This topic contains 104 replies, has 46 voices, and was last updated by 
GrouseTales 19 years, 8 months ago.
-
Posts
-
I personally can enjoy the event, enjoy looking for the many caches, and am not worried about my numbers score.
Once I decided for myself that I wasn’t worried about the numbers, the personal decision came easy – Enjoy hunting caches knowing my numbers won’t increase.
I think you CAN have an event and place plenty of fun caches. If your not concerned about the numbers, it’s an easy decision. Take a day away from the numbers and smell the roses
I’ve personally suggested to Jeremy that there should be a temp cache find category for events. A means of logging temp caches found at an event. The majority of Geocaching community feels that multiple logs are silly, or wrong. Temporary caches for events are quite normal, but multiple logs are not.
I’ve personally received many emails from geocachers around the country complaining about the way we allow logging for the our events. They can pound sand until they’ve attended one of our great events. Then they can judge for themselves.
Here is a recent one:
quote:
Hi there,Not to sound out of line, but why would you let the members of this
event log like it 100 times. That is really is unethical. I think you
should delete all but one for each person. I’ve earned all my finds, I
think they should too.And another recent email:
quote:
I was wondering why so many people logged this event sooooooo many
times ??? There is a big dicussion in the forums regarding this cache and
although it looks like it was a super time and I wish i could attended
. IT is a bit odd that people are logging that they attended a trillion
times….. could you explain this ??I can’t help to wonder though if the changes at Groundspeak were to discourage multiple finds from clogging the pages. I asked and didn’t get a straight answer. The answer is that Groundspeak isn’t regulating the way event organizers allow logging, but they feel it’s a “silly” practice.
I’m about 55/45 in favor of limiting logs to one per event. I don’t have a very strong opinion either way. I do however, think it sends a sad statement if people don’t attend because they can’t jack up their finds score.
[This message has been edited by GrouseTales (edited 07-27-2005).]
Since I’m relatively new (how long can I use the NEW thing?) I only know what I seen in the logs since I joined. SO I hope I give more of an outside prospective.
1st Thing is as I understand it, I can be very wrong, if someone logs multiple attended it shows up that I attended the event 30 times. What’s the point of that – I look at my numbers as not a race to get to a certain amount but to actually track what I have done. If you look at my states it says I attended one event and hey that’s the truth only one. So when I look at my stats I know they have not been doctored in any way.
I look at this coming picnic as a single event with 1 attended log and if I hunt for any caches at the event I get 0 credit. So, I plan on having lunch, talk to people, once things start to break up I will hunt for only 2-4 temp caches then I will hit 2-4 caches in the local area that do count.
To me just keep it simple, If you don’t like not being able to log the temps then don’t look for them. But for those who don’t care, it gives them something to do with the sport with others with the same interest (the social part) at their leisure.
**this not to be a flame post so if I am wrong about how social events are counted email me directly to let me know — don’t turn this into a she said he said fight.***
Going to hate not being NEW one day. 🙂
PCFROGAll I’m going to add is that this is the most interesting and sane discussion I’ve seen on this topic yet. Awesome!
~MF
How about just having one cache at the event? A multi-cache that is! Thus all those temp caches would be stages of the mother of all multis!
(The following are my opinions based on my observations and may not apply to you.)
These are my observations:
Numbers aren’t the only reason people geocache, but they are important to many people, especially to WGA members. This forum topic received more replies in less time than any other topic since what? There are endless debates about find-to-hide ratios; how many finds are needed in order to do this, that, or the other; etc. The people who say the numbers don’t matter usually talk about the numbers a lot, which is something they wouldn’t do if the numbers didn’t matter.Geocaching.com doesn’t have an Event Cache category. Although it would be useful to keep the statistics straight, it doesn’t exist.
Rules are not meant to be followed blindly. Rules are meant to achieve an objective, and just because a rule exists does not mean that it is the best way to meet that particular objective. In this case, events are logged multiple times so the statistics more accurately indicate the number of finds. Some people don’t agree with this since it dilutes the number of events attended, but they are free to log the events they attend the way they see fit. Further, there is no rule against logging an event multiple times.
The actual difficulty or quality of a traditional cache has no bearing on whether or not a cache is loggable. Similarly, an event should be able to be logged multiple times to record the number of cache finds, regardless of the difficulty in finding the caches. While it’s true you don’t have as much opportunity to “park on the wrong side of the river,” the event is usually rated as one star, which compensates for that.
