Couch Potato Logs

[+tozainamboku]

Some people believe that they should count then number of temporary event caches they find. Perhaps they do this because at one time temporary event caches could be listed on Geocaching.com and people would log them. TPTB got tired of having to publish a ton of caches that were going to exists for just the one day whenever there there was an event so the added the permanence guideline. In some areas people still publish a bunch of caches for a event; they just have to claim that the caches are going to remain after the event. They usually do, but only until they are reported missing. In other areas, people just post the coordinates for temporary event caches privately. In these cases there are those that believe you deserve to increment your find count. So some event owners allow attendees to post extra attended logs. Apparently some event owners don't allow this so someone posted a cache that allows you to log bonus finds each time you find an event cache. I suppose it won't be long till someone allows a bonus find for each virtual where you find the answer to the verification questiong on the internet.

 

This is my point, you can't stop people from finding alternate ways to play the game. They will find some way around what ever you do.

 

If the community wishes to honor people based on the numbers they have found, it up to them to find out if they are comfortable with that person's logging practices. I believe that when a high numbers cacher is compensated for attending a event, or where someone presents a coin to a cacher for achieving a certain number of find, the people doing so are aware as to whether that person has logged armchair virtuals or temporary event caches. If they are not, then the fools are those giving out the honors and not necessarily the person who claims those numbers. People are mostly honest in their logs as to what they are doing so it is not hard to see what someones numbers are. You don't have look at all 35000 finds either (since we are talking about virtuals and events). The motivation for armchair logging or temporary event caches may simply be because someone believe these finds should count.

 

The cool part is that a puritan cannot be forced to log a find for something they don't want to count. A puritan cache owner or event owner can even delete such logs made by others from their caches (because we know the puritan needs to keep the record for their cache accurately) and they can point to the guidelines and threads like this where Groundspeak has confirmed their right to delete logs. But I haven't seen an reason yet for puritans who post SBAs on caches that allow these logs to expect that these cache be archived. Oh that may change. Threads like this one make me fear Groundspeak is moving that way. This thread is certainly threatening cache owners who allow coach potato logs on their virtual with archiving. But archive these caches and people will find another way to count what they want to count.

[+fegan]

Is this going to be done for all cache types or only virtuals? There are some who would view many of the logs on caches like this one the same way they view 'couch potato' logs on virtuals. I don't know that I'm for or against Groundspeak getting involved with doing this at all but if they do it should be applied fairly. If not, one could take it as a way to help the 'natural' process along a little unnaturally.

 

I have met one of the geocachers who logged over 25 finds on that one.

 

That's just crazy!!! ...and WRONG!!!

[+KBI]

Splash it everywhere, and do it relentlessly: "Geocaching is NOT a Competition! There is NO PRIZE for the most online smileys! GET OUTSIDE!!!"

 

There is no such thing as cheating in this hobby – there is nothing to be gained, in other words – but too many folks don’t understand that. Remove the competition culture from geocaching by correcting the conception of the find count, and you remove the motivation to "cheat."

Ah, a great relief! Something to disagree with KBI about. I was starting to get worried that we were agreeing too much.

 

There is, in fact, a "prize" for the most smileys. Or even for smaller numbers of smileys. Many prizes, in fact. That's the culture that keeps the "competition" thing going.

 

Here are a few examples of such "prizes:"

• Many local geocaching groups hand out awards based on the number of smileys logged.
  
• There are geocoins available only to those who have logged certain numbers of smileys.
  
• There are challenge caches only available to those who have logged large numbers of smileys.
  
• I am friends with the cacher who currently has the most finds. He has occasionally been given perks, such as free accommodations, for attending events.
  
• Like it or not, many cachers give respect to people for their find count. The cacher mentioned above is treated as a celebrity at cacher gatherings. I don't begrudge him the honors; he has worked hard for them. But we can't pretend they don't exist.
  

Each of these things you list is an example of a contrived and UN-official contest, Fizzy. If I am mistaken about that, then please point me to any official Groundspeak web page which officially encourages or sanctions even one of the things you listed – or which officially sanctions ANY find-count competition among Geocachers, for that matter.

 

(Besides, your example number three clearly constitutes an ALR cache. ALR caches have been specifically disallowed on this website. No grandfathering even. Totally banned. Apparently you missed that memo.)

 

Anything can be made into an informal competition, Fizzy. Just because someone fabricates a game out of, say, seeing if he can solve newspaper crosswords faster than his buddy doesn’t turn all of crossword puzzling into a sanctioned competitive sport. If you and your local friends decide to have a crossword competition and one of you fronts a prize for the fastest, that doesn’t make me a competitor – and it certainly doesn’t take anything away from me and my crossword enjoyment when one of you "cheats" by peeking at the solution. And if you call the newspaper to complain when one of your buddies "cheats," you will get nothing but an earful of dial tone.

 

Weightlifters in a gym may also choose to compete among themselves for fun. That doesn’t mean the gym management sanctions the competition – and it doesn’t rob the non-competitors of anything when one of the unsanctioned competitors lies about his bench press numbers. And if a disgruntled competitor complains to the gym owner about the "cheating," he will get a blank stare at best.

 

Those who choose to compete unofficially for highest find count are free to cache that way of course, but those who do so should understand two things: (1) A cacher’s find count is absolutely meaningless when compared to another cacher’s find count for purposes of judging superiority, and (2) they are completely on their own when it comes to organization, definitions, rules, and the settling of competitive disagreements. Geocaching is NOT intended to be competitive pastime – at least not on this website. I am a cacher, and the so-called cheaters take nothing away from me. If some folks choose to compete that’s their business, but they shouldn’t get angry at me when I fail to get angry at some fabricated form of "cheating" they invented amongst themselves.

 

The point is, there actually are *unsanctioned* rewards for racking up smileys, both intangible and tangible. Those *unofficial* incentives make the underlying competitive culture all but impossible to eradicate, which I think is too bad.

I completely agree with that statement. (Now that I fixed it for you, that is.)

