I Didn't Have A Pen!!??!!

[+fbingha]

6 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

May be just me, but I feel a thread's shot when it gets to the point of  "define the"...  

When has a thread this long, on this forum, not been shot at this point?

[+niraD]

7 minutes ago, fbingha said:

When has a thread this long, on this forum, not been shot at this point?

Well, this thread is now flagged as "Hot!"

Maybe that's a synonym for "Shot!"

[+thebruce0]

10 minutes ago, niraD said:

Well, this thread is now flagged as "Hot!"

Maybe that's a synonym for "Shot!"

Maybe it should be flagged as a "Hit!"

Edited November 10, 2017 by thebruce0

[+L0ne.R]

Quote

But on the flip side, I can understand the frustration of a CO who creates a multi-stage epic cache, only for someone to grab the final coordinates, drive to the final location, sign the log, and claim the Fizzy square. And in that case, there really was no success to take away.

This ^^

Quote

I will say though, that it can depend on the cache experience being provided. Sometimes it is much easier to feel 'gipped' as a CO when someone opts to for-go the entire experience, once you've put together for others' enjoyment, especially if not especially difficult, just so they can get the smiley.  As one example, if you create a very cool, entertaining, interesting multi-cache, and someone just wants the DT so they find someone who's willing to give them the final coordinates. Sure, they found the final and signed the logsheet, but the feeling to the CO is more like getting the finger (even if that's not the intent); like "you put all that effort in for my enjoyment, but I just wanted your smiley instead". That's how many COs feel in cases like that.

1

and This ^^

And that's the point I'm trying to get across. If only there were less emphasis on the find count as a reward. If people would geocache to find the geocache as intended (an epic multi or a clever puzzle actually tried, visited and held; a high terrain actually climbed/paddled/dived, visited and held) then both the finder and the cache owner are playing as intended. But when people fudge the definition of a find and prefer points over experience, and points over integrity, the cache owner's efforts mean very little. Eventually, all you have left are cache owners who also prefer points over experience, they are happy to provide caches for the numbers and push out the rest. The carry a box full of cheap caches in the car and in their pocket, to plunk down everywhere. 

Deleting a find because the cacher didn't have a writing tool (with no evidence that it's a false find), speaks to the games emphasis on points rather than the experience of actually finding a cache as intended.

[+thebruce0]

22 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

If only there were less emphasis on the find count as a reward. If people would geocache to find the geocache as intended (an epic multi or a clever puzzle actually tried, visited and held; a high terrain actually climbed/paddled/dived, visited and held) then both the finder and the cache owner are playing as intended. But when people fudge the definition of a find and prefer points over experience, and points over integrity, the cache owner's efforts mean very little.

I agree, though to be a devil's advocate, many will say that all this extra stuff is fluff that comes between them and the whole origin of geocaching - finding the geocache. That's why some people hate puzzles, multi-"Caches", and all the other jazz that's been made official because people have tried to 'spice up' the experience of just going out and finding the container. So those people would defend, for example, not doing a difficult puzzle by claiming the CO "doesn't want their cache to be found" - so they did it the easy way by getting the final coords from someone, and enjoy the root of geocaching - they just want to find the cache.

So in a way that goes both ways. Geocaching has changed... some people just like finding containers. Some people also love the journey to the container. Some people also love the brain-bendy puzzles to locate the container. Some people like accomplishing personal goals and challenges to complete before marking it with finding the container. etc.  And so, GS took the very basic and really only verifiable rule to enforce for physical caches - name in the logbook.  Beyond that, it's all preference and etiquette and how your actions affect others.

Best solution is just to learn to be lax about things that aren't that important.

As a finder, if I don't sign the cache even though I found it and the CO deletes my log, it sucks, but it's a valid action; not going to die over it, may go back to sign it properly.

As an owner, if a cacher doesn't find the cache the way I intend and hope, it's unfortunate, but it's a valid strategy; not going to die over it, may just encourage other people to actually do it as intended and not miss out; or restructure the cache to help with that.

And as an owner, if I think someone found my cache even though they couldn't sign the logsheet, almost certainly I'll believe them, otherwise most likely won't consider it significant enough to worry about, and let them log it. There are exceptions, but typically when it comes to the state of the cache and the implication of that Find log.

There's too much angst in the community these days.

Edited November 10, 2017 by thebruce0

[+niraD]

9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Best solution is just to learn to be lax about things that aren't that important.

I am reminded of the "robustness principle" in computing: "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others."

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Yes,  that's what the guideline indicates.   You can not log your find online unless you have signed the physical log,  their for you MUST sign the physical log first if you intend to log your find online.    Now whether or not cachers adhere to this guideline and cache owners enforce it is another matter,  one I'd guess GS doesn't want to get into.   Regardless,  the guideline is quite clear.      

