Couch Potato Logs

[+Unkle Fester]

<snip>(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).

tozainamboku has made an excellent point, to a degree. We are all entitled to our opinions, but that doesn't mean TPTB have to listen, this forum is a great example of the process in action. I think they do, for the most part... For those that pay for the services that Groundspeak offers, maybe our wants and needs are listened to a little closer, I don't know. That's not my point.

 

I think Groundspeak/Jeremy think about us when a decision is made from the perspective of the greater good for the community. I for one am willing to live with it. My choice otherwise? Stop paying for and using the service. I enjoy it too much to quit. Adding my opinion - listened to or not - is a privelage they give us. No one says it is our right they have to listen. It's just smart business.

 

MissJenn has stated she's speaking for Groundspeak and I have to agree with her. Armchair virts bug the heck out of me. That's my issue to deal with and nobody elses, although I think GS is starting to close the door. My opinion? Delete all the armchair logs period. But that is my opinion and should be treated as such, you don't have to agree.

 

KBI, is it really that hard to understand the armchair virts are counterculture to the game as it is intended? Your post was most excellent but I cannot believe you don't understand what the issue is. This game was intended to get people out and about, on of the great things is the places I've been, the sights I've seen and the things I've learned.

 

With a cache like Four Windows, Where do I go? What do I see? What do I learn besides recalling an old riddle from the fourth grade? I would make a comment about taking away from the game because there are those out there who feel that way, but others love it - and personally, I don't feel that way. From what I've seen, it helps people fill out their world map of places they have "been". If I have not been to Germany (since joining), how can I claim to have been there? If it was a Virt at N90 00.000 and a picture of you and the GPS or email the track log to verify, totally different story and this thread would not be needed.

 

Would this be any different from a person posting false information on a Resume? Not really, when someone looks at a profile, you do so to see what kind of cacher they are. Just as one can look at the forums and get a feel for a cacher by the tone of his posts. (No, I am not confusing the Forums for the geocaching community) If I see someone with one find in Germany, one in Turkey, one in Greece, etcetera, I'm not going to go to them for advice about caching or pay attention when they talk about caching ethics or have a complaind about a deleted log for no signature.

 

I totally respect you and about 99.9% of the cachers who post in these forums, but I cannot sit here and believe you truely don't understand the problem and what's wrong with the practice.

 

Sorry for the book

[+sbell111]

... 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.

I think that the tricky part has been that TPTB have always been very reluctant to create rules. We have a set of placement guidelines that exist largely to protect the game from itself, but we have no rules that a person needs to follow in order to play the game. If these 'finder rules' did exist, they would no doubt say that in order to log a cache, you have to visit the cache.

 

Since finder rules don't exist, they have only two remaining tools to manage the 'couch potato' issue. They can do more education to explain that virtual caches still require a visit (such as this thread) and they can punish those virt owners who shirk their maintenance duties with the threat of cache archival.

 

Interestingly, the second part of the equation has been in place for years. The only thing new is that they appear to be making a real effort at education.

 

Suggestion to MissJenn:

 

How about you post this info to all the regional subforums, also.

Edited August 25, 2009 by sbell111

[+wimseyguy]

She could, except the forum posting guidelines prevent spamming of the forums by posting the same message in several different forums.

[+niraD]

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.

Well, as MissJenn said...

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

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

Posting a Found log is (implicitly or explicitly) a claim that you went to the coordinates and found the cache. In the case of a virtual cache, "found the cache" means that you took a photo, wrote down some information, or did whatever else the virtual cache owner requires for verification. But a Found log is (implicitly or explicitly) a claim to have Been There, Done That.

 

If you haven't Been There (armchair logging), then the claim is a lie. A small lie in the grand scheme of things, to be sure, but it is a lie. Some of us still care about such things.

[+Hockeyhick]

If you haven't Been There (armchair logging), then the claim is a lie. A small lie in the grand scheme of things, to be sure, but it is a lie. Some of us still care about such things

 

Thank you!

[+sbell111]

She could, except the forum posting guidelines prevent spamming of the forums by posting the same message in several different forums.

I'm sure that if she chose to do this that she would give herself an appropriate 'punishment'.

