Asking group cachers to sign log with individual trailnames

[+Team Microdot]

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.

 

The reliance on excessive emotional verbiage lends no additional weight to the validity of one's argument

 

The thread would be more productive if perpetuated by the reasonable people making reasonable requests within the spirit of the guidelines.

 

Dramatic music gets stale after a while.

[+narcissa]

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.

 

Yes, it is absurd, but as things stand now it is difficult to defend a log deletion under these circumstances.

 

I am certainly not opposed to a guideline change that requires each account logging a cache to sign the logbook individually, but that is not what we currently have. Adding ALRs to cache pages to enforce this personal preference is futile since it can't possible by enforced and will only result in extended drama when logs are deleted and challenged.

Edited March 11, 2016 by narcissa

[+justintim1999]

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.

 

Yes, it is absurd, but as things stand now it is difficult to defend a log deletion under these circumstances.

 

I am certainly not opposed to a guideline change that requires each account logging a cache to sign the logbook individually, but that is not what we currently have. Adding ALRs to cache pages to enforce this personal preference is futile since it can't possible by enforced and will only result in extended drama when logs are deleted and challenged.

 

Yup. We could micro manage this thing till the rule book is 5000 pages long. Do we really want to do that to try to regulate a small segment of players? Let them play the game the way they want to.

[cezanne]

Yes, it is absurd, but as things stand now it is difficult to defend a log deletion under these circumstances.

 

I am certainly not opposed to a guideline change that requires each account logging a cache to sign the logbook individually, but that is not what we currently have. Adding ALRs to cache pages to enforce this personal preference is futile since it can't possible by enforced and will only result in extended drama when logs are deleted and challenged.

 

I did not defend log deletions and I said that I would not include something like discussed here on my cache pages.

 

I'm however disappointed about the way GS seems to interpret what signing the log means. It's one thing that they do not appreciate to be bothered with many log deletion appeal cases and it's another thing to express that clearly as it happened in the case I'm familiar with that log sheets are worthless anyway.

 

I do not think that a rule change would be required, just a interpretation on the side of Groundspeak which matches what one would expect it to mean.

 

Do you intend to say that without having any experience with GS's way of interpreting the rules "signing the log" would have meant to you that a single person writes an arbitrarily selected word into the log book and this can count as signature for an undefined group?

[+L0ne.R]

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

 

But are they following the rules?

 

Or have they found a loophole that allows them to play the game in an unsportsmanlike fashion?

[+narcissa]

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

 

But are they following the rules?

 

Or have they found a loophole that allows them to play the game in an unsportsmanlike fashion?

 

It could be argued that adding ALRs to cache descriptions and subsequently deleting logs is playing the game in an unsportsmanlike fashion.

[+Touchstone]

Yes, it is absurd, but as things stand now it is difficult to defend a log deletion under these circumstances.

 

I am certainly not opposed to a guideline change that requires each account logging a cache to sign the logbook individually, but that is not what we currently have. Adding ALRs to cache pages to enforce this personal preference is futile since it can't possible by enforced and will only result in extended drama when logs are deleted and challenged.

 

I did not defend log deletions and I said that I would not include something like discussed here on my cache pages.

 

I'm however disappointed about the way GS seems to interpret what signing the log means. It's one thing that they do not appreciate to be bothered with many log deletion appeal cases and it's another thing to express that clearly as it happened in the case I'm familiar with that log sheets are worthless anyway.

 

I do not think that a rule change would be required, just a interpretation on the side of Groundspeak which matches what one would expect it to mean.

 

Do you intend to say that without having any experience with GS's way of interpreting the rules "signing the log" would have meant to you that a single person writes an arbitrarily selected word into the log book and this can count as signature for an undefined group?

According to one legal definition, I can write anything I want:

 

"The term signature is generally understood to mean the signing of a written document with one's own hand. However, it is not critical that a signature actually be written by hand for it to be legally valid. It may, for example, be typewritten, engraved, or stamped. The purpose of a signature is to authenticate a writing, or provide notice of its source, and to bind the individual signing the writing by the provisions contained in the document."

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

So lets throw a little twist into the scenario. Suppose the reason a CO is asking those caching in a group to individually sign the log sheet is because that CO has reason to believe that one or more local geocachers are arm chairing finds on their caches (they're not part of the group at all). Since a CO is supposed to be responsible for removing bogus logs on their cache listing, how are they supposed to do that if they can't match up the name on a physical log with the online log?

