Has group caching gone too far?

[+Sagefox]

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.

 

The sad thing about this is that I think you might actually believe it.

 

No wait, I take that back. While it might have happened once somewhere no one would believe this a common practice for any but an insignificant number of geocachers.

[+dprovan]

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.

That's really sad. But it's a phenomenon in your local culture, not a systemic problem with geocaching. All you can do is set a good example and talk to people, then accept the situation if they don't get better.

[+Walts Hunting]

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.

That's really sad. But it's a phenomenon in your local culture, not a systemic problem with geocaching. All you can do is set a good example and talk to people, then accept the situation if they don't get better.

I'm not going with the "local phenomenon" idea. It has become quite common for groups to do that; particularly in an area they haven't been to before. They sweep down like a swarm of locust and eat everything in sight and move on. It started with power trails that allowed group caching and now it seems that it has moved to regular caches.

[+J Grouchy]

I figure I'm in the minority around here when I say I prefer to cache all on my own. As part of a group, unless I personally make the find without assistance, I don't feel as much - or any - personal achievement. At that point it just becomes hanging out with a group and occasionally signing my name on a log. It's entirely my own opinion that I know most people do not share, but I don't consider group caching as true geocaching.

[+on4bam]

I figure I'm in the minority around here when I say I prefer to cache all on my own.

 

Same here. By choosing our caches carefully we minimize the chance of "teaming up". On occasion we've made a detour for a drink or snack to give other cachers the chance to get far enough ahead of us so we can continue on our own. If the others are on foot and we're on our bikes we try to get a distance between us as fast as possible. It's also the reason we avoid events as chances are cachers will be lining up to sign logs. No fun in that.

[+Sagefox]

I figure I'm in the minority around here when I say I prefer to cache all on my own. As part of a group, unless I personally make the find without assistance, I don't feel as much - or any - personal achievement. At that point it just becomes hanging out with a group and occasionally signing my name on a log. It's entirely my own opinion that I know most people do not share, but I don't consider group caching as true geocaching.

I like your style of caching. By far, most of our geocaching is me by myself and often with my wife but I also really enjoy group caching when we do that.

 

To post here, publically, that caching with a group is not true geocaching sounds a bit too elitist for me. It says that, in your eyes, most people playing this game are not real geocachers. I don't know if you meant it that way but by adding that last sentence you are essentially saying that.

 

You are writing off people who don't feel comfortable alone on trails or in parks or bad parts of town, families, friends who mainly want to cache together and perhaps even people who don't feel much - or any - personal achievement wandering around alone signing scraps of paper.

 

I am certain that the people who thought up this game and spent years developing it never considered that "true geocaching" would be a person caching alone.

[+Mudfrog]

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.

That's really sad. But it's a phenomenon in your local culture, not a systemic problem with geocaching. All you can do is set a good example and talk to people, then accept the situation if they don't get better.

I'm not going with the "local phenomenon" idea. It has become quite common for groups to do that; particularly in an area they haven't been to before. They sweep down like a swarm of locust and eat everything in sight and move on. It started with power trails that allowed group caching and now it seems that it has moved to regular caches.

 

Neither am i. Just look around this forum and you'll find numerous threads and posts concerning this.

 

Every event i go to has people talking about how many they've found and how many more they want. Many of these can go caching one day and then not even remember anything about the caches they found the day after. Cache dense areas, series, and power trails are talked about plenty. Group outings are planned (i admit it's fun going with friends) but many times the focus is not on camaraderie, but on how many caches can be found. And yes, we then start seeing screwy things happen with respect to claiming those finds.

[+J Grouchy]

I figure I'm in the minority around here when I say I prefer to cache all on my own. As part of a group, unless I personally make the find without assistance, I don't feel as much - or any - personal achievement. At that point it just becomes hanging out with a group and occasionally signing my name on a log. It's entirely my own opinion that I know most people do not share, but I don't consider group caching as true geocaching.

I like your style of caching. By far, most of our geocaching is me by myself and often with my wife but I also really enjoy group caching when we do that.

 

To post here, publically, that caching with a group is not true geocaching sounds a bit too elitist for me. It says that, in your eyes, most people playing this game are not real geocachers. I don't know if you meant it that way but by adding that last sentence you are essentially saying that.

 

You are writing off people who don't feel comfortable alone on trails or in parks or bad parts of town, families, friends who mainly want to cache together and perhaps even people who don't feel much - or any - personal achievement wandering around alone signing scraps of paper.

 

I am certain that the people who thought up this game and spent years developing it never considered that "true geocaching" would be a person caching alone.

 

Well...way I see it, geocaching is both FINDING the cache and SIGNING the log. If I'm not actually finding the cache, I'm not getting the complete experience. I did say "it's entirely my own opinion that I know most people do not share". It's not "elitist" at all...it's just my own feeling toward the activity.

