Logging Everything as Finds?

[+sbell111]

In the quote from the guidelines, nowhere do I see the word MUST. You are free to interpret that sentence from the guidelines any way that you wish, but don't presume that everyone else will agree with you. That statement simply means that once I sign the log sheet, a cache owner can not challenge my find. No where in that statement does it say that I can not log a cache online if I have not psychically signed a physical log sheet. I challenge you to find a passage in the guidelines that says that a cache can not be logged online unless the physically log book is physically signed.

the statement says what it says: Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

 

"once" as a conjunction means "as soon as": as soon as you've signed the physical log, you can log the cache as found online. which implies that you can log it online only after you've signed the physical log. which in turn implies that you can't log it as found before you've signed the physical log. if you've never signed the physical log, then you also can't log it as found online.

The moment that you used the word 'implies', you admitted that the guidelines do not require that the log is signed.

[+dfx]

The moment that you used the word 'implies', you admitted that the guidelines do not require that the log is signed.

wrong.

[+sbell111]

The moment that you used the word 'implies', you admitted that the guidelines do not require that the log is signed.

wrong.

Yes, you are wrong when you state that tha guidelines mean something other than what TPTB says they mean.

[+dfx]

Yes, you are wrong when you state that tha guidelines mean something other than what TPTB says they mean.

lulz.

EOD for me. if you don't even know what "implicit" means, then any further discussion is useless.

[AZcachemeister]

It only matters if you are impressed by someone's find count.

I typically am not.

It just means they had more free time to go caching...nothing more. I may be jealous of their available free time, however.

Paring the time period down from their whole career to a matter of hours or days is still not impressing me a whole lot.

Maniacs are best avoided in most cases. They will drag you down to their level, and beat you due to their familiarity with the territory.

[+briansnat]

I think that a lot of bad logging habits by newbie's are because they are imitating the logging habits of their long term peers. When I read a "Found it" log from someone that has 5000 finds that reads "well, I found the velcro", I just shake my head.

 

That's how they get to 5,000 "finds".

[+Don_J]

I guess this really is a regional thing. I have been in the game since May '05. and have attended 34 events. I have yet to run into a temporary cache.

 

I have been to Saturday afternoon events where the host has hid new (published) caches in the area for people to find before the event, and I have been to events that were just the opposite.

 

It was a surprise when the host of our 10/10/10 event started handing out sheets of paper with the coordinates of 10 unpublished caches that he had hidden. A pre-arraignment with the reviewer was to have these caches published about six hour after the event ended. These are real geocaches that are now available to all geocachers. In the five+ years that I have been doing this, this is the only way we have done things. In fact, just outside the backdoor of our Monthly Meet and Greet spot, (event), we have a micro. It's kind of neat to bring the new cachers over there to find it. It's a real cache with a real GC#.

 

I just cant fathom logging a "Found it", (or Attended), log on the site for something that is not listed on the site. Luckily, my local event hosts place actual caches that meet the guidelines and are published for all cachers after the event has ended.

[+Don_J]

In the quote from the guidelines, nowhere do I see the word MUST. You are free to interpret that sentence from the guidelines any way that you wish, but don't presume that everyone else will agree with you. That statement simply means that once I sign the log sheet, a cache owner can not challenge my find. No where in that statement does it say that I can not log a cache online if I have not psychically signed a physical log sheet. I challenge you to find a passage in the guidelines that says that a cache can not be logged online unless the physically log book is physically signed.

the statement says what it says: Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

 

"once" as a conjunction means "as soon as": as soon as you've signed the physical log, you can log the cache as found online. which implies that you can log it online only after you've signed the physical log. which in turn implies that you can't log it as found before you've signed the physical log. if you've never signed the physical log, then you also can't log it as found online.

 

There is is a point in there where I'm sure I saw Evil Knevil jump 20 school buses. Or was that simply DFX making the leap between "can" and "must"?

