Bogus group logs?

[+MineRP]

Come on Guys, it's only a GAME, nothing more, nothing less. Someones numbers shouldn't bother you, regardless how they might play the game. It's for individuals to decide what they enjoy most, could be numbers, could be great locations, could be toughies, and the always popular, great hikes over several miles for a single find or the reverse, mall light standards, jesss. It's what works for you. As in any game, things can become competitive, it's only natural rules become stretched to benefit these cachers. It becomes a matter of how far you want to stretch what a find is, does the driver have to get out of the car, does one have to personally sign the log, is a group name acceptable, if someone else in the group finds it, does it count as a find, what about group FTF's, hmmm ..... If you want something to get upset about, try cachers who tear the baggie apart because they are in such a darn hurry, nearly destroy the log sheet in their quest, don't close the container properly, cachers who trade unfairly, cachers who don't replace caches as found, and my favoutite, cache owners who do no maintenance till the cache is finally archived.

Do we want GeoPolice hiding behind a tree ( likely a darn bushy spruce which the CO called a pine ) to verify who actually touched the container could be next. Have never checked a cache log to verify cachers, likely never will. It's simply just not that important. It tis but a GAME.

One of these days GC.Com could go out of business and all this will be gone.

Edited September 6, 2013 by MineRP

[+dprovan]

Come on Guys, it's only a GAME, nothing more, nothing less. Someones numbers shouldn't bother you, regardless how they might play the game.

I'm not bothered, I just think it's pathetic.

[+Madpuck]

Come on Guys, it's only a GAME, nothing more, nothing less. Someones numbers shouldn't bother you, regardless how they might play the game.

 

Actually I think many for this particular instance are assuming this was a caching group that cached together and that the rest of the group was nearby waiting in the car or on the trail. I've been part of those groups many times and I really have less of an issue with that type of caching because it's a great experience for a variety of reasons. But this particular instance is based around the fact that the rest of the group was off in another part of the city caching. I am one of those cache owners affected by this with several of my caches being logged during this caching raid and am at odds whether to delete some logs or not. But I can't confirm which caches were found by whom so I'll be leaving things as.

 

I also will not be painting the entire community with the same brush. This is the first circumstance I am have come across with this type of logging practice. To also comment on what Cubbie and another said that the members of this group are great people. Well great people bend the rules too and this isn't an attack on their personality when you talk to them but abusing what we as owners and as a community expect when we place our own caches. We place them for everyone to visit. If the game was played from the couch I suspect none of us here would be interested in playing for long. But if we reverse the roles and a group went and found their caches, well some of them while the rest was at the beach or another part of the city, then how would they feel?

 

Lastly a couple of mine had logging requirements so they will be getting a follow up email asking for at a minimum they complete the task that was asked. Cable guy merely asked the question, and some great responses were given from all sides.

 

I'll sum this up with what some have already commented. This does not affect how I CACHE, but it does affect how I am a CACHE OWNER!

Edited September 7, 2013 by Madpuck

[Clan Riffster]

YOU were the one who made it personal right from the get go.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but from over here in the cheap seats, the only ones I see doing any 'calling out' is you and Dita. Prior to you proclaiming for the world who this thread was about, the rest of the world had no clue. Right up until you two put your two cents in, the thread was pretty general.

 

Just sayin'

[+jim52]

I have lost a lot of respect for a few cachers whom I had previously respected.

after reading this topic.

 

I thought they each went to every cache.

 

I believe you have to go to every cache to log a find. ( To me it's cheating - yourself and other cachers alike. )

But everybody plays the game differently.

[ZeMartelo]

If this hobby is called a game then are there not rules?

I have never heard of a game without rules.

 

GC has a couple webpages dedicated to rules and guidelines, if everyone plays the game any way they want shouldn't GC just remove those pages?

What are they good for?

 

I dont know who this group is and Im not interested in finding out either, but what they are doing is wrong.

