Jump to content

Not logging finds online, is this still okay?


Recommended Posts

The game has slowly devolved mainly due to the obsessive online logging.

Do you really believe that on-line logging will be the demise of geocaching? If you mean the chase for the smiley, the find count, I would tend to agree with you, but I for one do NOT log my finds (along with my DNFs) to get the smileys. I log my finds as a journal of my geocaching experience, as a way to thank cache owners for their efforts in hiding and maintaining caches, and (when needed) informing the cache owner of any problems I've found with the cache.

 

If the geocaching gods chose not to keep track of or not to display find counts, I'd still log all my finds and all my DNFs. As far as I'm concerned, it's simply the right thing to do, for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with smileys.

 

Why are there so many cachers that drop out? They just aren't interested.

Why should geocaching be any different from any other hobby? People join, people leave all the time. It's no different in this respect from needlepoint, butterfly collecting or skydiving. What evidence do you have that this is because of on-line logging?

 

At some point you may learn to respect those who don't feed the smiley obsession and do it only because it's fun.

So the only thing I'm accomplishing by logging my finds and DNFs on-line is to "feed the smiley obsession"? Who knew? And all this time I thought I was contributing to the hobby, and having fun myself in the process.

 

Don't you think your argument is a bit of a stretch?

 

--Larry

Link to comment

The game has slowly devolved mainly due to the obsessive online logging.

Do you really believe that on-line logging will be the demise of geocaching? If you mean the chase for the smiley, the find count, I would tend to agree with you, but I for one do NOT log my finds (along with my DNFs) to get the smileys. I log my finds as a journal of my geocaching experience, as a way to thank cache owners for their efforts in hiding and maintaining caches, and (when needed) informing the cache owner of any problems I've found with the cache.

 

If the geocaching gods chose not to keep track of or not to display find counts, I'd still log all my finds and all my DNFs. As far as I'm concerned, it's simply the right thing to do, for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with smileys.

 

There are many caches put out only for the sole purpose of getting another smiley. It's possible that one day they will be in the majority. A copy and paste description with copy and paste logs. Your motivation for logging is different than others.

 

 

Why are there so many cachers that drop out? They just aren't interested.

Why should geocaching be any different from any other hobby? People join, people leave all the time. It's no different in this respect from needlepoint, butterfly collecting or skydiving. What evidence do you have that this is because of on-line logging?

 

Evidence? Multiple amount of hides created for the sole purpose of online logging. Nothing special about the location or hide.

 

 

At some point you may learn to respect those who don't feed the smiley obsession and do it only because it's fun.

So the only thing I'm accomplishing by logging my finds and DNFs on-line is to "feed the smiley obsession"? Who knew? And all this time I thought I was contributing to the hobby, and having fun myself in the process.

 

Don't you think your argument is a bit of a stretch?

 

--Larry

 

I never said those who log online are only feeding a smiley obsession. I log online, and I don't have one either.

 

Those who do not log online clearly do not have a smiley obsession. It does not imply the inverse is true.

Link to comment
The game has slowly devolved mainly due to the obsessive online logging..

Whilst I will agree that the game has devolved, when compared to my personal preferences over a particular timeline, I would argue as to cause. I don't see online logging as being the primary factor in this hobby changing from what it was several years ago, to what it is today. Rather, if I had to pick one specific attitude which has caused this hobby to devolve, I would say it's the obsession for more numbers. True, someone who is numbers oriented is logging, but I see that as more of a secondary consequence of the original behavior. Numbers oriented caching has led to cell phone apps, "TFTC" logs and a geometric increase in crappy hides.

 

I should probably note that, for those who embrace the numbers oriented caching lifestyle, the game has not devolved. Rather, it has improved marketably. Since Groundspeak shares this quantity over quality fetish, I would say they are achieving their vision.

 

Whether a person is a numbers oriented cacher or not, this remains a social hobby, dependent upon user feedback. It would have died out long ago, had that social aspect not been included in the design. Knowing this, and refusing to participate, is rude. What you label as name calling, I see as simply being descriptive. I see it in the same light as someone who removes a trackable from a cache and intentionally keeps it out of play for an extended time. Or someone who takes a challenging hide and alters it, so future finders will have an easier time finding it. Or, someone who gets an FTF and deliberately withholds logging for several days, just so other folks will rush out there to grab it. None of these behaviors make someone an evil person. But they are all rude.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

I still don't buy your argument (though I'm getting lazy at this point and don't feel like parsing all those quotes within quotes thingies). You will never convince me that on-line logging has anything whatsoever to do with any purported devolution of geocaching. Writing an on-line log does not equal getting a smiley, although one is obviously required to get the other.

