Northeast Ohio Cachers With "Extra Finds"

[+geocat_]

I live in Ohio but in the south west part of the state. I did notice that the cachers in the opposite end of the state seem to have some extraordinary "habits" of logging events multiple times, sometimes hundreds of times for one single event. Is this "style" of caching popular elsewhere? I am also curious how it got started. Was it an individual, group, organization? Seems really silly to me to log hundreds of finds on an event so I would love someone to convince me that I am the silly one.

[+briansnat]

It tends to be a regional thing. It's not done most places, but there are some pockets where it's common. Personally I think it's just a cheesy way to pump find counts, as well as get around the cache placement guidelines.

[+lamoracke]

Only caches that I think are semi-kosher to log multiple finds on to that extent are the Canadian benchmark Brass Cap virtual and the one that is equivalent in the Western Europe. I wish those were not listed as virtuals personally but I can see the value in those. Logging the same event 100+ times seems really cheesy to me too.

 

Want to list multiple temporary caches on the site, fine, but you did not attend that event over 100 times.

 

Have not seen that in the PNW.

[Mr.Yuck]

It's quite regional, and has died out over the years. It's pretty much seen only in NE Ohio, The West Virginia Panhandle, and Western, Pa. these days. I suppose it is the about that time of year for "temporary virtuals" for walking around looking at animated Christmas displays, isn't it?

[+St.Matthew]

I live in the area of abuse mentioned. While some of my friends do this, I couldn't disagree more.

[+Dame Deco]

I live in NE Ohio, and for the first 3 events with multiple logging I attended, I went ahead and did the same since seasoned cachers were telling me that that was how it was done. I haven't done it in over two years since I found out that it was considered quite unusual. But I didn't go back and delete any of those logs--it would have messed up my milestone caches. I really couldn't care less if my found caches and unique caches don't mesh. I go to events and have fun with people who log over 100 while I'm logging one. They're my friends--I don't care how they log events, it does no harm, and they're fun, great people who have taught me a lot about caching. Some of them make epic caches themselves--really great hides, containers, and puzzles. So what does it matter if they follow a tradition multi-logging events?

[+The_Incredibles_]

Hundreds of times? That sounds dumb.

[Pup Patrol]

Why don't they do those Lab Caches instead of "temporary" ones?

 

Logging an "attended" more than once doesn't seem the same as actual "found it" logs, but it's apparently still popular:

 

http://coord.info/GC4T2F4

 

For even more fun and frolic, there will be some new temporary caches placed for the event, plus a few of the temporary caches from past Geocache-olas.

 

 

 

B.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Pup Patrol

[+Mudfrog]

Logging extra attends on events is something i've never understood. You attend an event once. Finding temporary caches is fun but because they are temporary, they aren't published and therefore not loggable on gc.com. Just not sure why i would think i need to log something that isn't even recognized by this website.

 

That being said, it's no skin off my back if someone else does it. However, i may let out a little snicker if i witness it.

[+Fridge01]

Groundspeak stopped publishing temporary caches a few years ago because it was too much work for the reviewers. Some regions liked to host events with temporary caches and they were not happy when this practice was discontinued. Posting multiple logs for the event was their loophole to get credit for all of their finds associated with the event. Groundspeak allowed this loophole to continue, possibly as a compromise for not supporting temporary caches. But some opportunists saw how easy it was and started posting multiple logs to pad their numbers when they didn't actually find anything.

[Mr.Yuck]

I live in NE Ohio, and for the first 3 events with multiple logging I attended, I went ahead and did the same since seasoned cachers were telling me that that was how it was done. I haven't done it in over two years since I found out that it was considered quite unusual. But I didn't go back and delete any of those logs--it would have messed up my milestone caches. I really couldn't care less if my found caches and unique caches don't mesh. I go to events and have fun with people who log over 100 while I'm logging one. They're my friends--I don't care how they log events, it does no harm, and they're fun, great people who have taught me a lot about caching. Some of them make epic caches themselves--really great hides, containers, and puzzles. So what does it matter if they follow a tradition multi-logging events?

 

Sure, their your friends and they're great people. I have a couple Geo friends who attend some of those events (I'm about 100 miles from the edge of the "multi-logging zone") and log them. But great people can sometimes do silly things. Like force archival of other people's caches.