Actually no. The guideline as written is a sufficient condition for logging the find, not a necessary one. To make it a necessary condition, it would need to say A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” only if they have signed the logbook, and to be both necessary and sufficient, it would need to say A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if and only if they have signed the logbook.

[+justintim1999]

12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Actually no. The guideline as written is a sufficient condition for logging the find, not a necessary one. To make it a necessary condition, it would need to say A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” only if they have signed the logbook, and to be both necessary and sufficient, it would need to say A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if and only if they have signed the logbook.

 

Oh my cheese and crackers. 

By all means lets make this far more complicated than it needs to be.  Ok.  Lets quibble about the meaning of sufficient and necessary and how they pertain to the poor cacher who forgot his pen.  

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

In so many words that's exactly what I said.   GS allows for interpretations and exceptions, the guideline dose not.   Again " A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook. "  What am I inferring about this statement?

That a geocacher must sign the log sheet before logging a cache online.

If that's what GS meant when they carefully constructed the language for the guideline, they would have written that "A geocacher must sign the physical log before logging a physical cache online."  This topic has been debated and rehashed since I started reading the forums 10 years ago.  I'd think that if GS meant that a geocacher must sign the log, they would have changed the language in the guideline.

The guideline, as written indicates that signing the log is a pre-requisite for logging a cache online.  It does not say that it's the only pre-requisite.  A cache owner may allow other forms of evidence (as long as they don't effectively turn the cache into a virtual), and let the log stand. 

What the guideline actually infers is that a cache owner can not delete a online log if the physical log has been signed.

 

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

What the guideline actually infers is that a cache owner can not delete a online log if the physical log has been signed.

Agree, and that's exactly why a cacher must find the physical cache and sign the log before the online log can/should be posted. 

The opposite is arm chair logging which is frowned upon by just about everyone.  

Now we come back to the penless cacher and their dilemma.   Do you claim the find even though you found the cache but didn't/couldn't sign the log?

 As a cache owner do you let the find stand or take steps to get it deleted?

I guess it depends on why you decided to hide geocaches in the first place.

[+niraD]

38 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Now we come back to the penless cacher and their dilemma.   Do you claim the find even though you found the cache but didn't/couldn't sign the log?

 As a cache owner do you let the find stand or take steps to get it deleted?

My response as a cache owner is different from my response as a cache seeker.

2 hours ago, niraD said:

I am reminded of the "robustness principle" in computing: "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others."

 

[+justintim1999]

24 minutes ago, niraD said:

My response as a cache owner is different from my response as a cache seeker.

 

And what would those particular responses be?

[+niraD]

23 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

And what would those particular responses be?

As a cache seeker, I put a mark on paper (or witness someone else putting a mark on paper on my behalf) before I post an online log.

As a cache owner, I'm more flexible.

[+thebruce0]

6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Now we come back to the penless cacher and their dilemma.   Do you claim the find even though you found the cache but didn't/couldn't sign the log?

 As a cache owner do you let the find stand or take steps to get it deleted?

As a cache finder, I do my best to show evidence of finding the cache; photo the container, logsheet, whatever. If I can make a mark (and photo the evidence I made it), even better. Then I log it found, yes. If I'm uncertain (there may be another twist, for example), I'll ask the CO first. Either way, if the CO then decides that the evidence is insufficient (98% of the time it IS sufficient) and denies my find, then so be it. Because that is their judgement call and within their rights as cache owner.

As a cache owner, if it seems to me that the cacher has found the cache and I'm convinced they did whatever was sufficient to have their name signed in the logsheet if they actually had a working pen, then yes I would let the log stand. Because that's a decision Groundspeak has allowed cache owners to make.  The signed log is not a requirement for logging the find online. It is however the point of finding the cache and log sheet, so that you can sign it, which gives you as the finder the right to log the find online (and have it protected from deletion). If you don't sign it, yes you can still try to log it online, but you'd better be able to properly convince the owner that you actually found the cache, and hope they're lenient enough to let it stand without requiring the signature.

It really is simple.

[+justintim1999]

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 10:26 PM, thebruce0 said:

As a cache finder, I do my best to show evidence of finding the cache; photo the container, logsheet, whatever. If I can make a mark (and photo the evidence I made it), even better. Then I log it found, yes. If I'm uncertain (there may be another twist, for example), I'll ask the CO first. Either way, if the CO then decides that the evidence is insufficient (98% of the time it IS sufficient) and denies my find, then so be it. Because that is their judgement call and within their rights as cache owner.

As a cache owner, if it seems to me that the cacher has found the cache and I'm convinced they did whatever was sufficient to have their name signed in the logsheet if they actually had a working pen, then yes I would let the log stand. Because that's a decision Groundspeak has allowed cache owners to make.  The signed log is not a requirement for logging the find online. It is however the point of finding the cache and log sheet, so that you can sign it, which gives you as the finder the right to log the find online (and have it protected from deletion). If you don't sign it, yes you can still try to log it online, but you'd better be able to properly convince the owner that you actually found the cache, and hope they're lenient enough to let it stand without requiring the signature.

