This topic contains 104 replies, has 46 voices, and was last updated by 
GrouseTales 19 years, 8 months ago.
-
Posts
-
quote:
Originally posted by kbraband:
First of all, I like Jeremy Irish. I think he has the best interests of geocaching at heart.To set the record straight, I don’t dislike him nor do I not appreciate what he has provided to geocaching as a whole. What I dislike is solitary control of a worldwide activity!! As a paid member of geocaching.com since it was first offered, I have no input (such as a vote)to guide geocaching or the website. Post a comment on geocaching and a dozen trolls without a life descend upon you!
Of course Jeremy has the best interests of geocaching in mind. You do. I do. Everyone with an opinion does. But that doesn’t make a minority opinion the best thing to do. Too often, he that owns the gold, controls.
As a former board member, I stressed the need to allow free discussion without repercussions. This is the first time I’ve seen a thread challenging a ruling by Jeremy Irish. I think it is beautiful! Not everyone is in agreement but dang, it sure is nice to see the discussion!!!
Steve Bukosky
Waukeshaquote:
Originally posted by kbraband:
Why? What’s the harm in letting members voice their opinions, espcially when the discussion has been so courteous and well-reasoned?VERY GOOD QUESTION!!! I personally am proud of ALL WGA MEMBERS for posting their opinions. And one thing that we need to remember is that no matter what we as WGA members say, ultimately the decision belongs to the board as they are the “official” owners of the cache page! At least some, if not all, are listening to what those who voted them onto the board are saying. Thanks to those of you who fit that note!
quote:
Originally posted by Green Bay Paddlers:
Amy and I have attended one WGA event. It was incredibly well run and the temp cache hides were better than the majority of the “regular” ones we have found out in the wild.Our humble opinion is that each temp cache should be worth a log (find) entry. If geocaching.com decides to eliminate that option, then so be it. It wouldn’t be the first time we disagreed with “corporate headquarters.” We still disagree with G.COM about their stance on virtual caches. As the woods get inundated with soaked Tupperware containers, we would love to see more “environmentally-friendly” virtual caches allowed – especially in the urban areas.
The WGA should do what they want to do. Amy and I haven’t really been in this for the numbers anyway. We could care less. It’s more for the hobby. However, we know folks that really get into the number of logs and want each cache to be an entry. They deserve the right to do so…
Just our two cents worth. Best to everyone!
Jeff & Amy
Green Bay Paddlers.[This message has been edited by Green Bay Paddlers (edited 08-04-2005).]
Hi Jeff and Amy! I was just thinking about the two of you the other day and how I hadn’t seen you on here in quite awhile. It’s good to see you.
~Mama Fishcacher
Thanks Mama Fishcacher – it’s good to hear from you too. We’re starting to work our way back into things.
This has been a very well-behaved, very informative, and rather long (10 days near the top of the boards) discussion.
But I’m curious — after hearing all of us comment one way or the other on this subject, which way are the board memebers currently leaning. Do the board members feel they have a real honest idea of how the majority of WI cachers feel on this subject? Do they have any questions they would like answered before the vote?
I think it’s not just time to hear from some more WI cachers, but also hear from the board members to see if they have any concerns that we, the populous of cachers, could respond to.
quote:
Originally posted by OuttaHand:
But I’m curious — after hearing all of us comment one way or the other on this subject, which way are the board memebers currently leaning. Do the board members feel they have a real honest idea of how the majority of WI cachers feel on this subject? Do they have any questions they would like answered before the vote?I think it’s not just time to hear from some more WI cachers, but also hear from the board members to see if they have any concerns that we, the populous of cachers, could respond to.
Well, I appologize for this vague answer. The Board will discuss this and vote on it sometime after the picnic. When I bought up this topic with the board, it was decided that we would first seek comments from our members before taking any sort of vote.
On a personal note, I have mixed feelings about this topic. I wish we had better options for logging the temp finds. I personally won’t be logging temps as log as I have to do so with an “attended” log for each one. My vote will be in line with what the majority of what the respondents indicated.
One question is this… Would it be prohibitively difficult to spread out the job of creating an actual cache page for each temp cache?
If there were 50 caches placed, 5 WGA members could each create 10 cache pages. After the event is held the WGA could simply “archive” the caches?
– OR –
What about creating one multi-cache cache page encompassing all of the caches placed for that event? In other words – a 50-part multi-cache. People can log on and log each portion and then the WGA can archive the multi-cache page after the event is over?
Again – just ideas. This might quell the resistance by those that don’t care for the idea of multiple “Event cache” logs by team members. One find for each physical cache!
Well said.