 

So many of the squabbles that flare up in these forums seem to be rooted in jealousy and angst over other people’s finds. In my opinion that kind of childishness reveals a misunderstanding of the hobby. People get wrapped around the axle over the silliest things: Caches that are "too easy," logs that are suspicious, temporary event caches that "shouldn’t count" ... there are simply too many people with their noses in other people’s business. Why should anybody care what another person’s find count says, or how he logged those caches? Even if a smiley had monetary value it wouldn’t pay to wring one’s hands over other people’s find counts. Nobody ever got rich while glaring into another person’s pockets.

 

You said it well. The underlying competitive culture is all but impossible to eradicate, and that is too bad.

[+KBI]

Is this going to be done for all cache types or only virtuals? There are some who would view many of the logs on caches like this one the same way they view 'couch potato' logs on virtuals. I don't know that I'm for or against Groundspeak getting involved with doing this at all but if they do it should be applied fairly. If not, one could take it as a way to help the 'natural' process along a little unnaturally.

 

 

I have to step away from the forums for a bit to go throw up.

Is it a joke cache or something? It doesn't look that way, though. But it's hard for me to believe that there are real people out there who would actually log a find on something like that.

 

It's really, really sad.

I have met one of the geocachers who logged over 25 finds on that one.

 

That's just crazy!!! ...and WRONG!!!

I have tried my best, I have concentrated, and I have opened my mind ... yet I am unable to work up the tiniest bit of outrage over the mere existence of that cache and its associated online logs.

 

I have a GPS. I have a Groundspeak membership. I dial in coordinates, I read descriptions, and I have a blast looking for – and sometimes even finding – geocaches. I log my activities online. I repeat as necessary.

 

Nowhere in any of that does the existence of that cache, or the existence of the logs on that cache, rob me of one teeny tiny bit of the enjoyment I get out of this hobby.

 

Despite that observation, many otherwise intelligent-sounding folks seem to continue to be outraged. I suppose it is maybe I, then, who is mentally defective.

 

If so, I think I prefer it this way.

[+Trekkin' and birdin']

They loves their temporary cache logs in Wisconsin, I think.

 

For the record....not all of us in Wisconsin love our temporary caches. We have never logged a single one, but yes, there are those that do.

 

Also....the Wisconsin Geocaching Association has taken the stand on our events that temporary caches are not to be logged. How a cache like the one referenced was published is outside my knowledge, but I do know that it was placed as a means for some who like their temps to continue to log 'em from WGA events.

 

We don't wear badges. The organization has stated its intent, and would rather focus efforts on putting on events, working with land managers and helping to educate groups on the FUN we're all having in this game.

 

Back to the original topic, we adopted three virtuals from someone who was one of the pioneers of geocaching in Wisconsin when she decided to drop back from the game for awhile. One in particular seems to get a lot of armchair logs, and at first we sort of scratched our heads. I don't get it. We toyed with changing around the requirements for logging as someone else mentioned, but because these caches are like "legacy" caches in the state, we've left the listings as they stand to honor the original placer's intent.

 

Ultimately, each person has to decide what they can live with and then play the game in that way.

[+fegan]

(Besides, your example number three clearly constitutes an ALR cache. ALR caches have been specifically disallowed on this website. No grandfathering even. Totally banned. Apparently you missed that memo.)

 

 

Careful there...challenge caches are currently exempt from the new ALR changes. I know because I published an A to Z challenge well AFTER the changes regarding ALR caches. And I discussed it with two reviewers prior to publication to make sure I got it right. They must be listed as Unknown/Mystery, instead of Traditional...and clearly state they are a challenge cache. They must be reasonable challenges, typically by the hider having already met the challenge.

[+fegan]

I have tried my best, I have concentrated, and I have opened my mind ... yet I am unable to work up the tiniest bit of outrage over the mere existence of that cache and its associated online logs.

 

Don't get me wrong...I still enjoy the game (some even call it a sport).

 

It's just annoying that somebody would log 25 Finds on a single cache to inflate their numbers. I've found a few temporary caches at events...NEVER have I logged an extra Found log for those temp caches. We even have a very difficult Multi here in Florida that the stages were too close together to make them individual caches, so it was configured as a Mutli and the finder is given the option to log all 7 stages as a Find once they have completed the Final. I won't even add that one to my GPS to go look for it because I will NOT log duplicate Finds on a single cache, no matter how difficult they are (and if they really are that difficult, I'm not spending an entire day to claim 1 smile)...I guess I'm a purist...1 GC# = 1 Find.

[+mrbort]

I have tried my best, I have concentrated, and I have opened my mind ... yet I am unable to work up the tiniest bit of outrage over the mere existence of that cache and its associated online logs.

 

I have a GPS. I have a Groundspeak membership. I dial in coordinates, I read descriptions, and I have a blast looking for – and sometimes even finding – geocaches. I log my activities online. I repeat as necessary.

 

This pretty well sums it up for me.

 

I agree with those in this topic who have said that the counting of finds by Groundspeak has spawned some of these side games. If the finds weren't officially recognized by a counter, I'm guessing that a lot of these things would not even be an issue. Other sites could certainly continue to track stats etc but I wonder if that little count on the official site went away it would alleviate some of the angst associated with find counts, find logs, etc, etc. Certainly power cachers could continue to power cache and track their power cache progression elsewhere... similarly backcountry cachers could continue to use the various resources that quantify finds in a different way to lend statistics to geocaching activity.

 

Just sorta throwing out thoughts here.

[+KBI]

(Besides, your example number three clearly constitutes an ALR cache. ALR caches have been specifically disallowed on this website. No grandfathering even. Totally banned. Apparently you missed that memo.)

 

 

Careful there...challenge caches are currently exempt from the new ALR changes. I know because I published an A to Z challenge well AFTER the changes regarding ALR caches. And I discussed it with two reviewers prior to publication to make sure I got it right. They must be listed as Unknown/Mystery, instead of Traditional...and clearly state they are a challenge cache. They must be reasonable challenges, typically by the hider having already met the challenge.

