Jump to content

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


ArtieD

Recommended Posts

...... I've done many events with temporary caches but I only log the ones that I found and that end up published. ........

 

Is that the situation where the temporary caches have the GC code of an unpublished cache. Then after the event, the cache container is moved to a permanent location and is published with that GC code. Those who attended the event and found the temporary cache can then claim the cache.

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.

 

Aha! Another person who thinks some of us have our knickers in a twist around here. Who cares? Doesn't bother me a bit. I can't think it's ridiculous, and comment on it? You think I, or anyone else who thinks this is silly has any desire to "catch up" to any of these loggers? :huh:

 

To respond to a couple people without going quote crazy, yes, MPH, I'd like to hear the full story about the CEO of the Dirtbag Geocaching Society supposedly getting banned for a year for doing "the same thing", as alleged in a note to the event page by another DGS member.

 

And Yes, Lord Stirling, the same crowd (not the same event host) has an event every year near the holidays where they look at 75 or so Charles Dickens character displays, and log them as temporary virtuals. And there was an event in Cleveland a couple years ago that had a few dozen temporary virtuals. A cache type that hasn't been allowed on this website since August 2005, I might add. :)

Link to comment

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.

 

A quick question:

 

In your experience as a reviewer over the years, as the 'guidelines' have evolved, and types of caches have come and gone, how hard would it be for Groundspeak to implement (or change) guidelines to discourage these kind of activities?

Link to comment

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.

 

It doesn't matter whether it's on an event cache, or a traditional, it's just a different flavor of asinine. The difference is that events get archived shortly afterwards and the memories of nonsense logs soon fade. In this example, now traditionals are now defiled with bogus logs. It may satisfy someone's OCD to have the correct log type, but the mental disease is only being spread to a more permanent page to be evident in all eternity. Now the fake logging will seemingly be condoned as eventually others will do the same thing, but not for temporary event hides, but for whatever whim they feel like. There isn't much of a difference between this and pocket caches, except that this is much more stupid. When someone reads a cache page and looks at the logs, they are expecting to see some semblance of what the cache is about, not a storage area for faux scoring points. I can also assume that this is why the distinct caches count was removed from profiles, so that the Tourette loggers can be enabled. They've been doing it for ten years because Groundspeak cannot tell them no, as they are frightened of the predictable ensuing temper tantrum. I can see it now. "Please feel free to log this cache once for every decoy you find, or for every tenth of a mile you drove here, or once for every victim of Ebola". Is it too much to ask to request that these people behave like everyone else on the planet?

Link to comment

No knickers twisting here for sure but yes, this kind of stuff is just plain silly. That traditional cache now looks rediculous with all the phony logs posted to it.

 

Something else that i thought of when i read the event page.

 

From the guidelines:

An Event Cache should not be set up for the purpose of gathering geocachers for a geocache search.

 

I realize that temporary caches don't have anything to do with geoaching.com. Even so, it seems odd to me that the event page was published when it's main focus was on the promotion of the temp caches.

Link to comment

Hello, whats the name of this game? :blink:

 

It's Tourettes logging disorder.

 

Tourettes is characterized by multiple physical (motor) tics and at least one vocal (phonic) tic. These tics characteristically wax and wane, can be suppressed temporarily, and are preceded by a premonitory urge.
In this case we have online logging tics. The associated obscene words or socially inappropriate and derogatory remarks symptom is present in only a small minority of people with Tourettes, and in this case only if someone posts an NA. Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I searched for the cache in question from here. Didn't find it.

 

So, thinking I was doing the right thing. I logged a DNF:

 

40e07fce-34ef-43ff-b2f7-3cb464af58d5.jpg

 

But, it was soon deleted:

 

91cb5c19-1042-43d0-aebf-f4f39991f37c.jpg

 

I don't get it. Unlike the abundance of multiple find logs listed, my log was legit!

 

Somehow I don't think "finds" ever get deleted.

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.

