Asking group cachers to sign log with individual trailnames

[+Touchstone]

How long dose it take to sign a log? Someone please give us some legitimate reasons why each person in "a team" couldn't take 10 seconds to sign a log?

On a long hike, I could see resorting to that type of strategy in the interest of safety. Better than the alternative of having family members back home harassing the sheriff's office to call out the SAR. I think that sort of scenario would fall into the category of common sense.

 

Common sense would be not organising a hike where a few seconds spent signing logs became a matter of life and death though

 

If you've time to search for the cache you really should have time to sign the log and re-hide the cache properly

In your perfect world scenario, your explanation makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, I've seen plenty of examples to the contrary. As a cache owner, I find it perfectly acceptable to accept the group logging , particularly if it comes with an epic log entry.

[+Team Microdot]

How long dose it take to sign a log? Someone please give us some legitimate reasons why each person in "a team" couldn't take 10 seconds to sign a log?

On a long hike, I could see resorting to that type of strategy in the interest of safety. Better than the alternative of having family members back home harassing the sheriff's office to call out the SAR. I think that sort of scenario would fall into the category of common sense.

 

Common sense would be not organising a hike where a few seconds spent signing logs became a matter of life and death though

 

If you've time to search for the cache you really should have time to sign the log and re-hide the cache properly

In your perfect world scenario, your explanation makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, I've seen plenty of examples to the contrary. As a cache owner, I find it perfectly acceptable to accept the group logging , particularly if it comes with an epic log entry.

 

I wouldn't personally describe my scenario as perfect - just common sense - which is good enough, wouldn't you agree?

 

If I find that I'm in danger of needing rescue by emergency services if I stop to sign a log I'd have to admit that common sense had gone out of the window and I'd made a right pig's ear of things. I certainly wouldn't blame the need to sign a bit of paper for my shoddy planning.

[+Touchstone]

How long dose it take to sign a log? Someone please give us some legitimate reasons why each person in "a team" couldn't take 10 seconds to sign a log?

On a long hike, I could see resorting to that type of strategy in the interest of safety. Better than the alternative of having family members back home harassing the sheriff's office to call out the SAR. I think that sort of scenario would fall into the category of common sense.

 

Common sense would be not organising a hike where a few seconds spent signing logs became a matter of life and death though

 

If you've time to search for the cache you really should have time to sign the log and re-hide the cache properly

In your perfect world scenario, your explanation makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, I've seen plenty of examples to the contrary. As a cache owner, I find it perfectly acceptable to accept the group logging , particularly if it comes with an epic log entry.

 

I wouldn't personally describe my scenario as perfect - just common sense - which is good enough, wouldn't you agree?

 

If I find that I'm in danger of needing rescue by emergency services if I stop to sign a log I'd have to admit that common sense had gone out of the window and I'd made a right pig's ear of things. I certainly wouldn't blame the need to sign a bit of paper for my shoddy planning.

I guess we are talking about two different things then. Yes, I agree that good planning is an essential part of long hike that involves caching. My explanation was in regards to the part of the hike where the plan kind of falls apart, and there is still the desire to log as many caches as reasonably and safely as possible. Under those specific set of circumstances, I don't have an issue with group logging. If it's just plain laziness, that's too bad, but I can't police that sort of thing.

[+Team Microdot]

How long dose it take to sign a log? Someone please give us some legitimate reasons why each person in "a team" couldn't take 10 seconds to sign a log?

On a long hike, I could see resorting to that type of strategy in the interest of safety. Better than the alternative of having family members back home harassing the sheriff's office to call out the SAR. I think that sort of scenario would fall into the category of common sense.

 

Common sense would be not organising a hike where a few seconds spent signing logs became a matter of life and death though

 

If you've time to search for the cache you really should have time to sign the log and re-hide the cache properly

In your perfect world scenario, your explanation makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, I've seen plenty of examples to the contrary. As a cache owner, I find it perfectly acceptable to accept the group logging , particularly if it comes with an epic log entry.

 

I wouldn't personally describe my scenario as perfect - just common sense - which is good enough, wouldn't you agree?

 

If I find that I'm in danger of needing rescue by emergency services if I stop to sign a log I'd have to admit that common sense had gone out of the window and I'd made a right pig's ear of things. I certainly wouldn't blame the need to sign a bit of paper for my shoddy planning.

I guess we are talking about two different things then. Yes, I agree that good planning is an essential part of long hike that involves caching. My explanation was in regards to the part of the hike where the plan kind of falls apart, and there is still the desire to log as many caches as reasonably and safely as possible. Under those specific set of circumstances, I don't have an issue with group logging. If it's just plain laziness, that's too bad, but I can't police that sort of thing.

 

Well yes - I suppose it is difficult to mitigate for this imaginary cacher who, worrying that their family is going to call out an emergency search and rescue team still prioritises finding as many caches as possible - but saving vital seconds by not signing the log each time...

 

I must admit though - I'm struggling to find much sympathy for the excuse.

[+Coalforge]

I saw one cache where this was done. It was a full size cache and the log was a spiral notebook. The cover of the yellow notebook asked each person who visited the cache in October or November to sign in individually for a school project. I went looking but I can't find the cache listing now. This was before I started caching on my own and I was just along on a hike with a friend.

[+L0ne.R]

As a cache owner, I find it perfectly acceptable to accept the group logging , particularly if it comes with an epic log entry.

 

That's part of the problem, they don't come with an epic log entry. They come with a generic GSAK-like entry that everyone uses, so you get 30+ logs over the next couple of weeks that basically say:

 

"Thanks Bob for organizing today's adventure. To save time and space we signed the log MPC. We found 30 non-traditionals plus 15 traditionals and now qualify for Big C's 10-10-10 challenge cache. Thanks to all the cache owners for maintaining their caches."

 

Which brings me to the other issue. Power groups often throw down caches.

Caches I've NM'd, mysteriously get found by the group. The cache has a string of DNFs, easy D rating, give-away hint, I couldn't find it either. It has an absentee owner who hasn't logged in to the site in months and doesn't OM the cache, yet everyone in the group makes the find.

[cezanne]

How long dose it take to sign a log? Someone please give us some legitimate reasons why each person in "a team" couldn't take 10 seconds to sign a log?

On a long hike, I could see resorting to that type of strategy in the interest of safety. Better than the alternative of having family members back home harassing the sheriff's office to call out the SAR. I think that sort of scenario would fall into the category of common sense.

