Is it fair?

[+turistahorsky]

It´s been a team work, one of us go to one stage, other to next, half of multicache we google it (sometimes they called to reviewer...)And they commmunicate information about this multicache via facebook, most probably...

[+Roman!]

It´s been a team work, one of us go to one stage, other to next, half of multicache we google it (sometimes they called to reviewer...)And they commmunicate information about this multicache via facebook, most probably...

 

As long as they all signed the log then yah, it's fair.

[+SwineFlew]

Yep its fair, we got a multi in Portland and you need to find someone in TX to help you finish the rest of the cache. As long your SN is on the log sheet even you never signed it yourself, your log cant be deleted by the CO.

[+turistahorsky]

It´s been a team work, one of us go to one stage, other to next, half of multicache we google it (sometimes they called to reviewer...)And they commmunicate information about this multicache via facebook, most probably...

 

As long as they all signed the log then yah, it's fair.

It is not certainly fair, but what more, it is been reason for ban their account. See terms of use, you agree not to (m) Publish, on any Groundspeak owned web property, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.

[+Roman!]

Based on what you posted I do not see anyone doing that.

[+SwineFlew]

Based on what you posted I do not see anyone doing that.

Same here. People share final coordinates all the time. Most of it is via emails.

[+turistahorsky]

Based on what you posted I do not see anyone doing that.

And what is been communicate coordinate and information about next stage via internet? Some czech cachers getting ban due this publishing. And I think It is not difference between publish it on some special geocaching website or on facebook... Moreover, it was FTF hunting...

[+Roman!]

But they did not publish anything on Groundspeak owned web property so as long as they signed then cache the its all fair.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Roman!

[+turistahorsky]

But they did not publish anything on Groundspeak owned web property so as long as they signed then cache the its all fair.

They published coordinates of next stage, what is prohibit. Citation from e-mail written to one czech cachers from Groundspeak: You agree not to] publish, on any Groundspeak owned web property, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner." Whoever helped you did this, and soliciting this information is also violation.

[cezanne]

Based on what you posted I do not see anyone doing that.

And what is been communicate coordinate and information about next stage via internet? Some czech cachers getting ban due this publishing. And I think It is not difference between publish it on some special geocaching website or on facebook... Moreover, it was FTF hunting...

 

First, what they did does not match my notion of fairness. However, their logs are legitimate and cannot be deleted if all signed the logbook.

 

As sharing information is regarded, the guidelines contain the part about not being allowed to publish spoilers, but this part has never really been enforced very strictly and permanently. A British geocacher with a famous youtube channel first got banned, but later on this ban has been taken away again. Before the incident with the spoiler youtube channel and some incidents in the Netherlands the guidelines did not even mention the publishing of spoilers.

 

Regardless of how strict Groundspeak will act, keep in mind that such behaviour as described by you has become very common and there is no way to really fight against it.

There are so many hidden sites that one only gets to know if one belongs to the right community. Sharing by facebook can also mean a lot. If it is done in a restricted way under friends, it is still better than e.g. sharing spoilers and coordinates in public on events which is very common in my area. Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done against this trend. Whoever hides difficult mystery caches or long multi caches will effected sooner or later.

 

I recently learnt that for series like these

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=Heinzspeedy

there exists a site (I do not know the link) where one can download a gpx files with all cache coordinates and cachers use this service happily as most of the visitors of the series are not interested into answering hundreds of questions about a topic many of them are not very interested into. As the link is only shared on a private basis, there would be no chance to intervene via Groundspeak even if Groundspeak were willing to do so.

 

What important aspect has not been mentioned before, namely that loggers are not forced to be honest. Do you prefer to receive found it logs where the loggers create the illusion that they have solved all puzzles themselves and have visited all stages by themselves? I guess that this would happen if one starts to punish those who are at least honest about their approach.