 

 

I don't care what my own find count is so I certainly don't care what anyone elses might be. However, there are a lot of people that do judge other geocacher based on their find count. We see examples of this almost every day in the forums. When I went to HQ the first lackey I met asked me a question. It wasn't "where are you from?" or "how long have you been geocaching". I was asked how many finds I had. That said, this isn't about find counts. It's about geocacher behavior and what some geocachers consider to be an acceptable practices in how the game is played. If some wants to play the game in a manner that doesn't resemble what is commonly played by the majority of other players I think it's perfectly understandable that some might comment on how the game is being played by some.

Link to comment

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.

 

A quick question:

 

In your experience as a reviewer over the years, as the 'guidelines' have evolved, and types of caches have come and gone, how hard would it be for Groundspeak to implement (or change) guidelines to discourage these kind of activities?

I don't really want answer for a reviewer (it's a bit like logging finds on a cache for finding a different [temporary] cache), however I will say that Groundspeak has really tried to avoid creating guidelines to prevent logging of caches.

 

Instead they created a guideline that the maintenance responsibilities of a cache owner include deleting logs which are bogus (like a DNF on a cache you didn't look for), counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inapproriate (like a DNF log that really wasn't about your caching experiernce but instead was commentary better suited for the forums). This left the definitions of bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or inappropriate up to the cache owner. This had resulted in a few additional guidelines that limit the ability of the cache owner to delete logs by eliminating the practice of having additional requirements to log caches (of course challenge caches excepted).

 

Groundspeak certainly can have guidelines that make some attempt at forcing cache owners to treat certain types of logs as bogus. The main examples have been couch potato logs on virtual caches, and photo logs that convert a traditional cache into a virtual. In these case the logs aren't deleted, but the cache page is likely to be archived and locked. Groundspeak might be more consistent if they allowed these questionable logs along with logs for temporary caches or various outher 'bonus' logs. Perhaps a lackey can explain the difference. I suspect that the difficultly in enforcing these sort of guidelines makes TPTB wary of using them too often.

Link to comment

Should be one published cache, one find period.

 

But it's not like finds are used as some kind of score or anything.

 

 

Good one.

 

I also like what Jeremy said once on the forums:

 

"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." -Jeremy

 

 

When I was pretty new to caching and had no idea of any rules or guidelines, or anything but finding little boxes with GPS's, I went to an event. It had some temporary caches (I had no idea these weren't the norm) and I logged about 3 of them I think.

 

They had some really fun night caches at that event that really made the event a whole lot more fun. I found some of the caches with strangers and we had a chance to chat. It was an important part of the event for me. I had no idea of any controversy behind it.

 

I was told to log multiple times for the temporary caches I found. I had no idea it would cause such a ruckus on the forums if anyone realized I did that. Since I found out, I thought about deleting those three finds. I thought about it some more and I have no idea why I would do that.

 

Because I was caving in to someone elses definition of a find?

Because I was trying not to upset anyone else?

Because I was trying to make everyone in the world happy?

Because what someone else wanted me to do with my game was more important?

 

 

I had a great time finding those night caches that day. I log my finds partially for all the good memories.

 

I chose not to delete those memories and I don't care what anyone else thinks of that.

 

I don't care if others have logging practices that I might consider strange either.

 

This is a game. Do what's fun as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

Link to comment

Does attending the event constitute an ALR? :ph34r:

It might, but it's unclear if it's being used as an ALR in this case. If someone goes today, finds the cache, and logs it online, attendance at the event doesn't sound like it matters. In that case, it's just a regular Traditional like any other. It's only if you choose to log it multiple times that this pseudo-ALR would be enforced. This seems like a very grey area, and I'm just glad these kind of situations are limited to a relatively-small geographic area far from me.

Link to comment
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. So this is the cache for that purpose.

 

I find it curious that the reviewer suggested such activity. I'm sure some discussion occurred with TPTB before sanctioning the use of a traditional cache as a place holder for thousands of logs on unsanctioned temporary caches. Did they really think this through?

 

I know it is Groundspeak's sandbox and they can pile the sand any way they want. But when they start replacing the sand with boulders is it still a sandbox?

 

 

Oh, and P.S.:

That same quote says you have to SIGN IN to the event or your temp logs will be deleted. Now they are just makin' more stuff up.

