Jump to content

earth to echo


BrewerMD
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I did the LA echo caches the day they came out. I did do the caches via looking up the answers on the internet. I live in orange county, and have been all of those places before, so I justified my logging even if I didn't go there just for the "cache". Now, the other cities can also be researched, but I will not log those, because I have never been to those places, (well I have been to new York, but my preference, ill only "armchair" log caches if their local). So I justified the 4 LA ones for myself, and they were fun to look up, but I will not log the others unless im actually there. I do wish they were like benchmarks, where they don't increase find count, only the icon is added to my profile. I don't really consider these true geocaches, im all about quality caching. (ACTUALLY finding something and going somewhere).

 

Its all about the hunt!

Link to comment

(well I have been to new York, but my preference, ill only "armchair" log caches if their local)

 

Well, Its nice to see you have standards.

 

I think Groundspeak needs to define what caches may be armchair logged, I thought it was none but seems I may be wrong.

Link to comment

(well I have been to new York, but my preference, ill only "armchair" log caches if their local)

 

Well, Its nice to see you have standards.

 

I think Groundspeak needs to define what caches may be armchair logged, I thought it was none but seems I may be wrong.

 

I don't think we're supposed to be armchair logging the lab caches, but it doesn't appear that there's anyone verifying the logs.

Link to comment

(well I have been to new York, but my preference, ill only "armchair" log caches if their local)

 

Well, Its nice to see you have standards.

 

I think Groundspeak needs to define what caches may be armchair logged, I thought it was none but seems I may be wrong.

 

I don't think we're supposed to be armchair logging the lab caches, but it doesn't appear that there's anyone verifying the logs.

 

Shouldn't someone post an NA then, oh wait, you can't.

Link to comment

(well I have been to new York, but my preference, ill only "armchair" log caches if their local)

 

Well, Its nice to see you have standards.

 

I think Groundspeak needs to define what caches may be armchair logged, I thought it was none but seems I may be wrong.

 

I don't think we're supposed to be armchair logging the lab caches, but it doesn't appear that there's anyone verifying the logs.

 

Shouldn't someone post an NA then, oh wait, you can't.

:lol:

 

That isnt all, you can't even know which lab caches they armchaired. <_<

Link to comment

(well I have been to new York, but my preference, ill only "armchair" log caches if their local)

 

Well, Its nice to see you have standards.

 

I think Groundspeak needs to define what caches may be armchair logged, I thought it was none but seems I may be wrong.

 

I don't think we're supposed to be armchair logging the lab caches, but it doesn't appear that there's anyone verifying the logs.

 

Shouldn't someone post an NA then, oh wait, you can't.

 

Right. They're lab caches. They're experimental. Why do people insist that these temporary, experimental "caches" comply with the guidelines created for the existing cache types? If they became a "real" cache type then the guidelines would have to be changed to account for their unique characteristics.

Link to comment

(well I have been to new York, but my preference, ill only "armchair" log caches if their local)

 

Well, Its nice to see you have standards.

 

I think Groundspeak needs to define what caches may be armchair logged, I thought it was none but seems I may be wrong.

 

I don't think we're supposed to be armchair logging the lab caches, but it doesn't appear that there's anyone verifying the logs.

 

Shouldn't someone post an NA then, oh wait, you can't.

 

Right. They're lab caches. They're experimental. Why do people insist that these temporary, experimental "caches" comply with the guidelines created for the existing cache types? If they became a "real" cache type then the guidelines would have to be changed to account for their unique characteristics.

 

That's the issue, they don't comply and should not be counted in stats. My bigger issue is the ease of armchair logging these caches with no one monitoring them and if that gets out of control it can do a lot of damage to geocaching.

Link to comment

Why do people insist that these temporary, experimental "caches" comply with the guidelines created for the existing cache types?

 

Who's insisting on anything?

 

Why do people insist on reading way more into a discussion than is actually there? It's a conversation. Nobody's "insisting" on anything.

Link to comment

It's a conversation. Nobody's "insisting" on anything.

 

The problem is it so often turns into a whinge fest, "Groundspeak are breaking their own guidelines", "Temporary caches aren't allowed", "Caches must have a physical container", "They're too easy to armchair log", etc. and the implication in those kinds of posts is an insistence that they shouldn't be allowed because of those infringements.

Link to comment

It's a conversation. Nobody's "insisting" on anything.

 

The problem is it so often turns into a whinge fest, "Groundspeak are breaking their own guidelines", "Temporary caches aren't allowed", "Caches must have a physical container", "They're too easy to armchair log", etc. and the implication in those kinds of posts is an insistence that they shouldn't be allowed because of those infringements.

 

You said it better than I could. Thanks.

