New CITO Log Type?

[+CrimsonWrath]

I voted no.

 

Cool idea, but if the CITO doesn't count as a find, I don't look forward to logging twice. Doing a maintenance run on one of my caches or visiting one I had been to before to swipe a bug would be a great reason to CITO.

 

I'll change to a yes if CITO can be in combination with the other types of logs.

[+geckoee]

Oops.   I noticed your post after I had posted that. It looks as if collectively we have developed upon a sound concept. Just goes to show you that cachers think alike.

There are too many posts to read to stay current in this hot poll. It seems there is a new consensus now that deems further debate. I'm sure when some of the first posters log back on they will have more to add.

 

It seems no one is talking about adding a "new log type," but the pole numbers don't reflect that. Did people change there minds, or is there an unspoken for majority?

Edited March 18, 2004 by geckoee

[+CYBret]

I vote "Yes" but with a view to the "checkmark" idea that Mopar voiced and Jamie gave such a great example of.

 

I wouldn't mind a button you could push to indicated THIS AREA IS IN BAD NEED OF SOME CITO! to warn future visitors to make sure they bring baggies with them. Maybe the cache owner could then shut it off after a maintenance run.

 

Just a dream.

 

Bret

[+MissJenn]

post at 3:17? hello, am I posting in the same forum as everyone else?

Yes, yes! Yes you are.

Rapid posting, that's all.

[+Bloencustoms]

Geckoee, you raise a valid point. Many of the votes might have been cast before the discussion had progressed as far as it has. I wonder if those who logged on briefly and voted would want to change their mind given the turn the discussion has taken. Additionally, it seems that viewing the poll wihtout first voting makes you ineligible to vote at a later time. I wonder if the system is set up that way to prevent bandwagoning? At any rate, the staff at Groundspeak has put together a very nice website for us to enjoy. It is also very cool of Jeremy to poll users before making a decision to improve the site. Whatever the outcome, it's comforting to know that our opinions are considered when making these decisions.

[+workerofwood]

I was going to vote no, but then I got to the post about showing the CITO stats to park officials... hmmm

 

I'm near the EBRP in California, and have been worried about some local government tendancies to ban-first-ask-questions-later. I think we are going to need some tools to keep moving forward with these people, and this could be a good one.

[+Geo Leo]

I voted yes, but my preference would be a checkbox added to the existing log types as discussed in this thread. Great idea. It may not matter to some, but to others it might provide a reminder, or even a small incentive, to practice CITO.

[+SherwoodForest]

I also voted yes, but along the concept of JamieZ's (et al) concept of the checkbox within the primary log -- duplicate logging would be too much effort, but having a way to tie it in to the regular Found, Not Found, or Note... a definate thumbs up...

 

The positive image benefits would certainly seem to outweigh the 'cheaterism' -- maybe it's just because we're lucky here in Cleveland -- don't have many falsifiers (just one, and he seems to be in hiding for now...)

 

Plus, I'd get to use all those handy CITO containers I grabbed at the MiGO event -- well, once the snow is finally gone, again...

[+Freaky Tiki Five]

I think it would be great. Anything to help monitor the amount of junk picked up. Plus as a cache owner it would give you an idea as to how often you should go to the area yourself to tidy up. If everyone is doing it for you then great...if nobody CITO's then it needs to be checked more regularly.

[CoyoteRed]

The 5 log limit in PQs is enough to nix the idea of seperate logs. You want to tick off paying members pretty darn fast, start limiting the useful information they're paying for.

 

Weight limit on claiming a CITO is a bad idea. If it's not "worth it" to bend over and pick up that piece of trash and stick it in you pocket, then what's the point?

 

Would heavily CITOed caches get fewer visiters or more? Will users clamor for a way to filter out heavily CITOed caches?

 

Would this encourage caches to be placed in areas that need CITO attention? Would it discourage it? IMHO, if there becomes a way to compete on the amount CITOed on the a cache, then cachers will start hiding based on that. So, instead of a cache being placed for the nice view or the clever hide, it'd be for the trash! I can see it now, people placing caches in the trashiest areas to bring up their "score." It won't likely be in any park, but behind the run down neighborhood in the bad section of town. That's not what I play the RASH for.

 

Look, I'm not against CITO by any means. Heck, Sissy and I were part of The Original Mother of All Clean Ups and over all I had a pretty good time at it, too. (That doesn't include the yellowjacket attack.) Met some good people and got a pretty good feeling from doing it.