 

Even when my wife and/or kids are along, they generally are doing their own thing while I do the looking. There have been occasions when my wife has spotted the container before me...and I log the find, just like everyone else does. I won't lie, however, and say her finding it did not - in some very small way - take away from any sense of accomplishment. It's not a jealousy thing or anything like that...but my own internal sense of the game is such that it wasn't 100% my own find. Others here have their own personal - and sometimes inflexible - rules. That's just my own.

 

I was at a meet-and-greet event a couple months back and there is a particularly hard to find cache nearby. One of the people at the event went down and found the cache and brought back the log sheet for folks to sign. I signed it, but then thought about it and decided not to log the find yet. My plan is to go back at some point and find it...but at least then I won't have to sign the log again. I didn't find it...but this time it was far enough removed I didn't feel right in claiming the find. If I'd been right there and saw the hiding spot, I might have gone ahead and logged it online...but in this situation it broke my own personal rule about it because I didn't feel like I really was geocaching at that time.

 

I'm not interested in Mega-events or anything involving lots of people going out to find and log caches. Not only because I don't like crowds, but because I don't see it as what I see as true geocaching when all you are doing is waiting in line to sign a logbook. That doesn't sound like any fun at all to me.

Edited October 20, 2015 by J Grouchy

[+Sagefox]

I was at a meet-and-greet event a couple months back and there is a particularly hard to find cache nearby. One of the people at the event went down and found the cache and brought back the log sheet for folks to sign. I signed it, but then thought about it and decided not to log the find yet. ...I didn't find it...but this time it was far enough removed I didn't feel right in claiming the find.

I agree with you here. Bringing a log to an event is NOT true geocaching. I think that might qualify as a traveling cache or a pocket cache both of which are no longer allowed.

[+noncentric]

I figure I'm in the minority around here when I say I prefer to cache all on my own. As part of a group, unless I personally make the find without assistance, I don't feel as much - or any - personal achievement. At that point it just becomes hanging out with a group and occasionally signing my name on a log. It's entirely my own opinion that I know most people do not share, but I don't consider group caching as true geocaching.

I like your style of caching. By far, most of our geocaching is me by myself and often with my wife but I also really enjoy group caching when we do that.

 

To post here, publically, that caching with a group is not true geocaching sounds a bit too elitist for me. It says that, in your eyes, most people playing this game are not real geocachers. I don't know if you meant it that way but by adding that last sentence you are essentially saying that.

 

You are writing off people who don't feel comfortable alone on trails or in parks or bad parts of town, families, friends who mainly want to cache together and perhaps even people who don't feel much - or any - personal achievement wandering around alone signing scraps of paper.

 

I am certain that the people who thought up this game and spent years developing it never considered that "true geocaching" would be a person caching alone.

 

Well...way I see it, geocaching is both FINDING the cache and SIGNING the log. If I'm not actually finding the cache, I'm not getting the complete experience. I did say "it's entirely my own opinion that I know most people do not share". It's not "elitist" at all...it's just my own feeling toward the activity.

 

Even when my wife and/or kids are along, they generally are doing their own thing while I do the looking. There have been occasions when my wife has spotted the container before me...and I log the find, just like everyone else does. I won't lie, however, and say her finding it did not - in some very small way - take away from any sense of accomplishment. It's not a jealousy thing or anything like that...but my own internal sense of the game is such that it wasn't 100% my own find. Others here have their own personal - and sometimes inflexible - rules. That's just my own.

 

I was at a meet-and-greet event a couple months back and there is a particularly hard to find cache nearby. One of the people at the event went down and found the cache and brought back the log sheet for folks to sign. I signed it, but then thought about it and decided not to log the find yet. My plan is to go back at some point and find it...but at least then I won't have to sign the log again. I didn't find it...but this time it was far enough removed I didn't feel right in claiming the find. If I'd been right there and saw the hiding spot, I might have gone ahead and logged it online...but in this situation it broke my own personal rule about it because I didn't feel like I really was geocaching at that time.

 

I'm not interested in Mega-events or anything involving lots of people going out to find and log caches. Not only because I don't like crowds, but because I don't see it as what I see as true geocaching when all you are doing is waiting in line to sign a logbook. That doesn't sound like any fun at all to me.

 

I have a similar preference for solo caching, although my other half often accompanies me and we both see the hiding spot and the cache (regardless of who actually found it). I haven't participated in "group caching", but have attended a few events where several cachers would be searching at the same GZ. I've signed a few logs (less than 5) in such instances, but tend to avoid the crowds if I can. At the recent Block Party, I ended up walking past several caches because of the crowds and figured I'd just return later to find the caches when there were less cachers in town. I prefer my caching history to be an accurate reflection of my caching travels/adventures. If I'm just in the general vicinity and don't see the hiding spot myself, then I'd rather not claim a find. I'd prefer to leave it unfound so it will still show on the map and I can experience finding that cache another time. YMMV. I'm sure my list of solved puzzles would increase if I played with others though.

