Jump to content

Logging multiple finds on an Event Cache??


umc

Recommended Posts

Recently, in our MiGO forums a interesting subject came up about logging multiple finds on an event cache that had a bunch of temporary caches. The cachers that attended the event were able to log finds for each cache they found resulting in 10 or so find logs to the same event page. This reminds me of right and wrong and brings to mind the whole not logging your own caches as found opinion. Also its been brought up that; "well if the creator of the event said thats how it should be done then its ok." I still disagree with that because of the "well I'm the creator of my cache, so I should be able to do what I want" Its a moral issue of opinion.

 

What do y'all think, is it ok to log multiple finds to an event page that had many temporary caches or should it still be one cache one log?

Link to comment

No problem with it, at all.

 

Since "temporary caches" won't be approved, the only way to log temporary caches at an event is to log them on the main event cache page.

 

Good solution to the problem of temporary caches. Just merge them into a single event cache page, but allow multiple logs. Since the finder actually finds X number of cache containers, they should log X number of finds.

 

It's not a matter of right vs. wrong, but an issue of reducing the load on the admins by combining a whole bunch of temporary caches on a single page instead of creating individual pages for all of them.

 

web-lingbutton.gif ntga_button.gif

Link to comment

This past weekend I co-hosted an event GeoWoodstock with four additional caches, since temporary caches are not allowed this is a way suggested by geocaching admin’s to do this type of temporary cache. These were micros that four of the cachers attending had in there pockets and we coined the phrase ( is that a cache in your pocket or are you just glad to see me ) it was a way to get fellow and fellowetts cachers to meet and greet. Our local club does the same thing but with caches hidden. …………… JOE

 

The cache hunter found a cache and a log book ,and signed it. But only used one cache page not five.

Link to comment

I can see great opportunity for abuse on this one. As a matter of fact what is to keep someone from having an event just to place temp caches .01 miles appart so that finders can boost their numbers in a rapid fashion?

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....

Link to comment

I keep hearing that "this is how gc.c admins have suggested to do it" is there a link where this has been discussed already and which admins suggested this? (should be in the link)

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....

Link to comment

Ya, that's like putting forum topics so close together just so that someone can log 300 posts in one night.

 

Seems more logical to me that you're logging the event. Any caches don't count as standard finds. You can always note in the log how many caches you did find.

 

quote:
Originally posted by umc:

I can see great opportunity for abuse on this one. As a matter of fact what is to keep someone from having an event just to place temp caches .01 miles appart so that finders can boost their numbers in a rapid fashion?

 

http://www.mi-geocaching.org/

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....


 

Why does Sea World have a seafood restaurant? I'm halfway through my fish burger and I realize, Oh my God....I could be eating a slow learner.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by umc:

I can see great opportunity for abuse on this one. As a matter of fact what is to keep someone from having an event just to place temp caches .01 miles appart so that finders can boost their numbers in a rapid fashion?

 


 

If someone is insane enough to do that, I feel a little sorry for them, but I'm not going to track them down and throw them in jail for caching statistics fraud. It just doesn't matter that much to me.

Link to comment

quote:
I can see great opportunity for abuse on this one. As a matter of fact what is to keep someone from having an event just to place temp caches .01 miles appart so that finders can boost their numbers in a rapid fashion?

 

This is possible, but I can't imagine that going over well. If an event is posted, people will show up for it and the caching will be part of the event. I doubt most people would support an event if were solely a lame way to get numbers up and would be annoyed if they learned that was really the purpose of the event. I guess I just don't see it as a problem that is actually likely to happen.

 

As for the other stuff, I posted an event that was organized by many people, I just happened to be the one who agreed to post the page. I logged a find for attending the event, even though techincally it was my own cache. I figured it was OK under the circumstances. We also told people to log multiple finds for the temp caches set up for the event. Those were quite spread out, so quite a few people (including myself) never got to all of them. Anyway, we discussed as a group how to deal with that and just basically decided to tell people that multiple logs were OK.

 

pokeanim3.gif

Link to comment

Doesn't really matter to me what other people do. I'd probably treat an event like a multi, and log it once even if there were several separate finds involved. Unless the organizer had some preference/suggestion, then I'd probably follow that.