 

Toz, I am still working on trying to untangle knickers. I'll update you on progress.:blink:

Link to comment

I find it curious that the reviewer suggested such activity. I'm sure some discussion occurred with TPTB before sanctioning the use of a traditional cache as a place holder for thousands of logs on unsanctioned temporary caches. Did they really think this through?

It's just a different cache type. It's no more or less sanctioned than it was in previous years.

Link to comment

Should be one published cache, one find period.

 

But it's not like finds are used as some kind of score or anything.

 

 

Good one.

 

I also like what Jeremy said once on the forums:

 

"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." -Jeremy

 

 

When I was pretty new to caching and had no idea of any rules or guidelines, or anything but finding little boxes with GPS's, I went to an event. It had some temporary caches (I had no idea these weren't the norm) and I logged about 3 of them I think.

 

They had some really fun night caches at that event that really made the event a whole lot more fun. I found some of the caches with strangers and we had a chance to chat. It was an important part of the event for me. I had no idea of any controversy behind it.

 

I was told to log multiple times for the temporary caches I found. I had no idea it would cause such a ruckus on the forums if anyone realized I did that. Since I found out, I thought about deleting those three finds. I thought about it some more and I have no idea why I would do that.

 

Because I was caving in to someone elses definition of a find?

Because I was trying not to upset anyone else?

Because I was trying to make everyone in the world happy?

Because what someone else wanted me to do with my game was more important?

 

 

I had a great time finding those night caches that day. I log my finds partially for all the good memories.

 

I chose not to delete those memories and I don't care what anyone else thinks of that.

 

I don't care if others have logging practices that I might consider strange either.

 

This is a game. Do what's fun as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

 

This whole log the event multiple times thing was sanctioned in probably 2002 or early 2003. Before my time even. So three of them, huh? I once hiked about 4 miles at an event for 5 poker run caches. Of course this was in Canada, where best I know, no one has ever logged multiple attends for temporary caches. So over the years, you knew the whole thing was going to be abused. It was once popular in Wisconsin, until the WGA (which ran most of the events), got sick of the "bad publicity" and stopped allowing the practice. That was around 2006, and those events were already up to 50 or 60 temp caches. I have seen gpx files for these TWC caches. They are as little as 50 feet apart, and I've not noticed any that are more than 300 feet from another. And I have seen in the same region where people log an annual event 90 times for walking past Charles Dickens character holiday displays. I'm all for "live and let live", but there's a line somewhere between Sol Seaker going out and finding 3 temporary caches, and laughable absurdity.

 

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. So this is the cache for that purpose.

 

I find it curious that the reviewer suggested such activity. I'm sure some discussion occurred with TPTB before sanctioning the use of a traditional cache as a place holder for thousands of logs on unsanctioned temporary caches. Did they really think this through?

 

I know it is Groundspeak's sandbox and they can pile the sand any way they want. But when they start replacing the sand with boulders is it still a sandbox?

 

 

Myself too, and if you look carefully enough on page 1, it appears pretty clear that another reviewer posted that wasn't the case, i.e. didn't know about it if that's what happened. I will say one thing, the publishing reviewer has to know this stuff is only going on in his territory. Well, there's some overlap in the region into other reviewer territories, but I'm not aware of any other events that go to town with 125 temps 300 feet or less apart.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

I find it curious that the reviewer suggested such activity. I'm sure some discussion occurred with TPTB before sanctioning the use of a traditional cache as a place holder for thousands of logs on unsanctioned temporary caches. Did they really think this through?

It's just a different cache type. It's no more or less sanctioned than it was in previous years.

And yet, knowing that this practice has been used at events for temporary or event-based unlisted caches before, it doesn't seem to make sense when approaching this from the "smiley count doesn't 'matter'" camp.

 

What I'm trying to say is that I think the problem one may have with this idea is that it inflates the smiley count. Now, this only matters when someone is assigning value to the find count. And, unfortunately for this discussion, there is "value" for a geocaching.com-awarded Smiley. Find counts are used to "prove" one's mettle, to demonstrate a more in-depth knowledge of the game, and much more. Whereas there is no "winner" for the highest find count, the whole idea morphed into a "log as many as you can" game pretty quickly.

