Proper Etiquette

[Tahosa and Sons]

When you have a virtual Cache that requires answers to be mailed to owner when should you delete the find if the answers were not given.

 

The "Bushwhacker"

[+QUAD EXPLORER]

I give them around 24 hours and 2 emails, if no response there deleted. Sound tough, but my answers are easy. To many people just try the easy way out by not answering the question.

[+georgeandmary]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KF Quad Explorer:

I give them around 24 hours and 2 emails, if no response there deleted. Sound tough, but my answers are easy. To many people just try the easy way out by not answering the question.

---

 

Pretty much the polite way for me on these. I email the user if I notice that a virtual was logged and I don't remember getting the email.

 

george

[+bunkerdave]

I guess I don't really care if they give me the required information or not. When I post a virtual, it is for the benefit of the seeker, not my own pleasure. If folks want to go around logging virtuals on the website without actually going there, then that is their "thing."

 

IMO, virtuals should only be placed where there is somthing interesting to visit. THere are others, such as the survey marker caches, which require a little more specificity, but it is all the same integrity-based game after all. Some "get it", and some don't.

 

bunkerdave

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkerdave:

I guess I don't really care if they give me the required information or not. When I post a virtual, it is for the benefit of the seeker, not my own pleasure. If folks want to go around logging virtuals on the website without actually going there, then that is their "thing."

---

 

What's the purpose of asking questions then? I have one virtual that involves a series of questions. I've never taken away a "find," even if some of the answers were wrong . . . but if I received nonsense answers or none at all, I would contact the individual and follow "item #2" from the poll.

[+Macro]

I plan to do a virtual soon. I dont really plan to have any set criteria for logging a find for it. If someone really goes to it, they know it. If someone is so shallow they need to artificially inflate their finds and pad their stats, I dont care. I wouldnt do it, but I am not going out of my way to stop others from doing it.

 

One thing though, I will make the cache something that will require more than a drive by. I dont like ones that I can "find" from the seat of my car.

[+DutchBoy]

I recently read a post by Jeremy where he is going to put the confirmation code word as a password on the cache site. The person will only be able to log the find if he knows the password. Nothing need be done by the cache owner. I think this will be an improvement.

[+Gloom]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pote:

In my own instance, I put questions on my v-cache to enhance the experience of the visit to the site. If a person doesn't want to take the steps to 'do it right', it's their loss. I don't get or lose points from their visit and I'm not competing with them to collect smilies. So I voted to 'let it go...' Life has a few more important things to lose sleep over than somebody sucessfully completing a virtual cache.

---

 

just because it's a virtual cache doesn't mean they should be able to log it if they didn't do what the cache requires. If the cache placer wants the cacher to do something, then it should be done to be able to log the cache. Otherwise, why not just log all the caches on the website?

 

I have a fairly hard vitual cache (GC38B1) that requires a little bit of work to finish. While I've let some people slide with the wrong answers (they did do all the stages and at least got to the right location), I would be bummed if someone decided to log it without actually going out and doing it. The only way I can assure that is if they send me the answer to the question.

 

Just my $0.02

Gloom

[+Prime Suspect]

I have to agree with bunkerdave. Real caches are pretty much on the honor system, why not virtuals? Has any cache owner ever retrieved their log book and verified every single on-line find, deleting those he can't find an entry for? (If someone has, let me know, so I can avoid them.)

 

As a rule, I generally don't go after virtuals, because they don't interest me that much. I have set up one virtual cache, mostly to draw attention to a local community endeavor that I thought others would be interested in. I set up an email address with an auto-responder to handle confirmations. You couldn't determine the correct email address without visiting the site. But I never tried to match emails with the people who logged finds.

 

[+Web-ling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

I have to agree with bunkerdave. Real caches are pretty much on the honor system, why not virtuals?

---

 

Absolutely. My virtuals have a link to a website where the finder enters a password, and either confirmation page pops up, or else the dreaded "OOPS! Page." I don't even make an effort to verify.

 

Web-ling

[+Gloom]

....from what you guys are saying you don't really care if someone goes to the actual (virtual)cache location and gets the answer or not? What good is having the cache then? Just so people can add another log to their stats?

 

If that's what you're saying then why not just place a bunch of vituals at random locations (sort of like geodashing) and let people log them without going? Makes no sense to me. If I place a cache, I usually have a purpose and want people to see something that's there. If they're not going, then why do it?

 

I realize that you can't verify that people are actually going to traditional style caches, but the whole point of asking a certain question IS to verify that people went there. If you're not even checking the question why do you have it? I'm not trying to be an a$$ here, but maybe I just don't understand the logic. Around here there are two types of virtuals, ones that ask a specific question about the place, and ones that don't. For the ones that don't I can see your point, there's no real way to check on who went and who didn't. But on caches that DO ask a question I think that you should be required to answer that question. It just seems contrary to the point of the cache to allow people to log it without answering the question.

 

Makes no sense to me!

 

Sorry for the ranting, just venting some non-related frustration.

[+Tedoca]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DutchBoy:

I recently read a post by Jeremy where he is going to put the confirmation code word as a password on the cache site. The person will only be able to log the find if he knows the password. Nothing need be done by the cache owner. I think this will be an improvement.

---

 

Can you please point me to this post? I really like this idea. A code word printed on the inside lid of every actual cache, or obtained from clues at a virtual cache site, that must be entered on the log-a-cache-page in order to post a "found it" entry.

 

Regards,

Tedoca

[+DutchBoy]

Can you please point me to this post? I really like this idea. A code word printed on the inside lid of every actual cache, or obtained from clues at a virtual cache site, that must be entered on the log-a-cache-page in order to post a "found it" entry.