 

 

Groundspeak stopped publishing temporary caches a few years ago because it was too much work for the reviewers. Some regions liked to host events with temporary caches and they were not happy when this practice was discontinued. Posting multiple logs for the event was their loophole to get credit for all of their finds associated with the event. Groundspeak allowed this loophole to continue, possibly as a compromise for not supporting temporary caches. But some opportunists saw how easy it was and started posting multiple logs to pad their numbers when they didn't actually find anything.

 

I would say that's accurate, but keeping in mind Groungspeak allowing the "loophole" happened in 2002, or 2003. The "opportunist" didn't come along for many, many years. People in 2003 weren't engaging in absurd practices like logging an event 125 times for finding caches 200 feet apart that obviously don't meet the guidelines. (The well-known annual "fall event"), or logging an event 75 times for calling Christmas displays virtuals and walking around looking at them, 8 years after this website stopped allowing new virtuals.

[GrandPotentate]

As someone who lives in North Central Ohio, I will share my experiences with multiple attended logs on events. It is something that is done mostly in the Northeastern part of the state, but it is done to a lesser extent in NCO as well. However, in NCO there are typically only one or two temporary caches hidden. I strongly disagree with the practice and choose not to participate . I would even go as far as to remove any temporary caches placed at an event that I was hosting and delete any multiple attended logs for that event.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Keystone
removed quote of deleted post

[+briansnat]

Groundspeak stopped publishing temporary caches a few years ago because it was too much work for the reviewers. Some regions liked to host events with temporary caches and they were not happy when this practice was discontinued. Posting multiple logs for the event was their loophole to get credit for all of their finds associated with the event. Groundspeak allowed this loophole to continue, possibly as a compromise for not supporting temporary caches. But some opportunists saw how easy it was and started posting multiple logs to pad their numbers when they didn't actually find anything.

 

I've been around a while and I don't recall temporary caches being allowed. Sure in the beginning there was no specific prohibition in the guidelines. That's because at one time events were about socializing, not increasing numbers, so it probably didn't occur to TPTB that such a guideline was necessary. However as soon as the practice started popping it was squelched. That was more than a "few years ago" in geocaching terms.

Edited December 9, 2013 by briansnat

[+Andromeda321]

I lived in NE Ohio for seven years and first started geocaching there. For those curious the caches logged so many times fall into two categories:

 

1) Monthly recurring event caches where instead of making a new event cache each month they've been using one and just changing the date/location as needed (example here). So this event I have logged several times because of the way it's set up- though it's annoying because I still get the announcements for this cache even though I moved away from the area nearly 3 years ago!

 

2) Basically creating a bunch of temporary caches for an event and logging them- this is how you can sometimes see people logging one event dozens or even hundreds of times. There used to be one annual event in an oval where people would walk around it and there were "caches" placed practically right next to each other, so you'd get 50 caches out of it... Never did that myself.

 

Hope that helps shed a little light on it.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Andromeda321

[+Walts Hunting]

Why don't they do those Lab Caches instead of "temporary" ones?

 

Logging an "attended" more than once doesn't seem the same as actual "found it" logs, but it's apparently still popular:

 

http://coord.info/GC4T2F4

 

For even more fun and frolic, there will be some new temporary caches placed for the event, plus a few of the temporary caches from past Geocache-olas.

 

B.

Probably since only the froggie can approve them and they count as a find but do not show up in your statistics which has caused great angst for some people and even a couple of cases of " knickers in a bunch" recently.

[+Mudfrog]

I lived in NE Ohio for seven years and first started geocaching there. For those curious the caches logged so many times fall into two categories:

 

1) Monthly recurring event caches where instead of making a new event cache each month they've been using one and just changing the date/location as needed (example here). So this event I have logged several times because of the way it's set up- though it's annoying because I still get the announcements for this cache even though I moved away from the area nearly 3 years ago!

 

I've heard of these and have to ask why an event would be set up to re-occur in this way? I imagine there is a reason but i'm just not seeing it.

 

The only thing i can think of is that it doesn't get posted as a new event and therefore doesn't send out notifications. Is it possible that the event organizer only wants certain people who know about the event to attend? Just curious is all,,,

[+Andromeda321]

I lived in NE Ohio for seven years and first started geocaching there. For those curious the caches logged so many times fall into two categories:

 

1) Monthly recurring event caches where instead of making a new event cache each month they've been using one and just changing the date/location as needed (example here). So this event I have logged several times because of the way it's set up- though it's annoying because I still get the announcements for this cache even though I moved away from the area nearly 3 years ago!