 

If there is a devolution, it's due to geocaching becoming more popular or, as Snoogans cleverly puts it, emerging from the mainstream event horizon. Geocaching no longer involves a small (relatively speaking) subculture of humanity. It's a "big thing" now, and with so many people newly discovering the hobby, there are a whole lot of people who are excited about hiding a cache of their own and wind up, sometimes, hiding lousy caches. And this trend tends to feed on itself when these lousy caches are found by other newbies, who conclude, logically but incorrectly, that lamp post hides are the state of the art.

 

I've thought a lot about why geocaching has been changing the way it's been changing, and not once did it occur to me to blame on-line logging. Like any other tool, it can be used for good or not-so-good purposes. Don't blame the tool, blame the people who misuse it.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

Whether a person is a numbers oriented cacher or not, this remains a social hobby, dependent upon user feedback. It would have died out long ago, had that social aspect not been included in the design. Knowing this, and refusing to participate, is rude. What you label as name calling, I see as simply being descriptive. I see it in the same light as someone who removes a trackable from a cache and intentionally keeps it out of play for an extended time. Or someone who takes a challenging hide and alters it, so future finders will have an easier time finding it. Or, someone who gets an FTF and deliberately withholds logging for several days, just so other folks will rush out there to grab it. None of these behaviors make someone an evil person. But they are all rude.

Well said, Clan. I couldn't agree more.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

I think it is OK not to log online if that is what one prefers.

 

However for me the online logging is an important part of the game. Not for the numbers (though I do like statistics), but:

1. For the history (I like going back and reading my old logs long after)

2. For the benefit of providing feedback to the owner

3. For the benefit of providing feedback to future finders.

4. For the social aspect - seeing logs by names I recognize at events; and the occasional direct dialog which sometimes results from an online log.

5. For the ease of keeping track of what I have found and what I have not.

 

And probably more reasons I haven't thought of..

 

My experience is most people do log online. So if a some don't; it is no big deal.

 

If there wasn't any online logging I don't think the game would be as good (in my opinion).

 

Some of those who don't log online claim they do so because they they aren't in this for numbers. I'm not into numbers either so my online logs are not written with that purpose in mind. I log online for the reasons you listed.

 

I'll add #6, keeping found caches out of my PQs

 

And reason #7, see this thread and my post here. I'm sure those people were quite glad they chose to log their finds online.

Link to comment
The game has slowly devolved mainly due to the obsessive online logging..

Whilst I will agree that the game has devolved, when compared to my personal preferences over a particular timeline, I would argue as to cause. I don't see online logging as being the primary factor in this hobby changing from what it was several years ago, to what it is today. Rather, if I had to pick one specific attitude which has caused this hobby to devolve, I would say it's the obsession for more numbers. True, someone who is numbers oriented is logging, but I see that as more of a secondary consequence of the original behavior. Numbers oriented caching has led to cell phone apps, "TFTC" logs and a geometric increase in crappy hides.

 

I should probably note that, for those who embrace the numbers oriented caching lifestyle, the game has not devolved. Rather, it has improved marketably. Since Groundspeak shares this quantity over quality fetish, I would say they are achieving their vision.

 

Whether a person is a numbers oriented cacher or not, this remains a social hobby, dependent upon user feedback. It would have died out long ago, had that social aspect not been included in the design. Knowing this, and refusing to participate, is rude. What you label as name calling, I see as simply being descriptive. I see it in the same light as someone who removes a trackable from a cache and intentionally keeps it out of play for an extended time. Or someone who takes a challenging hide and alters it, so future finders will have an easier time finding it. Or, someone who gets an FTF and deliberately withholds logging for several days, just so other folks will rush out there to grab it. None of these behaviors make someone an evil person. But they are all rude.

 

All of those other behaviors are rude, as they are intentionally doing something to upset someone. Not logging online is different. Some people don't log parking lot micros. They get there, realize their mistake and lose interest in following up with a log. Rude? No. Some people dislike others picking through their finds from their profile. Others don't get anything out of logging online. Cachers have an obligation to replace the cache as it probably should be hidden and treat it with respect. They don't have to log it if they don't feel like it. Logging online is overrated.

