Ethics of Finding

3.1k · February 13, 2015

To add to my previously raised question to which niraD already replied nicely. Suppose that you act as mentor for a cacher who has already gained some experiences with traditionals and maybe also some multi caches and wants to proceed with puzzle caches at the next level. What would you tell this cacher about issues that are not related to puzzle solving techniques?

If it were me, I would not only recommend to make a serious attempt to solve the chosen puzzles myself before even considering asking for a small hint and I would in any case stress that if someone asks for a hint, the first address should be the cache owner.

I'm always amazed that the newer caches seem to think that it is the best to ask a previous finder.

There is so much which I regard as important which is far beyond the so simple rule when one is allowed (but not forced) to log a found it.

This really doesn't relate, actually, but I'll bite.

As a "mentor", I'd tell them about what Mystery/Puzzle caches are, and point them in the direction of a few to cut their teeth on. From there, we can discuss the nuance and occasions where one may not end up completing a puzzle or needing to deal with the "mystery" of the cache at all. As that is a very small percentage of how anyone ends up finding a M/P cache anyway, it won't be the focus of my discussion. I'd certainly recommend the channels of communication for ANY cache type be through the owner first, but also that previous finders can offer help if an owner is not responding.

But, when asked, as I'm assuming they eventually would, "So...what about if I happen on a cache's final location and sign the logbook...what then, mentor?" I would then be able to discuss the ins and outs of the guidelines that relate to that situation, and allow them to develop their own decision on how they would handle such a case in the future.

Same goes for if they ask me, "What if someone else solves the puzzle and offers to share with me?". I'd let them decide for themselves, yet to also consider what the owner might think. (And, speaking from my experience, I learned that owners generally don't care about working with someone else to solve it, or being at the cache and claiming a find even if I didn't solve a puzzle. Really, isn't it all about, as you said, "The essence is still setting out and trying to find a cache"? If that means trying at the puzzle, not solving it, but taking the walk to find the final with someone else who did, so what?

If an owner wants to get bent out of shape about that situation, my advice would be to remember that it's. just. a. game.

9.2k · February 13, 2015

Excellent post.

2k · February 13, 2015

The essence of the game on this website is to attempt to find a container someone has hidden at some coordinates, sign the logbook if the caches is found , and log the experience online at Geocaching.com.

This is better than I said it.

All the other stuff is important and almost always determines how enjoyable a cache is to someone that tries to find it. The hike, the location, the size of the container, the puzzle you had to solve to get the final coordinates, the walk through a historical location to get some numbers off a plaque that gives you a history lesson, the geological lesson about the physical characteristics of the location you're currently visiting, the chance to see hundreds of toilet seat art creations (Barney Smith's Toilet Seat Museum ) or any other unusual oddities that are worth visiting. Those are the things that hooked me initially and those are the things that keep me going.

All those things listed above are great and important to a hide, but they're not the "essence" of geocaching. You're still looking for something at a set of coordinates and hoping that you can find what the CO wants you to find. What's even worse, IMO, is when someone misses all these extra things the CO tries to get the cacher to experience because they're more concerned about the find as it pertains to their total instead of the experience along the way. However, that's how they choose to play their version of this game/hobby and it's not my job to police their actions.

7.5k · February 13, 2015

The essence of the game on this website is to attempt to find a container someone has hidden at some coordinates, sign the logbook if the caches is found , and log the experience online at Geocaching.com.

This is better than I said it.

All the other stuff is important and almost always determines how enjoyable a cache is to someone that tries to find it. The hike, the location, the size of the container, the puzzle you had to solve to get the final coordinates, the walk through a historical location to get some numbers off a plaque that gives you a history lesson, the geological lesson about the physical characteristics of the location you're currently visiting, the chance to see hundreds of toilet seat art creations (Barney Smith's Toilet Seat Museum ) or any other unusual oddities that are worth visiting. Those are the things that hooked me initially and those are the things that keep me going.

All those things listed above are great and important to a hide, but they're not the "essence" of geocaching. You're still looking for something at a set of coordinates and hoping that you can find what the CO wants you to find. What's even worse, IMO, is when someone misses all these extra things the CO tries to get the cacher to experience because they're more concerned about the find as it pertains to their total instead of the experience along the way. However, that's how they choose to play their version of this game/hobby and it's not my job to police their actions.

I agree that NYPaddleCacher's description is the essence of the game. But what is the games generally agreed upon sportsmanlike conduct?

Currently I would say it's leaning towards anything is sportsmanlike when logging a find as long as the cacher's trailname is in the log (with the exception of challenge caches).

2k · February 13, 2015

I think the guidelines were written purposely "vague". There's no SINGLE right way to play and the guidelines are there to allow people to play the way they wish to play. That's part of the beauty of this hobby. It allows for so many ways to choose to play to so many different types of people. IMO, people can play the way they wish as long as that way doesn't impinge or prevent me from playing the way I want to play. If they want to use someone else's solution to log a find on a puzzle cache, it does absolutely NOTHING to affect me in any way, shape, or form. If they go right to the final of a 10 stage multi because they have the coordinates, it doesn't affect me or the way I choose to play the game. If they choose to armchair log a virtual from 1,000 miles away, it has ZERO affect on me and my ability to play the game. If the CO archives the cache because of that, that's just another part of the game that's completely out of my control. The ONLY thing I control in this game is the way in which I choose to play. Why try to control how others are playing? It's a waste of time, effort, and energy and puts a big bundle of stress in your lap if you worry about how others are playing. Why do people even care?

That doesn't mean that I endorse that method or style of geocaching. I wouldn't do those things but I wouldn't prevent someone else from doing so if that's the way in which they've chosen to play. I don't believe we should attempt to define what and how a legitimate find is any more than it already is. Look at all the dissension on this thread about what people consider legitimate finds. People nitpick about this or that find, how it was done, or whether or not it's "legitimate". The enjoyment of this game should based on your individual actions, not the actions of someone else.

7.5k · February 13, 2015

I agree that NYPaddleCacher's description is the essence of the game. But what is the games generally agreed upon sportsmanlike conduct?

Currently I would say it's leaning towards anything is sportsmanlike when logging a find as long as the cacher's trailname is in the log (with the exception of challenge caches).

I think you're right that this is about all we can say is generally agree upon, which, I claim, is why it's what's in the guidelines.

On the other hand, I think a discussion of what we consider sportsmanlike conduct is reasonable, particularly since thinking of it that way begs us to remember it will vary from place to place, group to group, and person to person. When you have the same discussion but call it "ethics", I, at least, think the topic is aiming at universal standards that are neither achievable nor desirable.

9.2k · February 13, 2015

When you have the same discussion but call it "ethics", I, at least, think the topic is aiming at universal standards that are neither achievable nor desirable.

Indeed.

I think it's great that so many people have ways of playing, strategies and preferences, and it's certainly not uncalled-for to be bothered when you experience tactics that you find annoying or frustrating. Sharing it, reasonably, can help 'mold' the community into a more generally like-minded entity where more people can enjoy the hobby because more people are thinking about other people instead of just themselves.

7.5k · February 13, 2015

When you have the same discussion but call it "ethics", I, at least, think the topic is aiming at universal standards that are neither achievable nor desirable.

Indeed.

I think it's great that so many people have ways of playing, strategies and preferences, and it's certainly not uncalled-for to be bothered when you experience tactics that you find annoying or frustrating. Sharing it, reasonably, can help 'mold' the community into a more generally like-minded entity where more people can enjoy the hobby because more people are thinking about other people instead of just themselves.

Well said.

3.1k · February 13, 2015

When you have the same discussion but call it "ethics", I, at least, think the topic is aiming at universal standards that are neither achievable nor desirable.

Indeed.

I think it's great that so many people have ways of playing, strategies and preferences, and it's certainly not uncalled-for to be bothered when you experience tactics that you find annoying or frustrating. Sharing it, reasonably, can help 'mold' the community into a more generally like-minded entity where more people can enjoy the hobby because more people are thinking about other people instead of just themselves.

Well said.

