Jump to content

Ethics of Finding


Profbrad
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

 

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

 

Of the 98 caches I've hidden/adopted, approximately 50 are multis or puzzles (with about 6-7 challenges on top of that). Multis are my favorite type of cache, both to hide and to find. I try to create caches that I would like to find and hope that others enjoy what I put out there. I've had some caches circumvented but it hasn't stopped me from attempting to place more when an area opens up. I have the same attitude on my caches as I do for others' finds on other caches. If they want to go straight for the final and bypass all the stages since someone shared the information, then that's what they're going to do and nothing I say or do will stop that. Would I do it? No. Would I encourage it? No. Am I upset by it? A bit. Do I get all stressed about it and consider archiving it or not putting out more caches? No. Their actions don't affect my caches other than a simple found it log, which I'm more than happy to accept, even if it was done in a manner in which I don't condone. It's their loss, not mine. I didn't lose ANYTHING through their caching actions. While I enjoy favorite points given to my caches, I could care less if someone gives one to me or not so I'm not beholden to that statistic either. People are going to do what they feel is acceptable and me worrying about whether or not it's ethical is a waste of my time. Worrying about MY ethical approach to caching is all I need to be content.

 

The caches I place (not all of them by any stretch of the imagination) are for the cachers that want a challenge or a fun experience either solving a puzzle or working on a multi. I KNOW I'm going to get the occasional canned log, probably from someone who didn't do what I wanted them to do, but that's fine with me. I didn't hide it from them. I hid it for those cachers looking for something a bit different than the norm.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

 

My main point was all the hypothetical "problems" you've raised, not just the signing of a cache name for someone who wasn't there. You discuss all the problems of mass sharing of puzzle finals and complain that some cachers don't do a multi the "correct" way. If it doesn't bother you, you wouldn't be raising the situations.

 

WHY does it matter so much to you? Why worry about other people's actions? Their actions have nothing to do with you, other than you finding it unethical. I don't see why we need to do anything more than say that we consider them unethical in nature, based on your personal ethics. Attempting to define what's right or wrong with a find is NOT a one size fits all proposition and it never will be. Why not be happy focusing on the way you cache and let the others cache the way they want to?

Link to comment

 

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.

Again, I say so what? I choose the caches I want to go after based on a variety of things, FPs and logs being only a part of it. I'll read through the description and then make a determination of whether or not it's something I might be interested in attempting. FPs and logs serve to confirm my choice, not determine whether or not I'll attempt it in the first place. Occasionally I'll load a cache in the area I'm going to be in based solely on FPs, but that's more to fill in the area so I have more caches to try after my main target cache/s has been found or DNFed.

 

I DO like your second point but I don't think it's ever going to happen.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

 

My main point was all the hypothetical "problems" you've raised, not just the signing of a cache name for someone who wasn't there. You discuss all the problems of mass sharing of puzzle finals and complain that some cachers don't do a multi the "correct" way. If it doesn't bother you, you wouldn't be raising the situations.

 

WHY does it matter so much to you? Why worry about other people's actions? Their actions have nothing to do with you, other than you finding it unethical. I don't see why we need to do anything more than say that we consider them unethical in nature, based on your personal ethics. Attempting to define what's right or wrong with a find is NOT a one size fits all proposition and it never will be. Why not be happy focusing on the way you cache and let the others cache the way they want to?

This is one option.

 

The other is to bring the concern to Groundspeak's attention and see if they will address it within the guidelines.

 

Until a change is made to the guidelines, there is nothing to do aside from keeping on caching--hiding and finding. As an owner, you can keep auditing your cache physical logbook against the online logs and delete as you see fit according to the guidelines of the game. Other than that, any more posting in this thread about another example where your (cezanne's) ethics are being "violated" is just pointless.

Link to comment

 

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.

Again, I say so what? I choose the caches I want to go after based on a variety of things, FPs and logs being only a part of it. I'll read through the description and then make a determination of whether or not it's something I might be interested in attempting. FPs and logs serve to confirm my choice, not determine whether or not I'll attempt it in the first place. Occasionally I'll load a cache in the area I'm going to be in based solely on FPs, but that's more to fill in the area so I have more caches to try after my main target cache/s has been found or DNFed.

 

I guess everyone of us has his/her own way of choosing caches. I typically do not rely on FPs at all. This does not change the fact that a lot of cache owners are proud about the FPs and that they serve a major motivation to them. Also many cache finders they like to rely on logs and many cache owners prefer to receive meaningful logs. How can you decide whether a certain behaviour affects Lone.R and her way of caching or someone's else way of caching?

 

I DO like your second point but I don't think it's ever going to happen.

 

To comfort you, neither do I. I just explained why what who wrote is not universally true and how it could be turned into something which is true for a much larger group of cachers.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

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.

 

My main point was all the hypothetical "problems" you've raised, not just the signing of a cache name for someone who wasn't there.

 

But my argument applied to the blatantly wrong statement that it's straightforward with respect to Groundspeak log signing rule to distinguish between cheating and not not cheating.

This statement assumes that we could check who has signed a log which is of course not true.

You then replied to the wrong post of mine.

 

You discuss all the problems of mass sharing of puzzle finals and complain that some cachers don't do a multi the "correct" way. If it doesn't bother you, you wouldn't be raising the situations.

 

I did not claim that this does not bother me and I already explained you why it bothers me if it becomes a widespread phenomenon (which to some extent is already the case). It definitely affects my caching and the caches which are available to me and it heavily affects my own energy to hide and maintain caches that are appreciated by a certain segment of cache finders. My energy and motivation is not endless and there is a point where I will give up and many will do the same and many have done so already. This is a loss for geocaching.

 

WHY does it matter so much to you? Why worry about other people's actions? Their actions have nothing to do with you, other than you finding it unethical. I don't see why we need to do anything more than say that we consider them unethical in nature, based on your personal ethics. Attempting to define what's right or wrong with a find is NOT a one size fits all proposition and it never will be.

 

I did not make an attempt to define something in this thread. A definition for me is something very precise and does not fit at all to a discussion about ethics in my opinion.

 

Why not be happy focusing on the way you cache and let the others cache the way they want to?

 

I cannot cache the way when the caches I want to visit are not available any longer. The same is true for other cachers who appreciate to find non traditionals. Geocaching cannot exist on the basis of just finders which is something we all know. It's perfectly fine if you do not care (btw: I'm not sure if you really would not care if you have experienced the situation to the extent that some European cachers have).

Link to comment

I guess everyone of us has his/her own way of choosing caches. I typically do not rely on FPs at all. This does not change the fact that a lot of cache owners are proud about the FPs and that they serve a major motivation to them. Also many cache finders they like to rely on logs and many cache owners prefer to receive meaningful logs. How can you decide whether a certain behaviour affects Lone.R and her way of caching or someone's else way of caching?

Trying to compartmentalize and analyze exhaustively (quantify or qualify) all of the ways each of the 6 million cachers chooses caches is an impossibility.

 

<Snip...> Nevermind...

 

<_<

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

My main point was all the hypothetical "problems" you've raised, not just the signing of a cache name for someone who wasn't there. You discuss all the problems of mass sharing of puzzle finals and complain that some cachers don't do a multi the "correct" way. If it doesn't bother you, you wouldn't be raising the situations.

 

WHY does it matter so much to you? Why worry about other people's actions? Their actions have nothing to do with you, other than you finding it unethical. I don't see why we need to do anything more than say that we consider them unethical in nature, based on your personal ethics. Attempting to define what's right or wrong with a find is NOT a one size fits all proposition and it never will be. Why not be happy focusing on the way you cache and let the others cache the way they want to?

This is one option.

 

The other is to bring the concern to Groundspeak's attention and see if they will address it within the guidelines.

It is neither possible nor meaningful to address this at the level of the guidelines,

 

This holds for the situation that it is of course not possible to check whether A signed the log in person or has at least be present physically.

And it of course also holds with respect to coordinate sharing.

 

The only thing Groundspeak might do is to forbid certain types of challenge caches or do away with them at all, but that's only taking care of a small aspect of the problem.

 

Until a change is made to the guidelines, there is nothing to do aside from keeping on caching--hiding and finding. As an owner, you can keep auditing your cache physical logbook against the online logs and delete as you see fit according to the guidelines of the game.

 

That's quite a fastalistic attitude on the one hand as I still hope that by discussing how certain behaviours affect the way others can cache, will make some cachers who claim that everyone should just enjoy caching he/she likes realize that this is not possible without limitations (at least not for everyone).

 

On the other hand, I already told you that my personal interest is not about the possibility of log deletions.

It would not make me happier if I could delete logs for caches based on mass coordinate sharing if the coordinate sharing would still happen and take place. It's the behaviour and the effects brought along and not the existence of some logs that bothers me.

 

You also seem to ignore the part of my arguments that certain behaviours demotivate certain cachers up to the point where they do not want to hide new caches and do not want to keep their existing ones.

If every such cacher stopped to be a cache owner, that would be a real catastrophe for those loving more complex caches.

 

 

Other than that, any more posting in this thread about another example where your (cezanne's) ethics are being "violated" is just pointless.

 

I do not agree because a thread on ethics in my opinion exists just for discussing about and posting such examples.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Oh. For. The. Love...

 

My main point was all the hypothetical "problems" you've raised, not just the signing of a cache name for someone who wasn't there. You discuss all the problems of mass sharing of puzzle finals and complain that some cachers don't do a multi the "correct" way. If it doesn't bother you, you wouldn't be raising the situations.

 

WHY does it matter so much to you? Why worry about other people's actions? Their actions have nothing to do with you, other than you finding it unethical. I don't see why we need to do anything more than say that we consider them unethical in nature, based on your personal ethics. Attempting to define what's right or wrong with a find is NOT a one size fits all proposition and it never will be. Why not be happy focusing on the way you cache and let the others cache the way they want to?