Link to comment

And reason #7, see this thread and my post here. I'm sure those people were quite glad they chose to log their finds online.

 

Great story. I wonder how many of us would have went through the effort versus claiming a new camera? No one here publicly will admit to owning a new camera but I'd bet privately, there are more finders-keepers types out there (I am not one). Yeah, I know it sounds depressing and cynical.

Link to comment

If most believe that e-logging is the more appropriate action, then why even have logs in the geocaches if COs rarely check them? Stands to reason one is givin an option, physical log or online log.

 

FTR, i have never actually seen a handwritten log in a cache. Granted, I only recently hit the 200 mark...yet I've never seen any written log beyond the 'name', date and occasionally a "Thanks!" or "Finally!" (that last one usually follows multiple DNFs by that cacher). Are handwritten logs really that common? That would be pretty surprising to me...

Link to comment

If most believe that e-logging is the more appropriate action, then why even have logs in the geocaches if COs rarely check them? Stands to reason one is givin an option, physical log or online log.

I don't remember anyone claiming that on-line logging is the more appropriate action, it's simply an appropriate action, for the reasons I and others have given.

 

As far as I'm concerned, anyway, in the case of a dispute the closest thing we have to proof that someone has found a cache is their written log in the cache container.

 

And since when does it have to be an either/or proposition? I've done both for every cache I've ever found. And will continue to unless someone convinces me otherwise.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

If most believe that e-logging is the more appropriate action, then why even have logs in the geocaches if COs rarely check them? Stands to reason one is givin an option, physical log or online log.

 

FTR, i have never actually seen a handwritten log in a cache. Granted, I only recently hit the 200 mark...yet I've never seen any written log beyond the 'name', date and occasionally a "Thanks!" or "Finally!" (that last one usually follows multiple DNFs by that cacher). Are handwritten logs really that common? That would be pretty surprising to me...

As far as I'm aware, a cacher's name and the date is considered a "handwritten log". With the steady shrinking of caches sizes and the resulting teeny tiny logs, true "handwritten logs" have become somewhat of a rarity. Which is a real shame, to my mind, but that's a separate issue.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

If most believe that e-logging is the more appropriate action, then why even have logs in the geocaches if COs rarely check them? Stands to reason one is givin an option, physical log or online log.

 

FTR, i have never actually seen a handwritten log in a cache. Granted, I only recently hit the 200 mark...yet I've never seen any written log beyond the 'name', date and occasionally a "Thanks!" or "Finally!" (that last one usually follows multiple DNFs by that cacher). Are handwritten logs really that common? That would be pretty surprising to me...

 

If you find an older (pre 2006 or so) regular sized cache with the original logbook intact, you will probably see pages and pages of extensive handwritten logs.

 

I recently archived a cache I hid in early 2002 that had the original logbook intact. It was interesting to see the changes over the years. The first year or two, some logs would take an entire page or more. Many more were at least a paragraph. Everybody wrote at least a sentence or two. By about 2004 the written logs started to get shorter, but most were still a sentence or two, with the occasional paragraph and the rare full page log. About 2007 or 2008 the single line logs started to creep in, name and date only. By 2012 when I archived it, most logs were of the name and date only variety, with an occasional log having a sentence or two.

Link to comment

If most believe that e-logging is the more appropriate action, then why even have logs in the geocaches if COs rarely check them? Stands to reason one is givin an option, physical log or online log.

 

FTR, i have never actually seen a handwritten log in a cache. Granted, I only recently hit the 200 mark...yet I've never seen any written log beyond the 'name', date and occasionally a "Thanks!" or "Finally!" (that last one usually follows multiple DNFs by that cacher). Are handwritten logs really that common? That would be pretty surprising to me...

 

If you find an older (pre 2006 or so) regular sized cache with the original logbook intact, you will probably see pages and pages of extensive handwritten logs.

 

I recently archived a cache I hid in early 2002 that had the original logbook intact. It was interesting to see the changes over the years. The first year or two, some logs would take an entire page or more. Many more were at least a paragraph. Everybody wrote at least a sentence or two. By about 2004 the written logs started to get shorter, but most were still a sentence or two, with the occasional paragraph and the rare full page log. About 2007 or 2008 the single line logs started to creep in, name and date only. By 2012 when I archived it, most logs were of the name and date only variety, with an occasional log having a sentence or two.

