Logging Everything as Finds?

[+tozainamboku]

The puritans are notorious for finding meaning in words to suit their argument. Unfortunately, they can turn that around (and often do) to use it against those who say the word doesn't have that meaning. It soon becomes futile to argue over the meaning or interpretation of a word. I say "once" does not mean "only once". But if you want to be like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass go ahead and give "once" any meaning you want.

[+dfx]

Yes, it can. But it doesn't have to be. That's the crux of this whole argument. You say Groundspeak says "Cache owners must not allow Found logs if the book isn't signed". I say Groundspeak says "Cache owners must not disallow Found logs if the book is signed".

nobody's saying (well, at least i am not) that all logs without matching signature should be deleted. but if a CO is allowed to delete such a log, doesn't that mean that the log probably shouldn't be there in the first place?

Any case the cache owner deems acceptable. A photo of the cache owner holding the cache, for example, or a detailed description of the cache location. It's up to the cache owner.

really? so i can create a cache and tell people that i don't really care whether they've signed the log, found the cache or even have been there at all, but they can just log anyway?

Edited October 15, 2010 by dfx

[+lomocacher]

I just love it when a thread degenerates into an argument over the proper use of conjunctions

 

According to the unabridged American Heritage Dictionary, "once" as a a conjunction means "as soon as, if ever, when." "Once" is a subordinating conjunction of time supplying a condition for the main clause.

 

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

 

The main clause is bolded. The subordinate clause is italicized.

 

The main clause expresses a complete thought that without additional information indicates that a geocache can be logged online as found. What supplies the complete meaning to this sentence, however, is the condition expressed by the subordinate clause. It adds the condition that the geocache can be logged online "as soon as, if ever, or when" the physical log is signed. "Once" as a subordinating conjunction of time indicates that a timely event occurs at the point the conjunction is used. This means that the subordinate clause is a condition of the main clause, so indicating that a geocache can be logged online once the subordinate clause's condition has been met.

 

I'm currently in a master's degree program getting into the depths of English grammar.

 

Edited October 15, 2010 by lomocacher

[Dinoprophet]

Yes, it can. But it doesn't have to be. That's the crux of this whole argument. You say Groundspeak says "Cache owners must not allow Found logs if the book isn't signed". I say Groundspeak says "Cache owners must not disallow Found logs if the book is signed".

nobody's saying (well, at least i am not) that all logs without matching signature should be deleted.

Now I'll ask you: under what conditions should a Found log be allowed to stand with no signature?

but if a CO is allowed to delete such a log, doesn't that mean that the log probably shouldn't be there in the first place?

I'm afraid I don't follow this question. If the CO is allowed to delete what kind of log?

Any case the cache owner deems acceptable. A photo of the cache owner holding the cache, for example, or a detailed description of the cache location. It's up to the cache owner.

really? so i can create a cache and tell people that i don't really care whether they've signed the log, found the cache or even have been there at all, but they can just log anyway?

Sure. Well, probably not "never been there at all". I'm pretty sure that constitutes "bogus" under almost anyone's definition.

[+dfx]

Now I'll ask you: under what conditions should a Found log be allowed to stand with no signature?

that's what i've been asking you all along.

I'm afraid I don't follow this question. If the CO is allowed to delete what kind of log?

the found log without matching signature of course.

Sure. Well, probably not "never been there at all". I'm pretty sure that constitutes "bogus" under almost anyone's definition.

whose definition is that again?

[MisterEFQ]

We need a law similar to Godwins law for what is happening in this thread.

 

Geocaching forum rule - As an online discussion on the geocaching forum grows longer, the probability of a debate on whether signing a log constitutes a find or not approaches.

[Dinoprophet]

Now I'll ask you: under what conditions should a Found log be allowed to stand with no signature?

that's what i've been asking you all along.

Yes, I know, and I answered. Now I'm asking you. Are you going to answer it?

I'm afraid I don't follow this question. If the CO is allowed to delete what kind of log?

the found log without matching signature of course.

