Logging archived virtuals

[mresoteric]

I saw this advertised in an announcement for a new power trail.

 

Clay4 & whtwolfden’s ET Highway Info

Archived Virtual (logable): There is an old archived virtual just outside the Little Alien restaurant called ID4 - GC1403 Hidden : 08/02/2001. Make sure you take a picture of it and submit it. I love getting old virtuals!

 

What is the point in archiving a virtual cache for lack of owner response if it is still loggable?

 

Forgot link to the announcement.

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1b8VhcV3yki54pXTMynpnoQPYPFawZjmyD4wj_zZ7bz0

Edited May 31, 2011 by mresoteric

[+JPatton]

"The listing has been locked and is not accepting new log entries." I guess there won't be any logging that cache.

[+BlueDeuce]

Yep, another virtual locked down. Thanks to whose who abused the system.

 

Holy carp, go find another site.

Edited May 31, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+Great Scott!]

It's locked now.

 

I can't believe people kept logging it 6 years after it was archived...just because they could.

All those post-archived logs should be deleted.

[Mr.Yuck]

I saw this advertised in an announcement for a new power trail.

 

Clay4 & whtwolfden’s ET Highway Info

Archived Virtual (logable): There is an old archived virtual just outside the Little Alien restaurant called ID4 - GC1403 Hidden : 08/02/2001. Make sure you take a picture of it and submit it. I love getting old virtuals!

 

What is the point in archiving a virtual cache for lack of owner response if it is still loggable?

 

Forgot link to the announcement.

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1b8VhcV3yki54pXTMynpnoQPYPFawZjmyD4wj_zZ7bz0

 

Not much interest in this thread. I don't think Mr. E was talking about the "abusers" who were logging an archived cache, but was asking why archive it just because of "lack of owner response", i.e. a long-gone from Geocaching owner. Why? That's just how they roll around here. Generally, I would say it's to prevent the caches from being logged by (mostly European) armchair loggers. Back during the Ontario Virtual Massacre, Virtual owners who went even 6 months without logging into the website were having their virtuals involuntarilly archived.

[+dfx]

What strikes me the most is that this particular virtual doesn't even have any logging requirements. Even if the owner was still active, as it is now it doesn't seem to be a valid virtual to begin with.

[GOF and Bacall]

I saw this advertised in an announcement for a new power trail.

 

Clay4 & whtwolfden’s ET Highway Info

Archived Virtual (logable): There is an old archived virtual just outside the Little Alien restaurant called ID4 - GC1403 Hidden : 08/02/2001. Make sure you take a picture of it and submit it. I love getting old virtuals!

 

What is the point in archiving a virtual cache for lack of owner response if it is still loggable?

 

Forgot link to the announcement.

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1b8VhcV3yki54pXTMynpnoQPYPFawZjmyD4wj_zZ7bz0

 

Not much interest in this thread. I don't think Mr. E was talking about the "abusers" who were logging an archived cache, but was asking why archive it just because of "lack of owner response", i.e. a long-gone from Geocaching owner. Why? That's just how they roll around here. Generally, I would say it's to prevent the caches from being logged by (mostly European) armchair loggers. Back during the Ontario Virtual Massacre, Virtual owners who went even 6 months without logging into the website were having their virtuals involuntarilly archived.

 

With the enabling attitude Groundspeak has for all the other "lame" logging practices I just don't get why they give a rats rump about armchair logging.

[+hzoi]

I was going to say that this isn't an issue since virtuals will be coming back in May, but I see that the feedback post on virtuals has been edited to push their return to late July or early August -- 20 August at the latest, apparently. Sigh.

[+StarBrand]

Yep, another virtual locked down. Thanks to whose who abused the system.

 

Holy carp, go find another site.

Agreed - abuse some other system - not this one.

[+tozainamboku]

With the enabling attitude Groundspeak has for all the other "lame" logging practices I just don't get why they give a rats rump about armchair logging.

I don't see it in quite these terms.

 

The core point of geocaching is to go out and find something, preferably using GPS as an integral part of the search. Those armchair loggers as sitting at home using the Geocaching.com website to play an alternative game - surfing the internet for information to answer the verification on a virtual or using Photoshop to put yourself in a picture at the virtual site. While I'm not particularly bothered by these logs, Groundspeak has decided to try and stop this practice in order to emphasize the core point of geocaching.

 

The issue in the OP however, is not armchair logging, but the logging of a virtual cache that has been archived. Most virtuals and some physical caches that were not removed by the owner after being archived, can be found just like an active cache. All pertinent logging requirements can be met. Yet it seem that Grounspeak policy is that these caches should not be logged. In certain cases they will lock the page to prevent logging of these caches. I'm not sure what their thinking is on this. The find count is not a score, so if someone finds a cache that used to be listed on Geocaching.com but is now archived, what is the harm in logging it? Perhaps they feel that once a cache is archived, they would like to be able to say to the land owner/manager that geocachers will not be looking fore the cache anymore.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Perhaps they feel that once a cache is archived, they would like to be able to say to the land owner/manager that geocachers will not be looking fore the cache anymore.

