Temporary groups

[+rennschaf]

I would find it very comfortable, if there were the ability of creating temporary groups of geocaching.com Accounts.

 

These groups Schuld have a lifetime period and logging with the group should log it for all the members of the group.

This will be very comfortable for caching Sessions or caching holidays.

 

Sincerely

 

Rennschaf

[+niraD]

Group membership would have to be voluntary. Even when I've been part of a group that signed the physical log with a group name, I've wanted to write my own online logs, and wouldn't want anyone else to include me in their group log.

 

And as a cache owner, I'd rather see individual logs, rather than a group log.

[+K13]

NO, please no! I want individual logs on my caches when others find them, just as I write individual logs for the caches I find, even when caching with others.

[+Viajero Perdido]

So... Granting a smiley to 50 people for the effort of one person writing a log?

 

That's like... spamming thank-you notes.

[+Manville Possum]

If you don't sign the log I reserve the right to delete group finds.

[jholly]

If you don't sign the log I reserve the right to delete group finds.

When I catch with a group of friends or with a family member we generally use a "team" stamp. I mention in the on line log the cache log was stamped with "Team Whatever". I would definitely be sending the frog an email to reinstate my wrongfully deleted log if you chose to do that.

[+Manville Possum]

If you don't sign the log I reserve the right to delete group finds.

When I catch with a group of friends or with a family member we generally use a "team" stamp. I mention in the on line log the cache log was stamped with "Team Whatever". I would definitely be sending the frog an email to reinstate my wrongfully deleted log if you chose to do that.

 

I would hope the the Frog would support me, because if you don't sign the log you should not claim you found the cache.

 

So if your group stamps once on my log, then fifty people claim they were with your group, then your one log on my cache had better have the fifty people in your groups name included. This would prevent fake logs from other parties skirt-tailing your group.

 

This happens all the time. People read the cache page where a group claimed a find, so they just claim they were with the group too, and I don't agree with that practice.

[+frinklabs]

How about something like "team field notes"

 

A group will grant each other permission to have a list on their log page that works like the trackables dipping, except it shows all the other cacher accounts that have proactively granted permission to appear on the list.

 

You can "dip" the other cachers, except that instead of logging a find, it sends them a field note; this still puts the onus on them to transform it into a find.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

I wonder just how many geocachers would benefit from this feature?

 

I have only once geocached under a group name (about 20 of us). We did this because a majority of the caches were micros, and if we all signed the log, we would have to have posted a NM on every cache halfway through logging it. We also did this with prior permission of the CO. It was a mini-trail, and the CO had most of the caches on the trail. For those caches from a different CO, we each signed the log. Every other time I have cached in a group, we have each signed the log.

 

Skye.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I wonder just how many geocachers would benefit from this feature?

 

I have only once geocached under a group name (about 20 of us). We did this because a majority of the caches were micros, and if we all signed the log, we would have to have posted a NM on every cache halfway through logging it. We also did this with prior permission of the CO. It was a mini-trail, and the CO had most of the caches on the trail. For those caches from a different CO, we each signed the log. Every other time I have cached in a group, we have each signed the log.

 

Skye.

 

I have cached with a group (defined as more than one other geocacher and not in my family) exactly twice in 7.5 years.

 

I wouldn't delete a log signed as a group but find the practice of forming an ad hoc group, and then employing methods that would not be consider acceptable for someone caching alone kind of cheesy. If we am caching alone and get to GZ only to discover that the cache is way up in a tree that I'm incapable of finding I'm going to log a DNF. If I became part of a team, and we got to GZ and I was incapable of climbing the tree, I don't see how watching someone else climb the tree and stamp a team name on a log turns a DNF into a Find.

 

It used to be a that a "team" consisted of a family that almost always cached together, and not a means for everyone in the "team" to get credit for finding as many caches as possible.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I wonder just how many geocachers would benefit from this feature?

 

I have only once geocached under a group name (about 20 of us). We did this because a majority of the caches were micros, and if we all signed the log, we would have to have posted a NM on every cache halfway through logging it. We also did this with prior permission of the CO. It was a mini-trail, and the CO had most of the caches on the trail. For those caches from a different CO, we each signed the log. Every other time I have cached in a group, we have each signed the log.

 

Skye.

[+L0ne.R]

I wonder just how many geocachers would benefit from this feature?

