Rediculious Event: Number Game????

[+Docapi]

Since temporary caches can be placed anywhere and while the intent may not to be to cause the gamer harm.  If the caches are buried, on lands that require a permit and the event owner has no permit, are in certain spots frowned upon by the geocaching community, there is a great harm in logging them even if they are logged on the event page.  This argument isn't a numbers argument.  It's a Logging caches that should not even exist harms the game argument.  Even if 99% of all the caches placed on a temporary basis are harmless (and I have no doubt they are) it's the 1% that are an issue.

 

If it's not approvable here don't log it here.  If it's approvable here, well, then list the dang thing and make everyones life easier.

We are not talking about buried caches, or caches that are otherwise unallowable.

 

The only reason that these caches could not be listed individually is because they are temporary, and the only reason that temporary caches are not allowed to be listed is because of the burden on the approvers and bandwidth, not because there is anything wrong with the caches themselves.

 

If the logic is that we should not log them because of the 1% chance that there is some other event that might have hid a buried or otherwise frowned upon cache, then by that logic all caches of any type should be disallowed, since there is that same 1% of regular caches that are buried, or on private property, or just plain stink.

 

Maybe it will be the geocaching community that will phase out the logging temporary caches through peer pressure. Many people are just not "buying" the arguments in support of the practice.

 

Many people are not "buying" the arguments against the practice either. The WGA, with 780 members obviously aren't.

Edited June 8, 2005 by Docapi

[Charles Iverson]

[+sbell111]

[+sept1c_tank]

[+Kit Fox]

The only reason that these caches could not be listed individually is because they are temporary, and the only reason that temporary caches are not allowed to be listed is because of the burden on the approvers and bandwidth, not because there is anything wrong with the caches themselves.

 

I'm not buying your argument. if bandwith was the problem, they wouldn't approve all the 1/1 city micros on a daily basis.

 

Burden on the approvers. I know an instance where the local approvers approved over 100 caches the night before a big cache event. Guess what, most of these caches are still active months later. They didn't dissappear with the wind like the so called temp caches.

[+sbell111]

If the caches are not temporary, and they meet the other listing guidelines, why don't the placers just submit them for approval on their own merits instead of allowing 'find logs' on the event pages?

Edited June 8, 2005 by sbell111

[+Renegade Knight]

...We are not talking about buried caches, or caches that are otherwise unallowable.

 

The only reason that these caches could not be listed individually is because they are temporary, and the only reason that temporary caches are not allowed to be listed is because of the burden on the approvers and bandwidth, not because there is anything wrong with the caches themselves....

Without the cross check approval provides, that's just a guess and as I already pointed out I'd agree that 99% are well placed, and I might even spot you a nother few tenths of a percent.

 

Are we disagreeing on the ones that could be placed badly? Or are we disagreeing on what should be listed on the site for people to log? If the only issue is the temporary nature but they are placed well, listing the cache is a formality and it would be approved and we would not even be having this discussion.

 

Perhaps the better question is why not list caches that start life at an event?

[Jeremy]

I'm not buying your argument. if bandwith was the problem, they wouldn't approve all the 1/1 city micros on a daily basis.

 

Burden on the approvers. I know an instance where the local approvers approved over 100 caches the night before a big cache event. Guess what, most of these caches are still active months later. They didn't dissappear with the wind like the so called temp caches.

I don't care if you buy that person's argument, because it isn't my argument. My reasoning (not argument) is that a cache listing is meant to be hidden for a certain timeframe that is far longer than the weekend or day of an event. The whole objective to listing caches on a web site is for others to go out and find them. Creating a small window of opportunity for a listing is counter to the entire intent of the web site.

 

Wanting to throw up a bunch of temporary caches so you can log them as a "find" is the height of selfishness, IMO. You are well aware that the "cache" is just a part of the event, like a three legged race.

[+Kit Fox]

I'm not buying your argument. if bandwith was the problem, they wouldn't approve all the 1/1 city micros on a daily basis.

 

Burden on the approvers.  I know an instance where the local approvers approved over 100 caches the night before a big cache event.  Guess what, most of these caches are still active months later. They didn't dissappear with the wind like the so called temp caches.