 

However, tying CITO to every cache, coupling it with the inevitable peer-pressure-induced and unverifiable cheating, the possible encouragment of placing caches in trashier areas and those complaining about it, I just think this is a bad idea. It might make you feel good, but I see far more negatives than positives.

[+wildearth2001]

I think it would be a way to show land managers exactly how much we haul out trash. Also for the confirmation, a photo of the bag along a trail (notice I said bag full of trash not just a little paper)

 

wight limit is probably bad and the bag can even be a small ziplock quart or gallon size -- somthing is somthing

[+WindChill]

Im with the no new log type crowd. A checkbox would be great but Im on the fence about associating the CITO with the cache or the cacher.

[+TeamJiffy]

I voted "no".

 

My reasons: You should not get rewarded - or have it called out - for what should be a routine intrinsic part of the Geocaching experience. CITO is table stakes. If you are a Geocacher, you should CITO! If you see garbage on the way to or from a cache, clean it up!

 

Real life analogies:

 

Gee... after I used the facilities, I washed my hands! Give me a hug! No...

 

Gee... I wrote some code for work, and it doesn't have bugs. Give me a bonus! No....

 

Gee... I was faithful to my wife today! Buy me a present! No...

 

Gee... I finished my homework! Can I have double dessert? No...

 

The only reason I can see for making CITO a separate log type is to show non-Geocachers the good work of geocachers, so they don't ban Geocaching in various types of public places.

 

As a method for gathering statistics for publicity/public relations, it could be quite valuable.

 

-Jif

[+Latitude 26]

I personally would not "log" any of the CITO that I do. Too much hassle for me. I always take a small plastic bag along that I keep in my pocket just for that purpose. Of the few times I have gone caching so far, I have collected trash at only about half of the sites - the others have been "clean".

 

I personally do not need the atta-boy for doing what I believe is TRTTD (the right thing to do).

 

If there was a check box or radio button for the CITO on the log page, I would be more likely to use that - but for a separate log? I vote NO.

 

 

"Bassmedic"

[+aka Monkey]

I voted yes.

 

I like the idea because it encourages CITO, and helps to improve the image that Geocaching has. Let's face it, CITO is the only selling point we have when trying to urge land managers to allow it. I think Jeremy knows this.

 

I understand the concerns about cheating, but I'm not sure I want to see nice features removed from the site because some people are jerks. Let's find a way to remove the jerks from the site instead.

 

I'd back Mopar, and think just having a CITO icon would be better than a separate log. Although maybe a way of discouraging false logging is to have it be anonymous. Just a running CITO counter at the top of the cache listing, but it isn't linked to a person in any way. Why take credit for something you didn't do, when you don't actually get credit for it?

[+Divine]

I go with the checkbox type of a solution. No extra types of 'find' logs. Just bind it to the cache page, not to the personal stats in other way than an extra icon next to the smiley or something.

[ju66l3r]

If you are a Geocacher, you should CITO! If you see garbage on the way to or from a cache, clean it up!

LOL! If you're a human being, you *should* TO, regardless of the CI. The fact that geocachers have an aim of going into the woods (much like hikers, etc) doesn't suddenly mean we can't get a silver star for our extra efforts. Unlike homework, coding for your job, or cleaning your *own* mess (all examples you gave), CITO is your efforts to clean up after someone else. We're not the janitors of the woods any more than any other person on this planet is (except maybe people who clean parks for money).

 

As for pessimistic CR, I think the "negative aspects" of "peer pressure and inevitable cheating", can easily be summed up by "so what?". There is "inevitable cheating" right now in the find logs. I still believe you're a proponent of caching statistics. In fact I think your exact quote is:

 

No matter how you fight it, trying to keep stats out of a RASH that is defined by numbers is a waste of time.

 

So, now you're opposed to just another set of numbers?

 

I can understand the desire to differentiate CITO and find logs, especially for PQs and print-friendly pagination. I am willing to bet that a special flag could be set to keep them out of the print-friendly and PQ lookup and even the watchlist mailings, but you'd still be able to see the separate logs on the cache page itself.

[+Team Perks]

Just our two cents...

 

We won't be any more likely to CITO if there is an icon, a button, a find, whatever, option on GC. If we see trash, we pack it out. We don’t keep track of it. We just want to make the planet a little cleaner. We don’t need any other incentive for that.

 

We recently placed a cache that actually REQUIRES people to CITO in order to post the find. I definitely don’t want to get two emails every time someone posts a find and then posts a CITO note (or whatever). I get enough auto-notifications as it is.