+1

Dropping more rules, guidelines, or demands for universal ethics which are not aligned with current guidelines is simply neither, as dprovan said, achievable nor desirable. What we can do is shape the discourse, so long as those who work toward shaping it are 1. in a majority (which is nearly impossible to establish in a game with 6 million players across the globe--99% of which don't participate in the forums to see this discussion) 2. and not "demanding", or coming across as preachy, annoying, or completely out of left-field.

We can talk about "ethics" to a point, but really it's about "best practices within the construct of the guidelines". We might be able to say that we wish people would

contact owners of caches directly and first
not share final coordinates widely or openly
trade up, even, or not at all with swag
work to help Travel Bugs and Geocoins (and their proxies) travel on their mission
use the proper log types in regard to their experience
not get upset with someone who might not adhere directly with what "I" want, so long as it still falls in line with the guidelines
be aware that the game is a community, and there are differences of opinion and common practices across borders
be more familiar with, and understand the guidelines for game play on geocaching.com
etc.

But that's just not going to work--or capture every single nit-picky thing someone comes up with.

I mean, we really could distill every angsty thread on the entire forum and qualitatively analyze it, but we won't. Remember the "forum schedule"? Yeah, that thing was a model of how people wish the game were played. But I think it all boils down to realizing that the guidelines are general as to deal with the differences we all have, and to lay a foundation for us to follow despite our personal preferences.

The bottom line is, don't deliberately be a jerk, don't let yourself get bent out of shape if someone plays a little different from you, and especially if we all adhere to the simple Groundspeak Geocaching.com guidelines.

2.6k · February 13, 2015

The bottom line is, don't deliberately be a jerk, don't let yourself get bent out of shape if someone plays a little different from you, and especially if we all adhere to the simple Groundspeak Geocaching.com guidelines.

Love this - really, it sums it up!

14k · February 13, 2015

I agree that NYPaddleCacher's description is the essence of the game. But what is the games generally agreed upon sportsmanlike conduct?

Currently I would say it's leaning towards anything is sportsmanlike when logging a find as long as the cacher's trailname is in the log (with the exception of challenge caches).

I think you're right that this is about all we can say is generally agree upon, which, I claim, is why it's what's in the guidelines.

On the other hand, I think a discussion of what we consider sportsmanlike conduct is reasonable, particularly since thinking of it that way begs us to remember it will vary from place to place, group to group, and person to person. When you have the same discussion but call it "ethics", I, at least, think the topic is aiming at universal standards that are neither achievable nor desirable.

Even if we agree with a description of the essence of the game I'd be hesitant to apply labels such as unsportsmanlike or unethical when how some play the game diverges from that description.

It's pretty obvious to me that how many if not most geocachers play the game has diverged from that description. Specifically, I think a lot of geocachers don't see the purpose of the online as a means to "share your experience" but rather an obligatory action one must take in order to get credit for the find. Although GS has created blog posts about sharing your experience by writing good found it logs and we talk about in the forums, GS has implemented it such that users can post a found it log with nothing but a ".", a smiley face, a short acronym, and even a log that is completely empty.

3.1k · February 13, 2015

I agree that NYPaddleCacher's description is the essence of the game. But what is the games generally agreed upon sportsmanlike conduct?

Currently I would say it's leaning towards anything is sportsmanlike when logging a find as long as the cacher's trailname is in the log (with the exception of challenge caches).

I think you're right that this is about all we can say is generally agree upon, which, I claim, is why it's what's in the guidelines.

On the other hand, I think a discussion of what we consider sportsmanlike conduct is reasonable, particularly since thinking of it that way begs us to remember it will vary from place to place, group to group, and person to person. When you have the same discussion but call it "ethics", I, at least, think the topic is aiming at universal standards that are neither achievable nor desirable.

Even if we agree with a description of the essence of the game I'd be hesitant to apply labels such as unsportsmanlike or unethical when how some play the game diverges from that description.

It's pretty obvious to me that how many if not most geocachers play the game has diverged from that description. Specifically, I think a lot of geocachers don't see the purpose of the online as a means to "share your experience" but rather an obligatory action one must take in order to get credit for the find. Although GS has created blog posts about sharing your experience by writing good found it logs and we talk about in the forums, GS has implemented it such that users can post a found it log with nothing but a ".", a smiley face, a short acronym, and even a log that is completely empty.

And this speaks to how the game has grown from being attractive and already played by those who did write in a logbook like a summit register--detailed, informative, and reflective--and shared the same online.

As the game grows it will certainly attract a far broader audience, which includes those who are attracted to the competitive or record-keeping aspects of the game. We still attract those who cache for the whole of the experience, as we cast a big net of recruitment, but even more from the general public come in who like the idea of a "treasure hunt", and not hiking, trekking, mountain biking, mountaineering, backpacking, etc., where the memory you make seems to be better than the simple addition of another smiley face.

But, even in the early days of the site, people aspired to be Volunteer Reviewers, and the only way to do that was to accrue lots of finds in many places, and have a solid grasp of the guidelines, intimate knowledge of local laws and regulations, and be involved somehow in fostering a community that understood and valued the laws, regulations, and guidelines of the game in the same way. They were ambassadors, and the biggest obstacle for folks was the find count. So, even from the beginning there was an effort to add on as many finds as you could so that you would appear knowledgeable and more experienced than the next guy.

So, yeah, the game has "devolved" a bit into simply a numbers game, but plenty of us here still like fine wine versus the 2-buck-Chuck.

Edited February 13, 2015 by NeverSummer

14k · February 13, 2015

So, yeah, the game has "devolved" a bit into simply a numbers game, but plenty of us here still like fine wine versus the 2-buck-Chuck.

I agree and I wasn't trying to forecast a doom and gloom scenario and the end of geocaching as we know it. It was mostly my perception of how I see people view the purpose of the online log. I'm not offering any solutions nor complaining. It is what it is.

6.8k · February 16, 2015

Remind me of how doing something the guidelines allow is exploiting anything other than your preferences (which are not the guidelines of the game played here on this site) please?

Just because the guidelines do not talk about everything, it does not mean that everything is ok when it comes to a different topic than when logging a find is allowed.

If someone threatens the owner of a puzzle cache with a revolver and in this way gets the coordinates of the final, this is not ok, but of course a log can be found once the logsheet is signed.

Sharing coordinates at a large scale where those who use the lists have no idea in which way the coordinates have been obtained (blackmailing, hacking etc), is not what I regard as ethical behaviour.

Ethics for me goes beyond the guidelines of this site which never can take care of any conceivable situation.

There is a difference between trying to set up a fixed set of rules for ethical behaviour upon which everyone will agree (that's of course not possible) and agreeing that there needs to be which is taken into consideration than just what the guidelines state.

6.8k · February 16, 2015

This really doesn't relate, actually, but I'll bite.

For me all that relates very closely to the topic "the ethics of finding". Thank you for taking the time to reply.

As a "mentor", I'd tell them about what Mystery/Puzzle caches are, and point them in the direction of a few to cut their teeth on. From there, we can discuss the nuance and occasions where one may not end up completing a puzzle or needing to deal with the "mystery" of the cache at all. As that is a very small percentage of how anyone ends up finding a M/P cache anyway, it won't be the focus of my discussion. I'd certainly recommend the channels of communication for ANY cache type be through the owner first, but also that previous finders can offer help if an owner is not responding.

But, when asked, as I'm assuming they eventually would, "So...what about if I happen on a cache's final location and sign the logbook...what then, mentor?" I would then be able to discuss the ins and outs of the guidelines that relate to that situation, and allow them to develop their own decision on how they would handle such a case in the future.

Same goes for if they ask me, "What if someone else solves the puzzle and offers to share with me?". I'd let them decide for themselves, yet to also consider what the owner might think. (And, speaking from my experience, I learned that owners generally don't care about working with someone else to solve it, or being at the cache and claiming a find even if I didn't solve a puzzle. Really, isn't it all about, as you said, "The essence is still setting out and trying to find a cache"? If that means trying at the puzzle, not solving it, but taking the walk to find the final with someone else who did, so what?

If an owner wants to get bent out of shape about that situation, my advice would be to remember that it's. just. a. game.

What I would tell a new cacher in such situations is not that different. It appears that what you and myself take into consideration goes beyond "Find the container and sign the logbook".