 

 

Cezanne

[Mr.Yuck]

OK, so we're talking about spoiler sites, and publishing the coordinates of stages of multis, the final location for multis, and the final location for Mystery types? Ues. they USED to go after people for this. I'm aware of someone who got a one month ban for posting puzzle cache solutions to Facebook a few years ago. Then Sven came along, was banned for making spoiler videos, and the ban lifted after he received tremendous world-wide support. The language about "on any Groundspeak owned web property" (as opposed to YouTube for example) is directly related to the Sven incident.

 

I did not know they still "went after" Geocache spoiler sites. But what do I know, this is very rare, if not non-existant, in North America.

[cezanne]

I did not know they still "went after" Geocache spoiler sites. But what do I know, this is very rare, if not non-existant, in North America.

 

If I understand it correctly, the issue is not about a systematic spoiler site, but sharing of partial information for a certain long multi cache: e.g. Cacher A visits Stages 1-3, Cacher B Stages 4-6 etc and they share the obtained data at least within their group, maybe in a larger context (sometimes also some trading is used which extends also to other caches: X provides Y with data set 1 and Y provides X with data set 2).

 

I neither could get the details from the first post nor from my attempt to try to understand the cache page/logs - both the translations to German and English were not that good and I then did not try with other translation options for the Czech text.

 

I'm not sure how many long distance hiking or biking multi caches you have in North America. Splitting up stages among visitors is not too uncommon in Europe, and if the FTF is still available unfortunately the motivation for this approach is even higher for some.

It also happens for caches that can be done by car, but cover very long distances like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=4848a45b-6fb5-4611-990b-f67d797c74a2

 

There is a long distance hiking cache around my home town with a length of at least 130km and there has been a found it log from someone who just obtained the coordinates of the final from a previous finder and then visited only the final. If larger groups are involved, then what appears to have happened with the Czech cache happens easily.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 10, 2012 by cezanne

[+Afterburned]

How many visits do you think you will get on a 100km cache? I say good on them for attempting it!

 

Would you have a problem if they signed as a team?

 

I see this as being the same as leapfrogging on a powertrail and claiming the find. Not my cup of tea but seems to be allowed!

[cezanne]

How many visits do you think you will get on a 100km cache? I say good on them for attempting it!

 

It depends on the region. There is a 100+ cache around my home town and one around Vienna, that do get more than 20 visits (by fair means) per year on average.

 

I see this as being the same as leapfrogging on a powertrail and claiming the find. Not my cup of tea but seems to be allowed!

 

The question rather is: Is it fair and my answer in both cases is no. Fairness is in no relation to legitimate found it logs on gc.com.

 

Cezanne

[+turistahorsky]

How many visits do you think you will get on a 100km cache? I say good on them for attempting it!

 

Would you have a problem if they signed as a team?

 

I see this as being the same as leapfrogging on a powertrail and claiming the find. Not my cup of tea but seems to be allowed!

I have no problem when cachers make a team with team account on geocaching.com. But I have a big problem when cachers log it as found when they walk and solve f.e. a 1/5 of whole cache. It is definitely unfair, I think.

To question 1 - I know that on this cache will not be a hundreds of logs per year, but same situation is in case of really hard puzzles, terrain 5 caches or caches in the wilderness.

[+Ike 13]

Unfair maybe. My personal rule is must be present to log. So I'm not going to log something like that.

 

Will they be banned? No Unless they posted the solution on your cache page or on these forums there is no way Groundspeak can do anything

 

Can you delete the logs? No. They signed it so it does not matter whether or not they did the cache the way you intended. There are thousands of puzzle caches and I bet most of them have at least one finder that never even looked at the puzzle. As long as they find it they can log it.

[+dprovan]

I don't see any issue of fairness here. They did it their way. I guess you didn't like how they did it, but I don't really know why you care.

 

The one thing I'd object to is if they weren't honest in their logs about how they did it, but it sounds like it was precisely the honesty in their logs that upset you.