 

 

 

[+narcissa]

Yes, it is absurd, but as things stand now it is difficult to defend a log deletion under these circumstances.

 

I am certainly not opposed to a guideline change that requires each account logging a cache to sign the logbook individually, but that is not what we currently have. Adding ALRs to cache pages to enforce this personal preference is futile since it can't possible by enforced and will only result in extended drama when logs are deleted and challenged.

 

I did not defend log deletions and I said that I would not include something like discussed here on my cache pages.

 

I'm however disappointed about the way GS seems to interpret what signing the log means. It's one thing that they do not appreciate to be bothered with many log deletion appeal cases and it's another thing to express that clearly as it happened in the case I'm familiar with that log sheets are worthless anyway.

 

I do not think that a rule change would be required, just a interpretation on the side of Groundspeak which matches what one would expect it to mean.

 

Do you intend to say that without having any experience with GS's way of interpreting the rules "signing the log" would have meant to you that a single person writes an arbitrarily selected word into the log book and this can count as signature for an undefined group?

 

I have been geocaching since 2005 and group logging of various forms was widely practiced even then. I don't really understand your point.

[+L0ne.R]

Yes, it is absurd, but as things stand now it is difficult to defend a log deletion under these circumstances.

 

I am certainly not opposed to a guideline change that requires each account logging a cache to sign the logbook individually, but that is not what we currently have. Adding ALRs to cache pages to enforce this personal preference is futile since it can't possible by enforced and will only result in extended drama when logs are deleted and challenged.

 

I did not defend log deletions and I said that I would not include something like discussed here on my cache pages.

 

I'm however disappointed about the way GS seems to interpret what signing the log means. It's one thing that they do not appreciate to be bothered with many log deletion appeal cases and it's another thing to express that clearly as it happened in the case I'm familiar with that log sheets are worthless anyway.

 

I do not think that a rule change would be required, just a interpretation on the side of Groundspeak which matches what one would expect it to mean.

 

Do you intend to say that without having any experience with GS's way of interpreting the rules "signing the log" would have meant to you that a single person writes an arbitrarily selected word into the log book and this can count as signature for an undefined group?

 

And that style of logging invites more abuse.

 

If I need to qualify for some T4 or T5, or non-traditional challenge caches, I could look for group caching logs from a couple of months ago (or more) to record as a find. Who in the big group is going to check and report me, and if they do Groundspeak would side with me. If it's a big group they often split up or fall apart part way during the day, people come and go (as they sometimes write in their online log), so no one will know for sure who was there.

 

Not that I'd do that, I don't get the point of logging caches I haven't found them. But group caching and qualifying for challenge caches, and filling grids, and collecting icons, and collecting smileys have funny effects on people. And again, not that I care about anyone else's find count.....they can have a zillion false finds. But I do care about the negative effects on caches and cache owners and on the game, when it gets increasingly frustrating for finders and owners.

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

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

 

But are they following the rules?

 

Or have they found a loophole that allows them to play the game in an unsportsmanlike fashion?

 

It could be argued that adding ALRs to cache descriptions and subsequently deleting logs is playing the game in an unsportsmanlike fashion.

 

Yeah, tit for tat. Also not good for the game, but again, seems to be the only recourse to get the message across.

[cezanne]

Yes, it is absurd, but as things stand now it is difficult to defend a log deletion under these circumstances.

 

I am certainly not opposed to a guideline change that requires each account logging a cache to sign the logbook individually, but that is not what we currently have. Adding ALRs to cache pages to enforce this personal preference is futile since it can't possible by enforced and will only result in extended drama when logs are deleted and challenged.

 

I did not defend log deletions and I said that I would not include something like discussed here on my cache pages.

 

I'm however disappointed about the way GS seems to interpret what signing the log means. It's one thing that they do not appreciate to be bothered with many log deletion appeal cases and it's another thing to express that clearly as it happened in the case I'm familiar with that log sheets are worthless anyway.

 

I do not think that a rule change would be required, just a interpretation on the side of Groundspeak which matches what one would expect it to mean.

 

Do you intend to say that without having any experience with GS's way of interpreting the rules "signing the log" would have meant to you that a single person writes an arbitrarily selected word into the log book and this can count as signature for an undefined group?