Why would that mean the log shouldn't be there in the first place?

Sure. Well, probably not "never been there at all". I'm pretty sure that constitutes "bogus" under almost anyone's definition.

whose definition is that again?

Bolded.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+dfx]

Yes, I know, and I answered. Now I'm asking you. Are you going to answer it?

no you didn't answer, you just gave one example. i gave some more, and you agreed to some of them, but not all. why only those few? and what about all the other cases? do you have a list somewhere?

Why would that mean the log shouldn't be there in the first place?

well, either you're allowed to log a cache as found or you're not. if you've signed the log, you are. and if you didn't, then the CO has the official blessing to delete the log, right? he doesn't have to, but he can. doesn't that mean that from official side (even if the CO doesn't care) the log is considered to be bogus?

Bolded.

sorry, but i don't have almost anyone's email address so that i could ask them what is allowed and what isn't.

 

and if i'm allowed to create a cache where everybody can log even if they only took a picture and never sign the log, as you say, why was http://coord.info/GC2F0R6 archived then?

[+tozainamboku]

that's not what I said it means. It means that a Found log cannot be denied when the logbook is signed.

so when the logbook hasn't been signed, then the log can be denied, right?

Yes, it can. But it doesn't have to be. That's the crux of this whole argument. You say Groundspeak says "Cache owners must not allow Found logs if the book isn't signed". I say Groundspeak says "Cache owners must not disallow Found logs if the book is signed".

Actually, I believe that cache owners may disallow finds where the log book has been signed, but only is some rare cases. If a finder insists on logs that are off-topic, contain spoilers, or use foul language the cache owner can delete those logs. If the finder won't post a log that is satisfactory the owner can keep deleting logs despite the log book being signed. The other exception are challenge caches where the finder must show they have met the challenge in order for the Found log to be allowed. Groundspeak has not commented on whether you can delete a log if you know the finder violated local ordinances in looking for the cache (for example, entering a park after posted hours to get a FTF). There have numerous discussions in the forums as whether or not this is allowed and I'm not sure any consensus has been reached.

 

The only purpose of the guideline as has been explained in the original forum discussion when it was first added, is to tell finders that they may log a find once they have signed the log regardless of any additional logging requirements that may have been on the cache page. I do believe that Groundspeak purposely kept the phrase "regardless of any additional logging requirements" out of the guideline as a nod to the puritans. It is clear the some among the TPTB, cleary intend for cache finders to sign the logs in traditional caches. They certainly support the right of cache owners to have such a rule for their caches. But it is also clear that when reality sets in there are times when a log book doesn't get signed. If the idea is that geocaching is a fun activity, it seems heavy handed to be deleting logs of people who find caches but weren't able to sign the log for some good reason.

 

The discussion about multiple logging to get "credit" for finding something where a log wasn't signed, seems to be more troubling to some people than whether a cache owners may allow a find to stand when the log is not signed for a good reason. Here the discussion comes down more to "what is a cache" than "what is a find". In this case, I will say that is seems silly to "attend" one event many times because you found not just temporary caches but individual blocks that seem to be part of a temporary multicache. However in my opinion, no matter how silly this practice seem, it seems sillier to be bothered by it. Anyone who attended the event is free to log Attended just once (or not at all), no matter how many blocks they found. Silly practices allowed by event owners don't force anyone to part from their personal logging practice.

[+lomocacher]

and if i'm allowed to create a cache where everybody can log even if they only took a picture and never sign the log, as you say, why was http://coord.info/GC2F0R6 archived then?

 

That was archived because the use of GPS in North Korea is illegal, and to quote Groundspeak:

 

"You as the owner of the cache must visit the site and obtain the coordinates with a GPS. GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching. Therefore, although it is possible to find a cache without a GPS, the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions."

[Dinoprophet]

Yes, I know, and I answered. Now I'm asking you. Are you going to answer it?

no you didn't answer, you just gave one example.

