Why I voted "NO" to logging temps

[TyeDyeSkyGuy]

@gotta run wrote:

Or, are we talking about simply setting a precedent where WGA events do not condone multi-logging?

I think the whole point is that there needs to be a standard, one way or the other. My guess is that this referendum was brought to attention to make that decision, and the board, in their infinite geo-wisdom, was nice enough to include us in the decision making process.

@gotta run wrote:

This whole issue is so incredibly pointless…Until someone finds a way to make a living off how many finds they log, who gives a crap?

So no, I would say this is not pointless. No matter what side you take, or whether you are the perpetual fence-sitter like me, you must agree that the BOD has to finally set the standard. Maybe then, this argument will finally subside.

[Ry and Ny]

FYI, I hope I’m not ruffling any feathers. While it seems a lot of people are sick of the topic, it’s a new one to me, so I’m finding both sides of the issue very interesting.

[gotta run]

@Ry and Ny wrote:

FYI, I hope I’m not ruffling any feathers.

Not on my end…it is just more of the same ol’, same ol’ on this topic…We did multiple logging on the Navarino event last year because we took multiple trips out there over the course of the two weeks the temp caches were up. Caches were all far apart–we walked many miles–they had different themes and purposes, and we had something memorable to record about each of them. And sometimes we do go back and look at old logs.

Could we have made that one big “attended” log? I suppose we could have waited until we were done finding them all and then written something up. But it made more sense to log them after the days we found them and, yes, we did like the fact that we got additional “finds” for each log. And since we only care about how we feel about our stats, we’re quite comfortable keeping these logs out there.

In fact, we feel a lot better about claiming “finds” for each of these temp caches than we do for a whole bunch of unmemorable, lame, no-thought-whatsoever, toss-it-in-a-bush-from-a-moving-car caches we’ve also found.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[rogheff]

In another thread in these forums, several members of the WGA Board made some statements that GC.com is the main (and in some opinions, the only) geocaching website that counts. That same thread is the conduit for voicing opinions on “the WGA rules for hiding a cache”.

It was clearly evident that some of the elected leadership of the WGA feels that the rules set forth by Groundspeak are clearly the best and only rules that should be followed by the WGA .

Groundspeak does not allow the placement, listing, (and therefore) the logging of temporary caches. Why does the WGA feel the need to place these caches that violate “The Golden Rules” set forth by the great and exalted King Groundspeak at WGA sanctioned Events?

If the WGA truly follows the rules as set forth by Groundspeak, these temporary caches which cause so many arguments, wouldn’t be placed in the first place.

[Mathman]

There certainly are a lot of good reasons representing both sides of this “argument.” It has been a learning experience for new cachers and others who have been around awhile to have these varying viewpoints presented in what I would say a mature manner. Thanks.

I for one do not log temps and do not care if others do. The only “problem” I have with the multiple attends for events is when after an event occurs, I see too many “attended logs” on the RECENT LOGS page. I like to use this particular page to see where the activity is and who is caching. The multiple attend logs IMO interferes to a degree, to seeing a list that shows the information I’d like to see.

The only solution that I can see… and I don’t know if it is feasible… is to log the ATTENDED cache and be able to input a number to get credit for the temp cache finds. An example –> 🙂 11 to indicate that 11 caches were found at the event. The recent logs list would give a more accurate description of caches being found and the TEMP loggers can get their numbers for the caches they found. Again this is just my opinion.

[gotta run]

@rogheff wrote:

It was clearly evident that some of the elected leadership of the WGA feels that the rules set forth by Groundspeak are clearly the best and only rules that should be followed by the WGA.

Sounds like an opportunity for someone to evangelize other sites to the BOD to make them a more “official” part of the WGA site.

For now, all the external caching site links relate to gc.com only. Stat and other posted information (including default user name options) point to gc.com caches/info.

Until Navicache, Terracache, Bob’s Big Bulletin Board o’ Caches, and any other site out there become a more official part of this site, it’s logical that people assume WGA and gc.com are connected at the hip.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Gusty Winds]

I don’t think we should log multiple finds, because Criminal doesn’t like that.