It really is simple.

GS has allowed cache owners the power to trump the guideline and use their judgment when allowing online finds,  but that doesn't change that fact that having signed the physical log first is a requirement.    As a matter of fact it has to be.   If it wasn't the numbers would mean less than they do now and cache owners would have no recourse against bogus finds. 

This debate is more about cache owners who follow the guideline to the letter.   Unless you have a reason to believe a find is bogus,  deleting it because a cacher didn't have a pen seems silly to me. 

Out of habit I tuck my pen between my head and my hat.  I can't tell you how many times it's slipped out without my knowing.   I've probably contributed more to geo litter than half the cachers in my area.     You'd think I'd have learned by now.  I also have about 10 other pens in my caching bag so I'm always able to sign the log.  I'm thinking more about new cachers who are inexperienced.   If our goal is to grow the game and make it better,  punishing new cachers for not having a pen is a poor way to do it.   Criticizing people for it will only serve to push people away from the game.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

GS has allowed cache owners the power to trump the guideline and use their judgment when allowing online finds,  but that doesn't change that fact that having signed the physical log first is a requirement.    As a matter of fact it has to be.   If it wasn't the numbers would mean less than they do now and cache owners would have no recourse against bogus finds. 

No, they allow the CO to decide because there no way to handle disputes about physical signatures.  It's not "trumping" guidelines, as much as challenge caches "trump" guidelines, and that's not even the same, because it's an explicitly allowed term.  CO's allowing finds is not even an "exception".  The intent is that as a cacher you find a cache and sign log - that's what the log is for. BUT you are explicitly allowed to log a find even if there is no signature if the CO alllows it.  You can't get around that justintim1999.  "requirement" is not mentioned. "must" is not mentioned.

 

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

This debate is more about cache owners who follow the guideline to the letter.   Unless you have a reason to believe a find is bogus,  deleting it because a cacher didn't have a pen seems silly to me.

And that is the crux. The only objective way to determine a bogus find for the purposes of online logging is if a signature can be found on the logsheet for said cacher. Otherwise it's one word against another. So GS has the blanket rule: Name in the logsheet settles the issue. Groundspeak will not delete a Find log if the CO has allowed it just because someone tells them "but the name isn't in the logsheet". That's is what "requirement" would imply. That the CO is wrong if they allow a Find if there's no signature. No, they will say it's the CO's decision. Guaranteed.

The only thing the signature universally does is lock in your right as a finder to post the online log. That's it.

 

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Out of habit I tuck my pen between my head and my hat.  I can't tell you how many times it's slipped out without my knowing.   I've probably contributed more to geo litter than half the cachers in my area.     You'd think I'd have learned by now.  I also have about 10 other pens in my caching bag so I'm always able to sign the log.  I'm thinking more about new cachers who are inexperienced.  

And that's commendable. Everyone should ALWAYS get out there caching with a writing utensil. If you don't ever want to worry about an owner not being lenient about the Find log, you'll want to make sure you get your caching name in some form in every log sheet.

 

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

If our goal is to grow the game and make it better,  punishing new cachers for not having a pen is a poor way to do it.   Criticizing people for it will only serve to push people away from the game.

I wholeheartedly agree. Which is why I don't delete logs if I'm convinced that a cacher has found the cache. And I think most COs are that way. Is every CO in the wrong in those cases, because the requirement to log the find online is the name in the logsheet?  Nope.  The rules are that it's the CO's judgement call.

It seems to be the issue is the definition and use of "requirement". I think in spirit we're saying the same thing. But in practice, the words have a different connotation. Can/must mean different things as a result. Intent/requirement, likewise.

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

GS has allowed cache owners the power to trump the guideline and use their judgment when allowing online finds,  but that doesn't change that fact that having signed the physical log first is a requirement.    As a matter of fact it has to be.   If it wasn't the numbers would mean less than they do now and cache owners would have no recourse against bogus finds.

Sorry, but the wording of the guideline (A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook) isn't a requirement, it's an authorisation to log online once the physical logbook is signed. If the intent was to make it a requirement, it would have said "only if" instead of "if". Logically, there's a world of difference between those two forms. Allowing someone to log a find when they forgot their pen, or if the logbook is temporarily unsignable, isn't a breach of this guideline, but a CO deleting a find when there's a matching signature in the logbook is.

[+justintim1999]

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Sorry, but the wording of the guideline (A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook) isn't a requirement, it's an authorisation to log online once the physical logbook is signed. If the intent was to make it a requirement, it would have said "only if" instead of "if". Logically, there's a world of difference between those two forms. Allowing someone to log a find when they forgot their pen, or if the logbook is temporarily unsignable, isn't a breach of this guideline, but a CO deleting a find when there's a matching signature in the logbook is.