 

Now, from my perspective, this is just plain silly. I don't make geocaching my sole recreational activity. I often don't even combine my other favorite activities such as biking, hiking, skiing, traveling, etc with geocaching. I stand by my personal interpretation of the guidelines that a single find of a container equals a single Smiley on this website.

 

So, that said, I'd be very, very interested in polling the folks who are logging hundreds of finds from temp caches at this event for why they are doing it. Is it to record the intrinsic experience of each temporary cache, ala the "night cache" example above? Is it because they want to keep track of the number of temporary caches that were at the event? Or is it simply to do one or both in combination with wanting to have more finds than the next guy?

 

I'll guess that it is more about adding more finds by using a loophole than it is about recording a memorable experience. Take away the public "Found It" smiley count, and I bet you'd see less of this frivolous, odd, and troubling behavior. It just causes some loud humming of cognitive dissonance in my head when I think about the guidelines of the game, the common practices I am used to from where I've lived and cached, and what I see as the general consensus within the greater caching community that this idea of logging many, many temporary caches on a published cache (of any type) is poor taste. I'll say it again, the logging of a find is more or less an honor system, and I feel that it is distasteful and dishonorable to act this way, or promote many players--both new and old--to act this way.

Link to comment

Should be one published cache, one find period.

 

But it's not like finds are used as some kind of score or anything.

 

 

Good one.

 

I also like what Jeremy said once on the forums:

 

"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." -Jeremy

 

 

When I was pretty new to caching and had no idea of any rules or guidelines, or anything but finding little boxes with GPS's, I went to an event. It had some temporary caches (I had no idea these weren't the norm) and I logged about 3 of them I think.

 

They had some really fun night caches at that event that really made the event a whole lot more fun. I found some of the caches with strangers and we had a chance to chat. It was an important part of the event for me. I had no idea of any controversy behind it.

 

I was told to log multiple times for the temporary caches I found. I had no idea it would cause such a ruckus on the forums if anyone realized I did that. Since I found out, I thought about deleting those three finds. I thought about it some more and I have no idea why I would do that.

 

Because I was caving in to someone elses definition of a find?

Because I was trying not to upset anyone else?

Because I was trying to make everyone in the world happy?

Because what someone else wanted me to do with my game was more important?

 

 

I had a great time finding those night caches that day. I log my finds partially for all the good memories.

 

I chose not to delete those memories and I don't care what anyone else thinks of that.

 

I don't care if others have logging practices that I might consider strange either.

 

This is a game. Do what's fun as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

 

It just seems obvious to me that if i'm going to log a cache as found on gc.com, that it needs to be a cache that's approved and listed on the gc.com. To go out and log finds on things that have nothing to do with the website seems silly.

Link to comment

It just seems obvious to me that if i'm going to log a cache as found on gc.com, that it needs to be a cache that's approved and listed on the gc.com. To go out and log finds on things that have nothing to do with the website seems silly.

That's about the most sensible thing I've seen said in this topic so far. What's next? I had to search around to find my car keys this morning. Eventually found them - should I log a cache find somewhere?

Link to comment
I had a great time finding those night caches that day. I log my finds partially for all the good memories.

 

I chose not to delete those memories and I don't care what anyone else thinks of that.

.

 

Why would you think anyone would expect you to delete those memories? The sensible thing would be to edit the "find" to a"note".

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

 

I don't really want answer for a reviewer (it's a bit like logging finds on a cache for finding a different [temporary] cache), however I will say that Groundspeak has really tried to avoid creating guidelines to prevent logging of caches.

 

Instead they created a guideline that the maintenance responsibilities of a cache owner include deleting logs which are bogus (like a DNF on a cache you didn't look for), counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inapproriate (like a DNF log that really wasn't about your caching experiernce but instead was commentary better suited for the forums). This left the definitions of bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or inappropriate up to the cache owner. This had resulted in a few additional guidelines that limit the ability of the cache owner to delete logs by eliminating the practice of having additional requirements to log caches (of course challenge caches excepted).

