Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
brackman1066

Etiquette question

Recommended Posts

My son and I have done a lot of geocaching as a team since I got into it last fall. He's now 13, and old enough to have his own gmail address--which means he can also have his own identity on geocaching.com.

 

Would it be considered bad form for him to retroactively log as finds all the caches we found together? Whenever I signed the logs, I put "brackman1066 + 1" to indicate that he was with me, since he didn't have his own identity. I know it will look weird when he "finds" caches ranging from Tennessee to Oregon in a single day!

 

Is this OK?

 

PS--I got him a Garmin eTrex 20 for his birthday, and he is very excited!

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly what I was thinking as MartyBelfast's answer popped up!  Not bad form at all - it's done for many reasons, and a child getting his own separate account is pretty common.  Back date so his caching history is accurate as to the dates he found the caches with you - you can choose the date when you create the log.

Edited by CAVinoGal
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, brackman1066 said:

My son and I have done a lot of geocaching as a team since I got into it last fall. He's now 13, and old enough to have his own gmail address--which means he can also have his own identity on geocaching.com.

Would it be considered bad form for him to retroactively log as finds all the caches we found together? Whenever I signed the logs, I put "brackman1066 + 1" to indicate that he was with me, since he didn't have his own identity. I know it will look weird when he "finds" caches ranging from Tennessee to Oregon in a single day!

Is this OK?

Sure.      :)

He shouldn't be hassled by COs or look "weird",  if he back-dates all those caches you've done together, explaining why he's logging so late.    ;)

Is he also getting a premium membership ? 

If not, he'll have to use an alternate method to log the PMOs  (if you were together).   One we tell new folks to use is geocachingadmin.com., and it's as simple as type in the GC# and hit "log". 

A basic member can't view PMO hides but can log them when with a premium member.

 

 

Edited by cerberus1
spllelling
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

It's OK, but I didn't bother when I got my own handle after geocaching for a couple years with my sister and brother-in-law. I didn't see any reason to claim those as my own. If I were him, I'd consider those past caches as finds in a bygone era unrelated to my new handle. He can enjoy them officially in his new identity if he likes or just ignore them. The main reason to claim them is for the count, and who cares about the count?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, dprovan said:

It's OK, but I didn't bother when I got my own handle after geocaching for a couple years with my sister and brother-in-law. I didn't see any reason to claim those as my own. If I were him, I'd consider those past caches as finds in a bygone era unrelated to my new handle. He can enjoy them officially in his new identity if he likes or just ignore them. The main reason to claim them is for the count, and who cares about the count?

 

I understand why many feel that way, but others (I'm one)  don't think of any part of this hobby as a "count".

Rather a note in history that you were there, and in this case,  with people you cared about.   :)

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I understand why many feel that way, but others (I'm one)  don't think of any part of this hobby as a "count".

Rather a note in history that you were there, and in this case,  with people you cared about.   :)

Didn't the father's log say he was there? I see it as changing history. After all, that's exactly what they'd be doing: going back and adding a log entry in the past that would have been inaccurate on the date attached to the log, and all because of the unrelated future event of getting his own, new account. To me, that geocacher wasn't there, just the same individual before he had a geocacher identity. It makes as little sense to me to relog them as the father going through all his logs and changing all "My son and I found..." to "NewGeocacher and I found..."

 

But to each his own. One can only hope that at least the son writes actual history in his logs based on his memories, not just "Found previously, logging with new account."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, dprovan said:

To me, that geocacher wasn't there, just the same individual before he had a geocacher identity.

Hypothetically, lets say I introduce someone to geocaching on Saturday, and they create a geocaching.com account on Sunday.

 

My understanding of your point is that the "geocacher identity" didn't exist on Saturday, so they should not log the caches they found with me.

 

If that is an accurate understanding of your position, then I disagree.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

Hypothetically, lets say I introduce someone to geocaching on Saturday, and they create a geocaching.com account on Sunday.

 

My understanding of your point is that the "geocacher identity" didn't exist on Saturday, so they should not log the caches they found with me.

 

If that is an accurate understanding of your position, then I disagree.

An uninteresting hair split, in my opinion. Besides, I didn't say anyone should not log caches, I just said it didn't make sense to me. In the scenario you present here, it does make sense, so I guess we agree.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

An uninteresting hair split, in my opinion. Besides, I didn't say anyone should not log caches, I just said it didn't make sense to me. In the scenario you present here, it does make sense, so I guess we agree.

So at what point does it no longer make sense for my friends/family to create a geocaching.com account and log the caches that we found together?

