Excessive Event "Finds"

[+geocat_]

I was at a geocaching event last night when I overheard discussion about a cacher who apparently has well over 1000 event "attended" finds. I also heard some of them talking about a way that some cachers choose to log events that might be different from what I think of when I log one. I figured you had to actually show up at the event and sign the log book. So this means that someone with 1000 event "finds", assuming they began attending and logging these events 11 years ago, would still have to attend an event every 4 days (on average) for those 11 years. I think I am missing something here. Can anyone enlighten me?

[+JohnnyVegas]

I was at a geocaching event last night when I overheard discussion about a cacher who apparently has well over 1000 event "attended" finds. I also heard some of them talking about a way that some cachers choose to log events that might be different from what I think of when I log one. I figured you had to actually show up at the event and sign the log book. So this means that someone with 1000 event "finds", assuming they began attending and logging these events 11 years ago, would still have to attend an event every 4 days (on average) for those 11 years. I think I am missing something here. Can anyone enlighten me?

There was a pratice at one time in which caches were to close to other caches would be placed durring an event. The finders of these cache would log the event several times. If 10 caches that could no bet post were placed for the event the people how found them would log the event for each cache they found. To be these are BS logs but there is nothing that can be done about it

[+Chokecherry]

I know people who do multiple events in one day as well. I know south of here they are very event heavy constant events so I would imagine it wouldn't be that hard to not only get a couple in a day sometimes but they have them so often you could rack up that number as well.

[+SwineFlew]

What about those people that log the same event for every event caches they find that day. This is more of a midwest thing.

[knowschad]

My guess, too, is that this person was logging temp caches that were placed for the events. Most places frown on that these days, but it still isn't unheard of.

[Mr.Yuck]

My guess, too, is that this person was logging temp caches that were placed for the events. Most places frown on that these days, but it still isn't unheard of.

 

Yep, that's it. A practice that has *almost* died out due to peer pressure. Very regional at this point in time, practiced mainly in parts of Ohio, Western Pa., and Wisconsin. Basically has always been unheard of outside the USA.

 

An example of how it's dying a slow death, The Wisconsin Geocaching Association stopped allowing it at it's events 2 or 3 years ago. (Still happens at many individually owned events in Wisconsin). And I haven't seen it in my own State, New York, in about 3 years. And even the last couple events in New York where some people engaged in the practice, the post event cache pages turned into flame wars. Seriously.

 

But where they do still do it, they go to town. There's an annual Fall event in Ohio (I believe Fall 2011 was the 5th one) where cachers post 125+ attended logs for finding temporary caches 200-300 feet apart.

[AZcachemeister]

My guess, too, is that this person was logging temp caches that were placed for the events. Most places frown on that these days, but it still isn't unheard of.

 

This was my guess as well.

A really pathetic practice in my view.

I'm sure Toz will be along shortly to explain how our short-sighted puritan views are wrong.

[knowschad]

My guess, too, is that this person was logging temp caches that were placed for the events. Most places frown on that these days, but it still isn't unheard of.

 

This was my guess as well.

A really pathetic practice in my view.

I'm sure Toz will be along shortly to explain how our short-sighted puritan views are wrong.

 

I've done it. At the time, I was fairly new to caching, and very new to events. I was told (by somebody from Wisconsin!) that it was OK to log the event for each temp cache I found. I probably did that on three or so events before I realized that it wasn't an accepted practice everywhere. So, given my history, I won't call it "pathetic". Just not the norm.

[+Manville Possum]

What about those people that log the same event for every event caches they find that day. This is more of a midwest thing.

Yeah, like MOGA? Event workers get to "honorary" log caches they don't find? Sign my name on the log while your holding it. Group caching is just not our thing.

[+tozainamboku]

My guess, too, is that this person was logging temp caches that were placed for the events. Most places frown on that these days, but it still isn't unheard of.

 

This was my guess as well.

A really pathetic practice in my view.

I'm sure Toz will be along shortly to explain how our short-sighted puritan views are wrong.

 

I suppose I could comment on why some people feel the need to be judgmental when stating their views, but that would be pathetic.

[knowschad]

My guess, too, is that this person was logging temp caches that were placed for the events. Most places frown on that these days, but it still isn't unheard of.

 

This was my guess as well.

A really pathetic practice in my view.

I'm sure Toz will be along shortly to explain how our short-sighted puritan views are wrong.

 

I suppose I could comment on why some people feel the need to be judgmental when stating their views, but that would be pathetic.

 

And very puritanical.

[+Isonzo Karst]

At one time, this site listed temporary caches placed in near proximity to events.

They added the saturation rule and the cache permanence rule - I don't know when, and so stop listing these.

 

At that time, there was some outcry in the forums about losing the ability to log the event temps (recall this was absolutely standard practice at the time), so the suggestion was made to log them against the event. I believe, though I can't find the post (mostly because I'm not going to look for it) that this suggestion was made by Jeremy (one of the 3 site owners).

 

It's not broadly done, and seems to be fading.