I think it's somewhat of a sacrilege to compare Geocaching today with what it was in the first year or two.

Link to comment
FTR, i have never actually seen a handwritten log in a cache. Granted, I only recently hit the 200 mark...yet I've never seen any written log beyond the 'name', date and occasionally a "Thanks!" or "Finally!" (that last one usually follows multiple DNFs by that cacher). Are handwritten logs really that common? That would be pretty surprising to me...
I still write more than just my name and the date occasionally, but there needs to be room in the log, and I need the time and freedom to write a more substantial log.

 

More than half my finds have been micros, so they get just my name and the date (or perhaps a team name and the date if I'm out with a group and we're trying to conserve space on the micro-size log sheet). Another quarter of my finds have been small, and many of those also have log sheets without room for a more substantial log.

 

When I'm with a group, there is often pressure to keep moving to get to the next cache. We might have one or two "destination caches" in mind, where we stop, relax, and allow time to write more substantial logs. But for any other caches we pick up along the way, everyone is more interested in keeping moving (toward the "destination cache", of course). And even when I'm alone, I may be sneaking a few moments for geocaching, and I may not feel like I have time to write a more substantial log. And of course, some locations are such that you really don't want to linger any longer than you have to.

Link to comment

All of those other behaviors are rude, as they are intentionally doing something to upset someone.

I'm not sure that's true. Assuming I'm the rude dude in question. You see my behavior, but you cannot see my motivation. Am I keeping the trackable for several months because I want to upset someone else, or could there be other, more benign reasons. Maybe I'm intolerant of high temperatures, and decide to stop hunting anything but P&G micros till Summer ends. Maybe I'm holding it for a stellar cache which I will be visiting in a few months. Both have the same end result, (me keeping it intentionally for an extended time frame), though neither reason is out of malice. To my way of thinking, neither reason would warrant breaking out the torches and pitchforks, but both would qualify as rude.

 

The same is true for making a difficult cache easier. I've actually encountered this behavior, and upon speaking with the person(s) involved, each one thought they were acting for the common good, making what was a real struggle for them, less of a burden for others. Again, no pitchforks and torches required. But still rude.

 

Even the guy who deliberately withholds logging an FTF so others would rush out and seek it could, conceivably, come up with what they believe to be positive reasons for doing so. Still rude.

 

Some people don't log parking lot micros. They get there, realize their mistake and lose interest in following up with a log. Rude?

 

Since I've been personally guilty of exactly this behavior roughly 300 times, I'll have to agree to disagree with you. My reasons for not logging these stinkers is that I wished to spare the cache owner my honest thoughts regarding the crap they hid. So, I could say my reasons were perfectly benign, but since the owner did, technically, put forth some degree of effort, even if the effort was just digging a film can out of a trash bin, and shoving in a Wally World receipt, I would say that my behavior, in each of these refusals, was rude.

 

Some people dislike others picking through their finds from their profile. Others don't get anything out of logging online.

Both would be perfectly acceptable reasons for an individual to not log online. But having a good reason for doing something doesn't disqualify an action from being rude. If I'm parked at a red light, and you rear end my car, plopping my milkshake in my lap, I will likely utilize some expletives. Even though I would be perfectly justified in my angst, cussing you out would still be rude.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

All of those other behaviors are rude, as they are intentionally doing something to upset someone.

I'm not sure that's true. Assuming I'm the rude dude in question. You see my behavior, but you cannot see my motivation. Am I keeping the trackable for several months because I want to upset someone else, or could there be other, more benign reasons. Maybe I'm intolerant of high temperatures, and decide to stop hunting anything but P&G micros till Summer ends. Maybe I'm holding it for a stellar cache which I will be visiting in a few months. Both have the same end result, (me keeping it intentionally for an extended time frame), though neither reason is out of malice. To my way of thinking, neither reason would warrant breaking out the torches and pitchforks, but both would qualify as rude.

 

The same is true for making a difficult cache easier. I've actually encountered this behavior, and upon speaking with the person(s) involved, each one thought they were acting for the common good, making what was a real struggle for them, less of a burden for others. Again, no pitchforks and torches required. But still rude.

 

Even the guy who deliberately withholds logging an FTF so others would rush out and seek it could, conceivably, come up with what they believe to be positive reasons for doing so. Still rude.

 

Some people don't log parking lot micros. They get there, realize their mistake and lose interest in following up with a log. Rude?