 

A day? A week? A month? A year? A decade?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, niraD said:

So at what point does it no longer make sense for my friends/family to create a geocaching.com account and log the caches that we found together?

 

A day? A week? A month? A year? A decade?

It's not a matter of time. In your case, the person became a geocacher one day and got his account the next. In the original case, two people decided to cache as a team, and now the younger one is going independent. That's the point: in the first case, they were doing something different: geocaching together as a team, then geocaching independently. In your case, nothing changed about what the person was doing when they created their account. In both cases, the physical action of getting the account isn't important: your friend adopted his own geocaching identity and signed the logs with it, then told GS about it the next day.

 

Of course, if your friend decided that previous day wasn't part of his geocaching history, so he didn't log those caches from the previous day after he got an ID, that would make sense, too. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, dprovan said:

It's not a matter of time. In your case, the person became a geocacher one day and got his account the next. In the original case, two people decided to cache as a team, and now the younger one is going independent.

Or maybe two people were both geocachers, but only one had created a geocaching.com account. And now the other person is finally creating a geocaching.com account too.

 

Creating a geocaching.com account and becoming a geocacher are not the same thing. You can have one without the other, in both directions.

Share this post


Link to post

There is one more thing, according to the guidelines you should not log a find if you did not sign the logbook. And there is no signature made by a new geocacher because there's only a parent or team signature. A very "sensitive" cache owner comparing online finds and signatures could be suspicious about it.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, rapotek said:

There is one more thing, according to the guidelines you should not log a find if you did not sign the logbook. And there is no signature made by a new geocacher because there's only a parent or team signature. A very "sensitive" cache owner comparing online finds and signatures could be suspicious about it.

It's perfectly acceptable for a group that is geocaching together to sign a single team name to represent everyone in the group. It's also perfectly acceptable for someone to change their geocaching.com account name. It's also perfectly acceptable for someone to make up one name on Saturday, to discover that their chosen name is not available on Sunday, and then create a different geocaching.com name.

 

Overly sensitive cache owners need to get over it.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

It's perfectly acceptable for a group that is geocaching together to sign a single team name to represent everyone in the group.

There were posts somewhere on the forum concerning group signatures while group members having separate accounts, I will not follow them here.

 

1 hour ago, niraD said:

It's also perfectly acceptable for someone to change their geocaching.com account name. It's also perfectly acceptable for someone to make up one name on Saturday, to discover that their chosen name is not available on Sunday, and then create a different geocaching.com name.

I have changed my account name myself, so I know about it, but I have seen logs like "Found it, signed in logbook as (...)" and it is a good practice to follow but could be hard to maintain.

 

I only wanted to point out there could be issues when a cache owner takes a logbook and automatically deletes online founds not matching signatures.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, rapotek said:

There were posts somewhere on the forum concerning group signatures while group members having separate accounts, I will not follow them here.

 

I have changed my account name myself, so I know about it, but I have seen logs like "Found it, signed in logbook as (...)" and it is a good practice to follow but could be hard to maintain.

 

I only wanted to point out there could be issues when a cache owner takes a logbook and automatically deletes online founds not matching signatures.

 

If, as the OP states, the logbooks were signed "brackman1066 + 1", and her son makes it clear that he’s the "+1" in his retrospective logs, then deleting them would be pretty harsh.

 

(He should definitely use the date of the original find in his new logs.)

 

13 hours ago, dprovan said:

The main reason to claim them is for the count, and who cares about the count?

 

For me, it’s nothing to do with the count; it’s about an accurate record of the caches found.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, dprovan said:

The main reason to claim them is for the count, and who cares about the count?

 

Some might not care if the count is a high number, but they might care that it's accurate.

 

The fact is, the son found those caches prior to turning 13 along with his mother.  An accurate count of his finds today should include those finds.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Some might not care if the count is a high number, but they might care that it's accurate.

 

The fact is, the son found those caches prior to turning 13 along with his mother.  An accurate count of his finds today should include those finds.

 

Exactly! Her son found the caches with her and therefore has a right to log them under his own name. I can't imagine anyone saying to himself, I found those caches a while back but I'm gonna start fresh and either forget about them or go find them again. :unsure: 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, niraD said:

Or maybe two people were both geocachers, but only one had created a geocaching.com account. And now the other person is finally creating a geocaching.com account too.

 

Creating a geocaching.com account and becoming a geocacher are not the same thing. You can have one without the other, in both directions.

 

Good grief. I am glad the OP got the question answered....

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

I found those caches a while back but I'm gonna start fresh and either forget about them or go find them again. 