 

I've heard of these and have to ask why an event would be set up to re-occur in this way? I imagine there is a reason but i'm just not seeing it.

 

The only thing i can think of is that it doesn't get posted as a new event and therefore doesn't send out notifications. Is it possible that the event organizer only wants certain people who know about the event to attend? Just curious is all,,,

 

Honestly probably nothing more than just that's the way it's been set up originally so they keep doing it that way.

 

That and the one I linked is by now historically the oldest-running event cache IRC, and was set up by a geocacher who died prematurely so I think they partly just keep it going in his memory.

[sloshoe]

Sounds like the next best thing to "arm chair geocaching"!

If numbers are so important to someone thats the way to do it.

To me thats like cheating while you playing solitire.

But everyone can play this game by there own rules ie "to each there own way".

[+The Leprechauns]

I've been to several events in Northeast Ohio, and enjoyed the people and the events very much. I also enjoyed finding some temporary caches set up for the event, walking around with friends.

 

I discovered that my enjoyment was not diminished by the fact that I logged "attended" just once, while the people I was with logged each temporary event cache as multiple attended logs. They are still nice people, just with funny stats pages.

 

I think regions like this would welcome a new "temporary event cache" type, currently being experimented with in the Laboratory. Unfortunately, for right now Lab Caches are only available for Mega-Event organizers. Hopefully the 2014 Midwest GeoBash and the 2014 MOGA Mega-Events -- both in Ohio -- will demonstrate this concept for the benefit of all Ohio geocachers. I sure enjoyed the Lab Caches that I found at Block Party last summer.

[+baack40]

I attended a couple of those type events just this year. I hesitantly logged one of them that way but skipped doing it the second time at the other event. People we went with did log them and that's fine with me. I just didn't feel right about it. I am considering removing my logs from the first event too. We did walk around the town and gather all the information we needed but still don't feel quite right about it. If a person waits until others log them they don't even have to gather the information as it is posted on the site. I know for a fact a couple of cachers that logged the event and the caches and weren't even there. I saw someone else sign their names to the events and heard them telling someone else that those people weren't able to come but they logged them in anyways. They all happened to be from the area you are speaking of.

 

Some of those people came to an event last year in our area and were found cheating to get a Geocoin for the event but no one confronted them. Didn't want to make waves I guess, so let them get by with it. I think the organizers are trying to come up with a way to stop the cheating. All I can say to them is good luck with that.

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't think Lab Caches are caches at all, or any more valid than logging an event multiple times due to finding temporary, unlisted containers. Many of the Lab caches are not containers, nor do they contain logbooks. Although I'm sure that he meant well, the Lackey that introduced them also has very little geocaching experience. They seem like fun, but finding random codewords written on objects sets a bad precedent for traditionals which may be converted to that (albeit illegally). The name "Lab Caches", and the absence from stats, is also indicative that they are mostly an experiment to see if they are received well, as the number of areas that participates in multiple event logging is dwindling anyhow.

[Mr.Yuck]

I attended a couple of those type events just this year. I hesitantly logged one of them that way but skipped doing it the second time at the other event. People we went with did log them and that's fine with me. I just didn't feel right about it. I am considering removing my logs from the first event too. We did walk around the town and gather all the information we needed but still don't feel quite right about it. If a person waits until others log them they don't even have to gather the information as it is posted on the site. I know for a fact a couple of cachers that logged the event and the caches and weren't even there. I saw someone else sign their names to the events and heard them telling someone else that those people weren't able to come but they logged them in anyways. They all happened to be from the area you are speaking of.

 

The infamous "walk around and look at Christmas displays" event. I'm not bashing here (at least not in this post ). So what you are saying is you do have to walk around and gather some information at each display, but everyone just puts it in their logs anyways?

[Mr.Yuck]

I lived in NE Ohio for seven years and first started geocaching there. For those curious the caches logged so many times fall into two categories:

 

1) Monthly recurring event caches where instead of making a new event cache each month they've been using one and just changing the date/location as needed (example here). So this event I have logged several times because of the way it's set up- though it's annoying because I still get the announcements for this cache even though I moved away from the area nearly 3 years ago!

 

I've heard of these and have to ask why an event would be set up to re-occur in this way? I imagine there is a reason but i'm just not seeing it.

 

The only thing i can think of is that it doesn't get posted as a new event and therefore doesn't send out notifications. Is it possible that the event organizer only wants certain people who know about the event to attend? Just curious is all,,,

 

Honestly probably nothing more than just that's the way it's been set up originally so they keep doing it that way.