According to one legal definition, I can write anything I want:

 

"The term signature is generally understood to mean the signing of a written document with one's own hand. However, it is not critical that a signature actually be written by hand for it to be legally valid. It may, for example, be typewritten, engraved, or stamped. The purpose of a signature is to authenticate a writing, or provide notice of its source, and to bind the individual signing the writing by the provisions contained in the document."

 

Yes, but it's you and you sign something in your name. Does it suffice if you sign a document with Mr Huber to mean that all inhabitants of your home town can be said to have signed?

[cezanne]

I have been geocaching since 2005 and group logging of various forms was widely practiced even then. I don't really understand your point.

 

I have been caching since 2002 but the type of effects that I refer to hardly existed in 2005 around here.

Of course group hunts existed (though they were less frequent and the groups were smaller) but in most cases all group participants were present at the caches they logged and most logs were sincere in the sense that it was not common to create the impression that one has been somewhere where one has not been.

 

I'm not sure whether you can really imagine about what I'm talking about without knowing it - somehow I believe that the situation in your area is better than it is around here (I'm not saying perfect).

Edited March 11, 2016 by cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

Yes, it is absurd, but as things stand now it is difficult to defend a log deletion under these circumstances.

 

I am certainly not opposed to a guideline change that requires each account logging a cache to sign the logbook individually, but that is not what we currently have. Adding ALRs to cache pages to enforce this personal preference is futile since it can't possible by enforced and will only result in extended drama when logs are deleted and challenged.

 

I did not defend log deletions and I said that I would not include something like discussed here on my cache pages.

 

I'm however disappointed about the way GS seems to interpret what signing the log means. It's one thing that they do not appreciate to be bothered with many log deletion appeal cases and it's another thing to express that clearly as it happened in the case I'm familiar with that log sheets are worthless anyway.

 

I do not think that a rule change would be required, just a interpretation on the side of Groundspeak which matches what one would expect it to mean.

 

Do you intend to say that without having any experience with GS's way of interpreting the rules "signing the log" would have meant to you that a single person writes an arbitrarily selected word into the log book and this can count as signature for an undefined group?

 

I have been geocaching since 2005 and group logging of various forms was widely practiced even then. I don't really understand your point.

 

I've been geocaching since 2002 and have group cached. But back then we found the cache, we passed the log around to sign it. We meandered on the the next cache, waited for everyone to catch up, then repeat the logging procedure. Personally I prefer to find the cache myself, so quickly became a solo geocacher for the most part. Might go out with family occasionally and we do the huckle buckle style of caching, so everyone can enjoy the final discovery.

[+narcissa]

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

 

But are they following the rules?

 

Or have they found a loophole that allows them to play the game in an unsportsmanlike fashion?

 

It could be argued that adding ALRs to cache descriptions and subsequently deleting logs is playing the game in an unsportsmanlike fashion.

 

Yeah, tit for tat. Also not good for the game, but again, seems to be the only recourse to get the message across.

 

The message being what? Despite what the guidelines say and what the website features are set up to do, only people who cache like me are welcome to find my caches?

[+narcissa]

I've been geocaching since 2002 and have group cached. But back then we found the cache, we passed the log around to sign it. We meandered on the the next cache, waited for everyone to catch up, then repeat the logging procedure.

 

I have seen this, and I have seen one group signature, going back a long time. Different people cache differently.

 

Personally I prefer to find the cache myself, so quickly became a solo geocacher for the most part. Might go out with family occasionally and we do the huckle buckle style of caching, so everyone can enjoy the final discovery.

 

I fail to see the relevance of this statement. Is it your assertion that you should be allowed to delete finds if you suspect people didn't do this?

[+narcissa]

I have been geocaching since 2005 and group logging of various forms was widely practiced even then. I don't really understand your point.

 

I have been caching since 2002 but the type of effects that I refer to hardly existed in 2005 around here.

Of course group hunts existed (though they were less frequent and the groups were smaller) but in most cases all group participants were present at the caches they logged and most logs were sincere in the sense that it was not common to create the impression that one has been somewhere where one has not been.

 

I'm not sure whether you can really imagine about what I'm talking about without knowing it - somehow I believe that the situation in your area is better than it is around here (I'm not saying perfect).

 

So you would like Groundspeak's interpretation of the rules to favour your particular preference for the good old days? Is that the material point?

[cezanne]

So you would like Groundspeak's interpretation of the rules to favour your particular preference for the good old days? Is that the material point?

 

No, that's not the point.