This is one option.

 

The other is to bring the concern to Groundspeak's attention and see if they will address it within the guidelines.

It is neither possible nor meaningful to address this at the level of the guidelines,

 

This holds for the situation that it is of course not possible to check whether A signed the log in person or has at least be present physically.

And it of course also holds with respect to coordinate sharing.

 

The only thing Groundspeak might do is to forbid certain types of challenge caches or do away with them at all, but that's only taking care of a small aspect of the problem.

You're trying to say something here, but I can't quite understand what it is.

 

I'm saying that you can bring your concern about coordinate sharing to Groundspeak. That way you can leave it in their hands to do as they please to either clarify, do nothing, or update guidelines or TOU.

 

Until a change is made to the guidelines, there is nothing to do aside from keeping on caching--hiding and finding. As an owner, you can keep auditing your cache physical logbook against the online logs and delete as you see fit according to the guidelines of the game.

 

1.That's quite a fastalistic attitude on the one hand as I still hope that by discussing how certain behaviours affect the way others can cache, will make some cachers who claim that everyone should just enjoy caching he/she likes realize that this is not possible without limitations (at least not for everyone).

 

2.On the other hand, I already told you that my personal interest is not about the possibility of log deletions.

It would not make me happier if I could delete logs for caches based on mass coordinate sharing if the coordinate sharing would still happen and take place. It's the behaviour and the effects brought along and not the existence of some logs that bothers me.

 

3.You also seem to ignore the part of my arguments that certain behaviours demotivate certain cachers up to the point where they do not want to hide new caches and do not want to keep their existing ones.

If every such cacher stopped to be a cache owner, that would be a real catastrophe for those loving more complex caches.

 

1. No, not 'fastalistic' [sic] (I assume you meant "fatalistic"?). It just means that you control you.

 

2. I know you don't care about log deletions. What I'm saying is that is the only thing you can do about logs on your cache page. That's it. That's all. I'm not saying you should go out and start deleting logs, cezanne. It's just a statement that you have certain options as a cache owner for what you do, and how you deal with your listings on this website according to their TOU and Guidelines. Are you saying that you wish that you could delete logs of those who shared coordinates?? That's how I read what you wrote above. And that, well, just ain't gonna happen.

-What "behaviour and the effects brought along" are you talking about? You still must realize at some point that you can't control others, and you can only control you, right? Yes, right. You're choosing to get bent out of shape with things you can't control. That's a pretty annoying way to live life, IMHO.

 

3. I ignore no such thing. If you are being "demotivated", that's all on you. I think that this game will continue with people hiding caches, while others go to find them no matter if a group signs a logsheet, someone shares final coordinates with someone else, or whatever straw man you want to erect to issue more ire upon. I think that the "ethics" of the game already "frown" on coordinate sharing and other "unethical" behaviours in the community. There will still be some who act in a way someone else considers "unethical", but I hardly think that this community construct will disintegrate because of folks like you who can't grasp that they can't control others.

 

 

Other than that, any more posting in this thread about another example where your (cezanne's) ethics are being "violated" is just pointless.

 

I do not agree because a thread on ethics in my opinion exists just for discussing about and posting such examples.

Great. You've made yourself clear many times over. Now you can stop! Congrats!

 

This is why I said

Why not be happy focusing on the way you cache and let the others cache the way they want to?

The other [option] is to bring the concern to Groundspeak's attention and see if they will address it within the guidelines.

Link to comment

I guess everyone of us has his/her own way of choosing caches. I typically do not rely on FPs at all. This does not change the fact that a lot of cache owners are proud about the FPs and that they serve a major motivation to them. Also many cache finders they like to rely on logs and many cache owners prefer to receive meaningful logs. How can you decide whether a certain behaviour affects Lone.R and her way of caching or someone's else way of caching?

Trying to compartmentalize and analyze exhaustively (quantify or qualify) all of the ways each of the 6 million cachers chooses caches is an impossibility.

 

Of course it is, but how Lone.R feels is not too uncommon and that's why statements like the ones made here that coordinate sharing and other related behaviours do not affect the way of caching for others is not true.

I will continue to repeat this as long as other continue to claim that is true.

Link to comment

 

It is neither possible nor meaningful to address this at the level of the guidelines,

 

This holds for the situation that it is of course not possible to check whether A signed the log in person or has at least be present physically.

And it of course also holds with respect to coordinate sharing.

 

The only thing Groundspeak might do is to forbid certain types of challenge caches or do away with them at all, but that's only taking care of a small aspect of the problem.

You're trying to say something here, but I can't quite understand what it is.

 

I tried to say that except for eliminating challenge caches that are of the type "find at least one mystery cache for each day during 60 successive days" there is nothing Groundspeak could do in my opinion. The challenge cache aspect is only a very minor one compared to the whole picture.

 

I'm saying that you can bring your concern about coordinate sharing to Groundspeak. That way you can leave it in their hands to do as they please to either clarify, do nothing, or update guidelines or TOU.

 

The TOU already contains certain statements which are however of course completely worthless with respect to what happens in reality.

 

The only way I see is trying to convince as many cachers as possible that coordinate sharing in the described way is very unfair and seriously affects the cachers who love the type of caches which are ruined.

 

Almost everyone understands that by intentionally ruininig a container harm to a cache is caused. I would wish the same level of understanding when puzzle caches are ruined. For me as a cache owner it is much easier to bring a new container than to rescue a puzzle cache which will never get the same as it has been and will end up as a much weaker object.

 

1. No, not 'fastalistic' [sic] (I assume you meant "fatalistic"?). It just means that you control you.

 

Yes, fatalistic. I did proofread what I typed.

Of course I cannot control someone else, and sometimes not even myself.

 

As my own caches are regarded, there are caches where I have put more effort meanwhile in trying to make sure that the finders do not write spoiler logs and that all who want to receive help are referred to me than it took to hide the cache.

That's not how it is supposed to be in my opinion.

I wish there existed more awareness right for the beginning for what can wrong.

 

Are you saying that you wish that you could delete logs of those who shared coordinates??

 

No. I went further on and said even if we could delete such logs, if the same sharing would happen, it would not change anything - the caches still get ruined to the same extent.

 

-What "behaviour and the effects brought along" are you talking about? You still must realize at some point that you can't control others, and you can only control you, right? Yes, right. You're choosing to get bent out of shape with things you can't control. That's a pretty annoying way to live life, IMHO.

 

The simplest solution is always archiving caches where such incidents happen right away or even simpler not hiding complex caches. That's the simplest way to live as a cacher. The issue is that there are cachers (and I belong to them) hesitate to take that easy way because it punishes also others.

 

I think that the "ethics" of the game already "frown" on coordinate sharing and other "unethical" behaviours in the community.

 

Really? It does not seem so to me. It rather seems to me that a minority frowns upon it and that is something Groundspeak cannot change.

Link to comment

 

I guess everyone of us has his/her own way of choosing caches. I typically do not rely on FPs at all. This does not change the fact that a lot of cache owners are proud about the FPs and that they serve a major motivation to them. Also many cache finders they like to rely on logs and many cache owners prefer to receive meaningful logs. How can you decide whether a certain behaviour affects Lone.R and her way of caching or someone's else way of caching?

 

Everyone DOES have their own way of choosing caches, just like everyone has their own methods when it comes to caching.

 

Let me rephrase my question to you then. How do YOUR ethical values, when it comes to finding and logging a cache, have ANY impact on how Lone.R or anyone else caches? Is there ANYTHING you do when you cache, using your ethical model, that will affect the behavior of any other cacher? Do someone else's ethical standards change the way you cache? My guess is that their behavior has no effect on the way in which you cache. You choose to cache the way you do because it's all about you, not about them.

 

As it pertains to hiding, you've already stated that you're less likely to put more effort into complex hides and you might even "give up" because of the way in which some people choose to cache. Stating it bluntly, that's a you problem, not a them problem. You're letting THEIR actions dictate YOUR actions when it comes to placing a new cache. That means they've won. You have given up (or considered giving up) because you feel it's just not worth it anymore because of something someone else did or does.

 

I'm still fighting. I'm not going to let those actions I find questionable or unethical change either the way I cache or the way I hide. I'm confident in my choices and beliefs and I'm not going to let someone else dictate how much I enjoy this activity. I'm going to talk to newer cachers and let them know that this is the way I choose to cache, this is what I find OK, and this is what I don't find OK. I'm going to tell them to talk to other cachers to see how they cache so they get a different perspective. Then I'm going to tell them that they determine how they're going to cache and that my way isn't the right way, it's just one of many ways. Finally, I'm going to tell them that geocaching is what THEY make of it. THEY get to determine what geocaching means to them.

 

At the end of the day, all of this means nothing really. We're not curing cancer, fighting a life or death battle, struggling to make ends meet, or any other life altering event. We're looking for a way to enjoy life and we've chosen to geocache as one aspect of that. All I know is, life is too short to worry about what others are doing when it's my enjoyment of life that's at stake.

Edited by coachstahly
Link to comment

How do YOUR ethical values, when it comes to finding and logging a cache, have ANY impact on how Lone.R or anyone else caches? Is there ANYTHING you do when you cache, using your ethical model, that will affect the behavior of any other cacher?

 

A good and difficult question. I do think that in all our actions as cache finders and hiders we in some way (more or less) have an impact on how geocaching is experienced by others. Of course in most cases it is a trade-off and many aspects have to be taken into account.

 

When I decided to log a note for this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3G0H2_mtb-gipfelsturmer

even though I have signed the log and visited all stages, I did it because I saw it as the best compromise between the cache owner's wish that the cache is for those who have the required skill and fitness level to do the cache by MTB and my urgent need for a motivation to be physically more active.

