Couch Potato Logs

[+Sagefox]

"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.

 

Now there's an idea I've not heard before.

[+Sagefox]

 

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.

 

 

Me too.

[+KBI]

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.

You and I have had this conversation before.

 

Each of those is an example of someone who gained (or expected to gain) something of value or substance as a result of their fraud. Also, unless they were idiots, they fully understood they were breaking important rules. Each of those is an example of either civil misbehavior (contract fraud) or outright criminal behavior.

 

And I’m sorry, but each of those things did have the potential to affect you personally.

 

Not so with remote-logged virtuals. Those who remote-log virtual caches are looking to gain nothing more than the satisfaction of having completed an easy Internet task, and of watching their numbers go up. It’s like solving a crossword. You can either noodle out the words (go to the coordinates) or you can peek at the solution (Google the answers instead of going to the coordinates). Nobody is harmed except for maybe the logger – he is only cheating himself out of the fun of a visit to the coords, assuming he would even enjoy it.

 

As MissJenn explained, they do not see their activity as breaking any rules, and for very rational reasons. Some of them may know they are being frowned upon, but I believe the vast magority of them believe they are participating correctly in a fun and wholesome activity, the same viewpoint you and I have about our own caching activities.

 

The issue here is not cachers who knowingly post bogus logs. That was another thread. The issue here is the existence of overwhelming numbers of cachers who armchair-log virtuals and see nothing wrong with it, and whether that behavior should be tolerated. This activity is no more threatening or evil than overwhelming smiley numbers on lamp post caches -- and no one is being robbed or defrauded by either popular lamp post caches OR by popular armchair-logged virts.

 

So should overwhelming numbers of cachers who armchair-log virtuals, and who see nothing wrong with, it be tolerated? I have already explained my view on that: If it happens on my cache, I delete any logs which demonstrably do not follow the guidelines. If it happens on someone else’s cache it’s not a problem for me – those logs are between the cache owner and the finder, and are none of my business.

 

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.

I understand, but:

 

What I get worked up over is people who get worked up over the news that I am NOT getting worked up over armchair logging. Which apparently includes you – why else would you re-post your (irrelevant) argument against bogus logs?

[+J-Way]

Deleted because most of the post was off topic.

Edited August 24, 2009 by J-Way

[+KBI]

I’ve been thinking. When pressed as to why this activity is so offensive as to necessitate action, folks either tend to be vague ("Why is it wrong? Because it’s WRONG, that’s why!") or they refuse to respond at all.

 

What is the big objection here, really? What specific part of massive-armchair-virtual-logging is it that bothers so many people, including Miss Jenn? Nobody will answer that question, despite several requests.

 

Is it because the failure to visit the coordinate location means these cachers aren’t "caching" in the way "caching" was intended by those who run this site?

If so, then I fully understand and support that view, but then wouldn’t that argument naturally extend to the elimination of ALL virtuals? Virtual caches are not proper geocaches. They have no container to locate and no logbook to sign. The grandfathering of virtuals has allowed for the issue described in the OP to continue – cachers will always have differing personal standards when it comes to what should count as a find. That 'problem' will always exist regardless of the cache type, therefore there is nothing special about virtuals if this is the true objection.

 

Is it because armchair logging makes virtuals too easy?

If that is the root objection, then consider this: The difference in the effort required to complete a steep hike and then spot a cleverly camouflaged container vs. the effort required to complete a standard drive-up lamp post cache is MUCH greater than the required-effort difference between a standard drive-up lamp post cache and an armchair-logged virtual. In this reasnable perspective, the armchair virt and the LPC look pretty much identical on the sweat-breaking scale. Does this mean the latest standard being used to determine cache worthiness is the level of effort required? Do we really want a rule like that to be created and enforced?

 

Or is it because the number of logs on these cache pages is simply too overwhelming?

If that is the real offense, then wouldn’t the overwhelming number of smileys be objectionable no matter the cache type, and no matter how they got there? Are we maybe going to see a new smiley limit per cache page? It wouldn’t be difficult to enforce, just a software patch.

 

I'm not fighting against anything here. I only want to understand. Therefore I ask: What is the specific objection here? Are there any objectors here willing to take on that question, and answer it convincingly? Telling me "It is wrong because it is wrong" doesn’t tell me anything.

 

I have to go to work now, where I'll be away from the Internet for a while, but I'll check back in when I can.

[+tozainamboku]

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.

Thanks for that note. The fact is that Groundspeak took a hands off approach for a long time. Geocachers were trusted to "do the right thing". Gecoaching.com was "just a listing service" and was not the "log police". Any the funny thing is that this mostly worked. Occasionally the guidelines were tweaked to clarify that this was a geocaching site - primarily dedicate to a sport where people used GPS to go to a location and find something there. It was clarified that cache owners should delete bogus or counterfeit logs. And with the ALR change they even went so far as to say that if you signed the log in a physical cache you could log your find and cache owners couldn't delete it for failing to do some silly task that wasn't geocaching related.

 

But despite all this work that guaranteed that people who used the site to record their experiences geocaching would be able to do this, people continued to complain that a few individuals wanted to expand the definition of geocaching to include answering trivia questions or finding temporary caches that didn't have their own GC number. These alternative games do not in any way interfere with the purist play of the game and generally when people log these finds there is no deception about what they are doing. But the puritans insist on referring to these activities as cheating and complaining to Groundspeak that something must be done. Now, even a simple forum post that tries to explain that armchair logging was never intended to be part of virtual caching gives the impression that Groundspeak no longer trusts the community and that they have giving into the demands of a few geocachers who are intolerant of a minority who are simply taking advantage of the mechanism set up for geocaching to play alternative games. If Groundspeak want to educate people as to why these alternate games are not geocaching there may be better ways to do it then starting threads in the forums where we already know the majority of posters on these topics are intolerant puritans. In addition, veiled threats to archive caches if cache owners don't start deleting these logs might even backfire as people don't like bureaucrats of any kind telling them what to do.

