Jump to content

Entitlement


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

How would you know a puzzle was not solvable?

In the cases I'm thinking of, the key clue was very few finds, and most of the logs had comments like "Had to get a hint from the CO," often with "CO" being replaced by a name indicating they were friends with the CO. It was many, many puzzle caches, and all the finds seemed to be the same limited set of people, so I got the distinct impression the main way to solve the puzzle was to be in the clique. I don't mind when that happens once in a while, but this seemed to be pervasive.

 

Would you consider this unsolvable:

 

If Joe has two apples and Fred has three apples, how far is it to London?

Yes, I would consider that unsolvable, but the cases I was thinking about wasn't disconnected logic but rather moon logic. Instead of the logic never working, the logic does work, but only if someone tells you which irrational leap to take to solve it.

 

I don't do puzzle caches, but if I did, the kind of thing I would do would be to create a long and tortured puzzle that required lots of esoteric knowledge and...all of it would be irrelevant. Unsolvable? Yep, just like the "apples to miles." Because the solution is really simple. Select the text of the puzzle, and there, under the fake puzzle, the final coordinates would appear, originally in white text on a white background. Would you need a hint? Maybe. Then again, maybe your browser would interpret the HTML different and so the coords are already visible.

 

You think you need to go from X to Y to Z to solve it when you really need to go fishing.

 

BTW, the name the cachers keep mentioning in their logs may not be the CO, they may not even be a person at all.

 

Meanwhile, the whole point of the puzzle may be to get you to ask for a hint. But you have come to your conclusions...

 

You "don't do puzzles"? The above paragraphs show you have the unique "puzzle-solvers' mind."

 

I have no idea why "the name the cachers keep mentioning in their logs may not be the CO, they may not even be a person at all." I won't ask since it would be off-topic.....wait, unless I feel *entitled* to know! But I'm sure puzzle-solvers know already.

:yikes:

 

Anyway, i probably should take the moon-logic of 99.9% of puzzles to the pet peeves thread....

Link to comment

Well, what I think is the important thing is that while I kept it to myself, one might want to consider whether, in any given case, crankiness is, in fact, justified.

There is no justification for hostility toward a cache owner for placing a cache that isn't to a particular individual's taste or ability.

I thought I said the hostility wasn't justified. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that even when someone's being rude, they may still have a good point.

Link to comment

Meanwhile, the whole point of the puzzle may be to get you to ask for a hint. But you have come to your conclusions...

On the other hand, I do do a lot of puzzles, and the approaches you're talking about are routine.

 

But, anyway, yes, what you suggest was, in fact, my conclusion: the puzzles were unsolvable because the CO wants people to have to come to him for a hint.

Link to comment

Meanwhile, the whole point of the puzzle may be to get you to ask for a hint. But you have come to your conclusions...

On the other hand, I do do a lot of puzzles, and the approaches you're talking about are routine.

 

But, anyway, yes, what you suggest was, in fact, my conclusion: the puzzles were unsolvable because the CO wants people to have to come to him for a hint.

 

Reviewers don't blindly publish every bit of nonsense that comes their way. The cache has to be solvable from the page.

Link to comment

Meanwhile, the whole point of the puzzle may be to get you to ask for a hint. But you have come to your conclusions...

On the other hand, I do do a lot of puzzles, and the approaches you're talking about are routine.

 

But, anyway, yes, what you suggest was, in fact, my conclusion: the puzzles were unsolvable because the CO wants people to have to come to him for a hint.

 

Reviewers don't blindly publish every bit of nonsense that comes their way. The cache has to be solvable from the page.

 

But sometimes the puzzle involves throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

"Take each number, multiply it by the day the cache was published, square it, then divide by the number of columns on the Acropolis". Yes, there is a solution, but unless there are clues in the listing, it would be *extremely* difficult to solve (if not impossible).

Link to comment

Meanwhile, the whole point of the puzzle may be to get you to ask for a hint. But you have come to your conclusions...

On the other hand, I do do a lot of puzzles, and the approaches you're talking about are routine.

 

But, anyway, yes, what you suggest was, in fact, my conclusion: the puzzles were unsolvable because the CO wants people to have to come to him for a hint.

 

Reviewers don't blindly publish every bit of nonsense that comes their way. The cache has to be solvable from the page.

 

But sometimes the puzzle involves throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

"Take each number, multiply it by the day the cache was published, square it, then divide by the number of columns on the Acropolis". Yes, there is a solution, but unless there are clues in the listing, it would be *extremely* difficult to solve (if not impossible).

 

And geocachers are not obligated to solve every puzzle that crosses their path. If solving the puzzle isn't enjoyable for you, you don't have to do it.

 

Cache owners are not obligated to place caches that appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Link to comment

Reviewers don't blindly publish every bit of nonsense that comes their way. The cache has to be solvable from the page.

That's the theory. I don't know what happened here. My guess is that the reviewer was satisfied when told it could be solved using technique X even though there was no earthly reason for someone to consider using technique X based on anything on the cache page.

 

And geocachers are not obligated to solve every puzzle that crosses their path. If solving the puzzle isn't enjoyable for you, you don't have to do it.

Of course. I just ignored them. I'm explaining why.

 

Cache owners are not obligated to place caches that appeal to the lowest common denominator.