I don't care if you buy that person's argument, because it isn't my argument. My reasoning (not argument) is that a cache listing is meant to be hidden for a certain timeframe that is far longer than the weekend or day of an event. The whole objective to listing caches on a web site is for others to go out and find them. Creating a small window of opportunity for a listing is counter to the entire intent of the web site.

 

Wanting to throw up a bunch of temporary caches so you can log them as a "find" is the height of selfishness, IMO. You are well aware that the "cache" is just a part of the event, like a three legged race.

Jeremy,

 

I agree with you.

 

My issue was with Docapi's reasoning why they (temp caches) aren't approved like traditional Geocaching.com caches. As long as they meet the requirements to be hidden and approved on this website, they should be made permanent caches.

[+carleenp]

I have seen many events where caches placed for the event were listed as permanent caches. My understanding is that if the cache can be listed and will be maintained, then fine. But in many instances event organizers want to place temporary caches for the event without having to maintain them after. Or as was the case with a Nebraska event they would need permits and did not want to ask the park to permit 15 permanent caches and also did not want to saturate the area. The park was happy to allow them as one day things without permits, so the organizers chose that. That makes sense since it is one thing to stick out a bunch for an event and pick them up the next day and another to have to maintain them all over time. Those temp caches can't be listed because the guidelines say that caches should have an intent to be around awhile (at least 3 months) for all to find. I don't disagree with that.

 

So, if an event is planned where some caches can be permanent and maintained, then great! They will have pages and people can log them. If not, then it goes back to the argument about whether it is kosher to multiple log the event page. As I have previously stated, I decided not to do that, but don't care if others do (providing the person/group holding the event doesn't mind, in Nebraska there was an event where they asked that page not be logged multiple times but also an event where it was said that was OK)

[+Docapi]

LOL! A lot of popcorn after my last post! Was it really that harsh? I didn't mean it that way, if it came across like that, I apologise.

 

In my searches of the archives, the reasoning that I found mentioned several times for the temp caches being disallowed was that it was because of the bandwidth/approver issues.

 

It appears that those statements were wrong, so I withdraw that argument.

 

As far as the question of "why not make the caches permanent" the reason for that is quite simply that we couldn't. The park that we held the event would not allow us to leave the caches after the event. It was a WI state park, the WI DNR currently does not allow caches in state parks (We are working on that, with some success). They were very gracious in allowing us to hold the event there, and let us place the temporary caches, but they had to be remove immediately after the event.

 

I am sure that we would have loved to make some or all of them permanent caches, but that option was not available.

 

As far as the caches being bad caches (buried, etc) I would have to believe that the odds of the caches, at least at this event being bad are less than the odds of a regular cache being bad. They are at an event with several approvers actually involved in the placing process, not just going off the information on the cache page. With 150+ cachers- including several approvers, WGA members, and WGA board members in attendance any cache placed contrary to the rules would get shot down pretty quickly.

 

Edit:

I just re-read my last post again. What did I say to cause all the popcorn?

Edited June 9, 2005 by Docapi

[+GixxerUT]

As far as the question of "why not make the caches permanent" the reason for that is quite simply that we couldn't. The park that we held the event would not allow us to leave the caches after the event. It was a WI state park, the WI DNR currently does not allow caches in state parks

yet you found a way to log finds for 'caches' that aren't allowed where you DID log them

uh huh

[+Mopar]

As far as the question of "why not make the caches permanent" the reason for that is quite simply that we couldn't.  The park that we held the event would not allow us to leave the caches after the event. It was a WI state park, the WI DNR currently does not allow caches in state parks

yet you found a way to log finds for 'caches' that aren't allowed where you DID log them

uh huh

I think what Gixxer (and others) is trying to say is; even though you guys went to the effort to get permission for those temp caches from the parks, what if someone else hosts an event and doesn't?

What if someone else hides 100 temp caches for an event in a state park there without permission? What if someone at DNR sees that event page with thousands of logs on caches that were not allowed in the park to begin with?

What if his reaction to that is "We told them no caches and they went ahead anyway. Obviously those guys from WGA were full of it when they said that geocachers can police themselves. They were wrong when they said they have people to review each cache and wont list it if it breaks our rules. Look at this! And they want us to allow more? NEVER!"