 

[unsolicited commentary, doubtless in pathetic and puritanical mode, ;-)...]

 

If you'd always done it that way, or starting caching where it was the norm, you'd find it normal. I find it harmless. Unlike logging finds on caches you didn't find, it doesn't send any false info in any direction that hurts anyone else. Unless you're competing with a specific individual over find count, in which case, you'd better be going to the same events they are. [/pathetic]

[+jobrerry]

I know this practice is still promoted (or offered as a way to log) by at least one organization in Ohio. Although I personally don't see anything wrong with it, I have chosen to only log each event as one cache. For example at a 4 day event last year I found over 100 event caches, but after it was all said and done I ended up logging only the event cache. It all depends on how a person wants to play the game.

 

I have also done 4 events in one day so that part is possible to an extent.

Edited December 29, 2011 by jobrerry

[+St.Matthew]

I've not been to many events, but I log temp caches, and I will continue to do so until Groundspeak formally bans it. Here, it is common practice. Very few people in my OH/WV/PA area don't. The way I see it, if I found a geocache, then I found a geocache. If it is only available for a few hours (as opposed to the 4-month rule) is inconsequential to me.

Edited December 29, 2011 by St.Matthew

[+Great Scott!]

How can GS ban temp caches that are not listed on their site?

 

I have found a OC cache, not cross listed on GC.com, while at an event. Why would I log it on GC.com?

Edited December 29, 2011 by Great Scott!

[knowschad]

At one time, this site listed temporary caches placed in near proximity to events.

They added the saturation rule and the cache permanence rule - I don't know when, and so stop listing these.

 

At that time, there was some outcry in the forums about losing the ability to log the event temps (recall this was absolutely standard practice at the time), so the suggestion was made to log them against the event. I believe, though I can't find the post (mostly because I'm not going to look for it) that this suggestion was made by Jeremy (one of the 3 site owners).

 

It's not broadly done, and seems to be fading.

 

[unsolicited commentary, doubtless in pathetic and puritanical mode, ;-)...]

 

If you'd always done it that way, or starting caching where it was the norm, you'd find it normal. I find it harmless. Unlike logging finds on caches you didn't find, it doesn't send any false info in any direction that hurts anyone else. Unless you're competing with a specific individual over find count, in which case, you'd better be going to the same events they are. [/pathetic]

 

This isn't the thread that you were referring to, but it is a thread from 2007 about the issue of Event caches, where Toz is saying much the same as you (in a *cough* few more words, of course): http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=174586&st=100

 

Here's another where Jeremy gives his thoughts on multiple-logging of events: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=131878&view=findpost&p=2205746

 

Another, from 2002: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=29290&view=findpost&p=371411

 

(from that last thread:)

It's about the purpose of the site and the load that the admins have for approving caches.

 

If it's temporary, why post it? The idea for having listings is that folks can look them up at any time and seek them out. Caches that are up one day and gone the next aren't really appropriate for the purpose of the site. However, an event cache is.

 

Look at it this way. A multicache is a series of caches, but only one cache listing exists. An event cache can have multiple caches as well, but they shouldn't be listed separately.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

 

(I wonder how Jeremy feels about people going back to 2002 to quote him. I think it would suck! )

[Mr.Yuck]

I've not been to many events, but I log temp caches, and I will continue to do so until Groundspeak formally bans it. Here, it is common practice. Very few people in my OH/WV/PA area don't. The way I see it, if I found a geocache, then I found a geocache. If it is only available for a few hours (as opposed to the 4-month rule) is inconsequential to me.

 

Well, you haven't been to the unnamed annual one where people log 125 caches 200-300 feet apart. I've seen the .GPX file two years running, they're 200-300 feet apart. Those "caches" don't meet the guidelines. And then there was that event in Cleveland a couple years ago, where the focus of the event was to drive around and find 30 or so temporary virtual caches. Three or four years after new virtual caches were banned from the site forever.

 

In these cases, it's nothing but a guideline violating numbers grab. It doesn't bother me in the least bit, mind you. But I certainly can't compare my stats with someone who has "attended" 750 events in Ohio.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[+bflentje]

My guess, too, is that this person was logging temp caches that were placed for the events. Most places frown on that these days, but it still isn't unheard of.

 

This was my guess as well.

A really pathetic practice in my view.

I'm sure Toz will be along shortly to explain how our short-sighted puritan views are wrong.

 

I've done it. At the time, I was fairly new to caching, and very new to events. I was told (by somebody from Wisconsin!) that it was OK to log the event for each temp cache I found. I probably did that on three or so events before I realized that it wasn't an accepted practice everywhere. So, given my history, I won't call it "pathetic". Just not the norm.

 

I too was taught the same practice when I first started caching. I didn't know any better. I eventually caught on to the idea that it messed with my "pure" numbers (which I do LOVE watching ). To make my event counts accurate but to keep my overall count correct, especially milestones, I have since deleted all of those bogus event finds and relogged an old archived cache of mine for each event log I deleted. No, not the ideal way to handle it but the best way to keep things as accurate as possible. It's best to just never start.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

There's at least one cacher I know of who's 'attended' over 2000 events, including 50 CITOs...one of those CITOs is apparently a locationless cache for all intents & purposes...

