A virtual from 2008?

[+terratin]

I just wish people would log DNFs instead of sending in photo logs. Makes planning caching trips much easier. We'll spend our vacation in Java, Indonesia and won't get hardly any traditional cache. Oh yes, there are good numbers there, but they're all missing and accepting 'photo logs'. It's just ridiculous, really. I think we'll do a few EarthCaches and one or two real virtuals. At least they are legit.

[+Semper Questio]

As for your multi, you didn't sign the log, you didn't earn the smiley.

 

That's my opinion anyways, I'm sure you found a way to justify counting it as a find to yourself just like those 200 people did on this cache.

 

I earned the smileys--I read the cache pages before I went, I knew what the COs required, I fulfilled those requirements, so yeah, I logged them as finds.

 

I doesn't matter what the CO wants, to log a find on a multi on this website you are required to sign the log.

 

You did not meet those requirements.

Not always so. Look at the hidden date of the multicache. There are plenty of what I call "MultiVirts" that predate the end of Virtual caches. If the cache was originally set up as a virtual with multiple stages and the owner chose "multicache," back in the 2000-2004 timeframe the reviewers didn't make a big deal out of that. To this day, they're considered grandfathered. Ditto that for a few virtuals that are really locationless caches.

 

It's different if a cache was set up as something other than a virtual AND was converted to a virtual at a later date when the container went missing.

 

Since you're here is it or is it not required to sign a log (on caches with containers) to claim a smiley on GC.com?

 

 

NOTE: if your reply starts with something along the lines of "most of the time" or "not always" or something similar, knowing you are a lawyer I will refine my question because I know you know exactly what I'm asking

I have zero interest in dancing on the head of the pin that's labeled "when is a find a find?"

 

But if I did take out a magnifying glass to look at the head of that pin, I would likely say "cool, Toz is hosting a rave."

 

Keystone, you owe me a new keyboard and you can help clean the coffee off of my monitor. That's the funniest thing I've read on this forum in quite a while!

[+J Grouchy]

Multis are trads with stages. Still a physical cache.

 

Not always. As mentioned above, there were multi stage virtuals originally listed as multis.

 

As I mentioned the reviewers told me they were grandfathered trads and what can you say?

 

They really meant that they've been that way for so long, that its probably not worth doing anything about it. Its pretty clear that multis can be virts, but traditionals are never virts.

 

I found a virtual multi in my part of town. The only thing less fun than a virtual is a virtual multicache.

[+sbell111]

The cache is a traditional so not signing a log = no smiley. They could have enjoyed the spot just as much posting a DNF and if the cache got archived it would have made room for a real traditional at that location.

 

There are some pretty simple rules to the different cache types, if we can't follow them then it's pretty sad.

It's pretty sad that people don't understand these simple rules to the point that they actually believe that a traditional cache may not be logged as a find unless the physical log was signed. In fact, the arbiter of whether a cache was 'found' in this instance is the cache owner. While the caches in question do not abide by the guidelines and may be archived due to this issue, it doesn't change the fact that the finds are valid if the cache owner believes they are.

[+sbell111]

Although I do not believe that CO should be accepting photo logs at least if I were to go there I'd still have the opportunity to find a cache and sign the log.

Any cache owner is free to accept photo logs.

[+sbell111]

Multis are trads with stages. Still a physical cache.

 

Not always. As mentioned above, there were multi stage virtuals originally listed as multis.

 

As I mentioned the reviewers told me they were grandfathered trads and what can you say?

 

They really meant that they've been that way for so long, that its probably not worth doing anything about it. Its pretty clear that multis can be virts, but traditionals are never virts.

 

I found a virtual multi in my part of town. The only thing less fun than a virtual is a virtual multicache.

Really? The thing that would have converted that unfun waste of time to a fun cache is a film can with a strip of paper in it?

[+tozainamboku]

 

Since you're here is it or is it not required to sign a log (on caches with containers) to claim a smiley on GC.com?

 

 

NOTE: if your reply starts with something along the lines of "most of the time" or "not always" or something similar, knowing you are a lawyer I will refine my question because I know you know exactly what I'm asking

I have zero interest in dancing on the head of the pin that's labeled "when is a find a find?"

 

But if I did take out a magnifying glass to look at the head of that pin, I would likely say "cool, Toz is hosting a rave."

It was Rosh Hashana and I was at synagogue asking for forgiveness - but not for allowing finds from people who forget a pen when visiting my caches.

 

Interesting how the "You can't have ALRs rule" is again used for something that it was never meant for.

 

It's even sadder because it is totally unnecessary. The guideline Roman should be quoting is

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

and the requirements for cache owners to do maintenance on their caches.

 

Changing a traditional cache into a virtual is simply a was to avoid doing cache maintenance. The cache owner got tired of replacing a cache that kept going missing and decided that instead of maintaining the cache they would allow virtual logs.