There is a huge difference between occasionally taking a walk with someone who solved a puzzle and taking part in a large industry of coordinate sharing.

I agree that the guidelines for logging in order to be enforcable need to be simple. However one also needs to take into account that geocaching has developped and there are cache types where this simple rule does not take into account all aspects. For example, in my opinion it does not make sense to publish challenge caches that ask e.g. for a mystery cache being found each day during a month or even longer when at the same time the general belief (including Groundspeak's stance) were that it is ok to turn every cache into a traditional. In my opinion such challenge caches lead to a lot of cases of what I regard as unethical geocaching behaviour.

From my personal point of view a found it log in scenario A where cachers visit a T=1* cache which is reachable only for people who are 1.80m or taller and they log a find because they saw the container is less unethical than logging a find in scenario B for a cache where someone else signed/stamped the log sheet and the cacher was not even present at the cache. From the point of view of Groundspeak's guidelines scenario B is ok while scenario A is not. (To clarify, for myself none of the two scenarios supports a find.) I see Groundspeak's rule just as rule when the cache owner is entitled to delete a find and not as a guideline what behaviour is ethical or not.

Cezanne

Edited February 16, 2015 by cezanne

2.8k · February 16, 2015

There is a huge difference between occasionally taking a walk with someone who solved a puzzle and taking part in a large industry of coordinate sharing.

This is a cop out, it's ok to "cheat" a little bit but not cheat a lot?

There is no difference between given the coordinates (taken to them) once, twice or a hundred times and condemning those that do it a hundred times while doing it a few times is hypocritical.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Roman!

14k · February 16, 2015

There is a huge difference between occasionally taking a walk with someone who solved a puzzle and taking part in a large industry of coordinate sharing.

This is a cop out, it's ok to "cheat" a little bit but not cheat a lot?

There is no difference between given the coordinates (taken to them) once, twice or a hundred times and condemning those that do it a hundred times while doing it a few times is hypocritical.

And I suppose that there is no difference between cheating on a crossword puzzle but looking at the solution in the back page and cheating on your spouse.

2.8k · February 16, 2015

There is a huge difference between occasionally taking a walk with someone who solved a puzzle and taking part in a large industry of coordinate sharing.

This is a cop out, it's ok to "cheat" a little bit but not cheat a lot?

There is no difference between given the coordinates (taken to them) once, twice or a hundred times and condemning those that do it a hundred times while doing it a few times is hypocritical.

And I suppose that there is no difference between cheating on a crossword puzzle but looking at the solution in the back page and cheating on your spouse.

Huge difference, totally different actions, how is it ok to get puzzle coordinates a few times but not ok to do it many times, it's the same action.

Edit: I have to vote your analogy as the worst of all time and a good reason why analogies should never be used to try and prove ones point.

PS: I'd bet on at least one of your many trips you've done the odd crossword and I'd bet you at least once looked at the solution, hope your wife doesn't find out.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Roman!

6.8k · February 16, 2015

There is a huge difference between occasionally taking a walk with someone who solved a puzzle and taking part in a large industry of coordinate sharing.

This is a cop out, it's ok to "cheat" a little bit but not cheat a lot?

There is no difference between given the coordinates (taken to them) once, twice or a hundred times and condemning those that do it a hundred times while doing it a few times is hypocritical.

First of all, let me repeat that I do not share coordinates at all and I solve all puzzle caches I visit.

There is however a huge difference between the sharing industry and cases where cacher A goes for a cache tour with cacher B who loves puzzle caches and then also logs a find. First,

if in all cases someone comes along who really solved the puzzle, the number of visitors is reasonably limited, and at least one log from someone who solved the puzzle comes in which serves as motivation for the cache owner. Second, in the case when someone accompanies someone who has solved the puzzle (note the term solved, that does not mean obtained the coordinates from somewhere) it's clear that no unethical approaches (hacking, putting pressure on previous finders to give out the coordinates etc) have been applied.

While I do understand why someone who comes along for a cache tour and maybe even was the one who found the container wants to log a find, the situation where groups systematically visit mystery caches none of them has solved is one fort which I do not have the slightest understanding. For example, I never ever would expect a child to solve a complicated puzzle well beyond the child's age and would not end up frustrated as a cache owner if the child logged a found. If however, for example, my caches were abused by adult cachers working on a challenge, but instead of living up to the spirit of the challenge visited all puzzle caches systematically as traditionals, it certainly would decrease my motivation to hide caches.

Geocaching is not an exam that needs to be passed. Cheating does not really fit into the context of geocaching in my eyes. In an exam situation even taking advantage of small hints is cheating, but in geocaching I havbe no objections against people asking for and getting hints.

However, fair treatment does fit into the context of geocaching. It's extremely insincere to get credit for a cache that requires to find a mystery cache at 30 successive days and do not have solved the involved puzzles.

Cezanne

Edited February 16, 2015 by cezanne

2.8k · February 16, 2015

There is a huge difference between occasionally taking a walk with someone who solved a puzzle and taking part in a large industry of coordinate sharing.

This is a cop out, it's ok to "cheat" a little bit but not cheat a lot?

There is no difference between given the coordinates (taken to them) once, twice or a hundred times and condemning those that do it a hundred times while doing it a few times is hypocritical.

First of all, let me repeat that I do not share coordinates at all and I solve all puzzle caches I visit.

There is however a huge difference between the sharing industry and cases where cacher A goes for a cache tour with cacher B who loves puzzle caches and then also logs a find. First,

if in all cases someone comes along who really solved the puzzle, the number of visitors is reasonably limited, and at least one log from someone who solved the puzzle comes in which serves as motivation for the cache owner. Second, in the case when someone accompanies someone who has solved the puzzle (note the term solved, that does not mean obtained the coordinates from somewhere) it's clear that no unethical approaches (hacking, putting pressure on previous finders to give out the coordinates etc) have been applied.

While I do understand why someone who comes along for a cache tour and maybe even was the one who found the container wants to log a find, the situation where groups systematically visit mystery caches none of them has solved is one fort which I do not have the slightest understanding. For example, I never ever would expect a child to solve a complicated puzzle well beyond the child's age and would not end up frustrated as a cache owner if the child logged a found. If however, for example, my caches were abused by adult cachers working on a challenge, but instead of living up to the spirit of the challenge visited all puzzle caches systematically as traditionals, it certainly would decrease my motivation to hide caches.

Geocaching is not an exam that needs to be passed. Cheating does not really fit into the context of geocaching in my eyes. However, fair treatment does fit into the context of geocaching.

Cezanne

There is no difference, either you solved the puzzle or you didn't, if you didn't it doesn't matter where you got the coordinates.

14k · February 16, 2015

There is a huge difference between occasionally taking a walk with someone who solved a puzzle and taking part in a large industry of coordinate sharing.

This is a cop out, it's ok to "cheat" a little bit but not cheat a lot?

There is no difference between given the coordinates (taken to them) once, twice or a hundred times and condemning those that do it a hundred times while doing it a few times is hypocritical.

And I suppose that there is no difference between cheating on a crossword puzzle but looking at the solution in the back page and cheating on your spouse.

Huge difference, totally different actions, how is it ok to get puzzle coordinates a few times but not ok to do it many times, it's the same action.

Edit: I have to vote your analogy as the worst of all time and a good reason why analogies should never be used to try and prove ones point.

Okay, here's one that you might understand. Is there a difference between drinking a glass of wine a couple of times a month with dinner and buying a case of beer every day and drinking it until you pass out?

Same action (drinking), but there is a matter of scale, just as there is one when someone is out caching with someone that solve a puzzle that you didn't versus someone that "solves" hundreds of puzzle by going to a site which provides final coordinates for almost any puzzle cache. If two geocachers each have 100 puzzle cache finds, and one of them solved every puzzle cache on their own with the exception of 2 puzzles that they found because they were caching with someone that had previously solved it, while the other only actually solve 3 of them and got the final coordinates from a database somewhere, it seems pretty obvious to me that the difference between the caches is that while bother are claiming to have found 100 puzzles caches, one of them solved 98% of the puzzle while the other only solved 3%. Seems like a huge difference to me.If

PS: I'd bet on at least one of your many trips you've done the odd crossword and I'd bet you at least once looked at the solution, hope your wife doesn't find out.