 

The statement in the guidelines was placed to address ALRs. It was NEVER intended to be used as a logging requirement.

[+Don_J]

 

Maniacs are best avoided in most cases. They will drag you down to their level, and beat you due to their familiarity with the territory.

 

What exactly is this in reference to?

[kablooey]

For those interested, I found a user with 2120 events attended, apparently on only 22 different events. That is kind of impressive in and of itself.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...3c-a856a55b0874

[+Don_J]

For those interested, I found a user with 2120 events attended, apparently on only 22 different events. That is kind of impressive in and of itself.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...3c-a856a55b0874

 

I wonder if the locals bow at him at the local meet and greets?

[+Crow-T-Robot]

For those interested, I found a user with 2120 events attended, apparently on only 22 different events. That is kind of impressive in and of itself.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...3c-a856a55b0874

 

Too bad he didn't do that all in one day...he could be the new World Record holder!

[+tozainamboku]

Seems about the same as logging multiple finds on a multi cache or re-logging a find on a cache if you revisit to exchange travel bugs once a month or whatever.

yep. or logging your own caches as found. or logging a cache as found that you didn't actually find.

Okay, so the TPTB have said that it is okay to log multiple attends on an event to account for finds on temporary caches associated with said event.

which of course still doesn't mean that you should do it. in fact, if they fully supported logging temp caches as found in order to increase your find count or for whatever other reason, they'd support listing those caches on the website. but they don't, any sort of temp caches is a no-no.

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 can't think of a reason why besides want to use the find count as score to compare two cachers. If you are a puritan, your find will be exactly those caches for which you have met your puritan rule for finding. Why you worry about someone else's find count it beyond me. It seems if you are having fun geocaching you can use the features of the website to share your experiences with other caches. If someone wants to share there experience finding temporary caches at a event by logging "Attended" for each one I don't have any problem with that.

 

Of course the puritans will shout where does it stop? They'll toss out some strawman about logging a find for each car in a parking lot where they went to find an LPC. And I suppose there are some instances where TPTB will decide that certain logging practices are forbidden. The recent experience with a bot logging selected geocaches was deemed a violation of the TOU and the account was banned. The fact is that to date, Grounspeak has allowed people to log multiple Attended logs on events to represent finding temporary caches associated with the event.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...gingofallcaches

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

The puritans keep quoting that guideline. I do not think it means what they think it means.

 

It does not say Geocaches can be logged online as Found only once the physical log has been signed. It is convoluted thinking to state that the word once somehow implies only. Second it has to be seen in context. It was added solely for the purpose of explaining what to do about cache with additional logging requirements after these requirements were no longer allowed. The change was not to grandfather caches that had additional logging requirement but rather that that all such requirements were now null and void and could not be enforced. People who found these caches had to be told that they could indeed log a find online once they had signed the log.

 

The wording was keep very straight forward in order to make it clear that the intent is that you should sign the log when you find a cache and that cache owners who want to can still delete logs that appear to be bogus because the log is not signed. However in the real world there are times when logs don't get signed for one reason or another and cache owners ought to allow the find if they are satisfied that the person found the cache. However in this thread I assume that the signing part was brought up because people were finding things that didn't have a log. The problem here is that once an event owner allows people to log multiple attends for finding temporary caches, the guidelines for what constitute a cache go out the window. So quoting the guideline in this thread is off-topic anyhow.

[+The Blorenges]

This would all be so much easier if folks would just accept the existence of The Madness Hamsters.

 

 

 

MrsB

[+randco]

Hundreds of my caches are long gone. Luckily, I still have my memories and find logs.

yeah, i'm sure a dozen identical "attended" logs on some event listing will help you keep the memory alive much better than you could with just a single log on the same listing

What difference does it make what the logs read? If I were to TFTC on a temp cache, would it be different than a TFTC on any other?

 

Further, what would it matter to you if someone else chooses to log in this manner? Are you harmed in any way by this practice or is it just the very thought that someone else uses this method and you don't that you can't abide?