 

Haven't attended an event far from home yet, so I'm not sure if my behavior would differ if I was an out-of-town cacher. I can understand where cachers would still claim the find in such instances where they couldn't just 'come back next week'. The event crowds seem different from "group caching", where people intentionally travel together and some group members don't participate in the search. That doesn't seem like much fun to me, but there are many definitions of fun. Most of my friends don't understand why I think signing scraps of paper is fun.

[+niraD]

I figure I'm in the minority around here when I say I prefer to cache all on my own. As part of a group, unless I personally make the find without assistance, I don't feel as much - or any - personal achievement.

That's part of why I strongly prefer the huckle buckle beanstalk method when I'm on group geocaching trips. I don't want someone to hand me a log to sign; I want to experience finding the cache.

 

But even when I can convince a group used to the three musketeers method to try the huckle buckle beanstalk method, they're usually inexperienced enough at it that they tend to give away the hide pretty badly.

[+niraD]

It's also the reason we avoid events as chances are cachers will be lining up to sign logs. No fun in that.

I don't recall seeing pocket caches at events, although I've heard of them (on the forums).

 

And at the events I've attended, people haven't been talking about find counts and numbers runs. Well, maybe they do at some point, but it certainly doesn't dominate the conversation. The conversation about caches tends towards the really cool caches (e.g., "You've got to try the Tattletales' latest gadget cache.").

[+on4bam]

It's also the reason we avoid events as chances are cachers will be lining up to sign logs. No fun in that.

I don't recall seeing pocket caches at events, although I've heard of them (on the forums).

 

And at the events I've attended, people haven't been talking about find counts and numbers runs. Well, maybe they do at some point, but it certainly doesn't dominate the conversation. The conversation about caches tends towards the really cool caches (e.g., "You've got to try the Tattletales' latest gadget cache.").

 

Pocket caches???

I mean, getting to a cache and seeing 10 people already there so the logbook gets passed from one to the other or finding a cache and at that moment 10 other cachers arrive so you just pass on the log yourself.

[+niraD]

Pocket caches???

I mean, getting to a cache and seeing 10 people already there so the logbook gets passed from one to the other or finding a cache and at that moment 10 other cachers arrive so you just pass on the log yourself.

Ah, sorry, I got your point confused with this one:

I was at a meet-and-greet event a couple months back and there is a particularly hard to find cache nearby. One of the people at the event went down and found the cache and brought back the log sheet for folks to sign.

 

Last weekend, I helped with an intro geocaching class sponsored by the county parks department. We divided into small groups, with one experienced geocacher per group. And when there was already another group at the cache, we taught the beginners to wait for the other group to finish and leave, or to skip that cache and search for it later, on the way back to the trailhead.

 

To me, that makes a lot more sense than walking up and asking them to hand you the log book so you can sign it too.

[+SwineFlew]

In the gaming world, we would call that padding the system. Just what those group cachers are doing. Cheating? I will let you decide if they are. Anything for a smiley.

[+redsox_mark]

I enjoy both caching alone and with others. There are downsides when caching with others- e.g. someone else might find the cache and not me, but also needing to go with the consensus of the group on when we stop looking for a cache we can't find, which route we take, how fast we walk, how many breaks we take, etc. But for me, the social aspect makes up for that. The main reason I do 90% of my caching alone is I often fit it in on short notice; and caching with others requires planning. So those group caching times are special for me.

 

I don't cache with others to pad my numbers, I do it because I enjoy their company.

[+spirothebudgie]

For me personally I enjoy actually finding and signing the container myself. I have never done group caching although I have been to an event which was great fun! I don't personally see the appeal in claiming a find on a cache if you didn't actually find it yourself, but everyone is free to play the game their own way.

 

It is nice to receive a well written online log on your cache and I prefer to do this rather than using generic found it logs. Of course when people are logging a lot of caches at once it would be impractical to write out each one separately though.

[+Path Pacer]

I enjoy both caching alone and with others. There are downsides when caching with others- e.g. someone else might find the cache and not me, but also needing to go with the consensus of the group on when we stop looking for a cache we can't find, which route we take, how fast we walk, how many breaks we take, etc. But for me, the social aspect makes up for that. The main reason I do 90% of my caching alone is I often fit it in on short notice; and caching with others requires planning. So those group caching times are special for me.

 

I don't cache with others to pad my numbers, I do it because I enjoy their company.

Same here. I cache alone in town, but there are a lot of backcountry caches where I live and I prefer to hike with someone (plus it's safer). About half the time it's a non-geocaching friend and I'm the one who usually finds it, but I also hike with other cachers and they often find it first. I do feel a slight letdown when it's not me, but having someone to share the find with is also fun.

[+geodarts]

The search is probably the least interesting thing about this game for me. And the huckle buckle method has never been a part of our local group caching. Nevertheless it can be fun to be the one to make the find - more as a matter of contributing rather than accomplishment.

 

At this point, many in our periodic hiking/caching group no longer log caches at all, so it's not about numbers. Even with the much smaller groups that I sometimes hike or kayak with, we do not aim to find every cache in sight.