 

Since I've been personally guilty of exactly this behavior roughly 300 times, I'll have to agree to disagree with you. My reasons for not logging these stinkers is that I wished to spare the cache owner my honest thoughts regarding the crap they hid. So, I could say my reasons were perfectly benign, but since the owner did, technically, put forth some degree of effort, even if the effort was just digging a film can out of a trash bin, and shoving in a Wally World receipt, I would say that my behavior, in each of these refusals, was rude.

 

Some people dislike others picking through their finds from their profile. Others don't get anything out of logging online.

Both would be perfectly acceptable reasons for an individual to not log online. But having a good reason for doing something doesn't disqualify an action from being rude. If I'm parked at a red light, and you rear end my car, plopping my milkshake in my lap, I will likely utilize some expletives. Even though I would be perfectly justified in my angst, cussing you out would still be rude.

 

If you want to dilute the implications of the term "rude", that's fine. Just remember you are playing a game in which a large percentage of the hides are placed on private commercial property without permission, and which would be considered "rude" by the property owners. Many non cachers would also question the entire "avoid the muggles" routine as overly snobbish, and most would also think that hiding a worthless film can from muggles, and disguising your behavior a bit antisocial. So if a group of rude and snobbish, antisocial people get together and declare that not logging online is rude, it really is nothing to worry about. :D

Link to comment
The following is from Geocaching 101

 

What are the rules of geocaching?

 

1. If you take something from the geocache (or "cache"), leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks!

 

As for the OP, it doesn't bother me if someone signs the log for our caches but doesn't log it online. At least I know you were there. It's the other way around that's a bit concerning for me.

 

We live just a few miles from the Fulton County Fairgrounds, where the Midwest Geobash has been held the last few years. This years bash ended a couple days ago. In our giant cache we maintain, I put in a special logbook just for the Geobash this year. It was a 8 1/2" X 11" pre-printed logbook with tons of room for your name and date along with four or five lines for any remarks you'd like to log.

 

I removed the special logbook yesterday and found 14 signatures. I've received 34 online "Found It" entries. Then I realized some people were traveling together, went back to the physical logbook and found two signatures on one line twice, so there's a total of 16 signatures in the log, and 34 online log entries. These are also not the end of the online log entries for our caches, the entries for the "Find" will continue for months with "Oh, I forgot to log this one during the Geobash" type of entries. This has happened every year.

 

Do ya think something smells fishy here? I sure do. I'm thinking of putting a surveillance camera on it next year for the Geobash (Cause I can) and see exactly how many people actually show up vs. how many log it.

Edited by TheBenfields
Link to comment
]

If you want to dilute the implications of the term "rude", that's fine.

I'm not sure I'm diluting rudeness. As I see it, being rude has never been limited to a specific degree of behavior. If I don't hold a door open for someone, I consider my behavior to be rude. If I cuss out a bus load of nuns, I would also consider that to be rude. Even though one behavior is significantly worse than the other, they both are rude, in my eyes. One need not steal Pokemon action figures from toddlers to be considered rude. Little things can be considered rude too.

 

]

Just remember you are playing a game in which a large percentage of the hides are placed on private commercial property without permission, and which would be considered "rude" by the property owners.

You're preaching to the choir, brother! I imagine, at some point in this hobby's history, somewhere, some Reviewer actually required a cache owner to follow through with the guideline stating that explicit permission must be given for hides on private property, but I've yet to see it. If we assume that, (insert imaginary number here --->) 93% of parking lot hides do not have explicit permission, that could certainly be viewed as rude. But that hardly excuses rude behavior on our part.

 

]

....it really is nothing to worry about. :D

On that, we can both agree. This has never been a panty wadding issue for me. It rates just a tad above a "Meh". I would hate to put myself on the payroll of the Manners Police. If I see a minor manners violation, and someone asks my thoughts on the behavior, I have no qualms being forthright, calling it rude. But, if unasked, I won't bring it up. It's just not worth worrying about.

Link to comment

I still don't buy your argument (though I'm getting lazy at this point and don't feel like parsing all those quotes within quotes thingies). You will never convince me that on-line logging has anything whatsoever to do with any purported devolution of geocaching. Writing an on-line log does not equal getting a smiley, although one is obviously required to get the other.