 

*** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

Link to comment

Okay, I'm going to try to say this in a nice way...This has come up before and I cannot believe that people are still doing this. Possibility for abuse? It's more than a possibility.

 

So I string up 100 Christmas lights in front of my house and if you come to my picnic you get to log 101 finds--one for the picnic and one for each light.

 

I can't believe that people would suggest that this is a way 'around the problem of temporary caches'. Duh. That's like saying, I'll just drive through this guy's yard to avoid the problem of that stop sign.

 

Hmmm...this probably didn't come off as nice as I intened. Oh well. Logging multiple finds for temporary caches at an event is just lame.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

As an admin I rely on the Cache Listing Requirements when denying separate cache pages for each temporary cache placed for an event. The reasoning is, it is just too much work to approve 8 caches on a Friday in time for an event on Saturday. The guidelines say:

quote:
Cache Permanence

 

As the Frequently Asked Questions indicate, geocaches can be hidden in a location for a finite period of time, depending on the environment and the decision of the cache owner.

 

However, when you report a cache on the web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move, or temporary caches (ex: Caches hidden for events) will not be approved. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.


What is missing from the guidelines is the punchline: that it's OK to log multiple finds on the event page. For the answer to that question, I point you to this prior thread and especially the post from Jeremy that is linked directly.

 

I agree with CarleenP and others who have posted along the lines that temporary caches should be self-regulating. If ten caches are hidden 100 feet from each other that's pretty lame, and the hider(s) would probably hear complaints. If there's five spread out throughout a typical state or county park then that's a fun part of a good event cache.

 

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

Saving the day and approving all the caches... before bedtime!

Link to comment

Can we agree that if a cache is good enough for an event then it should be good enough for having its own cache page? My event with a bunch of caches that were .01 miles appart was an extreme example to get a point accross. In my opinion, if you are going to place temp caches at an event then they are probably as lame as my .01 mile point was. If thats not the case then these caches warrant their own page.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....

Link to comment

I have 1900 finds and all I do is go to events that have extra caches I can log , OK lets be real its an extra treat because you did attend a event and yes it fun to be able to log some extras. But that is not the reason I went.

 

I don’t think there is a link to this but if you had ever done an event cache with others in the area you would have been told to either do it this way or make them permanent.

 

I see nothing wrong with this practice. JOE

 

The way to finding more caches is to get off the couch

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Keystone Approver:

http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=8016058331&m=9046030791&r=6246030791#6246030791 and especially the post from Jeremy that is linked directly.


 

Thanks for that link, I will read it in detail when I get home tonight but from what I've seen so far there is some contradicting (sp?) posts in there.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....

Link to comment

quote:
Can we agree that if a cache is good enough for an event then it should be good enough for having its own cache page? My event with a bunch of caches that were .10 miles appart was an extreme example to get a point accross. In my opinion, if you are going to place temp caches at an event then they are probably as lame as my .01 mile point was. If thats not the case then these caches warrant their own page.

 

I understand the admin's point about it being too much work for each to have its own page. With that said, at our event, one or two of the caches placed for the event were submitted as permanent caches with their own pages because they were in a part of the park without a cache and were fairly difficult. The temp caches at the event were nicely hidden, but were either fairly close (but more than .01 mile) to an existing permanent cache at the park (which most attending had already found before) or were at the visitors center, which was OK'd for the day, but not acceptable as a permanent cache.

 

edit: I'll also add that I would always do whatever the event organizers decided. E.g. at our event, it was discussed and decided to tell people they could log each temp cache found. If I was at an event that said not to do that, that would also be OK with me and would not deter me from looking for the temp caches. I figure it is up to the event organizers to decide, and if they don't, then the individual cachers can do what they feel is within their own set of "rules" for such things.

 

pokeanim3.gif

 

[This message was edited by carleenp on June 23, 2003 at 02:51 PM.]

 

[This message was edited by carleenp on June 23, 2003 at 07:02 PM.]

 

[This message was edited by carleenp on June 23, 2003 at 07:04 PM.]

Link to comment

Just to be clear, the admins (or at least this one and any of my alter egos) have no problem with approving a new batch of caches with their own cache pages that are timed for release on the day of an event..... IF:

 

1. The caches will be permanent rather than just in place for the day of the event.

 

2. Each cache separately meets all of the site listing requirements, including for example the .1 mile density guideline.

