then yes, that's rude. But if the person is logging a find and adds that they are working on a challenge, or that it was find number 30 out of 40 that day, they aren't being rude. What would be rude is to then take that log and suddenly start assuming things the person didn't say.

 

I think part of the reason why some have fixated on short logs (and why I honed in on it in my post) is that there have been numerous references to a desire for logs to explain the value the person got out of finding the cache as opposed to just basic comments about completing a challenge or how many numbers they got that day.

I guess you're not getting the whole quality over quantity thing.

 

Are you talking about writing quality logs or going after quality caches? If you're talking about writing quality logs, then I'm trying to figure out what I said that gives you the impression I disagree with you on the value of quality logs. Heck, I even described how I tried to get a friend to put more INTO his logs.

 

If you are talking about going after quality caches instead of getting quantity, than my opinion is that there is no reason the two have to be mutually exclusive. What one person sees as a quality cache others may see the exact opposite...and vice versa. And once again, what did I say that gave you the impression that I don't appreciate quality hides?

 

Explain that to me please.

[CoyoteRed]

If the person is flatting saying "We only came to find this cache because it completes a goal for us.", then yes, that's rude. But if the person is logging a find and adds that they are working on a challenge, or that it was find number 30 out of 40 that day, they aren't being rude. What would be rude is to then take that log and suddenly start assuming things the person didn't say.

I can only go by what they said. If they've only posted about how they found the cache for the smilie or a challenge, then what am I to think? Am I to assume they enjoyed the cache even though they said nothing about it? Apparently the only thing that was important to them was the challenge or smilie count for the day. That's what was important to them as that's the only thing they wrote about. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less about it--both as an owner or another cacher. Even if I were a challenge owner why should I care that they mentioned the challenge in the text of the log? As long as that cache fulfilled the criteria, that's all I should care about. ...or are challenge owners so egotistical that participants must mention the challenge on someone else's cache?

 

Explain that to me please.

Length of log has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. It's what is in the log.

[knowschad]

Deep Thoughts:

 

I have been giving this some thought recently. I am on the side of "give me a log that says something", but it is NOT because I want praise heaped upon me for putting out my cache. It is not even in the least that I want any sort of payback for my cache (although I may have indicated that, and even thought that, further up-post) It really just comes down to expectations and disappointments.

 

I see an email come in that somebody found one of my caches. My caches generally do get good reviews.. people do like them. I get eager to see what this person says about it. Like a kid at Christmas, I can't wait to open that email. I love it when I get something cool, but I can't help it... I'm disappointed when I get a lump of "TFTC #40 of 45 for me today" coal.

 

Yes, our disappointment is relative to our expectations. But I refuse to expect less than the best out of my fellow cachers and their logs. I give my best when I hide a cache, and there is nothing wrong with expecting that in return. That doesn't make those that post lame logs "bad people" (hey, I'm from Al Franken's state here, OK?) but it does mean that I feel let down.

 

Glad we have that all straightened out now. Next topic?

[knowschad]

Length of log has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. It's what is in the log.

 

Hey, I thought we had a blushing emoticon! I am NOT going to post that guy -> just because it is blushing.

Edited July 3, 2009 by knowschad

[+KBI]

The bottom line is, any CO bothered by a challenge log or their cache being on a bookmark is just plain too hung up on themselves. Get over it.

Bottom line. If any finder can't be botherd to honor an owners request. They should give it up, go home, and quit participating.

In that case, how about a little experiment to see whether you truly believe that?

 

I am in fact a cache owner, and this is my request: I hereby request that you, Renegade Knight, find only MY caches from now on, and nobody else’s. I only want you to enjoy mine, period. If you really must seek non-KBI caches, if my caches aren’t good enough for you, and if you truly feel you can't be bothered to honor my request, then you should give it up, go home, and quit participating.

 

Fair enough?

Nice. Now get it published. Alas your authority is on your caches only. When you make rule that impact others peoples caches you have exceeded your authority.

Exactly!!!!

 

Finally we agree!

 

Finally, we agree that the demand described by the OP is unreasonable.

No we don't.

Same reason a TB hotel owner can't force TB's to play by his rules.

Is the same reason a challenge cache onwer can't force another cache to participate in their challenge.

Huh?

 

As far as I know, no challenge cache owner has ever attempted to force another cache – or another cache owner – to participate in their challenge. And as far as I can tell no one has discussed such a thing in this thread. I’m not sure where you are going with this.

 

My point is that no cache owner has the right, either by rule OR by polite convention, to seek to control which motivations may be exercised – or even revealed – by the cache seeker.

 

I described a hypothetical limitation to be imposed by me (the cache owner) on which caches you (the cache seeker) shall be allowed to seek, based on your motivations. By your response you clearly agree with me that my hypothetical attempt to impose such a limitation is wrong and inappropriate.

[+LARCjpn]

What is a 'cache machine'?

Edited July 6, 2009 by LARCjpn

[+Dgwphotos]

Why would any cache owner be bothered by bookmarks? Any cache page only shows the first... what is it? two or three. After that there's the link to show the rest. Nothing "cluttered" about it. I have a strong dislike of the so-called "challenge" caches, but I sure wouldn't handle it that way!

 

I had one of my bookmarks rated down for that reason. (not a challange bookmark)

[+sbell111]

What is a 'cache machine'?

As I understand it, a cache machine is when some geocaching friends get together to find a bunch of geocaches and have a fun time.

Edited July 6, 2009 by sbell111