Would you log this cache?

[+fizzymagic]

I was in Vegas last summer at Black Hat. I chose not to log this cache. My friend who I was with chose to log it. I didn't particularly care.

 

The only way it would matter to me would be if it were taking up a spot another cacher wanted for a real cache. Otherwise, it's not hurting anybody.

[+BlueDeuce]

The answer to this question is no. And that is why the cache has been archived.

 

It has nothing to do with whether anyone logged this cache without meeting the guidelines for logging a webcam cache. These guideline basically provide cache owners with some guidance for when they can or should delete online find logs.

 

If a cache owner choose not to delete logs, Ground-speak should not care, IMO. .....

 

You don't see any conflict of reasoning by saying Groundspeak can set the guidelines but then shouldn't care.

[Clan Riffster]

I'm not seeing a difference. Both allowed bogus logs...

 

Why dont you posted a NA log.

Just not my thing. It's a personal rule I set for myself after reading these forums. With the rare exception of poking a bit of fun, I will not post a log on a cache unless I've been to that cache. I won't condemn not following that practice, as sometimes it results in a positive outcome such as this one; a webcam cache which could not be properly logged for over a year, with a gazillion bogus logs and a CO not fixing either problem. Anyone who has been caching more than 5 minutes knows that the NA was perfectly appropriate. But it wouldn't have come from me.

 

Like my "Don't log a cache unless you sign the log" rule. It exists only in my mind, and I do not push it on others. For caches I hunt, that's a rock solid, no exceptions kind of rule. If the cache is frozen in a block of ice, I won't claim a find. If it's in a place I cannot access because of me being an old, fat cripple, I won't claim a find. If the log is a spitball and I have nothing to replace it with, I won't claim a find. But for caches I own, my feelings are entirely contradictory. If you do something that you feel equates to a find, I have no problem allowing your find.

 

It's just my little quirk.

 

You owe the OP an apology.

Though I agree with your sentiment, knowing how the poster you commented on typically behaves in here, I feel obligated to offer the following advice:

"Don't hold your breath".

[+BlueDeuce]

...Like my "Don't log a cache unless you sign the log" rule. It exists only in my mind, and I do not push it on others. For caches I hunt, that's a rock solid, no exceptions kind of rule. If the cache is frozen in a block of ice, I won't claim a find. If it's in a place I cannot access because of me being an old, fat cripple, I won't claim a find. If the log is a spitball and I have nothing to replace it with, I won't claim a find. But for caches I own, my feelings are entirely contradictory. If you do something that you feel equates to a find, I have no problem allowing your find.

 

It's just my little quirk.

 

"It exists only in my mind, and I do not push it on others"

 

I think if it is worth mentioning it must mean something.

[+t4e]

The Sarcasm Society* Welcomes You

[+BlueDeuce]

The Sarcasm Society* Welcomes You

 

Oh yeah?

[4wheelin_fool]

is not your right to pass judgment on how I chose to play, since i don't pass judgement on how YOU play

 

You seemed to pass plenty of judgement those who post valid NA logs.

[+Moose Mob]

This thread needs to chill out.

[+HHD]

Agree with moose mob. Or you we I'll get the hose again.

[+CanadianRockies]

If a cache owner choose not to delete logs, Groundspeak should not care, IMO. However, on some virtuals armchair logs have been taken to mean lack of owner maintenance. Groundspeak has issued a statement on couch potato logs and has archived some because the cache owner was not deleting them. I personally would prefer Groundspeak ignore these logs.

It's not just an issue of owner maintenance. A Groundspeak lackey also has issued a statement that there is an implicit requirement that one must visit the cache location. See MissJenn's Post #1 in the Couch Potato Logs thread. Even if some active cache owners allow armchair finds, I believe Groundspeak has previously locked accounts of armchair finders who refused to follow this implicit requirement.

[+Lil Devil]

Agree with moose mob. Or you we I'll get the hose again.

Covering all your bases, eh?

[+bflentje]

You have to have the webcam pic to log it so...

 

NOPE!!!

 

I think logging it would be cheesy. But not as cheesy as logging a NA on a cache that is not in your area and none of your business.

[+NeverSummer]

You have to have the webcam pic to log it so...

 

NOPE!!!

 

I think logging it would be cheesy. But not as cheesy as logging a NA on a cache that is not in your area and none of your business.

As a volunteer reviewed, self-policing game, it would actually be part of our "gaming community" to take the guidelines and rules we are given and hold our game to some level of standards. Some will chose to reach over borders, others will not say a peep. However, we all click the same TOS and are supposed to follow the same rules and guidelines. If we don't like Groundspeak's rules or guidelines, we are free to place anarchy caches or join other "geocaching" games.

