An Idea

[+woodsters]

People people people!!!! Let's calm down here. There's really no need for flaming and personal attacks. I know everyone in this thread has an opinion, and I also know they can give it with a level head and not resort to attacks. Give the new people a break and don't attack them. We were all new at one time. And for the new people, let me just state that it's not a good way to get started by attacking the other members. I know, that's how I got started, and it's taken me 1400 posts to try to make up for it. So, let's all take a deep breath and get back to the topic at hand.

 

Dang, I sound like a moderator now. I need more coffee and Prozac.

Sparky, I appreciate your trying to calm things. But my statement still stands. If you don't wanna discuss whats at issue here, then don't. Move along. This thread has been viewed over 700 times and only a handful have participated. Most of them on the issue and not on how to spend your time or that ones time is being wasted.

 

And sparky you sure it's prozac and not "xanax' as she suggested? lol

[+Halden]

this could be an option for cache owners to have with their caches. Not a requirement. But for those owners who wish to try and keep things straight for their honest finders.

If it were to be implemented the optional numbering would be the way I would like it to go. There is a contest in Northern Ontario run by the Ecology centre that allows you to log finds on GC.com but in order to submit those finds to the Ecology Centre and be able to win the prize (a Canoe) you have to have the codeword which is in the cache. So the codeword is not necesary on GC but is with them, it's a nice compromise.

[+woodsters]

this could be an option for cache owners to have with their caches. Not a requirement. But for those owners who wish to try and keep things straight for their honest finders.

If it were to be implemented the optional numbering would be the way I would like it to go. There is a contest in Northern Ontario run by the Ecology centre that allows you to log finds on GC.com but in order to submit those finds to the Ecology Centre and be able to win the prize (a Canoe) you have to have the codeword which is in the cache. So the codeword is not necesary on GC but is with them, it's a nice compromise.

Yeah, it's already an option that people can implement in their own caches already. It would be more manual work though. I may do something like this with future caches. I was thinking more of an auto process like the TB's. When you submit your cache, they could have a checkbox with the option. If you chose it, then a number is generated and sent to you via email. You apply it with your cache. Then when you submit your cache then something standard is placed on the cache page letting people know that this cache uses a code for verification. At least they will be aware of it when going for the cache. I guess there could be a little icon on the list of caches too like the TB's to state that it uses codes. That way cachers can skip them if they don't want to deal with the codes and so can the cheaters...lol

 

Like I said, it could be an option and is an option as far as doing it manually.

[+SunnyCyndi]

The biggest lesson learned by this newbie is that these boards move at the speed of light, and comments written in haste cannot be taken back even if edited seconds later. My most sincere apologies. Most upsetting to me is that I seem to have been drawn in to the very problem I meant to address which was getting overly upset about the little things in life. Sparky-Watts, thank you for your wise comments.

[+woodsters]

Cyndi, the forums are a bit slow from 6 months ago and much more newbie friendly, believe or not. You are correct. It's easy to get drawn into doing those sort of things. The best advice I can give to a newbie is to offer what you can to the discussion. Some seem stupid and minute in the overall scheme of things. Some people have problems with certain things, while others don't. Sometimes a person understands more of what others have stated after a period of time and especially when it finally and actually affects them. Don't take my words of "move along" wrong. If you are interested in the topic at hand and can offer your own ideas or thoughts on it, then by all means do. But it's much easier to just ignore the silly stuff and move along. Sometimes. Just be thankful it was me and not one of the many others that would of ripped you a new one. They are probably sitting back and saying Woodsters, you wuss. But I'm not the type of person that gets into inflammatory discussions. I like debating topics at hand and welcome them. But be nice about it.

 

And for those that keep saying no more rules....you are giving me too much credit if you think I can change them...lol

[+SunnyCyndi]

Thank you Woodsters, I accept your apologies. And with that, I take my leave. It is a deliciously beautiful day here and there are caches to be found! Besides, I feel I may be safer alone in the woods then on this forum.

[+woodsters]

Wish I could say the same...we just got a batch of new snow last night and it's a little nippy. Just not the conditions to take my 2 year old out in. At least no fun...

[+bons]

If we are not going to care about trying to keep things honest, then there are no needs for a lot of things. You could do away with logbooks and online logs. Just make a claim that you found it. It sure would help out on the bandwidth and server load here. If you want to tell the owner how you liked or disliked their cache, you could email them, send them a postcard or just right it on a piece of paper and leave it in the cache. But there's really no need to require a logbook right?

A logbook is a conversation between those people who have an interest in the cache. It is a story told to those who will come after you. It's tales of adventure, of puzzles solved and difficulties overcome. It makes me smile, and often laugh, to read of others adventures and often reminds me that some adventures are worth going out of the way for.