 

Groundspeak certainly can have guidelines that make some attempt at forcing cache owners to treat certain types of logs as bogus. The main examples have been couch potato logs on virtual caches, and photo logs that convert a traditional cache into a virtual. In these case the logs aren't deleted, but the cache page is likely to be archived and locked. Groundspeak might be more consistent if they allowed these questionable logs along with logs for temporary caches or various outher 'bonus' logs. Perhaps a lackey can explain the difference. I suspect that the difficultly in enforcing these sort of guidelines makes TPTB wary of using them too often.

 

I wouldn't expect a reviewer to be responsible for policing through cache logs looking for any abuses. Instead, I would hope that a guideline would be published so that the encouragement of this type of behavior would not be included in the listing when it is published by the reviewer. The event this cache is tied to has just that.

 

What players do after that isn't for me to say. Logging multiple 'finds' on any single cache is foolish. Claiming a 'find' on an unpublished cache by posting it on a 'mother-ship' cache, even more ridiculous. Those are my beliefs, like them or not. That being said, after it's published, it's the CO's discretion.

 

In my opinion, Groundspeak should come up with a guideline that addresses this so the reviewer has something to reference when a listing like that is submitted..

Link to comment

Is there any legit reason to log more than one find on a cache?

 

If not, why not make the default settings to allow only one Found It for each login name?

 

If there is to be officially-sanctioned multi-logging, the CO would have to request that feature be enabled by a reviewer.

Link to comment

Is there any legit reason to log more than one find on a cache?

 

If not, why not make the default settings to allow only one Found It for each login name?

 

If there is to be officially-sanctioned multi-logging, the CO would have to request that feature be enabled by a reviewer.

The few remaining moving caches maybe.

There is one in in your Country and another that allows multiple logging.

It supposedly covers benchmarks, as only those in the US are covered on this site.

- Though here in the US, finding a benchmark doesn't count as a find...

Link to comment

Is there any legit reason to log more than one find on a cache?

 

If not, why not make the default settings to allow only one Found It for each login name?

 

If there is to be officially-sanctioned multi-logging, the CO would have to request that feature be enabled by a reviewer.

The few remaining moving caches maybe.

There is one in in your Country and another that allows multiple logging.

It supposedly covers benchmarks, as only those in the US are covered on this site.

- Though here in the US, finding a benchmark doesn't count as a find...

 

The remaining moving caches already have some sort of flag set to allow coordinate changes to be made by the cache owner. Normally you can't update coordinates for your own cache more than a small amount, but owners of these grandfathered caches can. So that flag could also be used to prevent multiple logging.

Link to comment

...So, that said, I'd be very, very interested in polling the folks who are logging hundreds of finds from temp caches at this event for why they are doing it. Is it to record the intrinsic experience of each temporary cache, ala the "night cache" example above? Is it because they want to keep track of the number of temporary caches that were at the event? Or is it simply to do one or both in combination with wanting to have more finds than the next guy?...

My opinion: I have looked at the logs on the cache in question. Most of them are simpley the 3 character code the organizer assigned to each temp cache. This suggests to me that they are not using the find logs to record the intrinsic experience of each temporary cache, but to record the number and ID of the temp cache(s) they found. As such, it seems to me that it would make more sence to just add a list of the temp cache IDs in your "Attend" log.

Link to comment

...So, that said, I'd be very, very interested in polling the folks who are logging hundreds of finds from temp caches at this event for why they are doing it. Is it to record the intrinsic experience of each temporary cache, ala the "night cache" example above? Is it because they want to keep track of the number of temporary caches that were at the event? Or is it simply to do one or both in combination with wanting to have more finds than the next guy?...

My opinion: I have looked at the logs on the cache in question. Most of them are simpley the 3 character code the organizer assigned to each temp cache. This suggests to me that they are not using the find logs to record the intrinsic experience of each temporary cache, but to record the number and ID of the temp cache(s) they found. As such, it seems to me that it would make more sence to just add a list of the temp cache IDs in your "Attend" log.

 

Ahh, but there is the rub. It is apparent that these folks WANT the temp finds to appear in their total finds stats.

Link to comment

Is there any legit reason to log more than one find on a cache?