Am I offended? No I'm not but then I dont cache for the numbers but I understand where the frustration of the OP comes from.

 

We got to a point where we cant point out wrongdoing without people aggressively defending that behavior using all sort of excuses and tactics like the most classic ones : "It doesnt affect me" and "Its a game and anyone plays anyway they want".

There just arent anything that people do that is wrong anymore.

[4wheelin_fool]

YOU were the one who made it personal right from the get go.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but from over here in the cheap seats, the only ones I see doing any 'calling out' is you and Dita. Prior to you proclaiming for the world who this thread was about, the rest of the world had no clue. Right up until you two put your two cents in, the thread was pretty general.

 

Just sayin'

 

I had no idea either. I suppose he just outed himself. We've got your number, pal!

Edited September 7, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+SwineFlew]

Oh yea... gotta remind you all about what this guy said.

Edited September 7, 2013 by SwineFlew

[Clan Riffster]

Oh yea... gotta remind you all about what this guy said.

Best quote ever!

 

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find.

[+Dogmeat*]

Yep. I agree that a find means you go to the coordinates, you "FIND" the container, you sign the log. But if that's not the way someone else enjoys the game, who am I to call them down? Either way, we're both enjoying the game to our own capabilities and I think that's awesome.

[+DanOCan]

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.?

 

Nope. The only time I talk numbers at an event is if someone asks me how many caches I have found. And, most times the one asking about numbers is a new cacher. Those cachers who have been around awhile seem to understand that the numbers are meaningless. A new cacher can easily go out and do in a day the number of caches I did in my first three years. A smiley ain't worth much.

 

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.

 

I agree. I recently did a small power trail and the person I was caching with suggested doing the split up and leap frog method. I declined -- or, more specifically I said we could approach it that way but I would only log the caches I actually was at. I don't understand why I would want to log a cache I did not actually visit.

[+Ben0w]

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.?

 

Nope. The only time I talk numbers at an event is if someone asks me how many caches I have found. And, most times the one asking about numbers is a new cacher. Those cachers who have been around awhile seem to understand that the numbers are meaningless. A new cacher can easily go out and do in a day the number of caches I did in my first three years. A smiley ain't worth much.

FullACK. I'm not impressed by numbers since there are easy ways to get them high. It's the real experience what counts. If someone has good geocaching stories, then I'm impressed. Sometimes even if they're fake...

 

I know my personal numbers and that I have earned each point in my way. Others may question this, no problem, I can tell a story about each (and mostly did so in the log). If I feel/know that someone is faking numbers or getting them without actually sign the logbook, well, that's not my game and so we can't compare numbers. So simple.

[+Ben0w]

If this hobby is called a game then are there not rules?

I have never heard of a game without rules.

 

GC has a couple webpages dedicated to rules and guidelines, if everyone plays the game any way they want shouldn't GC just remove those pages?

What are they good for?

I can put a website and post "geocaching" rules as well. So?

 

Geocaching has no official instance setting up specific valid-for-all rules. Or, from another viewpoint, it has several instances (different websites of different organizations/companies) making up their own rules how to log a "FIND" on their database.

 

Who do you mean by "GC"? There is no such institution. If you mean Groundspeak ("GS"), that's just one company with their rules, affecting only their service (website, database, logging system). Most geocachers seem to agree that the basic set of rules is find the cache & log the logbook. Some common other rule is to log the find online (there where you found the coordinates). But even those rules are totally on your own and maybe on the rule-set for using the specific database/website.

 

You're totally free to play this game to your own rules (in general boundarirs of law & ethics, please)!

 

Just be aware that my geocaching game may be different...

 

BTW: that's exactly what impresses me about geocaching.

[+dprovan]

I agree. I recently did a small power trail and the person I was caching with suggested doing the split up and leap frog method. I declined -- or, more specifically I said we could approach it that way but I would only log the caches I actually was at. I don't understand why I would want to log a cache I did not actually visit.