 

I have only once geocached under a group name (about 20 of us). We did this because a majority of the caches were micros, and if we all signed the log, we would have to have posted a NM on every cache halfway through logging it. We also did this with prior permission of the CO. It was a mini-trail, and the CO had most of the caches on the trail. For those caches from a different CO, we each signed the log. Every other time I have cached in a group, we have each signed the log.

 

Skye.

 

I have cached with a group (defined as more than one other geocacher and not in my family) exactly twice in 7.5 years.

 

I wouldn't delete a log signed as a group but find the practice of forming an ad hoc group, and then employing methods that would not be consider acceptable for someone caching alone kind of cheesy. If we am caching alone and get to GZ only to discover that the cache is way up in a tree that I'm incapable of finding I'm going to log a DNF. If I became part of a team, and we got to GZ and I was incapable of climbing the tree, I don't see how watching someone else climb the tree and stamp a team name on a log turns a DNF into a Find.

 

It used to be a that a "team" consisted of a family that almost always cached together, and not a means for everyone in the "team" to get credit for finding as many caches as possible.

 

 

The numbers game has encouraged the misuse of "team" accounts.

Now "team" caching means amassing a large group of people to get as many smileys in a day as possible.

 

Give geocachers an envelope and they will push it.

(quote by knowschad)

[+niraD]

It used to be a that a "team" consisted of a family that almost always cached together, and not a means for everyone in the "team" to get credit for finding as many caches as possible.

The former kind of team still exists. But that doesn't mean that all other teams are the latter kind.

 

I've been part of an informal team several times. We could have all signed the logs, but we used a team name to save the cache owners a maintenance trip--sometimes because the micro- and nano-size logs were very small, sometimes because the caches were remote, and sometimes both. But the goal wasn't "to get credit for finding as many caches as possible".

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It used to be a that a "team" consisted of a family that almost always cached together, and not a means for everyone in the "team" to get credit for finding as many caches as possible.

The former kind of team still exists. But that doesn't mean that all other teams are the latter kind.

 

I've been part of an informal team several times. We could have all signed the logs, but we used a team name to save the cache owners a maintenance trip--sometimes because the micro- and nano-size logs were very small, sometimes because the caches were remote, and sometimes both. But the goal wasn't "to get credit for finding as many caches as possible".

 

Of course, the former kind still exists and may, in fact, be far more common than ad hoc teams created for a day or two.

 

I also recognize that when caching as a group that it's quite common for one person to sign the log and use a team name to save space. In that case, it might be 3-4 cachers riding in the same (or in a couple) of vehicle, but they all get out, walk to GZ and simultaneously look for the cache, and, of course one will find it first. In that scenario, any one of them could just as easily open the container and put names on the log. It's when a "team" will split up the roles (one person drives, while another retrieves/replaces the container, while another stamps the log) that I feel that the notion of a "team" is being abused. When it starts to include multiple vehicles with different caches finding a different set of cache, it's gaming the system (or pushing the enveloped) well beyond what some believe to be a game called geocaching.

 

 

[+Mudfrog]

This happens all the time. People read the cache page where a group claimed a find, so they just claim they were with the group too, and I don't agree with that practice.

 

I haven't encountered this myself but i don't doubt at all that it happens. Not a cache cop here but i'd probably rat out a person that stated they logged find with our group when i knew for a fact they weren't with us.

 

No, i don't think temporary groups is the way to go. Stamping or writing a team name in the physical logbook is fine but i want to see individual logs come through online.

[+L0ne.R]

It used to be a that a "team" consisted of a family that almost always cached together, and not a means for everyone in the "team" to get credit for finding as many caches as possible.

The former kind of team still exists. But that doesn't mean that all other teams are the latter kind.

 

I've been part of an informal team several times. We could have all signed the logs, but we used a team name to save the cache owners a maintenance trip--sometimes because the micro- and nano-size logs were very small, sometimes because the caches were remote, and sometimes both. But the goal wasn't "to get credit for finding as many caches as possible".

 

What would be nice is if those cache owners who don't mind their logs filling up (all of our caches have logbooks with lots of room for signatures that take a couple of years minimum to fill up), could delete logs that claim to have found it under a "team-of-the-day" trailname. A team account gets one find under the team name. Cache owners can make exceptions but those who don't want to encourage the abuse of "team" accounts can stand up for a better caching ethic.