 

3. You give the approver some advance notice. One of the other admins worked for weeks getting a dozen or so caches approved in time for an event. On the other hand, I had two caches pop up on Friday at dinnertime for an event scheduled for Saturday morning in a state park. I spent a chunk of my Friday evening writing back and forth about state park permits, whether the cachs were really permanent, and the right coordinates for the caches. I would have liked to have been packing my car so that I could have traveled to attend the event! But those caches did get approved, and they remain as permanent caches. see my signature line below.

 

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

Saving the day and approving all the caches... before bedtime!

Link to comment

I agree with Keystone Approver. Posting multiple finds on an event cache page is a logical way to get credit for the temporary caches placed at an event.

 

Remember that it's not about the numbers. Those who find four temporary caches in conjunction with an event can log the event cache page five times if they want. Or they can just log that they attended the event and found four caches while there. It's up to them.

 

There are competitive geocaching events, but the cumulative find count shouldn't be a competition anymore than the total miles driven while geocaching should be.

 

I also concur with umc that it would be silly to log seperate caches that are close together. Heck, call them the "event multicache" if it's gonna be like that and log a single smilie. I suspect that isn't the case with most caches posted for a geocaching event though.

 

erik - geocaching.com admin

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:

I agree with Keystone Approver. Posting multiple finds on an event cache page is a logical way to get credit for the temporary caches placed at an event.

 

Remember that it's not about the numbers...


 

If it's not about the numbers, then why log an event more than once?! That doesn't make sense.

 

Geocaches that aren't worthy of their own cache page shouldn't be counted. Period. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

If logging events multiple times is the direction things are going, then I suggest making event caches not 'loggable' at all.

 

The whole 'do whatever the event host wants' attitude is pretty stupid also. Does the home team get to decide the rules for football?

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Seth!:

The whole 'do whatever the event host wants' attitude is pretty stupid also. Does the home team get to decide the rules for football?


 

I agree with you all the way but I think the deal is that there is no rule when it comes to this and its left open to opinion and I think we can all agree that we don't need any more rules.

 

Much like its looked down upon if you log your own caches as found I think it should be looked down upon if you log an event as found more than once. I liken these two things because I think they are both moral issues but don't understand why the one is more acceptable.

Link to comment

I can't understand why so many people "get their panties in a bunch" over stuff like this, if it's not about the numbers. If you don't agree with logging mutliple finds on an event cache for 'event only' caches, or logging a find on an event that you organized, DON'T. It's not that difficult, hit the "post a note" button when logging. But why get so bent out of shape if someone else does it differently.....oh wait, it REALLY IS about the numbers, isn't it......

 

Nothing to see here, move along.

Link to comment

I've only been to one REAL event cache. We found multiple caches there, so we logged multiple times (as per the instructions on the cache page). I have no problem with it, and it appears the admins don't either. If you've got a problem with it, don't do it. Seems as simple as that.

 

quote:
Originally posted by the other -umc-:

Much like its looked down upon if you log your own caches as found I think it should be looked down upon if you log an event as found more than once. I liken these two things because I think they are both moral issues but don't understand why the one is more acceptable.


 

I don't see how these can be "likened." On the one hand, I place a cache and know exactly where it is, I even get to it without looking for the hint. On the other hand, I have no idea where Sysop (our event cache hider) hid the caches or what kind of a sneaky mood he was in. And believe me, he was sneaky! Unlike the examples given in some of the above posts (Christmas tree lights? Is that the slippery slope we're worried about here?), these caches were no easier nor harder than a good number of other caches I've found.

 

Bret

 

"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field.

When a man found it, he hid it again." Mt. 13:44

Link to comment

I was going to cut and paste a bunch of quotes and respond to each, but that got out of hand, so I'm responding to the ones after my last post as a whole.

 

My view is that geocacaching isn't a competition. With that said, certainly many people are interested in their stats, whether that be to keep track of things, or to happily watch them go up (or both). Either way, I doubt that most feel it is a competition. Of course, I'm an optimist!

