Jump to content

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


ArtieD

Recommended Posts

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?

 

 

Looks like the Reviewer never suggested the cache to be published and used to log the temp event caches.

 

Archive Archive 10/31/2014

Hello,

 

With the guidance of Groundspeak, I am archiving this listing since the event to which it has become associated has been archived. As the reviewer of this cache, I will state I at no time suggested using this cache as a logging place for temporary event caches.

 

Mr. Ollivander

Groundspeak.com Volunteer Reviewer

Link to comment
Looks like the Reviewer never suggested the cache to be published and used to log the temp event caches.

 

Archive Archive 10/31/2014

Hello,

 

With the guidance of Groundspeak, I am archiving this listing since the event to which it has become associated has been archived. As the reviewer of this cache, I will state I at no time suggested using this cache as a logging place for temporary event caches.

 

Mr. Ollivander

Groundspeak.com Volunteer Reviewer

 

Well that speaks volumes. Either by misunderstanding or plain deception, the cache owner added the reviewer approval bit to validate the practice. Guess that never happened.

Link to comment
Looks like the Reviewer never suggested the cache to be published and used to log the temp event caches.

 

Archive Archive 10/31/2014

Hello,

 

With the guidance of Groundspeak, I am archiving this listing since the event to which it has become associated has been archived. As the reviewer of this cache, I will state I at no time suggested using this cache as a logging place for temporary event caches.

 

Mr. Ollivander

Groundspeak.com Volunteer Reviewer

 

Well that speaks volumes. Either by misunderstanding or plain deception, the cache owner added the reviewer approval bit to validate the practice. Guess that never happened.

 

The multilogging of the traditional is mentioned on the event page, but even that has multilogs as well. Looks like 30 some people went and posted 660 attend logs.

Link to comment
Looks like the Reviewer never suggested the cache to be published and used to log the temp event caches.

 

Archive Archive 10/31/2014

Hello,

 

With the guidance of Groundspeak, I am archiving this listing since the event to which it has become associated has been archived. As the reviewer of this cache, I will state I at no time suggested using this cache as a logging place for temporary event caches.

 

Mr. Ollivander

Groundspeak.com Volunteer Reviewer

 

Well that speaks volumes. Either by misunderstanding or plain deception, the cache owner added the reviewer approval bit to validate the practice. Guess that never happened.

 

The multilogging of the traditional is mentioned on the event page, but even that has multilogs as well. Looks like 30 some people went and posted 660 attend logs.

 

Yep, they allowed the multilogging of the event page before the traditional published.

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?

 

 

Looks like the Reviewer never suggested the cache to be published and used to log the temp event caches.

 

Archive Archive 10/31/2014

Hello,

 

With the guidance of Groundspeak, I am archiving this listing since the event to which it has become associated has been archived. As the reviewer of this cache, I will state I at no time suggested using this cache as a logging place for temporary event caches.

 

Mr. Ollivander

Groundspeak.com Volunteer Reviewer

 

Just as I suspected.

 

I am glad I live in NW Ohio where this practice of temporary cache logging did not become de rigueur.

Link to comment

 

Looks like the Reviewer never suggested the cache to be published and used to log the temp event caches.

 

Archive Archive 10/31/2014

Hello,

 

With the guidance of Groundspeak, I am archiving this listing since the event to which it has become associated has been archived. As the reviewer of this cache, I will state I at no time suggested using this cache as a logging place for temporary event caches.

 

Mr. Ollivander

Groundspeak.com Volunteer Reviewer

 

Nothin' like getting thrown under the bus! throw_under_bus_by_mirz123-d4dlhl0.gif

Link to comment

The multilogging of the traditional is mentioned on the event page...

Reminding readers that this was added to the event page AFTER the event page was published. See my post #23 on page one.

 

Generally speaking, would a reviewer use their discretion and disable or retract the event listing once they learned of something like this happening?

Link to comment

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

 

Dude, all this time I had you pegged as a Utica Club Ale guy. :P

 

No, you rarely see that any more, and this news article verifies it. The brewery is into making all their craft brews these days. When I was in College, yeah, you could find that stuff for 99 cents a six pack sometimes.

 

The Wilderness Center has a nice website, sounds like a nice place. I just checked it out because someone expressed concern the "land manager" could get upset about any or all of the so-called controversy here. It appears the people who run this event, and are probably behind the TWC Geocaching Club account, are not listed as staff members of TWC. In fact there is no mention of Geocaching anywhere on their website, other than the event having an entry on TWC's monthly calender.

Link to comment

GS should set up a routine where if you log a cache found more than once, then that cache is automatically added to your watch list, and you are unable to unwatch it. Then you have to sift through those 4000+ emails that flood your mailbox in the next three days to find the mail that's really important to you.

 

That is so evil that I love it!

 

It should also be noted that requiring a cacher to sign the log at an event for any reason is an ALR and is prohibited.