These are my solutions:
If you want people to socialize more, hide fewer caches at events. Conversely, if you want people to hunt caches all day, hide more of them. If some people feel they need to find all of them, let them. People geocache before work, come back to work late from lunch, even geocache on vacation. If they didn’t want to do it they wouldn’t. // Since there’s nothing in the rules about finding caches as a group other than everyone must sign the log, and there currently is no separate way to record group finds, why worry about people getting together and socializing while searching for caches? So what if one person finds the cache and 12 people sign the log? If you’re worried about your numbers compared to other people’s numbers, one solution is to only compare numbers with people who log finds the same way you do.If an event hide can count toward your Find statistics, it should meet the traditional cache requirements; in particular, all caches are a minimum of 1/10 mile apart. This would help solve the problem of one group logging a find and turning around to watch another group log the next cache. If all the caches can’t be hidden 528 feet apart, maybe there are too many loggable caches for that area. That’s not to say one shouldn’t hide that many caches, just they shouldn’t make all of them loggable.
This is a toughy! I feel if you’ve found it… log it, but it does get to be a lengthy process entering all the finds. I know its not all about the numbers, but then again…. it is!! If I’ve found 40 then I feel I should be able to log them as true finds, even though they are temps.
I wonder if changing event caches to mini multies would at least resolve some of the issues. Therefore, an event having, let’s say 40 hides, could be split into maybe 10 – 4 part caches. Those sponsering the events could continue to offer trinkets to grab along with coords to enter for the next leg of that cache. Getting 10 finds is still a significant #, plus one for attending.
There could still be individual cache finds, such as those we had at the Big Harry Deal event in Waukesha, which many of us found at t-rex’s.
Any comments on this one??? It is a nice compromise. I do agre with having a “FOUND IT” on an event list.
[This message has been edited by Cache_boppin_BunnyFuFu (edited 07-28-2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by GrouseTales:
…I do however, think it sends a sad statement if people don’t attend because they can’t jack up their finds score.Jack up? I don’t believe that this discussion is in anyway tied to the number of temp caches being logged, but rather that we are logging temp caches in the first place. The action that the WGA board is asking input on is the complete banning of logging temp caches at WGA events.
If an event had 40 temp caches, only a single ‘attend’ log might be allowed. Same if there were only 20 temps, or 10 temps, or 5 temps.
The issue isn’t jacking up our finds, but rather logging even a single temp. That’s what the GC Powers That Be are calling ‘silly’.
So, I do not believe that anyone is stating that they would not attend a WGA event due to a decision that prevents jacking up our find scores.
Rather, some of us are saying we may not attend a WGA event if we can’t log and count on our geocaching profile the caches we find, even if its just a single cache we find.
View it this way. What if tomorrow Jeremy announced that GC.com was no longer allowing logs, period. People were free to use his site to view caches to hunt, but from now on people would have to keep their own private notebooks or their own web pages for found scores. I guarentee that many people would stop geocaching. And I think the WGA may see the same drop off in attendance if we are no longer allowed to log the caches we find at events.
So, all I’m personally saying is that if the WGA has an event where temp finds can’t be logged, then I will treat it as an event with no caches, and evaluate my attendance based on the event’s social aspects alone.
Lets take a look at the issue from a different perspective. First, there is no right or wrong to this logging dilemma no matter what happens. Let us ask the WGA board a different question: Do we really need to add a rule for this? Rules should protect the players and environment and make the game better. Will this new rule do that?
Recording a “found it” or “attended” or whatever is a personal decision left up to the individual cacher. If you found a cache, then logging that cache is up to you. I have seen numerous logs in the physical log book that don’t appear on the web, is that considered wrong? No, it is just a personal choice. I think the big thing to remember is it doesn’t matter how many logs you have logged as long as you enjoy it. This whole sport is about having fun and getting outdoors. Logs are to indicate you found a cache and to write something about your experiences for yourself and others to read and enjoy. If it does or doesn’t get added to my total, only I should care.
I also don’t think we should concern ourselves with what the rest to the GC community thinks of our decision to allow (or not allow) multiple logs for an event, it is OUR event. Just because geocaching.com is the default website, they don’t own geocaching, only the domain name. If we step up and set this policy (either way) , perhaps the rest will follow us and we will become the new standard.
