Group Accounts?

[+colleda]

After reading the discussions in "Cache owner log checks" re group caching, is there a case for requiring such groups to have their own account? Say for, for example, all members of the group are named in the profile. And, caches found as a group can only be logged online as a group and not as individuals. Would there be merit in this or could it open another can of worms? Has this been discussed before?

 

[+niraD]

The times I've gone group caching and used a single name for the entire group, the group has lasted only for that one day. Do we really need to create a new group account every time that happens?

Besides, how would that be any more useful than a log like this https://coord.info/GLDR2334 that names everyone in the group?

Edit to add: Ah, I just reread your post and noticed that only the group account would be allowed to log online. All that's going to do is fill up the physical logs more quickly, making maintenance necessary sooner.

Edited February 8, 2018 by niraD

[+colleda]

16 minutes ago, niraD said:

Edit to add: Ah, I just reread your post and noticed that only the group account would be allowed to log online. All that's going to do is fill up the physical logs more quickly, making maintenance necessary sooner.

It was an assumption by me, that the group name only would appear in the cache log.

 

[+cerberus1]

The other 2/3rds and I have a shared account, but sometimes she'll log a cache on her basic account (created just for all the coins). Why can't she?

Most families we've ever known have a shared account.  Do they need to list each child in the family?  What if each kid has their own cache, but (often) mom & dad do most the maintenance?

Ever cache after an event with others? With a gazillion others during/after a mega event?  Don't you think the CO's happy  that the log's saved by "group" finds on the log?

Edited February 8, 2018 by cerberus1

[+barefootjeff]

A few times I've cached with a group, but just about every time it's been a different group of people. There was the Booty Run group of kayakers out for a day tackling some of the water-access caches on the Hawkesbury River, an earlier kayaking jaunt on a different part of the river that didn't really get a group name but in hindsight became known as the Death Adder Squad, the C4 Buckaneers on the lake at Chipping Norton, a few other group caching trips with a couple of locals and a couple of caching hikes in the Watagan Mountains with a group from Newcastle. Most of the time we just sign the log individually but for nanos with limited space a group name is sometimes used and explained in the online logs.

Unless it's a large well-organised group that does many outings, I think requiring a separate group account would be overkill.

[+colleda]

BTW. I am not suggesting at all that there should be group accounts. Please re read. I am asking if there is a case for it and discussion as to the pros and cons.

[+barefootjeff]

And I should add that requiring that finds by members of the group could only be claimed by the group account and not the members would be a big deterrent to the sort of group outings I've done. Part of the reason for the groups is for safety when tackling high-terrain caches that might be ill-advised for lone cachers or to pool resources when there's a lot of driving or just for some camaraderie.

Edited February 9, 2018 by barefootjeff
Spelling

[+cerberus1]

15 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

And I should add that requiring finds by members of the group could only be claimed by the group account and not the members would be a big deterrent to the sort of group outings of done. Part of the reason for the groups is for safety when tackling high-terrain caches that might be ill-advised for lone cachers.

Yep.  Most we know of it's simply camaraderie, but know a couple folks who simply don't like to cache alone as well.  Sometimes I'd like to have another along, but usually only when I'm gonna be doing something maybe a bit beyond my comfort level. 

[+cerberus1]

26 minutes ago, colleda said:

BTW. I am not suggesting at all that there should be group accounts. Please re read. I am asking if there is a case for it and discussion as to the pros and cons.

I think most realize that, just that the subject is only on the negative aspect of group caching, with no consideration of any positives group caching provides. 

[+niraD]

37 minutes ago, colleda said:

It was an assumption by me, that the group name only would appear in the cache log.

IME, if we bother to create a group name, then that's the only name that appears in the cache log. But everyone logs online using their individual accounts.

The alternative is not to create group accounts for every trip, and to log that trip's finds only on that group account.

The alternative is to have everyone sign the log individually, filling up the log faster and requiring maintenance sooner.

I'm still trying to figure out what problem you're trying to solve with your proposal that "caches found as a group can only be logged online as a group and not as individuals".

[+colleda]

29 minutes ago, niraD said:

IME, if we bother to create a group name, then that's the only name that appears in the cache log. But everyone logs online using their individual accounts.