[+KBI]

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.

Great post.

 

That is by far the clearest and most convincing defense I have seen so far. Thanks, ChileHead!

 

 

Edit to add: This is an excellent point, but not conclusively convincing for me. Any cacher who heavily depends on reading online logs to make his where-to-cache decisions (and then blames the loggers when things go bad) either lacks good judgment, or is simply clueless about how our hobby bumbles along in the real world. When I use that information to direct my own cache hunting I do it with the clear understanding that there is misinformation everywhere in the world, especially in an amateur-based hobby such as this, and that I am ultimately accountable for my choices.

 

Your point is still powerful, but we must each take responsibility for our own decisions.

Edited August 24, 2009 by KBI

[+briansnat]

What is the big objection here, really? What specific part of massive-armchair-virtual-logging is it that bothers so many people, including Miss Jenn? Nobody will answer that question, despite several requests.

 

They aren't geocaching by any definition that I can find. This is a geocaching website. If they want to have fun answering puzzles and trivia questions I'm sure there are websites for that.

[+tozainamboku]

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.

Great post.

 

That is by far the clearest and most convincing defense I have seen so far. Thanks, ChileHead!

Perhaps. But if I saw a virtual and all the recent finds said "Greetings from Germany" I might not assume that these people actually visited the site and found the marker with the information on it. If I went and found it missing, I'd be more pissed at the people who may have looked in the past 2 months and then failed to log a DNF. Failure to log a DNF is much more of a problem for those that use the recent logs to decide whether to search for a cache or not than bogus logs are. And I would also ask ChileHead what would he do about the person who visited the virtual and couldn't find the sign or marker so they went home and looked up the answer on the internet? What if the person also posted a picture to prove they visited?

[+MissJenn]

Stating that you must visit the location is not necessary as this is an implicit requirement, just like the one that you need to bring a GPS receiver to find a traditional cache.

My apologies everyone and thanks for pointing it out.

 

Please disregard that bit in bold. That was a poor choice of words on my part. I've stricken it from Post #1 as well. The IMPORTANT bit is this:

 

Stating that you must visit the location is not necessary as this is an implicit requirement

[+Hockeyhick]

I have two virtual armchair "smilies" that, until now, I was fine with, because that is the way that the cache owner had originaly set them up. I will change those logs to "notes" to not appear hypycritical.

 

It's interesting how some people try to justify their dishonesty.

 

From armchairing to logging your own to out-right lying, it's yet another way that sociaty has changed and dishonesty is becoming the norm. It's a sad reflectiopn on how some people are, and what they show others, including kids.

 

My request is that the site be changed in such a way as to allow us the ability to hide our finds from casual view.

 

Why? Because my numbers only matter to only me.

 

Thanks!

[+MissJenn]

What is the big objection here, really? What specific part of massive-armchair-virtual-logging is it that bothers so many people, including Miss Jenn? Nobody will answer that question, despite several requests.

 

Is it because the failure to visit the coordinate location means these cachers aren't "caching" in the way "caching" was intended by those who run this site?

KBI,

MissJenn did answer this question in Post #1.

What's wrong with that?

Well, it was never intended that way.

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

[+tozainamboku]

What is the big objection here, really? What specific part of massive-armchair-virtual-logging is it that bothers so many people, including Miss Jenn? Nobody will answer that question, despite several requests.

 

They aren't geocaching by any definition that I can find. This is a geocaching website. If they want to have fun answering puzzles and trivia questions I'm sure there are websites for that.

Didn't you read my post with the memo from the Air Force about people using GPS to play games? Ok, that wasn't a real memo, but my point is that people will find uses for technology beyond what it was originally intended for. Certainly Groundspeak is withing their rights to attempt to control the use of the Geocaching.com website and they probably feel that by keeping a narrow definition of geocaching makes it easier to explain and promote the activity. IMO, they have done a good job by emphasizing in the cache placement guidelines what geocaching is about. However they also chose to grandfather in many caches that were listed before they felt the need to update the guidelines. The existence of these caches leads many to believe that armchair logging is acceptable. I've no problem if they explain their rationale this way. But I don't like if the reason is "to stop cheating" or even to satisfy the puritans who continue to complain that they are bothered by something that doesn't affect them.

 

And just to bother the puritans some more, I'll add that I blame armchair logging in part on them. (I'll repeat here something I said before, I don't see briansnat as a puritan even if he wishes to self identify as one).

 

Here the argument. The puritans have made Sign the log = Find the cache a mantra. Because of this some people feel they can claim a find if they sign a log book someone brings to an event, even though they never found the cache. Groundspeak put a stop to these pocket caches basically by threatening owners of caches that allowed these finds with archival - pretty much what they are doing now with armchair logging. Answering the verification question is the virtual equivalent of signing the log. Because of this some people believe answering the verification question is enough to justify logging a find online. I agree with Groundspeak in saying that armchair logs are the equivalent of pocket caches. What needs to be done is to put a stop to the nonsense of equating signing a physical log book with the ability to log a find online. Signing the physical log book provides a verification method for those cases where a cache owner thinks an online log may be bogus. They can go and check the physical log in their cache and if the name is not there only then, perhaps, can they delete the online log.