Yes, I did. The answer was "Any case the cache owner deems acceptable." This was then followed by a couple (not just one) of examples.

 

i gave some more, and you agreed to some of them, but not all. why only those few? and what about all the other cases? do you have a list somewhere?

No, you asked me about some situations, but you didn't say you believed they should be accepted. You say the log doesn't always have to be signed. I realize (as I suspect you do) that it would contradict your argument that the logbook must be signed, but you did say it, so I'm wondering what they are.

 

Why would that mean the log shouldn't be there in the first place?

well, either you're allowed to log a cache as found or you're not. if you've signed the log, you are. and if you didn't, then the CO has the official blessing to delete the log, right? he doesn't have to, but he can. doesn't that mean that from official side (even if the CO doesn't care) the log is considered to be bogus?

No. You may have missed one of my many edits earlier. It's the difference between "Do Not Enter" and "Enter At Your Own Risk". You have Groundspeak's protection if you sign. If you don't sign, Groundspeak will not guarantee your Found log.

 

Bolded.

sorry, but i don't have almost anyone's email address so that i could ask them what is allowed and what isn't.

Wow.

Here's what you do: pick a random cacher, email them, and ask them.

 

and if i'm allowed to create a cache where everybody can log even if they only took a picture and never sign the log, as you say, why was http://coord.info/GC2F0R6 archived then?

I'd have to ask the mod who archived it. Oh, wait, he posted a log:

Virtual caches are not allowed, cache archived because of post publication edits turning it into one after a similar cache was originally declined.

[Dinoprophet]

that's not what I said it means. It means that a Found log cannot be denied when the logbook is signed.

so when the logbook hasn't been signed, then the log can be denied, right?

Yes, it can. But it doesn't have to be. That's the crux of this whole argument. You say Groundspeak says "Cache owners must not allow Found logs if the book isn't signed". I say Groundspeak says "Cache owners must not disallow Found logs if the book is signed".

Actually, I believe that cache owners may disallow finds where the log book has been signed, but only is some rare cases. If a finder insists on logs that are off-topic, contain spoilers, or use foul language the cache owner can delete those logs. If the finder won't post a log that is satisfactory the owner can keep deleting logs despite the log book being signed.

True, any log can be denied for content.

[+dfx]

Wow.

Here's what you do: pick a random cacher, email them, and ask them.

and what if i happen to email one that isn't part of "almost anyone"?

 

I'd have to ask the mod who archived it. Oh, wait, he posted a log:

Virtual caches are not allowed, cache archived because of post publication edits turning it into one after a similar cache was originally declined.

yep. so obviously it's not totally up to the CO to allow logs on any condition that he deems appropriate.

[Dinoprophet]

Wow.

Here's what you do: pick a random cacher, email them, and ask them.

and what if i happen to email one that isn't part of "almost anyone"?

You'll want a sample of many cachers. Be sure to include some Groundspeak employees. Once you think you have a reasonable sample size, tally your results. Before any of this, make sure your survey doesn't violate the site's terms of use.

 

And no, I didn't do this myself. That's why I said "I'm pretty sure". Please let me know what you find out and I'll adjust my belief accordingly.

 

I'd have to ask the mod who archived it. Oh, wait, he posted a log:

Virtual caches are not allowed, cache archived because of post publication edits turning it into one after a similar cache was originally declined.

yep. so obviously it's not totally up to the CO to allow logs on any condition that he deems appropriate.

I thought it obvious that they can't violate other rules of the site, such as no virtuals. They also can't violate local, state, and federal ordinances, or the laws of physics.

[+dfx]

I thought it obvious that they can't violate other rules of the site, such as no virtuals. They also can't violate local, state, and federal ordinances, or the laws of physics.

well, there was a container there, so it was a real cache. but the CO says that he doesn't care if you've never found the cache, but instead that you can log a found if you just post some pictures. that's why it was archived. you previously said that a CO was free to do that. well, apparently not.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

Groundspeak does not support the logging of any cache "in order to increase your find count". The find count is simply a count of the number of online Found It, Attended, and Photo Taken logs a person has entered. There is no claim made on the website that it represents the number of geocaches found or logs signed. The problem is that some people insist that it should mean this.