If you honestly think that looking up a few solutions for a crossword puzzle has anything to do with marital fidelity there's point in continuing a discussion and expecting a rational argument from you.

2.8k · February 16, 2015

There is a huge difference between occasionally taking a walk with someone who solved a puzzle and taking part in a large industry of coordinate sharing.

This is a cop out, it's ok to "cheat" a little bit but not cheat a lot?

There is no difference between given the coordinates (taken to them) once, twice or a hundred times and condemning those that do it a hundred times while doing it a few times is hypocritical.

And I suppose that there is no difference between cheating on a crossword puzzle but looking at the solution in the back page and cheating on your spouse.

Huge difference, totally different actions, how is it ok to get puzzle coordinates a few times but not ok to do it many times, it's the same action.

Edit: I have to vote your analogy as the worst of all time and a good reason why analogies should never be used to try and prove ones point.

Okay, here's one that you might understand. Is there a difference between drinking a glass of wine a couple of times a month with dinner and buying a case of beer every day and drinking it until you pass out?

Same action (drinking), but there is a matter of scale, just as there is one when someone is out caching with someone that solve a puzzle that you didn't versus someone that "solves" hundreds of puzzle by going to a site which provides final coordinates for almost any puzzle cache. If two geocachers each have 100 puzzle cache finds, and one of them solved every puzzle cache on their own with the exception of 2 puzzles that they found because they were caching with someone that had previously solved it, while the other only actually solve 3 of them and got the final coordinates from a database somewhere, it seems pretty obvious to me that the difference between the caches is that while bother are claiming to have found 100 puzzles caches, one of them solved 98% of the puzzle while the other only solved 3%. Seems like a huge difference to me.If

PS: I'd bet on at least one of your many trips you've done the odd crossword and I'd bet you at least once looked at the solution, hope your wife doesn't find out.

If you honestly think that looking up a few solutions for a crossword puzzle has anything to do with marital fidelity there's point in continuing a discussion and expecting a rational argument from you.

Again. Bad analogy. Over drinking is bad for your health and creates a lot of domestic problems. Enough analogies. If getting coordinates is cheating it doesn't matter how many times you did it, you cheated

As for the crossword/fidelity, you brought it up not me, I was just pointing out how silly I thought that analogy was.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Roman!

6.8k · February 16, 2015

There is no difference, either you solved the puzzle or you didn't, if you didn't it doesn't matter where you got the coordinates.

If you want to define cheating in the same way than in the exam context, you are right. But that never has been my intention and as I said I regard the notion of cheating as not suitable for geocaching puzzles. My concerns are ethical ones and partially even legal ones, but not related to the notion of cheating. I have much less issues with armchair logs for virtuals which can be deleted anyway than I have with the coordinate sharing business for non traditional caches.

With regard to many other aspects, it makes a difference where the coordinates come from (if a child visits a cache together with adults this is in no way comparable to hacking a geochecker data base for example) and how often someone gets coordinates for puzzle caches. There is no need for an analogy here in my opinion. These settings are definitely different.

7.5k · February 16, 2015

There is a huge difference between occasionally taking a walk with someone who solved a puzzle and taking part in a large industry of coordinate sharing.

This is a cop out, it's ok to "cheat" a little bit but not cheat a lot?

There is no difference between given the coordinates (taken to them) once, twice or a hundred times and condemning those that do it a hundred times while doing it a few times is hypocritical.

And I suppose that there is no difference between cheating on a crossword puzzle but looking at the solution in the back page and cheating on your spouse.

Huge difference, totally different actions, how is it ok to get puzzle coordinates a few times but not ok to do it many times, it's the same action.

Edit: I have to vote your analogy as the worst of all time and a good reason why analogies should never be used to try and prove ones point.

Okay, here's one that you might understand. Is there a difference between drinking a glass of wine a couple of times a month with dinner and buying a case of beer every day and drinking it until you pass out?

Same action (drinking), but there is a matter of scale, just as there is one when someone is out caching with someone that solve a puzzle that you didn't versus someone that "solves" hundreds of puzzle by going to a site which provides final coordinates for almost any puzzle cache. If two geocachers each have 100 puzzle cache finds, and one of them solved every puzzle cache on their own with the exception of 2 puzzles that they found because they were caching with someone that had previously solved it, while the other only actually solve 3 of them and got the final coordinates from a database somewhere, it seems pretty obvious to me that the difference between the caches is that while bother are claiming to have found 100 puzzles caches, one of them solved 98% of the puzzle while the other only solved 3%. Seems like a huge difference to me.If

PS: I'd bet on at least one of your many trips you've done the odd crossword and I'd bet you at least once looked at the solution, hope your wife doesn't find out.

If you honestly think that looking up a few solutions for a crossword puzzle has anything to do with marital fidelity there's point in continuing a discussion and expecting a rational argument from you.

...Over drinking is bad for your health and creates a lot of domestic problems.

And mass sharing is similar. It's not healthy for the geocaching game and creates a lot of problems including frustration and decreased motivation of cache owners.

2.8k · February 16, 2015

There is no difference, either you solved the puzzle or you didn't, if you didn't it doesn't matter where you got the coordinates.

If you want to define cheating in the same way than in the exam context, you are right. But that never has been my intention and as I said I regard the notion of cheating as not suitable for geocaching puzzles. My concerns are ethical ones and partially even legal ones, but not related to the notion of cheating. I have much less issues with armchair logs for virtuals which can be deleted anyway than I have with the coordinate sharing business for non traditional caches.

With regard to many other aspects, it makes a difference where the coordinates come from (if a child visits a cache together with adults this is in no way comparable to hacking a geochecker data base for example) and how often someone gets coordinates for puzzle caches. There is no need for an analogy here in my opinion. These settings are definitely different.

I will agree that it matters where they come from, hacking is illegal and obtaining puzzle solutions by hacking is a crime. Creating a public website that gives out or shares solution is against GC rules but I see nothing wrong with a group of people sharing coordinates in private amongst themselves.

2.8k · February 16, 2015

There is a huge difference between occasionally taking a walk with someone who solved a puzzle and taking part in a large industry of coordinate sharing.

This is a cop out, it's ok to "cheat" a little bit but not cheat a lot?

There is no difference between given the coordinates (taken to them) once, twice or a hundred times and condemning those that do it a hundred times while doing it a few times is hypocritical.

And I suppose that there is no difference between cheating on a crossword puzzle but looking at the solution in the back page and cheating on your spouse.

Huge difference, totally different actions, how is it ok to get puzzle coordinates a few times but not ok to do it many times, it's the same action.

Edit: I have to vote your analogy as the worst of all time and a good reason why analogies should never be used to try and prove ones point.

Okay, here's one that you might understand. Is there a difference between drinking a glass of wine a couple of times a month with dinner and buying a case of beer every day and drinking it until you pass out?

Same action (drinking), but there is a matter of scale, just as there is one when someone is out caching with someone that solve a puzzle that you didn't versus someone that "solves" hundreds of puzzle by going to a site which provides final coordinates for almost any puzzle cache. If two geocachers each have 100 puzzle cache finds, and one of them solved every puzzle cache on their own with the exception of 2 puzzles that they found because they were caching with someone that had previously solved it, while the other only actually solve 3 of them and got the final coordinates from a database somewhere, it seems pretty obvious to me that the difference between the caches is that while bother are claiming to have found 100 puzzles caches, one of them solved 98% of the puzzle while the other only solved 3%. Seems like a huge difference to me.If

PS: I'd bet on at least one of your many trips you've done the odd crossword and I'd bet you at least once looked at the solution, hope your wife doesn't find out.

If you honestly think that looking up a few solutions for a crossword puzzle has anything to do with marital fidelity there's point in continuing a discussion and expecting a rational argument from you.

...Over drinking is bad for your health and creates a lot of domestic problems.

And mass sharing is similar. It's not healthy for the geocaching game and creates a lot of problems including frustration and decreased motivation of cache owners.