 

While I do not think that 10 seconds will play a role when being on a long hike (and yes, I've been on a number of long hikes on which I went for just a single cache and everyone who goes for a hunt involving many caches is much more endangered by the search time required), the point I'd like to make is that it is not so much about whether there are situations where cache owners will typically accept group logs, but rather that it is unfortunate that this should be the default mode. Many cache owners accept photo logs if the cachers forgot a pen or if the container was frozen in, but until now they are not forced to do that which makes a big difference.

 

In one setting the cache owners can use their common sense to decide whether or not the described scenarios seems credible, in the other they are forced to accept group logs even when it is proven that what is claimed cannot have happened and the latter is painful to many cache owners and it turned logging to an absurd matter in my opinion.

[+justintim1999]

How long dose it take to sign a log? Someone please give us some legitimate reasons why each person in "a team" couldn't take 10 seconds to sign a log?

 

Maybe because they are miles away, logging a different cache for the team....

 

That's fine as long as each individual in the team doesn't log the cache as a find. The find is under the "team" name only.

Edited March 13, 2016 by justintim1999

[+boothie103]

My view and humble opinion, as such that can be offered which will most probably offend, is that if you cannot find the cache yourself and a member of the group finds it before you do, then you should log a DNF. After all, you did not find it, you were shown where it was. So how can you claim you found it? I would be all for such posts being logged as found by a group being deleted from all caches. If you did not find it, it is not yours to log. You are only cheating yourself. I am all for logs saying found in the company of so and so when a cacher is first starting out but team logging to me defies the purpose of the game.

The option I like with a group, not team logging, is the first person who finds the cache walks away and lets the others find it. The strict rule is that if a person cannot locate the cache, they post a DNF and walk away so that the group can sign the cache as individuals. This allows the person who didn't find it a second try and gives the CO an indication that people are seriously searching for the cache.

[+Touchstone]

It's becoming apparent to me, reading through the posts, that there is a very fundamental difference on what caching IS. It seems like quite a few folks put a lot of emphasis on the cache, logbook and how the Find is documented properly. I'm more of the old school of thought, that the cache site and experience are more important than how you sign the logbook. Turning geocaching into a bean counting exercise is not my idea of fun. Then again, that is precisely the reason I ignore most Challenge Listings.

[cezanne]

It's becoming apparent to me, reading through the posts, that there is a very fundamental difference on what caching IS. It seems like quite a few folks put a lot of emphasis on the cache, logbook and how the Find is documented properly. I'm more of the old school of thought, that the cache site and experience are more important than how you sign the logbook. Turning geocaching into a bean counting exercise is not my idea of fun. Then again, that is precisely the reason I ignore most Challenge Listings.

 

Actually, I'm old school too, but in the scenario that makes cachers come up with a request as mentioned in the first post, the experience that the cache owner wanted to share is also not what the majority of the group loggers end up with (many of them not even have been at the site).

It's ususally them who justify whatever they do by "signing the log is enough" and so it was somehow a last ray of hope to at least them to some degree with their sort of argument.

Edited March 13, 2016 by cezanne

[+geodarts]

My view and humble opinion, as such that can be offered which will most probably offend, is that if you cannot find the cache yourself and a member of the group finds it before you do, then you should log a DNF. After all, you did not find it, you were shown where it was. So how can you claim you found it? I would be all for such posts being logged as found by a group being deleted from all caches. If you did not find it, it is not yours to log. You are only cheating yourself.

 

Although I doubt we would go caching together, I was not offended until you got to the "c" word. Perhaps we can reach a deal: you don't label me and I won't label you with the words that came to mind. We enjoy different aspects of this game, we play it in different ways, the game accommodates both. It's not so much as getting offended, but I do sigh when people want to talk about deleting logs, cheating, and the nature of a find. Life is complicated enough.

 

From time to time, I cache with a group when hiking or kayaking. With a larger group, we sign under a single group name. I stop looking when the cache is found. Some of us may write online logs, others of us do not. I have never cut and pasted. We do not leave throwdowns.

 

If there are two or three of us, and one of us spots the container, the first one who sees it does not walk away until the next person sees it. Sometimes we spot it at the same time while walking up to the area and it's simply a matter of who has the better reach or whose turn it is to be covered by ants that are all over the cache. The first one to open the container usually does the honors and signs the trail names. I'll usually use abbreviations. I do not see the point in passing a log around so that I can add my own abbreviation or a kind of illegible scrawl.

 

I do not attach ritual significance to the signature in the log. It does not instill more value or add magic to the cache. In the old days I would often write something at the cache site, but the rise of micros changed that aspect of this game. A container is a container. The log is a log. I'll leave a longer log if something inspires it, but a signature is not the most important aspect of this game for me. I have dropped my pen on a trail and signed with leaves or used my letterboxing stamp. Sometimes my signature is more legible than others. I might use my real name. Or initials with a personal mark. I may not be sure of the date and make a reasonable guess. The log may be full and I have to pick any open space to leave an initial that may not easily be identifiable. Sometimes my partner adds my name to the cache because I am taking a picture. Sometimes another cacher will sign my name because it's easier for any number of reasons. Still. I consider each of my caches marked as a find to be a find, and log a dnf if the container was not found within my parameters. It works for me. I am not cheating myself in any way.

 

As a CO, why would I want to delete a log if people use a group name or question if each individual really found the cache as I might define it? I am not that concerned if a team split up so that some people are logging finds on my cache in situations where I wouldn't do it. My caches are placed for reasons that go beyond finding a container so it is their loss and not mine if part of the team was elsewhere. I am not going to police a team. I will delete an obvious armchair log but that is a slightly different issue.

 

But to answer the original question, on a group hike it is unlikely that I would read the cache description before logging so a request would be meaningless. I generally only read descriptions before finding a cache if I am on my own or traveling with my family - I pick and choose caches so a description can help determine if there is some reason to stop for a cache, But on a group hike or kayak, there are different considerations.

 

Of course the underlying concern has more to do with group caching than how a cache log is signed. Loss of favorite points: if I saw a request afterwards, I would not award a favorite point. (I give very few favorites in any event so it is unlikely to be affected by whether I sign the log as an individual or as part of a group.) Meaningless online logs: I have never cut and pasted a log but people might find my logs to be meaningless if they are looking for cache information, particularly if something triggered a stream of consciousness. I see meaningless acronyms and pasting from people who are not part of a group but do not want to enforce my aesthetics on anyone else.