I decided to log a note to be respectful to the idea behind the cache and not based on my personal geocaching ethics which e.g. applies when I cannot reach a cache and need help for it.

 

If LoneR had a cache where she wrote in the cache description "I appreciate if as many finders as possible take part in trading swag and bring interesting personal geocaching items" I would try to look for something I could bring to her cache even though I'm not interested at all into such type of things.

 

Of course, I need to admit that my motivation to try to take into account the wishes of the cache owner is much higher if it's about cache owners who own at least some caches which I appreciate.

 

I think that the greatest impact of the actions of the finders arises when it comes to which caches are newly hidden and which caches get archived.

However, there is also a smaller impact also on other finders in terms of a best example practice.

 

Do someone else's ethical standards change the way you cache? My guess is that their behavior has no effect on the way in which you cache. You choose to cache the way you do because it's all about you, not about them.

 

In some cases they made me question my approach to certain aspects, yes. Of course not with respect to the caches I like, but a lot with respect to what seems acceptable to me and what not.

 

I'm still fighting. I'm not going to let those actions I find questionable or unethical change either the way I cache or the way I hide.

 

I'm also fighting, but I realize that it consumes enormous amounts of energy in my case - not so much for the multi cache, but for some of my special puzzle caches.

 

I'm confident in my choices and beliefs and I'm not going to let someone else dictate how much I enjoy this activity.

 

It's not as easy as that. For example, in case of some of my puzzle caches the large group of those not interested into such caches at all, but just into the +1 aspect can ruin it for the minority for whom those caches have been designed. It's not very motivating to be confronted not only with one's own disappointment but also the disapppointment and fun of those for whom such caches have been hidden.

 

 

I'm going to talk to newer cachers and let them know that this is the way I choose to cache, this is what I find OK, and this is what I don't find OK. I'm going to tell them to talk to other cachers to see how they cache so they get a different perspective. Then I'm going to tell them that they determine how they're going to cache and that my way isn't the right way, it's just one of many ways. Finally, I'm going to tell them that geocaching is what THEY make of it. THEY get to determine what geocaching means to them.

 

 

I have no objections. I just would add that by the way they determine what geocaching means to them, they also will affect what geocaching will be for others. That's unavoidable regardless of how many deny it.

Link to comment

You're letting THEIR actions dictate YOUR actions when it comes to placing a new cache. That means they've won. You have given up (or considered giving up) because you feel it's just not worth it anymore.

 

For me it's not a win/lose thing. Perhaps because geocaching for me is a pastime not a game, an activity I do regularly for enjoyment. If it's starts getting mostly aggravating I stop. Makes sense. Why continue just so the mega cachers don't "win". Actually they have "won" whether I archive my cache or not, since the game aspect of geocaching is about the numbers and has become, in a lot of areas, a dominating factor. I get to chose whether or not I'm still enjoying the pastime and act accordingly.

Link to comment

You're letting THEIR actions dictate YOUR actions when it comes to placing a new cache. That means they've won. You have given up (or considered giving up) because you feel it's just not worth it anymore.

 

For me it's not a win/lose thing. Perhaps because geocaching for me is a pastime not a game, an activity I do regularly for enjoyment. If it's starts getting mostly aggravating I stop. Makes sense. Why continue just so the mega cachers don't "win". Actually they have "won" whether I archive my cache or not, since the game aspect of geocaching is about the numbers and has become, in a lot of areas, a dominating factor. I get to chose whether or not I'm still enjoying the pastime and act accordingly.

And I have no problem with those actions that you have opted to take. I want to make that clear. It's the way you've chosen to cache (and hide caches). Winning isn't really the right word, but it's the best one I could come up with. Perhaps "gained the upper hand" would be better?

 

My enjoyment isn't tied into how others choose to play. It's in what I do that matters to me and determines the enjoyment I derive from this activity. My hides were done because I enjoyed creating them and hope that others enjoy them as well. If they opt to share a final, that's on them, not on me. I'd be a bit upset but I'm still happy with my hide because I think it's a good/fun one and those that don't do it the way it is intended are missing out. It's their loss, not mine.

 

I'm not saying that the ethics of a find aren't important. They ARE important, but only to the individual involved. The ethics of a find are based on an individual's sense of what they consider to be right or wrong, not what they think other people's sense of right or wrong are. What I think and value ethically works for me, but it may not work for others because they have different ethical boundaries. Their values may not agree with mine, but I'm not going to let their values diminish or remove the enjoyment from what I do because they don't share my value system.

 

I had a friend who was tired of crappy logs from cachers. He ended up archiving most of his hides so he'd stop getting crappy logs. You know what else he stopped getting? Great logs from cachers who appreciated his hides. He attempted to remove the negative things from his hides, but in the process he also eliminated the positive things from his hides. For him, he felt that this was the best option. I'm fine with his decision, but I wouldn't do that because a crappy log is just a crappy log. I don't take it personally and I don't let it take the enjoyment out of my hides. I think they're good and for me, that's enough.

Link to comment

 

I'm confident in my choices and beliefs and I'm not going to let someone else dictate how much I enjoy this activity.

 

It's not as easy as that. For example, in case of some of my puzzle caches the large group of those not interested into such caches at all, but just into the +1 aspect can ruin it for the minority for whom those caches have been designed. It's not very motivating to be confronted not only with one's own disappointment but also the disapppointment and fun of those for whom such caches have been hidden.

 

I really don't see how someone else's +1 find would ruin it for those who opt to do it the way it was intended (the minority). A power cacher comes through, logging all the caches in the area, including an involved puzzle cache. How does their find diminish the enjoyment of my find if I do it the way it was intended to be done? The +1 finder has NO affect on my finding it because I'm doing it the way it was intended and getting the full effect of the puzzle, not the way the +1 finder did. If I solve a great puzzle, I'm still going to enjoy it. In fact, I'll probably enjoy it more than the cacher who had the final coordinates because someone shared it with him/her and you can bet I'll mention that in my log. I'm also not going to enjoy it less if suddenly 25 people log a +1 find. My enjoyment is/was based on the hoops I had to jump through to get to the final, not what someone else did to get the smiley.

 

As the owner of a few involved unknown caches, I'm motivated to create something somewhat original or fun. If someone circumvents the process, I'd be a bit upset, but I'd feel sorry for the cacher that did so because they missed the best parts. I also know that they probably don't even care about the best parts. However, I wouldn't let that deter me from coming up with new and/or different types of hides nor would I let it diminish the enjoyment I had creating it in the first place.

Link to comment

As the owner of a few involved unknown caches, I'm motivated to create something somewhat original or fun. If someone circumvents the process, I'd be a bit upset, but I'd feel sorry for the cacher that did so because they missed the best parts. I also know that they probably don't even care about the best parts. However, I wouldn't let that deter me from coming up with new and/or different types of hides nor would I let it diminish the enjoyment I had creating it in the first place.

 

I'm still going to come up with new and different hides but not as a multi or puzzle. Next one will be a PMO traditional with a medium/low D/T. Nothing to attract grid fillers. Nothing to attract challenge cachers (title won't have a Q or X or Z in it). I want to attract people who are invested in the game and enjoy caching for the individual experience.

 

We have archived our letterbox hybrid caches. I realized what the coveted prize is the cache type. Cachers that throw in a non-theme bottom-of-the-kid's-toybox stamp, in an unattractive location got as many FPs as our hand-carved stamp letterboxes in attractive locations, even those that didn't include a stamp got as many FPs. Then challenge caches for letterbox types started up and our caches were used to qualify for those. I didn't want our caches participating in an ALR cache type that I think is not good for the game - encourages people to treat caches like they are a kernel in the big popcorn bowl, encourages people to hide cache types like LBHs so others can qualify for challenges. I am happier now that our LBHs are archived. I expect to be happier planting only PMO traditionals.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

It's not as easy as that. For example, in case of some of my puzzle caches the large group of those not interested into such caches at all, but just into the +1 aspect can ruin it for the minority for whom those caches have been designed. It's not very motivating to be confronted not only with one's own disappointment but also the disapppointment and fun of those for whom such caches have been hidden.

 

I really don't see how someone else's +1 find would ruin it for those who opt to do it the way it was intended (the minority). A power cacher comes through, logging all the caches in the area, including an involved puzzle cache. How does their find diminish the enjoyment of my find if I do it the way it was intended to be done? The +1 finder has NO affect on my finding it because I'm doing it the way it was intended and getting the full effect of the puzzle, not the way the +1 finder did.

 

The "+1" finder affects the enjoyment of cache owners like LoneR on their hides.

 

What I have written above about some of my puzzle caches above is another matter. I already mentioned that often coordinates are shared along with solutions. Those solutions are then not treated with care by those who have not had to work hard for them. They are much more prone to write spoiler logs, to spoil the fun of others at events by asking around for solutions and by sharing them in the public making others who do not want to hear/write about this stuff ending up in the middle.

Those who found a solution and worked for it, typically know what are the hard steps and what should not be given away freely.

The same is true when it comes to spoilers on some web pages, facebook groups etc since the process of solving a cache also often is started by trying some internet search not only in cases where a google search is needed anyway.

 

It is very hard for some of my caches and consumes an enormous amount of energy and patience to try to keep my caches in the state those for whom they have been hidden enjoy them the most.

 

Some cachers in my area hurry up to solve and find challenging caches very quickly after publication to avoid that the caches become ruined before they could give them a try, but not everyone is in this situation. Some might find time for a cache only after a few months, a year or more.

 

 

I do know that one never can control others, but I have the feeling that there is more respect and understanding for aspects like treating the container of a cache properly (this does not mean that it is observed by everyone - we all know that) than for aspects that relate to puzzle and multi caches. In my understanding, both levels are damaging a cache in the appropriate setting - for me a cache is more than a container.

