Jump to content

Has group caching gone too far?


L0ne.R
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

 

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.

 

I understand your concern that if finders don't get the "full experience" their logs may not reflect the quality of the cache accurately.

 

But I also think cachers can work as a team and each get the full - or close enough to full - experience without each cacher doing everything themselves.

 

Here is a real personal example: An excellent multi-stage cache I did with a friend. I don't like climbing trees, my friend doesn't like tight dark spaces. One stage required climbing a tree - my friend did this, I helped from below coaching him on the best route to the stage (which I spotted). Another stage required a crawl in a cave, I did that whilst my friend offered encouragement from outside. We both loved the cache and gave it a FP and wrote detailed logs.

 

A CO can look at what we did and think "They cheated... Mark didn't climb the tree, he didn't get the full experience". Or, they can see 2 friends working together, having a great time finding and appreciating their cache. If this was a competition, then I cheated. But as this is something I do for fun, I don't see it that way.

 

I have another personal example; which was as part a group of 30 (It was approximately 30; somewhere between 25 and 35). It was a a multi cache which could only be done at low tide and required walking in knee deep mud for several hours. The trickiest part involved wading across a fast flowing stream. Everyone did it, though one person had to go first and crossed the stream without a rope. He then worked as an anchor (later helped by others) and everyone else had use of a rope to cross the stream, except the last person. Another strong member of the team went last, holding the rope on the "from" side for everyone (he didn't have anyone to hold the rope when he crossed, though it was held on the far side). Did the 28 not get the full experience as they used the rope? Many of them would have been unable to cross without it. Everyone gave the cache a FP and wrote great logs.

 

So I still believe there is a large range of group caching, and that working together is a valid thing to do, even if it means each person doesn't do everything personally. But I also accept that if it gets taken to an extreme, the finder gets nothing close to the "full experience", and this is not a good thing.

 

So as a CO, I encourage caches to work together, and I'm not going to judge if they have done enough personally to claim a find; that is the individual cacher's call.

Link to comment

I have another personal example; which was as part a group of 30 (It was approximately 30; somewhere between 25 and 35). It was a a multi cache which could only be done at low tide and required walking in knee deep mud for several hours. The trickiest part involved wading across a fast flowing stream. Everyone did it, though one person had to go first and crossed the stream without a rope. He then worked as an anchor (later helped by others) and everyone else had use of a rope to cross the stream, except the last person. Another strong member of the team went last, holding the rope on the "from" side for everyone (he didn't have anyone to hold the rope when he crossed, though it was held on the far side). Did the 28 not get the full experience as they used the rope? Many of them would have been unable to cross without it. Everyone gave the cache a FP and wrote great logs.

Next time do a one rope bridge, and only two people have to get wet.

 

14895.jpg

 

Link to comment

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.

Just to add to this (not to defend either way), I know the individuals/group being referenced here as well, and part of their day was canoeing; multiple cars is certainly helpful in lugging multiple canoes for a group of ~7-8 cachers. Just a bit of info to drop in the courtroom judgement ;P

Link to comment

I really don't care about that anymore when I mentioned a few years ago about a group of cachers who spread out to do a GeoArt and claimed FTF on all of them when you know each member did not found them all. We know that because were STF and only found one set of tracks to each cache. And no one made a big about that because some well known cachers did them

Edited by jellis
Link to comment

I really don't care about that anymore when I mentioned a few years ago about a group of cachers who spread out to do a GeoArt and claimed FTF on all of them when you know each member did not found them all. We know that because were STF and only found one set of tracks to each cache. And no one made a big about that because some well known cachers did them

I hope you, at least, put plenty of disparaging remarks -- i.e., good hearted ribbing -- in your STF log. As I often say, I don't care whether people do things like this, but that doesn't mean I surrender my right to judge them openly when they do.

Link to comment

I just happened to stumble across this thread and it brought up a sore spot with me that just recently happened.

 

I was invited to join a large group of cachers to go after a fairly new Geo-Art series. The following day I received an email with directions on how they were planning on searching for the caches. They were going to break up the group into several smaller groups and each smaller group would find about 20 caches. They would then log all the caches in the series, even the caches found by others.