 

The one time I found more than a hundred caches in a day it was just with my non-caching wife, who later complained about the time it took for me to log the finds since I do not cut and paste.

 

So why I understand why some would organize a numbers run and be tempted to take shortcuts, but it seems like a sad use of time.

[+bflentje]

I enjoy both caching alone and with others. There are downsides when caching with others- e.g. someone else might find the cache and not me, but also needing to go with the consensus of the group on when we stop looking for a cache we can't find, which route we take, how fast we walk, how many breaks we take, etc. But for me, the social aspect makes up for that. The main reason I do 90% of my caching alone is I often fit it in on short notice; and caching with others requires planning. So those group caching times are special for me.

 

I don't cache with others to pad my numbers, I do it because I enjoy their company.

Same here. I cache alone in town, but there are a lot of backcountry caches where I live and I prefer to hike with someone (plus it's safer). About half the time it's a non-geocaching friend and I'm the one who usually finds it, but I also hike with other cachers and they often find it first. I do feel a slight letdown when it's not me, but having someone to share the find with is also fun.

 

I am 50-50.. half the time I cache alone and half the time I group cache. One thing is for sure, when I cache in a group, I am hardly thinking of myself or my need for a find. To be disappointed for not being the one to score the find, or better yet, to not log it if in a group setting, is just a strange and weird practice in my opinion. It's just a cache in what amounts to just an activity. Too many other more important things to worry about.

 

First world problems..

[+4wheeler]

I you don't like how some others geocache, don't do it that way. Everyone makes up their own rules. The only person that you have to satisfy is yourself. There are no winners or losers.

[+Sagefox]

Well...way I see it, geocaching is both FINDING the cache and SIGNING the log. If I'm not actually finding the cache, I'm not getting the complete experience.

 

I have always thought of geocaches in terms of those French trappers working for the Hudson Bay Company or these Mt. Rainier hikers and what a cache means to them. You can be sure that all of the party takes part in the stored food, shot and powder and it doesn't matter who finds it. The cache is for all of them.

[+noncentric]

Well...way I see it, geocaching is both FINDING the cache and SIGNING the log. If I'm not actually finding the cache, I'm not getting the complete experience.

 

I have always thought of geocaches in terms of those French trappers working for the Hudson Bay Company or these Mt. Rainier hikers and what a cache means to them. You can be sure that all of the party takes part in the stored food, shot and powder and it doesn't matter who finds it. The cache is for all of them.

The quote that's attributed to me was actually from J Grouchy (post #58). No harm, no foul.

 

The Rainier hikers are placing the caches themselves, so whether they log a "Found It" or not is a different issue (claiming a find on your own cache). Sounds like a great, but tough, hike nonetheless.

[+J Grouchy]

Well...way I see it, geocaching is both FINDING the cache and SIGNING the log. If I'm not actually finding the cache, I'm not getting the complete experience.

 

I have always thought of geocaches in terms of those French trappers working for the Hudson Bay Company or these Mt. Rainier hikers and what a cache means to them. You can be sure that all of the party takes part in the stored food, shot and powder and it doesn't matter who finds it. The cache is for all of them.

 

I did say "way I see it", making it my own personal view of the matter. I didn't even use the generic "you" or "one" when making that statement. I personally feel like other people finding the cache, in some very small way, detracts from the experience. It doesn't mean I mount a protest, throw a tantrum or refuse to log a find...but it just means I feel like I missed out on one small part of the experience. A crucial part, since that is the very essence of geocaching. I liken it to arriving at GZ and seeing the cache container laying out in the open - maybe it fell from its perch or was muggled...whatever. Doesn't finding a cache in that manner feel, in some small way, like a letdown?

 

Anyway...I don't ask anyone else to think about it the same way. My own personality is such that I prefer being out on my own to being in a group. I'm not antisocial, but I just feel like I can enjoy my surroundings and my activities more when I only need to be in my own head without thinking what others might be up to. Who I am as a person translates pretty directly into who I am as a geocacher.

[+Pond Bird]

I often go geocaching with my mom, but not always is she actually "finding" the caches. If she actually saw the cache and knows the location it was found in (whether I spotted it or she spotted it OR we both spotted or somebody else spotted it - doesn't matter) then she logs the cache as a "find." I would hope that groups are not logging all the caches found for each person unless each person physically saw the location without staying in a car all day.

[+dprovan]

I have to admit, I can't even imagine caching with a group and not playing as a team. Either I find it early, then have to suffer the frustration of the others that can't find it, or I'm the one frustrated, and I'm holding up the expedition because I can't find it. Either way, the experience is as negative as it could possibly be. Working as a team, we all share in the satisfaction of whoever finds it the quickest.