 

If there is a devolution, it's due to geocaching becoming more popular or, as Snoogans cleverly puts it, emerging from the mainstream event horizon. Geocaching no longer involves a small (relatively speaking) subculture of humanity. It's a "big thing" now, and with so many people newly discovering the hobby, there are a whole lot of people who are excited about hiding a cache of their own and wind up, sometimes, hiding lousy caches. And this trend tends to feed on itself when these lousy caches are found by other newbies, who conclude, logically but incorrectly, that lamp post hides are the state of the art.

 

I've thought a lot about why geocaching has been changing the way it's been changing, and not once did it occur to me to blame on-line logging. Like any other tool, it can be used for good or not-so-good purposes. Don't blame the tool, blame the people who misuse it.

 

--Larry

 

I think about geocaching a lot too. It's about all I have spare time for these days.

 

Geocaching has not devolved. It has Evolved.

 

It was not handed down in perfect form from on high and then tainted and twisted by demons and devils to become a lesser imperfect form. See my thread on GeoCreationism vs. GeoEvolution. It's a fun read.

 

In my decade plus of caching I have witnessed this site progress from a teeny tiny home based business to one of the top rated places of employment in Seattle.

 

Most caches were medium to regular in size and filled with mostly useless crap when I started. A micro was out of the ordinary and a skirt lifter was a wicked cool NEW idea.

 

People were whining about the decline of subjective cache quality being the death of geocaching when I started and that will never end until Jeremy and crew figure out how to please everyone at once.

 

Geocaching as an activity is doing just fine. The reason you find so few cachers that remain active from my caching era is because of their own inability to evolve with the game if the game itself is why they became inactive. It's just different. It's no better or worse than when I started. There are just vastly greater choices.

 

To get back on topic my thoughts on online logging mirror briansnat's for the most part.

 

PS One doesn't emerge from an event horizon. One goes over it and there is no turning back. Geocaching has not entered mainstream consciousness but we are edging closer.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

I create caches to be FOUND,

if most people finding them, log their experiance online I am happy

this way I and all others know about its status, and if it is worth a visit or if it is waste of time.

if most people do not log online, I remove them all and not make any new caches.

 

also think about:

do you read other peoples logs ?

do you find them usefull ?

or just entertaining ?

or waste of bytes ?

Edited by OZ2CPU
Link to comment

I create caches to be FOUND,

if most people finding them, log their experiance online I am happy

this way I and all others know about its status, and if it is worth a visit or if it is waste of time.

if most people do not log online, I remove them all and not make any new caches.

 

agreed.

 

also think about:

do you read other peoples logs ?

do you find them usefull ?

or just entertaining ?

or waste of bytes ?

 

short answer: yes.

Link to comment

I believe that if a person signs the physical log it is ok if they don't sign online if they don't want to do so. I agree that there are many different reasons someone might not sign the log. As a cache owner I would not have any issues with a physical signature with no online log.

Link to comment

 

Who says that anyone HAS to log a find online?

 

I cache with someone that has absolutely no interest in logging their finds online, they just want to get out and walk/hike and get exercise and they do so by geocaching. I see no problem at all with him not logging finds online, it is how he "plays the game."

 

You must've missed the last page of this thread. :ph34r: Some folks definitely believe that you should be logging online if you found a cache! :)

 

I'm pretty neutral about it. :) I log all of my finds online, but it doesn't really bother me if someone finds one of my caches but doesn't log it online. I'm much more opinionated about the opposite: logging it online but not finding it! :D

 

Not everyone an own a computer or. pay for Internet . I hope Geocaching try to keep this fun hobbie open for many. : )

Link to comment

 

Who says that anyone HAS to log a find online?

 

I cache with someone that has absolutely no interest in logging their finds online, they just want to get out and walk/hike and get exercise and they do so by geocaching. I see no problem at all with him not logging finds online, it is how he "plays the game."

 

You must've missed the last page of this thread. :ph34r: Some folks definitely believe that you should be logging online if you found a cache! :)

 

I'm pretty neutral about it. :) I log all of my finds online, but it doesn't really bother me if someone finds one of my caches but doesn't log it online. I'm much more opinionated about the opposite: logging it online but not finding it! :D

 

Not everyone an own a computer or. pay for Internet . I hope Geocaching try to keep this fun hobbie open for many. : )

 

I get that, but...

 

they can afford a GPS, therefore they must have access to a computer in order to download the caches

or, if they own a smartphone, they have the data plan necessary to find, and therefore log, the cache.

 

there are convoluted ways around those, of course...but i doubt it's common.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...