 

 

If I solve a great puzzle, I'm still going to enjoy it. In fact, I'll probably enjoy it more than the cacher who had the final coordinates because someone shared it with him/her and you can bet I'll mention that in my log.

 

I do not disagree with this part - I do not feel differently when it comes to me.

I guess I also enjoyed some of my DNFs more than those who found the caches without having even tried to find all stages.

Link to comment

You're letting THEIR actions dictate YOUR actions when it comes to placing a new cache. That means they've won. You have given up (or considered giving up) because you feel it's just not worth it anymore.

 

For me it's not a win/lose thing. Perhaps because geocaching for me is a pastime not a game, an activity I do regularly for enjoyment. If it's starts getting mostly aggravating I stop. Makes sense. Why continue just so the mega cachers don't "win". Actually they have "won" whether I archive my cache or not, since the game aspect of geocaching is about the numbers and has become, in a lot of areas, a dominating factor. I get to chose whether or not I'm still enjoying the pastime and act accordingly.

Point of order: I think saying "pastime" is not apart from saying "game". Whenever I've talked about the "game" of geocaching, I'm using the definition of game as: "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement" or that "...key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational, or psychological role."

 

Geocaching, by nature, is more than just a "walk in the park". There's a game in the idea that you may or may not be able to find the container related to the listing online.

 

That said, there are rules--guidelines--which keep things in check. And the guidelines for the game played on Geocaching.com are pretty simple when you boil it down.

 

Now, one can get upset if someone plays with different "house rules" than I, but I have to remember that this is a diverse game with millions of personalities involved. The "ethics" of the game were summarized on the last page: "don't deliberately be a jerk, don't let yourself get bent out of shape if someone plays a little different from you--especially if we all adhere to the simple Groundspeak Geocaching.com guidelines."

 

I don't know what kind of bleak world cezanne and some others live in, but it is getting painted as a place where dogs and cats are living together or something CRAZY like that. I mean, how much rampant, blatant "mass coordinate sharing" is really going on in your neighborhood? How many people are actually pulling out of this game because of the inability to control how someone finds your hidden container from the listing on Geocaching.com? How many people are not coming to events anymore because others can log it without having gone on the trek up a mountain? How much cred does a "mega cacher" really get over someone else in a game with no winners? This all seems like a pretty big bunch of overreaction and doomsday talk for something that is, as far as I can tell, a pretty small global issue.

 

And yes, cezanne, I do think that, on the whole, the community frowns on mass coordinate sharing. I do think that there's a lot more "ethical behaviour" going on than you're letting on. Leave no Trace. Trade up, even, or not at all. Contact owners with questions about their caches. Follow the Guidelines. I think that, on the whole, "the community" gets it, and practices "ethical behaviour". I do think that, just like society on the whole, there are those who bend or deliberately break the rules.

 

In the cases of bending or breaking the guidelines, a cache owner (such as yourselves in these apparent "last days holdouts of geocaching") can bring the concerns to Groundspeak to be dealt with. Other than that, you control you, and that's it. This game is not designed so that, nor have TPTB stated that, players or listing owners may "control" the actions of others aside from logging online at Geocaching.com once the physical logbook is signed.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

Point of order: I think saying "pastime" is not apart from saying "game".

 

For some cachers it is. LoneR and I belong to them though for different reasons.

 

Whenever I've talked about the "game" of geocaching, I'm using the definition of game as: "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement" or that "...key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational, or psychological role."

 

For me the key components are neither goals, challenges, rules, interacton or simulation.

 

A lot of Wherigos make me feel that I'm confronted with a game and I do not like that at all.

 

This does neither mean that I have an issue with others referring to geocaching as a game to them nor that geocaching is something which is of higher importance to me than to those for whom it is a game.

Link to comment

Point of order: I think saying "pastime" is not apart from saying "game".

 

For some cachers it is. LoneR and I belong to them though for different reasons.

 

Whenever I've talked about the "game" of geocaching, I'm using the definition of game as: "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement" or that "...key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational, or psychological role."

 

For me the key components are neither goals, challenges, rules, interacton or simulation.

 

A lot of Wherigos make me feel that I'm confronted with a game and I do not like that at all.

 

This does neither mean that I have an issue with others referring to geocaching as a game to them nor that geocaching is something which is of higher importance to me than to those for whom it is a game.

Here, let me help you...

 

nit-picking-comb.jpg

 

Game, noun: "an activity engaged in for diversion or amusement".

Link to comment

Game, noun: "an activity engaged in for diversion or amusement".

 

But even that does not really catch what geocaching means for me.

I also never thought of hiking as a game.

 

Neither have I. I have always thought of hiking, as, you know, hiking. To me, geocaching has most of the aspects of what I think of as a game, and some times it includes hiking.

Link to comment

Game, noun: "an activity engaged in for diversion or amusement".

 

But even that does not really catch what geocaching means for me.

I also never thought of hiking as a game.

 

Neither have I. I have always thought of hiking, as, you know, hiking. To me, geocaching has most of the aspects of what I think of as a game, and some times it includes hiking.

 

To me geocaching does not necessarily include a hike, but to me geocaching does not have the aspects of what I think of as a game.

Typically, when a cache reminds me of what a game means to me, I do not enjoy the geocache.

Link to comment

Recently I started a discussion concerning a cache that I have been looking for on a number of occasions but could never find. Some of the early posts reported finding it using the listed coordinates. The cache had a difficulty rating of 3. Many others posted DNF's as well. Last week I was in the park and decided to give it another go. When I checked the current posts it was being reported that the original coordinates were 150 feet off! New coordinates were posted to get to the new location. After all of my fruitless searching I wondered how the original coordinates could get so far off and even more surprising to me was how in the world did the first person find it without knowing those coordinates! I was informed that the original owner moved away and that numerous NM posts have gone unanswered. To my surprise I found out that there is something known as a "throw down". Evidently someone became frustrated at not being able to find the original cache so they took it upon themselves to "throw down" a new one 150 feet away then post the new coordinates on the original person's cache page listed on the official geocaching website map. I guess the idea is that you can still log a "found it" for the original cache even though you haven't really found it. I don't like the idea that someone/anyone can "throw down" some coordinates and "piggyback" on the original owners cache whether that owner is maintaining it or not. This circumvents the protocol for creating a new cache via the official website. I feel it does a disservice to all those early cachers who used the original coordinates and found a fairly hard to find cache. Don't know if you're aware of this practice but would like to know your feelings about it. I would rather just read posts that the cache is probably no longer there and my time would be better served looking for a different one. Just wondering.....

Link to comment

Recently I started a discussion concerning a cache that I have been looking for on a number of occasions but could never find. Some of the early posts reported finding it using the listed coordinates. The cache had a difficulty rating of 3. Many others posted DNF's as well. Last week I was in the park and decided to give it another go. When I checked the current posts it was being reported that the original coordinates were 150 feet off! New coordinates were posted to get to the new location. After all of my fruitless searching I wondered how the original coordinates could get so far off and even more surprising to me was how in the world did the first person find it without knowing those coordinates! I was informed that the original owner moved away and that numerous NM posts have gone unanswered. To my surprise I found out that there is something known as a "throw down". Evidently someone became frustrated at not being able to find the original cache so they took it upon themselves to "throw down" a new one 150 feet away then post the new coordinates on the original person's cache page listed on the official geocaching website map. I guess the idea is that you can still log a "found it" for the original cache even though you haven't really found it. I don't like the idea that someone/anyone can "throw down" some coordinates and "piggyback" on the original owners cache whether that owner is maintaining it or not. This circumvents the protocol for creating a new cache via the official website. I feel it does a disservice to all those early cachers who used the original coordinates and found a fairly hard to find cache. Don't know if you're aware of this practice but would like to know your feelings about it. I would rather just read posts that the cache is probably no longer there and my time would be better served looking for a different one. Just wondering.....

Sadly there is no "one size fits all" answer here. In this case I would have, personally, posted a Needs Maintenance log as well. Based on the information you provided, I might now post a Needs Archived (see bolded for my personal rationale, not anything to be used as a statement of "how things should happen"). This assumes, from what you're saying, that the original owner is not responsive, the coordinates are off by 150' on the cache's description, Needs Maintenance logs have gone unanswered, someone has placed a throwdown cache, and someone has added coordinates for the throwdown in a log--not a change to the actual cache page coordinates.

 

This is a grey area where individual "ethics" will be diverse and conflicting in their preferred action. Meaning, my response to your inquiry will very likely not be met with back-patting and high fives by everyone who reads it. :laughing:

Link to comment

It's not as easy as that. For example, in case of some of my puzzle caches the large group of those not interested into such caches at all, but just into the +1 aspect can ruin it for the minority for whom those caches have been designed. It's not very motivating to be confronted not only with one's own disappointment but also the disapppointment and fun of those for whom such caches have been hidden.

 

I really don't see how someone else's +1 find would ruin it for those who opt to do it the way it was intended (the minority). A power cacher comes through, logging all the caches in the area, including an involved puzzle cache. How does their find diminish the enjoyment of my find if I do it the way it was intended to be done? The +1 finder has NO affect on my finding it because I'm doing it the way it was intended and getting the full effect of the puzzle, not the way the +1 finder did.

 

The "+1" finder affects the enjoyment of cache owners like LoneR on their hides.

 

But that's not what you said. You said "...for whom those caches have been designed..." and yet again "...for whom such caches have been hidden...".