 

When I saw this I sent a note back saying that I would not be there. I guess that wasn't true because I went anyway with my own small group. My group stayed together and everyone actually found every cache that we logged on-line. We ended up with 40+ caches in 8 hours. The other group ended up with 136+ caches in about 4 hours. I guess their numbers are quite a bit better than ours but I'd like to think that we had a bit more integrity.

Link to comment

I just happened to stumble across this thread and it brought up a sore spot with me that just recently happened.

 

I was invited to join a large group of cachers to go after a fairly new Geo-Art series. The following day I received an email with directions on how they were planning on searching for the caches. They were going to break up the group into several smaller groups and each smaller group would find about 20 caches. They would then log all the caches in the series, even the caches found by others.

 

When I saw this I sent a note back saying that I would not be there. I guess that wasn't true because I went anyway with my own small group. My group stayed together and everyone actually found every cache that we logged on-line. We ended up with 40+ caches in 8 hours. The other group ended up with 136+ caches in about 4 hours. I guess their numbers are quite a bit better than ours but I'd like to think that we had a bit more integrity.

 

To further increase integrity, don't compare stats.

Link to comment

...My group stayed together and everyone actually found every cache that we logged on-line. We ended up with 40+ caches in 8 hours. The other group ended up with 136+ caches in about 4 hours.

Their system totally sucks. <_<

 

It is very nice, though, to see you as an example of someone who has a very high find count and acomplished it without shenanigans. Thanks for that.

Link to comment

I just happened to stumble across this thread and it brought up a sore spot with me that just recently happened.

 

I was invited to join a large group of cachers to go after a fairly new Geo-Art series. The following day I received an email with directions on how they were planning on searching for the caches. They were going to break up the group into several smaller groups and each smaller group would find about 20 caches. They would then log all the caches in the series, even the caches found by others.

 

When I saw this I sent a note back saying that I would not be there. I guess that wasn't true because I went anyway with my own small group. My group stayed together and everyone actually found every cache that we logged on-line. We ended up with 40+ caches in 8 hours. The other group ended up with 136+ caches in about 4 hours. I guess their numbers are quite a bit better than ours but I'd like to think that we had a bit more integrity.

 

To further increase integrity, don't compare stats.

 

Why would comparing stats decrease one's integrity?

Link to comment

When I saw this I sent a note back saying that I would not be there. I guess that wasn't true because I went anyway with my own small group. My group stayed together and everyone actually found every cache that we logged on-line. We ended up with 40+ caches in 8 hours. The other group ended up with 136+ caches in about 4 hours. I guess their numbers are quite a bit better than ours but I'd like to think that we had a bit more integrity.

I'm not that interested in integrity in this context, unless you consider being honest with yourself "integrity". Instead, I see that you found twice as many caches your way than you would have if you'd done it their way, and had 8 hours of fun instead of just 4, so I think you win. The only way to look at it that has you not winning is if you compare find counts, and that's silly because you know their find count isn't comparable to yours.

 

Did you tell them why you didn't go with them? I'm wondering how many in the group would have reconsidered if they'd realized how they were short changing themselves.

Link to comment

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.

 

THIS GUY! You're a very small majority that has this perspective. Cache "Teams" are sad. Reminds me of It's a Small Small Small Small World only I can picture a dozen or so Walmartians bumbling around looking for that golden egg mother nature is laughing over.

Link to comment

I just happened to stumble across this thread and it brought up a sore spot with me that just recently happened.

 

I was invited to join a large group of cachers to go after a fairly new Geo-Art series. The following day I received an email with directions on how they were planning on searching for the caches. They were going to break up the group into several smaller groups and each smaller group would find about 20 caches. They would then log all the caches in the series, even the caches found by others.

 

When I saw this I sent a note back saying that I would not be there. I guess that wasn't true because I went anyway with my own small group. My group stayed together and everyone actually found every cache that we logged on-line. We ended up with 40+ caches in 8 hours. The other group ended up with 136+ caches in about 4 hours. I guess their numbers are quite a bit better than ours but I'd like to think that we had a bit more integrity.