THIS.

[+Flintstone5611]

What is the point in archiving a virtual cache for lack of owner response if it is still loggable?

 

Nothing. But it is harder to search for them and so they usually are left undisturbed. It is their website, we get to watch what happens.

[+SwineFlew]

 

All those post-archived logs should be deleted.

 

Yep...time for GS to show some power to tell other not to abuse archived virtual Slapping people on the hand doesnt work for some people.

[AZcachemeister]

The find count is not a score

 

 

And, indeed if the find count is not a 'score', then why log it?

This, sir, is where you and nearly every other geocacher diverge.

The relative meaning of the find count is debatable, but it IS a SCORE.

[+Harry Dolphin]

If Ground Speak wanted to prevent cachers from logging archived geocaches, then it should lock them. Allowing a certain leeway for people who found them before they were archived. (Or one I found that was archived after I downloaded the GPX file, but before I found it. Traditional. Not yet removed. Actually, it's probably still there.) The problem with virtuals is that there is nothing to remove. I would be in favor or locking all archived caches six months after archival.

Archived caches are difficult to find on geocaching, since the change a few years ago. But, if you work hard enough... I placed a cache near an archived virtual. (Found that out afterward.) The owner had been banninated, and the virtual locked. Some of the virtuals I've found have been archived. Search my found virtuals. I don't think any of them have been locked.

There is a memorial cache nearby. The owner retrieved the old cache, and left the old log book in the new cache. There are people signing the old log, and claiming a find. That's tacky.

Oh, well. I vote for locking all archived caches six months after archival.

[mresoteric]

I don't think Mr. E was talking about the "abusers" who were logging an archived cache, but was asking why archive it just because of "lack of owner response", i.e. a long-gone from Geocaching owner.

 

Yeah. It didn't seem to be suffering before or after the archival. It does look like the owner pretty much lost interest or at least there is not much activity on that account. But the cache was being found just fine before it got archived. It didn't seemed to be abused.

 

Just don't get the point of archiving a virtual that seems to be getting along fine.

[mresoteric]

Perhaps they feel that once a cache is archived, they would like to be able to say to the land owner/manager that geocachers will not be looking fore the cache anymore.

THIS.

 

Makes sense if the cache was archived due to land owner concerns. Land owner concerns were didn't seem to be an issue with this cache.

[mresoteric]

 

All those post-archived logs should be deleted.

 

Yep...time for GS to show some power to tell other not to abuse archived virtual Slapping people on the hand doesnt work for some people.

 

How is this abuse if the person logging the cache actually visited the location?

 

Is it against the rules for me to log a physical cache after it has been archived if the owner neglected to pick up the container and I actually found it?

[mresoteric]

The find count is not a score

 

 

And, indeed if the find count is not a 'score', then why log it?

This, sir, is where you and nearly every other geocacher diverge.

The relative meaning of the find count is debatable, but it IS a SCORE.

 

It's not just a way of knowing what I have previously found so I don't go hunting for it again?

[+CanadianRockies]

The issue in the OP however, is not armchair logging, but the logging of a virtual cache that has been archived. Most virtuals and some physical caches that were not removed by the owner after being archived, can be found just like an active cache. All pertinent logging requirements can be met. Yet it seem that Grounspeak policy is that these caches should not be logged. In certain cases they will lock the page to prevent logging of these caches. I'm not sure what their thinking is on this.

In the case of virtuals, archiving usually means the cache owner is either unable to monitor the logs or no longer interested in doing so. If logging continues, then there will be no monitoring, since Groundspeak probably doesn't want to assume that responsibility. Hence, it seems reasonable to me that Groundspeak would prefer that these caches not be logged.

[+BlueDeuce]

Oh, well. I vote for locking all archived caches six months after archival.

 

Yes, most of the time the newest logs of an archived virtual will be those - I separated from my team, or My kids got their own account. Personally I don't see why those people shouldn't be able to backlog. Well, now bring in the baloney cachers and the cache owner who doesn't police the logs.

 

I don't expect gc.com to do the job of the cache owner by insuring appropriate logging, but I would like to see a bit more consequence then just shutting down the cache for everybody.

[+BlueDeuce]

Oh, well. I vote for locking all archived caches six months after archival.

 

Yes, most of the time the newest logs of an archived virtual will be those - I separated from my team, or My kids got their own account. Personally I don't see why those people shouldn't be able to backlog. Well, now bring in the baloney cachers and the cache owner who doesn't police the logs.