 

It doesn't matter to me one darn bit. I am not harmed by those that want to log finds in this manner. That being said, the only ones they are hurting are themselves. They know that their finds are illegitimate. They are only cheating themselves.

 

I have been to three events here in Florida. Have never seen temporary caches at any of the events.

Edited October 15, 2010 by randco

[+J the Goat]

 

The puritans keep quoting that guideline. I do not think it means what they think it means.

 

It does not say Geocaches can be logged online as Found only once the physical log has been signed. It is convoluted thinking to state that the word once somehow implies only. Second it has to be seen in context. It was added solely for the purpose of explaining what to do about cache with additional logging requirements after these requirements were no longer allowed. The change was not to grandfather caches that had additional logging requirement but rather that that all such requirements were now null and void and could not be enforced. People who found these caches had to be told that they could indeed log a find online once they had signed the log.

 

The wording was keep very straight forward in order to make it clear that the intent is that you should sign the log when you find a cache and that cache owners who want to can still delete logs that appear to be bogus because the log is not signed. However in the real world there are times when logs don't get signed for one reason or another and cache owners ought to allow the find if they are satisfied that the person found the cache. However in this thread I assume that the signing part was brought up because people were finding things that didn't have a log. The problem here is that once an event owner allows people to log multiple attends for finding temporary caches, the guidelines for what constitute a cache go out the window. So quoting the guideline in this thread is off-topic anyhow.

 

And they do think that. Your opinion is no more valid than anyone elses. I read it differently than you. Thanks for the long winded OPINION about GS's meaning behind their rules.

[+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?

[Dinoprophet]

the statement says what it says: Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

 

"once" as a conjunction means "as soon as": as soon as you've signed the physical log, you can log the cache as found online.

I agree so far.

which implies that you can log it online only after you've signed the physical log. which in turn implies that you can't log it as found before you've signed the physical log. if you've never signed the physical log, then you also can't log it as found online.

Bold mine. That's the part many of us do not agree is implied.

 

The point of that sentence is that a signed log means the Found log MUST be allowed. I know this because of where it is found in the guidelines (ALR ban), and the fact that it isn't found ANYWHERE else in the guidelines.

 

Logging of All Physical Caches

 

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed. What makes anyone think this sentence is separate from the rest of the section?

 

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

This guideline change What exactly is "This guideline change"? It's the ban on ALRs, defined by the above applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

 

* Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.

* Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

* Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

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 don't understand that statement. I'm fairly new to this but from the start have always assumed that's exactly what the numbers mean. Things on the website made me think this way, such as:

 

On my /my/ page, which includes the last 30 days logs, it says in a box on the right hand side:

 

Caches Found: 764

 

On my public profile page, it says:

 

Geocaches Found (All Geocache Finds)

 

Then at the bottom of the list of different cache types it says:

 

Total Caches Found 764

 

So the website not only claims those numbers represent the number of geocaches found, it clearly states that's the case.

I'm confused again Darn hamsters.

[Mr.Yuck]

For those interested, I found a user with 2120 events attended, apparently on only 22 different events. That is kind of impressive in and of itself.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...3c-a856a55b0874

 

Well, I don't condone calling out a specific user. I know it's very confusing, but if someone logged an event say 25 times, that event page would have it's own page on the page where you would normally see 20 found cache listings per page while looking at the list of someone's finds. Kind of hard to explain, but I hope it makes sense. Bottom line, I'm sure that user has attended many more than 22 events.

 

Despite crazy rumors, I've never heard of more than 100-120 attend logs for a single event for those in the Mid-West who abuse I mean engage, in this practice.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Just keep trying to be kind and sympathetic to those suffering from BEHD (brain eating hamster disorder). One day, it could be your brain, nibbled away in itsy-bitsy bitesies.

