Discussion of not logging temps, starting with this event

[zuma]

@Dibek wrote:

“The WGA asks that this event be logged only once. The practice of multiple logging of temp caches is no longer condoned by the WGA or considered to be a good practice by much of the geocaching community.”

This statement actually seems a bit ambiguous. Are temp logs “NOT allowed” or are they merely “not CONDONED”? There is a difference.

If they are “NOT allowed”, will they be deleted if logged? If they are “not CONDONDED”, can you really delete something you don’t actually have a firm stand on?

Sounds like rhetoric.

The wording is meant to be as clear as possible, and I apologize for any miscommunication. The wording recognizes that this is a change in practice, and we are trying to educate folks that the WGA as a group is now adhering to what is generally felt to be good practice within the general geocaching community.

I would have to think that our friends here in the forums, that are aware of the discussion would not want 50 smileys so much that they would go ahead and log temps anyway. On the other hand, I do think that there may be a handful of folks who are not following this discussion, and are unaware of the group’s decision who may inadverently log multiple temps. In those cases, we will notify them by means of a kind email that we are no longer condoning multiple logging of temps and ask them to delete their multiple logs.

Personally, I have never deleted another person’s log (though tempted) and I think most of us would only delete logs if there was a real strong reason to do so, and then do so only after asking the individual to delete the log themselves. Since most of us would handle this very tactfully as individuals, there is no reason for the WGA as a group to be any less kind.

In short, I would expect those familiar with the discussion not to be logging temps. And those unfamiliar with the discussion will be notified as kindly as possible.

zuma

[zuma]

@gotta run wrote:

No problem with this. The BOD, as the “owner” of this cache event, can decide what to do with it regarding logging. No different than it always was. If people come to a WGA event and log multiple “attended” for each cache, they’ll still be able to–because gc.com hasn’t put a simple “if-then” edit in the system to disallow it–and the WGA as the owner of the event can decide whether and how to monitor the logs.

Hey gotta run,

Good point. However, I do view the WGA membership as the “owner” of the event, and the BOD is trying to act in accord with the wishes of the “owner,” the membership.

zuma

[gotta run]

Point well taken as it is a WGA event and not a WGA BOD event. Or any other acronyms I can think of.

I still say what would have solved this whole mess was a simple edit on gc.com’s part…it also would have assuaged those who argued that multiple logging wastes space on the sever 🙄

Hopefully posting the “multi logging discouraged/disallowed” or whatever on the cache page is enough to avoid post-event problems…although my experience is that people don’t take time to read important stuff on cache pages.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Buy_The_Tie]

The WGA asks that this event be logged only once. The practice of multiple logging of temp caches is no longer condoned by the WGA or considered to be a good practice by much of the geocaching community.

In the past when there have been a ba-zillion “attended” logs at our WGA events, it really attracted the attention of the ankle-biters in the GC.com forums. I’m sure that many people simply dismiss them as loudmouth jerks sticking their noses into other people’s business.

However, I can say from personal experience, that the practice of logging our events the way we have done in the past is noticed by *many* people, not just the vocal loudmouths in the gc.com forums. I have gotten sideways comments and snide remarks from other reviewers over our logging practices. With that we loose credibility and further decrease our relevance to the greater geocaching community.

I’ve stopped logging multiple temps as many people have. Now, when the WGA gets bad press for the logging practices of a few, every member, regardless of their stand, gets the bad press.

Having the WGA disapprove of the multi-logging of events will hopefully accomplish two things. One, by reducing the number of “casual” multi-loggers, it will hopefully keep our events off of the ankle-biters radar screens. Two, it will allow the WGA to deflect any criticism of the WGA as a whole onto the people who are actually multi-logging the events.

[cheezehead]

Until GC.com makes it so you can only log once it does not mater. People can B&M till they are blue in the face. Until that factor is taken care of it;s all a moot point. Is the BOD going to delete multi attends? I would hope they have better things to do with their time than become the Geo-Police

Have I ever been to an WGA event before, no. Have I ever logged a Temp. before, no. Am I going to travel the 6+ hour to attend this event, no. Thou I wish I could. How many cachers have logged temps from Northwest Wisconsin, I have no idea but it can’t be many cuz there has never been an WGA event north of Hwy 8. I know there was a WGA event near Eau Claire, but that’s still a 3-4 hour drive from the Superior/Bayfield/Hurley areas.