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle_Fun:
1 Find=1 Log!End of story.
Uncle_Fun
I sent jeremy an e mail last year when this came up
he said he dosnt mind if people log temp caches the way we have been doing it
so why do we have to decide if temps should be loged or notquote:
Originally posted by Green Bay Paddlers:
One question is this… Would it be prohibitively difficult to spread out the job of creating an actual cache page for each temp cache?If there were 50 caches placed, 5 WGA members could each create 10 cache pages. After the event is held the WGA could simply “archive” the caches?
– OR –
What about creating one multi-cache cache page encompassing all of the caches placed for that event? In other words – a 50-part multi-cache. People can log on and log each portion and then the WGA can archive the multi-cache page after the event is over?
Again – just ideas. This might quell the resistance by those that don’t care for the idea of multiple “Event cache” logs by team members. One find for each physical cache!
On the surface, it sounds like a good idea…. but…. the guidelines at geocaching prohibit temporary caches. (Visit Link)
quote:
Originally posted by shrek & fiona:
I sent jeremy an e mail last year when this came up
he said he dosnt mind if people log temp caches the way we have been doing it
so why do we have to decide if temps should be loged or notYou are correct. As far as I know, Jeremy Irish does NOT care how many times one team logs on particular geocache.
Why are we even considering this action? There has been a lot of chatter in the general message boards at geocaching.com slamming us about the practice of logging all the temp caches at events.
Also, the other geocaching.com reviewers generally hold the same opinion: One event, one log (no matter how many temps are there).
Instead of just going with the flow of the rest of the geocaching community (one event, one log), we are gathering opinions of our members, and will make an active decision. That way if we get slammed again (very likely), we can defend our practice by saying that it is what our members want.
I can tell you this, there are other geocaching.com players and non-Wisconsin geocaching reviewers that NOBODY will be able to convince that multiple logs on an event is acceptable.
My personal opinion is to allow multiple logs of temp caches. If it’s OK with Jeremy, it’s OK with me, after all it’s his game.
Prior to becoming a board member, I used to try and find and log every temp cache at an event. Yes, I saw a few people on the trails, and spent some time socializing. Since becoming a board member, I have had to “work” the events. This really limits the amount of time I have available to hunt the temp caches. Instead I wind up hanging around and chatting much more, and honestly, I find that to be more fun. I sincerely doubt that I will EVER find all of the caches at an event even after I am no longer part of the B.O.D.
Buy the Tie – I had a feeling there was a reason that regular cache pages for event caches was not going to be able to work. I wasn’t unable to discern whether or not it was just the aesthetics of multiple “event” entries that was upsetting to people or that people were simply logging so many caches in one day?
Having done a lot of caching in Chicago, there are Forest Preserves down there that are saturated with caches. Not only do they look crowded on the map but many of them are multi-stage caches were the cache owners allow folks to log each stage as a find. It would seem to me that this is much the same thing as our WGA events in regards to the amount of caches in a given amount of area.
Again – just trying to add logic to the debate/vote that the WGA board will eventually have to make. You’re not going to be able to make everyone happy in the end. However, I believe folks can have a certain amount of optimism about how your decision/vote will eventually be received based on the civility of the posts in this forum. This is a “hot button” issue. Part of the reason we’ve started posting in the forums again this year is largely due to the courtesies being displayed on this thread. It’s good to be back…
[This message has been edited by Green Bay Paddlers (edited 08-08-2005).]
Actually, in the forums, Jeremy has stated that he thinks doing multiple “attended” for events to log temporaries is stupid.
But given that, he never does say that it is not okay to do it.
(still though, I feel guilty)
Bec
There are no shortcuts to any place worth goingA new thought on this issue has come to my mind. IF someone wonders how many non-event caches I’ve found, so they can mentally subtract those numbers from my count, they do have that ability. Example: Below our my current status, if someone doesn’t think events count, subtract 102 from my total.
Traditional Caches* 133
Multi-caches* 19
Virtual Caches* 4
Event Caches* 102
Unknown (Mystery) Caches* 7
Webcam Caches* 1As I see it, nobody should feel guilty for logging temp finds that they feel are worthy of a smiley. Jeremy does not own the sport of geocaching, he owns the website that we choose to use to list our hides and finds. He makes the rules about what can go on his website, not about what geocaching can be. We, as Wisconsin cachers, decide what caching in Wisconsin will be. Jeremy may think logging temps is stupid, but fortunately he is keeping his opinions out of his decision of what to allow on his listing service.
Another point: We defend our choice to log the temps by saying they are worthy of permanent status, but of course we must remove them because the parks we use don’t want anything left behind. If they are to be considered truly worthy, then I feel they should abide by the rules of GC.com and be at least .1 miles apart. I realize that lots of caches are placed at these events to try to keep people from all descending on the same place at the same time. But placing caches within close proximity, even if they are great hides, only gives our detractors ammunition about us just doing this to boost our numbers.
Team LightningBugs
* * * * * * * * * *[This message has been edited by LightningBugs Mum (edited 08-08-2005).]
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.