Has group caching gone too far?

[+L0ne.R]

Used to be in the beginning of the geocaching game early 2000's, that group caching accounts were normally family accounts. Everyone cached together and they logged under one account.

 

Now group caching has become a way to get as many caches in a day under one made-up-for-the-day group name, which get individually logged under 10, 20, 30, or more accounts. It's becoming a pseudo-arm-chair activity.

 

Just today I heard that some cachers get together to form a "team-for-the-day", then break out into smaller teams. Someone hands out lists of caches (I've heard that the final coords to puzzles and multis are included in these lists) that each smaller team will hunt, each team gets one of x number of duplicate team-name-of-the-day stamps. Then at the end of the day each individual logs the caches found by the team-name-of-the-day.

 

I was skeptical, but geez louise don't I get a cut-n-paste power team log this morning that says this:

 

Signing in with the [group name] team Stamp.

 

Quickest find rate ever .... with 4 cars.

 

Your cache added to our fun.

 

I'm wondering if group caching under a team name should only be allowed if they set up a team account and then only log finds under the team-name-of-the-day account (not individually), just to stop this ever increasing practice of large groups practically arm-chair logging, not to mention posting cut n paste non-logs that say nothing about the individual caches and treating caches like their only value is a smiley.

 

Personally I don't give a hoot if people want to inflate their count, if it only didn't effect the cache ownership aspect of the game so negatively. "Team" caching is getting out of hand and being abused. As a cache owner it's very discouraging. I put a lot of time and effort into providing I hope, a very good geocaching experiencing. The ever increasing emphasis on numbers (and I suspect a large percentage of those numbers hounds do it because of the ever increasing emphasis on statistics/grids/challenges/badges/souvenirs) is getting more than frustrating.

Edited September 17, 2015 by L0ne.R

[+DanOCan]

It's certainly not the way I want to play the game. What possible satisfaction could I achieve from logging a Find on a cache if I was off in a car somewhere else at the time some other part of the team made the grab? It doesn't bother me too much if others do it though. It's at least a little better than an actual armchair log since [you would hope] someone actually found the cache so they're not creating a false impression that a missing cache is really there.

 

The copy and paste log thing is really driving me nuts. I miss the days when you could browse through the past logs and gather some hints when you can't find a cache. Now, more than ever, all the logs for a cache look the exact same as the logs for every other cache in the area because no one wants to bother writing an individual log that describes their experience looking for a specific cache.

[+J Grouchy]

It's certainly not the way I want to play the game. What possible satisfaction could I achieve from logging a Find on a cache if I was off in a car somewhere else at the time some other part of the team made the grab? It doesn't bother me too much if others do it though. It's at least a little better than an actual armchair log since [you would hope] someone actually found the cache so they're not creating a false impression that a missing cache is really there.

 

The copy and paste log thing is really driving me nuts. I miss the days when you could browse through the past logs and gather some hints when you can't find a cache. Now, more than ever, all the logs for a cache look the exact same as the logs for every other cache in the area because no one wants to bother writing an individual log that describes their experience looking for a specific cache.

 

Ditto on the cut-and-paste thing. I did a bit of GeoArt near my office and intentionally wrote a unique log for each cache as a protest against C-n-P logs. I'd rather see NOTHING written in the log than some insincere bit about how many caches they found that day and "thankyouverymuchforallyourhardwork" platitudes.

[+L0ne.R]

 

The copy and paste log thing is really driving me nuts. I miss the days when you could browse through the past logs and gather some hints when you can't find a cache. Now, more than ever, all the logs for a cache look the exact same as the logs for every other cache in the area because no one wants to bother writing an individual log that describes their experience looking for a specific cache.

 

That's because they are not actually finding the cache. They haven't seen it. Or they've found so many in a day that it all blurs together and they can't remember individual caches.

 

I blame it on the emphasis on numbers that have become a major part of this game, enforced by GS with souvenirs, challenges (thankfully curtailed as of 2015), grids, stats, and power trails.

[+The Leprechauns]

What's your proof that the four cars traveled separately? (Example: caches found by the group that day are in four separate clusters or routes which are north, south, east and west of a logical meeting place, like a diner or coffee shop.)

 

I've enjoyed many great days of group caching where multiple cars drove from cache to cache in a single caravan.

 

Regarding "Team Names" to sign the log, would you prefer as a cache owner that all 15 people signed your nano scroll one at a time? That's a maintenance challenge.

[+L0ne.R]

Regarding "Team Names" to sign the log, would you prefer as a cache owner that all 15 people signed your nano scroll one at a time? That's a maintenance challenge.

 

Yes.

 

I have no problem with maintaining my caches. I provide enough paper (always logbooks). These days my logbooks last for 2 to 3 years because people only leave trailnames, no comments. 15-30 trailnames could easily fit on a page.

 

But people don't want to have to stand there and pass around the logbook, it slows things down when the emphasis is on getting 50+ non-traditional caches in a day to qualify for a challenge cache.