We all understand that logging your find online is voluntary but if you intend on doing so you should have already found the cache and signed the log.  If you didn't,  for whatever reason, you run the risk of having your online log deleted.   If that's true than how can you deny that it's not a requirement?  If I complete all three steps (find the cache, sign the physical log an log the find online)  as a cache owner what power do you have to dispute my find?   None.  I've fulfilled the requirements GS has set forth to legitimately log my find online. 

A better way to put it is,  by fulfilling the requirements necessary to log my find online I eliminate the need for cache owner involvement.

If I didn't sign the log because I forgot my pen than I'm throwing myself at the mercy of the cache owner and hoping they'll understand.   Most do.  If for some reason one doesn't and elects to delete my online find I have no recourse,  I didn't fulfill the requirement of singing the physical log and the cache owner has the right to delete my find.  

I for one am glad GS allows individual cache owners to allow finds if they see fit.  I'm also glad that there are clear requirements so as a cache owner I have some recourse if I decide a find is not legit.  

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

if you intend on doing so you should have already found the cache and signed the log.

Key. It is not required - which is not to say you should just go out and start claiming. Again, the decision is the CO's, and if they feel you are abusing the ability to log without a signature, your log can be deleted. If you find 50 caches and you keep "forgetting" your pen, someone will catch up real quick.

 

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

If that's true than how can you deny that it's not a requirement?

Because you are allowed to log without a signature if the CO allows it. Therefor not a requirement.

You are arguing intent, not strict ruleset.

 

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

If I didn't sign the log because I forgot my pen than I'm throwing myself at the mercy of the cache owner and hoping they'll understand.

Yes. And because this is an allowance for them as the cache owner, you as a finder are - by the very guidelines - not required to sign the log in order to log the online find. Because the universal deciding factor is not name in the logsheet, otherwise the decision would not be final by the cache owner.  Signature is a lock-in to guarantee the find log, not a requirement in order to post the find log.

 

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

If for some reason one doesn't and elects to delete my online find I have no recourse,  I didn't fulfill the requirement of singing the physical log and the cache owner has the right to delete my find.

Yes. And if the CO believes you rightfully found the cache, despite not having signed the log, then they will let your find log stand, and it's just as legitimate.  Therefore, signature != requirement.

 

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I for one am glad GS allows individual cache owners to allow finds if they see fit.  I'm also glad that there are clear requirements so as a cache owner I have some recourse if I decide a find is not legit.  

See, you understand the concept, but the "requirement" word is the sticking point. This literally is an argument over semantics.

One more time: Since you are allowed to log the find online IF the cache owner allows it, then strictly speaking, the signature in the logbook is not a requirement to log the find online, it is not the final line, otherwise there would be no judgement call by the cache owner, and guess who would be left to arbitrate?
A cacher who sees an online find log by someone whose name they do not see in the log sheet, even though the cache owner allowed the log to stand for whatever reason, could go to appeals and have the find log removed.  Yeah, that level of arbitration is not going to happen.  The CO gets the final call, therefore the signature is guarantee to allow the find log, but is not a requirement in order to log the find online dependent on the CO decision.

[+justintim1999]

6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Key. It is not required - which is not to say you should just go out and start claiming. Again, the decision is the CO's, and if they feel you are abusing the ability to log without a signature, your log can be deleted. If you find 50 caches and you keep "forgetting" your pen, someone will catch up real quick.

 

Because you are allowed to log without a signature if the CO allows it. Therefor not a requirement.

You are arguing intent, not strict ruleset.

 

Yes. And because this is an allowance for them as the cache owner, you as a finder are - by the very guidelines - not required to sign the log in order to log the online find. Because the universal deciding factor is not name in the logsheet, otherwise the decision would not be final by the cache owner.  Signature is a lock-in to guarantee the find log, not a requirement in order to post the find log.

 

Yes. And if the CO believes you rightfully found the cache, despite not having signed the log, then they will let your find log stand, and it's just as legitimate.  Therefore, signature != requirement.

 

See, you understand the concept, but the "requirement" word is the sticking point. This literally is an argument over semantics.

One more time: Since you are allowed to log the find online IF the cache owner allows it, then strictly speaking, the signature in the logbook is not a requirement to log the find online, it is not the final line, otherwise there would be no judgement call by the cache owner, and guess who would be left to arbitrate?
A cacher who sees an online find log by someone whose name they do not see in the log sheet, even though the cache owner allowed the log to stand for whatever reason, could go to appeals and have the find log removed.  Yeah, that level of arbitration is not going to happen.  The CO gets the final call, therefore the signature is guarantee to allow the find log, but is not a requirement in order to log the find online dependent on the CO decision.

This is like pulling teeth with chop sticks.   Can a cache owner delete an online log if they discover that there is no signature in the physical log?