 

If not, why not make the default settings to allow only one Found It for each login name?

 

If there is to be officially-sanctioned multi-logging, the CO would have to request that feature be enabled by a reviewer.

 

I agree. The number of exceptions where mulitple found it logs on a cache might be appropriate is so small that it would make sense to have a 1 cache, 1 find default setting.

 

 

Link to comment

Is there any legit reason to log more than one find on a cache?

 

If not, why not make the default settings to allow only one Found It for each login name?

 

If there is to be officially-sanctioned multi-logging, the CO would have to request that feature be enabled by a reviewer.

 

I agree. The number of exceptions where mulitple found it logs on a cache might be appropriate is so small that it would make sense to have a 1 cache, 1 find default setting.

 

It won't fly because it makes too much sense.

Link to comment

Is there any legit reason to log more than one find on a cache?

 

If not, why not make the default settings to allow only one Found It for each login name?

 

If there is to be officially-sanctioned multi-logging, the CO would have to request that feature be enabled by a reviewer.

 

I agree. The number of exceptions where mulitple found it logs on a cache might be appropriate is so small that it would make sense to have a 1 cache, 1 find default setting.

 

Of course, that would only work if GS wanted to make it so! And it does not seem as if it is interested.

My multiple logs were on Locationless (and Mystery disguised as Locationless) where the tasks changed, and could be logged anew. Those are gone. But there are a few (very few) similar caches. Grant them exemptions, and I'm all for it!

Just doesn't sound as if Groundspeak is, though.

Link to comment

I suggest we spam with DNF and needs archival logs and report ecessive finders and the CO

I would advise against misuse of the reporting tools - it's a terms of use issue. You can safely assume that Geocaching HQ and the Ohio reviewer team are aware of the issue. Thank you.

Link to comment

I suggest we spam with DNF and needs archival logs and report ecessive finders and the CO

It's my understanding the Cache Owner is the Land Manager of where the event was held. Spamming the event page will paint geocachers in an even worse light. All it takes is one anti-caching land manager within a jurisdiction to have geocaching throttled throughout.
Link to comment

I suggest we spam with DNF and needs archival logs and report ecessive finders and the CO

It's my understanding the Cache Owner is the Land Manager of where the event was held. Spamming the event page will paint geocachers in an even worse light. All it takes is one anti-caching land manager within a jurisdiction to have geocaching throttled throughout.

 

Spamming the cache page with DNF and needs archival logs would cross the line of one's knickers being in a twist. :ph34r:

 

The TWC in TWC Geocaching Club stands for The Wilderness Center, who puts on at least two 50-300 foot apart temporary cache numbers orgies a year at said Wilderness Center. Is "the land manager" behind the account? Speculation I suppose. Would they get their knickers in a twist and ban Geocaching if they were told they could no longer host bi-annual temporary cache number orgies? Also speculation. :)

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

Would they get their knickers in a twist and ban Geocaching if they were told they could no longer host bi-annual temporary cache number orgies?

 

Education. The majority of the civilized geocaching world doesn't condone this practice. Thus, most are not really attracted to the idea of attending the "geocaching orgies".

 

Perhaps if the Wilderness Center was interested in attracting people to the area to make it an event with some draw, they would reach out to experience cachers (which doesn't mean a high find count), and find out what geocachers want at an event. There are some people that want numbers as shown by the history of the events in that region. Maybe permanent hides, or innovated temporary hides so cool that people don't mind writing about instead of getting a +1 at every turn.

 

Get a regional draw for a cool event, with cool caches and adventures, and maybe people from Erie, Buffalo, or even as far out as Rochester would want to attend even if they only got the one +1 or a few more for the few permanent events placed.

Link to comment

Prior to the temporary guideline, I suspect that it was fairly common for event organizers to put out a slew caches just for the event. They would ask the reviewers to publish the caches the day of the event and then archive the cache the day after the event. These temporary caches (listed on GC.com) were no doubt a big draw for some events.

 

With the decision to add a cache permanence guideline, there were probably a lot of people hosting event who complained this capability was no longer available. TPTB probably told them that they could put out their own temporary caches, just not have them listed on GC.com, and find some other way for attendees to get credit for finding these.

