Jump to content

4,380 finds and it was just hidden on October 17th?


ArtieD
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

I have no words.

 

Okay, maybe a couple: I get people play their own game and all that, but this is just straight-up silly right here.

 

GC5EW0V - Sweet Trail 3

Virtual flash crowd, mass hysteria, crowd psychology, kooky behavior ... when the planets align, it happens every now and then.... :rolleyes:<_<

 

I'll bet the moderators and lackeys are having one of their ultra-private online pow-wows right about now and deciding what to do! :anibad:

Link to comment

I have no words.

 

Okay, maybe a couple: I get people play their own game and all that, but this is just straight-up silly right here.

 

GC5EW0V - Sweet Trail 3

Virtual flash crowd, mass hysteria, crowd psychology, kooky behavior ... when the planets align, it happens every now and then.... :rolleyes:<_<

 

I'll bet the moderators and lackeys are having one of their ultra-private online pow-wows right about now and deciding what to do! :anibad:

 

Per the bolded, probably not. This "TWC Club" is infamous for this every year at an annual event. They put out up to 125 "temporary caches" in this park, and people log them as extra attended logs. By the way, they put out a GPX file of them before the event every year, and they are usually 200-300 feet apart. :ph34r:

 

There's something odd going on where most of the attendees are logging them on this dummy traditional cache page though. Something very odd. But after all, they are an odd bunch. :)

 

P.S., before Toz posts, my knickers are not in a twist. I'm allowed to observe absurd behavior, and deem it absurd, aren't I?

Link to comment

 

There's something odd going on where most of the attendees are logging them on this dummy traditional cache page though. Something very odd. But after all, they are an odd bunch. :)

 

P.S., before Toz posts, my knickers are not in a twist. I'm allowed to observe absurd behavior, and deem it absurd, aren't I?

 

I don't know if it's the case every year but a bunch of those logs were from someone in Wyoming. I suppose it's possible that they traveled to Ohio for the event, but the more likely scenario is that it's become known that the CO isn't going to verify logs on the temporary caches and some are using the cache for armchair logging.

 

 

Link to comment

 

There's something odd going on where most of the attendees are logging them on this dummy traditional cache page though. Something very odd. But after all, they are an odd bunch. :)

 

P.S., before Toz posts, my knickers are not in a twist. I'm allowed to observe absurd behavior, and deem it absurd, aren't I?

 

I don't know if it's the case every year but a bunch of those logs were from someone in Wyoming. I suppose it's possible that they traveled to Ohio for the event, but the more likely scenario is that it's become known that the CO isn't going to verify logs on the temporary caches and some are using the cache for armchair logging.

And, in all honesty, what's going to stop anyone from logging a cache like this and claiming, "I was at the event!" from their armchairs? Without a logbook at most events (that was news to me...), there is nothing to audit to know if the person was actually in attendance. So, the armchair logging is harder to deal with, and the "go ahead and log this one for temporary caches" cache is just a convenient place to bend the guidelines to conform to one's desire to get an inflated smilie count.

 

ETA:

And it just makes it harder when the guidelines specific to logging "finds" is an honor system...and feels dishonorable when you look at situations like this which seem to come up all to often.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

OK, I think I figured out what they're up to. The very first log is very strange: September 4th find log, before publishing Why on earth some guy from Pennsylvania that only joined in August got the news this traditional cache was going to be used for logging temporary event caches is beyond me, but whatever.

 

So my theory: The TWC club aficionados finally figured out after all these years they can log a traditional cache with one of those speed logging sites (or even GSAK?) and they weren't able to do so with attended logs on an event.

 

WOOHOO!!! What do I win?? I say 100 find logs, how does that sound? :)

Link to comment

I went to this event in question briefly. I do not log temporary caches. 1 GC Code, 1 Log, period. Anything else is a clear abuse of the system.

 

I want to critizise this cache, seems crazy to me. But I have logged "Brass Cap Cache" (The worlds most found cache, http://coord.info/GC43F3) over 100 times, and a local moving cache (http://coord.info/GCA0D6) about 10 times. So, kind of hard for me to point fingers.

 

In the UK we have Ye Ole Survey Monument which can be logged more than once.

Have no problem with it, it is moved to various locations.

(I've found and logged it 6 times)

 

And, it has a proper GC number...

All these 'Temp' caches don't have, and wont ever get, a GC number.