I cache in a puzzle rich area, and I'm used to puzzle caches that are way over my head. I'm not complaining about these being too hard. I'm complaining about them being actually impossible. Naturally they aren't really impossible, but since I was only visiting the area, I had no interest in spending a year trying every technique known to man in order to hit on the one that solved the puzzle.

Link to comment

Reviewers don't blindly publish every bit of nonsense that comes their way. The cache has to be solvable from the page.

That's the theory. I don't know what happened here. My guess is that the reviewer was satisfied when told it could be solved using technique X even though there was no earthly reason for someone to consider using technique X based on anything on the cache page.

 

And geocachers are not obligated to solve every puzzle that crosses their path. If solving the puzzle isn't enjoyable for you, you don't have to do it.

Of course. I just ignored them. I'm explaining why.

 

Cache owners are not obligated to place caches that appeal to the lowest common denominator.

I cache in a puzzle rich area, and I'm used to puzzle caches that are way over my head. I'm not complaining about these being too hard. I'm complaining about them being actually impossible. Naturally they aren't really impossible, but since I was only visiting the area, I had no interest in spending a year trying every technique known to man in order to hit on the one that solved the puzzle.

 

Choosing to ignore caches that are too difficult for you is totally reasonable. It is exactly what you should do when a cache is beyond your capabilities or interest.

 

It is not reasonable to insinuate that a cache owner should reconsider hiding a cache at all, modify the cache to suit cachers with lower capabilities, or tolerate abusive behaviour because a cache is difficult.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

It is not reasonable to insinuate that a cache owner should reconsider hiding a cache at all, modify the cache to suit cachers with lower capabilities, or tolerate abusive behaviour because a cache is difficult.

I didn't insinuate anything. And, as I said, the issue isn't that the caches are merely difficult. It's the puzzle cache equivalent of posting a traditional cache, marking it very difficult, and then not actually putting a container at GZ.

Link to comment

It is not reasonable to insinuate that a cache owner should reconsider hiding a cache at all, modify the cache to suit cachers with lower capabilities, or tolerate abusive behaviour because a cache is difficult.

I didn't insinuate anything. And, as I said, the issue isn't that the caches are merely difficult. It's the puzzle cache equivalent of posting a traditional cache, marking it very difficult, and then not actually putting a container at GZ.

 

It's really the equivalent of posting a traditional cache, marking it very difficult, hiding something that is actually very difficult, and then getting complaints that difficult cache is difficult.

Link to comment

If you can't sign the log, you don't get to claim a find. It doesn't matter if the tree is too hard to climb, or the puzzle is too hard to solve, or the micro at the curb is invisible. If the cache and terrain are fairly rated and the CO describes what you have to do and bothers to use attributes (so you know before you go you have to climb a tree) there's not even any reason to grumble about it. Blaming the CO for deleting a "non-find" is lame. As for the impossible puzzle caches where you have to solve an arcane "brainteaser" that has nothing to do with geocaching I'm happy to ignore them and the easy"pretend puzzles" most geo-artists create.

Link to comment

It is not reasonable to insinuate that a cache owner should reconsider hiding a cache at all, modify the cache to suit cachers with lower capabilities, or tolerate abusive behaviour because a cache is difficult.

I didn't insinuate anything. And, as I said, the issue isn't that the caches are merely difficult. It's the puzzle cache equivalent of posting a traditional cache, marking it very difficult, and then not actually putting a container at GZ.

 

It's really the equivalent of posting a traditional cache, marking it very difficult, hiding something that is actually very difficult, and then getting complaints that difficult cache is difficult.

 

+1

Link to comment

I'm of two minds about this. I think that if the log wasn't signed purely out of laziness (I saw it in the tree but couldn't be bothered climbing to get it or I didn't want to get dirty by reaching behind the rock or lying in the mud to get it) then sure, it shouldn't be counted.

 

On the other hand though, I think that sometimes there are valid reasons you might claim a find without signing the log. For instance, if you have some disability that prevents you from being able to climb the tree or reach around the rock or lie in the mud the then I think it's fair to say you found it because you saw it, but you couldn't sign. Or, if you get there and there's a venomous snake sleeping on top of the cache or if it's a really windy day and it's just too dangerous to climb the tree and you know you're not going to be able to get back to the area (say you're on a once-in-a-lifetime holiday) then I'd say claiming the find without signing the log is also acceptable.

 

On the third hand, if it turns out to be a NM cache with an un-signable log but the cache is still there then I also think it's fair to claim the find without signing the log.

 

 

So I'd think that before just deleting the log it would always be best to ask the cacher why they didn't sign.

 

Just my two cents worth.