Plus how many Wisconsin Geocachers belong to the WGA??? Who knows!?

Here’s an idea. Place the caches, have them published the day of the event(Cuz there will be a Wi Reviewer there I bet!) and then the day after the event you achieve them. That doesn’t seem like a to hard of a thing to do to me, but what do I know I’m just a “Hick from Up North” who opinion don’t matter for nottin’.

[gotta run]

@cheezehead wrote:

Place the caches, have them published the day of the event(Cuz there will be a Wi Reviewer there I bet!) and then the day after the event you achieve them.

Now that is absolutely brilliant!!! And much better than my idea of creating a 100-micro multicache with loggable stages 6 inches apart…

On the Left Side of the Road...

[zuma]

@cheezehead wrote:

Until GC.com makes it so you can only log once it does not mater. People can B&M till they are blue in the face. Until that factor is taken care of it;s all a moot point. Is the BOD going to delete multi attends? I would hope they have better things to do with their time than become the Geo-Police

Have I ever been to an WGA event before, no. Have I ever logged a Temp. before, no. Am I going to travel the 6+ hour to attend this event, no. Thou I wish I could. How many cachers have logged temps from Northwest Wisconsin, I have no idea but it can’t be many cuz there has never been an WGA event north of Hwy 8. I know there was a WGA event near Eau Claire, but that’s still a 3-4 hour drive from the Superior/Bayfield/Hurley areas.

Plus how many Wisconsin Geocachers belong to the WGA??? Who knows!?

Here’s an idea. Place the caches, have them published the day of the event(Cuz there will be a Wi Reviewer there I bet!) and then the day after the event you achieve them. That doesn’t seem like a to hard of a thing to do to me, but what do I know I’m just a “Hick from Up North” who opinion don’t matter for nottin’.

Hey Cheezy,

LOL, I guess I am a hick from up nort too. And yeah, you are right we ought to have some events north of 8 once in awhile. Personally, I love caching up nort, whether that means the Hayward area, or way over by Woodruff, all great country to see abd great areas to cache.

And I do agree that we should have a mix of perm caches at our events….I guess where we do disagree a bit is on the suggestion of listing them, and then immediately archiving them, since that is not within gc.com guidelines, but I do understand your overall point.

zuma, another hick

[greyhounder]

[cheezehead]

So, from what I read now, the minimum a cache can be you is 3 months?
How many caches get published, then disabled right away and then archived? So I put caches out for a week and then I decide to archive then, is a Reviewer going to un-archive them?

OH here’s another idea, make them TERRACACHES, NAVI OR A BIG BOB”S! HECK! I’ll bet Roger and I or PassingWind will even sponsor THE WGA AND APPROVE the caches the WGA puts out. Everyone will get points but not a stupid smiley face cuz it aint about the smileys right? Cuz ya don’t get a smiley by multi logging an event right?

If you are gonna go through ALL the trouble of putting a cache out, WHY NOT MAKE THE LEGAL????!!!!???!!!

Ya know, its such stupid stuff like this that’s going to drive the WGA apart.

Maybe it will happen sooner than one thinks. The formation of the “Geocachers of the North Club” and the Geocachers of the South and don’t forget the East and West Clubs. That way everyone can make there own set of rules and do whatever the heck they want

[Paul]

I approve of this decision as I think the sport has become more about numbers than going out to see new and unique places.

@cheezehead wrote:

How many cachers have logged temps from Northwest Wisconsin, I have no idea but it can’t be many cuz there has never been an WGA event north of Hwy 8. I know there was a WGA event near Eau Claire, but that’s still a 3-4 hour drive from the Superior/Bayfield/Hurley areas.

We have been to the campout at Chippewa Falls and Door County and did not log a temp cache at either one but that is because we decided we would not log temps.

