Bogus group logs?

[+Cableguy]

It seems that there are groups of 6 to 12 cachers from Nova Scotia and PEI who admittedly find nothing wrong with splitting up into pairs or smaller groups, and then all logging all finds. I read of an example of one cacher logging over a thousand finds in one day. Most members of these groups have find numbers in the five digits.

 

These folks find that it's acceptable geocaching practice to log caches that they never saw but other members of their posse found. When a CO began deleting logs of cachers who couldn't describe the cache, these cachers got very upset according to the CO.

 

Normally I absolutely don't care what people do, we all take away from the hobby what gives us pleasure. But this seems to be a questionable practice at best.

 

Thoughts?

[+The_Incredibles_]

Are they doing this just on power trails or on all caches?

 

If it's the latter, maybe Groundspeak can be asked to have a word with them.

[+Cableguy]

Are they doing this just on power trails or on all caches?

 

If it's the latter, maybe Groundspeak can be asked to have a word with them.

 

On all caches. Few power trails here in the Maritimes.

[Clan Riffster]

It's not something I feel is worth getting worked up over. Like you said, you get out of it what you put into it. If I physically found 1000 caches, but due to team work, leap frogging, three cache monte and other silly practices, my find count says 10,000, such a find count would do nothing more than demonstrate how cheesy I am. The only victim would be me.

[+M 5]

Are they doing this just on power trails or on all caches?

 

If it's the latter, maybe Groundspeak can be asked to have a word with them.

 

I think it is also sad that there is a distinction between PT and all caches. One of my many issues with roadside power trails.

[+Dogmeat*]

If you didn't find the cache, you didn't find the cache. Simple as that.

[+KazumiSun]

If you didn't find the cache, you didn't find the cache. Simple as that.

Agree... NOT COOL. . I should get extra points for all the cache I could not find and I log them..... caching is great people lying is lame

[GrandPotentate]

It seems that there are groups of 6 to 12 cachers from Nova Scotia and PEI who admittedly find nothing wrong with splitting up into pairs or smaller groups, and then all logging all finds. I read of an example of one cacher logging over a thousand finds in one day. Most members of these groups have find numbers in the five digits.

 

These folks find that it's acceptable geocaching practice to log caches that they never saw but other members of their posse found. When a CO began deleting logs of cachers who couldn't describe the cache, these cachers got very upset according to the CO.

 

Normally I absolutely don't care what people do, we all take away from the hobby what gives us pleasure. But this seems to be a questionable practice at best.

 

Thoughts?

 

Do their caching habits make your finds any less valid?

[+dprovan]

If that's the way they want to do it, then I don't understand why they don't just use a single group account. The only reason for a group to have individual accounts is if there's something different about the caches each one logs, but that isn't the case here. And to me, a single account would address the primary impact that takes this beyond personal preference into the area of having an actual negative impact on other cachers: every single cache in the area gets 12 logs added to it every time any one or two of them find a cache, and most of those logs are written by people that cannot contribute anything useful to the cache's log because they've never been to GZ or seen the cache.

 

Normally I absolutely don't care what people do, we all take away from the hobby what gives us pleasure. But this seems to be a questionable practice at best.

It's OK to not care what they do but still think that they're being ludicrous and pathetic. It's OK to point out to anyone interested that this is clearly just a special case of armchair logging.

 

In addition to not caring what the group does, I also don't care what COs do, but I think they'd be justified in deleting the finds. As far as I can see, if COs want to delete bogus finds of this type, it makes sense for them to deleting all the finds. I can't see any justification for forcing the CO to interrogate every member about every cache in order to work out who was really there.

 

Do their caching habits make your finds any less valid?

No, my finds aren't any less valid, but I judge people's actions against a wide range of criteria beyond whether what they do reduces the validity of my finds.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Since so many COs are being affected, I would report it to Groundspeak and see if they can do anything.

 

The way they are playing is stupid and annoying to others.

 

You could take it upon to yourself as a cache owner to delete logs, but how would you know which logs to delete? You could also round up all the cache owners affected and send emails of complaint. Flood their inboxes!