 

I'm sorry you jumped the shark with this one.

 

What the heck else do you think those numbers mean? Electrons in a sherbet molecule?

I think the number are simply a count of Found It, Attended, and Photo Taken logs a person has (and nothing to do with the number of caches they found or logs they signed...

 

Electrons in a sherbet molecule it is then.

 

Seriously, NOTHING? Nothing at all???? In that case, I'm 120 years old because my age is not a representation of the number of years I've "collected", but the number of birthday cakes I've eaten.

 

 

[+Castle Mischief]

I thought it obvious that they can't violate other rules of the site, such as no virtuals. They also can't violate local, state, and federal ordinances, or the laws of physics.

well, there was a container there, so it was a real cache. but the CO says that he doesn't care if you've never found the cache, but instead that you can log a found if you just post some pictures. that's why it was archived. you previously said that a CO was free to do that. well, apparently not.

 

There's a difference. COs are generally allowed to determine what constitutes a find, but they cannot openly invite "virtual" finds and they cannot list back-door virtuals. TPTB give COs some latitude, but that guy took it beyond the limits.

[Dinoprophet]

I thought it obvious that they can't violate other rules of the site, such as no virtuals. They also can't violate local, state, and federal ordinances, or the laws of physics.

well, there was a container there, so it was a real cache. but the CO says that he doesn't care if you've never found the cache, but instead that you can log a found if you just post some pictures. that's why it was archived. you previously said that a CO was free to do that. well, apparently not.

The archiving reviewer said it's a virtual.

 

I also said that specific case probably wouldn't be allowed. The cache owner was allowing logs for people who never were near the cache. Which is the subject of your survey. So good news, you don't have to do that anymore!

Edited October 15, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+Don_J]

and if i'm allowed to create a cache where everybody can log even if they only took a picture and never sign the log, as you say, why was http://coord.info/GC2F0R6 archived then?

 

That was archived because the use of GPS in North Korea is illegal, and to quote Groundspeak:

 

"You as the owner of the cache must visit the site and obtain the coordinates with a GPS. GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching. Therefore, although it is possible to find a cache without a GPS, the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions."

 

Additionally, the cache owner could not demonstrate that there was an actual cache at the location. He was trying to run a Virtual past the reviewer and he got caught. What this has to do with this discussion is beyond me.

[+Team Sand Dollar]

The practice of logging multiple finds on a event goes back to early geocaching when they where running low on cache pages and the solution was to log temporary caches against the event and not create pages for each.

 

The following event was an example of this were the event was being sponsored by the Forest Service, in a national Forest, and they wanted temporary cache for the event.

 

National Trails Day, NCT Sprit of the Woods Chptr

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ba-faf075b0639a

 

These were not easy park and grabs as they were scattered around the forest and one required a mile walk to. They were placed a week before the event to allow more time to be found but were removed the day after the event. For this event, logging the event caches made sense for it. For this event I did have multiple logs and even posted a DNF for the temporary cache I could not find.

 

This was the pactice back in 2003 and it was acceptable. These were regualr cache that had been put out for a limited time and the owner decided not to use additional cache pages.

 

But in everything the times change and people exploit it. Logging multiple finds against an event became widely unacceptable with the addition of pocket caches and multiple very easy caches withe .10 miles of each other at events which only perpose was to inflate ones numbers.

 

Luckly now there are always plenty of actual caches to find near events the the practice of finding temporary caches is not as common any more.

 

Team Sand Dollar

[Mr.Yuck]

The practice of logging multiple finds on a event goes back to early geocaching when they where running low on cache pages and the solution was to log temporary caches against the event and not create pages for each.

 

The following event was an example of this were the event was being sponsored by the Forest Service, in a national Forest, and they wanted temporary cache for the event.