The alternative is not to create group accounts for every trip, and to log that trip's finds only on that group account.

The alternative is to have everyone sign the log individually, filling up the log faster and requiring maintenance sooner.

I'm still trying to figure out what problem you're trying to solve with your proposal that "caches found as a group can only be logged online as a group and not as individuals".

Nowhere have I said that I was trying to solve a problem. But, having said that, it seems that there are some who have a 'problem' when they see group participants logging finds on line when they were not present as a part of that group.

Edited February 9, 2018 by colleda
for clarity

[+barefootjeff]

54 minutes ago, colleda said:

Nowhere have I said that I was trying to solve a problem. But, having said that, it seems that there are some who have a 'problem' when they see group participants logging finds on line when they were not present as a part of that group.

I appreciate that you're just throwing it up for discussion, but the section I've bolded is really an integrity issue amongst what I would hope is a very small number of cachers, and "solutions" such as requring group accounts only punish the innocent while just prompting the guilty to find a different way of bucking the system.

Edited February 9, 2018 by barefootjeff
Spelling

[+L0ne.R]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

And I should add that requiring that finds by members of the group could only be claimed by the group account and not the members would be a big deterrent to the sort of group outings I've done. Part of the reason for the groups is for safety when tackling high-terrain caches that might be ill-advised for lone cachers or to pool resources when there's a lot of driving or just for some camaraderie.

Then I don’t see how it would be a deterrent. You would all still go caching together for the main purposes outlined above. But do people not want to cache together if they must visit each cache,  pass the log around and write their their own name into the paper log in order to log an online find? 

[+barefootjeff]

14 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Then I don’t see how it would be a deterrent. You would all still go caching together for the main purposes outlined above. But do people not want to cache together if they must visit each cache,  pass the log around and write their their own name into the paper log in order to log an online find? 

It depends on the size of the group and the size of the cache. There were eight of us in the Booty Run kayaking group, and for a cache with a decent sized logbook yes it's fine to just hand it around and each sign it, and that's what we did, but there was another group outing through central Sydney where most of the caches were micros or nanos so signing a group name saves precious logsheet real estate and just seems a sensible thing to do. I can't help thinking that too much effort is being put into constraining the game for everyone in what is usually an unsuccessful attempt at weeding out a few bad apples.

[+niraD]

7 hours ago, colleda said:

they were not present as a part of that group.

Oh, is that what this thread is about?

I thought it was about group caching trips that sign a single group name to save space on the log sheets.

 

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

but there was another group outing through central Sydney where most of the caches were micros or nanos so signing a group name saves precious logsheet real estate and just seems a sensible thing to do.

Yeah, one of the groups I joined focused on "evil" caches. All of the caches we searched for were micros (signed "Evil Cache Run" with the date) and nanos (signed "ECR" with the date). We actually enjoyed those hard-to-find caches (using the "huckle buckle beanstalk" method most of the time), and wouldn't have wanted to discourage the owners by filling up the logs with everyone's names.

[+noncentric]

7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

And I should add that requiring that finds by members of the group could only be claimed by the group account and not the members would be a big deterrent to the sort of group outings I've done. Part of the reason for the groups is for safety when tackling high-terrain caches that might be ill-advised for lone cachers or to pool resources when there's a lot of driving or just for some camaraderie.

Then I don’t see how it would be a deterrent. You would all still go caching together for the main purposes outlined above.

Because, group members would not be able to identify/search the caches that they have/haven't found without logging into two different accounts (individual and group). That would be a deterrent.

 

7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

But do people not want to cache together if they must visit each cache,  pass the log around and write their their own name into the paper log in order to log an online find? 

What does this question even mean?  Many cachers that caches in groups DO want to visit each cache and don't mind signing everyone's name, but signing the group name is sometimes easier when the logsheet is small or weather is bad. Some CO's would prefer for their logbooks to not be filled by one group and would prefer if cachers speed up the signing process when it's raining so their logbook and container don't collect a lot of raindrops. There are dozens of caches around the Seattle area that would have their logbooks filled in one weekend every August if some caching groups signed with only individual names instead of group names.