 

Not that anyone should do that, but it is an interesting experiment. When I started my own account I did log some of our finds without a re-visit, especially those that I couldn't revisit. The others I decided to visit again. Many had changed -- new containers, new content, hide changed -- what was once hanging was now under a log, some were moved--a few feet, some a few yards away, some to the other side of a trail or road. It was an interesting experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

For me, it’s nothing to do with the count; it’s about an accurate record of the caches found.

Also, it removes from the map caches he has found (not that 31 caches are going to mess much with his map, especially spread across the US).

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, niraD said:

Or maybe two people were both geocachers, but only one had created a geocaching.com account. And now the other person is finally creating a geocaching.com account too.

Or maybe one of them is a dog!

 

12 hours ago, niraD said:

Creating a geocaching.com account and becoming a geocacher are not the same thing. You can have one without the other, in both directions.

Exactly the point I just made, and the difference, as I understood it, between the two scenarios.

Edited by dprovan
Addition
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Exactly! Her son found the caches with her and therefore has a right to log them under his own name. I can't imagine anyone saying to himself, I found those caches a while back but I'm gonna start fresh and either forget about them or go find them again. :unsure: 

I can imagine not logging them because that's exactly what I did when I got an account and started geocaching on my own. I just didn't care about the previous finds. I wasn't my own geocacher then. dprovan didn't exist at the time, so I consider it inaccurate to say dprovan found those caches. My brother-in-law posting, "Found with my brother-in-law" is the accurate history that's already in the log.

 

And, please, I'm not saying he doesn't have a "right" to log them again. I'm just asking what the point is and suggesting a way to look at it that saves him the bother and everyone else the extra work of figuring out why caches are being logged a year late.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Not that anyone should do that, but it is an interesting experiment. When I started my own account I did log some of our finds without a re-visit, especially those that I couldn't revisit. The others I decided to visit again. Many had changed -- new containers, new content, hide changed -- what was once hanging was now under a log, some were moved--a few feet, some a few yards away, some to the other side of a trail or road. It was an interesting experience. 

It never even occurred to me to claim the caches in my neighborhood that I'd found previously with my sister and brother-in-law. Even though I knew where they were, it was still fun to find them again so I could sign the logs for myself. If anything, I thought the fact that they were essentially forced reminiscing was an advantage. (I know what you mean about hides changing, but I have to admit, none of those caches had changed.)

 

3 hours ago, The Jester said:

Also, it removes from the map caches he has found (not that 31 caches are going to mess much with his map, especially spread across the US).

Or....it keeps on the map fun caches he enjoyed once so he can enjoy them again if he wants to!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Or....it keeps on the map fun caches he enjoyed once so he can enjoy them again if he wants to!

 

And ... if you don’t log any you can enjoy them all again ... and again. 😉

  • Funny 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, dprovan said:

I can imagine not logging them because that's exactly what I did when I got an account and started geocaching on my own. I just didn't care about the previous finds. I wasn't my own geocacher then. dprovan didn't exist at the time, so I consider it inaccurate to say dprovan found those caches. My brother-in-law posting, "Found with my brother-in-law" is the accurate history that's already in the log.

 

And, please, I'm not saying he doesn't have a "right" to log them again. I'm just asking what the point is and suggesting a way to look at it that saves him the bother and everyone else the extra work of figuring out why caches are being logged a year late.

 

No doubt there are others that think the way you do on this but I would guestimate that y'all aren't the majority. Nothing wrong at all with going at it that way , especially if it's been a while since the caches were found. One situation I can definitely see it. I took my less than one year old Daughter caching when I was the stay at home dad. Logged a few caches under her name and I have a feeling she'd start fresh if she got back into caching. :D

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎7‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 5:27 AM, rapotek said:

There were posts somewhere on the forum concerning group signatures while group members having separate accounts, I will not follow them here.

I have changed my account name myself, so I know about it, but I have seen logs like "Found it, signed in logbook as (...)" and it is a good practice to follow but could be hard to maintain.

I only wanted to point out there could be issues when a cache owner takes a logbook and automatically deletes online founds not matching signatures.

 

We ran into similar issues when we first placed caches.  Sigs didn't match logs.  Folks upset when deleted. 

"Greetings from... (a certain country)  " logs were really crazy around that time too.

 - I'm sure a lot remember them ... and we were at the point of "why bother" with the hiding part of the hobby.  

Then we realized it was just because the "new" accounts didn't say in their log why they were "late-logging" .

We could have easily seen the "Tiny one! DS found it. " log or similar (showing that there was another person there), if they had only explained why in their online log. :)  

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

We have a family account, even though it's normally just me.  When I cache solo, I finish my logs with

 

Quote

TFTC!