 

If all it is to you is a way to verify that your found count should have increased by 1 then I feel sorry for you. You have completely missed out on a wonderful thing.

 

The very fact that so many people apparently don't believe me when I log a find and want to insure I have written down the right code for the cache or want to insure the cache owner double checks all the logs tells me that these people have forgotten that this is supposed to be fun.

 

These are the same people you're leaving an ammo box filled with swag to find. If you don't trust them to log their finds honestly then you really need to rethink why you are placing a cache to begin with.

 

Feel free to add whatever verification you need in order to feel good about your find count. I'll track my finds in watcher and log notes. And if we can't log notes or DNFs without the code, then you can live with what you've created.

[+woodsters]

There is no requirement as to what is to be written in the logbook. Some write their experiences. Many write their name. It's used as a tool of logging your find. Each one writes differently. It's also used to verify finds and to let the owner know you found it. The online log are a similar thing, they are referenced in with your counts, if you decide to do so.

 

But by you saying it's a conversation between people, then it shouldn't be required. And your words of "found it" should be good enough. just don't log it online I guess. That's for you to decide.

[+sbell111]

I don't see why this option would be necessary. If someone logs your cache and you suspect fraud, go to the cache and check the logbook. In nearly all cases, the cache won't have gone missing yet. It seems to me that this would be a procedure that only serves to relieve a cache owner of his responsibility to his cache, and one which places an unnecessary burden on the finder.

 

This thread reminds me of a trip I made to PA a year or so ago. I visited family in WNY, cached a little in the area and then drove to Pittdburg, caching on the way. Next I cached from Pittsburg to Rochester, NY; then on to NYC.

 

At the time, I was still caching from paper printouts, rather than everything loaded on my pda. I would take notes of my visits and failures on the cache pages with the intention of logging everything on-line when the trip was over. As it turned out, I somehow lost the pages for all of the caches in PA. When I got home, I had to retrace my steps to determine whether I went after a specific cache and whether I was successful. In most cases, I had no idea what I traded.

 

There was one micro in downtown Pittsburg that I looked for twice, but couldn't find. I posted a DNF on the cache page and went on with my life. A week or so later, I got an email from the cache owner asking me about my visit. His email got me thinking about the cache and I remembered that I made a third visit and found the little sucker. I explained to him where it was hidden and logged my find.

 

My point is, if any of these caches required a codeword in addition to signing the log, it would have been lost with the printouts. I would have been unable to log the finds even though I had totally found them and signed the logs.

[+sbell111]

...  And your words of "found it" should be good enough. just don't log it online I guess. That's for you to decide.

Perhaps I missed your point. Why is a log saying 'found it' not good enough? Anyone who doubts the find can check the log in the box.

 

In my opinion, a codeword doesn't solve the perceived problem of fraudulent logs, it merely makes cheating a team sport and saves the cache owner from checking on his/her cache.

 

EDIT: I before E except after C

Edited January 13, 2004 by sbell111

[+bons]

But by you saying it's a conversation between people, then it shouldn't be required. And your words of "found it" should be good enough. just don't log it online I guess. That's for you to decide.

Log books are not required for virtuals or locationless caches. They're only required for physical caches and I feel that's because it's what most people want. It's fun to see who was there before you. That's why we're here remember? Because it's fun.

 

To the best of my knowledge, I'm also not required to sign the logbook in the cache in order to log a find online. I may be wrong on this, but I'm sure there are people with online logs who never signed the logbook, either because one was missing and they didn't have one to put in the cache or because they cached with a group under a group id before getting their own id and simply let one member of the group sign the log for the group.

 

If we had cache codes, it would be a real pain for those people who got their own accounts after caching with a group to log caches they had found. Unless someone in the group kept a list of all the caches and the codes, these people would basicly have to refind a bunch of caches just to get their accounts to be accurate. Or they, like anyone who found a cache with a damaged or mis-typed cache code, would simply have to track thier finds outside of geocaching.com.

 

What the heck, if making it harder for others to log their finds online makes you feel better about your personal count, feel free. As long as it's about the numbers, what does fun matter?

[+woodsters]

...  And your words of "found it" should be good enough. just don't log it online I guess. That's for you to decide.

Perhaps I missed your point. Why is a log saying 'found it' not good enough? Anyone who doubts the find can check the log in the box.

 

In my opinion, a codeword doesn't solve the perceived problem of fraudulent logs, it merely makes cheating a team sport and saves the cache owner from checking on his/her cache.

 

EDIT: I before E except after C

That was in response to the "trust" issue that bons was speaking of. I was stating that there was no need for logbooks then and that simply stating I found it was good enough....

 

I mentioned that the codeword/lid code thing could be optional for those cache owners who would want something like that. Some already do it now from what I understand, but it's not automated..