 

Finally, I can only imagine the discussion that will ensue if this does become an option. What counts as a CITO? The person who packs out two empty water bottles will get the same credit as the guy who hauls away an old refrigerator and a rusty box spring. While my thought is that any help is still help, I am sure there are others who might not see it that way. Given all the (more than) heated discussion about what constitutes a "find" (something that seems pretty self-explanatory to us), I have to see this fairly cynically as just one more arena for bickering and petty argument.

 

In my meager opinion, there are enough creative ways to promote CITO as it is.

[+PKDepot]

I don't think you need a separate log for CITO. You could add a check mark that when checked would add a CITO logo to the cachers log for that particular find. As far as proving that CITO was actually done, well that is just impossible. A lot of the cache areas we have seen would just about clasify as a roadside dump...when you CITO you have no control over what happens when you leave...i.e. tossing trash from a car. Besides we should be doing it because it's right, no to get cudos on the website.

[+The Foote]

I think the flaw with this particular poll is that there was no discussion prior to it going up for a vote. If there was I do think that Jeremy would have probably made more options. i.e.

 

1. seperate log

 

2. check box,

 

3. nothing at all

 

4. one of the above attached to the cache page.

 

5. one of the above but attached to the cachers log.

 

6. one of the above applied to both the cachers log AND the cache page.

 

 

This might have been some better choices. But no one had thought about it prior to this there was no time to prepare.

 

I say a check box is a great idea. But I am torn between 4, 5, and 6.

 

I don't need the recognition myself. But it is great for the cache page. Needs to be there I beleive before those of us out here in the bay area lose EBRPD caches. But Some need the recognition so maybe 6 is the best. And if you don't want to participoate then you just don't check in the check box. I won't look at anyone differently if they don't have the little icon on their log. I have ben to several caches where there just isn't any trash. And again I have been to some where I don't have a big enough bag to haul it out.

[+RJFerret]

Benefits:

2. Reinforces the "Cache In Trash Out" mantra

3. Badge of honor for doing what's right.

 

It would minimize #2 as it segregates it. Right now CITO is pervasive, when only self-congratulatory enter that log, it becomes trivial. Conversely, if everyone picks it all the time, it becomes devalued!

 

As for "badge of honor", those folks already brag about their CITO activities in their log!

 

Drawbacks:

2. Clutter up the cache listings with 2 logs per person.

 

Plyuck! I'll keep picking up trash wherever I go, but I refuse to brag about it. Folks should NOT expect rewards for doing what's right/normal!

 

Yeesh,

 

Randy

[+Latitude 26]

It would be more "impressive" & good PR for the GC image as a sport, if I brought out a bag full O' trash, and showed it to the park/property manager/owner that as GC enthusiasts, we care about our parks, wooded areas, etc...

 

"Bassmedic"

[CoyoteRed]

So, now you're opposed to just another set of numbers?

Well, yes.

 

I feel we don't need, or should, quantify something that is not core to the RASH. While CITO is important I'd hate to know that people are using CITO to get cache approved. What are we, garbagemen?

 

If the RASH of geocaching can't stand on it's own merits then maybe it's not right for that particular area. Pushing CITO as a means of getting a cache-friendly policy is IMHO just not right. I'd hate for people to give landowners the impression that we're free janitors.

 

Just like we don't want to give landowners the impression that virts are every bit as good as physical caches, I don't want to give landowners the impression that in order to get a cache-friendly policy we must CITO.

 

I guess no one can imagine the scenario of a landmanger dictating to a placer where on his land the cache needs to go and that being the trashiest part of the park. I can. No thanks, I'll pass.

 

CITO should be an important, but tertiary, part of geocaching. It shouldn't be part of the core.

[+The Foote]

Pushing CITO as a means of getting a cache-friendly policy is IMHO just not right.

What's IMHO?

[+Renegade Knight]

I really think that an option for any kind of cache would be a CITO box. Check it if you did and don't if you didn't. Then a CITO icon pops up on your log next to the smiley dude (or DNF) as a small reward.

 

The JamieZ/MissJenn idea is a good one. As for a second log It's all I can do to type out the first one. Coming up with creative logs is getting harder and harder.

[+Renegade Knight]

Pushing CITO as a means of getting a cache-friendly policy is IMHO just not right.

What's IMHO?

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion

[CoyoteRed]

It would be more "impressive" & good PR for the GC image as a sport, if I brought out a bag full O' trash, and showed it to the park/property manager/owner that as GC enthusiasts, we care about our parks, wooded areas, etc...