Edited August 24, 2009 by tozainamboku

[Mr.Yuck]

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.

Great post.

 

That is by far the clearest and most convincing defense I have seen so far. Thanks, ChileHead!

 

 

Edit to add: This is an excellent point, but not conclusively convincing for me. Any cacher who heavily depends on reading online logs to make his where-to-cache decisions (and then blames the loggers when things go bad) either lacks good judgment, or is simply clueless about how our hobby bumbles along in the real world. When I use that information to direct my own cache hunting I do it with the clear understanding that there is misinformation everywhere in the world, especially in an amateur-based hobby such as this, and that I am ultimately accountable for my choices.

 

Your point is still powerful, but we must each take responsibility for our own decisions.

 

You're right KBI! I like Chilehead, even though I only met him once for like 30 seconds.

 

I managed to find an example of a cache that was continuing to receive coach potato logs from across the pond, long after the physical object of the virtual was removed.

 

And I myself once owned a virtual (it was listed on Navicache.com only), where the friggin' object disappeared. It does happen.

[+Avernar]

Here the argument. The puritans have made Sign the log = Find the cache a mantra. Because of this some people feel they can claim a find if they sign a log book someone brings to an event, even though they never found the cache. Groundspeak put a stop to these pocket caches basically by threatening owners of caches that allowed these finds with archival - pretty much what they are doing now with armchair logging. Answering the verification question is the virtual equivalent of signing the log. Because of this some people believe answering the verification question is enough to justify logging a find online. I agree with Groundspeak in saying that armchair logs are the equivalent of pocket caches. What needs to be done is to put a stop to the nonsense of equating signing a physical log book with the ability to log a find online. Signing the physical log book provides a verification method for those cases where a cache owner thinks an online log may be bogus.

You're forgetting the implicit rule "Go to the given coordinates". So in effect the Sign the log = Find the cache becomes Sign the log at the given coordinates = Find the cache. Same with virtuals. Get the answer = Find the cache becomes Get the answer at the given coordinates = Find the cache.

[+WebChimp]

Stating that you must visit the location is not necessary as this is an implicit requirement

 

Implicit. That's a pretty good word. The colloquial definition for the way the word is used here would be, I guess, "So obvious that I shouldn't have to point it out."

 

I'm glad Miss Jenn took time to write her essay on why virtual armchair caching is wrong. I'm kind of ashamed I hadn't figured that out without it.

 

Over time, I had collected a few of those virtual smilies, in other countries. It was kind of neat (at the time) to see other countries pop up on my "found" map. After reading the above, it dawned on me that these V2s (i.e., Virtual Virtuals), which I had thought of previously as just harmless fun, weren't that at all. They were (as it was put earlier), just plain wrong. I've deleted those virtual finds from my list of cache finds. Oh, I figured out what the right answer was for each, got permission to log it, etc. But, I was missing a critical component: I hadn't actually been to the cache location.

 

Well, that's fixed now. I had become aware that those finds weren't exactly kosher, but they had been there so long, and they looked good on the map, so.............. I fudged. I left them there, until last week.

 

I remember a story from long ago, about how a camel would slip his nose under the edge of the tent, and how if you didn't stop it as soon as it started, eventually the whole camel would be inside with you, and the tent would be uninhabitable. These V2s were the nose of the camel for me, and it feels pretty good to say the camel nose has been thumped.

 

I also took that as an opportunity to clean up a lot meaningless stats from my profile page. (Nobody cares if I found more caches that were 3/3 than 2/5 in August of 2006. I don't care, so I'm sure nobody else does. Why waste storage space to display stuff like that???).

 

I don't know Miss Jenn, but I'd like to thank her for her clear manner of stating that which should have been obvious.

[+Moose Mob]

Scanning back since my last read a couple days ago, it would seem folks are nit picking words and issues. I would suggest that this be kept simple so we can all have the same perspective.

 

Go to cache location, sign logbook, log online. Although exceptions exist, please stay focused on this concept.

 

Thanks

[+tozainamboku]

Scanning back since my last read a couple days ago, it would seem folks are nit picking words and issues. I would suggest that this be kept simple so we can all have the same perspective.

 

Go to cache location, sign logbook, log online. Although exceptions exist, please stay focused on this concept.

 

Thanks

If the moderators are going to limit the discussion as to whether or not one ought to have actually visited the cache site in order to claim a find you might as well lock this thread right now. So far nobody has come out and said that you should log couch potato logs. I suppose someone could join the conversation an say how much they enjoy being able to do this and as it doesn't get in the way of people who want to actually visit a virtual location they don't see what the fuss is about. You might even get an owner who allows couch potato logs explain that how they enjoy owning a cache where people from all over the world can participate. Locals can still find the cache the traditional way but they also enjoy the logs from other countries where a geocacher has done the research. But unless these people have really thick skins I doubt they would post here. Any one who did would undoubtedly be labeled a cheater and for degrading geocaching.

 

So instead the discussion is about why is this a problem that Groundspeak felt the need to make the post that they did? Since this seems to another step away from the previous stance that Groundspeak was not going to police logs except in the most egregious situations it is reasonable for people to ask what other logging practices might be seen as egregious abuse of the "Found" log where they will step in. There is also some curiosity as to what Groundspeak will do now when caches are found with couch potato logs. Clearly it has been the policy for sometime now to threaten archival in the case of a cache owner who invites or allows these logs. That was not clear to me before this discussion. I had focused on the abandonment clause rather that the slippery slope of deciding whether the quality control of online logs a cache owner chose to do was sufficient.