 

Christian (one third of hzoi)

 

Every time my daughter's with me at a cache, I include her at the end of the log, like

 

Quote

TFTC!

 

Christian, Kelly, and Carey (hzoi)

 

That way, if she gets her own account, she can go back through and do just this.

 

(I also visit a trackable that she'll eventually get so this is easier to do.)

Share this post


Link to post

When they were very young, my nieces and nephews loved walking/riding bikes in parks and game lands with me.

 - Snacks and band-aids provided,  I'd like to thinks toys didn't have anything to do with it.        :D

Many of those caches that today would have had a ton of favorite points, are now long-archived.

They wrote their names in the logs and I wrote them as with me online.

Older now, one with a kid of their own,  some have already said if this hobby's still around when kids are old enough, they'd like to play again.

It'd be nice if they could log that cache that left enough of an impression (hopefully I helped...) that they're looking forward  to becoming members of this hobby.     :)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

It's totally okay to backlog. Owners appreciate knowing what's happening. I got a log on a long-archived cache the other day, and it was helpful that the log explained what she was doing so I know it's not bogus.

Share this post


Link to post

To the OP,  Welcome to the forums.  Glad you and your son are enjoying caching together.  As you can see lots of opinions here.  Perfectly fine and acceptable if he wants to log them on his own account and fine if he chooses not to.  If he wants to take the time to log them, then I say Go For It!  Happy caching!  I hope he stays enthused for a long time.  Nice present by the way!

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/10/2019 at 3:54 AM, niraD said:
On 7/10/2019 at 3:14 AM, rapotek said:

There is one more thing, according to the guidelines you should not log a find if you did not sign the logbook. And there is no signature made by a new geocacher because there's only a parent or team signature. A very "sensitive" cache owner comparing online finds and signatures could be suspicious about it.

It's perfectly acceptable for a group that is geocaching together to sign a single team name to represent everyone in the group.

 

Is there an official write-up that says it's perfectly acceptable? 

 

Is it good etiquette? Seems cliquish and hypocritical. It's not OK for one individual to get to a tree, stare up at the cache, not climb, yet log a find, i.e. the appropriate geocaching etiquette.

Yet it's OK for that same individual to get to a tree with 10 people who are all staring up at the cache, did not climb, but watched someone else climb and sign the log.  

On the flip side, it's poor etiquette for a T5 owner to request that everyone climb the tree and sign the log. 

 

it's not perfectly acceptable etiquette for a cache owner to request that group signatures not be used. An owner who provides plenty of space in their logbook can't request that the logbook get passed around and appropriately signed. 

 

Some people took a reasonable use of family accounts and found a loop hole that allowed them to record more finds by creating group names (not accounts). At least when individuals start their own account it's after being part of a family account.  

 

17 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

"Greetings from... (a certain country)  " logs were really crazy around that time too.

 - I'm sure a lot remember them ... and we were at the point of "why bother" with the hiding part of the hobby. 

 

Group caching behavior in my area felt much like this.  

Especially when you get hit with 50 cut-n-paste logs all claiming to have found the cache and logging with one signature.

It was an important holiday,  they needed 50+ non-trads on that holiday so that everyone could qualify for several challenge caches in the area.  When almost all who logged a find didn't seem to care about visiting the cache-- they said nothing about actually visiting the location and seeing the cache container we worked weeks on to create-- we did wonder if we should bother with the hiding part of the hobby. The effort to go beyond a set-em-and-forget-em pill bottle wasn't worth it. That is not a style of cache ownership we aspired to. 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/11/2019 at 1:10 PM, L0ne.R said:

Especially when you get hit with 50 cut-n-paste logs all claiming to have found the cache and logging with one signature.

It was an important holiday,  they needed 50+ non-trads on that holiday so that everyone could qualify for several challenge caches in the area.  When almost all who logged a find didn't seem to care about visiting the cache-- they said nothing about actually visiting the location and seeing the cache container we worked weeks on to create-- we did wonder if we should bother with the hiding part of the hobby. The effort to go beyond a set-em-and-forget-em pill bottle wasn't worth it. That is not a style of cache ownership we aspired to. 

 

And this is the effect of the "everyone caches their own way" mentality. Sure, people can cache that way, but can you blame owners who feel short-changed with all the work they put forward getting not even a wink of appreciation other than for the +1?  I understand some owners truly don't care if a cacher logs a find on their cache without experiencing it "the way it was intended".  But there absolutely is a negative effect to this mentality.

 

HQ can't make rules for etiquette - appeals turns into he-said-she-said. HQ does what they can - encourage nice playing, promote positive geocaching ethic and etiquette, and encourage people to settle their own battles. The leftovers go to appeals to adjudicate.