[+J Grouchy]

9 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

This is like pulling teeth with chop sticks.   Can a cache owner delete an online log if they discover that there is no signature in the physical log?

Normally I cringe when someone says this, but here goes:

 

O...M...G...

 

Yes, you, as the cache owner, can delete the log.  You are not, however, REQUIRED to delete the log.  If I logged your cache online, you let it stand, then I reported this to Groundspeak...what do you think their response would be?

 ***Spoiler:  they wouldn't care and would say it's completely up to you as the owner of the cache.  

[+justintim1999]

48 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Normally I cringe when someone says this, but here goes:

 

O...M...G...

 

Yes, you, as the cache owner, can delete the log.  You are not, however, REQUIRED to delete the log.  If I logged your cache online, you let it stand, then I reported this to Groundspeak...what do you think their response would be?

 ***Spoiler:  they wouldn't care and would say it's completely up to you as the owner of the cache.  

I've never deleted a log in my life so it's no surprise that I find getting all worked up over someone forgetting a pen baffling.  

So if I understand correctly finding my cache and signing the physical log before you log it online IS a requirement because as the cache owner I require it.  

[+dprovan]

On 11/10/2017 at 9:39 AM, niraD said:

But on the flip side, I can understand the frustration of a CO who creates a multi-stage epic cache, only for someone to grab the final coordinates, drive to the final location, sign the log, and claim the Fizzy square. And in that case, there really was no success to take away.

I know some COs feel that way, but I can't say I understand it. To me, that cacher made the choice between skipping to the end to sign the log or skipping it altogether. A CO can only feel like it's a failure if he imagines, against all evidence, that the cacher chose skipping to the end over going through the entire multi personally. The way I see it, the absolute worse case is that the skip-to-the-end find is no better than no find at all. But what I keep hearing about are COs that are so frustrated by a skip-to-the-end find that they archive the cache, thus insuring no one will ever be able to experience this fabulous multi personally ever again.

[+J Grouchy]

33 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

 

So if I understand correctly finding my cache and signing the physical log before you log it online IS a requirement because as the cache owner I require it.  

Can we just stop using the word "requirement" here?  The only action that is discussed here is the fact that if you, the cache owner, choose to delete a log based on the fact that you have verified that the person did not sign the physical log sheet, then Groundspeak will support you for doing so.  

[+thebruce0]

48 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

So if I understand correctly finding my cache and signing the physical log before you log it online IS a requirement because as the cache owner I require it.

In short, yes. Because you require it. So, have you audited every single physical cache you've ever owned to verify that every single find log online has a matching signature in every single physical logsheet?  If not, then you've broken your own rule (not Groundspeak's). If so, well then that's pretty commendable and impressive. Very strict, and some might say legalistic, but completely within your right as CO.

Edited November 14, 2017 by thebruce0

[+J Grouchy]

5 minutes ago, Rebore said:

The CO tried to make the cache a little more interesting than a Traditional, that's why it was listed as a Multi or Mystery. If there is a feeling that this effort was in vain because some or most guys just go to the final location, it is no wonder that the CO archives the cache.

Meh.  Their loss.

[+Rebore]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I know some COs feel that way, but I can't say I understand it. To me, that cacher made the choice between skipping to the end to sign the log or skipping it altogether. A CO can only feel like it's a failure if he imagines, against all evidence, that the cacher chose skipping to the end over going through the entire multi personally. The way I see it, the absolute worse case is that the skip-to-the-end find is no better than no find at all. But what I keep hearing about are COs that are so frustrated by a skip-to-the-end find that they archive the cache, thus insuring no one will ever be able to experience this fabulous multi personally ever again.

The CO tried to make the cache a little more interesting than a Traditional, that's why it was listed as a Multi or Mystery. If there is a feeling that this effort was in vain because some or most guys just go to the final location, it is no wonder that the CO archives the cache.

[+niraD]

13 minutes ago, Rebore said:

The CO tried to make the cache a little more interesting than a Traditional, that's why it was listed as a Multi or Mystery. If there is a feeling that this effort was in vain because some or most guys just go to the final location, it is no wonder that the CO archives the cache.

It's like a baker going to the trouble to decorate an elaborate wedding cake, but then the cake isn't displayed at the reception. Instead, the staff keeps it in the kitchen, slices it up, and serves the sliced cake to the guests.

Why did the baker bother with the elaborate decorations? It wasn't appreciated any more than several sheet cakes would have been.

[+thebruce0]

Yes, the fun of the geocaching hobby is not reserved merely for finders. Cache hiders may put a lot of effort into a cache in order to provide enjoyment for people, which brings them satisfaction. If they feel that all that effort was wasted because some people are just skipping to the final, they'd have every right to archive if they want. I mean, they're not getting enjoyment out of owning, so why own? Just like one can say about cachers who don't enjoy LPCs or powertrails. You don't have to find every cache. You can pack it in entirely as well if you think geocaching has gone down the drain.