 

Regards,

Tedoca

 

Tedoca here is the quote:

An excellent idea, actually. I'll be adding other tools as well for subscribers:

 

1. Time release geocache: a member/nonmember cache can be released at a specific time in the future. It will be listed with no coordinates. People can subscribe to it (like a watch list) and an email reminder will be queued to be sent when the cache is released. They can then click on the link in the email which will have the cache.

 

2. Password protected logs (both member/nonmember caches) - You can leave a password in the cache (or for virtual caches, an answer to a question). Only those with the password can log the cache.

 

And, as an aside (I like hinting to things in weird places), there's a new game coming. It will be a unique variation of an existing idea with it's own subsite. Both members and nonmembers will be able to play.

 

Jeremy

 

Here is the link to thread:

http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=3890934993&r=4950912004#4950912004

[+Brokenwing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pote:

Gloom, I'll try to explain my feelings on this - if they are right or wrong, I don't know. When a teacher prepares a lesson, there is usually a test at the end of the lesson to see if the student learned the points that the teacher felt were critical. If a student cheats on the test, it is the student who loses. You can't MAKE them learn. If a student does not answer the test question correctly, but still has learned something from the lesson, they are better off than when they started and have realized some value from the lesson, even if it's not exactly what the teacher wanted them to learn.

---

 

POTE:

I can see both sides to this. I’m not against deleting post of those that fail to log, but I also can see that for many, they don’t care to keep up with that and won’t delete such posts.

 

That said, I do have a question: Using your analogy above, wouldn't it be best to let those tested know what their grade was on the test? Why test if you don't even let them know if they passed or not? I think knowing that is part of learning.

 

I guess to me it makes more sense to grade PASS/FAIL in this instance. Give the correct answer(s), you pass. Give the wrong answer(s), you fail. If you’re going to bother to ask a question to verify a cache, then I think there should be consequences for failing to answer correctly. If there are no consequences for failure, maybe one should not bother to ask “verification” questions at all.

 

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

[+Gloom]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Thomason (Brokenwing):

If there are no consequences for failure, maybe one should not bother to ask “verification” questions at all.

---

[+planetrobert]

It is not that hard to goto a location and find a piece of information to log a cache, and as I see it gettig there is 95% of the fun anyway.

 

Why cheat the game and log places you havent gotten to.

 

Now where did I set my GPS???

[+erik88l-r]

Geocaching is a game, or sport, in which we compete only against ourselves, so theoretically it shouldn't matter if someone else does something that might be percieved by others as cheating.

However, I think it diminishes the value of caches logged by others and cheapens the labors of the cache's creator when someone cheats.

I also think geocaching should be all about using a GPS to find something hidden by someone else. Period.

[+rdw]

I have one virtual cache, Don't Know Much About History. It is not as simple as a password, but there are set requirements to log it. One person didn't provide the required info with the find log. I contacted the person and they fulfilled the requirements. But if they had not posted what was necessary, I would have deleted their find.

 

Letting someone claim a find without visiting the place is unfair to all the others who made the effort. Also, there are people who pay attention to the numbers (myself included) and take some pride in being top finders or hiders in their area or overall. I see nothing wrong with that. It is only the people who want to falsely inflate their numbers who would post a fake find anyways.

 

In summation: If you didn't find it, DON'T log a find.

 

Very simple.

 

rdw

[+bigcall]

While I have not had this problem yet my feeling is that the questions equate to the hiding of the cache.

 

That said, it's easy to get to the vicinity of a cache the trick is in actually finding it in most cases. Since I would not expect someone to log a find because they searched with no luck, I would similary expect that the questions be answered to complete the "virtual find".

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pote:

 

...When a teacher prepares a lesson, there is usually a test at the end of the lesson to see if the student learned the points that the teacher felt were critical. If a student cheats on the test, it is the student who loses. You can't MAKE them learn. If a student does not answer the test question correctly, but still has learned something from the lesson, they are better off than when they started and have realized some value from the lesson, even if it's not exactly what the teacher wanted them to learn.

---

 

You mean like having a disregard for the core material, cutting corners and taking the easy way out? I dunno, but perhaps you've uncovered the reason the test scores of American students are lagging behind those from other countries. But I do see the analogy to some of our corporate and government leaders.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pote:

Now, back to a v-cache, if a cacher says he/she went there and found the item, I trust them. They may have had difficulty reading one word on a sign, or counting the number of knot holes on a board for whatever reason. That doesn't mean that they did not take a little something away from the cache experience. ... I pity those who log it and don't visit the place. I pity more the person who goes, writes the answer quickly then heads to the car to get the next of 17 caches that day.

---

 

I'm baffled. It appears from what you've written that you assume that someone who has possibly sent incorrect responses or no response at all for a virtual 'find' has somehow more fully experienced the virtual cache than someone who may have sent correct responses, but was out to bag several caches that day.

 

Essay Questions:

 

Why would one assume the first party spent more time at the virtual than the second?

 

How does quantity of time spent at a site equate with the quality of the experience?

 

Why would one "pity" someone who is determined to work hard towards a goal (getting to the next of those 17 caches), but not someone who couldn't read or count "for whatever" (unspecified) "reason?"

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pote:

Finally, I do look at the answers and I'll correct them, but I don't delete the smily. ... Cuz the bottom line is: who are they gonna brag to in 5 years that they had 264 caches? More likely, a person would be more respected when they can say I went to xxx and did you know that xxx happened there?

---

 

Egads! Then aren't you an "enabler", and doing the community as a whole a disservice?

 

More Essay Questions:

 

Is geocaching about "bragging value?"

 

Who do you think brags more, and why: Geocachers with high numbers of 'finds', or those with fewer finds over a longer period?

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 13, 2002 at 02:36 PM.]