[+irisisleuk]

.. "Team" caching is getting out of hand and being abused. As a cache owner it's very discouraging. I put a lot of time and effort into providing I hope, a very good geocaching experiencing. The ever increasing emphasis on numbers (and I suspect a large percentage of those numbers hounds do it because of the ever increasing emphasis on statistics/grids/challenges/badges/souvenirs) is getting more than frustrating.

 

If a team name wouldn't be allowed as a log, then the one person who actually found the cache will write all 12 names down so there can be 12 individual logs. This would only mean your logbook will get full quicker, or damaged since they don't write but use (even larger) stickers or stamps with the names to get it done as quickly as possible. So this would only mean even more discouraging effects for the CO.

The CO has no rights, you can ask for individual logs, you can ask not to use stickers that take up lots of space, but in the end the only rule is: name in logbook means a valid log. As soon as this is getting more than frustrating, the only solution is to archive the cache. Unfortunately the definition of what a very good geocaching experience is, is different for every cacher. The only thing you can do is to make sure you yourself will have good geocaching experiences and won't let frustration ruin the hobby for you. It is better to archive a cache (makes it easier to ignore those cachers with a different view on geocaching), than to let other geocachers' actions get to you.

 

To answer your question in the topic title: in my definition of geocaching, group caching has gone too far. But the effects you describe are not only visible with group caching, and it seems to happen and getting more common in every country/region with a high density of caches and geocachers.

[+Sagefox]

Just today I heard that some cachers get together to form a "team-for-the-day"...

 

Yes, this is very common. It is fun to make up a name for the day or for that group whenever they cache together. It is easier to log with one name and it saves room on small log sheets. It's a camaraderie thing.

 

...then break out into smaller teams. ...Then at the end of the day each individual logs the caches found by the team-name-of-the-day.

 

I've read this here from time to time but I am skeptical about how often it actually happens out in the world. I feel certain this is not the common practice of for-the-day teams.

 

I was skeptical, but geez louise don't I get a cut-n-paste power team log this morning that says this:

 

Signing in with the [group name] team Stamp. Quickest find rate ever .... with 4 cars.

 

This could be as you suggest but it more likely is that they had four cars worth of searchers on the ground at each cache site which typically makes for faster finds.

 

If they were finding caches separately and then logging them as all found I wouldn't think they would advertise that fact.

 

"Team" caching is getting out of hand and being abused. As a cache owner it's very discouraging.

 

I am not convinced. The example is speculative and it would help if specific examples could be presented. You could search through the individual logs of some of the team members for that day and see if any of them spilled the beans about going off in different directions and then logging caches they didn't actually visit. It would be interesting to hear back from you on this.

[+L0ne.R]

Just today I heard that some cachers get together to form a "team-for-the-day"...

 

Yes, this is very common. It is fun to make up a name for the day or for that group whenever they cache together. It is easier to log with one name and it saves room on small log sheets. It's a camaraderie thing.

 

...then break out into smaller teams. ...Then at the end of the day each individual logs the caches found by the team-name-of-the-day.

 

I've read this here from time to time but I am skeptical about how often it actually happens out in the world. I feel certain this is not the common practice of for-the-day teams.

 

I was skeptical, but geez louise don't I get a cut-n-paste power team log this morning that says this:

 

Signing in with the [group name] team Stamp. Quickest find rate ever .... with 4 cars.

 

This could be as you suggest but it more likely is that they had four cars worth of searchers on the ground at each cache site which typically makes for faster finds.

 

If they were finding caches separately and then logging them as all found I wouldn't think they would advertise that fact.

 

"Team" caching is getting out of hand and being abused. As a cache owner it's very discouraging.

 

I am not convinced. The example is speculative and it would help if specific examples could be presented. You could search through the individual logs of some of the team members for that day and see if any of them spilled the beans about going off in different directions and then logging caches they didn't actually visit. It would be interesting to hear back from you on this.

 

I have heard specifically about one group that breaks into smaller teams with the same team stamps, but for etiquette sake I won't name names.

I do know for certain of a team that meets regularly and are handed a sheet with final coordinates to speed up the day of the caching - they're goal is usually related to a high-numbers challenge cache qualification usually involving non-traditionals. That group usually finds 50+ in a day and includes around 30 cachers. I find it rather unlikely that all 30 stay together in one group and visit each of the 50 non-trads for the day. Seems it would take a long time to wait for everyone to drive to the trailhead, find parking and wait for everyone to assemble at the trailhead and also wait as everyone catches up at each of the individual caches. Yet still maintain a pace that would allow for 50 finds by a group of 30 cachers travelling together both in cars and on the trail. Also covering caches in 2 cities and not many of those caches in clumps, i.e driving would be required for at least 1/3 of the caches that day.

The people who defend team caching are sounding like the people who defend the power trail style of caching. That anything goes if you're power caching.

[vagabond]

What's your proof that the four cars traveled separately? (Example: caches found by the group that day are in four separate clusters or routes which are north, south, east and west of a logical meeting place, like a diner or coffee shop.)

 

I've enjoyed many great days of group caching where multiple cars drove from cache to cache in a single caravan.