What exactly is mass sharing and I'd love to see an example of this that doesn't break GS rule about publicizing coordinates.

2.6k · February 16, 2015

There is no difference, either you solved the puzzle or you didn't, if you didn't it doesn't matter where you got the coordinates.

I see the logic in that, but I find life isn't black and white, it is generally shades of grey.

And whilst I don't want ethics guidelines, I see a difference. The main difference to me is intent. Let me try to explain how I see it with an example. There exists 3 cachers: A, B, and C.

Cacher A will only claim a find if he did everything himself with zero help. If he even overhears a hint about a cache (e.g. at an event), he can never log that cache as found. Same goes for physical hides; if he ever hears someone talking about a cache which might help him, he can't log it as found.

Cacher B tries to solve puzzles and find caches himself. If he gets stuck on a puzzle he might ask for help. If he has several DNFs on a physical hide he may ask for help.

Cacher C's general approach to puzzle caches is to ask friends who have done it for the coordinates. He never solves them himself. He also visits spoiler sites and purchased a hacked list of coordinates. He also readily gives out coordinates to others, in fact he uses this as a way to get more coordinates ("Give me the coordinates for puzzle X, and I'll give you the coordinates for puzzle Y".) For physical hides, if he sees they are difficult (lots of DNFs over time) he asks friends for explicit spoilers in advance, he doesn't waste his time trying unless he knows exactly where it is.

I see a difference between B and C.

2.8k · February 16, 2015

There is no difference, either you solved the puzzle or you didn't, if you didn't it doesn't matter where you got the coordinates.

I see the logic in that, but I find life isn't black and white, it is generally shades of grey.

And whilst I don't want ethics guidelines, I see a difference. The main difference to me is intent. Let me try to explain how I see it with an example. There exists 3 cachers: A, B, and C.

Cacher A will only claim a find if he did everything himself with zero help. If he even overhears a hint about a cache (e.g. at an event), he can never log that cache as found. Same goes for physical hides; if he ever hears someone talking about a cache which might help him, he can't log it as found.

Cacher B tries to solve puzzles and find caches himself. If he gets stuck on a puzzle he might ask for help. If he has several DNFs on a physical hide he may ask for help.

Cacher C's general approach to puzzle caches is to ask friends who have done it for the coordinates. He never solves them himself. He also visits spoiler sites and purchased a hacked list of coordinates. He also readily gives out coordinates to others, in fact he uses this as a way to get more coordinates ("Give me the coordinates for puzzle X, and I'll give you the coordinates for puzzle Y".) For physical hides, if he sees they are difficult (lots of DNFs over time) he asks friends for explicit spoilers in advance, he doesn't waste his time trying unless he knows exactly where it is.

I see a difference between B and C.

Hacked lists are illegal and spoiler sites are against GC rules so cacher C is unethical.

2.6k · February 16, 2015

Hacked lists are illegal and spoiler sites are against GC rules so cacher C is unethical.

Ok, but it was you that said "There is no difference, either you solved the puzzle or you didn't, if you didn't it doesn't matter where you got the coordinates. "

Even so, taking out the hacking and spoiler sites I see a difference. Let me modify it to create cacher D.

Cacher B tries to solve puzzles and find caches himself. If he gets stuck on a puzzle he might ask for help. If he has several DNFs on a physical hide he may ask for help.

Cacher D's general approach to puzzle caches is to ask friends who have done it for the coordinates. He never solves them himself. He also readily gives out coordinates to others, in fact he uses this as a way to get more coordinates ("Give me the coordinates for puzzle X, and I'll give you the coordinates for puzzle Y".) For physical hides, if he sees they are difficult (lots of DNFs over time) he asks friends for explicit spoilers in advance, he doesn't waste his time trying unless he knows exactly where it is.

15.5k · February 16, 2015

Creating a public website that gives out or shares solution is against GC rules but I see nothing wrong with a group of people sharing coordinates in private amongst themselves.

Okay, I'm lost. What was the argument discussion about again?

2.8k · February 16, 2015

Hacked lists are illegal and spoiler sites are against GC rules so cacher C is unethical.

Ok, but it was you that said "There is no difference, either you solved the puzzle or you didn't, if you didn't it doesn't matter where you got the coordinates. "

Even so, taking out the hacking and spoiler sites I see a difference. Let me modify it to create cacher D.

Cacher B tries to solve puzzles and find caches himself. If he gets stuck on a puzzle he might ask for help. If he has several DNFs on a physical hide he may ask for help.

Cacher D's general approach to puzzle caches is to ask friends who have done it for the coordinates. He never solves them himself. He also readily gives out coordinates to others, in fact he uses this as a way to get more coordinates ("Give me the coordinates for puzzle X, and I'll give you the coordinates for puzzle Y".) For physical hides, if he sees they are difficult (lots of DNFs over time) he asks friends for explicit spoilers in advance, he doesn't waste his time trying unless he knows exactly where it is.

What if cacher D only finds 1 cache a year while cacher B finds thousands and gets help on dozens?

Exactly where are we supposed to draw the line on what level of help is cheating and/or ethical?

2k · February 16, 2015

What is this "business" of mass sharing? Is there mass logging going on too or are these supposed mass shared puzzles receiving a small uptick in found it logs? Are we talking about hundreds or ten people logging a puzzle that was solved by someone else and shared with them? I don't operate this way and would discourage others from doing so as well, but those people have chosen to cache that way and it in NO WAY affects how I cache. Ethics operate on a sliding scale, from one end of the spectrum to the other. The majority of people fall somewhere in the middle with your outlier examples operating on either end. Why are so many people upset with or focusing on other peoples' actions when it's YOUR actions you have to live with on a daily basis?

Edited February 16, 2015 by coachstahly

14k · February 16, 2015

There is a huge difference between occasionally taking a walk with someone who solved a puzzle and taking part in a large industry of coordinate sharing.

This is a cop out, it's ok to "cheat" a little bit but not cheat a lot?

There is no difference between given the coordinates (taken to them) once, twice or a hundred times and condemning those that do it a hundred times while doing it a few times is hypocritical.

And I suppose that there is no difference between cheating on a crossword puzzle but looking at the solution in the back page and cheating on your spouse.

Huge difference, totally different actions, how is it ok to get puzzle coordinates a few times but not ok to do it many times, it's the same action.

Edit: I have to vote your analogy as the worst of all time and a good reason why analogies should never be used to try and prove ones point.

Okay, here's one that you might understand. Is there a difference between drinking a glass of wine a couple of times a month with dinner and buying a case of beer every day and drinking it until you pass out?

Same action (drinking), but there is a matter of scale, just as there is one when someone is out caching with someone that solve a puzzle that you didn't versus someone that "solves" hundreds of puzzle by going to a site which provides final coordinates for almost any puzzle cache. If two geocachers each have 100 puzzle cache finds, and one of them solved every puzzle cache on their own with the exception of 2 puzzles that they found because they were caching with someone that had previously solved it, while the other only actually solve 3 of them and got the final coordinates from a database somewhere, it seems pretty obvious to me that the difference between the caches is that while bother are claiming to have found 100 puzzles caches, one of them solved 98% of the puzzle while the other only solved 3%. Seems like a huge difference to me.If

PS: I'd bet on at least one of your many trips you've done the odd crossword and I'd bet you at least once looked at the solution, hope your wife doesn't find out.

If you honestly think that looking up a few solutions for a crossword puzzle has anything to do with marital fidelity there's point in continuing a discussion and expecting a rational argument from you.

Again. Bad analogy. Over drinking is bad for your health and creates a lot of domestic problems. Enough analogies. If getting coordinates is cheating it doesn't matter how many times you did it, you cheated

And the mass sharing of puzzle solution causes issues (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion) while isolated incident of someone finding 1-2 caches with someone that has solved a puzzle is something that I suspect almost every cache owner would find acceptable. On the other hand, if someone spends weeks creating an elaborate puzzle, and the first person to solved it sends to the final coordinates to all the other local cachers in the area, that CO is probably going to archive the cache is probably going to be hesitant about spending any effort in creating a puzzle cache for those that *do* enjoy solving puzzle caches.