[+lamoracke]

you will (and obviously already have) gotten different opinion the matter. Fair is up to the eye of the beholder. There is nothing against the rules some friends working on a multi together. There is this 13 stage multi. A friend and I were present for some of the stages together. Some it was just her, some it was just me. We went to the final together and logged it. Thus, I was probably there at least 10 of the stages. All over the city of Seattle, every darn corner it would seem. I know some folks just share the final answer so I do not feel bad about my effort and the two of us had fun.

[cezanne]

I guess you didn't like how they did it, but I don't really know why you care.

 

I would be quite annoyed to encounter found it logs for a long distance hiking cache of cachers who did not go for the hike (and actually such a case already happened to me and I was not the owner and felt annoyed nevertheless). In the case of such caches the hike is the only reason for the container to be there.

 

For example, I definitely do not hide a container at the end of a mystery cache and spend hours or days with planning the puzzles and stages such that finally the cache is misused by those who want to increase their find count or just want to find one more plastic container. Actually this is also one of the key reasons why I would like to set up such caches in a containerless manner scaring away those who come for the container and do not deal with the core of the cache.

 

Cachers who really hiked the whole way, typically write rewarding logs for such caches - those who only care about the container or having this cache on their list, typically write logs that are not rewarding to read and frustrating for the cache hider.

 

I also do not agree that there are no fairness issues. Consider a cache like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=9e649f3d-7a10-43d8-ad2f-6db609c1a574

 

In my opinion a "found it" log for such a very special cache is also a kind of reward for a special accomplishment.

I would not log a "found it" for such a cache if I happened to find it by coincidence (which will not happen for that cache). I would feel too bad in doing so though

formally I could log if I sign the logbook.

 

Cezanne

[+dprovan]

I guess you didn't like how they did it, but I don't really know why you care.

I would be quite annoyed to encounter found it logs for a long distance hiking cache of cachers who did not go for the hike (and actually such a case already happened to me and I was not the owner and felt annoyed nevertheless). In the case of such caches the hike is the only reason for the container to be there.

I guess we just look at it differently. I'd might be embarrassed for someone claiming a find without actually properly completing the work, but it wouldn't annoy me. In fact, a more absurd claim such as one for http://coord.info/GC1FPN1 would strike me as amusing.

 

In my opinion a "found it" log for such a very special cache is also a kind of reward for a special accomplishment.

In my opinion, the accomplishment itself is the reward. The log entry is just to tell about my experience.

[kanchan]

Yet another is-it-fair discussion here? Why do people care so much about how others play the game?

 

BTW, I really enjoyed this multicache working with friends.

[cezanne]

Yet another is-it-fair discussion here? Why do people care so much about how others play the game?

 

BTW, I really enjoyed this multicache working with friends.

 

If a cache is intended for teams, team work is fine. That's a completely different case.

 

A cache owner might for example choose to reduce the traffic to a certain location by either adding a hard puzzle part or a very long walk.

This of course only works as long the cachers have to do all the work themselves. If the work is split up in say 20 pieces, then the traffic will not be reduced as then again many are willing and able to finish the cache.

 

Another aspect is that while I do not care that much if a small number of cachers is not doing all the work required for a cache of mine, I get annoyed as cache owner if I get many useless logs that for difficult and involved caches typically come from those who have not been fully involved into a cache from the beginning to the very end.

So if I received 1-2 logs of the mentioned type for a 100km cache, I'd let it go and would not worry too much, if I received 10 logs of that type over a year, I'd decide to archive the cache. Everyone is free to decide how to play, but that's true also for the cache owner who is not forced to let his/he cache stay for abuse.

 

Cezanne

[+dprovan]

So if I received 1-2 logs of the mentioned type for a 100km cache, I'd let it go and would not worry too much, if I received 10 logs of that type over a year, I'd decide to archive the cache.