 

 

We havent done in awhile but in the early days we'd meet and a group of us would caravan 4 or 5 cars from cache to cache and have a ball a lot of laughing and a good time

[+Mudfrog]

.. "Team" caching is getting out of hand and being abused. As a cache owner it's very discouraging. I put a lot of time and effort into providing I hope, a very good geocaching experiencing. The ever increasing emphasis on numbers (and I suspect a large percentage of those numbers hounds do it because of the ever increasing emphasis on statistics/grids/challenges/badges/souvenirs) is getting more than frustrating.

 

If a team name wouldn't be allowed as a log, then the one person who actually found the cache will write all 12 names down so there can be 12 individual logs. This would only mean your logbook will get full quicker, or damaged since they don't write but use (even larger) stickers or stamps with the names to get it done as quickly as possible. So this would only mean even more discouraging effects for the CO.

The CO has no rights, you can ask for individual logs, you can ask not to use stickers that take up lots of space, but in the end the only rule is: name in logbook means a valid log. As soon as this is getting more than frustrating, the only solution is to archive the cache. Unfortunately the definition of what a very good geocaching experience is, is different for every cacher. The only thing you can do is to make sure you yourself will have good geocaching experiences and won't let frustration ruin the hobby for you. It is better to archive a cache (makes it easier to ignore those cachers with a different view on geocaching), than to let other geocachers' actions get to you.

 

To answer your question in the topic title: in my definition of geocaching, group caching has gone too far. But the effects you describe are not only visible with group caching, and it seems to happen and getting more common in every country/region with a high density of caches and geocachers.

 

Writing a team's name on a log is fine in my book. I'm not positive but i would bet that this is fine with Lone.R as well. What we expect though, is that everyone on the team was actually at ground zero when the cache was found. Online find logs should only be made if the above principle is adhered to. Groups that actually split up are having fun playing their own game but what they're playing is not geocaching.

 

I really believe that we're too far gone to stop the numbers momentum,, especially with GS now condoning and pushing for quantity these days. I know this is what the majority seems to want these days but it's really made it difficult for those of us who care about quality.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Just today I heard that some cachers get together to form a "team-for-the-day"...

 

Yes, this is very common. It is fun to make up a name for the day or for that group whenever they cache together. It is easier to log with one name and it saves room on small log sheets. It's a camaraderie thing.

 

If a group is going to get together and form a team, why does the team dissolve at the end of the day when it comes to logging finds? It's an integrity thing.

 

 

[+Sagefox]

I have heard specifically about one group that breaks into smaller teams with the same team stamps, but for etiquette sake I won't name names.

Thanks. I should have said I'm not interested in calling anyone out - just incidents only with no names.

 

That group usually finds 50+ in a day and includes around 30 cachers. I find it rather unlikely that all 30 stay together in one group and visit each of the 50 non-trads for the day.

[snip] I lost the "non-traditional" cache part when replying but see now what your point was. I could comment on that but would rather keep this post shorter.

 

The people who defend team caching are sounding like the people who defend the power trail style of caching. That anything goes if you're power caching.

This is not my experience for the Cache Machines nor from any talk with other cachers who both group and power trail cache. The statement is too generalized and is unfair to a lot of people, most people I believe, that don't have an anything goes attitude or caching practice.

 

In the forums we constantly hear of a few examples, which typically are not substantiated, but it doesn't mean it is happening to any great extent out on the trails.

 

Even with more examples of teams logging caches individually that they did not, in fact, visit it would be very difficult to know how widespread the practice is and what percentage of all power cachers do this. I don't know how anyone could know that.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Team Sagefox

[+Sagefox]

Just today I heard that some cachers get together to form a "team-for-the-day"...

 

Yes, this is very common. It is fun to make up a name for the day or for that group whenever they cache together. It is easier to log with one name and it saves room on small log sheets. It's a camaraderie thing.

 

If a group is going to get together and form a team, why does the team dissolve at the end of the day when it comes to logging finds? It's an integrity thing.

I might not have made my point clearly. There is no actual team. The "team" is a group of cachers just like any of the thousands of other groups of people who cache in groups except that they sign logs with a team name out of convenience.

 

It is not an integrity issue any different from any other group of people go out caching together.

[+Sagefox]

Yikes! My posting ran amok. I'd better get back to finishing hanging the new exterior door before it rains.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Team Sagefox

[+niraD]

Just today I heard that some cachers get together to form a "team-for-the-day"...

 

Yes, this is very common. It is fun to make up a name for the day or for that group whenever they cache together. It is easier to log with one name and it saves room on small log sheets. It's a camaraderie thing.

If a group is going to get together and form a team, why does the team dissolve at the end of the day when it comes to logging finds? It's an integrity thing.

My experience with temporary team names is that they are chosen at the beginning of a group trip, they are used to sign logs for that trip, and then everyone logs online with their own individual accounts (or possibly, with their permanent team accounts for couples/families that share an account). The team name dissolves at the end of the day because the team is not a permanent group; the team is just the people who happened to go on that particular geocaching trip.