Everyone makes that choice about whether it's "worth" continuing to do the hobby - whether finding or hiding.

Sure, archiving a good caches reduces opportunity for fun for people who may still wish to enjoy them the way they were intended, but - is it the finders' right to be able to enjoy it? Or is it a gift from the CO to enjoy it? The former condones the stance that COs who give up and archive are hurting the community, where the latter recognizes that the CO has been already been hurt by the community.

Everything we do in this community is for our own enjoyment and for the enjoyment of others. Nothing is anyone's right here. If you think a CO is hurting the community by archiving a 'good' cache because they don't like that people aren't finding it the way they hoped, then think of it this way - the spot is now opened for another CO to place a new cache for more people to find. And hopefully it's a good one too

 

10 minutes ago, niraD said:

It's like a baker going to the trouble to decorate an elaborate wedding cake, but then the cake isn't displayed at the reception. Instead, the staff keeps it in the kitchen, slices it up, and serves the sliced cake to the guests.

Why did the baker bother with the elaborate decorations? It wasn't appreciated any more than several sheet cakes would have been.

Exactly

Edited November 14, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Rebore]

8 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Meh.  Their loss.

I don't think so. Maybe they expected a story about your adventure or how you solved the puzzle, and they get nada. It's not their loss,

 but that of all other geocachers. Maybe a disciplinary measure, but I think most Owners don't want to play with guys having this attitude and they just leave and archive their caches.

[+J Grouchy]

5 minutes ago, Rebore said:

I don't think so. Maybe they expected a story about your adventure or how you solved the puzzle, and they get nada. It's not their loss,

 but that of all other geocachers. Maybe a disciplinary measure, but I think most Owners don't want to play with guys having this attitude and they just leave and archive their caches.

Seems like unrealistic expectations to me.

I might argue that nobody ever experiences a cache and its location like the CO did while placing it.  While it can be fun to read logs, having expectations about what they might say is futile.

 

[+Rebore]

24 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Seems like unrealistic expectations to me.

I might argue that nobody ever experiences a cache and its location like the CO did while placing it.  While it can be fun to read logs, having expectations about what they might say is futile.

 

If it's an urban micro, yes. I'm lucky to have some "good old days" caches in my area, like this:https://coord.info/GC18QYC

There is no "tftc, quick find, all is well" log. Still, the owner gave up his charter member status and left.

[+LycanthroFee]

I've only really done it once, when I was on holiday. For me, it was a learning experience of sorts!

take out pen; sign log; put pen in geocache; travel to next geocache; take out pe-- OH, DARN IT!

After that, I learnt to bring more than one pen ... 

[+jellis]

On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 10:44 AM, cerberus1 said:

We have a 5T tree hide.  We consider it part of a team if someone's tending gear or taking pics while one member is climbing.  If he brings the log down for all to sign, all members of that team (we feel) helped.  I do the same the rare times I have a camera man, gear tender, or belayer.  They may be necessary for my safety, or most times just really helped me a lot, working as a team.   

It's not the same when a person's just walking by and  sees it...

We've only experienced folks in a group chatting, and not (really) involved in the find once at an annual event in another state.  But we found in later years that different groups weren't doing the same.  A shame your area has so much of that for it to seem a given.

I see it as the one doing the work is your ToTT. Especially if you have someone who is not scared of heights.

[+dprovan]

On 11/14/2017 at 10:23 AM, niraD said:

It's like a baker going to the trouble to decorate an elaborate wedding cake, but then the cake isn't displayed at the reception. Instead, the staff keeps it in the kitchen, slices it up, and serves the sliced cake to the guests.

Why did the baker bother with the elaborate decorations? It wasn't appreciated any more than several sheet cakes would have been.

I don't think so. The better analogy is that the baker carefully decorates all his wedding cakes and normally they're put on display, get many oohs and aahs, and the customers always report great satisfaction. But then at one single wedding, the cake is cut up back in the kitchen with no one except kitchen staff to appreciate it, so the baker quits in disgust.

[+J Grouchy]

18 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I don't think so. The better analogy is that the baker carefully decorates all his wedding cakes and normally they're put on display, get many oohs and aahs, and the customers always report great satisfaction. But then at one single wedding, the cake is cut up back in the kitchen with no one except kitchen staff to appreciate it, so the baker quits in disgust.

I'll do you one better:

The baker decorates an elaborate wedding cake.  It's displayed at the reception, is admired and praised by half the attendees, but the other half is off having fun doing something else, only stopping by to grab a piece after it's been cut up.  Some of them saw and enjoyed the display, but felt no need to pat the artist on the back or rave about the set-up. The baker, disgusted that 100% of the people weren't ooh-ing and ahh-ing over the display grabs the remaining decoration and all the business cards he'd laid out on the table and stalks out the door.

Sometimes you just want to eat the dang cake without someone making you feel guilty about not heaping praise on the baker.