Link to comment

7:00 PM Eastern time, and it's up to 5 Needs Archived logs. The cache owner, the TWC Club must be all like "what's going on? I thought people did this at every event all over the world". :lol:

 

Tough call on this one. Logging the event itself 4,000+ times is actually allowed, although this practice has died out to the point where it's pretty much practiced only in NE Ohio, SW Pa., and the western West Virginia panhandle, and no where else in the world. Will they be allowed to use a dummy traditional for the purposes of logging their temporary event finds? I will say general tolerance of the practice in that region, and the fact that just about every single logger is a premium member will prevail, and they'll be allowed to do it not only this year, but in the future.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

OK, I think I figured out what they're up to. The very first log is very strange: September 4th find log, before publishing Why on earth some guy from Pennsylvania that only joined in August got the news this traditional cache was going to be used for logging temporary event caches is beyond me, but whatever.

 

So my theory: The TWC club aficionados finally figured out after all these years they can log a traditional cache with one of those speed logging sites (or even GSAK?) and they weren't able to do so with attended logs on an event.

 

WOOHOO!!! What do I win?? I say 100 find logs, how does that sound? :)

You win 100 DNF's -- make sure to log them.

 

The log you linked to was entered today, and backdated.

Link to comment

7:00 PM Eastern time, and it's up to 5 Needs Archived logs. The cache owner, the TWC Club must be all like "what's going on? I thought people did this at every event all over the world". :lol:

 

Keep in mind, NA posters, the publishing reviewer is obviously very tolerant of these practices, as they are widespread in that small region of NE Ohio, SW Pa., and the West Virginia Panhandle. Heck, they could even be one of the loggers, although I'd guess probably not.

It has nothing to do with the publishing reviewer's "tolerance." The practice of multiple "attended" logs on event caches has been sanctioned for more than ten years as an alternative preferable (from a reviewer's standpoint) to publishing separate listings for each temporary event cache. When publishing the event, the reviewer did nothing contrary to guidance from Geocaching HQ.

 

What's different here is that a traditional cache was brought into the mix for the logging of temp caches. Please note, the invitation to do that was added post-publication. So, the reviewer who published the traditional cache also did nothing contrary to guidance from Geocaching HQ. The listing met the guidelines at the time when it was published and, arguably, it still does if there is a container and logbook at the posted coordinates.

Link to comment

7:00 PM Eastern time, and it's up to 5 Needs Archived logs. The cache owner, the TWC Club must be all like "what's going on? I thought people did this at every event all over the world". :lol:

 

Keep in mind, NA posters, the publishing reviewer is obviously very tolerant of these practices, as they are widespread in that small region of NE Ohio, SW Pa., and the West Virginia Panhandle. Heck, they could even be one of the loggers, although I'd guess probably not.

It has nothing to do with the publishing reviewer's "tolerance." The practice of multiple "attended" logs on event caches has been sanctioned for more than ten years as an alternative preferable (from a reviewer's standpoint) to publishing separate listings for each temporary event cache. When publishing the event, the reviewer did nothing contrary to guidance from Geocaching HQ.

 

What's different here is that a traditional cache was brought into the mix for the logging of temp caches. Please note, the invitation to do that was added post-publication. So, the reviewer who published the traditional cache also did nothing contrary to guidance from Geocaching HQ. The listing met the guidelines at the time when it was published and, arguably, it still does if there is a container and logbook at the posted coordinates.

 

That's no fair, I edited that. :P

 

Well, I stand by the theory that these people found some speed logging site, a way to do it in GSAK, or someone wrote a speed logging script that only works for traditionals, and not attended logs on events. So what do YOU think? should they be allowed to log their temp finds on a traditional? I've already said they will probably be allowed to. And contrary to popular belief, I couldn't care less. It is certainly fun to watch though. :)

Link to comment

Well, I stand by the theory that these people found some speed logging site, a way to do it in GSAK, or someone wrote a speed logging script that only works for traditionals, and not attended logs on events.

If I want to log temporary caches found at an event, it makes more sense to log a traditional multiple times than to log multiple Attended at an event. It has the advantage of showing up as finds on traditional caches.

 

It's not something I want to do, but I'm not going to waste energy on outrage at those who do.

Link to comment

New development. A note just posted by the cache owner, TWC Geocaching club suggests a reviewer suggested they use a traditional for logging their temporary finds from the event.

 

very fall our club hosts a fall geocaching event with about 100 temps placed for the day. Usually we have them log their temps under the event but this year a reviewer suggested that we place a permanent cache designated for the cachers who ATTENDED the event to log their temps if they WANT to.

Link to comment

Well now it seems that the twc geocache club is all mad now about the publicity they have gained. They're deleting any log from anyone who did not attend the event. NA logs and other notes have been deleted by them repeatedly.