 

National Trails Day, NCT Sprit of the Woods Chptr

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ba-faf075b0639a

 

These were not easy park and grabs as they were scattered around the forest and one required a mile walk to. They were placed a week before the event to allow more time to be found but were removed the day after the event. For this event, logging the event caches made sense for it. For this event I did have multiple logs and even posted a DNF for the temporary cache I could not find.

 

This was the pactice back in 2003 and it was acceptable. These were regualr cache that had been put out for a limited time and the owner decided not to use additional cache pages.

 

But in everything the times change and people exploit it. Logging multiple finds against an event became widely unacceptable with the addition of pocket caches and multiple very easy caches withe .10 miles of each other at events which only perpose was to inflate ones numbers.

 

Luckly now there are always plenty of actual caches to find near events the the practice of finding temporary caches is not as common any more.

 

Team Sand Dollar

 

I agree, and it was totally approved by TPTB back then. Heck, I suppose it still is in the little pocket of the world it still occurs in. It's buried in all the posts here, but I posted a link to a 2004 event in NY where it was done in moderation, some people posting 3 founds on the event I believe. It's also interesting to see how a few people went back years later and changed them to notes. I myself admit to (and have before) to logging an event as found twice in 2005 (which I probably went back and self-deleted before the end of 2005).

[+tozainamboku]

I thought it obvious that they can't violate other rules of the site, such as no virtuals. They also can't violate local, state, and federal ordinances, or the laws of physics.

well, there was a container there, so it was a real cache. but the CO says that he doesn't care if you've never found the cache, but instead that you can log a found if you just post some pictures. that's why it was archived. you previously said that a CO was free to do that. well, apparently not.

Several replies have been given as to what guidelines were not being met by this cache. It was not archived because the cache owner was allowing a alternative logging requirement in place of signing a log. In thread discussing it the cache owner said there were plenty of examples of caches in Asia where alternative logging was permitted by cache owners. There are probably caches all over the world where the cache owner allows a picture or some other proof you found the cache if they don't want you compromising the location when there are muggles around.

 

 

I think the number are simply a count of Found It, Attended, and Photo Taken logs a person has (and nothing to do with the number of caches they found or logs they signed...

 

Electrons in a sherbet molecule it is then.

 

Seriously, NOTHING? Nothing at all???? In that case, I'm 120 years old because my age is not a representation of the number of years I've "collected", but the number of birthday cakes I've eaten.

 

 

I am simply pointing out the de facto way the Found log is used. It is true that the guidelines say the cache owner should delete logs that are bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not withing stated requirements. If you are a puritan, then you may feel that a log without a signature in the log book is bogus. However, Groundspeak does not tell cache owners what logs are bogus, except for the case of couch potato logs on virtual caches (something I feel they should not have done). But in that case there is no log to sign anyhow. They certainly have not taken the stance that logging events multiple times is bogus. If Groundspeak wanted to force cache owners to allow only one Found log per cache or one Attended per event they could easily change the site to prevent multiple logs or they could threaten to archive caches when cache owners do not delete these log. I personally prefer the current system where cachers and cache owners are given the freedom to do as they please even if it is silly.

[AZcachemeister]

This is pretty weird to me. Do the event holders apply the same rules to these temp caches? Or could they in theory set out 100 bison tubes on a table and let people get 101 event logs/finds that day.

 

Ive only been to one event and I was surprised it showed up as a find on my account. I dont really consider that to be a find, but its really no big deal because its only one number, and I enjoyed seeing all the bugs/coins. I couldnt allow myself to log 21 finds on one event for any reason.

 

Indeed that would be possible!

And funny if you couldn't tell if you had already logged that one or not.

 

For the ONE event I attended in PA where this went on, ALL the caches were clever and well done. But, they were much too close together to pass the saturation guideline (not to mention they were intended to be short-lived).

[AZcachemeister]

The puritans are notorious for finding meaning in words to suit their argument. Unfortunately, they can turn that around (and often do) to use it against those who say the word doesn't have that meaning.