I'm sorry you feel that would be necessary, but I do agree that that's a perfectly acceptable solution to your problem.

[kanchan]

Everyone is free to decide how to play, but that's true also for the cache owner who is not forced to let his/he cache stay for abuse.

COs are free to archive their caches when they feel it's necessary -- I have no objection with it at all. I just still don't care how others play the game for someone else's cache, as long as they are according to laws/regulations/guidelines or something like that.

[cezanne]

So if I received 1-2 logs of the mentioned type for a 100km cache, I'd let it go and would not worry too much, if I received 10 logs of that type over a year, I'd decide to archive the cache.

I'm sorry you feel that would be necessary, but I do agree that that's a perfectly acceptable solution to your problem.

 

Necessary is not the right term - it would just keep me from getting too frustrated. If someone in a comparable situation decides to keep his/her cache, that's perfectly fine for me.

 

Cezanne

[+dprovan]

Necessary is not the right term - it would just keep me from getting too frustrated.

Then I'm sorry it would frustrate you to the point of withdrawing your cache.

[+tozainamboku]

So if I received 1-2 logs of the mentioned type for a 100km cache, I'd let it go and would not worry too much, if I received 10 logs of that type over a year, I'd decide to archive the cache.

I'm sorry you feel that would be necessary, but I do agree that that's a perfectly acceptable solution to your problem.

 

Necessary is not the right term - it would just keep me from getting too frustrated. If someone in a comparable situation decides to keep his/her cache, that's perfectly fine for me.

 

Cezanne

We have an expression in English (probably the same in German) - "I'm going to take my ball and go home". Seems appropriate.

[+Sol seaker]

100 km multi cache?

 

At the price of gas these days? Maybe they were just saving some money. Or even better maybe they were just being environmentally conscious.

[+Mudfrog]

How many visits do you think you will get on a 100km cache? I say good on them for attempting it!

 

Would you have a problem if they signed as a team?

 

I see this as being the same as leapfrogging on a powertrail and claiming the find. Not my cup of tea but seems to be allowed!

 

That's how i see it. Totally screwy in my opinion but it seems to be a way of playing for some.

 

I have good friends who just did the Oregon/Texas cache thing and had a good time doing it. I'm glad they had fun with it but it's not something i'm interested in doing. I'm one of those who feels that i need to find the cache and sign the log myself before i log it as a find. I don't mind someone else signing for me while i'm standing there with a group at ground zero but i won't log a find on a cache that i can't get myself. (up a tree, on a mountain, in or under the water).

 

This being said, i don't care how anyone else plays. They're fine doing pretty much whatever, as long as they aren't affecting others..

[+Mudfrog]

So if I received 1-2 logs of the mentioned type for a 100km cache, I'd let it go and would not worry too much, if I received 10 logs of that type over a year, I'd decide to archive the cache.

I'm sorry you feel that would be necessary, but I do agree that that's a perfectly acceptable solution to your problem.

 

Necessary is not the right term - it would just keep me from getting too frustrated. If someone in a comparable situation decides to keep his/her cache, that's perfectly fine for me.

 

Cezanne

We have an expression in English (probably the same in German) - "I'm going to take my ball and go home". Seems appropriate.

 

I don't see it as that at all.

 

Placing a cache that i have put some work into and then finding that too many people are just skipping the challenging part and going straight to the final because someone else gives them the coordinates would frustrate me as well. I don't mind people coming up with other methods of figuring out our caches and it's fine if someone finds the cache by accident. But i do mind if too many log the find only because someone gives them the coordinates. People doing this a few times is one thing but i would take the cache out if i found that most of the found it logs were from people who never even figured out the puzzle or did the legs on the multi. To be honest, i would think some of the "legitimate" finders might feel they were "robbed" when they found out that i kept allowing people to log it who didn't do it as intended.

[cezanne]

100 km multi cache?

 

At the price of gas these days? Maybe they were just saving some money. Or even better maybe they were just being environmentally conscious.