Link to comment

If these are truly worth doing on their own, they should not be added into the geocaching stats. That borks the experiment. Are a certain percentage of people only doing these to boost their numbers? What do these have to do with geocaching anyhow? After telling its users for over 10 years that these aren't allowed, they unroll all of these "new" ideas, along with giving muggles free apps. Just what the Sam Hill is going on? And why are people complaining about other people complaining?

Link to comment

That's the issue, they don't comply and should not be counted in stats. My bigger issue is the ease of armchair logging these caches with no one monitoring them and if that gets out of control it can do a lot of damage to geocaching.

I would say they do comply. The guidelines around Lab caches are "Whatever Groundspeak defines as acceptable for any particular experiment." We've seen temporary caches for events, we've seen caches that can be logged via codeword, and now we're seeing caches that are easy to armchair log.

 

Sure, they may not have the standards that apply to most other caches, but that's not unusual. Challenge caches still allow for ALRs. Events don't have containers.

 

I think it's important to just simply enjoy each of the different experiments at face value and try not to compare it to existing cache types. When asked for feedback, provide your opinion around what you like or didn't like about a particular experiment. If you don't want to mess up your stats, simply delete the log after you are done. No harm, no foul.

 

I do agree that if people start trying to take the standards that apply to lab caches and apply them to the other types then it will do harm to caching in the long term.

Link to comment

That's the issue, they don't comply and should not be counted in stats. My bigger issue is the ease of armchair logging these caches with no one monitoring them and if that gets out of control it can do a lot of damage to geocaching.

I would say they do comply. The guidelines around Lab caches are "Whatever Groundspeak defines as acceptable for any particular experiment." We've seen temporary caches for events, we've seen caches that can be logged via codeword, and now we're seeing caches that are easy to armchair log.

 

Sure, they may not have the standards that apply to most other caches, but that's not unusual. Challenge caches still allow for ALRs. Events don't have containers.

 

I think it's important to just simply enjoy each of the different experiments at face value and try not to compare it to existing cache types. When asked for feedback, provide your opinion around what you like or didn't like about a particular experiment. If you don't want to mess up your stats, simply delete the log after you are done. No harm, no foul.

 

I do agree that if people start trying to take the standards that apply to lab caches and apply them to the other types then it will do harm to caching in the long term.

 

No one is responsible for the integrity of found its on lab caches, if it becomes possible to armchair log dozens or hundreds of caches a day with no consequences then the find count will be useless and do not underestimate how important the find count it.

Link to comment

 

No one is responsible for the integrity of found its on lab caches, if it becomes possible to armchair log dozens or hundreds of caches a day with no consequences then the find count will be useless and do not underestimate how important the find count it.

 

Conversely, don't over estimate how important find count is either. Your numbers mean nothing to me, and I suspect mine mean about the same to you. Find count is only valued by what an individual puts on it. Some rate it very high, some very low. Mine? I honestly believe I am the only person who should care about my finds, and if someone else is putting value on them other than the cache owner, then please stop and go play outside for a while.

Link to comment

 

No one is responsible for the integrity of found its on lab caches, if it becomes possible to armchair log dozens or hundreds of caches a day with no consequences then the find count will be useless and do not underestimate how important the find count it.

 

Conversely, don't over estimate how important find count is either. Your numbers mean nothing to me, and I suspect mine mean about the same to you. Find count is only valued by what an individual puts on it. Some rate it very high, some very low. Mine? I honestly believe I am the only person who should care about my finds, and if someone else is putting value on them other than the cache owner, then please stop and go play outside for a while.

 

Why do you think there was a huge issue with the challenges, because they made it easy to increase ones find count from home. Lab caches are doing the same thing, just less of them around at this point and I'd hate to see it get worse.

Link to comment

 

No one is responsible for the integrity of found its on lab caches, if it becomes possible to armchair log dozens or hundreds of caches a day with no consequences then the find count will be useless and do not underestimate how important the find count it.

 

Conversely, don't over estimate how important find count is either. Your numbers mean nothing to me, and I suspect mine mean about the same to you. Find count is only valued by what an individual puts on it. Some rate it very high, some very low. Mine? I honestly believe I am the only person who should care about my finds, and if someone else is putting value on them other than the cache owner, then please stop and go play outside for a while.

 

Why do you think there was a huge issue with the challenges, because they made it easy to increase ones find count from home. Lab caches are doing the same thing, just less of them around at this point and I'd hate to see it get worse.