If there were special bags, say the orange Adopt-A-Highway bags, and a place to drop them off on the way out, that would go a long way to showing the deed is actually getting done.

 

One issue I have with CITOing in general is finding a place to dump this stuff off. We drive a van and sometimes this stuff STINKS! Now you have to drive no telling how far to find an accessible dumpster. It's always great to find cans in the park so we can properly dispose of it without luggin it around.

[+MissJenn]

Camel680,

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion

 

 

(never mind!)

Edited March 18, 2004 by MissJenn

[+Geo Ho]

I think I like the idea, just not sure how I would like to see it implemented. Maybe not a seperate log (everyone around knows how hard it is to get me to write ONE log for a cache!), but maybe a CITOed checkmark with the cache log? Checking that would add a little globe/Signal/cito icon of some sort next to the stardard smiley, frown or note. These could be totaled on the cache page and in your personal stats.

Other than the blatant spelling errors, I agree with Mopar.

 

Sweetie, don't you use IE Spell?

 

Happy caching and stuff!

[+Gary and Mary Adventurers]

I will vote no for this one. My initial thoughts were "thats cool" , but after looking at some of the posts, I see this could turn into another of these no competition issues. With one post saying 5 pounds of trash would be an appropriate minimum, it made me think about some of the sites I have been to. It would take hours to pick up 5 pounds of "peanuts" and only seconds to pick up 5 pounds of old auto parts. It would be nice to show people that 20,000 CITO logs were posted last month, but 1 or 2 good CITO events can have a lot more good PR

 

Lets keep up the good work we do, and use CITO EVENTS to help get out the good word.

 

Thanks for the Adventure

 

Gary and Mary

Edited March 18, 2004 by Gary and Mary Adventurers

[+Geo Ho]

What's IMHO?

I M Ho. Me. That's who.

 

(Sorry for the offtopic post in a serious thread, but I couldn't resist)

[+The Leprechauns]

I am ho ho ho'ing at the Ho.

 

Seriously, I'm shifting away from my prior opinion somewhat. My earlier posts advocated two separate logs because I didn't want "CITO logs" to affect the basic smiley log, yet I am in favor of tracking CITO activity. The suggestion that CITO not be connected with personal statistics, and instead just shows up in a counter at the top of the cache page, is a good answer to this. I now endorse it. This solution would presumably still satisfy my two basic reasons for liking this feature: generating maps that show where CITO activity has occurred, and generating aggregate statistics like X geocachers reported picking up trash in Y country last month. For me, it really isn't about keeping track on a personal level. I keep track of my finds and my DNF's, not how much CITO I do along the way as an adjunct.

[+carleenp]

I am going to vote no as I was leaning toward to begin with. I don't really like the idea of CITO being tied to personal stats.

 

I do like, however, the suggestions that would somehow track CITO and tie it to certain caches.

[+MissJenn]

It's all about the location...

[CoyoteRed]

Maybe it's time for a new poll?

[+Marky]

I voted yes, but actually I would rather just have a checkbox that says if I did or not. I usually mention if I CITO in my find (or DNF or note) log. Would that be harder for you to do (add a checkbox)?

 

--Marky

[+Marky]

What's IMHO?

I M Ho. Me. That's who.

 

(Sorry for the offtopic post in a serious thread, but I couldn't resist)

This one had me busting up. Thanks for the lighthearted post.

 

--Marky

[+Renegade Knight]

...But Bloencustom's idea does does have merit. If you removed trash during your caching trip, you can click on a button saying you did so on your log. The page could then say something like "X of Y finders have Trashed out while hunting for this cache"....

That way the cache gets credit for bringing people there to remove the trash, which in turn can make it look better in the eyes of land managers...

Danged if I don't like this idea too.

[+Shaggy of Mysteries Inc]

There are alot of great ideas here.

 

1. CITO--Seperate log

 

2. CITO--Check box in F/DNF/Note

 

3. log a CITO icon on a cache that I own

 

4. Maps showing CITO emblem

 

5. Etc. Etc. I am sure I am leaving some out and there will be more fine Ideas after my post.

 

I like the idea of having a CITO emblem when I log a cache!

 

Which ever way you decide to do it is fine by me.

 

Confirming a logged CITO is not needed. Who would like to confirm my found caches? Granted I only have 182 finds, But who is going to take the time to visit each cache to verify it? It's not a competition, so who cares if someone picks up a gum rapper and logs a CITO.