 

There is no question of integrity. Everyone on the group trip was there at GZ. Often, we use the huckle buckle beanstalk method, and everyone on the group trip actually found the cache. We all could have signed the log, or we could have had the person who retrieved the cache sign all our names. And for caches with larger log books, we generally all do sign our names (or have one person sign all our names). But for smaller caches, we sign the team name to save space on the log sheet, to save the CO maintenance effort.

[+fizzymagic]

Here's my take:

 

I. Don't. Care.

 

I maintain my own cache listings, I find all the caches I claim, and I try to write good logs; that's all I can control. I can't control what anyone else does.

 

If there is some blatant abuse of the system, I will report it and I will remove fraudulent finds from my own caches. Outside of that, wasting worry on whether other people are caching the "right" way tends to be counterproductive. I let the vast majority of people cache the way they want to, and I request that they do the same for me. I only really get upset when somebody decides that my way of caching is not right.

[+Liga9]

I cache with the same group of 4-5 people all the time. We have a team stamp because it is simply easier than writing each of our individual names on the log. If it's a nano log or just a smaller log, we will put our individual names down because the stamp would be too big on that type of log. We're always together and don't split during the day. We find the caches together and log them online under our own caching names.

 

We often have two vehicles. Especially if we are on a hiking trail of some sort. We park one car at the beginning and one at the end so we don't have to walk miles back to our car.

[+niraD]

I'm wondering if group caching under a team name should only be allowed if they set up a team account and then only log finds under the team-name-of-the-day account (not individually), just to stop this ever increasing practice of large groups practically arm-chair logging, not to mention posting cut n paste non-logs that say nothing about the individual caches and treating caches like their only value is a smiley.

So instead of having divide-and-conquer numbers cachers using small stamps that read "Team Nonesuch" (or whatever), you'd rather they use larger stamps that list every team member's name?

 

Or have I misunderstood your proposal?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Just today I heard that some cachers get together to form a "team-for-the-day"...

 

Yes, this is very common. It is fun to make up a name for the day or for that group whenever they cache together. It is easier to log with one name and it saves room on small log sheets. It's a camaraderie thing.

If a group is going to get together and form a team, why does the team dissolve at the end of the day when it comes to logging finds? It's an integrity thing.

My experience with temporary team names is that they are chosen at the beginning of a group trip, they are used to sign logs for that trip, and then everyone logs online with their own individual accounts (or possibly, with their permanent team accounts for couples/families that share an account). The team name dissolves at the end of the day because the team is not a permanent group; the team is just the people who happened to go on that particular geocaching trip.

 

 

I have no issues with people getting together an adhoc group. It's when they start to use techniques such as 3 cache monte, leap frogging, splitting up into separate vehicles, waiting in the car while two others on the team run off to find the cache, and then justify those practices because they were "part of a team" my eyes start to roll.

 

 

There is no question of integrity. Everyone on the group trip was there at GZ. Often, we use the huckle buckle beanstalk method, and everyone on the group trip actually found the cache. We all could have signed the log, or we could have had the person who retrieved the cache sign all our names. And for caches with larger log books, we generally all do sign our names (or have one person sign all our names). But for smaller caches, we sign the team name to save space on the log sheet, to save the CO maintenance effort.

 

In that case, group cache hasn't gone too far and there is not an question of integrity. It's when not everyone in the group was there at GZ, but everyone in the group individually claims a find that integrity comes into it.

[+Team Microdot]

There is no question of integrity. Everyone on the group trip was there at GZ. Often, we use the huckle buckle beanstalk method, and everyone on the group trip actually found the cache. We all could have signed the log, or we could have had the person who retrieved the cache sign all our names. And for caches with larger log books, we generally all do sign our names (or have one person sign all our names). But for smaller caches, we sign the team name to save space on the log sheet, to save the CO maintenance effort.

 

In that case, group cache hasn't gone too far and there is not an question of integrity. It's when not everyone in the group was there at GZ, but everyone in the group individually claims a find that integrity comes into it.

 

Event caching walks are a regular thing in my area and, depending on how many caches are on the selected trail, can attract large numbers of individuals. With such a large group they can end up spread some distance along the trail, with the front-runners typically finding the caches as they go.

 

Logs from these events often feature expressions like 'Logging 26 finds for today and I've not seen a single cache' and 'Cacher X said I'd found this - so I guess I have'.

 

Were they at GZ? Probably - at some point in the proceedings. Did they find the cache? No, they did not.

 

I recall what may have been my very first geocaching event - which ended up being an organised cache hunt. Individuals were dashing off left and right and coming back announcing 'we've found so-and-so-cache and signed for the group. I found the practice bizarre and pointless then and still do today. I looked at the friend I was attending with and he looked at me, both of us with puzzled expressions, shaking our heads. Even walking to a cache location to be handed the cache by the people who got there first felt empty and pointless. I don't think we logged any of the caches that day, instead going back at other times to find and log them properly.

 

The saying goes that people play this game their own way - but the above practices are not playing the game - they are basically just going for a walk with some other people.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

When I am out caching with a group of friends, we usually sign with a group name (usually we try to come up with a very humorous name). However, are all together looking for the cache, and do not split up.

 

What is described in the OP is tacky.