 

If I planned on visiting Las Vegas and planned my geocaching endeavors, I don't see why noting how a cache within my search parameters appears to not meet the guidelines or rules. But, that's me. You're you. And I have no problem with that whatsoever.

[+tozainamboku]

If a cache owner choose not to delete logs, Groundspeak should not care, IMO. However, on some virtuals armchair logs have been taken to mean lack of owner maintenance. Groundspeak has issued a statement on couch potato logs and has archived some because the cache owner was not deleting them. I personally would prefer Groundspeak ignore these logs.

It's not just an issue of owner maintenance. A Groundspeak lackey also has issued a statement that there is an implicit requirement that one must visit the cache location. See MissJenn's Post #1 in the Couch Potato Logs thread. Even if some active cache owners allow armchair finds, I believe Groundspeak has previously locked accounts of armchair finders who refused to follow this implicit requirement.

I'm fully aware of Groundspeak's policy regarding couch potato logging of virtual caches. First, I'm not sure if it applies here. People were going to the site of the webcam and logging it. Many provided a photo to prove they were in the correct location. So it's not the same as a couch potato log. Second, I stated my opinion - which is that Groundspeak should not care about couch potato logs. A few couch potato logs should not warrant a cache being archived. People who want to visit the virtual and log it can still do so. For most virtuals the couch potato log did not result in some one making the trip and discovering the virtual was no longer there. Again, different than someone making the trip to Las Vegas based on recent "Photo Taken" logs on the webcam to discover there in no webcam there. Someone at Groundspeak got their knickers in a twist because some people were armchair logging virtuals and I still don't see a reason for this.

 

I can understand why Groundspeak might archive a virtual or webcam cache that has no active owner. For virtual and webcam caches the guidelines state

If you currently own a virtual or webcam cache, you must maintain the cache page and respond to inquiries. You must also check the physical location periodically and should return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Abandoned caches will likely be archived by Groundspeak. Grandfathered caches will likely not be unarchived.

 

Similar requirements have been in effect since I began geocaching, so perhaps with the exception of some very old virtual and webcam caches, the cache owners agreed to these requirements. Since Groundspeak has decided to not allow the adoption of grandfathered cache types (again a decision I disagree with), the only option is archive these caches. The point at which to archive them is what is in dispute here. I'd like to see "playable" caches remain and only get archived when they are no longer "playable". However there will be disputes over what is playable. I contend that the webcam is no longer playable when there is no webcam there. Other seem to find this cache playable even without a webcam. I contend that a virtual is playable as long as you can still find the answers at the site (even if the answers can also be found on the Internet). Other may believe that a virtual is not playable if there is no cache owner to respond to emails. What I don't understand is the argument that a cache is not playable when there is an active cache owner but that owner has chosen to allow couch potato logs.

[+t4e]

is not your right to pass judgment on how I chose to play, since i don't pass judgement on how YOU play

 

You seemed to pass plenty of judgement those who post valid NA logs.

 

finding a cache and posting NM and NA are separate things afaic...the latter is rather reporting on issues while finding a cache is playing

 

i still maintain that if you have not been at the cache you have no business posting NM or NA logs, its the "job" of those with first hand experience to do it

 

since the cache is archived now i don't even see what is the point of this thread still being "alive", the OP's question was answered and any answers from now on are irrelevant and offtopic

[+CanadianRockies]

If a cache owner choose not to delete logs, Groundspeak should not care, IMO. However, on some virtuals armchair logs have been taken to mean lack of owner maintenance. Groundspeak has issued a statement on couch potato logs and has archived some because the cache owner was not deleting them. I personally would prefer Groundspeak ignore these logs.

It's not just an issue of owner maintenance. A Groundspeak lackey also has issued a statement that there is an implicit requirement that one must visit the cache location. See MissJenn's Post #1 in the Couch Potato Logs thread. Even if some active cache owners allow armchair finds, I believe Groundspeak has previously locked accounts of armchair finders who refused to follow this implicit requirement.

I'm fully aware of Groundspeak's policy regarding couch potato logging of virtual caches. First, I'm not sure if it applies here. People were going to the site of the webcam and logging it.

You seemed to be discussing virtuals that were armchair logged. (See bold, above.) I agree that posting your own photo instead of the required webcam photo is a different issue.

 

Second, I stated my opinion - which is that Groundspeak should not care about couch potato logs.... What I don't understand is the argument that a cache is not playable when there is an active cache owner but that owner has chosen to allow couch potato logs.

You also seemed to indicate that Groundspeak frowns upon armchair finds only because of owner maintenance concerns. I merely pointed out that Groundspeak also frowns upon armchair finds because they violate the implicit requirement that finders must visit the cache location. It's not just about what the cache owner wants; it's also about what Groundspeak expects.