Edited September 4, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

[+niraD]

That can't be. We were assured that such "shortcuts" would remain confined to numbers run trails where the cache owners approved of them.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm not sure what amuses me the most - the fact that some people might think a find is so valuable that they would take credit for cache they didn't help find or the fact that some people are so bothered by this.

 

At least I can see some logic in the first. These people actually believe they had a part of finding each cache. The analogy may be a search and rescue team that divides up the search area and has separated squads responsible for searching specific sectors. Maybe the squad that finds the missing person gets a special recognition, but more likely the entire team gets the credit for a successful search and rescue operation.

[+jellis]

I don't really want to offend the PNW but they do the Cache Machine and that to me is almost the same. I participated in the one in Portland a few years back and we (our group) stopped after a few caches. Not sure how the others felt about it, but I felt uncomfortable about how it works. But if the group who does it feel it's okay then they can continue doing it. At least the way we did the ET Hwy we were all in the same car.

Edited September 4, 2013 by jellis

[jholly]

I don't really want to offend the PNW but they do the Cache Machine and that to me is almost the same. I participated in the one in Portland a few years back and we (our group) stopped after a few caches. Not sure how the others felt about it, but I felt uncomfortable about how it works. But if the group who does it feel it's okay then they can continue doing it. At least the way we did the ET Hwy we were all in the same car.

And how is it that it works? I, and most of the people I know and talk to go to each cache and sign the log. That makes you uncomfortable? How do you do it, see the cache, call it good and log online? The ones we don't necessarily sign are nanos or micros with small logs. If a XXCM is on the log sheet we call that good, and this is as a courtesy to cache owner so the new nano log does not get filled up by noontime. Note that does take effort to unroll the log and check. I guess if you don't know "how it works" perhaps it would be best if you kept your comments to yourself.

[+K13]

OK, so if I form a 'team' with Bobcam and Alamogul, am I suddenly 120,000+ behind on logging my 'finds'? I see (and smell) Limburger in this group's way of 'finding' caches.

[+lamoracke]

I don't really want to offend the PNW but they do the Cache Machine and that to me is almost the same. I participated in the one in Portland a few years back and we (our group) stopped after a few caches. Not sure how the others felt about it, but I felt uncomfortable about how it works. But if the group who does it feel it's okay then they can continue doing it. At least the way we did the ET Hwy we were all in the same car.

And how is it that it works? I, and most of the people I know and talk to go to each cache and sign the log. That makes you uncomfortable? How do you do it, see the cache, call it good and log online? The ones we don't necessarily sign are nanos or micros with small logs. If a XXCM is on the log sheet we call that good, and this is as a courtesy to cache owner so the new nano log does not get filled up by noontime. Note that does take effort to unroll the log and check. I guess if you don't know "how it works" perhaps it would be best if you kept your comments to yourself.

 

And fwiw, a cache machine is just 4 times a year anyway but that is not the point. Most of the cache machine groups are just folks teaming up that day in one car and are at least at GZ and use a team name. Sure maybe one person stays in the car, but I do not think that is different for many folks who cache together as a group on any normal day with friends. I think the OP is talking about folks who are independently finding caches and then racking up 1000s of finds. I could have a team of 6, one could do west coast, one could do east coast, etc etc. I do not think the cache machines of the PNW are in any way doing what the OP is talking about except the fact they use a team name. Heck, I have had a group of 4 cachers on a normal day and we use some acronym for us on just one day, for fun.

[+jellis]

I don't really want to offend the PNW but they do the Cache Machine and that to me is almost the same. I participated in the one in Portland a few years back and we (our group) stopped after a few caches. Not sure how the others felt about it, but I felt uncomfortable about how it works. But if the group who does it feel it's okay then they can continue doing it. At least the way we did the ET Hwy we were all in the same car.

And how is it that it works? I, and most of the people I know and talk to go to each cache and sign the log. That makes you uncomfortable? How do you do it, see the cache, call it good and log online? The ones we don't necessarily sign are nanos or micros with small logs. If a XXCM is on the log sheet we call that good, and this is as a courtesy to cache owner so the new nano log does not get filled up by noontime. Note that does take effort to unroll the log and check. I guess if you don't know "how it works" perhaps it would be best if you kept your comments to yourself.