 

That and the one I linked is by now historically the oldest-running event cache IRC, and was set up by a geocacher who died prematurely so I think they partly just keep it going in his memory.

 

Eh, I don't think too many people would have a problem with a recurring event that you keep logging on the same page every month you show up. There is one, not in my area, but I'd say about 60 miles away. I have heard a few wisecracks about it over the years, but I'd say no big deal. No clue why it's set up that way though.

[+baack40]

I attended a couple of those type events just this year. I hesitantly logged one of them that way but skipped doing it the second time at the other event. People we went with did log them and that's fine with me. I just didn't feel right about it. I am considering removing my logs from the first event too. We did walk around the town and gather all the information we needed but still don't feel quite right about it. If a person waits until others log them they don't even have to gather the information as it is posted on the site. I know for a fact a couple of cachers that logged the event and the caches and weren't even there. I saw someone else sign their names to the events and heard them telling someone else that those people weren't able to come but they logged them in anyways. They all happened to be from the area you are speaking of.

 

The infamous "walk around and look at Christmas displays" event. I'm not bashing here (at least not in this post ). So what you are saying is you do have to walk around and gather some information at each display, but everyone just puts it in their logs anyways?

Yup, you got it. Not sure what information was needed last year or if it was the same. Never checked. But yes, when you post you state the information in your post which I thought was pretty stupid, but followed along. I would think you should at least have to turn a sheet in on it or something but nope that's not the way it was set up. I won't do it again I know that. But was an interesting day I must admit. I enjoyed it without the temporary caches. I really am thinking about deleting those caches from my page. I was concerned about the 7 ununique caches prior that I couldn't figure out what they were but now have a whole lot more. LOL Oh well, guess in the realm of things it really doesn't matter. I know of several people who have logged hundreds of temporary caches and I don't think it really matters. It was fun, and I probably wouldn't have gone to the town to see the displays without geocaching introducing it to me so...

[+Dame Deco]

At the big fall event that typically has over 100 temps to log, it's set up in 4 or so loops around the Nature Center. Only one of them has super easy, you can see them from way off type caches--they are usually funny and great for kids, I think of it as the family loop. The other 3 loops are usually tougher, and I've been with groups who couldn't even find some the caches--good hides. It typically takes people a good bit of the day, and it's really the major get together in the area--everyone sees old friends, makes new ones, and goes out walking together--it's a beautiful area. I just log it as one find, most log every temp they find, and really--everyone just has a great time. I don't see any harm in it.

[+wimseyguy]

I don't think Lab Caches are caches at all, or any more valid than logging an event multiple times due to finding temporary, unlisted containers. Many of the Lab caches are not containers, nor do they contain logbooks. Although I'm sure that he meant well, the Lackey that introduced them also has very little geocaching experience. They seem like fun, but finding random codewords written on objects sets a bad precedent for traditionals which may be converted to that (albeit illegally). The name "Lab Caches", and the absence from stats, is also indicative that they are mostly an experiment to see if they are received well, as the number of areas that participates in multiple event logging is dwindling anyhow.

 

Please excuse this tangential response to clarify some misinformation. I don't see any lab cache finds on your profile. Perhaps you have attended one of the few events that has had them available but opted to not log them? Or perhaps you haven't seen them in the field yet?

 

AFAIK the intent of Lab Caches is to have containers and logs, but they are intended to be temporary. I have found two sets of Lab Caches, the ones set out for the Hampton Roads VA Labor Day picnic, and the ones set out for Geocoinfest in Las Vegas. The one in VA most certainly had containers and log books; the code words were also there so they could be logged online at the website. That group focused on historic locations within the park where the event was held. The theme of the Vegas ones was As Seen on TV and focused on the locations from several TV shows including Diners Dives and Drive-ins, Pawn Stars, and Tanked. Those did not have any containers or logs. I was told that the reason was the business owners did not want the containers placed for the short lifespan of the cache listings. So they only had code words. I believe the ones deployed for the Hatfield & McCoy Mega also had containers and logs as did the original ones at the Block Party.

 

I now return you to the regularly scheduled discussion of the 'extra finds/attended logs in NE Ohio and elsewhere.