[+cerberus1]

Event caching walks are a regular thing in my area and, depending on how many caches are on the selected trail, can attract large numbers of individuals. With such a large group they can end up spread some distance along the trail, with the front-runners typically finding the caches as they go.

 

Logs from these events often feature expressions like 'Logging 26 finds for today and I've not seen a single cache' and 'Cacher X said I'd found this - so I guess I have'.

 

Were they at GZ? Probably - at some point in the proceedings. Did they find the cache? No, they did not.

 

- snip -

 

The saying goes that people play this game their own way - but the above practices are not playing the game - they are basically just going for a walk with some other people.

Yeah...

We enjoyed the cache walks in the snow with a large group in another State (event followed), until one year when things changed.

Person in the lead (and the many folks behind in single file/two wide tops), my insistence of a least seeing a container caused dissension with the group.

The ones most upset weren't even the ones up front (wasting time ya know...), but the ones in the back, upset that their conversations with others were diminished by the bunching up (bumping into...) with others.

Sheesh...

- Still a yearly thing, haven't been back since.

 

We've seen one where the attendees are handed a paper on what caches they'll find.

- Guess searching and maybe even participating's optional.

We just turned and headed back for the car on that one...

[+Team Microdot]

We've seen one where the attendees are handed a paper on what caches they'll find.

- Guess searching and maybe even participating's optional.

We just turned and headed back for the car on that one...

 

I take my hat off to you

[+lamoracke]

Well, certainly have not been part of any group that had 4 or so vehicles. Once in a while you have 2 cars as you met someone while caching and you both pull up at the same time. Team names are fun. Have never been part of a caching day where one car went one way and one car went the other and we claimed finds for the day. Have not heard of that on cache machines either where you could have 4 or more vehicles at one cache usually by just coincidence or just the route. This example the CO is posting sounds like some things that folks would do on the power trails. I mean, when you have a situation where you have the same cache over and over where really there is nothing special about Cache #115 and #236 and #362, the idea of splitting off to get it over with quicker could possibly happen I bet, does not mean I am in favor of that, I just see it being more plausible happening on those type of power trails. I just personally do not do those type of caches so its not an issue for me.

Edited September 18, 2015 by lamoracke

[+coachstahly]

Here's my take:

 

I. Don't. Care.

 

I maintain my own cache listings, I find all the caches I claim, and I try to write good logs; that's all I can control. I can't control what anyone else does.

 

If there is some blatant abuse of the system, I will report it and I will remove fraudulent finds from my own caches. Outside of that, wasting worry on whether other people are caching the "right" way tends to be counterproductive. I let the vast majority of people cache the way they want to, and I request that they do the same for me. I only really get upset when somebody decides that my way of caching is not right.

 

+1

 

All this worrying about other peoples' methods of caching is fruitless and a waste of time. I can't control how they choose to cache, nor would I want to. It's not my place to do so. Would I do something like has been suggested? No, but that's because MY choices are MY choices and different that what has been suggested here.

 

As far as the effect of numbers caching on CO ownership goes, I think it's overstated by the OP. I try to put out caches that result in a good experience (which would include well maintained caches), but what I see as a good experience may not be what another cacher sees as a good experience. I hope that others enjoy my caches but I don't let those that post negative or copy n paste logs affect how I view my individual caches. I like what I put out there for others and don't let the negative/CnP logs change the view of my cache in any way, shape, or form. It's a fruitless endeavor anyway because we can't control what others do when it comes to our caches and their subsequent logs.

 

Do I enjoy the negative/CnP logs? No, but I understand I'm going to get some and I can't control their reactions to my cache. When they find my cache, the log shouldn't be about me or my cache, but instead about them and their experiences. Do I enjoy the really good logs? Absolutely, but again, those logs are rarely about me or my cache, but instead about their adventure to find the cache.

[+Bigmada]

I don't care if a group of people all sign their names or if one person signs a team name while the rest sit in the car.Just at long as they were there.

[+K13]

Yes, if the group uses a divide and conquer method, splitting the team members across different areas with each team member claiming finds on all caches of the team. If having the highest number on your find count is important to you, maybe this is a way to accomplish that goal. My Integrity requires me to be present at GZ when the cache is found before I claim a find. Some others appear to have a lesser an other standard of integrity when claiming finds.

[+justintim1999]

If the goal is to get people out while having a good time than mission accomplished. As a cache owner I want people to experience the cache and the area around it. That being said I don't get too worked up about how people choose to play the game.

[+boothie103]

I am only a few month old Geocacher and my first experience was a group outing. We all signed one after the other, as I was the newbie, signed last. Everyone found the cache and once they found it, said found, often moving away from the cache before saying found. I had a lot of fun and picked up a few hints and became hooked. The whole point of the exercise was not the joint find, but the individual find. Now, I do it for myself and lay caches for others which gives me just as much enjoyment reading the found logs as me finding a cache, as long as they are not a bunch of letters such as TFTC TNLN etc!

My bugbear is the FTF team that races out when it pings on their whatever that a new cache has been published and they, as a group, have to find it.

As a social activity, caching is fun, but to play the numbers game, I'm not sure I would be interested in that. To each their own.