I understand, but when you got 20+ cars in a caravan of cachers and maybe only the first couple cars actually leave the car, then the rest just stay in their cars and never even see the cache. I've heard where some leave the route and go do something else, come back later and log all the finds cause no one keeps track on who was in it or when they left.

 

edit: remember I was at one of them. We could have done just that cause everyone saw us there but no one saw us leave.

Edited September 4, 2013 by jellis

[+lamoracke]

I don't really want to offend the PNW but they do the Cache Machine and that to me is almost the same. I participated in the one in Portland a few years back and we (our group) stopped after a few caches. Not sure how the others felt about it, but I felt uncomfortable about how it works. But if the group who does it feel it's okay then they can continue doing it. At least the way we did the ET Hwy we were all in the same car.

And how is it that it works? I, and most of the people I know and talk to go to each cache and sign the log. That makes you uncomfortable? How do you do it, see the cache, call it good and log online? The ones we don't necessarily sign are nanos or micros with small logs. If a XXCM is on the log sheet we call that good, and this is as a courtesy to cache owner so the new nano log does not get filled up by noontime. Note that does take effort to unroll the log and check. I guess if you don't know "how it works" perhaps it would be best if you kept your comments to yourself.

I understand, but when you got 20+ cars in a caravan of cachers and maybe only the first couple cars actually leave the car, then the rest just stay in their cars and never even see the cache. I've heard where some leave the route and go do something else, come back later and log all the finds cause no one keeps track on who was in it or when they left.

 

edit: remember I was at one of them. We could have done just that cause everyone saw us there but no one saw us leave.

 

Just not personally my experience of what folks do at a cache machine. Sure could be some group out there who does that, but that is not what I think as happening there as a whole.

[+jellis]

I don't really want to offend the PNW but they do the Cache Machine and that to me is almost the same. I participated in the one in Portland a few years back and we (our group) stopped after a few caches. Not sure how the others felt about it, but I felt uncomfortable about how it works. But if the group who does it feel it's okay then they can continue doing it. At least the way we did the ET Hwy we were all in the same car.

And how is it that it works? I, and most of the people I know and talk to go to each cache and sign the log. That makes you uncomfortable? How do you do it, see the cache, call it good and log online? The ones we don't necessarily sign are nanos or micros with small logs. If a XXCM is on the log sheet we call that good, and this is as a courtesy to cache owner so the new nano log does not get filled up by noontime. Note that does take effort to unroll the log and check. I guess if you don't know "how it works" perhaps it would be best if you kept your comments to yourself.

I understand, but when you got 20+ cars in a caravan of cachers and maybe only the first couple cars actually leave the car, then the rest just stay in their cars and never even see the cache. I've heard where some leave the route and go do something else, come back later and log all the finds cause no one keeps track on who was in it or when they left.

 

edit: remember I was at one of them. We could have done just that cause everyone saw us there but no one saw us leave.

 

Just not personally my experience of what folks do at a cache machine. Sure could be some group out there who does that, but that is not what I think as happening there as a whole.

Lam ....PM

[+OZ2CPU]

any CO say ok, to check cache logs, and is expected to check for, and delete logs he belive are bogus

See CO rules..

[4wheelin_fool]

any CO say ok, to check cache logs, and is expected to check for, and delete logs he belive are bogus

See CO rules..

There are no bogus logs, only team logs.

[4wheelin_fool]

That can't be. We were assured that such "shortcuts" would remain confined to numbers run trails where the cache owners approved of them.

 

Assured by whom? It's cheesy but inevitable, and there is not much anyone can do about it. It shouldn't affect your play, unless you use your find count as a tool to impress people. It's only a personal indicator of what you did.

 

All this effort of having large find counts to impress others is a bit sad.

[+jtbrady01]

Here's the thing to ponder. If multiple cars with 20 cachers all are traveling together and each person signs their name to the log then the log will fill up pretty fast. From my experience cache hiders are getting pretty lazy lately and putting micros and nano's all over the place. So the use of a team name is the best way to go. Secondly, If 20 people all jump out of cars at once and "mob" a spot what impact does it have on that spot? Or better yet what attention does it bring. I've done one trip where we grabbed 45 caches this way and we sent 2 or 3 people out each time to look for the cache. Each time a different group.