Edited November 16, 2017 by J Grouchy

[+thebruce0]

Who said it's always about praise?

Sometimes the baker puts a LOT of work and effort into the cake for the enjoyment of people - not merely to feed their gut. If people aren't fully enjoying the cake the way he intended, what motivation has he for continuing to put all that effort into them? May as well just bake a basic batter and plop the pieces on a table. Heck, just put out the icing and let people decorate it themselves if they want.   Well, some bakers do that. Some pack it in - whether because it's not worth the effort or they are indeed out for praise. Either way, can you blame them?  It's entirely their choice. Customers don't have any sort of "right" to eat said baker's cakes. Anything the baker does is for the customers by choice, whether we think their motivation is self- or others- focused.

Stop with the blanket blame game here about a CO who prefers people enjoy their caches the way they intended them to be enjoyed, and decides to stop if they feel it's not worth their effort any more.  Most don't care. Some do. So what?

Edited November 16, 2017 by thebruce0

[+J Grouchy]

9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If people aren't fully enjoying the cake the way he intended, what motivation has he for continuing to put all that effort into them?

See...here's the problem.  Since when is it up to the CO to define how something is experienced or enjoyed?  Maybe I find a great secret trail to a beautiful spot in the woods, but end up getting tons of logs about people bushwhacking to the location.  Maybe my "intention" was to get them on the trail, but why should I honestly care how they got there?  Unless there is some property concern about how someone accesses a cache, it's nobody else's concern - even the CO's - how people get there.  Getting upset because they didn't follow my script is absurd.  Getting upset and archiving the cache is the only way to guarantee nobody will ever experience it "as intended".

[+thebruce0]

19 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

See...here's the problem.  Since when is it up to the CO to define how something is experienced or enjoyed?

Never. But he puts it out there to be enjoyed the way he'd like people to enjoy it. If that means he doesn't mind people just cutting it up and eating it, great. If that means he'd like people to enjoy it the way he'd like people to enjoy it for whatever reason, also great. It's their choice. So if they're no longer satisfied with how it's being enjoyed, they have every right to withdraw their creative efforts.

20 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Maybe I find a great secret trail to a beautiful spot in the woods, but end up getting tons of logs about people bushwhacking to the location.  Maybe my "intention" was to get them on the trail, but why should I honestly care how they got there?

That's your choice. Feel free to leave the cache there if you like, because to you, the value of your effort is found in having anyone enjoy it, however they wish. And to you, the effort you put in is worth that. Great.

22 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Getting upset because they didn't follow my script is absurd.

They would say purposefully skipping out on a great experience just to get a smiley on the map is absurd. Who's right?

22 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Getting upset and archiving the cache is the only way to guarantee nobody will ever experience it "as intended".

I don't disagree. But to denigrate the CO who doesn't feel it's worth their effort to create or maintain it is just implying some kind of entitlement the community has over the CO. Obviously that's not true. The community has to stop feeling like the CO owes them anything.  And the CO has to stop feeling like the finder who just wants the smiley is selfish.

Let the CO create and own how they want to create and own.

Let the finders decide how they'd like to enjoy geocaches.

They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

[+Rebore]

Mmmh, cake...

To put it another way, if I paint a picture and I'm not satisfied with the result, I'll just throw it away. I don't care if somebody else might have enjoyed it.

[+J Grouchy]

11 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I don't disagree. But to denigrate the CO who doesn't feel it's worth their effort to create or maintain it is just implying some kind of entitlement the community has over the CO.

I hope you aren't implying it's ME doing the denigrating.  There can be any number of expectations and intentions, but they are all completely and totally a personal matter and should not be forced on cachers by the CO by the threat of archival of the listing.  If someone is so tightly wound or controlling, I'd say cache ownership is not appropriate for them.

[+J Grouchy]

7 minutes ago, Rebore said:

Mmmh, cake...

To put it another way, if I paint a picture and I'm not satisfied with the result, I'll just throw it away. I don't care if somebody else might have enjoyed it.

Is the "result" the picture itself or the way others experience it? 

 

Hey...in art and caching, you put some small piece of yourself out there for others to experience or judge in some way. 

[+Rebore]

13 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Is the "result" the picture itself or the way others experience it? 

 

Hey...in art and caching, you put some small piece of yourself out there for others to experience or judge in some way. 

What's the difference? I tried to convey a feeling and I failed.

[+bflentje]

yawn

[+L0ne.R]

3 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

I'll do you one better:

The baker decorates an elaborate wedding cake.  It's displayed at the reception, is admired and praised by half the attendees, but the other half is off having fun doing something else, only stopping by to grab a piece after it's been cut up.  Some of them saw and enjoyed the display, but felt no need to pat the artist on the back or rave about the set-up. The baker, disgusted that 100% of the people weren't ooh-ing and ahh-ing over the display grabs the remaining decoration and all the business cards he'd laid out on the table and stalks out the door.