Of course, it's no skin off your nose, as you've repeatedly made it clear that you don't like puzzle caches, but how about having some consideration for those that *do* enjoy a well crafted puzzle.

It sound to me like you'res spending a lot of time justifying to yourself that massive cheating is okay because somewhere, some time a geocacher "cheated" by find a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle.

As for the crossword/fidelity, you brought it up not me, I was just pointing out how silly I thought that analogy was.

The difference being that my point is that there is no correlation between crossword puzzles and marital fidelity while you're trying to claim that there is.

2.8k · February 16, 2015

What is this "business" of mass sharing? Is there mass logging going on too or are these supposed mass shared puzzles receiving a small uptick in found it logs? Are we talking about hundreds or ten people logging a puzzle that was solved by someone else and shared with them? I don't operate this way and would discourage others from doing so as well, but those people have chosen to cache that way and it in NO WAY affects how I cache. Ethics operate on a sliding scale, from one end of the spectrum to the other. The majority of people fall somewhere in the middle with your outlier examples operating on either end. Why are so many people upset with or focusing on other peoples' actions when it's YOUR actions you have to live with on a daily basis?

If I gave every cacher in the world the final coordinates to a tough puzzle near my house just how many people would actually go find it?

They're making it sound like once the coordinates are shared the cache gets thousands of logs, in essence creating a problem where one does not exist.

2.8k · February 16, 2015

There is a huge difference between occasionally taking a walk with someone who solved a puzzle and taking part in a large industry of coordinate sharing.

This is a cop out, it's ok to "cheat" a little bit but not cheat a lot?

There is no difference between given the coordinates (taken to them) once, twice or a hundred times and condemning those that do it a hundred times while doing it a few times is hypocritical.

And I suppose that there is no difference between cheating on a crossword puzzle but looking at the solution in the back page and cheating on your spouse.

Huge difference, totally different actions, how is it ok to get puzzle coordinates a few times but not ok to do it many times, it's the same action.

Edit: I have to vote your analogy as the worst of all time and a good reason why analogies should never be used to try and prove ones point.

Okay, here's one that you might understand. Is there a difference between drinking a glass of wine a couple of times a month with dinner and buying a case of beer every day and drinking it until you pass out?

Same action (drinking), but there is a matter of scale, just as there is one when someone is out caching with someone that solve a puzzle that you didn't versus someone that "solves" hundreds of puzzle by going to a site which provides final coordinates for almost any puzzle cache. If two geocachers each have 100 puzzle cache finds, and one of them solved every puzzle cache on their own with the exception of 2 puzzles that they found because they were caching with someone that had previously solved it, while the other only actually solve 3 of them and got the final coordinates from a database somewhere, it seems pretty obvious to me that the difference between the caches is that while bother are claiming to have found 100 puzzles caches, one of them solved 98% of the puzzle while the other only solved 3%. Seems like a huge difference to me.If

PS: I'd bet on at least one of your many trips you've done the odd crossword and I'd bet you at least once looked at the solution, hope your wife doesn't find out.

If you honestly think that looking up a few solutions for a crossword puzzle has anything to do with marital fidelity there's point in continuing a discussion and expecting a rational argument from you.

Again. Bad analogy. Over drinking is bad for your health and creates a lot of domestic problems. Enough analogies. If getting coordinates is cheating it doesn't matter how many times you did it, you cheated

And the mass sharing of puzzle solution causes issues (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion) while isolated incident of someone finding 1-2 caches with someone that has solved a puzzle is something that I suspect almost every cache owner would find acceptable. On the other hand, if someone spends weeks creating an elaborate puzzle, and the first person to solved it sends to the final coordinates to all the other local cachers in the area, that CO is probably going to archive the cache is probably going to be hesitant about spending any effort in creating a puzzle cache for those that *do* enjoy solving puzzle caches.

Of course, it's no skin off your nose, as you've repeatedly made it clear that you don't like puzzle caches, but how about having some consideration for those that *do* enjoy a well crafted puzzle.

It sound to me like you'res spending a lot of time justifying to yourself that massive cheating is okay because somewhere, some time a geocacher "cheated" by find a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle.

As for the crossword/fidelity, you brought it up not me, I was just pointing out how silly I thought that analogy was.

The difference being that my point is that there is no correlation between crossword puzzles and marital fidelity while you're trying to claim that there is.

People who like puzzles will do them and not seek out coordinate sharing groups. People who give a puzzle a go and then get help will continue to do so and people with no interest in puzzles will find other ways to get coordinates. There will always be a constant balance so I do not see local coordinate sharing groups as a problem.

As for the fidelity thing, it was a joke.

7.5k · February 16, 2015

What is this "business" of mass sharing? Is there mass logging going on too or are these supposed mass shared puzzles receiving a small uptick in found it logs? Are we talking about hundreds or ten people logging a puzzle that was solved by someone else and shared with them? I don't operate this way and would discourage others from doing so as well, but those people have chosen to cache that way and it in NO WAY affects how I cache. Ethics operate on a sliding scale, from one end of the spectrum to the other. The majority of people fall somewhere in the middle with your outlier examples operating on either end. Why are so many people upset with or focusing on other peoples' actions when it's YOUR actions you have to live with on a daily basis?

If I gave every cacher in the world the final coordinates to a tough puzzle near my house just how many people would actually go find it?

They're making it sound like once the coordinates are shared the cache gets thousands of logs, in essence creating a problem where one does not exist.

I see that all of your puzzle hides are challenge caches. Do you expect everyone who claims a find to qualify? Do you delete finds of those who 'cheat' by not qualifying but still logging a find?

Edited February 16, 2015 by L0ne.R

2.6k · February 16, 2015

What if cacher D only finds 1 cache a year while cacher B finds thousands and gets help on dozens?

Exactly where are we supposed to draw the line on what level of help is cheating and/or ethical?

I wouldn't draw lines.

I simply feel the intended spirit of game with respect to puzzle caches is to try and solve them.

Not trying to solve them and just getting final coordinates from someone is against that "spirit".

If more and more people trade/share final coordinates rather than solve puzzles, I think that hurts the game. Cachers see other people trading coordinates so they do it... and eventually that could become the norm.

But this is just theoretical. I think most cachers respect the "spirit" and try to solve them, so there is no problem.

6.8k · February 16, 2015

If I gave every cacher in the world the final coordinates to a tough puzzle near my house just how many people would actually go find it?

It depends on your location. In a city like Vienna a centrally located traditional at a location where a cache has been before can well end up with 200 finds within less than 3 days (working days).

Someone hiding a traditional has to expect this sort of traffic. Someone who comes up with a clever puzzle not.

If say 1 out of 50 finders solve a puzzle and the others profit from what the single person has achieved, something goes wrong and in particular of this happens more than once.

It's extremely demotivating for those who work many hours on a solution and have not succeeded to read logs like "The coordinates have been waiting in my GPS-receiver for a long time. Today I finally managed to fetch the cache" as they might believe that these people solved the puzzle with ease while they did not even try to solve it.

Sometimes I was misled by logs of some cachers too back when I still assumed that most cachers solve the puzzles themselves or that someone in the group solved them. Sometimes I though "Oh - how could it be that X solves this puzzle with ease while I failed even though I should have the better background".

It's also difficult to come up with reasonable difficulty ratings as the many cachers who do not solve puzzle caches, but log finds for them do not help the owner to get a better feeling for what sort of puzzles are hard for the finders.

9.2k · February 16, 2015

Ok, let's drop the 'cheating' loaded term - it's 100% subjective, when not applied to objective rules. As the only rules are the minimal agreed upon Groundspeak-enforced rules and the definition of geocaching as it pertains to use of their website, then the only "cheating" is logging a find online which one did not find and sign its logsheet. Those instances of cheating are enforceable and correctable.

EVERYTHING else trying to define cheating is subjective! You're debating a flexible, vague term that differs from person to person.

When it comes to coordinate sharing, no - it's not cheating. But it is partaking in an act that is generally considered against the spirit of geocaching. Generally. There are COs who don't care. There are far more cachers who don't care.

An attempt to define "cheating" will go nowhere, because only Groundspeak can define an objective rule set in the context of geocaching.com.