 

The idea that it is the owner's or finder's decision about when to post a find has, from what I can tell, been longstanding here. Basically, if there is a "rule" it appears to be just that: A subjective one. If standard/imposed rules suddenly appear, then I will happily obey them but voice my disagreement, if any, in the forums if I feel like it. I doubt such rules will show up though.

 

With that in mind, UMC makes some valid points about why an event cache should only be logged once. I respect that, but generally disagree.I think what a lot of it comes down to is that some cachers view posting finds very strictly, and that is OK. Then, some view it very loosely, even to the point of logging finds on their own caches, which I don't agree with, but OK, to each his own in the end here (as things are now without strict rules). Some take middle roads to a varying range of degrees. I fit there. I wouldn't log a find on my own cache etc. but for the reasons I already posted, I would log multiple finds on an event cache if I felt it was OK w/ the owner. Here is another example, I logged finds on two traveling caches that I didn't initially find, but then had in my possession and helped re-hide. After some thought, I posted them as finds with a note that if the owner felt that was inappropriate, I would change my find to a note (both were OK w/ it as a find). I would guess that some would question that practice too and have valid points, but after thinking it though, I decided that it fit with my version of the subjective "rules." Again, the "rules" as they are now are subjective.

 

Anyway, the point is that there is no universal set of "rules" on this, and hence, why these things get debated (and I think UMC intended a debate on his topic and here I am babbling about subjective rules... Sorry UMC!). Until there are true "rules," which I don't think are necessary because geocaching isn't a competition, that is the way of it. In fact, considering the number of various debates on logging finds that I have seen, I think geocaching.com would be crazy to try to set rules. They would run into disagreement no matter what they did, and people would expect them to enforce the rules, which would drive the already busy admins nuts!

 

Finally, yeah there are probably people out there who view caching as a competition for stats. Some of those might go to questionable lengths to log caches. Others might get overly nit-picky about how other people log to protect thier own standings. But in reality, I think most really don't care about other's stats all that much (but like to debate the issues icon_biggrin.gif). So those that do think it is a competition are actually in an imagined competition. If it makes them happy, well, that is OK with me too! As long as they are caching icon_razz.gif

 

pokeanim3.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by carleenp:

About the difference between logging your own cache and multiple event caches: I agree with what Cybret said.


 

Do you believe that I disagree? icon_wink.gif

 

The difference is that they are both morally wrong. How can you say in one breath that its not ok to log your own cache as found but it is ok to log more than one find per cache page? An event is an event and you are logging that you found the event and that you were there, not that you found all of the temp caches around and about. As mentioned before make a note for that or explain how many you hit in your ONE find log.

 

Like mentioned elsewhere, if one will go threw the trouble of hiding a cache why not have it approved? I see no reason not to do this.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....

Link to comment

quote:
Do you believe that I disagree?

 

Well, no way for me to really know, I suspect that you are like my boyfriend: a person who loves to start and participate in a debate, and then takes a position and sticks with it! icon_razz.gif

 

quote:
The difference is that they are both morally wrong. How can you say in one breath that its not ok to log your own cache as found but it is ok to log more than one find per cache page? An event is an event and you are logging that you found the event and that you were there, not that you found all of the temp caches around and about. As mentioned before make a note for that or explain how many you hit in your ONE find log.

 

Basically, still the same as CYbret said. It is not the same thing. Specifically, with morals, I see logging a find on your own cache as wrong because you didn't "find" it, you knew where it was. With an event cache, OK, your point is well taken that the "event" was found, but if the owners and finders are OK with the idea that temp caches were additionally found (assuming of course you didn't place them yourself), then I see nothing "morally" wrong with logging a find. It was unknown where it was, and then was "found."

 

quote:
Like mentioned elsewhere, if one will go threw the trouble of hiding a cache why not have it approved? I see no reason not to do this.

 

Well, like I gave as an example, in some cases it is appropriate to place some temp caches for an event, but not the best to leave them permanently. At ours, the visitor center caches were an example of that. But, I do see your point. If they could stand on thier own, I would rather see them placed as regular caches. Yet, I also don't want to drive the admins crazy, I figure they have work enough to do. Looking out for them seems "moral" to me as well.