 

I would quit this game if Groundspeak ever banned group caching and beyond that it creates meaningless headaches to try to enforce any rules on how a log is signed. Who can tell if a signature is genuine? If a team did not sign for others who are caching elsewhere? If one member saw the cache and signed for everyone? If the name that is signed is a current trail name? Or if each member of the team has been certified against the use of performance enhancing drugs?

Edited March 13, 2016 by geodarts

[+K13]

How long dose it take to sign a log? Someone please give us some legitimate reasons why each person in "a team" couldn't take 10 seconds to sign a log?

 

Maybe because they are miles away, logging a different cache for the team....

 

That's fine as long as each individual in the team doesn't log the cache as a find. The find is under the "team" name only.

 

Usually, the team members log all the caches for the day, because there is no team account.

[+narcissa]

I don't see how asking each cacher to sign their name to the log is an ALR. I see that as a strawman argument.

 

I don't see where the guidelines prohibit team names or, explicitly or implicitly, give any indication that each account that logs the cache must have a unique log in the logbook. Threatening deletion for not complying with made-up rules is an ALR.

[+narcissa]

The following hypothetical is no more ridiculous than some of the other posts in this thread.

 

Maybe the OP has experienced something like this......I've heard (and read here) about some of the most prolific finders will fly to an area, split up into 3 or 4 groups, each headed in a different direction with a list of caches and a 'Team Mogul Stamp' for the finds. They meet back at the end of the day to log all finds from each of the team's groups.

I'm guessing that the OP believes that this is not in the spirit of geocaching and wants to make sure that only those who were actually at GZ are credited with the smiley.

 

As a responsible cache owner, the OP is attempting to prevent armchair logging of a cache. The OP's concern seems reasonable to me.

 

The concern and belief about the "spirit of geocaching" is reasonable to an extent, but there isn't really anything prohibiting this type of logging. That makes it difficult to back up if someone challenges subsequent log deletions.

[cezanne]

I don't see where the guidelines prohibit team names or, explicitly or implicitly, give any indication that each account that logs the cache must have a unique log in the logbook. Threatening deletion for not complying with made-up rules is an ALR.

 

The question that arises is just the following: Suppose that there exists a single log entry on say March 14, 2015 with a name not matching to an account at gc.com. Then over years as many cachers can log a find online for March 14, 2015. Is this really what the guidelines intend to say about logs? Forget about the log deletion issue and just focus on whether it's a meaningful rule when interpreted in this way.

[+K13]

I don't see how asking each cacher to sign their name to the log is an ALR. I see that as a strawman argument.

 

I don't see where the guidelines prohibit team names or, explicitly or implicitly, give any indication that each account that logs the cache must have a unique log in the logbook. Threatening deletion for not complying with made-up rules is an ALR.

 

No one has said that signing with team names is against any guideline. The guidelines do state (as many of us understand it) that it is a responsibility of the CO to not allow armchair or other false logs. Without each cacher's name in the paper log, how can this be done?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The following hypothetical is no more ridiculous than some of the other posts in this thread.

 

Maybe the OP has experienced something like this......I've heard (and read here) about some of the most prolific finders will fly to an area, split up into 3 or 4 groups, each headed in a different direction with a list of caches and a 'Team Mogul Stamp' for the finds. They meet back at the end of the day to log all finds from each of the team's groups.

I'm guessing that the OP believes that this is not in the spirit of geocaching and wants to make sure that only those who were actually at GZ are credited with the smiley.

 

As a responsible cache owner, the OP is attempting to prevent armchair logging of a cache. The OP's concern seems reasonable to me.

 

The concern and belief about the "spirit of geocaching" is reasonable to an extent, but there isn't really anything prohibiting this type of logging. That makes it difficult to back up if someone challenges subsequent log deletions.

 

The guidelines don't stipulate that we have to be honest, respectful towards other player, or play the game with integrity either, yet I believe that's how everyone should play.

 

 

[+narcissa]

I don't see how asking each cacher to sign their name to the log is an ALR. I see that as a strawman argument.

 

I don't see where the guidelines prohibit team names or, explicitly or implicitly, give any indication that each account that logs the cache must have a unique log in the logbook. Threatening deletion for not complying with made-up rules is an ALR.

 

No one has said that signing with team names is against any guideline. The guidelines do state (as many of us understand it) that it is a responsibility of the CO to not allow armchair or other false logs. Without each cacher's name in the paper log, how can this be done?

 

If the cache owner is acting in good faith to delete logs that actually appear to be false, then it shouldn't be a big deal to own up to a mistake if someone comes forward to say that their legitimate log was deleted. This post is about deleting logs because they don't comply with an unreasonable request on the cache page. Cache owners who delete logs based on personal preferences are not acting in good faith.

[+narcissa]

I don't see where the guidelines prohibit team names or, explicitly or implicitly, give any indication that each account that logs the cache must have a unique log in the logbook. Threatening deletion for not complying with made-up rules is an ALR.

 

The question that arises is just the following: Suppose that there exists a single log entry on say March 14, 2015 with a name not matching to an account at gc.com. Then over years as many cachers can log a find online for March 14, 2015. Is this really what the guidelines intend to say about logs? Forget about the log deletion issue and just focus on whether it's a meaningful rule when interpreted in this way.

 

The guidelines don't appear to address this. If you are having this problem with your caches then perhaps you should discuss it with Groundspeak.

[+niraD]

How long dose it take to sign a log? Someone please give us some legitimate reasons why each person in "a team" couldn't take 10 seconds to sign a log?

When I've been with a group that has used an informal team name, it usually hasn't been about how long it takes to pass the log around, or even how long it takes for one person to sign everyone's names. We've usually done it as a favor to the cache owner, to avoid filling the log with everyone's signatures. But we could fill up the log with everyone's names, and then post a bunch of NM logs along with our Find logs.

 

Although, to be honest, there have been a few times when we've used an informal team name as a favor to the person retrieving and signing the log. But those have been unusual situations, like when the person retrieving and signing the log was standing in his kayak, with the rest of us working to steady him and his kayak.

[+niraD]

The guidelines do state (as many of us understand it) that it is a responsibility of the CO to not allow armchair or other false logs. Without each cacher's name in the paper log, how can this be done?

The last time I was with a group that used an informal team name, I listed the geocaching names of everyone who was using that team name in a log, and all the other logs from that trip linked to the first one.

 

Of course, the BBCode links are now broken, but at the time they were working links.