Edited January 24, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+hukilaulau]

I would not log this cache anyway, but ESPECIALLY since doing so would add an icon for a specific task, which I did not do. I've never found a webcam cache, and I don't want an icon for one until I find a real, working one and do what is required.

Edited January 24, 2012 by hukilaulau

[+tozainamboku]

Second, I stated my opinion - which is that Groundspeak should not care about couch potato logs.... What I don't understand is the argument that a cache is not playable when there is an active cache owner but that owner has chosen to allow couch potato logs.

You also seemed to indicate that Groundspeak frowns upon armchair finds only because of owner maintenance concerns. I merely pointed out that Groundspeak also frowns upon armchair finds because they violate the implicit requirement that finders must visit the cache location. It's not just about what the cache owner wants; it's also about what Groundspeak expects.

Groundspeak may expect people to actually visit the cache, after all that is what "geocaching" is about. But Groundspeak often insists that they are just a listing service. If someone placed a virtual that you can go visit and log, it shouldn't matter that a few people have decided to play a side game where they post a find log because they can answer the verification question or because they a photo from their trip in 1982. It is my opinion that Groundspeak shouldn't archive virtuals because of armchair logs. These logs have no effect on those who want to visit the virtual and log it as intended. But when Groundspeak archives the virtual and locks the page, they take a perfectly good cache out of play. And since new virtuals are not published, there is often no way for another cache to be placed there. Sure now once the Discover Challenge type is implemented, someone can make a challenge there (or they can make a waymark), but the virtual cache is gone forever. Remember this is my opinion, so stop arguing with me over whether Groundspeak can make such rules. I disagree with the policy and believe it unnecessary.

Edited January 25, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+CanadianRockies]

Second, I stated my opinion - which is that Groundspeak should not care about couch potato logs.... What I don't understand is the argument that a cache is not playable when there is an active cache owner but that owner has chosen to allow couch potato logs.

You also seemed to indicate that Groundspeak frowns upon armchair finds only because of owner maintenance concerns. I merely pointed out that Groundspeak also frowns upon armchair finds because they violate the implicit requirement that finders must visit the cache location. It's not just about what the cache owner wants; it's also about what Groundspeak expects.

Remember this is my opinion, so stop arguing with me over whether Groundspeak can make such rules. I disagree with the policy and believe it unnecessary.

I understand it's your opinion, and you're free to feel anyway you want about it. I'm merely pointing out that Groundspeak has more concerns than just inactive cache owners. They also believe geocaching involves going to a particular location. You might or might not agree with them.

 

As to whether Groundspeak can make such rules, I don't think there's been any argument over that.

[Clan Riffster]

i still maintain that if you have not been at the cache you have no business posting NM or NA logs, its the "job" of those with first hand experience to do it

That pretty much sums up how I treat NAs and NMs. I won't post one unless I can offer first hand experience. But I'm not married to the notion. A cache that does not comply with the guidelines should be corrected or archived. If someone from far away discovers a cache that obviously violates the guidelines, and has been in violation for an extended period, I have no problems with them posting an NA. This is especially true if the CO is an enabler, allowing folks to post bogus logs.

 

since the cache is archived now i don't even see what is the point of this thread still being "alive"

Because other folks might still want to contribute? You and I have posted our opinions. That leaves roughly 5 million other folks who have yet to chime in. The question was, "Would you log this cache?", and opinions on that are very much on topic and relevant, regardless of the status of the cache. Just like the 4-Windows virtual. Folks still discuss if logging a fake virtual is an acceptable practice.

[4wheelin_fool]

is not your right to pass judgment on how I chose to play, since i don't pass judgement on how YOU play

You seemed to pass plenty of judgement those who post valid NA logs.

finding a cache and posting NM and NA are separate things afaic...the latter is rather reporting on issues while finding a cache is playing

I agree, they are 2 different things. One is a valid NA log, what you posted is an invalid find.

i still maintain that if you have not been at the cache you have no business posting NM or NA logs, its the "job" of those with first hand experience to do it

I personally would not log an armchair NA log in most situations. However, I recently did post a few in Germany, due to the fact that they are known worldwide as a source of most armchair finds. It was my big chance.

 

You, on the other hand, have gone a bit further than that by telling others what they should not do. If someone posts an NA log for a valid reason then they should not have to deal with anyone telling them they did wrong.

Edited January 25, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+briansnat]

I would not log this cache anyway, but ESPECIALLY since doing so would add an icon for a specific task, which I did not do. I've never found a webcam cache, and I don't want an icon for one until I find a real, working one and do what is required.

 

Like