 

Again: The issue I have is not whether A, B, C and D are known to log with a team name (the case you seem to talk about). I do not mind if Lep.... and his daugther log as Lep or with their full names. I'm sure that whenever Lep.... logs a cache, he actually has been there and he is lying in logs.

 

I just say that when everyone can be part of Team X, why do we then have log sheets at all? What's their meaning? Why does anyone log NMs if the logsheet is full? It does not matter anyhow with sort of argument about signing.

[+L0ne.R]

 

The message being what? Despite what the guidelines say and what the website features are set up to do, only people who cache like me are welcome to find my caches?

 

Nope.

[+L0ne.R]

I've been geocaching since 2002 and have group cached. But back then we found the cache, we passed the log around to sign it. We meandered on the the next cache, waited for everyone to catch up, then repeat the logging procedure.

 

I have seen this, and I have seen one group signature, going back a long time. Different people cache differently.

 

Personally I prefer to find the cache myself, so quickly became a solo geocacher for the most part. Might go out with family occasionally and we do the huckle buckle style of caching, so everyone can enjoy the final discovery.

 

I fail to see the relevance of this statement. Is it your assertion that you should be allowed to delete finds if you suspect people didn't do this?

 

No it was not my assertion to suggest that everyone should play huckle buckle. But I do wish they would pass the logbook around to sign it.

 

Addendum: More importantly, I wish they actually saw the cache and were in a position that they could actually sign the log themselves when someone else added their trailname to the cache's physical logbook.

Edited March 11, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+L0ne.R]

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.

 

So lets throw a little twist into the scenario. Suppose the reason a CO is asking those caching in a group to individually sign the log sheet is because that CO has reason to believe that one or more local geocachers are arm chairing finds on their caches (they're not part of the group at all). Since a CO is supposed to be responsible for removing bogus logs on their cache listing, how are they supposed to do that if they can't match up the name on a physical log with the online log?

 

 

Very good point.

Which ties in to cezanne's argument that Groundspeak has (perhaps inadvertently) deemed the logbook irrelevant, in favour of power/numbers caching.

[+narcissa]

I've been geocaching since 2002 and have group cached. But back then we found the cache, we passed the log around to sign it. We meandered on the the next cache, waited for everyone to catch up, then repeat the logging procedure.

 

I have seen this, and I have seen one group signature, going back a long time. Different people cache differently.

 

Personally I prefer to find the cache myself, so quickly became a solo geocacher for the most part. Might go out with family occasionally and we do the huckle buckle style of caching, so everyone can enjoy the final discovery.

 

I fail to see the relevance of this statement. Is it your assertion that you should be allowed to delete finds if you suspect people didn't do this?

 

No it was not my assertion to suggest that everyone should play huckle buckle. But I do wish they would pass the logbook around to sign it.

 

Addendum: More importantly, I wish they actually saw the cache and were in a position that they could actually sign the log themselves when someone else added their trailname to the cache's physical logbook.

 

I respect what you wish people would do and my own views of the "nice to haves" are probably not that dissimilar to yours. I just don't think the current parameters of the game allow the sort of enforcement of these personal preferences that you're proposing here.

[+narcissa]

So you would like Groundspeak's interpretation of the rules to favour your particular preference for the good old days? Is that the material point?

 

No, that's not the point.

 

Again: The issue I have is not whether A, B, C and D are known to log with a team name (the case you seem to talk about). I do not mind if Lep.... and his daugther log as Lep or with their full names. I'm sure that whenever Lep.... logs a cache, he actually has been there and he is lying in logs.

 

I just say that when everyone can be part of Team X, why do we then have log sheets at all? What's their meaning? Why does anyone log NMs if the logsheet is full? It does not matter anyhow with sort of argument about signing.

 

I see, but I don't really think it's useful to take this issue to the most absurd extreme.

[+Team Microdot]

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

 

But are they following the rules?

 

Or have they found a loophole that allows them to play the game in an unsportsmanlike fashion?

 

It could be argued that adding ALRs to cache descriptions and subsequently deleting logs is playing the game in an unsportsmanlike fashion.

 

And it could be argued successfully that asking people to sign the log isn't an ALR - because it 'aint

 

But don't let that get in the way of you sticking to your guns and upping the drama

[cezanne]

 

I see, but I don't really think it's useful to take this issue to the most absurd extreme.