[rogheff]

@gotta run wrote:

@rogheff wrote:

It was clearly evident that some of the elected leadership of the WGA feels that the rules set forth by Groundspeak are clearly the best and only rules that should be followed by the WGA.

Sounds like an opportunity for someone to evangelize other sites to the BOD to make them a more “official” part of the WGA site.

For now, all the external caching site links relate to gc.com only. Stat and other posted information (including default user name options) point to gc.com caches/info.

Until Navicache, Terracache, Bob’s Big Bulletin Board o’ Caches, and any other site out there become a more official part of this site, it’s logical that people assume WGA and gc.com are connected at the hip.

You need to read the WGA bylaws!

[gotta run]

@rogheff wrote:

You need to read the WGA bylaws!

I did, from top to bottom, before jumping into this, and there’s nothing in them about gc.com, or any other site for that matter. But all the ancillary “stuff” on the WGA site (links, etc) does point to gc.com, and only gc.com.

My only point is that since this forum started with, basically “why I voted ‘no’ to multi logging events,” and the referendum itself referred to “groundspeak” and not other sites. So it’s not really to the point to say “Well, you can always log them somewhere else.”

I’m sorry if that reply came off as flippant but it’s just my opinion. I’ll just leave the topic alone. 🙁

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Green Bay Paddlers]

We log once for every cache found.

[Da Bloodhound]

I guess I’ll drop my two cents in here too.

Satisfy all involved in participating in events and don’t place any hides unless they are permanent gc.com approved caches.

More work and effort for sure would be required and probably fewer numbers to chose from but that is one possible answer.

Problem solved!!??

DB

[Bushwhacking Queen]

I know I’ll probably regret posting here but I’m going to anyway.

Yes, I am one of those cachers that strive to find every cache hidden at an event. I proudly log every one of them as I know, especially at the picnic, what a challenge it was to hunt and find every one of the caches. I traveled three hours one-way to hunt caches all day/night, to drive home another three hours. Would I travel three hours to log one find? Maybe, but probably unlikely.

Do I look at the rankings of cachers? Yes, I do.

Does it mean anything to me? No except that it gets me motivated to get moving, which allows me to drink Dr. Pepper by the gallon and still maintain the same size I was when I got married 23 years ago.

Do I care what others think of my logging? No, not really. I log what I want and don’t log what I don’t want to (ha! Yes, sometimes I don’t log a no find).

I don’t understand why we care so much about what others think about how we log our events, caches, etc. Do we really define ourselves based on others standards, or are we individuals?

Changing how we do something because some people are disatissfied is a form of peer pressure, don’t you think? Just like pressing the gas to go faster because someone is on your tail. Or the person that is pushing you to take that first drink, inhale that first drag, etc.

Do you really think those people complaining are going to like us now because we are now following what they’re doing? Again, FOLLOWING? I’d rather be a leader. 😀 AND, if we adapt to what they want, what’s next?

Everyone plays the game different, and everyone plays the game for different reasons. Same game (hobby) but the value isn’t the same to everyone.

Those people that are complainging, why do they care? We are not competing for awards except for the ones we make for ourselves, or maybe because we appreciate the accolades from fellow cachers when we hit a milestone or a FTF.

I don’t quilt the same way as someone else does, does that mean my quilt is less valuable or wrong?

Yeah, I know it’s late and this is probably not written as well as it should be but, well, you know.

I want to log all the temps I find, it means something to me.

[shrek and fiona]

very well said and i second it

[Professor]

Hey, Professor here!
I attended the CITO event in Waukesha recently…and what Earth Angel has been suggesting all along worked like a charm. I logged the “I attended” once, stating I attended the CITO event. Thus I did not log multiple “Attended logs.”
Then I logged my temp finds under “found it.” I did log multiple “found it” logs (one per temp cache found). Why can’t this be the protocol for ALL Wisconsin Events? Since it appears that “others” are upset with us for logging multiple “attended logs” for our temp finds?

Lastly, Ecorangers stand behind what BQueen stated in her previous post.

[marc_54140]

I also agree with BG and the Professor.

[Author]

Posts