[+briansnat]

I've not been to many events, but I log temp caches, and I will continue to do so until Groundspeak formally bans it. Here, it is common practice. Very few people in my OH/WV/PA area don't. The way I see it, if I found a geocache, then I found a geocache. If it is only available for a few hours (as opposed to the 4-month rule) is inconsequential to me.

 

What I don't get is the concept of using this site's resources to post "finds" on caches that aren't listed here. If you found a cache what was listed on Navicache would you log a find for it here? You found a geocache.

[+Great Scott!]

 

I too was taught the same practice when I first started caching. I didn't know any better. I eventually caught on to the idea that it messed with my "pure" numbers (which I do LOVE watching ). To make my event counts accurate but to keep my overall count correct, especially milestones, I have since deleted all of those bogus event finds and relogged an old archived cache of mine for each event log I deleted. No, not the ideal way to handle it but the best way to keep things as accurate as possible. It's best to just never start.

 

Multiple logging of archived caches seems to me to be the same as multiple logging of events.

 

Temp caches aren't or weren't gc.com caches and shouldn't be accounted for on the site.

[+Avernar]

What I don't get is the concept of using this site's resources to post "finds" on caches that aren't listed here. If you found a cache what was listed on Navicache would you log a find for it here? You found a geocache.

That's one of the best arguments for not logging temp caches that I've seen so far.

 

Hmmm. If I had known this when I started geocaching I would have brought 9 caches along with me. I'd throw them down with my eyes closed at GZ and then find all 10. Then I'd take my 9 caches to the next cache. That way I could log 10 finds for each one listed on geocaching.com. I could have had over 50,000 finds now. I'd have the respect and admiration from the other cachers. I'd be an über cacher!

[+EXMAN]

My guess, too, is that this person was logging temp caches that were placed for the events. Most places frown on that these days, but it still isn't unheard of.

 

This was my guess as well.

A really pathetic practice in my view.

I'm sure Toz will be along shortly to explain how our short-sighted puritan views are wrong.

 

I suppose I could comment on why some people feel the need to be judgmental when stating their views, but that would be pathetic.

 

i agree !!

the mood on the forums seems really negative all the time.

where's the "treat others with respect" guideline?

it seems it's been thrown out the window.

[knowschad]

My guess, too, is that this person was logging temp caches that were placed for the events. Most places frown on that these days, but it still isn't unheard of.

 

This was my guess as well.

A really pathetic practice in my view.

I'm sure Toz will be along shortly to explain how our short-sighted puritan views are wrong.

 

I suppose I could comment on why some people feel the need to be judgmental when stating their views, but that would be pathetic.

 

i agree !!

the mood on the forums seems really negative all the time.

where's the "treat others with respect" guideline?

it seems it's been thrown out the window.

Repeat after me: "I, EXMAN, hereby pledge to participate in the forums in a positive manner and to be a positive force against the negativism that I perceive there."

 

Change is up to you, not us.

[+EXMAN]

My guess, too, is that this person was logging temp caches that were placed for the events. Most places frown on that these days, but it still isn't unheard of.

 

This was my guess as well.

A really pathetic practice in my view.

I'm sure Toz will be along shortly to explain how our short-sighted puritan views are wrong.

 

I suppose I could comment on why some people feel the need to be judgmental when stating their views, but that would be pathetic.

 

i agree !!

the mood on the forums seems really negative all the time.

where's the "treat others with respect" guideline?

it seems it's been thrown out the window.

Repeat after me: "I, EXMAN, hereby pledge to participate in the forums in a positive manner and to be a positive force against the negativism that I perceive there."

 

Change is up to you, not us.

 

"I, EXMAN, hereby pledge to participate in the forums in a positive manner and to be a positive force against the negativism that I perceive there."

 

there ya go !

i'll be the first to'make the pledge' !

[AZcachemeister]

My guess, too, is that this person was logging temp caches that were placed for the events. Most places frown on that these days, but it still isn't unheard of.

 

This was my guess as well.

A really pathetic practice in my view.

I'm sure Toz will be along shortly to explain how our short-sighted puritan views are wrong.

 

I suppose I could comment on why some people feel the need to be judgmental when stating their views, but that would be pathetic.

 

i agree !!

the mood on the forums seems really negative all the time.

where's the "treat others with respect" guideline?

it seems it's been thrown out the window.

 

Toz gets plenty of respect. (at least from me)

I was teasing him, and I think he knows it.

He did a nice job of turning it right back at me.

 

If I really want to disrespect someone, I don't acknowledge their existence.

[+geocat_]

Thanks for all the feedback and...ummmmm..."sidebars GROUP HUG!

[4wheelin_fool]

In geocaching we have our share of the nattering nabobs of negativity. They have formed their own 4-H club; the hopeless hysterical hypochondriacs of history.