 

I agree but in my opinion GS supports/fosters the extreme. In my area there are groups which regularly log more caches found on one day as is possible when taking the nature of those caches into account and moreover, there is further evidence that what they write is often not true. Some cache owners thought that they at least had a chance if the indvidual names of the partipating cachers were not mentioned in the log book as this contradicted their understanding of what it means to sign the log but apparently GS has a different opinion and so I indeed wonder what's the significance of a log book for GS.

[+dprovan]

So lets throw a little twist into the scenario. Suppose the reason a CO is asking those caching in a group to individually sign the log sheet is because that CO has reason to believe that one or more local geocachers are arm chairing finds on their caches (they're not part of the group at all). Since a CO is supposed to be responsible for removing bogus logs on their cache listing, how are they supposed to do that if they can't match up the name on a physical log with the online log?

The obvious way to show that the on-line log was bogus would be to ask the people in the group whether that person was in the group. If they're going to lie about someone being in the group that wasn't, I see no reason to think they wouldn't just sign that guy's name in the log if the description demanded that.

[+noncentric]

And it could be argued successfully that asking people to sign the log isn't an ALR - because it 'aint

 

But don't let that get in the way of you sticking to your guns and upping the drama

Asking finders to sign the log is not an ALR. I don't think anyone has stated that signing is an ALR, so not sure why you would need to argue that it isn't.

 

Requiring finders to sign their caching names individually, when GS has already stated that group/team names are acceptable, would be an ALR. That's what the OP was about.

 

Unless the CO wants to make this a Challenge Cache, where signing individually is the challenge. But we know that won't happen because the OP despises Challenge Caches and thinks they are the root of all 'bad' geocaching behavior.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I've been geocaching since 2002 and have group cached. But back then we found the cache, we passed the log around to sign it. We meandered on the the next cache, waited for everyone to catch up, then repeat the logging procedure.

 

I have seen this, and I have seen one group signature, going back a long time. Different people cache differently.

 

Personally I prefer to find the cache myself, so quickly became a solo geocacher for the most part. Might go out with family occasionally and we do the huckle buckle style of caching, so everyone can enjoy the final discovery.

 

I fail to see the relevance of this statement. Is it your assertion that you should be allowed to delete finds if you suspect people didn't do this?

 

No it was not my assertion to suggest that everyone should play huckle buckle. But I do wish they would pass the logbook around to sign it.

 

Addendum: More importantly, I wish they actually saw the cache and were in a position that they could actually sign the log themselves when someone else added their trailname to the cache's physical logbook.

 

I respect what you wish people would do and my own views of the "nice to haves" are probably not that dissimilar to yours. I just don't think the current parameters of the game allow the sort of enforcement of these personal preferences that you're proposing here.

 

I didn't see loneR proposing anything. I didn't loneR state that they were going to create an ALR. What I read was a question regarding what others think GS would do if a CO asked finders to put their user name rather than a group name on the physical log, and how GS would react if the CO deleted a log.

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

And it could be argued successfully that asking people to sign the log isn't an ALR - because it 'aint

 

But don't let that get in the way of you sticking to your guns and upping the drama

Asking finders to sign the log is not an ALR. I don't think anyone has stated that signing is an ALR, so not sure why you would need to argue that it

 

Thanks for confirming that asking finders to sign a log is not an ALR

 

If you'd care to read over the post from Narcissa that my comment related to (which you seem to have omitted from your quote) you will see that she is clearly suggesting that asking finders to sign a log IS an ALR - which is what gave rise to my response.

 

Hopefully that clears things up for you

[+NYPaddleCacher]

So lets throw a little twist into the scenario. Suppose the reason a CO is asking those caching in a group to individually sign the log sheet is because that CO has reason to believe that one or more local geocachers are arm chairing finds on their caches (they're not part of the group at all). Since a CO is supposed to be responsible for removing bogus logs on their cache listing, how are they supposed to do that if they can't match up the name on a physical log with the online log?

The obvious way to show that the on-line log was bogus would be to ask the people in the group whether that person was in the group. If they're going to lie about someone being in the group that wasn't, I see no reason to think they wouldn't just sign that guy's name in the log if the description demanded that.

 

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.

 

 

[+noncentric]

And it could be argued successfully that asking people to sign the log isn't an ALR - because it 'aint

 

But don't let that get in the way of you sticking to your guns and upping the drama

Asking finders to sign the log is not an ALR. I don't think anyone has stated that signing is an ALR, so not sure why you would need to argue that it

 

Thanks for confirming that asking finders to sign a log is not an ALR

 

If you'd care to read over the post from Narcissa that my comment related to (which you seem to have omitted from your quote) you will see that she is clearly suggesting that asking finders to sign a log IS an ALR - which is what gave rise to my response.