Edited August 24, 2009 by tozainamboku

[+Avernar]

So far nobody has come out and said that you should log couch potato logs. I suppose someone could join the conversation an say how much they enjoy being able to do this and as it doesn't get in the way of people who want to actually visit a virtual location they don't see what the fuss is about. You might even get an owner who allows couch potato logs explain that how they enjoy owning a cache where people from all over the world can participate. Locals can still find the cache the traditional way but they also enjoy the logs from other countries where a geocacher has done the research. But unless these people have really thick skins I doubt they would post here. Any one who did would undoubtedly be labeled a cheater and for degrading geocaching.

You seem to be playing Devil's Advocate so I'll respond to this as if you were presenting those arguments on their behalf.

 

There are two main reasons for not allowing armchair caching:

 

1) It clutters up the logs with bogus finds. The owner and future finders may be mislead that there's nothing wrong with their cache if in fact there is. While the forum participants know what "Greetings from Germany" means, not everyone else does.

 

2) Geocaching requires two things: A container and visiting the container's coordinates. The container has been made optional (virtual, events, etc). Now if you also take away the visiting the coordinates part it's not geocaching anymore and doesn't belong on this site.

 

The solution is rather simple. One person just needs to put up some forum software on another server and everyone who wants to couch potato log can do it there. Just set up a thread for each of the virtual caches here and you're all set. The people here won't be bothered by those logs and the people there can have all the fun they want.

 

As long as no information is copied from the cache pages here then Groundspeak shouldn't have a problem with it. Just a link back to the cache pages. Groundspeak gets their ad revenue and the patato cachers still can use the existing virtuals.

[+ChileHead]

Perhaps. But if I saw a virtual and all the recent finds said "Greetings from Germany" I might not assume that these people actually visited the site and found the marker with the information on it.

 

Ah, you and I know that because we read the forums. The vast majority of geocachers don't come here at all, and think "Isn't that nice that some German tourists came to visit America. I hope they left some of that swell German beer by the marker". Can you imagine their surprise when not only the marker is missing, but there isn't beer there either!

[+ChileHead]

And I would also ask ChileHead what would he do about the person who visited the virtual and couldn't find the sign or marker so they went home and looked up the answer on the internet? What if the person also posted a picture to prove they visited?

 

Interesting question. In some cases where physical caches that went missing, people that were in the right area are given permission to log a find by the owner. Personally, I'd wait for the cache to come back. I'm not sure how I feel about your scenario. At least they got off their butts and looked for the marker!

[+J-Way]

Scanning back since my last read a couple days ago, it would seem folks are nit picking words and issues. I would suggest that this be kept simple so we can all have the same perspective.

 

Go to cache location, sign logbook, log online. Although exceptions exist, please stay focused on this concept.

Yep. Simple.

 

And I owned a virtual (different listing site) that was a really cool fountain in a downtown historic area. It looked like a giant stone basket with a stone handle. It was destroyed in a high-speed police chase crash.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

Yep, that's the same cache I had visited but have not yet logged. I probably spent an hour in the store there and took several photos of the object, but since I didn't know there was a virtual there (I'm not sure how it escaped my PQ) I didn't take a photo with a GPS in it.

[PastorJon]

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.

 

Yep, that's the same cache I had visited but have not yet logged. I probably spent an hour in the store there and took several photos of the object, but since I didn't know there was a virtual there (I'm not sure how it escaped my PQ) I didn't take a photo with a GPS in it.

 

If you mail me your GPSr, I'll take a picture of it (and the object) for you...

 

I'll even send your GPSr back to you!

 

(I haven't cared much about virtuals, so when I went up there a couple weeks back, I did the two trads nearby, went in the store... looked at the object... and then left. Could have pulled my cellphone and GPSr out, and added another to the find count. Meh.)

[+Corp Of Discovery]

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.

 

Just as the one cache owner 'allows' people to 'falsely' log their caches so do the other ones. The only difference I see is that one owns a virtual and the other a physical cache. If the standard is not applied equally I'd take it with a grain of salt that this is not just another way by TPTB to help along the demise of some remaining virtuals.

[+briansnat]

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.

2. You go here.

 

You'd think.

[+Sagefox]

 

If the standard is not applied equally I'd take it with a grain of salt that this is not just another way by TPTB to help along the demise of some remaining virtuals.

 

 

"Some" of the remaining virtuals?

 

Like maybe in the example given above where the cache owner has not been active for over a year and the Greetings folks have been heavily abusing 17 of their 18 virts to the point that a reviewer had to archive them all. And the Greetings brigade keeps logging one that was archived because the object was moved - they just keep logging away.

 

Yeah, maybe the virtual caches of "some" non-active cachers need to be archived.

 

I do thank TPTB for their grandfather policy that allows "maintained" virtual caches to remain. Those virts are like collectors items and it is fun to find them (see edit).

 

(Edit to strike the following from the record because it is unnecessary hype:) "...unless , of course, they are being heavily Greeted. Then they're not much fun."

Edited August 25, 2009 by Team Sagefox

[+baloo&bd]

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.

 

Actually, you are right. The difference however is that the caches that allow the logging of temporary event caches have had a long standing rule that prohibits temp caches that applies;

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons. Please do your best to research fully, hide wisely, and maintain properly for a long cache life.