 

By the way, those of you that like to huckle-buckle, do you ever cache with non-cachers? When I'm in a group, there are almost always non-caching spouses along for the trip. If a non-player finds the cache first, do they huckle-buckle, too, or do they give away to hide to their associate or to everyone or what? I can't see why they'd bother to search if finding the cache doesn't do anything towards moving the group down the trail. And, along those lines, do you happen to have a non-player spouse? I cache with just my wife all the time, and it would seem silly not to count her finding it as if it were me finding it. Lord knows we'd spend twice as much time searching if I always had to find it for myself.

[+niraD]

By the way, those of you that like to huckle-buckle, do you ever cache with non-cachers? When I'm in a group, there are almost always non-caching spouses along for the trip. If a non-player finds the cache first, do they huckle-buckle, too, or do they give away to hide to their associate or to everyone or what?

When I'm with a group, I consider everyone a geocacher, whether or not they have a geocaching.com account, whether or not they have ever geocached before. And I encourage everyone to let others have the opportunity to find the cache. As the number of people still searching dwindles, the hints (intentional and otherwise) usually become more abundant, until everyone has found it or has given up.

 

And sure, people who aren't used to the huckle buckle beanstalk method often give away the hide unintentionally. But often, others are busy with their own searches, and don't notice reactions that would be a dead giveaway to someone watching the finder.

 

And if someone doesn't want to seach any more, then we don't force them to keep searching. We'll go ahead and retrieve, log, and replace the cache. This is actually relatively common in mixed groups where some people prefer the huckle buckle beanstalk method and others prefer the three musketeers method.

 

I can't see why they'd bother to search if finding the cache doesn't do anything towards moving the group down the trail.

You're assuming that "moving the group down the trail" is the goal.

 

And, along those lines, do you happen to have a non-player spouse?

Yep. But she never helps me search. Sometimes she brings a book to read or a crochet project. Other times she just hangs out and waits for me.

[+J Grouchy]

By the way, those of you that like to huckle-buckle, do you ever cache with non-cachers? When I'm in a group, there are almost always non-caching spouses along for the trip. If a non-player finds the cache first, do they huckle-buckle, too, or do they give away to hide to their associate or to everyone or what?

When I'm with a group, I consider everyone a geocacher, whether or not they have a geocaching.com account, whether or not they have ever geocached before. And I encourage everyone to let others have the opportunity to find the cache. As the number of people still searching dwindles, the hints (intentional and otherwise) usually become more abundant, until everyone has found it or has given up.

 

And sure, people who aren't used to the huckle buckle beanstalk method often give away the hide unintentionally. But often, others are busy with their own searches, and don't notice reactions that would be a dead giveaway to someone watching the finder.

 

And if someone doesn't want to seach any more, then we don't force them to keep searching. We'll go ahead and retrieve, log, and replace the cache. This is actually relatively common in mixed groups where some people prefer the huckle buckle beanstalk method and others prefer the three musketeers method.

 

I can't see why they'd bother to search if finding the cache doesn't do anything towards moving the group down the trail.

You're assuming that "moving the group down the trail" is the goal.

 

And, along those lines, do you happen to have a non-player spouse?

Yep. But she never helps me search. Sometimes she brings a book to read or a crochet project. Other times she just hangs out and waits for me.

 

Is there a term we can use that is less ridiculous-sounding than "huckle buckle beanstalk"?

[+niraD]

Is there a term we can use that is less ridiculous-sounding than "huckle buckle beanstalk"?

Well, other names for the game include "Hide/Hunt the Thimble" or "Hide/Hunt the Handkerchief" or "Hide/Hunt the Object" or "Hot Buttered Beans" or "Thimble in Sight". Take your pick.

 

For the record, people in my groups who find the cache often just say "Found it". Or sometimes they say some mis-remembered version like "Huckleberry" of "Hickory Dickory Dock". The concept is the important thing, not the specific phrase.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

By the way, those of you that like to huckle-buckle, do you ever cache with non-cachers? When I'm in a group, there are almost always non-caching spouses along for the trip. If a non-player finds the cache first, do they huckle-buckle, too, or do they give away to hide to their associate or to everyone or what?

When I'm with a group, I consider everyone a geocacher, whether or not they have a geocaching.com account, whether or not they have ever geocached before. And I encourage everyone to let others have the opportunity to find the cache. As the number of people still searching dwindles, the hints (intentional and otherwise) usually become more abundant, until everyone has found it or has given up.

 

And sure, people who aren't used to the huckle buckle beanstalk method often give away the hide unintentionally. But often, others are busy with their own searches, and don't notice reactions that would be a dead giveaway to someone watching the finder.

 

And if someone doesn't want to seach any more, then we don't force them to keep searching. We'll go ahead and retrieve, log, and replace the cache. This is actually relatively common in mixed groups where some people prefer the huckle buckle beanstalk method and others prefer the three musketeers method.

 

I can't see why they'd bother to search if finding the cache doesn't do anything towards moving the group down the trail.

You're assuming that "moving the group down the trail" is the goal.

 

And, along those lines, do you happen to have a non-player spouse?

Yep. But she never helps me search. Sometimes she brings a book to read or a crochet project. Other times she just hangs out and waits for me.