If you are correct -- and I seem to remember now that maybe you are -- then this is one of the minor details where I disagree with Groundspeak's handling of its efforts to purify the hobby.

 

At one point they did not recognize ALRs one way or the other. They neither encouraged nor discouraged them. Those who didn't like ALRs were free to skip them.

 

People whined.

 

So they came off the fence when they changed the official guidelines to say that ALRs must be listed as Puzzle/Mystery caches. This allowed those who disliked ALRs to more easily avoid them.

 

People still whined.

 

So then they completely reversed their position when they not only banned ALRs, but in a new twist from previous purges, refused to grandfather existing ones. Except for certain ALRs that is, as you have pointed out.

 

And people still whine. One of them is me. I think the overall policy has been terribly inconsistent.

 

Now I think we may be seeing new inconsistencies. Large numbers of frowned-upon logs are bad enough in some places to warrant an official forum warning, but not bad in other places? Remote logging was okay in the past but not okay now – yet we are told there has been no change in policy?

 

I am starting to see Toz’s point of view.

[+KBI]

I have tried my best, I have concentrated, and I have opened my mind ... yet I am unable to work up the tiniest bit of outrage over the mere existence of that cache and its associated online logs.

Don't get me wrong...I still enjoy the game (some even call it a sport).

 

It's just annoying that somebody would log 25 Finds on a single cache to inflate their numbers.

Why?!?

 

Why does it annoy you?

 

I really, truly, honestly want to know. Help me understand why something like this would bother you.

[+KBI]

I agree with those in this topic who have said that the counting of finds by Groundspeak has spawned some of these side games. If the finds weren't officially recognized by a counter, I'm guessing that a lot of these things would not even be an issue.

I like seeing my online find count. I don’t want it to go away. Why should it be taken away? Just because some folks confuse my find count with a scoreboard, does that mean I'm the one who should be punished?

[+tozainamboku]

Don't get me wrong...I still enjoy the game (some even call it a sport).

 

It's just annoying that somebody would log 25 Finds on a single cache to inflate their numbers. I've found a few temporary caches at events...NEVER have I logged an extra Found log for those temp caches. We even have a very difficult Multi here in Florida that the stages were too close together to make them individual caches, so it was configured as a Mutli and the finder is given the option to log all 7 stages as a Find once they have completed the Final. I won't even add that one to my GPS to go look for it because I will NOT log duplicate Finds on a single cache, no matter how difficult they are (and if they really are that difficult, I'm not spending an entire day to claim 1 smile)...I guess I'm a purist...1 GC# = 1 Find.

The people who log 25 times on that cache didn't say they are doing it to inflate there numbers. They say the do it because they believe that temporary event caches should count. There are some historic reasons why some people believe this. The WGA decided that they would not allow multiple logging at their events so this cache was created by a cacher for the those who still wanted to count these temporary event caches. Nobody is forced to log the temporary event caches if they don't want to. The same with the multi cache near you. You of course have the option to ignore it if you want to do that, but I would think that actually finding the cache and logging it once would be more of a statement of how you feel. By ignoring the cache you come across as sounding as if what someone else might log or not log is more important than your personal ethics.

[+fizzymagic]

Splash it everywhere, and do it relentlessly: "Geocaching is NOT a Competition! There is NO PRIZE for the most online smileys! GET OUTSIDE!!!"

There is, in fact, a "prize" for the most smileys. Or even for smaller numbers of smileys. Many prizes, in fact. That's the culture that keeps the "competition" thing going.

Each of these things you list is an example of a contrived and UN-official contest, Fizzy.

I didn't understand that you were only talking about prizes given by Groundspeak; I thought you meant any prize.

 

Just because a prize is unofficial doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it doesn't have value.

 

(Besides, your example number three clearly constitutes an ALR cache. ALR caches have been specifically disallowed on this website. No grandfathering even. Totally banned. Apparently you missed that memo.)

 

No, those caches do not violate the ALR rule; if you'll go back and re-read the changes, you will see that "challenge" caches, where the challenge is explicitly geocaching-related, are still allowed.

 

So many of the squabbles that flare up in these forums seem to be rooted in jealousy and angst over other people’s finds. In my opinion that kind of childishness reveals a misunderstanding of the hobby. People get wrapped around the axle over the silliest things: Caches that are "too easy," logs that are suspicious, temporary event caches that "shouldn’t count" ... there are simply too many people with their noses in other people’s business. Why should anybody care what another person’s find count says, or how he logged those caches?

 

I could not agree more. I don't feel angry or upset or cheated or any of those things. I do feel mildly annoyed that the competitive aspects have impinged on my enjoyment; for example, I have to work a lot harder to identify caches that I will enjoy these days because of the huge influx of caches placed just for the numbers. But I wouldn't say that it causes me any angst. And I have never had a log from a couch potato cacher on either of my virtuals, as far as I can tell. Even if I did, I would just delete it with nary a second thought.

 

But the fact that it doesn't give me angst is independent of the fact that I find the behavior pathetic. People seem to think that by expressing my opinion about those finds I am somehow trying to change the "rules" of geocaching. Not so. I am just saying what I think.

[+fizzymagic]

Is it a joke cache or something? It doesn't look that way, though. But it's hard for me to believe that there are real people out there who would actually log a find on something like that.

 

It's really, really sad.

I have tried my best, I have concentrated, and I have opened my mind ... yet I am unable to work up the tiniest bit of outrage over the mere existence of that cache and its associated online logs.

Opining that something is sad != being outraged.

 

HTH. HAND.

[+mrbort]

I agree with those in this topic who have said that the counting of finds by Groundspeak has spawned some of these side games. If the finds weren't officially recognized by a counter, I'm guessing that a lot of these things would not even be an issue.

I like seeing my online find count. I don’t want it to go away. Why should it be taken away? Just because some folks confuse my find count with a scoreboard, does that mean I'm the one who should be punished?