 

As someone who doesn't believe that a smiley point from a Found log is 'credit', I would have interpreted this differently. Posting the number of temps you found in your attended log, or logging your temporary cache finds on a separate site, would seem a better approach than multiple 'attended' logs or multiple finds on another cache. And certainly in some areas, event organizers found ways to have temporary caches without resorting to allowing multiple find logs on a Groundspeak listing for this. However, Jeremy has made it clear that there is no reason to get one's knicker in twist over find counts, and while TPTB have on a few occasions decided that some logging practices cross the line into abuse of the system, they don't seem very concerned about this one.

 

As silly as I find the practice, I find the reaction of those who let this bother them far sillier. Frankly, I don't really care what people in Ohio do. Even if I were to visit Ohio, these logs would have little influence on what caching I might do. I find it rather unlikely that I'm going to use the most finds as a criteria for selecting what I'm going to look for. Far more likely I'd look for most favorite points. And if I went to an event, I personally wouldn't waste my time entering logs for each temporary cache I found. My knickesr are quite comfortable; I just can't figure out why so many people have gotten their knickers in a twist.

Link to comment

Looking at the event and the traditional caches that had the multiple logs per cacher...it seems to me that this type of situation with temporary caches would be the perfect application of Lab Caches. If the CO's want to make it easy for cachers to log each of the 'caches', then they could make the 'code' for each cache very simple (like teh 4-char PT/WT coded cachers put in their find logs).

 

Cachers could still get their find count up for all the temporary caches they log, and the Event's cache page wouldn't look so ridiculous with all the multiple attended logs per cacher. This would also provide a clearer purpose for the Lab Cache concept that seems to be a bit controversial, although less controversial than the multiple found it/attended logs on a single GC number.

Link to comment

I suggest we spam with DNF and needs archival logs and report ecessive finders and the CO

I would advise against misuse of the reporting tools - it's a terms of use issue. You can safely assume that Geocaching HQ and the Ohio reviewer team are aware of the issue. Thank you.

 

I would suspect if Geocaching HQ has been made aware of the situation, the only thing they may or may not care about is the fact that their 2002 guidance for allowing temporary caches to be logged infers it be done on the event page, and not a designated traditional cache.

 

Would they get their knickers in a twist and ban Geocaching if they were told they could no longer host bi-annual temporary cache number orgies?

 

Education. The majority of the civilized geocaching world doesn't condone this practice. Thus, most are not really attracted to the idea of attending the "geocaching orgies".

 

Perhaps if the Wilderness Center was interested in attracting people to the area to make it an event with some draw, they would reach out to experience cachers (which doesn't mean a high find count), and find out what geocachers want at an event. There are some people that want numbers as shown by the history of the events in that region. Maybe permanent hides, or innovated temporary hides so cool that people don't mind writing about instead of getting a +1 at every turn.

 

Get a regional draw for a cool event, with cool caches and adventures, and maybe people from Erie, Buffalo, or even as far out as Rochester would want to attend even if they only got the one +1 or a few more for the few permanent events placed.

 

As someone covered in that possible regional draw, I would never attend any event at this Wilderness Center. You know why? Look at the cache page:

 

Sorry but absolutely NO PETS, FIREARMS, OR ALCOHOL permitted at this event.

I don't go to any event unless I'm packing a .45 and a six pack of Natty Light. :lol:

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

At one time geocachers used to write a full page in the logbook when finding a cache. Today, they just sign and put anything of interest online, but even that is slowly disappearing. This cache is just filled with nonsensical logging. Being that some geocachers love numbers, I predict that this trend will spread now that it has crossed over to traditional caches and the unique designation has disappeared from profiles. It's starting to resemble the QR code scanning game more and more every day. :(

Link to comment

Whilst my undergarments are aligned and comfortable, I do think it is better to have the temporary caches logged against the event.

 

The reason being that geocachers who know nothing about the event and find the Traditional cache, and look at previous logs, may be confused. I know this is only temporary and soon "real" logs will be the most recent ones... but it just seems cleaner to limit these temporary caches to the event listing itself.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...