[+sbell111]

Hundreds of my caches are long gone. Luckily, I still have my memories and find logs.

yeah, i'm sure a dozen identical "attended" logs on some event listing will help you keep the memory alive much better than you could with just a single log on the same listing

What difference does it make what the logs read? If I were to TFTC on a temp cache, would it be different than a TFTC on any other?

 

Further, what would it matter to you if someone else chooses to log in this manner? Are you harmed in any way by this practice or is it just the very thought that someone else uses this method and you don't that you can't abide?

 

It doesn't matter to me one darn bit. I am not harmed by those that want to log finds in this manner. That being said, the only ones they are hurting are themselves. They know that their finds are illegitimate. They are only cheating themselves.

 

I have been to three events here in Florida. Have never seen temporary caches at any of the events.

Actually, no one is being harmed at all. You see, those that log temporary event caches are truly not cheating themselves, nor are their finds illegitimate. They no exactly what their find stats mean and for them, it is appropriate. It doesn't matter if you or I choose to log similarly.

[+sbell111]

 

The puritans keep quoting that guideline. I do not think it means what they think it means.

 

It does not say Geocaches can be logged online as Found only once the physical log has been signed. It is convoluted thinking to state that the word once somehow implies only. Second it has to be seen in context. It was added solely for the purpose of explaining what to do about cache with additional logging requirements after these requirements were no longer allowed. The change was not to grandfather caches that had additional logging requirement but rather that that all such requirements were now null and void and could not be enforced. People who found these caches had to be told that they could indeed log a find online once they had signed the log.

 

The wording was keep very straight forward in order to make it clear that the intent is that you should sign the log when you find a cache and that cache owners who want to can still delete logs that appear to be bogus because the log is not signed. However in the real world there are times when logs don't get signed for one reason or another and cache owners ought to allow the find if they are satisfied that the person found the cache. However in this thread I assume that the signing part was brought up because people were finding things that didn't have a log. The problem here is that once an event owner allows people to log multiple attends for finding temporary caches, the guidelines for what constitute a cache go out the window. So quoting the guideline in this thread is off-topic anyhow.

 

And they do think that. Your opinion is no more valid than anyone elses. I read it differently than you. Thanks for the long winded OPINION about GS's meaning behind their rules.

Well, his opinion is more valid about the OP's position on this matter because it mirrors their stated position, while yours is contrary to it.

[+Avernar]

I have been to three events here in Florida. Have never seen temporary caches at any of the events.

We actually do have temporary caches at the big events in Ontario. We don't log them as extra attends. Finds on the temporary caches are traded in for more prize raffle tickets.

[+dfx]

There is is a point in there where I'm sure I saw Evil Knevil jump 20 school buses. Or was that simply DFX making the leap between "can" and "must"?

you got it backwards. it doesn't say "must" because you don't have to log online after signing the physical log. but if you didn't sign the physical log, then you can not log it online as found. see? still says "can". it's simple logical negation.

 

in fact, in case you care, which you probably don't: in logics, the negation of "can" is "must not", and the negation of "must" is "doesn't have to".

Edited October 15, 2010 by dfx

[Mr.Yuck]

I have been to three events here in Florida. Have never seen temporary caches at any of the events.

We actually do have temporary caches at the big events in Ontario. We don't log them as extra attends. Finds on the temporary caches are traded in for more prize raffle tickets.

 

GHAGAFAP is a large annual event in Ontario. I walked about 5 freaking miles for the 2005 GHAGAFAP poker run caches. I also went to GHAGAFAP 2006, but I had sprained my ankle the night before. Either way, I can verify they do have temporary caches at events in Ontario, but the thought of logging extra "attends" never crossed anyone's mind, I'm sure.

 

Could be that having temporary caches, period, is a regional thing too, regardless of whether extra attend logs are posted or not.

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

GHAGAFAP is a large annual event in Ontario.