 

The reasons for the excessive multiple logging in some regions are a bit different but do share one thing in common. The people placing and logging them care a lot about their own numbers and those of the cachers around them. Perhaps the Lab Caches will be an appropriate addition to the events there. But only to the mega events, not the regular regional ones. So unless the cachers in those areas change their habits, or the website changes the way things can be logged, it is unlikely that this will change any time soon.

Edited December 9, 2013 by wimseyguy

[+tomturtle]

This topic has been around a long time so I thought I would do some research to see what TPTB said about it in the past. I only found this: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=134448&view=findpost&p=2268274

 

It doesn't quite answer the OP's question, but it does show that it was intended to be left up to the cache or event owner. I don't know if that has changed at all since then.

[+UMainah]

I was concerned about the 7 ununique caches prior that I couldn't figure out what they were but now have a whole lot more.

Here ya go:

http://project-gc.com/Profile/findbadlogs/?profile_name=baack40&submit=Filter

GC4JG3C

GC2H8AG

GC3KQQG

GC164JA

GC212TT

GC17XVC

GC1Y785

 

[JASTA 11]

It scores a perfect five out of five on the cheesiness scale:

 

[+frinklabs]

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4JG3C_cambridge-christmas-at-dickens-village-iv

 

How does something like that get published?

 

The "event" accepts logs dated not on the day of the "event"

 

This "event" appears to be for the purposes of caching -- it has multiple waypoints of the "stages of a multicache" type.

 

Guidelines, section II, subsection 2, item 6 paragraph 3:

An event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together geocachers for an organized geocache search.

 

Guidelines, section II, subsection 2, item 6 paragraph 4:

If an event is already organized outside of the geocaching community, and/or it would take place regardless whether or not it is listed on Geocaching.com, it is likely not an event cache.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4JG3C_cambridge-christmas-at-dickens-village-iv

 

How does something like that get published?

 

The "event" accepts logs dated not on the day of the "event"

 

This "event" appears to be for the purposes of caching -- it has multiple waypoints of the "stages of a multicache" type.

 

Guidelines, section II, subsection 2, item 6 paragraph 3:

An event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together geocachers for an organized geocache search.

 

Guidelines, section II, subsection 2, item 6 paragraph 4:

If an event is already organized outside of the geocaching community, and/or it would take place regardless whether or not it is listed on Geocaching.com, it is likely not an event cache.

 

Because of this

Come join us to admire the beauty, celebrate the season, swap cache talk with new and old friends

[Mr.Yuck]

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4JG3C_cambridge-christmas-at-dickens-village-iv

 

How does something like that get published?

 

The "event" accepts logs dated not on the day of the "event"

 

This "event" appears to be for the purposes of caching -- it has multiple waypoints of the "stages of a multicache" type.

 

Guidelines, section II, subsection 2, item 6 paragraph 3:

An event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together geocachers for an organized geocache search.

 

Guidelines, section II, subsection 2, item 6 paragraph 4:

If an event is already organized outside of the geocaching community, and/or it would take place regardless whether or not it is listed on Geocaching.com, it is likely not an event cache.

 

Well, I know you hail from a Province where there has been known to have been a strict interpretation of the guidelines in the past. You know what? I think it's hard to argue with you there, that the walk around and look at Christmas displays event is held for caching purposes. But that was the 4th one, and I don't see anyone changing their interpretation anytime soon. Similarly, for the "find 125 temporary caches 200 feet apart" annual event, it could be argued that is held for caching purposes.

 

This topic has been around a long time so I thought I would do some research to see what TPTB said about it in the past. I only found this: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=134448&view=findpost&p=2268274

 

It doesn't quite answer the OP's question, but it does show that it was intended to be left up to the cache or event owner. I don't know if that has changed at all since then.

 

Nope, this hasn't changed, or people wouldn't be allowed to find temporary virtuals 8 years after this website stopped accepting virtual cache submissions. It's up to the event host. It's just that almost all these event hosts are in a small Geographic region spanning parts of 3 States in the United States, and pretty much no where else. The practice used to actually be much more widespread, but had died over the years. The reason? I'd say mostly "dudes that's cheesy" peer pressure.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The actual humor here is when Groundspeak change the label from 'found' to 'attended'. They are not logging that they 'found' the event a hundred times or more. They are logging that they have 'attended' the event a hundred times or more. 'Found' was cheesy. 'Attended' is bizarre! You attended the event a hundred times?!?!?

[+baack40]

I was concerned about the 7 ununique caches prior that I couldn't figure out what they were but now have a whole lot more.