 

I do not think that the cache is one intended for driving.

 

Here

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=6d831ec0-e0b0-40a0-ba52-3cb2e630de33

e.g. you have to hike around my home town.

I took me 7 legs and I did not use a car at any of them.

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

To be honest, i would think some of the "legitimate" finders might feel they were "robbed" when they found out that i kept allowing people to log it who didn't do it as intended.

Robbed of what?

[+CanadianRockies]

To be honest, i would think some of the "legitimate" finders might feel they were "robbed" when they found out that i kept allowing people to log it who didn't do it as intended.

Robbed of what?

Perhaps "legitimate" finders would feel "robbed" of other geocachers being fairly certain that the "legitimate" finders found their caches "legitimately." If "bad" finding habits become commonplace, then not only do the finds of the "illegitimate" cachers become less meaningful, but so might many of the finds of "legitimate" cachers as well. The assumption frequently would be that most people take "shortcuts" in claiming many of their finds.

[kanchan]

What do you mean by meaningful or meaningless? If I understand your definition of "legitimate" correctly, I'm a "legitimate" cacher who don't use shortcut on puzzles, multis, etc. But I still don't feel robbed when others find the same cache "illegitimately". It's still the same cache I enjoyed "legitimately", so the meaning won't change. But if you feel robbed or the meaning would change for you, my best advice is not to care so much about how others play the game.

[cezanne]

What do you mean by meaningful or meaningless? If I understand your definition of "legitimate" correctly, I'm a "legitimate" cacher who don't use shortcut on puzzles, multis, etc. But I still don't feel robbed when others find the same cache "illegitimately". It's still the same cache I enjoyed "legitimately", so the meaning won't change. But if you feel robbed or the meaning would change for you, my best advice is not to care so much about how others play the game.

 

I think what he meant was something different and he not necessarily talked about himself.

In my country, I have come across accusations that almost all/many cachers with many finds have not visited all their caches in person and this accusation has its origin that there are indeed cachers with many finds who are known for their bad practice (e.g. there are groups which always enter all names in the logbook of a visited cache regardless of who was present at the cache). I think it is undesirable that new cachers will get the impression that what some are doing is what is the general well accepted practice.

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

What do you mean by meaningful or meaningless? If I understand your definition of "legitimate" correctly, I'm a "legitimate" cacher who don't use shortcut on puzzles, multis, etc. But I still don't feel robbed when others find the same cache "illegitimately". It's still the same cache I enjoyed "legitimately", so the meaning won't change. But if you feel robbed or the meaning would change for you, my best advice is not to care so much about how others play the game.

 

I think what he meant was something different and he not necessarily talked about himself.

In my country, I have come across accusations that almost all/many cachers with many finds have not visited all their caches in person and this accusation has its origin that there are indeed cachers with many finds who are known for their bad practice (e.g. there are groups which always enter all names in the logbook of a visited cache regardless of who was present at the cache). I think it is undesirable that new cachers will get the impression that what some are doing is what is the general well accepted practice.

 

Cezanne

I would think that if people have the impression that others are logging finds in some "illigitmate" way then they need to pay less attention to find counts. Perhaps they'll read the logs and decide which caches seem more fun to find. If they are interested in a challenge then they may be more likely to seek out challenging caches - whether or not the cache owner allows finds where someone found a way to avoid most of the challenge. On the other hand someone who looks for ways to avoid challenges might find someone who gives them a spoiler and might find the cache. So what? So what if now people who would have avoided the cache before now, look for it the "easy way". Why would you archive the cache and deny the people who like challenges - the very people who you hid the cache for in the first place - the opportunity to find the caches. Why would you think they would now enjoy your cache less because someone knows a shortcut?

 

If you reel the need to "reward" people who found the cache the way you intended, why not just put a table of names on the cache page of the finders who did the cache as you intended. You probably can even require some additional proof to list the name here without running into a guidelines issue.