Sounds more like a suitable definition for recent popular music chart entries by Stefani Germanotta

[+Avernar]

Either way, I can verify they do have temporary caches at events in Ontario, but the thought of logging extra "attends" never crossed anyone's mind, I'm sure.

 

Could be that having temporary caches, period, is a regional thing too, regardless of whether extra attend logs are posted or not.

The reason for the temporary caches around here is that a lot of the attendees that are locals have already found all the caches around the event. It gives those people something to do. The extra prize tickets are a replacement incentive for not being able to log the temporary.

[+Avernar]

GHAGAFAP is a large annual event in Ontario.

Sounds more like a suitable definition for recent popular music chart entries by Stefani Germanotta

Golden Horseshoe Area Geocachers And Friends Annual Picnic

 

This year's event was the 9th year.

[+sbell111]

There is is a point in there where I'm sure I saw Evil Knevil jump 20 school buses. Or was that simply DFX making the leap between "can" and "must"?

you got it backwards. it doesn't say "must" because you don't have to log online after signing the physical log. but if you didn't sign the physical log, then you can not log it online as found. see? still says "can". it's simple logical negation.

 

in fact, in case you care, which you probably don't: in logics, the negation of "can" is "must not", and the negation of "must" is "doesn't have to".

Your entire argument appears to stem from this point. You are successfully arguing it, also. The problem is, you are misapplying it.

 

The sentence from the guidelines that you are fixating on is as follows:

 

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

 

As previously explained, that sentence only relates to whether a cache owner is allowed to delete finds if a log wasn't signed. We know this for three reasons. First, TPTB stated as much at the time when the verbiage was added to the guidelines. Second, the section of the guidelines makes this clear when read in it's entirety. Third, the verbiage exists in the listing guidelines. Therefore, it is an instruction to cache owners, not cache seekers. It clearly means that cache owners are not to delete logs if the logbook had been signed.

 

This bit of the guidelines does not speak to what a cache owner must do if a logbook was not signed. It leaves this determination up to the cache owner. It also does not speak to whether a cache owner can allow additional online logs. That is also left up to the cache owner.

[+sbell111]

GHAGAFAP is a large annual event in Ontario.

Sounds more like a suitable definition for recent popular music chart entries by Stefani Germanotta

Golden Horseshoe Area Geocachers And Friends Annual Picnic

 

This year's event was the 9th year.

It's too bad that they didn't come up with a less clunky name way back then.

[+Avernar]

It's too bad that they didn't come up with a less clunky name way back then.

Nobody actually says the full name. The acronym rolls of the tongue quite nicely. It's pronounced "gag a fap" and some people just call it "The Fap".

[+sbell111]

Note to self. Don't google 'define FAP'.

[Dinoprophet]

There is is a point in there where I'm sure I saw Evil Knevil jump 20 school buses. Or was that simply DFX making the leap between "can" and "must"?

you got it backwards. it doesn't say "must" because you don't have to log online after signing the physical log. but if you didn't sign the physical log, then you can not log it online as found. see? still says "can". it's simple logical negation.

Look, some read that sentence as :

 

"If the physical log has been signed, then geocaches can be logged online as Found."

 

and some read it as:

 

"If and only if the physical log has been signed, then geocaches can be logged online as Found."

 

Both are valid interpretations of that sentence alone. But because that instruction is found in a section telling cache hiders what kinds of logs they are not to delete and nowhere else, including the half-dozen different pages of instructions to new seekers that I linked above, the former makes more sense to me.

[+briansnat]

I have been to three events here in Florida. Have never seen temporary caches at any of the events.

We actually do have temporary caches at the big events in Ontario. We don't log them as extra attends. Finds on the temporary caches are traded in for more prize raffle tickets.

 

GHAGAFAP is a large annual event in Ontario. I walked about 5 freaking miles for the 2005 GHAGAFAP poker run caches. I also went to GHAGAFAP 2006, but I had sprained my ankle the night before. Either way, I can verify they do have temporary caches at events in Ontario, but the thought of logging extra "attends" never crossed anyone's mind, I'm sure.