Edited March 14, 2016 by niraD

[+narcissa]

How long dose it take to sign a log? Someone please give us some legitimate reasons why each person in "a team" couldn't take 10 seconds to sign a log?

 

This is really beside the point. I understand that some people find this frustrating, but the team log cat has been out of the bag for a loooooooong time.

[+fizzymagic]

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 would honor the request, but my opinion of the CO would change, and not for the better.

 

I used to insist that I sign every log individually for every cache I found; I stopped after I realized that for many caches, my signatures were taking up valuable log real-estate that meant more frequent maintenance. So now I will allow myself to be included in group logs for caches with small logsheets, as a favor to the CO.

 

Thinking of others besides yourself can make the game much more pleasant.

[+K13]

I don't see how asking each cacher to sign their name to the log is an ALR. I see that as a strawman argument.

 

I don't see where the guidelines prohibit team names or, explicitly or implicitly, give any indication that each account that logs the cache must have a unique log in the logbook. Threatening deletion for not complying with made-up rules is an ALR.

 

No one has said that signing with team names is against any guideline. The guidelines do state (as many of us understand it) that it is a responsibility of the CO to not allow armchair or other false logs. Without each cacher's name in the paper log, how can this be done?

 

If the cache owner is acting in good faith to delete logs that actually appear to be false, then it shouldn't be a big deal to own up to a mistake if someone comes forward to say that their legitimate log was deleted. This post is about deleting logs because they don't comply with an unreasonable request on the cache page. Cache owners who delete logs based on personal preferences are not acting in good faith.

 

Are you saying that signing your name on the log is an unreasonable request?

[+SwineFlew]

And those virtual cache owner can be hard to deal with.

 

I know of one guy that was so nit picking and was deleting group find on his virtuals.

[+The Jester]

I don't see how asking each cacher to sign their name to the log is an ALR. I see that as a strawman argument.

 

I don't see where the guidelines prohibit team names or, explicitly or implicitly, give any indication that each account that logs the cache must have a unique log in the logbook. Threatening deletion for not complying with made-up rules is an ALR.

 

No one has said that signing with team names is against any guideline. The guidelines do state (as many of us understand it) that it is a responsibility of the CO to not allow armchair or other false logs. Without each cacher's name in the paper log, how can this be done?

 

If the cache owner is acting in good faith to delete logs that actually appear to be false, then it shouldn't be a big deal to own up to a mistake if someone comes forward to say that their legitimate log was deleted. This post is about deleting logs because they don't comply with an unreasonable request on the cache page. Cache owners who delete logs based on personal preferences are not acting in good faith.

 

Are you saying that signing your name on the log is an unreasonable request?

No, but insisting that only individual names written on a log sheet is a valid find is an unreasonable request.

[+The Jester]

My view and humble opinion, as such that can be offered which will most probably offend, is that if you cannot find the cache yourself and a member of the group finds it before you do, then you should log a DNF. After all, you did not find it, you were shown where it was. So how can you claim you found it? I would be all for such posts being logged as found by a group being deleted from all caches. If you did not find it, it is not yours to log. You are only cheating yourself. I am all for logs saying found in the company of so and so when a cacher is first starting out but team logging to me defies the purpose of the game.

The option I like with a group, not team logging, is the first person who finds the cache walks away and lets the others find it. The strict rule is that if a person cannot locate the cache, they post a DNF and walk away so that the group can sign the cache as individuals. This allows the person who didn't find it a second try and gives the CO an indication that people are seriously searching for the cache.

Fine, that's your opinion. I just wonder if you extend that to team sports? Does only the player that scores the winning points in the SuperBowl get the ring? My view is team effort equals team rewared. Just because I'm checking this side of the stump while the cache is found on the other side, doesn't negate the teamwork I've added to the group. I, personally, do like to find the cche myself, but have been in teams where the first to find it calls out to everyone. Often in deep woods a 5-10 man team may be spread out over a good area with signal drift under the canopy. Should we then have everyone trample the area around the cache so everyone can 'find' it? Or gather close, trampling more bushes so the log can be passed around?

[+The Jester]

How long dose it take to sign a log? Someone please give us some legitimate reasons why each person in "a team" couldn't take 10 seconds to sign a log?

I've seen caches hidden along cliff lines where it's very awkward or dangerous to have to pass the log book/sheet around. One in the Reno area where the cache is up a tree at the cliff edge. The cache is able to be spotted from the edge, but is a somewhat tricky climb to get. So should the cacher doing the retrieve add to his risk by making multiple trips up and down just for everyone to sign?

 

Or another in the North Cascades, where the approach involved the right set of ledges and drops to get to the cache, with room for only one or two to actually be out there. Trees/brush made it impossible to even pass it to the guy on the other end of the ledge, about 4 feet away. It wasn't particualrly dangerous, but it would take a lot more than "10 seconds" to pass the log around to people above the cliffs, below the cliffs and on the other side of inpenetrable tree/brush lines.

[cezanne]

 

I've seen caches hidden along cliff lines where it's very awkward or dangerous to have to pass the log book/sheet around. One in the Reno area where the cache is up a tree at the cliff edge. The cache is able to be spotted from the edge, but is a somewhat tricky climb to get. So should the cacher doing the retrieve add to his risk by making multiple trips up and down just for everyone to sign?

 

What you write does not explain that much why the person doing the climb could not indicate who has visited the cache apart from the fact that I would not be willing to log a find for a cache that I cannot reach.

 

What all these examples will definitely not address is the situation when it is evident that part of the group was not even present at some caches they log.

[cezanne]

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 would honor the request, but my opinion of the CO would change, and not for the better.

 

I used to insist that I sign every log individually for every cache I found; I stopped after I realized that for many caches, my signatures were taking up valuable log real-estate that meant more frequent maintenance. So now I will allow myself to be included in group logs for caches with small logsheets, as a favor to the CO.

 

Thinking of others besides yourself can make the game much more pleasant.

 

I do not understand why this request would let you end up with a worse opinion on the cache owner. Forget about potential log deletions as the request you cited does not mention them. It's a request.

 

The cache owner who puts such a request into a cache description will certainly know how large the log book is and how often he/she is willing to change it. In my opinion honoring the request without gruntling over the cache owner can be considered as thinking of others besides yourself, right? Does it make sense to defend a group log in a huge log book with the argument that there are micros?

 

I very well believe that you insisted on logging individually each cache, but there are many cachers who log caches without even having been there. Asking for a list of the individual cachers taking part makes it at least a bit more work for those people at whom requests like the above are targeted - it's not about cachers like you.