 

Groundspeak is pretty clear on this. You can't even post that cache can be log via a virtual type question or photo, temporarily or under special conditions.

 

I personally don't agree with Groundspeak in this case. I would allow temporary virtuals so long as the cache owner has a plan for replacing the cache or allow alternative to signing the log if the conditions at the time of visit don't allow it. But I still agree that simply shirking maintenance responsibility by making a cache into a virtual should not be allowed.

 

 

How hard is it to have a rule: no siggy, no smiley?

 

The definition of a signature is a mark that represents you be it an inked signature, a stamp, a thumb print of dirt or a runny ink blob due to a soaked log book or any other creative way a person may leave their mark.

It is impossible to have such a rule since cache owners are the ones who have the responsibility of quality control of logs posted to their caches. Most cache owners are not going to run out and check physical logs. They will simply say the logs do not appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

 

Now you might have a rule that says cache owners need to delete logs of someone who writes "I forget my pen so I didn't sign the log" or "the log was too wet to write on". In that case, such logs would change to TFTC (or "If forgot my pen so I signed the log with animal poop"). And if the Romans! of the world start to post NA on cache where owners are allowing logs like these, I would bet a lot of people would archive their caches and you would see a lot less cache to find.

 

And finally

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.

[+sbell111]

As for "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.", once or no once, it would take a book longer than war and peace to legally close up any loopholes.

 

It still means sign the log, log the cache.

Not really. The referenced sentence from the guidelines is simple and doesn't allow any loopholes. If someone complains that his online log was inappropriately deleted, then the issue is resolved with one question, "Was the logbook signed?"

 

I believe that your confusion is that you misunderstand what the guidelines are. This misunderstanding is common and is caused by people calling them guidelines instead of their actual name, in my opinion. The document is actually called the 'Cache Listing Requirements and Guidelines. They are requirements made of cache owners, not cache finders. As such, Section three of the document gives cache owners guidance on how to handle logging issues. Respecting this fact, a read of the quoted text leaves no wiggle room. The cache owner can require no actions of the finder beyond signing the physical logbook.

 

What that guideline doesn't address is how should online logs be handled when the logbook isn't signed, for whatever reason. This isn't addressed in the guidelines because decisions on those issues are left completely up to the cache owner.

 

Without it this just becomes a virtual online game.

No, it doesn't. Allowing a cache owner to arbitrate whether a find is a find if the logbook wasn't signed while allowing TPTB to deal with caches that are inappropriately converted to virts ensures that the anarchy that you fear cannot happen. In fact, you yourself ensure that the game won't turn into virtual only' by maintaining control of your own caching, both as a cache seeker and a cache hider. Certainly, the mere fact that virtuals exist does not require you to log them as found or allow people to log your physical caches as found if they do not sign the logbook.

Edited September 26, 2014 by sbell111

[+GeoBain]

And finally

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.

 

That statement worked until his company basically sanctioned the leaderboard mentality. There are prizes (icons, souvenirs, etc.). Anyone remember the discussion about the people falsely logging towards the end of August just to get those coveted souvenirs?

[+lamoracke]

And finally

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.

 

That statement worked until his company basically sanctioned the leaderboard mentality. There are prizes (icons, souvenirs, etc.). Anyone remember the discussion about the people falsely logging towards the end of August just to get those coveted souvenirs?

 

Don't see how a souvenir is any more of a "prize" that having a trackable icon, or a find in general, or an icon found. Its just a souvenir on someone's profile. Hardly a cash prize or fame and fortune. Just a pixel.

[+GeoBain]

And finally

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.

 

That statement worked until his company basically sanctioned the leaderboard mentality. There are prizes (icons, souvenirs, etc.). Anyone remember the discussion about the people falsely logging towards the end of August just to get those coveted souvenirs?

 

Don't see how a souvenir is any more of a "prize" that having a trackable icon, or a find in general, or an icon found. Its just a souvenir on someone's profile. Hardly a cash prize or fame and fortune. Just a pixel.

 

To you and I, it is just a pixel. To those who covet them, it is reason to falsely log caches in order to get them.

 

I didn't even mention the sanctioning of power trails to fuel the numbers games. Groundspeak is promotes statistics. I personally do not see a find log as a score. But you haven't been watching if you think others don't and Groundspeak has been complicit with promoting it.

[+sbell111]

And finally

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.

 

That statement worked until his company basically sanctioned the leaderboard mentality. There are prizes (icons, souvenirs, etc.). Anyone remember the discussion about the people falsely logging towards the end of August just to get those coveted souvenirs?

 

Don't see how a souvenir is any more of a "prize" that having a trackable icon, or a find in general, or an icon found. Its just a souvenir on someone's profile. Hardly a cash prize or fame and fortune. Just a pixel.