 

By circumventing the review process for caches there is a possibility that someone may undermine everything you and WGA have worked toward so far.

Edited June 9, 2005 by Mopar

[+Docapi]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it seems that now you are saying that we shouldn't have placed the caches at all, even though we had permission from the park?

 

All because somebody else might do it without permission?

 

I'm sorry, I don't follow that logic.

 

By that logic, we wouldn't be able to place any caches, anywhere, because somebody might not follow the rules.

[+GixxerUT]

I think what Gixxer is trying to say is;

I wasn't, but yours is a good point.

 

He admits they couldn't place legitimate GC caches.

Yet they have logs for 'finds' at GC.com.

To me, that is NOT "playing by the rules".

 

Yes, my numbers mean something. They are connected to me. When I look at my nickname, there are numbers that represent what I have done in this arena. That is a reflection on ME. And I care that what is represented is accurate and honest. And I care about how others do it, too. Cuz I am a social being living in a society of other social beings that affect each other's experiences in this social world.

[+Docapi]

My numbers mean something to me, too. They are connected to me. When I look at my nickname, there are numbers that represent what I have done in this arena. That is a reflection on ME. And I also care that what is represented is accurate and honest.

 

Traditional Caches* 37

Event Caches* 56- notice it say "EVENT CACHES, Not "EVENTS ATTENDED"

Travel Bug Dog Tags 3

*Total Caches Found 93

 

That is an ACCURATE representation of WHAT I HAVE DONE. I have found 37 traditional caches, and 56 event CACHES.

 

If I hadn't logged the event caches the way I did, then it WOULD be innacurate.

 

And I don't care about how others do it. Cuz I am not in competition with those others.

Edited June 9, 2005 by Docapi

[+briansnat]

My numbers mean something to me, too. They are connected to me. When I look at my nickname, there are numbers that represent what I have done in this arena. That is a reflection on ME. And I also care that what is represented is accurate and honest.

 

And I don't care about how others do it. Cuz I am not in competition with those others.

So do you count all non geocaching.com caches? Even ones listed on other sites and bonus caches?

Edited June 9, 2005 by briansnat

[+Nurse Dave]

Your numbers are also connected to gc.com. Not only should they reflect what you have done in an area, but what you have done that is actually listed on gc.com.

 

Lots of arguments back and forth and it just boils down to folks feeling they are getting ripped off if they can't get numbers for temp caches nobody outside the event can get. What's wrong with spending a whole day of fun and only getting one find for it? There are plenty of other activities at events that take time and effort that people wouldn't think of logging as find.

 

If it was just about everytime you find something you get a smiley, people would be logging multi caches for every leg. I'm not sure how the two can be seperated.

[+Docapi]

No, because I only search for caches found through this website.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

LOL! A lot of popcorn after my last post! Was it really that harsh? I didn't mean it that way, if it came across like that, I apologise.

 

I think the popcorn isn't directly related to that individual post, but the thread in general. It's their way of saying "Wow, theres nothing to say but to hang back and watch" much like veiwing a train wreck.

 

As far as the question of "why not make the caches permanent" the reason for that is quite simply that we couldn't.  The park that we held the event would not allow us to leave the caches after the event. It was a WI state park, the WI DNR currently does not allow caches in state parks (We are working on that, with some success). They were very gracious in allowing us to hold the event there, and let us place the temporary caches, but they had to be remove immediately after the event.

 

I am sure that we would have loved to make some or all of them permanent caches, but that option was not available.

 

Okay, I know I've read this a few times in this thread and in some others, but I'll say it again anyways. The stats on this site are to track caches listed on this site, not caches listed on Terracaching, Navicache, or caches that aren't listed at all. In other words, if the individual cache isn't listed here, for whatever reason, its not a find.

 

In fact, I even remember a recent thread where Jeremy said that he would ban anyone that was abusing the system by logging finds for caches not listed on this site as a find on a cache that is.

 

Of course, I know by now that no matter what is said, your mind is made up, so go ahead and log whatever you want. The one thing that has been said in here by the multiple log camp that I do believe is that this doesn't affect me, so whatever.

Edited June 9, 2005 by VegasCacheHounds

[+The Leprechauns]

If it was just about everytime you find something you get a smiley, people would be logging multi caches for every leg.