Edited March 14, 2016 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

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 would honor the request, but my opinion of the CO would change, and not for the better.

 

I used to insist that I sign every log individually for every cache I found; I stopped after I realized that for many caches, my signatures were taking up valuable log real-estate that meant more frequent maintenance. So now I will allow myself to be included in group logs for caches with small logsheets, as a favor to the CO.

 

Thinking of others besides yourself can make the game much more pleasant.

 

I do not understand why this request would let you end up with a worse opinion on the cache owner. Forget about potential log deletions as the request you cited does not mention them. It's a request.

 

The cache owner who puts such a request into a cache description will certainly know how large the log book is and how often he/she is willing to change it. In my opinion honoring the request without gruntling over the cache owner can be considered as thinking of others besides yourself, right? Does it make sense to defend a group log in a huge log book with the argument that there are micros?

 

I very well believe that you insisted on logging individually each cache, but there are many cachers who log caches without even having been there. Asking for a list of the individual cachers taking part makes it at least a bit more work for those people at whom requests like the above are targeted - it's not about cachers like you.

 

Nicely put

[+justintim1999]

How long dose it take to sign a log? Someone please give us some legitimate reasons why each person in "a team" couldn't take 10 seconds to sign a log?

 

This is really beside the point. I understand that some people find this frustrating, but the team log cat has been out of the bag for a loooooooong time.

 

The fact that it's been around for a long time doesn't make it right.

 

I have no problem when one person in a group find a cache and all present sign the log. I have an issue with a team of six people, all in different places claim all the finds. Now if each of the six individuals sign everyone's name in the log book individually than what can you do? When all six sign the log book with the team name the cache owner has no way of verifying that all six were at the cache together.

 

I'm all for allowing people to play the game the way they choose. If we can't agree on what constitutes a find than everything is on the table right?

 

Unless ground speak clearly defines what a find is and enforces it, what recourse dose the cache owner really have?

[+narcissa]

How long dose it take to sign a log? Someone please give us some legitimate reasons why each person in "a team" couldn't take 10 seconds to sign a log?

 

This is really beside the point. I understand that some people find this frustrating, but the team log cat has been out of the bag for a loooooooong time.

 

The fact that it's been around for a long time doesn't make it right.

 

I have no problem when one person in a group find a cache and all present sign the log. I have an issue with a team of six people, all in different places claim all the finds. Now if each of the six individuals sign everyone's name in the log book individually than what can you do? When all six sign the log book with the team name the cache owner has no way of verifying that all six were at the cache together.

 

I'm all for allowing people to play the game the way they choose. If we can't agree on what constitutes a find than everything is on the table right?

 

Unless ground speak clearly defines what a find is and enforces it, what recourse dose the cache owner really have?

 

The cache owner's best option, most of the time, is to assume that other geocachers are acting in good faith rather than taking an inherently antagonistic position against them to start with. If your starting point it to view all logs and all other geocachers with malice and suspicion, I rather wonder why you would play this game at all.

[+narcissa]

I do not understand why this request would let you end up with a worse opinion on the cache owner. Forget about potential log deletions as the request you cited does not mention them. It's a request.

 

This sort of request makes it very clear that the cache owner is entirely too focused on trying to control other people's behaviour. This level of fuss about something that boils down to a personal preference simply isn't worthy of regard.

[+Team Microdot]

I do not understand why this request would let you end up with a worse opinion on the cache owner. Forget about potential log deletions as the request you cited does not mention them. It's a request.

 

This sort of request makes it very clear that the cache owner is entirely too focused on trying to control other people's behaviour. This level of fuss about something that boils down to a personal preference simply isn't worthy of regard.

 

And yet you continue to debate it...

[cezanne]

I do not understand why this request would let you end up with a worse opinion on the cache owner. Forget about potential log deletions as the request you cited does not mention them. It's a request.

 

This sort of request makes it very clear that the cache owner is entirely too focused on trying to control other people's behaviour. This level of fuss about something that boils down to a personal preference simply isn't worthy of regard.

 

I wonder why you at the same time blame others to think too negatively (ignoring the fact that there are many cases where one is claimed in logs is stricly impossible),

but insist on that such a simple request is trying to control other people's behaviour. What about requests like "Please do not visit the cache at night" or "Please act stealthy"? Do you also regard them as trying to control other people's behaviour?

 

Does it make sense in times when apparently many cachers think that they the cache owner a favour by using a team name and using up as few space in the log book is possible that one is not one of those cache owners?

[+justintim1999]

How long dose it take to sign a log? Someone please give us some legitimate reasons why each person in "a team" couldn't take 10 seconds to sign a log?

 

This is really beside the point. I understand that some people find this frustrating, but the team log cat has been out of the bag for a loooooooong time.

 

The fact that it's been around for a long time doesn't make it right.

 

I have no problem when one person in a group find a cache and all present sign the log. I have an issue with a team of six people, all in different places claim all the finds. Now if each of the six individuals sign everyone's name in the log book individually than what can you do? When all six sign the log book with the team name the cache owner has no way of verifying that all six were at the cache together.

 

I'm all for allowing people to play the game the way they choose. If we can't agree on what constitutes a find than everything is on the table right?

 

Unless ground speak clearly defines what a find is and enforces it, what recourse dose the cache owner really have?

 

The cache owner's best option, most of the time, is to assume that other geocachers are acting in good faith rather than taking an inherently antagonistic position against them to start with. If your starting point it to view all logs and all other geocachers with malice and suspicion, I rather wonder why you would play this game at all.

 

I generally give people the benefit of the doubt. But, when you identify a problem you should deal with it. Simply turning a blind eye is exactly the attitude that allows these things to take place.

 

That's why I asked, other than numbers, is there any reason as a cache owner I should be concerned with this practice? If they are using my cache to inflate their numbers that's ok. If there are other legitimate reasons why this could potentially do any harm, than I'd like to hear them.

[+J Grouchy]

My view and humble opinion, as such that can be offered which will most probably offend, is that if you cannot find the cache yourself and a member of the group finds it before you do, then you should log a DNF. After all, you did not find it, you were shown where it was. So how can you claim you found it? I would be all for such posts being logged as found by a group being deleted from all caches. If you did not find it, it is not yours to log. You are only cheating yourself. I am all for logs saying found in the company of so and so when a cacher is first starting out but team logging to me defies the purpose of the game.