 

Now I do agree that if cacher #1 is in Oregon and cacher #2 is in Texas and the rest of the normal group is back home in California then they don't get to claim the caches that cachers #1 & #2 found. Only if they were all together. But, does everyone in a group need to physically touch a cache container? No, get real people. Team names save up log space.

[jholly]

I don't really want to offend the PNW but they do the Cache Machine and that to me is almost the same. I participated in the one in Portland a few years back and we (our group) stopped after a few caches. Not sure how the others felt about it, but I felt uncomfortable about how it works. But if the group who does it feel it's okay then they can continue doing it. At least the way we did the ET Hwy we were all in the same car.

And how is it that it works? I, and most of the people I know and talk to go to each cache and sign the log. That makes you uncomfortable? How do you do it, see the cache, call it good and log online? The ones we don't necessarily sign are nanos or micros with small logs. If a XXCM is on the log sheet we call that good, and this is as a courtesy to cache owner so the new nano log does not get filled up by noontime. Note that does take effort to unroll the log and check. I guess if you don't know "how it works" perhaps it would be best if you kept your comments to yourself.

I understand, but when you got 20+ cars in a caravan of cachers and maybe only the first couple cars actually leave the car, then the rest just stay in their cars and never even see the cache. I've heard where some leave the route and go do something else, come back later and log all the finds cause no one keeps track on who was in it or when they left.

 

edit: remember I was at one of them. We could have done just that cause everyone saw us there but no one saw us leave.

I do not observe that as a general practice. I see lots of stamps and signatures in logs at the end of the day from folks that I know. If you want to discuss logging procedures, we could discuss how the folks you cache with can log 250+ caches a day on widespread caches in the California country side. I hardly think they have enough time in the day to drive the route let alone find and log the caches. Makes me wonder about your big numbers.

[+dprovan]

Here's the thing to ponder. If multiple cars with 20 cachers all are traveling together and each person signs their name to the log then the log will fill up pretty fast. From my experience cache hiders are getting pretty lazy lately and putting micros and nano's all over the place. So the use of a team name is the best way to go. Secondly, If 20 people all jump out of cars at once and "mob" a spot what impact does it have on that spot? Or better yet what attention does it bring.

I think these are things best pondered before deciding to go out as a mob to find caches. Once you've decided to go out as a mob, I'd hope that you've worked out how to mitigate those issues while still meeting the normal criteria for having a find. I'm not particularly impressed with the idea that those issues should be used as excuses to change the criteria entirely.

[+The Jester]

I don't really want to offend the PNW but they do the Cache Machine and that to me is almost the same. I participated in the one in Portland a few years back and we (our group) stopped after a few caches. Not sure how the others felt about it, but I felt uncomfortable about how it works. But if the group who does it feel it's okay then they can continue doing it. At least the way we did the ET Hwy we were all in the same car.

And how is it that it works? I, and most of the people I know and talk to go to each cache and sign the log. That makes you uncomfortable? How do you do it, see the cache, call it good and log online? The ones we don't necessarily sign are nanos or micros with small logs. If a XXCM is on the log sheet we call that good, and this is as a courtesy to cache owner so the new nano log does not get filled up by noontime. Note that does take effort to unroll the log and check. I guess if you don't know "how it works" perhaps it would be best if you kept your comments to yourself.

I understand, but when you got 20+ cars in a caravan of cachers and maybe only the first couple cars actually leave the car, then the rest just stay in their cars and never even see the cache. I've heard where some leave the route and go do something else, come back later and log all the finds cause no one keeps track on who was in it or when they left.

 

edit: remember I was at one of them. We could have done just that cause everyone saw us there but no one saw us leave.

"I don't want to offend..." and spewing inuendo don't really mix well. I've been to many CM's and have never seen the actions described happen. Only near the beginning do you see large caravans - people do their own routes, some variations on the suggested (backwards, start in middle) or, like I did last time, a totally unique route (skipped the micro's & those I'd already found and started at point closest to home) - some are out to get every cache, others to enjoy the fun of caching with new/old friends. The last CM (my unique route above) we saw maybe 5 other cars from the CM over the forty or so stops we made.