 

I gave up on fighting the group caching mentality long ago, for the same effects as quoted above. It's all too common, and there's no standard by which to counter the claims.  So I can choose to ignore those big-group copy-paste "thanks to all the COs" logs that I am 100% confident many if not most did not visit, or I can give up hiding caches, to some degree, or entirely.  That's a choice cache owners are free to make.

 

So I'd hope that people who cache "their own way" DO think about the effect their caching has on the community and cache owners overall. You may be allowed to cache that way, but consider if you're hurting the hobby in your region, and DON'T blame the cache owner if they're bothered by a growing sense of carelessness.

 

Anyway, rant over :P

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:
On 7/10/2019 at 12:54 AM, niraD said:

It's perfectly acceptable for a group that is geocaching together to sign a single team name to represent everyone in the group.

Is there an official write-up that says it's perfectly acceptable? 

I've seen quoted emails, originally sent from lackeys to cache owners, but I haven't seen anything in the Help Center.

 

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Yet it's OK for that same individual to get to a tree with 10 people who are all staring up at the cache, did not climb, but watched someone else climb and sign the log.  

That is a separate issue. The climber in the tree could just as easily have written the names of all the safety supervisors on the ground.

 

All I'm referring to is the difference between writing a dozen names on a small log sheet, vs writing a single team name on a small log sheet. The groups I've been in that have done this have done it as a courtesy to the CO, to avoid filling up a small log sheet, to reduce the maintenance the CO needs to do.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Group caching behavior in my area felt much like this.  

Especially when you get hit with 50 cut-n-paste logs all claiming to have found the cache and logging with one signature.

It was an important holiday,  they needed 50+ non-trads on that holiday so that everyone could qualify for several challenge caches in the area.  When almost all who logged a find didn't seem to care about visiting the cache-- they said nothing about actually visiting the location and seeing the cache container we worked weeks on to create-- we did wonder if we should bother with the hiding part of the hobby. The effort to go beyond a set-em-and-forget-em pill bottle wasn't worth it. That is not a style of cache ownership we aspired to. 

 

When challenges were big in this area, those logs used to bother us too. Most seemed to be folks "just passing through".

"Found with cache team go-get-'em for the Imjustthinkingaboutmyself challenge." , and some might add "thanks for placing and maintaining" cut n paste.

Other than their own day (a few still only log their stats as the log...), nothing's said about the cache at all. 

We never had many caches, but what we had were at noteworthy locations,  with quality containers.

The good n bad thing about "anyone can play" I guess...     :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, niraD said:

The groups I've been in that have done this have done it as a courtesy to the CO, to avoid filling up a small log sheet, to reduce the maintenance the CO needs to do.

 

Interesting. So it sounds like when they're on a geocaching excursion for the day, the groups in your area pass around the logbook when there is logbook in the cache, but sign the group name only to those caches with a logsheet that would fill up if they all signed.

 

In my area all caches found that day, whether they are a tiny bit of paper or a 50-page logbook get the one group signature. I know, because our caches are the ones with the 50-page logbooks with room for 100s of signatures, yet they get the group "space saving" signature. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎7‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 3:54 AM, niraD said:

It's perfectly acceptable for a group that is geocaching together to sign a single team name to represent everyone in the group.

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Is there an official write-up that says it's perfectly acceptable? 

 

Looking at blogs, we see many instances of Lackeys group-caching together.  That seems "official" to me, without making it another "rule". 

 - Folks having a good day together.  Who can say anything negative about that ?    :)

 

 Used to be I was thinking of yet-another guideline, but I feel there's already enough to keep up with.

Since we never know one cache to the next what kinda log is gonna be in it, all logs got a single, unique name for the group that day.

If we're in a decent-sized group, we just figured it common sense to not put the CO in a bind for maintenance,  just to replace a log.

Some COs saw fewer sigs in a year than we'd fill on that...one ...day.  Ask anyone near a mega.     :D

Share this post


Link to post

The group logging thing was answered long ago, mainly because it's not an argument that can be proven effectively either way. What about legibility? How can a cacher defend that it's their own personal "caching" name in a logsheet without question when it's ultimately about the CO being able to come to that same username from the handwriting? It's a futile battle, either way, and one GS isn't willing to arbitrate. So group caching is allowed (effectively the same as signing a different name than your literal caching username; like short forms, even). Of course, when it falls into couch-logging territory (claiming a find where you can't even defend that you were with the group at all that day) that's a different issue entirely. But they're not going to say a group can't sign a temporary caching name under which all members of the group can claim the find.  It's simply not an enforcible requirement, for many other reason already re-cited in this thread, since the only alternative is signing your literal geocaching username on every single logsheet you find.