 

Is there a term we can use that is less ridiculous-sounding than "huckle buckle beanstalk"?

 

I'm sure there is but I've seen the term used in California an also in New York so it's pretty widespread.

[+dprovan]

I can't see why they'd bother to search if finding the cache doesn't do anything towards moving the group down the trail.

You're assuming that "moving the group down the trail" is the goal.

Yes, it's my experience that non-cachers mainly just want to get back to the hike. If they enjoyed endlessly searching for a cache or sitting around waiting while someone else searched for a cache, they'd be geocachers.

 

Is there a term we can use that is less ridiculous-sounding than "huckle buckle beanstalk"?

I think it's a cute term, although I like it better shortened to huckle-buckle. I still don't want to play that way, though.

[+CanadianRockies]

Is there a term we can use that is less ridiculous-sounding than "huckle buckle beanstalk"?

Well, other names for the game include..."Hot Buttered Beans"...

Hard to believe, but that one sounds even more ridiculous, at least to my ear.

[+boothie103]

Simply, yes. When does it need 14 people in eight cars to discover caches at night that could only be appreciated in day light? Particularly on a first to find basis. Rather pointless I believe.

[+narcissa]

Simply, yes. When does it need 14 people in eight cars to discover caches at night that could only be appreciated in day light? Particularly on a first to find basis. Rather pointless I believe.

 

How do you know what other people appreciate?

[+Sagefox]

Simply, yes.

I assume this is in response to the topic question, "Has groupd caching gone too far?"

 

When does it need 14 people in eight cars to discover caches at night that could only be appreciated in day light? Particularly on a first to find basis. Rather pointless I believe.

Still not a very realistic concern.

 

I'm looking for comments about what really happens with groups "going too far" in numbers great enough to have any kind of negative impact. I know there are dumb things happing in this game with some groups but just how often that happens in a given area is not clear at all.

 

Maybe people could bring examples here of what happens in their immediate cache areas that they have reliable knowlege of.

[+redsox_mark]

Caching in a group I've observed the following:

 

1. Cachers logging a find when another cacher in the group actually found it.

2. Cachers finding a puzzle cache who did not solve the puzzle.

3. Cachers logging a find on a high terrain cache (e.g. tree climb) who did not climb the tree.

 

I know other stuff happens, though usually in the context of power trails. I've not personally witnessed the aledged "other stuff".

 

Point 1 isn't an issue for most, but is for some, and is hard to avoid unless you huckle-buckle.

 

Points 2 and 3 have been debated here before. Some cachers won't log a find unless they personally did everything (e.g. solved the puzzle alone, climbed the tree). Others will log a find if they contributed (e.g. they solved the puzzle, but didn't climb the tree). Some cachers have a strict defintion of a find for themselves and are more relaxed about what others do. Some cachers care a lot about what others do, and think 2 and 3 are cheating.

 

Some practical issues come into play depending on the size of the group. If there are 2 of you, it is practical if you both climb the tree one at a time (or even at the same time depending on the tree). But if there are 20 of you, then it would mean a lot of standing around for the group to have everyone climb the tree.

 

Personally I don't have an issue with any of these 3 practices.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Caching in a group I've observed the following:

 

1. Cachers logging a find when another cacher in the group actually found it.

2. Cachers finding a puzzle cache who did not solve the puzzle.

3. Cachers logging a find on a high terrain cache (e.g. tree climb) who did not climb the tree.

 

I know other stuff happens, though usually in the context of power trails. I've not personally witnessed the aledged "other stuff".

 

Point 1 isn't an issue for most, but is for some, and is hard to avoid unless you huckle-buckle.

 

Personally, I really don't care what some do as long as it doesn't impact the game for others. I see a range of manifestations for this first scenario. In a fairly common scenario a small group of cachers gets together, all search for the cache, then after one has found it, one person sign for the group. In that case, they could just have easily passed the container to each person in the group for the find and for the next cache found, someone else in the group may find the cache first and sign for everyone. That's quite different from a scenario when someone drives a vehicle while others actually do the searching for the cache, or when the team splits up into different vehicles and there are players in the team that will log finds for caches when they were no where close to GZ. In the context of this thread, I don't believe that the first scenario has taken group caching too far. In the second, being part of "a team" is used as a justification for logging finds on caches, even when someone didn't even participate in the hunt.

 

 

Points 2 and 3 have been debated here before. Some cachers won't log a find unless they personally did everything (e.g. solved the puzzle alone, climbed the tree). Others will log a find if they contributed (e.g. they solved the puzzle, but didn't climb the tree). Some cachers have a strict defintion of a find for themselves and are more relaxed about what others do. Some cachers care a lot about what others do, and think 2 and 3 are cheating.

 

Some practical issues come into play depending on the size of the group. If there are 2 of you, it is practical if you both climb the tree one at a time (or even at the same time depending on the tree). But if there are 20 of you, then it would mean a lot of standing around for the group to have everyone climb the tree.