 

As to the point about the CO's enjoyment, I've already stated that I understand it will probably happen but that the enjoyment I derived was creating it in the first place. Whatever someone else thinks of it is out of my control. I'm thrilled if they like it and if they don't, no big deal. Not all of us share the same tastes. Sure, I'd be a bit disappointed if they circumvented the whole process, but it's THEIR loss as they didn't get to get the full experience. It still doesn't affect my enjoyment of my cache as a CO. That's where you and I differ.

 

I think that stating that caches are "ruined" once the solution is shared is a silly notion. It's only ruined if the person actually uses the information to sign the final, meaning that they chose, on their own, to use what they heard to ruin the experience for themselves. If they go to the final, then their ethics aren't in the same general area as yours and they wouldn't have done it in the way it was intended anyway. They ruined it for themselves, not for everyone else. Also, even if people choose to go directly to the final, isn't that experience still available if you choose to do it the way it was intended? It doesn't magically disappear, never to appear again. It's still there, waiting for the next cacher to enjoy the cache. meaning that it was never ruined in the first place.

Link to comment

 

What I have written above about some of my puzzle caches above is another matter. I already mentioned that often coordinates are shared along with solutions. Those solutions are then not treated with care by those who have not had to work hard for them. They are much more prone to write spoiler logs, to spoil the fun of others at events by asking around for solutions and by sharing them in the public making others who do not want to hear/write about this stuff ending up in the middle.

Those who found a solution and worked for it, typically know what are the hard steps and what should not be given away freely.

The same is true when it comes to spoilers on some web pages, facebook groups etc since the process of solving a cache also often is started by trying some internet search not only in cases where a google search is needed anyway.

 

It is very hard for some of my caches and consumes an enormous amount of energy and patience to try to keep my caches in the state those for whom they have been hidden enjoy them the most.

 

 

Looking at your caches, it's obvious that you've spent a great deal of time and effort setting them up. All of them required lots of effort to complete from beginning to end. However, I fail to see how this mass sharing of your final locations bears out in the find totals of your caches. It doesn't appear to me to be the case.

 

Your newest multi has an average of about 8 finds a year.

You next one is about 7 finds a year.

Your next one has 11 finds a year.

Your oldest one has about 24 a year.

 

Your newest puzzle has about 7 finds a year

Next one is about 13 a year.

Next one is 6 a year.

Next one is 6 a year

Next one is 18 a year.

 

Looking through the logs, the most finds in a day I see are 4 and it was a noted group effort. You have some 3 finds in a day (a couple times) but it appears that it's the same group that goes out together. You have some logs that are certainly short in nature (which could be those +1 finds you're talking about), but they're few and far between with the large majority of logs being somewhat long and thorough. I really don't see what you have to be concerned with as it pertains to your caches. I think NeverSummer hit the nail on the head in post #270.

Link to comment

I mean, how much rampant, blatant "mass coordinate sharing" is really going on in your neighborhood?

Well, take a look here (Finals removed, of course). There's a thread in the biggest german forum with over 700 postings right now called "Mystery coords on Facebook" which was started on January/29/2015, so obviously quite a few people are upset and affected by this.

 

How many people are actually pulling out of this game because of the inability to control how someone finds your hidden container from the listing on Geocaching.com? How many people are not coming to events anymore because others can log it without having gone on the trek up a mountain?

Most veterans that always placed great caches.

 

I do think that there's a lot more "ethical behaviour" going on than you're letting on. Leave no Trace. Trade up, even, or not at all. Contact owners with questions about their caches. Follow the Guidelines.

Really? I'm glad to hear you live in a perfect geocaching world.

Link to comment
As to the point about the CO's enjoyment, I've already stated that I understand it will probably happen but that the enjoyment I derived was creating it in the first place. Whatever someone else thinks of it is out of my control. I'm thrilled if they like it and if they don't, no big deal. Not all of us share the same tastes. Sure, I'd be a bit disappointed if they circumvented the whole process, but it's THEIR loss as they didn't get to get the full experience. It still doesn't affect my enjoyment of my cache as a CO. That's where you and I differ.

Here's another question...

 

What if someone does the extensive cache, puzzle or long hike, as it was intended - and absolutely hates it, rips into it, in the online log?

 

Where, then, did the CO get their enjoyment? From placing the cache? From people doing it as intended? Or from people enjoying it, as intended or otherwise?

 

The only way a CO can guarantee having fun, is in its creation, and if he places for others to do however they wish. It's certainly more enjoyable, more rewarding, when cachers do it as intended and fully enjoy it, but why put yourself through so much frustration by expecting so much, and being angered by people not doing it the way you want? Especially if they enjoyed it anyway?

And let me requote what I just said in case it gets lost, as has happened before: "It's certainly more enjoyable, more rewarding, when cachers do it as intended and fully enjoy it"

 

I do think that there's a lot more "ethical behaviour" going on than you're letting on. Leave no Trace. Trade up, even, or not at all. Contact owners with questions about their caches. Follow the Guidelines.

Really? I'm glad to hear you live in a perfect geocaching world.

Wow, that was quite a big leap; must have been training for that one! :laughing:

Link to comment

Looking at your caches, it's obvious that you've spent a great deal of time and effort setting them up. All of them required lots of effort to complete from beginning to end. However, I fail to see how this mass sharing of your final locations bears out in the find totals of your caches. It doesn't appear to me to be the case.

 

Yes, it has not happened for my cache except for one where I reacted very quickly and since then only one team has found it and they for sure do not share coordinates.

The coordinates have been on the large lists shared in Austria.

 

Another one is seriously endangered (also to get ruined by spoilers) but so far I managed with a lot of effort and energy that the solution is not handed around in the usual way and that everyone who wants help or a hint contacts me. I also read most of the logs in advance before they got posted. Quite an investment for both sides.

 

Without my interference in both cases, both caches would have totally degenerated and the logs would give you a completely different picture.

 

The fact that some of my caches are real minority caches makes it a bit easier for me as my very own caches are regarded. Moreover, I do not use geocheckers (so I could not be affected by geochecker hacks), but provide very fast personal checks by e-mail. In order to share coordinates that are not available in geocheckers, one needs the cooperation of at least one cacher who

solved the cache. Without my pleading how important it is for me in case of a particular cache that solutions are not shared, it would already be ruined and would not have lived for more than a couple of months.

 

In the early years such efforts were not necessary at all.

 

BTW: What I wrote was a lot about the general situation and it affects my own caching more if other caches get archived which I would have enjoyed than if I decide to archive a cache of mine.

Link to comment
As to the point about the CO's enjoyment, I've already stated that I understand it will probably happen but that the enjoyment I derived was creating it in the first place. Whatever someone else thinks of it is out of my control. I'm thrilled if they like it and if they don't, no big deal. Not all of us share the same tastes. Sure, I'd be a bit disappointed if they circumvented the whole process, but it's THEIR loss as they didn't get to get the full experience. It still doesn't affect my enjoyment of my cache as a CO. That's where you and I differ.

Here's another question...

 

What if someone does the extensive cache, puzzle or long hike, as it was intended - and absolutely hates it, rips into it, in the online log?

 

Where, then, did the CO get their enjoyment? From placing the cache? From people doing it as intended? Or from people enjoying it, as intended or otherwise?

 

The only way a CO can guarantee having fun, is in its creation, and if he places for others to do however they wish. It's certainly more enjoyable, more rewarding, when cachers do it as intended and fully enjoy it, but why put yourself through so much frustration by expecting so much, and being angered by people not doing it the way you want? Especially if they enjoyed it anyway?

And let me requote what I just said in case it gets lost, as has happened before: "It's certainly more enjoyable, more rewarding, when cachers do it as intended and fully enjoy it"

 

 

Then they rip into it. Not everyone enjoys caches the same way. If I had the time (and the money), I'd be targeting Cezanne's caches each and every day until I found them all because those are the types of caches I look forward to doing but usually don't have the time to do. I also know many people in my neck of the woods who have no interest in attempting his caches or any that are like that, including some of my own caches. They prefer the quick satisfaction of a simple and straightforward search. I know some that only prefer ammo cans in the woods and their logs reflect that. Not everyone shares the same tastes when it comes to caching and if they choose to step out of their comfort zone and try one just a little bit different and realize they don't enjoy it, then that's fine with me too.

 

I had a cacher do one of my Wherigos and state that it was the worst one he's ever done. It's actually well-liked by most who do it so I was a bit surprised, but not upset or angry. However, I know that not everyone likes what I place and figured that was the case. I LOVE the area where it takes you and my enjoyment came from visiting one of my favorite locations in the city and having to return to this location to see what the problem was. Turns out that something caused multiple zones to generate wrong answers, creating a huge mess for the cacher. I KNOW I didn't go in there and edit the cartridge to give wrong answers, but somehow they were wrong. I contacted them to let them know that something in the programming went wonky and let them know that they could claim the find if they wished because I actually went through and had to modify the cartridge on site (while doing it) to get it back into proper shape. They got back in touch with me and thanked me for at least bringing them to the neat location, although the experience wasn't what they had hoped. I didn't ask them to change the log because that was the experience they had when attempting my Wherigo and it wasn't a good one. Not every experience will be a good one and sometimes some of the bad experiences make for the best stories.

 

Just because the cacher ripped into my Wherigo, it didn't take the enjoyment of owning this cache away from me. It's still there and I still want people to try to enjoy an area of the city that I love. There's a huge art festival that goes on at this location every year, the art on display changes (occasionally causing me to rework a zone or two), and it's right along a river, providing some relief from big city noise. I love going there even when I don't have to and that's the enjoyment I get out of it. If others don't like it, then that's fine as well and has no effect on my enjoyment of what I created. Would I like it if everyone enjoyed it as much as I did (and get even more enjoyment because others got what I wanted them to get)? Sure and that's my hope, but I understand that not everyone will. That still doesn't diminish the enjoyment I have in this cache. I wouldn't have published it if I wasn't happy with it.