Link to comment

I've gotten a couple of those "you spoiled my fun" emails, but they were by the COs in response to my logs. In one case the cache page was so full of grammar, wrong word, and spelling errors it was difficult to tell what the CO was trying to say. The stuff you could understand was full of incorrect information, including very bad coordinates and a wrong description of the container. It was also hidden in a dirty unpleasant location. When I pointed these things out in my log the CO emailed me that I was spoiling his fun. Had it not occurred to him that other geocachers are entitled to have fun too? I felt the log was important to warn other geocachers what to expect (or NOT to expect). In the other case, which required finders to attempt to break a padlock securing city property (which turned out to be a real lock modified to hold a log, and the city property it was on was real), I logged that it was a very bad idea and that it was an irresponsible hide encouraging people to to do things that could get them arrested and bring authorities down on geocaching in general. I did NOT log a NA or NM. The CO deleted it saying I'd spoiled his fun, even though I had legitimately found the cache. I emailed him to ask why. He actually said people should only write positive logs because negative logs spoil everyone's fun. I went back to his cache and created a bookmark list for his cache titled "Lame caches to avoid" or something like that and emailed him back that he couldn't delete that. I don't like writing negative logs and rarely do it, but I feel we all have a responsibility to future finders to warn of significant problems.

Link to comment

I've gotten a couple of those "you spoiled my fun" emails, but they were by the COs in response to my logs. In one case the cache page was so full of grammar, wrong word, and spelling errors it was difficult to tell what the CO was trying to say. The stuff you could understand was full of incorrect information, including very bad coordinates and a wrong description of the container. It was also hidden in a dirty unpleasant location. When I pointed these things out in my log the CO emailed me that I was spoiling his fun. Had it not occurred to him that other geocachers are entitled to have fun too? I felt the log was important to warn other geocachers what to expect (or NOT to expect). In the other case, which required finders to attempt to break a padlock securing city property (which turned out to be a real lock modified to hold a log, and the city property it was on was real), I logged that it was a very bad idea and that it was an irresponsible hide encouraging people to to do things that could get them arrested and bring authorities down on geocaching in general. I did NOT log a NA or NM. The CO deleted it saying I'd spoiled his fun, even though I had legitimately found the cache. I emailed him to ask why. He actually said people should only write positive logs because negative logs spoil everyone's fun. I went back to his cache and created a bookmark list for his cache titled "Lame caches to avoid" or something like that and emailed him back that he couldn't delete that. I don't like writing negative logs and rarely do it, but I feel we all have a responsibility to future finders to warn of significant problems.

 

Good for you for telling it like it is in your logs. The idea that people should only write positive logs, no matter how bad the cache, is totally ridiculous. I'd say "People should only write truthful logs." It is not a negative log, but a negative experience, that spoils the fun. In both cases the only positive, truthful thing you could have said is "Found it." I like the idea of making a public bookmark list, and detailing the problems in the Comments; I really never, well hardly ever, look at other peoples BM lists, but maybe I should.

Link to comment

I'm sure that these forums do not reflect the vast majority of geocachers but rather the more "earnest" or "committed." That said, I wonder why so many of you care whether someone logs a find or not. It's just an activity or sport; it's not life or death. It's not even a competition. In the end, anyone can play the game any way they want without hurting others. It's their log and their list.

 

I've been an avid birdwatcher for 40 years. Birders usually keep a "life list." It's the same, people decide their own standards and record accordingly. Who cares? If you want to police your caches and get all righteous over others "misdeeds," I suppose you can. Personally, I'd rather encourage than discourage others.

 

Some of you relate this to "entitlement." I don't get the connection. Recording a geocaching find when you didn't actually sign it isn't a major social sin. I think some of you that go off on an "entitlement" rant mixing your other resentments with your ideas of geocaching. Get over it.

Link to comment
That said, I wonder why so many of you care whether someone logs a find or not. It's just an activity or sport; it's not life or death. It's not even a competition. In the end, anyone can play the game any way they want without hurting others. It's their log and their list.

It's my cache. If someone logs it, I want them to have actually found it and at least handled the paper log. If there are no logging rules, then the find counts are meaningless. Someone with 100,000 finds who never even touched the caches? I'm not impressed.

Link to comment

I'm sure that these forums do not reflect the vast majority of geocachers but rather the more "earnest" or "committed." That said, I wonder why so many of you care whether someone logs a find or not. It's just an activity or sport; it's not life or death. It's not even a competition. In the end, anyone can play the game any way they want without hurting others. It's their log and their list.

 

I've been an avid birdwatcher for 40 years. Birders usually keep a "life list." It's the same, people decide their own standards and record accordingly. Who cares? If you want to police your caches and get all righteous over others "misdeeds," I suppose you can. Personally, I'd rather encourage than discourage others.

 

Some of you relate this to "entitlement." I don't get the connection. Recording a geocaching find when you didn't actually sign it isn't a major social sin. I think some of you that go off on an "entitlement" rant mixing your other resentments with your ideas of geocaching. Get over it.

 

Rules matter, but it's not life or death.

 

And I'll stand up to the grammar critics.

 

It's boo-hoo-hoo by those who find it "difficult" to read what I'll call "texting English." In the US, we have it easy. We all learn one language, maybe some slang, and toy with a foreign language for two years.

 

In some parts of Europe, there is the formal language and a hugely-different local dialect. If you live in Switzerland, you are probably fluent in at least 2-3 languages and proficient in 1-2 more.

 

"Texting English" is with us to stay. Some say that those who don't punctuate in the forum are "entitled.". I say those who refuse to make an effort to understand their fellow members are "entitled."

 

If we want our neurons to still be firing at age 85, we need to not hesitate to give them a rigorous workout between now and then!

