› Forums › Geocaching in Wisconsin › Announcements › Temporary caches
- This topic has 47 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
jerrys dad.
-
AuthorPosts
-
04/29/2008 at 3:00 pm #1726457
If we could petition Groundspeak to change their rules to allow temporary cache finds count as a find in your stats, would you support this rule change?
I’m guessing this proposal would require an overwhelming majority for Groundspeak to consider it. It would also need to move far beyond the boundaries of Wisconsin to gain any ground, but we need to start somewhere.
IMHO, this would finally solve the multiple find logging issue we have, and should make everyone happy.
04/29/2008 at 8:46 pm #1888437Ummmm, they already count. Did you mean log them so that they don’t count?
04/29/2008 at 9:17 pm #1888438temp or not it is still a cache and should count for your stats
04/30/2008 at 12:11 am #18884398) Thanks for suggesting this but WE are logging Temp. finds and groundspeak has NOT prevented us from doing so!!!! Tami
04/30/2008 at 12:36 am #1888440Bleh. I’m already getting to where I can’t comment on this issue without having to worry about permanently burning bridges. I can’t imagine how those of you who are getting all worked up about this on either side for years have gone on this long without someone putting their foot down and saying “this is how it is”.
I can tell you we won’t be attending any events any time soon though.
04/30/2008 at 12:56 am #1888441I think that a lot of people will not attend event if they can not count the temps caches as found I know that if I saw that a event was being held and you could not count the caches found at the event then I would not go 😯
04/30/2008 at 1:09 am #1888442@Team Deejay wrote:
Ummmm, they already count. Did you mean log them so that they don’t count?
I think the OP is suggesting a new class – of cache – called temps and you can log them as found, not attended.
04/30/2008 at 2:09 am #1888443I agree that the solution presented would be a great way to solve the issue.
As I am new-ish to the WGA and have not been to ANY events at all Since I started last year, I am wondering on the official stand for this? I have seen both sides of the argument, and I saw the vote results, but what right now is the OFFICIAL ruling of the WGA in regards to this? I will follow that ruling.
04/30/2008 at 2:28 am #1888444THE WGA has no say. It’s up to Groundspeak to either so you can or can not log a temp. So this whole discussion don’t mean a whole lot cuz there’s nothing either side of this argument can do about it.
04/30/2008 at 11:46 am #1888445As I’ve stated elsewhere, I’d like to see a way to log temp caches, and even show the totals, but separate from your find counts. Sort of like how your profile page shows how many benchmarks you’ve found, but doesn’t add them in to your total finds.
04/30/2008 at 2:09 pm #1888446@SammyClaws wrote:
@Team Deejay wrote:
Ummmm, they already count. Did you mean log them so that they don’t count?
I think the OP is suggesting a new class – of cache – called temps and you can log them as found, not attended.
Exactly
04/30/2008 at 3:22 pm #1888447@ecorangers wrote:
WE are logging Temp. finds and groundspeak has NOT prevented us from doing so!!!! Tami
Problem is you can’t log them as finds, you have to log them as multiple “attended.” Right? Which works for making your find count go up if it matters to you (as it does to us), but sure looks goofy on the detailed stats column.
It makes no sense to see that you’ve “attended” 000s of events when the true number is obviously a fraction of that.
Regardless of what side of the issue you’re on, these should be handled consistently among cache and event types rather than requiring an end-run to get a smiley.
Second point, which is a question. WHY does groundspeak allow logging “found its” at CITO events? I’m assuming for temp caches, but one of the big arguments of temp-cache-logging-detractors is that “they don’t have meet published cache guidelines.” Do CITO temp caches have to? If not, again it is an issue of consistency.
On the Left Side of the Road...04/30/2008 at 3:57 pm #1888448@gotta run wrote:
Second point, which is a question. WHY does groundspeak allow logging “found its” at CITO events? I’m assuming for temp caches, but one of the big arguments of temp-cache-logging-detractors is that “they don’t have meet published cache guidelines.” Do CITO temp caches have to? If not, again it is an issue of consistency.
That is a really good question…but I’m tired now and this topic no longer holds interest for me. I like my stats I just wish I could compare them apples to apples with other people…sadly I cannot.
04/30/2008 at 4:20 pm #1888449IF Groundspeak would back, then I would say “Go for It”
I am also with LB7, comparing Apples to Apples would be nice. Otherwise, I feel, to Each His Own, if it were supported by Groundspeak, to log if you want.
I spent a lot of time searching events in other states and countries and came up empty with anyone (State/Country) logging multiples. It’s not like we are on a remote island with few caches and have no other way to increase our numbers.
BUT….I’m still sitting on the fence…watching, listening and learning! 🙂
04/30/2008 at 5:50 pm #1888450@gotta run wrote:
I’m assuming for temp caches, but one of the big arguments of temp-cache-logging-detractors is that “they don’t have meet published cache guidelines.” Do CITO temp caches have to? If not, again it is an issue of consistency.
To play the devils advocate here, if temps were recognized, how do you regulate them? What would stop someone from sitting at a table and say there are 5 caches right here for you to log. Or better yet, just trade spreadsheets of caches the way people do coin discoveries.
Don’t get me wrong – I think people should be able to log temps since Groundspeak hasn’t taken a stand. (There certainly are enough rules for everything else) But the solution might not be as simple was it appears.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.