That's all there is to it.

As mentioned earlier, it's better to discuss the merits of (and encourage) certain positive behaviours while geocaching that attempt to provide the most enjoyable experience for the most people. That's the best we can do.

Edited February 16, 2015 by thebruce0

2.8k · February 17, 2015

What is this "business" of mass sharing? Is there mass logging going on too or are these supposed mass shared puzzles receiving a small uptick in found it logs? Are we talking about hundreds or ten people logging a puzzle that was solved by someone else and shared with them? I don't operate this way and would discourage others from doing so as well, but those people have chosen to cache that way and it in NO WAY affects how I cache. Ethics operate on a sliding scale, from one end of the spectrum to the other. The majority of people fall somewhere in the middle with your outlier examples operating on either end. Why are so many people upset with or focusing on other peoples' actions when it's YOUR actions you have to live with on a daily basis?

If I gave every cacher in the world the final coordinates to a tough puzzle near my house just how many people would actually go find it?

They're making it sound like once the coordinates are shared the cache gets thousands of logs, in essence creating a problem where one does not exist.

I see that all of your puzzle hides are challenge caches. Do you expect everyone who claims a find to qualify? Do you delete finds of those who 'cheat' by not qualifying but still logging a find?

Yes, that's the rules although I haven't had to delete an log. I so qualify for all challenges I log.

2.8k · February 17, 2015

Ok, let's drop the 'cheating' loaded term - it's 100% subjective, when not applied to objective rules. As the only rules are the minimal agreed upon Groundspeak-enforced rules and the definition of geocaching as it pertains to use of their website, then the only "cheating" is logging a find online which one did not find and sign its logsheet. Those instances of cheating are enforceable and correctable.

EVERYTHING else trying to define cheating is subjective! You're debating a flexible, vague term that differs from person to person.

When it comes to coordinate sharing, no - it's not cheating. But it is partaking in an act that is generally considered against the spirit of geocaching. Generally. There are COs who don't care. There are far more cachers who don't care.

An attempt to define "cheating" will go nowhere, because only Groundspeak can define an objective rule set in the context of geocaching.com.

That's all there is to it.

As mentioned earlier, it's better to discuss the merits of (and encourage) certain positive behaviours while geocaching that attempt to provide the most enjoyable experience for the most people. That's the best we can do.

I doubt there is a person that got final coordinates for every puzzle they found so what's the limit?

Is it ok to get help on 1 puzzle, 10, 100?

When does it stop being OK?

I'm not defending coordinate sharing, just find it hypocritical that a few times is ok but not many.

6.8k · February 17, 2015

As the only rules are the minimal agreed upon Groundspeak-enforced rules and the definition of geocaching as it pertains to use of their website, then the only "cheating" is logging a find online which one did not find and sign its logsheet. Those instances of cheating are enforceable and correctable.

It's not fully enforcable not even for physical caches (and even less for Earthcaches for example) as one cannot check whether the person claiming the log has been near the cache site at least in order to allow him/her to sign the log sheet at least theoretically. There are lots of cases where cachers sign for several of their friends who are not even with them on that day or wait quite some distance ago. This is not restricted to powertrails and happens for all kinds of caches including physically or intellectually very demanding caches.

EVERYTHING else trying to define cheating is subjective! You're debating a flexible, vague term that differs from person to person.

As I said before I feel that the term cheating is not meaningful when it comes to geocaching.

When it comes to coordinate sharing, no - it's not cheating. But it is partaking in an act that is generally considered against the spirit of geocaching. Generally.

I would be happy if more cachers would agree with this statement when it comes to organized coordinate sharing which fully gets out of control and coordinate sharing that ruins the puzzle experience for challenging puzzles for those who enjoy them the most.

In particular when not only the coordinates, but also the solution is shared which often happens for challenging puzzles, then the danger for spoiler logs is the highest for those cachers who did not obtain the solution themselves. They often have less respect for the process of finding the solution and are less considerate on average. Of course this does not occur for a puzzle where one has to google the answer to 20 questions or solve a Sudoku.

I have some caches where those who find them without help are extremely proud and happy and they would not be equally proud and happy (as they told me) if spoilers or help were available (they are watching the logs and enjoy reading logs to read about who was able to solve the cache and this person's experience without expecting any spoilers - so a single inconsiderate log can ruin everything for those who for whom a cache has been set up and hidden).

I live in a quite cache dense area. Noone needs to find every cache and I think that it is quite egoistic to only have one's own finds in mind. It is not against the guidelines, but I still think that the guidelines never will be able to deal with notions like fairness.

As mentioned earlier, it's better to discuss the merits of (and encourage) certain positive behaviours while geocaching that attempt to provide the most enjoyable experience for the most people. That's the best we can do.

You might be surprised, but I fully agree with the above. I never had the intention to come up with new rules or to question the simple rule for logging online finds.

My thought when reading the "ethics of finding" was rather to discuss about certain behaviours and which of them are seen positive and to a lesser extent which are seen as negative (to contrast them from the others) by the participants here. It's clear that it will never happen that all agree on the same list of positive behaviours and there are always borderline cases and exceptions anyway.

It will also never happen that all cachers comply with even the shortest list of expected positive behaviours. But this does not mean that we should not try to encourage a certain set of basic behaviours in which we believe. I mean this in the sense of "Each of us who thinks that finding logs is not the only important aspect of geocaching should try to convey one's personal message which might be different from person to person". This was what I had in mind and which motivated me to ask the mentor type questions.

Cezanne

2.6k · February 17, 2015

I doubt there is a person that got final coordinates for every puzzle they found so what's the limit?

Is it ok to get help on 1 puzzle, 10, 100?

When does it stop being OK?

I'm not defending coordinate sharing, just find it hypocritical that a few times is ok but not many.

I've explained it the best I can.

I know analogies don't often work, but for most everything in life the intent and the severity matter - but you can't define a mathematical point where OK becomes not OK.

I think people who routinely exceed the speed limit significantly are a danger to society. I feel I can think this and not be hypocritical in spite of the fact that I have exceeded a speed limit myself.

Now this analogy isn't perfect as there are laws for speeding, and if you get caught there is a formula in which you lose your license (being caught 3 times 6 miles over the limit might be OK, while once 40 miles over the limit isn't).

But take any example of a behaviour in life which one thinks is undesirable. There is a difference between doing it a little and a lot.

I'll try one more analogy. I don't like it when people use a lot of 4 letter "swear" words. But yes I have used such words myself. And I see a difference between someone who uses one rarely when very upset, and someone who uses them in every sentence. But no, I can't tell you how many swears per month I think is OK.

14k · February 17, 2015

Ok, let's drop the 'cheating' loaded term - it's 100% subjective, when not applied to objective rules. As the only rules are the minimal agreed upon Groundspeak-enforced rules and the definition of geocaching as it pertains to use of their website, then the only "cheating" is logging a find online which one did not find and sign its logsheet. Those instances of cheating are enforceable and correctable.

EVERYTHING else trying to define cheating is subjective! You're debating a flexible, vague term that differs from person to person.

When it comes to coordinate sharing, no - it's not cheating. But it is partaking in an act that is generally considered against the spirit of geocaching. Generally. There are COs who don't care. There are far more cachers who don't care.

An attempt to define "cheating" will go nowhere, because only Groundspeak can define an objective rule set in the context of geocaching.com.

That's all there is to it.

As mentioned earlier, it's better to discuss the merits of (and encourage) certain positive behaviours while geocaching that attempt to provide the most enjoyable experience for the most people. That's the best we can do.

I doubt there is a person that got final coordinates for every puzzle they found so what's the limit?

Is it ok to get help on 1 puzzle, 10, 100?

When does it stop being OK?

It stops being okay when you get help on 27 or more puzzle or 13 puzzles when you're given the final coordinates without making any attempt to solve the puzzle. Seriously, you don't actually expect someone to come up with a specific number that serves a boundary between ok and not okay, do you? It's just not black and white. It ranges from ok, to marginal, to "how can you claim to have *solved* 120 puzzle caches when you just got the final coordinates from someone else.