My vote is to continue our current policy (it isn’t broken) and let the cacher decide what to do. If geocaching.com has a problem with it they should address it, by fixing the stats to show/count events differently. The only thing I see this new rule doing is protecting the egos of stat watchers.
…Now, just to stir the pot…
We at WGA could create a logging area on our website that would be used only for WGA event logs. The stats and logs wouldn’t show up on geocaching.com, but every WGA user could have WGA event stats as well. It wouldn’t have to be fancy, just a basic database to keep track of who found what, where, when, and why. A web version of “The Big Board”. Just something to think about.Thanks
-Team HamboneI think I made my feeling pretty clear after the Campout in the CG.com forum thread.
To me, it is simple- If I enter coordinates in my GPSr, navigate to those coordinates, find a cache, and sign the log (or stamp the book) I found a cache, and should be able to log it. It doesn’t matter if it is a 5 mile hike, a walmart parkinglot micro, or a cache at an event.
The main difference I see between the people that are complaining and the ones in favor of it is that the ones complaining are worried about somebody elses stats. Why should they be able to determine how somebody else does their stats? I think they should worry about their own stats, and leave everybody else alone.
I’m not about to tell somebody they have to log something if they don’t want to- it is their stats, they can log however they want. They should give me the same consideration.
I looked at some other events in other states. Sure, they don’t log anything but “Attended”, but then again it says nothing about temp hides. Many I read were just gatherings for Cachers to attend and socialize.
Therefore, those can’t even be remotely compaired to ours. Think it;s a jealousy thing??
I’m still voting for the “If ya find one, then log it!” Also, the idea of mini multies, like i mentioned in my ealier log, is something to consider too…..maybe??…..Kinda????? Sorta????
[This message has been edited by Cache_boppin_BunnyFuFu (edited 07-28-2005).]
I have to agree with Outtahand’s comments entirely. It seems to be just as much work to find the “temporary” caches at the events I’ve been to as it is to hunt many other caches. Also, If you’re checking people stats on GC.com, it states they are event caches. At least I found them on my own (ok with Bond girl) but the world record holding Germans needed a local guide or two and months of advance planning to make their record setting hunt. In other words I vote for allowing event caches to be logged.
i think you should be able to log each temp cache as another find or “attend” if you want to. It’s not much different than some multis that you can log each leg as a find as long as there is a log book in each leg. (like door county challenge). if the people whinning about numbers at events are upset, they can come discuss it in person at the next event we have.
Simple one for me…
I don’t really care what anybody elses stats are nor my own really… The only reason I look at my stats is more or less to judge the amount of time I’ve spent doing something I enjoy… More true now than ever, the saying: “It’s about the journey” is what it’s all about…
Relax, Have Fun, Enjoy….
What about the people who spend so much of their personal time organizing an event? How about the people who drive, sometimes hours to “check out” locations for an upcoming event? Or, the people making the phone calls reserving campsites, pavillions, etc…? People who hide the caches at events..? Should these activitise be worth a couple of finds or count towards “caches hidden”?
I dont’ think so… These people do these things because they truely enjoy doing it. Not looking for credit or fame for it!!!Read the poem at: http://www.rocketink.com/geocachi.htm and see what you think then. I have to thank Ken for sharing this with us… It’s a whole new world out there once you see the light!!!
My $.02
I say one log for an event…Period!
[This message has been edited by Flushingrouse (edited 07-28-2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Flushingrouse:
What about the people who spend so much of their personal time organizing an event? How about the people who drive, sometimes hours to “check out” locations for an upcoming event? Or, the people making the phone calls reserving campsites, pavillions, etc…? People who hide the caches at events..? Should these activitise be worth a couple of finds or count towards “caches hidden”?Hmmm. I hadn’t thought of this point. Now that I think about it, yes, it does make a lot of sense that those hiding/creating the temp caches for events should also be allowed to ‘log’ (not quite the right word) their hides so their profiles refelct the number of caches they have hidden. But as there is no method to do this presently on gc.com, guess it will have to wait…
If temps were scattered on a park field like Easter eggs on the White House Lawn, then it would be silly to allow multiple finds. However, most events’ temp caches are equal to a standard cache, so they should be loggable. It’s that simple.
However, it takes a lot of time to log a lot of finds for an event; I wish there was a way to log multiple finds of an event with a single screen; some sort of checkbox system, where you can click on all the ones you found at once.
[This message has been edited by DCexplorer (edited 07-28-2005).]
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.