Link to comment

GS should set up a routine where if you log a cache found more than once, then that cache is automatically added to your watch list, and you are unable to unwatch it. Then you have to sift through those 4000+ emails that flood your mailbox in the next three days to find the mail that's really important to you.

 

That is so evil that I love it!

 

It should also be noted that requiring a cacher to sign the log at an event for any reason is an ALR and is prohibited.

 

An "if then" statement in the code or two, and I believe it could happen. :laughing:

 

And yes, good point on making people sign an event log. But I don't want to pile on here. Heck, this week is probably the first time they knew no one outside of NE Ohio does this stuff, or anyone anywhere had an issue with it. :huh:

Link to comment

To me it's like kissing your grandma 100 times and claiming you kissed 100 girls, you may sound cool in front of your friends but pray they never find out the truth.

That sums it up perfectly for me. Hopefully I can remember to find this quote the next time the subject comes up. (Or perhaps Mr. Yuck can add this to his sig line.)

Link to comment

Where does it go from here?

 

The 'mother cache' has been archived and locked due to this practice, but the event page isn't locked.

 

If Groundspeak acknowledges the issue with the cache, why not the same with the event listing?

 

Inconsistency abounds.

 

They've done what should be expected from keeping it from spreading and jumping to regular caches. The event page will be archived eventually and it will go away until the next time. Letting the malarkey linger on a traditional cache is just asking for it to spread like a bad case of gonorrhea. :P

Link to comment

Where does it go from here?

 

The 'mother cache' has been archived and locked due to this practice, but the event page isn't locked.

 

If Groundspeak acknowledges the issue with the cache, why not the same with the event listing?

 

Inconsistency abounds.

 

They've done what should be expected from keeping it from spreading and jumping to regular caches. The event page will be archived eventually and it will go away until the next time. Letting the malarkey linger on a traditional cache is just asking for it to spread like a bad case of gonorrhea. :P

 

I agree. For reasons that are beyond my grasp TPTB have elected to look the other way and allow the malarkey to continue unchecked on events pages for years. I am glad they at least have decided to curb this latest attempt at malfeasance.

 

Knickers slowly untwisting...

Edited by cheech gang
Link to comment

Where does it go from here?

 

The 'mother cache' has been archived and locked due to this practice, but the event page isn't locked.

 

If Groundspeak acknowledges the issue with the cache, why not the same with the event listing?

 

Inconsistency abounds.

 

They've done what should be expected from keeping it from spreading and jumping to regular caches. The event page will be archived eventually and it will go away until the next time. Letting the malarkey linger on a traditional cache is just asking for it to spread like a bad case of gonorrhea. :P

 

Totally expected that they would allow temporary caches to be logged on event pages, yes. I wasn't so sure about that traditional being archived, but it did happen. Spread? I don't know, the temporary cache logging thing has contracted, not expanded over the years.

 

On a side note, the only "restrictions" I've ever seen The Frog impose on temporary cache logging at events is for Mega's. And I think it only applied in one case. When the Allegheny Geobash in Southern NY went mega, they were told there would be no more temporary cache logging on the event page. Here is the 2007 Allegheny Geobash, the year before it went Mega, with people logging it up to 15 times. Which is not 125, I might add. :P

Link to comment

...with people logging it up to 15 times. Which is not 125, I might add. :P

I would think a puritan would say "logging 2 times is not once". Didn't realize someone would think that 15 times is not as bad as 125.

 

Of course the issue with mega events shows the dilemma that Groundspeak faces. If you have 500+ people, many of whom are logging an event multiple times, that's a lot of logs. Some people will watch an event to see if others post pictures. The extra logs could get annoying. I would have thought that might be the reason to use a designated cache instead. People who want to watch the event could do so without having to get all the emails from people logging temporary caches. I don't think people are as likely to watch the designated traditional, so the people who want to log the temporaries could do so and annoy fewer people

 

Boy, was I wrong, Apparently logs on tradtional cache cause more twisting of knickers than extra attended logs on events. Who knew?

Link to comment

I think we can say that the practices (well intentioned or not) of the past are just that: the past. It could be easy enough to restructure the game to really make it clear to all users--old, new, and soon-to-be new--that 1 cache gets 1 "Found It", which equals an additional Smiley (WIGAS) for one's account.

 

That would be plenty simple to just put this kind of problem to bed once and for all. That is, unless there is a reasoning within the Lilypad for allowing people to log another "Found it" or Smiley (WIGAS) for each cache NOT listed on Geocaching.com.

 

Really, if there is a cache owner out there who doesn't really care to maintain their listings and logs on their caches, one could log each GPS-related gamepiece on Geocaching.com from any other game played in proximity. I could, in theory, go out and find a Munthingy, a Geocache, a "stash", a "temporary cache", an OpenCache, etc., and log a "Found it" on any cache I choose--including one I own. And now, since you can't see "distinct" finds on a profile, I could pad the bejeezus out of my find count, and nobody would know why without some deeper research into a single profile's find information. WIN!