 

Hopefully that clears things up for you

Where in "It could be argued that adding ALRs to cache descriptions and subsequently deleting logs is playing the game in an unsportsmanlike fashion." does narcissa say that signing a log is an ALR?

 

I didn't include all of the quotes that you had included because the assertion that signing a log is an ALR was not in any of those quotes, and therefore those previous quotes did not seem relevant to your comment that "asking people to sign the log isn't an ALR".

[+Team Microdot]

And it could be argued successfully that asking people to sign the log isn't an ALR - because it 'aint

 

But don't let that get in the way of you sticking to your guns and upping the drama

Asking finders to sign the log is not an ALR. I don't think anyone has stated that signing is an ALR, so not sure why you would need to argue that it

 

Thanks for confirming that asking finders to sign a log is not an ALR

 

If you'd care to read over the post from Narcissa that my comment related to (which you seem to have omitted from your quote) you will see that she is clearly suggesting that asking finders to sign a log IS an ALR - which is what gave rise to my response.

 

Hopefully that clears things up for you

Where in "It could be argued that adding ALRs to cache descriptions and subsequently deleting logs is playing the game in an unsportsmanlike fashion." does narcissa say that signing a log is an ALR?

 

I didn't include all of the quotes that you had included because the assertion that signing a log is an ALR was not in any of those quotes, and therefore those previous quotes did not seem relevant to your comment that "asking people to sign the log isn't an ALR".

 

Ah - so why does Narcissa mention ALR's at all? Ask yourself - what would have to be true for Narcissa to bring the concept of ALR's into a discussion about asking people to sign the log? Oh yeah - she thinks asking people to sign the log is an ALR!

 

Inference anyone?

 

Hopefully that makes things a bit clearer for you.

[+noncentric]

And it could be argued successfully that asking people to sign the log isn't an ALR - because it 'aint

 

But don't let that get in the way of you sticking to your guns and upping the drama

Asking finders to sign the log is not an ALR. I don't think anyone has stated that signing is an ALR, so not sure why you would need to argue that it

 

Thanks for confirming that asking finders to sign a log is not an ALR

 

If you'd care to read over the post from Narcissa that my comment related to (which you seem to have omitted from your quote) you will see that she is clearly suggesting that asking finders to sign a log IS an ALR - which is what gave rise to my response.

 

Hopefully that clears things up for you

Where in "It could be argued that adding ALRs to cache descriptions and subsequently deleting logs is playing the game in an unsportsmanlike fashion." does narcissa say that signing a log is an ALR?

 

I didn't include all of the quotes that you had included because the assertion that signing a log is an ALR was not in any of those quotes, and therefore those previous quotes did not seem relevant to your comment that "asking people to sign the log isn't an ALR".

 

Ah - so why does Narcissa mention ALR's at all? Ask yourself - what would have to be true for Narcissa to bring the concept of ALR's into a discussion about asking people to sign the log? Oh yeah - she thinks asking people to sign the log is an ALR!

 

Inference anyone?

 

Hopefully that makes things a bit clearer for you.

Why would we need to "infer" anything if narcissa is "is clearly suggesting that asking finders to sign a log IS an ALR". Is it clear or do we need to infer? one fits your dramatic scenario best?

 

The ALR is having finders sign individually, which narcissa clearly described in this quote:

I am certainly not opposed to a guideline change that requires each account logging a cache to sign the logbook individually, but that is not what we currently have. Adding ALRs to cache pages to enforce this personal preference is futile since it can't possible by enforced and will only result in extended drama when logs are deleted and challenged.

If cachers A, B, C find a cache together and sign the logbook with 'Team ABC' then GS accepts that and their three logs cannot be deleted by the CO. The ALR is if the CO requires that there are three signatures ("A", "B", "C") in the logbook. GROUP vs INDIVIDUAL. Maybe that makes things clearer for you.

[+L0ne.R]

 

Requiring finders to sign their caching names individually, when GS has already stated that group/team names are acceptable, would be an ALR. That's what the OP was about.

 

 

Not quite. I was asking that they sign the log with the trailname they use when they log their find online.