[+Shawnonabike]

Used to be in the beginning of the geocaching game early 2000's, that group caching accounts were normally family accounts. Everyone cached together and they logged under one account.

 

Now group caching has become a way to get as many caches in a day under one made-up-for-the-day group name, which get individually logged under 10, 20, 30, or more accounts. It's becoming a pseudo-arm-chair activity.

 

Just today I heard that some cachers get together to form a "team-for-the-day", then break out into smaller teams. Someone hands out lists of caches (I've heard that the final coords to puzzles and multis are included in these lists) that each smaller team will hunt, each team gets one of x number of duplicate team-name-of-the-day stamps. Then at the end of the day each individual logs the caches found by the team-name-of-the-day.

 

I was skeptical, but geez louise don't I get a cut-n-paste power team log this morning that says this:

 

Signing in with the [group name] team Stamp.

 

Quickest find rate ever .... with 4 cars.

 

 

Your cache added to our fun.

 

I'm wondering if group caching under a team name should only be allowed if they set up a team account and then only log finds under the team-name-of-the-day account (not individually), just to stop this ever increasing practice of large groups practically arm-chair logging, not to mention posting cut n paste non-logs that say nothing about the individual caches and treating caches like their only value is a smiley.

 

Personally I don't give a hoot if people want to inflate their count, if it only didn't effect the cache ownership aspect of the game so negatively. "Team" caching is getting out of hand and being abused. As a cache owner it's very discouraging. I put a lot of time and effort into providing I hope, a very good geocaching experiencing. The ever increasing emphasis on numbers (and I suspect a large percentage of those numbers hounds do it because of the ever increasing emphasis on statistics/grids/challenges/badges/souvenirs) is getting more than frustrating.

 

Personally, I think groups claiming caches when only one signs is just fine, and even necessary in some circumstances, but every claimer should be in the presence of each cache. If you can't walk up to the cache and point it out, you weren't there!

[+beccalyria]

I am part of a caching team - Team Paradux - and we go out together all the time and sign logs as "Paradux". Makes it easier to sign (hard enough to sign when I'm juggling the cache and the log and my pen), and takes less room on the log.

 

Granted, I would never claim a find when I was not physically there. Where's the fun in that?

[+groz24]

I've seen a bunch of different things. I was at one event where I got introduced to someone who had tens of thousands of cache finds. Then I watched as the person sat in their car the entire day driving people to and from caches. People would call when they finished a chunk of caches, he'd pick them up, drop them off somewhere else, then go get another group. I cached with a group for a bit, and they told me all the caches I could log and what team to say I was part of. I just said thanks, and only logged the caches I physically found. So I know people are doing what the original poster is mentioning.

 

On the other hand, though, as far as does it bother me? No, I don't really care how other people play the game. I play to have fun, not to look at other people's stats, or worry about how other people are playing. Other people play differently, and that's fine, provided they don't bother me about how I'm playing. And while I understand that some people will start removing their caches if they suspect people are finding them like this, other people will likely place new ones.

[+narcissa]

This is kind of lame and not something I would condone or participate in, but as long as the cache is put back where it belongs, I don't really see why it would matter to me as a cache owner.

[+redsox_mark]

I see a distinct difference between

 

1. Caching together and signing the physical log with a team name

 

2. A cacher logging a find on a cache they did not visit

 

I don't see any issue with 1. One can interpret the guidelines to say each finder must sign their own name with their own hand, but I don't see it that way.

 

2 is something I personally don't agree with, but it doesn't matter to me.

[+hzoi]

As a cache owner, I'd allow it.

 

As a cache finder, it doesn't sound like much fun. It reminds me of our first night cache hunt, which was after an event in Germany; we had no idea what we were looking for and were at the back of the pack. It turns out it was a really cool night cache -- the penultimate stage used a laser pointer to pinpoint the cache's location hundreds of feet away -- but the effect was diminished, as we were not getting the opportunity to do much.

[+L0ne.R]

As both a cache hider and finder, it comes down to the log entries. Power cacher group logs (and thus people who don't want to write anything so only leave an acronym) are such a waste of space and an irritant.

 

As a hider the irritant is getting a notice of a new log on one of your caches, only to open up the email and see "Out caching with Group-of-the-Month. 30 of us were looking for 50 caches today to qualify for XXX Challenge." It also means you can expect 29 more email alerts all with almost the same cut-n-paste template-style message in the next few days.

 

As a finder, when I'm out caching, and I can't find the cache, I check the logs. It's possible someone posted that the cache is off by x meters. But that message is 30 logs away, buried by all the power-cacher-template logs.

 

Suggestion:

 

It might be better if there were an option for power cachers to check a box ('Log your find without leaving a message'), instead of leaving a message. They then end up at the bottom of the logs on a 'No Log Entries' list. Leaving the other Log entries section (hopefully) to people who want to write something about that particular cache visit. Here's my example:

 

 

[+narcissa]

As both a cache hider and finder, it comes down to the log entries. Power cacher group logs (and thus people who don't want to write anything so only leave an acronym) are such a waste of space and an irritant.