 

...and the Anti-puritans* are equally guilty.

 

*New term to be used in future cases like this: Laissez-faireists

 

(You read it here first.)

Edited October 16, 2010 by AZcachemeister

[Dinoprophet]

The puritans are notorious for finding meaning in words to suit their argument. Unfortunately, they can turn that around (and often do) to use it against those who say the word doesn't have that meaning.

 

...and the Anti-puritans* are equally guilty.

 

*New term to be used in future cases like this: Laissez-faireists

 

(You read it here first.)

I for one accept this new label!

[+TerraViators]

I just love it when a thread degenerates into an argument over the proper use of conjunctions

 

According to the unabridged American Heritage Dictionary, "once" as a a conjunction means "as soon as, if ever, when." "Once" is a subordinating conjunction of time supplying a condition for the main clause.

 

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

 

The main clause is bolded. The subordinate clause is italicized.

 

The main clause expresses a complete thought that without additional information indicates that a geocache can be logged online as found. What supplies the complete meaning to this sentence, however, is the condition expressed by the subordinate clause. It adds the condition that the geocache can be logged online "as soon as, if ever, or when" the physical log is signed. "Once" as a subordinating conjunction of time indicates that a timely event occurs at the point the conjunction is used. This means that the subordinate clause is a condition of the main clause, so indicating that a geocache can be logged online once the subordinate clause's condition has been met.

 

I'm currently in a master's degree program getting into the depths of English grammar.

 

This makes this old journalist happy.

[Dinoprophet]

I just love it when a thread degenerates into an argument over the proper use of conjunctions

 

According to the unabridged American Heritage Dictionary, "once" as a a conjunction means "as soon as, if ever, when." "Once" is a subordinating conjunction of time supplying a condition for the main clause.

 

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

 

The main clause is bolded. The subordinate clause is italicized.

 

The main clause expresses a complete thought that without additional information indicates that a geocache can be logged online as found. What supplies the complete meaning to this sentence, however, is the condition expressed by the subordinate clause. It adds the condition that the geocache can be logged online "as soon as, if ever, or when" the physical log is signed. "Once" as a subordinating conjunction of time indicates that a timely event occurs at the point the conjunction is used. This means that the subordinate clause is a condition of the main clause, so indicating that a geocache can be logged online once the subordinate clause's condition has been met.

 

I'm currently in a master's degree program getting into the depths of English grammar.

 

This makes this old journalist happy.

The grammar was never in question. It's the definition of "once" that there's some disagreement on, specifically whether it indicates that the conditional clause is the only condition under which the main clause can be met. I say it doesn't, by any definition I've seen, including those in the essay above.

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

We thought it to be too good to be true to have this thread go back on topic. When do Mein Fuhrer and the nazis arrive?

[+sbell111]

-nevermind-

Edited October 18, 2010 by sbell111

[+GeoGeeBee]

We thought it to be too good to be true to have this thread go back on topic. When do Mein Fuhrer and the nazis arrive?

 

Thank you, Mr. Godwin.

[knowschad]

I just love it when a thread degenerates into an argument over the proper use of conjunctions

Helps you to understand why we have so many religions and demonimations of any given religion, doesn't it?

 

You know, I wish that, instead of endlessly repeating this tired old debate, they'd take one classic one and make a sticky out of it. Then, whenever the question arises, all it will take is one post to link to the sticky thread.

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2010 by knowschad

[+Don_J]

I just love it when a thread degenerates into an argument over the proper use of conjunctions

Helps you to understand why we have so many religions and demonimations of any given religion, doesn't it?

 

You know, I wish that, instead of endlessly repeating this tired old debate, they'd take one classic one and make a sticky out of it. Then, whenever the question arises, all it will take is one post to link to the sticky thread.

 

 

 

 

Anyone who has ever owned a cat knows that it is A.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Ok. This one seems to have run its course ... and then some.

 

The "Great Debate" will have to occur elsewhere.