 

As for leaving the CM, that happens, but I've never heard of anyone then logging all the caches anyhow. In fact, one of the biggest conversation bits at the dinner is "how many did you get?" We left one in the middle of the day to drive an hour south to attend a friends 80th birthday party, then came back a picked a few more before the end - some people asked where'd we gone as they didn't see us for a while, so the statement "no one keeps track" isn't really true - no 'offical' count is done, but we see each other and read names in logs (to see where we are in the pack so to speak).

 

One partial experience does not an expert make. I've "heard" of things happening but I don't believe most of it.

[+CanadianRockies]

I'm not sure what amuses me the most - the fact that some people might think a find is so valuable that they would take credit for cache they didn't help find or the fact that some people are so bothered by this.

 

At least I can see some logic in the first. These people actually believe they had a part of finding each cache. The analogy may be a search and rescue team that divides up the search area and has separated squads responsible for searching specific sectors. Maybe the squad that finds the missing person gets a special recognition, but more likely the entire team gets the credit for a successful search and rescue operation.

That isn't logic; it's a rationalization. As MissJenn from Groundspeak once wrote:

 

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

[team tisri]

If you didn't find the cache, you didn't find the cache. Simple as that.

Agree... NOT COOL. . I should get extra points for all the cache I could not find and I log them..... caching is great people lying is lame

 

Yep, it's lame. But it makes precisely no difference to my caching experience so I really couldn't give a rat's rear what other people consider to be a "find".

[+Cache O'Plenty]

California desert area, especially the Route 66 or Route 62 power trails surely do support large numbers of finds in a day. I've done 443 (yes, I was at every single one of them). A friend has done the Route 66 (806 caches) in a single day with two friends in the same car.

 

But we draw the line at multiple cars dividing up the run into sections (usually 200 to a car). Car #1 does 001-200, Car #2 does 201-400, etc. We call this mode "Sectioning". Usually they start out from "breakfast" and head out. End of the day, everyone logs all 800 or more caches yet they never even saw each other after breakfast. In fact, if they skip breakfast, they don't even need to see each other at all!

 

Using that logic, why don't I just find out who cached yesterday (where doesn't matter) and just log all the finds anybody made. Bet I could even add a bunch of country souvenirs in just one day.

 

Nope, our rule is you must be at every cache, participating in some manner. Either driving, seeking, stamping, holding ropes, carrying ladders, whatever. One car unless all other cars are there as well.

 

Do I really care what someone's numbers are? Only to a small extent. but if I find out they participate in leap frogging, sectioning, etc, then I discount their numbers and my opinion as to their experience level changes.

 

Edited to remove CM from the list of bad practices - now that I know the details of the practice. Sounds like a normal procedure.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Cache O'Plenty

[+lamoracke]

 

Do I really care what someone's numbers are? Only to a small extent. but if I find out they participate in leap frogging, sectioning, cache machine, etc, then I discount their numbers and my opinion as to their experience level changes.

 

A lot of your paragraph made sense, but please do not use the phrase "cache machine" as a method of cheating. A cache machine is just one PNW cacher's attempt to find a route of caches within a day that other cachers would enjoy and then meet up at the end of the day to talk about it and make it a quarterly event so folks can plan to attend in advance. A cache machine does not encourage or promote cheating, its an example of a route to follow to bring up your numbers. This route could be done on any other day if they like, its just one day to try and get other caches in the area to increase your chance of meeting other cachers on the same day. He figures out a route that maximizes the # of finds based on your car's route and ease of finds. Personally I almost never follow the route but I enjoy being in the area of a cache machine day for the dinner and the chance of crashing into the occasional cacher.

 

Folks can cheat their numbers at the ET highway, they can cheat by logging every cache in a park without going into it. However, the phrase "cache machine" does not mean cheating, so please do not use it as such.

Edited September 4, 2013 by lamoracke

[+Cableguy]

Let's be clear....