 

I'd still love to see an instance of a group caching signature where someone tries to claim with the group, but the group themselves deny that person was with them :) That would be a defensible log deletion, I would think, heh.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:
3 hours ago, niraD said:

The groups I've been in that have done this have done it as a courtesy to the CO, to avoid filling up a small log sheet, to reduce the maintenance the CO needs to do.

 

Interesting. So it sounds like when they're on a geocaching excursion for the day, the groups in your area pass around the logbook when there is logbook in the cache, but sign the group name only to those caches with a logsheet that would fill up if they all signed.

  

In my area all caches found that day, whether they are a tiny bit of paper or a 50-page logbook get the one group signature. I know, because our caches are the ones with the 50-page logbooks with room for 100s of signatures, yet they get the group "space saving" signature. 

 

It doesn't have to be strictly a log sheet that we would fill up. I mean, if we're a group of a dozen, and there are more spaces than that left on the log sheet, then we'd still use the team name.

 

And what happens for larger caches with actual log books can be hit or miss, but odds are, we'll pass around the log book. Of course, even when we pass around the log book, not everyone signs their own name; one person may sign for two or three people even when the log is being passed around.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Especially when you get hit with 50 cut-n-paste logs all claiming to have found the cache and logging with one signature.

It was an important holiday,  they needed 50+ non-trads on that holiday so that everyone could qualify for several challenge caches in the area.  When almost all who logged a find didn't seem to care about visiting the cache-- they said nothing about actually visiting the location and seeing the cache container we worked weeks on to create-- we did wonder if we should bother with the hiding part of the hobby. The effort to go beyond a set-em-and-forget-em pill bottle wasn't worth it. That is not a style of cache ownership we aspired to. 

 

You have to be willing to accept these types of logs and finders if you hide a cache.  While you may not have intended it to be found and logged this way, it was (and can still be, if it's still out there).  Just because you created  the cache to be hidden, found, and logged a certain way, there's absolutely NO guarantee that it will happen the way you intended.   It's nigh impossible to control how cachers will find and log ANY cache, much less ones that took time to create and place for an intended effect.  While it's certainly annoying to get a cut and paste log, their logs are THEIR logs.  If you don't place a cache (because you're afraid all you're going to get are cut and paste logs) then you'll NEVER get the types of logs you want from those types of cachers who appreciate the effect of the hide that you took the time and patience to create.

 

As to the OP, go ahead and re-log them or don't.  It's all up to him to determine how he'd like to go about this since it's his account.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/9/2019 at 10:00 AM, brackman1066 said:

My son and I have done a lot of geocaching as a team since I got into it last fall. He's now 13, and old enough to have his own gmail address--which means he can also have his own identity on geocaching.com.

 

Would it be considered bad form for him to retroactively log as finds all the caches we found together? Whenever I signed the logs, I put "brackman1066 + 1" to indicate that he was with me, since he didn't have his own identity. I know it will look weird when he "finds" caches ranging from Tennessee to Oregon in a single day!

 

Is this OK?

 

PS--I got him a Garmin eTrex 20 for his birthday, and he is very excited!

 

Awesome that he is excited about finally getting his own account. It is commendable that you didn't allow him to access the site on his own until now, since that's what's implied by the website TOU.

Now, y'all can sit down and relive those early finds as he logs them for his own account.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, coachstahly said:
20 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Especially when you get hit with 50 cut-n-paste logs all claiming to have found the cache and logging with one signature.

It was an important holiday,  they needed 50+ non-trads on that holiday so that everyone could qualify for several challenge caches in the area.  When almost all who logged a find didn't seem to care about visiting the cache-- they said nothing about actually visiting the location and seeing the cache container we worked weeks on to create-- we did wonder if we should bother with the hiding part of the hobby. The effort to go beyond a set-em-and-forget-em pill bottle wasn't worth it. That is not a style of cache ownership we aspired to. 

 

You have to be willing to accept these types of logs and finders if you hide a cache.

 

Yes, I have to be willing to accept these types of logs and finders if I want to continue to hide caches. So I don't hide caches anymore. 

 

To quote thebruce:

 

20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

So I'd hope that people who cache "their own way" DO think about the effect their caching has on the community and cache owners overall. You may be allowed to cache that way, but consider if you're hurting the hobby in your region, and DON'T blame the cache owner if they're bothered a growing sense of carelessness.

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/12/2019 at 9:42 AM, L0ne.R said:

So I don't hide caches anymore.