 

Why not handle finds in a similar way to DNF logs? Or notes? Not saying that this should happen but you wouldn't be punished unless you can't be bothered to look into your profile. The real question is do you like seeing others' find count and do you like others seeing your online find count? Thats where the things I mentioned would affect (punish) you.

 

Edit: never mind.

Edited August 23, 2009 by mrbort

[Clan Riffster]

Did you guys really not know that was happening?

I had heard people talking about it in the forums, but it always seemed like a hypothetical scenario.

It just didn't feel real, till I saw it in black and white.

I was much happier when encouraged multiple logging was, in my mind at least, just a myth.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[Clan Riffster]

Challenge caches are currently exempt from the new ALR changes.

A bit off topic, but Fizzy's post, and your's, got me wondering.

If I created a cache and said only those with 1000 finds or more were allowed to log it, would it be published?

If I called it a challenge, would it fly, or would TPTB consider it an ALR?

(No, I wouldn't create such a cache... I was just curious)

[+KBI]

Each of these things you list is an example of a contrived and UN-official contest, Fizzy.

I didn't understand that you were only talking about prizes given by Groundspeak; I thought you meant any prize.

 

Just because a prize is unofficial doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it doesn't have value.

I see you didn’t read the rest of my post.

 

ANYthing in which you or I participate can be warped by others into a fabricated competition, Fizzy. That doesn’t mean you or I have to participate in their fabrication. More to the point, it also doesn’t mean you or I have to recognize any of their sand lot made-up rules. As in whether the word "cheating" even applies to this hobby.

 

Like Toz pointed out: If there are people who are giving out prizes of value to their caching buddies based purely on their find counts, then these prize givers are obviously reasonably convinced of the believability of the accomplishments represented by the prize receivers' numbers. If not, then it is the prize giver who is the fool.

 

Either way it doesn’t bother me. The only reason I brought up the "competition culture" thing in the first place was because I think Miss Jenn failed to recognize it as the root cause of that which she finds distasteful.

 

I don't feel angry or upset or cheated or any of those things. I do feel mildly annoyed that the competitive aspects have impinged on my enjoyment; for example, I have to work a lot harder to identify caches that I will enjoy these days because of the huge influx of caches placed just for the numbers. But I wouldn't say that it causes me any angst. And I have never had a log from a couch potato cacher on either of my virtuals, as far as I can tell. Even if I did, I would just delete it with nary a second thought.

 

But the fact that it doesn't give me angst is independent of the fact that I find the behavior pathetic. People seem to think that by expressing my opinion about those finds I am somehow trying to change the "rules" of geocaching. Not so. I am just saying what I think.

I hope you didn’t interpret any of my postings as saying I think you are demanding rule changes. Not at all. Like you, I do not let 'remote' logs bother me. Like you, I also can’t help but roll my eyes when I see others doing it. Seriously, what’s the point in armchair-logging a bunch of virtuals? Like you I roll my eyes, but then like you I move on and enjoy my caching day without giving it another thought.

 

I only replied to you because (1) you seemed to miss the point about cheating being merely an invention of those who invent unsanctioned competitions, and because (2) you expressed that you are happier when you and I disagree. You're welcome.

 

Sorry to disappoint you, then, when I observe that apart from that one detail you and I seem to be firmly on the same side of the present debate.

Edited August 23, 2009 by KBI

[+Unkle Fester]

(Please understand that I am not criticizing; I understand that these decisions made sense at the time. If I were running this site I might have made the very same series of decisions through the years, ...

I hear ya, KBI. It's definitely good to keep in mind the long-term nature of this situation.

 

... but more likely I would have made a total train wreck of things. You really really don't want me in charge.)

And thanks for making me laugh!

Funny, I like train wrecks... For a whole different set of reasons. Not the point here.

 

I'm glad this thread came up. A couple of other cachers and I grabbed the APE Cache, Mission 9 Tunnel of Light yesterday. One of our topics of conversation was armchaired virtuals, four windows and several others were brought up. Two of us have not logged them but have seen them logged, the third has a few only because they have seen others do it, but over time - call it cacher maturity - they stopped and are not doing any more.

 

It's kind of a conundrum. The armchairable virts are mislabled locationless and as much as I would like to have that little locationless icon, I can't. At the same time I think GS might have been a little soft on purging locationless virtual caches. Just like I've seen traditionals that should be multi's or puzzles, puzzles that are virtuals and so on.

 

But over the years (hence the reference to the older post) I agree with KBI, a series of decisionswere made and things got too expansive. Now they face the arduous task of reigning in things to pare down the guidelines to make the game somewhat consistant. Do it too fast and you have disgruntled players, do it too slow and people perceive complacentcy.

 

But I do think recent rule interpretations/enforcement/clarifications such as ALRs is a great start, although some owners are deleting logs if people don't write acceptable logs to them, skirting the non ALR requirement.

[+KBI]

HTH. HAND.

DIMYFSTMWYUAWWIANF?

[+fizzymagic]

Challenge caches are currently exempt from the new ALR changes.

A bit off topic, but Fizzy's post, and your's, got me wondering.

If I created a cache and said only those with 1000 finds or more were allowed to log it, would it be published?

If I called it a challenge, would it fly, or would TPTB consider it an ALR?

This cache appears to have been placed before the change in rules, but its status is unclear.

 

This cache was hidden last month.

 

This cache and this one, part of a set of 4, were also approved last month.

Edited August 23, 2009 by fizzymagic

[+Sagefox]

This topic sure took a big detour through the old anti-competition/what's-it-matter-to-you loop. The issue on the table, however, is that people are posting Found Its on virtual caches they did not visit.

 

Four Windows, Radio KAOS and a handful of others were fun years ago during the experimental era but the more recent trend of couch-logging 20 to 150 virtuals is why we are here today talking about it.

 

Some people like to say "if you didn't sign the log you didn't find the cache" but logging a cache you didn't visit is a much greater misdeed.