 

I think the point being made is if you are going to get involved in the posting of couch cache logs because the cache owners repeatedly have disregarded their agreement to "assume the responsibility of quality control of logged "finds" for the cache, and will agree to delete any "find" logs that appear to be bogus", which they should, then they should apply and equal standard to the issue of cache permanence as these logs are equally "bogus".

 

I really believe that there is no attempt to do away with Virtuals by applying this rule. GS does not need an excuse to just do away with them. I simply think they are not being as even handed here as they should be.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

If the standard is not applied equally I'd take it with a grain of salt that this is not just another way by TPTB to help along the demise of some remaining virtuals.

 

 

"Some" of the remaining virtuals?

 

Like maybe in the example given above where the cache owner has not been active for over a year and the Greetings folks have been heavily abusing 17 of their 18 virts to the point that a reviewer had to archive them all. And the Greetings brigade keeps logging one that was archived because the object was moved - they just keep logging away.

 

Yeah, maybe the virtual caches of "some" non-active cachers need to be archived.

 

I do thank TPTB for their grandfather policy that allows "maintained" virtual caches to remain. Those virts are like collectors items and it is fun to find them, unless , of course, they are being heavily Greeted. Then they're not much fun.

 

The Greetings brigade, huh? I like it. Many people lose interest in this game, or life gets in the way. I do believe Virtual caches, which basically were discontinued in the spring of 2003, have a pretty good track record of being "abandoned" by cachers who are long gone, and probably never coming back.

[+tozainamboku]

I do thank TPTB for their grandfather policy that allows "maintained" virtual caches to remain. Those virts are like collectors items and it is fun to find them, unless , of course, they are being heavily Greeted. Then they're not much fun.

 

I just don't understand this. No matter how outraged you may be because someone posted a bogus log on a virtual cache how does that keep you from visiting the cache and getting the answers the way you find proper and having fun doing it? Maybe the page is cluttered with bogus logs but how often is there something in a virtual cache found log that is going to help you find a virtual cache (or decide not to search for it because of a DNF log). I'll grant that if you are a real puritan you might not log your find until the cache owner responds to your email. (How many people are that hard core?). If the owner has abandoned the cache and doesn't respond, then I agree that this cache is not available for finding by a hard core puritan who waits for a response from the cache owner before logging.

 

Archival of caches as a means of forcing cache owners to apply a certain logging standard seems extreme to me. The puritans seem to have convinced TPTB that simply trying to explain that geocaching means actually going to a location to find the cache doesn't work and that the stick approach is now needed. The problem with archiving is that it punishes all cachers even those who actually would visit that virtual in order to log a find. The puritans are already demanding the next step - punish cache owners for allowing bonus logs such as logging attended on an event for each temporary cache found. Where will this stop? Will the puritans demand that caches be archived because the owner doesn't compare the online and physical logs? Will they demand caches be archived if there are found logs from people who were with the cache owner when the cache was placed? I like geocaching because cache finders and cache owners arewere free to come to their own agreements as to when to us the Found It log. Those who are uncomfortable with certain logging practices are free to refrain from logging these finds. They are also free to delete logs from their own caches should they feel a log is bogus. I don't like being forced to do what someone else says is right. It is more satisfying if I am given the freedom to chose what is right. That may come at a cost in that it means some people will not do what I think is right. They may feel that what they do is right for them. So long as I am not hurt by it I am willing to tolerate this. Geocaching is nothing but a just a silly game and the important thing is to have fun. If someone logging "Greetings from Germany" is keeping you from having fun, I feel real sorry for you.

[+Sagefox]

 

...Actually, you are right. The difference however is that the caches that allow the logging of temporary event caches have had a long standing rule that prohibits temp caches that applies;

 

(Cache Permanence guidelines quoted)

 

I think the point being made is if you are going to get involved in the posting of couch cache logs because the cache owners repeatedly have disregarded their agreement to "assume the responsibility of quality control of logged "finds" for the cache, and will agree to delete any "find" logs that appear to be bogus", which they should, then they should apply and equal standard to the issue of cache permanence as these logs are equally "bogus".

 

I really believe that there is no attempt to do away with Virtuals by applying this rule. GS does not need an excuse to just do away with them. I simply think they are not being as even handed here as they should be.

 

Sort of.

 

Multi-logging of event caches is bogus logging and therefore should not be allowed by the event lister but I think the difference for Groundspeakers is that the event caches were attended by the loggers. They merely logged the event as found multiple times. There is no temporary cache issues for Groundspeak here because there are no temporary caches listed on this site.

 

The couching virtual cache loggers, on the other hand, do not visit the cache site. (And it appears they need a little education to help them get their priorities in line with this game - go visit a cache site and then log it.)

[+Sagefox]

I do thank TPTB for their grandfather policy that allows "maintained" virtual caches to remain. Those virts are like collectors items and it is fun to find them, unless , of course, they are being heavily Greeted. Then they're not much fun.

 

I just don't understand this. No matter how outraged you may be because someone posted a bogus log on a virtual cache how does that keep you from visiting the cache and getting the answers the way you find proper and having fun doing it?

 

You are right and thanks for pointing that out. I do try to avoid unnecessary hype but I got carried away here.

 

I am not affected by prior logs on virtual caches because I am focused on the subject of the cache. If it is a good site I'm happy. If it is mediocre then I simply add it to my collection of virtual finds.

 

Edit: to repair quote box.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Team Sagefox

[YotaCacher]

I think it is totally unnecessary for Groundspeak to get involved in this.