 

So you've given up.  Rather than try to be the one to set the example, you've just folded your hand and opted not to play anymore. You've taken your ball and gone home.  How is this any different than the CO who commits geocide because they don't agree with some policy of GS?  I fail to see how cut and paste logs from PT cachers actually "hurt" the game.  No, they're not optimal and they're certainly not "good" logs but they're not really doing anything other than showing that they focus on numbers rather than the experience. It says more about them than it does about you.  Is it that they're not lauding your efforts as a CO but rather focusing on the "one more"? I didn't place my caches for finders to praise my skills as a CO.  I placed them in the hope that A - some might find them enjoyable and B - it might inspire some hiders to hide some similar ones since my hides tend to be hidden in the style I like to find.     

 

However, you're fine with going out and finding caches (rarely now apparently) from other COs and then complaining about the caches (and by extension, their COs) when they don't meet your expectations. If you, who apparently was a dedicated CO, aren't going to provide the examples you want others to aspire to, why should you expect anything different from those COs whose caches you find?  

 

You used to (perhaps you still do) reference the time before power trails as this almost perfect confluence of COs, hides, and finders, almost like a golden age of caching.  I've pointed out numerous examples that show that this wasn't the case in other threads.  While PTs certainly weren't part of it back then, things were much as they are now, but a bit more community oriented (reviewers typcially didn't take action on caches unless the community brought it up via NM/NA logs) rather than the GS oriented approach we see more in play now. There were plenty of crappy logs, there were plenty of crappy containers, there were plenty of crappy hides, there were always cachers more interested in the numbers than the experience (although much less than now), and maintenance wasn't always performed at the level some of us currently expect. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, coachstahly said:
On 7/12/2019 at 9:42 AM, L0ne.R said:

So I don't hide caches anymore.

 

So you've given up.  (etc., etc.)

Wow.  That's a whole lot of somebody else's words to have to chew on and swallow.

 

But spoken like a true coach: Shake it off!  Rub some dirt on it!  You're gonna let the team down! 

 

The quoted CO has chosen to stop. 

 

Just as people who express their dislike for power trails or lamp post caches are advised to simply filter out that aspect, "just don't do them, then",  cachers who find ownership above their thresholds of frustration should be allowed to make the same choice of NOT participating in that aspect of the hobby without being demonized.

 

As you may or may not have noticed in the rest of the post where another cacher is quoted (I'll hone in on the salient point here):

On 7/12/2019 at 9:42 AM, L0ne.R said:
  On 7/11/2019 at 1:38 PM, thebruce0 said:

 DON'T blame the cache owner if they're bothered a growing sense of carelessness.

Edited by VAVAPAM
correcting quote attribution; don't mind me just rearranging the furniture here
  • Upvote 5
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Apologies to the OP for OT comment.

 

Agree with others: If he chooses to add a back-dated log, do include a simple note why.  It's common and, from what I've read on this thread, easily proven in his case.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Rather than try to be the one to set the example

 

I've tried for 15 years, it didn't work.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

I've tried for 15 years, it didn't work.

This forum really needs a sad-face response. :sad:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:
9 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Rather than try to be the one to set the example

 

I've tried for 15 years, it didn't work.


A sad truth to remember that applies to many aspects of life - things change. Especially games and hobbies. New people come, old people go, and usually the new people are the ones to push lines and boundaries even if just for the sake of trying something new. Sometimes it sticks, sometimes it doesn't. If it sticks, it usually means a cultural shift, which tends to leave the 'old guard' behind. Cue the drama. /:)

This is one of those hobbies that while the 'old' is still around, the 'new' is overshadowing it.  It's rare that the 'old' disappears entirely, and usually requires an authoritative move to clear it off the plate (such as Geocaching Challenges in comparison to grandfathered Challenge Caches - one is gone, another has been kept around).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, VAVAPAM said:

Just as people who express their dislike for power trails or lamp post caches are advised to simply filter out that aspect, "just don't do them, then",  cachers who find ownership above their thresholds of frustration should be allowed to make the same choice of NOT participating in that aspect of the hobby without being demonized.

 

They made the right choice for them.  I'm not demonizing them for making that choice, but by making that choice, they have, to some extent, relinquished the right to complain, ad nauseam, about the state of cachers' caching methods as well as hiders' maintenance practices, since they aren't actively doing either thing to try to make things better in their neck of the woods.  You're a newer poster but this poster has repeatedly stated the same things through a majority of their posts. Their disgruntlement with finders' logs and CO's lack of maintenance practices has been noted countless times and I've encouraged them to give up the activity if all they experience is negative, which is the gist of a majority of their posts.  They're not wrong to feel the way they do but constantly harping on the same issues without things changing much seems to be more like wallowing in negativity rather than allowing themselves to step away from something they apparently find so unlikeable.  CO ownership isn't for everyone but if you want to give it a go, you have to be willing to deal with ANYONE who finds your caches and realize that their logs reveal more about them than it does about the CO who put the cache out.  We all love good logs; we're just not guaranteed to get them every time.  We all love "good" caches (however each person defines it); we're just not guaranteed to get them every time.