Link to comment

I'm sure that these forums do not reflect the vast majority of geocachers but rather the more "earnest" or "committed." That said, I wonder why so many of you care whether someone logs a find or not. It's just an activity or sport; it's not life or death. It's not even a competition. In the end, anyone can play the game any way they want without hurting others. It's their log and their list.

 

I've been an avid birdwatcher for 40 years. Birders usually keep a "life list." It's the same, people decide their own standards and record accordingly. Who cares? If you want to police your caches and get all righteous over others "misdeeds," I suppose you can. Personally, I'd rather encourage than discourage others.

 

Some of you relate this to "entitlement." I don't get the connection. Recording a geocaching find when you didn't actually sign it isn't a major social sin. I think some of you that go off on an "entitlement" rant mixing your other resentments with your ideas of geocaching. Get over it.

 

Cache owners are expected to maintain the integrity of their cache listing by removing fraudulent logs.

 

When it comes to the webcam cache that the the original post is about, leaving fraudulent logs in place isn't merely a nuisance to cachers who have genuinely completed the requirements. It would put the cache at risk of being archived by a reviewer.

Link to comment

And I'll stand up to the grammar critics.

You won't need to. Your grammar is impeccable (and much appreciated).

Thanks, Rat! My point (in this thread about entitlement in all its facets, *including* the grammar issue (an oblique rejoinder to an oblique critique in an earlier post)) was that one form of entitlement is feeling that reading English texting language (a dialect of English, you might say) is just toooo much work.

 

So I speak for the poor or rushed speakers, you might say. They're entitled to a defense, right,?!

Link to comment
That said, I wonder why so many of you care whether someone logs a find or not. It's just an activity or sport; it's not life or death. It's not even a competition. In the end, anyone can play the game any way they want without hurting others. It's their log and their list.

It's my cache. If someone logs it, I want them to have actually found it and at least handled the paper log. If there are no logging rules, then the find counts are meaningless...

+1 Yep.

 

I'd be fine with no one signing that cache log, as long as they're not logging online to say they did. :)

The basic guide for beginners, Geocaching 101 still says that at its simplest level, "Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location" is one of 8.

Cache logs are a part of maintenance for the CO.

Link to comment
... I wonder why so many of you care whether someone logs a find or not. It's just an activity or sport; it's not life or death. It's not even a competition. In the end, anyone can play the game any way they want without hurting others. It's their log and their list.

 

- skipit -

 

Some of you relate this to "entitlement." I don't get the connection. Recording a geocaching find when you didn't actually sign it isn't a major social sin. I think some of you that go off on an "entitlement" rant mixing your other resentments with your ideas of geocaching. Get over it.

:)

I don't believe it'd be fair to the few people who spent a good part of the day, and actually found one of our "5" terrain hides, to allow someone who didn't log that they did....

Link to comment

I'm sure that these forums do not reflect the vast majority of geocachers but rather the more "earnest" or "committed." That said, I wonder why so many of you care whether someone logs a find or not. It's just an activity or sport; it's not life or death. It's not even a competition. In the end, anyone can play the game any way they want without hurting others. It's their log and their list.

 

I've been an avid birdwatcher for 40 years. Birders usually keep a "life list." It's the same, people decide their own standards and record accordingly. Who cares? If you want to police your caches and get all righteous over others "misdeeds," I suppose you can. Personally, I'd rather encourage than discourage others.

 

Some of you relate this to "entitlement." I don't get the connection. Recording a geocaching find when you didn't actually sign it isn't a major social sin. I think some of you that go off on an "entitlement" rant mixing your other resentments with your ideas of geocaching. Get over it.

 

You're wrong. Caching is not like birding. Caching logs are used by other cachers, since (unlike birds) other people find the same cache. Logs recorded online without visiting the cache do hurt others, i.e. when the cache is not there and a seeker takes a bogus "found it" log as evidence that it the cache is still in place.

 

If you don't like a community that considers some standard of basic truthfulness as integral to the game, then I suggest that perhaps caching is not the right activity for you.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

I've been an avid birdwatcher for 40 years. Birders usually keep a "life list." It's the same, people decide their own standards and record accordingly. Who cares?

So you wouldn't have an opinion if another birder was crowing about seeing a rare bird when you knew for a fact they were basing their claim on being in the same area when someone else saw it? If they told you about that in a conversation, wouldn't you at least say, "Gee, I wouldn't consider that a sighting"?

Link to comment

I'm sure that these forums do not reflect the vast majority of geocachers but rather the more "earnest" or "committed." That said, I wonder why so many of you care whether someone logs a find or not. It's just an activity or sport; it's not life or death. It's not even a competition. In the end, anyone can play the game any way they want without hurting others. It's their log and their list.

 

I've written it before on this forum. It DOES hurt others. I worked on getting answers for old virtuals last year to be logged when on holiday. A few weeks before we left they were archived because the CO was getting fed up with the many fake logs. Eventhough I enjoyed working on the solutions I feel I "lost" a lot of time because of these fake loggers.

Link to comment

I'm sure that these forums do not reflect the vast majority of geocachers but rather the more "earnest" or "committed." That said, I wonder why so many of you care whether someone logs a find or not. It's just an activity or sport; it's not life or death. It's not even a competition. In the end, anyone can play the game any way they want without hurting others. It's their log and their list.