You're saying this like it doesn't already happen, each and every day?!?

[+VegasCacheHounds]

No, because I only search for caches found through this website.

So all of those event caches were listed on this website?

 

Wow, that must have been some cache page. At the events i've been at, the info for temp caches is provided there, not on the cache page. There must be better planners in your area.

 

[WH]

As long as it doesnt violate the geocaching guidelines or any local regulations, individual cache owners have total control over their caches and may regulate them in anyway they choose.

 

Instead of one large game, think of it as a bunch of small games that each have their own rules.

Edited June 9, 2005 by WH

[+VegasCacheHounds]

As long as it doesnt violate the geocaching guidelines or any local regulations, individual cache owners have total control over their caches and may regulate them in anyway they choose.

 

Instead of one large game, think of it as a bunch of small games that each have their own rules.

Okay, just playing Devils Advocate here.....

 

So, I can go create a bunch of caches, not list them here for one reason or another, and then allow cachers that find those to claim finds on one of my caches listed here? Wow!

[WH]

So, I can go create a bunch of caches, not list them here for one reason or another, and then allow cachers that find those to claim finds on one of my caches listed here? Wow!

Go for it.

 

Since those caches wouldnt be listed here, you wouldnt have to worry about following GC guidelines. You still need to follow local regulations regardless.

[+Docapi]

Okay, just playing Devils Advocate here.....

 

So, I can go create a bunch of caches, not list them here for one reason or another, and then allow cachers that find those to claim finds on one of my caches listed here?  Wow!

Quote from TPTB in:

I couldn't give two hoots if someone wants to log an event cache twice. It's their find count and there is no competition here. So if you find a cache at an event, knock yourself out.

 

I gues my question is, what's the point? People at the event seek these things out, so what's wrong with using the event cache page?

 

According to that, you can, if the caches are part of a listed event, and the logs are on the event page.

Edited June 9, 2005 by Docapi

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Hmm, that seems to contrast with THIS POST, on the topic of "Is This Ok To Log Caches That Aren't On This Site, On caches that are on this site?" to which Jeremy's answer was;

 

I frown heavily on any form of abuse of the Geocaching.com web site. Groundspeak has the right to take action against such abuse, such as locking cache listings and banning users if it comes to that.

 

Does that answer your question? Let me know if I need to be more direct.

[+Docapi]

That post was related to a different situation. He has stated, even on this thread, that it it allowed. He said he thinks it is "stupid" and later referred to it as "selfish", but not that it is considered abuse.

[ju66l3r]

I challenge both points of view on this argument to just "let it go".

 

All people involved are just talking past each other and there's no acceptance of either sides' views. Nothing new is being brought forth by continuing the discussion.

 

If you can walk away from this topic without posting here again, I'll let you have an extra find on one of my caches.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

How is the situation different? In both cases, the caches in question are not listed on this site, and they are being logged as finds on a cache that is. In fact, the OP of that other thread didn't even outline the situation, he simply asked if a cache not listed here could be logged as a find on a cache that is. To which Jeremy said no.

 

In fact, you say that in this thread that TPTB say its ok. Hmmm, I just re-read through all posts by any official person involved woth Groundspeak and I don't see a single post saying that, but I do see this, in this thread, by Jeremy:

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

Sounds exactly like his stance in the other thread.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

I challenge both points of view on this argument to just "let it go".

 

All people involved are just talking past each other and there's no acceptance of either sides' views. Nothing new is being brought forth by continuing the discussion.

 

If you can walk away from this topic without posting here again, I'll let you have an extra find on one of my caches.

Wow! Great, I'm in!

 

 

Oh, wait, you said an extra find. I haven't found any of your caches, so how could I claim ann extra find? Darn, foiled again.

[+Tidalflame]

Docapi, I think you may be confused as to the definition of "event cache." It doesn't mean "cache found at an event."

 

Event Cache

Occasionally, local geocachers and geocaching organizations designate a time and location to meet and discuss geocaching. After the event the caches are archived.

 

...that's kind of vague, but Jeremy just confirmed it (scroll up)...

 

Wanting to throw up a bunch of temporary caches so you can log them as a "find" is the height of selfishness, IMO. You are well aware that the "cache" is just a part of the event, like a three legged race.