<<snip for space>>

Silly official recognition of couch potato logging seems to show the influence of puritan/taliban cachers who want an narrow definition of the "Found" log. My preference is to let people who want to play alternative games do so, so long as it doesn't interfere with those who are geocaching.

 

THANK YOU!!!

 

Could not have said it better myself.

 

And for the whiners I say: "Quit yelling at me you couch potato coach".

[Clan Riffster]

The puritans have made Sign the log = Find the cache a mantra.

I think the Mantra is more along the lines of;

"Find the cache-Sign the log-Get a smiley"

Do you think any so called puritan would approve pocket caching?

 

Since this is Jeremy's website, how 'bout we do things the way he wants them done?

 

Pocket caching, multiple logs per cache, multiple logs for events, armchairing virts, falsifying found logs.

All these things may work just find at tozcaching .com, but for this site? Maybe not so much.

 

Kudos to MissJenn and the Groundspeak Lackeys for expressing these concerns in such a professional manner!

[Clan Riffster]

My preference is to let people who want to play alternative games do so

I don't think you'll find anyone here who disagrees with you on that one.

So long as they do so on the appropriate website, why should anyone judge?

(BTW, a kwick glance at the Guidelines would indicate that this site is not the appropriate one)

 

Pocketlintcaching .com

Armchair-Virtcaching .com

FalseFindlogging .com

Loganevent200times .com

 

I think all of these domain names are available.

Get them up and running and let's see how they work.

You might be the next Jeremy!

[+Unkle Fester]

I'm taking my family on vacation next week and our route has a lot of virtuals. The kids get to learn things and still get out of the house. We do these under a simple caching philosophy:

 

Vini, Vidi, Virtual

 

I came, I saw, I cached.

 

I like the virtuals, it gives you an opportunity to explore and learn where a cache wouldn't survive. Some of the best places I've been to are virts. But I understand why they are no longer allowed. I wouldn't want a virt at every sign, fountain, odd mailbox, yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

Although I do think a different approach is needed to convincing parks and recreation to allow more caches, but I understand their concern. You just need to get people to understand tearing up an area is not cool. How do you do that? I don't know. Drinking Kool-aid was tried once, but has a bad side effect.

 

I love problems like this, you can really get wrapped up in it.

[+Unkle Fester]

My preference is to let people who want to play alternative games do so

I don't think you'll find anyone here who disagrees with you on that one.

So long as they do so on the appropriate website, why should anyone judge?

(BTW, a kwick glance at the Guidelines would indicate that this site is not the appropriate one)

 

Pocketlintcaching .com

Armchair-Virtcaching .com

FalseFindlogging .com

Loganevent200times .com

 

I think all of these domain names are available.

Get them up and running and let's see how they work.

You might be the next Jeremy!

[Mr.Yuck]

The puritans have made Sign the log = Find the cache a mantra.

I think the Mantra is more along the lines of;

"Find the cache-Sign the log-Get a smiley"

Do you think any so called puritan would approve pocket caching?

 

Since this is Jeremy's website, how 'bout we do things the way he wants them done?

 

Pocket caching, multiple logs per cache, multiple logs for events, armchairing virts, falsifying found logs.

All these things may work just find at tozcaching .com, but for this site? Maybe not so much.

 

Kudos to MissJenn and the Groundspeak Lackeys for expressing these concerns in such a professional manner!

 

Excellent point. Groundspeak has a CEO. His name is Jeremy. He has his own opinions (it's oft-quoted he once said Travel Bug Hotel trading rules are "stupid"). He makes his own decisions. Why does this subject and the recent ALR decision seem to be blamed on intense pressure from hoards of pitchfork and torch carrying puritans?

 

Because after all, the guy joined in 2000. That makes him an "old school" Geocacher, right?

[+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.

Just as the one cache owner 'allows' people to 'falsely' log their caches so do the other ones. The only difference I see is that one owns a virtual and the other a physical cache. If the standard is not applied equally I'd take it with a grain of salt that this is not just another way by TPTB to help along the demise of some remaining virtuals.

That would be a good argument, if they were indeed falsely logging the temproary caches, but they are not. They signed the physical logs and then logged their finds online in a manner that was suggested by TPTB when the decision was made to stop listing temporary caches. Edited August 25, 2009 by sbell111

[+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.

 

Actually, you are right. The difference however is that the caches that allow the logging of temporary event caches have had a long standing rule that prohibits temp caches that applies;

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons. Please do your best to research fully, hide wisely, and maintain properly for a long cache life.

 

I think the point being made is if you are going to get involved in the posting of couch cache logs because the cache owners repeatedly have disregarded their agreement to "assume the responsibility of quality control of logged "finds" for the cache, and will agree to delete any "find" logs that appear to be bogus", which they should, then they should apply and equal standard to the issue of cache permanence as these logs are equally "bogus".

 

I really believe that there is no attempt to do away with Virtuals by applying this rule. GS does not need an excuse to just do away with them. I simply think they are not being as even handed here as they should be.

You are forgetting the reason that temporary caches stopped being listed and the advice given by TPTB at that time, as well as official comments given regarding the logging of temporary caches over the years.

 

The bottom line is simple, regarding falsely logging virts (and other caches) that were not visited, TPTB have been consistent in their position that it is the cache owners responsibility to delete these logs as part of their maintenance responsibilities. Further, it has been the official position that virts that went unmaintained would be archived and locked.