 

Ack.... I hate debating... never was all that good at it... too conciliatory (think I spelled that wrong). icon_razz.gif

 

Edit: This comes back to the morals issue and the subjective rules issue. As long as the rules are subjective, then it is moral for a person to log as he or she sees fit because it is just that.... subjective. Each person's "morals" may differ.

 

pokeanim3.gif

Link to comment

There is one fact missing to this equation. The 9 temporary caches placed for the event took 6.5 hours to find. These where not drive by caches. One required a 2 mile hike to reach. I only mangaged to get 7 of the 9. If these would not have been available to count as finds I probally would of passed on them and gone for other caches in the area.

 

These caches where set up in conjunction with the National Trails Day events and where available one week prior to the event. There was also a posted day when the caches would be removed.

 

Team Sand Dollar.

Link to comment

Not debating, as I don't really care whether or not other people log multiple finds on events; just noting something that might be interesting in this discussion. If you log multiple finds on an event cache because you found multiple temp caches there, do you also log multiple finds on a normal multi-cache?

 

I'd log both as a single find. Basically the same principle to me. But I could see how the same logic people are applying to event caches could be applied to multi-caches, and wondered if anyone else thought of it that way.

 

SylvrStorm

 

*** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

Link to comment

Thanks for bringing that up TSD but I'm not sure it really matters for the question for the reason that Multi caches can take days to do and they can have many stages but you only log it found once and not once for each leg that may have taken a long time and was difficult.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SylvrStorm:

Not debating, as I don't really care whether or not other people log multiple finds on events; just noting something that might be interesting in this discussion. If you log multiple finds on an event cache because you found multiple temp caches there, do you also log multiple finds on a normal multi-cache?

 

I'd log both as a single find. Basically the same principle to me. But I could see how the same logic people are applying to event caches could be applied to multi-caches, and wondered if anyone else thought of it that way.

 

SylvrStorm

 

*** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***


 

LoL,

 

Well I guess thats what we get for posting at the same time. icon_smile.gif

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....

Link to comment

Coming into this thread, I had the position that it was a good workaround to allow temporary caches. After reading the thread, however, I see that in reality it is being used to allow logs for caches that don't meet the guidelines for other reasons.

 

Micros in someone's pockets?? Good grief, this is not a cache. What's next, an ammo box in the back of my Jeep? If you're nice to me, I'll let you log it.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

Coming into this thread, I had the position that it was a good workaround to allow temporary caches. After reading the thread, however, I see that in reality it is being used to allow logs for caches that don't meet the guidelines for other reasons.

 


 

Very good point, you are right on with that.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....

Link to comment

Ok so your getting ready for an event, the area your in doesn’t have many caches so you go through all of the trouble and hide them through out the area. they were very well done and cleaver hides. why not make them permanent, so others that were unable to attend the event will be able to hunt them you have already done 99% of the work by placing the cache.

 

"The price of freedom isnt Free"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SylvrStorm:

Doesn't really matter to me what other people do.


I quite agree.
quote:

I'd probably treat an event like a multi, and log it once even if there were several separate finds involved.


This is a nice way to look at this issue. I think I'll take this suggestion, knowing that many others out there will do differently.

 

That's part of the beauty of geocaching: people do different things.

 

Tangent: The U.S. Constitution has often been praised as (this is not verbatim) very well-written since it did not legislate absolutely everything. It had a certain amount of intentional vagueness which allowed for times to change and social mores to evolve. The U.S. Constitution has also often been likened to toilet paper. Not sure what the relevance is here.

 

-- I recognize fun when I see it.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

Coming into this thread, I had the position that it was a good workaround to allow temporary caches. After reading the thread, however, I see that in reality it is being used to allow logs for caches that don't meet the guidelines for other reasons.

 

Micros in someone's pockets?? Good grief, this is not a cache. What's next, an ammo box in the back of my Jeep? If you're nice to me, I'll let you log it.


 

The nine event caches would have easily qualified as permanent caches it just the person in charge of the event decided not to make them permanent. It may have been because the event was in fact sponsered by the forest service.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by carleenp:

 

My view is that geocacaching isn't a competition. With that said, certainly many people are interested in their stats, whether that be to keep track of things, or to happily watch them go up (or both). Either way, I doubt that most feel it is a competition.