- The group is splitting up into much smaller groups or pairs, spreading out, then logging all finds that all the other pairs found.

- they are not physically present at most caches logged.

- No, this caching "method" of upping numbers will not affect in any way the way I enjoy caching. Tomorrow I'll be out enjoying a walk somewhere finding and signing some log.

But it's the first time that I've encountered this practice, and I find it a little dishonest that folks will log caches they never were near, in some cases in another province.

Seems to me that this practice would be like exaggerating your 'manhood'.

[+Don_J]

Let's be clear....

- The group is splitting up into much smaller groups or pairs, spreading out, then logging all finds that all the other pairs found.

- they are not physically present at most caches logged.

- No, this caching "method" of upping numbers will not affect in any way the way I enjoy caching. Tomorrow I'll be out enjoying a walk somewhere finding and signing some log.

But it's the first time that I've encountered this practice, and I find it a little dishonest that folks will log caches they never were near, in some cases in another province.

Seems to me that this practice would be like exaggerating your 'manhood'.

 

No, because that would mean that everyone did it.

 

That aside. The simple fact is that there are a lot of caches that were put out there for no other reason than to boost numbers. If you log them without actually finding them, the CO's don't typically care. I don't care either. The thing is, I don't place caches for the sole purpose of boosting someone elses numbers. It hasn't happened, but I'm not quite sure how I would feel if one guy hiked to one of my caches, and then six of his friends logged finds on it while they were actually at work, or out of town finding other caches.

 

I've made it clear on many occasions that deleting logs is not something that I take lightly. I have deleted only 1 out of almost 7000 found logs on my caches. In this case, I would definitely consider it.

[+OZ2CPU]

you can not physically be at two different locations at the same time..

I define different locations to be 161 m or more apart.

 

This means I do accept group log, like they write ABC in the log sheet

and online say ABC = Alfa Brave Charley, found it, was here in the same car, at the same time, TFTC

 

it is PERFECTLY normal:

not to have all persons in the group to touch the container and write in the logbook.

and it is also normal (for more special caches), to let the container and book be touched and signed by each person for real,

while the group talk abit and just enjoy the cool place and things they did to get there.

 

it is BAD style to run two parallel groups, with the SAME group name, and seek different parts on the trail or town for that matter,

I dont see any difference with this and hiring someone to find and sign caches with your name,

you did not find the cache.. you did not sign it your self..

this kind of game should be banned, and all such logs DELETED !!

if you know for sure this is what they did, delete every sec log they did that day,

and let them complain to Groundspeak

 

How do you prove for sure what they did ?

did they say this in their logs ? or other place online ?

did you hide out there and took a video ?

Edited September 5, 2013 by OZ2CPU

[team tisri]

Let's be clear....

- The group is splitting up into much smaller groups or pairs, spreading out, then logging all finds that all the other pairs found.

- they are not physically present at most caches logged.

- No, this caching "method" of upping numbers will not affect in any way the way I enjoy caching. Tomorrow I'll be out enjoying a walk somewhere finding and signing some log.

But it's the first time that I've encountered this practice, and I find it a little dishonest that folks will log caches they never were near, in some cases in another province.

Seems to me that this practice would be like exaggerating your 'manhood'.

 

No, because that would mean that everyone did it.

 

That aside. The simple fact is that there are a lot of caches that were put out there for no other reason than to boost numbers. If you log them without actually finding them, the CO's don't typically care. I don't care either. The thing is, I don't place caches for the sole purpose of boosting someone elses numbers. It hasn't happened, but I'm not quite sure how I would feel if one guy hiked to one of my caches, and then six of his friends logged finds on it while they were actually at work, or out of town finding other caches.

 

I've made it clear on many occasions that deleting logs is not something that I take lightly. I have deleted only 1 out of almost 7000 found logs on my caches. In this case, I would definitely consider it.

 

I suppose one issue with this kind of thing is knowing who was really there and who was just claimed.

 

When I'm out caching with one or more friends we get to GZ, look for the cache, and sooner or later one of us finds it. That person usually signs it for everyone in the group, then puts it back. Then we go to the next cache and maybe someone else finds it, signs it for everyone in the group, then puts it back.