The option I like with a group, not team logging, is the first person who finds the cache walks away and lets the others find it. The strict rule is that if a person cannot locate the cache, they post a DNF and walk away so that the group can sign the cache as individuals. This allows the person who didn't find it a second try and gives the CO an indication that people are seriously searching for the cache.

 

"Offend" is not really the right word...but that position does seem a bit extreme.

While I see the point and basically agree with the fact that generally only one (maybe two or three if it's an unusual circumstance) makes the actual find...counting it as a DNF if you were not in that 'elite' group is kind of odd.

 

I don't really have any interest in group caching, however, precisely because I like to be the one and only to find the cache. I'm not antisocial, but I just find the solitude of my searches to be the thing I enjoy most about them. I've never wished I had others along with me on my walks or excursions to find a cache. I go to events for the social aspect of caching.

[+narcissa]

I do not understand why this request would let you end up with a worse opinion on the cache owner. Forget about potential log deletions as the request you cited does not mention them. It's a request.

 

This sort of request makes it very clear that the cache owner is entirely too focused on trying to control other people's behaviour. This level of fuss about something that boils down to a personal preference simply isn't worthy of regard.

 

I wonder why you at the same time blame others to think too negatively (ignoring the fact that there are many cases where one is claimed in logs is stricly impossible),

but insist on that such a simple request is trying to control other people's behaviour. What about requests like "Please do not visit the cache at night" or "Please act stealthy"? Do you also regard them as trying to control other people's behaviour?

 

Does it make sense in times when apparently many cachers think that they the cache owner a favour by using a team name and using up as few space in the log book is possible that one is not one of those cache owners?

 

What is the basis of the request? Is the basis of the request "you'll get a ticket" or "you'll cause general alarm" if you cache somewhere at night? Or is the basis of the request "I personally don't like it when people cache at night?" Are you planning to delete logs if you think someone caches at night?

 

Do you understand that there is a difference between advising someone of conditions surrounding a cache, and setting up arbitrary restrictions to simply disallow people from logging a cache?

 

You can ask people to do you a "favour" until your face turns blue, but expect it to go sideways when you start deleting logs over it.

[cezanne]

I wonder why you at the same time blame others to think too negatively (ignoring the fact that there are many cases where one is claimed in logs is stricly impossible),

but insist on that such a simple request is trying to control other people's behaviour. What about requests like "Please do not visit the cache at night" or "Please act stealthy"? Do you also regard them as trying to control other people's behaviour?

 

Does it make sense in times when apparently many cachers think that they the cache owner a favour by using a team name and using up as few space in the log book is possible that one is not one of those cache owners?

 

What is the basis of the request? Is the basis of the request "you'll get a ticket" or "you'll cause general alarm" if you cache somewhere at night? Or is the basis of the request "I personally don't like it when people cache at night?" Are you planning to delete logs if you think someone caches at night?

 

Do you understand that there is a difference between advising someone of conditions surrounding a cache, and setting up arbitrary restrictions to simply disallow people from logging a cache?

 

You can ask people to do you a "favour" until your face turns blue, but expect it to go sideways when you start deleting logs over it.

 

I explicitely stated several times "forget about log deletions" and comment on the request only. My question was whether you interpret requests like "please act stealthy" also along the "control line". What you replied does not address this. I'm well aware that a request is only a request and can never be enforced. I questioned however that some people and you seem to belong to them have a bad opinion of someone just on the basis of a simple request.

[+narcissa]

I wonder why you at the same time blame others to think too negatively (ignoring the fact that there are many cases where one is claimed in logs is stricly impossible),

but insist on that such a simple request is trying to control other people's behaviour. What about requests like "Please do not visit the cache at night" or "Please act stealthy"? Do you also regard them as trying to control other people's behaviour?

 

Does it make sense in times when apparently many cachers think that they the cache owner a favour by using a team name and using up as few space in the log book is possible that one is not one of those cache owners?

 

What is the basis of the request? Is the basis of the request "you'll get a ticket" or "you'll cause general alarm" if you cache somewhere at night? Or is the basis of the request "I personally don't like it when people cache at night?" Are you planning to delete logs if you think someone caches at night?

 

Do you understand that there is a difference between advising someone of conditions surrounding a cache, and setting up arbitrary restrictions to simply disallow people from logging a cache?

 

You can ask people to do you a "favour" until your face turns blue, but expect it to go sideways when you start deleting logs over it.

 

I explicitely stated several times "forget about log deletions" and comment on the request only. My question was whether you interpret requests like "please act stealthy" also along the "control line". What you replied does not address this. I'm well aware that a request is only a request and can never be enforced. I questioned however that some people and you seem to belong to them have a bad opinion of someone just on the basis of a simple request.

 

There is a difference between a request and providing information about a cache.

 

When it comes to a request, it depends on the basis of the request. If the basis of the request is obviously "I just like telling people what to do for no reason" then I will think less of a cache owner for it. Is the request friendly or something fun? Or is just setting up weird rules meant to impose a particular way of caching on others?

Edited March 14, 2016 by narcissa

[+The Jester]

 

I've seen caches hidden along cliff lines where it's very awkward or dangerous to have to pass the log book/sheet around. One in the Reno area where the cache is up a tree at the cliff edge. The cache is able to be spotted from the edge, but is a somewhat tricky climb to get. So should the cacher doing the retrieve add to his risk by making multiple trips up and down just for everyone to sign?

 

What you write does not explain that much why the person doing the climb could not indicate who has visited the cache apart from the fact that I would not be willing to log a find for a cache that I cannot reach.

 

What all these examples will definitely not address is the situation when it is evident that part of the group was not even present at some caches they log.

At least I'm giving concrete examples of why passing a log around doesn't all ways work well. I haven't seen any examples in this thead showing the 'great, big problem' that this is supposed to correct. Are there big groups false logging finds every day in your area? Every week? Every month? Don't just say this 'problem' happens, show where and when it has and continues to happen. From my experience, it sounds like a solution looking for a problem, I've yet to see this occur in my area or any where else I've cached.

[+The Jester]

I have no problem when one person in a group find a cache and all present sign the log. I have an issue with a team of six people, all in different places claim all the finds. Now if each of the six individuals sign everyone's name in the log book individually than what can you do? When all six sign the log book with the team name the cache owner has no way of verifying that all six were at the cache together.

Siz people signing siz names = what can you do.

Siz people signing a tema name = 'great, big problem'.

What's the difference? Why does one get a shrug of the shoulder, the other an outcry? How can a CO 'verify that all siz were at the cache together' in either situation?