 

I don't care about how many cache finds the Europeans or any others have logged but it bothers me when folks log caches they didn't visit. Something is definitely wrong with that.

 

(And now, feeling outed, I'm heading over to gc.com to edit my Four Windows Found to a Note.)

[Mr.Yuck]

HTH. HAND.

DIMYFSTMWYUAWWIANF?

 

Hope That Helps, Have A Nice Day. Takes me way back to my usenet days. Before we logged temporary caches at events in Wisconsin, Or found virtuals on Google from Germany. Not to single any group of people out or anything.

[+ChileHead]

(And now, feeling outed, I'm heading over to gc.com to edit my Four Windows Found to a Note.)

 

I had logged a find on that one many years ago, but felt dirty after doing that and deleted my find. I don't see how answering a riddle has anything to do with geocaching.

 

I don't see a change in policy from Groundspeak on this issue. Cache owners remain responsible for ensuring that logs are legitimate on their own caches, whether it is a virtual or physical cache. As with any aspect of maintenance, if you stop maintaining it the cache may be archived, as I know from experience when I have let some of my caches "go" when I've been lazy!

 

Somebody listed a cache where it appears you can log your finds for temporary event caches. While this is truly lame, at least people are logging a find for something they actually found with a GPS, even if it wasn't a real geocache with a geocaching.com GC#.

 

Looking at the virtuals I have found, I don't see that they have been abused by couch cachers. If they were, eventually the entire thing would become a joke and possibly result in the archival of the few virtuals we have in my area.

[+KBI]

This topic sure took a big detour through the old anti-competition/what's-it-matter-to-you loop. The issue on the table, however, is that people are posting Found Its on virtual caches they did not visit.

And the reason they are doing it is explained in large part by the thing you dismiss as a detour.

 

I don't care about how many cache finds the Europeans or any others have logged but it bothers me when folks log caches they didn't visit. Something is definitely wrong with that.

Bothers you why?

 

I’m still waiting for fegan to respond to the same question. Now that you’ve made a statement similar to fegan's, I hope you’ll explain it to me as well. I honestly want to understand why it matters to you.

 

Myself, I’m not bothered at all.

 

Those logs accused of being misused by the confused leave me very amused and a little bemused, but never, never, never abused. If I am unbruised, then they are excused.

 

(Hey, Miss Jenn said she wanted a song ..... )

[Mr.Yuck]

(And now, feeling outed, I'm heading over to gc.com to edit my Four Windows Found to a Note.)

 

I had logged a find on that one many years ago, but felt dirty after doing that and deleted my find. I don't see how answering a riddle has anything to do with geocaching.

 

Looking at the virtuals I have found, I don't see that they have been abused by couch cachers. If they were, eventually the entire thing would become a joke and possibly result in the archival of the few virtuals we have in my area.

 

I too will come out of the closet as a one time four windows finder. It was probably 2004, but we'll never know now. I think there were probably 10-15 virtuals world-wide that supported and even encouraged armchair logs. One of them was in Maine, but I remember seeing the reviewer and/or Groundspeak making the CO change the cache description saying you had to actually visit the location in Maine to log the cache.

 

Not that this is scientific or anything, but Chilehead brings up a good point. Of the 25 virtuals I've found, only 4 of them (all in the same City in Michigan) show any signs of "Greetings from Germany" armchair finds.

[+Allanon]

Bothers you why?

Does there really need to be another reason beside the fact that it's wrong?

 

Myself, I’m not bothered at all.

So you won't mind then if all of us log all of your caches as 'found' without actually visiting and signing the logbook? It's the same thing.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

I too will come out of the closet as a one time four windows finder. It was probably 2004, but we'll never know now. I think there were probably 10-15 virtuals world-wide that supported and even encouraged armchair logs. One of them was in Maine, but I remember seeing the reviewer and/or Groundspeak making the CO change the cache description saying you had to actually visit the location in Maine to log the cache.

 

 

I'm kinda curious about which one in Maine you're talking about. There is a virtual that I have visited, and found two other traditional caches nearby but I wasn't aware at the time that there was a virtual located there. I could satisfy all but one of the requirements for logging a find (a photo with my GPS in it, though I did take some photos at the location) I haven't logged it as a find. I thought I might be able to revisit the site a couple of months ago when I drove close by (twice) but I never stopped.

[Clan Riffster]

This cache[/url] appears to have been placed before the change in rules, but its status is unclear.

Kewl! 10,000 finds, eh? I see the owner doesn't mind folks with less than 10K finds logging it.

Maybe I could set up a logging bot to post 8800 or so finds on Four Windows, so I could meet the requirements for that one?

[+Isonzo Karst]

I think there were probably 10-15 virtuals world-wide that supported and even encouraged armchair logs. One of them was in Maine,

 

I'm kinda curious about which one in Maine you're talking about.

 

It was GC6D43. It used to read that it could be logged by emailing the CO with the name of the object, a visit was not necessary.

If you scroll back through the logs that becomes clear. At some point he added a "photo of object with GPS" requirement (which isn't enforced). I used to have the old version in GSAK, but somewhere along the line I deleted my find, and with it the .gpx from my GSAK database.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I too will come out of the closet as a one time four windows finder. It was probably 2004, but we'll never know now. I think there were probably 10-15 virtuals world-wide that supported and even encouraged armchair logs. One of them was in Maine, but I remember seeing the reviewer and/or Groundspeak making the CO change the cache description saying you had to actually visit the location in Maine to log the cache.

 

 

I'm kinda curious about which one in Maine you're talking about. There is a virtual that I have visited, and found two other traditional caches nearby but I wasn't aware at the time that there was a virtual located there. I could satisfy all but one of the requirements for logging a find (a photo with my GPS in it, though I did take some photos at the location) I haven't logged it as a find. I thought I might be able to revisit the site a couple of months ago when I drove close by (twice) but I never stopped.