 

Could be that having temporary caches, period, is a regional thing too, regardless of whether extra attend logs are posted or not.

 

It may be a regional thing, but I suspect it's done in more regions than not. Temp caches have been common in NJ for many years. As far a logging extra attends for the temp caches, I've only seen 1 person do it at a NJ event and he wasn't from NJ.

Edited October 15, 2010 by briansnat

[+dfx]

Both are valid interpretations of that sentence alone.

no they're not, the "once" part means exactly that: "only after".

 

"i can start driving once i find those !@#$% car keys."

 

how can you interpret that to mean that there's any possible chance that i can start driving without finding the car keys?

[+tozainamboku]

 

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. I understand that the website sometimes puts this number next to the words "Caches Found" and that some people will feel that when people log additional attended logs on one event it leaves a sour taste for some when the number is put with those words. I'd have no objection if the site were to report "Unique Caches Found" and count the number of traditional caches, events, virtuals, locationless, and webcam caches that someone has posted one or more Found It, Attended, and Photo Taken logs.

 

There is is a point in there where I'm sure I saw Evil Knevil jump 20 school buses. Or was that simply DFX making the leap between "can" and "must"?

you got it backwards. it doesn't say "must" because you don't have to log online after signing the physical log. but if you didn't sign the physical log, then you can not log it online as found. see? still says "can". it's simple logical negation.

 

in fact, in case you care, which you probably don't: in logics, the negation of "can" is "must not", and the negation of "must" is "doesn't have to".

Negation of a statement that way is a logical fallacy known as denying the antecedent.

The statement "You can log a Found online once the physical log has been signed" does not make it true that "You must not log a Found online until the physical has been signed".

[MisterEFQ]

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.

[+tozainamboku]

Both are valid interpretations of that sentence alone.

no they're not, the "once" part means exactly that: "only after".

 

"i can start driving once i find those !@#$% car keys."

 

how can you interpret that to mean that there's any possible chance that i can start driving without finding the car keys?

You can hot wire the car.

[+dfx]

Negation of a statement that way is a logical fallacy known as denying the antecedent.

The statement "You can log a Found online once the physical log has been signed" does not make it true that "You must not log a Found online until the physical has been signed".

yes it does. "once" means "only after", which means you can negate it like that. the statement does not say "if the log has been signed ...", it says "once", for exactly that reason. why do you think they worded it like that? and if you think it doesn't mean anything anyway, why do you think they put that statement there in the first place?

Edited October 15, 2010 by dfx

[Dinoprophet]

Both are valid interpretations of that sentence alone.

no they're not, the "once" part means exactly that: "only after".

That's not the definition you used the first time. You keep sticking an "only" into these sentences. Where have you seen it defined that way?

 

"i can start driving once i find those !@#$% car keys."

 

how can you interpret that to mean that there's any possible chance that i can start driving without finding the car keys?

I borrow my wife's key when that happens.

 

You've specifically chosen a situation where doing things out of order is impossible. How about:

 

"You can see my house once you turn onto my street"

 

Is it impossible to see my house under any other conditions?

Edited October 15, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+dfx]

You've specifically chosen a situation where doing things out of order is impossible.

yes of course, i'm that smart

replace that "once" with an "if" and it means something different. demonstrating that was the whole point of the example.

 

How about:

 

"You can see my house once you turn onto my street"

 

Is it impossible to see my house under any other conditions?

pretty much, yes. as soon as i turn onto your street, i can see your house. which means i won't be able to see your house before i've turned onto your street. of course i could be flying a helicopter overhead and see your house from that, but then i won't be turning onto any streets at all. so the statement implies that i'm driving or walking.

[Dinoprophet]

.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[Dinoprophet]

You've specifically chosen a situation where doing things out of order is impossible.

yes of course, i'm that smart

replace that "once" with an "if" and it means something different. demonstrating that was the whole point of the example.