 

Conversely, it has been the official position that it was up to the cache owner to decide whether he/she will allow additional find it logs for temporary caches that were actually visited. This is little different than a cache owner who allows second finds on his cache page if you found a 'bonus cache'.

 

These two situations are not similar. One deals with finds on caches that were not visited. The other deals with finds on caches that were visited.

[+WebChimp]

I love these forums.

 

Where else can one person say "I think Belugian caviar is too salty for me.", and the discussion turn into the history of the rise and fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the moral failures of the czars, and the political eventualities of Yeltsin's tenure as president?

[+Castle Mischief]

I love these forums.

 

Where else can one person say "I think Belugian caviar is too salty for me.", and the discussion turn into the history of the rise and fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the moral failures of the czars, and the political eventualities of Yeltsin's tenure as president?

 

Da, comrade. Pedantic clown-boatery ahoy.

[+Sagefox]

I love these forums.

 

Where else can one person say "I think Belugian caviar is too salty for me.", and the discussion turn into the history of the rise and fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the moral failures of the czars, and the political eventualities of Yeltsin's tenure as president?

 

Exactly!

[+wimseyguy]

I love these forums.

 

Where else can one person say "I think Belugian caviar is too salty for me.", and the discussion turn into the history of the rise and fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the moral failures of the czars, and the political eventualities of Yeltsin's tenure as president?

 

Exactly!

 

Agreed. That's why I've had that most excellent briansnat quote in my sig line all these years.

Pass the .

 

I don't see the archival and locking of legit, virts as the proper solution to this problem.

I'd prefer to see the bookmark lists vanish, and the offenders penalized.

If there is a stretch of highway that has a problem with excessive speeding, they don't close the highway. They merely step up the enforcement of the speed limit by issuing more tickets.

Edited August 25, 2009 by wimseyguy

[+KBI]

What is the big objection here, really? What specific part of massive-armchair-virtual-logging is it that bothers so many people, including Miss Jenn? Nobody will answer that question, despite several requests.

 

Is it because the failure to visit the coordinate location means these cachers aren't "caching" in the way "caching" was intended by those who run this site?

KBI,

MissJenn did answer this question in Post #1.

What's wrong with that?

Well, it was never intended that way.

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

MissJenn:

 

Please bear with me for a moment here.

 

Are you speaking here as an official representative of Groundspeak, or is this your individual personal opinion?

 

If this is the official Groundspeak policy, then of course there is no point in anyone debating it. Groundspeak is a private company, and private companies are free to conduct their business in any way they like. A private company – not its customers – gets to decide where to draw the line in the sand. It’s their line and it’s their sand. Which is as it should be, and I have no problem with that. I generally agree with your statements in this thread in fact. Groundspeak is a good company.

 

If this is your personal opinion, on the other hand, then thank you for your response, but I regret to say that your answer to my question is as unsatisfactory as the others. It doesn't explain to me why these logs bother you. Saying that “it was never intended that way” is an argument that could just as soundly be used to shut down many other, much larger existing chunks of this hobby, many of which are not and have never been controversial. Geocaching has been evolving and changing since it started. Fun-seekers are a very creative lot. Any attempt to nail down what was “intended” from the beginning is bound to be a minefield. My preference would be to instead see each element considered on its own merits as opposed to being compared to some obsolete and unnecessary standard.

 

I promise I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone. I have not declared war here. I am only trying to understand.

 

I am also not promoting armchair logging. That wouldn’t make any sense.

 

Groundspeak makes the rules on this website. I am not arguing with Groundspeak’s right to make its own rules. The fact is, however, that Groundspeak, just like any other sensibly-run business, is responding to customer feedback. In this case the bulk of the feedback in question takes the form of customers who are vocally unhappy – for some reason – with armchair logging of virtual caches. It is the reasoning behind that objection that I am unclear about, which is the only reason I am asking folks to explain it for me. I have explained why those armchair logs don’t bother me. All I am asking is that those whom they do bother explain why they are bothered.

 

One assumes that Groundspeak’s paying customers are always welcome to discuss such relevant topics in a thread like this. If I am wrong in that assumption – if any questioning of the official line and its underlying motivations is to be forbidden in this thread – then just say the word and I’ll be gone. No hard feelings. It’s your sandbox, and I mean that respectfully.

 

If not ... then as long as there are folks willing to post their dislike of armchair logging of virtuals, then I will try to get them to help me understand why.

Edited August 25, 2009 by KBI

[Brad_W]

He nailed it.

 

The bottom line is simple, regarding falsely logging virts (and other caches) that were not visited, TPTB have been consistent in their position that it is the cache owners responsibility to delete these logs as part of their maintenance responsibilities. Further, it has been the official position that virts that went unmaintained would be archived and locked.

 

Conversely, it has been the official position that it was up to the cache owner to decide whether he/she will allow additional find it logs for temporary caches that were actually visited. This is little different than a cache owner who allows second finds on his cache page if you found a 'bonus cache'.

 

These two situations are not similar. One deals with finds on caches that were not visited. The other deals with finds on caches that were visited.

[+tozainamboku]

The puritans have made Sign the log = Find the cache a mantra.

I think the Mantra is more along the lines of;

"Find the cache-Sign the log-Get a smiley"

Do you think any so called puritan would approve pocket caching?

 

Since this is Jeremy's website, how 'bout we do things the way he wants them done?

 

Pocket caching, multiple logs per cache, multiple logs for events, armchairing virts, falsifying found logs.

All these things may work just find at tozcaching .com, but for this site? Maybe not so much.