 

To you and I, it is just a pixel. To those who covet them, it is reason to falsely log caches in order to get them.

 

I didn't even mention the sanctioning of power trails to fuel the numbers games. Groundspeak is promotes statistics. I personally do not see a find log as a score. But you haven't been watching if you think others don't and Groundspeak has been complicit with promoting it.

The mere fact that some people compete doesn't change Jeremy's point or position.

[+Panther&Pine]

 

Since you're here is it or is it not required to sign a log (on caches with containers) to claim a smiley on GC.com?

 

 

NOTE: if your reply starts with something along the lines of "most of the time" or "not always" or something similar, knowing you are a lawyer I will refine my question because I know you know exactly what I'm asking

I have zero interest in dancing on the head of the pin that's labeled "when is a find a find?"

 

But if I did take out a magnifying glass to look at the head of that pin, I would likely say "cool, Toz is hosting a rave."

It was Rosh Hashana and I was at synagogue asking for forgiveness - but not for allowing finds from people who forget a pen when visiting my caches.

 

Interesting how the "You can't have ALRs rule" is again used for something that it was never meant for.

 

It's even sadder because it is totally unnecessary. The guideline Roman should be quoting is

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

and the requirements for cache owners to do maintenance on their caches.

 

Changing a traditional cache into a virtual is simply a was to avoid doing cache maintenance. The cache owner got tired of replacing a cache that kept going missing and decided that instead of maintaining the cache they would allow virtual logs.

 

Groundspeak is pretty clear on this. You can't even post that cache can be log via a virtual type question or photo, temporarily or under special conditions.

 

I personally don't agree with Groundspeak in this case. I would allow temporary virtuals so long as the cache owner has a plan for replacing the cache or allow alternative to signing the log if the conditions at the time of visit don't allow it. But I still agree that simply shirking maintenance responsibility by making a cache into a virtual should not be allowed.

 

 

How hard is it to have a rule: no siggy, no smiley?

 

The definition of a signature is a mark that represents you be it an inked signature, a stamp, a thumb print of dirt or a runny ink blob due to a soaked log book or any other creative way a person may leave their mark.

It is impossible to have such a rule since cache owners are the ones who have the responsibility of quality control of logs posted to their caches. Most cache owners are not going to run out and check physical logs. They will simply say the logs do not appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

 

Now you might have a rule that says cache owners need to delete logs of someone who writes "I forget my pen so I didn't sign the log" or "the log was too wet to write on". In that case, such logs would change to TFTC (or "If forgot my pen so I signed the log with animal poop"). And if the Romans! of the world start to post NA on cache where owners are allowing logs like these, I would bet a lot of people would archive their caches and you would see a lot less cache to find.

 

And finally

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.

Did you throw your rocks then eat your apples wih honey?

[+GeoBain]

And finally

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.

 

That statement worked until his company basically sanctioned the leaderboard mentality. There are prizes (icons, souvenirs, etc.). Anyone remember the discussion about the people falsely logging towards the end of August just to get those coveted souvenirs?

 

Don't see how a souvenir is any more of a "prize" that having a trackable icon, or a find in general, or an icon found. Its just a souvenir on someone's profile. Hardly a cash prize or fame and fortune. Just a pixel.

 

To you and I, it is just a pixel. To those who covet them, it is reason to falsely log caches in order to get them.

 

I didn't even mention the sanctioning of power trails to fuel the numbers games. Groundspeak is promotes statistics. I personally do not see a find log as a score. But you haven't been watching if you think others don't and Groundspeak has been complicit with promoting it.

The mere fact that some people compete doesn't change Jeremy's point or position.

 

No, but the fact that TPTB have made changes that promotes that competition does.

[+Roman!]

Someone needs to have the balls to state that to log a find in this site you must sign the log.

 

So if the log is a pulpy mess, and my pen/pencil/sharpie can't make a mark on it, I can't log the online find?

 

If you actually read my posts I stated that even just touching the log you are leaving your mark (DNA) and the definition of a signature is to leave a mark that represents you, be it your name scratched in dirt, a stamp, your initials or an unreadable inky mess on a soggy, pulpy log.

 

I don't know who remembers mrs. Jenny's comment along the lines of just sign the log, how hard can that be but seems there is way too much inconsistency.

 

Again referring to the cache I found keystone stated what would happen but since then we have a bunch of different interpretations of what should.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Roman!

[+J Grouchy]

Multis are trads with stages. Still a physical cache.

 

Not always. As mentioned above, there were multi stage virtuals originally listed as multis.

 

As I mentioned the reviewers told me they were grandfathered trads and what can you say?

 

They really meant that they've been that way for so long, that its probably not worth doing anything about it. Its pretty clear that multis can be virts, but traditionals are never virts.

 

I found a virtual multi in my part of town. The only thing less fun than a virtual is a virtual multicache.