 

How about:

 

"You can see my house once you turn onto my street"

 

Is it impossible to see my house under any other conditions?

pretty much, yes. as soon as i turn onto your street, i can see your house. which means i won't be able to see your house before i've turned onto your street. of course i could be flying a helicopter overhead and see your house from that, but then i won't be turning onto any streets at all. so the statement implies that i'm driving or walking.

If you glance down my street as you miss the turn and drive past, you can see it, too. Or if you turn on the street before, you can see it from behind.

 

My point is, "once" means "as soon as", like you originally said, but not "only as soon as". At least not in any of the dictionaries I've checked. I'll believe it ONCE you show me a dictionary that does define it that way (note that the "once" there does not imply that someone else showing me this dictionary, or finding one myself, will not make me believe it).

Edited October 15, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+dfx]

If you glance down my street as you miss the turn and drive past, you can see it, too. Or if you turn on the street before, you can see it from behind.

but that's not what you said. if i can see your house from the intersection without turning onto the street, you'd have to say "... once you reach the intersection". the same applies to the other case.

 

in other words, your statement tells me that whenever i can see your house, then i know that i did turn onto your street. if that's not true, then your statement is worded wrongly.

 

I'll believe it ONCE you show me a dictionary that does define it that way (note that the "once" there does not imply that someone else showing me this dictionary, or finding one myself, will not make me believe it).

actually, it does.

[Dinoprophet]

I'll believe it ONCE you show me a dictionary that does define it that way (note that the "once" there does not imply that someone else showing me this dictionary, or finding one myself, will not make me believe it).

actually, it does.

I'll believe that AS SOON AS you find me that definition.

 

(Or I would, if there weren't multiple dictionaries that do NOT define "once" that way).

Edited October 15, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+dfx]

I'll believe that AS SOON AS you find me that definition.

yeah, so you won't believe it before i do, right?

 

but let me ask you this. assuming that what you say is true, then the statement translates to "caches can be logged as found as soon as the log has been signed or under an unspecified number of other unknown circumstances". now what would those circumstances be? something like "container seen, but not retrieved"? or "was told about this cache but never went there"? and if that's how it works, why put a meaningless statement like that in the guidelines in the first place?

Edited October 15, 2010 by dfx

[Dinoprophet]

I'll believe that AS SOON AS you find me that definition.

yeah, so you won't believe it before i do, right?

No. the minute you show me, I'll believe it. But not to the exclusion of other people showing me.

 

but let me ask you this. assuming that what you say is true, then the statement translates to "caches can be logged as found as soon as the log has been signed or under an unspecified number of other unknown circumstances". now what would those circumstances be? something like "container seen, but not retrieved"? or "was told about this cache but never went there"?

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

and if that's how it works, by put a meaningless statement like that in the guidelines in the first place?

It's not meaningless. As has been said many, many times, in this and other threads: it is there to tell cache owners that a Found log must be accepted when the logbook is signed. In case that wasn't clear enough (hard to imagine...), it then goes on to explain that ALRs can be requested but not enforced.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+dfx]

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?

It's not meaningless. As has been said many, many times, in this and other threads: it is there to tell cache owners that a Found log must be accepted when the logbook is signed.

yeah, so i'm asking you, if that's not the only case, in what other cases can a log also be accepted?

Edited October 15, 2010 by dfx

[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".

It's not meaningless. As has been said many, many times, in this and other threads: it is there to tell cache owners that a Found log must be accepted when the logbook is signed.

yeah, so i'm asking you, if that's not the only case, in what other cases can a log also be accepted?

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.

 

The logbook is the one requirement Groundspeak allows cache owners to enforce. That does not mean they say you must sign it. It's the difference between "Do Not Enter" and "Enter At Your Own Risk". They won't make you sign, but if you don't, they won't guarantee your Found log.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Dinoprophet