 

Personally I don't have an issue with any of these 3 practices.

 

Personally, I don't think "the size of the group" should be a justification for logging a find on a cache when you didn't comply when the intention of how the cache was hidden. A cache hidden in a tree, with a high terrain rating, clearly demonstrates that the CO intended to create a cache that, in order to be found, involves climbing the tree. If "the size of the group" is used as a justification for logging a find, then that, to me, is a example of taking group caching too far.

 

 

[+niraD]

A cache hidden in a tree, with a high terrain rating, clearly demonstrates that the CO intended to create a cache that, in order to be found, involves climbing the tree.

Or possibly a cache that, in order to be found, involves retrieving the cache from the tree with a tool of some sort, and then replacing the cache the same way. (I've actually found more tool-oriented tree caches than climbing-oriented tree caches.)

[+Bubbles&Bonkers]

It wouldn't be fun for me. This weekend at an event I observed (because they both told me) 2 different groups of people signing each other in on caches the other had not visited. The first guy was with a small group signing everyone in, the 2nd guy (part of his big group) was all by himself signing everyone in all the way across the park from the first group. Personally I wouldn't find that to be very fun or an accurate way to keep track of my number. I like caching with someone all.the.time and this 2nd guy was all alone. His choice I guess, but no fun to me.

[+redsox_mark]

Personally, I don't think "the size of the group" should be a justification for logging a find on a cache when you didn't comply when the intention of how the cache was hidden. A cache hidden in a tree, with a high terrain rating, clearly demonstrates that the CO intended to create a cache that, in order to be found, involves climbing the tree. If "the size of the group" is used as a justification for logging a find, then that, to me, is a example of taking group caching too far.

 

I wasn't using it as justification; just a practical issue.

 

There is a spectrum. On one side, the cache is found solo, and the cacher did everything themselves.. no help on a puzzle, no help in the field. On the other end of the spectrum, they are logging caches they never visited from their couch.

 

Most group caching involves something inbetween. Maybe one cacher solved the puzzle and another climbed the tree. Maybe there were multiple stages and one cacher climbed the tree, while the other did a difficult crawl in a cave. Maybe one of those cachers was afraid of heights and the other afraid of tight spaces...

 

My personal rule: If I feel I've done enough to contribute to the find, I will log it as a find. (I'm assuming in all cases my signature is in the logbook).

 

I know others have the rule that unless they did everything alone, they won't claim it. That's fine too.

[+narcissa]

Caching in a group I've observed the following:

 

1. Cachers logging a find when another cacher in the group actually found it.

2. Cachers finding a puzzle cache who did not solve the puzzle.

3. Cachers logging a find on a high terrain cache (e.g. tree climb) who did not climb the tree.

 

I know other stuff happens, though usually in the context of power trails. I've not personally witnessed the aledged "other stuff".

 

Point 1 isn't an issue for most, but is for some, and is hard to avoid unless you huckle-buckle.

 

Points 2 and 3 have been debated here before. Some cachers won't log a find unless they personally did everything (e.g. solved the puzzle alone, climbed the tree). Others will log a find if they contributed (e.g. they solved the puzzle, but didn't climb the tree). Some cachers have a strict defintion of a find for themselves and are more relaxed about what others do. Some cachers care a lot about what others do, and think 2 and 3 are cheating.

 

Some practical issues come into play depending on the size of the group. If there are 2 of you, it is practical if you both climb the tree one at a time (or even at the same time depending on the tree). But if there are 20 of you, then it would mean a lot of standing around for the group to have everyone climb the tree.

 

Personally I don't have an issue with any of these 3 practices.

 

As a cache owner, if it's my cache involved, I'd rather see 50 people log it as a group than one person scream at 50 others for "cheating."

[+3Woofs]

My opinion, in the end it is a game. Group caching can be fun. A day out not watching TV or excessive use of electronic devices. It is more economically to group log, using a team name. Good for CO’s doesn't fill up logbook—anything low maintenance is good. I like to go after highly favorite caches, old caches and other caches that interest me. I go out alone or with a few friends. Occasionally we like to group cache. Actually this is quite rare--probably no more that 5 of us. Power runs or geo art trails and great to do with multiple people and speak to the social side of the sport. As to fancy logs. I have about 50 caches or so and get a lot of TFTC! It is ok. I also get the travelogue log and occasionally I do it myself. Multiple logging with GSAK after a hard day’s caching. It is all good. On special caches I do try to take the time to write and a good log, and we always log the old fashioned way on these beauties. It is a game and can be played many different ways. One of my favorite caching days was when we did the Stud Mill Road Run in Maine 109 caches from 5AM to 7PM. Not sure if that would count as a power run anymore. The average caches were .7 miles apart and there were special caches thrown in. This day was when we first starting caching and we bonded to some of our best caching buddies on this trip. Also this run is no more.

[+L0ne.R]

Good for CO's doesn't fill up logbook—anything low maintenance is good.