 

I've written it before on this forum. It DOES hurt others. I worked on getting answers for old virtuals last year to be logged when on holiday. A few weeks before we left they were archived because the CO was getting fed up with the many fake logs. Eventhough I enjoyed working on the solutions I feel I "lost" a lot of time because of these fake loggers.

 

Yes. This activity isn't competitive, but statements are expected to be accurate and reliable, for various reasons. A person *can* play the game however they wish, but shouldn't misrepresent what they did. With some caches, the terrain challenge gets most difficult at the very end (like a tree cache, a cache on top of boulders, etc.). Suppose you get that far but can't go the final 10 meters? Look at the bright side - nice scenery and hike - and post a note, not a find.

Link to comment

I'm sure that these forums do not reflect the vast majority of geocachers but rather the more "earnest" or "committed." That said, I wonder why so many of you care whether someone logs a find or not. It's just an activity or sport; it's not life or death. It's not even a competition. In the end, anyone can play the game any way they want without hurting others. It's their log and their list.

 

I've been an avid birdwatcher for 40 years. Birders usually keep a "life list." It's the same, people decide their own standards and record accordingly. Who cares? If you want to police your caches and get all righteous over others "misdeeds," I suppose you can. Personally, I'd rather encourage than discourage others.

 

Some of you relate this to "entitlement." I don't get the connection. Recording a geocaching find when you didn't actually sign it isn't a major social sin. I think some of you that go off on an "entitlement" rant mixing your other resentments with your ideas of geocaching. Get over it.

 

If you're too lazy to sign the written logs, just please make sure you're too lazy to log online too then.

 

It's called integrity. I suggest you get some.

Link to comment
That said, I wonder why so many of you care whether someone logs a find or not. It's just an activity or sport; it's not life or death. It's not even a competition. In the end, anyone can play the game any way they want without hurting others. It's their log and their list.

It's my cache. If someone logs it, I want them to have actually found it and at least handled the paper log. If there are no logging rules, then the find counts are meaningless. Someone with 100,000 finds who never even touched the caches? I'm not impressed.

 

But the find counts are meaningless. You might choose to police your logs strictly. But if the vast majority of COs don't police their logs as strictly as you, how are you to know the validity of anyone's find count?

 

Maintain your cache to whatever standard you desire. But find counts are still pretty meaningless.

Link to comment

I'm sure that these forums do not reflect the vast majority of geocachers but rather the more "earnest" or "committed." That said, I wonder why so many of you care whether someone logs a find or not. It's just an activity or sport; it's not life or death. It's not even a competition. In the end, anyone can play the game any way they want without hurting others. It's their log and their list.

 

I've been an avid birdwatcher for 40 years. Birders usually keep a "life list." It's the same, people decide their own standards and record accordingly. Who cares? If you want to police your caches and get all righteous over others "misdeeds," I suppose you can. Personally, I'd rather encourage than discourage others.

 

Some of you relate this to "entitlement." I don't get the connection. Recording a geocaching find when you didn't actually sign it isn't a major social sin. I think some of you that go off on an "entitlement" rant mixing your other resentments with your ideas of geocaching. Get over it.

Geocaching is a hobby that has basic guidelines and requirements. Saying that "anyone can play the play the game any way they want without hurting others" is ridiculous.

 

For me, it's principle. I don't care if it's a small one or a large one, a lie is a lie. If a person lies about something this trivial, then i figure they probably don't have any problem lying about anything else. Don't care if it's a trivial little false find log on one of my caches, i'm not going to condone the lie by letting it stay.

Link to comment

I'm sure that these forums do not reflect the vast majority of geocachers but rather the more "earnest" or "committed." That said, I wonder why so many of you care whether someone logs a find or not. It's just an activity or sport; it's not life or death. It's not even a competition. In the end, anyone can play the game any way they want without hurting others. It's their log and their list.

 

I've been an avid birdwatcher for 40 years. Birders usually keep a "life list." It's the same, people decide their own standards and record accordingly. Who cares? If you want to police your caches and get all righteous over others "misdeeds," I suppose you can. Personally, I'd rather encourage than discourage others.

 

Some of you relate this to "entitlement." I don't get the connection. Recording a geocaching find when you didn't actually sign it isn't a major social sin. I think some of you that go off on an "entitlement" rant mixing your other resentments with your ideas of geocaching. Get over it.

 

Rules matter, but it's not life or death.

 

And I'll stand up to the grammar critics.

 

It's boo-hoo-hoo by those who find it "difficult" to read what I'll call "texting English." In the US, we have it easy. We all learn one language, maybe some slang, and toy with a foreign language for two years.

 

In some parts of Europe, there is the formal language and a hugely-different local dialect. If you live in Switzerland, you are probably fluent in at least 2-3 languages and proficient in 1-2 more.

 

"Texting English" is with us to stay. Some say that those who don't punctuate in the forum are "entitled.". I say those who refuse to make an effort to understand their fellow members are "entitled."

 

If we want our neurons to still be firing at age 85, we need to not hesitate to give them a rigorous workout between now and then!

 

You are entitled to your opinion.

Link to comment

Where did Furrhan's post go?

 

I see one in a weird font a few posts up.

 

Found it (should I log it :ph34r: )

 

Strange as it was posted at 2:24 forum time but the notification was send Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:56:55 -0700 (PDT) 7,5 hours later and more than an hour after NanCycle's reply that was posted at 3:41 forum time.