 

As a hider the irritant is getting a notice of a new log on one of your caches, only to open up the email and see "Out caching with Group-of-the-Month. 30 of us were looking for 50 caches today to qualify for XXX Challenge." It also means you can expect 29 more email alerts all with almost the same cut-n-paste template-style message in the next few days.

 

As a finder, when I'm out caching, and I can't find the cache, I check the logs. It's possible someone posted that the cache is off by x meters. But that message is 30 logs away, buried by all the power-cacher-template logs.

 

Suggestion:

 

It might be better if there were an option for power cachers to check a box ('Log your find without leaving a message'), instead of leaving a message. They then end up at the bottom of the logs on a 'No Log Entries' list. Leaving the other Log entries section (hopefully) to people who want to write something about that particular cache visit. Here's my example:

 

 

I would like it if I could prioritize or hide logs by specific people. There are some people who always write good logs, and some who always write useless logs.

[+Dread_Pirate_Bruce]

As I've said in other posts: "You play the way you enjoy it; I'll play the way I enjoy it."

 

Beyond that, I can't contribute anything new to the conversation except to ask if anyone wants to do MY version on a group:

 

The group will consist of catchers in every state. We will meet via Skype talk a bit and then go caching, each in his or her own state. At the end of the day, we will meet via Skype to chat and have beers. I'll compile a list of all the caches the group found and we will all log all of them. In the process we will satisfy the "50 States In 1 Day Challenge."

 

Is anyone here from North Dekota?

[knowschad]

What's your proof that the four cars traveled separately? (Example: caches found by the group that day are in four separate clusters or routes which are north, south, east and west of a logical meeting place, like a diner or coffee shop.)

 

I've enjoyed many great days of group caching where multiple cars drove from cache to cache in a single caravan.

 

Regarding "Team Names" to sign the log, would you prefer as a cache owner that all 15 people signed your nano scroll one at a time? That's a maintenance challenge.

 

Circumstantial evidence is admissible: "Quickest find rate ever .... with 4 cars".

[+Sagefox]

Circumstantial evidence is admissible: "Quickest find rate ever .... with 4 cars".

Using circumstantial increases the likelihood that we might be wrong in our conclusion. We need something more substantial before we can convict.

[+hukilaulau]

 

If they were finding caches separately and then logging them as all found I wouldn't think they would advertise that fact.

 

They don't care. They are not the least bit embarrassed about logging caches they haven't found. I've known of people traveling with a group who don't even get out of the car and then log all the caches under their individual account.

[+tallglenn]

At an event within the past year I saw two "big numbers" cachers exchanging name stamps in order to cheat. Ever since then I have been embarrassed that I am approaching the level of being considered "big numbers" at almost 11K. About 5K of those were power trail caches - but I signed every blessed log. I'm seriously considering retiring my account and starting another from scratch. I could do the E.T. highway again!

[+hzoi]

At an event within the past year I saw two "big numbers" cachers exchanging name stamps in order to cheat.

Well, that's one way to do it, I guess.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Thirty of us were in the area today to find the caches. One of us actually found the cache and signed each log as 30CC (Thirty Confused Cachers), so we didn't all have to sign the log. As if more than one of us actually saw the cache. Most of us were resting in the cars. Thanks for the cache. I'd post more, but I never actually saw it.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Thirty of us were in the area today to find the caches. One of us actually found the cache and signed each log as 30CC (Thirty Confused Cachers), so we didn't all have to sign the log. As if more than one of us actually saw the cache. Most of us were resting in the cars. Thanks for the cache. I'd post more, but I never actually saw it.

 

Sigh.....nothing we say, do,or post will stem the tide of the numbers craziness nor return caching to the good old days.GS opened the gates to appease what appears to be the majority craving quantity over quality....you do what you have to do to compete with the other games out there....the (I) game has gutted key geocachers from our local group that can't be replaced and is far more damaging than the ( M ) game. We are out of town and I passed a couple of hundred caches, mostly urban ,because we didn't care to look for them....ended up hiking a bit and finding 10, 3 were earth caches.

At an event I held a few years ago a very nice couple told me that had already found 11,000 caches in the calendar year....I actually almost said " I'm so sorry " ....then I realized this was supposed to be a good thing.

I've only went with a group a hand full of times using multiple cars and each cacher signed his name on the log....only one or two would actually " find " the cache, usually whoever got there first.

[+dprovan]

Sigh.....nothing we say, do,or post will stem the tide of the numbers craziness nor return caching to the good old days.GS opened the gates to appease what appears to be the majority craving quantity over quality....

Wow, are things really that bad where you are? Out of hundreds of cachers in my area, I think I could count the number that regularly do power trails on one hand, maybe two. And some of them hide the highest caliber caches, so it's hard to argue they're strictly quantity over quality.

 

We are out of town and I passed a couple of hundred caches, mostly urban ,because we didn't care to look for them....ended up hiking a bit and finding 10, 3 were earth caches.

10 caches on a hike? Is that more or less than you would have found before quantity dominated the sport? In my area, there are about twice as many caches out on the hiking trails as there were when I started 5 years ago. No one could claim here that either the quality or quantity of caches on hiking trails has gone down.