 

Not for this CO. My logbooks are not a chore. I pride myself in maintaining my caches and checking each a couple of times a year. They are part of the experience of geocaching and cache ownership.

 

I have no problem with groups, (groups of 30 is common in my area), each signing individually. I would prefer it. 30 signatures would take up maybe 3 pages of one of our logbooks. Most of our logbooks last 2-3 years. I would love perhaps an attribute that indicated that the cache owner does not accept team-for-a-day group caching signatures, each person in the group must sign the log.

 

What I really don't enjoy as a cache owner is the email that swamps in when a group of pseudo-armchair-cachers come through town. 30 emails of cut n paste logs that thank the guy who organized the race for smileys followed by curt "and all the COs".

[+Sagefox]

I pride myself in maintaining my caches and checking each a couple of times a year.

 

You must have your caches listed under a different account.

 

...the email that swamps in when a group of pseudo-armchair-cachers come through town. 30 emails of cut n paste logs that thank the guy who organized the race for smileys followed by curt "and all the COs".

 

What does pseudo-armchair mean to you?

 

Armchair caching referrs to logging caches from home without visiting cache sites. How do you fake a fake cache visit?

[+L0ne.R]

...the email that swamps in when a group of pseudo-armchair-cachers come through town. 30 emails of cut n paste logs that thank the guy who organized the race for smileys followed by curt "and all the COs".

 

What does pseudo-armchair mean to you?

 

Armchair caching referrs to logging caches from home without visiting cache sites. How do you fake a fake cache visit?

 

Pseudo-armchair means "almost the same as" armchair logging. And I'm being generous when I add the preface pseudo. The cacher hasn't found the cache but logs it as if they did. Whether they do it while sitting at a computer, or in a car, or 550 feet down a trail, or 5 km away searching for another cache for the team, is a fine-line regarding what constitutes a find.

 

Not that I care about someone's find count. I care about my and other people's cache hides and listings. I care that my favorite points have decreased. What once was a 60% FP rate nose dives to 20% because 30 people came through and only one did the puzzle and only one other person went in to find the cache and sign for the group. No one gives it an FP because they didn't have the full cache experience. I care that the comments in the log will not help the next finder decide whether they want to try it. I see FPs and relevant comments as advertising for cache hides. When I read comments I look for something that says this cache is there, in good shape and worth getting out of the car for.

Edited November 4, 2015 by L0ne.R

[+dprovan]

Pseudo-armchair means "almost the same as" armchair logging.

Not to be pedantic, but I think the term you're looking for is "quasi-armchair-cachers", although it's easy to see how you could confuse them with pseudo-cachers. But I think Team Sagefox is correct to point out that "pseudo-armchair" is redundant if not self cancelling.

 

I agree with what you're saying about those people, though, whatever we want to call them. I especially like how clear you are about why your complaint is about very real problems, not a complaint about how they embarrass themselves by padding their numbers.

[+J Grouchy]

Pseudo-armchair means "almost the same as" armchair logging.

Not to be pedantic, but I think the term you're looking for is "quasi-armchair-cachers", although it's easy to see how you could confuse them with pseudo-cachers. But I think Team Sagefox is correct to point out that "pseudo-armchair" is redundant if not self cancelling.

 

I agree with what you're saying about those people, though, whatever we want to call them. I especially like how clear you are about why your complaint is about very real problems, not a complaint about how they embarrass themselves by padding their numbers.

 

Why is it when people say "not to be pedantic," they immediately follow it with pedantry?

[+L0ne.R]

Pseudo-armchair means "almost the same as" armchair logging.

I especially like how clear you are about why your complaint is about very real problems, not a complaint about how they embarrass themselves by padding their numbers.

 

Thanks. It does seem that people skipped that part of my original post, i.e. the effect on cache owners, favorite points, and the ability to use logs as a tool to determine if a cache is worth doing.

[+narcissa]

I care that my favorite points have decreased. What once was a 60% FP rate nose dives to 20% because 30 people came through and only one did the puzzle and only one other person went in to find the cache and sign for the group.

 

Presumably, if these cachers are really going through like some sort of locust swarm, they would have a similar effect on other caches near yours, and yours would still stand out as having more favourite points.

[+Sagefox]

No one gives it an FP because they didn't have the full cache experience. I care that the comments in the log will not help the next finder decide whether they want to try it. I see FPs and relevant comments as advertising for cache hides. When I read comments I look for something that says this cache is there, in good shape and worth getting out of the car for.

I did read this far into your post and it is a good point. I agree.

 

What I miss from the "old days" is that for non-obvious cache hides I often could get a couched clue from one of the prior five finds that came with the download. It made it more fun to have those additional hints - the ones that didn't totally give away the hide. Phones help... now I can go back, sometimes 30 to 40 logs to finally get something helpful.

 

I think group caching and GSAK do contribute to this less desirable aspect of the game.

 

I find that writing individual logs for high-find-count days (for all cache days) makes the game more fun. It is an additional social element and the topping on the cake after a cache run.