 

You do realize that there were plenty of challenges out there (and lab caches) that you could actually go out and find too? I remember this one challenge, on a long drive past Mt St Helens in Washington where you needed to take a picture at this one trailhead. It was not an exciting challenge but I was only one of two people to do it. Another one I had to sit on top of this specific horse. Yeah, there was the "kiss a frog" one, but most challenges I saw involving going outside. Lab caches, well, I have logged some from the field and I admit, a few I have researched, but to each their own. As you say, there are not many of them now so the numbers are not huge relative to say one power trail.

Link to comment

 

No one is responsible for the integrity of found its on lab caches, if it becomes possible to armchair log dozens or hundreds of caches a day with no consequences then the find count will be useless and do not underestimate how important the find count it.

 

Conversely, don't over estimate how important find count is either. Your numbers mean nothing to me, and I suspect mine mean about the same to you. Find count is only valued by what an individual puts on it. Some rate it very high, some very low. Mine? I honestly believe I am the only person who should care about my finds, and if someone else is putting value on them other than the cache owner, then please stop and go play outside for a while.

 

Why do you think there was a huge issue with the challenges, because they made it easy to increase ones find count from home. Lab caches are doing the same thing, just less of them around at this point and I'd hate to see it get worse.

 

You do realize that there were plenty of challenges out there (and lab caches) that you could actually go out and find too? I remember this one challenge, on a long drive past Mt St Helens in Washington where you needed to take a picture at this one trailhead. It was not an exciting challenge but I was only one of two people to do it. Another one I had to sit on top of this specific horse. Yeah, there was the "kiss a frog" one, but most challenges I saw involving going outside. Lab caches, well, I have logged some from the field and I admit, a few I have researched, but to each their own. As you say, there are not many of them now so the numbers are not huge relative to say one power trail.

 

Couch logging turns geocaching into an online game, geocaching has to be an outdoor game or an online game, it can't be both.

 

Now where is my blumaroo?

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

 

Couch logging turns geocaching into an online game, geocaching has to be an outdoor game or an online game, it can't be both.

 

Now where is my blumaroo?

 

Well, outdoors is the main element but surely not the only one. Puzzles, I have spent hours and hours on my computer trying to solve certain puzzles. I have had to use Google to research answers about Earth Caches. Events, they are often in pizza joints. As long as the main point of caching is going outside (have done two hikes this week alone involving over 3,000 feet elevation gain and probably an average of 10 miles each time where I got a total of 6 caches), I personally do not see the harm in the occasional lab cache where I researched the answer online and then logged the code. A lab cache is not pretending to say I have signed a piece of paper. As I have said, am fine with them being benchmark like stats.

 

Am more of a cybunny or draik fan than blumaroos.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment

 

Couch logging turns geocaching into an online game, geocaching has to be an outdoor game or an online game, it can't be both.

 

Now where is my blumaroo?

 

Well, outdoors is the main element but surely not the only one. Puzzles, I have spent hours and hours on my computer trying to solve certain puzzles. I have had to use Google to research answers about Earth Caches. Events, they are often in pizza joints. As long as the main point of caching is going outside (have done two hikes this week alone involving over 3,000 feet elevation gain and probably an average of 10 miles each time where I got a total of 6 caches), I personally do not see the harm in the occasional lab cache where I researched the answer online and then logged the code. A lab cache is not pretending to say I have signed a piece of paper. As I have said, am fine with them being benchmark like stats.

 

Am more of a cybunny or draik fan than blumaroos.

 

I'm sure you know my view on puzzles :laughing:

 

True, there aren't many lab caches but it is a slippery slope and GS has a habit of making bigger mistakes tomorrow.

Link to comment

No one is responsible for the integrity of found its on lab caches, if it becomes possible to armchair log dozens or hundreds of caches a day with no consequences then the find count will be useless and do not underestimate how important the find count it.

 

Conversely, don't over estimate how important find count is either. Your numbers mean nothing to me, and I suspect mine mean about the same to you. Find count is only valued by what an individual puts on it. Some rate it very high, some very low. Mine? I honestly believe I am the only person who should care about my finds, and if someone else is putting value on them other than the cache owner, then please stop and go play outside for a while.

 

Why do you think there was a huge issue with the challenges, because they made it easy to increase ones find count from home.

 

I disagree. Although when the Geocaching Challenges were initially released they counted as finds, but that only lasted a few days when there were only a handful of GS created Challenges and very few user created Challenges. They continued to exist and did not add to the *geocache* find count (though a count was displayed separately just for challenges).

 

The issue with geocaching challenges is similar to the issue with lab caches. Although GS never stated that they were a type of geocache, people expected them to be treated like other types of geocaches. There were complaints about the lack of a review process, that the creator no longer "owned" the challenge cache after it was created, the inability to delete logs, and other features what we've come to associate with existing cache types that didn't apply to challenge caches. There were numerous other bugs/missing features that never got addressed as well. After just a couple of months interest in challenge caches dropped significantly to the point that GS felt that there wasn't a justification for allocating any resources to the location based game (notice that I did not say a type of geocache) called "Geocaching Challenges".