 

Good for you! Thanks for your integrity.

Link to comment

I just happened to stumble across this thread and it brought up a sore spot with me that just recently happened.

 

I was invited to join a large group of cachers to go after a fairly new Geo-Art series. The following day I received an email with directions on how they were planning on searching for the caches. They were going to break up the group into several smaller groups and each smaller group would find about 20 caches. They would then log all the caches in the series, even the caches found by others.

 

When I saw this I sent a note back saying that I would not be there. I guess that wasn't true because I went anyway with my own small group. My group stayed together and everyone actually found every cache that we logged on-line. We ended up with 40+ caches in 8 hours. The other group ended up with 136+ caches in about 4 hours. I guess their numbers are quite a bit better than ours but I'd like to think that we had a bit more integrity.

 

To further increase integrity, don't compare stats.

 

Why would comparing stats decrease one's integrity?

 

I was wondering the same thing.

Link to comment

Oh dear, if I was to post my true feelings about this I would probably be banned for life! It is such a pity that people have apparently signed logs without seeing the cache site when the site is the reason the cache was placed there. There off signing for the other members who have signed for them. If you have signed a log by proxy, please feel guilty, go back and sign it for real and say sorry as you are disrespecting the owner of the cache.

On that note, is it allowable for a CO to delete team logs as being false logs?

Link to comment

This question can never be resolved because it depends so much on why people geocache, what they enjoy. Like other COs, I enjoy real logs and dislike cut-n-paste ones, but it's not something that really bugs me. I have gone on a few large groups caching trips and had fun. There is something about the camaraderie. But I've never signed as part of an ad hoc "team". Other big group trips have turned out badly, with the group wanting to do a lot more caches than I did, or go into terrain I didn't (e.g. get soaking wet), or there were some people behaving badly (e.g. swearing in front of kids). It's tough in that situation if you aren't one of the drivers, or even if you are. You can't just leave stranding others, or forcing them to leave. As for signing the log, I have been in situation where I didn't sign the log but I'm the only one who actually found the cache. Once I remember I was up at the top of a utility pole hanging on for dear life and tossed the cache down to my partners who signed for me and tossed it back up. Another time I was in a hole just big enough for me to squeeze in and pass the cache out. Same deal. I was in physically precarious positions where I couldn't sign and I didn't want to have to extract myself just to sign and then go back up or back in. In my experience with large groups someone else almost always finds the cache before I do, often before I even get there so the "find" is just someone handing me the container to sign without even having seen where it was hidden. That's why I prefer caching with a maximum of four people. But then I've never wanted to try to get a high number of finds in one day. For others that's important.

Link to comment

Greetings. I have just begun caching, and came here looking for some etiquette answers. I have a young family, twin 6 yr olds and a 9 yr old, and we have begun this as a family activity. Is it frowned upon to create accounts for my children, and allow them to log their finds individually? The first couple of caches, I logged under my own account, but the kids want to leave their own little thank you notes. As a CO, would you be upset about 3 log entries by a single family?

TIA

Link to comment

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!

 

Lame, what is the point of "cheating". Is there a geocaching prize or reward for numbers found? What possible satisfaction can you have looking at your "stats" if you know a good chunk or most of them you havn't actually found yourself? I don't get it, they are only cheating/fooling themselves. Like I said. LAME.

 

As a geocacher I have more pride in my measly 174 real finds than any multi 1000 finder knowing a chunk/most of those finds are not real.

Edited by plucka99
Link to comment

Greetings. I have just begun caching, and came here looking for some etiquette answers. I have a young family, twin 6 yr olds and a 9 yr old, and we have begun this as a family activity. Is it frowned upon to create accounts for my children, and allow them to log their finds individually? The first couple of caches, I logged under my own account, but the kids want to leave their own little thank you notes. As a CO, would you be upset about 3 log entries by a single family?

TIA

 

Go for it. I see it from time to time.

This IS a good opportunity for you to encourage them to write more than a simple "thank you" or "TFTC".

Link to comment

Greetings. I have just begun caching, and came here looking for some etiquette answers. I have a young family, twin 6 yr olds and a 9 yr old, and we have begun this as a family activity. Is it frowned upon to create accounts for my children, and allow them to log their finds individually? The first couple of caches, I logged under my own account, but the kids want to leave their own little thank you notes. As a CO, would you be upset about 3 log entries by a single family?

Not the end of the world, but when I see people doing this, inevitably the adult ends up entering the logs for the kids which often devolves to uninteresting "me, too!" found it logs. Since you have to help them with their logging, anyway -- they're not technically allowed to use the site by themselves -- why not just add their comments at the end of your log?

 

As a CO, 3 logs wouldn't make much difference to me, but as a seeker, the extra logs reduce the number of logs loaded in my GPSr about other experiences that might give me some hints if I'm having trouble finding the cache.

Link to comment

Greetings. I have just begun caching, and came here looking for some etiquette answers. I have a young family, twin 6 yr olds and a 9 yr old, and we have begun this as a family activity. Is it frowned upon to create accounts for my children, and allow them to log their finds individually? The first couple of caches, I logged under my own account, but the kids want to leave their own little thank you notes. As a CO, would you be upset about 3 log entries by a single family?

Not the end of the world, but when I see people doing this, inevitably the adult ends up entering the logs for the kids which often devolves to uninteresting "me, too!" found it logs. Since you have to help them with their logging, anyway -- they're not technically allowed to use the site by themselves -- why not just add their comments at the end of your log?

 

As a CO, 3 logs wouldn't make much difference to me, but as a seeker, the extra logs reduce the number of logs loaded in my GPSr about other experiences that might give me some hints if I'm having trouble finding the cache.

 

Just make sure are all premium accounts and all three have awarded me the favorite points. :laughing:

Link to comment

Greetings. I have just begun caching, and came here looking for some etiquette answers. I have a young family, twin 6 yr olds and a 9 yr old, and we have begun this as a family activity. Is it frowned upon to create accounts for my children, and allow them to log their finds individually? The first couple of caches, I logged under my own account, but the kids want to leave their own little thank you notes. As a CO, would you be upset about 3 log entries by a single family?

TIA

I set up my daughter's account days after she was born. Yep, it's silly but it was fun. Until she could walk, i carried her in the front pack on most of our caching adventures. For a while, i made sure to log her finds but it didn't take long before realizing it was too much of a pain.

 

I'd say to not start if you think you're gonna end up doing all the logging for the kids. Having said that, setting up their accounts, getting a caching name they like, is fine. As has been mentioned, GC.com does have a guideline which states that users have to be 13 and older to use its website.

 

p.s. I believe i've even seen dogs that have accounts on here. B)

Link to comment

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.

 

What you describe above seems OK, if all the participants were actually at the cache site when log was signed. I actually know of members on Teams that were not even in the same state when a log was signed by a Team group. I've seen profiles where some team members average 120 caches a day over the year, yet have loges signed by different teams hundreds of miles apart. These people are seriously mentally ill, needing that much attention and recognition for an activity that they never accomplished. Screw Them.

Link to comment

As a CO, 3 logs wouldn't make much difference to me, but as a seeker, the extra logs reduce the number of logs loaded in my GPSr about other experiences that might give me some hints if I'm having trouble finding the cache.

 

This is another reason why I think having some form of 'like' (Or 'helpful' or something) rating for logs would be beneficial. Ignorable, sure it could be abused, but it adds a bit of value in looking through the past logs and can even encourage people write 'better' logs. ie, there's a better indication that a log without points is 'skippable'. I don't recall seeing any thread recently about the idea, but I believe it's in the forum somewhere.

Get a tip from a log? Enjoy someone's story? Bump it up a point. *shrug* Improve the signal/noise ratio.

Link to comment

As a CO, 3 logs wouldn't make much difference to me, but as a seeker, the extra logs reduce the number of logs loaded in my GPSr about other experiences that might give me some hints if I'm having trouble finding the cache.

 

This is another reason why I think having some form of 'like' (Or 'helpful' or something) rating for logs would be beneficial. Ignorable, sure it could be abused, but it adds a bit of value in looking through the past logs and can even encourage people write 'better' logs. ie, there's a better indication that a log without points is 'skippable'. I don't recall seeing any thread recently about the idea, but I believe it's in the forum somewhere.