Edited by Arthur & Trillian
Link to comment

Well, I stand by the theory that these people found some speed logging site, a way to do it in GSAK, or someone wrote a speed logging script that only works for traditionals, and not attended logs on events.

If I want to log temporary caches found at an event, it makes more sense to log a traditional multiple times than to log multiple Attended at an event. It has the advantage of showing up as finds on traditional caches.

 

 

Um, no it doesn't. Keystone stated the practice of logging multiple attended logs for temporary caches on the event page has existed for over 10 years. It's a practice that has died out everywhere but this particular region, but a sanctioned practice. It's always been controversial, you probably just never heard about it before because you're not from Cleveland. :lol: First I ever heard of them being told to use a traditional cache to do it.

Link to comment
a sanctioned practice

 

Are there any guidelines regarding this?

 

Aren't there concerns that, since they aren't reviewed, these event-only pseudo-caches might contravene other guidelines?

 

In the example cited for this thread, it seems weird to me that you'd be allowed a real Found It on what sounds like not a real cache, within the context of the permanence and saturation guidelines.

Link to comment
a sanctioned practice

 

Are there any guidelines regarding this?

 

Aren't there concerns that, since they aren't reviewed, these event-only pseudo-caches might contravene other guidelines?

 

In the example cited for this thread, it seems weird to me that you'd be allowed a real Found It on what sounds like not a real cache, within the context of the permanence and saturation guidelines.

 

No guidelines at all. The annual TWC fall gathering in Ohio stands alone in the entire world as the only event that places 100+ temporary caches which are "logable" and would never be published on Geocaching.com

 

It has nothing to do with the publishing reviewer's "tolerance." The practice of multiple "attended" logs on event caches has been sanctioned for more than ten years as an alternative preferable (from a reviewer's standpoint) to publishing separate listings for each temporary event cache.

 

However, none of these caches could be published as separate listings. I'd dare say zero of the 100+ were more than 528 feet apart from another.

Link to comment
No guidelines at all. The annual TWC fall gathering in Ohio stands alone in the entire world as the only event that places 100+ temporary caches which are "logable" and would never be published on Geocaching.com

 

If this is pretty much the only place that does this, why are they still being allowed to do so? Surely there's some little guideline buried in there about abusing the logging system or something like that?

Link to comment

I went to this event in question briefly. I do not log temporary caches. 1 GC Code, 1 Log, period. Anything else is a clear abuse of the system.

 

That's precisely what it is. It's a way to get around the temporary cache, distance and virtual guidelines. As I understand it some of these "temp" caches at some of these events aren't even caches. I get the play your own game ethic, but sometimes things are taken a point that the game some people are playing has no resemblance whatsoever to geocaching. I understand at least one event involved logging Christmas light displays around town. Seriously, how is that geocaching?

Edited by Lord Stirling
Link to comment

I got to disagree with this. Let's say they did place the 100 temp caches.. Were they all approved by Groundspeak and all at least 1/10th of a mile apart or were they perhaps only 10 feet apart since Groundspeak wouldn't have to approve the locations nor even know of their knowledge. Or even 100 caches just placed at an event table for people to sign.

 

I don't know, I see this as a way of sidestepping the rules of the game or a loophole. I see this as abuse of the rules with the approval of their local reviewer.

 

Should be one published cache, one find period.

Edited by gpsblake
Link to comment

I think this could put power trails to shame. Simply fill a 55-gallon barrel with thousands of log sheets and let everyone log a find for every sheet they sign. Saves gas as well as time. Organized finders could bring a barrel full of pre-signed log sheets and swap.

 

You can have an event in a park where every fence post is a "cache", or one where all of the manhole covers and storm sewer drains in town are "caches". Think of the possibilities!

Link to comment
No guidelines at all. The annual TWC fall gathering in Ohio stands alone in the entire world as the only event that places 100+ temporary caches which are "logable" and would never be published on Geocaching.com

 

If this is pretty much the only place that does this, why are they still being allowed to do so? Surely there's some little guideline buried in there about abusing the logging system or something like that?

 

I once saw something similar at a local event with temporary caches and logging the event for every temporary cache found.

 

As far as abusing the system, from reading comments on that cache page it appears another member was banned once for doing the same thing. So I can't say, only that it is too cheesey for me. <_<

Link to comment

I think this could put power trails to shame. Simply fill a 55-gallon barrel with thousands of log sheets and let everyone log a find for every sheet they sign. Saves gas as well as time. Organized finders could bring a barrel full of pre-signed log sheets and swap.