 

You are assuming that ALL "group caching" is of the 'cheating' type, where cachers break up into separate teams and don't see the hides that they later claim a find on. There are plenty of cachers that go out in groups and legitimately find all the caches that they claim. As much as you may want not want to believe it. Another example of group caching is tourists. Tourists that travel somewhere for mega events and then find other tourists to share a rental car with and travel with for safety reasons. There's no reason to assume that 5 cachers (2 + 2 + 1) caching around the area together are claiming illegitimate finds just because they're in a group.

[+L0ne.R]

3 hours ago, niraD said:

thought it was about group caching trips that sign a single group name to save space on the log sheets

I’ve heard group cachers say that if a cache owner asked that group-of-the-day signatures not be used, they would deliberately use up a logbook.

Fine. Replacing a log is  part of cache ownership. When signatures use up a log sheet or logbook then that log will need to be replaced (these days most often by another finder). Just let the owner know when the log is full or almost full. The fill-a-logbook retaliation behaviour will die down. I use to cache with groups in the early 2000s and we always passed the logbook around. 

Cache owners who ask for signatures in the logbook to match those in the online log should have that option. 

[+L0ne.R]

35 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Because, group members would not be able to identify/search the caches that they have/haven't found without logging into two different accounts (individual and group). That would be a deterrent

They can log into 2 different accounts by leaving both account names in the logbook. That’s the norm. Bob from Winchester would sign his signature to logs when he caches alone and sign his signature to a log when he caches with 20 other cachers. No difference. The log gets full whether those 20 people showed up on different days throughout the month or on the one day that month. 

Edited February 9, 2018 by L0ne.R
Spelling

[+noncentric]

52 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Cache owners who ask for signatures in the logbook to match those in the online log should have that option. 

Most caching groups I've seen will sign one name into the physical log ("ABC") and then when they submit their online logs they'll each note in their online log that they "Signed log as ABC".  CO's can then confirm their finds are legitimate. And if they don't make their signature identifiable, then CO's can go ahead and delete their log. If CO's don't want to do that, then that's on them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The guidelines do not require individual cachers to sign individually. Save a tree and use less log sheets.

There have been days when a log sheet could fill up within a day when there are big events in the area, especially when the Block Party still happened. CO's would have to replace their log sheets 1-2 times that weekend, if signed individually, or else cache finders wouldn't have anywhere to sign without (gasp!) adding their own log sheet. So, you want to punish cache finders (they wouldn't have any place to sign their name) by not allowing space to be saved?

Big events would be a bit beyond 'normal' cache maintenance. Make sure you're around for that weekend if you have a cache in the area, otherwise you are a 'lazy maintenance shirker'. Is that what you're saying?

Edited February 9, 2018 by noncentric

[+cerberus1]

4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I’ve heard group cachers say that if a cache owner asked that group-of-the-day signatures not be used, they would deliberately use up a logbook.

Fine. Replacing a log is  part of cache ownership. When signatures use up a log sheet or logbook then that log will need to be replaced (these days most often by another finder). Just let the owner know when the log is full or almost full. The fill-a-logbook retaliation behaviour will die down. I use to cache with groups in the early 2000s and we always passed the logbook around. 

Cache owners who ask for signatures in the logbook to match those in the online log should have that option. 

Sure, we did too ... Back when there log books, and not strips of paper barely able to sign a name that we find today...

I'm one who'll be sure to sign my name with others if the CO is anal about "group" logs.  I don't feel it's retaliation though, simply that they apparently never had a large group come through, and now they'll get to see that we were just trying to help him. 

[+dprovan]

15 hours ago, colleda said:

Nowhere have I said that I was trying to solve a problem. But, having said that, it seems that there are some who have a 'problem' when they see group participants logging finds on line when they were not present as a part of that group.

Doesn't everyone have a problem with people logging finds for caches they didn't find? If you log a find on your account, you should have signed the log of the cache. I don't see how any discussion of group signatures or accounts representing groups changes that.

If any CO is having trouble matching a group signature in the physical log with individual logs on-line, I'd say the people filing the on-line logs should have been clearer about the group signature. I'd normally expect a CO to give a group a lot of slack, just assuming any group signature on a given date matches any individual finds on that date, but the people filing unmatching finds on-line should try to make sure it's easy.