This topic contains 28 replies, has 15 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
First of all, a “NO” vote will only affect a very limited amount of events; what is it, two? The campout and the picnic? All other events will NOT be affected by this decision. This will certainly confuse people.
Secondly, if you go to the GC national forums, and search for “multiple logs” or some similar terms, you will NOT find a lot of fiery rhetoric. Yes, some people may be complaining, but it’s not a majority of users. You may be surprised to learn that OTHER people in OTHER states are also logging multiple attends for events. The WGA does not stand alone against the other 49 states.
Thirdly, I’ll quote Groundspeak’s logging philosophy:
The find count is not a competition; It’s there to help you keep track of your own finds. Cache owners police the logs on their cache pages and decide for themselves how many finds a visitor can log. Groundspeak has no interest in designing complicated workarounds for what we believe to be a non-issue.
It seems like the BEST thing to do is lobby for changes to the GC system to allow event logging of temps.
Another option is to simply hide “find” counts from public view. You could see your own counts, but everybody else wouldn’t see a number.
Hmmm…[/quote]
Just for my edification, do you have examples of other states that allow multiple event logs?
I was cruising the GC forums, and found a similar discussion involving Kentucky, an event in a state park, similar to what we do here.
Thanks!
Here is the link to Jeremy’s Irish view:
http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=114895&st=0&p=1861269&#entry1861269
or if you prefer here is the quote, without the link:
“Geocaching etiquette would say that logging a find twice for the same cache is not ok. However there are enough reasons why it is ok that there is no programming logic to restrict it. There are, however, ways for the cache owner to delete finds when he or she feels that it is wrong. In most situations it is the cache owner’s responsibility to enforce a double-logging situation.
So does it increase the statistics for a listing? Yes. Is it bad form? Yes, except in some situations. Do I care? Only when I consider it abuse of the site, like when someone logs an archived cache they never found just to boost their find count. That’s just outright rude.
briansnat, although I do care about the cheats in all the examples you offer, you are using examples from competitive activities. If you are in competition with geocachers over your find “score” then I assume you would validate whether that person is “playing” fair. However I continue to maintain that geocaching as the geocaching.com site is concerned is a noncompetitive activity, so someone’s find count shouldn’t harm you.” –Jeremy Irish
So while you maintain that Groundspeak “allows” multiple logs for attending events, it appears more to me that the feeling is that it is poor “etiquette” and “poor form” to do so. Groundspeak expects the cache owner to be responsible for what is logged and how. Which brings me back to my original post that all of us as WGA members are the “cache owners” of the WGA events. As such, we the members need to decide if we want to allow “poor form” because there has been a vocal minority that wants to continue this practice.
zuma
Here is a link to the more recent thread, from after last year’s campout:
http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=165006&st=50&p=2899792&#entry2899792
The whole thread is about this issue, and has been repeated every year. This year, we are just trying to take a position before the event. I would prefer to be proactive, rather than reactive.
zuma
I do have to say I got a kick out of this post dating back a bit further:
http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=131878&st=300&p=2207555&#entry2207555
@Ry and Ny wrote:
I do have to say I got a kick out of this post dating back a bit further:
http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=131878&st=300&p=2207555&#entry2207555
Hah! This thread got me thinking about that graphic and you did me a favor and found it for me. Thanks!
w-w-w-wait! Yoda thinks it’s ok? That changes everything!!! 😆 😆 😆
I guess I fall in the dark grey side of the force as I have at least one cache that allows multiple “bonus” logs and I have logged multiple “bonus” logs on caches where the owner allows for it. I agree with Zuma that the entire WGA is the cache owner for WGA events and as such should decide if multiple logs on the event page are appropriate or not. If the WGA owned a specific geocache it would be no different than at an event.
One thing that has always interested me is why GC.com counts an event in your “find” count in the first place. It’s pretty easy to “find” most event locations 🙂
I have not yet been to an event that had temporary caches just for the event so I cannot speak one way or the other on the topic. However, if such event had text outlining the rules for posting and those rules said I could log once for each temp find, why would I not? Follows the same logic as owners who allow “bonus” finds as far as I’m concerned. And I do not beleive that practice is “bad form”. It’s only dark gray on the “force scale” 🙂
What’s a pocket cache?
😈 Log them all… it gets Criminal all bent 😈
@Ry and Ny wrote:
What’s a pocket cache?
A traveling cache–something you take with you to show other cachers and they log. i.e., it has no permanence (unless you take a permanent cache along to an event and then go re-hide it! 😯 )
Here’s a useful link that I had come across when we started out:
On the Left Side of the Road...But if I go log three finds for a three part multi I would be run out of the area. Multi logs for events or caches just isn’t right as far as I am concerned.
If you need that many finds to pad your totalls why not just make up a sockpuppet account and go hide a lot of caches on that one and then find them under your regular name and that way the rest of us can find them too and get credit were it is really deserved.
OH wait if you did that then you probally wouldnt be way out ahead of everyone else who is playing fair.
playing fair.
When a cache owner publishes a cache that allows for bonus find logs, all cache hunters have the option. How is that not “fair”? Define fairness for me please…
I have seen some excellent, creative, and rewarding ways cache owners have used the bonus log option especially in the “unknown” cache type. We continue to push boundaries and build in more “gray areas” in that cache type every day.
I for one, like the fact that GC.com allows for multiple logs and takes the stance that they do as far as allowing cache owners to create the kind of cache they want to.
It’s not “cheating”. It’s what the cache owner is intending for their cache and your hunting experience. However, you can always play it how you want to and log how you want to. You can subscribe to whatever moral code you want to. However, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill by judging others as you did in this posting.
Folks talk about cheating, fairness, competition, numbers, padding etc but you know what? My find count will never impact you. Who gives a sh** if I logged a handful of caches twice because the owner said I could. You know who??? Nobody! Not you, Not your grandma, not your grandma’s best friend. Nobody cares!
So stop judging other people when it’s well within the “rules” of the GC.com “game” to own caches that allow multiple logs and allow players to log multiple logs on those caches.
I voted YES. I voted YES long before any of these posts were made on the subject. It’s not really about the multiple “attended” logs for events for me. It’s about defending the option for cache owners to allow multiple logs if they wish to do so.
I think I am going to build a cache that allows as many finds as people want to log. I’ll call it “calling all cheaters”. You can feel free to log 1 find on it so that you know you will go to heaven. Perhaps then your grandma’s friend can congratulate you for never once cheating while you geocached…
-cheeto-
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.