[+justintim1999]

I have no problem when one person in a group find a cache and all present sign the log. I have an issue with a team of six people, all in different places claim all the finds. Now if each of the six individuals sign everyone's name in the log book individually than what can you do? When all six sign the log book with the team name the cache owner has no way of verifying that all six were at the cache together.

Siz people signing siz names = what can you do.

Siz people signing a tema name = 'great, big problem'.

What's the difference? Why does one get a shrug of the shoulder, the other an outcry? How can a CO 'verify that all siz were at the cache together' in either situation?

 

At lease you can assume that when you see siz names in the log book you can assume that siz different people were actually at the cache. When siz people sign one name, who knows.

Edited March 14, 2016 by justintim1999

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

 

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.

 

 

Here's an example of a caching group where we were not trying to maximize find count. There was an event cache, which consisted of a roughly 4 hour long bike ride on a local trail. When we started out that morning, we had a discussion about how we were going to log the caches. The majority of the caches on the trail were by a single CO, and he was with the group. For his caches, we chose to use a group name. For all other caches we used individual names. We chose to use a group account for most of the caches for three reasons. First, the CO was part of the group, and he stated that he had no problem with using a group name for his caches. It would save him a little bit of maintenance time. Second, we didn't want to physically clog up the trail. If we all stopped and signed individually, we ran the risk of blocking the trail for others. The third reason was that it was quicker, and the forecast was for rain.

[cezanne]

At least I'm giving concrete examples of why passing a log around doesn't all ways work well. I haven't seen any examples in this thead showing the 'great, big problem' that this is supposed to correct. Are there big groups false logging finds every day in your area? Every week? Every month? Don't just say this 'problem' happens, show where and when it has and continues to happen. From my experience, it sounds like a solution looking for a problem, I've yet to see this occur in my area or any where else I've cached.

 

Yes every month for sure in my immediate area (typically more than once) . Every week for sure in the whole country - every day no (at least not in the blatant manner that is recognizable just by looking at logs). Among those loggers there are also some of those who happen to write armchair logs for virtuals and ECs around the world, or wrote logs for the Blockparty to get the icon etc

 

Also certainly more than 50% of those with a long streak in the country are doing it by applying their own rule (faking log dates, logging events and Ecs on appropriate dates etc). That's considered to be quite normal and the minority thinks that this is not way it is supposed to be. I do not care but will never understand why it makes sense for these people to cheat. Someone said somewhere that if a statistics for points for useful logs were invented suddenly some central European cachers would start to abuse it and I have to agree. That certainly would happen.

 

The number of incidents increases further if you also take into account what Lone.R wrote about.

Edited March 14, 2016 by cezanne

[+thebruce0]

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.

Actually, statistically, a cache with 5 finds and 100% favorites implies that it is worth visiting. 30 new finds by people who typically don't favorite caches because they're group logging in batch and (statistically speaking) likely haven't experienced the find nearly as intended, who haven't favorited the cache because of that, does certainly sway the projected cache reception from 100% favourited down to 14% in one 'visit'. You get into very vague territory when you start applying assumed statistics on a very subjectively enjoyed experience that's affected by possibility of ignorance in the logging process.

 

I think, were a temporary group logging feature to be added (didn't know this was actually suggested until today), then FP stats might be more accurate. For example, if those 5 visits were individuals on 5 different independent days, then the 30 people log as a group in one visit, and those 30 people could decide whether to award a favourite; or if one person decides for the group, then all those batch loggers won't worry about "forgetting" even if they really did enjoy the cache - the cache will have 6 "visits" (the last being the group find), and still accurately maintain its 100% ratio.

 

---

 

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.

For lack of better terms, that would be the different between "team" caching and "group" caching.

Group caching is quite common in my region. And there are also a number of [regular] team cachers - families, couples, friends, who share and sign as a single account.

 

I don't know anyone who has a problem with "team" caching (unless maybe they don't like when two people find a cache on either side of the continent at the same time because one is on vacation; but I've never seen a seriously complaint about that).

Group caching is always the source of annoyance that I've seen.

 

---

 

On the ALR thing... Guidelines -

Clause 1: A valid find requires a signature in the logbook.

Clause 2: A group name (registered account or temporary group name isn't distinguished) is acceptable.

Therefore, by rules alone, a group name is a signature and is valid to claim the find. To require clause 2 to become invalid (thus, reason for deleting the log), for example by adding to the description the wording "the log must be signed with your individual caching name" would therefore be an ALR. You're invalidating an explicit allowance in order to legitimately claim the find online. It's a requirement that is in addition to (alters) the standard ruleset.

 

So I have to agree with those that say that requiring individual names (denying group names) in a logsheet is an ALR.

 

NYPaddleCacher's idea: "In that case, a simple request of 'if you find this cache as part of a group and sign the log with a group name, please mention the name of the group in your online log' should clear things up." makes sense and really is a step towards helping the CO "verify" signatures. Instead of having to ask individuals to verify their signature, everyone [ideally] publicly claims the group they were caching with. Then the rest of the group can see and confirm (or legitimately call out) everyone who did or didn't find the cache with the group.

 

However, requiring that people include the group name in their find log would be an ALR.

 

---

 

My ethic on signing me vs group name -

When I'm caching in a group, we usually sign with the group name and I tend to either include the group caching name online or list the people I'm caching with. The former is more a superficial connection to the group where any number of people could "claim" to be with the group (until we verify who was in the group), whereas naming individuals is a more exclusive confirmation of who caches together, yet may not be verifiable if it was signed with the group name. So it's safer to include both

 

If I'm logging a challenge cache, however, or perhaps certain harder, or rarely found caches, then I might make sure my actual caching name is in the sheet. It's more reliable verification, and it certainly feels more individually legitimate.

 

---

 

I've seen caches hidden along cliff lines where it's very awkward or dangerous to have to pass the log book/sheet around. One in the Reno area where the cache is up a tree at the cliff edge. The cache is able to be spotted from the edge, but is a somewhat tricky climb to get. So should the cacher doing the retrieve add to his risk by making multiple trips up and down just for everyone to sign?

What you write does not explain that much why the person doing the climb could not indicate who has visited the cache apart from the fact that I would not be willing to log a find for a cache that I cannot reach.

 

What all these examples will definitely not address is the situation when it is evident that part of the group was not even present at some caches they log.