 

Ha! Found it. What in the world cache

 

You can tell from reading the logs that the owner was "forced" to make it a virtual that requires visiting the site in February, 2009. Believe me, it used to have a write up that encouraged internet finds. I think it's also funny that the current cache description requires people to say "Greetings from _______". That's probably the cache owner's little jab back at Groundspeak.

 

EDIT: Lookee here! I actually found a 2007 snapshot of the old cache description compliments of the wayback machine internet archive. A small quote:

 

"To claim credit for this cache, all you have to do is to tell me, by e-mail, what is at this location. You don’t have to send a photo or anything else. You don’t even have to go there. If you can find this unique and magnificent object by use of the web. . . well, go for it."

 

You can view the entire 2007 web page here

Edited August 23, 2009 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+KBI]

Bothers you why?

Does there really need to be another reason beside the fact that it's wrong?

If you want me to answer your question -- and if you really want to provide a meaningful answer to my question -- then you’ll need to define "wrong."

 

The word has many definitions, connotations and shades of meaning. A benign action by a confused person who misunderstands a hobby is "wrong." What Bernie Madoff did is also "wrong." Yet those two wrongs are hardly the same thing.

 

What did you mean when you used the word in your question?

 

Myself, I’m not bothered at all.

So you won't mind then if all of us log all of your caches as 'found' without actually visiting and signing the logbook? It's the same thing.

Not if you don’t mind if I delete all those bogus smileys. Nope, won’t mind at all.

 

When a cacher logs a bogus log, he creates an inaccuracy in his find count. I don’t care to have inaccuracies in my own find count, which is why I don’t post bogus logs, but it doesn’t bother me at all when certain confused others do it because I know it is a non-malicious and benign blunder.

 

As an owner, then, it's the same idea: When a cacher logs a demonstrably bogus log on one of my caches, he creates an inaccuracy in my cache page record. I don’t care to have inaccuracies in my cache page record, so I delete logs I know to be bogus, but ... it doesn’t bother me at all when bogus logs appear (and are allowed to remain) on other cache owners’ pages because I know it is merely a harmless (and somewhat entertaining) bit of negligence.

[+KBI]

This cache[/url] appears to have been placed before the change in rules, but its status is unclear.

Kewl! 10,000 finds, eh? I see the owner doesn't mind folks with less than 10K finds logging it.

Maybe I could set up a logging bot to post 8800 or so finds on Four Windows, so I could meet the requirements for that one?

If you're really looking to make some kind of point I think that would be a valid protest. I say go for it.

 

In fact, it would provide an excellent illustration to help teach the fact that comparing any find count with any other find count is useless for determining relative cacher accomplishments.

 

Sometimes it’s the extreme examples that clarify the best.

[+fegan]

I have tried my best, I have concentrated, and I have opened my mind ... yet I am unable to work up the tiniest bit of outrage over the mere existence of that cache and its associated online logs.

Don't get me wrong...I still enjoy the game (some even call it a sport).

 

It's just annoying that somebody would log 25 Finds on a single cache to inflate their numbers.

Why?!?

 

Why does it annoy you?

 

I really, truly, honestly want to know. Help me understand why something like this would bother you.

 

If you quoted my entire post, rather than stopping where you chose to, the last phrase says it all...

 

"...I guess I'm a purist...1 GC# = 1 Find."

[+KBI]

I have tried my best, I have concentrated, and I have opened my mind ... yet I am unable to work up the tiniest bit of outrage over the mere existence of that cache and its associated online logs.

Don't get me wrong...I still enjoy the game (some even call it a sport).

 

It's just annoying that somebody would log 25 Finds on a single cache to inflate their numbers.

Why?!?

 

Why does it annoy you?

 

I really, truly, honestly want to know. Help me understand why something like this would bother you.

If you quoted my entire post, rather than stopping where you chose to, the last phrase says it all...

 

"...I guess I'm a purist...1 GC# = 1 Find."

No, it doesn't.

 

Describing your own personal logging standard doesn't answer my question at all. My question relates to why you are troubled by the idea that others may have a different personal logging standard.

 

I get that you don't care to multi-log that cache. I problably wouldn't either. The difference between our viewpoints is that I don't care whether others do it and ignore it happily, whereas you described it as "annoying."

 

Hence my question: Why?

[+fegan]

Challenge caches are currently exempt from the new ALR changes.

A bit off topic, but Fizzy's post, and your's, got me wondering.

If I created a cache and said only those with 1000 finds or more were allowed to log it, would it be published?

If I called it a challenge, would it fly, or would TPTB consider it an ALR?

(No, I wouldn't create such a cache... I was just curious)

 

Well, I won't answer your question directly, because I'm not a reviewer, but I would suggest you discuss your 'Challenge Cache' idea with a reviewer to determine if it falls within the current guidelines. It needs to be a reasonable challenge that a reasonable number of cachers could achieve.

 

I actually have two challenge caches...one is an A to Z, the other is a Busy Day. I was asked, very politely, to not place a date restriction on the finds required to meet my challenges...I had no issue with that. There was a little bit of my cache discription that needed to be adjusted...again, nothing major. I worked closely with my reviewer to make sure it met the guidelines.

 

The "Busy Day" only takes one day to accomplish, minimum 6 caches. That's fair to assume that most anyone could do...right? It just takes a little planning before you begin your day.

 

The "A to Z" is a little more complex, requiring 26 caches to be found. Many folks won't do that in a single day, but I think we can agree that they could do it in a few weekends...right? Again, a little planning is required...and you may even qualify based on previous finds, just compile your list and head to the challenge cache.

 

I have a challenge cache on my To Do list that is a 'Century' challenge...you have to have found at least 1 cache per day for at least 100 days consecutive. Now, that's a bit of a stretch for most folks...but there will be those who can achieve it. And that one was placed before the recent ALR changes. Would it fly by today's standards? I'm not sure. Was it archived after the change? No.

 

And I do agree...we're drifting Off Topic here.

[+Unkle Fester]

Challenge caches are currently exempt from the new ALR changes.