Really? The thing that would have converted that unfun waste of time to a fun cache is a film can with a strip of paper in it?

 

If we're ranking them, then yes, searching the final site for a hidden container would count as more fun than writing an email to a CO who's probably not even receiving emails - or reading the ones he does receive - anymore.

[+uxorious]

Geocaching is just a game. Like any other game, people make their own "house rules" sometimes.

 

The problem comes from two things here. One, numbers. If you care about anyone else's numbers, then you will care how they log and what they log, and what they are allowed to log. And two, it makes a difference if you cache alone, or with others comparing yourself to them.

 

I play Parcheesi, and Mexican Train a lot. There are lots of small variables in the rules, depending on where you go to find out how to play. And often we will set our own house rules because either the rules we find are not clear, or we just like a little different way to handle parts of the game.

 

The only numbers I care about are mine. I really like watching them grow, but I try to be consistent in how I log each cache, and don't care if anyone else agrees with me. I know what my numbers mean and don't care what yours mean.

 

Because Groundspeak is the listing service, they need to be more concerned with the rules. A cache like this needs to be archived when they are aware of it. Until then, I don't care who logs it and who doesn't.

[+tozainamboku]

 

The mere fact that some people compete doesn't change Jeremy's point or position.

 

No, but the fact that TPTB have made changes that promotes that competition does.

TPTB have provided statistics and souvenirs that are based on the logs people post. I think Jeremy was well aware when he made his statement that sometimes people post false logs. Groundspeak relies on cache owners to delete bogus logs. The comment about defining what a find is, indicates that Groundspeak is not going to give a detailed definition and will leave it up to cachers and cache owners to determine what a find is. When people come and ask for more rules (or misinterpret a current rule to fit their definition), the quote is still appropriate.

 

I should point out the when Groundspeak has felt the need to add guidelines regarding logs, it has usually been to restrict when a cache owner can delete logs. (Someone will point out Groundspeak rulings on couch potato logs on virtual caches or pocket logging of caches at events.)

Edited September 26, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+lamoracke]

[

 

Don't see how a souvenir is any more of a "prize" that having a trackable icon, or a find in general, or an icon found. Its just a souvenir on someone's profile. Hardly a cash prize or fame and fortune. Just a pixel.

 

To you and I, it is just a pixel. To those who covet them, it is reason to falsely log caches in order to get them.

 

I didn't even mention the sanctioning of power trails to fuel the numbers games. Groundspeak is promotes statistics. I personally do not see a find log as a score. But you haven't been watching if you think others don't and Groundspeak has been complicit with promoting it.

 

What I mean is, yeah, I know some folks will falsely log a cache to get a souvenir or icon, look at how many folks were still logging the 2010 Lost and Found event after the fact. Look at lab caches and how many times I get emailed from Europeans for answers when I find them early. We all have our own ethics. If someone is in my area logging caches falsely, I may report it and certainly would delete finds (and tell friends) if I saw something really out of whack but if a German has 400 lab cache finds or even every souvenir, it does not bother me more than making me more than shake my head. Its silly and folks can tell who are the folks who are just cheating. I know the local ones for example who almost never sign caches. If they want to be known for that, that is their shame. Many of us would like all finds to be accurate but its never going to happen.

Edited September 26, 2014 by lamoracke

[+NYPaddleCacher]

And finally

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.

 

That statement worked until his company basically sanctioned the leaderboard mentality. There are prizes (icons, souvenirs, etc.). Anyone remember the discussion about the people falsely logging towards the end of August just to get those coveted souvenirs?

 

Don't see how a souvenir is any more of a "prize" that having a trackable icon, or a find in general, or an icon found. Its just a souvenir on someone's profile. Hardly a cash prize or fame and fortune. Just a pixel.

 

To you and I, it is just a pixel. To those who covet them, it is reason to falsely log caches in order to get them.

 

 

It's not just those that covet them. I don't know how many blog postings, notifications, and other items of communication I saw from GS promoting the August souvenirs, reminding us over and over that they were available, changing the header that appears on every page to include information about souvenirs, and then when you finally thought it was over, sent out statistics about how many people acquired the souvenirs. GS promotes souvenirs at a prize. A lot.

 

 

[+GeoBain]

The comment about defining what a find is, indicates that Groundspeak is not going to give a detailed definition and will leave it up to cachers and cache owners to determine what a find is.

 

I guess I should have split it up like this.

 

And finally

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com.

Still relevant as TPTB do not wish to define what a find is.

 

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.

 

That statement worked until his company basically sanctioned the leaderboard mentality. There are prizes (icons, souvenirs, etc.). Anyone remember the discussion about the people falsely logging towards the end of August just to get those coveted souvenirs?

 

Hope that makes my position a bit clearer.

[+Roman!]