 

I don't expect much at all from anyone when it comes to doing one of my caches. I hope that they have fun but fully understand that what I enjoy is not always what others enjoy. I don't get frustrated when people say they don't like it or understand it and I certainly don't get angry when it's not done the way I intended. I know going in that some people will probably try to circumvent the process. Their actions and reactions are completely out of my control. I placed it for all to find, hopefully in the manner in which I created it. Either they do or they don't and I have nothing to do with their choice of actions so I have no reason to worry over their thoughts about my cache.

Link to comment

I do think that there's a lot more "ethical behaviour" going on than you're letting on. Leave no Trace. Trade up, even, or not at all. Contact owners with questions about their caches. Follow the Guidelines.

Really? I'm glad to hear you live in a perfect geocaching world.

Wow, that was quite a big leap; must have been training for that one! :laughing:

 

No, it was not a big leap. If had some experience in the geocaching setting we talk about (comment: Rebore lives not far from me), then you would understand what is meant.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

What if someone does the extensive cache, puzzle or long hike, as it was intended - and absolutely hates it, rips into it, in the online log?

 

If the person describes his experience in a manner that one can understand why the person hated the cache, I'm fine with it.

 

I prefer that very much to the logs of those who are lying and writing e.g. about the nice stages while they have not been there and do not know how they look like.

 

I can much better live with a sincere, authentic negative log than with the type of logs that always make me feel that geocaching has turned into a big lie.

 

It's extremely frustrating to realize after months that there is an issue with a stage for quite some time, but as a cache owner I did not realize it because I believed that someone who did not admit that he shortcutted the cache have not been at the stages. It went that far that meanwhile I often find myself in the situation that I question logs of cachers I do not know very well - something I have never done in the early years.

 

Of course, I prefer to read a nice story about what someone experienced along the hike, but I know that I cannot expect this. There are cachers who enjoy the hike and go for the entire hike and still write logs that are not a pleasure to read. If the logs were at least honest, a lot were won. This also relates to puzzle caches. Often cachers write that they got a small hint while in reality the got the solution or almost the solution. This can be quite misleading - I have an above average background for certain types of puzzles and I often wonder how it could be that lots of cachers that do not have this background write logs that make one feel that they solved the puzzles within 2 minutes while in reality they did not even start to solve them.

 

I also have pointed out before that those who have not solved the puzzles on their own, are very prone to spoil puzzles (in logs, at events etc) and so they ruin the fun for those for whom such caches have been developped. I have a number of caches where the finders who found the solution without help and when no spoilers were available were extremely proud. I see it as my task to try to guard a cache against such ruining attempts for as long as possible, but believe me that can cost a lot of energy and time.

 

 

The only way a CO can guarantee having fun, is in its creation, and if he places for others to do however they wish. It's certainly more enjoyable, more rewarding, when cachers do it as intended and fully enjoy it,

 

That never will happen for caches which are suitable only for a certain group.

I will never enjoy tree climbing caches as I do not have the required abilities.

 

I do not have a cache where one needs to have special knowledge in cryptography (e.g. say elliptic curves), but it's evident that such a cache cannot neither be solved nor enjoyed by someone without the required background. It is not the idea behind such caches that the majority of cachers who do not have the background shares the solution and visits the cache as a traditional. Of course there is no control possible and Groundspeak cannot do anything about it. I claim however that something is wrong with a community where the marority thinks that this is proper behaviour.

Link to comment

 

Another one is seriously endangered (also to get ruined by spoilers) but so far I managed with a lot of effort and energy that the solution is not handed around in the usual way and that everyone who wants help or a hint contacts me. I also read most of the logs in advance before they got posted. Quite an investment for both sides.

 

Without my interference in both cases, both caches would have totally degenerated and the logs would give you a completely different picture.

 

The fact that some of my caches are real minority caches makes it a bit easier for me as my very own caches are regarded. Moreover, I do not use geocheckers (so I could not be affected by geochecker hacks), but provide very fast personal checks by e-mail. In order to share coordinates that are not available in geocheckers, one needs the cooperation of at least one cacher who

solved the cache. Without my pleading how important it is for me in case of a particular cache that solutions are not shared, it would already be ruined and would not have lived for more than a couple of months.

 

 

You read the logs in advance before posting? Sorry, but I wouldn't let you do that. You don't have the right to censor/approve what I have to say about your cache. You would have the right to contact me if you thought my log was too much of a spoiler, but you couldn't force me to change my log to meet your ends, even if I did post a spoiler. To be fair, I wouldn't post any spoilers, but I still wouldn't allow you to "approve" what I could say in my log.

 

I still fail to see how the cache would have "degenerated" if the coordinates had been shared. The logs would certainly be lamer and the experiences of those who circumvented the route would be lessened, but the cache could still be done in the manner in which you intended. Their deliberate actions don't ruin the cache, just the logs and their personal experiences. It's still there to be done the "right" way. You can't control how people choose to cache. Those decisions are made outside of your personal desires. You'd like for cachers to do your cache the way you want them to. You want them to NOT share coordinates or post spoilers in their logs. That's great, but the decision to do as you wish rests with the individual cacher and their personal ethics, not with you.

 

WHY is it so important to you that coordinates not be shared? What harm is actually done to the cache? I don't understand why you need to expend so much effort and energy to prevent something like this from happening. I understand that it's your "baby", your creation and you want it to be the same for everybody and are disappointed when someone chooses to do it wrongly. Does it somehow make the cache more valuable? More deserving to be found because it's only been found the "right" way? More enjoyable to find since all have done it the way it was supposed to be done? Individual enjoyment of a cache is an individual decision based on a variety of factors that are completely out of your control. It's no surprise to me that your thoughts about this topic are so bleak because you're attempting to control every aspect of your cache experience when in actuality, you have absolutely ZERO control over how a cacher is going to attempt your cache.

Link to comment

I do think that there's a lot more "ethical behaviour" going on than you're letting on. Leave no Trace. Trade up, even, or not at all. Contact owners with questions about their caches. Follow the Guidelines.

Really? I'm glad to hear you live in a perfect geocaching world.

Wow, that was quite a big leap; must have been training for that one! :laughing:

 

No, it was not a big leap. If had some experience in the geocaching setting we talk about (comment: Rebore lives not far from me), then you would understand what is meant.

I just have to belly laugh at that one, Rebore and cezanne. You can't cherry pick like that and not get a laugh.

 

That statement is quite the leap, indeed.

 

This all seems like a pretty big bunch of overreaction and doomsday talk for something that is, as far as I can tell, a pretty small global issue.

 

And yes, cezanne, I do think that, on the whole, the community frowns on mass coordinate sharing. I do think that there's a lot more "ethical behaviour" going on than you're letting on. Leave no Trace. Trade up, even, or not at all. Contact owners with questions about their caches. Follow the Guidelines. I think that, on the whole, "the community" gets it, and practices "ethical behaviour". I do think that, just like society on the whole, there are those who bend or deliberately break the rules.

 

In the cases of bending or breaking the guidelines, a cache owner (such as yourselves in these apparent "last days holdouts of geocaching") can bring the concerns to Groundspeak to be dealt with. Other than that, you control you, and that's it. This game is not designed so that, nor have TPTB stated that, players or listing owners may "control" the actions of others aside from logging online at Geocaching.com once the physical logbook is signed.

You see, it's not "rose-colored glasses" that I see the world through. Rather, it is a simple understanding that there is bad in the world, and there is far more good than anyone is letting on in your circle of beliefs.

 

Also, am I alone in starting to see a trend that these "unethical behaviours" are found in Austria/Germany? Home of the "Greetings from Germany". Home of the largest coordinate sharing facebook site on the internet (so far as I can tell).

 

To me it's starting to sound like North America is a stronghold of ethical behaviour "on the whole", and Austria/Germany (and likely other places far from the Lilypad) are dark spots in an otherwise bright geocaching world.

 

And, to that end, I'm very sorry, cezanne and Rebore, that your home areas are filled with these unethical people. I'm sorry that it makes it seem that this global game is played by people who couch log more than I've ever seen before, and crate massive coordinate sharing sites on a public website. But I guess that's the warzone, doomsday place you live in. So, as I said in the other thread, be the change you want to see in the world. As far as the guidelines and general practices where I'm from are concerned, there isn't as dark a world we're living in.

Link to comment

I see it as my task to try to guard a cache against such ruining attempts for as long as possible, but believe me that can cost a lot of energy and time.

 

I claim however that something is wrong with a community where the marority thinks that this is proper behaviour.

And here's where we differ. I would hope that others attempt to solve/do my puzzles the way they were intended. However, I realize that I can't control how people choose to attempt to try this cache. Once I get it done and published, the finding of the cache is out of my hands. It's not my task or job to prevent that from happening because I can't control what people choose to do. I can only hope that their internal ethical dialogue is similar in nature to mine and that they'll choose the route I would prefer them to choose. You have to expend all that energy, effort and time BECAUSE not everyone thinks like you do and you want them to come around to your wishes. Either they will or they won't. That's all you really need to consider.

 

As to the second part, I think the majority believes it's improper behavior, like NeverSummer. I've run into a few +1 cachers, but by and large, the large majority of the cachers I know view this as improper/unethical behavior. Perhaps it's different where you live. I don't live there and I don't claim to know so I can only speculate.

Link to comment

If the person describes his experience in a manner that one can understand why the person hated the cache, I'm fine with it...I can much better live with a sincere, authentic negative log than with the type of logs that always make me feel that geocaching has turned into a big lie.

That's presuming they care to provide that description.

If they hate your cache, and they don't care to provide a decent log, then where's your satisfaction?

They did it as you intended. They didn't like it, and didn't care to give the CO satisfaction in the find log.