 

It will discourage the abuse of "team" caching as outlined by NYPaddleCacher. I see a lot of this type of team caching in my area. There's a monthly caching group of normally 20-35 cachers that meet, get a printout of all the caches to find that day (non-trad caches have the final coordinates on the list), then head off in multiple vehicles to find 50+ caches, at least half of them non-PT caches that require some travel. If they travelled as a unit there's no way that they could cover that much ground as they wait for everyone to catch up.

Edited July 27, 2015 by L0ne.R

[+The A-Team]

I would be vehemently opposed to such an idea. It's bad enough that so many people are using cut-and-paste logs that say nothing about their experience at any particular cache. Now we'll get several (or more) identical copies of the same generic log? It would make a mockery of the online logbook concept, which is to describe your own personal experience at the cache and provide information to the owner and other cachers. A dozen identical...

Found as part of group XYZ on a trip across [insert country/continent name here].

[insert more generic fluff here]

Thanks to all the owners for hiding their caches!

...says nothing about each cacher's experience and provides no useful information.

 

The online logbook is not just a box to be ticked to increase your smiley count. The proposed idea would treat it this way, and there's no way you can convince me that this would be a good thing. If your experience at a cache was so bland that a generic group log would adequately describe your personal experience, then it wouldn't take very long for you to log your own finds with a simple "TFTC".

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I would be vehemently opposed to such an idea. It's bad enough that so many people are using cut-and-paste logs that say nothing about their experience at any particular cache. Now we'll get several (or more) identical copies of the same generic log? It would make a mockery of the online logbook concept, which is to describe your own personal experience at the cache and provide information to the owner and other cachers. A dozen identical...

Found as part of group XYZ on a trip across [insert country/continent name here].

[insert more generic fluff here]

Thanks to all the owners for hiding their caches!

...says nothing about each cacher's experience and provides no useful information.

 

The online logbook is not just a box to be ticked to increase your smiley count. The proposed idea would treat it this way, and there's no way you can convince me that this would be a good thing. If your experience at a cache was so bland that a generic group log would adequately describe your personal experience, then it wouldn't take very long for you to log your own finds with a simple "TFTC".

 

I think the point that LoneR is making is that if a bunch of geocachers get together and form a team, and when any one of them finds a cache and signs the physical log with the team name, why are they posting online found it logs as individuals?

 

Personally, I think they're nothing wrong with a small group getting together and coming up with a team name and using it to sign log sheets to save space, but when they start employing questionable finding practices such as 3 cache monte or leap frogging, justifying those practices because one is part of a team, then logging individually just looks to me like they're gaming the system.

 

I'm not suggesting any sort of solution. I'm just making an observation about how some are playing the game, and perhaps seeing if any would even admit that they're gaming the system in order to increase their find count.

 

I agree that the online log is becoming just an obligatory tick box to check to get credit for a find but that's a different issue.

Edited July 28, 2015 by NYPaddleCacher

[+The A-Team]

I think the point that LoneR is making...

Sorry, I should have quoted the OP to make it more clear that that's who I was replying to. My post wasn't meant to address anything brought up in the subsequent discussion.

 

As far as using an ad-hoc group name, my views match yours. While I haven't actually been in such a situation (the groups I've been a part of have been small enough that each cacher's name was signed), I would see no problem with each "group member" logging it individually, as long as they were actually there for the find.

[+SONIC_HAMMER]

If you don't sign the log I reserve the right to delete group finds.

[+SONIC_HAMMER]

Sure you do but what s the rule?? what if their is a small group three adults two kids when this group is caching together evyerone is looking everyone is working together what s wrong in your eyes with a group name?? Especially if the kids like it and it perks their interest even more Im not talking about a mass horde of fifty people in 12 cars going to ten different caches one car one cache at a time whats wrong with it I m just curios the 12 year old really wants a group

[+Manville Possum]

Sure you do but what s the rule?? what if their is a small group three adults two kids when this group is caching together evyerone is looking everyone is working together what s wrong in your eyes with a group name?? Especially if the kids like it and it perks their interest even more Im not talking about a mass horde of fifty people in 12 cars going to ten different caches one car one cache at a time whats wrong with it I m just curios the 12 year old really wants a group

 

When you sign or stamp the team name on the physical log, include the user names of all of the team members or just state that your team is three adults and two kids in your online log.

 

My user name is a team name, but as the kids got older they either gave up geocaching or created their own accounts and eventually merged back together under one user name, the MoonPie Mafia members.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Manville Possum Hunters