I do enjoy going to the campouts but when they end up west of Madison they end up being a bit too far to drive to.

Us members up north are in the minority because the majority of the members are from the southeast part of the state and that is why the WGA sponsored events are where they are at.

[zuma]

@Paul wrote:

I approve of this decision as I think the sport has become more about numbers than going out to see new and unique places.

We have been to the campout at Chippewa Falls and Door County and did not log a temp cache at either one but that is because we decided we would not log temps.

I do enjoy going to the campouts but when they end up west of Madison they end up being a bit too far to drive to.

Us members up north are in the minority because the majority of the members are from the southeast part of the state and that is why the WGA sponsored events are where they are at.

Hey Paul,

Thanks for sharing your views. I agree that the choice of Governor Dodge makes for a bit of a drive for us folks up north, but at least it is also a drive for those in SE Wisconsin. 🙂 I am sure with rising gas prices, and the more distant location, many people will need to factor the distance in.

I have only visited the park once before, and know it to be a beautiful place, so I personally think it is worth the drive, and am really looking forward to the revisit.

I also agree that it is too bad that sometimes the sport of geocaching becomes more about accumulating numbers, than seeing great places. I try to remind myself often that there is no extra soft cloud in heaven for the guy with the most finds. And as far as I know, Garmin is not yet offering big money contracts to endorse their products for people with big numbers.

Geocaching is not a contest, and there really is no big benefit of giving yourself 50 extra smileys, at least no benefit that I can see.

zuma

[labrat_wr]

My first WGA event was last year’s Campout and while I did take the time and effort to seek out some of the temps, I chose to not log them. Do I feel I lost anything by that decision? No. What did I gain? I was able to meet people that I would not have, I got a little insight into some of our sneakiest cachers minds and how they hide their caches, and I got to see some very novel ideas that could not be used in permanent caches as well as some novel ideas that have become permanent caches or could be used as permanent caches.

While I will not be able to make it to Dodge, I do hope others will and not let this issue interfere.

lets complain about gas prices or something else like that 😀

Disclaimer : Always answering to a higher power.

[-cheeto-]

this issue does not interfere with my family’s plans to attend the event. there is one thing that may prevent the trip but it’s not this issue.

I like that the group is finally taking a stance on the issue. Whether the entire group population agrees or not, at least it’s a stance and it’s a big plus that it’s based on the “popular vote” of that population.

[Bushwhacking Queen]

@QwertyToo wrote:

I’ve been trying to stay quiet on this topic, but I just have to say that a majority of WGA members did not vote to no longer log temporary caches.
The majority of members, a whopping 85%, didn’t vote on the issue at all. Which means the action taken by the board was based on the opinion of just under 10% of the active members.

Please don’t say that a majority of members voted for something when that is clearly not the case.

End of Rant

GERAT POINT!

I am an infrequent visitor to the website…I don’t normally visit the forums, rarely read the home page, and only if I hit Referendums by accident instead of recent logs do I go there…and every time I have done that by accident it says no referendums at the time. SO, as for the Referendum, I DID NOT VOTE as I did not see it out there. I think the board is wrong if they believe this decision is what a majority of the members want as stated above. What I believe it communicates is that the board is reacting to the people that focus on forums and what others are doing rather than going out and doing themselves.

[zuma]

@labrat_wr wrote:

My first WGA event was last year’s Campout and while I did take the time and effort to seek out some of the temps, I chose to not log them. Do I feel I lost anything by that decision? No. What did I gain? I was able to meet people that I would not have, I got a little insight into some of our sneakiest cachers minds and how they hide their caches, and I got to see some very novel ideas that could not be used in permanent caches as well as some novel ideas that have become permanent caches or could be used as permanent caches.

While I will not be able to make it to Dodge, I do hope others will and not let this issue interfere.

lets complain about gas prices or something else like that 😀

Hey Labrat,

Sorry you cannnot make this year’s event. It was great meeting you last year, and I too, think that is the most fun and valuable part of our events.

zuma

[Author]

Posts