 

"Event cache" is really just Geocaching terminology for "event." An event cache constitutes an event and all that is done at that event.

 

I know there are no specific rules about this whole issue, but Geocaching isn't controlled by a small group of moderators who enforce strict guidlines on the site. It couldn't be; it's too large a task. Geocaching is controlled by community standards. Technically, there's no rule against taking everything in a cache and leaving a single McToy. Does that mean it's okay to do so? Of course not! Don't get me wrong, though - I'm not saying that logging finds for temporary caches is as bad as taking everything from a cache. I'm just trying to illustrate that just because there's no rule specifically preventing it doesn't necessarily mean something is okay to do.

Edited June 9, 2005 by Tidalflame

[+The Leprechauns]

I challenge both points of view on this argument to just "let it go".

 

All people involved are just talking past each other and there's no acceptance of either sides' views.  Nothing new is being brought forth by continuing the discussion.

 

If you can walk away from this topic without posting here again, I'll let you have an extra find on one of my caches.

Wow! Great, I'm in!

 

 

Oh, wait, you said an extra find. I haven't found any of your caches, so how could I claim ann extra find? Darn, foiled again.

It's hard to find caches that haven't been hidden (unless ju66l3r hides caches using a different account, or on a different listing service, in which case I can't obtain the offered smiley). That jab aside, ju66l3r makes an excellent point!

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Hey, your right! I feel cheater! Ju66l3r, go hide a cache, dang it!

 

Anyways, I'll agree, this thread is going nowhere, so I'm out.

[+Docapi]

 

In fact, you say that in this thread that TPTB say its ok. Hmmm, I just re-read through all posts by any official person involved woth Groundspeak and I don't see a single post saying that, but I do see this, in this thread, by Jeremy:

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

Sounds exactly like his stance in the other thread.

I think you missed the first paragraph in that post you just quoted:

 

The point is irrelevant. Temp caches aren't allowed on the site. And as I indicated in countless threads in the past, I think logging attended twice for an event is stupid, and posting additional logs to "match" whatever "count" you determined your numbers should be is equally stupid. However I have no plans to be the point police and create complicated rules for determining what counts as a find. That is up to the cache listing owner to decide.

 

(emphasis added)

 

So,

 

1. He choses not to make rules against it.

 

and

 

2. He leaves it up to the cache owner to decide.

[+Nurse Dave]

That post was related to a different situation. He has stated, even on this thread, that it it allowed. He said he thinks it is "stupid" and later referred to it as "selfish", but not that it is considered abuse.

So if you're going to say we can do it because Jeremy said so, does this last post mean that people that do it have to agree they are stupid and selfish? Just askin'.

[+Docapi]

LOL! Good One!

 

I think it is pretty clear where he moves from his personal opinion of the practice, and his official stance.

[+GPS_David]

My numbers mean something to me, too. They are connected to me. When I look at my nickname, there are numbers that represent what I have done in this arena. That is a reflection on ME. And I also care that what is represented is accurate and honest.

 

Traditional Caches* 37

Event Caches* 56- notice it say "EVENT CACHES, Not "EVENTS ATTENDED"

Travel Bug Dog Tags 3

*Total Caches Found 93

 

That is an ACCURATE representation of WHAT I HAVE DONE. I have found 37 traditional caches, and 56 event CACHES.

 

If I hadn't logged the event caches the way I did, then it WOULD be innacurate.

 

And I don't care about how others do it. Cuz I am not in competition with those others.

Your defination on Event Caches is weak. Does this mean not only can you log a real gc cache on it's own log page but as an event cache too? Does this mean if you find a cache from another site, it's okay to log it as an event cache? If you eat pizza after the event , is it okay to enter it as an Event Cache (I actually saw an event in which people went for Pizza after the event and logged it as an Event Cache) IMO it is an abuse of the system.

 

In the simplest terms...

The event might have been an event on GC.com but the temporary caches are NOT gc.com caches which means they should not have been entered in any way on the GC website. They were not santioned or posted any way on the GC Website.

 

I don't want to put words in Jeremy's mouth but it appears from his opinions, he's not happy about them being entered on the site either. But then again, he's running the site and I'm sure he does not want to get embroiled in every disagreement on the site.