The comment about defining what a find is, indicates that Groundspeak is not going to give a detailed definition and will leave it up to cachers and cache owners to determine what a find is.

 

I guess I should have split it up like this.

 

And finally

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com.

Still relevant as TPTB do not wish to define what a find is.

 

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.

 

That statement worked until his company basically sanctioned the leaderboard mentality. There are prizes (icons, souvenirs, etc.). Anyone remember the discussion about the people falsely logging towards the end of August just to get those coveted souvenirs?

 

Hope that makes my position a bit clearer.

 

Too much inconsistency leads to too many interpretations.

[+GeoBain]

The comment about defining what a find is, indicates that Groundspeak is not going to give a detailed definition and will leave it up to cachers and cache owners to determine what a find is.

 

I guess I should have split it up like this.

 

And finally

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com.

Still relevant as TPTB do not wish to define what a find is.

 

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.

 

That statement worked until his company basically sanctioned the leaderboard mentality. There are prizes (icons, souvenirs, etc.). Anyone remember the discussion about the people falsely logging towards the end of August just to get those coveted souvenirs?

 

Hope that makes my position a bit clearer.

 

Too much inconsistency leads to too many interpretations.

 

Inconsistency is often the only consistency we see.

[+Roman!]

The comment about defining what a find is, indicates that Groundspeak is not going to give a detailed definition and will leave it up to cachers and cache owners to determine what a find is.

 

I guess I should have split it up like this.

 

And finally

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com.

Still relevant as TPTB do not wish to define what a find is.

 

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.

 

That statement worked until his company basically sanctioned the leaderboard mentality. There are prizes (icons, souvenirs, etc.). Anyone remember the discussion about the people falsely logging towards the end of August just to get those coveted souvenirs?

 

Hope that makes my position a bit clearer.

 

Too much inconsistency leads to too many interpretations.

 

Inconsistency is often the only consistency we see.

 

Are you referring to better mistakes...........

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

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.

 

That statement worked until his company basically sanctioned the leaderboard mentality. There are prizes (icons, souvenirs, etc.). Anyone remember the discussion about the people falsely logging towards the end of August just to get those coveted souvenirs?

 

Hope that makes my position a bit clearer.

 

They not only sanctioned it, but they implemented a leaderboard (and called it a leaderboard) for those Lab caches they created awhile back that had four lab caches in each of a handful of cities. Not only did the page display a leaderboard, but the leader board was order by find order (the FTF was at the top). The "prize" for doing any of those lab caches is a unique icon.

 

I think it' safe to say that the statement that Jeremy made along time ago is no longer applies to what the game has become.

 

 

 

[Mr.Yuck]

 

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.

 

That statement worked until his company basically sanctioned the leaderboard mentality. There are prizes (icons, souvenirs, etc.). Anyone remember the discussion about the people falsely logging towards the end of August just to get those coveted souvenirs?

 

Hope that makes my position a bit clearer.

 

They not only sanctioned it, but they implemented a leaderboard (and called it a leaderboard) for those Lab caches they created awhile back that had four lab caches in each of a handful of cities. Not only did the page display a leaderboard, but the leader board was order by find order (the FTF was at the top). The "prize" for doing any of those lab caches is a unique icon.

 

I think it' safe to say that the statement that Jeremy made along time ago is no longer applies to what the game has become.

 

You're not going to hit Moun10Bike are you? (Only NYPC and a few others will "get" that one).

 

Can't argue with your point on Lab Cache leader boards, and sanctioned FTF tracking though. And other points you made earlier. For example, Power Trails were once outlawed. And they're only called "Power Trails" because they needed a name for them while they were outlawed.

[+tozainamboku]

 

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.

 

That statement worked until his company basically sanctioned the leaderboard mentality. There are prizes (icons, souvenirs, etc.). Anyone remember the discussion about the people falsely logging towards the end of August just to get those coveted souvenirs?

 

Hope that makes my position a bit clearer.

 

They not only sanctioned it, but they implemented a leaderboard (and called it a leaderboard) for those Lab caches they created awhile back that had four lab caches in each of a handful of cities. Not only did the page display a leaderboard, but the leader board was order by find order (the FTF was at the top). The "prize" for doing any of those lab caches is a unique icon.

 

I think it' safe to say that the statement that Jeremy made along time ago is no longer applies to what the game has become.

Lab caches aren't real caches

 

What has happened is not that geocaching has become competitive, but that Groundspeak has always been an online internet/phone app business. They follow (and sometimes even lead) the business models of similar companies. Various companies have found that promoting game play with contests (often whose only prize is a digital icon appearing on a public profile) is a good marketing tool that encourages a certain segment of users to play more. Other companies want to drive their usage up to increase revenue from advertising. I suspect this is also Groundspeak's motivation, but there may be other reasons to do this.