 

Differentiating between a log in my writing that says "team tisri / SomeOtherCacher / AndSomeoneElse" because three of us were there and an identical log in identical writing because I found it and signed it for the guy who solved the puzzle and gave me the answer because I was heading that way, is the tricky part.

[+Dita_Karcossa]

Let's be clear....

- No, this caching "method" of upping numbers will not affect in any way the way I enjoy caching. Tomorrow I'll be out enjoying a walk somewhere finding and signing some log.

 

 

so why bother bringing it up?

[+Cableguy]

Let's be clear....

- No, this caching "method" of upping numbers will not affect in any way the way I enjoy caching. Tomorrow I'll be out enjoying a walk somewhere finding and signing some log.

 

 

so why bother bringing it up?

 

Dita, please, if you're going to quote me, use the entire comment, don't cut out what you want, to suit your point. Geez.

And you're friends with the group I refer to, perhaps they would like to comment.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Cableguy

[+Cubby&BigBear]

I'm not sure what constitutes "being friends with" other than living in the same province. Team Dita_Karcossa cache with team cubby&bigbear more than anybody else.

 

And why did you bring it up CableGuy? Seems like you've complained about the Spud Cachers on more than one occasion online on the Cache Up Nb page. If it bothers you this much, why not just man up and ask Nimrod or Escaperr about the way they cache directly instead of pussy footing around the subject here?

 

If you actually took the time to talk and hang out with the Spud Cachers i think you'd actually find that they are a decent bunch of men and women who like to cache hard. Sharing the road from sun up to sundown on a 15 hour cache raid is exhausting and a whole lot of fun. Usually just one or two cars with members splitting up, leap frogging, then meeting for lunch, rearranging the passengers for different company then going at it again until the wee hours.

We cache differently than you do sometimes. Big deal.

[+GeoRoss&Vic]

If they want to do it that way, it doesn't affect my fun. Lets say my hobby was decoy duck carving. Someone could tell me they also carve decoys and that they carved 1000 decoy ducks. Wow! Well If i found out that they actually bought those ducks and didn't carve each one, I'd shrug it off and say, "we're not partaking in the same hobby, then." They have fun doing it your way and I'll have fun doing it my way. It doesn't ruin my enjoyment of the pastime.

[+Dita_Karcossa]

Let's be clear....

- No, this caching "method" of upping numbers will not affect in any way the way I enjoy caching. Tomorrow I'll be out enjoying a walk somewhere finding and signing some log.

 

 

so why bother bringing it up?

 

Dita, please, if you're going to quote me, use the entire comment, don't cut out what you want, to suit your point. Geez.

And you're friends with the group I refer to, perhaps they would like to comment.

 

I didn't need to quote your whole post to simply ask a question. I just wanted to know if it doesn't effect your caches and they way you cache, why bother bring it up here? Everyone caches different. And our "being friends" with said cachers has nothing to do with my curiosity.

[+Jack n' Bonny]

The methods that other cachers use generally don't effect me but this only bugs me in the aspect that there is sometimes a lot of work that goes into making a cache. So the number of caches others say they found doesn't effect us, but it takes meaning out of the caches we make when someone does not actually see it or do the work to grab it.

[+Cableguy]

Let's be clear....

- No, this caching "method" of upping numbers will not affect in any way the way I enjoy caching. Tomorrow I'll be out enjoying a walk somewhere finding and signing some log.

 

 

so why bother bringing it up?

 

Dita, please, if you're going to quote me, use the entire comment, don't cut out what you want, to suit your point. Geez.

And you're friends with the group I refer to, perhaps they would like to comment.

 

I didn't need to quote your whole post to simply ask a question. I just wanted to know if it doesn't effect your caches and they way you cache, why bother bring it up here? Everyone caches different. And our "being friends" with said cachers has nothing to do with my curiosity.

 

Fair enough. Most subjects in the forum don't affect the way you or I cache. But the forum is still alive with posts. Questions, comments, and opinions are sought and answered. I asked what folks thought of a certain practice. Simple. And I gave my opinion of it.

As a matter of fact, I asked a question about a subject that some wish would have been brought up sooner.