 

I don't expect gc.com to do the job of the cache owner by insuring appropriate logging, but I would like to see a bit more consequence than just shutting down the cache for everybody.

 

edit: then/than

[+tozainamboku]

The issue in the OP however, is not armchair logging, but the logging of a virtual cache that has been archived. Most virtuals and some physical caches that were not removed by the owner after being archived, can be found just like an active cache. All pertinent logging requirements can be met. Yet it seem that Grounspeak policy is that these caches should not be logged. In certain cases they will lock the page to prevent logging of these caches. I'm not sure what their thinking is on this.

In the case of virtuals, archiving usually means the cache owner is either unable to monitor the logs or no longer interested in doing so. If logging continues, then there will be no monitoring, since Groundspeak probably doesn't want to assume that responsibility. Hence, it seems reasonable to me that Groundspeak would prefer that these caches not be logged.

Often archiving of a physical cache means the the cache owner is unable to maintain the cache (or simply does not want to anymore) Often, when someone leaves geocaching they no longer monitor the online logs as well. Yet Groundspeak doesn't seem to be as ready to archive (and especially to lock) physical caches as they are with virtuals. Sometime the archived physical cache gets maintained by the community. But there is no owner to delete bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate logs. Perhaps if these are reported, Groundspeak would lock the page; but it seems more people are ready to turn in logs on archived virtuals than logs on archived traditionals.

 

The find count is not a score

 

 

And, indeed if the find count is not a 'score', then why log it?

This, sir, is where you and nearly every other geocacher diverge.

The relative meaning of the find count is debatable, but it IS a SCORE.

The word score means many things. For example it originally meant to make a mark or notch on a piece of wood. When shepherds would make a notch for every twenty sheep, it came to mean twenty. In more modern times it has come to mean keeping any sort of tally (and it that respect the find count is a score). But its use in sport is generally meant to keep a record of specific achievements in that game, be it round the bases, make a touchdown, knock down pins, count the strokes to get the ball in the hole, etc. Score is most often used in a competitive match, but even in cases where score is used as measure of individual achievement, it connotes an objective number that can be compared against other scores.

 

While it's true the find count is a score that counts the number of Found It, Attended, and Photo Taken logs a player has made online, it should be clear that you can't use it to effectively compare two geocachers. The various leader boards that are based on find counts show that people are using it this way, and I have no objection if it is understood for entertainment only. I have no objections to setting goals or celebrating milestones. But to say that someone is cheating because they logged an archived virtual they actually found (meaning visited and found the answer to the verification question) is, IMO, a wasted effort. No matter what rules Groundspeak puts in place to discourage so-called abuse of the system, there will be disputes over what should count as a find or how much a particular cache should count. The find count can't be used to compare two geocachers, so in the way I used the word it is not a score.

[+CanadianRockies]

Often archiving of a physical cache means the the cache owner is unable to maintain the cache (or simply does not want to anymore) Often, when someone leaves geocaching they no longer monitor the online logs as well. Yet Groundspeak doesn't seem to be as ready to archive (and especially to lock) physical caches as they are with virtuals. Sometime the archived physical cache gets maintained by the community. But there is no owner to delete bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate logs. Perhaps if these are reported, Groundspeak would lock the page; but it seems more people are ready to turn in logs on archived virtuals than logs on archived traditionals.

I'm guessing there are fewer armchair logs for physical caches than for virtual caches. With physical caches, there are physical logs that potentially could be used to verify find claims. With virtual caches, one often needs to provide only the answer(s) to question(s).

 

If I were going to armchair geocache, then I'd probably target virtuals rather than traditionals. If real armchair geocachers do this, then I can imagine that there would be fewer problems with unmonitored traditionals. Perhaps that explains why Groundspeak is less likely to archive (and/or lock) a traditional cache that appears to be unmonitored versus a similar virtual cache.

[+mcgillz]

I guess there are people who lie about their score in every sport/game. I play golf and it is incredible how much of it goes on. Mostly, we laugh about the people who do, and they are never going to win a big prize for their bogus score but it can tick me off too. Still it's not just Virtuals that people lie about. A few months ago some cacher was logging several thousand caches a day. Needless to say, they were bogus but who were they kidding but themselves?

 

I love virtuals, and having done a bunch, I know I could have faked a few but I prefer the challenge of finding and solving them. That is where I get my pleasure, and if someone else wants to sit at home and try to con us that they have found it, so what? Maybe some unfortunate shut-in uses Virtuals because they are bored with crosswords or Sudoku. We already ask in attributes whether the cache is handicapped accessible, maybe there should be a shut-in accessible category too? Maybe in twenty years when I can barely get as far as my post box, I'll want to solve them that way too..............

Edited June 1, 2011 by mcgillz