 

What I'm asking is they don't sign the log with their temporary made-up team-for-the-day signature. The made-up team name doesn't even have an account on Groundspeak, yet Groundspeak supports them. They can go ahead and create a team name and then log one find under the team account. That would work too.

[+noncentric]

 

Requiring finders to sign their caching names individually, when GS has already stated that group/team names are acceptable, would be an ALR. That's what the OP was about.

 

 

Not quite. I was asking that they sign the log with the trailname they use when they log their find online.

 

What I'm asking is they don't sign the log with their temporary made-up team-for-the-day signature. The made-up team name doesn't even have an account on Groundspeak, yet Groundspeak supports them. They can go ahead and create a team name and then log one find under the team account. That would work too.

I'm not seeing the distinction. What I read in the OP in that you were asking that they sign their individual names, not their group/team name, in the logbook. Is that not what you were asking when you said:

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

 

Oh wait, now I see it. Now you're saying that if they create a cacher name that is the team name, like there's an account named "Team ABC", then you're okay with them including just "Team ABC" in the logbook. That's a bit of a change from what was in the OP. The OP implies that a 'group' is caching and that you want each 'individual' name in the logbook. There wouldn't be a need to specify the individuality if the group is itself an 'individual'.

[+K13]

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.

[+Touchstone]

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

 

Your scenario seems tangential to the conversation. To review, here is the original question:

 

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

 

Which was followed by a short ALR sounding reference to group caching that was in bold typeset for emphasis.

 

To answer the OP's question: I would ignore the request/requirement like I do most ALR's (with the exception of a few grandfathered cache types and EC's).

[+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.

[+L0ne.R]

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

 

Your scenario seems tangential to the conversation. To review, here is the original question:

 

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

 

Which was followed by a short ALR sounding reference to group caching that was in bold typeset for emphasis.

 

To answer the OP's question: I would ignore the request/requirement like I do most ALR's (with the exception of a few grandfathered cache types and EC's).

 

What K13 describes is part of the reason for my thought process, which lead to the idea and the 2 questions.

[+WarNinjas]

Here is one of only a few times I have encountered a group singing situation.

 

We (my daughter and I) were invited to join a group to find a crazy hard multi that was a crazy long hike. We all met up at about 8 am to start our journey. We were with a bunch of experienced cachers. I would say there was 15 or more of us. They said we will sign as (I don't remember now) and we headed off and found some before getting to stage 1. We were all there at each cache. I would have signed but they said we would sign as a group.

Weird thing was we did the multi that had I think 5 stages of regular sized containers that all had field puzzles in them. When we got to the final it was a blinkie and we all signed that one with our names and filled up the log way way up the mountain. I remember feeling bad about that knowing the CO and knowing he now had to hike up there to replace the log.

The rest of the day finding caches we signed with the group name. We were all there and all seen the caches but just added the one signature. My daughter and I were invited to go so we didn't say "Hey I need to sign that one" After spending a whole day hiking a mountain over a hour from home and for no reason of our fault that we would have known about at the time, our logs got deleted I would have felt really bad.

Of course if my daughter and I had gone alone we would have singed each one with our cache name but we were with a group we didn't know to well saying this was the way to do it.

Another thing on that trip that might have affected possible favorite points we might have given to a cache is we didn't have service on our phones. I would normally log a cache as I found it and award a favorite on how I was feeling at the moment but that wasn't possible. By the time I got home and was tired from the long day they all kind of blended together.

That was also the first time I kind of got tired of finding ammo cans. Pretty much every hide was a ammo can. After about 6 ammo cans we found a micro in a stick and it was a welcome find for me. Then back to ammo cans. I still love to find a ammo can but on that trip it got to be a bit to much.

 

Anyways this is the day I think of when I read this thread. We were just a part of a group and told that this was the way to do it. We didn't come up with the idea and after all that days work to have our logs deleted would have not left us feeling good about it.

[+noncentric]

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.

It would be an ALR because GS has already stated that group/team names are acceptable for signing a logbook. Therefore, requiring finders to sign their caching names individually in the logbook, or else their online logs are deleted, would be an Additional Logging Requirement.

[+noncentric]

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

 

Your scenario seems tangential to the conversation. To review, here is the original question:

 

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

 

Which was followed by a short ALR sounding reference to group caching that was in bold typeset for emphasis.

 

To answer the OP's question: I would ignore the request/requirement like I do most ALR's (with the exception of a few grandfathered cache types and EC's).