 

Link to comment

It's a conversation. Nobody's "insisting" on anything.

 

The problem is it so often turns into a whinge fest, "Groundspeak are breaking their own guidelines", "Temporary caches aren't allowed", "Caches must have a physical container", "They're too easy to armchair log", etc. and the implication in those kinds of posts is an insistence that they shouldn't be allowed because of those infringements.

 

The entire forum is a whinge fest, and you're whinging about whinging.

Link to comment

Does this lab cache experiment combined with arm chair logs now proof that Virtuals should not, under any circumstances come back? :P

 

At least with virtuals there was supposed to be a CO verifying cachers actually visited GZ, with lab caches no, we have people admitting to armchair logging on the forums with no repercussions from the lab cache's CO: Groundspeak.

 

Shouldn't someone post an NA due to an inactive CO?

Link to comment

 

The entire forum is a whinge fest, and you're whinging about whinging.

 

So now you're whinging about me whinging about you whinging about NYPaddleCacheer whinging about all those people whinging about Lab caches.

 

I told you it was a whinge fest :ph34r:

 

If people would just not whinge about Lab caches in the first place, and accept that they can just ignore them if they don't like them, then the forum would be a better place.

 

This is my last whinge on the subject :P

Link to comment

 

The entire forum is a whinge fest, and you're whinging about whinging.

 

So now you're whinging about me whinging about you whinging about NYPaddleCacheer whinging about all those people whinging about Lab caches.

 

I told you it was a whinge fest :ph34r:

 

If people would just not whinge about Lab caches in the first place, and accept that they can just ignore them if they don't like them, then the forum would be a better place.

 

This is my last whinge on the subject :P

 

I think the Forum would quietly die if people stopped whinging.

Link to comment

No one is responsible for the integrity of found its on lab caches, if it becomes possible to armchair log dozens or hundreds of caches a day with no consequences then the find count will be useless and do not underestimate how important the find count it.

 

I am aware of an account that armchair logged over 4,000 finds on a few powertrails. The numbers are useless and the find count is unimportant. If that keeps you awake at night then perhaps you need to stop drinking so much coffee during the day. :D

Link to comment
No one is responsible for the integrity of found its on lab caches, if it becomes possible to armchair log dozens or hundreds of caches a day with no consequences then the find count will be useless and do not underestimate how important the find count it.

When it comes to Find counts, I think there is only one that matters: mine.

As for everyone else's Find count? I couldn't care less.

Link to comment

I thought one of the rules for geocaching to get a smiley was to log online, I logged nothing, just guessed a number.

 

Roman, these "Lab" caches actually violate a number of Groundspeak's own guidelines for placing caches. They are temporary, they don't have log sheets and they use code words.

 

Maybe it's an experiment to see how rampantly they'll be abused.

 

And it's been shown they are easily armchair logged. Not just by people here in this thread, but there is a "leaderboard" for each one, and they are full of obvious armchair finders.

 

So yes, the conspiracy theorist in me tells me it's an "experiment" to prove that temporary caches, caches that don't contain a logbook, and use code words don't work, and will be abused by armchair loggers. "See, we told you so". :ph34r:

Link to comment

 

So yes, the conspiracy theorist in me tells me it's an "experiment" to prove that temporary caches, caches that don't contain a logbook, and use code words don't work, and will be abused by armchair loggers. "See, we told you so". :ph34r:

 

I don't think they'd intentionally do that with the Earth to Echo Lab caches, which are obviously some sort of advertising/sponsorship deal so there's $$$ to be made there and GS wouldn't want to associate their sponsor with the negativity as that would put off future sponsors.

Link to comment

 

So yes, the conspiracy theorist in me tells me it's an "experiment" to prove that temporary caches, caches that don't contain a logbook, and use code words don't work, and will be abused by armchair loggers. "See, we told you so". :ph34r:

 

I don't think they'd intentionally do that with the Earth to Echo Lab caches, which are obviously some sort of advertising/sponsorship deal so there's $$$ to be made there and GS wouldn't want to associate their sponsor with the negativity as that would put off future sponsors.

 

Yeah, you're probably right. And I also admit to being given an external link to the thread, and only looking at and quoting something from page 1 over a week old. :P How about there being a leaderboard honoring FTF and the first 10 to complete all the individual caches? That's certainly something new. The technology DOES allow for undisputed FTF tracking, and it shows that may be something they're interested in doing. Of course the FTF is almost always going to be an armchair logger. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...