Here ya go:

http://project-gc.com/Profile/findbadlogs/?profile_name=baack40&submit=Filter

GC4JG3C

GC2H8AG

GC3KQQG

GC164JA

GC212TT

GC17XVC

GC1Y785

Hey, thanks so much. I just learned of project gc.com a while ago and had trouble figuring out how to navigate it so gave up. Computer dummy here. LOL I checked a couple of them and can't figure out where the two logs are. Maybe just missed them in my scrolling. Will keep checking but now I wonder if it will mess up my milestones. Hmmm will have to check into that one and see if there is a way to lock the milestone caches. I read somewhere that you could but not sure which program it was.

 

Again, thanks so much for taking the time to look them up for me.

[+UMainah]

I was concerned about the 7 ununique caches prior that I couldn't figure out what they were but now have a whole lot more.

Here ya go:

http://project-gc.co...0&submit=Filter

GC4JG3C

GC2H8AG

GC3KQQG

GC164JA

GC212TT

GC17XVC

GC1Y785

Hey, thanks so much. I just learned of project gc.com a while ago and had trouble figuring out how to navigate it so gave up. Computer dummy here. LOL I checked a couple of them and can't figure out where the two logs are. Maybe just missed them in my scrolling. Will keep checking but now I wonder if it will mess up my milestones. Hmmm will have to check into that one and see if there is a way to lock the milestone caches. I read somewhere that you could but not sure which program it was.

 

Again, thanks so much for taking the time to look them up for me.

Interestingly it seems you have sometimes found the same caches twice with months in-between logs.

 

It will change your milestones. If you want to lock them you can do so here: http://www.geocachin...stics_edit.aspx

Edited December 10, 2013 by UMainah

[GrandPotentate]

http://www.geocachin...kens-village-iv

 

How does something like that get published?

 

The "event" accepts logs dated not on the day of the "event"

 

This "event" appears to be for the purposes of caching -- it has multiple waypoints of the "stages of a multicache" type.

 

Guidelines, section II, subsection 2, item 6 paragraph 3:

An event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together geocachers for an organized geocache search.

 

Guidelines, section II, subsection 2, item 6 paragraph 4:

If an event is already organized outside of the geocaching community, and/or it would take place regardless whether or not it is listed on Geocaching.com, it is likely not an event cache.

If you read the description carefully, you will notice that the CO was very careful in their wording so that the cache would meet all of the requirements.

Come join us to admire the beauty, celebrate the season, swap cache talk with new and old friends, and find approximately 80 temp caches along the way.

It also appears that the city doesn't have any official event, but simply has transportation for people who choose to view the displays (probably for traffic concerns).

[+briansnat]

The actual humor here is when Groundspeak change the label from 'found' to 'attended'. They are not logging that they 'found' the event a hundred times or more. They are logging that they have 'attended' the event a hundred times or more. 'Found' was cheesy. 'Attended' is bizarre! You attended the event a hundred times?!?!?

 

I guess you can repeatedly leave then go back.

 

Oddly enough I've seen some people defend this because they claimed to bere sticklers for accurate stats and want every cache they found to be counted. Those same people however have no problem with their stats showing that the "attended" 400 events, when they actually only went to 5.

Edited December 10, 2013 by briansnat

[+Glenn]

It tends to be a regional thing. It's not done most places, but there are some pockets where it's common. Personally I think it's just a cheesy way to pump find counts, as well as get around the cache placement guidelines.

 

Doing things the "right" way isn't without angst either. I seem to recall recent topic where a member of a geocaching group got bent out of shape when he was coerced to archive one of his caches. A cache that he placed for an event that a group that he is a member of put on. The reason for the archive request from the group, that AFAIK he is still a member of, is to make room for caches for this years event by the same group that ran the event years ago.

 

I don't think Lab Caches are caches at all, or any more valid than logging an event multiple times due to finding temporary, unlisted containers. Many of the Lab caches are not containers, nor do they contain logbooks. Although I'm sure that he meant well, the Lackey that introduced them also has very little geocaching experience. They seem like fun, but finding random codewords written on objects sets a bad precedent for traditionals which may be converted to that (albeit illegally). The name "Lab Caches", and the absence from stats, is also indicative that they are mostly an experiment to see if they are received well, as the number of areas that participates in multiple event logging is dwindling anyhow.