Notifications are instantly most of the time, no wonder I missed it.

Link to comment

On the other hand though, I think that sometimes there are valid reasons you might claim a find without signing the log. For instance, if you have some disability that prevents you from being able to climb the tree or reach around the rock or lie in the mud the then I think it's fair to say you found it because you saw it, but you couldn't sign. Or, if you get there and there's a venomous snake sleeping on top of the cache or if it's a really windy day and it's just too dangerous to climb the tree and you know you're not going to be able to get back to the area (say you're on a once-in-a-lifetime holiday) then I'd say claiming the find without signing the log is also acceptable.

 

Neither is a valid excuse.

 

It's not Pokemon and you don't have to "get them all". Log not signed = no online found it log. Couldn't be simpler.

Link to comment

I'm of two minds about this. I think that if the log wasn't signed purely out of laziness (I saw it in the tree but couldn't be bothered climbing to get it or I didn't want to get dirty by reaching behind the rock or lying in the mud to get it) then sure, it shouldn't be counted.

 

On the other hand though, I think that sometimes there are valid reasons you might claim a find without signing the log. For instance, if you have some disability that prevents you from being able to climb the tree or reach around the rock or lie in the mud the then I think it's fair to say you found it because you saw it, but you couldn't sign. Or, if you get there and there's a venomous snake sleeping on top of the cache or if it's a really windy day and it's just too dangerous to climb the tree and you know you're not going to be able to get back to the area (say you're on a once-in-a-lifetime holiday) then I'd say claiming the find without signing the log is also acceptable.

 

On the third hand, if it turns out to be a NM cache with an un-signable log but the cache is still there then I also think it's fair to claim the find without signing the log.

 

 

So I'd think that before just deleting the log it would always be best to ask the cacher why they didn't sign.

 

Just my two cents worth.

 

Thanks for giving my neurons a workout with your ideas and your font! I do believe though that the examples of bending the rules to allow a find aren't valid.

 

There are some finds that we can never get - for each person it's different. I can't get the deep sea caches or the space cache. If I had a few million extra dollars I could. I can't get caches in some remote parts of the world. I'd need more money and time. And some T 5.0 caches require special skills (like rope climbing of 125 foot tall trees) that I don't have or present a physical danger that I'm not willing to take.

 

What is wrong with posting a Note or DNF rather than claiming a find if you get most of the way to the goal but don't quite make it?? I'd remember a DNF or Note with a rattlesnake more than a routine find with no special experience.

Link to comment

Where did Furrhan's post go?

 

I see one in a weird font a few posts up.

 

Found it (should I log it :ph34r: )

 

Strange as it was posted at 2:24 forum time but the notification was send Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:56:55 -0700 (PDT) 7,5 hours later and more than an hour after NanCycle's reply that was posted at 3:41 forum time.

Notifications are instantly most of the time, no wonder I missed it.

 

The font slowed the server. :ph34r:

Link to comment

I'm sure that these forums do not reflect the vast majority of geocachers but rather the more "earnest" or "committed." That said, I wonder why so many of you care whether someone logs a find or not. It's just an activity or sport; it's not life or death. It's not even a competition. In the end, anyone can play the game any way they want without hurting others. It's their log and their list.

 

I've been an avid birdwatcher for 40 years. Birders usually keep a "life list." It's the same, people decide their own standards and record accordingly. Who cares? If you want to police your caches and get all righteous over others "misdeeds," I suppose you can. Personally, I'd rather encourage than discourage others.

 

Some of you relate this to "entitlement." I don't get the connection. Recording a geocaching find when you didn't actually sign it isn't a major social sin. I think some of you that go off on an "entitlement" rant mixing your other resentments with your ideas of geocaching. Get over it.

 

Rules matter, but it's not life or death.

 

And I'll stand up to the grammar critics.

 

It's boo-hoo-hoo by those who find it "difficult" to read what I'll call "texting English." In the US, we have it easy. We all learn one language, maybe some slang, and toy with a foreign language for two years.

 

In some parts of Europe, there is the formal language and a hugely-different local dialect. If you live in Switzerland, you are probably fluent in at least 2-3 languages and proficient in 1-2 more.

 

"Texting English" is with us to stay. Some say that those who don't punctuate in the forum are "entitled.". I say those who refuse to make an effort to understand their fellow members are "entitled."

 

If we want our neurons to still be firing at age 85, we need to not hesitate to give them a rigorous workout between now and then!

 

You are entitled to your opinion.

Thanks! :rolleyes:

 

And the related issue is how to deal with non-English cache descriptions for English-speaking people. Does anyone have an entitlement is such a situation?

 

Here's an example of this recurring theme:

 

Hi everyone,

 

In the last past months I could see that many of the caches hidden in various countries (e.g. Czech) do not have the description in English. How can we find the caches if we cannot read the description and the hints?

 

In Romania, the country from where I am, most of the caches that I have found have also the descriptions and hints in English so other persons can find them.

 

Is there a possibility to add also an English description for the caches that are in other languages?

 

Thank you in advance!