Do you equate that find log with someone who didn't do it as you intended?

If so, then you're frustrated and made upset by anyone who doesn't 1) do the cache the way you intended nor 2) describe their experience in their log, good or bad, to your satisfaction.

*shakes head*

 

Of course, I prefer to read a nice story about what someone experienced along the hike, but I know that I cannot expect this. There are cachers who enjoy the hike and go for the entire hike and still write logs that are not a pleasure to read. If the logs were at least honest, a lot were won. This also relates to puzzle caches. Often cachers write that they got a small hint while in reality the got the solution or almost the solution. This can be quite misleading

Of course, we all prefer to read a nice story about the experience, so it's good you know you cannot expect this. So why get in a huff, repeatedly, consistently, when it happens? Let it go. Encourage people to write good logs, to do caches the way they're intended, and without implying it's a requirement.

 

The only way a CO can guarantee having fun, is in its creation, and if he places for others to do however they wish. It's certainly more enjoyable, more rewarding, when cachers do it as intended and fully enjoy it,

 

That never will happen for caches which are suitable only for a certain group.

If you're creating caches suitable only for a certain group - with the expectation that only people of that group will find it - then you are setting yourself up for annoyance with the risk that others will not do the cache as you intended, or not care to write satisfactory logs. See above.

 

I will never enjoy tree climbing caches as I do not have the required abilities.

You don't have to do them.

Or, you can do them and write bad logs. That's your choice. The CO can't stop you.

And yes, I know you wouldn't do that.

 

I do not have a cache where one needs to have special knowledge in cryptography (e.g. say elliptic curves), but it's evident that such a cache cannot neither be solved nor enjoyed by someone without the required background.

Right, so if someone decides to get the final coordinates without solving it, however it's done, that's their choice and their right. The CO, on creating such a difficult cache, should not be surprised if that happens. And if they really really want people to it "properly" (ie want to force people to do so), well, geocaching.com isn't the place to list the geocache.

 

Of course there is no control possible and Groundspeak cannot do anything about it. I claim however that something is wrong with a community where the marority thinks that this is proper behaviour.

...*sigh*

No, I'm absolutely certain that the "majority" does not think this is "proper behaviour".

A] There are some who feel it is wrong, and rant about people who do it or think it's ok.

B] There are some who feel it is wrong, but live with it.

C] There are some who feel it is ok, but won't do it.

D] There are some who feel it is ok, and will do it.

I'm absolutely certain that the majority of geocachers do not fall into category D. I'd even say that it's a very very small minority of cachers who fall into D. Rather, I would say the vast majority of geocachers fall into B and C, because B and C best reflect the general spirit of geocaching.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

That's presuming they care to provide that description.

If they hate your cache, and they don't care to provide a decent log, then where's your satisfaction?

 

Then I will not know why they did not like the cache and I might ask them and be disappointed if they did not reply.

Of course I have no right for an answer - they do not owe me something, but I always like to check whether someone did not like a cache because they do not belong to the target audience or because something else went wrong.

 

They did it as you intended. They didn't like it, and didn't care to give the CO satisfaction in the find log.

Do you equate that find log with someone who didn't do it as you intended?

 

It depends on the situation. I certainly will not equate the two logs, but it could be that in both cases I'm disappointed at the moment when the log comes in.

 

What upsets me is when a cache gets ruined by sharing solutions.

 

What disappoints me is when someone just abuses a cache of mine to log a further container is not that they did not do something in the intended way (I do not have an issue for example if someone finds a trap door to a puzzle), but rather when they treat caches into which many hours of work went and which have not been hidden to bring people to the final but for what happened before are visited just to log another container. I'm convinced that it plays an enormous role in the way how I feel that all what is important in my caches happens before the container. I do not have a single cache where the goal is to bring people to the exact location where the final is hidden or to provide them with a creative hideout or a container with nice swag.

 

 

If you're creating caches suitable only for a certain group - with the expectation that only people of that group will find it - then you are setting yourself up for annoyance with the risk that others will not do the cache as you intended, or not care to write satisfactory logs. See above.

 

Of course the risk is there and whenever the cache owner realize that a cache got ruined, archival is the solution if it cannot be changed. A lot of caches got lost due to this in my country.

 

While I know that the risk is there, I would expect the majority to stay fair and not the majority to feel it is ok to ask for the solution (some of them call it a hint, but in most cases it is the solution except maybe boring routine work) of a cache which is outside of their reach. You can believe whatever you believe, in my area more than 50% of the cachers believe that this is ok. I did not claim that the majority believes that hacking geochecker is ok. This is of course not the case.

 

There is no way to enforce what cachers are doing, but the situation has changed enormously to the negative over the years.

The only way if one wants to offer caches that are interesting and challenging for a certain group is to offer them and to archive them as soon as they get ruined. If the community had more respect, such cases would happen less frequently.

If one only has caches that are manageable to everyone, it will be pretty boring.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

 

There is no way to enforce what cachers are doing, but the situation has changed enormously to the negative over the years.

The only way if one wants to offer caches that are interesting and challenging for a certain group is to offer them and to archive them as soon as they get ruined. If the community had more respect, such cases would happen less frequently.

If one only has caches that are manageable to everyone, it will be pretty boring.

 

Cezanne

Orrrrrr....

 

You know that placing a cache will mean maintaining the listing and cache, and not archive it at all. If you just archive after an issue, you're letting the terrorists win. :ph34r:

Link to comment

They did it as you intended. They didn't like it, and didn't care to give the CO satisfaction in the find log.

Do you equate that find log with someone who didn't do it as you intended?

It depends on the situation. I certainly will not equate the two logs, but it could be that in both cases I'm disappointed at the moment when the log comes in.

Nono, not the two logs - the two situations: CacherA did the cache as you intended but hated it and didn't give you a satisfactory log; CacherB didn't do the cache as you intended, whether they liked it anyway or not, but gave you a satisfactory log.

Trying to determine where is your satisfaction is - that is, what would not convince you to come to the forum complain.

 

What upsets me is when a cache gets ruined by sharing solutions.

Caches don't get ruined by sharing solutions. Read other comments above, again.

The CO's opinion of whether the cache should remain gets affected. Some COs do not care. Some COs care enough to archive it. Neither choices are good or bad - they are simply the choices the COs have a right to make.

One argument is that the cachers who share the solutions indirectly affect the enjoyment of other geocachers because they could cause the CO to archive the cache (the only way, btw, that they can affect the enjoyment of other cachers).

The other argument is that the CO has the ultimate final decision as to whether or not they archive the cache, and therefore affect the enjoyment of other geocachers because they archived the cache.

 

The CO has final decision as to whether the situation affects other cachers. Not the geocachers who share solutions.

 

What disappoints me is when someone just abuses a cache of mine to log a further container is not that they did not do something in the intended way (I do not have an issue for example if someone finds a trap door to a puzzle), but rather when they treat caches into which many hours of work went and which have not been hidden to bring people to the final...

Those people who follow such a person also are clearly not your intended target. Every cacher can decide whether to make use of shared coordinates or not. Once again, the cache is not ruined by shared coordinates because no one is forced to use the coordinates and everyone can still do the cache as intended; only the CO's feelings may be affected, maybe.

 

but for what happened before are visited just to log another container.

That's the right of every single geocacher. They have no obligation to provide an interesting log, nor do any cache as intended. As long as they do the minimum requirements - verifiable name in the log sheet - then they are fundamentally geocaching. Even if the 'spirit of geocaching' implies that geocachers really want to have the full experience of each geocache (and by extension, ignore shared coordinates, or do every stage even if they don't have to)

 

I'm convinced that it plays an enormous role in the way how I feel that all what is important in my caches happens before the container.

Yep, completely agree.

 

If you're creating caches suitable only for a certain group - with the expectation that only people of that group will find it - then you are setting yourself up for annoyance with the risk that others will not do the cache as you intended, or not care to write satisfactory logs. See above.

While I know that the risk is there, I would expect the majority to stay fair and not the majority to feel it is ok to ask for the solution (some of them call it a hint, but in most cases it is the solution except maybe boring routine work) of a cache which is outside of their reach. You can believe whatever you believe, in my area more than 50% of the cachers believe that this is ok. I did not claim that the majority believes that hacking geochecker is ok. This is of course not the case.

I didn't say anything about hacking geochecker. I was specifically referring, in that particular case, to sharing coordinates. While it may be quite unfortunate if over 50% of geocachers in your area fall into category D from above, I feel confident in stating that it is not the case worldwide. So once again as mention previously, you can be the change in your area. And if you can't change, then you may need to accept that there is nothing you can do, and proceed accordingly.

 

The only way if one wants to offer caches that are interesting and challenging for a certain group is to offer them and to archive them as soon as they get ruined.

If you mean physically ruined, sure. If you mean coordinates shared, no the cache isn't ruined for anyone who wants to find it. But you have the choice and right to archive it if you want.

 

If the community had more respect, such cases would happen less frequently.

Completely agreed.

Link to comment

What if someone does the extensive cache, puzzle or long hike, as it was intended - and absolutely hates it, rips into it, in the online log?

 

If the person describes his experience in a manner that one can understand why the person hated the cache, I'm fine with it.

 

I prefer that very much to the logs of those who are lying and writing e.g. about the nice stages while they have not been there and do not know how they look like.

 

I can much better live with a sincere, authentic negative log than with the type of logs that always make me feel that geocaching has turned into a big lie.

 

Yes, better an honest negative log than a cut-n-paste placeholder unmeaningful log that says nothing about actually experiencing the cache.

Link to comment

I am tired, so for now:

Geocaching HQ is investigating a data breach in relation to some community websites and Geocaching.com. We condemn the public disclosure of solutions for geocaches fiercely and are committed to uphold the fundamental principle of the game.