Why did I bring it up? Because it's there. Same reason a thousand points are brought up on the Forum page.

And I'm glad that I did bring it up. I now know that others feel the same way as I do.

[+Cubby&BigBear]

 

And I'm glad that I did bring it up. I now know that others feel the same way as I do.

 

Do you feel validated now?

[+Cableguy]

 

And I'm glad that I did bring it up. I now know that others feel the same way as I do.

 

Do you feel validated now?

 

By your definition, yes. And thank you for reminding me why I've stayed away from the Forum page. It turns too quickly from intelligent discussion to personal.

[+Cubby&BigBear]

Dude..... Seriously?? You've called out 6-12 cachers from NS and PEI (two smallest provinces in the country) with high numbers, who like to do big cache trips to NB. It's not exactly a large community. We know specifically who you are targeting. To say this wasnt personal when you first posted the question would be a falsehood.

You could have generalized in the original post, but you chose not to. YOU were the one who made it personal right from the get go.

[+Dita_Karcossa]

Dude..... Seriously?? You've called out 6-12 cachers from NS and PEI (two smallest provinces in the country) with high numbers, who like to do big cache trips to NB. It's not exactly a large community. We know specifically who you are targeting. To say this wasnt personal when you first posted the question would be a falsehood.

You could have generalized in the original post, but you chose not to. YOU were the one who made it personal right from the get go.

 

exactly

[+Cableguy]

I'm not sure what amuses me the most - the fact that some people might think a find is so valuable that they would take credit for cache they didn't help find or the fact that some people are so bothered by this.

 

At least I can see some logic in the first. These people actually believe they had a part of finding each cache. The analogy may be a search and rescue team that divides up the search area and has separated squads responsible for searching specific sectors. Maybe the squad that finds the missing person gets a special recognition, but more likely the entire team gets the credit for a successful search and rescue operation.

That isn't logic; it's a rationalization. As MissJenn from Groundspeak once wrote:

 

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

 

Miss Jenn does make is so simple.

 

I enjoyed all your points folks.

[+FunnyNose]

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

 

3. Sign the log.

Edited September 6, 2013 by FunnyNose

[+Don_J]

Dude..... Seriously?? You've called out 6-12 cachers from NS and PEI (two smallest provinces in the country) with high numbers, who like to do big cache trips to NB. It's not exactly a large community. We know specifically who you are targeting. To say this wasnt personal when you first posted the question would be a falsehood.

You could have generalized in the original post, but you chose not to. YOU were the one who made it personal right from the get go.

 

The OP did generalize. This is a world wide forum. Those us us who have commented had no idea the players involved and I really doubt that any of us cared. You put the names out and made it personal.

 

BTW, splitting up means that you are no longer a team but more than one team. Logging caches that the other team found is about as lame as logging your own caches, imo.

[+mikemtn]

I would be happy if Geocaching was what it was in 2001. All the discussions like this would never have happened.

[+forestfauna]

Numbers seem to matter most to this group. If it was just to have "fun", then why is it so important to log all the caches, even the ones your teammates found when you were finding a cache at the exact same time in a completely different location?

 

For those who say "numbers don't matter, we all play our game the way we want, etc." Numbers do matter. People in the caching community compare themselves to others. New cachers look at those with high numbers (5000, 10,000+ finds) in awe and reverence and refer to these individuals as "experts". Don't we all as cachers sit in awe of those with 20,000 finds on their profiles, wondering "Wow, how did they do that? That is awesome. Way to go!" or mention numbers in passing at events, meetings, etc.?

 

I don't understand the logic of the "split and cache" team logging. For me, the fun of caching is just as much the adventure of going to find the cache as it is the finding of the cache itself. It also flies in the face of what the basics of caching are: go to a location, find a cache, log the cache.

 

As for the accusations against Cableguy, to be fair, he did not start this whole issue; there is a lengthy discussion on a local facebook group where a number of individuals are aggravated at the practice, and some COs have deleted logs from these groups because of their practices. Cableguy was merely asking on this online forum is this was an acceptable practice in the geocaching community at large.

Edited September 6, 2013 by forestfauna