 

Sadly, I've heard that this has been done at least once at an event (with hundreds of log sheets in a bucket, but it's infinitely scaleable!)

Link to comment

I'm not sure why people are complaining about temporary caches not conforming to guidelines. There are no guidelines for temporary caches. That's why they're temporary and won't be published on geocaching.com. People seriously get worked up over petty stuff like this? Stop obsessing over find counts and go geocaching :rolleyes:

 

 

If find counts mean that much to you, just go and log finds on your own cache for every time you saw the color blue or took a drink of water or whatever else tickles your fancy. You'll catch up in no time.

 

 

Link to comment

If I want to log temporary caches found at an event, it makes more sense to log a traditional multiple times than to log multiple Attended at an event. It has the advantage of showing up as finds on traditional caches.

 

Um, no it doesn't. Keystone stated the practice of logging multiple attended logs for temporary caches on the event page has existed for over 10 years. It's a practice that has died out everywhere but this particular region, but a sanctioned practice. It's always been controversial, you probably just never heard about it before because you're not from Cleveland. :lol: First I ever heard of them being told to use a traditional cache to do it.

I'd heard of the practice before - here in the forums :) Let me rephrase that. It seems more logical to me because if I found 100 temporary caches, but I only attended 1 event, abd I want that reflected in the stats, I would prefer my stats to show 100 more traditional finds and 1 more event, not that I had attended 101 events.

Link to comment

I just logged it 100 times! This has been my best day caching ever!

 

Seriously thought there is a challenge here that you can log every time you qualify. I qualify about 10 times but have only logged it once. I think this downgrades the game but many are doing it.

 

I would never feel good about my stats after logging that and it would probably end my game shortly after. I find it funny after all those finds there isn't one favorite. If I did log one cache 100 times I think it would warrant a favorite after you got 10 favorites for doing it. No one must feel good about it.

Link to comment

A cacher on the Kenai Peninsula hosts an annual event that is so good that if quality points could be assigned to caches, his events would be the most favorited in the state. One of the features of the event is a thirty cache course that changes each year. Each cache is assigned a different number of points, depending on distance from the start, the difficulty of the field puzzle (if applicable), the difficulty of the multi (if applicable), etc. The team that finishes with the greatest number of caches, wins, and prizes are awarded to all members of the top three teams. Folks leave with only one event smiley and sometimes a couple more because there are a couple of "permanent" traditional caches in the park. Everyone goes home happy with a single smilie, some prizes, and lots of memories. The day that changes is the day I stop driving 150 miles to attend.

Link to comment

If it's all about the event with temporary caches why are they logging multiple times on dates there is no event? And you thought the High Number cachers were bad. I would not take a cacher seriously when they log a cache multiple times to make it look like they found a lot of caches when they only can log one published cache. I've done many events with temporary caches but I only log the ones that I found and that end up published. I've seen cachers do that with Challenges, saying if they qualified for the challenge multiple times they can log it more then once. You may qualify more times but you still only found the cache once.

Link to comment

I think this could put power trails to shame. Simply fill a 55-gallon barrel with thousands of log sheets and let everyone log a find for every sheet they sign. Saves gas as well as time. Organized finders could bring a barrel full of pre-signed log sheets and swap.

 

Even better, stick a load of M**zees round the park, that way you get to log a find on the event for every one found, and you get points in M**zee land too - way to get those numbers up guys!

 

Seriously though, this seems bizarre to me and no way I would do it but I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that it's happening way over on another continent.

Link to comment
a sanctioned practice

 

Are there any guidelines regarding this?

 

Aren't there concerns that, since they aren't reviewed, these event-only pseudo-caches might contravene other guidelines?

 

In the example cited for this thread, it seems weird to me that you'd be allowed a real Found It on what sounds like not a real cache, within the context of the permanence and saturation guidelines.

Even if there were some guidelines that would probably use the words "should" or "might" so, anything is possible!!!!

Link to comment

This style of "play" is very common in Ohio for some reason. GC2Z0EC and GC2BVC3 were both events in that almost exact same area (SW of Canton). they are also the 2 most "found" caches in the United States according to ProjectGC. On top of that, they all have the same CO (TWC Geocache Club).

 

How does this logging practice impact others? For the most part it doesn't.

 

But if you use projectgc to find worthwhile caches to find in an area based on the number of logs, the top 22 caches in Ohio are all of the multiple-logging variety (mostly events it seems?) This does impact others ability to search for worthwhile caches. It also impacts those people who put out legitimate caches and are not given the chance to have their cache show up in the top 5/10/20 caches. Ever.

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 7
×
×
  • Create New...