 

All the internet/phone app companies that use these "prizes" to encourage use, are well aware that the anonymity of the phone app or internet allows for some "cheating". Depending on the nature of the game, they may take some precautions to catch the "cheaters". But often there is no good way to stop this. In the forums for various online games, there are always those who express righteous indignation that some undeserving person got a souvenir. And there are always those who say "so what. it's a digital icon not a new car."

 

You can claim that there are now prizes (souvis), that there is a leaderboard (at least for lab caches), and maybe even that you can buy trophies on shop.geocaching.com; but I would argue that Jeremy's point is still valid. The intent is that Geocaching itself is a light fun activity, and that for most of the players it is not competitive. Groundspeak may, from time to time, have contests based on the online logs. Due to the ease of creating online logs, these "contest" have no real prizes with any value beyond a digital icon added to a person's profile page or their geocaching handle appear on some list. There is still no reason to one's knickers in a twist because someone gets a souvenir or logs a lab cache when they did find the cache. As we have seen there is no deleting of the souvenir even if the qualifying log is later deleted. And AFAIK, no lab cache finds have been deleted even when it became common knowledge that lab cache code words were being exchanged. Nobody could ever show that they suffered a loss because someone else "cheated" to get a souvenir.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

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.

 

I think it' safe to say that the statement that Jeremy made along time ago is no longer applies to what the game has become.

 

That was only 3 years ago. Perhaps it is time to twist knickers. Where's the pitchforks at?

Edited September 27, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+GeoBain]

I don't wear knickers so no danger of twisting them.

 

Groundspeak has every right to capitalize on the numbers game. But it does not change the fact that whether they care or need to define a find or not, there are prizes now and people will get their knickers twisted.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't wear knickers so no danger of twisting them.

 

Groundspeak has every right to capitalize on the numbers game. But it does not change the fact that whether they care or need to define a find or not, there are prizes now and people will get their knickers twisted.

If someone wants to get their knickers twisted because of a digital icon that Groundspeak automatically puts on your profile not because you found caches but because you posted online logs, there isn't much to do but laugh at them (or feel sorry ). There is still no prize of value.

 

On the internet people "cheat" all the time. They lie about who they are. They make up facts. They post things to get a reaction. I'm not saying this is right just because you can get away with it. But I am saying that online social sites need to be careful that they don't make their site too difficult to use just because of a few cheaters. And if all the cheater gets is a digital mark on their profile that has no intrinsic value, then it seems silly to do anything.

 

Groundspeak has no reason to invent some rules that they couldn't enforce anyhow. Instead of creating some detailed but unenforceable definition of when you can post a find log, they stick to awarding nothing of more value than a souvenir. Whether an individual wants to "cheat" or simply feels that a Found It log best shares their geocaching experience, the most they win is a few pixels being colored differently on their profile page. Woohoo! (Nope, my knickers didn't get twisted because of that ).

 

In another thread I see that the Kentucky State Parks want to give out geocoins for finding caches in the state parks. Now there is something of value (though still only a few dollars), and you might have someone lie about finding caches to get a coin. My guess is that KSP will use the physical logs to try and verify finds and avoid disputes over who gets coins. I haven't read the fine print on their website, but I suspect they have something to make it clear what will count for the purpose of their contest. In any case, it isn't Groundspeak's responsibility to define things for someone else's contest.

Edited September 27, 2014 by tozainamboku

[4wheelin_fool]

 

[+J Grouchy]

Just yesterday I went looking for this cache, spent a good ten minutes searching before I read the description again and realized it's a virtual that's listed as a traditional. Reading through the early logs, it sounds like there was at some point a micro cache, but reading the description now it says "There is no log to sign, no paperwork to complete. Your only task is to enjoy this small town!"

 

Interesting...this cache was just archived by the local reviewer for being turned into a virtual. Nobody posted an NA log. Odd coincidence that he'd catch it right after I posted about it...

[4wheelin_fool]

Just yesterday I went looking for this cache, spent a good ten minutes searching before I read the description again and realized it's a virtual that's listed as a traditional. Reading through the early logs, it sounds like there was at some point a micro cache, but reading the description now it says "There is no log to sign, no paperwork to complete. Your only task is to enjoy this small town!"

 

Interesting...this cache was just archived by the local reviewer for being turned into a virtual. Nobody posted an NA log. Odd coincidence that he'd catch it right after I posted about it...

 

Why would it be a coincidence? You posted about it in the forum and he likely found out as a result.

[+SwineFlew]

Here is one with a twist. Yea... the cache with log book is there...but if you read the logs... many people did it as a virtual.

 

http://coord.info/GC4BB7

[+Roman!]

Just yesterday I went looking for this cache, spent a good ten minutes searching before I read the description again and realized it's a virtual that's listed as a traditional. Reading through the early logs, it sounds like there was at some point a micro cache, but reading the description now it says "There is no log to sign, no paperwork to complete. Your only task is to enjoy this small town!"