 

People are trying to use the online find as some kind of reward system. This is not what it was meant for.

Edited August 11, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+CanadianRockies]

What do you mean by meaningful or meaningless?

If anything and everything is accepted as a find, then the meaning of "find" become more ambiguous; it becomes less meaningful. For example, if people could "find" caches from 5,000 miles away using a computer "bot," then you won't have as good of an understanding of what I mean when I say, "Joe Doe found a cache in Scotland last month."

 

If I understand your definition of "legitimate" correctly, I'm a "legitimate" cacher who don't use shortcut on puzzles, multis, etc. But I still don't feel robbed when others find the same cache "illegitimately". It's still the same cache I enjoyed "legitimately", so the meaning won't change.

And that's fine for you. However, other "legitimate" geocachers might feel "robbed" if their efforts aren't properly recognized for what they are, because the meaning of "find" will change in the geocaching community.

 

But if you feel robbed or the meaning would change for you, my best advice is not to care so much about how others play the game.

But there are some geocachers who will care about how others play the game, because "illegitimate" actions affect how others perceive their own "legitimate" actions. That's one of the reasons why many sports have drug testing. (Note: I'm not suggesting geocaching is a sport. I'm simply saying the same principle applies.)

Edited August 11, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[kanchan]

I think you're talking about completely different cases. Logging a find online without signing the physical logs is not permitted, and such logs should be removed by the CO. However, as long as they sign the log physically, they can claim a find and the COs cannot delete the logs. That is how this game works. Whether you like it or not.

[+BlueDeuce]

I don't see any issue of fairness here. They did it their way. I guess you didn't like how they did it, but I don't really know why you care.

 

The one thing I'd object to is if they weren't honest in their logs about how they did it, but it sounds like it was precisely the honesty in their logs that upset you.

 

Didn't I just dog you for telling people there should be fairness in picking up bugs? huh.

[+BlueDeuce]

It´s been a team work, one of us go to one stage, other to next, half of multicache we google it (sometimes they called to reviewer...)And they commmunicate information about this multicache via facebook, most probably...

 

Team effort, the owner willing to provide details, you all exactly sign the log, sure it's all fair.

[AZcachemeister]

 

People are trying to use the online find as some kind of reward system. This is not what it was meant for.

 

Sorry Toz, but the online log IS a reward.

It always has been and always will be. (At least since the inception of this website.)

 

When I find a cache and sign the log, I reward myself by posting an online 'Found It! ' log for the cache.

If the CO agrees with my assessment that I 'found' the cache, (and I deserve my reward) the log stands.

If the CO does not find my mark on the log, and decides my excuses for not signing are excessively flimsy, they can delete my log.

 

Every day people are risking life and limb to SIGN THE LOG, and every once in a while someone actually dies in the effort to do so. If that isn't serious business, I don't know what is.

 

If I go out with some friends to 'play Frisbee' (not Frisbee golf or any of the other codified games) but I never manage to actually catch the Frisbee...was I actually playing Frisbee, or just standing there having it tossed at me?

 

Sorry again, Toz, but this windmill isn't coming down anytime soon.

[kanchan]

Very interesting. To me, the real reward is the experience from the adventure. The online log is just a very useful tool to keep track of it, to share my experience with others, and to read someone else's experience, etc. It occasionally helps me to locate the cache, solve the puzzle, etc., too. Either way, it's just a tool for me. Not a reward, at least. But I have no problems with others thinking it's a reward. I respect it. I just still wonder how "illegitimate" cachers "robs" "legitimate" cachers' reward. Do they delete your online logs? Well, again, my best advice is not to care so much about how others play the game. Your experience will remain same. Your online logs will remain same, too. This is going to be my last posting on this thread.

[AZcachemeister]

Very interesting. To me, the real reward is the experience from the adventure.

 

Sure. For me it usually is as well.