 

Have you participated in any Lab Caches or is your view from what other people have described to you? I do agree with you and I wasn't really impressed when I found a Lab Cache code spray painted on a support for a bridge. I logged it and then didn't care to search for the rest at the event. But from what I saw they were well received.

 

Event sponsors want to place temp caches and those attending events want those caches to show in their stats. Those that want this bad enough go to unusual and silly measures like logging events, or other caches, multiple times. I'd like to see some kind of logable temp cache type that don't count toward your overall found caches and are tied to event caches. I think that it would have helped to avoid the kind of angst that is going on in New Jersey right now.

[JASTA 11]

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4JG3C_cambridge-christmas-at-dickens-village-iv

 

Wicked, freakin' lame.

 

I tried to scroll down to see which reviewer would have published it but my computer couldn't handle skipping past 4,000+ logs and it locked up.

 

I just don't get it.

[+Dame Deco]

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4JG3C_cambridge-christmas-at-dickens-village-iv

 

Wicked, freakin' lame.

 

I tried to scroll down to see which reviewer would have published it but my computer couldn't handle skipping past 4,000+ logs and it locked up.

 

I just don't get it.

 

No need to be melodramatic--just click on logbook, then the last page, and there it is--no need to scroll.

[Keystone]

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4JG3C_cambridge-christmas-at-dickens-village-iv

 

Wicked, freakin' lame.

 

I tried to scroll down to see which reviewer would have published it but my computer couldn't handle skipping past 4,000+ logs and it locked up.

 

I just don't get it.

There was no basis for the reviewer to deny publication of this event. It meets the event listing guidelines because the cache page says "swap cache talk with new and old friends," and "We are going to supply some coffee, hot chocolate, and cookies for participants." A specific place is identified for geocachers to gather, with the food to be available between 3 and 4 p.m. That is 45 minutes longer than the typical "flash mob."

 

Note that there is NOTHING in the cache description requiring or encouraging the logging of the temporary event caches as additional "Attended" logs on the listing. Even if there were, it is not the volunteer cache reviewer's job to control this. There are no special "Additional Logging Requirements" associated with attending the event itself from 3:00 to 4:00 and then logging a single "Attended." From the reviewer's perspective, that is the end of the analysis for the event cache listing.

 

Are you saying that reviewers should say "no" to an event if they think it's cheesy or tacky? Cuz then I've published my last Flash Mob. Yay me! Who cares if thousands of other people enjoy them? [insert Sarcastic Signal emoticon here.]

 

EDIT: To provide full disclosure, please note that I previously posted to this topic using my player account, to express a personal opinion as a player. This post expresses my opinion solely as a reviewer. Because I have posted opinions under both accounts, in the event that any Forum Moderator action is required in this thread later on, I am ineligible to perform moderating duties.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Keystone

[JASTA 11]

Nope. No drama, mellow or otherwise.

 

But, how's this for a stat page:

 

(From one of the merry virtual temporary event loggers)

 

 

That's 744 duplicate finds. Of course at 80 or so 'attended's per event, that's only about nine to ten events I suppose.

[JASTA 11]

[quote name='Keystone' timestamp='1386697609' post='5329210'

 

Are you saying that reviewers should say "no" to an event if they think it's cheesy or tacky?

 

No, I didn't say that. You're trying to put words into my mouth.

 

I stated that I tried to scroll down to see who published it.

 

No need to jump.

[Keystone]

You didn't say "who published it?" -- you said "who would have published it?" Those are two very different statements. The first is a question of fact and the second statement implies that the person publishing the event did something wrong. They didn't.

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't think Lab Caches are caches at all, or any more valid than logging an event multiple times due to finding temporary, unlisted containers. Many of the Lab caches are not containers, nor do they contain logbooks. Although I'm sure that he meant well, the Lackey that introduced them also has very little geocaching experience. They seem like fun, but finding random codewords written on objects sets a bad precedent for traditionals which may be converted to that (albeit illegally). The name "Lab Caches", and the absence from stats, is also indicative that they are mostly an experiment to see if they are received well, as the number of areas that participates in multiple event logging is dwindling anyhow.

 

Please excuse this tangential response to clarify some misinformation. I don't see any lab cache finds on your profile. Perhaps you have attended one of the few events that has had them available but opted to not log them? Or perhaps you haven't seen them in the field yet?