 

Interesting...this cache was just archived by the local reviewer for being turned into a virtual. Nobody posted an NA log. Odd coincidence that he'd catch it right after I posted about it...

 

Again, and now I'm not that surprised, but no DNFs, everyone happily took their smiley.

 

What surprises me is that it went straight to archived while the one I brought up got a reviewer note.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I don't wear knickers so no danger of twisting them.

 

Groundspeak has every right to capitalize on the numbers game. But it does not change the fact that whether they care or need to define a find or not, there are prizes now and people will get their knickers twisted.

If someone wants to get their knickers twisted because of a digital icon that Groundspeak automatically puts on your profile not because you found caches but because you posted online logs, there isn't much to do but laugh at them (or feel sorry ). There is still no prize of value.

 

As the self-appointed arbiter of determining the value of anything related to geocaching perhaps you could tell us what the value is of a find count.

I think it's pretty bold of you to tell others what has value, and what doesn't. Maybe an icon or souvenir has no value to you, but you don't get to decide the relative value of an icon, a souvenir, or the number on a screen indicating the number of caches one has found for anyone else.

 

 

[+J Grouchy]

Here is one with a twist. Yea... the cache with log book is there...but if you read the logs... many people did it as a virtual.

 

http://coord.info/GC4BB7

 

In the description is says "Originally a Virtual cache, I've turned it into a Microcache or Virtual."

 

Seems odd that someone could/would do that.

[+niraD]

Here is one with a twist. Yea... the cache with log book is there...but if you read the logs... many people did it as a virtual.

 

http://coord.info/GC4BB7

In the description is says "Originally a Virtual cache, I've turned it into a Microcache or Virtual."

 

Seems odd that someone could/would do that.

But it also says "Hidden : 2002-04-10". I've found other odd "exceptions" in caches placed in the first couple years of geocaching. Everyone was still just figuring out what the game could/should be back then.

[4wheelin_fool]

Here is one with a twist. Yea... the cache with log book is there...but if you read the logs... many people did it as a virtual.

 

http://coord.info/GC4BB7

 

In the description is says "Originally a Virtual cache, I've turned it into a Microcache or Virtual."

 

Seems odd that someone could/would do that.

 

In 2002 it wasn't odd. A considerable amount of people considered virtuals "lame", and not really geocaching. It wasn't until the icon became scarce that they became valued. Since there is a container present and it has been unchanged for 12 years, it is unique but not any type of guideline violation.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't wear knickers so no danger of twisting them.

 

Groundspeak has every right to capitalize on the numbers game. But it does not change the fact that whether they care or need to define a find or not, there are prizes now and people will get their knickers twisted.

If someone wants to get their knickers twisted because of a digital icon that Groundspeak automatically puts on your profile not because you found caches but because you posted online logs, there isn't much to do but laugh at them (or feel sorry ). There is still no prize of value.

 

As the self-appointed arbiter of determining the value of anything related to geocaching perhaps you could tell us what the value is of a find count.

I think it's pretty bold of you to tell others what has value, and what doesn't. Maybe an icon or souvenir has no value to you, but you don't get to decide the relative value of an icon, a souvenir, or the number on a screen indicating the number of caches one has found for anyone else.

I think we are using "value" in different ways. Sure people can ascribe usefulness or importance to an abstraction like a souvenir or a find count. One can be motivated to find caches to receive a souvenir, complete a challenge, or just to increment their find count. There may even be a few (misguided) individuals who will see someone's souvis or find count and infer some importance to the person who has these souvis or has logged a certain number of caches.

 

But you still cannot exchange that souvenir or find count for goods, services, or money. Any attempt to use them to gain prestige depends on people misunderstanding what they represent. I can still laugh (or feel sorry) at those who lie about their geocaching experience to get them. And I can still scratch my head as to why anyone would get their knickers twisted because a few individual obtained a souvenir or find under false pretenses. Perhaps you can explain how your souvenir or find count has been devalued by anyone else who acquired that souvenir or find - whether honestly or by lying?

 

I suppose that a souvenir or challenge that is difficult to attain may be ascribed a value based on its exclusivity. So if someone lies to achieve this, a person may want to feel the value is lessened as the souvenir or challege is easy if you can lie. I certainly don't condone lying to get a souvenir or complete a challenge. I find it silly and a bit sad. But I would suggest that the value of challenge or souvenir is related to your personal experience achieving it and not on the perception of exclusitivity. You know from your personal experience that your achievement is one that few people will accomplish. Don't let one or two liars take that away from you. Instead of feeling like someone is giving you a wedgie, laugh at the sillinest of someone who has acquired a souvenir that can never have the "value" for them that it has for you.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Here is one with a twist. Yea... the cache with log book is there...but if you read the logs... many people did it as a virtual.