Sometimes you just want to eat the dang cake without someone making you feel guilty about not heaping praise on the baker.

 

Here's mine.

The baker decorates an elaborate wedding cake.  It's displayed at the reception, is admired and praised by half the attendees, but the other half is off having fun doing something else, they don't see the cake and they don't eat a slice. But they get on Yelp and give the baker a 'meh' rating. His 5 star rating drops to a 3.5 star rating. Fewer people will click his listing on Yelp because he's just average.

It happens on GC. The cache owner puts out a new cache with a good all-round experience. Stage one impresses everyone who sees it. The final is in great shape and unique--from the disguise to the contents, even the pencil matches the theme. The first 10 PMs who see it each give it an FP. A group of 30 cachers come through looking for non-trads to satisfy a challenge cache requirement. Two of them visited the cache and sign for everyone else. Not one of those PMs give it a FP. The 2 that saw it missed the first stage because they have the final coordinates even to them by the host and they can't remember one cache from another--they found so many that day. The rating drops from 100% to 25%. Does that cache owner rush to create another great experience, or do they feel deflated by this experience? If they don't give up and try again, and it happens again, there's very little chance that they'll bother a third time.

[+L0ne.R]

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If that means he doesn't mind people just cutting it up and eating it, great. If that means he'd like people to enjoy it the way he'd like people to enjoy it for whatever reason, also great. It's their choice. So if they're no longer satisfied with how it's being enjoyed, they have every right to withdraw their creative efforts.

Right. And everyone gets more slab cake to eat. Lots and lots of dollar-store-style Hostess cupcakes for everyone. Mind the moldy bits, eat around it. 

[+hzoi]

Something something cake something something.

Or, it's like this.

2 hours ago, bflentje said:

yawn

You said it.

Edited November 16, 2017 by hzoi

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Sometimes the baker puts a LOT of work and effort into the cake for the enjoyment of people - not merely to feed their gut. If people aren't fully enjoying the cake the way he intended, what motivation has he for continuing to put all that effort into them?

I hope his motivation would be the people that do fully enjoy it.

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Stop with the blanket blame game here about a CO who prefers people enjoy their caches the way they intended them to be enjoyed, and decides to stop if they feel it's not worth their effort any more.

Yes, I agree. Of course, the CO's going to decide whether it's worth it, and he's welcome to do that. I just want the CO to remember all the people that did enjoy it. Sometimes it seems as if someone jumping to the end of a complicated multi is considered a huge negative, but I don't see why it should be considered any more negatively than all the people that never even considered looking for the multi.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Sometimes it seems as if someone jumping to the end of a complicated multi is considered a huge negative, but I don't see why it should be considered any more negatively than all the people that never even considered looking for the multi.

In one of the situations I'm familiar with, it wasn't the "jumping to the end" that was perceived as a negative. That was perceived as an obvious bogus log and deleted.

What was perceived as a negative was Groundspeak "validating the bogus log" by restoring and locking the log of the geocacher who jumped to the end.

[+thebruce0]

On 11/16/2017 at 8:02 PM, niraD said:

On 11/16/2017 at 6:19 PM, dprovan said:

Sometimes it seems as if someone jumping to the end of a complicated multi is considered a huge negative, but I don't see why it should be considered any more negatively than all the people that never even considered looking for the multi.

In one of the situations I'm familiar with, it wasn't the "jumping to the end" that was perceived as a negative. That was perceived as an obvious bogus log and deleted.

What was perceived as a negative was Groundspeak "validating the bogus log" by restoring and locking the log of the geocacher who jumped to the end.

Yep, and that's a situation that can sour the experience for the CO, nudging them towards archiving or not publishing. And it's completely legitimate, because the CO has zero obligation to continue to owning caches. It's also completely legitimate because Groundspeak is following their own rules (which are as objective as can be). So the CO perceives that it's cache finders who knowingly and willingly 'cheat the system', as it were, who can sour the experience of being a CO.  And of course, not every CO has the same threshold for taste.

 

On 11/16/2017 at 6:19 PM, dprovan said:

I just want the CO to remember all the people that did enjoy it.

How is archiving not remembering all the previous finders? The previous finders got their experience (as intended, or otherwise). They're done. If the CO feels that given recent trends, the future of the cache is primarily going to be skip-fun-for-the-final, and they feel it's not worth owning and maintaining it because of that, then 1) it doesn't affect past finders and 2) they have no obligation to future finders.  If they decide to keep it active, that means they feel it's worth it. If they don't, then they feel it's not. Eitherway, there's no "fault" on the CO for deciding to archive.  Obviously if they archive, then any future finder who'd do it the intended way would be missing out, but those finders don't have any sort of right to find it. The CO isn't hurting those theoretical finders, and is under no obligation to keep it active if they don't want to any more. For whatever reason.