A bit off topic, but Fizzy's post, and your's, got me wondering.

If I created a cache and said only those with 1000 finds or more were allowed to log it, would it be published?

If I called it a challenge, would it fly, or would TPTB consider it an ALR?

(No, I wouldn't create such a cache... I was just curious)

 

Well, I won't answer your question directly, because I'm not a reviewer, but I would suggest you discuss your 'Challenge Cache' idea with a reviewer to determine if it falls within the current guidelines. It needs to be a reasonable challenge that a reasonable number of cachers could achieve.

 

I actually have two challenge caches...one is an A to Z, the other is a Busy Day. I was asked, very politely, to not place a date restriction on the finds required to meet my challenges...I had no issue with that. There was a little bit of my cache discription that needed to be adjusted...again, nothing major. I worked closely with my reviewer to make sure it met the guidelines.

 

The "Busy Day" only takes one day to accomplish, minimum 6 caches. That's fair to assume that most anyone could do...right? It just takes a little planning before you begin your day.

 

The "A to Z" is a little more complex, requiring 26 caches to be found. Many folks won't do that in a single day, but I think we can agree that they could do it in a few weekends...right? Again, a little planning is required...and you may even qualify based on previous finds, just compile your list and head to the challenge cache.

 

I have a challenge cache on my To Do list that is a 'Century' challenge...you have to have found at least 1 cache per day for at least 100 days consecutive. Now, that's a bit of a stretch for most folks...but there will be those who can achieve it. And that one was placed before the recent ALR changes. Would it fly by today's standards? I'm not sure. Was it archived after the change? No.

 

And I do agree...we're drifting Off Topic here.

It's been explained to me by our reviewer that challenges related to geocaching are OK, taking a picture of you wearing the silly hat in the town square is not. If the odd requirement is not mandatory, that's OK too. You just can't delete a log for non compliance

 

Back to the topic de jour:

 

I have not logged a virtual I haven't been to, although I've found a few I could. I've done research online to get a better idea, but always been there. Earth Caches are the same way, I may explore online and go find it.

 

While I may think its wrong, it has been alowed. There are many things that are legal, but it doesn't make it right. It sounds like TPTB are working to correct this. That is a good thing.

 

I know some cachers who have done this simply to pad their numbers. I really don't know what to think. I'm tempted, but don't think I will. That's just me. Call me a purist, I don't care.

 

Interesting subject though.

[+briansnat]

When Rosie Ruiz took a shortcut to finish line at the Boston Marathon, it didn't bother me a bit and it didn't affect me personally.

 

When it turned out that Milli Vanilli lip synced the hit song that won them a Grammy Award, it didn't bother me a bit and it didn't affect me personally.

 

When Jason Blair was caught plagiarizing and fabricating stories, it didn't bother me a bit and it didn't affect me personally.

 

When Senator Harkin falsely claimed that he flew combat missions over Vietnam it didn't bother me a bit and didn't affect me personally.

 

I reserve the right however to say what they did was wrong should the subject come up. . It doesn't mean I stay awake at night thinking about it. It doesn't mean I'm worked up over it

 

What I get worked up over is people who try to portray me as worked up over any of this stuff.

Edited August 24, 2009 by briansnat

[+doingitoldschool]

(And now, feeling outed, I'm heading over to gc.com to edit my Four Windows Found to a Note.)

 

I did too. Just becuase.

[+Danbike_Lizbike]

Well put. Wouldn't it be nice if we allowed each other to participate as we wanted and not in a manner that some bureaucrat or bureaucrat wannabe wanted. I'm beginning to think that the Germans are correct and some of us are wound a bit too tight. Perhaps they could channel that passion into the future of their Country and leave all the rest of us to pursue pastimes.

 

I have tried my best, I have concentrated, and I have opened my mind ... yet I am unable to work up the tiniest bit of outrage over the mere existence of that cache and its associated online logs.

Don't get me wrong...I still enjoy the game (some even call it a sport).

 

It's just annoying that somebody would log 25 Finds on a single cache to inflate their numbers.

Why?!?

 

Why does it annoy you?

 

I really, truly, honestly want to know. Help me understand why something like this would bother you.

If you quoted my entire post, rather than stopping where you chose to, the last phrase says it all...

 

"...I guess I'm a purist...1 GC# = 1 Find."

No, it doesn't.

 

Describing your own personal logging standard doesn't answer my question at all. My question relates to why you are troubled by the idea that others may have a different personal logging standard.

 

I get that you don't care to multi-log that cache. I problably wouldn't either. The difference between our viewpoints is that I don't care whether others do it and ignore it happily, whereas you described it as "annoying."

 

Hence my question: Why?

[Keystone]

Wouldn't it be nice if we allowed each other to participate as we wanted and not in a manner that some bureaucrat or bureaucrat wannabe wanted. I'm beginning to think that the Germans are correct and some of us are wound a bit too tight. Perhaps they could channel that passion into the future of their Country and leave all the rest of us to pursue pastimes.

Bear in mind that the Lackeys (not bureaucrats) who lovingly run this listing service tried for many years to stay "hands off" on this issue, hoping that peer pressure and cache owner enforcement would be sufficient to address the issue. The persistent volume of complaints, however, has led to the educational effort announced in this thread.

 

When you are ready to discuss the pro's and con's of the logging practice, rather than disparaging the people who started the discussion, please feel free to post again.

[Mr.Yuck]

Wouldn't it be nice if we allowed each other to participate as we wanted and not in a manner that some bureaucrat or bureaucrat wannabe wanted. I'm beginning to think that the Germans are correct and some of us are wound a bit too tight. Perhaps they could channel that passion into the future of their Country and leave all the rest of us to pursue pastimes.

Bear in mind that the Lackeys (not bureaucrats) who lovingly run this listing service tried for many years to stay "hands off" on this issue, hoping that peer pressure and cache owner enforcement would be sufficient to address the issue. The persistent volume of complaints, however, has led to the educational effort announced in this thread.