Edited August 25, 2009 by sbell111

[+Jeep_Dog]

Incidentally, I don't automatically equate violating guidelines with cheating. I see both as being a bad thing, for various reasons, however I don't see them as being one and the same. If I go to the famous couch potato virtual you mentioned, Four Windows, and logged a find on it, even though I didn't paddle way the heck out into the North Sea, nor did I locate any bears of any color, I would not call my actions cheating, since it victimizes no one but my own integrity. I would simply call it violating the long standing guidelines.

 

 

This forum has certainly been interesting to read. The approach, tone, and reminder of the intent of the guidelines, at least in terms of reading all of this, was overdue and much needed.

 

I've noticed some trends. Ms. Jenn's topic was "What's a couch potato log?" which morphed into a holistic discussion of caches as opposed to a discussion of how some choose to log their caches.

 

Which is why, in my opinion, some of the discussion on Four Windows has been missing the mark.

 

So much generalization, so much angst. It is now archived, with a note reading "This Four Windows cache page, published on April 9, 2003, made innovative use of an old riddle in its creation. However, it did not comply with the guidelines in place as of July 2002 which required virtual caches to be a physical object that can be referenced through Lat/Lon coordinates. At no time did the guidelines allow for virtual caches of this nature."

 

Actually, as I recall the guidelines then, it virtuals were a physical location, as opposed to an object. Objects could be used as proof of visit, as could other means such as photography, et cetera. The real problem of this cache, which is not stated on the archival note (and it is not in tune with what Miss Jenn has been discussing), is that the CO was allowing bogus logs of folks who have not visited the physical location. But I digress since I wanted to make a point that words have meaning, but keeping focus on intent behind guidelines brings things into perspective.

 

By the way, Riffster, the North Sea on Four Windows was irrelevant. All that paddling would have been for naught. And, for the record, there indeed is not a house, nor are there bears, at the actual cache location. For those who have been to the location (more likely under or over the location), this was more along the lines of a Mystery Virtual cache (solve the mystery to get to the coordinates), and the cache would have been quite viable if the logging verfication was more stringent.

 

Sometimes, one cacher's definition of "cheat" and "lack of integrity" is another's adventure. Back to OP, it is with this in mind that I think how this was handled was quite appropriate and respectful.

[Clan Riffster]

But Groundspeak also say it is not the log police

Based on what I've read from the Lackeys, I think what Groundspeak's stance is, "We don't want to be the log police".

[Clan Riffster]

By the way, Riffster, the North Sea on Four Windows was irrelevant.

Yeah, I know. I'm familiar with the puzzle, and was poking fun at the posted coords.

[+WebChimp]

Caches like Four Windows stopped being approved.

 

That's one of the V2 finds I deleted from my account. It wasn't a cache, didn't have a location that could be visited, it was "answer the riddle, get a smiley". When I read Miss Jenn's post, I deleted that find.

 

Know what I'd be interesting in knowing? I'd be interested in knowing the find count on that cache the day before Miss Jenn's post vs. the find count on it now. I'd guess the count today is much lower than it was earlier.

[+sbell111]

Caches like Four Windows stopped being approved.

 

That's one of the V2 finds I deleted from my account. It wasn't a cache, didn't have a location that could be visited, it was "answer the riddle, get a smiley". When I read Miss Jenn's post, I deleted that find.

 

Know what I'd be interesting in knowing? I'd be interested in knowing the find count on that cache the day before Miss Jenn's post vs. the find count on it now. I'd guess the count today is much lower than it was earlier.

I bet that it's barely noticibly lower. It would shock me if more than 5 people have deleted their logs to it in the last few days.

[+tozainamboku]

Caches like Four Windows stopped being approved.

 

That's one of the V2 finds I deleted from my account. It wasn't a cache, didn't have a location that could be visited, it was "answer the riddle, get a smiley". When I read Miss Jenn's post, I deleted that find.

 

Know what I'd be interesting in knowing? I'd be interested in knowing the find count on that cache the day before Miss Jenn's post vs. the find count on it now. I'd guess the count today is much lower than it was earlier.

I bet that it's barely noticibly lower. It would shock me if more than 5 people have deleted their logs to it in the last few days.

One would also wonder how many people who may be following this thread logged the cache in the last few days just to get their find before the cache was archived?

Edited August 25, 2009 by tozainamboku

[+eigengott]

Suggestion to MissJenn:

 

How about you post this info to all the regional subforums, also.