 

http://coord.info/GC4BB7

 

In the description is says "Originally a Virtual cache, I've turned it into a Microcache or Virtual."

 

Seems odd that someone could/would do that.

 

In 2002 it wasn't odd. A considerable amount of people considered virtuals "lame", and not really geocaching. It wasn't until the icon became scarce that they became valued. Since there is a container present and it has been unchanged for 12 years, it is unique but not any type of guideline violation.

 

It's marked as a Trad, but is a Multi or Puzzle to find the container...

[+GeoBain]

laugh at the sillinest of someone who has acquired a souvenir that can never have the "value" for them that it has for you.

 

I pretty much ignore all statistics. I realize they mean absolutely nothing; to me. I have also learned not to look at someone's profile for "insight". That really just leads to making bad assumptions about people.

 

But people still do that. And lots of people still assign value to the find count. It doesn't matter whether TPTB have any intention of defining finds or not.

 

Frankly, if I were them, I wouldn't acknowledge that discussion at all. There is no benefit for them; only pain.

 

(Just can't make the no prize or trophy statement with a straight face any longer.)

[+tozainamboku]

(Just can't make the no prize or trophy statement with a straight face any longer.)

A souvenir or a smiley is not a prize or trophy for finding a cache. If anything it would be a prize for logging a find online. Similarly the leaderboard is for logging a lab cache (for which you only need to know the code).

 

I think Jeremy's quote still applies. If you want to complain that what we have now is a competition for sitting in front of a computer and entering online logs and there should be some "rule" to prevent people from entering online logs that don't meet your particular definition, I suppose you could.

 

When Jeremy made his statement I'm sure he was aware that some people simply lie and post bogus logs for caches they did not find. I don't believe he was saying that you shouldn't get your knickers in a twist over bogus log. Jeremy has consistently said that cache owners should delete bogus logs. And I've see where Groundspeak has removed bogus logs entered by bot-accounts. I personally tend to take the view that occasional bogus logs don't affect my geocaching, so I'm less likely than Jeremy to get my knicker in a twist. Those looking for a definition of bogus that goes beyond couch potato logs and perhaps pocket caches at events are not likely going to see it. If Jeremy and company decide that some other situation is abusing the system they might add to these, but I tend to think that they still see no reason to do this, and probably several good reasons not to.

Edited September 30, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+GeoBain]

Ok, Toz, you win.

 

Jeremy's statement is still relevant; to you.

[+tozainamboku]

Ok, Toz, you win.

 

Jeremy's statement is still relevant; to you.

There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy for winning in the forum. I don't care what you say.

[4wheelin_fool]

Here is one with a twist. Yea... the cache with log book is there...but if you read the logs... many people did it as a virtual.

 

http://coord.info/GC4BB7

 

In the description is says "Originally a Virtual cache, I've turned it into a Microcache or Virtual."

 

Seems odd that someone could/would do that.

 

In 2002 it wasn't odd. A considerable amount of people considered virtuals "lame", and not really geocaching. It wasn't until the icon became scarce that they became valued. Since there is a container present and it has been unchanged for 12 years, it is unique but not any type of guideline violation.

 

It's marked as a Trad, but is a Multi or Puzzle to find the container...

 

Ok I took a closer look at it. At that time COs could edit cache types and apparently he edited it incorrectly from a virtual to traditional when it should be a mystery icon. I don't think the multi cache icon was introduced until a few months later. Perhaps a reviewer could change it, or not.

[+niraD]

It's marked as a Trad, but is a Multi or Puzzle to find the container...

Yeah, there are still some old caches like that from the first year or two of geocaching. They're essentially grandfathered as traditionals, even though they wouldn't be listed that way now.

[+hzoi]

I slithered around in a pile of muddy clay at the end of a half mile long tunnel in an old German bunker, looking for the final of this multicache that wasn't there. When I got home and reread the cache description, I realized the multi had been "converted" to a virtual. If only my German had been a little better, I would not have ended up looking like this:

 

 

I don't know if I'd log it as a find today, my approach to geocaching has changed a lot since then. But back then, after 30 minutes of squirming through the mud looking for an ammo can that had been gone for months, I was happy to have something to show for it, and I don't regret having logged it as a find at the time.

 

edit to add: though that multi is now archived, it wasn't because it had become a virtual, it was because the Rhineland-Pfalz government was enforcing a bat habitat protection statute and asked for all bunker caches to be archived.

Edited October 1, 2014 by hzoi

[+Roman!]

UPDATE: The cache has been archived by the reviewer.

[Mr.Yuck]

UPDATE: The cache has been archived by the reviewer.

 

So I guess you won't be going out caching with the owner anytime soon?

 

Oh, and happy Thanksgiving. I'm off work too, but it's not Thanksgiving. Maybe I'll have a turkey sandwich for lunch though.