Getting help isn't the same as just being given the final coordinates. I've worked together with one other person a few times to solve a puzzle when neither of us had previously solved the puzzle. I've also received small hints from the CO a few times that helped me figure out the puzzle. Other than that, I've solved 250 or so puzzle caches without any additional help at all.

I'm not defending coordinate sharing, just find it hypocritical that a few times is ok but not many.

2k · February 17, 2015

There are lots of cases where cachers sign for several of their friends who are not even with them on that day or wait quite some distance ago. This is not restricted to powertrails and happens for all kinds of caches including physically or intellectually very demanding caches.

Cezanne

So what? Why are some people so concerned about someone else's actions and providing all these hypothetical possibilities? They are the ones that have to live with their actions, not you. Again, I don't condone these types of actions and certainly wouldn't encourage it, but they have no effect on me and the way in which I cache. How do their actions affect each of you? If there is no conceivable consequence for you, why even worry about what other people are doing when it comes to logging a find?

Cormorant's Roost is a 5/5 virtual I have bookmarked to do if I ever get the chance. There are some obvious bogus logs on this cache and all you have to do is look through a person's finds around the time they logged this one to see that it's an armchair find. Do I think it's wrong? Yes. Would I do it? No. Do I think their actions are wrong? Yes. Do I let the fact that it's a false find worry me and say that they should get the find taken away? No. A - it's not my cache, B - if it were my cache I'd delete the log C - since it's not my cache, it's NONE OF MY BUSINESS to get involved in their caching actions. That's up to the CO and the cacher claiming the bogus find. There is no third party involved here, nor should there be. Some of us see this as an unethical find, others obviously see this as fine, and there might even be a few who are on the fence about whether or not it's a legitimate find.

I simply don't care what someone else does when it comes to caching; I only care about how I cache. MY way is not the right way for everyone, but it's the right way for me.

7.5k · February 17, 2015

There are lots of cases where cachers sign for several of their friends who are not even with them on that day or wait quite some distance ago. This is not restricted to powertrails and happens for all kinds of caches including physically or intellectually very demanding caches.

Cezanne

So what? Why are some people so concerned about someone else's actions and providing all these hypothetical possibilities? ...they have no effect on me and the way in which I cache. How do their actions affect each of you?

I take it you're not the owner of a multi or puzzle cache?

I have one multi where the first stage is the clever stage. It's one of those ...."Is that the stage? Nah.....Heck, yes it is!" kind of stages. It's what usually gets people to write fun logs and give us favorite points. It's an easy multi, people who share coords probably walk right past it on the way to the final and miss an important point of the what makes the experience creative and extra fun. Lately, in my city, almost on a monthly basis, groups of 20+ come through looking to find a lot of caches especially non-traditional caches, most often to qualify for challenge caches (they say so in their logs). No one mentions visiting the first stage. No one mentions the surprise at the final either, which makes me think that most didn't even see the cache at the final. The last 20+ logs say nothing about our cache, just a bunch of cut-n-pastes thanking the guy who organized the days uber caching event. Same goes for my puzzles which they usually also "find" that day. I worked long hours coming up with an interesting puzzle, theme cache container and good location to get monthly 20+ logs thanking the uber cacher host.

However, the people who went by themselves or with one other cacher left great logs. Most left an FP. The same people who leave cut-n-paste logs when mega group caching, leave great meaningful logs when they find our caches on their own or with one other person.

So yes, sharing coordinates in large groups affects my enjoyment of cache ownership. I have little desire to hide any more puzzles or multis. I am now motivated to hide only PMO traditionals. These tend to be less attractive to uber numbers groups who treat them as traditionals. it also keeps our caches off the free app - I find that people just testing the game tend not to write meaningful logs. So again, their actions affects my actions as a cache owner, which affects the pastime in general.

6.8k · February 17, 2015

There are lots of cases where cachers sign for several of their friends who are not even with them on that day or wait quite some distance ago. This is not restricted to powertrails and happens for all kinds of caches including physically or intellectually very demanding caches.

Cezanne

So what? Why are some people so concerned about someone else's actions and providing all these hypothetical possibilities?

Where did I say that I'm concerned with the above aspect? It has not been my topic in my post and I just replied to another post where it was stated that it is trivial to distinguish between cheating and not cheating with respect to Groundspeak's logging rule. It is not trivial at all. I never claimed that it is important to me to make that distinction, but that does not change its difficulty.

Cormorant's Roost is a 5/5 virtual I have bookmarked to do if I ever get the chance. There are some obvious bogus logs on this cache and all you have to do is look through a person's finds around the time they logged this one to see that it's an armchair find.

There can be armchair finds which you cannot recognize in this way. This does not mean that I have a problem with that. It's just a fact.

You can recognize some bogus log but with no guarantee to catch all of them.

Edited February 17, 2015 by cezanne

2.8k · February 17, 2015

There are lots of cases where cachers sign for several of their friends who are not even with them on that day or wait quite some distance ago. This is not restricted to powertrails and happens for all kinds of caches including physically or intellectually very demanding caches.

Cezanne

So what? Why are some people so concerned about someone else's actions and providing all these hypothetical possibilities? ...they have no effect on me and the way in which I cache. How do their actions affect each of you?

I take it you're not the owner of a multi or puzzle cache?

I have one multi where the first stage is the clever stage. It's one of those ...."Is that the stage? Nah.....Heck, yes it is!" kind of stages. It's what usually gets people to write fun logs and give us favorite points. It's an easy multi, people who share coords probably walk right past it on the way to the final and miss an important point of the what makes the experience creative and extra fun. Lately, in my city, almost on a monthly basis, groups of 20+ come through looking to find a lot of caches especially non-traditional caches, most often to qualify for challenge caches (they say so in their logs). No one mentions visiting the first stage. No one mentions the surprise at the final either, which makes me think that most didn't even see the cache at the final. The last 20+ logs say nothing about our cache, just a bunch of cut-n-pastes thanking the guy who organized the days uber caching event. Same goes for my puzzles which they usually also "find" that day. I worked long hours coming up with an interesting puzzle, theme cache container and good location to get monthly 20+ logs thanking the uber cacher host.

However, the people who went by themselves or with one other cacher left great logs. Most left an FP. The same people who leave cut-n-paste logs when mega group caching, leave great meaningful logs when they find our caches on their own or with one other person.

So yes, sharing coordinates in large groups affects my enjoyment of cache ownership. I have little desire to hide any more puzzles or multis. I am now motivated to hide only PMO traditionals. These tend to be less attractive to uber numbers groups who treat them as traditionals. it also keeps our caches off the free app - I find that people just testing the game tend not to write meaningful logs. So again, their actions affects my actions as a cache owner, which affects the pastime in general.

Would those cachers have found your cache otherwise? No, so all they are doing is adding logs to your cache page. Sad that because of this you punish those that may enjoy your caches.

6.8k · February 17, 2015

Would those cachers have found your cache otherwise? No, so all they are doing is adding logs to your cache page. Sad that because of this you punish those that may enjoy your caches.

They are not only adding logs to LoneR's and comparable caches. Without getting the full experience, FPs are awarded less frequently and it is also much harder to identify the meaningful logs.

Somehow it would be nice to have a check box that could be used for declaring a log as a mere "+1" log that has no further intent than claiming the find. Such logs then should not taken into account in the calculation of FP percentages, should be filterable and there should be an option for cache owners to refrain from receiving notifications for such logs.

7.5k · February 17, 2015

Would those cachers have found your cache otherwise? No, so all they are doing is adding logs to your cache page. Sad that because of this you punish those that may enjoy your caches.

They are not only adding logs to LoneR's and comparable caches. Without getting the full experience, FPs are awarded less frequently and it is also much harder to identify the meaningful logs.

Somehow it would be nice to have a check box that could be used for declaring a log as a mere "+1" log that has no further intent than claiming the find. Such logs then should not taken into account in the calculation of FP percentages, should be filterable and there should be an option for cache owners to refrain from receiving notifications for such logs.

This would be a solution I'd be happy with. People can go ahead and add +1 logs to their hearts content. Then it would have no affect on me as a cache owner or as a finder.

Ethics of Finding

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation