Jump to content

Asking group cachers to sign log with individual trailnames


L0ne.R

Recommended Posts

Question to people who group cache:

 

If you saw this in the cache description, would you honour the request?

 

Group cachers: Instead of one group-name-of-the-day log in the logbook, please log each individual trailname in to the logbook.

 

If a cache owner placed this request on their cache, then deleted any online logs where the logger's trailname didn't appear in the logbook, do you think Groundspeak would support the cache owner or the group cacher?

Link to comment

I think as long as they mention how they signed it in their online logs, Groundspeak would let the log stand.

That being said, if I were with other people, I would still log my own name. Not because of such a request, but just because that's how I play the game. I'm not really interested in caching with a group anyway.

Link to comment

To save space (and time), the group that I sometimes cache with after breakfast at Durfs usually signs in "Durfs 9" (or however many people we have.) So far nobody has given us any problem for doing so.

 

If the cache page requested individual log entries, changes are we wouldn't have read that anyway, depending on the cache type.

 

So iffy on whether I'd bother honoring their request.

Link to comment

I think that's a silly request. I would avoid getting into a log deletion debate by simply complying with it. I would be sure that each member of the large group signed the log in large, legible letters -- with no username abbreviations -- so that there could be no question about which individual accounts found that particular nano. Normally I'd log a nano with "Lep," but if I were with my daughter we would log "The Leprechauns" and "Little Leprechaun," very clearly.

 

Then I would log "Needs Maintenance" - "Logsheet Full!" :ph34r:

Link to comment

I think that's a silly request. I would avoid getting into a log deletion debate by simply complying with it. I would be sure that each member of the large group signed the log in large, legible letters -- with no username abbreviations -- so that there could be no question about which individual accounts found that particular nano. Normally I'd log a nano with "Lep," but if I were with my daughter we would log "The Leprechauns" and "Little Leprechaun," very clearly.

 

Then I would log "Needs Maintenance" - "Logsheet Full!" :ph34r:

+1

The last time in a group, we could have easily filled half the tiny logs out today.

The other two groups behind us would have had to (or maybe not...) add a sheet. :laughing:

Link to comment

I think that's a silly request. I would avoid getting into a log deletion debate by simply complying with it. I would be sure that each member of the large group signed the log in large, legible letters -- with no username abbreviations -- so that there could be no question about which individual accounts found that particular nano. Normally I'd log a nano with "Lep," but if I were with my daughter we would log "The Leprechauns" and "Little Leprechaun," very clearly.

 

Then I would log "Needs Maintenance" - "Logsheet Full!" :ph34r:

 

Friendly :ph34r:

 

I would assume that a CO who had made such a request would provide an appropriately sized logbook and be prepared for the associated maintenance requirements arising from their request.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I group cache a lot as I enjoy the social aspect of the game and I am sure we have found many of your caches during our adventures. If we saw that request to sign individual names, yes we would definitely honour it, however we may not see it. I don't think many people read the cache page anymore, unless they are having trouble finding the cache, so they may not even see the request. If someone found the cache, there should be no reason to delete the log.

Link to comment

 

If a cache owner placed this request on their cache, then deleted any online logs where the logger's trailname didn't appear in the logbook, do you think Groundspeak would support the cache owner or the group cacher?

 

I think they would not and I have some evidence that they think that a group name even if invented for a single day suffices.

Link to comment

To save space (and time), the group that I sometimes cache with after breakfast at Durfs usually signs in "Durfs 9" (or however many people we have.) So far nobody has given us any problem for doing so.

 

If the cache page requested individual log entries, changes are we wouldn't have read that anyway, depending on the cache type.

 

So iffy on whether I'd bother honoring their request.

 

What would happen if the cache owner then deleted names that didn't appear in the log? Would Groundspeak side with the people who claimed to be with the team? Or with the owner who wants to prevent team finds where only one individual signs in for everyone else, but everyone else weren't at the cache.

 

I realize that the one individual could still be the only one who found the cache and signed in everyone's trailnames, but it sure would slow things down and put a damper on those group cachers looking to log quick and easy finds. Maybe they'd even skip the cache and come back when they were caching at more leisurely pace.

 

Then there's the hit on the favorite points and the online logs.

The cache owner hides a really good cache. The first 5 finders who actually visited the cache, give it a favourite point. The cache has 100% FPs. Then group-name-of-the-day comes through with 28 people. Only one guy actually found the cache, no one else saw it. He doesn't even favorite it because he ran through the 35 of the 60 caches he found that day for the "team". Everything was a blur, he can't remember individual caches. So no one gives it an FP. The FP % dives from 100% to 15%. Then the cut n paste logs bury the good logs.

 

If the owner explained this to Groundspeak, would Groundspeak side with the owner, or the group who didn't read the cache description and signed with the team name?

Link to comment

Honestly, if it was a generic traditional cache, chances are I wouldn't read the description unless I was having trouble finding it.

 

Generally, it's an exercise in futility to ask cachers to go above and beyond what is outlined in the guidelines.

 

Do the guidelines outline that large groups should sign logs once only using a group name?

 

If not, asking for individual signatures isn't above and beyond what's outlined in the guidelines.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I think that's a silly request.

 

The background which leads some cachers to add such request is a caching behaviour which seems sillier to me than such a request (though I would not add it to one of my cache descriptions).

If all the names of the participants have to be mentioned on the log sheet, then it cannot happen that later other cachers who have not been present are added to the team which was allegedly present.

 

Sometimes being a cache owner and reading the logs feels like if someone pulls your leg. Of course there are groups where every member of the group is present at every cache the group logs, but there are many groups who hand it differently and not only for powertrails.

Link to comment

The cache owner hides a really good cache. The first 5 finders who actually visited the cache, give it a favourite point. The cache has 100% FPs. Then group-name-of-the-day comes through with 28 people. Only one guy actually found the cache, no one else saw it. He doesn't even favorite it because he ran through the 35 of the 60 caches he found that day for the "team". Everything was a blur, he can't remember individual caches. So no one gives it an FP. The FP % dives from 100% to 15%. Then the cut n paste logs bury the good logs.

 

Different people cache different ways and assign FPs for different reasons. You're making a gravely fallacious assumption here, which is that if those 28 cachers had found the cache individually, they would have given it FPs too. If your reliance on FPs can't account for different caching styles and circumstances, it's your system that is flawed, not the people finding the caches.

Link to comment

I think that's a silly request. I would avoid getting into a log deletion debate by simply complying with it. I would be sure that each member of the large group signed the log in large, legible letters -- with no username abbreviations -- so that there could be no question about which individual accounts found that particular nano. Normally I'd log a nano with "Lep," but if I were with my daughter we would log "The Leprechauns" and "Little Leprechaun," very clearly.

 

Then I would log "Needs Maintenance" - "Logsheet Full!" :ph34r:

 

Friendly :ph34r:

 

I would assume that a CO who had made such a request would provide an appropriately sized logbook and be prepared for the associated maintenance requirements arising from their request.

 

Exactly.

 

 

Link to comment

What would happen if the cache owner then deleted names that didn't appear in the log? Would Groundspeak side with the people who claimed to be with the team? Or with the owner who wants to prevent team finds where only one individual signs in for everyone else, but everyone else weren't at the cache.

 

I know about a case where Groundspeak sided with the people who claimed to be with the team and the cache owner who had contacted GS to obtain a clarification received the answer that it is ok to sign with a team name that does not exist as a geocaching alias and just write in the online log that one has been part of the team ...

 

Some cache owners in my area have added the request that they hope that every visitor signs the log but they are aware that if they deleted logs in case of someone not complying, they would lose in case the cachers contacted GS. It's more an attempt to try to raise awareness that they do not appreciate to receive team logs in their log books.

 

If the owner explained this to Groundspeak, would Groundspeak side with the owner, or the group who didn't read the cache description and signed with the team name?

 

I think it does not even play a role whether they read the description or not. GS will side with the team loggers (unless they changed their policy).

Link to comment

I think that's a silly request. I would avoid getting into a log deletion debate by simply complying with it. I would be sure that each member of the large group signed the log in large, legible letters -- with no username abbreviations -- so that there could be no question about which individual accounts found that particular nano. Normally I'd log a nano with "Lep," but if I were with my daughter we would log "The Leprechauns" and "Little Leprechaun," very clearly.

 

Then I would log "Needs Maintenance" - "Logsheet Full!" :ph34r:

 

Friendly :ph34r:

 

I would assume that a CO who had made such a request would provide an appropriately sized logbook and be prepared for the associated maintenance requirements arising from their request.

 

Thanks for posting exactly what I was going to write. It's probably a dying breed in this game but I imagine that there are still a few cache owners out that would like to e able to compare names in the physical log with that in the on line log.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

The cache owner hides a really good cache. The first 5 finders who actually visited the cache, give it a favourite point. The cache has 100% FPs. Then group-name-of-the-day comes through with 28 people. Only one guy actually found the cache, no one else saw it. He doesn't even favorite it because he ran through the 35 of the 60 caches he found that day for the "team". Everything was a blur, he can't remember individual caches. So no one gives it an FP. The FP % dives from 100% to 15%. Then the cut n paste logs bury the good logs.

 

Different people cache different ways and assign FPs for different reasons. You're making a gravely fallacious assumption here, which is that if those 28 cachers had found the cache individually, they would have given it FPs too. If your reliance on FPs can't account for different caching styles and circumstances, it's your system that is flawed, not the people finding the caches.

 

Nope. I don't agree. 5 people in a row think the cache puzzle and final cache were clever and creative and the location was a good one, then the next 28 or 29 of 30 people have nothing to say about it, and think it's not worth an FP? Your assumption seems more out of kilter to me.

Link to comment

I think that's a silly request. I would avoid getting into a log deletion debate by simply complying with it. I would be sure that each member of the large group signed the log in large, legible letters -- with no username abbreviations -- so that there could be no question about which individual accounts found that particular nano. Normally I'd log a nano with "Lep," but if I were with my daughter we would log "The Leprechauns" and "Little Leprechaun," very clearly.

 

Then I would log "Needs Maintenance" - "Logsheet Full!" :ph34r:

 

Friendly :ph34r:

 

I would assume that a CO who had made such a request would provide an appropriately sized logbook and be prepared for the associated maintenance requirements arising from their request.

 

Thanks for posting exactly what I was going to write. It's probably a dying breed in this game but I imagine that there are still a few cache owners out that would like to e able to compare names in the physical log with that in the on line log.

 

 

In the old days, we would all see the cache and pass the logbook around. It didn't take a lot of time and we used the time to talk and comment on the experience. It was part of the fun. And most of us would even write a little something in the log before passing it to the next person.

Link to comment

Thanks for posting exactly what I was going to write. It's probably a dying breed in this game but I imagine that there are still a few cache owners out that would like to e able to compare names in the physical log with that in the on line log.

 

However GS does not care:

 

They write mails like this (taken from a log for a cache in my area where the owner had deleted group logs before being aware that GS allows them

 

Hello!

Thank you for contacting Geocaching HQ about this. Geocachers who go geocaching together in groups area allowed to log under one name, rather than writing all of the usernames of the players who visited a geocache. For example, players Bob, Nancy, and Sally could all log under the name "Team Geocaching" in the physical logbook, but would still be allowed to individually log the find on Geocaching.com.

I hope this helps clear things up.

Geocaching HQ is currently operating with limited staff. If you need help restoring your logs, please contact us again after January 7th. We appreciate your patience and cooperation.

Happy Holidays!

Link to comment

Question to people who group cache:

 

If you saw this in the cache description, would you honour the request?

 

Group cachers: Instead of one group-name-of-the-day log in the logbook, please log each individual trailname in to the logbook.

I'd be inclined to follow the directions if I noticed them. I'd be curious why such an odd request was made, though, so perhaps an explanation would be nice?

 

If a cache owner placed this request on their cache, then deleted any online logs where the logger's trailname didn't appear in the logbook, do you think Groundspeak would support the cache owner or the group cacher?

I doubt GS would support the deletion, but whether they did or not, I'd consider it a pretty jerky thing for the CO to do. It's one thing to politely request each finder sign the log, but it's quite another thing to act like that friendly request had the force of law.

 

That's not to rule out the CO acting against the dishonest logging practice that cezanne has mentioned, although I have to admit it would be hard to build a case that was sufficiently airtight to defend such a deletion if it was appealed: it would be tough to prove that someone claiming to be in the team wasn't.

Link to comment

Thanks for posting exactly what I was going to write. It's probably a dying breed in this game but I imagine that there are still a few cache owners out that would like to e able to compare names in the physical log with that in the on line log.

 

However GS does not care:

 

They write mails like this (taken from a log for a cache in my area where the owner had deleted group logs before being aware that GS allows them

 

Hello!

Thank you for contacting Geocaching HQ about this. Geocachers who go geocaching together in groups area allowed to log under one name, rather than writing all of the usernames of the players who visited a geocache. For example, players Bob, Nancy, and Sally could all log under the name "Team Geocaching" in the physical logbook, but would still be allowed to individually log the find on Geocaching.com.

I hope this helps clear things up.

Geocaching HQ is currently operating with limited staff. If you need help restoring your logs, please contact us again after January 7th. We appreciate your patience and cooperation.

Happy Holidays!

 

Well that's interesting. I have my official answer.

Not that I really would want to delete logs, but sometimes it seems like it would be the only recourse.

 

The cache listings of good caches suffer when numbers-playing groups come through. I wish Groundspeak could think up a way to make the game fun for the numbers crowd (which is currently the case), but not at the expense of cache owners and finders who want a more robust experience. And not at the expense of the cache listing. FPs and relevant logs are important tools. And they are very important now that the database is so full, there's a lot of neglected caches out there and some of us rely on reading the last logs for information about the worthiness of the caching experience when we decide what to hunt for.

 

Anyway, I was just thought this might be a solution, albeit a tough one. Thanks for the quote from Groundspeak.

Link to comment

Question to people who group cache:

 

If you saw this in the cache description, would you honour the request?

 

Group cachers: Instead of one group-name-of-the-day log in the logbook, please log each individual trailname in to the logbook.

 

If a cache owner placed this request on their cache, then deleted any online logs where the logger's trailname didn't appear in the logbook, do you think Groundspeak would support the cache owner or the group cacher?

The sniff test tells me it's an ALR.

Link to comment

Question to people who group cache:

 

If you saw this in the cache description, would you honour the request?

 

Group cachers: Instead of one group-name-of-the-day log in the logbook, please log each individual trailname in to the logbook.

 

If a cache owner placed this request on their cache, then deleted any online logs where the logger's trailname didn't appear in the logbook, do you think Groundspeak would support the cache owner or the group cacher?

The sniff test tells me it's an ALR.

 

Well times have changed when actually logging the physical cache, especially of an easy to get at cache (no climbing, feet on the ground, low terrain rate, easy find) is an additional logging requirement.

Link to comment

Question to people who group cache:

 

If you saw this in the cache description, would you honour the request?

 

Group cachers: Instead of one group-name-of-the-day log in the logbook, please log each individual trailname in to the logbook.

 

If a cache owner placed this request on their cache, then deleted any online logs where the logger's trailname didn't appear in the logbook, do you think Groundspeak would support the cache owner or the group cacher?

The sniff test tells me it's an ALR.

 

Well times have changed when actually logging the physical cache, especially of an easy to get at cache (no climbing, feet on the ground, low terrain rate, easy find) is an additional logging requirement.

Then I guess I don't understand your question. I don't see how the above part in bold is supported by the Guidelines, ergo it must be an ALR.

Link to comment

I don't see how possibly deleting logs from cachers in your area that might cache in a group would add to your overall favorite points. Even at that cache I would guess some might find it odd that they had to change there caching ways for that cache and would reduce there chance of giving it a favorite.

Then later after you deleted there find when they are at another cache of yours they might be less likely to favorite it remembering that you deleted there find for something they probably feel they didn't do wrong.

You could give it a shot and some might follow it if they read it but I don't see deleting found it logs adding to favorite points.

Link to comment
If you saw this in the cache description, would you honour the request?

 

Group cachers: Instead of one group-name-of-the-day log in the logbook, please log each individual trailname in to the logbook.

Sure.

 

When I'm with a group that uses a team name to sign the physical log, we do it as a favor (or favour ;) ) to the cache owner, to avoid filling the log with everyone's signatures. But if the CO wants everyone to sign separately, then we can do that too. And if we fill up the log, then one (or more) of us will post a NM log.

 

But if we don't notice the request, then it sounds like Groundspeak will support us if we log the cache anyway, even though we signed only our group-name-of-the-day.

Link to comment

Well that's interesting. I have my official answer.

Not that I really would want to delete logs, but sometimes it seems like it would be the only recourse.

 

By the way, on the occasion of the incident where one of the cachers who got a log deleted, also two cache owners had contacted GS to ask whether they are allowed to the delete the logs and they got the same type of reply that group names in the log book, even when used only on that single day are ok. I have both seeen one of the mails addressed to GS and the answer. The "verdict" was the same.

 

The cache listings of good caches suffer when numbers-playing groups come through. I wish Groundspeak could think up a way to make the game fun for the numbers crowd (which is currently the case), but not at the expense of cache owners and finders who want a more robust experience. And not at the expense of the cache listing. FPs and relevant logs are important tools. And they are very important now that the database is so full, there's a lot of neglected caches out there and some of us rely on reading the last logs for information about the worthiness of the caching experience when we decide what to hunt for.

 

I do not think that anything of the above would be avoided if cachers were forced to list all trail names. You cannot ask for personal signatures.

What would change is that later other people could join the group, but that does not have a dramatic effect on what you write about above.

Link to comment
If you saw this in the cache description, would you honour the request?

 

Group cachers: Instead of one group-name-of-the-day log in the logbook, please log each individual trailname in to the logbook.

Sure.

 

When I'm with a group that uses a team name to sign the physical log, we do it as a favor (or favour ;) ) to the cache owner, to avoid filling the log with everyone's signatures. But if the CO wants everyone to sign separately, then we can do that too. And if we fill up the log, then one (or more) of us will post a NM log.

 

But if we don't notice the request, then it sounds like Groundspeak will support us if we log the cache anyway, even though we signed only our group-name-of-the-day.

 

I assume that you are with a team all participants have really been at the caches they log (I mean at the location, it's not about doing the climb etc). What made the case where the inquiries to GS which led to answers by GS like the quoted one special is that it was evident that not all team members were present at all caches (from the number and complexity of the visited caches and also by evidence of the type that some cachers who visited one of the affected caches on the same day when the large group met individual cachers of the team).

 

I do not see an issue if Lep and his daughter only sign as Lep. They are known to be caching together and I'm sure that none of the two would even consider to do what many of the group cachers I have in mind are doing on a regular basis.

 

One affected cache owner came up with the suggestion that the writers of such group logs should date their log with a date before the publication date - then the worthless logs would not show up among the recent logs but so far none of the involved cachers took up the suggestion (which does not suprise me).

Link to comment

Question to people who group cache:

 

If you saw this in the cache description, would you honour the request?

 

Group cachers: Instead of one group-name-of-the-day log in the logbook, please log each individual trailname in to the logbook.

 

If a cache owner placed this request on their cache, then deleted any online logs where the logger's trailname didn't appear in the logbook, do you think Groundspeak would support the cache owner or the group cacher?

The sniff test tells me it's an ALR.

 

1. The guidelines state that one should sign the logbook to claim the find.

 

2. The guidelines do not state that one should sign the logbook on behalf of the group one happens to be in at that moment so that the whole group, or anyone who claims membership of that group, can log the find.

 

So if anything, expecting #2 might be considered an ALR but expecting #1 certainly isn't.

Link to comment

The guidelines are pretty vague in this:

 

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

 

Yeah - we could interpret that as once ANYONE has signed the physical log EVERYONE can log the cache. Do you think that's what's meant?

 

The knowledge books are a bit more specific as to the process of logging a cache and in relation to the context of this discussion amount to 1. Sign the logbook 2. Log online.

Link to comment

It's funny. As I started to read this thread, I was having trouble understanding the issue with group logs. Now I see where you are coming from, but think you're also making a bold assumption that all groups are the type described as doing something wrong. Clearly I'm not alone in caching with a group that isn't at all like the ones above. I cache in the US in the summers with my family. That can be anywhere from 2-6 cachers. When it's just 2 of us, we sign individually, but when we get bigger than that, we sign as the Bean Team. I am very careful to log which exact members of Bean Team might have been present at the cache. I even refused to let my son log a cache as part of the Bean Team because he sat in the car while we hiked off the road a wee bit to get the cache (one of the best caches I've seen!). We log as a group to save log space (so many tiny logs, so little time) and to save time in muggle-rich areas. If a cache owner put that note and I saw it (doubtful), I'd respect it. But I'd also feel bad for them that we were using 6 lines of the tiny sheet (and knowing my kids, far more than that because they always end up taking up more than one line with their big old signatures!) instead of one... But that's just me and the way we group cache. I know there are some who don't function that way at all. Oh, and we were likely to have TFTC type logs early on given that I had no idea cache owners wanted to read more until I poked around on the forum. Now if the cache is in a lovely area or interesting to find, I'll log a bit. I even went back and beefed up logs for some particularly awesome finds. And, funny enough, I favorited caches that I only wrote TFTC initially... How much I write doesn't mean I don't think the cache is great. Now I'll put a little more, but sometimes words fail me but the favorite point never does ;).

Link to comment

The cache owner hides a really good cache. The first 5 finders who actually visited the cache, give it a favourite point. The cache has 100% FPs. Then group-name-of-the-day comes through with 28 people. Only one guy actually found the cache, no one else saw it. He doesn't even favorite it because he ran through the 35 of the 60 caches he found that day for the "team". Everything was a blur, he can't remember individual caches. So no one gives it an FP. The FP % dives from 100% to 15%. Then the cut n paste logs bury the good logs.

 

Different people cache different ways and assign FPs for different reasons. You're making a gravely fallacious assumption here, which is that if those 28 cachers had found the cache individually, they would have given it FPs too. If your reliance on FPs can't account for different caching styles and circumstances, it's your system that is flawed, not the people finding the caches.

 

Nope. I don't agree. 5 people in a row think the cache puzzle and final cache were clever and creative and the location was a good one, then the next 28 or 29 of 30 people have nothing to say about it, and think it's not worth an FP? Your assumption seems more out of kilter to me.

 

Five in a row is a nice streak but it's certainly not a large enough sample to extrapolate to the larger population. My "assumption" is the statistically correct point that you can't make an assumption about the next 28 people, particularly when you already know that they come from a different geocaching population with different preferences and methods. If your personal reliance on FPs insists that geocachers are a homogenous population, your system is flawed. If they were homogenous, you wouldn't need to force them to sign the log to begin with - they would already do that, because they're a homogenous group.

Link to comment

Thanks for posting exactly what I was going to write. It's probably a dying breed in this game but I imagine that there are still a few cache owners out that would like to e able to compare names in the physical log with that in the on line log.

 

However GS does not care:

 

They write mails like this (taken from a log for a cache in my area where the owner had deleted group logs before being aware that GS allows them

 

Hello!

Thank you for contacting Geocaching HQ about this. Geocachers who go geocaching together in groups area allowed to log under one name, rather than writing all of the usernames of the players who visited a geocache. For example, players Bob, Nancy, and Sally could all log under the name "Team Geocaching" in the physical logbook, but would still be allowed to individually log the find on Geocaching.com.

I hope this helps clear things up.

Geocaching HQ is currently operating with limited staff. If you need help restoring your logs, please contact us again after January 7th. We appreciate your patience and cooperation.

Happy Holidays!

 

Well that's interesting. I have my official answer.

 

Unfortunately, Groundspeak's "official answers" can be contradictory on occasion...

Link to comment

I don't see how possibly deleting logs from cachers in your area that might cache in a group would add to your overall favorite points.

 

If they experience the cache (try the puzzle, or even be shown how to solve the puzzle), and see the cache, they might have enjoyed the full experience the owner is trying to provide. If they are miffed at the owner for making them do so much for a smiley and won't FP it, well they wouldn't have FP'd it anyway. Especially when they didn't see the non-trad cache description, didn't see the connection between the puzzle or stages and the final, and were racing through the day to get as many non-trads as possible (usually to qualify for a more covetted bison tube challenge cache), and can't remember which cache was which. They might walk away with a more memorable geocaching encounter beyond the smiley count, if they visit the cache and sign it.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

but think you're also making a bold assumption that all groups are the type described as doing something wrong.

 

I do not think that anyone in this thread makes that assumption.

The fact is just that there are such groups. Until I experienced it myself I would rather have thought that such groups do not exist and if at all it would be very rare.

 

Of course there are many people caching in groups who never ever would think of doing what is common for other types of group cachers.

Link to comment

To save space (and time), the group that I sometimes cache with after breakfast at Durfs usually signs in "Durfs 9" (or however many people we have.) So far nobody has given us any problem for doing so.

 

If the cache page requested individual log entries, changes are we wouldn't have read that anyway, depending on the cache type.

 

So iffy on whether I'd bother honoring their request.

 

What would happen if the cache owner then deleted names that didn't appear in the log? Would Groundspeak side with the people who claimed to be with the team? Or with the owner who wants to prevent team finds where only one individual signs in for everyone else, but everyone else weren't at the cache.

 

I realize that the one individual could still be the only one who found the cache and signed in everyone's trailnames, but it sure would slow things down and put a damper on those group cachers looking to log quick and easy finds. Maybe they'd even skip the cache and come back when they were caching at more leisurely pace.

 

Then there's the hit on the favorite points and the online logs.

The cache owner hides a really good cache. The first 5 finders who actually visited the cache, give it a favourite point. The cache has 100% FPs. Then group-name-of-the-day comes through with 28 people. Only one guy actually found the cache, no one else saw it. He doesn't even favorite it because he ran through the 35 of the 60 caches he found that day for the "team". Everything was a blur, he can't remember individual caches. So no one gives it an FP. The FP % dives from 100% to 15%. Then the cut n paste logs bury the good logs.

 

If the owner explained this to Groundspeak, would Groundspeak side with the owner, or the group who didn't read the cache description and signed with the team name?

 

8 out of 9 people claiming a find on a cache when they weren't even there is pretty sad. If you have 50 people in your group than 50 people should sign the log. If one person signs 50 names at least they had to work a little for it. It's the only way to validate a find even if some of the finds are bogus.

 

All the rest is based on the importance of numbers. If you care less about the numbers, than none of it really matters.

Link to comment

but think you're also making a bold assumption that all groups are the type described as doing something wrong.

I do not think that anyone in this thread makes that assumption.

Perhaps they aren't making that assumption explicitly, but they are assuming that any group signing as a group needs to be checked by forcing individual logs.

 

The fact is just that there are such groups. Until I experienced it myself I would rather have thought that such groups do not exist and if at all it would be very rare.

I honestly don't think signing as a group has any relation to this behavior. In my area, the people that most often cache in groups have a group stamp that has all their individual names, so they'd fulfill the OP's signing requirement without actually doing anything different from signing manually with a group name.

 

The response you've posted from GS addresses the specific question of whether the group name is good enough. I consider that a different issue than the claim that you can prove empirically that someone wasn't at your cache despite their name was in the cache log, whether an implied name as a member of a group or an explicit individual name. If I thought I had a strong case for that, I'd delete the log without worrying about whether GS would back me on appeal. If it was appealed, I'd make the case to GS just so they understand, but I wouldn't be surprised or concerned if they had no choice but to accept the appeal and reinstate the log.

Link to comment

We log as a group to save log space (so many tiny logs, so little time) and to save time in muggle-rich areas.

 

 

I doubt you have to worry about micro owners wanting group cachers to write their trailnames in the log. For most, I imagine the logsheet is just a formality, perhaps even the container is just a formality to the real reward, the smiley and possibly the cache type icon.

 

For people who like that way of playing it's fine, but that style of play effects caches where the owner wants people to experience a fuller experience and provides plenty of room in the logbook for 50+ trailnames. And is quite happy to return to their cache to replace full logbooks.

 

Also, people who hide micros know the rules (or claim to when they click that they've read the guidelines). They agree to maintain their caches and that includes replacing logsheets. If they have 50 visitors a year they will probably going to visit their micro hide at least once a year to replace the sheet. Not a lot to ask for IMO. If it's a nano, expect to get out to it once every couple of months. Don't hide a nano if it's going to be a pain to visit it regularly. So many people think micros are no-maintenance cache types.

Link to comment

To save space (and time), the group that I sometimes cache with after breakfast at Durfs usually signs in "Durfs 9" (or however many people we have.) So far nobody has given us any problem for doing so.

 

If the cache page requested individual log entries, changes are we wouldn't have read that anyway, depending on the cache type.

 

So iffy on whether I'd bother honoring their request.

 

What would happen if the cache owner then deleted names that didn't appear in the log? Would Groundspeak side with the people who claimed to be with the team? Or with the owner who wants to prevent team finds where only one individual signs in for everyone else, but everyone else weren't at the cache.

 

I realize that the one individual could still be the only one who found the cache and signed in everyone's trailnames, but it sure would slow things down and put a damper on those group cachers looking to log quick and easy finds. Maybe they'd even skip the cache and come back when they were caching at more leisurely pace.

 

Then there's the hit on the favorite points and the online logs.

The cache owner hides a really good cache. The first 5 finders who actually visited the cache, give it a favourite point. The cache has 100% FPs. Then group-name-of-the-day comes through with 28 people. Only one guy actually found the cache, no one else saw it. He doesn't even favorite it because he ran through the 35 of the 60 caches he found that day for the "team". Everything was a blur, he can't remember individual caches. So no one gives it an FP. The FP % dives from 100% to 15%. Then the cut n paste logs bury the good logs.

 

If the owner explained this to Groundspeak, would Groundspeak side with the owner, or the group who didn't read the cache description and signed with the team name?

 

8 out of 9 people claiming a find on a cache when they weren't even there is pretty sad. If you have 50 people in your group than 50 people should sign the log. If one person signs 50 names at least they had to work a little for it. It's the only way to validate a find even if some of the finds are bogus.

 

All the rest is based on the importance of numbers. If you care less about the numbers, than none of it really matters.

 

50 people in a group? That's not 50 people caching. That's one person - MAYBE two or three people - caching and the rest just participating in a mobile event.

Link to comment

To save space (and time), the group that I sometimes cache with after breakfast at Durfs usually signs in "Durfs 9" (or however many people we have.) So far nobody has given us any problem for doing so.

 

If the cache page requested individual log entries, changes are we wouldn't have read that anyway, depending on the cache type.

 

So iffy on whether I'd bother honoring their request.

 

What would happen if the cache owner then deleted names that didn't appear in the log? Would Groundspeak side with the people who claimed to be with the team? Or with the owner who wants to prevent team finds where only one individual signs in for everyone else, but everyone else weren't at the cache.

 

I realize that the one individual could still be the only one who found the cache and signed in everyone's trailnames, but it sure would slow things down and put a damper on those group cachers looking to log quick and easy finds. Maybe they'd even skip the cache and come back when they were caching at more leisurely pace.

 

Then there's the hit on the favorite points and the online logs.

The cache owner hides a really good cache. The first 5 finders who actually visited the cache, give it a favourite point. The cache has 100% FPs. Then group-name-of-the-day comes through with 28 people. Only one guy actually found the cache, no one else saw it. He doesn't even favorite it because he ran through the 35 of the 60 caches he found that day for the "team". Everything was a blur, he can't remember individual caches. So no one gives it an FP. The FP % dives from 100% to 15%. Then the cut n paste logs bury the good logs.

 

If the owner explained this to Groundspeak, would Groundspeak side with the owner, or the group who didn't read the cache description and signed with the team name?

 

8 out of 9 people claiming a find on a cache when they weren't even there is pretty sad. If you have 50 people in your group than 50 people should sign the log. If one person signs 50 names at least they had to work a little for it. It's the only way to validate a find even if some of the finds are bogus.

 

All the rest is based on the importance of numbers. If you care less about the numbers, than none of it really matters.

 

50 people in a group? That's not 50 people caching. That's one person - MAYBE two or three people - caching and the rest just participating in a mobile event.

 

Yup, that example is an easy one. Regardless, every finders name should be in the log book. How it got there? The world may never know.

 

Is there any reason why a cacher would join a "group"? Apart from numbers and the unwillingness to take 10 seconds to actually sign your name. I think of "team" I think of a group of people caching together. From what I'm reading that's not the idea.

Link to comment

I don't see how possibly deleting logs from cachers in your area that might cache in a group would add to your overall favorite points.

 

If they experience the cache (try the puzzle, or even be shown how to solve the puzzle), and see the cache, they might have enjoyed the full experience the owner is trying to provide. If they are miffed at the owner for making them do so much for a smiley and won't FP it, well they wouldn't have FP'd it anyway. Especially when they didn't see the non-trad cache description, didn't see the connection between the puzzle or stages and the final, and were racing through the day to get as many non-trads as possible (usually to qualify for a more covetted bison tube challenge cache), and can't remember which cache was which. They might walk away with a more memorable geocaching encounter beyond the smiley count, if they visit the cache and sign it.

 

As much as you may disdain this behaviour for the impact it has on your personal interpretation of FPs, it's just not reasonable within the current parameters of the game to demand this of cachers. What it really amounts to is that you are attempting to discriminate against people who are unlikely to give you a sufficient level of praise for your cache.

Link to comment

The response you've posted from GS addresses the specific question of whether the group name is good enough. I consider that a different issue than the claim that you can prove empirically that someone wasn't at your cache despite their name was in the cache log, whether an implied name as a member of a group or an explicit individual name. If I thought I had a strong case for that, I'd delete the log without worrying about whether GS would back me on appeal. If it was appealed, I'd make the case to GS just so they understand, but I wouldn't be surprised or concerned if they had no choice but to accept the appeal and reinstate the log.

 

If they create a group account then log their find under the group account that would be great with me. This was typically how it started - a family cached together and their finds were recorded under the family team name. It wasn't used as a way to increase the numbers count, more as a tool to manage their family finds. It was possible that wife might have found the cache without husband, that wasn't such a big issue as it is today where 10-40 people get together for the purpose of maximizing their find counts for the day. The 'don't want to fill the logsheet' reason, seems like an excuse. No one wants to say that it's more about moving along quicker. If the plan is to maximize cache finds for the day, having everyone stand around for 5 or 10 minutes to sign each cache cuts the number of total finds down a lot.

 

Oddly, I look forward to that moment of surrender where I stop railing against the dying light and go gently into that good night. It might be cathartic to stop hiding caches.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

I don't see how possibly deleting logs from cachers in your area that might cache in a group would add to your overall favorite points.

 

If they experience the cache (try the puzzle, or even be shown how to solve the puzzle), and see the cache, they might have enjoyed the full experience the owner is trying to provide. If they are miffed at the owner for making them do so much for a smiley and won't FP it, well they wouldn't have FP'd it anyway. Especially when they didn't see the non-trad cache description, didn't see the connection between the puzzle or stages and the final, and were racing through the day to get as many non-trads as possible (usually to qualify for a more covetted bison tube challenge cache), and can't remember which cache was which. They might walk away with a more memorable geocaching encounter beyond the smiley count, if they visit the cache and sign it.

 

As much as you may disdain this behaviour for the impact it has on your personal interpretation of FPs, it's just not reasonable within the current parameters of the game to demand this of cachers. What it really amounts to is that you are attempting to discriminate against people who are unlikely to give you a sufficient level of praise for your cache.

 

I'm "discriminating" against people who have a negative effect on my cache listing and to the game as a whole.

BTW, I googled a definition for discriminating and it says "having or showing refined taste or good judgment." :)

Link to comment

I don't see how possibly deleting logs from cachers in your area that might cache in a group would add to your overall favorite points.

 

If they experience the cache (try the puzzle, or even be shown how to solve the puzzle), and see the cache, they might have enjoyed the full experience the owner is trying to provide. If they are miffed at the owner for making them do so much for a smiley and won't FP it, well they wouldn't have FP'd it anyway. Especially when they didn't see the non-trad cache description, didn't see the connection between the puzzle or stages and the final, and were racing through the day to get as many non-trads as possible (usually to qualify for a more covetted bison tube challenge cache), and can't remember which cache was which. They might walk away with a more memorable geocaching encounter beyond the smiley count, if they visit the cache and sign it.

 

As much as you may disdain this behaviour for the impact it has on your personal interpretation of FPs, it's just not reasonable within the current parameters of the game to demand this of cachers. What it really amounts to is that you are attempting to discriminate against people who are unlikely to give you a sufficient level of praise for your cache.

 

I'm "discriminating" against people who have a negative effect on my cache listing and to the game as a whole.

 

Well, you're attempting to discriminate against people who play the game in a manner you don't like. Your claims about the effect on your cache listing are highly subjective.

 

As much I, personally, prefer it when people write detailed logs, it's not something that can be enforced. While I always take care to assign my FPs (though probably not in a manner you would personally approve of in terms of your personal system), it's not something I can force others to do. While my husband and I design our caches to attract higher quality people to them, we understand that we can't actually stop lower quality people from finding them if they so choose. We certainly can't force people to like, or even grudgingly respect, our caches.

 

The way the game works, at least in terms of listings on Geocaching.com, does not permit cache owners to blatantly discriminate against groups of geocachers who are following the rules.

Link to comment

does not permit cache owners to blatantly discriminate against groups of geocachers who are following the rules.

 

Do you really think that if 15 people visit a cache together on March 14 and call them Team PieDay just on that day and there is a single signature on the log sheet saying Team PieDay that this following what is the spirit of the logging rule? In earlier years I would not have believed that GS ever came to the conclusion that it is but meanwhile nothing surprises me any longer.

 

I learnt to accept that signing does not really mean signing and that it can be a stamp too and also not everyone necessarily signs themselves but if not even the trailnames of the cachers at the cache are listed (if the log book allows it easily), what purpose does the signing serve at all? Team X could sign whatever cache they want and whenever someone wants to have a find, they claim to have been part of team X on that day (some cachers are behind with logging a year or more). It somehow lets end up logging and log book checks being completely absurd.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...