 

So if we really want to ignore the honor-system of the "Found it", and the "1 cache, 1 find" process, it seems like one could pad their numbers, abuse loopholes in the guidelines, and more. Unless Groundspeak closed that loophole, and made it so that one can only log a single find on a single listing both in coding and in the guidelines/rules.

 

What says the Lilypad? Is there a reason to keep it open-ended for people to log a "find" for something on Geocaching.com that isn't listed on Geocaching.com's website?

 

ETA:

My knickers are untwisted. I just wonder these things out loud. I know how I cache (1 cache=1 find. Temp caches don't get logged because they aren't hosted on Geocaching.com, e.g.), and know others cache how they want to. That doesn't mean it makes sense to me--or others--to log temp caches, or one cache 125 times for whatever reason.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

...with people logging it up to 15 times. Which is not 125, I might add. :P

I would think a puritan would say "logging 2 times is not once". Didn't realize someone would think that 15 times is not as bad as 125.

 

Of course the issue with mega events shows the dilemma that Groundspeak faces. If you have 500+ people, many of whom are logging an event multiple times, that's a lot of logs. Some people will watch an event to see if others post pictures. The extra logs could get annoying. I would have thought that might be the reason to use a designated cache instead. People who want to watch the event could do so without having to get all the emails from people logging temporary caches. I don't think people are as likely to watch the designated traditional, so the people who want to log the temporaries could do so and annoy fewer people

 

Boy, was I wrong, Apparently logs on tradtional cache cause more twisting of knickers than extra attended logs on events. Who knew?

 

Per the bolded, that is because my knikers are not in a twist. :anicute: I mean I disagree with it, but I couldn't care less. As I've stated before, this practice used to be more widespread, and I have personally attended events in like 2006 where there were like 5 temporary caches, before the practice died out in my area. No, I did not log any of them, I still disagreed with it back then.

 

But when these people are finding "caches" 50-300 feet apart, or walking past Charles Dickens Character "temporary virtuals", and logging events 90-125 times, that's just ridiculous. My opinion of course, and my knickers hanging loose.

Link to comment

As I've stated before, this practice used to be more widespread, and I have personally attended events in like 2006 where there were like 5 temporary caches, before the practice died out in my area. No, I did not log any of them, I still disagreed with it back then.

 

But when these people are finding "caches" 50-300 feet apart, or walking past Charles Dickens Character "temporary virtuals", and logging events 90-125 times, that's just ridiculous. My opinion of course, and my knickers hanging loose.

And therein lies the distinction. A student of forum history -- or even a relative newcomer who's good with the forum search feature -- can easily dig up and quote the prior guidance from Geocaching HQ on this subject, from many years ago. That guidance reflected concepts like "so long as it flies under the radar" (like 5 temporary caches on a local event) and "unless the situation becomes abusive" (like thousands of logs on dozens of temporary caches). One can reasonably conclude that the threshold was crossed sometime between a dozen people logging finds on five temp caches, and the numbers brought up for discussion in this thread.

Link to comment

What they should've done was change the software, limiting the multi logging to 50 attends per event per person without telling anyone. The event organizers then would likely get upset and have a knee jerk response, complaining about it in here, setting the stage for some self combustion. At that point they could change the limit to 1 per person, and it would seem that it would be the end result of organizers initiative. If they didn't take the bait, then the amount could gradually be whittled down over a few years. However it's more likely that the benefits of the events greatly outweigh any multi logging, so there's a good chance the bizarre tradition will continue.

Link to comment

What they should've done was change the software, limiting the multi logging to 50 attends per event per person without telling anyone. The event organizers then would likely get upset and have a knee jerk response, complaining about it in here, setting the stage for some self combustion. At that point they could change the limit to 1 per person, and it would seem that it would be the end result of organizers initiative. If they didn't take the bait, then the amount could gradually be whittled down over a few years. However it's more likely that the benefits of the events greatly outweigh any multi logging, so there's a good chance the bizarre tradition will continue.

 

Nah, allow people to find caches and attend events multiple times if it's important to have logs for all the temp events. But don't do a :D + 1 for their find count.

Link to comment

Why bother writing new code when, ultimately, forum shame will do the trick? :anibad:

:huh:

 

I haven't detected that shaming someone in a forum they don't read has any effect on their knickers. :mellow:

 

This is true, probably none of them read this forum. They have definitely drawn attention to themselves this time, with their ill conceived plan to log their so-called temporary caches on a dummy traditional cache. Well, not really dummy, it existed and everything, but you get my point. The 4,000+ attended logs thing has been going on at this particular event since 2008. Will they be told to tone it down? Will they be told to stop doing it completely? I'll say no on both counts, but I've been wrong before. :lol:

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...