 

Dave

[+MountainMudbug]

 

 

[+carleenp]

If you can walk away from this topic without posting here again, I'll let you have an extra find on one of my caches.

I was going to and then I realized that I can't find your caches. Dang it, I wanted that extra smilie too.....

[+Docapi]

Does this mean not only can you log a real gc cache on it's own log page but as an event cache too?

 

No. Event caches get logged on event pages, regular caches get logged on their cache page.

 

Does this mean if you find a cache from another site, it's okay to log it as an event cache?

 

No. Only caches found at the event, as part of the event, are ok to log, and only on the event page.

 

If you eat pizza after the event , is it okay to enter it as an Event Cache (I actually saw an event in which people went for Pizza after the event and logged it as an Event Cache)

 

By the rules, yes. If the pizza party is listed as an event then it is ok to log it. My personal opinion is if there is no cache, then there should be no log, but that is my personal opinion only. At the campout there was 3 days of activities, a WGA meeting, and a pancake breakfast. Some people would feel that these were all loggable. I didn't even log that I attended, only the caches that I found, not the event itself.

 

MMB,

 

If I was truly alone in my opinion, then we wouldn't be having the discussion. The WGA would not have advocated logging the caches, and there would be nothing to discuss. I just appear to be one of the few that is ornery, stubborn, and thick skinned enough to take the abuse and keep on going.

Edited June 9, 2005 by Docapi

[+GPS_David]

In the simplest terms...

The event might have been an event on GC.com but the temporary caches are NOT gc.com caches which means they should not have been entered in any way on the GC website. They were not santioned or posted any way on the GC Website.

 

Dave

Edited June 9, 2005 by GPS_DAVE_11735

[+Docapi]

Who are you quoting? Yourself?

 

(not sarcasm- a serious question)

[+tozainamboku]

I'll put down my popcorn now and try to respond without being too snarky.

 

There seems to be two schools of thought as to what the find count means. One group feels that this is an accurate count of caches listed on Geocaching.com that a cacher has found. Some in this group even feel that it is meaningful to rank cachers by the number of finds The question of what counts as a find has often been discussed this forum, so it is clear that there is no way that these numbers could be accurate to satisfy everyone. The second group views the find count as a way of keeping track of caches found based on a personal view of what to count as a find. They don't care what other people claim as a find; rankings are meainingless to them. I suspect that some may use the find count to track all the caches they have found whether or not these caches are listed on Geocaching.com, including temporary caches hidden at an event. On the other hand, I know of cachers who log notes for caches that they found but which they don't want to count for some reason.

 

<snarky>The first group has an idealize view that can never be achieved. By default the second group wins.</snarky>

[+Docapi]

<snarky>The first group has an idealize view that can never be achieved. By default the second group wins.</snarky>

 

LOL- Literally

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Sure, why not? If in your mind you can justify those "finds", I'm sure you can also justify "winning" the debate in here.

 

Not to say that I won, or that anyone else did. This is apparently one of those arguements that can never be won without a final word from TPTB and a nice shiny padlock on the thread.

Edited June 9, 2005 by VegasCacheHounds

[+Docapi]

I was laughing at a humorous comment, that's all, not claiming "victory" Jees.

[+GPS_David]

I was laughing at a humorous comment, that's all, not claiming "victory" Jees.

I bet your the type of person who needs to have the last word... :-)

[+Team GPSaxophone]

those who play by the (GC)rules and do things on the up-and-up don't have to do all this explaining

I'd hate to think I've been playing against the (GC)rules in any way, could you please post a link to these rules for how to log your cache finds?

Especially since Jeremy has weighed in on this thread saying he doesn't care that some groups like to log their temporary caches this way.

Better get your facts straight

 

Jeremy wasn't exactly endorsing the idea of logging extra times on a cache page to make up for non-legitimate caches you found at an event. In fact, he called the idea "stupid".

 

It comes down to any cache not listed on this site should not be logged on this site. Temporary caches as part of an event are not listed on this site. They're the equivalent to finding a Terracache or Navicache during the event, they don't count here.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

No, because I only search for caches found through this website.

That's odd, I couldn't find any of those temporary caches listed on the website, yet you have finds for them.