 

Candid geocachers are not affected by this.

 

But yeah, everything is fine and nobody got "rose-colored glasses" on. You just need a magnifying glass to find the "candid geocachers".

Edited by Rebore
Link to comment

I am tired, so for now:

Geocaching HQ is investigating a data breach in relation to some community websites and Geocaching.com. We condemn the public disclosure of solutions for geocaches fiercely and are committed to uphold the fundamental principle of the game.

 

Candid geocachers are not affected by this.

 

But yeah, everything is fine and nobody got "rose-colored glasses" on. You just need a magnifying glass to find the "candid geocachers".

I'll welcome this as fact when it is such. I said it above: It sounds like your area is to the gills with what we would all consider "unethical" people. I can say that, if you were to live here, you'd be surprised to see that your ethics would be in the majority, not the minority.

 

YOU need a "magnifying glass" to find the "candid geocachers" because for some reason Austria/Germany is home to "Greetings from Germany" and 700+ members of an overt coordinate sharing group. <_<

Link to comment

 

Then I will not know why they did not like the cache and I might ask them and be disappointed if they did not reply.

Of course I have no right for an answer - they do not owe me something, but I always like to check whether someone did not like a cache because they do not belong to the target audience or because something else went wrong.

 

 

What disappoints me is when someone just abuses a cache of mine to log a further container is not that they did not do something in the intended way (I do not have an issue for example if someone finds a trap door to a puzzle), but rather when they treat caches into which many hours of work went and which have not been hidden to bring people to the final but for what happened before are visited just to log another container. I'm convinced that it plays an enormous role in the way how I feel that all what is important in my caches happens before the container. I do not have a single cache where the goal is to bring people to the exact location where the final is hidden or to provide them with a creative hideout or a container with nice swag.

 

 

Taken from one of your multi caches - General comment on logs: The best way to acknowledge the effort that went into this cache is to share your experiences and/or photos with me and the other cachers (without spoilering which should not be difficult for this cache). I prefer logs that are unique for the visited cache and do not fit for every cache.

 

By your own admission you create these for a small limited subset of cachers. The problem is that EVERYONE can see your caches and they all have the ability to attempt to log the cache if they want to. Your attempt at controlling ALL geocaching members and their subsequent actions, per your multi logging comment and other comments throughout this thread and elsewhere, is an unrealistic expectation, WHICH YOU ACKNOWLEDGE. If you KNOW it might happen and then STILL get upset about it, you're better off saving your energy, effort, and complaints and archiving all your caches. Why place all this undue stress on yourself?

 

As to the second part, you've made this point so many times that I don't think you're hearing what a lot of the rest of us are saying as your view of this problem is myopic in nature (in other words you're only focused on YOU, not what everyone else is saying). You want everyone to acknowledge how much time and effort you put into your cache. Just look at the logging request from your multi. You've made it about YOU, not about them and their experiences, even going so far as to read the logs before they're published. You attempt to control every aspect of their caching adventure. Here's where the disconnect occurs. THEY choose how to do your cache without ANY input from you. Your wishes are exactly that, wishes and desires. If they choose to do it your way, then their ethical guidelines match up with yours and it's a win-win situation (CO and cacher). When someone doesn't follow your explicit wishes and desires, you get upset and it's a losing situation for you but a smiley for the finder, which you find wrong and unethical and then complain that the cache is ruined for all other cachers. You have the right to be disappointed if someone circumvents your caches or ends up doing it in a manner inconsistent with your requirements. I don't know many COs who would be happy about one of their caches found like that. You understand that it can happen and sometimes does. Complaining about it, ad nauseum, accomplishes absolutely nothing.

 

You have two options available to you. TWO.

 

1 - Archive the cache. The fact that you KNOW this might happen and still get upset about it tells me you're never going to get over this particular aspect. If it really bothers you that much, perhaps it's truly time for you to move on.

 

2 - Keep the cache active for all to find, hope that people do it the way you intended, relish the logs and cachers that acted as you wish, learn to deal with those that opt to do it in a manner you never intended, and stop complaining about them doing so because it doesn't change anything. They're going to do your caches how they want to, regardless of your attempts to have them do so to your liking.

 

Finally, I'm starting to believe that you would delete their find, if you could, because it was found in a manner not consistent with your wishes. If GS gave you the ability to delete a find because they didn't follow your instructions (forget the only guideline about signing a log to claim/verify a find), would you?

Link to comment

I am tired, so for now:

Geocaching HQ is investigating a data breach in relation to some community websites and Geocaching.com. We condemn the public disclosure of solutions for geocaches fiercely and are committed to uphold the fundamental principle of the game.

 

Candid geocachers are not affected by this.

 

But yeah, everything is fine and nobody got "rose-colored glasses" on. You just need a magnifying glass to find the "candid geocachers".

I'll welcome this as fact when it is such. I said it above: It sounds like your area is to the gills with what we would all consider "unethical" people. I can say that, if you were to live here, you'd be surprised to see that your ethics would be in the majority, not the minority.

 

YOU need a "magnifying glass" to find the "candid geocachers" because for some reason Austria/Germany is home to "Greetings from Germany" and 700+ members of an overt coordinate sharing group. <_<

I admit I was exaggerating. When I started caching, I soon noticed that quite a few hiders of great caches were already losing interest and wondered why. Now they are gone completly, e.g. Gert let his charter membership lapse a few weeks ago. Good thing is, many of their caches hold up for 10 years or more without maintenance, so there's still enough for me to hunt for.

 

You can't deny that the behaviour of others affects the game for many. This is not about controlling the behaviour of others or deleting online logs if a cache was not found the way it was intended by the owner. It's about how the game is devolving, at least over here.

Btw, the "Greetings from Germany" reference is dated and boring.

Link to comment

By your own admission you create these for a small limited subset of cachers. The problem is that EVERYONE can see your caches and they all have the ability to attempt to log the cache if they want to.

 

The example you took has my comment for another reason. I care much more about stories and photos than e.g. about favourite points.

 

Of course I cannot avoid that someone drives enourmous detours by car in order to avod going for a walk as my area does not allow for long caches far from roads. I cannot even avoid that cachers do not care about driving prohibition signs etc.

So I can only try to discourage those who do a cache in an unwanted manner (for good readsons) and I can archive it if it does not work out.

 

Your attempt at controlling ALL geocaching members and their subsequent actions, per your multi logging comment and other comments throughout this thread and elsewhere,

 

It's not an attempt to control and I do know that the behaviour of other cachers cannot be controlled.

 

is an unrealistic expectation, WHICH YOU ACKNOWLEDGE. If you KNOW it might happen and then STILL get upset about it, you're better off saving your energy, effort, and complaints and archiving all your caches. Why place all this undue stress on yourself?

 

Because the cachers for whom my caches are designed enjoy them and because many others in my situation too and I want something to find, too.

 

You want everyone to acknowledge how much time and effort you put into your cache. Just look at the logging request from your multi.

 

No, the stress was on something different. Lots of newer cachers think that logs are not important and FPs, GC Votes etc are more important. It is my right to mention that I see it differently.

I did not say that anyone needs to acknowledge my effort - I said what I appreciate the most.

Moreover, it was also an attempt to end up with a very long cache listing discouraging some of the cachers who do not belong to the target audience as it does not confirm with my attitude to drive around many km.

 

You've made it about YOU, not about them and their experiences, even going so far as to read the logs before they're published.

 

In the case of a single puzzle cache, yes, but I'm not forcing anyone to send me the log in advance and my offer is just to let them know whether they ended up with a spoiler. I can archive the cache right away - I want to keep it running as long as possible such that those who have invested already much time but could not yet visit or or have not fully solved it get their cache too and in particular get the chance to be proud of having mastered the unspoilered and original cache.

Those who sent me the logs in advance were all cachers who wanted to keep it living for those who might enjoy it in the same way as they enjoyed it. So it's about the future finders of the cache and not about me.

 

 

When someone doesn't follow your explicit wishes and desires, you get upset and it's a losing situation for you but a smiley for the finder, which you find wrong and unethical and then complain that the cache is ruined for all other cachers.

 

I do not care at all about smileys. Groundspeak could decide to sell smilies. There could be 1000 smilies on my difficult caches - as long at the logs can be filtered out and the loggers do not share solutions and spoil the cache, I do not care any more than if a honest finder writes a lame log.

 

1 - Archive the cache. The fact that you KNOW this might happen and still get upset about it tells me you're never going to get over this particular aspect. If it really bothers you that much, perhaps it's truly time for you to move on.

 

Every cache gets archived sometime. It is just the question when. The enjoyment of those for whom certain caches are hidden warrants to try to fight that the caches get stay some time before they get archived. This concerns my caches and cachers from other cachers.

I'm the only one writing here, but there are so many out there you are in the same situation and so many of them have already given up.

 

 

Finally, I'm starting to believe that you would delete their find, if you could, because it was found in a manner not consistent with your wishes. If GS gave you the ability to delete a find because they didn't follow your instructions (forget the only guideline about signing a log to claim/verify a find), would you?

 

No only if Groundspeak asked me to do so (apart from the fact it is not possible for me to check whether someone solved a puzzle or visited a stage). The log itself is not what upsets me.

Link to comment

Part of the reason I like this game is because I'm not in competition with anyone else. My finds are my finds, your finds are yours.

 

I love watching my numbers grow, but I pay little attention to how anyone else's grow.

 

As long as I am logging the caches in the way I feel is OK, and the CO doesn't care, than that is how the game should be played.

 

For those of you who feel this game is a contest between players, and want consistency and fairness, that's good, that's how you play. But geocaching was not and is not set up to be a competitive sport.

 

As long as I'm consistent to my own way of playing, it should not affect your way of play.

 

Well said.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...