 

For the German speaking countries that has already been done. I also provided a translation into German.

 

Interestingly there has been no big debate there. But two posts along the lines "Oops, I didn't know that! Thanks for educating me." I saw a few similiar posts in this thread, some even converted or deleted their couch potato logs - great!

 

And that's what this is all about: education. Not fingerpointing, not new rules, not the creation of the log police. I guess a lot of geocachers are still out there which just don't know.

[+JBnW]

Caches like Four Windows stopped being approved.

 

That's one of the V2 finds I deleted from my account. It wasn't a cache, didn't have a location that could be visited, it was "answer the riddle, get a smiley". When I read Miss Jenn's post, I deleted that find.

 

Know what I'd be interesting in knowing? I'd be interested in knowing the find count on that cache the day before Miss Jenn's post vs. the find count on it now. I'd guess the count today is much lower than it was earlier.

I bet that it's barely noticibly lower. It would shock me if more than 5 people have deleted their logs to it in the last few days.

One would also wonder how many people who may be following this thread logged the cache in the last few days just to get their find before the cache was archived?

Actually, although my memory is a little fuzzy, I looked at Four Corners a couple days ago (about mid-thread) and thought it had something like 10,000+ smileys. Today when I looked, it was about 9,500. Although I could be wrong...

[+MissJenn]

I also provided a translation into German.

You provided a lot more than just the translation.

Vielen Dank.

[+Hemlock]

It would shock me if more than 5 people have deleted their logs to it in the last few days.

There are currently 329 archived Found logs on Four Windows. I have no idea how many there was a week ago.

 

Cache page stats as of this moment:

Found it-9502, Didn't find it-2, Write note-172

 

Google snapshot on 22 Aug 2009 09:25:11 GMT:

Found it-9481, Didn't find it-2, Write note-168

[+AstroDav]

This has probably already been mentioned in this thread, but I didn't bother to read the whole thing.

 

The Couch Potato Logs that I get a kick out of of the ones that almost always have this same general format...."Cool Virtual!! Greeting From Germany!!"

 

They don't care if you delete those. They are after numbers only & know that a certain percentage WILL be deleted. It's just a risk they accept.

 

I have all caches within 30 miles of my house bookmarked into various folders. Then I have "special" folders for every one of that type in the state....like EarthCaches, Virtuals, Wherigo's....stuff like that. There's only a couple/three dozen virtuals here. But because I have them bookmarked, I get an e-mail everytime somebody logs one. As regular as a passenger train, 1 or 2 of these virtuals will be logged by Mr. or Mrs. "Greetings From Germany" every week or so.

 

Just for kicks, I often look in their profile at their finds. Quite often, I see they were ALSO in Australia & Siberia on that same day.....I thought the Concorde had been decommissioned.

[+doingitoldschool]

It would shock me if more than 5 people have deleted their logs to it in the last few days.

There are currently 329 archived Found logs on Four Windows. I have no idea how many there was a week ago.

 

Cache page stats as of this moment:

Found it-9502, Didn't find it-2, Write note-172

 

Google snapshot on 22 Aug 2009 09:25:11 GMT:

Found it-9481, Didn't find it-2, Write note-168

 

Some of us (well, two that I counted in this thread, including myself, but maybe more) did not archive the find, we just changed our find to a note. Pardon me if that is the same thing.

[+sbell111]

It would shock me if more than 5 people have deleted their logs to it in the last few days.

There are currently 329 archived Found logs on Four Windows. I have no idea how many there was a week ago.

 

Cache page stats as of this moment:

Found it-9502, Didn't find it-2, Write note-172

 

Google snapshot on 22 Aug 2009 09:25:11 GMT:

Found it-9481, Didn't find it-2, Write note-168

 

Some of us (well, two that I counted in this thread, including myself, but maybe more) did not archive the find, we just changed our find to a note. Pardon me if that is the same thing.

As many as four of you did that.

[+KBI]

I'm back on the ground for a few days.

 

Looks like I finally got an answer to my question. Several people have provided polite and well thought-out responses since my most recent post several days ago. I am now much closer to understanding "armchair discomfort." Thank you.

 

As I said before, I support the education initiative. And as I also said before, I believe the education will be far more effective if it includes some fun, snappy and unambiguous verbiage directly from TPTB which clarifies that this hobby is NOT a competition.