 

When you are ready to discuss the pro's and con's of the logging practice, rather than disparaging the people who started the discussion, please feel free to post again.

 

Hmm. Is Lackey really better than bureaucrat?

 

For the benefit of people who haven't actually seen what one of these virtual cache pages look like, here's an archived one Notice how the "Greetings from Germany" type logs just sort of started showing up in 2006. And once they did, they were probably 95% of the log entries.

Edited August 24, 2009 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Lost in Space]

"It's not a competition"...."It's not about the numbers"........How often have we all heard that?

 

Here's a radical solution: Groundspeak to stop recording, and publishing personal found statistics?

I believe my suggestion would put an end to so called couch caching.

[+Kit Fox]

Thanks for the reminder MissJenn

 

I'm waiting with baited breath for the educational article pertaining to the frivilous practice of logging multiple attended logs for the purpose of getting credit for non GC approved temporary caches.

[+doingitoldschool]

Thanks for the reminder MissJenn

 

I'm waiting with baited breath for the educational article pertaining to the frivilous practice of logging multiple attended logs for the purpose of getting credit for non GC approved temporary caches.

 

I woke up in another world this morning, in which I agree with Kit Fox! Where's the coffee, NOW?!?! (please)

[+doingitoldschool]

"It's not a competition"...."It's not about the numbers"........How often have we all heard that?

 

Here's a radical solution: Groundspeak to stop recording, and publishing personal found statistics?

I believe my suggestion would put an end to so called couch caching.

 

Well, why whould the vast majority, who like to see how many caches they have found, simply for the sake of knowing, and not bragging, padding, etc., suffer because a small and stubborn minority feel the need to abuse a particular logging practice?

[Brad_W]

Please keep the posts here focused on the Couch Potato Logs topic and MissJenn's post.

 

Other subjects will be much more easily found and discussed in their own topics.

 

Thank you.

[+ChileHead]

What I find fascinating are how people think everybody should play this the same way, how the darn evil puritans are ruining the way they want to play, etc ...

 

Every game/activity/competition has a basic set of rules. They can be expanded or modified, but generally there are core rules that people follow.

 

Take a simple game like solitaire. If you are playing by yourself and cheat, hey knock yourself out. Nobody really cares. But now somebody makes a new site www.solitairing.com that tracks all your games you've played, how many you have won and lost, etc ... It's purely for fun, not a competition, but you can see other people's stats.

 

Now the way I play solitaire is that I'm allowed to look at the down cards and pull a couple out anytime I get stuck. I'm also allowed go open a new deck and pull cards out that help me win. It's not a competition, and that's just the way I play because I like to win 100% of the time. Now I post my wins on solitairing.com to share with everybody else.

 

How long until solitairing.com becomes a joke and nobody goes there anymore, because the information on the site is wrong?

 

Bogus logs, off topic posts, and spam all contribute to making a useful site non-useful, and eventually drives traffic away. Luckily the bogus logs on the virtuals we are talking about here do not seem out of control, yet. I'm glad to see the existing rules are being "refreshed" so people know abuse could result in the archival of a grandfathered cache type.

 

I say that bogus logs on virtual caches DO affect me. I'm traveling to DC and want to see the sites. Of course, I'm geocaching too. So I load my GPS up with all the virts in DC. I note that one of the virtuals has be collect information off a historical marker or plaque to validate my find. There are 20 recent finds on it, so all looks good. Now I go to the coordinates, look around, and there is no sign. How can that be? A contingent of Germans was just here yesterday and found it? Unknown to me, the historical marker was moved/removed 2 months ago, and all the logs since then have been from the comfort of a couch 4000 kilometers away. So I wasted time, maybe not much, looking for this missing marker. I'm going to be a bit pissed at the previous couchers.

 

I don't want the logs to be bogus on a cache. I want to see the finds, the no finds, the needs maint. They should all be real, and reflective of the current state of the cache. You can't get that from logging thousands (or even just tens) of kilometers away.

 

The Four Windows one is just amazing. Answer a riddle, and get a smilely. That one doesn't bother me as much as bogus logs on virtuals, because at least you know going in that the whole cache is a bit of a joke. You're not travelling up to the North Pole looking for a virtual or a bear that isn't there.

 

I'm a letterboxer as well as a geocacher, and I recently found out that there are virtual letterboxes. I thought they would be more like a virtual cache, in that you had to go find an area and answer a question to log a find (but without a stamp it just seems odd.) But, their virtual boxes are more like Four Windows. Answer a question about a video game, and you get a find. Answer a question about a Beatles song, you get a find. What? Huh? Really? I'm glad we only have a small handful of virtuals like those.

[+Lost in Space]

 

Well, why whould the vast majority, who like to see how many caches they have found, simply for the sake of knowing, and not bragging, padding, etc., suffer because a small and stubborn minority feel the need to abuse a particular logging practice?

 

The key word was publish. There would be no problem in tracking a person's finds and then only allowing that person to access their personal statistics.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Lost in Space

[+sbell111]

Is this going to be done for all cache types or only virtuals? There are some who would view many of the logs on caches like this one the same way they view 'couch potato' logs on virtuals. I don't know that I'm for or against Groundspeak getting involved with doing this at all but if they do it should be applied fairly. If not, one could take it as a way to help the 'natural' process along a little unnaturally.

Thanks for the reminder MissJenn

 

I'm waiting with baited breath for the educational article pertaining to the frivilous practice of logging multiple attended logs for the purpose of getting credit for non GC approved temporary caches.

There is a very clear difference between the subject of this thread and the logging of temporary caches.

 

Couch Potato Logs have always been officially discouraged by TPTB. Also, it has long been policy that if cache owners didn't actively discourage couch potato logs from their virts, that the virts could be archived and locked.

 

Conversely, TPTB's has been indifferent regarding the logging of temporary caches. While Jeremy did state that he personally found the practice to be 'stupid', he didn't find it to be an abuse of the system.