 

If it wasn't "a competition," there would be no need to claim finds on temporary caches that don't have pages ... they could (and in my opinion should) simply be enumerated in the single find log one is entitled to for attending the event. This is nothing more, and nothing less, than a means to pad a find count.

Link to comment

quote:
If it wasn't "a competition," there would be no need to log finds on temporary caches that don't have pages ... they could simply be enumerated in the single find log one is entitled to for attending the event. This is nothing more than a means to pad a find count; nothing more, nothing less.

 

I see the stats as a way to keep track of things. I'm not "competing" with anyone, but I like to know how many caches I've found, will probably celebrate things like 100th find etc. It is part of the fun. Regardless, even if I was "competing" then it all comes back to the subjective rule point that I made before.

 

pokeanim3.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by carleenp:

 

I see the stats as a way to keep track of things. I'm not "competing" with anyone, but I like to know how many caches I've found, will probably celebrate things like 100th find etc. It is part of the fun.


 

Yes, I agree with you that "keeping track of things" is "part of the fun." That's why many cachers keep databases of their geocaching activities.

 

But in my opinion, there is no difference between temporary event caches that don't have pages on this website and caches that appear only on the N@vic@che (or any other competing) site. Any cache that doesn't have a unique page on geocaching.com shouldn't count in any finders' geocaching.com statistics.

 

For example, I've found over a dozen "private" caches that obviously "don't count" here. But they DO count in the database I keep of my geocaching activities.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by carleenp:

I see the stats as a way to keep track of things. I'm not "competing" with anyone, but I like to know how many caches I've found, will probably celebrate things like 100th find etc. It is part of the fun. ...


 

I agree. The stats are there for ME, and I'm not really concerned how anyone else interprets them.

 

Some folks like to log finds on all their own caches too. I don't do this, but I don't have a problem with it. One of the cache approvers has a problem with this though...

 

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

These are the first two log entries from a newly approved cache...

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

The Falls Tour: Eugenia Falls - Canadian Geocache

 

June 24 by cache-advance (0 found)

Hello,

 

On your Eugenia Falls - Canadian Geocache, yo have logged a find under you own username. You should NOT log you own cache as a find. Please change you log to the 'Post a Note' log type. This is what it is for.

 

Thanks.

 

June 21 by Kismet (Kismet) (14 found)

Canuck the Polar Bear TB has been placed in this cache. Please start him on his journey across Canada.

Thanks

Kismet

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

 

I didn't think there were *rules* that had to be followed. If I want to log a find on my own cache, so be it. Same for multiple finds at an event.

 

TrimblesTrek

Link to comment

quote:
Some folks like to log finds on all their own caches too. I don't do this, but I don't have a problem with it. One of the cache approvers has a problem with this though...


 

That post isn't from an approver. Instead, it is from another cacher using a sock puppet account to complain (notice the 0 finds).

 

pokeanim3.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by carleenp:

 

That post isn't from an approver. Instead, it is from another cacher using a sock puppet account to complain (notice the 0 finds).

 


 

Right, besides I like to think that the approvers use better grammer and such. icon_wink.gif

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by carleenp:

That post isn't from an approver. Instead, it is from another cacher using a sock puppet account to complain (notice the 0 finds).


 

cache-advance is a cache approver. He has approved quite a number of caches local to my region. I think many of the cache approvers only use their account for the approval process. They generally have a separate account for their own *real* caching. (Hence the 0 found.)

 

TrimblesTrek

Link to comment

quote:
cache-advance is a cache approver. He has approved quite a number of caches local to my region. I think many of the cache approvers only use their account for the approval process. They generally have a separate account for their own *real* caching.


 

So he is. I just read his profile. I don't like postings such as that on cache pages. I figure it would be more polite to privately email the person.

 

pokeanim3.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by carleenp:

That post isn't from an approver. Instead, it is from another cacher using a sock puppet account to complain (notice the 0 finds).


For the record, cache-advance is an approver. (S/he's approved some of my caches). It's my understanding that several of the approvers are now using official sock puppets for that purpose, to keep their admin-type activities separate from their regular caching activities, and to cut down on the undeserved abuse they've been known to get.

 

SylvrStorm

 

>>>Oops - simultaneous with TrimblesTrek

 

*** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...