 

Bobim6

Link to comment

I'm not sure where this thread diverged into texting English. As a proud grammar Nazi I have no problem with texting English when people are actually texting, including logging their finds. I do have a problem with atrocious grammar in the cache description or, to a lesser extent, when posting here or in other forums. You aren't rushed when typing those and you probably are using a real keyboard and a browser with a spellchecker. Please take the time to fix your mistakes. The occasional typo is no big deal, either; we all make them. The original OP's post was an example of good grammar and I mentioned it earlier, so this isn't a slam at him, although we seem to disagree to some extent. Really bad grammar can make a cache description barely understandable in the worst cases. I've seen cases where the CO (not a foreigner, BTW) used a wrong word to describe the cache container so I was looking for something else. The coordinates were also off. Bad grammar, punctuation, and spelling are a sign of general sloppiness and it usually carries over into other areas, such as choosing a garbage-littered lot in which to hide a cache. Those for whom English is not their first language often have grammar errors, but that's forgivable and it is usually obvious by the nature of the errors or the cacher's name they are not native English speakers. Speaking of litter, that's really what bad grammar is: verbal litter. Not a major sin, no, but offensive to the eye for most people. If you grew up in a filthy slum and everyone around you routinely threw trash into the street, maybe that seems normal to you and you would object to the "litter Nazis" telling you not to litter, but you would be outside social norms in my opinion. I see bad grammar, like littering or swearing in public, as generally disrespectful to the feelings of others. As a CO I appreciate it when a finder writes a few real sentences that show he or she actually found the cache and appreciates why it was hidden there, or how the puzzle was constructed, etc. "TFTC" doesn't offend me, but it doesn't make me want to hide that kind of cache any more. A few nice, well-written logs might.

Link to comment

I'm not sure where this thread diverged into texting English. ....

 

Post 1 refers to "the modern concept of entitlement." That is *extremely* broad. Post 1 also gives an example of being "entitled" to log caches that weren't really found.

 

By post 10, the full gamut of "the modern concept of entitlement" was addressed:

 

...

Yep, in just about every aspect of our lives. Unfortunate. It's why we will fail as a species.

 

After that (Post 12), someone mentioned government entitlements (yes, that's the official government word)....

Edited by wmpastor
Link to comment

I'm not sure where this thread diverged into texting English. As a proud grammar Nazi I have no problem with texting English when people are actually texting, including logging their finds. I do have a problem with atrocious grammar in the cache description or, to a lesser extent, when posting here or in other forums. You aren't rushed when typing those and you probably are using a real keyboard and a browser with a spellchecker. Please take the time to fix your mistakes. The occasional typo is no big deal, either; we all make them. The original OP's post was an example of good grammar and I mentioned it earlier, so this isn't a slam at him, although we seem to disagree to some extent. Really bad grammar can make a cache description barely understandable in the worst cases. I've seen cases where the CO (not a foreigner, BTW) used a wrong word to describe the cache container so I was looking for something else. The coordinates were also off. Bad grammar, punctuation, and spelling are a sign of general sloppiness and it usually carries over into other areas, such as choosing a garbage-littered lot in which to hide a cache. Those for whom English is not their first language often have grammar errors, but that's forgivable and it is usually obvious by the nature of the errors or the cacher's name they are not native English speakers. Speaking of litter, that's really what bad grammar is: verbal litter. Not a major sin, no, but offensive to the eye for most people. If you grew up in a filthy slum and everyone around you routinely threw trash into the street, maybe that seems normal to you and you would object to the "litter Nazis" telling you not to litter, but you would be outside social norms in my opinion. I see bad grammar, like littering or swearing in public, as generally disrespectful to the feelings of others. As a CO I appreciate it when a finder writes a few real sentences that show he or she actually found the cache and appreciates why it was hidden there, or how the puzzle was constructed, etc. "TFTC" doesn't offend me, but it doesn't make me want to hide that kind of cache any more. A few nice, well-written logs might.

 

When finders are going to be subject to an attack for anything less than impeccable grammar, I think they can be forgiven for going with "TFTC."

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

I'm not sure where this thread diverged into texting English. As a proud grammar Nazi I have no problem with texting English when people are actually texting, including logging their finds. I do have a problem with atrocious grammar in the cache description or, to a lesser extent, when posting here or in other forums. You aren't rushed when typing those and you probably are using a real keyboard and a browser with a spellchecker. Please take the time to fix your mistakes. The occasional typo is no big deal, either; we all make them. The original OP's post was an example of good grammar and I mentioned it earlier, so this isn't a slam at him, although we seem to disagree to some extent. Really bad grammar can make a cache description barely understandable in the worst cases. I've seen cases where the CO (not a foreigner, BTW) used a wrong word to describe the cache container so I was looking for something else. The coordinates were also off. Bad grammar, punctuation, and spelling are a sign of general sloppiness and it usually carries over into other areas, such as choosing a garbage-littered lot in which to hide a cache. Those for whom English is not their first language often have grammar errors, but that's forgivable and it is usually obvious by the nature of the errors or the cacher's name they are not native English speakers. Speaking of litter, that's really what bad grammar is: verbal litter. Not a major sin, no, but offensive to the eye for most people. If you grew up in a filthy slum and everyone around you routinely threw trash into the street, maybe that seems normal to you and you would object to the "litter Nazis" telling you not to litter, but you would be outside social norms in my opinion. I see bad grammar, like littering or swearing in public, as generally disrespectful to the feelings of others. As a CO I appreciate it when a finder writes a few real sentences that show he or she actually found the cache and appreciates why it was hidden there, or how the puzzle was constructed, etc. "TFTC" doesn't offend me, but it doesn't make me want to hide that kind of cache any more. A few nice, well-written logs might.