But, for many urban caches the reward is (and can be) nothing more than the smiley.

Which is why all I see on your profile page is how many you got and when/how you got them.

[+CanadianRockies]

I think you're talking about completely different cases. Logging a find online without signing the physical logs is not permitted, and such logs should be removed by the CO. However, as long as they sign the log physically, they can claim a find and the COs cannot delete the logs.

Earlier, you asked, "What do you mean by meaningful or meaningless?" My example of a computer bot logging finds remotely was an extreme illustration of how a geocaching term like "find" becomes less meaningful when there's less agreement on what constitutes a "find."

 

I realize that if you ask a friend for the final coordinates of a puzzle cache or multi-cache, go directly to the container, and sign the log, then your find won't be deleted. My point is that this type of behavior makes everyone's finds less meaningful. If these types of actions become commonplace in your area, then you'll be less certain what I mean if I tell you, "Mary Doe found the 10-stage Multi-Cache X." Did she find it after visiting all the stages, a few, or just the final?

 

As the meaning of "find" becomes more ambiguous, the behavior of "illegitimate" finders affects not only how others view their finds but how others view the finds of "legitimate" finders. I can understand why some geocachers don't particularly care for that.

[kanchan]

Okay, this is going to be the last one, really. I still don't get why someone else's "illegitimate" logs "rob" your experience or the "reward", or make it less "meaningful" or whatever. I thought and still think the value of your "experience" or even "your smiley" would still remain same. But whatever you think is fine. I was just trying to help you reduce your frustration by suggesting not to care too much about someone else's behavior, but I was apparently too optimistic, and was rather frustrating you, instead. Happy caching!

Edited August 12, 2012 by kanchan

[+CanadianRockies]

I still don't get why someone else's "illegitimate" logs "rob" your experience or the "reward", or make it less "meaningful" or whatever.

I think I see the issue here. You're apparently using "meaningful" as "having a great or lasting effect." I'm using "meaningful" as "having an assigned function in a language system."

Edited August 12, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+Mudfrog]

To be honest, i would think some of the "legitimate" finders might feel they were "robbed" when they found out that i kept allowing people to log it who didn't do it as intended.

Robbed of what?

 

Robbed is not the best word to use here. It's hard for me to explain what i mean exactly but i'm sure there may be some who understand.

 

I, and i don't think i'm the only one, like the feeling of accomplishment i have after figuring out and finding a challenging cache. Seeing my name on that short list of found logs is something i would feel good about now, and for the life of the cache. For me, this feeling would begin to diminish if too many find logs started coming in from people i knew who were only able to get the cache because they were given coordinates by someone else.

 

Yeah, i know what i accomplished and that's the main thing that should count. I also realize this is small potatoes compared to other important things in life. But in a social game/sport/hobby such as this, i also know that my accomplishment (the found log on that hard cache) would not look quite the same if it was on a page full of other found logs.

[cezanne]

What do you mean by meaningful or meaningless? If I understand your definition of "legitimate" correctly, I'm a "legitimate" cacher who don't use shortcut on puzzles, multis, etc. But I still don't feel robbed when others find the same cache "illegitimately". It's still the same cache I enjoyed "legitimately", so the meaning won't change. But if you feel robbed or the meaning would change for you, my best advice is not to care so much about how others play the game.

 

I think what he meant was something different and he not necessarily talked about himself.

In my country, I have come across accusations that almost all/many cachers with many finds have not visited all their caches in person and this accusation has its origin that there are indeed cachers with many finds who are known for their bad practice (e.g. there are groups which always enter all names in the logbook of a visited cache regardless of who was present at the cache). I think it is undesirable that new cachers will get the impression that what some are doing is what is the general well accepted practice.

 

Cezanne

I would think that if people have the impression that others are logging finds in some "illigitmate" way then they need to pay less attention to find counts.