I agree with you and wouldn't do anything like that, but I do at least understand the logic: if a cache is placed for no good reason other than to count as a find, then there's no good reason to actually go to it and sign the log.

[+geodarts]

I agree with you and wouldn't do anything like that, but I do at least understand the logic: if a cache is placed for no good reason other than to count as a find, then there's no good reason to actually go to it and sign the log.

 

I started to wonder when people began writing cache descriptions that stated that a cache was being placed because was a lack of caches in that particular parking lot. But if there is no reason to actually go to it, there is no reason to log it online. For that matter, there is no reason to have my friends find it for me when I am some place else if it comes down to a cut and paste log. It's just contributing to digital clutter.

 

So yes, people can play the game in different ways but I am not sure what game is being played with the practices described. Fortunately I have never been in awe of anyone's numbers. If anything, I think that people with significantly higher numbers than mine should take up another hobby - spend more time on the golf course, go urban exploring in abandoned buildings, take photos of graffiti, write the Great American Paragraph. Life is too short to be too obsessed with any one thing. And it's definitely too short to be logging finds that you did not find.

[4wheelin_fool]

I agree. I recently did a small power trail and the person I was caching with suggested doing the split up and leap frog method. I declined -- or, more specifically I said we could approach it that way but I would only log the caches I actually was at. I don't understand why I would want to log a cache I did not actually visit.

I agree with you and wouldn't do anything like that, but I do at least understand the logic: if a cache is placed for no good reason other than to count as a find, then there's no good reason to actually go to it and sign the log.

 

Why? They are the pac-man. Instead of moving a joystick and looking on a screen, they are getting points by traveling outdoors in parking lots. If a muggle or landowner gets them before they reenergize, they are done.

[+SwineFlew]

I agree. I recently did a small power trail and the person I was caching with suggested doing the split up and leap frog method. I declined -- or, more specifically I said we could approach it that way but I would only log the caches I actually was at. I don't understand why I would want to log a cache I did not actually visit.

I agree with you and wouldn't do anything like that, but I do at least understand the logic: if a cache is placed for no good reason other than to count as a find, then there's no good reason to actually go to it and sign the log.

 

Why? They are the pac-man. Instead of moving a joystick and looking on a screen, they are getting points by traveling outdoors in parking lots. If a muggle or landowner gets them before they reenergize, they are done.

Uh huh! Its all for points...

[Clan Riffster]

I agree. I recently did a small power trail and the person I was caching with suggested doing the split up and leap frog method. I declined -- or, more specifically I said we could approach it that way but I would only log the caches I actually was at. I don't understand why I would want to log a cache I did not actually visit.

I agree with you and wouldn't do anything like that, but I do at least understand the logic: if a cache is placed for no good reason other than to count as a find, then there's no good reason to actually go to it and sign the log.

 

Why? They are the pac-man. Instead of moving a joystick and looking on a screen, they are getting points by traveling outdoors in parking lots. If a muggle or landowner gets them before they reenergize, they are done.

Am I the only one that makes the "wocka wocka wocka" sound in my head whenever someone mentions Pac-Man?

[+The Jester]

I agree. I recently did a small power trail and the person I was caching with suggested doing the split up and leap frog method. I declined -- or, more specifically I said we could approach it that way but I would only log the caches I actually was at. I don't understand why I would want to log a cache I did not actually visit.

I agree with you and wouldn't do anything like that, but I do at least understand the logic: if a cache is placed for no good reason other than to count as a find, then there's no good reason to actually go to it and sign the log.

 

Why? They are the pac-man. Instead of moving a joystick and looking on a screen, they are getting points by traveling outdoors in parking lots. If a muggle or landowner gets them before they reenergize, they are done.

Am I the only one that makes the "wocka wocka wocka" sound in my head whenever someone mentions Pac-Man?

Yes.