 

22 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I've tried for 15 years, it didn't work.

 

What didn't work?  You put out caches, people found them.  Some gave you good logs while others gave you crappy logs.  Why should loggers be required to comment on how nice a job you did with your container and how well-maintained it was?  If they don't take the time to comment about either of those things, then, again, it says more about them than it does about you as a CO.  Were all the logs crappy logs or did you get some good ones in there as well?  Did anyone place any caches similar to yours after finding one of yours?  Even if only one did, then it worked, just on a much smaller scale than you had hoped.  

 

My caches aren't for everyone and when I get a crappy log, I'm not thrilled but at least someone found it.  I helped them out, even if it's not the result I wanted to hear about in their log and therefore get a log that is cut and paste or a simple TFTC.  Maybe my cache was their "fix" for the day. If nothing else, I placed something and they chose mine, out of the countless others in the area, to come find. I KNOW one person put out a cache similar in style to what my hides were like and put my name on it to boot.  It's since been archived but it got me out to enjoy the type of cache I enjoy finding so my efforts haven't been a complete failure on that end.

 

There's NO doubt that things have changed, even in the shorter span of years than LOne.R, having 9 years under my belt vs. 15 for them.  I'm certainly not thrilled about some of them but I still find enjoyment in caching, despite that.  There's still plenty of flexibility for me to choose to cache in the manner in which I see fit, even if finding those particular caches and locations is getting more difficult.  Maybe that means I cache less than I used to, but I'm fine with that.  That certainly doesn't translate to more finds and a higher number count, but i'm fine with that.  It also usually precludes finding a lot of traditional caches (by far the most numerous type), and I'm fine with that.  I never planned on caching the way I do now; it just naturally occurred.  Things changed for me but I adapted and still make time when I can.

 

If this activity becomes as negative as it appears to have become for Lone.R, you can bet that I'll archive my caches and stop caching, rather than hang on and complain about how things are now vs. how they used to be.  Life is too short to choose to do something in my spare time that I don't enjoy doing.  I don't need that negativity clouding up my free time, which is supposed to be the time I get to enjoy what life has to offer.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

they have, to some extent, relinquished the right to complain, ad nauseam, about the state of cachers' caching methods as well as hiders' maintenance practices, since they aren't actively doing either thing to try to make things better in their neck of the woods.

 

Actually, I do feel I'm contributing and trying to make things better in my neck of the woods, but as a finder not a hider.

 

For example here's a log I posted this year...

 

(I also added a favorite point---by the way, only 9% FPs on this decent cache, that's because half the logs were from a group of about 50 cachers who came through on a special holiday looking to find a LOT of caches that day to qualify for challenges, and break their last month's record---they don't do FPs since most don't see the caches they log as a team find.)

 

Here's my log:

 

Quote

 

I had an opportunity to get out and enjoy the +4C temperature. I wanted a good geocaching experience and [CO's trailname] came to mind for quality geocaching experiences. I made the right choice, this cache gets a favourite point from me for checking all the right boxes. 
A forest find, 
Swag size for those finders like me that like stuff in the box to paw through, 
A great container (Plano) to protect the contents--everything was in great shape,
A logbook and not a sheet,
Pencil/pen--you even had them in a separate baggie with a note saying that we could use it if we forgot our own, and that's just what happened to me, I forgot mine back in the car. I used your pencil to write a note in that nice logbook.

Left a signature item. Thanks the great stewardship-- for all the work you put into your hides, the maintenance you provide, the nice locations you choose, and the money you invest to buy a good watertight container that protects the contents.
 

 Great story (2)

 

 

This was followed up recently with this comment from a recent finder:

 

 

Quote

 

Nothing fancy with this one, but that's okay with me. It was a solid, healthy, cache that was easy to spot and along a decent trail. I read l0ner's log within the physical logbook about this being the type of cache that existed in the good old days. I think I would have liked those days too.

 Great story (1)

 

And then the CO made his regular maintenance visit a couple of months later just to keep the cache in good shape:

 

Quote

 

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

06/24/2019

I came by today for a maintenance check on several of my caches. I cleaned out the caches, removed any garbage, and added some new swag if necessary. The cache is now in good shape and ready to be found.

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
sentence structure
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...