Get a tip from a log? Enjoy someone's story? Bump it up a point. *shrug* Improve the signal/noise ratio.

 

It's a common feature of comment sections of many blog sites (Disqus comes to mind).

My concerns:

1 - Up-voting is one thing, but I'd want to make sure not to have anything like down-voting. We don't need any additional negativity. It's one thing to say that a log is helpful or fun to read...but having a down-vote could lead to flaming and overall negativity that we definitely do NOT need.

2 - Something like that would work better as an "opt in" type thing...maybe just arranging logs chronologically unless the person visiting the online listing chose to sort them by up-votes.

3 - The crabby folks who immediately reject such a feature because they already are biased against anything new, anything approaching social media style of logging, anything new...anything new.

Link to comment
It's a common feature of comment sections of many blog sites (Disqus comes to mind).

My concerns:

1 - Up-voting is one thing, but I'd want to make sure not to have anything like down-voting. We don't need any additional negativity. It's one thing to say that a log is helpful or fun to read...but having a down-vote could lead to flaming and overall negativity that we definitely do NOT need.

2 - Something like that would work better as an "opt in" type thing...maybe just arranging logs chronologically unless the person visiting the online listing chose to sort them by up-votes.

3 - The crabby folks who immediately reject such a feature because they already are biased against anything new, anything approaching social media style of logging, anything new...anything new.

 

or... like the 'Favorite' concept for cache listings, re #1; same #3 response happened in that case; and #2 is of course a value-add, and couldn't possibly be a detriment to anyone legitimately. #3 is really the only problem with it :ph34r:

Link to comment

As a CO, 3 logs wouldn't make much difference to me, but as a seeker, the extra logs reduce the number of logs loaded in my GPSr about other experiences that might give me some hints if I'm having trouble finding the cache.

 

This is another reason why I think having some form of 'like' (Or 'helpful' or something) rating for logs would be beneficial. Ignorable, sure it could be abused, but it adds a bit of value in looking through the past logs and can even encourage people write 'better' logs. ie, there's a better indication that a log without points is 'skippable'. I don't recall seeing any thread recently about the idea, but I believe it's in the forum somewhere.

Get a tip from a log? Enjoy someone's story? Bump it up a point. *shrug* Improve the signal/noise ratio.

 

It's a common feature of comment sections of many blog sites (Disqus comes to mind).

My concerns:

1 - Up-voting is one thing, but I'd want to make sure not to have anything like down-voting. We don't need any additional negativity. It's one thing to say that a log is helpful or fun to read...but having a down-vote could lead to flaming and overall negativity that we definitely do NOT need.

2 - Something like that would work better as an "opt in" type thing...maybe just arranging logs chronologically unless the person visiting the online listing chose to sort them by up-votes.

3 - The crabby folks who immediately reject such a feature because they already are biased against anything new, anything approaching social media style of logging, anything new...anything new.

 

#2 would really be helpful while out in the field.

First when I'm parked at the trailhead and want to know what others think of the cache before heading out. (Is it worth the walk.)

Second, when I can't find the cache and need some help from the logs (e.g. found it about 10m away).

 

Third, as a cache owner to float the meaningful caches to the top to help advertise our caches. (Some of our caches go a long time between finds.) I think COs should be able to down-vote some up-voted logs, if there is abuse - i.e. the log really isn't meaningful.

Link to comment

As a CO, 3 logs wouldn't make much difference to me, but as a seeker, the extra logs reduce the number of logs loaded in my GPSr about other experiences that might give me some hints if I'm having trouble finding the cache.

This is another reason why I think having some form of 'like' (Or 'helpful' or something) rating for logs would be beneficial.

Although it might sound good on paper, I claim that although there are occasional exceptions, in most cases, the more recent the log, the more valuable it is in the field. No one's going to "like" a DNF or a find indicating the cache is not currently worth finding, so even if I wanted to use such a feature, I wouldn't dare for fear that I'd end up missing the log from yesterday or last week that's the one with the crucial information I need.