 

At an event I held a few years ago a very nice couple told me that had already found 11,000 caches in the calendar year....I actually almost said " I'm so sorry " ....then I realized this was supposed to be a good thing.

I'm not sure "I'm so sorry" is the right response, since it's not as if that was inflicted on them, but certainly you could have said, "That sounds boring." If no one teaches them better, how do you expect them to learn?

 

You could also say, "11,000 is a lot. Did you find cache X that's 5 miles back in park P? That's one of my favorites." Although if you did that to one of the high volume cachers in my area, the response would probably be that they did really like X, as well as Y and Z that are even further back. In fact, they liked the area so much, they hid three of their own cache even further out. Their voracious appetite for caches isn't limited to easy park&grabs.

 

I'm sure there are some cachers than only do power trails, but I haven't run into one yet, so it's hard for me to see that the sport is falling apart because of them. The high volume cachers in my area are a very positive influence.

[+bflentje]

I'm not sure "I'm so sorry" is the right response, since it's not as if that was inflicted on them, but certainly you could have said, "That sounds boring." If no one teaches them better, how do you expect them to learn?

 

You could also say, "11,000 is a lot. Did you find cache X that's 5 miles back in park P? That's one of my favorites." Although if you did that to one of the high volume cachers in my area, the response would probably be that they did really like X, as well as Y and Z that are even further back. In fact, they liked the area so much, they hid three of their own cache even further out. Their voracious appetite for caches isn't limited to easy park&grabs.

 

I'm sure there are some cachers than only do power trails, but I haven't run into one yet, so it's hard for me to see that the sport is falling apart because of them. The high volume cachers in my area are a very positive influence.

 

I actually love this response. It describes my experience to a T. 10,500-ish finds and my three largest days, in order, are 206, 106, then 60 something. Beyond that, exactly as you describe.

[+Mudfrog]

Sigh.....nothing we say, do,or post will stem the tide of the numbers craziness nor return caching to the good old days.GS opened the gates to appease what appears to be the majority craving quantity over quality....

Wow, are things really that bad where you are? Out of hundreds of cachers in my area, I think I could count the number that regularly do power trails on one hand, maybe two. And some of them hide the highest caliber caches, so it's hard to argue they're strictly quantity over quality.

 

 

I'd say that we only have around 30 or so people that routinely geocache in our general area. Out west towards Houston, quite a few. Then of course, we do see many fly by nighters that come and go. Out of all of these, i'd guess that 95 percent really enjoy doing power trails, and in fact, would prefer them if they were more convenient to get to.

 

Geocaching is not falling apart just yet. But, with the app and promotion of numbers, i do feel that it's become more of a fad with the majority who try it. Fads usually die but i'm thinking geocaching won't go away completely, only because there'll still be dedicated people playing who care about quality and the preservation of a fun, sometimes challenging, sometimes educational, at times scenic, family activity.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Mudfrog

[+Sagefox]

Sigh.....nothing we say, do,or post will stem the tide of the numbers craziness nor return caching to the good old days.GS opened the gates to appease what appears to be the majority craving quantity over quality....

Wow, are things really that bad where you are? Out of hundreds of cachers in my area, I think I could count the number that regularly do power trails on one hand, maybe two. And some of them hide the highest caliber caches, so it's hard to argue they're strictly quantity over quality.

 

We are out of town and I passed a couple of hundred caches, mostly urban ,because we didn't care to look for them....ended up hiking a bit and finding 10, 3 were earth caches.

10 caches on a hike? Is that more or less than you would have found before quantity dominated the sport? In my area, there are about twice as many caches out on the hiking trails as there were when I started 5 years ago. No one could claim here that either the quality or quantity of caches on hiking trails has gone down.

 

At an event I held a few years ago a very nice couple told me that had already found 11,000 caches in the calendar year....I actually almost said " I'm so sorry " ....then I realized this was supposed to be a good thing.

I'm not sure "I'm so sorry" is the right response, since it's not as if that was inflicted on them, but certainly you could have said, "That sounds boring." If no one teaches them better, how do you expect them to learn?

 

You could also say, "11,000 is a lot. Did you find cache X that's 5 miles back in park P? That's one of my favorites." Although if you did that to one of the high volume cachers in my area, the response would probably be that they did really like X, as well as Y and Z that are even further back. In fact, they liked the area so much, they hid three of their own cache even further out. Their voracious appetite for caches isn't limited to easy park&grabs.

 

I'm sure there are some cachers than only do power trails, but I haven't run into one yet, so it's hard for me to see that the sport is falling apart because of them. The high volume cachers in my area are a very positive influence.

 

Thanks for this post. It seems to need to be said constantly around here that the sky is actually NOT falling.

 

The good old days were certainly fun and now it feels like we were pioneers back then but I have no trouble having fun with geocaching today. Never have had trouble. Our caching rate has been steady at 500 to 800 finds per year and I don't recall every having bad days. Some caches are great, some medium, some mediocre and some totally suck... just like back in the good old days.