 

AFAIK the intent of Lab Caches is to have containers and logs, but they are intended to be temporary. I have found two sets of Lab Caches, the ones set out for the Hampton Roads VA Labor Day picnic, and the ones set out for Geocoinfest in Las Vegas. The one in VA most certainly had containers and log books; the code words were also there so they could be logged online at the website. That group focused on historic locations within the park where the event was held. The theme of the Vegas ones was As Seen on TV and focused on the locations from several TV shows including Diners Dives and Drive-ins, Pawn Stars, and Tanked. Those did not have any containers or logs. I was told that the reason was the business owners did not want the containers placed for the short lifespan of the cache listings. So they only had code words. I believe the ones deployed for the Hatfield & McCoy Mega also had containers and logs as did the original ones at the Block Party.

 

 

I have not found any Lab Caches, and if I did I wouldn't log them. Many have been described as devoid of containers and logs, and that is what I wrote. No misinformation about it. My opinion is that they are as cheesy as logging an event over and over. Whether its Groundspeak's official cheese, or some Ohio traditional homemade brand, it's still cheese. They appear to be entertaining, and should appear on the profile page, but not count as finds IMO.

[JASTA 11]

You didn't say "who published it?" -- you said "who would have published it?" Those are two very different statements. The first is a question of fact and the second statement implies that the person publishing the event did something wrong. They didn't.

 

You got me there. Poor choice of words on my part.

 

My interest is in seeing if these events, where it seems to be common practice to log multiple 'attended' logs as a way of crediting finds for temporary caches, are all going through the same reviewer.

 

It has been suggested earlier that these practices are common in this locale. If so, my question would be why hasn't it been addressed?

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't think Lab Caches are caches at all, or any more valid than logging an event multiple times due to finding temporary, unlisted containers. Many of the Lab caches are not containers, nor do they contain logbooks. Although I'm sure that he meant well, the Lackey that introduced them also has very little geocaching experience. They seem like fun, but finding random codewords written on objects sets a bad precedent for traditionals which may be converted to that (albeit illegally). The name "Lab Caches", and the absence from stats, is also indicative that they are mostly an experiment to see if they are received well, as the number of areas that participates in multiple event logging is dwindling anyhow.

 

Have you participated in any Lab Caches or is your view from what other people have described to you? I do agree with you and I wasn't really impressed when I found a Lab Cache code spray painted on a support for a bridge. I logged it and then didn't care to search for the rest at the event. But from what I saw they were well received.

 

Event sponsors want to place temp caches and those attending events want those caches to show in their stats. Those that want this bad enough go to unusual and silly measures like logging events, or other caches, multiple times. I'd like to see some kind of logable temp cache type that don't count toward your overall found caches and are tied to event caches. I think that it would have helped to avoid the kind of angst that is going on in New Jersey right now.

 

I agree.

 

Did the code that was painted on a bridge support appear to be painted by Groundpeak, or by someone else? This is the exact reason that codeword caches area bad idea.

[+BruceS]

You didn't say "who published it?" -- you said "who would have published it?" Those are two very different statements. The first is a question of fact and the second statement implies that the person publishing the event did something wrong. They didn't.

 

You got me there. Poor choice of words on my part.

 

My interest is in seeing if these events, where it seems to be common practice to log multiple 'attended' logs as a way of crediting finds for temporary caches, are all going through the same reviewer.

 

It has been suggested earlier that these practices are common in this locale. If so, my question would be why hasn't it been addressed?

 

Putting a little historical perceptive on this, the first one was probably reviewed by Jeremy. It was in the spring of 2002. Temporary caches were submitted for an event in Illinois and declined by him. He came in the forums to explain that he did not want to accept temporary caches but rather they should have the cachers log multiple finds on the event cache. (at that time events were finds also). At this time there were probably 25,000 caches world wide. This practice was followed in many different areas for years though its practice is not as common as it used to be.

[Keystone]

For the subject area in this thread (Eastern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania and Northern West Virginia), I can think of eight reviewers who have published event caches of this nature over the years in that region. (I'm one of them, and I've never logged an event cache listing more than once.) Never mind other areas, like Wisconsin, where the practice used to be commonplace, but is not prevalent anymore.

 

Definitely not a "rogue reviewer" situation.

[+Dame Deco]

Nope. No drama, mellow or otherwise.

 

 

 

The melodrama was saying that you had to scroll through 4000 logs to find the reviewer. That's absurd, patently untrue, and frankly--melodramatic. As I said--click on the link to the logbook, click on the link to the last page, scroll to the end and there it is. No computer locking up, no problem--simple, takes 10 seconds.