Link to comment

As a CO, 3 logs wouldn't make much difference to me, but as a seeker, the extra logs reduce the number of logs loaded in my GPSr about other experiences that might give me some hints if I'm having trouble finding the cache.

This is another reason why I think having some form of 'like' (Or 'helpful' or something) rating for logs would be beneficial.

Although it might sound good on paper, I claim that although there are occasional exceptions, in most cases, the more recent the log, the more valuable it is in the field. No one's going to "like" a DNF or a find indicating the cache is not currently worth finding, so even if I wanted to use such a feature, I wouldn't dare for fear that I'd end up missing the log from yesterday or last week that's the one with the crucial information I need.

Maybe expand the number of possible logs you can view, so you can see both the favorite logs and the recent logs.

 

Caches can also be changed over time, so you could also end up with 5 favorite logs about the cache's previous hiding spot. "These logs all say it was an easy find in the bushes, but there are no bushes anywhere near GZ."

Link to comment

Although it might sound good on paper, I claim that although there are occasional exceptions, in most cases, the more recent the log, the more valuable it is in the field. No one's going to "like" a DNF or a find indicating the cache is not currently worth finding, so even if I wanted to use such a feature, I wouldn't dare for fear that I'd end up missing the log from yesterday or last week that's the one with the crucial information I need.

I agree, I think the recency factor would be a big issue with this type of change to logs. If people want to view the 'liked' logs because those logs contain useful information, then they'll likely miss the more recent DNF logs that suggest the cache is missing.

 

Looking through previous logs is something I've done when having trouble finding a cache. I usually do that on my cell phone though, unless I don't have coverage and then I'm limited to the few logs in my GPSr. When I look at the logs on my phone, then I just scroll past the short ones that don't have much content.

 

Maybe if the option to view 'liked' logs only applied to 'Found It' logs? For example, someone chooses the option to see the 'liked' logs for a cache. The 'Found It' logs that are not 'liked' are hidden (or maybe just collapsed) and the user is then presented with the 'Found It' logs that are liked, along with all the other logs (DNF, NM, NA, OM, WN). The only types of logs that could be 'liked' would be 'Found It' logs. Seems a bit over complicated though, so either way I don't foresee that something like this would be implemented.

Edited by noncentric
Link to comment

If people want to view the 'liked' logs because those logs contain useful information, then they'll likely miss the more recent DNF logs that suggest the cache is missing.

Actually, now that I think about it, I suspect it would be a complete coincidence if a log that people liked actually had useful information for the hunt. I would expect people to like log entries because of how interesting or amusing they are when considering a cache from afar, not because of how useful the logs are in the field.

Link to comment
1455865250[/url]' post='5565969']
1455856171[/url]' post='5565954']

If people want to view the 'liked' logs because those logs contain useful information, then they'll likely miss the more recent DNF logs that suggest the cache is missing.

Actually, now that I think about it, I suspect it would be a complete coincidence if a log that people liked actually had useful information for the hunt. I would expect people to like log entries because of how interesting or amusing they are when considering a cache from afar, not because of how useful the logs are in the field.

 

Instead of "Like" buttons, they could be "Helpful?" Buttons.

NC's suggestion is good. Initially the user sees the default list, but can toggle to have only the found list. Probably best not to sort them by number of votes, but in chronological order.

My idea about letting owners float the helpful ones to the top to advertise the cache, not so good. It's best that the user sees the current list with recent DNFs, NMs, Notes and NAs with the option to see helpful found it logs.

Link to comment

Although it might sound good on paper, I claim that although there are occasional exceptions, in most cases, the more recent the log, the more valuable it is in the field. No one's going to "like" a DNF or a find indicating the cache is not currently worth finding, so even if I wanted to use such a feature, I wouldn't dare for fear that I'd end up missing the log from yesterday or last week that's the one with the crucial information I need.

 

I wouldn't want the log order to change. It should still be chronological. But at various thresholds logs can be highlighted or hidden, by my own viewer choice. At worst, nothing changes about the log display. At best, the high-voted logs are highlighted. That's all I'd like to see.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...