 

Maybe, but it will not change the fact that honest people are accused of dishonesty. I do not care about find counts, but have no chance to change what newcomers believe due to some examples they have come aware of.

 

Perhaps they'll read the logs and decide which caches seem more fun to find. If they are interested in a challenge then they may be more likely to seek out challenging caches - whether or not the cache owner allows finds where someone found a way to avoid most of the challenge. On the other hand someone who looks for ways to avoid challenges might find someone who gives them a spoiler and might find the cache. So what? So what if now people who would have avoided the cache before now, look for it the "easy way". Why would you archive the cache and deny the people who like challenges - the very people who you hid the cache for in the first place - the opportunity to find the caches. Why would you think they would now enjoy your cache less because someone knows a shortcut?

 

That's a different issue. I hide challenging caches to get few, but typically cache related logs that are worth to be read. If the number of logs that are typical for logs that circumvent the challenge, gets large, this is something I neither appreciate for my own caches nor for caches of that type hidden by others.

For example, I watch the logs of the long distance hiking cache around Graz and I'm typically excited when a new log pops up. I would not want to waste by time and be disappointed too often if a log comes in which has nothing to tell.

 

If you reel the need to "reward" people who found the cache the way you intended, why not just put a table of names on the cache page of the finders who did the cache as you intended. You probably can even require some additional proof to list the name here without running into a guidelines issue.

 

This does not address the issues above.

 

People are trying to use the online find as some kind of reward system. This is not what it was meant for.

 

I do not agree. I would not hide caches if the online logs did not exist or if a find were by default claimed without entering text.

 

Cezanne

[Clan Riffster]

So if I received 1-2 logs of the mentioned type for a 100km cache, I'd let it go and would not worry too much, if I received 10 logs of that type over a year, I'd decide to archive the cache.

I'm sorry you feel that would be necessary, but I do agree that that's a perfectly acceptable solution to your problem.

 

Necessary is not the right term - it would just keep me from getting too frustrated. If someone in a comparable situation decides to keep his/her cache, that's perfectly fine for me.

 

Cezanne

We have an expression in English (probably the same in German) - "I'm going to take my ball and go home". Seems appropriate.

 

I don't see it as that at all.

I do. As an owner of many rather challenging hides, I could almost, maybe, understand getting frustrated by folks getting to the final utilizing less than standard means. (OK, not really, but I'm trying to be polite) But to take that frustration to the point where it has a negative impact on me, by archiving my cache, just stinks of petulance. It's the type of response one might expect from a child who has never been told "No".

 

The only thing I hope to achieve when I hide a cache is that the finders enjoy themselves.

 

Just my $0.02

[cezanne]

So if I received 1-2 logs of the mentioned type for a 100km cache, I'd let it go and would not worry too much, if I received 10 logs of that type over a year, I'd decide to archive the cache.

I'm sorry you feel that would be necessary, but I do agree that that's a perfectly acceptable solution to your problem.

 

Necessary is not the right term - it would just keep me from getting too frustrated. If someone in a comparable situation decides to keep his/her cache, that's perfectly fine for me.

 

Cezanne

We have an expression in English (probably the same in German) - "I'm going to take my ball and go home". Seems appropriate.

 

I don't see it as that at all.

I do. As an owner of many rather challenging hides, I could almost, maybe, understand getting frustrated by folks getting to the final utilizing less than standard means. (OK, not really, but I'm trying to be polite) But to take that frustration to the point where it has a negative impact on me, by archiving my cache, just stinks of petulance. It's the type of response one might expect from a child who has never been told "No".

 

Actually, when archiving a cache in such a situation, I'm rather doing it to avoid larger negative impacts on me.

 

The only thing I hope to achieve when I hide a cache is that the finders enjoy themselves.

 

I rather think that this makes the essential difference between your view and mine. I also have personal hopes (not expectations!).

 

That's not a question of petulance or acting like a child who has never been told "no".

 

Cezanne