 

In the words of those who finally answered my question regarding the reasons for their discomfort: Geocaching was never intended to be a competition. Those of you who say you are made uncomfortable by the armchair-logging of virts, now you know how I feel when I see folks getting cranky against each other – and even worse, against folks like me who choose not to compete – over a provably meaningless caching 'scoreboard.'

 

KBI, is it really that hard to understand the armchair virts are counterculture to the game as it is intended?

No it is not. I understand perfectly. What I also understand is that competition between geocachers is also counterculture to the game as intended – and that it is the culture of competition that is at the very root of the armchair logging problem. The armchair logs are only a symptom of the deeper misunderstanding which exists in the minds of those who mistakenly believe their armchair smileys have any meaningful or relative value.

 

Get rid of the competitive culture and the couch potato problem takes care of itself.

 

Trouble is, all those competitors out there genuinely believe they are having fun. Armchair logs don’t really hurt anything, and benign fun is a hard habit to break. Some of them may not in fact be capable of grasping the concept that find counts can’t be meaningfully compared. Others of them may understand perfectly, but simply not care. They'll all need to be convinced that they aren't really having any fun.

 

It’s going to be a big job. Can it be done? Will it be worth it? Knock yourself out. I’m not against it, but you ask me there are more important things to worry about.

[+tozainamboku]

Get rid of the competitive culture and the couch potato problem takes care of itself.

KBI, you sound just like them (the puritans who couldn't stand to see the online found it logs used for something other than intended).

 

IMO, the couch potato loggers did not log virtuals they hadn't visited in order to inflate their statistics. The logged these virtuals because they truly believe that this alternative was acceptable us of the online log. Caches like Four Windows led the way. These were obviously meant to be done from the armchair. I'm not sure why they were published in the first place, but likely the lack of clear guidelines at the time led cachers to find ways to make a cache that could be found by anyone, anywhere in the world. The concept of locationless caches also grew out of these early virtuals that were set up like this. The guidelines were adjusted to require there be a specific target at posted coordinates that a finder would have to visit and identify to get credit for a find. Some cache owners, still looking for ways to get logs from people anywhere in the world, would state they would allow logs if you could answer the verification question. There was no official geocaching response to this, but I heard from several respected geocachers when I asked and they seemed to think that so long as the cache met the guidelines so that caching purist could actually visit the location in order to log the find, the cache owner was free to award finds to others as well. This thread is the first official post that I have seen saying otherwise - although there had been changes to maintenance guidelines for virtuals that hinted at this.

 

I do question the couch potato loggers who started looking for caches to log this way where the cache owner was not specifically inviting these logs. They sought out caches where the cache owner used a certification of accomplish or some other automated means to verify the verification answer. Or they looked for caches where owner had not logged in for a long time and was not likely to delete their logs. I think they still believed that their armchair logs were OK even when not explicitly invited, and the just as cache owners were free to award finds for these logs, cache owners were free to delete these logs if they didn't want them on their caches.

 

In may be there were a few case of people seeking out armchair virtuals to inflate their stats. But this does not make sense to me. A real cheater could just post hundreds of finds on one of their own caches or look for archived traditional caches and claim they were backdating a find to when the cache was there. Actively seeking caches that required you to do research to find answers on the internet to log a find sure sounds like a lot of work for cheating. No, I think the couch potato loggers were logging caches they honestly believe they had a right to log and that they enjoyed playing this game of trying to find the answers needed to make this log. They were no more competitive then anyone else who logs their finds online to keep a record of their geocaching experience.

 

In her post MissJenn says that "Not actually visiting the location is considered as cheating by most geocachers. " I think a better sentence would be that "Not actually visiting the location is considered as cheating by a few vocal individuals who spend too much time in the forums dictating to others about how important the find count is". It's just a game. If someone really believes that they deserve a find enough that they go and log it, by all means feel free to explain to them why they don't. But don't go calling people "cheater". In this respect, I agree with you, KBI. A clarification that the find count was never intended to be a competition among geocachers might put a stop to this chorus of "cheater" every time someone sees a find log that they don't agree with.

Edited August 29, 2009 by tozainamboku

[knowschad]

Geeze! Four pages in before I realized that this wasn't about "CROTCH potato logs"! I'm soooo embarrassed!! I would have glady joined the discussion earlier, if only I had known!