 

What K13 describes is part of the reason for my thought process, which lead to the idea and the 2 questions.

 

I think NYPC's suggestion is a good one, which was:

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.

I'd also suggest including a note prominently on the physical logbook to ask that individual cache names are signed, instead of just having that request in the cache description. Plenty of cachers do not read the entire cache description of Traditionals before finding a cache.

 

In my own experience, I will accommodate specific requests about the online log when I go to log the cache. I work off Field Notes and am often behind. My current Field Notes page goes back to March 2nd and includes almost 70 caches. When I go through these caches, then I read the entire Cache Description of each cache, look through the Gallery photos, and skim through some of the prior online logs. Some caches have requests about including Hometown in the online log or rhyming the log, which I will do. These types of requests, along with NYPC's suggestion, are things that can be done after returning home because they apply to the online log only.

 

The request in the OP is something the cacher has to read before they make the find and sign the physical logbook. If they don't read through the cache description until after they've returned home, then they'd have to return to the physical cache to accommodate the CO's request.

[+jellis]

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.

I agree, and when I am with a group at least one if not all of us will mention in our on line logs who was in the group. As a CO I would hate to have to constantly change logsheets if many groups went to my caches and signed their names individually.

[cezanne]

I agree, and when I am with a group at least one if not all of us will mention in our on line logs who was in the group. As a CO I would hate to have to constantly change logsheets if many groups went to my caches and signed their names individually.

 

I assume that what you will mention is the truth and credible. That makes a difference to the situations where it is quite evident that it cannot be true and GS defends it anyhow as a matter of principle.

 

You write log sheets and I have noticed that you own many micros. Lots of the affected caches have a real log book and many groups could visit the cache until the log book will have to be exchanged and if those groups really did the caches by visiting all of them together they would need quite some time to fill all these log books. It's pretty ridiculous to argue with a full log book when 15 people visit a cache together which is not visited that frequently and which contains a real log book. Typically the list of 15 names will need less space than the log text of a single person took in the times hen some of the participants in this discussion started to cache. Unlike the fact whether the cache owner prefers individual signatures the size of the log book is something everyone can see at the cache - you do not have to come prepared. Using the nano sort of argument for a really large log book is not appropriate.

[cezanne]

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.

It would be an ALR because GS has already stated that group/team names are acceptable for signing a logbook. Therefore, requiring finders to sign their caching names individually in the logbook, or else their online logs are deleted, would be an Additional Logging Requirement.

 

They did not state it in the guidelines and in the knowledge book. I need to admit that my personal understanding is that the trail names or some abbreviation of them is what the intent of the guidelines are to be listed in the log. If A, B and C all the time choose the same team name and are known by their team name or if the team name clearly makes it evident who is part of it, then I have no objections at all. While this is not exactly what the guidelines ask for in my understanding, it still meest what in my opinion is their spirit.

 

I anyone can sign with whatever, I need to admit that it turns log books and the request that owners are responsible for the on-line logs to absurdity. I already have learnt to accept that for virtuals cache and ECs it became standard that one receives only one answer in the majority of group cache hunts and I stopped to insist as long the one mail lists explicitely the accounts.

 

In the situation which leads to requests like the one in the OP (while Lone.R just considered to add such a request to a cache, I know seeral caches that include the request), you are left as cache owner with the situation that you have to accept everything anyhow. Why then bother at all about logs? If I wanted I could each day encounter logs that are not sincere. What is going on, sometimes makes me consider to stop geocaching (together with other reasons) because it does not leave me with a good feeling to know that it is an activity that involves and implicitely supports so much lying, insincerity etc The impression that outsiders will get is quite a bad one and that hurts me as well it hurts my own soul anyway.

Edited March 12, 2016 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

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.

It would be an ALR because GS has already stated that group/team names are acceptable for signing a logbook. Therefore, requiring finders to sign their caching names individually in the logbook, or else their online logs are deleted, would be an Additional Logging Requirement.

 

Just because Groundspeak tolerates/facilitates group/team name signatures as 'proof' of a find by all the team members, that still doesn't make asking people to sign the logbook individually an ALR. What it does do though is undermine the purpose of having a guideline at all.

 

In my experience most CO's are quite happy with group signatures - probably because in the vast majority of cases they are perfectly legitimate - but that doesn't mean that they should be forced to accept them if they suspect that they aren't legitimate.

[+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?

[+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....

[+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.

[+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