 

When finders are going to be subject to an attack for anything less than impeccable grammar, I think they can be forgiven for going with "TFTC."

 

Thanks to N., it looks like arguments of the self-proclaimed "proud grammar Nazi" took a hit! :laughing:

 

I would have trimmed Rat's quote, but it's too much work on a small keyboard! Don't feel entitled - be thankful I broke apart the sentences!

:P

 

By the way...

So how soon will headquarters be providing translations for parallel threads in other countries, like this one:

 

Was denkt Ihr über das Spiel Pokemon Go das vermehrt von der jungen Generation seit Wochen ausgeübt wird gegenüber unserem Hobby?

 

Ist es hilfreich... schadet es uns?

[/Quote]

 

We should be entitled to that much, huh?!

Link to comment

On the other hand though, I think that sometimes there are valid reasons you might claim a find without signing the log. For instance, if you have some disability that prevents you from being able to climb the tree or reach around the rock or lie in the mud the then I think it's fair to say you found it because you saw it, but you couldn't sign.

 

As someone who has been wheelchair bound for some time, let me state that this is no excuse to log a find without signing the log.

 

If I can't figure out a way to sign the log, I don't consider it a find.

Link to comment

It appears that some Mainstays (who should be setting a good example, don'tcha think?!) are getting lax with their grammar. *Entitlement*?

 

Case in point (with run-on text):

 

At home Ingress and Pokemon can be played every day for hours on end right in your own neighborhood and local parks.....I've found all the caches that are close and my cache maint. doesn't take that long so thats it for caching and let me say I will place a cache " because there isn't one there "....local folks enjoy having caches to find no matter how simple.

[/Quote]

Link to comment

Where did Furrhan's post go?

 

Found it (should I log it :ph34r: )

 

Strange as it was posted at 2:24 forum time but the notification was send Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:56:55 -0700 (PDT) 7,5 hours later and more than an hour after NanCycle's reply that was posted at 3:41 forum time.

Notifications are instantly most of the time, no wonder I missed it.

 

Sorry about that! It was my first post on the forums so I had to wait for a moderator to approve it before it showed up just to make sure I wasn't a spam bot. :P

 

 

Thanks for giving my neurons a workout with your ideas and your font! I do believe though that the examples of bending the rules to allow a find aren't valid.

You're right. That font is more difficult to read than I anticipated. Sorry about that! I'll stick with the conventional fonts, I think!

 

What is wrong with posting a Note or DNF rather than claiming a find if you get most of the way to the goal but don't quite make it?? I'd remember a DNF or Note with a rattlesnake more than a routine find with no special experience.

If it's a DNF then that can signal to the reviewer or CO that there's a problem and cause unwanted/unneeded hassle. Plus it's not really fair to say they didn't find it when they did, in fact, find it and just couldn't sign. I think a note would be a good compromise though. ^^

 

Neither is a valid excuse.

 

It's not Pokemon and you don't have to "get them all". Log not signed = no online found it log. Couldn't be simpler.

I never said it was. And I also said I disapprove of logging it as a find if you just couldn't be bothered getting to it. I just don't think it's fair to the cacher to not be able to sign because they were prevented from accessing the cache at the last second, or to the cache owner to have DNF logs on a great cache because someone couldn't open it because there was a snake on it on the day. I think as long as you have a confirmed visual on the cache and there's a very good reason why you can't sign then you should still be able to log it.

 

As someone who has been wheelchair bound for some time, let me state that this is no excuse to log a find without signing the log.

 

If I can't figure out a way to sign the log, I don't consider it a find.

Hey, good on you for continuing to cache and for finding ways to challenge yourself and to work around being in the wheelchair! That's a great example and an inspiration to mobility-challenged cachers everywhere!

Link to comment
I just don't think it's fair to the cacher to not be able to sign because they were prevented from accessing the cache at the last second, or to the cache owner to have DNF logs on a great cache because someone couldn't open it because there was a snake on it on the day.
I've found a number of caches where the whole point was to figure out how to access the cache/log. You can be at the cache site, often you can spot the cache easily, and in some cases you can even hold the thing in your hands. Some were elevated, some were physical puzzles/locks, and some were something else. But if you haven't figured out how to access the cache/log ("at the last second", so to speak), then you haven't found it.

 

I've also found caches with decoy containers/objects of various kinds. If you don't access the container/object, then you won't know whether or not it's really the cache.

 

I think as long as you have a confirmed visual on the cache and there's a very good reason why you can't sign then you should still be able to log it.
Go ahead and log it. But if you haven't accessed the cache/log, then don't log it as a Find.
Link to comment

If someone faces a barrier that wasn't intended to be part of the cache experience, the cache owner may choose to allow a find in extenuating circumstances. (In these cases it is up to the cache owner to extend the offer. The find should not be assumed.)

 

In general, however, if you don't retrieve the cache and don't leave your name in it, you should not call it a find. Log a DNF instead. It's still part of your geocaching record.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...