 

Kudos to MissJenn and the Groundspeak Lackeys for expressing these concerns in such a professional manner!

It is true that Jeremy can run this site as he sees fits. He can make up all the rules that he wants. Historically however he has use restraint in making up new rules. His desire to keep the basic idea of geocaching simple and to be as flexible as possible in how the community wants to use the site. I have no doubt that as he saw people create virtual caches that allowed armchair logging or even more so caches like Four Windows which was specifically designed to be arrmchair log he became concern. In his mind it was clear that geocaching was supposed to be about going to a location and finding something - not sitting at home doing searched on Google. And I agree with his view.

 

Jeremy changed the guidelines for listing caches to emphasize that caches were supposed to be visited. Caches like Four Windows stopped being approved. The guidelines were interpreted by some to mean that there had to be an option to use a GPS to go to a location and find the cache. If it was a physical cache the new guidelines required there had to be a log to sign. Most people were comfortable with these guidelines. They seemed to allow room for some creativity. One cacher hid a hide-a-key on another cacher's Jeep. At events he would tell people to go find the cache on the Jeep. But in order to be listed he had to hide another cache at the listed coordinates so that puritans could go find the cache. If someone wanted to hide an armchair virtual, it seemed that one could, so long as there was a real virtual location where someone could to find the answer as well. Since it was up to individual cache owners whether or not these alternative finds would be accepted, anyone who didn't want to play the alternative game simply set up their cache without an invitation to log couch potato logs. Theoretically, purist and alternatives could live together on the same site.

 

What probably happened to cause TPTB to get more involved was that a few geocachers failed to realize that the alternatives were exceptions that were allowed to exist so long as they didn't interfere with the purists play of the game. Pocket caches got out of hand at some Geowoodstock a few years ago. Jeremy just go fed up with all of the log books being passed around that he decided to do something. I think he went to far. (Yes its his site, but I pay him $30 /year and buy mechandise and hide geocaches and log my find so I think I can have an opinion on how he runs the site. Thank You). Couch potato logs are a similar story. Some people started putting together bookmark list of armchair caches. When they started to run out of caches where the owner had invited armchair logs, they began to look for virtual caches that they felt could be armchair logged. These caches uses certificate of achievements so the cache owner didn't have to respond to emails with the verification answers or perhaps they cache owner had stopped logging on to Geocaching.com so there was no one to verify. It became a challenge to find the answer for any virtual and then try to find out if you could log a find on it that the owner would not delete. This put a burden on owners of virtuals. Some dealt with it by deleting logs and putting a note on the page to stop armchair logs, some changed their verification requirement to require a photo or asked a question that couldn't be answered by internet research, and others just gave up and archived their caches. My hope is that the actions of Groundspeak was meant to put a stop to this. The couch potato loggers probably could have continued what they were doing but they began to interfere with virtual cache owners who were uninterested in playing their game.

 

I have no problem giving suggestion to Jeremy on how to deal with these issues. I would have stated that

Geocaching is about using a GPS to go to a location and finding something there. The use of the online logging system is meant for recording your geocaching activity. Finding the answer to a virtual question, solving a puzzle but not going to find the cache, or signing a cache log that someone gives you at an event is not geocaching. There are a few grandfathered caches where cache owners allow Found It logs for other than go to the location and finding the cache. It is the opinion of Groundspeak that these are not true geocaching finds. However, Groundspeak does not police logs. If you choose to log a find where a cache owner allows it, you must live with your conscience. Cache owners are encouraged to delete all such logs on their caches. If a cache owner has repeated trouble with cachers attempting to log these finds on their cache, Groundspeak will assist the cache owner in making changes to reduce or eliminate these logs.

 

So here's the difference. Groundspeak says couch potato logs are wrong. But Groundspeak also say it is not the log police and cache owners may allow such logs. There is no threat to archive caches that allow these logs. Groundspeak will encourage cache owners to do what is needed to reduce or eliminate unwanted couch potato logs.

 

On last thing. There is one group that I can't stand more than intolerant puritans. These are the people with frog poop on their noses. Yes this is Jeremy's website. But that should not mean that if we disagree with with Jeremy we must be silent. I can see there are many who agree with the statement from MissJenn. I think it goes too far. The argument that Groundspeak has made a decision and therefore it can't be changed no longer holds any weight. Long Live the 200.

[+Castle Mischief]

... then as long as there are folks willing to post their dislike of armchair logging of virtuals, then I will try to get them to help me understand why.

 

You could just accept that these people have an opinion that differs from yours and move on. I don't understand this need to have everybody justify how they feel about something to you.

 

I have a dislike of armchair logging. You don't. I'm okay with this.

[+MissJenn]

MissJenn:

Please bear with me for a moment here.

Are you speaking here as an official representative of Groundspeak, or is this your individual personal opinion?

I am officially speaking on behalf of Groundspeak.

[+MissJenn]

The bottom line is simple, regarding falsely logging virts (and other caches) that were not visited, TPTB have been consistent in their position that it is the cache owners responsibility to delete these logs as part of their maintenance responsibilities. Further, it has been the official position that virts that went unmaintained would be archived and locked.

 

Conversely, it has been the official position that it was up to the cache owner to decide whether he/she will allow additional find it logs for temporary caches that were actually visited. This is little different than a cache owner who allows second finds on his cache page if you found a 'bonus cache'.

 

These two situations are not similar. One deals with finds on caches that were not visited. The other deals with finds on caches that were visited.

Thank you, sbell111. Well said.