 

The amount of trash that you might remove shouldn't matter. If I have time I will remove a bag full. If I don't have much time then I pick up what I can (1 can, 2 cans, 3 cans, you get the idea). Either way I did what I could to help out .

 

 

~Shaggy~ I think I'll put on my flame retardant clothes now

 

Edit: Spelling errors, I'm sure I missed a few.

Edited March 18, 2004 by Shaggy of Mysteries Inc

[+Team Perks]

Confirming a logged CITO is not needed.  Who would like to confirm my found caches?  Granted I only have 182 finds, But who is going to take the time to visit each cache to verify it?  It's not a competition, so who cares if someone picks up a gum rapper and logs a CITO.

 

The amount of trash that you might remove shouldn't matter.  If I have time I will remove a bag full.  If I don't have much time then I pick up what I can (1 can, 2 cans, 3 cans, you get the idea).  Either way I did what I could to helped out.

I don't think I could possibly agree more. And if this idea gets more people out there to CITO, then clearly it's worthwhile.

 

I couldn't even begin to guess how many CITO's we've done out of the 500 caches we've found and during maintenance of our 40+ caches. It's not something that we'd be likely to keep track of; however, if it gives the serious numbermongers incentive to stop for a minute between caches to grab a few pieces of trash, good for them.

 

BUT, as with any other topic here, we're going to have a very vocal minority clamoring about how unfair and/or unverifiable it is...

[+Cacheola Crew]

...But Bloencustom's idea does does have merit. If you removed trash during your caching trip, you can click on a button saying you did so on your log. The page could then say something like "X of Y finders have Trashed out while hunting for this cache"....

That way the cache gets credit for bringing people there to remove the trash, which in turn can make it look better in the eyes of land managers...

 

I agree with this (having the CITO info go on the cache page...anonymously). But I had to vote NO in the poll the way it is listed now, cause I don't like the idea of CITO logs "credited" to individual cachers for reasons folks have already listed.

 

Cacheola Crew Mom

[+wildearth2001]

...But Bloencustom's idea does does have merit. If you removed trash during your caching trip, you can click on a button saying you did so on your log. The page could then say something like "X of Y finders have Trashed out while hunting for this cache"....

That way the cache gets credit for bringing people there to remove the trash, which in turn can make it look better in the eyes of land managers...

 

I agree with this (having the CITO info go on the cache page...anonymously).

Yeah that would be nice, regaurdless of whether it is decided to credit individuals,

[+TeamSpaz]

I feel that some kind of addition to the find log type is better than a seperate log.

[+JoGPS]

I VOTE YES big time,

 

This could be the best tool used to talk to park officials about.

 

We as a group can and have done a lot of good doing the CITO thing on every cache hunt and at events , it’s the one great thing we can tell park officials about that we do for them, the rest is what they can do for us.

 

Last year our local club did a CITO event at a county park systems that did not allow geocaching and was actively taking them out. After the event we were able to arrange a permit policy to place caches in all of there areas.

 

To me personally this would be the best approach to getting to play on lands where we cannot place caches now, and show them that we are good for them also it does set us a part from the rest of the pack. We give something back, actually we take something out.

 

Put the new icon on the stats page like benchmarks, it does not have to count in the total

 

It would be cool to look at the stats on the main page that read:

 

12463 cache found by 9483 registered users and 7352 bags of trash taken out

 

This can not be a bad thing and would be Toooooooooo Cool …………………..JOE

[CoyoteRed]

...and just our are we supposed to quantify this? A wrapper. A grocery bag? A garbage bag?

 

I feel strongly this will be, at best, misleading anyone who uses it in decision making.

 

This is a can of worms I wouldn't like to see opened.

[+Planet]

I like the MissJenn/Bloencustoms idea. I CITO anyway, that's part of caching, I don't want two logs.

[+Stump]

I think adding an extra log is a good thought but an awful idea. I like the checkbox option.

 

If people cheat that's fine. It would increase the amount of CITOing done and this would override any problems that come from "cheating".

[fischy]

i voted no. logging twice would take too long.and since it doesnt count as a find, why log it????

 

team fischy

Edited November 24, 2006 by fischy

[+TrailGators]

I voted no because it really isn't needed. However, if there was a new CITO cache type placed in areas that constantly need a lot of help, then I would have voted yes.

Edited November 24, 2006 by TrailGators

[+awhsom]

I forgot how I voted

Edited November 24, 2006 by awhsom