This example again of how one qualifies a "find" online if one can't physically touch and sign the logsheet themselves... once again for me there are other factors - perhaps I had a hand in helping the person get to gz; or more importantly, if consistency of the log history is maintained, because I may never come back, or may not really have a desire to come back at a time I know I *will* be able to retrieve it myself. I may not see any value in posting a DNF or a Note (rather, see any reason in the 'spirit of geocaching' to deny claiming a Find). So for myself, I may well claim it found, knowing that my Find log is accurate to the verified state of the cache, and I haven't found a reason that I will want to come back to do it myself another day.

 

And in that case, my find log affects absolutely no one else, and I have no moral quandry in claiming it found - because it was found (with my name in the logbook as well) and I felt my experience was sufficient. And I like to experience as close to what the CO intends as possible (obviously judged on a case by case basis).

 

I think people hardline their definitions and experiences as an extension of the 'spirit of geocaching' into a letter of the law, and often project that ethic on other cachers, even if merely using word selections that *imply* they are in any way "better" in their tactics and decisions than other people. And that just lights fires beneath people's feet.

 

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.

I wonder if anyone has done that. Find a name in the logsheet that isn't explicitly claimed in the online log history, and log a find on the cache claiming that name on that date. Maybe even leave it vague so that you could get your friends to claim the name as well.

 

See, doing that is ridiculously easy today. A group of friends could agree that one person will go and find caches, but sign everyone in, and everyone can claim all the finds. How often does that happen? I'd wager almost never (almost, as I'm sure I've seen it happen previously). Because it's not worth it. Generally speaking, people understand basically what is enjoyable about geocaching. So yes we can theorize about what people can do to get around the guidelines and "cheat themselves", but how many actually do this, and how does that really affect us individually?

 

For myself, I still end up only going as far as aiming to maintain an accurate log history as a minimum requirement, because that does directly affect other cachers' potential experience, since bad logs can misinform both finders of said cache, and its owner.

 

If the log implies the accurate cache state, then I don't care any more. On my own caches, I'd prefer people find it as intended, but it's just more headaches trying to enforce that experience. Same with 30+ size group caching where 3 people actually find the cache and the rest just claim it. Whatever. If it was found, great, the logs aren't inaccurate. it's dumb, but I won't police them. I'd hope that the logs won't be c/p with zero reference to that particular cache, but again, beyond my control, and not worth policing.

[+thebruce0]

I'm all for allowing people to play the game the way they choose. If we can't agree on what constitutes a find than everything is on the table right?

 

Unless ground speak clearly defines what a find is and enforces it, what recourse dose the cache owner really have?

 

The cache owner's best option, most of the time, is to assume that other geocachers are acting in good faith rather than taking an inherently antagonistic position against them to start with. If your starting point it to view all logs and all other geocachers with malice and suspicion, I rather wonder why you would play this game at all.

That's well put.

You could say, the goal of deleting a log itself isn't being antagonistic, but how you go about the process of verifying and maintaining log history can be. It is indeed a CO's responsibility to do this task, but there's no rule about how or how much. One can be very respectable and maintain wonderful caches, and have invalid find logs deleted from their caches (whether themselves or by the log posters).

 

This discussion really shouldn't be about whether deleting logs is right or wrong, but perhaps better served as positive ways to provide an ongoing and accurate log history, both as finders and as owners which benefit the community. (and this includes the idea of group caching, which also is not wrong in and of itself, but can most certainly be a source of invalid logs)

 

At least I'm giving concrete examples of why passing a log around doesn't all ways work well. I haven't seen any examples in this thead showing the 'great, big problem' that this is supposed to correct. Are there big groups false logging finds every day in your area? Every week? Every month? Don't just say this 'problem' happens, show where and when it has and continues to happen. From my experience, it sounds like a solution looking for a problem, I've yet to see this occur in my area or any where else I've cached.

Oh I know first hand that it happens in my region. Multiple instances, different people, different groups. It happens. I won't name names. But I'm pretty sure anyone else in my region will have an idea of at least some of the instances about which I'm referring

[cezanne]

This example again of how one qualifies a "find" online if one can't physically touch and sign the logsheet themselves... once again for me there are other factors - perhaps I had a hand in helping the person get to gz; or more importantly, if consistency of the log history is maintained, because I may never come back, or may not really have a desire to come back at a time I know I *will* be able to retrieve it myself. I may not see any value in posting a DNF or a Note (rather, see any reason in the 'spirit of geocaching' to deny claiming a Find). So for myself, I may well claim it found, knowing that my Find log is accurate to the verified state of the cache, and I haven't found a reason that I will want to come back to do it myself another day.

 

When I wrote "were not at the cache" I did not refer to people who do not do the climb or did not do the dive for a cache but who were many miles from the cache location when the cache got logged.

 

That's not about hardlining one's own definitions of a find. It's about the minimum amount of honesty that I expect to be present in whatever activity.

 

 

See, doing that is ridiculously easy today. A group of friends could agree that one person will go and find caches, but sign everyone in, and everyone can claim all the finds. How often does that happen? I'd wager almost never (almost, as I'm sure I've seen it happen previously).

 

It happens often in some areas as some cachers are known to always include some of their close caching friends in the logs but at least they do it by entering all names and not just a group name.

 

Some cachers are also known for say having visited only about say 60% (just a guess - the percentage does not matter) of the caches they log - it's very hard for the cache owners to identify where they really have been and where not without going out and checking log books. These cachers know perfectly well that only a small minority checks the log books and then bothers to make log deletions.

 

Those large groups who perform caching in a way that they divide up into groups (and not for powertrails but for very challenging caches) hardly ever list all participants and moreover they do not care the least what someone else logs and they definitely would never catch someone who just claims to have been with them. They have no time to read logs and are busy with finding as many caches as possible (not only with respect to the absolute numbers but also with respect to the number of say prestigious caches etc).

 

Because it's not worth it. Generally speaking, people understand basically what is enjoyable about geocaching. So yes we can theorize about what people can do to get around the guidelines and "cheat themselves", but how many actually do this, and how does that really affect us individually?

 

Apparently it's worth for an non-ignorable number of cachers - they end up with the numbers, positions in ranking lists, badges, challenge caches etc they want to end up with.

 

The way it affects me is that I do not feel comfortable to have to deal with so much open dishonesty. I'm glad that not many people outside of geocaching know that I'm into geocaching as I would feel very ashamed due to what's going on. The values that NWPaddleCacher mentioned, respect, integrity, honesty come into play here and that goes much beyond on what counts as a find which in itself is not really important.

Edited March 14, 2016 by cezanne